Learning Strategies Curriculum: Inference Strategy
Study: Fritschmann, Deshler, & Shumaker (2007)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Participants were enrolled in two ninth-grade learning-supported English/language arts classes in a public high school. Their parents or legal guardian had provided written consent for their participation.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional/behavioral difficulties (BI):

Each study participant was previously designated as a student with a disability and was receiving specialized educational supports for a minimum of 180 minutes per day, per the recommendation of their respective Individualized Education Plan by a multidisciplinary team. The participating district followed the IQ-achievement discrepancy model for identification of learning disabilities. Additionally, each student had scored at or below the 4th percentile on the Group Reading and Diagnostic Assessment Evaluation (GRADE), a standardized and norm-referenced reading assessment.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:

• below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
• identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?

100.0%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:

• emotional disability label,
• placed in an alternative school/classroom,
• non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
• designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?

0.0%

Please describe the study design:

A multiple-probe across-subjects design (Horner & Baer, 1978) was employed to determine the effects of instruction on students' strategy-use and reading comprehension performance. Three students took part in two iterations of the design; two students took part in the third iteration of the design. Thus, there were 8 replications of the potential effects of the intervention.

Clarify and provide a detailed description of the treatment in the submitted program/intervention:

Participants received instruction in the Inference Strategy in sessions ranging in length from sixty to 75 minutes, depending on the school schedule. In the first instructional session, the students were asked to make a commitment to actively learn and use the Inference Strategy. Also, in the first class session, the instructor explained and described in detail the steps of the Inference Strategy. This was followed by instruction that included how to identify and code the two main categories of questions, including (a) factual questions (i.e., questions with answers that are “right there” in the passage) and (b) “think-and-seek” questions (i.e., questions that require the reader to really think about and seek out clues so that they can infer an answer). Additionally, the students were instructed how to identify and mark each type of think-and-seek question with code letters. The students were then taught through description and demonstration how to look for key words embedded in the question to correctly code and respond to factual questions. At the end of the first session, the students completed practice activities for coding question categories and answering factual questions for short passages, and they were provided feedback on their work. If they met mastery (i.e., earned 80% or more of the points), they proceeded to the next instructional session. If they did not reach mastery on the practice activity, they completed additional practice activities until they met mastery. During the second instructional session, the students were provided detailed information on purpose questions and main idea/ summarizing questions, and they were taught how to identify and correctly mark these questions with code letters. They were also taught how to look for key words embedded in the questions and clues imbedded in the text and how to correctly respond to these types of questions. For example, for purpose questions, the students were taught that there are three main purposes that authors might have as they write a passage: to entertain, to inform, and to persuade. Each type was defined, and students were taught to look for the key words “author’s purpose” or “author’s reason” in the question. Then as they read the passage, they were taught to ask themselves “Why do I think the author wrote this?” and attend to certain types of clues that would help them determine the author’s purpose. For example, for informative passages, they were taught to look for large amounts of facts and details like they might see in a textbook. For entertaining passages, they were taught to look for sections that made them happy or fearful. After instruction, discussion, and modeling, students were provided with short practice passages followed by a mixture of factual, purpose, and main idea questions and were given feedback on their efforts. Again, mastery was required before students proceeded. The third and fourth instructional sessions focused on instruction of and practice with predicting and clarifying questions, respectively. As in the previous sessions, the researcher explained in detail how to identify the new type of question and search for clues in the passage to support a correct response to that type of question. This process was modeled for the students prior to the practice activities with the short passages. The instructor provided group and individual feedback during and after each practice activity, and mastery was required. In subsequent sessions, students were provided practice activities with the longer fourth-grade-level reading passages in which they were required to use all steps of the strategy in response to all question types. If the student earned a score at or above the mastery levels (80% on the Comprehension Test, 70% on the Strategy-Use Test), they were moved up to the next higher reading level (sixth-grade level, then eighth-grade level), and they continued to practice and receive individual feedback until they reached mastery on a passage written at the eighth-grade level.

Clarify what procedures occurred during the control/baseline condition (third, competing conditions are not considered; if you have a third, competing condition [e.g., multi-element single subject design with a third comparison condition], in addition to your control condition, identify what the competing condition is [data from this competing condition will not be used]):

Students completed a Reading Satisfaction Survey and a minimum of three probe tests containing a total of nine Strategy-use Tests and nine corresponding five-item Criterion-based Comprehension Tests over a one-week period. For each probe test, a Strategy-use Score and a Comprehension Test Score was determined. When the third baseline probe was completed, four students whose baselines were stable (hereafter referred to as Cohort A) began instruction in the Inference Strategy.

Please describe how replication of treatment effect was demonstrated (e.g., reversal or withdrawal of intervention, across participants, across settings)

Once the Cohort A students showed an increase in their use of the strategy, the four other students (Cohort B) completed at least one additional baseline probe until their baselines were stable, and then they began the instruction.

Please indicate whether (and how) the design contains at least three demonstrations of experimental control (e.g., ABAB design, multiple baseline across three or more participants).

The design contained at least three demonstrations of experimental control across three iterations of the design.

If the study is a multiple baseline, is it concurrent or non-concurrent?

Concurrent

How was the program delivered?

Individually
Small Group
Classroom

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

• Targeted measures
  Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills, that the program was directly targeted to improve.
  • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
  • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
• Broader measures
  Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
  • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
  • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be on-task behavior in another setting.
• Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates, which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:

Participating students were administered a satisfaction survey. Their ratings were not included in this application since this was a social validity measure, not an outcome measure. (See the article for information about the survey and the results.)