Schools can work across the intervention spectrum to promote emotional health and prevent the onset of depression, as well as intervene with students once they have been diagnosed with a depressive disorder. One essential support mechanism is building relationships between students and teachers that can support wellbeing reciprocally. —Frankie Garbutt
There has been a significant increase in numbers of students who are identified with major depressive disorder (MDD)—in Australia about 5% of students and 7.5% of students in the United States. Therefore, it is paramount that schools consider how they will support students with mental health challenges, ensuring they consider the “academic, behavioural, social and emotional implications of the disorder.” In his article, John Burns (Macquarie University, Sydney) outlines “what constitutes best practice” in relation to supporting our students with depressive disorders.
The article adopts a framework that helps in “considering how school-based intervention occurs across the four domains of mental health promotion, prevention, case identification and treatment, as well as maintenance of students with or at-risk of depression.” It sets out to guide practitioners with checklists to identify and support students in a school setting. As outlined in the article, this framework is part of an overall drive to allow students to learn about managing their own physical and mental health in a holistic approach to education.
Prevention
It is argued that although prevention for a whole cohort can reduce signs of depression in students, individualized or small group settings have a higher prevention rate. Moreover, “interventions based on cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) have the strongest evidence of efficacy.” According to Burns, one central prevention strategy schools ought to implement is anti-bullying programs alongside the inclusion of parent meetings and increased playground supervision.
Identification
Before students can receive adequate professional treatment, their symptoms must be identified. Often, trained mental health professionals do not have the capacity to see all students, hence it is vital that all school staff are trained and educated in identifying the signs of depression in adolescents. “This has been best articulated within the suicide-prevention model of teachers being ‘gatekeepers’ who can identify at-risk students and then ensure these young people are linked with appropriate follow-up.” Additionally, schools can use screening systems to identify at-risk students among their cohorts.
Maintenance
Schools can support students by ensuring open dialogues among the parents, students, and any mental health professional working on the student’s case. This should happen alongside a carefully set-out plan for the student on how to manage their symptoms throughout the school day and where to seek support if necessary. However, the student should not attend school if they display elevated signs of suicide risk as this has to be managed externally by relevant professionals.
In regard to academic management, “best practice will require classroom teachers and school systems to make suitable adjustments and accommodations to the academic program that allow the depressed student to fully access the curriculum and demonstrate their learning during assessments.”
The article emphasizes that it does not outline how to support students who self-harm or are suicidal—both signs of depressive disorders—and professionals are advised to select further reading as recommended by the author. Finally, with teaching being such a stressful occupation, there is a correlation between teacher wellbeing and student wellbeing. “Better teacher-student relationships, facilitated by higher teacher wellbeing, becomes a key component to reducing the likelihood of student depression.”
Summarized Article:
Burns, J. R. (2021). Towards best practice in school management of students with depressive disorders. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 31(2), 246-259.
Summary by: Frankie Garbutt – Frankie believes that the MARIO Framework encourages students to become reflective, independent learners who progress at their own rate.
Key Takeaway:
Mind wandering has the potential to negatively impact the process of learning and has become more prevalent with the increased practice of online learning. Self-regulation interventions may be able to decrease mind wandering and should be widely taught to students. —Ashley M. Parnell
Self Directed Learning and Mind Wandering
“Mind wandering, the direction of attention away from a primary task, has the potential to interfere with learning, especially in increasingly common self-directed, online learning environments.” Given the prevalence and negative consequences of mind wandering, this shift towards “self-directed learning environments with minimal supervision and maximal learner control has escalated the importance of the self-regulation of attention to ensure successful learning.”1
Self Regulation to Combat Mind Wandering
Self-regulation can be defined as the ability to manage one’s thoughts, feelings, and actions to achieve a learning goal. “Decades of empirical evidence supports self-regulation’s role in enhancing learning, as well as strategies that may be taught and used to combat mind wandering and encourage on-task focus.”
In response, the current study sought to examine the extent to which mind wandering harms training outcomes in self-directed learning environments, as well as to compare various strategies to prevent off-task thought. Drawing from three core theoretical perspectives on the causes of mind wandering, researchers created three intervention conditions, each focusing on more than one self-regulation strategy as summarized below.
Theoretical Perspectives
Objective & Intervention Strategies
Current concerns hypothesis: Mind wandering occurs when personal concerns and goals are more valued than the primary task
Increase value of the task and decrease other concerns/distractors by:Goal settingEnvironmental structuring (i.e., identification & removal of environmental distractions)
Executive failure hypothesis: Mind wandering is a failure of executive control
Use proactive executive control to direct focus on-task through:Planning of learning activities & objectivesMetacognitive monitoring (constant evaluation of one’s learning progress)Use reactive executive control to suppress cues that trigger mind wandering through:Implementation intentions (i.e., If-then self statements)Time management Environmental structuring
Meta-awareness hypothesis: Mind wandering results from not being aware of the contents of consciousness.
Increase awareness of consciousness through:Mindfulness (attention to & awareness/ acceptance of the present moment)Metacognitive monitoring
Researchers tested these three interventions in two experiments: a field study with 133 working adults and a lab study with 175 college students where participants completed a self-directed online Excel training. While self-regulation interventions and excel training conditions remained the same across studies, setting, timing, and participants differed.
Findings
Researchers reported the following findings based on the two studies conducted:
Mind wandering during training negatively impacts self-directed learning outcomes including knowledge, self-efficacy, and trainee reactions to training.
The negative effects of mind wandering were notably stronger in Study 2, which incorporated less self-pacing and reported lower motivation levels.
Short, one-time, online intervention was not enough to alter use of self-regulation strategies.
Interventions largely failed to impact trainees’ self-regulation, mind wandering, or learning relative to the control group. However, the ineffectiveness of the self-regulation interventions does not indicate that the selected self-regulatory strategies were ineffective in deterring mind wandering.
Correlational results indicated that strategies strongly associated with decreased mind wandering include: “a) practicing mindfulness by being present in the moment, b) forming and utilizing implementation intentions, c) intermittently monitoring performance using self-directed evaluative questions, and d) structuring the learning environment to minimize distractions.”
Considerations & Implications for Practice
Results warranted consideration of the following implications for practice:
Motivation levels matter in training/learning. Designing and delivering self-directed learning in ways that do not bore or overwhelm learners, and incorporating motivational incentives, may decrease mind wandering and, subsequently, the harmful effects of mind wandering.
Initial, albeit limited, results identify strategies that may decrease mind wandering: mindfulness, metacognitive monitoring, implementation intentions, and environmental structuring. Given self-regulation’s inherent role in online learning, efforts to develop effective interventions to teach and develop these self-regulation strategies and skills should continue.
Summarized Article:
Randall, J., Hanson, M., & Nassrelgrgawi, A. (2021). Staying focused when nobody is watching: Self‐regulatory strategies to reduce mind wandering during self‐directed learning. Applied Psychology. 10.1111/apps.12366
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.
Academic researcher Jason Randall participated in the final version of this summary.
Additional References:
Johnson, R. D., & Randall, J. G. (2018). A review of design considerations in e-learning. In D. L. Stone & J. H. Dulebohn (Eds.), Research in human resource management (pp. 141– 188). Information Age Publishing.
Key Takeaway:
As we consider how to structure professional development opportunities aimed at improving educator implementation of intensive intervention, it would be wise to access tools such as Desimone’s (2009) PD framework and Fuchs et al.’s (2018) Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity. This way, the results of professional development may become more clearly identifiable within our MTSS programs. —Erin Madonna
Meta-Analysis of Professional Development Impacts
In this synthesis, McMaster et al. analyzed 26 studies in order to learn more about the impact of professional development (PD) on intensive reading intervention outcomes for students identified as at-risk, “nonresponsive to intervention,” or identified as having a reading-related disability.
The included studies focused on implementers within the school setting, such as content or homeroom teachers, special educators, intervention specialists, or paraeducators. The interventions implemented in the included studies addressed a range of reading skills, with the most common interventions targeting phonics, word reading, and fluency.
Interventions were delivered in one-to-one or small group settings, meeting usually 4 to 5 times a week, and averaged 39 minutes per session. The study team sought to answer the following research questions:
“Research Question 1. How have researchers supported implementation of intensive reading intervention with PD?
Research Question 2. To what extent does this support align with essential PD elements (e.g., Desimone, 20091)?
Research Question 3. How have researchers measured the effects of PD on implementer outcomes?”
Findings
The researchers reported that most PD was delivered in a workshop setting lasting an average of one to two days. Some of the studies used a literacy learning cohort model where an initial training institute was then followed by monthly small-group meetings and personalized coaching. Additionally, a few trainings included modeling and coaching through active practice. Most studies did include an element of ongoing support ranging from weekly to monthly contact time.
Overall, McMaster et al. found that descriptions of the trainings were sparse and left many details out making it difficult to extrapolate the most effective PD practices. This was, in part, largely due to the fact that most of the included studies were primarily focused on the effects of the intervention on student outcomes rather than the effects of PD on teacher implementation. Implementer outcomes that were most frequently cited in the included studies were fidelity and implementer satisfaction and perceptions, with a few studies reporting changes to teacher practice and teacher knowledge.
One compelling finding shared noted that, “Student measures indicated that the PD also influenced student learning. Students whose teachers received ongoing PD outperformed those whose teachers did not on measures of word attack and nonsense word fluency with effect sizes ranging from d = .37 to .46. These results indicate that ongoing PD can result in gains for both teachers and students.”2
In the discussion of Pinnel et al.’s study,3 the authors mentioned that “…teachers who received PD including the one-way glass observations had teacher interactions better tailored to individual children than those who did not receive this training. This finding suggests that the observations and discussions, as well as training hours provided over a longer period, may help teachers be more student specific.”
Limitations and Future Research
The definition of “intensive intervention” adopted by McMaster et al. may have acted as a limitation in this synthesis. Due to the somewhat limited literature base, the authors loosened their definition of intensive intervention so that more studies could be included. This may have impacted findings and future research should consider whether intensive intervention, defined more strictly, requires PD of a different nature.
McMaster et al.’s synthesis presents possible avenues for future research exploring the impact of PD on intensive intervention outcomes. A more direct focus on the connection between PD and implementer outcomes, as well as the incorporation of Desimone’s (2009)1 PD framework, may allow for better articulation of the “causal mechanisms between PD and teacher and student outcomes.” The inconsistent description of the various PD structures and the lack of consensus around how implementer outcomes are best measured made it difficult to glean causal links from the current literature base.
The authors close with the following statement:
“Our hope is that, as research in this area continues to grow, educators will have the necessary tools and support to improve reading outcomes for students with the greatest needs.”
Summarized Article:
McMaster, K. L., Baker, K., Donegan, R., Hugh, M., & Sargent, K. (2021). Professional Development to Support Teachers’ Implementation of Intensive Reading Intervention: A Systematic Review. Remedial and Special Education, 42(5), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520934099
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 multidisciplinary research.
Additional References:
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199. https:// doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140
Brownell, M., Kiely, M. T., Haager, D., Boardman, A., Corbett, N., Algina, J., & Urbach, J. (2017). Literacy learning cohorts: Content-focused approach to improving special education teachers’ reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 83, 143– 164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916671517
Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., Deford, D. E., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 8–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/747736
Key Takeaway:
Social and emotional learning (SEL) continues to grow in popularity in school curriculums as a means to promote academic success and healthy development. However, students with disabilities may require specific interventions that address particular needs, thus calling on general educators to consider the effectiveness of their SEL interventions in order to best support all learners. — Taryn McBrayne
Do Universal SEL Interventions Help All Students?
Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) is becoming increasingly prominent in mainstream classroom curricula. According to Dusenbury et al., (2018), “all states [in the US] have integrated SEL into preschool academic standards and 14 have done so through high school.”1 However, given that many students with special education needs are in general education classroom settings, the authors of this article, Daley & McCarthy (2021), suggest that we must also question “whether and how students with disabilities are considered” in universal SEL interventions in order to determine the effectiveness of such curricula.
Daley & McCarty and CASEL (2015)2 emphasize that SEL interventions for students with disabilities “tend to focus on supporting the skills, knowledge, and strategies of individual students, whereas universal SEL interventions may address individual students’ development, focus broadly on classroom or school climate, or may combine these strands.” The need to accommodate for various learning differences and stages of development, in combination with an overall lack of educator knowledge in this domain,3 means that further attention should be placed on investigating how to improve SEL interventions for all learners, including those with disabilities.
A Systematic Review of Middle and High School Interventions
The authors completed a systematic review of numerous peer-reviewed studies published prior to 2019 in addition to CASEL and RAND reports in an attempt to further understand the effectiveness of universal SEL interventions. The review targeted interventions amongst middle and high school students, given that SEL can be particularly challenging for students with disabilities in this age group, and addressed 3 key research questions:
To what degree are students with disabilities included as participants in studies of universal SEL interventions for middle and high school students?
What evidence suggests attention to students with disabilities in the design of universal SEL interventions for middle and high school students?
What evidence suggests effectiveness of universal SEL interventions specifically for middle and high school students with disabilities?
Key Findings
In response to the first research question:
The authors found that “students with disabilities receive minimal attention in reports of middle and high-school SEL interventions,” meaning that it was unknown whether or not these students were present during SEL interventions or not.
In response to the second research question:
The study found inconclusive results on how much training staff had on providing SEL interventions for students with disabilities.
“Similarly, accommodations, modifications, and differentiation as part of intervention materials were described in only 10 studies,” suggesting that training materials may not be accessible in most schools.
However, most literature mentioned various differentiation models, including school-wide positive behavioral intervention and supports (PBIS), multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), or a comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered model of prevention, showing promise for supporting all learners.
In response to the third research question:
Four studies involving a bullying prevention intervention showed that “students with disabilities tended to exhibit different intervention effects than peers without disabilities,” yet the long-term success of these effects remained unclear.
Based on the analysis provided by Daley & McCarthy, several implications can be drawn. To begin, the literature review demonstrates the need for increased reporting on the percentage of students with disabilities and the documentation of the type of disability in SEL interventions in order to better evaluate the effectiveness of universal interventions. As well, it is evident that educators require additional training on best practices for differentiation, such as Universal Design for Learning. A third implication is the “potential role of approaches used in special education practice to more directly inform the design of universal SEL interventions.”
In conclusion, Daley & McCarthy acknowledge that “because the majority of studies do not specify whether students with disabilities were included . . . these findings merely reflect what has been reported.” Thus, more robust data is required in order to provide a more nuanced investigation into the topic. Regardless, it is apparent that additional support is needed to improve the inclusivity of universal SEL interventions.
Summarized Article:
Daley, S. G., & McCarthy, M. F. (2021). Students With Disabilities in Social and Emotional Learning Interventions: A Systematic Review. Remedial and Special Education, 42(6), 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520964917
Summary by: Taryn McBrayne — Taryn believes in the power of student voice and, through the MARIO Framework, strives to create more opportunities for both educators and students to regularly make use of this power.
CASEL. (2015). 2015 CASEL guide: Effective social and emotional learning programs—Middle and high school edition. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. https://casel.org/middle-and-high-school-edition-casel-guide/CASEL. (n.d.).
Pavri, S., & Hegwer-DiVita, M. (2006). Meeting the social and emotional needs of students with disabilities: The special educators’ perspective. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560500242200QSR International Pty Ltd. (2018). NVivo for Mac [Computer software].
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:
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 ofspecial 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:
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.
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:
The transition from high school to college presents significant challenges for students with ADHD given the reliance on strong executive functioning skills for successful academic performance and independent daily living. However, providing opportunities to develop in key areas such as self-determination prior to graduation from high school, both within educational and home environments, can help to improve college readiness for students with (and without) ADHD. —Taryn McBrayne
What was Shared:
While all first-year college students encounter challenges associated with the transition from high school to independent living, young adults with ADHD tend to face increased difficulties. According to Weyandt & DuPaul (2013),1 “college students with ADHD tend to have lower grade point averages (GPAs), take longer to graduate, and have higher dropout rates than those without ADHD.” In their article, authors Canu et al. (2021) seek to explore how “ADHD-related cognitive deficits” may impact the transition to college for those students diagnosed with ADHD.
Canu et al. (2021) outline three key domains that may influence overall readiness and successful adaptation to higher education, including self-determination, academic skills, and daily living skills.
Self Determination
“Self-determined people understand their own strengths and weaknesses, can solve problems, regulate their behavior, and effectively make decisions.”2 As stated by Canu et al. (2021), students with ADHD tend to “have characteristics that could impede various facets of self-determination,” including challenges with executive functioning, behavioral inhibition, and self-regulation.
Academic Skills
“Different expectations of professors and the structural differences of the college curriculum” may make for increased academic challenges for students with ADHD. As Maitland & Quinn (2011)2 noted, “critical reading, note taking, study skills . . . are all among the competencies that are important” in supporting students with ADHD in their college careers.
Daily Living Skills
Canu et al. (2021) explain that “impairment in general life skills is positively associated with ADHD’s cardinal symptoms of hyperactivity–impulsivity and inattention.” Therefore, “skills such as money management . . . and organization of one’s living space [that] are important for successful transition to college”3 are more likely to be underdeveloped in those with ADHD.
Key Findings
Considering these three aforementioned domains, the authors conducted a study of 2,893 participants from 4 different universities across the United States, 347 of which identified as having ADHD. The key findings of the study can be found below:
“Evident deficits emerged for the college students with ADHD in the readiness area of self-determination and academic readiness area (i.e., managing assignments, taking notes, and preparing for tests).”
“Even more distinct deficits in readiness were noted for college students with ADHD in the daily living area.”
Academic achievement in high school contributes to “at least a portion of the readiness gap between those with and without ADHD.”
Readiness deficits and their associated impacts were most notable in women with ADHD.
It is important to note that previous treatment for ADHD (ie. medication), led to an increased likelihood that students were able to be more aware of and mitigate academic impairments related to ADHD, improving college readiness.
Key Implications
Interventions at home or school prior to the end of high school may help to address readiness, particularly in the area of self-determination.
Collaboration between parent and child is key in preparing students with ADHD for college. Canu et al., suggest that “parents should promote experiences that can lead to readiness skill development as opposed to simply scaffolding the completion of their child’s tasks” (i.e., laundry, cooking, etc.).
Future studies in this area should explore how identification as part of a minority group and socioeconomic status may influence overall readiness, and further investigation into the role of executive functioning in this transition is recommended.
Summarized Article:
Canu, W. H., Stevens, A. E., Ranson, L., Lefler, E. K., LaCount, P., Serrano, J. W., Willcutt, E., & Hartung, C. M. (2021). College Readiness: Differences Between First-Year Undergraduates With and Without ADHD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(6), 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420972693
Summary by: Taryn McBrayne — Taryn believes in the power of student voice and, through the MARIO Framework, strives to create more opportunities for both educators and students to regularly make use of this power.
Researcher Will Canu participated in the final version of this summary.
Additional References:
Weyandt, L. L., & DuPaul, G. J. (2013). The performance of college students with and without ADHD: Neuropsychological, academic, and psychosocial functioning. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 35, 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9351-8
Maitland, T. E. L., & Quinn, P. O. (2011). Ready for takeoff: Preparing your teen with ADHD or LD for college. Magination Press.
Sibley, M. H., & Yeguez, C. E. (2018). Managing ADHD at post-secondary transition: A qualitative study of parent and young adult perspectives. School Mental Health, 10, 352–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-018-9273-4
Key Takeaway
Tiered prevention models to promote student learning outcomes have been evidenced to support educator well-being with teachers demonstrating self-efficacy and reduced levels of burnout relative to national norms. This suggests that the implementation of tiered systems could facilitate greater teacher efficacy and well-being as they feel more capable of meeting the educational needs of a diverse range of learners. —Ayla Reau
Three-Tiered Models
Many schools have adopted tiered systems like Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), Response to Intervention (RTI), Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), Interconnected Systems Framework (ISF), and Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-tiered models (Ci3T). “These models offer a school-wide structure to provide educators with clarity of roles, prioritize evidence-based practices to promote all students’ learning, use data to proactively identify students who exhibit additional needs, and inform targeted interventions to address identified needs.”
Past research suggested that the use of tiered systems at the elementary level could lead to an increase in “educators’ commitment to students and positive feelings toward colleagues.” Lane et al. wanted to extend this line of inquiry and examine educators’ well-being (efficacy and burnout) after two years of implementation of a Ci3T model in secondary schools.
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered Model
As with many three-tier models, Tier 1 in a Ci3T model encompasses all students and meets most student needs. Tier 2 supports are additive and provide support for 10% – 15% of students, while Tier 3 supports are intended for the 3% – 5% of students with the most intensive educational needs. The Ci3T model “relies on the use of evidence-based programs, practices, and interventions to meet students’ needs” and uses “data [from multiple sources] to inform instructional decisions and target professional learning opportunities.” It also is unique in how it addresses academic, behavioral, and social and emotional well-being in one model.
Efficacy and Burnout
According to the authors, two other important terms to define are efficacy and burnout.
Sense of efficacy relates to the “degree to which teachers feel confident in their ability to navigate effectively their environment to teach, engage, and manage student behavior.”
Burnout happens when “individuals’ abilities to cope with work-related stressors are overwhelmed, leading them to experience one or more of the three core constructs of burnout: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization (i.e., cynical and emotionally withdrawn), and a lack of personal accomplishment.”
Results
The results mirrored previous findings from the primary level educators. Reports from middle and high school teachers showed comparable emotional exhaustion levels with the national norm. However, they “reported substantially lower levels of depersonalization and higher levels of personal accomplishment.” With regard to the participants’ sense of efficacy, the authors found that “self-efficacy related to student engagement was below the national sample, but self-efficacy related to classroom management was above the national average.” Participant educators also reported higher levels of efficacy related to instructional strategies.
Tiered systems such as Ci3T can offer educators pathways for data-informed decision-making at the student and educator level in order to connect students to relevant higher-tiered supports. “Tiered systems can [also] assist educators by offering clearly defined roles, school-wide policies and procedures, and a collaborative structure for general and special educators to collectively support students’ learning and well-being as well as educators’ well-being.”
While the results are in favor of tiered system implementation in schools, the results featured in this study should be cautiously interpreted. Data from the study were confined to only one geographical locale and only one phase of Ci3T implementation (end of the second year of implementation).
Summarized Article:
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Royer, D. J., Menzies, H. M., Brunsting, N. C., Buckman, M. M., Common, E. A., Lane, N. A., Schatschneider, C., & Lane, K. S. (2021). Secondary Teachers’ Self-Efficacy During Initial Implementation of Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered Models. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 23(4), 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720946628
Summary by: Ayla Reau—Ayla is excited to help continue to grow the MARIO Framework, seeing the potential for it to impact all students across any educational context.
Researchers Wendy Oakes, Kathleen Lane, and Nelson Brunsting were involved in the final version of this summary.
Key Takeaway
Competency in social communication can be an indicator of how socially desirable one is when meeting new people. For people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), their conversational fluidity can be predictive of friendships and subsequent social and emotional success in early adulthood. In order to address the lack of conversation fluidity among the ASD population, video feedback intervention is one evidence-based strategy that can make a difference in their verbal interaction. —Michael Ho
Video Feedback Intervention
Tagavi, Koegel, Koegel, and Vernon (2021) examined the efficacy of a video feedback intervention to improve conversational fluidity in young adults with ASD. Specifically, the authors aimed to determine whether a video-feedback intervention would improve conversational fluidity, question-asking, and overall social conversational desirability in young adults with ASD. In addition, the participants self-reported their confidence in social communication and their application of what they learned in the intervention to various natural settings.
The following research questions were addressed:
Will a video-feedback intervention decrease the number of long, awkward pauses young adults make in a conversation with a typically developing (TD) peer?
Will a video-feedback intervention increase the number of on-topic questions young adults make in a conversation with a TD peer?
Will participation in this intervention lead to an increase in peer ratings of social desirability for these individuals?
Will these individuals increase their confidence in their own social communication skills as well as find the intervention acceptable and enjoyable?
Here are the major takeaways from the article:
The Need for Conversation Skills for Adults with ASD
Tagavi et al. (2021) refer to Sasson et al. (2017)1 – “Starting in adolescence, social conversation skills become increasingly important, as there seem to be strict, yet unspoken, communication norms that determine whether an exchange is successful or not.” The success of one’s social communication can contribute to initial social impressions and can determine the desire for future interactions or a sustained relationship.
“Social challenges affect individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) of all ages and developmental levels.”2 These individuals typically have fewer frequencies of successful peer interaction; lower levels of self-esteem; and higher rates of loneliness, anxiety, and depression.
Video feedback intervention, which is a type of video modeling that involves the viewing and evaluating of an individual’s previously filmed performance, is known to be useful for individuals with ASD because of their strong visual perception skills, tendency to think concretely, and ability to apply the skill in multiple contexts over a prolonged period of time.
Increased Conversational Fluidity for Three Adults
Three adults with ASD, with an average age of 23 years, participated in this study. All intervention sessions were conducted in a clinic room at the University Autism Center. Three baseline sessions over 10 weeks were conducted before the interventions in order to collect data on their current performance in conversational fluidity.
In response to the first research question, all three participants improved in their ability to use questions, filler words, and follow-up statements to fill in gaps in conversations. This indicates a decrease in the number of long, awkward pauses and an increase in conversational fluidity.
In response to the second research question, all three participants increased their use of on-topic questions to a rate comparable to their TD peer. On-topic questions were questions the participants asked that were connected to the main topic discussed in the conversation.
In response to the third research question, raters, who were blind to this study, scored all participants as being more socially desirable during and after the intervention.
In response to the fourth research question, the participants’ self-reports showed that all participants reported improvements in the confidence to communicate and the ability to ask questions following the intervention. They also reported that they found the interventions acceptable and enjoyable.
“Participants were able to learn and utilize skills with a variety of peers, indicating that conversational skills learned through video feedback are generalizable.” It is evident that video feedback is not only a powerful tool to increase conversational fluidity but also serves as a gateway to successful social communication across multiple contexts.
Limitations
There are several limitations in this study. First, in addition to conversational fluidity, there are other conversational skills that could also be targeted. Moreover, this study did not compare video feedback to other types of interventions on conversational fluidity. Another limitation of this study is the limited diversity of participants, who were all Caucasion males in their early adult years. Finally, there is limited research on the generalization technique to teach social communication skills to young adults; testing generalization more explicitly is recommended in future studies.
Summarized Article:
Tagavi, D., Koegel, L., Koegel, R., & Vernon, T. (2021). Improving Conversational Fluidity in Young Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorder Using a Video-Feedback Intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 23(4), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720939969
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:
Sasson, N. J., Faso, D. J., Nugent, J., Lovell, S., Kennedy, D. P., & Grossman, R. B. (2017). Neurotypical peers are less willing to interact with those with autism based on thin slice judgments. Scientific Reports, 7, Article 40700.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
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:
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.
Curious how MARIO Education can enhance your school’s advisory or learning support programs? Schedule a no-obligationdemo with our team and discover how our innovative tools and 1-to-1 learning conversations can elevate student success and well-being in your school. Book your demo today!
