Empowering Teachers with Low-Intensity Strategies: Supporting Students At-Risk for EBD with Instructional Choice during Reading
Ennis, Robin Parks; Lane, Kathleen Lynne; Flemming, Sarah Cole (2021). Exceptionality, v29 n1 p61-79. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1296132
-
examining6Students, grades2-3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Instructional choice - Ennis et al. (2021))
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please download findings data here.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 17%
Male: 83% -
Suburban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South
-
Race Black 17% White 83% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in two public elementary schools in the Southeastern region of the United States.
Study sample
Five of the six students (83.33%) are White and male. One student is Black and female (16.67%). Students are in grade 2 and grade 3. The students were at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders and academic failure.
Intervention Group
During the intervention condition, teachers used the instructional choice strategy during whole-class reading instruction to encourage academic engagement. Instructional choice focuses on offering students two to three options regarding how to engage with their coursework. These choices can include options about which of several instructional activities the student wants to engage in, or choices about the way the student will engage in a classroom activity. Two follow-up maintenance phases were included during weeks 3 and 5. The maintenance phases involved 3-6 sessions. The mean academic engagement scores were higher than observed during the intervention phases for five of the six students. The mean academic engagement score during the maintenance phases was consistent with the observed scores during the intervention phases for one student.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. The baseline phases involved routine class activities identified during the planning stage of the study. The first baseline phase involved 5-6 sessions, while the second baseline phase involved 5-8 sessions.
Support for implementation
Teachers also received a standardized 30-minute online training on how to collect observational data and an instructional choice training with a project staff member. The authors met with teachers to develop a baseline integrity checklist for routine classroom activities. Teachers completed treatment integrity checklists for each day of data collection across both baseline and intervention phases.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).