2006 POSTGRADUATE CONFERENCE Differentiating literacy instruction for student diversity in Stage 2 classes: An observational study Susen R. Smith Abstract In Australian primary school classes student populations have become increasingly more diverse. The literature provides myriad research-based best practices for effective teaching in inclusive classrooms. Consequently, teaching and learning for students may be as diverse as the students’ abilities and as variant as the teachers’ instructional strategies they employ to meet individual students’ needs. Differentiated instruction has evolved as one approach to meet the diverse educational needs of students in the regular classroom. Additionally, a major concern is students who still have difficulty learning to read. This paper reports an observation study investigating the relationship between student diversity and differentiation of literacy instruction in Stage 212 primary classes in Australia. Following a pilot13 study, literacy lessons in four classes were observed over two terms. An amended version of the Code for Instructional Strategies and Student Academic Responses -Mainstream version (MS-CISSAR) was used to code variables in three major categories: classroom ecologies, teacher instruction and behaviours of students with low-, average- and high- reading ability in each class. The results provided some indication of relationships between the three categories and some differentiated literacy instruction for students with different abilities. However, findings of specific differentiated practices such as flexible grouping, contracts or learning centres were limited in this study. Introduction The concept of classrooms as complex educational ecosystems incorporating interrelated environmental contexts, resources, people, teaching and learning has evolved (Conway 2005). In Australian primary classes student populations have become more diverse. Along with regular peers, today's classroom ecologies may encompass students with disabilities, giftedness, ethnically different backgrounds, social or familial disadvantage, diverse heritage or other advantages or difficulties (Smith 2004; Tomlinson 2001, 2003a, 2003b). Hence, students with a much wider range in abilities and support needs are now being educated in the same classrooms (Fields 1999). As such, teaching and learning for each of these student cohorts may be as diverse as students’ abilities and as variant as teachers’ instructional strategies they employ to meet individual students’ needs. 12 Stage 2 classes combine students from Year 3 and 4 into a composite group. 13 The pilot is published elsewhere (Smith et al. 2005). 370 UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND The literature provides myriad research-based strategies for effective teaching that may not be used in inclusive classrooms (Salend & Garrick-Duhaney 1999; Mastropieri & Scruggs 2004). For example, many dditionally, a major concern is students who still have difficulty learning to read (Louden, et al. 2005). individual educational needs of student diversity in complex lassroom ecologies (Gartin et al. 2002; Kerry & Kerry 1997). Differentiated instruction involves adapting e regular classroom, while others uggest there is increased differentiation, especially when support is provided (Leyser & Ben-Yehuda 1999; students are still being taught in whole class arrangements, with teach-to-the-average strategies that may not address student diversity (Juel & Minden-Cupp 2000; Kerry & Kerry 1997). As such, adjusted instruction for students with learning disabilities or advanced learning needs may not be provided (Kauffman et al. 2005). Therefore, current educational debate centres around the rigidity of whole class instructional strategies benefiting a smaller number of ‘average’ students, versus the need for greater instructional variety for student diversity (Wedell 2005). A Students’ literacy skills may plateau in mid-primary (Comber et al. 2002). Furthermore, instructional deficits contribute to widening the gap between students with lower reading ability and those who are competent 4th grade readers (Comber et al. 2002). Conversely, studies show that students in classes where instruction is varied achieve more highly (Snow et al. 1998). Encouragingly, there is the view that some students are being taught in complex, but productive educational ecologies (Comber et al. 2002). Differentiation using effective strategies is one approach to meeting the c content, teaching processes and outcomes according to individual student needs in a variety of environmental contexts14 (Gross et al. 2001; Tomlinson 2001, 2003b). Some research suggests there is limited differentiated instruction in th s McGarvey et al. 1997). While there is a plethora of research on effective instructional strategies for teaching and learning in inclusive classes, there is little empirical research on differentiated instruction (Conway et al. 2004). Additionally, there is the need for more school-based research into reading practices that helps alleviate concerns surrounding differentiation for student diversity (Conway, et al. 2004). Hence, continuing to investigate literacy strategies that can meet individual student needs in inclusive classes seems warranted. Therefore, this paper presents a study investigating the nature of the relationship between student diversity and differentiation of literacy instruction in Stage 2 primary classes in Australia. The research question is: What is the nature of differences between the behavioural15, instructional and ecological variables for all students and students with low-, average- and high-reading ability in Stage 2 literacy lessons? 14 In this study the environmental context or ecology is the regular classroom where students with special needs are included, hence the term inclusive classroom. 15 Behavioural in this context includes student academic responses to instruction. 371 2006 POSTGRADUATE CONFERENCE Method The method incorporate d onses to instruction during literacy lessons in four inclusive primary classes across two schools. in New South Wales. Principals provided ermission for the study and invited two Stage 2 teachers from each school to participate. Teachers in each Stage 2 class randomly selected two students with lower-reading ability, two performing at grade level and two higher-reading ability students. Hence, there were four teachers and 24 students, eight with lower- reading ability, eight with average-reading ability and eight with higher-reading ability. Instrumentat were field-tested assess the instrument and amendments were made according to the pilot outcomes. Table 1 provides the specific variables that could be coded. There were three categories to be assessed. These included student, teacher and ecolog ories. The student ategory included: academic responses and competing responses. The teacher category included: instructor, d a pilot study, and observation of classroom ecologies, teacher instruction an student resp Participants Two schools were randomly selected from one coastal region p ion The Code for Instructional Strategies and Student Academic Response – Mainstream version (MS-CISSAR) (Greenwood et al. 1990) was chosen to code and record data. The MS-CISSAR has been used in many studies and has had extensive validation and amended versions have also been used (Carta et al. 1990; Conway et al. 2004; Greenwood et al. 1994). The instrumentation and observation process to y categories. Within each of these categories there were sub-categ c focus and instruction/management. The classroom ecology category included grouping, organised activity, implemented process and specific task or materials. There were 80 variables altogether including: 14 student variables, 28 teacher variables and 38 classroom ecology variables. A comments column on the coding checksheets allowed additional data to be included. 372 UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND Table 1 Categories, sub-categories, descriptions and code examples for MS-CISSAR Data collection procedure 0 seconds. The first cue prompted coders to find target student 1. The next cue, on the ten second mark, prompted momentary time sampling for a few Results of formal assessments suggested the six target students in each Stage 2 class matched with the low- , average- and high-reading groups in which the teachers had allocated them. The students were then allocated a code number from 1 to 6, with 1 and 2 being students with low-reading ability, 3 and 4 being average and 5 and 6 having high-reading ability (LRA, ARA, and HRA respectively). Following training, trialling and collection of reliability data, the researcher and a trained research assistant met before and after each observation to review and discuss variable descriptions. In each observation session, all six students in a class were observed in a cycle of student 1, 3, 5, 2, 4, 6 and variables coded cyclically within a four minute timeframe. Each student was observed within intervals of 4 373 2006 POSTGRADUATE CONFERENCE seconds, and coding for 27 seconds. At the 40 second cue, the next target student was sought, followed by nalyses ion and student responses to instruction across the three student groups 27 seconds for coding and recording nine of the 80 variables. Two observers independently recorded variables in 12 minute rotations with planned rest periods. Randomly selected periods for the coders to record in the same cycles allowed for collection of inter-reliability data. The observations occurred over ten 1 hour literacy blocks in each class across twelve weeks, i.e. 40 observation sessions altogether. A The SPSS was used to record and analyse data. Descriptive data analyses of frequency estimates for variables were conducted on 150 intervals for each student, equal to 3.3 hours and 1200 data points for each student group of LRA, ARA, and HRA or 3600 data points aggregated for all students together. The data were analysed by combining intervals of each category within an observation period of 1 hour and totalling each of the 40 observation sessions. Percentage scores were tabulated for each student, teacher and ecological variable across the three student groups and altogether. Then cross-tabulations, Chi square, and nomographs16 between the most frequently coded variables for all students and for students with LRA, ARA, and HRA to explore patterns of interrelationships between the variables were undertaken. Results Classroom ecology, teacher instruct and for students altogether are presented. Table 2 provides the results of percentage scores for student, teacher and ecology variables17. An overview of variables with the highest percentage scores in each of the three categories is supplied. Overall, the descriptive results indicated that all students mainly worked independently of the teacher or in whole class arrangements, undertaking comprehension, reading, other activities, such as assessment tasks, or writing on worksheets or exercise books. Teachers generally focussed on individuals within the whole class or the class as a whole, used academic talk with a high percentage of monitoring/feedback or other processes. Students were coded as mainly writing or listening, with little inappropriate behaviours. 16 to percenta A nomograph is a graphical representation of numerical relationships used to calculate significance values between the student groupings according ge scores and in conjunction with the different sample sizes. Significant differences can be determined directly from percentage figures rather than raw frequencies. This enables the researcher to pinpoint significant differences in specific data without analyses of surplus or unnecessary data that was not suggested as significant using Chi square analysis (Oppenheim, 1992). 17 Coded variables are italicised in the following text for ease of reading. 374 UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND Table 2 Percentage scores for student, teacher and ecology variables 375 2006 POSTGRADUATE CONFERENCE Overall percentages of each variable are placed in chronological order from highest to lowest percentage. The numbers beside each variable represent the order in which they were placed on the coding sheet. When analysing differences between student groupings, descriptive results suggested ARA and HRA tudents were coded as writing more, while LRA students were distracted (looking around) more often than nly involved in language activities, ARA students mostly ndertook comprehension and writing activities, while HRA students chiefly worked on reading or other and revealed ignificant differences within all three observed categories. Nomographs were then used for testing ithin the sub-categories found to have significant differences when tested using Chi square analysis. In the student category, results confirmed that there were significant differences in the variables writing, no gagement and reading silently. The findings suggested LRA students were observed undertaking ignificantly less writing activities or silent reading and were significantly less engaged than their higher reading ability peers. Significant effects were also found in the looking around and no inappropriate behaviours variables in the competing behaviours sub-category. This suggested that LRA students were observed displaying considerably more inappropriate behaviours than their ARA and HRA peers and were looking around more than HRA students. s their peers. However, the classroom teacher was recorded as the instructor more often for LRA and HRA students, than ARA students. The HRA students mostly worked independently, with LRA and ARA students mostly taught in whole class situations by the class teacher, rather than having small group or individualised instruction. It appeared that teachers spoke academically to ARA and LRA students more often than HRA students. The results suggested that the teacher attended to HRA students more and directed academic questions to ARA and HRA students more, but HRA students had less scaffolded or guided support. There was some evidence to suggest that LRA students were mai u activities. In terms of resource materials, it appeared LRA students mostly used other media, while HRA students mostly used readers. On the whole, descriptive data analyses suggested some differentiation between the percentage scores of variables in each sub-category, as well as differences in instructional approaches for each student reading ability level. However, more rigorous data analyses were required to examine differences between the student, teacher and ecology variables and each student ability grouping. Chi square analyses were used to investigate significant differences between the variables s differences between variables w academic responding (χ2= 98.54, df =14, p<.000) and competing behaviours (χ2= 95.48, df =8, p<.000) sub- categories. Table 3 provides the nomograph results of students’ academic responses and competing behaviours. Nomograph results identified statistically significant differences within en s 376 UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND Table 3 Differences between variables in academic responding and competing behaviours sub-categories No significant differences were found for the teacher focus or teacher behaviour variables in the teacher instruction sub-category. However, differences were significant for the teacher instructor sub-category (χ2 = 39.12, df =10, p<.000. Table 4 provides the nomograph results. Table 4 Differences between variables in the instructor sub-category Significant differences between student ability groupings were noted within the teacher instructor sub- category. The classroom teacher was coded as the most frequent instructor and students with LRA and HRA were observed being taught by the class teacher for more intervals than their ARA peers. Nomograph results for the grouping sub-category in the instructional ecology category can be found in Table 5. Table 5 Differences between variables in the grouping sub-category 377 2006 POSTGRADUATE CONFERENCE While Chi square results were significant for the grouping sub-category (χ2= 17.35, df =8, p<.027), results sing the nomograph indicated no signu ificant differences in the grouping variables. However, two results were ses were then used to investigate differences within sub-categories. Finally, tegories when Chi square and nomograph analyses were undertaken. The results ss engaged than their higher reading ability peers. Only one significant difference was found when owever, some instructional differentiation between student ability levels was suggested. While no ed independently or the teacher mainly taught in whole class . 2001). over, Taylor et al.’s (2002) study indicated that whole group instruction r reading achievement rouping, can disadvantage some student learning (Gartin et al. 2002; Haager & Klingner 2005; Hoffman almost statistically different in the working independently variable, which could suggest HRA students worked more independently than LRA or ARA students. Overall, descriptive data suggested some differences between the variables and the various student groupings. Chi square analy nomograph interpretations were used to identify significant differences between the variables in the student, teacher, and ecology categories across the student groupings. Some significant differences were indicated in he student and teacher cat suggested ARA and HRA students read silently more often than LRA students, who wrote significantly less than their higher ability peers. The LRA students displayed looking around behaviours more often and were le investigating differences between the variables and academic-engagement in the teacher category. Students with LRA were less engaged than their ARA and HRA peers when instructed by the class teacher. These results suggested there was very little instructional differentiation occurring between student groupings. H inappropriate behaviours predominated, LRA students were less engaged than their ARA or HRA peers. Discussion n the present study, students mostly workI arrangements, a result supported by findings in other studies (Logan et al. 1997; Logan & Malone 1998; ontague & Rinaldi 2001; NICHD 2005; Schumm et al. 2000; Taylor et al. 2002; Vaughn et alM Braithwaite’s (1999) findings suggested that more effective literacy teachers provided more independent work han in less effective classes. Moret predominated in observations of K-6 classes, at the expense of small group instruction. Unfortunately, LRA students’ achievement may be impeded in whole class teaching contexts (Schumm et al. 000; Vaughn et al. 2001). Additionally, small group learning may engender highe2 (Vaughn et al. 2003). Braithwaite’s (1999) study found that more effective literacy teachers taught more in small groups. Nonetheless, maintaining students within the same ability groupings, rather than flexibly g 2003; Jenkins et al. 1994). Additionally, students have been reported as feeling stigmatised if ineffective strategies are used during grouping contexts (Elbaum, Vaughn et al. 1999). Combining effective strategies to teach reading and providing extra support for students with LRA or LD, such as alternating peer tutoring, 378 UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND adapting materials and direct instruction within flexible groupings, have been mooted in the literature as effective differentiation strategies (Elbaum, Moody et al. 1999). However, studies have found that students rarely work in pairs or small groups, a finding consistent with the current study (Vaughn et al. 2001). porting instruction based on the effective instructional cycle components, such as scaffolded or ponents of the effective instructional cycle (Taylor et al. 2002). However, learning observed in the ffective reading skills and learning outcomes generally (Good & Brophy 2003; Good et al. 1998; Haager & ay be needed in Stage 2 literacy lessons. structor felt such support was needed. While, this approach could be stropieri & Scruggs 2004). on the class as a whole, using academic talk as the foremost teacher more effective teachers used more teacher talk than teachers in less effective classes. ctive literacy strategy and a key differentiation technique to motivate student onfirmed limited verbal interactions between students and the teacher. Furthermore, more teacher talk, tudy in less effective classes, teachers used more questioning and explanations. Notably, while there were and paper responses and the core academic responses were writing, listening and attending to e teacher. A similar outcome was found in Baumann et al. (1998) and Greenwood et al. (2003) studies, Research sup guided practice, working individually, and monitoring or feedback, is strong (Arthur-Kelly 2005; Good & Brophy 2003; Smith et al. 2001; Swanson 1999; Walther-Thomas et al. 2000). Effective teachers consistently se all comu current study did not seem to be based on reviewing prior knowledge, and lesson outlines were rarely coded. Use of the effective instructional cycle in full is foundational to differentiating instruction and for developing e Klingner 2005; Mastropieri & Scruggs 2004). Hence, full use of the effective instructional cycle components m The results so far suggest that students in Stage 2 classes generally worked in whole class arrangements, where students worked individually, while the teacher oversaw proceedings and provided support or feedback when needed, or when the in considered quite traditional, such whole class teaching may be beneficial if additional support is provided (Good & Brophy 2003; Ma The teachers’ focus was generally instructional approach. Anderson’s (1987) and Taylor, and colleague’s (2002) studies also found that teacher talk was very high and more prevalent than guiding student learning. By contrast, Braithwaite’s (1999) study ndicated thati However, they added that students in more effective classes discussed more than their peers overall. Even hough discussion is an effet engagement, there was minimal student discussion found in the present study (Gambrell & Mazzoni 1999; Mastropieri & Scruggs 2004). English, Hargreaves and Hislam’s (2002) and NICHD’s (2005) studies also c combined with questioning, were indicated in English et al.’s (2002) study. Conversely, in Braithwaite’s (1999) s some academic questioning, there was limited questioning overall indicated in the current study. In this study, students mostly undertook comprehension, reading, language, writing and other tasks, mainly involving pen th 379 2006 POSTGRADUATE CONFERENCE though comprehension and writing weren’t identified in their study. Such content in the current study uggests use of both whos le language and skills-based learning content. If this is the case, then these findings guage-based activities, such ent study. Furthermore, Stage 2 teachers in the identified the need for more phonics, skills- 998; DEST 2005; Flippo 2001; Pressley & Fingeret 2005; Pressley et al. 1998; Robinson 2005). 02; Duffy-Hester 1999; Kerry & Kerry 1997; Pressley et al. 1996; Tomlinson s, some differences were found. It seemed that students with LRA were taught more by the language ctivities and used a variety of media, but were less engaged than their higher ability peers. In contrast, ARA ostly read silently or completed comprehension and writing activities, more often than their lower ability tudents were mostly instructed by the class teacher, with academic talk and questioning as the main ven though attention may have been directed to HRA students more often overall. The HRA students were and mostly More time was ndings suggested different provisions between each ability grouping in the current study, the differences may reflect the literature support for a balanced approach to literacy instruction (Baumann et al. 1998; Ivey et l. 2000; Pressley et al. 2002). However, students generally undertook whole lana as language, reading and writing activities, more frequently than skills-based activities, such as ncoding/decoding or sight word recognition in the curre current study did use skills-based instruction and may have been balancing whole language content, within raditional whole class instruction. Recent Australian reports have t based instruction (DEST, 2005, Notably, the literature supports a more balanced or interactive approach to teaching literacy or reading, involving the combination of skills-based and whole language (Baumann et al. 1 Moreover, student academic behaviours were more likely to include writing or listening, with limited ifferentiation practices in the current study. This is in contrast to the differentiated practices recommended in d the literature for more diversity in student responses (Algozzine et al. 1998; Brady & Scully 2006; Baker & igfield 1999; Comber et al. 20W 2000a, 2000b; Woolley & Hay 2003). As there were minimal competing behaviours recorded in the current study, the more traditional whole class teaching approach may serve to reduce inappropriate behaviours. Overall, when exploring differences across ecology, instruction and behavioural responses between the three student group classroom teacher in whole group arrangements, received more scaffolding, whilst undertaking a students had more teacher instruction involving questioning and academic talk, but less teacher focus. They m peers. However, no behavioural difficulties were noted for ARA students in the current study. Moreover, HRA s instructional approaches. However, teachers’ focus may have been on others during this instructional time, e more likely to write or read silently or undertake other activities, such as assessment tasks, worked independently. These findings correspond with those of Westberg et al. (1993) who found that more ble students had limited instructional differentiation, grouping, or discussion opportunities. a also spent by higher ability students writing or listening to lectures, than for average ability students in their study. Similarly to ARA students, no inappropriate behaviours were noted for students with HRA. While these fi were minimal and the type of differences don’t reflect differentiated practices found in the literature, such as 380 UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND tutoring, mentoring, flexible grouping or learning centre activities that cater for different learning styles or ell as potential relationships between patterns of coded variables. The observation results ween classroom ecology, teacher instruction and student sponses to literacy instruction. The results of the observations suggested that there was some differentiated instruction occurring during literacy lessons. There was also some differentiation of instruction between students with low, average and high reading ability. However, specific differentiated practices such as flexible grouping, contracts or learning centres were limited in this study. This is in accord with the literature that suggests little differentiation occurs in regular classrooms where students with special needs are included. In this study, whole group instruction predominated in primary classrooms and seemed to result in more appropriate student behaviours. If whole group instruction is the dominant grouping format, then seeking effective instructional contexts within this format may be needed. If small group instruction is conducive to higher reading achievement, then grouping students flexibly with additional supporting strategies, such as discussion, questioning, or tutoring, may be worthwhile. Supportive strategies that are foundational to reading success are also evident when teachers use all components of the effective instructional cycle. A balanced approach to literacy instruction, that includes increasing skills-based instruction for students who require it, is suggested in the findings. It seems that additional research is required to investigate more differentiated practices for students with different literacy needs. It is noted that the results of this study are only a small portion of a much wider study that incorporated exploration of student academic-engagement, literacy content, student assessment and outcomes, teacher perceptions of practice, teacher professional development, teacher concerns regarding differentiated practices and support needs. Surveys, interviews, sampling and case studies were used to collect the additional data. These aspects of the study may illuminate differentiation practices not apparent from the observational component of the study. Additionally, the teacher interviews and surveys may provide opportunities to examine similarities and differences between researcher observed and teacher perceived practices. The additional data may indicate difficulties with differentiation and recommendations for practices that could be used to differentiate instruction for student diversity in inclusive Stage 2 classes. interests (Gartin et al. 2002; Hoffman 2003; Tomlinson 2000a, 2001; Vaughn et al. 2001). Conclusion Observations using an amended version of the MS-CISSAR were used to identify student, teacher and ecological variables in relation to targeted students with low-, average- and high-reading ability in Stage 2 classes, as w provided the opportunity to assess links bet re 381 2006 POSTGRADUATE CONFERENCE Acknowledgements Susen wishes to acknowledge the support and encouragement of her PhD supervisors Associate Professor Greg Robinson, Associate Professor Michael Arthur-Kelly and Dr Phil Morgan and thank them for their niversity of Newcastle. contributions to her work as a PhD candidate through the U 382 UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND REFERENCES Algozzine, B., Ysseldyke, J. & Elliott, J. 1998, Strategies and Tactics for Effective Instruction. Sopric West, Longmont, CO. Anderson, L. W. 1987, 'The classroom environment study: Teaching for learning', Comparative Education Review, vol.31, no.1, pp.69-87. Arthur-Kelly, M. 2005, 'Planning effective teaching strategies', in Inclusion in Action, ed P. Foreman, ment: Inclusive Classroom Management, Pearson Education, Frenchs orest. literacy classes', in Lifelong Learning: Literacy, Schooling and the Adult World, ed I. Falk, Language Australia, Melbourne, pp.13-23. dinal nd Thomson, Melbourne, pp.174-208. Baker, L. & Wigfield, A. 1999, 'Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement', Reading Research Quarterly, vol.34, no.4, pp.452-477. Baumann, J.F., Hoffman, J., Moon, J. & Duffy-Hester, A.M. 1998, Where are teachers’ voices in the phonics/whole language debate?, Results of a survey of U.S. elementary school. Brady, L. & Scully, A. 2006, Engage F Braithwaite, R.J. 1999, 'Best practices in year 2 Carta, J.J., Atwater, J.B., Schwartz, I.S. & Miller, P.A. 1990, 'Applications of ecobehavioral analysis to the study of transitions across early education settings', Education and Treatment of Children, vol.13, no.4, pp.298-315. Comber, B., Badger, L., Barnett, J., Nixon, H. & Pitt, J. 2002, 'Literacy after the early years: A longitu study', Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, vol.25, no.2, pp.9-24. Conway, R.N.F. 2005, 'Adapting curriculum, teaching and learning strategies', in Inclusion in Action, ed P.Foreman, Thomson, Melbourne, pp.102-173. Conway, R.N.F., Arthur-Kelly, M. & Pascoe, S. 2004, 'Practical difficulties in observing the diverse Australian classroom', Special Education Perspectives, vol.13, no.2, pp.31-37. Department of Education, Science and Training DEST, 2005, Teaching Reading, Report a Recommendations: National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Duffy-Hester, A.M. 1999, 'Teaching struggling readers in elementary classrooms: A review of classroom reading programs and principles for instruction', The Reading Teacher, vol.52, no.5, pp.480-495. Elbaum, B., Moody, S.W., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S. & Hughes, M.T. 1999, The effect of instructional grouping format on the reading outcomes of students with disabilities: A meta-analytic review. Retrieved 29 August 2001 from http://www.ld.org/research/osep_reading.cfm Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T. & Moody, S.W. 1999, 'Grouping practices and reading outcomes for students with disabilities', Exceptional Children, vol.65, no.17, pp.399-415. English, E., Hargreaves, L. & Hislam, J. 2002, 'Pedagogical dilemmas in the national literacy strategy: Primary teachers’ perceptions, reflections and classroom behaviour', Cambridge Journal of Education, vol.32, no.1, pp.9-26. 383 2006 POSTGRADUATE CONFERENCE Fields, B.A. 1999, 'The teacher and student diversity: Problems, challenges and opportunities', Curriculum Perspectives, vol.19, no.3, pp.41-51. Flippo, R.F. 2001, 'Points of agreement: A display of professional unity in our field', in Reading Researchers in Search of Common Ground, ed R.F. Flippo, International Reading Association, Fitchburg State College, Newark Delaware, pp.7-21. Gambrell, L.B. & Mazzoni, S.A. 1999, 'Principles of best practice: Finding the common ground', in Best Practices in Literacy Instruction, eds L.B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, S. B. Neuman & M. Pressley, Guildford Press, New York, pp.11-21. Gartin, B.C., Murdick, N.L., Imbeau, M. & Perner, D.E. 2002, How to use Differentiated Instruction: With Students with Developmental Disabilities in the General Education Classroom, Council for Exceptional hildren, Alexandria, VA. reenwood, C.R., Carta, J.J., Kamps, D., Terry, B. & Delquadri, J. 1994, 'Development and validation of tandard classroom observation systems for school practitioners: Ecobehavioral assessment systems ey, G., Baumann, J.F. & Jarrard, D. 2000, 'Exploring literacy balance: Iterations in a second-grade and egies', C Good, R.H., Simmons, D.C. & Smith, S. 1998, 'Effective academic interventions in the United States: Evaluating and enhancing the acquisition of early reading skills', Educational and Child Psychology, vol.15, no.1, pp.56-70. Good, T.L. & Brophy, J.E. 2003, Looking in Classrooms, 9th edn, Allyn & Bacon, Boston. Greenwood, C.R., Carta, J.J. Kamps, D. & Arreaga-Mayer, C. 1990, 'Ecobehavioral analysis of classroom instruction', in Ecobehavioral Analysis and Developmental Disabilities: The Twenty-First Century, ed S. Schroeder, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp.33-63. G s software EBASS', Exceptional Children, vol.61, no.2, pp.197-210. Greenwood, C.R., Tapia, Y., Abbott, M. & Walton, C. 2003, 'A building-based case study of evidence-based literacy practices: Implementation, reading behavior, and growth in reading fluency, K-4', The Journal of Special Education, vol.37, no.2, pp.95-110. Gross, M.U.M., MaCleod, B., Drummand, D. & Merrick, C. 2001, Gifted Students in Primary Schools: Differentiating the Curriculum, A GERRIC Publication, The University of New South Wales, Sydney. Haager, D. & Klingner, J.K. 2005, Differentiating Instruction in Inclusive Classrooms: The Special Educator’s Guide, Pearson Education, Boston. Hoffman, J. V. 2003, 'Multiage teachers’ beliefs and practices', Journal of Research in Childhood Education, vol.18, no.1, pp.5-17. Iv sixth-grade classroom', Reading Research and Instruction, vol.39, no.4, pp.291-310. Jenkins, J.R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., O’Connor, R.E., Jenkins, L.M. & Troutner, N.M. 1994, 'Accommodations for individual differences without classroom ability groups: An experiment in school restructuring', Exceptional Children, vol.60, no.4, pp.344-358. Juel, C. & Minden-Cupp, C. 2000, 'Learning to read words: Linguistic units and instructional strat Reading Research Quarterly, vol.35, no.4, pp.458-492. 384 UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND Kauffman, J.M., Landrum, T.J., Mock, D.R., Sayeski, B. & Sayeski. K.L require a diversity of instructional groups: A position statement', Rem . 2005, 'Diverse knowledge and skills edial and Special Education, vol.26, ogan, K.R. & Malone, M. 1998, 'Comparing instructional contexts of students with and without severe ifferentiation', Curriculum Studies, , 'Classroom dynamics and children at risk: A follow-up.Learning Disability Na na study o pp.305 Op n Pu sh Pressle Version no.1, pp.2-6. Kerry, T. & Kerry, C.A. 1997, 'Differentiation: Teachers' views of the usefulness of recommended strategies in helping the more able pupils in primary and secondary classrooms', Educational Studies, vol.23, no.3, pp.439-457. Leyser, Y. & Ben-Yehuda, S. 1999, 'Teacher use of instructional practices to accommodate student diversity: Views of Israeli general and special educators', International Journal of Special Education, vol.14, no.1, pp.81-95. Logan, K.R., Bakeman, R. & Keefe, E.B., 1997, 'Effects of instructional variables on the engaged behaviour of students with moderate, severe, and profound disabilities in general education elementary classrooms', Exceptional Children, vol.63, no.4, pp.481-497. L disabilities in general education classrooms', Exceptional Children, vol.64, no.3, pp.343-358. Louden, W., Rohl, M., Barrat-Pugh, C., Brown, C., Cairney, T., Elderfield, J., House, H., Meiers, M., Rivalland, J. & Rowe, K.J. 2005, In Teachers’ Hands: Effective Literacy Teaching Practices in the Early Years of Schooling, Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra, ACT. Mastropieri, M.A. & Scruggs, T.E. 2004, The Inclusive Classroom: Strategies for Effective Instruction, 2nd edn, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. McGarvey, B., Marriot, S., Morgan, V. & Abbott, L. 1997, 'Planning for d vol.29, no.3, pp.351-363. Montague, M. & Rinaldi, C. 2001 Quarterly', vol.24, no.2, pp.75-83. tio l Institute of Child Health and Human Development NICHD, 2005, 'A day in third grade: A large-scale f classroom quality and teacher and student behavior', The Elementary School Journal, vol.105, no.3, -323. pe heim, A. N. 1992, Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, 2nd edn, Pinter bli ers Limited, London. y, M. & Fingeret, L. 2005 What have we learned since the National Reading Panel: Visions of a Next of Reading first. Retrieved 12 December 2005 from http://www.msularc.org/symposium/pressley- paper.pdf Pr le as effe Pressle d literacy instruction', Focus on Exceptional Children, vol.34, no.5, pp.1-14. Pressle 10 Fou pp.159 ess y, M., Rankin, J. & Yokoi, L. 1996, 'A survey of instructional practices of primary teachers nominated ctive in promoting literacy', Elementary School Journal, vol.96, no.4, pp.363-384. y, M., Roehrig, A., Bogner, K., Raphael, L.M. & Dolezal. S. 2002, 'Balance y, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J. & Echevarria, M. 1998, 'Literacy instruction in rth and Fifth-grade classrooms in upstate New York', Scientific Studies of Reading, vol.2, no.2, -194. 385 2006 POSTGRADUATE CONFERENCE Ro s Melbou Salend, S.J. & Garrick-Duhaney, L.M. 1999, 'The impact of inclusion on students with and without disabilities ational analysis', aper presented at the 2004 Australian Association for Research in Education AARE Conference, AARE, elbourne. 005, 'Reflections on an observational study of literacy practice in d and published in proceedings at the Redesigning Pedagogy: Re ar Te no Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S. & Griffin, P. eds 1998, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Academy Press, Wash Swans ning disabilities: Pr ic Taylor, B.M. 2002, 'Looking inside classrooms: Reflecting on the reading instruction', The Reading Teacher, vol.56, no.3, pp.270-279. 1. Tomlinson, C.A. 2003b, Differentiation in Practice Grades K-5, Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development ASCD, Alexandria, VA Tomlinson, C.A. 2001, How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms 2nd edn, Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development ASCD, Alexandria, VA. Tomlinson, C.A. 2000a, 'Reconcilable differences? Standards-based teaching and differentiation', Educational Leadership, vol.58, no.1, pp.6-11. Tomlinson, C.A. 2000b, 'Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades', ERIC ED443572 bin on, G. 2005, 'Understanding literacy and numeracy', in Inclusion in Action, ed P.Foreman, Thomson, rne, pp.260-317. and their educators', Remedial and Special Education, vol.20, no.2, pp.114-126. Schumm, J.S., Moody, S.W. & Vaughn, S. 2000, Grouping for reading instruction: Does one size fit all? Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol.33, no.5, pp.477-488. Smith, S.B., Baker, S. & Oudeans, M.K. 2001, 'Making a difference in the classroom with early literacy instruction', Teaching Exceptional Children, vol.33, no.6, pp.8-14. Smith, S.R. 2004, 'Instructional differentiation in literacy in primary classrooms: An observ P M Smith, S.R., Smith, R.J. & Arthur-Kelly, M. 2 Australian primary schools', Paper presente se ch, Policy and Practice International Conference, National Institute of Education, Nanyang ch logical University, 30th May - 1 June, Centre for Research in Pedagogy & Practice CRPP, Singapore. ington. on, H.L. 1999, 'Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with lear Support for combined strategy and direct instruction model', Learning Disabilities Research and act e, vol.14, no.3, pp.129-140. , Peterson, D.S., Pearson, P.D. & Rodriguez, M. C. "how" as well as the "what" in effective Tomlinson, C.A. 2003a, 'Deciding to teach them all', Educational Leadership, vol.61, no.2, pp.6-1 . Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., Moody, S.W. & Elbaum, B. 2001, 'Instructional grouping for reading for students with LD: Implications for practice', Intervention in School and Clinic, vol.36, no.3, pp.131-137. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Kouzekanani, K., Pedrotty Bryant, D., Dickson, S. & Blozis, S. A. 2003, 'Reading instruction grouping for students with reading difficulties', Remedial and Special Education, vol.24, o.5, pp.301-315. Walther-Thom ve Education: eveloping Successful Programs, Allyn & Bacon, Boston. n as, C., Korinek, L., McLaughlin, V.L. & Williams, B. 2000, Collaboration for Inclusi D 386 UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND Wedell, K. 2005, 'Dilemmas in the quest for inclusion', British Journal of Special Education, vol.32, no.1, pp.3- 11. Westberg, K., Archambault, F.X. Jr., Dobyns, S. & Salvin, T. 1993, 'The classroom practices observation study', Journal for the Education of the Gifted, vol.16, no.2, pp.29-56. W m oolley, G. & Hay, I. 2003, 'Students with late emerging reading difficulties: Reading engagement, otivation, and intervention issues', in Re-Imagining Practice—Researching Change, vol.3, eds B. Bartlett, F. ryer & D. Roebuck, School of Cognition, Language, and Special Education, Griffith University, Brisbane, B pp.184-194. 387