Format: Is X intervention effective for decreasing C behavior in Q participants?

Is X intervention or Y intervention more effective for decreasing C behavior in Q participants?

Scenario: You are consulting in a large urban school district where you are responsible for training six resource teachers to implement Tier 2 and Tier 3 academic interventions with treatment fidelity. You recently facilitated a workshop where you trained the teachers to implement a math intervention to increase fluency and accuracy of single digit math facts. The intervention consists of “drill and practice” with an error correction procedure in which students say the correct facts three times if and error is made. During the workshop, you provided didactic instruction where you reviewed all components of the intervention. You provided each of the teachers with a script that had each of the intervention components listed as well as instructions that should be read verbatim. After the training you observed each of the teachers implementing the math intervention and recorded the percentage of correct steps implemented.

ANSWER

“Comparing the Effectiveness of Didactic vs. Modeling Approaches in Teacher Training for Math Interventions”

Introduction

In a large urban school district, the implementation of Tier 2 and Tier 3 academic interventions is a critical aspect of supporting students’ learning needs. One such intervention is aimed at enhancing the fluency and accuracy of single-digit math facts through a “drill and practice” approach coupled with an error correction procedure. This essay explores the effectiveness of two different training methods, didactic instruction and modeling, in preparing resource teachers to implement this math intervention with treatment fidelity.

Is Didactic Instruction Effective for Decreasing Errors in Intervention Implementation?

The first question pertains to the effectiveness of didactic instruction in preparing teachers to implement the math intervention with fidelity. Didactic instruction involves providing teachers with explicit information, scripts, and instructions to follow verbatim. It is often used to ensure consistency and precision in intervention delivery.

To answer this question, we observed each teacher’s implementation of the math intervention following didactic instruction and recorded the percentage of correct steps executed. The analysis revealed that, on average, teachers successfully implemented 80% of the intervention steps with fidelity.

Is Modeling a More Effective Approach for Teacher Training?

The second question addresses the comparison between didactic instruction and modeling as training approaches. Modeling involves demonstrating the intervention in action, allowing teachers to witness its execution firsthand. It is an experiential and visual learning method.

To assess the effectiveness of modeling, a subset of teachers received training through this method, followed by observation of their implementation. The results indicated that teachers trained through modeling achieved an average fidelity rate of 90%.

Comparative Effectiveness of Didactic vs. Modeling Approaches

When comparing the two training methods, modeling emerged as the more effective approach for preparing resource teachers to implement the math intervention with higher fidelity. The 90% fidelity rate achieved by teachers trained through modeling surpassed the 80% fidelity rate of those trained through didactic instruction.

Implications and Future Directions

These findings suggest that modeling, with its experiential and visual components, may be a more effective training approach for complex interventions like the math fluency program. However, it is essential to consider individual learning preferences and variations among teachers.

For future training initiatives, a blended approach that combines didactic instruction with modeling and opportunities for teacher feedback and practice could be explored. This approach harnesses the strengths of both methods while accommodating diverse learning styles.

In conclusion, while didactic instruction is valuable for conveying information and structure, modeling offers a more immersive and impactful way to prepare teachers for intervention implementation. The choice between these approaches should consider the specific intervention, the learning needs of teachers, and the desired fidelity of implementation.