Purpose: To investigate the effect of cueing on communicative responses of children with multiple disabilities in an educational setting. It was hypothesized that differences would exist in teacher interactional styles and the use of orienting cues would increase the communicative responses of the participants. Method: A naturalistic observation research method was employed in order to examine the interaction of three student -teacher dyads in three special schools. Three different activity types were videotaped from which interactions were coded and analysed. Results: Multi-modal cueing facilitated communicative responses of children with Rett syndrome. However, increased communication opportunities provided by caregivers did not elicit increased responses from the girls. Conclusion: There is a difference in cueing by teachers in their interactions with children with multiple disabilities. Also, more frequent communicative interactions did not necessarily lead to increased student responses. It is suggested that amount and type of cueing may need to be considered to be effective in generating student responses. The small number of participants, however, means findings should be viewed cautiously and that more research is indicated.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue,The findings of recent studies strongly suggest that the academic department is the major avenue through which faculty members in large universities influence decisions. For example, Dykes' found that departmental staff meetings were rated by his faculty sample as more useful than the faculty senate, various faculty committees, and the local chapter of the American Association of University Professors in providing an opportunity for meaningful participation in decision-making.Moreover, the importance of the department in academic governance apparently increases as universities become larger and more internally differentiated.2 Summarizing the changes occurring in faculty organization and authority, Clark argued that "the decision making power and influence of the faculty is now more segmentedsegmented by college, by division, and particularly by department. All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions INTERNAL ORGANIZATION faculty participation in government tends to move out to these centers of commitment." 3 The academic department, nevertheless, has seldom been used as the unit of analysis in comparative studies of faculty participation in decision-making. Especially lacking are studies in which faculty involvement is analyzed through rigorous comparisons of departmental organization patterns. While Haas and Collen4 found that departmental differences in formalization of procedures were related positively to the number of faculty members involved in certain personnel decisions, no effort was made to examine systematically structural arrangements within which these phenomena developed. Further, Taylor5 identified departmental differences in informal faculty power structures, but he was unable to test for possible relationships between formal organization and these influence patterns.The study reported here attempted to identify and classify departmental variations in formal organization for decision-making and to relate these differences to patterns of informal organization. The concept of formal organization refers to structural and procedural patterns that are deliberately planned to enhance the realization of specific goals.6 An example of formal organization is the institution of a committee structure for the consideration of particular decisions. The concept of informal organization refers both to the social relations that emerge among the staff and the actual patterns and procedures that emerge to modify the formal administrative structure.7While there had been no prior systematic comparisons of departmental patterns of formal and informal organization, both Dykes8 3B. Clark, "Faculty Organization and Authority," in Th...

No abstract

Cumulative records over 3 years for 196 junior high school sophomores were analyzed to assess the effect of socio‐economic status of students on counseling exposure. Statistical significance was found between socio‐economic status of the student and both the frequency with which he was referred to the counselor and the problem areas discussed. Frequency of counselor contact was not significantly associated with student socio‐economic status. Where the counselors initiated the interviews, they apparently did so only in keeping with administrative policies. The differences that did occur arose when parents or, less frequently, the students themselves, initiated the interviews. Here, socio‐economic status appeared to play a crucial and singular role.