Harefield

Harefield
Harefield

Tuesday, 4 February 2014

MUSEC Briefings on Topics of Interest


This item is not a blog post as such but comprises a listing of, and a link to, a series of short one page reports on topics of interest (often controversial) in special education, known as the MUSEC Briefings, written by members of Macquarie University Special Education Centre (MUSEC).

The link to the series of MUSEC Briefings is:
(You might need to copy and paste this into your browser.)

The titles of the MUSEC Briefings  (in reverse date order ie most recent first) together with key references are as follows

MUSEC Briefing 38 - Response Cards


References
§  Berrong, A. K., Schuster, J. W., MOrse, T. E., & COllins, B. V. (2007). The effects of response cards on active participation and social behaviour of students with moderate and severe disabilities. JOurnal of Physical and Developmental Disabilities, 19, 187-199. dpi 10.1007/s10882-007-9047-7
§  Gardner, R., Heward, W. L., & Grossi, T. A. (1994). Effects of response cards on student participation and academic achievement: A systematic replication with inner-city students during whole-class science instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 63-71.
§  Munro, D. W., & Stephenson, J. (2009). The effect of response cards on student and teacher behaviour during vocabulary instruction. Jounral of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 795-800.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MUSEC Briefing 37 - Cogmed


References
§  Apter, B. (2013). Improving working memory. Educational Psychology in Practice, 29(1), 96-97.
§  Chacko, A., Bedard, A.C., Marks, D.J., Feirsen, N., Uderman, J.Z., Chimiklis, A., Rajwan, E., Cornwell, M., Anderson, L., Zwilling, A. & Ramon, M. (2013). A randomized clinical trial of Cogmed Working Memory Training in school-age children with ADHD: A replication in a diverse sample using a control condition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(6), 769-783.
§  Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and programs that improve children's executive functions Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 335-341.
§  Egeland, J., Aarlien, A. K., & Saunes, B. (2013). Few effects of far transfer of working memory training in ADHD: A randomized controlled trial. PloS One, 8(10), 1-9.
§  Gibson, B. S., Gondoli, D. M., Kronenberger, W. G., Johnson, A. C., Steeger, C. M., & Morrissey, R. A. (2013). Exploration of an adaptive training regimen that can target the secondary memory component of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 41(5), 726-737.
§  Gray, S.A., Chaban, P., Martinussen, R., Goldberg, R., Gotlieb, H., Kronitz, R., Hockenberry, M. & Tannock, R. (2012). Effects of a computerized working memory training program on working memory, attention, and academics in adolescents with severe LD and comorbid ADHD: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 1277-1284.
§  Holmes, J., & Gathercole, S.E. (2013). Taking working memory training from the laboratory into schools. Educational Psychology. Online May 10
§  Karin I. E. & Dahlin, K.I.E. (2010). Effects of working memory training on reading in children with special needs. Reading and Writing, 24, 479-491.
§  Kasper, L.J., Alderson, R.M., & Hudec, K.L. (2012). Moderators of working memory deficits in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(7), 605-617.
§  Melby-LervĂ„g, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 270-291.
§  Morrison, A.B., & Chein, J.M. (2011). Does working memory training work? The promise and challenges of enhancing cognition by training working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 46-60.
§  Papp, K.V., & Snyder, P.J. (2012). Editorial to accompany - Training the brain: Fact and fad in cognitive and behavioral remediation.Brain and Cognition, 79(2), 158.
§  Pascoe, L., Roberts, G., Doyle, L. W., Lee, K. J., Thompson, D. K., Seal, M. L., Josev, E.K., Nosarti, C., Gathercole, S., & Anderson, P. J. (2013). Preventing academic difficulties in preterm children: a randomised controlled trial of an adaptive working memory training intervention - IMPRINT study. BMC Pediatrics, 13, 144-156.
§  Rabipour, S., & Raz, A. (2012). Training the brain: Fact and fad in cognitive and behavioral remediation. Brain and Cognition, 79(2), 159-179.
§  Redick, T.S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T.L., Hicks, K.L. Fried, D.E., Hambrick, D.Z., Kane, M.J., & Engle, R.W. (2013). No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: A randomized, placebo-controlled study. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 142(2), 359-379.
§  Riccio C.A., & Gomes H. (2013). Interventions for executive function deficits in children and adolescents. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 2(2), 133-140.
§  Shipstead, Z., Hicks, K.L., & Engle, R.W. (2012). Cogmed working memory training: Does the evidence support the claims? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(3), 185-193.
§  Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Is working memory training effective? Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 628-654.
§  Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., & Kawashima, R. (2010). Effects of working memory training on cognitive functions and neural systems.Reviews in the Neurosciences, 21(6), 427-49.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MUSEC Briefing 36 - Interactive Metronome Training


References
§  Taub, G,E; McGrew, K, S & Keith, T, Z. ( 2007). Improvements in interval time tracking and effects on reading achievement.Psychology in Schools, 44, 849-863.


MUSEC Briefing 35 - Mnemonics


References
§  Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., Berkeley, S.L., & Marshak, L. (2010). Mnemonic strategies: Evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 79 - 86. doi:10.1177/1053451210374985
§  Wolgemoth, J.R., Cobb, R.B., & Alwell, M. (2008). The effects of mnemonic interventions on academic outcomes for youth with disabilities: A systematic review. Learning Disabilities Research, 23, 1-10.


MUSEC Briefing 34 - Using Scripts to Teach Conversation Skills to Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders


References
§  Sarokoff, R. A., Taylor, B. A., & Poulson, C. L. (2001). Teaching children with autism to engage in conversational exchanges: Script fading with embedded textual stimuli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 81-­84. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-­81
§  Wichnick, A. M., Vener, S. M., Pyrtek, M., & Poulson, C. L. (2010). The effect of a script-­ fading procedure on responses to peer initiations among young children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4, 290-­299. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2009.09.016
_____________________________________________________________________
MUSEC Briefing 33 - Behavioural Optometry

References
§  American Academy of Pediatrics (2011). Joint technical report - Learning disabilities, dyslexia, and vision. Pediatrics, 127, e818-e856. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/3/e818
§  Barrett, B.T. (2009). A critical evaluation of the evidence supporting the practice of behavioural vision therapy. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics,29, 4-25


MUSEC Briefing 32 - The Tomatis Method as a Treatment for Autism

References
§  Corbett, B. A., Shickman, K., & Ferrer, E. (2008). Brief report: The effects of Tomatis sound therapy on language in children with autism. Journal of Autism and other Developmental Disorders, 38, 562-­¿566. doi: 10.1007/s10803-­¿007-­¿ 0413-­¿1.
§  Dawson, G., & Watling, R. (2000). Interventions to facilitate auditory, visual and motor integration in autism: A review of the evidence. Journal of Autism and other Developmental Disorders, 30, 415-­¿421.
§  Sinha, Y., Silove, N., Wheeler, D., & Williams, K. (updated May 30, 2007). Auditory integration training and other sound therapies for autism spectrum disorders. [Cochrane Review]. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2009 (1). Available from The Cochrane Library, Wiley Interscience. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003681.pub2.


MUSEC Briefing 31 - Visual Activity Schedules

References
§  Allday, R.A. (2008). Using visual strategies to improve classroom success for students with autism. Special Education Perspectives, 17, 94-109.
§  Banda, D.R., Grimmett, E., & Hart, S. L. (2009). Helping students with autism spectrum disorders in general education classrooms manage transition issues. Teaching Exceptional Children41 (4) 16-21.


MUSEC Briefing 30 - Learning Styles

References
§  Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
§  Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. (pp. 195-197)
§  Kavale, K., & Forness, S. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children, 54, 228-239. 
§  Landrum, T.J., &McDuffie, K. A. (2010). Learning styles in the age of differentiated instruction. Exceptionality, 18, 6-17.
§  Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105-119.


MUSEC Briefing 29 - Functional Communication Training

References
§  Durand, V. M., & Carr, E. G. (1992). An analysis of maintenance following functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(4), 777-794. doi:10.1901/jaba.1992.25-777
§  Mirenda, P. (1997). Supporting individuals with challenging behavior through functional communication training and AAC: Research review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13(4), 207-225. doi:10.1080/07434619712331278048
§  Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Harding, J. W., Barretto, A., Rankin, B., & Ganzer, J. (2005). Treatment effectiveness, stimulus generalization, and acceptability to parents of functional communication training. Educational Psychology, 25(2), 233-256.           doi:10.1080/0144341042000301184


MUSEC Briefing 28 - Fast ForWord Language

References
§  Borman, G.D., Benson, J.G., & Overman, L. (2009). A randomized field trial of the Fast ForWord language computer-based training program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 82-106.
§  Cohen, W., Hodson, A., O'Hare, A., Boyle, J., Durrani, T., McCartney, E., Mattey, M., Naftalin, L., & Watson, J. (2005). Effects of computer-based intervention through acoustically modified speech (Fast ForWord) in severe mixed receptive-expressive language impairment: Outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 48, 715-729.
§  Gillam, R.B., Loeb, D.F., Hoffman, L.M., Bohman, T., Champlin, C.A., Thibodeau, L., Widen, J., Brandel, J., & Friel-Patti, S. (2008). The efficacy of Fast ForWord language intervention in school-age children with language impairment: A randomized controlled trial. Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 97-119.
§  Given, B.K., Wasserman, J.D., Chari, S.A., Beattie, K., & Eden, G.F. (2008). A randomized, controlled study of computer-based intervention in middle school struggling readers. Brain and Language, 106, 83-97.
§  Pokorni, J.L., Worthington, C.K., & Jamison, P.J. (2004). Phonological awareness intervention: Comparison of Fast ForWord, Earobics, and LiPS. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 147-157.
§  Rouse, C.E., & Krueger, A.B. (2004). Putting computerized instruction to the test: A randomized evaluation of a 'scientifically based' reading program. Economics of Education Review, 23, 323-338.
§  Strong, G. K., Torgerson, C. J., Torgerson, D., & Hulme, C. (2010). A systematic meta-analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the 'Fast ForWord' language intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 224-235.


MUSEC Briefing Issue 27: Schema-based Instruction for Mathematics Word Problem-solving

References
§  Jitendra, A. (2002). Teaching students math problem-solving through graphic representations. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 34 (4), 34-38.
§  Jitendra, A. (2007). Solving math word problems: teaching students with leaning disabilities using schema-based instruction, Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
§  Jitendra, A. K., George, M. P., Sood, S., & Price, K. (2010). Schema-based instruction: facilitating mathematical word problem solving for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 54, 145-151


MUSEC Briefing Issue 26: Cellfield Program

References
§  The Efficacy of the Cellfield Intervention for reading difficulties: An integrated computer-based approach targeting deficits associated with dyslexia. Lee-Ann Prideaux, Kerry A. Marsh and Dimitri Caplygin. (2005) Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties. 10, 2, 51-62.



References
§   Kern, L., & Clemens, N. H. (2008). Antecedent strategies to promote appropriate classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 65-75.
§  Wannarka, R., & Ruhl, K. (2008). Seating arrangements that promote positive academic and behavioural outcomes: a review of empirical research. Support for Learning, 23, 89-93.
§  Wheldall, K., & Bradd, L. (2010). Classroom seating arrangements and classroom behaviour. In K. Wheldall (Ed.), Developments in educational psychology (second edition) (pp. 181-195). London: Routledge.



 References
§  Beaman, R., & Wheldall, K. (2010). Teachers' use of approval and disapproval in the classroom. In K. Wheldall (Ed.), Developments in educational psychology (second edition) (pp. 153-180). London: Routledge.
§  Gable, R. A., Hester, P. H., Rock, M. L., & Hughes, K. G. (2009). Back to basics: Rules, praise, ignoring, and reprimands revisited.Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 195-205
§  Sutherland, K. S., Wehby, J. H., & Copeland, S. R. (2000). Effect of varying rates of behavior-specific praise on the on-task behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8 (1), 2-8.



References
§  American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Auditory Integration Training [Technical Report]. Available fromhttp://www.asha.org/policy/. doi:10.1044/policy.TR2004-00260
§  Crncec, R., Wilson, S. J. & Prior, M. (2006). The cognitive and academic benefits of music to children. Educational Psychology, 26, 579-594. Doi:10.1080/01443410500342542
§  Nwora, A. J.  & Gee, B. M. (2009). A case study of a five-year-old child with pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified using sound-based interventions. Occupational Therapy International, 16, 25-43. Doi:10.1002/oti.263



References
§  American Academy of Ophthalmology. (2009). Policy Statement: Learning Disabilities, Dyslexia and Vision. Retrieved 30th December 2009 from http://www.aao.org/about/policy/upload/Learning-Disabilities-Dyslexia-Vision-2009.pdf
§  Hyatt, K. J., Stephenson, J., & Carter, M. (2009). A review of three controversial educational practices: Perceptual motor programs, sensory integration and tinted lenses. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 313-342.
§  Kavale, K. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2004). The positive side of special education: Minimizing its fads, fancies and follies. Lanaham, MD: Scarercrow Education.
§  Parker, R. M. (1990). Power, control, and validity in research, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 613-620



 References
§  Department of Education, Science and Training. (2005). Teaching reading. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.
§  National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read (00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
§  Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading: Final Report. London: Department for Education and Skills.



References:
§  Preston, D. & Carter, M. (in press). A review of the Efficacy of the Picture Exchange Communication System intervention. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, DOI 10.1007/s10803-009-0763-y.
§  Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Hoffman, A. O., Horton, C. B., Bondy, A., & Frost, L. (2009). The Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS): What do the data say? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24, 89-103.



References:
§  Arendt, R. E., MacLean, W. E., & Baumeister, A. A. (1988). Critique of sensory integration therapy and its application to mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation92, 401-411.
§  Hoehn, T. P., & Baumeister, A. A. (1994). A critique of the application of sensory integration therapy to children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities27, 338-350.
§  Leong, H. M., & Carter, M. (2008). Research on the efficacy of sensory integration therapy: Past, present and future. Australasian Journal of Special Education32, 83-99.
§  Devlin, S., Healy, O., Leader, G., & Reed, P. (2008). The analysis and treatment of problem behavior evoked by auditory stimulation.Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders2, 671-680.
§  Devlin, S., Leader, G., & Healy, O. (2009). Comparison of behavioral intervention and sensory-integration therapy in the treatment of self-injurious behavior. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders3, 223-231.
§  Vargas, S., & Camilli, G. (1999). A meta-analysis of research on sensory integration treatment. American Journal of Occupational Therapy53, 189-198.



References:
§  Apps, M., & Carter, M. (2006). When all is said and done, more is said than done: Research examining constructivist instruction for students with special needs. Australian Journal of Special Education31, 107-125.
§  Ellis, L. A. (2005). Balancing approaches: revisiting the educational psychology research on teaching students with learning difficulties. Australian Education Review (No. 48). Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research. Can be accessed athttp://research.acer.edu.au/aer/6/
§  Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.
§  Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist41, 75-86.



References:
§  Bender, W. N. & Shores, C. (Eds.). (2007). Response to intervention: A practical guide for every teacher. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
§  Council for Exceptional Children (2008). Responsiveness to intervention: A collection of articles from Teaching Exceptional Children. Washington, DC: Council for Exceptional Children.
§  Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 14-20.
§  US National Centre on Response to Intervention http://www.rti4success.org



References:
§  Baranek, G. T. (2002). Efficacy of sensory and motor interventions for children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, 397-422.
§  Stephenson, J., & Carter, M. (2009). The use of weighted vests with children with autism spectrum disorder and other disabilities.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 104-114.



References:
§  Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Theodore, L. A. (2000). A multi-component intervention designed to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 475-481.
§  Musser, E. H., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J. & Jenson, W. R. (2001). Reducing disruptive behaviors in students with serious emotional disturbance. School Psychology Review, 30, 294-304.



References:
§  Brabham, E. G., & Villaume, S. K. (2002). Leveled text: The good news and the bad news. The Reading Teacher, 55, 438-441.
§  Jamison, R., L, & Burton, W. (2002). Matching texts and readers: Leveling early reading materials for assessment and instruction.The Reading teacher, 55, 348-356.
§  Pearce, S., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2006). MULTILIT book levels: Towards a new system for levelling texts. Special Education Perspectives, 15, 38-56.



References:
§  Ali, S., & Frederickson, N. (2006). Investigating the evidence base of Social Stories. Educational Psychology in Practice, 22, 355-377.
§  Reynhout, G., & Carter, M. (2006). Social stories for children with disabilities. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 36, 445-469.
§  Rust, J., & Smith, A. (2006). How should the effectiveness of Social Stories to modify the behaviour of children on the autism spectrum be tested? Autism, 10, 125-138.
§  Sansosti, F., Powell-Smith, K., & Kincaid, D. (2004). A research synthesis of social story interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 194-204.



References:
§  Reynolds, D., Nicolson, R. I., & Hambly, H. (2003). An evaluation of an exercisebased treatment for children with reading difficulties.Dyslexia, 9, 48-71
§  Snowling, M., & Hulme, C. (2003). A critique of claims from Reynolds, Nicolson & Hambly (2003) that DDAT is an effective treatment for children with reading difficulties - 'lies, damned lies and (inappropriate) statistics', Dyslexia, 9, 127-133
§  White, S., Milne, E., Rosen, S., Hansen, P., Swettenham, J., Frith, U., & Ramus, F. (2006). The role of sensorimotor impairments in dyslexia: A multiple case study of dyslexic children. Developmental Science, 9, 237-269



References:
§  Alsop, G. (1997). Coping or counselling: Families of intellectually gifted students. Roeper Review, 20(1), 28-. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from Expanded Academic ASAP database.
§  Copenhaver, R. W., & McIntyre, D. J. (1992). Teachers' perceptions of gifted students. Roeper Review, 14, 151-153.
§  Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed., pp. 32-44). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
§  Gear, G. H. (1976). Accuracy of teacher judgment in identifying intellectually gifted children: A review of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 478-489.
§  Jacobs, J. C. (1971). Effectiveness of teacher and parent identification of gifted as a function of school level. Psychology in the Schools, 8, 140-142.
§  Plunkett, M. (2000). Impacting on teacher attitudes toward gifted students. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 9(2), 33-42.
§  Richert, E. S. (1997). Excellence with equity in identification and programming. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 75-88). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.



References:
§  Jacobson, J. W., Foxx, R. M., & Mulick, J. A. (2005). Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities; Fad, fashion and science in professional practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
§  Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. A., & Schwartz, A. A. (1995). A history of facilitated communication: Science, Pseudoscience, and Antiscience: Science working group on facilitated communication. American Psychologist, 50, 750-765.
§  Montee, B. B., Miltenberger, R. G., & Wittrock, D. (1995). An experimental analysis of facilitated communication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 189-200.
§  Shane, H. C. (1994). Facilitated communication: The clinical and social phenomenon. San Diego, CA: Singular Press.



References:
§  Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. M. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes? Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 10-26.
§  Giangreco, M. F., Yuan, S., McKenzie, B., Cameron, P., & Fialka, J. (2005). "Be careful what you wish for..." Five reasons to be concerned about the assignment of individual paraprofessionals. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 37(5), 28-34.
§  Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S., Broder, S. M., & Doyle, M. B. (2001). Paraprofessional support of students with disabilities; Literature from the last decade. Exceptional Children, 68, 45-63.



References:
§  Carter, M., & Grunsell, J. (2001). The behavior chain interruption strategy: A review of research and discussion of future directions. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 37-49.
§  Grunsell, J., & Carter, M. (2002). The behavior chain interruption strategy: Generalization to out-of-routine contexts. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 378-90.
§  Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1988). Teaching spontaneous communication in natural settings using interrupted behavior chains. Topics in Language Disorders, 9, 58-71.
§  Sigafoos, J., & Littlewood, R. (1999). Communication intervention of the playground: A case study on teaching requesting to a young child with autism. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 421-29.



References:
§  Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific method and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137-148.
§  Greenwood, C. R. (2001). Science and students with learning and behavior problems. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 37-52.



References:
§  Hammill, D. D. (2004). What we know about correlates of reading. Exceptional Children, 70, 453-468.
§  Kavale, K., & Mattson, P. D. (1983). "One jumped off the balance beam": Meta-analysis of perceptual-motor training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 165-173.
§  Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities? Journal of Special Education, 37, 140-147.



References:
§  Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
§  Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184-192.
§  Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188-192.
§  Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (1999). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: A critical review. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 71-85.
§  Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (2004). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: Recent Advances. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51, 57-82.



References (updated November 2010):
§  Reynolds, M., & Wheldall, K. (2007). Reading Recovery twenty years down the track: Looking forward, looking back. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54, 199-223.
§  Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K. & Madelaine, A. (2009). The devil is in the detail regarding the efficacy of Reading Recovery: A rejoinder to Schwartz, Hobsbaum, Briggs, and Scull. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 56, 17-35.
§  Schwartz, R. M., Hobsbaum, A., Briggs, C., & Scull, J. (2009). Reading Recovery and evidence-based practice: A response to Reynolds and Wheldall (2007). International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 56(1): 5-15.



References:
§  Ardoin, S. P., Martens, B. K., & Wolfe, L. A. (1999). Using high-probability instruction sequences with fading to increase students compliance during transitions. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 32, 339-351.
§  Davis, C., & Reichle, J. (1996). Variant and invariant high-probability requests: Increasing appropriate behaviours in children with emotional-behavioural disorders. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 29, 471-482.
§  Lee, D., Belfiore, P. J., Scheeler, M. C., Hua, Y., & Smith, R. (2004). Behavioural momentum in academics: Using embedded high-p sequences to increase academic productivity. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 789-801.
§  Nevin, J. A. (1996). The momentum of compliance. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 29, 535-547.
§  Romano, J. P., & Roll, D. (2000). Expanding the utility of behavioural momentum for youth with developmental disabilities.Behavioral Interventions, 15, 99-111.
§  Wehby, J. H., & Hollahan, M.S. (2000). Effects of high probability requests on the latency to initiate academic tasks. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 33, 259-262.



References:
§  Chan, S., Fung, M. Y., Tong, C. W., & Thompson, D. (2005). The clinical effectiveness of a multisensory therapy on clients with developmental disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 131-142.
§  Hogg, J., Cabet, J., Lambe, L., & Smeddle, M. (2001). The use of 'Snoezelen' as multisensory stimulation with people with intellectual disabilities: A review of the research. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 353-372.
§  Martin, N. T., Gaffan, E. A., & Williams, T. (1998). Behavioural effects of long-term multisensory stimulation. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 69-82.
§  Stephenson, J. (2002). Characterization of multisensory environments: Why do teachers use them? Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 15, 73-90.
§  Withers, P. S., & Ensum, I (1995). Successful treatment of severe self injury incorporating the use of DRO, a Snoezelen room and orientation cues. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 164-167.


Friday, 15 November 2013

Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb

 It was one of those supermarket moments. The young man at the checkout looked at the long red stalks topped with exuberant green foliage and asked my wife what it was. My heart went out to him. To have reached your teenage years without knowing the sensuous delights of rhubarb crumble was almost unbearable – far superior to the traditional teenage delights of sex ‘n’ drugs ‘n’ rock ‘n’ roll, but then I am well over sixty and he is, perhaps, sixteen. And perhaps he just did not recognise rhubarb in its raw state and, in any case, I digress.
            My wife telling him the name of the product did not seem to help him to locate it on his checkout touch screen. We waited. In desperation, I hissed “Tell him it’s r-H-u …”. Problem (finally) solved.
   As if I needed any reminding, this served to illustrate yet again the importance of factors other than decoding (phonically or otherwise) in reading and, indeed, spelling. To be literate, to be able to read and write (and spell) with reasonable proficiency, it is not enough to be able to decode or encode words and text. You actually have to know what you are reading or writing about. You need knowledge.
This sounds painfully obvious on the surface: how could it be otherwise? But a sole preoccupation with decoding and encoding, especially when teaching low-progress readers, can sometimes distract one from the equally important task of teaching … well, stuff. It is all very well to be able to read aloud “The rodent consumed the gorgonzola” but, effectively, barking at print is all that will be achieved unless you know what a rodent is, what consume means and that gorgonzola is a type of cheese.
The problem is, of course, that learning quite a bit of this ‘stuff’ actually comes about via reading. Consequently, if you are poor at reading, you will tend to read far less and to learn less general knowledge. Moreover, many of the words and terms that we learn do not crop up frequently in everyday conversation; we only encounter them in books. Hence, low-progress readers experience what Keith Stanovich calls ‘the Matthew Effect’ whereby the rich get richer and the poor get poorer; those who can read well, read more and learn more; those who read poorly, read less and hence learn less.

All of this leads to the rather obvious point that we need to teach ‘stuff’ to low-progress readers as well as how to decode effectively and efficiently. In recent years, there has been a noticeable and welcome shift among those interested in teaching reading effectively to focus on all five of the five ‘big ideas’ of reading instruction; to give equal prominence to vocabulary and comprehension as to phonemic awareness, phonics and fluency. We also need to focus on the acquisition of general knowledge about the world and to find ways of bringing low-progress readers up to speed with what typically developing readers are already likely to know. To contemplate a world without rhubarb in it is just too sad.

Vital Signs in Reading

Anyone who has spent time in hospital or has a long term illness will be well aware of the importance doctors and nurses attach to the continual monitoring of ‘vital signs’: body temperature, heart rate (or pulse), and blood pressure (BP). Measurement of these vital signs can also be achieved very quickly, easily and frequently. What is perhaps not so commonly known is that these vital signs can be highly variable and subject to considerable fluctuation as a result of varying circumstances.           
Blood pressure measurement, for example, can fluctuate from one reading to the next and is particularly susceptible to changes in when and where it is taken and by whom. Sometimes simply being examined by a medical professional can make our blood pressure go up: the ‘white coat phenomenon’.
            But does this variability in BP measurement mean that it is useless for diagnostic or monitoring purposes? The answer is no, of course not; measures do not need to be totally reliable to be very useful; in detecting hypertension for example. We can also iron out some of the blips by taking several measures and averaging them or by taking repeated regular readings and looking at BP levels over time. Hypertension or high blood pressure is, of course, not an all or nothing affair since blood pressure is variable across individuals and is on a continuum. The BP levels we refer to as indicating degrees of hypertension are not magic markers but are, in a sense, arbitrary cut-offs that have proved in practice over time to be useful indicators for detecting potential problems.
            By the same token, there are ‘vital signs’ like BP that are very useful to us when teaching reading. We can measure reading performance reliably enough for it to be very useful to us in practice; to help us in determining which of our students need additional help, for example.
There is another parallel here with hypertension. Some people still seem to believe that dyslexia or reading disability is a clearly differentiated specific condition that is either present or it is not; all or nothing. But reading performance, like BP, is on a continuum and where we set the performance bar to indicate a reading disability is essentially arbitrary. Children vary in the extent to which they display difficulties in reading. By changing the performance criterion, we can define reading disability as referring to 5, 10 or 20 per cent of the population, for example. The decision where to place the bar is a judgement call and is likely to be influenced not only by student need but also by the resources available. To take an extreme example, there is little point identifying 50 per cent of students as being dyslexic if we have resources available to meet the needs of only 5 per cent.
            The important thing to bear in mind, then, is that reading difficulties may be present to a greater or lesser extent. Many reading researchers and specialists today would argue that defining dyslexia is a largely futile exercise and that we should concentrate instead on helping all struggling readers to perform at a level that can reasonably be considered as being within an acceptable range for their age. To help us in this endeavour we need good measures of reading performance that are reasonably reliable (like BP they will not be perfect), that are quick and easy to administer, and that we can use to screen for reading problems and to monitor the reading progress of those whose performance is of concern to us frequently, on a regular basis.
Unfortunately, many of the reading tests out there are time-consuming to administer and may only be used reliably at infrequent intervals. Such tests are not very useful to us in monitoring the reading performance of our students.
In recent years, reading researchers have been experimenting with so-called curriculum-based measures of reading that have been shown to be both remarkably reliable and valid measures of reading performance while being both quick and easy to administer. This new approach to reading assessment also allows teachers and others to test students frequently to monitor progress, by providing numerous different reading passages that have been shown to be of an equal difficulty level. (One such reading assessment instrument, the Wheldall Assessment of Reading Passages (or WARP), has recently been released by MultiLit Pty Ltd: www.multilit.com .) When such an effective reading assessment tool is available to them, teachers and others can use the data collected to make instructional decisions so as to tailor their teaching strategies to meet individual student needs.
Like hospital patients, low-progress readers must be monitored on a regular basis to ensure that the interventions being employed are working and that they are making real improvements. Educators need to be like doctors to their students, monitoring their vital signs in reading and ensuring that no student is left behind.



[Acknowledgement: I would like to acknowledge the editorial assistance of my daughter, Rachael Wheldall, with this article.]