Thesis Lidy van der Worp - the University of Groningen research portal

University of Groningen

SEN and the art of teachingvan der Kamp, Antoinette Jacqueline

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:2018

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):van der Kamp, A. J. (2018). SEN and the art of teaching: The effect of systematic academic instruction onthe academic and behavioural problems of students with EBD in special education. RijksuniversiteitGroningen.

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 27-07-2022

https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/5acb9309-2a24-4520-b923-5d9a497de6c0

524629-L-bw-vdWorp524629-L-bw-vdWorp524629-L-bw-vdWorp524629-L-bw-vdWorpProcessed on: 3-10-2018Processed on: 3-10-2018Processed on: 3-10-2018Processed on: 3-10-2018 PDF page: 17PDF page: 17PDF page: 17PDF page: 17


19

2.1 Introduction

In many countries, the aim of current primary education policy is to increase performance

in literacy and mathematics. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 (USA) is a good

illustration of this aim. In order to hold State Education Agencies accountable for students’

measurable academic progress, NCLB drew up performance standards based on adequate

yearly progress. In the Netherlands, because of alarming PISA results, we see something

similar in primary education, i.e. ‘Schooling for Tomorrow’ (Ministry of Education, Culture

and Science, 2010), a reference guide emphasising what literacy and numeracy skills all

students should have at various points in their school career. Consequently, schools are

encouraged to focus more on academic outcomes for both typically developing pupils as

well as those with severe behavioural problems. The underlying assumption is that,

despite their problems, most of the latter group of pupils do have the cognitive ability to

learn. However, obtaining higher scores for academic learning seems to be a serious

challenge for students with emotional or behavioural difficulties (EBD), with research

showing that they score considerably below typically developing students (Siperstein,

Wiley, & Forness, 2011; Ledoux, Roeleveld, van Langen, & Smeets, 2012) and even below

those with other disabilities (Zigmond, 2006).

The relationship between behavioural problems and academic learning is complex.

Gest and Gest (2005) propose two possible functional links between behavioural and

academic problems. One possibility is that behavioural problems undermine academic

skill development because of reduced learning opportunities, for instance as a result of

limited time-on-task, lost instruction time because teachers pay more attention to

controlling behaviour (Pianta & Hamre, 2009), or even disciplinary removal from the

learning environment. Conversely, it is possible that academic problems cause or

exacerbate behavioural problems because students feel overwhelmed and consequently

‘flee’ their assigned learning tasks. This can be caused by absence of prerequisite skills,

weaknesses in executive skills (Dawson & Guare, 2004) or because the curriculum does

not suit their needs. Since learning takes place in the zone of proximal development

(Vygotsky, 1978), students are by definition challenged to do something beyond their

knowledge or gained skills and this can be threatening for them. Thus, the function of

disruptive behaviour could be the avoidance of work (Penno, Frank, & Wacker, 2000;

Gunter, Coutinho, & Cade, 2002; Moore, Anderson, & Kumar, 2005). It is even plausible

that students who have experienced much academic failure in their school careers develop


20

problem behaviour that ‘helps’ them avoid academic settings (Scott, Nelson, & Liaupsin,

2001). Briefly, it seems to be the ‘chicken or the egg’ dilemma, and various authors refer to

a cycle of problem behaviour and academic failure (Beck, Burns, & Lau, 2009), which can

even start in kindergarten (Park & Scott, 2009).

Regardless of the origin of the academic and behavioural problems of these

students, teachers have to regulate problem behaviour and improve academic results. This

dual role of teacher vs. disciplinarian may not only cause feelings of incompetence among

teachers (Lane, Wehby, & Barton-Arwood, 2005), it can even lead to burnout (Friedman,

2003). Over the last 20 years, teachers, especially those new to the field, have reported

behavioural problems as one of their greatest challenges (Darling-Hammond, 2003). Too

often, a school’s response to behaviour that undermines short-term goals like class

teaching is quick and intrusive, like giving timeout, suspension or even exclusion from

school (Banks & Zionts, 2009). So, many teachers feel a lack of expertise to handle

students with behavioural problems and report having a limited repertoire of approaches,

interventions and management strategies in dealing with them (Jones & Chronis-Tuscano,

2008).

For decades, the approach towards learning and behavioural problems of students

with EBD has primarily focused on behavioural or emotional interventions (Levy &

Vaughn, 2002). Teachers often considered good behaviour and well-being more

important, or even a condition for performance and this was underlined in their teaching

approach (van der Wolf & van Beukering, 2009). Wehby et al. (2003) refer to an almost

exclusive focus on behavioural problems. So, adapting the curriculum has never been the

first approach teachers use in order to handle intrusive social and behavioural problems

and was scarcely mentioned as a tactic for such problems (Gunter, Denny, & Venn, 2000;

Anderson, Kutash, & Duchnowski, 2001; Wehby, et al., 2003; van der Wolf & van

Beukering, 2009). Over the past decade, however, partly as a result of the aforementioned

education policy, researchers and teachers have become increasingly aware of the

importance of academic intervention for students with EBD (Wehby et al., 2003; Lane et

al., 2005). Diverse reviews (i.e. Ruhl & Berlinghoff, 1992; Coleman & Vaughn, 2000;

Mooney, Epstein, Reid, & Nelson, 2003; Ryan, Reid, & Epstein, 2004; Vannest, Temple-

Harvey, & Mason, 2009) show that an increasing number of studies on teaching academic

skills to students with EBD have emerged in the last decade. Together these studies

provide a growing and comprehensive overview of research on this subject.


21

Given the growing focus on academic learning of students with EBD and the

supposed relationship between behavioural problems and academic functioning, it is

remarkable that only one review study explicitly addresses the influence of an academic

approach on the behaviour of these students (Sutherland & Wehby, 2001). The latter

conclude that if students have increased opportunities to actively respond to academic

requests, their academic outcomes and task engagement increased along with a decrease

in inappropriate and disruptive behaviour. Since the effects of remediation of academic

deficits on socio behavioural outcomes seem to be promising, further studies are

necessary. (Lane, O’Shaughnessy, Lambros, Gresham, & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2001).

Kauffman (2010) puts it even stronger: “We need to approach behavioural disorders as

instructional problems” (p. 180). Scheerens also undescribed that the idea that teachers

should focus on behaviour prior to dealing with learning development could be replaced

by the idea of learning instruction as the basis of the prevention, improvement and

treatment of behavioural problems (2007).

Conversely, other authors, based on research, claim that students with EBD show

lower levels of on-task behaviour despite curricular or materials modifications intended to

improve this (Mastropieri et al., 2009). Some interventions, grounded in attachment

theory, offer students a combined approach of affection, structure and teaching with a

positive effect on emotional and behavioural functioning and academic attainment

(Reynolds, MacKay, & Kearney, 2009). However, the mere effect of teaching academic

skills on behaviour remains vague and is definitely worth studying.

This chapter, therefore, seeks to address the following two questions. Firstly, what

research has been done concerning the effect of teaching academic skills on the behaviour

of students with EBD. Secondly, is it possible to provide a valid answer on whether

academic learning positively effects the behaviour of students with EBD. Although we are

aware of the limitations of untangling the instruction into a social-emotional and academic

focus, we find it important to study the simple effect of academic interventions on

behavioural problems. Precisely because they are so closely linked, it is important to know

whether a single adjustment in curriculum or instruction can have an effect on behaviour.

This being the case, teachers would be more attentive to the effect that instruction or

curriculum has on the behavioural problems of their students. To put it another way, in

order to know the effect of an academic approach on behaviour, it is necessary to isolate it

as key ingredient of educating students with EBD.


22

Consequently, in this chapter, we focus on research having teaching academic skills

to students with EBD as the independent variable and the effect on behaviour as

dependent variable. The independent variable entails academic instruction: teaching,

presenting and modelling the essential skills and knowledge assessed by state or national

standards, supplemented by teaching support to students during instructional time with

minimal or no direct instruction to students, i.e. guided and independent practice (Vannest

et al., 2011). Interventions conducted as part of general schoolwide programmes (e.g.

‘PBS’, ‘nurture groups’ or ‘Success for all’) or carried out in psychiatric facilities were

excluded as were interventions that not exclusively focused on teaching academic skills.

The dual intervention of these approaches on behaviour as well as academic learning

makes it hard to distinguish the effect of the latter from the impact of behavioural

interventions.

Although we focus on students with EBD, it is important to note that definitions of

EBD, are contested, contain several disorders and conceptualisations of EBD, and differ

between continents and countries. Additionally, disruptive behaviour can be seen as a

characteristic of the individual (e.g. associated with genetic or biological conditions), but it

can also be context based (a response to particular situations), must be understood in the

context of culture (Evans, Harden, & Thomas, 2004; Chakraborti-Ghosh, Mofield, &

Orellana, 2010) and often coexist with other disabilities. Generally, students with EBD

cannot make full use of the educational opportunities offered to them and often need a

special form of education. They may become apparent through withdrawn, passive,

aggressive or self-injurious tendencies, often having difficulties in forming and

maintaining positive relationships.

The dependent variables comprise all forms of behaviour perceived as problematic

by teachers, or inappropriate behaviour that adversely influences students’ academic

progress and ability to achieve (Wehby et al., 2003), including externalising and

internalising behavioural problems.

2.2 Method

Studies for inclusion in this review were found via several means. First, an electronic

database (EBSCO-complete) was searched for articles published between 2000 and 2012

by using the following keywords: behaviour (social emotional behavioural


23

disorder/difficulty/disturbance OR externalising behaviour OR disrupting behaviour OR

behavioural problems) AND education (teach* OR instruct* OR intervention OR education

OR classroom OR pedagogy) AND academics (academic outcome OR reading OR math OR

achievement). The search included all possible combinations of the three topics. An initial

scan of the results, based on title and abstract, looked at whether the study involved an

academic intervention given to students with EBD and whether its effect on their

behaviour was given. This search resulted in identifying 442 possible articles. Abstracts

often gave a vague description, so, in the next stage, we looked at the method and result

paragraphs of these found studies to identify those with the intended (in)dependent

variables. Based on this more detailed analysis we were able to remove 310 articles from

the selection. Mostly because the academic interventions were more or less explicitly

combined with a behavioural intervention. The nature of the behavioural problems often

remained unclear, as did the way in which the effect of the intervention on behaviour was

measured. The remaining 132 studies were read more thoroughly to see if they met all of

the following criteria:

(1) Subjects in the studies (aged 5–18) had emotional and/or behavioural disorders,

expressed in terms of problem behaviour or off-task behaviour. Where formal diagnoses

were absent, only participants receiving special education services for emotional or

behavioural problems were included.

(2) The subjects received academic interventions conducted in educational settings by

teachers, support staff or research associates.

(3) The studies measured the effect of the academic intervention on problem behaviour,

reporting quantitative outcome measures.

(4) The studies were published in a peer reviewed international journal.

This search resulted in 22 articles. To avoid omission errors, a manual search was

carried out of the issues of four journals that publish a great number of articles covering

this particular field: the Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Disorders, Behavioural

Disorders, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs and European Journal of

Special Needs Education (for the 2000–2012 period). Examining tables of content,

abstracts and references pages resulted in including eight extra articles. Consequently, the

review yielded 30 empirical studies on academic interventions for students with EBD,

measuring also their effect on behaviour.


24

The studies found fell into two types: those using a single subject design and those

using a group design (see Table 2.1a/b). The academic and instructional focus of the

intervention, the sample size, and the academic and behavioural outcomes were noted for

each study. In case that graphical representations were present, percentage Non-

overlapping Data (PND) between baseline and successive intervention phases were used

as effect size, and were calculated by identifying the highest data point in baseline and

determining the percentage of data points exceeding this level during the intervention

phase. PND was chosen because it can be easily conducted and is applicable to any form of

single-subject design (Kavale, Mathur., Forness, Quinn, & Rutherford Jr, 2000). A PND

between 91 and 100 is considered a highly effective intervention; between 71 and 90 is

considered a moderately effective intervention; between 51 and 70 is considered mildly

effective intervention; and between 0 and 50 is considered non-effective intervention

(Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1998). When a study did not present a graphical representation of

the results, we used the ES as shown by the authors of the study. An ES above 0.80 is

considered to be highly effective, between 0.40 and 0.80 to be moderately and between

0.20 and 0.40 to be small (Cohen, 1988).

A summary of the authors, academic field, instructional focus, intervention

strategies used, target behaviour, number of participants (N), diagnosis and effect on

academic and behavioural outcomes was drawn up and is presented by design (Single

Subject design vs. Group design) in Table 2.1a/b.

2.3 Results

2.3.1 Research concerning the effect of teaching academic skills on the

behaviour of students with EBD Teaching academics, as independent variable, and a key selection criterion for this review,

mostly involved reading (37%), maths (33%) and, to a lesser extent, language, writing,

science (23%). The interventions focused on instruction (43%), task (17%), seatwork

(7%) or a combination (33%) using diverse existing methods, some of which were

evidence based (Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies-PALS, Teach Your Child-TYC, Great

Leaps-GL). In the majority of studies, research assistants, (reading) specialists or school

assistants supported the interventions. Concerning the participants, most students were

diagnosed with emotional disturbance or EBD grounded in state and federal guidelines.

Other students showed high levels of inappropriate classroom behaviour or were at risk


25

for EBD. A number of students were diagnosed with ADHD, CD, ODD or autism. The

descriptions of problem behaviour were various, ranging from shirt biting and chair

tipping to verbal threats to another person and physical attacks. Origin and context of the

problem behaviour often remained unclear. Across the single-subject studies (87% of the

total studies found) there were 120 pupils, with between 1 and 15 (mean 4.6, SD 3.0)

participating per study. Seventy percent of them attended self-contained schools or

classrooms especially for students with EBD. The number of participants across the group

design studies (13%) was 167 (mean 42, SD 35), all attended general education.

The behavioural outcomes, as dependent variable, and the second key selection

criterion of this review, involved on-task behaviour (on/off task behaviour and

engagement, 45%), problem behaviour (disruptive, destructive, (in)appropriate behaviour

and compliance, 31%) or a combination of both (24%). Most studies used observation to

measure behaviour; one study used the TRF (Teacher Report Form, Achenbach, 1991) as

outcome and one study used the number of office referrals. Fifty-seven percent of the

reviewed studies presented academic outcomes as well as behavioural outcomes as

dependent variable. The academic outcomes were mainly reported in terms of correct

answers (per minute), measured with standard tests. Data from the single-subject studies

were generally presented by mean score comparisons across phases, whether or not

combined with SD, and often supplemented with a graphical representation. Only in four

studies effect scores were calculated. Concerning the variety of studies, it was hard to

estimate the relationship between academic outcomes, on-task behaviour and disruptive

behaviour. At first glance, the effect on on-task behaviour seemed to be larger than the

effect on disruptive behaviour. Moreover, in some studies students were removed from

the research group because of their disruptive behaviour.

Regarding the quality indicators for single subject design (Horner et al., 2005,

174), we saw numerous flaws in the description of participants and settings. For instance,

only six studies described the process for selecting participants with replicable precision.

Also, in numerous studies, the scores of the dependent variable fluctuated widely during

baseline phase, making it difficult to judge the outcomes of the intervention phase.

Numerous studies revealed weak or no functional analyses to examine the relationship

between the research subject and problem behaviour of the students. The relation

between educational approaches and behavioural problems often remained unclear.

Design controls for common threats to internal validity (e.g. of rival hypotheses) were

limited. In all but one study the (research) assistants played a major role in implementing


26

the independent variable, which hampers the ecological validity of the studies. Because of

the limited replications of the diverse studies, external validity of the studies was also

hard to establish.

2.3.2 The effects of academic learning on the behaviour of students

with EBD The questionable quality of the studies, combined with the fact that these contained a wide

variety of (in)dependent variables measured with mainly small research groups with a

diversity of types and needs of EBD and diverse expressions of problem behaviour (the

‘apples and oranges’ problem as stated by Kavale et al., 2000), made it hard to interpret

the results and to draw overall conclusions. Nevertheless, we think it is worthwhile to

describe these studies as a first tentative step to answering our second research question.

Studies with a similar instructional focus were combined for the benefit of the discussion

of results. Successively we discuss opportunity to respond (OTR), peer tutoring, various

types of instructional methods, task modification and seatwork. The latter two are

discussed explicitly, because they take up a large part of the instructional process and

seem to be a source of behavioural problems for students with EBD (Moore et al., 2005;

Umbreit, Ferro, Liaupsin, & Lane, 2007; Hayling, Cook, Gresham, State, & Kern, 2008).

Sutherland, Alder, and Gunter (2003), Haydon et al. (2010), Tincani and Crozier

(2008) and Benner, Ralston and Feuerborn (2012) studied approaches to increase OTR.

The outcomes demonstrated that increasing the quantity of interactions between teacher

and student resulted in (a) more responses that were correct and (b) increased on-task-

behaviour. The studies also revealed, though less obviously, lower levels of disruptive

behaviour. The degree to which instruction provided students with regular and

predictable natural reinforcement (i.e. success) seemed to be an important factor in

keeping students on task.

Four articles were found on peer tutoring as a form of instruction. They all used

and researched PALS, a peer-mediated intervention with a strong evidence base

(Sutherland & Snyder, 2007). Wehby et al. (2003) examined the effects of PALS, combined

with a modified version of Open Court Reading, while in a similar study Barton-Arwood,

Wehby, and Falk (2005) assessed the effects of PALS combined with Horizons Fast Track

A-B Reading Program. Both studies revealed moderate gains in reading achievement and a

slight increase in attendance. An impact on problem behaviour, however, was not

observed (Wehby et al., 2003), or observed but questionable (Barton-Arwood, Wehby, and


27

Falk, 2005). Sutherland and Snyder (2007) also conducted a study using PALS, and

carefully compiled the dyads in order to maximise the effect of peer tutoring. They also

combined this approach with self-graphing, a component of self-evaluation in which

students graph their own data in a visual representation of their performance over time.

Results indicated that during the intervention phase, most students made progress on

words read correctly per minute. Furthermore, the disruptive behaviour (where present)

decreased and the active responding of all students increased. The researchers found an

apparent link between active responding and disruptive behaviour. This effect however

decreased during follow-up. The above studies were conducted in classrooms by teachers

assisted by researchers, research assistants (RAs) or school-site personnel and therefore

did not correspond with everyday reality. So, in their study, Lane, Little, Redding-Rhodes,

Phillips, and Welsh (2007) focused on whether teachers were able to use PALS in a general

education setting without support from either researchers or on-site support staff. Results

revealed lasting improvements in reading fluency for all students, but less improvement

on academic engaged time. In a descriptive study, Conroy, Asmus, Boyd, Ladwig, and

Sellers (2007) compared academic peer-to-peer interactions to adult directed activities.

They concluded that peer-to-peer interactions even produced higher rates of disruption in

comparison to adult-directed activities. Sutherland and Snyder (2007) considered the

social skills deficits of students with EBD as a threat to the efficacy of peer-to-peer

intervention because some students may not interact well with others. Consequently,

PALS used in academic interventions does not seem to have an immediate positive effect

on problem behaviour. It appears to be important to arrange groups carefully.

Six studies on specific forms of instruction were conducted by McComas, Hoch,

Paone, and El-Roy (2000), Scot and Shearer-Lingo (2002), Tyler-Wood, Perez Cereijo, and

Pemberton (2004), Lee, Sugai, and Horner (1999), Lane et al. (2001) and Lane et al.

(2002). These studies involved various types of instructional methods namely the so-

called three-step approach, effective reading instruction and component skills instruction.

Effects on problem and on-task behaviour were moderate to large. Successful outcomes

appeared to be related to making academic tasks less complicated by giving instruction at

the right level for the students, maintaining direct teacher–student interaction, and

providing opportunities to practice and respond. The degree to which instruction

provided students with regular and predictable natural reinforcement (i.e. success) was

again asserted as possibly the most important intervention. Lee et al. (1999) found an

apparent link between reduced problem behaviour and strategies based on accurate


28

knowledge of the maintenance of problem behaviour. Lingo, Jolivette, and Barton-Arwood

(2009) used visual cards to introduce a clear goal followed by visual feedback, which also

improved students’ appropriate behaviour. Lane et al. (2002) concluded that the increased

efficacy in early reading skills enables students to participate in reading activities during

literacy. According to them, this confirmed previous studies showing that improved early

literacy skills are associated with lasting decreases in disruptive classroom behaviour. One

study (Rafferty, 2012) added a tactile prompting device for self-monitoring during

instruction. All these studies also linked teacher–student interactions and positive

feedback to decreased problem behaviour.

Seven studies concentrated on task modification as an intervention when teaching

academic subjects to students with EBD. The various approaches were about difficulty of

task (Lee et al., 1999; Beck et al., 2009), size or function (Skinner et al., 2002; Miller et al.,

2003; Moore et al., 2005), freedom of choice (McComas et al., 2000; Kern, Bambara, & Fogt

,2002) and pre-teaching, visual adaptations combined with physical movement between

tasks (Pang & Zhang, 2011). The studies supported the hypothesis that off-task or problem

behaviour is maintained by escaping from difficult or unattractive tasks. The various

outcomes showed that providing students with an appropriate task (e.g. through choice

making, altering task duration or making tasks understandable by pre-teaching or

repeating) probably prevented problem behaviour and increased on-task behaviour.

Functional behavioural assessment seemed to be an effective approach to define such

tasks for students. In particular, the understanding of the task appears to be important in

keeping students with EBD occupied and diminishing problem behaviour. Shortening the

assignment or adding, a function to a task had a minimal effect.

Concerning seatwork, we found a variety of study design types. Four single-subject

studies concerned interventions that provided students with a problem-solving worksheet

(Alter, Brown, & Pyle, 2011), choice of task (Jolivette, Wehby, Canale, & Massey, 2001),

several breaks during seatwork (Moore et al., 2005), or self-monitoring (Levendoski &

Cartledge, 2000). These studies showed a small to large effect on on-task behaviour.

External controlling, i.e. through teachers giving breaks or through stimulating, self-

monitoring beeps, seemed to be most effective. On-task behaviour, however, failed when

the intervention (the beeps) was gradually removed. Four other studies compared

seatwork to different forms of instruction (Conroy et al., 2007; Baker, Clark, Maier, &

Viger, 2008; Hart, Massetti, Fabiano, Pariseau, & Pelham, 2011). Baker et al. (2008)

concluded that during what they called the most demanding instructional context,


29

individual seatwork, students with behavioural problems were only academically engaged

half the time. They found that the context of seatwork was considerably less structured

and that the structure provided was mainly in the form of reactive discipline, which

elicited problem behaviour instead of decreasing it. The conclusion of all these studies is

that whole-group instruction and independent seatwork correlated most strongly with

problem behaviour: considerable more disruptive behaviour arises in these settings than

during small-group or one-to-one instruction.

2.4 Discussion

Since traditional behavioural approaches towards students with EBD have not always had

the desired effect on academic outcomes, we see a tendency to teach academics as a mean

to improve education results while decreasing the problem behaviour of students with

EBD. This approach fits seamlessly into the recent policy of focusing on academic

outcomes (e.g. NBCL in the USA and Schooling for Tomorrow in the Netherlands). The

mere effect of teaching academic skills on behaviour remains vague and therefore a reason

for conducting a review.

Given the number of reviews and studies on teaching academic subjects to

students with EBD, knowledge on the topic is expanding. Yet, many teachers feel

incompetent to handle the current dual ambition of teaching, i.e. improve both

behavioural and academic outcomes. Consequently, it is interesting to focus on

approaches with a positive effect on both. From this perspective, it is disappointing that

many studies on specific approaches of teaching academics to students with EBD limit

themselves to only measuring academic outcomes, while the effect on behaviour is

definitely worth studying. Thus, this review deals with studies on teaching academic skills,

focusing on both academic and behavioural outcomes.

In our research of studies on the effect of teaching academics on the behaviour of

students with EBD, we found 30 articles that met our criteria. The interventions and

circumstances in which they took place varied, however, considerably. Except for studies

with the same (co)-author, the instructional methods were different, were used in

different stages of the instructional process and in different settings. Although

externalising behaviour as off-task behaviour and noncompliance dominated, the context

of the problem behaviour or type of EBD often remained unclear. Moreover, most studies


30

were single-subject ones that did not meet all the quality indicators for single-subject

design (Horner et al., 2005). Given this ‘apples and oranges’ situation (Kavale et al., 2000)

and poor design, the studies found do not provide a solid basis for firm conclusions. Thus,

we can state that research on the effect of academic learning on behaviour has not been

undertaken systematically and that it is too early for well-founded statements on the

subject. Conversely, Kavale et al. (2000) state that it is precisely diverse studies that need

to be integrated to achieve convincing generalisation and practical simplicity. So, in order

to study the effects of academic learning on the behaviour of students with EBD, we

combined different studies using a couple of denominators to make it possible to draw

some overall cautious conclusions about the effect of opportunity to respond (OTR), peer

tutoring, various types of instructional methods, task modification and seatwork on the

behaviour of students with EBD. Focusing on these subjects can enhance our

understanding of the effect of teaching academics on behaviour.

The studies concerning OTR showed that reciprocal interaction with an

instructional and academic purpose increased on-task behaviour and decreased disruptive

behaviour. These results correspond to the results of a review on this subject conducted

by Sutherland and Wehby (2001). The latter, however, also found that providing students

with the necessary OTR seems to be challenging for teachers and that the rate of OTR in

classrooms for students with EBD appeared to be alarmingly low. Peer tutoring or

cooperative learning (PALS) could be a possible alternative to teacher instruction, but the

results of this review proved this approach to be less effective: academic interaction

between peers appeared to have a smaller positive effect on behaviour than teacher–

student interaction. However, apart from one study (Sutherland & Snyder, 2007), the

construction of the peer groups in these studies remained unclear. Since the nature and

quality of the interaction is particularly important for students with EBD, it is vital to take

this into account when interpreting these outcomes.

Concerning instruction, we noted that, although instructional methods can be

diverse, provided they are at the appropriate level, they appeared to be an important

condition for prompting on-task behaviour. The same applied to the academic tasks

offered: when students with EBD understood what was expected of them and

comprehended the material, less problem behaviour was observed. This requires a

carefully constructed curriculum in a supportive setting. The latter also applies to

seatwork. It appeared that students with EBD, during this stage of the instruction process,

still needed support to stay on-task.


Tabl

e 2.

1a. S

yste

mat

ic su

mm

ary

of si

ngle

subj

ect d

esig

n st

udie

s.

Auth

ors

Acad

emic

fie

ld

Focu

s In

terv

enti

on

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

ble

N D

iagn

osis

O

utco

mes

on

acad

emic

s O

utco

mes

on

beha

viou

r Su

ther

land

, Ald

er

and

Gunt

er (2

003)

M

aths

In

str.

OTR

– te

ache

r pra

ise

Corr

ect r

espo

nses

4

ED

PND

= 7

0%

Dis

rupt

ive

beha

viou

r PN

D =

5%

On

- tas

k be

havi

our

PND

= 8

2%

Hay

don

et a

l. (2

010)

La

ngua

ge

arts

In

str.

OTR

- Ind

ivid

ual v

s. ch

oral

resp

ondi

ng

Dis

rupt

ive/

Off-

task

be

havi

our/

Activ

e re

spon

ding

6 EB

D (a

.r)

(SSB

D)

PND

=

70/5

0/62

%

OTR

- Cho

ral v

s. m

ixed

resp

ondi

ng

PND

=

67/2

3/18

OT

R - I

ndiv

idua

l vs.

mix

ed re

spon

ding

PN

D =

83

/64/

38%

Ti

ncan

i and

Cr

ozie

r (20

08)

Oral

la

ngua

ge

Inst

r. Br

ief v

s. ex

tend

ed w

aitin

g tim

e Co

rrec

t aca

dem

ic re

spon

ses

2 N

o/au

tism

PN

D =

11%

D

isru

ptiv

e be

havi

our

PND

= 4

0%

Benn

er, R

alst

on,

and

Feue

rbor

n (2

012)

Proc

essi

ng

spee

d In

str.

Proc

essi

ng sp

eed

10

EBD

ES

= 0

.57

Beha

viou

r (TR

F)

ES =

0.8

7

Weh

by, F

alk,

et a

l. (2

003)

Re

adin

g In

str.

Corr

ect w

ords

per

min

ute

8 ED

PN

D =

40%

At

tent

ion

PND

= 0

%

Inap

prop

riat

e be

havi

our

PND

= 5

%

Bart

on-A

rwoo

d,

Weh

by, a

nd F

alk

(200

5)

Read

ing

Inst

r. En

gage

men

t 6

n.a.

PND

= 5

9 %

In

appr

opri

ate

beha

viou

r (n

egat

ive

talk

, agg

ress

ion)

PN

D =

5%

Suth

erla

nd a

nd

Snyd

er (2

007)

Re

adin

g In

str.

Wor

ds re

ad c

orre

ctly

per

m

inut

e

4 ED

PN

D =

0%

Dis

rupt

ive

beha

viou

r PN

D =

0%

A

ctiv

e re

spon

ding

PN

D =

32,

5%

Lane

et a

l. (2

007)

Re

adin

g In

str.

Corr

ect l

ette

r sou

nds p

er

min

ute

7 BD

(a.r)

PN

D =

51%

Acad

emic

eng

agem

ent

PND

= 3

%

McC

omas

et a

l. (2

000)

D

iver

se

Task

D

isru

ptiv

e be

havi

our/

com

plia

nce

1 Au

tism

75

/25%

1 10

0/30

%

Inst

r.

Lang

uage

for t

hink

ing

Open

cour

t rea

ding

PA

LS

Hor

izon

s fas

t tra

ck

PALS

PALS

Self-

grap

hing

PALS

Choi

ce o

f tas

k se

quen

ce v

s. no

cho

ice

Repe

ated

task

s vs

. no

repe

ated

task

s

No

Inst

ruct

ion

vs.

inst

ruct

ion

on

1 10

0/10

0%


Scot

t and

She

arer

-Li

ngo

(200

2)

Read

ing

fluen

cy

Inst

r. Te

ach

your

child

/gre

at le

aps

Wor

ds re

ad p

er m

inut

e 3

n.a.

PND

=

44%

/PN

D =

98

%

On-t

ask

beha

viou

r PN

D =

60

%/P

ND

=

100%

Ty

ler-

Woo

d et

al.

(200

4)

Lang

uage

an

d m

aths

Ta

sk

Curr

icul

um b

ased

mea

sure

men

t N

umbe

r of o

ffice

refe

rral

s 15

BD

ES

= 0

.77

Lee,

Sug

ai, a

nd

Hor

ner (

1999

) M

aths

Ta

sk

Diff

icul

t vs.

easy

task

s Co

rrec

t ans

wer

s (N

= 2

) 2

EBD

PN

D =

100

%

Occu

rren

ce o

f pro

blem

be

havi

our (

N =

1)

ADH

D

PND

= 6

6%

Off-t

ask

beha

viou

r (N

= 2

) PN

D =

65%

In

str.

Corr

ect a

nsw

ers

PND

= 1

00%

Oc

curr

ence

of p

robl

em

beha

viou

r PN

D =

72%

Off-t

ask

beha

viou

r PN

D =

56%

La

ne e

t al.

(200

1)

Read

ing

Inst

r. Ph

onol

ogic

al a

war

enes

s tra

inin

g fo

r re

adin

g (P

ATR)

Co

rrec

t wor

ds p

er m

inut

e 7

CP+H

IA

(a.r.

) PN

D =

66%

To

tal d

isru

ptiv

e be

havi

ours

PN

D =

6%

La

ne e

t al.

(200

2)

Read

ing

Inst

r. Jo

hn S

hefe

lbin

e’s

Phon

ics C

hapt

er

Book

s Co

rrec

t wor

ds p

er m

inut

e 5

n.a.

ES =

0.8

6 To

tal d

isru

ptiv

e be

havi

ours

(T

DB)

in th

e cl

assr

oom

ES

= −

1.04

Neg

ativ

e so

cial

inte

ract

ions

–

play

grou

nd

ES =

−0.

63

Ling

o, Jo

livet

te,

and

Bart

on-

Arw

ood

(200

9)

Read

ing

Inst

r. Ve

rbal

feed

back

Ap

prop

riat

e be

havi

our

1 n.

a.PN

D =

0%

Ve

rbal

& v

isua

l fee

dbac

k PN

D =

80%

Raffe

rty

(201

2)

Read

ing

Inst

r. Se

lf-m

onito

ring

On

-tas

k be

havi

our

4 EB

D

PND

= 9

6%

Beck

, Bur

ns, a

nd

Lau

(200

9)

Read

ing

Task

/ins

tr.

Pre-

teac

hing

unk

now

n re

adin

g ite

ms

On-t

ask

beha

viou

r 2

BD

PND

= 9

4%

Mill

er e

t al.

(200

3)

Wri

ting

Task

/ins

tr.

Prov

idin

g a

func

tion

for w

ritt

en

assi

gnm

ent/

mod

ellin

g Co

rrec

t wri

ting

resp

onse

s 3

EBD

PN

D =

0/5

3%

Stud

y 1

On-t

ask

beha

viou

r PN

D=9

/0%

Id

em

Mat

hs

Task

Sh

orte

ned

mat

hs a

ssig

nmen

ts

Corr

ect r

espo

nses

per

m

inut

e PN

D =

4%

PN

D =

29%

On-t

ask

beha

viou

r St

udy

2 M

oore

, And

erso

n,

Mat

hs

Task

/sea

twor

k Re

duct

ion

in ta

sk d

urat

ion

duri

ng

Off-t

ask

beha

viou

r 1

Na.

PN

D =

100

%


Mat

hs

Seat

wor

k On

-tas

k be

havi

our

4 ED

PN

D =

47%

Scie

nce

Task

En

gage

men

t 6

SED

+ PN

D =

90%

D

estr

uctiv

e be

havi

our

PND

= 0

%

Read

ing

Task

/ins

tr.

Inte

rspe

rsin

g ad

ditio

nal b

rief

pr

oble

ms

Choi

ces a

nd h

igh-

inte

rest

act

iviti

es

Visu

al c

lues

and

sepa

rate

inst

ruct

ions

in

ters

pers

ed w

ith p

hysi

cal

mov

emen

ts +

Pre

-tea

chin

g

Corr

ect a

nsw

ers

3 AD

HD

(a.r.

) PN

D =

67%

Off-t

ask

beha

viou

r PN

D =

95%

M

aths

In

str./

seat

wor

k W

ord

prob

lem

-bas

ed le

arni

ng

Prob

lem

s sol

ved

corr

ectly

3

EBD

PN

D =

81%

PN

D =

36%

Ti

me

on ta

sk

Mat

hs

Inst

r./se

atw

ork

Mul

tiste

p pr

oble

m-s

olvi

ng st

rate

gy +

re

info

rcem

ent

Prob

lem

s sol

ved

corr

ectly

3

EBD

PN

D =

85%

PN

D =

24%

Ti

me

on ta

sk

Mat

hs

Seat

wor

k M

ultip

le c

hoic

e-m

akin

g op

port

uniti

es

duri

ng se

atw

ork

Atte

mpt

ed ta

sk p

robl

ems

3 EB

D

PND

= 3

9%

Prob

lem

s cor

rect

PN

D =

54%

Ta

sk E

ngag

emen

t PN

D =

57%

Of

f-tas

k be

havi

our

PND

= 6

2%

Dis

rupt

ion

PND

= 0

%

Skin

ner e

t al.

(200

2)

Kern

, Bam

bara

, an

d Fo

gt (2

002)

Pa

ng a

nd Z

hang

(2

011)

Alte

r, Br

own,

and

Py

le (2

011)

Al

ter (

2012

)

Joliv

ette

et a

l. (2

001)

Leve

ndos

ki a

nd

Cart

ledg

e (2

000)

M

aths

Se

atw

ork

Self-

mon

itori

ng

Mat

hs p

robl

ems c

ompl

eted

co

rrec

tly

4 SE

D

PND

= 6

0%

Tim

e on

task

PN

D =

100

%


Tabl

e 2.

1b.

Syst

emat

ic su

mm

ary

of g

roup

des

ign

stud

ies.

Auth

ors

Acad

emic

fie

ld

Focu

s In

terv

entio

n D

epen

dent

var

iabl

e N

D

iagn

osis

Or

der o

f effe

ctiv

enes

s

Bake

r et a

l. (2

008)

N

A In

str./

seat

wor

k D

irec

t (w

hole

cla

ss)

On-t

ask

beha

viou

r 39

n.

a.

DI <

IS <

SGI

< IT

In

stru

ctio

n Sm

all G

roup

Inst

ruct

ion

Indi

vidu

al S

eatw

ork

Inte

ract

ive

Teac

hing

H

aylin

g et

al.

(200

8)

NA

Inst

r./se

atw

ork

Who

le C

lass

Inst

ruct

ion

Dis

rupt

ive

beha

viou

r 90

EB

D+

Smal

l Gro

up In

stru

ctio

n En

gage

men

t IS

< C

L< W

CI, S

GI, O

OI

Coop

erat

ive

Lear

ning

D

estr

uctiv

e be

havi

our

IS <

OOI

< W

CI, S

GI, C

L In

depe

nden

t Sea

twor

k OO

I < IS

W <

WCL

, SGI

, CL

One-

on-O

ne In

stru

ctio

n Co

nroy

et a

l. (2

007)

M

aths

, Sc

ienc

e In

stru

ctio

nal s

ettin

g D

isru

ptiv

e be

havi

our

5 AS

D

Wri

ting,

Re

adin

g (I

ndep

ende

nt S

eatw

ork

vs. G

roup

Wor

k)

IS =

GW

Inst

ruct

iona

l act

ivity

(Adu

lt vs

. Chi

ld)

Ch <

Ad

Har

t et a

l. (2

011)

Re

adin

g In

str./

seat

wor

k Sm

all-g

roup

Inst

ruct

ion

On-t

ask

beha

viou

r /w

ork

prod

uctiv

ity

33

ADH

D

IS <

SG

Who

le-g

roup

Inst

ruct

ion

WG

< SG

In

depe

nden

t Sea

twor

k


35

Based on the outcomes, we can conclude that systematic research on this

subject is still in its infancy. Nevertheless, the findings of this chapter suggest that

academic learning may have a positive effect on behavioural outcomes in the

classroom if teachers positively affect the educational experience of students with

EBD (Tyler-Wood et al., 2004). Given the fact that one of the major functions of

unacceptable behaviour in classrooms is escaping from difficult tasks (Gunter &

Coutinho, 1997), successful academic learning seems to reduce the incidence of

behaviour problems in the classroom. Therefore, to avoid frustration and all its

implications, it is imperative for teachers to enhance the curriculum in line with

the special educational needs of such students. This does not imply a less

demanding curriculum (Wehby et al., 2003), but a more carefully constructed one.

However, it was impossible to ascertain exactly the background, cause and

/or impact of the behavioural problems of each student in the reviewed studies.

Moreover, since comorbidity often occurs, it is impossible to indicate if the most

appropriate approaches were chosen for students with a specific disorder and/or

behavioural problem. The majority of the reviewed studies did not make entirely

clear whether the researchers sufficiently met the specific educational needs of the

students. Although this is inherent to these types of short-term case studies, this

important aspect of teaching academics to students with special educational needs

remains uncovered. In some cases, this could even be a cause of disappointing

results (McComas et al., 2000). Given the diversity of types and needs of students

with EBD, knowing and anticipating on these needs seems to be the first step to

success. Herein lies the key to teaching academics: the curriculum continuously

has to be adjusted to the needs of the student in an ongoing process. This approach

fits the recent policy of data-driven teaching. However, we need to realise that

working systematically only makes sense if teachers have the opportunity, skills

and autonomy to adapt their approach to the specific needs of students with EBD.

In reality, teachers often lack the knowledge and skills to optimise the curriculum

(Jones & Chronis-Tuscano, 2008), so further work is required to accomplish this.

Several limitations to this review need to be acknowledged. The

aforementioned variety in research, the small internal and external validity and


36

restricted sample sizes make it hard to draw overall conclusions concerning

students with EBD. Additionally, some researchers speak of idiosyncratic

outcomes: all students labelled with EBD react in their own personal way and

cannot be treated as if they were the same. Knowing that the target student

described in one setting may be quite different from the target student in another

setting makes it hard to repeat the studies: an important step in the documentation

of an evidence-based practice. Secondly, although PND is a widely used method to

calculate effect sizes, has certain disadvantages. One or two deviating scores

during baseline can have a major influence on the calculated effect size. Given the

observed fluctuating scores during the baseline phases, some of the displayed

effects do not fully match the effect as apparently shown when eyeballing the

graphs, or as described by the researchers. Thirdly, researchers and research-

assistants played a major role in performing the intervention. This makes it hard to

translate the outcomes of these kinds of studies to daily practise, especially

considering the above limitations of teachers.

In conclusion, although we were unable to give an unambiguous answer to

our research question, the added value of this descriptive analysis is the

augmented awareness that only a single intervention with respect to the

curriculum or instruction may possibly have an effect on problem behaviour.

Confronted with problem behaviour, rather than initially focusing on behavioural

approaches, teachers may do well to reconsider the requested task and their

instructional approach. It also elucidates that more research needs to be

undertaken before the relationship between academic instruction as provided by

teachers and its impact on behaviour of their students with EBD is more clearly

understood. The next two chapters focus on analysing this impact.

Thesis Lidy van der Worp - the University of Groningen research portal

Documents

Transcript of Thesis Lidy van der Worp - the University of Groningen research portal