Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Method
Participants and Setting
Participants included 10 special education
students in Grades 9 to 11 whose behavioral
needs necessitated intensive interventions. All
Behavioral
Disorders,
35 { ] ) , 4 - 1 8
TABLE 1
Student Demographic Information
Student
Gender Ethnicity
Age
(Years)
Crade
CLE
17
11
6.0
Ciay
Crane
17
11
11.8
Lupita
16
11
6.0
Thaddeus
16
11
Manny
16
Bryan
16
IDEA
IQ
TBI, LD
87 (WISC-lll; 2/98)
111 IWASI;4/03)
ED, LD
83 (WISC-li; 10/02)
5.5
ED
10
3.8
ED, LD^
92 (WISC-lll; 5/00)
6.0
ED, LD^
Chad
16
10
4.8
ED
lunior
16
4.8
ED, LD''
84 (WISC-lll; 12/02)
Tyre ne
AA
15
10
6,2
EP
Hank
14
5.4
LD,' ED
Wofe. Pseudonyms have been used n place of students'real names. Ethnicity abbreviations: H = Hispanic, W = White, AA = African
American. IDEA abbreviations: ED = emotional disturbance: OHI - other health impairment; LD = learning disability; TBI =
traumatic brain injury; WISCII - Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 2nd edition; WISCIII = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children, 3rd edition; WASI = Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence; KABC = Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children.
'Students who are LD in areas otber than mathematics.
''No testing available; examiner relied on teacher report as "very bright."
^No testing available; examiner reported "normal intelligence."
Response Measure
The dependent measure of math learning
was teacher-constructed, curriculum-based assessments (CBAs) used across research conditions and as the post instruct i on probe. First,
students completed three different versions of a
teacher-constructed, CBA to establish baseline
levels of performance. The baseline versions of
the quiz evaluated students' proficiency on
nine selected math objectives linked to material that was taught during the 9 weeks of
intervention, plus one additional objective that
was covered during the best treatment phase.
Each baseline measure consisted of 20 questions covering 10 math objectives, or two
questions per objective. Students were provided one 55-min class period in which to
complete each quiz. Calculators were not
permitted at any time during the study, and
the only assistance provided on quizzes was
encouragement for students to put forth their
best effort.
The independent variable in this study was
the method of instructional delivery: direct
teach, CAI, and a combination of those two
methods. An alternating-treatments single-subject research design (ATD) was employed to
determine which of the three instructional
models was most effective for teaching mathematics to secondary students with EBD.
According to Barlow and Hersen (1984), an
6/November 2009
Baseline
The first phase of the study served to
establish a baseline, which included administration of the WRAT-3 and three curriculumbased measurements that covered 10 math
objectives that the WRAT-3 assessment indicated most students had not mastered. The
WRAT-3 was administered on the first day of
the baseline phase of the study followed by
three CBAs; students completed one baseline
assessment per day.
Students' pretest results from the WRAT-3
were analyzed to identify specific skill areas
that would become targets for instruction. This
analysis was accomplished by first ordering the
Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1 ), 4-18
Training
The second phase, the intervention, provided each student exposure to each instructional modality three times over a period of 9
weeks. Interventions were randomly assigned
across weeks for each of three math classes; all
classes covered a common objective. For
example, although students in all classes were
learning to add fractions, students in the firstand sixth-period math classes were exposed to
the direct teach approach, and students in the
fourth-period math class were exposed to the
Behavioral
Disorders,
35 {]), 4 - 1 8
Data Analysis
The most common form of analysis for
single-subject design is visual inspection to
examine data paths for lack of overlap. The
degree of differentia! effect produced by two or
more different independent variables is determined by the amount of vertical difference
between data paths (Cooper, Heron, & Heward,
2007). Eurthermore, according to Parker, Vannest, and Brown (2009), determining effect size
is a useful supplement to visual analysis. Thus,
the effect size for each condition was computed
using standard mean difference (SMDALL)- the
recommended method to complement visual
analysis for single-subject research designs
(Olive & Smith, 2005). To calculate (SMDAU).
the baseline mean is subtracted from the mean of
the intervention phase. This number is then
divided by the standard deviation of the baseline
scores. Because the intervention phase was
composed of three instructional conditions, this
resulted in three distinct calculations to attain an
effect size for each condition. Lastly, the mean
effect size for each condition overall was found
by calculating the mean of all students' baseline
scores, subtracting that from the mean for each
condition across all students, and dividing by the
standard deviation of all baseline scores.
Analysis of the CBAs followed the conventions of single-subject research designs.
Quantitative analysis consisted of visual inspection of data to determine which method
was most effective (i.e., high scores on
quizzes) for mastery of math objectives.
Students' individual quiz grades during baseline or intervention phases were calculated as
a percentage of correct responses and graphed
with each instructional condition plotted as a
separate data path. The greater the separation
of data points between data paths, the stronger
the indication of differentiation of treatment.
Descriptive statistics, including mean, mode,
and variance, were calculated for individuals,
groups, and overall to determine which
method was associated with the highest scores,
as well as to determine whether students
exposed to a particular methodology for a
particular objective received similar scores.
I
Results
Baseline
Results were calculated as the percentage
of correct responses for each of the three CBAs
10/ November 2009
1 2
Sessions
1 2
f)
Sessions
Lupita
Thaddsus
Bas el Ime
BMt
T
PIP
Intervention
5g
en 51 2
Sessions
Absent/Keftjscd
CA
Btst Trcmmcnt *
Combo
Po I mpnivemcm Phase
Figure 1. Percentage of correct responses for Clay, Crane, Lupita, Tbaddeus, and Manny.
having the opportunity and incentive to do
so. Clay missed 3 consecutive weeks of
instruction and quizzes during this phase
because he was expelled to a disciplinary
alternative education placement. Furthermore, some student5 refused to work even
though they were aware of behavioral consequences {e.g., loss of privileges) and academic consequences (e.g., lowered grades) that
accompanied that choice, Tyrene had one
episode of refusing to take an intervention
phase quiz, whereas Thaddeus refused to take
CBAs for 3 consecutive weeks.
Mean Scores for Conditions
Standard mean difference (SMD^LL) was
calculated by subtracting the mean of the
baseline from the mean of each treatment
condition and dividing by the standard deviation of the baseline values, as suggested by
Olive and Smith (2005). Again, no one
condition was clearly superior for all students.
Table 2 shows the mean score for each
condition, as well as the effect size for all
students across conditions. The effect size
ranged from .83 to 1.00, except for Clay
during the CAI method, where the mean of
Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1 ), 4-18
Baseline
Oircci Teach
CA]
Cumbo
Posl Improvemetil Phiu
Figure 2. Percentage of Correct Responses for Bryan, Chad, Junior, Tyrene, and Hank.
TABLE 2
Mean Scores, Standard Deviation, and Effect Size (ES) for Each Instructional Condition
Mean
Direct
Teach
Mean
CAI
Mean
Combination
Baseline
Mean
SD
Direct
Teach ES
Clay
70
10
80
2.1
6.24
.97
-.72
Crane
90
95
95
70
8.16
.77
.83
.83
Lupita
60
53
93
4.08
.99
.99
1.00
Thaddeus
70
40
53
2.36
1.00
.99
1.00
27
42
Bryan
73
50
73
2.5
1.00
.99
.00
Chad
58
58
80
2.5
1.00
1.00
1.00
Junior
47
58
53
2.36
.99
1.00
1.00
Tyrene
95
58
78
8.5
.98
.95
.97
Hank
38
67
78
2.36
.99
1.00
1.00
Student
Manny
12 / November 2009
CAI ES Combination ES
,9S
treatment phase. Table 3 provides a comparison of mean baseline scores for each student
with scores on the postinstruction probe. All
scores are reported as a percentage of correct
responses.
All students who took the post instruction
probe demonstrated improvement over their
baseline mean; however, only Crane achieved
mastery level of at least 70%, as set forth in his
lEP. In this study, methodological conditions
were adhered to closely, and students were
encouraged only to try their best. In routine
classroom operations, a variety of strategies
and alternative activities are used until a
student demonstrates mastery over a concept.
TABLE 3
Comparison of Baseline Scores to
Postinstruction Probe
Student
Clay
23
+73.9
Crane
70
80
+14.2
Lupiia
50
+900
20
+1,076.4
Thaddeus
1.7
Manny
Bryan
7.5
15
+100
Chad
7.5
40
+433.3
lunior
3.3
25
+657.5
Tyrene
8.3
NA
Hank
3.3
15
NA
+354.5
REFERENCES
Alberto, P. A., & Trouiman, A. C. [2006). Applied
behavior analysis for teachers (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N): Prentice-Hall.
Bailey, J. S,, & Burch, M. R. (2002). Research
methods in applied behavior analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984), Single case
experimental designs: Strategies for studying
behavior change (2nd ed.). New York; Pergamcn.
Cooper, 1. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007).
Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Dawson, L., Venn, M. L., & Gunter, P. L. (2000). The
effects of teacher versus computer reading
models. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 105-113.
Forness, S. R., Kavale, K. A., Blum, 1. M., & Lloyd, |.
W. (1997). Mega-analysis of meta-analyses.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 29{b), 4-9.
Gunter, P. L., Coutinho, 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. L., Hummel, ). H.. & Venn, M. L. (1998).
Are effective academic instructional practices
used to teach students with behavior disorders?
Beyond Behavior, 9, 5-11.
Hughes, C. A., & Maccini, P. 11997), Effectiveness of
computer-based instruction on the mathematics
performance of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary
journal, 8, 155-166.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act, 20 U.S.C. 5 300.8 (c]{4)(2004).
Kauffman, |. M, (2005). Characteristics of emotional
and behavioral disorders of children and youth
(8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N|: Merrill/
Prentice Hall.
Landrum, T., Brubaker, D. L., Katsiyannis, A., &
Archwamety, T. (2004). An analysis of placement and exit patterns of students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavior Disorders, 29, 140-153.
Martella, R. C, Nelson, |. R., & Marchand-Martella,
N. E. (2003). Managing disruptive behaviors in
the schools. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
(2003). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Olive, M. L., & Smith, B. W. (2005). Effect size
calculations and single subject designs. Educational Psychology, 25, 313-324.
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. |., & Brown, L. (2009). The
improvement rate difference for single-case
research. Exceptional Children, 75, 135150.
1 6 / November 2009
AUTHORS' NOTE
Address correspondence to Glenna Billingsley,
Texas State University-San Marcos, Curriculum
and Instruction, 601 University Dr., San Marcos, TX 78666. Phone: (512) 293-3402; Fax:
(512) 245-3158; E-mail: gb28@txstate.edu.
MANUSCRIPT
Initial Acceptance: 5/5/09
Final Acceptance: 10/19/09
Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1 ), 4-18
Appendix
Computer-Assisted Instruction
Students are verbally reminded and visually
prompted with a chart stating the week's
objective. (A chart that cannot be seen by
observers will indicate which method a
particular class will be using. This chart will
list the computer activities and exercises
relative to the week's objective that must be
completed by the end of the week.}
Students are sent to their assigned computer
stations.
__ Students log in, click on "Math," and
participate in the assigned lessons and activities at their own pace.
__ When students have questions, they are
encouraged to go back and study the information and videos that taught the skill. The
teacher may assist the student in locating the
answers to their problems, but they cannot reteach the information. Students are encouraged to participate in the Odyssey work
independently.
Missed questions recycle at the end of the
lesson until all questions are answered with
100% accuracy. Once they accomplish this,
they announce that they are through, and the
teacher comes and records their score in their
individual folder.
Students continue to the next lesson until all
lessons for the week are complete. (Students
will have completed approximately 80 problems after a completed learning unit.)
Combination
Students are verbally reminded and visually
prompted with a chart stating the week's
objective. (A chart that cannot be seen by
observers will indicate which method a
particular class will be using. This chart will
list the computer activities and exercises for
the day.)
. Teacher reviews prior learning and ties this
prior learning to today's lesson.
Teacher establishes relevancy by discussing
real-world application.
November 2009 7 17
1 8 / November 2009
Copyright of Behavioral Disorders is the property of Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.