ANALYZING INTERVENTION EFFICACY- REVEALING THE .ppt

1、ANALYZING INTERVENTION EFFICACY: REVEALING THE NATURE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION,Kenneth A. Kavale Distinguished Professor Regent University,SPECIAL EDUCATION,Is special education special?Perceptions Optimism Pessimism,SPECIAL EDUCATION,Special Education MeaningsSpecial teaching students with special need

2、s Special using special instructionSpecial Education Variable Outcomes,EFFICACY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION,Methods Do they work? Scientific Method Empirical Evidence Usable KnowledgeResearch SynthesisMethods Narrative Box-Score Meta-Analysis,META-ANALYSIS,Quantitative Research Synthesis Rigorous Systemati

3、c Methods Problem Formulation Sampling Study Classification (Coding) Data Analysis Interpretation,META-ANALYSIS,Effect Size StatisticES = ME MCSDC,META-ANALYSIS,Interpretation Z-score -Percentile Equivalent-Binomial Effect Size Display -Practical Significance-,META-ANALYSIS,Common Language Effect Si

4、ze -Research Significance-Power Analysis -Small (.20), Medium (.50), Large (.80)-,NATURE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION,Definition “Specially designed instructionto meet the unique needs of a child with a disability”Features Unique Exclusive,GOAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION,Medical Model Goal: Correcting or reversin

5、g altered cognitive processesItardProcess Training,GOAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION,“Process training is, in fact, one of the oldest forms of education and, despite periodic discontinuities in its practice, it has continued unabated into our own day”L. MannOn the trail of processSupport Historical Clinical

6、 Philosophical,PSYCHOLINGUISTIC TRAINING,Samuel A. Kirk Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) Research EvaluationsHammill and Larsen (1974) “the idea that psycholinguistic constructs, as measured by the ITPA, can, in fact, be trained by existing techniques remains nonvalidated”,PSYCHOLI

7、NGUISTIC TRAINING,Minskoff (1975) Skepticism about psycholinguistic “can be dangerous if it leads to the abolition of training methods that may be beneficial”Newcomer, Larsen, and Hammill (1975) “literature raises doubts regarding the efficacy of presently available Kirk-Osgood psycholinguistic trai

8、ning programs”,PSYCHOLINGUISTIC TRAINING,Lund, Foster, and McCall-Perez (1978) Mixed findings making it “not logical to conclude either that all studies in psycholinguistic training are effective or that all studies in psycholinguistic training are not effective”Hammill and Larsen (1978) “the cumula

9、tive resultsfailed to demonstrate that psycholinguistic training has values”What is really known about the efficacy of psycholinguistic training?,META-ANALYSIS AND THE EFFICACY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION,Psycholinguistic Training ES = .39 Psycholinguistic Training by ITPA,META-ANALYSIS AND THE EFFICACY OF

10、 SPECIAL EDUCATION,Verbal Expression = better than 6 months of general education instruction (ES = .50)Are there more efficacious methods of teaching language?,EFFICACY OF PROCESS TRAINING,Effectiveness of Process Training,EFFICACY OF PROCESS TRAINING,Perceptual-Motor Training Programs,EFFICACY OF P

11、ROCESS TRAINING PROGRAMS,Special Education Hall of Fame ES = .12,EFFICACY OF PROCESS TRAINING,Modality-Matched Instruction,ES = .14 Learning = Substance over Style,EFFICACY OF PROCESS TRAINING,Process Training ES = .16No empirical support,EFFICACY OF PROCESS TRAINING,Why is process training ineffect

12、ive?Problem Hypothetical Constructs Product vs. ProcessPositive ClinicalNegative Empirical,EFFICACY OF PROCESS TRAINING,Belief“You cannot kill it. It simply bides its time in exile after being dislodged by one of historys periodic attacks upon it and then returns, wearing disguises or carrying new n

13、oms de plumebut consisting of the same old ideas, doing business much in the same old way.”L. MannOn the trail of processBrain Gym,CREATING EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION,Process Training Pathology Model“Curing”Instructional Imbalance Model MismatchEffective Schools Clearly defined curriculum Clear ins

14、tructional objectives Focused classroom instruction Monitor student progress Strong instructional leadership,CREATING EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION,Learning Process Model Process-Product Paradigm Teacher Behavior Student OutcomesBest Practice All students can achieve Active engagement Organized classr

15、ooms Emphasis on basic skill instruction Meaningful and interesting learning,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE,Modifying the Delivery of Instruction Effective Instructional Practices,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE,Effective Instructional Practices (Table cont),EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATIO

16、NAL PRACTICE,Special EducationGeneral Education Teaching Learning Model Adapted and Modified for the Purposes of Special Education,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION RELATED SERVICES,Effective Special Education Related Services and ActivitiesAverage ES = .65,EFFECTIVE RELATED SERVICES,Placement ES = .12Whe

17、re vs. WhatPrereferral ES = 1.10RTI Effective as Intervention,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTION,Delivery of Instruction Modified Effective Special Education InstructionENHANCED ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTION,ES = 1.06One Year of General Education Instruction ES =

18、1.00,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTION,Reading Comprehension and “Real” EffectsMeta-Analysis X ES = 1.13 Meta-Analysis Y ES = .98 Real Effect = 1.05,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTION,TechniquesMetacognition (e.g., self-questioning, self-monitoring) ES = 1.63 and 1.33Text enhancement (e.g

19、., advanced organizers, mnemonics) ES = 1.09 and .92Skill training (e.g., vocabulary, repeated reading) ES = .79 and .69,COMPARING SPECIAL EDUCATION,DIRECT INSTRUCTION ES = .93Modality-matched instruction ES = .14DI is 6.5 times more effective DIOver 11 months credit in achievement,EVALUATING SPECIA

20、L EDUCATION,Special EducationIncreasing EfficacyWhy?SPECIAL education Mega ES = .15special EDUCATION Mega ES = .89,EVALUATING SPECIAL EDUCATION,special EDUCATION 6 times more effective than SPECIAL educationSPECIAL education = 6 percent advantage/56th %-ile special EDUCATION = 31 percent advantage/8

21、1st %-ileProblem SPECIAL education 25% negative ES special EDUCATION 0% negative ESSPECIAL education not necessary,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION,Special Education Variable and UnpredictablePsycholinguistic Training Theoretical Expectation (ES SD)(.39 .54) Range = -.15 to .93 (negative to large) Where

22、will ES fall?,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION,SPECIAL education ES = .15 Theoretical Expectation (.15 .48) More variable than effective (-.33 to .63) Medium ES possible but also increased risk,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION,special EDUCATION ES = .89 Theoretical Expression (.89 .87) More effective than var

23、iable (.02 to 1.76) May not work but possibility twice as effective,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION,special EDUCATIONReduces risk (no negative ES) but is CAPRICIOUS (variable, unpredictable, indeterminate)Special Educationshould not be Prescriptive (Do A when X or Y)OPTIONS (Try A when X or Y or Try B w

24、hen X or Y),EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION,SPECIAL educationwhen transformed into special EDUCATIONnow includes Instructional ValidityEVIDENCED-BASED PRACTICE,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION,Why is evidenced-based practice not used? Tradition “We have always used it” History “It has worked before” Bandwago

25、n Rhetoric, no evidence Belief Strong conviction about the truth,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION,When evidenced-based practice is not usedRESEARCH-TO-PRACTICE GAP Research findings “are embraced by some, ignored by others, and modified to suit the routines and preferences of still others”Gersten, Vaughn

26、, Deshler, & Schiller1997,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION,Research-to-Practice GapSUSTAINABILITY Failure to use instructional practices supported by evidenceINDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION BarriersUNCERTAINTY Program may not work and RISK Program may produce negative outcomes,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION,Who

27、chooses options?TEACHERSTeachers Dogmatic beliefsreplaced by Rational choices (“what works”),EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION,Special Education Science (theoretical and empirical knowledge) + Art (interpretation for initiating action),EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION,Teachers Goal State of the Art (what has b

28、een shown to be possible)evolves into State of Practice (current ways of providing instruction),TEACHER ATTRIBUTES (Evidenced Based),The special education practitioner must possess the:Energy of a hurricaneEfficiency of a computerAdaptability of a chameleonCourage of HerculesPatience of JobWisdom of

29、 SolomonPersistence of the Devil,EFFECTIVE SPECIAL EDUCATION,Conclusion “Special education practitioners will need to go beyond the scientific basis of their workand must be mediated through the teachers own creative rendering of best practicebecause quality education for special education students will always be based on the artful application of science”Kavale & Forness1999,