Research-Based Academic Interventions

Matthew K. Burns, Ph.D.University of Minnesota

Research-Based Academic Interventions

Futures Task Force on Academic Outcomes

22008

Module Overview

Academic Deficits Criteria for Interventions Additional Resources Summary Review Questions


32008

National Assessment of Educational Progress:29% of 4th and 8th graders achieved grade-level

proficiency in reading (National Center for Educational Statistics 2005).

Less than 33% of 4th grade students scored within a proficient range in math (Manzo & Galley, 2003).

Between 24% and 31% of students in grades 4, 8, and 12 performed at or above the proficient level for writing (NCES, 2002).


42008

Addressing Deficits

Early academic deficits continue without remediation (Baker, Gersten, & Graham, 2004; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Karns, 2001; Stanovich, 1986

Instruction is the only way to “close the gap”


52008

Meta-analysis by Kavale & Forness (1999) Average Intervention Effect Size

Perceptual training .08 Modality instruction .15

If visual, teach them visually, etc. Psycholinguistic training .39 Direct instruction .84 Explicit reading comprehension strategies 1.13 Mnemonic strategies 1.62

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

1988).


62008

Many interventions for academic deficits do not have an adequate research base.

Interventions with a solid research base are often not commonly used in practice.

School psychologists need to be adequate consumers and synthesizers of applied research (Keith, 2002).

There is an extensive literature on effective instructional practices for students with academic deficits (Gersten, Schiller, & Vaughn, 2000; Kavale & Forness, 1999; 2000; Swanson, 2000; Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2000


72008

Empirical research and professional wisdom (Whitehurst, 2002).

Developed from sound theory, demonstrated effectiveness, and consistent implementation (Ellis, 2005).

Task Force on Evidence-Based Practices in School PsychologyDivision 16, SSSP, & NASPPublished a procedural and coding manual

http://www.sp-ebi.org/documents/_workingfiles/EBImanual1.pdf


82008

Intervention Research - Consider

Clearly stated random design How well the program is described Statistical analysis

Appropriate unit of analysis - school, class, or student

Family wise error controlled with MANOVA or corrected alpha levels

Appropriate analysis


92008

More Considerations

Uses measures that results in reliable data and valid decisions

Uses an active comparison group with sufficient counterbalancing


102008

Single-Case Designs Perhaps most appropriate for intervention

research Includes baseline data

Should have at least 3 points but more are preferred

Should be stable and represent a problem Intervention data

Level should not overlap baseline Trend differences from baselineSlope should be greater than baseline


112008

Review of research syntheses found five common components of a research-based academic intervention:

Correctly targeted Explicit instruction Appropriate challenge Opportunities to respond Immediate feedback

With contingent reinforcersBurns, VanDerHeyden, & Boice (in press).


122008

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


132008

AcquisitionAcquisition ProficiencyProficiency MaintenanceMaintenance GeneralizationGeneralization AdaptionAdaption

Learning is Learning is slow and slow and inaccurateinaccurate

Use Use modeling and modeling and immediate immediate feedbackfeedback

Academic skill Academic skill is accurate, but is accurate, but slowslow

Use delayed Use delayed reinforcement reinforcement with novel with novel practice practice opportunitiesopportunities

e.g., timings e.g., timings such as math such as math facts and oral facts and oral reading fluency reading fluency

Retention of Retention of the skill over a the skill over a period of timeperiod of time

Use delayed Use delayed independent independent practice practice

Can use the Can use the new skill and new skill and information with information with different different settings and settings and stimulistimuli

Use high Use high content overlap content overlap reading tasks or reading tasks or instructional instructional games with games with different stimulidifferent stimuli

Can use the Can use the new skill and new skill and information to information to solve solve problemsproblems

Use Use information to information to solve solve contextual contextual problemsproblems


142008

Phonemic Awareness

Phonics

Fluency

Vocabulary

ComprehensionBerninger et al., 2006


152008

Assess Fluency Fluent?

Focus on Comprehension

Assess Phonetic Skills Adequate?

Assess Phonemic Awareness Adequate?

Fluency Intervention

Accuracy or Proficiency

Phonemic Awareness Intervention

Phonics Intervention

Accuracy or Proficiency

START HERE

YES

NO

YES

YES

NO

NO


162008

Explicit Instruction Break down the skills into manageable and

deliberately sequenced steps Provide overt instruction in the skills and opportunities

to practice (Roshenshine & Stevens, 1986). Step by step manner Clear and detailed explanations Mastery of each step is assured before moving on to the next

“I do” (presentation of materials), “we do” (guided practice), and “you do” (independent practice).

Uses a high number of teacher questions and student responses with frequent checks for understanding.


172008

If instruction is too easy, students won’t learn

If instruction is too hard, students will give up

Instruction needs to be at the right level of challenge

Students Need an Appropriate Level of Challenge


182008

Baseline Frustration Instructional Independent

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

Behavior of Children Identified as LD During Reading Instruction

Task Completion

Time On Task

Task Comprehension (Gickling & Armstrong, 1978)

Per

cent

age

of I

nter

vals


192008

Match between skill and task demand – called the instructional level

Measured with Curriculum-based Assessment for Instructional Design (Gickling & Havertape,1981)

Improves student learning (Burns, 2002; Burns, 2007a; Daly, Witt, Martens, & Dool, 1997; Shapiro, 1992).

Match between student skill and instructional material is an important functional variable for student learning within RTI (Gresham, 2001).


202008

Instructional Level-Reading

Importance of matchMeasured with percent accuracy93% - 97% known material (Gickling &

Thompson, 1985)


212008

Instructional Level-Drill Tasks

Drill tasks include spelling, math facts, sight words70% to 85% known (Gickling & Thompson,

1985)Could be 90% known for some tasks

(Burns, 2004)


222008

Instructional Level: Math

What to measureBest measured with fluency rather than

accuracy2nd and 3rd grade – 14 to 31 digits

correct/minute4th and 5th grade – 24 to 49 digits

correct/minute

(Burns, VanDerHeyden, & Jiban, 2006)


232008

High Opportunities to Respond

Research has consistently found that providing more student opportunities to respond (OTR; Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1984) by increasing the number of presentations while rehearsing new items led to improved retention of the newly learned items (Burns, 2004).


242008

Opportunities to Respond (OTR) Comparisons of various instructional approaches (e.g.,

computer-assisted instruction and flashcard methods) found that the increased OTR was the causal mechanism (Burns,2007b; MacQuarrie, Tucker, Burns, & Hartman, 2002; Szadokierski & Burns, in press; Wilson, Majsterek, & Simmons, 1996),.

Examples of effective approaches: Paired peer practice (DuPaul, Ervin, Hook, & McGoey, 1998;

Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997). Interspersing new item to be rehearsed within previously

learned ones at a ratio including at least 50% known (Burns, 2004).


252008

Feedback Feedback is the information regarding

the accuracy and correctness of a student response.Should match the stage of learning. The earlier the student is in skill

development (i.e., acquisition phase), the more immediate and explicit the feedback should be.


262008

Overcorrection Overcorrection (Singh, 1987) may be an

effective feedback strategy.Corrective feedback is provided.Student is then asked to provide the correct

response three times in quick succession. Has been used successfully in reading

instruction (VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Naquin, 2003; Bonfiglio, Daly, Martens, Lan-Hsiang, & Corsaut, 2004).


272008

Sources for Academic Interventions Journals

School Psychology ReviewJournal of Evidence Based Practices in

SchoolsEducation and Treatment of ChildrenIntervention in School and Clinic


282008

Sources for Academic Interventions

Websiteswww.interventioncentral.comwww.fcrr.orghttp://kc.vanderbil.edu/palswww.whatworksed.gov


292008

Summary National data have shown that many U.S.

students have deficits in basic academic skills

Specific features of instruction have an effect on learning outcomes

Interventions should be selected on the basis of effective methods and students’ instructional level


302008

Review Questions

The following slides include review questions about the information contained in this module

Click to advance to the next slide After reading the slide and questions, click

again to see the correct answer


312008

A) Which of the following is important for well-designed

research?

1. Federal funding

2. Random assignment of subjects

3. Hypothesis

4. None of the above


322008

A) Answer: #2

Random assignment of subjects


332008

B) What of the following are important features of effective

instruction?1. Teacher preference, cost, assessment

2. Feedback, grading policy, presentation

3. Benchmarking, progress monitoring, exploring solutions, defining, identification

4. Explicit instruction, opportunities to respond, immediate feedback


342008

B) Answer: #4

Explicit instruction, opportunities to respond, immediate feedback


352008

C) What are the 5 stages of learning?

1. Acquisition, Practice, Adaptation, Generalization, Maintenance

2. Practice, Practice, Practice, Practice, Practice

3. Acquisition, Proficiency, Maintenance, Generalization, Adaptation



362008

C) Answer: # 3

Acquisition, Proficiency, Maintenance, Generalization, Adaptation


372008

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

needs?

1. Comprehension

2. Fluency

3. Vocabulary

4. Phonemic Awareness


382008

D) Answer: #4

Fluency


392008

E) What type of teaching do students need:

1. Frustration level

2. Instructional level

3. Independent level



402008

E) Answer: #2

Instructional Level


412008

References Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Graham, S. (2003). Teaching

expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: Research-based applications and

examples. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 109-123. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Vermeulen, K., & Fulton, C.

M. (2006). Paths to reading comprehension in at-risk second-grade readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 334-351.

Bonfiglio, C. M., Daly, E. J., III, Martens, B. K., Lan-Hsiang, R. L., & Corsaut, S. (2004). An experimental analysis of reading interventions: Generalization across instructional strategies, time, and passages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 111-114.

Burns, M. K. (2002). Comprehensive system of assessment to intervention using curriculum-based assessments. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 8-13.


422008

Burns, M. K. (2004). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167-175.

Burns, M. K. (2007a). Reading at the instructional level with children identified as learning disabled: Potential implications for response–to-intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 297-313.

Burns, M. K. (2007b). Comparison of drill ratio and opportunities to respond when rehearsing sight words with a child with mental retardation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 250-263.

Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Boice, C. H. (in press). Best practices in delivery intensive academic interventions. . In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology (5th ed.). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.


432008

Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Jiban, C. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401-418.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.

Daly, E. J., III, Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Dool, E. J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26, 554-574.

DuPaul, G. J., Ervin, R. A., Hook, C. L., & McGoey, K. E. (1998). Peer tutoring for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Effects on classroom behavior and academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 579-592.


442008

Ellis, A. K. (2005). Research on educational innovations (4th ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Karns, K. (2001). Enhancing kindergartners’ mathematical development: Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. Elementary School Journal, 101, 495–510.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206.

Kavale, K. A. & Forness, S. R. (1999). Effectiveness of special education. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.) The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 984-1024). New York: John Wiley.


452008

Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). Policy decisions in special education: The role of meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Synthesis of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 281-326). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gersten, R., Schiller, E. P. & Vaughn, S. (Eds.) Contemporary special education research:Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gickling, E. E., & Armstrong, D. L. (1978). Levels of instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disability, 11, 559-566.

Gickling, E. E. & Havertape, S. (1981). Curriculum-based assessment (CBA). Minneapolis, MN: School Psychology Inservice Training Network.


462008

Gickling, E., & Thompson, V. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205-218.

Gresham, F. (2001, August). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future, Washington D.C.

Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional technology: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–40). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Keith, T. Z. (2002). Best practices in applied research. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-IV (pp. 91-102). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.


472008

MacQuarrie-Klender, L. L., Tucker, J. A., Burns, M. K., & Hartman, B. (2002). Comparison of retention rates using traditional, Drill Sandwich, and Incremental Rehearsal flashcard methods. School Psychology Review, 31, 584-595.

Manzo, K. K., & Galley, M. (2003). Math climbs, reading flat on ’03 NAEP. Education Week, 23(12), 1-18.

National Center for Educational Statistics, (2005). NAEP 2004 trends in academic progress:

Three decades of student performance in reading and mathematics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Science.

National Center for Educational Statistics, (2002). The condition of education 2002 (NCES 20020025). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.


482008

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on training (3rd ed., pp.376-391). New York, NY: Macmillam.

Shapiro, E. S. (1992). Use of Gickling's model of curriculum-based assessment to improve reading in elementary age students. School Psychology Review, 21, 168-176.

Singh, N. N. (1987). Overcorrection of oral reading errors. Behavior Modification, 11, 165-181.

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


492008

Swanson, H. L. (2000). What instruction works for students with learning disabilities?

Summarizing the results from a meta-analysis of intervention studies. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.) Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 1-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Swanson, H. L, Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: Guilford.

Szadokierski, I., & Burns, M. K. (in press). Comparison of drill ratios and opportunities to respond within drill rehearsal of sight words. Journal of School Psychology.


502008

VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C. & Naquin, G. (2003). Development and validation of a process for screening referrals to special education. School Psychology Review, 32, 204-227.

Whitehurst, G. J. (2002, October). Evidence-based education. Presentation at the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Achievement and School Accountability Conferences. Available online at http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/whatworks/eb/edlite-index.html.

Wilson, R., Majsterek, D., & Simmons, D. (1996). The effects of computer-assisted versus teacher-directed instruction on the multiplication performance of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 382-390.

Research-Based Academic Interventions

Documents

academic interventionsmatthew

baselinefutures task

gapfutures task force

academic deficits gersten

academic outcomesmetaanalysis

empirical research

adequate research base

solid research base