Research-Based
Academic Interventions
Matthew K. Burns, Ph.D.
University of Minnesota
Module Overview
Academic Deficits
 Criteria for Interventions
 Additional Resources
 Summary
 Review Questions

2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
2

National Assessment of Educational
Progress:
of 4th and 8th graders achieved grade-level
proficiency in reading (National Center for
Educational Statistics 2005).
 Less than 33% of 4th grade students scored
within a proficient range in math (Manzo &
Galley, 2003).
 Between 24% and 31% of students in grades 4,
8, and 12 performed at or above the proficient
level for writing (NCES, 2002).
 29%
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
3
Addressing Deficits
Early academic deficits continue without
remediation (Baker, Gersten, & Graham,
2004; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Karns, 2001;
Stanovich, 1986
 Instruction is the only way to “close the
gap”

2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
4
Meta-analysis by Kavale & Forness (1999)
Intervention
Remember, .80 is large, .50 is medium Average
and .20 is small (Cohen, 1988). Effect Size
Perceptual training
Modality instruction
If visual, teach them visually, etc.
Psycholinguistic training
Direct instruction
Explicit reading comprehension strategies
Mnemonic strategies
Futures Task Force on Academic
2008
Outcomes
.08
.15
.39
.84
1.13
1.62
5




2008
Many interventions for academic deficits do
not have an adequate research base.
Interventions with a solid research base are
often not commonly used in practice.
School psychologists need to be adequate
consumers and synthesizers of applied
research (Keith, 2002).
There is an extensive literature on effective
instructional practices for students with
academic deficits (Gersten, Schiller, & Vaughn,
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
2000; Kavale & Forness, 1999; 2000; Swanson,
6
Empirical research and professional
wisdom (Whitehurst, 2002).
 Developed from sound theory,
demonstrated effectiveness, and
consistent implementation (Ellis, 2005).
 Task Force on Evidence-Based Practices
in School Psychology

 Division
16, SSSP, & NASP
 Published a procedural and coding manual
http://www.sp-ebi.org/documents/_workingfiles/EBImanual1.pdf
Futures Task Force on Academic
2008
Outcomes
7
Intervention Research - Consider
Clearly stated random design
 How well the program is described
 Statistical analysis

 Appropriate
unit of analysis - school, class, or
student
 Family wise error controlled with MANOVA or
corrected alpha levels
 Appropriate analysis
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
8
More Considerations
Uses measures that results in reliable data
and valid decisions
 Uses an active comparison group with
sufficient counterbalancing

2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
9
Single-Case Designs
Perhaps most appropriate for intervention
research
 Includes baseline data

 Should
have at least 3 points but more are
preferred
 Should be stable and represent a problem

Intervention data
 Level
should not overlap baseline
 Trend differences from baseline
 Slope should be
greater than baseline
Futures Task Force on Academic
2008
Outcomes
10
Review of research syntheses found five
common components of a research-based
academic intervention:
 Correctly targeted
 Explicit instruction
 Appropriate challenge
 Opportunities to respond
 Immediate feedback

 With
contingent reinforcers
Burns, VanDerHeyden, & Boice (in press).
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
11
Effective
interventions are matched to the
student’s current learning stage
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
12
Acquisition
Proficiency
Maintenance
Generalization Adaption
Learning is
slow and
inaccurate
Academic skill Retention of Can use the
is accurate, but the skill over a new skill and
slow
period of time information with
different
Use
Use delayed
Use delayed settings and
stimuli
modeling and reinforcement independent
immediate
with novel
practice
feedback
practice
Use high
opportunities
content overlap
reading tasks
or instructional
e.g., timings
games with
such as math
different stimuli
facts and oral
Can use the
new skill and
information to
solve
problems
Use
information to
solve
contextual
problems
reading fluency
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
13
Phonemic Awareness
Phonics
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
Berninger et al., 2006
14
Focus on Comprehension
YES
START HERE
Assess Fluency
Fluent?
NO
Assess Phonetic Skills
Adequate?
YES
Fluency Intervention
Accuracy or Proficiency
NO
Assess Phonemic Awareness
Adequate?
YES
Phonics Intervention
Accuracy or Proficiency
NO
Phonemic Awareness
Intervention
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
15
Explicit Instruction


Break down the skills into manageable and
deliberately sequenced steps
Provide overt instruction in the skills and opportunities
to practice (Roshenshine & Stevens, 1986).

Step by step manner
 Clear and detailed explanations
 Mastery of each step is assured before moving on to the next


2008
“I do” (presentation of materials), “we do” (guided
practice), and “you do” (independent practice).
Uses a high number of teacher questions and student
responses with frequent checks for understanding.
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
16
Students Need an Appropriate
Level of Challenge
If instruction is too easy, students won’t
learn
 If instruction is too hard, students will give
up
 Instruction needs to be at the right level of
challenge

2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
17
Behavior of Children Identified as LD During Reading Instruction
Task Completion
Time On Task
Task Comprehension
Baseline
Frustration
(Gickling & Armstrong, 1978)
Instructional
Independent
100
Percentage of Intervals
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
18




2008
Match between skill and task demand – called
the instructional level
Measured with Curriculum-based Assessment
for Instructional Design (Gickling &
Havertape,1981)
Improves student learning (Burns, 2002;
Burns, 2007a; Daly, Witt, Martens, & Dool,
1997; Shapiro, 1992).
Match between student skill and instructional
material is an important functional variable for
student learning within RTI (Gresham, 2001).
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
19
Instructional Level-Reading

Importance of match
 Measured
with percent accuracy
 93% - 97% known material (Gickling &
Thompson, 1985)
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
20
Instructional Level-Drill Tasks

Drill tasks include spelling, math facts,
sight words
 70%
to 85% known (Gickling & Thompson,
1985)
 Could be 90% known for some tasks
(Burns, 2004)
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
21
Instructional Level: Math

What to measure
 Best
measured with fluency rather than
accuracy
 2nd and 3rd grade – 14 to 31 digits
correct/minute
 4th and 5th grade – 24 to 49 digits
correct/minute
(Burns, VanDerHeyden, & Jiban, 2006)
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
22
High Opportunities to Respond

Research has consistently found that
providing more student opportunities to
respond (OTR; Greenwood, Delquadri, &
Hall, 1984) by increasing the number of
presentations while rehearsing new items
led to improved retention of the newly
learned items (Burns, 2004).
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
23
Opportunities to Respond (OTR)


Comparisons of various instructional approaches (e.g.,
computer-assisted instruction and flashcard methods)
found that the increased OTR was the causal
mechanism (Burns,2007b; MacQuarrie, Tucker, Burns,
& Hartman, 2002; Szadokierski & Burns, in press;
Wilson, Majsterek, & Simmons, 1996),.
Examples of effective approaches:

Paired peer practice (DuPaul, Ervin, Hook, & McGoey, 1998;
Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997).
 Interspersing new item to be rehearsed within previously
learned ones at a ratio including at least 50% known (Burns,
2004).
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
24
Feedback
 Feedback
is the information regarding
the accuracy and correctness of a
student response.
Should
match the stage of learning.
The earlier the student is in skill
development (i.e., acquisition phase), the
more immediate and explicit the feedback
should be.
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
25
Overcorrection

Overcorrection (Singh, 1987) may be an
effective feedback strategy.
 Corrective
feedback is provided.
 Student is then asked to provide the correct
response three times in quick succession.
 Has been used successfully in reading
instruction (VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Naquin,
2003; Bonfiglio, Daly, Martens, Lan-Hsiang, &
Corsaut, 2004).
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
26
Sources for Academic Interventions

2008
Journals
School Psychology Review
Journal of Evidence Based Practices in
Schools
Education and Treatment of Children
Intervention in School and Clinic
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
27
Sources for Academic Interventions

Websites
 www.interventioncentral.com
 www.fcrr.org
 http://kc.vanderbil.edu/pals
 www.whatworksed.gov
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
28
Summary
National data have shown that many U.S.
students have deficits in basic academic
skills
 Specific features of instruction have an
effect on learning outcomes
 Interventions should be selected on the
basis of effective methods and students’
instructional level

2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
29
Review Questions
The following slides include review
questions about the information contained
in this module
 Click to advance to the next slide
 After reading the slide and questions, click
again to see the correct answer

2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
30
A) Which of the following is
important for well-designed
research?
1.
2.
3.
4.
2008
Federal funding
Random assignment of subjects
Hypothesis
None of the above
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
31
A) Answer: #2
Random assignment of subjects
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
32
B) What of the following are
important features of effective
instruction?
1.
2.
3.
4.
2008
Teacher preference, cost, assessment
Feedback, grading policy, presentation
Benchmarking, progress monitoring,
exploring solutions, defining,
identification
Explicit instruction, opportunities to
respond, immediate feedback
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
33
B) Answer: #4
Explicit instruction, opportunities to
respond, immediate feedback
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
34
C) What are the 5 stages of
learning?
4.
Acquisition, Practice, Adaptation,
Generalization, Maintenance
Practice, Practice, Practice, Practice,
Practice
Acquisition, Proficiency, Maintenance,
Generalization, Adaptation
None of the above
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
1.
2.
3.
35
C) Answer: # 3
Acquisition, Proficiency, Maintenance,
Generalization, Adaptation
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
36
D) What is the best starting point
for identifying reading instruction
needs?
1.
2.
3.
4.
2008
Comprehension
Fluency
Vocabulary
Phonemic Awareness
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
37
D) Answer: #4
Fluency
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
38
E) What type of teaching do
students need:
1.
2.
3.
4.
2008
Frustration level
Instructional level
Independent level
None of the above
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
39
E) Answer: #2
Instructional Level
2008
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
40
References
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Graham, S. (2003). Teaching
expressive writing to students with
 learning disabilities: Research-based applications and
examples. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 109-123.
 Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Vermeulen, K., & Fulton,
C. M. (2006). Paths to reading comprehension in at-risk
second-grade readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
39, 334-351.
 Bonfiglio, C. M., Daly, E. J., III, Martens, B. K., LanHsiang, R. L., & Corsaut, S. (2004). An experimental
analysis of reading interventions: Generalization across
instructional strategies, time, and passages. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 111-114.
 Burns, M. K. (2002). Comprehensive system of
assessment to intervention using curriculum-based
assessments. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 8Futures Task Force on Academic
13.
41
Outcomes
2008





2008
Burns, M. K. (2004). Empirical analysis of drill ratio
research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks.
Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167-175.
Burns, M. K. (2007a). Reading at the instructional level
with children identified as learning disabled: Potential
implications for response–to-intervention. School
Psychology Quarterly, 22, 297-313.
Burns, M. K. (2007b). Comparison of drill ratio and
opportunities to respond when rehearsing sight words
with a child with mental retardation. School Psychology
Quarterly, 22, 250-263.
Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Boice, C. H. (in
press). Best practices in delivery intensive academic
interventions. . In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best
practices in school psychology (5th ed.). Bethesda, MD:
National Association of School Psychologists.
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
42




2008
Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Jiban, C. (2006).
Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A
comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35,
401-418.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic
Press.
Daly, E. J., III, Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Dool, E. J.
(1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of
academic performance problems. School Psychology
Review, 26, 554-574.
DuPaul, G. J., Ervin, R. A., Hook, C. L., & McGoey, K. E.
(1998). Peer tutoring for children with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder: Effects on classroom behavior
and academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 31, 579-592.
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
43




2008
Ellis, A. K. (2005). Research on educational innovations
(4th ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Karns, K. (2001). Enhancing
kindergartners’ mathematical development: Effects of
peer-assisted learning strategies. Elementary School
Journal, 101, 495–510.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C.
(1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making
classrooms more responsive to diversity. American
Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206.
Kavale, K. A. & Forness, S. R. (1999). Effectiveness of
special education. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin
(Eds.) The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed., pp.
984-1024). New York: John Wiley.
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
44




2008
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). Policy decisions
in special education: The role of meta-analysis. In R.
Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.),
Contemporary special education research: Synthesis of
the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp.
281-326). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gersten, R., Schiller, E. P. & Vaughn, S. (Eds.)
Contemporary special education research:Syntheses of
the knowledge base on critical instructional issues.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gickling, E. E., & Armstrong, D. L. (1978). Levels of
instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task
completion, and comprehension. Journal of Learning
Disability, 11, 559-566.
Gickling, E. E. & Havertape, S. (1981). Curriculumbased assessment (CBA). Minneapolis, MN: School
Psychology Inservice Training Network.
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
45




2008
Gickling, E., & Thompson, V. (1985). A personal view of
curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52,
205-218.
Gresham, F. (2001, August). Responsiveness to
intervention: An alternative approach to the identification
of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Learning
Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future,
Washington D.C.
Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic
instructional technology: An instructional hierarchy. In N.
G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen
(Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–
40). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Keith, T. Z. (2002). Best practices in applied research. In
A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school
psychology-IV (pp. 91-102). Bethesda, MD: National
Association of School Psychologists.
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
46





2008
MacQuarrie-Klender, L. L., Tucker, J. A., Burns, M. K., &
Hartman, B. (2002). Comparison of retention rates
using traditional, Drill Sandwich, and Incremental
Rehearsal flashcard methods. School Psychology
Review, 31, 584-595.
Manzo, K. K., & Galley, M. (2003). Math climbs, reading
flat on ’03 NAEP. Education Week,
23(12), 1-18.
National Center for Educational Statistics, (2005). NAEP
2004 trends in academic progress:
Three decades of student performance in reading and
mathematics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education Institute of Education Science.
National Center for Educational Statistics, (2002). The
condition of education 2002 (NCES 20020025).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Educational Research and Improvement.
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
47




2008
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching
functions. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research
on training (3rd ed., pp.376-391). New York, NY:
Macmillam.
Shapiro, E. S. (1992). Use of Gickling's model of
curriculum-based assessment to improve reading in
elementary age students. School Psychology Review,
21, 168-176.
Singh, N. N. (1987). Overcorrection of oral reading
errors. Behavior Modification, 11, 165-181.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading:
Some consequences of individual differences in the the
acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,
360-407.
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
48




2008
Swanson, H. L. (2000). What instruction works for
students with learning disabilities?
Summarizing the results from a meta-analysis of
intervention studies. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S.
Vaughn (Eds.) Contemporary special education
research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical
instructional issues (pp. 1-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Swanson, H. L, Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999).
Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A
meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York:
Guilford.
Szadokierski, I., & Burns, M. K. (in press). Comparison
of drill ratios and opportunities to respond within drill
rehearsal of sight words. Journal of School Psychology.
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
49



2008
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C. & Naquin, G. (2003).
Development and validation of a process for screening
referrals to special education. School Psychology
Review, 32, 204-227.
Whitehurst, G. J. (2002, October). Evidence-based
education. Presentation at the U.S. Department of
Education’s Student Achievement and School
Accountability Conferences. Available online at
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/whatworks/eb/edliteindex.html.
Wilson, R., Majsterek, D., & Simmons, D. (1996). The
effects of computer-assisted versus teacher-directed
instruction on the multiplication performance of
elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 29, 382-390.
Futures Task Force on Academic
Outcomes
50