University of Groningen SEN and the art of teaching van der Kamp, Antoinette Jacqueline

(1)

University of Groningen

SEN and the art of teaching

van der Kamp, Antoinette Jacqueline

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from

it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Publisher'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 on

the academic and behavioural problems of students with EBD in special education. Rijksuniversiteit

Groningen.

Copyright

Other 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 the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

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

(2)

524629-L-bw-vdWorp 524629-L-bw-vdWorp 524629-L-bw-vdWorp 524629-L-bw-vdWorp Processed on: 3-10-2018 Processed on: 3-10-2018 Processed on: 3-10-2018

(3)

(4)

Processed on: 3-10-2018 PDF page: 19PDF page: 19PDF page: 19PDF page: 19

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

(5)

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.

(6)

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.

(7)

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

(8)

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.

(9)

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

(10)

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

(11)

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

(12)

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

(13)

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,

(14)

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

(15)

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.

(16)

Table 2.1 a. Syst em atic sum mary of singl e sub je ct de si gn studi es . Author s Aca d emic field Focus Int erven tio n De p en d en t v ari ab le N Di ag n osi s Outcomes on ac ad em ic s Outcomes on behavi our Suthe rland, Ald er and Gunt er ( 2003) Maths Instr. OT R – te ache r pr aise Cor re ct re sp on se s 4 ED PND = 70% Disruptiv e be ha viour PND = 5% task b eh av iou r PND = 82% Haydon et al. (2010) Lan guage ar ts Instr. OT R - I ndividua l vs. cho ral r espo ndin g Disruptiv e/ O ff-task be ha viou r/Active res pondi ng 6 EBD (a.r ) (SS B D) PND = 70/50/62% O T R - Ch or al vs. m ix ed re spo nd in g PND = 67/23/18 OT R - I ndividua l vs. m ix ed re spo ndin g PND = 83/64/38% Ti nc an i an d Crozie r (2008) Or al lan guage Instr. Br ie f vs. ex te nde d wait in g ti m e Co rr ec t a ca dem ic r es po ns es 2 No /au ti sm PND = 11% Disruptiv e be ha viour PND = 40% Be nn er , Ralston , an d Fe ue rb or n (2012) Pr oce ssi ng spe ed Instr. Pr oce ssi ng s pe ed 10 EBD ES = 0. 57 Be ha viour (TRF ) ES = 0. 87 W eh by, Falk, et al. (2003) Re adin g Instr. Corr ec t words p er minu te 8 ED PND = 40% Atte nt io n PND = 0% Inappr opriate b eha viour PND = 5% Bar ton -Ar w oo d, Weh by , a nd F al k (2005) Re adin g Instr. Engage m ent 6 n.a . PND = 59 % Inappr opriate b eha viour (ne gativ e talk, aggr essio n) PND = 5% Suthe rland an d Sn yd er ( 2007) Re adin g Instr. W ord s re ad c or re ct ly p er min ut e 4 ED PND = 0% Disruptiv e be ha viour PND = 0% Active re sp ondin g PND = 32, 5% Lane e t al. ( 2007) Re ad in g Instr. Corr ec t le tt er sou nds p er min ut e 7 BD (a.r ) PND = 51% Acade m ic en gag em en t PND = 3% McComas e t al. (2000) Divers e Task Disruptiv e be ha viou r/complianc e 1 Autism 75/25% 1 100/30% Instr. La ngua ge fo r th in ki ng Ope n cou rt re ad ing PAL S Hor izo ns fast t ra ck PAL S PAL S Se lf-gra phi ng PALS Choice of task sequence vs. no choice Repeated tasks vs. no repeated tasks No Instruction vs. instruction on 1 100/100%

(17)

Scott an d Sh ea re r-Lin go (200 2) Re adin g fluency Instr. Te ach you r chil d/gr ea t le aps W or ds r ead per m in ut e 3 n.a . PND = 44%/PND = 98% On-task b eha viour PND = 60%/PND = 100% Tyle r-W ood et al. (2004) Lan guage an d mat hs Task Curr icul um base d m ea sur ement Number o f of fice r ef er rals 15 BD ES = 0. 77 Lee, S ug ai , a nd Hor ner (1999) Maths Task Difficul t vs . e asy tasks Cor re ct an sw er s (N = 2) 2 EBD PND = 100 % Occ urr en ce of pr ob le m be ha viou r ( N = 1) ADHD PND = 66% Off-task b eh av iour ( N = 2) PND = 65% Instr. Cor re ct an sw er s PND = 100 % Occ urr en ce of pr ob le m be ha viou r PND = 72% Off-task b eh av iour PND = 56% Lane e t al. ( 2001) Re adin g Instr. Phonologica l awar en ess t rai nin g fo r re adi ng (PA T R) Corr ec t words p er minu te 7 CP+HIA (a.r.) PND = 66% Total disru ptiv e be ha viou rs PND = 6% Lane e t al. ( 2002) Re adin g Instr. John Sh ef elb in e’ s Pho nics Ch apte r Books Corr ec t words p er minu te 5 n.a . ES = 0. 86 Total disru ptiv e be ha viou rs (TDB) in the classroom ES = −1 .04 N egative social in te ractio ns – playground ES = −0 .63 Lin go, Jolive tt e, an d Bar to n-Arwoo d (2009) Re adin g Instr. V er ba l f eed ba ck Appro pr iat e be ha vi our 1 n.a . PND = 0% Ve rb al & v isual fee db ack PND = 80% Raffe rty ( 2012) Re adin g Instr. Se lf-m on it or in g On-task b eha viour 4 EBD PND = 96% Be ck, Burn s, an d Lau (2009) Re adin g Task/in str. Pr e-te aching unkn ow n r eadi ng it em s On-task b eha viour 2 BD PND = 94% Mille r et al. ( 2003) Wri ti ng Task/in str. Pr ovid in g a funct ion fo r w rit te n assign men t/mo de llin g Corr ec t wr it ing r espo nse s 3 EBD PND = 0/53% Study 1 On-task b eha viour PND=9/0% Ide m Maths Task Short en ed maths assign men ts Cor re ct re sp on se s pe r min ut e PND = 4% PND = 29% On-task b eha viour

Study 2 Moore, Anderson, ȋʹͲͲͷȌ

Maths

Task/se

atwork

Reduction

in

task duration during

Off-task b eh av iour 1 Na. PND = 100 %

(18)

Maths Se atw ork On-task b eha viour 4 ED PND = 47% Scienc e Task Engage m ent 6 SED+ PND = 90% Destruc tiv e be ha viour PND = 0% Re adin g Task/in str. Inte rs pe rs in g a ddi tio na l b ri ef pr ob le ms Choice s and high -in te re st activiti es Visual clu es a nd s ep ar at e in st ru ct ion s in te rsp ers ed w ith physical movements + Pre-te aching Cor re ct an sw er s 3 ADHD (a.r .) PND = 67% Off-task b eh av iour PND = 95% Maths Instr./se at w or k Wo rd p ro bl em -b as ed lea rni ng Pr ob le ms solv ed co rr ec tly 3 EBD PND = 81% PND = 36% Tim e o n task Maths Instr./se at w or k Mul tistep pr ob le m -solving st rate gy + rei nfo rc em en t Pr ob le ms solv ed co rr ec tly 3 EBD PND = 85% PND = 24% Tim e o n task Maths Se atw ork Mul tiple choice-maki ng o pp ortun iti es durin g se at w or k Atte m pt ed task p ro ble m s 3 EBD PND = 39% Pr ob le m s cor re ct PND = 54% Task Engage m ent PND = 57% Off-task b eh av iour PND = 62% Disrupti on PND = 0% Sk in ne r et al. (2002) Kern, B am ba ra , and Fogt (2 002) Pa ng a nd Zha ng (2011) Alter, B ro wn, a nd Pyle (2011) Alte r (201 2) Jo liv et te et a l. (2001) Leve ndosk i a nd Cartle dg e (2000) Maths Se atw ork Se lf-m on it or in g M at hs p rob le m s com pl et ed cor re ctly 4 SED PND = 60% Tim e o n task PND = 100 %

(19)

Table 2.1 b . Syst ematic sum m ary of gr oup de sig n stud ies . Author s Acade m ic fie ld Focus Inte rv en ti on De pe nd ent va ri ab le N Diagnosis Or de r of ef fe ctiv en ess Bake r et al. ( 2008) NA Instr./se at w or k Dir ect ( whol e class) On-task b eha viour 39 n.a . DI < IS < SGI < I T Instruc tio n Small Gr oup In str ucti on Individua l S ea tw ork Interactive T eaching Hayl in g et al. (2008) NA Instr./se at w or k W hol e Class Instruc tio n Disruptiv e be ha viour 90 EBD+ Small Gr oup In str ucti on Engage m ent IS < CL < W CI, SGI, O O I Cooperativ e Le ar ni ng Destruc tiv e be ha viour IS < O O I < W CI , S G I, CL Inde pend en t S eatw ork OO I < IS W < W CL, SGI, CL On e- on-O ne Inst ruc tio n Con roy e t al. (2007) Maths, Scienc e Instruc tio nal se tt in g Disruptiv e be ha viour 5 ASD Wri ti ng , Re adin g (Ind epen de nt S ea tw or k vs. Gr oup W or k) IS = G W Instruc tio

nal activity (Adul

t vs . Chil d) Ch < A d Hart et al. ( 2011) Re adin g Instr./se at w or k Small -group Inst ruc tio n On-task b eha viour /wo rk pr oductiv ity 33 ADHD IS < SG W hol e-gr oup Inst ruc tion WG < SG Inde pend en t S eatw ork

(20)

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

(21)

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.