Inclusion & General Education Kristie, Kim, Sharyn, Lauren, and Helene.

Inclusion & General Inclusion & General EducationEducation

Inclusion & General Inclusion & General EducationEducation

Kristie, Kim, Sharyn, Kristie, Kim, Sharyn, Lauren, and Helene Lauren, and Helene

Outline• Education Requirements• What is Inclusion?• What should be taught?• How should staff teach?• How should staff be trained?• What is supported inclusion?• Why consider supported inclusion?• Will a child benefit from inclusion placement?• How do you identify potential inclusion sites?• What can be taught in inclusion setting?• How should staff teach in inclusion setting?• Recommended strategies for support staff• How to know if child is learning in inclusion setting?• It is working?• Research

Educational Requirements

(Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)• Few teachers and specialists have been specifically

trained to work with children with autism.

• Undergraduate programs focus on frequent, milder disabilities

• Students with autism can achieve reasonable progress if special/detailed attention is given to their education

• In Delaware -there is a certification for teachers of children with autism/ severely handicapped students

Delaware Requirements (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)

Educational requirements:(3 core courses covering-• Topics of assessment• Curriculum design• Teaching procedures• Behavior management• Functional communication training


• 2 elective courses• Advanced behavior analysis• Augmentative communication

system • Pre-school programming• Transitional programming• Vocational programming


• Additionally, specialists (speech, psychology) are required to have their Master’s degree in their area of specialty and have coursework in Applied Behavior Analysis.

(Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)

• The federal law states that all children are entitled to a free and appropriate education.

• The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) includes a mandate that all services should be provided in the “least restrictive environment.”


• The term “least restrictive environment” implies that a range of educational options must be available, and placement decisions must be based on each student’s individual needs.

• The phrase phrase full inclusion is not part of the federal mandate.

What is Inclusion? (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)

• Inclusion is a term which expresses commitment to educate each child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend.

• It involves bringing the support services to the child (rather than moving the child to the services) and requires only that the child will benefit from being in the class (rather than having to keep up with the other students)

What is Full Inclusion? (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)

• The term full inclusion has come to be associated with the idea that all students with special needs must be placed with other peers their age full time.

• Services must be provided within the regular classroom setting.

What should be taught? (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)• Two common deficits found in young children with

autism are:• 1) Interacting and communicating with other people

2) Inappropriate behaviors ,including tantrums, aggression, self-injury, and other behaviors that draw

unwanted social attention

• The first duty is to decide what functional skills should be taught to preschoolers that they will find immediately useful in their lives at school and at home.

What should be taught? (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)

• One way to identify functional skills is to review the places, people, and expectations that a child encounters throughout the day.

• These domains can be categorized as follows:*Domestic Skills: (i.e. skills associated with eating, dressing, cleaning

oneself the environment)

*School-Based Activities:(i.e. staying with a group, staying seated at the table ,following directions, transitioning between activities and

locations, possible academic activities, group and individual play routines, etc.)

*Community Skills:(i.e. going shopping for groceries, eating in fast-food and sit-down restaurants, walking in the neighborhood or the mall, riding in

the car, etc.)


• Some skills may occur only in specific locations (e.g. home vs. school), other skills apply across domains and settings:

*Communication Skills (e.g. expressing significant choices and needs, calmly rejecting or saying “No”, asking for help, responding to simple instructions , imitating sounds, words, songs, etc.)

*Social interaction skills (e.g. imitating the actions of adults and peers, responding to greetings, initiating greetings, maintaining social approaches from adults and peers, initiating social approaches to adults and peers etc.)

*Alternatives to inappropriate behaviors: (e.g. learning to wait, asking for help, learning to play with a toy instead of fingers, etc.)

What should be taught? (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)• Two broad skill areas are reviewed when thinking about

communication:• 1)Using language expressively• 2)Understanding what is said

*For children with autism, they often must be taught independently.

*Before they can acquire speech functionally they must learn a number of skills (e.g. imitating sounds and words)

What should be taught? (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)• It may be useful for the parents to teach the children

alternative means of communication until (or while) functional vocal speech is acquired.

• One system that has been used successfully to enable children with autism to communicate with pictures and symbols is the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS; Bondy& Frost, 1994b).

What should be taught?

(Green,1996)• Lastly, when aiming to reduce or eliminate problem

behaviors, we must know what we would like the child to do instead.

• Is it equally important to decide what the child should be doing.

• It must make sense for the child’s perspective..not just to please us (e.g. if a boy screams to get attention we must teach him another way to get attention)

What should be taught? (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)• When considering priority objectives for communication skills

development, parents need to understand the different functions served by certain key communication responses.

• Requesting is learned and maintained because it helps the child get desired items (e.g. snacks, drinks, favorite toys, etc.)

• Spontaneous communication is learned and maintained because it gains the attention of other people (e.g. when a child says, “Look at the bird!”.

*Parents should know which types of communication skills the parents are teaching and should stress the importance of teaching spontaneous communication early on.


• It is important for the parents to work with staff to develop IEP’s for their children which will address these skills.

How Should Staff Teach? (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)• Parent involvement• Measurement• Objectives• Response definitions• Settings• Time of day• Prompts• Reinforcers• Error correction• Generalization• Problematic behavior• Goals should be useful inside and outside of the classroom• Parent training

Staff Training (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)

• Commitment to on going staff training throughout the school year

• Core training for all professionals and paraprofessionals

• Staff manual - detailed, specific to program, based on principles of ABA

Staff Training (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)

• Staff members are observed and must show competence in specific strategies

• Active mentoring program• New staff – designated a mentor

What is Supported Inclusion?


• Supported inclusion is defined as the act of sending a student with autism or Pervasive Development Disorders (PDD) into a regular education accompanied by an aide or instructor trained in the principles of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA).

Why Consider Supported Inclusion?


• The decision to try supported inclusion should include parents, regular education personnel, behavioral/educational consultants, and school administration.


(Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)Careful consideration of the following objectives should be

accomplished:

1). To generalize social skills learned in a structured, one-to one teaching to a setting with typically- developing, aged- matched peers.

2). To learn new social skills.



3). To generalize academic skills learned in a structured (one-to-one) teaching situation to a group instruction setting with typically developing, aged-matched peers.

4). To learn new academic skills.



5). To gradually and systematically increase the student’s time in the regular education setting in preparation for a full transition.

The time should be increased contingent on the child’s achievement of target objectives, and support personnel are gradually faded until the child’s included for the full school day.

Will your child Benefit from an inclusion placement?

(Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)• As your child begins to generalize skills, you may want

to consider if placement in a setting with typically developing peers would be helpful.

• The child should demonstrate the prerequisite skills with proficiency not only in the specialized education setting but in various other situations with other people before inclusion placement begins.



• The prerequisite skills follow:• 1.Language Skills

• A. Follow two-step directions when presented to a group• B. Communicate needs and desires• C. Answer simple questions• D. Ask simple questions• E. Engages in simple exchanges of conversation• F. Recalls experiences


(Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)• Some questions to ask should be:*What is a functional level of performance?*How accurate and consistent does the performance

have to be to produce positive outcomes for the child in various natural situations?

*What level of performance is expected of typical children of the same age?

*What is expected of most children in the inclusion setting you are considering?


(Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)• A range of performance on academic tasks is considered acceptable

for any group of first grade children; perfect scores on every test is not a realistic criterion for most typical children, nor would it be for a child with autism.

• Most teachers in typical classrooms have high standards for all children in certain areas (e.g. independent toileting, remaining quiet when the teacher is talking, and refraining for disruptive behaviors)

• Generally, high accuracy and consistency criteria should be set for the acquisition and generalization of high priority skills (e.g. 90% accuracy for 3 consecutive sessions, with 3 different adults or children in 3 different settings).



• The prerequisite skills follow:• 1.Language Skills

• A. Follow two-step directions when presented to a group• B. Communicate needs and desires• C. Answer simple questions• D. Ask simple questions• E. Engages in simple exchanges of conversation• F. Recalls experiences

Prerequisite skills…. (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)

• 2. Social Skills• A. Takes turns during activities• B. Walks quietly• C. Answers simple questions• D. Participate in circle activities• E. Initiates play activities with peers with or without

adult prompts• F. Imitates peer play


• 3. Academic Skills• A. Learns through observation of others• B. Waits quietly• C. Raises hand to seek adult assistance• D. Learns targeted objectives during group

instruction• E. Completes grade-level academic curriculum


• 4. Behavior Skills

• A. Responds to delayed contingencies(reinforcement is delivered to child following a period of time rather than immediately after the targeted behavior; e.g., the mother contracts with her child for ice cream after preschool if the child follows directions. The reinforcer is provided after school so as not to draw extra attention to the child during school.)

• B. Exhibits disruptive behaviors at near-zero levels in all environments

• C. Stereotypic behavior under stimulus control; that is, the child engages in stereotypic behavior, if at all, only under certain stimulus conditions (e.g. alone; during playtime at home) and not under other conditions (e.g. in public places like the classroom).

How do you identify potential inclusion sites? (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)• Community settings• Preschools• Kindergarten and primary classes• Team review of potential site• Inclusion coordinator and/or parent, observe each class for 1

hour

• Other considerations:• Age • Distance from home or specialized school• Teacher characteristics• Classroom schedule• Class size

What can be taught in an inclusion setting??


• Choose specific objectives for inclusion

• Consider student’s strengths and weaknesses

• What is the students purpose for being in inclusion (e.g. socialization)?

How Do You Teach Students in the Inclusion Setting? (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)

• Support staff who work directly with students in inclusion settings must be trained in ABA. They must be competent in data collection, time delay, prompt fading, and positive

reinforcement procedures.

Recommended Strategies for Support Staff


1). Shadow student and systematically fade back as soon as possible. Shadow means to sit or stand directly behind the student to provide prompting and reinforcement as necessary.

The physical present of the support staff may to severe to control the student’s behavior. Systematically fading back shifts that control to the teacher, activity, or setting.



2). Support a student under the following circumstances:

A. To Stop the student from engaging in inappropriate behavior such as stereotypy

B. To prompt the student to follow a teacher’s verbal instruction within 15 seconds

C. To prompt the student to begin independent seat work within 15 seconds after an instruction.

D. To prompt the student to respond verbally to a peer’s social interaction

E. To prompt the student to sit appropriately


(Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)3). Students are to follow the classroom teacher’s instructions.

If a student does not follow the instruction, provide a gestural or physical prompt. The teacher’s instructions should never be repeated by the support staff.

4). Provide support or prompt only after 15 seconds elapse after the classroom teacher gives a direction



5). Give subtle physical prompt from behind to get the student of function independently. Fade prompts as rapidly as possible.

6). Provide intermittent verbal and social reinforcement when appropriate. Thin reinforcement as rapidly as possible.

7). If a student asks a question or makes a statement to the support staff, redirect him to address the classroom teacher.



8). Foster social interaction as often as possible.

9). If a skill has been targeted for instruction, follow the written teaching procedure.

10.) Summarize data on target skills daily on graphs.



• Prompts or support are typically provided a brief time delay because it is hoped that the student will begin to follow the naturally occurring prompts in the inclusion setting.

• The support staff should wait 15 seconds and observe to see if the students responds.

• Sometimes the day needs to be reduced due to the rapid pace in the class.

Problems (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)If inappropriate behaviors occur:(e.g. tantrums, vocalizations) the teacher

should review the program to see if this is an appropriate placement.

The student’s placement should be suspended until the behaviors are appropriate.

The student should be placed back into the inclusion setting as soon as possible.

How Do You Know If Your Child Is Learning In The Inclusion

Site? (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)• Once specific objectives are chosen for your child,

procedures for measuring performance on each objective should be selected.

• The appropriate measure depends on the nature of the skill and the conditions under which it is to be demonstrated by the child.

• You should become familiar with standard direct behavioral measures such as: frequency, per trial, or per opportunity, duration, latency, and others (Cooper, Heron, &Heward,1987).

How Do You Know If Your Child Is Learning In The Inclusion

Site? (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)

• Collect baseline data on all programs prior to starting a teaching intervention

• Baseline data indicate the level of a behavior prior to any intervention and are important in planning for effective intervention.

• Setting appropriate criteria is often difficult when dealing with a teaching environment that changes from day to day as in most regular classrooms.

• It is also important to record data on the performances of a variety of peers on the same skills as those targeted for the student with autism.

• Two or three days of data should be collected each month on the peers to assess changes in behavior due to maturation or other variables not related to the specific intervention applied to your child.


• Data on targeted objectives should be reviewed weekly to monitor progress toward goals. When data are summarized and graphed, you can visually assess the progress.

• If you are recording data on a behavior to be reduced, such as stereotypy, the graph should show a decreasing trend. *In regard to academic skills, identify with the teacher any

opportunities she uses to evaluate performance for all students (e.g. weekly spelling tests, worksheets, mazes).

• *This measurement procedure is referred to as permanent product, in that a final product is produced from which you can assess progress.

Is it working? (Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996)

• Objective data must be collected to assess a learner’s progress in the inclusion site.

• What are the indications that the student is successful in the inclusion site?

• Independent functioning: the student is performing most of the time independently. This validates that the teaching procedures are successful.

• Mastery of objectives• Student is passing classroom tests. If learner is passing the same tests as

typically developing peers, then the child is learning and the teaching is successful.

• Questionnaire: Have teachers fill out a questionnaire. The questionnaire should consist of questions that assess the students behaviors of following the class room routine, on-task behavior, independent completion of assignments, is the learner functioning successfully in the setting.

• Increasing inclusion time• When it is not working• Problematic behavior

• Article: – A Participatory Action Research Approach to Evaluating

Inclusive School Programs

• Purpose: – Dymond (2001) reviewed the literature on inclusive

school program evaluations and proposes a model for evaluating inclusive schools.

– Key elements of the model are that it 1). includes stakeholders in the evaluation process though a participatory action research approach, 2). analyzes both program processes and outcomes, 3) uses multiple methods and measures, 4) and obtains perceptions from diverse stakeholder groups.

Research

(Dymond, 2001)• Importance of Review:

– Efforts to evaluate inclusion have focused on the efficacy of inclusive education as a service delivery model.

– A need exists for a comprehensive process to assist the schools that embrace inclusions to evaluate their programs.

– Most evaluations have focused on the efficacy of inclusive education opposed to the efficacy of an inclusive school program.

(Dymond, 2001)

Research of Evaluations of Inclusive Education:

Research of Evaluations of Inclusive

School Programs:

• Assesses specific components of inclusion, such as cooperative learning in an inclusion class.

• The intent is to obtain data that will determine the effectiveness of a particular inclusion practice or element of inclusive education.

• Determine the efficacy of the entire program according to the program's definition of inclusion.

• The evaluation is limited to the school, district, building, or class where inclusions is implemented.

• The goal of the evaluation is not to determine the effectiveness of inclusive education rather is to determine, as it is designed and implemented is effective.

• Few evaluations of inclusive school programs have been conducted.

(Dymond, 2001)

• Description of Existing Program Evaluations:– Rossman and Salzma (1995) have proposed a classification

system for organizing and comparing evaluations of inclusive inclusion programs.

– They suggest that evaluations be described according to their program features (purpose, complexity, scope, target population, and duration, and features of the evaluation (design methods, instrumentation, and sample).

– The classification system was adaptive for this study to describe the significant features of 20 program evaluations.

(Dymond, 2001)

• Scope of Evaluations:– Evaluations of inclusive school programs have been

completed at the district or building level.

– Of the 20 evaluations reviewed, 1 evaluated an inclusion class, 7 were completed at the building level, 10 focused on programs across a school district, and 2 targeted multiple districts.

(Dymond, 2001)

(Dymond, 2001)Outcomes

Targeted for Evaluation

Process Targeted for Evaluating

Comprehensiveness

of Measurement

Attention to Multiple

Perspectives

StakeholderInvolvement

in the

Evaluation

•Each of the program measured one or more outcome areas

•Most targeted academic performance, behavior, and stakeholder satisfaction

•Social relationships were evaluated more often in programs that focused on student with severe disabilities

•It was difficult to determine the exact types of processes were evaluated

•Many of the studies conducted global evaluations

•Only 6 studies evaluated both the design and implementation

•Majority focused on programs from 1 disability

•The Comprehensiveness of methods used to measure programs remains unclear due to lack of definitions

•Evaluations that limited their scope to 1 or 2 outcome areas used multiple measures to gather data

•Evaluations that broadly measured multiple outcomes areas employed singular measures in each area

•Most of the evaluations incorporated, not many obtained data

•Across evaluation Stakeholders included general and special educators, principals, special education administers, parents of children with/ without disabilities, and students with/without disabilities

•The concept of participatory research is not readily evident in published evaluations of inclusive programs

•Most of the research is deigned and implemented by university personnel, or selected school administration

Results:

(Dymond, 2001)• Models for Conducting Inclusive School Programs:

– Relatively little information is available in the literature to suggest appropriate procedures and guidelines for evaluating inclusive school programs.

– The only model that was clearly articulated and employed in an evaluation was presented by Fox and Ysseldyke (1977).

• They used Stake’s (1967) model (a naturalistic and participant-oriented approach) to analyze the antecedents, transactions, and outcomes of an inclusion program.

(Dymond, 2001)Reconceptualizing Program Evaluation for Inclusive Schools: A model was developed and piloted in a elementary school that served students with both mild and severe disabilities and was Conducted from 1998-2000

Involvement of Key Stakeholder

Measurement of Processes and Outcomes

Use of Multiple Methods and Measures

Attention to Diverse Stakeholder Perspective

•The steering committee consisted of 1 building administrator, 2 special education teachers, 1 paraprofessional, 1 parent of child with/without disabilities

•They define the process and outcome indicators for evaluation, determined appropriate methods for measuring their presence at school, generated item for inclusion questionnaires, reviewed draft instrumentation, and assisted with data collection

•7 process and 5 outcome areas were targeted

•Initial definitions constructed by the steering committee were revised during the evaluation process as the committee made ongoing decisions about their priorities for information

•The steering committee reviewed measurement strategies identified in eh literature and selected methods that would be effective and efficient

•Processes and outcome were measured through interviews, focus groups, observations, documents and records, and questionnaires

•The research design was developed thorough a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies

•Stakeholders groups represented in this evaluation included building administrator, general educators, teachers, special education teachers, related services, paraprofessional parent of child with/without disabilities, students with/without disabilities

•These groups were identified by the steering committee as being the “key” stakeholder groups at school

(Dymond, 2001)

(Dymond, 2001)

(Dymond, 2001)Lessons Learned:

Involvement of Key Stakeholder

Measurement of Processes and Outcomes

Use of Multiple Methods and

Measures

Attention to Diverse

Stakeholder Perspective

•Scheduling steering committee meetings at a time when everyone could attend was impossible

•Change in composition 3 of the members were no longer affiliated with the school

•Indicators that were important to one stakeholder group were of limited to another

•Most of the items developed for the questionnaire were unusable because they asked “double-barreled”

•Empirical Data obtained from observations, documents, and records were limited

•In some instances stakeholders did not agree with empirical sources of data.

•Perceptions of school personnel regarding outcomes were inconsistent with report cards.

•In One of the dangerous in relying on stakeholder perceptions is that they are in fact personnel impressions and may not correlate with other measures.

(Dymond, 2001)

• The Necessity of Program Evaluations:– Should be driven by the stakeholders and their needs of

information

– It is imperative that evaluations reflect the manner in which school defines and implements inclusion.

– By assessing processes and outcomes, employing multiple methods and measures, and gathering diverse stakeholders perspectives, and involving stakeholders in the design and implementation of the study, investigators can provide a school’s stakeholders with meaningful information that may lead to the development of inclusive education practices.

Introduction• Article: Teaching elementary students with developmental disabilities

to recruit teacher attention in a general education classroom: effects of teacher praise and academic productivity

• Craft, Alber, and Heward ( 1998) conducted a study to see if students with developmental disabilities could be taught to recruit teacher attention in a general education classroom by measuring the effects of recruiting on academic productivity and accuracy.

• Students were taught when, how, and how often to recruit teacher attention.

• Previous studies found increased recruiting and teacher praise (Hrydowy et. al., 1984; Morgan et al, 1983), but no data on recruiting for academic tasks.

• Academic productivity is essential in the classroom because the ultimate purpose of training students to recruit teacher praise is to maintain and extend the targeted academic or social skill for what they are recruiting praise for.

(Craft, Alber, and Heward, 1998)

Research questions asked:What are the effects of training elementary students with developmental disabilities to recruit teacher attention in the special education classroom on the following:

1. Frequency of regular education students recruiting responses in the general ed class2. Frequency of teacher praise received by students in the regular ed class3. The students’ academic productivity and accuracy while completion of spelling worksheets in the general ed class

Some findings (Craft, Alber, and Heward,

1998)

• Contingent teacher praise and attention produces reliable and significant improvements in children’s behavior in elementary classrooms (Madsen, Becker, & Thomas, 1968), secondary classrooms (McAllister, Stachowiak, Baer, & Conderman, 1969), and special education classes (Zimmerman & Zimmerman, 1962) as well as improve their academic achievement (Hasazi & Hasazi, 1972).

Method (Craft, Alber, and Heward,

1998) Participants:

• 4 fourth graders with developmental disabilities who were enrolled in an urban public elementary school

• Students were unproductive in their special education class during seat-work time, rarely asked for help, and performed below grade level in the general ed class they were mainstreamed in

• Included for 45 to 90 minutes a day.

• IEP goals specified increased socialization and participation.

• 29 students in the general ed class and were observed during homeroom when all students completed independent academic work.

Settings (Craft, Alber, and Heward,

1998) • Special ed classroom for training.

– Students were taught individually with no other students present.

• General ed classroom for data collection.– General ed students were expected to work quietly

at their desks on assigned spelling sheets, walk up to the teacher’s desk if they had a question, wait in line if there was another student present, or raise their hand and wait to be recognized.

Dependent Variables (Craft, Alber, and Heward,

1998)

• Student recruiting– Need all 3 steps in sequence: 1. Walked up to desk/raised hand2. Waited quietly for recognition3. Voiced a statement/question for the

teacher about their work


1998)

• Teacher praise– Recorded each time teacher made a statement to 1

of the 4 participants that expressed approval of their work.


1998)

• Completion of academic work.– Responsible for 10 spelling words. Tasks include

alphabetizing, number of syllables, identifying vowels, unscrambling words, and finding in dictionary

• Accuracy of academic work.– Answer keys provided– Percentage calculated # correct x 100%

# total

Data Collection & IOA (Craft, Alber, and Heward,

1998)

• Data was collected by paper and pencil frequency count of student recruiting responses and teacher praise statement in the general ed classroom for 20min per day, 4 days a week (Tues-Fri 9:10-9:30a.m.)

• IOA– 2 observers present for 12 of the 40 sessions and

was calculated on an episode by episode basis.– Consistently about 88%, highest 100% accurate.

Design Used (Craft, Alber, and Heward,

1998)

• A multiple baseline across students design was used to analyze the effects of recruitment productivity in the general ed classroom.

Baseline• Students were observed in general ed homeroom for 20min while

working independently on their worksheets.Training• Trained in special ed classroom for 2 consecutive days during part of

homeroom. Day 1- Instruction and role playing.Day 2- Morning prompts and end of school day check and reward.

Generalization• Began with continuous reinforcement at the end of the day during

“check and reward” if the student recruited at least twice a day.• Intermittent schedule of reinforcement implemented when recruiting

occurred at least twice for 5 consecutive days.Maintenance• Recruiting is now independent and reinforcement is natural praise

only.

(Craft, Alber, and Heward, 1998)

Results (Craft, Alber, and Heward,

1998)

• During baseline, no instances of teacher praise (recruited or no recruited) were recorded for any of the 4 students.

Student Recruiting• All 4 students recruited at the target frequency of 2 or 3

times per session for the majority of sessions during combined generalization programming and maintenance phases.

Teacher Praise• The four students’ recruiting responses were successful in

producing teacher praise.

Results (Craft, Alber, and Heward,

1998) Completion and Accuracy of Academic Work• All 4 students’ worksheet completion and

accuracy were higher during combined generalization programming and maintenance phases than during baseline.

Discussion• The results of this study support and extend the

findings of previous research showing that students with developmental disabilities can be taught to recruit attention from teachers (Connell, Carta, & Baer, 1993; Harchik et al., 1990; Hrydowy et al., 1983; Seymour & Stokes, 1976; Stokes et al., 1978).

• After recruitment training, the worksheet completion and accuracy of all 4 students increased over baseline levels, providing a functional relationship between recruitment training and increased academic productivity.

End Thought…• Training students with developmental disabilities as well

as autism and other disabilities can be a relatively low-cost, low- effort strategy for increasing students’ contact with an important and powerful source of reinforcement in the classroom while providing them with inclusion time with typical peers.

Introduction• Article: Keys to Play: A Strategy to Increase the Social Interactions of Young

Children with Autism and their Typically Developing Peers

• Nelson, McDonnell, Johnston, Crompton, & Nelson (2007) examined the effects of a visual intervention strategy on the play initiations of 4 young children with autism in inclusive preschool classes.

• The Keys to Play intervention package utilized an embedded instruction, class-wide, peer mediated teaching strategy to promote the use of a paper key shown to initiate play to students with autism in inclusive preschool classrooms.

Research questions:1. Does the Keys to Play intervention package increase the play initiations of

children with autism?2. Does it increase the time spent engaged in playgroups?3. Does it affect the child’s use of another communication strategy (speech,

sign language, or manipulation of play materials) to enter playgroups?4. How do staff and family rate the effectiveness of the Keys to Play package?

Intro cont.• Recent research suggests that the use of visual strategies for communication

purposes promotes the use of oral language in children with autism (Bondy & Frost, 1994; Schwarz, Garfinkle, & Bauer, 1998).

• Few empirical studies have examined effective strategies for teaching social skills to children with autism within routines of inclusive preschools.

• Several studies have looked at effectiveness of peer mediated intervention, but few have looked at naturalistic or embedded strategies or the combination of the two for the use of children with autism in the preschool.

• It is important to include young children with autism and other disabilities into regular ed classes because benefits occur when children are included with peers, socialize with them, and actively engage in typical preschool activities including play (Harris & Handleman, 1997; Kellegrew, 1995; Koegel, Koegel, Harrower, & Carter, 1999; McGee, Morrimer, & Daly, 2001; McWilliam, Trivette, & Dunst, 1985; Rogers, Hall, Osaki, Reaven, & Herbison, 2001; Strain, 1983).

Method Nelson, McDonnell, Johnston,

Crompton, & Nelson (2007) Participants and Settings• 4 preschool children with autism

– Appear to have an interest in the play of other children or activities.

– Difficulty with social-communication initiations and responses.

• Each attended different preschool programs (2 Head Start classes, a community class, and an integrated special education class with typical peers).

Dependent Variables

• Percentage of times child used Keys to Play to enter a play group.

• Percentage of times a child used another strategy such as words, sign language and manipulated objects to enter a play group.

• Amount of time spent engaged in playgroup activity.

Data Collection & IOA

• Personal digital assistant (PDA) based data collection system asked:– Is there an opportunity?– Is there an opportunity for initiation or responding?– If there is an opportunity did the child initiate?• When child entered a playgroup, the data collector pushed

an icon that activated the timer to record engagement time.

• 90% of higher point-by-point agreement on all behavior categories during on-site observation of preschool program.

Design Used

• Multiple baseline probe (Tawney & Gast, 1984) design across children and settings.

• Baseline phase and intervention phase• 2 children experienced maintenance phase

before the year ended.

ProcedureWhat is Keys to Play? • Keys to Play is a 4-inch long gold laminated paper key worn

around the neck or attached to the child’s hip with Velcro and were used during learning center time.

• Keys to Play were taught, prompted, and measured within the preschool classroom.

Baseline• Given Key but no instruction, training or prompting.

• Classroom routines and procedures remained the same and were not altered.

Procedure cont.Intervention• Typical peers were taught first to use Keys to Play within a group

activity.

• Prompted to show keys to target children and ask them to play.

• Target children trained on use of response to the keys through incidental teaching, peer mediated intervention model (McGee, Morrimer, & Daly, 1999; Prizant, Wetherby, & Rydell, 2000).

• If child did not initiate play activity, the interventionist modeled use of key with verbal phrase “I want to play,” and used a full physical prompt to lead the child to the activity if there was no response.

Maintenance• Began when child reached stable

75% or higher with unprompted initiations.

• Reinforced by teacher intermittently.

• Data collected once a week for 4 weeks.

Results & Discussion

• During baseline initiation rates were low

• Engaged time and verbal language in play groups for each student rose across teaching conditions

• Correct initiations included verbal, gestural, positional, parallel play, Keys to Play, and Keys to Play paired with verbal language.

• All children used Keys to Play alone or with verbal language during intervention condition.

Results & Discussion cont.

• Keys to Play package can increase play initiation of children with autism.

• All children exhibited increases in initiations over the course of the study.

• Demonstrating an interest in play of others and using the Keys to Play strategy or another strategy to enter playgroups varied across children.

• Their interest also varied and was sometimes dependent on the activity.

• Keys to Play can increase time engaged in play

• All showed significant gains in time spent in playgroups as well as 2 children engaged in pretend play.

Results & Discussion cont.

Keys to Play may promote use of verbal language for initiation purposes• Consistent with previous findings, visual supports may promote the use

of verbal language in young children with autism (Bondy & Frost, 1994; Johnston, Nelson, Evans, & Palazolo, 2003; Schwartz et al. J, 1998).

• A visual strategy for initiation purposes can provide a socially valid way to increase verbal and nonverbal play in children with autism.

• Verbal initiations also expanded beyond practice phrases.– Parents commented that play initiations also occurred in settings

outside of school.– Systematic replication is needed to verify if sites used in this study

are representative of inclusive preschool programs.

End thought…

• Visual strategies should and can be taught to children with autism to allow successful inclusion in preschool (as well as general education) classes to provide socialization and engagement in typical preschool activities.

Research:• Article:

– General Education Teachers’ Relationships with Included Students with Autism (Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders)

• Purpose: – Robertson et. al,2003 examined the relationship between

general education teachers and second-and third-grade included students with autism.

– They also examined the effects of children’s behavior problems on these relationships, as well as inclusion within the social environment of the classroom.

Research:Robertson et. al. 2003

Introduction: The goal of the current study was to examine the relationship between general education teachers and high functioning children with autism included full time in general education classrooms (included children with autism).

In this study Robertson et al. examined teacher’s perceptions of their relationship with included children with autism, how this perception might be affected by the presence of paraprofessionals and behavior problems, and children’s level of social inclusion (measured by their peers).

Research: Robertson et. al. 2003

• Methods:Participants: In all, 187 children from second and third grade inclusive

classrooms from two urban middle class school districts participated in this tidy. Of the 187 children, 12 were students with autism (2 female)

• Paraprofessionals accompanied half of these students• General Education teachers from all 12 classrooms participated• Additional participants included all the children with autism’s

classmates with parental permission.• The average class size was 19. No class had more than 21 students.• 3-4 children did not participate…social inclusion measures had been

described as robust using fewer than 50% of students in the classroom.

• All students included in the study were also enrolled in their classroom for at least 6 months before data collection. The target child with autism was the only child with special needs in each class.

Research: Robertson et. al. 2003

• Procedures: Procedures were identical for all subjects. • 1) The teacher was first interviewed about her teacher experiences

including the number of years and grade levels taught, credentials, special ed. training, and access to special educators and/or in-services.

• 2) Participating general education classroom teachers were asked to complete the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, 1992) in response to their relationship with the included child in their class.

• 3) Teachers also filled out the SNAP-IV Rating Scale (Swanson,1995) to determine the behavioral characteristics of the included student with autism.

• 4) Classmates were asked to complete a social inclusion measure to examine student’s perceptions of the social environment of their classroom.

• 5) All participating children in the class, including the student with autism, completed a free-recall measure of social inclusion of their classroom.

Research:Robertson et. al. 2003

• Measures:• Teacher Demographics• -General education teachers were interviewed and

asked to complete a short questionnaire assessing• 1) Their teaching experience (number of years

teaching, grade levels taught and degrees held)• 2) Their relationship with the included student in their

class• 3) Their relationship with and view of the

paraprofessional if applicable

Research Robertson et. al. 2003 • Student-Teacher Relationship Scale• General education classroom teachers completed the 28-item

Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta,1992) to assess teacher’s feelings about their relationship with a student, the student’s interactive behavior with the teacher, and the teacher’s beliefs about the student’s feelings toward the teacher.

• The Snap-IV Rating Scale• The SNAP-IV (Swanson, 1995) consists of 41 items that measure

behavioral symptomatology in children. This measure was selected to test for differences in the qualitative features given the presence of maladaptive behaviors. The ratings result in 3 subscale scores: inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity, and opposition/defiance.

Research Robertson et. al. 2003

• Level of Inclusion in the Classroom Social Structures:• -In examining inclusion in classroom social structures students were asked, “Are there

people in school who hang around a lot? Who are they? They were then asked to list the names of children who hand around together and circle lists of names to distinguish separate groupings. Within each classroom, children’s level of social involvement was measured by their affiliation with peers. Each time a child was listed as belonging to the same group of peers, they received a point. A scored of 0 was obtained in the child was not listed as belonging to any particular group of peers. A score of 1 if the child was listed 1-5 times as belonging to the group, A score of 2 if the schools was listed 6-10 times, and score of 3 11-15 times.

• Cairns&Cairns,1994; Gariepy, &Kinderman, 1990)

• (

Research Robertson et. al. 2003 • Results: Preliminary analyses were performed to

examine gender, age, and grade level of students, as well as teacher characteristics. Results of these tests were nonsignificant. Data were collapsed across these variables for all subsequent analyses.

• The results indicate considerable variability in teacher’s reports of their relationship with included students with autism, children’s level of behavior problems, degree of social inclusion, and the associations between these factors.

Results: Robertson et. al. 2003

• Teacher Demographics:• General education teachers’ years of teaching experience ranged

from 3-28 years. Across all classrooms, teachers had experience teacher multiple elementary grades. All teachers had completed a B.A; about one half had an M.A. None had received formal training in special education. 83% had never had a student with autism in their class (50% had never taught a student with special needs)

Paraprofessionals:• Differences in teachers’ ratings of closeness, conflict, and dependency of

these relationships were compared for children with and without a paraprofessional. Regardless of the presence of the paraprofessionals, teachers reported similar levels of closeness, conflict, and dependency for students with and without a paraprofessional. No differences were found.

Results: Robertson et. al. 2003

• Student Teacher relationship- Children’s relationship with their general education teachers reflected wide individual differences.

• Child Maladaptive Behaviors- Children’s level of behavioral symptomatology also reflected wide individual variation.

• Child Maladaptive Behaviors/Teacher-Student relationships-These correlations indicate a moderate to high association between children’s behavioral problems and features of their student teacher relationships. Also, a moderate to high association between teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with included students with autism and their reports of behavioral symptomatology.

Research: Apple et. al. 20005

• The following is a review of the Effects of Video Modeling Alone and With Self-Management on Compliant-Giving Behaviors of Children with High-Functioning ASD, by Apple et. al. 20005, Journal of Positive Interventions, Winter, pp 33-46.

• Purpose: The purpose of this experiment 1 was to assess the effectiveness of video modeling alone for teaching children compliment giving to children with high-functioning autism and Asperger syndrome.

• Importance: The importance of the first experiment was there is lack of research in studying video modeling alone (e.g. without prompts, reinforcement, etc.) D’Ateno et al. (2003) used a procedure of video modeling by itself and did not show generalization of play sequences or verbalizations.


• Methods• Participants and Setting: included 2 boys diagnosed with autism. They were

both 5 years old. The study took place at a half-day preschool for children with ASD. Sessions were conducted during free play. In each classroom there were 4 adults and 16 peers. There was a minimum of 6 typically developing children in each classroom. The sessions lasted for 30 minutes during free play.

• Questionnaires: Prior to implementation of the study and after the study, parents and teachers were asked to answer questionnaires. They rated the participant’s social skills, peer relationships, and compliant giving behavior.

• Compliment giving: was defined as 3 sentence structures or types. 1. A compliment needed to include a positive describing word that did not need to mention, but could, a target item of possession or activity that was engaged in. Positive describing words, were adjectives that conveyed approval. (e.g. “Cool.” “Nice shirt.”) 2. Included “ I like” with the inclusion of the item of possession or with the activity of engagement. (e.g. “I like your ball.”) If a child uttered an approval statement that did not fit into the 3 structures, all raters had to agree that it was an approval statement to be included as correct.


• Data collection: During 30 minute sessions, 15 minutes was used to record frequency data on initiations and 15 min. of free playtime was used to collect data of frequency of responses.

• Experimental design: The design used was a multiple baseline across participant design.


• Procedures• Baseline: During the baseline phase children were observed for 15 min. of free play. Classroom

peers were during this time provided opportunities for participants to engage in compliment giving behavior, by pointing to items and saying “Look.”. This created antecedent events to evoke desired responses. A peer initiation could not occur more than once in a 2-minute period. If a compliment were give during baseline teachers would provide verbal praise.

• Video Modeling: 3 times per week, participants were brought to another classroom during free play to watch a video. There were 3 videos that were rotated randomly. After viewing video children returned to free play and data were collected for 15 min. following the intervention.

• Video Modeling and reinforcement phase: No initiation type compliments were observed during the video modeling alone condition so reinforcement was included. The procedure was the same as in the original video phase with an additional step. Before going back to free play, the teacher provided verbal behavioral contract stating child had to give 4 compliments during free play to obtain special prize. 2 peers were selected to approach participant, to provide opportunities for compliment giving behavior. The teacher kept track of compliments and stated comments such as “that’s 2 so far.”

• Reinforcement phase: Was the same as the video and reinforcement phase except the video was removed.

• Withdrawal of tangible reinforcement: Participants were brought back to baseline condition.

• Interobserver agreement: IOA was conducted for 33% of all sessions. IOA was 100%.


• Results: In the video modeling alone condition children did respond to peers with approval statements but did not make any initiating compliments. Reinforcement was added and an increase in initiated compliments was observed. When the reinforcement was in the withdrawal phase children continued to engage in compliment behavior but only the response type. This demonstrates that the reinforcement was controlling the participants’ initiating behavior. The participants continued to engage in response compliments after video was removed. The author’s suggest that this demonstrates that reinforcement is not necessary for teaching these types of compliments.

• Implications: These findings support previous research that video modeling is an effective teaching strategy to teach learners with autism social skills. The addition of rules in video modeling procedure may have contributed to desired behavior change. Additional reinforcement procedures were necessary to teach children to initiate compliment behavior. The procedures used in this experiment did not promote independence. The child relied on the teacher to track frequency of compliment behaviors. It is possible that the teachers were a discriminative stimulus for evoking compliment behaviors.


• Experiment 2• Purpose: The purpose of experiment 2 was to teach

children with autism to engage in compliment initiations in the absence of supervision.

• Importance: It is important that children engage in compliment behaviors independently. These behaviors help to demonstrate social reciprocity with peers. (Attwood,1998) Direct adult monitoring may not always available and may be not always be welcomed with typically developing peers.


• Method• Participants and Setting: 1 child from experiment 1 was included. (Roger) 2 other students

diagnosed with autism also participated in the study. There age range was between 4-5 years old. Two learners had prior diagnosis of autism. One participant was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome. The study was conducted at the half-day preschool for children with autism. They were conducted in both the integrated preschool classroom and the kindergarten classroom.

• Materials: The same materials were used as in experiment 1.• Procedures: The 2 additionally added participants were put into a baseline and video

modeling phase, exactly as demonstrated in experiment1.• Self-Management Teaching phase: In this condition there were 2 steps. First, children

viewed video model. Next, teacher showed participants their self-management device. (e.g. wrist counter or check list) Next, the teacher prompted child to attend to the number 2 taped onto the learner’s self-management device. The teacher then provided the verbal statement. “When I make 2 compliments, I get a prize.” The teacher then provided 2 compliments at prompted child to number 2 on their device and took a prize out of a small bag. Children’s prizes were put into paper bags with their name’s on it. A preference assessment was conducted to identify prizes as reinforcement. Child was shown there prize bag and the SD “its your turn to make a compliment.” Was provided. Learners had 3 s to engage in compliment behavior. If the child did not make a compliment or responded incorrectly then the teacher provided a model. If child did not record compliment on self management device in 3 s teacher provided prompt. The procedure was repeated for 15 min. each day until the participant engaged in the sequence independently. Next, child moved to classroom. The child had 2 min. to initiate a compliment in this phase. 10 s after two min. interval teacher provided model. The process continued every 2 min., until criterion was met, which was 2 consecutive sessions, to give peers 2 compliments.

Cont…….• Self-Management phase: In this phase no verbal models

were provided. All prompts were faded to a prompt 2 level. Another type of prompt was provided at 4 min. interval if child did not engage in compliment initiation. No prompts preceded that interval.

• Generalization: Only 2 participants were used for assessing generalization due to availability. This occurred 2 days per week when self-management procedure was not in place during different times of the day. Settings included outside free play ( instead of inside free play) and during group activities in the kindergarten class. The video model was not viewed in this phase. However, peers did approach participants to provide opportunities for compliment initiations.

• Interobserver agreement: IOA was conducted for 50% to 54% of children’s sessions. IOA was 100%.

Research:Apple et. al. 20005

• Results: The 2 new participants demonstrated that the video modeling procedure was effective in increasing compliment responses. In the self-management phase all three participants met criterion in classroom on the first session. The compliment-initiations were generalized in probe conditions. However, due to self-management training on alternate days, it is unclear of what was responsible for generalization of the desired behavior. (video model or self-management strategy) Post test surveys demonstrated that parents observed improvements in compliment behaviors with participants.

• Implications: These findings support previous research that video modeling is an effective teaching strategy to teach learners with autism social skills. This study included multiple exemplars of video models, which may have promoted for generalization. (Stokes & Baer,1977) Experiment 2 was more effective because it taught learners to engage in initiated compliment without supervision of adult but rather with a self monitoring procedure. The author’s suggest that self-management procedures increased the participant’s independent social initiations. The social validity measures suggest that there was generalization of initiated compliment behavior without self-management devices. Teacher ratings resulted in a 1 point increases of social skills for 3 of the 4 participants for both experiments. Parental surveys and teacher reports suggest that compliment behaviors were generalizing across settings without self management devices.

The Use of an Antecedent-Based Intervention to Decrease Stereotypic

Behavior in a General Education

Classroom

Maureen A. Conroy, Jennifer M. Asmus, Jennifer A.

Sellers, & Crystal N. Ladwig2005

Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities20, 223-230

Purpose(Conroy, Asmus, Sellers, & Ladwig, 2005)

• The purpose of the study was to develop effective interventions for children with autism, in the general education settings. Additionally, to examine the use of an antecedent based intervention in a general education setting to decrease stereotypic behavior.

Purpose (Conroy, Asmus, Sellers, & Ladwig, 2005)

• The incidence of children with autism is increasing and many of these children are enrolled in a general education settings. There is a need to find effective intervention that address stereotypic behavior. It is important to find strategies that can be easily implemented in the general classroom.

Method (Conroy, Asmus, Sellers, & Ladwig, 2005)

• The participant was a 6 year-old boy, diagnosed with high functioning autism. He scored within the mild range of autism according to the Childhood Autism Rating Scale. His intelligence test scored within the average range. He engaged in high rates of stereotypic behavior across the general education classroom and other school settings.

Setting (Conroy, Asmus, Sellers, & Ladwig, 2005)

• Public elementary school, in a kindergarten, general education classroom.


Dependent variable-The dependent variable was the participant’s stereotypic behavior and

classroom engagement in the current task.

Independent variable-The independent variable was the use of visual cue cards that let the

participant know when it was and wasn’t acceptable to engage in stereotypy and the replication by the classroom teacher’s assistant.

Procedure- Math class had the highest rates of stereotypy. The research assistant put a circle (can engage in stereotypy) on a cue card and a circle with a line through it (can not engage in stereotypy) on another cue card. Each session lasted 20 minutes.

The procedure was replicated by the classroom teacher’s assistant.

Design (Conroy, Asmus, Sellers, & Ladwig, 2005)

• An alternating treatments design was used. The authors were able to demonstrate a functional relationship between both treatments- during the replication phase and the visual cue cards phase. The target behavior decreased after the treatment was introduced.


• IOA-Yes, an IOA was assessed with a 93% for the stereotypy and for the engagement behavior 85%.

• Treatment Integrity- No, the data for treatment integrity was not assessed.

• Social Validity- Yes, social validity was assessed. The student needs to have age-appropriate behaviors in a general education setting.

• Generalization and Maintenance- Generalization across settings was assessed. The study did not conduct follow-up sessions. Additionally, more studies need to be conducted across settings, behaviors, and participants.

Results and Discussion (Conroy, Asmus, Sellers, & Ladwig, 2005)

• The participant’s stereotypy decreased

following the implementation of treatment. • The participant’s engagement in class, was

not influenced by the IV.• Verbal prompts were provided during the

implementation, which may have changed the results.

• The intervention was easy to implement.

ReferencesBaker, K. M. & Zgmond,n N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for studnets with learning disabilities. Themes and

implications from the five cases. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 163-180.

Bear, G. G. and W. A. Proctor (1990). Impact of a full-time integrated program on the achievement of nonhandicappped and mildly handicapped children.

Exceptionality: A Research Journal 1(4): 227-238

Bondy, A., & Frost, L. (1994b). The Picture- Exchange Communication System. Focus on Autistic Behavior,9,1-19

Connell, M. C., Carta, J. J., & Baer, D. M. (1993). Programming generalization of in-class transition skills: Teaching preschoolers with

developmental delays to self-assess and recruit contingent teacher praise. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 345–352.Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L (1987). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, OH:

Charles E. Merrill.Cairns, R.B & Cairns, B.D (1994). Social networks and the functions of friendships, Lifelines and risks:

Pathways of youth in our time: New York :Cambridge University Press.Dymond, S. K. (2001). A participatory action research approach to evaluating inlcusive school programs. Focus on Autism and

Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 54-63. Fishbaugh, M. S., & Gum, P. (1994). Inclusive education in Billings, Montana: A prototype for rural schools. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 369 636)Green. (1996). Early behavioral intervention for autism: what does research tell us? In C. Maurice, G. Green, and S. Luce (Eds.),

Behavioral intervention for young children with autism (pp. 15-28). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.Harris, S.L., & Handleman, J.S. (1997). Helping children with autism enter the mainstream. In F.R. Volkmar (Ed.), Handbook of autism

and pervasive developmental disorders (2nd ed., pp. 665-675). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Harchik, A.E., Harchik, A.J., Luce, S. C., & Sherman, J.A. (1990). Teaching autistic and severely handicapped children to recruit praise: Acquisition and generalization. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11, 77-95.

Hasazi, J. E., & Hasazi, S. E. (1972). Effects of teacher attention on digit- reversal behavior in an elementary school child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 157–162.

Hrydowy, E. R., Stokes, T. F., & Martin, G. L. (1984). Training elementary students to prompt teacher praise. Education and Treatment of Children,7, 99–108.

References Johnston, S.S., Nelson, C., Evans, J., & Palazolo, K. (2003). The use of visual supports in teaching young children with autism

spectrum disorder to initiate interaction. Augmentative and alternative Communication, 19, 86-103.Kellegrew, D.H., (1995). Integrated school placements for children with disabilities. In L.K. Koe-gel (Ed.) Teaching children with

autism: Strategies for initiating positive interaction and improving learning opportunities (pp. 127-146). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

McGee, G.G., Morrimer, J.J., & Daly, T. (1999). An incidental teaching approach to early intervention for toddlers with autism. The Journal of the Association for Person with Severe Handicaps, 24, 133-146.

McGee, G.G., Morrimer, M.J., & Daly, T. (2001). The Walden early childhood programs. In S.L. Harris (Ed.), Preschool education programs for children with autism (Vol. 2, pp. 157-188). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

Madsen, C. H., Jr., Becker, W. C., & Thomas, D. R. (1968). Rules, praise, and ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 343–353.

McAllister, L., Stachowiak, J., Baer, D. M., & Conderman, L. (1969). The application of operant conditioning techniques in a secondary school classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 277–285.

Morgan, D., Young, K. R., & Goldstein, S. (1983). Teaching behaviorally disordered students to increase teacher attention and praise in mainstreamed classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 8, 265–273.

Prizant, B.M., Wetherby, A.M., & Rydell, P.J. (2000). Communication intervention issue for children with autism spectrum disorders. In B.M. Prizant (Ed.), Autism spectrum disorders: A transactional developmental perspective (pp. 163-189). New York: Delmar.

Pianta,R.C (1992). Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. Univeristy of Virginia. Charlottesville, V.A. Swanson, J.M (1995). SNAP-IV Scale. Child Development Center, UC Irvine.

Robertson, K., Chamberlain, B, & Ksari, C. General Education Teachers’ Relationships with Included Students with Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33.

Seymour, F.W., & Stokes, T.F. (1976). Self-recording in training girls to increase work and evoke self praise in an institution for offenders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 41-54.

Schwartz, A.L., & Wolfberg, P.J. (2000). Promoting peer play and socialization: The art of scaffolding. In B.M. Prizant (Ed)., Autism spectrum disorders: A transactional developmental perspective (pp. 251-279). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Stokes, T.F., Fowler, S.A., & Baer, D.M. (1978). Training preschool children to recruit natural communities of reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 285-303.

ReferencesTawney, J., & Gast, D. (1984). Single-subject research in special education. New York: Merrill.

Zimmerman, E. H., & Zimmerman, T. (1962). The alteration of behavior in a special classroom situation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,5, 59–60.

Conroy, Maureen A., Asmus, Jennifer M., Sellers, Jennifer A., & Ladwig, Crystal N. (2005). The use of an antecedent-based intervention to decrease stereotypic behavior in a general education classroom.Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 223-230.

Catherine Nelson, Andrea P. McDonnell, Susan S. Johnston, Angie Crompton, & Andrew R. Nelson. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 2007, 42 no2, 165-81