Research Classroom Behavioral Styles of Learning Disabled Boys David D. Richey, PhD, and James D. McKinney,

PhD

Observational studies have uniformly failed to find the cluster of symptoms associated with LD. Instead, one or another seems to typify most of the LD children in any context — in this case classroom distractibility. As the authors note, other behavior often associated with LD was found among some of the children — though not enough to distinguish them from normal learners. Such documentation of the heterogeneity of the LD group logically questions the relevance of comparing LD and normal children, and suggests the need for subtypes of LD to be identified, at least for research purposes. — G.M.S. The classroom behavior of 15 learning disabled boys was compared to that of 15 matched normal boys in order to determine differences in behavioral style and to examine the learning disabled children's behavior in different classroom environments. Results indicated that of 12 discrete kinds of classroom behavior only oney distractibility, differentiated the two groups. There was very limited support for the stereotyped cluster of negative behavior often associated with learning disabilities. The study also supports the position that characteristics of the classroom environment may exert much influence in fostering or minimizing specific behavior related to academic achievement and competence.

I

n recent years evidence has accumulated which indicates that specific kinds of task-

38

oriented, social, and affective behavior are highly predictive of academic performance (Cobb 1972, Samuels & Turnure 1974). For example, McKinney, Mason, Perkerson, and Clifford (1975) found that the frequencies of 12 categories of classroom behavior compared favorably to IQ in predicting second-grade achievement. Moreover, the general portrait of the competent child provided by these studies was one of an attentive, independent learner who interacted with his peers in a task-oriented fashion. On the other hand, children who were distractible, dependent, and passive in peergroup activities were less likely to succeed academically. To the extent that these negative styles of responding are characteristic of learning disabled children, one might expect individual differences in classroom behavior to contribute to their academic difficulties and potential for Journal of Learning Disabilities

298 progress. Although past literature has cataloged the various deficits displayed by learning disabled children (Bryan 1974a, Bryan & Wheeler 1972), few studies have compared the classroom behavior patterns of learning disabled and normal children as measured by observational techniques. Our present knowledge about classroom behavior patterns of learning disabled children has been obtained primarily from screening instruments that rely on teacher ratings at the time of referral to special educational services (Bryan 1974b; Foreman & McKinney 1975; Keogh, Tchir, and Windeguth-Behn 1974; McCarthy & Paraskevopoulos 1969). In general, comparative studies with these instruments support a widely accepted stereotype of learning disabilities that includes descriptions of inappropriate classroom behavior as well as cognitive and psycholinguistic deficits. Some frequently cited characteristics of learning disabled children include hyperactivity, emotional lability, distractibility, impulsivity, social immaturity, and aggressiveness (Bryan 1974a). Studies that have compared the overt classroom behavior of learning disabled and normal children have yielded equivocal results. Bryan and Wheeler (1972) examined the ratings of observers who were unaware of the child's classification on four categories of Bales' (1971) Interaction Process Analysis scale. Results of this study indicate that learning disabled children were less task-oriented but did not differ in other categories of behavior. A follow-up study by Bryan (1974b) using the same instrument determined that learning disabled children spend significantly less time attending and more time waiting than their normal classmates. There also was evidence that, while the learning disabled children did not differ in the quantity of their social interaction with peers and teachers, their patterns of interaction were different. The teacher was less responsive to learning disabled children. Barr and McDowell (1972) found that emotionally disturbed children displayed higher frequencies of negative Volume 11, Number 5, May 1978

physical contact and vocalization compared to learning disabled children, but did not differ in out-of-seat behavior. Finally, Forness and Esveldt (1975) reported significant differences in on-task behavior and teacher responses to behavior displayed by students with learning problems and normal children in regular classrooms. The primary goals of this study are to compare the classroom behavior of third- and fourth-grade learning disabled boys to those of their normal classmates as displayed in the same regular classroom activities and to examine the relationship between aspects of classroom environment and behavior patterns of learning disabled children.

SETTINGS Two elementary schools in the Durham County, North Carolina, public school system were used, from each of which were selected three thirdgrade and two fourth-grade rooms. The thirdgrade classrooms at both schools were operated on an open classroom, learning center model, while fourth-grade classrooms were more traditional. Since both schools were participating in a demonstration program (McKinney & Kreuger 1973), previously classified subjects were available. The two schools used a service model within the demonstration project in which children identified as learning disabled spent approximately 30 to 40 minutes a day for three to four months with a learning disabilities specialist. LD children retained an ongoing involvement with their regular classrooms and typically returned to them full-time after intervention was completed. There was little or no remediation by the regular teachers in their classroom.

SUBJECTS Two groups of third- and fourth-grade male students, 15 per group, were subjects. The learning disabled group represented all of the available third- and fourth-grade males so 39

299 identified at the schools. The normal children were selected from the same classroom and were matched on IQ,* age, race, and socioeconomic status, derived from Hollingshead's Two Factor Index of Social Position. The average IQ was 104.4 (SD = 12.6). Two of the children were black, 28 white; 23% were upper class, 402? middle class, and 36$ lower class.

OBSERVATIONAL TECHNIQUE The Schedule for Classroom Activity Norms (SCAN) is a time-sampling system for coding a variety of classroom behavior related to academic achievement and adjustment (McKinney, Gallagher, & McKinney 1974, McKinney et al. 1975). This procedure codes classroom behavior every 10 seconds into one of 27 discrete categories. The frequencies of discrete behavior are then combined in a mutually exclusive fashion to form 12 general categories of task-oriented, social, and affective behavior. The final 12category system was based on a factor-analytic study of 90 second graders (McKinney et al. 1975), which describes the development of this instrument and the data reduction procedure. In addition to child behavior, SCAN codes four aspects of the classroom environment. Coding the freedom-of-task choice distinguishes among: (1) teacher present working with child or group on specified task, (2) teacher not present, but a specified task has been assigned, and (3) free-choice activities. Coding the type of activity distinguishes between: (1) curricular with specific teacher expectations for performance, and (2) extracurricular with no specific teacher expected performance. Coding the size of the group distinguishes among: (1) an individual, (2) a small group with two to six children, and (3) a large group with more than six children. Teacher-specified content is coded according to language, math, social studies, etc. *IQ data were taken from school records and in no instance were more than 18 months old. IQ tests providing data include the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test, Cognitive Abilities Test, and the Slosson Intelligence Test.

40

PROCEDURE Two observers collected data over a period of three weeks. All observations were in the morning and during the same period for each of the three days of observation on a particular subject pair. The observers placed themselves in the classroom where they were least obtrusive. One observer coded the behavior of the learning disabled child at the end of each 10-second interval for five minutes, while the second observer coded that of the matched peer. The two observers switched subjects during the second five-minute period, thereby counterbalancing observer effects over each 10-minute session. Data were collected on each pair of children on each of three days and were summed to provide a total frequency of occurrence for each category. Thus, for each subject, a total of 180 moments of behavior were recorded. The first step at the beginning of each threeday period of observation was the completion of an inter observer reliability check. Subjects were selected at random in each classroom and observed by both observers for five minutes. The average reliability based on six five-minute periods during the study was 91$, ranging from 90% to 93%. Before initiating the study, each observer achieved, with an experienced observer, an average reliability of 95%, with a range of 90% to 100%.

RESULTS In the preliminary analyses it was discovered that six of the 12 SCAN categories were observed too infrequently to permit meaningful comparisons and accounted for only 17% of the behavior, so they were eliminated from further examination.

Croup Comparisons Means and standard deviations, in proportions, for the six remaining SCAN categories are presented in Table I. In order to determine the significance of differences among the schools, grade levels, and groups with respect to the six SCAN behavior categories, a 2*2*2 multivariate Journal of Learning Disabilities

300 TABLE I. Means and standard deviations for six selected behavior categories for group, grade level, and school.

Variable SDA X SD

Learning Disabled School 1 School 2 Gr.3 Gr.4 Gr.3 Gr.4

School 1 Gr.3 Gr.4

Normal School 2 Gr.3 Gr.4

.34 .16

.18 .12

.32 .14

.13 .09

.38 .17

.14 .04

.44 .29

.17 .16

ATT X SD

.15 .11

.11 .05

.16 .18

.28 .19

.22 .19

.25 .15

.13 .14

.26 .19

DST X SD

.15 .08

.14 .07

.16 .10

.13 .08

.08 .04

.05 .04

.08 .09

.13 .06

.04 .04

.08 .05

.06 .04

.21 .05

.08 .04

.07 .07

.06 .06

.14 .09

X SD

.11 .06

.13 .04

.15 .08

.05 .02

.09 .04

.13 .04

.13 .05

.08 .03

X SD

.03 .03

.15 .09

.05 .05

.06 .04

.05 .08

.13 .11

.05 .05

.03 .04

|

PR X SD GM

SI

Note: SDA = Self-directed activity; ATT = Attending; DST == Distractibility PR = Passive responding; GM = Gross -motor activity; and SI = Social interaction

analysis of variance was performed. The two schools were included as a factor in the analysis, but results are not discussed as they have no interpretive significance. The overall test of the grade-level effect by Wilks lambda criterion (Cooley & Lohnes 1962) indicated that the six SCAN categories reliably discriminated third and fourth graders: F (6/17) = 2.71, p < .05. The univariate comparisons for each of the six behavior variables between third and fourth graders support the conclusion that the overall differences in behavior could be attributed to differences in self-directed activity and passive responding. Third graders exhibited a significantly higher proportion of self-directed activity than fourth graders: F(l/22) = 13.55, p < .001. Fourth graders exhibited a significantly higher Volume 11, Number 5, May 1978

|

proportion of passive responding: F(l/22) = 11.17, p < .001. While the overall test for group effects failed to reach the required significance level, learning disabled children could be differentiated from normal children on differences in the frequency of distractibility. Subjects in the learning disabled group exhibited a significantly higher proportion of distractibility than the normal subjects: F(l/22) = 4.88, p < .03.

Analysis of Classroom Environment To explain further the findings regarding main and interaction effects the data on environmental setting were examined. Only freedom of task choice and size of group environmental factors 41

301

TABLE II. Mean proportions of total behavior: Subject groupings by environmental setting. TP

TNP

Subject Grouping

_l_

SG

LG^

X

S^L

LG

Learning disabled Normal Gr3 Gr4

.00 .00 .00 .00

.18 .11 .07 .21

.31 .34 .14 .48

.40 .42 .62 .23

.11 .13 .17 .08

.00 .00 .00 .00

Note: TP = Teacher present; TNP = Teacher not present; I = Individual; SG = Small group; and LG = Large group.

were considered, as the other two areas, type of activity and teacher specified content, are curricular and were not varied in this study. There were two levels of freedom of task choice: teacher present (TP) working with a child or group on specified task and teacher not present (TNP), but a specified task had been assigned. There were three levels of size of group: individual (I), small group (SG), or large group (LG). Table II presents the mean proportion of total behavior under different environmental settings for groups and grade levels. No behavior occurred during either a TP-I setting or a TNP-LG setting for any of the subject groupings. Learning disabled and normal children were observed in highly similar settings. Both groups spent approximately three-fourths of their time in either TNP-I work or TP-LG situations. The most notable difference between grades was that third-grade behavior tended to occur in TNP-I settings while approximately one-half of the fourth-grade subject behaviors occurred during TP-LG conditions.

DISCUSSION The present study yielded only one dimension of classroom behavior which differentiated the two 42

groups. Learning disabled children exhibited a significandy higher frequency of distractibility. This finding tends to confirm the results of previous studies using both a teacher rating approach (Foreman & McKinney 1975) and a direct observation technique (Bryan 1974b). There was no indication that learning disabled children as a group possess a negative behavioral style including conduct problem behavior, hyperactivity, passivity, and dependency. Therefore, very limited support was found for the stereotyped cluster of behavior that is frequendy attributed to LD children. At the same time learning disabled children were consistently more distractible than normal children regardless of the regular classroom setting. However, Bryan (1974b) provided evidence that learning disabled children engaged in significandy more task-oriented behavior and less nontask-oriented behavior in special education rooms as compared to regular classrooms. Therefore, since distractibility has been shown repeatedly to be negatively associated with achievement, it certainly is a behavior which should be dealt with in the regular classroom in conjunction with special education programming. The learning disabilities specialist should have the skills necessary to assess the child behavior in the classroom and to assist the regular Journal of Learning Disabilities

302 classroom teacher in developing skills for the management of attentional problems. As previously indicated, all of the learning disabled children in the present study had been involved in remediation. While the possible confounding effects on the results of this study are acknowledged, evaluations of the learning disability program have suggested that regular classroom teachers' ratings indicate that they perceived minimal progress in task orientation and social and affective behavior for children in the deficit-model remediation. One important reason for the finding that third graders exhibited more self-directed activity than fourth graders might be that the classrooms at the schools were organized differently. The third-grade classrooms at both schools were set up and operated on the openclassroom, learning center model. Fourth-grade classrooms tended to be more traditional with desks in rows and more time spent in making presentations to the total class or otherwise requiring their attention. While the present investigation did not find evidence for a losing behavioral style associated with mildly to moderately learning disabled children, it does suggest that behavior that is inconsistent with achievement may be partially eliminated by particular regular classroom arrangements and teacher approaches. With the exception of distractibility, the social, affective, and, to some extent, task-orientation behavior patterns of learning disabled children were affected in the same way as those of their normal peers. Perhaps classroom settings that foster behavior inconsistent with achievement and competence are especially damaging to learning disabled children, since their experience of the classroom is typically compounded by substantial academic problems and a history of failure.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS David D. Richey took his degree in 1975 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. At present he is an assistant professor of special education at Tennessee Technological University, where he teaches both graduate and undergraduate courses and is engaged in community service. James D . Volume

11, Number

5, May

1978

McKinney received his degree in school psychology from North Carolina State University. He is an associate professor of education at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Richey, Department of Educational Psychology and Counselor Education, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tenn. 38501.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge the cooperation of the Durham County school system, Ms. Marion Krueger, Project MELD, and the principals and teachers involved with the study at the two schools.

REFERENCES Bales, R.F.: Interaction process analysis. In E. Hollander and R. Hunt (Eds.): Current Perspectives in Social Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971. Barr, K.L., McDowell, R.L.: Comparison of learning disabled and emotionally disturbed children on three deviant classroom behaviors. Exceptional Children, 1972, 39(1), 60-62. Bryan, T.: Learning disabilities: A new stereotype. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974,1, 304-310. Bryan, T.: An observational analysis of classroom behavior of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 3543. Bryan, T., Wheeler, R.. Perception of learning disabled children: The eye of the observer. Journal of learning Disabilities, 1972, 5, 484-498. Cobb, J.A.: Relationship of discrete classroom behavior to fourth-grade academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63, 74-80. Cooley, W.W., Lohnes, P.R.: Multivariate Procedures of the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Wiley, 1962. Foreman, B.D., McKinney, J.P.: A comparison of classroom behavior ratings of learning disabled and non-learning disabled children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association. Hollywood, Florida, May, 1974. Forness, S.R., Esveldt, K.C.: Classroom observation of children with learning and behavior problems. Journal of learning Disabilities, 1975, 8, 382-385. Keogh, B.K., Tchir, C, Windeguth-Behn, A.: Teachers perceptions of educationally high-risk children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 367-374. McCarthy, J.M., Paraskevopoulos, J. Behavior patterns of learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, and average children. Exceptional Children, 1969, 36, 69-74. McKinney, J.D., Kreuger, M.: Models for Educating Learning Disabled Children: Final Report. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction, Division of Development, June, 1973. McKinney, J.D., Gallagher, J.J., McKinney, M.C.: Relationship between learning styles and academic achievement. In Developmental Research on the Improvement of Kindergarten in North Carolina. Chapel Hill, N.C. Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina, July, 1974. McKinney, J.D., Mason, J., Perkerson, K., Clifford, M.: Relationship between classroom behavior and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975,67, 198-203. Samuels, S.J., Turnure, J.E.: Attention and reading achievement in first-grade boys and girh. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 29-32.

43

Classroom behavioral styles of learning disabled boys.

Research Classroom Behavioral Styles of Learning Disabled Boys David D. Richey, PhD, and James D. McKinney, PhD Observational studies have uniformly...
822KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views