Improving reading performance

1. Single Subject Action Inquiry Improving reading performance

2. Significance of Single Subject Research (SSR) for Teachers/SPED Practitioners • “(SSR) is experimental rather than correlational or descriptive, and its purpose is to document causal, or functional, relationships between independent and dependent variables”(Horner, et al., 2005, p. 165). • Focuses on individual learner or single group (e.g. a class) “whose performance generates a single score per measurement period” (ibid., p. 166). • As such, benefits practitioners developing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) . • Used to establish “evidence-based practices” because of rigorous documentation of experimental control.

3. Significance, cont. • Multidisciplinary useof SSR (more than 45 professional journals report single subject research) (APA, 2002; Anderson 2001, cited in ibid., p.166) • “Interventions derived from social learning theory, medicine, social psychology, social work, and communication disorders are but a sample of procedures that have been analyzed by single subject designs and methods” (ibid., p. 166)

4. Problem Statement • Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7nCfRDCcT4 • 1 in 7 American adults are unable to read (National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (http://nces.ed.gov/naal/estimates/overview.aspx, cited in G. Toppo, USA Today,2009). • 42 million adult Americans can't read. 50 million can recognize so few printed words they are limited to a 4th or 5th grade reading level (National Adult Literacy Survey, cited by Robert Sweet Jr. of the National Right to Read Foundation[http://www.nrrf.org/]). • One out of every four teenagers (approx. 1 million per year) drops out of high school, and of those, over 75% say that difficulty reading was a major factor in their decision. (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/dst2011/2012455.pdf) • Social, economic, and medical consequences of illiteracyare well documented (e.g., see Weiss et al., 2001; Marcus, 2006; Martinez & Fernandez, 2010, among others).

5. Research Question • What can I do within 4 to 8 weeks of student teaching to improve the fluency (rate, accuracy and prosody) and/or comprehension of 4-6 struggling readers? • Specifically, If I administer x, y, and z interventions , x number of times a week for x length of time per session for x number of weeks, will participating students show gains in reading fluency and/or comprehension as measured by pre-post assessments?

6. Methodology • Individual Participant (or Group ) as Unit of Analysis • Precise Participant and Setting Description • Operational description of participants, setting, and the process by which participants were selected • For example, specific disability & determination instrument/process (e.g., ASD & Autism Diagnostic Interview – Revised, respectively)

7. Description, cont. • Standardized Tests • KTEA 2 (Reading Fluency subscale) • WJ-III (Reading Fluency subtest) • Gray Oral Reading Test IV (Rate + Accuracy) • Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency • Criterion-Referenced Measures • Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI) • DIBELS

8. Dependent Variables • Operationally Defined, allowing • valid & consistent assessment of variable, • replication of assessment process • (i.e., direct observation and empirical summary; e.g., silent/oral words per minute, instances of correct phrasing, expressing and intonation, number of uncorrected miscues, etc.)

9. Dependent Variables • Measured Repeatedly, allowing 1. identification of performance patterns prior to intervention as baseline for comparison M T T T M T T T M 2. comparison of performance patterns across conditions, phases, levels, environments, etc.

10. Dependent Variables “Dependent variable recording is assessed for consistency throughout the experiment by frequent monitoring of inter-observer agreement (e.g., the percentage of observational units in which independent observers agree) or an equivalent, (allowing) assessment for each variable across each participant in each condition of the study” (ibid., p.167).

11. Dependent Variables • Selected for their social significance A dependent variable is chosen …. “because it is perceived as important for the individual participant, those who come into contact with that individual, or for society” (ibid., p.167).

12. Independent Variables • Operationally defined, allowing “valid interpretation of results and accurate replication of procedures” (ibid., 167). • Specificdescriptions of procedures typically include A) documentation of materials (e.g., 7.5 cm x 12.5 cm card) B) documentation of actions (e.g., peer tutors implemented the reading curriculum 1:1, 30 min/day, 3 days/wk for 6 weeks) • Avoid general descriptions of procedures.

13. Independent Variables • “To document experimental control, …the independent variable is actively, rather than passively, manipulated” (ibid., p.167). • Fidelity of implementation – important b/c independent variable is applied over time. Looks like…”continuous direct measurement of independent variable…” (Gresham, Gansel, & Kurtz, 1993, cited in ibid., p.168).

14. Time Series Research Design C _____________________________________________________________________ T O X XX O XXX O XXX O XXX O

15. Baseline/Comparison Condition • “Treatment as usual” condition • Precise description

16. Experimental Controls Internal validity requires three things: Repeated and reliable measurement - valid and reliable measuring instruments or techniques) Baseline stability Single variable rule- manipulate only one variable at a time

17. Threats to Reliability • Interobserver reliability(sometimes referred to as interrater reliability or interobserver agreement) is important to establish confidence in the measurement of the dependent variable.

18. Interobserver Reliability • Identify and define the target behavior in such a way that at least two people can observe the individual and agree whether or not the behavior has occurred, or to what extent, or for how long, and so on. • Identifies at least two people to serve as observers (one can be the researcher :). Then the observers are trained and practice observing the individual and scoring the dependent variable. • Following practice sessions, the observers should compare results for each and every occurrence or measurement of the target behavior (dependent variable).

19. Control Designs Reversal Design • https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSm5ffbcV3OzaKB4gWP_hxVHnHP3RErClNox7Kr9EbhXmDZsAb7

20. Control Designs Multiple Baseline Design • https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHiRqDFRpxxNzyaGTB-u5vp3WMRDjimt1b3cP7jIhwaKIAg5Ub

21. Control Designs Changing Criterion • https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDmqKxbhgo3hOeSezKa3tC2BvrWuxWbwt_DP3XhglZSNPLx_FqTQ

22. Control Designs Alternating Treatments • http://winginstitute.org/uploadedImages/Graphs/Mindmap/SSD3e.png

23. Threats to Internal Validity • Do the research conditions warrant the conclusions? • Un-controlled extraneous variables that might account for the results of a study, e.g.: • History – events that occur b/t 1st & 2nd measurement • Testing – potential increases as time between pre & post is shortened. • Instrumentation - changes in the way a test or other measuring instrument is calibrated that could account for results of a research study (unreliability of measuring instrument) • Selection – different interventions for different individuals • Maturation • Statistical regression - individuals are selected for an intervention or treatment on the basis of extreme scores on a pretest. • Research mortality - volunteers drop out of study

24. Threats to Internal Validity Multiple treatment interference – May occur when more than one independent variable is used. EX: Because I’m planning to use a variety of interventions, it may be difficult if not impossible for me to accurately determine which of the components of the independent variable or variables actually accounted for changes in the dependent variable.

25. Threats to External Validity Can the results be generalized beyond the study itself? • Population validity (when the sample does not adequately represent the population). • Personologicalvalidity (when personal/ psychological characteristics interact with the treatment). • Ecological validity (when the situational characteristics of the study are not representative of the population).

26. Results Graph it!

27. Citations • Horner, et al. (2005) The use of single subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Council for Exceptional Children, 71:2. pp. 165-179. • Marcus, E. N. (2006). The silent epidemic: the health effects of illiteracy. New England Journal of Medicine, July, 2006. 355:339-341. • Martinez, R., Fernandez, A. (2010). The social and economic impact of illiteracy: analytical model and pilot study. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Dec. 2010. Downloaded 10/20/11 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001905/190571e.pdf. • Weiss, B. D., Hart, G., Pust, R. E. (1991). The relationship between literacy and health. Journal of Healthcare for the Poor and Underserved. 1 (4), 351-363.