This study examined an alternative approach for organizing reading and language arts instruction to accommodate individual differences in reading ability. The approach featured Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC), conducted without ability groups, with cross-age and peer tutoring, supplementary phonics instruction for some students, and classroom-based instruction from compensatory and special education teachers. Students in regular, remedial, and special education were included in an experimental and a control school. We found significant effects on reading vocabulary, total reading, and language scores in favor of the experimental school; but on several other measures, including behavior ratings, we did not detect treatment effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllingtonR. L. (1980). Teacher interruption behaviors during primary-grade oral reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 371–377.
2.
AllingtonR. L. (1984). Content coverage and contextual reading in reading groups. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 85–96.
3.
BarrR., & DreebenR. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BarrR., & DreebenR. (1991). Grouping students for reading instruction. In PearsonD. P. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. II (pp. 885–912). New York: Longmire.
5.
BeanR. M.CooleyW.EichelbergerR. T.LazarM., & ZigmondN. (1989, April). In-class remedial reading programs: Old wine in new bottles. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
6.
CollinsJ. (1986). Differential treatment in reading instruction. In Cook-GumperzJ. (Ed.), The social construction of literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
EngelmannS., & BrunerE. (1988). Reading mastery I. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
10.
EspinC.DenoS. L.MaruyamaG., & CohenC. (1989, April). The Basic Academic Skills Samples (BASS): An instrument for the screening and identification of children at risk for failure in regular education classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
11.
GambrellL. (1984). How much time do children spend reading during teacher-directed reading instruction? In NilesJ. & HarrisL. (Eds.), Changing perspectives on research in reading/language processing and instruction. Thirty-Third Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 193–198). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
12.
GartnerA., & LipskyD. K. (1989). The yoke of special education: How to beat it. Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 792).
13.
GuthrieJ. T.SiefertM.BurnhamN. A., & CaplanR. I. (1974). The maze technique to assess, monitor reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 28(2), 61–68.
14.
HaynesM. C., & JenkinsJ. R. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 161–190.
15.
HiebertE. (1983). An examination of ability groupings for reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 231–255.
16.
JenkinsJ. R., & JenkinsL. M. (1985). Peer tutoring in elementary and secondary programs. Focus on Exceptional Children, 17(6), 1–12.
17.
JenkinsJ. R., & JewellM. (in press). An examination of the concurrent validity of the Basic Academic Skills Samples (BASS). Diagnostique.
18.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T., & MaruyamaG. (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of research. Review of Educational Research, 53(1), 5–54.
19.
JohnstonP.AllingtonR., & AfflerbachP. (1985). The congruence of classroom and remedial reading instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 85(4), 465–477.
20.
JuelC. (1990). Effects of reading group assignment on reading development in first and second grade. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22(3), 233–254.
21.
KamilM. L., & RauscherW. C. (1990). Effects of grouping and difficulty of materials on reading achievement. In ZutellJ. & McCormickS. (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analysis From Multiple Paradigms. Thirty-Ninth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 121–127). Chicago: National Reading Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 324 646).
22.
KnappM. S., & ShieldsP. M. (1990). Reconceiving academic instruction for children of poverty. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 753–758.
MaddenN. A., & SlavinR. E. (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild academic handicaps: Academic and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 53, 519–569.
25.
McDermottR. (1976). Kids make sense: An ethnographic account of the interactional management of success and failure in one first-grade classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
26.
McGill-FranzenA., & AllingtonR. L. (1990). Comprehension and coherence: Neglected elements of literacy instruction in remedial and resource room services. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 6, 149–180.
27.
PalinscarA. M., & BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.
28.
ParkerR. I.TindalG., & HasbrouckJ. (1991). Progress monitoring with objective measures of written performance for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 61–73.
29.
PinnellG. S. (1989). Success of at-risk children in a program that combines reading and writing. In MasonJ. (Ed.), Reading and Writing Connections. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
SamuelsS. J. (1985). Automaticity and repeated reading. In OsbornJ.WilsonP. T., & AndersonR. C. (Eds.), Reading education: Foundations for a literate America (pp. 215–230). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
32.
SlavinR. E. (1986). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293–336.
33.
SlavinR. E.MaddenN. A.KarweitN. L.LivermonB. J., & DolanL. (1990). Success for all: First year outcomes of a comprehensive plan for reforming urban education. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 255–278.
34.
SlavinR. E., & StevensR. (1991). Cooperative learning and mainstreaming. In LloydJ. W.SinghN. M., & ReppA. C. (Eds.), The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 177–192). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press.
35.
StevensR. J.MaddenN. A.SlavinR. E., & FarnishA. M. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 433–454.
36.
StevensR. J.SlavinR. E., & FarnishA. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 8–16.
37.
WalkerH. M., & McConnellS. R. (1988). The Walker-McConnell Scale of Social Competence and School Adjustment. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
38.
WillM. (1986). Educating students with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 279 149).
