1 / 50

Research-Based Academic Interventions

Research-Based Academic Interventions. Matthew K. Burns, Ph.D. University of Minnesota. Module Overview. Academic Deficits Criteria for Interventions Additional Resources Summary Review Questions. Academic Deficits in Schools. National Assessment of Educational Progress:

blaise
Télécharger la présentation

Research-Based Academic Interventions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Research-Based Academic Interventions Matthew K. Burns, Ph.D. University of Minnesota

  2. Module Overview • Academic Deficits • Criteria for Interventions • Additional Resources • Summary • Review Questions Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  3. Academic Deficits in Schools • National Assessment of Educational Progress: • 29% of 4th and 8th graders achieved grade-level proficiency in reading (National Center for Educational Statistics 2005). • Less than 33% of 4th grade students scored within a proficient range in math (Manzo & Galley, 2003). • Between 24% and 31% of students in grades 4, 8, and 12 performed at or above the proficient level for writing (NCES, 2002). Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  4. Addressing Deficits • Early academic deficits continue without remediation (Baker, Gersten, & Graham, 2004; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Karns, 2001; Stanovich, 1986 • Instruction is the only way to “close the gap” Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  5. Academic Interventions for Children with Learning Disabilities Meta-analysis by Kavale & Forness (1999) Average Intervention Effect Size Perceptual training .08 Modality instruction .15 If visual, teach them visually, etc. Psycholinguistic training .39 Direct instruction .84 Explicit reading comprehension strategies 1.13 Mnemonic strategies 1.62 Remember, .80 is large, .50 is medium and .20 is small (Cohen, 1988). Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  6. Conclusions Many interventions for academic deficits do not have an adequate research base. Interventions with a solid research base are often not commonly used in practice. School psychologists need to be adequate consumers and synthesizers of applied research (Keith, 2002). There is an extensive literature on effective instructional practices for students with academic deficits (Gersten, Schiller, & Vaughn, 2000; Kavale & Forness, 1999; 2000; Swanson, 2000; Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2000 Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  7. What makes an intervention research based? • Empirical research and professional wisdom (Whitehurst, 2002). • Developed from sound theory, demonstrated effectiveness, and consistent implementation (Ellis, 2005). • Task Force on Evidence-Based Practices in School Psychology • Division 16, SSSP, & NASP • Published a procedural and coding manual http://www.sp-ebi.org/documents/_workingfiles/EBImanual1.pdf Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  8. Intervention Research - Consider • Clearly stated random design • How well the program is described • Statistical analysis • Appropriate unit of analysis - school, class, or student • Family wise error controlled with MANOVA or corrected alpha levels • Appropriate analysis Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  9. More Considerations • Uses measures that results in reliable data and valid decisions • Uses an active comparison group with sufficient counterbalancing Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  10. Single-Case Designs • Perhaps most appropriate for intervention research • Includes baseline data • Should have at least 3 points but more are preferred • Should be stable and represent a problem • Intervention data • Level should not overlap baseline • Trend differences from baseline • Slope should be greater than baseline Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  11. What makes an intervention effective? Review of research syntheses found five common components of a research-based academic intervention: Correctly targeted Explicit instruction Appropriate challenge Opportunities to respond Immediate feedback With contingent reinforcers Burns, VanDerHeyden, & Boice (in press). Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  12. Correctly Targeted • Effective interventions are matched to the student’s current learning stage Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  13. Stages of Learning Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  14. Phonemic Awareness Phonics Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension Reading Skill Development Berninger et al., 2006 Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  15. Focus on Comprehension YES Assess Fluency Fluent? START HERE NO Fluency Intervention Accuracy or Proficiency Assess Phonetic Skills Adequate? YES NO Phonics Intervention Accuracy or Proficiency Assess Phonemic Awareness Adequate? YES NO Phonemic Awareness Intervention Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  16. Explicit Instruction • Break down the skills into manageable and deliberately sequenced steps • Provide overt instruction in the skills and opportunities to practice (Roshenshine & Stevens, 1986). • Step by step manner • Clear and detailed explanations • Mastery of each step is assured before moving on to the next • “I do” (presentation of materials), “we do” (guided practice), and “you do” (independent practice). • Uses a high number of teacher questions and student responses with frequent checks for understanding. Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  17. Students Need an Appropriate Level of Challenge • If instruction is too easy, students won’t learn • If instruction is too hard, students will give up • Instruction needs to be at the right level of challenge Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  18. Baseline Frustration Instructional Independent Behavior of Children Identified as LD During Reading Instruction Task Completion Time On Task Task Comprehension (Gickling & Armstrong, 1978) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Percentage of Intervals Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  19. Instructional Match Match between skill and task demand – called the instructional level Measured with Curriculum-based Assessment for Instructional Design (Gickling & Havertape,1981) Improves student learning (Burns, 2002; Burns, 2007a; Daly, Witt, Martens, & Dool, 1997; Shapiro, 1992). Match between student skill and instructional material is an important functional variable for student learning within RTI (Gresham, 2001). Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  20. Instructional Level-Reading • Importance of match • Measured with percent accuracy • 93% - 97% known material (Gickling & Thompson, 1985) Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  21. Instructional Level-Drill Tasks • Drill tasks include spelling, math facts, sight words • 70% to 85% known (Gickling & Thompson, 1985) • Could be 90% known for some tasks (Burns, 2004) Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  22. Instructional Level: Math • What to measure • Best measured with fluency rather than accuracy • 2nd and 3rd grade – 14 to 31 digits correct/minute • 4th and 5th grade – 24 to 49 digits correct/minute (Burns, VanDerHeyden, & Jiban, 2006) Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  23. High Opportunities to Respond • Research has consistently found that providing more student opportunities to respond (OTR; Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1984) by increasing the number of presentations while rehearsing new items led to improved retention of the newly learned items (Burns, 2004). Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  24. Opportunities to Respond (OTR) • Comparisons of various instructional approaches (e.g., computer-assisted instruction and flashcard methods) found that the increased OTR was the causal mechanism (Burns,2007b; MacQuarrie, Tucker, Burns, & Hartman, 2002; Szadokierski & Burns, in press; Wilson, Majsterek, & Simmons, 1996),. • Examples of effective approaches: • Paired peer practice (DuPaul, Ervin, Hook, & McGoey, 1998; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997). • Interspersing new item to be rehearsed within previously learned ones at a ratio including at least 50% known (Burns, 2004). Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  25. Feedback • Feedback is the information regarding the accuracy and correctness of a student response. • Should match the stage of learning. • The earlier the student is in skill development (i.e., acquisition phase), the more immediate and explicit the feedback should be. Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  26. Overcorrection • Overcorrection (Singh, 1987) may be an effective feedback strategy. • Corrective feedback is provided. • Student is then asked to provide the correct response three times in quick succession. • Has been used successfully in reading instruction (VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Naquin, 2003; Bonfiglio, Daly, Martens, Lan-Hsiang, & Corsaut, 2004). Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  27. Sources for Academic Interventions • Journals • School Psychology Review • Journal of Evidence Based Practices in Schools • Education and Treatment of Children • Intervention in School and Clinic Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  28. Sources for Academic Interventions • Websites • www.interventioncentral.com • www.fcrr.org • http://kc.vanderbil.edu/pals • www.whatworksed.gov Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  29. Summary • National data have shown that many U.S. students have deficits in basic academic skills • Specific features of instruction have an effect on learning outcomes • Interventions should be selected on the basis of effective methods and students’ instructional level Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  30. Review Questions • The following slides include review questions about the information contained in this module • Click to advance to the next slide • After reading the slide and questions, click again to see the correct answer Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  31. A) Which of the following is important for well-designed research? • Federal funding • Random assignment of subjects • Hypothesis • None of the above Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  32. A) Answer: #2 Random assignment of subjects Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  33. B) What of the following are important features of effective instruction? • Teacher preference, cost, assessment • Feedback, grading policy, presentation • Benchmarking, progress monitoring, exploring solutions, defining, identification • Explicit instruction, opportunities to respond, immediate feedback Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  34. B) Answer: #4 Explicit instruction, opportunities to respond, immediate feedback Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  35. C) What are the 5 stages of learning? • Acquisition, Practice, Adaptation, Generalization, Maintenance • Practice, Practice, Practice, Practice, Practice • Acquisition, Proficiency, Maintenance, Generalization, Adaptation • None of the above Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  36. C) Answer: # 3 Acquisition, Proficiency, Maintenance, Generalization, Adaptation Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  37. D) What is the best starting point for identifying reading instruction needs? • Comprehension • Fluency • Vocabulary • Phonemic Awareness Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  38. D) Answer: #4 Fluency Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  39. E) What type of teaching do students need: • Frustration level • Instructional level • Independent level • None of the above Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  40. E) Answer: #2 Instructional Level Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  41. References • Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Graham, S. (2003). Teaching expressive writing to students with • learning disabilities: Research-based applications and examples. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 109-123. • Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Vermeulen, K., & Fulton, C. M. (2006). Paths to reading comprehension in at-risk second-grade readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 334-351. • Bonfiglio, C. M., Daly, E. J., III, Martens, B. K., Lan-Hsiang, R. L., & Corsaut, S. (2004). An experimental analysis of reading interventions: Generalization across instructional strategies, time, and passages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 111-114. • Burns, M. K. (2002). Comprehensive system of assessment to intervention using curriculum-based assessments. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 8-13. Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  42. Burns, M. K. (2004). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167-175. • Burns, M. K. (2007a). Reading at the instructional level with children identified as learning disabled: Potential implications for response–to-intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 297-313. • Burns, M. K. (2007b). Comparison of drill ratio and opportunities to respond when rehearsing sight words with a child with mental retardation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 250-263. • Burns, M. K.,VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Boice, C. H. (in press). Best practices in delivery intensive academic interventions. . In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology (5th ed.). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  43. Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Jiban, C. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401-418. • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. • Daly, E. J., III, Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Dool, E. J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26, 554-574. • DuPaul, G. J., Ervin, R. A., Hook, C. L., & McGoey, K. E. (1998). Peer tutoring for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Effects on classroom behavior and academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 579-592. Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  44. Ellis, A. K. (2005). Research on educational innovations (4th ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. • Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Karns, K. (2001). Enhancing kindergartners’ mathematical development: Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. Elementary School Journal, 101, 495–510. • Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206. • Kavale, K. A. & Forness, S. R. (1999). Effectiveness of special education. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.) The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 984-1024). New York: John Wiley. Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  45. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). Policy decisions in special education: The role of meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Synthesis of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 281-326). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. • Gersten, R., Schiller, E. P. & Vaughn, S. (Eds.) Contemporary special education research:Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. • Gickling, E. E., & Armstrong, D. L. (1978). Levels of instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disability, 11, 559-566. • Gickling, E. E. & Havertape, S. (1981). Curriculum-based assessment (CBA). Minneapolis, MN: School Psychology Inservice Training Network. Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  46. Gickling, E., & Thompson, V. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205-218. • Gresham, F. (2001, August). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future, Washington D.C. • Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional technology: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–40). Columbus, OH: Merrill. • Keith, T. Z. (2002). Best practices in applied research. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-IV (pp. 91-102). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  47. MacQuarrie-Klender, L. L., Tucker, J. A., Burns, M. K., & Hartman, B. (2002). Comparison of retention rates using traditional, Drill Sandwich, and Incremental Rehearsal flashcard methods. School Psychology Review, 31, 584-595. • Manzo, K. K., & Galley, M. (2003). Math climbs, reading flat on ’03 NAEP. Education Week, 23(12), 1-18. • National Center for Educational Statistics, (2005). NAEP 2004 trends in academic progress: • Three decades of student performance in reading and mathematics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Science. • National Center for Educational Statistics, (2002). The condition of education 2002 (NCES 20020025). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  48. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on training (3rd ed., pp.376-391). New York, NY: Macmillam. • Shapiro, E. S. (1992). Use of Gickling's model of curriculum-based assessment to improve reading in elementary age students. School Psychology Review, 21, 168-176. • Singh, N. N. (1987). Overcorrection of oral reading errors. Behavior Modification, 11, 165-181. • Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407. Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  49. Swanson, H. L. (2000). What instruction works for students with learning disabilities? • Summarizing the results from a meta-analysis of intervention studies. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.) Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 1-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. • Swanson, H. L, Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: Guilford. • Szadokierski, I., & Burns, M. K.(in press). Comparison of drill ratios and opportunities to respond within drill rehearsal of sight words. Journal of School Psychology. Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

  50. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C. & Naquin, G. (2003). Development and validation of a process for screening referrals to special education. School Psychology Review, 32, 204-227. • Whitehurst, G. J. (2002, October). Evidence-based education. Presentation at the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Achievement and School Accountability Conferences. Available online at http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/whatworks/eb/edlite-index.html. • Wilson, R., Majsterek, D., & Simmons, D. (1996). The effects of computer-assisted versus teacher-directed instruction on the multiplication performance of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 382-390. Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

More Related