Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T10:18:47.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Consultation and Training Role for the Behaviourally Oriented Educational Psychologist in School Settings: A Clinical Note

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Ray Wilks
Ray Wilks*
Affiliation:
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
*
Department of Psychology and Intellectual Disability Studies, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Plenty Road, Bundoora VIC 3083, Australia
Get access

Abstract

A 1981 national survey of 335 American educational psychologists found psychological/educational assessment and consultation with teachers and parents are the two most frequently engaged in activities of school psychologists. A behavioural approach to these two activities is considered in the literature to be more effective than a number of other approaches and practices. This clinical note describes a behavioural consultation and training role for educational psychologists which was applied to the issue of improving the reading skills of 12 integrated primary school children. The behavioural consultation involved four phases: problem identification, problem analysis, intervention, and evaluation. Results of the consultation and training indicated a substantial increase in the number of books read, letter-sound knowledge, sight vocabulary, and passage comprehension of the 12 integrated children. Informal assessment of teacher satisfaction with this approach to consultation and training was found to be very positive.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 121 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bell, P., & Kerry, T. (1982). Teaching slow learners in mixed ability classes. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Bloom, B.S. (1968). Learning to mastery. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bloom, B.S. (1980). The new direction in educational research: Alterable variables. Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 382–385.Google Scholar
Center, L., Ward, J., & Ferguson, C. (1991). Towards an index to evaluate the integration of children with disabilities into regular classes. Educational Psychology, 11, 77–95.Google Scholar
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read — the great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Chall, J. (1979). The great debate: Ten years later, with a modest proposal for reading stages. in Resnick, L.B., & Weaver, P.A. (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Early Reading (Vol. 1, pp. 25–52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clymer, T. (1980). Reading 360 Australia. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.Google Scholar
Edwards, P. (1976). Reading problems: Identification and treatment. Richmond, VIC: Primary Education.Google Scholar
Fields, B.A. (1991). A comparison of regular and resource teacher instructional plans for academically handicapped children: An assessment of the efficacy of withdrawal model remedial teaching. Australian Journal of Special Education, 15, 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelzheiser, L.M., & Meyers, J. (1991). Reading instruction by classroom, remedial, and resource room teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 512–516.Google Scholar
Goodman, K. (1976, 08). “Literacy in a world view: Who skilled Cock Robbin?” paper presented at the Sixth I.R.A. World Congress on Reading, Singapore.Google Scholar
Johnston, N. (1990). School consultation: The training needs of teachers and school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 51–56.Google Scholar
Knoff, H., McKenna, A., & Riser, K. (1991). Toward a consultant effectiveness scale: Investigating the characteristics of effective consultants. School Psychology Review, 20, 81–96.Google Scholar
Lacayo, N., Sherwood, G., & Morris, J. (1981). Daily activities of school psychologists: A national survey. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 184–190.Google Scholar
Leinhardt, G., & Palley, A. (1982). Restrictive educational settings: Exile or haven? Review of Educational Research, 52, 557–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, I.Y., & Liberman, A.M. (1990). Whole language vs. code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their implications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 40, 51–76.Google Scholar
Matthews, M. (1966). Teaching to read: Historically considered. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Medley, D.W. (1979). The effectiveness of teachers. In Peterson, P.L., & Walberg, H.J. (Eds.), Research on teaching (pp. 11–27). Berkely, CA: McCutchen.Google Scholar
Medway, F.J. (1979). How effective is school consultation?: A review of recent research. Journal of School Psychology, 3, 275–282.Google Scholar
Noble, B., & Dickinson, D.J. (1988). Utility of school psychologists' recommendations: Perception of elementary teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 25, 412–418.Google Scholar
Pflaum, S., Walberg, H., Karegianes, M., & Rasher, S. (1980). Reading instruction: A quantitative analysis. Education Research, 12, 12–18.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K.E. (1982). Individual differences in cognitive processes of reading: 1-word decoding. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 485–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, R., & Rosenshine, B.V. (1981). Advances in research on teaching. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 2, 1–9.Google Scholar
Updyke, J.F., Melton, E.C., & Medway, F.J. (1981, 11). The effectiveness of school psychologists: A meta-analysis perspective. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
Vacca, J., Vacca, R., & Gove, M. (1987). Reading and learning to read. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Company.Google Scholar
Wiederholt, J.L., & Chamberlain, S.P. (1989). A critical analysis of resource programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1979). Reading instruction today. American Psychologist, 34, 917–922.Google Scholar