John Wills Lloyd

Congruence Between Roles and Actions of Secondary Special Educators in Co-Taught and Special Education Settings

We examined co-teaching in secondary classrooms by interviewing and observing special education teachers in co-taught and special education classrooms. Using qualitative methods and a grounded theory (constant—comparative) method of data analysis, we identified salient, recurrent patterns that suggested a description of co-teaching definitions, roles, and instructional actions and then compared this description to roles and actions in special education classrooms. We found that special educators take on various roles when co-teaching that are different from the roles that they reportedly assume when they are teaching in special education classrooms; the differences between these roles are influenced by personal definitions of co-teaching and perceived pressures from the classroom, administration, and professional community. During co-taught classes, special educators may simply provide support for students in the general education classroom, teach the same content in a separate classroom, teach a separate part of the content in the same classroom, or teach as a team with the general educator. In co-teaching situations, teachers engaged in actions that helped students get through assignments and instruction given to the entire class. In special education classrooms, however, special educators engaged in different strategic and explicit forms of these actions.

Designing High-Quality Research in Special Education Group Experimental Design

This article discusses critical issues related to conducting high-quality intervention research using experimental and quasi-experimental group designs. As researchers have learned more about teaching and learning, intervention studies have become more complex. The research community is struggling with ways to sensibly negotiate a balance between rigorous research designs that satisfy traditional laboratory standards of quality and interventions that are complex and flexible enough for conducting research in the real world of classrooms and schools. Rather than organizing the discussion around a list of resolute research standards, we weigh the pros and cons of making the many difficult choices involved in conducting intervention research. Our goal is to convey the sense that good designs must involve a series of balances and compromises that defy easily categorized solutions. Among the controversial areas discussed are the importance of defining the nature of the independent variable, the value of measuring implementation, and the improvement of the quality of quasi-experiments.

SELF-MONITORING OF ATTENTION AS A TREATMENT FOR A LEARNING DISABLED BOY'S OFF-TASK BEHAVIOR

A 7-year, 11-month-old, learning disabled boy with attentional problems was taught to self-monitor his on- and off-task behavior by using an audiotape recorder to cue his self-recording. Using a combination of multiple baseline across responses (handwriting and math) and reversal designs, on-task behavior increased dramatically under treatment conditions for both handwriting and math. Academic response rate also increased for handwriting and, especially, math. In an attempt to “wean” the child from possible reliance on the external (tape recorder) signal to self-record, two other treatment conditions were added. The subject was first instructed to self-record without the aid of tape-recorded signals; then, self-recording was discontinued and he was simply to praise himself for being on task. Both conditions led to high levels of on-task behavior and academic output. A one-month followup for math after the experiment found a continued high level of on-task behavior. The relative efficacy of external reinforcement treatments versus more cognitively based approaches such as self-monitoring is discussed.

Some Methods Are More Effective than Others.

Many different methods have been developed to remediate problems of students with disabilities. Research studies evaluating the relative effectiveness of such practices can be overwhelming to educators because of the sheer number of studies—hundreds—as well as the conflicting results produced by some investigations. In this article, we use meta-analyses to make sense of this research, offering general guidelines for best practice in special education.

Redefining the Applied Research Agenda Cooperative Learning, Prereferral, Teacher Consultation, and Peer-Mediated Interventions

We review recent literature on four intervention approaches—cooperative learning, prereferral teams, consulting teachers, and peer-tutoring—that have been recommended as means of accommodating atypical learners in general education settings. Although there is extensive evidence about some of these approaches, there are few direct tests of their effects on atypical learners in general education settings. In addition, the evidence about some approaches is based primarily on descriptive rather than experimental data. The research in these areas, although encouraging, does not justify reducing special education services or provide definitive direction for practice. Indeed, the available evidence reemphasizes the need for careful and systematic research.

Self-Recording during Group Instruction: Effects on Attention to Task.

The effects of self-monitoring on attention to task during small-group instruction were investigated. Three learning disabled (LD) boys with severe attentional problems were taught to self-monitor their on-task behavior while participating in oral reading tasks. A reversal design demonstrated marked increases in attention to task for all three students. The higher levels of on-task behavior were maintained during two subsequent phases in which external components of the self-monitoring procedure were withdrawn. The results indicate that self-monitoring procedures can be effectively employed during oral, small-group instruction, and that positive behavioral changes can be maintained over a period of time following the gradual fading of external, procedural components.

Examining the Research Base of the Regular Education Initiative Efficacy Studies and the Adaptive Learning Environments Model

Two bodies of research used to support the Regular Education Initiative are (a) the literature on the efficacy of special education and (b) studies examining the Adaptive Learning Environments Model (ALEM), a program for educating handicapped children in regular education classrooms that is often cited as an example of effective practice. The support provided by these lines of research, however, is minimal. The efficacy literature contains many limitations in terms of methodology, the age of the studies, and an emphasis on physical placements instead of practices within the placements; even if these limitations are overlooked, the results of the efficacy studies do not totally favor regular education over special education for mildly handicapped students. The ALEM studies provide insufficient information on program and subject characteristics and contain a variety of methodological limitations that call into question their conclusions. Though these limitations in the research supporting the Regular Education Initiative do not prove that special education is effective, we believe a variety of regular and special education service configurations for mildly handicapped students should still be available.

Self-Recording of Attention by Learning Disabled Students in the Regular Classroom

Increased attention to task through self-monitoring procedures has been well-established in recent literature on learning disabled students in self-contained special education classrooms. This study investigated the adaptability of the self-monitoring procedures to regular classroom settings. In the first part of the study, an ABAB design was used. Treatment consisted of having each member of an entire class of second graders monitor his or her own attending behavior. Data from four target students indicated that the procedure was effective in increasing attending behavior. In the second part of the study, using a CBC design, a reinforcement contingency was added to the self-monitoring intervention to ensure that children were actually using the self-monitoring system. Even higher levels of on-task behavior resulted when reinforcement for adherence to the system was in effect. The results show that self-monitoring procedures are readily adaptable for use by learning disabled pupils in the regular classroom setting and that using self-monitoring procedures correctly is an important variable to consider when implementing them.

Direct Instruction: Effects on Oral and Written Language Comprehension

Twenty-three learning disabled children were randomly assigned to three different classrooms, one of which served as a control condition. The two experimental classrooms consisted of homogeneous groups of students who were provided behaviorally based instruction, including direct instruction in language skills such as vocabulary, statement repetition, literal and inferential comprehension, and basic facts (e.g., names of months). At posttesting on the Slosson Intelligence and Gilmore Oral Reading tests the mean score of the experimental classes were found to be approximately three-fourths of a standard deviation higher that the means for the control group, a directionally significant difference in both cases. The results are discussed as support for the proposition that use of direct instruction procedures is a successful means of overcoming the learning difficulties of children considered learning disabled.

A comparison of the effects of self-versus teacher-assessment of on-task behavior

The relative reactivity of self-versus teacher-assessment of a childs on-taks behavior during self-monitoring was compared for a learning disabled boy exhibiting severe attentional problems. Both procedures increased on-task behavior over baseline conditions, but self-assessment was significantly superior to teacher-assessment. Both procedures also increased the number of correct addition problems completed, but were not different statistically. Results are discussed in terms of the theoretical question “Is the ‘self’ important in self-monitoring?” and the practical question “Is self-assessment more cost-effective than teacher-assessment in terms of teacher time and student performance?”