The Comparative Effectiveness of Four Methods of Instruction on the Achievement of Children with Specific Learning Disabilities1

Serwer, Blanche L.; Shapiro, Bernard J.; Shapiro, Phyllis P.

doi:10.1177/002246697300700302

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies have not found such achievement gains (Kuder, 1990;Ogletree, 1977;Serwer, Shapiro, & Shapiro, 1973), and still others have found more isolated benefits on specific reading subscales (Kuder, 1990). We have found no research, however, examining the reading motivational effectiveness of this program.…”

Section: Distarcontrasting

confidence: 55%

Do supplemental remedial reading programs address the motivational issues of struggling readers? An analysis of five popular programs

Quirk¹,

Schwanenflugel²

2004

Reading Research and Instruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five popular, but distinctly different, remedial reading programs were reviewed regarding the potential to motivate children to read. It is argued that current remedial reading program designs and research on program effectiveness ignore the impact that motivation has on struggling readers. In addition, we develop a theory of reading motivation specific to struggling readers that highlights motivational constructs we feel are important to the improvement of reading skill for this population of students. The three aspects of reading motivation most relevant to the instruction of remedial readers include: (a) improving reading self-efficacy; (b) making internal and controllable outcome attributions for successes and failures associated with reading; and (c) establishing personally relevant value in becoming a better reader. We conclude that, while most programs address some motivational issues and other issues not at all, most programs could make minor modifications that would greatly enhance their motivational impact.

show abstract

Section: Distarcontrasting

confidence: 55%

Do supplemental remedial reading programs address the motivational issues of struggling readers? An analysis of five popular programs

Quirk¹,

Schwanenflugel²

2004

Reading Research and Instruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Students in the present study had severe and persistent reading disabilities. Students in previous studies were either not classified as learning disabled (Serwer et al, 1973) or were not clearly reading disabled (L'E. Stein & Goldman, 1980).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, in a study comparing the DISTAR reading program with three other approaches (perceptual-motor instruction, a combined approach, and no special instruction), Serwer, Shapiro, and Shapiro (1973) found that the DISTAR program was no more effective than any of the other methods in improving the reading scores of young children at risk for learning disabilities (LD). Conversely, a study by L'E.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of the DISTAR Reading Program for Children with Learning Disabilities

Kuder

1990

J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This evaluation study indicates that despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, experimental designs with random assignment of subjects to treatment conditions can be conducted in real public school settings without causing irreparable damage to students or teachers. (Other examples of special education evaluations with random assignment designs are Serwer &Shapiro, 1973, andMaggs &Morath, 1976). Further, an evaluation like this offers valuable information on ways the program can be enhanced.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Case for Impact Evaluations in Special Education

Gersten

Hauser²

1984

Remedial and Special Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, formative evaluation strategies are used in special education programs to the near exclusion of impact or outcome evaluations. Fast practices, misconceptions concerning group impact evaluation designs, and philosophical orientations have all contributed to this trend. Impact evaluations of special education programs, however, can be designed and conducted so that they produce information useful for program improvement-regardless of whether the intervention is massive or results are statistically significant. Illustrative case studies of recent impact evaluations support this position. Assessment of program implementation and measurement of outcome, two critical areas that can greatly improve the usefulness of evaluation results, are emphasized in the concluding discussion.T VO DECADES AGO THE following passage appeared in a newly published book on research on teaching:Claims made for the rate and degree of progress which would result from experiment were grandiosely overoptimistic and were accompanied by unjustified depreciation of non-experimental wisdom. The initial advocates assumed that progress in the technology of teaching had been slow just because scientific method had not been employed . . . When, in fact, experiments often proved to be tedious, equivocal, of undependable replicability and to confirm pre-scientific wisdom, the overoptimistic grounds upon which experimentation had been justified were undercut and a disillusioned rejection or neglect took place. (Campbell & Stanley, 1963, pp. 2-3) This encapsulated history of 50 years of educational research served as Campbell and Stanley's point of departure in their classic text, which revolutionized the field of applied educational research. Ironically, though not unpredictably, experimental (and quasi-experimental) designs for evaluation in special education have become the subject of growing disillusionment. Few would deny that findings from impact evaluations in special education have often been equivocal, failing to support the theories (and hopes) of the researchers.Recent evaluations of mainstreaming are a case in point (e.g., Hersh & Walker, in press). Due at least in part to this state of affairs, we have witnessed a growing reluctance to engage in impact evaluations. Instead, formative evaluation procedures-often involving little more than an examination of whether legal and administrative guidelines are met (see Kennedy, 1980)-have captured the attention of thf*majority of special education administrators and evaluators. Only rarely have researchers aimed recent evaluations at determining how much students learn, or whether maximal learning can be linked to a particular educational approach. When such evaluations have been carried out, most have been of the single subject variety. But even in these instances, Richard Jones' (1979) appeal has been largely ignored. Jones advocated using single subject designs for formative evaluation of 16 RASE 5(2), 16-24 (1984) 0741-9325/84/0052-0016$2.00©PRO-ED Inc.

show abstract

The Comparative Effectiveness of Four Methods of Instruction on the Achievement of Children with Specific Learning Disabilities1

Cited by 13 publications

References 5 publications

Do supplemental remedial reading programs address the motivational issues of struggling readers? An analysis of five popular programs

Do supplemental remedial reading programs address the motivational issues of struggling readers? An analysis of five popular programs

Effectiveness of the DISTAR Reading Program for Children with Learning Disabilities

The Case for Impact Evaluations in Special Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About