A meta-analysis of supplemental, adult-instructed one-to-one reading interventions for elementary students at risk for reading failure was conducted. Reading outcomes for 42 samples of students (N = 1,539) investigated in 29 studies reported between 1975 and 1998 had a mean weighted effect size of 0.41 when compared with controls. Interventions that used trained volunteers or college students were highly effective. For Reading Recovery interventions, effects for students identified as discontinued were substantial, whereas effects for students identified as not discontinued were not significantly different from zero. Two studies comparing one-to-one with small-group supplemental instruction showed no advantage for the one-to-one programs.One-to-one instruction, provided as a supplement to classroom teaching, is generally considered to be the most effective way of increasing students' achievement. The effectiveness of one-to-one instruction has been validated by empirical research, especially for students who are considered at risk for school failure or have been identified as having reading or learning disabilities (

This meta-analytic review investigated the relationship between reading outcomes for students with disabilities (learning disabilities, behavior disorders) and the grouping formats (studentpairs, smallgroups, combinations ofdifferentformats) used during their reading instruction. Twenty studies producedbetween 1975and 1995 met criteria for inclusion in Wortman, P. M. (1994). Judging research quality. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook ofresearch synthesis (pp. 97-109). New York: Russell Sage Foundation." Exceptional Childrent Indicates studies that were included in the metaanalysis.

The purpose of this study was to provide data on the social functioning (i.e., the degree of peer acceptance, self-concept, loneliness, and social alienation) of students in second, third, and fourth grade who participated in an inclusive classroom for an entire year. The social functioning of students identified as learning disabled (LD; n = 16), low achieving (LA; n = 27), and average/high achieving (AHA; n = 21) was assessed at the beginning and end of the school year. The students with LD were less well liked and more frequently rejected than AHA students. Although students' overall self-worth did not differ by achievement group, the students with LD demonstrated significantly lower academic self-concept scores. The students with LD did not differ on ratings of loneliness, and they demonstrated increases in the number of within-class reciprocal friendships from fall to spring. Discussion focuses on the effects of inclusion on the social functioning of students with LD.

Given the key role of school experiences in shaping children's self-perceptions, particularly their academic self-concept, students who experience severe academic difficulty are considered to be particularly at risk for poor self-concept and its adverse consequences. Students with learning disabilities (LD) represent a group of students for whom there has been particular concern in this regard. For example, Thurlow (1980) surveyed 70 LD teachers, coordinators, and special education supervisors. When asked to indicate the greatest need of students with LD by rank ordering the areas of academic skills, classroom behavior, self-image, and "other," 47% of respondents listed JANUARY 2001 SELF-CONCEPT 305 improved self-image as the area of greatest need.Research conducted over the past 25 years provides a rationale for these teachers' concerns. Based on a review of the literature comparing the self-concepts of children with and without LD, Serafica and Harway (1979) concluded that students with LD showed consistently lower selfconcept than students without disabilities. Chapman (1988) reviewed 21 studies addressing the general self-concept of students with and without LD, and 20 studies addressing their academic self-concept. Chapman found that students with LD tended to have general self-concepts that were lower than those of their peers without LD but within the normal range. In contrast, on measures of academic self-concept, the average difference between students with and without LD was large, as indicated by mean effect size (ES) of -0.81.In line with the findings of Chapman (1988), a meta-analysis by Prout, Marcal, and Marcal (1992) revealed that students with LD, when compared with nondisabled students, showed a self-esteem disadvantage of 0.43 of a standard deviation on measures of general self-concept and 0.71 on measures of academic self-concept. Further, Kavale and Forness's (1996) meta-analysis of social skills deficits in students with LD revealed that approximately 70% of students with LD demonstrated lower self-esteem than students in comparison groups. The authors concluded that "students with LD take a more negative view of their individual characteristics in social comparisons with NLD peers and possess less confidence about their own self-worth" (Kavale & Forness, 1996, p. 233).Thus, the preponderance of research on the self-concept of students with LD has found that students with LD have lower academic self-concepts than students without disabilities. A smaller number of studies have found that at least some students with LD show inflated, rather than depressed, self-esteem (Bear & Minke, 1996; Clever, Bear, & Juvonen, 1992; Kistner, Haskett, White, & Robbins, 1987; Kistner, & Osborne, 1987). These studies underscore the importance of considering individual differences, as well as general characteristics, of students with LD.

Although placement in less restrictive settings is generally believed to be associated with more positive social outcomes for students with disabilities, the empirical research has yielded equivocal findings. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the empirical research comparing the self-concept of students with learning disabilities (LD) in different educational placements. Meta-analysis revealed no overall association between self-concept and educational placement for four out of five comparisons: regular class vs. resource room, regular class vs. self-contained class, resource room vs. self-contained class, and regular class vs. special school. Students with LD receiving instruction in self-contained classrooms in regular schools exhibited lower self-concept compared to students with LD attending special schools. Follow-up analyses were conducted to explore whether the variability of effect sizes in regular class-resource room comparisons was associated with any of several potential moderator variables; the only variable for which the association approached significance was whether students in the regular classroom were provided with appropriate special education supports and services. The findings are discussed in light of documented individual variation in students' placement preferences.In the decades since the passing of Public Law 94-142, the mandate to educate students with disabilities in the least restrictive setting has led to energetic debate over the benefits and drawbacks of different educational placements for students with disabilities (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999). The settings in which such students are educated can range from fully separated (i.e., special schools) to fully integrated (i.e., full inclusion). Historically, students with learning disabilities (LD) have been placed across the entire continuum of setting options. However, there has been a strong trend over the past decade toward providing instruction to students with LD in the general education classroom. According to the most recent national data available on educational environments for students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2001Education, ), in 1998Education, -1999.1 percent of students with LD were educated in separate environments for less than 21 percent of the school day, 38.4 percent were in separate environments 21-60 percent of the day, and only 15.5 percent were in separate environments for more than 60 percent of the school day.According to federal law (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997), a child with a disability may be served in a separate environment only if the individualized instruction required by the child to make adequate academic progress cannot be provided in the regular classroom with appropriate special education services and supports. At the same time, decisions about placement involve more than considerations of academic progress; in particular, they involve assumptions and considerations concerning the Requests for reprints should be sent to Batya Elb...