research-based academic interventions
DESCRIPTION
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: - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Matthew K. Burns, Ph.D.University of Minnesota
Research-Based Academic Interventions
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
22008
Module Overview
Academic Deficits Criteria for Interventions Additional Resources Summary Review Questions
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
32008
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
42008
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
52008
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
62008
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
72008
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 PsychologyDivision 16, SSSP, & NASPPublished a procedural and coding manual
http://www.sp-ebi.org/documents/_workingfiles/EBImanual1.pdf
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
82008
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
92008
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
102008
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 baselineSlope should be greater than baseline
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
112008
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 reinforcersBurns, VanDerHeyden, & Boice (in press).
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
122008
Effective interventions are matched to the student’s current learning stage
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
132008
AcquisitionAcquisition ProficiencyProficiency MaintenanceMaintenance GeneralizationGeneralization AdaptionAdaption
Learning is Learning is slow and slow and inaccurateinaccurate
Use Use modeling and modeling and immediate immediate feedbackfeedback
Academic skill Academic skill is accurate, but is accurate, but slowslow
Use delayed Use delayed reinforcement reinforcement with novel with novel practice practice opportunitiesopportunities
e.g., timings e.g., timings such as math such as math facts and oral facts and oral reading fluency reading fluency
Retention of Retention of the skill over a the skill over a period of timeperiod of time
Use delayed Use delayed independent independent practice practice
Can use the Can use the new skill and new skill and information with information with different different settings and settings and stimulistimuli
Use high Use high content overlap content overlap reading tasks or reading tasks or instructional instructional games with games with different stimulidifferent stimuli
Can use the Can use the new skill and new skill and information to information to solve solve problemsproblems
Use Use information to information to solve solve contextual contextual problemsproblems
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
142008
Phonemic Awareness
Phonics
Fluency
Vocabulary
ComprehensionBerninger et al., 2006
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
152008
Assess Fluency Fluent?
Focus on Comprehension
Assess Phonetic Skills Adequate?
Assess Phonemic Awareness Adequate?
Fluency Intervention
Accuracy or Proficiency
Phonemic Awareness Intervention
Phonics Intervention
Accuracy or Proficiency
START HERE
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
162008
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
172008
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
Students Need an Appropriate Level of Challenge
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
182008
Baseline Frustration Instructional Independent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Behavior of Children Identified as LD During Reading Instruction
Task Completion
Time On Task
Task Comprehension (Gickling & Armstrong, 1978)
Per
cent
age
of I
nter
vals
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
192008
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
202008
Instructional Level-Reading
Importance of matchMeasured with percent accuracy93% - 97% known material (Gickling &
Thompson, 1985)
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
212008
Instructional Level-Drill Tasks
Drill tasks include spelling, math facts, sight words70% to 85% known (Gickling & Thompson,
1985)Could be 90% known for some tasks
(Burns, 2004)
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
222008
Instructional Level: Math
What to measureBest measured with fluency rather than
accuracy2nd and 3rd grade – 14 to 31 digits
correct/minute4th and 5th grade – 24 to 49 digits
correct/minute
(Burns, VanDerHeyden, & Jiban, 2006)
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
232008
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
242008
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
252008
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
262008
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
272008
Sources for Academic Interventions Journals
School Psychology ReviewJournal of Evidence Based Practices in
SchoolsEducation and Treatment of ChildrenIntervention in School and Clinic
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
282008
Sources for Academic Interventions
Websiteswww.interventioncentral.comwww.fcrr.orghttp://kc.vanderbil.edu/palswww.whatworksed.gov
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
292008
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
302008
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
312008
A) Which of the following is important for well-designed
research?
1. Federal funding
2. Random assignment of subjects
3. Hypothesis
4. None of the above
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
322008
A) Answer: #2
Random assignment of subjects
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
332008
B) What of the following are important features of effective
instruction?1. Teacher preference, cost, assessment
2. Feedback, grading policy, presentation
3. Benchmarking, progress monitoring, exploring solutions, defining, identification
4. Explicit instruction, opportunities to respond, immediate feedback
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
342008
B) Answer: #4
Explicit instruction, opportunities to respond, immediate feedback
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
352008
C) What are the 5 stages of learning?
1. Acquisition, Practice, Adaptation, Generalization, Maintenance
2. Practice, Practice, Practice, Practice, Practice
3. Acquisition, Proficiency, Maintenance, Generalization, Adaptation
4. None of the above
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
362008
C) Answer: # 3
Acquisition, Proficiency, Maintenance, Generalization, Adaptation
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
372008
D) What is the best starting point for identifying reading instruction
needs?
1. Comprehension
2. Fluency
3. Vocabulary
4. Phonemic Awareness
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
382008
D) Answer: #4
Fluency
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
392008
E) What type of teaching do students need:
1. Frustration level
2. Instructional level
3. Independent level
4. None of the above
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
402008
E) Answer: #2
Instructional Level
Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes
412008
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
422008
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
432008
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
442008
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
452008
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
462008
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
472008
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
482008
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
492008
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
502008
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.