Structured Teaching

  • Gary B. Mesibov
  • Eric Schopler
  • Kathleen A. Hearsey
Part of the Current Issues in Autism book series (CIAM)

Abstract

Follow-up studies have consistently demonstrated that structured special educational programs result in the most positive outcomes for youngsters with autism (Lockyer & Rutter, 1969; Rutter, Greenfeld, & Lockyer, 1967; Schopler, Mesibov, DeVellis, & Short, 1981). Although there are undoubtedly many reasons for this, one of the main explanations is that these special education programs are the only ones to provide the kind and amount of clarity and predictability that these children need to enhance their development (Bartak, 1978; Bartak & Rutter, 1973; Schopler, Brehm, Kinsbourne, & Reichler, 1971). Providing structure for children with autism helps them to organize themselves and respond more appropriately to their environments. Advantageous to most of us, structure is essential to the functioning of autistic children because of their deficits in organization and their inability to understand or successfully control their behavior without assistance, direction, and support.

Keywords

Autistic Child Work System Work Area Structure Teaching Work Session 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bartak, L. (1978). Educational approaches. In M. Rutter & E. Schopler (Eds.), Autism: A reappraisal of concepts and treatment (pp. 423–438). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  2. Bartak, L., & Rutter, M. (1973). Special educational treatment of autistic children: A comparative study. I. Design of study and characteristics of units. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 14, 161–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Lockyer, L., & Rutter, M. (1969). A five to fifteen year follow-up study of infantile psychosis. III. Psychological aspects. British Journal of Psychiatry, 115, 865–882.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Rutter, M., Greenfeld, D., & Lockyer, L. (1967). A five to fifteen year follow-up study of infantile psychosis. II. Social and behavioral outcome. British Journal of Psychiatry, 113, 1183–1199.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Schopler, E., Brehm, S., Kinsbourne, M., & Reichler, R. J. (1971). The effect of treatment structure on development in autistic children. Archives of General Psychiatry, 24, 415–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Schopler, E., Mesibov, G. B., & Baker, A. (1982). Evaluation of treatment for autistic children and their parents. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 21, 262–267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Schopler, E., Mesibov, G. B., DeVellis, R. F., & Short, A. (1981). Treatment outcome for autistic children and their families. In P. Mittler (Ed.), Frontiers of knowledge in mental retardation: Social, educational, and behavioral aspects (pp. 293–301). Baltimore: University Park.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary B. Mesibov
    • 1
  • Eric Schopler
    • 1
  • Kathleen A. Hearsey
    • 1
  1. 1.Division TEACCH, School of MedicineThe University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations