Although policy and research support family-school partnerships to increase student achievement, few studies have attempted to determine which variables influence such partnerships. This study relied on a national dataset of 1,004 parents of students with disabilities. Respondents completed a 163-item, web-based questionnaire. Variables were divided into three categories: child, parent, and school. Results revealed four parent and school characteristics that significantly relate to family-school partnerships. Stronger family-school partnerships related to: increased satisfaction with services, frequent parent-school communication, and parents who were more extroverted. Increased parental special education advocacy and knowledge activities related negatively to family-school partnerships, with parents of older students more likely to show increased knowledge and advocacy activities. This study has important implications for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. Future researchers should longitudinally examine family-school partnerships. Practitioners should focus on increasing communication between the school and the family; policymakers should consider these results in relation to future reauthorizations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

The purposes of this study were to examine (1) the extent to which taking notes about text and writing an extended response about text would enhance reading comprehension for fourth grade students, (2) whether note taking was more effective than extended writing for improving reading comprehension across three measures, and (3) whether the effects of the writing tasks were moderated by student writing ability. Students were randomly assigned to a note taking condition which they took notes about an expository text, an extended writing condition in which they compared and contrasted ideas from the text with their own experiences, or a read and study control condition in which they studied the important ideas from the text. Minimal instruction was provided to the students in each treatment group during a single 45 minute session, primarily to ensure they understood their assigned task. The students then met for another 45 minute session, during which they were asked to read an expository passage and complete their assigned task. Students reading comprehension was tested using three measures. Students in the two writing groups made significantly greater gains than students in the read and study condition on the multiple choice inference measure. However, the results are tempered by low internal consistency found for the measure. No other statistically significant differences were found between the treatment groups, and no significant moderator effects were found. Implications for future research are framed in terms of the limitations of the study.

More than 30 previously published studies have shown that small group direct instruction is effective and efficient for teaching participants with and without disabilities, although relatively few studies have been conducted with groups of preschool participants with and without disabilities. In addition, previous studies have primarily assessed whether observational learning occurred for academic behaviors directly taught to group mates. In this study, we assessed target and observational learning of both academic behaviors and of sharing; we also measured affiliation using direct counts of proximity and interactions during free play and using self-report with a modified paired-choice peer preference assessment. Results show that children with and without disabilities learned all target behaviors and at least some of their peer's target academic behaviors; that children without disabilities learned to share by observing their typically-developing peers do so; that most participants generalized sharing to contexts similar to classroom activities; and that self-reports and direct counts of behaviors suggest that affiliation among group mates improved from pre-instruction to post-instruction.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of individualized interventions for young children with persistent challenging behavior. Three children between the ages of 4 and 5 years participated in the study. For each child, target activities and target behaviors were identified. Multicomponent interventions were developed that addressed the functions of the challenging behaviors. Coaches and teachers implemented behavior support interventions during the course of the target activities in the classroom environment. Challenging behavior was significantly reduced for all three children after the introduction of intervention. Fidelity of implementation was also examined, and results are presented for total level of fidelity as well as fidelity by implementer (i.e., teacher or coach). Social validity was assessed using a questionnaire; all teachers reported that the intervention was effective and that they would continue to use the intervention strategies in the future. Issues of generalization and maintenance are discussed. Issues for practice and future research are presented.

Thesis--PlanB (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis--PlanB (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis, PlanB (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis--PlanB (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references.

<p> This study offers a mixed-methods analyses of formal and informal screening tools in L1 and L2 to identify English Language Learners in who are &ldquo;at risk&rdquo; for language learning disabilities. It was conducted in Bangalore, India and the sample consisted of 104 participants in Grades 2-5 from low, middle and high-income private schools. Teachers currently use school-based performance scores in English to classify students as persistent low-achievers. The purpose of this study was to provide teachers with a screening tool in both L1 Kannada and L2 English to be able classify two sub-populations of low-achieving students: students who are delayed in the second language acquisition process and students who are at risk for an underlying language learning disability. </p><p> Two formal bilingual screening tools were adapted and rendered culturally relevant in both British English and Kannada, namely the <i>Preschool Language Scale 5 Screening Test</i> (Zimmerman, Steiner, &amp; Pond, 2012) and the <i>Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 5 Screening Test</i> (Semel, Wiig, &amp; Secord, 2013). Both tests were efficacious in assessing general language ability, and there was a statistically significant relationship between the test scores. The <i>PLS 5</i> was used to compare language competencies across age, as the same test that was developed for 7-year olds was administered to all students in the population, whose ages ranged from 7-10 years. Quantitative analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between 7-8 year olds and 9-10 year olds in their English scores but not in their Kannada scores, suggesting that L2 English was maintained as an academic language while L1 Kannada was not. The <i>CELF 5 Test </i> was used to classify students as &ldquo;bilingual&rdquo; (if they passed both tests in L1 and L2), &ldquo;dominant L1&rdquo;(if they only passed the Kannada test), &ldquo;dominant L2&rdquo; (if they only passed the English test) and &ldquo;at risk for a language learning disability&rdquo; (if they did not pass either the L1 or L2 tests). When <i>CELF 5</i> scores were compared to school-based assessment scores, more than half of the students who were classified as being &ldquo;at risk&rdquo; by their teachers turned out to be dominant in their L2 according to their CELF5 classification. </p><p> Four informal screening tools were used for the study: Narrative Assessment, Parent Questionnaire, Teacher Interview and Classroom Observation. Students&rsquo; narrative skills were assessed using the Narrative Scoring Scheme (Heilmann et al, 2010). A high degree of overlap was observed between the students&rsquo; NSS scores and their <i>CELF5</i> scores. Students who were identified as being &ldquo;dominant L1 or L2&rdquo; according to their <i>CELF5 </i> scores, also got an overall &ldquo;proficient&rdquo; classification on the NSS and students who were considered &ldquo;at risk&rdquo; by the <i> CELF 5,</i> were classified as &ldquo;minimal&rdquo; or &ldquo;emerging&rdquo; in their narrative skills. Quantitative analysis revealed that the <i> CELF5</i> English and Kannada scores significantly predicted students&rsquo; NSS scores. </p><p> The other informal tools, the parent questionnaire, teacher interview and classroom observation checklist were efficacious in pinpointing external factors such as parents&rsquo; educational attainment, parents&rsquo; income levels, pedagogical practices, and special education resources, that are important when interpreting students&rsquo; performance scores across low, middle and high-income schools. Parents&rsquo; educational attainment predicted income levels in the low-income school and reading frequency in the middle-high income schools respectively. </p><p> Qualitative analyses of the teacher interviews emphasized the differences in language of instruction between low-income and middle-high income schools; whereas teachers in the former school alternated between English and Kannada, teachers in the latter schools used English only. The teacher interviews were also useful in highlighting the special education support at each school site: (a) in the low-income school, teachers treated low-achieving students as one group and they received small group instruction that targeted rote-memorization of the content related to school exams; (b) in the middle-income school, teachers viewed special education as occurring outside the purview of their classrooms, as the school had a moderate-severe special education program on the school site, but no resources for students with mild-moderate disabilities; and (c) in the high-income school, teachers followed an inclusive special education model and had access to a special education department on the school site as well as a consultancy service for assessment and intervention of students with disabilities. </p><p> Finally, qualitative analyses of the classroom observation checklist stressed the pedagogical differences across the three schools, with low and middle income schools focusing more on students&rsquo; content knowledge and rote memorization skills and high-income schools focusing more on students&rsquo; presentation skills and conceptual knowledge. The study has implications for theoretical and applied issues concerning assessment, differentiation of language learning difference versus disability in ELLs and models and approaches for intervention.</p>

<p> Adolescents often suffer with negative feelings and low self-esteem, leading to an overall negative self-perception. Prior researchers have linked adolescent self-perception, academic performance, and learning disabilities, but more research is required. This quantitative study examined relationships between self-perception of reading, writing, spelling, and mathematics competence. In addition, global self-worth was examined through the Harter-Renick Self-Perception Profile for Learning Disabled Students (HRSPP). Student academic performance as measured by Stanford Achievement Test-10 Total Reading (SATrd) and Total Math (SATmh) scores among adolescents with learning disabilities were also examined. Student records from the Green School were gathered (<i> n</i> = 128), with their perceived intellectual ability, reading, writing, spelling, mathematics competence, and global self-worth (GLOSW) HRSPP subscale scores treated as predictors. Participants&rsquo; chronological age and specific learning disability (SPLD) served as maturation and selection effect modifiers. SATrd and SATmh were dependent variables in a multiple regression analysis using step-wise data entry. GLOSW emerged as a significant predictor variable, &beta; = .185, <i>t</i> (2.12) = .036, <i>p</i> &lt; .05 with SATrd as the dependent variable. Thus, the higher the GLOSW HRSSP score was, the higher the SATrd score was as well. No significant predictors of criterion variable SATmh existed. These results could elucidate ways to help students with learning disabilities enhance self-esteem, which may lead to improved academic success and overall positive social change.</p>