Project No. 443CH70564

Gront No. G007500593

Field lnitioted Reseorch Study

A}I I]WESTIGATIO}I OF PHASES OF LEARNIT.IG AN) FACILITATINIG

[\ISTRI,'CTK)NAI- ETENTS FOR TI-E SEVERELY/PROFOTAILY HA]OICAPPED

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Dr. Norris G. Horing, Principol Investigotor

Dr. Kothleen A. Liberty, Project Coordinotor

Dr. Owen R. White, Reseorch Associote

College of Educotion

Universi ty of Woshington

Seottle, Woshington

Jonuoryr I 98 I

The reseorch reported herein wos performed pursuont to o gront with the Bureou ofEducotian for the Hondicopped, U. S. Office of Educotion, Deportment of Educotion.Controctors undertoking such projects under government sponsorship ore encotrrogedto express freely their professimol judgement in the conduct of the project. Points ofview or opinions stoted do not, therefore, necessorily represent officiol positions ofthe Bureou of Educotim for the Hondicopped.

Toble of Contents

Poge

Port I

Summory of Project

Report on Fifth Yeor Activities

Introduction .

Site Selection o

a

a a

o

a

a

a I

a

a

a

a

a

o a

o

a a a

a o o o

o

a

a

a

c

a

o

o

a

a

a

a

a

o

Method. . . . o . . .Subjects...o..Troining ond Follow upDoto Summqrizotion o

o

l5t62934

353537394l4l435258676970

BI

a

a

o

a

a

a

a

o

a

a

a

a

a

o

o

o

a

f

o

a

a

a

o

a

a

aResults . . . o . . . o . r o

Evoluotion of Troining . . .Attitude Following Troining .Costof Troining. o o o..Follow up After Troining . .Evoluotisr of Hondbook . . .Adoption of Decision Rules o

Applicotiqr of Decision RulesImpoct on Pupil PerformonceCostAnolyses.......PrecisionTeochers. . o . .

Discussion . . o . . . o . .

Appendices

a a a a

o a a o o

a a a t a a a a

o o o a a o

a o o' a a a

a a o a ) a o

t o a a a ) a o o

a o a o a o

a o o a

a o o o a

a o a a o

o o o o

a a a a o a a a o

o o a a

t a a a o a a

a t a t o o a a

a a a a a a

a o a a a a a a

a a a a a a o

a a a a o

o Ia

a

a

o

I

t

a a a o aa

Summory of the Project

rrAn lnvestigotion of the Phoses of Leorning ond Focilitoting lnstructionol Eventsfr the Sevenely/Profourdly Hondicopped* wos funded in 1975. The mojor objectivesof this five yeor project were to:

(l) lnvestigote the relotimship between the hypothesized stoges of leorning--ocquisition, fluency building, mointenonce, generolizotion ond odoptotion--ondpupil performonce in ader to determine functionol definitions of eoch stoge;

(2\ Determine if specific instructionol strotegies hod o higher probobility offocilitoting pupil progress in certoin stoges of leorning thon in other stoges; ond

(3) Determine if ond hor informotion from the first two objectives could be eosilyond effectively used by clossroom teochers lo improve the educotion of theirseverely/prof ound ly trondicopped pupi ls.

During the first two project yeors, the project. waked with fourteen teochers,twenty pupils ond o totql of 40 different instructionol prqJroms. Pupils' performonce'wos onolyzed os teochers implemented o voriety of instructionol strotegies, olthoughno ottempt wos mode by project stoff to influence the strotegies used by the teochers.Anolysis of the pupilst performonce doto showed thot the first two stoges of leorningcould be identified, ond olso indicoted thot strotegies designed to provide informotionon horr to respond (e.g., prompting) were most effective during ocquisition, whilestrotegies designed to motivote performonce (e.g., use of reinfoncers) were mosteffective during the fluency building stoge. However, it wos found thot teochers werefor more likely to move o pupil to on eosier instructionql step or chonge theconsequence for correct responses when leorning foiled thon to chonge instructionolstrotegies. During the first project yeor teochers selected inlervention strotegies thotimproved ptrpil performonce 33% of the time while during the second yeor teocherswere successful 4l% of fhe time.

Severol other discoveries were mode during the first two yeors. lt becomeopporent thot most teochers collected doto on the occurocy of performonce, usuollypercent cqrect. ln odditim to occurocy doto, project stoff collected three types oftime-bosed doto to determine the temporol chonges in performonce. Frequency ofbehovior (rote per minute) doto were collected on oll skills of first. Loter, durotiondoto were collected on skills in which theoccelerotion or decelerotion of durotion wosthe primory cmsiderotion in the development of fluent performonce (i.e., self-helpskills such os shoe-tying ore durotion decelerotion torgets, ond time on tosk is odurotim occelerotion torget). Lotency doto were collected m skills in which theomount of time between the conclusion of the stimulus ond the stort of the behoviorwere the importont meosure of proficiency (i.e.1 onswering question). We olso found itnecessory to modify doto collection techniques for progrom strotegies thot requiredthe presentotim of ontecedents or consequences for eoc*r pupil response. TheI'Guidelines" ottoched to this report include o description of doto collectiontechniques.

During the first two yeors, the project found thot the leorning records of most ofthe pupils resembled those of nonhqndicopped leorners (see Figure l). Rote-of-chongein performonce wos not noticeobly different, olthough the torget behoviors ond therelotive size of instructionol steps were different.

d

a, ,--.{

:f-Jc{oaEoL)ICor

*-hai

tN

LJh.ru1C

-If,a')

|*.Oot*.lP

{t

C

t-JU

O,E

&

,f0qJ

13}Ca..l!nom

*-0)0U

Luo*O

.'t-q)Ltrt.,

$J-{v\'fE13

-(}&)

t dF

tkLJ

flg i*

-urllC

*-,

(, (.)

Ftr,

sq)0)t-

(J

., q')

$ tfl

UU

r'3t-Lrl

0)l*LffiO

JJ

rl

{(e.et)aI

fr

*

L

ccl

dlm

'i

ol'13

I-ol

L 0)l

G

o-l.(f

C.I

c ol

3 .3

I

rt, alu

clml

U

.CI

'* O

I(,

2lil

..1u

Llt]

ojl:t

clLN

LI

TI

t't\ti\

> ils>ffi0oar-E(X

! '*C

L:)oL

t**

#ffi

I

a*l,&I

Z,

trtrlJF*

*3d*

IJn-x(}L)Iz,(}+G*

fi22{a4

ffil*lo*&'{(Jo*d{.*.&

r

{3ttt,t.lJ-

o*((L}aZ,

{t;t(}z,

;L(ir

B,

asu-

Q.\

.pFgStnN

I H U

3dN

00d$ s010H s d{] 5H

3tdfi

ffilS

rnN lbl u3d

5frU0t1 A

UV

In€V30A

SN

3 tS

t,ffil/t

r\.

t-oult*-

.l-,t

l.)m

sLLoL.-,

O(nU

Lst l* {-/I.l*J

mu

"l,J (U

soft"u

k-*Io

$*

lirtN tH

utcA

llV3

t JSsV

HdtV

SU

3C10J S

3l t Ja

llnN ll,,I U

3dA

ltvuCI sC

Iu0t1 ]*A*l

s{jv3}J

ffi

#

#

3ldlu1

0l

r *l.U

E

Iq)lL

o-lrE

al

-U

TO

IC

U

IO

J .-It6

1fIfll

clu

ol:tr1

()l.-

,-lLN

(}.I

m

.-lO

+

JIu

.*lU

:I

3 :fl

., ..1LI0)l

il_gI

3

Horever, the instructionol performonce recqds of severol pupils showed sucherrotic voriotions thot they were impossible to clossify. Performonces jumped doilyfrom 100% to 0%, from rotes of 20 per minute to rotes of .l per minute (Figure l).There wos more voriotion, or bouncel from doy-to-doy thon there wos chonge overtime. Extensive observotion of these pupils in instructionol ond noninstructionolsituotion showed o correlotion between complionce to commonds olreody in the pupils'repertoire ond voriobility in doily instructionol tosks: The less likely the pupil wos tocomply the more errotic instructionol performonce wos. Such performonce recordswere clossif ied os ttcomplionce problems.tt

During the third project /eorr q set of decision-rules were designed to ossistteochers in the identificotim of problems in ocquisition, fluency building ondcomplionce from the performonce records of their pupils. Those rules wereimplemented by six teochers ond sixteen pupils of the Loke Woshington SpeciolEducotion Center, working closely with the reseorch stoff.

This first version of the decision-rules consisted of o series of "pictures" of pupilperformonce doto bqsed m both occurocy ond time doto. The teochers drew lines-of-progress (o.k,o. trends, slopes) on o chort of the doto ond then compored theirrrpicturefi with the rule pictures. Eoch picture wos cotegonized os either o fiproblemrf(e.g., ocquisition, fluency-building, complionce, generol) or os o successful leorningpottern. Teochers could then choose from o list of suggested remediol strotegies foreoch problem cotegory or select on intervention of their choice. Teochers whoimplemented the first version of decision-rules mode 55% successful decisions, i.e.,decisions thot irnproved pupil performonce ond/or rote of progress. Teochers weresometimes successful in setecting oppropriote interventions even if they did not useone of the specificolly recommended strotegies. However, teochers who did usesuggested strotegies were generolly more successful thon those thot used other, non-recommended strotegies. One result wos thot teochers used o wider voriety ofremediol strotegies thon teochers in previous yeors. Although this moy be ottributedto o chonge in the somple of teochers under study, it moy olso hove been due to thevoriety of strotegies recommended by the project procedures.

During the fourth project yeor, forr leochers from the Seottle School Districtopplied o revised set of decision-rules in progroms for 22 severely ond profoundlyhondicopped pupils. Thot set of decision-rules consisted of o series of questionsconcerning pupil doto. For exomple, the teocher wos osked to determine if progresswos occeleroting or deceleroting. lf it wos deceleroting, the leocher next determinedif performonce -wos highly vorioble, the guidelines indicoted the high proboblity of ocomplionce problem ond suggested o number of strotegies for deoling with thotproblem. Questims were used to determine the colegory of pupil performonce (e.g.,successful leorning pottern, ocquistion problem, complionce probleml fluency-buildingproblem). A revised set of recommended instructionol strotegies for eoch cofegorywos included with the decision-rules. ln oddition to drowing lines-of-progress,teochers were required to determine the percentoge of correct responses ond thedegree of performonce voriobility in order to onswer the questions. Agoin, teocherswere free to implement suggested strotegies a use others of their choice. During theyeor, teochers used the suggested strotegies 80% of the time, ond 80% of theirdecisions resulted in improved pupil performonce.

I' The use of generol I'leorning picturesil of correct ond error rotes hos been reportedby O. R. Lindley (personol communicotion, summer, 197r.

kH f H

s ilg i3

F6E

b a E"u k

'}.\ {J r- "ff {'J :{

H

E $y H

s# s tae;tE

s"pin.E

;;$s'H-g

Hg#=

f;E P

*;:# ; E

fiH E

;€eE# $ $-i

-m *

&

fiJ"i,}

ffiHgs rgs

I

H B

fi {r H ffiX

H*f*

r- flj't &

} *r-c o '*

",x"kffl-#Sjk

"k #i$fiH3

,f fr tr nt H* ffi r

..qi_ "*; LI'- H

T

',fi h l#E

c

4-, :* Y

'' .j ,*

[*ilet*E*

"Yre pE

B

\"'r,.-"!,ri*

xr.. U

) U

) t!\

*p"{ .t

,.9 k @

n f

f;:d rir'

U,.&

KH

T fJ il

H

-H H

Bil #,fi "9 fr

h A-#

k "-fr -tr F

ffi ir

fl !.-

i"** 'U

V

*i*

+*

.*

: s# HT

€ssY

!,3'vm-ff

g.k,.$ p b s H

E#

H-

H fi+

- $x k.X

Q}

d-f;-* F

k.E

#HC

t fi#$E,',,8

't 0*"3

* L: Y

H

+B

$-c

ir#:;fsf E

ti ;'-.; ffT

; :

i, c'::*

fl iD il

B6 il

rf FE

#'sE

5

./v/'r/ ). ln oddition, this method required the teocher to moke o decisionevery five to seven doys, following oll of the rule-procedures--o time-consumingmethod if no chonge were required ofter oll.

ln sder to remedy thot situotim, the decision-rules were integroted with theminimum tcelerotim procedure (Liberty, 1972; White & l-{oring, 1976). This procedureollo,rrs the teocher to specify the minimum rote of chonge required to insure thot thepupil's current level of performonce improves to criterion levels. A line is drown onfhe c*rort of instrtrctionol performonce to indicote the desired rote of chonge.Guidelines for the opplicotim of these rules for rote, durotion, ond lotency doto oreottoched to this report. ln brief, the procedures for opplicotion of the revised rulesore:

2.

3.

Appty minimum'celerotion procedure

o. Collect ond chort three doys of doto.

b; Drow o minimum tcelerotion line from midpoint of the three doys tothe intersection of the performonce oim ond oim dote.

c. Continue collection of doto.

Determine if chonge is needed

(r. lf pupil meeting minimum 'celerotion, no chonge is needed (in mostcoses).

b lf pupil foils to meef minimum 'celerotion for three consecutive dotodoys, chonge is required.

Determine type of perfonmonce problem

o. Drow line-of-progress for the five to seven most recent doto doys.

b. Check performonce doto vio flow-chort questions (Figures 2, 3, & 4).

c. Setect remediqtion strotegy (Toble l).

Activities of the fifth project yeor were designed to determine if teochers in owide voriety of settings, with vorying omounts of troining ond ossistonce couldimptement decision-rules effectively. Eighty-one teochers ond theropists from oroundtlre country were troined vio me of four typicol troining models--textbook only, lorgegroup, smoll group ond individuolized instruction. Following troining, the subjectswere osked to odopt the decision-rules for use with their pupils. The teochers who didodopt the rules, ond who provided us with pupil performonce doto were 68% successfulin their decisions ond olso fgdqggd the time they spent plonning eoch week- The dotoolso indicote thot teochelffi66 followed the suggested strotegies were moresuccessful thon those who did not. The cost of implementing decision-rules were qs

little os 79 per progrqm per week.

The following report describes the subjects involved in the replicotion studies,the troining models used, the effectiveness of the troining ond the impoct of rulesusoge m pupil performonce. Detqiled descriptions of eqch troining site follow themoin report.

6

The project wos oble to successfully meet all nrcjcr objectives, excepl for theinvestigotions of generolizotion ond cdoptation" However, fhe impor{once of theidentificotion of complionce os o problern offectlng g:ertrcps 30% of the populcrtion ofthe severely hondicopped ond seriously hompering educqlionol progress ccnnct beunderestimoted, ond the doto from the final three yeors of the project cleorly showthot public school teochers of the severely handicopped cqe improve their instructionoldecision-moking by opplying specific, iow-cost decision-rules to tle doto they collecton the progress of their pupils in instructionol progroms

T"cxb[e I

DISIGNING ANi} Ch{ANGING NNSTRIJCTIOFdAL FSRfKIATS

Cenerst Consideratimns

l. Are you providing the opportunity f q independent responding? Hove youestoblished on ollowoble lotency period?

2. Do you hove oppropriote consequences? Do you hove different consequences forcorrect ond incorrect responses?

3. Are you using oppropriote signols to get the behovior storted?4. Are your moteriols noturol ond oge-oppropriote?5. ls the setting for instruction oppropriote?

Formot Considerotions for Acquisition

l. Reinforceqccurote perforrnonce"7-. Providesufficientresponseopportunities.3. Provide os little ossistonce os possible.4. Provide os little extro informotion os required.5. Consider the entire behovior"6. Consider generolizotion when you choose cmstort q voried stimulus events.

Strotegies for Acqusition Problems

Provide odditionol inforrnqtion os occnsequence for error responses<rntecedent to the opportunity to respondor conjugote with responding

l, Chcnge verbol/signed/gesturol directim or signol"2. Add gesturol cues.3. Add verbol cues/stress key words,4. Add o permonent model.5. Add o rrunoger demmstrolim.6. Add physicol prompts.7. Add on ossisted demonstrotion.8. Add position/color/ernphosis cues to instructionol moferiols.

7

Fcmot Csrsiderotions for Fluency-Bui lding

l. Reinfae fluent performonce.2. lncreose oppatunities to perform the behovior (drill & proctice).3. lrrcreose the freedom to perform the behoviq.4. lncreose the rote of teocher-presentotion.5. Considergenerolizotim.

Strotegies for Fluency-&ri lding Problems

l. Provide directims for fluency before/during performonce.2. Add/chonge conseguences to motivote csrect/fluent responses. Use o

rrreinforcer surveytr to identify possible consequences; provide rVoriobletlconseguences, o different type eoch time; hide the prize until it is eorned; useconjugote consequotion.

3. Chonge the schedule for consequotion of correct/fluent responses. lncreose therotio or inlervol of the schedule; use o vorioble schedule; deloy cmjugotecmsequotion.

4. lmplement o chonging oim strotegy, increosing the omount of behovior requiredto receive cmsequotion doily; tell or show the student how much '\rrork* she/hemust finish.

5. lncreose tlre number of response opportunities.6. lncreose proctice/drill.7. Work with o more competent peer.8. Add/chongecsrsequences fordisfluent/incqrect responses.

Strotegies for Complionce Problems

l. Move to o more difficult skill level. Are you sure this skill level is the correctone? Are your criterio too high? Do you require o lot of doys ot criterio? ls thestudent bored?

2. Chonge a odd o motivqting cmsequence for crrect/fluent performonce.3. Chonge the schedule fa corsequotion of correct responses to ovoid sotiotion,4. lnstitute o response cost procedure (Goin for carect/fluent, lose for

error/disf luent).5. Eliminote completing consequences.6. Add o time limit for no responses/chonge or odd o motivoting consequence for no

responses ond for errors (Coution: porentol/guordion permissim odvised prior toimplementotion of oversive, negotively reinforcing or punishing consequences).

7, lnstitutetroll doy'r procedures for complionce.8. Avoid: moving to on eosier skill level; repeoting the instructions; cooxing or

prompting the response; providing ossistonce; completing the response yourself;threotening the student; worning the student.

8ffi$yffi&$€y$#ruffi1 $*$#ffiffiffi€ffix,trs ffiffis€&ffi{&e pffiffi$€flyUnJ.verslry uf Washi"ng,ton

ntN,

Norrt s Hartng , Prtnc ipal Inves t igator

frffi,utslPR-obL

na*t:

rUE

ltWNtr*Y-lNSrK#d|?Nfr{-{rxp"J | {,-* f

#rffiS #r*m*t)d*tw6&

,11r.*16, {r}

ffi{ttft-ldSff &f,€oSt€r"7

Pd-rrtrN?*P.*ip*f'{ D'*

fi{N{N{f *SuttDtr,f,SW#firepy

$TffiJ rA-ff€ ry

ctffi6€(ilnj$f&

FottrtfrFp8#&cfffr5u{c€?sru L

/Nsrfraffto$freFornnr CONftfiNG

f€o9t€rnAraUlslnoVffa&€fti

EXPERIMENTAL RULES FOR U5E WITH MINIMUAI CELERATIONACCELERATE RATE OF RESPONDING

F

frlzv{ roN€X7.T A,/"1

po NcrNt6{;#-tr

I igur# 2

{yl ff-t&f lry#

l^trc aN

5 ftr rH$

INSTRUfiIONRT HI€RRNCHrcS R€S€RRCH PROJCCTUnlvers l tY of lrlaslrington Norrls llartnBf Prlnclpal Investlg,itEor

rno\tL TowCrT Sft?

(1)

ACCELERATE

EXPERIMENTAL RULE5

AcoutsllbufRogLEryl

C,nep11q6J(8,tre*en

PoetJrrl

AoQu\stnillPa*rErrl

DURATION OF RESPONDING

FOR U)E WITH MINIMUM CELERATIONFigure 3

\o

tNcoRRWlrpSIRUcTf 4)ALs,ftP

SuccessFuuIh TEUCTIOhJALFofmnr

FLUETJCYButLorN6Psggttm

FoRfnAr

CorneL\ANCEPrtoBuErrt

RT AlIn ?

RESFOI..rO

orJ llcu, TA

QT

T.6JELLL6r

oF Co?.,t{s1HA?O DC<LI .A f{r

THArJ

Arn?

EP6 rE(?5IEKIII (g)

6o encr( To

5 tr.tcE ?OO NOTCt{4r.JGE

(e)h*EAO

C\\Ar.fOEaJr,eol tr)

,fo

fx,nAT (q)ETEP nrcADCf-\Ai.6ECo)6EQ, t+)

P(oL,toE I

oN HcrDfoetjf*n (f)

ti ffirnffi t;

NOtJVd31il WnWtNtyU HlM 3Sn dOJ Sjlnd lvtNjwtdSdxSgNl1NodsSa Jo Notlvdno oNv A)Nitvl jtvdiljxT txrWdd

rcurq\nE,:{

uJal$stu3?nurldula)

l;^r3TSffidL(rtr?froUdgNt0"ltnfiA?N 3n1$

W31floJBn(}ulgrnrrJy

Jslr:SlxfiaAuI IsdIluTJd t BuTrBp fi IrJn;q

Juu"llcts*uJ5t?oaClAmUIU\,-*7?

iUtilWS"X Vnmtt?hu-tg,'r r

tnJs537?n$ JWJSdzusT$flot}lnUiqrtt

I"luuo?N {

(r)

d*r$ lt?,$lo-L Snour

umtt{ulq$sil J0 {t IHJSATU;I

#

(o*sIffa pa6r*l clo

(tl'U3?rtc?3$nvtr;

0$amu 6lIJ$ (ul $uula*3

tplsu?t{H3r

(sl '0?5110?' Sgrrtnn?

J.pr* ffi

(u)ApNUffi

??n

sJ y"sfidzug

*nry$

b;t $d3

x0h,SatL*xh'r Nuitl

TffiU

'ra$e#nd

t'1?7)4 dtffltst?tuu lu

lv Qs|ut$

l

a-tr

3A31

f{o (ffit{

jwtv ru

Drroud }l)uutsru slllDuuuilH ruNou)nulsill

II

Fifth Project Yeor

lntroduction

Activities for the fifth project yeor were designed to provide informotion on twomoin questions: l) Would the decision-rules prove useful toteochers ond theropists inpublic school situotims? 2) Whot type of troining thot would best cornmunicote the {

decision-rules? During the first yeors of the project, cooperoting teochers ondtheropists worked closely with members of tlre reseorch stoff ond received extensivetroining on the opplicotion of the procedures to their pupils ond instructionolsittrctisrs. Since such troining would not be ovoiloble outside of the reseorch project,fifth yeor octivifies involved troining o number of teochers in the use of the decision-rules, using typicol troining models only--wakshops, lorge groups, smoll groups,individuolized instruction, ond the simple ovoilobility of textbooks.

The effectiveness of the troining wos meosured by the subjects' rotings of thetrcining ond of their ottitude towqrd the decision-rules following troining. Troiningeffectiveness wos olso meosured, however, by whether or not the subjects octuollyodopted the decision-rules for use in their clossrooms. lt wos hypothesized thot inoddition to the effectiveness of the troining, odoption of the decision-rules wollddepend on the noture of instruction ond evoluotion procticed by the subject; if currentproctices needed to be extensively modified in order to opply the decision-rules, weexpected it would be less Iikely thot the teocher would odopt the procedures.However, if teochers did odopt the decision-rules, it would suggest thot the procedurescould be used by teochers outside of the more controlled reseorch opplicotions of thelost five yeors.

Doto on the progress of pupils in instructionol progroms cmducted by teocherswho odopted the decision-rules would provide informotion on the impoct of thedecisim-rules m pupil progress ond m the effectiveness of teocher decisions. Thosedoto would help determine if the results from the first project yeors were undulyinfluenced by the frequent confoct with reseorch stoff members or were limited to thepopulotions of teochers ond pupils who cooperoted in previous projmt yeors.

Most reseorch doto during the fifth yeor were gothered using questionnoires.The use of questionnoires imposed o dependence on the goodwill of subjects to returnthe questionnoires through the moil ond meont thot of leost some questions would onlybe onswered with indirect doto (subjectsr rotings) rother thon on tl"re bosis of directperformonce doto. Mony teochers opplying the decision-rules did, hourever, shoreoctuol pupil progress doto, thereby strengthening the bosis for most of the conclusionsreoched.

Site Selection

There were severol foctors involved in the selection of sites for replicotionoctivities. Since much of the success of the effort would depend on cooperotim, siteswith history of cooperotion with the University of Woshington were considered first.Secmdly, the feosibility of providing troining ond follow-up to the sites considered.Since it wos felt thot odministrotive support for the utilizotion of the experimentolprocedures wos irnportont, we olso considered the likelihood of thot support formoteriols, releose time for troining ond for sociol support or proise. We were olsointerested in working both with teochers who hod previous troining in PrecisionTeoching ond of leost some who hod not.

+uaurssassD spaau o uo pasDq sanll3alqo puD slDo6 urDr6o:d do;anap o* puo .doq*1.ro41rarxtuns aq+ pusllD o+ cdllf, eql q+lrlr pelcDJluof, trlDal q3D3 .sdoqsl.rorn orv\+eqt Jo eto.ol ltrogssalo.rd +Joddns D ro tequlau: Jo JeqoDel JeqlouD puo raslnu,lsgdo.raql'uorssalo:d lroddns D Jo JaquJeru D ..ro1o:lslulurpo 3:aqloal) Iuroal ,(.rou11dlcs1p.ra1ui,,uD pues ol p3+t^u! a_re,$ sl3!J{s!p looq3s r;olaue6 ul .paddoclpuou; l;punolo.rdpuo l;a.rales aql q1;rvr Eu;ryoarr;autrcs:ad ro; sdoq*1.rom Gulurorl alo:o<ias olq'peplio.rd t(Oattl) 1u-audo;aaag uror6o.r4 puo 6u1u1o{ e3l^rasq roJ refue] aq} ,o sa:;dsno aq1rapun .s1ca[ord ortu esoql ,o ]rDls ar{l .rs+6u!r{sD/v1

;o ,{;1s"ran1un eqr }o uor4D3npj }oa6a11o3 ruoglocnp3 1o1cad5 Io DaJV eq+ puo ruoltcn4sul rllqnd Jo tuepualul:adng atlf Ioa3l;lg elDts rrc16ugqso6 aql ,o lloddns aq* q+!/yl .uollDonp3 lDlcads Jo a3!JJO .S.n al+/q papunl sluo.r6 o*r; .ra1ue3 6u1u1o-1 arllrasul uogDag ura$ar\ aqt puD peddoc;puopl;erana5 aqt roJ ralr.nal eql qloq Jo rclDulprooc gra[o"rd aqp sr qru,(1 etrelDn .sW

'palsanbal e3uDlslssD dn-mo1;o; ,(uo aplno.rd o1paa.r6o puo to1@pli6p ar{+ pa+nqlrtslp rapulg .rW .s1cafqns 6ulluastroc rc1 Elooqpuoplrapulg .JW luas 1ca[o.rd g1 eq1 .pe+3olrroo uaql 1ca[ord Hl eql qrlqr .s;cafqns

1o11ua1od Jo tsll D ltfi)s eH .sratlcml esoq+ puo lcaford Ht aqf uaomlaq l.ro1pau.r.re1u1uD sD +3D ol paa.l6o lepulg .lW .sloD+rro3 tloLu puD euoqdalal DIA star{rDa+ Lll!/r\q3not u1 sdaal oslD eH .DaJD tx)lsog aplpaurur! eql u! sJeqoDel Jo, stolssas 6u1rot1s-D+Dp l;qluour sl3npuo3 puo ',,ra11alsry\€N 6u1:oqg D1DC1, I:a;1a1 uado ,(lqtuour D selt:rnrepulg .JW .oa:o puol6ul i\aN eq+ u! slaqcoel uolsloeld 1o dno.l6 ,,6ug.rDQS' lDuirolu!uo pedolaaep poq Japulg ..161 .6u1u1o:l pro suoltD+lnsuo3 eotllesur puD ef,lllase.rd ulqloq'oaro puo16u3 ,neN aql poqEnorql sratlcoe+ snolrDA r.lllrvr suolloDla+ut s!r{ Jo +lnselD qy' '{alspu;1 uap6g 'rO ,(q 6u1qcoa1 uolsloerd Jo asn aql u! paulDJl uaeq pDq suolsogu! loor.l3s plDural Io +uatupodaq slsaqtsord ro!^Dqag aql Jo 'rapulg lrof, 'rW

'6u1qcoa1 uols!3eJd ug 6ugu1o.r4 soolae.rdpa1:ode: s1s1do:aq1 ? et{f Jo Z puo (sraqcoel Dulltrastnr / eq} 1o 9 'tro1 ut 's1cafqnsraqooa+ ;o11ue4od r11rn 6u1laaur lD!+!ul ar{l ol .tog:d sa.lnpaco.td 1o1uaur1:adxe eqllo rlollDcllddo atll u! paulD4 ara/$ (lalJlslp eql u! sraqrDel uollDf,npa ;o;cads req{o aqtrol sroslnpD eql snld) sros!^pD eqt puo'poo114 'rCI't3!4slp eqt u1 paddocgpuoq ,(1arcaasaql ,o sJaqcDel Jol ,$a!neJ D+Dp puD lroddns 'trolslzrr:adns t3ejlp peplno;d or{^\ slosl^pooru+ eqt o+ sn pesnporlu! poortlt 'rc 'sernPaco.rd 6u;>,1ouj-no!s!3ep u1 6u3u1o:1 6ulpanbe:ere,u llDls 6u1qcoe1 s!t{ eouls l;;olcadse ratodlcll.tod o+ -ra6oa sDrr eH '13!r+s!plDql u! sarnpacord 6u1qcoe1 uors!3eJd Io aso aq+ pa+roddns puo petDco^pD 6uo1 soqr;c1.rp1q lootl3s o;dur,(16 aql ro; sarllras lD!3eds lo rolrerl6 'pooryt uourlllts 'r(l

.sanbluuca+

6u1q:oa1 uolsJ3aJd u; 6u1ugo:1. snorrrald poq e^Dr{ plno*l s4ca[qns 6ug1t-esrrcr 1o ,(1-o[ou.rD +Dr{} palcadxa sDm +! ,uo11:nr;sul rllqnd }o ill}J6 e+D+S uo16u1qso6 aqt u! puno},tlraul"lo; e:er{\ selDJonpo 6ulqroel uolsllald a3u!s puo 'uo16u!qsDrv\ 1o l11s"rcn1un or{tq+!/n luautellonu! go /:o1s1q 6t^o1 o aaoq ':o;nc;1.tod u! lueuruoda6 uollocnp3 lolcadgaql puD 's;ooqcg al$Des aculS 'slcafqns 1o11ua1od 6u;l1g1uapt ut s;odrcut:d 6u1p11nqqlgm ll1onp!^!pu! >porr ,JD+s 1ca[o.rd tDqt pelse66ns puo'roar( 1ca[ord qllno] aq1 6u;.rnppe+D!+!ul luau:a6uorlD allloJedooc eql anutlr.rr3 o1 paar6o lellll '.t6 ta;11oag u1

'(sllDfep .lo; s1;odeg e{!S lDnp!^!pu! aas} tnlsseoens ere,!^ satrs reqlo eq+ Jo t{ooaql!r$ )iJorrl o1 sluatr.ra6uDJlv 'sllDc ro s:el+el o1 ptrcdsar lou plp JelDt lnq 'a;od1c11-odo1 6ug;11rr sDA\ loor.ps s!r{t }o xrlollslultupD eql 'pa+coluoc uat{ryt '6u1u1o.t1 peplnord poqflo+s srt{ puD aq q3!q,n Jo} loorlrs D papuaulurocar rollos '16 '1uo$u1qso6 ;o l11srangt61.luaur&1eaa6 ulnr6o:d puD 6u1u1o.1 e3lllasul rol ralue3) Wull IDA .sW puD (r.olsog'looqss plDuraj) rapulg lrDJ 'rW '({t!sle^!un alDls ocsleuDrj UDS) rollDs au,bi6 'rq r(s;ooqq rllqnd o1du.rl1g1 poorl,i uDurlJr+S 'rq "1s1ooq35 3llqnd al++Dos)

^allll lll8 'rC

:sr.ros:ed 6u1aro;;og aqf q+!r$ apou sn,t\ lcoluol lDlllul lt^to1loraq1lap auJos la+,V

r$

l3

corrid ort by CITPD stoff. The CITPD then provided the initiol troining ond follow-up designed to occomplish the individuol objectives for eoch project site. At the threeweek worlshops held in Seottle, porticiponts generolly spent holf of eoch doy ottendingdidoctic sessions on o voriety of topics (including o modified Precision Teochingopprmch) ond onother port of lhe doy in supervised prcclico with severely ond/orprofoundly hondicopped pupils. With the cooperotion of Ms. Lynch, porticiponts inthose two wakshops were invited to become subjects in the lnstructionol HierorchiesProject.

The initiol differences ommg the sites in the oreos of estimoted directodministrotive support for the use of procedures, the number of zubjects with o priortroining in Precisim Teoching, ond the noture of the trqining ond follow-up provided toeoch site ore shown in Toble 2. Together, cmsenting subjects ot the sites wereemployed in o totol of 18 public schools (of which 12 schools serve both hondicoppedond nonhondicopped pupils) in 13 differenl school districts ond 7 privote doy orresidentiql schools ond 3 Stote Residentiol Schools.

Toble 2

INITIAL DIF-FERENCES BTTWTTN SITES

Site Est imot ion ofAdrninistrot iveSupport for use ofProcedures

Percent of consentingSubjects ReportingPrevi 0u$ Training inPrecision Teoching

lrloture of TrainingPlonned

lrhture ofFollow-up Plonned

Site I

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Vor ied frorn school toschool; high supportovol loble frorn Projectlnter med iory

77%

t6%

73%

66%

Textbook ModellslY trsined

in Precision Teoching byProject lntermediory.Project provides textbookf or use of decision*rules.

l-gr,qg.-fir,gun llgdg!.tlntensive trsining in edu-cotional technology relotedto education of $ph pupils,including use of modifiedPrecision Teaching proceduresprovided to sll porticipcntsby CITPD" Three lorge grotrpsessions on u$e of decision-rule procsdures provided bylH Project.

Smoll Group Model:Troining in use of experi-mental decision*rulesprovided in small group$e$$ion,

Individual!aq$l

troining of PrecisionTeoching procedures ondexper i rnentsl decisi on-rulesprovided hy IH stoff .

Follow-up ovoi loblefrorn Projectlntermediory qnd

reseorch stoff

Follow-up providedby CITPD stoffwith input fronnlH Project

ln person andtelephons contqctupon wbject request

ln per$on ondtelephone contsctup*n subject requ*st.

Admi ni st r c torsport icipot ion inWorkshop,

$upportedCITPD

Administrotor required use ofPrecisi m Teoching techniquesond provided inservice trainingond ongoing support.

Genera I od rninistrut ive supportfor procedures, little or nCI

direct support within schools.

t5

METHOD

Subjects of eoch site were introduced to the project in different woys, otthougheoch received essentiolly the some informotion. Potentiol subjects of Site I wereidentified by Mr. Corl Binder, who provided nomes ond oddresses to the project.Porticiponts in the Workshops conducted by CITPD (Site 2) were olso identified bypersons other thon the lH stoff or district personnel. The potentiol subjects in Sites I

ond 2 eoch received letters describing fhe project. ln oddition, the Workshopporticiponts ottended on aol presentotion concerning the project. Potentiol subjectsot Sites 3 ond 4 were identified by the qdministrotors of the districts involved, ondottended o meeting with the reseorch stoff cmcerning the noture of the project.(Detoils of the meetings ond copies of the letters ond consent forms ore provided inthe individuol Site Reports which follow lhe generol report.)

A totol of 122 potentiol subjects were contocted. Of these, 107 (88%) returnedccrsent forms, signed or unsigned. Of those returned, 89 (83%) consented toporticipote. The generol method employed by the project is outlined in the nine stepsbelow. Differences qmong sites, ond the exoct noture of the questionnoires ond othermethods for doto collection used, ore described in succeeding sections of this report.

l. Consenting subjects provided bockground informotion concerning relevontteoching experineces ond personnel demogrophics.

2. Consenting subjects from oll sites, excepting Site l, troined in the use of the lHprocedures, ond completed o questionnoire concerning their evoluotion of thetroining.

Additionol infonmotion requested by the subjects concerning the content oftroining wos provided, ot oll sites except Site l.

4. Eoch subj ecf received the Hondbook of ExBer imentol Procedures.

Eoch subject received o questionnoire requesting their evoluotion of theHondbook.

6. Eoch subject wos osked whether or not they intended to use the experimentolprocedures with their pupils. Subjects who did not intend to use the procedureswere osked for their reosons. This concluded their porticipotion in the study.

7. Follow-up ossistonce for the implementotion of the lH procedures ond ony otherreloted moteriol wos mode ovoiloble to those subjects who decided to try theexperimentol procedures. Avoilobility of thot ossistonce wos continuedthrotrghout the project.

8. After 4-5 weeks, subjects remoining in the study were osked to evqluote theeffecliveness of the procedures, ond to provide odditionol informotion. Withsubjects deciding to cmtinue in the study, identicol informotion wos requestedm o periodic bosis in onder to determine ottitude chonge, if ony. ln oddition,octuol pupil performonce dofo were requested of the subjects.

Subjects were free to withdrow from the project ot ony time, without penolty ofony kind, ond were free to leove ony question or item unonswered on forms provided bythe project, Every effort wqs mqde to keep the identity of porticipoting subjectsunovoiloble to their supervisors, in occordonce with the provisims of the University ofWoshington's Rights of Humon Subjects Committee.

3

5

tr6

ln generol, doto were collected through the use of questionnoires, olthough pupilperformorrce &to were m<rde ovoiloble to the project by severol *bjects. Severelimitotions ore, of course, ploced on reseqrch csrducted fhnough the use of doto fromquestionnoires, ond will be discussed in the 'rDoto Collectiontt section of this report, oswell os in the Results ond Discussim sectims.

Subjects

The subjects of the project were 69 feochers ond l6 theropistsl serving o tofol oflr2l5 hondicopped pupils. Although the experimentol praedures were designed for useby teochers serving primorily severely ond profotrndly hondicopped students, we foundthot clossrooms usuclly included o mixture of hondicopping condilionsl rnost notobly,moderotely hondicqpped pupils were integroted with severely ond/or profoundlyhondicopped pupils.' (The reported hondiccpping conditions of pupils served by theteochers ond theropists ore shown in Toble 3). Pupils identified by theirteochers/theropists qs severely, profoundly or multiply tnndicopped constitufedopprox.imotely 50% of the studenls (N=601), with the oddition of the moderotelyhondicopped pupils this totol rises to obotrt 74% (N=904) of the pupils reoched by thecansenting subjects- Eoch of pupils hod ttre potentiol of providing informofion on thelmpoct of the experimentol procedures on pupil progress in instructionol progroms.

The oges of the individuol pupils ore not knor,rrn, but the oges served by eochteocher/tlreropist <rre shown in Tsbles 4 ond 5. lt is interesfing to note thot Sites I ond2, which served o much higher proportion of institutiornlized students, included moreclosses serving mixed oges ronges (e.g, 6-22; I l-54) ond, of course, odults, thon didthe two sifes which were exclusively public school settings, Site 3 ond 4. The ogeronge served by the subjects wos from I through 54.

I' Although not riginolly plonned, three odminislrotors osked to porticipote. Theodministrotors were interested in leoching their persmnel to use the procedures. Theodministrolors from Site 2 decided not to do so following troining, ond the Site I

odministrotorrs teoclrers consented to serve os subjecls lhemselves. Doto from theodministrotors is not included in fhis section.T lnforrTrotion concerning the number ondsubjects on the Bockground Ouestionnoire.fo verify that infwrnction in ofty urny.

type of pupils served wcs provided by theResearch staff personnel did not crtternpt

Subj ectsTeochers

Toble 3

HANDICAPPING CONDITONS OF PUPILS SERVED BY SUBJECT TEACHERS AND THERAPISTS

Leorning Mildly Moderotely Severely Profoundly MultiplyDisobled Hondicopped Hondicopped Hondicopped Hondicopped Hondicopped

Other Totol I

Pupi ls

Site I

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

N=27

N=23

N=7

N= l2

2

l0

0

B

7

t4

93

85

t8

76

56

42

l4

32

9 382

23

0

64

9

7

0

II

36

33

23

68

243

204

62

215

Totol N=69 20 55 160 272 t44 27 46 724

Theropists

Site Z N= I2

site 3 N=4

29

3

49

t7

il8

25

46

t0

765 382

I09

60

t+4

4

0 t06

Totol N= 16 32 66 t43 104 56 4 86 491

TOTAL N=85 52 t2t 303 376 200 3l t32 12l5

lColcutoted from the numbers provided per cotegory, usuolty corresponding to number served per yeor, but not olwoys.

28 deof/heoring-impoired ond 30 outistic3orthopedico

I ty hond icopped

46 o.thop"dicolty hondicopped r570

"orn-rnicotim disorders, 5 orthopedicot ty hondicopped

6 I 0 .o*-rnicotim disorders

Fupil Age Group

Pr*school; ?*6ClnssPupil:Po*t

IB

Tcble I+

ACE GROUPS CIF PUPILS STRVID f;}Y TTACHERS

Site I Site 7 Site 3 Site {+

7r+l

56t

4t27

I5l3{t

535

TOTAL

0

IS3

t6142

329

t9284

flenren?ory 6-12, Clsssraorns

Fuplls

Mixed ?-12Cla$sroornsPupils

High school 12*22ClassroomsPupitrs

Mixed 6-22ClassroornsPupils

Adults 22+CfcssroonnsPupi ls

,lrlixed I I +C l*ssroomstrupils

?27

323

7!9

?24

668

435

322

t5l3{t

2I3

776

33S

ZIB

539

I

5

I

5

I

4

Calculaled frorn ?he number reparfed served per yefitr.

t9

Toble 5

AGE GROUPS OF PUPILS SERVED BY THERAPISTS

Mixed l-2 yeorsTheropistsPupils'

275

?49

Colculoted from the number reported served per yeor.

Closs Size wosserving ur on overoge do)r. The 69 teochers reported serving on overoge of 680 pupilsper doy, os compored with 750 pupils over the course of the school yeor. Differencesin those totols moy be ottributed to obsences, deoths, ond plocement or schooltronsfers. On on overoge doy, the meon number of pupils served by o teocher wos 9.9(ronge 2-50). Five of the 69 teochers eoch served more thon 20 pupils per doy. Twoteochers ore resource roo{"n teochers serving 20 ond 50 mildly hondicopped pupils, oneteocher served 28 moderotely hondicopped pupils (oges 13-17) with one port timeossistont, one teocher wos involved in q teom teoching situotion with two other (non-subject) teochers serving 36 preschool children, ond one teocher conducted ovocotionol troining progrom bosed on o resource room model for 50 sph students.Excluding those five teochers, the remoining 64 teochers served 559 pupils per yeor,ond 5ll m on overoge school doy, with o meon closs size of eight (ronge 2-16). Closssizes fon the different sites ore sho,rrn in Toble 5. The number of pupils receivingdirect service from the 16 theropists totoled 529 per yeor, while the number per doywos obout 188 totol (meon I 1.8, ronge 5-20) (see Toble 6).

Mixed l- lB yeorsTheropistsPupils

Mixed 3-22 yeorsTheropistsPupils

l2405

Toble 6

CLASS SIZE

Pupils/Yeor Pupils/Doy

226 t98

200 I 78

63 59

B0 76

computed from the number of pupils the teochers reported

Site I

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Teqchers

26

22

7

9

Meon/Doy

7.6

8. I

8.4

8.4

Ronge

2-t2

5- l4

6-|,2

5-l 6

TOTAL 64 569 5l I 8.0ItExcluding teochers who teom teoch or who serve pupils in q resource room model.

2-t 6

l

Site ?

Slte 3

Therapists

tr2

l*

x*

TExb$* 7

cLf;ilh$T t-#&.*

Pupi trslYecr Pupi*sftlay

{*SS ${$$

I?{& &.S

f*ean/Day

t?,3

716rl CI, I7

Range

5-2S

TSTAL

Subj ects

Teachers

Sit* I

Site 7

Sitc 3

Site c$

zXt0s%)

??{95*&}

5{S6%}

r 2t ts0%)

s.ffi t*??)

5"8{ I*?S}

6.7t l* tr 3)

g"s{3*??}

?x100%)

?2{96%}

6(S6%)

t2fis0%)

5-?*

Yesrsexperiencernecn trunge)

z"gt t-7)

s {r-?l}

4.{${ l- I{}}

8.3{3-2?}

I6

Previqrs Experience. All but two of the teochers hod p.revious experienceworkimpupils,withomegrnumberof4.7yeors(rongel.22,,ondollof the theropists olso hod experience working with the hondicopped, with o meon of 6-3yeors (ronge l-23). Experience of the teochers ond theropists ore shorn for eoch sitein Toble 8.

Tshle S

5?9 t8s Itr,S

PRTVIOUS TXPIffiITNCT ST SUSJICTS

N wlth previs."rs Ye*rs N with previol.lsteaching expenience specicl ed'experience ryIe{m {range} experience

N=27

N=?3,

N*7

N= l2

T*tclTeachtlrs

N=69 6X??%) 5"7{ $*}*} 6xe7%) 4"x l-?2)

Thernpisfs

Site ? N= [?

$ite 3 N*4

r2( rss%)

d*{lSfi%}

7"?{ I*23}

d$"3{ f .-ffi}

rxtss%)

d${ IS0%}

5.9{ l*23}

ll"5{ I-S}

Total N= I6T['reraplsts

r 6{ $OCI%} 6.l}{ I-?3} r6{ rss%} 6.3 I { t-23}

?t

Assistonce Avoi loble" Sixty-three of the 67 experienced teochers hod some helpin the clossroom from qre or more of the following: poid ossistonts, volunleers,studenf teochers q other personnel (e.9., porents). There were q totol of 127ossistonts, 38 volunteers, 55 student teochers ond 77 other types of ossistonts; themeon number of people helping one teqcher eoch week wos 4.2 (ronge l-22'). On theoveroge, teqchers who received ossistonce hod the equivolent of 47.3 hours of help perweek (ronge 4-122 hor.rrs). The four teochers who did not hqve ony ossistonce in theclossroom served o totol of l5 severely hondicopped pupils, 8 moderotely hondicoppedpupils ond four profoundly hondicopped pupils, with oges ronging from 12-54. (Seeindiviudol site reports for more detoils. )

Nine of the l6 theropists hod some ossistonce. A totol of 15 helpers served thosenind theorpists for on overoge of 39.3 hours per week Gonge 5- I 20). Four of the I 2theropists from Site 2 were without help, ond three theropists from Site 4 did not hoveony .ossistonce ovoi loble.

Theropy Assistonce Avoiloble to Clossroom Pupils. Fif ty-eight of the 69teochers repoiied thot thCropiats worked with ot leoslsome of their pupils eoch week,for an o/eroge of eight hours per week Gonge l-40). The nine teochers who reportedthot no theropists were working with their students served o totol of ll0 pupils peryeor (15% of the g;pils served by the teochers). Six of these nine teochers were fromSite l, ond eight of lhe nine teochers served pupils older thon l2 yeors.

lnstructionol Proctices

Types of lnstruction. All of lhe teocher,s conducled instructionol progromsdesigffivior,eitherbyteochingnewbehoviorondskiilso'uyimproving performonce in skills qnd behqviors which the student hod previorJslyocquired ond which included some opportunity fff individuol pupil responding. Themojority of instructionol time wos spent in l: I situotions, olthough only three teochersprovided 90% or more of their instruction in thot situotion. The leost omount ofinstructionol time, os con be expected, wos spent in group situotions requiring unisonrespmding, olthough individuol responding in group settings wos olso used by mostteochers. As o group, theropists conducted most of their progroms in l: I situotions,with three of the l5 theropists using this type 90% or mae of the time (Toble 9).

t3

Toble 9

TYPES OF INSTRUCTION f;ii(,fil,T:D BY ]EACHERS

lndividuol Response Opportunities Site I Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 T"otal

During *: I instrtrctlsr

% teochers who provideslHecn ornount of instrrrction timer

?* At natural *ccsslms

9L teachers who provide:Mesn omount of instructigfi tlmet

3. ln group settings

% teochers who provlde:Meon cmount of instruction time;

LJrrr ison Response Spportuni ties

% teachers who provide:Mean ornount of instruction time:

{ndividual Response

During l: I instrrrction

% thercpisfs who providerfolean cmounf of lnstrr;ctionol tiernt

'1. &? n*turol occcsions

% therapists who pravide:Meon arxot;nt of instructionsl tirnel

% tl'Ercpists who pravide:Meon ornount af instructioncl timel

96%53H,

7r/o{Itl

8I2Z

f ssYbr*t%

rss%55%

tCIO

2!

I0s%36%

?7%46%

tfis77

56ts

75l9

vt3S

BB35

s52s

{\r$()37

s62|

29I5

t003t

r0s95

973l

?5IO

s5I6

tffs7t

257

26I

35t3

Site 3 Totol

Tcble &*

TYPES OF INSTRUCITOru Pffi,ffiVtrMAM B=$T THERAPISTS

Opportunities Site ?

s7f{

255

9?2*

d+?

s

I

I

3" [n grory settings

% therapists who provide:Meon smount of instrtrction*l tint*r

L,$n ison Fffpqlfe QppoJtun i t igs

23

Frequency of lnstrtrctim. The frequency of instruction cmducted by teochers isshownan Toble 10. Generolly, most instructionol Progroms were conducted ot leostdrce per doy, olthorgh me subject reported cordrrcting progroms twice per week ondeight conducted instructionol progroms three times per week. Theropists, ct the otherhond, usuolly cmducted instrr.rctimol progroms twice o week Ooble I l).

Pupil Response Opportunities. Most (67) of the subjects proyidg! _!5 * fewerrespmductedinstructimz26xprovidedl.5triols,l7%provided 5-9 triols, ond 32% provided l0-15 triols (Toble l2).

FREQUENCY

Per Psv

Nqturol occoslmsthroughout the doy

Two or ffrffe presetsesirrs per doy

One presetsession per dcy

Per lVeek

Site I sire 2

Tsble I I

FREAUENCY OF INSTRUCTION

TEACHERS

site3 site4 Totol

0

ll

2

Site 2

THHRAPISTS

$ite 3

TOTAL

Totol

I

0

5

55

t7

00

45243

0320

r3

0 2

l2

3

t0

I

Four presetsessims per week

Three presetsessims per week

Two preset sessionsper week

One preset sessionper week

Orr theropist rtseesfi pupils either one, two a three sessions per week.

0

7I233

725

554

I

I

II

I

tt

*

Toble 12

PUPIL RESPONSE OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED DURING INSTRUCTION

Number of

Per lnstructionol Session

l-5

5-9

l0- l5

l6-20

20+

it ies Site I

B

0

l2

2

2

te3

Teochers Theropists Teochers Theropists

63t053t2l0 3 2 0

02t00ltt

2 4 Toto

2t

t4

3t

7

6

3

3

4

2

26

Evalustim of Pupil Performcrnce

Number of Prsgloms. Thirty-seven of the subjects collected doto on 95-l0O% oftheir @ltected doto cr 85-94% of trreir progrom (Tdle t3). Sevenwbjects collected doto on less thon 25% of their progroms, Generolly, teochers otSites I ond 4 seenred mae likely to iollect doto sr olmo,st oll prognoms thcr teochersof other sites.

Toble l3

PERCENTAGE OF PROGRAMS ON WHICH PUPIL PERFORMANCE DATA COLLECTED

Percentcge of Progrom$ Site I Site 7 Site 3 Site 4 Totol

95- r00%

B5-94%

75-&*%

50-74%

25-I*9%

lA-24o/o

less tlmn

?l

7

I

2

I

Iil3

4

2

I

3

3

3

6

7

3e

t?

6

I4

4

3

2

2

2

l0%

Frequencv. Teochers collected doto mqe often thon theropisls. Thirty-sixteochers srd three theropists collected doto every tirre on instrrrclionol progrom wasconducted. Twenty-seven leochers ond four theropists collected dotq olmost everytime o progrom wos run, ond four teochers ond four theropisls collected dsto oboutholf the time the progrom wos run. Four theropists collected doto for initiolossessment purposes only.

Number of Itjols.. Thirty-two teochers ond five theropists collected doto meveryTffiTlrGt-IiG[cotlected ony doto ot oll. Ten teoc'hers ond one theropistcollected doto qr oll triols during a specified period of time. Other subjects collecteddoto sr only specific number of responses (Toble l4).

27

Toble l4

NUMBER OF PUPIL RESPONSES EVALUATED

Frequencv Teochers

doto cottected m every triot 32

doto collected m first triol only 3

doto collected m lost triol mly 5

doto collected m rondom number 6

doto collected on probe triols only 6

doto collected m oll triols duringspecified perigd of time l0

mixed 7

Theropists

Type of Doto. Teochers generolly preferred either occurocy doto or rote doto(Tob le l5), cleorly ronking those two doto fypes higher thon the others. Theropistsshowed less of o cleor cut preference, olthough six ronked behovior counts os the dototype they used most frequenlly. Teochers of Site I ond Site 3 showed o strongpreference for rote doto, while teochers from Sites 2 ond 4 preferred occurscy doto.

Use of Doto. Fonty teochers (60%) ond four theropists Q5%) grophed doto (ollteocheIE6TTT{ 22 of 27 of site l, 3 of 12 of Site 4 ond-8 of 23 or Site 2). The fourtheropists who grophed doto were from Site 3. All but two subjects hod rules for usein moking instructionol decisions in of leost some of their progroms. Seventy-six hodrules or crilerio for determining when the pupil met the performonce oim, ond 8l hodrules for deciding whof to do ofter the pupil met the oim. Sixty used specific criterioin deciding when to move the pupil bock to on eosier skill level. Thirty-nine reportedrules for deciding when to chonge instructionol procedures. Surprisingly, 37 reportedrules for deterrnining whot type of intervention to moke when chonging instructionolprocedures.

Plonning. The 67 experienced teochers spent on overoge of 4.66 hours per weekplonning insfiuctionol progroms (ronge l-20 hours), while theropists spent on overogeof 2.63 hours per week (ronge l-8 hours). The 37 teochers with troining in precisionteoching spent, on the overoge, 45 minutes rnore per week ptonning thqn the 30teochers without such troining.

5

4

4

I

Toble l5

TYFTS OF' DATA COLLNCTHD BY SUBJHCT$

sts

Accurocy do ta

Rote dots

Count of behavior

Count of tr io ls

Levels of oss istonce

Other time*bosed data

N Rsnked lst

28

24

t0

5

3

0

N Use

46

49

37

77

38

3B

Meon Ronk

1.87

l.g6

2. lg

2,7

2,9

3.47

N Use

l0

9

ll

I9

I

N Ronked lst

4

I

6

I

2

I

lvlesn Ronk

2,6

2.55

2. lB

3. ll

2.55

3.gg

Sglq .t"qs

?9

Troining ond Follow-up

All subjects were provided informotion obout thedecisim-rules. Subjects from Site I received only

were troined

icotion of the experimentolof rnentol

opplthe

Procedures.ffi

Subjects from other sites by prtrqined in o lorge group, Subjects frorn Site were troined in o smoll

group, ond subjects from Site 4 received individuolized troining. The content of thetroining voried somewhot from site to site, bosed on some chonges in the experimentolprocedures ond occording to subject request.

Content of Troining

The decisicn-rules which were derived during the first four yeors of the projectprovided the bosis for olt troining. All subjects were provided with descriptions of theprerequisites for using the decision-rules:

t) Provision of instruction designed to teoch the pupil o new skill, or to improve thefluency of performonce of o previously leorned skill. The decision-rules ore notdesigned for.progroms designed to decelerote behoviors.

Z) Selectien of o criterion for performonce of the behovior. ln some coses, it wouldbe necessory lor subjecfs to select both o terminol criterion performonce levelond o torget dote for reoching thot criterim.

:) Opportunity fq the pupil to respond individuolly to the instructionol cues.Unison, or group responding, would not provide the doto necessory for opplicotionof the rules. Further, it wos recommended thot the pupil hove ot leost tenresponse opportunities per school doy.

4) Collectim of performonce doto. Subjects were encouroged to collect eitherrote, lotency or durotion doto, olthough subjects from Site 2 were olso tought bythe CITPD stoff during the workshops to use the decison-rules with percentcorrect doto.

5) Grophing performonce dolo for onolysis on semilogorithmic chorts, either thestondord Behovior Chort used in 'rPrecision Teoching" or o modificotion of thotchort used for percent correct doto.

Following troining in the prerequisites, which voried cmsiderobly from site tosite, subjects were provided informotion on the use of the rules. The procedurespresented to Site 2 subjects were different from those provided to subjects ot othersites. Site 2 subjects were troined prior lo the conclusion of fourth yeor octivities(June, 197il. Thus, they were provided rules bosed m rrperformonce potternsrr, whichentoiled drowing lines-of-progress even/ six doto doys, ond then using o flow-chort toselect o strotegy chonge. After the onolysis of fourth yeor doto, however, it wosdecided to integrote the "minimum rcelerotion rule" (Liberly, 1972i While & l--loring,1975) with the experimentol decision-rules, Thus, subjects of Sites 2, 3 ond 4 receivedinformotion on how fo drow minimum rcelerotion lines; drowing lines-of-progress onlywhen the pupil fell three doys below thot line, ond then using o flow-chort to select ostrotegy chonge (Figure 2-4). Subjects from Site I were loter provided with the rulesfor use with minimum 'celerotion. After troining in the use of the decision-rules,subjects were provided informotion m the types of strotegy chonges recommended foreoch of the performonce cotegories. Decisim-rules for use with progrorns designed tooccelerqte durotion (Figure 3) or decelerote durotion or decelerote lqtency (Figure 4)of responding were moiled to oll subjects upon completion of those rules.

The Hondbook of Experimentol Procedures consisted initiolly of the followinginf or motion:

{t}t2)

30

Step-by-step directims for opplying the decisi m-rr.rles.The decisim-rules for use wilh progroms designed to occelerote rote ofrespanding, ord to occeterqte percentoge correct (Site 2 only).Lists of the strotegies recommended for use.Descriptims required for opplicotiqr of the rules, including: drowing lines-of-progress, drowing minimum 'celerotim lines, determining Perent correct,determining high voriobility ond determining shorp decelerolist in carecls.Text descripticrs of instructionol formots ond instructimol strotegiesrecornrnerrCed for use os intervention.

{3}{4}

{5}

Additicrol infamotim odded to the Handboc*< during the lost yec irrcluded:

(6) A descriptim of the prerequisites for use of the decision-+ules.(7) A descriplim of methods of collecting crd chorting rote, odjusted rote, durotion

cnd lotency doto.(8) Rules fa use with lotency ond durotiqr progroms.

Subjects who hod completed troining, ond were still porticiporing in lhe project,received the informotion in points 6.8 os port of the l-lordbook.

Type of Troininq

$,bjects ot sites 2 through 4 were troined ccading to different models. Site 2subjects were troined in the use of the experimentcl decision-rules os port of osummer wrkshop cmducted by CITPD. Porticiports ottended didoctic sessions ordworked with pupils in supervised proctico. The wokstrops were cqdrrted for o totolof 14 doys over o 3 week period, usuolly losting fronr I o.m. - 5 p.rn. doily.Porliciponts received university credif upsr sotisfoctory comple?ion of the wukshops.All pqticiponts of the wckshop ottended o sre-hour session in the opplicotim of thedecision-rules with percenl correct doto, which included directions fa opplying therules ond drowing lines-of-progress for somple doto. Subjecfs of the lH projecfqttended two odditionol sessions, offered o totol of four fimes, which included moredetoiled informotim on lhe opplicotim of the rules srd the instructiornl strotegies.Those sessions usuolly included opportunities for proctice of tte procedures (see theSite 2 Report for o complete descriptim).

Site 3 subjec ts were troined in fhe use of the decision-rules in o smoll grouptraining rnodel, <rlthough subjects who missed one of the two sessitrrs were trained inindividucl or srncll group ttmgke-uptt session$ {see the Site 3 Report for o cornpletedescription). fubjects ot Site 3

fud left school forwere trsined in two one+t&rr sessitrrs, conducted ofter

their rypils th€ doy, during the Fall of 1979" Subjec?s procticedopplying the rules for one, two or three practice exernples only,

Site 4 subjects were troined in the use of the decisian-rules in o individuolizedtroiling model. These subjects met individuolly with o member of the r6ffircF stoff,who directed troining toword specific exomple of progroms within ttre subjects'clossroom. Troining sessiqrs were scheduled of the subjectsr convenierrce. Four orfive thirty-minute troining sessions were usrrclly held with eoch subject.

lllo direct troining wos provided for subjecfs of Site l. Eoch of those subjectswos simply sent o copy of the Hondbook.

3l

Length of Troining

The length of troining time voried from site to site (Toble 16). The omount oftime spent ori ony one topic olso voried. Subjects from Site 3 spent only o few minutesdiscu*sing methods for collecting ond chorting doto, since those subjects indicoted thotthose topics were fomilior to them; subjects from Site 4 spent up to lh hours on thesome topics. The troining iime for Site 2 shows the time spent in sessions cmductedby the lH project, olthough opproximotely 15 hours were olso spent during theworkshop covering reloted oreos (e.g., conducting progroms, collecting ond chortingdoto).

Toble I5

LENGTH OF TRAINING

Site

Site I

Sjte 2

Site 3

Site 4

Troining Model

Hondbook Only (N=27)

Lorge Group (N=3 l)

Srnoll Group (N= I I )

lndividuolized (N= 12)

Troining Time in Hours/Subject

0

3. 75 (N= I 4)4.0 (N= 17)

2.0

2.5 (1.92-3.38)

Follow-up

lnformotion on the generol opplicotion of the decision-rules ond ossociotedprocedures wos ovoiloble to subjects of Sites 2, 3 ond 4 following troining. Thosesubjects were oble to request follow-up when they completed the PresentotionResponse Questionnoire. The requested informotion wos provided through individuolmeetings between project stoff ond the subject, on through telephone conversotions.Follow-up informotion on the opplicotion of the procedures to specific progroms wosolso ovoiloble to oll subjects who ogreed to odopt the decision-rules with their pupilsfor o triol period. Follow-up informotion wos ovoiloble on request provided by Mr.Corl Binder to Site I subjects. lnformotim wos provided either vio writtencommunicotion, personol visits, telephone conversotions or some combinotion ofmethods.

Doto Collection

Doto collection procedures were designed to provide informotion reloting to theodoptim of the decision-rule procedures by the subjects, the impocl of the proceduresm pupil performonce ond on estimote of their cost-effectiveness. lnformotionreloting to the odoption of procedures by subjects wos collected through o series ofquestionnoires. Doto on the impoct of the procedures on pupil performonce wosprovided by subjects who cmtributed pupil performqnce doto ond through subjectsrevoluotion of the procedures on questionnoires. Cost-effectiveness doto wereestimoted by project stoff for troining ond follow-up, ond subsequently reloted fo

33

oversll impat. Ench of the dola collection prr:cedures are described in the f<lllowingseclims.

Qr.lestionncires

Questimnoires oe cleorly lirnited os o method of doto colleclion. The rnojorlimitotions ore imposed by the type, construction, ond seguencing of items on theQuestisrnaire, by the return rote, by the reliobility of the doto so collected, ond bythe subjective nature of ony rotings provided by the subject. ln order to minimizeerrors coused ttrough the cmstruction of questionnoires, fieldJesting procedures wereused for the Bockgrotmd Questionnoire. However, since subsequent questionnoireswere designed to follor troining, ond since field-testing populotions ond project timewere limiled, the other questionnoires were not field tested prion to their use with thetolol subject somple. ln cder to improve the return rote, subjecls were prompted bytelephane or moil to return queslionnoires. The reliobility of the infsrnotim providedby tecchers wos not checked by project stoff. ln generol, o stondord 5 point Likertscole wos used sl items requiring subject rotings. The questionnoires weredministered in the sequence described below. Subjects were free to not onswer onyilem or questionnoire, ond free to witMrow from the study of ony time withoulpenolty of ony kind.

Elockground Ouestisrroire. ltems sr this Questionnoire cqrcerned informotionobout the pupils served by the subject, the ossistonce qvoiloble to the subject, theeducotionol bockgrourd, instructianol procedures ond evoluotim methods generollyutilized by the subject.

A droft of the bockground questimnoires wss prepored during the fourth projectyeor ond wos field tested to determine if the questions were understondoble,onsweroble, ond resulted the informotion desired. The test populoticr csrsisted ofhed teochers of the Experimentol Educotion Unit of the university of Woshington whovolunteered to ossisl the project. Fifth yeor octivities were not plonned of this site,s<r thot the porticipolior of the teochers in the field test would not compromise otherreseorch octivities. A third ord finol droft of the questionnoire wos prepored in April1979 incorporoting revisions bosed on the results of twelve test subjects. A copy offlre Bockground Questiqrnoire is ircluded in Appendix l.

Bockground Ouestionnoires, olong with the consent form ond introductory letter,were distributed to oll potentiol subjects. For 3 of the 4 siles, thot moteriol wqs givendirectly to potenliol subjects by reseorch stoff members. Moteriols were moiled toSite I subjects.

Presentotion Response Guestlemnaire, With the Present*tian ResponseQuestionnqire subjects provided on evoluotion of the troining ond were oble to requestfollor-up informotion 6l specific topics. There were two mojor ports of theOuestionnoire (Appendix l): "clority of informqtim presented", qnd- thttitude towordthe procedurestt. Both sections utilized o stondord Likert scole ond provided spoce forwritten comments. Minor chonges were mode in the questionnoire for sotne sites toreflect the cmtent of lroining provided. The Presentotion Response Questionnoirewos odministered to oll subjects {except Site l} following the conclusion of troining.

Fhndbook Ouestimnoire. The subjects'responses to the Flondbook Questionnoire(AppffiockontheclorityofinformotionpresentedintheHordbook of Experime4tg! llqcedureq. Subjects were osked to respond to questions an

ond to mqke ony comments or zuggestions

33

regcding the Hondbook in generol. The questionnoire wos moiled or given to subjectswho hod received o copy of the Hondboot. Usuolly two weeks elopsed between thedistribution of the Hondbook ond the distribution of the Questionnoire.

Triol Period Quesflonnalre. F*l [*wing fh* in[tial consent for porticipotion, theTriot PeriotlGGstimnoite-Afrpendix l) wos the most importont questionnoire os for osdetermining the willingness of the subjects to utilize the experimenlol procedures.Subjects who qreed to utilize the experinnentol procedures in the clossroom providedinformotion m the number of pupils ond progroms to which procedures would beopplied ond their estimotion of odministrotive support. They were olso given theopportunity to request follow-up ossistonce. For subjects who did not ogree tocantinue their porticipotion, severol items requested the reosqrs for their decision.This questionnoire wos distributed to subjects olong with the l-londbook Questionnoire.

Procedures Questionnoire. This questionnoire (Appendix l) wos designed toprovidffimpoctoftheexperimeniolprocedures.Theieweref ive portsHondbook;

to the Ouestionnoire: pupils served by the subject; usefulness of thegenerol ottitude toword the procedures; impoct of the procedures; ond

decisims os to further porticipotion ond utilizotion of the experimentol procedures.Chonges in the subjectsr ottitudes obout the procedures ond the l-lory]@!, forexompte, moy be detlrmined through comporison with their responses t6JiFiiiilitemson the Presentotion Response .ond Hondbook Ouestionnoires. The ProceduresGuestimnoire wos odministered to subjects who ogreed to continue projectporticipotion by utilizoting the experimentol procedures in thei;' instructionolprogromming. Subjects received the Procedures Questionnoire of the conclusion of thetriol period described in the Triol Period Ouestionnoire or ofter six weeks, whichevercome first. Subjects who selected longer Triol Periods, or who decided to cmfinueproject porticipotion, then received o second Procedures Questionnoire ofter onothersix week period. Unfortunotely, the conclusion of the project yeor prevented thedistribution of odditionol Procedures Ouestionnoires, which could hove been useful formmitoring continued chonges in ottitude ond impoct over time.

Pupil Performqnce Doto

Subjects who odopted the decision-rule procedures were osked to provide copiesof pupil performonce doto. lf provided by subjects, doto for eoch pupil ond eochprogrom were onolyzed to yield the following informofion:

fi)(2)(3)(4)(s)(5)

(7)

The type of doto collected by the subject.The totol number of colendor ond doto doys included.Whether or not the subject opplied the procedures oppropriotely.The number ond types of curriculor chonges mode.The number ond types of instructionol strotegy chonges mode.The number of chonges which were in occord with tlre rules ond the number thotwere not in accord with the rules.The effect of the strotegy chonges on pupil performonce for the first five doysfollowing on intervention (immediote increose or decreose in corrects or errors,ond chonges in direction or mognitude of trend).

The reliqbility of the doto collected on pupil performonce by teochers wos not checkedby project stoff.

Cost dota were estimoted for troining and for. follow-up. ln order to provide obosis for estimolion, personnel cnsts were estoblished occording to the followingsolories:

(l) A twetve month solory for o trainer wos estimoted to be $l7r(X)0, bosed m osolory structure provided by the University of llloshington. An overoge 8 hourdoy for <xr overoge of 20 doys per mmth wos used to colculote the hourrly rote of58.8s.(2, Bosed an infqmstion provided by the Seqtf Ie Public Schools, on overoge specioleducotisr teoc{rerst sotory wos estimoted ot $l8r75l} for sn 182 &y controct,with the hourly rote cotculoted at 512.88.(3) Cost of the Hondbook m Experimenfot Procedures wos colcutoted os $5.54 eoch,bosed m du onot moteriot provided to thesubjects m coltecting crd ctorfing dotq (@ $.70), secmds/decimol conversimfinders (@ $.12), ond proctice sheels for the opplicotion of the decision-rules (@

$.40) were colcutoted seporotely since thme moteriols were not originally

3,e

Cost Data

planned for inclusion i* the Handb*&"{l}} Totol troiner and ieacher cffibmsed on the

included preparcf ion tirne for the trainern typing[fureporction time x troiner hourly rote] + {no. of pcgeJ

Iength of troinlng tirne and the

cost, and rnoteriols cost,typed x $.50) + ntcteriolsl .

hourly ro?e estimsted for solaries.

preporotion time fs the troinerr troiner ond teocher solory costs for the length of thef(preparotionmeeting, <rnd the cost of ony msterials consurned dur ing the follow-up

{lengthteacher

time by trainer x hourly rate) + of meeting x trainer hourly rate + number ofsubjects) + (length af meeting x hourly rate x number of subjects) + materialcost]. Cost estimction for foll ow*up provided ?hrough written communicotlon

Dota Summcrization

lnformotion collected sr the questiannoires wos entered into o computer forsummorizotion. lnformotion from eoch item ond eoch subject wos coded iqdividuolly.Doto were entered vio SOS| qnd summorized through fhe System lOZ2z computerprogroms. Reliobility checks of o rondomly selected l0% of the srbjects were mode todetermine reliobility of doto entry. Errors in dolo entry were found m BockgroundGuestionnoire doto, so. eoch stry.wcs rechecked. A second check m EhckgroundGuestionnoire &to indicoted 100% reliobility. Reliobility checks for the rernoiningOuestionnoires olso showed 100% occurocy.

lffr. softwore SOS progrom utilized wos prepored by the Brookings lnstitutionComputer Center (Version 23).

2The softwore SYSTEM 1022 (Versim l13) utilized is copyrighted by The Softwore

House, ll05 Mossochusetts Avenue, Combridge, MA, lg7g. -

35

RESULTS

Evoluotion of Troining

Subjects were osked to rqte the clority of troining on o Likerf scole fromrrconfusing" (l) torrvery cleor" (5). All subjects who completed troining responded.Meon rotings ocross sites ore sho,rrn in Toble 16. Subjects who received individuolizedtroining from Site 4 generolly roted oll oreos os cleorer in presentotim thon subjectsfrom either the smoll or lorge group troining sessions. Subjects with previous troiningin Precision Teoching (N=21) roted the troining os less cleor thon did subjects withouto Precisim Teoching bockgrolnd (N=33). The overoll roting wos 4.3 for the first groupond 4.5 fon the second group. Theropists (N=13) roted eoch individuol presentotiontopic os tess cteor thon did teochers (N=38), olthough the overoll roting wos higher (4.5for the theropists ond 4.5 for the teqchers).

I

Tsble l6

SUBJECTS'RATINGS OF CLARITY OF TRAINING*

T I

IC

Generol purpose ofdecis i sr-r ule procedures

Estobl ishi ng i nstr uc tionslf ormots

Collect dato

Chort da to

Druw I i nes-of-progress

Use decision-rules

Remediati on strotegies

Overoll

te2

4.3 (N'30)

4.3 (N=3 I )

te3 il

4.5 (N*ll)

l,g (N= I l)

Site 4 lndi

4.5

14.7

5.0

4.9

4,9

4.9

5.0 (N= I 2)

4.7 (N*9)

AI

4.5 (N=53)

4.5 (N*5 l)

4.5

4.5

4,6

4.1+

4.2

4.5

(N*23)

(N* l4)

(N"3 l)

(N=3 l)

(N*3 l)

(N*30)

4.2

l+,6

,$,0

4.4

3,9

4.1

(N=ll)

(N*ll)

(N'll)

(N"ll)

(N=ll)

(N'll)

(N= l2)

(N* l2)

(N* l?)

(N* l2)

(N* I 2)

(N= l2)

t+.5

t+,6

f+.6

{$,5

I$ ,3

I+.5

(N*46)

(N*37)w

(N*54) $r

(N*54)

(N*54)

(N=53)

37

Attitude Fol lciwing Troining

Subjects were osked to rote o series of items in order to determine their ottitudetoword the experimentol procedures following troining. Subjects roted their generolottitude toword the procedures on o five-point Likert scole from 'tf 't (very unfovoroble)to tr5il (very fovaoble). Subjects who received individuolized troining provided morefovorqbte rotings thon subjecis from other sites, but oll meon rotings were obove 4.2,ond the overoll meon wos 4.38 (foble lD. No subject roted their generol ottitude osless thon r'3'r. Subjects roted their opinion os to the usefulness of the procedures ingenerol m o five-point scole from I (not ot oll useful) to 5 (very useful). The subjectsfrom Site 2, the lorge group, roted the usefutness higher thon ony other site (4.6), butoll groups were similor (Toble l7). No individuol subject roted usefulness less thon'r3rr.

Subjects were olso osked to rote the opplicobility of the procedures to theirteochinglituotion ('rl'r= not of oll opplicoble' [5tr= very opplicoble). The meon rotingson opplicobility to their own situotion were lower in mony oreos thon the meon rotingsfor generol usefutness (Toble l7). Subjects from Site 2 (Lorge Group troining) rotedthe procedures generolly more opplicoble in their settings thon did teochers from theother two sites. Severol subjects roted the opplicobility of conducting doilyinstructionol progroms occording to o consistent plon in their situotions os rr2r'. Oneperson roted the opplicobiliry of chorting doto os tr1tr, while oll other individuol subjectronkings were rr3rr or obove.

The meon rotings of the theropists were lower in oll oreos thon these of theteochers. Theropists felt thot conducting instructimol progroms on o doily bosis wosless opplicobte to their situotion (theropist's meon roting wos 3.6, teogherrs meonroting wos 4.6). Two of lhe lowest meon rotings shown in Toble 17 bre for theopplicobility of conducting instructimol progroms. lf theropist's scores ore sePorotedfrom those of the teochers, however, Site 2 teocherrs meon roting is 4.5, Site 3teocherts roting is 4.7, ond Site 4, where there were no theropisls, remoins of 4.8.

Teochers who reported previous troining in Precision Teoching generolly rotedboth their generol ottitude, the usefulness, ond the opplicobility of the procedureshigher thon did subjects witholt such troining. The meon roting of generol ottitude ofsubjects with Precision Teoching troining (N=21) wos 4.48, os compored with o meon of4.18 for the "no precisim teoching" subjecfs (N=33). This difference in meon rotingsheld true for oll oreos except chorting. Subjects with Precisim Teoching troiningroted chorting os tess opplicoble in their situotion (4.231 thon did subjects withoutPrecisim Teoching (4.48).

Subjects with ossistonce in their clossrooms (N=45) found the procedures tnoreuseful ond opplicoble to their situqtims thon did teochers who did not hove onyossistonce (N=8).

Toble I?

ATTITUDT TOWARD PROCEDURIS TOTLOWING TRAINING

Presentotim Topic Site 2 (Lorse Group) sire 3 (Smo II Grouo) Site 4 (lndividuqlized) All Subiects

Generol sttitude towsrdprocedures'

Generol usefy lness ofprocedures*

Applicabitlry to theirsituatirr

4,4

4,6

(N=3 l)

(N=3 l)

4,2

4.5

4.4

4.2

4,2

(N=10)

(N=ll)

(N=ll)

(N=ll)

(N=ll)

4.6

4.5

,+,3

4.9

4.9

4.5

4.8

[.9

(N= l2)

(N= l2)

(N* l2)

(N= l2)

(N" l2)

(N= l2)

(N* l2)

(N= t2)

4.38 (N=53)

4.56 (N=54)

4.33 (N*54)

r+.32 (N'53)

4.57 (N*54)

h,h6 (N,S4)

4.54 (N=54)

4. SS (N"S4)

Oversll

Conduct instructimolprogrorn$

Col lect performonffidcta

Chsrt doto

Use &cisiqr-rules

Use remediql strategies

4,t4 (N*3 I )

4.2 (N=30)

4.5 (N=3 l)

4, | (N*l l)

4, I (N*ll)

4.5 (N= l l)wgo

4.5

{+.5

4.6

(N=3 l)

(N=3 l)

(N"3 l)

lronked cn o five-polnt Likert scole, rrlrt= v€fy unfovqobte to rrstr- very fovoroble

2ronked on o five-point Likert scole, rrtrr= verl useful to ilstr- not of oll useful

3ronked m o five-poinl Llkert scole, rf lil= not ot otl opplicoble to il5rr= very opplicoble.

39

Cost of Troining

Subjects who received no troining other thon receipt of the l-{ondbook presentedthe loweit troining costs ($5.54/subject). Among subjects who receivecEiiect troiningin use of the decision-rules, the subjects troined in o smoll group of nine ot Site 3 hodthe lowest per subject cost, ot 535.15 per subject. This difference wos probobly due tothe difference in length of troining time between those subjects ond subjects ot othersites, olthoryh the troiner-subject rotio is olso.importont (e.9., the cost for o subjecttroined individuolly ot Site 4 for 1.92 hours wos $54.56). (See Toble 18.)

Cost ltertr Site I

Tuble I8

TRAINING COSTS*

Site 2 Site 3 Site 4

Trc ining rot io

Troining tirne in hours

Troiner cmt persubject @ $8.85/l-rr

none

none

none

none

l: I7

4.0

$ 3.64

$ sr.s?

lr 14

3.75

$ 3.92

l:9

2.0

$ 2.,69

l: l**2.75

$ 24.34

l14*'*

2.34

$ s. 15

lrZ

2.67

$ l4. oa

Subject solory fortroining @ $ 12.88/hrper subject

Hondbook & troiningmcten iols

$ 6. Bg $ 6.99 $ 6.g9 $ 6.7 5

$ 49.30 $ 25.76 $ 34.65 $ 30. 14 $ 34.39

$ B. lo $ 8. lo $ 8. lo

Cost Per Subject $ 6.gg $ 6z.rs $sg.zr $3s.ls $6l,gs $4d.39 $63.16

No. subjects trained

Totol troiner cost

Totol subject solory

Totol mater ials

Totol per trcining rqtio

*excluding trovel costs**medion per subject

27

none

none

$rg6"03

$ I 86.03

l7

$ 6r.BB

$ B7s. ur

$ il 8.93

$ r os6.5s

l4

$ 54.99

$676.20

$ 97 .a6

$aeg ,94

ll

$ 29.59

$293.36

$ 74.?5

$396.55

6

$ r4? .?6

$zor.90

$ 48.60

$3gg .7 6

4

$ 32,60

$t20"56

$ 32.40

$r72,?l

2

$ 29.04

$ 69.79

$ 16.20

$126,32

2

4!

Follor-Up After Troining

Follow-up wos provided to subjecls following troining (or following receipt oft-londbgd{ ot their request. Twenty-six of the 8l subjects (32%) completing troiningnequ dfoltow-up infamotion: 4of 27 U5%') ot Siie I ftlq!@ggk Onty); 18 of 3l(58%) of Site 2 (Loige Group); 2 of ll (18%) of Site 3 (SmolEroupFond 2of l2(17%lof Site 4 (lndividuolized).

Follow-rrp fa fotrr subjects of Site I included seven telephme colls. Cost ofthese colls (excluding long distonce chorges) wos S0.64. Follow-up to eighteensubjects of Site 2 included seven short, individuol meetings following troining sessionsord twelve telephme colls. Cost of these follgw-ups (excluding long distonce ondmileoge chorges) wos $61.30. Follorr-up to two subjecls ot Site 3 included twopersmol visits, qt o cost of $14.34. Three phme colls to me srbject ord o visit tooriother subject ot Site 4 were provided, ot o cost of 56.14 (excluding mileoge).

Evoluotion of Hondbook

Fifty of the 8l subjects returned the fiHqndbook Ouestionnoirerf (62%l' 63% ofSite I subjects, 45% of Site 2 subjects, 73% from Site 3 qd 92% from Site 4. Subjectsroted the csrtent of the Honllqgf( of Experimentol Procedures qt o scole frorn trl[(Confqsing) to "5" (Very ed to rote the textdercriptians of the stoges of leorning ond the instructionol strotegies reloted to themos more understondoble thon the decision-rules ond the technicol informotion on theiropplicotim (Toble l9). Subjects from the smoll grorrp troining roted the l-{ondbookhigher overoll thon subjects ot other sites.

Theropists (N=5) spent q medion of 2 hours reviewing the Hondbook, os didteochers (N=44), ond the meon medion roting for the two groups wos obout fhe some(4.4 ond 4.36, respectively). Subjects with o bockground in Precision Teoching rotedthe Fhndbook os less cleor (4.27, N=32) thon did subjects without such troining (4.58'N=tE),-6t-tnotagll those with troining hod o higher return rote Q4% ond 40yo,respectively).

- Subjects who roted the procedures os most opplicoble (5) in their

situotian were more likely to return Hondbook Questionnoires (N=l7r7l%, ond rote theHondbook higher (meon medion roting 4.47) thon those who roted the procedures osiess oppl'rcob-le (N=16, return rote 53% ond meon medion roting of 4.38). Similorly,those who reported o very fovonoble ottitude toword the procedures were more likelyto return the Hondbook Guestionnoire (N=16r 70% return) ond rote the Hondbook oscleor (meon medion roting of 4.5),thon those whose reported ottitude wos lessfovoroble (N= 17, return rote 5396, meon medion roting of 4.35).

Toble l9

EVALUATION OF THE HANDBOOK OF EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES*

Cmtent

How to usedecisim-rules

Rules for Rote &Quick Reference forUse of Rules

Rules for 16 CorrectQuick Reference forUse of Rules

Ouick References forInter vent im Strotegies

Technicol informqtionfor opplicotim (drow-ing I i nes-of ,-progressdeter mi ninE vor iabi I i ty,etc.)

Textl lnstructionolFormots

Textl Acquisitim

Textl Fluency-Bui lding

Site I

Hondbook Only

4.29N= l7

3.67N" l5

3.0N= l0

4.65frf=I7

3,47N= l7

4.65N= l7

site 2

Lorge Group

4.39N* l3

Site 3Srnoll Group

4.75N"8

Site 4Individuolized

3, 82N"ll

3.64N=ll

All Subjects

l+,29N=49

3.94N=47

3.97N*3 I

4.49N=50

3.86N=49

4.5N=50

4.34N=50

4.39N=49

4,49N=49

4.38

4.29N= 14

4.?gN= 14

I[.36N=14

4.07N= 14

4.57N* l4

4.57N" l4

4,29N=14

4,5N= 14

4.5

2.5 hrs.25-8 hrs

4,29N=7

4.71N=7

4.63N=8

4.39N=8

4.5N=8

4,63N=8

tl.7 I

N*7

4,75N=8

4.63

1.75 hrs,5-3 hrs

3.8N= l0

4,27N=ll

4, 18N*ll

4. l2N* l7

4. lgN=ll

l+.47

N* I74. l8N=ll

Textl Complionce 4.39N= l6

Meon lvtedion Rsting 4,79

Time Spent Reviewing 2,75 hrsMedion & Ronge l* l0 hrs

4,45N=l I

4. l8

2.00 hrs,25- l0 hrs

2.00 hrs.25- l0 hrs

*All items were roted on o Likert Scole from I (Confusing) to 5 (Ver), Cleor)

43

Adoption of Decision-Rules

The return rote for the "Triol Period Ouestionnoirerrwos 75% (61 of 8l returned),with 63% from Site l,52% from Site 2, ond 100% from both Sites 3 ond 4 returningthis questionnoire. Of these 5l subjectsr 44 (72%) ogreed to odopt the decision-rulesfa o triol period.

The seventeen subjects who returned the questionnoire ond decided not to odoptthe procedures gove vorious reosons for their decisions.(l) Nine subjects reported thot they thought the procedures woutd toke too much

time. These subjects reported (on the Bockground Questimnqire) spending on. overoge of 2 hours per week plonning. Subjects who ogreed to odopt the

procedures, on the other hond, spent o meon of 4.6 hours per week plonning. Twoof these rrnofr subjects hod no help during the week, ond one subject hod 6 hoursof ossistonce per week. The five other rrnorr subjects hod obout the some omountof help per week (41 hours) os did the I'yes'r subjects who reported hovingossistonce.(2) One subject reported thot the procedures were not oppticoble to her severety ondprofoundty hondicopped pupils since I'high response frequenciesrr were requiredfor their implementotion, ond her pupils were not copoble of such high rotes(misi nterpretotion of procedures).

(3) Three subjects reported thot the procedures were not compotible with theircurriculo.

(4) One subject reported thot the procedures were not compotible with the type ofinstruction provided in his/her closs. This subject conducted progroms once perweek.

(5) One subject, who olso reported insufficient time to use the procedures, soid thothe/she wos uncleor how to opply the procedures, olthorgh this subject roted olloreos os either cleor q very cleor following troining, ond did not request onyfollow-up.(5) Three subjects gove personol reosons (i.e., unemployed) os reosms for not usingthe procedures.

The seventeen 'rnorr subjects included ten teochers, I odministrotor ond six theropists,while three theropists ond 4l teochers ogreed to use the procedures. Sixty-eightpercent of the "yes" subjects ond 76% of the trno'r subjects reported thot other teochersin their school were using the decision-rules, while 87% of therryes'r subjecfs ond76%of the rrnofl subjects reported thot their odministrotion supponted the use of thedecision-rules (Toble 20). A comporison of the two groups of subjects on o number ofother voriobles is sho,.rn in Toble 20.

I

Var itlbtre

r*4

Toble 20

COMPARISON OF SUBJECTS AGREEING TO ADOPT PROCEDURES

VS. zuBJECTS IST AGREEII{G

{N=#l} Not Aoree to Use (N= l7)Agree Ta

Av. Closs SIze

Subjects with cssistsnceMeon hours per week

Teoching experience

Preisim Teaching troining

Conduc? instruction of leastonce per dsy

Provide at least l0 respmseoppffitunities

Collect dats on of least85% of progrorns

Collect dsts every tirneprogrcrTl run

Use rcte dotarsnked lf I dota type

Use percent correct dotoronked {t I dota type

Croph pupi I doto

fvtean Plonning time

Meon ronking of trsining

Mean ronking of generol ottitude

fif,eon ranking of usefulnessof procedures

Mesn ranking of opplicobilityof procedures

7 .t+6 pupi !s

9l%4l hours

3 yeors

36% of subjects

B0% of subjmts

59% of subjects

82% of subjects

6t+% of subjects

73% of subjects4l% of subjects

68 A of subjects43% of subjects

6l% of subjects

4.6 hours per week

4"52

4.55

4.55

4"44

8.88 pupils

76%38 hours

t+.9 yeors

4l% of subjects

45% of subjects

2t+% of subjects

4l % of subjects

lB% of subjects

59% oflB% of

subjectssubjects

7l% of subjects19% of subjects

4l% of subjects

3.00 hours per week

4.5

4. IB

4.6

3.9

Excluding those with closses over 20 pupils per doy (7 teochers in [yes,'column).I

45

Actuol Adoption of Procedures

Of the 44 subjects who ogreed to use the procedures, 3l reported m the use ofthose procedures. The other thirteen subjects either foiled to use the procedures orfoiled to repat m their use. A comporism of those subjects who octuolly used theprocedures (N=31) ond those subjects who did not use lhe procedures (N=50) is shown inToble 21. The zubjects who did not use the procedures included oll subjects whocompleted troining, including both lhose who did not return o Triol PeriodQuestiqrnoire (N=20), those who returned o questionnoire but decided not to use theprocedures 1p=17), ond those who ogreed to use the procedures, but eilher did not doso, or did not report on their use (N=13).

Subjects troined individuolly (Site 4) showed the highest percentoge of odopt1q1,whit€ suSlects troined in the torge group (Site 2) hod the iowest rote (Toble 221.Hourever, the single most importont vorioble in odoption moy be previous troining inPrecision Teoching, ond only 19% of the subjects from Site 2 reported such troining.

Vnr icbte

t4*

Tabie ? I

coMpAftlsoN or S{"JBJICTS r.J$lr-{fi il}ilCiStOr+RULTS I Arup

SUBJECTS NOT USINC DHCI$I#N*RULES?

{",}s*d Declsl m"l Rwt*s{N=3tr}

Did Not Use1111=S0)

fYPils

Total fx"tpils servedolo learnlng dlsabled% mi tdly handicapped% rnaderotely h$ndiccpped% severely handicopped96 profm.rnd ly h*ndicapped% ofher

% moderste + severe + profound

Assistance

subjects with helpfiveroge hours per weekr(tftge

Exssr-Lq*se

subjects with experienceye$rs *f teoching

rGftge

speclml educsf ion yffirs

!6 of subjrcts with PrecisionTecchins trslning

Pro f*ss i**r

teacherstherapists{mdnrrinistr*tors}

3{F33% of pupils

*G%t6%dsl%

x7%I2%

7d$%

$3% of subjects49.I* hourst$*122 hours

97"& af subjects6.$3 ye$rs| *?7 yeors

5.53 yecrs

65% cf subjects

97"* of subjects3%0%

l23Ir3% of pupilsffi

?4%27%74%t0%

7*%

8?% of subjects53 hours4*l+7 6 hours

?B% of subjects5 " 57 yeorsI-28 yeors

4. 52 yenrs

{t0% of subjects

68% of subjects?6%

5%

Sr"bjects who ogreed fo use procedures ond reported m their use (N=3 t).2l*lrd",

subjects who did not return questionnoire (N=20),subjects who did not ogree to use procedures (N= l7) qndsubjects who ogreed to use but did not use or reporl cn use (N= l3).

49

Rules Avoiloble

when to step oheod- oll progromssome progroms

when pupil rnet oim-- oll progromssome progrqms

when to step bock--- oll progrornssome progroms

when to chonge strotegies--oll progromssome progroms

;

wlrot strotesi es tc'> choTfiXlrff:fiI'

subjects with sorne rules

subjects with ol I rules

58% of subjects42%

7l%l6%

30%30%

57o47"/o

l0%29"iD

r00%

35%

47% of subjects44%

46Y"42olD

33o.h39Vo

tB%26%

14,630%

96%

37o,h

Roting of Troining

Overoll

generol purpose of proceduresdoto col lectimcharting dotodrow lines-of-progressuse decision-rules

N=23

4.52

N=3 I

4.47

4.34.34.54.524.39

7576565

44444

Attitude Following Troining

generol ottitude toword proceduresusefulness of proceduresopplicobility to their situotion

overo llconduct instructionol progromscol lect perf orrnonce dotochort performonce dotouse decision-rulesstrotegies

N=23

4.574.61

N=3 I

4.234.52

4.lg4.04.394.lg4.364.42

5274B3B37B74

444444

Request Help Fol lowinq Troininq 52o/" of subjects 68% of subjects

5S

Iuqpst

sdministrotive support use ofprocedures

other teochers use procedures

N=3 I

26% of subjects

90% of subjects

N=50

40% of sulrjects

53% of suLrjects

Rcting of Hcndbook

how to <rpply rulesrulesquick reference guldestechnical cmten?estoblish instructisnl fonmotocquisi t isr strategiesf luency-bui lding strotegiesstrotegies for complionce

medion roting

t irne spent reviewing

4.53,84.54.14.64"54.54.3

4.74,04.53.74.5I*. 34. r[4.7

N=30

4.4

2.85 hours

N=2S

4.35

?.5 hours

5l

Toble 22

RATE OF ADOPTION OF PROCEDURES BY TRAINII\G MODEL

Subj ec ts tr q ined

Subjects with previousPrecisim TeschingTro ining

Rote of returnl

Hondbook Only

N=27

78^/a

67%

56Yo

30%

Lorge Group

N=3 I

t9%

58"/o

354/o

19"/o

Srnoll Group

N=ll

82,6

100"6

55o/o

55o/o

lndividuolized

N= l2

67Yo

10006

t00%

92o/o

Agreed to useprocedures

Actuolly ,t",procedures-

Continue touse procedures 3 87% 100"6 83Yo 100"6

lR.trrn rote of I'Triot Period Questionnoire'r, in which the subjectsreported their decision toodopt or not odopt the procedures. Subjects who did not return the questionnoire ore clossifiedos I'not odoptingrt.,'lncludes only those subjects who reponted on use of the procedures. Colculqted from the totolsubjects troined.?'Those subjects who reported thot they plonned on ccntinuing to use the procedures followingthe conclusion of the project. Colculoted from those subjects who ocutolly used the procedures.

52

Applicotim of Decision Rules

The thir?y-ore subjects who reporled sr the use of the decision-rules opplied theprocedures in o totol of 2?7 instrr.rctionol progroms with 82 pupils over o totol of 391weeks (Toble 23). The oge ronge of these pupils wos l-29, with the mojonity between3-23. Most opplied the procedures with o few of their pupils, olthougtr some opplieddecisim-rules fo ot leost one progrorn for eoc*r pupil in their clossroom. The higheslproportiur of prpils offected by the decisiqr-+ules were those tought by Site 2leochers, who were troined in the lorge group (Tqbte 23), while teochers who weretroined irdividuolly opplied ttre procedures to the fewest numbers of pupils.

T*bfe 33

APPLXCATION *T PftSCIDURIS

Handbook

Subjects uslngdecision*rutres

Totatr pupils servd

Pupils offected bydecision*rules

Pragrems

T<ltol weeksMean per subject

Large Craup Smcll GraurpTraining Trsining

6 6

7t *7

I

IndividuallzedTraining

llr33

22t7?$

3l

978.8

Total

3I

303

B??7%

777

39 I

I 2.6

52

l3?5%

49

698.6

3042%

95

!ls|9.6

I736%

52

ts7I7"g

Subjects reported on the use of rote doto in 72 progroms, the use of odjusted rote datoin 44 progroms, the use of percent ccrect doto in 42 progroms, the use of durolion pertriol doto in 30 progroms, the use of durotion per session in three progroms ond lhe useof lotency doto in six progroms. Doto types for the other thirty progroms were notprovided. Prion to troining, thirteen of the thirty-one subjecls (42%l stoted thot theymost often used percent correct doto. Of these, two collected percent carect dotoexclusively for the triol progroms, eight collected time-bosed doto only, ond threecollected q mixture of doto types. Before troining, eleven of the subjects (35%) stotedthot they most often used rote doto, ond lhese subjecls opplied the decision-rules inprogroms in which they collected time-bosed doto. Six subjects reported thot theypreferred to use either o count of behoviors or c count of triols doto typel but, duringthe triol period, they opplied the decisim-rules primorily in progroms in which time-bosed doto were collected.

The mojaily of subjects opplied the minirnum 'celerofian procedure for use oflhe decision+ules ffoble 24), olthough six subjects from Sites I ond 2 who were toughtboth procedures olso used ttre drow potlerns procedure.

53

Toble Zt+

APPLICATION OF DECISION-RULE PROCEDURES

Procedure lr&;mber of Subiects Usinq

Minirnum'celerotion procedure for time-baseddoto opplied to time-bqsed doto

Minimum 'celerotion procedure for tlme-boseddoto opplied to percent correct doto

Drow potterns procedure for time-boseddoto opplied to time-bosed doto

Drow potterns procedure for percent-correctdoto opplied to percent correct doto l*

*One Eubject tried both procedures

Use of Hondbook

Eleven subjects roted the Hondbook os less cleor during opplicotion of theprocedures thon prior to opplicotion, five subjecfs roted the Hondbook higher duringopplicotim, ond thirteen subjects roted no chonge. The meon medion roting of theHondbook prior to opplicotion wos 4.48 ond during opplicotion (on the first proceduresGuesiimnoire) wos 4.23 (Toble 25). However, since the questionnoires differed, ocornporison is not too useful, olthough the some scole wos used. The questions on thefrProcedures Questimnoirert osked subjects to rote individuol ports of the technicolinformotion section seporotely, olthough these topics hod been gro:ped under oneheoding on the "Hondbook Questionnoire". This chonge wos mode in order todefermine which oreos of the l-londbook needed mojor revisions.

23

l*

3

Toble 25

SUBJECTS'RATINGS* OF THE HANDBOOK DURING APPLICATION OF PROCEDURES

Content

How to use decisim*rules

Decision Rules ond Quick*References Guides

Technicol lnf orrnoti onDrqwing Lines of Frogress

Determining Percent Correct

Shorp Decelerotion incorrects

Text; Instruc timolf ormsts

First Report $econd Report

4.48N=29

4.58N=29

3,7N=30

3,3 I

N=29

3.62N=29

4.3N=30

4.0N=ll

4,64N=11

Third ReportN=5

4.6

4,8

Fourth ReportN=l

5

4

3.2N=10

3.73N=ll

4,2N=10

4.09N=ll

4"18N=ll

5

5

5

5

{+

4

f+

4

4,4

3.6

3.6

4.7

4,2

4.0

4.4

4.8

4"2

Text: 'Acquisitim 4. l7N=29

Text : Fluency*Bui lding 4,07N"30

Text: Complionce 4,1+7

N=30

Mean Median Roting 4,23N*30

4.0N=ll

4.0N=ll

I$.46

N=ll

4. l8N*ll

*Rated on o likert scole of I (uncleor) to 5 (very clesr)

4.5

Deter mining Per f or rnoncever"iobility

55

Attitude Toword the Procedures

The ottitude of the subjects toword the use of the decision-rules ond theossocioted procedures wos lower during opplicotion thon prior to opplicotion (Toble?6'). Subjects roted their ottitude toword the collection of performonte doto os mostfovoroble, ond toword drowing lines of progress os most unfovoroble overoll. Thesubjects who reported more thon once (N=ll) generolly increosed their ottitude roting.

Toble 25

SUBJECTS'RATINGS* OF THEIR ATTTTUDE DURING APPLICATION OF PROCEDURES

Prior toApp licat ion

Att itude Areo

Using procedures whenprogrcms ore estoblished

4.72

First Report

4, l4N=29

4.73N=30

4.43N=30

4.29N=30

3.79N"29

4.52N=29

4,49N=29

4.36N*30

During Applicotion

Second Report Third ReportN=ll N=5

4,45 4,6

Fourth ReportN=l

5

Col lecting directper formonce dotq

4.g l

Charting performance dsts 4.86

Drowing rninirnumrcelerat im lines

Drowing Iines*of-progress

Using decislm*rules

Using interventionstrategies

Overoll

4.72

4.59

n

Il

5.0

5.0

5.0

4,2

d.4

4.4

5.0

4.0

4,77

4.55

4.36

{.45

3.9 I

4.36

4.09

5

4

4

4

5

4

5

*Roted on o Likert scale of I (unfovoroble) to 5 (very favoroble)

57

PIonn Time

Prior to opplicotim of the procedures, the thirty-one subjects reported o meonplonning time of 4.06 hours per week (ronge l-10 hours per week). During theopplicotion of procedures, the group overoged 2.24 hours per week (ronge l-5 hours)during the first reporting period. Of the thirty-cre subjects, one subject reporled onincreose of I hour per week in plonning time during the opplicotim of the procedures,ond three reported no chonge in plonning time. Twenty-six subjects reported odecelerqtion in plonning time: eight reported decreoses of me hour per week; five oftwo hours per week; five of three hours per week; four of four hours per week, ondfour of five hours per week.

Subjects were osked to estimote how their plonning time during the use of theprocedures compored with plonning time prior to use. The zubject thot reported onincreose olso estimoted sr increose, ond of the three subjects whose plonning timeremoined the some, qre estimoted on increose, one o decreose ond one correctlyestimoted no chonge. Of the 26 subjects whose plonning time octuolly decreosed, onlythree

.correctly estimoted the decreose, while l0 estimoted no chonge ond 13

estimoted on increose.

. Eleven subjects filed o secmd report. The medion hours plonning for this grouPprior to opplicotion wos 3 hours per week (ronge l-10)r ot the first report il wos I hour(ronge 0-5 hours) ond, ot the secmd report it wos olso one hour per week. Eightsubjects reporled no chonge between the first ond secmd reports, two subjectsincreosed one hour eoch, ond qte subjectts plonning time decreosed by four hanrs perweek.

Five subjects reported o third time. Two of these subjects reported no chonge infheir plonning time between the secmd ond third reporting period, two subjects eochreported on increose of one hour per week, ond me subject reported on increose from0 hours to two hours per week.

5S

lmpat m Pupil Perfcmonce

The impoct of the use of decision-.rules an pupil performcnce wos determined bysubjects' estimotion of impoct, crd by onolyses of pupil perforrnonce doto shored withthe project stoff.

Srbiectsr Estimotim of lmpoct

Twenty subjects, who opplied the procedures in progroms tor 63 pupils, estimotedthot the use of the decision-rules ccceleroted pupil progress (Toble 27), while sevensubjects, wifh lZVo of the pupils, estimoted thot they mode no difference to theprogress of the pupils. One subject, who opplied the procedures with three pupilsestimoted thot pupil progress wos deceleroted. Three subjects, working with sixpupils, estimoted thot ?he decision-rules scceleroted progress in some coses, butdeceleroted progress in ollrers.

Toble 27

SUBJECTS' ESTIMATION OF IMPACT OF PROCEDURES ON PUPIL PROGRESS

Estimotion S.6jects Pupils

occeleroted pupil progress 65% of subjects 77% of pupils2013t 63182

rnode no difference to pupil progres.s

decelercted pupi I progress

?3%7l3t

3%[/3 I

t2%talaz

4%3/sz

occelerated in sorne, deceleroted!n some I0%

3/3 r

Analyses of Puoil Perform{nce Dato

Subjects who used the procedures were osked to shore pupil performonce dotowith the project. Nineteen of the thirly-one subjects shored doto for o totol of 5lqyplls $2% of fhose offected by the procedures). Doto for o totol of 136 progroms,60% of the totol, were provided (Toble 28). Atl subjects from Site 3, the smotigrouptroining, shqred qlmost oll of their dotc, while five of the eleven Site 4 subjects, whowere troined individuolly, shored little rnore thon holf of rheir doto (Toble 2B).

The chorted doto provided by the subjects were onolyzed in ader to determineproblems subjects encounlered during opplicotion of the procedures. The dotoprovided by six of the nineteen subjects shoured cmsistent errtrs in ?he opplicotion ofthe decision-rule procedures. These errors were of three mojor typesl (l) foilure tochonge when prpil did not rreet the minimum rceterotion line for three cmsecutivedoys; (2) foilure lo correctly drow o new minimum tcelerotion line qfter o chcnge wosmode; (3) foilure lo drow lines-of-progress. Subjects who mode serious errors usuollymode oll three types of errors. Subjects who foiled to chonge usuolly either chonged

7%6l*z

59

lote q drew o new minimum rcelerction lirre insteod of chonging o strotegy. Most lqtechonges, ond oll coses where new lines were drown, foiled to occelerote pupil progress.

Pupil performonce doto, including those in which subjects foiled to correctlyopply procedures, were onolyzed to determine the types of intervention strotegiesselecled ond their impoct cr pupil performonce. An interventiqr wos cotegorized ossuccessful if it resulted in (l) gn immediote step-up (increose) in the levet of correctresponding greoter thon x1.09'; tr, (2) occeleroting correct performonce of of Ieostx1.09 if previous performonce wos unchonging or deceleroting, orr if previousperformonce wos occeleroting, o x1.09 improvement in occelerotion; or, (3) in the coseof error correction procedures on immediote step-down (decreose) in the level of errorrespmding greoter thon x1.09 ond o decelerotion of error responding of ot leost +1.09.

Eoch interventim onolyzed hod o minimum of five doto doys both before ondofteq the intervention. ln coses where chonges were step oheods in the curriculum, thesuccess or foilure of the chonge wos not determined, since the results of such ononolyses would depend in greot meosure m the suitobility of the curriculor steps ondm the performonce oims selected by clossroom teochers. A summory of the pupilperformonce dofo is shown in Toble 29. More detoiled descriptions of the doto oreincluded in the individuol site reports.

The success of the subjects'decisions to chonge instructionol strotegies rongedfrom 0% (when one chonge wos mode) to 100% (when nine chonges were mode). As ogroup, the nineteen subjects who shored doto successfully remedioted pupil progress58% of the time remediotion chonges were mode. Subjects from Site 2 were generollymore successful thon subjects from other sites. Subjects from Site 4 showed thelowest percent of success, 59%.

The strotegies subjects octuqlly implemented were compored with the strofegiesthst were defined for eoch cose fhrough opplicotion of the decision-rules, to determinehow often teochers octuolly implemented the suggested remediotion strotegies (Toble30). Teochers could, for exomple, opply the decision-rule procedures ond determinethot the rules suggested on ocquisition problem, ond thot some strotegy designed toprovide informotion m how to respond should be implemented. The teocher could,however, choose insteod to odd roisins for correct responses. ln such o cose, theleocher woutd not be following o recommended strotegy.

Subjects who generolly used o recommended strotegy (e.g., subject 5207) hodhigher success rotes thon subjects who used recommended strotegies less often (".g.,subject 5404), olthough subject 5339 followed the rules four times, ond pupilperformonce improved only twice. Overoll, the subjects opplied recommendedstrotegies 6O% of the time. Subjects from Site 2 opplied the recommended strotegiesmost often, ond olso hod the highest percentoge of successful decisions.

Pupil progress moy be occeleroted by use of the decision-rules under twoconditions: (l) the pupil proceeds more quickly through tJre curriculum, toking fewerdoys to reoch oim thon without the use of the rules or (2) tfre frequency of remediotiondecisims decelerotes or (3) the percentoge of successful remediotions occelerotes.Both (2) ond (3) obove should olso result in foster progress through the curriculum.

11.09 *o, selected since it is the quontity of chonge thot con be generolly noted byvisuol inspecfion of the dofo; olthough oll onolyses were mode using stondord trendcolculotim procedures.

. 'eutlt eql Io %g'L!_ ro 'sesD3 t? I ,o I I I roJ pleq salnr eqr Jo l11p;3oa ea1lclpa.rd aq1';lorang .sasDc

Lg to Le bl enrt pleq arnllD; lo uo!+clpard eq1 'salnr eq+ lo l11p11oaea11c1pad eql aulurralap o{ l1gunpuddo aql 6u;plnord ugo6o ta.rn;gog ;rdnd ;o uollclpardD u! +lnsar Hrpt ,(6a1o.r1s popueuJutooaluou D asn ol uo!s!3op o.l;asraarrcf, .([e algDl)uollres snogaard eql u! paqlr3sep lcodurl tnlssaoons D Io rro!+!u!J€p eq+ 6uiin .sasfrgg Io tL nl enrt plaq uo;gclpard s1q1 .selnr-tols!3ap eq] 1o fi1p;1oa aa1lc1pa.rd aq11o g.rod seqlrrsep elDralaosD seop sse.r6o.rd l1dnd pw) enrl splot{ uollo;perd s;q1 seur!+ }oregtllnu aql .ssa.r6ord ;gdnd a1o;ale3eD ;11m l6a1o:ls aq+ IDr{+ r.roltclperd olco; ap D s!elnj elll rillrYr Pro33D u! apDu aEuoqc y .salnJ eql /q pa5e66ns se;6a1or1s uollua^re{ulaqt qllrta PJoscD u! sDrA a6uoqc aq+ pu lo Jeq+aq/s eulurJalep o+ pasn a.rarrr apou.r ,(aq1sa6uoqc l6alor$ uolluelrelul ;o sadlf er{f 1o slca[qns et{l ,(q apoul sLr'lloloN

salnu-uolslJeo Jo ^cDrnJ3v

'peplnod D+Dp aq+ ,tq paugturalap aqlouuDc e3uDur.lorJad l1dnd rp seJnporold aql tro lcodurl lDnl3D oql slaler^o;-1 -sura;qord

,o uollDlpatrreJ Jo, sa16a1orp lDrJollcnllsul ug saEuoqc l;lo1cedsa .sa6uor.lr Jo requnueql asDaJou! ol sDr$ setnJ-uolsloap etll ;o lcodtul ro[ou.l aql +Dr{+ pe66ns DtDp asoql'(lt atqDg setnluolsroap aq+ ro uollDollddo aq1 6u1rnp pro eroJeq qloq ecuDurrclrad;;dnd *roqs saop sgca[qns er{l }o auo }o aplD uD puD slca[qns aalql ulorJ alqDtlD^Do+DO .pa[o.rd eql ol elgDllDAD epDur +ou ale,vr setnl-LplslJap er{l ;o rrc11oc;1ddoeq1 6u1rnp puD eJolaq qfoq eouDtu-rllJed g;dnd uo Dlop eouls tsesoc ;o zQ;rofouraql u! pe{cer1c eq louuoo seln}uolslrep ar{l 1o lcodurS eql }o srro!+Durllsf

.%gg lo uolpau D qllrrl ,%001-%tg urorS peouor slca[gns,*qt Jo, elDJ sseo3ns eql 'Llooe saEuoqc uel uDqt axrtu apDul slca[qns au;6

'qoDe uo1s15ap auo epDtu (aOSS puD Zgt$ 'gttg) slca[qns req+o aerql.sa6uoqc uollDlpaluel ou epDtu laql aculs .peururlelep eq +ouuDs slce[qns 0l esoqfIo ? JoJ srrols!3ap ln sserons Io elDJ aql "sa6uoqc {uo a1ou.t lou plp oqar slce[q,rs orvrl6u1polcu; tpaloralacco ssa,r6ord 11dnd 1ot1g pe+Dtultsa slcafqns eseqt ]o fq6!I 'su.ro.r6orclJleql u! q:oa sa6uorlo 0l uDr{+ rar}ral apou, s;;dnd uaalxrs r{+!rrA slcolgns ual

.3U!I uollDjelasr urrlrxluluJ eq+ nrofoq Ilal a3LDur.o;.}edl1dnd ueq,vr sa16a1o:1s e6uoqc o{ pslle} 4aq1as1a .ro 'eauour.rolred l3dnd JoJ rroltDmlaerDa;qoldacco lo selDl ,r\ols {;aura4xa les raqga slca[qns e6oql .pslDreleoaosDm ssarEord 11dnd +Drl+ pelolullsa s"1safqns asoql 'a:uourclrad alDlpeure,I olJapjo u! apDu, arar$ se6uoqc g .dlr.o t"*!l s1q+ Su1rn6 ,srtop .ropuelDJ frLt sepnlilr! slr.ll.da1s m;ncgrrnc ag6uls D aat DApD +ou p1p s1;dnd J:eql suDr6ord uaaplql u! s(op S9Zu! tDql parr\or{s s11drd a^!J r.r> D+Dp pep!^o,rd oqrt slcefqns eqt Jo rrroJ 'sarnpecord aql1o laodurl eqt ,o uollDtx!$a urao *s1ea[qns eqt apls$uolo saSuoqc uollDlpetuer lnlssas.oslo a6o{uacrad aqf puD rurnln*1xne ssJsqsual et{l q$no:q1 ssa;6ord /uot{s r{clqm'spoaqo dals 1o ragurnu pun a6n4r;ar.rad aqg smoqs Ie elqDt 'selnpacold aqf ;o lcodtu;alqlssod et{+ aulurlalap of reFro u1 p*sXlntn aJa& D+Dp eruDulrorlGrd 11dnd aq1

{1{}u,1

6!

Toble 28

SUBJECTS' APPLICATION OF PROCEDURES

oh Pupils for whornprocedures were opplied

Progroms

Weeksper subject

HondbookOnly

?5o,A

N=52

49

698.5

Lorge GroupTroining

42o,h

N=7 I

95

Smoll GroupTroining

36%N=47

5?

107l7.g

lndividuolTroining

t7%N- I33

3l

Totol

27",6N=303

2?7

39r12.6

il89.6

978.8

62

Tcble 29

SUMMARY OF PUPIL FIRTORMANCE DATA

Subjects who shareddata

Pupils on whom datqrnsde svailable

Progrcrns trr whichclafa rnode cvoi l<rble

Colendor doyscovered by graph

Dato days on graph

Phcses

Totcl changes

% step aheads

t6 rernediotim

Anclysed RemediotimChunges

% Successful rernediationCfranges of totalre i }"re:i"l iof ion chonges

Yo Uslng suggestedstrutegy of totslrernediation changes

Predict<rbility ofdecisi on*rules

HsndbookOnly

63%N=B

69%N=13

63%N=49

t757

739

r02

7t

r8%

B2%

7t%

5B%

6SVa

[-orge GroupTrcining

50%N=6

63%N=30

st%N=95

3782

48r

t40

9Z

59aA

4l%

B6Y"

&4Yo

77%

Srncll GroupTraining

100%N=6

88%N=I7

B7%N=52

4690

23 r9

335

295

57%

r+3%

7l%

55%

85%

lndividuslTralning

45%N=ll

36%N=22

55%N=22

645

Tot*l

6t%N=3 I

62%N=82

60%N=227

10, 874

3, B2o

6t6

484

52a/o

4B%

l5s

58%

6*%

7B%

28r

3B

26

59%

3l%

7793534

5r%

57%

7l%

63

Toble 30

COMPARISON OF SUCCESS WITH USE OF SUGGESTED STRATEGIES

Subject Pupils RemediotionIntervent ions

% Successfullnterventions

% Interventions UsingSuqqested Stroqesies

Predictobilityof Rules

site I

5302532 I

533953455347

Site 2

5l0l5 t0B5207

Site 3s402s40354045405s4t354 I4oide to54 t4

Site 45502550355045s0B55 t2

24I

I

I

676

I

I

25I

3

4

53o/o

00%00%00%

2264I

0

68%83%50%

t00%

t00%69V"9t%

0%33%sB%56Yo

6t%

900b

0%t00%

66Yo

60%B3o/o

50%t00%

600/o

7 5a/o

B2"A

t00%B8o/o

B2/o9zo,h

ai,n

80%

t00%55%

660/o

9t6II

6A%69Yo9laa

a"as0%ss%56Vo

4l%

9C_/o

66%

667o

a%

l6

l227

04B

t0

I

3030

22I

I

2

$ubject Pupils Progrcrrns

Toble 3l

PERCENT OF CHANGES IN CURRICULAR LEVELAND IN INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES AND SUBJECTS'ESTIMATION OT IMPACT

Percen tDotaDavs

NumberChonoes

PercentStep Aheods Remediot 0n

PercentSuccessful

Subjectnf

s H,stimationlmnsct

Site I-TS2532 I

533953455347

427

6I

0

t56t+

li7

?

4I

II

II

il25il

668t34t225529

4t3B3B3r0

IBI38

237

pupipupipupi

PUPIpupi

3l%r4%0%{%

694/a

85%r 00%I 00%

6B%83%50%

I 00%

I 00%69%9l%

0%33%

5B%

56%

6t96

90%

0%100%

AccelerstedAccelerotedAccelerotedAccelerstedAccelerstect

progres$prosrs$$progrs$$prCIgres$progress

Site ?-15't0t

5 t0B5207

Site 3*ffi2s403

6.t

I6

IB433l

39Yo63%65%

0%r+3%

r3%

6l%t00%46%

77%

66%76%

10006?0%

6t%37%35%

t00%57%

87Ya

39%0%

5t+%

23%

33u624h0%

B0%

Acceleruted pupi I progre$$Accelercted pupi I prCIsres$

Acceleroted pupi I proEre$s

No difference to pupil prmgrss$No difference in sorne,

fiscelerated in someAcceleroted in someo

deceleroted in someAcceleroted pupi I progressNo dif ference to pupil progre$sAcceleroted pupi I progress

Acceleroted pupi I progres$

Acceleroted pupi I prosressAcceleroted pupi I progressAcceleroted pupi I progressAccelerated pupi I progres$Acceleroted pupi I progress

5404 2

I

t4

?3

74B

B9

86

37

240

I

3

4

l23I

t4

2oI

I

2

5I

2

3

22I

I

2

540554 I354 l/+54 t4oide

Site 4**5502

5503s5045508s5 t2

540/noc.

st3

Bil

2Br202A724I

66%

I

Toble 32

PUPIL PROGRESS IN A PROGRAM BEFORE AT{D DURII.IG DECISION-RULES

Before Use of Decisim-Rules During lJse of Decision-Rules

Subject Pupi I Av. Doys to RemediolStep Aheod lntervent ions

Per cen tSuccess

Av. Doys toStep Aheod

Rernedio I Percentlnterven- Success

tions

PercentFollow RuleSuggest I on

I 00%

I 00%

0%

I 00%

I 00%

I 00%

0%

I 00%

r 00%

I 00%

66Yo

75%

33o/o

B0%

I 00%

0%

I 00%

50%

I 00%

10006

10006

I 00%

I 00%

I 00%

I 00%

r 00%

I 00%

0%

I 00%

I 00%

I 00%

33o/o

75%

33%

B0%

50%

a?o

I 00%

;;"I 00%

I 00%

I

I

I

I

I

I

4

2

2

2

6

5

6

7

6

2

3

0

0

2

I

2

0

2

;;

;;l4

24

B

t7

9

l5

7

27

35

8

t2

t3

t2

23

ll9

20

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

3

0

B

I

2

0

I

I

I

2

I

2

0

2

t0a%

a%

33/o

100%

0"/o

I 00%

I 00%

0%

50Yo

50o/o

50"/o

3B

3t

;

;2l

5

l7

;22

l4

24

l7

6

B

5

2t

I

I

2

3

4

4

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

2

2

2

I

I

I

2

2

2

3

3

532 r

5403

54 l4

54 t4

o ide

Pupils were ossigned numbers. Some pupils hod more thon one progrom. Eoch progrom is shown on o seporote line.

I 00%

r)*

tr"q:h i*, "*3

pffi[DlffT"$Vm VAt*[*$ $ "&"' (]$" { "ii "{,-, f :$$u";ild*mL}LffiS {f"",*". I&4}

llt;piE ilr"*qr'ess/{* r** $ *3* il}l{"$

l''{c,r? l"&o;n:e* [ q*rq*?*

Chonges rncde ir: accondwith a rule (predic?lonthat progre&r wiil heacceler*ted)

Change$ rnade ns? inoccord witir u rule{predicti*n that prsgre$$will tqf be occelerated)

ffi.3%{F ** [2]

PupiX ProgressActucl ly

Ascelersted

l3.g%(N=20)

*Concurrence af predictl$st <:nd uc?uq* a"esufits $rtdl**te* predictive validity:ALL 77.6% {I II / !I$3).

ont inued Use of Frocedures

. Twenty-nine of the thirty-one subjects who used the procedures reported thotfhey plon an continuing to use the decision-rules. One teocher who did not plon onusing them wos plonning fo work with mildly hondicopped pupils, rcther thon severetyhondicopped pupils.

5l .l(hx(N=74)

x5 " g%*

{ hd*,37}

67

Cost Anolysis

Costs for the subjects who opplied the procedures run from o medion of 513.45fc subjects in the "Hondbook Only" g.roup to574.24 for the medion cost of o subject inthe'rSmoll Group_Troiningtr (Toble 34). However, colculoting costs per pupit ptits thehigher cost ot 523.45 for fhe subjects troined individrrclly, since they worked with thefewest numbers of pupils. The medion costs per progrom ond per week ore olso highestfor Site 4 subjects, who opplied procedures for fewer progroms. The medion cosl perprollrom per week wos lowest for Site I subjects, ot 7f, ond highest for Site 4 subjects,ot $4.69. However, costs will be decreosed the longer the subject oppliel theprocedures.

Toble 34

SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR SUBJECTS APPLYING PROCEDURES

Site I Site 2 Site 3 Site 4Srnall Gr ized

No, of Suhj ec ts

Medion Troining & Fol low-up CostsLowHigh

No, of Pupils

Medisn Cost Per PupilLowHigh

No. of Progrcm$

Mediqn Cost Per ProgromLowHigh

No, of Weeks

Medion Cost Fer \#eekLowHish

Mediqn Cost Per Progrom/WeekLowHigh

B

$13.45$ 6.gg$23. Bg

r3

$

tI .59.69

II.I8

9t

$$$

lao

65.9759.2 I

I 37 .55

6

$74 .24$90.39$95.04

l7

$r5. ts$ r4. 53

$95 .6tl-

53

il

7?.

?3.45z*,9475.02

549066

69.46,

I 25.

$$

$

30

$ B.4g$ B.04$ 69.42

95

894536

$6$2$22

49

$

$$

3l

$

t2,57l,gl

34.71

$ 6.05$ 3.50$75 .95

7l

7B0l84

.39

.48

.lg

0s4502

$ te$ 12

$ 7s

il8 97

$

tr

II

$4S4$rs

$$e$

0873B5

?30704

$4$2$s

I2

336373

090686

$l$$3

$

lr

6.6 I

5.7 I

5. 7g

4.69l. l0I .06

69

Precision Teschers

ln order to implement the decision-rules in instructionol progroms, certoinprerequisite conditions needed to be met, lt wos hypothesized thot teochers whoseinstructionol ond evoluotion proctices embodied the prerequisite conditions would bemqe likely to odopt the procedures thon those subjects whose pre-troining procticesembodied none of the prerequisite conditims. Subjects whose instructionol ondevoltrctian proctices indicoted thot mony of the prerequisites for use of the decision-rutes were identified from informotion provided on the Bockground Ouestionnoires.These subjects cmducted doily instructionol progroms, in which the pupil wos given ominimum of ten response opportunities, ond in which doto were collected on everytriol. These subjects collected doto on 95-100% of their instructionol progroms,grophed their doto, ond used some decision-rules prior to porticipotion in this study.The doto collected by these subjects were usuolly time-bosed doto: rote, lotency qdurotim.

Subjects whose instructionol ond evoluotion proctices indicoted thot most oftheir current proctices would need to be modified in order to use the decision-ruleswere olso identified. Those subjects hod no precision teoching troiningr conductedinstructionol progroms of most three times per week, collected doto opproximotelyholf the time they ron instructionol progrqms, ond preferred not to collect rote orother time-bosed doto. These subjects olso did not groph their doto.

Twenty-one subjects were identifed whose instructionol ond evoluotion procticeswere compotible with the use of the procedures. Of those, sixteen (76%) ogreed loodopt the procedures ond eleven $2%) octuolly reported on the opplicotion of theprocedures. Eight subjects were identified os those who would require mojormodificotion of their existing procedures in order to opply the decision-rules. Ofthose, only one returned o triol period questimnoire, ond none ogreed to try theprocedures.

7*

ilf S{:t iS$3{:}r.i

We plgnned to evolugte the effectltrerress trf trnining models, as well <rs theeffecliveness of lhe decision-rules, through on on<rlyses of the impoct of (l) theproportion of subjects from eqch site who acttrolly odopted decision-rutes, ond Ql bythe impoct the rules tmd m pupil progress. Unfortunotely, severql fqctors preventedtte collection of oll of the doto necessory for those evoluofions: lhe low return roteon questirrroires, especiolly during the doption of procedures; the foct ftrot teochersshored only obout 6A% d the pupil performonce doto with the project; ond the lock ofItefore't or preintervention doto m ptrpil performonce. Eoch cmditim cotlld hovebeen improved through o rnore coreful monogement of cmfingencies. The subiectswere reguired to complete troining before they received o copy of the l-{'qndbookr ondoll but 8% did complete troining" Most subjects were, os expecled, eoger to receivetheir copy, but, once they received their copy, porticipotion dropped, ond twenty-fivepercent foiled to return the Triol Period Questimnoire. Porticipotion continued lodrop, with 28% refusing to try the procedures, ond 30% who ogreed to try did not doso, ond finolly, 39% did not wont to share pupil doto.

The Hondbook might hove been used os o potentiol reinfoncer more effectively ifsubjecls haa''6r-ed" iections of the Hqndbook throrghorf the project, insteod ofeorning the entire book ot the conclusi6-FTifining. -Other

ovoiloble contingenciesincluded: self-reinforcement by potentiol or octuol improvement in puPil progressireinforcement by discussim with reseorch stoff; self-reinforcement for leorning newtechniques ond focing new chollenges; ond reinforcernent by peers ond/orodministrotors. Of those, only tl"re potentiol reinforcer of "follorrr-upr cor.rld becmtrolled by fhe reseorch stoff. Additionol informotion ond ossistonce in the use ofthe decision-rules, ond ossistonce in cny other oreo reguested by the stoff, wospromised only for subjects ogreeing to employ the decision-rules on s lriol bosis. Thotcortingency wos not employed effectively ot two sites. Three Site I subjects, in thel.lew Englond oreo, odroitly monoged to receive o totol of six follow-+rp lelephme collsby first ogreeing to odopt the procedures, ond ofter the follow-up, not using theprocedures. They olso received numerous phone colls requesfing the return ofI'Procedures Questionnoires. Subjects frorn Site 2, the Summer Workshops, receivedfollow-up ossistonce from staff of CITPD on o noncontingent bosis. CITPD's follow<rpincluded personol visits following the cmclusion of the wskshops, which the projecttstrovel budget could not offord. Eight subjects from those sites received follow-upinforrnotion without returning "Triol Period Ouestionnoirer'. When cqlled to prompt oreturn of this questionnoire, lhose subjects osked for, ond received, ossistonce ondifferent progrorns in their clossroorns. One subject ot Site 4 olso monoged to receivefollow-up without actuolly trying the procedures. Perhops better monogement of thetwo contingencies ovoiloble to the reseorch stoff--ttre Hgldlqo! ond follow-up--wolldhove improved the return rote on questionnoires, the-fT6TT-odoption of decision-rules, ond the omount of pupil performonce dsto shored with the project. Even withsuch poa corrtingency monagement, however, thirty-one of the originol eighty-onesubjects rerncined with the project, ond nineteen subjects shored pupil perfbrmoncedoto.

Effectiveness of I-roining Models

There ore severol different methods of estimoting the effectiveness of thevo5lans koining models. By far, troinee rating scoles ore the rnost cornmon. Site 4subjects, who received individuolized troining, gove the highest rotings to the troining,while those subjects troined in o smoll group (Site 3) gcve the lowest rotings. SincIottitude toword the procedures is olso impcrtont, it is interesting thot subjects from

7i

the individuolized troining model roted their ottitudes os more fovoroble thon theother sites in generol ottitude and in the opplicobility of vorious components, but thotsubjects from the lorge group workshop troining roled the procedures os slightly moreuseful ond opplicobte.

Another test of troining is the omount of follow-up required in order toimplement the procedures. The better the troining, the less follow-up should beneeded. Subjects from the "Hondbook Onlyrr group requested the leost omount offollow-up, both before qnd during opplicotiorr of the procedures, while oll but onesubject from both the workshops ond smoll group troining requested follow-up.However, the doto shored by porticiponts indicotes thot perhops 32% of oll subjectsopplied the procedures incorrectly-more subjects should hove requested technicolossistonce. Errors in opplicotion of the procedures were not remedied unless teochersosked for technicol ossistonce. ln most cosesr ossistonce provided concernedinstructionol methods, rother thon technicol informotion on the opplicotion of thedecisiqr-rules. ln coses where technicol informotim wos requested, it wos onlythrough o discussion of some reloted topic thot the teocher reolized o problem inopplicotion. ln the mojority of coses, the subjects were unoble to recognize on errotrtond so did not osk for ossistonce. Errors in opplicotion of the procedures could hovebeen prevented not only by improving the troinirrg ond Hondbook, but by requiring otechnicol follow-up session for teochers odopting the procedures. Of course, with sofew contingencies ovoiloble, such o requirement moy hove further reducedporticipotion.

ldeolly, teocher troining should produce o demonstroble impoct on pupilperformonce. The first step in ochieving thot impoct is the odoption of the proceduresby the teochers. The individuolized troining model produced the highest rote of use inthe ctossroom (92%) while the torge group troining produced the smollest (19%).However, bockground voriobles such os previous troining in Precision Teochingprobobly offected rote of odoption os much, if not more, thon did the type of troiningthe subjects received. The secmd step in such on evoluotion is the number of pupilsoffected. Subjects from the lorge group troining worked with the highest percentogeof pupils (42/") while subjects from the individuolized troining worked with mly 17% oftheir pupils. While o greoter number of teochers moy hove ogreed to try the rules intheir clossroom when individuol troining wos provided, those some teochers octuollytried the procedures with fewer children thon those given less direct support initiolly.Most subjects trying the rules ogreed thot the procedures occeleroted pupil progress,but the octuol doto required for o comporison of pupil progress before ond during useof the decisim-rules ore not ovoiloble. Overoll, then, it is reolly impossible todetermine which troining model produced the greoter impoct on pupil performonce.

Results suggest thot perhops troining in o lorge group os conducted during thisproject will require o greot deol of follow-up, ond result in o low rote of odoption.Those thot do odopt the procedures, however, will opply them to mony of theirstudents. Conversely, the project's smoll group troining will produce o higher rote ofodoption but offect fewer pupils. lndividuolized troining will produce high rotings fortroining content, ond high rotes of odoption, but olso of fect only o smoll proportion ofpupils. The t'textbook only" model will require some follow-up, ond produce moderoteomounts of odoption thot offect obout holf of the pupils in the clossrooms involved.

lndependent Voriobles Affecting Adoption

This study wos not designed to test the relotive importonce of voriousindependent voriobles in offecting role of odoption. However, there ore some mojor

7Z

differences between those subjects who odopted decision-rules ond those who did notodopt fhem. Of primory irnportonce is the foct thot 65% of those,odopting decision-rules reported previous troining in Precisim Teoching, while mly 40% of those thot didnot use the decision-rules reported such trcining. Thot difference qlso shows up inrelqted voriobles (..g., frequency of instruclion; number of pupil responseoppatunities; freqrency of dctc collection, etc.).

Of secandory interest, o greoter proportim of the teochers odopted theprocedures thon did theropists. Ualf of the theropists included in the sfudy would hovehoA to modify their initructionol ond evoluotisr proctices considerobly for theopplicotion of decision-rules, but holf of the theropists were olreody using precisionteoching fechniqtres. Only ste theropist, who hod no previous precision feochingtroining, octuotty odopted the procedures. Thoi moy hove been s result of thetroinin!, since theropiits generoily roted the individual topics os less cleor thon didteocheis. ln oddition, their ottitude toword the procedures following the troining wosless fovqoble tlmn the feochers.

Subjects who requested odditionol informotiot immediotely following troiningwere lesi likely to use decision-rules thon those who did not request

",r"h hefn- On. the

other hond, there qre severol odditionol voriobles thot moy offect who osks for helpond who does not osk.

Ninety percent of those subjects odopting the procedures thor-lght thot otherleochers in their qreos were using the decision-rules, while only 53% of fhe Itno"

subjects thought so. But mse of the ttno'r subjects thought they hod odministrotivesupport thon did the rryesfl subjects. This moy suggest thot peer porticipotion is moreof o potentiol reinfoncer ttnn odministrotive support.

lf troining designed to impoct on teochers' use of decision-rules were ogoinprovided, the rote of odoption r behovior chonge on the port of teochers might beocceleroted by including those leochers wilh previous troining in Prebision Teochingond by selecting teochers who work together. Modificotion in the troining to includemore exomples of opplicotims in troditionol therqpy situotions might improve odoptionrote by theropists.

A true cost-benefit onolyses of the froining is impossible, since one would hoveto ossign o monetory volue to improvement in pupil performorrce. Since we oreunwilling to do so, we con mly point out thot the cost of the decision-rules moy run oslow os 79 per week per progrom. Costs could be substontiolly reduced by increcsingthe rotes of odoption ond of opplicotion to pupils ond progroms.

Ef fectiveness of Decision-Rules

The effectiveness of the decision-rules in occeleroting pupil progress connot beoccurotely gouged without doto on pupil performonce before fhe rxe of the procedures.Such dofo were not ovoiloble to the project. However, the percentoge of successfuldecisions mode by the subjects porticipoting in the project compores fovorobly withteochers who used the decision-rules in previous yeors.

Overoll, the proportion of chonges designed to odvonce the pupil through thecrrrriculum wos higher in fhe Sth yeor (Figure 5), but could, of course, be heovilyinfluenced by the type of curriculum seqrencing used by terchers. The fifth yeorsubjects rnode slighfly fewer intervenfions designed to remediqte foiling performoncethon in previous yeors, ond they were much more successful in their decision moking

73

thon teochers who did not use decisim-rules (Figure 5). All of the teochers who useddecision-rules during the lost three yeors of the project hod o higher percentoge ofstrcessful decisims thon teochers who did not use such rules. However, lhe doloindicote thot the decisims hove o higher chonce of success if rule suggested strotegiesore implemented (Figure 7).

The decision-rules developed during the five yeor project show greot promise in 'improving the success of teocher decisim-moking in instructionol progroms. Thedecision-rules ore designed to focilitote pupil performonce during the ocquisition ondfluency-building stoges of leorning. Those stoges of leorning con be identified fromchorted records of pupil performonce. Certoin types of instructionol strotegies hove ohigh probobility of occeleroting leorning if oppropriotely implemented during eochstoge. Remediotion strotegies designed to provide informotion m how to peform thedesired skill o behovior ore generolly effective during ocquisition, while consequencesthot motivote performonce ore generolly more effective during the fluency-buildingstoge of leorning. Decisim-rules thot con be opplied to pupil performonce doto moynot only reduce the omount of plonning time spent by o teocher, but will increose theeffectiveness of teocher decisims. These results hove the potentiol of improving theeducotion of the severely hondicopped. The decision-rules con be tought to clossroomteochers with o rninimum of bockground skills in relotively shat periods of time, from2 to 4 hours. These results ore very encouroging, ond indicote the potentiol impoct ofthe use of decisim-rules in improving the educotion of the severely hondicopped.

Other results, however, give couse for concern. Although not initiolly included,the decision-rules now include o rule soying thot if the pupil is of oim, it is time tomove to the next step. This rule hod to be included becouse mony teochers did not setoims for their progroms, ond/or did not rnove the pupil to the next step once on oimwos reoched.

Another couse for concern is the low roting given by fifth yeor teochers of theopplicobility of conducting doily instructionol progroms. Sufficient evidence hosoccumuloted on the need for frequent instruction to insure thot skills ore ocquired,mostered ond mointoined. Why orenrt teochers reody to cmduct doily progroms?

This project wos not designed to intervene in the curriculum offered by theteochers. However, the list of behoviors torgeted for intervention hos not chonged loomuch over the yeors. The behoviors torgeted by the fifth yeor teochers were similorto those torgeted by teochers five yeors ogo, ond the lists brovided in the site reports)do not indicote tl'rot the progroms ore teoching those behoviors thot would promoteindependent community or home funclioning, despite the coll for such progroms inrecent yeors. The teochers who porticipoted in the study ore well troined ond well-meoning, yet they continue to teoch skills thot hove seemingly little relevonce tocom-riity-bosed functi oninj.

Another problem lies in the collection of dolo. Despite the foct thot thecollection of ot teost some doto is mondoted by P. L.94-142, severol teochers reportedtlmt they collect such doto on fewer thon holf of their progroms. Doto collection ondchorting is often prornoted os o routine tosk for teochers, rother thon one thot condecreose their plonning time ond improve pupil performonce. The development ofdoto-bosed decision-rules con help teochers improve the success of their instruction,

'/trf, lr PROOFAil CxrN(E3

f,Hdf

PROGRAI-{ CHANGES

p-iaqt t ot,

I.tJ-fgo.u."q -.q p cJ J gN

Strp AhrcdeI 8..? 8I

U$ING DECISION RULES

YEAR tr Ff,O(SAt{ Ct{At'lOEt

Yf,lfi ., FROSAT{ $ilAffir

ltlR ?' PnOmAH CHAiffi*

8T

Fiqure s

P rog ram Chanses Du r i ng F i ve yea rs

shaded area = decisions to remediate pupil performanceunshaded area = dec i s ion to move to next i nstruct ion step

ttlt I, Pf,flffi O{fltr;

lmrd I otqT

YEAR l, FEHFDfITION DTCISIONS

tlnlroqrerfuf!O-CO Ct

Figure 6

Successful Remed i at i on

shaded area = decisionsunshaded area=dec i s ions

uJ_I_U_A_U.Lp-E"C .r"U 0 N_ R_ullE S

YErP ?, REFEDfA?fO{

Sucerrefvl6-33 3!(

Unetrcorrfu l6a'35. lI

REMEDIATION DECISIONS

YEAR ti REilEDfATfON OECfSfO{8

Unrtrceoee f v I

?l-?O

u s I N c___D_r.LIg g N_B-U_ri t"!

4 r RfrrEDrArrott DEcItroNt

Unorrcqoeful7r-31 . at

63.79. Cl

Er lEXEDfr?fOl OEeItIOrt

lSE-Otl

Decisions During Five rS

that improved pupil performancethat failed to improve pupil performance

tx

Figure /COMPAR I SON OF SUCCESSFUL DEC I S I ONS I,I I TH USE OF SUGGESTED STRATEG I ES

RTHED IAT ION DrC IS IONS ,J5E OT STRATTGIHS

YEAR 3

shaded a rea = i mp rove pup i' 1 pe r fo rmanceunshaded area = fail to imf:rove

Succmrfu I

I 18.6e .8t(

slraded area s use of strateqyrecommended by ru I e

unshaded a rea E use of othe r st rategy

ol lou RulrI l8.Oa .8!(

Unrucet:efu I

ga'c35. I l(

Sucsr:fu I

83*79. 8i(

Sucqmrfu I

l58-68.1X

Not, FnI|or,r RuI6*-35 . , *

Nol Fol low frul21.?.6 . I

Fol lou RulrS3'7t. EX

YEAR I+

Unruscrrrf u?1.20. t

I

x

Fal lou RulrI S3*CS , S!(

Unrutre**fu I

74-31 . BX

yEAR 5

Not Fol lo* Rul

sruDr'ord o+ pelrddD. :jiiiii]',r#r,fli,:l'_'#l,i,l:lin_,ffi',:""riJ?.*:1,fi,r':i? 'ueq1 uan3 'D+Dp ecuDur..rolrid ,s|1dnd Jleql uDr.lc puD +celloc ol puD surD acuDr.urclred cg;gcads qlrrn suro.r6o.rd ;otrc11cnr1su1 $nptoi 61 lpoa: puD 6ultt!,n erD sreqoDat sD etu!+ qons lllun selnr-tx)lsloep ,o uolloiueura;dur; eq+ 6J aaoq"Jl$;! aes er,r +nq

LL

V XICINSddV

NSTRUCTIONRT HICRRRCHI€S RCS€RRCH PROJCCTl)o You s('rv(, aS a sulr.rvisrrr l'r.rr r1niversitV/r.1lle11s/higtr sr:hool Studentt t';tt'ltt'rs ()r Irr;tt't it rrrr, st trrlr.lt s?

Itniv('rsl Iv ol Waslrinl'[.11

' How m;tnv:

l'J,'r r-l:.; ll;rf ilrl'., t'r irrr i1r;r I lrrvr.,:t i.',rt [ ]i, [Cr+ f1,1 t 1 ,1,, 1, ltrtnrlr,,t' p(,f qrt;tl"t t'F f or to[6] hour:;re r week

BRCHGROUND QU€STIONNRIR€

I A-RT- l: EDUCAI'lONAI- SETTINll

For how many stud(,nrs in the following categories do you provide DIRECI'servi cr, ( i nstrucL i on or tht'rapy) ?

l,-{Hl_-_{,_ ItA_C{-(;R_OLrNI)

l. Numberr of years teac.hinli sr.hool :

2. Number of yea rs tear:hi ng the lranrli r apped :

3. llave you ever had iorm;rl training in "prec'ision J'eachinB"? n y"" I no

.|4-LI--}'--J-NS]B!! r I !|!AL-IIW3${.S

Instructional programs are those programs ln which your ob-iective ls roincrease behavlor, either by teachlng, new behavior and skills, or by improvlngperformance ln skills and behaviors whir:h the stu<Jent has previously acquired

Itqq included are programs designed to decrease or el lminate behavlor.

l. Different setttngs for lndivtdualized lnstructlon are described belora.

l'lease estlmate the percentag,e of your total instructlonal tlme conducted

ln each settlng. percentage

Individual responses in a l:1 sett ing(teacher working alone witlr a student)

Indlvldual responses at natrrral opportunltles(may be l:1, small or larger group, but studenthas opportunlty ro respond individually)

Individual responses in group settings(may be small or large groups, but eachstudent has a turn.)

Unison responses ln a group setttng(may be sma1l or large groups, brrr rrsuallystudents respond together)

le;rrning disable'd"

mi I dly handicapped

moclc ra t ely handicapped

severely handicapped

profoundly handicappcd

other (describe):

average total studentsPg rgsr_

average on any typlcalggr.ryl !ry

2. Chronol.ogical aBes: From: years to years

'). Aclclitlonal staf f usually worklng with you:

Number of paid asslstants: for a total of hours per week

Number of volunteers: for a total of hours per week

Nrrmher of others for a total of hours per week

If you are a classroom teacher, do speelal service personnel (e.g. physlcaltheraptsts, occupaEional theraplsts, communlcation dlsorders specialtsts)provide dlrect 9!'l,ylqs (lnstructlon or t.herapy) to one or more of yourstudents?

ol

"A

z

7.

Ino tl@ for an average total of hours per week

Other: (please describe)

ol

PARr lI.: -. Ev$LUAlIo{

Thle aeetr.on concerns the way you evaluate your studentsr Progress ln

meeting hls/her educatlonal obJectlves (tncludtng' but noj 1I'mtted to' the IRP) '

1. On shat percentsge of your lnefructlonal prog,rans do you' your asststant

or your student teacher usually collect at least some daEa on student

perf ormance?

n less than 102

2, Approxtmately how ofren ts SAC}I tnstruetlonal progran typlcally run?

.c.]@nhenever a ttnatural occaglontt for the tarBet' behavlor occurs

t,wo or more Preset seeelong Per daY

one preeet gesaton Per daY

four preget seeslone Per reek

three preeet sesstons Per week

tuo preset seselons Per week

ons preset sessl"on Per week

other (pleaee descrlbe) I

Approxtmately how msny opporttlntttea or ttchancestt to perfonn or reapond

utth the target behavlor does the etudent usual ly have tn any one

tnstructtonal Perlod?

.q!ss!--sss

n ,* rrtate tl 5-e trlals n 10-15 trlals t] 16-20 trlels

n more than 20 trlsle

aB many ss possible wtrhln a glven perlod of tlme' but ueually

at leaet t rl ale

il depends on Yhat h.aPPene tn the ilnatura1" occasl'on, but ugually

about trlals

n dependa on the etudentts performance, but ueually ebout trtals

n other (Pleaae descrlbe) I

Approxtmately hon many hours per week do you spend plannlng or changlng

fununuiln

ilnil

95-1002 of the Programs

85-9&Z

7 5-8&7.

Chg* one

il on everY trtal

n on the flrst trlal onlY

il on the last trlal onLY

il other (pleaae descrtbe):

nTn

50-742

7,5*qgfl

lA'2t+7,

trlhen you do collec.t some data on an lnstructlonaL prograln' about hon often

ls tc collected?

c!-x!-:ns

n every ttme the tnstructlonal proBram ts run

il about every tlme the prog,ram ls run

il about half the. tlme th€ Program ls run

n occastona IlYL_J

n for tnltlal assegsment, diagnostlc purposes and/or post-test only

n other (Please descrlbd):

3. l{hen you do collect data on Lnstructlonal performanc' do you usually

collect data:

3

I on a random number of trlala

[} on Bpeclal "probet' trtals onlY

n all trtale durlng a Bet amount of ttme

lt

your lnslructtonal Programe? hours per week

I}ISTRUCTIOTIRL HI€RRRCHICS RCS€RRCH PROJCCI

PR€S€NTI1TION RESPONSE QU€STIONNRIRE

eenlS: .JI,{T.ISPE TgBSnLIHg.,pS0gSpHBnf;.

l. llhat la your general sttltude torarda the cnpcrlmentel proerdurer follorlngthe presentatlon?

very v:ryFavorable Unfavorehlc

5432r.

2, How uaeful do you thlnk the proeedurer ntght gcncrrlly bG ro tcecheru?

Hot at ellVery Uatful Uraful

3432r

3. How appllcablc do you thlnk eech of th. followlng rould bc to YOUR riguatlon?

YsryAppllcrblo

Not et r11Appl{cable

Unlverslty of tCashingtnn Norrl s llartng , Prtnc lpal I nvest i['.u Lo r

PAEr Lj " c$el,lY 0I_I[ro.RlUTIorf PFES]I$ID

Theee queati"ons concern the seeslon(g) t,hat you attended covertng the

experlmental procedures, Clrcle one for each Bratenent.

Very Clear Confuaing

1, Ihe lnf,ormatlon preeented or thegeneral purpose of the procedures wac:

The lnforrnatlon on collest.lqg andc\+.rr,tnq, *tlg r{as:

3. the LnformaElon on draring llneg-gl*.Efsgggg-9" t 88 r

4. Ihe lnforrratlon on uslng {egts,tonrules $aa!

5. The lnformetlon on e.stfbllshfB8tns Jruc.LtoJrel f-otrfl,tr w&s :

6. Ihe lnforuatton on the dl{fe{pr}t types9f. fnstgucgtgJrgl prgc.eduleq uaa ;

7, Ttre lnformatlon on lqplemepttg#,J.ns ! rtlllltqllsl glr.ates l.eg vas :

8, Inf ornatton on ua*n$ the haqr{bqq& w&!r:

9. 9y-erqll, the lnforostton presented $Be:

10. General Comenf s:

543?. I

2

4

A

4

4

5

5

5

5

1

6. 0verall, thr cxpertmontrlprocedures rould bcl

b, Dealgnlng tnltlrl lnatructtonalformatr accordlng to Bhalnf orrnatlon prerentGds

c. Conductlng lnttructlonal progrrsswlth tndlvldull rtudcnt r€tpontGion a reguler berler

d, Collectlng parforuuncc drt,adurtng an lnrtructtonal progrrnl

€. Cherttng prrfotnencc dete rldeacrlbad on r rtgular brrll l

f,, Urlng declrton ru]ce bercd onl{neg-of-progru8B t

f,. Changlng lnrtructlonel ncrhodraa darcrlbodr

5&321

54321

54321

54321

5432

nt3

3

3

tt

lt

l*

5

5

5

23

t2t

59321

I

I

2

2

3

t

4

4

T

INSTRUCTIO}IRL HICRRRCHICS RCSCRRCH PROJCCTpSETJ I , *{rIInm.,$.JgI,LSp .$S" rEQgEnJ,nFs,

l, $fhat le your general attltude torarda the cxperlnrenteL proeadurcl follnrlngthe preeentatlon?

Unlverslty of lrlashlngton Norrls llarlng, Prlnctpal Investip,ll.or

PA$L I : ,. 9I,AI,IIY ,0r*,rNFoRuArloN PREsEltrE[

These questlons eoncern the sesslon(s) that you attended coverlng the

experl,rnentEl procedures. Clrcle one for each sf,at,ement.

Very Clear Confustng

PR€S€NTRTION R€SPONSE QU€STIONNRIR€Very

Favorable

8. Overall, the artperfunentalproeedurea uould bel

b. Daalgnlng tnlttil lnatructlonalformata ecccrdlng to thalnf onuatlon pronentcd I

c, Conduct,l.ng tnatnrctlonal progmmsrtth lndlvldual ttudmt rGrpomecfon r reguler beriar

d. Collectlng parformoncG drradurlng an lnrtructlonal progrrei

6. Chartlng ptrtornoneG drte eedsacrLbod on a regular brtl.a I

f. Uetng doclrlon ruler bersd onllngc-of*pfoSfGrB ;

g. Changtng Inrtruetlonal methodtiB dercrlbrdl

s432L

5&321

54121

54321

5h32r

VcryUnfavorrbln

The lnformatlon preaented on thegeneral purpoee of the procedures lres: 321

54321

2, How ueeful do you thtnk the procedurer mtght gcnemlly bc to tcocherr?

Not st ellVsry Uraful Uacful

54321

3. How appllcabl"e do you thlnk each of the follont"ng would bc t,o yOUR etLuatton?54

54 3

2. The lnforrnatLon on qgllesL{ng andphqqqire "{slg wag;

3. The lnforruatlon on drarlng llnee-Sg-gfggregg lrsB !

4, Ttre lnformatLon on uelng dqglstonrules wa6;

2

23)

VcryAppllcabla

Not st allAppllcahle

5432I

54321

6

The tnfornatl.on on eLtsb1..Ls,.FfULlnejjqct_tggeL f onflFIg rras:

The lnforuatton on the {tEISIgg! qypgso.f rsstqgcplqnal, p.roSFdII[e. wac :

ltre Lnforrnatlon on lmp1er,us{rtlnef,np trqgt l..gtBl s gfat esteg rdae :

InforrnatLon on !|elnS tllg !,+n$lp* was: ,

Oygfall, the Lnforoat{on presented wag:

General Coments:

8.

9.

10.

T

t,3

3

4

4

5

5

I2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

7,I

I

I

4. Ilelow is a list of dtfferent data types. Please pur a on(: (l) by the typethat you most frequently collect, a two (2) by the type you collect second

mosL frequently, and so on. Leave Ehe box blank lf you never collect that1r.'1r{, of data.

t] count of behavtor responses (how many times the behavior happens, but not Z,)

f] count of trials (usually for "trials to crlterion")Lr

tr levels of asslstance (for example, countlng the number of prompts

f o".uracy data (y") requi red before the student responds)

[_l rrt" or frequency data (bahavior counrs per unit of time)

I tr*. data (lareney or duratlon)

[-l o.n"t (please descrtbe):

5. Do you usually graph your dara? t] Yes u no

6. Do you have speciftc student performance criteria or rules for decidlng:

yes foreaclr program

uuu

y€s, forsome programs

uru

no

when to move the student to thenext program step?

when the etudent has met alm?

when the student should be movedEo an easler step or to aprerequlslte skl11?

when to change the lnstructlonalprocedures, but keep the taskthe same?

how to modlfy tnstructlonalproc edures ?

lrl

ltlu

4 Would you llke additlonal lnfor:nratlon on any part of the procedures?

Inon4P1eaeecheckthosethataPP1y,andamemberofthe- research staff wtll contact you ehortly.

tl uslng the handbook

t] deelgnlng lnlrlal lnsrructional formars

[-| eelecrlng a data rype

t] lnplenrentlng instnrcrlonal procedures

n collectlng performance data

t] chartlng performance dara

[-| drawlng performance patterns

n ualng declelon rules

n applylng the general changea to spectflcI I programa

f other: (descrlbe brtefly)

INSTRUCTIONRT HICRRRCHI€S RCSCBRCH PROJCCIUnlversl ty of tlashington

l. The lnformatton on How To Make AnInstructlonal Declslon (p.5-7) 1g:

2. The Rulee for Rate and the Qulck ReferenceGutde for Rules for Rete are:

3. The Rules for Percent Correct and theQulck Reference Gulde for Rules forPercent Correct are:

4. The Qulck Reference Guldee for ChangeStrategles (p.10-14) ere:

5. The lnfonnatlon on drawlng llnea-of-progr€Bs(p.15-24), and deterrnlnlng percent correct(p,25) , perf oruunce variablllty (p,26-?.7)and eharp deceleratton ln correcte (p.28) Le:

6. The lnfornatlon on Gencral Conelderatlona for'Instructlonal Forrnats (p.29-35) te:

7. The lnfornatlon on Acqulgltlon (p.35-63) ls:

8. The lnformatlon onPluency-Butldtng (p.64-95) ls:

9. The lnfornatlon on Coupltance (p.97-ll5) ls:

Norrls Harlng, Prlnctpal Inveettgetor

HRNDBOOH QU€STIONNRIR€

Approxlnately how rnuch tlme have you Bpent revtewlng the lnfonut{.on tn the Handbook?

nlnutea hours ofher

These questlons concern the clarlty of tnformation on the experlnental procedureoas presented ln the Handbook. Please ctrcle one for each gtrtetrent.

Very Clear

5

5

Confualng

I2

2

l.

4

Thonk gou !

5432

4

4

4

4

4

4

2l

2l

2l2t2l

2l

We uould ltke your coumentg and Buggeetlona regardlng the Handbook. Pleagc uce theback of thls gheet.

I

3 t

3

3

3

3

3

Universtty of l.lashingtou

il@tlffi{>

I]{STRUCTIOIIRT HICRRR(HI€S R€S€RRCH PBOJ€CI F1I1 out rlris page only tf you do NOT plan to use the procadurea.

2. Are other teachers ln your school uslng these procedurer?

n ycs n no n dcn't knou

J. Uo you f eel that the admlnl.ntratl.on ln your rchool or dlstrlct uould

provlde support for the use of theee procedures?

n yes n can'r tell tlffi> t+hy not?

Slnce you do NOt plan on uslng the procedures, HE uould be lnter€sted f.n

your reasona. Please check plL. of the boxea belor nhl.ch appty, lf arlrAI'ID/OR provide a srltten reaeon Ln the epace provlded'

I feel that th€ proceduree wtlL take too uuch ttme, whtch IJust donit have

I fee} that the procedurea are not appllcable to $y atudente '

I fEel that the procedures are not cmpatlble nlth uy currlculun.

I feel that the procedurea are not curpattble vlth ury currentlnstructtonal practlcee.

I do not feel Ehe need to use the procaduree.

I do not thlnk that th€ procadures ulll lmprove the perforal&nceof my students.

I do not understand how to apply the procedures tn ury eltuatl.on.

In che rpace belmr, pleaae deecrlbe other reasona you nay have for not uelngthe procedurea.

Norrts ilaring, Prlnctpal Investigator

TfftffL p€nlcD Qu€sTloNNnlfi€Today ts date

A t'triaLttof the procedures mlght lnvolve any ranBe af activttles, frorn applytng,

rhe procedures wlth CIne student for one prog,ran for {{ few weeks, to all studen[s

and all pro6,rams for the rest af the school year. You dsrcide on your level of

lnvolvement

1. Dr: yCIu grlan $n uslng t.he procedures fBr a trlal" perlod?

Co on tCI the questlons belou

So on to page 2

Frt. Asslstance ls avatlable for those parElclpants rho wteh to try the procedures

Asslstance ls avalLable lf you need hel.p tn applytng the Procedures ln your

sLtuatton. Are you l"nterested ln reeetvlng any follor*up aaeistance?

nnoll

t] E* A srember of the reeearch Btaf f w111 contact you shortly.

At thls ttme, vhat type of trlal perlod do you plan? You can, of courget

alter your plans at any ttnre, Choos€ ar b or c,

ililililnil

".IES *tudent(s) and program(s) for week( s)

Eeglnnlns on *?r ;;jffi- ye",b. [J EnAATffi+ A uesrber of the research etaff wtll contaet you ehortly.

". n E@ A member of the .reeeareh stsf f wtll contact you shortly.

t+, Are other teachers tn your school uelng [hos€ procedures?

il yes tl no n don't know

5. Do you feel that the adm{ntetratlon rould provlde Bupport for the use of

these procedures

tl yes tl can'r tetr t trTr} r+hy noc?

T h O n k VOtJ ro, your conttnued supporr and aaetstance.

Thanlt you for your pertlctpetlon ln thls proJect

n

INSTRUCTIONRL HI€RRRCHI€S RCSCRRCH PROJGCT

Do y-ou serve as a supervisor for universitylcollege/high echool studentteachers or practicum students?

[ *" f] Eg+ Average number per quarter

Unlverslty of tlashington

ttlearntng disabled"

nlldly handlcapped

moderately handlcapped

severely handicapped

2. Chronologlcal age6: Frou: yearE to

3. Addltlonal etaff usually rorklng ulth you:

PROC€DUR€S QU€STIONNR IR€

Ntrrrls llnrlng,, Prlnclpal Inveetigator

prof oundly handlcapped

other

average _total etudentsPer year

average on any typlcalschool dav

years.

for a total of hours per week

for a total of hours per week

for a total of

5

8. Acquisltion (p.36-63) ts:

9. Fluency-Buildtng (p.64-95) ls:

10. Courpllance (p.97-115) ls:

for total hoursper week

For how nany students ln the followlng categorles do you provlde DIRECTservlce (instructton or therapy) ?

How many:

PART II: USE 0F THE ttANpBOO-K

The following questlons concern the usefulness of the Handbook durlng the trlalPerlod. Please clrcle one for each statement.

The lnformatlon presented on:

very IIot1. How to llake an rnstructional useful useful

Decision ls: 5 q 3 Z I

2. Quick Reference Guldes for changeStrategies(p.10-14)are: 5 4 3 Z I

3. Drawlng LLnes of Progress(p.15-24) ls: 5 4 3 Z I

4. Deter:srLning Percent Correct(p.25) ls:

5. Deternlning PerformanceVariablllty (p.26-27) ls:

5. Sharp Deceleratlon lnCorrects (p.28) is:

7 . General Consideratl.ons forInstructlonal Fortrats (p.29-35) ls:

2

2

2

,L

2

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

2/1l.

We would appreclate any comrents or suggestlons you may have relardtng the useof the Handbook durlng the Trial Period:Nu$er of pald asslstants:

Number of volunteers:

Nuuber of otherg:

4. If you are a classroon teache r, gervlcetherapists, occupatlonal theraplsts, conmunicatlon dlsordersprovlde dlrect eervice (lnstructlon or therapy) to one or rDore of your students?

hours per week

(e.9., physlcalepeclal tst s)

hours per week

PART I: EDUCATIONAI SETTING

I

I

I

I

I

I

[ "" n 4 ror an averese total or [l

ru,f-rJ-L{i--ffi LUIPEjgH$-ircHou that :lou have trad a chance to rry rhe prccedures tn your claasroorn' urhat

[e your Benerei atti.tude touard:

l. ilslng the procedlrre$ uh*nlnetrucElsnal prrgrans atr€establ f"sheci ?

2, 0*lIect.ing c{,{rect performancedata?

3. 0hartlng performance data?

lr. 0rawing Hlnimum oCeleration(Atn ) Ltnes?

5. Ilrautng Llnes of Progrers inorder to apply rules?

6. Using the experirnental decisiortrules ?

HCIw ofren did you urake decfslonr? GeneralIy svery

you

data dryu,

Have you csme &cross Eiata patterns uhich *re not cov*red Lry ths rulon?

Experimental Rulee for tJee wf t,h Hinlnum tCeleratlon'

ely how uuch tdure hav* you spcnt ueklng lnatructlonel decleton;chengtng, lnerructlonal prograura?

hourE per week

Hau ose$ thte compers rlth lhe amount of n[m* yclu aP*nt bsfort ue{n6 rhe

procedurcs?

mCIre tlme Ieme t*nre the gat;18 am#unt of himq

cei lle*tnd the f oI i.owiti6e the total number *f Prs&rsme 0n

tvpen of dara:

klu

7, Using *he ehange straregies forlnstruetional pr*gram.E ?

8, ftr'era} I ?

ilnf,svnrab 1e

32I

?

2

proErauts

VeryFavorab 1e

5c+

0pinicn

0

0

0

0

0

lio

0

S{+3?

Str3

5d+32I

5t4321

5&32I

5

6

5&3 0

0&qt*J

7 , Sverall,pr0gre$$

reguler rste

ardJusted r&te

pereen* correct

tn your opln{on, r*hEts6 compared ur{th thelr

aecelersted Puptl Progrers

deselcreted PUPII Progreos

nt: dlfftrence

PABI Y: Itl[ fUrURn

ciur*rton (trta}. meth*:d)

duretinn {nxartun srethod}

$.rnpact have rulas had on PuPt J.

progrts$ pri.or ro ths trtal period?

fdBi*J-Yi*jiWl. How nnan'y veehs have you userl (OfU you usei the experirnental prrceduree?

7,, Hgr., meny of your ,f tudent$ $ere tnvolved? students

3. !{hat $as the t$tal numtrer of prograos lnvo}ved?

t*, llhat rules dfd ysu use?

Bu:J"es for Ra[e Data (cn ye]Im paper)

Hcu of ten did ymu tnake dectstrons? GenerallY every data day(s),

Have you come across data patterng whtch ere not covered by the rules?

t{e usuld ltke t,o u88 your date tn srdtr to collGct tddttlonrl Lnfurtsstt*n cott*

cernlng the effecttrrenerr of rhe prsccdutei'

l, Hould you be wtlltng tp send uB f,op{sf, of your pupll perfofoance dltn rndf*rdectslon rerord *heets, lf ue pay for the eopylng?

nn

2, Do you plan tro csntl'nue uetngaf your classroon acttvltles?

f-lru* il"o

yes (a nember of the reeearch tten uill contrct you)

naY N

Euies for Percent Correct CIato (on yellow paper)

th* expertncntal procldures fi'3 t regulcr Psrt,

I

t

{I ,

b

3. Would you llke to exrend the trial period?

l--l yes (a rnember of the research team wtll contact you)L_J

If you do not plan on extending the trlal period, and/or you do not plan onusing the procedures after participation in this study, w€ would appreclateknowing your reasons:

no

Thank you forparticipatlon

taklngln thls

the tlne to complete thts questlonnalre and for yourstudy.

)