Effects of Multi-Tier Academic and Behavior Instruction on Difficult-to-Teach Students

Abstract

This article addresses the effects of 3-tiered comprehensive reading and behavior interventions on K-3 student outcomes in 7 urban elementary schools with a high prevalence of students considered difficult to teach. Specific features of each level of the implementation are described including screening and tier placement procedures, scheduling and personnel supports, procedures for ensuring strong implementation with fidelity, procedures for student progress monitoring, and guidelines for instructional decision making. Early literacy skill outcomes for students were the primary dependent measures in reading; schoolwide office discipline referral rate was the dependent measure in behavior. Significant improvement was evident in phoneme segmentation and nonsense word fluency in reading and significant decreases were documented in office discipline referrals across treatment and comparison schools. Significantly higher outcomes were also recorded on required statewide end-of-grade assessments in treatment schools. Implications and caveats concerning effective implementation of the model in other settings are provided. The article emphasizes that changing schoolwide reading and behavior risk requires effective intervention, instruction, and support in both areas.

Updating and expanding systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on the effects of school‐wide positive behavior interventions and supports

“…Overall, 32 studies using an RCT or QED were identified that evaluated the effect of SWPBIS on school‐level outcomes. Six of the studies used an RCT design (Algozzine et al, ; Bradshaw et al, , ; Horner, Sugai, Smolkowski, et al, ; Sørlie & Ogden, ; Waasdorp, Bradshaw & Leaf, ), while 26 studies used a QED design with a comparison group that did not receive SWPBIS training. Characteristics of the collected studies are presented in Table .…”

“…A great effort was made to identify all potential studies by using several search procedures, including forward and backward searches and hand searches. Second, Algozzine et al () included both academic and behavioral interventions in their model, therefore, the academic intervention may have also affected students’ academic achievement. Third, there were studies that used the same samples, but different outcomes (Bradshaw et al, ; Waasdorp et al, ), which may increase bias.…”

“…First, we extracted means, standard deviations ( SD ), proportions (e.g., percentage of students in a school with one or more ODR), and sample sizes for all included outcomes. If descriptive statistics were not available, we extracted t values for t tests (suspensions in Algozzine, Wang, White et al, ), F values from analysis of variance models (Guardino, ), or recorded the author reported effect sizes (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, ; Bradshaw, Waasdorp, & Leaf, ; Gage, Lee et al, ; Gage, Lee, Grasley‐Boy, & Peshak George, ; Gage & Stevens, ; Grasley‐Boy et al, ). We then calculated standardized mean difference effect sizes ( g ) and the variance of g for all outcomes following formulas described in Lipsey and Wilson ().…”

Predicting Academics via Behavior Within an Elementary Sample: An Evaluation of the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener (Saebrs)

“…Algozzine et al. () echoed this sentiment, stressing that a focus on behavior is a crucial component of academic efforts, and that a decision to consider academics alone at the expense of behavior may be misguided. The influence of this work on behavior screening research is evident in recent studies regarding the extent to which screening tools predict academic outcomes.…”

“…Collectively, this research has established the importance of educators considering student behavior, even when their stated purpose is to bolster academic outcomes (Horner et al, 2009;Putnam, Horner, & Algozzine, 2006). Algozzine et al (2012) echoed this sentiment, stressing that a focus on behavior is a crucial component of academic efforts, and that a decision to consider academics alone at the expense of behavior may be misguided. The influence of this work on behavior screening research is evident in recent studies regarding the extent to which screening tools predict academic outcomes.…”