Example ABA Annotated Bibliography and Visual Graph Analysis with Journals Cited
Example ABA Annotated Bibliography and Visual Graph Analysis with Journals Cited SPSY 8012
Popular in Behavioral Research Methods
Popular in Department
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
This 37 page Bundle was uploaded by Hannah Mecaskey on Monday March 7, 2016. The Bundle belongs to SPSY 8012 at University of Cincinnati taught by in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 20 views.
Reviews for Example ABA Annotated Bibliography and Visual Graph Analysis with Journals Cited
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 03/07/16
Mecaskey 1 Hannah M. Mecaskey SPSY 8012: Behavioral Research and Accountability Methods Annotated Bibliography Prof. Dacia McCoy, PhD March 2, 2016 Example of an entry for Multiple Baseline Design: Gutman, A., Raphael-Greenfield, E., & Rao, A. (2012). Effect of a motor-based role-play intervention on the social behaviors of adolescents with high-functioning autism: multiple-baseline single-subject design AJOT: American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66 (5), 529-537. doi: 10.5014/ajot.2012.003756. This study examined the effectiveness of motor-based role-play interventions to increase the use of social skills in adolescents with high functioning autism (HFA) across seven individuals. Selection criteria for students included three factors: diagnosis of HFA, average or above average intelligence, and an age range of 15-21. Social skills interventions between pairs of like-skilled adolescents were implemented during three, three-month phases over a period of twelve months. Over each three month period, targeted verbal and nonverbal skill use was increased for all participants. A multiple baseline design was used across all participants to determine the effectiveness of role-play interventions on inappropriate social behaviors. Interventions were provided in an after-school social skills setting once per week for 1 hour per session. Sessions ran for three 7-week periods during fall, spring and summer semesters. While all role-play activities were initiated in the context of a school environment, as participants increased in social skill competence, environments were generalized to the community. Analyzing Figure 3, during baseline the frequency of target social skills were low, averaging about 15.5 correct social responses per student. Upon implantation of the intervention, student frequency of socially Mecaskey 2 appropriate response more than doubled on average, demonstrating significant increase across all participants. Increasing trends were stable across intervention phases one and two, demonstrating significant increase of correct social response frequency after introduction of intervention, with slight tapering of skill frequency upon administration of probes. Experimental control was demonstrated in this study through repeated changes to student social skill correct-response frequency with each successive introduction of the intervention as well as maintenance of increased correct-response frequency over an extended period of time. Example of an entry for Withdrawl Design (ABAB): Ploessel, D. & Rock, M. (2014). eCoaching: The Effects on Co-Teachers’ Planning and Instruction. TESE: Teacher Education and Special Education, 37 (3), 191-215. doi: 10.1177/0888406414525049. This study investigated the effectiveness of eCoaching to increase Special Educators’ abilities to co-teach effectively in inclusive classrooms across 3 pairs of co-teachers over the course of eight teaching and planning sessions. Using the single case withdrawal design (ABAB), these researchers investigated the effects of eCoading through online bug-in-ear technology on co- teachers’ abilities to co-plan and co-instruct a lesson. Frequency measures were used to count the varied types of co-teaching models planning and utilized during these sessions. The number of student-specific modifications and accommodations planned and administered between the dyad were also tracked through frequency measures. Observers were trained to review video recordings of co-teachers planning and co-leading lessons to track these various frequencies. Looking at Figure 5, the baseline levels of student-specific interventions planned and implemented during baseline varied between all 3 dyads, though none of the groups implemented more than one student-specific intervention. Upon implementation of the eCoaching Mecaskey 3 intervention, researchers found immediate increase in all 3 dyads’ planning and implantation of student-specific accommodations. When the eCoaching intervention was withdrawn and then reintroduced, the increase of student-specific accommodations had significant variability between all 3 dyads and a decrease in trend. This data suggests that eCoaching was ineffective during the final two phases of the study. While overall co-teacher use of student-specific modifications accommodations increased from baseline after the introduction of eCoaching, additional replication and generalization over diverse settings is needed to determine experimental control. research-article20147/0888406414525049Teacher Education and Special EducationPloessl and Rock Article Teacher Education and Special Education 2014, Vol. 37(3) 191 eCoaching: The Effects on Co- © 2014 Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children Teachers’ Planning and Instruction Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0888406414525049 tese.sagepub.com Donna M. Ploessl and Marcia L. Rock 2 Abstract Although co-teaching has become a popular approach to special education ▯service provision in inclusive classrooms, practitioners have struggled to carry it out we▯ll. One suggestion for improvement has been to provide co-teachers with training that includes coaching. In this study, we used single-case (ABAB) withdrawal design, to investigate the effects of eCoaching, delivered through online bug-in-ear technology, on co-teachers as they planned and▯ carried out co- teaching. Participants included three co-teaching dyads (n = 6); each comprised of one general and one special educator. Visual inspection of graphed data along with quantitative analysis (i.e., percentage of non-overlapping data) confirmed that eCoaching increased participants’ use of varied co-teaching models and student-specific accommodations, while co-▯teachers’ interviews and students’ time samples verified social validity. Taken together, ▯these findings lead to better understanding of the benefits and limitations of eCoaching with co-teach▯ers. Keywords eCoaching, bug in ear, co-teaching, professional development, planning a▯nd instruction, teacher preparation policy/service delivery In an era of increased inclusive practices and which it has been implemented (Spooner, teacher accountability, the number of general Algozzine, Wood, & Hicks, 2010). and special education teachers partnering in efforts to improve students with disabilities’ access, progress, and achievement in the gen- The Role of Training in eral curriculum continues to rise. Volonino Co-Teaching and Zigmond (2007) noted that co-teaching Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, and has been identified as the most common Shamberger (2010) provided specific recom- approach to special education service provi- mendations for co-teaching training. Dettmer, sion in inclusive classrooms. L. Cook and Thurston, and Dyck (2005) pointed out that Friend (1995) define co-teaching as “two or one of the greatest obstacles co-teachers face more professionals jointly delivering substan- is lack of training and preparation for their tive instruction to a diverse, or blended, group new roles. Teachers also identified the lack of of students in a single physical space” (p. 1). Although co-teaching has gained popularity, 1 two published syntheses—one quantitative 2Stillman College, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA University of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC, USA (Murawski & Swanson, 2001) and one quali- Corresponding Author: tative (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, Donna M. Ploessl, Stillman College, P.O. Box 1430, 2007)—confirm only moderate success, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35403 USA. prompting many to question the quality with Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on March 1, 2016 192 Teacher Education and Special Education 37(3) training (Dettmer et al., 2005; Keefe & Moore, receive training, the benefits often went unre- 2004), the need for greater skill development alized because it was too brief and too limited. (Curtin, 1998), and the need for different Taken together, one can conclude that profes- training methods (Scruggs et al., 2007) as sional development for co-teachers should problems adversely affecting co-teaching include intensive training and feedback in practice. Thus, efforts to improve the quality situ. A practice frequently referred to as job and success of co-teaching may hinge, in part, embedded professional development (Croft, on training (Murawski, 2008). Coggshall, Dolan, Powers, & Killion, 2010). Pancsofar and Petroff (2013) found posi- In addition to improving the pedagogy of tive relationships between the frequency of professional development, a need also exists co-teaching training and desired teacher out- to strengthen the content of co-teaching train- comes. Teachers who had more in-service ing. Obviously, co-teaching training should opportunities demonstrated higher levels of target the knowledge, skills, and dispositions interest in co-teaching, held more positive that support quality implementation. Recent attitudes toward co-teaching, and reported findings by Brinkmann and Twiford (2012) greater confidence in their co-teaching abili- shed additional light on this topic. Based on ties. Although preliminary, these findings focus group interviews conducted with prac- confirm that frequent in-service training may ticing elementary general and special educa- alleviate some longstanding attitudinal barri- tion teachers who co-taught in inclusive ers encountered by co-teachers. classrooms, they concluded that successful partners possessed a variety of skills, includ- Characteristics of Effective ing classroom management, collaborative les- son planning, communication, data collection, Co-Teaching Training interpersonal skills, differentiation of instruc- In general, effective professional develop- tion, and self-advocacy. ment offers teachers not only explicit instruc- Because problems associated with co- tion in evidence-based practices through teaching practice are well documented, the modeling and demonstration but also opportu- scope of professional development should nities for guided practice with feedback include training in potential solutions. Results (Joyce & Showers, 2002). The latter of which from Walther-Thomas and Bryant (1996) includes coaching provided by experts (Leko underscore the importance of providing addi- & Brownell, 2009; Sindelar, Brownell, & tional training on co-teaching models, problem- Billingsley, 2010). Unfortunately, current solving, and planning. Studies conducted by approaches to in-service training often do not Dieker (2001), Moin, Magiera, and Zigmond include guided practice with feedback or (2008), and Gurgur and Uzuner (2011) also coaching. Instead, workshops and webinars emphasize a need for co-teachers to learn remain popular approaches, stuffed into teach- more about effective and efficient use of plan- ers’busy schedules like “mortar into bricks,” ning time. Some researchers (Moin et al., just enough to put pieces together yet not 2008; Murawski, 2008; Scruggs et al., 2007) enough to give the training strength or mean- report an over reliance on one co-teaching ing in practice (Rooney, 2007). Specifically, model (i.e., teach and assist), which suggests traditional professional development without further training regarding the special educa- coaching means little to no transfer to practice tor’s instructional roles and responsibilities yet with coaching the transfer to practice is may be beneficial. Relatedly, others (Harbort high (Joyce & Showers, 2002). et al., 2007; Weiss & Lloyd, 2002; Zigmond Specific to training in co-teaching, Friend & Baker, 1995) find that the special educator et al. (2010) also suggest that professional often serves as a “manager” of behavior, development should include joint participa- rather than a co-instructor, which points to a tion and coaching. Regrettably, Fennick and need for increased training in positive behav- Liddy (2001) found that when co-teachers did ioral interventions and supports (PBIS, that is, Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on March 1, 2016 Ploessl and Rock 193 classroom/behavior management). Finally , also received a free co-teaching lesson plan the lack of specialized instruction (including book (Dieker, 2002). Based on content analy- accommodations and modifications) provided sis of 755 days of middle school co-teachers’ to students with disabilities in co-taught class- lesson plans, Bryant Davis et al. reported rooms (see Baker & Zigmond, 1995; Magiera mixed results.Although a variety of co-teach- & Zigmond, 2005; Scruggs et al., 2007) indi- ing models were planned, “teach and assist” cates a potential gap in understanding dominated. In approximately 65% of plans, that could be ameliorated by additional co- special educators included accommodations teaching training. and modifications that aligned with general educators’plans. That means nearly a third Findings From Research in (29%) of plans reflected lack of planning or misalignment. Only 29% illustrated technol- Co-Teaching Training ogy use (i.e., 26% low tech, 3% high tech). Although the professional literature is rich Moreover, a mere 8% included positive behav- ior interventions and support strategies (i.e., with descriptions of co-teaching, relatively little has been published on performance- 2% reminding students of rules, 7% changing based training outcomes. Our review of the seats, 0% self-monitoring). Finally, because relevant literature produced four published Bryant Davis and her colleagues did not col- studies—two of which were conducted at the lect data on co-teaching practice, whether par- ticipants actually carried out what was planned state level (Bryant Davis, Dieker, Pearl, & Kirkpatrick, 2012; Pearl, Dieker, & Kirkpat- remains unknown. rick, 2012), one at the district level (Walsh, 2012), and one at the classroom level District level. Walsh (2012) described a system (Scheeler, Congdon, & Stansbery, 2010). wide approach to co-teaching training in one Maryland school district and reported favor - State level. Through theArkansas Department able outcomes over time. In 2008-2009, of Education Co-Teaching Project, Pearl et al. teachers in eight elementary schools received (2012) employed a variety of comprehensive yearlong professional development through professional development tactics (i.e., tradi- The Designing Quality Inclusive Education tional workshops, web resources, interactive (DQIE) model. The model included instruc- webinars, on-site coaching, and evaluative tional coaching for co-teachers. In those feedback) to provide co-teaching training to schools, students with disabilities increased participants in 143 school districts. The results reading and math proficiency by 11% and were positive. After 5 years, they reported 14.5% respectively—improvements that were improvements in building-level supports, rat- attributed, in part, to the coaching co-teachers ings of co-teaching partnerships, and grades received. In other schools, the performance of of students with disabilities in co-taught students with disabilities paled in comparison classrooms. (i.e., 1% increase in reading, no change in In a related study, also carried out in col- math). Based on these and other improve- laboration with the Arkansas Department of ments in student achievement, the Maryland Education Co-Teaching Project, Bryant Davis State Department of Education developed a et al. (2012) conducted a closer examination of co-teaching network so other school districts training outcomes. Over a 3-year period, they could access the professional development provided professional development to partici- model (DQIE) Walsh described, created, and pants in co-planning, co-teaching, and evalua- used successfully. tion of co-teaching models through annual workshops and follow-up support (i.e., Classroom level. Scheeler et al. (2010) investi monthly online webinars, resource webpage, gated the effects of peer coaching through on- e-mail or telephone consultation, limited num- site bug-in-ear (BIE) technology with three ber of on-site visits by request). Participants dyads of co-teachers. In this study, practicing Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on March 1, 2016 194 Teacher Education and Special Education 37(3) co-teachers successfully coached one another Moving Forward: The Purpose in the completion of three-term contingency of the Current Study (TTC) trials, while carrying out the one teach, one assist model. To do so, the teacher who Levin, O’Donnell, and Kratochwill (2003) led instruction wore the BIE earpiece and identified four stages of educational research that included (1) initial hypothesis and explo- received immediate, discreet feedback from ration, (2) controlled experiments and demon- his or her partner who assumed the assistant role. The co-teaching partners switched roles strations, (3) randomized field trials, and (4) midway through each lesson. With improve- identification of variables adopted for practice. ments demonstrated after only three sessions, To date, the bulk of the extant co-teaching Scheeler and her colleagues concluded this research reflects Stage 1. Clearly, a need exists for co-teaching researchers to undertake more approach was effective in increasing each teacher’s percentage of completion of TTC second-, third-, and fourth-stage studies. trials to the criterion set by the researchers. In Our purpose in conducting this Stage 2 terms of social validity, participants indicated investigation was to advance the evidence that the BIE device was an acceptable, non base in professional development training for co-teachers using the online eCoaching system intrusive, and efficient means to deliver feed- developed and researched by Rock and her back in real time. colleagues (2009) and Rock et al. (2012). Spe- cifically, we examined the effects of eCoach- Taking Co-Teaching Training ing on co-teaching partners’ planned and Into the Digital Age implemented co-teaching models, the number and types of student-specific accommodations For over 50 years, researchers in a variety of disciplines have investigated BIE devices, and modifications teachers planned and imple- such as the one used in the abovementioned mented, and the positive behavioral supports study, as a way to promote practice of newly and interventions that co-teachers planned for and carried out during instruction. To do this, acquired skills (Korner & Brown, 1952). we focused our investigation on in-service Recent technology innovations have afforded teachers new to co-teaching, who could bene- teacher educators/trainers new means of pro- viding teachers with immediate feedback fit from the added support of an expert eCoach, online, in real time. A group of researchers as they initiated co-teaching in their respective (Rock et al., 2012; Rock et al., 2009) devel- classrooms. Below are the specific research questions we sought to answer. oped an advanced online BIE system based on mobile technology and interactive video conferencing—bringing the BIE into the Research Question 1: How does eCoach- cyber age. Their online alternative consists of ing influence how co-teachers plan for four affordable, off the shelf components (i.e., and carry out varied co-teaching models, student-specific accommodations and a webcam, a Bluetooth headset, a Bluetooth modifications, and PBIS? adapter, and Skype) that are added easily to a Research Question 2: How does eCoach- desk or laptop computer. Rock and her col- leagues provided what was initially dubbed ing impact (i.e., benefit or disrupt) co- Virtual Coaching (now referred to as eCoach- teachers and their P-6 students? ing) through advanced online BIE technology to practicing teachers enrolled in two different Method cohorts of a federally funded personnel devel- opment program. Results from these studies Design (see Rock et al., 2012; Rock et al., 2009) con- firmed statistically significant increases in We used a single-case withdrawal (ABAB) within-participants research design (Barlow, participants’ use of evidence-based instruc- tional and behavioral strategies. Nock, & Hersen, 2009; Kazdin, 2011) to Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on March 1, 2016 Ploessl and Rock 195 Table 1. Make-Up of Co-Teaching Pairs. Years of Years of General experience/ Special experience/ Co-teaching education co-teaching education co-teaching dyads teacher experience Ethnicity teacher experience Ethnicity Pair 1 Non-project 10/<1 African Project 15/<1 African graduate American graduate American Pair 2 Project 15/<1 African Non-project 1/<1 Caucasian graduate American graduate Pair 3 Project 5/<1 Caucasian Non-project 28/<1 Caucasian graduate graduate evaluate the effects of eCoaching on co-teach- teacher (see Table 1) who were responsible for ers’planning and instruction. Because of con- serving students who received special educa- cerns about reversibility, we considered a tion services under the Individuals With multiple baseline design. In most cases, when Disabilities Education Improvement Act using a withdrawal design, one would expect (2004) in an inclusive general education class- to see a reversal of behavior during the second room. Prior to implementation, we secured baseline condition (Barlow et al., 2009; Kaz- school administrators’permission for the teach- din, 2011). Kennedy (2005), however, cau- ers to participate in the study and university tioned that in the case of learned skills, IRB approval. especially with adult participants, it might be difficult to reverse the effect of the interven- Setting tion. Nonetheless, we opted for a withdrawal, rather than a multiple baseline design as the The participants taught at three public elemen- tary schools in the Southeast. School 1 served reversal design is potentially more powerful 273 students in Grades Pre-K-5. The school’s for determining a functional relationship between the independent and dependent vari- enrollment was 100% African American, and ables (eCoaching and teacher behaviors). 97% of the students met requirements for free or reduced lunch. School 2 served 250 stu- dents in Grades Pre-K-5. This schools enroll- Participants ment consisted of 99%AfricanAmerican and In this study, we used purposive convenience <1% Caucasian students. Ninety percent of enrolled students met state requirements for sampling (Kazdin, 2011). To do so, we recruited free or reduced lunch. School 3 served 316 stu- six practicing teachers to form three co-teach- ing dyads (n= 6). Three of these six were recent dents in Grades Pre-K-5. School enrollment graduates of a federally funded personnel was 40%AfricanAmerican, 20% Latino, and 40% Caucasian students. Sixty-nine percent of development program that included immersion students met requirements for free or reduced in 2 years of eCoaching. These participants had each completed the same 3-credit hour graduate- lunch. Teacher participants taught in second- level course that provided training in co-teach- and third-grade inclusive classrooms within each school. The coach, who was the first ing and a practicum (i.e., field experience). We author, observed classrooms and provided (i.e., first and second authors) co-taught this course. The three participants identified a vol- eCoaching from a private, remote office. untary partner who had successfully completed district-level professional development training Apparatus for co-teachers. In the end, each co-teaching pair was comprised of a certified general edu- Throughout all phases of the study, the eCoach cation teacher and a certified special education and co-teaching participants used an online Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on March 1, 2016 196 Teacher Education and Special Education 37(3) platform developed and tested from 2007 to and specific ways to correct the error” (p. 399). present by Rock and her colleagues (see Rock, Questioning feedback was defined as “a sen- Zigmond, Gregg, & Gable, 2011, for specifi- tence posed in interrogative form to get infor- cations) to meet electronically. The eCoaching mation or to clarify specific teaching technology made use of participants’existing behaviors” (Random House Unabridged Dic- classroom computer and Internet connection. tionary, 2006, in Rock et al., 2009, p. 72).And During baseline conditions (Phases 1 and 3), instructional feedback was defined as “[when] when no eCoaching was provided to partici- objective information related to predetermined pants, we used only the interactive video con- specific teaching behaviors is offered” ferencing (IVC) component (i.e., Skype). (Scheeler et al., 2004, p. 399). When eCoaching was underway during inter- Based on findings from past research, the vention conditions (Phases 2 and 4), we used eCoach provided targeted feedback to the co- the co-teachers’existing IVC equipment with teaching partners during planning and while advanced online BIE technology so we could teaching in three areas: (a) co-teaching mod- provide feedback immediately in situ (i.e., els, (b) student-specific accommodations and while the co-teachers were teaching). During a modifications, and (c) PBIS strategies during co-taught lesson, one participant wore the the two intervention phases. For co-teaching Bluetooth to receive discreet, immediate feed- models, the feedback provided through the back from the eCoach. During the next lesson, eCoaching was limited to (a) implementation the other participant in the co-teaching pair of different models related to the content of wore the Bluetooth. The participants secured the lesson, (b) implementation of different the equipment needed, including the advanced models related to the lesson cycle, and (c) online BIE technology, through their previous fidelity to variety of models. eCoaching feed- involvement in a federally funded personnel back that targeted student-specific accommo- development grant.As was the case in Rock et dations was limited to (a) alternate methods al. (2012), we used the Call Recorder for Mac, for responses (e.g., verbal responses, dictation a plug-in for Skype that enables video call to a scribe), (b) alternate modes of presenta- recording, to electronically capture each co- tion (e.g., reduced number of items per page; planning and teaching session.Also, we saved National Center for Learning Disabilities, the recorded video files on an external hard 2006), and (c) use of color coding strategies drive for data extraction and later analysis. In (Gould & Vaughn, 2000). Feedback that tar - accord with University IRB protections, we geted student-specific modifications was lim- secured the external hard drive in a locked ited to (a) targeting lower level skills and (b) office. individualizing curriculum materials (Smith, Polloway, Patton, & Dowdy, 2008). Feedback Independent Variable targeting PBIS was limited to (a) specific, descriptive praise (Simonsen, Myers, & In this study, we investigated the effects of one DeLuca, 2010) and (b) neutral redirection independent variable, eCoaching, provided to (Steele, 1995). co-teaching participants during co-planning and co-instruction. As in Rock et al. (2009) Dependent Variables and Measures and Rock et al.’s (2012) previous studies, the eCoaching intervention we used was com- To obtain frequency counts on the three depen- prised of differing types of immediate feed- dent variables, co-teaching models, student- back. Reinforcement or positive feedback specific accommodations and modifications, consisted of statements that provided “social and PBIS, we used direct and systematic obse-r praise for performing specific teaching behav- vation of each dyad’s co-planning and co- iors” (Scheeler, Ruhl, & McAfee, 2004, teaching sessions without (during baseline and p. 399). Corrective feedback included state- withdrawal phases) and with the eCoaching ments related to the “type and extent of error intervention.As noted previously, we captured Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on March 1, 2016 Ploessl and Rock 197 and electronically archived each session. We after the lessons. To establish similar condi- used the video files as the primary source for tions during baseline and intervention, the data collection across all conditions in all participants alternated wearing the Bluetooth phases. More specifically, we recorded (via fre- earpiece during co-taught instruction. This quency counts) the varied types of Friend and also allowed participants and their students to Cook’s (2003) co-teaching models each co- become familiar with the technology. teaching dyad planned to use during instruc- tion. Then, during the planned lessons, we Intervention. Once baseline stability require - recorded (via frequency counts) the co-teach- ments were met (i.e., four data points, level ing models the pairs actually carried out. We trend, and little variability for at least one also documented the changes in the number dependent variable), the first author intro- and types of student-specific accommodations duced the eCoaching intervention. During the and modifications from baseline to treatment initial intervention phase, the first author phases through frequency counts of accommo- coached (i.e., provided encouraging, correc- dations co-planned and used during subsequent tive, questioning, and instructive feedback via co-taught instruction. Finally, we used fre- the advanced online BIE) participants as they quency counts to record the type and number of cooperatively planned a co-taught lesson. PBIS strategies (i.e., redirects, reprimands, and After each 30-minute co-planning session, praise statements) each co-teaching dyad the first author visited each classroom for 30 planned and used. minutes during the planned co-taught lesson. Throughout each lesson, the first author pro- Procedures vided eCoaching (i.e., immediate feedback) to one co-teacher participant through the Horner et al. (2005) recommended that single- advanced online BIE system. eCoaching con- case researchers ensure the baseline condition tinued for four sessions (i.e., Planning-Teach- is as similar to the intervention condition as ing-Planning-Teaching) with each co-teaching possible. We met this standard by visiting dyad, then we withdrew the intervention and classrooms during the same content area the withdrawal phase began (Gast, 2010; Kra- instruction and for equal amounts of time dur- tochwill et al., 2010). ing each observation. All observations and coaching sessions were conducted via the Withdrawal. During the withdrawal phase, we eCoaching technology. replicated the procedures used in the first base- line phase. Data collection during withdrawal Baseline. During the baseline condition, the continued for four observational sessions (i.e., first author observed each participating pair of Planning-Teaching-Planning-Teaching; Krato- teachers as they cooperatively planned for and chwill et al., 2010). carried out instruction. The co-planning ses- sions took place in the general education Return to intervention. To reintroduce the classroom so that we were able to observe eCoaching intervention, we replicated proce- through the eCoaching system. The first dures used during the first intervention phase author greeted the participants and recorded of the study. This final phase continued until each 30-minute planning session for analysis, stability in trend was established.As with the but did not provide immediate or delayed first intervention phase, we obtained a mini- feedback to the participants at any time before, mum of four data points for each co-teaching during, or after the planning sessions. dyad as the adopted standard for the return to The first author then visited the classroom intervention phase (Kratochwill et al., 2010). to observe 30 minutes of the planned co- After completing the return to intervention taught lessons.Again, we recorded the lessons phase, the first author interviewed each par - for analysis, but did not provide eCoaching ticipant to measure the social validity of the feedback to the participants before, during, or eCoaching intervention. Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on March 1, 2016 198 Teacher Education and Special Education 37(3) As described previously, we recorded all intervention (Kazdin, 2011; Tankersley et al., sessions using Call Recorder for Mac (Ecamm 2008). See Table 2 for changes in means Network, LLC, 2011). During each session, observed across the four phases of this study. immediately after accepting the Skype call, Call Recorder prompts the participant to Treatment Effect accept or decline the video recording.Also, at any time during a session, participants had the We calculated and analyzed treatment effect option of terminating the online connection using the Percent of Non-Overlapping Data by ending the Skype call. (PND) methods (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Cas- Primary and secondary observers, individ- tro, 1987). To do this, the number of data ually and separately, coded the archived video points in the first intervention phase that files for each dependent variable. To do so, the exceed the highest data point in the first base- observers extracted, recorded, and totaled line phase was divided by the total number of counts using procedures mirroring those used data points in the first intervention phase. The during the baseline phase on data collection quotient was then multiplied by 100, so that protocols adapted from Rock et al. (2009) and the resulting number became a percentage Rock et al. (2012). Next, the observers entered score (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1998). Identical these data into an Excel spreadsheet at the end methods were used to analyze the withdrawal of each coding session. Finally, they regularly phase and the return to intervention phase. plotted these data onto a line graph, using the Finally, we followed procedures outlined by Microsoft Excel software. Scruggs and Mastropieri for total PND (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1998, pp. 223-224). Data Analysis See Table 2 for the means, standard deviations, and PND of each dependent variable. We assessed changes in each co-teaching dyad’s co-planning and co-teaching behaviors between the baseline and intervention phases, Inter-Observer Agreement (IOA) using visual inspection (Tankersley, Harjusola- Webb, & Landrum, 2008). To do so, we created To establish IOA, we trained the two observers graphic displays illustrating accelerating, mentioned previously to code the archived decelerating, or variable trends in the number video files. During training, they viewed The of co-teaching models planned and imple- Power of Two, a commercially published video- mented (see Figures 1-4); number of student- disk (Friend, 2005) to ensure understanding of specific accommodations and modifications the co-teaching models examined in the study. planned and implemented (see Figure 5); and Also, they reviewed data collection protocols, number of redirections, and specific and learned the operational definitions for each co- descriptive praise statements (see Figure 6). teaching behavior of interest, and practiced cod- These graphic displays can be seen in Figures 1 ing using excerpts from The Power of Two. to 6. The level or change in co-planning and The first author served as the primary co-teaching behavior immediately after imple- observer; she coded all of the recorded video mentation of the eCoaching intervention, and files. The second observer was a retired ele- the latency or quickness of co-planning and co- mentary school teacher and college supervi- teaching behavior change at the end of one sor; she coded 25% of all archived video files condition and beginning of another (i.e., base- as the reliability observer. The primary and line or intervention) are also displayed in Fig- secondary observers had extensive experience ures 1 and 5 (Kazdin, 2011; Tankersley et al., (i.e., three years) coding video files using sim- 2008). Finally, we calculated and compared the ilar protocols on a federally funded personnel mean number of each dyad’s co-planning development grant. and co-teaching behaviors, during each phase, In this study, we calculated IOA based on to establish the effect of the eCoaching the following formula (see Kazdin, 2011): Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on March 1, 2016 Ploessl and Rock 199 4 Baseline Intervention Baseline 2 Intervention Dyad1 2 3 2 1 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 an ach an ach an ach an ach an ach an ach an ach an ach d Pl Te Pl Te Pl Te Pl Te Pl Te Pl Te Pl Te Pl Te te emen 4 Baseline Intervention Baseline 2 Intervention pl Dyad2 Im 3 d an 2 nned 1 ls Pla de 0 Mo 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 g an an an an an an an an in Pl ach Pl ach Pl eachPl eachPl eachPl eachPl eachPl each Te Te T T T T T T -teach 4 Baseline Intervention Baseline 2 Intervention Co 3 Dyad3 2 1 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 an ach an ach an ach an ach an ach an ach an ach an ach Pl Te Pl Te Pl Te Pl Te Pl Te Pl Te Pl Te Pl Te Figure 1. Frequency counts of co-teaching models planned and implemented. 2.5 2 Alternative 1.5 Team 1 Parallel Stations 0.5 Teach/Observe 0 Teach/Assist Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5 Plan 6 Plan 7 Plan 8 Teach 1Teach 2Teach 3Teach 4Teach 5Teach 6Teach 7Teach 8 Figure 2. Dyad 1 varied co-teaching models planned and implemented. Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on March 1, 2016 200 Teacher Education and Special Education 37(3) 3.5 3 2.5 Alternative 2 Team 1.5 Parallel 1 Stations 0.5 Teach/Observe 0 Teach/Assist Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5 Plan 6 Plan 7 Plan 8 Teach1Teach 2Teach 3Teach 4Teach 5Teach 6Teach 7Teach 8 Figure 3. Dyad 2 varied co-teaching models planned and implemented. 3.5 3 2.5 Alternative 2 Team 1.5 Parallel 1 Stations 0.5 Teach/Observe 0 Teach/Assist PlaTeach1Teach 2Teach 3Teach 4Teach 5Teach 6Teach 7Teach 8 Figure 4. Dyad 3 varied co-teaching models planned and used. The number of agreement of codes divided by number of varied co-teaching models they the number of agreement of codes + disagree- planned to use and then implemented (see ment × 100.Also, we relied on Barlow et al.’s Table 2 and Figure 1). Dyad 1 increased their (2009) guidelines (i.e., 80% = conventional varied models of co-teaching from an average and 90% agreement = preferred) to establish of one model (1, 1, 1, and 1) during baseline 80% agreement as the minimum standard for to an average of two co-teaching models (2, 2, IOA. When agreement fell below 80%, the 2, and 2) during the final intervention phase. observers retrained in the coding procedures, Dyad 1’s PND was 100% indicating a very operational definitions, and then recoded effective intervention. Dyad 2 increased co- archived video files. In the end, 80% agree- teaching models planned for and implemented ment was achieved on all dependent variables. from an average of 1.25 during baseline (2, 1, 1, and 1) to 2.5 (3, 3, 2, and 2) in the final Results phase. PND for Dyad 2 was 0% indicating the eCoaching intervention was not effective for Dyad 2. Dyad 3 increase the average number Co-Teaching Models Planned and of co-teaching models they planned and Implemented implemented from an average of 1.75 (2, 0, 3, Number of co-teaching models planned and and 2) during baseline to an average of 2.5 co- implemented. All three dyads increased the teaching models (2, 2, 2, and 3) during the Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on March 1, 2016 Ploessl and Rock 201 6 Baseline Intervention Baseline 2 Intervention 2 5 Dyad 1 4 3 2 1 0 PlanTeach1 Teac… Teac… Teac… Teac… Teac… Teac… Teac…n 7 Plan 8 6 Baseline Intervention Baseline 2 Intervention 2 5 Dyad 2 4 3 2 1 0 modificatiPlan 1anPlan 2plPlan 3d Plan 4 Plan 5 Plan 6 Plan 7 Plan 8 Teach 1 Teach 2 Teach 3 Teach 4 Teach 5 Teach 6 Teach 7 Teach 8 Number of Student-specific accommodations or 6 Baseline Intervention Baseline 2 Intervention 2 5 Dyad 3 4 3 2 1 0 4 PlanTeach 1 Teach 2 Teach 3 Teach 4 Teach 5 Teach 6 Teach 7 Teach 8 Figure 5. Student-specific accommodations or modifications planned/implemented. final intervention phase. PND for Dyad 3 was they did not implement it. Instead, they carried 13% indicating the eCoaching intervention out one teach, one observe for their first co- was ineffective. taught lesson. During the second two sessions of baseline data collection, Dyad 1 planned for Fidelity to planned co-teaching models. In addi - station teaching and implemented it (see Fig- tion to investigating the number of different ure 2). Dyad 1 implemented their planned co- co-teaching models each dyad used, we were teaching models in 50% of the baseline interested in exploring whether the dyads actu- sessions. Dyad 2 planned to use alternative ally carried out the co-teaching models they and parallel teaching, then implemented one planned (i.e., fidelity to planned co-teaching teach, one assist. The next two baseline ses- models). Over the course of this study, all three sions included a plan for station teaching, but co-teaching dyads increased their fidelity to the implementation of parallel teaching (see the varied co-teaching models they planned. Figure 3).Although Dyad 2 attempted to vary During baseline data collection, Dyad 1 the number of co-teaching models planned and planned to use the team teaching model, but implemented during the first baseline phase, Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on March 1, 2016 202 Teacher Education and Special Education 37(3) Figure 6. Frequency counts of redirection and specific, descriptive praise. Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on March 1, 2016 Ploessl and Rock 203 Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentages of Non-Overlapping Data for ▯Participants Across Phases. Positive behavioral interventions and supports Co-teaching Accommodations models or modifications Redirections Praise Participant/ phase M SD M SD M SD M SD Dyad 1 Baseline 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.50 7.78 25.00 5.66 Intervention 2.00 0.00 3.50 0.58 1.00 0.00 31.5 21.92 PND 100 100 Baseline 2 1.00 0.00 3.00 0.82 1.00 0.00 22.00 16.97 Intervention 2 2.00 0.00 3.75 0.96 0.50 0.71 19.00 1.41 PND 2 100 25 Total PND 100 63 Dyad 2 Baseline 1.25 0.50 2.00 1.15 1.00 1.41 30.50 26.16 Intervention 2.00 0.00 4.25 0.96 1.00 0.00 24.50 9.19 PND 0 75 Baseline 2 2.25 0.50 4.33 0.96 0.50 0.71 19.00 5.66 Intervention 2 2.50 0.58 3.00 0.00 0.50 0.71 27.50 13.44 PND 2 0 0 Total PND 0 38 Dyad 3 Baseline 1.75 1.26 1.00 0.82 8.50 2.12 45 7.07 Intervention 2.00 0.00 4.00 0.58 11.50 6.36 56.50 9.19 PND 0 100 Baseline 2 1.50 0.58 3.00 0.00 8.50 0.71 42.00 7.07 Intervention 2 2.50 0.50 3.00 0.00 3.5 0.71 49.50 9.19 PND 2 25 0 Total PND 13 50 Means Baseline 1.33 0.78 1 1.13 6.00 5.33 33.5 15.24 Intervention 1.92 0.00 4 0.79 4.50 6.16 33.6 18.88 PND 33 92 Baseline 2 1.60 0.67 3.44 0.67 3.30 4.03 27.70 14.11 Intervention 2 2.25 0.45 3.25 0.62 1.50 1.64 32.00 15.86 PND 2 42 8 Total PND 38 50 Note. PND = percentage of non-overlapping data. PND and PND 2 scores were sum▯med to produce total PND (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1998, pp. 223-224). they did not follow through with the lessons as was not present. The teachers did not co-teach, planned. Throughout the first baseline ses- instead the general education teacher used sions, the dyad implemented 0% of the co- whole group instruction while she waited for teaching models they had planned to use. Dyad the special educator. For the next two baseline 3 planned to use one teach, one assist and sta- sessions, Dyad 3 planned for alternative teach- tion teaching during their first co-teaching ses- ing; one teach, one assist; and parallel teach- sion; however, the special education teacher ing, but implemented one teach, one assist and Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on March 1, 2016 204 Teacher Education and Special Education 37(3) parallel teaching during the final two sessions When eCoaching was withdrawn, Dyad 1 of baseline data collection (see Figure 4). planned and used the station teaching model Dyad 3 implemented 40% of the co-teaching during all four sessions (see Figure 2). The models that were planned during the first base- dyad continued to implement 100% of the co- line phase of the study. teaching models that they planned. Dyad 2 During the first intervention phase, planned to carry out alternative teaching and eCoaching was introduced during planning parallel teaching during one of the four ses- and instruction for four teaching and planning sions, but implemented one teach, one assist sessions. During the first planning session, in place of the alternative teaching model Dyad 1 planned to use one teach, one assist when the lesson followed. During the next and parallel teaching for the lesson that fol- two sessions, the dyad planned for one teach, lowed planning. The lesson was carried out as one observe and parallel teaching. They used planned. The next two coached sessions in the each model during the lesson and added team phase continued with the co-teachers planning teaching to the lesson introduction (see Figure to implement one teach, one assist as the les- 3). When the eCoaching intervention was son introduction and station teaching as the withdrawn, Dyad 2 implemented 59% of the lesson body. During the fourth session, of the co-teaching models they planned for the ses- first intervention phase (Phase 2), the co- sions. Dyad 3 planned for and implemented teachers implemented the planned co-teaching one teach, one assist during the first two ses- models with fidelity to their plan (see Figure sions of return to baseline. The co-teaching 2). Throughout this eCoaching intervention partners then planned and implemented a phase, co-teaching Dyad 1 implemented combination of one teach, one assist and sta- 100% of the co-teaching models they planned tion teaching during the next two planning for each session. Dyad 2 began the first and teaching sessions (see Figure 4). When eCoaching phase of the study with a plan for the eCoaching intervention was withdrawn, one teach, one assist during the introduction Dyad 3 returned to planning for one co-teaching of the lesson and the parallel teaching model model and then implemented that co-teaching for the remainder of the lesson. The lesson model in 100% of the teaching sessions. was implemented as planned. During the next The final phase of the study reintroduced eCoached planning session, Dyad 2 planned eCoaching to the co-teaching dyads, during to use of the team teaching model as the les- planning and teaching sessions. In the final son introduction and station teaching as the phase, Dyad 1 planned for and implemented lesson body. The pair again implemented the one teach, one assist and station teaching and lesson according to the planned models of co- then one teach, one assist and parallel teach- teaching (see Figure 3). ing with fidelity to all planned co-teaching Once eCoaching was introduced, the num- models (see Figure 2). In the final phase of the ber of co-teaching models leveled out at two. study, Dyad 1 returned to two co-teaching Moreover, in 100% of the cases co-teaching models for planning and implementation. The models were implemented as planned. Dyad 3 dyad implemented 100% of the planned co- planned and implemented station teaching teaching models. Overall, Dyad 1 imple- during the first two eCoached sessions. The mented four of the six possible co-teaching final two sessions of the eCoaching interven- models. The dyad implemented the co-teaching tion phase included co-planned use of one models they had planned for in 88% of their teach, one assist and alternative teaching. The co-teaching sessions. Dyad 2 planned for and lesson was implemented with fidelity to the implemented one teach, one assist, team planned co-teaching models (see Figure 4). teaching, and station teaching during the first The introduction of eCoaching intervention two sessions of the final eCoaching phase. contributed to an increase to 100% implemen- During the last two sessions, the duo planned tation of co-teaching models the dyad planned for and carried out team teaching combined during the first intervention phase. with station teaching (see Figure 3). In the Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on March 1, 2016 Ploessl and Rock 205 final phase of thestudy, the co-teachers imple- eCoaching intervention was highly effective. mented 100% of the co-teaching models PND for Dyad 2 was 75% for the first two planned. Overall, this dyad implemented five phases of the study. The score indicated that of the six possible co-teaching models. Dyad the eCoaching intervention was effective. 2 implemented the co-teaching models they The PND for Dyad 3 was 100% during the planned 65% of the time. Dyad 3 planned for preliminary baseline and eCoaching inter - and implemented one teach, one assist and vention phases, which indicated the eCoach- parallel teaching during the first two sessions ing intervention was highly effective during of this eCoaching phase. During the final two the two initial phases. When PND was com- sessions, the co-teaching pair planned for the bined for all three co-teaching dyads, overall combination of team teaching and parallel PND for the first baseline and eCoaching teaching, when the lesson followed the pair intervention phases was 92%, which indi- added one teach, one assist to the combination cated that the eCoaching intervention was of co-teaching models (see Figure 4). In the highly effective for changing co-teachers final phase of the study, Dyad 3 implemented planning and implementation of student-spe- 100% of the planned models and added a third cific accommodations or modifications. model to the final lesson that was not planned. When the eCoaching intervention was Overall, Dyad 3 planned and implemented withdrawn and then reintroduced, the PND five of the six possible co-teaching models. for Dyad 1 decreased to 25%. This percent- Dyad 3 implemented the co-teaching models age score indicated that the eCoaching they planned for in 76% of their co-teaching intervention was ineffective during the final sessions. two phases. The total PND for Dyad 1 was 63%, which indicated a questionable total effect. During the withdrawal and reintro- Student-Specific Accommodations or duction of the eCoaching intervention, Modifications Dyad 2 accumulated a PND of 0%. This All three co-teaching dyads increased the score indicated that the eCoaching interven- number of student-specific accommodations tion was ineffective during the final two planned and implemented from baseline to the phases. This provided a total PND of 38%, final phase of the study (see Figure 5). During which indicated the eCoaching intervention Baseline, Dyad 1 averaged zero student- was ineffective through all phases. For specific accommodations planned and imple- Dyad 3, PND decreased to 0% for the final mented (0, 0, 0, and 0). Dyad 1 increased the two phases of th
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'