This article presents the results of a study designed to evaluate the impact of an in-class service model on the achievement of students at risk of school failure. The model, which included collaborative consultation, cooperative teaching, parent involvement, and strategic and adapted instruction was implemented for 1 school year in 13 different schools. Significant effects were found on writing scores for students at risk and on reading and mathematics scores for general education students. No significant treatment effects were detected for students with learning disabilities. The findings confirm the benefits of the in-class service model for some students and the need to pursue further research in order to achieve better results for the lowest achievers in the classroom.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsonD. R.MatthewsP.SchullerJ. (1990). Five ways to bridge: The resource room to regular classroom gap. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 22, 74–77.
2.
AffleckJ.MadgeS.AdamsA.LowenbraunS. (1988). Integrated classroom versus resource model: Academic viability and effectiveness. Exceptional Children, 54, 339–348.
3.
AllingtonR. L.StuetzelH.ShakeM.LamarcheS. (1986). What is remedial reading? A descriptive study. Reading Research and Instruction, 26, 15–30. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 254 822).
4.
BeanR. M.CooleyW. W.EichelbergerR. T.LazarM. K.ZigmondN. (1991). In class or pullout: Effects of setting on the remedial reading program. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 445–464.
5.
BorgW. R.GallM. D. (1989). Educational research. An introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.*
6.
BrownL. F.KiralyJ.McKinnonA. (1979). Resource rooms: Some aspects for special educators to ponder. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 56–58.
7.
CazdenC. B. (1988). Classroom discourse and student learning. In CazdenC. B. (Ed.), Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (pp. 99–120). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.*
8.
DettmerP.ThurstonL. P.DyckN. (1993). Consultation, collaboration, and teamwork for students with special needs. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.*
9.
EnglertC. S.GarmonA.MariageT. V.RozendalM.TarrantK. L.UrbaJ. (1995). The early literacy project: Connecting across the literacy curriculum. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 253–275.
10.
FriendM.McNuttG. (1986). A comparative study of resource teacher job descriptions and perceptions of resource teacher responsibilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 224–228.
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.PhilippsN. B.KarnsK. (1995). General educators' specialized adaptation for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 441–458.
12.
GelzheiserL. M.MeyersJ. (1990). Special and remedial education in the classroom: Theme and variations. Journal of Reading, Writing and Learning Disabilities International, 6, 419–436.
13.
GerstenR.WalkerD.DarchC. (1988). Relationship between teachers' effectiveness and their tolerance for handicapped students: An exploratory study. Exceptional Children, 54, 433–438.
14.
GerstenR.WoodwardJ. (1990). Rethinking the regular education initiative: Focus on the classroom teacher. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 7–16.
15.
GirouxL.RoyerÉ. (1991). Portrait des services éducatifs offerts aux élèves du primaire présentant des difficultés d'apprentissage: Rapport préliminaire [Description of special services provided in primary school: Preliminary report]. Quebec: Government of Quebec. Unpublished manuscript.
16.
GoupilG.ComeauG.DoréC.FilionM. (1995). Que pensent les orthopédagogues de leurs services? [What special teachers think about services they provided?]Revue Canadienne de Psycho-éducation, 24, 33–64.
17.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (1994). Implications of constructivism for teaching writing to students with special needs. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 275–289.
18.
HowardM. A. D.AndersonR. J. (1978). Early identification of potential school dropouts: A literature review. Child Welfare, 52, 221–231.
19.
JenkinsJ. R.JewellM.LeicesterN.O'ConnorR. E.JenkinsL. M.TroutnerN. M. (1994). Accommodations for individual differences without classroom ability groups: An experiment in school restructuring. Exceptional Children, 60, 344–358.
20.
JohnsonS. M.BoldstadO. D. (1972). Methodological issues in naturalistic observation: Some problems and solutions for field research. In HamerlynckL. A.HandyJ.MashD. A. (Eds.), Behavior change: Methodology, concepts and practice (pp. 7–67). Champaign, IL: Research Press.
21.
KatsiyannisA.CondermanG.FranksD. J. (1995). State practices on inclusion: A national review. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 279–287.
22.
KavaleK. A. (1990). Effectiveness of differential programming in serving handicapped students. In WangM. C.ReynoldsM. C.WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Special education: Research and practice: Synthesis of findings (pp. 35–55). Toronto: Pergamon Press.*
23.
LarriveeB. (1989). Effective strategies for academically handicapped students in the regular classroom. In SlavinR. E.KarweitN. L.MaddenN. A. (Eds.), Effective programs for students at risk (pp. 291–319). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.*
24.
Learning Disabilities Association of Quebec. (1996). Results of a survey on educational services for special students. Unpublished report.
25.
LeinhardtG.BeickerW. (1987). Instruction's the thing wherein to catch the mind that falls behind. Educational Psychologist, 18, 177–207.
26.
LloydD. N. (1978). Prediction of school failure from third-grade data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 1193–1200.
27.
LovittT. C. (1989). Introduction to learning disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.*
28.
MarstonD. (1987). Does categorical teacher certification benefit the mildly handicapped child?Exceptional Children, 53, 423–431.
29.
MercerC. D.JordanL.MillerS. M. (1994). Implications of constructivism for teaching math to students with moderate to mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 28, 290–306.
30.
MeyersJ.GelzheiserL. M.YelichG. (1991). Do pull-in programs foster teacher collaboration?Remedial and Special Education, 12, 7–15.
31.
Ministère de l'Education du Quebec. (1994). Effectifs E.D.D.A.- 1993–1994. Quebec: Governement of Quebec.
32.
PalincsarA. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 73–98.
33.
PalincsarA. S.KlenkL. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 211–225.
34.
PoplinM.PhillipsL. (1993). Sociocultural aspects of language and literacy: Issues facing educators and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 245–255.
35.
ReidD. K. (1991). The cognitive curriculum. In ReidD. K.GreskoW. P.SwansonH. L. (Eds.), A cognitive approach to learning disabilities (pp. 297–316). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.*
36.
RobertsR.MatherN. (1995). The return of students with learning disabilities to regular classrooms: A sellout. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 46–58.
37.
Saint-LaurentL.GiassonJ.SimardC.DionneJ. J.RoyerÉ. (Eds.). (1995). Programme d'intervention auprès des élèves à risque: Une nouvelle option éducative [Intervention program for students at risk: A new educational alternative]. Montréal: Gaëtan Morin.*
38.
SimpsonR. L.WhelanR. J.ZabelR. H. (1993). Special education personnel preparation in the 21st century: Issues and strategies. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 7–22.
39.
SkrticT. M.SailorW.GeeK. (1996). Voice, collaboration, and inclusion: Democratic themes in educational and social reform initiatives. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 142–157.
40.
SlavinR. E. (1987). Making Chapter 1 make a difference, Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 110–119.
41.
SlavinR. E. (1989). Students at risk of school failure: The problem and its dimensions. In SlavinR. E.KarweitN. L.MaddenN. A. (Eds.), Effective programs for students at risk (pp 3–19). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.*
42.
SteinM. K.LeinhardtG.BickelW. (1989). Instructional issues for teaching students at risk. In SlavinR. E.KarweitN. L.MaddenN. A. (Eds.), Effective programs for students at risk (pp. 145–194). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.*
43.
StevensR. J.SlavinR. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students' achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 321–351.
44.
VoltzD. L.ElliottR. N.Jr. (1990). Resource room teacher roles in promoting interaction with regular educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13, 160–166.
45.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.*
46.
VygotskyL. S. (1985). Pensée et langage [Thought and language]. Paris: Messidor.*
47.
WelchM.RichardsG.OkadaT.RichardsJ.PrescottS. (1995). A consultation and paraprofessional pull-in system of service delivery: A report on student outcomes and teacher satisfaction. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 16–28.
48.
WillM. C. (1986). Educating students with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 42, 411–415.
49.
ZigmondN.JenkinsJ.FuchsL.DenoS.FuchsD.BakerJ. N.JenkinsL.CouthinoM. (1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(4), 531–540.
