CRAIG BLUM EMAIL: CBLUM@ILSTU.EDU

CARRIE OSBORNEMAIL: COSBORN@LINCOLN27.NET

Using web technology and self-management to enhance success in

middle school    

8th international conference on Positive Behavior SupportDenver, COMarch 11, 2011

Technology in Education

Challenges facing students with learning disabilities in today's middle school

With an increased and substantial number of students with learning disabilities being included into general education classrooms

High expectations of activity participation and completion of assigned homework tasks are beneficial to educational performance and academic achievement at the middle school level

Support Needs of a Student with a Learning Disability

Difficulties in organizational skills (Anderson, Munk, Young, Conley, & Caldarella, 2008, Bryan & Burstein, 2004; Hughes, Ruhl, Schumaker, & Deshler, 2002; Minskoff & Allsopp, 2003; McMullen, Shippen, & Dangel, 2007)

Difficulties in maintaining attention during instruction (Byran & Burnstein, 2004; Vile Junod, DuPaul, Jitendera, Volpe, & Lorah, 2006),

Support Needs of Students with Learning Disabilities

Students fail to write down or have difficulty turning in homework assignments on time, late, or at all (Byran & Burstein, 2004; & Hughes et al., 2002).

Low grades and academic failure due to difficulties in each of these areas.

Students with LD may also fail to meet teacher expectations that are greater when supervision tends to be more limited (Anderson et al., 2008 McMullen et al., 2007).

Resources to Meet the ChallengeWeb-based systems to track

progress

Teaching self-management to insure success

IT’s UP TO ME

Self-Management

Scientifically sound self-management techniques are available; however, widespread implementation is not evident (King-Sears, 2008; Vaughn, Klinger, & Hughes, 2000).

Teaching students to monitor their own academic progress can enhance outcomes (Young, West, Li, & Peterson, 1997).

Self-monitoring incorporated with SIS may be a beneficial combination to utilize the promotion of student independence (Gureasko-Moore, DuPaul, & White, 2007; Koegel, Koegel, & Parks, 1995).

Research Questions

1. How frequently do special education students monitor homework assignments for on-time completion and recorded class grades, after being taught a self-management strategy?

2. How do students perceive the usefulness of Information NOW?

3. How do students perceive the usefulness of the self-management recording intervention?

4. What was the influence of the self-management intervention and the use of Information NOW on student grades?

Method

Participants• 10 (n) – 8th grade, Caucasian, special education students with

learning disabilities• Participants are included in a variety of educational settings, but

have a common study hall in a special education setting Permissions• Were attained from the building principal, parent, and student Measures• A self-management recording strategy, used in conjunction with

Information NOW (SIS), was used as the independent variable• Student academic outcomes, as defined as the average of all

cumulative grade percentage, was used as the dependent variable• Design• Multiple-baseline Across Students

Information NOW-School Information System

Ways to Check Grades

Check from using internet: home computer School computer Ipad Cell Phone, Iphone

METHOD: DESIGN PHASES

Baseline • Participant actions recorded based upon tasks

represented on the Self-Management Homework Checklist

• Data collected for no less than one weekTraining Phase• Participants learn, discuss, and practice

intervention strategy presented on the Self-Management Homework Checklist

• Strategy is reinforced and progress is recordedTeacher fidelity in training phase was 100%

Monitoring Phase• Participants practice the Self-Management strategy with

guided instruction, corrective prompting, and reinforcement• Progress is recordedManagement Phase• Participants independently apply the learned and practiced

Self-Management Homework strategy• Progress is recorded• Reinforcement is given for successful achievement of all tasksPost Surveys• Information NOW Post Survey• Student Post-Intervention Acceptability and Importance of

Effects

Student Checklist

Student Checklist

Student Implementation Fidelity

Attendance WroteAssign.Down

Handed inHomework

CompletedTest QuizHomework

Wrote Unfinished Work Down

Used Info Now to monitor grades

92.27 83.22 92.47 92.13 76.85 86.37Recorded Late and MissingAssignments

Wrote Down % of grade for classes

Logged out of Info Now

Teacher Initialed Agenda

Continue Asking for help when needed

76.34 75.01 88.49 81.79 95.57

What was the influence of Self-monitoring with Information Now on grades over time?

Multiple Baseline Graph

What was number of whole and partial letter grade increases per student?

A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1

0

5

10

15

20

25

Whole Letter Grade Increases

Partial Letter Grade Incresases (+/-)

Participant

Fre

quen

cy o

f Gro

wth

What was the Information Now usage by student?

Information NOW Student Use

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3

Participant ID

Num

ber o

f Day

s In

form

atio

n N

OW

Was

Acc

esse

d

Baseline

Training

Current

What were the students perceptions of impact of the self-management intervention?

Item Pre-testM

Pre-testSD

Post-testM

Post-testSD

Difference

Intervention was

easy to stick with

6.30 1.06 5.90 1.37 -0.40

Approved by parents 6.50 0.97 5.30 2.06 -1.20

Taught important

skills

4.80 2.30 5.90 1.37 +1.10

The intervention was

fair to me

5.70 1.42 5.70 1.25 0.00

Helped me change in

important ways

4.90 2.08 5.60 1.58 +0.70

Helped me make

more friends

2.70 2.50 1.70 1.49 -1.00

Made it easy to ask

for help

4.30 2.54 5.20 1.55 +0.90

What were the students perceptions of impact of the self-management intervention?

Item Pre-testM

Pre-testSD

Post-testM

Post-testSD

Difference

Quickly improved

my skills

5.00 2.00 5.00 2.40 0.00

Made a difference in

my grades

5.40 1.96 6.10 1.29 +0.70

Helped me feel

better about myself

4.50 2.22 4.60 2.41 +0.10

Helped me want to

stay in school

4.80 1.99 4.10 2.73 -0.70

Helped me learn

skills to help in life

3.80 2.25 4.70 2.63 +0.90

Is one I would

recommend to

friends

-- -- 4.90 1.91 --

What were the student’s perceptions of the usefulness of the Information Now before and after intervention?

MPre-Test

SD MPost-Test

SD Difference

Used

Information

NOW in the last

year

(1 = yes, 2 =

no)

1.00 0.00 - - -

Times per week

you log in

3.60 1.17 4.10 0.74 +0.50

Overall

experience of

Information

NOW

2.20 0.92 1.90 0.86 +0.30

Provides up to

date information

2.20 1.32 1.40 0.70 -0.80

What were the student’s perceptions of the usefulness of the Information Now before and after intervention?

MPre-Test

SD MPost-Test

SD Difference

Like having

access to my

grades online

1.50 0.53 1.50 0.71 0.00

Like being able

to see teacher

comments

2.20 1.32 2.20 1.14 0.00

Helps get better

grades

1.70 0.95 1.90 0.88 +0.20

Helps complete

homework

assignments

2.50 1.27 2.20 0.92 -0.30

Like using

Information

NOW

1.80 1.23 1.80 0.92 0.00

What were the student’s perceptions of the usefulness of the Information Now before and after intervention?

MPre-Test

SD MPost-Test

SD Difference

Suggest use to

a friend

1.80 0.79 2.10 0.88 +0.30

Learned had

missing

assignments

(1 = yes, 2 =

no)

1.30 0.48 1.20 0.42 -0.10

Feelings about

school (1=like,

5=dislike)

4.00 1.15 3.60 1.07 1.07

Used

Information

NOW in the

last year

(1 = yes, 2 =

no)

1.00 0.00 - - -

Big Ideas

Using self-management instruction with SIS program can be beneficial to student grades for students with learning disabilities

It is not difficult to implement and students generally had positive perceptions of the program

Limitations

Teachers need to input grades in a timely fashion

This study focuses on students with learning disabilities in a middle school

Not all students benefit as much, especially if their grades are already high

Further examination of necessary specific components of the program is needed.

More research which demonstrates stronger experimental control needs to be conducted.

Discussion & Questions

QualityEquityEfficiency

How would teaching self-management and self-regulation at all three levels of support in PBIS improve on our current model?

Supporting References

Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2005). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Anderson, D.H., Munk, J.H., Young, K.R., Conley, L. & Caldarella, P. (2008). Teaching organizational skills to promote academic achievement in behaviorally challenged students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(4), 6-13.

Barry, L.M., & Haraway, D.L. (2005). Self-management and ADHD: A literature review. The Behavior Analyst Today, 6, 48-64.

Bird, K. (2006). How do you spell parental involvement? S-I-S. T H E (Technologic Horizons in Education) Journal, 33(7), 38-42.

Bober, M.J. (2001). School information systems and their effects on school operations and culture. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(5).

Bryan, T., & Burstein, K. (2004). Improving homework completion and academic performance: Lessons from special education. Theory Into Practice, 43, 213-219.

Byran, T., Burstein, K., & Bryan, J. (2001). Students with learning disabilities: Homework problems and promising practices. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 167-180.

Bryan, T., Nelson, C., & Mathur, S. (1995). Doing homework: Perspectives of primary students in mainstream, resource, and self-contained special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 85-90.

Chen, E., Heritage, M., & Lee, J. (2005). Identifying and monitoring students’ learning needs with technology. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 309-332.

DePaul, G.J., & Stoner, G. (2002). Interventions for attention problems. In M.R.Shinn, H.M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventative and remedial approaches (pp. 913-938). Bethesda, MD:NASP.

DePaul, G.J., & Stoner, G. (2003). ADHD in the schools: Assessment and intervention strategies (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Epstein, M.H., Polloway, E.A., Foley, R.M., & Patton, J.R. (1993). Homework: A comparison of teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of the problems experienced by students identified as having behavioral disorders, learning, disabilities, or no disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 14(5), 40-50.

Gureasko-Moore, S., DuPaul, G.J., & White, G.P. (2006). The effects of self-management on organizational skills of adolescents with ADHD. Behavior Modification, 30, 159-183.

Gureasko-Moore, S., DuPaul, G.J., & White, G.P. (2007). Self-management of classroom preparedness and homework: Effects on school functioning of adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Review, 36, 647-664.

Harris, K.R., Graham, S., Reid, R., McElroy, K., & Hamby, R. (1994). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of performance: Replication and cross-task comparison. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 121-139.

Harris, K.R., Friedlander, B.D., Saddler, B., Frizzelle, R., & Graham, S. (2005). Self-monitoring of attention versus self-monitoring of academic performance: Effects among students with ADHD in the general education classroom. The Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 145-156.

Hughes, C.A., & Boyle, J.R. (1991). Effects of self-monitoring for on-task behavior and task productivity on elementary students with moderate mental retardation. Education and Treatment of Children, 14, 96-111.

Hughes, C.A., Ruhl, K.L., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (2002). Effects of instruction in an assignment completion strategy on the homework performance of students with learning disabilities in general education classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 1-18.

Ioannou, A., & Hannafin, R. (2008). Deficiencies of course management systems: Do students care? The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9, 415-425.

Keith, T.Z., & Keith, P.B. (2006). Homework. In G.G. Bear & K.M. Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp.615-629). Washington DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

King-Sears, M.E. (1999). Teachers and researcher co-design self-management content for a student in an inclusive setting: Research training, intervention, and generalization effects on student performance. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, 134-156.

King-Sears, M.E. (2008). Using teachers and researcher data to evaluate the effects of self-management in an inclusive classroom. Preventing School Failure, 52(4), 25-36.

Koegal, R.L., Koegel, L.K., & Parks, D.R. (1995). A guide to self-management: A training manual. Santa Barbara: University of California.

Konold, K.E., Miller, S.P. & Konold, K.B. (2004). Using teacher feedback to enhance student learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(6), 64-69.

Lane, K.L., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004). School-based interventions: The tools you need to succeed. Boston: Pearson Education.

McDougall, D., & Brady, M.P. (1998). Initiating and fading self-management interventions to increase math fluency in general education settings. Exceptional Children, 64, 151-166.

McMullen, R.C., Shippen, M.E., & Dangel, H.L. (2007). Middle school teachers’ expectations of organizational behaviors of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(2), 75-80.

Minskoff, E., & Allsopp, D. (2003). Academic success strategies for adolescents with learning disabilities and ADHD. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Reid, R., Trout, A.L., & Schartz, M. (2005). Self-regulation interventions for children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 71, 361-377.

Shapiro, E.S., Durnan, S.L., Post, E.E., & Levinson, T.S. (2002). Self-monitoring interventions for children and adolescents. In M.R. Shinn, H.M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp.913-938). Bethesda, MD: NASP.

Steffens, K. (2006). Self-regulated learning in technology-enhanced learning environments: Lessons of a European peer review. European Journal of Education, 41, 353-379.

Sun, P., Unger, J.B., Palmer, P.H., Gallaher, P., Chou, C.P., Baezconde-Garbanati, L. et al. (2005). Internet accessibility and usage among urban adolescents in southern California: Implications for web-based health research. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8, 441-453.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Twentieth annual report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.