sign in sign up
<<
Home , Special education

140 THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL VOL. 37/NO. 3/2003/PP. 140–147

What Is Special About for Students with Learning ?

Sharon Vaughn and Sylvia Linan-Thompson, The of Texas at Austin

In this article, the ways in which special education for students with learning disabilities was perceived as “special” historically and what we know about effective special education instructional practices for students with learning disabilities currently are summarized. The influence of monitoring progress, providing explicit and systematic instruction, understanding the critical factors associated with progress in academic areas such as and math, and teaching students in small groups with many oppor- tunities to practice and obtain feedback are essential features of special education for students with learning disabilities. A model for providing integrated services between general and special education for students with learning disabilities is described.

How is special education for students with learning disabili- Special Education and ties “special”? One way to approach this question is to review the intervention and descriptive studies of instruction and ser- Students with Learning Disabilities vices for students with learning disabilities (LD) and report For many students with disabilities, the initial goal of special the ways in which special education provides a differentiated education was to ensure that they were provided an opportu- and appropriate education for students. At least with respect nity to attend and profit from education; that is, that a free and to the education that students with LD receive within general appropriate public education be provided to them, just like to education, existing reviews reveal that undifferentiated in- all other youngsters. This was the basis for the landmark leg- struction not specifically designed to meet the instructional islation known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education needs of the student with LD prevails (see for review, Baker Act (IDEA; reauthorized in 1997), which gave all students & Zigmond, 1995; McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & with disabilities the right to public education. For students Lee, 1993; Zigmond et al., 1995). Thus, there is a gap between with LD, who were already provided education within the what we know about effective instruction and the extent to general education system when IDEA was enacted (1977), which these practices are carried over into instructional set- would now be identified and specialized treat- tings. However, we were concerned that focusing on this ment would be provided. would ignore aspects of special education that are associated Alhough parents, students, and educators recognized with improved outcomes for students with LD. that the educational needs of students with LD were inade- In this article, we describe what was perceived in the not- quately met by general education alone, little was known so-distant past as necessary special instruction for students about what an effective educational program for students with with LD and the relatively recent view linking progress mon- LD should look like. As a result, the special education of stu- itoring and instructional outcomes as markers for progress dents with LD has traveled a somewhat rocky road of false with students with LD. In order to address the question of what starts, misconceptions, and misinformed ideas—until 10 years is special about special education for students with LD, we ago, when the progress in teaching these students began to first briefly review the literature about how special education show much promise (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Swanson, Hos- was initially conceptualized for these students and how ef- kyn, & Lee, 2000; Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000). fective instructional models for those students have shifted In this article, we review where we have been with treat- from using underlying process approaches to emphasizing in- ments for students with LD, discuss the extent to which the structional effectiveness based on students’ learning in core treatments are special, and describe a model for early pre- academic areas. We then describe a three-tiered model for pro- vention and intervention. Last, we present some of the criti- viding special education to students with LD. cal findings about teaching students with LD that inform what

Address: Sharon Vaughn, 42 Buckeye Trail, Austin, TX 78746; e-mail: [email protected] THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 37/NO. 3/2003 141

is special about special education and how these techniques 2. The psycholinguistic processes relate to the ac- can be effectively implemented. quisition of language. 3. The levels of organization refer to communica- Diagnosis and Remediation tion habits, including more complex mediated of Underlying Process Disabilities learning (representational level) and less volun- tary learning (automatic level). The hallmark of early instruction for students with LD was instruction based on models of neurological and/or process- Student profiles can be generated based on the subtests that ing disorders in which identification and treatment of learn- corresponded with each of these three dimensions of the . ing problems were linked to the underlying processes that Specific tasks, activities, and instructional programs are spec- interfered with effective learning. Although it may be accu- ified for instructing students in the processes that correspond rate that many students with LD have underlying neurologi- with the tasks (Kirk & Kirk, 1971). cal and/or processing disorders, researchers and educators The concern with process assessment and treatment has have been singularly unsuccessful at reliably identifying these been that underlying learning deficits and processes were not difficulties and designing specific treatments to remediate reliably identified and the corresponding treatments were not them (for a review, see Lyon, 1985; Mann, 1979). specific to the learning problems. Although the efficacy of It would be incomplete to examine early work in pro- psycholinguistic training has been much debated, treatments viding educational treatment for students with LD without re- were not in fact powerful enough to make discernable differ- viewing the work of Samuel Kirk. As early as 1962, Kirk ences in academic learning—the most important outcome presented the notion of intraindividual differences to describe (Hammill & Larsen, 1974, 1978; Kavale, 1981; Larsen, Par- what was special about educating students with LD. In Kirk ker, & Hammill, 1982; Lund, Foster, & McCall-Perez, 1978). and Kirk (1971), the idea was described as a concept that The emphasis on underlying mechanisms related to learning yielded undue focus directed to remediating process deficits directs attention not to the comparison of one and too little focus on instructing students in their target areas with another but to differences of ability within a of need (e.g., reading, math). Thus, process remediation as a single child. In other words, the concept of intra- means to resolving LD went unsupported (Chall, 2000; individual differences leads logically to psychomet- Kavale, 1980; Kavale & Forness, 2000; Kavale & Mattson, ric tests that could measure a number of specific and 1983; Silver, 2001). However, it is important to note that de- discrete areas of psychoeducational development. spite lack of support for process identification and treatment Its principal use is to diagnose a child’s psycho- models, they continue to persist. Thus, early in the field of linguistic abilities so that remediation can follow. LD, unique treatment approaches for students with specific (pp. 11–12) LD, were devised yet were often not directly related to learn- Process Approaches. Kirk’s concept of intraindividual ing goals; these approaches were implemented broadly and differences was the foundation of early work in LD. It was be- continue today in spite of little information on the fidelity of lieved that the psychoeducational strengths and weaknesses implementation and weak results related to learning outcomes. that contributed to students’ learning could be identified and It is important to note that past failures in identifying and an educational treatment plan that capitalized on students’ remediating processing problems do not necessarily forecast strengths and remediated weaknesses could be defined. With future failures. Three impediments have so far stood in the this course charted, many assessment and remediation prac- way. tices in LD were devised and implemented. Johnson and 1. Knowledge about the neurological under- Myklebust (1967) also contributed significantly to early un- pinnings of learning and LD has not been derstanding of treatment of such students. They identified pro- adequate. cedures for first conducting an intensive diagnostic study and 2. The measurement needed to identify specific then developing an individualized plan that was based on a process disorders in learning has not been language deficit model. precise enough (Keogh, 1994a; Lyon, 1994). Measures such as the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic 3. Matching the subtype of a learning problem Ability (ITPA; Kirk, McCarthy, & Kirk, 1968) were designed with appropriate treatments has not been to determine students’ strengths and weaknesses and to pre- carried out successfully. scribe corresponding treatment. The ITPA, which was fre- quently used to diagnose processing problems, consists of However, future research may yield better scientific under- three dimensions: standing of these principles, and a return to process approach may well serve individuals with LD. Thus, theoretically sound 1. Channels of communication include the modes and empirically driven work that attempts to better inform of expression for receiving and expressing these issues should be considered as feasible and desirable information. progress in the field. 142 THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 37/NO. 3/2003

Modality-Matched and Multisensory Approaches. D. Fuchs (1996) argued that two of the attributes of ef- Modality refers to sight, hearing, touch or movement. The fective special education for students with LD are individual- learning modality approach to instruction is based on the as- ization and validation. -based measures (Deno, sumption that learners have preferred modalities for learning 1985) and other progress-monitoring tools (Good & Kamin- and teaching that is redesigned to rely more directly on this ski, 1996) help ensure that intervention is responsive to the preferred modality will help students learn more readily and individual needs of students (D. Fuchs, 1996). Validation oc- rapidly. For teachers of students with LD, the rationale is to curs in several ways, but perhaps the most powerful way is identify each student’s preferred modality and to match teach- through experimental studies that are conducted over time and ing to this modality preference. An extension of modality- yield converging evidence (K. E. Stanovich, 2000; Vaughn & matched instruction is learning styles, in which the teacher Dammann, 2001). To maximize student outcomes, these ap- identifies types of tasks that fit the students’ learning orienta- proaches can then be given precedence by teachers who mon- tion and provides instruction that allows students to use their itor student progress, and adjustments can be made to (a) the preferred learning style. There is no empirical support for the features of instruction (e.g., pacing, group size, amount of use of modality-matched instruction or learning styles as a time), (b) the materials, and (c) the instructional practice. means to enhance outcomes for students with LD (Arter & Effective instructional approaches for students with LD Jenkins, 1979; Kavale & Forness, 1987; Kavale, Hirshoren, & and their effect sizes have been reported in several sources Forness, 1998; Larrivee, 1981). However, many teacher educa- (Gersten, Schiller, & Vaughn, 2000; Gersten & Vaughn, 2001; tion programs and professional development experiences en- Kavale, & Forness, 2000; Swanson et al., 2000; Vaughn et al., courage teachers to consider modality-matched instruction as 2000) and can be briefly summarized as the following: a means for enhancing outcomes for students with learning problems. These techniques are part of many preservice and in- • Controlling task difficulty (e.g., sequencing service programs for teachers, appear to have widespread use, examples and problems to maintain high levels and are fundamentally unsupported by empirical evidence. of success and matching task difficulty with Multisensory instruction involves teaching aimed at using student abilities and emerging skills) is asso- all pathways to the brain simultaneously, particularly visual, ciated with improved academic outcomes. auditory, and kinesthetic–tactile (McIntyre & Pickering, 1995). •Teaching students in small, interactive groups is From the early work of Fernald (1943), Gillingham and Still- related to increased achievement. man (1936), and Orton (1937), a multisensory approach to • Modeling and teaching strategies for generating teaching students with learning/reading disabilities has been questions and thinking aloud while reading, advocated. According to Orton, “All of the usable linkages be- writing, or working on a scientific or mathemat- tween vision, audition, and kinesthesis should be established ical problem (e.g., self-questioning, metacog- during remediation of reading difficulties” (p. 17). Despite nitive strategies) are instructional features positive outcomes for individual cases (Fernald & Keller, 1921; linked to improved results. Strauss & Lehtinen, 1947), research has offered no com- • Direct and explicit instructional practices are pelling evidence to suggest that a multisensory approach to associated with improved academic outcomes. instruction is advantageous for students with learning or read- • Higher order processing skills and problem ing disabilities (Kavale & Forness, 2000). Thus, what has his- solving can facilitate the integration of knowl- torically been considered “special” about providing treatment edge and skills as students address increasingly for individuals with LD—psycholinguistic training, modality- complex problems and projects, especially in matched instruction, and multisensory teaching—has been as- math and science. sociated with little or no effects on learning outcomes for • Learning when, where, and how to apply strate- students with LD. gies helps students develop plans of action to guide their learning. Academic Instruction for • Ongoing progress monitoring of specific skills is associated with effective outcomes in aca- Students with LD demic areas. Instructional approaches that have yielded significant out- •The building blocks of reading and writing (e.g., comes for students with LD are characterized as being well phonemic awareness, writing speed) are essen- specified, explicit, carefully designed, and closely related to tial for improving outcomes in reading and the area of instructional need (e.g., reading, spelling, math). writing. Although these techniques are not special and unique to spe- •The process of writing and the organizational cial education settings, teachers, and students, their application and mechanical aspects of writing contribute to needs to be. Torgesen (1996) specified that special education improved outcomes in writing. differs from general education for students with LD when it •The teacher and students who provide ongoing is more (a) explicit, (b) intensive, and (c) supportive. and systematic feedback assist students with LD THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 37/NO. 3/2003 143

in repairing misunderstandings or revising their first grade); at the end of first grade, reading failure among writing or understanding of text. the at-risk children had declined. However, the proportion of children referred for special education services did not de- In summary, professionals interested in providing the crease. O’Connor attributed this to the limited resources avail- most effective special education for students with LD initially able within the , which precluded provision of the most used psycholinguistic and underlying process models to iden- intense level of intervention needed by the minimal-gains tify LD and to attempt to develop cures. Within the last 15 to children. Dickson and Bursuck (1999) also provided a three- 20 years, considerably greater emphasis has been placed on tiered system that varied along the dimensions studied by devising effective interventions that correspond to the acade- O’Connor. They found high effect sizes primarily for students mic needs of students. This path has proven to be more ef- at risk for reading failure placed in small-group intensive in- fective in terms of the overall positive effects on instructional tervention. Dickson and Bursuck also lamented the lack of outcomes for students with LD. However, considerable num- time and resources needed to support change in teachers’ in- bers of students still do not successfully respond to treatments struction and to provide the intensity of instruction needed by that are effective for students with related problems (O’Con- struggling readers. These findings support the contention that nor, 2000; Torgesen, 2000). researchers need to continue to explore ways to reach this sub- group of readers within the of existing resources in the Implementation and Fidelity schools. Another question of significance is the extent to which these Small-Group Instruction documented practices are being used and whether they are im- plemented with fidelity. Researchers and practitioners have One crucial variable in these prevention/early intervention observed a significant gap between the documentation of ef- models for struggling readers is the teacher–student ratio (or fective practices and their use in educational settings (Cooper, student group size) during instruction. Lower teacher–student 1996; Lloyd, Weintraub, & Safer, 1997; K. E. Stanovich, 2000). ratios allow for increased teacher–student interactions, indi- Even when practices are implemented in target settings, sus- vidualization of instruction, student on-task behavior, and tainability is challenging (D. Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Malouf teacher monitoring and feedback (Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, & Schiller, 1995; P. J. Stanovich & Stanovich, 1997). It appears & Moody, 2000; Thurlow, Ysseldyke, Wotruba, & Algozzine, that too little of what is done in education is based on the find- 1993). For reading instruction, group size is particularly rel- ings of rigorous inquiry (Carnine, 1997; Walberg, 1998). Per- evant for several reasons: haps of greatest importance is how we go about affecting 1. Smaller group sizes are associated with im- change in use of documented practices in special education. proved outcomes (Lou et al., 1996; Swanson, It is difficult to discuss what is unique about teaching students Carson, & Sachs-Lee, 1996). with LD if we are unable to implement and sustain these tech- 2. The range of reading abilities represented in niques across settings. general education may be from three to five grade levels, and smaller groups reduce variability of instructional needs of Making Special Education Effective students (Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, for Students with LD 1999). 3. Group size affects the amount and quality of In addition to the previously summarized research on effec- oral language used among English language tive instructional practices for students with LD, a knowledge learners (Gersten & Jimenez, 1998). base on how best to deliver these instructional services in 4. Reading instruction can be tailored to students’ ways that meet the needs of diverse students is accumulating. individual needs (Gelzheiser, Meyers, Slesin- One early intervention/prevention approach is to layer read- ski, Douglas, & Lewis, 1994; Rashotte, ing instruction in tiers, or levels, that begin with effective prac- MacPhee, & Torgesen, 2001). tices implemented class-wide and then provide successive levels of support to students as needed (Dickson & Bursuck, In a meta-analysis of grouping practices and reading 1999; O’Connor, 2000) by including ongoing screening and outcomes for students with disabilities, Elbaum et al. (1999) progress monitoring as part of the class-wide intervention. reported that effect sizes for students receiving instruction in For example, O’Connor (2000) aimed to reduce reading both small groups and student pairs were considerably higher failure in kindergarteners by providing instruction across four than those for students receiving whole-class instruction. Sim- levels that varied in length (number of minutes per session), ilarly, other analyses with general education students have in- intensity (number of times per week and group size), and du- dicated that small-group learning is associated with higher ration (number of weeks). O’Connor’s project provided in- achievement gains than is whole-class grouping (Kulik & struction to these students for 2 years ( through Kulik, 1987; Lou et al., 1996; Slavin, 1987). 144 THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 37/NO. 3/2003

The optimal group size for young students who are tervals. Providing the intervention for more than one session struggling to learn to read has not been definitively established each day is another way to enhance intensity. Torgesen et al. (Thurlow et al., 1993). In a study targeting both monolingual (2001) provided two sessions per day (50 minutes each ses- English speakers and English language learners, a teacher– sion) of intensive one-on-one instruction to students with LD student ratio of 1:1 was compared to ratios of 1:3 and 1:10 with severe reading problems. Students made significant gains, during supplemental reading instruction; the content and in- and most students maintained these gains for 2 years. Fur- tensity of instruction were held constant (Vaughn, Linan- thermore, 19 of 49 students were able to return to general ed- Thompson, Kouzekanani, et al., in press). Results indicated ucation and were no longer identified as in need of special that students in the 1:1 and 1:3 conditions made similar gains education. To determine the length of intervention needed by in phoneme segmentation, fluency, and comprehension that second-grade students struggling with reading,Vaughn, Linan- were maintained at a 4-month follow-up and that were greater Thompson, and Hickman (2003) provided 54 struggling than for students in the 1:10 group. second-grade readers with small-group instruction for 10, 20, or 30 weeks. Students continued to receive supplemental in- Accelerating Intensity Through struction until the preestablished grade-level criteria were met. Of the 45 students available at all assessment points, 11 One-on-One Instruction of the students failed to reach the criteria after 30 weeks of For many students, even small-group instruction may not be intervention, 10 met exit criteria after 10 weeks of intervention, enough to provide the directed, intensive, specific instruction re- 15 after 20 weeks, and 9 after 30 weeks. Results supported the quired; thus, one-on-one instruction may be necessary. Sev- value of varying group size and intensity of intervention. eral studies offer support for the effectiveness of one-on-one instruction, particularly with students who have been identified Model for Primary, Secondary, and as at risk or as having reading or learning disabilities (Bloom, 1984; Juel, 1991; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). A recent meta-analysis Tertiary Interventions found that supplemental one-on-one reading interventions for For students with LD, we propose a systematic, tiered in- students at risk for reading failure resulted in reading out- structional approach that links general and special education. comes for participating students that exceeded outcomes of This model capitalizes on existing research in instruction, in- controls by an average of .41 standard deviations—a modest structional grouping, and duration. In this three-tiered model, but, for these readers, quite notable amount. Interventions in we adopt Keogh’s (1994b) view that prevention and interven- which tutoring was provided by trained volunteers or tion are inextricably linked. According to Keogh, “The same students were highly effective (Elbaum et al., 2000). Two re- procedures or services may serve preventive or treatment pur- cent studies of intensive, one-on-one interventions for stu- poses relative to the context in which they are delivered or dents at risk for reading disabilities have yielded impressive when they are implemented” (p. 64). To optimize learning op- results. Vellutino et al. (1996) provided up to two semesters portunities for students, instruction at each level (primary, of tutoring in letter identification, phoneme awareness, and secondary, and tertiary) is more intense and explicit and the word-reading skills in 20-minute daily sessions for struggling instructional group size is reduced. Throughout the three lev- first-grade readers. This one-on-one tutoring helped the ma- els, progress monitoring is used to ensure that students are jority of students become average readers. Torgesen et al. mastering the content and that their growth rates are adequate. (2001) were also able to demonstrate significant improve- With this model, both mastery of content and growth rate are ments in decoding skills of students with significant reading monitored and used to make instructional and placement de- disabilities following 80 hours of instruction in phonological cisions. Although this model focuses on supplemental instruc- decoding strategies. The instruction was provided one-on- tion, it was influenced by the work on alternative models for one, in two 50-minute sessions per day. Results indicated that identifying students with disabilities developed by L. S. Fuchs decoding accuracy reached national averages but that speed and Fuchs (1998) and implemented by Speece and Case (2001). of decoding did not. These studies suggest that critical fea- The first level, primary instruction, takes place in the tures of reading instruction, when combined with one-on-one general education and consists of the grade-level tutoring in sessions of sufficient intensity, can make an im- curriculum. Providing general education teachers with inten- pact on the acquisition of literacy skills for students with read- sive and ongoing professional development on effective in- ing disabilities. structional practices is essential to ensuring that all students have access to the curriculum. A significant part of the pro- Duration of Intervention fessional development is training in the use of progress mon- itoring to inform instruction and as a means of identifying Another variable that may affect the effectiveness of an in- students who are not benefiting significantly from classroom tervention is the duration or intensity of the intervention. instruction and who require supplemental instruction. Length of intervention may be a preset number of sessions or The second level of instruction, secondary intervention, may be determined by mastery of preset criteria at specific in- may take place in the general education classroom or outside the THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 37/NO. 3/2003 145

classroom as a pullout program. This more intensive and ex- port. This procedure provides a means for ac- plicit instructional program (supplemental to the core program) cessing supplemental instruction for students can be provided by the teacher or by other personnel who may not require special education but are and is meant to parallel classroom instruction. Instruction that consistently and continuously falling behind. focuses on students’ needs, as determined by progress mon- 2. Students with LD benefit from the use of a dy- itoring, is provided in small groups (one adult with four namic and fluid approach centered on progress students), five times a week. Sessions last between 20 and monitoring. Students are provided multiple 40 minutes, depending on the grade level and need. opportunities to reach grade-level benchmarks The third level of instruction, tertiary intervention, may while receiving supplemental instruction be- be categorized as special education for some students. Stu- fore they are eligible for special education. dents would be eligible for special education if they failed to Once they are eligible for special education, make adequate progress and to meet established criteria, de- the level of support that they receive is based spite receiving enhanced classroom instruction and 20 weeks not on a label but on their ability to benefit of supplemental, small-group instruction. from instruction, as measured by their perfor- Movement between the levels is fluid and is based on mance on progress-monitoring measures. progress monitoring and mastery of benchmarks. As an illus- 3. This model can be implemented at both the tration, students who lack basic skills in a particular area (e.g., elementary and secondary levels. At the sec- reading, writing, math) at the time of the first assessment ondary level, special education teachers can are assigned to a secondary intervention group for supple- provide secondary and tertiary intervention to mental instruction. At the end of the first 10 weeks, students students in areas of need while enabling the are assessed, and those who have mastered the benchmarks students to remain in the general education according to preset criteria no longer receive supplemental classroom. secondary intervention. Those students who do not reach the preset criteria after receiving secondary intervention are pro- vided additional supplemental instruction for 10 weeks. Again, Conclusion students who meet the criteria are exited from supplemental instruction. Those students who do not meet exit criteria after Historically, special education for students with LD has been 20 weeks (two consecutive 10-week periods) of secondary in- approached by identifying students’ processing deficits and tervention may be eligible for tertiary intervention or, if they matching treatment practices to these deficits. There is cur- are identified as having disabilities, for special education. rently inadequate information about learning processes and Of importance is the extent to which the techniques used instruction to implement the process deficit and remediation in the tertiary level of instruction are unique to special edu- model. Recent research has suggested that the most produc- cation. We believe that they are unique because they are more tive model for improving outcomes for students with LD is situated to the students’needs, are more intense, provide more one in which students’ instructional gaps are identified, prog- monitoring, and adjust materials and instruction to reflect stu- ress relative to these gaps is monitored, and explicit and in- dent progress or lack of progress. Students in tertiary inter- tensive intervention is provided. vention continue to be assessed regularly, along with their 1. So what is special about special education for stu- classmates. Students who receive tertiary intervention are pro- dents with LD? For most students with LD, it is not the cur- vided the most intensive and specific intervention, in which riculum. Students with LD should have access to the same their progress is monitored weekly and instruction is adjusted curriculum, including higher order processing and problem- as needed. solving skills, as their nondisabled peers. What should be spe- This model provides a procedure for providing supple- cial is the delivery of instruction, given that their needs are mental instruction based on progress-monitoring data to stu- rarely met through general education instruction alone. Stu- dents who require various levels of support in order to benefit dents with LD benefit from explicit and systematic instruc- from classroom instruction. There are several advantages to tion that is closely related to their area of instructional need. using this type of model. How much additional instruction do students need, though, and in what format? As researchers continue gathering evi- 1. Both students who require additional instruction dence of how variables such as group size, duration, and in- from time to time and students who require tensity interact, the key issue will be the extent to which long-term instructional support (special edu- schools can implement and sustain special education for stu- cation) can be served. All the students in the dents with LD. class are assessed throughout the year to ensure 2. To what extent are effective practices being used and they are making adequate gains so students who implemented with fidelity? Though there is little compelling fall behind later in the year or after exiting sec- evidence to suggest that evidence-based practices are used ondary intervention can receive additional sup- widely in special education (Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schil- 146 THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 37/NO. 3/2003

ler, 1997; Stone, 1998), there is certainly growing support for Dickson, S. V., & Bursuck, W. D. (1999). Implementing a model for pre- the use of research-based practices in schools (Abbott, Walton, venting reading failure: A report from the field. Learning Disabilities Tapia, & Greenwood, 1999; Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes, & Ar- Research & Practice, 14, 191–202. Elbaum, B. E., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (1999). Group- guelles, 1999). Recent consensus reports in reading (Committee ing practices and reading outcomes for students with disabilities. Ex- on the Preventing of Reading Difficulties, 1998; National ceptional Children, 65, 399–415. Reading Panel, 2000) have suggested that empirical research Elbaum, B. E., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How ef- should be used as a basis for policy decisions in educational fective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary stu- curriculum. The catalyst for change should be institutions of dents at risk for reading failure? Journal of , 92, 605–619. , which are largely responsible for preservice Fernald, G. M. (1943). Remedial techniques in basic school subjects. New , and the myriad professional development York: McGraw-Hill. enterprises, which provide the bulk of inservice education. Fernald, G. M., & Keller, H. (1921). The effect of kineasthetic factors on the These entities must place a much greater emphasis on research- development of word recognition in the case of non-readers. Journal of based practices. , 4, 355–377. Foorman, B., Francis, D., Fletcher, J., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). 3. Are these practices documented with culturally and The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in linguistically diverse students? Although culturally and lin- at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55. guistically diverse students are represented in much of the re- Fuchs, D. (1996). Educational intervention and students with learning dis- search on effective practices for teaching students with LD, abilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7, 63–67. findings for these students are rarely disaggregated from the Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1998). Researchers and teachers working together to instruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research findings for the majority students (Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, & Practice, 13, 126–137. 1999). Thus, in terms of responding to instruction, we know Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for more about students as a whole than we do about specific cul- reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning turally and linguistically diverse groups. Research in reading Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219. disabilities has provided evidence that African American stu- Gelzheiser, L. M., Meyers, J., Slesinski, C., Douglas, C., & Lewis, L. (1994). Patterns of accommodations provided to students with disabilities in dents benefit from the same instructional practices as do integrated classrooms. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. White students (Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, ED395401) & Mehta, 1998) and that English language learners may profit Gersten, R. M., & Jimenez, R. T. (1998). Promoting learning for culturally from the same approaches to reading as do English monolin- and linguistically diverse students. Classroom applications from con- gual learners (Committee on Preventing Reading Difficulties, temporary research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED415715) 1998). Gersten, R., Schiller, E. P., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Contemporary special ed- ucation research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instruc- AUTHORS’ NOTE tional issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gersten, R., & Vaughn, S. (2001). Meta-analyses in learning disabilities: In- The authors would like to thank Diane Haager and Cynthia Salas for troduction to the special issue. Elementary School Journal, 101, 247– their valuable assistance in the preparation of this article. 249. Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know REFERENCES about using research findings: Implications for improving special edu- cation practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 466–476. Abbott, M., Walton, C., Tapia, Y., & Greenwood, C. R. (1999). Research to Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. W. (1936). Remedial work for reading, practice: A “blueprint” for closing the gap in local schools. Exceptional spelling, and penmanship. New York: Sachett & Wilhelms. Children, 65, 339–352. Good, R., & Kaminski, R. (1996). Assessment for instructional decisions: To- Arter, J. A., & Jenkins, J. R. (1979). Differential diagnosis-prescriptive teach- ward a proactive/prevention model of decision-making for early literacy ing: A critical appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 49, 517–555. skills. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 326–336. Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1974). The effectiveness of psycholinguis- for students with learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the tic training. Exceptional Children, 41, 5–14. five cases. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 163–180. Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1978). The effectiveness of psycholinguistic Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group training: A reaffirmation of position. Exceptional Children, 44, 402–414. instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. 13(6), 4–16. § 1401 (26). Carnine, D. (1997). Bridging the research-to-practice gap. Exceptional Chil- Johnson, D., & Myklebust, H. R. (1967). Learning disabilities: Educational dren, 63, 513–521. principles and practices. New York: Grune & Stratton. Chall, J. S. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works Juel, C. (1991). Cross-age tutoring between student athletes and at-risk chil- in the classroom? New York: Guilford Press. dren. The Reading Teacher, 45, 178–186. Committee on Preventing Reading Difficulties. (1998). Preventing reading Kavale, K. A. (1980). Auditory-visual integration and its relationship to read- difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National ing achievement: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 51, 947– Press. 955. Cooper, H. (1996). Speaking power to truth: Reflections of an educational Kavale, K. A. (1981). Functions of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abil- researcher after 4 years of school board service. Educational Researcher, ities (ITPA): Are they trainable? Exceptional Children, 47, 496–510. 25(1), 29–34. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alterna- efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children, 54, tive. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232. 228–239. THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION VOL. 37/NO. 3/2003 147

Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). Policy decisions in special education: Orton, S. T. (1937). Reading, writing and speech problems in children. New The role of meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn York: Norton. (Eds.), Contemporary special education research (pp. 281–326). Mah- Rashotte, C. A., MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). The effectiveness of wah, NJ: Erlbaum. a group reading instruction program with poor readers in multiple grades. Kavale, K. A., Hirshoren, A., & Forness, S. R. (1998). Meta-analytic valida- Learning Quarterly, 24, 119–134. tion of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences: A cri- Silver, L. B. (2001). Controversial therapies. Perspectives, 27, 5–8. tique of what was Dunn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elemen- 75–80. tary schools:A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, Kavale, K. A., & Mattson, D. (1983). “One jumped off the balance beam”: 57, 293–336. Meta-analysis of perceptual-motor training. Journal of Learning Dis- Speece, D. L., & Case, L. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative abilities, 16, 165–173. approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Keogh, B. K. (1994a). A matrix of decision points in the measurement of Psychology, 93, 735–749. learning disabilities. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading. New York: Guil- assessment of learning disabilities (pp. 15–26). Baltimore: Brookes. ford Press. Keogh, B. K. (1994b). What the special education research agenda should Stanovich, P. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Research into practice in special look like in the year 2000. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 477–481. 9, 62–69. Stone, C. A. (1998). Moving validated instructional practices into the class- Kirk, S. A. (1962). Educating exceptional children. Boston: Houghton Mif- room: Learning from examples about the rough road to success. Learn- flin. ing Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 121–125. Kirk, S. A., & Kirk, W. D. (1971). Psycholinguistic learning disabilities: Di- Strauss, A. A., & Lehtinen, L. E. (1947). Psychopathology and education of agnosis and remediation. Urbana: University of Illinois. the brain-injured child. New York: Grune & Stratton. Kirk, S. A., McCarthy, J. J., & Kirk, W. D. (1968). Examiner’s manual: Illi- Swanson, H. L., Carson, C., & Sachs-Lee, C. M. (1996). A selective synthe- nois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Urbana: University of Illinois. sis of intervention research for students with learning disabilities. School Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Arguelles, M. E. (1999). Sus- Psychology Review, 25, 370–391. taining research-based practices in reading: A 3-year follow-up. Reme- Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students dial and Special Education, 20, 263–274, 287. with learning disabilities. New York: Guilford Press. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on student Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., Wotruba, J. W., & Algozzine, B. (1993). In- achievement. Equity and Excellence, 23, 22–30. struction in special education classrooms under varying student-teacher Larrivee, B. (1981). Modality preference as a model for differentiating be- ratios. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 305–320. ginning reading instruction: A review of the issues. Torgesen, J. K. (1996). Thoughts about intervention research in learning dis- Quarterly, 4, 180–188. abilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7, 55–58. Larsen, S. C., Parker, R. M., & Hammill, D. D. (1982). Effectiveness of psy- Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interven- cholinguistic training: A response to Kavale. Exceptional Children, 49, tions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning 60–66. Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55–64. Lloyd, J. W., Weintraub, F. J., & Safer,N. D. (1997). A bridge between research Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. and practice: Building consensus. Exceptional Children, 63, 535–538. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & D’Apol- with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes lonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Ed- from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, ucational Research, 66, 423–458. 33–58. Lund, K. A., Foster, G. E., & McCall-Perez, F. C. (1978). The effectiveness Vaughn, S., & Dammann, J. E. (2001). Science and sanity in special educa- of psycholinguistic training: A reevaluation. Exceptional Children, 44, tion. Behavior Disorder, 27, 21–29. 310–319. Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in Lyon, G. R. (1985). Identification and remediation of learning disability sub- LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Excep- types: Preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, tional Children, 67, 99–114. 1, 21–35. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to in- Lyon, G. R. (1994). Critical issues in the measurement of learning disabili- struction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning dis- ties. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learn- abilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409. ing disabilities (pp. 3–13). Baltimore: Brookes. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Kouzekanani, K., Bryant, D. P., Dickson, Malouf, D. B., & Schiller, E. P. (1995). Practice and research in special ed- S., & Blozis, S. (in press). Grouping for reading instruction: Students ucation. Exceptional Children, 61, 414–424. with reading difficulties who are monolingual English speakers or Eng- Mann, L. (1979). On the trail of process. New York: Grune & Stratton. lish language learners. Remedial and Special Education. McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1993). Ob- Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E., Small, S., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & servations of students with learning disabilities in general education class- Denckla, M. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and rooms. Exceptional Children, 60, 249–261. readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for dis- McIntyre, C. W., & Pickering, J. S. (1995). Clinical studies of multisensory tinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes structured for students with and related of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, disorders. Salem, OR: The International Multisensory Structured Lan- 601–638. guage Education Council. Walberg, H. J. (1998). Foreward. In K. Topping & S. Ehly (Eds.), Peer-assisted National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence- learning (pp. ix–xii). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department one-to-one tutoring:A review of five programs. Reading Research Quar- of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Child Health and terly, 28, 178–200. Human Development. Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J. N., et O’Connor, R. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten al. (1995, March). Special education in restructured schools: Findings and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 43–54. from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 531–540.