Preparing Interns to Use Functional Story-Based Instruction to Teach Students With a Severe Intellectual Disability in Rural Schools

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to prepare special education interns to implement two-task analyses to teach elementary students with severe intellectual disability (SID) emergent literacy and hand washing skills. The secondary purpose was to evaluate the effect of intern instruction on both the independent emergent literacy and hand washing responses of the students. A multiple probe across participant design was used to evaluate the effects of a multicomponent instruction package on the number of steps interns completed correctly on story-based and hand washing task analyses. A second simultaneous multiple probe across students design was used to evaluate the effects of functional story-based instruction on the independent emergent literacy and hand washing responses. Collateral behaviors showed as interns correctly implemented the steps of the story-based and hand washing task analyses, the students with SID increased emergent literacy and hand washing responses. Implications for rural educators are provided.

Keywords

interns rural instruction severe intellectual disability

Interns are preservice teachers or undergraduate students studying special education while completing their student teaching. In this article, the term “intern” refers to special education interns. A select portion of special education interns are learning to educate students with a severe intellectual disability (SID). The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities defines an intellectual disability as a disability characterized by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior, which covers a range of everyday social and practical skills. This disability originates before age 18 (American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 2010). Students with SID require extensive support throughout their lives in the general learning of academic, daily living, communication, social, and community skills.

There are several issues when placing interns seeking certification to teach students with a SID in rural schools. First, there are few to no highly trained special education teachers for students with SID in rural schools (Abell, Collins, Kleinert, & Pennington, 2014). Interns may be supervised by mentors who may not have a background in special education, much less in teaching students with a SID (Abell et al., 2014). This may limit the number of rural placements for interns or may require placing interns in schools without a qualified intern supervisor. Challenges such as these can hinder the quality of the placement and the experience the intern receives. Ironically, the teacher shortage is linked to the inability to place preservice teachers in rural schools to learn how to teach there, which increases the teacher shortage (Hoppey, 2016).

Second, there is a problem of isolation for teachers who educate students with a SID in rural areas (Ludlow, Conner, & Schechter, 2005). A special education teacher who works with students who have a SID may experience a sense of isolation within his or her school as the only teacher with expertise in this area (Abell et al., 2014). These teachers may be the only one skilled in evidence-based practices for students with a SID within the entire district (Abell et al., 2014). This problem prevents special education teachers from supervising interns because they have too many time constraints. Interns placed in this situation will see the challenges of working in a rural area but may lack the detailed supervision needed to master the skills of teaching.

Third, there is poverty in rural schools. Rural schools (a) pay teachers lower salaries than teachers in urban schools (Abell et al., 2014), (b) have limited services for children with SID (Pennington, Horn, & Berrong, 2009), (c) have less funding for special education and specialized resources (Hoppey, 2016), and (d) have difficulty providing cost-effective quality professional development (Ludlow et al., 2005). These challenges can affect the intern experience.

Despite challenges related to placing and preparing interns in rural schools, there are interns who desire to work in rural schools. Those that seek out jobs and placements in rural schools do so because of their ties to that community (Ludlow et al., 2005). Providing interns quality experiences in rural schools can help address the shortage of special education teachers who educate students with a SID. A way to address the small number of special education teachers who educate students with a SID is placing interns seeking certification in SID with qualified special education teachers in rural schools (Hoppey, 2016). Another option is to provide intern supervisors from other teaching disciplines with low cost and easy-to-use materials that assist them with supervising interns on evidence-based practices.

Preparing Teachers and Interns to Teach Students With SID

The need for preservice teachers to have an internship and clinical experiences is a priority of the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (2013). Both the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) and Every Student Succeeds Act (2015–2016) require teachers to use evidence-based practices when educating individuals with disabilities. Preservice teachers should be prepared to use evidence-based practices in clinical experiences (Maheady, Magiera, & Simmons, 2016).

Preparing preservice teachers to use evidence-based practices with students who have SID is done well with multicomponent training (MCT) packages and coaching (Westling, Salzberg, Collins, Morgan, & Knight, 2013). MCT strategies utilize didactic presentations, followed by coaching with role-play and specific performance feedback (Brown, Stephenson, & Carter, 2014). MCT packages include a variety of instructional strategies and are more effective than using individual strategies in isolation. Lang and Fox (2004) noted that instead of one-shot sessions, coaching and practice are more effective, especially for teachers of students with SID.

MCT can include lecture, discussion, modeling, role-play, and practice with ongoing feedback (Brown et al., 2014). Teachers working with students who have SID acquired skills with the following MCT strategies: (a) didactic combined with modeling or video examples (Horrocks & Morgan, 2011), (b) feedback on role-plays or practice (Lerman, Tetreault, Hovanetz, Strobel, & Garro, 2008), and (c) individual consultation with discussion, written materials, and feedback (McMillan, 2008). Brown et al. (2014) noted one essential component of MCT is the use of feedback on both role-play and performance of teaching by the coach. Kretlow and Bartholomew (2010) reported there are three critical components of coaching: (a) highly engaged, instructive group training sessions; (b) follow-up observations; and (c) specific feedback. Coaching requires the successes of those being coached recognized positively, receiving specific feedback on both successful and unsuccessful performance of task steps, and having adequate opportunity for the clarification of questions and practice to achieve skill mastery (Brown et al., 2014).

MCTs were used to prepare teachers to use strategies to teach students with SID (Brown et al., 2014). These strategies included system of least prompts (K. J. Cooper & Browder, 2001), task analytic story-based lessons and self-monitoring (Browder, Trela, & Jimenez, 2007), prompting strategies (Horrocks & Morgan, 2011), simultaneous prompting (Brown et al., 2014), and story-based lessons with the system of least prompts (Courtade, Lingo, & Whitney, 2013).

Preparing Teachers and Interns to Teach Both Academic and Functional Skills

Teachers of students with SID are required to teach (a) functional skills throughout the day, (b) state standards on multiple grade levels with adaptations, (c) communication skills, and (d) many other skills such as social, self-determination, and community skills. Teachers find themselves in a quandary when prioritizing the need to teach both functional and core content (Collins, Karl, Riggs, Galloway, & Hager, 2010). As a result, they are combining functional and academic skills in one lesson with small groups of students. Roberts and Leko (2013) noted this combined approach is beneficial because (a) learning is more meaningful, (b) teaching academics is in the lesson, and (c) teaching required goals can be done within limited instructional time. Researchers have used various approaches when combining both academic and functional skill instruction. In one approach, the teacher identifies core content that can be added to lessons on life skills (Collins et al., 2010). For example, Karl, Collins, Hager, and Ault (2013) created a cooking unit to teach students to prepare a meal using a task analysis. In the unit, students were instructed to address language arts standards by identifying the meaning of specialized vocabulary. The students would read and define key cooking words in the recipe.

In another approach, the teacher identifies functional applications that can be added to a lesson when teaching required core content (Collins et al., 2010). Collins, Hager, and Galloway (2011) taught functional content during core content instruction of language arts, science, and math to middle school students with moderate disabilities. Specifically, content on cooking or appropriate dress for the weather conditions was added to the properties of elements in the periodic table lesson (Collins et al., 2011). Roberts and Leko (2013) examined the integration of functional (matched names of peers with their picture) and academic goals (matched words to pictures) in a story-based lesson plan using an adapted grade-level text for adolescents with SID.

In the final approach, instruction that equally blends related content from both literacy and functional skills is called functional story-based instruction (FSBI). FSBI provides students with story-based lesson reading experiences about a functional skill and practical application of the skill in one lesson (Hyer, 2012). Teachers can create these blended lessons using content from the grade-level extended state standards and needed functional Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals. This approach can be used with lessons on literacy, math, science, and social studies. In addition, the story-based task analysis requires students actively engage in the content while building communication skills.

Cooper-Duffy, Hyer, and Sisk (2014) demonstrated the use of FSBI using story-based lessons and the system of least prompts to teach three children with SID emergent literacy and hand washing skills in one lesson. One teacher was instructed with lecture, role-play, and verbal feedback to use constant time delay to prompt students on each step of the story-based task analysis, and the system of least prompts on each step of the hand washing task analysis. All three students demonstrated near zero independent and correct responses in the baseline condition for both the story-based and hand washing task analyses. As the teacher consistently and accurately implemented the instruction, all three students demonstrated an immediate and significant increase on the percentage of correct responses for both task analyses.

FSBI is an extension of the well-validated task analytic instruction, which has been used for two decades with systematic instruction to teach functional skills (Browder et al., 2007). A decade later, academic skills were taught with a story-based task analysis and were effective in teaching students with SID academic skills (Browder et al., 2007). The task analyses provide teachers with a step-by-step checklist to guide them through teaching skills. When teachers combine these task analyses and consistently implement them, students with SID can acquire academic and functional skills together (Cooper-Duffy et al., 2014).

FSBI can be used in rural schools to support interns teaching students with SID because it contains teacher task analyses with built-in evidence-based practices and step-by-step directions on what to teach and how to prompt students. Because rural special education interns are isolated in their geographic area and may not have a supervisor who can provide content-specific feedback, intern supervisors and interns in rural setting may consider the use of self-management strategies to support their professional development (Pennington, 2017). FSBI task analyses include a built-in self-management component. This provides interns with a way to practice their own teaching through self-monitoring. As interns follow the task analyses, it can lead to their consistent delivery of literacy and functional skill instruction with a corresponding increase in student responses to instruction (Courtade et al., 2013). Interns can use these tools to practice effective teaching even if their intern supervisor is not licensed in SID. FSBI task analyses are inexpensive and easy to use, requiring just a few MCT sessions to effectively implement. Furthermore, intern supervisors who are unfamiliar with teaching students who have SID can use the task analyses to observe the intern and provide feedback on their instruction.

This study extends the work of the previous researchers in several ways. This study was conducted with interns in rural schools with all the challenges noted above. Next, an MCT package was used to teach interns to implement FSBI. Finally, the study prepares interns in rural schools to implement the instruction in small inclusive groups. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of special education interns to implement FSBI on the emergent literacy and functional skills of students with SID in inclusive reading groups. The research questions were as follows:

Research Question 1: What is the effect of MCT for FSBI on the number of steps the intern implemented correctly on a 14-step story-based task analysis?

Research Question 2: What is the effect of the MCT for FSBI on the number of steps the intern implemented correctly on an 11-step hand washing task analysis?

Research Question 3: What is the effect of FSBI on the number of independent and correct emergent literacy responses for students with SID?

Research Question 4: What is the effect of FSBI on the number of independent and correct responses on the hand washing task analysis for students with SID?

Method

Participants

Special education interns

Three undergraduate special education interns were recruited for this study. Maggie (age 21), Carrie (age 22), and Erin (age 24) attended a rural university in Western North Carolina. The interns included in this study had no prior public school experience teaching students with SID. Interns selected for this study completed 114 credit hours out of a 126-credit-hour program and had to meet the following criteria: (a) were approved for full-time student teaching toward certification in special education (adapted curriculum), (b) were placed in an internship in a rural public elementary school during their senior year, and (c) were not exposed to FSBI, only theoretical experience with evidence-based practices. They volunteered with organizations such as Special Olympics but had no other practicum experiences. Participation in the study was separate from internship requirements. Interns could voluntarily participate or withdraw at any time.

Students with SID

Three students with SID between 7 and 8 years of age were selected by the classroom teacher. Students had to meet the following seven criteria: (a) had to be in second grade, (b) had to be diagnosed with SID, (c) had fine motor skills to perform the topography of the movement needed to wash their hands but they could not do it independently, (d) had to be able to engage in a group activity for 15 min, (e) their primary language was English, (f) had adequate vision and hearing, and (g) had nonverbal inconsistent communication with gestures or augmentative and alternative communication. Each student was paired with an intern. Maggie worked with Sally, Carrie worked with Ward, and Erin worked with Ellen.

Sally was an 8-year-old female diagnosed with Down syndrome. Her IQ was 39, which was within the severe range of intellectual disability. Her adaptive behavior on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale, Second Edition (VABS-II) was 2 to 3 SD below the mean (70–40), which indicated that her adaptive behavior skills fell between the moderate to low range. Her vision and hearing were within normal ranges. She demonstrated significant limited verbal communication skills and used gestures, such as pointing to communicate. She could stay in a group activity for 30 to 45 min, but required one-to-one support to complete tasks.

Ward was a 7-year-old male diagnosed with autism and cerebral palsy. His IQ of 35 was within the severe range of intellectual disabilities. His score on the VABS-II was 3 SD below the mean (55–40), which indicated that his adaptive behavior skills fell within the low range. His vision and hearing were within normal ranges. He used nonverbal communication, and his preferred methods were smiling, crying, and eye gazing. Ward stayed in a group activity for up to 30 min, but showed limited engagement when completing classroom tasks.

Ellen was an 8-year-old female diagnosed with a seizure disorder and intellectual disability. Her IQ was 38, which was in the severe range of intellectual disability. Her VABS-II score was 2 SD below the mean (70–55), which indicated that her adaptive skills fell within the moderately low to low range. Her vision and hearing were within normal ranges. Although she demonstrated verbal ability, she had limited conversation skills and used repetitive phrases, and pointing. She stayed within a group activity for 30 min, but needed support to complete tasks.

Other student participants

Two second-grade students without disabilities from each school (total of six students), 7 to 8 years of age, participated in the reading groups. Students met the following requirements: (a) would benefit from reading practice and (b) would model emergent literacy skills. Data were not collected on these students.

Setting

The study took place at three different public K–5 schools, in three different rural counties in Western North Carolina. School A had about 400 students, with 75% identified as Caucasian. Fifty-eight percent of the students received free or reduced lunch and 16% were identified with a learning disability. School B had about 480 students, with 79% identified as Caucasian. Seventy-one percent of the students received free or reduced lunch, and 24% were identified with a learning disability. School C had about 550 students, with 85% identified as Caucasian. Sixty-three percent of the students received free or reduced lunch and 15% were identified with a learning disability.

The setting for all phases of the study was in self-contained classrooms, students without disabilities came to these classrooms for the reading sessions. Each class had six to nine students, one teacher assistant, and one teacher. Hand washing was conducted in the classroom sink.

Materials

Materials (literacy kit) included four copies of three different books on how to wash hands. The books were Show Jo How to Wash Your Hands (Buckley, 2007; first-grade level), Jimmy Washes His Hands (first-grade level), and Wash Your Hands (Ross, 2001; second-grade level). Each book was labeled with a number 1, 2, or 3. The books were selected because they contained the hand washing steps and were on the first- or second-grade reading level as calculated by the Fry Reading Level (Fry, 1977). The books were adapted to include the repeated line, “When we wash our hands.” The repeated line was printed on a small piece of paper, taped to the bottom of each page, and highlighted yellow. On the left-hand side of the page was a small piece of Velcro® used to raise each page so the children could turn the pages easier.

Bubbles were used to gain the children’s attention prior to starting the story. Each student was given a picture strip of the task analyzing steps of hand washing (5 × 56 cm) to use during reading sessions and at the sink. The strip contained 10 Boardmaker® pictures of hand washing steps paired with the following vocabulary words: (a) sink, (b) water on, (c) wet hands, (d) get soap, (e) rub hands, (f) rinse hands, (g) water off, (h) paper towel, (i) dry hands, and (j) trash can. At the end of each story, there was a laminated multiple-choice quiz in picture format. Three questions were on the quiz: (1) “What do you need to wet your hands?” with options (a) water, (b) soap, or (c) paper towel; (2) “Where do you go to wash your hands?” with options (a) soap, (b) paper towel, or (c) sink; and (3) “Where do you put the paper towel when you are done drying your hands?” with options (a) sink, (b) trash can, or (c) soap. All answers were in picture/text 2 × 2 square cards, laminated, and affixed with Velcro®. After each session, the cards were randomly moved to new positions to reduce the possibility of students selecting answers based on the position of the card. The same questions were used for all three books.

Dependent Variables

Interns

The primary dependent variables were the number of steps implemented correctly by the intern for each task analysis. The first dependent variable was the number of steps the intern correctly implemented for each student on story-based task analysis. Data were collected by observation on the number of steps the intern correctly completed on the story-based task analysis per session (see Figure 1). The second dependent variable was the number of steps the intern implemented correctly for each step of the hand washing task analysis. Data were collected on the number of steps completed on the hand washing task analysis per session (see Figure 2).

Figure 1.

Hand washing task analysis.

Figure 2.

Hand washing task analysis.

Students with SID

The secondary dependent variable (collateral behavior change) was the number of independent and correct responses demonstrated for each step of the story-based and hand washing task analyses. The student’s level of independence was defined per two categories: emergent literacy and hand washing responses. An emergent literacy response was defined as a nonprompted and correct response of the student on the story-based task analysis (see Figure 1). Scoring was as follows: (+) independent and correct responses without prompting during the 5 s response interval between each prompt, or (–) no response or error by the student.

The hand washing response was the number of correct independent responses the student demonstrated on the hand washing task analysis (see Figure 2). Responses were defined as non-prompted responses of the student on the hand washing task analysis. The data collector recorded the number of identified responses in the task analysis as correct and independent (unprompted). Scoring was as follows: (+) independent and correct responses without any prompting during the 5 s delay or (−) no response or error by the student.

Data Collection and Interrater Reliability

The researcher and data collector (second-year graduate student) used two task analyses for data collection procedures for both the number of steps the intern completed on both the story-based and hand washing task analyses during the probe condition, intervention, and generalization phases. The researcher and data collector used both task analyses to collect data on the emergent literacy and hand washing responses of the students during the probe condition, intervention, and generalization phases. The researcher reviewed both task analyses with the data collector, while providing examples of both correct responses and incorrect responses. Next, the researcher showed the data collector four different video examples and asked the data collector to score the intern and student responses from the video example. The researcher and data collector compared data on both task analyses and scored the number of agreements and disagreements on each step of each task analysis. For each of the disagreements, the researcher replayed the video and pointed out the specific intern or student response and described how to score it. This procedure continued until the researcher and data collector had 90% agreement. A score of 90% agreement was selected because according to Kennedy (2005), “if there is a high degree of variability from one condition to the next or the level of behavior change is small across condition, inter-observer agreement outcomes need to be higher” (p. 120; see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Steps intern completed correctly on story-based task analysis.

For interrater reliability, the researcher and data collector individually scored videotaped sessions of the intern and student teams. Reliability was conducted for 30% of all sessions across all study phases. Interobserver agreement was computed using an item-by-item method (e.g., exact same score on each item of the story-based task analysis + or − for each intern). Interobserver agreement was calculated by the number of agreements divided by the number of possible agreements and disagreements and multiplying by 100.

Procedural fidelity

A checklist and manual were designed for the researcher to conduct the training sessions for each intern. The checklist contained a list of skills to teach using a variety of MCT approaches. This checklist was used for procedural fidelity. All intervention training sessions were videotaped, so evaluators could watch each tape and score the session individually. The data collector and second researcher used the intervention training checklist (e.g., role-play was used to teach time delay on the story-based task analysis) while watching the taped training session. Each scored the components of the training observed by circling yes on the checklist for the part of the training the researcher delivered. The evaluators circled no on the checklist for parts of the training that were not observed. The data collector and second researcher compared the data and calculated the procedural fidelity. Procedural fidelity was calculated for each session by the number of agreements for each step of the training observed divided by the number of training components planned. Procedural fidelity was collected for 100% of training sessions. Fidelity for training Maggie was 97%, and for training Carrie and Erin was 100%.

Social validity

Social validity of the intervention was measured by giving each intern a survey. Using a 4-point Likert-type scale, a survey was created to collect information on the interns’ views of the effectiveness and efficiency of the intervention.

Research Design

A multiple probe design across interns implementing the story-based and hand washing task analyses was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention and to demonstrate experimental control. “Multiple probe design uses probes to evaluate the effect of instruction on skill sequences in which it is unlikely that the subject will improve performance on later steps in the sequence before learning prior steps” (J. O. Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007, p. 211). The multiple probe design shows experimental control by “establishing a consistent effect on a dependent variable by systematically manipulating an independent variable” (Kennedy, 2005, p. 28), so that the effect only occurs when the independent variable has been applied.

To demonstrate experimental control, all interns simultaneously entered the probe condition and data were taken. When probe data patterns stabilized, the first intern was given the MCT, and the first intern and student with SID team were observed to determine the impact of the training on the dependent variables. The other two teams remained in the probe condition to ensure there was no change in the data. After the first intern achieved 90% accuracy or more for three consecutive sessions, the second intern was given the MCT, while the third team remained in the probe condition. After the second intern implemented the story-based and hand washing task analyses with 90% accuracy for more than three consecutive sessions, the third intern received the intervention.

Procedure

Probe condition

Probe sessions were an average of 20 min. One session per day was conducted, with three sessions per week. A reading group consisted of one student with SID and two students from general education. Interns were directed to sit at the table across from the student with SID and one peer on each side of the student with SID. This arrangement was used for all phases. Interns were given a literacy kit and asked to use the materials from the kit. Interns were instructed to read one story and teach hand washing with the student using their current reading practices. After reading the story, interns were told to dismiss the peers and told the student with SID to “Go wash your hands.” Interns were not told how to instruct, cue, or provide feedback. No task analyses were provided. The researcher told the intern which book to use per session. She randomized the use of the books so all three books were provided during the probe condition. Student opportunities were dependent on the intern providing them an opportunity.

Intervention

The 2-hr instruction session occurred in a one-on-one training format in each intern’s classroom after school. The intern was given a copy of a manual to follow along during the training and use as a reference after the session. The manual was a handout that had six components: (a) materials, (b) constant time delay to teach story-based instruction, (c) self-monitoring for story-based instruction, (d) system of least prompts to teach hand washing, (e) self-monitoring of hand washing, and (f) teaching FSBI. The intern needed to demonstrate 90% mastery on each section before moving to the next component. First, the researcher reviewed how to use the materials in the literacy kit. Second, the researcher provided an overview of story-based instruction. The researcher role-played how to teach all the steps of the story-based task analysis (see Figure 1) with constant time delay using book number 1 and materials in the kit. The intern took the role of student. Next, the intern role-played teaching the task analysis, whereas the researcher took the role of a student and provided feedback. The intern was instructed to do the following.

Step 1—Attention getting: The intern blew bubbles (the theme of hand washing) toward the researcher for approximately 1 min. If the researcher engaged with the bubbles, the intern stated, “Good touching the bubbles.” If the researcher did not engage with the bubbles within 5 s, the intern took the researcher’s hand and touched a bubble.

Step 2—Exploration of the book: The researcher was given a copy of Book 1. The researcher was told to explore the book for 1 min. If after 5 s, the researcher did not explore the book, the intern used hand-over-hand to help her explore the book.

Step 3—Review vocabulary words: The researcher was given a copy of the 10 vocabulary words on the strip. The intern said and pointed to the vocabulary word on the strip, and instructed the researcher to look at and point to the word. The intern moved the researcher’s hand to point to each word while saying each word.

The intern used this process on each step of the story-based task analysis as noted in Figure 1.

Third, the researcher showed the intern how to self-monitor using column 1 of the story-based task analysis (see Figure 1). On correct implementation of the step, the intern was directed to go to column 2 and circle a +, if the step was implemented correctly, or a −, if done incorrectly or skipped. The intern was asked to look at column 3 and then score the student response, circle a +, if it was correct, and a −, if it was incorrect or no response, in column 4. The intern used the task analysis while practicing with the researcher. The researcher provided feedback.

Fourth, the researcher demonstrated the system of least prompts, which consisted of (a) say, (b) say and point, and (c) say and physically prompt (Cooper-Duffy et al., 2014). The intern was instructed to use this sequence of prompts on each step of the hand washing task analysis (see Figure 2). The researcher used role-play to instruct the intern and asked the intern to take on the role of the student. The researcher started with the initial prompt of, “Wash your hands,” and then demonstrated how to teach each step of hand washing using the system of least prompts. Next, the researcher and intern switched roles. Immediately following the story, the intern started the hand washing task analysis by saying, “Wash your hands.” The intern waited 5 s for the researcher to begin walking to the sink. If, after 5 s, the researcher did not walk to the sink, the intern pointed in the direction of the sink and said, “Walk to the sink.” The intern waited 5 s for the researcher to respond. If the researcher did not walk toward the sink after 5 s, the intern physically helped the researcher walk to the sink. The system of least prompts was used for each step of the hand washing task analysis. The researcher provided feedback as the intern practiced.

Fifth, the researcher showed the intern how to self-monitor using column 1 of the hand washing task analysis (see Figure 2). On correct implementation of the step, the intern was directed to go to column 2 and circle a + if the step was implemented correctly or a − if done incorrectly or skipped. The intern was asked to look at column 3 and then score the student response, circle a + if it was correct and a − if it was incorrect or no response, in column 4. The intern practiced and the researcher gave feedback.

Finally, the intern was asked to blend teaching the story-based and the hand washing task analyses. The researcher explained that teaching academics with a functional skill can be done in one lesson. The intern was instructed to implement the story-based task analysis and immediately teach the hand washing task analysis. The researcher took on the role of a student with SID during the instruction and provided feedback, while the intern practiced. The intern returned to the classroom and began teaching with the task analyses, using only Book 1 during this phase. The researcher observed the intern teach the student and provided feedback on the intern’s FSBI.

Generalization

Book 2 was used during Generalization Phase 1, whereas Book 3 was used during Generalization Phase 2.

Results

Social Validity

Social validity data were collected from the interns at the end of the study. A survey used in Cooper-Duffy et al. (2014) was emailed to each intern. It included the following statements for rating on a 4-point Likert-type scale (a score of 4 was strongly agree):

The story-based task analysis and datasheet helped me teach students with SID literacy skills.

FSBI enabled the students with SID to demonstrate literacy skills.

The hand washing task analysis and datasheet helped me teach students with SID hand washing skills.

After instruction using the hand washing task analysis and datasheet, my student with SID was able to complete the steps of hand washing.

FSBI could provide a means for teaching other personal care skills.

It would be beneficial for teachers to learn how to teach students with SID using FSBI.

More students with SID would benefit from an inclusive small group.

I will use FSBI to teach literacy and functional skills to students with SID in the future.

I am glad I received training in FSBI.

The range for the responses was 3.3 to 4.0 with a mean of 3.6. Items were rated as agree or strongly agree.

Interrater Reliability

Reliability scores for interns completing steps on the story-based task analysis were 99.5% accuracy for the probe condition, 100% for intervention, 96.6% for Generalization 1, and 100% for Generalization 2. Reliability scores for completing steps on the hand washing task analysis were 100% accuracy for probe sessions and intervention, 96.6% for Generalization 1, and Generalization 2. Reliability scores for students’ correct and independent emergent literacy responses were 100% accuracy for probe sessions, 96% for intervention, 97% for Generalization 1, and 97% for Generalization 2. Reliability scores for students’ correct and independent hand washing responses were 98% accuracy for probe sessions, 94% for intervention, 93% for Generalization 1, and 95% for Generalization 2.

Steps Intern Completed Correctly on Story-Based Task Analysis

Data were analyzed using traditional visual analysis technique, which involved reviewing the data across various elements including level, variability, and trend between different conditions (Kazdin, 2010). In Figure 3, Maggie, Carrie, and Erin had a low-level mean of 0% steps completed correctly on the story-based task analysis, no variability and a flat trend during the probe condition. Their levels immediately and dramatically changed to a high mean of 100% with no variability and a flat trend during intervention. Their levels remained high with a mean of 100%, with no variability and a flat trend during Generalization Phase 1 and Generalization Phase 2. However, Erin was unable to instruct in Generalization Phase 2 because Ellen was hospitalized.

Steps Intern Completed Correctly on Hand Washing Task Analysis

In Figure 4, Maggie had a low-level mean of 0% steps completed correctly on the hand washing task analysis with no variability and a flat trend during the probe condition. The level increased immediately to a high mean of 98.5% during intervention with no variability and a flat trend. The level remained with a high mean of 100% with no variability and a flat trend during Generalization Phase 1, and mean of 98.9% in Generalization Phase 2. Carrie had a low-level mean of 0% steps completed correctly on the hand washing task analysis during probe sessions with no variability and a flat trend. The level immediately changed to a high mean of 99% during intervention, a mean of 100% during Generalization Phases 1 and 2 with no variability and a consistent flat trend across phases. Erin had a low-level mean of 0% steps completed correctly on the hand washing task analysis during the probe condition with no variability and a flat trend. The level immediately changed to a high mean of 100% during intervention with no variability and a flat trend. The level changed to a mean of 55% during Generalization Phase 1 because Erin was hesitant (despite doctor approval) to prompt Ellen because her hands were covered with blisters due to an illness.

Figure 4.

Steps intern completed correctly on the hand washing task analysis.

Student With SID Emergent Literacy Data

In Figure 5, Sally had a low-level mean of 0% correct and independent emergent literacy responses during the probe condition with no variability and a flat trend. The level increased immediately to 45% on the first data point of intervention with a mean of 59.1% with low variability and an increasing trend during intervention. The level changed to high mean of 82.1% during Generalization Phase 1, with no variability and the trend leveled out above the mastery criteria of 70%. The level lowered slightly to a mean of 73.1% during Generalization Phase 2 with slight variability and a flat trend. Ward had a low stable level mean of 0% correct and independent emergent literacy responses during probe sessions with no variability and a flat trend. The level increased to 35% on the first data point of intervention with a mean of 54.9%, low variability, and an accelerating trend. The level increased to a mean of 76.8%, with slight variability, and a flat trend in Generalization Phase 1. Mastery criteria of more than 70% was maintained. During Generalization Phase 2, the level decreased slightly to a mean of 67.7% with no variability and a flat trend. Ellen had a low stable level mean of 0% of correct and independent emergent literacy responses during probe sessions with no variability and a flat trend. The level increased sharply to 60% on the first data point of the intervention to a mean of 64.2% with some variability and an accelerating trend. She achieved the criteria of 70% for mastery. Her level increased to a mean of 78.6% during Generalization Phase 1 with no variability and a flat trend. Ellen did not participate in book three due to illness.

Figure 5.

Emergent literacy responses by students with severe intellectual disability.

Student With SID Hand Washing Data

In Figure 6, Sally had a low-level mean of 36.6% correct and independent hand washing responses in the probe condition with slight variability and a flat trend. The level gradually increased to a mean of 67.1% during intervention with slight variability and an accelerating trend. On the third session of intervention, she exceeded the mastery criteria of 70%. Her level jumped 20% with a mean of 92.5% during Generalization Phase 1 with slight variability and a flat trend. Her level maintained above the mastery criteria at a mean of 81.2% during Generalization Phase 2 with no variability and a flat trend. Ward had a low-level mean of 16.2% of correct and independent hand washing responses during probe sessions with no variability and an initially accelerating trend that leveled off for three consecutive data points at 30% prior to intervention. The first point in intervention showed an abrupt 20% increase for a mean of 70% achieving mastery with slight variability and a flat trend. During Generalization Phase 1, the level maintained at a mean of 70% with slight variability and a flat trend. The level during Generalization Phase 2 had a mean of 62.5% with some variability and a flat trend. During probe sessions, Ellen had a low-level mean with a mean of 6.25% correct and independent hand washing responses with slight variability and a flat trend. On entering intervention, she achieved mastery criteria of 70% within three sessions and a mean of 43.3%, no variability, and an accelerating trend. During Generalization 1, she had a mean of 55%, no variability, and a decelerating trend due to illness.

Figure 6.

Hand washing responses of students with severe intellectual disability.

Discussion

This study evaluated the ability of special education interns to implement FSBI using a story-based and a hand washing task analysis with students who have SID in reading groups with same-grade peers. Primary results show the interns can consistently and reliably implement a 14-step story-based task analysis and an 11-step hand washing task analysis immediately after receiving an MCT training on FSBI with students who have SID. Interns demonstrated gains of 100% increase within one session from the probe condition to intervention. Interns maintained these gains across 2 months. These outcomes support the expanding body of literature on the effectiveness of preparing professionals to reliably implement story-based task analysis by showing that interns can implement the task analyses in rural internships after one training session and feedback in the placement. In addition, these results support and enlarge the growing research on blending academic with functional skills in lessons using FSBI by demonstrating that interns can implement both literacy and hand washing skills in one lesson with students with SID.

This study also evaluated the effects of FSBI on the number of independent and correct emergent literacy and hand washing responses for students with SID in inclusive reading groups. Results of this investigation show the collateral effects of the intern instruction with the increase skill acquisition for students with SID on teaching both grade-level emergent literacy and functional skills. These findings indicate when interns consistently and reliability taught students with SID, the students acquired the skills. Furthermore, the students acquired multiple skills in one lesson when the interns taught with the FSBI. This adds support to the literature on blending academic and functional skills instruction by showing students with SID can acquire both academic and functional skills in one lesson with grade-level nondisabled peers.

Implications for Rural Educators

The intervention used in this study provides a tool that can address challenges for special education internships in rural schools. Rural counties have some schools that do not have teachers licensed to educate students with SID; therefore, there is no one to supervise an intern seeking certification to teach students with SID (Abell et al., 2014). If the school does have a teacher licensed to teach students with SID, the teachers have too many time constraints to adequately provide the needed supervision (Abell et al., 2014). Many rural schools are in low-income areas and have limited resources to support the interns’ experience (Hoppey, 2016). In this study, the story-based and hand washing task analyses included both evidence-based practices and a self-monitoring component. This cost-effective tool when paired with an MCT session was effective in preparing the interns to consistently and effectively implement the task analyses within one training session and implement it over several months in rural schools. These tools can provide interns with information to instruct students with SID without an internship supervisor at the school who has certification with this population. Once the intern is prepared and demonstrates mastery with the MCT information on FSBI, the intern can use the tool in their placement.

To ensure carry over into the classroom, collaboration between the university supervisor and the intern supervisor is needed (Hoppey, 2016). The university supervisor can provide the MCT on FSBI during seminar classes and provide practice with the task analyses ensuring the intern shows mastery. During observations, the university supervisor can provide feedback on the intern’s use of the task analyses and the evidence-based practices. Then, the tool can be shared with the intern supervisor who can use the tool to observe the intern and provide feedback on the intern’s performance.

Implications for the Use of FSBI

This study provides implication for the use of FSBI for students with SID. FSBI was mastered and used by interns to teach students with SID multiple skills in one lesson. The literature on combining functional and academic skills instruction grew out a need for special education teachers to maximize instruction time and prioritize what goals to teach because academic skill instruction is now a legal requirement (Collins et al., 2010). The interesting thing about this shift is the awareness that, historically, functional skills were taught in the context of the need for the skill. For example, your hands are dirty, go wash them. The teacher took your hands and guided you through the steps. Functional skills were taught strictly based on the discrete or chained responses needed to complete the task. There was no information on the how or why this skill was important or the overall big picture of the beginning, middle, and end of the skill.

Teaching students with SID with a blend of academic and functional skills provides an instructional approach that gives students the overview of why and how to do the skill within a context for understanding the skill. FSBI provides instruction that builds vocabulary, so students can communicate about the functional skill. It provides students with a visual picture sequence of the functional skill steps, so students can see the whole skill being performed from beginning to end. Books about others who use the functional skill in their day are read and comprehension questions are used to evaluate the students’ understanding of the functional skill. Checking for understanding about the content can lead to clarity on how to do the steps, which may lead to better performance of the skill. FSBI can expand the literature on teaching functional skills.

FSBI can provide a model for how we teach students to synthesize skills. FSBI addresses state standards on language arts by building vocabulary, identifying parts of a book, identifying vocabulary in the text, answering comprehension questions, and applying knowledge from the reading in daily practice. It also provides an applicable framework for students to use the concept of beginning, middle, and end. As students experience a model for learning the combination of academic and functional skills, their ability to synthesize skills may improve.

Limitations and Future Research

There are several limitations. First, only three elementary students with SID were included in this study. It is unknown whether FSBI would be effective with other students with SID. Second, no data were taken on the students without disability, we do not know the impact of their participation. Third, the reading groups took place in self-contained classes instead of in the general education classroom. It is unknown whether the intervention would have a different outcome in general education. Finally, Ellen became ill and was not able to complete the generalization phase of the study, slightly weakening external validity.

Future studies could evaluate the effectiveness of FSBI with students in elementary general education classes who have SID. Another area for future research is to evaluate the use of a story-based and functional skill task analysis intern performance tool when used by supervisors not licensed to work with students with SID. The collaboration of university supervisors and school-based intern supervisors (not licensed to teach students with SID) to support interns in rural placements is an important area of future research. Finally, evaluating the task analyses for teaching science or math in conjunction with FSBI to students with SID as an intern tool could expand the literature.

In conclusion, using an MCT on FSBI was effective for preparing three interns to correctly implement the steps of the story-based and hand washing task analyses. The collateral effects showed the students with SID increased their skill acquisition on both emergent literacy and hand washing skills as the interns consistently implemented the steps of the task analyses. In addition, interns rated FSBI an effective and efficient tool for teaching students with SID.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abell

Collins

Kleinert

Pennington

(2014). Providing support for rural teachers of students with low incidence disabilities who are completing the Kentucky teacher internship program. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 33, 14–18.

American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. (2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification and systems of support. Washington, DC: Author.

Browder

Trela

Jimenez

(2007). Training teachers to follow a task analysis to engage middle school students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus on Autism and Other Development Disabilities, 22, 206–219.

Brown

Stephenson

Carter

(2014). Multicomponent training of teachers of students with severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37, 347–362.

Buckley

(2007). Show Jo how to wash your hands. Indianapolis, IN: Literary Architects.

Collins

B. C.

Hager

K. D.

Galloway

C. C.

(2011). The addition of functional content during core content instruction with students with moderate disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Development Disabilities, 46, 22–39.

Collins

B. C.

Karl

Riggs

Galloway

C. C.

Hager

K. D.

(2010). Teaching core content with real-life applications to secondary students with moderate and severe disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 43, 52–59.

Cooper

J. O.

Heron

T. E.

Heward

W. L.

(2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Cooper

K. J

Browder

D. M.

(2001). Preparing staff to enhance active participation of adults with severe disabilities by offering choice and prompting performance during a community purchasing activity. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 1–20.

10.

Cooper-Duffy

Hyer

Sisk

(2014). Teaching literacy with functional skills to students with significant intellectual disability. Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities Online Journal, 1, 37–55.

11.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013). CAEP accreditation standards. Washington, DC: Author.

12.

Courtade

G. R.

Lingo

A. S.

Whitney

(2013). Using story-based lessons to increase academic engaged time in general education classes for students with moderate intellectual disability and autism. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 32(4), 3–14.

13.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015–2016).

14.

Fry

(1977). Fry’s readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21, 242–252.

15.

Hoppey

(2016). Developing educators for inclusive classrooms through a rural school-University partnership. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 35, 13–22.

16.

Horrocks

E. L.

Morgan

R. L.

(2011). Effects of inservice teacher training on correct implementation of assessment and instructional procedures for teachers of students with profound multiple disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 283–319. doi:10.1177/0888406410397556

17.

Hyer

(2012). Functional story-based instruction about hand washing to teach emergent literacy skills and hand washing skills to three elementary students with significant intellectual disabilities (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/586

18.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P. L. No.108-446, 20 U.S.C.

19.

Karl

Collins

Hager

Ault

(2013). Teaching core content embedded in a functional activity to students with moderate intellectual disability using a simultaneous prompting procedure. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 363–378.

20.

Kazdin

A. E.

(2010). Single case research designs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

21.

Kennedy

(2005). Single-case design for educational research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

22.

Kretlow

Bartholomew

(2010). Using coaching to improve the fidelity of evidence-based practices: A review of studies. The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 33, 279–299.

23.

Lang

Fox

(2004). Breaking with tradition: Providing effective professional development for instructional personnel supporting students with severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 163–173. doi:10.1177/088840640402700207

24.

Lerman

D. C.

Tetreault

Hovanetz

Strobel

Garro

(2008). Further evaluation of a brief, intensive teacher training model. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 243–248. doi:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-243

25.

Ludlow

Conner

Schechter

(2005). Low incidence disabilities and personnel preparation for rural areas: Current status and future trends. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24, 15–24.

26.

Maheady

Magiera

Simmons

(2016). Building and sustaining school-university partnership in rural settings: One approach for improving special education service delivery. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 35, 33–40.

27.

McMillan

(2008). Teachers make it happen: From professional development to integration of augmentative and alternative communication technology technologies in the classroom. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 32, 199–211.

28.

Pennington

(2017). An IEP for me: Program improvement for rural teachers of students with moderate to severe disability and autism spectrum disorder. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 36, 146–154.

29.

Pennington

Horn

Berrong

(2009). An evaluation of the difference between big city and small town special education services for students with low incidence disabilities in Kentucky. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28, 3–9.

30.

Roberts

Leko

(2013). Integrating functional and academic goals into literacy instruction for adolescents with significant cognitive disabilities through shared story reading. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 38, 157–172.

31.

Ross

(2001). Wash your hands! La Jolla, CA: Kane/Miller Book Publishers.

32.

Westling

D. L.

Salzberg

Collins

B. C.

Morgan

Knight

(2013). Research on the preparation of teachers of students with severe disabilities. In Sindelar

P. T.

McCray

E. D.

Brownell

M. T.

Lignugaris/Kraft

(Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 305–319). New York, NY: Routledge.