Lexi DiJulio, Rachel Hallett, Jennifer Neyman, T. F. McLaughlin, Melania Cole

Transcription

1 2015; 2(4): IJMRD 2015; 2(4): Received: Accepted: e-issn: p-issn: Impact Factor: Lexi DiJulio Rachel Hallett Jennifer Neyman T. F. McLaughlin Melania Cole Spokane Public Schools North 200 Bernard Spokane, WA Correspondence: Lexi DiJulio The effects of a direct instruction model, lead, test reading procedure with reading mastery plus contingent rewards on sight word recognition by a middle school student with Intellectual disabilities Lexi DiJulio, Rachel Hallett, Jennifer Neyman, T. F. McLaughlin, Melania Cole Abstract The purpose of the present case report was to evaluate the Direct Instruction model, lead, and test (MLT) procedure to teach sight words to a middle school student. Our participant was diagnosed with intellectual disabilities. During baseline our participant s skills at reading sight words was low. However, once model, lead, and test + a reward was implemented, an increase in student performance was found. The increased performance was more pronounced for the last two sets or groups of words. The use of MLT to teach skills to middle school student was discussed. Keywords: MLT, multiple baseline design. sight words, reading, intellectual disabilities 1. Introduction Intellectual Disabilities is an intellectual disorder that is characterized by a low average intelligence or mental ability and lack of skills necessary for day-to-day living (1). Meaning, individuals with intellectual disabilities are not inherently born with the diagnosis, but develop at a slower rate. Parents and educators recognize the child s delay in meeting crucial developmental milestones, ranging from beginning to talk, gross motor activities, as well as academic subject matter; these delays could result in the inability to reach grade level instruction. In addition to academic areas, delayed adaptive behaviors include dressing, eating, and communicating one s needs to others. Memorization is a critical skill that progresses in difficulty. Usually memorization is taught to toddlers first with objects, then colors, shapes, and eventually leads to numerals, letters, and in time words. Recognition of words is an important skill typically taught in kindergarten. Students with disabilities are taught when ready. Teaching the blending of letter-sound correspondences into basic words allows for further discovery of more advanced words. Mastery of sight-reading words not only increases reading accuracy while engaged in a passage, but also increases fluency to better the comprehension of the material at hand: Comprehension, or the ability to gain meaning from text, is the ultimate goal of learning to read. As students become accurate and fluent decoders, reading comprehension becomes the major focus of instruction (2). Furthermore, the Reading Mastery curriculum illustrates an efficient method of preparing the student for future passage comprehension by increasing their sight word accuracy. Commonly used within the school system, Reading Mastery is a basal reading program designed to foster reading using a systematic, structured, teacher-guided approach (3). According to Direct Instruction Reading published by Pearson, a sight word is defined as saying the word at a normal rate without orally sounding it out versus student reading words by orally sounding out each word (4). Through this, the student focuses on the content of the passage rather than stopping to sound out single words, consequently slowing down the pace of reading and adding confusion. To connect the effects of Reading Mastery on a child s overall academic performance, a recent study states that the ability to read efficiently has clear implications to overall academic success, and by teachers providing students with ~ 111 ~

2 intense and explicit reading instructions students are likely to show improvement in all academic subjects (5). In conjunction with the Reading Mastery curriculum, a teaching procedure commonly used is Model, Lead, and Test. The application of Model, Lead, and Test Procedure using the I do it, we do it, and you do it, includes four types: (a) teacher demonstrates the learning, (b) the teacher and students together follow (c) repeat the demonstrated task (d) students do the skill or learning by themselves. Thus, direct instruction teaching model-lead-test procedure is an explicit instruction method (6). This effective strategy improves not only sight word recognition, but also the rate of mastery. The act of memorizing sight words requires additional, specialized instruction for learners with intellectual disabilities to achieve positive results. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effects of the Model, Lead, Test teaching procedures on mastery of Reading Mastery curriculum sight word recognition by a middle school student with an intellectual disability in a classroom for students with developmental disabilities. Method Participant and Setting The participant in the study was a middle school, fifteenyear-old girl diagnosed with an Intellectual Disability. The girl was diagnosed with Intellectual Disability and came from a home with two supportive parents and an older sister. The participant struggled in reading and math. According to the Basic Reading Inventory (BRI) the participant was performing at first-grade reading level with 60% accuracy. In the participant s IEP, the goal was to increase her BRI accuracy level to 80%. The participant was a very quiet, shy, and introverted girl who worked very slowly at her assigned lessons. The classroom teacher recommended the participant in hopes this would help to increase her reading skills. The study took place in a special education designed instruction classroom in a large urban middle school in the Pacific Northwest. The researchers came into the classroom during reading instruction and worked one-on-one with the participant in a designated area of the classroom allowing the participant to focus on the task without distractions. Typically seven children were present in the classroom working with the lead teacher and three teacher assistants. The study took place from 11:00-12:00 each Monday and Wednesday for three months. Materials The materials used in this study include Reading Mastery II textbook; flashcards; and model, lead, test presentation board created by the researchers. The flashcards were three by four inches and had an assortment of target words from the Reading Mastery Curriculum from lessons written on each one. The researchers constructed a basic sounds test to pretest the participant s current level of reading. From there, the researches constructed a word list based off of the Reading Mastery Curriculum with words that had sound combinations the participant had not mastered. In total, the study used 30 cards. These were both for intervention and data collection. For data collection flashcards were presented and data sheets (Appendix 1) were used to record the participant s response. For intervention the researchers created a model, lead, test presentation board copying from the Reading Mastery II textbook to better organize the sight words. Appendix 2 shows an example of what the presentation board looked like. The board included the ten sight words per set with an arrow underneath each word. The arrow was used to guide and cue the participant to read the word. Dependent Variable The target behavior in this study was correctly reading a presented word within three seconds. The expressed word was incorrect if the participant said the word incorrectly, took longer than three seconds after the flashcard was presented, or did not respond at all. The expressed word was correct if the student said the word correctly that matched the card within the three-second interval after the flashcard was presented. Data Collection The data collection sheet as seen in Figure 2 contained the three sets of targeted words along side columns representing the inter-observer agreement to check for reliability as well as each session date. A plus sign ( + ) marked a correct answer, while a dashed-line ( - ) marked an incorrect answer. After each session, both data collectors calculated the total responses correct by adding up the plus signs in order to determine total correct per set. The first author represented the primary data collector; however, both the first and second authors took data together as a means of checking reliability. Inter-Observer Agreement For IOA, the first and second authors took data together as a means of checking reliability for at least 30% of the baseline sessions. Inter-observer agreement (IOA) was conducted three times during baseline. While one of the researchers presented the target words and took data, the other researcher observed the participant and took primary data collection. The percent of inter-observer agreement was calculated by dividing the smaller number of correct responses recorded by one observer by the larger number of the correct responses recorded by the other observer. This number is then multiplied by one hundred. The percent of inter-observer agreement for correct responses was 94% (range 90% - 97%). Experimental Design and Conditions A multiple baseline design across three sets of target sight words (7, 8) was used to evaluate the effects of the Model, Lead, Test teaching procedure on the accuracy and fluency of reading by a fifteen-year-old girl. The design was divided into three sets of ten target words each. Set 1 was intervened first and once the participant reached 80% or higher mastery on a set, then the researchers moved on to the next sub tier. The previous intervened set had to show minimum levels of 80% correct sight reading words for two sessions. Three sessions of baseline were taken with the Set 1 sight words, 10 days of baseline for Set 2 sight words, and 14 days of baseline for Set 3 sight words. For intervention, Set 1 had 14 days, Set 2 had seven days, and Set 3 had three days. Figure 1 represents the results of the effects of the Model, Lead, Test teaching procedure through a Multiple Baseline design graph. ~ 112 ~

3 Fig 1: Number of correct sight words for baseline and DI flashcards and Reading Mastery Baseline. Before baseline began, the participant was given a Basic Sound Test to determine her reading level. The 26 sound cards were presented to the participant. The participant was given three seconds to say the sound correctly. Based on the results of the Basic Sounds Test the researchers constructed an appropriate list of words from the Reading Mastery Curriculum to use for data collection. During baseline (the first two weeks), the participant read 30 three-by-five index cards that had one word chosen from the Reading Mastery Curriculum. A three-by-five inch flashcard was shown and the participant attempted to read the word. The next flashcard was shown until all the remaining flashcards were attempted. The participant was given three seconds to read the word correctly. No tasks were given to improve the participant s skills and no praise or corrections were given during this time. Model, Lead, Test (MLT). Model, Lead, Test in combination with a contingent reward was used to help the participant master the 30 chosen sight words. There were a total of 10 words per session. The researchers created a Model, Lead, Test presentation board derived from the Reading Mastery II textbook to better organize the sight words. The researchers presented the presentation board and guided the participant in sounding out and reading the selected words. The researcher would place their pointer finger at the start of the arrow and say, get ready allowing the student to sound the word out in their head. When the researcher swiped their finger from the beginning of the word to the end the student would read the word. In addition, Figure 2 shows as an example of how the presentation board is used. The researchers would present the presentation board and guide the participant in sounding out and reading the selected words. ~ 113 ~

4 Figure 2: The data sheet employed in the study. ~ 114 ~

5 If the participant read the word correctly she was praised. If the participant read the word incorrectly a Model-Lead-Test procedure was implemented to correct the participant. In this phase, the researcher first modeled the correct reading of the word. Next, the researcher read the word with the participant as part of the lead section. Finally, the researcher tested the participant by cuing, saying, get ready. Then the researcher backed up to the previous word and repeated the previously incorrect word. A data collection of these words is given with the index-cards after work with the presentation board has been done. At the end of each data session, the participant received a Chance Ticket as part of their classroom reward system as well as edible reinforcement. Results The number of words correctly read during Baseline and the Direct Instruction flashcard system using the Model-Lead- Test teaching procedure is shown in Figure 1. The mean number of words mean number of words correctly read increased as a result of the Direct Instruction flashcard system using the Model- Lead-Test teaching procedure to 8.14 words for Set 1, 9.0 correct words (range 70 to 10 words correct) in Set 2, and 10.0 words correct for Set 3. As a whole, the grand mean number of words correctly read increase to 8.9 words correct (range 8.43 to 10.0 words). Discussion The participant clearly made improvement when comparing the first session of baseline to the last session of intervention, therefore a successful intervention. When starting this project the student was very timid, very down on herself, and very slow to respond and to get work completed. Throughout this project, the participant made no improvements in building herself up. The participant would constantly say, I don t know, I give up when she felt she was challenged too hard, yet the researchers knew that the participant was fully capable and had gotten this work correct multiple times. The researchers spent a tremendous amount of time trying to create a fun and happy learning environment to boost the mood of the student. They did this by constantly saying encouraging statements just as, You can do this! I know you know this word. The researchers used praise and rewards to help further encourage the participant, but the participant still seemed to be down on herself and unmotivated to work with the researchers. Despite the student s attitude, the student still worked with the researchers but needed reinforcement and assurance constantly that she was doing a good job and getting the words correctly. After the first set of intervention when she had mastered 10 of 30 words, she slowly gained more confidence and felt proud of her hard work. With this being said, every session varied and the researchers were unsure if the student would be in a negative mood that day or not. Regardless the researchers continued to praise the student for correctly said words and further reinforced her with a chance ticket, a token economy system set up by the lead teacher in this classroom. Overall, this study presented a successful intervention. Strengths included cost-effectiveness of the Model, Lead, Test presentation board as well as flashcard data system, usefulness of reinforcements, and timely mastery as well as maintenance of sight words. However, the study did present a few weaknesses in which future researchers can adapt and ~ 115 ~ improve. While Model, Lead, Test is an effective procedure for an elementary school aged participant, the slow, repetitive teaching procedure may lose interest to a middle school or high school aged participant. For future research, the Model, Lead, Test teaching procedure represents an easily implementable activity for a variety of classroom teachers. Be it in a general education classroom or a Direct Instruction resource room, the teaching procedure can be implemented either one-on-one or group setting, showing its versatile nature. In addition, teachers can pair the Model, Lead, Test teaching procedure with weekly spelling or vocabulary word lists used in their classroom. Furthermore, the teaching procedure can not only be used in instructional time, but also during transition periods to check mastery and maintenance. While encouraging maintenance for higher level learners, the Model, Lead, Test teaching procedure also allows lower level learners more practice before reaching mastery. References 1. Heward, WL. Exceptional Children: An Introduction to special education (10 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Marchand-Martella N, Martella R, Schieffer C, Simonsen F. The research base for reading mastery: Direct instruction. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill Adams GL, Englemann S. Research on direct instruction: 25 years beyond distar. Seattle, WA: al Achievement Series Carnine D, Silbert J, Kame enui E, Tarver S. Direct instruction reading. Boston, MA: Pearson, Inc Shippen ME, Houchins DE, Steventon C, Sartor D. A comparison of two direct instruction reading programs for urban middle school students. Remedial and Special 2005; 26: Price KM, Nelson KL. Daily planning for today's classroom: A guide to writing lesson and activity plans. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Kazdin AE. Single case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2 nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press McLaughlin TF. An examination and evaluation of single subject designs used in behavior analysis research in school settings. al Research Quarterly 1983; 7: