This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]On: 12 November 2014, At: 07:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading WorldPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri18

Reading instruction in resource roomsKaren Bromley a & Robert L. Carpenter ba Assistant Professor of Reading and Language Arts , State University of New York ,Binghamtonb Assistant Professor of Special Education , State University of New York , BinghamtonPublished online: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Karen Bromley & Robert L. Carpenter (1984) Reading instruction in resource rooms, Reading World, 23:3,209-217, DOI: 10.1080/19388078409557766

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388078409557766

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

MARCH, 1984 209

Reading InstructionIn Resource Rooms

Karen Bromley and Robert L. Carpenter

ABSTRACT

A study is reported of: 1) resource room teacher time uti-lization with respect to reading instruction and diagnostic respon-sibilities related to reading, 2) preparation for teaching readingand, 3) college and university course work requirements in read-ing. Results indicate that resource room teachers are engaged inactivities and procedures related to reading for large amounts oftheir time. The thoroughness and adequacy of their preparationfor teaching reading, as well as college and university re-quirements in reading for special education teachers, arequestioned.

Informal classroom observations suggest that the role of many resourceroom teachers of the learning disabled and educable mentally retardedinvolves responsibilities related to reading. A variety of activities and pro-cedures, many focused on reading, exist in resource room settings. Resourceroom teachers are often expected to provide both direct and indirect service tostudents (Hammill, 1972; Reger & Koppman, 1971; Sabatino, 1972). Directteaching of some students occurs in the resource room itself while otherstudents are, served indirectly through consultations with regular classroomteachers. However, resource room teachers appear to be involved in directrather than indirect services to students for predominant amounts of theirtime. In addition, regular classroom teachers perceive indirect services ofresource teachers as being needed but not delivered (Speece & Mandell,1980) and resource teachers report consultations with regular classroomteachers as a very small part of their perceived role (Evans, 1980).

Little research exists on the daily operation of resource room programs.One recent observational study of resource teacher time utilization indicatesthat services are generally provided through direct instruction (Sargent,1981). In this study, resource room teachers spent 51% of their time in any

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

43 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

210 READING WORLD

given day in direct instruction, 15% in preparation for instruction, and 9% inassessment and evaluation. The remaining 24% of time in a day was devoted togeneral school duties and consultation with both parents and other teachers.

Coupled with Sargent's (1981) findings, our informal classroom obser-vations also suggest that the role of many resource room teachers is one ofproviding direction instruction. Since much of this instructional time is spentin the area of reading, and we agree that reading is a critical skill, we wereinterested in providing some new and useful information about time uti-lization in resource rooms as it relates to reading. The purposes of this studywere threefold. We wanted to determine: 1) the time spent by specialeducation resource room teachers in reading instruction and the extent oftheir diagnostic responsibilities related to reading, 2) the amount and type ofcollege or university preparation in reading of these teachers and, 3) theamount and type of course work in reading that is required by colleges anduniversities in New York State for the Master's degree in special education.

METHODA two-page questionnaire was designed to gather information in con-

junction with the first two purposes. The questionnaire was sent to 100resource room teachers of the educable mentally retarded and/or learningdisabled at elementary, intermediate, junior, and senior high school levels ina six county area of central and upper New York State. Of these 100 teachers,80 returned completed questionnaires.

In the questionnaire, for the purpose of randomization, teachers wereasked to identify the first three students from their alphabetical room roster orclass list. From an initial target population of approximately 1600 students,our sample contained teacher reports on 240 students. Teachers indicated theamount of time per week each student spent engaged in reading instruction.Teachers also estimated percentages of reading time they spent in developingskills in specific areas with each of these students. They were asked to reporttime spent developing skills in readiness, phonics and structure, sight vocab-ulary, comprehension and context texts. They were instructed to consider theprimary focus of the activity or procedure students were engaged in sincesome activities develop skills in more than one area simultaneously. Teachersalso indicated the extent to which various types of diagnostic tests wereadministered. This method of self-report, using teacher estimates of timespent, was considered valid based on Sargent's (1981) findings. Sargent foundresource room teacher time estimates of their work behavior to be veryaccurate. Information was also requested about undergraduate and graduatereading courses these teachers had taken.

Means and standard deviations were calculated in order to report esti-mates of time spent, extent of diagnostic responsibilities, and amount andtype of course work preparation. Means for times reported by teachers wereconverted to percentages.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

43 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

MARCH, 1984 211

In conjunction with the third purpose, a survey was conducted ofgraduate courses in reading required by colleges and universities in New YorkState. Graduate catalogs were requested from both public and private insti-tutions offering Master's level degrees in education with emphases in mildlyhandicapping conditions (educable mental retardation, learning disabilities,behavior disorders, or emotional disturbance). Master's degrees from theseinstitutions result in certification as a "Teacher of Special Education K-12" inNew York State. Of the 23 institutions that offer this degree and werecontacted, no catalogs were received from six, and in two cases materialprovided was insufficient to determine specific course requirements. Fre-quencies reported here involve program descriptions received from theremaining 15 institutions.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Teachers Returning QuestionnaireResponses to the questionnaire indicated that teachers in the sample

taught learning disabled and educable mentally retarded students of pre-dominantly lower-middle to middle class socio-economic levels in rural andsuburban schools. Of the 80 teachers, 42 taught K-6, 27 taught grades 7-12,and 11 taught combinations of grades spanning K-12. Most of the teachers (59;74%) had taught for four or more years, while fewer (21; 26%) had taught forthree years or less. Over half (49; 61%) possessed Master's degrees and a few(6; 8%) held specialist's degrees.

Nearly all of the teachers (73) indicated that a reading teacher or specialistserved their school. Of these teachers (48; 66%) reported the nature of theirrelationship with the reading teacher as "Potentially/Actually Consultative orHelpful." Few teachers (11; 15%) reported the relationship as "Distant orFormal - No Significant Interaction." The remaining teachers (14; 19%)responded midway between "Helpful" and "No Interaction."

Time Spent in Reading InstructionOf the 80 responses, two teachers in the 7-12 group and four teachers in

the K-12 combinations group reported that they were not involved in anyreading instruction with the first three students from their class lists. Asshown in Table 1, the remaining 74 teachers estimated that among the 222students they identified, an average of 336.19 minutes (about 5Vz hours) isspent per week in the resource room and that of this time 166.64 minutes(about 2% hours) is spent per week in reading instruction. In other words,teachers reported that approximately half the time per week these studentsspent in resource rooms was spent in direct instruction in reading.

Regardless of grade level, as shown in Table 2, teachers estimated thatthe highest percentages of reading instruction time was spent in activities thatinvolved comprehension: K-6, 34%, 7-12, 33%, and K-12 combinations, 47%(Table 1). Across grade levels, teachers reported a minimum of 45% (K-6) and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

43 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

212 READING WORLD

as much as 63% (K-12 combinations) of their time in activities involvingcomprehension and content subjects together, both of which ultimatelyimproving understanding of text.

K-2 teachers reported their second highest percentages of time spent inactivities involving phonics and structure (32%). While 7-12 and K-12 teachersalso report time spent in phonics and structure (19% and 22%), the secondhighest percentage of time spent by 7-12 teachers is reported in content textsand for K-12 teachers is phonics and structure. Time spent in activitiesinvolving sight vocabulary is about equal for all groups (16%, 18%, and 14%).

As shown in Table 3, a breakdown of the number of teachers whoreported time spent in specific skill development in reading indicates thatregardless of grade level only 21 of 74 teachers reported time spent inreadiness activities. Reading instruction in all areas other than readiness isreported by more than half the teachers in each group K-6, 7-12, and K-12combinations. From our classroom observations many learning disabled andeducable mentally retarded students actually are non-readers or beginningreaders reading at low levels. It is somewhat surprising then that the numberof teachers involved in readiness activities and estimates of time spent inthese activities are low, especially for the K-6 group as shown in Table 2,where most readiness training occurs (K-6, 7%; 7-12, 8%; K-12 combinations,.0012%).

Diagnostic Responsibilities Related to ReadingAs shown in Table 4, all 80 teachers reported diagnostic responsibilities

related to reading in the form of duties involving the administration of varioustypes of reading tests to students. Regardless of grade level, teachers indi-cated that they most often (routinely to occasionally) administer informalreading assessments, e.g., teacher made and observational checklists (X =1.66). Diagnostic reading tests, e.g., Gates-McKillop, Woodcock, Durrell,Spache (X = 1.86) are reported as administered second most frequently.Standardized reading tests, e.g., Stanford Diagnostic Tests, California Read-ing Tests (X = 2.35), and achievement tests with reading subsections, e.g.,Metropolitan Achievement Tests, Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, CaliforniaAchievement Tests (X = 2.42) were administered least often (occasionally torarely).

College or University CourseworkSmall differences were found among the three groups of teachers in

amount and type of coursework preparation in reading at both undergraduateand graduate levels. In Table 5 mean hours are reported for undergraduateand graduate courses taken by all 80 teachers. Mean hours were highest forundergraduate (X = 4.37) and graduate (X = 4.90). These means indicate thatin number of hours, teachers are equally well prepared in terms of methodscourses at both undergraduate and graduate levels. Their preparation in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

43 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

MARCH, 1984 213

diagnostic practices at the graduate level was reported as higher than that atthe undergraduate level. The survey of colleges and universities in the stategave us some indication of why this amount might be inflated.

Table 6 indicates that 15 of 23 institutions in the state responded to thesurvey. Eight institutions required no coursework in reading, however stu-dents could possibly use elective hours to take reading coursework. It shouldbe noted here that certification requirements for special education teachers inNew York State are general: a baccalaurate degree, 12 credits of educationcoursework, 15 credits in teaching specific disability groups, 9 credits relatedto one of these groups, and a practicum with one of these handicappedpopulations. No specific reading courses are required by the state forcertification.

Three institutions required coursework that might be interpreted ascontaining some content involving methods or diagnosis. These requiredcourses (either one or two three-credit hour courses) were "Methods ofTeaching the Learning Disabled" and "Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teach-ing." The focus of both of these courses would appear not to be reading,although they probably contain some methods or diagnostic informationspecific to reading. Four institutions required at least three hours of course-work in reading. Two programs required a methods course and two required adiagnostic course.

Three popular texts of about 400 pages each used in courses involvingmethods of teaching mildly handicapped students were examined. One textincludes reading as a part of one 63 page chapter devoted to "Academic Skills"(Stephens, 1977). In a second one, one 77 page chapter specifically focuses onreading (Hammill & Bartel, 1978). In a third text, 63 pages are devotedspecifically to reading (Mercer & Mercer, 1981). If texts can be consideredrough guides to course content, it appears that perhaps 15% of such coursesmight involve reading.

IMPLICATIONSStudents who are labelled "Educable Mentally Retarded" and "Learning

Disabled" typically are not eligible for the services of a reading specialist.These students already receive special services from the resource roomteacher. Many of these students have reading problems and the resourceroom teacher in fact spends considerable amounts of time with them both indirect instruction and diagnostic testing. When the reading needs of thesestudents are served only by the resource teacher and considerable amounts ofthe teacher's time are spent in reading-related activities, a strong backgroundin reading is a necessity.

Teachers in this study reported undergraduate and graduate courseworkpreparation in reading even though this state does not formally requirereading for certification. It is possible that these teachers have elected to takegraduate reading courses to develop their knowledge in an area in which they

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

43 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

214 READING WORLD

feel ill-prepared. It is also possible that the courses they report having takendo not deal directly with reading. The extent to which some graduate specialeducation courses provide these teachers with sufficient knowledge andunderstanding of reading to deal with the reading problems of their students isdebatable.

One resource room teacher who works with graduate practicum studentsvoiced a valid concern on the questionnaire:

What I see is a great lack in training teachers in reading diagnosis andprescriptive teaching. I'm appalled that students can graduate in SpecialEducation and Elementary Education at different universities with noneor very little background in reading or diagnosis. Most of my practicumstudents from the university are ill prepared to teach reading or under-stand the process. Their reading courses (usually one) consist of looking atbasal series . . .

Colleges and universities in the state offering Master's degrees andcertification in special education need to examine more closely the type ofcoursework preparation they provide their students. Graduate courses, workin at least a reading methods course and possibly a diagnostic practices course,would seem to be highly appropriate requirements for special educationresource room teachers. Whether or not all resource room teachers areadequately prepared to deal with their responsibilities related to reading isquestionable. Future research ought to include observational studies ofinstruction and diagnostic procedures related to reading engaged in byresource room teachers. Future research might look at reading course workrequirements in other states as well.

REFERENCES

Evans, S. The consultant role of the resource teacher. Exceptional Children, 1980, 46(5), 402-404.

Hammill, D. D. The resource room model in special education. Journal of SpecialEducation, 1972, 6.

Hammill, D. D. and Bartell, N. R. (2nd ed.) Teaching Children with Learning andBehavior Problems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1978.

Mercer, C. D. and Mercer, A. R. Teaching Students with Learning Problems,Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, 1981.

Reger, R. and Koppman, M. The child oriented resource room. Exceptional Children,1971, 37, 460-462.

Sabatino, D. Resource rooms: The renaissance of special education. Journal of SpecialEducation, 1972, 6.

Sargent, L. R. Resource teacher time utilization: An observational study. ExceptionalChildren, 1981, 47 (6), 420-425.

Speece, D. L. and Mandell, C. J. Resource room support services for regular teachers.Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 1980, 3 (1), 49-53.

Stephens, T. M. Teaching Skills to Children with Learning and Behavior Disorders.Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, 1977.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

43 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

MARCH, 1984 215

TABLE 1TIME SPENT IN RESOURCE ROOMS BYGRADE LEVEL (TEACHER ESTIMATES)

Minutes Per Week Spentin Resource Room

Minutes Per Week Spentin ReadingInstruction

K-6N = 42

Mean 324.60SD (167.40)

MeanSD

173.51(99.75)

7-12N = 27

317.40(138.60)

159.92(114.96)

Combinationsof K-12N = 11

424.80(286.80)

156.60(156.79)

TotalGroup

N = 80

336.19(180.66)

166.64(112.07)

TABLE 2PERCENTAGE OF READING INSTRUCTION IN RESOURCE

ROOMS BY GRADE LEVEL (TEACHER ESTIMATES)

Percentage of ReadingTime Spent in:

Readiness

Phonics &Structure

Sight Vocabulary

Comprehension

Content Texts

K-6N = 42

7%

32%

16%

34%

11%

7-12N = 27

8%

19%

18%

33%

22%

Combinationsof K-12N = 11

.0012

22%

14%

47%

16%

TotalGroup

N = 80

7%

26%

17%

35%

15%

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

43 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

216 READING WORLD

TABLE 3NUMBER OF TEACHERS WHO REPORTED INVOLVEMENT

IN READING BY TYPE OF INSTRUCTION

Reading Instruction

Readiness

Phonics & Structure

Sight Vocabulary

Comprehension

Content Texts

K-6(N = 42)

42

12

37

37

37

22

7-12(N = 27)

25

8

16

18

21

17

Combinations(N = 11)

7

1

6

6

7

6

Total(N = 80)

74

21

59

61

65

45

TABLE 4EXTENT OF DIAGNOSTIC RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO

READING (TEACHER ESTIMATES)*

Informal Reading Assessments

Achievement Tests(Reading Subsections)

Standardized Reading Tests

Diagnostic Reading Tests

K-6(N = 42)

Mean 1.52SD .67

Mean 2.23SD 1.14

Mean 2.41SD 1.16

Mean 1.83SD 1.03

7-12(N = 27)

1.81.68

2.811.27

2.221.39

1.85.98

K-6&7-12

(N = 11)

1.81.98

2.181.07

2.451.12

2.001.00

TotalGroup

1.66.72

2.421.19

2.351.23

1.861.00

*Scale of 1-4 Rates Extent of Responsibilities(1 • Routinely; 2 = Occasionally; 3 = Rarely; 4 = Never)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

43 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

MARCH, 1984 217

TABLE 5NUMBER OF UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE CREDIT

HOURS PER SEMESTER IN READING REPORTED BY TEACHERS

Undergraduate GraduateCredit Hours Credit Hours

Methods of TeachingReading

Children's Literature

Diagnostic Practices

MeanSDRange

MeanSDRange

MeanSDRange

4.375.660-30

2.811.360-12

2.312.990-15

4.50(4.59)0-18

.67(1.52)0-6

4.90(4.18)1-18

TABLE 6AMOUNT & TYPE OF GRADUATE COURSE WORK IN READING

REQUIRED BY COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES

23 Colleges and Universities (6 - no response, 2 - insufficient material)15 Program Descriptions

— 8 Required no coursework in Reading— 3 Required coursework that could contain some reading content- 2 Required a Reading Methods course- 2 Required a Diagnostic course

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

43 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014