Development and Validation of Feedback Routines for Instructing Students with Learning Disabilities

Abstract

This investigation focused on validating two feedback routines for use by special education teachers to enhance the performance of students with learning disabilities. One routine (the Feedback Routine) involved teacher-delivered elaborated feedback, the other (the Feedback-Plus-Assistance Routine) consisted of elaborated feedback plus a student-acceptance routine, which included setting goals for the next practice trial. Two experimental designs were employed: one to determine whether teachers could learn the routines, the other to determine the effects on student learning. Dependent measures were (a) teacher and student performance of the routines, (b) student trials to mastery, and (c) student errors across trials. Measures of teacher and student satisfaction and teacher maintenance were also gathered. Results indicated that the special education teachers effectively integrated the routines into their teaching repertoires. Further, the routines significantly reduced the number of student trials to mastery and the number of student errors in practice attempts following feedback sessions. The two routines appeared equally powerful in terms of teacher and student learning; however, the teachers continued to maintain the routine requiring student involvement in goal setting for a longer period.

The effectiveness of a program based on self-regulated strategy development on the writing skills of writing-disabled secondary school students

“…They often lack a well-developed sense of sentence style and produce short and "choppy" sentences (Kline, Schumaker & Deshler, 1991). Thus, the repetition of simple sentences and frequent use of run-on sentences are common mistakes exhibited by these students.…”

Increasing struggling learners’ self‐efficacy: what tutors can do and say

“…and what steps they can take to improve their performance, tutors tell learners if they are on the right track and prevent them from practicing errors (Kline et al, 1991;Guthrie & Humenick, 2004;Salend, 2005). They provide information needed by learners to discard erroneous concepts, reduce uncertainty, correctly apply and value strategies, and accurately self-monitor their work.…”

Crossing Boundaries: What Constructivists Can Teach Intensive-Ex plicit Instructors and Vice Versa

“…IE is intensive because it involves teaching practices that ensure that students are engaged in learning and actively mastering content (Ellis et al, 1991). IE is explicit because it involves teachers' clearly modeling covert thinking (Mercer, Lane, Jordan, Allsop, & Eisele, 1996;Roehler & Duffy, 1984) and providing detailed feedback as students move toward mastery of content (Kline, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1991).…”

“…Specifically, during each feedback session f~r Paraphrasing, the teacher (a) authentically praises each student for what he or she has done well, (b) notes a category of error in the students ' work, ( c) models for the student a way to avoid that error, ( d) and ensures that the student understands what to do differently by asking the student to demonstrate how to perform the practice attempt correctly (Kline et al, 1991).…”

“…Also, while they are learning, students set goals and receive feedback on their progress toward their goals (Kline et al, 1991). Pressley (1992) comments, "Throughout instruction, teachers attempt to keep motivation high, largely by highlighting the empowerment that accompanies acquisition of powerful procedures that accomplish important academic tasks" (p. 11).…”