SPECIAL EDUCATION PERSPECTIVESaase.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/documents/SEP-Conte… · ·...

1

SPECIAL EDUCATION PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 19, NUMBER 2, 2010

The Journal of the NSW Chapter of the Australian Association of Special Education Inc.Patron: Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir AC, Governor of New South Wales

ContentsEditorial 2

Investigating learning support and response to Lyn Alder 3intervention at the school level in the USA

Observations of relationships between children Amanda A. Webster 7with developmental disabilities and peers in Mark Carter inclusive settings

Survey of special educators 24

NSW special education teachers' perceptions of Therese Cumming 25classroom social skills that link to secondary students' success

An experimental evaluation of an intervention for Meree Reynolds 35 young struggling readers in year one Kevin Wheldall Alison Madelaine

Special Education Perspectives, Volume 19, Number 2, 2010

2

I trust that you will find plenty of interest for you in Special Education Perspectives 19(2). This edition begins with the Practically Speaking section in which Lyn Alder reports on a visit to the USA supported by the NSW Premier’s Special Education Scholarship program. The report features descriptions of the way the Response to Intervention (RTI) is being used in schools in conjunction with Positive Behaviour Support (PBS).

The second section of Special Education Perspectives contains two papers which were refereed for the 2010 AASE/ASEPA National Conference. Therese Cumming explores the perceptions of teachers in regular secondary schools about the specific behaviours which they believe to interfere most with the inclusion of students with emotional and behavioural disabilities. In addition to creating some more clear definitions of these behaviours, the participants in her study were able to discuss possible replacement behaviours. Amanda Webster and Mark Carter report on a study investigating the social relationships of students in inclusive settings which suggests that the presence of social skills may be a necessary but insufficient condition for the establishment of meaningful relationships.

The refereed paper in the final section of Special Education Perspectives, by Meree Reynolds, Kevin Wheldall and Alison Madelaine, reports on a study which is part of a program of research focussed on the needs of young students having literacy difficulties. This study is significant since it is an experimental design implemented in a regular classroom setting and implemented by regular primary school teachers. It is also

a good example of a second tier intervention within a Response To Intervention (RTI) model, as summarised in the earlier report by Alder. In response to school timetabling constraints, the authors used a shortened version of the MINILIT intervention but still noted moderate to high effect sizes on many measures. The knowledge base of the special education community is enhanced by making known the ongoing development of research-based interventions such as this.

A common feature of the papers in this edition of Special Education Perspectives is the use of evidence to support the development of effective practice. I strongly encourage special educators, particularly those working in school settings, to consider sharing the findings of their own research with others in the special education community.

Readers will note an invitation to participate in a short online survey of AASE publications – foreshadowed in the previous edition of this journal. AASE National Council has resolved to ask members for their views about the two publications; the Australasian Journal of Special Education and Special Education Perspectives with a view to improving the value of these publications to our members and to special educators more generally.

David Paterson, EditorMerran Pearson, Editorial AssistantSpecial Education Perspectives

EDITORIAL

3

Practically Speaking

INVESTIGATING LEARNING SUPPORT AND RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION AT THE SCHOOL

LEVEL IN THE USA

Lyn AlderOrara High, Coffs Harbour

Supported by the 2010 Premier’s Special Education Scholarship program, I travelled to the United States to investigate the implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) programs in a variety of school settings. Response to Intervention (RTI) is a systems framework which when implemented monitors student’s progress then intervenes at the student level when they first start to fall behind (Barnettt, Daly, Jones, & Lentz, 2004). This early awareness of possible learning difficulties can be picked up quickly and adjustments made in classroom teaching before further problems arise or need for further testing for special education services. The multitier approach draws from a variety of research-based initiatives that work together to improve student achievement and continue whole school improvement (Gersten et al, 2008; Gersten et al, 2009; Torgesen, 2007; Vaughn et al, 2009). The essential components to RtI include: 1. Multiple tiers of evidence-based instruction service delivery. 2. A problem-solving method designed to inform the development of intventions. 3. An integrated data collection/assessment system to inform decisions at each tier of

service delivery. Tier 1 represents general education classroom instruction. Tier 2 represents a secondary level of intervention for students who require additional support to be successful. Tier 3 represents special education intervention. Statistically approximately 80 % of students function at the Tier 1 level. Of the remaining students, 15% will be at Tier 2, and 5% will be at Tier 3 level.Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) (Sugai et al, 2000) was embedded within the RTI structure in a number of the schools that I visited. PBS follows the same three tier structural framework as RTI. However, PBS is aimed at improving social behaviour and in class cooperation so that learning can be facilitated. It was found that student withdrawal from class was always due to inappropriate behaviour which prevented learning from happening across the class. By using both RTI and PBS within the schools it is hoped that student achievement will improve.

Correspondence: Lyn Alder, Learning Support Teacher, Orara High, Coffs Harbour NSW 2450

Special Education Perspectives, Volume 19, Number 2, pp.3-6, 2010

4

L. Alder

The key components of RTI/PBS observed were:a) Better explicit teaching practices in both academic skills and behaviour; b) Better communication between classroom teachers, special education teachers, and teacher aides in lesson planning, curriculum adjustments, roles and teaching practices; and c) Employment of literacy and numeracy specialists at the primary and middle school level. These specialists were members of the school executive whose prime responsibility as an assistant or deputy principal was implementing literacy or numeracy across the curriculum and assessing its implementation at the student level.Although many of the core tenets of RTI and PBS have always been the central core to teaching and learning in special education, many schools that I visited were changing their focus from vocational to academic excellence due to state testing and accountability. In the US all students regardless of academic ability or disability participate in the State Testing Program and I found a dramatic attitude shift as a result of this. In schools I visited that specialised in either Autism or Learning difficulties, school districts who sponsored these enrolments held regularly meetings in regards to student learning and their test results were reflected back to the sponsoring school and district. In the School Districts that implemented

The RTI and PBS Framework

(adapted from Batsche et al 2005)

5

Practically Speaking: Learning support and response

RTI/PBS, (Smith, Harris & Johnson, 2009), leaders in Special Education noted a dramatic decline in the number of referrals for special education services due to the following: 1. The improvement in teaching practices as a result of RTI; 2. The willingness of staff to work as a team to discuss students’ difficulties and to try new

practices when students are not improving; and 3. The change in attitude of staff members and their willingness to take responsibility for

improving students’ learning where previously, this was considered the special education teacher’s responsibility.

I arrived at these conclusions after I interviewed special education teachers in each school. All special education teachers had some reservations about their changing roles, however they felt their roles were changing to encompass more classroom team teaching and less case management of students due to better teaching practices throughout their schools. This is an important feature of the RTI approach.In conclusion; only time and international results will see if the implementation of the RTI/PBS structure in US schools has improved literacy and numeracy rates across the country. State testing has certainly impacted on accountability at the student, school and district level. Over the four weeks of visiting schools across four states and seeing many variations of the RTI/PBS structure, I felt school districts, schools and teachers had narrowed their focus to the core components of quality teaching. Team work amongst staff members, understanding of each professional’s role, explicit instruction in both academic and behaviour skills at all tier levels, the ability to task analyse, and the ability to provide feedback to as many students as possible in the time allocated are at the core of RTI/PBS initiatives and thus, school improvement (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Hattie, 2009). Presently the NSW Dept of Education are implementing a PBS framework called Positive Behaviour for Learning into a number of community of schools throughout NSW after successfully trialling the systems framework in Western Sydney Region in 2005.

For further informationColorado Department of Education. Response to Intervention homepage; http://www.cde.state.co.us/rti/Colorado Springs School District 11; Response to Intervention resources/research/presentation. http://www.d11.org/rti/Florida Department of Education – Bureau of Exceptional Educational Education and Student Services - Response to Instruction/ Intervention homepage. http//www.florida-rti.org/ Intervention Central - tools and resources for positive behaviour and response to intervention. Homepage. www.interventioncentral.orgNational Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI) – American Institutes for Research and researches from Vanderbilt University and the University of Kansas – homepage. www.rit4success.org

6

L. Alder

OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioural Interventions and Supports (PBIS) – homepage. www.pbis.orgRTI Action Network – A program of the National Center for Learning Disabilities – homepage. www.retinetwork.org

REFERENCE LISTBarber, M. & Mourshed M. (2007). The McKinsey Report: How the World’s best performing

school systems come out on top. London: McKinsey & Company.Barnett, D.W., Daly, E., Jones, K.M. Lentz, F.E. (2004). Response to intervention:

Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. The Journal of Special Education. 38 (2), pp. 66-79.

Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J.L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Gersten, R. , Compton, D. , Connor, C. M. , Dimino, J. , Santoro, L. , Linan-Thompson, S. and Tilly, W. D. (2008) Assisting students struggling with reading: Reponses to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE2009-4045) National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Science, U.S. Department of Education , Washington, DC.

Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., Witzel, B (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/ .

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

Smith, L., Harris, M.L. & Johnson, E.S. (2009) How RTI Works in Secondary Schools. CA: Corwin Press

Sugai, G. Horner, R., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T., Nelson, C. M., et al. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2 (3), pp. 131-143.

Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Using an RTI model to guide early reading instruction: Effects on identification rates for students with learning disabilities (Technical Report No. 7). Tallahassee: Florida Center for Reading Research.

Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Murray, C.S., Scammacca, N., Linan-Thompson, S., & Althea L. Woodruff, A.L. (2009) Response to early reading intervention: examining higher and lower responders. Exceptional Children, 75 (2) p165-183 Win 2009.


7

ABSTRACTThe importance of social versus functional integration for children with developmental disabilities has been widely discussed in the literature. Although a great deal of research has been conducted to describe the features of relationships and friendships between typical preschool and primary school children, very little research has attempted to apply the same quantitative process to defining the relationships that children with developmental disabilities develop with their peers in inclusive settings. This paper will discuss the results of research conducted in Alice Springs, Australia, in which playground observations were used to systematically describe the social relationships of 25 children with developmental disabilities with 74 peers in area preschool and primary schools.

For each target child, teachers and target children identified three friends or children with whom they interacted most frequently. Observations were conducted over three sessions during recess or lunch times to evaluate the occurrence of key behaviours and interactions most commonly associated

with characteristics of relationships and friendships between typically developing children. Results were then examined and compared to interview results to describe the relationships.

Analysis indicates that some observations were effective in corroborating interview results for behaviours associated with Companionship and a Regular Friend relationship. In addition most target children were observed to engage in at least some socially appropriate behaviours when interacting with peers. Many target children, however, engaged in social interactions with a large number of peers and did not achieve more intimate levels of interaction such as would be characteristic of a friend or best friend.

Although observations were very useful in providing information about the interactions between children and the acceptance of children in play situations, behaviours exhibited were not frequent enough to make definitive judgments about the nature and types of the relationships between children with disabilities and peers.

Correspondence: Amanda Webster, Acacia Hill School, PO Box 435, Alice Springs NT 0871, Australia. Phone +61 8 8952 67277, fax +61 8 8953 4059. Email: [email protected], [email protected]..

Editorial note: This paper underwent peer review and was accepted as a refereed paper at AASE National Conference June 2010 at the Darwin Convention Centre.

Refereed PapersRefereed PapersOBSERVATIONS OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN

CHILDREN WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AND PEERS IN INCLUSIVE SETTINGS

Amanda A. Webster, Mark CarterMacquarie University Special Education Centre

8

A.A. Webster and M. Carter

INTRODUCTIONRelationships and friendships have long been seen as an important part of a child’s school experience (e.g., Ladd, 1990). This aspect of school, however, is of even more importance for children with disabilities and has been cited by parents as being a contributor to their child’s overall quality of life (Overton & Rausch, 2002). Unfortunately, children with disabilities, particularly those with developmental disabilities, may have difficulty forming relationships with their peers in inclusive schools (e.g. Hamilton, 2005; Kennedy & Itkonen, 1994). In addition, Hurley-Gefner has (1995) argued that although children with developmental disabilities may have relationships with peers in inclusive settings, these relationships may be different than those between typical children. With this in mind, it would seem imperative that researchers understand the nature of relationships that form between children with developmental disabilities and peers in inclusive schools.A number of studies (Berndt & Perry, 1986; Gottman, 1983; Mannarino, 1980; Newcomb & Bagwell, 1996) have been devoted to describing the features of relationships between typically developing children and have led to the development and use of interview instruments (e.g. Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1994; Parker & Asher, 1993) to describe the quality and features of these relationships. In contrast only a handful of studies have been devoted to describing the relationships between children with developmental disabilities and peers. In a review of the literature of social relationships between children with developmental disabilities and peers, Webster and Carter (2007) found that interviews have been the primary method used by researchers to examine the relationships of both children with

disabilities and their typically developing peers. Although a few studies (Heiman, 2000; Kennedy & Itkonen, 1994) have used direct measure to describe some general features of these relationships, none of these were conducted in inclusive settings or described the specific characteristics of relationships of children with developmental disabil i t ies. Although Wiener and Schneider (2002) adapted Parker and Asher’s Friendship Quality Questionnaire to examine a relationship between children with learning disabilities and their closest friend, similar questionnaires have only been used in two studies (Bauminger & Kasari, 2000; Chamberlain, Kasari, & Rotherham-Fuller, 2007) to examine very general features of relationships of children with autism. Sociometric surveys have also been utilised either in isolation or along with interview data (Webster & Carter, 2007) to describe social networks of children or popularity status of children with developmental disabilities. The use of these instruments, however, is more a measure of a child’s popularity or acceptance within a social network. Furthermore, researchers (Bukowski & Hoza, 1989; Gest, Graham-Bermann, & Hartup, 2001) have argued that sociometric status is a different construct to friendship and that a child’s status within a social network is distinct from his/her participation in social relationships and friendships.In an early study, Rubenstein (1984) proposed that relationships have different functions and have examined the different types of relationships that children form with each other to serve these functions. Although researchers (Cleary, Ray, LoBello, & Zachar, 2002; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) have extensively examined the different types of relationships between typically developing children and a study conducted by Kerns (2000) utilised quantitative methods to

9

Refereed paper: Observations of relationships

classify the relationships of preschool children, only a handful of researchers have attempted to classify the relationships of children with developmental disabilities. The main body of research that attempted to look at different types of relationships for children with developmental disabilities came from Meyer, et al (1998) who proposed that children with developmental disabilities may engage in six different types of relationships including three commonly found among typically developing children and three unique to children with developmental disabilities.Observations have also been used by some researchers although these measures have primarily been employed to examine specific and circumscribed aspects of friendships such as interactions between children and social contacts of children with disabilities. Webster and Carter (2007) found that of the 16 studies that used both interview and observations to examine relationships, however, all but 6 were qualitative studies associated with the work of Meyer et al that employed a range of case study and participatory methodologies. In addition, none of the researchers attempted to compare observations with interview results to determined consistency. Information provided by interview has been the primary strategy used by researchers to evaluate the relationships of children with disabilities in inclusive settings. Nevertheless, such measures are inherently problematic as they reflect only perceptions of relationships. Direct observational measures of behaviours have the potential to provide an additional level of confirmation of interview measures. Thus, the present study was designed to examine the consistency between results in interviews and an observational measure with regard to the dimensions and types of relationships between children with developmental disabilities and peers in inclusive settings.

METHOD

Selection of Target Students and PeersTwenty-five children were selected for the study as they met the criteria of having a developmental disability and receiving ongoing support in an inclusive preschool or primary school. For each of these 25 students, 3 peers were selected by a combination of teacher and student nomination as being the target student’s closest friends. In some cases, teachers were unable to select 3 friends and were asked to select the students who most frequently interacted with the target student. One peer moved after the selection process and thus a total of 74 peers were selected for the 25 target students. All target students were assessed using the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Inventory (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1985) and Social Skills Rating System (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). A mean Adaptive Behaviour Composite of 64.6 (range 42 to 78) was found across all students on The Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Inventory and a group mean standard score of 77.7 (range 54-97) was found for social skills on the Social Skills Rating System.

Interview InstrumentInterview questions were taken from several interview instruments that had been developed by researchers to assess the quality of friendships between typically developing children. An original set of 40 questions were taken from the Friendship Quality Questionnaire developed by Parker and Asher (1993). In addition, questions were added to reflect the research of Bukowski, Hoza, and Boivin (1994). The dimensions of relationships developed by Parker and Asher (1993) were the foundation for the interview format used in this study. The

10


remaining questions (approximately 30) were developed from descriptions provided in case study research (Meyer, et al., 1998; Richardson & Schwartz, 1998; Salisbury & Palombaro, 1998) of friendships between children with developmental disabilities and their peers. Two aspects of the instrument are of interest in this analysis. The first is the dimensions of relationships. Relationships were examined to evaluate Companionship, Validation and Caring, Help and Guidance, Intimate Exchange, Conflict, and Conflict Resolution using the structure suggested by Parker and Asher (1993). In addition, types of relationship were considered using the framework provided by Meyer and colleagues (Meyer, et al., 1998). Specifically, relationships were evaluated to determine the extent to which they reflected Best Friend, Regular Friend, Just Another Child, Inclusion Child, I’ll Help, and Ghost/Guest relationship types. For full details see Webster and Carter (In press-a) and Webster (2008)

Interview procedureA 3-point scale (“always”, “sometimes”, and “never”) was used in the interviews. Both target students and peers were interviewed. In addition, as it was understood that some target students might not be able to complete the interview, parent and teachers were also interviewed in order to get the most complete data. A separate score for each dyad was calculated for each of the 4 respondents (target child, peer, teacher, parent), who had a complete data set across all questions relevant to a given dimension. This was accomplished by calculating the mean of the responses to all relevant questions. If an interviewee failed to respond or responded “I don’t know” to a relevant question, their data were excluded. To aid in sorting of data into high and low scoring groups, a Mean Interview Score was

then calculated by averaging the individual dimension score across all respondents who had a complete data set. It should be noted that the dyad’s score for the I’ll Help type of relationship was calculated differently to the remaining dimensions. For I’ll Help, a differential was calculated between the mean scores relating to help provided by the target student and by the peer. The Mean Interview Score was based on between 1 and 4 respondent scores, depending on the amount of incomplete data. Thus, in order to evaluate the consistency of respondent scores for each dyad, an average deviation was calculated. A mean average deviation of 0.25 (SD = 0.05, range 0.18 - 0.32) was calculated across all dyads and dimensions in the full interview form and a mean average deviation of 0.25 (SD = 0.05, range 0.18- 0.32) was calculated across all dyads and types of relationships. These data suggest a substantial degree of consistency between respondents. Full detail of the interviews is available from Webster and Carter (In press-a, In press-b) and Webster (2008).

Observation InstrumentObserved behaviours were selected for each research question based on the definition of the construct being measured. Behaviours were selected based on their relevance to interview or research questions, as well as for their ability to be observed and measured in a free play setting. For example, the dimension of Companionship is defined as the extent to which children voluntarily spend time together. Interview questions asked respondents about time spent playing together at home and school and time spent talking together. Thus, the behaviours Play Together, Talk Together, and Sit Together were selected to measure Companionship in observation sessions.

11


Operational definitions for each behaviour were developed from interview questions and descriptions of those behaviours for each corresponding dimension and type of relationship outlined in previous research. A complete list of definitions is provided in Table 1 along with explanation of the measurement and relationship between observation and interview measures. Behaviours recorded during observations were divided into three groups depending on the type of construct measured. The first group of variables focused on the primary activity of the target students and the amount and types of interactions between target students and peers and related directly to dimensions of behaviour. Direct observations of behaviour related to Intimate Exchange would involve observation of very intimate behaviours such as sharing secretes and were therefore not possible using the current observation instrument. The second group of variables recorded during observation sessions was comprised of behaviours that provided more information on the nature of interactions between target students and peers. The last group of variables comprised a group of descriptions that were used to rate the type of relationship that was best typified by interactions between the target student and peers.

Observation ProceduresThree observations were planned for each target student on three different days totalling 1 hour of observation. Observations were scheduled during 3 consecutive school weeks and on at least 2 different days of the week. In three cases, observations extended over more than 3 consecutive weeks when a target student was absent. Observations were conducted during times in which the target student had free play or the freedom to choose an

activity and play partner(s). Observations for primary school students were conducted during three play sessions including at least one lunch and one recess play period. Observations for preschool students were conducted during three sessions including at least one outside and one inside play session. Each observation was conducted for 20 min, which was divided into four 5-min intervals. Behaviours were coded during observations for interactions between the target student and nominated peers or between the target student and any other peer. As in interview sessions, anecdotal notes were recorded during observation sessions. These notes included data on activities in which the target student engaged during the session, other peers, and general notes on factors that may have had relevance to the observation. Variables were coded for interactions between a target student and Peer #1, Peer #2, Peer, #3, or any other peer. A code of X was entered for occurrence of behaviours not related to a peer (i.e. play alone). If several peers were involved in the interaction and the behaviour was not obviously directed towards one peer, a code was entered for all peers who were involved in the interaction. If several peers were involved with the target child and the behaviour was not obviously directed towards one peer, codes were recorded for all peers involved. At the end of each observation session in which the target student interacted with a peer, the observer selected the list of behaviours that most applied to the interaction. A relationship type was coded for each observation session in which either the target student or the peer acknowledged the presence of the other. The proportion of intervals in which the relevant behaviour was observed was calculated for each observation category in each of three observations. A mean score for each dyad

12


Table 1: Observed Behaviours and Associated Definitions

Behaviour and Measurement

Definition

*+Sit together Sit together during a mutual activity such as lunch, play, conversation. *+Play together Engage in imaginative, constructive, rough and tumble, game play, etc.

in which children interact and work towards a similar goal. Involves mutual (bilateral) turn-taking with each other or group. Interaction may be nonverbal and involve eye contact.

*aShare things with each other

Give each other food, toys, sports equipment, or other play materials -

*+Talk to each other Engage in conversation or verbal/nonverbal exchange in which both children participate. Several exchanges must occur and both children must both initiate and respond to score.

*^Show enjoyment/pleasure

Smile, laugh, or otherwise verbally/nonverbally express pleasure while interacting with peer.

**aPeer sticks up for target child with others

Peer helps child or advocates for him/her in dispute or conflict situation with another child.

**aTarget child sticks up for peer with others

Target child helps peer or advocates for him/her in dispute or conflict situation with another child.

**^Peer comforts target child

Peer displays physical actions or words that are meant to calm or make target child feel better following conflict with another peer or event that causes target child to become upset.

**^Target child comforts peer

Target child displays physical actions or words that are meant to calm or make peer feel better following conflict with another peer or event that causes peer to become upset.

Argue or fight – Implies a conflict in which at least one party is upset, frustrated, or angry.

**bArgue or fight Implies a conflict in which at least one party is upset, frustrated, or angry.**cResume play after argument or fight

Target child and peer play together following conflict between them.

**aTarget child helps peer

Target child provides practical help to peer. Ex: carries books, helps pick up objects, opens lunch item.

**aPeer helps target child

Peer provides practical help to target child. Ex: carries books, helps pick up objects, opens lunch item.

***Best Friend Play together exclusively and/or for majority of time, affectionate, advocate for each other, give things to each other.

13


***Regular Friend Play together for some of time and/or with other children, Not as intimate as best friends, but play together on a cooperative basis. Intimacy is developed through communication or interaction over time.

***Just Another

Child

Acquaintance, Treat like everyone else, same expectations. Member of a group. Not prolonged interactions with specific peer. Play and/or talk together briefly. Example: one of group playing a game.

***I’ll Help Play predominated by one child helping other child. Peer acts/sounds like a “teacher”. Play is dominated by leader/follower play. Example: peer directs child at ballgame, throws ball, prompts throughout game.

***Inclusion Child Different expectations for performance and behaviour for target child. Special status such as “so cute”, “so weird”. Treated as younger child. Extra protection or extra nice behaviour towards target child. Example: Allowed ahead of others in line, different level of performance in game.

***Ghost/Guest Target child is ignored or viewed as outsider. Example: Child is on periphery of play, but not invited to join in.

*Partial interval recorded at the end of 5 min intervals.**Partial interval recorded at the end of 20 min session.***Judgement made as to most prevalent relationship type at end of 20 min session.+Behaviours linked to dimension of Companionship^Behaviours linked to dimension of Validation and CaringaBehaviours linked to dimension of Help and GuidancebBehaviours linked to dimension of Conflict

14


was calculated for each behaviour across all three observation sessions.Reliability A second observer was used to obtain reliability ratings for observations. The second observer was present for 33% of the observations or one observation for each target student. A mean reliability rating of 99.5% (98-100%) was calculated across all target students and behaviours. As many behaviours were rarely observed, occurrence reliability was also calculated for the 11 behaviours with less than 100% reliability. Mean occurrence reliability was 90% (range 75 to 98%).

ResultsAs the number of interview questions differed for each dimension (range 4 to 12), a mean of 78.5% of dyads (range 53 to 91%) had interview scores for dimensions of relationships. Table 2 shows the interview scores for the top, middle, and bottom third for each dimension along with the associated observation scores for that dimension for each group. In addition, Pearson correlations were calculated to compare interview and observation scores. Finally, it was of interest to compare the observation results for interactions between target students and the highest ranked peer with that of interactions between target students and non-nominated peers. A t-test comparison was calculated to determine if these results were statistically significant. These results are shown in the last column of Table 2.Examination of Table 2 reveals that only behaviours associated with Companionship and Validation and Caring were recorded at any frequency across the three 20 min observation session. Remaining behaviours were all recorded at near-zero levels. There was evidence of correspondence between interview and observation scores in Table

2, confirmed by a moderate positive correlation of 0.42 between scores for dyads for the dimension of Companionship. It should be noted that 22 dyads were not observed to interact or acknowledge each other during any observed session. One unexpected observation related to the level of observed interaction between target children and nominated (closest) peers and other peers who were not nominated. As shown in Table 2, the difference in results for these two groups was statistically significant for Companionship and Conflict and approached significance for Validation and Caring and Conflict Resolution. Additionally, anecdotal records indicate that target students typically engaged in these behaviours with an approximately 8-10 non-nominated peers over the three observed sessions. In Table 3, the number of dyads with the highest interview score for each type of relationship is listed along with the mean observation scores for this group of dyads. Dyads that had equally high scores for two types of relationships are listed in the numbers in column 2 under both types of relationships. A mean of 89.7% dyads (range 84 to 95%) had interview scores for the types of relationships. Although the interview score for I’ll Help could not be directly compared with the other types of relationships, 2 dyads did have high scores for this type of relationship with 1 of these dyads also having 1 of the only 2 recorded incidences of I’ll Help during observations. With the exception of Regular Friend and Just Another Child, the relationship types were recorded at very low frequency in observed sessions. The Just Another Child Category was most frequently observed in all instances. Excluding this category, there was some limited degree of correspondence between observation and interview score for Regular Friend and I’ll Help.

15


Tabl

e 2:

Inte

rvie

w a

nd O

bser

vatio

n Sc

ores

for D

imen

sion

s of R

elat

ions

hips

Inte

rvie

wO

bser

vatio

nPe

arso

n co

rrel

atio

n of

Inte

rvie

w a

nd

Obs

erva

tion

Res

ults

T-Te

st C

ompa

riso

n of

Nom

inat

ed

and

Non

-nom

inat

ed p

eer

data

Dim

ensi

on

Top One-Third

Middle One-Third

Bottom One-Third

Top One-Third

Middle One-Third

Bottom One-Third

Com

pani

on-

ship

2.25

1.73

1.29

0.27

0.08

0.05

0.42

t = 3

.39,

df

= 24

, p =

0.0

02

Valid

atio

n an

d C

arin

g2.

742.

191.

440.

170.

160.

070.

28t =

1.8

2, d

f = 2

4, p

= 0

.08

Hel

p an

d G

uida

nce

2.30

1.79

1.22

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.12

t = 0

.54,

df =

24,

p =

0.5

9

Con

flict

1.20

1.57

2.02

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.16

t = 3

.05,

df =

24,

p =

0.0

05

Con

flict

R

esol

utio

n2.

592.

111.

500.

000.

050.

00-0

.002

t = 2

.00,

df =

24,

p =

0.0

56

16


Type

Num

ber

of

Dya

ds w

ith

Hig

hest

Typ

e in

In

terv

iew

M

Obs

erva

tion

Scor

eB

est F

rien

d

M

Obs

erva

tion

Scor

eR

egul

ar

Frie

nd

M

Obs

erva

tion

Scor

eJu

st A

noth

er

Chi

ld

M

Obs

erva

tion

Scor

eIn

clus

ion

Chi

ld

M

Obs

erva

tion

Scor

eG

host

/Gue

st

M

Obs

erva

tion

Scor

eI’

ll H

elp

Bes

t Frie

nd3

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Reg

ular

Fr

iend

370.

060.

290.

570.

010.

040.

00

Just

Ano

ther

C

hild

170.

000.

000.

550.

290.

360.

00

Incl

usio

n C

hild

50.

000.

001.

000.

000.

000.

00

Gho

st/G

uest

140.

000.

060.

830.

000.

000.

04

I’ll

Hel

p2*

0.00

0.17

0.59

0.00

0.00

0.25

Tabl

e 3:

Inte

rvie

w a

nd O

bser

vatio

n Sc

ores

for T

ypes

of R

elat

ions

hips

17


DISCUSSIONPrevious researchers (Freeman & Kasari, 1998; Yugar & Shapiro, 2001) have advocated the use of multiple indices to measure friendships of children with disabilities and peers. With this in mind, the current study employed both interviews and observations. It was originally considered that observation results may be useful corroborating respondents’ interview reports on relationships of dyads.

DimensionsI t cou ld be a rgued tha t the use of supplementary data was useful to document some behaviours associated with the dimension of Companionship. For example, many of the children who reported they frequently played together were observed playing together during observation sessions. The higher rate of observation scores for Companionship is probably attributed to the nature of these behaviours. For example, with the exception of those students who spent observation sessions playing by themselves or wandering, the majority of target students were likely to exhibit behaviours linked with Companionship such as Play Together and Talk Together at some time during observation sessions. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the correlation between interview and observation scores was only moderate. There was also some, more limited, evidence of a correspondence between interview scores and observation for Validation and Caring dimension. Although some data obtained in observations was found to be useful in shedding light on some aspects of relationships and interactions between dyads, the data obtained in observation sessions was of limited use in corroborating interview data for the majority of dimensions of

relationships. This was no doubt due to the fact that many relevant behaviours were recorded very infrequently during observation sessions. It is possible that this may have been related to a problem with the design of the observation instrument. For example, the instrument may have failed to measure the behaviour most directly linked to the construct under examination, or more likely, individual constructs examined in interviews (i.e. Validation and Caring, Conflict Resolution) were not easily measured in observable behaviours between dyads during 60 minutes of observation. The possibility should also be acknowledged that observations were representative of dyads’ interactions, but that interview data reflected perceptions of respondents rather than actual behaviour. A more plausible explanation was the low level of occurrence of many of the behaviours. While these behaviours may not have been observed in the selected settings, dyads may have engaged in these behaviours at alternate times or in alternate locations. Thus, it is possible that observations needed to be conducted across a wider range of settings and for longer periods of time to accurately reflect these behaviours.

RelationshipsThe use of observations was particularly problematic in verifying the types of relationships. There was very limited evidence of correspondence between observation and interview. In fact, Just Another Child was coded in the vast majority of instances, possibly indicating that observers had difficulty detecting markers of other types of relationships in the observation context and time available. Although there was weak evidence of correspondence between interview and observation data for Regular Friend

18


and I’ll Help, a near complete lack of correspondence was found between observation and interview data for the other types of relationships. These findings may reveal a possible problem in that the use of short periods of observation to attempt to identify a single dominant relationship type. Further, attempts to characterise a relationship as a single relationship type (as has been the case in previous research using these constructs) may not adequately reflect the underlying nature and complexity of the relationship. This is particularly true of characterisations based on observation data such as that reported in past research (Kerns, 2000; Murray-Seegert, 1989) which presented portraits of a dyad’s relationship based on specific interactions in a limited time period. Considering overall patterns of positive versus negative or “special” relationships may be more appropriate. In addition, interview results, in which a dyad might have high scores in two or three types of relationships, may be more representative of past research (Salisbury & Palombaro, 1998; Staub, 1998) that indicates that a relationship between two children can change over time as the relationship either develops or wanes. Respondents in interviews would have reflected behaviours they had seen over a period of time, whereas recorders during observation sessions would only be measuring behaviours in a fixed and relatively limited period of time.

Other Issues While observational data was unfortunately of limited use in directly verifying interview data, it did offer some insight into activities in which dyads were involved and how those activities affected the types of relationships. Observations provided data on the number and nature of children with whom target students interacted and corroborated interview data that the

majority of target children either engaged in meaningful exchanges of information and constructive play with peers, as typically found in friendships or, at least, interacted with peers as active, equal, and accepted parts of group activities. Observation data suggested that only a small group of target children were given special or differential treatment by peers or were almost virtually ignored by peers. Almost no target students, however, were involved in a relationship with a peer which was typified by one person helping the other.Some of the most interesting information to come from observations, however, was the data taken on target students’ interactions with non-nominated peers. Results for Companionship and Conflict were significantly different for the two groups. Anecdotal records combined with coded data to indicate that target students were often observed to engage in relevant behaviours with peers, but tended to interact with a wide number of peers rather than primarily with nominated peers. This finding is particularly important in that it suggests the need to document not just the behaviours and interactions in which the target student engages, but whom the target student interacts with while demonstrating these behaviours. It also suggests that reliance on interaction data alone may give a false impression of the degree of social inclusion. While peers may engage in substantial interaction, this may not be with consistent partners and may not reflect the formation of deeper relationships and friendship.

Implications for PracticeThe results of this study highlight several implications for practice particularly for teachers of children with developmental disabilities in preschool and primary

19


schools. First, observation data was helpful in providing data on some behaviours in which children with disabilities engaged in with their peers, particularly those behaviours associated with Companionship. Observations were poor, however, in providing data on other behaviours associated with relationships and could not even be collected for behaviours associated with Intimate Exchange which is a critical component of closer relationships. In addition, although playground observation data did verify that some social skills and behaviours were exhibited by target students, these behaviours or skills appeared insufficient to allow the classification of the type of relationship in which the dyad was involved. These findings suggest that researchers and teachers should not rely on observation alone, particularly a limited number of observations, when making judgements about relationships that have formed between children and peers.This contrasts with some previous research (Freeman & Kasari, 2002) where attempts were made to infer that children were involved in friendships simply because they initiated or responded to peer interactions when playing together. It also suggests that children will not necessarily form an intimate relationship merely because they play together on a regular basis. This has important implications given that friendship has been cited as a primary reason for the inclusion of children with developmental disabilities in schools with typically developing peers (TASH, 2000) as the findings of the current study indicate that inclusion alone will not necessarily lead to the formation of friendships. These results also support the findings of some researchers (Hamre-Nietupski, Hendrickson, Nietupski, Sasson, & Shokoohi-Yekta, 1993; Overton & Rausch, 2002) that more intimate relationships must be facilitated rather than

developing just through shared interactions. It is also possible that more extensive observations may provide more information on behaviours such as playing together over time that would be consistent with a Regular Friend or Best Friend.A second implication for practitioners is that the findings of the current study suggest that high levels of interaction between children with developmental disabilities with typically developing peers may not be an index of the formation of close relationships. While previous researchers have suggested that children need to develop social skills in order to develop relationship (Asher, Parker, & Walker, 1996; Guralnick, Connor, & Hammond, 1995) it would appear that this may be necessary but not sufficient. The results of this study indicate that many children did engage in behaviours such as playing together, sitting with each other and talking together, but tended to do this with a wide variety of people rather than with one or two close playmates of friends. Similarly these findings suggest that researchers should exercise caution in simply looking at behaviours exhibited by children with developmental disabilities, but should also focus on with whom and how many peers they are engaging in these behaviours. Thus, high levels of interaction may reflect the presence of social skills but not be an index of the child’s ability to form relationships.A high number of dyads were recorded as best exhibiting behaviours associated with the Just Another Child relationship and a very low number of behaviours were recorded that would indicate a Best Friend relationship. This data indicates that although intimate relationships could not be assumed based on behaviour demonstrated by target students and peers in observation sessions, it could be argued that many target

20


children were engaging in behaviours with peers and were not isolated or being given differential treatment. This suggests that target children were experiencing some level of social integration and acceptance of their typically developing peers. Inclusion appears to be resulting in a degree of social acceptance but not social relationships. This implies that teachers may need to develop more strategies to foster closer relationships. In summary, the data obtained in observation sessions provided some useful information although it failed to directly corroborate much of the interview data as was originally hoped. Some possible explanations for this failure may be problems with the design and comprehensiveness of the observation instrument. More likely, however, is the argument that the poor correspondence between interview and observation data resulted from the very infrequent overall occurrence of recorded behaviours during observation sessions, which was most likely a product of the limited time frame and settings used in observation sessions. In order to add to the completeness of data, observations should be extended in future research to include more settings where interactions between dyads might occur and to cover more lengthy sessions over an extended period of time. Even with the employment of more comprehensive observation sessions, it is also probable that some behaviours may be inherently difficult to observe in a practical time frame. Finally, although it is clear that behavioural verification of interview data is important, more research needs to be conducted in this area and further methods of determining actual rather than perceived behaviours between dyads, which may include the use of observations, needs to be explored.

REFERENCESAsher, S. R., Parker, J. G., & Walker, D.

L. (1996). Distinguishing friendship from acceptance: Implications for intervention and assessment. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 366-405). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bauminger, N., & Kasari, C. (2000). Loneliness and friendship in high-functioning children with autism. Child Development, 71, 447-456.

Berndt, T. J., & Perry, T. J. (1986). Children's perceptions of friendships as supportive relationships. Developmental Psychology, 22, 640-648.

Bukowski, W. M., & Hoza, B. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in theory, measurement, and outcome. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer Relationships in Child Development (Vol. 14, pp. 15-45). Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.

Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendship quality during pre and early adolescence: The development and psychometric properties of the friendship qualities scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 471-484.

Chamberlain, B., Kasari, C., & Rotherham-Fuller, E. (2007). Involvement or isolation? The social networks of children with autism in regular classrooms. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 230-242.

21


Hamilton, D. (2005). An ecobehavioural analysis of interactive engagement of children with developmental disabilities with their peers in inclusive preschools. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52(2), 121-137.

Hamre-Nietupski, S., Hendrickson, J., Nietupski, J., Sasson, G., & Shokoohi-Yekta, M. (1993). Perceptions of teachers of students with moderate, severe, or profound disabilities on facilitating friendships with nondisabled peers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 28, 111-127.

Heiman, T. (2000). Friendship quality among children in three educational settings. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 25, 1-12.

Hurley-Geffner, C. M. (1995). Friendships between children with and without developmental disabilities. In R. L. Koegel & L. K. Koegel (Eds.), Teaching children with autism (pp. 105-125). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Kennedy, C. H., & Itkonen, T. (1994). Some effects of regular class participation on the social contacts and social networks of high school students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 1-10.

Kerns, K. A. (2000). Types of preschool friendships. Personal Relationships, 7, 311-324.

Ladd, G. W. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making friends, and being liked by peers in the classroom: predictors of children's early school adjustment. Child Development, 61, 1081-1100.

Cleary, D. J., Ray, G. E., LoBello, S. G., & Zachar, P. (2002). Children's perceptions of close peer relationships: Quality, congruence, and meta-perceptions. Child Study Journal, 32, 179-192.

Freeman, S . F. N. , & Kasar i , C. (1998). Friendships in children with developmental disabilities. Early Education and Development, 9, 341-355.

Freeman, S. F. N., & Kasari, C. (2002). Characteristics and qualities of the play dates of children with Down syndrome: Emerging or true friendships? American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107, 16-31.

Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children's perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016-1024.

Gest, S. D., Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2001). Peer experience: Common and unique features of number of friendships, social network centrality, and sociometric status. Social Development, 10, 23-40.

Gottman, J. M. (1983). How children become friends. Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, 48(3, Serial No. 201).

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System (SSRS). Circle Pines, Minnesota: American Guidance Service, Inc.

Guralnick, M. J., Connor, R. T., & Hammond , M. (1995) . Pa ren t perspectives of peer relationships and friendships in integrated and specialized programs. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 457-476.

22


Mannarino, A. M. (1980). The development of children's friendships. In H. C. Foot, A. P. Chapman & J. R. Smith (Eds.), Friendship and social relations in children (pp. 45-63). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Meyer, L. H., Minondo, S., Fisher, M., Larson, M. J., Dunmore, S., Black, J. W., et al. (1998). Frames of friendship: Social relationships among adolescents with diverse abilities. In L. H. Meyer, H.-S. Park, M. Grenot-Scheyer, I. S. Schwartz & B. Harry (Eds.), Making friends: The influences of culture and development (pp. 189-221). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Murray-Seegert, C. (1989). Nasty girls, thugs, and humans like us: Social relations between severely disabled and non-disabled students in high school. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1996). The developmental significance of children's friendship relations. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 289-321). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Overton, S., & Rausch, J. L. (2002). Peer relationships as support for children with disabilities: An analysis of mothers' goals and indicators for friendship. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17, 11-20.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611-621.

Richardson, P., & Schwartz, I. S. (1998). Making friends in preschool: Friendship patterns of young children with disabilities. In L. H. Meyer, H.-S. Park, M. Grenot-Scheyer, I. S. Schwartz & B. Harry (Eds.), Making friends: The influences of culture and development (pp. 65-80). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Rubenstein, J . (1984). Friendship development in normal children: A commentary. In T. Field, J. L. Roopnarine & M. Segal (Eds.), Friendships in normal and handicapped children (pp. 125-135). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Salisbury, C. L., & Palombaro, M. M. (1998). Friends and acquaintances: Evolving relationships in an inclusive elementary school. In L. H. Meyer, H.-S. Park, M. Grenot-Scheyer, I. S. Schwartz & B. Harry (Eds.), Making friends: The influences of culture and development (pp. 81-104). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1985). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Classroom Edition. Circle Pines, Minnesota: American Guidance Service, Inc.

Staub, D. (1998). Delicate threads: Friendships between children with and without disabilities. Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House.

TASH. (2000). TASH Resolution on Inclusive Quality Education. Retrieved 8 July, 2003, from http://www.tash.org/resolutions/res02inclusiveed.htm

Webster, A. A. (2008). Social Relationships Between Children with Developmental Disabilities and Peers in Inclusive Sett ings. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation

23


Webster, A. A., & Carter, M. (2007). Social relationships and friendships of children with developmental disabilities: Implications for inclusive settings. A systematic review. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 32, 200-213.

Webster, A. A., & Carter, M. (In press-a). Adaptation of an interview-based protocol to examine close relationships between children with developmental disabilities and peers. Australasian Journal of Special Education.

Webster, A. A., & Carter, M. (In press-b). Characteristics of the closest relationships between children with developmental disabilities and peers in inclusive settings. Australasian Journal of Special Education.

Wiener, J., & Schneider, B. H. (2002). A multisource exploration of the friendship patterns of children with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 127-141.

Yugar, J. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (2001). Elementary children's school friendship: A comparison of peer assessment methodologies. School Psychology Review, 30, 568-585.

24

Survey of special educators

Survey of special educators

What are your views about the AASE publications:

The Australasian Journal of Special Education (AJSE)and

Special Education Perspectives (SEP)?

Please enter the URL below into your internet browser to take part in this online survey.

It will probably take you around 10 minutes to complete and participation is anonymous.

Encourage any other special educators to participate in the survey, whether they are members of AASE or not.

We are keen to hear what people think!

URL: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/AASEPubsSurvey2010


25

NEW SOUTH WALES SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CLASSROOM

SOCIAL SKILLS THAT LINK TO SECONDARY STUDENTS’ SUCCESS

Therese M. CummingUniversity of New South Wales

Abstract

To facilitate the successful reintegration of students from special placements back into the regular school setting, special placement teachers must determine what each student’s behavioural deficits are before planning intervention. In order to design and research effective classroom behavioral interventions, the behaviors requiring intervention must be precisely defined. This study used a focus group of secondary special education teachers to define behaviors that are currently precluding secondary students in the NSW special education schools from placement in the comprehensive public schools, as well as matching them up with the appropriate replacement behaviours that are necessary for success in the general education secondary setting. The end product of this project was a data collection instrument easily used by teachers and researchers to measure student behavior.

INTRODUCTIONExtremely disruptive student behaviour is of major concern to teachers. Students with emotional and behavioural disabilities (EBD) who demonstrate significant behaviour problems in the classroom are often moved to segregated special schools. These settings focus on improving student behaviour with the goal of reintegrating students back into their regular school settings. Teachers’ awareness of and attitudes to student behaviour are significant because they are an integral component of the assessment and placement process of students with emotional and behavioural problems (EBD) into special school placements (Conway, 2006). Often, the regular classroom teacher initially identifies a student as having a behaviour problem. In New South Wales (NSW), the student then goes through a formal identification process, in which the school Learning Support Team (LST) considers support for the student. Regional support staff then

Correspondence: Email: [email protected] .

Editorial note: This paper underwent peer review and was accepted as a refereed paper at AASE National Conference June 2010 at the Darwin Convention Centre.

Refereed Papers

26

T.M. Cumming

meet with the school LST, parents/carers, key stakeholders, and appropriate support personnel and conduct a review. Depending on the outcome of the review, the student’s case may then be referred to the Regional Clearinghouse, and possibly on to the Regional Placement Panel, which considers applications for support classes (New South Wales Department of Education and Training, 2009).While there have been several studies of general education teachers’ perceptions of student behaviour at the primary level, there are very few studies target teachers’ perceptions of behaviour at the high school level (Houghton, Wheldall, & Merrett, 1988; Little, 2005; Stuart, 1994), and only one older study focused on teachers in NSW (Stuart, 1994). Arbuckle and Little (2004) found that there is a progressive rise in behaviour management problems from primary school to secondary school,. There appear to be few studies that focus on the perceptions of problem behaviour held by teachers in special schools for students with EBD. The lack of literature on secondary special education teachers’ perceptions of student behaviour is of concern because some special education teachers spend the entire school day interacting with students whose main area of disability is behaviour, so their perceptions may be different than the perceptions of general education teachers. Also, none of the current Australian literature addresses differences in perceptions of behaviour between teachers in regular public schools and teachers teaching in special behavioural settings. If these two groups of teachers are not defining inappropriate behaviours similarly, their standards for referral to exclusive placements, as well as reintegration to the general education setting may not be congruent. This inconsistency can lead to misunderstandings, teacher frustration, and

issues with placements and support services for students with emotional and behavioural disabilities (Ford, 2007).Another issue that emerges in the area of student behaviour is data collection. Although observation and measurement are essential to determining the effectiveness of interventions and instructional strategies, many teachers see little value in it, because they view data collection as too complex and/or time consuming (Alberto & Troutman, 2009). There are many complex systems of data collection used in applied behaviour analysis, but some are just not practical for use in regular education classrooms. To assist in developing strategies or discussing placement, teachers need a simple accurate method to record precisely defined student classroom behaviour.The purpose of this study was to identify the behaviours that special education teachers working in EBD settings in NSW felt were causing students to be and remain excluded from mainstream classrooms, in order to develop a list of replacement behaviours that could be taught through social skills training. The project focused on the perceptions of student behaviour of secondary special school teachers in NSW because while all of Australia’s states have committed to maintaining students with emotional and behavioural disorders (EBD) in the mainstream public schools, special school placements for students with EBD are far more common in NSW than in any other state (Conway, 2006). The three specific aims of the project were: (a) defining student behaviours that special education teachers deem inappropriate for the classroom and differentiating between serious behaviours and minor behaviours that occur frequently enough to be considered a serious problem; (b) compiling of a list of social skills, essential

27

Refereed paper: Classroom social skills

for success in the general education setting, to serve as replacement behaviours for the misbehaviours identified by the special education teachers; and (c) developing a data collection instrument that could be easily and readily used by teachers to measure student behaviour.

METHOD

ParticipantsInvitations were sent out to special education teachers in 29 special schools and tutorial centres for students with EBD in the Sydney area. Ten teachers from seven of these schools/centres agreed to participate. The teachers had an average of 18.5 years’ teaching experience, and a mean age of 46.3. Two of the teachers were male, and the other eight were female. All participants had students with emotional and/or behavioural problems in their classrooms at the time of the study, and all were currently teaching some form of social skills/life skills/values lessons in their classes on a regular basis.

ProcedureThis study used a focus group design to determine which behaviours teachers deemed to interfere most with the inclusion of students with emotional and behavioural disabilities in the regular classroom setting. Three 2-hour sessions were held, which were attended by all ten participants. The author acted as the moderator for all three sessions. Each session was guided by a series of questions developed by the author prior to the sessions (see Appendix A), though the moderator varied from the focus group protocols when participant responses opened new avenues for data collection. Each meeting consisted of ten special education teachers and a moderator. Each session was documented via digital audio

recording transcribed for data analysis purposes.The first focus group meeting was devoted entirely to discussing student behaviours that result in referrals to a more restrictive setting, and behaviours that prevent students from re-entering the general education setting. The participants each created a list of behaviours that they perceived to be problematic in the classroom. During the second focus group meeting, the behaviours were then discussed, defined, and separated into either minor or serious categories. The author designed a student behaviour data collection sheet, using the behaviours mentioned during the first two focus group meetings. This sheet was emailed to all participants in order to give them time to evaluate it before the third (and last) focus group meeting. During the last meeting, the participants were asked to discuss the data collection instrument through the following questions: (a) What did you like about the behaviour data collection sheet? (b) What would you change about the sheet? and (c) In your opinion, would this sheet be practical for teachers in general education classes to use? The participants’ responses were used to modify the data collection sheet.

RESULTS

BehavioursParticipants in the first focus group meeting identified both major and minor misbehaviours. Some of the minor misbehaviours identified were: (a) talking out, (b) out of seat, (c) truancy, (d) oppositional behaviour, and (e) absconding. The major misbehaviours identified were: (a) weapons possession, (b) illegal drug use/possession, (c) stealing, (d) violence against people, (e) violence against property, (f)

28

T.M. Cumming

Table 1: Definitions of Minor Misbehaviours

Table 2: Definitions of Serious Misbehaviours

Minor Misbehaviours Definition

Talking Out Student speaks out without permission during instruction, seat work, or any other time that he or she is supposed to

be quiet.

Out of Seat Student is out of his or her seat at a time when sitting is required and has been requested.

Truancy Student does not come to school and is not ill.

Oppositional Behaviour Student actively or passively refuses to comply with requests from adult(s), refuses to complete work, or

refuses to follow classroom/school rules.

Absconding Student leaves the classroom or school grounds without

permission.

Major Misbehaviours Definition

Weapons Possession Student is in possession of a weapon or uses or threatens to use an item that is not normally

considered a weapon as a weapon.

Illegal Drug Use/Possession Student is under the influence of, or has in his or her possession, illegal drugs.

Stealing Student takes things that do not belong to him or

her.

Violence Against People Physical or verbal violence or threatening violence

against another person.

Violence Against Property Physical violence to property, regardless of who it

belongs to.

Self-Harm Purposely causing physical harm to oneself.

Sexualised Behaviour Student exhibits sexual behaviour that exceeds

commonly accepted developmental or experimental bounds.

29


self-harm, and (g) sexualised behaviour. The precise definitions for each of these major and minor misbehaviours developed by the group are in Tables1 and 2. When asked which student misbehaviours were likely to cause a student to be referred to a more restrictive setting, the majority of the participants suggested that students in NSW do not usually get removed from the general setting for repeated minor misbehaviours, and these are still dealt with at the home school level. It was mentioned however, that once in the special school setting, repeated minor misbehaviours many times precluded students from being reintegrated into their home schools, as the teachers and principals at these schools sometimes view these behaviours as evidence that the student “wasn't even trying.” It was noted that students who engaged in persistent minor misbehaviour were likely to be referred to the office and possibly suspended many times, and numerous suspensions could therefore lead to a referral to a special school placement.

Replacement skillsThe majori ty of the part icipat ing teachers voiced the opinion that for most misbehaviours, particularly the more serious ones, more than one replacement behaviour or social skill must be taught. Several social skills were mentioned frequently during the discussion about skills students need to succeed in the classroom (see Table 3). Participants frequently voiced their opinions that in order for social skills training to be effective, each student's skills must be individually assessed.

Data collection sheet Some of the comments made about the advantages of the data collection instrument

were: (a) “It is simple, on one page, and clearly stated.”; (b) “It is categorical, so the data can be easily tallied.”; and (c) “I like the way it is grouped into different settings, so you can see what was going on at the time the behaviour occurred.”The things that the participants suggested be changed were: (a) “Add a way to collect duration data for behaviours like out of seat,” (b) “Some of the behaviours (such as drug use, weapons possession, and truancy) wouldn't need to be taken over time, as school records would reflect these” ; and “Instructions for filling out the sheet should be added.” The majority of participants said that they would not use the sheet because the special school that they teach at has standard data collection forms that they are required to use. Most felt that the sheet would be a practical data collection instrument for general education teachers to use, but several displayed dismay at the fact that it is difficult to “get teachers in regular education to take accurate data.” The sheet was modified by removing the more serious behaviours that need no data collection aside from school behaviour records, adding instructions, and adding duration recording for those behaviours that warrant it (see Appendix B).

ThemesIn the course of the focus group discussions, the following five themes emerged:Teacher training. One of the first themes to appear was the lack of teacher training. Many of the participants expressed the opinion that if teachers were trained well in the areas of behavior management and students with special needs, then many students that were presently excluded from the general education setting could

30

T.M. Cumming

Table 3: Behaviours and Replacement Skills

Minor Behaviour

Replacement Behaviours Serious Behaviour

Replacement Skills

Talking Out Asking permission

Raising hand Gaining attention

appropriately Staying on task

Controlling impulses Respecting others

Self-monitoring Following rules

Weapons

Possession

Managing anger

Accepting consequences Problem solving

Respecting others Following rules

Dealing with fear Dealing with frustration

Out of seat Gaining attention

appropriately Following directions

Staying on task Controlling impulses

Following rules

Illegal Drug

Use/ Possession

Choosing appropriate friends

Respecting self Following rules

Controlling impulses Choosing positive leisure

activities Problem solving

Making healthy choices Truancy Goal setting

Following rules Controlling impulses

Resolving conflict Following directions

Stealing Controlling impulses

Respecting others Respecting self

Asking for permission Budgeting

Absconding Recognising your feelings

Persistence Following rules

Controlling impulses Staying on task

Violence Against

People

Resolving conflict Controlling impulses

Managing anger Problem solving

Dealing with frustration Self monitoring

Respecting others

Oppositional Behaviour

Accepting consequences Anger management

Following rules Following directions

Accepting authority Staying on task

Violence Against

Property

Respecting others Managing anger

Being a good citizen Following rules

Choosing positive leisure activities

Controlling impulses Gaining attention appropriately

Self-harm Changing harmful thoughts Identifying your feelings

Communicating your feelings Expressing grief

Respecting self Relieving stress positively

Making healthy choices Sexualised

Behaviour

Respecting others

Respecting self Accepting “No”

31


manage in mainstream classes. One teacher commented, “If a student is consistently talking out, and the teacher’s done everything they can to address it, they (the student) gets referred.” A sense prevailed among the participants that if the right supports were known and provided, many students could access the general curriculum in the mainstream setting. Several participants suggested that the it would be helpful for preservice teachers to do a practicum at a special school in order to experience first-hand how challenging behaviors are effectively handled. A few participants agreed with the opinion, “…most persistent minor behaviors should be handled by the regular schools rather than being referred to special schools for support.”Student placement. The second theme, student placement, became apparent when several of the participants disagreed with the idea that teachers need more training. One remarked, “I think teachers are very knowledgeable, I think they don’t have the time. In a lot of cases, teachers are terribly overworked, and they are incredibly tired. They have huge classes with many more demands than before and more difficult kids.” It was also noted that due to larger classes, and the possibility that teachers in the mainstream did not have the time or ability to consistently manage the behavior of some students, that some students are “better off” in an exclusionary setting. Participants expressed this view with the following comments: “In the mainstream, the classes are quite larger and schools in the mainstream they have other kids to worry about and in a larger setting it’s hard to deal with and taking so much time away from the rest of the class, in a smaller setting it’s a much better setting for some students.”

“At our school, we are all on the same page as far as rules and social skills and data collection. It is a small setting and kids know what to expect, so they are comfortable.” “Our school is working on vocational skills and behaviors, so the students will be productive when they leave school. The focus is more on life skills, and that is what so many of them actually need!” Persistent minor behaviours. The third theme to become visible was that the participants felt that although most students were referred to their special settings due to serious behaviors, many times it was the persistent minor behaviors that kept the students from successfully integrating back into the general education setting. One teacher observed, “A principal of a school that we were reintegrating a child into was so upset about the minor behaviors the student was exhibiting (such as talking out), that he said that he didn't think it would work out because it was obvious that the student wasn't even trying.” The majority of the participants made statements that evidenced the fact that once a student is put in a special school, the teachers are working with the whole child, rather than just the individual behaviors that the student was referred to that setting for.Data collection. The fourth theme to emerge pertained to data collection. During the last focus group session, the importance of data collection was discussed at length. Most participants stated that collecting data on individual student behavior was very important, and it was something that was part of their daily routines at their special schools. Several participants remarked that one of the problems with both the student placement referral system and the student reintegration process was the lack of accurate data coming from

32

the students’ home schools. When asked if the data collection sheet would be practical for general education teachers to use, most agreed that it would be, but the problem was in actually getting teachers to use it and use it correctly, given the constraints discussed in theme 2 above. The participants illustrated their views by sharing their personal experiences: “I found that [when transitioning a student back into his mainstream school] the data collection cards we get back directly contradict the anecdotal remarks, and whether the remarks may have been the result of maybe a stressful day for the teacher yet on the card it says great lesson, and above it is all tick, tick, tick.” “When our students go back to the mainstream school, starting at one day and then at two days then three days a week, we encourage the teachers there to fill out a very simple card, but it doesn’t get done often.” “Or it gets done showing the student did really well, then we find out later they had a shocker of a day.” “We all take data because it is necessary, but it isn’t always easy to do so, and there definitely needs to be some training in order for teachers to do it correctly.” Teachers’ reactions to focus group. Another unexpected result was the participants’ reaction to participating in the focus group sessions. Firstly, the teacher participants in the current study were surprised to be invited to participate in the current study. They were very enthusiastic about having the opportunity to voice their perceptions and opinions: “You know, to have this opportunity, this is incredible; “No one’s ever bothered to ask us before.” ; “ If you need further information I think we’re all happy to give you that via email or

whatever, because this has been good for us too.”

DISCUSSIONThe primary reason for this focus group study was to obtain high school special education teachers’ perceptions of classroom social skills that are essential for student success. In order to accomplish this, the participating teachers discussed and defined common misbehaviours that typically keep students with emotional and behavioural disabilities in exclusionary settings, such as special classrooms and schools. They discussed possible replacement behaviours that could be taught to students through social skills instruction. Finally, the participating teachers provided feedback on a data collection instrument that was created based on the misbehaviours discussed in the first session. The behaviours that emerged as serious supported the results of previous studies conducted in Australia, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, and the United States (Beaman, Wheldall, & Kemp, 2007; Ford, 2007; Little, 2005; and Stuart, 1994). The previous studies reported the perceptions of mainstream education teachers, as opposed to the current study, which reported the perceptions of special education teachers only. The congruity between the two groups’ behavioural expectations is encouraging, as this may facilitate more successful collaboration in the placement, inclusion, and reintegration of students with emotional and behavioural disabilities. Lane, Pierson, Stang, and Carter (in press) stress the importance of using teacher expectations of student behaviour to inform the development of classroom and school-wide expectations and intervention efforts.The participants strongly expressed the

T.M. Cumming

33


opinion that in order to effectively intervene with students exhibiting serious behaviours, the persistent minor behaviours must be addressed as well. They reflected on the idea that although the special school placement was initiated to deal with the serious behaviours of students, much time was spent dealing withlane, p the multiple underlying causes and functions of those behaviours. Participants mentioned a variety of interventions that included social skills training, counselling, cognitive behavioural instruction, art therapy, movement therapy, and vocational training.One of the unexpected themes that emerged was that the participants felt that general education teachers need more training in managing difficult behaviour and in data collection and its importance. Several participants stated that they had students that could more than likely be successful in an inclusive environment if the right interventions and supports were provided. Conversely, other participants asserted that large class sizes and time constraints on teachers were more of a problem than lack of training. According to the literature, both of these opinions have validity, as well as consequences. Teachers who perceive that they have severe classroom management problems are more likely to leave the profession (Arbuckle & Little, 2004). Further survey research should be conducted to determine what training and supports teachers in inclusive environments feel that they require to effectively support all students in their classrooms.The evidence that the teachers enjoyed participating in the study supports the suggestions made in previous research that participating in focus groups is beneficial and empowering to the participants because they are valued as experts, permitted to voice their opinions, and are given the

opportunity to work with both researchers and colleagues (Gibbs, 1997; Panyan, Hillman, & Liggett, 1997). The participants exchanged contact information and planned to stay in touch with each other, as they viewed the experience as a positive way to network with colleagues in the field.The use of a focus group provided the investigator with access to a group of individuals who are key stakeholders in the education of students with EBD in the Sydney area. The information that was obtained about these high school special education teachers’ perspectives on student behaviour will be invaluable when designing future research in the area. It should be noted, however, that the participants in this focus group were a very small homogenous group, therefore the results of this study should not be generalised to other groups in other areas. This study was meant to inform the design of future research in behavioural intervention. Matching the behavioural expectations of both general and special educators with behavioural interventions is paramount for student success.

REFERENCESAlberto, P. & Troutman, A. (2009). Applied

behavior analysis for teachers [8th ed.]. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Arbuckle, C. & Little, E. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions and management of disruptive classroom behaviour during the middle years (years five to nine). Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 59-70.

Beaman, R., Wheldall, K., & Kemp, C. (2007) . Recent research on troublesome classroom behaviour: A review. Australasian Journal of Special

34

Education, 31, 45-60.Conway, R. (2006). Students with emotional

and behavioural disorders: An Australian perspective. Preventing School Failure, 50(2), 15-21.

Ford, J. (2007). Educational supports for students with disabilities and significant behavioural challenges: Teacher perceptions. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31, 109-127.

Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups. Social Research Update. Issue Nineteen. University of Surrey. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU19.html

Houghton, S., Wheldall, K., & Merrett, F. (1988). Classroom behaviour problems which secondary school teachers say they find most troublesome. British Educational Research Journal, 14, 297-312.

Lane, K., Pierson, M., Stang, K., & Carter, E. (2009). Teacher expectations of

students’ classroom behavior. Remedial and Special Education OnlineFirst. A d v a n c e o n l i n e p u b l i c a t i o n . doi:10.1177/0741932508327464

Little, E. (2005). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of students’ problem behaviours. Educational Psychology, 25, 369-377.

New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2009). Sydney region student services handbook 2009. Sydney, NSW: New South Wales Department of Education and Training.

Panyan, M. Hillman, S. & Liggett, A. (1997). The role of focus groups in evaluating and revising teacher education programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20(1), 37-46.

Stuart, H. (1994). Teachers’ perceptions of student behaviours: A study of NSW secondary teachers’ attitudes. Educational Psychology, 14, 217-232.

Appendix A : Focus Group Session ProtocolsOpen-Ended Questions for Focus Group Meeting 1:

1. What behaviours do you perceive as keeping students with emotional and behavioural disorders excluded from the general education setting?

2. Why are those behaviours exclusionary?3. What behaviours do you feel are most difficult to deal with in your classsroom?4. Prioritise the behaviours listed from most problematic to least problematic; separate into

minor vs. seriousOpen-Ended Questions for Focus Group Meeting 2:

1. Looking at the list of prioritsed behaviours from the last meeting, what skills can be taught to students to replace the behaviours on the list?

Open-Ended Questions for Focus Group Meeting 3:1. What do you like best about the data collection instrument?2. What do you like least?3. Is there anything you think should be added to the instrument?4. Is there anything you think should be omitted from the instrument?5. How could you best use this instrument in your classroom?

T.M. Cumming

Special Education Perspectives, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 35-57, 2010

35

Abstract

Pilot studies have previously demonstrated that a new small group intervention for young struggling readers has the potential to be a low cost alternative to available interventions. A randomised experimental study with a crossover design was carried out over 20 weeks with sixteen year one students identified as “struggling readers” by school staff. While differences between the experimental and control groups were not statistically significant, comparative effect sizes suggest that the progress of the experimental groups might have been shown to be significantly different with larger sample sizes. In comparisons between the treatment condition and a no-treatment, residual effect condition, statistically significant results (and large effect sizes) were found in favour of the experimental group for both spelling and word reading fluency.

Many researchers and educators have stressed the importance of intervening early to overcome the literacy difficulties of young at-risk students (Clay, 1991; Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Kame'enui, 1993; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Stanovich, 1986; Torgesen, 2004; Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, Fanuele, & Sweeney, 2007). The arguments put forward for taking action to overcome difficulties in the first years of schooling are especially compelling. These include findings that early failure in literacy learning has detrimental effects on cognitive capacity (Stanovich, 1986, 2000), academic achievement in later years (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Juel, 1988), self-esteem (Rose, 2006) and motivation to read (Chapman, Tunmer, & Prochnow, 2000; Morgan, Fuchs, Compton, Cordray, & Fuchs, 2008). Failing to learn to read has also been shown to have lingering consequences that result in limited employment opportunities and reduced earning capacity in adulthood (Bost & Riccomini, 2006; Brynner, 2008; Ensminger & Slusarcick, 1992).

Correspondence: Meree Reynolds, Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia. Phone: (02) 9850 8691 Fax: (02) 9850 8254. Email: [email protected]

Refereed Papers

AN EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF AN INTERVENTION FOR YOUNG STRUGGLING

READERS IN YEAR ONEMeree Reynolds, Kevin Wheldall and Alison Madelaine

Macquarie University Special Education Centre,

36

Research has shown that the proportion of students who have difficulties in the first three years of schooling can be reduced if high quality instruction and intervention is provided (Foorman, Breier, & Fletcher, 2003; Schatschneider, Fletcher, Francis, Carlson, & Foorman, 2004; Simmons, et al., 2008). The notion of intervening as soon as students begin to struggle is a basic tenet of response-to-intervention (RTI) approaches. In recent years these have been recommended as systemic means of identification and provision of support for students with learning difficulties and disabilities (Rose, 2006; Vaughn, Wanzek, Woodruff, & Linan-Thompson, 2007). If education systems use RTI approaches, educators and educational administrators need to be knowledgeable about the features of effective reading programs and about the effectiveness of interventions that are available for students in the crucial early years of schooling. Large reviews of research have been instigated to provide scientific evidence about how to optimise reading instruction (Department of Education Science and Training (DEST), 2005; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Rose, 2006). These concur in finding that there are several crucial elements that should be included in programs to teach reading: phonemic awareness, synthetic phonics, fluency, comprehension and vocabulary. While there is consensus that these elements should be included in literacy programs for students, there is, as yet, less knowledge about how these are most effectively combined within instructional programs and interventions (Lyon & Moats, 1997; Torgesen, 2005).Several reviews have included a focus on early reading programs, seeking to determine those that are effective for

young students with a particular emphasis on students who are struggling or “at-risk” of developing reading difficulties (Rose, 2006; Slavin, Lake, Chambers, Cheung, & Davis, 2009; What Works Clearinghouse, 2007). One of these is a comprehensive evaluation of beginning reading programs by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) that reviewed approximately 900 research studies related to more than 150 programs used to teach students to read in the first four years of schooling. The reviewers found that relatively few of the studies had research designs that met the WWC’s (2007) specific criteria. Following analyses of these studies, they reported that there was evidence that only ten of the programs showed positive or potentially positive effects in all of the four outcome domains of phonics, fluency, comprehension and general reading achievement. The only program that was deemed to have positive and potentially positive effects across all of the domains was Reading Recovery (Clay, 1993), the very popular intervention developed by Dame Marie Clay in New Zealand in the 1970s and now implemented in many education systems world-wide (McNaughton, 2007).While the WWC’s findings indicate that Reading Recovery may have the capacity to change the trajectory of failure for young students, reviews of research about the intervention have found that, while it works for many students, it does not deliver all it promises (Reynolds & Wheldall, 2007; Reynolds, Wheldall, & Madelaine, 2009c). These reviews found that it is relatively costly, less effective for the lowest performing students and lacks persuasive evidence of retention of gains and impact on education systems over time.As yet, and despite much research, it

M. Reynolds, K. Wheldall & A. Madelaine

37

Refereed paper: Intervention for young struggling readers

appears that no existing intervention for young struggling readers has strong scientific evidence to prove that it is effective and is sufficiently low-cost for education systems to implement it on a large-scale (Reynolds, Wheldall, & Madelaine, 2009b). This conclusion was the impetus for further investigation (Reynolds, Wheldall, & Madelaine, in press) to seek information about how to combine the essential elements of an early reading program to make it maximally effective for at-risk students. Ideally, it could then be used as an intervention for young struggling readers within an RTI approach.In RTI models, tier two interventions typically provide intervention in small groups, while tier three interventions are generally more intensive (that is, one-to-one). Even though popular interventions such as Reading Recovery use individual tutoring, some studies support the use of small group instruction (Vaughn, et al., 2003), showing that the results are similar to one-to-one instruction. These findings, when coupled with those of Ehri et al. (2001) that instruction in phonemic awareness has greater effects on reading and spelling outcomes when it is taught in small groups, rather than through tutoring or in classroom settings, suggest that small group interventions in tier two may be both effective and appropriate.Following a review of the research evidence, Reynolds et al. (in press), concluded that the following ten points should be taken into account when designing a cost-effective intervention for struggling readers in the early years of schooling:1. Instruction should focus on developing

phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension, and should include the reading of text.

2. Phonemic awareness instruction should concentrate on blending and segmentation and be combined with the use of letters when students know some letter-sound relationships.

3. A synthetic approach should be used to teach phonics.

4. Opportunities should be provided for students to build automaticity (fluency) in word recognition.

5. Instruction should be explicit and systematic.

6. Intervention should be provided as soon as possible after the student has shown evidence of difficulties that cannot be resolved by the classroom teacher. Preferably this should occur before the end of the second year of schooling,

7. Instruction should be in small groups of three to four students.

8. A we l l - t r a ined t eache r o r a paraprofessional with teacher support should deliver instruction.

9. Sessions should be frequent, preferably daily.

10. Assessment procedures and tools to identify struggling students and monitor their progress should be integral to the intervention.

Meeting Initial Needs in Literacy (MINILIT) is an intervention for struggling year one (and possibly year two) students that adheres to these principles and has been developed as a low-cost option for use by support staff or trained paraprofessionals in regular schools (Reynolds, Wheldall, & Madelaine, 2007a). Its aim is to provide small group, intensive, frequently administered instruction for young students who, after at least one year of formal schooling, have not acquired the crucial components of early reading. Pilot studies have provided data that

38

age of the students at the beginning of the study was approximately 6 years 9 months (81 months). Although several of the boys had non-English speaking backgrounds, none of the participants were categorised as first phase ESL learners.

DesignThe experimental design was a two period-two treatment pre-test-post-test crossover design with random assignment of matched pairs to the two groups. One group served as the treatment group during phase one while the other group was the control during this phase. Phase one intervention was of ten weeks’ duration and was followed by mid-point testing and then the two groups crossed over, the previous treatment group becoming the no-treatment group and the previous control group becoming the treatment group for phase two. The second phase was also ten weeks in length.The control group received regular classroom reading instruction with no additional supplementary intervention at the time that students in the experimental group were involved in the MINILIT intervention. The regular class program included many elements of a quality literacy program and could be described as containing structure, synthetic phonics and explicit teaching. It incorporated the use of THRASS, Teaching Handwriting, Reading and Spelling Skills (Davies & Richie, 1998), a structured multi-sensory program that teaches phonological knowledge explicitly and systematically (Richie, 2004). THRASS is widely used with young students and older students with phonological problems, but has only limited scientific evidence for its effectiveness (de Graaf, Fankhauser, & Elms-Campbell, 2001). A literature search found one case study (Lovegrove, 1998) that was carried out with two year six students, finding


indicate that MINILIT may assist students in overcoming early difficulties in acquiring literacy skills (Reynolds, et al., 2007a; Reynolds, Wheldall, & Madelaine, 2007b, 2007c). These studies were conducted with groups of struggling year one and year two students from local state primary schools who attended a tutorial centre for socially disadvantaged students in a multi-cultural inner-urban locality. The centre was staffed by instructors and tutors closely associated with the research team. The three pilot studies provided preliminary evidence that MINILIT might be a viable intervention for use with young struggling readers. As these were pilot studies, conducted without control groups, it was considered important to determine whether the strong gains made by students in the pilot studies were the result of the intervention or other factors. This study was designed as an experimental study using randomised control groups to provide scientific evidence to determine the efficacy of MINILIT as an intervention for young struggling readers. This was the first time that MINILIT had been implemented in a school setting by instructors who were not employed by the university research unit. It was anticipated that the study would provide information about the suitability of MINILIT for use within the context of a regular primary school.

METHOD

ParticipantsThe participants were 16 boys who had been identified as struggling readers by school staff. The boys were enrolled in year one classes in an independent boys’ day school catering for students from pre-school to year six. The school is situated in a suburb of Sydney that is considered to be of high socio-economic status (SES). The average

39


that THRASS was more effective than an alternative Direct Instruction program. Phase one was conducted over ten weeks, beginning partway through term two and finishing partway through term three. Phase two was carried out for the same period of time, commencing immediately after phase one and concluding partway through term four. Students assigned to the phase two treatment acted as controls during phase one. At the end of phase one the groups crossed over with the phase one treatment group becoming the no-treatment group during phase two. Students were pre-tested on standardized and curriculum-based tests by testers who had been trained and were employed by the research unit. The MULTILIT Word Attack Skills Test (MULTILIT, 2007c) was used as one of the curriculum-based measures and the results used to rank students in terms of their levels of accuracy in phonic skills. Following this the 16 participants were divided into eight pairs of students with comparable levels of skill in decoding. Participants who formed each matched pair were then randomly allocated to either the experimental or the control group. Testing was repeated after 10 weeks. Pretesting on sub-tests of the WIAT-II Australian confirmed that students who were chosen for the study were performing at levels below expectations for their chronological age and, therefore, fitted the description of “young struggling readers”. The students in Group One, whose mean chronological age at pre-testing was 81 months, had an average reading age of 73 months on the WIAT-II Australian Word Reading sub-test, 72 months on the Reading Comprehension sub-test, 72 months on the Pseudoword Decoding sub-test and 75 months on the Spelling sub-test. Students in Group Two, whose mean chronological

age at pretesting was 80 months, had an average reading age of 73.5 months on the WIAT-II Australian Word Reading sub-test, 74 months on the Reading Comprehension sub-test, 72 months on the Pseudoword Decoding sub-test and 75 months on the Spelling sub-test. Thus, the two groups were very similar at pre-test. There was, however, a variation of 6.5 words correct per minute (wcpm) on the WARL in favour of intervention Group One. Detailed initial training in MINILIT procedures was provided for the instructors by the third author. This also included training in the use of Positive Teaching (Merrett & Wheldall, 1990) strategies that are used for behaviour management in the MINILIT intervention.

MeasuresAfter students were identified for the program by school staff they were pre-tested using a number of standardised tests of reading and related skills. These assessments were carried out by research assistants. The standardised tests used were subtests of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, second edition, Australian Standardised Edition (WIAT-II Australian) (Wechsler, 2007) that relate to early literacy learning: Word Reading, Reading Comprehension, Pseudoword Reading and Spelling subtests. The WIAT-II Australian was used because it has Australian norms and is appropriate for use when assessing students in the first two years of schooling. The subtests of the WIAT-II Australian have very strong inter-item consistency with reliability coefficients ranging from .97 to .98 with composite scores of .97 for reading. Correlations with similar achievement tests such as the Wide Range Achievement Test –Third Edition (WRAT-3) (Wilkinson, 1993) and the Differential

40


Ability Scales (DAS) (Elliott, 1990) are reported in the manual and indicate that the WIAT-II Australian is a valid measure of achievement in reading and related skills. In addition, the Wheldall Assessment of Reading Lists (WARL) (Reynolds, Wheldall, & Madelaine, 2009a) was used as a measure of reading achievement. The WARL is a curriculum-based measure of oral reading fluency that has been developed for use with interventions for young students who do not yet have sufficient reading skills to manage processing passages of connected text (Reynolds, et al., 2009a). It consists of a set of 13 lists of 100 frequently occurring words drawn from books typically used as reading texts for students in the first years of schooling. Students are timed for one minute and the number of words read correctly during this time is used as an indication of word identification fluency. Three of the lists were used as assessment lists in pre-testing, mid-point testing and post-testing and the remaining ten lists were used as curriculum-based measures for weekly progress monitoring during the second phase of the intervention.An earlier study demonstrated that all 13 versions of the WARL word lists had similar means and standard deviations for words read correctly per minute and were highly reliable, with inter-correlations of .85 or higher (Reynolds, et al., 2009a). The ten progress monitoring lists were designed for administration in a specific sequence. A running mean from weekly tests is used over a two week-period to smooth uneven increments, potentially providing a more stable measure (Reynolds, Wheldall & Madelaine, 2009a).

The InterventionStudents in the intervention group attended tutoring sessions for 45 minutes per day, five days a week, for 10 weeks (a total of 37.5 hours of intervention). The sessions were carried out at the beginning of the school day in two teaching spaces in the school’s learning support area. Two teachers delivered the instruction: one was a trained, special educator who was a permanent member of staff and the other was an experienced teacher employed on a casual basis by the school specifically for the intervention. The teachers were trained to implement the intervention by a senior member of the research team. Students in the control condition received regular literacy lessons within their classrooms.The intervention used in the study, Meeting Initial Needs In Literacy (MINILIT) incorporates the teaching of phonemic awareness, phonics, sight words, fluency, comprehension and vocabulary. These elements were identified as being crucial in effective early reading programs in the large reviews of early reading, the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (2005), the National Reading Panel Review (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) and the Rose Review (Rose, 2006). The instructional approach in MINILIT is based on the principles of effective teaching (Rosenshine, 1995; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986) and incorporates strategies from Positive Teaching (Merrett & Wheldall, 1990), a program that provides effective ways to manage student behaviour. MINILIT was developed for use with young readers in their second and third year of formal schooling. Several elements of the MULTILIT Reading Tutor Program (MULTILIT, 2007a), a tutoring program that has been successfully used in individual

41


and group tutoring situations with struggling readers in years three and beyond (K Wheldall, 2009; K. Wheldall & Beaman, 2000), have been adapted for use in MINILIT so as to make it more suitable for students in the first years of schooling. These elements are the MULTILIT Word Attack Skills Program (MULTILIT, 2007c) and the MULTILIT Sight Words Program (MULTILIT, 2007b). A new phonemic awareness instructional program that is based on current research has been developed specifically for the intervention. The three elements are combined with the reading of text and associated vocabulary and comprehension activities. In this study, each daily MINILIT session comprised three activities, each of which took approximately 15 minutes. The first activity was either phonemic awareness or sight word training. Activities to teach phonemic awareness skills were only used while students were on the initial levels of the word attack skills program in which letter-sound correspondences and initial blending skills were taught. When the majority of students in the group reached mastery on the initial levels of word attack, they no longer received separate phonemic awareness training and, during the same 15-minute allotted time, participated in a group-based version of the MULTILIT Sight Word program (MULTILIT, 2007b). In this element of the program students were explicitly taught to instantly recognise high frequency words. These words were arranged into lists of five words each, with students needing to achieve a mastery criterion for automatic recognition before moving to a new list.The second activity was focussed on word attack skills and included a spelling component. A version of the MULTILIT Word Attack Skills program (MULTILIT,

2007c) was used in the MINILIT intervention, with revisions to make the program more applicable to young students. The Word Attack Skills program focuses on teaching letter-sound relationships and having students use the processes of blending and segmentation to decode and write words. This program features direct and systematic instruction in synthetic phonics and provides scripted lessons in an easy to hard sequence. The final component of the session was individual and group reading of controlled texts in a small group setting. Texts from the Ants in the Apple; First Readers series (Easson, Meeks, & Sotheren, 1997) were used for this activity. These are highly structured, sequenced and phonically-based books, designed for young students. Each new book was introduced with discussion of the title, cover page, illustrations and new vocabulary. While the students read the text, the teachers encouraged students to use word attack skills to work out new words and to recognise sight words that had been taught. During and after the reading of the text for the session, students’ understanding of what they had read was developed through teacher discussion and questioning. The MINILIT intervention used in the study was a shortened version of that used in pilot studies with young struggling readers in urban areas of Sydney (Reynolds, et al., 2007a, 2007b, 2007c). In the pilot studies, each session was 60 minutes in length and the intervention lasted for 15 weeks, rather than 10 weeks. The reduction in session time was necessary as the school had tight timetabling constraints. Because of this, it was decided that a 15-minute activity that was included in the pilot studies would only be used once a week while individual testing of students on word attack skills and

42


sight words (if applicable) was completed by one of the instructors. The 15-minute activity that was carried out by the other teacher involved the reading of a story to the remaining students and associated oral activities to develop comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. Treatment FidelityTreatment fidelity data were collected during observations of MINILIT instructional sessions to ascertain whether the program was being implemented according to

program guidelines. The evaluator, the third author, used a 27-point checklist for word attack lessons and a 25-point checklist for group oral reading lessons. The average treatment fidelity for the instructors was 95%.

RESULTSEach achievement test was administered at the three testing points (T1, T2 and T3) and different comparisons were made after each phase. The means and standard deviations

Table 1. Means (and standard deviations) of literacy variables (raw scores) for Group1 (experimental group) and Group 2 (no treatment group) at T1 (Pretest), T2 (after Phase 1) and T3 (after Phase 2)

Literacy Variable

Group 1T1(SD)

Group 1 T2(SD)

Group 1T3(SD)

Group 2 T1(SD)

Group 2T2(SD)

Group 2T3(SD)

WIAT-IIWord Reading(raw score)

56.5(7.11)

66.88(9.33)

75.63(9.41)

58.38(7.8)

65.63(8.98)

74.00(10.14)

WIAT-II ReadingComprehension(raw score)

23.38(3.34)

30.63(4.41)

37.5(2.45)

24.38(6.35)

29.38(4.50)

34.63(4.00)

WIAT-IIPseudoword Decoding(raw score)

5.75(3.01)

10.37(5.95)

17.5(6.26)

5.5(4.28)

7.38(4.34)

15.88(6.77)

WIAT-II Spelling(raw score)

14.63(1.85)

18.13(3.09)

18.38(2.07)

15.13(2.17)

16.65(2.00)

18.25(1.58)

WARL(wcpm)

45.25(11.42)

61.75(13.36)

65.75(15.76)

38.75(15.88)

49.25(19.11)

63.75(22.35)

Group 1 (n=8) = Experimental group in Phase 1 and no treatment group in Phase 2Group 2 (n=8) = No treatment group in Phase 1 and experimental group in Phase 2

43


Figure 2: Mean raw score of Group 1 and Group 2 students at each testing point on the WIAT-11 Reading Comprehension Sub-test

Figure 1: Mean raw score of Group 1 and Group 2 students at each testing point on the WIAT-11 Word Reading Sub-test

44


Figure 3: Mean raw score of Group 1 and Group 2 students at each testing point on the WIAT-11 Pseudoword Decoding Sub-test

Figure 4: Mean raw score of Group 1 and Group 2 students at each testing point on the WIAT-11 Spelling Sub-test

45


of student scores for the two groups at each testing point are shown in Table 1.Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 show the mean group achievement scores on the WIAT-11 Word Reading, Reading Comprehension, Pseudoword Decoding and Spelling and the WARL respectively for Group1 and Group 2 at each of the three testing points. Changes between the first and second testing points depict the progress of Group 1 while in the experimental condition (MINILIT) and Group 2 while in the no-treatment condition (regular classroom instruction). Changes between the second and third testing points indicates progress of Group 1 while in the no-treatment condition following MINILIT intervention and Group 2 during the experimental condition (MINILIT).

Phase 1 Comparison: Experimental (Group 1) Vs No Treatment (Group 2) In research designs such as this, that is, a two-group pretest-postest study design, there are two statistical procedures for comparing average treatment effects: either by using t-tests of gain scores, or by using analyses of covariance (Maris, 1998; Wright, 2003, 2006). Wright (2006) recommends the use of both of these procedures and, as a result, they were employed in this study to compare treatment effects.In the first instance, one-way between-groups analyses of covariance were conducted on the post-tests for each literacy measure separately, covarying pretest raw scores, with group (experimental versus control) as a factor. These did not show statistically significant differences between

Figure 5: Mean words read correctly per minute of Group 1 and Group 2 students at each testing point on the WARL

46


groups for any measure. To confirm this, t-tests of gain scores were then calculated. Effect sizes were also calculated using Cohen’s d. Both groups showed increases in achievement during phase 1, with the experimental group showing greater growth in raw scores on all tests. These gains were statistically significant (p<0.05) for the two groups on all measures except for pseudoword decoding in both the experimental and no-treatment conditions.

Table 2 shows the mean gains in raw scores for both groups with resultant t-test values and effect sizes. Although comparisons of the gains through independent-samples t-tests did not show statistically significant gains for the experimental group compared to the control group on any measure (confirming the results from the analyses of covariance), medium to large effect sizes were evident for all tests in favour of the treatment group.

Table 2: Phase 1 mean gains, t-test values and effect sizes of Group 1 (experimental) compared to Group 2 (no-treatment)

Literacy Variable

Group 1 Mean Gain(SD)

Group 2Mean Gain (SD)

tdf = 14

p(2-tailed)

ES


10.38(7.25)

7.25(4.2)

1.05 .31 0.74


7.27(4.17)

5.0(3.38)

1.19 .25 0.67


4.62(6.26)

1.88(4.45)

-1.01 .33 0.62


3.5(2.51)

1.5(1.2)

2.04 .06 1.67

WARL(wcpm)

16.5(5.45)

10.5(5.81)

2.13 .05 1.03

Group 1 (n=8)= Experimental group Group 2 (n=8) = Control group

47


Group 2 Comparison: No Treatment (Phase 1) Vs Experimental (Phase 2)As the design created a situation in which Group 2 formed a wait-list control during the first phase, a comparison of average gains made by this group in phase 1 (that is, in the no treatment condition) was made with average gains made in phase 2 (that is, in the second treatment condition). The subtests of the WIAT-II and the WARL administered at the end of phase 1 (T2), served as pretests for phase 2 and were readministered after a further 10 weeks (at T3) to show the effects of MINILIT with Group 2 who now formed

the treatment group after 10 weeks in the regular classroom after MINILIT. Students in Group 2 demonstrated increased achievement during phase 2, making statistically significant (p<0.05) gains in achievement on all measures. However, as noted earlier in the results section of this paper, during phase 1 they had made statistically significant gains (p<0.05) on all tests except pseudoword decoding. Paired-samples t-tests were used to compare the mean gains of Group 2 during phase 1 (the control treatment) and phase 2 (the experimental treatment). Table 3 shows

Table 3. Group 2 mean gains (and standard deviations) of literacy variables (raw scores) in phase 1(no-treatment) and phase 2 (experimental), t-test values and effect sizes

Literacy Variable

Phase 1Group 2Mean Gain (SD)

Phase 2Group 2Mean Gain(SD)

tdf=7

p2-tailed

ES


7.25(4.2)

8.37(4.78)

.47 .65 0.27


5.0(3.38)

5.25(4.59)

.15 .88 0.07


1.88(4.45)

8.50(4.99)

2.34 .052 1.49


1.52(1.2)

1.60(1.19)

.17 .87 0.10

WARL(wcpm)

10.50(5.81)

14.50(9.7)

.94 .378 0.69

Group 2: N=8

48


the mean gains and standard deviations of Group 2 students’ raw scores on each of the standardized tests and the WARL at each testing period. The table also includes mean gains in raw scores for Group 2 with t-tests and effect sizes. There were no statistically significant differences between the mean raw score gains for the two conditions. A large effect, however, was evident for pseudoword decoding, a medium effect for the WARL and a small effect for word reading, all favouring the experimental treatment (the MINILIT intervention).

Group 1 Comparison: Experimental (Phase 1) Vs No-Treatment (Phase 2) A comparison of the effects of MINILIT and its residual effects, that is, gains made by Group 1 in the 10-week MINILIT intervention, compared with gains made by the same group over the following 10 weeks during regular classroom instruction provides additional information about the effectiveness of MINILIT. Gains in achievement on subtests of the WIAT-II and the WARL were noted for the group in both phases of the study. These were statistically significant (p<0.05) for all

Table 4. Group 1 mean gains (and standard deviations) of literacy variables (raw scores) in phase 1 (experimental) and phase 2 (no treatment), t-test values and effect sizes

Literacy Variable

Phase 1Mean Gain(SD)

Phase 2Mean Gain (SD)

tdf = 7

p(2-tailed)

ES


10.38(7.25)

8.75(2.92)

.55 .60 0.56


7.27(4.17)

6.87(4.09)

.16 .88 0.09


4.62(6.26)

7.13(3.64)

-.93 .38 -0.68


3.5(2.51)

0.25(1.67)

-2.4 .048 1.92

WARL(wcpm)

16.5(5.45)

4.00(11.07)

-2.42 .046 1.13

Group 1: N=8

49

Refereed paper: Intervention for young struggling readerse

measures except the pseudoword subtest of the WIAT-II in phase 1 and the WARL and spelling subtest of the WIAT-II in phase 2. Paired t-tests were conducted on group 1 data, comparing gains under treatment with the subsequent no treatment condition. Table 4 provides details of the mean gains, standard deviations, t-tests and effect sizes for each literacy variable.Statistically significant differences (p<0.05) were found between the mean gains for the two comparisons for the WIAT-II Spelling subtest and the WARL. Large effects were evident for spelling and the WARL with evidence of a medium effect for word reading. For pseudoword decoding, there was a moderate effect in favour of the no treatment condition.

Tracking Average Progress of Students in Group 2 during Phase 2Parallel single versions of the WARL were used during the second half of the study to gauge the progress of the MINILIT students on this measure. The lists were administered weekly to Group 2 (the intervention group) during phase 2. Results of these and student’s scores on pre-tests and post-tests are shown graphically in Figure 6. (The versions alternate each week between one that is slightly easier with one that is more difficult, which accounts for the staggered pattern.) Overall, fluency in word reading rose over the ten-week period that the students were in the intervention. This demonstrated that, even over this short timeframe, the WARL is a suitable measure to track the progress of year one students over time.

Figure 6: Average progress of Group 2 students from pre-test to post-test during phase 2 as measured by the WARL

50


DISCUSSIONOverall, the magnitude of the effects provides support for the proposition that struggling year one students who participate in MINILIT make greater gains on literacy achievement tests than students who participate in a structured regular classroom reading program. Moderate to high effect sizes were found, with almost all comparative gains favouring the experimental treatment group, even though, in most cases, differences were not statistically significant. One reason for a mismatch between large effect sizes and non-significant findings could have been inconsistency in implementat ion across groups. Fidelity checks, however, indicated that implementation of the intervention followed established procedures and the personnel implementing the program were constant throughout both phases. In retrospect, it is more likely that the small sample sizes in the study resulted in a lack of power to find statistically significant differences. The study provided opportunities to compare the effects of a shortened version of MINILIT with the regular classroom instruction in literacy that featured explicit teaching and synthetic phonics and incorporated phonemic awareness, orthographic knowledge, text reading, vocabulary and comprehension. The presence of these components indicated that the regular classroom program could be an ideal first tier instructional program for an RTI approach. As MINILIT has been designed to operate as a second tier intervention in an RTI model, the no-treatment condition provided a useful comparison for the interventionThe first comparison was of average gains made by Group 1 (experimental) and Group

2 (no treatment) in Phase 1. The second comparison was of the average gains made by Group 2 in Phase 1 (no treatment) with average gains made by the same group in Phase 2 when they were the experimental group. Results for the first comparison were mostly of much greater magnitude than the second comparison, except for pseudoword decoding, which showed a very large effect for the second comparison. The latter was unexpected and surprising, but could, perhaps, be the result of the instructors becoming more adept at implementing the aspects of the program related to recoding skills in the second phase. The progress of Group 1 when in MINILIT in phase 1 compared with their progress in the following 10 weeks under the no treatment condition also showed interesting results. Large positive and statistically significant effects on spelling and on word identification fluency were noted during the first phase. An unexpected result was that the experimental group made greater gains in phonological recoding in the period after the intervention, than they made while in the intervention. These findings support the view that early literacy development is complex and may not always follow a specific developmental sequence. As suggested by a number of researchers (Adams, 1990; Santoro, Coyne, & Simmons, 2006), learning about how words are spelled may enhance the ability to read unknown words. It is possible that one may precede the other or that the sequence of development for students may depend on the instruction provided. It is also possible that these findings may be aberrations. Overall, the effects were noticeable but were not of the magnitude of those in the three pilot studies in which MINILIT was implemented over fifteen weeks. As the pilot studies did not have randomised control

51


groups it was not possible to determine whether some, or all, of the effects were the result of maturation and other factors. In this study, because of constraints of school terms, the wishes of school staff and the time required for ethics approval, the intervention was only ten weeks, with nine weeks between testing periods, rather than fifteen weeks. The daily sessions were also reduced in length from the 60 minutes per session allocated during pilot studies to 45 minutes for this study, at the school’s request. In total, the intervention in this study was carried out over 37.5 hours (and was only implemented for 33.75 hours between testing points), compared with 60 hours during the pilot studies. It is highly likely that this reduction in instructional time had a serious impact on the efficacy of the intervention. Since the commencement of this study, MINILIT has been implemented in additional research trials in tutorial centres in three schools in Far North Queensland and two tutorial centres in Darwin. These trials were conducted over 14 or 15 weeks and all showed noticeable growth in achievement for students who had been identified as being the lowest achievers in reading their respective grades (Beaman & Wheldall, 2009; MULTILIT Research Unit, 2009a, 2009b). While these trials were not experimental studies and, therefore, do not provide causal evidence of the effectiveness of MINILIT, they do provide information about patterns of possible effects and information about the use of the intervention with students in grades other than year one. The results of these additional field trials, taken together with the findings of the present study, are encouraging, indicating that MINILIT may have the potential to assist struggling students to get underway in reading.

It was noted that three students made little progress within the ten weeks that they were in the intervention. It is possible that these low progress readers may have needed instruction over a longer period. Alternatively they may have needed a more intensive level three intervention following the ten-week MINILIT intervention. In situations such as this it would be helpful to have specific indicators of appropriate rates of progress over time to determine which action is most appropriate.This study had several limitations. One factor that has been discussed earlier in the paper and is likely to have influenced the results of the study was the small sample size. This has previously been noted as an issue in studies with educational interventions that typically are limited in the number of participants (Asraf & Brewer, 2004). In comparing effect sizes, one assumption is that data is normally distributed. It is, however, very difficult to get normal distribution with small sample sizes. Therefore, some underlying assumptions using effect sizes are tenuous. Given the moderate to large effect sizes found in this study, the next step in establishing the efficacy of MINILIT should be to conduct further experimental studies that feature larger sample sizes with treatment conditions of at least 15 weeks.Another limitation was related to the selection of students (by the school). While pretesting indicated that the students’ reading and spelling skills were generally behind expectations for their ages, percentile rankings based on their scores on the standardized tests showed that their results were not consistently in the lowest 25th percentile. Of the 16 students in the study, four did not have scores on any sub-test of the WIAT-11 that placed them in the lowest

52


25th percentile. In retrospect, it could be argued that these four students do not fit the profile of “struggling” readers, even though they were the lowest performing students in literacy in the grade at the time of pre-testing. Unfortunately, this circumstance only became evident during the pretesting that was carried out just before the intervention was to begin. The difficulties of identifying students for intervention during the early years of schooling have been noted by a number of researchers (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2004; Torgesen, 1998). Students in year one are only just embarking on the process of learning to read and, therefore, there is a limited amount of information that can be assessed. In some situations, standardised tests are used in a testing battery, and these, typically, have lower threshold scores. These do not provide accurate comparative information for selection of students for intervention and it is likely that there will be inaccuracies in the identification of students who require intervention during the early years of schooling (Torgesen, 1998). This is the first study in which MINILIT has been implemented by school staff in a regular school setting. The earlier pilot studies were conducted in a specialised setting in which students were transported from their schools. In these previous studies, the university research unit employed the tutors and members of the research unit closely monitored student progress. As MINILIT is intended for implementation within regular school settings, this study has provided initial information. Further research of the program in differing school settings would provide additional information about aspects such as grouping and student progression. Future experimental research might also compare MINILIT with an alternative small-group intervention.

Research has yet to establish the best combination of elements within an early intervention program for young struggling readers (Reynolds, Wheldall, & Madelaine, 2009d). While this study, pilot studies and field trials indicate that the current version of MINILIT is a promising option for schools, it is possible that the elements of MINILIT could be combined differently with greater positive effects. Some aspects that could be varied are total duration, duration of sessions and duration of each element within the session, and the emphasis placed on different components. More activities, such as robust vocabulary instruction (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002) could also be added. Other aspects that need to be considered in future studies are processes for identification of students for intervention and monitoring of progress, whether decisions about moving on are made on the basis of individual or group progress, and optimal group size. In the present study, groups instructed by individual tutors varied from three to five and students progressed through the program at the speed of the lowest performing student in the group. This may have slowed or impeded the progress of more able students.

CONCLUSION The results of this study are encouraging, indicating that MINILIT has promise as an intervention for young struggling readers. Although there were no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups in the basic comparisons in this study, effect sizes were large and generally greater for the experimental groups. Statistically significant results were found in favour of the experimental condition for spelling and word reading fluency in comparisons of

53


gain scores between the treatment condition and a subsequent no treatment, residual effect condition. Overall, while the results provide some evidence for the efficacy of MINILIT, more extensive research is needed with more subjects and in a number of schools with differing profiles. Additional research studies may also explore whether variations to, or refinements within, the program elements would make the intervention more effective. As noted earlier in this article, there is a lack of research-based interventions available for use within schools. Many interventions that are used within schools have been developed on the basis of research about what needs to be in a reading program, but few are trialled extensively before release and only a handful have information about efficacy based on experimental research. This study was carried out to provide initial information about the efficacy of a shortened version of MINILIT in a school setting prior to further refinement and additional research. Teachers and school administrators would be well served to seek evidence of the efficacy for all programs and interventions used within school.The results of this study indicate that a tier two small-group intervention for year one students can enhance the reading and spelling achievement. This intervention, MINILIT, includes crucial aspects of early reading instruction and is implemented daily by trained personnel for at least 45 minutes. It also includes Positive Teaching procedures, specific techniques for managing student academic and social behaviour.

REFERENCESAdams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read:

Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Asraf, R. M., & Brewer, J. K. (2004). Conducting tests of hypotheses: The need for an adequate sample size. The Austalian Educational Researcher, 31, 79-94.

Beaman, R., & Wheldall, K. (2009). MULTILIT in Cape York Schools (MCYS) Project 2008: Research Report for Semester 2, 2008. Sydney, NSW: MULTILIT.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.

Bost, L. W., & Riccomini, P. J. (2006). Effective instruction: An inconspicuous strategy for dropout prevention. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 301-311.

Brynner, J . (2008) . I l lumina t ing disadvantage. Education Journal(110), 34-35.

Chapman, J. W., Tunmer, W. E., & Prochnow, J. E. (2000). Early reading-related skills and performance, reading self-concept, and the development of academic self-concept: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 703-708.

Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Auckland: Heinemann Education.

Clay, M. M. (1993). Reading Recovery: a guidebook for teachers in training. Auckland: Heinemann Education.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and

54


ability ten years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934-945.

Davies, A., & Richie, D. (1998). THRASS teacher's manual. Osborne Park, UK: THRASS.

de Graaf, M., Fankhauser, J., & Elms-Campbell, R. (2001). The THRASS literacy program: A review Retrieved 4 October, 2009, from http://www.thrass.com.au/speech/speach.htm

Department of Education Science and Training (DEST) (2005). National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (NITL). Teaching reading: Report and recommendations. Retrieved 21 December , 2007. from http://www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/report_recommendations.pdf.

Easson, V., Meeks, L., & Sotheren, K. (1997). Ants in the apple: First readers. Arcadia: NSW: Ants in the Apple Educational Resources.

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. W., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287.

Elliott, C. (1990). Differential Ability Scales (DAS): Administration and scoring manual. San Antonio:TX: Psychological Corporation.

Ensminger, M. E., & Slusarcick, A. L. (1992). Paths to high school graduation or dropout: A longitudinal study of a first-grade cohort. Sociology of Education, 65, 95-113.

Foorman, B. R., Breier, J. I., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). Intervention aimed at improving reading success: An evidence-

based approach. Developmental Neuropsychology, 24, 613-639.

Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Chidlren, 71, 7-21.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: a longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

Kame'enui, E. J. (1993). Diverse learners and the tyranny of time: Don't fix blame: Fix the leaky roof. The Reading Teacher, 46, 376-383.

Lovegrove, J. (1998). Reading acquisition using phonemic strategies for students experiencing difficulties with learning: A case study. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3, 31-36.

Lyon, G. R., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 578-588.

Maris, E. (1998). Covariance adjustment v e r s u s g a i n s c o r e s - r e v i s i t e d . Psychological Methods, 3, 309-327.

Mathes, P. G., Howard, J. K., Allen, S. H., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Peer-assisted learning strategies for first-grade readers: Responding to the needs of diverse learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 62-94.

55


McNaughton, S. (2007). Dame Professor Emerita Marie Clay, DBE, MA (Hons), Dip Ed, PhD, FRSNZ, FNZPsS, FNZEI, 1926-2007. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 7, 263-266.

Merrett, F., & Wheldall, K. (1990). Positive teaching in the primary school. London: Chapman.

Morgan, P. L., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Cordray, D. S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). Does early reading failure decrease children's reading motivation? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 387-404.

MULTILIT (2007a). MULTILIT Reading Tutor Program (Revised). Sydney: MULTILIT Pty Ltd.

MULTILIT (2007b). MULTILIT Sight Words (revised): Manual. Sydney: MULTILIT Pty Ltd.

MULTILIT (2007c). MULTILIT Word Attack Skills (revised):Manual. Sydney: MULTILIT Pty Ltd.

MULTILIT Research Unit (2009a). MULTILIT in Holy Spirit Primary School Darwin, Exodus Tutorial Site: Intake 1 (Terms 3 and 4) 2009: Macquarie University.

MULTILIT Research Unit (2009b). MULTILIT in Milner Darwin, Exodus Tutorial Site: Intake 1 2009: Macquarie University.

National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (2005). Teaching reading: Report and recommendations. Retrieved 21 December , 2007. from http://www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/report_recommendations.pdf.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching

children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Reynolds, M., & Wheldall, K. (2007). Reading Recovery twenty years down the track: Looking forward, looking back. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54, 199-223.

Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2007a). Developing a ramp to reading for at-risk Year One students: A preliminary pilot study. Special Education Perspectives, 16, 39-69.

Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2007b). Meeting Initial Needs in Literacy (MINILIT): Why we need it, how it works, and the results of pilot studies. The Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31, 147-158.

Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2007c). 'Meeting Initial Needs in Literacy' (MINILIT): A ramp to MULTILIT for younger low-progress readers. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 12, 67-72.

Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2009a). Building the WARL: The development of the Wheldall Assessment of Reading Lists, a curriculum-based measure designed to identify young struggling readers and monitor their progress. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 14, 89-111.

Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (in press). What recent reviews tell us about the efficacy of reading interventions for struggling readers in the early years of schooling. International

56


Journal of Disability, Development and Education

Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2009c). The devil is in the detail regarding the efficacy of Reading Recovery: A rejoinder to Schwartz, Hobsbaum, Br iggs , and Scul l . International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 56, 17-35.

Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (in press). Components of effective early reading interventions for young struggling readers. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties.

Richie, D. (2004). THRASS: Making sense of Engish sounds and symbols Retrieved 4 October, 2009, from http://www.thrass.com.au/ArticleP1.htm

Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading: Final report. Retrieved 20 September 2006. from http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/rosereview.

Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 88, 262-268.

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Santoro, L. E., Coyne, M. D., & Simmons, D. C. (2006). The reading-spelling connection: Developing and evaluating a beginning spelling intervention for children at risk of reading disability. Learning Diaabilities Research and Practice, 21, 122-133.

Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J., Francis, D., Carlson, C., & Foorman, B. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading

skills: A longitudinal comparative study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265-282.

Simmons, D. C., Coyne, M. D., Kwok, O., McDonagh, S., Ham, B. A., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2008). Indexing response to intervention: A longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 158-173.

Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2009). Effective beginning reading programs. Retrieved from http://www.bestevidence.org/reading/begin_read/begin_read.htm

Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2009). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Retrieved from http://www.bestevidence.org/reading/strug/strug_read.htm

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (Eds.). (2001). Success for all: Research and reform in elementary education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.

Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: The Guilford Press.

Torgesen, J. K. (1998). Catch then before they fall: Identification and assessment to prevent reading failure in young

57


children. American Educator, 22, 32-38.

Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Preventing early reading failure. American Educator Retrieved 1 August 2007, 2007, from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/fall04/reading.htm

Torgesen, J. K. (2005). Recent discoveries on remedial interventions for children with dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook: Blackwell Publishing.

Vaughn, S. , Linan-Thompson, S. , Kouzekanani, K., Bryant, D. P., Dickson, S., & Blozis, S. A. (2003). Reading instruction grouping for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 301-315.

Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Woodruff, A. L., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2007). A three-tier model for preventing reading difficulties and early identification of student with reading disabilities. In D. Haager, J. Klinger & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention. Baltimore: Brookes.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S. G., Fanuele, D. P., & Sweeney, J. M. (2007). Preventing early reading difficulties through intervention in kindergarten and first grade: A variant of the three-tier model. In D. Haager, J. Klinger & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response-to-intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Wechsler, D. (2007). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test - Second Edition, Australian Standardised Version (WIAT-II-Australian). Marrickville, NSW: Pearson.

What Works Clearinghouse (2007). Beginning Reading. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/beginning_reading/topic/

Wheldall, K. (2009). Effective instruction for socially disadvantaged low-progress readers: The Schoolwise Program. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 14, 151-170.

Wheldall, K., & Beaman, R. (2000). An evaluation of MULTILIT: Making up for lost time in literacy. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test-Third Edition (WRAT-3). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range, Inc.

Wright, D. B. (2003). Making friends with your data: Improving how statistics are conducted and reported. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 123-136.

Wright, D. B. (2006). Comparing groups in a before-after design: When test and ANCOVA produce different results. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 663-675.

58

Notes

59

Notes

60

Notes

SPECIAL EDUCATION PERSPECTIVESaase.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/documents/SEP-Conte… · ·...

Documents

Transcript of SPECIAL EDUCATION PERSPECTIVESaase.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/documents/SEP-Conte… · ·...