pilot study on student processing dysfunction

8/3/2019 Pilot Study on Student Processing Dysfunction

1/14

Pilot Study on Student

Processing Dysfunction

Bernadette HarrisUNF College of Education &

Human ServicesGraduate School


2/14

Hypothesis:

Hypothesis: My hypothesis is that Cs cognitive behavior isunintentional. I believe the environmental antecedent to bephysiological; that is to say that I believe C has a processingdisorder that affects his comprehension of material presented tohim.

My hypothesis about his aggressive behavior toward his peers isdiversion and that the antecedent is that C is frustrated by hisprocessing problems and his inability to answer comprehensionquestions. I believe that as a manifestation of this frustration,and in an effort to divert attention away from his processingproblem, he is acting out to shift the focus of his peers and

teacher. I believe that the maintaining reinforcer of thecognitive behavior is a lack of interest and motivation on Cs part,

and the maintaining reinforcer of the aggressive behavior isthat it successfully relieves him of having to continue his readinginstruction.


3/14


4/14

Data Collection:

Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri

T A T/O T A T/O T A T/O T A T/0 T A T/O

45 SG

15 30 SG

10 30 SG

10 40 SG

20 60 IND

15

T A T/O T A T/O T A T/O T A T/O T A T/O

60 SG

20 40 SG

15 30 SG

10 45 SG

15 60 IND

15


5/14

Proposed InterventionsAccording to Literature Study:

According to Mattison (2008), students withreading disabilities often also have emotionaldisabilities, which attests to things like outwardlyaggressive behaviors. Sadly, according to

Mattison (2008), many times academic testing isperformed in an isolated fashion and the ED isoverlooked. Therefore, the recommended firstintervention is a comprehensive cognitive andacademic battery of testing in order to identify any

and all issues, rather than isolating one andneglecting to identify another.


6/14

According to Wallach (2011), an importantintervention to use with students with

suspected or confirmed auditoryprocessing deficits is explicit readinginstruction. The student should be taughtself-monitoring strategies such as

decoding, using context clues to pronounceunfamiliar words, and explicit vocabularyand word instruction. This includesbreaking down words and sounds, and

reteaching letter and word sounds,digraphs and blends.


7/14

According to Boudreau and Costanza-Smith(2011) another aspect to be considered withcomprehensive processing deficits is the students

working memory and the demands that the childscurrent curricular instruction is placing on thosedemands (aka cognitive overload). The languagebeing used to give instruction / question, the ratethe instruction is being delivered at, as well as the

cognitive demand of the amount of information tobe processed. Using simpler language, andchunking the instructions and tasks into smaller,more manageable may be necessary in workingwith students with processing disorders and

reading disabilities.


8/14

According to a study conducted by Powers& Mandal (2011), guided oral reading is avery intricate part of Response to

Intervention for students who demonstratelow reading comprehension. Small groupand one-on-one guided readinginstruction on a daily basis improve

fluency and comprehension. According toPowers & Mandal, consistent and frequentpractice of grade level reading material isthe most effective intervention for these

students. Their extensive study measuredexplicit components of student readingability, including comprehension, wordattack and vocabulary recognition.


9/14

This intervention suggestion is again supported by Spencer& Manis (2010) , who conducted a study of middle schoolstudents with severe reading disabilities. They used acontrol group of students who received one-on-one reading

instruction from teachers and paraprofessionals daily. Theywere given DRA testing, timed fluency reading tests. Basedon the results of those, the students instructional readinglevel was identified and they were given the same text toreread over and over until they improved their fluency. In thestudy, Spencer & Manis noted that with increased fluency,the students demonstrated increased comprehension. Theirexperimental group worked with Great Leaps, a readingintervention online program focused on improving fluency.


10/14

Additional Observations:

Family Issues: Up until this school year, C livedin his mothers primary custody and had very poorschool attendance. His CUM folder does notindicate any RTI programs or behavioral

modification plans in place, nor did C have an IEPor 504 Plan in his file. He did, however, repeat agrade. His father attained custody of him shortlybefore the beginning of the current school year,and seems to have been unaware of his academic

difficulties. Although the father seems to be welleducated and a very capable parent, even aftertwo interviews with the father, C is still notcompleting homework assignments regularly.


11/14

Physiological/Constitutional : C demonstratesan almost excessive need for physical contact. Hecannot walk past any of his teachers or adultfigures that he works with on a regular basis

without insisting on hugging them. He is very talland a bit awkward in stature for his age, but hedoesnt seem to feel self-conscious about thisaround his peers.

Communicate need: C seems to be saying I just

dont understand any of this and Im not reallyinterested in trying to. He is very slow moving inhis general body movement as well as hiscognitive awareness.


12/14

Academic Interventions: RTI Tier II

Curriculum/Instruction: In an effort to improve Cs cognitivebehaviors during one-on-one and small group work, he has beenassigned peer work buddies, and allowed to work in a variety ofheterogeneous groups. In these settings, he also does notcontribute to the task or take part in group assignments. Hispartner or peers end up having to complete the assigned taskentirely without his input. One example is a group writing projectthat the students worked on for several weeks. C was to contributeat least a few paragraphs to the story, but his peers could not gethim to participate and provide any ideas. Finally, he was assigned apeer buddy who gave him a great deal of prompting and supplied afair amount of the text for him, allowing him to just minimallycontribute to his own writing piece. His peers were producing 4-10pages of writing. Cs finished piece was one side of one page. In

math, he demonstrates only a slightly better ability to docomputations and solve problems independently, although whenasked to explain his reasoning or how he arrived at an answer, hedoes not respond.


13/14

Additional Interventions (Tier II)

C will have differentiated morning literacy warm up toimprove fluency and comprehensionAll reading/language arts assessments will be taken in ESEroom with ESE coordinator assistingOne-on-one guided reading practice twice per week inaddition to small group instructionModified assignments in reading and language arts, toinclude content and length requirements to meet currentlevels of demonstrated proficiencyModified participation requirements during small group andwhole class instruction

Modified assignments in Science and Social StudiesA minimum of 8 wks documented interventions to move toTier III by end of January 2012 if sufficient progress is notmade in Tier II


14/14

References:

References:Boudreau, D. & Costanza-Smith, A. (2011). Assessment and treatment ofworking memory deficits in school-age children: the role of the speech-

language pathologist. Language, Speech & Hearing Services inSchools, 42, 152-166.Mattison, R.E. (2008). Characteristics of reading disability types inmiddle 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 interventionprogram and comprehension outcomes on middle school students withsevere reading deficits. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(2),7686.

Wallach, G.P. (2011). Peeling the onion of auditory processing disorder: alanguage/curricular-based perspective. Language, Speech & HearingServices in Schools, 42(3).

pilot study on student processing dysfunction

Documents