This study examined how classroom teachers in one elementary school approached the problem of designing specialized instruction for students with reading problems. We asked 12 teachers to rate their confidence in designing effective interventions and then to diagnose a student's reading problem, select an intervention, and implement it. Teachers were moderately confident about their ability to design effective interventions; but some teachers expressed doubts about how to proceed. Their approach to intervention differed somewhat from that of special education resource teachers. Some teachers experienced considerable difficulty in implementing the interventions they selected.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChalfantJ.PyshM.MoultrieR. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model for within-building problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 85–96.
2.
DahlP. R. (1979). An experimental program for teaching high speed word recognition and comprehension skills. In ButtonJ. E.LovittT. C.RowlandT. D. (Eds.), Communications research in learning disabilities and mental retardation (pp. 33–65). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
3.
DenoS. L. (1985). Experimental teaching: An approach to improving student achievement, changing teacher beliefs, and identifying effective procedures. Final Report, Department of Special Education, University of Minnesota.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ReederP.GilmanS.FernstromP.BahrM.MooreP. (1989). Mainstream Assistance Teams: A handbook on prereferral intervention. Nashville, TN: Peabody College of Vanderbilt University.
6.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–500.
7.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.SteckerP. M. (1990). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement. Unpublished manuscript, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
8.
GartnerA.LipskyD. K. (1989). The yoke of special education: How to break it. Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy.
9.
Idol-MaestasL. (1983). Special educator's consultation handbook. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems.
10.
JenkinsJ. R.HeinenA. (1989). Students preferences for service delivery: Pull-out, in-class, or integrated models. Exceptional Children, 55, 516–523.
11.
JenkinsJ. R.JenkinsL. M. (1981). Cross-age and peer tutoring: Help for children with learning problems. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
12.
JenkinsJ. R.PiousC. G.JewellM. (1990). Special education and the regular education initiative: Basic assumptions. Exceptional Children, 56, 479–491.
13.
PugachM. C.JohnsonL. J. (April, 1989). Unlocking expertise among classroom teachers through structured dialogue: Extending research on peer collaboration. Paper presented at the 1989 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
14.
StainbackW.StainbackS. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102–111.
15.
StevensR. J.MaddenN. A.SlavinR. E.FarnishA. M. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 433–454.
16.
WillM. (1986). Educating students with learning problems—A shared responsibility. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education.
