FINDINGS

    Data were graphed during baseline and  intervention phases, consistent with the multiple baseline design across subjects model.   

    Figure A shows the comparison of the three subjects A, B, and C.  Intervention began with Subject A at session # 4, with Subject C at session # 5, and with Subject B at session # 6. 

    Subject A was a soft-spoken, fifteen year-old ninth grader with an identified disability in the area of communication. She came from a bilingual home, speaking Italian at home sometimes.  She has been enrolled in a Spanish course in which she is very successful.  She has frequently visited family in Italy.

    Baseline data were collected for three sessions.   She was able to identify details, and cause and effect.  Questions most frequently missed were main idea, inference, and vocabulary in context.  Her information is shown in Figure 1.1.

    Subject A was eager to participate in the sessions initially because she would have more individualized attention. Sessions lasted thirty to forty-five minutes and were held daily.  A’s participation in interventions began February 24 and ended March 26.  During the first three sessions, she was the only participant in the intervention.  She participated in twelve intervention sessions.  At session 4 the interventions were conducted in a group of eight students, as Subject C was introduced to the reciprocal teaching strategies.  A’s performance peaked at nine correct responses during that initial session with Subject C.  During the next two sessions, which again were in a group of eight students, her performance declined to scores of four and five correct responses.  Observational notes reflected a lack of attention and an unwillingness to participate.   Subjects A and C then became a group of two for the rest of the intervention sessions.  Her performance continued erratically with scores that ranged from five to nine correct responses.  

    During the interventions Subject A relied on the pictures to form her predictions.  Her questions reflected mostly “when” and “who” as opening words.  As sessions progressed, she was asked to formulate specific type questions, focusing on the areas that were problematic for her – sequencing and cause and effect.  She required assistance in phrasing questions in terms of word order.  She consistently wrote words on her graphic organizer for clarification.  For each reading passage, Subject A wrote one or two summary or main idea statements, depending on the length of the passages.  She could usually write a statement after she formulated her thoughts orally.

    Subject C was a fifteen year-old ninth grade student with a specific learning disability in the areas of math and written language, with more specific grapho-motor difficulties.  He attended both the small group sessions and the group of two.  There was an occasional session when he was alone, due to the absences of Subject A.

    Baseline data were collected for four sessions.   Errors  most often occurred in identifying main idea and vocabulary in context with 50% correct for each.  He was able to identify 75% of correct responses for details, cause and effect, and inferences.  His information is shown in Figure 1.2.

    Interventions occurred daily during Subject C’s academic support or study skills classes.  His interventions began on March 3 and ended on March 26.  After a week of group sessions, Subjects C and A worked in a group of two in a separate setting from the rest of the class.  Sessions lasted approximately forty-five minutes.  He participated in eleven sessions.  His score on the initial intervention was five out of ten.  Score dropped to two on the second intervention.  From that point on his scores ranged from eight to ten on the rest of the passages.  Observational notes reflected a change in setting separate from the rest of the class from the third session through the end.

    In general, Subject C made good predictions using title, pictures and directions.  During the first few sessions his questions were very literal and detail-oriented.  He did not jot down any words or phrases to be clarified.  His summary statements tended to be very long and wordy.  Once he and Subject A were working in the group of two, he jotted words down more frequently.  He was asked to form cause and effect questions and sequence questions as he read the passages.  Throughout the interventions he required assistance in phrasing questions to fit sequence and cause and effect situations.   He also formed more concise summary statements with prompting and verbalizing.

    Subject B was a fifteen year-old ninth grade student with a specific learning disability in the area of reading.  When she was in elementary school she attended a Greek language school as well as regular public school until third grade.  She has visited family in Greece during summer holidays.

    Baseline data were collected for five passages.  Errors occurred most frequently on vocabulary in context, main idea, and making inferences.  She could identify details, causes and effects.  Baseline percentages ranged from 40% to 60% correct. Her information is shown in Figure 1.3.    

    Interventions occurred during B’s academic support class.  She participated in individual sessions, separate from the rest of her group.  She was curious about the procedures.  Her sessions were approximately thirty minutes and were held every other day.  She participated in eleven sessions overall, beginning February 27 and ending March 26.  Her score for the first intervention was six correct responses out of ten. Her scores fluctuated between eight and ten correct on most of the other passages with two exceptions – the third and the tenth sessions.  Her score dropped to six on the third session and to four on the tenth.  Observational notes reflect a different location than the usual room and frequent redirection to the task at hand.  On both occasions she was easily distracted.  She ended her participation with a perfect ten.

    During the interventions, Subject B utilized the title, directions, and pictures to make predictions.  During the first few sessions she wrote down a few words for clarification, but as the sessions progressed there were fewer instances of that.   Her questions during those sessions were literal and detail-oriented.  As the sessions progressed, she was asked to develop cause and effect questions and sequence questions.  She required assistance in phrasing many of her questions.   She was able to formulate good summary statements both with assistance and independently, after verbalizing her thoughts.

Analysis                           Home