Integrated classroom versus resource model: academic viability and effectiveness
by James Q. Affleck, Sally Madge, Abby Adams, Sheila Lowenbraun
More Articles of Interest
The district-adopted curriculum and materials are used in the integrated classrooms and are modified to meet the needs of the students. The goals and objectives specified in the curriculum provide guidance to the teachers in determining the concepts and content that receive instructional emphasis. The district curricula are supplemented by highly structured materials when needed, such as Reading Mastery (Engelmann
& Bruner, 1983) and/or Corrective Reading (Engelmann, Becker, Hanner, & Johnson, 1978).
In 1983, the ICM teachers identified four Best Practices that they felt were essential to the success of the integrated classroom:
1. Complete inclusion of the special education students into the classroom. They were not to be singled out from the group.
2. The majority of teacher time spent on active instruction.
3. At least a 2:1 ratio of positive to negative comments from the teacher.
4. Adaptation of material by the teachers for individual instruction.
To validate the presence of these factors in the integrated classrooms, five education professionals were asked to observe two integrated classrooms and two regular classrooms. The observations were focused around teacher-teacher and teacher-student interaction; style of instruction; evidence of individualized instruction; and evidence of a behavior management system. A synthesis of the observations showed that in the integrated classrooms, there were five positive and differentiating areas that were continuously reported. These were (a) clear directions/expectations; (b) high reinforcement levels; (c) grouping for instruction; (d) direct, sequential instruction; and (e) individual attention.
As a further validity check, a series of observations was scheduled. The series consisted of two observations per year, in January and April, in both integrated and regular classrooms. The results of these observations continued to substantiate the presence of the five positive areas of instruction in the integrated classroom to a greater extent than in regular classrooms. During the last 3 years a number of studies of the ICM have been conducted by the University of Washington, three of which are reported in this article. Results of the Best Practice Study will be discussed in more detail in a future publication.
STUDY 1: ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF
SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS
The nature of the 3-year study made it impossible to randomly select buildings to house integrated classrooms, students to be served in integrated classrooms, or teachers to teach in the program. In each building in which the ICM was implemented at each grade level, a limited number of students met eligibility qualifications as mildly mentally retarded, seriously behavior disordered, or learning disabled. All students so identified were assigned to the integrated classrooms; however, only those identified as learning disabled were included in this study because there were insufficient numbers of students with other mild handicaps.
A contrast group was composed of special education students in the same district who were enrolled in a resource room program. They were housed in one school building that did not have integrated classrooms. In the resource room model, students were pulled out from a regular classroom from 30 to 150 minutes daily for instruction in basic skill areas (reading, language arts, and/or mathematics). The same instructional materials and methods for basic skill instruction are used in the resource room model as in the integrated classroom model. Students were assigned to either the integrated or resource program according to the school building catchment areas they resided in. Individual characteristics, such as academic achievement, social behavior, or handicapping condition did not affect their program assignments. All of the students in both groups were Caucasian, and both groups had equal socioeconomic status as determined by the district's reduced school lunch data. Table 1 gives a detailed breakdown on the subjects for the 3-year study.
The teachers of both the ICM and resource room model had similar experience and background. Similar specialized materials and methods were used in both models. Teachers from both models participated in staff development activities offered to all special education teachers during the 3 years of the study.
The reading, math, and language subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery (Woodcock & Johnson, 1977) were administered individually to the subjects and the contrast group in October and May each year by four professionals who were trained to use the instrument. The Battery is widely used, standardized instrument which yields age scores, grade scores, and percentile scores for each of the three subtests. Each test session was approximately a half-hour in length.