| This study examined instructional processes and student outcomes in two models of special education: (a) special education/general education co-teaching (CT) and (b) resource room instruction (RR). Specifically, it examined: (a) how instructional practices differed between CT, RR, and general education single-teacher instruction (SI); (b) the extent to which students' academic engagement changed across the three settings; (c) how achievement outcomes differed between students receiving CT and RR instruction and the extent to which they were normalized (i.e., become similar to the levels of average achievers in general education); and (d) teacher perceptions of CT and RR instruction.; A case study with replications approach was employed. Multiple observations were conducted on ten students with learning disabilities (LD) and ten average-achieving (AA) students during Language Arts instruction. Half of the students with LD were receiving CT services, and half were receiving RR services. It was predicted that classroom processes would vary by setting and that student engagement and achievement would vary as a function of classroom processes. Achievement outcomes were assessed using curriculum-based measures (CBM) of reading and writing collected on multiple occasions and state-mandated reading achievement tests. Teachers also participated in interviews about their perceptions of CT or RR instructional models at the close of the school year.; Results revealed few differences between the two types of special education services or between general education and special education. Classroom observations indicated high rates of academic instruction and student engagement, and very low rates of one-on-one instruction in all three settings. Of the eight predicted differences between settings, only one was confirmed: CT instruction was associated with more student-teacher discussions than general education instruction. In terms of student academic growth, no differences were found in reading and writing CBM slopes for students receiving CT and RR instruction. Findings also revealed that students with LD continued to lag behind their AA peers in reading. Implications of these findings regarding the delivery of instruction for students with learning disabilities as well as suggestions for future research are discussed. |
