This study examined teachers' receptivity to, and the factors that influence their use of, a practice new to classroom teachers for including students with learning disabilities, classwide peer tutoring (cwpt; fuchs, mathes,' fuchs, 1993). Cwpt is a whole-class approach that uses teacher-orchestrated procedures and peer-mediated practice to supplement reading instruction. forty-four teachers in eight elementary schools participated; 29 teachers in a high-support group received honoraria and access to release time and technical assistance in order to learn about cwpt and how to implement it; 15 teachers in a low-support group received only a copy of the cwpt manual. all teachers attended a 40-minute presentation on cwpt that provided an overview on its components and benefits. measures included surveys administered before and after the initial presentations, observations midpoint in teachers' implementation of cwpt, interim interviews and logs, and a follow-up interview and observation of a subgroup of four imple-mentors. the survey responses of 44 teachers were analyzed and the six implementors were observed and interviewed. results indicated that level of support did not significantly influence teacher interest in or use of cwpt. all implementors made some modifications in the cwpt procedures. discussion focuses on factors that might have influenced teacher Interest in cwpt, their implementation rates, and reasons for teachers' modifications of the practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Applebee, A. N., Langer, J., & Mullis, I. (1986). The writing report card.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
2.
Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the five casesThe Journal of Special Education, 29, 163-180.
3.
Biemiller, A. (1993). Lake Wobegon revisited: On diversity and educationEducational Researcher, 22, 7-12.
4.
Bridge. C, & Hiebert, E. H. (1985). A comparison of classroom writing practices, teachers' perceptions of their writing instruction, and textbook recommendations on writing practicesThe Elementary School Journal, 86, 155-172.
5.
Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D.J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates. Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 37-60.
6.
Ciandinin. D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teacher's professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories–stories of teachers–school stories–stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25, 24–30.
7.
Cohen, D. K. (1989). Teaching practice: Plus ca change … In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 27–84). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
8.
Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C. R., Whorton, D., Carta, J. J. & Hall, R. V. (1986). Classwide peer tutoringExceptional Children, 52, 535-542.
9.
Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-makingInterchange, 8, 1-12.
10.
Durkin, D. (1978–1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instructionReading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533.
11.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1995a). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), The illusion of full inclusion (pp. 213–242). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
12.
Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. S. (1995b). What's “special” about special education?Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 522–540.
13.
Fuchs, D.Fuchs, L. S., Hodge, J. P., & Mathes, P. G. (1994). Importance of instructional complexity and role reciprocity to class-wide peer tutoringLearning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9, 203–212.
14.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Mathes, P. G. (1993, April). Peer mediated learning strategies: Effects on learners at different points on the reading continuum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta.
15.
Fuchs, D., Mathes, P. G., & Fuchs, L. S. (1993). Peabody classwide peer tutoring reading methods. Unpublished teacher's manual. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
16.
Gersten, R. M., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1995. July). What we know (and still don't know) about utilizing research findings to improve practice: Implications for special education (Discussion paper). Research in Education of Individuals with Disabilities Project Director's meeting, Washington, DC.
17.
Gersten, R. M., & Woodward, J. (1992). The quest to translate research into classroom practice: Strategies for assisting classroom teachers' work with at-risk students and students with disabilities. In D. Carnine & E. Kameenui (Eds.), Higher cognitive functioning for all students (pp. 201-218). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
18.
Gersten, R. M.Woodward, J., & Morvant, M. (1992). Refining the working knowledge of experienced teachersEducational Leadership, 49, 34–39.
19.
Glaser, B., & Strauss. A. (1969). The constant comparative method of qualitative data analysis. In G. J. McCall & J. L. Simmons (Eds.) Issues in participant observation (pp. 216–227). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
20.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., & Hall, R. V. (1988). Longitudinal effects of tutoring.Kansas City: University of Kansas. Juniper Gardens Children's Project, Bureau of Child Research.
21.
Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C, & Ellis, A. W. (1994). Ameliorating early-reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesisChild Development, 65, 41-57.
22.
Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teachAmerican Educational Research Journal, 26, 160–190.
23.
Jenkins, J. R., Jewell, M.Leicester, N., Jenkins, L., & Troutner, N. M. (1990). Development of a school building model for educating students with handicaps and at-risk students in general education classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
24.
Jenkins, J. R., & Mayhall, W. F. (1976). Development and evaluation of a resource teacher program: The resource specialist model. Exceptional Children, 43, 21–29.
25.
Jewell. M. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1996). Effects of classroom-based follow-up assistance in connection with a complex instructional system. Unpublished manuscript. University of Washington, Experimental Education Unit, Seattle.
26.
Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Assessing the clinical or applied importance of behavior change through social validation. Behavior Modification, 1, 427–452.
27.
Knapp, N. C., & Peterson, P. L. (1991). What does CGI mean to you? Teachers' ideas of a research-based intervention 4 years later.East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching.
28.
Malouf, D. B., & Schiller, E. P. (1995). Practice and research in special education. Exceptional Children, 61, 414–424.
29.
Mathes, P. G., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Henley, A. M., & Sanders, A. (1994). Increasing strategic reading practice with Peabody Class-wide Peer Tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9, 44–48.
30.
McKinney, J. D., & Feagans, L. (1984). Academic and behavioral characteristics of learning disabled children and average achievers: Longitudinal studies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 251–265.
31.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
Munby, H. (1984). A qualitative study of teachers' beliefs and principles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 27–38.
33.
Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, 19, 10–18.
34.
Richardson, V. (1994). Conducting research on practice. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–10.
35.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 559–586.
36.
Seidel, J. V., Kjolseth, R., & Seymour, E. (1988). The ethnograph.Littleton, CO: Qualis Research Associates.
37.
Shavelson, R. J. (1988). Contributions of educational research to policy and practice: Constructing, challenging, changing cognition. Educational Researcher, 17, 4–11, 22.
38.
Sindelar, P., & Deno, S. (1979). The effectiveness of research programming. The Journal of Special Education, 12, 17–28.
39.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
40.
Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). Effects of a cooperative learning approach in reading and writing on academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students' achievement and attitudes. Elementary School Journal, 95, 241–262.
41.
Williams, J. (1979). The ABD's of reading: A program for the learning disabled. In L. B. Resnick & P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 3, pp. 179–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
Wise, B. W., & Olson, R. K. (1991). Remediating reading disabilities. In J. E. Obrzut & G. W. Hynd (Eds.), Neuropsychological foundations of learning disabilities (pp. 631–658). New York: Academic Press.
