Key Takeaway

Students with significant disabilities deserve to (and can) learn academic skills from the general education curriculum along with the functional skills needed to master daily living. Teachers and paraprofessionals should ensure they provide a balance of these skill areas in a child’s educational program. The challenge of providing high-quality academic instruction can be addressed in part by utilizing evidence-based best practices to target academic skills. —Ayla Reau 

Why Focus on Academic Skills?

Authors Cannella-Malone, Dueker, Barczak, and Brock list three compelling reasons for a focus on academic skills.

  • A focus on academic skills can lead to improved outcomes in adulthood as “increased literacy and mathematical competencies that can expand job opportunities, broaden leisure skills, and promote independent living.”
  • Students with significant disabilities are capable of making progress in the general education curriculum. 
  • All students with disabilities should have access to academic instruction since all students deserve to have access to inclusive and quality education. 

The authors conducted a systematic literature review of 225 experiments in 222 articles published in 54 peer-reviewed journals between 1976 and 2018 in order to analyze academic instruction for students with significant intellectual and developmental disabilities across all areas of academic content. 

Post-School Outcomes

The increased focus on academic outcomes for all students across the years has led to an exponential increase in the number of studies in this field. With regard to students with significant disabilities, research has shown that it is possible to teach both academic and functional skills effectively and “in a way that promotes positive post-school outcomes for students with disabilities.”

A majority of the participants in these studies of academic interventions have moderate disabilities. While students with severe and profound disabilities have had the least attention paid to them with regard to academic instruction, they are known to have the worst post-school outcomes. It could be argued that “access to functional reading, writing, math, science, and social studies could have a dramatic impact on outcomes for these students.”

Content and Instructional Strategies

Studies disproportionally focus on reading skills, with a majority of studies targeting sight word instruction. “However, there are a growing number of studies moving beyond simple, rote targets and focusing on more complicated skills such as reading comprehension across content areas, essay writing, and math word problems.”

While the authors identified 16 instructional strategies used to teach academic skills, the studies mainly focus on five—reinforcement, prompting, time delay, modeling, and visual support. The 16, in order of reported use, are: 

  • Reinforcement 
  • Prompting 
  • Modeling 
  • Visual support 
  • Time delay 
  • Technology-aided instruction 
  • Least-to-most prompting 
  • Scripting 
  • Discrete trial training 
  • Peer-mediated instruction 
  • Naturalistic intervention 
  • Video modeling 
  • Graduated guidance 
  • Early reading intervention
  • Most-to-least prompting
  • Varied error correction

Learning Context

A majority of studies did not frame academic instruction within a functional context. The authors recommend that “a shift from targeting single skills to teaching relevant skills within a functional framework would likely increase the efficiency of instruction and potentially have a more powerful impact on students.”

Most studies used only a one-to-one format for instruction, with a few using small groups alone or in combination with one-to-one. Most also occurred in a self-contained special education classroom. The authors “found the lack of focus on teaching academic skills in general education surprising given that previous research has shown that students make more progress in the general education curriculum when instruction is provided in the general education [classroom] setting.”

Practical Application

Since students with significant intellectual and developmental disabilities can acquire and make progress with academic skills across content areas, teacher training should ensure that new teachers engage with both functional and academic content. Educators should also be using evidence-based practices such as reinforcement, prompting, time delay, visual supports, and modeling to teach academic skills. There is also additional research that supports the effective use of these strategies by paraprofessionals who assist teachers in providing academic instruction. 

Summarized Article:

Cannella-Malone, H. I., Dueker, S. A., Barczak, M. A., & Brock, M. E. (2019). Teaching academic skills to students with significant intellectual disabilities: A systematic review of the single-case design literature. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 1744629519895387.

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.

Researcher Scott Dueker participated in the final version of this summary.

Key Takeaway

Memory aids are being used as accommodations more often than before, and the question of whether they are actually necessary or if they are depriving students of learning effective study and retrieval strategies—leading to an extended dependence on unnecessary accommodations—is arising. —Shekufeh

Are Memory Aids Fair? 

Memory aids have been gaining popularity in schools as an accommodation for students who need cues to enhance memory recall. In their article, Harrison, Holmes, and Pollock (2021) raised some questions on whether this is a tool that can continue to be used in an equitable manner at a post-secondary level or if it is depriving students of the opportunity to learn effective study skills and recall strategies. 

“Memory cues enhance memory functioning of all individuals,” and providing these cues “to only a few individuals in a class would raise significant issues of reverse discrimination and accommodation fairness.”1 Memory aids “should be provided only in very specific and limited circumstances.” 

However, in practice, this accommodation appears to be recommended more and more frequently in the K-12 school system. As Roberts (2012) notes, “accommodations are meant to level the playing field . . . not tilt it to the student’s advantage, or act as insurance against failure.”2

Does a Student Need a Memory Aid? 

In order for a student to qualify for the accommodation of a memory aid, a clinician would need to determine the following:

(a) the student actually learned the information that was taught;

(b) despite trying their hardest, they failed to remember this learned information; 

(c) they could remember the stored information when given cues; and 

(d) that the difference between their spontaneous recall and cued recall is significantly larger than for most other students.

Long-term memory disorders are “extremely rare in children or young adults.”3 Kibby & Cohen (2008) elaborate that “even children with severe learning or attention problems fail to have impaired long-term recall of previously learned information.”4 To document the need for a memory aid, one must first establish that retrieval of information from long-term memory is faulty. Therefore, it should be quite rare to require memory aids at either the level of school or beyond, unless the student has a documented severe neurological disorder. 

One recent ruling concluded that “the purpose of granting accommodations . . . is to ensure that test-takers with disabilities are neither disadvantaged nor advantaged in comparison with non-disabled test-takers.”5 However, in school environments, the focus is on maximising a student’s learning by accommodating any potential disabilities that student may present with. 

Adolescents or young adults in school often mistakenly believe they have “long-term memory problems when, in fact, they never paid attention to or learned the information in the first place.”6 It may feel like a memory problem to them (or to others who interact with them) when in fact the problem is one of an initial attention deficit, as you cannot remember that to which you did not pay attention.

Summarized Article:

Harrison, A. G., Holmes, A., & Pollock, B. (2021). Memory Aids as a Disability-Related Accommodation? Let’s Remember to Recommend Them Appropriately. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 36(3), 255-272.

Summary by: Shekufeh – Shekufeh believes that the MARIO Framework builds relationships that enable students to view the world in a positive light as well as empowering them to create plans that ultimately lead to their success. 

Additional References:

  1. Duchnick, J. J., Vanderploeg, R. D., & Curtiss, G. (2002). Identifying retrieval problems using the California Verbal Learning Test. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(6), 840–851.
  2. Roberts, B. (2012). Beyond psychometric evaluation of the student—task determinants of accommodation: Why students with learning disabilities may not need to be accommodated. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27(1), 72–80.
  3. Majerus, S., & Van Der Linden, M. (2013). Memory disorders in children. In O. Dulac, M. Lassonde & H. B. Sarnat (Eds.), Handbook of clinical neurology, Volume 111: Pediatric neurology part 1 (pp. 251–255).
  4. Kibby, M. Y., & Cohen, M. J. (2008). Memory functioning in children with reading disabilities and/or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A clinical investigation of their working memory and long-term memory functioning. Child Neuropsychology, 14(6). 525–546.
  5. Cohen v. Law School Admission Council, 537 CANLII. (HRTO 2014). https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2014/2014hrto537/2014hrto537.html
  6. Watson, J. M., & Strayer, D. L. (2010). Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 479–485.

Researcher Allyson Harrison participated in the final version of this summary. 

Key Takeaway

Research suggests that teacher reprimands do not decrease students’ future disruptive behavior or increase their engagement levels. Instead, teachers should focus on proactive classroom management strategies, such as explicitly teaching classroom expectations, using behavior-specific praise, and reinforcing positive behavior as a way to encourage desired behavioral outcomes in the classroom. —Jay Lingo 

Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD)

“Many teachers resort to using reprimands in attempts to stop disruptive student behavior,” particularly amongst those students with emotional or behavioral challenges. 

Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) may experience many challenges in school and often present commonly identified characteristics including aggression, attention and academic problems, antisocial behavior, low classroom engagement, high rates of disruptive behaviors, and mental health challenges. 

“The ways in which teachers and students interact can affect outcomes for students with EBD. There can be positive outcomes if the teacher–student interactions are positive and teachers have been able to increase the on-task behavior, or engagement, and decrease disruptions of students in their classrooms.” 

While teacher reprimands may suppress misbehavior momentarily, they do not appear to be effective in decreasing students’ disruptive behavior or increasing their engagement over time. Limitations and implications are also discussed. 

Reprimands: How Effective Are They?

Caldarella et al.’s study emphasizes that the “ways in which teachers and students interact can affect outcomes for students with EBD. Teachers who deliver low rates of negative feedback (e.g., reprimands) and high rates of positive feedback (e.g., praise) may be particularly effective with students with EBD when providing multiple teaching and learning opportunities that enhance students’ engagement.”

Furthermore, reprimands have been linked to escape-motivated behaviors, aggression, and further disruptive behavior. The use of reprimands for students with or at risk for EBD can be especially problematic, given the specific challenges faced by these students. The current study found that teacher reprimands did not appear to decrease future disruptive behavior or increase future engagement for students at risk for EBD, or vice versa. 

The results of the study show that although they may temporarily suppress misbehavior they do not result in long-term positive behavior change. This might be because reprimands do not directly teach students the skills needed to improve their behavior, and thus, students may continue to exhibit negative behavior and continue receiving reprimands. Another problem is that reprimands are reactive: a student acts disruptively and a teacher reprimands the student. 

The Alternative to Reprimands

Instead, the focus should be on effective teaching techniques and proactive behavior management strategies to decrease disruptions and increase engagement.

“Reprimands are meant to stop misbehavior. However, in the current study, teacher reprimands did not appear to help decrease future classroom disruptions or increase future engagement of students at risk for EBD.” This should not be surprising, as harsh reprimands in schools have been associated with negative side effects such as anger, fear, escape, and avoidance rather than improved student behavior. In addition to being harmful to teachers and their students, reprimands prove less effective than positive classroom behavior management strategies. “Teachers who use reprimands also report higher levels of emotional exhaustion than their peers who do not.” 

Given the findings of the current study, along with those of previous researchers, it is recommended that teachers replace reprimands with proactive classroom management strategies, such as clearly teaching classroom expectations, reinforcing positive student behavior, and using behavior-specific praise, as primary responses to student misbehavior and disengagement.

Summarized Article:

Caldarella, P., Larsen, R., Williams, L.,  Wills, H., & Wehby, J. (2020). “Stop Doing That!”: Effects of Teacher Reprimands on Student Disruptive Behavior and Engagement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, Vol. 23 (2). DOI:  10.1177/1098300720935101.

Summary by: Jerome Lingo— Jerome believes the MARIO Framework is providing structure and common meaning to learning support programs across the globe. Backed up with current research on the best practices in inclusion and general education, we can reimagine education…together.

Key Takeaway: Children with reading disorder (RD) have an increased risk of anxiety disorders, the most common mental health disorder in children. Fortunately, preliminary research suggests that an improvement in anxiety symptoms is associated with an improvement in academic performance over time. These findings highlight the importance of practitioner awareness of the common co-occurrence of RD and anxiety and provide support for: 1) screening for anxiety disorders in children diagnosed with RD and 2) comprehensive intervention that addresses both academic and mental health needs of children with RD. —Ashley Parnell

Reading disorder (RD), a type of specific learning disorder (SLD) that involves impairment in word reading, reading fluency, and/or reading comprehension, is common in the general population, with reported prevalence ranging from 5% to 17%. Children with RD have an increased risk for developing other psychiatric disorders, including anxiety disorder, and show higher anxiety levels than children without learning disabilities. However, “this co-occurrence is often under-recognized and under-treated resulting in less than optimal outcomes in all areas including emotional outcomes.”1

Given these concerns and statistics, the purpose of the current study from Hossain, Bent, and Hendren was to examine the association between anxiety symptoms and overall academic performance in children with RD, in hopes that a better understanding of this relationship would result in improved screening and treatment. 

Participants included 128 children (aged 7-14) from three special education schools that specialized in teaching students with RD. Teachers completed two rating scales every three months for two years, one that measured anxiety symptoms and another that measured academic progress in content areas including reading, writing, and math. 

Comparison of the two measures occurred over the two-year time period and at each time point of survey completion, both revealing a significant association between anxiety and academic performance with increased levels of anxiety symptomatology being associated with poorer academic performance in children with RD. Of specific importance, findings suggest that an improvement in an individual’s anxiety symptoms is associated with an improvement in their academic performance over time. 

Given the prevalence of anxiety and RD in isolation and comorbidly, these findings highlight the importance of screening for anxiety disorders in children that have been diagnosed with RD upon diagnosis and on a regular basis. Once identified, an interdisciplinary, comprehensive, targeted intervention that addresses both academic and mental health needs is recommended.

Summarized Article:

Hossain, B., Bent, S., & Hendren, R. (2021). The association between anxiety and academic performance in children with reading disorder: A longitudinal cohort study. Dyslexia.

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.

Additional Reference: 

  1. Hendren, R. L., Haft, S. L., Black, J. M., White, N. C., & Hoeft, F. (2018). Recognizing Psychiatric Comorbidity With Reading Disorders. Frontiers in psychiatry, 9, 101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00101

Key Takeaway: In evaluating the intervention strategies we employ with students, we must consider both global effectiveness and effectiveness for target populations, as the success of the intervention may differ depending on the student population it is serving. As educators, we strive to be measured in practice, so monitoring the impact of an intervention within our own unique context is one way to responsibly apply what we have learned from the research base. —Erin Madonna

Self-questioning (SQ) strategy intervention is designed to engage the learner in monitoring their own understanding as they read, increasing their active construction of meaning in the process. Previous studies have shown SQ to be an effective intervention for improving comprehension, and it is cited in both the National Reading Panel report (2000)1 and Willingham’s subsequent analysis (2006-2007)2 as being supported by conclusive evidence. Furthermore, “past systematic reviews for this student population have shown that combining self-questioning strategy with paragraph restatement/summarization,3 main idea generation, and text structure analysis4 have yielded positive outcomes.”

Daniel and Williams’ purpose in undertaking this review was to address the lack of specificity in previous syntheses pertaining to the effect of the SQ strategy instruction on the development of reading comprehension skills in struggling K-12 readers rather than on a heterogenous population as previous reviews have undertaken. 

Comprehension strategies have the potential to enable struggling readers to digest text as proficient readers would.5 There are two categories of SQ strategies that have been explored in previous studies: top-down and bottom-up. The top-down strategy puts the question-generation responsibility on the student, asking them to pose and answer their own questions while reading a text. The bottom-up approach involves the teacher generating questions prior to reading, with the student actively seeking answers during the reading of the text. One benefit of a top-down approach, as shared by the authors, is that students are able to generalize their use of the strategy to other contexts. “Teaching students to independently use the strategy through a top-down approach provides them with tools to problem solve comprehension failures independently. Hence, only interventions that used the top-down approach to learning self-questioning strategy were included in this synthesis.”

Ten studies met the criteria for inclusion pertaining to the diagnostic category of students: experiment design, isolated SQ strategy instruction utilizing student-generated questions, the use of measures of reading comprehension, and English language instruction. There were 129 students identified as having a reading-based learning disability, and 137 students identified as struggling readers were included in this review. Students with comorbidity of additional diagnoses were not included. The frequency, cohort size, and duration of the strategy instruction varied between the included studies.  

In discussing the results of the included studies as well as findings from their literature review, the authors highlighted some potential hypotheses indicated in the data:

  • The “self-questioning strategy may be more effective for students who are moderately below grade level in reading.”6
  • “Students who read three or more years below grade level may need more intensive interventions such as increased frequency and duration of sessions to gain proficiency in strategy use.”7 
  • The SQ strategy may be more effective with elementary students than with secondary students.8,9 
  • “While both explicit and non-explicit strategy instruction may be beneficial for improving struggling readers’ reading comprehension, explicit strategy instruction may improve generalization and allow students to use self-questioning strategy independently.”
  • “While self-questioning strategy may benefit some students, we recommend that teachers monitor students’ comprehension outcomes and if the strategy is not having the desired effect, to consider alternative reading comprehension strategies.”

This review did not find conclusive support for the effectiveness of isolated SQ strategy instruction for students identified with a learning disability or as a struggling reader, but it did identify avenues for further investigation. The authors were careful to note important limitations to the current synthesis, namely the scarcity of research directly measuring the isolated SQ strategy amongst students identified with a learning disability or as struggling readers, small sample sizes in the included studies, and the challenge of isolating the impact of the SQ strategy in studies looking at multiple interventions.

Summarized Article: 

Daniel, J., & Williams, K. J. (2019). Self-questioning strategy for struggling readers: A synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 0741932519880338.

Summary by: Erin Madonna – Erin philosophically aligns with the MARIO Framework’s deeply rooted conviction 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.

Additional References: 

  1. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
  2. Willingham, D. T. (2006–2007). The usefulness of brief instruction in reading comprehension strategies. American Educator, 30(4), 39–50.
  3. Sencibaugh, J. M. (2007). Meta-analysis of reading comprehension interventions for students with learning disabilities: Strategies and implications. Reading Improvement, 44(10), 6–22. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ765530
  4. Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995-2006: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 423–436. doi:10.1177/0741932509355988
  5. Pressley, M., Borkwski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: What it is and how education can promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 857–867.
  6. Nolan, T. E. (1991). Self-questioning and prediction: Combining metacognitive strategies. Journal of Reading, 35, 132–138.
  7. Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Murray, C. S., & Roberts, G. (2012). Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. Portsmouth, NH: Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
  8. Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G. J., Vaughn, S., & Stuebing, K. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369–390
  9. Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541–561.]

Key Takeaway: Students with multiple disabilities (SMDs) deserve the right to communicate effectively. One way to meet their needs is to implement Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC), an assistive technology that enhances their inclusion into general education classrooms. Special educators believe that barriers to AAC are due to a lack of access to AAC, lack of professional development, and lack of support for families. Being aware of these barriers will allow us to develop the best solutions to support communication needs for SMDs. —Michael Ho

Rashed Aldabas (2021) investigated special education teachers’ perspectives regarding barriers and facilitators when using Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) with students with multiple disabilities. The author acknowledges that an assistive technology like AAC has the potential to facilitate language acquisition and communication competence among SMDs. More importantly, the author emphasizes that the use of AAC not only enhances inclusion into general education classrooms and increases levels of spoken language but it also decreases problem behaviors among SMDs.

The author investigated the following four research questions: 

  1. How do special education teachers perceive barriers to using AAC with SMDs?
  2. Are there significant differences in teachers’ perspectives regarding barriers to using AAC with SMDs based on: (a) gender; (b) previous use of AAC; and (c) attendance of AAC training programmes?
  3. Are there significant differences in teachers’ perspectives regarding barriers to using AAC with SMDs based on: (a) previous teaching experience; (b) level of education; and (c) number of students taught?
  4. How do special education teachers perceive facilitators when using AAC with students with multiple disabilities?

Here are the major takeaways from the article:

  • Aldabas (2021) refers to Raghavendra et al. (2012)1 and Rubin et al. (2009)2—“Students with severe disabilities, including SMDs, who have difficulties using natural speech in order to meet all of their communicative needs, are usually at high risk for reduced participation, with poorer peer relationships and greater exclusion from classroom activities.” Assistive technologies, including AAC, are able to support those students with these barriers.
  • The main barriers to effective integration of AAC within schools were associated with staff inadequacy, lack of AAC resources, lack of teacher training, a lack of college-level courses covering essential skills and knowledge about AAC, and lack of ongoing team collaboration between teachers and students.
  • Aldabas (2021) quotes Bruce, Trief, & Cascella (2011), “Language plays a key role when considering to use AAC.” Bruce, Trief, & Cascella (2011) found that teachers of SMDs noted that there were many benefits when using tangible symbols intervention, but the symbols needed to be labelled in both English and the family’s primary language. This indicates that language can also be a significant barrier. 
  • 172 special education teachers of SMDs participated in this study. The study was conducted in all schools in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia that offer educational services to different types of students including SMDs. The data was collected using a non-probability convenience sampling.
  • In response to the first research question, special education teachers identified the following top three barriers to using AAC with SMD: Difficulty in obtaining high- or low-tech AAC because of expense and lack of availability, difficulty in obtaining high- or low-tech AAC supporting the Arabic language, and lack of family collaboration in supporting the use of AAC. 
  • In response to the second research question, female special educators had a higher awareness of their lack of knowledge and skills as barriers to AAC use compared to their male counterparts. Additionally, special educators who had experience with using AAC viewed these barriers more seriously than those who did not. Participants who had attended training on AAC were more knowledgeable about these barriers than those who had not attended training.
  • In response to the third research question, the participants’ teaching experience, the level of education, and the number of SMDs taught did not have an effect on the respondents’ perceptions of barriers associated with teaching SMDs.
  • In response to the fourth research question, the participants perceived the following as the top facilitators of AAC for students with disabilities: providing a special room with AAC, providing AAC support in the Arabic language, providing AAC at affordable prices, and providing sufficient times to train SMDs to use AAC.
  • “The most significant barriers for [the participants] were access to AAC, family support, and professional training, all of which should be supplied by the school environment, namely, the school administration . . . The three sets of facilitators—teacher training, awareness programmes, and SMDs’ family collaboration—could go a long way to addressing some of the most serious barriers to AAC as identified by respondents” (Aldabas, 2021).
  • The study has a few limitations, such that the sample size is relatively small and that the data is restricted to schools in Riyadh. Moreover, the participants were special educators only. Future research could target other stakeholders and other geographical locations. Research on barriers and facilitators other than schools, students, and teachers may provide a more holistic understanding of the effectiveness of AAC among SMDs. 

Summarized Article:

Aldabas, R. (2021). Barriers and facilitators of using augmentative and alternative communication with students with multiple disabilities in inclusive education: Special education teachers’ perspectives. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(9), 1010-1026.

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. Raghavendra, P., C. Olsson, J. Sampson, R. Mcinerney, and T. Connell. 2012. “School Participation and Social Networks of Children with Complex Communication Needs, Physical Disabilities, and Typically Developing Peers.” Augmentative and Alternative Communication 28 (1): 33–43. doi:10.3109/07434618.2011.653604; 
  2. Rubin, K. H., W. M. Bukowski, and B. Laursen. 2009. Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups. New York, NY: Guilford.

Key Takeaway: Narrative skills play a crucial role in social and academic development, yet prove challenging for students with language disorders. Practitioners can optimize the chances of successful oral narrative intervention through the use of (1) icon cards to represent macrostructure narrative elements and/or pictures to support the telling of the target narrative, (2) repeated student retellings of the entire target narrative, and (3) teacher modeling of narratives. —Ashley Parnell

According to authors Pauls and Archibald,1 “The ability to tell a story is particularly important for school-age students,” and narrative ability has been broadly linked to improved social and academic outcomes. Narrative skills are critical to developing and maintaining friendships and are predictive of later academic skills, including reading comprehension, writing, and vocabulary. 

Children with language disorders and language problems associated with Down syndrome, intellectual disabilities, fragile X, Williams syndrome, and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) display difficulties with many aspects of narration, requiring targeted instruction and intervention to develop these skills. Oral narrative interventions target macrostructural (i.e., story structure & organization) and microstructural aspects of narrative discourse (i.e., linguistic devices at the sentence level) through the telling and retelling of stories.

In a recent systematic review of the literature, Favot et al. examined the efficacy, quality, and common features of oral narrative intervention on the narratives of children with language disorders. Favot et al. reviewed 24 research articles published between 1993 and 2018, involving three hundred twenty-six participants between 5 years 1 month and 16 years 2 months with varying degrees of language disorder.  

Overall, findings of the review suggest that “oral narrative intervention is likely to be effective” across individuals with varying ages, degrees of language disorder, and co-occurring disabilities. Despite generally good quality and results of the single case studies, confident conclusions could not be drawn regarding efficacy due to the low quality and variable results reported by group research studies. Suggestions for future research included: 1) conducting more robust, group research designs, 2) investigating the effect of intervention on students with more significant disabilities and the inclusion of generalization measures, and 3) evaluating the effect of intervention on personal narrative skills.

Based upon their review, the research team identified common features of effective oral language interventions. Practitioners should consider incorporating the following features in order to optimize the chances of successful intervention: 

  • Macrostructure frameworks or rubrics which identify and sequencing core elements (i.e., setting including characters, initiating event/problem, attempts to solve, resolution) 
  • Icon cards to represent macrostructure elements and/or pictures to support the telling of the target narrative 
  • Repeated retelling of the entire target narrative as opposed to partial retellings
  • Clinician modelling of target narratives

Summarized Article:

Favot, K., Carter, M., & Stephenson, J. (2020). The effects of oral narrative intervention on the narratives of children with language disorders a systematic literature review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 33, 489-536.

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.

Additional References:

Pauls, L.J. & Archilbald, L. (2021). Cognitive and linguistic effects of narrative-based language intervention in children with Developmental Language Disorder. Autism and Developmental Language Impairments, 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/23969415211015867

Key Takeaway: Research has indicated that parental training and coaching programmes can be effectively translated into the student’s natural environment. Studies have also provided support for using routines-based models to improve the quality of goals in early intervention/early childhood special education professional training programmes. —Emmy Thamakaison

Sara Movahedazarhouligh (2021) at the University of Northern Colorado shares her systematic review investigating the effectiveness of family-centered practices in naturalistic settings and the early-intervention of such practices in parent training.

The routines-based (RB) family-centered approach was suggested to be functional in naturalistic settings for toddlers with Down syndrome, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or developmental delays. Specifically, using “varied family-identified routines” resulted in “parents [being] more likely to use communication strategies” and “children [being] more likely to use targeted communication skills,” Movahedazarhouligh (2021) quotes Brown & Woods (2015).1

  • Modelling intervention practices and providing parents with opportunities to implement interventions has been reported to correspond with “positive changes in [children’s] communication skills” and results in better unprompted requests in children with ASD and partial hemispherectomies, based on research by Meadan et al. (2013),2 Ingvarsson (2011),3 and Chaabane et al. (2009).4
  • The family-centered approach of problem-solving is suggested to have “contributed to the stability and durability of reductions in challenging behaviour” of young learners in a study by Moes & Frea (2002).5
  • Other family-centered approaches, including written instructions, performance-based feedback, and role-play, have also been suggested to contribute to improvement in aspects such as “children’s independent work skills,” “social interaction,” and “participation in play dates” based on work by Welterin et al. (2012),6 and Jull & Merinda (2011).7

Approaches focusing on RB interventions are also suggested to be beneficial in training programmes for interventionists, as they “improved quality ratings of goals and objectives” and resulted in “professionals’ knowledge, understanding, confidence, and home visiting skills [increasing] from pre to post-intervention.”

The effectiveness of other family-centered approaches other than RB in Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education training programmes are yet to be explored in a wider context.

Though further research is needed, there is a “growing body of evidence” that has “validated many of the theoretical links between family-centered approaches . . . and desirable outcomes for families with a child with disability.” Therefore, practices that employ family-centered care and encourage parent-implemented interventions are encouraged as an early intervention for some children with special needs.

Article Summarized: Movahedazarhouligh, S. (2021). Parent-implemented interventions and family-centered service delivery approaches in early intervention and early childhood special education. Early Child Development and Care, 191, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2019.1603148

Summary by: Emmy Thamakaison—Emmy is a recent high school graduate attending Stanford University and is an enthusiastic advocate of MARIO Framework.

Additional References:

1. Brown, J. A., & Woods, J. J. (2015). Effects of a triadic parent-implemented home-based communication intervention for toddlers. Journal of Early Intervention, 37(1), 44–68. doi:10.1177/1053815115589350

2. Meadan, H., Meyer, L. E., Snodgrass, M. R., & Halle, J. W. (2013). Coaching parents of young children with autism in rural areas using internet-based technologies: A pilot program. Rural Special Education Quarterly; Morgantown, 32(3), 3–10.

3. Ingvarsson, E. T. (2011). Parent-implemented mand training: Acquisition of framed manding in a young boy with partial hemispherectomy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(1), 205–209. doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-205

4. Chaabane, D. B. B., Alber-Morgan, S. R., & DeBar, R. M. (2009). The effects of parent-implemented PECS training on improvisation of mands by children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(3), 671–677.

5. Moes, D. R., & Frea, W. D. (2002). Contextualized behavioral support in early intervention for children with autism and their families. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32(6), 519–533. doi:10.1023/A:1021298729297

6. Welterlin, A., Turner-Brown, L. M., Harris, S., Mesibov, G., & Delmolino, L. (2012). The home teaching program for toddlers with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(9), 1827–1835. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1419-2

7. Jull, S., & Mirenda, P. (2011). Parents as play date facilitators for preschoolers with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(1), 17–30. doi:10.1177/1098300709358111

Key Takeaway: School climate is a critical component for successful school outcomes. The type of engagement occurring between students, faculty, and the community, the level of safety, and environmental factors all affect school climate. With school-wide programs focusing on specific domains, like School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports for discipline and social and emotional learning for safety, schools can change the perceptions and overall climate. – Ashley Parnell

A safe, supportive school climate is critical for school effectiveness. From teacher longevity, satisfaction, and stress to student academic achievement, problem behavior, and social-emotional health, the impact of school climate on all stakeholders is well supported by research. 

The association of school climate and key school outcomes supports the need for educators to be concerned with creating and sustaining a healthy school climate. Yet, evidence regarding ways to implement change remains limited and reviews focusing on the effects of intervention to improve school climate have not been conducted.

In this systematic review, Charlton, Moulton, Sabey, and West examined methodological quality and findings from 18 experimental studies evaluating the effects of schoolwide intervention programs on teacher and student perceptions of school climate.

Specifically, school climate refers to the comprehensive social and physical conditions, which involve three critical/core domains (DoE, 2014): 

  • Engagement. Relationships between students, teachers, families, and the broader community.
  • Safety. Schools and school-related activities where students are safe from violence, bullying, harassment, and controlled substance use.
  • Environment. Facilities, resource & technology access, teacher-student ratios, and teacher-student retention.

Researchers summarized and analyzed all available experiential research on the topic while prioritizing the highest quality literature when drawing conclusions.

Evidence identified supports the following key conclusions:

  • Careful, systematic implementation of schoolwide programs is likely to improve multiple domains of school climate, specifically the engagement and environment domains for School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) and social and emotional learning (SEL).
  • Findings suggest that programs targeting specific domains of school climate (e.g.., SWPBIS for discipline, SEL for emotion safety) seem effective in changing perceptions. 
  • School climate improvement is amenable to change. This review identified evidence supporting the malleability of school climate and the finding that schoolwide intervention can improve school climate.

While these findings are encouraging, some limitations and recommendations of the current study as they relate to: a) the quality of literature, b) definitions of independent variables, and c) measures of school climate warrant consideration. 

Summarized Article:

Charlton, C.T., Moulton, S., Sabey, C.V., West, R. (2021). A systematic review of the effects of schoolwide intervention programs on student and teacher perceptions of school climate. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions. 23(3), 185-200.

Summary by: 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.