Acaydia School of Aesthetics LLC Instructional Strategies Discussion

User Generated

zbavvv

Writing

Acaydia School of Aesthetics LLC

Description

Instructions

This assignment will assist you in better analyzing effective instructional strategies for students with Emotional Behavioral Disorder ; there are multiple parts to this paper. Be sure to include the following:

Part 1: Discuss why students with EBD are less successful on academic tasks than their peers. Incorporate an analysis of how student motivation influences both instruction and learning.

Part 2: Adaptations and modifications to instructional materials occur frequently in special education programming.The intent is to provide students with unique learning needs and opportunities to best access the curriculum. Defend your position on the following statement: "When curriculum and instruction are adapted or modified, it 'waters-down' or 'dummies-down' the curriculum." Cite at least three peer-reviewed articles to help support your position.

Part 3: As a special education leader, discuss instructional modification options for students with EBD that you would expect to see when observing a classroom. In your response, choose any grade and/or content area. Include a description of the classroom environment, your interactions as the teacher, and specifically how you would modify/adapt the curriculum, materials, in-class activities, and homework.

Pleas use the 2 attached articles ,and please use these 2 listed articles:

Lin, Y.-C., Morgan, P. L., Hillemeier, M., Cook, M., Maczuga, S., & Farkas, G. (2013). Reading, mathematics, and behavioral difficulties .

Maggin, D. M., Wehby, J. H., & Gilmour, A. F. (2016). Intensive academic interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders

Support your assignment with at least five scholarly resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be included.

Length: 7 pages, not including title and reference pages.Please use and cite this book Effective supports for students with emotional and behavioral disorders by Vern Jones,Al Greenwood,Cory Dunn.

Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Strategies for Success: Evidence-Based Instructional Practices for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders Mary E. Niesyn ABSTRACT: The number of students with special needs, includ- (EBD) receive 60% or more of their education outside the general education classroom (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). General education teachers are increasingly finding themselves responsible for serving students with special needs, but many have neither the training nor the support necessary to ensure success for all students (Helfin & Bullock; Lopes, Monteiro, & Sil, 2004). Teachers’ feelings of inadequate preparation and assistance are unlikely to change because of the current focus of teacher training programs under the mandates of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. NCLB requires all teachers to be “highly qualified,” which is defined as having subject-matter competency in areas for which they are the primary instructor. The emphasis is on content knowledge rather than on the ability to deliver that content (Rosenberg, Sindelar, & Hardman, 2004). Unlike special education teacher preparation that focuses on preparing teachers to work with students with learning and behavior differences, general education teacher preparation concentrates on preparing teachers to work with groups of students across content domains, with little attention paid to individual differences or specialized needs. To further compound the issue, whereas the literature describes the goals of full inclusion as social rather than educational (Helfin & Bullock, 1999), the mandates of NCLB, and the 2003 reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, hold general education teachers accountable for increasing the performance of all students including those with special needs (Rosenberg et al.). Although students with EBD represent the fewest number of students who have special needs and who are being ing those with emotional and behavioral disorder (EBD) who are being served in the early elementary classroom, is increasing rapidly. The actual number of students with EBD in Grades K–3 is frequently underreported, as the formal process of identifying students for special education services has either not yet begun or is delayed for developmental considerations. Only 17% of children with EBD are identified by 9 years of age (M. Conroy & C. Davis, 2000). Thus, many primary grade (i.e., K–3) teachers work with EBD students whose needs exceed those of the typical student. Traditional teacher education training focuses on preparing teachers to work with groups of students across content domains with less attention given to individual differences or special needs. This article presents research on evidenced-based instructional practices and behavioral and student self-management strategies that teachers of Grades K–3 can use when working with students with EBD. KEYWORDS: elementary, emotional and behavioral disorders, instructional practices, self-management strategies IMAGINE THAT 20 SECOND-GRADE STUDENTS are actively engaged in classroom activities. Suddenly, without any apparent antecedent, desks are flipped over and materials are strewn about the room. Nineteen students abandon their work, line up, and exit the classroom as quickly as possible. What has happened? An earthquake perhaps? No, this is the scene in a second-grade classroom in which one child’s emotional variability resulted in what may appear to be drastic safety procedures. More and more frequently, general education teachers are finding themselves in similar situations, working with students whose specialized needs surpass the teacher’s repertoire of effective strategies. As a result of the federal government’s support of the goals set forth by the regular education initiative (REI), the number of students with special needs receiving instruction in the general education classroom has increased rapidly over the past 2 decades (Helfin & Bullock, 1999). At present, only one third of students with emotional and behavioral disorders Address correspondence to Mary E. Niesyn, University of San Francisco, School of Education, 2350 Turk Boulevard, San Francisco, CA 94117, USA; maryniesyn@earthlink.net (e-mail). Copyright © 2009 Heldref Publications 227 228 Preventing School Failure served in the general classroom, their numbers are growing, and inclusion for these students is being implemented without careful planning (Kauffman, Lloyd, Baker, & Reidel, 1995). General education teachers have reported a lack of the necessary skills needed to support students with EBD (Helfin & Bullock, 1999; Lopes et al., 2004). This problem is exacerbated in the K–3 classroom in which the number of students with special needs—specifically, students with EBD—is frequently underreported. Only 17% of children with EBD are identified by 9 years of age (Conroy & Davis, 2000). The formal process of identifying students for special education services is often delayed because of the fear of stigmatization. Likewise, the deviance of children’s behavior may be denied for reasons associated with age or diversity. As a result, general education K–3 teachers frequently find themselves serving a greater number of students with special needs, including students with EBD (Landrum, Tankersley, & Kauffman, 2003). A review of the literature on teachers’ attitudes toward working with students with EBD reveals that general education teachers frequently report a resistance to full inclusion. Their resistance is generally not a result of rejecting students, rather their resistance results from feelings of a lack of competency (Lopes et al., 2004). These feelings suggest the need for effective instructional, behavioral, and self-management strategies. Fortunately, most instructional practices that are effective for students with special needs have even larger effects when used with general education students (Boardman, Arguelles, & Vaughn, 2005). This is especially important for general education teachers who wish to support students with special needs while still meeting the needs of the general population. However, despite the need and desire to teach all students, the interventions most likely to be implemented with fidelity are the following: “(a) easy to implement, (b) not time-intensive, (c) positive, (d) perceived to be effective by the teacher, and (e) compatible with the context in which the intervention will be employed” (Landrum et al., 2003, p. 152). Unfortunately, many of the practices proven most effective for students with EBD do not meet these criteria. Effective instruction for students with EBD requires consistency in delivering, monitoring, and adapting instruction beyond what is often feasible in a regular classroom. Because of these challenges, it is understandable that when working with students with EBD in general education settings, teachers rarely modify their instruction (Gunter, KentonDenny, & Venn, 2000; Landrum et al., 2003; Levy & Chard, 2001). The purpose of the present article is to present teachers with a repertoire of evidence-based strategies that are effective in increasing time on task and decreasing levels of disruptive behavior for students with EBD. The strategies included are also considered feasible to implement in the context of the general classroom environment. Vol. 53, No. 4 Effective Instructional Strategies Teacher Praise General education teachers need support in developing proactive classroom practices that focus on antecedentbased interventions to reduce the inappropriate behavior of students with EBD. Antecedent-based interventions, when implemented with students with EBD, result in an increase in desirable behavior and a decrease in undesirable behavior. Perhaps the easiest antecedent-based modification the general education teacher can implement when working with students with EBD is an increase in praise. Praise should be immediate and specific, describing for the learner the exact nature of the behavior being rewarded (Landrum et al., 2003; Lane, Graham, Harris, & Weisenbach, 2006). Praise should be delivered every time an appropriate behavior is displayed. Although this modification may seem selfevident, studies have suggested that teachers rarely give praise to students with EBD (Landrum et al.; Sutherland, 2000; Sutherland & Wehby, 2001). Scaffold Independent Seatwork Approximately 70% of a typical school day for elementary students is allocated to independent work (Gunter, Countinho, & Cade, 2002). Students with EBD often have difficulty managing their behavior during independent seatwork. Presenting materials individually rather than collectively (e.g., giving students a single worksheet rather than a work packet, folding worksheets in half to reveal only a few problems at a time) and giving shorter assignments are positively associated with relieving students’ stress (Conroy & Davis, 2000; Gunter et al., 2000; Weaster, 2004). Moving about the room, assisting, and physically and verbally interacting with students during independent activities also increases desired student behavior (Gunter et al.). Increase Opportunities for Correct Responses Another strategy for increasing desirable behavior during independent work is providing numerous opportunities for students to give correct responses (Barton-Arwood, Wehby, & Falk, 2005; Conroy & Davis, 2000; Gunter et al., 2002; Gunter et al., 2000; Gunter & Reed, 1997). During the instruction phase of a lesson, teachers should elicit four to six responses from students. Teachers should pose questions that would ensure responses with at least 80% accuracy before having students move on to independent practice. During independent work, the number of student responses should increase to 9 to 12 per minute with a 90% accuracy rate (Council for Exceptional Children [CEC], 1987; Gunter et al., 2000; Gunter & Reed). Teachers can increase the likelihood of students with EBD giving accurate responses by frontloading their questions with required information. Supplying the needed information results in an Summer 2009 increase of accurate student responses, which, in turn, leads to increased opportunities for teacher praise. Establish Peer Tutoring Opportunities Peer tutoring is one of the most frequently cited instructional strategies for decreasing negative behavior and increasing positive behavior for students with EBD. Peer tutoring has been reported to improve both academic and behavioral deficits as well as student engagement and response rates for all students, including those with special needs (Atkinson, Wilhite, Frey, & Williams, 2002; Barton-Arwood et al., 2005; Gunter et al., 2000; Landrum et al., 2003). Peer-assisted learning strategies, reciprocal peer tutoring, and classwide peer tutoring are all forms of effective peer tutoring. Although variations exist among instructional approaches, the underlying theory is consistent: Peer interaction can have a powerful influence on academic motivation and achievement. The tutor is afforded the opportunity to construct an explanation of the problem being addressed, thereby increasing his or her own understanding. The tutee is afforded increased opportunities for guided practice as well as increased opportunities to receive specific feedback and praise, all of which are associated with an increase in desired behavior for students with EBD. Student Choice Giving students a choice of instructional materials and incorporating their interests into curricular activities is also an effective strategy for increasing time on task and decreasing levels of disruptive behavior for students with EBD (Conroy & Davis, 2000; Gunter et al., 2000; Salend & Sylvestre, 2005). The choices offered to students are no different than the choices that could have been selected by the teacher. For example, the student can be allowed to choose a book to read aloud from a selection of five to six different titles. This strategy can also be implemented when a student is required to work independently. Allowing the student to pick from a few academic activities, with the option to change choices during independent worktime, can result in greater on-task behavior. Teachers can easily embed student interests into curricular activities. If a student demonstrates a strong interest in science and space exploration, then during a cursive lesson a teacher can include sentences from a book about planets. This high-interest topic could also be incorporated into guided reading selections, math word problems, and creative writing activities. Direct Instruction A compilation of instructional strategies that are effective with students with EBD is incomplete without a discussion on direct instruction. The use of direct instruction methods with students with EBD is well cited in the literature Niesyn 229 (Atkinson et al., 2002; CEC, 1987; Gunter et al., 2002; Gunter et al., 2000; Gunter & Reed, 1997; Landrum et al., 2003; Lane et al., 2006; Weaster, 2004). Researchers have suggested that the delivery of new information through direct instruction for students with EBD may be the form of instruction that provides the most benefits for students and teachers (Gunter et al., 2002). The direct instruction model includes the following six components: (a) gain students’ attention, (b) review past learning, (c) present new information (demonstrate or model), (d) assist students to perform task-guided practice, (e) evaluate students’ independent performance, and (f) review the lesson. The CEC (1987) training manual includes an additional step—communicate the goal of the lesson—after Step 2 (review past learning). This form of explicit instruction enables the teacher to incorporate many of the previously discussed instructional strategies throughout the sequence. During the modeling stage of the lesson, teachers can increase the frequency and accuracy of student responses by supplying necessary information before asking questions about the content. This increase in correct responses is directly related to an increase in teacher praise. Using this instructional model, teachers can also delay independent practice until they are certain the student will be able to perform the skill with the 90% accuracy rate associated with increased on-task behavior and decreased negative behavior. Behavior-Management Strategies Many general education teachers are reluctant to implement behavior-management systems suggested in the literature as being effective with students with EBD because these systems appear to be too time intensive and dependent on consistent implementation. Also, they are generally not considered necessary for the rest of the student population. One example is a token economy system that relies on external rewards. Students earn tokens for appropriate behaviors. Tokens can later be exchanged for tangible rewards such as stickers and small toys (Gunter et al., 2002). There are other simple management strategies that general education teachers can implement that benefit all students. Classroom Rules and Procedures Almost all K–3 teachers begin the school year by establishing class rules. As a simple modification to this ubiquitous activity, teachers can ensure that rules are stated positively regarding observable behavior. Clear statements of positive consequences for following rules as well as consequences for violating the rules must be included (Gunter et al., 2002). Rules should be posted, explicitly taught, and reviewed periodically. Transitions between activities can also prove to be challenging for students with EBD. For this reason, posting daily transition schedules, in addition to class rules, is important (Salend & Sylvestre, 2005). 230 Preventing School Failure The benefits of explicit direct instruction hold true for establishing simple routines and content-based lessons. Modeling and providing explicit practice for classroom procedures (e.g., what do if a pencil breaks, student needs to go to the bathroom, work is finished) are associated with increases in positive behaviors (Gunter et al., 2002; Salend & Sylvestre, 2005). Teachers can post and review daily schedules and routines and alert students in advance of possible changes in procedures (Salend & Sylvestre). Another effective management strategy is the scheduling of activities. Scheduling a quiet activity between recess and independent seatwork can reduce problem behavior and increase positive behavior for students with EBD. Educators should avoid scheduling consecutive activities that require children to be seated and pay attention. It is best to alternate activities between those that require the learner to sit quietly and pay attention with those that involve movement and hands-on activity (Conroy & Davis, 2000). Teacher Directives To increase the likelihood of a student complying with a directive (noncompliance with direction is cited as the most frequently demonstrated oppositional behavior), the teacher should make a precision request. This can be done by making a predictable request, incorporating the consequence in the request—positive for compliance and negative for noncompliance—and providing wait time for the student to comply. Teachers should deliver high-probability directives (ones that the students would most likely comply with) before delivering low-probability directives (Landrum et al., 2003). Student Self-Management Strategies Students with EBD commonly demonstrate great difficulty using self-management strategies in school settings. With training and support, students can learn to independently use self-management strategies (Atkinson et al., 2002; Landrum et al., 2003; Lane et al., 2006; Mason, Harris, & Graham, 2002; Mooney, Ryan, Uhing, Reid, & Epstein, 2005; Patton, Jolivette, & Ramsey, 2006; Weaster, 2004). The positive results of teaching students to use proactive self-management strategies are reported for students with and without disabilities. Therefore, the investment in instructional time devoted to teaching students to use self-management strategies benefits all students, not just those with EBD. The most common self-management strategies include the following: self-monitoring, self-evaluation, self-instructions, goal setting, and strategy instruction (Mooney et al.) and self-reinforcement (Lane et al.; Patton et al.). The success of these interventions is not based on any particular combination or order of usage. Also, although each of the strategies is associated with an increase in desired student behavior and achievement, selfmonitoring is reported as the most widely implemented selfmanagement strategy for students with EBD. Vol. 53, No. 4 Self-Monitoring In self-monitoring, students can learn procedures for observing, evaluating, and recording their own behavior during specific times (Landrum et al., 2003). Self-evaluation is embedded in the process of self-monitoring. Together, the student and the teacher can select and define the behavior to be changed. They then determine the criteria for mastery. Appropriate and inappropriate behaviors should be discussed (e.g., what does the appropriate behavior look like during the transition to recess? What does the inappropriate behavior look like?). The teacher introduces the self-management system (e.g., a self-monitoring form). Guided practice is provided in both the desired behavior and how to complete the self-monitoring form. During a difficult transition, (e.g., transitioning to recess) the student can complete the self-monitoring form, checking off the steps successfully completed. During the initial training phase, the teacher observes the student during the transition and also completes a selfmonitoring form. After the transition, the student and teacher can compare forms. The teacher can praise the student for exhibiting positive behaviors. Initially, this system requires greater teacher input because the student and teacher must complete and compare self-monitoring forms. However, over time, students should become adept at independently managing their behavior using self-monitoring, self-evaluation, and self-reinforcement (Patton et al., 2006; see Appendix A). Self-Instructions Student use of self-instructions is also widely cited (Lane et al., 2006; Mooney et al., 2005; Selend & Sylvestre, 2005). Self-instructions take the form of orally coaching oneself through the steps in a given activity or assignment. Teaching students to use self-instructions requires the teacher to explicitly model self-statements to direct behavior within a specific activity. This modeling of self-instructions can be easily incorporated throughout the day in all content areas. Students with EBD benefit from writing a list of specific self-instructions. Students can then independently refer to the list throughout various activities. Strategy instruction is the process of teaching students to identify key steps to follow in solving a problem or achieving an outcome. Once these steps are determined, students can set goals for completing or mastering the individual steps. In this way, students can monitor, evaluate, and reward their own behavior independently. Putting it all Together: Self Regulated Strategy Development Self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) is an integrated instructional approach combining academic strategies with self-management procedures (Mason et al., 2002). Summer 2009 Academic and self-management strategies can be taught through explicit direct instruction incorporating six recursive instructional steps: (a) develop background knowledge, (b) discuss it, (c) model it, (d) memorize it, (e) support it, and (f) and independent performance (Lane at al., 2006; Mason et al.). These steps are closely aligned with the steps for direct instruction. The following example illustrates SRSD instruction for story writing in the primary grades. Teachers share the POW (pick an idea; organize my notes; write, write, write) general writing strategy with students, explaining that writing with POW results in more powerful writing. During the organizing step, students learn and apply the WWW, What = 2, How = 2 strategy (see Appendix B). Following the SRSD model, the teacher develops background knowledge, ensuring that students are familiar with all seven parts of a story using the WWW, What = 2, How = 2 mnemonic. Teachers can guide students as they match parts of a story read aloud to the graphic organizer. Next, students and teacher discuss how the POW plus WWW, What = 2, How = 2 strategy can make stories more fun to write and more interesting to the reader. The teacher models how to use the strategy to write a story. A critical part of this modeling stage is the teachers’ use of self-instructions. Students are prompted to discuss the self-instructions the teacher used and to develop their own list of self-instructions to be used during independent writing. Students practice memorizing the POW and WWW, What = 2, How = 2 mnemonics and their meanings. During the guided practice, students can write a collaborative story with the teacher. The teacher provides as much support and scaffolding needed to ensure students’ success. During this step, students are encouraged to use their list of self-instructions as needed. Students are given a WWW, What = 2, How = 2 story organizer. Students can refer to the organizer as they write. This self-management process encourages students to self-monitor the completeness of their stories. As sections of the organizer are completed, students are encouraged to recognize their own efforts through self-reinforcing statements. Last, once students have demonstrated that they are able to perform the skill with the 80% accuracy rate recommended by the CEC (1987), they can move on to independently writing stories incorporating all seven story parts. Students may refer to their self-instruction list as needed as well as self-monitor their progress with their organizer. Teachers can provide ongoing specific praise regarding students’ positive behavior. Summary At present, only one third of students with EBD receive 60% or more of their education outside the general education classroom. As a result, general education teachers are finding themselves working with students whose specialized needs surpass the teacher’s repertoire Niesyn 231 of effective strategies. This problem is exacerbated in the K–3 classroom where the number of students with EBD is frequently underreported. Only 17% of children with EBD are identified by 9 years of age (Conroy & Davis, 2000). As a result, K–3 teachers need support developing proactive classroom practices that focus on antecedent-based interventions to reduce the inappropriate behavior of students with EBD. The strategies and interventions suggested in this article were selected on the basis of being empirically demonstrated to be effective in increasing positive behavior and achievement for regular education students and students with EBD. The strategies included are also considered feasible to implement in the context of a general education K–3 classroom (see Appendix C). Most studies of instructional strategies used with students with EBD are not conducted in the general education classroom and therefore generalization to this setting must be done with caution. However, given the success of the strategies included in this article and the high demand for effective instructional strategies, it seems logical to suggest that teachers implement these proactive, antecedent-based interventions when working with young students with EBD in the K–3 general education classroom (see Appendix D). AUTHOR NOTE Mary E. Niesyn is an elementary school teacher and adjunct faculty member at the University of San Francisco. Her current research interests include evidence-based instructional interventions, teacher education and training, and professional development. REFERENCES Atkinson, T., Wilhite, K., Frey, L., & Williams, S. (2002). Reading instruction for the struggling reader: Implications for teachers of students with disabilities or emotional/behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 46, 158–162. Barton-Arwood, S., Wehby, J., & Falk, K. (2005). Reading instruction for elementary-age students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Academic and behavioral outcomes. Exceptional Children, 72, 7–27. Boardman, A., Arguelles, M., & Vaughn, S. (2005). Special education teachers’ views of research-based practices. Journal of Special Education, 39, 168–180. Conroy, M., & Davis, C. (2000). Early elementary-aged children with challenging behaviors: Legal and educational issues related to IDEA assessment. Preventing School Failure, 44, 163–168. Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (1987). Academy for effective instruction: Working with mildly handicapped students. Reston, VA: Author. Gunter, P., Countinho, M., & Cade, T. (2002). Classroom factors linked with academic gains among students with emotional and behavioral problems. Preventing School Failure, 46, 126–132. Gunter, P., Kenton-Denny, R., & Venn, M. (2000). Modification of instructional materials and procedures for curricular success of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 44, 116–121. 232 Preventing School Failure Vol. 53, No. 4 Gunter, P., & Reed, T. (1997). Academic instruction of children with emotional and behavioral disorders using scripted lessons. Preventing School Failure, 42, 33–37. Helfin, L., & Bullock, L. (1999). Inclusion of students with emotional/behavioral disorders: A survey of teachers in general and special education. Preventing School Failure, 43, 103–111. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 2003. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational StatisticsInstitute of Educational Sciences. Kauffman, J. M., Lloyd, J., Baker, J., & Reidel, T. M. (1995). Inclusion of all students with emotional or behavioral disorders? Let’s think again. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 542–546. Landrum, T., Tankersley, M., & Kauffman, J. (2003). What is special about special education for students with emotional or behavioral disorders? Journal of Special Education, 37, 148–156. Lane, K., Graham, S. Harris, K., & Weisenbach, J. (2006). Teaching writing strategies to young students struggling with writing and at risk for behavioral disorders: Self-regulated strategy development. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(1), 60–64. Levy, S., & Chard, D. (2001). Research on reading instruction for students with emotional and behavioural disorders. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48, 429–444. Lopes, J., Monteiro, I., & Sil. V. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions about teaching problem students in regular classrooms. Education and the Treatment of Children, 27, 394–419. Mason, L., Harris, K., & Graham, S. (2002). Every child has a story to tell: Self-regulated strategy development for story writing. Education and the Treatment of Children, 25, 496–506. Mooney, P., Ryan, J., Uhing, B., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. (2005). A review of self-management interventions targeting academic outcomes for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 203–221. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2001). Patton, B., Jolivette, K., & Ramsey, M. (2006). Students with emotional and behavioral disorders can manage their own behavior. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(2), 14–21. Rosenberg, M., Sindelar, P., & Hardman, M. (2004). Preparing highly qualified teachers for students with emotional or behavioral disorders: The impact of NCLB and IDEA. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 266–278. Salend, S., & Sylvestre, S. (2005). Understanding and addressing oppositional and defiant classroom behaviors. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(6), 32–39. Sutherland, K. (2000). Promoting positive interactions between teachers and students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 44, 110–115. Sutherland, K., & Wehby, J. (2001). The effect of self-evaluation on teaching behavior in classrooms for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education, 35, 161–171. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Weaster, K. (2004). Reading and behavioral disorders: Searching for meaning under the streetlight. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(1), 59–62. APPENDIX A Self-Monitoring Form Name: ______________________ Date: ____________ Classroom to recess Did I remember to . . . walk? Yes remain in line? Yes keep my hands to myself? Yes use a quiet voice? Yes No No No No APPENDIX B Story Organizer Story part Who When Where What How Question Who is the main character? When does the story take place? Where does the story take place? What does the main character do or want to do; what do other characters do? What happens when the main character tries to do it; what happens with other characters? How does the story end? How does the main character feel; how do other characters feel? Check off if included —— —— —— —— —— —— —— Summer 2009 Niesyn APPENDIX C Evidenced-Based Instructional Practices for K–3 Teachers Working With Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in the General Education Classroom Instructional practices 1. Give frequent, immediate, and specific praise. 2. Present materials individually, shorten assignments, and reveal few problems at a time. 3. Interact with student during independent seatwork. 4. Implement peer-tutoring opportunities. 5. Frontload questions with required information to increase correct responses. 6. Delay independent seatwork until student can perform task with 90% accuracy. 7. Embed student interests into curricular activities. 8. Allow student to choose from a few academic activities during independent seatwork. 9. Teach new concepts using explicit direct instruction method. APPENDIX D Evidenced-Based Behavior-Management Strategies for K–3 Teachers Working With Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in the General Education Classroom Behavior-management strategies 1. Establish positively stated rules regarding observable behavior. 2. Post, teach, and review rules periodically. 3. Post and review daily schedules, routines, and transitions. 4. Alert students to any changes in routine. 5. Model and provide explicit practice for classroom procedures. 6. Schedule a quiet activity between recess and independent seatwork. 7. Alternate between passive and active activities. 8. Deliver high-probability directives (ones that students will most likely comply with) before delivering low-probability directives. 233 ��������� � � ��������������������������������������������� � ����������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������� ����������������� ����������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������� ������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������� �������������������� ����������������������������� ���������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ��������������� ���� ��������������� ���� � ���������� ���������������������������������������� ��������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� ������������������ ��������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������� ���������������� ��������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� ��������������������������������� ��������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� ����������������������������������� ��������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������� ��������������������������������� ��������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� ��������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������� ������������������������������������� ��������� �������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� ������������������������� ��������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� ��������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� ��������������������������� ����������������������������� ����������� ������������������ ��������� ����������������������� ���������������������������� ��������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� ������������������ ��������� �������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� ���������� ���������������� ������� ��������������� � ������� ��������������� ����� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� what Affects Academic Functioning in Secondary Special Education Students with Serious Emotional and/ or Behavioral Problems? Richard E. Mattison and Joseph C. Blader Stony Brook University ABSTRACT: Concern is growing over the limited academic progress in special education students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders (EBD). We know little about how academic and behavioral factors interact in these students to affect their academic functioning. Therefore, potential associations were investigated over the course of one school year for 196 secondary students with EBD in a self-contained public school (SCS). Demographics, IQ and achievement testing, teacher checklist ratings for emotional/ behavioral problems, and standard measures of school function were gathered. First, academic achievement was studied, and regression analyses showed that both reading and math achievement were significantly increased by higher verbal IQ and lower ADHD-inattentive symptoms (ADHD-I), and math also by higher performance IQ and younger age. Next, general academic performance was examined, and regression analysis demonstrated that major-subject GPA was significantly increased by lower ADHD-I teacher ratings, higher math achievement, and younger age. In comparison, out-of-school suspensions were significantly increased by higher conduct disorder and lower social phobia ratings. Thus, in these students with EBD in an SCS, academic functioning was primarily affected by academic parameters, and by ADHD-I but not by other emotionalAjehavioral problems. These results can further inform the planning of academic interventions for many students with EBD. • Findings for significant improvement in academic functioning for special education students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders (EBD) are generally lacking and of growing concern (Siperstein, Wiley, & Forness, 2011). Recent work has begun to demonstrate high rates of cognitive (language and executive function) and achievement deficits in students with EBD (Nelson, Benner, Neill, & Stage, 2006) that can limit academic growth. Therefore, leaders in the education of students with EBD have begun to question whether too much emphasis has been placed on behavioral interventions and not enough on academic interventions to improve academic progress in these students (Wehby, Lane, & Falk, 2003). One research step that could begin to answer what this balance should be between academic and behavioral interventions is the investigation of the interaction between cognitive/achievement deficits and emotional/ behavioral problems in such students. That is, when examined at the same time, what most affects academic functioning in students with EBD: primarily cognitive/achievement deficits, primarily emotional/behavioral problems, or a combination? Such knowledge could improve the planning of intervention strategies for academic dysfunction in students with EBD. Behavioral Disorders, 38 (4), 201-211 Some applicable interaction research has been accomplished in general education students through longitudinal investigations of the relations of externalizing behaviors/problems (as represented by A D H D behaviors and conduct disorder problems) and IQ on later academic problems and achievement. This work is especially pertinent because of the high occurrence of A D H D in students with EBD (Mattison, 2004a; Schnoes, Reid, Wagner, & Marder, 2006). Voipe and his colleagues reviewed this past interaction work (Voipe et al., 2006), which they summarized as showing that A D H D behaviors and IQ are significantly correlated with eventual scholastic achievement, but conduct disorder problems are not, once their original correlations with A D H D and IQ are taken into account. Furthermore, initial conduct problems, but not A D H D behaviors, are significantly correlated with later delinquency. In addition, A D H D behaviors appear to have both a direct cognitive effect as well as an indirect behavioral effect on scholastic achievement. Such interrelationship research in students with EBD is uncommon, consisting of two studies that focused on the interaction of language skills and externalizing behavior on August 2013 /201 academic achievement. In a random sample of 126 students classified with emotional disturbance, investigators used structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the relationships of language skills, academic fluency, and externalizing behavior on the academic skills that underlie achievement (Nelson et al., 2006). They found that language skills significantly affected academic skills, likely mediated through academic fluency, which itself also significantly affected academic skills. However, externalizing measures did not significantly affect language skills, academic fluency, or academic skills. Goran and Gage (2011) found similar results using an extant database for 142 students, classified as either emotional disturbance or learning disability, who had received language testing. Structural equation modeling showed that language skills significantly affected academic skills and cognitive ability but not suspensions. Thus, both studies found that academic functioning in students with EBD was significantly affected by basic academic parameters but not by externalizing behavior. Both studies concluded by emphasizing the increased need for the identification and remediation of language deficits in students with EBD as part of their academic intervention planning. No other similar interaction studies have yet been conducted with students with EBD. Furthermore, the two cited language-focused studies have limitations that can be improved upon. Neither used demographic factors, performance IQ, or emotional/internalizing problems in their SEM. The Nelson et al. (2006) study also did not assess school functioning, and the Goran and Gage (2011) study did not use standardized measures of achievement or teacher ratings. Therefore, this study was undertaken in a sample of secondary students with EBD in a self-contained school (SCS), the most Intensive form of least-restrictive environment (LRE) in a public school setting. The purpose was to understand the relationships of demographics, IQ, and both emotional/internalizing as well as behavioral/externalizing problems (as rated by teachers) on two components of academic functioning: achievement and grade-point average (or general academic performance). By expanding the predictor and outcome variables and by using students with EBD in another LRE setting, we hoped to replicate and further develop the interaction findings from the earlier studies of students with EBD (Goran & Gage, 2011; Nelson et al., 2006). We hypothesized 202/August 2013 that achievement would most be associated with cognitive skills (such as IQ) after controlling for emotional/behavioral problems and demographics. We expected that GPA would be influenced by a wider range of factors because it is a more complex measure of academic function that includes both academic skills and enablers. We anticipated that results could inform academic intervention planning for many students with EBD. Method Participants A cohort of 196 secondary pupils completed a school year in an SCS for special education students with emotional and/or behavioral problems (i.e., the most intensive type of LRE offered in a public school setting for students with EBD). This SCS site in the New York City region contained both middle school (grades 6-8; n = 61) and high school (grades 9-12; n = 135) programs. The mean age of the total group of participants was 15.2 ± 2.0 years. The majority were male and Caucasian, and fewer than half received free/reduced lunch (see Table 7). Except for age, the only significant demographic difference between the two age groups was for gender, with the high school group having significantly more females: 34.8% vs. 9.8% (x^ = 13.29, p = .0003). An additional 37 students began but did not finish the school year, and therefore were excluded from the study. They showed no significant demographic differences from the study cohort. Setting Special education students with EBD were referred to this SCS because their emotional and/or behavioral problems had not responded to special education services in their general education schools. A past study of a cohort of middle school students in this program showed the most common emotional/behavioral problems at referral were increasing oppositionality and/or hyperactivity, few friends or poor social skills, bullying and fights, and/or worsening anxiety or depression (Mattison & Schneider, 2009). Although the students were referred because of the severity of these emotional/ behavioral problems in school, their range of special education categories, as determined by Behavioral Disorders, 38 (4), 201-211 TABLE 1 Total Group Characteristics (Means and %) of the Participants ( N = 196) Demographics (n = 196) Age 15.2 ± 2.0 years Males 73% Ethnicity Free/reduced lunch 66.8% Caucasian, 26.0% African American, 7.2% other 44.9% IQ Verbal (n = 195) 98.0 ± 13.2 Performance (n = 195) 97.3 ± 14.5 Full scale (n = 196) 96.2 ± 13.1 Woodcock-Johnson III Achievement (standard scores; n = 194): Broad reading 92.4 ± 13.1 Broad math 86.1 ± 14.3 CASI-PM-T Symptom Categories (Tscores; n = 173) Global depression 65.4 ± 15.6 Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) 65.2 ± 16.2 ADHD-hyperactive-impulsive (ADHD-HI) 63.3 ± 16.5 ADHD-inattentive (ADHD-I) 59.4 ± 9.9 Social phobia 58.0 ± 15.6 Conduct disorder (CD) 54.9 ±11.9 School functioning Grade point average (n = 193) Suspensions (n = 196) their school districts, varied at their enrollment into the program: 45.9% emotional disturbance, 31.6% other health impaired, 9.7% multiple disabilities, 7.7% learning disability, 4.6% autism, and 0.5% nondisabled. The ses in this study was a public school program operated by a special education agency. It contained both middle school and high school programs, which operated on different floors in the same public school building but functioned independently of each other with different teachers, administrators, and mental health personnel. The students in both programs rarely had contact with each other. Structurally, the middle and high school programs were quite similar. That is, academically, all students were prepared for state testing. They were taught in classes of eight students, with a special education teacher and special education aide, in which individual and small group teaching predominated. Other special education services were available. Behavioral Disorders, 38 (4), 201-211 75.8 ± 9.1 0.7 ± 1.2 such as language intervention. The primary academic differences were the existence of a reading program in the middle school program and access to vocational training for high school students. Additionally, high school students were taught by several teachers according to content area; while middle school students were typically instructed by two teachers per grade level. Behaviorally, students in both programs were on the same level system as part of the school's positive reinforcement approach. Accomplishing daily points toward their individual behavior plans helped students advance to higher levels and thereby achieve more school privileges. Therapeutically, as part of the in-school mental health services, each student had a counselor who focused on problem-solving and self-management in school. Access was also available to consulting child psychiatrists, substance abuse counselors, and a day program; all of these were part of the school August 2 0 1 3 / 2 0 3 Ü program's therapeutic staff. (For further description of this ses program, please see Mattison & Schneider, 2009.) Measures and Procedure IQ and Achievement Testing Verbal, performance, and full scale IQ testing had been conducted within the prior three years by either school districts or the ses. The most commonly used IQ tests were the WISC-4 (Wechsler, 2003; 32.1%) and the WASI (Wechsler, 1999; 66.3%). At the end of the first marking period, the ses teachers routinely administered the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJIIl; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) to their students, from which the standard scores of Broad Reading and Broad Math were used. The teachers were trained to conduct this achievement testing to better define those areas of deficit in which they will need to assist their students, and to follow students' annual achievement progress. Emotional and Behavioral Problems Teachers routinely completed the Child and Adolescent Symptom Inventory Progress Monitor (CASI-PM-T; Sprafkin, Lavigne, Cromley, Mattison, & Gadow, 2010) at the end of the first marking period to rate emotional and behavioral problems in their students. This DSM-IV-based measure is an abbreviated version of the child and adolescent symptom inventories developed by Gadow and Sprafkin (2002) and contains 29 items and one impairment item, all rated 0 (never), 1 (sometimes), 2 (often), or 3 (very often). Symptom categories for the CASI-PM-T have been statistically derived from the longer teacher inventory, which is based on operational criteria for major child and adolescent disorders of DSM-IV (Gadow & Sprafkin, 2002). Importantly, these categories are dimensional ratings, are not meant to be clinically diagnostic of the disorders, and can track change in school. Such quantitative ratings of classroom emotions and behaviors by teachers are especially conducive to the regression analyses used in this study. The six symptom categories that were used are: ADHD inattentive type (ADHD-I), ADHD hyperactive-impulsive type (ADHD-HI), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), social phobia, and global depression—thus, a combination of 204/August 2013 both emotional/internalizing and behavioral/ externalizing problems. Early results of psychometric properties for the reliability and validity of the CASI-PM-T are promising and appear consistent with the longer version (Sprafkin et al., 2010). Twoweek test-retest reliability ranged from .72 to .90 for the symptom categories, and interrater reliabilities from .44 to .74 for teacher-aide pairs (Sprafkin et al., 2010). High degrees of convergence (.72 to .86) have been found between respective scales of the CASI-PM-T and the well-established Teacher Report Form (Achenbach & Rescoria, 2001; Sprafkin et al., 2010). Also, of potential importance for measuring change in classroom problems over time, the CASI-PM-T has shown early ability in tracking response to stimulant treatment in children with ADHD (Sprafkin et al., 2010). School Functioning The most common school measure of general academic performance is grade point average (GPA). Grade point average can be considered as a multidetermined composite (Blackorby, Chorost, Garza, & Guzman, 2003) and has become the subject of renewed research interest (e.g., recent findings have shown that longitudinal GPA is a strong predictor of dropping out [Bowers, 2010]). Also, Mattison (2004b) found that GPA appears to be a good measure of school academic function in students with EBD. Their GPAs were consistent over one school year, independent of disciplinary measures, and not affected by interteacher grading styles. Therefore, the final grade point average for major subjects (GPA) was collected for the students. Grade point average used a 100point scale with failure
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Similar Content

Related Tags