This study investigated the application of effective teaching techniques and instructional sequence, previously found effective in skill instruction (e.g., Rosenshine, 1986a), to social studies lectures. Only the presentation of new material (lecture) and guided practice of the effective teaching instructional sequence was the focus. Techniques used in this phase of the instructional sequence included breaking the lecture into smaller units of information and following each unit of information with student practice and teacher feedback. The results suggest that when effective teaching techniques are used during the presentation (lecture) and guided-practice phase of instruction, students with learning disabilities perform significantly better on unit and maintenance class measures. These findings build on a study conducted by Hudson (1996), in which effective teaching techniques (i.e., student practice and teacher feedback) were successfully used at the prelesson phase of instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerS.K.SimmonsD.C.KameenuiE.J. (1994). Making information more memorable for students with learning disabilities through the design of instructional tools. LD Forum, 19 (3) 14–18.
2.
BerlinerD.C. (1984). The half-full glass: A review of research on teaching. In HosfordP.L. (Ed.), Using what we know about teaching (pp. 51–77). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
3.
BorgW.R.GallM.D. (1989). Educational research (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
4.
BrophyJ. (1983). Classroom organization and management. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 265–286.
5.
CarlsonS.A.AlleyG.R. (1981). Performance and competence of learning disabled and high-achieving high school students on essential cognitive skills (Research Report No. 53). Lawrence: The University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
6.
CawleyJ.F. (1994). Science for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 67–71.
7.
ChristensonS.L.YsseldykeJ.E.ThurlowM.L. (1989). Critical instructional factors for students with mild handicaps: An integrative review. Remedial and Special Education, 10 (5), 21–31.
8.
CrankJ.N.BulgrenJ.A. (1993). Visual depictions as information organizers for enhancing achievement of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 140–147.
9.
DarchC.GerstenR. (1986). Direction-setting activities in reading comprehension: A comparison of two appraoches. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 235–243.
10.
DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B. (1988). An instructional model for teaching students how to learn. In GradenJ.L.ZinsJ.E.CurtisM.J. (Eds.)., Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 391–411). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
11.
DeshlerD.D.SchumakerJ.B.AlleyG.R.WarnerM.M.ClarkF.L. (1982). Learning disabilities in adolescent and young adult populations: Research implications. Focus on Exceptional Children, 15 (1), 1–12.
12.
EnglertC.S. (1984). Effective direct instruction practices in special education settings. Remedial and Special Education, 5 (2), 38–47.
13.
GoodT.GrouwsD.EbmeierH. (1983). Active mathematics teaching. New York: Longman.
14.
HudsonP.J. (1987). The pause procedure: A technique to help mildly handicapped students learn lecture content. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.
15.
HudsonP. (1996). Using a learning set to increase learning disabled students' performance in social studies classes, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 78–85.
16.
HudsonP.J.Lignugaris-KraftB.MillerT.L. (1993). Using content enhancement to improve the performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in content classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 106–126.
17.
HunterM. (1984). Knowing, teaching, and supervising. In HosfordP.L. (Ed.), Using what we know about teaching (pp. 169–193). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Design.
18.
KinderD.BursuckW. (1991). The search for a unified social studies curriculum: Does history really repeat itself?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 270–275.
19.
LloydJ.W.CrowleyE.P.KohlerF.W.StrainP.S. (1988). Redefining the applied research agenda: Cooperative learning, prereferral, teacher consultation, and peer-mediated interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 43–52.
20.
MaheadyL.SaccaM.K.HarperG.F. (1988). Classwide peer tutoring with mildly handicapped high school students. Exceptional Children, 55, 52–59.
21.
PasseJ.BeattieJ. (1994). Social studies instruction for students with mild disabilities—A progress report. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 227–233.
22.
RosenshineB. (1986a). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43 (7), 60–69.
23.
RosenshineB. (1986b). Unsolved issues in teaching content: A critique of a lesson on federalist paper No. 10. Teaching & Teacher Education, 2, 301–308.
24.
RosenshineB.StevensR. (1986). Teaching functions. In WittrockM.D. (Ed.), AERA handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376–391). New York: MacMillan.
25.
RoweM.B. (1976). The pausing principle—two invitations to inquiry. Research on College Science Teaching, 5, 258–259.
26.
RuhlK.L.HughesC.A.GajarA.H. (1990). Efficacy of the pause procedure for enhancing learning disabled college students' long- and short-term recall of facts presented through lecture. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 55–64.
27.
RuhlK.L.SuritskyS. (1995). The pause procedure and/or outline: Effect on immediate free recall and lecture notes taken by college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 2–11.
28.
SchumakerJ.B.DeshlerD.D. (1984, March). Setting demand variables: A major factor in program planning for the LD adolescent. Topics in Language Disorders, 22–40.
29.
SchumakerJ.B.Sheldon-WildgenJ.ShermanJ.A. (1980). An observational study of the academic and social behaviors of learning disabled adolescents in the regular classroom (Research Rep. No. 22). Lawrence: The University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
30.
Utah State Office of Education. (1993, May). Special education rules. Salt Lake City: Author.
