Learning Disabilities Research & Practice

Many researchers have documented the apparent fact that numerous students with LD have social–skill deficits and a lower social standing than their nondisabled peers. In principle, participation in peer tutoring would appear to be at least a partial solution. It requires classmates to work together on valued tasks and research indicates that it can promote academic growth among students with and without disabilities. Yet, little research has been conducted on the social benefits of peer tutoring. This study attempts to do precisely that by collecting sociometric data in 39 second– through sixth–grade classrooms, 22 of which were engaged in Peer–Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS), a form of peer tutoring. In each of the 39 classrooms, sociometric data are reported on four children—a student with LD and a low–achieving, average–achieving, and high–achieving student. Findings indicated that students with LD in PALS classes were (1) more socially accepted than their counterparts in No–PALS classes, and (2) enjoyed the same social standing as most nondisabled classmates. Strengths and weaknesses of this study are discussed, as are directions for future research.

Although placement in less restrictive settings is generally believed to be associated with more positive social outcomes for students with disabilities, the empirical research has yielded equivocal findings. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the empirical research comparing the self–concept of students with learning disabilities (LD) in different educational placements. Meta–analysis revealed no overall association between self–concept and educational placement for four out of five comparisons: regular class vs. resource room, regular class vs. self–contained class, resource room vs. self–contained class, and regular class vs. special school. Students with LD receiving instruction in self–contained classrooms in regular schools exhibited lower self–concept compared to students with LD attending special schools. Follow–up analyses were conducted to explore whether the variability of effect sizes in regular class–resource room comparisons was associated with any of several potential moderator variables; the only variable for which the association approached significance was whether students in the regular classroom were provided with appropriate special education supports and services. The findings are discussed in light of documented individual variation in students’ placement preferences.

In this article we report data from a longitudinal study of one–to–one tutoring for students at risk for reading disabilities. Participants were at–risk students who received phonics–based tutoring in first grade, students who were tutored in comprehension skills in second grade, and students tutored in both grades 1 and 2. At second–grade posttest, there were significant differences in word identification and word attack between students who were tutored in first grade only compared to students who were also tutored in second grade, favoring students who were tutored in first grade only. Overall, there were no advantages to a second year of tutoring. For students tutored in second grade only, there were no differences at second–grade posttest compared to controls. Schools may have selected students who did not respond to first–grade tutoring for continued tutoring in second grade. Findings are discussed in light of decisions schools make when using tutors to supplement reading instruction for students with reading difficulties.

Supplemental reading instruction provides a way to improve the reading outcomes of students at risk for reading difficulties and to meet the challenges produced by increases in student diversity in today's classrooms. The research–based intervention described in this article includes intensive, explicit, and systematic reading instruction in five areas: fluency, phonemic awareness, instructional–level reading with an emphasis on comprehension, word analysis, and spelling. This intervention was effective in improving the reading skills of low SES, second–grade English monolingual and English–language learners.

The purpose of this article is to describe a collaborative approach to planning in the content areas to include and allow students with learning disabilities access to the general education curriculum. Procedures for selecting and organizing content, determining activities, identifying accommodations and modifications necessary to enhance content learning, and assessing student performance are presented. In addition, a sample unit plan and a lesson plan are included to illustrate the outcomes of collaborative planning based on effective teaching practices.