|
Description
Abstract. Previous research on students with learning disabilities has indicated that they benefit most from explicit instruction. However, few studies have examined how explicit instruction may be translated to the logistical demands associated with large-group instruction in high school general education settings in ways that are socially acceptable to high school teachers. This intervention study evaluated the effects of two types of explicit instruction, curriculum maps and guiding questions, compared to the use of simple reviews of repeated information. Each was used to teach core curriculum content in a group-instruction format with 30 high school students with learning disabilities. A repeated-measures research design was used. Results of the comparison of student test scores associated with the three interventions indicated that the use of the curriculum maps significantly enhanced learning for students with learning disabilities more than guiding questions, and the use of guiding questions enhanced learning more than simple reviews of repeated information. Based on these findings, core curriculum general education teachers may be able to begin making their instruction more explicit and powerful by incorporating simple routines comprised of the use of curriculum maps to depict the importance and structure of the content and using these maps to lead and review learning through guided and interactive questioning.
The way curriculum is currently delivered in core curriculum classrooms is an obstacle to developing an inclusive learning environment in the high school setting (Bulgren & Schumaker, 2006). Rather than ensuring student understanding, too often the major goal is to "cover" the content. Wiggins and McTighe (1998) described this approach as "teaching by mentioning it," or covering topics and ideas by drawing attention to them without developing them with students.
Three planning dilemmas must be addressed to be able to move away from a coverage approach toward a model that ensures understanding for students with learning disabilities (LD). First, the teacher must sort through the information to be presented and select the chunks that are most critical to student learning. To this end, Wiggins and McTighe have argued for an approach to curriculum planning called "backward design," whereby curriculum and instruction is based on sorting information into three levels: "enduring understanding," "important to know and do," and "worth being familiar with" (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998, pp. 9-10).
Other educators over the last three decades have made similar suggestions (e.g., Beane, 1995; Blythe & Associates, 1998; Bruner, 1960, 1973; Caine & Caine, 1997; Lenz & Deshler, 2004; Perkins, 1992). Sorting the information to denote importance is critical for many students with disabilities, who may not have the same background information as their typical peers or who have trouble distinguishing important from less important information in teacher presentations (Lenz, Alley, & Schumaker, 1987).
The second planning dilemma is providing instruction about critical information in ways that ensure student understanding. As mentioned, previous research on students with LD has indicated that these students benefit most from explicit instruction (e.g., Carnine, Jones, & Dixon, 1995; Gersten, 1998; Hollingsworth & Woodward, 1993). Gersten (1998) proposed that explicit instruction is based on the use of (a) examples to demonstrate a concept or process; (b) models of proficient performance and step-by-step strategies; (c) advance organizers and guiding questions to focus attention and prompt critical thinking; (d) opportunities for student to share decision-making processes; (e) authentic, interactive, and adequate practice; and (f) frequent feedback and support for performance. However, few studies have examined how explicit instruction can be translated to address the logistical demands of group instruction frequently encountered in high school general education settings.
The third planning dilemma centers on how to find the time to identify the content, plan activities that result in explicit instruction, and then incorporate those activities into the instructional time available during the class period. Secondary-level teachers have reported that many activities that might make content accessible to students with disabilities are not feasible for them to implement due to time constraints (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). In addition, most of the planning time made available to teachers is not quality planning time (Joint Committee on Teacher Planning for Students with Disabilities, 1995). It is spent administering the more functional aspects of getting through the day.
Some research on complex teaching routines demonstrates that explicit instruction can be moved successfully into general education core classes to improve the performance of students with disabilities (e.g., Bulgren, Deshler, & Schumaker, 1997; Bulgren, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1988; Bulgren, Deshler, Schumaker, & Lenz, 2000; Lenz et al., 1987; Lenz, Bulgren, Schumaker, Deshler, & Boudah, 1994). These routines are comprised of combinations of devices and instructional procedures linked together to help a teacher move through common instructional challenges (e.g., teaching concepts, leading students through a unit). Several research studies (Bulgren et al., 2000; Bulgren et al., 1988; Bulgren, Schumaker, Deshler, & Lenz, in prep.; Lenz et al., 1987; Lenz et al., 1994) have shown that when these complex routines are used on a consistent basis by a classroom teacher, the unit test scores of all students in the class improve significantly, usually by about 10 to 15 percentage points (e.g., Bulgren, Deshler, & Schumaker, 1997).
While these routines have been found to be effective, secondary teachers have reported that they are too complex and time consuming for easy integration into ongoing instruction. As a result, some teachers have reported abandoning the routines before mastering them enough to become effective with students with disabilities. In addition, informal reports from teachers involved in inservice activities focused on these routines have indicated that simpler, "starter" routines are needed that can more easily be woven into daily practice and serve as a foundation and springboard for other more explicit teaching activities, leading... |
More articles from Learning Disability Quarterly
The effects of instruction in an inference strategy on the reading com..., September 22, 2007
The documentation disconnect for students with learning disabilities: ..., September 22, 2007
Looking for additional articles?
Click here
to search our database of over 3 million articles.
|
