The successful integration of students with learning disabilities into mainstream reading classes may require teachers to adapt instruction and curricula in major ways. In this article, we discuss the relation between the instruction prescribed by standardized commercial curricula and the reading achievement of mainstreamed students with learning disabilities and other low-performing nonhandicapped students. An instructional template designed to complement commercially published reading lessons is described and its effects on the reading achievement of mainstreamed students with learning disabilities examined. Next, the limitations of generic instructional procedures to rectify the deficiencies of mainstream curricular programs for students with greater-than-average instructional needs are reviewed. We conclude with a discussion of the complexity of educating instructionally needy learners in mainstream settings and the significance of well-designed instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities?Exceptional Children,56, 515–526.
2.
Barr, R., & Sado w., M. (1989). Influence of basal programs on fourth-grade reading instruction.Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 44–71.
3.
Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis.Review of Educational Research,51, 5–32.
4.
Brophy, J. (1988). Research on teacher effects: Uses and abuses.The Elementary School Journal,89, 3–22.
5.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392–431). New York: Macmillan.
6.
Carnine, D. (1989). Beyond technique -Direct instruction and higher order skills. Unpublished manuscript.
7.
Carnine, D., Silbert, J., & Stein, M. (1990). Direct instruction mathematics.Columbus, OH: Merrill.
8.
Carroll, J. B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view.Educational Researcher, 18, 26–31.
9.
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate.New York: McGraw-Hill.
10.
Clark, D.C (1971). Teaching concepts in the classroom: A set of teaching prescriptions derived from experimental researchJournal of Educational Psychology Monograph, 62, 253–278.
11.
Duffy, GG, & Anderson, L. (1981). Final report: Conception of Reading Project.East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
12.
Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L., & Putnam, J. (1987). Putting the teacher in control: Basal reading textbooks and instructional decision making.The Elementary School Journal,87, 357–366.
13.
Durkin, D. (1981). Reading comprehension instruction in five basal series.Reading Research Quarterly,16, 515–544.
14.
Durkin, D. (1987). Influences on basal reader programs.The Elementary School Journal,87, 331–341.
15.
Durkin, D. (1990). Matching classroom instruction with reading abilities: An unmet need.Remedial and Special Education, I1(3), 23–28.
16.
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications.New York: Irvington.
17.
Englert, C (1984). Measuring teacher effectiveness from the teacher's point of view.Focus on Exceptional Children, 17, 1–15.
18.
Farr, R., Tulley, M., & Powell, D. (1987). The evaluation and selection of basal readers.The Elementary School Journal,87, 267–281.
19.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1990). reacher planning for pupils with learning disabilities]. Unpublished raw data.
20.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. (1989). Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two teacher feedback systems.Journal of Educational Research, 83, 103–111.
21.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., & Sleeker, P. (1990). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement. Unpublished manuscript.
22.
Gardner, E. J., Rudman, H. C., Karlsen, B., & Mer-win, J. C (1982). Stanford Achievement test.San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
23.
Gersten, R., Meyer, L., & Zoref, L. (1979). Teacher effectiveness evaluation form.Eugene: University of Oregon.
24.
Gickling, E., & Thompson, V. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment.Exceptional Children,52, 205–218.
25.
Kameenui, E.J. (1990a). The language of the REI-Why it's hard to put into words: A response to Durkin and Miller.Remedial and Special Education, 11(3), 57–58.
26.
Kameenui, E. J. (1990b). Structural misalignment in textbook adoption, curriculum adaptation, and instructional accommodation of children with disabilities in mainstream education: A call for action. Unpublished manuscript.
27.
Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1900). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems.Columbus, OH: Merrill.
28.
Markle, S. (1975). They teach concepts don't they?Educational Researcher,4, 3–9.
29.
McKeown, M., & Beck, I. (1988). Learning vocabulary: Different ways for different goals.Remedial and Special Education,9(1), 42–52.
30.
Meyer, L. (1986). Strategies for correcting students' wrong responses.The Elementary School Journal,87, 227–241.
31.
Mosenthal, P. (1982). Designing training programs for learning disabled children: An ideological perspective.Topics in Learning & Learning Disabilities, 2, 97–107.
32.
Osborn, J., Jones, B.F., & Stein, M. (1985, April). The case for improving textbooks.Educational Leadership, pp. 9–17.
33.
Pink, W. T., & Leibert, R.E. (1987). Reading instruction in the elementary school: A proposal for reform.The Elementary School Journal,87, 51–67.
34.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376–391). New York: Macmillan.
35.
Shake, M.C., & Domaracki, J.H. (1984). Teacher decision making in content area classrooms: Accommodating learning disabled students.Topics in Learning & . Learning Disabilities,3(4), 31–41.
36.
Simmons, D., Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1989). Teacher effectiveness rating scale.Nashville, TN: Peabody College of Vanderbilt University.
37.
Simmons, D., Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Mathes, P., & Pate, J. (1990). Effects of explicit teaching and peer-mediated instruction on the reading achievement of learning disabled and low-performing students. Manuscript submitted for publication.
38.
Simmons, D., & Kameenui, E. (1990). /Elementary teachers' analysis of basal curricular lessons for low-performing students]. Unpublished raw data.
39.
Slavin, R. (1984). Component building: A strategy for research-based instructional improvement.The Elementary School Journal,84, 255–269.
40.
Smylie, M. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organization and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change.American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1–30.
41.
Stahl, S. (1986). Three principles of effective vocabulary instruction.Journal of Reading,29(7), 662–668.
42.
Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Wotruba, J., & Nania, P. (1900). Instructional arrangements: Perceptions from general education.Teaching Exceptional Children,22(4), 4–9.
