The teaching structures and tasks experienced during reading by students with and without handicaps were observed. Special education students (21 learning disabled, 12 emotionally/ behaviorally disordered, 14 educable mentally retarded) were observed in both regular and special education settings. Though several setting effects were found, the only category effect was a difference in the time devoted to individual structures in the mainstream setting for 30 nonhandicapped students (4%), compared to the 47 students with handicaps (10%). These findings are related to recommendations derived from the school effectiveness literature.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BloomB. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–15.
2.
BruininksR.H.ThurlowM.L.LewisD.R., & LarsonN.W. (1987). Post-school outcomes for special education students and other students one to eight years after high school.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Affiliated Program.
3.
GoodT.L. (1983). Classroom research: A decade of progress. Educational Psychology, 18,127-144.
4.
GreenwoodC.R.DelquadriJ., & HallR.V. (1978). Code for instructional structure and student academic response: CISSAR.Kansas City: Juniper Gardens Children's Project, Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas, 1978.
5.
HaynesM.C., & JenkinsJ.R. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 161–190.
6.
MackenzieD.E. (1983). School effectiveness research: A synthesis and assessment. In DuttweilerP.C. (Ed.), Educational productivity and school effectiveness.Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
7.
McGill-FranzenA. (1987). Failure to learn to read: Formulating a policy problem. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 475–490.
8.
O'SullivanP. (1988). Quantitative and qualitative aspects of reading instruction for mildly handicapped elementary students.Minneapolis: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
9.
StanleyS.O., & GreenwoodC.R. (1980). CISSAR: Code for instructional structure and student academic response: Observer's manual.Kansas City: Juniper Gardens Children's Project, Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas.
10.
ThurlowM.L.GradenJ.GreenerJ., & YsseldykeJ. (1983). LD and non-LD students’ opportunities to learn. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 172–183.
11.
ThurlowM.L.YsseldykeJ.E., & GradenJ. (1982). LD students’ active academic responding in regular and resource classrooms (Research Rep. No. 90).Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
12.
YsseldykeJ.E.ChristensonS.L.ThurlowM.L., & BakewellD. (1987). Instructional tasks used by mentally retarded, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, and nonhandicapped elementary students (Research Rep. No. 2).Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Instructional Arrangements Project.
13.
YsseldykeJ.E.ThurlowM.L., & ChristensonS.L. (1987). Teacher effectiveness and teacher decision making: Implications for effective instruction of handicapped students. (Monograph No. 5).Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Instructional Alternatives Project.
14.
YsseldykeJ.E.ThurlowM.L.ChristensonS.L., & WeissJ. (1987). Time allocated to instruction of mentally retarded, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, and nonhandicapped elementary students. Journal of Special Education, 27 (3), 43–55.
