Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T22:21:38.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond Effective Practices to Schools as Host Environments: Building and Sustaining a School‐wide Intervention Model in Beginning Reading for All Children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Edward J. Kame’enui  and
Deborah C. Simmons
Edward J. Kame’enui*
Affiliation:
College of Education, University of Oregon, U.S.A.
Deborah C. Simmons
Affiliation:
College of Education, University of Oregon, U.S.A.
*
Address for: Edward Kame’enui, College of Education, Eugene, OR, 97403, U.S.A. E-mail: edward_kameenui@ccmail.uoregon.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our knowledge of effective practices for improving the academic achievement of students in the primary and elementary years has increased dramatically in the last decade (Simmons & Kameenui, in press; Stringfield, in press). However, implementing an effective practice in one classroom or in a research context is very different from implementing and sustaining effective practice at the school‐building level. There is a great deal of collective wailing in the field these days about the feeble attempts to translate research into effective practice (Malouf & Schiller, 1995) that improves reading achievement in students who are at serious academic risk.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 23 , Issue 2-3 , 1999 , pp. 101 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1999

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

Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Armbruster, B., & Ostertag, J. (1993). Questions in elementary science and social science and social studies textbooks. In Britton, B. K., Woodward, A., & Binkley, M. (Eds.), Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice (pp. 69–94). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children, 56, 515–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, S., Kameenui, E., & Simmons, D. (1998). Characteristics of students with diverse learning and curricular needs. In Kameenui, E. J. & Carnine, D. W. (Eds.), Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (pp. 19–44). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Carnine, D. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 130–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carnine, D. (1994). Introduction to the mini-series: Educational tools for diverse learners. School Psychology Review, 23, 341–350.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723–733.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher, 18, 26–31.Google Scholar
Chard, D., Kameenui, E., & Coladarci, T. (1993). Instructional efficacy: Toward a specification of the teacher efficacy construct. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Chard, D., Simmons, D., & Kameenui, E. (in press). Word recognition: Research bases. In Simmons, D. C. & Kameenui, E. J. (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Comer, J. (1988). Educating poor minority children. Scientific American, 259, 42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deno, S. (1992). The nature and development of curriculum-based measurement. Preventing School Failure, 36(2), 5–10.Google Scholar
Dill, D., & Associates (1990). What teachers need to know: The knowledge, skills, and values essential to good teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Fashola, O., & Slavin, R. (in press). Effective and replicable programs for students placed at risk in elementary and middle schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk.Google Scholar
Felton, R., & Pepper, P. (1995). Early identification and intervention of phonological deficits in kindergarten and early elementary children at risk for reading disability. School Psychology Review, 24, 405–414.Google Scholar
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Classwide curriculum-based measurement: Helping general educators meet the challenge of student diversity. Exceptional Children, 60, 518–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, R. III, Simmons, D., & Smith, S. (1998). Effective academic interventions in the United States: Evaluating and enhancing the acquisition of early reading skills. School Psychology Review, 27(1), 740–753.Google Scholar
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, 41–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedges, L., & Waddington, T. (1993). From evidence to knowledge to policy: Research synthesis for policy formation. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 345–352.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, H. (1991). Reform versus reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(1), 8–16.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, H. (1992). A demographic look at tomorrow. Institute for Educational Leadership Center for Demographic Policy.Google Scholar
Hoffman, J., McCarthey, S., Abbot, C., Corman, L., Dressman, M., Elliott, B., Matherne, D., & Stahle, D. (1994). So what’s new in the new basis? A focus on first grade. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 47–73.Google Scholar
Hoy, W., & Woolfolk, A. (1990). School health and teacher efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.Google Scholar
Jitendra, A., & Kameenui, E. (1988). A design-of-instruction analysis of concept teaching in five basal language programs: Violations from the bottom up. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 199–219.Google Scholar
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kameenui, E. (1993). Diverse learners and the tyranny of time: Don’t fix blame; fix the leaky roof. The Reading Teacher, 46, 376–383.Google Scholar
Kameenui, E. (1996). Shakespeare and beginning reading: “The readiness is all.” Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(2), 77–81.Google Scholar
Kameenui, E. (in press). The rhetoric of all, the reality of some, and the unmistakable smell of mortality. In Lehr, & Osborn, (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Kameenui, E., & Carnine, D. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Columbus, OH: Merrill, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kameenui, E., & Griffin, C. (1989). The national crisis in verbal problem solving in mathematics; A proposal for examining the role of basal mathematics programs. Elementary School Journal, 23, 141–144.Google Scholar
Kaminski, R., & Good, R. III (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25(2), 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaminski, R., & Good, R. III, (1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem-solving model: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. In Shinn, M. (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Liberman, I. (1973). Segmentation of the spoken word and reading acquisition. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 23, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, I., & Liberman, A.M. (1990). Whole language vs. code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their implications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 40, 51–76.Google Scholar
Lyon, G., & Chhabra, V. (1996). The current state of science and the future of specific reading disability. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 2, 2–9.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malouf, D., & Schiller, E. (1995). Practice and research in special education. Exceptional Children, 61, 414–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, V., & Brady, S. (1988). Reading disability: The role of language deficiencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 811–816.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markell, M., & Deno, S. (1997). Effects of increasing oral reading: Generalization across reading tasks. The Journal of Special Education 31(2), 233–250.Google Scholar
Mayer, R., Sims, V., & Tajika, H. (1995). A comparison of how textbooks text mathematical problem solving in Japan and the United States. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 443–460.Google Scholar
McLeskey, J., & Pacchiano, D. (1994). Mainstreaming students with learning disabilities: Are we making progress? Exceptional Children, 60, 508–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosenthal, P. (1982). Designing training programs for learning disabled children: An ideological perspective. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 97–107.Google Scholar
Mosenthal, P. (1984). The problem of partial specification in translating reading research into practice. The Elementary School Journal, 85(2), 199–227.Google Scholar
Nagy, W., & Herman, P. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In McKeown, M. G. & Curtis, M. E. (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C., & Zhang, S. (1996). What it means to learn to read. In Graves, M. F., van den Broek, P., & Taylor, B. M. (Eds.), The first R: Every child’s right to read (pp. 37–61). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Porter, A. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9–15.Google Scholar
Schumm, J., Vaughn, S., Gordon, J., & Rothlein, L. (1994). General education teachers’ beliefs, skills, and practices in planning for mainstreamed students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(1), 22–37.Google Scholar
Shinn, M. (1997). Instructional decision making using curriculum-based measurement. Unpublished workshop materials.Google Scholar
Simmons, D., & Kameenui, E. (in press). What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, D., & Kameenui, E., & Chard, D. (1998). General education teachers’ assumptions about learning and students with learning disabilities: Design-of-instruction analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 1–16.Google Scholar
Simmons, D., & Kameenui, E. (1996). A focus on curriculum design: When children fail. In Meyen, E., Vergason, G., & Whelan, R. (Eds.), Strategies for teaching children in inclusive settings. Denver: Love Publishing. [Reprinted from Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(7), 1–16, by Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J., 1996].Google Scholar
Slavin, R. (1998). Untitled draft. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Slavin, R., Madden, N. Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. (1996). Every child, every school: Success for All. Newbery Park, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
Smith, S., Simmons, D., & Kameenui, E. (in press). Phonological awareness: Research bases. In Simmons, D. C. & Kameenui, E. J. (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Smylie, M. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1–30.Google Scholar
Spector, J. (1995). Phonemic awareness training: Application of principles of direct instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11, 37–51.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406.Google Scholar
Stringfield, S. (in press). Underlying the chaos: Factors explaining exemplary U.S. elementary schools and the case for high reliability organizations. In Townsend, T. (Ed.), Restructuring and quality: Problems and possibilities for tomorrow’s schools. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (in press). Discipline and behavioral support: Preferred processes and practices. Effective School Practices.Google Scholar
Swanson, H., & Cooney, J. (1991). Learning disabilities and memory. In Wong, B. Y. L. (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (pp. 104–127). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Torgesen, J. (1985). Memory processes in reading disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities 18(6), 350–357.Google Scholar
Torgesen, J., Wagner, & Rashotte, C. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276–286.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Education (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Public Law 103-227). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Zigmond, N. Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J., Jenkins, L., & Couthino, M. (1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 531–540.Google Scholar