Observational Learning of Academic and Social Behaviors during Small-Group Direct Instruction
Ledford, Jennifer R.; Wolery, Mark (2015). Exceptional Children, v81 n3 p272-291. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1055313
-
examining3Students, gradePK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Peer modeling of sharing behavior - Ledford & Wolery (2015))
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a SCD design where the independent variable is manipulated by the researcher, each outcome is measured systematically over time by multiple assessors with a sufficient number of assessment points and inter-assessor agreement, but there are an insufficient number of phases and/or assessments per phase to meet 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.
-
Male: 100% -
Urban
-
- 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 Two or more races 33% White 67% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in classes serving 3- to 5-year-old children with and without disabilities in a university-affiliated early-childhood center in a Southern urban area. Sessions occurred during small group instruction in one of four classrooms or common areas. Students were assigned to small groups that consisted of one student with disabilities and two typically developing peers. During all of the study sessions, teachers were using a progressive time delay procedure to teach students the names of academic words.
Study sample
The sample consisted of three preschool students with disabilities attending an inclusive early-childhood program. Participant ages ranged from three to four years. All participants spoke English as their first language. Two participants were identified as having autism and the third participant had profound sensorineural hearing loss and language delays.
Intervention Group
The study used a multiple baseline design across participants to evaluate the effectiveness of providing students with disabilities the opportunity to observe sharing by typically developing peers. Prior to the intervention sessions, the typically developing peers received training on how to share tokens with other peers who provided correct responses to academic questions. During intervention sessions, the typically developing peers modeled these sharing behaviors to the peer with disabilities. The interventionist did not immediately prompt students to share tokens with students who provided correct responses to academic questions; however, if a student did not share a token after 5 seconds of a correct response from another peer, the interventionist prompted the student to “do something with your tokens.” If after another 5 seconds, the student still had not shared any tokens, the interventionist gave a specific verbal or physical prompt to put their tokens on a token board. The average length of each session was not reported. Two of the students with disabilities did not display sharing behaviors during the initial intervention phase, so modifications to the intervention were made, which involved providing praise and reinforcement for sharing. These later intervention phases were excluded from the review.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. During baseline sessions, students were taught academic behaviors during small group sessions. Peers were free to share tokens with each other but the typically developing peers were not yet modeling that targeted behavior to the peers with disabilities and no sharing prompts were provided to students.
Support for implementation
The first author, who was the interventionist, was provided with all the information and materials needed to provide sharing opportunities (e.g., tokens) within each small group. The interventionist delivered the intervention with the help of typically developing peers who were in the same small groups as the focal children with disabilities. Prior to intervention sessions, the interventionist trained the typically developing peers to share tokens so that they could properly model the targeted sharing behavior to students with disabilities. The researcher trained the typically developing peers with "Training Peers to Share" (TPS), which involved using a progressive time delay technique to prompt sharing responses. The peers with disabilities were not present during these TPS training sessions. Then, during the study's intervention sessions, if typically developing peers did not share a token after a correct academic response, a verbal reminder was given at the end of the session, after the students with disabilities were no longer present. If a typically developing peer failed to share a token for more than 20% of trials for two consecutive sessions, the interventionist gave the student a pre-session reminder.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).