Pilot Study on Student Processing Dysfunction

Bernadette Harris UNF College of Education & Human Services Graduate School

Hypothesis:
Hypothesis: My hypothesis is that Cs cognitive behavior is unintentional. I believe the environmental antecedent to be physiological; that is to say that I believe C has a processing disorder that affects his comprehension of material presented to him. My hypothesis about his aggressive behavior toward his peers is diversion and that the antecedent is that C is frustrated by his processing problems and his inability to answer comprehension questions. I believe that as a manifestation of this frustration, and in an effort to divert attention away from his processing problem, he is acting out to shift the focus of his peers and teacher. I believe that the maintaining reinforcer of the cognitive behavior is a lack of interest and motivation on Cs part, and the maintaining reinforcer of the aggressive behavior is that it successfully relieves him of having to continue his reading instruction.

Observations: (Baseline Data)

Codes: T = time observed A= activity T/O= time on task SG= small group 1/1= one on one Ind= independent work

Data Collection:
Mon
T 45

Tues

Wed

Thurs
A T/0

Fri
T A T/O

A T/O T S 15 G

A T/O T

A T/O T

30 S 10 G

30 S 10 G

40 S 20 G

60 I 15 N D A T/O

A T/O T

A T/O T

A T/O T

A T/O T

60 S 20 G

40 S 15 G

30 S 10 G

45 S 15 G

60 I 15 N D

Proposed Interventions According to Literature Study:

According to Mattison (2008), students with reading disabilities often also have emotional disabilities, which attests to things like outwardly aggressive behaviors. Sadly, according to Mattison (2008), many times academic testing is performed in an isolated fashion and the ED is overlooked. Therefore, the recommended first intervention is a comprehensive cognitive and academic battery of testing in order to identify any and all issues, rather than isolating one and neglecting to identify another.

According to Wallach (2011), an important intervention to use with students with suspected or confirmed auditory processing deficits is explicit reading instruction. The student should be taught self-monitoring strategies such as decoding, using context clues to pronounce unfamiliar words, and explicit vocabulary and word instruction. This includes breaking down words and sounds, and reteaching letter and word sounds, digraphs and blends.

According to Boudreau and Costanza-Smith (2011) another aspect to be considered with comprehensive processing deficits is the students working memory and the demands that the childs current curricular instruction is placing on those demands (aka cognitive overload). The language being used to give instruction / question, the rate the instruction is being delivered at, as well as the cognitive demand of the amount of information to be processed. Using simpler language, and chunking the instructions and tasks into smaller, more manageable may be necessary in working with students with processing disorders and reading disabilities.

According to a study conducted by Powers & Mandal (2011), guided oral reading is a very intricate part of Response to Intervention for students who demonstrate low reading comprehension. Small group and one-on-one guided reading instruction on a daily basis improve fluency and comprehension. According to Powers & Mandal, consistent and frequent practice of grade level reading material is the most effective intervention for these students. Their extensive study measured explicit components of student reading ability, including comprehension, word attack and vocabulary recognition.

This intervention suggestion is again supported by Spencer & Manis (2010) , who conducted a study of middle school students with severe reading disabilities. They used a control group of students who received one-on-one reading instruction from teachers and paraprofessionals daily. They were given DRA testing, timed fluency reading tests. Based on the results of those, the students instructional reading level was identified and they were given the same text to reread over and over until they improved their fluency. In the study, Spencer & Manis noted that with increased fluency, the students demonstrated increased comprehension. Their experimental group worked with Great Leaps, a reading intervention online program focused on improving fluency.

Additional Observations:
Family Issues: Up until this school year, C lived in his mothers primary custody and had very poor school attendance. His CUM folder does not indicate any RTI programs or behavioral modification plans in place, nor did C have an IEP or 504 Plan in his file. He did, however, repeat a grade. His father attained custody of him shortly before the beginning of the current school year, and seems to have been unaware of his academic difficulties. Although the father seems to be well educated and a very capable parent, even after two interviews with the father, C is still not completing homework assignments regularly.

Physiological/Constitutional : C demonstrates an almost excessive need for physical contact. He cannot walk past any of his teachers or adult figures that he works with on a regular basis without insisting on hugging them. He is very tall and a bit awkward in stature for his age, but he doesnt seem to feel self-conscious about this around his peers. Communicate need: C seems to be saying I just dont understand any of this and Im not really interested in trying to. He is very slow moving in his general body movement as well as his cognitive awareness.

Academic Interventions: RTI Tier II

Curriculum/Instruction: In an effort to improve Cs cognitive behaviors during one-on-one and small group work, he has been assigned peer work buddies, and allowed to work in a variety of heterogeneous groups. In these settings, he also does not contribute to the task or take part in group assignments. His partner or peers end up having to complete the assigned task entirely without his input. One example is a group writing project that the students worked on for several weeks. C was to contribute at least a few paragraphs to the story, but his peers could not get him to participate and provide any ideas. Finally, he was assigned a peer buddy who gave him a great deal of prompting and supplied a fair amount of the text for him, allowing him to just minimally contribute to his own writing piece. His peers were producing 4-10 pages of writing. Cs finished piece was one side of one page. In math, he demonstrates only a slightly better ability to do computations and solve problems independently, although when asked to explain his reasoning or how he arrived at an answer, he does not respond.

Additional Interventions (Tier II)

C will have differentiated morning literacy warm up to improve fluency and comprehension All reading/language arts assessments will be taken in ESE room with ESE coordinator assisting One-on-one guided reading practice twice per week in addition to small group instruction Modified assignments in reading and language arts, to include content and length requirements to meet current levels of demonstrated proficiency Modified participation requirements during small group and whole class instruction Modified assignments in Science and Social Studies A minimum of 8 wks documented interventions to move to Tier III by end of January 2012 if sufficient progress is not made in Tier II

References:
References: Boudreau, D. & Costanza-Smith, A. (2011). Assessment and treatment of working memory deficits in school-age children: the role of the speechlanguage pathologist. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 42, 152-166. Mattison, R.E. (2008). Characteristics of reading disability types in middle school students classified ED. Journal of Behavioral Disorders, 34(1), 27-41. Powers, K. & Mandal, A. (2011). Tier III assessments, data-based decision making and interventions. Contemporary School Psychology, 15. Spencer, S.A. & Manis, F.R. (2010). The effects of a fluency intervention program and comprehension outcomes on middle school students with severe reading deficits. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(2), 7686. Wallach, G.P. (2011). Peeling the onion of auditory processing disorder: a language/curricular-based perspective. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 42(3).