Preparing Interns to teach Preparing Interns to teach Emergent Literacy and Emergent Literacy and

Self-Care Skills to Self-Care Skills to Students with Significant Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities in Intellectual Disabilities in Inclusive Reading GroupsInclusive Reading Groups

OSEP Project Director’s ConferenceWashington, DC 2012

Karena Cooper-Duffy, PhD.Glenda Hyer, MAT

Western Carolina University

Issues Special Education Teachers Face when Teaching Students with

Significant Intellectual Disabilities..

1. Required to teach general curriculum to students with significant intellectual disabilities.

2. Required to teach personal care skills like hand washing.

3. Not sure of the best approach to teach academics like literacy to students with significant intellectual disabilites.

4. Not sure of how to link the academic content to the Standard Course of Study.

5. There are multiple grade levels of students in self-contained classes. Teachers need to teach all grades with all adaptations.

Extension of …Browder, D., Mims, P., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-

Delzell, L., & Lee, A. (2009). Teaching elementary students with multiple disabilities to participate in shared stories. Research & Practices for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, 3-12. Retrieved May 22, 2009 from Academic Search Complete database.

Browder, D. Trela, K. & Jimenez, B. (2007). Training teachers to follow a task analysis to engage middle school students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus on Autism and Other Development Disabilities, 22, 206-219.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of story-based instruction on both the emergent literacy skills and hand washing skills with elementary students with significant intellectual disabilities.

Research Questions Intern Behavior

1. What is the effect of using a multi-component teacher-training package on interns who are teaching emergent literacy skills to students with significant intellectual disabilities during an inclusive group reading activity?

2. What is the effect of using a multi-component teacher-training package on interns who are teaching hand washing skills to students who have significant intellectual disabilities?

Research Questions Student Behavior

3. What is the effect of story-based instruction and systematic instruction on emergent literacy responses of students with significant intellectual disabilities during an inclusive group reading activity?

4. What is the effect of story-based instruction and systematic instruction on hand washing responses of students with significant intellectual disabilities?

Research Questions Generalization

5. Were elementary students with significant intellectual disabilities able to generalize emergent literacy skills across untrained books?

6. Were the interns able to generalize emergent literacy instruction across students with significant intellectual disabilities during an inclusive group reading activity?

7. Were the interns able to generalize hand washing instruction across students who have significant intellectual disabilities?

RESEARCH SETTING

SettingThree public elementary school located in

three counties of Western North Carolina participated in this study.

Three self-contained classrooms with students K – 2nd grade.

Three general education classes K – 2.

A table within the classroom to form an inclusive reading groups.

Setting for Participants and Research Phases

TABLE CAMERA

STUDENT WITH DISABILITY

PEER FROM GENERAL EDUCATION

PEER FROM GENERAL EDUCTION

INTERN

HAND WASHING SETTING

Sink with turning faucets

A step-stool for students to reach the sink if necessary

Paper towel dispenser

Trash can

Pump soap

PARTICIPANTS

Participants-InternsFirst year interns from Western Carolina University participated in the study. To be eligible for the study the three interns needed to:

1.be students who were working towards obtaining a Bachelors degree in Special Education at Western Carolina University. 2.be completing internship in a public school classroom serving students with significant intellectual disabilities.3. have no previous experience teaching literacy using story-based instruction. 4.have no previous experience teaching hand washing using systematic instruction.

Participants: Students with Intellectual Disabilities

The students with significant intellectual disabilities were elementary students between the ages of 5 and 8 years of age who were taught in self-contained classrooms. The eligibility requirements for this study included the following:

1. have adequate vision and hearing.

2. demonstrate the ability to attend to a group setting for 15 minutes.

3. have the physical ability to demonstrate hand washing behaviors.

4. inconsistent responses or communicative attempts during literacy instruction.

5. primary language is English.

6. are nonverbal and communicates with gestures and or Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC).

General Education Students Three general education teachers identified four

readers without disabilities from their general education classrooms who met the following requirements: (a) are on the same grade level as the student with significant intellectual disabilities, (b) would benefit from additional reading practice in a small group format, (c) could model emergent literacy skills to the student with significant intellectual disabilities, and (d) could leave the general education setting for a thirty to forty minute session three times per week. A total of twelve general education readers who could model emergent literacy skills were needed for this study.

NO DATA WAS TAKEN ON THE GENERAL EDUCATION STUDENT

MATERIALS: LITERACY KIT

Literacy Kit

The interns were given identical literacy kits. The literacy kits included the following:

4 copies of 3 different books about handwashing

2 hand washing strips 3 vocabulary sheets 3 comprehension sheets Bubbles for attention getter AAC devices appropriate for students

Baseline

Baseline

Each intern worked with the cooperating special education teacher to identify two students with significant intellectual disabilities who met the requirements of the study.

The special education teacher and intern worked with the general education teachers to identify twelve students from the general education classrooms who would benefit from participating in small reading groups and who could demonstrate emergent literacy skills.

Baseline Continued… Each reading group contained one

student with significant intellectual disabilities and 2 students without disabilities from general education. The three children in each of the reading groups were in the same grade.

Each intern had two small reading groups (one intervention group and one generalization group). A total of six groups were formed for this study.

Baseline Continued…The small reading groups met at a table within

the special education classroom three times per week.

At baseline, the interns were individual given the literacy kit and instructed to teach a literacy lesson using their current method of literacy instruction and any of the content of the literacy kit. The literacy kit did not include the Teacher and Student Task analysis.

After reading the book, the interns were instructed to ask the students with significant intellectual disabilities to “go wash their hands” and then to teach hand washing using their current hand washing instructional method.

The intern rotated the books each week, so all of the books were read at least once to the students.

The researcher and data collector used the Teacher and Student Story-based Task Analysis and Teacher and Student Hand Washing Task Analysis to collect data on both the intern and student.

All sessions were videotapedNo feedback was given during baseline.

Baseline Continued…

Intern Training

Intern Training

The intern training occurred in a classroom and bathroom at the University.

The interns were individually invited by the research to participate in teacher training (based on baseline and phases).

The interns were individually trained by the researcher.

Training was approximately two hours in length.The intern was instructed to bring their literacy

box and AAC device.

Intern Training Continued..At the beginning of training, the intern was

given a training manual and copies of the Teacher and Student Story-based Task Analysis and Hand Washing Task analysis.

The training included the intern, the researcher and a data collector.

Data was collected on intern training by the data collector, researcher and intern for the purpose of procedural fidelity.

Intern Training Continued..

The manual had a task analysis of the training sequence to ensure the researcher and intern did not skip a step or complete a step incorrectly.

The manual was designed to provide consistent and comprehensive training on how to use story-based instruction to teach emergent literacy skills to students with significant intellectual disabilities.

In addition, the manual provided instruction on

how to use least to most prompting procedures to teach the personal care skill of hand washing.

Intern Training Continued…… The training manual was divided into six

components:

1. materials 2. story-based Instruction3. data collection for story-based instruction4. systematic instruction to teach hand

washing5. data collection on hand washing instruction6. teaching both story-based instruction and

hand washing.

Intern Training Continued…At the bottom of each page of the training manual was a task analysis. The intern was asked to read the task and circle yes if the researcher reviewed/completed the task or circle no if the researcher did not review or complete the task. The task analysis that was embedded into the teacher training manual was also completed by researcher and data collector every time a intern went through the training session. The task analysis data was compared for procedural fidelity.

Intern Training Continued..The setting was the same for teacher training as

it was baseline and intervention (table arrangement).

The research thoroughly discussed each of the six components.

The research demonstrated story-based instruction through role-play.

The Intern acting as the student and researcher acting as the intern practiced using the task analysis to teach emergent literacy skills, then roles were reversed (feedback).

The intern was required to reach 90% on the Teacher and Student Story-based Task Analysis before moving on to handwashing.

Intern Training Continued..The Intern acting as the student and researcher acting

as the intern practiced using least to most prompting procedures to teach handwashing, then roles were reversed.

The intern was required to reach 90% on the Teacher and Student Hand Washing Task Analysis before demonstrating both the story-based and hand washing lesson together.

The intern was given 10 minutes to set up the story-based lesson using book 1. The researcher role played a student with a disability. The intern was required to reach 90% on both the Teacher and Student Story-based and Hand Washing task analysis before training would be complete.

Intern Training Continued..After the intern reached criterion for training,

she was given a book with both story-based and hand washing task analysis.

The researcher instructed the intern to only read book one and wait for the researcher to ask before moving on to book 2 or 3.

Procedural Fidelity was calculated at 100%

Intervention

InterventionThe intern used the same materials, setting

and students as in the baseline condition. The intern used The Teacher and Student

Story-based Task Analysis to prompt students to read a book and demonstrate emergent literacy skills.

The intern provided the students feedback and prompting as identified in the task analysis (see task analysis).

InterventionAfter completing the story-based lesson, the

interns provided the student with significant intellectual disabilities a prompt of “go wash your hands”.

The intern used the Teacher and Student Hand

Washing Task Analysis and least to most prompting system to teach hand washing.

DesignDesign Multiple baseline design across participants was used

to demonstrate experimental control.

All students started in baseline until all students showed a stable baseline. The first student was provided the intervention, while the others stayed in baseline. Once the first student reached 70% mastery on the story based task analysis, all remaining students in baseline were probed to ensure a stable baseline. Then the next student received the intervention. This continued until all students received the intervention.

After a student demonstrated 70% mastery in one book, they were then given a second book along with the same intervention. Generalization across books occurred with the 2 novel books on handwashing.

Data Collector TrainingThe researcher explained and reviewed with the

data collector the importance of teaching Emergent Literacy to students with significant intellectual disabilities.

The researcher explained and reviewed the Teacher and Student Story-based Instruction Task Analysis and Datasheets and Teacher and Student Story-based Hand Washing Task Analysis and Datasheets .

The researcher demonstrated both correct and incorrect behaviors of the teacher and student on the Teacher and Student Story-based Instruction Task Analysis and Datasheets and Teacher and Student Story-based Hand Washing Task Analysis and Datasheets.

Data Collector TrainingThe researcher and the data collector watch

a video about story-based instruction and hand washing instruction and score the behaviors together using the Teacher and Student Story-based Instruction Task Analysis and Datasheets and Teacher and Student Story-based Hand Washing Task Analysis and Datasheets. The researcher provided the data collector feedback on each behavior during the video.

Data Collector Training The researcher and data collector a watch a video

about story-based instruction and hand washing, and score separately the behaviors using the Teacher and Student Story-based Instruction Task Analysis and Datasheets and Teacher and Student Story-based Hand Washing Task Analysis and Datasheets . After scoring, the researcher and data collector score the datasheets for interrater reliability.

The researcher and data collector continue watching and scoring videos of story based instruction and hand washing instruction using the Teacher and Student Story-based Instruction Task Analysis and Datasheets and Teacher and Student Story-based Hand Washing Task Analysis and Datasheets until they reach a score of 90% interrater reliability.

Reliability Score (Interns)• The mean interrater reliability score for interns prompting of emergent literacy were 99% accuracy across all phases.

• The mean interrater scores for the interns prompting of hand washing responses were 98% accuracy across all phases.

The mean interrater scores for the students with significant intellectual disabilities correct and independent emergent literacy responses were 97% accuracy across all phases.

The mean interrater scores for the

students with significant intellectual disabilities correct and independent hand washing responses were 96% across all phases.

Reliability Score (Students)

Reliability Score (Intern Generalization)

The mean interrater scores of the interns prompting of emergent literacy skills across untrained students with significant intellectual disabilities were 99% across all phases

The mean interrater reliability scores for the interns prompting of hand washing skills across untrained students with significant intellectual disabilities were 99% across all phases

The mean interrater scores for the untrained students with significant intellectual disabilities correct and independent emergent literacy responses were 98% across all phases.

The mean interrater scores for students with significant intellectual disabilities correct and independent hand washing responses were 98% across all phases.

Reliability Score (Student Generalization)

DISCUSSION

Discussion (Intern Behavior)

All three interns demonstrated near zero rates of correct story based instruction with students with significant intellectual disabilities.

After instruction, all 3 interns demonstrated 100% mastery at implementing story based instruction to both a trained student and an untrained student (generalization).

Discussion: (Intern Behavior)

During baseline, all 3 interns demonstrated near zero rates of correct systematic instruction during hand washing.

After the intervention, all 3 interns demonstrated 100% mastery for implementing systematic instruction on hand washing.

Multi-component training package was effective in preparing the interns to instruct the students with significant intellectual disabilities on emergent literacy and hand washing skills.

Discussion: Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities

All 3 students demonstrated near zero independent and correct responses in the baseline condition for emergent literacy skills.

After intervention on story-based instruction, 3 students showed mastery in emergent literacy skills.

The story-based instruction was effective for teaching the students emergent literacy skills.

Discussion: Hand Washing All 3 students demonstrated about 30%

independent and correct hand washing skills during baseline.

All 3 students showed mastery in handwashing after reading the first story on hand washing and practicing washing their hands with the system of least prompts.

The combined story-based instruction and systematic instruction was effective in teaching hand washing.

Generalization Two interns were able to generalize their skills for both

story-based instruction and systematic instruction across one novel child. One of the interns did not have a generalization student.

One generalization student was able to generalize the skill of emergent literacy skills and hand washing skills across 3 different stories on how to wash your hands. The second generalization student was making progress but had not reached mastery.

One generalization student showed mastery in handwashing after reading the first story on hand washing and practiced washing her hands with the system of least prompts. The second generalization student was making progress but had not reach mastery.

Significance of the Study This study will add to the research on how to

teach students with significant intellectual disabilities comprehensive literacy skills that link to the Standard Course of Study.

This study will respond to the limited research in the area of story-based instruction on teaching both emergent literacy skills and the functional daily living skills for students with significant intellectual disabilities.

It will offer a way of teaching age appropriate academic skills that link to the Standard Course of Study while working on necessary functional daily living skills.

The study could lead to the development of curriculum that provides a means for educators to know how to teach both emergent literacy skills that are linked to the Standard Course of Study and crucial functional skills to students with significant intellectual disabilities.

Significance of the Study continued….

References Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. Courtade, O., Gibbs, S., & Flowers, C.

(2008). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an early literacy program for students with significant develop mental Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75(1), 33-52. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Browder, D., Mims, P., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Lee, A. (2009). Teaching elementary students with multiple disabilities to participate in shared stories. Research & Practices for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, 3-12. Retrieved May 22, 2009 from Academic Search Complete database.

Browder, D. Trela, K. & Jimenez, B. (2007). Training teachers to follow a task analysis to engage middle school students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus on Autism and Other Development Disabilities, 22, 206-219.

Cooper-Duffy, K., Szedja, P. & Hyer, G. (2010). Teaching literacy to students with cognitive disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children 43(3).

Fry, E. (1977). Fry’s readability graph: Clarification, validity and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading. 21, 242-252.

Questions and EmailsKarena Cooper-Duffykcooper@email.wcu.edu

Glenda Hyerglhyer1@email.wcu.edu