http://tes.sagepub.com/Exceptional Children

Education Division of the Council forEducation: The Journal of the Teacher

Teacher Education and Special

http://tes.sagepub.com/content/5/4/19The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/088840648200500404

1982 5: 19Council for Exceptional ChildrenTeacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the

Ann Nevin, Phyllis Paolucci-Whitcomb, Venna Duncan and Laval A. ThibodeauThe Consulting Teacher as a Clinical Researcher

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

Teacher Education Division of the Council of Exceptional Children

can be found at:Education Division of the Council for Exceptional ChildrenTeacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the TeacherAdditional services and information for

   

  http://tes.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://tes.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://tes.sagepub.com/content/5/4/19.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Oct 1, 1982Version of Record >>

by Ann Nevin on April 8, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Ann Nevin on April 8, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

19

THECONSULTINGTEACHER AS ACLINICALRESEARCHER

Ann Nevin

Phyllis Paolucci-Whitcomb

Venna Duncan

Laval A. Thibodeau

Ann Nevin is Associate Professor, Phyllis Paolucci-Whitcomb is Associate Professor, Dvenna Duncan isAssociate Professor, and Laval A. Thibodeau is Grad-uate Research Assistant, all, Department of SpecialEducation, Social Work, and Social Services, Collegeof Education and Social Services, University of Ver-mont, Burlington, Vermont.

This study was supported as part of the Deparfmentof Special Education, Social Work and Socia.1’ Ser-vices research efforts. This article wouid no be ~ossi-ble without the cooperation and exceilence of ~~e pre-school, elementary, and secondary consulting teach-ers who continue to develop, implement, evaluate,and revise effective individualized programs for Ver-mont’s exceptional students.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the ap-plied clinical research procedures used by spe-cial education personnel who act in a consult-ing cr roie. The main thesis is thatthe procedures of applied behav-ior analysis are appropriate and helpful in decid-ing the effectiveness of special education inter-ventions.The consulting teacher approach to special

education has been demonstrated to be a viablealternative to special class or resource room ap-proaches (Christie, McKenzie, & Burdett, 1972;Fox, Egne~, Paolucci, Perelman, McKenzie, &

Garvin, 1972; Hasazi, 1976; Knight, Meyers,Hasazi, Paolucci-Whitcomb, & Nevin, 1981;Lates, 1978; McKenzie, 1971; Miller & Sabatino,1978). It is a noncategorical teacher trainingmodel (Lilly, 1971), which provides special edu-cation within regular classrooms for learnerswho have traditionally been labelled mildly re-tarded, learning disabled, behaviorally disor-dered, emotionally disturbed, or neurologicallyimpaired. The model has been used in Vermontsince 1970, when four local school districts im-plemented it with four consulting teachers. Cur-rently, 50 of Vca E ~ ~cn t~s 59 school districts

employ 100 teachers who assist andtrain regular classroom teachers and the par-ents of handicapped learners to collaboratewith specialists in deveioping, implement-ng,and evaluating comprehensive individualizededucational programs that are conducted with-in the regular classroom.The training program to prepare consulting

teachers includes advanced graduate course-work in applied behavior analysis, task andcurriculm analysis, performance-based and cri-terion-referenced assessment, classroom man-agernent and philosophical andtheoretlcai foundations of special education,program planning, and evaluation systems.Candidates complete extensive practica in

training others to develop, implement, and eval-uate comprehensive ‘IEPs. The supervision ofpractica is provided by university faculty andlocal school district consulting teachers.

Knight, Christie, Egner, Paolucci, and Latesdescribed the supervisory and teachingresponsibilities within a field-based graduatetraining program. The faculty must successfullyprovide a monitoring system that enables iden-tif ication of trainee strengths, a communicationsystem that allows district supervisors to knowwhat competencies are expected of the trainee,and a communication system that allows facul-

by Ann Nevin on April 8, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

20

ty (both on campus and district-based) to knowwhat is expected of them in relation to thetrainee.

Consulting teachers are trained to provideconsulting and experiences for class-room teachers individualized according to theteacher’s entry level, the student’s learningneeds, and the available material and human re-sources within the public school. The content oftraining includes teacher competencies relatedto curricula in basic skills (task analyses and se-quencing), foundations of special education, in-dividualized instruction techniques, methods ofmeasuring and monitoring child achievement,and classroom management techniques. Themost important indicator of the success of theconsulting and services provided byconsulting teachers is the increased ability ofthe regular classroom teacher to meet theneeds of learners eligibie for special services.For example, Coleman; Eggelston, ~ollins,Holloway, and Reider evaluated a com-prehensive educational program develioped andimplemented for a severely hearing i~pairedstudent in a 4th classroom.A critical aspect to evaluating the consulting

teacher is the documented changes in rates oflearning of the handicapped learner as a func-tion of the teachingflearning strategies imple-mented by the regular classroom teacher. Basi-cally, consulting teachers follow a series ofconsulting steps employing reinforcement prin-ciples to help convince teachers that they caneffect beneficial changes in exceptional stu-dents. The major outcome of the consultingsteps is to enable the teacher to develop, imple-ment, and evaluate an individualized programfor a referred student. The data-based modelused to provide special education within regularclassrooms begins when a teacher refers a stu-dent. The consulting teacher helps the teacherassess the preintervention or entry level of thestudent’s performance, establish an individualinstructional objective for the student, and ap-ply reinforcement principles designed to in-crease the student’s performance. Finally, theconsulting teacher helps the teacher evaluatethe effectiveness of the procedures in terms ofchanges in the behavioral measures of the stu-dent’s daily classroom performance. Thesemeasures provide an on-going indication of ef-fectiveness. When the data indicate that thedesired changes are not occurring for the stu-dent, the procedures are modified until desiredchanges occur.

Consulting f ac rs~g~~~~~ convinceteachers that they can effect beneficialchanges in exceptional students.

To prepare for this aspect of their job, duringthe training program consulting teachers mustdesign and conduct at least two case study re-ports for students eligible for special educationin which they verify the effects of the teachingflearning strategies. Verification procedures arebased on the experimental analysis of behavior,which relies on single subject research designs(Sidman, 1960), including reversal, multiplebaseline, and changing criterion designs. In ad-dition, consulting teachers document throughAB designs (pre- during, and postintervention)the results of their interventions for other handi-

capped learners. Many of these case studieshave merited publication in refereed journals( ngney ~ Hanley, 1981; Burns, Erickson, &Paolucci-Whitcomb, in press; Coleman et al.,1975; Coleman, Kaszuba, & Pierce, 1973; Hall,~o~lo~, ~ Hanley, 1972; Hawkes & Paolucci-

Vllhitc®r~b, 198g; ~ates, Egner, & McKenzie,1971; McNeil, Hasazi, Muller, & Knight, 1972;Nevin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1982; Pigeon &

Egner, 1972).The major purpose of this s-Lua~y was to deter-

mine the extent to which consulting teacherprogram graduates had generalized the use ofresearch procedures acquired during their train-ing to the work setting. Previous studies of pro-gram graduates had focused on the servicesprovided to handicapped students through thetraining of school personnel (e.g., Knight et al.,1981). The present study employed statisticalcorrelations of responses to a telephone surveyof respondents’ reported use of research meth-ods in addition to review of permanent productsexemplifying the research efforts of practicingconsulting teachers.

METHOD

Sampling ProcedureA stratified random sampling procedure wasused to select the survey respondents from atotal population of 100 University of VermontConsulting Teacher Program graduates whowere practicing in Vermont school districts.Each stratum represented a 4-year block be-

by Ann Nevin on April 8, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

21

tween 1969 and 1981. Subjects were assigned toa block according to the year of graduation. Us-ing a of random numbers, subjects weredrawn from each stratum so that the percen-tage was proportional to the number of grad-uates that appeared in a stratum. A total of 26subjects were randomly selected, or 26% of thepopulation of graduates practicing as consult-ing teachers in Vermont.The positions of survey respondents varied

as follows: 9 were elementary consultingteacher learning specialists-, 3 were secondaryconsulting teacher learning specialists; 4 wereserving as educational specialists for teachersof the severely handicapped; and 11 were serv-ing as special education coordinators (1 whoacted as early education coordinator). (Note:one respondent served in two roles, such as co-ordinator and consulting teacher, so the totalexceeds 26.)

Survey respondents were categorized ac-

cording to number of years of employment intheir respective school districts: 69% were em-ployed 5 years or less, while 31 % were em-ployed more than 5 years. The reported caseloads of consulting teachers varied from 14 to50, with an average of 25 handicapped students.Respondents reported being responsible for

training from 0 to 25 paraprofessionals, with amean of 7. Their teacher-training responsibili-ties ranged from 0 to 180 with a mean o~ ~1 îteachers, while their parent training responsibi.1-ities ranged from 0 to 99, with of 11 par-ents.

Int iew ProcessEach survey respondent was contacted by tele-phone either at the work site or home duringworking hours (8 A.M.-5 P.M.). The interviewerintroduced himelf and named. the principal in-vestigators, the institution for which the surveywas being conducted, and the purpose of thesurvey. The interviewer informed the respon-dent(s) it should take approximately 20 minutesto complete the survey and about the numberand type/categories of questions on the ques-tionnaire. (A copy of the questionnaire may beobtained by writing the authors.) The survey re-spondents were informed of the confidentialityof their responses and that the results of thequestionnaire would be reported only in aggre-gate form. The interviewer asked the respon-dent if he or she wanted to participate; no onerefused to participate. If the respondent optedto participate but did not have enough time at

the moment, the interviewer scheduled a mutu-ally acceptable time to conduct the survey. Theinterviewer read questions from the question-naire for the survey respondents, i-e~orded theresponses, answered any the surveyrespondent had about the questionnaire or ter-minology, verbally prompted the surveydent when he or she appeared to be at a loss forwords, and verbally thanked each responded forparticipating in the survey.An interobserver reliability check was con-

ducted by the principal investigator, who lis-tened on another phone to an interview betweenthe data collector and a survey respondent andrecorded data in a manner identical to the datacollector. The percentage of agreement wascomputed by dividing the number of agree-ments by the number of agreements and disa-greements, multiplied by 100; 100% agreementwas obtained.

Data AnalysisData were tallied for each item of the survey andfrequency distributions were generated foreach item. Statistical tests were selected to

identify associations or correiations. A t-tes4L

was conducted to analy~e the relationship be-tween case load and research conducted since

graduation and the relationship between yearsof practicing in a district and rcsear ch con=ducted since A Spearman rankorder correlation was conducted to determine

relationships between the amount of researchconducted during training and research con-ducted since graduation.

RESULTS

Program graduates have been involvedin implementing single s~b~ect research

designs since graduation. In fact, 42% of the re-spondents indicated that they were inconducting one or more studies just within thelast year.

All respondents rer.,Io.,,,~o-d their use ofresearch designs since As shown inTable 1, 100% had conducted AB designs;80.8% had conducted multiple baseline

designs; 88.~°/® had obtained pre- and postinter-vention measures; 65.4% conducted chan ’..criteria designs; and 61.5% conducted rever saldesigns as practicing consulting teachers.The focus of the studies conducted by survey

respondents can be found in Table 2. Students

by Ann Nevin on April 8, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

22

TABLE 1Research designs used survey respondents

* Respondents could choose more than one response; thus percen-tages may total more than 100.

TABLE 2Focus of studies of survey respondents

*

Respondents could choose more than one response; thus percen-tages may total more than 100.

with learning disabilities or academic deficitswere studied by 88.5% of the respondents;57.6°lo studied learners with behavior or disci-

pline problems; 80.7% studied special studentswithin the regular class; 34.6% studied severelyhandicapped learners; 42.4% studied physical-ly handicapped; 46.1 °/® studied students with

sensory impairments; 50% studied mentally re-tarded students; 38.5% studied learners withother problems such as autism, speech dis-orders, or cultural disadvantages.

Survey respondents reported a variety ofmeasurement procedures which were used asdependent variables, as shown in Table 3. Per-centage complete and correct were the mostfrequently named measures (92.3% and 84.6%,respectively). Tallying and rate measurementsystems were used by 80.7% of respondents.Sample recording was used by 69.5%; intervalrecording by 61.5%; and 38% mentioned other

systems such as duration, latency, and anec-dotal data.The independent variables or intervention

systems used by respondents were also varied.The most frequently mentioned intervention

systems involved the contingent application ofconsequences. As shown in Table 4, 96.2% ap-plied consequences. Schedules of reinforce-ment and shaping or fading were used by92.3%, while 88.5% studied the effects of

changing antecedents such as curriculum ma-terials. Other interventions mentioned by 30.7%included forward and backward chaining andpunishment techniques such as extinction andtime out.An important variable in conducting field-

based research appeared to be the presence ofcollaborators. Survey respondents indicated a

TABLE 3measurement systems used by survey

respondents

* Respondents could choose more than one response; thus percen-tages may total more than 100.

TABLE 4Intervention or independent variables ’used by

survey respondents

*

Respondents could choose more than one response; thus percen-tages may total more than 100.

by Ann Nevin on April 8, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

23

TABLE 5Research collaborators with

survey respondents

*

Respondents could choose more than one response; thus percen-tages may total more than 100.

wide range of collaborators for their studies. Asshown in Table 5, University of Vermont facultywere most frequently named as collaboratorsby 81.5% of the respondents; the special stu-dents’ parents and another special educatorwere cited by 50%; an administrator was a col-laborator for 46.7%; another consulting teacheror intern for 42.3% and 38.5%, respectively; astate department special education consultantwas cited by 38.5%; regular class teachers werenamed by 26.9%; and undergraduate studentswere cited by 19.2%. Other collaborators citedby 30.8% included speech pathologists, statecollege faculty, school board members, and in-terdisciplinary team members.

The primary reasons practicing consultingteachers conducted field-based research werecited. The most frequently named reason (citedby 80.7% of respondents) was &dquo;to find out whatworks best for the student.&dquo; Testing the effectsof a particular procedure or curriculum wascited by 61.5%. Evaluating a procedure as partof the review of an individual educational pro-gram was named by 42.3%; assisting a con-sulting teacher intern in meeting research re-quirements was also cited by 42.3%. Otherreasons for conducting research (cited by19.2% of respondents) included documentationto convince superintendents and to communi-cate with parents.

In addition, 30.8% reported their studies havebeen published in refereed journals (TeachingExceptional Children, Exceptional Children, Be-

havior Analysis and Education, Education andTreatment of Children)- Finally, 69% of rgspon-dents made recommendations regarding the re-search training component of the orogram toprepare consulting teachers: 46% recom-

mended a decrease in emphasis; 15% recom-mended an increase in emphasis; 8% recom-mended no change in emphasis. However,100% of the survey respondents reported thatthe research component of the consultingteacher training program was helpful in the im-plementation of their consulting teacher role.The survey included the identification of fac-

tors that helped and hindered respondentss abil_ities to conduct clinical research within theirschool districts. Time constraints were themost frequently named barrier (49% of barrierscited), followed by competing priorities (14%),demands of the job (such as a large case load,travel demands), lack of cooperation from facul-ty and administration, and lack of resources(such as money, equipment, trained observers),which each accounted for 5% of barriers cited.Politics of the school accounted for 4% of the

barriers.

Conversely, 35 factors that facilitated their re-search efforts were cited. The necessity to doc-ument effectiveness of procedures was cited39% of the time; personal interest was cited20% of the time; training in conducting re-

search was cited 17% of the time; teacher andadministrator cooperation was cited 14% of thetime; and 11 % of the factors were related to hav-ing skilled faculty, staff, and university person-nel as collaborators.

CORRELATIONS

Several correlations were conducted to identifypossible relationships. A t-test was conductedto see if there was a difference in amount of re-search since graduation between groups withhigh case loads and groups with low case loads.Consulting teachers with higher case loadsconducted significantly more research thanthose with lower case loads (p = .007).A Spearman rank order correlation was con-

ducted to determine the correlation between re-search conducted during training and researchconducted since graduation. A positive correla-tion significant at the .021 level was obtained;i.e., respondents who had high numbers of casestudies required for graduation also reported

by Ann Nevin on April 8, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

24

conducting a high number of research studiessince graduation.A t-test to determine the relationship be-

tween years in the district and research con-ducted was not significant.

~A STUDY EXAMPLES

It appears, therefore, that the procedures of ap-plied behavior analysis are conducive to con-ducting clinical research in that it is possible toidentify dependent variables related to studentchange that are meaningful to the regular class-room teacher (such as percentage measures ofachievement or frequency measures of appro-priate or inappropriate behaviors). The experi-mental procedures provided immediate feed-back to the classroom teacher as well as the

consulting teacher as to the apparent appropri-ateness of the interventions for the referred stu-dent. This may be especially important in thatstudents referred for special services typicallyare idiosyncratic in their responses to the nor-mal stimuli provided in the classroom, whichmakes single subject research designed partic-ularly appropriate as a method of documentingeffectiveness.Case study examples are presented below in

order to illustrate how consulting teachers usethe procedures of experimental analyses of be-havior in documenting and evaluating the con-sulting and training services to teachers of spe-cial education students. Each case study givesa description of participants and setting, the de-pendent and independent variables, and results.

edm~ d, S tten, nd evi (1980)This study involved an llth grade science classof the most academically deficient and behav-iorally problematic students in a comprehen-sive high school. There were 10 students, 17 to18 years old (7 males, 3 females) assigned to thescience class, which was part of the Coopera-tive Occupational Education (COE) Program.The COE Program is a regional vocational pro-gram designed to serve students identifiedas educationally disadvantaged. Academicclasses were held each morning for the stu-dents, who were then placed in a variety of on-the-job vocational training options during theafternoon. One student in the class was identi-fied as eligible for special education servicesand was being served through an individualizededucation program. The teacher had 6 years of

Program graduates have been activelyinvolved in implementing single subjectresearch designs since graduation.

experience at this high school and had beenwith the COE Program for 3 years. He had takenseveral special education courses and work-shops and was interested in decreasing thehigh level of disruptive behavior which inter-fered with students’ completion of academicassignments.The dependent variable was the number of in-

appropriate behaviors tallied during eachscience class. Inappropriate behavior was de-fined as talk-outs (when a student spoke with-out raising his or her hand for permission fromthe teacher) and out-of-seats (when no part ofthe student’s body was touching a chair). Occur-rences of talk-outs and out-of-seat behaviorwere tallied whenever the teacher observed anoccurrence, yielding a daily frequency of disrup-tive behavior. At least once in each conditionthe consulting teacher or a supervisor concur-rentlytallied occurrences in order to check relia-bility of measurement. A percentage of agree-ment was computed by dividing the agreementsby the number of agreements and disagree-ments and multiplying the result by 100.The independent variable was the implemen-

tation of heterogeneous cooperative learninggroups (Johnson & Johnson, 1975). The teacherassigned one girl and two boys to each of threegroups to ensure one high achiever, one med-ium achiever, and one low achiever in each

group. The teacher read aloud the content of thescience lesson for the day (or the students lis-tened to a tape recorder) and then instructedeach group to complete three written questionsrelated to the lesson. Each group composed twoadditional questions to exchange ~vith anothergroup. Students then completed the five ques-tions individually. The teacher corrected the in-dividual responses and computed an averagegrade for each group. The groups then studied&dquo;Bonus Questions&dquo; and coached one student to

represent the group when the teacher quizzedeach group orally. Teams were awarded pointscontingent on correct responses. Teams with 15or more points were dismissed 2 minutes earlyfor lunch.

During baseline conditions, students com-pleted science lessons individually. Assign-ments from various science workbooks were

by Ann Nevin on April 8, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

25

listed on the chalkboard. Students obtained therelevant materials, independently read the con-tent, and completed related questions on aworksheet. Students who finished the assign-ments were encouraged to complete additionalunits.

Results as depicted in Figure 1 show that thefrequencies of inappropriate behavior talliedduring independent work (baseline conditions)are substantially and consistently higher thanfrequencies tallied during the cooperative team-ing group condition. Variability decreased aswell. The percentages of agreement rangedfrom 86% to 100%, with an averageofg5°f°. Fur-thermore, this effect was consistently repli-cated as the independent work condition wasrandomly interspersed with the group contin-gency conditions. During the independent workconditions, frequencies ranged from 13 to 44with an average of 27.2; while in cooperativegroup condition, the frequencies ranged from 7to 26 with an average of 11.8. In addition, the stu-dents’ accuracy in science lessons increased

during the cooperative group condition. For ex-ample, on the first quiz completed during the co-operative group condition, four studentsachieved 100%, two achieved 60%, and fourachieved 40%. On the second quiz, nine stu-dents achieved 100% and one student achieved80%. The student with a special IEP improvedfrom 40% to 80% under the group contingency.

Both the teacher and the consulting teacherwere encouraged by the results to continue touse the cooperative group procedures, whichdecreased the frequency of disruptive class-room behavior.

FIGURE 1Number of inappropriate behaviors for science

class during independent work andcooperative group conditions.

Alnasrawl and Paolucci=Whitcomb (1980)The special education program described sin

this study was developed for a 7-year-old giri in akindergarten class of 15 students in a suburbanelementary school of 400 students. Rosie hadhad 3 years of special instruction at a segre-gated early education facility for children withdevelopmental delays in language, self-help,social, and motor skills. She was diagnosed ashaving miid cerebral palsy of the legs and someminor difficulty with fine motor coordination inthe hands. Her bahavioral conduct was most

problematic: she destroyed objects, bit othersand herself, banged her head, and had a veryshort attention span. She received medical su-pervision from a family doctor as well as the ear-ly education center which she attended eachafternoon after attending the kindergartenclass. Her kindergarten teacher had 12 years ofteaching experience and a masters of educa-tion degree in special education.The consulting teacher worked with Rosie on

a daily basis throughout the kindergarten morn-ing on such tasks as one-to-one tutoring, facili-tating in small and large group activities, andaccompanying Rosie to music class and thelibrary. The consulting teacher kept dailyrecords on academic progress during each tu-torial session and for 30 minutes each day. Datawere collected on Rosie’s disruptive behavioras well as the direct contact between the stu-dent and the teacher’s consulting teacher.The dependent variables used to evaluate the

effect of intervention on Rosie’s progress werethe frequencies of throwing objects, running,screaming, biting, kicking, and pushing. Fre-

quencies of disruptive behavior were tallied at15-second intervals on a 10-second observe/5-second record basis cued by a tape-recordedtime signal the recorder wore on her ear. Relia=bility of measurement was provided on randomoccasions by a second observer using the samerecording A percentage of agree-ment was by dividing the number ofby the of agreements plusdisagreements, multiplied by 100.

The dependent variable used to assess the ef-fectiveness of the consultation process on theteacher mduded the amount of time the teacher

spent in contact with Rosie compared to theamount of time the consulting teacher spentwith Rosie. was defined as direct phys-ical or ve-bal con act with Rosie and was re-corded 1’1 the same manner and at the sametime as the c&dquo;.1%,4. s behavior. In addition, infor-

by Ann Nevin on April 8, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

26

mation regarding the teacher’s attitude was col-iected in the form of an informal log kept by theconsuiting teacher on the formal and informal

with the teacher and other specialeducation personnel. Informal meetings wereheld every day and formal meetings were sched-uled weekly.The intervention technique (consulting pro-

cess) had three objectives: (a) to decrease theamount of time the consulting teacher con-tacted Rosie, (b) to the teacher in develop-ing a class schedule so as to provide structuredteaching/learning activities for Rosie, and (c) totransfer the responsibility of Rosie’s instructionfrom the consulting teacher to the teacher.

Figure 2 shows the percentage of intervals inwhich disruptive behaviors were recorded. Dur-ing sessions 1 through 35, when the consultingteacher provided most of the instructional con-

tact with Rosie, disruptive behaviors rangedfrom 0 to 45% of intervals with an average of11.6%. During sessions 36 61, when theclassroom teacher increased her contact withRosie, disruptive behavior decreased to a rangeof 0 to 40% with an average of 3.2%. Percent-

ages of observer agreement ranged from 93%to 100% with an average of 95%.

Figure 3 shows the percentage of intervals inwhich the teacher contacted the student andthe percentage of intervals in which the consult-ing teacher contacted the student. During ses-sions 1 through 35, the teacher contacted thestudent at an average of 15.5% of the intervals,ranging from 0 to 71%. During sessions 36through 61, the teacher increased to an averageof 36.3% with a range from 6 to 91 °f®. Percent-

ages of observer agreement on this measureranged from 86% to 100% with an average of

FIGURE 2

Percentage of intervals of disruptive behavior for special education student in regular classroomduring low teacher/student contact (day 1-35) and high teacher/student contact (days 36-70).

FIGURE 3Percentage of intervals showing relationship of teacher/student contact.

by Ann Nevin on April 8, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

27

92.57-This can be compared to the decrease of con-

tact between the consulting teacher and thestudent shown in Figure 4. During sessions 1through 35, the percentage of intervals the con-sulting teacher contacted the student rangedfrom 0 to 100% with an average of 55%. This de-creased during sessions 36 through 61 to anaverage of 33.7% with a range of 0 to 74%.

It should be noted that Rosie continued to

progress at the same rate under both condi-tions. When the consulting teacher had primaryresponsibility, Rosie achieved 6.4 skills per day;whereas when the teacher had primary respon-sibility, Rosie achieved 6.3 skills per day.The success of the consultation process is

also evident in the changes in the teacher’scomments. During sessions 1 through 35, theteacher was insistent that the consultingteacher be in the classroom. &dquo;I need to be surethere is someone here all the time.&dquo; &dquo;I have 14other children to worry about; I can’t be ex-

pected to spend all my time with Rosie.&dquo; &dquo;Ifshe’s in one of my small academic groups, Iwant someone here at all times.&dquo; The teacherwas always positive about wanting Rosie in herroom and about being willing to try anything tofacilitate Rosie’s integration, and she waswarm and loving with Rosie when she did con-tact her. Once the teacher and consultingteacher developed a consistent schedule ofclassroom activities, the began to inter-act with Rosie more From this timeon, the teacher’s comments included, &dquo;You

know, I think she’s going to make it.&dquo; &dquo;She’s at-tending better and progressing. What a changefrom the beginning of the year.&dquo; &dquo;She’s a plea-sure to work with.&dquo; The teacher provided a majorstimulus for setting up a consistent schedulewith Rosie’s future first grade teacher in orderto similarly facilitate her integration into thefirst grade class.

DISCUSSION

The program to prepare consulting teachers in-cludes a strong emphasis on employing the pro-cedures of experimental analysis. During thetraining program, candidates concurrently com-plete theoretical coursework and field-basedpractica that result in written case study docu-mentation of how specified independent vari-ables (I.e., teaching/learning procedures usingcurricula, consequences, scheduling of rein-

forcement, or shapi ng) to affect a wide variety ofdependent measures representing the aca-

demic and social behaviors of handicappedlearners. The results of this study indicate thatthe research training component has been help-ful in enabling consulting teachers to be effec-tive in conducting their professional responsi-bilities. It is also evident that certain fieldconditions such as the presence of collabora-tors may reinforce consulting teachers to main-tain the research skills acquired during training.Furthermore, there seems to be an importantreinforced practice effect since there is a direct

FIGURE 4

Percentage of intervals showing relationship of consulting teacher intern (CTI)/student contact (top°

graph) and teacher/student contact

by Ann Nevin on April 8, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

28

correlation cetwea;; frequency of case studiesrequired, during training and frequency of con-ducting research since graduation.The rcie of the consulting teacher as a clini-

cal researcher is apparently a viable and impor-tant of the job. Hall, Cristler, Cranston,and Tucker (1970) described a research role forteachers and parents who used multiple baselinedesigns to document the effects of systematicreinforcement and punishment procedures in theclassroom and at home. The importance of thisstudy, in addition to documenting the effects ofconsequences on clearly specified behaviors, isthat teachers and DarenLs can i~piement ex-perimental designs. Sim i la;1y, the present sludyindicates that consulting teachers in the super-visory role can enable school personnel to ef-fectively implement singis researchdesigns to evaluate services for handicappedlearners.

The role of the consulting teacher as aclinical researcher is apparently aviable and important aspect of the

Cossairt, Hall, and Hopkins (1973) expandedthe concept of teachers as experimenters bydocumenting the effects of the experimenter’sbehaviors on the teacher and teacher’s stu-dents. The use of a multiple baseline design anda systematic analysis of instruction, feedback,and praise enabled the experimenter to verifythe effectiveness of his behaviors. This is aclassic demonstration of the triadic model ofconsultation delineated by Tharp (1975) andTharp and Wetzel (1969). The consulting teacheressentially acts as a consultant (experimenter)to employ a variety of sources of influences (re-inforcement, modeling, instruction, feedback,and cognitive restructuring) to assist a teacherwho mediates the sources of influence for a re-ferred student. By employing the cognitivestructure of the experimental analysis of behav-ior, consulting teachers assist a wide variety ofcollaborators (teachers, parents, administra-

tors) to influence the progress of handicappedstudents positively. The majority of survey re-spondents reported employing the basic base-line/intervention (AB) design, which essentiallydemonstrates that a change in behavior has oc-curred. In the clinical setting, this is often

enough to convince service providers that the

problem is ameliorated. However, a substantialproportion of respondents reported using rever-sal and multiple baseline designs when it wasimportant to document the procedure itselfwas responsible for the in behavior.The results of this study are supported by

others who have suggested similar perfor-mances for special educators who act in theconsultant role (ldol-N4aestas, Lloyd, & Lilly,1981; Nelson, & 1981; Deno & Mirkin,1977). In the interest of providing cost-effective,accountable, measured progress for each hand-icapped student, clinical research roles may beimportant to verify the effectiveness of individ- .ual programs in the delivery of special educa-tion services. This study effectively demon-strates that Vermont consulting teacher programgraduates have generalized the research skillsacquired during training to the work setting.Further research is needed to clarify the trainingand work conditions as well as contingencieswhich facilitate this generalization.

REFERENCES

Alnasrawi, S., & Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. The effects ofa teacher consultant on the movement of onechild along a normalization continuum and therelated effects upon a teacher-child relationshipin a kindergarten classroom. Unpublished manu-script, University of Vermont, Department ofSpecial Education, Social Work, and Social Ser-vices, 1981.

Angney, A., & Hanley, E. A parent implementationshaping procedure to develop independent walk-ing of a Down’s syndrome child. Education andTreatment of Children, 1979, 2, 293-304.

Burns, J., Erickson, A., & Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. Theeffects of self-recording on the acquisition ofreading skills within a minimum objective sys-tem. Education and Treatment of Children, in

press.

Christie, L., McKenzie, H., & Burdett, C. The consult-ing teacher approach to special education: Inser-vice training for regular classroom teachers.Focus on Exceptional Children, 1972, 4, 1-10.

Coleman, P., Eggelston, K., Collins, J., Holloway, B., &Reider, D. A severely hearing impaired child inthe mainstream. Teaching Exceptional Children,1975, 8, 6-9.

Coleman, P., Kaszuba, K., & Pierce, M. The effects of asequential computational skills math programon an underachieving fourth grade class. Journalof Behavioral Education, 1973, 2, 12-20.

Cossairt, A., Hall, R.V., & Hopkins, B. The effects of ex-perimenter’s instructions, feedback, and praise

by Ann Nevin on April 8, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

29

on teacher behavior and student attention be-havior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,1973, 6, 89-100

Deno, S., & Mirkin, P. Data-based program modifica-tion: A manual. Reston, Va.: Council for Excep-tional Children, 1977.

Egner, A., & Lates, B.J. The Vermont ConsultingTeacher Program: Case presentation. In C.Parker (Ed.), Psychological consultation: Help-ing teachers meet special needs. Reston, Va.:Council for Exceptional Children, 1975.

Egner, A., & Paolucci, P. For the sake of the children:Some thoughts on the rights of teachers whoprovide special education within the regularclassroom. In R. Johnson, R. Weatherman, & J.Gross (Eds.) Leadership series in special educa-tion (Vol. 5). Minneapolis: University of Minne-sota, Audio-visual Library, 1974.

Fox, W., Egner, A., Paolucci, P., Perelman, P., McKen-zie, H., & Garvin, J. An introduction to a regularclassroom approach to special education. In E.Deno (Ed.), Instructional alternatives for excep-tional children. Reston, Va.: Council for Excep-tional Children, 1972.

Hall, C., Conlon, M., & Hanley, E. The effects of a peercorrection procedure on the arithmetic accuracyof two elementary school children. In G. Semb(Ed.), Behavior analysis in education. Lawrence,Kans.: The University of Kansas, 1972.

Hall, R.V., Cristler, B., Cranston, D., & Tucker, B.Teachers and parents as researchers using mul-tiple baseline designs. Journal of Applied Behav-ior Analysis, 1970, 3, 247-255.

Hasazi, S. The consultant teacher. In J. Jordan (Ed.),Teacher, please don’t close the door. Reston,Va.: Council for Exceptional Children, 1976.

Hawkes, K.M., & Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. Helpingteachers use peer tutoring: A consultationmodel. In S. Fagen & N. Long (Eds.), The Pointerfor All Educators and Parents of ExceptionalChildren. 24(3). Washington, DC.: Hildref Publica-tions, 1980.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. Learning together andalone. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall,1975.

Knight, M., Christie, L., Egner, A., Paolucci, P., &Lates, B.J. Rate of task completion for

evaluating and monitoring a field based

graduate training program. In L. Farley & E.

Vargas (Eds.), Proceeding of the Third NationalConference on Behavior Research andTechnology in Higher Education. Reedville,W.Va.: Society for the Behavioral Analysis ofCulture, 1976.

Knight, M., Meyers, H., Hasazi, S., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., & Nevin, A. A four year evaluationof consulting teacher structure. Behavior

Disorders, 1981, 6, 92-100.

Idol-Maestas, L., Lloyd, S., & Lilly, M.S. Implementa-tion of a noncategorical approach to direct ser-vice and teacher educaticn. Exceptional Chil-dren, 1981, 48, 213-220.

Lates, B.J. IEP training in a large urban school sys-tem. In Bluma Weiner (Ed.), Periscope: Views ofthe individualized education program. Reston,Va.: Council for Exceptional Children, 1988,45-49.

Lates, B., Egner, A., & McKenzie, H. Behavior modifi-cation of the academic and social behaviors offirst grade children, or what happens when edu-cators turn on. In E. Ramp & B. Hopkins (Eds.), Anew direction for education: Behavior analysis.Lawrence, Kas.: University of Kansas, 1971.

Lilly, M.S. A training based model for special educa-tion. Exceptional Children, 1971, 37, 745-749.

McKenzie, H.S. Special education and consultingteachers. In F. Clark, D. Evans, & L. Hammerlynk(Eds.), Implementing behavioral programs forschools. Champaign, III.: Research Press, 1971.

McNeil, M., Hasazi, S., Muller, A., & Knight, M. Openclassrooms: Supporters of applied behavioranalysis. In G. Semb (Ed.), Behavior analy-sis in education. Lawrence, Kans.: University ofKansas, 1972, 112-126.

Miller, T., & Sabatino, D. An evaluation of the teacherconsultant as an approach to mainstreaming.Exceptional Children, 1978, 46, 86-91.

Nelson, M., Neel, R., & Lilly, M.S. (Eds.). Consultationas a support system for behaviorally disorderedpupils and their teachers. Behavior Disorders,1981, 6, 1-132.

Nevin, A., Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. The effects of in-dividual and group contingencies on the aca-demic performance and social relations of spe-cial needs students. Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 1982, 116, 41-59.

Pidgeon, G., & Egner, A. Increasing assignment com-pletion and accuracy in a hyperactive first gradestudent. School Applications of LearningTheory, 1972, 4, 24-30.

Redmond, F., Batten, L., & Nevin, A. The effects of aheterogeneous cooperative learning groupmethodology on a secondary science class. Un-published manuscript, University of Vermont,Department of Special Education, Social Work,and Social Services, 1980.

Sidman, M. Tactics of scientific research. New York:Basic Books, 1960.

Tharp, R. The triadic model of consultation. In C.Parker (Ed.), Psychological consultation: Help-ing teachers meet special needs. Reston, Va.:Council for Exceptional Children, 1975.

Tharp, R., & Wetzel, R. Behavior modification inthe natural environment. New York: AcademicPress, 1969.

by Ann Nevin on April 8, 2014tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from