The purpose of this case study was to explore how a middle school teacher makes decisions about individualization and to determine the conditions under which more individualization can take place in daily lessons for students with learning disabilities. In the first year of the study, initial findings revealed content-centered planning and instruction as a prominent theme. In the second year, the planning and instruction of this teacher changed to focus more on the academic diversity of students in her classes. Implications are drawn regarding bow researcher attention to teacher practices may impact the amount of teacher attention given to students with special learning needs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker, J.M., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children , 56(6), 515-526.
2.
Berliner, D.C. (1984). The half-full glass: A review of research on teaching . In P. L. Hosford (Ed.), Using what we know about teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
3.
Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes . Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 3-17.
4.
Bullough, R.V., & Baughman, K. (1995). Inclusion: A view from inside the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 46, 85-93.
5.
Clark, C.M., & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers' though processes . In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Third handbook of research on teacbing. Chicago: Rand McNally, 255-296.
6.
Cryns, T., & Johnston, M. (1993). A collaborative case study of teacher change: From a personal to a professional perspective. Teaching & Teacher Education, 9, 147-158.
7.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teacbers taught. New York : Teachers College Press.
8.
Dahllof, U., & Lundgren, U.P. (1970). Macro- and micro approacbes combined for curriculum process analysis: A Swedish educational field project . Goteborg, Sweden: University of Goteborg, Institute of Education (Mimeo).
9.
Eisner, E.W. (1991). The enlightened eye.-Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan.
10.
Fullan, M.G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
11.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
12.
Harris, K.R. (1988). Learning disabilities research: The need, the integrity, and the challenge. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 21, 267-270, 274.
13.
Lenz, K., Boudah, D., & Bulgren, J. (1994, April). Research on the professional growth of secondary science and social studies teachers in planning for and teaching academically diverse classes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
14.
Lenz, K., Bulgren, J., & Boudah, D. (1992, October). Research on how regular secondary teachers plan for inclusion and individualization. Paper presented at the Council for Learning Disabilities Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO.
15.
Lenz, B.K., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1991, April). Planning in the face of academic diversity: Whose questions should we be answering?Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
16.
Lenz, B.K., Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., Boudah, D.J., Vance, M., Kissam, B., Bulgren, J., & Roth, J. (1993). The unit planning routine: A guide for inclusive planning. (Research Report). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
17.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The nature of planning and influences on it. Elementary School Journal, 81, 4-23.
18.
Merriam, S.B. (1968). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
19.
Morine-Dershimer, G. (1977, April). What's in a plan? Stated and unstated plans for lessons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York .
20.
Peterson, P.L., Marx, R.W., & Clark, C.M. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal15, 417-432.
21.
Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans, E.D. (1989). The challenges of classroom strategy instruction . The Elementary Scbool Journal, 89, 301-342.
22.
Regan, E.M., & Weininger, O. (1988). Toward defining and defending child centered curriculum and practice. International Journal of Early Childhood, 20(2), 1-10.
23.
Sardo, D. (1982, October). Teacher planning styles in the middle school. Paper presented to the EasternEducational Research Association, Ellenville, NY.
24.
Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1988). Implementing the regular education initiative in secondary schools: A different ballgame. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 36-42.
26.
Schumm, J.S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers' perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12(4), 18-27.
27.
Schumm, J.S., & Vaughn, S. (1992). Planning for mainstreamed special education students: Perceptions of general classroom teachers. Exceptionality , 3, 81-98.
28.
Schumm, J.S., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L., & Saumell, L. (1995). General education teacher planning: What can students with learning disabilities expect? Exceptional Children, 61, 335-352.
29.
Smith, M.L. (1989). Teachers' beliefs about retention. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. London: The Falmer Press, 132-150.
30.
Smith, E.L., & Sendelbach, N.B. (1979). Teacher intentions for science instruction and their antecedents in program materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
31.
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum. New York: Macmillan , 402-435.
32.
Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
33.
Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
34.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
35.
Taylor, P.H. (1970). How teachers plan their courses. Slough, Berkshire, England: National Foundation for Educational Research.
36.
U. S. Department of Education. (1995). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Seventeenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
37.
Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J.S. (1994). Middle school teachers' planning for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education15(3), 152-161.
38.
Will, M. (1986). Educating students with learning problems-A shared responsibility. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
39.
Yin, R.K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
