Teaching strategies

The pattern of educational difficulties which occur following paediatric ABI usually results in these students requiring assistance with the underlying cognitive components of school-based tasks and activities (i.e., breaking tasks down, problem solving, keeping up with the pace of classroom learning etc.) (Arroyos-Jurado & Savage, 2008; Dickman et al., 2001; Ylvisaker et al., 2005). Given the well known specific areas of cognitive difficulties following paediatric ABI, there are an abundance of specific teaching strategies that have been put forward for staff working with students with an ABI. For example, in the one publication alone, 16 different strategies are provided for the assistance of deficits in attention for students with an ABI (Walker & Wicks, 2005). The copious number of strategies provided within the literature is likely necessitated by the large range of variability in the cognitive and educational capabilities of individuals with paediatric ABI. Given this

variation in capabilities the same strategies are not likely to be effective for all students with an ABI (Zinga et al., 2005). This creates the need for a trial and error approach with strategies to ensure a correct fit between the individual needs of the student and supports provided (Arroyos-Jurado & Savage, 2008; Rees & Skidmore, 2008; Zinga et al., 2005).

A brief sample of common teaching strategies for students with an ABI is presented in Table 1.3. While this table is only based on four sources, there are many more articles, books, and resource guides that provide similar lists of teaching strategies for working with students with an ABI (e.g., Bennett et al., 2003; Butler & Copeland, 2002; Deidrick & Farmer, 2005; Dickman et al., 2001; Division of Special Education, 2004; Keyser-Marcus et al., 2002; Lash, Wolcott, & Pearson, 2005; Ministry of Special Education, 2001; Queensland Studies Authority, 2007; Schutz & Schutz, 2000; Sterling, 1994; Student and Professional Support Services, 2000; Utah State Office of Education & Utah State University, 1993; Walker & Wicks, 2005).

Table 1.3: Commonly presented teaching strategies for students with an ABI.

For deficits in attention:

- Provide rest breaks and decrease distractions in the environment.  - Break tasks down to fit into attentional capacity of student. 

- Redirect and increase self-awareness of deficits (re: use of verbal or visual reminders to maintain attention). 

For deficits in memory

- Teach student to manage incoming information (chunking of information, allow extra processing time). 

- Teach student to rehearse and summarise new information. 

- Elaborate information so student can more easily connect it with previously learnt knowledge. 

- Use prompts such as diary, lists, homework sheets, and teach students to use these effectively. 

For deficits in speed of information processing

- Provide extra time. 

- Present information at a slower rate, keeping it simple and clear.  - Provide a scribe. 

For deficits in executive functioning

- Utilise plans such as “Goal, plan, predict, do, review” to teach planning skills. - Use daily routines. 

- Assist the student in breaking down information into small parts by modelling explicitly.

- Provide written structure/steps on how to complete a task. 

Teaching strategies for students with an ABI can often be grouped into two main categories, compensatory strategies and remediation strategies (Arroyos-Jurado & Savage, 2008; Catroppa & Anderson, 2006; Parkin, Maas, & Rodger, 1996; Penkman, 2004; Sterling, 1994; Ylvisaker et al., 2005). Compensatory teaching strategies are those which focus on lessening the cognitive load by compensating for the student‟s known cognitive deficits (Mateer & Sohlberg, 2003). Through this process of reducing the cognitive load, it is thought that students will then be better able to learn information and achieve academic success (McDonald, 1998; Rees, 2006; Sterling, 1994). Examples of compensatory strategies include: providing modified work, reducing external noises, providing rest breaks, giving explicit instructions, providing handouts when presenting verbal information, and providing multiple choice questions (Mateer & Sohlberg, 2003; Walker & Wicks, 2005).

Conversely, remediation strategies aim to provide an opportunity for the development of the cognitive skills underlying academic and behavioural tasks, thus, increasing students‟ independence with time (McDonald, 1998; Rees, 2006; Sterling, 1994; Ylvisaker et al., 2005). This is achieved by overtly teaching the student specific approaches to learning (Glang, Ylvisaker et al., 2008). Glang, Ylvisaker et al. (2008) provided the example of a student being taught to use self-regulatory self-talk such as “I need to check my work” to improve on academic outcomes (p. 246). Another example of a remediation strategy is teaching the student to utilise a planning and problem solving chart to assist them in breaking down tasks into manageable steps (Glang, Ylvisaker et al., 2008).

While either type of teaching strategy can be used in isolation, McDonald (1998) noted that the provision of compensatory strategies alone would not serve to increase the cognitive capacity of students with an ABI. Thus, McDonald (1998) suggested that remediation strategies are also required as they provide the opportunity for cognitive development and assist students to undertake tasks more independently over time. As a result, it is generally recommended that both categories of teaching strategies are included in any educational intervention program. Taken together, these strategies promote educational achievement by reducing the impact of students‟ cognitive deficits within the classroom (Bennett et al., 2003; Tyler & Grandinette, 2003). It could be assumed that by using a combination of these teaching strategies, and thus reducing the impact of students‟ cognitive deficits, they would then also reduce the number of negative behaviours which occur in the classroom.

While these teaching strategies are promoted as effective for students with an ABI, there is a distinct paucity of published research on their efficacy (Catroppa & Anderson, 2006; Semrud-Clikeman, 2001; Sharp et al., 2006; Stewart-Scott & Douglas, 1998; Ylvisaker et al., 2001). While some authors note that the teaching strategies they present have been research-validated, they do so without providing information on the evaluations used and associated outcomes (e.g., see: Bowen (2005), Dawson and Guare (2004), and Dickman et al. (2001)). The need for individuality and variability in the assigning of specific strategies to students with an ABI, as discussed above, has been cited as a large limitation in conducting large scale research validation studies (Arroyos-Jurado & Savage, 2008). Given this obstacle to research, the majority of authors who publish these teaching strategies acknowledge the lack of research and state that the strategies they recommend are based on pragmatic observations and experience (Ylvisaker et al., 2001). Despite the lack of published evaluations, Ylvisaker et al. (2001) suggested that a presence of credibility is obtained as similar strategies are reported across continents in numerous books and journals.