Students' preferences for service delivery: pull-out, in-class, or integrated models.

Students' preferences for service delivery: pull-out, in-class, or integrated models. ABSTRACT: This study assessed students' preferences about whereand by whom they receive instruction for learning difficulties. Subjectswere 686 special, remedial REMEDIAL. That which affords a remedy; as, a remedial statute, or one which is made to supply some defects or abridge some superfluities of the common law. 1 131. Com. 86. The term remedial statute is also applied to those acts which give a new remedy. Esp. Pen. Act. 1. , and regular education students in grades 2,4, and 5, from classrooms that used a pull-out, in-class, or integratedmodel for specialized spe��cial��ize?v. spe��cial��ized, spe��cial��iz��ing, spe��cial��iz��esv.intr.1. To pursue a special activity, occupation, or field of study.2. instruction. Results of student interviewsindicated that children's preferences for in-class and pull-outservices were affected by the service delivery model used in theirclassroom and their grade level. The majority of children preferred toreceive additional help from their classroom teacher rather than from aspecialist. Decisions about where handicapped students should be instructedhave received more attention, undergone more modifications, andgenerated even more controversy than have decisions about how or whatthese students are taught. Handicapped students' educationaljourney has come nearly full circle. Their odyssey Odyssey(ŏd`ĭsē): see Homer. OdysseyHomer’s long, narrative poem centered on Odysseus. [Gk. Lit.: Odyssey]See : EpicOdyssey , which began ingeneral education classrooms, took them first to separate schools, fromthere to full-time special classes, and on to resource rooms withpart-time placement in regular classrooms, and now they appear to beheaded in the direction of full-time placement in general educationclassrooms (Wang (Wang Laboratories, Inc., Lowell, MA) A computer services and network integration company. Wang was one of the major early contributors to the computing industry from its founder's invention that made core memory possible, to leadership in desktop calculators and word processors. & Birch birch,common name for some members of the Betulaceae, a family of deciduous trees or shrubs bearing male and female flowers on separate plants, widely distributed in the Northern Hemisphere. , 1984; Will, 1986). Vestiges of each setting remain, but by far the most prevalentplacement today is the special education resource room. But"pull-out" programs such as resource rooms have recently comeunder attack by reform-minded educators who view the general educationclassroom as the appropriate setting for special and compensatoryeducation. Criticisms of pull-out programs are many. They have beencharged with disrupting classroom instruction (Wang, Reynolds, &Walberg, 1987); absolving classroom teachers of responsibility forinstructing low-performing students (Pugach & Lilly For lily, the flower, see .Lilly is a surname and a female given name, and may refer to: PeopleBob Lilly (b. 1939), American football player and photographer Colonel Eli Lilly (1839–1898), pharmaceutical chemist Evangeline Lilly (b. , 1984);attaching stigmas to the children who are pulled out (Will, 1986);failing to coordinate their instruction with that of the classroom(Johnston Johnston,town (1990 pop. 26,542), Providence co., N central R.I., a suburb of Providence; inc. 1759. Among its manufactures are jewelry, textiles, and fabricated metals. Johnston is the home of several insurance companies. , Allington Allington is the name of several settlements in the United Kingdom: Allington, Dorset Allington, Kent Allington, Lincolnshire Allington, North Wiltshire Allington, Salisbury, in Wiltshire Allington, near Devizes in Wiltshire East Allington , & Afflerbach, 1985; Haynes & Jenkins,1986); failing to increase academic learning time (Haynes & Jenkins,1986; Thurlow & Ysseldyke, 1983); failing to produce transfer to theregular program (Anderson-Inman, 1986); costing more than otheralternatives Affieck, Madge, Adams, & Lowenbraun, 1988); and, mostimportant, ineffectiveness in��ef��fec��tive?adj.1. Not producing an intended effect; ineffectual: an ineffective plea.2. Inadequate; incompetent: an ineffective teacher. (Gallagher, 1984). Broad generalizations based on investigations where only a fewstudents, teachers, or schools were sampled are particularly hazardousin situations where there is large variation across programs that usethe "same" service model. Haynes and Jenkins (1986), forexample, found sizable siz��a��blealso size��a��ble ?adj.Of considerable size; fairly large.siza��ble��ness n. differences in the way that individual studentswere treated within and across special education resource programs,suggesting that resource rooms should not be viewed as homogeneous The same. Contrast with heterogeneous. homogeneous - (Or "homogenous") Of uniform nature, similar in kind.1. In the context of distributed systems, middleware makes heterogeneous systems appear as a homogeneous entity. For example see: interoperable network. entities. Moreover, many criticisms are based on absolute rather thanrelative judgments. That is, researchers or critics observe that aprogram does not result in increases in academic engagement (Thurlow& Ysseldyke, 1983), or instruction in pull-out programs is poorlyarticulated ar��tic��u��la��tedadj.Characterized by or having articulations; jointed. with that of the regular classroom (Haynes & Jenkins,1986), but confine their observations to one type of service model(e.g., pull-out), instead of comparing different service models (e.g.,pull-out vs. various in-class models). Perhaps other service-deliverymodels would alleviate AlleviateTo make something easier to be endured.Mentioned in: Kinesiology, Applied the problems associated with pull-out programsand perhaps they would not. More than likely they would present adifferent set of problems. Even though many studies of pull-out programs lack relativecomparisons between service models, sample a restricted range ofprograms, and overgeneralize Verb 1. overgeneralize - draw too general a conclusion; "It is dangerous to overgeneralize"overgeneraliseextrapolate, generalize, infer, generalise - draw from specific cases for more general cases findings, concerns about these programs arelegitimate enough to warrant efforts to develop and evaluate alternativemodels (Reynolds, 1988). Two such alternatives are "in-class"and integrated classroom models. In-class models differ from pull-out inthat remedial and special education support staff provide instruction inregular classrooms rather than remove eligible students to an outsidesetting (McDonald, 1987). Presumably pre��sum��a��ble?adj.That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition: presumable causes of the disaster. , instruction in pull-out andin-class models is identical in content and in the personnel deliveringit, differing only in location. In the integrated classroom model Affleck Affleck is a Scottish surname which may refer to the following people: Ben Affleck, American actor Casey Affleck, American actor Edmund Affleck, admiral, writer Philip Affleck, admiral Thomas Affleck, cabinetmaker Also the following places: et al., 1988),handicapped and remedial students receive all instruction in regularclassrooms. Unlike resource rooms and in-class models where supportstaff instruct in��struct?v. in��struct��ed, in��struct��ing, in��structsv.tr.1. To provide with knowledge, especially in a methodical way. See Synonyms at teach.2. To give orders to; direct.v. eligible students, the integrated classroom model uses nooutside specialists. Relative to ordinary classrooms, integratedclassroom have fewer students and employ a teacher aide. Thus far,investigations of in-class and integrated models suggest that studentachievement in these programs is comparable with that obtained inresource rooms Affleck et al., 1988; Jenkins, Peterson Pe��ter��son? , Oscar Emmanuel Born 1925.Canadian jazz pianist. A prolific recording artist noted for his technical skill, he is best known for work produced with his own trio (1953-1965). , & Schrag,1988). The present study was designed to investigate stigmatization stigmatization/stig��ma��ti��za��tion/ (stig?mah-ti-za��shun)1. the developing of or being identified as possessing one or more stigmata.2. the act or process of negatively labelling or characterizing another. associated with different program models. We reasoned that students aresensitive to situations that influence stigmatization, and that theirperception of the relative stigmatization effects resulting fromdifferent program models could be inferred from their preferences forservice delivery models. That is, students would prefer to receivespecialized instruction in a manner that they perceive as effective andthat limits embarrassment. As far as we can tell, no one has conducted asystematic inquiry into students' preferences for different typesof assistance. In the only study we could locate related to this topic,Vaughn and Bos 1. (operating system) BOS - Basic Operating System.2. (tool) BOS - A data management system written at DESY and used in some high energy physics programs.3. (programming) BOS - The Basic Object System. ( 1 987) reported that the majority of elementary-agedlearning disabled (LD) and non-LD students knew the purpose of aresource room and gave it as their first or second choice of a place forspending time outside of the classroom. But respondents In the context of marketing research, a representative sample drawn from a larger population of people from whom information is collected and used to develop or confirm marketing strategy. were not askedwhether they would prefer going to the resource room or having theresource teacher come to their classroom, or whether they would preferto receive services from their classroom teacher or from an outsidespecialist. In the present study, we asked those questions of mildlyhandicapped special education students, and of remedial and regulareducation students. Because students' current experiences in aprogram and grade level might influence their judgments, we sampledprimary and upper elementary students who were receiving service in avariety of delivery models. METHODS Subjects In all, 686 students wereinterviewed. The grade levels and program placements are shown in Table1. Students were drawn from 15 schools, in four school districts fromthe Puget Sound Puget Sound(py`jĕt), arm of the Pacific Ocean, NW Wash., connected with the Pacific by Juan de Fuca Strait, entered through the Admiralty Inlet and extending in two arms c. area of Washington State. All 2nd-, 4th-, and 5th-gradestudents receiving specialized reading instruction in the participatingschools were interviewed. Included were 101 special educationrecipients, 236 remedial students, and 349 regular education students. Special education students were children qualified to receivespecial education under federal and state guidelines guidelines,n.pl a set of standards, criteria, or specifications to be used or followed in the performance of certain tasks. . Most were learningdisabled. Remedial students received compensatory education servicesthrough Chapter 1, the state Remedial Assistance Program, or localdistrict remediation programs. Regular education students were those whowere not recipients of special or compensatory education. For everyremedial or special education student in the study, classroom teacherswere asked to nominate nom��i��nate?tr.v. nom��i��nat��ed, nom��i��nat��ing, nom��i��nates1. To propose by name as a candidate, especially for election.2. To designate or appoint to an office, responsibility, or honor. a regular education student from the sameclassroom. Different students received remedial and special educationinstruction through traditional pull-out programs, in-class models, andintegrated classrooms. The three types of programs are described in thefollowing sections. Pull-out Programs. Remedial and special educationstudents served in pull-out models went to a resource room or remedialreading room for supplemental reading instruction from a specialist, forexample, special or remedial education teacher. TABLE I Number of Students (Regular, Remedial, and SpecialEducation) in Each Classroom Model Grade Model 2 415 Overall Pull-out 201 213 414 In-class 15162 213 Integrated 26 33 59 Total 378 308 686 In-class Programs.These programs were similar to pull-out programs in that studentsreceived instruction from a specialist, but differed from pull-out inthat instruction took place in the general education classroom. Remedialand special education teachers came to the students rather than removestudents to a special setting. Integrated Programs. These programsdiffered from in-class and pull-out models in that all instruction wasprovided by a classroom teacher and an aide Affleck et al., 1988). Nooutside specialists were used. Typically, integrated classes werecomposed of 24 students, 8 of whom were learning disabled and 16 of whomwere regular and remedial education students. Interviews The studentinterviews consisted of questions about program preference. Theinterview procedure was field-tested in a suburban elementary school elementary school:see school. andthe questions adjusted to ensure that students could understand them.Two questions sought to determine where and from whom students wouldrather receive specialized instruction. The first addressed preferencesabout the location of remedial instruction and was phrased as follows: If you were having a lot of problems in your classroom reading lessons and needed extra help, would you rather: (a) go to Mr./Ms. (the special reading teacher's) classroom for help, or (b) have Mr./Ms. (the special reading teacher) come to your classroom to help you? The second question addressed students' preference for helpfrom their classroom teacher or from a specialist. If you were having a lot of problems in your classroom reading lessons and needed extra help, would you rather: (a) get extra help from Mr./Ms. (the special reading teacher), or (b) get extra help from Mr./Ms. (the regular classroom teacher)? After each response,interviewers asked students to give a reason for their choice. ProcedureIndividual interviews were conducted with special, remedial, and regulareducation students. Research assistants interviewed students in a quietlocation in or near their regular classroom. Interviewers told studentsthat they were trying "to learn about things kids liked aboutschool." To establish rapport The former name of device management software from Wyse Technology, San Jose, CA (www.wyse.com) that is designed to centrally control up to 100,000+ devices, including Wyse thin clients (see Winterm), Palm, PocketPC and other mobile devices. with the students, interviewers beganby asking them about where they liked to have recess and what they likedto do in class when there was spare time. Next, interviewers askedstudents the two questions relating to relating torelate prep → concernantrelating torelate prep → bez��glich +gen, mit Bezug auf +accpreference for service model,along with the reason for their choice. Finally, students were thankedfor their help and returned to their classroom. RESULTS Preference forPull-Out Versus In-Class Instruction Because remedial and specialeducation students responded similarly to the questions, their data werecombined in the following analyses. Two analyses were performed toseparate the effects of students' current service mode and gradeplacement on their preference for pull-out and in-class services. Table2 shows students' preferences, depending on their current placementin a service model and grade. For these analyses, current service modelincluded integrated classes in addition to pull-out and in-classservices. Students' current service mode significantly influenced theirpreference for service mode, X2 (2, n = 335) = 21.52, p < .01. Morestudents from pull-out programs preferred that type of program overin-class programs (72% vs. 28%), whereas students who were currentlyreceiving in-class services split evenly between preference for pull-outand in-class (51% vs. 49%). Those in integrated classrooms leaned towardin-class help (38% vs. 62%), although this latter difference was notsignificant. Grade level was also significant, X2 (1, n = 335) = 4.06, p< .05, with more older students than younger selecting pull-out. Regular students were categorized cat��e��go��rize?tr.v. cat��e��go��rized, cat��e��go��riz��ing, cat��e��go��riz��esTo put into a category or categories; classify.cat according to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. the type of servicegiven to remedial and special education students in their classrooms.That is, regular students were categorized as "pull-out" iftheir classmates Classmates can refer to either: Classmates.com, a social networking website. Classmates (film), a 2006 Malayalam blockbuster directed by Lal Jose, starring Prithviraj, Jayasurya, Indragith, Sunil, Jagathy, Kavya Madhavan, Balachandra Menon, ... received pull-out services, as "inclass" iftheir classmates received in-class services, or as"integrated" if they were in an integrated classroom. SeeTable 2 for the pattern of preference. Regular students' preference for a service model wassignificantly affected by the type of service used in their classrooms,X2 (2, n = 349) = 8.13, p < .05, with more students from classroomsthat used pull-out services (70%) or an integrated model (67%)preferring pull-out than students from classrooms that used an in-classmodel (54%). Grade was significant, X2 (1, n - 349) = 21.53, p < .01,with more upper grade students than lower grade students (76% vs. 55%)expressing preference for pull-out. Preference for Help from ClassroomTeachers Versus Specialists When special and remedial education studentswere given a choice between receiving additional help from theirclassroom teacher or help from a specialist, whether through pull-out orin-class, they overwhelmingly expressed preference for additional helpfrom their classroom teacher. Even though students in each service modeand in each grade preferred help from their classroom teacher, theirpreference was significantly affected both by current service mode, x2(2, n 335) 6.76, p < .01), and grade level, x2 1, n 335) 6.57, p < .01 (see Table 3). More students who werecurrently receiving in-class (78%) and integrated services In computer networking, IntServ or integrated services is an architecture that specifies the elements to guarantee quality of service (QoS) on networks. IntServ can for example be used to allow video and sound to reach the receiver without interruption. (79%)preferred help from their classroom teacher than did students who werecurrently recipients of pull-out (65%). Also, more students in lowerthan in upper grades (72% vs. 57%) preferred to receive help from theirclassroom teacher. When regular education students were given a choice betweenreceiving additional help from their classroom teacher or from aspecialist, they overwhelmingly selected the former. Unlike theirhandicapped and remedial peers, regular students' pattern ofresponding was not significantly affected by the type of service used intheir classroom. Students' Reasons for Selection of Service ModelTable 4 shows the reasons given for selecting pull-out and in-classservices, broken down by student type and grade level of therespondents. The principal reasons behind selection of pull-out were theperception that the specialist can give more or better help in apull-out model, and that pull-out is less embarrassing than having aspecialist come into the classroom. The pattern of reasons variedsomewhat with grade level. Most notably, avoiding embarrassment played alarger role for older than younger students. The principal reasonsbehind selection of in-class services were convenience (e.g., not havingto walk to another room), preferring to stay with classmates, andavoiding the embarrassment of pull-out. Table 5 shows reasons given for preferring to obtain help from theclassroom teacher or from a specialist. The principal reasons given forselecting help from the classroom teacher were that the classroomteacher knew what students needed, and students liked that teacher. Theprincipal reasons for selecting help from a specialist were thatstudents perceived specialists as being able to provide more help and asknowing more about reading. DISCUSSION Pull-out Versus In-Class ServicesGiven the choice between pull-out and in-class models, students'preferences were influenced both by the type of program in which theywere currently served and by their grade level. The majority of studentswho were taught in pull-out programs preferred to be pulled out. Incontrast, the responses of students who were receiving in-class serviceswere split evenly between preference for in-class and pull-out services.However, among older students receiving in-class services, more optedfor pull-out. Somewhat more students from integrated classrooms selectedin-class over pull-out services, but this difference, based on a smallsample of students, was not statistically significant. Likewise, amongthe regular education students, pull-out was clearly preferred,regardless of the type of program used in their classroom. Thus, whenthere was a clear preference for a service delivery model, it was forpull-out. When grade level was considered, relatively more older thanyounger students preferred to be pulled out. These results challenge thenotion that children, generally, prefer to have specialists come to themrather than go to the specialists. Embarrassment played a substantial role in students' choicesof models. In selecting pull-out, special, remedial, and regularstudents stated that they would receive more or better help in thismodel, or that the alternative (in-class) would cause themembarrassment. Some special and remedial education students who selectedin-class services also mentioned embarrassment (caused by pull-out) asone of the reasons for their choice. Thus, a major reason behindchildren's preference for a service model is avoidingembarrassment, regardless of the model selected. This was particularlytrue for older students, who more often explained their selection interms of avoiding embarrassment. Considering that the majority ofrespondents served in pull-out programs preferred this option, that halfof the respondents served in in-class programs preferred pull-out, andthat embarrassment was often cited as a reason for selecting a servicemode, students apparently view pull-out as no more embarrassing andstigmatizing than in-class services, a finding that runs counter to theperception of many educators. Perhaps special educators haveovergeneralized notions about stigmatization to situations (i.e.,pull-out programs) where they do not apply. As we will see later,perceived stigmatization may be related more to being singled out thanto the location of services per se. Avoiding embarrassment is by no means the sole reason forpreferring one service model over another. Although 6%-20% of thechildren who chose in-class services stated that leaving the classroomwould cause them embarrassment, 39%-50% gave reasons related toconvenience and wanting to stay with their classmates. A substantialnumber of students 21%36%) "didn't did��n't?Contraction of did not.didn'tdid notdidn'tdo know," orcouldn't state why they preferred one model over another. Some ofthese students may have seen one model as causing more embarrassmentthan another, but were reluctant to give embarrassment as a reason.Interpretation of these results is further complicated by the fact thatwe cannot determine how students envisioned the two service models. Wecan safely assume that recipients of in-class and pull-out instructioncould accurately visualize the model that they were currentlyexperiencing, but they may have had difficulty envisioning thealternative. For example, students who had never received in-classservices may have interpreted this alternative as a situation where theywould be singled out in front of their classmates, or as a situationwhere a specialist would instruct a group within their classroom. Ifstudents thought of in-class service in the former way, then they mayhave selected pull-out to avoid the embarrassment of being singled outbefore their peers. At any rate, our results suggest thatchildren's preference for particular service models is influencednot only by their experience with a model and their age, but also by acomplex array of perceptions related to the models themselves, thequality of the learning environment, the reaction of their peers, andeven such mundane factors as convenience and the avoidance of extrawork. Help from Regular Teachers Versus Specialists Students were giventhe choice between receiving additional help from their classroomteacher or from a specialist (whether delivered through pull-out orin-class models). The vast majority of students chose their classroomteacher, but responses varied somewhat depending on students, currentservices and their grade. Significantly more students receiving servicesthrough in-class and integrated models preferred to get help from theirclassroom teacher than did students who were currently receivingpull-out assistance. Also, relatively more students in lower grades thanthose in upper grades preferred to obtain help from their classroomteacher rather than from a specialist. Why do students overwhelmingly prefer to obtain additional helpfrom their classroom teacher rather than from a specialist? The reasonmost often given by all students was that the classroom teacher knowswhat I need." Students seem to recognize the difficulty thatspecialists and classroom teachers have in coordinating theirinstruction, and believe that instruction from a specialist may he oflimited help in solving their classroom learning problems. It isinteresting that the leading reason given by students who selected thespecialist over the classroom teacher was that they would get more orbetter help from the specialist. Students appear to have grasped theessence of the major conflict in organizing a system that provides helpfor learning problems, that is, weighing the advantage of obtaining helpfrom someone who is familiar with their problem (the classroom teacher)against the advantage of obtaining help from someone who has the time toprovide it (the specialist). An alternative explanation for students' tendency to choosethe classroom teacher rather than the specialist is that they viewadditional help from the classroom teacher as less stigmatizing thanhelp from a specialist; that is, it is not unusual to see theirclassroom teacher helping a classmate or themselves. However, fewstudents mentioned embarrassment as a reason for selecting the classroomteacher over a specialist. Another possibility is that students'choice of their classroom teacher over a specialist is a form of denial(i.e., denying that a learning problem would be serious enough towarrant outside assistance). Overall, these results leave us with two general impressions.First, regardless of their typology typology/ty��pol��o��gy/ (ti-pol��ah-je) the study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. typologythe study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. (regular, remedial, or specialeducation), students do not wish to draw attention to their skilldeficits. If they encounter learning problems in the classroom and needextra help, they would rather receive that help from their classroomteacher. Although students' experience with various service modelsalong with their grade level affect their choices, the majority ofstudents would rather not have to see a specialist. Second, when students must see a specialist, they look upon leavingthe classroom (pull-out) as at least as preferable as having aspecialist come to them. This finding can also be interpreted in lightof the operating rule, "Don't draw peer attention to yourskill deficits." Students might be concerned that instruction froma specialist in the classroom would publicize pub��li��cize?tr.v. pub��li��cized, pub��li��ciz��ing, pub��li��ciz��esTo give publicity to.publicizeor -ciseVerb[-cizing, -cized] their learning problemsmore than would leaving the classroom---that is, when they are pulledout, their performance is not witnessed by their peers. Apparently, some students perceived pull-out, the morerestrictive" service, as less stigmatizing than the "lessrestrictive" in-class service. However, their perceptions ofstigmatization are extremely personal. Jenkins and Heinen 1988) foundthat students appeared equally receptive receptive/re��cep��tive/ (re-cep��tiv) capable of receiving or of responding to a stimulus. to a "new classmate"whether the classmate was described as (a) receiving specializedin-class instruction, (b) receiving specialized pull-out instruction, or(c) not requiring specialized instruction. Thus, although students mayview a particular service delivery mode as preferable for themselves,they appear not to differentially judge others according to servicemode. Concerning mode of service delivery, the present results suggestthat the majority of students would be inclined toward a totalmainstreaming model such as the integrated classroom model Affleck etal., 1988) or the adaptive learning (algorithm) adaptive learning - (Or "Hebbian learning") Learning where a system programs itself by adjusting weights or strengths until it produces the desired output. environment model (Wang & Birch,1984). Most students prefer to obtain additional help within the generaleducation classroom from nonspecialists who are familiar with them andtheir classroom curriculum. In summary, students do hold preferences about where and by whomthey are instructed. Their preferences are affected by their currentexperience and by their grade level, and by a complex array of factorsincluding perceptions about teachers' knowledge of theirinstructional needs, teachers' ability to help, the quality of thelearning environment, and peer judgments. Most students would like tothink that their classroom teachers can provide the instructionnecessary to overcome their learning problems. They do not necessarilysee the world in the same way that adults think they do or should. Wehave heard professionals argue that one or another service model shouldbe employed because it is more effective and because students prefer itover other models. Regarding the second argument, students may need tobe consulted about their preferences, because it is hazardous to assumethat children necessarily "see it our way."