improving story writing skills of students with internalizing and externalizing behaviors with poor...
Post on 25-Dec-2015
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Improving Story Writing Skills of Students with Internalizing and
Externalizing Behaviors with Poor Writing Skills:
Preliminary Findings of Project WRITE
Kathleen Lynne Lane, Karen Harris, and Steve Graham
Vanderbilt University
Funded by IES, Project WRITE, The Effects of Strategy and Self-Regulation Instruction on Students’ Writing Performance and Behavior: A Preventative Approach
Students with EBD
The prevalence estimates of students with EBD vary between 2-20% of the school population, with most realistic estimates of 3-6% (Kauffman, 2005)
Behavioral, social, and academic deficits typical of this population become less amenable to intervention efforts over time, particularly after age 8 (Bullis & Walker, 1994; Kazdin, 1987)
Some treatment outcome studies conducted with students at-risk for EBD revealed that increased early literacy skills were associated with decreases in disruptive behavior in the classroom (Lane et al., 2001; Lane et al., 2003)
Academic Characteristics
Moderate to severe, broad academic deficits (Greenbaum et al., 1996; Mattison et al., 1998).
At best, the academic deficits characteristic of this population remain stable over time (Mattison et al., 2002); at worst, they deteriorate (Nelson et al., 2004).
“… students with EBD probably experience less school success than any other subgroup of students with or without disabilities.” (Landrum et al., 2003, p. 148).
Academic Interventions to Date
Promising outcomes, yet limited by Inadequate attention given to middle and high school
students Heavy emphasis on basic skills Absence of core components: treatment integrity; social
validity; and generalization and maintenance Incomplete intervention descriptions Few replications
(Lane, 2004)
Interventions to Date
Only a few studies have been conducted to explore how to best improve the writing skills of young students with EBD (Glomb & West, 1990; Mason & Shriner, in press; Rumsey & Ballard, 1985)
Like reading, writing is critical to school success as it provides students with a vehicle for gathering, organizing, and sharing information as well as refining one’s thoughts (Adams, Treiman, & Pressley, 200; Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004; Graham, 2005)
Self-Regulated Strategies Development
Addresses three major goals:1. Students learn to carry out specific composing
process
2. Students develop the knowledge and self-regulatory procedures needed to apply the writing strategies and regulate their behavior during writing
3. Enhance specific aspects of motivation, including self-efficacy and effort
Academic Support Is Essential
The needs of students with EBD are many and the consequences of not adequately meeting these needs are deleterious.
Thus, it is necessary to identify the most effective, efficient methods for supporting students who demonstrate clear behavioral and academic deficits that impede their educational progress.
Positive Behavior Support
For students with behavioral challenges, PBS provides graduated support as needed to (a) prevent the development of behavioral problems that may lead to EBD and (b) support students with EBD via more intensive supports.
Primary Prevention
Response: 80% of Students
Secondary Prevention
Response: 10-15% of Students
Tertiary Prevention
Response: 1-5% of Students
Concerns
Many models are incomplete or underdeveloped
Little attention to: systematically identifying students who require
more focused prevention efforts conducting scientifically rigorous investigations
at the secondary level to meet the academic needs of students with or at risk for EBD (Cheney et al., 2004; Lane et al., 2003; Lane et al., 2002; Walker et al., 2005).
SSBD Screening ProcessPool of Regular Classroom Students
TEACHER SCREENINGon Internalizing and Externalizing Behavioral
Dimensions
3 Highest Ranked Pupils on Externalizing and on Internalizing Behavior Criteria
TACHER RATINGon Critical Events Index and Combined
Frequency Index
Exceed Normative Criteria on CEI of CFI
DIRECT OBSERVATIONof Process Selected Pupils in Classroom
and on Playground
Exceed Normative Criteria on AET and PSB
PASS GATE 1PASS GATE 1
PASS GATE 2PASS GATE 2
PASS GATE 3PASS GATE 3
Pre-referral Intervention(s)
Child may be referred to Child Study Team
Student Risk Screening Scale
The SRSS is 7-item mass screener used to identify students who are at risk for antisocial behavior.
Teachers evaluate each student on the following items- Steals - Low Achievement- Lies, Cheats, Sneaks - Negative Attitude- Behavior Problems - Aggressive Behavior- Peer Rejection
Student Risk is divided into 3 categories- Low 0 – 3- Moderate 4 – 8- High 9 – 21
The SRSS is validated for use at the elementary school level.
(SRSS; Drummond, 1994)
Student Risk Screening Scale
Purpose
This study examined the effectiveness of teaching second grade students at risk for EBD how to write stories using the SRSD model.
Extends the literature by: examining the effectiveness of a secondary writing
intervention in the context of an established PBS model. applying the early intervention SRSD research to a new
population – students who are at risk for EBD and have co-occurring difficulties with writing
Elementary School: Primary Plans
Mission & School-wide Expectations
Procedures for Teaching Eagle Pledge Posters
Procedures for Reinforcing Tickets Classroom Drawings and School-wide Quarterly Assemblies
Procedures for Monitoring Student Outcomes Treatment Integrity & Social Validity
Setting
Classroom Hallway Playground Cubbies Cafeteria Restrooms
Respect -Eyes on speaker
-Listen
-Follow directions
-Space & materials
-Walk
-Quiet
-Hands off walls
-Hands to self
-Follow game rules
-Respond when called
-Share/include everyone
-Use your own stuff
-Wait your turn
-4 people at a time
-Hands to self
-Low voice
-Eat your own food
-Clean up
-Clean up
-Allow privacy by only knocking on door once
Best Effort -Quality of work is accurate, neat, and complete
-Watch the person in front of you
-Zone Zero
-Walk on 3rd square
-Pick up trash
-Report unsafe objects or behavior
-Help keep area safe and clean
-Eat, then talk
-Stay in seat
-Keep floor clean
-Appropriate use of facilities
Responsibility
-Follow Eagle Expectations
-Be on time
-Be prepared
-Observe rules of tattling vs. telling
- Be Aware of personal space
-Report visitors without stickers
-Remind others to be quiet
-Be Aware of personal space
-Follow playground rules
-Play approved games
-Put materials and clothes where they belong
-Unpack all materials
-Know what to order
-Bring lunch/ lunch money
-Get all items
-Raise hand
-Wash hands
-clean up after self and others
-Report messes
Care of Property
-Respect all materials
-Pick up trash
-Hands off walls and signs
-Pick up trash
-Respect nature
-Use equipment appropriately
-Clean space
-Belongings in proper places
-Pick up trash
-Keep your area clean
-Pick up trash
-Wipe seat
-Keep walls & floor clean
-Flush
Elementary Assessment Schedule Measure Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4
Attendance X X X X
SWIS (ODR) X X X X
GEIT & SPED X X X X
IAI Reading & Math X X
STARS Reading X X
TOWL (Writing) X
TCAP X
Tickets X X X X
SRSS & SSBD X X X
Treatment Integrity X X X X
EBS Survey X X
Social Validity X X
Project WRITE Overview
Students exceeding criteria on behavioral screeners
Students exceeding criteria on
writing screeners
Screening: 2nd grade studentScreening: 2nd grade student
SRSD Instruction for each consenting student with both
writing and behavioral deficits
SRSD Instruction for each consenting student with both
writing and behavioral deficits
Participants
Participants were 13 second-grade students (8 boys, 5 girls) attending four inclusive, rural elementary schools in middle Tennessee.
Students were identified using systematic screening procedures as having either internalizing (n = 6) or externalizing (n = 7) behavioral concerns in addition to poor writing skills.
All students were Caucasian, ranging in age from 7.03 to 9.01 years.
Three students, Kate, Eva, and Chuck, had below average intellectual functioning and one student, Hector, had above average intellectual functioning as measured by a short form of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition (WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2003)
Students with Internalizing Behaviors
Variable
Student (leg of study)
Ella(1) Chuck(1) Barry(2) Mandy(2) Brian(3)Amos(3
)
Demographics
Age in years 8.06 7.04 7.04 8.00 7.10 8.03
Gender Female Male Male Female Male Male
Ethnicity C C C C C C
IQ 68 83 112 94 86 88
Screening TOWL-3 5 9 25 16 9 9
SSRS-T
SS (SS) 77 107 89 83 93 91
PB (SS) 112 104 102 121 106 115
AC(SS) 71 99 85 92 72 86
SSRS-PSS (SS) 98 95 104 90 76 87
PB (SS) 105 120 110 105 137 131
SARS
Schools Attended 2 3 3 1 1 4
Days absent 3 9 * 3 11 6
Special Education No No No No No No
Note. SS=Standard Score; TOWL-3=Test of Written Language; *=information not available; C=Caucasian; IQ=intelligence quotient; SSRS-T=Social Skills Rating System–Teacher version; SSRS-P= Social Skills Rating System–Parent version; SARS=School Archival Record Search
Students with Externalizing Behaviors
Variable
Student (leg of study)
Nick(1)
Dina(1)
Kay(2)
Harry(2)
Amy (3)
Ron(3)
Ben(3)
Demographics
Age in years 7.09 7.08 9.01 8.02 7.03 7.10 7.07
Gender Male Female Female Male Female Male Male
Ethnicity C C C C C C C
IQ 97 94 68 112 120 112 103
Screening TOWL-3 25 25 9 9 16 16 9
SSRS-TSS (SS) 85 85 73 89 87 86 82
PB (SS) 127 116 130 112 127 113 113
AC (SS) 97 101 77 82 98 70 86
SSRS-P SS (SS) 76 84 69 116 86 120 98
PB (SS) 133 112 143 92 * 100 110
SARS
Schools Attended 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
Days absent 7 11 17 14 2 10 3
Special education No No Yes No No No No
Note. SS=Standard Score; TOWL-3=Test of Written Language; *=parent did not return form; C=Caucasian; IQ=intelligence quotient; SSRS-T=Social Skills Rating System–Teacher version; SSRS-P= Social Skills Rating System–Parent version; SARS=School Archival Record Search; NBC=negative behavioral comments
Identifying Nonresponsive Students with Behavior & Writing Concerns
Behavior Concern Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders
(SSBD; Walker & Severson, 1992) Exceeding norms: Internalizing or Externalizing
Writing Difficulties Test of Written Language-3 (TOWL-3; Hammill & Larsen, 1996):
At or below 25th percentile
Consenting Obtained teacher consent (100%) Obtained parent consent (87%) Obtained student assent (100%)
Intervention Description
Self-Regulated Strategy Development(SRSD; Harris & Graham, 1996)
Behavioral Component
3 days a week; 30-min sessions delivered 1:1 by a research assistant
Fidelity collected on 35.77% of sessions
SRSD Stages & Modifications
Stages Develop Background
Knowledge Discuss It Model It Memorize It Support It Independent Performance
Modifications: Increased time and opportunities
to master the first two stages Instructional sequence: student
self-evaluation and graphing of a pre-instruction story moved from Discuss It to Support It
Verbal reinforcement & opportunities to respond
PBS Tickets Practice test
Two Mnemonic Strategies for Story Writing
1. POW for planning
Pick my idea
Organize my notes
Write and say more
2. WWW, What=2, How=2
Who?
When?
Where?
What does main character do?
What happens then?
How does the story end?
How does the main character feel?
Assessment
Writing probes Story elements (0-7) Length Quality
Social validity Treatment integrity Descriptive measures
Experimental Design & Statistical Analysis
Multiple baseline across participants design with multiple probes during baseline (Kennedy, 2005)
Data analyzed via visual inspection to examine stability, level, and trend, as well as mean changes by phase and percentage of non-overlapping data points.
Phase changes were based on number of story elements.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
EllaChuck
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Nu
mb
er o
f S
to
ry
E
lem
en
ts
Barry
Mandy
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Probes
Brian
Adam
Story Elements Overtime: Students with Internalizing Behaviors
Story Elements: Students with Internalizing Behaviors Leg 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Ella
Chuck
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Nu
mb
er o
f S
tory
Ele
men
ts
Barry
Mandy
Story Elements: Students with Internalizing Behaviors Leg 2
Story Elements: Students with Internalizing Behaviors Leg 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Probes
Brian
Adam
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
NickDina
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Num
ber
of S
tory
Ele
men
ts
KayHarry
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Probes
AmyRonBen
Story Elements Overtime: Students with Externalizing Behaviors
Story Elements: Students with Externalizing Behaviors Leg 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
NickDina
Story Elements: Students with Externalizing Behaviors Leg 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Num
er o
f S
tory
Ele
men
ts
KayHarry
Story Elements: Students with Externalizing Behaviors Leg 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Probes
AmyRonBen
Results
In addition to changes in the number of story elements present, there were also changes in the story length and, to a lesser extent, quality.
Pre Intervention Probe: Sample from Internalizing Group Brian
My big dog is so heavy that I can’t pull the wagon. I can’t even pick up my dog.
Post Intervention Probe:Sample from Internalizing Group Brian
This happened many years ago. There was a little dog and a big dog on an island. The little dog jumped out to sea. He wanted to get to the island. He swam to the island. He felt sad because the little dog jumped in the sea.
Maintenance Probe:
Sample from Internalizing Group Brian
Years ago, the birds were in a tree. They wanted to eat the dragonfly. They started fighting because the other birds wanted to eat the dragonfly. They stopped fighting. They were happy because they stopped fighting.
Pre Intervention Probe: Sample from Externalizing Group Kay
The Casper High was making a play Alex was a star Jim was the sun and Tim was the cloud.
Post Intervention Probe: Sample from Externalizing Group Kay
Tiger was having a birthday party. Joey, Lennie, Oscar, and Fritz were going to have a surprise party. They set up all the decorations. Oscar made a cake. Joey blew up the balloons. Lennie got the activities. Fritz did the final thing, he got Tiger to come over. When he got in the party started. Tiger said it was the best party he ever had.
Maintenance Intervention Probe: Sample from Externalizing Group Kay
Jordan went to Fisher Lake and caught the biggest fish in the lake. She brought the fish home. When she got home Jordan showed it to her dad. Jordan’s dad was scared when he saw the fish. Jordan had an idea. They had a big lake. Jordan threw the fish into the lake and the fish swam away.
SocialValidity
TreatmentFidelity
(Days of instruction)
Intervention Phase
IRP-15 CIRP % (SD)
Ella (14)Baseline 90 30Intervention 95.83 (8.33)Post 90 31
Chuck (10)Baseline 85 32Intervention 100.00 (0.00)Post 89 42
Barry (11)Baseline 87 37Intervention 97.22 (5.56)Post 76 40
Mandy (11)Baseline 76 31Intervention 96.43 (7.14)Post 90 35
Brian (9)Baseline 75 32Intervention 96.67 (5.77)Post * 37
Amos (9)Baseline 58 37Intervention 100.00 (0.00)Post 74 33
Students with Internalizing Behaviors
Social Validity Tx Fidelity(Days) Phase IRP-15 CIRP % (SD)
Nick (13)Baseline 88 34Intervention 90.83 (10.17)Post 79 37
Dina (11)Baseline 89 42Intervention 100.00 (0.00)Post 82 42
Kay (9)Baseline 88 37Intervention 100.00 (0.00)Post 79 42
Harry (10)Baseline 77 31Intervention 94.44 (9.62)Post 78 32
Amy (7)Baseline 84 39Intervention 100.00 (0.00)Post 88 39
Ron (8)Baseline 85 42Intervention 100.00 (0.00)Post 88 37
Ben (10)Baseline 75 32Intervention 100.00 (0.00)Post 75 42
Students with Externalizing Behavior
Discussions/Conclusions
SRSD instruction for story writing effective in improving the number of essential elements included and the length of stories produced by students with and at-risk for EBD and limited writing skills within a PBS model
Most pronounced improvements in story elements
Improvements in quality to a lesser extent
Discussions/Conclusions
Collateral effects of SRSD instruction on behavior was measured but not established
Expands utility of SRSD for writing to students with internalizing behavior patterns
Extends Lane et al. (in press) on the utility of proving academic supports within the context of a PBS model
Project WRITE: Next Steps
Question 1: Does SRSD instruction in planning improve the writing performance of students at high-risk for EBD who have poor writing skills?
Question 2: Is both individualized SRSD instruction effective in improving the writing skills and behavior of students at high risk for EBD who have poor writing skills?
Question 3: Are there differences in how students with externalizing and internalizing behaviors and poor writing skills respond to SRSD instruction?
top related