The reading instruction, grouping practices, and outcomes for students with learning disabilities (LD) in resource room settings were examined. The study was a follow-up of an observational study done 2 years previously (Vaughn, Moody, & Schumm, 1998). Whole class instruction was the dominant grouping format although several teachers used small groups and individualized activities. Half of the special education teachers provided differentiated materials and instruction to match the learning levels of the students that they taught. Overall, no significant gains in reading comprehension were evidenced by students in this study. Results from the fluency tests also revealed inadequate student progress in reading. The failure of the present structure of the resource room to provide opportunities for a special education is discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderA.AndersonH.HeilmanP. C.VoellerK. S.TorgesenJ. K. (1991). Phonological awareness training and remediation of analytic decoding deficits in a group of severe dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 193–206.
2.
AllingtonR. L.McGill-FranzenA. (1989). School response to reading failure: Instruction for chapter one and special education students grades two, four, and eight. Elementary School Journal, 89, 529–42.
3.
AllingtonR. L.StuetzelH.ShakeM. C.LamarchL., (1986). What is remedial reading? A descriptive study. Reading Research and Instruction, 26(1), 15–30.
4.
BradyS.MoatsL. (1997). Informed instruction for reading success: Foundations for teacher preparation. International Dyslexia Society, Baltimore. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 411 646).
5.
DenoS. L. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36–45.
6.
DurkinD. (1990). Matching classroom instruction with reading abilities: An unmet need. Remedial and Special Education, 11(3), 23–28.
7.
FloodJ.LappD.FloodS.NagelG. (1992). Am I allowed to group? Using flexible patterns for effective instruction. The Reading Teacher, 45, 608–616.
8.
GerstenR.DiminoJ. (1993). Visions and revisions: A special education perspective on the whole language controversy. Remedial and Special Education, 14(4), 5–13.
9.
HaynesM. C.JenkinsJ. R. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 161–90.
10.
KauffmanJ. M. (1996). The challenge of nihilism. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19, 205–206.
11.
KerlingerF. N. (1986). Foundations for behavioral research. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston*.
12.
LeinhardtG.WeidmanC.HammondK. (1987). Introduction and integration of classroom routines by expert teachers. Curriculum Inquiry, 17, 135–176.
13.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.*
14.
LouY.AbramiP. C.SpenceJ. C.PoulsenC.ChambersB.d'AppoloniaS. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.
15.
MarstonD.DenoS. L.KimY.DimentK.RogersD. (1995). Comparison of reading intervention approaches for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 20–37.
16.
MartinE. W. (1995). Case studies on inclusion: Worst fears realized. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 192–199.
17.
MatherN. (1992). Whole language reading instruction for students with learning disabilities: Caught in the cross fire. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 87–95.
18.
McIntoshR.VaughnS.SchummJ. S.HaagerD.LeeO. (1993). Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60, 249–261.
19.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.*
20.
PressleyM.Wharton-McDonaldR.HampstonJ. M.EchevarriaD. (1997). A survey of the instructional practices of grade five teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(2), 145–160.
21.
SlavinR. E. (1984). Research methods in education: A practical guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.*
22.
SlavinR. E. (1990). Class size and student achievement: Is smaller better?Contemporary Education, 62(1), 6–12.
23.
SwansonH. L.McMahonC. M.Sachse-LeeC.HoskynM.RestoriA.RuffnerJ.McLaughlin-ChangE.CarsonC.KraemerB.O'ShaughnessyT.MurrayB. (1996). Synthesis of intervention research for students with learning disabilities (U.S. Department of Education Grant-H023E40014). Riverside, CA: University of California-Riverside.*
24.
The Test of Reading Fluency (TORF): Measures for screening and progress monitoring in TORF reading (1987). Minneapolis: Children's Educational Services, Inc.*
25.
TindalG.MarstonD.DenoS. L. (1983). The reliability of direct and repeated measurement (Research Report No. 109). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
26.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.AlexanderA. W.ConwayT. (1997). Preventive and remedial interventions for children with severe reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 8(1), 51–61.
27.
VaughnS.HughesM. T.SchummJ. S.KlingnerJ. K. (1998). A collaborative effort to enhance implementation of instructional practices in reading and writing for students with LD. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 21, 57–74.
28.
VaughnS.MoodyS. W.SchummJ. S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64, 211–225.
29.
WillM. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411–415.
YinR. K. (1991). Applications of case study research. Washington, DC: Cosmos Corp.*
32.
YsseldykeJ. E.ThurlowM. A.MecklenburgC.GradenJ. (1984). Opportunity to learn for regular and special education students during reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 5(1), 29–37.
33.
ZigmondN.BakerJ. M. (1995). Concluding comments: Current and future practices in inclusive schooling. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 245–250.
