Small-Group versus One-On-One Educational Therapy

This mixed-methods study investigated the effectiveness of educational therapy developed by the National Institute for Learning Development (NILD), a non-profit organization committed to training educators to use a flexible model of educational therapy when working with students who struggle to learn. Academic outcomes from educational therapy implemented in a small-group setting (GET) were compared to outcomes from implementation in an individual educational therapy (IET) setting. Scores on standardized achievement tests were quantitatively compared through t test analyses. Through use of a phenomenological research design, therapists' qualitative perceptions of implementing a pilot program of GET were compared with their prior experience of implementing IET. Whether in a GET or an IET setting, educational therapy, mediated by professionally certified therapists, yielded improved academic skills with large effect sizes (eta-square) for full IET, full GET, and partial GET groups except for GET subgroups that began therapy with their mean pre-intervention academic scores significantly above their mean IQ score. An effectiveness of NILD educational therapy was demonstrated that crossed grade-level differences and various IQ x Reading Deficit Severity categories that have been discussed in the ongoing debate over the definition of Specific Learning Disabilities. The qualitative phase of the study yielded rich descriptions of therapists’ perceptions of differences in learning dynamics when implementing GET versus IET. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Seeking academically effective as well as cost-effective interventions for students who struggle to learn 2 is a critical component of special education leadership (Crockett, 2002). Interpretation of the Regular Education Initiative of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Public Law 105-17) includes special education delivery models that offer a continuum of services ranging from separate schools, separate classes, or resource rooms to full inclusion in the general education classroom (Hallahan, 2007). Hallahan makes a strong case for intensive, long-term, individualized instruction as the means for students with learning disabilities to be able to learn versus the more frequent role of a special educator as an aide to the general education teacher in an inclusive classroom. He urges schools to do a better job of developing and utilizing a full continuum of placements for students with learning disabilities. Vaughn, Hughes, Moody, and Elbaum (2001) summarized research findings and gave implications for the practice of the following instructional groupings for students with learning disabilities: whole-class, small group, peer-pairing and tutoring, and one-on-one. Small-group instruction yielded higher effect sizes compared to effect sizes from whole-class instruction. “The implications for practice of one-onone instruction are in many ways the most difficult to define because although there is universal agreement in its value, very little is known about its effectiveness for students with learning disabilities relative to other grouping formats” (Vaughn et al., p. 135). Over an 8-year period, Vaughn et al., worked with numerous special educators, who repeatedly informed them of the following three impediments to special educators' ability to implement one-on-one instruction: (1) case loads requiring serving up to 20 students for as much as 2 hours per day, (2) collaborative requirements to work with general education teachers reduced time to work directly with students, and (3) required paperwork impeded instructional contact time with students the special educators were attempting to serve. Para-educational organizations such as Reading Recovery, Lindamood Bell, and the National Institute for Learning Differences offer evidence-based training to public and private school teachers to help 3 them remediate struggling readers and writers. Some also offer intensive interventions in a communitybased clinical setting. A BALANCED APPROACH TO LITERACY DEVELOPMENT Although instructional intervention for struggling readers is a complex issue with many variables, component skills used by proficient readers can be categorized into the two broad categories of word recognition and comprehension (Learner, 2000). Swanson (2001) noted that the majority of intervention studies of students with learning disabilities (LD) focus on low-order processes (e.g. word recognition and spelling) and fewer focus on high-order processing (e.g. metacognition, word knowledge, processing speed, and text understanding). However, Gersten, Fuchs, Williams and Baker (2001) warn against overemphasizing cognitive and metacognitive aspects of reading comprehension. They advocate devoting attention to the following key factors: (a) awareness of text types, (b) bringing prior relevant knowledge to the reading task, (c) role of fluency in comprehension of text, (d) vocabulary knowledge, and (e) developing task persistence when faced with challenging text types. Practice and Theoretical Underpinnings of the National Institute for Learning Differences (NILD) MODEL OF EDUCATIONAL THERAPY From the study of the theoretical contributions of Piaget, Vygotsky, Luria, and Feuerstein, Hopkins (1996) elucidated four underlying constructs of the NILD model: (1) presence of a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), (2) interrelatedness of language and thought, (3) plasticity of intelligence, and (4) role of a mediator in the learning process. The ZPD is the gap between a student’s independent 4 functional level and a higher level a student can attain through mediated instruction. Thus, a student’s learning problems are not seen as impediments but rather as a starting point. Feuerstein’s theory of structural cognitive modifiability or plasticity of intelligence refers to the property of the brain to reorganize itself based upon intensive stimulation as delivered by a skilled mediator. A mediator facilitates student learning through structured interactive dialogue designed to stimulate focus and strategic thinking in the student (Presseisen & Kozulin, 1994). A merging of Vygotsky’s theory of the ZPD with Feuerstein’s theory of Mediated Learning Experience (MLE) forms a very substantial theoretical underpinning of NILD practice. Three core attributes must be present if a learning exchange is to be justifiably considered an MLE. The first core criterion includes intentionality and reciprocity. Intentionality includes two components: the object of learning and the student. Intention draws in the learner’s focus to the object of learning. Reciprocity focuses on the learner’s cognitive processes as the primary target of the mediation using the object as the tool by which the cognitive processes are stimulated and developed. The second core criterion of a true MLE is the mediation of transcendence, or broadening the learning experience to applications beyond the immediate stimulus. The third core criterion necessary in true MLE is the mediation of meaning. Meaning deals with the questions of why, what for, and engages the mental, emotional and motivational states of the learner in a transformative process (Presseisen & Kozulin, 1994). Nine other major criteria distinguish a learning experience as an MLE. Among the additional criteria are the following: goal-seeking, setting, planning, and achievement; and feelings of confidence and belonging. Another research-based component of the NILD therapy has been the active participation of parents in the process. This involves oversight of therapy homework and a conference to receive a written report of their child’s progress. Numerous research studies and theoretical constructs have shown the importance of parental involvement to student learning (Aaron, Joshi, Gooden, & Bentum, 2008; 5 Edwards, McMillon, & Turner, 2001; Stahl & Yaden, 2004). ONGOING ISSUE OF DEFINING AND IDENTIFYING LEARNING DISABILITIES AS IT RELATES TO THIS STUDY In the field of special education, controversy, conflict, and change in the definition and diagnoses of Specific Learning Disabilities continue to be prominent. Toward one end of the spectrum are proponents such as Gresham and Vellutino (2010), who write position papers summarizing research results in support of a view that Response to Intervention is a more valid approach to identification of SLD than is the more traditional psychometric approach using IQ achievement discrepancy as the central criteria. Toward the other end of this spectrum, Kavale, Holdnack, and Mostert (2005) construct an operational definition of specific learning disability (SLD) that uses ability-achievement discrepancy as the first of five proposed levels in operationally defining a learning disability. Swanson and Hoskyn (1998) note that the shift in operational definition of LD in the 1990s abandoned the ability-discrepancy criteria and identified LD children by using a cutoff score (usually below the 25 percentile) on standardized reading tests with standardized intelligent test score (IQ) at or above 85. In two meta-analyses of intervention research on students with LD, Swanson (2001) and Swanson and Hoskyn (1998) sought to identify instructional components that best predicted positive outcomes for LD students and investigated how variation in general aptitude moderated treatment results. In both meta-analyses (58 and 180 studies, respectively), the authors found that studies with IQ and reading scores in the same low range yielded higher effect sizes than studies showing a larger difference in IQ and reading level. In other words, underachievers were more resistant to treatment interventions than low achievers. “This puts a new wrinkle on the literature that calls for elimination of ‘discrepancy’ criteria in classifying LD by suggesting that discrepancies may be important to predicting outcomes” 6 (Swanson, p. 343). Diagnostic testing for placement into NILD educational therapy loo