Key Takeaway:

Effective teaching and learning for students with autism requires special education teachers to possess a secure understanding of evidence-based practices and how to implement them. In the state of Texas, however, there is a significant research-to-practice gap that indicates a strong demand for improvement in the way teachers receive ongoing training in order to meet the needs of students with autism. – Akane Yoshida

The Research-to-Practice Gap

The role of special needs teachers working to integrate students with learning differences in public schools requires a multitude of skills, not least of which is the ability to keep up with the most current research on evidence-based practices (EBP). 

However, as Hamrick et al. note, there is a substantial body of research to show that while school administrators perceive their special education teachers to be well-versed in best practices,1 special education teachers report low preparedness for teaching students with autism the key skills they lack.2 Furthermore, teachers who report low understanding of EBP are more likely to use practices that are unsupported by research or even potentially harmful, such as facilitated communication or the rapid prompting method.2

Regarding instructional strategies, Hamrick et al. chose 35 interventions, of which 26 were documented EBPs and nine were practices that were deemed to be lacking in evidence:

Evidence-Based Practices– antecedent based interventions
– differential reinforcement
– discrete trial training 
– exercise
– extinction
– functional behavior assessment
– functional communication training
– modeling
– naturalistic interventions
– peer-mediated instruction and intervention
– picture exchange communication system (PECS)
– pivotal response training
– prompting
– reinforcement
– response interruption/redirection
– scripting
– self-management
– social narratives
– social skills training
– structured play groups
– task analysis
– technology-aided instruction
– time delay
– video modeling
– visual supports
Unsupported Practices– auditory integration training
– facilitated communication
– floor-time
– holding therapy
– language acquisition through motor planning (LAMP)
– music therapy
– play therapy
– rapid prompting method
– sensory integration therapy
– touch therapy

Findings and Implications for Public Education

The 255 participants involved in this study were individuals who were employed as special educators at various public schools in the state of Texas and had direct connections with students with autism, either through teaching, working with, or case-managing students with autism or intellectual disabilities (ID). 

While the study is limited by its relatively small sample of participants and the lack of diversity among said sample, the results nonetheless agree with those of previous studies in that interventions used by special educators with students with autism are not necessarily evidence-based. 

The EBPs reported by more than 50% of educators as being used on a daily basis include differential reinforcement (56.21), discrete trial (50.44), exercise (52.10), functional communication training (58.62), modeling (77.78), PECS (63.16), prompting (84.00), reinforcement (89.89), response interruption/redirection (RIRD; 74.42), self-management (55.77), technology-aided instruction (58.82), time delay (60.49), and visual supports (82.84).

Over 50% of participants also reported using several practices with no supporting evidence, such as facilitated communication (62.82), language acquisition through motor planning (52.38), rapid prompting method (58.82), sensory integration therapy (51.95), and touch therapy (53.33).

More than 50% of participants reported being very prepared to use only two EBPs—prompting (50.30) and reinforcement (53.22).

The authors point out that this clearly indicates a need for more in-depth training on EBP at the teacher training stage to prepare teachers for the specific demands of meeting the needs of students with autism.

However, an additional finding of the study is that despite the majority of training and resources offered by the state education agency being free online, only 5% of participants reported accessing online training, with over 50% of participants indicating no training for 19 of the 35 interventions in question.

Hamrick et al. state:

“State-funded agencies responsible for providing professional development and training for educators should look at the current findings to explore additional ways to provide training opportunities that provide additional face-to-face time to increase teacher knowledge and use of EBP when working with children with [autism]. In addition, these agencies should look at ways to disseminate information about the current online trainings teachers have access to…developing a plan to ensure local education agencies specialists and/or curriculum coaches are aware of these trainings and how to access them could potentially increase the number of educators accessing the online resources.“

They further suggest that educational agencies “could also consider extending their online services to include coaching and feedback” and that forming collaborative partnerships with university programs could spark meaningful change in the way teacher training programs address the research-to-practice gap.

Other recommendations include identifying clear standards for professional development, such as requiring educators to attend training for EBP rather than simply requiring a minimum number of professional development hours within a window of time, and involving teachers as participants in public education research in order to provide them with opportunities to increase their knowledge and application of EBP.

Summarized Article:

Hamrick, J., Cerda, M., O’Toole, C., & Hagen-Collins, K. (2021). Educator Knowledge and Preparedness for Educating Students With Autism in Public Schools. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 1088357621989310.

Summary by: Akane Yoshida — Akane believes in the MARIO Approach because it puts student agency at the heart of the learning and goal-setting process. She loves how the MARIO Framework operationalizes this process and utilizes systematic measurement of student learning and teacher effectiveness to guide interventions.

Additional References:

  1. Pazey, B. L., Gevarter, C., Hamrick, J., & Rojeski, L. (2014). Administrator views and knowledge of instructional practices for students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders , 8 (10), 1253–1268.
  2. Knight, V. F., Huber, H. B., Kuntz, E. M., Carter, E. W., & Juarez, A. P. (2018). Instructional practices, priorities, and preparedness for educating students with autism and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 34 (1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/108835761875569

Key Takeaway:

To compensate for fluency & decoding difficulties, students with dyslexia often receive audio-support. Identification & awareness of both the benefits and drawbacks of audio-support allows practitioners to: 1) raise students’ awareness of the impact audio-support may have on their reading behavior and 2) support active and optimal use of audio-support to increase reading efficiency. —Ashley Parnell

Reading Comprehension in Students with Dyslexia

Reading comprehension is fundamental to academic learning across all subject areas. Students with dyslexia read slower and less accurately than their peers without dyslexia, which can negatively impact reading comprehension. Furthermore, students with dyslexia tend to use fewer reading comprehension strategies, which also hinders their ability to interact with and understand the text. 

To compensate for fluency & decoding difficulties, students with dyslexia often receive audio-support via narration of written text. “However, audio-support linearly guides readers from beginning to end through texts, possibly hindering the use of reading comprehension strategies in expository texts and negatively impacting reading time and reading comprehension performance.”

Examining Impact of Audio-Support

The current study sought to examine the effects of audio-support on reading comprehension strategies, reading times, and reading comprehension performance in 43 eighth grade students (21 students with dyslexia; 22 typically developing peers) from six schools across the Netherlands. Participants were provided with three types of assignments in each condition (written expository text with and without audio-support; an average of 349 words per text). Assignments were designed to encourage either intensive reading strategies (i.e., information from the whole text is needed) or selective reading strategies (i.e., information located in one specific paragraph) as noted below:

  • Summarizing (intensive reading strategy): Fill in missing words in a summary.
  • Open-ended questions (selective reading strategy): Provide examples based on information from text.
  • Statement questions (selective reading strategy): Indicate whether the statement was true or false.

By measuring student eye movements during the texts and comparing those movements to the results of adult expert-readers, researchers identified the reading comprehension strategies as either intensive or selective. Of note, students were able to control the audio (e.g. pausing, repeating, skipping, & selecting) during the audio condition.

Findings & Implication for Practice

In conflict with previous research, decoding skills did not impact comprehension of the text. This finding and others are summarized below:

  • Audio-support did not affect reading comprehension performance in any of the tasks for students with or without dyslexia, which “could partially be due to the difficulty level of some of the tasks.”
  • Performance scores did not indicate differences in reading comprehension performance between students with or without dyslexia.
  • Audio-support negatively affected the use of the selective reading strategy. In the open-ended assignments, students divided their attention more over the whole text instead of focusing on one specific part.
  • Audio-support increased reading time in students with and without dyslexia.

While these results identify some potential disadvantages to audio-support (i.e., increased reading time and reading strategy for open-ended questions), audio-support can compensate for weak decoding and may support engagement, confidence, and stamina. Rather than discourage the use of audio-support, researchers suggest the following implications for practice:

  • Raise students’ awareness of the impact audio-support may have on their reading behavior. Support and encourage active and optimal use of audio-support to increase reading efficiency. 
  • Provide explicit instruction on reading comprehension strategies & usage (i.e., when , why, and how) for all students (given that many participants with and without dyslexia failed to use the most efficient strategy).

Summarized Article:

Knoop-van Campen, C., Ter Doest, D., Verhoeven, L., & Segers, E. (2021). The effect of audio-support on strategy, time, and performance on reading comprehension in secondary school students with dyslexia. Annals of dyslexia, 10.1007/s11881-021-00246-w. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00246-w

Summary by: Ashley M. Parnell — Ashley strives to apply the MARIO Framework to build evidence-based learning environments that support student engagement, empowerment and passion, and is working with a team of educators to grow and share this framework with other educators.

Key Takeaway

Ayar et al. reveal relevant factors, including socioeconomic status, prenatal smoking, and screen time duration, associated with strengths and difficulties among children with specific learning disabilities. These results provide key takeaways for parents, educational institutions, and medical practitioners in adjusting their approach to raising and treating this group of children. —Emmy Thamakaison

Ayar et al. share their cross-sectional survey investigating the prevalence of certain social, emotional, and behavioural characteristics among children with specific learning disabilities (SLDs) and factors associated with such characteristics. Among a variety of surveys, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was administered, which evaluated “Conduct Problems (CP),” “Hyperactivity and Inattention (HI),” “Emotional Symptoms (ES),” “Peer Problems (PP),” and “Prosocial Behaviours (PsB).” Associated factors investigated include family socioeconomic status, early exposure to smoking, breastfeeding duration, early hospitalization, and childhood screen use. 

Environmental factors

Compared to the wealthier subgroup, individuals from a low socioeconomic background were at a higher risk of displaying CP and externalizing problems (EP), which is the sum of HI and PsB. This is supported by existing literature, as low-income families are associated with “unemployment, broken families, mentally unhealthy parents, and the use of improper education methods.”1, 2, 3

Biological factors

Breastfeeding has been thought to play a major role in cognitive development during early childhood.4,5 The current study found that children who breastfed for more than 12 months were less likely to experience PP, compared to children who breastfed for less than 12 months. These results are consistent with that of Belfort et al. and Bernard et al., which suggest that language development, motor function, and cognitive abilities improve with increased breastfeeding duration.6,7 Another explanation for this study’s findings is that “breastfeeding [can] have a protective role in preventing children from maltreatment by their mothers,” which translates into rewarding relationships later in life.8

Furthermore, maternal prenatal smoking is significantly associated with ES, CP, EP, IP, PsB, and Total Difficulties (TD; The sum of all difficulties scores). The effects of prenatal exposure to toxins through smoking have been well documented, and the results of this study are well supported. Maternal prenatal smoking has an overall negative impact on cognitive development, children’s learning outcomes, and increasing neurological brain abnormalities.9, 10, 11 

Early childhood hospitalization and screen use

The way children with SLDs were raised beyond infancy also plays a role in influencing their characteristics. Children with SLD with hospitalization histories were associated with a higher risk of HI and EP. In explaining this increased risk of SLD-ADHD comorbidity in children with early hospitalization, the authors suggest that “the hyperactivity of children may lead to more hospital visits” or “frequent hospital visits may increase hyperactivity by creating a negative experience.”

Further, abnormal PsB scores were also associated with a decreased age of first screen contact, and CP and EP problems increased with an increased daily preschool screen exposure of ≥4 hours. Ayar et al. suggest that inappropriate parenting styles (ie. low parental acceptance of their children, parental neglect, or overprotective parenting) are associated with increased risk of screen time, and can lead to abnormal prosocial behaviours. Additionally, since hyperactivity-inattention was not found to be associated with “current screen contact time,” authors conclude that “screen contact time was more important for SLD in the preschool period of the study.” Early childhood is a critical period for brain development and screen time exposure may do more harm than good during those years, as it may cause “insomnia, mood swings, and problems at school.”12

Ayar et al.’s results provide thoughtful takeaways both on multiple levels: 

  • Practitioners should become well aware of the behavioural risks associated with different familial, biological, and environmental factors among children with SLD and may need to provide special support for such groups. The authors state that “combining medical treatment with psychosocial support will increase treatment success” for these children. 
  • On a systematic level, schools and educational institutions should become well aware of such risks as well and provide systematic support as needed. 
  • To-be or current parents are reminded that prenatal smoking and early screen time exposure may have negative effects on their child’s development and may need to adjust their parenting behaviours accordingly. 

Summarized Article:

Ayar, G., Yalçın, S. S., Tanıdır Artan, Ö., Güneş, H. T., & Çöp, E. (2021). Strengths and difficulties in children with specific learning disabilities. Child: Care, Health and Development, 48(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12903

Summary by: Emmy Thamakaison—Emmy is an undergraduate student at Stanford University and an enthusiastic advocate of MARIO Framework.

Additional References:

  1. Lindström, M., Hansen, K., & Rosvall, M. (2012). Economic stress in childhood and adulthood, and self-rated health: a population based study concerning risk accumulation, critical period and social mobility. BMC Public Health, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-761
  2. Morrissey, K., & Kinderman, P. (2020). The impact of childhood socioeconomic status on depression and anxiety in adult life: Testing the accumulation, critical period and social mobility hypotheses. SSM – Population Health, 11, 100576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100576
  3. Vogel, L. (2019). Poor mental health, poverty threaten Canadian kids: report. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 191(38), E1065–E1066. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1095814
  4. Horta, B. L., Loret de Mola, C., & Victora, C. G. (2015). Breastfeeding and intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Paediatrica, 104, 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.13139
  5. Victora, C. G., Bahl, R., Barros, A. J. D., França, G. V. A., Horton, S., Krasevec, J., Murch, S., Sankar, M. J., Walker, N., & Rollins, N. C. (2016). Breastfeeding in the 21st century: epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect. The Lancet, 387(10017), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01024-7
  6. Belfort, M. B., Rifas-Shiman, S. L., Kleinman, K. P., Guthrie, L. B., Bellinger, D. C., Taveras, E. M., Gillman, M. W., & Oken, E. (2013). Infant Feeding and Childhood Cognition at Ages 3 and 7 Years. JAMA Pediatrics, 167(9), 836. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.455
  7. Bernard, J. Y., De Agostini, M., Forhan, A., Alfaiate, T., Bonet, M., Champion, V., Kaminski, M., de Lauzon-Guillain, B., Charles, M.-A., & Heude, B. (2013). Breastfeeding duration and cognitive development at 2 and 3 years of age in the EDEN mother-child cohort. The Journal of Pediatrics, 163(1), 36-42.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.11.090
  8. Taghıyev, A. (2020). Protective role of breastfeeding status, chronic health problems and temperament of children in maltreatment by mothers. Türk Pediatri Arşivi. https://doi.org/10.14744/turkpediatriars.2020.54280
  9. Anthopolos, R., Edwards, S. E., & Miranda, M. L. (2013). Effects of Maternal Prenatal Smoking and Birth Outcomes Extending into the Normal Range on Academic Performance in Fourth Grade in North Carolina, USA. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 27(6), 564–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12081
  10. Cho, K., Frijters, J. C., Zhang, H., Miller, L. L., & Gruen, J. R. (2013). Prenatal Exposure to Nicotine and Impaired Reading Performance. The Journal of Pediatrics, 162(4), 713-718.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.09.041
  11. Biederman, J., Petty, C. R., Bhide, P. G., Woodworth, K. Y., & Faraone, S. (2011). Does exposure to maternal smoking during pregnancy affect the clinical features of ADHD? Results from a controlled study. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 13(1), 60–64. https://doi.org/10.3109/15622975.2011.562243
  12. Domingues-Montanari, S. (2017). Clinical and psychological effects of excessive screen time on children. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 53(4), 333–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.13462

Key Takeaway

When implementing a tiered model of prevention, such as the comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered model, it is important to attend systematically to the elements that can positively impact the success of the model. Strong value-driven leadership, data-based decision making, and professional development in the theoretical and practical aspects of a positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) system must be consistently integrated. —Erin Madonna

Ci3T Model and Teacher Perceptions 

In this study, Menzies et al. (2021) explored teacher perceptions of the comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered (Ci3T) model of prevention through interview-based focus groups. Ci3T has a foundation in applied behavior analysis (ABA) and is designed to address student needs in three learning domains, academic, behavior, and social-emotional well-being, through data-based instruction and intervention. Within the model, behavior management is designed to be proactive and positive, rather than reactive, aversive, or punitive. 

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate teacher perceptions of the Ci3T model and its implementation. The researchers realized a prevailing theme was emerging in teacher interviews around challenges implementing certain aspects of Ci3T, namely the PBIS plan. 

Teachers highlighted struggles with applying proactive management strategies, a reluctance to transition away from punishment-based management strategies, and organizational elements which both improved or limited the successful implementation of Ci3T in their contexts as central to their experiences.

“As demonstrated in this study, closer attention to teachers’ beliefs about the theoretical underpinnings of the model, and cultural norms in conflict with it, might have resulted in smoother adoption of the PBIS components” (Menzies et al., 2021).

Misconceptions

As Menzies et al. analyzed the entirety of the interviews, they recognized that misconceptions of ABA and professional beliefs around behavior management were complicating a high-fidelity adoption of PBIS. 

“Disturbingly, there seemed to be an understanding among the participants that the word ‘consequences’ was code for punishment, in its most negative and everyday sense, and it was deemed a very effective strategy for managing behavior” (Menzies et al., 2021). In ABA, a consequence is simply what occurs after the behavior and is not synonymous with punishment. 

The concept of holding students accountable through corrective measures, largely encompassing punitive responses, was echoed through interviews with teachers and indicated a strong desire to stick with systems that were perceived to have worked previously (clip charts, etc). 

Teachers were encouraged to instead use explicit instruction as a way to teach expected behaviors and positive reinforcement of prosocial behaviors when they occurred as methods for improving problem behaviors. 

Positive Outcomes and Impact

Despite reluctance, there were some signs that positive results were beginning to impact teacher implementation of Ci3T. It seems that when teachers had training to understand the Ci3T model or were able to experience small successes, their perceptions of the new system became more positive.

When considering the factors that aided the adoption of Ci3T, the researchers found that “using data to inform decisions and leadership from the site administrator were essential elements in changing teachers’ perceptions about the utility of the Ci3T model.” The educators perceived that the Ci3T model was more likely to be implemented with fidelity and social validity when they had the support of their leadership in administration. 

In the schools where leadership presented a clear vision of Ci3T and championed the belief that it had the potential to positively impact the culture of the school, teachers expressed more positive perceptions and seemed more invested in shifting their behavior management approach. 

Furthermore, key to a culture shift was the attention paid to data and its role in informing instructional choices. When an educator is able to see a positive trend in the behavioral data for their class as a result of implementing proactive strategies, they become more willing to commit to leaving punitive measures in the past. 

Summarized Article: 

Menzies, H. M., Oakes, W. P., Lane, K. L., Royer, D. J., Cantwell, E. D., Common, E. A., & Buckman, M. (2021). Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of a Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered Model of Prevention. Remedial and Special Education, 42(4), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519896860]

Summary by: Erin Madonna — Erin philosophically aligns with the MARIO Framework’s deeply rooted belief that all learners are capable, and she firmly believes in MARIO’s commitment to the use of evidence-based practices drawn from the field of current multidisciplinary research.

Researchers Holly M. Menzies, Wendy P. Oakes, Kathleen L. Lane, and Mark Buckman participated in the final version of this summary. 

Key Takeaway

As educators, we know that learning is always more meaningful when there is student involvement and ownership. When designing Tier 2 behavior interventions, student participation and feedback in the process increases effectiveness as student investment increases with involvement. —Nika Espinosa 

Tiers of Behavioral Support

The paper by Mallory et al. dives into the importance of student involvement in the design of Tier 2 behavior interventions and provides a framework to help educators involve students.

“Positive behavior interventions and supports is a multilevel approach to behavior support implementation that involves three tiers of interventions targeting students’ various levels of needs.”

  • Whole-school or class-wide implementation is found at the Tier 1 level, where agreed-upon behavioral expectations are defined and implemented. Students are presented with opportunities to develop these skills. 
  • Tier 2 support is for those who need targeted intervention or need something more than what can be provided by the Tier 1 level if at-risk behaviors manifest. This could look like individual or small-group sessions, with more opportunities for reinforcement and/or support plans. 
  • Tier 3 students need intensive reinforcement, with an intervention team constantly monitoring, as well as assessing. 

Involving Students in Behavior Interventions

“It has been argued that if children are not involved in the design and implementation of interventions, then the student will be less likely to commit to, or be compliant with, the treatment.”1 

The authors provide the key stages to help design tier 2 intervention. Starting with determining the function of challenging behavior, the student can either complete a functional assessment interview or do a self-assessment of recorded unexpected behavior. 

The authors believe that a primary source for data should be the student. Then, the intervention team and the student need to determine the target skill or behavior that should be optimized. 

The likelihood of a student being motivated to change the behavior increases when they themselves identify what behaviors they see as an opportunity for growth. “If a student believes that a behavior is not worth changing, it may be difficult to get them to make significant changes in the behavior.”

Once the behavior is identified, the goal criteria are determined. “Essentially, goals should follow the Goldilocks principle: They should be neither too easy nor too difficult to achieve; they should provide a challenge without being overwhelming for the student. It is at this level of difficulty in which learning is optimal.”1 

Once that is in place, the student needs to be involved in choosing reinforcers. These reinforcers need to be highly motivating. Student involvement is crucial as it boosts their chances of working towards desired behaviors. 

Data Collection

When collecting the data, it is imperative that the student is also present. According to the authors, the easiest way to collect data is to have the student do so. “The student can be taught to identify and record data when they are engaging in the target behaviors, using a number of self-management principles, thereby decreasing the reliance on external prompts and increasing awareness of their own behaviors”. 

As the student’s involvement increases in Tier 2 interventions, so does their self-awareness, self-advocacy, and self-determination in achieving desired targets.

Summarized Article:

Mallory, P. J., Hampshire, P. K., & Carter, D. R. (2021). Tier 2 Behavior Interventions: By the Student, for the Student. Intervention in School and Clinic, 1053451221994812.

Summary by: Nika Espinosa — Nika believes that personalized learning is at the heart of special education and strives to collaborate with educators in providing a holistic, personalized approach to supporting all learners through the MARIO Framework.

Additional Reference:

  1. Kennedy, E. K. (2015). The Revised SEND Code of Practice 0-25: Effective practice in engaging children and young people in decision-making about interventions for social, emotional and mental health needs. Support for Learning, 30(4), 364–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12106

Researcher Patrick Mallory participated in the final version of this summary.

Key Takeaway

Training for Family Professional Partnerships (FPP) skills in institutions of higher education is essential to provide special educators with the skills needed in supporting families and fostering an inclusive school culture. The FPP skills taught in universities focus on communication, perspective-taking, self-awareness, and legally required skills through the use of case studies, stories, parent interviews, developing communication materials, and volunteering. —Tanya Farrol

Family Professional Partnerships

Building strong Family Professional Partnerships (FPP) is key to successful students in schools. This article explores ways that special education teacher training can support and develop positive partnerships.

Many special educators have found it challenging to develop positive FPPs, noting that families often feel “devalued and powerless”1 in Individual Education Plan (IEP) meetings. While there are many barriers in fostering strong FPPs, most notably is a lack of teacher preparation in universities or higher education. Researchers found that “novice teachers generally feel unprepared to communicate and partner with families, and report that their teacher preparation programs did not address the issue effectively.”2

This study focuses on the decision-making processes of special education faculty in delivering FPP content and skills in higher education. The study collected data using a previous survey where respondents were asked if they would be interested in a follow-up interview study. 

Eighteen participants were interviewed over the phone according to the following protocol: a) demographic information; b) definition of FPP; c) skills and activities used in preparing students for building FPP; and d) preparing students for disputes with families. Based on the interviews, the answers were codified using the NVivo qualitative software program and organized into categories as indicated below.

Definition of FPP

FPP was defined as “educators and families working together to determine and meet student needs”. Here, the intention of FPP was to prioritize working with families as partners and capitalizing on the strengths and the expertise that families bring to a partnership.

FPP Skills

Communication skills are key in establishing relationships. Teachers should use multiple means of communicating with parents—face to face, emails, phone calls, letters, etc.—and ask parents how they would like to be contacted.  

Teachers should not only reach out to parents during IEP times but also when their child has a positive experience in the classroom. Teachers should actively listen to parents and make sure their body language indicates genuine interest in what families are telling them.

Perspective-taking skills focus on understanding the parents’ point of view in order to build relationships and empathy. Teachers may either deem a parent to be over- or under-involved in their child’s education and must learn to look beyond that as many families don’t “have the same tools and resources and knowledge that [they] have.” Also, there may be cultural barriers or other circumstances at home (e.g. additional children with disabilities at home or the parent might have a ‘bad’ experience in a previous IEP meeting) that result in families not being able to work effectively with an educator. Teachers need to make positive assumptions and meet parents where they are to work together.

Self-awareness skills focus on the biases educators have and what cultural beliefs they hold. Teachers need to determine and understand their values and beliefs and how this affects their decision-making processes.

Legal requirement skills focus on understanding the legalities of family involvement in IEP processes under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Teachers need to be trained in knowing the procedural safeguards, legal requirements of parental involvement, and the rights and responsibilities of all people as they relate to the child with learning needs. Additionally, teachers need to know how to mediate if there is conflict between the family and the school or teachers.

Strategies for Teaching FPP Skills

University professors used the following means to support learning FPP skills and building empathy and understanding:

  • Stories—to build empathy and develop communication skills with families
  • Case Studies—to delve into cultural sensitivities, how to respond to different situations, and how to actively listen to families
  • Parent Interviews—determining how parents would like to be contacted and supports they have had in the past
  • Class Discussion & Group Work—practice role-playing various situations and determine how to increase parental collaboration
  • Developing Communication Materials—providing a list of resources for support or templates for running an IEP meeting
  • Volunteering—creating opportunities to work with parents in a different environment (possibly non-academic)

The implications for this study are especially important as many universities need to institute a programmatic focus on teaching FPP skills. This means further research needs to be conducted into evidence-based FPP practices and research into how to enhance FPP in a virtual setting. This virtual perspective has become particularly evident during the pandemic when educators are relying on parents for information about their child and need strong partnerships in order to support the student in their learning. 

Summarized Article:

Francis, G. L., Kilpatrick, A., Haines, S. J., Gershwin, T., Kyzar, K. B., & Hossain, I. (2021). Special education faculty decision-making regarding designing and delivering family-professional partnership content and skills in the U.S. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103419

Summary by: Tanya Farrol – Tanya believes that the MARIO Framework is a personalized learning experience that develops skills and empowers learners to become an integral part of their learning journey.

Additional References

  1.  Mueller, T.G. & Vick, A.M. (2019) Rebuilding the family-professional partnerships through facilitated Individualized Education Programs meetings: A conflict prevention and resolution practice. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 111.
  2. de Bruïne, E.J. et. al. (2014) Preparing teacher candidates for family-school partnerships. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (4), 409-425. http://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.912628

Key Takeaway

For people with severe intellectual disabilities, transitioning to adult services marks a significant point in their lives. It is during these times and beyond that their involvement in big decisions, such as planning transitions, and the relationships between these people and family members have never been more important. This study explores the transition of six individuals with severe intellectual disabilities; the findings highlight how professionals can also form a close relationship with these individuals. — Michael Ho

Understanding Transitions

“While the need to better understand transitions to adult services for people with severe intellectual disabilities has been acknowledged, studies that examine transitions mostly include participants with mild-to-moderate intellectual disabilities”1 This aligns with the need to better understand the unique situation of individuals with severe intellectual disabilities transitioning to adult services.

Jacobs, Quayle, Wilkinson, and Macmahon (2021) investigated the transition experiences of six adults with severe intellectual disabilities, including transitions from school to adult services and moving out of the family home. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between families and professionals, to understand how they work together and what influenced their actions during transitions.

The ethics of care perspective is the backbone of this study that centers around relationships. “Ethics of care is a philosophical theory that emphasises the importance of interpersonal relationships and care to understand human flourishing.”2 It stresses that vulnerability and dependence are central to human life.

The participants’ immediate environments, as well as how far transitions were shaped by organizational practices and political and cultural spheres, were explored. Each case referred to the transition experience of one of the six participants. Information was collected through different data sources and through the perspectives of different stakeholders. In all six transition journeys, the participant was involved in planning their transitions. 

Findings

The study found that the participants were involved in decisions only within their immediate setting and not across ecological levels that included policy-making and service provision. This adds to the evidence that “people with intellectual disability and their families are largely excluded from decision-making processes on wider levels.”3 

There was evidence that participants were valued based on the relationships they had with support in their immediate environment. However, barriers included experiences of scarce resources, inflexible organizational structures, and a gap between the ideals of policies and actual possibilities within practice.

Another key finding highlights that while families, particularly mothers, play a central role in the lives of the child, relationships between people with severe intellectual disabilities and professionals cannot be overlooked.

This study highlights the understanding of transitions as multidimensional, which emphasizes that transitions never just affect one person and that they are influenced by the wider socio-economic context. This relational perspective shows that not only does the person with intellectual disabilities have needs, but their carers and other stakeholders involved also have needs and required support. 

Limitations

There were limitations to this study. First, all six participants were able to access services and involve their families to advocate on their behalf. This may not reflect the reality of other people with severe intellectual disabilities. In addition, the input and responses were from adults who knew and spent time with the participants. Therefore, the researchers cannot claim to represent the views and opinions of the participants themselves. 

Summarized Article:

Jacobs, P., Quayle, E., Wilkinson, H., & Macmahon, K. (2021). Relationships matter! Utilising ethics of care to understand transitions in the lives of adults with severe intellectual disabilities . British Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12380

Summary by: Michael Ho — Michael supports the MARIO Framework because it empowers learners to take full control of their personalized learning journey, ensuring an impactful and meaningful experience.

Additional References:

  1. Foley, K.-R., Dyke, P., Girdler, S., Bourke, J., & Leonard, H. (2012). Young adults with intellectual disability transitioning from school to post-school: A literature review framed within the ICF. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34, 1747–1764.
  2. Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. London: Psychology Press.
  3. Löve, L., Traustadóttir, R., Quinn, G., & Rice, J. (2017). The inclusion of the lived experience of disability in policymaking. Laws, 6, 33.

 Researcher Paula Jacobs participated in the final version of this summary. 

Key Takeaway

Improving our understanding of the mindsets of students with learning disabilities (LD) will permit the implementation of meaningful supports. However, a pilot study was inconclusive whether or not the growth mindset self-beliefs of students with LD were in fact false growth mindsets, wherein students were more focused on effort than more effective resources for support. — Matt Piercy

A False Growth Mindset

Goegan, Pelletier, and Daniels (2021) conducted a pilot study that explored the mindsets of grade 12 students with learning disabilities (LD). Dweck’s (1999) mindset theory1 was the guiding framework, and the authors’ interest was not limited to whether or not students adopted growth or fixed mindsets but questioned whether there would be a clear emergence of false growth mindsets in students. A false growth mindset is one that simplifies the need for support to merely putting in more effort.

The authors investigated the following three research questions: 

  1. Do students with LD score similar to peers on measures of fixed and growth mindsets? 
  2. Within the group, do students with LD identify more with growth or fixed mindsets? 
  3. How do students’ self-beliefs about having LD correspond with mindset messaging?

The Findings

The findings indicated that students with LD do in fact score similar to their peers on measures of fixed and growth mindsets. Yet, when compared within the group, students with LD reported significantly higher growth than fixed mindsets scores. It was inconclusive whether this growth mindset was more than simply tacitly tied to a notion of effort, or what is termed a false-growth mindset. 

When students were asked to self-report on what it means to have a learning disability, two common words surfaced: “hard/harder” (31% response rate) and “work” (25% response rate). For example, “I just have to try harder.” The word “just” was linked in 9% of the responses, suggesting growth equates to effort.

An honest evaluation noted the study’s limitations. “First, participants were a homogenous group of students from one province in Western Canada.” Further, the sample size was 100 students.

Growth-Mindset Messaging

Intriguing, however, was the authors’ suggestion that future research “could be conducted to examine the communication of mindsets messaging from teachers and other school personnel and how the information is adopted by students generally, and students who identify with having a LD in particular, to support the development of accurate growth mindsets.” The intention is to better understand the mindsets of students with LD, so appropriate and meaningful supports can be provided.

Though there are mixed findings relative to whether or not students with LD identify similar levels of growth and fixed mindsets when compared to their peers, the authors remain optimistic about how commonly students, without regard to disability status, are adopting growth mindsets. “Teachers should be providing messaging to all their students that they can indeed grow with effort and appropriate implementation of learning strategies and supports.”2 

Summarized Article:

Goegan, L. D., Pelletier, G. N., & Daniels, L. M. (2021). I Just Have to Try Harder: Examining the Mindsets of Students with LD. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 0829573521998954.

Summary by: Matt Piercy — Matt appreciates how at the heart of the MARIO framework is a passion to develop relationships and a desire to empower students to uncover their purpose while building upon strengths.  Further, Matt is inspired by how the MARIO team supports educators and is quickly and nobly becoming a collaborative force in pursuit of educational equity.

Additional References:

  1. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Psychology Press. 
  2. Dweck, C. S. (2007). Boosting achievement with messages that motivate. Education Canada, 47(2), 6–10.

Key Takeaway

School counselors can play a key role in developing a school-wide, trauma-informed approach to advocating for culturally and linguistically diverse students with emotional and behavioral disorders. A strengths-based, holistic approach to student goal-setting that empowers families by taking unique cultural values into account is essential.  —Akane Yoshida

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students 

While traumatic stress is increasingly prevalent in children and young people, there is evidence to suggest that certain groups of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students are disproportionately affected.1 Moreover, CLD students are more likely to have trauma compounded by the process of assimilation into a new culture, increasing the odds that they will exhibit symptoms of emotional and behavioral disorder (EBD).

In presenting their rationale for focusing on the intersectional needs of CLD students with EBD, authors Hurless and Kong (2021) synthesize existing research on trauma-informed approaches—specifically, that of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)—and provide a concrete framework for school counselors to consider in communicating with families of this population.

The authors set forth their recommended framework according to the phases of an individual education plan (IEP) meeting, as follows:

Before the IEP Meeting

When offering trauma-informed counseling services prior to the IEP discussion, school counselors should adopt a “strengths-based mindset and conceptualize the student’s behaviors as a function of what has happened to them rather than what is wrong with them.” This, combined with promoting school-wide awareness of diversity, can help to establish a safe and trusting climate from which student-centered educational and emotional recommendations can be made.

Hurless and Kong make a strong case for school counselors to meet with students and their families before the IEP meeting in order to communicate the logistics and the purpose of the meeting. Furthermore, maintaining regular communication outside of such formal occasions can “provide consistency and a sense of safety between educators and families.”

During the IEP Meeting

School counselors should validate students’ cultural experiences by openly and collaboratively discussing them as an integral part of the IEP process. They must also ensure that the voices of students and their families are championed as equal partners in the process and avoid reinforcing the power imbalance that often occurs between educator and family.

After the IEP Meeting

The authors state that regular follow-up from the school counselor to families—based on each family’s preferred method and frequency of communication—is crucial.

School counselors “should continue to reflect and examine their personal cultural perspectives to address any biases that can affect the outcomes of IEP meetings,” especially given that:

“[a] truly trauma-informed approach acknowledges personal trauma in addition to the sociopolitical complexity of trauma, which recognizes the role of gender, race, class, and other cultural variables in the establishment of a system of care. Thus, cultural awareness and competence are integral pieces of effective implementation of trauma-informed approaches.” 

Additionally, Hurless and Kong provide a practical list of guiding questions for building supportive relationships with families of CLD students with EBD, as well as examples of group counseling skills for IEP meetings such as active listening, scanning for nonverbal clues, summarizing, and clarifying.

Summarized Article:

Hurless, N., & Kong, N. Y. (2021). Trauma-Informed Strategies for Culturally Diverse Students Diagnosed With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Intervention in School and Clinic, 1053451221994814.

Summary by: Akane Yoshida — Akane believes in the MARIO Approach because it puts student agency at the heart of the learning and goal-setting process. She loves how the MARIO Framework operationalizes this process and utilizes systematic measurement of student learning and teacher effectiveness to guide interventions.

Additional Reference:

  1. Kafer, A. (2016). Un/safe disclosures: Scenes of disability and trauma. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 10(1), 1-20.

Researcher Nicole Hurless participated in the final version of this summary.