SLIDE 1

Institute for Academic AccessUniversity of KansasIDEAs that Work, U.S. Office of Special Education Programs

SLIDE 2

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

SLIDE 3

Planning TeamKeith LenzGary Adams

Materials & Assessment TeamDoug CarnineBonnie GrossenBetsy Davis

Instructional Methods TeamDon DeshlerJean SchumakerJanis Bulgren

SLIDE 4

Target PopulationHigh-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

SLIDE 5

Interactive Research ModelStrand I: Descriptive Research on Contextual Factors. Project Years 1-Strand II: Student-Learning Research. Project Years 2-Strand III: Teacher-Learning Research. Project Years 3-Strand IV: School-Change Research. Project Years 4-

1

SLIDE 6

Achievement GapFor students without disabilities, their grade level in achievement matches their grade in school.Students with disabilities achieve at a fourth grade level from seventh through twelfth grade.

SLIDE 7

Mean Percentage of Intervals General Education Teachers Were Observed in Various Activities for Each SchoolIU Schools

65.6% instructional34.4% non-instructional0% research-based

IS Schools59.7% instructional40.3% non-instructional0% research-based

IR Schools61.5% instructional37.8% non-instructional0% research-based

2U Schools59.1% instructional37.6% non-instructional0% research-based

2S Schools89.2% instructional10.3% non-instructional0% research-based

2R Schools71.1% instructional27.3% non-instructional0% research-based

3U Schools59.4% instructional31.9% non-instructional0% research-based

3S Schools71.7% instructional26.7% non-instructional0% research-based

SLIDE 8

Mean Percentage of Intervals General Education Teachers Were Observed in Various Instructional ActivitiesLecture/read: 51.2%

2

Give directions: 22.1%Listening: 4.8%Ask question: 16.2%Monitor: 15.9%Model: 4.6%Verbal rehearsal: 0.1%Simple enhancer: 3.7%Advance organizer: 0.1%Role Play: 0.0%Content Enhancement (complex): 0.1%Elaborated Feedback: 2.0%Write on board: 1.4%Describe skill/strategy: 0.6%

SLIDE 9

Mean Percentage of Intervals Special Education Teachers Were Observed in Various Activities for Each School2R Schools

43.3% instructional60.4% non-instructional0% research-based

2S Schools44.0% instructional56.0% non-instructional20.0% research-based

3S Schools37.8% instructional62.2% non-instructional0% research-based

1U Schools66.2% instructional33.8% non-instructional0% research-based

2U Schools72.1% instructional27.9% non-instructional0% research-based

3U Schools55.5% instructional26.4% non-instructional0% research-based

Total Schools53.2% instructional44.5% non-instructional3.3% research-based

SLIDE 10

3

Special Education Teacher ObservationsLecture/read: 50.7%Give directions: 14.3%Listening: 43.6%Ask questions: 13.6%Monitor: 23.3%Model: 0.6%Verbal rehearsal: 0.0%Simple enhancer: 0.4%Advance organizer: 0.0%Role Play: 0.0%Content enhancement (complex): 0.0%Elaborated feedback: 2.2%Write on board: 2.4%Describe skill/strategy: 0.2%

SLIDE 11

Course 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)

SLIDE 12

Rigorous General Education Enrollments for SWDsTotal number of special education students

Rural schools: 1R: 48, 2R: 14, 3R: 50Suburban schools: 1S: 62, 2S: 76, 3S: 67Urban schools: 1U: 89, 2U: 180, 3U: 219

Total possible core class enrollments (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)

Rural schools: 1R: 192, 2R: 56, 3R: 200Suburban schools: 1S: 248, 2S: 304, 3S: 268Urban schools: 1U: 356, 2U: 720, 3U: 876

Actual number of rigorous general education enrollmentsRural schools: 1R: 15, 2R: 49, 3R: 6Suburban schools: 1S: 35, 2S: 304, 3S: 67Urban schools: 1U: 4, 2U: 166, 3U: 36

Estimated number of students with disabilities by general education teachersRural schools: 1R: 55, 2R: 24, 3R: not availableSuburban schools: 1S: 24, 2S: 17, 3S: 21Urban schools: 1U: 13, 2U: 51, 3U: not available

SLIDE 13

4

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” General 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

SLIDE 14

Student AchievementGrade-Point AveragesA: 0% of SWDsB: 4% of SWDsC: 44% of SWDsD: 37% of SWDsF: 14% of SWDs

SLIDE 15

Model for Ensuring Access and Positive OutcomesProgram Planning: program rubric, intervention mosaicProgram Components: homework assistance, IEP process, skills/strategies instruction, learner-friendly coursesFormative Evaluation Tools: Student Progress Measures, Benchmark AssessmentsFinal Outcomes: Success in rigorous courses, high school graduation, passing scores on state assessments, enrollment in post-secondary education.

SLIDE 16

The 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)

SLIDE 17

Student-Learning Research Studies

5

SLIDE 18

Learner-Friendly Courses Through Content Enhancement

SLIDE 19

Comparing Two ConceptsIntroduction: Concept Comparison RoutineEvergreen, Deciduous

SLIDE 20

Concept Comparison Table

C Communicate targeted conceptsO Obtain the Overall ConceptM Make lists of known characteristicsP Pin down Like CharacteristicsA Assemble Like CategoriesR Record Unlike CharacteristicsI Identify Unlike CategoriesN Nail down a summaryG Go beyond the basics

Overall Concept: Elements of LiteratureConcept: PlotCharacteristics: May be one or more in a work of literature, Found in narrative literature, Consists of a sequence of events, Provides entertainmentConcept: ThemeCharacteristics: May be one or more in a work of literature, Found in a variety of literature, Consists of a statement about meaning, Delivers a message or ideaLike Characteristics: May be one or more in a work of literatureLike Categories: NumberUnlike Characteristics: Plot: Found in narrative literature, Consists of a sequence of events, Provides entertainmentUnlike Characteristics: Theme: Found in a variety of literature, Consists of a statement about meaning, Delivers a message or ideaUnlike Categories: Location, Form, FunctionSummary: Two elements of literature are plot and theme. They are alike in terms of the number used in any piece of literature (there may be more than one plot or theme in a piece of literature). They are different in their location in literature, the form they take, and the function they serve.Extensions: Investigate the element of “style” in literature, and create a list of characteristics to be compared to plot and theme. Use this information to develop a Multiple-Concept Comparison Table.

SLIDE 21

Mean Percentage Total ScoresLD student subgroups:

6

56.68% correct in control group71.32% correct in experimental group

LA student subgroup:62.64% correct in control group86.36% correct in experimental group

NA student subgroups:76.02% correct in control group83.48% correct in experimental group

HA student subgroups:84.14% correct in control group86.93% correct in experimental group

SLIDE 22

Concept Anchoring Table

Anchoring Known Information to New Information

Concept Anchoring RoutineCondition 1: Sub-groups of studentsConcept LD LA NA HAPyramid of Numbers

Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced

Commensalism Not Enhanced Not Enhanced Not Enhanced Not Enhanced

Condition 2: Sub-groups of studentsConcept LD LA NA HAPyramid of Numbers

Not Enhanced Not Enhanced Not Enhanced Not Enhanced

Commensalism Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced

Results for Student SubgroupsCondition 1: Commensalism EnhancedLD student group:

39.75% pyramid of numbers54.55% commensalism

LA student group:53.13% pyramid of numbers79.62% commensalism

NA student group:73.25% pyramid of numbers83.86% commensalism

7

HA student group:100% pyramid of numbers95.86% commensalism

Condition 2: Pyramid of Numbers EnhancedLD student group:

69.13% pyramid of numbers36.03% commensalism

LA student group:73.25% pyramid of numbers46.38% commensalism

NA student group:91.96% pyramid of numbers64.25% commensalism

HA student group:93.75% pyramid of numbers75.00% 8ommensalisms

Recall Enhancement RoutineExperimental Group Control GroupLD NLD LD NLD(N=9) (N=11) (N=9) (N=11)

Presented in lecture

Presented in lecture

Presented in lecture

Presented in lecture

Enhanced with routine

Enhanced with routine

Facts repeated Facts repeated

Student Performance on Reviewed FactsLD Students:

41.8% of points earned in control group

8

70.9% of points earned in experimental group

NLD Students: 64.29% of points earned in control group84.85% of points earned in experimental group

Percentage of Students Performing at Passing LevelsNonreviewed FactsLD group:

22 students in control group22 students in experimental group

NLD group:58 students in control group63 students in experimental group

Reviewed FactsLD group:

11 students in control group77 students in experimental group

NLD group:66 students in control group100 students in experimental group

9

10

11

Strategy Instruction

Learning Strategies CurriculumACQUISITIONWord Identification StrategyParaphrasing Strategy

Self-Questioning Strategy

STORAGEFIRST-Letter Mnemonic StrategyPaired Associates Strategy

LINCS Vocabulary Strategy

EXPRESSION & DEMONSTRATION OF COMPETENCE

12

Sentence Writing Strategy

Paragraph Writing StrategyError Monitoring Strategy

InSPECT Strategy

Theme Writing Strategy

Assignment Completion StrategyTest-Taking Strategy

Learning Strategy• A Learning Strategy is how a person plans, acts, and evaluates performance on a task and its

outcome.

The StrategyFIRST Letter Mnemonic Strategy:Step 1: Form a wordStep 2: Insert a letterStep 3: Rearrange the lettersStep 4: Shape a sentenceStep 5: Try combinations

Little Soviet Kids Become Adult Commies GraduallyLENINSTALINKHRUSHCHEVBREZHNEVANDROPOVCHERNENKOGORBACHOVThe Sentence Writing Strategy

• Pick a formula• Explore words to fit the formula• Note the words• Search and check

Sentence Writing StrategyBaseline: 70% complete sentencesPost-Instruction: 99% complete sentencesThe Paragraph Writing Strategy

• Set up a diagram• Create a title• Reveal the topic• Iron out the details

13

• Bind it together with a clincher• Edit your work

Paragraph Writing StrategyBaseline: 36% points earnedPost-instruction: 80% points earned

The 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 StrategyPretest: 25% of errors correctedPosttest: 90% of errors corrected

Error Monitoring StrategyBaseline: 0.27 error per wordPost-instruction: 0.04 error per word

Steps of the Theme Writing Strategy• Think• Organize it• Write a draft• Evaluate it• Refine it

Theme Writing StrategyBaseline: 24 points earnedPost-instruction: 74 points earned

All Writing StrategiesTargeted LD students: 3.5 score on District Writing Competency ExamAll Students in district: 2.5 score on District Writing Competency Exam

Theme Writing StrategyEnglish Grade

2.5 underprepared students2.6 prepared students

Overall Grade2.0 underprepared students2.5 prepared students

Homework Assistance through Strategic Tutoring

Strategic Tutoring Instructional PhasesTEACHING

14

AssessingConstructingTransferring

Strategic Tutoring ModelThe 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 1STUDENT 1Baseline

46% correct on tests45% correct on quizzes

After ST70% correct on tests80% correct on quizzes

STUDENT 2Baseline

54% correct on tests58% correct on quizzes

After ST86% correct on tests84% correct on quizzes

STUDENT 3Baseline

87% correct on tests91% correct on quizzes

Strategic Tutoring Study 2TEST and QUIZZESBaseline: 50%After ST: 80%

STRATEGY KNOWLEDGEPretest: 15%Posttest: 85%

Teacher-Learning Studies

Teacher Training ResultsConcept MasteryBaseline: 24% of teachersAfter Training: 93% of teachers

Concept Campar.

15

Baseline: 8.5% of teachersAfter Training: 93% of teachers

Concept AnchoringBaseline: 4.0% of teachersAfter Training: 94.0 of teachers

Recall EnhanceBaseline: 7.0% of teachersAfter Training: 96.0% of teachers

Professional Development Approaches• 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 Rates Traditional rate: 3.0Enlightened rate: 45.0Instructional Collaborators: 80.0

Effectiveness of Staff Development ActivitiesKnowledge 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 Table

16

Lesson 2: The Linking Steps

17

Lesson 3: The Cue-Do-Review Sequence

18

Lesson 4: Example Routines

19

Creating Your Own Anchoring Table

20

Study 1: Implementation ResultsAW GroupBaseline: 15% of points earnedAfter Training: 85% of points earned

VW GroupBaseline: 15% of points earnedAfter Training: 87% of points earned

Study 1: Knowledge Test ResultsAW GroupPretest: 1.0% of points earnedPosttest: 80% of points earned

VW GroupPretest: 5.0% of points earnedPosttest: 80.0 % of points earned

21

Study 1: Anchoring Table TestAW GroupPretest: 0.0 % of points earnedPosttest: 98% of points earned

VW GroupPretest: 5% of points earnedPosttest: 95% of points earned

Study 1: Concept Acquisition Test (All Students)AW GroupPretest: 18% of points earnedPosttest: 55% of points earned

VW GroupPretest: 15% of points earnedPosttest: 70% of points earned

Study 1: Concept Acquisition Test (Students with LD)AW GroupPretest: 10% Posttest: 48%

VW GroupPretest: 15%Posttest: 60%

School-Change Research

Effects of Content EnhancementGeneral Education Economics Class (10th) Muskegon High SchoolStudents with disabilities

53.5% for controlled group68.9% for experimental group

Non-Disabled Peers71.1% for controlled group79.5% for experimental group

9th Grade Physical Science9th Grade Physical Science (n-78)Students with Disabilities

62% NON CE Units71% CE Units

22

Students with out disabilities65% NON CE Units73% CE Units

Whole Group65% NON CE Units73% CE Units

Content Enhancement Study at MHS 9th Grade Physical ScienceContent Enhancement Study at MHS 9th Grade Physical Science: A look at Various Achievement Subgroups (Subgroups determined by average of first three tests given.)“B” Students

83% Ave 1st three tests88% Ave last three tests5% Difference

“C” Students72% Ave 1st three tests79% Ave last three tests7% difference

“Failing” Students55% Ave 1st three tests69% Ave last three tests14% difference

Sentence Writing Strategy(Example Class Among 1000 Students)Complete Sentences

66% pretest93% posttest

Complicated Sentences9% pretest45% posttest

Comparison of Writing MEAP Over 3 YearsMuskegon in Relation to Like Districts and State of Michigan Comparisons of Writing MEAP Over 3 Years: Percent of students Passing the TestClass of 1999

94.1% Muskegon79.8% 12 comparable MI cities

Class of 200092.0% Muskegon78.2% 12 comparable MI cities

Class of 200193.8% Muskegon85.4% 12 comparable MI cities

23

Self-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 Science Class Growth ScoresComparison: 40%Experimental: 60%

Word 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 at MHS 9th GradeAll students (Average number of students per year is 100)1995-96

5.7 PRE9.6 POST

1996-966.7 PRE9.8 POST

1997-986.0 PRE9.6 POST

1998-995.8 PRE9.3 POST

1999-20006.2 PRE8.4 POST

2000-016.5 PRE9.0 POST

2001-026.1 PRE

24

8.4 POST

LD Subgroups in Word Identification Intervention at MHSAverage number of LD students served is about 10 (about 10% of total group)1998-99

5.1 PRE9.1 POST

1999-005.0 PRE6.9 POST

2000-015.0 PRE7.9 POST

2001-026.5 PRE10.1 POST

Strategic Reading Study: 2002-032nd Semester, Comparison of Pre and Post Testing on Gates-MacGinitie Reading TestPRE GL

6.3 Comparison school5.9 Experimental school

POST GL5.8 Comparison school6.8 Experimental school

Strategic Reading Class at Muskegon High SchoolSem 1

5.5 PRE8.0 POST

Sem 26.0 PRE8.0 POST

Sem 34.5 PRE7.0 POST

Sem 45.0 PRE7.0 POST

Sem 5

25

4.0 PRE6.5 POST

State Reading Competency Scores: Chase Middle SchoolUnsatisfactoryReading: 29%Writing: 26%Mathmatics: 10%

BasicReading: 35%Writing: 34%Mathmatics: 23%

ProficientReading: 26%Writing: 26%Mathmatics: 39%

AdvancedReading: 10%Writing: 13%Mathmatics: 24%

ExemplaryReading: 1%Writing: 1%Mathmatics: 4%

7th Grade Maryland Functional Tests Results2000-01 Special EducationReading:78% ReadingWriting: 45% WritingMath: 20% Math

2001-02 Special EducationReading: 78% ReadingWriting: 65% WritingMath: 35% Math: 30%

2002-03 Special EducationReading: 95% Reading: 90%Writing: 85% Writing: 90%Math: 55% Math: 90%

Student Success=Validated practicesFidelity implementationCoordinated implementation

26

Quality Professional DevelopmentStrong Administrative Leadership

With: Vision and Supports

For More InformationKU-CRL1122 W. Campus RoadLawrence, Kansas 66044Phone: 785-864-4780www.kucrl.org

27