WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GENERAL EDUCATORS & SPECIAL EDUCATORS TEACH USING THE SAME EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES? S HARON DE F UR, E D.D SPDG E VALUATOR S HARON. WM. EDU C OLLEGE OF W ILLIAM AND M ARY T OM M ANTHEY, P H.D T OM. DOE. VIRGINIA. GOV SPDG P ROJECT D IRECTOR V IRGINIA D EPARTMENT OF E DUCATION

Virginia’s State Personnel Development Grant 2004 – present Content Literacy Continuum (CLC) Virginia Department of Education in partnership with the University of Kansas-Center for Research & Learning & The 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 student focus groups © Sharon deFur, W&M,2009

KU-CRL C ONTENT E NHANCEMENT R OUTINES HELP MAKE THE INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENT EXPLICIT … 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.

Gen Ed & Sp Ed used similar instructional Content Enhancement Routines.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…”

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.

When given professional development in LS, about 2/3 of teachers implemented the LS.

Sp Ed teachers expressed somewhat more satisfaction than Gen Ed with Learning Strategies used v. other methods; few teachers expressed dissatisfaction.

Both General and Special Educators express some uncertainty of the impact of LS on students; special educators generally see more positive relationships.

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.”

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.

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 and 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 Strategies When 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.

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.

Co-Teaching When 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 The College of William and Mary State Personnel Development Grant Evaluation Team, Sharon deFur, Ed.D. (Principal Investigator), Virginia Department of Education State Personnel Development Grant, Thomas C. Manthey, Ph.D. (Project coordinator), Funding for this project was provided by a grant from the Virginia Department of Education and the USDOE State Special Education Improvement Grant #H323A and #H323A 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.