Special Reading Instruction Research Articles

Inference Instruction for Students With Reading Disabilities

National data indicate that approximately 90% of rural students with a reading disability read at or below basic levels of reading proficiency. A growing body of research demonstrates that the ability to make inferences is essential for reading comprehension but particularly difficult for students with reading disabilities. Compounding matters, rural special educators often have limited resources available to support students with reading disabilities, largely served in general education classrooms. In this Practice in Action article, we support rural special educators who must innovatively collaborate with general education teachers to ensure high quality and specialized reading instruction and support inclusive and equitable learning environments by (a) defining inferencing, (b) reviewing College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards that support inferencing, (c) discussing the inference skills of students with or at-risk for reading disabilities, (d) outlining components of effective inference instruction, and (e) offering recommendations for how to teach inferencing using a graphic organizer.

Orton-Gillingham and the IDEA: analysis of the frequency and outcomes of case law.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act grants dissatisfied parents of students with disabilities the right to pursue legal remedies. In 2007, Rose and Zirkel found that parents of students with reading disabilities seeking Orton-Gillingham (OG) instruction under the IDEA's central obligation for a free appropriate public education (FAPE) were largely unsuccessful in their complaints. Since that review, various factors had the potential to influence the frequency and outcomes of OG-related case law-namely, the peer-reviewed research requirement of the IDEA and growing awareness of the need for specialized reading instruction. Our updated analysis of OG-related case law revealed an increase in the number of cases but similar district-favored outcomes identified by Rose and Zirkel. In particular, the relaxed substantive FAPE standard and deference to local and state authorities diminished the likelihood of parents prevailing in their requests. Implications for parents, school district personnel, special education professionals, and education researchers are presented.

Barriers to the implementation of specialized reading instruction in secondary co-taught classrooms: an exploratory study

ABSTRACTThis exploratory research underscores Bandura’s social learning theory on collective agency to investigate co-teaching partners’ collaboration regarding reading instruction for students with disabilities. Students whose Individualized Education Programs stipulate reading are dependent on special educators to deliver such instruction. In the current research, we investigate barriers to implementation of specialized reading instruction in co-taught classes. One hundred seven secondary special education co-teachers across the United States, who primarily teach students with learning disabilities, responded to a questionnaire about their co-teaching experiences and delivery of specialized reading instruction. Emphasizing the impact that co-planning has on barriers to the implementation of reading, our results indicate the moderating role of special educators’ perceived co-teaching benefits. Empirical findings are discussed, and implications for research and practice are offered.

Principals’ qualifications in special education and students with and at risk for disabilities’ reading achievement growth in kindergarten

ABSTRACTTo effectively teach reading to students with and at risk for disabilities, special and general education teachers depend on principals who support effective specialized reading instruction. Yet, extant research indicates that principals have inadequate preparation for supporting specialized instruction. To address this issue, scholars have recommended that leader preparation programs should provide prospective leaders with more preparation in special education. However, research to date provides limited indications of whether more preparation would in fact support more effective leadership for special education. Therefore, we examined data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study to determine whether principals’ qualifications in special education and in reading predicted struggling readers’ and students with disabilities’ reading achievement growth in kindergarten. We found no effects; principals’ coursework in special education, coursework in reading, prior experiences as a special education teacher, and experience in school leadership did not predict reading achievement growth among students with or at-risk for disabilities.

Specialized Reading Instruction for Adolescents with Learning Disabilities: What Special Education Co-Teachers Say

In this exploratory study, secondary special education co-teachers report about specialized reading instruction for students with learning disabilities in co-taught classes. Almost half of the respondents were concerned that reading instruction was not occurring in co-taught classes. One-third were concerned reading instruction was not occurring any time during the school day.

The First “R”: Evidence-Based Reading Instruction for Students With Learning Disabilities

Students with learning disabilities (LD) represent a significant proportion of students enrolled in U.S. schools. Research suggests that students with LD in reading benefit from specialized reading instruction, and effective reading instruction can be characterized as explicit, intensive, and systematic. Examples of evidence-based interventions that follow these principles for students across grade levels are reviewed.

Attending to Specialized Reading Instruction for Adolescents with Mild Disabilities

Attending to Specialized Reading Instruction for Adolescents with Mild Disabilities

Teaching Beginning Braille Reading Using an Alphabet or Uncontracted Braille Approach

This study examined the effects of using a research based print reading program modified to accommodate beginning braille readers using an alphabet or uncontracted braille reading approach with five beginning braille readers. Four of the 5 participants displayed a clear increase in their ability to read high frequency words when they began using the Early Steps reading program modified to an Early Steps Alphabet Braille Reading Program. Study findings indicate that access to reading activities and materials afforded to sighted peers resulted in improved reading outcomes for children with visual impairments. Teachers, participants, and family members all viewed the use of the uncontracted braille reading program and materials favorably. Specialized reading instruction was also perceived as beneficial by teachers of students with visual impairments when the training addressed the specific needs of braille readers.

The Implications of RTI and EBP for SLPs: Commentary on L. M. Justice

This commentary responds to Justice's article on response to intervention (RTI) and evidence-based practice (EBP) for reading instruction. The educational changes brought about by RTI and EBP provide an opportunity as well as a challenge for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to make fundamental changes in service delivery. In this article, I discuss how RTI will change who qualifies as reading disabled and who receives special reading instruction. I examine how RTI might change who qualifies and how they qualify for speech-language services. Finally, I consider what can be taken from EPB and RTI to improve speech-language service delivery. RTI has the potential to fundamentally change regular education and its interface with special education. If SLP clinicians, researchers, and policymakers recognize the possibilities, RTI could also significantly and positively impact educational speech-language pathology.

Curriculum-based measures, teachers' ratings, and group achievement scores: Alternative screening measures

This study found several nontraditional assessment tools to be good predictors of current reading instruction group for nonhandicapped and mildly handicapped children. Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) reading scores, curriculum-based measurement (CBM) reading probes, and a teachers' rating scale (TRAP-R) were able to stratify a large sample of children of elementary school age into Chapter 1, Resource Teaching Program (RTP), or regular education reading groups with 76% accuracy. These results are consistent with prior research with this instrument. These three tools appear to have utility as alternative screening or assessment measures for children in need of special and remedial services. The CBM scores varied by curriculum; therefore local norms would be necessary to make meaningful comparisons. CBM probes, ITBS scores, and teachers' ratings were found to be reliable measures of students' need for special reading instruction, as measured by present instructional placement; these measures can be easily obtained and may alleviate the need for some more traditional psychoeducational assessment.

School Response to Reading Failure: Instruction for Chapter 1 and Special Education Students in Grades Two, Four, and Eight

A study of 64 students in grades 2, 4, and 8 indicated that students identified as disadvantaged and participating in Chapter 1 received significantly more reading/language arts instruction in their regular education classes than mainstreamed children identified as handicapped and served through special education programs. Although the latter receive more special reading instruction than did Chapter 1 participants, the amount was not sufficient to offset the loss in the regular education program. In addition, the instruction offered in the special education program provided less direct teaching and more seat work than instruction in either the regular education or the Chapter 1 program. These results suggest that the special education programs studied did not generally enhance either the quantity or quality of reading/language arts instruction the participants received. However, the small amounts of reading/language arts instruction offered mainstreamed handicapped students must also be of concern.

What Is the Role of Academic Intervention in the Treatment of Hyperactive Children with Reading Disorders?

Abstract The clinical interaction of Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity (ADD/HA) and Developmental Reading Disorder (DRD) is discussed. A treatment program that is particularly suited to children with ADD/HA and DRD is described. A recently completed study of the effects of methylphenidate on the reading achievement of ADD/HA children is described and selected results are presented to support the conclusions that: (a) special reading instruction can substantially improve achievement rates in children with ADD/HA and DRD, and (b) the degree to which methylphenidate reduces the behavioral symptoms of ADD/HA is a crucial factor in determining a child's response to DRD therapy.

Reading Instruction in Special Education Resource Rooms

Using the observation procedures developed by Leinhardt, Zigmond, and Cooley (1981) , we conducted a large-scale field study of reading instruction in special education resource room programs for fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade mildly handicapped students. Children in 23 resource rooms in one district and those from 5 resource rooms in another district were observed during reading instruction. Observations were also made in regular classrooms for a subset of handicapped students and their nonhandicapped peers. The research sought to answer questions regarding the standardization of resource room reading instruction, the nature and amount of reading instruction in these programs, factors associated with how students are scheduled for special reading instruction, reading instruction in resource rooms versus regular classrooms, and special education students’ reading instruction (resource room plus classroom) versus that of nonhandicapped peers. Process-product relations similar to those of the Leinhardt et al. research in learning disabilities classrooms were also tested. Results indicated considerable variability in reading instruction across programs and students that was not strongly linked to student characteristics. Overall, the amount of reading instruction was remarkably low, and instructional process variables in resource rooms were not predictive of achievement.

Special Reading Instruction in Junior High Schools

Special Reading Instruction in Junior High Schools

Special Reading Instruction in Illinois Junior High Schools

Special Reading Instruction in Illinois Junior High Schools

Current Practices in Remedial Reading in Secondary Schools

Previous articleNext article No AccessCurrent Practices in Remedial Reading in Secondary SchoolsWilliam G. Brink and Paul A. WittyWilliam G. Brink Search for more articles by this author and Paul A. Witty Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 57, Number 5/6May - Jun., 1949 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/441612 Views: 2Total views on this site Citations: 5Citations are reported from Crossref Journal History This article was published in The School Review (1893-1979), which is continued by the American Journal of Education (1979-present). Copyright 1949 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Katherine K. Frankel, Maneka Deanna Brooks, Julie E. Learned A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Research on Reading Intervention Classes in Secondary Schools, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 123, no.88 (Nov 2021): 31–58.https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681211048624M. Dale Baughman Special Reading Instruction in Illinois Junior High Schools, The bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals 44, no.259259 (Sep 2016): 90–95.https://doi.org/10.1177/019263656004425913Frederick B. Davis Chapter II: Research in Reading in High School and College, Review of Educational Research 22, no.22 (Jun 2016): 76–88.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543022002076Arthur E. Traxler Current Organization and Procedures in Remedial Teaching, The Journal of Experimental Education 20, no.33 (Jan 2015): 305–312.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1952.11010447William S. Gray Summary of Reading Investigations July 1, 1948 to June 30, 1949, The Journal of Educational Research 43, no.66 (Dec 2014): 401–440.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1950.10881797

Selecting the Child in Need of Special Reading Instruction

Previous articleNext article No AccessSelecting the Child in Need of Special Reading InstructionVirgil E. HerrickVirgil E. Herrick Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Elementary School Journal Volume 40, Number 6Feb., 1940 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/457777 Copyright 1940 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.