Research based academic interventions
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 50

Research-Based Academic Interventions PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 208 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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:

Download Presentation

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Research based academic interventions

Research-Based Academic Interventions

Matthew K. Burns, Ph.D.

University of Minnesota


Module overview

Module Overview

  • Academic Deficits

  • Criteria for Interventions

  • Additional Resources

  • Summary

  • Review Questions

Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes


Academic deficits in schools

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


Addressing deficits

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


Academic interventions for children with learning disabilities

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 strategies1.13

Mnemonic strategies1.62

Remember, .80 is large, .50 is medium and .20 is small (Cohen, 1988).

Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes


Conclusions

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


What makes an intervention research based

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


Intervention research consider

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


More considerations

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


Single case designs

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


What makes an intervention effective

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


Correctly targeted

Correctly Targeted

  • Effective interventions are matched to the student’s current learning stage

Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes


Stages of learning

Stages of Learning

Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes


Reading skill development

Phonemic Awareness

Phonics

Fluency

Vocabulary

Comprehension

Reading Skill Development

Berninger et al., 2006

Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes


Research based academic interventions

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


Explicit instruction

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


Students need an appropriate level of challenge

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


Research based academic interventions

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


Instructional match

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


Instructional level reading

Instructional Level-Reading

  • Importance of match

    • Measured with percent accuracy

    • 93% - 97% known material (Gickling & Thompson, 1985)

Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes


Instructional level drill tasks

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


Instructional level math

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


High opportunities to respond

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


Opportunities to respond otr

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


Feedback

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


Overcorrection

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


Sources for academic interventions

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


Sources for academic interventions1

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


Summary

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


Review questions

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


A which of the following is important for well designed research

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


A answer 2

A) Answer: #2

Random assignment of subjects

Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes


B what of the following are important features of effective instruction

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


B answer 4

B) Answer: #4

Explicit instruction, opportunities to respond, immediate feedback

Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes


C what are the 5 stages of learning

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


C answer 3

C) Answer: # 3

Acquisition, Proficiency, Maintenance, Generalization, Adaptation

Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes


D what is the best starting point for identifying reading instruction needs

D) What is the best starting point for identifying reading instruction needs?

  • Comprehension

  • Fluency

  • Vocabulary

  • Phonemic Awareness

Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes


D answer 4

D) Answer: #4

Fluency

Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes


E what type of teaching do students need

E) What type of teaching do students need:

  • Frustration level

  • Instructional level

  • Independent level

  • None of the above

Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes


E answer 2

E) Answer: #2

Instructional Level

Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes


References

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


Research based academic interventions

  • 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


Research based academic interventions

  • 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


Research based academic interventions

  • 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


Research based academic interventions

  • 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


Research based academic interventions

  • 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


Research based academic interventions

  • 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


Research based academic interventions

  • 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


Research based academic interventions

  • 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


Research based academic interventions

  • 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


  • Login