This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Horton, S. V. Articles by Christensen, C. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Horton, S. V. Articles by Christensen, C. C. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Matching Three Classifications of Secondary Students to Differential Levels of Study Guides

Steven V. Horton is currently a special education consultant and writer living in Redmond, Washington. In his special education career, he has been a college professor, a director of a number of federal grants, and a special education teacher. His research interests include instructional strategies for students with special needs ranging from preschool through secondary. Address: Steven V. Horton, 16105 NE 106th St., Redmond, WA 98052.

Thomas C. Lovitt

Thomas C. Lovitt is a professor of special education at the University of Washington. Over the past 25 years, he has published over 100 articles in special education journals, and he has written a number of books focusing on curriculum research with students displaying mild handicaps.

Charles C. Christensen

Charles C. Christensen is director of special services for the Shoreline School District, Seattle, Washington. With Tom Lovitt, Charles was the co-principal-investigator of a federal grant investigating modifying textbooks and instructional strategies for secondary students with learning disabilities. Mr. Christensen is a certified school psychologist and teaches a number of classes in that area as an adjunct faculty member at Seattle Pacific University.

This study examined the effectiveness of matching three classifications of secondary students (17 with learning disabilities, 18 remedial, and 47 nondisabled) to differential levels of study guides. The students, 45 males and 37 females, were enrolled in science and social studies classes in middle school and high school. In one treatment, students were assigned multilevel study guides containing different levels of referential cues, with the guides implemented through three instructional groups: teacher-directed, dyadic, and independent. In another treatment, the same students were assigned single-level study guides that did not contain referential cues, with the guides implemented as an independent activity. An equivalent time samples design was arranged, with six multilevel and six single-level treatments randomly assigned in two-session blocks. The dependent measures consisted of two types of test items, factual and interpretive. The results of group analyses indicated that multilevel study guides were more effective than single-level study guides in all classes and overall on factual questions, with individual analyses verifying that the greatest benefit occurred for the teacher-directed students. On interpretive test items, the results of group analyses favored the multilevel study guides in high school social studies and overall, with individual analyses revealing few remarkable differences for students in any instructional group. A trend analysis revealed little practice effect over time in either treatment. Several methodological and clinical issues involved in matching heterogeneous students to differential levels of textbook instruction in secondary programs are discussed.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 24, No. 9, 518-529 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/002221949102400904


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. A. Skylar, K. Higgins, and R. Boone Strategies for Adapting WebQuests for Students With Learning Disabilities Intervention in School and Clinic, September 1, 2007; 43(1): 20 - 28. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. V. Horton and T. C. Lovitt A Comparison of Two Methods of Administering Group Reading Inventories to Diverse Learners: Computer Versus Pencil and Paper Remedial and Special Education, November 1, 1994; 15(6): 378 - 390. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. C. Lovitt and S. V. Horton Strategies for Adapting Science Textbooks for Youth with Learning Disabilities Remedial and Special Education, March 1, 1994; 15(2): 105 - 116. [Abstract] [PDF]