The Effects of Strategic Notetaking on the Recall and Comprehension of Lecture Information for High School Students with Learning Disabilities
Joseph R. Boyle: Virginia Commonwealth University Mary Weishaar: Southern Illinois University–Edwardsville

Abstract:
This investigation examined the effects of strategic notetaking on the recall and comprehension of high school students with learning disabilities (LD) or educable mental retardation (EMR). Twenty-six students with high incidence disabilities (LD or EMR) were randomly assigned by grade and disability to either an experimental or control group. Using strategic notetaking, students in the experimental group were taught to independently take notes while viewing a videotaped lecture. Students who were taught strategic notetaking scored significantly higher on measures of immediate free recall, long-term free recall, comprehension, and number of notes recorded than students in the control group who used conventional notetaking. The limitations of the research and implications of this technique for classroom application are discussed.

Curriculum-Based Measurement in the Content Areas: Validity of Vocabulary-Matching as an Indicator of Performance in Social Studies
Christine A. Espin: University of Minnesota Todd W. Busch: University of Minnesota Jongho Shin: University of Minnesota Ron Kruschwitz: North St. Paul, Oakdale, Maplewood School District

Abstract:
In this study, we examined the reliability and validity of two curriculum-based measures as indicators of performance in a content-area classroom. Participants were 58 students in a 7th-grade social studies class. CBM measures were student- and administrator-read vocabulary-matching probes. Criterion measures were knowledge pre- and post-tests, the social studies subtest of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, and student grades. Results revealed moderate alternate-form reliability for both vocabulary-matching measures. Reliability of the measures was increased by combining scores across two testing sessions. Correlations between the predictor and criterion variables were moderate to moderately strong, with the exception of those between vocabulary-matching and student grades. Observed scores for students with LD were lower than for students without LD on both student- and administrator-read vocabulary-matching measures. Few differences in reliability and validity coefficients were found between the student- and administrator-read measures. Results are discussed in terms of the use of CBM as a system for monitoring performance and designing interventions for students with learning disabilities in content-area classrooms.

The Double-Deficit Theory of Reading Disability Does Not Fit All
Peggy T. Ackerman: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Carol A. Holloway: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Patricia L. Youngdahl: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Roscoe A. Dykman: Arkansas Children’s Hospital

Abstract:
The double-deficit theory of reading disability (Wolf & Bowers, 1999) was examined in a sample of 56 reading-disabled and 45 normal-reading elementary school children (aged 8 to 11). As hypothesized, the two groups differed markedly on all phonological analysis tasks and on rapid continuous naming of digits and letters (the double deficits), but they differed as well on orthographic tasks, attention ratings, arithmetic achievement, and all WISC-III factors except perceptual organization. Within the reading-disabled (RD) sample, children in the double-deficit subgroup were no more impaired in reading and spelling than those with a single deficit in phonological analysis, and those with a single deficit in rapid naming were no more impaired than those with neither deficit. Multiple regression analyses suggest that a multiple causality theory of RD is more plausible than a double-deficit theory.

Teaching Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities to Recruit Peer Assistance During Cooperative Learning Group Activities
Patricia L. Wolford: Ohio State University William L. Heward: Ohio State University Sheila R. Alber: University of Southern Mississippi

Abstract:
Four 8th graders with learning disabilities were taught to recruit assistance from peers during cooperative learning activities in two general education classrooms. The students were taught to show their work to a peer and make statements such as: “Can you help me?” or “How am I doing so far?” Training was conducted in the special education classroom and consisted of modeling, role playing, corrective feedback, and praise. A multiple baseline across students design showed that recruitment training increased (1) the rate of recruiting responses by the students, (2) the rate at which the students received instructional feedback and praise from peers, and (3) the productivity and accuracy with which the students completed their language arts assignments.

Helping Teachers Formulate Sound Test Accommodation Decisions for Students with Learning Disabilities
Lynn S. Fuchs: Peabody College of Vanderbilt University Douglas Fuchs: Peabody College of Vanderbilt University

Abstract:
This paper introduces a data-based approach as an alternative way to help teachers formulate decisions about the validity of test accommodations for students with LD. Three rationales for the approach are provided: (a) an inadequate research base to guide decision-making; (b) the heterogeneity of the LD population; and (c) problems with teachers’ use of subjective judgment.

Well-controlled studies on test accommodations are too scarce to draw firm conclusions about effects for the group of students labeled learning disabled (LD). Moreover, in light of the heterogeneity of learning disabilities, the individual, rather than the LD label, may be the more appropriate unit for deciding which test accommodations preserve the validity of test scores for students with LD. In this paper, we provide a rationale for a data-based approach to help teachers formulate decisions about the validity of test accommodations for individual students with LD. Then we describe an objective assessment process teachers may use in determining valid test accommodations. We conclude with recommendations for practitioners.