Structured teaching

What was the aim?

Phase 1 of the project aimed to identify and explore issues experienced when using the original teacher workbook from the TEACCH program to implement visual schedules and work systems in mainstream classrooms.

What did the project team do?

• The team used a single-case study methodology in a mainstream classroom.
• The teacher implemented structured teaching using the original teacher workbook from the TEACCH program.
• The team investigated social validity: Did the teacher and the students think that using structured teaching was helpful?
• The team investigated implementation fidelity: Could the teacher use structured teaching in their classroom?

Where was Phase 1 of the project conducted?

Phase 1 was conducted in regional Queensland.

What did the project team find?

• The teacher needed more information in the original teacher workbook than was provided.
• The student reported that the timetable was of some help and that their work system was very helpful.
• The teacher reported that the timetables were easy to use and that work systems helped keep many students on task. 
• The teacher reported that developing task checklists (in the work systems) to suit all students in their class took time.

What was the aim?

Phase 2 of the project aimed to investigate the effect of visual schedules and work systems on students’ on-task behaviours and productivity, and on the independence of students on the autism spectrum when a mainstream teacher implemented these strategies for the whole class.

What did the project team do?

• The team used a multiple-baseline single-case experimental design in four mainstream classrooms.
• Each teacher received an amended teacher workbook and additional guidance from the team.
• The team worked with the teachers to define the on-task and off-task behaviours of each of the four students on the autism spectrum.
• The team measured the effects of visual schedules and work systems by observing and recording on-task and off-task student behaviours before and during implementation of the strategies.
• To measure productivity, the team recorded the number of words the students wrote before and during the above strategies.
• To measure independence, the team recorded the number of prompts that students needed before and during the use of the above strategies. The team assumed that students who worked more independently would require fewer prompts.
• The team used a fidelity implementation checklist to evaluate whether the above strategies were implemented according to the original teacher workbook guidelines.

Where was Phase 2 of the project conducted?

Phase 2 was conducted in four classrooms in regional Queensland.

What did the team find?

• All four students were on task more often when visual schedules and work systems were used. The increase in on-task behaviours was statistically significant for three of the four students.
• For one student, on-task behaviour increased from 20% before visual schedules and work systems were introduced to 53% after they were introduced. After the visual schedules and work systems were removed, the student’s on-task behaviour dropped to only 8% (see Figure 1).
• The frequency of off-task behaviours did not change in any significant way when visual schedules and work systems were used.
• Two students showed significant increases in productivity. 
• No change to independence was recorded for any students.

Baseline

A minimum of five observations over a 2-3 week period to establish a baseline of behaviours. Ten second partial interval coding was used. Student on- and off-task behaviours and teacher prompting were measured from the start of the task. Coding reliability established.

Intervention

Teacher met researcher to discuss the workbook (Haas, 2015). Teacher implemented appropriate elements of structured teaching.

Maintenance

Only implemented for one student

What was the aim?

Phase 3 of the project aimed to obtain feedback from mainstream primary school teachers on the utility of visual schedules and work systems in their classrooms as presented in the amended program Finished! The On-task Toolkit (Macdonald & Haas, 2016).

What did the project team do?

• The team used a two-stage survey to evaluate teachers’ responses to the amended program. Forty-one (41) mainstream primary school teachers completed Stage 1 of the survey and 22 of those teachers also completed Stage 2.  
• In Stage 2, the team used a qualitative case study approach to obtain further feedback from four mainstream teachers about the use of the strategies outlined in the amended program.
• The team used the above approach to capture the complex and rich experience of implementing the amended program.

Where was Phase 3 of the project conducted?

Phase 3 was conducted in classrooms across New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia.

What did the team find?

• The teachers’ responses to the amended program were overwhelmingly positive – they found it easy to follow and useful.
• Reading the amended program increased the teachers’ confidence but not necessarily their knowledge about visual schedules and work systems.  
• All four teachers had some level of success and affirmed they would continue using the strategies with their whole classes.
• The teachers were able to describe independent delivery of visual schedules and work systems as part of their everyday practice.