As a special educator, Autism consultant, and behavior analyst, I am familiar with the research and evidence around the use of one-to-one instruction for students with autism and other low-incidence disabilities. The idea that specific, direct instruction tailored to an individual student’s needs could support learning is not the stuff of fantasy. However, how does that work in classrooms where there is only one certified teacher and multiple students?

In our classrooms, we abide by the rule that new content instruction is delivered by a certified teacher. This means that support staff, like teacher assistants or paraprofessionals cannot teach new learning. We also tend to address instruction in one-to-one or small groups, which does not allow for long instructional periods as we need to cycle through all learners in the class. For instance, recommended literacy instruction time is ninety to a hundred twenty minutes every day. While not all that time is new instruction, that’s an impressive chunk of time for a six and a half hour school day.

So, the question is this:  how do we marry the need for both one-to-one instruction, ninety plus minutes of literacy instruction and sixty minutes of math instruction?  One way to consider this question is to review how we schedule the day in full-time special education programs. From the outset, some programs are scheduled to be in one-to-one or one-to-two instructional scenarios all day. Students have limited practice and time in small or large group instruction and when they are in groups, educators often report issues with behavior from non-engagement to physical aggression (ie. hitting) to elopement. Behavioral issues then become the catalyst for keeping students in one-to-one teaching opportunities.

Oftentimes, we see the behaviors as too big, too embedded and choose the path of least resistance. In this case, one to one instruction. In the past, I have found it beneficial to look at each individual child and determine the one skill they need to learn that will have the greatest return on investment. In other words, if the student can learn to do this skill, they will have greater overall success across their school day. As the student learns the expected skill, we can move on to the next “big skill” for them. As our students experience these successes, they become more in-tune with the learning and often start to show increased fluency in learning. Staff can also feel bolstered by student success and re-tool learning to address new skills. 

Another consideration is how we are introducing the concepts for learning across content areas. Can we pull students into a whole group to teach the concepts and then break off into smaller groups or one to one instruction  where all adults in the room are addressing the new and reviewed skills?  New learning can be highlighted in work with the teacher with review work or extension to the new learning can be addressed with classroom assistants.

There are many classrooms who use the center approach in instruction. Some thoughts to consider when using centers are:

• • Is there adequate time in centers?
  • Are we building up the amount of time students can be in centers without needing breaks in learning?
  • How long and often do students receive breaks in instruction?

Brain research is clear that our brains do not just want to “sit and get”. Leveraging the need for structured brain breaks, the use of reinforcement and providing transition opportunities can all support not only the learning within the instructional time, but how long the student can engage in the instruction. Our students need fluency of instruction and  that does not occur when there are frequent breaks and transitions. We can use what we know about reinforcement to build student tolerance for longer periods of instruction. Variable reinforcement allows us to build stronger, steadier, and longer responding in our students. 

Let’s return to the original question, “How much one-to-one instruction is too much?”  In thinking about what we know about behavior, the need to direct, explicit instruction and time for instruction, the better question may be, “Are we providing enough instruction across content and skill development areas?”  There is no argument around the idea that one-to-one instruction works and has merit. However, in a classroom, there are not eight certified teachers to provide new content instruction and if the one teacher is trying to teach all new content in a one to one context, they will not only run out of time to teach content like literacy and math, they will be hard pressed to address the myriad of other skills students in low incidence classrooms will need.

Additional Resources:

• • Additional Information on Evidence Based Practices can be found at The National Professional Development Center.
  • View modules on what is and how to use chaining, shaping or task analysis, go to: Autism Focused Intervention Resources and Modules (AFIRM)
  • IRIS Center

Author