Download
analyzing intervention efficacy revealing the nature of special education n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
ANALYZING INTERVENTION EFFICACY: REVEALING THE NATURE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
ANALYZING INTERVENTION EFFICACY: REVEALING THE NATURE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

ANALYZING INTERVENTION EFFICACY: REVEALING THE NATURE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

399 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

ANALYZING INTERVENTION EFFICACY: REVEALING THE NATURE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. ANALYZING INTERVENTION EFFICACY: REVEALING THE NATURE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Kenneth A. Kavale Distinguished Professor Regent University

  2. SPECIAL EDUCATION • Is special education special? Perceptions Optimism Pessimism

  3. SPECIAL EDUCATION Special Education Meanings Special – teaching students with special needs Special – using special instruction Special Education Variable Outcomes

  4. EFFICACY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Methods – Do they work? Scientific Method Empirical Evidence Usable Knowledge Research Synthesis Methods Narrative Box-Score Meta-Analysis

  5. META-ANALYSIS Quantitative Research Synthesis Rigorous Systematic Methods Problem Formulation Sampling Study Classification (Coding) Data Analysis Interpretation

  6. META-ANALYSIS Effect Size Statistic ES = ME – MC SDC

  7. META-ANALYSIS Interpretation Z-score -Percentile Equivalent- Binomial Effect Size Display -Practical Significance-

  8. META-ANALYSIS Common Language Effect Size -Research Significance- Power Analysis -Small (.20), Medium (.50), Large (.80>)-

  9. NATURE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Definition “Specially designed instruction…to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability” Features Unique Exclusive

  10. GOAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Medical Model Goal: Correcting or reversing altered cognitive processes Itard Process Training

  11. GOAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION “Process training is, in fact, one of the oldest forms of education and, despite periodic discontinuities in its practice, it has continued unabated into our own day” L. Mann On the trail of process Support Historical Clinical Philosophical

  12. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC TRAINING Samuel A. Kirk Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) Research Evaluations Hammill and Larsen (1974) “the idea that psycholinguistic constructs, as measured by the ITPA, can, in fact, be trained by existing techniques remains nonvalidated”

  13. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC TRAINING Minskoff (1975) Skepticism about psycholinguistic “can be dangerous if it leads to the abolition of training methods that may be beneficial” Newcomer, Larsen, and Hammill (1975) “literature raises doubts regarding the efficacy of presently available Kirk-Osgood psycholinguistic training programs”

  14. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC TRAINING Lund, Foster, and McCall-Perez (1978) Mixed findings making it “not logical to conclude either that all studies in psycholinguistic training are effective or that all studies in psycholinguistic training are not effective” Hammill and Larsen (1978) “the cumulative results…failed to demonstrate that psycholinguistic training has values” What is really known about the efficacy of psycholinguistic training?

  15. META-ANALYSIS AND THE EFFICACY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Psycholinguistic Training ES = .39 Psycholinguistic Training by ITPA

  16. META-ANALYSIS AND THE EFFICACY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Verbal Expression = better than 6 months of general education instruction (ES = .50) Are there more efficacious methods of teaching language?

  17. EFFICACY OF PROCESS TRAINING Effectiveness of Process Training

  18. EFFICACY OF PROCESS TRAINING Perceptual-Motor Training Programs

  19. EFFICACY OF PROCESS TRAINING PROGRAMS Special Education Hall of Fame ES = .12

  20. EFFICACY OF PROCESS TRAINING Modality-Matched Instruction ES = .14 Learning = Substance over Style

  21. EFFICACY OF PROCESS TRAINING Process Training ES = .16 No empirical support

  22. EFFICACY OF PROCESS TRAINING Why is process training ineffective? Problem Hypothetical Constructs Product vs. Process Positive Clinical Negative Empirical

  23. EFFICACY OF PROCESS TRAINING Belief “You cannot kill it. It simply bides its time in exile after being dislodged by one of history’s periodic attacks upon it and then returns, wearing disguises or carrying new noms de plume…but consisting of the same old ideas, doing business much in the same old way.” L. Mann On the trail of process Brain Gym

  24. CREATING EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION Process Training Pathology Model “Curing” Instructional Imbalance Model Mismatch Effective Schools Clearly defined curriculum Clear instructional objectives Focused classroom instruction Monitor student progress Strong instructional leadership

  25. CREATING EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION Learning Process Model Process-Product Paradigm Teacher Behavior – Student Outcomes Best Practice All students can achieve Active engagement Organized classrooms Emphasis on basic skill instruction Meaningful and interesting learning

  26. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE Modifying the Delivery of Instruction Effective Instructional Practices

  27. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE Effective Instructional Practices (Table con’t)

  28. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE Special Education General Education Teaching – Learning Model Adapted and Modified for the Purposes of Special Education

  29. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION RELATED SERVICES Effective Special Education Related Services and Activities Average ES = .65

  30. EFFECTIVE RELATED SERVICES Placement ES = .12 Where vs. What Prereferral ES = 1.10 RTI Effective as Intervention

  31. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTION Delivery of Instruction Modified Effective Special Education Instruction ENHANCED ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

  32. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTION ES = 1.06 One Year of General Education Instruction ES = 1.00

  33. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTION Reading Comprehension and “Real” Effects Meta-Analysis X ES = 1.13 Meta-Analysis Y ES = .98 Real Effect = 1.05

  34. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTION Techniques Metacognition (e.g., self-questioning, self-monitoring) ES = 1.63 and 1.33 Text enhancement (e.g., advanced organizers, mnemonics) ES = 1.09 and .92 Skill training (e.g., vocabulary, repeated reading) ES = .79 and .69

  35. COMPARING SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECT INSTRUCTION ES = .93 Modality-matched instruction ES = .14 DI is 6.5 times more effective DI Over 11 months credit in achievement

  36. EVALUATING SPECIAL EDUCATION Special Education Increasing Efficacy Why? SPECIAL education Mega ES = .15 special EDUCATION Mega ES = .89

  37. EVALUATING SPECIAL EDUCATION special EDUCATION 6 times more effective than SPECIAL education SPECIAL education = 6 percent advantage/56th %-ile special EDUCATION = 31 percent advantage/81st %-ile Problem SPECIAL education 25% negative ES special EDUCATION 0% negative ES SPECIAL education not necessary

  38. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION Special Education Variable and Unpredictable Psycholinguistic Training Theoretical Expectation (ES ± SD) (.39 ± .54) Range = -.15 to .93 (negative to large) Where will ES fall?

  39. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION SPECIAL education ES = .15 Theoretical Expectation (.15 ± .48) More variable than effective (-.33 to .63) Medium ES possible but also increased risk

  40. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION special EDUCATION ES = .89 Theoretical Expression (.89 ± .87) More effective than variable (.02 to 1.76) May not work but possibility twice as effective

  41. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION special EDUCATION Reduces risk (no negative ES) but is CAPRICIOUS (variable, unpredictable, indeterminate) Special Education should not be Prescriptive (Do A when X or Y) OPTIONS (Try A when X or Y or Try B when X or Y)

  42. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION SPECIAL education when transformed into special EDUCATION now includes Instructional Validity EVIDENCED-BASED PRACTICE

  43. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION Why is evidenced-based practice not used? Tradition “We have always used it” History “It has worked before” Bandwagon Rhetoric, no evidence Belief Strong conviction about the truth

  44. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION When evidenced-based practice is not used RESEARCH-TO-PRACTICE GAP Research findings “are embraced by some, ignored by others, and modified to suit the routines and preferences of still others” Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller 1997

  45. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION Research-to-Practice Gap SUSTAINABILITY Failure to use instructional practices supported by evidence INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION Barriers UNCERTAINTY Program may not work …and RISK Program may produce negative outcomes

  46. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION Who chooses options? TEACHERS Teachers Dogmatic beliefs replaced by Rational choices (“what works”)

  47. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION Special Education Science (theoretical and empirical knowledge) + Art (interpretation for initiating action)

  48. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION Teacher’s Goal State of the Art (what has been shown to be possible) evolves into State of Practice (current ways of providing instruction)

  49. TEACHER ATTRIBUTES(Evidenced Based) The special education practitioner must possess the: Energy of a hurricane Efficiency of a computer Adaptability of a chameleon Courage of Hercules Patience of Job Wisdom of Solomon Persistence of the Devil

  50. EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION Conclusion “Special education practitioners will need to go beyond the scientific basis of their work…and must be mediated through the teacher’s own creative rendering of best practice…because quality education for special education students will always be based on the artful application of science” Kavale & Forness 1999