The purpose of this study was to describe three components of general education middle school content classrooms relevant to the success of students with learning difficulties. We analyzed the curriculum, sampled verbal presentations during instruction, and assessed performance outcomes, including student perception and two types of learning outcomes. The findings are exploratory but point to the need for these three components to be aligned for successful inclusion to occur.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, P. A., Shallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61, 315–343.
2.
Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1988). On selecting “considerate” content area textbooks. Remedial and Special Education, 9(1), 47–52.
3.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.
4.
Carnine, D. (1991). Curricular interventions for teaching higher order thinking to all students: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 261–269
5.
Educational Products Information Exchange Institute. (1977). Report on a national study of the nature and quality of instructional materials most used by teachers and learners (Report No. 76). New York: Author.
6.
Grossen, B., & Carnine, D. (1992). Translating research on text structure into classroom practice. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, 48–53.
7.
Howell, K., Morehead, M. K., & Fox, S. (1993). Curriculum-based evaluation.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
8.
Lenz, B. K., Bulgren, J. & Hudson, P. (1990). Content enhancement: A model for promoting the acquisition of content by individuals with learning disabilities In T. E. Scruggs & B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 122–165). New York: Springer-Verlag.
9.
Lovitt, T. C., & Horton, S. V. (1994). Strategies for adapting science textbooks for youth with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 105–116.
10.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1992). Science for students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 62, 377–412.
11.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Text versus hands-on science curriculum: Implications for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 72–85.
12.
McKenzie, R. G. (1991a). Content area instruction delivered by secondary learning disabilities teachers: A national survey. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 115–122.
13.
McKenzie, R. G. (1991b). The form and substance of secondary resource models: Content area versus skill instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 467–470.
14.
Newmann, F. M. (1991, February). Linking restructuring to authentic student achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 458–463.
15.
Nolet, V., & Tindal, G. (1993). Special education in content area classes: Development of a model and practical procedures. Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 36–48.
16.
Psychological Corporation. (1990). Stanford achievement test (8th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Author.
17.
Putnam, L. (1992). Testing practices of mainstream secondary classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 13(5), 11–21.
18.
Roid, G. H., & Haladyna, T. M. (1982). A technology for test-item writing.New York: Academic Press.
19.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 376–391). New York: Macmillan.
20.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1993). Current approaches to science education: Implications for mainstream instruction of students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 15–24.
21.
Shavelson, R.J., Baxter, G. P., & Pine, J. (1992). Performance assessments: Political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher, 21(4), 22–27.
22.
Tindal, G., Nolet, V. & Blake, G. (1993). Focus on assessment and learning in content classes (Training module no. 4). Eugene: University of Oregon Resource Consultant Training Program.
23.
Vavrus, L. (1990, August). Put portfolios to the test. Instructor, pp. 48–51.
24.
Wiggins, G. (1990). CLASS.Rochester, NY: Consultants on Learning, Assessment, and School Structure.
25.
Woodward, J. (1994). The role of models in secondary science instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 94–104.
26.
Yell, M., Deno, S. L., & Marston, D. (1992). Barriers to implementing curriculum-based measurement. Diagnostique, 18, 99–112.
