THE EFFECTS OF FUNCTION-BASED ACADEMIC AND BEHAVIOR
INTERVENTION ON PROBLEM BEHAVIORS AND READING PERFORMANCE
FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN A THAI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
by
CHANISA APICHATABUTRA
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Department of Special Education
and Clinical Sciences
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the reguirements
for the degree of
Doctor ofPhilosophy
March 2009
UIVII Number: 3356580
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
lJMI®
UMI Microform 3356580
Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, M148106-1346
11
University of Oregon Graduate School
Confirmation of Approval and Acceptance of Dissertation prepared by:
Chanisa Apichatabutra
Title:
"The Effects of Function-Based Academic and Behavior Intervention on Problem
Behaviors and Reading Performance for English Language Learners in a Thai
Elementary School"
This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree in the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences
by:
Robert Horner, Chairperson, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Elizabeth Ham, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Richard Albin, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Kathie Carpenter, Outside Member, International Studies
and Richard Linton, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies/Dean of the
Graduate School for the University of Oregon.
March 20, 2009
Original approval signatures are on file with the Graduate School and the University of
Oregon Libraries.
© 2009 Chanisa Apichatabutra
111
Chanisa Apichatabutra
An Abstract of the Dissertation of
for the degree of
IV
Doctor ofPhilosophy
in the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences
to be taken March 2009
Title: THE EFFECTS OF FUNCTION-BASED ACADEMIC AND BEHAVIOR
INTERVENTION ON PROBLEM BEHAVIORS AND READING
PERFORMANCE FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN A THAI
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Approved: _
Dr. Robert Homer
This study investigated the effectiveness of function-based academic and behavior
intervention on behavior and reading improvement for five English language learners
who exhibited escape-maintained problem behaviors and academic reading difficulties.
The study sought to document the effect of a function-based approach on students with
highly diverse cultural backgrounds in an international school in Thailand. The
intervention emphasized (a) the functional behavior assessment (FBA) strategies to
identify the function ofthe target behavior, (b) evidence-based effective reading
instructional approaches, and (c) responsiveness to cultural perspectives ofteachers and
students.
vA combined single-subject research methodology documented a functional
relationship between implementation of the function-based intervention and decreased
problem behaviors. The findings revealed the potential to increase academic engagement
and reading performance for the students by following a behavior support plan based on
effective reading instruction and tasks modified to accommodate students' academic
needs.
The study emphasized cultural responsiveness of the intervention plan and
implementation. Despite several limitations, this experimental research incorporated
culture into behavior and academic support as well as into the research designs. In future
application, cultural responsiveness among professionals will be a key element to ensure
that future intervention support will meaningfully change the lives of students and will be
sustained over time.
VI
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Chanisa Apichatabutra
PLACE OF BIRTH: Bangkok, Thailand
DATE OF BIRTH: December 8, 1978
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon, Eugene
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
DEGREES AWARDED:
Doctor of Philosophy in Special Education, 2009, University of Oregon
Master of Arts in Special Education, 2003, University of Oregon
Master of Arts in International Studies, 2003, University of Oregon
Bachelor of Arts in English, 1999, Chulalongkorn University
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Integrating Culture into Educational Change and School Improvement
Early Literacy for English Language Learners
Positive Behavior Support
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Teaching Assistant, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
(2006-2009)
University Lecturer, Special Education Program, Suan Dusit Rajabhat University,
Bangkok, Thailand (2004-2005)
Teacher, Helen Doron Early English Program, Bangkok, Thailand (2004-2005)
Teacher, Social skill group, The Village Education Center, Bangkok, Thailand
(2004)
Coordinator, Self-Study Language Program, Yamada Language Center,
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR (2001-2003)
Vll
Project Assistant, United Nation Development Programme (UNDP), Bangkok,
Thailand (1999-2000)
GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS:
Graduate Teaching Fellow, 2006-2009
University of Oregon
Southeast Asian Research Scholarship, 2003 and 2008
University of Oregon
Pin Julaphongs Thai Student Scholarship, 2007-2008
University of Oregon
PUBLICATIONS:
Baker, S. K., Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Apichatabutra, c., & Doabler,
C. (in press). The basis of evidence for self-regulated strategy development.
Exceptional Children.
Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Baker, S. K., Doabler, c., & Apichatabutra,
C. (2009). Repeated reading interventions for students with learning
disabilities: Status of the evidence. Exceptional Children, 75, 263-281.
Apichatabutra, C. (2003). The impact of international norms and movements on
domestic disability policy: The case study ofThailand. Unpublished master's
thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene.
V111
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
If my life were a journey, pursuing a Ph.D. at the University of Oregon would be an
lmforgettable trip. Besides academic accomplishment, my great discovery has been love,
friendship, and the goodwill of people around me. I would not have come this far without
their support.
I was honored to work with my advisor, Dr. Robert Horner, a genuine teacher,
professor, and researcher whose work I have always admired. He not only teaches the
importance of positive behavior support for students, but he has provided me, as one of his
student, with the best support, always respectful of our cultural differences.
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation committee-Dr. Beth
Ham, Dr. Rick Albin, and Dr. Kathie Carpenter-for their brilliant feedback and advice.
To Dr. David Chard, who served as my advisor during my master's program and my
doctoral program from 2005 to 2007, your encouragement and supports will always be
remembered and appreciated.
I am moved and very touched by my cohort and treasured friend, Jessica Swain-
Bradway, who always told me "Yes, you can do it, Chanisa." Our friendship is
immeasurable, yet observable. To Kathie Jungjohann, you have given me the exceptional
opportunity of learning from you. You are a wonderful teacher and role model. I thank the
staff of the Department of Special Education, University of Oregon. Your wonderful work
to provide support to students cannot go unacknowledged. To Aunt Sunantha, Uncle
Richard Baron, and Aunt Pissamai Nissen, my dear aunts and uncle in Eugene, thank you
IX
so much for your hospitality and for taking the very best care of me. My debt to you is
immeasurable.
To my dearest grandmother, I am not perfect, but I am blessed just to know that to
you I always am. To my mom and dad, you are wonderful parents whom I always look up
to in every way. Dad, your love of learning and perseverance, and Mom, your humbleness
and warm-hearted nature have shaped my life. These qualities of yours will help me to pass
through any struggle life can bring. To my family, no words can describe how lucky I feel
to be a part of you. To Kantirak Tantixalerm, I thank you dearly for being there for me
through good and bad times. Your simple pep talks have always meant a lot to me.
I thank my friends in Thailand and in Eugene for every cheerful word of support
and encouragement. To the students and faculty at Chulalongkom University and the
school I worked with, thank you for your immense contribution to this study.
One phrase I heard £i·om these beloved people and I will always remember: "You
can do it." Thank you so much. I will continue to travel and always look forward to the
challenging trips life will bring.
xI dedicate this dissertation to my beloved family. Thank you for being you and loving me.
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 1
The Problem and its Significance 1
Reactive Approach to Behavior Intervention 5
The Coercive Cycle 6
Proactive Approach to Behavior Intervention 8
The Promising Cycle of Appropriate Behaviors and Academic Gain 9
Cultural Perspective of Intervention 11
Function-Based Intervention 12
Statement of Purpose 12
Research Questions 13
II. LITERATlTRE REVIEW 15
The Function-Based Academic and Behavior Intervention 21
Applied Behavior Analysis 22
Functional Behavior Assessment 22
Positive Behavior Support 25
Function-Based Intervention 26
Nonfunction-Based Behavioral Support Intervention 29
Embedded Cultural Values of Behavioral Intervention:
Contextual Fit 31
Effective Reading Intervention for English Language Learners 37
Refining Education in a Global Context 37
English Language 38
Learning English Language in Thailand 38
Learning to Read English 39
Effective Reading Intervention for English Language Learners .41
Direct Instruction 44
Academic Instruction and Culture 45
Single Subject Research Methodology .47
m. METHODOLOGY 49
Research Questions 49
Setting 50
Reading Curricula 52
Positive Behavior Support 52
Participants 53
Kenso 55
Chapter
xii
Page
Kwan 57
Khun 59
Salim 61
Gus 62
Teacher Participants 63
Measurement Overview 64
Phase 1: Informed Consent Procedure 64
Phase 2: Screening 64
Problem Behavior 64
Reading Performance 65
Phase 3: Intervention 66
Phase 4: Evaluation 66
Measurement 67
Problem Behavior 67
Academic Engagement 68
Interobserver Agreement 69
Reading Performance 69
Cultural Responsiveness 71
Design and Procedures 73
Design 73
Baseline Condition 74
Functional Behavior Assessment Results 75
Function-Based Academic and Behavior Intervention Condition 76
Behavior Support Intervention 77
Kenso 79
Kwan 81
Khun 83
Salim 85
Gus 87
Reading Intervention 87
Reading Materials 89
Fidelity of Implementation 90
Behavior Support Intervention 90
Reading Intervention 92
Social Validity 93
IV. RESULTS 94
Effects of Function-Based Intervention on Problem Behavior 95
Multiple-Baseline Design 97
Baseline 97
Function-Based Intervention 98
xiii
Chapter Page
ABAB Design 99
Baseline 99
Function-Based Intervention 100
Summary of Analysis 100
Effects of Function-Based Intervention on Academic Engagement 101
Multiple-Baseline Design 103
Baseline 103
Function-Based Intervention 104
ABAB Design 105
Baseline 105
Function-Based Intervention 105
Summary of Analysis 105
Effects of Function-Based Intervention on Reading Performance 106
Means and Change in Means for WCPM and Errors 108
Growth Rate Considerations 110
Fidelity of Implementation 112
Behavior Support Intervention 112
Technical Adequacy Scores 113
Contextual Fit Scores 114
Reading Intervention 115
Interobserver Agreement 116
Social Validity 116
V. DISCUSSION 119
Summary of Findings , 121
Effects of Function-Based Intervention on Problem Behavior
Outcomes 122
Effects of Function-Based Intervention on Academic Engagement
Outcomes 126
Effects of Function-Based Intervention on Reading Performance
Outcomes 129
Social Validity 132
Implications for Educational Practice 133
Implication for Academic and Behavior Support in Thailand 133
Implication for Special Education Research and Practices 134
Implication for Exploring the Cultural Context of Intervention 137
Limitations 139
Future Research 141
Conclusion 144
- ------ ------ ---- - - -- - ----- - -- - - --- -- -- -- ---
XIV
Chapter
APPENDICES
Page
A. TEACHER INFORMED CONSENT FORM 146
B. PARENT/GUARDIAN INFORMED CONSENT LETTER: SCREENING
AND GRADE LEVEL-PEERS 149
C. TEACHER NOMINATION FORM 152
D. PARENT/GUARDIAN INFORMED CONSENT LETTER:
INTERVENTION 154
E. STUDENT ASSENT FORM 157
F. FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST FOR TEACHERS AND
STAFF (FACTS) 159
G. FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OBSERVATION FORM (FAO) 163
H. CONTEXTUAL FIT QUESTIONNAIRE 165
I. TEACHER CONSUMER SATISFACTION SURVEY 169
J. lOS-INTERVEAL OBSERVATION FORM 171
K. DYNAMIC INDICATORS OF BASIC EARLY LITERACY SKILLS
(DIBELS): PROGRESS MONITORING 174
L. READING INTERVENTION PLAN 177
M. PHONICS FOR READING INTEGRITY CHECKLIST 181
N. BEHAVIOR SUPPORT PLANS 185
O. BEHAVIOR SUPPORT PLAN CRITICAL FEATURES
SCORING GUIDE 208
P. INDIVIDUALIZED INTERVENTIONS CRITICAL FEATURES
CHECKLIST 210
REFERENCES 213
- - ----- --
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. The Coercive Cycle of Escape-Maintained Problem Behavior and
Academic Failure 7
2. The Promising Cycle of Appropriate Behaviors and Academic Gain 10
3. Three-tier Response to Intervention Model of Academic and
Behavior Support 16
4. Function-Based Academic and Behavior Intervention Addressing the Three
Main Components 19
5. Fundamental Conceptual Framework for Function-Based Intervention 21
6. Conceptual Framework for Function-Based Intervention 28
7. FBA Summary Statement for Kenso 57
8. FBA Summary Statement for Kwan 59
9. FBA Summary Statement for Khun 60
10. FBA Summary Statement for Salim 62
11. FBA Summary Statement for Gus 63
12. Competing Behavior Pathway for Kenso 80
13. Competing Behavior Pathway for Kwan 82
14. Competing Behavior Pathway for Khun 84
15. Competing Behavior Pathway for Salim 86
16. Competing Behavior Pathway for Gus 88
17. Effects of Function-Based Academic and Behavior Intervention on
Problem Behavior 96
18. Effect of Function-Based Academic and Behavior Intervention on
Academic Engagement 102
19. Effects of the Function-Based Academic and Behavior Intervention on
Reading Performance 107
XVI
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Demographic and Screening Data for Student Participants 55
2. Students' Information Summary 78
3. Means and Change in Means for Problem Behavior 97
4. Documentation of a Functional Relationship between the Function-Based
Intervention and Problem Behavior 101
5. Means and Change in Means for Academic Engagement 103
6. Documentation of a Functional Relationship between the Function-Based
Intervention and Academic Engagement 106
7. Means and Change in Mean for Oral Reading Fluency 109
8. Criteria for Determining the Number of Words per Week Growth 111
9. Number of Word per Week Growths for Each Student during
the Intervention 112
10. Technical Adequacy Scores for Five Behavior Support Plans 114
11. Mean and Mean Percentage of Contextual Fit Scores 115
1CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
The Problem and Its Significance
Problem behavior in schools poses a major social problem in most countries.
Across cultures, problem behavior disrupts effective learning environments. Recurrent
types of problems in classrooms range from substance abuse, weapons use, bullying and
truancy, to aggressive, disruptive, and off-task behavior. Students engaged in problem
behaviors are at higher risk than their peers for significant difficulties in academic
achievement and social relationships (Crone & Horner, 2003; Walker, Colvin, &
Ramsey, 1995). The U.S. Department of Education reported that approximately 4 of
every 100 students who were emolled in high school in October 2004 left school before
October 2005 without completing a high school program. Their report did not identify the
percentage of students who left high school early due to problem behaviors, but trends
suggest that this percentage would be high. The National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) reported 57 instances of nonfatal crimes (e.g., theft and violence) per 1,000
students ages 12 to 18 in 2005, and indicated that some 4% of students ages 12 to 18
reported being victimized at school within the previous six months O"-rCES, 2007). In
Japan, the rate of bullying was assessed at 1.6 incidents per 1,000 students in 2003
2(Dussich & Maekoya, 2007). In a South African private school, 90% of students reported
that they have been bullied (Dussich & Maekoya, 2007).
In Thailand, a national survey indicated that 38% of 3,037 students in 4th
(Pratomsuksa, or primary school, Level 4) to 9th (Mathayom, or high school, Level 3)
grades reported having been bullied two to three times within the previous two months
(Tapanya, 2006). According to the study, Thai teachers reported that they acknowledged
and had tried some means to prevent the bullying but could not prevent them. Tapanya
(2006) also pointed out that more than 70% of 1,300 teachers who completed the survey
perceived physical punishment (i.e., spanking) as an appropriate consequence for
problem behaviors.
Substantial research shows that problem behavior not only threatens the overall
school environment, but also highly predicts academic difficulties among students who
engage in problem behaviors (Levy & Chard, 2001; McEvoy & Walker, 2000; McIntosh,
Chard, Boland, & Horner, 2006; Nelson, Benner, Lane, & Smith, 2004; Tobin & Sugai,
1999; Walker & Shinn, 2002). The long-term outcomes of both antisocial behaviors and
academic difficulties may include further social and academic failures (Walker, Ramsey,
& Gresham, 2004).
McIntosh et al. (2006) found that students who engaged in problem behaviors as
measured by office discipline referrals (ODRs) were likely to have a lower level of
reading performance as measured by the Dynamic Indicators ofBasic Early Literacy
Skills (DIBELS) (Good & Kaminski, 2003). At the same time, the study indicated that
3students who did not meet reading benchmarks in kindergarten were more likely to
receive ODRs and need additional behavior supports when they reached higher grades.
A cross-sectional research (Nelson et ai., 2004) conducted with K-12 students
with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) found that students with externalizing
types of behavior (i.e., attention-maintained, aggression, delinquency) experienced
academic achievement deficits in all content areas, including reading, writing, and
mathematics. In particular, academic difficulties in the area of reading were found to be
highly associated with problem behaviors in classrooms (Barton-Arwood, Wehby, &
Falk, 2005; Levy & Chard, 2001; Nelson et ai., 2004; Wehby, Falk, Barton-Arwood,
Lane, & Cooley, 2003). Nelson et ai. (2004) noted that problem behaviors were likely to
increase and resist to intervention efforts as students moved into higher grade levels.
According to research, students with problem behaviors do not appear to improve
academically over time (Nelson et ai., 2004), and remediation of academic difficulties
becomes increasingly difficult (Hinshaw, 1992; Torgesen, 1998; Torgesen, 2002). Given
these findings, early intervening in antisocial behaviors and in academic deficits not only
prevents further socially inappropriate behaviors for students, but also conserves time,
energy, and resources for school personnel (McIntosh et ai., 2006; Walker et ai., 1995;
Walker & Shinn, 2002).
Findings from congruent research suggested that problem behaviors and academic
challenges were two main interrelated factors of student failure that often require
concurrent intervention (McIntosh et ai., 2006; Nelson et ai., 2004). However,
interventions often focus either on academic or behavior problems, leaving one or the
4other concern unaddressed. Studies indicate that students who exhibit problem behaviors
and who struggle with reading usually receive interventions that allocate excessive time
to eliminating disruptive behavior while allocating insufficient time to address deficit
reading skills (Barton-Arwood et aI., 2005; Levy & Chard, 2001; Wehby et aI., 2003).
Conversely, effective academic interventions that lack knowledge of students' behaviors
may increase inappropriate behaviors, further challenging effective academically help
(Lee, Sugai, & Homer, 1999; McKenna, 2006). Such narrowly defined interventions
were ineffective in addressing both academic skill deficits and behavior problems in the
classroom, resulting in nonmeaningful curricula, ineffective teaching strategies, and
nonfunction-based intervention (Foorman & Burke, 2007; Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, &
Sugai, 2005; McKenna, 2006).
Given that academic and behavior challenges are too closely linked to approach
independently and intervene separately (Hinshaw, 1992; McIntosh et aI., 2006), recent
studies documented comprehensive interventions that simultaneously target effective
academic instruction and behavior supports. These studies designed traditional academic
intervention which incorporated information on a purpose or afunction of behavior
(Barton-Arwood et aI., 2005; Burke, Hagan-Burke, & Sugai, 2003; Hagan-Burke, Burke,
& Sugai, 2007; Kern, Childs, Dunlap, Clarke, & Falk, 1994; Lee et aI., 1999; McKenna,
2006; Preciado, 2006). The results produced positive changes in students' academic and
behavior outcomes.
5Reactive Approach to Behavior Intervention
Although schools have developed plans to manage problem behaviors, studies
indicate that many educators still lack appropriate training to provide student behavior
support (Gresham, 2004; Walker & Shinn, 2002). Behavior interventions most studied
before 1990 relied commonly on reactive approaches or aversive consequences (e.g.,
detention, suspension, or expulsion from school) to punishing and deterring problem
behaviors (Crone & Horner, 2003; Horner, Carr, Strain, Todd, & Reed, 2002). Too often,
educators pay attention to problem behavior in a person and attempt to change the person
as opposed to the purpose or function of the behavior (Crone & Horner, 2003; March &
Horner, 2002; O'Neill, Horner, Albin, Sprague, Storey, & Newton, 1997; Umbreit, Ferro,
Liaupsin, & Lane, 2007). Teachers who are lack appropriate knowledge and skill in
delivering behavior interventions may inadvertently reinforce problem behaviors rather
than minimize them. For example, a teacher who habitually attends to a student every
time the student yells does not determine why the student yells. The teacher may
inadvertently reinforce yelling behavior, although the behavior is actually the student's
means to obtain something, such as attention, or to avoid something, such as undesirable
tasks. Despite the intervention, the student still will conduct other types of problem
behaviors in order to achieve desired results. Moreover, when the teacher targets a
problem behavior but fails to consider its function, the teacher may repeat ineffective
intervention.
The use of punishment or negative consequence impacts behaviors in the short
run. However, such behaviors are likely to return and even get worse (Mayer, 1995). For
-- - - -- ---- --- - -- -- ----
6
example, if a student engages in disruptive behaviors (e.g., talking out, poking others, or
assuming inappropriate postures) to avoid participating in group work, the teacher's
decision to punish such conduct by sending the student to the corner to cease the
disruption would likely reinforce the problem. The student has learned that being
disruptive effectively serves the goal of avoiding group work. The teacher's inattention to
the function of the student's behavior may lead to more severe social and academic
problems.
The Coercive Cycle
The coercive cycle (Figure 1) was initially termed by Patterson (1982) to explain
the extent to which children increase problem behaviors such as aggression as a result of
the interaction pattern with adults. In a classroom situation, sending a student to time-out
every time he yells is ineffective because the student yells to avoid doing task and the
behavior is rewarding (i.e., going to time-out and not having to do the task). Without the
knowledge about the function of the behavior, the teacher inadvertently rewards the
problem behavior. When the student engages in problem behaviors, he has less time to
acquire academic skills, which in turn puts him at risk for academic failure. At the same
time, during instructional activities in which the student finds his tasks aversive, he
develops a variety ofproblem behaviors as a mean to escape from the difficult academic
demands. When the student has fewer opportunities to receive positive reinforcement for
on-task behavior or to acknowledge that his problem behavior results in incorrect
answers, any positive behavior may disappear or be replaced by a problem behavior
(Durand & Carr, 1992; Lee et aI., 1999).
7
Academic tasks are
aversive due to poor
performance
(e.g., attempting to do
work result in failure)
Escape-maintained
behaviors as function of
task avoidance
(e.g., yelling to avoid
doing difficult task)
Inappropriate
rei nforcement
(e.g., being sent to
time-out)
Failure to acquire
academic skills
(e.g., misses the
lessons)
•
Problem behaviors
become more likely
(e.g., finding escaping
tasks rewarding and
continuing)
Figure 1. The coercive cycle of escape-maintained problem behavior and academic
failure (adapted from Patterson, 1982).
This coercive cycle of escape-maintained problem behavior and academic failure
presents elements that sustained themselves and lead to three negative outcomes: (a)
likelihood that problem behavior will be increase, (b) likelihood that the student fail
academically, and (c) likelihood that the teacher repeat ineffective intervention or
8continue to exclude the student from classroom activities. Ultimately, this cycle intenupts
classroom teaching and learning both for students who demonstrate problem behaviors
and for those who do not (Lane, Wehby, & Barton-Arwood, 2005) and must be
intervened.
The challenge is to plan an intervention that goes beyond matching a problem
behavior with a selection of effective intervention options. Scientific-based academic
intervention such as prompting and signaling or peer tutoring are relevant and
appropriate; but focus on the behavioral function of academic problems enhances
traditional academic interventions to improve students' academic engagement and
academic success, and at the same time improve their social behaviors. Effective
intervention has two primary goals: (a) to decrease problem behaviors and (b) to increase
appropriate replacement behaviors (Crone & Horner, 2003). To achieve these goals,
intervention must address the behavioral functions by (a) eliminating or altering the
predictors that maintain problem behaviors, (b) providing appropriate replacement
behaviors that serve the same function as the problem behaviors, and (c) removing the
consequences that maintain the problem behaviors.
Proactive Approach to Behavior Intervention
Behavior occurs in contexts, not in people. For example, "Fredda is not a biter,
rather, when presented with food she does not like, Fredda will bite her wrist until the
undesired food is removed" (O'Neill et aI., 1997, p. 5). To intervene the cycle of problem
behavior and academic failure, effective intervention moves from a reactive approach
9toward a preventive approach that changes the environments and contexts in which
problem behavior occurs (Carr et aI., 1999; Gresham, 2004; Koegel, Koegel, & Dunlap,
1996).
The proactive approach to intervention process emphasizes a change that
examines how behaviors function in the environment. Horner and Carr (1997) note that
"To a very great extent, effective behavior support is about engineering of settings
(schools, homes, workplaces) so that problem behaviors become less likely" (p. 84).
Positive behavior support has focused on the mechanisms by which individuals develop
problem behaviors based on basic behavior principles (Mace, 1994). As a replacement of
the undesired behaviors, positive behavior support puts emphasis on the teaching of
socially appropriate behaviors (Sugai et aI., 2000).
The Promising Cycle ofAppropriate Behaviors and Academic Gain
One effective intervention based on information about antecedents and
consequences that maintain a problem behavior is to replace the inappropriate behavior
with a more appropriate one (i.e., staying on task). Moreover, when students receive
necessary academic skills with well-planned instructional delivery, academic tasks
become nonaversive and the consequences of problem behavior are no longer reinforcing.
At the same time, research has shown that students are likely to engage in on-task
behavior when the consequences are more positively reinforcing (e.g., attention, rewards,
self-satisfaction) (Durand & Carr, 1992; Hagan-Burke et aI., 2007; Lee et aI., 1999). For
example, a student receives sufficient skills to complete a reading task. The student
10
works on task to complete the work correctly. As a result, the teacher praises the student
for being on task and completing the work properly. As the magnitude of positive
reinforcement increases, problem behaviors can be ameliorated, while more on-task
behaviors can be increased. The more time students spend in on-task behavior and the
less time they spend in problem behavior, the more academic skills they will acquire in
order to become successful academically (see Figure 2).
Find academic task
non aversive
(e.g., finding task easy
and doable)
On-task behaviors and
correct academic response
(e.g., staying engaged
and reading correctly)
Appropriate
reinforcement
(e.g., receiving praise
and rewards)
Acquire academic skills
(e.g., spending more
time and attention on
lessons)
•
Decreased problem
behaviors and more
engagement
(e.g., finding on-task
behavior rewarding and
continuing)
Figure 2. The promising cycle of appropriate behaviors and academic gain.
- --- - -- - ---------- --- -- -- -------- -- --- ----- -- -
11
Cultural Perspective ofIntervention
Academic and behavior support is necessary to help students to become
successful. However, one serious challenge in planning support intervention for students
is to incorporate the cultural variables, including the nornlS, traditions, values, and
religious belief of students and teachers, into the intervention plan. A number of
conceptual frameworks have been proposed to help understand the influence of culture on
people and organizations among various societies. The well-known Hofstede's Cultural
Dimensions framework defines culture as "the collective programming of the mind which
distinguishes the members of one human group from another" (Hofstede, 1991, p. 21).
The cultural context of academic and behavior intervention, however, primarily addresses
what works for a particular group of students at a particular time and place, rather than
providing a global approach (Gay, 2002; Kauffman, Conroy, Gardner, & Oswald, 2008)
Cultural context is especially relevant to academic and behavior support for
students for whom English is a second language, who are English language learners
(ELL). ELL students are at risk for mild to serious academic and behavior problems.
Research has found that ELLs historically have lagged behind in academic achievement,
especially in reading (Drucker, 2003). They are likely to receive a uniform academic
intervention that does not match individual needs, experience academic difficulty, and
feel trapped by a negative reinforcement cycle (Gersten & Geva, 2003). Moreover,
academic difficulty is causally linked to problem behavior which seeks to avoid difficult
academic demands (Burke et aI., 2003; Preciado, 2006).
12
Function-Based Intervention
In behavior analysis literature, "function" refers to the way in which a behavior
serves an individual's purpose (0 'Neill et aI., 1997). Behavioral function is maintained
by negative or positive reinforcement (Crone & Homer, 2003; Ingram et aI., 2005).
Based on the fundamental principle that human behavior is functional, predictable, and
changeable (Crone & Homer, 2003), the functional behavior assessment (FBA) approach
places behavior in an environmental context. The intervention support plan involves
teaching a functional equivalent and alternative behavior which makes the problem
behavior irrelevant, inefficient, and ineffective. The process also attempts to identify
factors that contribute to and maintain the problem behavior (Horner et aI., 2002; Sugai et
aI., 2000). Function-based intervention develops behavior change strategies that are
based on information gathered in the FBA and that are relevant to the purpose or
function, which the behavior serves (Ingram et aI., 2005; Umbreit et aI., 2007). The
resulting intervention specifically addresses the function ofthe behavior.
Statement of Purpose
Students who engage in problem behaviors are at high risk for academic failure.
Both problem behaviors and academic difficulties are highly associated with future
school dropout and other social problems. To help students to become more successful,
effective academic intervention must focus on behavior support plans as well as address
to contextual variations that may reinforce problem behavior.
13
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects ofa function-based
intervention that was designed to decrease problem behaviors, increase academic
engagement, and improve English-reading performance for elementary ELLs in Thailand.
The comprehensive intervention was based on (a) functional behavior assessment (FBA)
(Dunlap, White, Vera, Wilson, & Panacek, 1996; Ingram et aI., 2005; Kern et aI., 1994;
Sugai et aI., 2000; Walker et aI., 1996), (b) effective early reading instruction and
delivery (Carnine, Silbert, Kame'enui, & Tarvers, 2004; Linen-Thompson, Vaughn,
Hickman-Davis, & Kouzekanani, 2002; National Reading Panel, 2000; Vaughn, Mathes,
Linan-Thompson, & Francis, 2005), and (c) cultural responsiveness (Albin, Lucyshyn,
Homer, & Flannery, 1996; Gay, 2002; Kaufman et aI., 2008; Lynch & Hanson, 2004;
Salantine & Homer, 2002; Wang, McCart, & Tumball, 2007).
Research Questions
The primary research question addressed in this study was:
1. Is there a functional relationship between a function-based academic and
behavior intervention that (a) is based on behavioral function, (b) employs
effective literacy instruction, and (c) is matched to the learners' culture, and a
decrease in problem behaviors during English reading class for third and
fourth grade ELLs in Thailand?
14
Secondary questions explored in the analysis were as follows:
2. Is there a functional relationship between a function-based academic and
behavior intervention that (a) is based on behavioral function, (b) employs
effective literacy instruction, and (c) is matched to the learners' culture, and
an increase in engagement in academic performance for third and fourth grade
ELLs in Thailand?
3. Is there a functional relationship between a function-based academic and
behavior intervention that (a) is based on behavioral function, (b) employs
effective literacy instruction, and (c) is matched to the learners' culture and an
increase in English reading performance for third and fourth grade ELLs in
Thailand?
15
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Students with problem behaviors are at high risk of academic failure, according to
research in special education and school psychology (Kehle, Bray, Theodore, Jenson, &
Clark, 2000; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1986; Shinn, Ramsey, Walker, Steiber, & O'Neill,
1987). Similarly, students who have academic difficulties are likely to demonstrate
problem behaviors to avoid tasks (Carr, 1977; Horner, Day, Sprague, O'Brien, &
Heathfield, 1991; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1994; McIntosh et aI.,
2006; Walker & Shinn, 2002). Function-based behavioral and academic intervention,
therefore, emphasizes changing multiple components that affect student behavior through
antecedent-based manipulations (Burke et aI., 2003; Dunlap, Kern-Dunlap, Clarke, &
Robbins, 1991; Hagan-Burke et aI., 2007), and incorporating effective academic
instruction and delivery (e.g., Carnine et aI., 2004) to support student learning.
In school settings, instructional demands functionally affect the occurrence or
nonoccurrence of problem behaviors (Horner et aI., 1991; Kern et aI., 1994; Lee et aI.,
1999). A motivation to escape or avoid the demands becomes an antecedent stimulus that
determines occurrence of various types of problem behaviors in classrooms. Thus,
appropriate interventions should address both escape-maintained behaviors and areas of
academic difficulties to provide students with appropriate treatment.
-- ----- --- -- --- ---- ---- -- ---- -------
16
Function-based academic and behavioral support provides a preventive approach
to intervention (Walker et aI., 1996). Figure 3 presents the three levels of prevention
outcomes and the appropriate match between intervention intensity and severity of
academic and behavioral problems.
All Student
School-wide,
culhrrally relevant
systems of suppOli
Intensive academic and behavior
intervention
Universal intervention
Figure 3. Three-tier response to intervention model of academic and behavior support
(adapted from Walker et aI., 1996).
A primary prevention includes the universal interventions delivered to all students
(e.g., schoolwide positive behavior support, core reading programs). Secondary and
tertiary preventions require more detailed information about individual students to design
appropriate intervention support with increasing intensity and individualization of the
support procedures. Increased individualization requires information about a student's
17
academic or social problem behaviors as well as detailed information about the
behavioral stimulus conditions and the consequences of maintaining the problem
behavior. Understanding the function of the behavior leads to comprehensive and
effective interventions.
The purpose of this study is to employ the FBA technology, focusing on
behavioral function to guide the design of an intervention that address both students'
academic and behavior challenges. The FBA process has been successful across a wide
variety of behavioral functions in classrooms, including (a) getting attention from adults
and peers, (b) escaping from instructional demands, (c) gaining escape from social
interaction, and (d) access to desired items or sensory stimulation. The process also has
addressed a wide variety of relevant problem behaviors in the classroom ranging from
off-task behavior (Lee et aI., 1999) to aggressive behaviors (Marcus, Vollmer, Swanson,
Roane, & Ringdahl, 2001), and self-injurious behaviors (Iwata et aI., 1994).
Ample evidence from empirical research supports the use of FBA to guide
academic intervention for students who demonstrate problem behaviors in classrooms
(e.g., Burke et aI., 2003; Dunlap et aI., 1996; Ingram et aI., 2005; Iwata, et aI., 1994; Lee
et aI., 1999; McKenna, 2006; Preciado, 2006; Sanford, 2006). The FBA approach to
behavioral intervention has been defined in numerous studies as the process that
describes problem behaviors and identifies the variables that predict and maintain these
problem behaviors prior to developing proper interventions (e.g., Horner & Carr, 1997;
Iwata et aI., 1994; Kennedy & Itkonen, 1993; Sprague & Thomas, 1997). Moreover, the
1997 amendments to the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
18
stipulated that schools are expected to apply FBA to their behavioral support planning for
all students.
Research has examined the effects of function-based intervention on students in
special education and general classroom settings on students with attention- maintained
and escape-maintained behaviors, and on students with disabilities and who are having
emotional challenge. However, more study is needed to document how this intervention
can be applied to ELL populations.
The FBA approach, however, reflects U.S. mainstream cultural values in many
ways, including individualism and personal choice (Wang et aI., 2007). This study
proposed to replicate the effect of function-based intervention, using results from FBA
strategies for effective early literacy instruction on problem behaviors and English
reading performance for ELLs who exhibit problem behaviors during reading activities in
a setting where cultural, environmental and linguistic contexts were different from those
in U.S. schools, for both students and teachers. Figure 4 shows hypothetical relations of
three important components in designing an effective intervention for ELLs who engage
in problem behavior and reading difficulties. While information about individual
behaviors, including contexts of how and when problem behaviors occur, is necessary,
effective academic intervention is also required to help students acquire academic skills.
To develop an effective intervention that addresses students' academic and behavior
problems, the cultural backgrounds and perspectives of teachers and students also must
be addressed.
19
Figure 4. Function-based academic and behavior intervention addressing the three main
components.
Most theories and academic instruction or behavioral support intervention
emerged primarily from mainstream Western culture and middle-class samples (Dumas,
Rollock, Prinz, Hops, & Blechman, 1999; Tucker & Herman, 2002; Wang et aI., 2007).
However, some behaviors deemed problematic or unacceptable to professionals from the
mainstream culture may not be problematic to teachers of diverse cultural backgrounds
(Wang et aI., 2007).
Evidence of cultural responsiveness in academic and behavior intervention was
challenging because the terms such as "cultural fit", "cultural responsiveness", "cultural
sensitivity" or "cross-cultural competence" are not considered operational by behavioral
science (Kaufman et aI., 2008; Wang et aI., 2007). The term "culture" itself depends on
the context in which it is used (Holfstede, 1991). Some studies considered cultural
responsiveness in the context of research (e.g., Tucker & Herman, 2002), while others
emphasized the term for implementing intervention and educational practices (e.g.,
20
Benazzi, Horner, & Good, 2006; Gay, 2002; Kaufman et aI., 2008; Shealey & Cal1ins,
2007). Shealey and Cal1ins (2007), for example, define cultural1y responsive teaching as
"the extent to which educators use students' cultural contributions in transforming their
lives and the lives of their families and communities by making education relevant and
meaningful" (p. 195). Gay (2002) defines cultural responsive teaching for ethnical1y
diverse students as "using their cultural orientations, background experiences, and ethnic
identifies as conduits to facilitate their teaching and learning" (p. 614).
To demonstrate cross-cultural competence, Lynch and Hanson (2004) suggested
that key components of each intervention include: (a) understanding one's own culture
and heritage, (b) learning culture-specific information about individuals from other
cultures, and (c) applying knowledge and skills to work effectively with the individuals
and families. Educators guided by these ideas may be unable to identify "cultural1y
responsive" practices because the terminology hasn't been wel1 operatical1y and
consistently defined.
Kauffman et aI. (2008) reviewed literature related to three cultural dimensions-
ethnicity, gender, and religion-to find evidence of responsiveness to behavioral
interventions related to cultural identity. They found that an intervention developed with
cultural sensitivity (a) is based on scientifical1y grounded approaches, (b) achieves
social1y valid behavioral objectives, and (c) has procedures that are acceptable to
students, parents, and teachers.
21
The Function-Based Academic and Behavior Intervention
The function-based intervention is the process of developing behavior change
strategies that matched the context and purpose (i.e., function) that the behavior serves
(Ingram et aI., 2005; Umbreit et aI., 2007). Traditional interventions have been based on
diagnostic labels. These have been useful, but current research suggests that the addition
of detailed information about (a) the specific problem behavior, (b) the conditions in
which the behavior is most and least likely, and (c) the consequences of the behavior can
be used to build more effective and efficient multicomponent interventions.
The purpose of this study was to employ the FBA approach to identify
antecedents and consequences that control problem behaviors during reading tasks. The
assessment information precisely targeted the escape-maintained function of student
behavior. Then, a multicomponent function-based intervention was developed to provide
behavioral support and academic skills based on individual needs. Figure 5 shows a
fundamental conceptual framework for the development of function-based intervention.
Each element will be discussed below.
Applied
Behavior
Analysis
(ABA)
Functional
Behavior
Assessment
(FBA)
Positive
Behavior
Support (PBS)
Cultural
Context
Function-Based
Intervention/
Contextual Fit
Intervention
Figure 5. Fundamental conceptual framework for function-based intervention.
22
Applied Behavior Analysis
Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) presents the mechanism of positive behavior in
which operant psychology is applied in clinical and educational practices. Behavioral
principles have emerged from scientific experiments of a complex interaction between
genetic influence and environmental experience of organisms, including humans.
Through behavioral experiments, researchers have identified basic principles that explain
how certain behaviors are regulated in the environment. This process is known as an
analysis of behavior (Pierce & Epling, 1995) in which experimenters control and change
factors that affect the behavior of individuals. ABA extends of behavioral principles to
socially important behavioral problems central to attention of experimental research in
the human behavioral field, including education and school psychology, "Better
applications, it is hoped, will lead to a better state of society, to whatever extent the
behavior of its members can contribute to the goodness of a society" (Baer, Wolf, &
Risley, 1968, p. 91).
Functional Behavior Assessment
Based on the fundamental principles that human behavior is functional,
predictable, and changeable (Crone & Horner, 2003), the functional behavior assessment
(FBA) approach puts behavior into an environmental context. Functional behavioral
assessment is the process of operationally defining problem behaviors and identifying
variables, conditions, or events that reliably predict and maintain the behaviors across
time (Horner et aI., 2002; Sugai et aI., 2000). The process includes (a) identifying target
23
problem behaviors or classes of behaviors, (b) building a testable hypothesis or a
summary statement about the events that reliably predict and maintain the identified
problem behaviors, (c) validating the hypothesis via direct observation, and (d) designing
an appropriate intervention. The emphasis on prevention of problem behaviors often
includes procedures to teach new appropriate or alternative behaviors and to make
problem behavior irrelevant, inefficient, and ineffective. The process attempts to identify
factors that contribute to and maintain the problem behaviors (Homer et aI., 2002; Sugai
et aI., 2000). For example, during physical education class, Matt sits at the comer of the
gym and says "no" when his teacher asks everybody to do jumping jacks. The teacher
calls him back and punishes him with a double set ofjumping jacks. Matt's behavior is
operationally defined as sitting at the comer of the gym and saying no to the teacher's
request. The antecedent is the teacher's request that everybody do jumping jacks, and the
consequence is the teacher's calling him back and punishing him with a double set of
jumping jacks.
In behavior analysis literature, function refers to the extent to which a behavior
serves an individual's purpose (O'Neill et aI., 1997). Behavioral function is maintained
by negative or positive reinforcement (Crone & Homer, 2003; Ingram et aI, 2005). For
example, Kenny talks out about his vacation break during group story reading to avoid
his reading tum because he is embarrassed when he makes reading errors. Avoiding
embarrassment serves as a behavioral (i.e., talking out) function. Madeline pokes her
peers to obtain their attention. Obtaining attention serves as a behavioral (i.e., poking)
function. Iwata et aI. (1994) found that out of 152 functional analyses of problem
24
behaviors they studied, 138 (91 %) resulted in data clearly indicating a behavioral
function.
The FBA has been shown to be successful across a wide variety of behavioral
functions in classrooms, including (a) getting attention from adults and peers, (b)
escaping from instructional demands, (c) escaping from social interaction, and (d)
gaining access to desired items or sensory stimulation. The process also has documented
a wide variety of relevant problem behaviors in the classroom ranging from off-task
behavior (Lee et aI., 1999), to aggressive behaviors (Marcus et aI., 2001), and self-
injurious behaviors (Iwata et aI., 1994).
Nonetheless, research found that the most common behavioral function that
affects students' academic performance is escape-maintained behavior (e.g., Homer et
aI., 1991; Kern, et aI., 1994; Lee et aI., 1999; McComas, Hoch, Paone, & El-Roy, 2000).
Escape motivation has been studied as an antecedent stimulus that determines occurrence
of different types of problem behaviors in classrooms such as crying, throwing tantrums,
or disrupting classroom activities (e.g., Alberto & Troutman, 2003; Burke et aI., 2003;
Homer et aI., 1991; Iwata et aI., 1994).
An effective behavioral intervention for escape-maintained problem behaviors,
therefore, must address three primary goals: (a) reduce problem behavior, (b) increase
appropriate behavior (e.g., on-task, engaging), and (c) increase academic skills. An
effective FBA process addresses the first two primary goals-reducing problem
behaviors and increasing appropriate behaviors-by documenting reliable information
about (a) target problem behaviors, (b) the conditions under which behavior is predicted
25
to occur or not occur, and (c) function (i.e., purpose) of the behavior. Behavioral support
plan then is developed based on this information. The process also includes identifying
and teaching alternative and appropriate behaviors. In an academic setting, appropriate
behaviors may be defined as on~task or engaged behaviors (e.g., keeping eyes on the
teacher and on the tasks, keeping hands off others and to oneself, following direction and
answering questions when asked).
In addition to the 1997 IDEA stipulated that schools are expected to apply an
FBA to their behavioral support planning for a student who has been suspended for more
than 10 school days in a school year and whose problem was caused by the student's
disability, the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities
Educational Improvement Act (IDEIA), restated that an FBA must be completed
irrespective of whether the behavior is determined to be a manifestation of the child's
disability (Umbreit et aI., 2007).
Positive Behavior Support
Based on ABA, positive behavior support (PBS) applies functions of applied
behavioral principles to school and classroom systems. According to Sugai et al. (2000),
PBS is regarded as an integrated approach of behavioral science, intervention practices,
sociocultural value, and system perspective. Founded on behavioral science theory, PBS
posits that human behaviors are socially learned and can be changed by controlling
environments in which behaviors occur.
- -- - - --- - -
26
Of greatest relevance for enhancing a technology of PBS is a wide range of
socially imp0l1ant behaviors in a variety of students and contexts. Practical interventions
involve behavioral intervention, including use of functional behavior assessments to
develop behavior support plans, environmental and curriculum redesign, behavioral
modification, and removal of rewards: A crucial aspect of interventions include
implementing and sustaining research-based instructional strategies as tools for behavior
change, in which data are collected and analyzed in a systematic manner. Sugai et aI.
(2000) emphasized that "a central PBS tenet is that behavior change needs to be socially
significant" (p. 135). The system approach of PBS aims to enhance schoolwide capacity
to design effective environments that improve the fit between behavioral research
practices and the cultural contexts of the community of which students are members.
Behavioral interventions must advance from individual students to the entire system in
order to provide effective supports for implementing and sustaining effective behavioral
practices for local schools (Carr et aI., 1999).
Function-Based Intervention
Function-based intervention has been replicated in various studies as an effective
means of reducing problem behavior and improving academic gains (e.g., Burke et aI.,
2003; Hagan-Burke et aI., 2007; Kern et aI., 1994; McComas, et aI., 2000; Preciado,
2006). A primary goal for function-based intervention is to use the understanding of
behavioral function to minimize problem behavior and increase appropriate behavior.
Figure 6 illustrates the conceptual framework for designing FBA-based appropriate
27
intervention. First, problem behaviors must be operationally defined. For example, when
presented with difficult reading tasks, Kimmy will cry, throw pencils, and put her face
down on the table. Kimmy's behavior is operationally defined as: crying, throwing
pencils and putting her face down on the table. Second, the FBA will be conducted using
a teacher interview and direct observation to identify obtain events relevant to the
behaviors (i.e., antecedents and consequences) and perceived function of the behaviors.
According to the previous example, the antecedent may be Kimmy's being presented
with difficult reading tasks, and the consequence may be that Kimmy is sent to time-out.
Based on information about antecedents and consequences that maintain problem
behaviors, a summary statement is developed to include functions that the behaviors
appear to serve (e.g., escaping a task, escaping social interaction, or obtaining attention).
For example, Kimmy is likely to engage in problem behavior when she wants to avoid
difficult reading tasks. The function-based intervention goals should include the
following means: (a) decrease the need to engage in the problem behaviors (e.g., modify
the reading task to be less aversive), (b) provide the student with an alternative behavior
that serves the same function (e.g., teaching the student how to appropriately ask for a
short break), and (c) change or eliminate the consequences of problem behaviors (e.g.,
eliminate time-out).
-- -
----
28
Cultural Responsiveness
ldentified need Determine behavior Function-based lntervention
for support occurrence Behavioral function intervention outcome
ModifY
instruction
-+
and tasks
-+ (I)based on Decreased
assessment problem
behaviors
Problem Eliminate
behavior Functional aversive,
(2)
lncreasedduring
-+ behavior -+
teach academicacademic alternativeassessment
-+ engagementtasks (FBA) behaviors
(3)
Receive lncreased
appropriate academic
-+ -+ attention -+ performance
Figure 6. Conceptual framework for function-based intervention.
Carefully selected behavioral change strategies determine technically sound
behavioral intervention, based on the FBA (i.e., behavioral hypothesis statement) and
behavioral principals that make the problem irrelevant, inefficient, and ineffective (Crone
& Homer, 2003; O'Neill et aI., 1997). As noted above, Figure 6 provides a guideline for
selecting intervention methods that match the behavioral function. For example, a student
who gets out of the chair to escape a difficult reading task should be provided with
different stimuli to reduce the likelihood of this behavior (e.g., modified reading tasks
29
that match the student's instructional level skills). Moreover, in order to make problem
behavior inefficient, the student should be taught replacement skills (e.g., prerequisite
reading skills). Reinforcement-based strategies should also be employed to make desired
behavior more probable (e.g., a smiling face stamp for staying on task or for tasks
completed correctly). Redirecting the student to the new alternative tasks or reminding
the student that the problem behavior could result in loosing the desired reinforcers can
make the problem behavior ineffective.
Instructional design and delivery also teach replacement behavior that makes the
problem behavior inefficient and provides opportunities for the student's academic
success (Sugai et aI., 2000). Function-based intervention during academic tasks results in
a decrease in problem behaviors, a gain in academic engagement, and an improved
academic performance. Finally, the conceptual framework must include cultural
responsiveness to ensure that all through the process of developing the function-based
intervention, professionals acknowledge and eloquently address the cultural values of
teachers and students. Wang et aI. (2007) note "Certain situations and specific cultural
values and beliefs determine whether a particular behavior is viewed as appropriate or
problematic" (p. 38).
Nonjimction-Based Behavioral Support Intervention
As opposed to function-based intervention, a nonfunction-based intervention is
identified an evidence-based classroom strategy but does not consider the mechanism of
behavioral function, although it may respond to the need for minimizing certain
30
behaviors. Examples of nonfunction-based interventions include signaling to obtain the
teacher's attention when the behavioral function is to escape difficult tasks, or teaching
appropriate ways to ask for a break when the behavioral function is attention-maintained
(McKenna, 2006). However, types of behavior problems and the way individuals respond
to certain behavior interventions vary widely. Reinforcers selected for a behavioral
problem may not reinforce or may not overcome the agent that reinforcing the behavior
(Umbreit et aI., 2007). An intervention that works for one child may not be effective for
another with similar behavior (Crone & Horner, 2003). Barton-Arwood and colleagues
(2003) studied students with problem behaviors who received a research-based reading
intervention-a Direction Instruction program (Carnine et aI, 2004) in combination with
a Peer-Assisted Learning Strategy (PALS) (Fuchs et aI., 2001). The result indicated that
changes in inappropriate behavior were not directly related to the reading intervention.
Instead, the researchers hypothesized that improvement in academic engagement resulted
from specific teacher behaviors and the structure. Therefore, obtaining specific
information about behavioral function of individual student provides more effective
intervention strategies that are appropriate for the context of the behavior (Horner & Carr,
1997).
Congruent findings from research have shown that function-based intervention is
more successful in decreasing problem behaviors and increasing academic engagement
than nonfunction-based intervention during academic tasks (Ellingson, Miltenbergen,
Sticker, Galensky, & Garlinghouse, 2000; McKenna, 2006; Ingram et aI., 2005; Sanford,
2006). McKenna (2006) compared the impact of function-based and nonfunction-based
31
intervention conditions on behavioral problems and academic engagement among six
students. For problem behaviors, compared to the baseline condition and the
implementation of nonfunction-based intervention, the function-based intervention phase
showed a lower level of problem behavior for all students and lower levels of variability
for five students. For academic engagement, all students demonstrated the highest
increased rate of academic engagement during the function-based intervention phase, and
five students had more stable rates of engagement with minimal variability.
In a similar research finding, Ingram et aI. (2005) compared the effect of
behavioral intervention plans that followed function-based and nonfunction-based
strategies on reducing problem behaviors. Using single subject ABCBC designs, the
study showed a significant lower percentage of intervals with problem behaviors for the
two middle grade student participants during function-based intervention phases
compared to nonfunction-based phases. The findings point to the importance of
incorporating the FBA process, both in assessment and intervention design, for students
who engage in problem behaviors in general education classroom settings.
Embedded Cultural Values ofBehavioral Intervention: Contextual Fit
To demonstrate cross-cultural competence (Lynch & Hanson, 2004), key
components of each intervention included: (a) understanding one's own culture and
heritage, (b) learning culture-specific information about individuals from other cultures,
and (c) applying knowledge and skills to work effectively with the individuals and
families. The ~'contextual fit" of plan procedures (Albin et aI., 1996; Benazzi et aI., 2006)
32
was employed to design the function-based academic and behavioral intervention. Across
cultures, research has indicated that professionals working with children with behavioral
problems (e.g., teachers, support providers) are influenced by their cultural background
experiences (Lynch & Hanson, 2004; Mann, Ikeda, Mueller, Takahashi, Humris, & Chin,
1992; Mueller et aI., 1995; Wang et aI., 2007; Weisz, Chaiyasit, Weiss, Eastman, &
Jackson, 1995).
A function-based academic and behavioral support intervention is most effective
when it is implemented with "contextual fit" (Albin et aI., 1996; Benazzi et aI., 2006;
Crone & Horner, 2003; O'Neill et aI, 1997). The contextual fit refers to the extent to
which the intervention plan incorporates the values, skills, resources, and administrative
support of those who implement the plan (Benazzi et aI., 2006; Crone & Horner, 2003;
O'Neill et aI., 1997). The degree ofthe contextual fit indicated the extent to which the
intervention was implemented with cultural responsiveness.
In planning a behavior support plan, cultural variables that make up individual
social life (e.g., norms, traditions, values, or religious beliefs) have a significant role in
identifying problem behaviors, as well as antecedents and consequences associated with
the behaviors. Cultural norms and values about child development and socialization have
affected professionals' judgment as whether a particular child has shown a particular
behavior or problem more than the average child in the same cultural norm or whether
certain behavior has occurred more often than is appropriate for children of a particular
age (Weisz et aI., 1995). Wang et aI. (2007) state that some behaviors that professionals
33
from the mainstream culture disapprove may be conventional and appropriate to families
of diverse cultural backgrounds.
For example, consistent with core teachings of Thai Buddhism, to which 95% of
the population subscribes (U.S. Library of Congress, 2007), Thai children are reared to be
nonaggressive, obedient, attentive to their own expression that may disturb or
inconvenience others, and respectful of others-particularly authority figures (e.g.,
teachers). Teachers are likely to expect students to show high levels of self-control and
deference to authoritative adults. In most Thai school contexts, it is considered proper
social conduct for a Thai student to conduct the wai-a respectful bow with hands
pressed together in a prayerful position-when coming by his or her teacher. If the
student intentionally disregards wai, the negligence may be considered a disrespectful
and deviant behavior.
A teacher report study (Weisz, Suwanlert, Chaiyasit, Weiss, Walter, & Anderson,
1988) found that Thai primary school teachers rated their students as showing
significantly more problem behaviors than their American counterparts when they
observed the same behaviors at school. The research team, however, conducted another
follow-up observational study (Weisz et aI., 1995) and found that the observation data
were significantly different from the finding of teachers' reports. Weisz et al. (1995)
conducted a systematic observation of Thai and American students matched for age. The
study showed twice as many problem behaviors among American students as among Thai
students. This finding was a contradiction of the previous teachers' reports. According to
these studies, the teachers may have expected a higher level of respectful behavior from
34
their Thai students than from their American students. Or, in the presence of American
students who showed less respect, the Thais may have been unclear about what was now
"appropriate" (e.g. confused to see one student reprimanded for behavior that was
ignored when performed by another).
Traditional cultural values not only shape how people think about problem
behaviors but also influence how they actually treat the behaviors. The similar problem of
inappropriate reinforcement has also occurred in cultures other than the U.S. mainstream
culture. Although a set of typical cultural values for one culture is complex and could not
be described as a stereotype, there have been studies of described shared values of Asian
culture that reflect people's perceptions towards problem behaviors (Chan & Lee, 2004;
Lee et aI., 1997; Wang et aI., 2007; Weisz et aI., 1995). For most Asian cultures,
punishment is a very common discipline. The Asian way to deal with behavioral
problems involves reprimand and scolding. In many cases, physical punishment (e.g.,
spanking) is still considered acceptable (Ho, 1990; Tapanya, 2006; Wang et aI., 2007).
Comparable research findings about traditional Chinese and Thai cultures
indicated that in both cultures, social harmony is a value of highest importance
(Holfstede, 1991; Wang et aI., 2007; Weisz et aI., 1988). Holfstede (1991) found that
Thai culture highly regards social relationships and group harmony as opposed to
individualism and assertiveness, values that are esteemed in the U.S. mainstream culture.
Weisz et aI. (1988) noted that in Thailand and Indonesia, respect, deference, and
avoidance of inappropriate behaviors towards persons in authority are social nonns.
Wang et aI. (2007) also described similar values in Chinese culture in which individuals
35
should avoid direct confrontation, maintain family, and social harmony conform to rules
of propriety, and recognize others.
The FBA approach, however, has reflected the U.S. mainstream cultural values in
many ways, including individualism and personal choice (Wang et aI., 2007).
Considering this scenario:
Tippy does not like Jim. Every time they are in the same work group, they fight.
A Thai teacher tries to solve this conflict by talking to the students about
maintaining harmony and requiring them to make a formal apology. She praises
them for doing the right thing. In fact, the teacher believes that the two students
should spend more time together and work things out. Thus, she insists that they
sit close to each other for all upcoming group projects. In the same scenario,
however, an American teacher trained in the FBA approach would have given the
students an option to change their work group, selecting their group mates, or
teach them an appropriate way to request independent work. She praises them for
making the right decision.
Cultural values are also evident in a child's behavior in school. A vignette about a
Chinese student who participated in a positive behavior support plan describes:
Meng's grandmother and parents expect Meng to always show respect and
obedience to them. The family sets the rule that Meng should be in awe of her
grandmother and parents and obey them, even if she disagrees. Meng has a
behavior concern at night. She frequently wets the bed, which leads to a cycle of
tearing off her clothes and crying for hours. This interrupts Meng's school day
36
dramatically because she is tired and upset due to the previous night's problem
(Wang et aI., 2007, p. 42).'
Professionals from U.S. mainstream culture who work in a cross-cultural school
context must be aware that such a contrast in cultural values may occur and can influence
the way they develop a behavioral support plan for students.
Another way in which culture may affect the implementation of behavioral
intervention relates to the selection of reinforcers (Kaufman et aI., 2008). The definition
of what behavior is considered "problematic" is, in fact, an expression of values that
differ substantially across cultures, genders, religious beliefs, or ethnicities. A reinforcer
that runs counter to the values of students may fail to change the behaviors. For example,
in the U.S., giving the freedom to choose is viewed as a reward to the students, but for
most Asian cultures where authority figures have strong influential power (Hofstede,
1991), giving freedom to choose may not be viewed as rewarding but as hostile. The
students may be uncomfortable making choices but may view other types of reward more
desirable (e.g., being allowed to work with favorite peers in search of harmony).
Behavioral support intervention must be carried out with cultural responsiveness.
To demonstrate cross-cultural competence professionals who provide a behavioral
intervention need to articulate their understanding of the embedded cultural value that
affect how teachers from other cultures view problem behaviors which, in turn, influence
how they treat the behavior in daily school practices.
37
Effective Reading Intervention for English Language Learners
Difficulty academic tasks can be aversive to students (Lee et ai., 1999). Given
that reading English requires high level of cognitive skills (Chard, Pikulski, &
Templeton, 2000). English language learners (ELLs) who come to a reading class with
significantly different cultural and linguistic backgrounds are at risk to experience
academic difficulties, which, in turn, may set them for the coercive cycle of behavioral
and academic problems.
Refining Education in a Global Context
In today's cross-cultural world, the expansion of information, media,
communication, and transportation networks requires redefining quality education in a
more global and consistent context. People worldwide with access to the internet can see
the differences in schools across the globe. The expanded agenda for what constitutes
quality education includes a system that prepares students to be: (a) lifelong learners, (b)
communicators in both a native and an international language (e.g., English), (c)
technologically skilled for workplace and daily living, (d) cognitively prepared for
complex tasks, problem solving, and the creation of knowledge, and (e) socially,
politically, and culturally responsible citizens (Hallinger, 1998). Taking into account the
global meaning of "a good education", industrialized nations with advanced development
in economics, trade, commerce, manufacturing, education, human rights, and political
forces, such as the U.S., Canada, the u.K., and Australia, are situated at the leading edge
of educational changes and technologies. The global standards of quality education,
38
therefore, seem to derive from research and literature developed within the school
improvement context, innovations and technologies development and change frameworks
of these English-speaking countries (Apichatabutra, 2007).
English Language
The expanded agenda for what constitutes quality education must include a
system that prepares students to communicate in English, in order to access information
and become part of the new educational revolution. Therefore, learning the English
language has become increasingly important for new generations of students across
cultures. In many countries where English is not an official first language, English
instruction is placed in the mainstream compulsory education curriculum in a context of
English as a foreign language (EFL) or English as an additional language (EAL).
Learning English Language in Thailand
The context of learning English language in Thailand is vastly different from
learning English in the U.S., because students use their native language in everyday life,
and English language is more likely considered a compulsory subject. However, in
international schools or bilingual schools in Thailand, students are obliged to learn all
skills in English (speaking, listening, reading, and writing) in order to learn other content
areas (math, science, music, PE) and to communicate with teachers, friends, and staff.
Nonetheless, the students are less likely to be exposed to outside environments where
English is required (e.g. talking to neighbors, talking to sale persons, answering the
39
phone, and reading road signs, newspapers, banners, or advertisement). These
opportunities, according to early reading research (Chard et aI., 2000), are not sufficient
for the learners to become fluent readers in the language. The students' opportunity to
practice reading English depends largely on the English teachers and on assignment and
tasks in their reading class.
Learning to Read English
Acquiring English-language skills requires complex cognitive skill development
that may be challenging for nonnative speakers of English (Drucker, 2003). Reading, in
particular, requires readers to be able to make connection between sounds or phonemes
and print letters or graphemes, and to translate the print form into meaning (Chard et aI.,
2000). The process can be very complicated and problematic for children who are
learning English as a second language, while also having to master their native language,
especially when both languages are significantly different. For example, Thai language
has an alphabetic system in which consonants and vowels are horizontally placed, left to
right, with no intervening space to form syllables, words, and sentences. Vowels are
written above, below, before, or after the consonant they modify.
The U.S. National Reading Panel (NRP) was convened in 1997 in response to
national reading professional review of scientific literature to determine the most
effective ways to teach young children to read. After reviewing 100,000 studies published
since 1966 and 15,000 studies published before that time, the NRP (2000) suggested five
essential components of effective reading instruction including teaching students to (a)
40
recognize and manipulate sounds in words-for example, how to break sounds in the
word "think" into 4 phonemes, /th/-/i/-/ni-/kJ, and how to blend these phonemes to make
the whole word, (b) identify how sounds are represented by alphabetic letters-for
example, recognize that the word "think" is made up of five letters but four sounds, (c)
develop speed and accuracy during oral reading of connected text, (d) apply reading
comprehension strategies, and (e) improve vocabulary understanding (Carnine et aI.,
2004; NRP, 2000). To prevent reading difficulties, studies have found that reading
instruction needs to emphasize learners' development of phonemic awareness, word
recognition (phonics), fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary (Foorman, 2007; NRP,
2000; Torgesen, 2002). Achieving mastery level of these early literacy skills is highly
correlated and predicts the ability to read well.
Torgesen (2002) identified significant conclusions about reading, reading growth,
and reading failure. The first assumption is that the goal of reading instruction is to help
children to acquire the skills that enable them to comprehend the written texts. Second,
two general types of skill and knowledge are required for good reading comprehension:
(a) general language comprehension skills, and (b) ability to accurately and fluently
identify the individual words in print. In addition, a critical reading difficulty for most
children involves early and continuing problems acquiring accuracy as characterized by
their poor alphabetic understanding and letter-sounds correspondence and fluency,
resulting in their slower than normal development of a sight vocabulary of words.
Another crucial reading difficulty in children is their lack of phonemic awareness or an
inability to identify and manipulate the individual sounds in words. Specifically, research
41
found correlations between phonemic awareness and the growth of early word reading
skills (Torgesen, 2002). Torgesen (1998) suggested that an effective preventive program
in reading should embrace the right kind and quality of instruction delivered with the
right level of intensity and duration to the right children at the right time.
Several empirically-based reading intervention studies have been conducted on
the effect of reading interventions on students' oral reading fluency (e.g., Daly, Martens,
Hamler, Dool, & Eckert, 1999; Nelson, Alber, & Gordy; 2004; Staubitz, Cartledge,
Yurick, & Lo, 2005; Tam, Heward, & Heng, 2006; Vaughn, Chard, Bryant, Coleman,
Tyler, Linan-Thomson, & Kouzekanani, 2000). Oral reading fluency is sensitive to
instructional changes (Daly et aI., 1999) and has served as an indicator for the effects of
reading interventions.
Effective Reading Intervention for English Language Learners
Limited research on effective interventions for teaching reading to young English
learners (Gersten & Baker, 2003; Gersten & Geva; 2003; McCardle et aI., 2005)
maintained that no single program best teaches reading for non-English language
speakers. However, studies related to teaching early literacy in the primary grades found
similar skills required for young learners' reading development: phonemic awareness,
decoding, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension (Gersten & Geva, 2003; Vaughn et aI.,
2006). An effective English reading instruction for ELLs, therefore, may be based
substantially on identification, assessment, and intervention for learners in monolingual
English-speaking students (McCardle et aI., 2005; Vaughn et aI., 2005). Literacy
42
instruction approaches for English language learners have usually combined multiple
strategies to make the knowledge less symbolic and thereby make learning more
accessible to the students. Without effective reading instruction, the students are at risk
for failing in most English-based instruction areas. Furthermore, unsuccessfully reading
English, students are more likely to exhibit escape-maintained behaviors to avoid the
tasks and instruction that are related to their failure.
Research has shown that English reading instruction should be structured and
explicit so that ELLs can acquire the skills necessary to understand what they read
(Linan-Thompson et ai., 2002). Consensus research (Foorman & Togesen, 2001; NRP,
2000) indicates that students who are at risk for reading difficulties benefit from reading
instruction that emphasizes early reading components skills (Five Big Ideas of Reading)
(NRP, 2000). Furthermore, students with reading difficulties need systematic and explicit
instruction with more intense supports from their teachers (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler,
2002; Gersten & Baker, 2003; Tam et aI., 2006; Vaughn et aI, 2006). Foorman and
Torgesen (2001) emphasize that the primary difference between reading instruction
appropriate for all children in the classroom and that required by children at risk for
reading difficulties is related to how the instruction is actually delivered.
However, the linguistic and academic variables that compound the processes of
reading for ELLs often require additional specific considerations and recommendations
for instruction. The NRP (1999) indicates that hurrying young ELLs into reading in
English without ensuring adequate preparation is counterproductive. A dearth of research
on typical reading growth rates for elementary grade ELLs (Dominguez de Remirez &
43
Shapira, 2006; Fetler, 2008) showed significant slower rate of English reading growth of
ELLs compared to their English-speaking peers.
Silberglitt and Hintze (2007) examined the reading growth rates of a large
population of students in 2nd to 6th grades measured over one year and found significantly
differences growth rates across students' initial levels of performance. The study
suggested that reading growth rate considerations based on aggregated average student
performance (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz, & Germann, 1993; Hasbrouck & Tindal,
2006) may not be appropriate for making decision about the efficacy of intervention for
underperforming students whose initial oral reading fluency performance were
significantly lower than the represent sample students at the 50th percentile. Significant
implication from this finding was that underperforming students such as ELLs may not
benefit from ambitious reading growth goals targeted for typical English-speaker students
in general education.
Baker, Baker, Katz, and Otterstedt (2008) found that compared to English-speaker
students who are at high risk for reading difficulty-have low skills on key early reading
measures- ELLs at risk performed lower reading improvement. Given this basis, two
alternative recommendations may be more relevant to examine reading performance of
ELLs who are at risk for reading difficulty: (a) using a criterion referenced goal oflocal
normative norm (Howell & Nolet, 2000), and (b) using less ambitious growth rate
estimates based on information about student's initial oral reading fluency scores
(Silberglitt & Hintze, 2007).
44
Direct Instruction. Empirical-based research findings emphasized that effective
reading interventions and instructions are systematic, explicit, and intense, especially in
small groups or one to one setting (Linan-Thompson et aI., 2002; Vaughn et ai., 2005).
Regarding instructional delivery, research has found that effective reading outcomes are
associated with a mediated scaffolding of literacy skills, explicitly teaching skills, and
lesson delivery, providing opportunities for student response, providing corrective
feedbacks, and assessing progress in reading to gain information for improving the
instruction (Linan-Thompson et ai., 2002; NRP, 2000).
Consistent findings from research in reading instructions for ELLs have
maintained that the students benefited from the same early literacy interventions (i.e.,
direct instruction, small group intervention) documented to be effective with native
English speaker students (Kamps et ai., 2007; Linan-Thompson et ai., 2002; Vaughn et
ai.,2005).
Kamps et al. (2007) found that direct instruction interventions (Carnine et ai.,
2004) were highly effective with ELL elementary students including Spanish-speaking
students and students speaking language such as Vietnamese, Somali, and Sudanese.
Reading curricula based in this approach that have proven effective for ELL first and
second graders include Reading Mastery, Read Well, Early Intervention in Reading, and
Read Naturally. The Direct Instruction design principles embedded in these curricula
include: (a) frequent questioning by the teacher, (b) enabling students to constantly
interact and be engaged with the lesson, and (c) providing immediate corrective feedback.
Direct Instruction approach has shown significant improvement with ELL population
45
(Kamps et aI., 2007; Linan-Thompson et aI., 2002; Vaughn et aI., 2005) as well as with
students with EBD (Barton-Arwood et aI., 2005; Nelson et aI., 2005; Wehby et aI., 2003).
Academic Instruction and Culture
Academic reading intervention must take into account cultural factors that
influence learning for ELLs (McCardle et aI., 2005). According to Lenters (2004),
teaching English as a second language requires that teachers address unique needs of the
students that were influenced by their native language literacy practices. For example,
the teachers should recognize particular error patterns that may be affected by the
students' attempt to transfer reading skills in their native language to English reading.
Information on student cultural backgrounds help teachers understand which
cultural variables contribute or avert the student learning success (McCardle et aI., 2005).
For example, certain cultural characteristics may fit with some intervention strategies, but
at the same time they may serve as obstructions to other strategies. The curriculum in
Asian countries often is designed for student learning through processing and
memorization before generating questions and applying knowledge to its application
(Pratt & Wong, 1999). Pratt and Wong indicated that Chinese learners perceived learning
as a sequential four-stage process: memorizing, understanding, applying, and questioning
or modifying. Contrary to most Western cultures, certain Asian cultures (e.g., Thai,
Chinese, Korean, Japanese) do not emphasize questioning, generating ideas, or evaluating
as primary modes of learning since such relatives may be considered as humiliating
gestures toward authority figures (e.g., teachers, parents) (Tweed & Lehman, 2002).
46
However, studies showed misperceptions by Western instructors of Asian students as
being passive and rote memory learners, and not being interested in deep understanding
(Baker, Child, Gallois, Jones, & Callan, 1991; Biggs, 1996; Pratt & Wong, 1999;
Samueloqiez, 1987).
In addition, while U.S. studies have emphasized personal choice and an effective
strategy contributing to intrinsic motivation and appropriate behaviors, studies also
suggested that these findings may not always generalize across cultures. Iyengar and
Lepper (1999) found that personal choice enhanced learning motivation for American
children; but for Asian American children, learning motivation was not observed when
they freely chose their own activities. Rather, learning motivation occurred when
activities were chosen for them by trusted peers or trusted authority figures.
One effective academic practice that generates learning motivation and may
incorporate cultural values of students is instructional games (Klein & Freitag, 1991).
Four elements ofthis strategy that may incorporate cultural responsiveness and enhance
student motivation include: (a) visual representations and active participation to increase
attention during tasks; (b) instruction made relevant to students when using materials that
are responsive to individual needs, (c) elements of competition for students who
motivated with a high need for achievement, and (d) ample opportunities for students to
obtain positive reinforcement.
Academic interventions must to be individualized so that the student's potential
for learning success will be achieved. Educators need to understand the role of affective
and motivation factors in academic learning outcomes for students. Considering the case
47
of Asian students, for example, the use of an intervention strategy that requires criticizing
or questioning others may serve as an aversive stimulus that maintains problem behaviors
to avoid an embarrassing learning situation. In this case, providing opportunities to obtain
positive reinforcement (e.g., praise, self-satisfaction, and self-confidence) may be more
appropriate.
Despite a large number of studies to support the outcomes of intervention based
on the FBA, function-based outcomes are still needed for academic and behavior support
across different student populations, academic needs, grades, gender, race, and
geographic settings. Findings of the present study were expected not only to support the
use of function-based interventions in different population groups (e.g., a non-American
population) and settings (e.g., a school in Thailand) but also to document the evidence-
based interventions for individuals with various academic needs, such as English
language learners who have been much less studied in the instructional settings where
English is taught as a foreign language or as an additional language in non-English
speaking countries.
Single Subject Research Methodology
A research design should be selected to uniquely address the research question(s)
and context under analysis. As no research design fits all questions (Horner, Carr, Halle,
McGee, Odom, & Wolery, 2005), the researcher must consider what design is needed to
allow unambiguous demonstration of causal relationships. Single subject research
methodology is uniquely appropriate for examining behavior change across time, and the
48
impact of individualized interventions (Homer et aI., in press). The outcomes of research
in single subject design are similar to those in group design in that they reveal a causal
relationship through careful experimental control. A major difference is the use of visual
analysis to define causal effects, rather than statistical analysis to confirm or reject the
prediction of the phenomenon. The flexibility of single subject methods allows
researchers to tailor the designs to control extraneous variables and to match the behavior
patterns that can change. This method allows researchers not only to establish functional
relationship between a planned intervention and target behaviors, but also to identify
more questions, due to the day-to-day variability of the natural setting and human
behaviors, and modify the research procedure and data collecting process accordingly
(Kennedy, 2005).
49
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The present study investigates the effects of a function-based academic and
behavioral intervention consisting of three components: (a) functional behavior
assessment (FBA) data used to develop a behavioral support plan, (b) evidence-based
literacy instruction for English language learners (ELLs), and (c) cultural responsiveness.
A single-subject concurrent multiple baseline design across five participants examined
the impact of the intervention on the problem behaviors and reading performance of
elementary students in a Thai school who were at risk for English reading difficulties and
who developed problem behaviors during English reading tasks. Due to ambiguous
effects early in the study, the design was augmented to include ABAB reversal analysis
for two of the participants.
Research Questions
The primary research question addressed in this study was:
1. Is there a functional relationship between a function-based academic and
behavioral intervention that (a) is based on behavioral function, (b) employs
effective literacy instruction, and (c) is matched to the learners' culture, and a
50
decrease in problem behaviors during English reading class for third and
fourth grade ELLs in Thailand?
Secondary questions explored in the analysis were as follows:
2. Is there a functional relationship between a function-based academic and
behavioral intervention that (a) is based on behavioral function, (b) employs
effective literacy instruction, and (c) is matched to the learners' culture, and
an increase in engagement in academic performance for third and fourth grade
ELLs in Thailand?
3. Is there a functional relationship between a function-based academic and
behavioral intervention that (a) is based on behavioral function, (b) employs
effective literacy instruction, and (c) is matched to the learners' culture and an
increase in English reading performance for third and fourth grade ELLs in
Thailand?
Setting
The study was conducted during the academic year 2008-2009 in a 400-student
private elementary school located in an urban area in Bangkok, Thailand. The school had
a diverse range of students both ethnically (e.g., Thai, Chinese, Korean, Japanese,
French) and with respect to socioeconomic status (SES). English was the primary
language used for all instructions. Thai language was used only during Thai language
classes. Classroom teachers and school administrators were native English speakers, but
with diverse ethnicity.
--- ----- -
51
All intervention procedures were implemented in a typical classroom setting by
the students' English teachers. The students did not require any special arrangement for
class routines. The school provided English language support for students whose first
language is not English, through an English as an additional language (EAL) program.
The setting for the study was two classrooms-the 3rd grade (year 4) classroom
and 41h grade (year 5) classroom-serving students who do not have English as their
primary language and whose admission test score indicated a need for additional English
support in small group program. Each class had a group of three students. During school
enrollment, nonnative English students were given an entrance assessment, and the
results of this were used to determine whether students required English language
support. The assessment was based on the Cambridge language levels (Hunt & Brychta,
2008). The school EAL coordinator made a decision on the students' placement. The
school, however, did not disclose screening criteria and procedures.
The school EAL support was divided into two main categories. The first category
was an intensive support group that was intended for students with very little or no
English language competence. In this category, in addition to group support, students
received one-to-one sessions with an EAL teacher. If students had some English, but
were still struggling with the demands of language-heavy subjects such as Literacy,
Topics and Science, they were placed in a small group for some subjects and supported in
class for other subjects.
Both classrooms were small with three students each. Although the school's
reading curriculum (Hunt & Brychta, 2008) followed British national reading standards
52
guidelines, the school did not have a solid curriculum for the EAL program. With consent
from the school's Primary Program Master and the coordinator, the teachers were
allowed to use their judgment to select reading materials (i.e., program, reading story
books, and exercises). Students who qualified for EAL support were called out of their
regular classroom during Literacy periods to form a small instructional group, meeting
for 50 minutes, four times per week.
Reading Curricula
Reading curricula in the focused classrooms varied in the degree of teacher and
coordinator choice, and in the degree to which curriculum was guided and explicit. The
teachers taught reading in the English language and followed the British National
Curriculum Standard in literacy (UK Government, 2008). The National Curriculum is a
framework used by British schools to ensure that teaching and learning are balanced and
consistent. The framework for literacy recommends teaching reading by using phonics
through a literacy program such as Jolly Phonics (Lloyd, 1994). Nonetheless, the
guidelines did not specifically provide intervention for English language learners.
Positive Behavior Support
The school did not have established universal interventions that meet the criteria
for schoolwide positive behavior support system (Sugai et aI., 2000; Walker et aI., 1996).
However, the school had a list of behavior expectations, "The Golden Rules", which were
developed by the students and displayed around the school as a reminder of the expected
- - -- ---
53
behavior. Some of the rules included-be polite, helpful, friendly and honest to everyone,
try to speak English at all times, and always try one best and support others to do their
best. Students were motivated to follow the rules by a "House Points" system in every
classroom. The students work to follow the rules and collect the Points towards the end
school term.
Participants
Five students in 3rd and 4th grade were recruited to participate in this study. They
were enrolled in regular classrooms based on the British National Curriculum Standard
(UK Government, 2008). The participants did not have English as their first language and
did not have a disability diagnosis. They were not selected on the basis of gender,
ethnicity, or SES. The participation criteria were students who: (a) were English language
learners (ELLs) enrolled in third or fourth grade regular classrooms, (b) were nominated
by their teachers for participation in the study using the Teacher Nomination form
(Appendix C), and (c) were in the "at risk" category for English reading performance.
Nomination was based on students' engaging in problem behaviors and having reading
difficulties during English reading class. Data from a functional assessment checklist for
teachers and staff (FACTS) (Appendix F) and validating direct observations using the
Functional Assessment Observation (FAO) (Appendix G) (O'Neill et aI., 1997) indicated
that the students' problem behavior was escape-maintained. Students' English reading
performance fell into the "at risk" category (ORF < 53 by the beginning of 3rd grade; and
ORF < 71 by the beginning of 4th grade) based on the Dynamic Indicators ofBasic Early
54
Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) benchmark measure (Good &
Kaminski, 2003), and showed a significant discrepancy to typical reading performance
(i.e., reading more than two times below grade-level peers) to the typical reading
performance of grade-level peers (Deno & Mirkin, 1977; Howell & Nolet, 2000). Parent
consent letters were obtained for student participation.
Because oral reading fluency norms for students were not available, interpretation
of reading performance criteria for participation in this study used a discrepancy ratio
(Howell & Nolet, 2000) as a criterion reference. To determine the discrepancy ratio,
grade-level peers were randomly selected from the student participants' classrooms to
develop a range of typical classroom reading performance. No identifying information
was collected on these students. They were not described as the research subjects but
were referred to as "grade-level peers" who served as a comparison group to determine
expectations for reading performance of the target students.
Following criteria (a) and (b) for student participation, the study initially recruited
six students to participate. However, the FBA data and validation of direct observation
indicated that one particular student's behavioral function was more likely to be
attention-maintained behavior. In addition, the DORF benchmark test confirmed no risk
for reading difficulty. This student's DORF score was 106 correct words per minute
(WCPM), falling within the performance level of his 3rd grade peers. He was then
withdrawn from this study. Table 1 presents the demographic information for the five
participating students.
55
Table 1. Demographic and screening data for student participants.
WCPM/ Norm
Student Gender Age Grade Ethnicity Target Behaviors Errors Discrepancy
Kenso M 9 4 Thai Get out of seat, 43/7 2.5
make excuses to
leave class, play
with materials, look
away
Kwan F 10 4 Thai Look away, 58/19 1.8
withdraw from tasks
Khun M 9 4 Korean Refuse to work, get 28/8 3.8
out of seat, play
with materials, look
away
Salim M 8 3 Bangladeshi Wait for answer, 54/4 2.2
look at peer's work,
withdraw from tasks
Gus M 8 ,., Thai Talk out, laugh, 63/8 1.8;)
sing, make noises,
look away
Kenso
Kenso was a 9-year-old Thai boy enrolled in 4th grade. Thai was his primary
language, and he was described as playful, fun loving, and good at math, music, art, PE,
and reading fiction books. He made lots of friends and enjoyed competitive activities and
sports (e.g., soccer). He received reading instruction in a small group of three students.
The instruction was conducted based on the Curriculum Standard for 2nd and 3rd grade. In
addition to the small group support, Kenso received additional one-to-one reading
sessions with his teacher for 30 minutes, twice a week. The 2nd and 3rd grade level
reading materials were used for Kenso during one-to-one and small group sessions.
56
Kenso's 3rd grade DORF benchmark score was 43 WCPM with 7 errors.
Compared with the perfonnance of his 4th grade peers (l08 WCPM), Kenso's
performance was 2.5 times lower, indicating a significant ratio to identify reading
difficulty (Howell & Nolet, 2000). His reading accuracy was 85%. The error patterns
demonstrated Kenso's limited decoding skills. The majority of errors were words with
affixes (e.g., captured, signed, messages), VCe pattern words (e.g., rake, celebrate), and
vowel and consonant combinations (e.g., snuggle, would, needed, theme, though, plains).
He showed no attempt at self-correction and no hesitation. His native language may have
had interference effects on the production of sounds in English language such as /th/.
Kenso's problem behaviors included getting out of his seat, making excuses to
leave the classroom, playing with materials, and looking out and away from tasks. The
FACTS interview indicated that these behaviors most likely occurred during academic
reading tasks that required comprehension and knowledge of vocabulary.
Information from the FACTS interview also indicated that Kenso's problem
behaviors occurred during academic tasks where English reading skills were required.
Both the classroom teacher and the English language teacher agreed that the problems
occurred during independent academic tasks when the instruction was less structured. An
identified setting event that may be related to his problem behavior was fatigue from
playing football during recess. The infonnants rated their confidence that the summary of
behavior was accurate with a score of 5 out of 6.
To validate and clarify summary statements based on the interview information,
Kenso was observed during his activity routines when problem behaviors were most
57
likely to occur (i.e., reading activities). The author used the FAO (O'Neill et aI., 1997) to
record occurrence of setting event, antecedent, problem behavior, and the perceived
function of the behavior. Kenso was observed engaging in problem behavior 27 times
over the course of three 20-min observations. In 19 instances, difficult reading tasks
occurred before the behavior and in 8 instances, teacher demands and requests to follow
instruction occurred. In 18 of 27 instances, the perceived function was to escape from
these tasks. In 6 of27 instances, the perceived function of disruptive behavior (i.e.,
getting out of his seat to ask questions while teachers were helping other students) was to
obtain teacher attention. A clear pattern of escape-maintained behavioral function was
established, supporting the summary statement.
Setting Events & Predictors Problem Behavior(s) Maintaining Consequence(s)
Hard tasks/independent and Getting out of seat, making Avoid tasks
unstructured work excuses to leave classroom
Inexplicit instruction and ask for break, looking
Return from recess out and away from task,
playing with materials
Figure 7. FBA sUmmary statement for Kenso.
Kwan
Kwan, a 10-year-old Thai girl, was transferred from a Thai school the previous
year and was currently enrolled in the 4th grade classroom. She attended the same group
with Kenso and Khun. Thai was her primary language, and her teachers described her as
caring and having good social skills.
58
Third grade DORF benchmark for Kwan produced a score of 58 WCPM with 19
errors. Kwan's performance was determined to be 1.9 times lower than her grade-level
peers (108 WCPM), indicating a significant reading difficulty (Howell & Nolet, 2000).
Her reading accuracy rate was 75%. Her reading errors median was 19 errors, ranging
from 14 to 36 errors across 9 probes. The high frequent errors indicated that she lacked
decoding skills. Frequent error patterns were found on both high and low frequency
words (e.g., that, an, of, so, encouraged, hatchery, whale), and clearly at individual sound
level (e.g., Ith/, la!, 10/). By analyzing Kwan's error pattern, her native language may
have had interference effects on the production of sounds in English language. For
example, Kwan did not discriminate between the sounds of the letter "t" and "th", as the
latter sound does not appear in the Thai language. The word "Olympics" appears in Thai
language but is pronounced without lsi.
Her teachers reported that Kwan preferred using Thai to communicate with
friends and was reluctant to communicate her needs or ask questions to teachers in
English. Her problem behavior included looking out and away from her task, not
responding to question, and withdrawing from activities. The FACTS interviews
indicated that these behaviors were most likely during reading tasks that required
comprehension and grammar rules, and activities that required an individual or group
response (e.g. during the teacher's presentation of grammar rules). When the teacher
asked questions that required comprehension, she did not give the answer. She looked out
or kept silent. Her withdrawn behavior was perceived as escape maintained. The teachers
scored 5 or 6 out of 6 for their confidence that the summary statements were accurate.
59
The validating direct observation results showed 19 instances of problem
behaviors over the course of three 20-min observation in which 17 instances pointed to
escaping from reading activities as a perceived function. No instance showed that the
perceive function was to gain attention.
Setting Events & Predictors Problem Behavior(s) Maintaining Consequence(s)
Hard tasks/independent and Looking out and away from Avoid tasks
unstructured work task, not responding to
Inexplicit instruction question, withdrawing from
activities
Figure 8. FBA summary statement for Kwan.
Khun
Khun was a 9-year-old Korean boy enrolled in the 4th grade classroom with Kwan
and Kenso. He entered the school one week after the term had started. His primary
language was Korean, and his teachers reported that he was a polite boy. He came to
class on time and was sociable during break time.
Khun's third grade DORF benchmark score was 28 WCPM with 8 errors. Khun's
performance was determined to be a significant 3.9 times lower than his grade-level peers
(l08 WCPM). His reading accuracy was 75%. During the DORF test, he did not attempt
to read the words he did not know; instead, he showed frustration (e.g., sighed, shook his
head) and waited until the examiner told him the correct words. The error patterns were
found on words with affixes (e.g., going, located, starred, tracker), vowel and consonant
combinations (e.g., areas, these, though, theme), and multisyllables (e.g., constellation,
languages). He showed frustration during the test.
60
During his first weeks, the teachers reported that Khun refused to work on reading
tasks and was disengaged from tasks. The FACTS interview conducted with Khun's
teacher indicated that his problem behavior included refusing to work on tasks, getting
out of his seat, playing with materials, and looking out and away from tasks. The
behavior was most likely when he displayed a confused look as an apparent lack of
understanding of classroom activities and instructions, and when the tasks were difficult.
Problem behavior occurred when the tasks required high-level skills in comprehension
and grammar rules. An identified setting event that may be related to problem behavior
was that Khun had just moved to the school this term. The informants rated their
confidence that the summary of behavior was accurate with a score of 5 out of 6.
The FAO was used to validate his behavioral hypothesis summary. Khun
engaged in problem behavior 20 times over the course of three 20-min observations. Of
those 20 instances, the perceived function was to avoid doing the reading tasks 16 times.
No instance showed that the perceived function was to gain attention. A clear pattern of
escape-maintained behavioral function was established, supporting the summary
statement.
Setting Events & Predictors Problem Behavior(s) Maintaining Consequence(s)
Difficulty adjusting to new Refusing to work on tasks, Avoid tasks
school getting out of seat, playing
Hard tasks/independent and with materials, and looking
unstructured work out and away from tasks
Jnexplicit instruction
Figure 9. FBA summary statement for Khun.
61
Salim
Salim was an 8-year-old Bangladeshi boy enrolled in the same 3rd grade
classroom as Gus. Salim's primary language was Bangladeshi. He got along well with
peers and had a strong vocabulary skill.
His score on 3rd grade DORF benchmark probes was 54 WCPM with 4 errors. To
compare his reading performance to the local norm expectation, seven of Salim's grade-
level peers were randomly selected and administered the same first three passages. Of
these seven students, the median performance was 117 WCPM. Compared to the
performance of his grade-level peers, his reading performance was 2.2 times lower,
which suggested his being at risk for reading difficulty (Howell & Nolet, 2000). His
reading accuracy, however, was 93%. He missed multisyllable words (e.g., skyscrapers),
and words with affixes (e.g., smartest, located).
The FACTS results suggested that Salim's behaviors were escape-maintained that
most likely to occur when he was unsure of his answers during difficult reading tasks.
Salim's problem behavior included waiting to be told what to do, not responding to
questions and withdrawing from class activities, and looking at his peers' work. Relevant
setting events may be that Salim's parents treated him like a young child. His teacher
rep0l1ed that his mother came to school from time to time because she was worried about
how he was doing in school. This may explain Salim's dependence on adults or other
peers. Both teachers rated their confidence that the hypothesis statement was accurate
with a score of 6 out of 6.
- - -- - - -- ----- -------- ---
62
The FAO was used to validate his hypothesis summary. Salim was engaged in
problem behavior 20 times. Of those 20 instances over the course of three 20-min
observations, the perceived function was to avoid doing the reading tasks 15 times and to
obtain attention from peers 6 times. A pattern of escape-maintained behavioral function
was established, supporting the summary statement.
Setting Events & Predictors Problem Behavior(s) Maintaining Consequence(s)
Family's treatment waiting to be told what to do, Avoid tasks, avoid making
Hard tasks/independent and not responding to question mistakes
unstructured work and withdrawing from class
Inexplicit instruction activities, looking at his
I
I peers' work J
Figure 10. FBA summary statement for Salim.
Gus
Gus was an 8-year-old Thai boy enrolled in the same 3rd grade classroom as
Salim. Thai was his primary language, and he was referred to participate in this study due
to his laughing, singing, and noise making during small group instruction. Gus was
described as very sociable and well liked by friends. He was also good at competitions
and games, and was competent in English verbal communication (e.g., understood
instruction and asked questions relevant to the content).
Gus's 3rd grade DORF was 63 WCPM with 8 errors. Compared to the
performance of his grade-level peers (117 WCPM), Gus's performance was 1.8 times
lower than his grade-level peers, showing a significant ratio (Howell & Nolet, 2000). His
reading accuracy was 89%. He read past the period and skipped a line. His error patterns
63
included words with affixes (e.g., suggested, wanted) and multisyllable words (e.g.,
Olympics, excellent, footprints). Similar to Kenso and Kwan, Gus's native Thai may
have had interference effects on the production of sounds in English language.
The FACTS results indicated that Gus's behaviors were escape-maintained and
occurred most likely when he was presented with difficult tasks. The behavior was most
likely to occur during reading tasks for which Gus did not have confidence. The teacher
reported that Gus was likely to rush through works and make a guess instead of thinking
carefully through correct answers. His teachers rated their confidence that the behavioral
summary statement was accurate with the score of 5 out of 6.
Based on the FAO information, Gus engaged in problem behavior 23 times over
the course of three 20-min observations. Of23 instances, 19 were related to escaping
from his reading task as a perceived function, while 4 instances were related to obtaining
peers' attention. An escape-maintain behavioral pattern was established.
Setting Events & Predictors Problem Behavior(s) Maintaining Consequence(s)
Hard tasks/independent and Talking to peers, laughing, Avoid tasks
unstructured work singing and making noises,
liooking out and away from tasks
I
Figure 11. FBA summary statement for Gus.
Teacher Participants
The intervention procedures were implemented in a typical classroom setting by
the participants' English teachers certified in teaching English as a Second Language.
The study involved three female teachers and one male teacher who were native-English
64
speakers with different ethnic backgrounds (i.e., British, American, and Indian-Thai). The
teachers had no experience in special education training and their teaching experiences
were varied. The teachers were the behavior support team members.
Measurement Overview
Phase 1: Informed Consent Procedure
In May 2008, teacher informed consent forms (Appendix A) were obtained from
3rd and 4th grade teachers, the Head of the Primary Education Department, and the
coordinator. They were asked to identify potential students for study participants and
grade-level peers. Parents' informed consent letters (Appendix B) were then sent from
the school to the parents of potential participants and grade-level peers. The teachers
disclosed names of student participants who had met the criteria for initial screening
measures using the teacher nomination fonn (Appendix C). Then, the parent/guardian
informed consent letters (Appendix D) were sent to the students targeted for this study.
After obtaining signed informed consent letters from the teachers and the parents, assent
to participate was obtained from each student.participant (Appendix E).
Phase 2: Screening
Problem Behavior. To identify the function of students' problem behaviors, a 30-
min teachers' interview was conducted using the Functional Assessment Checklist for
Teachers and staff (FACTS) (March et aI., 2000; see Appendix F). The summary
statement from the FACTS identified (a) problem behavior, (b) controlling antecedent
65
stimuli, and (c) maintaining consequences. To validate the FACTS summary statement,
three sessions of 20-min classroom direct observation was conducted by the author using
the Functional Assessment Observation (FAO) (Appendix G) (O'Neill et ai., 1997).
Based on data from the FBA and the FAO, hypothesis statement about antecedents and
consequences that maintain the behaviors was developed and used as the basis to design a
behavior intervention support plan.
Reading Performance. The students were given three sets of three I-min reading
passages (9 total passages) as DORF benchmark probes across three different days. The
DORF benchmark test is a subtest of DIBELS standardized, validated, short-duration
fluency measure of basic reading skills that requires a student to read grade-level reading
passages for one minute each, and the number of words read correctly is counted. The
measure was used to identify whether students were reading at risk based on the DORF
criterion (Good & Kaminski, 2003).
Since no sample norm group exists for students who are reading English as an
additional language in schools outside the United States, the participants' DORF
benchmark scores were compared to the typical performance of their grade-level peers.
The teachers and the author randomly selected seven students in the 3rd grade classroom
and seven students in the 4th grade classroom to develop a range of what the typical
students read in both grade levels. Three passages were administered and the median
score for all random grade-level peers were identified as averaged WCPM. To determine
the magnitude of reading difficulty, the discrepancy ratio was calculated by dividing the
grade-level peers' median by the participants' median (Howell & Nolet, 2000). For
66
example, the peers' median was 108 and the participant's median was 38. According to
the procedures, 108/38 = 2.84 discrepancy ratio, indicating that this participant reads 2.84
times below peers. If a student participant is reading approximately 2 times below peers,
the discrepancy ratio is considered significant (Howell & Nolet, 2000).
Phase 3: Intervention
The behavior intervention support plan for five participants included function-
based behavior and academic intervention in the form of multicomponent intervention.
The intervention consisted of (a) behavior support intervention, (b) an effective reading
instruction program for ELLs, (c) DORF progress monitoring, and (d) activity patterns
and opportunities for preference that reflect cultural responsiveness of the intervention.
The participating students were given a supplementary reading support program
called Phonics for Reading (Archer, Flood, Lapp, & Lungren, 2002), a research-based
supplemental reading program that aligned with the recommendations of the National
Reading Panel (2000). The program offered additional instruction in student reading
deficit areas (i.e., phonological awareness and decoding) and was reviewed by the
Oregon Reading First (2008) and the Florida Center for Reading Research (2008) as a
strong supplemental reading program designed for struggling readers.
Phase 4: Evaluation
The teacher participants completed the Contextual Fit Questionnaire (Appendix
H; Salantine & Horner, 2002) to evaluate the extent to which contextual fit and cultural
- -- -- - ---- ---- ------ -
67
responsiveness were incorporated in the intervention. The Questionnaire was completed
by each team member during the behavior support team meetings.
Social validity for this study was assessed using the Teacher Consumer
Sati5faction Survey (Appendix I; Crone & Horner, 2003) to evaluate the extent to which
the function-based behavior and academic intervention were perceived by teachers as (a)
effective to reduce problem behaviors, increase student engagement, and improve reading
performance, (b) efficient with time and local resources and capacity, (c) easy to
implement, and (d) having contextual fit for the students and classroom settings. The
survey was completed and recorded on a Likert-type scale with higher scores indicating
the highest agreement by the teachers at the end of the study.
Measurement
Problem Behavior
The primary dependent variable was the percentage of observation intervals with
a problem behavior. Problem behaviors in the classroom were identified as aggressive
(e.g., hitting, poking, kicking, yelling, starting fights, destroying materials), disruptive
(e.g., talking out, making noises, blurting out an answer, throwing objects), disrespect
(e.g., using gestures, teasing, mocking, verbally abusing or threatening others),
noncompliant (e.g., saying "no" to the teacher's instructional request, refusing to work or
take out a book), and off-task (e.g., putting head down, watching others, looking out
through the window).
68
Problem behavior was measured through direct observation using an interval
record (Appendix J) by the observers who were trained to an 85% interobserver
agreement during observation training sessions. Each observer independently rated the
behavior during the observation period which was lasted from 15 to 20 minutes. Each
period was divided into 10-s observation intervals. An interval was scored as including a
problem behavior if any problem behaviors occurred during the 10-s interval (i.e., partial
interval recording). The percentage of intervals in which the problem behavior occurred
was reported.
Academic Engagement
A secondary dependent variable was occurrences of academic engagement, which
was observed concurrently with the problem behavior variable (Appendix J). Academic
engagement was measured through direct observation by the observers who were trained
to an 85% interobserver agreement during observation training sessions. Each observer
independently rated the behavior during the observation period which lasted from 15 to
20 minutes. Each period divided into 10-s observation intervals. An interval was scored
as "on-task" if the students engaged in and completed tasks as assigned, followed teacher
instructions, focused only on their own work, and raised their hand to request for
assistance. An interval was scored as including on-task behaviors if the behaviors
occurred at the end of the 10-s interval (i.e., momentary time sampling). The percentage
of intervals in which on-task behavior occurred was reported.
69
Interobserver Agreement
The study employed seven observers who were blind to the study hypotheses.
They were undergraduate students in the Special Education Department, the Faculty of
Education, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. lnterobserver agreement
(lOA) was gathered for problem behaviors and academic engagement for approximately
25% of the observations across participants, and across baseline and intervention
conditions. The agreement data were collected through a second observer who
independently scored the same participant at the same time period. The lOA was
calculated by dividing the total number of intervals with agreement by the total number
of intervals with agreement plus disagreement, and multiplying by 100 (Watkins &
Pacheco, 2000). An acceptable criterion for lOA was 85% agreement.
Reading Performance
Student's reading fluency was measured via the Oral Reading Fluency (DORF)
progress monitoring subtest of the Dynamic Indicators ofBasic Early Literacy Skills
(DIBELS) (Appendix K; Good & Kaminski, 2003). The DORF progress monitoring test
measures accuracy and fluency with the code and connected text for students' ability to
(a) identify letter-sound correspondences accurately and quickly, identify familiar
spelling patterns to increase decoding efficiency, (b) blend isolated phonemes to make
words, and (d) use alphabetic understanding to identify words in isolation and on context
fluently. Students' performance was measured by having them read a passage aloud for
one minute. Words omitted or substituted, and hesitations of more than three seconds
70
were scored as errors. Words self-corrected within three seconds were scored as accurate.
The number of words read correctly per minute (WCPM) from the passage produced the
oral reading fluency rate. For this measure, the students' WCPM rate was reported.
The DORF's reliability is .92. However, with four multiple probes, estimated
reliability was .97. The DIBELS's general validity is the content-and criterion related
validity. The content is directly consistent with scientific-based research in reading
focusing on the basic reading skills-phonemic awareness, alphabetic understanding,
fluency, and accuracy (NRP, 2000). Fluency on each subtest, in particular, is an essential
skill to reading achievement in research literature. Each subtest was also documented as
correlated with established reading measures. For example, the DORF subtest correlates
.36 with the Reading Cluster of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery
(revised) and the Letter Naming Fluency subtest correlates .70 with the Readiness Cluster
and .65 with the Reading Cluster of Woodcock-Johnson (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 2006).
The DORF passages were developed to be consistent in readability, reliability,
and validity to the passages from the Test of Reading Fluency (TORF) (Children's
Educational Services, 1987), which is a standardized set of passages and administration
procedures designed to identify children who may need further intensive assessment and
to measure growth in reading skills (Children's Educational Services, 1987).
The participants were timed for I-min DORF Progress Monitoring probes by the
author at the end of the lesson, approximately two times per week during baseline and
intervention conditions. The author recorded scores as well as errors and types of errors
(e.g., sound pronounced incorrectly, omitted words, word type decoding errors). During
71
intervention phases, the errors analysis was used as part of the intervention. The author
provided error analysis evaluation as part of the intervention feedback to the teachers and
discussed possible errors.
Cultural Responsiveness
The academic and behavioral support interventions were conducted with
responsiveness to the cultural values of the students and the teachers. Kauffman et aI.
(2008) reviewed literature related to three cultural dimensions-ethnicity, gender, and
religion-to find evidence of responsiveness to behavioral interventions related to
cultural identity. They found that an intervention developed with cultural sensitivity (a) is
based on scientifically grounded approaches, (b) achieves socially valid behavioral
objectives, and (c) has procedures that are acceptable to students, parents, and teachers.
Since no reliable tool exists to measure cultural responsiveness in intervention
practices, the evidence of cultural responsiveness in this study was collected using the
"contextual fit" (Albin et aI., 1996; Benazzi et aI., 2006) of the intervention procedures
with the behavioral context (i.e., environmental variables) which was influenced by the
cultural values of students and teachers. Contextual fit refers to the extent to which the
intervention plan incorporates the values, skills, resources, and administrative support of
those who implement the plan (Benazzi et aI., 2006; Crone & Horner, 2003; O'Neill et
aI., 1997). The degree of contextual fit indicated the extent to which the intervention was
implemented with cultural responsiveness and sensitivity (Kauffman et aI., 2008).
Cultural considerations and individual academic needs of the students were also
72
incorporated into the team meeting agenda. This team discourse served as a measure to
enhance cultural responsiveness of the intervention plans.
After the academic and behavioral support plan was developed for each student
during the initial meeting, the behavioral support team-the author who served as a
behavioral support consultant and the teachers-evaluated the contextual fit of the plan.
The Contextual Fit Questionnaire (Salantine & Homer, 2002; Appendix H) was used to
evaluate the extent to which the elements of the plan fit the contextual features of the
classroom environment.
During the second team meeting, five students' information folders were provided
to the team members. Each folder included: (a) a one-page summary of the student's
background, DORF test results, an operational description of the student's problem
behavior, and the summary from an FBA for the student, (b) reading intervention plan
(Appendix L), and (c) behavioral support plans (Appendix N).
Each team member rated each student's intervention plan using a 16-item
questionnaire. Each item was rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree. The highest contextual fit score possible for each intervention
plan was 96. The 16 items were categorized into the following eight categories with two
questions per category: (a) knowledge of the elements of the plan, (b) skills needed to
implement the plan, (c) values reflected in the plan, (d) resources available to implement
the plan, (e) administrative support, (f) effectiveness of the plan, (g) whether the behavior
support plan is in the best interest of the student, and (h) whether the behavior support
plan would be efficient to implement.
73
The Contextual Fit Questionnaire was based on factor analysis results from
Sandler, Albin, Homer, and Yanvanoff (2002) and from content validity results reported
by Salantine and Homer (2002). Based on these results, statistically significant
covariation occurred between contextual fit scores from the questionnaire and the
likelihood that the team members would select an intervention for implementation
(Benazzi et aI., 2006). Benazzi et al. (2006) found that when the behavioral support
team-including members with knowledge of the student, the setting and behavioral
theory-evaluated the intervention plans, it was more likely that the plans were rated as
having a strong contextual fit. Posthoc analysis from the same study also found that the
intervention plans developed by behavioral specialists working alone were likely to
receive lower contextual fit scores than the plans conducted collaboratively by the
behavioral specialists and the team members who have knowledge about students and
classroom settings. The team members who evaluated the plans found the plans
conducted by behavioral specialists working alone to include intervention procedures
that: (a) were less familiar to them, (b) did not match their personal values, (c) were less
focused on the best interest of the student, and (d) were not perceived as efficient to
implement.
Design and Procedures
Design
A single-subject concurrent multiple baseline design across participants was
employed. During the intervention phases, however, a reversal design element was added
74
for two participants. The rationale for including two single-subject design elements,
combined designs (Kennedy, 2005), was that (a) the initial demonstration of experimental
control using the multiple baseline design produced ambiguous results, (b) the study
explored multiple dependent variables (i.e., problem behavior and academic engagement)
simultaneously, (c) a multicomponent feature of the independent variable (i.e., function-
based academic and behavioral intervention) and extraneous variables in natural
classroom settings (e.g., schedule change, canceled class, different teachers), made it
difficult to control the experiment using only one design, and (e) combined designs
demonstrated experimental control in multiple ways, yielding stronger demonstration of
the effect (Kennedy, 2005).
Baseline Condition
During initial baseline, all five participants received their traditional EAL lessons.
Both classrooms were in a small-group setting with no more than four students. Although
the school's reading curriculum (Hunt & Brychta, 2008) followed British national
reading standard and curriculum guidelines, the school did not have a solid curriculum
for the EAL program. With consent from the school's Primary Program Master and the
coordinator, the teachers were free to select their reading materials (i.e., program, reading
story books, and exercises). The participants were called out from their regular classroom
during literacy periods to form a small instructional group which met for 50 minutes, four
times per week. Reading curricula in the focused classrooms varied by the degree of
teacher and coordinator choice, and by the degree to which the curricula were guided and
75
explicit. The teachers taught reading in English and followed the British Curriculum
Standard for a regular classroom. Examples of lesson focus during the baseline condition
included: investigate and learn to use the spelling pattern -Ie (e.g., table, vegetable,
middle), future tense, question marks, and pronouns to replace nouns to avoid repetition.
During free reading time, the students picked their reading book from the library and took
turns reading to the teacher. Neither classroom had any specific behavior expectation or
support system. However, the school had a "House Point" system in which students were
placed in different houses. Students collected House Points from the various classrooms
to accumulate for their house team a big reward at the end of the term. Student
participants had opportunities to earn House Points during English reading classes.
Functional Behavior Assessment Results. Results from the FBA process in this
study were initially used to identify escape-maintained behavioral functions. Student
participants were selected based on the purpose their problem behavior served as a result
of an attempt to avoid engaging in academic reading tasks. The hypothesis was confirmed
by structured interviews with the students' English teachers and classroom teachers using
Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff (FACTS), as well as by direct
observation in the students' classes using the Functional Assessment Observation (FAO)
form. Although a more systematic functional analysis is a powerful tool to confirm the
functional relationship between independent variable and dependent variable (Iwata et aI.,
1994; O'Neill et aI., 1997), the study did not include this method for three important
reasons. First, functional analysis procedures may require that class instructional time and
routines be changed or adjusted to meet the experimental conditions. Second, the
76
approach demands high levels of skill and supervision from experienced professionals so
as to be conducted with precision. Finally, the use of teacher interviews and direct
observation identified clear patterns of escape-maintained problem behaviors for all
students.
Function-Based Academic and Behavior Intervention Condition
Based on results from the FBA, behavior support plans were developed. First, the
function of the behavior was determined by the FBA as escape maintained. As part of the
intervention, the students were taught alternative appropriate behaviors that allowed them
to access the same desired reinforcement or consequences (e.g., time away from difficult
tasks) as when the students engaged in the problem behaviors. For example, the students
were taught to properly ask for a I-min break during tasks. Changing curriculum to
Phonics for Reading was also based on antecedent manipulation of the behavioral support
plan since problem behaviors for all participants occurred when the tasks required high-
level reading skills that the students had not mastered. Based on the participants' DORF
benchmark scores, the reading materials were higher than their reading instructional
level. The three main components of the function-based intervention included (a) a
behavioral support plan, (b) an academic support plan, and (c) a cultural responsiveness
plan.
The behavior support team met three times after the function-based interventions
were implemented for all the participants to evaluate the effectiveness of the
interventions. Due to time constraints, the team meeting agendas were combined into
77
three meetings for all five participants. The first meeting was conducted approximately
two weeks after the interventions; the second meeting was at the end of the term, and the
third meeting came after the school break, after the end of the study.
The evaluation procedures included (a) informal discussion about how the
interventions could be modified and made more effective, (b) analysis of data from
observations, and (c) the Contextual Fit Questionnaire. During the second and third
meetings, the team completed the questionnaire (Salantine & Homer, 2002) to evaluate
the extent to which contextual fit and cultural responsiveness were incorporated in the
intervention. The questionnaire was completed by each teacher during the team meeting
midpoint in the study and again at the end ofthe study. Table 2 provides a summary of
information including grade level, gender, ethnicity, problem behaviors, antecedent
context, behavioral function, cultural specific recommendations, and reading
recommendation defined in each student's academic and behavioral support plan.
Behavior Support Intervention. Based on the hypothesis statement that was
developed from the FACTS and validating observation, a behavior support plan was
designed. Each student's behavior support plan was developed to (a) modify the
predictors (i.e., setting events, antecedent) that set the occasion for the problem behavior
(b) teach appropriate or alternative behaviors, and (c) modify consequences to minimize
reinforcement of problem behavior, and increase reinforcement of desired behavior. The
goal of the behavior support plan was to identify strategies that make the problem
behaviors ineffective, inefficient, and irrelevant.
Table 2. Students' information summary.
Name Grade Gender Ethnicity Antecedent Context Problem Behavior(s) Behavioral Function Academic Consideration Cultural Consiwleration
Kenso 4 M Thai Hard" independent and Get out of seat" make excuses to Avoid tasks Reading accuracy at Authority figure
unstructured tasks leave classroom, ask for break frustration level
often, look out and away from Uncertainty avoidance
Return from recess tasks, play with materials Native language
interference Love to play and have
fun
Unstructured reading
activities led to distraction
Kwan 4 F Thai Hard" independent and Look out and away from task, Avoid tasks Reading accuracy at Authority figure
unstructured tasks not respond to question" frustration level
withdraw from activities Uncertainty avoidance
Difficulty adjusting to Lack decoding skills
new school
environment Native language
interference
Khun 4 M Korean Hard, independent and Refuse to work on tasks, get out Avoid tasks Reading accuracy at Uncertainty avoidance
unstructured tasks of seat, play with materials, look frustration level
Difficulty adjusting to out and away from tasks Lack motivation
new school
environment Unstructured reading
activities led to distraction
Salim 3 M Bangladeshi Family's treatment Wait to be told what to do, not Avoid tasks Work depending on others Overprotected
Hard, independent and
respond to question, withdraw
Avoid making Unstructured reading
parenting style
from class activities" look at his
unstructured tasks peers' work mistakes activities led to distraction Authority figure
Uncertainty avoidance
Gus 3 M Thai Hard" independent and Talk to peers, laugh" sing, make Avoid tasks Reading accuracy at
unstructured tasks noises, look out and away from frustration level
tasks
Skip line reading
Unstructured reading
activities led to distraction
-....l
00
79
Kenso. The behavior support team, including the teachers and the author,
developed a behavior support plan for Kenso based on the FBA information. Figure 12
shows the hypothesis statement and a competing behavior pathway analysis to identify
alternative behavior, desired behavior, and consequence. The desired behavior outcome
for Kenso was to stay on task~engaging in and completing tasks as assigned, following
teacher instructions, focusing only on his own assigned work, and raising his hand to
request assistance from the teacher. Alternative behaviors were identified as following
academic and behavior rules according to the Phonicsfor Reading program, requesting
one break time per session, and choosing to work in the group or in a pair. Kenso was
taught behavior expectations in the classroom and during reading tasks including how to
properly request for assistance from the teacher. A positive reinforcement system was
established using smiley faces and stickers as primary reinforcers. Kenso's engagement
in problem behavior may result in loosing the reinforcers (i.e., smiley faces, stickers).
Hypothesis Statement for Kenso:
During EAL reading session with the teacher, Kenso
gets out of seat, makes excuses to leave the
classroom, asks for a break, plays with materials and
looks out and away from tasks. These behaviors are
maintained by avoiding reading tasks. The behavior
is more likely when he returns from recess, or and
when the classroom instruction is not explicit.
Desired Behavior
Stay engaged and complete
task, ask questions when
appropriate
--
Consequences
Complete tasks
Obtain positive
attention/praises from
teachers and peers
~
Setting Events
Recess
Fatigue from
playing football
--
Antecedents/Predictors
Hard
tasks/independent
and unstructured
work
Inexplicit instruction
~
--
,
Problem Behavior(s)
Get out of his seat
Ask for break
Make excuses to leave
classroom
Play with materials
Look out and away from tasks
Replacement/Alternative Behavior
Behavioral and structured
reading intervention
--
Maintaining Consequences
Avoid tasks
Figure 12. Competing behavior pathway for Kenso. Appropriately ask for help and
break time 00
o
81
Kwan. The behavioral support team used information from the FBA to develop a
behavior support plan for Kwan. Her desired behavior included staying on task-
engaging in and completing tasks as assigned, following teacher instructions, focusing
only on her own assigned work, and raising her hand to request assistance from the
teacher. Acceptable alternative behavior for Kwan was to follow academic and behavior
rules according to the Phonics for Reading program, to ask for a break or request
assistance from the teacher, and to choose to work in the group or in a pair. Kwan was
taught behavior expectations in the classroom and during reading tasks, including how to
properly request for assistance from the teacher. The team also decided to change the
seating arrangement so that Kwan sat facing the teacher and blackboard in the middle of
the other two students. A positive reinforcement system was established using smiley
faces and stickers as primary reinforcers. Kwan's engagement in problem behaviors may
result in loosing the reinforcers. Figure 13 shows the hypothesis statement summary and
a competing behavior pathway analysis to identify alternative behavior, desired behavior,
and consequences for Kwan.
Hypothesis Statement for Kwan:
During reading tasks, Kwan looks out and away
from her tasks, does not respond to requests and
questions, or withdraws from activities. These
behaviors are maintained to avoid tasks. The
behavior is more likely when the classroom
instruction is not explicit
Desired Behavior
Stay engaged and complete
task, ask questions when
appropriate
-+
Consequences
Complete tasks
Positive attention
from teachers and
peers
~ Problem Behavior(s)Antecedents/PredictorsSetting events
Look out and away from tasks
Hard tasks/independent Not respond to requests and
N/A and unstructured work questions
-+ I Inexplicit instruction
-+ Withdraw from activities 1-+
Maintaining Consequences
Avoid tasks
Figure 13. Competing behavior pathway for Kwan.
'-
Replacement!Alternative Behavior
Behavioral and structured reading
intervention
Appropriately ask for help and
break time
,tJf
00
N
83
Khun. The behavior support team developed a behavioral support plan for Khun
based on the informed FBA data. His desired behavior outcome was to stay on task-
engaging in and completing tasks as assigned, following teacher instructions, focusing
only on his own assigned work, and raising his hand to request assistance from the
teacher. Alternative behaviors were identified as following academic and behavior rules
according to the Phonics for Reading program: requesting one break time per session,
and choosing to work in the group or in a pair. Khun was taught behavior expectations in
the classroom and during reading tasks, including how to properly request assistance
from the teacher. A positive reinforcement system was established using smiley faces and
stickers as primary reinforcers. Khun's engagement in problem behavior may result in
loosing the reinforcers.
Hypothesis Statement for Khun
During unstructured reading tasks, Khun refuses to
work on task, gets out of seat, plays with materials,
and looks out and away from tasks to avoid doing
his reading tasks. The behavior is more likely when
he has to adjust to the new school environment. The
behavior increases when the classroom instruction is
not explicit, and instructions and when the tasks are
difficult.
Desired behavior
Stay engaged and complete
task, ask questions when
appropriate
Consequences
Complete tasks
Positive attention
from teachers and
-+ I peers
Avoid tasks
Maintaining Consequences
fill'
-+
Behavioral and structured reading
intervention
Replacement/Alternative Behavior
-+
fill' Problem Behavior(s)
Refuse to do work
Get out of his seat
Play with materials
Look out and away from tasks
,
Inexplicit instruction
Antecedents/Predictors
Hard
tasks/independent and
unstructured work
-+
New to the
school and
EAL class
Setting Events
Appropriately ask for help and
break time
Figure 14. Competing behavior pathway for Khun.
00
+>-
85
Salim. The behavior support team developed a behavioral intervention plan for
Salim based on the information obtained from the FBA procedures. The desired behavior
for Salim was to work independently of others, to stay focused on the task, to listen and
follow the teacher's advice and instructions, to practice phonics to improve his reading
skills, and to ask questions when he did not understand the tasks. Acceptable alternative
behaviors for Salim included following academic and behavior rules according to the
Phonics for Reading program, appropriately asking for break time, and choosing to work
in the group or in a pair. Salim was taught behavior expectations in the classroom and
during reading tasks, including how to properly request assistance from the teacher
instead of looking at peers' work. A positive reinforcement system was established using
smiley faces and stickers as primary reinforcers. Salim's engagement in problem
behavior may result in loosing the reinforcers. Figure 15 shows the hypothesis statement
and a competing behavior pathway analysis to identify alternative behavior, desired
behavior, and consequence for Salim.
Figure 15. Competing behavior pathway for Salim.
Antecedents/Predictors
Hypothesis Statement for Salim:
During unstructured reading tasks, Salim waits
to be told what to do, does not respond to
questions and withdraws from class activities to
avoid doing task. He sometimes also copies his
peers' work. The behavior is more likely when
the class instruction is not explicit.
00
0\
Maintaining Consequences
Avoid tasks
Complete tasks
Positive attention
from teachers and
peers
Consequences
~
-+
-+
Appropriately ask for help and
break time
Replacement!Alternative Behavior
Desired behavior
Behavioral and structured
reading intervention
Problem Behavior(s)
Wait to be told what to do
Not respond to question
Withdraw from class
activities Copy peers' work
Stay engaged and complete
task, ask questions when
appropriate, work
independently of others
-+
~
,
Hard tasks/independent and
unstructured work
Inexplicit instruction-+
Setting Events
N/A
87
Gus. The behavior support team developed a behavior intervention plan for Gus
based on the information obtained from the FBA procedures. Figure 16 shows the
hypothesis statement and a competing behavior pathway analysis to identify alternative
behavior, desired behavior, and consequence for Gus. The desired behavior was to work
on his tasks with carefulness, to stay focused on the task, to listen and follow the
teacher's advice and instructions, to practice phonics to improve his reading skills, and to
ask questions when he did not understand the tasks. Acceptable alternative behaviors for
Gus included following academic and behavior rules according to the Phonics for
Reading program, appropriately asking for break time, and choosing to work in the group
or in a pair. Gus was taught behavior expectations in the classroom and during reading
tasks including how to properly request assistance from the teacher. A positive
reinforcement system was established using smiley faces and stickers as primary
reinforcers. Gus's engagement in problem behavior may result in loosing the reinforcers.
Reading Intervention
The study used lessons from the Phonics for Reading Levels J and 2 (Appendix
L) to provide early reading skills (e.g., phonics, letter-sound association, and vocabulary)
needed by students who are at risk for reading difficulty (Foonnan & Torgesen, 2001;
NRP, 2000). The direct instruction intervention approach (Carnine et aI., 2004)
embedded in this program is one of the most well-established systems in behavioral
science (NRP, 2000). The program was selected as a reading intervention for this study
not only to provide critical prerequisite reading skills for the participants who were
Hypothesis Statement for Gus:
During reading tasks, Gus talks to peers, laughs,
sings, makes noises, looks out and away to avoid
doing his reading tasks. The behavior most likely
occurs during independent and unstructured
tasks.
Setting Events
N/A
Antecedents/Predictors
Unstructured/
Independent tasks
_ I Difficult task demands
Desired Behavior
Consequences
Stay engaged and complete Complete tasks
his own task, ask questions
when appropriate I Positive attention
-
from teachers and
peers
I
~ Problem Behavior(s) Maintaining Consequences
Talk to peers I Avoid tasks
Laugh, sing, makes noises
-
I Look out and away from
I
-
tasks
,
Figure 16. Competing behavior pathway for Gus.
Replacement/Alternative Behavior
Behavioral and structured
reading intervention
Appropriately ask for help
~
00
00
89
English language learners and who demonstrated difficulties in reading, but also to
deliver more systematic reading instruction than traditional EAL instruction. With well-
developed teacher training and supervision, the students' goal for reading intervention
was to help students to achieve academic reading success (e.g., increase academic
engagement, complete reading tasks accurately, and increase reading fluency rate).
The reading interventions were implemented by four English language teachers
who were trained by the author for a minimum of 30 minutes per day for two weeks. The
teachers received training in a staff room or in their office during the break time or when
they were available. Training consisted of approximately five hours per teacher. The
teachers received supervision by the author on each component of the Phonics for
Reading lessons. The intervention was conducted during the regularly scheduled 50-min
EAL session, four days a week. The instructional plan for reading appears in Appendix J.
To document the fidelity of implementation for reading intervention, the author
rated an implementation fidelity checklist designed for the Phonics for Reading program
(Appendix M) (Ham & Chard, 2004). The author observed the reading intervention and
rated it on a scale from 0 to 2, with 2 indicating a high level of implementation. The
fidelity checklist completion accounted for 30% of all intervention sessions.
Reading Materials. The reading materials were drawn from Phonics for Reading
Levels 1 and 2 (Archer et aI., 2002). Placement tests in the program were given to the
student participants prior to the intervention to identify their reading instructional level
for appropriate use of reading materials. Salim and Gus were given Phonics for Reading
level 2 and Kenso, Kwan, and Khun were given with level 1.
90
Fidelity of Implementation
Because the intervention was multicomponent, the assessment of treatment
fidelity was conducted to demonstrate that the three main components were implemented
as originally designed to produce the desired outcome (Gresham, 1989). The three
measures determined: (a) whether the intervention is function-based (e.g., follows the
FBA procedures), (b) whether the intervention follows principal component of phonics
for reading, and (c) whether the intervention demonstrates cultural responsiveness.
Behavior Support Intervention
To document the fidelity of implementation for behavioral support intervention, it
is necessary that the behavior support plan development process develop by a behavior
support team who can demonstrate knowledge about (a) the student and the student's
behavior, (b) context in which support will be provided, and (c) components of behavior
theory (Benazzi et ai., 2006). This study gathered essential elements to document fidelity
of implementation of behavioral support interventions for all participants.
First, the study documented a technical adequacy of the behavioral support plans
(Appendix N). Two expert behavior analysts evaluated the plans for technical adequacy,
using the Behavior Support Plan Critical Scoring Guide (Appendix 0) based on the
Intensive Individualized Interventions Critical Features Checklist (Appendix P) (Lewis-
Palmer, Todd, Homer, Sugai, & Sampson, 2004). The expert behavioral analysts were
individuals with professional expertise in function-based approach as evidenced by at
91
least 5 years of professional research in the area and three or more peer-reviewed
publications on FBA and its use in creating behavior support plan (Benazzi et aI., 2006).
Each behavior support plan received a score from 0 to 17 by each analyst,
indicating how many of 17 essential elements the plan included. These elements
included: an operational description of the problem behavior, the FBA summary
statement, strategies for preventing the problem behavior, instructional strategies for
teaching an alternative behavior, strategies for minimizing the reinforcement of problem
behaviors, and a system for assessing the fidelity of implementation of the plan and the
plan's effect on student behavior. To meet the technical adequacy criterion, each plan
must obtain a score of 85% accuracy or better (Benazzi et aI., 2006).
Second, the study documented contextual fit scores from the team members to
evaluate whether the intervention demonstrated cultural responsiveness and fit individual
needs of students and teachers. The contextual fit questions were presented twice during
the study. The initial scoring was done by the behavior support team including three
teachers and the author when the interventions were in place, during the middle of the
study (i.e., in June). The school EAL coordinator was invited to playa role on the
behavior support team and score the contextual fit form. However, due to school
activities and time conflict, she could not fully participate in the development of
academic and behavior support plans for the participants. She identified 5 out of 16 items
on the Contextual Fit Questionnaire as "not applicable." Therefore, her scoring in the
contextual fit may not be relevant to the study. The second scoring was done after the
92
school break. One teacher taught both groups (i.e., 3rd and 4th grades) and scored the
questionnaire with the author.
Reading Intervention
During the intervention of the Phonics for Reading program, four teachers
engaged in similar intervention implementation in terms of materials, amounts of time
allocated to instruction, levels of supports, amounts of opportunities to respond, positive
reinforcement, and teachers' wording and modeling. The variables of curriculum based
on teachers' choices were compromised, due to the teachers' varied personal
characteristics (e.g., enthusiasm, creativity, sense of humor) that mayor may not have
had an effect on the implementation.
To determine the effectiveness of reading intervention, the Phonicsfor Reading
Level 1-2 Integrity Checklist (Appendix M) (Ham & Chard, 2004) was used. The
checklist was based on the main components of the lesson. The author observed the
intervention and rated the integrity on a scale of 0 to 2 (2 = high level of implementation,
o= low level of implementation). The obserVations accounted for 30 % of all the
intervention sessions across students and teachers who implemented the intervention.
93
Social Validity
Social validity is the extent to which a behavior-change intervention is directed to
a problem of verifiable importance and the intervention is valued, satisfied, and used
appropriately by designated target groups, listed by Schwartz and Baer (1991) as (a)
direct consumers (e.g., students who received the intervention); (b) indirect consumers
(e.g., parents of the child who is receiving intervention); (c) members of the immediate
community (e.g., other children in the school); and (d) members of the extended
community (e.g., people who are interested in the researchers' efforts). When the
intervention has sufficient behavioral impact to substantially reduce the probability of the
problems in these target populations, it could be considered socially valid.
Social validity was defined as the extent to which the intervention consumers (i.e.,
teachers, school personnel, and parents) value the intervention outcomes (Wolf, 1978)
and the intervention contributes to socially significant behaviors (Gresham & Lopez,
1996).
Social validity for this study was assessed using the Teacher Consumer
Satisfaction Survey (Crone & Horner, 2003) to evaluate the extent to which the function-
based academic and behavior intervention was perceived by the teachers as (a) effective
to reduce problem behaviors, increase student engagement, and improve reading
performance, (b) efficient with time, local resources, and capacity, (c) easy to implement,
and (d) having contextual fit for the students and classroom settings. The survey was
recorded on a Likert-type scale (1-5) with 1 indicated highest satisfaction and 5 indicated
lowest satisfaction.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
To answer the study research questions, this section summarizes five main
components of the study results: (a) effects of function-based academic and behavior
intervention on problem behavior, (b) effects of function-based academic and behavior
intervention on academic engagement, (c) effects of function-based academic and
behavior intervention on reading performance, (d) fidelity of intervention
implementation, (e) interobserver agreement, and (f) social validity.
This study used single-subject design methodology to document the effects of
function-based academic and behavior intervention on problem behavior and academic
engagement. Evaluation of the study followed the traditional approach to analysis of
single-subject research data (Horner et aI., 2005; Parsonson & Baer, 1978). Displayed
graphs were used as the primary tools for communicating the effects of intervention on
problem behavior and academic engagement. The analysis procedures involved
systematic visual interpretation of the level, trend, and variability of two scatter plot
graphs showing students' percentage of problem behavior and academic engagement.
The displayed graph for reading performance presented the percentage of words
read correct per minute (WCMP) from the DIBELS progress monitoring test and the
errors that students made. These data were interpreted and analyzed using (a) mean and
94
95
mean change of WCPM and errors during baseline and intervention conditions, and (b)
growth rate consideration for the students' grade level.
Effects of Function-Based Intervention on Problem Behavior
The first research question asked whether there was an established functional
relationship between a function-based academic and behavior intervention that (a) is
based on behavioral function, (b) employs effective literacy instruction, and (c) is
matched to the learners' culture and a decrease in problem behaviors during English
reading class for the 3rd and 4th grade participant students. This study initially employed a
single-subject concurrent multiple baseline across five participants. During the
intervention phases, however, a reversal design element was added for Salim and Gus.
Figure16 displays the percentage of intervals with problem behavior, and fidelity of
implementation.
During the baseline phase, the students were observed for 5 to 10 sessions to
document a pattern ofbehaviof. During the intervention phase, 17 to 23 observation
sessions occurred. The effects were analyzed using level, trend, variability within phase
data, percentage of data overlap, immediacy of effect, and similarity of data patterns
across similar phases.
96
Baseline Function-Based Intervention
I Ke1150
Tl'eat1llellt fidelity
100
£10
80
70
GO
SO
40
30 School break
~g -1-~:W-:~~~t.-~""";~'::::~~~~~~~~,,;2,:"k:....;":!/~~~~,",-~~~~~~~
Gus
Salim I
Klum
Kwan
Inrer"lrention
A A A
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
IA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
vi
I
I
I
----I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~.fv/",30
20
·to
I
lOD 1_______ Intervention Baseline:
00 ... ~
00 :
ro :
~ :
~ l
40 I
I
3D .f!<.. ". I~ IV !
10 -<... -- '''' - A I.-.....,J-_...
o +-,....,c-T__r~h_~~~__r+~~....~: .,.~.....~~--"..,....T_r_~~~~-+'-,-....-:-~~z:r...,.,.,.~
,,{/
100
90
80
70
&0
70
so
80
50
40
30
20
1!l
G h-,--,~~W~~~~~~~---,-""_./OV"~~!t:r*~t,--,--,--,,,-....-r...,..,-,
9n
100
flO
80
70
SO
50
40
30~20
"10
o-l---.--.-.,....,--.-......,+~~~~ .....;......,..~:,....,.--".5h--.-.,....,~ ........~t;:..:.,c-T""""T""""'c-r....,-,....,
100
~-
'1 3 5 7 91'1 13 15 "17 '19 2'1 2:3 25 27 29 :31 33 35 :37 39
20 May Oosel'vatton Sessions 23 September
Figure 17. Effects of function-based academic and behavior intervention on problem
behavior.
97
Multiple-Baseline Design
Baseline. Level refers to the average value of the data within each condition.
Level of data was examined using means and the extent to which the average percentage
of intervals with problem behavior changed from the baseline to the intervention
condition. Table 3 illustrates the means for baseline and intervention phases for five
participants' problem behavior. Across five participants, the average percentage of
intervals with problem behaviors in the baseline condition was 18%, ranging from 0% to
53%.
Table 3. Means and change in means for problem behavior.
Percentage Intervals with Problem Behavior
Baseline Phase Intervention Phase Overall
Student M Range M Range Change % Overlap
Kenso 14% 0-36% 12% 0-25% -2 100%
Kwan 14% 3-31% 5% 0-29% -9 61%
Khun 21% 8-34% 6% 0-27% -23 37%
Salim 17% 0-32% 7% 1-15% -10 100%
Gus 27% 12-53% 11% 2-25% -16 64%
Total 18% 0-53% 9% 0-29% -9
Trend refers to the rate of increase or decrease of the best-fit straight line that can
be placed over the dependent variable (i.e., percentage of intervals with problem
behavior) within a condition (i.e., slope and magnitude). During the baseline condition,
98
data for Kenso, Kwan, and Khun demonstrated a medium to low magnitude slope. Kenso
displayed an increasing slope of a problem behavior pattern while Kwan and Khun
showed a decreasing slope. During the initial baseline condition, Salim demonstrated an
increasing trend in problem behavior. An increasing trend in problem behavior was also
documented for Gus.
Variability refers to the degree to which data points fluctuated around the level
and the trend in a condition (e.g., if the data points are very close to the best-fit straight
line in the condition, the data pattern demonstrates a low variability). During the baseline
condition, Kenso displayed a moderate variability of percentage of intervals with problem
behavior (range 0-36%). Due to time constraints of the study and contextual fit of the
EAL class schedule and teacher availability, Kenso's baseline condition could not be
prolonged so as to develop a more stable data pattern. Low variability was observed for
Kwan (range 3-31 %). For Khun, a low to moderate variability of data pattern was
displayed (range 8-34%). During the initial baseline condition, Salim displayed moderate
variability of percentage of intervals with problem behavior (range 0-26%). High
variability of data pattern was observed for Gus (range 15-53%).
Function-Based Intervention. During the intervention phase, the participants'
mean was 9%, ranging from 0% to 29%, which was considered a 9% decrease. However,
for Kenso, 100% of data points for the intervention condition overlapped with data for
the baseline condition. A partial overlapping data pattern was observed for Kwan (61 %)
and Khun (37%). During the intervention condition for Kenso, a low magnitude slope
suggested a restricted meaningful data pattern. The trend was not established for Kenso.
99
For Kwan and Kenso, a decreasing slope of a problem behavior pattern was displayed.
During the initial intervention phase, Salim displayed a low magnitude slope. Gus
displayed a medium magnitude slope with an increasing pattern of problem behavior.
Low baseline levels of problem behavior for Kenso and decreasing baseline patterns for
Kwan limit the study's ability to demonstrate a compelling effect. In response to this
challenge the design was augmented to include ABAB reversal analyses for Salim and
Gus (see Figure 16).
ABAB Design
Baseline. During the second baseline for Salim and Gus, all procedures of the
function-based academic and behavior interventions were withheld and previous EAL
supports were provided. The teacher reintroduced the intervention during the second
intervention phase. Due to the ethical issue of withdrawing academic and behavior
intervention as well as Salim's class absence, only four data points were collected for his
second baseline condition and no trend was established. During the second baseline, the
data demonstrated a moderate variability pattern for Salim (range 15-32%) and Gus
(range 12-34%). The reversal design enhanced the replication of baseline behavioral
patterns and the intervention effects. The data pattern for Salim showed 100% of
overlapping data between the two baseline conditions and the two intervention
conditions. Gus's data demonstrated 64% of overlapping data. During the second
baseline, Gus displayed a decreasing trend.
100
Function-Based Intervention. The data pattern in the second intervention
condition suggested decreasing trends in problem behavior for both Salim and Gus. For
the initial intervention condition, Salim and Gus each demonstrated a low variability of
data pattern (range 6-15% for Salim; 8-25% for Gus). A similar pattern was found during
the second intervention condition for Salim and Gus, with a range of 1-13% and 2-12%
respectively. However, the increasing trend during the second baseline for Gus presents a
cautious effect during the second intervention condition.
Summary ofAnalysis
Table 4 depicts criteria for documenting a functional relationship between the
function-based academic and behavior intervention and problem behavior (Horner et al.,
2005). Horner et al. (2005) noted that a functional relationship may be compromised
when (a) a long latency occurs between manipulation of the intervention and change in
the dependent variable, (b) mean changes across conditions are small or the data in
adjacent conditions share similar values, and (c) trends do not conform to those predicted
following introduction or manipulation of the intervention. Based on the criteria, the
multiple baseline across participant design did not produce a compelling effect in order to
document a functional relationship between the function-based intervention and
decreased problem behavior for the participants. The results indicated that the
experimental control was established for a reversal design for Salim and Gus, with
possible six demonstrations of the experimental effect at three different points in time
101
Table 4. Documentation of a functional relationship between the function-based
intervention and problem behavior.
Documentation of a Functional Relationship
Immediacy Significance of Consistency of Data
of effects Mean Changes Pattern
Student Yes No Yes No Yes No
Kenso J J J
Kwan J J J
Khun J J J
Salim J J J
Gus J J J
Total 2 3 2 3 2 3
Effects of Function-Based Intervention on Academic Engagement
The second research question in this study asked whether there was an established
functional relationship between a function-based academic and behavior intervention and
an increase in academic engagement for the participants. Figure18 displays the
relationships between the two variables and the fidelity of implementation. Data for the
participants' academic engagement during baseline and intervention conditions were
collected concurrently with data for problem behaviors. During the baseline phase, the
students were observed for 5 to 10 sessions to document patterns of behavior. Students
were observed 17 to 23 times during the intervention phase. Level, trend, and variability
of data path were analyzed. Table 5 illustrates the means for baseline and intervention
phases for five participants' academic engagement.
102
Base-line Functio:n-Based Intervention
Scheol bneak
I KenEe I
........100
80
SO
70
60
50
40
:>0
2'0
10
O+-,-r-,---r-r-T--r_.,....,-,---.-"T""""'.......,.--,--r-,.......,---r-="....,-r-,---r-.......,.--,--r-,.......,~--.-~~~
1~~Af·~80
70
EO
I RIma I
50
40
30
20
10
O+-''''''''''''''---'--'-'---'+'''--'-'--'--,.......,-'--'-'-'--'--'--,.,.,,.;.''-''-'--'--'--,.......,-'--'-r-T-'---'---;.......,.''''--'---'
I
f~
.. 1\ :
''\1 • I Sallm
InterventIouBaselineIntervention
,
,
I
-------j
lOG IVgO .
BO .
;,~~
50
40
30
20
10
O+-.......,.--,--r-.,....,-,--,---r-r-T-+--.-".......,.--,--r-.--,--m"r--\-.......,.--,---.-~r--r-,---r-r-T~--.-",.,
100
90
80
70
80
40
30
~~! I Gus
I
I
,
,
,
20
1,0
O+--'-,----.-,--,-,--,-.---r-,---.--'"--,--,-.---r-,--,--,r:;r;$f-'r--,,,----.-,,--.'--,--.-r--,--,-r-r-,-,---,
3 5 7 9 11 ·1315 17 '19 2" 23 25 27 29 3·\ 33 35 37 39
lOMay OlxservatlD1l Sessions 23 September
Figure 18. Effect of function-based academic and behavior intervention on academic
engagement.
103
Table 5. Means and change in means for academic engagement.
Percentage Intervals with Academic Engagement
Baseline Phase Intervention Phase Overall
Student M Range M Range Change % Overlap
Kenso 88% 69-96% 96% 81-100% +8 48%
Kwan 93% 75-100% 98% 95-100% +5 100%
Khun 81% 65-94% 97% 88-100% + 15 10%
Salim 79% 62-100% 97% 87-100% +18 100%
Gus 81% 53-98% 97% 92-100% +16 57%
Total 85% 53-100% 97% 81-100% +12
Multiple-Baseline Design
Baseline. Across five participants, the average percentage of intervals with
academic engagement in the baseline condition was 85%, ranging from 53% to 100%.
During baseline condition, data patterns for Kenso, Kwan and Khun demonstrated
medium magnitude slopes. Kenso and Kwan displayed increasing slopes of academic
engagement. Khun's data revealed no trend during the baseline due to the high variability
of the data pattern. During the initial baseline condition, Salim demonstrated a minimal
increasing trend in academic engagement. The trend, however, was not established for
Gus due to the variability of data during his initial baseline condition.
Variability of data pattern was significant for the development of functional
relationships between the function-based academic and behavior intervention and
academic engagement for the participants. During the baseline condition, both Kenso and
- - --- ---- -- - --- -- --- - - - -- - - - - - - -- -- - - -- - - -
104
Kwan displayed a moderate variability of percentage of intervals with academic
engagement (range 69-96% for Kenso and 75-100% for Kwan). For Khun, a moderate to
high variability of data pattern was displayed (range 65-94%). During the initial baseline
condition, Salim displayed a moderate to high variability of data pattern (range 62-
100%). A high variability of data pattern was observed for Gus (range 53-98%), making
it impractical to develop a trend.
Function-Based Intervention. During the intervention phase, the participants'
academic engagement mean was 97%, ranging from 81% to 100%, a 12% increase.
Kenso, Kwan, and Khun showed a low variability of data for academic engagement,
ranging from 81 to 100%, 95 to 100%, and 88 to 100% respectively. However, for Kwan,
100% of data points for intervention condition overlapped with data points for the
baseline condition. A partial overlapping data pattern was observed for Kenso (48%) and
the data pattern for Khun displayed 10% of overlapping data. Trends in academic
engagement during the intervention condition for Kenso, Kwan, and Khun revealed a
similar pattern-a consistently low magnitude slope with a slightly upward trend. During
the initial intervention condition, Salim and Gus displayed a low magnitude slope of a
decreasing trend. During the initial intervention condition, Salim displayed a low
variability of data pattern (range 87-100%). Gus's data also indicated a significantly low
variability (range 95-100%).
105
ABAB Design
Baseline. During the second baseline, trends for both Salim and Gus were not
established. The data demonstrated a low variability pattern for Salim (range 15-32%)
and Gus (range 12-34%).The data pattern for Salim showed 100% of overlapping data
between the two baseline conditions and the two intervention conditions. Gus's data
displayed 57% of overlapping data.
Function-Based Intervention. During the second intervention condition, both
Salim and Gus continued to display a low variability of data for academic engagement,
with a range of 95 to 100% and 93 to 100%, respectively. The data pattern in the second
intervention condition suggested increasing trends in academic engagement for both
Salim and Gus.
Summary ofAnalysis
Table 6 depicts criteria for documenting a functional relationship between the
function-based intervention and academic engagement (Homer et aI., 2005). Due to the
increasing trends during baseline conditions for most participants, the multiple baselines
across participant design did not produce a compelling effect in order to document a
functional relationship between the function-based intervention and increased academic
engagement for the participants. The results indicated that the experimental control was
established with possible five demonstrations of the experimental effect at three different
points in time for Salim and Gus.
106
Table 6. Documentation of a functional relationship between the function-based
intervention and academic engagement.
Documentation of a Functional Relationship
Immediacy Significance of Consistency of Data
of Effects Mean Changes Pattern
Student Yes No Yes No Yes No
Kenso J J J
Kwan J J J
Khun J J J
Salim J J J
Gus J J J
Total 2 3 4 4
Effects of Function-Based Intervention on Reading Performance
The third research question in this study asked whether there was an established
functional relationship between a function-based academic and behavior intervention and
an improvement in reading performance as measured by oral reading fluency for the
participants. Figure19 displays the relationships between the two variables. Words read
correctly per minute (WCPM) and errors were displayed as dependent variables.
During the baseline phase, the students received regular EAL support from their
teachers. DORF progress monitoring probes were administered for 3 to 7 test sessions
across students. During the intervention phase, the function-based academic and behavior
intervention was in place and the DORF progress monitoring probes were administered
for 10 to 15 test sessions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------ ----- - ~~~~~~~~-
107
I RW311 I
I Reuso I
(",) Errors
.e>WCPM
A A .A
"./+
~.'¢
Baseline
School ,w"ak
A A
FUllcticm-Based Intervention
Intervention
A e;,·,···-·· T,,,,al111ent !ldelity
'.'V\j\
~•.~_..-~-<>
:.. /V'/~ I'\,
..../ - V
"
"
.,
I
I
1-- __ .~
/~
.....y ......-
~.~o-...:>
I
I
120 1------;
110 :
lDO ,
90 :
80 :
YO ~_ I~g ........./" ... !
40 :
30 ~
20 I
10 :
{j-1«2;<;o;2;=;=~~....~-h~,.....;2;<;¢l,~"p,+,.....,-.-,....-,!~'f«2:.;::.'?"To¢i.:,.....,~
120
110
100
90
eo
70
6D
50
40
.30
20
10_<>0~:t;=:;:~;:=;5~~~;l.;:.::;<:z:;.~»;Q~..."."."-r-~~:>r=;~;2..~~~~
120
110
100
90
80
70
SO
so
40
30
20
10
O+-r.,...,...,.,......,-';"'..-,-,....-,,-,-,....,-,-,--r-r:=-,-,....-r-r-,-,,--,-..,...,.,...,....,.,.......,
Baseline
I KIm!} I
120
110
H]O
90
810
70
60~g ......
30
20
'8 <:TO
~11
::GiX
"E
Q
~
120
110
11)D
90
80
70
60
50
40
3D
20
10 ..."",¢-
0~~~~f,..,....;!.,,,.--!'r-r-,.....,'Q-;2:~~~c:..'.,-......--r--j.,~.;;'»;-~;n,.~
Gus
1 3 5 7 '3 1'11315 17 -19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
20 l\·lay Observation SessioJls 23 Septemb-er
Figure 19. Effects ofthe function-based academic and behavior intervention on reading
performance.
108
Outcomes for the WCPM and errors depicted in Figure 18 indicated no significant
reading improvement for four participants. A medium increasing trend was established
for Khun, with a mean change of WCPM from the baseline to the intervention condition
of 42 to 56, making a gain of 14 words. All participants showed high variability in the
range of scores during the baseline (range 33-99 WCPM) and the intervention condition
(range 22-107 WCPM).
Means and Change in Means for wCPM and Errors
Table 7 illustrates the means and changes in means for the participants' WCPM
and errors rate during baseline and intervention conditions. During the baseline condition,
the mean WCPM for all students was 56 words (range 33-99 WCPM) with 8 errors
(range 1-17 words). Kenso read 49 WCPM with 9 errors. Compared to his 4th grade level
peers' reading performance (l08 WCPM) on DORF benchmark probes, he read 2.2 times
lower than his peers. Kwan read 53 WCPM with 14 errors. She read 2 times lower than
her peers in 4th grade. Khun read 42 WCPM with 5 errors, or 2.6 times below his grade
level. Salim read 59 WCPM with 3 errors, 2 times below his 3rd grade level peers (117
WCPM). Gus read 78 WCPM with 7 errors, 1.5 times below the performance of his 3rd
grade peers.
Using Howell and Nolet's (2000) criteria for magnitude of discrepancy, the
participants showed significant risk for reading their lesson materials at their current
instructional level. During the intervention condition, the mean WCPM for all
participants was 64 words (range 22-107 WCPM) with 7 errors (range 1-22 words). The
109
discrepancy ratios between oral reading fluency of the participants and their grade level
peers decreased during the intervention condition (Kenso and Kwan = 1.8, Khun = 1.9,
Salim = 1.8, and Gus = 1.4).
Table 7. Means and change in means for oral reading fluency.
Words Read Correct Per Minute and Errors
Baseline Phase Intervention Phase Overall
Classroom
Student M Range M Range Word/Errors Gains Norm
Kenso
WCPM 49 43-54 58 35-80 +9 108
Errors 9 6-13 9 1-15 +0
Kwan
WCPM 53 42-72 57 37-78 +4 108
Errors 14 14-17 IS 10-22 +1
Khun
WCPM 42 33-49 56 22-84 +14 108
Errors 5 3-6 4 1-10 -1
Salim
WCPM 59 54-70 66 47-79 +7 117
Errors 3 1-7 4 1-11 +1
Gus
WCPM 78 61-99 81 59-107 +3 117
Errors 7 4-17 7 2-14 +0
Total
WCPM 56 33-99 64 22-107 +8
Errors 8 1-17 7 1-22 -1
110
The data were insufficient to document an effect on oral reading fluency for
Kenso, Kwan, Salim, and Gus resulting from the function-based academic and behavior
intervention. However, Khun made limited gains during the implementation of the
function-based academic and behavior intervention, indicating that the functional
relationship may be established for Khun.
Growth Rate Considerations
Another approach to analyze reading performance outcomes for the students in
this study employs reading growth rate considerations from research (Fuchs et aI., 1993).
Given that the typical reading growth rates for ELLs were understudied (Baker & Good,
1995; Baker et aI., 2008; Dominguez de Ramirez & Shapiro, 2006; Linan-Thompson et
aI., 2002; McCardle et aI., 2005), available normative data average rates of progress using
evaluation criteria from existing research on reading growth may be useful. Table 8
depicts criteria for determining the number of words per week growth at the goal level
selected observed by Fuchs and colleagues (1993) with native English speaker students in
general education. The growth goals were calculated using the formula: Baseline rate +
(# increase per week) x (# weeks) = Goal.
111
Table 8. Criteria for determining the number of words per week growth (adapted from
Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz, & Germann, 1993).
Expected Reading Growth Rates
Grade Level Increase
1 2-3 words per week
2 1.5 - 2 words per week
3 1 - 1.5 words per week
4 .85 - 1.1 words per week
5 .5 - .8 words per week
6 .3 to .65 words per week
Table 9 shows the number of word per week growths for each student during the
intervention condition. Kenso received the intervention for seven weeks and he made
progress from a score of 49 toward 58 WCPM, making a gain of 1.3 words per week.
Kwan and Khun received the intervention for six weeks. Kwan made progress from 53
WCPM toward a score of 57, making a gain of 0.7 word per week. Khun made progress
from 42 to 56 WCPM, making a gain of 2.3 words per week. Salim and Gus received the
intervention for approximately five weeks due to the study's design purpose to answer
the primary research question (i.e., no intervention during the second baseline condition)
and the school schedule (e.g., no intervention during test week). Salim demonstrated an
increase of 7 words over the five weeks of intervention, making a gain of 1.4 words per
week. Gus showed an increase of 3 words over the five weeks of intervention, indicating
a gain of 0.6 words per week.
112
Table 9. Number of word per week growths for each student during the intervention
Student Weeks of Intervention Word Gains Word Gains per Week
Kenso 7 +9 1.3
Kwan 6 +4 0.7
Khun 6 +14 2.3
Salim 5 +7 1.4
Gus 5 +3 0.6
Total 5.8 +8 1.4
For ELLs who were in the early stages of acquiring English reading skills and
who demonstrated deficits in decoding skills, a less ambitious goal for reading growth
rate was recommended-0.5 to 1 word per week for ELL student reading at the 3rd grade
level (Dominguez de Ramirez & Shapiro, 2006; Silberglitt & Hintze, 2007). Based on
this growth rate per week consideration, the reading performance of Kenso (1.3
words/week), Kwan (0.7 word/week), Khun (2.3 words/week), Salim (1.4 words/per
week), and Gus (0.6 word/week) had increased at and above the designated rate.
Fidelity of Implementation
Behavior Support Intervention
The behavior support plan was developed by a behavior support team who can
demonstrate knowledge about (a) the student and the student's behavior, (b) the context
in which support would be provided, and (c) components of behavior theory (Benazzi et
113
aI., 2006). The study gathered essentials elements including: (a) technical adequacy
scores for five behavior support plans with a score of 85% or better, using the scoring
criteria based on the Intensive Individualized Interventions Critical Features Checklist
(Lewis-Palmer et aI., 2004) and (b) contextual fit scores from the team members, using
the Contextual Fit Questionnaire (Salantine & Homer, 2002). These elements were used
to evaluate whether the intervention demonstrated cultural responsiveness and fit the
individual needs of students and teachers.
Technical Adequacy Scores. Two expert behavioral analysts examined five
behavior support plans for the participants, using the Behavior Support Plan Critical
Scoring Guide (Appendix 0) based on the Intensive Individualized Interventions Critical
Features Checklist (Appendix P). Using this scoring guide, each behavior support plan
received a score from 0 to 17 of essential elements required for effective behavior support
plan (Lewis-Palmer et aI., 2004). Scores were averaged between the two analysts so that
each behavior support plan was awarded one technical adequacy score. To meet the
criterion, each plan must obtain a score of 85% accuracy or better (Benazzi et aI., 2006).
Table 10 shows technical adequacy scores for five behavior support plans obtained from
two behavior expert analysts. The mean score was 97% (range 94%-100%).
114
Table 10. Technical adequacy scores for fi ve behavior support plans
Behavior Support Plan Expert Analyst 1 Expert Analyst 2 Overall
1 94% 100% 97%
2 94% 100% 97%
3 94% 100% 97%
4 94% 100% 97%
5 94% 100% 97%
Total 94% 100% 97%
Contextual Fit Scores. The highest contextual fit score possible for each
intervention plan was 96. The 16 items were categorized into 8 categories with two
questions per category. The eight categories included: (a) knowledge of the elements of
the plan, (b) skills needed to implement the plan, (c) values reflected in the plan, (d)
resources available to implement the plan, (e) administrative support, (f) effectiveness of
the plan, (g) whether the behavior support plan is in the best interest of the student, and
(h) whether the behavior support plan would be efficient to implement.
The contextual fit scores were collected two times during the study. The mean
contextual fit score for the initial rating was 84.75 (range 78-90). After the school break,
the behavior support team reconvened for the second meeting and scored the Contextual
Fit Questionnaire. The mean score was 88 (no range reported for scores obtained from
two scorers). Table 11 illustrates the mean and mean percentage for contextual fit rating
during the initial and second scoring, and comparative norm using results from an
115
empirical study of the effects of behavior support team composition on the contextual fit
to behavior support plan conducted by Benazzi et al. (2006). Comparing the contextual fit
rated by behavior support team comprised of individuals with knowledge about behavior
theory, the student, and the setting (Benazzi et aI., 2006), the results suggested that the
behavior support plans for the participants were technically sound and responsive to the
cultural backgrounds of teachers and students.
Table 11. Mean and mean percentage of contextual fit scores.
Mean and Mean Percentage of Contextual Fit Scores
Initial Scoring Second Scoring Comparative Norm
M
84.75
Percentage
88.50
M
88.00
Percentage
92.00
M
86.68
Percentage
90.29
Reading Intervention
To document the fidelity of implementation for the academic reading
intervention, the author rated an implementation fidelity checklist designed for the
Phonics for Reading program (Appendix M). The author rated the reading intervention
on a 0 to 2 scale, with 2 indicating a high level of implementation. The fidelity checklist
completion accounted for 30% of all intervention sessions. Overall, the mean for
implementation fidelity based on the checklist across teachers and phases was 95%,
ranging from 86% to 100% accuracy.
116
lnterobserver Agreement
The study employed seven observers who were blind to the study hypotheses.
They were undergraduate students in the Special Education Department, the Faculty of
Education, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. lnterobserver agreement
(lOA) was gathered for problem behavior and academic engagement for approximately
25% of the observations across participants, and across baseline and intervention
conditions. The agreement data for each student were collected through a second
observer who independently scored the same participant at the same time period. The
lOA was calculated by dividing the total number of intervals with agreement by the total
number of intervals with agreement plus disagreement, and multiplying by 100%
(Watkins & Pacheco, 2000). An acceptable criterion for lOA was 85% agreement. The
levels of overall lOA across variables and conditions ranged from 65% to 100%, with a
mean of 89%. For each variable type, a mean of 86% (range 65%-100%) lOA was
assessed for the problem behavior measure, and 92% (range 71 %-1 00%) for the
academic engagement measure.
Social Validity
The final behavior support team meetings were informal. The author met with
each teacher individually to follow up with the students' progress and the teacher's
satisfaction with the results. During the final meetings, the teachers were asked to
identify their levels of satisfaction with the effects of the function-based academic and
behavior interventions for the students. The Teacher Consumer Satisfaction Survey
117
(Crone & Horner, 2003) was used to evaluate the extent to which the function-based
academic and behavior intervention was perceived by the teachers as (a) effective in
reducing problem behaviors, increasing student engagement, and improving reading
performance, (b) efficient with time and local resources and capacity, (c) easy to
implement, and (d) having contextual fit for the students and classroom settings. The
survey was recorded on a 5-point Likert-like scale, with response options ranging from
"strongly disagree" (5) to "strongly agree" (1) (Appendix I).
The surveys were collected from three teachers, for a return rate of 75%. When
asked if the intervention addressed the teachers' concerns about their students' behavior
and academic improvement, they rated "1" (i.e., highest) and "2" (i.e., high) levels of
satisfaction. Two teachers agreed that the suggestions made by the team were helpful
(i.e., rating "1" and "2"). One teacher rated "3" (i.e., medium) on the level of satisfaction
for the team's suggestions. When asked if the suggestions made by the team were
manageable to implement in their classrooms, two teachers rated "2". One teacher rated
"3" and reported that she found an extraneous factor created by the presence of Sam,
another student in her 3rd grade English small group classroom. She stated that this factor
made it difficult to implement the intervention as suggested and agreed by the team.
Moreover, the same effect interfered with how the teacher implemented the intervention
consistently. The teacher noted, "some of these areas, 4, 5, 7, were affected by the
presence of Sam in the classroom and when this student had not been present, I would
have rated at least a 2." All teachers indicated that they had highest satisfaction for the
improvement in their students' behaviors once the interventions were implemented. Two
118
teachers rated highest satisfaction for their students' academic progress. The 3rd grade
EAL teacher rated "2" for her satisfaction for Gus's academic performance, and "3" for
Salim's progress. She also commented that she would have rated "2" for Salim's
academic improvement if Sam had not been present in the classroom.
At the end of the study, all teachers reported that they would continue to use the
reading intervention and behavior support system created by the team. They also
acknowledged the helpfulness of feedback and recommendations made by the author
during the study via emails and informal meetings.
119
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
A well documented problem leading to negative academic outcomes involves
problem behavior in the classroom that are maintained by escape from aversive academic
tasks (Barton-Arwood et aI., 2005; Burke et aI., 2003; Crone & Homer, 2003; Kerns et
aI., 1994; McComas et ai., 2000). These escape-maintained behaviors are less likely to
happen when the students acquire the academic skills that make academic tasks
reinforcing instead of aversive (Lee et aI., 1999). Effective interventions must address
environmental contexts to make the misbehaviors irrelevant, inefficient, and ineffective
(Crone & Homer, 2003; O'Neill et ai., 1997). However, school environments vary, as do
the cultural backgrounds and perspectives of teachers and students, creating a challenge
to effective intervention. Due to these differences, schools must make certain that any
intervention is appropriate and meaningful to the lives of people it is meant for.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of function-based
academic and behavior intervention on behavior and reading improvement for five
English language learners who exhibited escape-maintained problem behaviors and
academic reading difficulties. Moreover, the study sought to document the effect of a
function-based approach on students with highly diverse cultural backgrounds in an
international school in Thailand. The intervention emphasized (a) the functional behavior
120
assessment (FBA) strategies to identify the function of the target behavior, (b) evidence-
based effective reading instructional approaches, and (c) responsiveness to cultural
perspectives of teachers and students.
A behavior support team-consisting of the students' English teachers and the
author who served as a behavior specialist-used functional behavioral assessment tools
to identify antecedents and consequences that maintained the students' problem behaviors
during reading tasks. In each case, students participating in the study were operating in a
multilinguistic context, found the academic demands of English literacy instruction
aversive, and were engaging in escape-maintained problem behavior. The team
developed relevant behavioral strategies that addressed the students' behavioral function
of avoiding difficult reading tasks. Because problem behavior was directly linked to
reading difficulties, the behavior support plan required modifications in the academic
instruction. Effective reading interventions were selected to maintain high expectations
for learning while increasing student success with the reading cuniculum. Moreover,
cultural aspects of students' needs were taken into account during development of the
interventions.
The primary research question in this study was: Is there a functional relationship
between a function-based academic and behavior intervention that (a) is based on
behavioral function, (b) employs effective literacy instruction, and (0) is matched to the
learners' culture and a decrease in problem behaviors during English reading class for
third and fourth grade ELLs in Thailand? The secondary research questions were: Is there
a functional relationship between function-based academic and behavior intervention and
121
an increase in academic engagement for the participants? and Is there a functional
relationship between function-based academic and behavior intervention and
improvement in English reading performance for the participants? This study employed
a single subject research design that integrated multiple baselines across participants and
within participant reversal features.
The results suggest that function-based academic and behavior intervention is a
promising tool to decrease problem behaviors of the participants during English reading
tasks, to increase their engagement, and potentially to improve their reading.
Nevertheless, several issues require further explanation. This chapter discusses (a) a
summary of findings, (b) implications for educational practices, (c) study limitations, and
(d) recommendations for future research.
Summary of Findings
The FBA procedures, including teacher interviews and direct observations,
identified five participants who engaged in problem behaviors (e.g., getting out of their
seat, looking away from their task, playing with materials, and talking out) that were
maintained to escape from difficult reading tasks. During baseline conditions, academic
and behavior supports for all participants were characterized as having a high variability
in instructional elements including teaching style, amount of time, and level of support.
Furthermore, the academic elements of the FBA infomlation indicated that the tasks were
too difficult for the participants (e.g., clearly higher than their instructional level) and that
122
the teachers did not incorporate specific behavior expectations and reinforcement systems
in their instruction.
Effects ofFunction-Based Intervention on Problem Behavior Outcomes
The results revealed evidence that function-based intervention was effective in
decreasing problem behaviors of three participants. Results for Khun, Salim, and Gus
showed differential effects between the function-based support conditions and the
traditional English as an Additional Language (EAL) support conditions. Lower problem
behaviors were evident during the function-based support. Among the students, problem
behavior decreased 17% on average (with a range of 10%-23%) from baseline to
intervention condition. During the intervention condition, declining trends for the three
participants and lower variability of data pattern suggested the effect of intervention.
Furthermore, an ABAB reversal design was employed for Salim and Gus due to
ambiguous effects early in the multiple baseline components of the study. The reversal
designs revealed that reduction in problem behavior was functionally linked to the use of
instructional procedures that were selected based on their "fit" with the social culture and
behavioral function presented by each child. This finding supports the study's initial
hypothesis of a functional relationship between function-based academic and behavior
intervention and reduction in participants' problem behaviors. Several factors led to these
positive changes in the participants' behaviors.
First, the FBA procedures, including direct observation, generated a behavioral
hypothesis and a behavior pathway for the individual participant. The hypothesis stated
123
that when participants received difficult reading tasks during unstructured time, they
exhibited escape-maintained behaviors. Previous research comparing the effects of
function-based and nonfunction-based instructional interventions (Ingram et aI., 2005;
McKenna, 2006) found that research-based academic practices that incorporated
mechanism of behavioral function were more likely to be successful to reduce problem
behaviors in classroom. By incorporating the FBA process into effective reading
intervention, the practices became more complex, yet more appropriate for the context of
the participants' behaviors.
Literature on teacher effectiveness emphasizes that to support a student with
academic difficulty, "the way a teacher teaches may need to be adjusted according to the
learning needs of his student" (Howell & Nolet, 2000, p. 72). Given that the participants
lacked necessary reading skills such as decoding, independent reading tasks that required
knowledge about vocabulary and comprehension were problematic to them. Therefore,
the students engaged in problem behaviors to avoid the tasks. Function-based academic
and behavior intervention provided students with initialized behavior support matched
with the function of their behavior (i.e., escape from difficult reading tasks) and taught
them antecedent interventions that offered instructional support (i.e., teaching decoding
skills).
A high rate of off-task behaviors occurred during the baseline condition for
participant reading tasks. During the intervention condition, when the teachers changed
behaviors-setting clear behavior expectations and teaching appropriate behavior,
providing sufficient instruction time on decoding skills, and closely monitoring the
124
students' work-students learned the skills, and their problem behaviors became
irrelevant, inefficient, and ineffective.
Second, changes in the behaviors were attributed to behavior support strategies
that matched the students' interests. Cultural considerations and students' individual
academic needs were also incorporated into the team meeting agenda. The team
discussed possible modifications of lesson plans, allowing students to practice words and
sounds that they had not mastered. The team also brought up "what works" and "what
doesn't" in the meeting. For example, the team considered providing more competition in
the spelling lessons, which the students found enjoyable and rewarding with opportunities
to earn motivating reinfocers during the lessons. The study employed Phonics for
Reading (Archer et aI., 2005), a Direct Instruction based program with an explicit and
intense teacher-directed instructional approach. Numbers of study have found the
approach effective in improving reading performance for ELLs (Linan-Thompson et aI.,
2002; Vaughn et aI., 2005; Vaughn et aI., 2006). The behavior support team reviewed
individual reading error patterns during the lessons, and used examples that matched
students' background knowledge and could be understood across cultures. For example, a
teacher gave a word definition by drawing a picture. In addition, the team selected a
reinforcement system already established in the school's House Point system that the
students found motivating. The plan created several opportunities for the students to
practice decoding skills and set them up to become successful.
Third, the function-based intervention practices were implemented with fidelity.
Results of the fidelity of implementation outcomes for behavior support intervention,
125
using technical adequacy and contextual fit scores, indicated that the behavior support
plans were implemented with strong technical adequacy and contextual fit. Adequate
documentation suggested that both behavior and reading intervention supports were
implemented with a high degree of fidelity when the teachers received training and took
part in planning intervention, their anxiety about trying a new instructional approach was
reduced. Ongoing supervision from the trainer ensured a high probability that the
intervention was implemented with high fidelity.
Finally, a team-based approach allowed the teachers to express their interests and
concerns. Team collaboration and communication of team enhanced the contextual fit
and cultural responsiveness of the intervention plan and implementation. The
interventions achieved a strong contextual fit score, meaning that the intervention plans
incorporated the values, skills, resources, and administrative support of those who
implemented the plan (Benazzi et aI., 2006; Crone & Horner, 2003; O'Neill et aI., 1997).
The results reaffirmed the finding of Benazzi et aI. (2006) that when the behavior support
team-including members who knew the student, the setting, and behavioral theory-
evaluated the intervention plans, the plans were more likely rated as having a strong
contextual fit. Compared to the contextual fit scores rated by the behavior support team in
Benazzi et aI. (2006), the results suggested that the behavior support plans were
technically sound and responsive to the cultural backgrounds of both teachers and
students.
126
Effects ofFunction-Based Intervention on Academic Engagement Outcomes
Academic needs of students with problem behaviors who have academic
difficulties are often compromised in order to remove problem behaviors (Wehby et aI.,
2003). Studies have shown that these students were likely to spend excessive amounts of
time on independent worksheets (Barton-Arwood et aI., 2005; Levy & Chard, 2001).
Often a student who engages in disruptive behaviors is sent to an independent work area.
This punishing consequence may cease the classroom disruption but it addresses neither
the problem behavior nor the academic difficulty. Students whose problem behaviors are
maintained by escaping from difficult tasks must receive intensive academic instructional
supports modified to meet their deficits (Burke et aI., 2003; Dunlap et aI., 1991). Studies
have shown that when teachers allocate higher amounts of time to academic content, they
likely will achieve higher student engagement (Barton-Arwood et aI., 2005; Levy &
Chard, 2001). In fact, more research is needed to document the role of academic
interventions on the social behavior of students with escape-maintained problem
behaviors (Lee et aI., 1999).
The findings suggested inconclusive evidence that function-based intervention
increased the students' academic engagement. Findings from this outcome showed that
the results were consistent the study's hypothesis. Academic engagement for Khun,
Salim, and Gus improved during the intervention condition. Moreover, by the end of the
study, all participants achieved high level of academic engagement. However, increasing
initial baseline trends for the three students compromised a claim of functional effects of
the function-based intervention on academic engagement. The second baseline for Salim
127
and Gus, however, showed the strongest suppOli for the functional relations between the
intervention and academic engagement. Compared to high variability of the data during
the baseline condition, academic engagement for Khun, Salim, and Gus increased and
became more stable during the implementation of the function-based intervention.
Informal observation reaffirmed that Khun more confidently answered questions and
responded more to teachers when he received the function-based academic and behavior
intervention.
The function-based intervention sought to provide students with necessary
reading skills. According to the Promising Cycle of Appropriate Behaviors and Academic
Gains (see chapter 1, Figure 2), when students receive necessary skills with well-planned
instructional delivery, academic tasks become nonaversive (Durand & Carr, 1992; Lee et
aI., 1999). When the intervention included plans to increase the magnitude of positive
reinforcements for engagement behaviors, the problem behaviors become less efficient
than the opportunities to experience success and receive positive reinforcement.
The study results were consistent with the evidence of a growing body of research
on cultural responsiveness, mostly conducted with African American students: when
instructional strategies reflect values, learning styles, traits, and socialization of their
cultures, students' academic engagement outcomes can be significantly improved (Gay,
2002). A cultural responsive approach holds a high potential to effectively increase
academic engagement for ELL participants in a highly diverse instructional environment.
Changes in the academic engagement of three participants may be attributed to
behavior support strategies that matched cultural considerations and the students'
128
individual academic needs (Klein & Freitag, 1997). However, defining academic
engagement behavior across ~ultures was problematic. Kwan's case illustrated how
cultural variances in behavioral interpretation interfered with intervention support.
Kwan's teachers referred her for participation in this study due to her withdrawal and
disengaged behaviors (e.g., looking away, not responding to questions). The DIBELS
oral reading fluency test scores reaffirmed that Kwan had significant reading difficulties.
Her behavior affirmed the hypothesis that problem behaviors were maintained by
avoiding difficult tasks. However, the outcome results from study observations yielded
the opposite finding. During baseline and intervention conditions, Kwan was observed
having low problem behavior occurrences and high academic engagement occurrences.
One possible explanation is the difference in interpreting problem behavior and
engagement across cultures. The student's reluctance to engage in class activities such as
answering questions may be perceived by teachers of Western cultural background as a
lack of interest or motivation, or an intention to withdraw from activities (Baker et aI.,
1991; Biggs, 1996; Pratt & Wong, 1999; Samueloqiez, 1987). In contrast, certain Asian
cultures including Thai downplay questioning, generating one's own ideas, or evaluating
as primary modes of learning, since such activities may be considered humiliating
gestures toward authority figures such as teachers or parents (Hofstede, 1991; Tweed &
Lehmana, 2002; Weisz et aI., 1995). The expectation to generate and answer questions
was not encouraged in the Thai culture. These differences may explain why the Thai
observers tended not to view silence as problematic or off task. In classroom observations
129
where observers could not hear whether Kwan had responded to questions, the Thai
observers tended to assume that she was fully engaged.
Effects ofFunction-Based Intervention on Reading Pelformance Outcomes
Reading improvement outcomes were inconclusive and unclear for most
participants. A limited gain in words read correct per minute (WCPM) was documented
for Khun, with a mean change of WCPM from the baseline 42 words to the intervention
condition of 56 words, for a gain of 14 words. Given that there is no research on typical
reading growth rates for ELLs (Dominguez de Remirez & Shapira, 2006; Fetler, 2008),
benchmark for classroom norm was established to compare the participants' performance
(Howell & Nolet, 2000). The results show that discrepancy ratios between oral reading
fluency of the participants and their grade level peers decreased during the intervention
condition. This finding suggests inconclusive evidence that the function-based academic
and behavior intervention was effective to surmount the achievement gap between the
participants and their grade-level peers.
Moreover, for ELLs who were in the early stages of acquiring English reading
skills and who demonstrated deficits in decoding skills, a less ambitious goal for reading
growth rate was recommended-0.5 to 1 word per week for ELL student reading at the
3rd grade level (Dominguez de Ramirez & Shapiro, 2006; Silberglitt & Hintze, 2007).
Kenso received the intervention for seven weeks. Kwan and Khun received the
intervention for six weeks. Gus and Salim received the intervention for approximately
five weeks due to the study's design purpose to answer the primary research question
130
(i.e., no intervention during the second baseline condition) and the school schedule (e.g.,
no intervention during test week). Based on this growth rate per week recommendation,
the reading performance of Kenso (1.3 words/week), Kwan (0.7 word/week), Khun (2.3
words/week), Salim (1.4 words/per week), and Gus (0.6 word/week) had increased at and
above the designated rate.
Several variables in instructional delivery posed significant challenges for the
English learners in this study. First and foremost, due to the fluctuations of the school
schedule, the amount of time the students received reading intervention may not have
been sufficient. One study on instruction development for students with academic
difficulty (Harn, Linan-Thomson, & Roberts, 2008) suggested a significant effect of
intensive instructional time on progress in oral reading fluency for at-risk first grade
readers. Second, the students may have encountered the compounding challenges of
learning a new language while mastering subject matter and coping with the unfamiliar
cultural perspectives of the environment. Third, previous English reading competency for
individual students could not be addressed. The students in the 4th grade EAL classroom
had various backgrounds in English language learning. For one student, the background
was unknown to the teachers. Differences in English language backgrounds may
significantly affect how students take on the reading instruction. Therefore, the amount
level of time spent on presenting the intervention to the students could not account for the
different levels of performance for students in the same English reading group.
This study selected a direct instruction program to provide students with the
foundational decoding skills that they lacked. However, the limited gain was not
131
sufficient to document a functional relationship between the intervention and reading
improvement for the participants. The results were consistent with the finding of Barton-
Arwood et aI. (2005) that improved decoding may not be generalized to oral reading
fluency. Moreover, the results were in alignment with studies showing that for students
with academic and behavior problems (Strong, Wehby, Falk, & Lane, 2004; Wehby et
aI., 2003), slow reading growth and lack of transfer to fluency was the population's
response to intervention, despite increased and intensive intervention time. Nonetheless,
insufficient time for the Phonics for Reading Program and limited time to practice
reading in a connected text may also have been a factor.
Another finding was the high response variability across weekly probe sessions
that also have been pinpointed in other reading intervention studies conducted with
students with problem behaviors (Barton-Arwood et aI., 2005; Wehby et aI., 2003).
Wehby et aI. (2003) found that the high variability was not uncommon, given that the
students were acquiring new reading skills. Moreover, other factors such as fluctuating
motivation, specific events in the classroom, and students' attitudes and perceptions
toward the reading test may have influenced their response. For example, students may
think of the one-minute timed test as a challenge game and try to read as fast as they can.
This is also a possible explanation for the high rate of errors for most participants.
Finally, the use of the Dynamic Indicators ofBasic Early Literacy Skills
(DIBELS) (Good & Kaminski, 2003) oral reading fluency subtest proved challenging to
make a decision on the students' reading performance in this study. Although the
measure is appropriate for all students who are learning to read English, including ELLs
132
in U.S. schools (Kaminski et aI., 2006), an exception may apply to ELLs in non-
American culture schools outside the U.S. or to students who are learning English as an
additional or foreign language (e.g., a Japanese student learning English in Japan). The
cultural sensitivity ofthe passage contents of this measure seems questionable. For
example, the students repeated the same errors in the vocabularies for which they had no
cultural background experiences (e.g., words such as Lakota-Sioux, United States, Rhode
Island, Olympics). Moreover, given that the intervention aimed to increase decoding
skills rather than build fluency, other measures such as permanent product of work
completion may more effectively document reading improvement for the participants in
this study.
Social Validity
Teachers completed the Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire (Crone & Homer,
2003). This social validity tool rated whether the intervention was (a) effective in
reducing problem behaviors, increasing student engagement, and improving reading
performance, (b) efficient with time and local resources and capacity, (c) easy to
implement and (d) a good contextual fit for the students and classroom settings. The
results indicated that the intervention provided behavioral impact to substantially create
positive behavioral changes in targeted students. The intervention shows potential for use
in other mixed-culture or high diversity school settings.
133
Implications for Educational Practice
This study provided several implications for research and practice discussed in
three specific contexts: (a) academic and behavior supports in Thailand, (b) special
education research and practices, and (c) exploration of the cultural context of
intervention.
Implication for Academic and Behavior Support in Thailand
Although this study was conducted in an international school, it provides
implications for the provision of academic and behavior supports in the context of a Thai
school. The political, economic, social, and cultural institutions in Thailand have
encountered the challenge of adapting to the educational standards of Western countries
yet with far fewer resources. Educators in Thailand still lack appropriate training to
provide students with effective academic and behavior supports. This lack of training was
evident in a national survey that reported that a majority of Thai elementary teachers
perceived physical punishment as the most appropriate consequence for problem
behavior (Tapanya, 2006).
This study suggests implications for preventing problem behaviors in classrooms
using positive behavior support. Early intervention in antisocial behaviors and in
academic deficits not only prevents further socially inappropriate behaviors for students,
but also provides teachers with effective and more sustained behavioral classroom
management (McIntosh et aI., 2006; Walker et aI., 1995; Walker & Shinn, 2002). The
FBA procedures and a team-based approach to developing a function-based intervention
134
may also fit in the high collectivist Thai culture, in which social harmony is constantly
sought (Hofstede, 1991). The explicit and well-defined function-based procedures in this
study may have the potential to be replicated in a Thai school, with the support of a high-
quality translation.
One additional implication of the study is the use of effective English reading
instruction to provide foundational reading skills such as phonemic awareness and
decoding for ELLs. The context of learning English as an additional language or foreign
language in Thailand is vastly different from the context in English-speaking countries,
where students continue to use their native language in everyday life. English language is
more likely considered a noncompulsory or selective subject. However, in an
international school, students are obliged to become skilled in English in order to acquire
knowledge in other content areas and communicate with teachers and peers. Students
whose native language is not English and who do not receive an appropriate academic
support may be at risk to fall behind in all content areas (Lenters, 2004; Linan-Thompson
et aI., 2002; Tam et aI., 2006) Their ability to become fluent readers in English, therefore,
depends largely on the quality of reading instruction.
Implication for Special Education Research and Practices
One of the goals of this study was to replicate limited evidence from empirical
research that supported the effectiveness of function-based academic and behavior
intervention (Burke et aI., 2003; Dunlap et aI., 1996; Ingram et aI., 2005; Iwata, et aI.,
1994; Lee et aI., 1999; McKenna, 2006; Preciado, 2006; Sanford, 2006). The single-
135
subject study examined the effectiveness of a function-based approach combined with
effective academic reading intervention and cultural responsiveness of the intervention
plan and implementation for ELLs who demonstrate behavior and academic problems.
The findings and methodology of this study have implications for research and practices
in special education as discussed in this section.
Horner et al. (2005) suggested some ways in which single-subject research is an
appropriate method in special education research. First, single-subject research keeps
individual students as the unit of concern. Second, the research design allows practical
procedures that can be used in real world settings, such as classrooms, by real world
agents, such as teachers (e.g., as interventionists). In this way the single- subject research
is uniquely appropriate for classroom situations where the natural occurrences of
phenomena are complex, sometimes unpredictable, and constantly changing over time.
Third, the research design is a cost-effective approach that can be used to guide high-
stakes decision making. Fourth, in single-subject research, data are analyzed using tables
and graphs to convey the experimental results to audiences. Single-subject research,
when following a systematic procedure, provides sufficient detail in a transparent way so
that other people can learn how the study was conducted, including data collection,
participant selection, and analysis of findings, and can replicate the procedures.
Kaufman et al. (2008) also stated that compared to group designed research,
single-subject research based on applied behavior analysis (ABA) is appropriate for the
study of cultural differences and is culturally responsive in nature, given that the design
136
examines detailed information about cultural identities and individual needs of
participants.
Another implication for special education is the potentially useful
recommendation for developing interventions that address both academic and behavior
problems for students who exhibit problem behaviors and who struggle with reading.
The finding showed that in order to develop an effective intervention, behavioral function
needs to be systematically identified and addressed. Consistent with research using
function-based approach (Burke et aI., 2003; Hagan-Burke et aI., 2007; Ingram et aI.,
2005; Kern et aI., 1994), the results showed that by applying behavioral principles (e.g.,
positive reinforcement) matched with behavioral functions, behavior problems could be
diminished. Moreover, the participants had difficulties completing their tasks because
they lacked basic skills in decoding which prevented them from comprehending the texts.
Without sufficient skills in reading, no matter how much support the teachers provided,
students still attempted to escape their tasks. The finding suggested that when teachers
alter reading tasks to include effective reading instructional approaches such as explicit
instruction, frequent opportunity to read and experience success, and increased positive
feedback and support (Gersten & Geve, 2003; Linan-Thompson et aI., 2002; Tam et aI.,
2006), ELL students who are at risk for reading difficulty will become more engaged in
the tasks and will potentially read more effectively.
Overall, the function-based academic and behavior intervention in this study was
effective first because the intervention took into account the mechanism of behavioral
function based on data from the FBA procedures (i.e., teachers' interview and direction
137
observation of behavior). Second, systematic data collection using single-subject
technology provided a close monitoring of progress for individual students in response to
the intervention. Single-subject research methodology involves analysis of each
participant's behavior so that the independent variable can be analyzed across individuals,
and thus providing high internal validity. Third, the Phonics for Reading program was the
reading intervention that proved effective for providing decoding skills for students who
were struggling with reading including ELL. Fourth, collaboration among the behavior
support team and the use of the contextual fit questionnaire helped understanding
between the interventionists and the researcher. Through communicating what could be
done in a specific time period, the team established the contextual fit of the intervention.
Fifth, the behavior support plan was effective due to the team's knowledge of behavioral
principles and knowledge of students and the classroom context.
Implication for Exploring the Cultural Context ofIntervention
This study involved participants from widely different cultural backgrounds, and
was conducted in an international school in Bangkok, Thailand. Teacher participants
were native English speakers who came from various cultural backgrounds (e.g., Indian,
British, and American). The students were Thai, Korean, and Bangladeshi. Trained
observers were Thai college students who did not speak English in the course of every
day. The primary researcher was Thai and trained in the U.S. graduate educational
system. Unalterable variables included cultural backgrounds such as gender, ethnicity,
religion, race, and personal preference. These variables are unique to the individual and
138
beyond the influence of effective research and instruction (Howell & Nolet, 2000). They
are, therefore, personal qualities with which the researcher must work.
Contextual fit measures showed that teachers found the intervention appropriate
and effective for students' learning. The teachers "most agreed" that students' behavior
had improved, providing evidence that the function-based intervention designed in one
setting and culture could be effective in another setting and culture. The key factor was
collaboration and ongoing communication among the intervention team. To work
effectively across cultures, the goal was to incorporate the differences with
understanding.
This study carefully integrated cultural and contextual factors that affect how
research methodology and implementation of function-based intervention were developed
for the participants. Cultural and contextual fit must be designed for long-term results. If
teachers and students find that the intervention does not bring the desired results, they
likely will give up. The intervention may be too difficult, too long, too complicated, or
too expensive, so that eventually it becomes modified or is terminated. An intervention
that runs counter to the values of teachers and students may fail to change their behaviors.
Several consensus studies in teaching reading, for example, have reported that effective
reading intervention employs knowledge about how children learn to read and its
implementation empirically validates positive outcomes in students' achievement
(Denton, Vaughn, & Fletcher, 2003; NRP, 2000). Denton et al. (2003) proposed reasons
why teachers do not implement research-based practices in reading. One reason was that
teachers found that the research-based practices did not conform to their prevailing
139
beliefs and that new practices were not better than their traditional ones. Consequently,
they lost interest in using new programs.
One controversial issue prevails; surrounding implementation of research-based
practices invented in one culture and implemented in another culture, and may be of
interest for future research. The question is whether to have internal validity over external
validity, and whether to maintain high experimental control over the contextual fit.
Complexities of local schools are different from culture to culture and modification is
needed. High fidelity of implementation of an effective intervention may not occur when
the teachers feel a need to modify the procedures. When the implication of a study is to
explore the effectiveness of an intervention in a highly diverse educational setting, it may
be more appropriate to expand the application of the practices, allow fidelity of
implementation to vary, yet conduct exploratory research on those variations (Smith,
Daunic, & Taylor, 2007).
Limitations
There are several limitations to the results of this study. Some threats to the
internal validity of single-subject design included the length of baseline and intervention
conditions for all participants, and the control for onsite extraneous variables. Although a
clear pattern of data must be established during baseline conditions, due to time
constraint and availability of data observers, the study could not prolong the baseline
condition to obtain sufficient data. For example, it was impossible to continue a baseline
for Kenzo, although the data showed high variability with an increasing trend of the last
- -- --- --- - -- - -- ------ - -- - - --- --- - - ---
140
data point. Kenso was assigned to the same classroom as Kwan and Khun, but had two
additional one-hour one-to-one sessions per week with the teacher. The teacher and the
small group were inconvenienced with Kenso starting the lessons ahead of his two peers.
Possible extraneous variables that may compromise the effect of function-based
intervention included changes of EAL teachers after the school break.
External validity is the extent to which the study results can be generated to a
real world setting. Given that this study was conducted in a natural setting, all
intervention procedures were implemented in a typical classroom setting by the students'
teachers who were certified in English as an additional language (EAL), and
experimenter bias was controlled. Nonetheless, one threat to external validity is that the
participants were selected based on specific characteristics in order to fit the research
questions. Since the study was conducted in Thailand, the researcher selected the school
setting based on accessibility and availability of setting personnel. The participants may
not be representative of the general population of ELL in schools in the United States or
in the United Kingdom. It is also likely that the findings may not generalize to native-
English speaker students who demonstrate escape-maintain problem behaviors and
specific reading difficulties.
Lastly, it was unfortunate that this study could not address parents' involvement.
The fact that this study was conducted in Thailand by the author without direct support
from the local professional community made it difficult to incorporate parents and
fanlilies of target participants. The families with cultural differences could have
additional issues regarding cultural responsiveness of the intervention. Moreover, ELL
141
students often bring skills and abilities from reading in their first language (Lenters,
2004; McCardle et ai., 2005). McCardle et ai. (2005) emphasize the roles of affective
and motivational factors in academic outcomes for ELLs "who bring linguistic and
cultural heritages that different from those typically expected and accommodated within
the educational setting" (p. 71). Obtaining information about the students' cultural and
contextual factors-the interactions and interrelationships among student, family, and
linguistic backgrounds-from the family could enhance cross-cultural communication
between school and family which, in turn, improve the effectiveness of the intervention.
Behavior support team, therefore, should engage the family in order to include more
complete information about the students.
Future Research
Findings from this study support the effective use of the FBA approach to guide
intervention design for students who engage in academic and behavior problems.
Nonetheless, given the lack of consensus among experts in behavioral research as to what
comprises an FBA and which components are necessary and most effective (Ingram et
ai., 2005), more research is required on FBA procedures and interventions implemented
for different student populations.
Like most previously studied function-based intervention, the function-based
academic and behavior intervention in this study was comprehensive in nature, given that
academic and behavior problems are closely linked and must be intervened concurrently.
Components that were built into the intervention were complex. It was not possible to
142
determine which components of the intervention may have been associated with specific
improvement for the participants. Further research is needed to examine the efficacy of
individual components in the intervention-behavioral support, reading intervention, and
cultural based intervention-on behaviors of the target populations. A group design and
an analysis using ANOVA may be an appropriate methodology to examine the
effectiveness of these approaches individually and in combination.
Too often, teaching reading to ELLs depended on teaching effectiveness research
to native English speakers (Vaughn et aI., 2006). Previous research on reading
proficiency of ELLs who struggle with reading suggested that immediate, corrective
feedback to all errors helped improve word recognition and reading comprehension (Tam
et aI., 2006). It would be interesting to examine the effect of the reading intervention in
this study on dependent variable outcomes of reading gains in the area of vocabulary and
comprehension for ELLs. Follow up to this study could examine the effectiveness of
academic intervention procedures for a sample of student representatives of a wide range
of reading performance and cultural backgrounds. Conspicuously, more research is
needed to document factors pertaining to effective reading instruction for ELLs in a
context of English as an additional or foreign language.
Given that the time constraint was a major limitation of the present study, future
research should replicate this study with a longitudinal experiment to determine the
effectiveness of the ftillction-based academic and behavior intervention on the reading
performance for ELLs. In particular, future research is needed to measure the reading
gains, measured by oral reading fluency, for the students throughout the academic year.
143
Most studies on cultural responsiveness were conducted using qualitative
methodology (Gay, 2002). Development of culturally responsive education practices may
require work in naturalistic contexts where exe11ing experimental control is difficult to
achieve. Therefore, descriptive and exploratory research may be more appropriate to
explain phenomena in a more culturally responsive way. Furthermore, Weisz et ai. (1995)
suggested that future research should involve observers trained to prepare for the mix of
information between "actual child behavior" and "culturally conditioned of that
behavior" (p. 414).
Consistent with Benazzi et al (2006), this study recommends that future research
should investigate the effectiveness of a function-based intervention that developed by a
behavior support team whose members are regular members of the school community
and who share the cultural background of the students and their families. However,
simply including a teacher with the same background is not enough. Beliefs,
perspectives, and expectations may influence the way the teacher teaches. Future research
questions, therefore, may include: Can the FBA procedures be expanded to collect in-
depth information about how cultural experiences of teachers, students, and families
influence the effectiveness of a function-based intervention? While researchers in the
behavioral field have attempted to assess contextual fit defined by teachers (Albin et aI.,
1996; Benazzi et aI., 2006; Salantine & Horner, 2002), it may have been vital to find a
way to assess contextual fit for students. Although the concepts are beyond the grasp of
young students, future research is needed to explore a way to address the sense of
"appropriateness" that students find in function-based intervention procedures.
144
Social and cultural differences are becoming more significant issues in general
education and special education in the U.S. and globally. Teacher education programs
may need more systematic research examining how to incorporate multicultural
educational thorough enough to make a significant difference in the quality of learning
for students with diverse cultural backgrounds. The genuine answer to what "cultural
responsiveness" has yet to come. There is an immediate need for more research in this
area.
Conclusion
The results of this study reveal the potential to decrease students' problem
behaviors and increase academic engagement by following a behavior support plan based
on infonnation from a systematically and carefully conducted functional behavior
assessment (FBA) to improve English reading performance. This improvement occurs
with instruction and tasks modified to accommodate students' academic needs. Through
effective assessment and intervention, the students made progress toward their school's
goals for academic achievement and behavioral expectations, and teachers were able to
maintain a peaceful learning atmosphere for all students.
Despite several limitations, this experimental research has incorporated culture
into behavior and academic support as well as into the research design itself. In working
across cultures, respectful communication among professionals probably was the most
important element to ensure that the intervention support will meaningfully change the
lives of students and that the support will be sustained over time.
145
Whether consciously or not, professionals' beliefs about how academic and
behavior intervention should be provided are always mediated by cultural influences. The
goal is not to justify or make comparisons among cultures but to be aware that personal
experiences, values, and beliefs exist. They influence the way we treat students as well as
the way we work with professional colleagues. This realization is powerful. When
professionals learn to appreciate and respect diverse behaviors, even when these are
dissimilar to their customs and expectations, and use academic and behavior support
practices that reflect students' cultural experiences and perspective, the quality of
learning for students will be improved.
APPENDIX A
TEACHER INFORMED CONSENT FORM
146
147
TEACHER INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Dear teacher:
My name is Chanisa Apichatabutra. I am a doctoral student in the Department ofSpecial
Education and Clinical Sciences at the University ofOregon, U.S.A. I would like to invite you
to be part of a study that will be conducted in partial fulfillment ofmy doctoral dissertation
under a close supervision ofDr. Rob Homer, my advisor.
The purpose ofthis study is to provide an individualized behavioral and academic support for
English as a second language (ESL) and English as an additional language (EAL) students who
are having problem behaviors during English reading instruction, and who are having
difficulties with reading tasks.
The result from this study is potentially helpful (l) to decrease the students' problem behaviors
by following behavior support plan that is based on information from a systematically and
carefully conducted behavioral assessment, the Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) and (2)
to improve English reading performance by modifYing instruction and tasks to accommodate
the students' academic needs. Through the effective assessment and intervention, the students
will be able to make progress toward your school's goals for academic achievement and
behavioral expectations and your school will be able to maintain a peaceful learning
atmosphere. Your participation is completely voluntary. Ifyou decide to participate in this
study, I would like your collaboration in four phases of the study.
Phase (1) Inform Consent Procedure. I would like you to choose potential student
participants and their grade-level peers for reading norm sample group in your classroom, and
obtain parents consent letters. The initial nomination process for potential student participants
involves using a teacher nomination form.
Phase (2) Screening. I will collect information about your student through an interview with
you for about 30 minutes and I will conduct direct observations in your classroom to make sure
that your student should be included in the study. Your student will be given I-minute timing
reading passages. The measure is used to identifY that he/she is reading with difficulties. I
would also like you to help select some students in your classroom to also read three ofthe
same I-minute timing reading passages to develop a range ofwhat the typical student reads in
3rd and 4th grade classrooms.
Phase (3) Intenrention. Ifyour student is selected for the study, I will need your help to work
with me to change his/her reading instruction to match with individual needs for academic and
behavior supports. The intervention will be conducted in a 40-minute session, 5 times per week
for approximately 6 weeks (total 30 sessions), in a one-on-one instruction or small groups of2-
3 students. The sessions will occur during school day at a time that we determine as least
disruptive to the students' educational program. The intervention will include research-based
reading instruction, behavioral support intervention, and oral reading fluency progress
148
monitoring. This will involve you and I meeting as a team to discuss a new reading curriculum
for the student, and me training you on how to teach the reading program. We will need
approximately 5 hours to talk about the reading program and plan for behavior support. We
may also want to meet as you start teaching the new reading program so that I can answer any
questions or concerns you may have. There will be observers visiting your class to observe if
and how your student's behavior changes over time. We will also observe how certain parts of
instruction change over time. Finally, we will ask your student to complete three I-min
readings about 3 times a week to measure how he/she is improving in reading.
Phase (4) Evaluation. To evaluate the extent to which the intervention fits with your student's
cultural values and your classroom context, I would ask that you and I complete the Contextual
Fit Questionnaire three times for each student-at the beginning, during the implementation
and at the end of the implementation. We will make some changes to make sure that the
intervention is cultural responsive to your student. At the end ofthe study, I would also like
you to complete a Teacher Consumer Satisfaction Survey to evaluate the extent to which the
intervention is perceived by teachers as effective method to help the students improve in
reading achievement, academic engagement and appropriate behaviors in classroom.
The only potential risk associated with your participation in this study is the possibility that
other people, including faculty and staff in your school, could discover your involvement. To
minimize this risk, your name will not be recorded on any ofthe materials in this study. Instead,
your identity will be recorded as the "teacher of <student's name code>". Student participants'
names will also not be on the data forms. Name codes will be used in lieu of student
participants' nanles.
Benefits to Teacher. Again, your participation is completely voluntary. You can stop the study
at any time. Ifyou agree to participate, here are the benefits for tIns participation: (l) potential
improvements in your student's academic engagement and reading performance, (2) potential
improvements in other student's academic engagement and reading performance, (3) learning
research-based instructional strategies that maybe useful for your future teaching career, and (4)
a thank you gift for your time and energy to support this study in the form ofa $50 gift
certificate from Emporium Department Store (equivalent to approximately 1,500 Bath).
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, Chanisa Apichatabutra, via my email
address capichat@uoregon.edu, and my number at 081-921-2312, or my advisor, Dr. Rob
Homer, at 1-541-346-2462. The faculty advisor has an office at Educational and Community
Supports, 1761 Alder St., 1235 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1235. Ifyou have
any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, contact Office for Protection of
Human Subjects, 5237 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5237,1-541-346-2510.
Your signature below serves as your consent to participate in tlns study. You will be given a
copy ofthis consent form for your records. Thank you.
Your Signature Date
------------------ -------
APPENDIXB
PARENT/GUARDIAN INFORMED CONSENT LETTER:
SCREENING AND GRADE LEVEL-PEERS
149
150
PARENT/GUARDIAN INFORMED CONSENT LETTER:
SCREENING AND GRADE LEVEL-PEERS
Dear Parents
In Term 3, the English as an additional language (EAL) department will be joined by a
doctoral student from the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences at the
University of Oregon, USA. Miss Chanisa Apichtabutra is involved in research focusing
on students in year 3-5, who are learning within an English speaking school but who have
EAL support needs. The purpose of the study is to improve children's English reading
performance through academic and behaviour supports.
Miss Apichatabutra will be working alongside our teachers and EAL students from year
3-5. No disruption will be made to EAL timetables and in fact her involvement will
enhance our EAL provision.
In order for her to gather effective and accurate information about her target group of
EAL students, she needs to conduct a reading fluency test with a range of EAL and
mainstream students from within each age group so that she can determine local
expectations for English reading performance.
Your child has been selected as part of this sample group and we hope that you will give
permission for them to take part. This short Oral Reading fluency Test will be given to
our child within their normal Literacy sessions where your child will be asked to read
three one-minute short English passages. No identification of your child will be made in
this study.
We hope that you will agree to participation in this study and as that you sign the consent
form attached and return it to your child's class teacher.
Thanks you for your support.
151
SCHOOL: _
EAL Research Project
Miss Chanisa Apichatabutra
Term 3 2007-2008
Consent Form
Child's name: Class:
I give permission for my child to be involved in the EAL study project being conducted
by Miss Chanisa Apichatabutra.
Yes No (please circle)
Parent's name:
Parent's signature:
Date:
APPENDIX C
TEACHER NOMINATION FORM
152
153
TEACHER NOMINATION FORM
Please identify 3-5 male students and 3-5 female students that, in your opinion, are at-
risk for English reading difficulties
Male
1. _
2.
-------------
3. _
4. _
5.
-------------
Female
1. _
2. _
3. _
4. _
5. _
Please identify 3-5 male students and 3-5 female students that, in your opinion, are at-risk
for problem behaviors* Some of these students may overlap or be the same students
as those nominated for at-risk for reading difficulties
*Problem behaviors in classroom are identified as aggressive (e.g., hitting, poking,
kicking, yelling, starting fights, destroying materials), disruptive (e.g., behaviors that
disrupt instruction such as talking out, making noises, blurting out an answer, throwing
objects), Disrespect (e.g., using gesture, teasing, mocking, verbal abusing or treating
others), non-compliant (e.g., saying 'no' to teacher's instructional request, refusing to
work or take out a book), and off-task (e.g., looking out to window, watching others, not
completing work)
Male
1. _
2.
-------------
3. _
4. _
5.
-------------
Female
1. _
2. _
3. _
4. _
5. _
Thank you.
APPENDIXD
PARENT/GUARDIAN INFORMED CONSENT LETTER: INTERVENTION
154
155
PARENT/GUARDIAN INFORMED CONSENT LETTER:
STUDENT PARTICIPATION
Dear Parent of
--------
Earlier, we sent home a letter asking your permission to find out ifyour child would be a good
math for a research project conducted by Miss Chanisa Apichatabutra, a doctoral student from
the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences at the University ofOregon, USA.
during Term 3.
The research is focusing on students in year 3-5 who are leaming within an English speaking
school but who have EAL support needs. The primary purpose is to improve your child English
reading performance through academic and behaviour supports
After watching your child's reading group and reading with your child, we would like to ask
your child to be a part ofthe research because we think he could benefit from additional
supports in paying better attention in classroom and to leam to read English better.
Ifyou and your child decide to participate, no disruption will be made to EAL timetable.
During the study, we will develop a support plan in which your child will be involved in the
following activities:
• Interviews will be conducted with your child's EAL teacher and classroom teachers
who have worked closely with your child. The purpose ofthese interviews is to gain
information about variables contributing to academic and support behaviour support
intervention plans.
• Direct observation of your child dUling EAL classes will be conducted. The purpose
of these observations is to determine what social behaviours your child displays in
different situations and to identifY appropriate strategies that the teacher could use to
better support your child's academic and social development. Direct observation will
take place in your child's classroom about 3 times per week during term 3 and may
continue until the middle ofterm 1, academic year 2008-2009.
• Oral reading fluency test will be given to your child to help us examine how your
child is doing in learning important reading skills and to determine whether the reading
intervention is effective to improve your child's reading performance. Your child will
be given 3 reading tests per week. Each test takes only about one minute to do. The test
will occur during term 3 and may continue until the middle ofterm 1, academic year
2008-2009.
• Reading intervention will be developed based on results of the teacher interviews and
direct observations. It will be designed to match with your child's academic and social
skill support needs. Your child's EAL teacher will deliver the reading instruction 5
156
days per week for 40-50 minutes. The test will occur during term 3 and may continue
until the middle ofterm 1, academic year 2008-2009. The teacher will also use
information from the reading test to help your child to read better.
Please be informed that this research will be conducted with highly responsiveness to student
and family cultural values. The intervention will aim to best fit cultural and classroom context
of your child. The study may, however, pose some potential risks to your child such as anxiety,
confusion or embarrassment. We will put every effort to minimize the risks. At any time
during the research participation, ifyour child feels bad, you or your child can ask to stop. We
will also contact you immediately in case that we notice unusual circumstances as a result of
your child participating in this research. Your child's classroom teacher, EAL teacher, Head of
the Primary Education, EAL coordinator and Miss Apichatabutra are the only people who
know that your child is in this study. No one else will know about your child's participation.
Name code will be used in all documentation and keep in a locked file cabinet to protect
confidentiality of your child's information.
The goal ofthis research is to help your child pay better attention in reading and to become a
competent reader. Although we cannot promise that your child will achieve all these, we aim
for your child to achieve this goal and our research plans and activities will be oriented toward
this goal.
We hope that you will join the school in supporting this study which we believe will help our
EAL team to be able to deliver even more effective support to your child. If you would like any
information regarding this study, please feel free to contact Miss Apichatabutra, via her email
address capichat:'muoregon.edu, and phone number at 081-921-2312, or her advisor, Dr. Rob
Homer, robhrZzluoregon.edu. or at 1-541-346-2462. The faculty advisor has an office at
Educational and Community Supports, 1761 Alder St., 1235 University ofOregon, Eugene,
OR 97403. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, contact the
Office ofProtection of Human Subjects, 5237 University ofOregon, Eugene, OR 97403.
Your signature indicates that (l) you have read this letter and provide consent for the school to
proceed with the research procedures (2) you may withdraw at any time and discontinue
participation without penalty, and (3) you will receive a copy ofthis consent form.
Thank you.
Name ofParentiGuardian (please print)
Signature
Child's Name (please print)
Date
APPENDIXE
STUDENT ASSENT FORM
157
158
ASSENT FORM FOR <Student's name>
Verbal Script to explain assent form to the student participant
"My name is Chanisa Apichatabutra. I am going to read this form to you so that you can
choose if you want to participate in theses activities with me. If you agree to be a part of
this study, I will ask you to sign this form"
Hi <Student's name >1 want to learn more about how to help your teachers make
classrooms better for students so they learn well. You can give us a big help. I would like
you to let your teacher and me change some things in your classroom to see if it will help
you learn more.
If you want to work with me for this study, there are some steps we will do and you can
help.
1. I will talk to your teacher about what school is like for you. We will also ask your
parent permission to have you work with us.
2. Other two people from Chulalongkorn University and I will come to your reading
class about 3-5 times a week to see if the classroom environment is good for
student learning
3. If your teachers and I decide that it will be more helpful for you to get some more
help with your English reading, I will work with you about 3 times per week, for
35 minutes. We will go through some English activities and complete a timed
reading. You will work with me for the about three months.
You can rest as much as you would like, and you can ask to stop whenever you want.
You would not get into any trouble if you choose not to participate. Also, if you have any
questions about what you'll be doing, or if you cannot decide whether to do it or not; just
ask me if there is anything you would like me to explain. You can also ask your parents
and teachers, if you are not sure about anything.
If you do want to try it, please sign your name on the line below. Your parent(s) have
already told me that it is all right with them if you want to work with me for English
reading activities. Remember, you don't have to, and once you start, you can rest or stop
whenever you like.
Thank you.
Your Name: Date:
---------------- ---------
APPENDIXF
FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST FOR TEACHERS AND STAFF
(FACTS)
159
160
Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff (FACTS-Part A)
Step 1 Student/ Grade:
-------------
lnterviewer:
---------------
Date: _
Respondent(s): _
Step 2
Step 3
Student Profile: Please identify at least three strengths or contributions the student brings to school.
Problem Behavior(s): Identify problem behaviors
_Tardy
_ Unresponsive
Withdrawn
_ Fight/physical Aggression
_lnappropriate Language
Verbal Harassment
_ Verbally lnappropriate
Describe problem behavior:
_ Disruptive
lnsubordination
Work not done
Self-injury
Theft
Vandalism
Other _
Step 4
Step 5
Identifying Routines: Where, When and With Whom Problem Behaviors are Most Likely.
Schedule
(Times) Activity Likelihood of Problem Behavior Specific Problem Behavior
Low High
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
Select 1-3 Routines for further assessment: Select routines based on (a) similarity of activities
(conditions) with ratings of 4, 5 or 6 and (b) similarity of problem behavior(s). Complete the
FACTS-Part B for each routine identified.
March, Horner, Lewis-Palmer, Brown, Crone, Todd & Carr (2000) 4/24/00
161
Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers & Staff (FACTS-Part B)
Step I Student/ Grade: --------------
Interviewer:
--------------
Date: _
Respondent(s): _
Routine/Activities/Context: Which routine(only one) from the FACTS-Part A is assessed?Step 2
Routine/Activities/Context Problem Behavior(s)
Step 3 Provide more detail about the problem behavior(s):
What does the problem behavior(s) look like?
How often does the problem behavior(s) occur?
How long does the problem behavior(s) last when it does occur?
What is the intensity/level of danger of the problem behavior(s)?
)? (P d'bl b h ' () 'nhhhhWhat are t e events t at pre lct W en t e pro em e aVIOr s WI occur, re lctors
Related Issues (setting events)
Environmental Features
-
illness Other: _ reprimand/correction
-
structured activity
_ drug use _ physical demands
-
unstructured time
_ negative social _ socially isolated
-
tasks too boring
--
conflict at home _with peers _ activity too long
academic failure Other tasks too difficult
- -
-
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
What consequences appear most likely to maintain the problem behavior(s)?
Things that are Obtained
Things Avoided or Escaped From
-
adult attention Other: hard tasks Other:
-
_ peer attention _ reprimands
_ preferred activity _ peer negatives
_ money/things
_ physical effort
adult attention
f
SUMMARY OF BEHAVIOR
Id 'f hentI ty t e summary that Will be used to bUild a plan 0 behavIOr support.
Setting Events & Predictors Problem Behavior(s) Maintaining Consequence(s)
Step 7
162
How confident are you that the Summary of Behavior is accurate?
Not very confident
123 4 5
Very Confident
6
?b hblI hdbhfliWhat current e orts ave een use to contro t e pro em e aVlOr.
Strategies for preventing problem behavior
Strategies for responding to problem
behavior
_ schedule change Other: _reprimand Other:
_ seating change
-
office referral
curriculum change detention
March, Horner, Lewis-Palmer, Brown, Crone, Todd, & Carr (2000)
APPENDIXG
FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OBSERVATION FORM (FAO)
163
N<llrne: Functional Assessment Observat~on Form
Startrng Date:
TIme
8ehaviors
Ending Date:
Predictors
Perceived FunctIons
--0\
~
APPENDIXH
CONTEXTUAL FIT QUESTIONNAIRE
165
166
CONTEXTUAL FIT IN SCHOOLS QUESTIONNAIRE
The purpose of this interview is to assess the extent to which the elements ofa behavior support plan fit the
contextual features of your school environment. The interview asks you to rate (a) your knowledge of the
elements of the plan, (b) your perception of the extent to which the elements of the behavior support plan
are consistent with your personal values, and skills, and (c) the school's ability to suppOli implementation
of the plan. This information will be used to design practical procedures that will help school personnel
support children with problem behaviors. The information you provide will be maintained and reported in
a confidential manner consistent with the standards ofthe American Psychological Association. You will
never be identified.
Please read the attached behavior support plan, and provide yow' perceptions of the specific elements in this
plan. Thank you for your contribution and assistance.
Name ofJnterviewee: Role: _
Support plan reviewed: _
Knowledge of elements in the Behavior Support Plan.
I. I am aware ofthe elements of this behavior support plan.
I
Strongly
Disagree
2
Moderately
Disagree
3
Barely
Disagree
4
Barely
Agree
5
Moderately
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
2. J know what I am expected to do to implement this behavior support plan.
I
Strongly
Disagree
2
Moderately
Disagree
3
Barely
Disagree
4
Barely
Agree
5
Moderately
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
Skills needed to implement the Behavior Support Plan
3. I have the skills needed to implement this behavior support plan.
I
Strongly
Disagree
2
Moderately
Disagree
3
Barely
Disagree
4
Barely
Agree
5
Moderately
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
4. I have received any training that I need to be able to implement this behavior support plan.
No training needed _
I
Strongly
Disagree
2
Moderately
Disagree
3
Barely
Disagree
4
Barely
Agree
5
Moderately
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
167
Values are consistent with elements ofthe behavior support plan
5. I am comfortable implementing the elements of this behavior support plan
12345 6
Strongly Moderately Barely Barely Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
6. The elements of this behavior support plan are consistent with the way I believe students should be
treated.
I
Strongly
Disagree
2
Moderately
Disagree
3
Barely
Disagree
4
Barely
Agree
5
Moderately
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
Resources available to implement the plan
7. My school provides the faculty/stafftime needed to implement this behavior support plan.
I
Strongly
Disagree
2
Moderately
Disagree
3
Barely
Disagree
4
Barely
Agree
5
Moderately
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
8. My school provides the funding, materials, and spaced needed to implement this behavior support
plan.
I 2
Strongly Moderately
Disagree Disagree
Administrative Support
3
Barely
Disagree
4
Barely
Agree
5
Moderately
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
9. My school provides the supervision support needed for effective implementation ofthis behavior
support plan.
I
Strongly
Disagree
2
Moderately
Disagree
3
Barely
Disagree
4
Barely
Agree
5
Moderately
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
10. My school administration is committed to investing in effective design and implementation of behavior
support plans.
I
Strongly
Disagree
2
Moderately
Disagree
3
Barely
Disagree
4
Barely
Agree
5
Moderately
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
168
Effectiveness ofBehavior Support Plan
II. I believe the behavior support plan will be (or is being) effective in achieving targeted outcomes.
I
Strongly
Disagree
2
Moderately
Disagree
3
Barely
Disagree
4
Barely
Agree
5
Moderately
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
12. I believe the behavior support plan will help prevent future occurrence of problem behaviors for this
child.
I
Strongly
Disagree
2
Moderately
Disagree
3
Barely
Disagree
4
Barely
Agree
5
Moderately
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
Behavior Support Plan is in the best interest ofthe student
13. I believe this behavior support plan is in the best interest of the student.
I
Strongly
Disagree
2
Moderately
Disagree
3
Barely
Disagree
4
Barely
Agree
5
Moderately
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
14. This behavior support plan is likely to assist the child to be more successful in school.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Moderately
Disagree
3
Barely
Disagree
4
Barely
Agree
5
Moderately
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
The Behavior Support Plan is efficient to implement
15. Implementing this behavior support plan will not be stressful.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Moderately
Disagree
3
Barely
Disagree
4
Barely
Agree
5
Moderately
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
16. The amount of time, money and energy needed to implement this behavior support plan is reasonable.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Moderately
Disagree
3
Barely
Disagree
4
Barely
Agree
5
Moderately
Agree
6
Strongly
Agree
APPENDIX I
TEACHER CONSUMER SATISFACTION SURVEY
169
170
TEACHER CONSUMER SATISFACTION SURVEY
(Crone & Horner, 2003)
1. The goal of the behavior support plan addressed my concerns about __s' behavior.
Strongly Agree
2 3 4
Strongly Disagree
5
2. The goal of the behavior support plan addressed my concerns about __s' academic
progress.
3. The suggestions made by the team were helpful.
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
2
2
3
3
4
4
Strongly Disagree
5
Strongly Disagree
5
4. The suggestions made by the team were manageable to implement in my classroom.
Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
2 3 4 5
5. I implemented the team's suggestions consistently and continuously.
Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
2 3 4 5
6. I have seen an improvement in__'s behavior since the behavior support plan was
implemented.
Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
2 3 4 5
7. I have seen an improvement in__'s academic progress since the behavior support
plan was implemented.
Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
2 3 4 5
8. Do you need any more help from the team?
9. Please list any other comments, concerns, or questions.
APPENDIXJ
lOS-INTERVAL OBSERVATION FORM
171
172
lOS-INTERVEAL OBSERVATION FORM
Student #: Data collector: _
Reliability: Yes 0 No 10 Date: Time:
Instructional Context: whole class small group instruction
independent work transition other ~~~~_
AE PB AE PB AE PB AE PB
7 37 67 97
8 38 68 98
9 39 69 99
10 40 70 100
11 41 71 101
12 42 72 102
19 49 79 109
20 50 80 110
21 51 81 111
22 52 82 112
23 53 83 113
24 54 84 114
173
Academic Engagement (AE): Orienting toward board/overhead/teacher; engaged physically or verbally
with materials/objects/tasks; during independent work is writing or reading assigned task; contributing to
assigned cooperative activities; engaged in appropriate activities approved by the teacher if completed
independent work early.
Record a (+) ifstudent is academically engagedfor 8 out of10 seconds in observation interval.
Record a (0) i(the student is not academically engaged (or engaged less than 8 sec.)
Problem Behavior (PB): aggressive (e.g., hitting, poking, kicking, yelling, starting fights, destroying
materials), disruptive (e.g., behaviors that disrupt instruction such as talking out, making noises, blurting
out an answer, throwing objects), disrespect (e.g., using gesture, teasing, mocking, verbal abusing or
treating others), non-compliant (e.g., saying 'no' to teacher's instructional request, refusing to work or
take out a book), and off-task (e.g., looking out to window, watching others, not completing work)
Record a (+) ifproblem behavior occurs at all during an observation interval.
Record a (0) ((problem behavior does not occur.
APPENDIXK
DYJ\fAMIC INDICATORS OF BASIC EARLY LITERACY SKILLS (DIBELS):
PROGRESS MONITORING
174
DyU3IUic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skins™ 6WEdition.
DIBELS™
Progress Alonitoring
DIBELS Oral Readinf! Fluencl'
c.''
Tldrd Grade Scorine Booklet
'-,
RolandR Good]IT
Ruth .4._ Kamimki
[h'lil'er::;itc\' fJJOriJ§t:m
Sheib. Dill
Available:
httP:- 'dibels,llore2;cuu,du!
fu:ml1C!lQm:
Tni:. packet include', 2 paris: the thiId-~ade 5cm:ulg booM,,: and iliLl'dc-gE,de
~IDdem ~teliah. The ::;COling booklet l:' photocopied b.Kk to back and saddle
'it1lpEed. The SaIDe booklet 1, ll'ied for each ,tmisJt for ei11:h p:rogress ulClJitCling
aze},311t'Jlt tl:trDugoom the year, The ~ecooo part i:. tue rellJable student matexiab,
Mol],;" OD!!' copy fur "ach per;o:, WI.K' i; doing t~ PIOgl<'JS- mo:uilmmg te;tmg.
They can be bm:in~tedand comb bound fm 1'i!1:!5e
Good, R H" &. K;llmU%i, R A . & DiH, S. (l001), DIBELS Oral Reading BIlellOY ill
R.. H. Good &. R, A. KilmiD5Jn (E,<:h}. ThmaInic Ill.ncatOl'" ofBasic Earl", Ltemey Sktlb (6th
ed.). EugaJ!!" OR: fu~litut" for the De-..e]o:;:'lllellt ofE.£\1CatlOl'la1 Adllevemeut. A'i.-"iEable·
http://dibehuoregplLedtt{.
175
[nt
DORF Progress 1\/lonlto1'i112 I
176
A Pl'es·ent fi:01ll Jo'lIe
I \vanted to take Iny s.tepmother out to dinner for her birthday 12
and pay for our dinnel' with my mvn. money" I T~vanted it to be a 27
slJrprise and I \vanted it to he just iI"omIne. The problem was, I 41
c1idn't have any money! 45
I \vent out to try to find \vays to earn money. The lady who 59
lives in the apartlnent upstairs said she wanted to get rid of aU 72
he:t:' enlpty soda cans and bottles. She said I could keep the 84
1l1Oney for the deposit if I took all of the cans and bottles back to 99
the store. It took rne five trips. but I got them aU taken back to 114
the store. 116
The man in the apartment clm.vnstairs said I could walk his 127
dog aHer SH.pper every night for two "reeks. Our neighbor lady 138
said she could us·e smue help putting out the trash and getting rid 151
of old ne\vspapers. One L"tdy in our building said she would like 163
SOllie help \vith her groceries, but she couldn't afford to pay me. 175
I hdpecll1er any"\vay. She said she '!;vould give me s.ome flowers 187
to give to my stepmother. 192
The day before her birthday I asked tVlOl11 if she \vould go on 205
a date \vith 1ue tor dinner. She \vas suq:Jl1ised \Vhell I paid for the 219
dinner with the money I had earned. She 1uade me tell her ,,,,here 232
I had gotten the money. Then she gave me a big hug and said it 247
,vas the best birthday present ever. I think she liked the ±1mvers 259
the best of alL 263
Retell: Total:
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 &0 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
APPENDIXL
READING TI\JTERVENTION PLAN
177
(EXAMPLE)
READING INTERVENTION PLAN
Instructional Area: ~~~_~~~~~Students: ~
Behavioral and Academic Goals:
• Kenso will answer on teacher's signal
• Kenso will keep eyes on his assignment or teacher (during teacher
presentation)
• Kenso will raise his hands to ask question or answer questions (in small group
with Kwan and Khun)
• Kenso will stay on his seat for the whole lesson (unless with permission)
• Kenso will do only the tasks that teacher assigns
• If finishing his task earlier, Kenso will do the tasks that teacher assign (e.g.
crosswords, word search or reading books)
• Teacher will evaluate his behavior at the end oflesson-fill in sticker chart
• If Kenso meets the goal for each lesson, he will receive a sticker (5 counts for
1 House Point)
178
Student ~
Activity/Routines~
Sample
Kenso
./ Following
direction
./ Waiting for
teacher signal
Khun
./ Following
direction
./ Waitingfor
teacher signal
Kwan
./ Following
direction
./ Waitingfor
teacher signal
179
Goals:
1. Given letters, students will tell the names correctly with 100% accuracy.
2. Given reading vocabularies, students will decode the sounds and read all words the fast
way with 100% accuracy.
3. Given reading comprehension questions, students will answer with 100% accuracy
4. Given end of the lesson activities, students will independently complete the task with
80% accuracy with no verbal prompts.
Objective: Practice CVCe words
Daily Preparation:
A. Opening (5 minutes)
I. Reviews behavioral rules/reinforcement rules
2. Reviews sounds from previous lesson that they are having difficulties: using
instructional games (groups and individual turns)
B. Instructional Activities, Procedures, and Estimated Time
1. Sound Drill (2 minutes)
a. Model sounds. Follow model-lead-test model and correction procedures
and wordings according to the teacher guide
b. Record errors for individual and group.
c. Provide individual turns
d. Use error correction
2. New Words (3 minutes)
a. Model words. Follow model-lead-test model and correction procedures and
wordings according to the teacher guide
b. Record errors for individual and group.
c. Provide individual turns
d. Use error correction
e. Monitoring students work
3. Review Words (3 minutes)
a. Model words. Follow model-lead-test model and correction procedures and
wordings according to the teacher guide
b. Record errors for individual and group.
c. Provide individual turns
4. Word Endings (3 minutes)
a. Model words. Follow model-lead-test model and correction procedures and
wordings according to the teacher guide
b. Record errors for individual and group.
c. Provide individual turns
5. Challenge Words (3 minutes)
a. Model words. Follow model-lead-test model and correction procedures and
wordings according to the teacher guide
b. Record errors for individual and group.
c. Provide individual turns
6. Sight Words (5 minutes)
a. Model words. Follow model-lead-test model and correction procedures and
wordings according to the teacher guide
b. Record errors for individual and group.
180
c. Provide individual turns
7. Sentences and Stories (5 minutes)
a. Follow model-lead-test model and correction procedures and wordings
according to the teacher guide
b. Record errors for individual and group.
c. Provide individual turns
d. Monitor students work
8. Spelling (5 minutes)
a. Follow model-lead-test model and correction procedures and wordings
according to the teacher guide
b. Record errors for individual and group.
c. Provide individual turns
d. Monitor students work
e. Complete work check with students
9. Practice Activity I (5 minutes)
a. Follow model-lead-test model and correction procedures and wordings
according to the teacher guide
b. Record errors for individual and group.
c. Provide individual turns
d. Monitor students work
e. Complete work check with students
10. Practice Activity 2 (5 minutes)
a. Follow model-lead-test model and correction procedures and wordings
according to the teacher guide
b. Record errors for individual and group.
c. Provide individual turns
d. Monitor students work
e. Complete work check with students
11. Oral Reading Fluency Test (individual student during independent practice activity
time)
a. time I minute for one reading passage
b. record scores
C. Lesson Closure/Wrap-Up (2 minutes)
1. Provide positive feedbacks on students' performance
2. Have students summarize their reward chart (e.g. color spots and exchange
stickers)
3. Summarize collaborative group reward points
4. Instructional game time or craft time if the group earn designated points
D. Monitoring & Evaluation
I. Data will be collected daily for each student. Data collection will occur
throughout the lesson as described
2. Refer to student's individual goals/objectives
3. Refer to daily data sheets.
4. Criteria for goals for this lesson is as follows:
a. 100% accuracy for isolated sounds and vocabulary reading
b. 85% accuracy for reading comprehension (1 error)
c. 100% accuracy for independently activity with no verbal prompts.
APPENDIXM
PHONICS FOR READING ThTTEGRITY CHECKLIST
181
Interventionist: _
Interrater Reliability'} Ye~ or No
Reliability Obsenrer:
Phonics fof' R{'~l(ling Levell Integrity Checklist
Projt'ct CIRCUITS 2004
School: _
182
Observer: _
Number of Students in (Troup Ohser'ied: _
Start Timf' (Clock Timf'): _
Phonics for Reading Lesson #:
Lesson IntroEtnenon (bulleted acthities)
Date: _
Day of Intervention: _
Stop TiIDe (Clock Time): _
Group ID Nmnber: _
Skill
Follo,xs procedures in lesson
Follo\ys wording in lesson
Level ofImplementation
High A1edium LOrI'
210
010
Comments
Provides individual tunl,., \vhen
specified
Uses en'or con'ection appropriately,
New \Vol'ds
FoIlo\ys procedures in lesson
Follows \vording illiessoll
Provides individual tums when
specified
Uses etTOr correction appropriately.
Teacher monitor~ students work
Re'\'iew l\Tords
Follows proce.dures in lesson
Follmvs \vorclin.g in lesson
Pro-vides individual tums when
specified
Uses error correction appropriatelv,
SiaM \Vol'ds
Follows procedures ill lesson
Follows wording in lesson
Provides individual turns when
specified
Uses elTor conection appropriately,
Challenge \Yol'ds
Follmvs procedures in lesson
Follov;s 'Nording in lesson
Provides individual turns when
specified
Uses ermr correction appropriatelv.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2-
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I}
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1nte11'ater Reliability? Yes or No
Reliability Observer:
Part B: Sentenees and Stories
183
Skill
Follmvs procedures in lesson
Follo\vs \vonling in lesso11
Provides individual tUll:lS when
spe~ified
Tea~het' monitors student \'..-ork
Uses error conection appropriatelv,
Level ojImplementation
High kfedium Low
') 0
2 0
;") ()..
2 1 0
2 1 0
Comments
Level ofImplemenTation
High Medium Lml'
Part C: Spelling
Shll
FoIlows procedures in lesson
FoIlo\vs ,vording in les<,on
Provicles individual tum5 when
specified
Teacher monitors student work
Uses en"or cOl1'ection appropriately,
Part D: Pl'actif:e Acti'itv 1
::
1
1
o
o
o
o
D
Comments
Skill
Follmvs procedures in lesson
Fallo\v'> \'lording in les<,on
Lel'el ojImple~nentation
High lvfedium Low
2 1 0
2 1 0
Comments
Provides individual tmns \\[hen
specified
Teacher monitors student ""'ark
Uses error cOl1'ectioll appropriately,
Completes work check with students
Part E: Practice At'thity 2
2
2
"
..
1
1
1
1
o
o
D
o
Skill
Follo\vs procedures in le5&o11
Follows ,vording in lesson
Level ajImplementation
Hif!,h l'vledium Lmt'
2 1 0
2 1 0
Comments
Provides individual tums when
specified
Teacher monitors student 'York
Uses etTOr correction appropriately.
Completes v>'Ork eheck \vith students
2
2
2
o
o
o
o
Total Time ofInstruction (Stopwakh): _
184
Comments
Inte11'ater Reliability? Yes or No
Reliability Dbse1'"ver:
Level a/Implementation
Hi h AIedium LOll'SA"ill
Teacher uses clear signal<; (verbal
and1hysical) 2 o
I\'iodels skills/strategies appropriately
and ,,,,ith eas.e. 1 o
Provides student adequate think time. 2 1 o
lMoves quickly from one activity to
the next. 2
()
Maintains good pacing. 1 o
Ensures students are t1nn on content
)1'io1' to moving forward. 1 o
Student is highly engaged in lesson.
:2 1 o
Teacher encourages student efiort. 2 1 o
Teacher completes all parts oflesson.
1 o
Student success rate is high. 1 o
Observation Note,,:
APPENDIXN
BEHAVIOR SUPPORT PLANS
185
186
KENSO
Behavior Support Plan for Kenso (KS)
Statement:
During reading tasks, Kenso gets out of seat, makes excuses to leave the classroom, asks for
break, plays with materials, and looks out and away from tasks to avoid reading tasks. The
behavior is more likely when he returns from recess, when the tasks are difficult, and when the
classroom instruction is not explicit.
Student: Kenso Date: June 11,2008
Year: 5 School:
---------
Behavior Support Team: EAL Teachers
EAL Coordinator
Behavior support coordinator
1. What does the
behavior look like?
2. What seems to
trigger the problem
behavior?
3. What typically
happens immediately
after the problem
behavior?
Disengaged behavior:
• Get out of seat
• Ask for break
• Make excuses to leave classroom
• Play with materials
• Look out and away from tasks
• His DORF benchmark scores indicated difficulty reading
sounds and words. (Median = 43 CWPM and 7 errors).
Problem behavior was likely to occur during reading tasks
that required knowledge about comprehension and
vocabularies. When he was asked to complete these tasks
independently, problem behavior was more likely to
increase (e.g. asking to leave classroom, playing with
materials, looking away). His behaviors decreased when he
worked one-on-one with teacher (e.g. during guided
reading). When there was no expectation for him, he tended
to engage in behaviors not related to academic works (e.g.
put his face down on the table while waiting for other
students to finish their tasks).
• Teacher looked at him, called his name and prompted him to
get back to work
• Teacher asked him to answer a few questions before leaving
the classroom (incase he asked permission to leave class)
187
• No response/attention for desired behaviors
• Avoid tasks
4. What events, • Come back from break
conditions, or
activities make the
problem behavior
worse?
I
5. Given the above n " Antecedent I····· Behavior Main~lliningIi, ~information, what Consequeqpe
best describes the
situation?
./
Back from Difficult task Getting out of Avoid tasks
break demands seat, making
Class excuses to leave
instruction is classroom and ask
not explicit. for break, looking
out and away
from task, playing
with materials
6. What is the
expected behavior for
this time and place?
What would be an
acceptable alternative
behavior?
Expected:
• Kenso will stay on task: engaging in and completing tasks as
assinged, following teacher instructions, focusing only on
his own assigned work, and raising hand to request
assistence from teacher
Alternative:
• Follow academic and behavior rules according to Phonics
for Reading Program
• Kenso can request only one break time per session
• Choose to work in group or in pair
7. What positive
feedback can be given
when expected
behavior occurs?
Stickers counted Every EAL session
towards House Point
(based on the school
rewarding system)
Specific praises
Who
EAL teachers
188
8. What can be done
to increase the
occurrence of
expected behavior?
Antecedent Strategies
• Modified the class time and instruction to support reading at
his appropriate instructional level
• Follow Phonics for Reading teacher directed program in 50
minutes each,S days per week
o The program provided close teacher's monitoring
and explicit instruction
o The content built on phonics skill that the student
needs to decode words and achieve fluency and
accuracy
• Provide clear models of lesson objectives, including his
response expectations, reinforcement system (how he will be
rewarded with sticker and the reward will be removed), clear
feedback to student on his errors and misbehavior.
• Change seating arrangement for the group to sit facing the
teacher and blackboard in the same row. Kwan will sit in the
middle to separate the two boys.
Teaching Strategies
• Teach Kenso expectations during tasks
• Teach him to properly ask for break or request for assistance
from teacher
• Establish positive reinforcement system (e.g., rewards,
privileges, free time)
o Sticker
o House Point
9. How will you
monitor student
progress?
Reminders/Prompts
• Provide regular prompts for on-task behavior
o "By 10: 15, you should have question #2 done"
o "Raise your hands if you need help"
• Immediately acknowledge and respond specifically to
appropriate behaviors and alternative behaviors
o "thank you for raising your hand to ask for help"
o "great job completing question 2!"
• Provide frequent positive feedback (praises, pat in the back,
nominate her as good example to the whole class) when
observing Kenso following the rules and stay on task.
• Use correction procedures when observing Kenso engaging
in inappropriate behaviors
o "Remember we will say the sound together"
o "Our rule is to stay on your seat" "What should I do
if you get out of seat?" (e.g. taking points off)
• When Kenso engages in disengaged behaviors, he may loose
his reward (sticker)
• Weekly progress reports/observation
• Oral reading fluency test
• Classroom observation for behavior and engagement
• Contextual Fit Questionnaire for teachers
189
10. When will you
review student
progress? Review
ISI_ July 3, 2008
2nd • • h- on gomg WIt
teachers
rd3 - End of study
D Very effective
D Somewhat effective qrevise/improve
[J Not effective qrequest assistance
from behavior support team
190
KWAN
Behavior Support Plan for Kwan (KK)
Statement:
During reading tasks, Kwan looks out and away from her tasks, does not respond to request and
question, and/or withdraws from activities to avoid reading tasks. The behavior is more likely
when the classroom instruction is not explicit.
Student: Kwan Date: June II, 2008
Year: 5 School:
------
Behavior Support Team: EAL Teachers
EAL Coordinator
Behavior support coordinator
1. What does the
behavior look like?
2. What seems to
trigger the problem
behavior?
3. What typically
happens immediately
after the problem
behavior?
Disengaged behavior:
• Look out and away from tasks
• Not respond to requests and questions
• Withdraw from activities
• Her DORF benchmark scores indicated significant difficulty
reading sounds and words. (Median = 58 CWPM and 19 errors).
Problem behavior was likely to occur during reading tasks that
required comprehension and grammar rules, and activities that
required an individual or group response (e.g. during teacher'
presentation on grammar rules). When the teacher asked questions
that require comprehension, she did not give the answer. She
looked out or kept silent. When she was asked to complete her
tasks independently, she mostly stayed engaged and did her task in
silence. However, the work product indicated that she failed to
follow the direction. It is difficult to tell whether she was
responding to questions since she has soft voice and usually
whisper the answer.
• No response/attention for desired behaviors
• Avoid tasks
4. What events,
conditions, or
activities make the
problem behavior
worse?
5. Given the above
information, what
best describes the
situation?
N/A
ent Maintaining
Consequence
191
N/A Unstructure
d time
Difficult
task
demands
Class
instruction
is not
explicit
Looking out and Avoid tasks
away from her
task, not
responding to
question, and
withdrawing from
activities
6. What is the
expected behavior for
this time and place?
What would be an
acceptable alternative
behavior?
Expected:
• Kwan will stay on task: engaging in and completing tasks
as assinged, following teacher instructions, focusing only
on her own assigned work, and raising hand to request
assistence from teacher
Alternative:
• Follow academic and behavior rules according to Phonics
for Reading Program
• Ask for break or request for assistance from teacher
• Choose to work in group or in pair
7. What positive
feedback can be given
when expected
behavior occurs?
When
Stickers counted Every session
towards House
Point (based on
the school
rewarding system)
Specific praises
....
EAL teachers
192
8. What can be done
to increase the
occurrence of
expected behavior?
Antecedent Strategies
• Modified the class time and instruction to support reading
at her appropriate instructional level
• Follow Phonics for Reading teacher directed program in 50
minutes each, 4 days per week
• Provide explicit behavior expectations and instruction
during task
• Change seating arrangement for the group to sit facing the
teacher and blackboard in the same roll. Kwan will sit in
the middle.
Teaching Strategies
• Teach Kwan expectations during tasks
• Teach her to request for assistance from teacher by raising
hand
• Establish positive reinforcement system (e.g., rewards,
privileges, free time)
o Sticker
o House Point
9. How will you
monitor student
progress?
Reminders/Prompts
• Provide regular prompts for on-task behavior
o "By 10: 15, you should have question #2 done"
o "Raise your hands if you need help"
• Immediately acknowledge and respond specifically to
appropriate behaviors and alternative behaviors
o "thank you for raising your hand to ask for help"
o "great job staying on task!"
• Provide frequent positive feedback (praises, pat in the back,
nominate her as good example to the whole class) when
observing Kwan following the rules and stay on task.
• Use correction procedures when observing Kwan engaging
in inappropriate behaviors
o "Remember we will say the sound together"
o "Our rule is to talk only in English" "What should I
do if you speak Thai?"
• When Kwan engages in disengaged behaviors, she may
loose her reward (sticker)
• Weekly progress reports/observation
• Oral reading fluency test
• Classroom observation for behavior and engagement
• Contextual Fit Questionnaire for teachers
193
10. When will you
review student
progress?
Date(s).Reviewed
Review
1st_ July 3, 2008
2nd_ on going with
teachers
3rd_ End of study
Effectiveness
[] Very effective
o Somewhat effective
¢revise/improve
o Not effective ¢request assistance
from behavior support team
194
KHUN
Behavior Support Plan for Khun (KH)
Statement:
During unstructured reading tasks, Khun refuses to work on task, gets out of seat, plays with
materials and looks out and away from tasks to avoid doing his reading tasks. The behavior is
more likely when he has to adjust to the new school environment. The behavior increases when
the tasks are difficult and when the classroom instruction is not explicit.
Student: Khun Date: June 1l, 2008
Year: 5 School:
-------
Behavior Support Team: EAL Teachers
EAL Coordinator
Behavior support coordinator
l. What does the
behavior look like?
2. What seems to
trigger the problem
behavior?
3. What typically
happens immediately
after the problem
behavior?
Disengaged behavior:
• Refuse to work
• Get out of seat
• Play with materials
• Look out and away from tasks
• Khun's ORF benchmark scores indicated that he had
significant difficulty with reading sounds and words
(Median = 28 error 8). Problem behavior occurred when the
tasks require ski11s in reading comprehension and grammar
rules. His English reading background was unknown.
However, it is obvious that the reading materials were
higher than his level. Teacher's and peer attention did not
have effect on the behavior.
• Teacher prompted him to get back to work-cal1ing his name
and pointing to the tasks
• No response-teacher worked with other students while
Khun turned his head back and did not do the task
• No response/attention for desired behaviors
• Avoid tasks
4. What events,
conditions, or
activities make the
problem behavior
worse?
• He is new to the school and the EAL group
195
5. Given the above
information, what
best describes the
situation?
Maintainin'g
Consequence
New to the
school and
EAL group
Unstructured
time
Difficult task
demands
Class instruction
is not explicit
Refusing to Avoid tasks
work on tasks,
getting out of
seat, playing
with materials,
and looking out
and away from
tasks
6. What is the
expected behavior for
this time and place?
What would be an
acceptable alternative
behavior?
Expected:
• Khun will stay on task: engaging in and completing tasks
as assinged, following teacher instructions, focusing only
on hisown assigned work, and raising hand to request
assistence from teacher
Alternative:
• Follow academic and behavior rules according to Phonics
for Reading Program
• Ask for break or request for assistance from teacher
• Choose to work in group or in pair
. What positive
feedback can be given
when expected
behavior occurs?
Stickers counted
towards House
Point (based on
the school
rewarding system)
Specific praises
Every session
Who
EAL teachers
196
8. What can be done
to increase the
occurrence of
expected behavior?
Antecedent Strategies
• Modified the class time and instruction to support reading
at his appropriate instructional level
• Follow Phonics for Reading teacher directed program in 50
minutes each, 4 days per week
o The program provided close teacher's monitoring
and explicit instruction
o The content built on phonics skill that the student
needs to decode words and achieve fluency and
accuracy
• Provide clear models of lesson objectives, including his
response expectations, reinforcement system (how he will
be rewarded with sticker and the reward will be removed),
clear feedback to student on his errors and misbehavior.
• Change seating arrangement for the group to sit facing the
teacher and blackboard in the same row. Kwan will sit in
the middle to separate the two boys.
Teaching Strategies
• Teach Khun expectations during tasks:
• Teach him to ask for break are request for assistance from
teacher
• Establish positive reinforcement system (e.g., rewards,
privileges, free time)
o Sticker
o House Point
9. How will you
monitor student
progress?
Reminders/Prompts
• Provide regular prompts for on-task behavior
o "By 10: 15, you should have question #2 done"
o "Raise your hands if you need help"
• Immediately acknowledge and respond specifically to
appropriate behaviors and alternative behaviors
o "thank you for raising your hand to ask for help"
o "great job completing question 2!"
• Provide frequent positive feedback (praises, pat in the back,
nominate her as good example to the whole class) when
observing Khun following the rules and stay on task.
• Use correction procedures when observing Khun engaging
in inappropriate behaviors
o "Remember we will say the sound together"
o "Our rule is to stay on your task" "What should I
do if you keep playing with your pencil?"
• When Khun engages in disengaged behaviors, he may
loose his reward (sticker)
• Weekly progress reports/observation
• Oral reading fluency test
• Classroom observation for behavior and engagement
• Contextual Fit Questionnaire for teachers
197
10. When will you
review student
progress?
Review
1st_ July 3, 2008
2nd - on going with
teachers
3rd - End of study
Effectiveness
D Very effective
[J Somewhat effective
¢revise/improve
D Not effective ¢request assistance
from behavior support team
198
SALIM
Behavior Support Plan for Salim (SI)
Statement:
During unstructured reading tasks, Salim waits to be told what to do, does not respond to question
and withdraw from class activities to avoid doing task. He also copies his peer's work. The
behavior is more likely when the classroom instruction is not explicit.
Student: Salim Date: June 11, 2008
Year: 4 School:
------
Behavior Support Team: EAL teachers
EAL Coordinator
Behavior support coordinator
1. What does the
behavior look like?
2. What seems to
trigger the problem
behavior?
Disengaged behavior:
waits to be told what to do, does not respond to question and
withdraw from class activities to avoid doing task, copies his peers'
work
• Difficult task demand
• Independent work
• Class instruction is not explicit
• Unstructured time
3. What typically • Teacher redirected him to do this own work
happens immediately • No attention from teacher and peer
after the problem
• No response/attention for desired behaviors
behavior?
• Avoid tasks
4. What events, • N/A
conditions, or
activities make the
problem behavior
worse?
5. Given the above
information, what
best describes the
situation?
199
N/A Hard
tasks/independ
ent and
unstructured
work
Class
instruction is
not explicit
Waits to be told Avoid tasks
what to do, does
not respond to
question and
withdraw from
class activities to
avoid doing task,
copies his peer's
work
6. What is the
expected behavior for
this time and place?
What would be an
acceptable alternative
behavior?
Expected:
• Salim will stay on his own task: engaging in and
completing tasks as assinged, following teacher
instructions, focusing only on his own assigned work,
and raising hand to request assistence from teacher
Alternative:
• Follow behavior rules
• Ask for break or request for assistance from teacher
• Choose to work in group or in pair
• Choose alternative tasks
7. What positive
feedback can be given
when expected
behavior occurs?
Smiley faces
counted
towards
House Point
©
Specific
praises
When
Each session
Who
EAL teachers
8. What can be done Antecedent Strategies
to increase the
occurrence of
• Modified the class time and instruction to support
expected behavior? reading at his appropriate instructional level
• Follow Phonics for Reading teacher directed program in
50 minutes each, 4 days per week
0 The program provided close teacher's monitoring
and explicit instruction
0 The content built on phonics skill that the student
needs to decode words and achieve fluency and
accuracy
• Provide clear models of lesson objectives, including his
response expectations, reinforcement system (how he
will be rewarded with smiley faces and how the reward
will be removed), clear feedback to student on his errors
and misbehavior.
Teaching Strategies
• Teach Salim expectations during tasks
• Teach him to ask for break ore request for assistance
from teacher
• Establish positive reinforcement system (e.g., rewards,
privileges, free time)
0 Smiley faces © /filling the chart
0 House Point
200
9. How will you
monitor student
progress?
Reminders/Prompts
• Provide regular prompts for on-task behavior
o "By 10: 15, you should have question #2 done"
o "Raise your hands if you need help"
• Immediately acknowledge and respond specifical1y to
appropriate behaviors and alternative behaviors
o "thank you for raising your hand to ask for help"
o "great job completing question 2!"
• Provide frequent positive feedback (praises, pat in the
back, nominate her as good example to the whole class)
when observing Salim following the rules and stay on
task.
• Use correction procedures when observing Salim
engaging in inappropriate behaviors
o "Remember we will say the sound together"
• When Salim engages in disengaged behaviors, he may
loose his reward (sticker)
• Weekly progress reports/observation
• Oral reading fluency test
• Classroom observation for behavior and engagement
• Contextual Fit Questionnaire for teachers
201
10. When will you
review student
progress?
Review
I st_ July 3, 2008
2nd- on going with
teachers
rd3 - End of study
Effectiveness
[J Very effective
o Somewhat effective
q revise/improve
o Not effective qrequest assistance
from behavior support team
202
GUS
Behavior Support Plan for Gus (GU)
Statement:
During reading tasks, Gus talks to peers, laughs, sings, makes noises, looks out and away to avoid
doing his reading tasks. The behavior is most likely to occur during independent and unstructured
tasks.
Student: Gus Date: June]], 2008
Year: 4 School:
------
Behavior Support Team: EAI teachers
EAL Coordinator
Behavior support coordinator
]. What does the
behavior look like?
2. What seems to
trigger the problem
behavior?
Disengaged and disruptive behavior:
talks to peers, laughs, sings, makes noises, looks out and away from
tasks to avoid doing his reading tasks.
• Difficult task demand
• Independent work
• Class instruction is not explicit
• Unstructured time
3. What typically • Teacher's reprimand-prompted Gus to get back to work
happens immediately • No response/attention for desired behaviors
after the problem
• Avoid tasksbehavior?
4. What events, • N/A
conditions, or
activities make the
problem behavior
worse?
5. Given the above
information, what
best describes the
situation?
203
N/A Unstructured/
independent
tasks
Difficult task
demands
Talks to peers,
laughs, sings,
makes noises,
looks out and
away from tasks
Avoid tasks
6. What is the
expected behavior for
this time and place?
What would be an
acceptable alternative
behavior?
Expected:
• Gus will stay on task: engaging in and completing tasks as
assinged, following teacher instructions, focusing only on
his own assigned work, and raising hand to request
assistence from teacher
Alternative:
• Follow academic and behavior rules according to Phonics
for Reading Program
• Ask for break or request for assistance from teacher
• Choose to work in group or in pair
7. What positive
feedback can be given
when expected
behavior occurs?
Smiley faces
counted towards
House Point ©
(based on the
school
rewarding
system)
Specific praises
Every session
Who
EAL teachers
8. What can be done Antecedent Strategies
to;ncrease the
occurrence of
• Modified the class time and instruction to support reading
expected behavior? at his appropriate instructional level
• Follow Phonics for Reading teacher directed program in 50
minutes each, 4 days per week and I library reading session
0 The program provided close teacher's monitoring
and explicit instruction
0 The content built on phonics skill that the student
needs to decode words and achieve fluency and
accuracy
• Provide clear models of lesson objectives, including his
response expectations, reinforcement system (how he will
be rewarded with smiley faces and how the reward will be
removed), clear feedback to student on his errors and
misbehavior.
Teaching Strategies
• Teach Gus expectations during tasks:
• Teach him to ask for break ore request for assistance from
teacher
• Establish positive reinforcement system (e.g., rewards,
privileges, free time)
0 Smiley faces © /filling the chart
0 House Point
204
9. How will you
monitor student
progress?
Reminders/Prompts
• Provide regular prompts for on-task behavior
o "By 10: 15, you should have question #2 done"
o "Raise your hands if you need help"
• Immediately acknowledge and respond specifically to
appropriate behaviors and alternative behaviors
o "thank you for raising your hand to ask for help"
o "great job completing question 2!"
• Provide frequent positive feedback (praises, pat in the back,
nominate her as good example to the whole class) when
observing Gus foHowing the rules and stay on task.
• Use correction procedures when observing Gus engaging in
inappropriate behaviors
o "Remember we wiH say the sound together"
o "Our rule is to talk only in English" "What should I
do if you speak Thai?"
• When Gus engages in disengaged and disruptive behaviors,
he may loose his reward (sticker)
• Weekly progress reports/observation
• Oral reading fluency test
• Classroom observation for behavior and engagement
• Contextual Fit Questionnaire for teachers
205
10. When will you
review student
progress?
Date(s) Rev
Review
1st_ July 3, 2008
2nd- on going with
teachers
3rd _ End of study
Very effective
Somewhat effective
qrevise/improve
o Not effective qrequest assistance
from behavior support team
206
Grade 3 EAL Group
Target to Achieve in Lessons
Everyone will:
1. Try to stay focused on the task set
2. Not disrupt the others in the group by being silly or interrupting
3. Take my studies seriously and try to improve
4. Listen to the advice given to me by the teacher and try to follow it
5. Practice my phonics to improve my reading skills
6. If I do not understand a word or instructions I will ASK.
Salim: Will try to work independently of others
Gus: Will try not to rush the tasks taking care to complete it properly
Sam: Will try to complete his tasks more quickly
If I succeed I the following:-
1. Arriving at the lesson pm toe and be organised without being told
2. Stay completely focused on each task
3. Behave in a sensible manner during lessons-not shout out, laugh at others, distract other
etc.
4. Complete a task to the best of my ability with the minimum amount of help
5. Tidy up at the end of the lesson without any fuss
I will get a smiley face each time I succeed, ifl get__smiley faces in a lesson I will get one
house point.
Smiley Faces and House Points Sheet
Name Week Beginning, _
207
Day Smiley Faces © Total House Points
Monday
Tuesday
I
Wednesday
Thursday
APPENDIX 0
BEHAVIOR SUPPORT PLAN CRITICAL FEATURES SCORING GUIDE
208
Behavior Support Plan # : Student Name
209
Critical Elements of the
Behavior Support Plan No Yes
Operational description ofproblem behavior 0 1
Operational description ofproblem behavior is consistent with 0 1
hypothesis statement in the PBA
Identification ofthe antecedent(s) to problem behavior 0 1
Identification of the antecedent(s) is consistent with hypothesis 0 1
statement in the PBA
Identification ofthe maintaining function of the problem behavior 0 1
Identification ofthe maintaining function ofthe problem behavior is 0 1
consistent with hypothesis statement in the PBA
Strategies for preventing the problem behavior(s) from occurring 0 1
Strategies are consistent with hypothesis statement in the FBA 0 1
Instructional strategies for teaching "alternative" behaviors/routines 0 1
Strategies are consistent with hypothesis statement in the PBA 0 1
Strategies for minimizing rewards for problem behavior 0 1
Strategies are consistent with hypothesis statement in the PBA 0 1
Positive reinforcement planned for desired behavior 0 1
Strategies are consistent with hypothesis statement in the PBA 0 1
The person(s) responsible for the implementation of each intervention 0 1
has been identified
Documentation of a formal and regular (at least twice a month) system 0 1
for assessing the fidelity with which the plan has been implemented is
clear
Documentation of a formal and regular (at least twice a month) system 0 1
for assessing the impact ofthe plan on student outcomes is clear
Technical adequacy score for this behavior support plan /17
-
APPENDIXP
INDIVIDUALIZED INTERVENTIONS CRITICAL FEATURES CHECKLIST
210
Intensive Individualized Interventions Critical Features Checklist
Used for scoring I-SSET Part III, Feature H.
211
..
'll 'll 'll '1l .'ll .... I~ .'fFBA ino'ludes': ~ .~ .. ~ .... ..~ ii.. :I ... ::1 •.•..
! ;!3 8 ! ~ ,=.." ~
,
1. Brief description of student and his/her goals y y y y y
and strengths? I N N N N N
I
2. Operational description of problem behavior(s) y y y y y
that are observable & countable? N N N N N
3. Identification of routines where problem y y y y y
behavior is most and least likely to occur? N N N N N
!
4, Functional behavior assessment summary I y y y I y y
statement that includes problem behavior,
predictors, and maintaining consequence? N N N N N
I
5, Alternative &/or desired behaviors are defined y y y y y
and consistent with FBA summary statement I(competing pathway) N N N N N
6, Confirmation data is available and includes 2 or i
more interviews with a high rating of accuracy y y y y y I
and direct observation data (ABC chart, Scatter N N N N N
Plot, FAOF, or equivalent)
Total yes responses
212
'B~h~N~ior'SU'PO'rtPlall:i:r1CI~~~s: 'tIj1J lti~ If I~ J ::U~ar,:.·~ .. ii .' 11).,.,':cS'.:
, =1 ::s, = ;:5 ~:;
...~:.:
.
1. Operational description of problem behavior
y y y y y
(or attached FBA)? N N N N N
Y Y Y Y Y
2. FBA summary statement (or attached FBA)? N N N N N
3. a. Strategies for preventing the problem Y Y Y Y Y
behavior(s) from occurring? N N N N N
b. Strategies are consistent with the FBA y Y Y Y Y
results? N N N N N
4. a. Instructional strategies for teaching Y Y y y y
"alternative" behaviors/routines? N N N N N
b. Strategies are consistent with the FBA y Y Y Y Y
results? N N N N N
5. a. Strategies for minimizing rewards for Y Y Y Y Y
problem behaviors? N N N N N
b. Strategies are consistent with the FBA Y Y Y Y Y
results? N N N N N
6. a. Positive reinforcement planned for desired y y y y y
behavior(s)? N N N I N N
b. Strategies are consistent with the FBA y Y Y y y
results? N N N N N
7. If punishment procedures are documented,
y y y y y
N N N N N
are they indicated? NA NA NA NA NA
8. Safety/crisis procedures due to potential for y y y y y
physical harm to self or others are N N N N N
documented, if needed? NA NA NA NA NA
9. A formal and regular (at least twice a month) y y y y y
system for assessing the fidelity with which N N N N Nthe plan of support is being implemented? I
10. A formal and regular (at least twice a month) ,y ! Y Y y y
system for assessing the impact of the plan N N N N N
on student outcomes?
Total yes responses
213
REFERENCES
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2003). Applied behavior analysisfor teacher (6th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Albin, R. W., Lucyshyn, J. M., Horner, R. H., & Flannery, B. (1996). Contextual fit for
behavioral support plans. In L. Kern-Koegel, R. L. Koegel, & G. Dunlap (Eds.),
Positive behavioral support: Including people with difJicult behavior in the
community (pp. 81-98). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Apichatabutra, C. (2007). Understanding educational change in the United States and
implications for schools improvement in Thailand. Unpublished doctoral concept
paper, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Archer, A., Flood, J., Lapp, D., & Lungren, L. (2002). Phonics for Reading. North
Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates, Inc.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied
behavior analysis. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 1(1),91-97.
Baker, D. L., Baker, S., Katz, R., & Otterstedt, J. (2008, January 8). The English reading
performance ofEnglish learners in Oregon Reading First across three years of
implementation (2003-2006). Technical report presented to the Oregon Department
of Education.
Barker, M., Child, C., Gallois, c., Jones, E., & Callan, V. J. (1991). Difficulties of
overseas students in social and academic situations. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 43, 79-84.
Barton-Arwood, S., Wehby, J., & Falk, K. (2005). Reading instruction for elementary-
age students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Academic and Behavioral
Outcomes. Exceptional Children, 72, 7-27.
Benazzi, L., Horner, R. H., Good, R. H. (2006). Effects of behavior support team
composition on the technical adequacy and contextual fit of behavior support plans.
Journal ofSpecial Education, 40, 160-170.
214
Biggs, J. B. (1996). Western misperceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture.
In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural,
psychological, and contextual influences (pp. 45-67). Hong Kong: Comparative
Education Research Centre.
Burke, M. D., Hagan-Burke, S., & Sugai, G. (2003). The efficacy of function-based
interventions for students with learning disabilities who exhibit escape-maintained
problem behaviors: Preliminary results from a single-case experiment. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 26, 15-25.
Carr, E. G. (1977). The origins of self-injurious behavior: A review of some hypotheses.
Psychological Bulletin, 84,800-816.
Carr, E. G., Horner, R. H., Turnbull, A. P., Marquis, J. G., Magito-McLaughlin, D.,
McAtee, M. L., et al. (1999). Positive behavior support for people with
developmental disabilities: A research synthesis. Washington, D.C.: American
Association on Mental Retardation Monograph Series.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, 1., Kame'enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2004). Direct instruction
reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Chan, S., & Lee, E. (2004). Families with Asian roots. In E. W. Lynch & M. J. Hanson
(Eds.), Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with children
and their families (pp. 219-298). Baltimore: Brookes.
Chard, D., Pikulski, J., Templeton, S. (2000). From phonemic awareness to fluency:
Effective decoding instruction in a research-based reading program. Current
Research in Reading and Language Arts Series. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective
interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning
disabilities. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 35, 386-406.
Children's Educational Services, 1. (1987). Test ofReading Fluency. Minneapolis, MN:
Author.
Crone, D. A., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Building positive behavior support systems in
schools: Functional behavioral assessment. New York: Guildford Press.
Daly, E., Martens, B. K., Hamler, K. R., Dool, E. 1., & Eckert, T. L. (1999). A brief
experimental analysis for identifying instructional components needed to improve
oral reading fluency. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 32, 83-94.
215
Deno, S. L., & Markin, P. K. (1977). Data-basedprogram mod(fication: A manual.
Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Denton, c., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in
reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 201-
211.
Dominguez de Ramirez, R., & Shapiro, E. S. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement and
the evaluation of reading skills of spanish-speaking English language learners in
bilingual education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35,356-369.
Drucker, M. J. (2003). What reading teachers should know about ESL learners? The
Reading Teacher, 57(1),22-29.
Dumas, J. E., Rollock, D., Prinz, R. J., Hops, H., & Blechman, E. A. (1999). Cultural
sensitivity: Problems and solutions in applied and preventive intervention. Applied
and Preventive Psychology, 8, 175-196.
Dunlap, G., Kern-Dunlap, L., Clarke, S., & Robbins, F. R. (1991). Functional assessment,
curricular revision, and severe behavior problems. Journal ofApplied Behavioral
Analysis, 24,387-397.
Dunlap, G., White, R., Vera, A., Wilson, D., & Panacek, L. (1996). The effects of multi-
component, assesment-based curricular modifications on the classroom behavior of
children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal ofBehavioral Education,
6,481-500.
Durand, V. M., & Carr, E. G. (1992). An analysis of maintenance following functional
communication training. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 25, 777-794.
Dussich, J. J., & Maekoya, C. (2007). Physical child harm and bullying-related
behaviors: A comparative study in Japan, South Africa, and the United States.
International Journal ofOffender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 495-
509.
Ellingson, S. A., Miltenberger, R. G., Stricker, J., Galensku, T. L., & Gerlinghouse, M.
(2000). Functional assessment and intervention for challenging behaviors in the
classroom by general classroom teachers. Journal ofPositive Behavior Intervention,
2, 85-97.
Fetler, M. (2008). Unexpected testing practices affecting English language learners and
students with disabilities under No Child Left Behind. The Practical Assessment,
Research, & Evaluation, 13,1-8.
216
Florida Center for Reading (2008). Review ofPhonics for Reading. Retrieved January 26,
2008 from http://fcrr.org/FCRRReports/PDF/PhonicsReading.pdf
Foorman, B. R. (2007). Primary prevention in classroom reading instruction. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 39(5),27-30.
Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group
instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice, 16(4),203-212.
Foorman, S. G., & Burke, C. R. (2008). Best practices in selecting and implementing
evidence-based school interventions. In A Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best
practice in school psychology V, Vol. 3 (pp. 799-811). Bethesda, MD: National
Association of School Psychologists.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A, Svenson, E., Yen, L., Otaiba, S. A, et al. (2001).
Peer-assisted learning strategies in reading: Extensions for kindergarten, first grade,
and high school. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 15-21.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative
evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School
Psychology Review, 22,27-48.
Gay, G. (2002). Cultural responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse
students: Setting the stage. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15, 613-629.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2003). English-language learners with learning disabilities. In
H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.). Handbook oflearning disabilities
(pp. 94-109). New York: Guilford.
Gersten, R., & Geva, E. (2003). Teaching reading to early language learners. Educational
Leadership, 60,44-49.
Good, R. H. & Kaminski, R. A. (2003). Dynamic indicators ofbasic early literacy skills
(6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for Development of Educational Achievement,
Available http://dibels.uoregon.edu/.
Gresham, F. M. (1989). Assessment of treatment integrity in school consultation and
prereferral intervention. School Psychology Review, 18,37-50.
Gresham, F. M. (2004). Current status and future directions of school-based behavioral
interventions. School Psychology Review, 33,326-343.
217
Gresham, F. M., & Lopez, M. F. (1996). Social validation: A unifying concept for
school-based consultation research and practice. School Psychology Quarterly, 11,
204-227.
Hagan-Burke, S., Burke, M. D., & Sugai, G. (2007). Using structural analysis and
academic-based intervention for a student at risk for EBD. Behavioral Disorders,
32, 175-191.
Hallinger, P. (1998). Educational change in Southeast Asia: The challenge of creating
learning systems. Journal ofEducational Administration, 36,492-509.
Ham, B., & Chard, D. (2004). Phonics for reading level 1-2 integrity checklist for project
CIRCUITS 2004. Eugene: University of Oregon.
Harn, B., Linan-Thompson, S., & Roberts, G. (2008). Intensifying instruction: Does
additional instructional time make a difference for the most at-risk first graders?
Journal ofLearning Disabilities. 41, 115-125.
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable
assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636-644.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Academic underachievement, attention deficits, and aggression:
Comorbidity and implications for intervention. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical
Psychology, 60,893-903.
Ho, C. K. (1990). An analysis of domestic violence in Asian American communities: A
cultural approach to counseling. Women & Therapy, 9, 129-150.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations: Software ofthe mind. Berkshire, UK:
McGraw-Hill.
Homer, R. H., & Carr, E. G. (1997). Behavioral support for students with severe
disabilities: Functional assessment and comprehensive intervention. Journal of
Special Education, 31, 84-104.
Homer, R.H., Carr, E.G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use
of single subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education.
Exceptional Children, 71, 165-179.
Homer, R. H., Carr, E. G., Strain, P.S., Todd, A. W., & Reed, H. K. (2002). Problem
behavior interventions for young children with autism: A research synthesis.
Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders, 32,423-446.
218
Horner, R. H., Day, H. M., Sprague, J. R., O'Brien, M., & Heathfield, L. T. (1991).
Interspersed requests: A nonaversive procedure for reducing aggression and self-
injury during instruction. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 24, 265-278.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Smolkowski, K. (in press). Expanding analysis and use of
single-su~jectresearch. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Howell, K. W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision
making (3rd ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Hunt, R., & Brychta, A. (2008). O>;ford Reading Tree. UK: Oxford University Press.
Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention planning:
Comparing the effectiveness ofFBA function-based and non-function-based
intervention plans. Journal ofPositive Behavior Intervention, 7, 224-236.
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994).
Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis,
27, 197-209.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural
perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal ofPersonality and Social P5ychology,
76. 349-366.
Kaminski, R. A., Good, R. H., Baker, D., Cummings, K., Chantal Dufour-Martel, K.,
Knutson, F. N.,et al. (2006). Are DIBELS appropriate for all students? Unpublished
position paper on use of DIBELS for diverse learners, Dynamic Measurement
Group, Eugene, Oregon.
Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, c., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Wills, H., Longstaff, J., et al.
(2007). Use of evidence-based, small-group reading instruction for English
language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-tier intervention. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 30, 153-168.
Kauffman, J. M., Conroy, M., Gardner, R., & Oswald, D. (2008, May 1). Cultural
sensitivity in the application ofbehavior principles to education. Paper presented at
the 32nd Annual Convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis in Atlanta,
GA.
Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., Theodore, L. A., Jenson, W. R., & Clark, E. (2000). A multi-
component intervention designed to reduce disruptive classroom behavior.
Psychology in the Schools, 37,475-481.
219
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston: Pearson
Education.
Kennedy, C. H. & Itkonen, T. (1993). Effects of setting events on the problem behavior
of students with severe disabilities. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 26, 321-
327.
Kerns, 1., Childs, K. E., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Falk, G. D. (1994). Using assessment-
based curricular intervention to improve the classroom behavior of a student with
emotional and behavioral challenge. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 27, 7-
19.
Klein, J. D., & Freitag, E. (1991). Effects of using an instructional game on motivation
and performance. Journal ofEducation Research, 84, 303-308.
Koegel, 1. K., Koegel, R. 1., & Dunlap, G. (1996). Positive behavioral support:
Including people with dijJicult behavior in the community. (eds.). Baltimore:
Brooks.
Lane, K. 1., Wehby, J. H., & Barton-Arwood, S. (2005). Students with and at risk for
emotional and behavioral disorders: Meeting their social and academic needs.
Preventing School Failure, 49, 6-9.
Lee, Y, Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (1999). Using an instructional intervention to reduce
problem and off-task behaviors. Journal ofPositive Behavior Interventions, 1(4),
195-204.
Lenters, K. (2004). No half measures: Reading instruction for young second-language
learners. The Reading Teacher, 4, 328-336.
Levy, S., & Chard, D. (2001). Research on reading instruction for students with
emotional and behavioral disorders. International Journal ofDisability,
Development and Education, 48(4),429-444.
Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A.W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Sampson, N. (2004).
Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool. Eugene: Educational and Community
Support, University of Oregon.
Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, S., Hickman-Davis, P., Kouzekanani, K. (2002).
Effectiveness of supplemental reading instruction for second-grade English
language learners with reading difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 103,
221-238.
Lloyd, S. (1994). The phonics handbook. Chigwell: Jolly Learning.
220
Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. 1. (2004). Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for
working with children and their families (3 fd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.
Mann, E. M., Ikeda, Y., Mueller, c., Takahashi, A., Tao, K., Humris, E., Li, B., & Chin, D.
(1992). Cross-cultural differences in rating hyperactive-disruptive behaviors in children.
American Journal ofPsychiatry, 149, 1539-1542.
March, R. E., & Homer, R. H. (2002). Feasible and contributions of functional behavioral
assessment in schools. Journal ofEmotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 158-170.
March, R. E., & Homer, R. H., Lewis-Palmer, T., Brown, Crone, D., Todd, A., et al. (2000).
Functional assessment checklistfor teachers and stq/f(FACTS). Eugene, OR: Author.
Marcus, B. A. Vollmer, T. R., Swanson, V., Roane, H. R., & RingdaW, 1. E. (2001). An
experimental analysis of aggression. Behavior Modification, 25, 189-213.
Mayer, G. R. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal ofApplied
Behavior Analysis, 28,467-478.
McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, 1., & Leos, K. (2005). English language learners and learning
disabilities: Research agenda and implications for practice. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 20(1), 68-78.
McComas, J., Hoch, H., Paone, D., & El-Roy, D. (2000). Escape behavior during academic
tasks: A preliminary analysis of idiosyncratic establishing operation. Joumal ofApplied
Behavior Analysis, 33,479-493.
McEvoy, A., & Walker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school climate:
A Critical review. Journal ofEmotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 130-140.
McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J.B., & Homer, R. H. (2006). Demonstration ofcombined
efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and
behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal ofPositive Behavior
Interventions, 8, 146-154.
McKenna, K. M. (2006). The role offunction-based academic and behavior support to
improve reading achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon,
Eugene.
Mueller, C. W., Mann, E. M., Thanapum, S., Humris, E., Ikeda, Y., Takahashi, A., et al.
(1995). Teachers' ratings of disruptive behavior in five countries. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 434-442.
221
National Center for Education Statistics (2007). Indicators ofschool crime and safety:
2007. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education.
National Reading Panel (2000). Report ofthe national reading panel: Teaching children
to read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development.
Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., Lane, K., & Smith, B. W. (2004). Academic achievement of
K-12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children,
71(1),59-73.
Nelson, J. S., Alber, S. R, & Gordy, A. (2004). Effects of systematic error correction and
repeated readings on the reading accuracy and proficiency of second graders with
disabilities. Education and Treatment ofChildren, 27, 186-198.
O'Neill, R. E., Homer, R H., Albin, R.W., Sprague, J. R., Storey, K., & Newton, J. S.
(1997). Functional assessment andprogram development for problem behavior: A
practical handbook. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Oregon Reading First (2008). Review ofsupplemental and intervention programs:
Phonics for Reading. Retrieved November 25, 2008 from
http://oregomeadingfirst.uoregon.edu/inst curr review si.html
Parsonson, B., & Baer, D. (1978). The analysis and presentation of graphic data. In T.
Kratochwill (Ed.), Single-subject research: Strategies for evaluating change (pp.
105-165). New York: Academic Press.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family processes. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Pierce, W. D., & Epling, W. F. (1995). A science of behavior: Perspective, history, and
assumptions. In Behavior Analysis and Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall. pp.1-26.
Pratt, D. D., & Wong, K. M. (1999). Chinese conceptions of effective teaching in Hong
Kong: Towards culturally sensitive evaluation of teaching. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 18,241-258.
Preciado, A. J. (2006). Using afunction-based approach to decrease problem behaviors
and increase reading academic engagement for Latino English language learners.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Salantine, S. P. & Homer, R. H. (2002). The contextualfit questionnaire. Eugene:
University of Oregon.
222
Salvia, J. & Ysseldyke, 1. E. (2006). Assessment (1oth ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of a story.
Higher Education Research and Development, 6, 121-134.
Sanford, A. K. (2006). The effect of function-based literacy instruction on problem
behavior and reading growth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Oregon, Eugene.
Schwartz, 1. S., & Baer, D. M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice
state ofthe art? Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 24, 189-204.
Scruggs, TE., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1986). Academic characteristics of behaviorally
disordered and learning disabled students. Behavioral Disorders, 11, 184-190.
Shealey, M. W., & Callins, T (2007). Creating culturally responsive literacy programs in
inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42, 195-197.
Shinn, M. R., Ramsey, E., Walker, H. M., Steiber, S., & O'Neill, R. E. (1987). Antisocial
behavior in school settings: Initial differences in an at risk and normal population.
The Journal ofSpecial Education, 21, 69-84.
Silberglitt, B., & Hintze, J. M. (2007). How much growth can we expect? A conditional
analysis ofR-CBM growth rates by level of performance. Exceptional Children, 74,
71-84.
Smith, S. W., Daunic, A. P., & Taylor, G. G. (2007). Treatment fidelity in applied
educational research: Expanding the adoption and application of measures to ensure
evidence-based practice. Education and Treatment ofChildren, 30, 121-134.
Sprague, J. R. & Thomas, T (1997). The effect of a neutralizing routine on problem
behavior performance. Journal ofBehavioral Education, 7, 325-334.
Staubitz, J. E., Cartledge, G., Yurick, A. L., & Lo, Y. (2005). Repeated reading for
students with emotional or behavioral disorders: Peer-and trainer-mediated
instruction. Behavioral Disorder, 31, 51-64.
Strong, A. c., Wehby, J. H., Falk, K. B., & Lane, K. L. (2004). The impact of a
structured reading curriculum and repeated reading on the performance ofjunior
high students with emotional and behavioral disorders. School Psychology Review,
33,561-581.
223
Sugai, G., Homer, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. 1., Nelson, C. M., et al.
(2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment
in schools. Journal ofPositive Behavior Interventions, 2(3), 131-143.
Sugai, G., Homer, R. H., & Gresham, F. M. (2002). Behaviorally effective school
environments. In M.R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventionsfor
academic and behavior problems 11: Preventative and remedial approaches (pp.
315-350). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Tam, K. Y, Heward, W. L., & Heng, M. A. (2006). A reading instruction intervention
program for English-language learners who are struggling readers. The Journal of
Special Education, 2, 79-93.
Tapanya, S. (2006). Bully prevention in Thai school. Bangkok: Thai National Health
Foundation. Bangkok.
Tobin, T. & Sugai, G. (1999). Predicting violence at school, chronic discipline problems,
and high school outcomes from sixth graders' school records. Journal ofEmotional
Disorder, 7, 40-53.
Torgesen, J. K. (1998). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to
prevent reading failure in young children. American Educator, 22, 32-39.
Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal o.fSchool
Psychology, 40, 7-26.
Tucker, C. M., & Herman, K. C. (2002). Using culturally sensitive theories and research
to meet the academic needs of low-income African American children. American
Psychologist, 57(10), 762-773.
Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context:
Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychology Association, 57, 89-99.
UK Government. (2008). Directgov: Information on the National Standard Curriculum.
Retrieved November, 12,2008 from
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Schoolslearninganddevelopment/ExamsTestsA
ndTheCurriculum/DG 4015959
Umbreit, J., Ferro, J. B., Liaupsin, C. J., & Lane, K. J. (2007). Functional behavioral
assessment andfunction-based intervention: An effective, practical approach.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
U.S. Library of Congress, Federal Research Division. (2007). Country profile: Thailand.
Retrieved 10 October, 2007 from http://1cweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Thailand.pdf
224
Vaughn, S., Chard, D. J., Bryant, D. P., Coleman, M., Tyler, R, Linan-Thompson, S., &
Kouzekanani, K. (2000). Fluency and comprehension interventions for third grade
students. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 325-335.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Cirino, P. T., Carlson, C. D., Pollard-
Durodola, et al. (2006). Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade English
language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal ofLearning Disabilities,
39,56-73.
Vaughn, S., Mathes, P. G., Linan-Thompson, S., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Teaching
English language learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting research
into practice. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(1), 58-67.
Walker, H., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in public schools:
Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Walker, H.M., Horner, R H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R, Bricker, D., et al.
(1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among
school-age children and youth. Journal ofEmotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4,
194-209.
Walker, H. M., & Shinn, M. R (2002). Structuring school-based interventions to achieve
integrated primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention goals for safe and effective
school. In M.R Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for
academic and behavior problems 11: Preventative and remedial approaches (pp. 1-
25). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Walker, H., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. (2004). Antisocial behavior in school: Evidence-
basedpractices (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wang, M., McCart, A, & Turnbull, A P. (2007). Implementing positive behavior
support with Chinese American Families: enhancing cultural competence. Journal
ofPositive Behavior Interventions, 9, 38-51.
Watkins, M. W., & Pacheco, M. (2000). Interobserver agreement in behavioral research:
Importance and calculation. Journal ofBehavioral Education, 10, 205-212.
Wehby, J. H., Falk, K. R, Barton-Arwood, S., Lane, K. 1., & Cooley, C. (2003). The
impact of comprehensive reading instruction on the academic and social behavior of
students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal ofEmotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 11, 225-238.
225
Weisz, J. R., Chaiyasit, W., Weiss, B., Eastman, K. 1., & Jackson, E. W. (1995). A
multimethod study of problem behavior among Thai and American children in
school: Teacher reports versus direct observations. Child Development, 66, 402-
415.
Weisz, J. R., Suwanlert, S., Chaiyasit, W., Weiss, B., Walter, B. R., & Anderson, W. W.
(1988). Thai-American perspectives on over- and undercontrolled child behavior
problems: Exploring the threshold model among parents, teachers, and
psychologists. Journal o/Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 601-609.
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied
behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal 0/Applied Behavior Analysis, 11,
203-214.