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