Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GENERAL EDUCATORS & SPECIAL EDUCATORS
TEACH USING THE SAME EVIDENCE-BASED
PRACTICES?SHARON DEFUR, ED.D
SPDG [email protected]
COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY
TOM MANTHEY, [email protected]
SPDG PROJECT DIRECTOR
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Virginia’s Virginia’s State Personnel Development Grant 2004 – State Personnel Development Grant 2004 –
present present Content Literacy Continuum (CLC) Content Literacy Continuum (CLC)
Virginia Department of Education in partnership with the Virginia Department of Education in partnership with the University of University of Kansas-Center for Research & Learning & Kansas-Center for Research & Learning &
The College of William & Mary School of EducationThe College of William & Mary School of Education
The VA KU-CRL CLC model includes five intervention levels. These levels are:
I. Enhancing content instruction (Content Enhancement Routines CER) in general education
II. Embedded strategy instruction (Learning Strategies LS) in general education
III. Intensive learning strategies (LS) in pull-out instruction
IV. Intensive basic skill literacy instruction (LSII + LSIII+
pre-”read to learn” methodologies) V. Therapeutic intervention (LSII+ LSII+ pre-read to learn methodologies)
along with Speech Language Pathology support.© Sharon deFur, W&M,2009
Professional Development…
• Mandated joint PD on KU-CRL evidence-based content enhancement routines and learning strategies
• Targeted & mandated PD for CER and LS based on identified needs
• Mandated instructional coaching on CER and LS
• School-based leadership teams supporting CER & LS implementation
© Sharon deFur, W&M,2009
Evaluation Questions
• How have general and special educators experienced the implementation of the KU-CRL Content Literacy Continuum (CLC) as part of the Virginia State Improvement Grant?
• How have general educators and special educators used the SIM routines and strategies?
• Has shared professional development and use of the same routines and strategies influenced collaborative practices?
• Has using the same SIM routines and strategies as part of the CLC impacted student outcomes?
© Sharon deFur, W&M,2009
• How have general and special educators experienced the implementation of the KU-CRL Content Literacy Continuum (CLC) as part of the Virginia State Improvement Grant?
• How have general educators and special educators used the SIM routines and strategies?
• Has shared professional development and use of the same routines and strategies influenced collaborative practices?
• Has using the same SIM routines and strategies as part of the CLC impacted student outcomes?
© Sharon deFur, W&M,2009
Evaluation Method
• 4 schools – 2 middle– 2 high
• Teachers surveyed– 2007, N = 217 respondents– 2008, N = 223 respondents– 2009, N = 249 respondents
(TBA)
• 60 teachers interviewed face to face Spring 2008
• 10 student focus groups© Sharon deFur, W&M,2009
For example the Framing Routine that includes a
visual device and an instructional routine is a
popular content enhancement routine that
the Virginia teachers learned through
professional development with a SIM certified
professional developer…
Gen Ed & Sp Ed learned most of the same SIM Content Enhancement Routines.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Gen Ed 07 (N=167)
Gen Ed 08 (N=178)
SpEd 07 (N=50)
SpEd 08 (N=45)
Gen Ed & Sp Ed used similar instructional Content Enhancement Routines.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Course Org
Unit Org Framing Con Mastery
Con Comp
LINCing Survey Other
Gen Ed 07
Gen Ed 08
Sp Ed 07
Sp Ed 08
Students as evaluators.
Students with and without disabilities could name and describe the most commonly used CER and how the CER should be used by teachers. Students favored the unit organizer and framing routines. They challenged educators to keep them actively involved in all aspects of education.
© Sharon deFur, W&M,2009
General and special educators agree on the value of CER for instruction and student organization; Sp Ed teachers are somewhat more confident of the impact on students.
0102030405060708090
100
GenEd Agree
GenEd Neutral
GenEd Disagree
SpEd Agree
SpEd Neutral
SpEd Disagree
Gen Ed & Sp Ed Teachers were similarly satisfied with using CER in comparison to other instructional approaches they had used; about 2/3 were satisfied with using CER and less than 10% were not satisfied.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Satisfied to Very Satisfied
Neutral Somewhat to Very Unsatisfied
Gen Ed 07
Gen Ed 08
Sp Ed 07
Sp Ed 08
Gen Ed and Sp Ed Teachers held similar views about student satisfaction with CER v. other instructional approaches. Nearly ½ thought that students were satisfied with teachers using CER; slightly less than ½ of teachers were not sure about student satisfaction.
0102030405060708090
100
Satisfied or Very Satisfied
Neutral Unsatisfied to Very Unsatisfied
Gen Ed 07
Gen Ed 08
Sp Ed 07
Sp Ed 08
Most Gen Ed and Sp Ed teachers (more than 70%) agreed that they will continue to use the Content Enhancement Routines in their future teaching.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Agree/Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree/Strongly Disagree
Gen Ed 07
Gen Ed 08
Sp Ed 07
Sp Ed 08
Here’s what one teacher said about the Content Enhancement Routines,
• “They definitely made me a more effective teacher because it forces the teacher to ponder and reflect and discern and categorize before the lesson is taught because you need to be a master of your own material and you need to do these things pretty much beforehand…So I would say that’s been a major effect on me…”
• “They definitely made me a more effective teacher because it forces the teacher to ponder and reflect and discern and categorize before the lesson is taught because you need to be a master of your own material and you need to do these things pretty much beforehand…So I would say that’s been a major effect on me…”
So what?
Using the same evidence-based instructional routines with students creates a common vocabulary for dialogue among general educators, special educators, and students. Shared vocabulary improves communication, understanding, and learning. Students expect all teachers to use the CER.
KU-CRL Learning Strategies
Help students access the content and demonstrate literacy skills.
Gen Ed & Sp Ed teachers varied in their exposure to the same SIM Learning Strategies (LS); a greater percentage of Sp Ed teachers learned more LS.
0102030405060708090
100
Gen Ed 07
Gen Ed 08
Sp Ed 07
Sp Ed 08
When given professional development in LS, about 2/3 of teachers implemented the LS.
0102030405060708090
100
Gen Ed 08 Yes
Gen Ed 08 No
Sped Ed 08 Yes
Sp Ed 08 No
Sp Ed teachers expressed somewhat more satisfaction than Gen Ed with Learning Strategies used v. other methods; few teachers expressed dissatisfaction.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied
GenEd 07
GenEd 08
SpEd 07
SpEd 08
Both General and Special Educators express some uncertainty of the impact of LS on students; special educators generally see more positive relationships.
0102030405060708090
100
GenEd Agree
GenEd Neutral
GenEd Disagree
SpEd Agree
SpEd Neutral
SpEd Disagree
Here’s what a special educator said about learning strategies:
• “When I think about my success stories, I have to think about my strategies class.. because these are the kids that are at the lowest, lowest end. It makes me so happy when I hear students like E say that this class has helped me more than anything else learn how to write.”
• “When I think about my success stories, I have to think about my strategies class.. because these are the kids that are at the lowest, lowest end. It makes me so happy when I hear students like E say that this class has helped me more than anything else learn how to write.”
About half of the Gen Ed & 60% of Sp Ed teachers agreed they will continue to use LS in their instructional practice; fewer than 10% disagreed.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Agree/Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree/Strongly Disagree
GenED 07
GenEd 08
SpEd 07
SpEd 08
Comparison of mid-year writing prompts for paired samples from one
middle school• LA department integrated KU-CRL writing strategies across
the middle school curriculum for all students (SWD N = 13 for grades 6/7 and N = 15 for grades 7/8)
• Paired sample writing prompt scores from 07-08 and 08-09 analyzed
• SWD demonstrated significant improvement between grades 6 and 7 in composition and written expression, not in usage/mechanics
• SWD demonstrated significant improvement betweens grade 7 and 8 in written expression.
• Critical Finding: Rates of improvement for SWD paralleled the rate of improvement for SW/OD signifying that the gap between SWD and SW/OD was not widening as predicted for middle school students with disabilities.
• Limitations – no control group or additional data regarding fidelity of implementation, the presence of other remedial efforts, etc.
© Sharon deFur, W&M,2009
Learning StrategiesWhen Gen Ed teachers know learning strategies well, then they cue student use of LS. Gen Ed teachers can integrate LS into their literacy efforts,
Sp Ed Teachers provide more direct instruction in learning strategies and inform Gen Ed.
Collaborative Practice
More than ¾ of Sp Ed and about ½ of Gen Ed teachers co-teach; teachers agree that the co-teaching variations of 1 teach + 1 support and team teaching are used most often. In 2008 there was a slight increase in co-teaching and the use of team teaching.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Co-teaching 1 teach, 1 support
parallel station team teach
GenEd 07
GenEd 08
SpEd 07
SpEd 08
Sp Ed teachers were slightly more confident that co-teaching improved instruction for students with and without disabilities, but the majority of teachers tended to agree, especially regarding students with disabilities.
0102030405060708090
100
Agree/Strongly agree Neutral Disagree/Strongly disagree
GenEd 07 SWD
GenEd 08 SWD
SpEd 07 SWD
SpEd 08 SWD
GenEd 07 SWOD
GenEd 08 SWOD
SpEd 07 SWOD
SpEd 08 SWOD
Co-TeachingWhen both general educators and special educators share content expertise (evidence-based instructional practices), co-teaching improves and outcomes for students with disabilities improve.
© Sharon deFur, W&M,2009
When General and Special Educators teach using the same evidence-based practice and believe that special education services are improved, teachers report that…
• students with disabilities have increased access to the general curriculum;
• students with disabilities receive improved specialized services;
• students with disabilities receive more appropriate services;
• there are more supports for any student experiencing difficulty.
© Sharon deFur, W&M,2009
Co-Teaching thoughts…
• Co-teaching improves in effectiveness when co-teachers are provided time and professional development to create common content expertise in instructional routines and strategies.
• Intensive professional development with coaching supports the development of common expertise.
• Students with disabilities and students who are low-achieving receive a differential boost when supports and expertise are present.
• Co-teaching improves in effectiveness when co-teachers are provided time and professional development to create common content expertise in instructional routines and strategies.
• Intensive professional development with coaching supports the development of common expertise.
• Students with disabilities and students who are low-achieving receive a differential boost when supports and expertise are present.
For Further Information…• University of Kansas Center for Research and Learning
http://virginia.kucrl.org/ • The College of William and Mary State Personnel
Development Grant Evaluation Team, Sharon deFur, Ed.D. (Principal Investigator), [email protected], 757-221-2150
• Virginia Department of Education State Personnel Development Grant, Thomas C. Manthey, Ph.D. (Project coordinator), [email protected], 804-225-4024
• Funding for this project was provided by a grant from the Virginia Department of Education and the USDOE State Special Education Improvement Grant #H323A040011-05 and #H323A070029-09. This project was found to comply with appropriate ethical standards and was exempted from the need for formal review by the College of William and Mary Protection of Human Subjects Committee.
• Photos in this presentation were purchased from istockphoto.com.
