This study reports afield test of six research-based teaching strategies with 37 special education resource teachers and 176 students with mild disabilities. The approaches included peer tutoring, reciprocal teaching, effective teaching principles, computer-aided instruction, and two direct instruction models, all used in reading instruction. Comparisons with a control group and between approaches produced inconsistent results. Students in all groups, including the controls, showed higher levels of engagement during all approaches than other researchers have reported for either mainstream or resource room students. Student achievement was highest in the computer-assisted group, in the reciprocal teaching group, and in one of the direct instruction groups.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlgozzineR., & MaheadyL. (Eds.). (1986). In search of excellence: Instruction that works in special education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 52, 487–589.
2.
BeckerW. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged—What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518–543.
3.
BloomB. S. (1984). The 2 Sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16.
4.
BrophyJ. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 21, 733–750.
5.
CarnineD., & SilbertJ. (1979). Direct instruction reading. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
6.
CartaJ. J.GreenwoodC. R.SchulteD.Arreaga-MayerC., & TerryB. (1988). Code for instructional structure and student academic response/mainstream special education version: A training manual. Unpublished manual, Kansas City, MO: Juniper Gardens Children's Center.
7.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1986). The California Achievement Tests. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
10.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K., & ChiangB. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36–45.
11.
EngelmannS. (1980). Direct instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
12.
FuchsL.DenoS., & MirkinP. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.
13.
GreenwoodC. R., & CartaJ. J. (1987). An ecobehavioral interaction analysis of instruction within special education. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(9), 1–11.
14.
HofmeisterA., & ThorkildsenR. (1984). Microcomputers in special education: Implications for instructional design. Exceptional Educational Quarterly, 4, 1–8.
15.
JenkinsJ. R., & JenkinsL. M. (1982). Peer and cross-age tutoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 238 844).
16.
MarstonD., & MagnussonD. (1988). Curriculum-based measurement: District level implementation. In GradenJ. L.ZinsJ. E., & CurtisM. J. (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students. Washington, DC: National Association for School Psychologists.
17.
MostellerF. (1981). Innovation and evaluation. Science, 211, 881–886.
18.
Office of Special Education Programs. (1987). New application for grants under research in education of the handicapped. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education.
19.
O'SullivanP. (1988). Quantitative and qualitative aspects of reading instruction for mildly handicapped elementary students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
20.
PalincsarA. S. (1986). Metacognitive strategy instruction. Exceptional Children, 53, 118–124.
21.
RosenshineB. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction. In PetersonP. & WalbergH. (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
22.
RosenshineB., & StevensR. (1986). Teaching functions. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 376–391. New York: Macmillan.
23.
Science Research Associates. (1988). Reading mastery. New York: SRA, Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.
24.
SkibaR.WessonC., & DenoS. L. (1982). The effects of training teachers in the use of formative evaluation in reading: An experimental-control comparison. (Research Report No. 88). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 228 821).
25.
SquiresD. A.HuittW. G., & SegarsJ. K.. (1983–84). Effective schools and classrooms: A research-based perspective. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 232 972).
26.
TindalG. A. (1985). Investigating the effectiveness of special education: An analysis of methodology. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 101–112.
27.
ThurlowM.YsseldykeJ.GradenJ., & AlgozzineB. (1983). What's “special” about the special education resource room for learning disabled students?Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 283–288.
28.
WeissB. J.EventsE. L.CruikshankS. B.SteuerL. O., & HuntL. C. (1983). Holt basic reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
29.
WittrockM. C. (1986). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
