PERSONA LIZING CLA SSROOM INSTRUCTION TO A CCOUNT FOR MOTIV A TIONA L A ND DEV ELOPMENTA L DIFFERENCES

Ó PERSONA LIZING CLA SSROOM INSTRUCTION TO A CCOUNT FOR MOTIV A TIONA L A ND DEV ELOPMENTA L DIFFERENCES Lina Taylor Los A ngeles Uni e School District University of California, Los A ngeles, California, USA Howar S. A elman University of California, Los A ngeles, California, USA A n orientation to teaching is outline that stresses the necessity of matching both motivation an capabilities. This moel encompasses both regular instruction an remeiation. The approach begins with an emphasis on improving regular instruction by enhancing the ability of teachers to personalize instruction. For stuents foun to nee aitional assistance, remeiation is introuce an pursue using a hierarchical framework. The emphasis at all times is on use of the least intervention neee an maintaining a focus on motivation as a primary consieration. A transactional perspective of human behavior (see iscussion by Banura, 1978) recognizes that preventing an remeying many learning problems require the involvement of all teachers in comprehensive e orts to aress the wie range of barriers that interfere with classroom learning an teaching (Aelman & Taylor, 1993, 1994, 1997). This inclues making signi cant changes in learning environments an instructional systems to enhance literacy. In the vernacular of teaching, a transactional perspective states that such moi cations shoul be esigne to meet learners where they are. In practice, this ol aage is usually interprete as a call for matching a stuent s current capabilities (e.g., knowlege an skills). However, matching motivation also is essential. Such a motivational emphasis encompasses concerns about intrinsic motivation an overcoming avoiance motivation (Deci & Chanler, 1986). This article was prepare in conjunction with work one by the Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA, which is partially supporte by funs from the U.S. Department of Health an Human Services, Public Health Services, Health Resources an Services Aministration, Bureau of Maternal an Chil Health, Office of Aolescent Health. Aress corresponence to Howar Aelman, Department of Psychology, UCLA, Box 95163, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563, USA. Reaing & Writing Quarterly, 15: 255 276, 1999 Copyright 1999 Taylor & Francis 1057-3569/99 $12.00 1.00 255

256 L. Taylor an H. S. A elman FIGURE 1 Sequences an levels in proviing a goo match an etermining least interventio n neee. It is clear that the emphasis on matching capabilities is the prevalent orientation in the literature on teaching reaing an writing (Joran & Golsmith-Phillips, 1994; Joyce & Weil, 1996; Lyon & M oats, 1997; Rei & M aag, 1998). M otivational consierations are

Personalize Classroom Instruction 257 often given short shrift. The irony, of course, is that most teachers recognize that motivational factors often play a key role in accounting for poor instructional outcomes. One of the most common laments among teachers is: They coul o it, if only they wante to! Teachers also know that goo reaing abilities are more likely to emerge when youngsters are motivate not only to pursue class assignments, but also are intereste in reaing as a recreational activity. Our intent here is to outline an orientation to teaching that stresses the necessity of matching both motivation an capabilities an a moel that encompasses both regular instruction an remeiation. The approach outline begins with an emphasis on improving regular instruction by enhancing the ability of teachers to personalize instruction. For stuents foun to nee aitional assistance, remeiation is introuce (see Figure 1). At rst glance, it may seem inconsistent that we woul stress a transactional perspective of learning an instruction an also avocate sequential an somewhat hierarchical approach to intervention for youngsters experiencing ifficulty. Our work re ects both an appreciation that learning an teaching are ynamic an nonlinear processes an that some learners experience problems that require the use of something more than the best that iniviualize or even personalize instruction o ers. We continue to refer to that something more as remeiation, although we woul welcome someone inventing a better term. Among those who focus on remeiation, there continues to be ebate over whether to focus on observable skills or possible unerlying problems (see Aelman & Taylor, 1993, 1994). Our approach to remeiation is an attempt to eal with this matter in an empirical way. Before iscussing the moel in greater etail, it will help if we expan brie y on our view of the concepts of the match an personalize instruction. PERSONALIZATION AND MATCHING MOTIVATION AND CAPABILITY The theoretical concept of the match (as avocate throughout the boy of work prouce by leaing scholars such as Bruner, 1966; Hunt, 1961; Piaget, 1952; Vygotsky, Vygotsky, & John-Steiner, 1980) re ects a transactional view of learning an learning problems. In the more recent literature, the tenency is to refer to the concept of the match as the problem of t. In practice, all iniviualize an personalize interventions are base on this concept. The major

258 L. Taylor an H. S. A elman thrust in most iniviualize approaches is to account for iniviual i erences in capability, whereas personalization has been e ne as accounting for iniviual i erences in both capability an motivation (Aelman & Taylor, 1993, 1994). Personalization represents an application of the principles of normalization an least intervention neee (which encompasses the concept of least restrictive environment). Personalization can be treate as a psychological construct by viewing the learner s perception as a critical factor in e ning whether the environment appropriately accounts for the learner s interests an abilities (Aelman & Taylor, 1993). In e ning personalization as a psychological construct, learners perceptions of how well teaching an learning environments match their interests an abilities become a basic assessment concern. Properly esigne an carrie out, personalize programs shoul reuce the nee for remeiation relate to reaing an writing. That is, maximizing motivation an matching evelopmental capability shoul be a sufficient conition for learning among those stuents whose ifficulties are not the result of interfering internal factors. Personalize programs also represent the type of program regular classrooms might implement in orer to signi cantly improve the efficacy of inclusion, mainstreaming, an prereferral interventions. As we have inicate, most teachers recognize the importance of esigning interventions to be a goo t with the current capabilities of their stuents. Often, however, the same egree of emphasis is not given in schools to iniviual i erences in motivation. This is not to say that the matter has been ignore in the literature on motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Dev, 1997; Stipeck, 1998; Weiner, 1985). The value of attening to motivational consierations relate to literacy in general an reaing in particular is a major theme in proucts from those associate with the National Reaing Research Center (e.g., Guthrie & Wig el, 1997; Morrow & Sharkey, 1993; Sweet & Guthrie, 1996). From a cognitive-a ective theoretical viewpoint, there are very goo reasons for teachers to make motivation a primary consieration. For one thing, motivation is a key anteceent conition. That is, it is a prerequisite to stuent performance. Poor motivational reainess may be a cause of poor learning an a factor maintaining learning problems. Thus, strategies are calle for that can result in a high level of motivational reainess (incluing reuction of avoiance motivation) so that stuents are mobilize to participate. M otivation is also a key ongoing process concern. Processes must

Personalize Classroom Instruction 259 elicit, enhance, an maintain motivation so that stuents stay mobilize. For example, an iniviual may value learning to rea but may not be motivate to pursue the processes use to teach reaing. Many stuents are motivate when they rst encounter reaing instruction but o not maintain that motivation. When they arise, negative motivation an avoiance reactions an the conitions likely to generate them must be circumvente or at least minimize. Of particular concern are activities people perceive as unchallenging, uninteresting, overemaning, or overwhelming. Stuents react against structures that seriously limit their range of options or are overcontrolling an coercive. Examples of conitions that can have a negative impact on a person s motivation are sparse resources, excessive rules, an a restrictive ay-in, ay-out emphasis on rill an remeiation. Finally, enhancing intrinsic motivation is a basic outcome concern. Although a stuent may function well-enough to learn the basics of reaing an writing at school, the youngster may have little or no interest in using newly acquire knowlege an skills unless a situation emans it. Responing to this concern requires strategies to enhance stable, positive, intrinsic attitues that mobilize an iniviual s ongoing pursuit of esire ens in noneman situations. Such intrinsic attitues are neee to generate the type of motivate practice (for example, reaing for pleasure) that is essential if what has just been learne is to be mastere an assimilate. No teacher has control over all the important elements involve in learning. Inee, teachers actually can a ect only a relatively small segment of the physical environment an social context in which learning is to occur. Because this is so, it is essential that teachers begin with an appreciation of what is likely to a ect a stuent s positive an negative motivation to learn. For example, our work (as synthesize in Aelman & Taylor, 1993, 1994) suggests teachers nee to pay particular attention to the following points : Optimal performance an learning require motivational reainess. Reainess is no longer viewe in the ol sense of waiting until an iniviual is intereste. Rather, it is unerstoo in the contemporary sense of o ering stimulating environments that can be perceive as vivi, value, an attainable. Teac hers not only nee to try to increase motivation especially intrinsic motivation but also to avoi practices that ecrease it. For example, uner some circumstances, overreliance on extrinsics to entice an rewar may ecrease intrinsic motivation.

260 L. Taylor an H. S. A elman M otivation represents both a process an an outcome concern. For example, programs must be esigne to maintain, enhance, an expan intrinsic motivation for pursuing current learning activities an also for involvement in relate learning activities beyon the immeiate lesson an outsie of school. Increasing motivation requires focusing on a stuent s thoughts, feelings, an ecisions. In general, the intent is to use proceures that can reuce negative an increase positive feelings, thoughts, an coping strategies. With learning problems, it is especially important to ientify an minimize experiences that maintain or may increase avoiance motivation. The point about minimizing experiences that have negative associations eserves special emphasis. Stuents with learning problems may have evelope extremely negative perceptions of teachers an programs. In such cases, they are not likely to be open to people an activities that look like the same ol thing. M ajor changes in approach are require for the stuent to notice that something has change. Exceptional e orts must be mae to have these stuents view the teacher as supportive (rather than controlling or ini erent) an perceive content, outcomes, an activity options as personally valuable an obtainable. M ajor intervention implications are that a program must provie for a broa range of content, outcomes, an proceural options, incluing a personalize structure to facilitate learning, an then provie opportunities for learner ecision making. There also must be nonthreatening ways to provie ongoing information about learning an performance. Such proceures are funamental to mobilizing most learners in classroom programs an can be essential for those experiencing learning ifficulties. For learners who are motivate, facilitating learning involves maintaining an possibly enhancing motivation an helping establish ways for learners to attain their goals. The intent is to help the iniviual learn e ectively, efficiently, an with a minimum of negative sie e ects. Sometimes, all that is neee is to help clear the external hurles to learning. At other times, facilitating learning requires leaing, guiing, stimulating, clarifying, an supporting. Although the process involves knowing when, how, an what to teach, it also involves knowing when an how to structure the situation so that people can learn on their own (Fuchs, Fuchs, M athes, & Simmons, 1997; Johnson & Pugach, 1991; M arr, 1997; Slavin, 1994; Slavin, Karweit, & Maen, 1989).

Personalize Classroom Instruction 261 A SEQUENTIAL AND HIERARCHICAL MODEL FOR CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION Base on the above thinking, we use a two-step approach for revamping classrooms to better aress the nees of all learners (Aelman, 1971; Aelman & Taylor, 1977, 1993, 1994). As illustrate in Figure 1, the rst step is personalization of the classroom program. After a personalize program is properly implemente, it is to be expecte that, though mobilize to try harer, some stuents will continue to have signi cant learning problems (e.g., those whose ifficulties are the result of interfering internal factors). In e ect, personalization amounts to appropriate accommoation of iniviual i erences in motivation an capability. It is an essential rst step in assessing who oes an oes not require remeial interventions. Depening on problem severity an pervasiveness, remeiation involves one (or more) of three levels of focus. Level A pursues observable problems relate to age-appropriate life tasks (basic knowlege, skills, an interests) level B focuses on missing prerequisites for learning an level C looks for unerlying problems interfering with learning (isabilities, avoiance motivation, serious interfering behaviors sometimes relate to emotional isorers). In personalizing teaching, ecisions about general curriculum goals for a stuent are base on assessment of the iniviual s interests an abilities. The level of remeiation on which to focus with respect to any curricular goal is etermine by assessing an iniviual s responses to aily instruction. Speci c remeial objectives are formulate initially through ialogue with the learner to generate processes an outcomes that are value an perceive as attainable. General goals an speci c objectives are moi e through ongoing ialogues informe by analyses of task performance an supplemente with formal assessment evices when necessary. Proceures use for personalization an remeiation must re ect a primary, systematic focus on motivation. In particular, they shoul emphasize (a) assessing motivation, (b) overcoming negative attitues, (c) enhancing motivational reainess for learning, () maintaining intrinsic motivation throughout the learning process, an (e) nurturing the type of continuing motivation that results in the learner engaging in activities away from the teaching situation. Attening to these matters is seen as essential to maximizing maintenance, generalization, an expansion of learning. Failure to atten systematically an comprehensively to these matters means approaching passive (an often hostile) learners with methos that confoun iagnostic an research e orts an may just as reaily

I. Unerlying Assumptions The following are basic assumptions unerlying personalize programs as we conceive them. Learning is a function of the ongoing transactions between the learner an the learning environment (with all it encompasses). Optimal learning is a function of an optimal match between the learner s accumu- late capacities, attitues, an current state of being an the program s processes an context. Matching both a learner s motivation an pattern of acquire capacities must be primary proceural objectives. The learner s perceptio n is the critical criterion for evaluating whether a goo match exists between the learner an the learning environment. The wier the range of options that can be o ere an the more the learner is mae aware of the options an has a choice about which to pursue, the greater the likelihoo that he or she will perceive the match as a goo one. Besies improve learning, personalize programs enhance intrinsic valuing of learning an a sense of personal responsibility for learning. Furthermore, such programs increase acceptance an even appreciation of iniviual i erences, as well as inepenent an cooperative functioning an problem solving. 262 L. Taylor an H. S. A elman exacerbate as correct learning an behavior problems (Aelman & Taylor, 1990; Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Joran & Golsmith-Phillips, 1994). Step 1 : Personalize Instruction Table 1 outlines the unerlying assumptions an major program elements of personalize programs. As e ne above, personalization stresses the importance of a learner s perception of how well the TABLE 1 Unerlying Assumptions an Major Program Elements of a Personalize Program II. Program elements Major elements of personalize programs as we have ienti e them are : Regular use of informal an formal conferences for iscussing options, making ecisions, exploring learner perceptions, an mutually evaluating progress; A broa range of options from which the learner can make choices with regar to types of learning content, activities, an esire outcomes; A broa range of options from which the learner can make choices with regar to facilitation (support, guiance) of ecision making an learning ; Active ecision making by the learner in making choices an in evaluating how well the chosen options match his or her current levels of motivation an capability ; Establishment of program plans an mutual agreements about the ongoing relationships between the learner an the program personnel ; Regular reevaluations of ecisions, reformulation of plans, an renegotiation of agreements base on mutual evaluations of progress, problems, an current learner perceptions of the match.

Personalize Classroom Instruction 263 learning environment matches her or his motivation an capability. That is, the environment is a goo match only if the learner perceives it as a goo match. Because learning is an ongoing, ynamic, an interactive process, a learning environment must continuously change to match changes in the learner. A stuent perceives the environment as personalize an respons by learning ; the changes in him/her usually call for changes in the environment so that he will continue to perceive it as personalize. There must be an ongoing series of transactions an mutual changes on the part of the learner an the learning environment. Proceural Objectives Speci cally, the teacher can be viewe as trying to accomplish a set of comprehensive proceural objectives to facilitate motivate learning. A primary objective is to establish an maintain an appropriate working relationship with stuents for example, through creating a sense of trust an caring, open communication an proviing support an irection as neee. This objective inclues a focus on clarifying the purpose of learning activities an proceures (especially those esigne to help correct speci c problems) an why these proceures are expecte to be e ective. Each activity shoul buil carefully on previous learning an present material in ways that focus attention on the most relevant features of what is to be learne for example, each shoul use sca oling, moeling, an cueing. To help minimize the negative impact of processes esigne to provie continuous information about learning an performance, teachers nee to clarify the nature an purpose of evaluative measures an apply them in ways that eemphasize feelings of failure. Then, there must be guiance an support for motivate practice for instance, suggesting an proviing opportunities for meaningful applications an clarifying ways to organize practice. Finally, teachers must provie opportunities for continue application an generalization for example, concluing the process by aressing ways in which the learner can pursue aitional, self-irecte learning in the area or arrange for aitional support an irection. The focus in facilitating learners is not on one proceure at a time. Teachers usually have some overall theory, moel, or concept that guies them towar certain proceures an away from others (Joyce & Weil, 1996). In general, proceures an content are tightly interwoven, with proceures seen as means to an en. In this connection, it is frequently suggeste that learning is best facilitate when pro-

264 L. Taylor an H. S. A elman ceures are perceive by learners as goo ways to reach their goals. The emergence of avance technology (e.g., computers, vieo) is proviing many new opportunities to blen content an process together into personalize activities. Structure There appears to be a belief among some teachers that a tight an controlling structure must prevail if stuents are to learn (Joyce & Weil, 1996). This view is caricature when teachers caution each other : Don t smile until Christmas! Goo structure allows for active interactions between stuents an their environment, an these interactions are meant to lea to a relatively stable, positive, ongoing working relationship. How positive the relationship is epens on how learners perceive the communication, support, irection, an limit setting. Obviously, if these matters are perceive negatively, what may evolve in place of a positive working relationship is avoiance behavior. Some stuents especially those who are very epenent, unintereste, or who misbehave nee a great eal of support an irection initially (Rei & Maag, 1998). However, it is essential to get beyon this point as soon as possible. As long as a stuent oes not value the classroom, the teacher, an the activities, then the teacher is likely to believe that the stuent requires a great eal of irection. We stress that the less the stuent is motivate, the more it is necessary to teach an control behavior, an the less successful the whole enterprise of schooling appears to be. Conversely, the more the stuent is motivate, the less it is necessary to teach an control, an the more likely the stuent will learn. To facilitate a positive perception, it is important to allow stuents to take as much responsibility as they can for ientifying the types an egree of support, irection, an limits they require. In proviing communication, it is important not only to keep stuents informe but also to interact in ways that consistently convey a sense of appropriate an genuine warmth, interest, concern, an respect. The intent is to help stuents know their own mins, make their own ecisions, an at the same time feel that others like an care about them (Oyler, 1996). To achieve these objectives, a wie range of alternatives must be available for support an irection so stuents can take as much responsibility as they are reay for. Some stuents request a great amount of irection ; others prefer to work autonomously. Some like lots of help on certain tasks but want to be left alone at other times. When a continuum of structure is mae available an stuents are

Personalize Classroom Instruction 265 able to inicate their preferences, the total environment appears less con ning. Although we see this as positive, it oes ten to make many observers think they are seeing an open classroom or open structure, as these terms are wiely unerstoo (Smith, 1997). This is not necessarily the case. A better escription might be that the intent is to make small classes within large ones. The main point of personalizing structure is to provie a goo eal of support an irection for stuents when they nee it an to avoi creating a classroom climate that is experience by stuents as tight an controlling. Such an approach is a great ai in establishing positive working relationships. Options an Learner Decision Making Clearly, motivation is a primary consieration in facilitating the learning of such stuents. The place to start generally involves expaning the range of options relate to content, processes, outcomes, an support so that these youngsters perceive classroom activity as a goo t with what they value an believe than can o. Every teacher knows a classroom program has to have variety (Davis, 1997). There are important i erences among stuents as to the topics an proceures that currently interest or bore them. For stuents with learning problems, more variety seems necessary than for those without learning problems. M oreover, among those with learning problems are a greater proportion of iniviuals with avoiance or low motivation for learning at school. For these iniviuals, few currently available options may be appealing. An ol joke has an exasperate teacher saying to a stuent : I know you like lunch-time best, but there must be something else you like to o at school. How much greater the range of options nees to be epens primarily on how strong avoiance tenencies are. In general, however, the initial strategies for working with such stuents involve further expansion of the range of options for learning, primarily emphasizing areas in which the stuent has mae personal an active ecisions, an accommoation of a wier range of behavior than is usually tolerate. From a motivational perspective, one of the basic instructional concerns is the way in which stuents are involve in making ecisions about options. Critically, ecision-making processes can lea to perceptions of coercion an control or to perceptions of real choice (being in control of one s estiny an self-etermining). Such i erences in perception can a ect whether a stuent is mobilize to pursue or avoi planne learning activities or outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

266 L. Taylor an H. S. A elman People who have the opportunity to make ecisions among value an feasible options ten to be committe to follow through. In contrast, people who are not involve in ecisions often have little commitment to what is ecie. If iniviuals isagree with a ecision that a ects them, they may also react with hostility. Thus, essential to programs focusing on motivation are ecisionmaking processes that a ect perceptions of choice, value, an probable outcome. Optimally, we hope to maximize perceptions of having a choice from among personally worthwhile options an attainable outcomes. At the very least, it is necessary to minimize perceptions of having no choice, little value, an probable failure. Yes, but.... The iea of motivate learning an practice is not without its critics. One such criticism might be, Y our points about motivation soun goo. I on t oubt that stuents enjoy such an approach ; it probably even increases attenance. But (long pause) that s not the way it really is in the worl. People nee to work even when it isn t fun, an most of the time work isn t fun. Also, if people want to be goo at something, they nee to practice it ay in an ay out, an that is not fun! In the en, won t all this emphasis on motivation spoil people so that they won t want to work unless it is personally relevant an interesting? Learning an practice activities may be enjoyable. But even if they are not, they can be viewe as worthwhile an experience as satisfying. We recognize that there are many things people have to o in their lives that will not be viewe an experience in a positive way. How we all learn to put up with such circumstances is an interesting question, but one for which psychologists have yet to n a satisfactory answer. It is oubtful, however, that people have to experience learning basic knowlege an skills as rugery in orer to learn to tolerate boring situations! In response to critics of motivate practice, those professionals who work with learning problems stress the reality that many stuents o not master what they have been learning because they o not pursue the necessary practice activities. Thus, at least for iniviuals experiencing learning problems, it seems essential to facilitate motivate practice. One of the most powerful factors keeping a person on a task is the expectation of feeling some sense of satisfaction when the task is complete. For example, task persistence results from the expectation that one will feel smart or competent while performing the task or at least will feel that way after the skill is mastere. This seems to

Personalize Classroom Instruction 267 characterize youngsters interactions with vieo games an their various hobbies. Beyon having potential for preventing an correcting a full range of learning problems, the personalize, sequential, an hierarchical approach outline here is seen as having promise for ientifying ifferent types of learning problems an etecting errors in iagnosis. For example, when only personalization base on capability an motivation is neee to correct a learning problem, it seems reasonable to suggest that the iniviual oes not have a learning isability. At the same time, when a highly mobilize iniviual still has extreme ifficulty in learning, the hypothesis that the person has a isability seems more plausible. In our work, personalization is seen as a necessary step in facilitating vali ienti cation of i erent types of learning problems. Step 2 : Remeiation Intervention can be costly nancially an in terms of potential negative consequences. Therefore, when professionals attempt to ameliorate problems, stanars for goo practice call on them to prescribe as much as is neee but no more than is necessary. The ability to provie what is neee, of course, epens on the availability an accessibility of an appropriate array of interventions. However, even if one has the goo fortune to be able to prescribe from such an array, goo practice requires using an intervention only when it is necessary an the bene ts signi cantly outweigh the costs. The esire to meet nees in ways that ensure the bene ts outweigh costs ( nancial an otherwise) makes the concept of least intervention neee a funamental intervention concern. This concept (an the relate notion of placement in the least restrictive environment) n support in the principle of normalization, which is associate with mainstreaming an einstitutionalization. It is re ecte in laws that protect iniviuals from removal from the mainstream without goo cause an ue process. Such legislation an associate regulations unerscore concern that isruptive an restrictive interventions can prouce negative e ects, such as poor self-concept an social alienation. In turn, these e ects may narrow immeiate an future options an choices, thereby minimizing life opportunities. As an intervention guieline, the concept of least intervention neee stresses that one must rst an foremost strive to o what is neee, but in oing so, one must not interfere with an iniviual s opportunity for a normal range of experiences more than is absolutely necessary. Thus, even when a stuent has been iagnose as in

268 L. Taylor an H. S. A elman nee of special eucation, placement in a special eucation class is inappropriate if the youngster can be worke with e ectively in a regular classroom. At the same time, it shoul be evient that regular classroom placement is no guarantee of e ectiveness. From the foregoing perspective, concerns arise about research applications that encourage an overemphasis on narrowly focuse assessment an remeial approaches in e orts to correct the wie range of learning problems foun in public schools. For example, applie ieas for assessing an fostering evelopment of language an cognitive abilities (e.g., phonological, executive function, writing, an mathematics skills) are appropriate an invaluable (Joran & Golsmith-Phillips, 1994; Lyon & Moats, 1997; Stahl, 1998). However, an overemphasis on remeying these areas of evelopment coul have the same unfortunate consequences as the historic overemphasis on remeying problems relate to visual-spatial abilities. That is, when speci c areas for remeiation are overstresse, other areas ten to be eemphasize, resulting in a narrowing of curriculum an a fragmentation of instruction (Shannon & Crawfor, 1997). Remeiation is an extension of general e orts to facilitate learning. Thus, before a remeial focus is introuce, the best available nonremeial instruction shoul be trie. As iscusse, this means trying proceures to improve the match between the program an a learner s motivation an capability. A signi cant number of learning problems may be correcte an others prevente through optimal, nonremeial instruction. There oes come a time, however, when remeiation is necessary for some iniviuals. In the following section, we sketch criteria for eciing who nees remeiation, outline its general features, an highlight the focus an form of remeial methos. W hen Is it Neee? State simply, an iniviual nees remeiation when the best nonremeial proceures are foun to be ine ective. As we have suggeste, remeiation is use for motivation problems an for those who have ifficulty learning or retaining what they have learne. Because remeiation in all areas is usually unnecessary, as much learning as possible will probably continue to be facilitate with nonremeial approaches. Besies facilitating learning, such proceures provie an essential founation an context for any remeial strategy, especially if they are value by the learner. W hat Makes Remeial Instruction Di erent? Techniques an materials esignate as remeial often appear to

Personalize Classroom Instruction 269 be very i erent from those use in regular teaching. However, the i erences often are not as great as appearance suggests. Some remeial practices are simply aaptations of regular proceures. This is even the case with some package programs an materials especially evelope for problem populations. A great many regular an remeial proceures raw on the same instructional moels an basic principles (GagneÂ, 1985; Joyce & Weil, 1996). Thus, the question is frequently aske : What s so special about special eucation? The answer to this question involves unerstaning the following factors that i erentiate remeial from regular teaching. Sequence of application an resource costs. Remeial practices are pursue after the best available nonremeial practices have been foun inaequate. Due to the types of factors escribe below, remeiation is more costly than regular teaching (allocations of time, personnel, materials, space, an so forth). Teacher competence an time. Probably the most important feature i erentiating remeial from regular practices is the nee for a competent teacher who has time to provie one-to-one instruction. While special training oes not necessarily guarantee such competence, remeiation usually is one by teachers who have special training. Establishing an appropriate match for learners with problems is ifficult. Inee, a great eal of this process remains a matter of trial an appraisal. Thus, there must be aitional time to evelop an unerstaning of the learner (strengths, weaknesses, limitations, likes, islikes). There must also be access to an control over a wie range of learning options. Outcomes an content. Along with basic skills an knowlege, special eucation often as other content an outcome objectives. These are aime at overcoming missing prerequisites, faulty learning mechanisms, or interfering behaviors an attitues. Processes. Remeiation usually stresses an extreme application of instructional principles. Such applications may inclue reuctions in levels of abstraction, intensi cation of the way stimuli are presente an acte upon, an increases in the amount an consistency of irection an support incluing ae reliance on other resources. Of course, special settings (outsie regular classrooms) are not the only places such processes can be carrie out. Psychological impact. The features of remeiation are highly visible to stuents, teachers, an others. Chances are such features are seen as i erent an stigmatizing. Thus, the psychological impact of remeiation can have a negative component. The sensitive

270 L. Taylor an H. S. A elman nature of remeiation is another reason it shoul be implemente only when necessary an in ways that result in the learner s perceiving remeiation as a special an positive opportunity for teaming. Special eucators also have the responsibility to clarify whether general eucators share the same basic concerns. Special eucators are aske to take on an aitional concern. Their responsibility is to clarify which general answers to eucational matters are aequate for everyone an how the answers shoul be moi e to account for speci c subgroups of learners. Until much more is known about how to meet the nees of those who are not well serve by regular classroom programs, a role for remeial teaching an special eucation will certainly remain. Remeiation, however, is not synonymous with either special eucation or special placements. Once one escapes from the ebate over where a youngster shoul be taught, the concern shifts to funamental factors that must be consiere in meeting stuents learning, behavioral, an emotional nees an oing so with the least intervention. Is there a full array of programs an services esigne to aress factors interfering with learning an teaching (e.g., such as those outline in Figure 2)? Is there an appropriate curriculum (that inclues a focus on areas of strength an weakness an encompasses prerequisites that may not have been learne, unerlying factors that may be interfering with learning, an enrichment opportunities)? Do the sta have the ability to personalize instruction/structure teaching in ways that account for the range of iniviual i erences an isabilities in the classroom (accounting for i erences in both motivation an capability an implementing special practices when necessary)? Does the stuent-sta ratio ensure the necessary time require for personalizing instruction, implementing remeiation, an proviing enrichment? Levels of Remeial Focus As note above, specialize psychoeucational proceures to facilitate learning can be applie at any of three levels (again see Figure 1). A ge-appropriate life tasks. Current life tasks involve a variety of basic knowlege, skills, an interests as part of ay-by-ay living at school, home, work, an in the neighborhoo. These inclue reaing, writing, interpersonal an intrapersonal problem solving, an so forth. At this level, remeiation essentially involves reteaching, but not with the same approach that has just faile. Alternative ways

Personalize Classroom Instruction 271 FIGURE 2 From primary prevention to treatment of serious problems : a continuum of community-school programs. must be use when the stuent has ha ifficulty learning. This is accomplishe by further moifying activities in ways likely to improve the match with the learner s current levels of motivation an capability. Teachers can use a range of environmental factors to in uence the match, as well as techniques that enhance motivation, sensory intake, processing an ecision making, an output.

272 L. Taylor an H. S. A elman Prerequisites. At this level, the focus is on ientifying an teaching missing prerequisites. Proceures are the same as those use in facilitating learning relate to current life tasks. Interfering factors. At this level, we must face the possibility of faulty learning mechanisms. A variety of unerlying problems has been suggeste as interfering with learning. Remeial approaches are esigne to overcome such e ciencies by irectly correcting the problems or inirectly compensating for them. It is evient that remeiation, especially in the classroom, is often elaye because so many iniviuals with learning problems also manifest behavior problems. Such iniviuals are frequently escribe not only as learning isable but also as hyperactive, istractable, impulsive, emotionally an behaviorally isorere, an so forth. Their behavior patterns are seen as interfering with e orts to remey their learning problems, an for many stuents, such interfering behaviors have to be eliminate or minimize in orer to pursue remeiation. The focus in such cases is on any actions of an iniviual that compete with the intene focus of remeiation. Besies trying to reuce the frequency of eviant an isruptive actions irectly, programs have been esigne to alter such behavior by improving impulse control, selective attention, sustaine attention an follow-through, perseverance, frustration tolerance, an social awareness an skills. In sum, what makes remeial strategies appear i erent is their rationale, the extreme egree an consistency with which they must be applie, an their application on levels of functioning other than current life tasks. What may make any remeial proceure work is the fact that it is i erent from those a stuent has alreay trie an foun ine ective. Special proceures have the bene t of being novel an thus having motivational an attention-inucing value. As a general stance regaring remeial activity, we concur that learning problems an learning isabilities cannot be correcte or cure by a special teaching metho or training technique. It is imperative that teachers have a wie range of instructional materials an techniques at their isposal an that they are imaginative an exible enough to aapt these to the speci c nees of their pupils (Koppitz, 1973, p. 137). We woul a, however, that e ective exibility an imaginativeness in facilitating learning stem from a soun unerstaning of what is involve in personalizing regular an remeial instruction.

Personalize Classroom Instruction 273 A SOCIETAL APPROACH TO INTERVENTION Beyon the classroom, an even broaer perspective is evolving regaring research an practice for problems relate to learning an behavior. Policymakers increasingly are recognizing the importance of multifacete approaches that account for social, ec onomic, political, an cultural factors. The potential array of prevention an treatment programs is extensive an promising. The range can be appreciate by grouping them on a continuum from prevention through treatment of chronic problems (again, see Figure 2). Activities along this continuum encompass primary prevention to promote an maintain safety an physical an mental health, preschool programs, early school ajustment programs, improvement of ongoing regular support ; augmentation of regular support, specialize sta evelopment an interventions prior to referral for special help, an system change an intensive treatments. Examples of relevant interventions are cite in Figure 2. Unfortunately, implementation of the full continuum of programs outline in Figure 2 oes not occur in most communities. M oreover, what programs there are ten to be o ere in a fragmente manner. Policymakers see a relationship between limite intervention efficacy an the wiesprea tenency for complementary programs to operate in isolation. For instance, physical an mental health programs generally are not coorinate with eucational programs, or a youngster ienti e an treate in early eucation programs who still requires special support may or may not receive systematic help in the primary graes. Failure to coorinate an follow through, of course, can be counterprouctive (e.g., unermining immeiate bene- ts an working against e orts to reuce subsequent eman for costly treatment programs). Limite efficacy seems inevitable as long as interventions are carrie out in a piecemeal fashion. Thus, there is increasing interest in moving beyon piecemeal strategies to provie a comprehensive, integrate, an coorinate programmatic thrust (e.g., Aelman, 1993, 1996; Aelman & Taylor, 1997; Greenwal, Heges, & Laine, 1996; Hogkinson, 1989; Kagan, 1990; Sailor & Skrtic, 1996). The range of programs cite in Figure 2 can be seen as integrally relate, an it seems likely that the impact of each coul be exponentially increase through integration an coorination. Inee, a major breakthrough in the battle against learning an behavior problems may result only when the full range of programs are implemente in a comprehensive an integrate fashion.

274 L. Taylor an H. S. A elman CONCLUDING COMMENTS Researchers primarily concerne with improving intervention for those with learning problems must at the very least broaen their view of teaching. Optimally, they nee to expan their view beyon teaching. Whatever their view of intervention, it is essential that they focus on motivation as a primary intervention concern. Beyon teaching, it is important to think in terms of a societal approach encompassing a comprehensive continuum of multifacete, integrate programs an services. There is a consierable agena of research that warrants attention relate to these ieas. As the worl aroun us is changing at an exponential rate, so must the way we approach learning ifficulties. Everyay, our society is calle upon to o something about the many iniviuals who have trouble learning acaemic skills. In responing to this call, we must be prepare to go beyon the narrow perspective of speci c assessment practices or irect instruction of observable skills. What is neee is a broa unerstaning of what causes learning problems (incluing learning isabilities) an what society in general an schools in particular nee to o to aress such problems. REFERENCES Aelman, H. S. (1971). The not so speci c learning isability population. Exceptional Chilren, 8, 114 120. Aelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1977). Two steps towar improving learning for stuents with (an without) learning problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 455 461. Aelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1990). Intrinsic motivatio n an school misbehavior. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 541 543. Aelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1993). Learning problems an learning isabilities : Moving forwar. Paci c Grove, CA : Brooks/Cole. Aelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1994). On unerstaning intervention in psycholog y an eucation. Westport, CT : Prager. Aelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1997). Aressing barriers to learning : Beyon schoollinke services an full service schools. A merican Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67, 408 421. Banura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal eterminism. A merican Psychologist, 33, 344 358. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance : A theory of freeom an control. New York : Acaemic Press. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towar a theory of instruction. Cambrige, MA : Belknap. Davis, S. C. (1997). Reaing assignments that meet literacy nees: Alternatives to the textbook. Reaing & Writing Quarterly, 13, 303 309. Deci, E. L., & Chanler, C. L. (1986). The importance of mo tivation for the future of the LD el. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 587 594.

Personalize Classroom Instruction 275 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation an self etermination in human behavior. New Y ork : Plenum Press. Dev, P. C. (1997). Intrinsic motivation an acaemic achievement: What oes their relationship imply for the classroom teacher? Remeial an Special Eucation, 18, 12 19. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assiste learning strategies : Making classrooms more responsive to iversity. A merican Eucational Research Journal, 34, 174 206. GagneÂ, R. M. (1985). The conitions of learning an theory of instruction (4th e.). Fort Worth, TX : Holt, Rinehart an Winston. Greenwal, R., Heges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The e ect of school resources on stuent achievement. Review of Eucational Research, 66, 361 396. Guthrie, J. T., & Wig el, A. (Es.). (1997). Reaing engagement : Motivating reaers through integrate instructions. Newark, DE : International Reaing Association. Hogkinson, H. L. (1989). The same client : The emographics of eucation an service elivery systems. Washington, DC : Institute for Eucational Leaership, Inc./Center for Demographic Policy. Hunt, J. McV. (1961). Intelligence an experience. New Y ork : Ronal Press. Johnson, L. J., & Pugach, M. C. (1991). Peer collaboration : Accommoating stuents with mil learning an behavior problems. Exception Chilren, 57, 454 461. Joran, N. C., & Golsmith-Phillips, J. (Es.). (1994). Learning isabilities : New irections for assessment an intervention. Boston : Allyn & Bacon. Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1996). Moels of teaching. 5th e. Boston : Allyn & Bacon. Kagan, S. L. (1990). Excellence in early chilhoo eucation : De ning characteristics an next-ecae strategies. Washington, DC : Office of Eucational Research an Improvement, U.S. Department of Eucation. Koppitz, E. (1973). Special class pupils with learning isabilities : A ve year follow-up stuy. A caemic Therapy, 13, 133 140. Lyon, G. R., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Critical conceptual an methoolog ical consierations in reaing interventio n research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 578 588. Marr, M. B. (1997). Cooperative learning : A brief review. Reaing & Writing Quarterly, 13, 7 20. Morrow, L. M., & Sharkey, E. A. (1993). Motivating inepenent reaing an writing in the primary graes through social cooperative literacy expectations. Reaing Teacher, 47, 162 165. Oyler, C. (1996) Making room for stuents : Sharing teacher authority in Room 104. New York : Teachers College Recor. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in chilren. New York : International Universities Press. Rei, R., & Maag, J. W. (1998). Functional assessment : A metho for eveloping classroom-base accommoations an interventio ns for chilren with ADHD. Reaing & Writing Quarterly, 14, 9 42. Sailor, W., & Skrtic, T. M. (1996). School/community partnerships an eucation reform: Introuction to the topical issue. Remeial an Special Eucation, 17, 267 270, 283. Shannon, P., & Crawfor, P. (1997). Manufacturing escent : Basal reaers an the creation of reaing failures. Reaing & Writing Quarterly, 13, 227 245. Slavin, R. E. (1994). Cooperative learning : Theory, research, an practice. 2n e. Boston : Allyn & Bacon.

276 L. Taylor an H. S. A elman Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., & Maen, N. A. (Es.). (1989). E ective programs for stuents at risk. Boston : Allyn & Bacon. Smith, L. H. (1997). Open eucation revisite : Promise an problems in American eucational reform (1967 1976). Teachers College Recor, 99, 371 415. Stahl, S. A. (1998). Teaching chilren with reaing problems to ecoe : Phonics an not-phonics instruction. Reaing & Writing Quarterly, 14, 165 188. Stipek, D. J. (1998). Motivation to learn : From theory to practice. 3r e. Boston : Allyn & Bacon. Sweet, A. P., & Guthrie, J. T. (1996). How chilren s motivatio ns relate to literacy evelopmen t an instruction. Reaing Teacher, 49, 660 662. Vygotsky, L. S., Vygotsky, S., & John-Steiner, V. (E.). (1980). Mins in society : The evelopment of higher psychological processes. Cambrige, MA : Harvar University Press. Weiner, B. (1985). Human motivation. New Y ork : Springer Verlag.