|
Article Excerpt
Abstract. This article synthesizes previous research studies examining reading instruction for students with learning disabilities (LD) through classroom observation methods. An extensive search of the research literature between 1980 and 2005 yielded 21 observation studies. Findings revealed that reading instruction for students with LD is generally of low quality, with little to no explicit instruction in phonics or comprehension strategy. Findings were consistent, whether studies were conducted more than 10 years ago or within the last few years. Estimates of time students with LD spend reading orally or silently are low. The most frequently observed grouping structure was whole-class instruction, regardless of the setting.
**********
The provision of public education for students with disabilities began as a reform movement spearheaded by parents who demanded equal access for their children to America's public schools (Bergeron, 2003). The right to special education was established through the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and its subsequent revisions, resulting in the current Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004.
Since 1975, other educational reform movements have been initiated with varying impact on the quality of education for students with disabilities. For example, the Regular Education Initiative (REI) of 1986 was prompted, in part, by concern over the segregation of children with disabilities into special education classrooms based on the belief that segregation led to disjointed educational opportunities (Wang, Reynolds, & Walberg, 1986; Will, 1986) and increased stigma (Will, 1986). Because a major assumption of the REI was that instruction provided in the general education setting was at least equal, if not superior, to that provided in the special education setting, children with learning disabilities (LD) in particular were integrated into general education classrooms with varying levels of academic support. The good intentions of REI were to increase integration of students with LD into the general education classroom setting as well as to improve academic outcomes.
In support of the REI, educators were alerted to the often inappropriate social and instructional outcomes from segregated special education. Researchers such as Bentum and Aaron (2003), for example, reported no growth in word recognition and reading comprehension as well as a decline in verbal IQ scores after three to six years in the resource room. Due to the single-group longitudinal research design of their study, it is impossible to know if students with LD would have experienced similar outcomes in the general education setting. However, other researchers (McKinney & Feagans, 1984) who included a non-LD comparison group within their longitudinal design reported that direct instruction was rare in the resource room, with student scores on word recognition and reading comprehension declining with time spent in the resource room. Additional evidence indicates improved outcomes when students with LD are reintegrated into general education, showing progress in oral reading at a rate equal to that of their low-reading, nondisabled peers (Shinn, Powell-Smith, Good, & Baker, 1997).
Alternatively, other studies (Waldron & McLeskey, 1998; Zigmond & Jenkins, 1995) exposed that while 48%-54% of students with LD who received reading instruction in the general education classroom made gains in excess of one standard deviation, 46%-52% did not make reading gains considered to reflect significant growth, establishing at least some argument that not all students with LD benefit adequately from typical reading instruction in the general education classroom.
As a result of concerns about students' reading progress and the quality of reading instruction, a number of syntheses and consensus reports (e.g., Bentum & Aaron, 2003; McKinney & Feagans, 1984) have been issued that describe the most effective components of reading instruction in elementary and, most recently, in secondary settings. One synthesis examined effective instruction in reading (Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998)--as well as other instructional areas (Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999)--for students with LD. Another synthesis (National Reading Panel, 2000) and a consensus report (Snow, Burnes, & Griffin, 1998) addressed research on effective instruction in reading for students who experience difficulty learning to read. Most recently, a metaanalysis of reading interventions for adolescent struggling readers (Scammacca et al., 2007) yielded important implications for practice.
All of these syntheses reached similar conclusions about reading instruction for students with reading difficulties/disabilities: (a) students benefit from explicit and systematic instruction; (b) foundational skills such as phonemic awareness and phonics are essential elements of instruction; (c) higher processing skills such as fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension are essential from the beginning of reading instruction and are continually beneficial to adolescent struggling readers; and (d) students who have difficulties benefit from smaller group instruction that provides support from the teacher.
Particular to students with LD, Swanson and Hoskyn (1998) conducted a synthesis of 180 reading intervention studies. Findings indicated that students receiving instruction through a model that combined direct instruction and strategy instruction performed better than students who received direct instruction alone, strategy instruction alone, or no components of direct or strategy instruction. In particular, three instructional strategies predicted large effect sizes: control of task difficulty (teacher controls difficulty level and provides necessary assistance), small-group instruction, and directed response/questioning techniques (teachers and students engage in dialogue and questioning between teacher and students). While best practices for reading instruction have been identified through the intervention research, it is important to assess whether these findings are reflected during actual classroom reading instruction for students with LD.
A source for such evidence lies within observation research (e.g., Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989; Moody, Vaughn, Hughes, & Fischer, 2000; O'Connor & Jenkins, 1996). One synthesis of observation studies conducted during reading instruction for students with LD or emotional/behavior disorders (EBD) was published in 2002 by Vaughn, Levy, Coleman, and Bos. They concluded that while a large amount of time was allocated for reading instruction, this time varied depending upon the location of service provision (special education, general education, or a combination of both). Within special education settings, students were provided with a greater amount of individual and small-group instruction. However, the instructional quality of reading instruction was reported as low overall, with a large amount of time during reading instruction spent engaged in independent seatwork and worksheets. Indeed, such practices are contradictory to those established as effective in remediating reading difficulty among students with LD (e.g., directed response/questioning techniques; Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998).
Vaughn et al. (2002) included studies spanning from 1975 to 2000, and focused on reading instruction for students with LD or EBD conducted in special education or in general education settings. The present effort expands upon their synthesis in several ways. First, while the current synthesis also includes studies that focus on all instructional settings where students with LD are taught (e.g., general education setting and special education settings), it is extended to studies published through December 2005. Second, increased research focus has emerged in remediating reading difficulties among adolescent struggling readers (Scammacca et al., 2007).
As of yet, there is no synthesis of observation research indicating the extent to which effective reading instruction is implemented in settings designed to serve adolescents with LD. Therefore, to begin understanding the nature of reading instruction currently provided to students with LD in middle and high school, this synthesis will include not only studies conducted in the elementary grades, but also those conducted in grades 6 through 12. Third, this synthesis will address issues of training and reliability procedures among observers.
Briefly, the purpose of the current synthesis was to examine a wider breadth of observation studies to better understand the nature of reading instruction for students with LD. Specifically, it addressed the following research questions: (a) What components of effective instruction have been documented during reading instruction for students with LD in elementary, middle, and high school? (b) What trends in student academic achievement have been reported? (c) What training and inter-rater reliability procedures are employed by researchers to ensure valid observation data?
METHOD
A comprehensive search of the literature was performed through a three-step process, as suggested by Cooper (1998). First, an electronic search was conducted to locate studies published between 1980 and 2005. Descriptors or root forms of those descriptors (observation studies, observations, reading teachers, reading, remedial reading, reading difficult*, disability, dyslexia, learning problems, minimal brain dysfunction, resource room programs, resource teachers, special needs students, special education teachers) were used in various combinations to capture the greatest possible number of articles. The initial search resulted in the identification of 874 abstracts.
Second, the six most frequently cited journals in the field of LD were determined by referring to Journal Citation Reports: Social Sciences Edition (ISI Web of Knowledge, 2005). A hand search of these journals (Exceptional Children, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Journal of Special Education, Learning Disability Quarterly, Scientific Studies of Reading, and Annals of Dyslexia) from 2000 through 2005 was conducted. Third, the citation search phase involved searching reference lists of identified observation studies that fit the criteria for inclusion in this synthesis.
In addition to the three ways Cooper (1998) suggests for locating articles, citation searches were conducted through the use of the Web of Science. Titles of articles that met the inclusion criteria located through the electronic search, hand search, and citation search were used as the search term to trace journal articles within which they were cited. These abstracts were studied for potential inclusion.
Studies were selected if they met the following criteria:
1. A formal observation tool was used to observe reading instruction.
2. Observation took place during reading instruction in either general education or special education resource room settings.
3. At least one student in the classroom was identified with a learning disability.
4. The study was conducted in elementary (K-5), middle (6-8), or high school (9-12).
5. When observation data included more than reading instruction, data pertaining to reading instruction were reported separately.
6. Observations to determine the effectiveness of interventions proposed by researchers were excluded.
A total of 21 studies were located through this procedure for inclusion in this synthesis.
Coding Procedures
Relying upon code sheets developed for past intervention syntheses (Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, & Wei, 2004; Kim et al., 2003), extensive coding procedures were used to organize pertinent information from each study. Revisions were made to ensure that the code sheet addressed elements specified in the What Works Clearinghouse Design and Implementation Assessment Device (Institute of Education Sciences, 2003), a document used to evaluate the quality of studies. In addition, items were added to include information unique to observation studies.
The...
|
