383 Deafness and Adolescence (1978). Miriam (Hankin) Neyhus Center for Education, Research, and Development, 1972. received her MA degree in special education from North(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 071180) eastern Illinois University. She has worked for the Chicago Barsch, R.H., The Parent of the Handicapped Child. Springpublic schools since 1959 and is currently a moderate learning field, 111.: Charles C Thomas, Publisher, 1968. disabilities teacher at the Mulligan Elementary School. She isBrutten, M., Richardson, S.O., Mangel, C, Something's Wrong the author of a filmstrip that was produced by the Chicago with My Child: A Parents' Book about Children with Board of Education, entitled "Sequential Steps to Readiness" Learning Disabilities. New York: Harcourt, Brace and (1975). With Dr. Neyhus she is also the author of a lecture and Jovanovich, 1973. slide demonstration called "The Steps Between the Steps: Hennessey, E., A Study of Diagnostic Service for Brain-Injured Another View of the Place of Task Analysis in the Teaching of Children. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED Reading" (1979). Requests for reprints should be addressed to 018 886; 1965. Dr. Neyhus at the College of Education, University of Illinois, Lerner, J.W., Children with Learning Disabilities (2nd ed.). Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1976, 320-330, 376Chicago Circle, Chicago, III. 60680. 382. Siegel, S., N onparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. REFERENCES New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956. Wallace, G., McLoughlin, J.A., Learning Disabilities, ConBarnes, D., Structuring Communication with Parents: Partici- cepts and Characteristics. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. pation in Common Terms. Washington, D.C.: National Merrill Publishing Co., 1975, pp. 273-279.
Glassers Classroom Meeting: A Humanistic Approach to Behavior Change with Preadolescent Inner-city Learning Disabled Children Paula Marandola, MEd, and Steve C. Imber, PhD
P
arents and teachers of learning disabled
havior may be a direct result of the social per-
children are often keenly aware of the fact
ception inaccuracies these children experience. It
their
demonstrate
is very possible that the same processes involved
serious emotional and behavioral disorders. It
in perceiving and interpreting cognitive informa-
that
children
frequently
might be assumed that if teachers can provide
tion may be operative for affective data as well.
appropriately structured learning tasks, then
Bryan and Bryan (1977) describe their research
few, if any, behavioral difficulties among these
supporting the hypothesis that some learning
children
Classroom
disabled children may not be good "people
that this
readers." They also indicate that learning dis-
would
practitioners
be
observed.
are aware, however,
situation is sometimes not the case. Behavioral difficulties in learning disabled
abled children emit many socially insensitive comments to other children.
children may involve much more than the
Therefore, it seems very possible that psy-
implication of failure; rather, such deficits of be-
choeducational approaches that help children
30
Journal of Learning Disabilities
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 21, 2015
384
focus on examining alternatives to maladaptive behavior may hold great promise for improving the ability of learning disabled children to more effectively analyze their own communication and the behavior of others before engaging in self-defeating acts. Reality therapy, developed by William Glasser (1965, 1969), is one such approach. Glasser stresses that individuals need to develop responsibility, which he defines as the ability to behave in a way that satisfies one's needs without interfering with the need satisfaction of others. Such responsibility requires decision-making skills based upon a careful consideration of the implications of alternative actions — precisely the type of behavior that learning disabled children often find difficult to demonstrate. One of the techniques Glasser describes to help teachers assist their students in evaluating feelings and behavior is the classroom meeting. In Schools Without Failure three types of meetings are described: the social-problem-solving meeting, concerned with the students' social behavior in school; the open-ended meeting, concerned with thought-provoking questions; and the educational-diagnostic meeting, dealing with how well the students understand the concepts of the curriculum. Glasser conceptualizes all three types of meetings as an integral part of the classroom; the meetings should be nonjudgmental discussions involving the whole class and concerning what is important and relevant to them. At least one article can be found in the literature in which classroom meetings have been used with learning disabled children (Zeaman & Martucci 1976); however, there appears to be no systematic evaluation of the effects of the meetings on behavior of these learning disabled students. While this article does suggest the usefulness of Glasser's classroom meetings for learning disabled children, more systematic evaluations of the effects of such meetings on classroom behavior are needed to more meaningfully assess the practical usefulness and possible
limitations of this humanistically oriented procedure. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate behaviorally the effects of Glasser's classroom meetings on the argumentative behavior of 10 preadolescent, inner-city, learning disabled children. It is hypothesized that the systematic application of Glasser's classroom meetings with a class of learning disabled students will result in a demonstrable reduction of physical and verbal arguments.
METHOD Subjects The subjects of this study were 10 boys between the ages of 11 and 12 enrolled in a classroom for learning disabled students. The class was not selfcontained in nature but was involved in a noncategorical grouping for instruction, thus allowing learning disabled and behaviorally disordered children to be grouped homogeneously according to functional levels. The groups rotated among three different teachers for reading, mathematics, and language. All of the subjects were from low socioeconomic families, and the school, a public special education setting, was urbanly situated. Achievement levels for all were at least two years below expected grade level, and behavioral characteristics included short attention spans, hyperactivity, aggressive acting-out behaviors, tantrums, expressive and receptive language disorders, low self-concepts, and various other difficulties that impair learning.
Intervention For the purpose of this study, open-ended and problem-solving classroom meetings seemed more relevant since the problem to be studied was not curriculum oriented. Through the use of these two types of meetings, it was hoped that the children would be able to reflect on the issue of people getting along with one another. The specific issue of concern was the frequency and
Volume 12, Number 6, June/July 1979
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 21, 2015
31
385
TABLE 1. The effects of classroom meetings on argumentative behavior for individual | subjects.
Intervention
Baseline Number of Number of Subjects arguments days present Rate/day A B C D E F G H I J
40 12 13 28 33 6 3 26 10 7
11 13 10 14 13 14 13 14 12 12
Number of Number of arguments days present Rate/day
3.64 .92 1.30 1.86 2.54 .43 .23 1.86 .83 .58
intensity of physical and verbal classroom arguments. During the intervention period, classroom meetings were used daily for eight days. Although topics varied, the focus was always related to argumentative behavior in the classroom. Some questions used during the meetings were "What can we do in the classroom to help people get along?" (social, problem-solving meeting) and "What happens when people don't get along with one another?" (open-ended meeting).
Measurement The three types of argumentative behavior for analysis are VA — verbal argument between two classmates, VA+ — verbal argument involving two or more classmates, and PC — physical confrontation between two classmates. Baseline data for frequency and duration were recorded daily for two weeks during specific periods of the school day. These periods included breakfast, language, and afternoon lessons with the teacher. Baseline data were not gathered during lunch, field trips, days on which 32
3 2 2 3 3 0 0 1 2 1
7 8 8 8 5 7 6 8 8 8
.43 .25 .25 .38 .60 .0 .0 .13 .25 .13
Reduction 88% 72% 80% 81% 76% 100% 100% 93% 69% 77%
the teacher was absent, physical education, and music due to practical difficulties; data were recorded in a cross-reference manner so that a record of the type and duration of the argument and the persons involved was available. This procedure was used during both the baseline and intervention phases.
RESULTS Analysis for each child indicated that children who were involved in a few or no arguments during baseline continued to behave appropriately during the intervention period. It is more significant that children who frequently argued during baseline showed a marked reduction of such negative interactions during intervention (Table 1). Figure 1 illustrates the total number of classroom arguments during the baseline and intervention periods, as well as the results of the three specific types of argument. A considerable decrease in both individual and total results can be seen. Verbal arguments between two individJournal of Learning Disabilities
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 21, 2015
386
— -• A D
9
10 11 12 Day
baseline intervention arguments with one person arguments with two persons physical confrontation
—-r--r--r--r— - — f r---, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Figure 1. Average number of daily arguments; total class of intermediate-aged learning disabled children.
uals were reduced from 53 during 14 baseline days, or a rate of 3.79 per day, to two during eight intervention days, a range of 0.25 per day. Verbal arguments involving more than two students decreased from 17 to three, a rate of 1.21 to 0.38, and physical confrontations diminished from five to one, or a rate of 0.38 to 0.13. It is important to note the percentage of arguments per day and the decrease in that percentage during intervention. For example, physical arguments were reduced by 67$. Concomitandy, there was also a marked reduction in the average number of verbal arguments per day while the intervention was implemented.
DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine the use of classroom meetings as an effective means of modifying argumentative classroom behavior of 10 preadolescent, inner-city, learning disabled students. Strong support has been provided regarding the methodology of classroom meetings and its role in behavior change. Appropriate
behaviors regarding positive interactions were maintained, and inappropriate argumentative behaviors were sharply decreased as a result of these meetings. Although the study provides great support for the initial hypothesis, it must be noted that certain conditions existed that may have positively influenced the results. First, nine of the 10 children involved in this study had been with the teacher for two years, and a strong rapport was established between teacher and students. Secondly, the children were accustomed to having discussions, although not in the true class meeting sense that Glasser describes. Two more very significant limitations of the study should be noted. One is the fact that the teacher recorded the data, which may have biased the results. To ensure reliability, both the teacher and an independent observer might have collected data. In order to compensate for this difficulty, however, the researchers devised clear definitions of the behaviors to be observed and recorded; to ensure further accuracy, data were written down as they occurred rather than at the
Volume 12, Number 6, June/July 1979
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 21, 2015
33
387 end of the period or day. One other limitation, perhaps the most important, is the short duration of the eight-day intervention period. A preferable format would be alternating two-week baseline periods with two-week intervention periods. Using such a recording schedule would result in obtaining more data and consequently ensure more accurate results.
Implications Several very significant implications arise from this study. First, the results illustrate that it is possible and, more importantly, fruitful to combine humanistic and behavioral methods to achieve successful behavior change. The blending of Glasser's humanistic discussion approach and a behavioral approach to measurement and data collection provides the teacher with an effective way to produce and evaluate modifications of inappropriate behavior. A second implication derived from the investigation regards mainstreaming. Since federal regulations for special education have been enacted, mainstreaming is being stressed more heavily. The research provides the regular classroom teacher with an alternative for behavior management problems that may arise from the integration of special and normal children. The skills for implementing classroom meetings are relatively easy to develop with practice. Classroom teachers who implement the meetings can be sensitive to individual strengths and weaknesses, without singling out one or two exceptional students as might certain behavior modification programs. Class meetings need not demand a great amount of time, an issue that is always of critical concern when developing and choosing educational strategies. Another matter of significance is the self-discipline that is nurtured by the classroom meetings. After continued use, the children will be able to initiate such meetings when they feel it is necessary. The social perception of each child can be greatly sharpened by such discussions. Perhaps some of the greatest contributions of this study are the unanswered questions that arise 34
from it. Such questions can best be answered by future research. Subsequent studies might examine the following points: What is the effect of subject area or the time of day on argumentative behavior? Do other behavioral characteristics determine a child's argumentative tendencies? What is the long-term effect of such meetings on behavior change? To what degree do the results of this study generalize to behavior change of other maladaptive behaviors? As such questions are answered, more will arise, thus helping to reinforce the cycle of educational research that will continue to result in realistic, successful methods designed to ensure all children optimum success and dignity in the classroom.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Paula Marandola is a teacher of learning disabled and behavior disordered children in the Providence, Rhode Island, school systems. She received her bachelor's degree in learning disabilities and her master's degree in behavior disorders at Rhode Island College. Within the past year Paula has served as a state coordinator for the Council for Children with Behavior Disorders. Steve C. Imber is an associate professor of special education at Rhode Island College and coordinator of the masters program in behavioral disorders. He earned his MA and PhD degrees in learning disabilities and behavioral disorders at the University of Connecticut. Formerly a teacher of children with learning and behavior disorders, Dr. Imber is now a special education consultant to the Rhode Island College Learning Center. He is also the regional coordinator for the Council of Children with Behavior Disorders. His interests include training teachers to work with children evidencing behavioral disorders and evaluating the effectiveness of psychoeducational approaches for children evidencing learning and behavioral problems. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr. Imber at the Department of Special Education, Rhode Island College, Providence, R.I. 02908.
REFERENCES Bryan, T.H., Bryan, J.H.: The social-emotional side of learning disabilities. Behavior Disorders, 1977, 2,141-145. Glasser, W.: Reality Therapy. New York: Harper 6- Row, Publishers, Inc., 1965. Glasser, W.: Schools Without Failure (paperback edition). New York: Harper 6- Row, Publishers, Inc., 1969. Teaman, R., Martucci, L.: The application of classroom meetings to special education. Exceptional Children, 1976, 42, 461-462. Journal of Learning
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 21, 2015
Disabilities
Glassers Classroom Meeting: A Humanistic Approach to Behavior Change with Preadolescent Inner-city Learning Disabled Children Paula Marandola, MEd, and Steve C. Imber, PhD
P
arents and teachers of learning disabled
havior may be a direct result of the social per-
children are often keenly aware of the fact
ception inaccuracies these children experience. It
their
demonstrate
is very possible that the same processes involved
serious emotional and behavioral disorders. It
in perceiving and interpreting cognitive informa-
that
children
frequently
might be assumed that if teachers can provide
tion may be operative for affective data as well.
appropriately structured learning tasks, then
Bryan and Bryan (1977) describe their research
few, if any, behavioral difficulties among these
supporting the hypothesis that some learning
children
Classroom
disabled children may not be good "people
that this
readers." They also indicate that learning dis-
would
practitioners
be
observed.
are aware, however,
situation is sometimes not the case. Behavioral difficulties in learning disabled
abled children emit many socially insensitive comments to other children.
children may involve much more than the
Therefore, it seems very possible that psy-
implication of failure; rather, such deficits of be-
choeducational approaches that help children
30
Journal of Learning Disabilities
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 21, 2015
384
focus on examining alternatives to maladaptive behavior may hold great promise for improving the ability of learning disabled children to more effectively analyze their own communication and the behavior of others before engaging in self-defeating acts. Reality therapy, developed by William Glasser (1965, 1969), is one such approach. Glasser stresses that individuals need to develop responsibility, which he defines as the ability to behave in a way that satisfies one's needs without interfering with the need satisfaction of others. Such responsibility requires decision-making skills based upon a careful consideration of the implications of alternative actions — precisely the type of behavior that learning disabled children often find difficult to demonstrate. One of the techniques Glasser describes to help teachers assist their students in evaluating feelings and behavior is the classroom meeting. In Schools Without Failure three types of meetings are described: the social-problem-solving meeting, concerned with the students' social behavior in school; the open-ended meeting, concerned with thought-provoking questions; and the educational-diagnostic meeting, dealing with how well the students understand the concepts of the curriculum. Glasser conceptualizes all three types of meetings as an integral part of the classroom; the meetings should be nonjudgmental discussions involving the whole class and concerning what is important and relevant to them. At least one article can be found in the literature in which classroom meetings have been used with learning disabled children (Zeaman & Martucci 1976); however, there appears to be no systematic evaluation of the effects of the meetings on behavior of these learning disabled students. While this article does suggest the usefulness of Glasser's classroom meetings for learning disabled children, more systematic evaluations of the effects of such meetings on classroom behavior are needed to more meaningfully assess the practical usefulness and possible
limitations of this humanistically oriented procedure. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate behaviorally the effects of Glasser's classroom meetings on the argumentative behavior of 10 preadolescent, inner-city, learning disabled children. It is hypothesized that the systematic application of Glasser's classroom meetings with a class of learning disabled students will result in a demonstrable reduction of physical and verbal arguments.
METHOD Subjects The subjects of this study were 10 boys between the ages of 11 and 12 enrolled in a classroom for learning disabled students. The class was not selfcontained in nature but was involved in a noncategorical grouping for instruction, thus allowing learning disabled and behaviorally disordered children to be grouped homogeneously according to functional levels. The groups rotated among three different teachers for reading, mathematics, and language. All of the subjects were from low socioeconomic families, and the school, a public special education setting, was urbanly situated. Achievement levels for all were at least two years below expected grade level, and behavioral characteristics included short attention spans, hyperactivity, aggressive acting-out behaviors, tantrums, expressive and receptive language disorders, low self-concepts, and various other difficulties that impair learning.
Intervention For the purpose of this study, open-ended and problem-solving classroom meetings seemed more relevant since the problem to be studied was not curriculum oriented. Through the use of these two types of meetings, it was hoped that the children would be able to reflect on the issue of people getting along with one another. The specific issue of concern was the frequency and
Volume 12, Number 6, June/July 1979
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 21, 2015
31
385
TABLE 1. The effects of classroom meetings on argumentative behavior for individual | subjects.
Intervention
Baseline Number of Number of Subjects arguments days present Rate/day A B C D E F G H I J
40 12 13 28 33 6 3 26 10 7
11 13 10 14 13 14 13 14 12 12
Number of Number of arguments days present Rate/day
3.64 .92 1.30 1.86 2.54 .43 .23 1.86 .83 .58
intensity of physical and verbal classroom arguments. During the intervention period, classroom meetings were used daily for eight days. Although topics varied, the focus was always related to argumentative behavior in the classroom. Some questions used during the meetings were "What can we do in the classroom to help people get along?" (social, problem-solving meeting) and "What happens when people don't get along with one another?" (open-ended meeting).
Measurement The three types of argumentative behavior for analysis are VA — verbal argument between two classmates, VA+ — verbal argument involving two or more classmates, and PC — physical confrontation between two classmates. Baseline data for frequency and duration were recorded daily for two weeks during specific periods of the school day. These periods included breakfast, language, and afternoon lessons with the teacher. Baseline data were not gathered during lunch, field trips, days on which 32
3 2 2 3 3 0 0 1 2 1
7 8 8 8 5 7 6 8 8 8
.43 .25 .25 .38 .60 .0 .0 .13 .25 .13
Reduction 88% 72% 80% 81% 76% 100% 100% 93% 69% 77%
the teacher was absent, physical education, and music due to practical difficulties; data were recorded in a cross-reference manner so that a record of the type and duration of the argument and the persons involved was available. This procedure was used during both the baseline and intervention phases.
RESULTS Analysis for each child indicated that children who were involved in a few or no arguments during baseline continued to behave appropriately during the intervention period. It is more significant that children who frequently argued during baseline showed a marked reduction of such negative interactions during intervention (Table 1). Figure 1 illustrates the total number of classroom arguments during the baseline and intervention periods, as well as the results of the three specific types of argument. A considerable decrease in both individual and total results can be seen. Verbal arguments between two individJournal of Learning Disabilities
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 21, 2015
386
— -• A D
9
10 11 12 Day
baseline intervention arguments with one person arguments with two persons physical confrontation
—-r--r--r--r— - — f r---, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Figure 1. Average number of daily arguments; total class of intermediate-aged learning disabled children.
uals were reduced from 53 during 14 baseline days, or a rate of 3.79 per day, to two during eight intervention days, a range of 0.25 per day. Verbal arguments involving more than two students decreased from 17 to three, a rate of 1.21 to 0.38, and physical confrontations diminished from five to one, or a rate of 0.38 to 0.13. It is important to note the percentage of arguments per day and the decrease in that percentage during intervention. For example, physical arguments were reduced by 67$. Concomitandy, there was also a marked reduction in the average number of verbal arguments per day while the intervention was implemented.
DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine the use of classroom meetings as an effective means of modifying argumentative classroom behavior of 10 preadolescent, inner-city, learning disabled students. Strong support has been provided regarding the methodology of classroom meetings and its role in behavior change. Appropriate
behaviors regarding positive interactions were maintained, and inappropriate argumentative behaviors were sharply decreased as a result of these meetings. Although the study provides great support for the initial hypothesis, it must be noted that certain conditions existed that may have positively influenced the results. First, nine of the 10 children involved in this study had been with the teacher for two years, and a strong rapport was established between teacher and students. Secondly, the children were accustomed to having discussions, although not in the true class meeting sense that Glasser describes. Two more very significant limitations of the study should be noted. One is the fact that the teacher recorded the data, which may have biased the results. To ensure reliability, both the teacher and an independent observer might have collected data. In order to compensate for this difficulty, however, the researchers devised clear definitions of the behaviors to be observed and recorded; to ensure further accuracy, data were written down as they occurred rather than at the
Volume 12, Number 6, June/July 1979
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 21, 2015
33
387 end of the period or day. One other limitation, perhaps the most important, is the short duration of the eight-day intervention period. A preferable format would be alternating two-week baseline periods with two-week intervention periods. Using such a recording schedule would result in obtaining more data and consequently ensure more accurate results.
Implications Several very significant implications arise from this study. First, the results illustrate that it is possible and, more importantly, fruitful to combine humanistic and behavioral methods to achieve successful behavior change. The blending of Glasser's humanistic discussion approach and a behavioral approach to measurement and data collection provides the teacher with an effective way to produce and evaluate modifications of inappropriate behavior. A second implication derived from the investigation regards mainstreaming. Since federal regulations for special education have been enacted, mainstreaming is being stressed more heavily. The research provides the regular classroom teacher with an alternative for behavior management problems that may arise from the integration of special and normal children. The skills for implementing classroom meetings are relatively easy to develop with practice. Classroom teachers who implement the meetings can be sensitive to individual strengths and weaknesses, without singling out one or two exceptional students as might certain behavior modification programs. Class meetings need not demand a great amount of time, an issue that is always of critical concern when developing and choosing educational strategies. Another matter of significance is the self-discipline that is nurtured by the classroom meetings. After continued use, the children will be able to initiate such meetings when they feel it is necessary. The social perception of each child can be greatly sharpened by such discussions. Perhaps some of the greatest contributions of this study are the unanswered questions that arise 34
from it. Such questions can best be answered by future research. Subsequent studies might examine the following points: What is the effect of subject area or the time of day on argumentative behavior? Do other behavioral characteristics determine a child's argumentative tendencies? What is the long-term effect of such meetings on behavior change? To what degree do the results of this study generalize to behavior change of other maladaptive behaviors? As such questions are answered, more will arise, thus helping to reinforce the cycle of educational research that will continue to result in realistic, successful methods designed to ensure all children optimum success and dignity in the classroom.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Paula Marandola is a teacher of learning disabled and behavior disordered children in the Providence, Rhode Island, school systems. She received her bachelor's degree in learning disabilities and her master's degree in behavior disorders at Rhode Island College. Within the past year Paula has served as a state coordinator for the Council for Children with Behavior Disorders. Steve C. Imber is an associate professor of special education at Rhode Island College and coordinator of the masters program in behavioral disorders. He earned his MA and PhD degrees in learning disabilities and behavioral disorders at the University of Connecticut. Formerly a teacher of children with learning and behavior disorders, Dr. Imber is now a special education consultant to the Rhode Island College Learning Center. He is also the regional coordinator for the Council of Children with Behavior Disorders. His interests include training teachers to work with children evidencing behavioral disorders and evaluating the effectiveness of psychoeducational approaches for children evidencing learning and behavioral problems. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr. Imber at the Department of Special Education, Rhode Island College, Providence, R.I. 02908.
REFERENCES Bryan, T.H., Bryan, J.H.: The social-emotional side of learning disabilities. Behavior Disorders, 1977, 2,141-145. Glasser, W.: Reality Therapy. New York: Harper 6- Row, Publishers, Inc., 1965. Glasser, W.: Schools Without Failure (paperback edition). New York: Harper 6- Row, Publishers, Inc., 1969. Teaman, R., Martucci, L.: The application of classroom meetings to special education. Exceptional Children, 1976, 42, 461-462. Journal of Learning
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 21, 2015
Disabilities
