Education researchers have recently called for the development of interventions to address the needs of students with or at risk of disabilities who exhibit co-occurring academic and behavioral needs. Teachers of these students frequently prioritize intervening on problem behavior rather than academics. However, addressing students’ academic needs with interventions that change classroom environments may reduce problem behavior. This study examined the effects of a reciprocal peer-tutoring program on disruptive behavior and academic engagement. An A-B-A-B design was implemented in an eighth-grade intervention classroom receiving Tier 2 supports from a general educator, with one student who demonstrated frequent disruptive behavior and concomitant reading difficulty. Results support a functional relation between the intervention and changes in disruptive behavior and academic engagement. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

The purpose of this review was to synthesize research on the effect of professional development (PD) targeting data-based decision-making processes on teachers’ knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy related to curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and data-based decision-making (DBDM). To be eligible for this review, studies had to (a) be published in English, (b) include in-service or pre-service K–12 teachers as participants, (c) use an empirical group design, and (d) include sufficient data to calculate an effect size for teacher outcome variables. The mean effect of DBDM PD on teacher outcomes was g = 0.57 ( p < .001). This effect was not moderated by study quality. These results must be viewed through the lens of significant heterogeneity in effects across included studies, which could not be explained by follow-up sensitivity analyses. In addition, the experimental studies included in this review occurred under ideal, researcher-supported conditions, which impacts the generalizability of the effects of DBDM PD in practice. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

No abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effects of providing mindset intervention in addition to reading intervention compared with only reading intervention for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Reading intervention was provided daily in 45 min sessions throughout the school year. Mindset intervention occurred in small groups for 24–30 min lessons. Multilevel structural equation modeling (SEM) via n-level SEM was used to account for the latent variable representation of constructs, and the complex nesting and cross-classification structure of the data. Students in the reading intervention plus mindset condition significantly outperformed the business as usual condition on nonword reading ( d = 0.35) as did students in the reading intervention condition ( d = 0.20), who also outperformed the business as usual condition on phonological processing ( d = 0.28). There were no significant differences among students in the three conditions on nonword reading, word reading, phonological processing, reading comprehension, or growth mindset. Initial reading achievement, mindset, and problem behavior did not generally moderate these findings.

Empirical studies investigating supplemental reading interventions for students with or at-risk for reading disabilities in the early elementary grades have demonstrated a range of effect sizes. Identifying the findings from high quality research can provide greater certainty of findings related to the effectiveness of supplemental reading interventions. This meta-analysis investigated how four variables of study quality (study design, statistical treatment, Type I error, and fidelity of implementation) were related to effect sizes from standardized measures of foundational reading skills and language/comprehension. The results from 88 studies indicated that year of publication was a significant predictor of effect sizes for both standardized measures of foundational reading skills and language/comprehension, with more recent studies demonstrating smaller effect sizes. Results also demonstrated that with the exception of research design predicting effect sizes on foundational reading skills measures, study quality was not related to the effects of supplemental reading interventions. Implications for research and practice are discussed.