Two Approaches to Reading Instruction with Children with Disabilities: Does Program Design Make a Difference?

By O'Connor, Rollanda E.; Jenkins, Joseph R. et al. | Exceptional Children, February 1993 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Two Approaches to Reading Instruction with Children with Disabilities: Does Program Design Make a Difference?

O'Connor, Rollanda E., Jenkins, Joseph R., Cole, Kevin N., Mills, Paulette E., Exceptional Children

Practices and philosophies about beginning reading instruction vary, but research strongly supports an early emphasis on letter-sound correspondences especially for children at risk for reading failure (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985; Bond & Dykstra, 1967). Reading methods that include explicit, synthetic phonics instruction--isolated letter sounds and blending sounds into words--result in higher first-grade achievement in word recognition and spelling (Adams, 1990); and these effects spread in second grade to comprehension, reading rate, and vocabulary (Chall, 1967). Researchers have investigated individual aspects of phonics instruction-the format, language, and ordering of phonics activities (Carnine, 1976, 1981; Williams & Ackerman, 1971)-- and used these studies as a rationale for a theory of overall program design (Engelmann & Carnine, 1982).

One of the most dramatic demonstrations of the effects of a specific reading program occurred as part of the national evaluation of the federally sponsored Project Follow Through involving 20,000 disadvantaged children across the United States and 22 different models. One model, Direct Instruction (DI), employed Distar Reading (Engelmann & Bruner, 1988a). The Abt Associates report (Stebbins, St. Pierre, Proper, Anderson, & Cerva, 1977), in its analysis of Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT) reading scores, concluded: "Only the children associated with the Direct Instruction Model appear to perform above the expectation determined by the progress of the non-Follow Through children"(p. 155).

Becket (1977) attributed the success of the DI model in Project Follow Through to the design features of Distar Reading, which "utilize(d) advanced programming strategies which are consistent with current behavior theory, but which go beyond current research on task analysis and stimulus control" (Becker & Carnine, 1980. p. 433). The design of DI programs is rounded on general case teaching, whereby children learn a small set of examples along with strategies for generalizing to a larger set.


One aim in the present study was to examine the contribution of program design to the efficacy of beginning reading programs used as early intervention for young children with learning disabilities. We reasoned that the effects of program design ought to be most apparent in studies employing students who are just beginning the reading process, particularly children who are predicted to fail without careful instruction; specifically, those children who may have documented learning disabilities, or who are among the wider category of children at risk for learning failure. These children have little prior instructional experience to confound the effects of program design.

Both reading programs examined in our research used a synthetic phonics approach, but differed markedly in instructional design (Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 1990). We included one program, DI's Reading Mastery 1, because it is based on an explicit theory of instruction (Engelmann & Camine, 1982) and because its predecessor, Distar, produced remarkably strong achievement effects with economically disadvantaged youngsters. Our second program was Addison Wesley's Superkids. Like Reading Mastery, this program introduces letter sounds in isolation, teaches sound blending, and selects reading vocabulary words that have regular decodable spellings. However, Superkids adopts an entirely different stance on certain other aspects of program design that Adams (1990) has referred to as "unresolved dimensions" of phonics instruction (e.g., the order of letter-sound introduction and use of letter names), and that Gersten and Carnine (1986) have identified as critical elements in effective instruction (e.g., explicit step-by-step strategies, student mastery, specified error corrections, and formative testing coupled with cumulative review).

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Two Approaches to Reading Instruction with Children with Disabilities: Does Program Design Make a Difference?


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?