Transforming Inclusion for Students with Developmental ......nts! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !...
1
Students Self Regulated Learning 21 st century learning Universal Design for Learning Differen:a:on Backwards Design Transforming Inclusion for Students with Developmental Disabilities through Self Regulated Learning Shelley Moore, Leyton Schnellert, Deborah Butler University of British Columbia Canadians have a reputa/on for finding strength in and embracing diversity. This value, however, is not reflected in educa/onal se>ngs that s/ll separate students by cogni/ve ability (Downing, 2008; Willis, 2007). When considering students with developmental disabili/es, especially as they move into secondary schools, it is not likely that they will be included in content areas classes with peers (e.g. science, social studies, etc.). Instead these students are typically taught in separate se>ngs without access to content area specialists or conceptuallyrich curricula (Milsom, 2006). When and if students with developmental disabili/es are included, content area placements are rarely seen as crea/ng learning opportuni/es with poten/al to benefit all students. The following research ques:ons will be explored: (1) How can content area and special educa/on teachers collaborate to include students with developmental disabili/es as contribu/ng members of their content area learning community? (2) What is the nature of prac/ces that content area and special educa/on teachers construct together to span and address the cogni/ve diversity of students in their classrooms?; Inclusive Educa:on Self/CoRegulated Learning Professional Development Content Area Learning Special Educa/on Students with developmental disabili/es are s/ll not typically being included into content area classrooms (Downing, 2008; Katz & Mirenda, 2002). In the United States, the Individuals with Disabili/es and Educa/on Act (IDEA) requires that curriculum be made accessible to students through alternate materials and assessments (Courtade & Browder, 2011), but this curriculum and instruc/on is typically aimed at teaching students with developmental disabili/es in segregated se>ngs (Hitchcock et al., 2002). Addi/onally, special educa/on teachers are rou/nely absent from curriculum reform conversa/ons and research (Pugach & Warger, 2001). As a result, programs offered special educa/on se>ngs o^en do not embody recent theory and research Research Design This research will include special educa/on and content area teacher teams engaged in ongoing inquiryoriented professional development focused on including students with students with developmental disabili/es in content area classrooms. Par/cipants will be 6 content area teachers and their collabora/ve special educa/on partners who each teach at least one student with a developmental disability in a secondary content area (i.e. Science). Data including educators’ and students’ pre/ post interviews and ar/facts (e.g., plans, ac/vi/es, photos, student work), and par/cipants’ reflec/ons will be analyzed to inves/gate links between teachers’ collabora/ve ac/vi/es, curriculum development, prac/ces enacted, teachers’ a>tudes, and the meaningful inclusion of students with developmental disabili/es in inclusive classrooms. Content Area & Special Educa:on Teacher Reflec:ons & Debriefing Interview Reflec/ons Goals Performance Assessments Individual Assessments Implementa:on Professional Development Sessions Class Profile Individual Profiles Lesson Plans Interview Goals Exit Slips Work Samples Performance Assessment Unit Goals Individual Educa/on Plan Resources & Supports Lesson Observa/ons Access Checklists Individual Educa/on Plan Barriers to Inclusive Educa/on Theory, research, and pedagogical gaps between special and regular educa/on. Problema/c assump/ons that students are incapable. Inefficient and ineffec/ve prac/ces that do not address the diversity of learners in content area classrooms. Methodology This study will use a mul/ple case study design (Butler, 2006, Stake, 2006; Yin, 2014) to inves/gate links between teachers’ collabora/ve ac/vi/es, curriculum development, prac/ces enacted, teachers’ a>tudes, and the meaningful inclusion of SWDD in inclusive classrooms. Mul:ple Case Study Design Case Study 1 Secondary Content Area Classroom Content Area Teachers Special Educa:on Teacher Students Student with a Developmental Disability Case Study 2 Case Study 3 Case Study 4 Case Study 5 Case Study 6 Student with developmental disabili/es. As a result, these students are o^en segregated, receiving instruc/on, content and resources rarely congruent with grade appropriate curriculum. There are also problema/c assump/ons preven/ng students with developmental disabili/es from learning curricula with their peers. Ka/ms (2000) iden/fies one problema/c assump/on related to SWDD as “the convic/on that these students are incapable of anything greater than a func/onal existence [which may perpetuate] the preeminence of func/onal approaches in our schools” (p. 145). Thomas and Loxley (2007) fear that inclusion has become contaminated, reflec/ng containers of integra/on, instead of interwoven, diverse communi/es of ability and access. As a result, when and if students with developmental disabili/es are included in content area classrooms, they are o^en not engaged in learning along peers in ways that might foster one anothers’ learning. Instead, goals for students with developmental disabili/es are o^en restricted to fostering social outcomes and func/onal work habits such as arriving to class on /me and handing back classmates’ marked papers. related to curriculum and pedagogy such as self regulated learning, 21 st century learning, universal design for learning, differen/a/on, and backwards design (Butler & Schnellert, 2015; Dumont, Istance & Benavides, 2010; Rose & Meyer, 2002; Tomlinson, 2014; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Districts, schools and teachers report another barrier, sta/ng that it is o^en unfeasible, given overstretched resources, to focus curriculum development and differen/a/on efforts on (3) How do the knowledge, a>tudes and skills of content area and special educa/on teachers shi^ when educators collabora/vely address the diversity of students in their classrooms? And (4) What is the role of self and coregulated learning in suppor/ng students to achieve their learning goals in these inclusive classes? Theoretical Framework Content area teachers have also struggled to accommodate wide ranging diversity in classrooms, because many lack the specialized knowledge and skills needed to address students requiring addi/onal support (Buell et al., 2010; Pugach & Warger, 2001). Current onesizefitsall planning and instruc/on result in “a hit or miss approach to modifying already exis/ng materials” for diverse learners (Pugach & Warger, 2001, p. 66). While special educa/on teachers have specialized knowledge and skills related to aspects of SWDD learning, they o^en lack pedagogical content knowledge related to content area curricula. This study offers a poten/al solu/on by considering how content area and special educa/on teachers can work collabora/vely to plan instruc/on that, from the onset, addresses all learners’ needs (Rose & Meyer, 2002; Schnellert et al. 2008, Villa & Thousand, 2005). Introduction Research Questions Interview Interview
Transcript of Transforming Inclusion for Students with Developmental ......nts! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !...
Stud
ents
Self Regulated Learning
21st century learning
Universal Design for Learning
Differen:a:on
Backwards Design
Transforming Inclusion for Students with Developmental Disabilities through Self Regulated Learning
Shelley Moore, Leyton Schnellert, Deborah Butler University of British Columbia
Canadians have a reputa/on for finding strength in and embracing diversity. This value, however, is not reflected in educa/onal se>ngs that s/ll separate students by cogni/ve ability (Downing, 2008; Willis, 2007). When considering students with developmental disabili/es, especially as they move into secondary schools, it is not likely that they will be included in content areas classes with peers (e.g. science, social studies, etc.). Instead these students are typically taught in separate se>ngs without access to content area specialists or conceptually-‐rich curricula (Milsom, 2006). When and if students with developmental disabili/es are included, content area placements are rarely seen as crea/ng learning opportuni/es with poten/al to benefit all students.
The following research ques:ons will be explored: (1) How can content area and special
educa/on teachers collaborate to include students with developmental disabili/es as contribu/ng members of their content area learning community?
(2) What is the nature of prac/ces that
content area and special educa/on teachers construct together to span and address the cogni/ve diversity of students in their classrooms?;
Inclusive Educa:on
Self/Co-‐Regulated Learning
Professional Development
Content Area Learning
Special Educa/on
Students with developmental disabili/es are s/ll not typically being included into content area classrooms (Downing, 2008; Katz & Mirenda, 2002). In the United States, the Individuals with Disabili/es and Educa/on Act (IDEA) requires that curriculum be made accessible to students through alternate materials and assessments (Courtade & Browder, 2011), but this curriculum and instruc/on is typically aimed at teaching students with developmental disabili/es in segregated se>ngs (Hitchcock et al., 2002). Addi/onally, special educa/on teachers are rou/nely absent from curriculum reform conversa/ons and research (Pugach & Warger, 2001). As a result, programs offered special educa/on se>ngs o^en do not embody recent theory and research
Research Design This research will include special educa/on and content area teacher teams engaged in ongoing inquiry-‐oriented professional development focused on including students with students with developmental disabili/es in content area classrooms. Par/cipants will be 6 content area teachers and their collabora/ve special educa/on partners who each teach at least one student with a developmental disability in a secondary content area (i.e. Science). Data including educators’ and students’ pre/post interviews and ar/facts (e.g., plans, ac/vi/es, photos, student work), and par/cipants’ reflec/ons will be analyzed to inves/gate links between teachers’ collabora/ve ac/vi/es, curriculum development, prac/ces enacted, teachers’ a>tudes, and the meaningful inclusion of students with developmental disabili/es in inclusive classrooms.
Conten
t Area &
Special Edu
ca:o
n Teache
r
Reflec:ons & Debriefing
Interview
Reflec/ons
Goals
Performance Assessments
Individual Assessments
Implementa:on Professional Development Sessions
Class Profile Individual Profiles Lesson Plans
Interview
Goals
Exit Slips
Work Samples
Performance Assessment
Unit Goals Individual Educa/on Plan
Resources & Supports
Lesson Observa/ons
Access Checklists
Individual Educa/on Plan
Barriers to
Inclusive
Educa/
on
Theory, research, and pedagogical gaps between special and regular
educa/on.
Problema/c assump/ons that students are incapable.
Inefficient and ineffec/ve prac/ces that do not address the diversity of learners in content area classrooms.
Methodology This study will use a mul/ple case study design (Butler, 2006, Stake, 2006; Yin, 2014) to inves/gate links between teachers’ collabora/ve ac/vi/es, curriculum development, prac/ces enacted, teachers’ a>tudes, and the meaningful inclusion of SWDD in inclusive classrooms.
Mul:ple Case Study Design
Case Study 1
Secondary Content Area Classroom
Content Area Teachers
Special Educa:on Teacher Students
Student with a Developmental
Disability
Case Study 2 Case Study 3 Case Study 4 Case Study 5 Case Study 6
Student with developmental disabili/es. As a result, these students are o^en segregated, receiving instruc/on, content and resources rarely congruent with grade appropriate curriculum. There are also problema/c assump/ons preven/ng students with developmental disabili/es from learning curricula with their peers. Ka/ms (2000) iden/fies one problema/c assump/on related to SWDD as “the convic/on that these students are incapable of anything greater than a func/onal existence [which may perpetuate] the preeminence of func/onal approaches in our schools” (p. 145). Thomas and Loxley (2007) fear that inclusion has become contaminated, reflec/ng containers of integra/on, instead of interwoven, diverse communi/es of ability and access. As a result, when and if students with developmental disabili/es are included in content area classrooms, they are o^en not engaged in learning along peers in ways that might foster one anothers’ learning. Instead, goals for students with developmental disabili/es are o^en restricted to fostering social outcomes and func/onal work habits such as arriving to class on /me and handing back classmates’ marked papers.
related to curriculum and pedagogy such as self-‐regulated learning, 21st century learning, universal design for learning, differen/a/on, and backwards design (Butler & Schnellert, 2015; Dumont, Istance & Benavides, 2010; Rose & Meyer, 2002; Tomlinson, 2014; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Districts, schools and teachers report another barrier, sta/ng that it is o^en unfeasible, given overstretched resources, to focus curriculum development and differen/a/on efforts on
(3) How do the knowledge, a>tudes and skills of content area and special educa/on teachers shi^ when educators collabora/vely address the diversity of students in their classrooms? And (4) What is the role of self-‐ and co-‐regulated learning in suppor/ng students to achieve their learning goals in these inclusive classes?
Theoretical Framework
Content area teachers have also struggled to accommodate wide ranging diversity in classrooms, because many lack the specialized knowledge and skills needed to address students requiring addi/onal support (Buell et al., 2010; Pugach & Warger, 2001). Current one-‐size-‐fits-‐all planning and instruc/on result in “a hit or miss approach to modifying already exis/ng materials” for diverse learners (Pugach & Warger, 2001, p. 66). While special educa/on teachers have specialized knowledge and skills related to aspects of SWDD learning, they o^en lack pedagogical content knowledge related to content area curricula. This study offers a poten/al solu/on by considering how content area and special educa/on teachers can work collabora/vely to plan instruc/on that, from the onset, addresses all learners’ needs (Rose & Meyer, 2002; Schnellert et al. 2008, Villa & Thousand, 2005).
Introduction
Research Questions
Interview
Interview
