Skip to main content
Logo for Printed Page The National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities

NICHCY: National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilitites

NICHCY
More Nichcy Pages 
Sort by: « Prev | 1 | 2 | Next »

A Meta-Analysis of Co-Teaching Research: Where Are the Data?

Students with special needs are increasingly being served in the general education classroom. Co-teaching is one service delivery option designed to meet those needs. The purpose of this article is to synthesize data-based articles pertaining to co-teaching between general and special education personnel. Of 89 articles reviewed, only 6 provided sufficient quantitative information far an effect size to be calculated. Effect sizes for the individual studies ranged from low (0.24) to high (0.95), with an average total effect size of 0.40. Dependent measures were varied and included grades, achievement scores, and social and attitudinal outcomes. Results indicate that further research is needed to substantiate that co-teaching is an effective service delivery option for students with disabilities.

A Selective Synthesis of Intervention Research for Students with Learning Disabilities

Presents the selective synthesis of instructional research with children and adolescents with learning disabilities, analyzing studies across instructional domains, sample characteristics, intervention parameters, and sampling procedures. Synthesis indicates that reading is the most researched domain, and intervention studies that produce the highest effect sizes were related to derivations of cognitive and/or direct instruction.

 

From NASP:

A Selective Synthesis of Intervention Research for Students with Learning Disabilities" by H. L. Swanson, Cristi Carson, and Carole M. Sachse-Lee

EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS FOR CHILDREN WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES: H. L. Swanson, Cristi Carson, and Carole Sachse-Lee of the University of California, Riverside, reviewed the results of 78 studies that tested educational interventions for children with learning disabilities. They reported several findings: First, reading is the most widely researched academic area, whereas mathematics interventions are not well researched. Second, interventions that yielded the highest academic gains taught cognitive strategies, followed by those using direct instruction and remedial instruction. Third, the higher the number of intervention sessions per week, the higher the gains in academic functioning. Fourth, cognitive strategy instruction is most effective when taught within an academic domain, rather than as isolated skills. Fifth, the effectiveness of specific strategies may vary as a function the academic domain. That is, Swanson and his colleagues reported that cognitive a strategy instruction and direct instruction are the most effective interventions for teaching reading comprehension: whereas phonetic (decoding) strategy training and remedial instruction are most effective for improving word recognition and spelling skills. Cognitive strategy instruction also is effective for improving communication and language skills. School psychologists are well advised to consider such research findings when making recommendations for students with learning disabilities.

Direct Instruction

The 2003 Handbook of Learning Disabilities is an edited compendium of contributions from over 55 of the leading scholars involved in learning disabilities (LD) research. Contributing authors were charged with reviewing the major theoretical, methodological, and instructional advances that have occurred in the LD field over the last 20 years. This particular article on direct instruction appears as Chapter 24 in the 4th section of the book, "Formation of Instructional Models."

Educational Environments for the Pupil with Behavioral Disorders: A "Best Evidence" Synthesis

Reviews 25 controlled studies comparing the progress of children with behavioral disorders* in different educational settings. Pupils in self-contained special programs displayed greater improvement in academic achievement than their counterparts in regular classes. However, the reverse pattern applied to changes in self-concept. Findings regarding behavioral improvement were more inconsistent. Follow-up data include enormous fluctuation in the success of special programs in assisting youngsters with behavioral disorders to reintegrate successfully into regular classes. Findings show that youngsters with behavioral disorders require more support than is available to the regular classroom teacher unassisted by at least resource room personnel.

Effects of Interventions to Promote Self-Determination for Individuals with Disabilities

Self-determination, the combination of skills, knowledge, and beliefs that enable a person to engage in goal-directed, self-regulated, autonomous behavior, has become an important part of special education and related services for people with disabilities. Research on the outcomes of self-determination interventions has been sparse. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive review of literature and used quantitative methods of meta-analysis to investigate what self-determination interventions have been studied, what groups of individuals with disabilities have been taught self-determination, and what levels of outcomes have been achieved using self-determination interventions. Fifty-one studies were identified that intervened to promote one or more components of self-determination; 22 were included in meta-analyses. The median effect size across 100 group intervention comparisons (contained in 9 studies) was 1.38. In contrast, 13 single subject studies included 18 interventions and produced a median percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) of 95% with a range of 64% to 100%. Seven of the interventions had a PND of 100%, suggesting strong effects. Although all components of self-determination were reflected in this research, most focused on teaching choice making to individuals with moderate and severe mental retardation or self-advocacy to individuals with learning disabilities or mild mental retardation. The outcomes are discussed regarding the need to demonstrate that self-determination can be taught and learned, and can make a difference in the lives of individuals with disabilities.

Experimental Intervention Research on Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of Treatment Outcomes

This article summarizes a comprehensive synthesis of experimental intervention studies that have included students with learning disabilities. Effect sizes for 180 intervention studies were analyzed across instructional domains, sample characteristics, intervention parameters, methodological procedures, and article characteristics. The overall mean effect size of instructional intervention was positive and of high magnitude (M = 0.79). Effect sizes were more positive for a combined model that included components of direct and strategy instruction than for competing models. Interventions that included instructional components related to controlling task difficulty, small interactive groups, and directed responses and questioning of students were significant predictors of effect size, and interventions that varied from control conditions in terms of setting, teacher, and number of instructional steps yielded larger effect sizes than studies that failed to control for such variations. The results are supportive of the pervasive influence of cognitive strategy and direct instruction models for remediating the academic difficulties for children with learning disabilities.

How Effective Are One-to-One Tutoring Programs in Reading for Elementary Students at Risk for Reading Failure? A Meta-Analysis of the Intervention Research

A meta-analysis of supplemental, adult-instructed, one-to-one reading interventions for elementary students at risk for reading failure was conducted. Reading outcomes for 42 samples of students (N= 1,539) investigated in 29 studies reported between 1975 and 1998 had a mean weighted effect size of 0.41 when compared with controls. Interventions that used trained volunteers or college students were highly effective. For Reading Recovery interventions, effects for students identified as discontinued were substantial, whereas effects for students identified as not discontinued were not significantly different from zero. Two studies comparing one-to-one with small-group supplemental instruction showed no advantage for the one-to-one programs.

How Reading Outcomes of Students with Disabilities Are Related to Instructional Grouping Formats: A Meta-Analytic Review

Only since the late 1980s has there been sufficient special education research published that meta-analyses and syntheses can be conducted. In this volume, seven sets of authors grapple with synthesizing the knowledge base on an array of critical topics in the field of special education. Anyone who has attempted a meta-analysis or a comprehensive research synthesis is aware of how formidable a task it is. Issues that seem relatively easy or straightforward when described in a textbook are usually extraordinarily intricate and perplexing when put into practice. Every decision, from defining the target population to exclusion criteria for studies, invariably opens up a can of worms. Where one expects many studies, often there are few. And where relatively few are expected, there are often far too many to be able to synthesize properly. Each of these chapters represents years of work and, often, struggle.

We believe the effort and the occasional agonies are reflected in the depth of insight provided in each of the chapters. Four of the research teams use meta-analysis as their major analytic tool. Three of the meta-analyses deal with learning disabilities. Batya Elbaum, Sharon Vaughn, Marie Hughes, Sally Watson Moody, and Jeanne Shay Schumm synthesize what we now know about effective instructional grouping practices for reading. Doug Fuchs, Lynn S. Fuchs, Patricia G. Mathes, and Mark W. Lipsey examine differences between students classified as learning disabled and other low-achieving students on a range of academic performance measures. They also discuss policy implications. H. Lee Swanson reviews the entire corpus of instructional research on learning disabilities in order to discern underlying principles of effective teaching and instructional design. (From the Preface of Contemporary Special Education Research)

Meta-Analytic Review of Responsiveness-To-Intervention Research: Examining Field-Based and Research Implemented Models

This meta-analysis considered the relationship between Response-to-Intervention (RTI) and systemic and student achievement outcomes. Four existing large-scale RTI models were analyzed alongside RTI models implemented within a research context. Twenty-four effect sizes and unbiased estimates of effect (UEE)* were computed. The UEE for student achievement and systemic outcomes both exceeded 1.0. The UEE for systemic outcomes among large-scale RTI models was significantly greater than those implemented within a research context.


Feedback Icon The material presented here is:
"Not Very Useful" "Very Useful"
Additional feedback helps us better help you :

Readers are encouraged to copy and share this information, but please credit the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY). NICHCY relies on feedback from users to enhance our collection, development, and dissemination of information. We encourage you to share your ideas and feedback with us! Please contact us at our email address (nichcy@aed.org) or visit the NICHCY Feedback Page at: www.nichcy.org/Pages/Feedback.aspx.

NICHCY thanks our Project Officer, Dr. Judy L. Shanley, at the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education.

Publication of this Web resource page is made possible through Cooperative Agreement #H326N030003 between the Academy for Educational Development and the Office of Special Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Education. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

NICHCY · 1825 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 700 · Washington, DC 20009
(800) 695-0285 v/tty · (202) 884-8441 fax
nichcy@aed.org · www.nichcy.org