INCREASING THE LITERACY SKILLS OF STUDENTS WITH SIGNIFICANT DISABILITIES THROUGH MODIFIED DIRECT

INSTRUCTION AND SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONAL FEEDBACK

Presented by Jennifer Westover

Buffalo State College

AgendaMethod Overview

Results & DiscussionLimitationsImplicationsConclusions

AAC Users and Literacy

Research Questions

Participants & SettingAbby- 53 year old female•17 years experience as an IA•Bachelors degree•No previous training in MDI•No formal training in literacy instruction

Alex- 8 year old male•Cerebral Palsy, IDEA category of Orthopedic Impairment•Non Verbal•AAC system included signs, gestures, static picture communication board and pictures•Was able to use a point response•Some instruction in Letter-sound correspondence using a sign response with some success but unsure what to do beyond this.

Barbara- 53 year old female•8 years experience as an IA•High school diploma•No previous training in MDI•No formal training in literacy instruction

Brett- 9 year old male•Down Syndrome, IDEA category of Mental Retardation•One, two and three word utterances, unintelligible by unfamiliar adults or peers•AAC system included signs, gestures, static picture communication board and pictures, 24 cell auditory output device used during routine activities and natural speech•Was able to use a point response•Some instruction in Letter-sound correspondence with verbal response mode was unsuccessful.

Carmen- 43 year old female•2 months experience as an IA•High school diploma•No previous training in MDI•No formal training in literacy instruction

Carlos- 10 year old male•Apraxia, IDEA category of Mental Retardation•Non Verbal •AAC system included some signs, gestures, and pictures and 32 cell static display auditory output device.•Was able to use a point response•Sight word instruction using Edmark and extensive letter sound correspondence instruction. Teacher felt Carlos was ready to learn to decode but did not know how to teach this skill to him because he was non verbal.

Derek - 48 year old male•3 years experience as an IA•Bachelors degree•No previous training in MDI•No formal training in literacy instruction

David- 11 year old male•Down Syndrome, IDEA category of Mental Retardation•Infrequent one word utterances •AAC system included some signs, gestures, and pictures•Was able to use a point response•Sight word instruction using Edmark and some letter sound correspondence instruction. Teacher reported that David did not retain the skills he learned during instruction and knew few letter sounds. The Classroom teacher did not know what to try next.

Dependent Variables & Measures

Independent Variables

Instructional Variables

MDI: Instructional Design• 8 Scripts developed that target:

– Phonemic Awareness– Letter-sound correspondence– Decoding and word reading– Reading in context– Comprehension

• Scripts include corrective feedback procedures and prompting strategies

MDI: Materials: Phonemic Awareness

MDI: Materials: Letter Sound Correspondence

a s m t r

a

m

s

MDI: Materials: Decoding

MDI: Materials: Reading in Context

MDI: Materials: Reading in Context

MDI: Materials: Comprehension

Performance Feedback

Daily

Weekly

Performance Feedback Graph

Performance Feedback Checklist

Data Collection• Data was collected using the Multi-Optional

Observation system for Experimental Studies (MOOSES) (Tapp, Wehby, & Ellis, 1995).

• Real time observations were recorded during 10-minute sessions collecting frequency counts of communication opportunities, responses to communication opportunities, and error corrections.

MOOSES Data Collection Window

Inter-Observer ReliabilityNumber of Sessions

Percentage of Sessions

Range Mean

Opportunities To Respond

28 22%87%-93%

90%

Correct Academic Responses

28 22%85%-91%

88%

Corrective Feedback

28 22%84%-92%

87%

No Response28 22%

88%-90%

89%

Praise 28 22%

85%-87%

86%

Redirects28 22%

50%-100%

73%

Social Validity• An intervention satisfaction questionnaire was used

to assess communication partner satisfaction • Items focused on intervention effectiveness and

social validity. • The questionnaire was completed at mid-study and

again at the end of the study.

Study Design: Single Subject multiple baseline across participants

Visual Data Analysis• Trend , level and variability• At and across phase immediacy of effect• Overlap of data• Similarity of effects• Within series and across series phase by phase analysis• Consistence (baseline serving as control)• Vertical analysis between series• Every aspect of the data examined to determine sources of

variability instead of just overall effects

Results & Discussion

2. Is there a functional relationship between modified direct instruction with performance feedback and rate of opportunities to respond during literacy instruction for students with significant disabilities who require AAC?

1. Is there a functional relationship between modified direct instruction and rate of opportunities to respond during literacy instruction for students with significant disabilities who require AAC?

2. Is there a functional relationship between modified direct instruction with performance feedback and correct responses during literacy instruction for students with significant disabilities who require AAC?

1. Is there a functional relationship between modified direct instruction and correct responses during literacy instruction for students with significant disabilities who require AAC?

Letter Sounds

DIBELS Initial Sound

FluencyTelescoping

Match Written Word to Picture

Literal Comprehension

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Alex 29% 85% 0* 1.3* 25% 88% 0% 21% 0% 80%

Brett 0% 35% 0* 1.0* 0% 61% 0% 10% 0% 60%

Carlos 52% 96% 1.3* 4.3* 62% 95% 21% 88% 40% 100%

Pre and Post-Study Assessment Results

* Correct initial sounds per minute

Does modified direct instruction with performance feedback result in increased literacy skills for students with significant disabilities who require AAC?

Instructional Variable – Corrective Feedback

1.Not included in research questions, but was used to help provide performance feedback and fidelity of implementation of modified direct instruction.

2. Target rate of 85%

Instructional Variable – “No Responses”

1.Not included in research questions, but was used to help provide performance feedback and clarify information on correct responses.

2. Although not a functional relationship might be some evidence that modified direct instruction had an effect on response attempts of students, but does not demonstrate a functional relationship.

Instructional Variable – Praise and Redirects

1.Not included in research questions, but was used to help provide performance feedback. 2.Targets of 4 to 1 ratio of praise to redirect was used.

Classroom Teacher Satisfaction Survey Results

1- strongly disagree 2- disagree 3 - agree 4 – strongly agree

Question

Mid-Study Final

Dyad A Dyad B Dyad C Mean Dyad A Dyad B Dyad C Mean

Implementation 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Meeting Needs 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Improving Communication

3.00 3.00 2.00 2.66 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Easy to Implement 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Taken more Time 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.66 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Improve Instruction 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Satisfaction 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Reseacher is helpful 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Received Support from Researcher

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Mean 3.11 3.11 3.00 3.05 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33

Instructional Assistant Satisfaction Survey Results

1- strongly disagree 2- disagree 3 - agree 4 – strongly agree

Question

Mid-Study Final

Dyad A Dyad B Dyad C Mean Dyad A Dyad B Dyad C Mean

Gained Skills 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Meeting Needs 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Improving Communication 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.66 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Easy to Implement 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Taken more Time 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.66 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Improved my Instructional Skills

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Satisfaction 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Researcher is helpful 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Received Support from Researcher

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Feedback helped improve instruction

NA NA NA NA 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Mean 3.11 3.11 3.00 3.05 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50

Limitations• Generalization• Decoding• Selection of Participants• Internal Validity• Previous Instruction• Setting• Training of Instructional Assistants• Data Collection• Delivery of Performance Feedback

Implications for Practice• Training of Instructional Assistants to deliver

instruction• Effectiveness of Modified Direct Instruction

– Increased OTRs and CRs• Instructional Design• Time involved in preparation of instruction• Removal of barriers or prerequisites to literacy

instruction.

Directions for Future Research

• Replication• Inclusion of students who a lack point response• Further research in teaching decoding skills to

students who lack verbal response modes• Research with teachers as performance feedback

providers

Future Research Continued• Exploration of the role of instructional assistants in

the delivery of instruction for this population.• Further investigation regarding the development of

literacy skills in this population • Methods of assessment and progress monitoring of

literacy skills for this population.

Conclusions• Children with significant disabilities who require AAC can

acquire beginning reading skills through the use of modified direct instruction.

• Instructional assistants, when provided performance feedback and support, can deliver modified direct instruction with fidelity.

• Preliminary data to guide professionals in the training of instructional assistants to use instructional strategies and to guide the development of reading instruction for individuals who require AAC.

Conclusions

With appropriate instruction to support students in developing lifelong reading skills, students who require AAC will be better prepared to successfully participate in academic, social, vocational and community activities.

Questions?