Inclass or Pullout: Effects of Setting on the Remedial Reading Program

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe the remedial reading instruction received by students assigned to inclass or pullout programs with respect to the instructional behaviors of teachers, the nature of lessons, and the reading behaviors of students. The study was conducted in an urban school system in which the pullout and inclass programs existed concurrently. One hundred nineteen students (Grades 4 and 5) were observed over a 4-month period. In both settings, students received a great deal of skill-related instruction; not much time was spent in prereading activities and students spent most of their time with worksheets. Over 60% of classroom time in both settings was spent in listening, transcribing, and silent reading. Pullout students experienced more direct teaching activities in a group situation while inclass students experienced more time in a one-on-one tutoring mode. Overall, there were differences between settings in what students experienced in remedial reading.

Toward an Understanding of Unusually Successful Programs for Economically Disadvantaged Students

“…Examples include Bean, Cooley, Eichelberger, Lazar, and Zigmond (1991) ;Brendtro, Brokenleg, and Van Bockern (1990);Carter (1984); Claus and Quimper (1990); Clifford (1990); King and Chariello (1989); Knapp, Turnball, and Shields (1990); Means and Knapp (1991); Stringfield (1991);and Stringfield, Billig, and Davis (1991). Typical of this support is a review of 11 effective, although programmatically divergent, Chapter 1 programs in Oregon (Benum, 1990).…”

First Do No Harm: A Title I Natural Quasi-Experiment

“…Likewise, Shoho et al (1997) note a lack of cooperation between special education and general education teachers. The general consensus was differing teaching techniques among various teachers, special education teachers, and supplementary reading specialists existed (Bean et al, 1991;Allington, 1983;Miles et al, 2004) and these differences result in "inconsistent instruction" (Miles et al 2004, p. 321) and "poor reader call-outs" (Allington, 1983, p. 553) which could "...inhibit the development of student self-monitoring capabilities" (Allington, 1983, p. 553). To overcome this barrier, Winer and Ray (1994) suggest using a "collaborative consultation" approach first made popular by Bauwens, Hourcade and Friend (1989) that coordinates special educators and general educators and encourages them to teach in an inclusive setting.…”

“…The popularity of pull-out programs has waned for two considerable reasons despite the findings of Jenkins and Heinen (1989) claiming some students with learning disabilities preferred pull-out programs. First, it is argued pull-out programs cause fragmentation of the school day (Jenkins and Heinen, 1989;Bean et al, 1991;Allington, 1983;Rea et al, 2002) resulting in time off-task and arguably having a negative effect on test scores. Second, pull-out programs isolate students from peers, primary curriculum, and other classroom activities (Rea et al, 2002;Miles et al, 2004).…”