institute for academic access
DESCRIPTION
Institute for Academic Access. University of Kansas. Purpose of the IAA. Creating real access to the high school general education curriculum for students with disabilities (SWDs) Improving educational outcomes achieved by SWDs. Research Partners. Planning Team Keith Lenz Gary Adams. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Institute for Academic Institute for Academic AccessAccess
University of Kansas
Purpose of the IAAPurpose of the IAA
• Creating real access to the high school general education curriculum for students with disabilities (SWDs)
• Improving educational outcomes achieved by SWDs
Research PartnersResearch Partners
Planning TeamKeith Lenz
Gary Adams
Materials & Assessment Team
Doug CarnineBonnie Grossen
Betsy Davis
Instructional Methods Team
Don DeshlerJean Schumaker
Janis Bulgren
Target PopulationTarget Population
• High-school students with disabilities (SWDs) who:• Have been formally classified• Are expected to earn standard high school diplomas• Are or have been enrolled in a rigorous general
education curriculum
Or• Could be enrolled in a rigorous general education
curriculum if support were available
Interactive Research ModelInteractive Research Model
Interactive Research Model
Strands
I: Descriptive Research on Contextual Factors
II: Student-Learning Research
III: Teacher-Learning Research
IV: School-Change Research
1 2 3 4 5 n
Project YearsStrands
Project Years
Achievement GapAchievement Gap
Grade in School
Gra
de L
evel
in A
chie
vem
ent
Mean Percentage of Intervals General Education Mean Percentage of Intervals General Education Teachers Were Observed in Various Activities for Teachers Were Observed in Various Activities for Each SchoolEach School
Mean Percentage of Intervals General Education Mean Percentage of Intervals General Education Teachers Were Observed in Various ActivitiesTeachers Were Observed in Various Activities
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Lecture/read2. Give directions3. Listening4. Ask question5. Monitor6. Model7. Verbal rehearsal8. Simple enhancer9. Advance organizer10. Role Play11. Content Enhancement (complex)12. Elaborated Feedback13. Write on board14. Describe skill/strategy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Lecture/read2. Give directions3. Listening4. Ask question5. Monitor6. Model7. Verbal rehearsal8. Simple enhancer9. Advance organizer10. Role Play11. Content Enhancement (complex)12. Elaborated Feedback13. Write on board14. Describe skill/strategy
Mean Percentage of Intervals Special Education Mean Percentage of Intervals Special Education Teachers Were Observed in Various Activities for Teachers Were Observed in Various Activities for Each SchoolEach School
Special Education Teacher Special Education Teacher ObservationsObservations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Lecture/read2. Give directions3. Listening4. Ask question5. Monitor6. Model7. Verbal rehearsal8. Simple enhancer9. Advance organizer10. Role Play11. Content Enhancement (complex)12. Elaborated Feedback13. Write on board14. Describe skill/strategy
Course Options for SWDsCourse Options for SWDs
• Type A: Courses taught by SPED teachers for SPED students
• Type B: Courses taught by general education teachers for low achievers and at-risk students
• Type C: Rigorous courses taught by general education teachers with heterogeneous groups of students
• Type D: Advanced placement courses taught by general education teachers
• Type E: Other courses taught by general education teachers (e.g., vo-tech electives)
Rigorous General Education Rigorous General Education Enrollments for SWDsEnrollments for SWDs
1R 2R 3R 1S 2S 3S 1U 2U 3U
Total number of special education students
48 14 50 62 76 67 89 180 219
Total possible core class enrollments 1
192 56 200 248 304 268 356 720 876
Actual number of rigorous general education enrollments
15 49 6 35 304 67 4 166 36
Estimated number of students with disabilities by general education teachers
55 24 N/A2 24 17 21 13 51 N/A
2 N/A=not available.
1 This number reflects the number of enrollments possible if every student with a disability were enrolled in a rigorous general education class each class period of the day
Rigorous general education enrollments for students with disabilities.
Rural Schools Suburban Schools Urban Schools
Enrollments in “Rigorous” Enrollments in “Rigorous” General Education ClassesGeneral Education Classes
• Total possible “rigorous” class enrollments:3220
• Actual # of “rigorous” enrollments: 682
• Total # of SWD: 805• Estimates for GE teachers
of # of SWD: 205
Student AchievementStudent Achievement
4
44
37
14
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Perc
en
tag
e o
f S
WD
s
A B C D F
Grade-Point Averages
Model for Ensuring Access and Model for Ensuring Access and Positive OutcomesPositive Outcomes
The Content Literacy ContinuumThe Content Literacy ContinuumDuring School:Level 1: Enhanced content instruction (Mastery of critical content for all
regardless of literacy levels)
Level 2: Embedded strategy instruction (Routinely weave strategies instruction within and across classes using large-group methods)
Level 3: Intensive strategy instruction (Mastery of specific strategies using 8-stage instructional sequence; individual Strategic Tutoring)
Level 4: Intensive basic skill instruction (Mastery of entry level literacy skills at the 4th-grade level)
Level 5: Therapeutic intervention (Mastery of language underpinnings of curriculum content and learning strategies)
After School: Strategic Tutoring (Extending the instructional time “box” through before- and after-school tutoring)
Student-Learning Student-Learning Research StudiesResearch Studies
Learner-Friendly Courses Learner-Friendly Courses Through Content EnhancementThrough Content Enhancement
Comparing Two ConceptsComparing Two Concepts
Concept Concept Comparison Comparison
TableTable
Mean Percentage Total ScoresMean Percentage Total Scores
56.68
76.02
84.1486.36
83.48
62.64
71.32
86.93
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
LD LA NA HA
Mea
n P
erce
nta
ge C
orre
ct
Control
Experimental
Student Subgroups
Concept Anchoring TableConcept Anchoring Table
Anchoring Known Information Anchoring Known Information to New Informationto New Information
Concept Anchoring RoutineConcept Anchoring Routine
Concept LD LA NA HA
Pyramid of Numbers
Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced
Commensalism Not Enhanced Not Enhanced Not Enhanced Not Enhanced
Concept LD LA NA HA
Pyramid of Numbers
Not Enhanced Not Enhanced Not Enhanced Not Enhanced
Commensalism Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced
Condition 1: Sub-Groups of Students
Condition 2: Sub-Groups of Students
Results for Student SubgroupsResults for Student SubgroupsCondition 1
(Commensalism Enhanced)Condition 2
(Pyramid of Numbers Enhanced)
39.75
100
69.13
73.25
91.9693.75
79.62
83.86
7573.25
53.13
64.25
36.03
46.38
54.55
95.86
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
LD LA NA HA LD LA NA HA
Groups of Students in Conditions
Per
cent
age
Cor
rect
Pyramid ofNumbersCommensalism
Recall Enhancement RoutineRecall Enhancement Routine
Presented in lecture
Presented in lecture
Presented in lecture
Presented in lecture
Enhanced with routine
Enhanced with routine
Facts repeated Facts repeated
Experimental GroupLD NLD(N=9) (N=11)
Control GroupLD NLD(N=9) (N=12)
Nonreviewed Facts
Reviewed Facts
Student Performance on Student Performance on Reviewed FactsReviewed Facts
41.8
84.85
64.29
70.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
LD Students NLD Students
Per
cent
age
of P
oint
s E
arne
d
Control
Experimental
Percentage of Students Percentage of Students Performing at Passing LevelsPerforming at Passing Levels
22
77
58
6663
100
11
22
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100P
erce
nta
ge o
f S
tud
ents
Control
Experimental
Nonreviewed Facts Reviewed Facts
LD LD NLD NLD NLDNLDLD LD
Question Question Exploration Exploration
GuideGuide
The Course OrganizerThe Course Organizer
The Frame DeviceThe Frame Device
Strategy Instruction Strategy Instruction
Learning Strategies CurriculumLearning Strategies Curriculum
Word Identification Strategy
FIRST-Letter Mnemonic Strategy
Sentence Writing Strategy
Paraphrasing Strategy Paired Associates Strategy
Paragraph Writing Strategy
Self-Questioning Strategy
LINCS Vocabulary Strategy
Error Monitoring Strategy
InSPECT Strategy
Theme Writing Strategy
Assignment Completion Strategy
Test-Taking Strategy
ACQUISITION STORAGE EXPRESSION & DEMONSTRATION OF COMPETENCE
Learning StrategyLearning Strategy
• A Learning Strategy is how a person plans, acts, and evaluates performance on a task and its outcome.
Application of StrategiesApplication of Strategies
Assignment: In chronological order, list the political leaders of the Soviet Union from 1917 to the fall of communism. What strategies did you use?
Lenin
Stalin
Khrushchev
Brezhnev
Andropov
Chernenko
Gorbachov
The StrategyThe Strategy
FIRST Letter Mnemonic Strategy:FIRST Letter Mnemonic Strategy:Step 1: Form a wordStep 1: Form a wordStep 2: Insert a letterStep 2: Insert a letterStep 3: Rearrange the lettersStep 3: Rearrange the lettersStep 4: Shape a sentenceStep 4: Shape a sentenceStep 5: Try combinationsStep 5: Try combinations
Little Soviet Kids Become Adult Commies Gradually
LENIN
STALIN
KHRUSHCHEV
BREZHNEV
ANDROPOV
CHERNENKO
GORBACHOV
The Sentence Writing StrategyThe Sentence Writing Strategy
• Pick a formula
• Explore words to fit the formula
• Note the words
• Search and check
Sentence Writing StrategySentence Writing Strategy
70
99
0102030405060708090
100
Baseline Post-Instruction
Mea
n P
e rce
ntag
e of
Com
ple t
e S
ent e
nce s
The Paragraph Writing StrategyThe Paragraph Writing Strategy
• Set up a diagram
• Create a title
• Reveal the topic
• Iron out the details
• Bind it together with a clincher
• Edit your work
Paragraph Writing StrategyParagraph Writing Strategy
36
80
0102030405060708090
100
Baseline Post-Instruction
Mea
n P
erce
ntag
e of
Poi
nts
Ear
ned
The Error Monitoring StrategyThe Error Monitoring Strategy
• Write on every other line using “PENS”
• Read the paper for meaning
• Interrogate yourself using the “COPS” questions
• Take the paper to someone for help
• Execute a final copy
• Reread your paper
Error Monitoring StrategyError Monitoring Strategy
25
90
01020304050
60708090
100
Pretest Posttest
Mea
n P
erce
ntag
e of
Err
ors
Cor
rect
ed
Error Monitoring StrategyError Monitoring Strategy
0.27
0.04
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Baseline Post-Instruction
Mea
n N
umbe
r of
Err
ors
Per
Wor
d
Steps of the Theme Writing Steps of the Theme Writing StrategyStrategy• Think
• Organize it
• Write a draft
• Evaluate it
• Refine it
Theme Writing StrategyTheme Writing Strategy
24
74
0102030405060708090
100
Baseline Post-Instruction
Mea
n P
erce
ntag
e of
Poi
nts
Ear
ned
All Writing StrategiesAll Writing Strategies
3.5
2.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
Targeted LDStudents
All Studentsin District
Mea
n S
core
on
Dis
tric
t Wri
ting
Com
pete
ncy
Exa
m
Theme Writing StrategyTheme Writing Strategy
2.5 2.6
2
2.5
0
1
2
3
4
EnglishGrade
OverallGPA
UnderpreparedStudentsPrepared Students
Mea
n G
rade
in E
ngli
sh
Homework Assistance through Homework Assistance through Strategic TutoringStrategic Tutoring
Strategic Tutoring Instructional Strategic Tutoring Instructional PhasesPhases
Assessing Constructing
TEACHING
Transferring
Strategic Tutoring ModelStrategic Tutoring Model
The role of the Strategic Tutor is to:• Explain content, build knowledge• Share extensive knowledge of strategies• Apply principles of Strategic Instruction• Mentor and “connect” with students
Strategic Tutoring Study 1Strategic Tutoring Study 1
4645
70
80
5458
86 84
5961
8791
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
TestsQuizzes
Baseline After ST
STUDENT 3
Mea
n P
erce
ntag
e C
orre
ct
Baseline After ST
STUDENT 1
Baseline After ST
STUDENT 2
Strategic Tutoring Study 2Strategic Tutoring Study 2
50
80
15
85
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mea
n P
erc e
nta g
e S
core
Baseline After ST
TESTS & QUIZZES
Pretest Posttest
STRATEGY KNOWLEDGE
Teacher-Learning Teacher-Learning StudiesStudies
Teacher Training ResultsTeacher Training Results
24
93
8.5
93
4
94
7
96
0102030405060708090
100
ConceptMastery
ConceptCompar.
ConceptAnchoring
RecallEnhance.
Baseline After Training
Content Enhancement Routines
Per
cent
age
of T
each
er B
ehav
iors
Per
form
ed
Professional Development Professional Development ApproachesApproaches• Traditional
– Inservice on inservice days
• Enlightened– Interviews, partnership learning, participant choice,
in-class modeling, ongoing
• Instructional Coaches– Enlightened + Onsite coaching and collaboration for
implementation
Implementation RatesImplementation Rates
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Implementation Rate
Traditional
Enlightened
InstructionalCollaborators
Effectiveness of Staff Effectiveness of Staff Development ActivitiesDevelopment Activities
Knowledge Skill Acquisition Classroom app.
• Present information 40-80% 10% 5%
• Present & Model 80-85% 10-40% 5-10%
• Present & Model &Practice & Feedback 80-85% 80% 10-15%
• Present & Model &Practice & Feedback & Coaching 90% 90% 80-90%
Lesson 1: The Anchoring TableLesson 1: The Anchoring Table
Lesson 2: The Linking Steps Lesson 2: The Linking Steps
Lesson 3: The Cue-Do-Review Lesson 3: The Cue-Do-Review SequenceSequence
Lesson 4: Example RoutinesLesson 4: Example Routines
Creating Your Own Anchoring Creating Your Own Anchoring TableTable
Study 1: Implementation Study 1: Implementation ResultsResults
0102030405060708090
100
AWGroup
VWGroup
BaselineAfter Training
Mea
n P
erce
ntag
e o
f P
oint
s E
arne
d
ANCOVA: No differencesR.M. ANOVA: Significant gains for both groups (p <.001)
Study 1: Knowledge Test Study 1: Knowledge Test ResultsResults
010203040506070
8090
100
AW Group VW Group
PretestPosttest
ANCOVA: No differencesR.M. ANOVA: Significant gains for both groups (p <.001)
Mea
n P
erce
ntag
e o
f P
oint
s E
arne
d
Study 1: Anchoring Table TestStudy 1: Anchoring Table Test
010203040506070
8090
100
AW Group VW Group
PretestPosttest
ANCOVA: No differencesR.M. ANOVA: Significant gains for both groups (p <.001)
Mea
n P
erce
ntag
e o
f P
oint
s E
arne
d
Study 1: Concept Acquisition Study 1: Concept Acquisition Test (All Students)Test (All Students)
010203040506070
8090
100
AW Group VW Group
PretestPosttest
Per
cen
t ag
e o
f P
oin
ts E
arne
d
HLM Approach: Significant posttest differences (p< .014)Significant gains for both groups (p<.001)
Study 1: Concept Acquisition Study 1: Concept Acquisition Test (Students with LD)Test (Students with LD)
010203040506070
8090
100
AW Group VW Group
PretestPosttest
HLM Approach: No significant differences between groupsSignificant gains for both groups (p<.001)
School-Change School-Change ResearchResearch
Effects of Content EnhancementEffects of Content Enhancement
53.5%
68.9% 71.1%
79.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Av
era
ge
Un
it T
es
t S
co
re
Students withDisabilities
Non-DisabledPeers
General Education Economics Class (10th) Muskegon High School
Control (2000-2001)
Experimental (2001-2002)
9th Grade Physical Science9th Grade Physical Science9th Grade Physical Science (n-78)
62%
65%65%
71%
73% 73%
56%
58%
60%
62%
64%
66%
68%
70%
72%
74%
76%
Students w/ Disabilties (n=13) Students w/o Disabilities (n=65) Whole Group (n=78)
Av
era
ge
% S
co
re o
n U
nit
Te
sts
NON CE Units CE Units
Content Enhancement Study at Content Enhancement Study at MHS 9th Grade Physical ScienceMHS 9th Grade Physical Science
Content Enhancement Study at MHS 9th Grade Physical ScienceA Look at Various Achievement Subgroups
(Subgroups determined by average of first three tests given.)
83%
72%
55%
88%
79%
69%
5% 7%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
"B" Students (n=16) "C" Students (n=25) "Failing"Students (n=37)
Level of Achievement SUBGROUPS
Avg first 3 tests Avg last 3 tests Difference
Sentence Writing StrategySentence Writing Strategy(Example Class Among 1000 Students)(Example Class Among 1000 Students)
66
93
9
45
0102030405060708090
100
CompleteSentences
ComplicatedSentences
PretestPosttest
Mea
n P
erce
ntag
e of
Sen
tenc
es
Comparison of Writing MEAP Comparison of Writing MEAP Over 3 YearsOver 3 Years
Muskegon in Relation to Like Districts & State of MichiganComparisons of Writing MEAP Over 3 Years
% Students Passing the Test
94.1% 92.0% 93.8%
79.8% 78.2%85.4%
80.7%
86.8%85.4% 85.9%
90.4%
81.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Class of 1999 Class of 2000 Class of 2001
Muskegon 12 Comparable MI Cities MI Middle Cities State of Michigan
Per
cent
a ge
of S
tude
nts
Self-Questioning StrategySelf-Questioning Strategy
• Attend to clues as you read
• Say some questions
• Keep predictions in mind
• Identify the answer
• Talk about the answers
Self-Questioning 7th Grade Self-Questioning 7th Grade Science Class Growth ScoresScience Class Growth Scores
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Me
an
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Po
ints
comparison experimental
comparisonexperimental
Word Identification StrategyWord Identification Strategy
• Discover the context• Isolate the prefix• Separate the suffix• Say the stem• Examine the stem
• Check with someone• Try the dictionary
Word Identification Intervention Word Identification Intervention at MHS at MHS
Word Identification Intervention at MHS (9th grade)ALL STUDENTS (Average # students per year is ~100)
5.7
6.7
6.05.8
6.26.5
6.1
9.69.8
9.69.3
8.4
9.0
8.4
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Gra
de
Eq
uiv
ale
nt
Sc
ore
s o
n D
ST:
R
PRE (Form A) POST (Form B)
LD Subgroups in Word LD Subgroups in Word Identification Intervention at MHSIdentification Intervention at MHS
LD Subgroups in Word Identification Intervention at Muskegon High SchoolAverage # LD Students Served ~ 10 (~10% total group)
5.1 5.0 5.0
6.5
9.1
6.9
7.9
10.1
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Gra
de
Eq
uiv
alen
t S
core
s o
n D
ST:
R
PRE (Form A) POST (Form B)
Strategic Reading Study: Strategic Reading Study: 2002-032002-03
Strategic Reading Study - 2nd Semester 2002-03Comparison of Pre & Post Testing on Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (Forms S&T)
6.3
5.8
5.9
6.8
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7
Pre GL Post GL
Ave
rag
e E
xten
ded
Sca
led
Sco
res
Comparison School Experimental School
Strategic Reading Class at Strategic Reading Class at Muskegon High SchoolMuskegon High School
0123456789
Sem 1(38/69)
Sem 2(35/59)
Sem 3(21/41)
Sem 4(12/27)
Sem 5(23/31)
Pretest (Form S) Posttest (Form T)
(# responders/total group)
Gra
de L
evel
Sco
res
on G
MR
T-C
ompr
ehen
sion
Sub
test
State Reading Competency State Reading Competency Scores: Chase Middle SchoolScores: Chase Middle School
2926
10
3534
2326 26
39
1013
24
1 14
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Unsatis. Basic Proficient Advanced Exemplary
Skill Levels
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
All
Stu
den
ts
7th Grade Maryland Functional 7th Grade Maryland Functional Tests ResultsTests Results
0102030405060708090
100
2000-2001
Sp.Ed.
2001-2002
Sp.Ed
2002-2003
Sp.Ed.
ReadingWritingMathematics
Per
cent
age
Student Student SuccessSuccess
Validated practices
Fidelity implementation
Coordinated implementation
Quality Professional Development
Strong Administrative Leadership
++++
=
Visio
nSupports
For More InformationFor More Information
KU-CRL1122 W. Campus RoadLawrence, Kansas 66044Phone: 785-864-4780www.kucrl.org