The effects of professional development for middle school general and special education teachers on implementation of reading strategies in inclusive content area classes.

Ten sixth-grade middle school teachers, including general and special education teachers, participated in a four-month professional development and intervention program to enhance the reading outcomes of struggling students in inclusive content area classes. The professional development program consisted of an examination of teachers' personal knowledge of struggling readers and reading instruction, and staff development and support to help the teachers integrate three reading strategies, which focused on word identification, fluency, and comprehension skills, into their content area instruction. Implementation of the strategies was monitored and teachers' perceptions of the effectiveness of the reading strategies for their students were obtained.

**********

Middle school students with learning disabilities (LD) in reading spend the majority of their school day attending general education content area classes, including English/language arts, social studies, science, and mathematics. In these classes, students are expected to read and to understand increasingly more difficult text across the content areas. As a sixth-grade science teacher told us, "I expect students to be able to read when they come to me in sixth grade" (Bryant, Dickson, & Young, 2001).

Although the general education curriculum differs across classes, the emphasis on reading to learn in content area classes requires that students possess reading strategies and skills, including basic early reading skills, to access and comprehend the general education curriculum (IDEA, 1997) and to participate in content area instruction (Beck, McKeown, Hamilton, & Kucan, 1997; Lenz, Ellis, & Scanlon, 1996). Yet, we know that many students with reading disabilities lack effective reading strategies that facilitate the comprehension of content area text; are not familiar with text structures; and may not possess basic decoding strategies and reading fluency (Deshler, Ellis, & Lenz, 1996; Hudson, Lignugaris-Kraft, & Miller, 1993). We also know that some students (e.g., English language learners or students from poverty) may not have the vocabulary knowledge needed to be successful in content area classes (Rubin, 1995). Therefore, if struggling students (students with reading disabilities and low achievers) who are from low socioeconomic backgrounds are going to learn from text, general education and special education teachers in inclusive classes must focus on content area reading by integrating the teaching of reading strategies into instruction (Bryant et al., 2000).

Content Area Reading

Content area reading requires the ability to interact with text to interpret and construct meaning before, during, and after reading by using strategies to integrate information from the text with the reader's prior knowledge (Pressley, Brown, El-Dinary, & Afflerbach, 1995; Readance, Bean, & Baldwin, 1998). Students bring to content area instruction a range of experiences and knowledge about many topics. Prior knowledge significantly influences the reader's comprehension of the concepts and vocabulary that are contained in content area text. Thus, comprehension of text depends on the extent of students' prior knowledge and their ability to activate and apply it to content area topics (Bryant & Lehr, 2001; Carr & Ogle, 1987; Pressley et al., 1995).

Textbooks are a primary instructional material used by teachers in secondary classes (middle and high school) to teach subject area curricula (Armbruster & Anderson, 1988; Ciborowski, 1992). To benefit from a textbook-based curriculum, students must be able to read text fluently (accurately and quickly), possess word identification strategies (Johnson & Baumann, 1984), use context clues to comprehend the meaning of each discipline's vocabulary (Bryant & Lehr, 2001; Lenz & Hughes, 1990), and use text structures to gain meaning from text.

Because of the large amounts of text students are required to read in content classes, reading fluency is essential. Older students who are not yet fluent readers can benefit from instruction to build reading fluency. Moreover, instruction in oral reading fluency has been shown to improve students' comprehension of material (Sindelar, Monda, & O'Shea, 1990; Weinstein & Cooke, 1992).

Related to the ability to read fluently and comprehend text is the ability to decode unknown words accurately and automatically. Struggling students can benefit from instruction in the systematic use of strategies to decode multisyllabic words (Lenz & Hughes, 1990). Thus, word identification strategies are needed by struggling readers to help them decode the numerous content-specific words they encounter in text (Lenz, Schumaker, Deshler, & Beals, 1984).

Moreover, vocabulary knowledge is essential for comprehending text (Nagy, 1998). Because vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension are so highly related, students need to learn strategies, such as using context clues, that help them figure out the meanings of each discipline's words independently in order to understand content area text (Bryant, Ugel, Thompson, & Hamff, 1999). Significantly, vocabulary knowledge is one of the most critical factors affecting academic achievement for English language learners (ELL) (Gersten & Jimenez, 1998). For example, English language learners may demonstrate great difficulties learning the numerous word meanings encountered in text. Often they have to reread passages several times before comprehension can occur. Teachers cannot assume that students possess the vocabulary that is prerequisite to understanding their content area curriculum (Gersten & Jimenez, 1998). Moreover, even though ELL students may have demonstrated proficient English listening and speaking skills, it takes time to understand the formal aspects of written English (e.g., reading) (Rubin, 1995).

Students also must be familiar with text structure, which refers to a cueing system that signals the way ideas are interrelated (the macrostructure) and the subordination (microstructure) of some ideas to others in order to convey meaning (Bryant & Lehr, 2001; Readance et al., 1998). In addition, the two major text structures, narrative and expository, require readers to interact with text and teachers to approach instruction differently. The narrative text structure is commonly associated with English/language arts instruction and focuses on characters, settings, themes, conflicts, plots, and conflict resolutions. Expository text structures, which are more commonly found in social studies and science text, focus on informational content including cause-effect, comparison, sequencing, and description structures (Bryant & Lehr, 2001). Even mathematics instruction has shifted to a more reading-based emphasis where mathematical skills and concepts are taught as part of an authentic word problem-solution approach to teaching, which requires the ability to understand the linguistic, semantic, and representational structures that comprise word problems (Mayer, 1992).

From a teaching standpoint, these text structures influence how teachers prepare students to interact with text and the subsequent activities during and after the reading process. Regardless of the content area, students must be able to interact with text to gain meaning from print (Readance et al., 1998). Instruction in reading strategies that students can use to monitor their comprehension throughout the reading process is needed if struggling students are to succeed in content area reading (Beck, McKeown, Sandora, Kucan, & Worthy, 1996; Pressley et al., 1992)

In schools with diverse populations (Gersten & Jimenez, 1998) and inclusive practices (Vaughn & Schumm, 1996), teachers are particularly challenged because of the range of instructional needs of youngsters for whom content area reading is most arduous due to limited (a) experiences in vocabulary development, (b) prior content area knowledge, and (c) strategies to enhance comprehension. Additionally, students with reading disabilities may need more intensive, individualized or small-group instruction that is highly structured and explicit in order to access content area material successfully (Bryant et al., 2000; Kauffman, 1996; Vaughn, Moody, & Schumm, 1998; Zigmond et al., 1995).

Content area reading strategies need not only be appropriate for the needs of students but also responsive to the immediate needs of teachers (Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997). Unfortunately, studies have shown that many middle school teachers, in both general and special education, do not feel prepared to meet the needs of their struggling readers (Bryant et al., 2000; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). However, most teachers are eager to attend professional development opportunities to learn new strategies (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995; Vaughn, Hughes, Schumm, & Klingner, 1998) so they can work more effectively with increasingly more diverse students, including students with LD in reading.

Professional Development

Suggestions for professional development have identified collaborative partnerships between university- and school-based professionals as influential for promoting successful use of reading strategies in inclusive settings (Englert & Tarrant, 1995; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). Studies have shown that the combination of teachers sharing their personal knowledge and receiving "expert" knowledge comprises effective professional development (Glatthorn, 1990; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). "Personal knowledge includes teachers' tacit or experiential knowledge" (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995, p. 346), which develops as a result of teaching experiences and interactions with colleagues. Identification and examination of teachers' personal knowledge is considered to be a component of "professional dialogues" (Glatthorn, 1990). Teachers' reflections about their understanding of the needs of their students, the curriculum, and teaching contribute to the implementation of change in instructional practices (Richardson, 1994).

External "expert knowledge" is viewed as an additional component of "professional dialogues" (Glattorn, 1190), which involves sharing information related to curriculum and pedagogy by individuals who are viewed as authorities. As noted by some researchers, sometimes teachers just want the "experts" "to give them the answers" (Anders & Richardson, 1991; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). "Expert knowledge" can also be provided through support meetings and in-class support structures (e.g., modeling, coaching), which have been perceived favorably by teachers in their learning and implementation of new reading strategies (Gersten, Morvant, & Brengelman, 1996; Joyce & Showers, 1988).

The organizational structure of middle schools (i.e., interdisciplinary teams) can provide an in-house support system for teachers. "The great majority of middle schools are organized so that teachers share the same students, the same part of the building, the same schedule for common planning time, and the same responsibility for the major portion of their students' curriculum" (George, 2001, p. 40). Interdisciplinary teaming enables teachers to implement reading strategies during the day as part of content area instruction, thereby increasing the likelihood of transfer across contexts (Bryant et al., 2000; Vaughn & Schumm, 1994). The teaming concept has great potential for offering time and support for teachers to address issues, to problem solve student needs, and to ensure successful integration of reading strategies across content areas. According to George (2001), "Of all of the components of the middle school concept, teaming is the one that school leaders refuse to give up" (p. 40).

The purpose of this study was to examine professional development activities aimed at helping content area and special education teachers integrate reading strategies into their subject area teaching within an interdisciplinary teaming framework. First, we were interested in general and special education teachers' personal knowledge about their struggling readers and the reading strategies they used to help these students comprehend content area text. Because personal knowledge contributes to change in instructional practices (Richardson, 1994), researchers must understand teachers' perceptions of the instructional challenges they encounter and how they are addressing those challenges in order to know how to proceed in staff development. Teachers must also have opportunities to reflect on their practices as they integrate reading strategies into instruction.

Second, teachers in this study had immediate needs of learning about strategies that could help their students read and comprehend text more accurately and fluently. We were interested in the teachers' views of the staff development and support that were provided by the school district and university (expert knowledge) to present the reading strategies and to help teachers implement the strategies with all of their students, particularly their struggling readers.

Third, we were interested in the teachers' implementation of three reading strategies: Word Identification (Word ID), Partner Reading (PR), and Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR). (See Bryant et al., 2000, for a full description of these strategies and the outcomes on the students' reading achievement.) This article describes the results of a study that was conducted for four months with two middle-school teams of teachers who participated in professional development activities and implemented three reading strategies.

METHOD

Setting

The study took place in an ethnically and linguistically diverse middle school in an urban school district. The total school population was 759 students. Of those students, 68% were Hispanic, 19.9% African American, and 11.2% European American. In addition, 84.8% qualified for the free or reduced cost lunch program, and 24% of the student body was identified as limited-English proficient (LEP).

There were two instructional teams at each grade level, with approximately 100 students (average-high achievers, low achievers, and students with high-incidence disabilities [learning disabilities, mild behavior disorders]) on each team. In addition, the school used an A/B block schedule that alternated weekly (i.e., 3 "A" days and 2 "B" days one week was followed by 2 "A" days and 3 "B" days the next week).

Full inclusion of students with high-incidence disabilities was implemented for the first time during the academic year in which this study occurred. One special education teacher was assigned to each sixth-grade team and worked in the four content area classes. Each class had an average of 26 students, with approximately eight students who were identified as having disabilities. The special education teachers worked with individual and small groups of students who required extra assistance and instruction during the regular class periods.

Participants

Teachers

Two teams of sixth-grade teachers, for a total of 10 teachers, participated. Each team consisted of a language arts, science, social studies, mathematics, and special education teacher. The teachers in each team shared planning and advisory periods and worked collaboratively to address students' needs. All 10 teachers were female, 8 of them were European American and 2 were African American. A Master's in Education was the highest degree completed by three teachers; the remaining seven teachers had a Bachelor of Science degree. Years of teaching ranged from 1 to 25.

Administrative and Research Support

Several role groups provided "administrative or research support" to the project. First, the principal was instrumental in ensuring that the teachers had substitutes to attend the inservices. The school's curriculum specialist assisted with scheduling meetings, securing permission slips, and helping with implementation plans. At the district level, we had the support of the special education coordinator, who attended some of the inservice training, and the dyslexia supervisor, who was instrumental in helping with inservice arrangements, in-class support, materials, and support meetings. Finally, a university-based research team was responsible for inservice training, in-class support, and data collection and analysis.

Procedures

Personal Knowledge

We were interested in learning about the teachers' personal knowledge of their struggling readers, the curriculum, and instructional practices as a foundation upon which to identify reading strategies that would help them address the needs of their students. As a result, each of the 10 teachers were interviewed prior to the professional development to get a sense of their personal knowledge about their students and content area instructional reading practices.

Staff Development and Support

Inservices. Full-day inservices on the three reading strategies were staggered to provide teachers the opportunity to introduce the use of each reading strategy before the next was added. The first strategy, Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR), was introduced the second week in January. Subsequent reading strategies (i.e., Word Identification and Partner Reading) were introduced at three- to four-week intervals. Lecture, modeling, and guided practice activities comprised the workshops. In addition, a video was used in two inservices to demonstrate the strategies (Englert & Tarrant, 1995). Teachers were given time during the inservice to develop team schedules for introducing the strategy and gradually implementing it across content areas. At the conclusion of the three inservices, the teams divided the responsibilities for teaching the strategies to their students and for integrating the strategies into their classes.

Modeling. The researchers provided in-class modeling for the teacher who was responsible for teaching the strategy. Specifically, the researcher modeled the use of the strategy in a lesson using materials provided by the teacher. Sometimes, the researchers worked with the whole class, at other times they worked with small groups of students.

Support meetings. These meetings, attended by the teachers, the research team, and the dyslexia supervisor, were scheduled every two weeks either before or after school and usually lasted about an hour. Here, the teachers had the opportunity to discuss challenges and successes in implementing the strategies (sharing of personal knowledge).

Implementation

Implementation consisted of the teachers teaching the three strategies throughout the semester according to the staggered implementation schedule they had developed during the inservices. For example, the following implementation schedule was developed for the Word Identification strategy: Week 1: Introduce and describe the strategy (language arts teacher); Model the use of the Word Identification strategy using content vocabulary words (science and social studies teacher); Weeks 2 and 3: Implement the strategy (all teachers); Week 4: Mid-test on strategy steps. Similarly, the CSR strategy was taught by the social studies or language arts teacher and implemented across classes, and the Partner Reading strategy was implemented by all the teachers during the Advisory period two or three times weekly.

Teachers received the materials they needed to implement the strategies. For example, independent reading-level materials for Partner Reading were provided by the dyslexia supervisor. Posters of strategy steps were made and displayed across the four content area classes. And bookmarks with the Word Identification steps were given to students. However, teachers needed to identify reading material for the CSR strategy.

Fidelity of treatment and frequency of implementation were monitored during the semester with the use of intervention validity checklists (IVCs) for each of the interventions. Student pre- and posttest data were collected to measure progress in word identification, fluency, and comprehension. A pre-, mid-, and posttest on the Word Identification strategy steps was administered. Because of the importance of teachers being aware of their students' progress, we shared data from the Word Identification strategy with the teachers at mid-point. Additionally, students recorded their fluency data (words read in a minute) two to three times a week as a part of the fluency strategy. Finally, a postinterview was conducted with each of the teachers at the end of the semester to determine their perceptions of the reading strategies and the professional development activities.

Measures

Teacher Interviews

Pre- and postinterviews were conducted with each of the teachers. Preintervention interviews consisted of questions that elicited teachers' personal knowledge about the teaching of reading in the content areas, the teaching of reading strategies, and their perceptions of their struggling students. Postinterview questions were designed to elicit teachers' perceptions of the efficacy of the strategies (implementation) and the efficacy of the professional development (staff development and support). Interviews were conducted before, during, or after school for about an hour, and were recorded and transcribed.

Inservice Evaluation Forms

The inservice evaluations were designed to obtain information about the staff development teachers received on the three strategies and the support they thought they might need to implement them. At the conclusion of each inservice, using a Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree, teachers evaluated the content of the workshop. Teachers were also asked to specify barriers that they thought would impede their ability to implement the strategy successfully (see Table 1).

Intervention Validity Checklists (IVCs)

The IVCs were designed to address the fidelity of treatment and frequency of implementation of each of the three strategies. Three IVCs were modified slightly from a previous study (Vaughn et al., 1998). Each IVC consisted of the teacher and student behaviors one would expect to see as evidence of full implementation of each of the three strategies. Using the IVC, teachers were rated at least once by an independent observer on a 3-point scale (0 = does not implement, 1 = implements on a limited basis, and 2 = implements on a regular basis) for each strategy that was implemented (see Bryant et al., 2000, for sample items).

Promoters of and Barriers to Implementation Checklist

At the end of the four-month project, teachers were asked to select from a list of factors the top five promoters of and barriers to implementing each strategy. The checklist included staff development and support issues such as inservice on the strategy, support from project coordinators, and support meetings (see Table 2).

Data Analysis

Data were gathered from teacher interviews, inservice evaluation forms, support meeting notes, IVCs, and promoters of and barriers to implementation checklists. We followed the guidelines recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994) for data analysis purposes.

First, the pre- and postinterviews and support meeting notes were transcribed, analyzed, and coded. Transcripts were coded for big ideas and the frequency of each code was tallied. Summaries of key findings were discussed by the researchers (Yin, 1991). Transcripts were then cut apart into chunks of information, which were used to develop a matrix around the research questions. Second, descriptive statistics were calculated for the inservice evaluation forms, the IVCs, and the promoters and barriers checklists. A mean implementation rating score for each IVC item was computed across teachers, and mean percentage scores were recorded for the inservice evaluation forms and the promoters and barriers checklists.

RESULTS

Teachers' Personal Knowledge

Perceptions of Struggling Readers

Four major themes emerged from the pre-staff development interview data. First, teachers were concerned about the reading and reading-related problems of the struggling students. As noted by one of the language arts teachers, "And these kids who cannot read, I mean, you have several really good readers who are on the 9th or 10th grade level -- even higher -- and then you have students who are on the 1st- and 2nd-grade level. I am at a loss as to how to adequately address these problems." Teachers cited problems with decoding skills, indicating that students struggled with multi-syllabic words at the expense of comprehension. For instance, the special education teacher said, "... when they are still struggling to figure out all of those words, they spend so much of their focused energy on figuring out the word, they don't know what it's talking about." The teachers explained that the students' limited vocabulary and comprehension strategies presented numerous challenges for teaching content area subject matter and for using text-based material. Also, teachers indicated that they thought the struggling students had a poor self-image, low self-esteem, and low expectations for themselves. The social studies teacher captured the resulting motivational issue, which was also mentioned by several other teachers, "We'll have some students who, I guess, are so far behind and have been down so long they don't even have the want to improve. At least that's the way I see it. Students who just about have given up because they know they can't read well." Finally, as noted by the social studies teachers, "I'm still waiting for something. I don't really know what it is, but I'm waiting for something that we can really use to build up their confidence."

The second theme focused on teachers' feelings of being overwhelmed by issues such as the effects of low socioeconomic status on students' learning, and the academic needs of English language learners. Teachers expressed concern about the difficulty level of the instructional materials, the students' lack of exposure to printed materials at home, and their limited background knowledge to understand content area material. In particular, several of the teachers talked about the needs of students with reading disabilities who were English language learners. The special education teacher noted, "Their vocabulary is not well developed. The ones who really struggle are those who, even if they read something and then you read it with them and you try to talk about it, frequently don't understand what it is that's being talked about."

The third theme was the competing needs and related pressures of teaching struggling readers (particularly students with disabilities), teaching the curriculum, and getting students ready for their state's high-stakes assessment. The demanding task of teaching and meeting the diverse needs of many students was reflected by one of the science teachers, "Nonreaders, there's a few. Readers with very little comprehension, there's more. But the problem is that I probably have five [students] at least in each class who can do it [reading the science text]. The [rest] really can't without my help and it's very hard for me to [have] 5 students in a class period -- when I have 30 and there's still 25 others [who need help]." Recognizing that they had to move instruction along, teachers used different approaches with their struggling students. For instance, one teacher who wanted students to be independent used a "push start" view; she provided some help to get them started and then they worked on their own. Another teacher suggested that students in her class needed to "keep up." Also, teachers depended on the special education teachers' "inclusive" assistance; however, if the special education teacher was not there, students were on their own as no backup, individualized support system was possible.

Fourth, in spite of the teachers' expressed feelings of being overwhelmed by competing challenges, many of them found time to provide adaptations for struggling students and acknowledged the importance of doing so. For example, presenting material orally was a common adaptation. A science teacher noted, "To combat the problem of nonreaders, I generally do most things orally." The teachers tried manipulatives, films, visuals, and a buddy system (especially for English language learners). Teachers also prioritized what they were going to teach by selecting the information they thought their students needed most to learn. Clearly, these teachers worked hard to try to address the many needs of their students.

How to Teach Word Identification, Fluency, and Comprehension

With the exception of the English/language arts teacher, the content area teachers did not "view" themselves as reading teachers; thus, they expressed doubts about their ability to provide instruction in reading strategies. Teachers agreed that content area material focuses more on comprehension; thus, they did not teach word identification as a skill. When asked what strategies they would use if they had to teach word identification, teachers gave a variety of answers indicating different understandings of how to teach this skill. For instance, teaching students to use correct grammar, break words down through structural analysis, and identify context clues were cited as ways word identification skills could be taught.

None of the teachers identified oral reading fluency building as a skill taught in middle school classes. When asked how they might teach fluency, teachers again provided a variety of answers, including teaching word identification skills. Other techniques mentioned were rereading, teacher modeling, taped reading, reading aloud to students, using sustained silent reading, providing oral discussions, and writing notes on the overhead. Given that fluency building is not taught by content area teachers in middle school, it was not surprising to hear a variety of responses to this question.

Comprehension was mentioned as the primary focus for content area instruction. Even in math, which had an "investigations" emphasis, comprehension was one of the keys to success. The teachers expressed a variety of ideas for teaching comprehension. For example, the English/language arts teacher used literature journals and writing to help students make connections between reading and writing; students answered questions about and reflected on their reading. Vocabulary, which is a critical piece of comprehension and often limited for struggling readers, was taught through pictures, representations, dictionary use, and context clues. Finally, teachers mentioned the use of reading strategies, such as having students make predictions, activating background knowledge, answering reflective questions, and analyzing meaning paragraph by paragraph.

Although teachers identified techniques for teaching comprehension, there were still concerns. The social studies teacher reflected, "I know something is needed, but I'm not sure what it is or what else we could do to help them with the comprehension." In the end, teachers indicated that they were "at a loss" as to how to teach effectively so many levels in the class, that they had not been prepared in how to teach struggling readers in content area classrooms, and that they wanted to learn new techniques.

Staff Development and Support

Inservices

Word Identification. The teachers requested a strategy that would help their students decode multisyllabic words (Bryant et al., 2000). This was not surprising, considering the teachers' reflections (personal knowledge) on their students' decoding difficulties. The Word Identification Strategy (Lenz et al., 1984), which is based on the Strategies Instruction Model (Deshler et al., 1996), was selected because it has been implemented successfully with low achievers and students with reading disabilities to help them decode multisyllabic words that are in the students' listening vocabulary. None of the teachers was familiar with the Word Identification Strategy before the workshop. At the end of the workshop, the majority of the teachers (61%) indicated that they understood the strategy well enough to be able to implement it. The teachers noted that they would have liked more modeling of how the strategy is presented to students. Table 1 provides data about the teachers' perceptions for each of the inservices.

Partner Reading. The teachers also requested a strategy to enhance students' fluency with reading text (Bryant et al., 2000). Based on the teachers' reflections on fluency problems with the content material, building fluency seemed like an appropriate strategy for the struggling readers. Partner Reading (PR) (Delquadri, Greenwood, Whorton, Carta, & Hall, 1986; Mathes, Fuchs, Fuchs, Henley, & Sanders, 1994) was selected. All the teachers were unfamiliar with Partner Reading before it was introduced. As a result, they attended a full-day workshop in which they learned the strategy, practiced with partners, and worked in their teams to pair students for the implementation. At the end of the day, 92% of the teachers indicated that they could implement PR, although some expressed concern about implementation procedures (see Table 1). Interestingly, the majority of the teachers felt that a fluency building strategy could be used in their content area with both good and struggling readers.

Collaborative Strategic Reading. All the teachers, including the mathematics teachers, cited comprehension as a major issue for most of their students. Collaborative Strategy Reading (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996; Klingner, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1998) was selected because it consists of four research-based comprehension strategies that are implemented before, during, and after reading. This strategy was new for all the teachers. At the end of the day, the teachers seemed confident about implementing this strategy (see Table 1). Yet, although they stated that the strategy seemed practical and useful, they identified several implementation issues. These issues included time to practice the strategy with students who needed extra help, ability of students with low reading skills to use the strategy, consistency of use across content areas, and how to apply the strategy across languages.

Modeling

Overall, although the teachers thought the inservice modeling was beneficial, they expressed a need for more in-class modeling. As the social studies teacher noted, "Yes, [modeling] was very helpful. Maybe that should have come beforehand. The modeling really did help. Everybody benefited from that cause you could actually see what should take place ..."

Support Meetings

The support meetings received mixed responses from the teachers. While they apparently appreciated the opportunity to talk about the project, to air issues, and to hear from each other, the frequency of the meetings was a reoccurring criticism during the postinterviews, as reflected in this comment, "The support meetings were good so we could have a check on things and how they were going. But I think maybe once a month instead of every other week would have been adequate to keep that going."

Teams

Interview data indicated the teachers' strong preference for working in teams and the benefits of interdisciplinary teaming for implementing strategy instruction with their students. For instance, one teacher noted, "The four of us meet three times a week and we talk about how each other is implementing it [the strategies]. And those kinds of things help us to hear other people's ideas of how they are implementing and how it's working in their room" [personal knowledge]. Teachers thought that teaming was helpful when implementing several reading strategies so that the work load could be divided among the teachers. This sentiment is reflected in the language arts teacher's comment, "I think teaming is the way to go. Teachers who aren't teaming and have no time to plan together are going to be hard pressed to figure out who's going to do what and you know it's hard to get together and coordinate all that without the time."

Support from Administrators and Researchers

The teachers expressed the importance of administrative support when implementing a variety of reading strategies with struggling readers. As evidenced in the following quote, "We believe that a project of this magnitude could not have occurred without this level of support. Moreover, integrating reading strategies into content area instruction is a schoolwide effort. Building- and district-level personnel must support the teachers who are responsible for teaching their content material as well as who are being asked to integrate reading strategies."

Teachers' Implementation and Perceptions of the Strategies

Implementation of the three strategies across content area classes was examined from two perspectives. First, for each strategy, we conducted IVC observations of the teachers and rated occurrences of teacher and student behavior that were representative of strategy implementation. For each strategy, ratings were considered as low, partial, and high fidelity of treatment and frequency of implementation. Ratings that ranged from 0.0-0.9 were considered as low fidelity, 1.0-1.4 were considered to be partial fidelity, and 1.5-2.0 were rated as high fidelity. Second, we conducted postinterviews with the teachers to gain an understanding of their perceptions of the effectiveness of the strategies with their students.

Word Identification

Implementation levels. Although the teachers seemed to understand the strategy after the inservice, the overall mean IVC rating for the teachers who taught the strategy was 1.2, indicating partial fidelity. Implementation included students using the Word Identification strategy as part of their class warm-up routine. In other classes where the strategy was not taught directly but was implemented, teachers prompted students to DISSECT unknown words. Word Identification was paired with vocabulary instruction in all the content areas and was often used as one of the CSR "fixup strategies." Student performance data on the Word Identification strategy mid-point test indicated that about half of the average achievers knew the steps of the strategy; however, only one third of the low achievers and students with reading disabilities could explain all the steps. After reviewing these data, the language arts teachers provided extra practice to ensure that more students were learning the steps.

Teachers' perceptions of the strategy. All the teachers, including the special education teachers, thought the strategy was beneficial for their low-achieving students and observed improvement in their struggling students' ability to break down multisyllabic words into smaller parts and to recognize prefixes and suffixes. On the other hand, the teachers believed high achievers already knew and used strategies to decode words so they were not as motivated to use a new strategy. Both general and special education teachers acknowledged that the struggling students still needed to be prompted to use the strategy and could apply the strategy when cued to do so. According to one special education teacher, "They need more practice on it of course ... but they are beginning to recognize prefixes and suffixes. And I've noticed some of our Spanish-speaking kids who couldn't do that at the beginning are doing it much, much better." However, teachers still needed to teach the meaning of many of the words that were decoded. Teachers thought the strategy increased student confidence in tackling content area words. One mathematics teacher described the students' enthusiasm, "And they were begging for bigger words. Like give us a huge word and they wanted to try it and they were able to sound it out so they had a lot of fun with it." Table 2 provides a summary of the promoters of and barriers to Word Identification implementation, as well as the other reading strategies.

Partner Reading

Implementation levels. Teachers demonstrated the highest levels of fidelity with this strategy with an overall mean IVC rating of 1.7. Advisory period was set aside two to three times weekly for implementing Partner Reading. Special education teachers circulated and helped students with the reading. Because of the very low reading levels of some students, and thus problems in finding appropriate partners for them, the teachers sometimes served as those students' partners.

Teachers' perceptions of the strategy. Although the IVC data indicated relatively high implementation, overall, this strategy was not well received by the students. Pairing the students was the most common concern because sixth-grade students are more aware of and sensitive to their inability to read fluently. In addition, personality differences between partners posed challenges. The special education teachers appeared to be more concerned about the pairing issue because of the low reading levels, "I felt like the lower readers were intimidated and embarrassed to read in front of their readers." Also, the reading level of some of the struggling readers was so low that finding a partner for them was problematic. The general education teachers seemed more concerned about pairing because of personality issues, "The only problem I had was when I put two partners together who didn't work well together because of personality." Teachers also were concerned about the availability of appropriate reading material for students at low reading levels. Finally, teachers were concerned about the benefits of the strategy for higher achieving students, who seemed less interested in participating in this strategy.

On the positive side, teachers commented on improved student performance and the effects of the strategy on struggling students. According to the science teacher, "As far as the repeated reading, that really helped a lot of our low readers have more confidence, and they are more willing to volunteer to read." Teachers noted improvement in their lower readers' fluency ability, particularly when the teacher served as the partner. Several teachers commented on the motivational aspect of the graphing component. The mathematics teacher explained, "I thought it built self-esteem ... as they went through and read a story each day, they could see they could read more words per minute and that built a lot of self-esteem and they were ready to go the next day" (see Table 2).

Collaborative Strategic Reading

Implementation levels. The overall mean for the teachers was 1.3, which represents partial fidelity. Teachers modified CSR to fit their individual needs; in essence, they implemented the parts they found to be most helpful. Teachers combined CSR and Word identification into content teaching. CSR was used most frequently in the social studies and science classes (and the language arts class on one team); the vocabulary of CSR (e.g., clunks, get the gist) was reinforced in the other content classes.

Teachers' perceptions of the strategy. Some teachers perceived this strategy as the most difficult to implement. Teaming was identified as an important part of the strategy because teachers who were not directly teaching the CSR strategies could reinforce what the other teachers were teaching. Toward the end of the study, some teachers were able to use CSR as part of the curriculum. One teacher explained how she integrated parts of CSR into her teaching, "It was part of several lessons. It was done specifically for what I was teaching that day." In essence, this teacher began to understand how to integrate reading strategy instruction into content area teaching.

Teachers identified several benefits of CSR on the performance of most of their students, including the struggling readers. For example, the ability to generalize the strategy's terminology across classes was noted as a benefit. Some students were understanding and using terms such as "clunks" to refer to words or phrases that they did not know and "fixup" strategies to figure out the "clunks." Teachers used the same strategy vocabulary to promote a common strategy "language" and cohesion of strategy use across the content area classes. The special education teachers viewed CSR as beneficial for their lower readers. They indicated that giving students smaller parts to read and discuss made them more accountable when working in a small group. Although most of the teachers said that they had to prompt students frequently to use the strategies and to work cooperatively, they viewed this strategy most favorably for integrating into content area reading. The language arts teacher commented about CSR," ... it is an effective strategy. It helps the kids work cooperatively ... and it helps them become better readers because it gives them at their fingertips strategies ... for questions that pop up in their mind, whether it's understanding what a word means or understanding what a passage means" (see Table 2).

DISCUSSION

Lessons from Middle School Inclusive Classes

The purpose of this study was to examine general and special education teachers' personal knowledge about their struggling readers and reading strategies, to learn about the teachers' views of the professional development activities, and to examine the implementation of three reading strategies in content area classes.

Personal Knowledge

One of the most striking findings was how overwhelmed teachers felt with the many challenges they faced when working in schools with a large student population from a low socioeconomic background. As noted by the teachers, the ramifications of poverty on students' background knowledge and vocabulary had direct implications for success in school. "Family economic status is strongly correlated with children's schooling" (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 1997, p. 32). "Twenty percent of U.S. kids are below the poverty line today ... Most poor children in the United States are white, but a higher percentage of black and Hispanic kids are poor" (Hodgkinson, 2001, p. 9). Teachers were overwhelmed by the diverse learning needs of their students, including poverty, reading disabilities, low achievement, and second-language learning. These challenges coupled with pressure to make sure students perform reasonably well on the high-stakes assessment generated feelings of being "at a loss" as to how to handle all of these challenges simultaneously. The danger of this message is that left unsupported, some teachers may give up trying to address competing challenges.

Not surprising, students' low reading-ability levels were a dominant theme. The teachers' understanding of the reading difficulties of their struggling readers, including students with LD in reading, was clear as they described the problems with basic reading skills (e.g., decoding), vocabulary, and comprehension. A high level of commitment and effort to address the students' needs was evident as teachers tried various instructional adaptations so students could access the general education curriculum. However, integration of research-based content area reading strategies and appropriate adaptations was needed (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995) to help students become more successful readers. Given the instructional challenges faced by the teachers and the need to integrate reading strategies into content teaching, it was clear that the role of the special education teacher in the inclusive classroom was critical to ensure that the needs of students with reading disabilities were addressed, that appropriate adaptations were provided, and that student progress was monitored. Without such support, general education teachers were left with few options to assist them in meeting the needs of low readers with special needs. In our study, the special education teacher's time was divided among several teachers each day. Therefore, students with LD in reading needed to be able to work independently in the classroom. Hence, there was a need for students to learn reading strategies to help them tackle content text more successfully.

Staff Development and Support

Overall, opinions of the inservices were positive; however, teachers wanted more in-class modeling than was provided. This may be due to the diverse learning needs of their students and, thus, how the strategies would actually have "looked" within their classes. Once a week until teachers became more comfortable with the strategies would probably have been a better timeline (Vaughn et al., 1998) for modeling the strategies.

Although bi-weekly support meetings have been used elsewhere in professional development projects (e.g., Vaughn et al., 1998), the teachers were not overly enthusiastic about the frequency of them. Teachers saw some benefit of our support meetings, but they also conducted their own team meetings two to three times per week. These meetings seemed to offer them opportunities to share their personal knowledge to problem solve and plan, which may have been sufficient. As noted by the science teacher, "It pulled us together as a team, and it was really nice to meet other professionals who had the same goals in mind as we do." Future projects of this nature should integrate support team meetings into existing structures, such as team meetings, on a frequency schedule that makes sense for teachers and researchers alike.

Finally, there was a strong call for building- and district-level support to help teachers implement a reading strategies program in middle school classes. Teachers needed to know that they had higher level support for integrating the reading strategies into their curriculum, which takes time to accomplish and must be juggled with the competing demands.

Implementation

Several lessons were learned regarding implementation of content area reading strategies in middle school classes. First, we had hoped for higher levels of fidelity and frequency of implementation as an indicator of the success of the project, but this was only a semester-long project where teachers were implementing three reading strategies almost simultaneously. Although teachers seemed to be interested in learning new reading strategies ("It was real encouraging to find out that there were strategies that we could implement on a daily basis"), the lower levels of fidelity for Word Identification and CSR suggest that reading strategy instruction for both teachers and students takes time (Bryant et al., 2000; Englert & Tarrant, 1995; Vaughn et al., 1998). Not unlike other studies of this nature (Vaughn et al., 1998), time was considered a major issue by the teachers in terms of preparing for and teaching the strategies. Students having sufficient time to practice the strategies was another common concern. As noted by one language arts teacher, "They do need more practice in it, though. I think it needs to be started earlier, much earlier." Gaining knowledge about and experience in reading strategy instruction and content area reading takes more than a semester and may take longer than a year-long project (Englert & Tarrant, 1995; Vaughn et al., 1998).

On the other hand, the "time" issue for Partner Reading, which had the highest levels of fidelity, related to giving up something so that PR could be integrated into the school day. Teachers found a way to integrate this strategy into the school day by giving up their advisory time so students could focus on the fluency building strategy. Also, teachers did not have to juggle focusing on teaching content material and integrating the strategy simultaneously as they did with Word Identification and CSR, which probably contributed to the higher IVC rating for PR. The challenge with Partner Reading was finding a time for focusing on skill building. This type of instruction does not occur in middle school content classes, so teachers have to give up something from their instructional day to make fluency building instruction happen.

Second, teachers expressed a need for more materials that could better match their students' reading abilities. In this study, teachers used their textbooks and supplemental reading material for CSR; the researchers provided the reading material for PR. Middle school teachers need access to a variety of reading material that matches their curriculum and the reading levels of their students. Without this support, teachers find strategy implementation time-consuming and challenging. Furthermore, lack of readily available materials significantly affects the frequency of implementation (Vaughn et al., 1998)

Third, although the teachers questioned the utility of the strategies for their higher achieving students, they did not indicate significant problems with this group of students. This finding matches the results of other studies that have investigated the effects of strategy instruction on higher achieving students (e.g., Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). If reading strategies are going to be used by teachers in content classes, they must be assured that this type of instruction will be helpful and not create problems for a group of students who may already possess effective strategies.

Fourth, teachers were beginning to see the effects of the strategies on students' learning through overt student behavior. Particularly, the special education teachers noticed students with special needs, including English language learners, using the reading strategies to break apart words (Word ID) and to figure out "clunks" (CSR). In the math classes, students were "begging" for multisyllabic words to decode. One science teacher noted that by the end of the project more of her struggling readers wanted to read out loud. Also, the use of student progress monitoring procedures seemed to influence both teacher and student behavior. For instance, the Word Identification results at mid-point spurred the language arts teacher on to provide more practice, and the math teacher made a point of commenting on the positive reactions from the students whose graphs of reading rate continued to improve. Studies have demonstrated positive outcomes on teachers' effect on student learning (Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984) and student learning (Conte & Hintze, 2000) when progress monitoring procedures are implemented frequently and reliably. Integrating student progress monitoring measures that are manageable for both teachers and students into strategy instruction could contribute to student learning and teachers "buying in" to the strategies if improved performance is noted. Moreover, progress monitoring is important to ensure that struggling readers are benefiting from strategy instruction and that they are receiving the level of instructional intensity they need in order to learn. In this study, we attempted to provide this intensity by offering the same professional development strategies to an entire team of middle school teachers.

Implications for Instruction

Based on our experiences from this project, we offer some ideas for future professional development efforts focusing on integrating reading strategies into middle school content area instruction in inclusive settings.

First, when teachers have a shared understanding of and goals for their students (personal knowledge), teaming is an effective model for promoting collaboration and planning among general and special education teachers. Time must be allocated for teachers to share their personal knowledge about their students and teaching and to receive guidance from "experts" on topics.

Second, struggling readers, including students with learning disabilities in reading, require instruction in and practice with reading strategies. Teachers need strategies that "fit" the instructional needs of their students. As seen in our study, teachers will focus on reading strategies if they view them as helpful for their students' needs even if the strategy is not perceived as a "perfect fit" with their curriculum and high-stakes assessment (i.e., Partner Reading).

Third, student progress monitoring should be included as part of strategy training to ensure that students are benefiting from the instruction. This is important because there will be a small group of students with reading disabilities severe enough to warrant more intensive, adapted instruction (e.g., smaller groupings, more instructional time, modified materials).

Finally, professional development activities require time; a semester-long project was not sufficient. Time is needed for in-class modeling, preparing for instruction, and teacher planning. Teachers also need time to become comfortable with the reading strategies and to implement them with their students.

In closing, overall, teachers indicated that middle school is the last chance for struggling readers. Yet, there are not enough programs to help the students in reading. We think the following comment sums up the critical need for reading strategy instruction in content classes (and specialized reading classes) at the middle school level. One of the language arts teachers recognized the critical need to act upon the situation, "And by the time they get to 6th grade, it's almost like 6th grade is the last catching point. If they get past us and we haven't caught them, the chances of them being saved are slim to none. I really think it's crucial, it's a pivotal age as far as their development in reading."

Table 1

Inservice Evaluation

                                                      DA
Word Identification                                    1        2
1. My understanding of Word ID has increased.        0(0%)    1(8%)
2. I understand how to teach Word ID.                0(0%)    0(0%)
3. Word ID will benefit my struggling readers.       0(0%)    1(8%)
4. Word ID will benefit my nonstruggling readers.    0(0%)    0(0%)
5. Word ID is practical and useful for my content.   0(0%)    0(0%)
6. The formats of the inservice were useful.         0(0%)    1(8%)

Partner Reading
1. My understanding of fluency has increased.        0(0%)    2(17%)
2. I understand how to teach PR.                     0(0%)    1(8%)
3. PR will benefit my struggling readers.            0(0%)    1(8%)
4. PR will benefit my nonstruggling readers.         0(0%)    1(8%)
5. PR is practical and useful for my content area.   0(0%)    2(17%)
6. The formats of the inservice were useful.         0(0%)    2(17%)

Collaborative Strategic Reading
1. My understanding of comprehension has increased.  0(0%)    0(0%)
2. I understand how to teach CSR.                    0(0%)    0(0%)
3. CSR will benefit my struggling readers.           0(0%)    0(0%)
4. CSR will benefit my nonstruggling readers.        0(0%)    0(0%)
5. CSR is practical and useful for my content area.  0(0%)    0(0%)
6. The formats of the inservice were useful.         0(0%)    0(0%)

Inservice Evaluation

                                                     Agree
Word Identification                                    3        4
1. My understanding of Word ID has increased.        5(38%)   6(46%)
2. I understand how to teach Word ID.                5(38%)   6(46%)
3. Word ID will benefit my struggling readers.       6(46%)   5(38%)
4. Word ID will benefit my nonstruggling readers.    6(46%)   5(38%)
5. Word ID is practical and useful for my content.   5(38%)   4(31%)
6. The formats of the inservice were useful.         4(31%)   6(46%)

Partner Reading
1. My understanding of fluency has increased.        1(8%)    5(42%)
2. I understand how to teach PR.                     0(0%)    5(42%)
3. PR will benefit my struggling readers.            1(8%)    5(42%)
4. PR will benefit my nonstruggling readers.         4(33%)   3(25%)
5. PR is practical and useful for my content area.   6(50%)   2(17%)
6. The formats of the inservice were useful.         2(17%)   4(33%)

Collaborative Strategic Reading
1. My understanding of comprehension has increased.  2(15%)   8(62%)
2. I understand how to teach CSR.                    1(8%)    5(38%)
3. CSR will benefit my struggling readers.           2(15%)   6(46%)
4. CSR will benefit my nonstruggling readers.        2(15%)   7(54%)
5. CSR is practical and useful for my content area.  3(23%)   6(46%)
6. The formats of the inservice were useful.         1(8%)    6(46%)

Inservice Evaluation

                                                       SA
Word Identification                                    5
1. My understanding of Word ID has increased.        1(8%)
2. I understand how to teach Word ID.                2(15%)
3. Word ID will benefit my struggling readers.       1(8%)
4. Word ID will benefit my nonstruggling readers.    2(15%)
5. Word ID is practical and useful for my content.   4(31%)
6. The formats of the inservice were useful.         2(15%)

Partner Reading
1. My understanding of fluency has increased.        4(33%)
2. I understand how to teach PR.                     6(50%)
3. PR will benefit my struggling readers.            5(42%)
4. PR will benefit my nonstruggling readers.         4(33%)
5. PR is practical and useful for my content area.   2(17%)
6. The formats of the inservice were useful.         4(33%)

Collaborative Strategic Reading
1. My understanding of comprehension has increased.  3(23%)
2. I understand how to teach CSR.                    7(54%)
3. CSR will benefit my struggling readers.           5(38%)
4. CSR will benefit my nonstruggling readers.        4(31%)
5. CSR is practical and useful for my content area.  4(31%)
6. The formats of the inservice were useful.         6(46%)

Note. DA = disagree; SA = strongly agree.
Table 2

Teachers' Perceptions of the Promoters and Barriers to Strategy
Implementation

         Promoters                           Barriers

WORD IDENTIFICATION
Inservice on the strategy       63%   Time for instruction in
                                        strategy                 88%
Strategy "fits" with the
  students                      63%   Time to prepare for
Strategy for district tests     50%     strategy                 63%
Access to materials             50%
Students' acceptance of the
  strategy                      50%

PARTNER READING
Inservice on the strategy       86%   Time to prepare for
                                        strategy                 71%
Strategy "fits" with the
  students                      57%   Class size                 57%
Support from school             43%   Students' lack of
                                        acceptance               57%
Students' acceptance of the
  strategy                      43%   Access to materials        43%
Access to materials             43%   Strategy for district
                                        tests                    43%
                                      Strategy "fits" with
                                        content                  43%

COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIC
  READING
Strategy "fits" with the
  students                     100%   Time for instruction in
                                        strategy                100%
Strategy "fits" with content    83%   Time to prepare for
                                        strategy                 67%
Students' acceptance            50%   Access to materials        50%
Inservice on the strategy       50%

REFERENCES

Anders, P. L., & Richardson, V. (1991). Research directions: Staff development that empowers teachers' reflections and enhances instruction. Language Arts, 68, 316-321.

Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1988). On selecting "considerate content area textbooks." Remedial & Special Education, 9(1), 47-52

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. C., & Kucan, L. (1997). Questioning the author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 385-414.

Bryant, D. P., Dickson, S., & Young, C. (2001). Secondary level students with reading disabilities: No time to waste. LDA Newsbriefs, 36(1), 12-13, 20.

Bryant, D. P., & Lehr, F. (2001). Research-based content area reading instruction. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Bryant, D. P., Ugel, N., Thompson, S., & Hamff, A. (1999). Instructional strategies for content-area reading instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(5), 293-302.

Bryant, D. P., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Ugel, N., Hamff, A., & Hougen, M. (2000). Reading outcomes for students with and without reading disabilities in general education middle-school content area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(4), 238-252.

Carr, E., & Ogle, D. (1987). K-W-L plus: A strategy for comprehension and summation. Journal of Reading, 30, 626-631.

Ciborowski, J. (1992). Textbooks and the students who can't read them: A guide to teaching content. Boston: Brookline Books.

Conte, K. L., & Hintze, J. M. (2000). The effects of performance feedback and goal setting on oral reading fluency within curriculum-based measurement. Diagnostique, 25(2), 85-98.

Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C. R., Whorton, D., Carta, J. J., & Hall, R. U. (1986). Classwide peer tutoring. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 535-542.

Deshler, D. D., Ellis, E. S., & Lenz, B. K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies and methods (2nd ed.). Denver: Love.

Englert, C. S., & Tarrant, K. L. (1995). Creating collaborative cultures for educational change. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 325-336, 353.

Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (1997). Children, schools, and inequality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449-460.

George, P. S. (2001). The evolution of middle schools. Educational Leadership, 58(4), 40-45.

Gersten, R., & Jimenez, R. (1998). Promoting learning for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Gersten, R., Morvant, M., & Brengelman, S. (1996). Close to the classroom is close to the bone: Coaching as a means to translate research into classroom practice. Exceptional Children, 62, 52-66.

Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improving special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(5), 466-476.

Glatthorn, A. A. (1990). Cooperative professional development: Facilitating growth of the special education teacher and the classroom teacher. Remedial and Special Education, 11(3), 29-34, 50.

Hodgkinson, H. (2001). Educational demographics: What teachers should know. Educational Leadership, 58(4), 6-11.

Hudson, P., Lignugaris-Kraft, B., & Miller, T. (1993). Using content enhancements to improve the performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in content classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8(2), 106-126.

Johnson, D. D., & Baumann, J. (1984). Word identification. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 583-608). New York: Longman.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. New York: Longman.

Kauffman, J. M. (1996). The challenge of nihilism. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19(3), 205-206.

Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 275-293.

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 98, 3-21.

Lenz, B. K., Ellis, E. S., & Scanlon, D. (1996). Teaching learning strategies to adolescents and adults with learning disabilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Lenz, B. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1990). A word identification strategy for adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 149-163.

Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., & Beals, V. L. (1984). The word identification strategy (Learning Strategies Curriculum). Lawrence: University of Kansas.

Mathes, P. G., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Henley, A. M., & Sanders, A. (1994). Increasing strategic reading practice with Peabody classwide peer tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 44-48.

Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nagy, W. E. (1998). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Pressley, M., Brown, R., El-Dinary, P. B., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). The comprehension instruction that students need: Instruction fostering constructively responsive reading. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 215-224.

Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J., Almasi, J., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92, 511-554.

Readance, J. E., Bean, T. W., & Baldwin, R. S. (1998). Content area literacy: An integrated approach (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Richardson, V. (1994). Conducting research on practice. Educational Researcher, 23, 5-10.

Rubin, D. (1995). Teaching elementary language arts: An integrated approach (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Meaningful professional development in accommodating students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 16(6), 344-353.

Sindelar, P. T., Monda, L., & O'Shea, L. (1990). Effects of repeated readings on instructional- and mastery-level readers. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 353-363.

Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Schumm, J. S., & Klingner, J. (1998). A collaborative effort to enhance reading and writing instruction in inclusion classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21(1), 57-74.

Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64(2), 211-225.

Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1994). Middle school teachers' planning for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 152-161.

Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1996). Classroom ecologies: Classroom interactions and implications for inclusion of students with learning. In D. L. Speece & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research on classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of children with learning disabilities (pp. 107-124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Weinsten, G., & Cooke, N. L. (1992). The effects of two repeated reading interventions on generalization of fluency. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 21-28.

Yin, R. K. (1991). Applications of case study research. Washington, DC: Cosmos Corp.

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, 78, 531-540.

DIANE PEDROTTY BRYANT, Ph.D., is associate professor,
University of Texas at Austin.
SYLVIA LINAN-THOMPSON, Ph.D., is assistant professor,
University of Texas at Austin.
NICOLE UGEL, Ph.D., is social science/humanities research associate,
University of Texas at Austin.
ALLISON HAMFF, M.A., is graduate research assistant,
University of Texas at Austin.
MARTY HOUGEN, Ph.D., is administrative supervisor for dyslexia
services, Austin Independent School District.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Diane P. Bryant, Texas Center for Reading/Language Arts, SZB228, The University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.