Table 7 Appendix A. Academic Engagement Behavior Checklist
Related Figures (7)
Note. ID = intellectual disability, E = externalizing problems T score, I = internalizing problems T score. Table 1. Participant Information (Students) “# of years for which the teacher has been working as a special education teacher. ° the code of the participating students (specifiec in Table 1) that the teacher was in charge of. Table 3. The 12 Questions Used in the SDLMI Implementation Phase The families of the experimental group were involved in three ways. First, the families helped and checked their child’s homework assigned by the special education teachers during Korean language classes. Second, the families had conversations with their children about what they had learned in Korean language classes using the activity sheets that the children brought home. After the conversations, the families signed the activity sheets and the students brought them back to school the next day. Special education teachers compiled the activity sheets and homework signed by the families in the students’ folders. At the end of each week, the teachers had students mark the number of family signatures on their self-monitoring forms. Third, the families marked on the CICO card if their children showed the target behavior at home and signed it. The families also praised their children if the CICO card showed that their children demonstrated the target behavior at school. Table 4. Academic Engagement Behavior Measured by Checklist Table 5 shows the means and standard scores of academic engagement behavior measured by the direct observation of the two groups. The difference between the mean change in score of the experimental group and the control group was significant (t=5.54, p<.01). From the two, independent, t-test results, it can be concluded that the intervention had positive effects on students’ academic engagement behavior. The means and standard deviations of academic engagement behavior were measured according to the checklist for the two groups before and after the intervention. These measurements are shown in Table 4. An independent t-test was conducted to compare the changes in scores of the experimental group and the control group. There was a significant increase in academic engagement behavior in the experimental group compared to the control group (t=2.29, p<.05). Table 5. Academic Engagement Behavior Measured by Direct Observation Figure | shows the progress of the students in the experimental group in their goal attainment of Korean language. The students in the experimental group showed a gradual increase as the intervention proceeded. Ten students among 11 in the experimental group reached an acceptable score (50 points).
