Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T07:10:50.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Regular and Resource Teacher Instructional Plans for Academically Handicapped Children: An Assessment of the Efficacy of Withdrawal Model Remedial Teaching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Barry A. Fields
Barry A. Fields*
Affiliation:
University College of Southern Queensland
*
Dr B. Fields, School of Education, UCSQ, PO Darling Heights, TOOWOOMBA QLD 4350
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Pull-out or withdrawal remedial instruction is the dominant service delivery model for regular class children with learning problems. The efficacy of this model has been in question for a number of years with claims that remedial instruction as delivered in such settings is neither special nor exemplary. The findings of the study reported here suggest these claims may be accurate, and they raise questions about both the training and deployment of resource/ remedial teachers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , 1991 , pp. 10 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allington, R.L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). School response to reading failure: Instruction for Chapter 1 and special education students in grades two, four, and eight. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 529–542.Google Scholar
Allington, R.L., Stuetzel, H., Shake, M., & Lamarche, S. (1986). What is remedial reading? A descriptive study. Reading Research and Instruction, 24, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammer, J.J. (1984). The mechanics of mainstreaming: Considering the regular educator’s perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 15–20.Google Scholar
Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J.J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 17–22.Google Scholar
Conroy, M. (1988). How teachers rate pullout reading programs. Learning, 16, 70–74.Google Scholar
Coulson, J.E., Hanes, S.C., Ozenne, D.G., Bradford, C. Doherty, W. J., Duck, G.A., & Hemenway, J.A. (1977). The third year of emergency school aid act(ESAA) implementation. Santa Monica, CA: System Development Corporation.Google Scholar
Epps, S., & Tindall, G. (1987). The effectiveness of differential programs in serving students with mild handicaps: Placement options and instructional programming. In Wong, M.C., Reynolds, M.C., & Walberg, H.J. (Eds.). Handbook of special education: Research and practice, volume 1: Learner characteristics and adaptive education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Gelzheiser, L.M., & Meyers, J. (1991). Reading instruction by classroom, remedial, and resource room teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 512–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, G.V., & Smith, M.L. (1977). Pull-out in compensatory education. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.Google Scholar
Golby, M., & Gulliver, J. (1979). Whose remedies, whose ills? A critical view of remedial education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 11, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J., & Gow, L. (1986). A study of attitudes of regular teachers to the role of the special education resource teacher. NSW Journal of Special Education, 6, 17–26 Google Scholar
Haynes, M.C., & Jenkins, J.R. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 161–190.Google Scholar
Idol-Maestas, L. (1983). Special educator’s consultation handbook. Rockville, MD: Aspen.Google Scholar
Jenkinson, J. (1989). Integration in Australia: A research perspective. Australian Journal of Education, 33, 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, P., Allington, R.L., & Afflerbach, P. (1985). The congruence of classroom and remedial reading instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 465–478.Google Scholar
Kaestle, C.F., & Smith, M.S. (1982). The historical context of the federal role in education. Harvard Educational Review, 52, 383–408.Google Scholar
Leinhardt, G., Bickel, W., & Pallay, A. (1982). Unlabelled but still entitled: Toward more effective remediation. Teachers College Record, 54, 391–422.Google Scholar
McKinney, J.D., & Feagans, L. (1984). Academic and behavioural characteristics of learning disabled children and average achievers: Longitudinal studies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 251–265.Google Scholar
Palloway, E.A. (1984). The integration of mildly retarded students in the school: A historical review. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 18–28.Google Scholar
Polsgrove, L., & McNeil, M. (1989). The consultation process: Research and practice. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargent, L.R. (1981). Resource teacher time utilization: An observation study. Exceptional Children, 47, 420–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1989). Effective classroom programs for students at risk. In Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L., & Madden, N.A. (Eds.), Effective programs for students at risk. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Smith, J., & Richmond, R.C. (1988). Support for special needs: Changing rules in an advisory service. Educational Review, 4, 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102–111.Google Scholar
Swanson, H. (1984). Does theory guide teaching practice. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 7–15.Google Scholar
West, J.F., & Idol, L. (1987). School consultation (Part 1): An interdisciplinary perspective on theory, models, and research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 388–408.Google Scholar
Wiederholt, J.L., & Chamberlain, S.P. (1989). A critical analysis of resource programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 15–37.Google Scholar
Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., Mecklenburg, G., & Graden, J. (1984). Opportunity to learn for regular and special education students during reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 29–37.Google Scholar