Cognitive-Behavioral Training in the Curriculum: Time, Slow Learners, and Basic Skills

Abstract

Whatever disagreement exists concerning identification of various subtypes of mildly handicapped (MH) learners, a consensus probably exists that these students learn at a slower rate than do their normally achieving peers. The idea of "slower rate" implies managerial as well as cognitive-behavioral concerns. In part, slower rate of acquisition is a function of discrepancies between time allocated by teachers for learning and time during which MH students are cognitively engaged with the content of learning tasks (i.e., academic learning time). MH students may be more predisposed to exh~bit "off.:task," or inappropriate task orientation, behaviors than their normally achieving peers. These students quite literally "waste" time, presenting teachers with difficult management problems. If task orientation behaviors were the only problems, however, academic gains for these students should be obtainable simply by increasing the percentage of allocated time that they appear to be actively engaged in learning. In fact, this line of reasoning has led to many intervention strategies that have sought to increase the probability of "on-task" behaviors through use of adult managed (e.g., see Kauffman & Hallahan, 1979) or student managed (e.g., see Hallahan & Sapona, 1983) procedures. Another line of thought-one for which practical implications are less well researched in special education-holds that even under conditions of optimal attentional behavior during tasks, MH students are always "slower" learners because they have difficulty allocating attention efficiently to information within tasks. (For general discussion of evidence favoring an attentional deficit hypothesis, see Hallahan & Reeve, 1980; for contrary evidence and arguments, see a recent paper by Samuels & Miller, 1985). If this hypothesis is true,• MH studel)ts, under available conditions of instruction, will require absolutely more learning time than faster learning peers if they are to develop similar levels of mastery and automaticity. Therefore, slower rates of acquisition present instructional design, as well as general managerial, problems.