Current Issues in Education > Volume 1, 1998 > Number 8

Citation Information

Aaroe, L., & Nelson, J. R. (1998, November 18). Views about key curricular matters from the perspectives of students with disabilities. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 1 (8). Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume1/number8/.

Views About Key Curricular Matters From the Perspectives of Students With Disabilities

Lisa Aaroe
J. Ron Nelson
Arizona State University

Abstract

Students with disabilities experience a curriculum that is diverse and specialized to meet their unique needs and interests. An awareness of students' views regarding curricular matters is important because the extent of student acceptance can influence their academic and social success. This article surveys the literature on views held by students with disabilities regarding three curricular matters: service-delivery setting, activity preference, and instructional modifications. We conclude that there appears to be a dearth of research on views held by students with disabilities. An agenda for future research is also discussed.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Literature Reviewed
• Results
• Characteristics of Participants
• Methods to Solicit Respondents' Views
• Service-Delivery Setting
• Activity Preference
• Instructional Modifications
• Discussion
• Implications for Future Research
• References

Introduction

Students experience the curriculum in a variety of ways. They are influenced by their previous experiences, unique interests, abilities, and needs. The curriculum for students with disabilities involves the instructional setting, content/materials, and the manner in which lessons and instructions are delivered. Although the curricular experiences of students enrolled in regular educational settings vary, few would question that this variance increases as the curriculum becomes more specialized to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Due to the passage of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-142) and the recent emphasis on the inclusion of students with disabilities, educators have specialized their curricular practices to provide adequate and appropriate instruction to students with disabilities. These key curricular practices include modifying instruction, designing activities, promoting learning to more effectively meet students' academic needs, and making decisions regarding special education placement.

An understanding of students' views of special education curricular practices, at least in part, could serve as a guide to the curricular decisions made by educators and others (Erikson & Shultz, 1992). The relative usefulness of students' views on such matters is supported by the research on treatment acceptability. Treatment acceptability centers around the palatability of treatment methods by a variety of individuals (i.e., nonprofessionals, students, and potential or actual consumers) and its impact on treatment effectiveness (Kazdin, 1980). Treatment acceptability includes judgments of how appropriate, fair, reasonable, and humane the treatment is as well as the match with conventional standards (Morgan, Fulliton, & Nabors, 1993). Research on treatment acceptability demonstrates that an individual's evaluation of the treatment(s) he or she is receiving directly impacts the extent to which the treatment is accepted (e.g., Boone Von Brock & Elliot, 1987; Elliot, 1986; Gajria & Salend, 1996; Reimers, Wacker, Cooper, & DeRaad, 1992), and thus to a great degree, the effectiveness of the treatment. That is, when sound treatment is highly acceptable to participants, outcomes tend to be more positive and influential. Conversely, when treatment is not highly accepted by participants, there is less treatment efficacy. Thus, when applied to the educational setting, instruction and treatment are more readily accepted by students and are more likely to bring about learning outcomes.

Converging evidence regarding the importance of exploring students' views on curricular matters originated from the research surrounding the influence of three curricular matters on learning outcomes (Reichle & Wacker, 1993). These curricular matters are service-delivery setting, activity preference, and instructional modifications. Each of these variables is discussed below.

First, we consider service-delivery setting variables related to the placement of the delivery of instruction. These variables were thought to influence students' behavior during the school day. For instance, studies have found that time of day, noise level, physical set-up of the classroom, instructional location, and feeling and tone of the delivered instruction influenced students' learning and behavior (McAfee, 1987; Wahler & Graves, 1983). These studies highlighted the importance of instructional settings as related to the learning needs of students.

Second, research has demonstrated a relationship between activity preference and student learning (Horner & Budd, 1985; Wacker, Wiggins, Fowler, & Berg, 1988). These studies found that when the student's curriculum consisted of activities identified as high interest to that student, he or she was more likely to experience higher rates of learning and lower rates of disruptive behavior.

Finally, instructional delivery/modification, or the manner in which classroom instruction is delivered and modified for students, has been shown to impact student learning (Singer, Singer, & Horner, 1987; Winterling, Dunlap, & O'Neill, 1987). These studies demonstrated that when students were satisfied with the manner in which their teachers presented lessons and adapted instruction to meet their individual needs, students were more apt to participate in classroom activities and achieve learning success.

Taken together, the above research indicated that students' views of curricular matters might influence their academic and social abilities. The purpose of this article was to review the beliefs of students with disabilities in regard to three curricular matters: service-delivery setting, activity preference, and instructional modifications.

Literature Reviewed

The literature examined was identified by conducting a hand search of articles published in each of the professional journals published by the Council for Exceptional Children over the last 10 years. These journals included Teaching Exceptional Children, Behavioral Disorders, Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, Diagnostique, Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, Education, Teacher Education and Special Education, Exceptional Children, Journal of Special Education Teaching, Journal of Early Intervention, and Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. In addition, an ancestral search of the references from the identified articles was included in the literature review.

Articles reviewed were those in which researchers discussed beliefs held by K-12th grade students that were experiencing either mental retardation, learning disabilities, and emotional or behavioral disorders regarding their interests and beliefs related to service-delivery setting, activity preference, or instructional modifications. Articles not included in the review were those in which researchers studied the beliefs of adults with disabilities (Gresh, 1995; Reiff, Gerber, & Ginsberg, 1997), student self-concept (Parish, Baker, Arheart, & Adamchak, 1980), ratings of treatment effects (Miller, Nfidgett, & Wicks, 1992), views on current and future outcomes of social interactions, and classroom behaviors such as disruptive, nonactive, time on-task, or the perceptions of youth with disabilities toward successful employment. A total of 11 articles were identified as appropriate for inclusion in this review. The articles were examined to identify characteristics of participants and the aforementioned three curricular matters. Articles reviewed are marked with an asterisk in the reference section of this paper.

The characteristics of participants identified included (a) the age of participants (i.e., elementary = 6 to 13; adolescent = 14 to 18), (b) ethnic background, (c) category of the participants' disability (i.e., learning disabled, behaviorally disordered, mildly mentally handicapped, educable-mentally handicapped, learning or emotionally handicapped, or cross-categorical), (d) gender of participants, and (e) instructional setting (resource room, self-contained, in-class, or integrated). The curricular matters considered were based on three categories including (a) service-delivery setting, (b) activity preference, and (c) instructional modifications. Finally, articles were also examined to identify the methods of research that were employed.

Results

There are three parts to this section. The first part addresses the characteristics of participants (age, ethnic background, disability, placement, gender, and instructional setting). The research methods used by researchers are presented in the second part. The third part presents students' views of three curricular matters: service-delivery setting, activity preference, and instructional modification.

Characteristics of Participants

A total of 1,200 students participated in the 11 studies reviewed. Of the 1,200 participants, 743 were under 13 years of age (62%) and 457 were 14 years of age and older (38%). Nine of the 11 studies reviewed specified gender (Bryan & Nelson, 1994; Gardner & Bates, 1991; Okolo, Rieth, & Bahr, 1989; Padeliadu & Zigmond, 1996; Reetz & Hoover, 1992; Watkins, 1989; Wesson, 1984; Vaughn & Bos, 1987; Vaughn, Schumm, & Kouzekanani, 1993). Of the total of 562 participants included in these 9 studies, 369 were males (66%) and 193 were females (34%). Four of the 11 studies reviewed specified the participant ethnic background (Reetz & Hoover, 1992; Vaughn & Bos, 1987; Vaughn et al., 1993; Watkins, 1989). Of the total of 297 participants included in these 4 studies, 84 were from culturally diverse backgrounds (28%) and 213 (72%) were Caucasian.

Additionally, of the 1,200 total participants, 857 (72%) were classified as learning disabled, 105 (9%) as educable-mentally handicapped, 24 (2%) as mildly mentally handicapped, 15 (1%) as learning or emotionally handicapped, 36 (3%) as emotionally/behaviorally disordered, and 59 (5%) as low achieving. Thirty four (4%) of the participants represented a cross-categorical disability. Because the results of one study (Vaughn et al., 1993) found no significant differences between students with learning disabilities and those who were low-achieving, the latter group of students were also included in this review.

All 11 studies reviewed specified the placement settings of the participants. Seven-hundred and eighty-eight (66%) of the participants received instruction in a resource classroom setting and 132 participants (11%) received services in a self-contained classroom. The remaining 280 participants (23%) received specialized instruction within the regular education classroom designed collaboratively by regular and special education teachers.

Methods to Solicit Respondents' Views

Techniques used to solicit respondents' views included interviews, surveys, and scales. It should be noted that prior to data collection, three studies that employed interviews provided their interviewers with an orientation as to the purpose of the interview, appropriate interviewing techniques, and behavioral definitions to heighten the reliability and validity of the studies (Okolo et al., 1989; Padeliadu & Zigmond, 1996; Vaughn & Bos, 1987); whereas the remaining studies did not provide their interviewers an orientation prior to data collection. Additionally, one researcher failed to specify the research method used to solicit respondents' views (Wesson, 1984).

Although the methods used to solicit respondents views varied (interviews, surveys, and rating scales), the primary difference centered on the response format (structured or semistructured). Structured methods were comprised of forced choice responses. Format choices were dichotomous ( i.e., yes/no, true/false), multiple choice, or Likert scale in nature. Seven of the 11 studies reviewed employed interviews, surveys, or rating scales that were structured in nature. Four of these 7 studies used interviews (Gardner & Bates, 1991; Jenkins & Heinen, 1989; Padeliadu & Zigmond, 1996; Vaughn & Bos, 1987), one used a survey (Watkins, 1989), and two used rating scales (Bryan & Nelson, 1994; Vaughn, et al., 1993).

The semistructured method was based on general questions formulated prior to the interview where open-ended answers were accepted and followup probing questions were used to clarify or obtain more detail. This enabled participants to provide insight and detail to their responses. Three of the 11 studies reviewed used interviews with semistructured response formats (Calhoun & Beattie, 1984; Okolo et al., 1989; Reetz & Hoover, 1992).

Service-Delivery Setting

Researchers explored students' knowledge and preference of special education service-delivery settings in three studies (Jenkins & Heinen, 1989; Padeliadu & Zigmond, 1996; Vaughn & Bos, 1987). Specifically, researchers studied student understanding regarding the purposes of the resource classroom, preference for service-delivery setting (resource classroom vs. mainstream classroom, pull-out vs. in-class models), choice of instructor (classroom teacher vs. specialist), and awareness of what their special education placement involved.

Overall, the results of these studies indicated that students tended to support and enjoy receiving instruction in the resource classroom. However, in one case, students indicated that they preferred to receive additional assistance from their classroom teacher rather than from a specialist (Jenkins & Heinen, 1989).

The researchers concluded that significant differences existed as a function of age in relation to placement and service-delivery preference. Compared to younger students, older ones appeared to be more accurate in their explanation of the purpose of the resource room (Padeliadu & Zigmond, 1996; Vaughn & Bos, 1987) and were more likely to choose the resource classroom as a place to spend time (Vaughn & Bos, 1987). Additionally, older students preferred to receive additional help from their classroom teacher rather than from a specialist and chose an in-class model as opposed to pull-out as their preference for service-delivery setting (Jenkins & Heinen, 1989).

Activity Preference

Five studies examined students' views of the instructional activities implemented in the regular and special education classrooms (Gardner & Bates, 1991; Okolo et al., 1989; Reetz & Hoover, 1992; Watkins, 1989; Wesson, 1984). Specifically, the instructional activities studied were traditional reading versus computers.

Three studies focused on students' attitudes toward computers (Gardner & Bates, 1991; Okolo et al., 1989). Although one of these studies showed that students did not view microcomputers as having a significant impact on instructional programs (Okolo et al., 1989), two articles tended to support the notion that students viewed computers favorably (Gardner & Bates, 1991; Watkins, 1989). Student motivation was heightened when work was done on a computer (Watkins, 1989) and students believed that their best schoolwork was done while on the computer as opposed to sitting at their desks (Gardner & Bates, 1991). Furthermore, students reportedly believed that computer work was easier, made them feel smarter, was more enjoyable/valuable than their other school work, and gave them immediate feedback (Gardner & Bates, 1991). Lastly, students believed that computer knowledge would help them obtain a job (Okolo et al., 1989).

Two studies centered on students' preferences for reading activities (Reetz & Hoover, 1992; Wesson, 1984). Overall, students tended to base their reading selection on the extent to which the activities offered a positive learning experience. Specifically, students preferred activities that made them feel successful, not overly challenged, or were similar to those used in previous learning situations. They also were more likely to chose the basal reader approach they were more familiar with as opposed to language experience, direct instruction, multisensory, or neurological impress approaches (Reetz & Hoover, 1992).

Instructional Modifications

Researchers in three articles studied student perception of teacher adaptations in relation to instruction, homework, and/or grading practices (Bryan & Nelson, 1994; Calhoun & Beattie, 1984; Vaughn et al., 1993). Results suggested that there was a relationship between a student's category of disability and the students preference for instructional adaptations. For example, students with learning disabilities, regardless of grade level, were found to prefer modifications in homework assignments, textbooks, and instruction to meet their abilities (Bryan & Nelson, 1994). Students with learning disabilities wanted less homework, preferred opportunities to work in groups, and desired adaptations in instruction and materials where they had learning difficulties (Vaughn et al., 1993). Although the low-achieving group was considered the same as the learning disabled (LD) group, the low achieving students did not prefer instructional adaptations and indicated a strong preference to work alone as opposed to working with their peers in a group (Vaughn et al., 1993).

A relationship was also found between grade level and homework adaptations. In a survey given to elementary and junior high students regarding homework, student experiences varied considerably at different grade levels and in different class settings (Bryan & Nelson, 1994). Although students seemed to have an understanding that effort and attendance were related to grading, they appeared to lack an awareness of their modified grading standards.

Discussion

Students experience the curriculum in different ways. For students with disabilities, this curriculum included the instructional setting, content/materials, and the manner in which lessons and instructions are delivered. Because treatment acceptability influences perception of treatment outcome, an awareness of students' views regarding these curricular matters would assist educational practitioners to design and implement more acceptable and thus effective instruction. The purpose of this article was to survey the views of students with disabilities in regard to three curricular matters: service-delivery setting, activity preference, and instructional modifications.

There were several findings that emerged from the results of this review. The first finding concerned the representativeness of the participants. A majority of participants were younger than 13 years of age, male, experienced learning disabilities, received instruction in the resource room, and were Caucasian. Thus, it was unclear that the findings from these studies were generalizable to the actual population of students receiving special education services. Rather, a complete understanding of students' views of curricular matters requires research conducted across age, gender, disability categories, service-delivery setting, and ethnicity. Additionally, research should explore how such factors interact with one another.

A second finding concerned the limited research methods. A majority of the studies (64%) used an interview format to study student views of curricular matters. Although interviews arguably allow for indepth and personalized information gathering, they have limitations when used as research. Among other factors, the interpersonal nature of interviews might lead to subjectivity and possible bias. Typical sources of bias include an eagerness of the respondent to please the interviewer, a vague antagonism between the interviewer and the respondent, or a tendency of the interviewer to emphasize answers that support his or her preconceived notions (Borg, 1987). This is not to say that children cannot accurately detail their views, rather, views on interpersonal issues may influence the responses of participants regardless of their age, disability category, service delivery setting, or ethnicity.

A third finding involved the changing nature of students' views regarding curricular matters. Student views varied according to their current service-delivery setting and their grade level. In general, the results supported the notion that student attitudes were positive in regard to their service-delivery setting (Padeliadu & Zigmond, 1996; Vaughn & Bos, 1987). However, students' views might be influenced by their current experience in their service-delivery setting (Jenkins & Heinen, 1989). For example, students who received instruction in the resource room preferred to attend this room for assistance. Conversely, albeit consistently, students who received in-class assistance from a specialist had a greater desire to remain in their mainstream placement and receive instruction in the same manner as their peers. Because students generally had a positive attitude in regard to their special education service-delivery setting, this finding did not fully support arguments that special education placement stigmatized students (Will, 1986) or that students with disabilities should only be offered instruction when in-class service-delivery models were feasible (Lilly, 1986).

A final finding concerned students' preferences for activities. Students had a positive attitude toward activities that provided enjoyment and high success rates (Watkin, 1989). Specifically, they preferred activities that made them feel smart, helped them learn more, gave them immediate feedback, and allowed them to produce their best schoolwork (Gardner & Bates, 1991; Wesson, 1984). Overall, these results supported the notion that children (a) have a basic need to experience a sense of competence and (b) will be more apt to become more involved in activities that offer high success rates regardless of special education placement (Jones & Jones, 1990). Yet notably, these findings hold for special education students as well.

Implications for Future Research

The level of treatment acceptability determines, to a great degree, the extent to which treatment is effective (Elliot, 1986). In order to influence learning outcomes in a positive manner, educators are encouraged to consider student beliefs to guide treatment decisions. This is further supported by research findings that suggest that with more acceptable treatment there will be better treatment compliance, less attrition, greater satisfaction, and eventually more positive behavioral changes (Kazdin, 1980). Taken together, the findings suggest that there is a dearth of research on the views of students with disabilities in three areas of curricular matters. There is no doubt that the lack of research in this area, at least in part, is a function of the complicated nature of exploring students' views of such matters.

Aside from the research implications brought about by the lack of effort in this area, there are additional ethical considerations. One example is informed consent. For instance, provision of informed consent implies voluntariness. This is required before adults receive educational or rehabilitative services (Martin, 1975). According to Martin, although the consent of minors has no legal standing, it seems to have a valuable therapeutic basis. Furthermore, by demonstrating value for their perceptions, we are allowing students ownership and opportunity to uniquely guide their educational destinies. As a result, students may be more likely to participate and succeed in various learning opportunities.

Studying students' views of curricular matters may require researchers to delve into alternative research approaches that allow respondents to more fully express their viewpoints. Qualitative research methods appear to be well suited for the researcher in this area. Because qualitative research explores phenomena such as values, attitudes, assumptions, beliefs, and how these phenomena affect the individuals under investigation, it seems to be an appropriate manner in which to explore students' attitudes, experiences, and beliefs in regard to curricular matters (Martella, Nelson, & Marchand-Martella, in press).

Furthermore, combining quantitative and qualitative research approaches could expand our knowledge-base regarding students' views of curricular matters. For example, rather than externally assessing how various curricular matters impact students, researchers could directly obtain students' evaluations, reactions, and assessments of curricular matters through a strategy termed social validation. This strategy considers students' views regarding the goals/purposes of interventions, the extent to which instruction impacts their lives, and their levels of acceptability concerning the methods and techniques used by their teachers (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995).

Authors

Lisa Aaroe is a graduate student at Arizona State University.

J. Ron Nelson, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education, Arizona State University. You can reach him via e-mail at ron.nelson@asu.edu.

References

Bailey, D. B., Bender, W., & Montgomery, D. L. (1982). Comparison of teacher, peer, and self-ratings of classroom and social behavior of adolescents. The Journal of School Psychology, 24,153-160.

Boone Von Brock, M., & Elliot, S. N. (1987). Influence of treatment effectiveness information on the acceptability of classroom interventions. The Journal of School Psychology, 25,131-144.

Borg, W. (1987). Applying educational research: A practical guide for teachers. New York: Longman.

Burnham, S., & Housley, W. F. (1992). Pride in work: Perceptions of employers, service providers and students who are mentally retarded and learning disabled. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 15, 101-120.

Calhoun, M. L., & Beattie, J. (1984). Assigning grades in the high school mainstream: Perceptions of teachers and students. Diagnostique, 9, 218-225.

Elliot, S. (1986). Children's ratings of the acceptability of classroom interventions for misbehavior: Findings and methodological considerations. Journal of School Psychology, 24, 23-35.

Erikson, F., & Shultz, J. (1992). Students' experience of the curriculum. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 465-485). New York: MacMillan.

Gajria, M., & Salend, S. J. (1996). Treatment acceptability: A critical dimension for overcoming teacher resistance to implementing adaptations for mainstreamed students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 12, 91-108.

Gardner, J. E., & Bates, P. (1991). Attitudes and attributions on use of microcomputers in school by students who are mentally handicapped. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 98-107.

Gresh, D. K. (1995). The perceptions of adults with learning disabilities regarding their learning experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 393 277).

Horner, R. H., & Budd, C. M. (1985). Acquisition of manual sign use. Collateral reduction of maladaptive behavior and factors limiting generalization. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 20, 39-47.

Jenkins, J. R., & Heinen, A. (1989). Students' preferences for service delivery: Pull-out, in-class, or integrated models. Exceptional Children, 55, 516-523.

Jones, V., & Jones, L. (1990). Classroom management: Motivating andmanaging students. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kazdin, A. E. (1980). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 259-273.

Lilly, M. S. (1986). The education of mildly handicapped children and implications for teacher education. In M. C Reynolds (Ed.), The future of mainstreaming: Next in teacher education (pp. 52-64). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (in press). Educational and psychological research methods: Learning to become a critical research consumer. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Martin, R. (1975). Legal changes to behavior modification: Trends in schools, corrections, and mental health. Chicago, IL: Research Press.

McAfee, J. K. (I 987). Classroom density and the aggressive behavior of handicapped children. Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 134-145.

Miller, M., Nfidgett, J., & Wicks, M. L. (1992). Student and teacher perceptions related to behavior change after skills streaming training. Behavioral Disorders, 17, 291-295.

Morgan, S. B., Fulliton, W., & Nabors, L. (1993). Adolescents' perceptions of acceptability of inpatient treatments: Does exposure to the treatment make a difference? Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 10, 85-99.

Nelson, J. R., Drummond, M., Martella, R., & Marchand-Martella, N. (1997). The current and future outcomes of interpersonal social interactions: The views of students with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 22, 141-151.

Okolo, C. M., Rieth, H. J., & Bahr, C. M. (1989). Microcomputer implementation in secondary special education programs: A study of special educators', mildly handicapped adolescents', and administrators' perspectives. The Journal of Special Education, 23,107-117.

Padeliadu, S., & Zigmond, N. (1996). Perspectives of students with learning disabilities about special education placement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 1, 15-23.

Parish, T. S., Baker, S. K., Arheart, K. L., & Adamchak, P. G. (1980). Normal and exceptional children's attitudes toward themselves and one another. The Journal of Psychology, 104, 249-253.

Reetz, L. J., & Hoover, J. H. (1992). The acceptability and utility of five reading approaches as judged by middle school LD students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 11-15.

Reichle, J., & Wacker, D. (1993). Communicative alternatives to challenging behavior: Integrating functional assessment and intervention strategies. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Reiff, H. B., Gerber, P. J., & Ginsberg, R. (1993). Exceeding expectations: Successful adults with learning disabilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Reimers, T. M., Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L. J., & DeRaad, A. O. (1992). Clinical evaluation of the variables associated with treatment acceptability and their relation to compliance. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 67-76.

Singer, G. H. S., Singer, J., & Homer, R. H. (1987). Using pretask requests to increase the probability of compliance for students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 287-291.

Vaughn, S., & Bos, C. (1987). Knowledge and perception of the resource room: The students' perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 218-223.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Kouzekanani, K. (1993). What do students with learning disabilities think when their general education teachers make adaptations? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 545-555.

Wacker, D. P., Wiggins, B., Fowler, M., & Berg, W. K. (1988). Training students with profound or multiple handicaps to make requests via microswitches. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 331-343.

Wahler, R. G., & Graves, M. G. (1983). Setting events in social networks: Ally or enemy in child behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy, 14, 449-463.

Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies and best practices. Boston: Brooks/Cole.

Watkins, M. W. (1989). Computerized drill-and practices and academic attitudes of learning disabled students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 9, 167-172.

Wesson, C. (1984). Student versus teacher selection of instructional activities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 7, 27-33.

Will, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411-415.

Winterling, V., Dunlap, G., & O'Neill, R. E. (I 987). The influence of task variation on the aberrant behavior of autistic students. Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 105-119.