Research Findings
With my
multiple-baseline-across-behaviors design, I established a baseline for
predicting, questioning, visualizing, and summarizing text for each of my students.
My two students had been exposed to the prediction strategies previous to my
research study. My baseline of the TSI prediction strategy was conducted for
five stories. The intervention was introduced with the sixth story, while I
continued to gather baseline data for the other TSI strategies. The independent
variable was the TSI comprehension guide sheet, which I modeled and instructed
the students on how to use the Predict section for making a prediction about
the story. Their prediction needed the setting, the characters, and the plot.
These three elements were used as requirements when I gathered the data. In
addition, the three elements needed to have a statement as to how each student had
developed their prediction. To record the data for the TSI prediction strategy
each student was graphed on the three required element. I did not include the
statement as part of the intervention response. However, the observational
checklist did check if the student wrote a supporting statement for his/her
prediction.
For
student A, there was an immediate change in behavior, and that change remained
a constant. For Student B, behavior did show a favorable change, but
fluctuated. On story #11 Student B predicted the setting and the plot only.
Data
continued to be collected for the TSI strategy of prediction. In addition, the
baseline responses for the TSI visualizing and summarizing strategies were also
gathered. The second TSI comprehension strategy of questioning was introduced
and modeled during story #7. The responses from the students varied with the
stories that they read. The questioning strategy was measured on two criteria.
The first was unknown vocabulary and the second was misunderstandings from the
story. The student would write down unknown words and confusing concepts with
the page numbers on their transactional strategies comprehension guide sheet.
The students were asked to write down the first three words of problematic
concepts. When both students finished the story the students and I clarified
the vocabulary and misunderstandings by rereading for clarification, looking
for context clues and relating the text to their background knowledge. The data
collected from Student B showed a steady increase of using this comprehension
strategy, while Student A demonstrated fluctuation. Stories # 10 and #11 dealt
with nature and adventure. Student A had his prior knowledge to rely upon for
these stories. Student A had experiences in camping, hiking, and fishing
whereas, Student B did not have these experiences to rely upon.
The
third TSI strategy was introduced during the eighth story. Meanwhile, I
continued to collect data for the prediction strategy and questioning strategy
with TSI intervention, and the baseline for the summarization strategy. The
transactional strategies instruction visualization strategy focused on the six
elements. First, the students created visual representations for the beginning,
middle, and end of the story. After completing the representations, the
students were required to write a supporting statement for each of their
images. Student A did incorporate all of the required elements for this TSI
strategy twice. Student B produced only visual representations for the
beginning, middle, and the end of the story. Although she did not write a supporting
statement for each part of the story, her ability to create an image for each
section was consistent.
Lastly,
the TSI summarization strategy was modeled and taught during the tenth story.
The students’ summarizations were analyzed on six conditions. The summary was
required to contain names of the characters, the setting, and the plot. The
plot had to unfold with a beginning, middle, and end.
Overall, the data indicated transactional strategy instruction
had a positive impact on these learning disabled students.
Research Findings
Sharon R. Dulin
