Goal Structure Effects on Social Interaction: Nondisabled and Disabled Elementary Students

By Eichinger, Joanne | Exceptional Children, February 1990 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Goal Structure Effects on Social Interaction: Nondisabled and Disabled Elementary Students


Eichinger, Joanne, Exceptional Children


Goal Structure Effects on Social Interaction: Nondisabled and Disabled Elementary Students * Physical proximity, involving placing students with severe disabilities in a regular school with nondisabled peers, is often the first step toward integration. There is considerable evidence, however, that physical integration does not ensure social integration, which involves the opportunity for severely disabled individuals to participate fully in educational and community environments with nondisabled persons (Guralnick, 1980; Johnson, D. & Johnson, 1980; Meyer & Kishi, 1985).

Because integration is a valuable goal to attain, various features of integrated programming have been investigated (e.g., materials, group structures) as strategies to promote optimal outcomes. In particular, the effect of task structure on social interaction behavior enjoys a rich research history. This study builds on that existing empirical base.

Deutch (1949) conceptualized three different types of goal structures: competitive, individualistic, and cooperative. A competitive social situation is one in which a negative correlation exists among the goal attainments of the individual participants. A cooperative social situation is one which involves a positive correlation among the goals of the individuals. In an individualistic social situation, no correlation exists among the goal attainments of the participants.

Over the past 15 years, a multitude of research has demonstrated that cooperatively structured activities are more beneficial than individualistically structured activities in promoting more positive cross-ethnic and cross-handicap attitudes, as well as increased positive social interactions. These were discussed in a meta-analysis conducted by D. W. Johnson, Johnson, and Maruyama (1983). Two studies documented the benefits of a cooperative approach over an individualistic approach when adolescent students with moderate disabilities interacted with nondisabled students (Johnson, R., Rynders, Johnson, Schmidt, & Haider, 1979; Rynders, Johnson, Johnson, & Schmidt, 1980). Neither of these studies involved students with severe multiple handicaps. Other researchers have used the cooperative method with peer integration programs involving severely disabled and nondisabled students and have found this to be more beneficial than a nonstructured condition (Cole, 1986; Cole, Meyer, Vandercook, & McQuarter, 1986).

Thus far, several researchers have documented that without providing any specific strategies to promote generalization, positive results obtained during structured interactions generalized to unstructured free play settings (Johnson, D. W., Johnson, Warring, & Maruyama, 1986; Johnson, R., & Johnson, 1981; Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, 1982; Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, 1983; Martino & Johnson, 1979; Putnam, Rynders, Johnson, & Johnson, 1985). Only one of these studies, however, involved students with moderate and severe disabilities (Putnam, Rynders, Johnson, & Johnson, 1989).

Based on the limited research involving students with moderate and severe disbilities, we can conclude the following:

1. The cooperative goal-structured appraoch holds promise if the goal is to increase social interaction between students with severe disabilities and their nondisabled peers during structured recreational activities.

2. There is some evidence that generalization to unstructured settings occurs without specific efforts made to promote this generalization.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is twofold. First, it examines whether the cooperative appraoch is more favorable than an individualistic approach when used with a younger population of severely disabled students, half of whom experience multiple handicapping conditions. Second, it notes whether the effects observed during the structured classroom activities carry over into free play settings.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Goal Structure Effects on Social Interaction: Nondisabled and Disabled Elementary Students
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?