Scheduling Daily or Less-Than-Daily Instruction

Mayhall, William F.; Jenkins, James J.

doi:10.1177/002221947701000306

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No research on frequency of tutoring at the secondary level has been done, as most secondary schools are locked into set schedules. Two studies, however, investigated the scheduling factor in elementary tutoring programs using a pull-out model (Ellson, Harris, & Barber, 1968;Mayhall & Jenkins, 1977). Tutoring was more effective when scheduled daily and for sessions that lasted approximately half an hour.…”

Section: Frequency and Duration Of Tutoring Lessonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Tutoring in Elementary and Secondary Programs

Jenkins¹,

Jenkins²

2018

Exceptional

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The task facing professionals who teach ' students with handicaps is clear enoughhow to raise achievement rates and thereby reduce the discrepancy between handicapped children and their peers. Teachers with whom we have talked are confident they could teach almost anything to almost anyone, if they had the time. A student who requires 80 repetitions of a rule before applying it consistently has a problem only if the teacher does not have enough time to provide the repetitions. Of course, time spent with this student is probably time taken away from other students who already have learned the rule, or who are at an earlier spot in the curriculum. Whether, or when, a particular student learns a rule will probably not be determined by the teacher's ability to teach but, rather, by the teacher's available time. The pr:oblem of having sufficient time for teaching is a function of class size and of the varieties of human differences found in schools.Data gathered in elementary classrooms have identified "academic engaged time" as a highly significant correlate of achievement-one that distinguishes classrooms that produce above and below average achievement levels. Berliner, Fisher, Filby, and Marlieve (1976) have described academic learning time as the time a studentspends engaged in academically relevant tasks that are moderately difficult. Academic engaged time is not the same as allotted instructional time. A typical elementafy classroom allots from 90 minutes to 2 hours daily to language ~rts instruction. Qbservations of what the students do during this period, however, reveal that far fewer•rilinutes are actually spent engaged in a learning task. ,

show abstract

Section: Frequency and Duration Of Tutoring Lessonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Tutoring in Elementary and Secondary Programs

Jenkins¹,

Jenkins²

2018

Exceptional

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(1979) identified four fluency-building strategies: (a) drill and practice, (b) instructions versus consequences, (c) schedules of consequences, and Opportunity for and exercise of rehearsal, have been reported as the major components of drill and practice. One approach to drill and practice has been examined by Mayhall and Jenkins (1977) . The authors compared the effects of daily and less-than-daily study on the performance of academic tasks by children who were learning-disabled.…”

Section: Fluency-buildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficiency of two operant procedures in building fluency in dressing skills of profoundly handicapped children / by Jon M. Saulson.

Saulson¹

1981

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Allstudents could take part in VRS instruction although children experiencing learning problems should receive such instruction on a daily basis (Mayhall and Jenkins, 1977) and non-learning disabled peers might only visitthe VRS once or twice a week. Such provisions would provide the learning disabled child with appropriate peer models thoughout the school day, while Simultaneously avoiding some of the negative effects of labeling.…”

Section: Resource Roommentioning

confidence: 99%

Applied Technology: Visual Response System: A Mediated Resource Room for Children with Learning Problems

Heward

1978

J Spec Educ Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five reasons are proposed why efforts to mainstream learning disabled students into the regular classroom are often unsuccessful. A mediated resource room, the Visual Response System (VRS), is described and suggested as an instructional technology which could help facilitate the integration of learning disabled students into the regular classroom. The VRS is a classroom in which each student has an overhead projector built into his or her desk. The teacher also has an overhead projector for presenting stimuli to students. Student's respond on their overhead projectors by writing, pointing, placingobjects, etc. Students' responses are projected on screens behind their desks. giving the teacher immediate and continuous visualaccess to those responses.

show abstract

Scheduling Daily or Less-Than-Daily Instruction

Cited by 9 publications

References 4 publications

Peer Tutoring in Elementary and Secondary Programs

Peer Tutoring in Elementary and Secondary Programs

Efficiency of two operant procedures in building fluency in dressing skills of profoundly handicapped children / by Jon M. Saulson.

Applied Technology: Visual Response System: A Mediated Resource Room for Children with Learning Problems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About