Handbook of Learning Disabilities

424 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

mont observed closely. Of the 70 helping groups. For verbal interactions, children in
episodes she coded (defined as an episode structured CL gave more directives over
beginning with a request for help or offer of time (e.g., points finger and says, “Look,
help by one student, followed by acceptance this is how it’s done.” [Gillies & Ashman,
or rejection of help from another student), 2000, p. 22]), and fewer solicited explana-
21 involved pairs of students with disabili- tions over time. Learning outcomes were
ties, 9 occurred in groups with only general also assessed, with a small but reliable dif-
education students, and 40 occurred in het- ference on a comprehension questionnaire
erogeneous groups of general and special (which did not measure reading comprehen-
education students. Every instance of denial sion, per se), favoring students in the struc-
of help was directed at a special education tured condition. No differences were found
student. These rejections occurred despite a on word reading scores. The authors report
positive classroom climate and culture that that the students with LD exhibited more
encouraged and rewarded students assisting group involvement in the structured CL,
one another. which may have contributed to their gain
on the comprehension questionnaire.
Beaumont (1999) also noted that the
quality of the interchanges among general Interviews of General Education
education students, which tended to be har- Teachers Who Use CL with
monious, with most help given without crit- Students with LD
icism or impatience, contrasted sharply with
those between general and special education Classroom Teachers’ Use of CL
students, which were frequently character-
ized as impatient, corrective, or critical. As with any approach that originates with
Moreover, help, when it was offered, was researchers, CL’s potential for benefiting stu-
often unsolicited. Considering all the help- dents with LD depends on teachers’ receptiv-
ing episodes, Beaumont characterized only ity and willingness to adopt it. Although we
40% as successful, which she defined as en- know of no data on CL’s prevalence in spe-
abling the student who requested help to cial education settings, many elementary
proceed with a task. general education teachers appear to orga-
nize their classrooms around CL principles.
If children with LD received more train- In fact, a study of educational opportunity
ing in how to cooperate with one another, covering 3 million third-grade students
would the quality of helping interactions (Puma, Jones, Rock, & Fernandez, 1993)
improve? Gillies and Ashman (2000) ran- found that a majority of teachers reported
domly assigned third-grade teachers of in- using CL in math (79%) and reading and
clusive social studies classes to conditions in language arts (74%). Another survey of 85
which their class was either taught specifi- elementary school teachers in two school dis-
cally how to interact (structured CL) or en- tricts found that 93% indicated they used co-
couraged to cooperate but without specific operative learning (Antil, Jenkins, Wayne, &
instruction about how to do so (unstruc- Vadasy, 1998). An in-depth interview of 21
tured CL). These classes included 152 stu- of the teachers who said they used CL dis-
dents, 22 of whom had LD. The teachers closed that 81% stated they conducted CL
used CL during social studies three times lessons every day in a typical week, with
weekly across the school year, and each 100% reporting use of the strategy for read-
group was videotaped twice to observe the ing, and 81% for math. In other subjects,
interactions among students. Interactions 62% teachers reported using CL for social
were coded by behavior state (cooperative studies, 52% for science, 43% for writing,
or noncooperative behavior, individual 33% for language arts, and 24% for
task-oriented or non-task-oriented behav- spelling. On average, teachers said they regu-
ior) and verbal interactions (directives, so- larly used cooperative learning in four sub-
licited or unsolicited explanations, solicited jects, with reported use ranging from one to
or unsolicited terminal responses, interrup- seven subjects (Antil et al., 1998).
tions, and nonspecific interactions). The
only significant treatment difference for be- These figures appear to be good news for
havior state was a decrease in individual students with LD, assuming CL works as
non-task-oriented behavior in structured CL

Cooperative Learning 425

advertised. However, Antil and colleagues ther in place of or in addition to a group
(1998) detected a potentially important dis- product. Thus, students were individually
crepancy in the conception of CL held by accountable to the teacher rather than to the
their respondents and that held by CL re- group. As one teacher said,
searcher–developers. Specifically, when does
group work qualify as CL and when is it I want the group product to be spectacular,
just group work? From the perspective of but the whole point of it is for the individual
CL researcher–developers, CL requires that student to learn and grow and produce some-
teachers organize instruction in ways that thing. It’s important for me to know how each
promote (1) positive interdependence (i.e., student is doing. I need some kind of project
create the perception that students must or activity that demonstrates their knowledge.
work together to accomplish their goal) and A lot of times, I’ll insert that after they’ve
(2) individual accountability (i.e., testing the done a cooperative project to get the knowl-
performance of group members against a edge and skills. Then I can evaluate individual
standard and feeding this information to the students. (Antil et al., 1998, p. 440)
group so that members can help each other
raise their performance) (Johnson & John- These teachers omission of individual ac-
son, 1987; Kagan, 1989–1990; Sharan, countability (in the CL sense) to their
1980; Slavin, 1990). For their brand of CL, groups may be important because Slavin’s
Johnson and Johnson (1987) specify three (1990) meta-analysis of CL indicated that
additional requirements. Teachers must also the effects of CL were negligible when indi-
(3) arrange seating to promote student in- vidual accountability was omitted from the
teractions, (4) teach students interpersonal treatment. McMaster and Fuchs’s (2002) re-
skills needed to work together, and (5) re- view produced a similar finding. However,
quire groups to reflect on their collaborative it is important to note that the effect size for
efforts and decide on ways to work together individual accountability given by Slavin
more effectively. and McMaster and Fuchs is not based on
experiments that systematically vary indi-
When Antil and colleagues (1998) tested vidual accountability. Such experiments are
their teachers’ descriptions of CL against notably lacking.
Johnson and Johnson’s (1991) five-element
standard, nearly all the teachers earned cred- Special and Remedial Education
it for promoting student interaction, estab- Students in CL
lishing positive interdependence, and explic-
itly teaching students interpersonal and Teachers have more opportunities than per-
small-group skills. However, considerably haps anyone to gauge how students with
fewer had groups reflect on and evaluate learning problems respond to CL. Their per-
their processes (33%), or required individual spective adds an important dimension to the
accountability (24%). Most of the teachers knowledge base on how CL works for stu-
indicated using several elements (mode = 4 dents with learning disabilities. As part of
elements), but only one of 21 teachers incor- the interview conducted by Antil and col-
porated all five criteria. In contrast, 24% sat- leagues (1998), Jenkins, Antil, Wayne, and
isfied Slavin’s (1990) two-element standard Vadasy (2003) questioned the same teachers
for CL (i.e., positive interdependence and in- about the benefits remedial and special edu-
dividual accountability). Nearly all those cation students derive from CL, the percent-
who missed the two-element standard omit- age of these students who consistently par-
ted individual accountability in the sense this ticipated in CL, the effectiveness of CL for
term is used by CL researcher–developers struggling students, and modifications they
(i.e., informing individuals and their part- made in CL for these students. Most of the
ners about the status of their knowledge, special education students had a learning
their possible need for peer assistance, and disability.
their contribution to meeting the group’s
goal). Teachers held students individually ac- Perceived Benefits
countable in another sense, however. To
monitor individuals’ learning, they required All CL teachers indicated multiple ways
students to produce individual products ei- that special education students were helped

426 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

by CL. For example, one fourth-grade who participated consistently in CL activi-
teacher said, “They gain a lot more, they ties ranged from 50% to 100% with a me-
finish more, they learn more and gain self- dian estimate of 78%. Remarkably, 43%
esteem” (Jenkins et al., in press). However, said that all their special and remedial edu-
some benefits were more prominent than cation students consistently participated in
others. CL groups.

The three most frequently cited benefits, Perceived Effectiveness
each mentioned by more than half the re-
spondents (52%) were (1) self-esteem, (2) Fifty-two percent of the teachers said CL
the security that comes from being part of a worked well for their special and remedial
group, and (3) higher success rates and/or education students, with several remarking
better products. Illustrating the safe learn- that CL especially benefited this group, for
ing environment claim, one teacher said, example: “I don’t think I could do my job if
“They (special education students) like the I couldn’t do cooperative groups with those
feeling of success that come out a lot in CL kinds of kids. I mean, as far as mainstream-
. . . there’s less frustration and anxiety” ing is concerned there’s no better teacher
(Jenkins et al., 2003). than the kids who are sitting right there be-
side them” (Jenkins et al., 2003).
Along with contributing to students’ self-
esteem and providing a safe learning envi- The rest of the teachers, while generally
ronment, teachers also said CL helped positive about CL’s effectiveness with spe-
struggling students to succeed more often cial and remedial students, noted that CL
and to create better products. Teachers usu- was sometimes effective and sometimes not,
ally linked increased productivity with feel- or effective with some students but not oth-
ings of success, as illustrated by the teacher ers. When teachers spoke of special educa-
who said, “I think they get a lot more work tion students who failed to thrive in CL,
done. Their self esteem is built up,” and the they often mentioned personal characteris-
teacher who responded, “Those kids that tics that students brought to the learning
struggle really feel good about themselves task. Among the student characteristics that
when they’ve produced a final product. . . . undermined CL, behavior and attention
The fact they are able to achieve success problems were most cited, but teachers also
through the help of their peers, and perhaps mentioned other attributes (e.g., the tenden-
accomplish things they could not accom- cy to become discouraged easily). One fifth-
plish by themselves” (Jenkins et al., 2003). grade teacher tied the success of CL to stu-
dents’ motivation to learn: “For some, it
Thirty-eight percent said that CL gave [CL] is an excuse to not participate, to hide
special education students greater voice and out, but there are some with special needs
improved their participation levels. One who have that desire to learn. They pair
first-grade teacher remarked, “They can be themselves up with someone they know will
part of a learning group and they can con- do better” (Jenkins et al., 2003).
tribute. It might not be a lot, but they have
their voice” (Jenkins et al., 2003). Thirty- Modifying CL for Special and
three percent of the respondents said that Remedial Education Students
CL resulted in better learning for remedial
and special education students, usually stat- All but 2 of the 21 teachers described steps
ing that cooperative groups provide low- they took to facilitate special education stu-
achieving students another way to learn. In dents’ performance in CL. One-third of the
the words of one third-grade teacher, “They teachers said they deliberately selected help-
are free to find a better way to learn if they ful partners and groupmates for struggling
don’t get it the way I teach it . . . what they learners. Two of these said they considered
need to learn is met easier in a group” the reading and writing skills of their strug-
(Jenkins et al., 2003). gling learners, along with the reading and
writing requirements inherent in the task: “I
Participation in CL most definitely assigned a reader with a
non-reader or a writer with a non-writer so
Teachers estimated that the percentage of
special and remedial education students

Cooperative Learning 427

that the non-reader or non-writer would not fits such as self-esteem, a safe learning envi-
feel hindered by their lack of ability in that ronment, higher success rates, and better
area,” and “We would take into account classroom products and participation levels,
group placement. . . . If it’s an activity as well as academic achievement.
where we need a writer, we make sure we
draw a writer” (Jenkins et al., 2003). One finding that cuts across the observa-
tion studies and teacher interviews is that
Only three teachers mentioned modifying students with LD differ in their response to
the task for struggling students. One said, CL. Why do some students fare better than
“I’d give them an easy job. . . . If I was do- others? O’Connor and Jenkins’s (1996) re-
ing reading, I would give them an easy search suggests that the way teachers imple-
part.” Another spoke of changing the mode ment CL and the characteristics of the stu-
of response, “Sometimes I’ll have a child do dents themselves play a role in success.
dictation for another if it’s a written assign- Other studies suggest that characteristics of
ment” (Jenkins et al., 2003). students with LD and the way these stu-
dents are perceived by their classmates must
Two teachers reported assisting struggling be considered when using CL in general ed-
students outside the CL group so that they ucation settings (Beaumont, 1999). Putnam,
would be more successful in the CL group. Markovchick, Johnson, and Johnson (1996)
One said: found that long-term involvement in CL
groups (twice weekly over 8 months) im-
Sometimes when we are doing writing, I do proved perceptions of students with disabil-
help him a lot, have him read a story to me ities in grades 5 through 8; however,
and we meet together just the two of us first students without disabilities were still per-
and then I help him elaborate on his story. So I ceived as more desirable work partners.
pull a little bit out of him, and we write to- Moreover, many students with LD prefer
gether before he goes back to his group so he not to work in groups (Elbaum, Moody, &
goes back with a good product, so he always Schumm, 1999) where their reading diffi-
has success within his group. (Jenkins et al., culties are more apparent to their peers, the
2003) noise and distractions make completing
work more difficult, and the number of
Two teachers who claimed not to make groups in the classroom can increase the
adjustments for students with disabilities time it takes to get appropriate help from a
said that the CL group was responsible for teacher.
making adjustments for struggling students.
One responded, “I think in a CL situation Donohue (1994) suggests that some of
the whole point is to help each other be the the difficulties in peer relationships and ac-
best you can be, and if a child needs help, ceptance found across studies may relate to
group members will step in and assist him” oral language problems and difficulty in dis-
(Jenkins et al., 2003). cerning discourse patterns that students
with LD experience. For example, many
In summary, these general education students with LD have difficulty with tact-
teachers saw CL as one of the strongest fulness (Pearl, Donahue, & Bryan, 1985)
means available for teaching special educa- and the negotiations needed to resolve so-
tion students. When asked to compare CL cial conflicts (Holder & Kirkpatrick, 1991;
with eight other approaches (e.g., tutoring, Pearl, 1992). Unfortunately, these social
individualized instruction, and teacher-led skills may be prerequisites to accomplishing
small group instruction), 16 of 20 teachers tasks in CL groupings.
ranked CL first or second in effectiveness in
meeting special education students’ needs. CL is a blunt instrument that depending
Although teachers gave generally favorable on its form and implementation may or may
reviews to the effectiveness of CL for stu- not help students with LD. CL comes in
dents with learning problems, nearly half many forms (e.g., Heads together, Jigsaw,
acknowledged that CL did not always work Group investigation, TAI, CIRC, Student
well and they had to make adjustments Teams–Achievement Divisions, Teams–
(usually in composing groups) to facilitate Games–Tournaments, formal and informal
these students’ performance. The teachers versions of Learning Together; not to men-
also considered more aspects of efficacy tion individual teachers’ infinite variations
than academic learning, emphasizing bene-

428 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

on these methods). CL may run from large- Carnine, D., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, E. J.
scale group projects to collaborative home- (1990). Direct instruction reading (2nd ed.).
work, from rehearsal of math and science New York: Merrill.
facts to discussion-oriented literature circles,
from completing grammar exercises to writ- Cohen, E., Lotan, R., & Catanzarite, L. (1990).
ing and presenting reports. Teachers may en- Treating status probelsm in cooperative class-
gage students in learning activities that boost rooms. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learn-
achievement or in activities that are merely ing: Theory and research (pp. 203–230). New
engaging. Teachers may incorporate some or York: Longman.
all of researcher–developers’ criteria for CL.
They may induce individual accountability, Delquardi, J., Greenwood, C. R., Whorton, D.,
by using Slavin’s (1990) suggestions (e.g., ad- Carta, J., & Hall, R. V. (1996). Classwide peer
ministering tests, computing individual stu- tutoring. Exceptional Children, 52, 535–542.
dents’ improvement scores, and summing
improvement points to represent group per- Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust:
formance), by using less exacting procedures Some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.),
(e.g., randomly selecting individual students Proceedings of the Nebraska Symposium on
to represent their groups), or by inculcating Motivation (pp. 275–319). Lincoln: University
an ethic of team work (e.g., using modeling, of Nebraska Press.
object lessons, admonitions, and rewards),
any of which may be implemented more or Donohue, M. (1994). Differences in classroom
less efficiently, more or less successfully. discourse styles of students with learning dis-
Teachers may instruct students in interper- abilities. In D. N. Ripich & N. A. Creaghead
sonal and team skills for as long as it takes, (Eds.), School discourse problems (pp.
or teach and hope. Teachers may effectively 229–260). San Diego, CA: Singular.
monitor groups to ensure that everyone par-
ticipates and benefits, or fail to notice and in- Elbaum, B., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S.
tervene with underperforming groups. They (1999). Mixed ability grouping for breading:
may pair struggling learners with under- or What students think. Learning Disabilities Re-
oversupportive peers who provide too little search and Practice, 14, 61–66.
or too much help. In any number of ways,
subtle and not so subtle differences in the Englert, C. S., Garmon, A., Mariage, T., Rozen-
form and implementation of CL may be as dal, M., Tarrant, K., & Urba, J. (1995). The
important for students’ learning and devel- Early Literacy Project: Connecting across the
opment as is the difference between imple- literacy curriculum. Learning Disability Quar-
menting CL or another instructional ap- terly, 18, 253–275.
proach.
Foyle, H. C., & Bailey, G. D. (1988). Research
References homework experiments in social studies: Im-
plications for teaching. Social Education, 52,
Alberg, J. (1991). Models for integration. In J. 292–298.
W. Lloyd, N. N. Singh, & A. C. Repp (Eds.),
The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips,
perspectives on concepts, issues, and models N. B., Karns, K., & Dutka, S. (1997). Enhanc-
(pp. 211–221). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore. ing students’ helping behavior during peer me-
diated instruction with conceptual mathemati-
Antil, L. R., Jenkins, J. R., Wayne, S. K., & cal explanations. Elementary School Journal,
Vadasy, P. F. (1998). Cooperative learning: 97, 223–249.
Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the rela-
tion between research and practice. American Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F. (2000). The ef-
Educational Research Journal, 35, 419–454. fects of cooperative learning on students with
learning difficulties in the lower elementary
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & school. Journal of Special Education, 34,
Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Bev- 19–27.
erly Hills, CA: Sage.
Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (1997). It can be
Beaumont, C. J. (1999). Dilemmas of peer assis- taught, but it does not develop naturally:
tance in a bilingual full inclusion classroom. Myths and realities in writing instruction.
Elementary School Journal, 99, 233–254. School-Psychology-Review, 26, 414–424.

Holder, H., & Kirkpatrick, S. (1991). Interpreta-
tion of emotion from facial expressions in chil-
dren with and without learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 170–
177.

Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., &
Vadasy, P. F. (2003). How cooperative learning
works for special education and remedial stu-
dents. Exceptional Children, 69, 3.

Jenkins, J. R., & Jenkins, L. M. (1981). Cross-
age and peer tutoring: Help for children with
learning problems. Reston, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children.

Jenkins, J. R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., Jenkins,
L., & Troutner, N. (1990, April). Develop-

Cooperative Learning 429

ment of a school building model for educating struction with small groups of mildly handi-
handicapped and at risk students in general capped students. Journal of Special Education,
education classrooms. Paper presented at the 24, 51–68.
meeting of the American Educational Research McMaster, K. N., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of
Association, Boston. cooperative learning on the academic achieve-
Jenkins, J. R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., Jenkins, ment of students with learning disabilities: An
L., & Troutner, N. (1991). Development of a update of Tateyama-Sniezek’s review. Learning
school building model for education students Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 107–
with handicaps and at-risk students in general 117.
education classrooms. Journal of Learning Moskowitz, J. M., Malvin, J. H., Schaeffer, G.
Disabilities, 24, 311–320. A., & Schaps, E. (1983). Evaluation of a coop-
Jenkins, J. R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., O’Con- erative learning strategy. American Education-
nor, R. E., Jenkins, L. & Troutner, N. (1994). al Research Journal, 20, 687–696.
Accommodations for individual differences O’Connor, R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1996). Coop-
without classroom ability groups: An experi- erative learning as an inclusion strategy: A
ment in school restructuring. Exceptional closer look. Exceptionality, 6, 29–51.
Children, 60, 344–358. O’Melia, M. C., & Rosenberg, M. S. (1994). Ef-
Johnson, D. W. (1970). The psychology of edu- fects of cooperative homework teams on the
cation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Win- acquisition of mathematics skills by secondary
ston. students with mild disabilities. Exceptional
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1980). Inte- Children, 60, 538–548.
grating handicapped children into the main- Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal
stream. Exceptional Children, 47, 90–98. teaching of comprehension-fostering and mon-
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986). Main- itoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1,
streaming and cooperative learning strategies. 117–175.
Exceptional Children, 52, 553–561. Palincsar, A. S, & Brown, A. L (1986). Interac-
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learn- tive teaching to promote independent learning
ing together and alone: Cooperative, competi- from text. Reading–Teacher, 39, 771–777.
tive, and individualistic learning (2nd ed.). Pearl, R. (1992). Psychosocial characteristics of
Boston: Allyn & Bacon. learning disabled students. In N. Singh & I.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learn- Beale (Eds.), Current perspectives in learning
ing together and alone: Cooperative, competi- disabilities: Nature, theory, and treatment (pp.
tive, and individualistic learning (3rd ed.). 96–117). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Pearl, R., Donahue, M., & Bryan, T. (1985). The
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Imple- development of tact: Children’s strategies for
menting cooperative learning. Contemporary delivering bad news. Journal of Applied Devel-
Education, 63(3), 173–180. opmental Psychology, 6, 141–149.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. Puma, M. J., Jones, C. C., Rock, D., & Fernan-
(1993). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the dez, R. (1993). Prospects: The congressionally
classroom (4th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction. mandated study of educational growth and
Kagan, S. (1989–90). The structural approach to opportunity (Interim Report). Bethesda, MD:
cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, Abt.
47(4), 12–15. Putnam, J., Markovchick, K., Johnson, D. W., &
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperative learning
teaching of reading comprehension strategies and peer acceptance of students with learning
for students with learning disabilities who use disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 136,
English as a second language. Elementary 741–752.
School Journal, 96, 275–293. Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. groups: Recent methods and effects on achieve-
(1998). Collaborative strategic reading during ment, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of
social studies in heterogeneous four-grade Educational Research, 50, 241–271.
classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99, Slavin, R. E. (1983a). Cooperative learning: The-
3–22. ory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs,
Lehr, F. (1984). Cooperative learning. Journal of NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Reading, 27, 458–460. Slavin, R. E. (1983b). When does cooperative
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personal- learning increase student achievement? Psy-
ity. New York: McGraw-Hill. chological Bulletin, 94, 429–445.
Mainzer, R. W., Mainzer, K. L., Slavin, R. E., & Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theo-
Lowry, E. (1993). What special education ry, research, and practice. Boston: Allyn & Ba-
teachers should know about cooperative learn- con.
ing. Teacher Education and Special Education, Slaven, R. E. (1996). Neverstreaming: Preventing
16(1), 42–50. learning disabilities. Educational Leadership,
Malouf, D. B., Wizer, D. R., Pilato, V. H., & 53, 4–7.
Grogan, M. M. (1990). Computer-assisted in- Slavin, R. E., Madden, N., Dolan, L. J., &

430 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

Wasik, B. A. (1992). Success for all: A relent- ous, and Jewell. Exceptional Children, 57(6),
less approach to prevention and early interven- 556–562.
tion in elementary schools. Arlington, VA: Ed- Utay, C., & Utay, J. (1997). Peer-assisted learn-
ucational Research Service. ing: The effects of cooperative learning and
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Leavey, M. cross-age tutoring with word processing on
(1984). Effects of team assisted individualiza- writing skills of students with learning disabil-
tion on the mathematics achievement of acade- ities. Journal of Computing in Childhood Edu-
mically handicapped students and nonhandi- cation, 8, 165–185.
capped students. Journal of Educational Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The de-
Psychology, 76, 813–819. velopment of higher psychological processes.
Slavin, R. E., & Stevens, R. J. (1991). Coopera- Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
tive learning and mainstreaming. In J. W. Wang, M. C., & Birch, J. W. (1984). Compari-
Lloyd, N. N. Singh, & A. C. Repp (Eds.), The son of a full-time mainstreaming program and
Regular Education Initiative: Alternative per- a resource room approach. Exceptional Chil-
spectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. dren, 51, 33–40.
177–191). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore. Will, M. (1986). Educating students with learn-
Slavin, R. E., Stevens, R. J., & Madden, N. A. ing problems: A shared responsibility. Wash-
(1988). Accommodating student diversity in ington, DC: Office of Special Education and
reading and writing instruction: A cooperative Rehabilitation Services, U. S. Department of
learning approach. Remedial and Special Edu- Education.
cation, 9, 60–66. Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., &
Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching low achievers and
Farnish, A. M. (1987). Cooperative integrated students with learning disabilities to plan,
reading and composition: Two field experi- write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of
ments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, Learning Disabilities, 29, 197–212.
433–454. Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., &
Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995a). The coop- Kuperis, S. (1997). Teaching adolescents with
erative elementary school: effects on students’ learning disabilities and low achievers to plan,
achievement, attitudes, and social relations. write, and revise compare and contrast essays.
American Educational Research Journal, 32, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
321–351. 12, 2–15.
Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995b). Effects of Wood, K. D., Algozzine, B., & Avett, S. (1993).
a cooperative learning approach in reading Promoting cooperative learning experiences
and writing on academically handicapped and for students with reading, writing, and learn-
nonhandicapped students. Elementary School ing disabilities. Reading and Writing Quarter-
Journal, 95, 241–262. ly, 9, 369–376.
Tateyama-Sniezek, K. M. (1990). Cooperative Xin, F. (1996). The effects of computer-assisted
learning: Does it improve the academic cooperative learning in mathematics in inte-
achievement of students with handicaps? Ex- grated classrooms for students with and with-
ceptional Children, 56, 426–437. out disabilities. Glassboro: Rowan College of
Thousand, J. S., & Villa, R. A. (1991). A futuris- New Jersey. (ERIC Document Reproduction
tic view of the REI: Response to Jenkins, Pi- Service No. ED 412696)

26

Identifying Children at Risk
for Reading Failure:

Curriculum-Based Measurement and
the Dual-Discrepancy Approach

Douglas Fuchs
Lynn S. Fuchs
Kristen N. McMaster
Stephanie Al Otaiba

This chapter begins with two uncontested for 75% of the unemployed, 33% of moth-
facts: (1) Reading is a foundational skill for ers receiving aid to families of dependent
virtually all learning (Lyon et al., 2001; children, and 60% of prison inmates (Orton
Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), and (2) it Dyslexia Society, cited in Adams, 1990).
must be mastered sooner rather than later.
Juel’s (1988) research has underscored this Treatment Nonresponders
latter point; she determined that as many as
88% of unsuccessful readers in her first- Because reading failure is closely related to
grade sample remained poor readers in so much human misery, and can require so
fourth grade. In addition, the gap between many costly resources from society to deal
poor readers and their more accomplished with its repercussions in adulthood, policy-
peers widens over the elementary grades makers are currently supporting various
(e.g., Greenwood, Hart, Walker, & Risley, reading initiatives, such as “Reading First,”
1993; Stanovich, 1986), partly because re- that rely on research-validated early reading
mediation becomes increasingly challenging programs. One acknowledged research-vali-
after third grade (e.g., Fletcher & Foorman, dated approach is phonological awareness
1994). training (e.g., Bradley & Bryant, 1985;
Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988), espe-
Moreover, struggling readers do not mere- cially when it is linked to decoding instruc-
ly lag behind their peers in reading and oth- tion (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; Byrne &
er academic areas; they are also more likely Fielding-Barnsley, 1993; Fuchs, Fuchs,
to be referred to special education (e.g., Thompson, Al Otaiba, et al., 2001; Hatcher,
Mastropieri, Leinart, & Scruggs, 1999; Ri- Hulme, & Ellis, 1994). Bus and van IJzen-
ley, 1996) and to suffer low self-esteem, doorn’s (1999) meta-analysis of this litera-
break school rules, and drop out of school ture reported strong short-term effects for
(e.g., Juel, 1996). Because many poor read- phonological awareness training on phono-
ers will someday become illiterate adults, it
is noteworthy that this adult group accounts

431

432 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

logical measures (ES = 0.73) and reading most reading-related measures; and, maybe
measures (ES = 0.70). most persuasive, students must read poorly
for several years before they demonstrate an
Whereas phonological awareness training IQ–achievement discrepancy that legit-
helps many to learn to read, it does not help imizes them as proper recipients of special
all. Indeed, researchers have reported that education services. (See Fuchs, Fuchs,
as many as 30% of children at risk for read- Mathes, Lipsey, & Roberts, 2001, for a
ing difficulties (e.g., Blachman, 1994, 1997; more complete discussion of the concerns
Brown & Felton, 1990; Fuchs, Fuchs, about conventional definitions and opera-
Mathes, & Simmons, 1997; Juel, 1994; tionalizations of the LD construct.)
Mathes, Howard, Allen, & Fuchs, 1998;
Shannahan & Bahr, 1995; Torgesen, Mor- There is a third reason for interest in non-
gan, & Davis, 1992), and 50% or more of responders. A small but growing number of
children with special needs (e.g., Fuchs, special education academics are arguing
Fuchs, Thompson, et al., 2002; O’Connor, that such children should be the responsibil-
2000; O’Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, & ity of special educators. If so, goes the argu-
Slocum, 1993; O’Connor, Jenkins, & ment, special education teachers and train-
Slocum, 1995), do not benefit from re- ers of teachers will need to reorient toward
search-backed phonological awareness pro- instructional concerns and away from “co-
grams. Such students have been dubbed teaching,” “collaborative consultation,”
treatment “resisters” and “nonresponders.” and other endeavors that, however well
meaning, have caused many to lose sight of
There are several reasons why children the fact that their field’s traditional raison
unresponsive to generally effective treat- d’être and strength was to provide expert
ments are the focus of much current re- instruction to students with unique learning
search (e.g., Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, needs.
Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Torgesen,
Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997; Torgesen et al., Defining Nonresponsiveness
1999; Vellutino et al., 1996). First, they are
seen as truly having reading disabilities (or Because researchers have only recently be-
learning disabilities [LD]), as opposed to gun using treatment unresponsiveness as a
students who read poorly because of poor means of identifying poor readers, problems
school instruction (see Vellutino et al., still exist with the approach. Chief among
1996). Whereas both kinds of poor readers them is an absence of a definition of nonre-
should be of concern to educators, studying sponsiveness on which many can agree. This
nonresponders, it is believed, may reveal absence may seem strange because, on its
specific cognitive and linguistic mechanisms face, the definition would appear self-evi-
responsible for reading disabilities. This, in dent: “Nonresponsiveness refers to a failure
turn, may help researchers discover precur- to respond to generally effective instruc-
sors of the condition, which would help tion.” But what precisely does it mean to be
practitioners in earlier identification and in “nonresponsive” to instruction? Al Otaiba
the formulation of earlier interventions that and Fuchs (2002) conducted an extensive
may even obviate reading failure in the first review of this literature and Table 26.1 is a
place. Second, increasing numbers of re- simplification of their tables. Table 26.1
searchers and policymakers (e.g., Lyon et lists 23 studies meeting Al Otaiba and
al., 2001) prefer the unresponsiveness-to- Fuchs’s criteria for inclusion in their review.
treatment paradigm to traditional methods For each study, our table briefly describes
of identifying poor readers, namely, the respective participants and the definitions of
IQ–achievement discrepancy approach, unresponsiveness used by the authors.
which has been used for a quarter century
to identify children with LD. This approach Authors have defined unresponsiveness in
has been criticized for many reasons, includ- one of two basic ways: level of performance
ing that IQ tests allegedly do a poor job of or rate of growth. More obvious in the table
estimating intelligence; that poor readers is the considerable variation associated with
with an IQ–achievement discrepancy are each of these definitions. With respect to
presumably no different than poor readers “level of performance,” for example, Torge-
without an IQ–achievement discrepancy on

TABLE 26.1. Studies Conducted to Explore Characteristics of Unresponsive C

Article Demographics Treatme
Berninger et al. (1999)
Studies conducted primarily

M age = 7 years Whole w
2% black, whol
8% Hispanic, minu
2% Asian,
4% Native American, Total =
M Verbal IQ = 91.60
Lowest 15% in reading and

phonological awareness

Hatcher & Hulme (1999) M age = 7 years Phonolo
Phon
(see primary study: M IQ = 68–122
Individu
Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994) Lowest 25% of reading Sessions
Total =
433
Schneider, Ennemoser, Roth, & M age = 5 years, 7 months Phonolo
Kuspert (1999) (see primary German Lund
study: Schneider, Kuspert,
Roth, Vise, & Marx, 1997) Classro
Daily 1
Total =

Torgesen & Davis Age: 5–6 years Phonolo
(1996) 73% black, low SES Small g
M Verbal IQ = est. 91 4, 20-m
Lowest 20% on phonological 3-mont
Total =
awareness

Torgesen et al. (1999) Age: 5–6 years Phonolo
26% black, (PASP
2.1% Other, classr
Verbal IQ > 75
Lowest 12% phonological Individu
tutor,
processing instru

Total =

Children Definition and percentage of
unresponsive students
ent
No growth on words trained: 52%
y to explore characteristics No growth on WRMT-R WA: 63%
word vs. subword (phonemic) vs. No growth on WRMT-R WI: 75%
le word + subword training. 8–30
ute tutorials
4 hours

ogy (P) vs. Reading (R) vs. Not defined.
nology & Reading (P + R) vs. control No percentage reported.
ual 30–40 minute tutorial Reported predictors of growth in
s, 20 weeks
reading accuracy and
20 hours comprehension.

ogical awareness training using No gains.
dberg’s curriculum No percentage reported.
oom instruction
10–15 minute sessions for 6 months

20 hours

ogical awareness training No gains.
group format Segmenting: 30%
minute sessions per week Blending: 10%
th duration

16 hours

ogical awareness + synthetic phonics WRMT-R standard score < 85 WA,
P), Embedded phonics (EP), regular WID, or PC, respectively
room support (RCS)
ual tutorial 2, 20-minute sessions with Controls: 53%, 53%, 56%
r, 2, 20-minute sessions with PASP: 24%, 21%, 36%
uctional aide EP: 47%, 28%, 47%
88 hours RCS: 44%, 31%, 56%

(continued)

TABLE 26.1. Continued Demographics Treatme
Article
Uhry & Shepherd (1997) Studies conducted primarily to

Vellutino et al. (1996) Age: 5–8 years Phonolo
17% black, middle SES Individu
IQ > 90 2, 1-hou
Significant discrepancy between 5-mont
Total =
IQ and decoding and low
phonological processing
performance

Age: 5–8 years Phonolo
Mostly white, middle SES Individu
IQ > 90
Poor readers in 15th percentile week
Total =

434

Studies exploring treatment effectiveness

Ehri & Robbins (1992) Age: 5–7 years Analogy
Fox & Routh (1976) Middle SES Individu
Peterson & Haines (1992) 4, 15-m
1-mont
Total =

M age = 4 years Decodin
Middle SES Individu
M IQ =112 2, half-h
1-week
Total =

Age: 5–6 years, PPVT > 85 Analogy
Individu
7, 15-m
1-mont
Total =

ent Definition and percentage of
unresponsive students
explore characteristics (cont.)
No gain in WRMT-R WID; 8%
ogical awareness, reading, and writing
ual tutorial
ur sessions per week
th duration
40 hours

ogical awareness, reading, and writing Very limited growth: students
ual tutoring 5, 30-minute sessions per with lowest growth slopes on
k for 1–2 semesters WRMT-R WID & WAT from
35–40 hours kindergarten—Fall of second
grade: 26%

Did not improve beyond 30th
percentile on WRMT-R WID &
WAT: 33%

s: Beginning readers without disabilities Unable to read transfer words:
80% of students who could not
y training
ual tutorial segment & blend nonsense words;
minute sessions 0% of students who could
th duration segment.
1 hour

ng training Did not improve performance on
ual tutorial decoding;
hour sessions
duration 50% overall;
1 hour 100% of students who could not

segment

y training Did not significantly improve
ual tutorial word-reading:
minute sessions
th duration 33% overall;
2 hours 100% of low-segmenters.

Vandervelden & Siegel (1997) Age: 5–7 years Phonol
Low SES Individ
1, 30–4
3-mont
Total =

Studies exploring treatment effectivene

Fazio (1997) Age: 4–6 years Phonol
Kasten (1998) M Nonverbal IQ = 85–115 Individ
4, 15-m
1-mont
Total =

435 M age = 5 years Phonics
White, low SES whol
Mild mental retardation
3-year d
No tota

O’Connor et al. (1993) Age: 4–6 years Rhymin
Small-g
4, 10-m
7-week
Total =

O’Connor, Notari-Syverson, & Age: 5–7 years Phonol
Vadasy (1996, 1998) 56% black, 2% other, 100–28
M Verbal IQ = 67, Mild mental 6-mont
No tota
retardation; 90, learning
disabled; 91, behavior
disordered

logical awareness and analogy training No gains in phonological awareness
dual or small-group training (PA):
45-minute session/week
th duration 13% overall;
= 6–9 hours 18% of students with low PA.
Could not read more than 1 word:
27% overall;
36% of students with low PA.

ess: Preliterate children with disabilities Difficulty learning and recalling a
rhyming poem:
logical encoding
dual tutoring Percentage not reported.
minute sessions
th duration
= 1 hour

s training in resource room setting; Did not make significant growth on
le language classroom instruction reading achievement on
duration Woodcock Johnson Reading
al reported subtests.

No percentage reported.

ng, blending, or segmenting Did not learn to identify rhyming
group training oddities: 8%
minute sessions per week
k duration Did not learn to blend onset-rime:
= 4.5 hours 36%

Did not learn to segment first
sound: 46%

logical awareness training in classroom Made less than half the M gain in
81 sessions phonological awareness:
th duration
al reported General education students: 18%
Students with disabilities: 33%

Mild mental retardation: 66%
Learning disabled: 38%
Behavior disordered: 50%

(continued)

TABLE 26.1. Continued

Article Demographics Treatmen

Studies exploring treatment

Foorman et al. (1997) Age: 7–9 years Synthetic
32% black, 24% low SES, Whole cla
Verbal IQ > 79 1 hour da
Lowest 25th percentile on 6-month d
Total = 12
reading

Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Grades 1–2 Classroom
Schatschneider, & Mehta 60% black, 20% hispanic, Embedd
(1998) by Scho
low SES for 90 m
Lowest 18% in reading group o

No total r

Hurford (1990) Age: 7–9 years Phonemic
IQ > 90
436 Lowest 35th percentile for

reading

Snider (1997) Age: 7–9 years Code-emp
10% low SES resourc
All students with LD
30–45-mi
9-month d
Total = 90

O’Shaughnessy & Swanson M age = 7 years, 8 mos. Phonolog
(2000) 4.4% black, 2.2% Asian, Word A
28.9% Hispanic, low SES training
M IQ = 89.9
Lowest 10% on reading and Small-gro
3, 30-min
phonological awareness

Vadasy, Jenkins, Antil, Wayne, Age: 5–8 years Phonolog
& O’Connor (1997) 50% Low SES Individua
100 sessio
6-month d
Total = 54

Note. WRMT-R, Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests—Revised; WA, Word Attack; WI,

nt Definition and percentage of
unresponsive students
t effectiveness: Older children
Not defined.
phonics, analytic phonics, or sightword No percentage reported.
ass instruction
aily Resource room instruction Learned fewer than 2.5 words on a
duration 50-word list
20 hours
46% IC-R
m instruction: Direct (DC), 38% IC-S
ded (EC), or Implicit Code delivered 44% EC
ool (IC-S) or by Research staff (IC-R) 16% DC
mins. daily; plus 30 mins. daily small
or tutorial instruction for 6 mos. Posttreatment segmentations skills
reported remain inferior to students
without disabilities.
c discrimination
No percentage reported.
phasis reading instruction in
ce room Did not significantly improve
inute daily reading rate and accuracy on oral
duration reading fluency: 10%
0 hours
Did not significantly improve the
gical Awareness Training (PAT) vs. rate and accuracy on oral reading
Analogy Training (WAT), vs. a math fluency:
g (MAT) condition
oup format PAT: 20%
nute sessions across 6 weeks WAT: 27%

gical awareness and reading Gained less than 8 points on the
al tutorial Wide Range Achievement Test—
ons Revised Reading and Spelling:
duration 35%
4 hours

Word Identification; SES, socioeconomic status.

Curriculum-Based Measurement 437

sen and Davis’s (1996) unresponsive stu- surement (CBM), which is at the heart of
dents segmented only one word correctly our method of identifying students unre-
and blended only two words or less than two sponsive to generally effective instruction.
words correctly. In contrast, Torgesen and
colleagues’ (1999) definition of unrespon- Curriculum-Based Measurement
siveness was a performance level that was
one standard deviation below the mean of CBM is a set of methods for indexing acade-
the standardization population on Word At- mic competence and progress. In developing
tack (WA) and Word Identification (WI) tests CBM, Deno and colleagues (see Deno,
from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests 1985) sought to establish a measurement
(WRMTs). For Hurford (1990), posttreat- system that (1) teachers could use efficient-
ment segmentation scores less than those of ly; (2) would produce accurate, meaningful
students with disabilities distinguished non- information with which to index standing
responders. In terms of “rate of growth,” and growth; (3) could answer questions
Hatcher and Hulme (1999) defined treat- about the effectiveness of programs in pro-
ment nonresponsiveness as no growth what- ducing academic growth; and (4) would
soever on reading accuracy, whereas Foor- provide information that helped teachers
man and colleagues (1998) set growth at less plan better instructional programs. To ac-
than 2.5 words read correctly per minute complish this goal, a systematic program of
over an academic year as their nonrespon- research, conceptualized as a 3 × 3 matrix
siveness criterion (see Table 26.1). (see Deno & Fuchs, 1987), was undertaken.
The rows in this matrix specified three ques-
We believe that there are serious limita- tions for developing a measurement system
tions to both the performance-level and (what to measure, how to measure, and
growth-rate definitions. Understanding un- how to use the resulting database); the
responsiveness only in terms of performance columns provided three criteria against
level would appear problematic for low-per- which answers to those questions could be
forming students because performance level formulated (technical adequacy, treatment
is insensitive to growth. In other words, per- validity, and feasibility). A 20-year research
formance may be at a relatively low level, program, undertaken by independent inves-
but the student may have demonstrated ad- tigators at multiple sites, has addressed the
mirable growth nonetheless. Likewise, con- cells in this matrix with multiple studies for
ceptualizing nonresponsiveness by growth four academic domains: reading, spelling,
alone would seem to ignore the possibility mathematics, and written expression.
that high-performing students may show
comparatively little of it but may be per- In each domain, CBM deliberately inte-
forming at acceptable levels. Low-perform- grates key concepts from traditional mea-
ing students, including many with disabili- surement theory and from the conventions of
ties, may make relatively impressive growth classroom-based observational methodology
and still have unacceptably low levels of to forge an innovative approach to assess-
performance. ment. As with traditional measurement,
every assessment samples a relatively broad
What is needed is a criterion-referenced range of skills by sampling each dimension
framework that provides growth cut-points, of the annual curriculum on each weekly
below which meaningful long-term func- test. Consequently, each repeated measure-
tional reading competence is jeopardized. ment is an alternate form, of equivalent diffi-
At this time, the cut-points are unknown. culty, assessing the same constructs. This
Nevertheless, we believe that there is a de- sampling strategy differs markedly from typ-
sirable alternative to performance-level-only ical classroom-based assessment methods,
and growth-rate-only approaches. We call where teachers assess mastery on a single
this alternative the dual-discrepancy ap- skill and, after mastery is demonstrated, then
proach (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998a, 1998b). As move on to a different, presumably more dif-
its name implies, it combines both perfor- ficult skill (see Fuchs & Deno, 1991; Fuchs
mance level and growth rate in identifying & Fuchs, 1999). CBM also reflects a tradi-
nonresponders. Before explaining and illus- tional psychometry by incorporating con-
trating the dual-discrepancy approach, we
turn our attention to curriculum-based mea-

438 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

ventional notions of reliability and validity: Thompson, et al., 1994), offer the advan-
Standardized test administration and scoring tage of being based on the local curriculum,
methods have been designed to yield accu- provide a framework for determining strate-
rate and meaningful information. gies for improving student programs, and
result in teachers planning more varied, spe-
By sampling broadly with standardized cific, and responsive instruction to meet in-
administration and scoring procedures, the dividual student needs (Fuchs, Fuchs, Ham-
CBM score can be viewed as a “perfor- lett, & Allinder, 1991).
mance indicator”: It produces a broad dis-
persion of scores across individuals of the Consequently, CBM bridges traditional
same age, with rank orderings that corre- psychometric and classroom-based observa-
spond to important external criteria, and it tional assessment paradigms and represents
represents an individual’s global level of an innovative approach to measurement.
competence in the domain. Practitioners can Through this bridging of frameworks, CBM
use this performance indicator to identify simultaneously yields information about
discrepancies in performance levels between standing as well as change; about global
individuals and peer groups, which helps in- competence as well as skill-by-skill mastery.
form decisions about the need for special CBM, therefore, can be used to answer
services or the point at which decertification questions about interindividual differences
and reintegration of students with disabili- (e.g., How different is Henry’s academic lev-
ties might occur. el and growth from that of other students in
the class, school, or district?); questions
At the same time, however, CBM departs about intraindividual improvement (e.g.,
from conventional psychometric applica- How successful is an adapted regular class-
tions by integrating concepts of standard- room in producing better academic growth
ized measurement and traditional reliability for Henry?); and questions about how to
and validity with key features from class- strengthen individual students’ programs
room-based observational methodology: re- (e.g., On which skills in the annual curricu-
peated performance sampling, fixed time lum does Henry require instruction?).
recording, graphic displays of time-series
data, and qualitative descriptions of student Next, we discuss research demonstrating
performance. Reliance on these classroom- the psychometric features of CBM; then we
based observational methods permits slope examine CBM’s capacity to evaluate treat-
estimates for different time periods and al- ment effects; and finally, we describe how
ternative interventions for the same individ- CBM may be used to identify children who
ual. This creates the necessary database for do not profit from generally effective in-
describing growth and testing the effects of struction.
different treatments for a given student. Re-
search also suggests that when combined CBM’s Psychometric Features
with prescriptive decision rules, these time-
series analytic methods result in better in- We illustrate the psychometric strengths of
struction and learning: Teachers raise goals CBM by briefly summarizing information in
more often and develop higher expectations the area of reading. In mathematics, spelling,
(Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 1989a), they in- and written expression, similar data exist;
troduce more adaptations to their instruc- however, the vast majority of independent
tion (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 1989b), and replications occur in reading. We discuss the
they produce better student learning (Fuchs, technical adequacy of CBM in terms of the
Fuchs, Hamlett, & Stecker, 1991). features necessary for describing perfor-
mance at one point in time versus the fea-
In addition, because each assessment si- tures required to model growth over time.
multaneously samples the multiple skills
embedded in the annual curriculum, CBM Describing Student Competence at One
can yield qualitative descriptions of student Point in Time
performance to supplement graphed quanti-
tative analyses of CBM total scores. These To provide the basis for sound decision
diagnostic profiles demonstrate reliability making about a student’s performance level,
and validity (see Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, &
Allinder, 1991; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett,

Curriculum-Based Measurement 439

an assessment score (or an average across and between CBM and Passage Compre-
several scores) must provide an accurate hension, .76, .83, .83, and .83. Test–retest
and meaningful estimate of competence. reliability was .96, .97, .93, and .93.
Therefore, traditional psychometric meth-
ods for investigating technical adequacy ap- Modeling Academic Growth
ply. To achieve these traditional psychomet-
ric criteria, assessment methods typically There are two reasons why performance in-
sample behavior broadly, rely on standard- dicators commonly associated with com-
ized administration and scoring procedures, mercial tests are also important to class-
and are thereby viewed as “performance in- room-based assessment methods, such as
dicators.” This is true for CBM, which illus- CBM, for modeling growth. First, perfor-
trates how a classroom-based assessment mance indicators provide a broad range of
can achieve traditional psychometric stan- scores required for demonstrating change
dards. over time. Second, the traditional standards
of psychometric adequacy on which perfor-
There are two CBM assessments in read- mance indicators are based provide neces-
ing: number of words read aloud and cor- sary evidence for presuming that differences
rectly from text (1 minute) and number of between an individual’s data points repre-
correct replacements restored to text in sent meaningful change.
which every seventh word has been deleted
(2.5 minutes). For each assessment, studies Although these traditional psychometric
demonstrate strong criterion validity with criteria are necessary to identify a behavior
respect to widely used commercial reading to use within CBM, they are insufficient evi-
tests (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1992; Marston, 1989), dence that a measure can adequately depict
informal reading measures involving ques- growth. As discussed by Francis, Shaywitz,
tion answering, cloze completion, and recall Steubing, Shaywitz, and Fletcher (1994), in-
of passages (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1992; Fuchs, struments for modeling longitudinal indi-
Fuchs, & Maxwell, 1988), and teachers’ vidual change must demonstrate certain
judgments of reading competence (Fuchs & technical features, which are illustrated in
Fuchs, 1992; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Deno, 1982). CBM. First, the instrument must provide
In addition, there is evidence of (1) construct equal scaling of individuals throughout the
validity; (2) discriminative validity with re- range of behavior measured over time (i.e.,
spect to special education status (Deno, produce data with interval scale properties,
Mirkin, & Chiang, 1982; Shinn, Tindal, Spi- free from ceiling or floor effects). With
ra, & Marston, 1987) and grade level (Deno, CBM, a common test framework is admin-
1985; Fuchs & Deno, 1992; Fuchs, Fuchs, istered to children within a fixed age range;
Hamlett, Walz, & Germann, 1993); (3) sta- thus, it is possible to judge performance
bility (Fuchs, Deno, & Marston, 1983; over an academic year on the same raw
Fuchs & Fuchs, 1992); and (4) interscorer score metric. And when performance is
agreement (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Fergu- measured on the appropriate instructional
son, 1992; Marston & Deno, 1981). level of the curriculum, floor and ceiling ef-
fects do not occur.
In a recent study of CBM’s psychometric
features, Hosp and Fuchs (2001) had 74 Second, the construct and the difficulty
first-graders, 81 second-graders, 79 third- level measured over time must remain con-
graders, and 75 fourth-graders read two stant. CBM taps constructs that are qualita-
CBM grade-appropriate passages; had the tively constant over an academic year, for
students complete the Woodcock Reading which the difficulty level remains the same.
Mastery Tests Word Identification (WI), The third technical requirement for model-
Word Attack (WA), and Passage Compre- ing growth is that a sufficient number of al-
hension subtests; and readministered the ternate forms must be available to obtain
CBM passages 2 to 3 weeks later to a sub- accurate estimates of change parameters.
sample of the participants (i.e., 29, 30, 30, With CBM, one can sample the curriculum
and 30 at grades 1–4, respectively). At these repeatedly to create as many alternate forms
respective grades, criterion validity between as necessary, and research (Fuchs, 1993)
CBM and WI was .89, .88, .89, and .79; be- suggests that 7–10 data points are adequate
tween CBM and WA, .70, .82, .82, and .74; for fitting data to a model.

440 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

Current techniques for measuring change stronger growth rate? And, Does the provi-
help researchers and practitioners to recon- sion of specialized services enhance learn-
ceptualize growth as a continuous rather ing? To answer these and other treatment-
than an incremental process. The goal is to effectiveness questions, assessment must be
describe trajectories, or continuous time- sensitive to student growth and to relative
dependent curves, which reflect the change treatment effects, and it must facilitate com-
process. An initial step in such a process is parisons of the effectiveness of alternative
to develop a change model at the individual service delivery options. Researchers and
level. Examination of individual and group practitioners have shown that CBM can do
time-series CBM data provides the basis for all of this.
an empirical approximation of the shape of
CBM growth curves (Francis et al., 1994). Sensitivity to Academic Change
Fuchs and colleagues (1993), for example,
examined students’ academic growth rates In an early study addressing sensitivity to
when CBM was conducted for 1 school year academic change, Marston, Fuchs, and
in students’ grade-appropriate curriculum Deno (1986) tested students both on tradi-
level. Unweighted “weekly” slopes were cal- tional commercial achievement tests and on
culated using a least-squares regression be- curriculum-based reading and written lan-
tween scores and calendar days; a quadratic guage measures. Students were tested early
component was included in the analysis, as in October and again 10 weeks later in De-
slope was calculated for each individual, to cember. CBM registered more student
determine whether it contributed to the growth than did the traditional commercial
modeling of student progress. For many stu- tests, suggesting that CBM was more sensi-
dents on each CBM measure, a linear rela- tive to student growth.
tionship adequately modeled student
progress within one academic year. When Additional research has directly com-
significant quadratic terms occurred, for pared the sensitivity of CBM pre–post per-
0–21% of students, growth was almost con- formance levels to that of CBM slopes. For
sistently described by a negatively accelerat- example, while investigating the effects of a
ing pattern in which student performance 3-week winter break on students’ math per-
continues to improve over the course of a formance, Allinder and Fuchs (1994) con-
year but the amount of that progress gradu- trasted (1) CBM performance levels before
ally decreases. As suggested in cross-section- and after the break with (2) pre- and post-
al data, this negatively accelerating pattern break slopes of progress. Results differed by
may also characterize growth across acade- type of analysis. Effects of winter break
mic years. These findings, in combination were not demonstrated when performance
with corroborating evidence (Good, Deno, level was assessed, but an examination of
& Fuchs, 1995; Good & Shinn, 1990), sup- slopes showed that students with positive
port a conceptualization of annual CBM prebreak trends were affected adversely by
growth characterized by a linear relation- the break, whereas students with negative
ship, where slope is a primary parameter de- prebreak trends were not.
scribing change. Consequently, CBM ap-
pears to be a tenable measurement tool for Studies have also demonstrated that
modeling academic growth. slopes based on ongoing CBM data are
more sensitive indices of treatment effects
Evaluating Treatment Effectiveness than traditional measures administered on a
with CBM pre–post basis. Fuchs and colleagues
(1989b) showed that on the Stanford
To function as a tool for evaluating treat- Achievement Test—Reading Comprehen-
ment effectiveness, CBM must provide data sion subtest, administered to detect incre-
to answer questions such as, “Is regular mental change between two points in time,
classroom instruction promoting adequate change scores of the treatment groups were
student growth?” Do adaptations to in- not significantly different, and the effect size
struction in the regular classroom result in a was a relatively low 0.36. By contrast, on
CBM slope data, differences between
groups achieved statistical significance and
were associated with a larger effect size of

Curriculum-Based Measurement 441

0.86 standard deviations. This pattern of condition designed to facilitate their suc-
substantially larger effect sizes for CBM cessful return to regular classrooms for
slope data has been corroborated in other math instruction through a deliberate and
treatment effectiveness research (e.g., Fuchs, systematic process involving transenviron-
Fuchs, Hamlett, Phillips, & Bentz, 1994; mental programming and CBM. Special ed-
Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Stecker, 1991). ucators used CBM to strengthen their math
Evidence, therefore, suggests that CBM instruction. At the same time, they moni-
slopes may be sensitive to student growth tored each special education student’s CBM
and to the relative effects of alternative growth and that of three low-performing
treatments. (without disabilities) members of the main-
stream classroom targeted for the special
Comparing Student Progress under education student’s return. When the special
Alternative Service Delivery Options education student’s performance level ap-
proximated that of the three low-perform-
CBM, therefore, is a sensitive measurement ing peers, reintegration occurred and the
system. Nevertheless, the question remains responsibility for math instruction was
whether it is useful when comparing student transferred to the regular classroom teacher.
progress under alternatived service delivery After reintegration, CBM data continued to
options. Two CBM studies illustrate this be collected for both the special education
type of decision making. Marston (1987– student and the low-performing peers.
1988) compared the relative effectiveness of
regular and special education by analyzing Within special education, the averaged
slope on weekly CBM reading scores. An slope for the 21 experimental students was
initial pool of 272 fourth-, fifth-, and sixth- significantly greater than that of the low-
graders were selected for the yearlong study performing peers in the mainstream. How-
on the basis of performance at or below the ever, after reintegration, the slope of the
15th percentile on the Minneapolis Bench- special education students plunged and was
mark Test. The CBM reading performance significantly lower than that of the compari-
of these 272 children was measured weekly. son students. On average, 63% of the rein-
Eleven students who spent at least 10 weeks tegrated students’ CBM data points in regu-
in regular education, were referred to and lar education fell below trend lines that had
placed in special education, and spent at been projected on the basis of their progress
least 10 weeks in special education were the in special education. This compared to only
focus of the analysis. 44% for the comparison peers, a statistical-
ly significant difference. As with the
To determine relative treatment effects of Marston (1987–1988) study, this database
the two service delivery arrangements (i.e., indicates the relative effectiveness of special
general education and special education), a education over general education for many
repeated-measures analysis of variance was students with disabilities. Both studies
applied to the CBM slope data. Slopes were demonstrate CBM’s capacity to document
statistically significantly greater in special the relative effects of service delivery op-
than in regular education, with the average tions (see also Fuchs, Roberts, Fuchs, &
slopes increasing from .60 to 1.15 words Bowers, 1996).
across the two service delivery settings. For
10 of 11 students, slopes were larger in spe- Identifying Nonresponders with CBM:
cial education; in 7 of the 10 cases, the dif- The Dual-Discrepancy Approach
ference was rather dramatic (see Fuchs &
Fuchs, 1995; Marston, 1987–1988). The traditional assessment framework for
identifying students with LD relies on dis-
In a similar way, Fuchs, Fuchs, and Fern- crepancies between intelligence and achieve-
strom (1993) used slope to examine the rel- ment tests to operationalize “unexpected
ative effectiveness of special and regular ed- underachievement.” As mentioned, this tra-
ucation for individual students as they ditional identification procedure has been
moved in the opposite direction; that is, as criticized for measurement and conceptual
they reintegrated into general education difficulties. An alternative approach concep-
classrooms. Twenty-one special education
students had been randomly assigned to a

442 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

tulizes LD as nonresponsiveness to generally ing framework translates into three related
effective instruction. It requires that special propositions. First, because student capacity
education be considered only when a child’s varies, educational outcomes will differ
performance reveals a dual discrepancy— across a population of learners. A low-per-
that is, a performance level and growth rate forming child who is learning, albeit slowly,
below that of classroom peers (Fuchs & may ultimately perform less well than peers.
Fuchs, 1998a, 1998b). After all, we do not expect all children to
achieve the same degree of reading compe-
To explain dual discrepancy as a concept, tence: Some will become acclaimed critics of
we draw on pediatric medicine. The en- literature; others will achieve a level of com-
docrinologist monitoring a child’s physical petence necessary to assume the roles of re-
growth is interested not only in height at sponsible parent, employee (or employer),
one point in time but also in growth velocity and citizen.
over time (Rosenfeld, 1982). Given a child
whose current height places her below the Second, if a low-performing child is learn-
third percentile, the endocrinologist consid- ing at a rate similar to the growth rates of
ers the possibility of underlying pathology other children in his or her classroom, that
and the need to intervene only if, in re- child is demonstrating the capacity to profit
sponse to an adequately nurturing environ- from that environment. Additional interven-
ment, the child’s growth trajectory is flatter tion may be unwarranted, even though a
than that of appropriate comparison discrepancy in performance level may exist.
groups. Based on long-term, large-scale nor- In other words, given that the child is bene-
mative information, this criterion is typical- fiting from classroom instruction, the child
ly operationalized as an annual growth rate may be achieving commensurate with his or
of less than 4 cm at age 7. Consequently, the her capacity to learn and might not require
endocrinologist judges a child who mani- a unique form of (special education) instruc-
fests a large discrepancy in height status, tion. Moreover, the risks and costs associat-
but who nonetheless is growing at least 4 ed with entering the special education sys-
cm annually in response to a nurturing envi- tem may be deemed inappropriate and
ronment, to be deriving available benefits unnecessary in this case because it is unlike-
from that environment and to be an inap- ly, in light of the growth already occurring,
propriate candidate for special intervention. that a different long-term educational out-
come could be achieved as a function of spe-
The endocrinologist’s decision-making cial education. Of course, the converse is
framework reflects three assumptions. First, also assumed. When low-performing chil-
genetic variations underlie normal develop- dren are not demonstrating growth and
ment, producing a range of heights across their classmates are, consideration of special
the population. Second, in response to a intervention is warranted. Alternative in-
nurturing environment, a short but growing structional methods must be tested to ad-
child does not present a pathological profile dress the apparent mismatch between the
indicative of a need for special treatment to students’ learning requirements and those
produce growth. Instead, such a profile sug- represented by classroom instruction.
gests an individual who may legitimately
represent the lower end of the normal distri- A third assumption: When most students
bution of height—an individual whose de- in a classroom are achieving inadequate
velopment is commensurate with his or her growth rates (in comparison to local or na-
capacity to grow. Third, under these cir- tional norms on valued achievement tests),
cumstances, special intervention is unlikely one must question the adequacy of instruc-
to increase adult height sufficiently to war- tion in that environment before making de-
rant the risks associated with intervention. cisions about individual student responsive-
Of course, when questions about the quality ness. In such a case, classwide intervention
of the environment arise, the first-level re- should be implemented, which is aimed at
sponse is to remove those uncertainties by enhancing the overall quality of the instruc-
enhancing nurturance (Wolraich, 1996), so tional program. Growth under more nurtur-
that growth can be tested under adequate ing conditions must be indexed before any
environmental conditions. child’s need for special intervention can be
assessed.
Applied to education, this decision-mak-

Curriculum-Based Measurement 443

Dual discrepancy as an index of “failure nity to modify PALS, thereby (we hoped)
to thrive” has an intuitive and empirical ap- making it more appropriate for a greater
peal. This index deals directly with the number of students.
problem at hand (e.g., poor reading and
poor math skills), reflects a dynamic rather Treatment nonresponders were selected
than a static approach to learning and as- by a three-step process: (1) selecting a risk
sessment, and is data based. However, it pool among the students in the 22 class-
also requires a major shift in beliefs, atti- rooms, (2) monitoring their progress during
tudes, and practices. Implementing a treat- PALS implementation, and (3) identifying
ment validity approach with dual discrepan- nonresponders. Nonresponders were then
cy requires (1) assessment of every child in assigned randomly to one of three groups: a
every classroom weekly (or biweekly), (2) group that continued to participate in their
evaluation of progress on a regular basis, standard PALS or PALS + Fluency program;
(3) formulating interventions within general a group that participated in a modified
education classrooms for children identified PALS or modified PALS + Fluency program,
as dually discrepant, (4) implementing those which provided for more individualization
interventions with fidelity, and (5) evaluat- within the context of ongoing standard
ing effects. CBM is a promising tool for in- PALS or PALS + Fluency; and a group that
dexing treatment responsiveness due to its received one-to-one tutoring instead of
capacity to model student growth, to evalu- PALS.
ate treatment effects, and to simultaneously
inform instructional programming. IDENTIFICATION OF THE RISK POOL

Nonresponders as Students with Dual In October 2000, all students in the 22
Discrepancies: An Illustration PALS classrooms were given a Rapid Letter
Naming (RLN) test as part of the pretest
McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, and Compton (2002) battery. Because RLN is a useful predictor
of future reading achievement (Torgesen et
McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, and Compton’s al., 1997), it was used to identify the lowest-
(2002) nonresponder study took place in 22 performing readers in each class. Within
classrooms in 8 public elementary schools in each class, students’ RLN scores were rank-
Nashville, Tennessee, which were partici- ordered. The teachers were then consulted
pating in a large-scale investigation of the to determine whether these rankings were
First-Grade PALS Reading Program (Fuchs, consistent with their judgment of students’
Fuchs, Thompson, Svenson, et al., 2001; reading performance. Adjustments in the
Fuchs, Fuchs, Thompson, Al Otaiba, et al., rankings were made based on teacher re-
2000, 2002; Fuchs, Fuchs, Yen, et al., sponse. The eight lowest-performing stu-
2001). Eleven of the classrooms were using dents in each class were identified as at risk
a standard version of First-Grade PALS, and for not responding to the PALS program.
11 were implementing a new PALS + Fluen- Across the 22 classes, this totaled 176 low-
cy version in which reading fluency was de- performing students. By choosing eight low-
liberately taught and practiced by students performers from each class, we deliberately
working with each other. An additional 11 overselected the number of children we ex-
classrooms served as no-treatment controls; pected to be unresponsive. This overselec-
however, none of the students from the con- tion reduced the possibility of false nega-
trol classes were involved in this nonrespon- tives (i.e., excluding students from the study
der study. On average, there were 19 chil- who should have been included) and also
dren in each of the 22 treatment classrooms, reflected our expectation that an unknown
totaling 418 children. From previous PALS number of students and their families would
Reading research, we knew that there move. In addition to the low-performing
would be nonresponders, as many as 20% students, four average-performing students
of students in the general population (e.g., were identified in each class (using the RLN
Fuchs et al., 1997; Mathes et al., 1998). We rankings and teacher judgment) to serve as
wished to identify this subgroup relatively a comparison for the low-performing stu-
quickly to create for ourselves an opportu- dents, totaling 88 average-performing stu-
dents (22 classrooms × 4 students).

444 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

MONITORING PROGRESS OF THE RISK POOL Generally, students were identified as
nonresponders if they scored 1 standard de-
For the first 7 weeks of PALS implementa- viation below their average-achieving peers
tion, the 176 low-performing and 88 aver- in terms of performance level and slope
age-performing students were administered (growth) on the Dolch and/or NWF mea-
weekly measures to monitor their reading sures. However, the decision to identify a
progress. These included weekly “chapter student as a nonresponder was made on an
tests,” and two CBM assessments: Dolch individual basis. If a student’s performance
word probes and Nonword Fluency probes level on one or both measures was below
(NWF; Good, Simmons, & Kame’enui, that of the average-achieving students but
2001). The chapter tests were designed as his or her growth was similar to or greater
direct measures of students’ progress in the than those of the average students, the stu-
PALS curriculum. They were cumulative dent would not be identified as nonrespon-
and untimed and the chapter-test score was ders. Alternatively, if a student performed at
the percentage of sounds and words read a “borderline” level (i.e., within one stan-
correctly. The Dolch word probes are equiv- dard deviation of the average students) but
alent forms of 100 sight words selected ran- had made no growth or even negative
domly from a pool of 126 words from the growth on the Dolch or NWF measures, the
preprimer, primer, and first-grade levels. student would likely be identified as a non-
Dolch words are common sight words des- responder. Sixty-six students were identified
ignated for mastery at each grade level. The as nonresponders. This represented 15.8%
probes were considered a “near transfer” of all students in the 22 treatment class-
measure because most of the words appear rooms.
in First-Grade PALS lessons, and all are
taught in the first-grade curriculum of the As indicated, nonresponders were chosen
Metro-Nashville Public Schools. The score randomly (1) to remain in the PALS (or
is the number of words read correctly in 1 PALS + Fluency) treatment, (2) to partici-
minute. The NWF probes (Good et al., pate in a modified PALS (or modified PALS
2001) consist of consonant–vowel–conso- + Fluency) treatment that permitted more
nant and vowel–consonant nonwords. Stu- individualization, and (3) for one-to-one tu-
dents read them by saying the individual toring in lieu of PALS. Following a 12-week
sounds of the letters (e.g., “s-i-m”) or the treatment, nonresponders in the tutoring
whole word (e.g., “sim”). The score is the program outperfomed nonresponders in the
total number of phonemes said correctly in other two groups by .2 to .5 standard devia-
1 minute. The Dolch and NWF scores were tions, depending on the reading measure.
graphed and level and slope were calculated Nonresponders in the modified PALS pro-
across the 7 weeks for each of the 176 low- gram did least well, suggesting that our at-
performing and 88 average-performing stu- tempts to modify PALS resulted in a less ef-
dents. fective treatment than did the standard
PALS or PALS + Fluency versions.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE NONRESPONDERS
Is There Value to the Dual-Discrepancy (or
Following the seventh week of treatment, Nonresponder) Approach to LD Identification?
nonresponders were identified. First, we cal-
culated means and standard deviations on Clearly, the dual-discrepancy model as de-
the average students’ slopes and levels from fined by McMaster and colleagues (2002)
the Dolch and NWF probes. Second, we and others requires much effort and vigi-
identified all students from each class who lance, especially compared to diagnostic
had scored 90% or less on the last chapter procedures that rely on the identification of
test. If none of the students in a class scored IQ–achievement discrepancies or simple low
less than 90%, we identified the lowest- achievement. An obvious and important
scoring students from that class. Third, z- question becomes, “Is it worth it?”
scores were calculated on the Dolch and
NWF slopes and levels of this subgroup of One way of addressing the question is by
low-performing students, based on the per- directly comparing this approach to other
formance of all the average students. LD identification procedures. Speece and
her colleagues (Speece & Case, in press;

Curriculum-Based Measurement 445

Speece, Molloy, & Case, 2000) did precisely ferred. Portions of this chapter were presented at
this. They compared the dual-discrepancy the annual meetings of the Society for the Scien-
method to IQ–reading–achievement dis- tific Study of Reading in Boulder, CO, and Coun-
crepancy and to simple low-reading- cil for Exceptional Children in Kansas City, MO,
achievement methods of identifying LD in both in 2001.
an epidemiological sample of first- and sec-
ond-grade children. Dual-discrepancy status References
was based on CBM read-aloud measures
collected across approximately 6 months of Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Think-
a school year. ing and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Compared to the IQ-discrepant group,
the dual-discrepant (DD) children were Allinder, R. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Alternative
more impaired on every measure (including ways of analyzing effects of a short school
IQ, phonological awareness, and teacher break on students with and without disabilities.
ratings of academic competence, problem School Psychology Quarterly, 9, 145–160.
behavior, and social skills) except for word
reading efficiency. There were fewer and Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteris-
more modest differences between the DD tics of children who are unresponsive to early
group and the group of simple low achiev- literacy intervention: A review of the litera-
ers. Additional analyses conducted by ture. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5),
Speece and her colleagues indicated that the 300–316.
DD children were younger than members of
the other two groups and that they become Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does
more impaired over time. This suggests that phoneme awareness training in kindergarten
the dual-discrepancy method may facilitate make a difference in early word recognition
early identification and intervention. In ad- and developmental spelling? Reading Research
dition, according to Speece and her associ- Quarterly, 26, 49–66.
ates, the DD and simple-low-achieving
groups each had racial distributions reflect- Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Zook, D., Ogier,
ing the proportions of majority and minori- S., Lemos-Britton, Z., & Brooksher, R. (1999).
ty children in the schools, whereas the IQ- Early intervention for reading disabilities:
discrepant group had a disproportionately Teaching the alphabet principle in a connec-
high number of majority children. tionist framework. Journal of Learning Dis-
abilities, 32, 491–503.
In short, recent research seems to support
the notion that dual-discrepant children Blachman, B. A. (1994). What we have learned
have a greater number of more severe prob- from longitudinal studies of phonological pro-
lems with skills that underlie beginning cessing and reading, and some unanswered
reading (e.g., Speece & Case, in press; questions: A response to Torgesen, Wagner,
Speece et al., 2000), and that a specific set and Rashotte. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
of procedures exist for identifying such chil- 27, 287–291.
dren (e.g., McMaster et al., 2002). Whether
these procedures may be “scaled up” so that Blachman, B. A. (1997). Early intervention and
all teachers in a district and all districts in a phonological awareness: A cautionary tale. In
state can use them is a question requiring B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading ac-
considerably more research. quisition and dyslexia (pp. 408–430). Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Acknowledgments
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1985). Rhyme and
Our research on nonresponders was funded by reason in reading and spelling. (International
Grant # H324D000033 and Grant #H324B0049 Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities
from the Office of Special Education Programs in Monograph Series No. 1). Ann Arbor: Univer-
the U.S. Department of Education to Vanderbilt sity of Michigan Press.
University. This chapter does not necessarily re-
flect the position or policy of the funding agency Brown, I. S., & Felton, R. H. (1990). Effects of
and no official endorsement by it should be in- instruction on beginning reading skills in chil-
dren at risk for reading disability. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2,
223–241.

Bus, A. G., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1999).
Phonological awareness and early reading: A
meta-analysis of experimental training studies.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,
403–414.

Byrne B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. F. (1993).
Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic
awareness to young children: A 1-year follow-
up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85,
104–111.

446 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measure- Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P., & Simmons,
ment: The emerging alternative. Exceptional D. (1997). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies:
Children, 52, 219–232. Making classrooms more responsive to diver-
sity. American Educational Research Journal,
Deno, S. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (1987). Developing 34, 174–206.
curriculum-based measurement systems for
data-based special education problem solving. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba,
Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(8), 1–16. S., Nyman, K., Yang, N. & Svenson, E.
(2000). Strengthening kindergartners’ reading
Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P., & Chiang, B. (1982). readiness in Title I and non-Title I schools. Pa-
Identifying valid measures of reading. Excep- per presented a the Pacific Coast Research
tional Children, 49, 36–45. Conference, La Jolla, CA.

Ehri, L. C., & Robbins, C. (1992). Beginners need Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba,
some decoding skill to read words by analogy. S., Yen, L., Yang, N., Braun, M., & O’Connor,
Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 13–26. R. (2001). Is reading important in reading-
readiness programs? A randomized field trial
Fazio, B. B. (1997). Learning a new poem: Mem- with teachers as program implementers. Jour-
ory for connected speech and phonological nal of Educational Psychology, 93, 251–267.
awareness in low-income children with and
without specific language impairment. Journal Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba,
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, S., Yen, L., Yang, N., Braun, M., & O’Connor,
40, 1285–1297. R. (2002). Exploring the importance of read-
ing programs for kindergartners with disabili-
Fletcher, J. M., & Foorman, B. R. (1994). Issues ties in mainstream classrooms. Exceptional
in definition and measurement of learning dis- Children, 68, 295–311.
abilities: The need for early intervention. In G.
R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the as- Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Svenson,
sessment of learning disabilities: New views on E., Yen, L., Al Otaiba, S., Yang, N., McMaster,
measurement issues (pp. 185–200). Baltimore: K. N., Prentice, K., Kazdan, S., & Saenz, L.
Brookes. (2001). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies in
reading: Extensions for kindergarten, first
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., grade, and high school. Remedial and Special
Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The Education, 22, 15–21.
role of instruction in learning to read: Prevent-
ing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Yen, L., McMaster, K.,
of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55. Svenson, E., Yang, N., Young, C., Morgan, P.,
Gilbert, T., Jaspers, J., Jernigan, M., Yoon, E.,
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Winikates, D., & King, S. (2001). Developing first-grade
Mehta, P., Schatschneider, C., & Fletcher, J. reading fluency through peer mediation.
M. (1997). Early interventions for children Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(2), 90–93.
with disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading,
1, 255–276. Fuchs, D., Roberts, P. H., Fuchs, L. S., & Bow-
ers, J. (1996). Reintegrating students with
Fox, B., & Routh, D. K. (1976). Phonemic learning disabilities into the mainstream: A
analysis and synthesis as word-attack skills. two-year study. Learning Disabilities Research
Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 70–74. and Practice, 11, 214–229.

Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Fuchs, L. S. (1993). Enhancing instructional pro-
Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1994). The gramming and student achievement with cur-
measurement of change: Assessing behavior riculum-based measurement. In J. J. Kramer
over time and within a developmental context. (Ed.), Curriculum-based assessment (pp.
In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for 65–104). Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental
the assessment of learning disabilities: New Measurements, University of Nebraska.
views on measurement issues (pp. 29–58). Bal-
timore: Brookes. Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic
distinctions between instructionally relevant
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1995). What’s “spe- measurement models. Exceptional Children,
cial” about special education? Phi Delta Kap- 57, 488–501.
pan, 76, 522–530.
Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1992). Effects of cur-
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Fernstrom, P. J. riculum within curriculum-based measure-
(1993). A conservative approach to special ed- ment. Exceptional Children, 58, 232–243.
ucation reform: Mainstreaming through
transenvironmental programming and curricu- Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Marston, D. (1983).
lum-based measurement. American Educa- Improving the reliability of curriculum-based
tional Research Journal, 30, 149–178. measures of academic skills for psychoeduca-
tional decision making. Diagnostique, 8,
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., Lipsey, M. 135–149.
W., & Roberts, P. H. (2001, August). Is
“learning disabilities” just a fancy term for Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a
low achievement? A meta-analysis of reading measure for monitoring student reading
differences between low achievers with and progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45–
without the label. Paper presented at the Of- 58.
fice of Special Education Programs’ LD Initia-
tive Conference, Washington, DC. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998a). Curriculum-

Curriculum-Based Measurement 447

based measurement: A unifying framework for Good, R. H., Deno, S. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (1995,
conceptualizing learning disability. Learning February). Modeling academic growth for stu-
Disability Research and Practice, 13, dents with and without disabilities. Paper pre-
204–219. sented at the third annual Pacific Coast Re-
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998b). Treatment va- search Conference, Laguna Beach, CA.
lidity: A unifying concept for reconceptualiz-
ing the identification of learning disabilities. Good, R., Kaminski, R., & Shinn, M. (1999,
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, January). Growth and development indicators:
13 (4), 204–219. From development to refinement and back
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring again. Paper presented at the Pacific Coast Re-
student progress toward the development of search Conference, San Diego, CA.
reading competence: A review of three forms
of classroom-based assessment. School Psy- Good, R. H., & Shinn, M. R. (1990). Forecast-
chology Review, 28, 659–671. ing accuracy of slope estimates for reading
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Deno, S. L. (1982). curriculum-based measurement: Empirical evi-
Reliability and validity of curriculum-based in- dence. Behavioral Assessment, 12, 179–194.
formal reading inventories. Reading Research
Quarterly, 18, 6–26. Good, R. H. III, Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui,
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. E. J. (2001). The importance of decision-mak-
(1989a). Effects of alternative goal structures ing utility of a continuum of fluency-based in-
within curriculum-based measurement. Excep- dicators of foundational reading success for
tional Children, 55, 429–438. third grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288.
(1989b). Effects of instrumental use of curricu-
lum-based measurement to enhance instruc- Greenwood, C. R., Hart, B., Walker, D., & Rise-
tional programs. Remedial and Special Educa- ly, T. (1993, April). The importance of oppor-
tion, 10(2), 43–52. tunity to respond in children’s academic suc-
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & cess. Paper presented at the Second Conference
Allinder, R. M. (1991). Effects of expert sys- on Behavior Analysis in Education, Ohio State
tem advice within curriculum-based measure- University, Columbus.
ment on teacher planning and student achieve-
ment in spelling. School Psychology Review, Hatcher, P. J., & Hulme, C. (1999). Phonemes,
20, 49–66. rhymes, and intelligence as predictors of chil-
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Fergu- dren’s responsiveness to remedial reading in-
son, C. (1992). Effects of expert system con- struction: Evidence from a longitudinal study.
sultation within curriculum-based measure- Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72,
ment using a reading maze task. Exceptional 130–153.
Children, 58, 436–450.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. W. (1994).
N. B., & Bentz, J. (1994). Classwide curricu- Ameliorating early reading failure by integrat-
lum-based measurement: Helping general edu- ing the teaching of reading and phonological
cators meet the challenge of student diversity. skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis.
Exceptional Children, 60, 518–537. Child Development, 65, 41–57.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Steck-
er, P. M. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based Hosp, M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2001). Revising tech-
measurement and consultation on teacher nical features of curriculum-based measure-
planning and student achievement in mathe- ment’s reading aloud task in the early grades.
matics operations. American Educational Re- Manuscript submitted for publication.
search Journal, 28, 617–641.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Thomp- Hurford, D. P. (1990). Training phonemic seg-
son, A., Roberts, P. H., Kubec, P., & Stecker, P. mentation ability with a phonemic discrimina-
M. (1994). Technical features of a mathemat- tion intervention in second- and third-grade
ics concepts and applications curriculum- children with reading disabilities. Journal of
based measurement system. Diagnostique, Learning Disabilities, 23, 564–569.
19(4), 23–49.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A
& Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation longitudinal study of fifty-four children from
of academic progress: How much growth can first through fourth grade. Journal of Educa-
we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, tional Psychology, 80, 437–447.
27–48.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). Juel, C. (1994). At risk university students tutor-
The validity of informal reading comprehen- ing at-risk elementary school children: What
sion measures. Remedial and Special Educa- factors make it effective? In E. H. Herebert &
tion, 9(2), 20–29. B. M Taylor (Eds.), Getting reading right from
the start: Effective early interventions. (pp.
39–62). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Juel, C. (1996). What makes literacy tutoring ef-
fective? Reading Research Quarterly, 31,
268–289.

Kasten, W. C. (1998). One learner, two para-
digms. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14,
335–353.

Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O. (1988). Ef-
fects of an extensive program for stimulating

448 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

phonological awareness in preschool children. phonological activities in kindergarten for
Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–284. children with mild disabilities: A follow-up
Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., study. Learning Disabilities Research and
Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B., Practice, 13, 43–52.
Schulte, A., & Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking O’Shaughnessy, T. E., & Swanson, H. L. (2000).
learning disabilities. Washington, DC: Hudson A comparison of two reading interventions for
Institute. children with reading disabilities. Journal of
Marston, D. (1987–1988). The effectiveness of Learning Disabilities, 33, 257–277.
special education: A time-series analysis of Peterson, M. E., & Haines, L. P. (1992). Ortho-
reading performance in regular and special ed- graphic analogy training with kindergarten
ucation settings. Journal of Special Education, children: Effects on analogy use, phonemic
21(4), 13–26. segmentation, and letter–sound knowledge.
Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based mea- Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 109–127.
surement approach to assessing academic per- Riley, R. (1996). Improving the reading and writ-
formance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. ing skills of America’s students. Learning Dis-
Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: ability Quarterly, 19, 67–69.
Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New Rosenfeld, R. G. (1990). Short stature. In M.
York: Guilford Press. Green & J. Haggerty Eds.), Ambulatory pedi-
Marston, D., & Deno, S. L. (1981). The reliabili- atrics—IV. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
ty of simple, direct measures of written expres- Schneider, W., Ennemoser, M., Roth, E., & Kus-
sion (Research Report No. 50). Minneapolis: pert, P. (1999). Kindergarten prevention of
University of Minnesota Institute for Research dyslexia: Does training in phonological aware-
on Learning Disabilities. ness work for everybody? Journal of Learning
Marston, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1986). Disabilities, 32, 429–436.
Measuring pupil progress: A comparison of Schneider, W., Kuspert, P., Roth, E., Vise, M., &
standardized achievement tests and curricu- Marx, H. (1997). Short- and long-term effects
lum-related measures. Diagnostique, 11, of training phonological awareness in kinder-
71–90. garten: Evidence from two German studies.
Mastropieri, M. A., Leinhart, A., & Scruggs, T. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66,
E. (1999). Strategies to increase reading fluen- 311–340.
cy. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, Shannahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Re-
278–283, 292. covery: An independent evaluation of the ef-
Mathes, P. G., Howard, J. K., Allen, S. H., & fects of an early intervention for at-risk learn-
Fuchs, D. (1998). Peer-assisted learning strate- ers. Reading Research Quarterly, 30,
gies for first-grade readers: Responding to the 958–996.
needs of diversity. Reading Research Quarter- Shinn, M. R., Tindal, G., Spira, D., & Marston,
ly, 31, 268–289. D. (1987). Practice of learning disabilities as
McMaster, K. N., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & social policy. Learning Disability Quarterly,
Compton, D. L. (2002). An experimental 10, 17–28.
analysis of the effects of alternative instruc- Snider, V. E. (1997). Transfer of decoding skills
tional programs for students unresponsive to to a literature basal. Learning Disabilities Re-
beginning reading instruction. Paper presented search and Practice, 12, 54–62.
at the Society for the Scientific Study of Read- Speece, D. L., & Case, L. P. (in press). Classifica-
ing, Chicago. tion in context: An alternative approach to
O’Connor, R. (2000). Increasing the intensity of identifying early reading disability. Journal of
intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Educational Psychology.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, Speece, D. L., Molloy, D. E., & Case, L. P.
15, 43–54. (2000, February). Toward validating a model
O’Connor, R. E., Jenkins, J. R., Leicester, N., & of reading disability identification based on re-
Slocum, T. A. (1993). Teaching phonological sponse to treatment. Paper presented at the an-
awareness to young children with learning dis- nual Pacific Coast Research Conference, La
abilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 532–546. Jolla, CA.
O’Connor, R. E., Jenkins, J. R., & Slocum, T. A. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.).
(1995). Transfer among phonological tasks in (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
kindergarten: Essential instructional content. young children. Washington, DC: National
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, Academy Press.
202–217. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effect in read-
O’Connor, R. E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, ing: Some consequences of individual differ-
P. F. (1996). Ladders to literacy: The effects of ences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading
teacher-led phonological activities for kinder- Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406.
garten children with and without disabilities. Torgesen, J. K., & Davis, C. (1996). Individual
Exceptional Children, 63, 117–130. difference variables that predict response to
O’Connor, R. E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, training in phonological awareness. Journal of
P. F. (1998). First-grade effects of teacher-led Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 1–21.

Curriculum-Based Measurement 449

Torgesen, J. K., Morgan, S., & Davis, C. (1992). Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne,
The effects of two types of phonological S. K., & O’Connor, R. E. (1997). Community-
awareness training on word learning in based early reading intervention for at-risk
kindergarten children. Journal of Educational first graders. Learning Disabilities Research
Psychology, 84, 364–370. and Practice, 12, 29–39.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. Vandervelden, M. C., & Siegel, L. S. (1997).
A. (1997). Prevention and remediation of se- Teaching phonological processing skills in ear-
vere reading disabilities: Keeping the end in ly literacy: A developmental approach. Learn-
mind. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, ing Disability Quarterly, 20, 63–81.
217–234.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R.,
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Small, S., Chen, R., Pratt, A., & Denckla, M.
Lindamood, P., Rose, E., Conway, T., & Gar- B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-re-
van, C. (1999). Preventing reading failure in mediate and readily remediated poor readers:
young children with phonological processing Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguish-
disabilities: Group and individual responses to ing between cognitive and experiential deficits
instruction. Journal of Educational Psycholo- as basic causes of specific reading disability.
gy, 91, 579–593. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88,
601–638.
Uhry, J. K., & Shepherd, M. (1997). Teaching
phonological recoding to young children with Wolraich, M. (Ed.). (1996). Disorders of devel-
phonological processing deficits: The effect on opment and training: A practical guide to as-
sight word acquisition. Learning Disability sessment and management (2nd ed.). St. Louis,
Quarterly, 20, 104–125. MO: Mosby.

27

The Sociocultural Model in Special
Education Interventions: Apprenticing

Students in Higher-Order Thinking

Carol Sue Englert
Troy Mariage

This chapter focuses on social construc- the movement of the novice toward the ex-
tivism as a theoretical model for designing pert end of the learning continuum” (Hock,
and implementing instructional programs Schumaker, & Deshler, 1999, p. 9). In the
for students with disabilities. Lev Vygotsky, first part of the chapter, we describe the es-
one of the architects of social construc- sential features and characteristics of the
tivism, developed the model to explain the model. In the second part, we present an il-
nature of learning, especially among stu- lustrative example from each of three do-
dents with disabilities (Gindis, 1999; Vygot- mains: reading, writing, and science. Our
sky, 1993). Although many educators asso- goal is to help readers extrapolate and gen-
ciate social constructivism with discovery eralize the model across subject matter ar-
approaches to learning or whole-language eas. Finally, we conclude this chapter with a
approaches, the model shares many features discussion of the implications of this work
with the other instructional models in this for teaching and learning in applied settings.
section. Though many models assume com-
petence resides within the individual, the Situated Activity
sociocultural perspective shifts attention to
the role of social context in accounting for One of the central features of the sociocul-
the development of students’ competence tural model is the assumption about the na-
(Rueda, Gallego, & Moll, 2000; Vygotsky, ture and context of learning. Vygotsky’s ap-
1978). proach describes an activity approach to
knowledge acquisition (Engestrom, Mietti-
This chapter provides a focused and in- nen, & Punamaki, 1999). Cognitive activi-
depth portrayal of a few studies in order to ties, like many of life’s activities, have both
articulate the “big ideas” of the sociocultur- internal and external sides that must be
al model, provide examples, and relate their mastered by novices. Competence goes be-
implications. This approach has been yond mere book learning as a novice is men-
likened to a cognitive apprenticeship, which tored into a set of practices, languages, and
“establishes a teaching and learning rela- artifacts that characterize effective discipli-
tionship in which interactions between ‘ex-
pert’ learners and ‘novice’ learners support

450

The Sociocultural Model in Special Education 451

nary knowledge and problem-solving Likewise, effective instruction occurs when
performance. Scientists, for example, coor- teachers think aloud to make visible their
dinate themselves (mind and body) with inner thoughts in a more conscious way
psychological tools, “instruments, tools, (Englert & Mariage, 1996). Forging such
symbolic and linguistic expressions, people, concrete links between thought, speech, and
objects being studied, and places like labo- action can bring the relationship between
ratories so as to chain all these together into “knowing and doing” into a plane of active
a coherent pattern or configuration” (Gee, consciousness within an individual (Shotter,
1997, p. 238). 1995).

In educational applications, students An apprenticeship approach to learning
must have similar opportunities to partici- also assumes a developmental shift in the re-
pate in the “ways of knowing” specific to a lationships and roles assumed by the expert
particular discipline. To return to the sci- and novice in their performance of the ac-
ence example, teachers may tend to want to tivity. Initially, tasks are too difficult for
“tell students about science,” but teachers novices to accomplish alone, so they work
need to involve them in the “practice of sci- side by side with more knowledgeable mem-
ence” for mastery. Countervailing educa- bers to accomplish the task jointly. At this
tional trends that focus on the decomposi- point, the novices sometimes assume a pe-
tion of complex mental processes into ripheral role as they participate in some as-
elemental units or facts, proponents of so- pects of the activity, but the expert performs
cial constructivism argue that when abstrac- the more difficult aspects that are beyond
tions are removed from their anchoring ac- the learners’ immediate grasp and control
tivity settings, students are denied access to (Wenger, 1998). Between the participants,
the higher-order thinking and metacognitive the performance of the cognitive process
processes that underlie skilled problem solv- and actions are distributed as they jointly
ing and academic competence. The purpose perform the task on a social plane that Vy-
and meaning of artifacts, the mental and gotsky (1978) called the “interpsychological
physical actions related to the tools that or intermental” plane.
produce the artifacts, and the integrated se-
quence of individual actions in a task are Gradually, learners appropriate and per-
brought into sharp relief in the context of form the talk and actions previously mod-
one’s performance of meaningful and au- eled by others, as they assume increasing re-
thentic activity (Englert & Dunsmore, sponsibility for the disciplinary moves and
2002; Roth, 1998). practices. Talk and conversation that was
enacted on the social plane are anticipated
Apprenticeship in Social Contexts by the learner in the form of egocentric
speech (thinking out loud) and, finally, in-
The emphasis on activity also underscores a ner speech (talking to oneself). Ultimately,
second aspect of the sociocultural model, the cognitive process is performed on the in-
namely, the role of the teacher or expert in tramental plane (within an individual’s
the apprenticeship of higher mental func- mind), as the processes and practices that
tions. Human psychological processes are were once jointly produced are internalized,
acquired in the course of joint-mediated ac- and the social dialogue is turned inward to
tivity and, thus, are social in their origin guide the learner’s thoughts and actions.
(Gee, 1997). Teachers apprentice their stu- Once mastered, there remains the quality of
dents into cognitive activity in several ways. hidden dialogicality, insofar as the traces of
Foremost, teachers guide learning by mak- the talk and actions performed by others
ing visible and explicit the ways of doing surface to influence the inner talk and be-
and knowing that are not necessarily appar- havioral repertoire of the learner (Wertsch,
ent in the routine actions of experts but are 1995). What is considered as part of one’s
nonetheless requisite for full participation mental life has its roots in the conversations
(Wells, 2000). Lave (1997) stresses the need that took place in one’s “social life” (Toul-
for artifacts and activities to be “transpar- min, 1999). Discourse and mental processes
ent” to learners—that is open to inspection. are acquired and transformed as any other
social practice by participating in them with
others (Wenger, 1998).

452 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

Tools and Mediational Means The zone of proximal development is the
distance between the level of performance
Vygotsky suggested that learning entails the attained by the child in independent prob-
use and appropriation of artifacts, strate- lem-solving activity and the level attained
gies, technologies, and tools that mediate by the child in collaboration with others or
human thought and behavior in the context with mediational tools. It is a zone of joint
of activity (Nardi, 1996). Mediational tools action that is in advance of what the child
include symbols, instruments, language, dia- can manage alone (Wells, 1999), making it
grams, maps, writing implements, proce- a particularly rich site for learning and cog-
dures, rules of thumb, and any tool used in nitive development. By providing scaffolds
the transformation and construction process at this point of intellectual challenge, teach-
of which speech is among the most impor- ers can accommodate gaps in learning and
tant (Wertsch, 1995, 1998). induct students into new processes and
knowledge (Stone, 2002). The challenge for
Although we have described the impor- teachers is to develop participation struc-
tance of discourse as an aspect of social tures that provide access to developmental
learning, it is also a tool that both supports data about learners so that performance can
mental reasoning and transforms the mind be scaffolded on a contingent basis (Schaf-
over time. There are several examples of fer, 1996; Stone, 2002).
language-related tools and symbol systems
that influence performance. For example, Teaching moves that scaffold perfor-
the presentation of strategies provides direct mance encompass techniques that are well-
access to the language and procedures that known in the literature, including prompts,
mediate performance. Speech genres and questions, feedback, instruction, and mod-
text structures are other examples of sym- eling (Hogan & Pressley, 1997; Stone,
bolic tools that mediate both the production 2002). Ultimately, effective scaffolds are
and comprehension of oral and written judged by the degree of fit to the learner,
texts (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993). Artifacts such as (1) contingency to the students’
and tools, such as diagrams and maps, are knowledge and social needs; (2) addition or
carriers of mental reasoning that organize withdrawal of supports based on the suc-
performance by offloading thought onto the cess or failure of prior attempts; (3) respon-
tool and by making elements of the activity siveness to emergent interpretations and so-
more visible (Roth, 1998). Once under- lutions; and (4) presentation of challenging
stood, these tools become “objects to think material that calls on problem solving, as
with” and “objects to talk with,” support- well as permitting the identification of cog-
ing the participation by students with dis- nitive or social tools that can continue the
abilities in the language, cognitive, and evolutionary path of development (Tobin,
communication aspects of a particular disci- 1998). Finally, effective scaffolding requires
pline (Roth, 1998). a delicate balance between modeling,
coaching, scaffolding, and fading (Collins,
Zone of Proximal Development Brown, & Holum, 1991). Vygotsky’s work
is clear that effective teachers must give and
Vygotsky’s (1978) model provides a concep- take in tune with their students—not only
tual lens for understanding both the instruc- must they give support by responding to the
tional and acquisition paths for students novice’s evolving conception of the task
with disabilities. With Vygotsky’s emphasis with additional cognitive resources, but
on the participation of novices in the full they must simultaneously fade or take back
range of activity, it is apparent that students support for other aspects of the task for
will not be able perform the whole of the which students show evidence of appropri-
activity without support and assistance. The ation and mastery.
mechanisms for supporting students involve
the provision of mediational tools within a Collaborative Participation Structures
sensitive region of assisted performance
known as the zone of proximal develop- Finally, Vygotsky’s theory has been expand-
ment. ed by recent work on social mediation that

The Sociocultural Model in Special Education 453

emphasizes the participation of students in believed that the differences between per-
collaborative groups or communities of sons with and without disabilities were
practice. Vygotsky believed that social me- qualitative, and the school must play a deci-
diation could ameliorate cognitive and so- sive role in this “approximation” through
cial disabilities. Recent research has con- social compensation. Vygotsky proposed
firmed the power of collaboration in four that a “child is full of unrealized potentials,
specific areas: (1) promoting greater in- and these offer a wealth of creative re-
volvement in the academic discourse and so- sources on which a handicapped child, or
cial practices by offering a participation any child, may and must build” (cited in Vy-
structure that promotes the transfer of con- gotsky, 1993, p. 13). Further, he suggested
trol from teachers to students; (2) increasing that development stems not from biological
the contribution of students in the joint so- and inner sources alone but from the inter-
lution of problems while offering them sup- action of the child with the sociocultural
port and assistance from others on an ongo- world (Vygotsky, 1993).
ing basis (Wells, 2000); (3) providing a
motivational context to further students’ Second, with an emphasis on the social
desire to participate and endure in intellec- construction of ability, Vygotsky (1993)
tually rigorous activity (Vaughn & Klingner, called attention to two aspects of compensa-
1999); and (4) creating “zones of proximal tion and, hence, assumptions about the pos-
development” by expanding the potential sible sites of human differences. He recom-
for students to experience and appropriate mended that educators needed to provide
the varied ideas, knowledge, resources and special or different symbolic tools suitable
strategies of group members. to the psychological makeup of the learner,
and ways of mastering those tools through
Collaborative problem solving can opti- special pedagogical methods. In this respect,
mize learning opportunities for students his work highlights the possibility that dis-
with disabilities. In collaboration with peers, ability might be considered (1) differences in
there is the potential for students with dis- the learners’ abilities to recognize or imple-
abilities to reverse the typical interactional ment psychological tools, or to monitor
roles transacted in a teaching–learning situa- their use, and/or 2) the failure of educators
tion, insofar as the “learner” can reposition to support compensation by the provision
him- or herself as the one who asks questions of symbolic systems and tools matched to
as well as answers them, gives directions to the students’ psychological and biological
others as well as follows them, and becomes needs. At the same time, Vygotsky recog-
the teacher for others rather than the learner nized that disability affected the individual’s
(Biemiller & Meichenbaum, 1998). Typical- relationship with people, resulting in social
ly, however, the conferral of task responsibil- dislocation, which can further disturb the
ity and leadership roles to students with dis- trajectory of cognitive and psychological de-
abilities is remote or attenuated, leading velopment. Thus, he emphasized the corol-
them to experience academic tasks as some- lary relationship between disabilities and
thing that “others do, but that I need help symbolic or social mediation as both the
with” (Biemiller & Miechenbaum, 1998, p. source and resolution of the educational
368). Biemiller and Meichenbaum (1998), in challenges experienced by students with dis-
fact, suggest that more attention needs to be abilities.
directed to the creation of settings in which
learners are assigned executive or leadership Third, Vygotsky’s theory of sociocultural
roles in performing the task and the language perspectives opens the door for an alterna-
that will lead them to exercise the self-regu- tive view for conceptualizing disability. As
latory metacognitive skills associated with Gutierrez and Stone (1997) suggest, if com-
skilled performance. petence is related to children’s access to and
participation in varying forms of learning
Social (De)Construction of Disability activities, then changing the nature of par-
ticipation is essential to make space for less
Vygotsky’s (1978) model provides several experienced learners to replace those who
perspectives on disability. First, Vygotsky served in prior roles as experts. To develop
new identities of academic competence re-
quires an expansion of the range of roles

454 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

and interactional acts needed for knowledge MacArthur, & Okolo, 2001; Okolo & Fer-
development and successful participation retti, 1997). For the illustrative purposes of
(Gutierrez & Stone, 1997). Where disability this chapter, however, we focus on three re-
is mitigated, several aspects seem to be at search programs that have specifically iden-
play, including (1) a social organization that tified the sociocultural model as their guid-
minimizes differences; (2) access to the cog- ing framework for designing and evaluating
nitive and social resources of the classroom; their instructional interventions in reading,
(3) customized assistance based on individ- writing, and science.
ual needs; (4) interdependent arrangements
that are not solely dependent upon adults; Reading: Reciprocal Teaching
(5) competent performance that is more
broadly defined to include individuals oper- One of the primary sociocultural studies
ating with mediational means; and (6) the was conducted by Palincsar and Brown
strategic handing over of learning to stu- (1989). They designed an intervention, reci-
dents (Gutierrez & Stone, 1997). procal teaching, to assist poor readers who
possessed adequate decoding skills but
Educational Applications lacked adequate comprehension and prob-
lem-solving strategies. They based their
Research related to applications of the so- reading methods on studies of poor readers
ciocultural model to educational problems that showed their difficulties in organizing,
has an early and late history. Early, Vygot- monitoring, and modifying their reading be-
sky and his students applied the model to haviors.
the study and treatment of cognitive and
sensory disabilities. More recently, we have Four strategies were taught to poor read-
seen disciplinary-based studies that have ers to support their comprehension of ex-
tested many of Vygotsky’s assumptions in pository text. These strategies included
applied settings with children and youth Summarizing (identifying the gist of the
with disabilities. It is this later research that text), Questioning (asking a question about
we review in this section. These studies have the main idea), Clarifying (clarifying vocab-
in common their focus on higher-order ulary or ideas that did not make sense), and
rather than lower-order psychological Predicting (using text information to predict
processes. Furthermore, though many spe- what will happen next). These strategies
cial education scholars believe that sociocul- were selected to enhance students’ compre-
tural theory has enormous potential for ad- hension and comprehension-monitoring
vancing the instructional efficacy of special abilities (Brown & Palincsar, 1989; Palinc-
education programs (Artiles, Trent, Hoff- sar, 1986). Furthermore, each strategy was
man-Kipp, & Lopez-Torres, 2000; Gindis, introduced in ways designed to enhance its
1999; Rueda et al., 2000; Stone, 2002), we metacognitive potential by informing stu-
also recognize that this theoretical model dents why it was important and in what sit-
has steep connections to the rich traditions uation it was to be used.
of strategy and metacognitive interventions
for special education students. This more fa- Reciprocal teaching epitomized the fea-
miliar body of work includes a number of tures of the sociocultural model in several
contributing scholars in the area of reading key respects. First, the entire set of strategies
(Goatley, Brock & Raphael, 1995; Klingner, was taught and practiced in situated activity
Vaughn, & Schumm, 1998; Morocco, contexts, during the reading of authentic
Hindin, Mata-Aguilar, & Clark-Chiarelli, texts, as opposed to being introduced sepa-
2001; Pressley, El-Dinary, & Afflerbach, rately, or in isolated skill exercises (Brown
1995), mathematics (Goldman, Hassel- & Palincsar, 1989). Following the reading
bring, & Cognition and Technology Group of expository texts, the four strategies were
at Vanderbilt, 1996; Woodward & Baxter, applied by members of a small collaborative
1997), writing (De La Paz, 1999; Graham group, while they received coaching, guid-
& Harris, 1989a, 1989b; Wong, 1997a, ance, and feedback from their peers and the
1997b, 2000), and social studies (Ferretti, teacher. Thus, reciprocal teaching offered a
set of language tools or heuristics that might
enable students to read more efficiently and

The Sociocultural Model in Special Education 455

self-regulate their comprehension (Palincsar knowledge, fading into the background and
& Brown, 1989). acting as a sympathetic coach when stu-
dents could handle and lead their own
Second, the strategies represented a form learning (Palincsar & Brown, 1989). Like-
of discourse that encapsulated a repertoire wise, the teacher could take up the leader-
of strategic processes that structured the ship when students needed feedback that
students’ interpersonal social interactions. was tailored to their existing levels of per-
In essence, reciprocal teaching provided stu- formance. The teacher provided scaffolded
dents with particular ways of talking about assistance in a number of ways, including
texts through the employment of the strate- (1) linking students’ prior knowledge and
gies, endowing them with a set of cognitive contributions to the text; (2) requesting
tools, and offering a communication and elaborations on ideas or confusions; (3)
symbolic system by which the group could modeling strategic responses; and (4) ques-
organize and mediate their activities, as well tioning, paraphrasing, and reformulating
as consider the meaning of the text as an contributions to construct comprehension.
object of attention and reflection. The dia- The teacher assessed students’ knowledge
logue was first exercised on an interpsycho- during the discussions and then guided and
logical plane (between individuals), laying shaped the course of the conversations to
traces for the subsequent internalization of provide support on a moment-to-moment
the dialogue in directing reading activity on or student-to-student basis.
the intrapsychological plane (within the in-
dividual) (Palincsar & Brown, 1989). Reciprocal teaching is an elegant example
of how social constructivism can inform the
Third, the pedagogical process underlying design of instructional interventions. It rev-
reciprocal teaching provided a dramatic olutionized how many came to view reading
form of apprenticeship that emphasized the interventions and demonstrated a process
developmental shifts in instructor–student for teaching students how to read and com-
positions that reflected the deepening exper- prehend in the situated context of reading
tise of students. At first, the teacher served activity. The question, of course, is how ef-
as a model of expert reading behavior by fective was reciprocal teaching in positively
overtly modeling the use of the four strate- influencing student outcomes?
gies while thinking aloud. However, recip-
rocal teaching provided a mechanism for The results of several studies revealed the
the transfer of control to students. Students powerful effects of the apprenticeship mod-
took turns assuming the role of leader of the el on students’ reading comprehension. Ini-
group as each member led the group in the tially, Brown and Palincsar (1989) instituted
use of the reading strategies. Student leaders the reciprocal teaching procedures in the
summarized text sections, asked questions context of reading groups consisting of sev-
about main ideas, called on the group for enth- and eighth-graders. In this study, sev-
clarifications about text confusions, and eral procedures were adhered to: (1) stu-
predicted what was coming next. The other dents were selected on the basis of their low
members of the group elaborated on, an- reading comprehension scores; (2) the inter-
swered, or gave feedback on the leader’s vention was fairly extensive, consisting of
contributions. The teacher interceded when no fewer than 10 days of discussions, and
a student missed a point and the other usually continuing for 20 days; (3) progress
group members did not catch it, or when a was measured by changes in the students’
strategy was not applied effectively. In this participation in the discussions and by daily
way, the responsibility for comprehending tests of their retention on transfer passages;
and problem solving did not lie on the and (4) long-term maintenance, transfer,
shoulders of individual learners or the and generalization were all measured.
teacher because the group shared the re-
sponsibility for thinking. This zone of joint In addition, independent raters read tran-
action often exceeded what an individual scripts of discussions and rated students’ use
could manage alone (Brown & Palincsar, of the four strategies. Analyses showed large
1989). and reliable improvements in students’ strat-
egy use (Brown & Palincsar, 1989). Over
Fourth, through students’ discursive par- time, there was a shift from teacher-
ticipation, the teacher could assess students’ directed instructional formats to student-

456 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

controlled interactions, reflecting a more ac- to more correct understandings) produced
tive student role in the dialogues as they in- greater student gains on transfer measures.
creasingly took the lead in directing and Taken together, these results show strong
monitoring their own and others’ under- support for Vygotsky’s central ideas of the
standings of the text (Palincsar & Brown, importance of the apprenticeship model and
1989). The changes seen in the dialogues the primary role of the teacher in providing
seemed to reflect a process of internalization, modeling, coaching, scaffolding, and fading.
as reflected in independent probes of reading
behavior: students who began the program Writing: Cognitive Strategy
by scoring 30–40% correct reached a stable Instruction in Writing
level of 70–80% correct on the daily inde-
pendent probes of comprehension. A nearly Writing is another discipline that requires
identical result was obtained in another higher-order thinking and abstraction.
study when peer tutors taught the procedure Many of the transparent features of spoken
to small groups of poor readers. Overall, the language that convey meaning (inflection,
examination of reciprocal teaching revealed tempo, expression, gesture, pause) must be
large and stable quantitative improvements codified and objectified in written language
on measures of comprehension; the effects of using abstract symbols, marks, or conven-
the intervention were durable on measures of tions. Globally and locally, written text
maintenance (2 and 6 months later); and im- must be staged at the macro (text-level) and
provement transferred to the classroom and micro (paragraph, sentence, word) levels
criterion-referenced measures of comprehen- through the provision of organizational
sion (Brown & Palincsar, 1989; Palincsar & cues and devices to assist the reader in iden-
Brown, 1984). tifying, structuring and understanding the
meaning and relationships among the ideas
These results showed the powerful effects (Spivey, 1997). Furthermore, whereas spo-
of reciprocal teaching. What are especially ken language is embedded in a shared social
noteworthy are the converging findings situation, written language appears solitary
from a later series of studies that yield sup- and detached from the experiential world.
port for the role of the sociocultural model From the outset, the student undertaking to
in the design of efficacious interventions learn to write must confront the machinery
(Palincsar, 1986). Four findings are consis- of the language; “he has to become aware of
tent with the theoretical assumptions of the its components and of the various opera-
model. First, the results are clear that the tions required to produce or comprehend
higher-order cognitive activities associated it” (Scribner, 1997, p. 169). Quite simply,
with reading are best acquired and practiced unlike many automatized skills, the act of
in situated activity. Teacher modeling fol- writing remains a deliberate mental act
lowed by skill practice in isolated or nonin- throughout life, requiring the conscious at-
teractive contexts did not yield the same re- tention and reflection of the author (Scribn-
sults as those that featured the transfer of er, 1997).
control and the applied use of the compre-
hension strategies in the context of situated Comparative studies show that good and
reading activity (Brown & Palincsar, 1989). poor writers are distinguished in several re-
Second, the results speak to the power of spects, including their use of metacognitive
teaching students to use strategies in an in- knowledge to plan, draft, monitor, and re-
tegrated fashion rather than decontextualiz- vise texts (Englert, Raphael, Fear, & Ander-
ing or teaching strategies as skill compo- son, 1988; MacArthur, Graham, &
nents. Third, the findings suggest that Schwartz, 1993); their ability to relate ideas
students’ participation in social dialogues into organizational patterns that correspond
can advance students’ abilities to use these to text structures (Mastropieri & Scruggs,
tools to direct their own independent read- 1997; Swanson, 1999); and their ability to
ing activity. Finally, studies of the nature of monitor and regulate performance (Wong
reciprocal teaching dialogues suggest that & Jones, 1982; Wong & Wilson, 1984).
the teachers who taught students respon- Good writers are differentiated because they
sively (e.g., linking students’ ideas to new seem to have acquired strategic and
knowledge, transforming partially correct

The Sociocultural Model in Special Education 457

metacognitive knowledge about the craft of and corrections of writers in the process of
writing (e.g., tools, conventions, processes, text monitoring and construction rather
and practices), including a knowledge of than experience the skills in isolated con-
what to do, when to do it, why it is impor- texts (Englert & Mariage, 1996). The
tant, and when it should be done. shared reading and writing of texts involved
students in the co-construction of meaning,
One program that was intentionally de- as well as provided an anchoring context
signed to provide a cognitive apprenticeship for modeling writing tactics, conventions,
in writing based on a sociocultural frame- structures, strategies, and purposes (Wells,
work was Cognitive Strategy Instruction in 1999).
Writing (CSIW). Teachers in the CSIW pro-
gram sought to make visible the tacit Third, the teachers provided specific sym-
processes that writers undertake in the act bol systems and language tools to mediate
of planning, composing, and editing exposi- and scaffold performance. For example,
tory text (Englert et al., 1991). CSIW was teachers displayed the acronym POWER to
designed for implementation in resource remind students of the planning, organizing,
and general education classrooms to sup- writing, editing, and revising processes that
port the writing performance of elementary good writers employ to compose well-orga-
students with learning disabilities. nized texts (Mariage, Englert, & Garmon,
2000). The use of acronyms for supporting
As characterized by reciprocal teaching, strategy use has figured prominently in the
CSIW incorporated specific features that work of many writing researchers (Troia,
were illustrative of the theoretical model of Harris & Graham, 1999). In addition,
Vygotsky. First, CSIW highlighted the “think sheets” were provided to externalize
teacher’s role in making visible the internal the self-questions, strategies, and key lan-
and external sides of writing activity in the guage that had been modeled. Students used
situated context of composing and interro- these think sheets to support their thinking
gating text. Teachers involved students di- as they planned, organized, composed, and
rectly in the practice of writing by compos- edited their own texts (Englert & Raphael,
ing group stories and by following a process 1989). Similarly, to assist students in orga-
approach to writing that engaged students nizing their texts, teachers provided graphic
in the application of various writing strate- organizers to represent the text structure
gies specific to each facet of writing. Teach- (see Graham & Harris, 1989a, 1989b) and
ers, for example, involved students in plan- explicitly taught the conventions of each
ning their texts by modeling and engaging writing genre or structure (e.g., compare–
the students in a collaborative dialogue contrast, explanations, superordinate–
guided by self-questions, such as “Why am I subordinate). All these aforementioned
writing this?” (purpose), “Who is my audi- tools served as procedural facilitators to
ence?” “What do I know about my topic?” make visible and accessible the language
(activating background knowledge). Similar and procedures of writers (Vaughn, Gersten,
self-questions were modeled through think- & Chard, 2000). The intention was that the
alouds to make available the discourse and individual(s) operating with such media-
self-regulating processes associated with an tional means would be able to perform at
inquiry approach to writing, including how levels superior to that which they could
writers gather information, organize ideas, achieve otherwise, thereby supporting them
write, edit, and revise their papers (see En- in their zones of proximal development
glert et al., 1996; Englert, Raphael, Ander- (Wertsch, 1995).
son, Gregg & Anthony, 1989).
Fourth, teachers actively apprenticed stu-
Second, teachers actually composed dents in the writing discourse by promoting
group stories in real time to make explicit a developmental shift in the relationships
the relationships between the specific and roles assumed by teachers and students.
writing actions that writers take and their Initially, teachers did the modeling. Howev-
associated talk, thoughts, questions, and er, students were asked to assume increasing
purposes. Through these public demonstra- responsibility for whatever aspects of the di-
tions, teachers made it possible for students alogue or process they were able to execute
to witness and experience the bottlenecks, on succeeding paragraphs, texts, or lessons
false starts, dilemmas, actions, thoughts,

458 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

(Englert, 1992). Each time a section of a discourse in the problem-centered text con-
group text was composed, teachers paused struction activity (Englert & Mariage,
to allow students time to question, chal- 1996; Jakubowski, 1993; Mariage, 2001;
lenge, support, monitor, revise, or extend Roth, 1993).
the form and meaning of the ideas. Thus,
texts were treated as thinking devices that Finally, CSIW was expanded over time to
might provoke other meanings, interpreta- incorporate collaborative structures involv-
tions, and responses (Wertsch & Toma, ing partner or small-group writing. Teachers
1995). The interaction between texts, read- progressed from interacting with students in
ers, and authors placed students in explicit teacher-directed whole-class discussions to
dialogical relationships with other writers establishing small-group or partner writing
and audience members, helping them to activities, and finally, to occasions when
hear and internalize the dialogue and ques- students wrote independently. These spaces
tions of others that might be reenacted to offered a range or continuum of assistance
guide their own problem-solving perfor- and scaffolds made available to students.
mance in the future. In this manner, it was These collaborative arrangements trans-
intended that the cognitive process and dia- ferred control to students and placed them
logue that were performed on a social plane in the position of the ones who asked ques-
would be gradually anticipated by writers tions rather than merely answered them,
and turned inward to guide and influence gave directions rather than simply followed
their conversations with texts or readers on them, thought aloud rather than simply lis-
the intramental or inner mental plane. Only tened, and challenged ideas to bring all par-
when students lacked the ability to recog- ticipants into deeper discussions about
nize problems or to provide relevant feed- meaning and practices (Englert & Dun-
back, did teachers intervene to introduce or smore, 2002; Mariage, 2001). While stu-
prompt the language and strategies to com- dents typically engage with written texts
pose or fix the text. Thus, teachers directly when they are alone, the collaboration af-
engaged writers in the craft of writing while forded an occasion for students to move
offering technical assistance and coaching back and forth between text, talk, and ac-
them while they were actually engaged in tion and engaged them in reciprocal roles as
writing and monitoring processes (Wells, authors, readers, and respondents, as part
1999). of a deepening apprenticeship into the spo-
ken and written discourse of writers (Wells,
This problem-solving orientation to ideas 1999).
and meanings accomplished several impor-
tant objectives: It (1) provided a foundation As described by Confrey (1993), there-
for the development of critical thought, ex- fore, the CSIW approach to writing instruc-
ecutive monitoring functions, and metacog- tion could be likened to an apprenticeship
nition; (2) prompted internalization and re- in a more traditional crafts or labor indus-
hearsal of the writing discourse and try based on the following features: (1) the
strategies through an enlargement of the preparation of a product (written text) that
role of students in the dialogues; (3) made represented a shared collaborative enter-
visible the rules of discourse and forms of prise, and that both constrained the interac-
the written register; (4) promoted a con- tions and supported their goal-directed ac-
sciousness of the dialectical relationship be- tivities; and (2) the creation of an artifact
tween authors and audience; (5) supported that, at the termination of the activity, par-
the introduction of new writing procedures; ticipants could point to, discuss, and locate
and (6) produced artifacts with visible re- their sense of shared goals and tools applied
minders of the array of cultural artifacts in the course of making the product. To this
and tools which may be used to mediate the list, we add two additional traits: (3) a deep-
creation of texts and text solutions (Wells, ening and recursive cycle of apprenticeship
1999). Over time, in fact, participating stu- that offered challenges and increasing com-
dents became increasingly capable of ex- plexity for all participants, while offering
changing points of view, evaluating the via- mechanisms of support until individuals be-
bility of ideas and suggestions, working out came capable of fuller participation in all
text problems, and engaging in an academic parts of the activity; and (4) the involve-
ment of participants with varying degrees of

The Sociocultural Model in Special Education 459

skill and mastery in the use of the cultural the expository writing treatment. Analyses
tools (Wells, 1999; Wenger, 1998). revealed statistically significant differences
(greater than 0.001) between experimental
The results of several studies over the and control students on two different types
course of a number of years revealed some of text structures (explanations, reports) for
key findings that are noteworthy in under- nearly all dependent variables. Students of
standing this approach. First, a study was the most experienced experimental teachers
conducted of the efficacy of CSIW with 128 significantly surpassed control students on
fourth- and fifth-grade subjects and 55 stu- nearly all writing facets, with performance
dents with learning disabilities (Englert et differences between the groups ranging
al., 1991). The results revealed significant from 0.78 to 1.0 standard deviations on all
differences between the treatment condi- writing variables.
tions. CSIW students significantly surpassed
control students in their ability to write A second finding related to the complexi-
well-formed expository texts. On measures ty of the intervention for teachers to master,
of transfer to an untaught text structure, requiring a number of years for newcomers
students in the CSIW condition again signif- to fully understand. Analyses revealed that,
icantly surpassed control students, whereas in the hands of first-year teachers (first year
control students showed an actual decrease of implementing the intervention), the treat-
in their writing ability over time. Further- ment was less powerful than in the hands of
more, when comparisons were made of the second-year teachers (second year of imple-
performance of CSIW students with learn- menting the intervention) (Englert et al.,
ing disabilities relative to a nonparticipating 1996). This result was found for two con-
group of general education students, the secutive years of the project (Englert, 1995).
results revealed that preintervention differ- Interviews and classroom observations re-
ences disappeared over the course of stu- vealed that a key difference between the
dents’ participation in CSIW. After partici- first- and second-year intervention teachers
pation in CSIW, the writing and reading was their understanding of the principles as-
performance of students with learning dis- sociated with the sociocultural approach.
abilities (LD) was similar to that of a group Englert and Dunsmore (2002), in fact, fol-
of nonintervention grade-level peers. Final- lowed the teaching performance and writing
ly, analyses further showed that teachers dialogues of one of the more skilled project
who promoted the greatest gains and trans- teachers over the course of several years of
fer (1) modeled the writing strategies, (2) in- her project participation—from the start of
volved students in classroom dialogues, (3) her participation to its conclusion. They
promoted strategy flexibility, and (4) relin- found several changes in the teacher’s in-
quished control of strategies to students structional moves that were reflective of the
(Anderson, Raphael, Englert & Stevens, patterns found in the larger body of re-
1991). search. At the start of the teacher’s partici-
pation, for example, she undertook the
A second study was conducted as part of preponderance of the intellectual work as-
a later project known as the Early Literacy sociated with the actions and language of
Project, which expanded CSIW instruction writing, as she named the writing tools and
to include a total reading–writing literacy practices, and directed students in their use.
curriculum, and that involved teachers and However, the teacher was less skilled in pro-
researchers in a collaborative partnership in viding insight into the inner thoughts that
a community of practice (Englert & mediated the actions. As the teacher gained
Mariage, 1996; Englert, Raphael, & experience, she not only became more suc-
Mariage, 1998). The Early Literacy Project cessful in modeling her inner thoughts, but
incorporated a number of reading-related even more strikingly, she became more
activities, although a central core of the pro- skilled in stepping back from the leadership
ject remained the writing intervention de- position to share her authority with stu-
scribed in this section. We focus on the writ- dents. Through public questions about what
ing results because of the similar nature of to do, when to do it, and why it should be
this work to CSIW in both the type of the done, she artfully positioned her students to
intervention and the findings. think aloud to make their writing practices

One research finding was the power of

460 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

accessible to others, furthering the exchange roles (author, writer, reader, editor) influ-
of expertise among students and fostering a enced the type of executive, cognitive, writ-
type of “shop talk” or “laboratory talk” ing, and social skills that were exercised and
that brought her students to a deeper com- developed by collaborating students
mon understanding of their writing craft (Mariage, 2001); (4) conversations among
(see Roth, 1998). She had learned to trans- students offered teachers valuable opportu-
form her largely teacher-directed discourse nities to acquire new insights and data
to a more balanced instructional discourse about students’ developmental levels and
that incorporated teacher mediation and a emerging abilities that were not possible to
student-centered discourse that was further ascertain through an analysis of students’
bolstered by responsive and contingent in- written texts alone; and (5) teacher media-
struction. She became more skilled in re- tion remained an important aspect that fur-
sponding to students’ errors or partially thered students’ development, even while
correct understandings with a hierarchy of students worked in collaboration with each
prompts that were adjusted to support the other. The combined results supported the
development of knowledge at points just be- conclusion of Vaughn and colleagues (2000)
yond students’ current levels. Her ability to that peer collaboration helped students per-
provide a cognitive apprenticeship, there- severe in the face of difficult tasks, and that
fore, had markedly improved. Concurrently, the feedback from peers may have a salu-
analyses of the concomitant student moves tary effect on performance.
revealed large increases from the early to
later years in the extent to which her stu- Guided Inquiry in Science through
dents were able to appropriate and practice Multiple Literacies
the writing language, practices, and tools, as
well as increases in their participation and Sociocultural theory may be particularly ef-
leadership in initiating and regulating prob- ficacious for teaching science to students. In
lem-solving processes during text construc- developing guidelines to inform their Guid-
tion and revision. ed Instruction in Science through Multiple
Literacies (GIsML) program, Palincsar,
Finally, Englert and her colleagues (En- Magnusson, Collins, and Cutter (2001)
glert, Berry, & Dunsmore 2002; Englert & identify four instructional features that
Dunsmore, 2002; Mariage, 2000) examined draw directly from sociocultural theory, in-
the nature of students’ participation in part- cluding (1) emphases on students’ participa-
ner writing and small-group collaborative tion in a learning community in which there
activity. Their analysis of the talk between is distributed expertise and overlapping
writing partners showed several dimensions zones of proximal development; (2) accep-
of social collaboration that furthered the de- tance of the multiple ways in which students
velopment of higher-order mental functions, can represent what they know (i.e., docu-
as evidenced by four findings: (1) peer col- menting one’s learning with the use of writ-
laboration pushed the fuller participation ing, drawing, and other graphic representa-
and practice by students in the community’s tions); (3) participation in authentic cycles
writing discourse and practices, that is, indi- of investigation during which students expe-
viduals working in collaborative groups ex- rience learning as a recursive process in
ceeded the level of performance and partici- which one’s knowledge and reasoning are
pation obtained in either the refined over time; and (4) opportunity to
teacher-directed lesson or independent writ- engage in problem solving through situated
ing activities (see Englert & Dunsmore, scientific activity (e.g., manipulating the
2002); (2) peer collaboration provided an phenomena they are investigating).
acquisition space that was different than
that afforded students during teacher-direct- GIsML emphasizes the importance of cre-
ed lessons, motivating students to try out ating a community of practice at the level of
and regulate challenging writing practices in both professional development and among
ways and degrees that were not entirely pos- students in inclusive settings. These commu-
sible in either teacher-led or independent nities of practice use a recursive process for
learning arrangements (Englert & Dun- constructing meaning with one another, in-
smore, 2002); (3) a range of participation

The Sociocultural Model in Special Education 461

cluding (1) engaging with the big ideas of a used by a fictitious scientist (e.g., “Lesley
scientific content area (e.g., “How does light Park”) to make scientific practices accessi-
interact with matter?” and “Why do things ble, prompted the science teacher to think
sink or float?”); (2) investigating scientific aloud and model scientific reasoning, pro-
phenomena through the use of firsthand in- vided graphic representations of scientific
vestigations (e.g., experimentation, collabo- problems (e.g., providing pictures of a ball
ration, and authentic problem-solving), as rolling down various slopes and hitting a
well as through the use of secondhand ac- can), and provided first-person accounts of
counts of other scientists’ investigations a scientist’s thoughts and questions (e.g., “I
(e.g., reading texts, scientist notebooks, and also saw that a speedier ball from a higher
graphs); (3) explaining scientific phenomena ramp moved a can at the bottom of the
through multiple linguistic forms, including ramp further. So the ball had more energy to
writing, speaking, demonstrating; and (4) re- give the moving can”).
porting findings to others. The heuristic
serves an orienting function that can be To assess the impact of the innovative
thought of as a conceptual map that guides genre, a quasi-experimental study was con-
decision making regarding curriculum, in- ducted in which students read a scientific
struction, student understanding, and assess- text and performed a related experiment in
ment (Palincsar, Magnusson, Marano, Ford, their classroom. Seven fourth-grade GIsML
& Brown, 1998). classrooms in two districts (rural, urban)
participated in a within-subject, across-
One of the most innovative aspects of the group design where all students read both a
work involves the conscious manipulation traditional expository text and the innova-
and study of scientific texts to mediate tive science notebook text. The two text
learning in combination with firsthand sci- types were counterbalanced across class-
entific investigations. In schools, canonical rooms and scientific topics (reflection or re-
knowledge is primarily disseminated in fraction). The results of this study indicated
written texts, making the qualities of those that both versions of the scientific text sup-
texts a critical feature of science teaching. ported learning. However, the results indi-
Yet a number of limitations of traditional cated statistically significant gains in favor
texts in elementary science teaching were of the scientist notebook in three of four
identified by the GIsML teachers, including conditions studied. Students in the scientist
(1) concentration on facts, rather than on notebook condition engaged in more in-
generative understanding; (2) emphasis on structional conversations during their own
the products of science rather than the na- inquiry process, reflected on the text in
ture and process of science; (3) presentation terms of the inquiry reported in the scien-
of information in familiar, but not scientifi- tist’s notebook, and drew on textual infor-
cally conventional ways; and (4) linear pre- mation to inform their own firsthand inves-
sentation of text that tends to inhibit the tigations. Finally, when students used the
importance of cumulative reference, knowl- science notebook, they were better able to
edge building, and reflection on knowledge. carry on instructional dialogues relative to
their understanding of the scientific topic
In response to these challenges and based (e.g., light), whereas in the traditional text
on several quasi-experimental studies, the condition, students primarily engaged in
GIsML researchers developed alternative paraphrasing the text. The researchers con-
text formats that would help address defi- cluded that (1) conceptualizing instruction
ciencies in traditional texts (Palincsar & as guided inquiry teaching consisting of
Magnusson, 2000). They designed an inno- first- and secondhand experiences can help
vative text genre known as the “scientist students contextualize the language and
notebook” format to cultivate and model practices associated with scientific discourse
scientific “habits of thought” as well as to and inquiry; (2) text features and genres
bridge the gap between traditional texts and (i.e., those that constituted the notebook
scientific journals or notebooks. The hybrid genre) support both the participation of stu-
text, scientist notebook, allowed for multi- dents in first- and secondhand investiga-
ple ways of representing data (e.g., tables, tions, and support the acquisition of scien-
figures, and diagrams), modeled the forms tific reasoning; and (3) classroom contexts
of language and inscriptional conventions

462 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

must intentionally and carefully structure share with classmates either alone or with a
instruction to support effective inquiry- paraprofessional. In addition, teachers held
based teaching and meaningful learning by mini-conferences with individuals or small
positioning students in a scientific discourse groups to monitor their scientific under-
where the inner thoughts, language, and no- standing and to prepare them to participate
tations of scientists are made transparent in a scientific dialogue with peers. These
and accessible (Palincsar & Magnusson, conferences enabled teachers to scaffold in-
2000, pp. 10). Changing the nature of the dividual students’ performance by bridging
text altered the cognitive tools, dispositions, the gap between what was known and not
and understandings that were constructed known, by supporting oral expression and
in the classroom community of GIsML communication abilities, and by engaging
classrooms. students in reflecting on the scientific goals
of the investigation.
A second study was conducted to exam-
ine what instructional conditions would be A second set of teaching practices focused
necessary to support students with disabili- on enhancing teachers’ acceptance and de-
ties in GIsML classrooms (Palincsar et al., velopment of students’ scientific literacy by
2001). To examine the effectiveness of the emphasizing and supporting students’ use of
GIsML approach for students with learning the symbolic and multiple representational
disabilities and emotional disorders, a 2- forms used in science. One technique en-
year study was conducted. In Phase 1 (Year tailed the provision of a specialized vocabu-
1), the researchers conducted a careful ob- lary or the lexicon of scientists, including
servational study of the cognitive, linguistic, the use of a glossary of terms that was post-
and social demands of students with learn- ed in class. This glossary typically contained
ing disabilities and/or emotional disorders terms that were germane to the scientific in-
as they participated in each phase of the quiry process (e.g., evidence, claim, and
GIsML inquiry process, but teachers imple- conclusion) as well as terms unique to the
mented the GIsML instruction based on the topic of study (e.g., reflect, absorb, and
suggested framework. At the conclusion of transmit). In addition, teachers encouraged
Phase 1, the results indicated that normally students to represent their knowledge
achieving students showed statistically sig- through the use of multiple literacies, in-
nificant gains in three of the four GIsML cluding written texts, diagrams, graphic
classrooms. However, identified students representations, and so forth, as well as
with disabilities showed statistically signifi- partnered students with written expression
cant gains in only one of the four class- difficulties with others (peers, aids, teacher)
rooms. The participation of students with to support them in advance of independent
disabilities in a process of scientific inquiry writing performance.
did not automatically improve their scientif-
ic performance. A final set of teaching practices focused
on the social norms for effective collabora-
In Phase 2, a series of “advanced instruc- tion, ranging from the provision of proce-
tional features” were identified and imple- dures for equitable turn taking to a more
mented that were designed to support the formal set of practices that that allowed
performance of students with disabilities in teachers to monitor the groups’ interactions
GIsML. Three sets of teaching practices and provide feedback about the quality of
were incorporated into GIsML, including their collaborations.
(1) teaching processes for monitoring, facili-
tating, and scaffolding student thinking; (2) Results of the Phase 2 design experiment
development of print literacy and the accep- revealed shifts in the teachers’ effectiveness
tance of multiple representational forms; with students with disabilities. Students
and (3) processes for changing the social or- with disabilities showed statistically signifi-
ganization to support participation. To bet- cant gains in two of the four classrooms
ter monitor, facilitate, and scaffold student during the advanced teaching practices con-
thinking, for example, a number of strate- ditions, and a third classroom approached
gies were generated, including rehearsal and statistical significance. The same teachers
mini-conferences. During rehearsal, stu- who were not effective in advancing the sci-
dents practiced reporting what they would entific knowledge of students with disabili-
ties during the general GIsML instruction

The Sociocultural Model in Special Education 463

generated significantly improved outcomes In this sense, the community of practice
when they incorporated advanced practices provided multiple opportunities for students
that allowed them to assess students’ to both assimilate and apply their under-
knowledge in a dynamic way, furthering standings in iterative cycles of activity. Fi-
students’ access to and participation in the nally, community members participate in a
scientific tools related to reporting their sci- range of collaborative participation struc-
entific understanding, and ensuring their tures where there are expectations for social
participation in collaborative groups. participation

Though these data suggest the use of ad- Discussion
vanced teaching procedures with identified
students, the implementation of the proce- In the 21st century, core-curriculum stan-
dures did not have a negative impact on ei- dards have been reconceptualized and rede-
ther low- or normally achieving students, a fined to change “what counts” as conven-
particularly efficacious finding. Most im- tional knowledge. Simultaneously, we have
portant, this study indicated the importance litigated that students with learning disabili-
of understanding how individual teachers ties be held accountable to these new stan-
mediate students’ learning, particularly dards, even though the cognitive, linguistic,
those students with identified needs. When and social demands required to meet these
teachers began to consciously reflect on and standards have increased exponentially—
use advanced instructional features, they areas that have often been sources of diffi-
provide identified students with the instruc- culty for countless students identified as
tional conditions that help ensure social having learning disabilities. The challenges
participation and have a positive impact on are great, but the sociocultural model may
the learning of all students. be well suited to offer forms of teaching and
learning that satisfy these new content stan-
The GIsML research program represents dards by focusing on higher-order thinking
the application of sociocultural theory to in- and problem solving.
form teaching and learning in science. First,
detailed attention was given to the nature of Sociocultural theory has advanced our
situated activity and the conscious manipu- knowledge about teaching for understand-
lation of content, discourse, textual, and ing and conceptual change for students with
social resources for all members of the com- and without learning disabilities. This re-
munity as they have attempted to partici- view has outlined three programs of
pate in the real work of scientists in the research that have at their center the partici-
school setting. Second, an apprenticeship pation of students and teachers in commu-
approach toward instruction was employed nities of social practice that simulate the
that allowed students to experience com- communities of real authors and scientists.
plete cycles of scientific inquiry, including In all three research programs, domain-spe-
engaging with big ideas, experimenting, ex- cific skills, strategies, discourses, and prac-
plaining, and reporting their findings tices were made available to students in iter-
through iterative phases of development. ative cycles of activity that gradually ceded
Third, the program provided community increasing control for meaning making and
members with access to the tools and medi- performance to students through appren-
ational means used to understand the in- ticeships and collaborations with teachers
quiry process, making visible the unique so- and peers in the community. Furthermore,
cial practices engaged in by scientists and in all three programs, teacher modeling and
their texts, as well as involved students in thinking aloud provided access to the
firsthand investigations that directly in- knowledge, dispositions, and metacognition
volved them in a community of practice in required for competent performance in the
the use of particular ways of thinking, act- subject matter discipline. Finally, the provi-
ing, and knowing. Fourth, the program pro- sion of tools for creating and comprehend-
vided access to students’ thinking through ing texts as well as other disciplinary arti-
the frequent publication of ideas in multiple facts were critical mediators of cognitive
semiotic systems (e.g., speaking, small- and social performance. These key compo-
group collaboration, science notebooks,
drawings, and graphical displays of data).

464 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

nents of effective instruction have been not- for some time, there has been little direct
ed in other researchers’ syntheses of the re- application of this paradigm in instructional
search literature in special education research in special education settings. Given
(Vaughn et al., 2000). There is agreement this limited number of studies, there is little
that these teaching practices have impor- information about the effect sizes, transfer,
tance for teaching students with disabilities. or generalization of cognitive processes to
new settings or academic disciplines. How-
We believe this theory also extends the ever, the rich potential of the sociocultural
ways that we have traditionally thought model in explaining teaching and learning
about “adapting and modifying” curricu- could provide researchers with new concep-
lum and instruction. The use of mnemonic tual and methodological lenses to develop
devices, text structure frameworks, and cog- and interpret the interactions and effects of
nitive strategies are often employed to com- members’ participation within classrooms.
pensate for a variety of visual or auditory
processing deficits, organizational chal- References
lenges, short- or long-term memory difficul-
ties, or a variety of written or oral expres- Anderson, L. M., Raphael, T. E., Englert, C. S., &
sion problems that students with learning Stevens, D. D. (1991, April). Teaching writing
disabilities often bring to the classroom. with a new instructional model: Variations in
These instructional methods are vitally im- teachers’ practices and student performance. Pa-
portant in helping students with learning per presented at the annual meeting of the Amer-
disabilities participate more effectively in ican Educational Research Association, Chicago.
school settings. In addition, the programs
reviewed in this chapter add to these teach- Artiles, A., Trent, S. C., Hoffman-Kipp, P., &
ing toolkits the notion of assisted develop- Lopez-Torres, L. (2000). From individual acquisi-
ment from a broad perspective, including tion to cultural-historical practices in multicul-
the “big ideas” that organize a field of tural teacher education. Remedial and Special
study, apprenticeship into the social prac- Education, 21(2), 79–89, 120.
tices of a discipline, making visible the lan-
guage in use of the cognitive tools and Biemiller, A., & Meichenbaum, D. (1998). The con-
artifacts used to construct meaning in par- sequences of negative scaffolding for students
ticular communities of practice, and the use who learn slowly—A commentary on C. Addison
of heuristics that delimit and make under- Stone’s “The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility
standable complex and multistage processes for the field of learning disabilities.” Journal of
in recursive cycles of activity to members of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 365–369.
the community. The notion of assisting de-
velopment in complex fields of study such Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, co-
as reading, writing, and scientific inquiry operative learning and individual knowledge ac-
are likely to be more effective when we ex- quisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning,
pand our definitions of assisting develop- and instruction (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
ment to include the unique needs of the cog- baum.
nitive, linguistic, and social demands of
learning at every phase of instruction. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cog-
nitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible.
In considering the limitations of this body American Educator, pp. 6–11.
of work for general teaching applications,
we recognize that the model is most effec- Confrey, J. (1993). Learning to see children’s math-
tive in teaching higher-order thinking and ematics: Crucial challenges in constructivist re-
cognitive processes. Basic direct instruction form. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of construc-
and rehearsal techniques may be more effec- tivism in science education (pp. 299–324).
tive in promoting skill acquisition and mas- Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
tery. However, skills must be recontextual-
ized in situated contexts of use for transfer Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1993). The power of lit-
and generalization to occur. We also recog- eracy and the literacy of power. In B. Cope & M.
nize that this research is emergent in its de- Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre
velopmental history in the field of special approach to teaching writing (pp. 63–89). Pitts-
education. Although the model has existed burgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

De La Paz, S. (1999). Self-regulated strategy in-
struction in regular education settings: Improving
outcomes for students with and without learning
disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 14(2), 92–106.

Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R.
(Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Englert, C. S. (1992). Writing instruction from a so-

The Sociocultural Model in Special Education 465

ciocultural perspective: The holistic, dialogic, and practice of special education for the 21st century.
social enterprise of writing. Journal of Learning Remedial and Special Education, 20(6),
Disabilities, 25(3), 153–172. 333–340.
Englert, C. S., Berry, R. A., & Dunsmore, K. L. Goatley, V., Brock, C., & Raphael, T. E. (1995). Di-
(2001). A case study of the apprenticeship verse learners participating in regular education
process: Another perspective on the apprentice “Book Clubs.” Reading Research Quarterly,
and the scaffolding metaphor. Journal of Learn- 30(3), 352–380.
ing Disabilities, 34(2), 152–171. Goldman, S. R., Hasselbring, T. S., & Cognition
Englert, C. S., & Dunsmore, K. (2002). Social con- and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996).
structivist teaching: Affordances and constraints. Achieving meaningful mathematics literacy for
In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on students with learning disabilities. Journal of
teaching (Vol. 9). Amsterdam: JAI Press. Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 198–208.
Englert, C. S., Garmon, A., & Mariage, T. V. (1995, Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989a). Components
April). A multi-year literacy intervention: Explor- analysis of cognitives strategy instruction: Effects
ing issues that impact special education students. on learning disabled students’ compositions and
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology,
American Educational Research Association, San 81(353–361).
Francisco. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989b). Improving
Englert, C. S., Garmon, A., Mariage, T. V., Rozen- learning disabled students’ skills at composing es-
dal, M. S., Tarrant, K., & Urba, J. (1996). The says: Self-instructional strategy training. Excep-
Early Literacy Project: Connecting across the lit- tional Children, 56(201–214).
eracy curriculum. Remedial and Special Educa- Gutierrez, K. D., & Stone, L. D. (1997). A cultural-
tion, 19(3), 142–159, 180. historical view of learning and learning disabili-
Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1996). A sociocul- ties: Participating in a community of learners.
tural perspective: Teaching ways-of-thinking and Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
ways-of-talking in a literacy community. Learn- 12(2), 123–131.
ing Disaiblities Research and Practice, 11(3), Hock, M. F., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D.
157–167. (1999). Closing the gap to success in secondary
Englert, C. S., & Raphael, T. E. (1989). Developing schools: A model for cognitive apprenticeship. In
successful writers through cognitive strategy in- D. D. Deshler, J. Schumaker, K. R. Harris, & S.
struction. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in re- Graham (Eds.), Teaching every adolescent every
search on teaching (Vol. 1, pp. 105–151). Green- day: Learning in diverse middle and high school
wich, CT: JAI Press. classrooms (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: Brook-
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., An- line.
thony, H. M., Stevens, D. D., & Fear, K. L. Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (1997). Scaffold-
(1991). Making writing strategies and self-talk ing student learning: Instructional approaches &
visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in writing issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
in regular and special education classrooms. Jakubowski, E. (1993). Constructing potential
American Educational Research Journal, 28, learning opportunities in middle grades mathe-
337–372. matics. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of con-
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., structivism in science education (pp. 135–144).
Gregg, S. L., & Anthony, H. M. (1989). Exposi- Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
tion: Reading, writing and the metacognitive Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S.
knowledge of learning disabled students. Learn- (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during
ing Disabilities Research, 5(1), 5–24. social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade
Englert, C. S., Rapheal, T. E., Fear, K. L., & An- classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99(1),
derson, L. M. (1988). Students’ metacognitive 3–22.
knowledge about how to write informational Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the
texts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 18–46. practice of understanding. In D. Kirschner & J.
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., & Mariage, T. V. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social,
(1998). A multi-year literacy intervention: Trans- semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp.
formation and teacher change in the community 17–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
of the early literacy project. Teacher Education MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S. (1993).
and Special Education, 21(4), 255–277. Knowledge of revision and revising behavior
Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. D., & Okolo, C. M. among learning disabled students. Learning Dis-
(2001). Teaching for historical understanding in ability Quarterly, 14, 61–73.
inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quar- Mariage, T. V. (2001). Features of an interactive
terly, 24, 59–71. writing discourse: Conversational involvement,
Gee, J. P. (1997). Thinking, learning, and reading: conventional knowledge, and internalization in
The situated sociocultural mind. In D. Kirschner “Morning Message.” Journal of Learning Dis-
& J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: So- abilities, 34(2), 172–196.
cial, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. Mariage, T. V., Englert, C. S., & Garmon, M. A.
235–259). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (2000). The teacher as “more knowledgeable
Gindis, B. (1999). Vygotsky’s vision reshaping the other” in assisting literacy learning with special

466 FORMATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MODELS

needs students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, Sylvia Scribner (pp. 160–189). New York: Cam-
16, 299–336. bridge University Press.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best Shotter, J. (1995). In dialogue: Social construction-
practices in promoting reading comprehension ism and radical constructivism. In L. P. Steffe &
in students with learning disabilities: 1976– J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp.
1996. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 41–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
197–213. Spivey, N. (1997). Constructivist metaphor: Read-
Morocco, C. C., Hindin, A., Mata-Aguilar, C., & ing, writing, and the making of meaning. San
Clark-Chiarelli, N. (2001). Building a deep un- Diego, CA: Academic Press.
derstanding of literature with middle-grade stu- Stone, C. A. (1993). What’s missing in the
dents with learning disaiblities. Learning Disabil- metaphor of scaffolding? In E. A. Forman, N.
ity Quarterly, 24(1), 47–58. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learn-
Nardi, B. A. (1996). Activity theory and human– ing: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s develop-
computer interaction. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Con- ment (pp. 169–183). New York: Oxford Univer-
text and consciousness: Activity theory and hu- sity Press.
man-computer interaction (pp. 7–16). Cam- Stone, C. A. (2002). Promises and pitfalls of scaf-
bridge, MA: MIT Press. folded instruction for students with language
Okolo, C. M., & Ferretti, R. P. (1997). Knowledge learning disabilities. In K. G. Butler & E. R. Sill-
acquisition and multimedia design in the social man (Eds.), Speaking, reading, and writing in
studies for children with learning disabilities. children with language learning disabilities: New
Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(2), paradigms for research and practice (pp.
91–103. 175–198). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in pro- Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading research for stu-
viding scaffolded instruction. Educational Psy- dents with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention
chologist, 21(1&2), 73–98. outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32,
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Classroom 504–532.
dialogues to promote self-regulated comprehen- Tobin, K. (1998). Sociocultural perspectives on the
sion. In J. E. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research teaching and learning of science. In M.
in teaching (Vol. 1, pp. 35–71). Greenwich, CT: Larochelle, N. Bednarz, & J. Garrison (Eds.),
JAI Press. Constructivism and education (pp. 195–212).
Palincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2000, March). New York: Cambridge University Press.
The interplay of firsthand and text-based investi- Toulmin, S. (1999). Knowledge as shared proce-
gations in science education (CIERA Report No. dures. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Puna-
2-007). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improve- maki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp.
ment of Early Reading Achievement. 53–64). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., & Troia, G.A., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1999).
Cutter, J. (2001). Making science accessible to Teaching students with learning disabilities to
all: Results of a design experiment in inclusive mindfully plan when writing. Exceptional Chil-
classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, dren, 65(2), 235–252.
15–32. Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (2000). The
Pressley, M. B., R., El-Dinary, P. B., & Afflerback, P. underlying message in LD intervention research:
(1995). The comprehension instruction that stu- Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional
dents need: Instruction fostering constructively Children, 67, 99–114.
responsive reading. Learning Disabilities Re- Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J. K. (1999). Teaching
search and Practice, 10, 215–224. reading comprehension through collaborative
Roth, W. M. (1993). Construction sites: Science strategic reading. Intervention in School and
labs and classrooms. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The prac- Clinic, 34(5), 284–292.
tice of constructivism in science education (pp. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The devel-
145–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. opment of higher psychological processes. Cam-
Roth, W. M. (1998). Designing communities. bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Boston: Kluwer Academic. Vygotsky, L. S. (1993). The collected works of L. S.
Rueda, R., Gallego, M. A., & Moll, L. C. (2000). Vygotsky. Vol. 2: The fundamentals of defectol-
The least restrictive environment: A place or a ogy (R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton, Eds.; J. E.
context? Remedial and Special Education, 21(2), Knox & C. B. Stevens, Trans.). New York:
70–78. Plenum Press.
Schaffer, H. R. (1992). Joint involvement episodes Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a socio-
as context for development. In H. McGurk (Ed.), cultural practice and theory of education. New
Childhood social development: Contemporary York: Cambridge University Press.
perspectives (pp. 99–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl- Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education:
baum. Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. L. P.
Scribner, S. (1997). The cognitive consequences of Smagorinsky (Ed.), Vygotskian perspectives on
literacy. In E. Tobach, R. J. Falmagne, M. B. Par- literacy research: Constructing meaning through
lee, L. M. W. Martin, & A. S. Kapelman (Eds.), collaborative inquiry (pp. 51–85). New York:
Mind and social practice: Selected writings of Cambridge University Press.

The Sociocultural Model in Special Education 467

Wenger, E. (Ed.). (1998). Communities of practice: learning disaiblities and low achievers to plan,
Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cam- write and revise compare-and-contrast essays.
bridge University Press. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
12(1), 2–15.
Wertsch, J. V. (1995). The need for action in socio- Wong, B. Y. L. (2000). Writing strategies instruction
cultural research. In J. V. Wertsch, P. D. Rio, & for expository essays for adolescents with and
A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of the without learning disaiblities. Topics in Language
mind (pp. 56–74). New York: Cambridge Univer- Disorders, 20(4), 29–44.
sity Press. Wong, B. Y. L., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing meta-
comprehension in learning disabled and normally
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: achieving students through self-questioning train-
Oxford University Press. ing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228–240.
Wong, B. Y. L., & Wilson, M. (1984). Investigating
Wertsch, J. V., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and awareness of and teaching passage organization
learning in the classroom: A sociological ap- in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning
proach. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Construc- Disabilities, 17(8), 447–482.
tivism in education (pp. 159–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Woodward, J., & Baxter, J. (1997). The effects of
Erlbaum. an innovative approach to mathematics on acad-
emically low-achieving students in mainstreamed
Wong, B. Y. L. (1997a). Research on genre-specific settings. Exceptional Children, 63, 373–388.
strategies for enhancing writing in adolescents
with learning disaiblities. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 20(2), 140–159.

Wong, B. Y. L. (1997b). Teaching adolescents with

This page intentionally left blank

V

METHODOLOGY