[Chapter 1] [Chapter 2] [Chapter 3] [Chapter 4] [Chapter 5] [Chapter 6] [Chapter 7] [Chapter 8][Chapter 9] [Chapter 10] [References] [Links] [Home]
COLLABORATIVE TEACHING:
SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR INCLUSIVE CLASSROOMS
Price, Mayfield, McFadden, and Marsh
Copyright © 2000-2001 Parrot Publishing, L.L.C.

CHAPTER 5

CURRICULAR AND INSTRUCTIONAL PATTERNS IN REGULAR CLASSROOMS

OBJECTIVES

  1. Define the holistic approach to curriculum development.
  2. Describe reflective teaching practice.
  3. Describe and provide examples of skill-based, subject-centered approach, such as the integrated curriculum, mastery learning, and tutorial instruction.
  4. Define and list the components of effective instruction.
  5. Describe and provide examples of student-centered learning, such as Cooperative Learning, peer tutors, Whole Language, multi-age grouping, and flexible groups.
In response to requirements of the state, expectations of the community, and academic traditions, schools design the curriculum as a plan to achieve specific goals by types of skills and by knowledge in subject-matter areas. Due to school reform pressures and questions about the quality of education, the curriculum has attracted attention and scrutiny. The curriculum is currently a factor in a national political debate over voluntary standards. In such circumstances, decisions about what is best for children may be lost in the polemics and political wrangling over education.  According to Jorgenson, the relationships between state standards, curriculum frameworks, and local practice bears careful consideration:
Considering this inevitable variability in "curriculum personality" from district to district and school to school, we recommend that all teachers use some common curricular elements to design teaching/learning experiences that transcend philosophical differences and that result in a learning environment that challenges and supports all students.
Most elementary and preschool curricula tend to address all aspects of child development--intellectual, moral, personal, social, physical, and so forth, but these narrow to cognitive goals by secondary school. Secondary curricula tend to be more specifically designed for subject matter outcomes. For purposes of discussion, there are two general approaches to curriculum development, instruction, and teacher preparation, both having historical roots in American education over the last half century. These are holistic or student-centered approaches and skills based or didactic approaches.

Since the school reform movement began in 1983, there have been significant shifts in theories about curriculum development and instructional methods, although many of these are still filtering down to the local school curriculum. Many professional organizations have advocated a turn away from direct instruction toward "active, inventive instruction" (Pechman, 1992 p. 34). There have been many attempts to reconceptualize teaching and learning, questioning whether or not direct teaching methods are effective for the expectations of modern schools. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have advocated a shift away from direct instruction toward "active, inventive instruction" (Pechman 1992, p. 34). Similar changes are recommended for K-12 social studies programs in the United States. The National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools---a collaboration of the Organization of American Historians, the American Historical Association, and the National Council for the Social Studies --- has endorsed curricular and instructional change in social studies. The Commission's Curriculum Task Force recommends "exciting ways" to promote the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. In all fields, teachers have sought alternatives to the passive transmission of facts, or direct instruction, in an effort to improve teaching. Being criticized for over a decade while using direct instructional methods, it seemed pragmatic to change to something else, to "active approaches" other than reading and lecture, such as observing, debating, role play, simulations, films, literature, artifacts, television, photographs, historical maps, computers, and courseware. At the same time, cognitive psychology offered a justification for this pragmatism.

The American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Psychology in Education (1993) has described the shift to a student-centered approach and proposed principles in the reform of education that "will serve shared goals: educational excellence with a focus on the individual learner" (American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Psychology in Education, 1993, p. 4). Most critics of education insist that the most important goal should be to teach children to solve problems. Thus, school curricula have been based on learner-centered constructivism to teach students to function successfully in real-world contexts.

As Pechman (1992) notes, "schools try to teach children to use the formal tools of academic disciplines. . . but many children find few opportunities outside of school to practice what they are taught. The resulting inauthenticity of classroom activity makes it difficult for children to see how school learning applies to their lives" (p.33). Ways to make learning more active have been proposed, constituting an impressive list: cooperative learning, flexible grouping, individualization of instruction, team teaching, differentiation of learning styles, apprenticeship learning, interdisciplinary curriculum planning, distributed knowledge, critical thinking and problem solving, integrated curriculum, authentic activity, case-based research, narrative/episodic knowledge structure, conceptual change, constructivism, shared cognition, use of computers and software, collaborative learning, and peer tutoring. The current popularity of "reflective teaching" as a knowledge base for educators is a reappearance of this trend. Other examples are authentic learning, critical thinking, knowledge creation and ownership by the student, new roles for teachers, and the school as a caring community (Elmore, 1991a; Lipman, 1991; Lieberman, Darling-Hammond, & Zukerman, 1991; Baumann, 1991; Newmann, 1991: and Pechman 1992).

Holistic Approach to Curriculum Development

A variety of approaches have emerged to deal with changing the traditional organizational and scheduling patterns and practices of schools. Schools are experimenting with rotating schedules, lengthening class periods, block scheduling, and generally trying to build flexibility into the day. A more controversial and complex way of dealing with change is through empowerment models (site-based management ) that permit teachers to develop unique ways of organizing instruction. Each of these arrangements can have important implications for inclusion.

Much of what happens in a classroom depends on the students-- their interests, abilities, capacity to make sense of the information (Doyle, 1986). As Liven (1993) explained, it would be interesting to imagine a factory in which raw materials had minds of their own and could make independent decisions about whether or not they would be part of whatever was being manufactured. This is precisely the situation facing teachers and the reason that student-centered learning is recognized.

The holistic approaches to curriculum development are concerned with the social origins of thinking that are greatly affected by the surrounding culture of each individual (Vygotsky, 1985). Vygotsky indicated that the culture, social system, and self-referent attitudes that emerge influence such processes. Children use the culture and the social nature surrounding them to grow into the intellectual life of those around them. The social context is the critical factor for creating knowledge in the first place. The inclusion of children with disabilities may also involve the need for consideration of other differences, including cultural uniqueness.

The classroom has a social system. Englert, Tarrant, and Mariage (1992) note that "effective instruction under principles of social constructivism takes place in classrooms where a strong sense of community is reflected" (p. 80). As such, classrooms are actually "learning communities" where teachers and students share. Social skills are frequently held up as important to facilitate social integration of students with disabilities. Clearly, such an environment is more conducive to inclusion.

A child-centered program is based on the principle that children must be engaged in appropriate activities for growth, development, and learning. Such activities must be matched to the needs of each child and should be directed by the child. Therefore, for all children with disabilities, "developmentally appropriate practices" are based on the capabilities and the interests of children. In preschool and early childhood programs, the holistic approach can be represented by the Reggio Emilia program of Italy, which is gaining attention in the United States. In the elementary grades it is typified by the whole language approach. There are few secondary schools that use a holistic model, although the same principles could be applied.

In a holistic approach, curriculum planning proceeds more on the developmental needs and interests of children rather than on the need to master specific content. Rather than adhering to a specific curriculum, teachers may watch, instead, taking notes, writing down conversations of students, and sharing this information with other teachers and parents in order to plan a learning activities. The curriculum is based on real-world, problem-solving activities. A topical interest may generate a thematic lesson to build on a child's explorations and interests. The project may last indefinitely and involve a few or a small group, and it may require many skills such as writing, singing, drawing, painting, sculpting, videotaping, interviewing, and so forth.

Direct Instruction

The principle underlying direct instruction is that students must receive teacher-led lessons based on a sequence of isolated skills, which, after mastery, students may ultimately combine into a meaningful whole. At each step in a sequence, such as reading, writing, or mathematics, students must be taught strategies. Each skill is isolated, and it is essential that the student learn each skill prior to learning the next skill. The teacher serves as a model, supervises guided practice, observes and asks questions, makes corrections, and provides encouragement. After the teacher is satisfied, students are given independent practice (seatwork).

In recent years the concept of direct instruction has come under attack and it has different meanings. Crticis regard traditional instruction negatively in the belief that it emphasizes memorization and computation rather than conceptual development; it teaches isolated skills through mindless repetition, is decontextualized, and has no connection to students' lives. Many think of it as the approach associated with the DISTAR method of teaching reading.  "Project Follow Through" was a study of the effects of DISTAR and its advocates claim it is the answer to the problems of public education, especially for minority children.  Bonnie Grossen presents a defense of direct instruction.  Opponents object to it on the grounds of cultural genocide.

Direct instruction, which may also be referred to as simplification by isolation, has been criticized by constructivist theorists. Sticht (1989) contends that breaking down tasks into minute skills, which he calls decontextualization of subject matter, is related to the widespread belief that schools should teach basic skills, like reading, as a content-free process, and that not until this and other basic skills are learned---something children must learn and then apply, before it is possible to advance or learn anything else.

The main advantage of simplification is that the teacher can focus and apportion instructional efforts where most learners appear to need them most. Also, it permits extensive use of expository teaching during the early phases of learning, in which a teacher may cover a small number of basic concepts or principles. The drawback is that memorization is often emphasized rather than understanding, and focusing on isolated skills may actually impede learning. Children are prevented from moving ahead unless they first excel in the elementary skills. Most significantly, children may not actually perform real tasks, such as reading real books, having conversations, or really writing a coherent communication, because they are working on skills, drills, or worksheets. Paris, Wixson, and Palinscar (1986) offer this summary:

Skills approaches emphasize accountability by teachers and students for mastery of each skill, but critics argue that they promote excessive testing of decontextualized skills. Skills are presented sequentially, yet there is no adequate model to development or learning that underlies mastery. The listing of skills in scope and sequence charts may promote misconceptions by teachers and students that there is a finite list of skills that can be practiced, mastered, and assessed independent of the context of reading (p.99).
Direct instruction is more highly developed and widespread because it has enjoyed several years of research and successful promotion by its advocates. Student-centered learning is less based on research or even a coherent ideological base, and includes a variety of movements and popular trends.

In the typical classroom the predominant teaching model is transmitting knowledge to learners, a process based on information processing theory. Tasks of the teacher in direct instruction have been documented in the process-product literature under four classifications: classroom management practices, time management practices, lesson presentation, and management of student work (Englert, Tarrant, and Mariage, 1992). The effects of process-product research have been studied for many years (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986; Waxman & Walberg, 1991; and Walberg (1991). The intent is to find some variations in teacher behavior that result in student achievement. Considered to be highly effective are advance organizers, pretests, frequent testing, questioning techniques, supervised seat work, classroom management, praise, homework, feedback, and so forth. The more teachers provide each student with a sense of what is to be expected in a learning activity and can use testing to match learning activities with what the student already knows, the better the student will perform.

Academic Learning Time

In elementary school studies of reading instruction and other subject matter generally at all grade levels, effective teachers are those who assure that students stay on task and have opportunity to learn the skills in the available classroom time. Pace or rate of coverage and use of time are two distinct variables difficult to separate. Most research and texts refer to this as academic learning time, useful time, time-on-task, or quality time. In any description, the evidence from research shows that classrooms where students are engaged in learning on clearly defined tasks have higher achievement see (academic learning time) .

Diagnosis

Diagnosis is a term applied to a frequent assessment or evaluation of students. An effective teacher diagnoses student needs on a continual basis. Students show a consistent rate of improvement if they work on skills consistent with their abilities and needs.

Practice

Students need the opportunity to practice what they learn. If they do not, they will not succeed. Practice is generally considered to have three phases: example and imitation, guided practice, and independent practice.

Grouping

There is a debate about the effectiveness of individual practice versus group instruction, small and large. Actually, this variable is associated more with the sociology of the classroom. Children of certain ages will gain more from participation in small groups and, as an individual personality characteristic or learning style, some children seem to benefit significantly from individual work at times. Students who work alone for long periods without direct feedback, such as from a computer or a teacher or tutor, may not stay on task.

High Expectations

Effective teachers are also found to have high expectations for their students. They honestly believe that students can and will achieve and communicate the expectation to their students.

Management

Although this is hard to define, classroom management is often said to be a characteristic that separates effective from poor teachers. Rosenshine (1986) suggests the following steps: Researchers try to show the precise impact that types of teacher behaviors and activities (i.e., questions, mastery learning, cooperative learning, homework, seat work) have on achievement scores. The result is that teacher training programs attempt to teach those skills consistently associated or correlated with certain kinds of classroom performance. As Shulman (1986) clarifies, there was and is no evidence that any particular teacher or group of students in any real classroom ever performed in the ways depicted in the composite of research studies.

Pragmatists have combined the teaching effectiveness research with time and learning constructs---which has also been adopted by policy makers---known as Academic Learning Time (ALT) or Time- On-Task. Time models began with the work of Berliner and colleagues, but the work of Carroll (1963) became the most popular, complemented by Bloom in recent years with Mastery Learning. Carroll focused on five factors important in achievement: aptitude, ability to understand instruction, perseverance, opportunity to learn, and quality of instruction. The overall instructional approach is guided by the need to determine what the student knows and needs to know next, clarity of instruction, amount of time a student spends on the learning task, amount of time teacher devotes to seeing that the student learns the task, and effectiveness of instruction.

The emphasis during classroom activities is placed on lesson presentation. Group instruction proceeds in small steps, involves details, and is based on redundant oral instruction, punctuated with numerous examples and non-examples, and many questions. Stress is placed on the teacher's oral instructions in managing the class and presenting the lesson. The teacher's performance in front of students is critical in accordance with recommended best practices of process-product research.

The process-product literature implies that effective teachers will actively teach classroom rules, follow through on their expectations, monitor compliance, and provide appropriate consequences for behavior (Englert, Tarrant, & Mariage, 1992). The effective teacher is said to be able to manage the school day for maximum instructional time and sustain high-task engagement (Kounin, 1970). The heart of instruction is lesson presentation. The teacher is supposed to make presentations that hold attention, move quickly, and are punctuated with relevant questioning and exchanges. Teachers are supposed to involve all students in overt responses, while maintaining a rapid, interesting pace during teacher-led instruction. Feedback and monitoring are critical. Since most of the teacher's energy is devoted to whole class instruction, individualized instruction is limited. This is the central concern of most teachers about inclusion, that there will be demands to depart from whole class instruction.

The student's role is attention and compliance (Ausubel, 1963, 1968). Clearly the ability to understand instruction is of considerable importance, and also effective use of visual enhancements to presentation (Graham & Fraser, 1992). Many students with disabilities cannot survive poor instruction, a rapid pace of instruction, or loss of auditory and visual signals during instruction.

Research in this tradition has centered on live classrooms with the intention of deriving conclusions from observations of real behaviors among teachers and students. Presumably, if it is possible to find children who achieve (products) in certain classrooms, then the teachers' actions (process) can be examined and replicated in a different classroom with different teachers and students to get similar results. This has led to a cookbook approach, or "100 things to do," very popular with teachers in many fields of education. In other words, because the research occurred in natural classrooms, it is believed that a reductionist model can be applied to the necessary teaching skills used in any classroom. In fact, however, the aggregate of teaching behaviors derived from numerous classrooms may not actually represent any particular teacher or effect that can be replicated (Shulman, 1986).

Most curricula in the United States are skill based, which conflicts with the newer trends and philosophies. Literally hundreds of skills may be identified in a curriculum, each representing a goal for instruction. This has led to a criticism of American education, that the entire curriculum is a list of isolated, unrelated skills. Each skill and "subject" becomes isolated and distinct as a body of information to memorize separately. Children lack the rich texture of experiences for these activities.
 
Meadowlane Elementary School 
 2901 Minton Road
 West Melbourne, Florida 32904
Principal---------------- Johnny Harper
Assistant Principal--- Lynn Spadaccini
 Located on the Space Coast of Florida!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 INCLUSION

"The commitment to educate each child to the maximum extent in the physical, general, and special education programs he or she would otherwise attend involves bringing the support services to the child. Consultation between the physical educator, classroom teacher, and other professionals working together to produce a interactive process which enables people with diverse expertise to generate a creative solution to a students difficulties is imperative to the success of the physical education program. The physical education curriculum and learning environment will provide benchmarks, opportunities, and challenges to develop all students highest potential for academic excellence.

The physical education team at Meadowlane Elementary will use a variety of teaching methods which will include cooperative consultation, co-teaching, team problem solving, integrated curriculum and group education to provide a enviroment where students feel wanted, experiense success, and want to be in class. They will also be equipped with the appropriate educational communication and access to technology. "

Integrated Curriculum

The purpose of an integrated curriculum is to reduce the amount of subject specialization in the school and the number of isolated skills. Rather than have separate math, language arts, and science curricula, for example, a curriculum is organized around all three areas so that content is "integrated" for instruction. This usually requires considerable effort and may be adopted at the district or school level, although the National Science Foundation has been promoting an integrated curriculum, combining mathematics and science. An integrated curriculum would include all tool skills in learning any kind of subject matter: mathematics, reading, research, writing, and spelling. The purpose is to encourage students to explore subjects in school from a perspective that is interesting and coherent.  Universities, for their part, undermine integration because they are organized by departments, each offering its own courses, and methods courses proliferate despite the similarities and commonalties that various disciplines may share.

Mastery Learning

Enjoying some popularity a few years ago, mastery learning has been proposed as a means of raising all learners to high levels of achievement. It is a method that relies on testing, teaching, and retesting, in a cycle, and not introducing new skills until the learner reaches mastery of the current skill. In the mastery learning classroom, teachers account for the previous knowledge of students, provide instruction based on frequent feedback, and alter instructional patterns accordingly for individual students (Bloom, 1984). The skills emphasis involves excessive testing of decontextualized, sequential skills. The greatest problem for the classroom teacher is the lack of time to provide assessment, give feedback, and redesign individualized learning activities. While claims of success have been made for mastery learning, it has fallen into disuse because of the inordinate amount of testing and re-teaching required of many students in a classroom.

Tutorial Instruction

Despite the best efforts of teachers, tutorial instruction, individualization, or mastery learning, the most effective methods require low student/teacher ratios or technologically delivered instruction for maximum benefit where frequent interactivity exists (i.e., a reciprocal dialogue between the learner and the teacher). A tutorial model requires no more than 4 students to one teacher. In a tutorial model the teacher can devote total attention to the learner at all times, focus instruction, use praise, make corrections, and continually monitor and manage the learning environment. For obvious reasons, tutorial instruction is rarely used in American education, because of the expense of having very low student-to- teacher ratios. The only places where the tutorial method is used widely are Oxford and Cambridge in England. Unlike a course in the United States, these universities offer large lectures, which are supposed to supplement the tutorials (but are not required). Assignments come from the tutorials, where most of the interaction occurs between the professor and the student. Thus, the difference between 20 or 25 students in a lecture class is not likely to make much difference.

Student-Centered Learning

The competing models to direct instruction in U.S. education are known by many names, which we call student-centered learning. If there has been significant research on direct instruction, although it has fallen into disfavor, there is much less research for many of the student-centered approaches. Within student-centered learning the basic interest is in how students make sense of classroom instruction or construct reality. A student-centered approach forces the teacher to significantly depart from teaching traditions, dismantle group instruction, abandon textbook-driven activities, and assess high- level thinking skills instead of factual knowledge. Instead of children of the same age competing, students in small groups can cooperate.

Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning models are spreading in education because it is believed that achievement increases when students work as a member of a small team. The work place is also based on cooperative work groups and may be part of the reason that schools are accepting this model for instruction. Cooperative learning is a model promoted and investigated by Slavin (Slavin, 1990; Slavin, Karweit, & Wasik, 1992). In this model, there are small groups of students who work together to achieve "group goals" but there is also "individual accountability." Frequently, the group must demonstrate that all members have learned something, so it becomes important to all members to understand concepts and be able to check with other members to ascertain their knowledge of the same content. After a task is explained, group members will congregate to begin the task of solving their problems. Some teachers prefer this method because they can include children with disabilities in the group.

Whole Language

The Whole Language approach was described above as a holistic type of curriculum. As a specific instructional method, the classroom is characterized by activities that attempt to be more like experiences in the home. Children and teachers tell stories, read various materials out loud, and the classroom is broken into smaller groups so children can engage in a variety of tasks rather than following a whole-class unit of instruction and completing work sheets. From the beginning, children are provided a great deal of latitude in making choices about what they read. Because the emphasis in on both a natural context and authentic social interactions, the classroom is organized to permit children to have places to work and learn. Magazines, books, and objects abound in the classroom and in various centers. There is an intention to see that all children have uninterrupted time for reading each day.

It is a significant departure from the basal reading series, a method that incorporates several strategies of instruction that have been isolated in the past, and combines them into a comprehensive approach to integrated language instruction. Whole Language appears to be a reemergence of child-centered educational philosophies of the past, similar to the philosophies of Rousseau and Dewey, and owes much to the current popularity of constructivism. In the Whole Language philosophy it is more logical to learn skills in context at the outset and continue to integrate skills within a contextual framework that provides children with opportunities to create their own knowledge in direct ways. Rather than engaging children in simplified tasks and memorization, the goal of Whole Language seems to be to create a learning environment to encourage children to acquire knowledge through direct experience and self-directed learning. According to Wagner (1990), Whole Language is based on these concepts:

By emphasizing socialization, where reading, speaking, and listening are tools to support natural activities, the Whole Language classroom attempts to foster an interest in language activities rather than impose a planned lesson. Teachers attempt to model reading behavior, to stimulate independent thinking and interest in literature. While children may engage in more or less traditional small group activities, there is an emphasis on guiding children to tell their own stories, write, and produce their own products.

Despite the intentions of whol language advocates, which sound more natural and inviting than traditional instructional methods, few things have attracted as much public attention in education as the bitter debates about whole language.  One way of understanding the basic reading process and the problems of children with phonological disorders is to consider the theoretical relationship of phonemics to semantics, syntax, and discourse in language processing.  While the pupil may generate sentences and engage in normal conversation, an inability to discriminate phonemes causes problems in reading.  The relationship between speaking and reading is different.  Speaking is a natural process inherited by the species but reading is a cultural skill that must be learned.  It is artificial and is imposed on the existing linguistic system.  The reader must recode graphemes into corresponding phonemes, attend to the orthography representing the phonology, and produce meaning after this conversion (Shaywitz, 1996; Sensenbaugh,1996). Linguistic processes involved in word meaning, grammar and discourse that underlie comprehension are normal but their activity is blocked by the deficit in phonological processing during reading.  This is a minor difference, which may be analogous to other minor differences such as tone deafness or color blindness, but has much more serious social implications for those who have the problem in a modern society that demands reading.  It can be surmised that this difference has always existed, probably in the form of recessive genes, but until modern society it was not a problem.  Children who are tone deaf can avoid choirs, but nobody can avoid reading.

As Shaywitz explains, children become aware of phonological structure in spoken words between four and six years of age. Children at 4 cannot ordinarily identify phonemes in a series of words, but 17 percent of the five-year-olds and 70 percent of six-year olds have phonological awareness. About 20 percent of school children, equally distributed among girls and boys, have serious problems without special help and this is the most consistent cognitive marker of dyslexic children.

After studying 10,000 children over 15 years, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development confirms the work of Shaywitz, reporting that phonemic awareness skills assessed in kindergarten and first grade can predict reading failure by the third grade.  Lyon (1997) made the following points about research of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD):

Assessment of learning disabilities has usually occurred after children have failed in school.  Most children must demonstrate failure after an attempt to learn with adequate instruction, which occurs ordinarily around the 3rd grade.  The basis for establishing a learning disability usually involves finding a discrepancy between a reading achievement score and IQ. The difference between a child with a learning disability in reading and one who is merely a poor reader is often regarded as only a matter of degree (Grossen, 1997), but this must not be the case with a phonemic disorder.  The best predictor of a reading problem is the inability to decode single words (Shaywitz, 1996; Lyon, 1997). Presumably, children with problems of decoding would be distributed throughout the distribution of readers rather than bunched together if the decoding problem were removed.

Lyons (1997) noted that it is possible to administer a test, which takes 15 minutes, to assess phonemic awareness with a prediction rate of 92 percent accuracy.  It seems that routine administration of such a test followed by appropriate intervention in kindergarten and the 1st grade would be a reasonable thing to do and would cost far less than the vast sums that are expended in the diagnosis of learning disabilities and waiting until the 3rd grade to diagnose children.

It seems clear from the research that half of children will read without any problems, some of them showing up in school already reading.  The other half will have some problems due to a variety of factors including low intelligence, lack of exposure to reading, inadequate vocabulary development, and so forth.  For children with low intelligence it is probably inappropriate to consider them to have reading problems if they are reading below their chronological age.  Apparently some 20 to 30 percent of pupils will have extreme difficulties in initial reading, but this group can be identified and can overcome their problems with phonemic training, good exposure to reading, and good teaching. These children may have neurobiological causes for reading difficulties.  While some of these problems may yield to medication or other medical interventions in the future, the only effective treatment now is early, competent instruction in phonemic awareness and phonic analysis.

Children who are unable to read at the beginning of the second grade are at risk for school failure and dropping out in the future, because about 75% of them will never catch up with their peers to read at grade level. The natural reluctance to "label" young children for special education causes them to fail until the 3rd grade when many of them have an insurmountable lack of achievement.  By then they are so depressed in reading skills that they are unlikely to recover, even with extraordinary efforts.  There is little evidence that special education is successful in overcoming reading disabilities. It is possible to identify children in kindergarten and the first grade with a simple, inexpensive test that requires no sophisticated psychological batteries or specialized personnel, at which time children can receive competent instruction in phonemic awareness skills by kindergarten teachers and reading specialists.  They may then progress in school and escape the labeling process at the end of the primary grades, most of them able to enjoy a fruitful journey through their remaining school years.  The savings in special education costs and wrecked lives would be enormous.

Phonological recoding (i.e., translating a word into its phonological counterpart) combined with word frequency mediates word recognition.  The early advantage for phonics diminishes with time when reading depends on knowing and understanding vocabulary, but children with severe phonemic problems are unable to advance without early and consistent intervention. Reading failure or success is determined by whether or not a child receives instruction that explicitly addresses the connections between letters and sounds (Chard, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1995).  The best treatment is to teach these skills.

From the 1950s until today there has been a continuing debate about the best reading method, sometimes emerging in the popular press as well as in professional literature, beginning with Why Johnny Can't Read and What You Can Do About It (Flesch, 1955), reaching another zenith with the work of Chall in Reading: The Great Debate (1967, 1983), and surfacing again with the recent and much published account of condemnation of the "Whole Language" method in California (Fry, 1996).  Recent research supports earlier findings of Chall (1967, 1983) and the "first grade studies" (Bond & Dykstra, 1967).  Namely, systematic phonics at the very beginning produces better reading and spelling achievement than intrinsic phonics through the 3rd grade.  For children who have no reading problems and for those who manage to overcome their initial difficulties, Whole Language and other methods of reading can be rewarding because intrinsic phonics are sufficient.  In fact, hundreds of reading methods have worked successfully with most children.  However, for children with a serious phonemic disorder it is critical that proper instruction in phonemic awareness start early and that phonemic analysis be a major instructional strategy.

Popper (1952) argued that scientific advances are made as theoretical claims are falsified.   The fields of learning disabilities and corrective reading have discarded numerous theories and therapies including patterning, process training, perceptual-motor training, visual exercises, aptitude treatment interaction, and dietary regimens. After all these years, what have we learned about learning and reading disabilities?  We have learned that children must be taught to read.

Currently 5.8 million students are in special education programs.  By deduction it can be estimated that as many as 2.9 million of these students have learning disabilities and dyslexia is the most common form.  Children scoring below the 25th percentile are often identified as reading disabled in the 3rd grade.  The vast majority of these children can be prevented from having persistent, lifetime reading problems if they are identified and helped as early as the 1st grade.  The NICHHD research results suggest that explicit, systematic instruction in phonemics and sound-symbol association in the first and second grades can prevent reading failure.

Multi-Age Grouping

Another strategy is to group children across a wider age span (Marshak, 1994; Schrier & Mercado, 1994). In the past, ungraded schools were established to permit multi-age grouping, reduce the stigmatization that occurs with grading and grouping by ability level, and other restrictions imposed by a fixed system. The new alternative to grouping children by grade and chronological age is multi-age grouping. When one reads or hears stories about the "one-room school house" of America, the virtues that are extolled related to the mix of ages wherein children were able to assume responsibility for one another (peer and cross-age tutoring) and to learn from the mistakes and successes of others.  Limited research about the effectiveness is limited, with reports of positive and neutral effects.

Flexible Groups

Another variation of multi-age grouping is the concept of flexible groups or "matrix management." Rather than conceiving of students in the school as specifically assigned to a particular teacher, room, and seat, children are free to engage in learning activities with various different groups based on interests and on other criteria established by the teacher. Flexible grouping practices, recommended for alternatives to tracking of minority students (Oakes, Ormseth, Bell, & Camp, 1990), can include students with disabilities as part of the diverse group of students. Combining high expectations and effective instruction, this can be an efficient way to plan for inclusion. These practices enable teachers to address needs through flexible schools - using flexible grouping and instructional opportunities both inside and outside of the classroom - that improve education for all students, including the most able (Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1993). In cases where the school curriculum is based on "projects" of students, flexible groups may be formed to engage in the learning activities associated with completing tasks negotiated by the team and the teacher, facilitating inclusion and other goals of education.  Flexible groups may also be useful in poor, minority schools where there are often fewer certified and experienced teachers.

Conclusion

In direct instruction, the learner is often regarded as a passive recipient of information and knowledge organized and dispensed by the teacher. In this environment, rules of conduct are often numerous and even minor problems are not tolerated, because any interference, even too many questions, can prevent the teacher from performing. Therefore, the classroom may have high structure, explicit routines, and standard procedures. The child- centered approach, and especially constructivist models, regard the learner as a creator of knowledge, which calls for a different kind of organization and structure. Teachers will establish rules and define violations in terms of the underlying philosophy.

There are many possible approaches to curriculum design and instruction in schools. In each instance, however, the decision has to be made about how to include all students. Such factors should include the student's chronological age, rate of learning, academic goals, the family's and student's preferences regarding academic instruction, and the need for skills other than academic. The focus is not how to help students fit into the existing curriculum but how to adapt to meet the needs of any student for whom the general education curriculum is inappropriate. In inclusive classrooms, curriculum takes on a major significance since, in the past, the principal reason for removing students was the inability to benefit from the general education curriculum.

Especially at middle elementary grades and higher, the curriculum affects how integration can take place. Curriculum has to change if schools are to be inclusive of students with the full range of disabilities. For students with sensory and/or physical disabilities, the problem is how to access the general education curriculum; for students with cognitive disabilities, the problem is how to modify it.

Rogers (1992) summarized the conceptualization of inclusion in a few words that best expresses the enthusiasm of advocates and also captures the reasons for resentment of opponents:

The teacher's job is to arrange instruction that benefits all the students--even though the various students may derive different benefits. For example, most of the students in the class may be learning the total number of degrees in the angle of a triangle while the included student may be learning to recognize a triangle(p. 4).
A "chronologically age appropriate" curriculum provides students the opportunity to participate in the same activities as their age peers. The developmental logic for curricular decisions is replaced by a functional logic to teach only those skills that are useful in the student's life, either immediately or in the future (Brown, Nietupski, & Hamre-Nietupski, 1976). This can be further refined for students based on the current and future environments and skills that would directly support the performance in naturally occurring environments.

Life skills instruction, sometimes referred to as functional curricula, has been recommended by many professionals (Brolin, 1991; Brown, 1979; Clark, 1991; Cronin & Patton, 1993). Functionality implies usefulness of something or usefulness for somebody (Clark, 1994). Therefore, it varies from person to person and situation to situation. Clark delineated questions to determine functionality of a curriculum:


 [Chapter 1] [Chapter 2] [Chapter 3] [Chapter 4] [Chapter 5] [Chapter 6] [Chapter 7] [Chapter 8][Chapter 9] [Chapter 10] [References] [Links] [Home]