Shevin Klein 1984

8/18/2019 Shevin Klein 1984

1/9

Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabihties

2004, Vol. 29, No. 3, 161-168

copyright 2004 by

T A S H

CLASSIC TASH ARTICLE III

Reprinted from The Joumai of The Association for the Severely

Handicapped

Volume

9(3),

F all, 1984

The Importance of Choice Making Skills

For Students with Severe Disabilities

Mayer Shevin and Nancy K. Klein.

Author Information

Mayer Sh evin, Ph .D ., Assistant Professor, Specialized

Instructional Programs, Cleveland State University.

Nancy K. Klein, Ph .D ., Professor, Specialized Instruc-

tional Programs, Cleveland State University.

Article Descriptors

autonomy; behavior management; choice-making; curriculum

design; independence; self-management; severely retarded

Making choices is an essential part of functioning

independently as an adult in society. Activities

specifically directed toward helping students leam to

make choices, however, are typically neglected in

educational programs for students with severe

disabilities. This paper presents a rationale for the in-

clusion of choice-making as an imp ortant skill area for

persons with severe disabilities. Behavioral approaches

that present useful means of conceptualizing choice-

making in the school life of severely disabled students

are identified. Pro cedures are suggested for teaching

choice-making skills, for integrating opportunities for

exercising those skills throughou t the course of the stu-

dent s school life, and or fostering choice-making skills

through the use of logical consequences.

During the past decade, implementation of the nor-

malization principle has resulted in a restructuring of

educational and residential services for persons with

severe handicaps. T his system change h as been accom -

panied by a reexamination of curricular content for

these students. Whereas severely handicapped persons

in institutions and in schools traditionally have been

taught compliance, more recent training programs

reflect new expectations and views of people with

severe disabilities. Professionals are now focusing on

strategies to enable these citizens to avail themselves

of the opportunities inherent in community facilities

by transferring the focus from compliance to foster-

ing independence and self-reliance (Wehman &

McLaughlin, 1981).

One aspect of teaching independence that has been

neglected is teaching severely handicapped persons to

make choices. T his paper presents a rationale for the

need to structure teaching activities to enable these

students with severe handicaps to exercise their own

choice in school, at home, and in community settings.

Some possible areas for classroom activities are sug-

gested, including (a) the design and im plementation of

age-appropriate experiences; and (b) the creation of

opportunities, both in and out of school, for exercis-

ing choice.

For non-handicapped children, little or no formal at-

tention is paid in school to the establishment of skills

related to autonomy and to choice-making; however,

most children will nevertheless acquire such skills dur-

ing their childhood. In contrast, we cannot predict

with any confidence that these autonomous skills will

develop in this informal fashion for students who are

retarded. Retarded students are likely to have very

limited opportunity for learning through interaction

with, and observation of, normal agemates and older

children (Porter, Ramsey, Tremblay, laccobo, &

Crawley, 1978). Such self-reliance is important to the

quality of life of individuals who are retarded if they

are to reap the benefits of norm alized services. Schools

must take responsibility for teaching such skills directly

and explicitly. Concurren tly, analysis of current pro-

grams must be undertaken to determine which aspects

of programm ing serve to deter the development of self-

reliance and independence related to making choices.

Students who are severely retarded may require ex-

tensive assistance in developing the skills necessary for

exercising choice, rather tJian merely following

teachers' or parents' leads. Learning to make choices

can extend to areas of major life concerns such as voca-

tion, residence, and consent to medical treatment, as

well as to relatively minor, but cumulatively signifi-

cant day-to-day decisions such as choice of recreational

activities, partners for social activities, food, clo thing,

music, seating, and scheduling.


2/9

162

Shevin and Klein

Defining and Assessing Choice-Making

Deflning choice making

Most studies which look at choice-making in peo-

ple who are severely retarded (Holvoet, Brewer.

Mulligan, Guess, Helmstetter, & Riggs, 1981; Mithaug

& Hanawalt, 1978; Mithaug & Mar, 1980; Wehman,

1979;

and Wuerch & Voeltz, 1982) do not include

definitions of cho ice-m akin g

per se.

There does not

appear to be a common definition of choice-making

in this field that addresses the student's desires as in-

tegral to the process. In other words, helping the child

to understand what she actually wants is not usually

considered as part of th act of' 'choosing something.' '

The absence of such a feature in a working definition

of ch o ic e prevents professionals in the field from

focusing on issues related to the disabled individual's

role in setting her own objectives, and in exercising

autonomous control as a consumer of habilitative and

educational services. W ithout a view of choice-making

that includes teaching children to identify personal

preferences, professionals and advocates are at risk of

mistaking lack of protest for informed consent, habitual

behavior for active choice, and resignation to one's lot

for contentment with that lot. There is a need to be

able to determine, in a given situation, whether or not

a student or client is exercising real autonomy.

This determination is most difficult for those with

seriously limited behavioral repertoires. Two examples

will illustrate the complexity of this issue:

1.

A teacher wishes to teach a student to operate a

soft-drink machine, so that she may purchase a drink

during breaktime. The student, in her current opera-

tion of the machine, puts the coins in the coin slot, and

then, without directing her eyes at the machine, slaps

her hand against the machine's face until she hits one

of the panels. W hen a can of soda falls into the recep-

tacle, she picks it up, Of)ens it and drinks the soda. Can

that student be said to have chosen that particular

brand?

2. A w orkshop supervisor asks a worker who is sit-

ting at a table containing the materials for an assembly

task to begin screwing the nut-and-bolt sets together.

Two minutes later, the supervisor sees that no sets have

been assembled by that worker. Is the supervisor to

consider the worker as having been non-compliant, as

having misunderstood the task, or as having chosen

not to participate?

For the purposes of this paper, ch oo sin g is de-

fined as the act ofan individual's selection of a pre-

ferred alternative from amo ng several familiar options.

The use of the word pr ef er re d in this definition

highlights the assumption that people with severe

disabilities have personal preferences, likes and

dislikes, which they can learn to identify for themselves

through ongoing educational experiences. It is assumed

that persons with severe handicaps can learn to express

their preferences, and that parents, teachers and

managers in their environment can learn to be respon-

sive to both typical and atypical expression s of choice.

The emphasis on selection among familiar options

highlights the longitudinal nature of education and pro-

gramming for meaningful choice-making.

Research in choice making

For the special educator engaged in fostering choice-

making activities in students who are severely retarded,

two areas of the research literature are of particular

interest: (1) research that documents the effects of

choice-making activities on learning, classroom

behavior, skill generalization, and independent func-

tioning in regular and special education settings; and

(2) studies that address the specific problems related

to assessing and developing choice-making skills in

students who are severely retarded.

Holvoet, Brewer, Mulligan, Guess, Helmstetter and

Riggs (1981 ), in a survey of the experimental literature

related to the effect of choices on learning rate and stu-

dent motivation, found few studies in which the effects

of choice-making on school behavior had been studied

in students who are retarded. However, they identified

several studies from the regular education literature

(Berk, 1976; Felixbrod & O'L eary , 1973; Hock stra,

1978; Wh ite, 1977) which docum ented the positive ef-

fects of choice-making on learning rate. Researchers

who have looked at choice-making by individuals who

are severely retarded (Holvoet et al., 1981; Mithaug

& Hanawalt, 1978; Mithaug & Mar, 1980) have found

that one cannot assume that a student has made a choice

simply because that student has acted in a situation in

which choice is permitted. Mithaug and Hanawalt

(1978) have described the ambiguities which arise

when individuals who are severely retarded are

presented with opportunities for choice-making, since

these individuals may lack precise verbal responses,

facial exp ressions, task avoidance behav iors, and other

means by whi ch pre fe rences a re t yp i ca l l y

communicated.

In studies with students who are severely retarded,

as in studies with no nhandicapped students, choice ap-

pears to be seen as an y student behav ior, deemed ap-

propriate by the experimenter, in a setting in which

more than one behavior is deemed appro pria te, pro-

vided only that the experimenter has demonstrated that

the student's behavior relative to the various possible

tasks is somewhat consistent over time. In other w ords,

our profession has focused on choice-making as a per-

missible activity, rather than as a teaching target. For

many students who are severely retarded, this may

mean that they remain dependent on others for direc-

tion, even though the theoretical possibility of choice

does exist. In contrast, this paper suggests that choice-

making is a viable teaching target, to be subjected to

task analysis, planning, implementation and evaluation

similar to those which are characteristic of more tradi-

tional content areas.


3/9

Choice-Making

163

Assessing choice making

Some of the information needed to determine

whether choosing is taking place on any given occa-

sion can be identified through the use of the A B C

analytic model of applied behavior analysis (e.g.

Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1977). The use of this model

is enhanced when observers incorporate additional

behavioral data that are not typically collected or valued

within the applied behavior analytic model. This in-

cludes information related to the student's previous

history, which m ay not be easily available to the clini-

cian or teacher. Also of importance are descriptions

of behaviors that are not previously specified in

research designs or IEPs as target behav iors . Due

to the precision of descriptive observation required,

and the inability of professionals to predict in advance

the sponta neou s beh avi ors being looked for, such

behaviors do not easily lend themselves to quantitative

recording or reductionist coding procedures.

Rather than viewing cho ice-making as a single target

behavior, an array of related behaviors that comprise

the target must be considered. For example, in describ-

ing choice-making related to workshop tasks, such an

array might include quantitative data on latency, rate

and intensity of on-task behavior, descriptive informa-

tion on socialization, facial expression and body

language during the task, and responses to interview

questions related to the workshop tasks among which

choices are to be made.

In order to arrive at a meaningful characterization

of choice-making, educators need to go beyond the

typical scope of applied behavior analysis. Fortunate-

ly, there are alternative behavioral approaches, each

with a substantial theoretical and research base, upon

which professionals can draw:

1. Studies of verbal interaction: Although most of

their work has centered on issues of affective and social

development. Bell and Ainsworth (1972) have iden-

tified in operational terms the concept of the

respon-

sive parent,

and have documen ted the role of that adult

in infant development. In their study, the important

variables in parental behavior that were related to the

social and affective development of their children were

related to the degree to which the parents were respon-

sive, that is, the degree to which they came under the

control of the expressive behavior (i.e ., the crying) of

their children. (For a review of this literature in rela-

tion to crying, see Shevin, 1979.) Recent work by

Rogers-Warren (1981) has documented the effects of

such parent-child interaction on more advanced levels

of language development, and has provided a basis for

characterizing such interactions behaviorally. Work by

Sapon and Kaczmarek (1975) and Kaczmarek (1977)

in the descriptive analysis of verbal behavior provides

us with an analytic framework for looking at behavioral

development as an ongoing expansion of correspond-

ing productive and receptive verbal repertoires between

children and those around them. These models are ap-

plicable in the study of choice-making, in that they pro-

vide the basis for a global characterization of adult-

child relationships in terms of the degree to which the

adult's behavior is guided by that of the child, as well

as providing a means of studying the shifts which take

place in those adult-child relationships over time.

2. Environmentat psychoiogy and ecological

behaviorism:

In their analysis of the practice of body-

rocking in residential institutions for retarded persons,

Klaber and Butterfield (1968) studied body-rock ing not

as an indication of the deviance or deficits of the in-

dividuals displaying the behavior, but rather as a

diagnostic indicator of the level of care and the ap-

propriateness of program ming received by the residents

in various institutions. Rogers-Warren and Warren

(1977), in a collection entitled

Ecological Perspec-

tives in Behavior Ana lysis,

ha ve assembled the works

of authors who provide models for looking at behavior

not as a series of isolated target behaviors, but as net-

works of interactive behaviors existing in a material

and social context, in which students and teachers are

both interactive participants.

These broader perspect ives and contextual

frameworks provide richer descriptions of those

behaviors which, when viewed narrowly, are often

characterized as off-ta sk, non-co mp liant or de -

via nt behavio rs. For the student with limited social

and communicative repertoires, it may be precisely

those off-task behaviors which represent the most ef-

fective current m eans of exercising some control ov er

the environment, and are thus the best available ex-

pression of personal choice.

A number of common features are found in the ap-

proaches described above, which are pertinent to the

area of choice-making. They provide special contexts

for considering students' behavior:

1. professional attention is focused on the similarities

which exist among all people, rather than on deficits

and differences;

2.

descriptions of behavior take into account the

transactional nature of human interactions, consider-

ing the activities of all of the participants in an interac -

tion, not only the actions of the deviant one; and

3. an attempt to describe students' behavior, to the

greatest extent possible, from the students' perspec-

tive, rather than from those of the teacher or the in-

stitution, undergirds this process.

Notes Toward a

Choice-Fostering Curriculum

Professionals concerned with fostering choice-

making in students with severe disabilities are travel-

ing in relatively uncharted terrritory, without the com-

forts of traditional behavioral definitions and research

methodologies. However, the lack of a precise,

familiar terminology should not deter professionals


4/9

164

Shevin and Klein

from taking steps toward fostering those skills in

whatever settings they are working. A multiplicity of

approaches by professionals and advocates sharing a

common commitment to individual rights and in-

dividual development will provide the experiential basis

out of which comparative research methodologies and

new evaluation designs can grow.

As instructional procedures and behavioral targets

related to choice-making are developed, two reference

points can guide these efforts: identification of ways

in which most citizens typically indicate and exercise

choice in our society, and identification of mechanisms,

however atypical, by which students with severe

disabilities currently make their wishes known. The

goal, of course, is to teach students culturally nor-

mative ways of exercising choice, as alternatives to

biting, flinging or screaming. However, teachers must

avoid being trapped into the absurdity of spending

many years prodding a non-compliant child through

a choice-making readiness pro gra m, while label-

ing the behaviors by which the child may be currently

demonstrating preferences as stubborn or ma nipulative.

Successful fostering of choice-making will require

both systematic teaching of new skills, and provision

of opportunities to practice those skills in the classroom

and in natural settings at home and in the community.

There are at least three essential components to a

choice-fostering curriculum: (a) cognitive/discrimina-

tion skill clusters; (b) affective skill clusters; and (c)

generalization of skills in real-life experiences.

Included in the

cognitive/discrimination skill clusters

are those skills which enable the learner to understand

and discriminate from among alternatives as a prere-

quisite to acting. Among the skills in this component

are visual, auditory, tactile and gustatory discrimina-

tion skills, and the understanding of such concepts as

c h o o s e , f i n i sh , n o w , l a t e r , m o r e , a nd

so forth.

The

affective skill cluster

includes concepts such as

I l ike/don't l ik e, I prefe r, I want to/don' t want

to d o , and so forth. These affective terms are in-

troduced in a choice-making episode at the time that

the choice is actually made.

The

real-life experiences

are the activities, both in-

side and outside of the classroom, which form the con-

tent of choices to be made. These include choices of:

food, clothing, toys, activities, activity partners, etc.

Classroom choices may also include choices available

within behavior contracting systems, such as choices

of reinforcers, target behaviors, working conditions,

etc.

The age and co mpetenc e of the child are critical fac-

tors to consider when selecting real-life experiences

for the classroom. Therefore, the teacher must assess

the significance and/or risk of the choices presented

in relation to the age and ability of the child. For ex-

ample, a four-year-old child might have the opportunity

to choose among various snacks and drinks at snack-

time, but would not be allowed to choose between

wearing a lightweight jacket or a snowsuit when the

outside temperature is below freezing. As the child

becomes older and, with increasing practice, more

adept at choice-making, the significance, that is the

consequences of that child's choices, must grow ac-

cordingly. For example, a twenty-year-old who has

learned to m ake choices might be given the opportunity

to choose an apartment. This real-life choice, while

beyond the capability of a four-year-old child, is also

beyond the capability of the student labeled retarded

who has had no previous experience with choice-

making. As retarded children move toward adulthood,

they will also benefit from choice-making which ex-

pands from choices in a small number of areas to

choices across a broad number of domains.

Brown et al. (1980) have identified a process for the

establishment of appropriate educational plans for

students with severe disabilities. These procedures in-

clude strategies for inventories involving students, their

parents and guardians, and the community en-

vironments within which the students currently or

potentially function. Such individualized and

ecologically based strategies for identification of cur-

ricular content and instructional design are directly ap-

plicable to the determination of the highest priority

areas for the targeting of choice-making activities. The

single departure from the model described by Brown

et al. (1980) is that, in their list of 16 dim ension s to

be considered in prioritizing curricular content, stu-

dent preference is listed as one item, without assum-

ing any special importance. For obvious reasons, in

the curricular area of choice-fostering skills, student

preference will, by definition, assume a position of

highest consideration in prioritizing goals.

Thre e contexts for fostering choice-m aking skills in

severely retarded students will be described below.

These include:

1. classroom activities designed to teach specific

choice-making skills;

2. integration of choice-making opportunities

throughout the student's day, across curricular

domains; and

3. provision of opportun ities, both inside and out-

side of school, for students to experience the

benefits and consequences of choices they have

made.

Fostering Choices Through Specific Curricular

Units

The following procedures are suggested as an ex-

ample of the activities that a hypothetical teacher of

four- to six-year-old children with severe disabilities

might follow. They will serve to illustrate the inclu-

sion of specific choice-fostering content in a school's

curriculum.

1. Content selection — the ages and abilities of the


5/9

Choice-Making

165

children in the class are considered prior to selecting

a real-life experien ce on w hich to focus. LFsing the pro -

cedures described by Brown et al. (1980) for the

establishment of functional, age-appropriate objectives,

a teacher of young children may select food as an ap-

propriate category for teaching choice-making skills.

2 . Cognitive/discrimination skill cluster

— iden-

tification of the discrimination skills used when a child

makes food choices . These skills include some m ethod

of indicating choice (e.g., pointing), and the ability to

discriminate between foods of similar appearance ( e.g .,

oranges and lemons). Following the visual discrimina-

tion activities, the child is given the opportunity to ex-

perience the differences in taste of these objects. Such

visual and gustatory discrimination skills will form the

foundation for subsequent affectively based decision-

making.

3. Affective skill cluster — once the child has

discriminated among different foods, and has indicated

through either typical or atypical communication modes

which of these foods he prefers, the teacher models

words or gestures that can be used to label the child's

responses to the foods. As the child tastes, and subse-

quently reaches for, the orange, the teacher may use

words such as tastes go od , I like it , or tastes

sw ee t. As the child tastes the lemon , and subsequently

grimaces, refiises it or pushes it away, the teacher may

use words such as tastes so ur, that 's not go od ,

or I do n't like tha t. Initially, the teacher might use

one food which is likely to be selected, and another

which is likely to be rejected (e.g., apple and onion).

Subsequently, the child can be presented with two

desirable foods, and be taught to indicate a favorite.

Consultation with parents is important at this stage. It

is important for the teacher to be sensitive to expres-

sions of student preference, to model the affective ter-

minology, to point out to the child that a choice has

been made, and to elicit feedback from the child about

whether she likes the choice.

Once these initial discriminations are mastered, and

the child can systematically label preferences, the

child's choice-making skills may be refined in the

following ways:

1.

by decreasing the gradations of the discrimina-

tions made within a domain (e.g., gross to

fine);

2 .

by increasing the number of objects among

which discriminations are made; and

3. by adding new dom ains within which

discriminations are made.

These examples assume that the students display

relatively well developed receptive and expressive

verbal repertoires. Additional concerns must be ad-

dressed by teachers who work with students who have

extremely limited communicative skills. For students

who display non-standard or inconsistent communica-

tive behavior, the teacher must frequently take pains

to ascertain that the student's message has been ac-

curately received. Duncan, Sbardellati, Maheady and

Sainato (1981) have suggested a continuum of response

modes to be used in testng and assessment situations,

which lend themselves to the determination of student

choices. They recommend that, in decreasing order of

desirability, the following communication modes be

used: (a) use of expressive language responses (vocal);

(b) use of pointing respo nses; (c) use of existing m otor

responses; (d) training of existing inconsistent

responses; and (e) teaching of a nonexistent response

(p . 18).

One potential difficulty to which teachers must be

attuned is that gestures and facial expressions, which

have a commonly interpreted meaning in society at

large, may be used inadvertently in non-standard ways

by students. For example, a cJiild with limited com-

munication skills or with cerebral palsy may smile

when asked if she wants something to drink; the smile

may no t necessarily indicate a y e s answer to the

question.

A second difficulty is that, for a student w hose

limited commu nication includes a consistent y es /n o

response, the student's preference in a given case may

not be able to be expressed by a simple yes or no. For

examp le: a teacher says to Albert, H er e's the

xylophone, the trumpet, and the ocarina. Would you

like to play with the tru m pe t? Albert nods his head

y e s .

The teacher hands Albert the trumpet. H e tums

it over in his hands, looks into the mouthpiece, puts

it down on the table, points to the ocarina, and wh ines.

The teacher says, N o , Albert, you already chose the

t rumpet .

In this situation, Albert's preference may have been

Let me look at the trumpet for a moment, and then

I'll decide which instrument I'd like . How ever, when

limited in his productive verbal behavior to a yes/no

response, the closest he is able to come is to indicate

y e s . The teacher, however, may erroneously con-

clude only that Albert do esn't know what he wan ts.

Such conflicts and misunderstandings are less likely

to arise in situations in which the choices available to

students are more open-ended, less limited ones, and

in situations in which the student has many oppor-

tunities to experience directly the various alternatives

prior to making a choice. Fu rthermo re, ongoing com-

munication amon g pare nts, teachers and other profes-

sionals and caretakers in the student's environment,

using formal systems such as the Communication

Record (Kollinzas, 1983) or less formal anecdotal com-

munications, will allow those directly involved with

an individual to become aware of the student's

preferences.

Integrating Choice Making Throughout the School

Day

As important as the establishment of discrete choice-

making skills might be , it will be of little avail if choice-


6/9


7/9

Choice-Making

167

this child have been permitted to order the food that

he probably dislikes, or should the teacher have in-

terceded to prevent his having to face a distasteful

lunch?

In such a situation, it is important that the child be

permitted to exercise his own initiative. To facilitate

this,

structured activities which involve tasting a variety

of foods might be arranged to precede the child's ex-

ercising choice in this situation. By allowing the child

to live with his choice, the teacher provides the stu-

dent with an excellent opportunity to understand the

consequences of personal decision-making. Students

who have been labeled as retarded must learn that for

them, as for everyone else, som e consequences of their

choices will be negative ones.

Some teachers or parents seem to believe that we

must not allow retarded individuals to fail. It seems

unkind to withhold intervention when a retarded per-

son is going to err. Ho wev er, persons who are retarded

must not be denied the opportunity to learn from their

own mistak es. Veach (1977) has forcefully described

the importance of this type of experience for young

children in general; Perske (1972) has made an ex-

cellent case for th e dignity of ri sk as a critical ele-

ment of normalization for those persons identified as

retarded.

Conclusion

For y ears, special education p ractitioners h ave taken

pride in their skill in identifying curricular areas of im-

portance to students, defining these areas in ways

which lend themselves to meaningful assessment and

task analysis, and developing effective p rocedures for

establishing skills by assisting students through small,

incremental steps toward mastery. Within that process,

we have sometimes lost track of a primary objective

of special education — that is, the preparation of

students wh o can function effectively without our ongo-

ing expert assistance. Ultimately, our success in

meeting that objective must serve as the basis for

evaluating how successful we have been in all the other

objectives which we set for ourselves as teachers of,

and advocates for, people with severe disabilities.

References

Bell, S. M., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1972). Infant crying

and maternal responsiveness. Child Development, 43,

1171-1190.

Berk, R. A. (1976). Effects of choice of instructional methods

on verbal learning tasks. Psychological Repo rts, 3 8,

8 6 7 -8 7 0 .

Brown, L., Falvey, M., Vincent, L., Kaye, N., Johnson,

F ., Ferrara-Parrish, P. , & Gruenewald, L. (1980).

Strategies for generating comprehensive, longitudinal and

chronological age appropriate individual educational plans

for adolescent and young adult severely handicapped

students. In L. Brown, M . Falvey, D . Baumgart, I . Pum-

pian, J. Schroeder, & L. Gruenewald (Eds.) , Strategies

for teaching chronological age appropriate functional skills

to adolescent an d young adult severely handicapped

students. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin -

Madison, and Madison Metropolitan School District.

Duncan, D., Sbardellati, E., Maheady, L., & Sainato, D.

(1981). Nondiscriminatory assessment of severely

physically handicapped individuals. Joumai of the Associa-

tion for the Severely Han dicapped, (5(2), 17-22.

Felixbrod, J. J., & O'Leary, K. D. (1973). Effects of rein-

forcement on children's academic behavior as a function

of self-determined and externally imposed contingencies.

Journal of Applied Beh avior Analysis, 6, 241 -25 0 .

Guess, D ., & Siegel-Causey, E. (in press). Behavioral con-

trol and education of severely handicapped students: Who's

doing what to whom? and why? In D. Bricker & J. Filler

(Eds. ) , Serving the severely retarded: From research to

practice. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional

Children.

Hockstra, C. M. (1978).

The effects of choice of conse-

quences and procedures on preschool children's rate of

working arithmetic problems. Unpublished doctoral disser-

tation, Washington State University.

Holvoet, J. , Brewer, M., Mulligan, M., Guess, D.,

Helmstetter, E., & Riggs, P. (1981). Influence of activity

choice on learning among adolescent severely, multiply

handicapped students. Unpublished manuscript. Univer-

sity of Kansas.

Kaczmarek, L. A. (1977). A descriptive analysis of the home

verbal environments of non-talking children. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. University of Rochester.

Klaber, M. M., & Butterfield, E. C. (1968). Stereotyped

rocking

—

A measure of institution and ward effectiveness.

American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 73, 13-20.

Kollinzas, G. (1983). The Communication Record: Sharing

information to promote sign language generalization. Jour-

nal of the Association for the Severely Hand icapped, S(3),

4 9 - 5 5 .

Mithaug, D. E., & Hanawalt, D. A. (1978). The validation

of procedures lo assess prevocational task preferences in

retarded adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,

11(1), 153-162.


8/9

168

Shevin and Klein

Mithaug, D. E. ,& M ar , D . K. (1980).

The relation between

choosing and working prevocational tasks in two severe-

ly retarded young adults.

Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, J3{\),

177-182.

Perske, R. (1972). The dignity of risk.

In W. Wolfensberger

(Ed.),

The principle of norm alization in huma n services.

Toronto: National Institute on Mental

Retardation.

Porter, R. H., Ramsey, B., Tremblay, A., laccobo, M., &

Crawley, S. (1978). Social interactions

in heterogeneous

groups of retarded and normally developing children: An

observational study. In G. P. Sackett (Ed.),

Observing

behavior.

V ol. 1. Baltim ore: University

Park

Press .

Rogers-Warren, A. K. (1981, May). //

takes two: Toward

a behavioral analysis of mother-child interactions.

Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Association for

Behavior Analysis, Milwaukee, WI.

Rogers-Warren, A.. & Warren, S. F. (Eds.) (1977).

Ecological perspectives in behavior analysis.

Baltimore,

MD: University Park Press.

Sapon, S. M., & Kaczmarek, L. A. (1975).

The descriptive

analysis of verbal behavior.

Rochester, NY: Publications

of the Verbal Behavior Laboratory.

Shevin, M. (1979, June).

Crying as productive verbal

behavior. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the

Association for Behavior Analysis, Dearborn, MI.

Sulzer-Azaroff

B., & Mayer, G. R. (1977).

Applying

behavior analysis procedures with children and

youth. Ne w

York:

Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Veach, D. M. (1977). Choice with responsibility.

Young

Children, 32(4),

2 2 - 2 5 .

Wehm an, P . (1979). Teaching recreational skills to severe-

ly and profoundly handicapped persons. In R. L. York

& E. Edgar, (Eds.) ,

Teaching the severely handicapp ed,

Volume 4. Seattle, WA: American Association for the

Education of the Severely/Profoundly Handicapped.

Wehman, P. & McLaughlin, P. (1981).

Program develop-

ment in special education.

New York: McGraw-Hill .

White, A. M. (1977). The effects of choice upon paired-

associate learning and reading comprehension in children.

1974 undergraduate honors thesis, Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University. As cited in Perlmuter. L.

C , & Monty, R. A. The importance of perceived con-

trol: Fact or fantasy.

American Scientist, 65,

7 5 9 -7 6 5 .

Wuerch, B. B., & Voeltz, L. M. (1982).

Longitudinal leisure

skills for s everely handicap ped learners: The Ho 'onanea

curriculum component.

Baltimore, MD: Brookes.


9/9

Shevin Klein 1984

Documents

Transcript of Shevin Klein 1984