personalizing classroom instruction to account for motivational and

PERSONALIZING CLASSROOM INSTRUCTIONTO ACCOUNT FOR MOTIVATIONAL AND

DEVELOPMENTAL DIFFERENCES

Linda TaylorLos A ngeles Unied School District

University of California Los A ngeles California USA

Howard S A delmanUniversity of California Los A ngeles California USA

A n orientation to teaching is outlined that stresses the necessity of matchingboth motivation and capabilities This model encompasses both regular instruc-tion and remediation The approach begins with an emphasis on improvingregular instruction by enhancing the ability of teachers to personalize instruc-tion For students found to need additional assistance remediation is intro-duced and pursued using a hierarchical framework The emphasis at all timesis on use of the least intervention needed and maintaining a focus on motiva-tion as a primary consideration

A transactional perspective of human behavior (see discussion byBandura 1978) recognizes that preventing and remedying manylearning problems require the involvement of all teachers in com-prehensive e orts to address the wide range of barriers that interferewith classroom learning and teaching (Adelman amp Taylor 1993 19941997) This includes making signicant changes in learning environ-ments and instructional systems to enhance literacy In the vernacu-lar of teaching a transactional perspective states that suchmodications should be designed to meet learners where they are Inpractice this old adage is usually interpreted as a call for matching astudentrsquos current capabilities (eg knowledge and skills) Howevermatching motivation also is essential Such a motivational emphasisencompasses concerns about intrinsic motivation and overcomingavoidance motivation (Deci amp Chandler 1986)

This article was prepared in conjunction with work done by the Center for MentalHealth in Schools at UCLA which is partially supported by funds from the USDepartment of Health and Human Services Public Health Services Health Resourcesand Services Administration Bureau of Maternal and Child Health Office of Adole-scent Health

Address correspondence to Howard Adelman Department of Psychology UCLABox 95163 Los Angeles CA 90095-1563 USA

Reading amp Writing Quarterly 15 255ndash276 1999Copyright 1999 Taylor amp FrancisOacute

1057-356999 $1200 1 00 255

256 L Taylor and H S A delman

FIGURE 1 Sequences and levels in providing a good match and determiningleast intervention needed

It is clear that the emphasis on matching capabilities is the preva-lent orientation in the literature on teaching reading and writing(Jordan amp Goldsmith-Phillips 1994 Joyce amp Weil 1996 Lyon ampMoats 1997 Reid amp Maag 1998) Motivational considerations are

Personalized Classroom Instruction 257

often given short shrift The irony of course is that most teachersrecognize that motivational factors often play a key role in account-ing for poor instructional outcomes One of the most common lamentsamong teachers is lsquolsquoThey could do it if only they wanted to rsquorsquo Tea-chers also know that good reading abilities are more likely to emergewhen youngsters are motivated not only to pursue class assignmentsbut also are interested in reading as a recreational activity

Our intent here is to outline an orientation to teaching thatstresses the necessity of matching both motivation and capabilitiesand a model that encompasses both regular instruction and remedia-tion The approach outlined begins with an emphasis on improvingregular instruction by enhancing the ability of teachers to person-alize instruction For students found to need additional assistanceremediation is introduced (see Figure 1)

At rst glance it may seem inconsistent that we would stress atransactional perspective of learning and instruction and also advo-cate sequential and somewhat hierarchical approach to interventionfor youngsters experiencing difficulty Our work reects both anappreciation that learning and teaching are dynamic and nonlinearprocesses and that some learners experience problems that requirethe use of something more than the best that individualized or evenpersonalized instruction o ers We continue to refer to that some-thing more as remediation although we would welcome someoneinventing a better term Among those who focus on remediationthere continues to be debate over whether to focus on observableskills or possible underlying problems (see Adelman amp Taylor 19931994) Our approach to remediation is an attempt to deal with thismatter in an empirical way Before discussing the model in greaterdetail it will help if we expand briey on our view of the concepts ofthe match and personalized instruction

PERSONALIZATION AND MATCHING MOTIVATIONAND CAPABILITY

The theoretical concept of the match (as advocated throughout thebody of work produced by leading scholars such as Bruner 1966Hunt 1961 Piaget 1952 Vygotsky Vygotsky amp John-Steiner 1980)reects a transactional view of learning and learning problems Inthe more recent literature the tendency is to refer to the concept ofthe match as the problem of t In practice all individualized andpersonalized interventions are based on this concept The major


thrust in most individualized approaches is to account for individualdi erences in capability whereas personalization has been dened asaccounting for individual di erences in both capability and motiva-tion (Adelman amp Taylor 1993 1994)

Personalization represents an application of the principles of nor-malization and least intervention needed (which encompasses theconcept of least restrictive environment) Personalization can betreated as a psychological construct by viewing the learnerrsquos percep-tion as a critical factor in dening whether the environment appro-priately accounts for the learnerrsquos interests and abilities (Adelman ampTaylor 1993) In dening personalization as a psychological con-struct learnersrsquo perceptions of how well teaching and learningenvironments match their interests and abilities become a basicassessment concern

Properly designed and carried out personalized programs shouldreduce the need for remediation related to reading and writing Thatis maximizing motivation and matching developmental capabilityshould be a sufficient condition for learning among those studentswhose difficulties are not the result of interfering internal factorsPersonalized programs also represent the type of program regularclassrooms might implement in order to signicantly improve the effi-cacy of inclusion mainstreaming and prereferral interventions

As we have indicated most teachers recognize the importance ofdesigning interventions to be a good t with the current capabilitiesof their students Often however the same degree of emphasis is notgiven in schools to individual di erences in motivation This is not tosay that the matter has been ignored in the literature on motivation(Deci amp Ryan 1985 Dev 1997 Stipeck 1998 Weiner 1985) Thevalue of attending to motivational considerations related to literacyin general and reading in particular is a major theme in productsfrom those associated with the National Reading Research Center(eg Guthrie amp Wigeld 1997 Morrow amp Sharkey 1993 Sweet ampGuthrie 1996)

From a cognitive-a ective theoretical viewpoint there are verygood reasons for teachers to make motivation a primary consider-ation For one thing motivation is a key antecedent condition Thatis it is a prerequisite to student performance Poor motivationalreadiness may be a cause of poor learning and a factor maintain-ing learning problems Thus strategies are called for that can resultin a high level of motivational readiness (including reductionof avoidance motivation)mdashso that students are mobilized to partici-pate

Motivation is also a key ongoing process concern Processes must


elicit enhance and maintain motivation so that students stay mobi-lized For example an individual may value learning to read but maynot be motivated to pursue the processes used to teach reading Manystudents are motivated when they rst encounter reading instructionbut do not maintain that motivation

When they arise negative motivation and avoidance reactionsmdashand the conditions likely to generate themmdashmust be circumvented orat least minimized Of particular concern are activities people per-ceive as unchallenging uninteresting overdemanding or overwhelm-ing Students react against structures that seriously limit their rangeof options or are overcontrolling and coercive Examples of condi-tions that can have a negative impact on a personrsquos motivation aresparse resources excessive rules and a restrictive day-in day-outemphasis on drill and remediation

Finally enhancing intrinsic motivation is a basic outcomeconcern Although a student may function well-enough to learn thebasics of reading and writing at school the youngster may have littleor no interest in using newly acquired knowledge and skills unlessa situation demands it Responding to this concern requires strat-egies to enhance stable positive intrinsic attitudes that mobilizean individualrsquos ongoing pursuit of desired ends in nondemandsituations Such intrinsic attitudes are needed to generate the typeof motivated practice (for example reading for pleasure) that isessential if what has just been learned is to be mastered and assimil-ated

No teacher has control over all the important elements involved inlearning Indeed teachers actually can a ect only a relatively smallsegment of the physical environment and social context in whichlearning is to occur Because this is so it is essential that teachersbegin with an appreciation of what is likely to a ect a studentrsquos posi-tive and negative motivation to learn For example our work (as syn-thesized in Adelman amp Taylor 1993 1994) suggests teachers need topay particular attention to the following points

performance and learning require motivational readinessd OptimalReadiness is no longer viewed in the old sense of waiting until anindividual is interested Rather it is understood in the contempo-rary sense of o ering stimulating environments that can be per-ceived as vivid valued and attainable

not only need to try to increase motivationmdashespeciallyd Teachersintrinsic motivationmdashbut also to avoid practices that decrease itFor example under some circumstances overreliance on extrinsicsto entice and reward may decrease intrinsic motivation


represents both a process and an outcome concern Ford Motivationexample programs must be designed to maintain enhance andexpand intrinsic motivation for pursuing current learning activ-ities and also for involvement in related learning activities beyondthe immediate lesson and outside of school

motivation requires focusing on a studentrsquos thoughtsd Increasingfeelings and decisions In general the intent is to use proceduresthat can reduce negative and increase positive feelings thoughtsand coping strategies With learning problems it is especiallyimportant to identify and minimize experiences that maintain ormay increase avoidance motivation

The point about minimizing experiences that have negative associ-ations deserves special emphasis Students with learning problemsmay have developed extremely negative perceptions of teachers andprograms In such cases they are not likely to be open to people andactivities that look like the same old thing Major changes inapproach are required for the student to notice that something haschanged Exceptional e orts must be made to have these studentsview the teacher as supportive (rather than controlling or indi erent)and perceive content outcomes and activity options as personallyvaluable and obtainable

Major intervention implications are that a program must providefor a broad range of content outcomes and procedural optionsincluding a personalized structure to facilitate learning and thenprovide opportunities for learner decision making There also must benonthreatening ways to provide ongoing information about learningand performance Such procedures are fundamental to mobilizingmost learners in classroom programs and can be essential for thoseexperiencing learning difficulties

For learners who are motivated facilitating learning involvesmaintaining and possibly enhancing motivation and helping establishways for learners to attain their goals The intent is to help the indi-vidual learn e ectively efficiently and with a minimum of negativeside e ects Sometimes all that is needed is to help clear the externalhurdles to learning At other times facilitating learning requiresleading guiding stimulating clarifying and supporting Althoughthe process involves knowing when how and what to teach it alsoinvolves knowing when and how to structure the situation so thatpeople can learn on their own (Fuchs Fuchs Mathes amp Simmons1997 Johnson amp Pugach 1991 Marr 1997 Slavin 1994 SlavinKarweit amp Madden 1989)


A SEQUENTIAL AND HIERARCHICAL MODEL FORCLASSROOM INSTRUCTION

Based on the above thinking we use a two-step approach forrevamping classrooms to better address the needs of all learners(Adelman 1971 Adelman amp Taylor 1977 1993 1994) As illustrated inFigure 1 the rst step is personalization of the classroom programAfter a personalized program is properly implemented it is to beexpected that though mobilized to try harder some students will con-tinue to have signicant learning problems (eg those whose diffi-culties are the result of interfering internal factors) In e ectpersonalization amounts to appropriate accommodation of individualdi erences in motivation and capability It is an essential rst step inassessing who does and does not require remedial interventions

Depending on problem severity and pervasiveness remediationinvolves one (or more) of three levels of focus Level A pursuesobservable problems related to age-appropriate life tasks (basic know-ledge skills and interests) level B focuses on missing prerequisitesfor learning and level C looks for underlying problems interferingwith learning (disabilities avoidance motivation serious interferingbehaviors sometimes related to emotional disorders)

In personalizing teaching decisions about general curriculumgoals for a student are based on assessment of the individualrsquos inter-ests and abilities The level of remediation on which to focus withrespect to any curricular goal is determined by assessing an individ-ualrsquos responses to daily instruction Specic remedial objectives areformulated initially through dialogue with the learner to generateprocesses and outcomes that are valued and perceived as attainableGeneral goals and specic objectives are modied through ongoingdialogues informed by analyses of task performance and supplement-ed with formal assessment devices when necessary

Procedures used for personalization and remediation must reect aprimary systematic focus on motivation In particular they shouldemphasize (a) assessing motivation (b) overcoming negative atti-tudes (c) enhancing motivational readiness for learning (d) main-taining intrinsic motivation throughout the learning process and (e)nurturing the type of continuing motivation that results in thelearner engaging in activities away from the teaching situationAttending to these matters is seen as essential to maximizing main-tenance generalization and expansion of learning Failure to attendsystematically and comprehensively to these matters meansapproaching passive (and often hostile) learners with methods thatconfound diagnostic and research e orts and may just as readily


exacerbate as correct learning and behavior problems (Adelman ampTaylor 1990 Brehm amp Brehm 1981 Deci amp Ryan 1985 Jordan ampGoldsmith-Phillips 1994)

Step 1 Personalized Instruction

Table 1 outlines the underlying assumptions and major program ele-ments of personalized programs As dened above personalizationstresses the importance of a learnerrsquos perception of how well the

TABLE 1 Underlying Assumptions and Major Program Elements of a Per-sonalized Program

I Underlying AssumptionsThe following are basic assumptions underlying personalized programs as we con-ceive them

is a function of the ongoing transactions between the learner and thed Learninglearning environment (with all it encompasses)

learning is a function of an optimal match between the learnerrsquos accumu-d Optimallated capacities attitudes and current state of being and the programrsquos processesand context

both a learnerrsquos motivation and pattern of acquired capacities must bed Matchingprimary procedural objectives

learnerrsquos perceptio n is the critical criterion for evaluating whether a goodd Thematch exists between the learner and the learning environment

wider the range of options that can be o ered and the more the learner isd Themade aware of the options and has a choice about which to pursue the greaterthe likelihood that he or she will perceive the match as a good one

improved learning personalized programs enhance intrinsic valuing ofd Besideslearning and a sense of personal responsibility for learning Furthermore suchprograms increase acceptance and even appreciation of individual di erences aswell as independent and cooperative functioning and problem solving

II Program elementsMajor elements of personalized programs as we have identied them are

use of informal and formal conferences for discussing options makingd Regulardecisions exploring learner perceptions and mutually evaluating progress

broad range of options from which the learner can make choices with regard tod Atypes of learning content activities and desired outcomes

broad range of options from which the learner can make choices with regard tod Afacilitation (support guidance) of decision making and learning

decision making by the learner in making choices and in evaluating howd Activewell the chosen options match his or her current levels of motivation and capabil-ity

of program plans and mutual agreements about the ongoingd Establishmentrelationships between the learner and the program personnel

reevaluations of decisions reformulation of plans and renegotiation ofd Regularagreements based on mutual evaluations of progress problems and currentlearner perceptions of the lsquolsquomatchrsquorsquo


learning environment matches her or his motivation and capabilityThat is the environment is a good match only if the learner perceivesit as a good match

Because learning is an ongoing dynamic and interactive processa learning environment must continuously change to match changesin the learner A student perceives the environment as personalizedand responds by learning the changes in himher usually call forchanges in the environment so that he will continue to perceive it aspersonalized There must be an ongoing series of transactions andmutual changes on the part of the learner and the learning environ-ment

Procedural ObjectivesSpecically the teacher can be viewed as trying to accomplish a

set of comprehensive procedural objectives to facilitate motivatedlearning A primary objective is to establish and maintain an appro-priate working relationship with studentsmdashfor example through cre-ating a sense of trust and caring open communication and providingsupport and direction as needed This objective includes a focus onclarifying the purpose of learning activities and procedures(especially those designed to help correct specic problems) and whythese procedures are expected to be e ective Each activity shouldbuild carefully on previous learning and present material in waysthat focus attention on the most relevant features of what is to belearnedmdashfor example each should use sca olding modeling andcueing To help minimize the negative impact of processes designed toprovide continuous information about learning and performance tea-chers need to clarify the nature and purpose of evaluative measuresand apply them in ways that deemphasize feelings of failure Thenthere must be guidance and support for motivated practicemdashforinstance suggesting and providing opportunities for meaningfulapplications and clarifying ways to organize practice Finally tea-chers must provide opportunities for continued application andgeneralizationmdashfor example concluding the process by addressingways in which the learner can pursue additional self-directed learn-ing in the area or arrange for additional support and direction

The focus in facilitating learners is not on one procedure at a timeTeachers usually have some overall theory model or concept thatguides them toward certain procedures and away from others (Joyceamp Weil 1996) In general procedures and content are tightly inter-woven with procedures seen as means to an end In this connectionit is frequently suggested that learning is best facilitated when pro-


cedures are perceived by learners as good ways to reach their goalsThe emergence of advanced technology (eg computers video) is pro-viding many new opportunities to blend content and process togetherinto personalized activities

StructureThere appears to be a belief among some teachers that a tight and

controlling structure must prevail if students are to learn (Joyce ampWeil 1996) This view is caricatured when teachers caution eachother lsquolsquoDonrsquot smile until Christmas rsquorsquo Good structure allows foractive interactions between students and their environment andthese interactions are meant to lead to a relatively stable positiveongoing working relationship How positive the relationship isdepends on how learners perceive the communication support direc-tion and limit setting Obviously if these matters are perceived nega-tively what may evolve in place of a positive working relationship isavoidance behavior

Some studentsmdashespecially those who are very dependent uninter-ested or who misbehavemdashneed a great deal of support and directioninitially (Reid amp Maag 1998) However it is essential to get beyondthis point as soon as possible

As long as a student does not value the classroom the teacher andthe activities then the teacher is likely to believe that the studentrequires a great deal of direction We stress that the less the studentis motivated the more it is necessary to teach and control behaviorand the less successful the whole enterprise of schooling appears tobe Conversely the more the student is motivated the less it is neces-sary to teach and control and the more likely the student will learn

To facilitate a positive perception it is important to allow studentsto take as much responsibility as they can for identifying the typesand degree of support direction and limits they require In providingcommunication it is important not only to keep students informedbut also to interact in ways that consistently convey a sense of appro-priate and genuine warmth interest concern and respect The intentis to help students know their own minds make their own decisionsand at the same time feel that others like and care about them (Oyler1996)

To achieve these objectives a wide range of alternatives must beavailable for support and direction so students can take as muchresponsibility as they are ready for Some students request a greatamount of direction others prefer to work autonomously Some likelots of help on certain tasks but want to be left alone at other times

When a continuum of structure is made available and students are


able to indicate their preferences the total environment appears lessconning Although we see this as positive it does tend to makemany observers think they are seeing an open classroom or openstructure as these terms are widely understood (Smith 1997) This isnot necessarily the case A better description might be that the intentis to make small classes within large ones The main point of person-alizing structure is to provide a good deal of support and direction forstudents when they need it and to avoid creating a classroom climatethat is experienced by students as tight and controlling Such anapproach is a great aid in establishing positive working relationships

Options and Learner Decision MakingClearly motivation is a primary consideration in facilitating the

learning of such students The place to start generally involvesexpanding the range of options related to content processes out-comes and support so that these youngsters perceive classroom activ-ity as a good t with what they value and believe than can do

Every teacher knows a classroom program has to have variety(Davis 1997) There are important di erences among students as tothe topics and procedures that currently interest or bore them Forstudents with learning problems more variety seems necessary thanfor those without learning problems

Moreover among those with learning problems are a greater pro-portion of individuals with avoidance or low motivation for learningat school For these individuals few currently available options maybe appealing An old joke has an exasperated teacher saying to astudent lsquolsquoI know you like lunch-time best but there must be some-thing else yoursquod like to do at schoolrsquorsquo

How much greater the range of options needs to be depends pri-marily on how strong avoidance tendencies are In general howeverthe initial strategies for working with such students involve furtherexpansion of the range of options for learning primarily emphasizingareas in which the student has made personal and active decisionsand accommodation of a wider range of behavior than is usually tol-erated

From a motivational perspective one of the basic instructionalconcerns is the way in which students are involved in making deci-sions about options Critically decision-making processes can lead toperceptions of coercion and control or to perceptions of real choice(being in control of onersquos destiny and self-determining) Such di er-ences in perception can a ect whether a student is mobilized topursue or avoid planned learning activities or outcomes (Deci ampRyan 1985)


People who have the opportunity to make decisions among valuedand feasible options tend to be committed to follow through In con-trast people who are not involved in decisions often have little com-mitment to what is decided If individuals disagree with a decisionthat a ects them they may also react with hostility

Thus essential to programs focusing on motivation are decision-making processes that a ect perceptions of choice value and prob-able outcome Optimally we hope to maximize perceptions of havinga choice from among personally worthwhile options and attainableoutcomes At the very least it is necessary to minimize perceptions ofhaving no choice little value and probable failure

Yes but The idea of motivated learning and practice is notwithout its critics One such criticism might be lsquolsquoYour points aboutmotivation sound good I donrsquot doubt that students enjoy such anapproach it probably even increases attendance But (long pause)thatrsquos not the way it really is in the world People need to work evenwhen it isnrsquot fun and most of the time work isnrsquot fun Also if peoplewant to be good at something they need to practice it day in and dayout and that is not fun In the end wonrsquot all this emphasis on moti-vation spoil people so that they wonrsquot want to work unless it is per-sonally relevant and interesting rsquorsquo

Learning and practice activities may be enjoyable But even if theyare not they can be viewed as worthwhile and experienced assatisfying We recognize that there are many things people have to doin their lives that will not be viewed and experienced in a positiveway How we all learn to put up with such circumstances is an inter-esting question but one for which psychologists have yet to nd asatisfactory answer It is doubtful however that people have to expe-rience learning basic knowledge and skills as drudgery in order tolearn to tolerate boring situations

In response to critics of motivated practice those professionalswho work with learning problems stress the reality that many stu-dents do not master what they have been learning because they donot pursue the necessary practice activities Thus at least for individ-uals experiencing learning problems it seems essential to facilitatemotivated practice

One of the most powerful factors keeping a person on a task is theexpectation of feeling some sense of satisfaction when the task iscompleted For example task persistence results from the expectationthat one will feel smart or competent while performing the taskmdashorat least will feel that way after the skill is mastered This seems to


characterize youngstersrsquo interactions with video games and theirvarious hobbies

Beyond having potential for preventing and correcting a full rangeof learning problems the personalized sequential and hierarchicalapproach outlined here is seen as having promise for identifying dif-ferent types of learning problems and detecting errors in diagnosisFor example when only personalization based on capability and moti-vation is needed to correct a learning problem it seems reasonable tosuggest that the individual does not have a learning disability At thesame time when a highly mobilized individual still has extreme diffi-culty in learning the hypothesis that the person has a disabilityseems more plausible In our work personalization is seen as a neces-sary step in facilitating valid identication of di erent types of learn-ing problems

Step 2 Remediation

Intervention can be costlymdashnancially and in terms of potentialnegative consequences Therefore when professionals attempt toameliorate problems standards for good practice call on them to pre-scribe as much as is needed but no more than is necessary The abilityto provide what is needed of course depends on the availability andaccessibility of an appropriate array of interventions However evenif one has the good fortune to be able to prescribe from such an arraygood practice requires using an intervention only when it is neces-sary and the benets signicantly outweigh the costs

The desire to meet needs in ways that ensure the benets outweighcosts (nancial and otherwise) makes the concept of least interven-tion needed a fundamental intervention concern This concept (andthe related notion of placement in the least restrictive environment)nd support in lsquolsquothe principle of normalizationrsquorsquo which is associatedwith mainstreaming and deinstitutionalization It is reected in lawsthat protect individuals from removal from the lsquolsquomainstreamrsquorsquo withoutgood cause and due process Such legislation and associated regula-tions underscore concern that disruptive and restrictive interven-tions can produce negative e ects such as poor self-concept andsocial alienation In turn these e ects may narrow immediate andfuture options and choices thereby minimizing life opportunities

As an intervention guideline the concept of least interventionneeded stresses that one must rst and foremost strive to do what isneeded but in doing so one must not interfere with an individualrsquosopportunity for a normal range of experiences more than is absolu-tely necessary Thus even when a student has been diagnosed as in


need of special education placement in a special education class isinappropriate if the youngster can be worked with e ectively in aregular classroom At the same time it should be evident that regularclassroom placement is no guarantee of e ectiveness

From the foregoing perspective concerns arise about researchapplications that encourage an overemphasis on narrowly focusedassessment and remedial approaches in e orts to correct the widerange of learning problems found in public schools For exampleapplied ideas for assessing and fostering development of languageand cognitive abilities (eg phonological executive functionwriting and mathematics skills) are appropriate and invaluable(Jordan amp Goldsmith-Phillips 1994 Lyon amp Moats 1997 Stahl 1998)However an overemphasis on remedying these areas of developmentcould have the same unfortunate consequences as the historic over-emphasis on remedying problems related to visual-spatial abilitiesThat is when specic areas for remediation are overstressed otherareas tend to be deemphasized resulting in a narrowing of curric-ulum and a fragmentation of instruction (Shannon amp Crawford 1997)

Remediation is an extension of general e orts to facilitate learn-ing Thus before a remedial focus is introduced the best availablenonremedial instruction should be tried As discussed this meanstrying procedures to improve the match between the program and alearnerrsquos motivation and capability A signicant number of learningproblems may be corrected and others prevented through optimalnonremedial instruction There does come a time however whenremediation is necessary for some individuals In the followingsection we sketch criteria for deciding who needs remediationoutline its general features and highlight the focus and form of reme-dial methods

W hen Is it NeededStated simply an individual needs remediation when the best non-

remedial procedures are found to be ine ective As we have sug-gested remediation is used for motivation problems and for thosewho have difficulty learning or retaining what they have learned

Because remediation in all areas is usually unnecessary as muchlearning as possible will probably continue to be facilitated with non-remedial approaches Besides facilitating learning such proceduresprovide an essential foundation and context for any remedial strat-egy especially if they are valued by the learner

W hat Makes Remedial Instruction Di erent Techniques and materials designated as remedial often appear to


be very di erent from those used in regular teaching However thedi erences often are not as great as appearance suggests Some reme-dial practices are simply adaptations of regular procedures This iseven the case with some packaged programs and materials especiallydeveloped for problem populations A great many regular and reme-dial procedures draw on the same instructional models and basicprinciples (GagneAcirc 1985 Joyce amp Weil 1996) Thus the question isfrequently asked lsquolsquoWhatrsquos so special about special educationrsquorsquo Theanswer to this question involves understanding the following factorsthat di erentiate remedial from regular teaching

Sequence of application and resource costs Remedial practices arepursued after the best available nonremedial practices have beenfound inadequate Due to the types of factors described below reme-diation is more costly than regular teaching (allocations of time per-sonnel materials space and so forth)

Teacher competence and time Probably the most important featuredi erentiating remedial from regular practices is the need for a com-petent teacher who has time to provide one-to-one instruction Whilespecial training does not necessarily guarantee such competenceremediation usually is done by teachers who have special trainingEstablishing an appropriate match for learners with problems is diffi-cult Indeed a great deal of this process remains a matter of trial andappraisal Thus there must be additional time to develop an under-standing of the learner (strengths weaknesses limitations likesdislikes) There must also be access to and control over a wide rangeof learning options

Outcomes and content Along with basic skills and knowledgespecial education often adds other content and outcome objectivesThese are aimed at overcoming missing prerequisites faulty learningmechanisms or interfering behaviors and attitudes

Processes Remediation usually stresses an extreme application ofinstructional principles Such applications may include reductions inlevels of abstraction intensication of the way stimuli are presentedand acted upon and increases in the amount and consistency of direc-tion and supportmdashincluding added reliance on other resources Ofcourse special settings (outside regular classrooms) are not the onlyplaces such processes can be carried out

Psychological impact The features of remediation are highlyvisible to students teachers and others Chances are such featuresare seen as lsquolsquodi erentrsquorsquo and stigmatizing Thus the psychologicalimpact of remediation can have a negative component The sensitive


nature of remediation is another reason it should be implementedonly when necessary and in ways that result in the learnerrsquos per-ceiving remediation as a special and positive opportunity forteaming

Special educators also have the responsibility to clarify whethergeneral educators share the same basic concerns Special educatorsare asked to take on an additional concern Their responsibility is toclarify which general answers to educational matters are adequatefor everyone and how the answers should be modied to account forspecic subgroups of learners Until much more is known about howto meet the needs of those who are not well served by regular class-room programs a role for remedial teaching and special educationwill certainly remain

Remediation however is not synonymous with either special edu-cation or special placements Once one escapes from the debate overwhere a youngster should be taught the concern shifts to fundamen-tal factors that must be considered in meeting studentsrsquo learningbehavioral and emotional needs and doing so with the least interven-tion Is there a full array of programs and services designed toaddress factors interfering with learning and teaching (eg such asthose outlined in Figure 2) Is there an appropriate curriculum (thatincludes a focus on areas of strength and weakness and encompassesprerequisites that may not have been learned underlying factors thatmay be interfering with learning and enrichment opportunities) Dothe sta have the ability to personalize instructionstructure teach-ing in ways that account for the range of individual di erences anddisabilities in the classroom (accounting for di erences in both moti-vation and capability and implementing special practices whennecessary) Does the student-sta ratio ensure the necessary timerequired for personalizing instruction implementing remediationand providing enrichment

Levels of Remedial FocusAs noted above specialized psychoeducational procedures to facili-

tate learning can be applied at any of three levels (again see Figure1)

A ge-appropriate life tasks Current life tasks involve a variety ofbasic knowledge skills and interests as part of day-by-day living atschool home work and in the neighborhood These include readingwriting interpersonal and intrapersonal problem solving and soforth At this level remediation essentially involves reteaching butnot with the same approach that has just failed Alternative ways


FIGURE 2 From primary prevention to treatment of serious problems acontinuum of community-school programs

must be used when the student has had difficulty learning This isaccomplished by further modifying activities in ways likely toimprove the match with the learnerrsquos current levels of motivation andcapability Teachers can use a range of environmental factors toinuence the match as well as techniques that enhance motivationsensory intake processing and decision making and output


Prerequisites At this level the focus is on identifying and teach-ing missing prerequisites Procedures are the same as those used infacilitating learning related to current life tasks

Interfering factors At this level we must face the possibility offaulty learning mechanisms A variety of underlying problems hasbeen suggested as interfering with learning Remedial approaches aredesigned to overcome such deciencies by directly correcting theproblems or indirectly compensating for them

It is evident that remediation especially in the classroom is oftendelayed because so many individuals with learning problems alsomanifest behavior problems Such individuals are frequentlydescribed not only as learning disabled but also as hyperactive dis-tractable impulsive emotionally and behaviorally disordered and soforth Their behavior patterns are seen as interfering with e orts toremedy their learning problems and for many students such inter-fering behaviors have to be eliminated or minimized in order topursue remediation The focus in such cases is on any actions of anindividual that compete with the intended focus of remediationBesides trying to reduce the frequency of deviant and disruptiveactions directly programs have been designed to alter such behaviorby improving impulse control selective attention sustained attentionand follow-through perseverance frustration tolerance and socialawareness and skills

In sum what makes remedial strategies appear di erent is theirrationale the extreme degree and consistency with which they mustbe applied and their application on levels of functioning other thancurrent life tasks What may make any remedial procedure work isthe fact that it is di erent from those a student has already tried andfound ine ective Special procedures have the benet of being noveland thus having motivational and attention-inducing value

As a general stance regarding remedial activity we concur thatlearning problems and learning disabilities lsquolsquocannot be corrected orlsquocuredrsquo by a special teaching method or training technique It isimperative that teachers have a wide range of instructional materialsand techniques at their disposal and that they are imaginative andexible enough to adapt these to the specic needs of their pupilsrsquorsquo(Koppitz 1973 p 137) We would add however that e ective ex-ibility and imaginativeness in facilitating learning stem from a soundunderstanding of what is involved in personalizing regular and reme-dial instruction


A SOCIETAL APPROACH TO INTERVENTION

Beyond the classroom an even broader perspective is evolvingregarding research and practice for problems related to learning andbehavior Policymakers increasingly are recognizing the importanceof multifaceted approaches that account for social economic poli-tical and cultural factors The potential array of prevention andtreatment programs is extensive and promising The range can beappreciated by grouping them on a continuum from preventionthrough treatment of chronic problems (again see Figure 2) Activ-ities along this continuum encompass primary prevention to promoteand maintain safety and physical and mental health preschool pro-grams early school adjustment programs improvement of ongoingregular support augmentation of regular support specialized stadevelopment and interventions prior to referral for special help andsystem change and intensive treatments Examples of relevant inter-ventions are cited in Figure 2

Unfortunately implementation of the full continuum of programsoutlined in Figure 2 does not occur in most communities Moreoverwhat programs there are tend to be o ered in a fragmented manner

Policymakers see a relationship between limited intervention effi-cacy and the widespread tendency for complementary programs tooperate in isolation For instance physical and mental health pro-grams generally are not coordinated with educational programs or ayoungster identied and treated in early education programs whostill requires special support may or may not receive systematic helpin the primary grades Failure to coordinate and follow through ofcourse can be counterproductive (eg undermining immediate bene-ts and working against e orts to reduce subsequent demand forcostly treatment programs) Limited efficacy seems inevitable as longas interventions are carried out in a piecemeal fashion Thus there isincreasing interest in moving beyond piecemeal strategies to providea comprehensive integrated and coordinated programmatic thrust(eg Adelman 1993 1996 Adelman amp Taylor 1997 GreenwaldHedges amp Laine 1996 Hodgkinson 1989 Kagan 1990 Sailor ampSkrtic 1996)

The range of programs cited in Figure 2 can be seen as integrallyrelated and it seems likely that the impact of each could be exponen-tially increased through integration and coordination Indeed amajor breakthrough in the battle against learning and behavior prob-lems may result only when the full range of programs are implement-ed in a comprehensive and integrated fashion


CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Researchers primarily concerned with improving intervention forthose with learning problems must at the very least broaden theirview of teaching Optimally they need to expand their view beyondteaching Whatever their view of intervention it is essential thatthey focus on motivation as a primary intervention concern Beyondteaching it is important to think in terms of a societal approachencompassing a comprehensive continuum of multifaceted integratedprograms and services There is a considerable agenda of researchthat warrants attention related to these ideas

As the world around us is changing at an exponential rate so mustthe way we approach learning difficulties Everyday our society iscalled upon to do something about the many individuals who havetrouble learning academic skills In responding to this call we mustbe prepared to go beyond the narrow perspective of specic assess-ment practices or direct instruction of observable skills What isneeded is a broad understanding of what causes learning problems(including learning disabilities) and what society in general andschools in particular need to do to address such problems

REFERENCES

Adelman H S (1971) The not so specic learning disability population ExceptionalChildren 8 114ndash120

Adelman H S amp Taylor L (1977) Two steps toward improving learning for studentswith (and without) lsquolsquolearning problemsrsquorsquo Journal of Learning Disabilities 10 455ndash461

Adelman H S amp Taylor L (1990) Intrinsic motivation and school misbehaviorJournal of Learning Disabilities 23 541ndash543

Adelman H S amp Taylor L (1993) Learning problems and learning disabilities Moving forward Pacic Grove CA BrooksCole

Adelman H S amp Taylor L (1994) On understanding intervention in psychology andeducation Westport CT Prager

Adelman H S amp Taylor L (1997) Addressing barriers to learning Beyond school-linked services and full service schools A merican Journal of Orthopsychiatry 67408ndash421

Bandura A (1978) The self system in reciprocal determinism A merican Psychologist33 344ndash358

Brehm S S amp Brehm J W (1981) Psychological reactance A theory of freedom andcontrol New York Academic Press

Bruner J S (1966) Toward a theory of instruction Cambridge MA BelknapDavis S C (1997) Reading assignments that meet literacy needs Alternatives to the

textbook Reading amp Writing Quarterly 13 303ndash309Deci E L amp Chandler C L (1986) The importance of motivation for the future of the

LD eld Journal of Learning Disabilities 19 587ndash594


Deci E L amp Ryan R M (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self determination in humanbehavior New York Plenum Press

Dev P C (1997) Intrinsic motivation and academic achievement What does theirrelationship imply for the classroom teacher Remedial and Special Education 1812ndash19

Fuchs D Fuchs L S Mathes P G amp Simmons D C (1997) Peer-assisted learningstrategies Making classrooms more responsive to diversity A merican EducationalResearch Journal 34 174ndash206

GagneAcirc R M (1985) The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed) FortWorth TX Holt Rinehart and Winston

Greenwald R Hedges L V amp Laine R D (1996) The e ect of school resources onstudent achievement Review of Educational Research 66 361ndash396

Guthrie J T amp Wigeld A (Eds) (1997) Reading engagement Motivatingreaders through integrated instructions Newark DE International Reading Associ-ation

Hodgkinson H L (1989) The same client The demographics of education and servicedelivery systems Washington DC Institute for Educational Leadership IncCenterfor Demographic Policy

Hunt J McV (1961) Intelligence and experience New York Ronald PressJohnson L J amp Pugach M C (1991) Peer collaboration Accommodating students

with mild learning and behavior problems Exception Children 57 454ndash461Jordan N C amp Goldsmith-Phillips J (Eds) (1994) Learning disabilities New direc-

tions for assessment and intervention Boston Allyn amp BaconJoyce B amp Weil M (1996) Models of teaching 5th ed Boston Allyn amp BaconKagan S L (1990) Excellence in early childhood education Dening characteristics

and next-decade strategies Washington DC Office of Educational Research andImprovement US Department of Education

Koppitz E (1973) Special class pupils with learning disabilities A ve year follow-upstudy A cademic Therapy 13 133ndash140

Lyon G R amp Moats L C (1997) Critical conceptual and methodolog ical consider-ations in reading interventio n research Journal of Learning Disabilities 30 578ndash588

Marr M B (1997) Cooperative learning A brief review Reading amp Writing Quarterly13 7ndash20

Morrow L M amp Sharkey E A (1993) Motivating independent reading and writing inthe primary grades through social cooperative literacy expectations ReadingTeacher 47 162ndash165

Oyler C (1996) Making room for students Sharing teacher authority in Room 104 NewYork Teachers College Record

Piaget J (1952) The origins of intelligence in children New York International Uni-versities Press

Reid R amp Maag J W (1998) Functional assessment A method for developingclassroom-based accommodations and interventio ns for children with ADHDReading amp Writing Quarterly 14 9ndash42

Sailor W amp Skrtic T M (1996) Schoolcommunity partnerships and educationreform Introduction to the topical issue Remedial and Special Education 17 267ndash270 283

Shannon P amp Crawford P (1997) Manufacturing descent Basal readers and thecreation of reading failures Reading amp Writing Quarterly 13 227ndash245

Slavin R E (1994) Cooperative learning Theory research and practice 2nd edBoston Allyn amp Bacon


Slavin R E Karweit N L amp Madden N A (Eds) (1989) E ective programs forstudents at risk Boston Allyn amp Bacon

Smith L H (1997) lsquolsquoOpen educationrsquorsquo revisited Promise and problems in Americaneducational reform (1967ndash1976) Teachers College Record 99 371ndash415

Stahl S A (1998) Teaching children with reading problems to decode Phonics andlsquolsquonot-phonicsrsquorsquo instruction Reading amp Writing Quarterly 14 165ndash188

Stipek D J (1998) Motivation to learn From theory to practice 3rd ed Boston Allynamp Bacon

Sweet A P amp Guthrie J T (1996) How childrenrsquos motivations relate to literacydevelopmen t and instruction Reading Teacher 49 660ndash662

Vygotsky L S Vygotsky S amp John-Steiner V (Ed) (1980) Minds in society Thedevelopment of higher psychological processes Cambridge MA Harvard UniversityPress

Weiner B (1985) Human motivation New York Springer Verlag


FIGURE 1 Sequences and levels in providing a good match and determiningleast intervention needed

It is clear that the emphasis on matching capabilities is the preva-lent orientation in the literature on teaching reading and writing(Jordan amp Goldsmith-Phillips 1994 Joyce amp Weil 1996 Lyon ampMoats 1997 Reid amp Maag 1998) Motivational considerations are





















































































Step 2 Remediation










































CONCLUDING COMMENTS



REFERENCES






























































































































Step 2 Remediation










































CONCLUDING COMMENTS



REFERENCES










































personalizing classroom instruction to account for motivational and

Documents