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