Document View

THE GENERAL EDUCATION CLASSROOM HAS BECOME the instructional setting for an increasingly diverse group of student learners. This diversity requires that teachers have knowledge and skills for teaching students who are Englishlanguage learners (August & Hakuta, 1997) and students with disabilities (Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm, 1997). Most teachers welcome the opportunity to teach students who require support in accessing the general education curricula (Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad, Slusher, & Saumell, 1996); however, many teachers perceive that they are unprepared to have inadequate time, resources, and/or skills (Schumm & Vaughn, 1991; Schumm et al., 1995; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, & Lesar, 1991). Regardless of their confidence and skills, practicing teachers are begging for instructional practices that provide them with tools to enhance learning outcomes for all students in their classrooms, particularly students who are struggling with reading (L. S. Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Vaughn, Hughes, Schumm, & Klingner, 1998).

This issue of how best to instruct struggling readers has gained national attention in the United States. Popular press, presidential speeches, and governors' agendas have all focused on the importance of providing appropriate early instruction in reading so that youngsters are able to read adequately by the time they are in third grade. Much of the push behind this focus on reading is a result of the National Assessment of Educational progress (NAEP; Donahue, Voelkl, Campbell, & Mazzeo, 1998) scores in reading, which indicate that at the national level many fourth-grade students are still failing to read fluently and answer comprehension questions accurately. The low reading scores have been attributed to inadequate attention to the alphabetic principle, phonological awareness, and other phonics-related skills that many perceive as being missing from traditional reading instruction. As a result of this outcome and relying on the improved knowledge base about the precursors of early reading (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), there has been increased attention in the United States and elsewhere to adjust reading instruction so that it provides additional emphasis on phonics and phonics-related activities (Chard & Osborn, 1999). Despite the research that documents the need for early emphasis on the alphabetic principle as a means of enhancing wordlevel decoding and reading (Adams, 1990; Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992), there are now, and will continue to be, students who are able to read at the word level (i.e., decoding) but who struggle with the meaning of test (i.e., comprehension) or who can comprehend text adequately but struggle with the skills to acquire knowledge from text (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996; Torgesen et al., 1999).

Related to the facts, skills, and knowledge that general education teachers require to teach increasingly diverse learners, and the knowledge of instructional practices that enhance the ways in which students comprehend and learn from text, there is a growing research base on the benefits of peermediated instruction as a means of enhancing learning (Arreaga-Mayer, Terry, & Greenwood, 1998). Peer-mediated instruction has been useful in improving engaged academic learning time (Utley, Mortweet, & Greenwood, 1997), modeling correct answers, providing ongoing feedback, monitoring progress (Greenwood, Terry, Delquadri, Elliot, & Arreaga-Mayer, 1995), and increasing the quality of student verbal interaction around learning (D. Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997; Klingner, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1998). Furthermore, both teachers and students report high levels of satisfaction when students work in pairs or in small groups (Elbaum, Schumm, & Vaughn, 1997). Given the high levels of whole-class instruction provided across the curriculum (McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & Lee, 1993), but particularly during reading (Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 1999; Vaughn, Moody, & Schumm, 1998), the success of peer-mediated instruction provides an opportunity for teachers to organize their classrooms in ways that reduce group size (from a whole class to small groups or pairs) without requiring the addition of another teacher. This reduction in group size is exceedingly important, as students who are English-language learners are often reluctant to respond in large groups (Arreaga-Mayer, 1998; Chamot & O'Malley, 1994) and are more likely to interact with peers in small groups (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996, 1999b). Futhermore, students with disabilities and with learning problems struggle to learn in whole-class situations (Baker & Zigmond, 1990; McIntosh et al., 1993). Thus, peer-mediated instruction provides an opportunity for teachers to enhance engagement and learning of all students (Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Mathes, 1995).

This article summarizes the studies conducted with Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR), to address the ways in which CSR has improved outcomes for diverse learners (i.e., students who are English-language learners, students with learning disabilities), and to discuss the role of peer-mediated learning in improving the social and academic outcomes of participating students. The stages of CSR development and the studies are described in the next sections.

COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIC READING

CSR was designed to address the three prevailing educational issues discussed previously: (a) meeting the learning needs of an increasingly diverse student population, particularly English-language learners and students with learning disabilities; (b) providing an instructional practice that enhances comprehension of text and skills to learn from text; and (c) providing procedures that facilitate peer-mediated instruction.

CSR takes advantage of the growing knowledge base which indicates that youngsters need to be taught specific strategies to enhance their understanding of text (Vaughn, Elbaum, & Schumm, 1996) but should not be overwhelmed with so many strategies that they are unable to decide which ones to use. Pikulski (1998) argued that sound pedagogy in reading comprehension instruction would call for teaching four or five strategies. CSR teaches students four critical reading comprehension strategies, with specific procedures for how to apply them independently. In addition, to enhance implementation of the strategies and to ensure that each student has maximum opportunities for practice, CSR is implemented in small groups (usually four or five students each), with each student in the group assuming a critical role (e.g., leader, clunk expert, reporter). Recently, CSR has been implemented with student pairs in third-grade classrooms (Vaughn et al., 2000).

CSR is first taught to the class as a whole. The teacher presents each of the four strategies, models their use, and displays text that is visible to the entire class through an overhead projector. The teacher demonstrates on subsequent days how each strategy can be used. Through think-alouds, the teacher demonstrates and applies each strategy and provides students with opportunities to demonstrate as well. After each strategy is taught, the teacher asks several students from the class to come to the front of the room and model the strategy for the rest of the class. The teacher joins the small group of students in the front of the room and demonstrates the role of the group leader. After each of the strategies has been taught and practiced separately, the teacher models their integrated use in text. Again, students are selected to demonstrate the application of the strategies for the class. After students have developed proficiency in applying the strategies through teacher-facilitated activities, they are divided into small, heterogeneous groups or pairs, in which each student performs a defined role and students collaboratively implement the strategies. Students' roles and responsibilities are well defined in CSR and require interdependence among group members (Klingner & Vaughn, 1998, 1999a; Vaughn & Klingner, 1999).

The four CSR strategies are based on previous research (e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Pressley, Brown, El-Dinary, & Afflerbach, 1995) and are designed to activate background knowledge and make predictions prior to reading (the preview strategy); monitor reading and enhance vocabulary development during reading (the click and clunk strategy); identify main ideas while reading (the get the gist strategy); and summarize key ideas following reading (the wrap-up strategy).

The purpose of the preview strategy is to activate background knowledge and to generate informed predictions about the text to be read by scanning the material and searching for clues. The primary goals of previewing are to generate interest and questions about the text the students will read; stimulate students' background knowledge and associations with the text; provide an opportunity for students to make informed predictions about what they will read and learn; and learn from and expand on information provided by peers. Previewing is a skill that can be used throughout the day and across the curriculum. It does not need to be used only when students are implementing CSR, but can be used to preview a class day, current events, or a new topic the teacher is presenting prior to actual instruction.

Whereas previewing is a skill that is used prior to reading, click and clunk is a self-monitoring strategy that is implemented during reading. When students click, they recognize material that they know something about, and perhaps they can extend the information provided in the text. When students clunk, they identify words or concepts that they don't understand and need to know more about in order to understand what they are reading and learning. Students are taught to click and clunk while they read by writing down words that represent each of these. Then after students have read a designated amount of text, they discuss their clicks and clunks. The emphasis in the groups is on solving dunks.

Students are taught clunk strategies, and the clunk expert in the group guides students through the strategies in an attempt to de-clunk words or ideas that students do not know. These strategies are referred to as "fix-up strategies," as they help students repair meaning that is lost until they understand the clunk. Students work cooperatively to solve clunks, and they make notes to obtain assistance from the teacher.

Like click and clunk, get the gist is practiced during reading. The purpose of this strategy is to teach students to identify the most critical information about what they have just read, or, in other words to identify the main idea. This is frequently suggested as an important reading comprehension skill, and although many teachers ask students to tell them the main idea, few teachers teach youngsters how to identify the main idea. In the get the gist strategy, students are taught to identify the most important point in the text by rephrasing the key idea in their own words, limiting their response to 10 or fewer words (Fuchs et al., 1997). The intent is to assist students in providing the gist in as few words as possible, while conveying the most meaning and excluding unnecessary details.

Amanda Sutter, a fifth-grade inclusion teacher, teaches her students to get the gist by focusing on a two-paragraph section of text at a time. She asks them to read the text, and while they are reading, to think about identifying the most important who or what. She asks students after they read to tell her the most important who or what and the most important thing about the who or what (Fuchs et al., 1997). She calls on several students and then calls on the class to get the other students' feedback about what aspects of the gist that the other students) offered were helpful. She then asks each student to write his or her own gist. Learning the skill individually facilitates students' success when working in pairs or groups.

Wrap up is like preview in that it occurs only once during the process, but it is different in that it occurs after the students read the entire text. Students are taught to wrap up by identifying the questions that a good teacher would ask about what they just read. The purpose of wrap up is to teach students to identify the most significant ideas about the entire passage they read and to assist with understanding and remembering what they have learned. Students practice the gist strategy after every two paragraphs, but they wrap up only at the end of the material they have covered for the entire period, usually about 12 to 14 paragraphs.

The following question stems (adapted from Rosenshine & Meister, 1992) can be used by peers working together to facilitate wrap up:

* How were and the same? How were they different?

* What do you think would happen if?

* What do you think caused to happen?

* How would you compare and contrast

* What might have prevented the problem of from happening?

* What are the strength and weakness of from happening?

* How would you interpret ?

Stage 1: Development

CSR was designed to capitalize on the best elements of what others had already devised to enhance reading comprehension and content learning. The CSR development phase included two studies (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996; Klingner et al., 1998). 998).

In our first study (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996), we implemented reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) with 26 Latino middle-school students with learning disabilities (LD). All students spoke Spanish as their native language and were in various stages of learning English. During the first phase of the study (15 sessions), we implemented reciprocal teaching very much as described by Palincsar and Brown (1984), working with groups of about 8 students at a time, modeling comprehension strategies for students, and then scaffolding students' efforts to implement the strategies and lead discussions about the text they were reading. Text passages were at grade level, according to Fry's (1977) readability formula. Although all text materials were in English, students were encouraged to discuss concepts in Spanish when they felt it would aid their understanding. During the second phase of the study (12 sessions), we deviated from the reciprocal teaching model. We randomly divided the participants into two groups. One group tutored younger students with LD in how to implement comprehension strategies. The other group implemented comprehension strategies while working in small cooperative groups without the direct presence of a teacher. Results of the study indicated that both groups of students successfully implemented comprehension strategies, even while working with minimal adult assistance; students also continued to improve in reading comprehension. Pretest to posttest gains on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Test (Gates-MacGinitie; MacGinitie & MacGinitie, 1989) and Passage Comprehension (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) tests were statistically significant. Furthermore, a greater range of students was able to benefit from strategy instruction than predicted. Students with LD who began the study with comprehension levels substantially higher than their decoding abilities, as well as those who began with relatively weak comprehension, showed significant improvement. We felt that our findings had important implications for classroom instruction. Students with LD who were English-language learners and poor decoders could successfully apply comprehension strategies while working semiautonomously.

However, the seventh- and eighth-grade participants told us, "You should have taught us these strategies earlier, like in fourth grade." Therefore, for our next research project, we moved to fourth-grade heterogeneous classrooms of students working at a range of achievement levels, including students with LD and low- and average-achieving students (Klingner et al., 1998). Our goal was to apply what we had learned in the previous study, while developing a program that would be feasible and effective for large classes. We did this by including cooperative learning in our CSR model. Reciprocal Teaching had been designed for use in relatively small teacher-facilitated groups rather than student-led cooperative learning groups in general education classrooms. In fact, the majority of strategy instruction programs had taken place in resource rooms or other remedial settings, in small groups rather than large classrooms, with adolescents rather than with elementary-aged students, and with students with similar educational needs (e.g., adequate decoders but poor comprehenders). The challenges of adapting strategy instruction for large classrooms are many (Coley, DePinto, Craig, & Gardner, 1993; Deshler & Schumaker, 1993; Scanlon, Deshler, & Schumaker, 1996).

In our second study (Klingner et al., 1998), fourth graders in an experimental condition (n = 85) learned to apply the CSR reading comprehension strategies (i.e., preview, click and clunk, get the gist, wrap up) while reading social studies text in small student-led groups. Control condition students (n = 56) did not learn comprehension strategies but received teacher-led instruction in the same content. Students in the experimental condition made greater grains than students in the control condition on the Gates-MacGinitie and equal gains in content knowledge. We tape-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed the discourse of students who were working in cooperative learning groups. We concluded that, overall, CSR appeared to be feasible for use in general education elementary classrooms with heterogeneous populations. For the most part, students were able to implement the CSR strategies while working collaboratively in their small groups. However, we learned valuable lessons that we have applied in our subsequent research efforts as we continue to fine-tune CSR. First, students relied too much on the initiation-response-evaluation pattern of discourse (Deering & Meloth, 1993) and engaged in few higher-level discussions. As a result, we have enacted modifications that teach students to ask higher-level questions during wrap up and to engage in discussions about key issues. Second, students had difficulty implementing the preview strategy when they lacked prior knowledge about the day's topic. Thus, we have realized that when students lack background knowledge, it is valuable for teachers to conduct a whole-class preview prior to students' small-group work. Third, students infrequently scaffolded instruction for each other while working in cooperative groups. Therefore, we learned to place more emphasis on teaching students how and when to provide assistance for each other. We more clearly defined students' helping roles and provided explicit instruction in how to clarify unknown vocabulary words. Fourth, 25% of students' utterances (i.e., taking turns speaking) were spent in procedural discussion about how to implement CSR comprehension strategies and negotiating who would perform various roles. Although this was less procedural dialogue than in a similar study (45% in the study by Deering & Meloth, 1993), we were concerned that students were wasting valuable time that could be spent engaged in academic, content-related discussion. Thus, we have learned to assign fixed roles for a day (or longer), to make sure that every student has a meaningful role to perform, and to increase the amount of modeling and practice provided to students before asking them to work in small student-led groups. Also, we researchers had served as the teachers in our five intervention and control classrooms during this study; we were eager to involve practicing teachers in the implementation of CSR.

Stage 2: Refinement

In Stage 2, we felt ready to implement CSR on a wider scale. As part of a large project designed to support various schools' efforts to implement special education inclusion models, we provided teachers with an intensive, yearlong collaborative professional development program (Vaughn, Hughes, et al., 1998), and then we followed these teachers' implementation of the strategies for 3 years (Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes, & Arguelles, 1999). The professional development program included instruction in three research-based, multilevel instructional practices that were associated with enhanced reading outcomes for students and were feasible for general education teachers to implement in light of the ongoing demands of the classroom. We sought practices that would actively involve all students, would not involve extraordinary expenditures of materials and equipment, and could be used to enhance instruction regardless of the core reading program implemented by the teacher. One of these practices was CSR. Teachers learned CSR in an all-day workshop and were then provided with extensive in-class support while implementing CSR with their students. In the Vaughn, Hughes, et al. (1998) study, our interest was to determine (a) the extent to which seven general education teachers would implement CSR and the other practices during the year the program was conducted and during the next year as part of a follow-up, and (b) teachers' perceptions of the program. Results indicated that three of the teachers implemented CSR at high levels during both years. One teacher implemented CSR somewhat less during the first year and then considerably less in the second year. The remaining three teachers consistently implemented CSR at low levels.

Teachers' feedback enabled us to add components to CSR that we believe have greatly improved the model. In particular, Tiffany Royal (a general education inclusion teacher in south Florida) and Joyce Duryea (Ms. Royal's special education co-teaching partner) played an invaluable role in shaping CSR. At the time, Royal was a general education teacher and Duryea was her special education partner in a fifth-grade inclusive classroom. Royal and Duryea developed CSR clunk cards and fix-up strategies for helping students figure out unknown words. Royal and Duryea also added many followup activities that focused on providing students with additional clunk practice. It became apparent that in particular, students with LD and English-language learners benefited from this extra vocabulary practice. Royal and Duryea also added a What I Know, What I Want to Know, What I Learned (K-W-L; Ogle, 1986) chart to CSR. One student, as the recorder, wrote down what peers already knew about a topic and what they thought they would learn; after the reading took place, the recorder wrote down what the peers had learned. Eventually we modified this procedure and developed the CSR learning logs that are completed by each student in a group. These learning logs have become a key component of CSR. Royal and Duryea also experimented with various methods of helping students with turn-taking, from a "microphone" that students passed from speaker to speaker to "talking chips" that students "spent" when they used up a speaking turn. In addition, Royal and Duryea helped develop and refine the CSR roles and cue cards students used as prompts to assist in carrying out their roles.

Although with Royal and Duryea's assistance we were able to improve the CSR model and make it easier for teachers to use, a few barriers continued to hamper many teachers' efforts to implement CSR. Some teachers (in the Vaughn, Hughes, et al., 1998), study and in other professional development and research efforts since) have noted that with CSR it takes a long time to read a passage-valuable time they do not necessarily have, given the pressure they feel to cover content and prepare students for high-stakes achievement testing. Also, some teachers do not feel comfortable or confident using cooperative learning as an instructional model. Juan Cabrera, a fourth-grade general education teacher in Hialeah, Florida, has helped with these concerns. By serving as the manager himself rather than assigning this role to students, he has been able to speed up the pace of CSR.

In another study, which focused on fifth graders who were English-language learners, Klingner and Vaughn (2000) investigated the frequency and means by which bilingual students helped each other and their limited-English-proficient peers while working in small, heterogeneous CSR groups. A key area of research on small-group processes has been the helping behaviors of students during small-group learning (King, 1993; O'Connor & Jenkins, 1996). For cooperative learning to be effective as a way to promote content-area learning, students who are more knowledgeable others must be able to assist their peers. Given the changes we had made in CSR, we wanted to find out if these fifth graders would help each other more than the fourth graders had helped each other in the Klingner et al. (1998) study. We were particularly interested in the ways students helped each other learn new vocabulary words. We also expected to find that students would spend a greater percentage of time engaged in academic discussion. We found that, overall, students spent nearly all their time engaged in academic-related strategic discussion and almost no time (less than 1%) engaged in procedural negotiation. Students assisted one another in understanding word meanings, getting the main idea, asking and answering questions, and relating what they were learning to previous knowledge. Students' scores on English vocabulary tests improved significantly from pre- to posttesting. We concluded that students' helping behaviors had been facilitated by the provision of specific instruction in how and when to help their peers.

Stage 3: School Model Reform

In recent years, schoolwide reform of organizational and administrative structures has been implemented at the elementary and, to some degree, the secondary level as an effort to redefine special education service delivery. In particular, as a result of the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 1997), which emphasizes student access to the general education curriculum and integration in general education classes, students with disabilities receive much of their education in inclusive settings. Thus, general and special education teachers are faced with the challenge of providing effective reading instruction to diverse learners at the elementary level and helping students at the secondary level successfully engage in textbook-driven content-area instruction. Current efforts aimed at early reading intervention make sense, and, if implemented effectively, should considerably reduce the number of poor readers at the secondary level. However, there will always be students who struggle with reading and learning from text at the secondary level (Greene, 1998; Williams, Brown, Silverstein, & deCani, 1994) and who require multicomponent instruction (e.g., word identification, fluency, comprehension). For instance, we know that content-area reading requires students to interact with text to interpret and construct meaning before, during, and after reading by using their prior knowledge as well as the skills and strategies developed during early reading instruction (Bryant, Ugel, Thompson, & Hamff, 1999). Students also must apply word-identification strategies (e.g., structural analysis, syllabication) to decode unfamiliar multisyllabic words, and must use context clues to figure out the meaning of new vocabulary (Lenz & Hughes, 1990). Thus, whether at the elementary or secondary level, if diverse learners are to acquire greater proficiency in reading and learning from text, they must receive explicit instruction from their general education teachers and have opportunities to practice these skills.

Based on previous research on professional development with general and special education teachers (Englert & Tarrant, 1995; Gersten, Morvant, & Brengelman, 1996; Mathes, Fuchs, Fuchs, Henley, & Sanders, 1994; Schumm & Vaughn, 1991), we have learned that classroom teachers prefer instructional practices that are feasible to implement within the general education context and are relevant for all students. We know that peer-mediated strategies provide opportunities for students to practice skills and can be readily implemented in general education settings. Moreover, we know that teachers appreciate support in their efforts to implement new interventions and opportunities to address issues with their colleagues. Although intervention research aimed at diverse learners in inclusive classrooms has been conducted to assist teachers in fostering reading achievement, results suggest that this group of students continues to lag behind peers in terms of developing and using effective reading strategies (Bryant et al., 2000). Given educators' efforts to develop school models of reform, we were interested in studying the integration of multicomponent reading instruction, particularly CSR, into classroom practice and the role of peermediated strategies in improving academic and social outcomes.

MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDY

The purpose of this study (Bryant, Vaughn, et al., 2000) was to describe the reading outcomes of a multicomponent intervention on the fluency, word identification, and comprehension abilities of middle school average-achieving students, low-achieving students, and students with learning disabilities in reading. Ten sixth-grade middle school teachers (two from each content area and two special education teachers) participated in a 6-month professional development and intervention program to enhance reading outcomes. A fullinclusion model for special education services for students with mild disabilities was implemented in this school, where special education teachers were assigned to work with classroom content-area teachers on a daily basis. Additionally, teachers used the team approach to organize schedules and instruction; thus, students were assigned to a group of content-area teachers for the school year.

Each reading intervention was presented in an all-day workshop during which teachers were given materials for implementation and time as a team to develop an implementation plan. Each content-area teacher selected an intervention to implement; the special education teachers were responsible for aiding in the implementation of all three interventions during their classwork with students. In-class follow-up support was provided in the form of co-teaching and modeling, and teachers and researchers met biweekly during a planning period to solve problems and discuss implementation issues.

Three reading interventions were selected based on the needs of middle school students who were learning to read and comprehend text. The interventions included Word Identification (Lenz, Schumaker, Deshler, & Beals, 1984); Partner Reading (Delquadri, Greenwood, Whorton, Carta, & Hall, 1986); and CSR (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996). Regarding peermediated strategies, student pairs were used for Partner Reading, and small-group, cooperative learning groups were used for CSR. Word Identification was taught during whole-class instruction, and student pairs were used to practice the strategy steps.

Overall, all three groups of students improved in accuracy of oral reading and fluency, and significant student gains were noted in word identification, fluency, and comprehension. However, a subgroup of very poor readers made little or no gains in reading achievement across the three interventions.

Teachers expressed satisfaction with the CSR strategy for helping students tackle complex content-based text. However, we learned that comprehension strategy training takes time for teachers and students to learn and, in particular, poor readers who lack basic reading skills (e.g., word identification, fluency) are lost with content text. Students were taught to use comprehension strategies within highly dense and vocabulary-rich science and social studies texts. Although most teachers attempted to locate text that was connected to the topic and at appropriate reading levels for struggling readers, the ability to locate and integrate this material was limited by time and budgetary constraints. We also learned that small-group peer-mediated instruction was highly useful for some students in comprehending text and in keeping up with class instruction. Peer-mediated verbal discussions of content topics and explanations helped in the complex instructional task of deciphering vocabulary and decoding multisyllabic words. In summary, we learned a great deal from this6-month study. Teaming at the middle school level can promote the generalization of interventions across classes. The intensity of instruction required for poor readers at the middle school level exceeds the capability of general education teachers to provide the instruction necessary to tackle contentarea reading. Therefore, students with severe reading difficulties must have additional special education support services.

Based on our work with the sixth-grade middle school teachers the previous year, we continued working in the same middle school with the seventh-grade teachers the following year (Bryant, Ugel, Hougen, Hamff, & Vaughn, 1999). The purpose this time was to focus on CSR as a reading comprehension strategy that could be implemented across contentarea classes. A team of six seventh-grade teachers (five content-area teachers and one full-inclusion special education teacher) participated in a yearlong study that focused on the implementation of CSR into content-area reading instruction for average-achieving students, low-achieving students, and students with LD in reading.

Following a morning of staff development on CSR, teachers were asked to incorporate CSR into their instruction two to three times per week and to attend weekly support group meetings. Teachers also were asked to implement the peer-mediated component of CSR in a manner that worked best for them and their students.

Preliminary overall findings suggest that CSR enhanced reading outcomes; teachers reported that the percentages of their students who passed high-stakes tests increased from the previous year. Similar to the previous year's findings, teachers reported that student learning of the strategy took time and that their own comfort level with the implementation of CSR increased significantly as the year progressed. Interestingly but not surprisingly, the issue of vocabulary comprehension dominated support group conversations for the first half of the year. Teachers supplemented clunk card fix-up strategies with explicit instruction in finding and learning the meanings of content-specific vocabulary. Teachers' perceptions about student ability to learn the vocabulary shifted from "many can't learn the words" to more intensive instruction and acknowledgement that students could increase their vocabulary understanding of content instruction. Also, teachers reported that CSR was a good tool for teaching sections of chapter content and could be supplemented easily with other types of instruction (e.g., labs in the science classroom).

The use of peer-mediated strategies varied across classes and included both student partners and small groups. Teachers who provided more traditional instruction tended to prefer student partners to small-group work, whereas the science teacher who used small-group instruction for labs continued using small groups for CSR work as well. One teacher in particular felt that using student partners was important in actively engaging students in the learning process and that the stronger partner kept the lower-achieving student on track. Typically, teachers found that they needed to address student behavior and the correct use of roles by students.

We learned from this study that teachers benefit from ongoing support group meetings where they can raise issues and identify ideas to solve the problems. Moreover, the weekly support group meetings provided a sense of accountability because teachers knew they would be asked to discuss the effects of implementing ideas from the problem-solving group. These findings are supported by research which suggests that effective professional development involves teacher study groups, long-term partnerships, and teacher opportunities to find new ideas in relation to current instructional circumstances (Little, 1993).

WHAT WE KNOW AND NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PEER-MEDIATED INSTRUCTION AND CSR

CSR has been used both as part of a multicomponent approach to enhance reading outcomes and as an instructional practice designed to promote reading comprehension and content-area reading. Overall findings suggest that students benefit from learning the strategies that provide an approach to reading text and that facilitate reading comprehension. The types of peer-mediated practices implemented by teachers (e.g., student partners, small groups) tend to be determined by the comfort level of the teacher and by students' abilities to engage collaboratively with peers. Moreover, students require teacher monitoring of group work to ensure that students are actively engaged and participating and that teachers benefit from suggestions of how to deal effectively with peermediated instruction. For struggling readers who receive most of their instruction in the general education classroom, effectively implemented peer-mediated strategies are a good tool for teachers to provide the additional instruction, practice, and support these students need.

We learned a great deal about providing professional development. Teachers have informed us that learning and implementing strategy instruction and peer-mediated practices take time and that support (e.g., coaching, modeling) is imperative. In many cases, teachers are eager to learn new strategies for teaching reading and request this type of instruction. Finally, teachers benefit from ongoing support groups that focus on problem sharing and resolution with their colleagues as well as incorporating participation by a group facilitator.

Because peer-mediated instruction provides an excellent opportunity for teachers to arrange instruction so that all students benefit from learning, it is important for teachers to monitor the learning of all students to ensure that they are making adequate progress. For example, it is possible that students in a particular group or selected students within groups are making inadequate progress and that specific adjustments are needed. Sometimes this can be addressed by rearranging the members of the group; other times the teacher may need to provide specific interventions tailored to meet the needs of identified students. Also, it is necessary for teachers to monitor the roles and responsibilities of all students in the group. For example, it is important to monitor the roles played by students with special learning needs to determine that they are not regularly engaged in less significant work (for example, a student with LD illustrates or copies work but is not participating in the more cognitively demanding aspects of the task).

We have observed that many teachers get bogged down with the procedural details of implementing small cooperative groups and that problems such as the inability of a particular group or person to function well often prevent the teacher from maintaining the implementation of the groups. Thus, we have learned that teachers appreciate the specific details and suggestions about how to initiate peer-mediated instruction. Our experience in working with teachers suggests that implementation is successful when teachers are provided with very specific guidelines for starting and then scaling up peer-mediated activities. For some teachers, turning so much control of learning over to students and their peers is difficult; for other teachers the classroom management procedures are overwhelming; and for still others the interaction between content coverage, knowledge acquisition, and peer mediation is difficult to monitor.

Research is only at the beginning stages of better understanding many aspects of peer-mediated instruction, including the group size that is most effective for specific tasks and at specific ages; the level of difficulty of tasks and the extent and nature of teacher involvement to facilitate learning; and the social and academic benefits for students. Our classroombased research suggests that teachers are overwhelmed at the prospect of meeting the diverse needs of the students in their classrooms. They are eager to embrace practices that assist in organizing the classroom and improving their teaching to enhance outcomes for all students. Peer-mediated instruction through well-organized small-group work and student pairs is a structure that holds great promise.