1. So how well does this stuff work? Extensive research validates use of visual tools… * Reading comprehension * Vocabulary acquisition * Writing fluency & ideation * Content-area learning High-achieving Typical-achieving Low-achieving Learning Disabilities TM differentiated visual tools

2. Large N quantitative studies (true- & quasi-experimental designs) Qualitative studies Program Evaluations Typical measures include… General performance on high-stakes tests Performance in specific skills (writing) and vocabulary Depth / Breadth / Accuracy of new content knowledge Social validity (teacher & student satisfaction) Fidelity & factors that affect it For example…. TM differentiated visual tools

3. Teaches same 2nd mini-unit using traditional guided note- taking / discussion instruction Teaches 1 st mini-unit using traditional guided note-taking / discussion instruction Teacher A Changes in students’ knowledge about the mini-unit topic are measured at end of each mini-unit Teacher B 32 Typical Achieving32 Low Achieving16 Students w/LD WEEK 1WEEK 2 32 High Achieving Teaches 2nd mini-unit using Teaches same 1 st mini-unit using TM differentiated visual tools American History

4. HA First, we measured how much new knowledge of history High Achieving students typically gain when teachers use traditional content instruction methods. This allowed us to establish the “high water” line. Text-based, guided note-taking / class discussion TM differentiated visual tools American History

5. HA TA HA Then, we measured how much new knowledge of history Typical Achieving students usually gain when teachers use traditional content instruction methods. This allowed us to establish the “typical amount” line. 21% more Gap between High & Typical Achievers High Achieving students tend to gain 21% more knowledge than do Typical Achieving students from the same lesson. TM differentiated visual tools American History

6. HA TA HA Then, we measured how much new knowledge of history Low Achieving students typically gain. LA Typical-achievers typically gain 29% more knowledge from a traditional lesson than do Low Achievers. 29% more Gap between Typical & Low Achievers TM differentiated visual tools American History

7. HA TA HA Then, we measured how much new knowledge of history students with LD typically gain from the same ”traditional” lesson. LA Typical-achievers typically gain 27% more knowledge from a traditional lesson than do students with LD. 27% more Gap between Typical & Students with LD LD TM differentiated visual tools American History

8. HA TA HA LA So now we know what to expect in terms of differences in gains in knowledge about a topic among different types of students when business-as-usual teaching techniques are used on the same history lessons. LD TM differentiated visual tools American History

9. HA TA HA 4 % less When DVTs is used, Typical Achievers increase their learning to within 4% of what High Achievers learned when traditional instruction is used. TM differentiated visual tools American History

10. HA TA HA LA 4 % less When DVTs is used, Low Achievers increase their learning to within 9% of what Typical Achievers learned when traditional instruction is used. 9 % less TM differentiated visual tools American History

11. HA TA HA LA When DVTs is used, Students with LD increase their learning to within 11% of what Typical Achievers learned when traditional instruction is used. 11 % less LD TM differentiated visual tools American History

12. HA TA HA LA At first glance, it seems like DVTs is a powerful tool for “reducing the achievement gap.” 11 % less LD 9 % less 4 % less The reality is that ALL students greatly enhanced their knowledge when teachers used DVTs TM differentiated visual tools American History

13. HA TA HA LA LD So the effects of DVTs on the “gap” is to “raise the bar…” All students are significantly increasing their knowledge of history… But the gaps remain! …and even get wider! TM differentiated visual tools American History

14. This study compared the relative impact of…. Generic Graphic Organizers Text Resources “Business as Usual” VS. …on depth, breadth, and accuracy of new history knowledge 96 11 th grade students… 32 high-achieving, 32 typical achieving, 16 low-achieving, & 16 low-achieving w/ LD VS. Essential Understandings VS. Generative Idea TM differentiated visual tools depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

15. CLASS 1 PHASE 1PHASE 2PHASE 3PHASE 4 Teacher employed a different strategy during each phase of instruction. TEXT RESOURCES GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS GENERATIVE IDEAESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS TM differentiated visual tools depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

16. Pre & Post measures of students’ Breadth of knowledge Depth of knowledge Accuracy of knowledge CLASS 1 PHASE 1PHASE 2PHASE 3PHASE 4 Learning measured for each phase TEXT RESOURCES GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS GENERATIVE IDEAESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS TM differentiated visual tools depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

17. CLASS 1 PHASE 1PHASE 2PHASE 3PHASE 4 2nd teacher used same strategies, but in a different order CLASS 2 TEXT RESOURCES GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS GENERATIVE IDEA Visual Tools ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS TEXT RESOURCES GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS TM GENERATIVE IDEAESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS TM differentiated visual tools depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

18. CLASS 1 PHASE 1PHASE 2PHASE 3PHASE 4 CLASS 2 CLASS 3 TEXT RESOURCES GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS GENERATIVE IDEA Visual Tools ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS Visual Tools TEXT RESOURCES GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS GENERATIVE IDEA Visual Tools CLASS 4 GENERATIVE IDEA Visual Tools GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS TEXT RESOURCES ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS Visual Tools TEXT RESOURCES GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS GENERATIVE IDEA Visual Tools ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS Visual Tools 3rd & 4th teachers used same strategies, also in different orders TM differentiated visual tools depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

19. Analysis of pre- and post-mini-unit student generated concept maps relative to pre-established criterion maps provided 3 scores (Ruiz-Primo, Shavelson & Shultz, 1997): Accuracy of Relational Understanding Score Breadth of Relational Understanding Score Depth of Relational Understanding Score Students orally explained links between the terms & asked to elaborate on concepts relating to the proposition identified. 3 types of oral prompts were provided to encourage elaboration: Prompts to summarize important ideas about the topic Prompts to relate or apply ideas Prompts to think about the idea in a new way (what if…) Each proposition scored 0-3, depending on whether the proposition appeared on the criterion map, whether the student’s explanation was accurate, factually correct and complete, and the degree of elaboration provided. TM differentiated visual tools depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

20. ANOVA statistical analysis was used to determine the relative impact of each of the four instructional approaches relative to level of student achievement. Generic G.O.s EU GI Text Resources High Achieving Typical Achieving Low Achieving Learning Disabilities Tukey’s HSD was used for post hoc analysis. TM differentiated visual tools depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

21. Tukey’s HSD was used for post hoc analysis. In other words, if a treatment worked well with one type of student, it worked equally well with the other types (& vice versa). ANOVA of Accuracy of Knowledge Scores by Level of Student Achievement and Form of Instruction Generic G.O.s EU GI Text Resources High Achieving Typical Achieving Low Achieving Learning Disabilities … no significant differences TM differentiated visual tools depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

22. Tukey’s HSD was used for post hoc analysis. Generic G.O.s EU GI Text Resources High Achieving Typical Achieving Low Achieving Learning Disabilities TM ANOVA of DEPTH of Relational Understanding Scores by Level of Student Achievement and Form of Instruction Significant contrasts: Scores Using EU Visual Tools> GI Visual Tools EU Visual Tools> Text Resources Generic Gos> Text Resources EU Visual Tools had the greatest impact on all students depth of relational understanding. TM differentiated visual tools depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

23. Tukey’s HSD was used for post hoc analysis. Generic G.O.s EU GI Text Resources High Achieving Typical Achieving Low Achieving Learning Disabilities TM ANOVA of BREADTH of Relational Understanding Scores by Level of Student Achievement and Form of Instruction Significant contrasts: Scores Using EU Visual Tools> GI Visual Tools EU Visual Tools> Text Resources Generic Gos> Text Resources EU Visual Tools had the greatest impact on all students depth of relational understanding. TM differentiated visual tools depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

24. Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p Level of Ach. (A) 7990.415 23995.207 159.078.000 Form of Inst. (B) 740.245 3 246.748 9.825.000 A X B Interaction 48.095 6 8.016.319.927 A X B within error 9041.321 360 25.113 Post Hoc Analysis of Depth of Relational Understanding Scores- Tukey’s HSD Significant contrasts: Scores Using EU Visual Tools> GI Visual Tools EU Visual Tools> Text Resources Generic GOs> Text Resources ANOVA of Depth of Relational Understanding Scores by Level of Student Achievement and Form of Instruction Significant differences were found between the 4 techniques relative to students with and without LD. For students with LD, the EU & Generic Graphic Organizers had the greatest impact on their depth of relational understanding. Use of traditional-text-based instruction was the least effective. Depth, breadth, & accuracy of new 11 th grade history knowledge

25. Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p Level of Ach. (A) 1481.321 2740.6607 126.603.000 Form of Inst. (B) 227.494 3 75.831 12.962.000 A X B Interaction 7.553 6 1.259.215.927 A X B within error 9041.321 360 5.850 Post Hoc Analysis of Depth of Relational Understanding Scores- Tukey’s HSD Significant contrasts: Scores Using EU Visual Tools >GI Visual Tools EU Visual Tools >Text Resources Generic GOs>GI Visual Tools Generic GOs>Text Resources ANOVA of Breadth of Relational Understanding Scores by Level of Student Achievement and Form of Instruction Significant differences were found between the 4 techniques relative to students with and without LD. EU Visual Tools had the greatest impact on breadth of relational understanding. Use of GI Visual Tools & traditional-text-based instruction were the least effective. Depth, breadth, & accuracy of new 11 th grade history knowledge

26. * Essential Understanding Visual Tools * Generative Idea Visual Tools * Traditional Guided Note-taking Qualitative data, via semi-structured interviews of teachers and students were collected and analyzed. Teachers taught history units employing instruction featuring each of the four instructional approaches. * Generic Graphic Organizers Qualitative analysis of history teachers’ & students perceptions of different types of visual tools

27. Sample comments: Teacher: “I could use these (Generic GOs) every day. They really help organize the material. When the students used these to take notes, it really helped them see what was important and how things relate” Student: “The (Generic GOs) point to the main topics instead of going into long, long notes. It is better than pages of notes.” Generic Graphic Organizers with embedded prompts about the information structure (hierarchic, compare/contrast, cause/effect, and/or sequence) were perceived as useful by teachers because they helped differentiate the curriculum and organize material. Emergent themes… Qualitative analysis of history teachers’ & students perceptions of different types of visual tools

28. Sample comments: Teacher: “These (EU Visual Tools) make the information real and personal to the student. It reminds them that history is interconnected and can even apply to their own lives.” Student: ““These (EU Visual Tools) make it so that you don’t forget what it’s all about. You look at the questions, then the whole topic comes back to you and you say ‘oh yea, I remember that from our notes’.” Emergent themes… Qualitative analysis of history teachers’ & students perceptions of different types of visual tools Essential Understanding Both teachers and students perceived that the EU Visual Tools with embedded prompts related to topic-specific essential understandings and prompts to engage in specific information processing skills help make the concepts addressed during the history instruction applicable for the students.

29. Generative Idea Teachers and students viewed the Generative Idea Visual Tools somewhat differently. Teachers perceived them as complex and perceived that their students did not understand the “big ideas”. Sample comment: Teacher: “Maybe they would be good for 12th grade second semester students; but my students did not understand these. They did not get the big picture that was trying to be expressed.” Qualitative analysis of history teachers’ & students perceptions of different types of visual tools

30. Sample comments: Teacher: “The concepts in these (GI Visual Tools) were not difficult, they were just new. We’ve never taught anything like this.” Teacher: “I personally don’t have time to teach concepts not on the graduation exam.” Teacher: “They (the students) needed more experience working with these (GI Visual Tools) and these concepts.” Qualitative analysis of history teachers’ & students perceptions of different types of visual tools Generative Idea Teachers’ value of the GI Visual Tools seemed to be impacted by: The novelty of teaching generative ideas; Perceived misalignment between generative ideas and what they perceived to be objectives in the state course of study.

31. Generative Idea Students, however, valued the GI Visual Tools and appreciated the direct instruction in the generative ideas related to a topic. Sample comment: Student: “These (GI Smart-sheets) tell you what is important to understand. It spells it right out.” TM Qualitative analysis of history teachers’ & students perceptions of different types of visual tools

32. 97% POST 81% PRE 11 TH grade typical achievers 71% PRE 11 th grade students w/LD 17 pt gain 26 pt gain 98% POST TM differentiated visual tools 11 th grade history vocabulary

33. Typical 8 th grader N=20 117 words CONTROL group of students w/LD N = 28 EXPERIMENTAL group of students w/LD N = 28 FLUENCY PretestPost-testPretestPost-test Typical 8 th grader produces an average of 117 words on high-stakes essays. 8 th students with LD typically produce about 27 words on the same task. Experimental Group Students w/LD 29 words 26 words Control Group Students w/LD TM differentiated visual tools Writing fluency: 8 th grade students with LD

34. Typical 8 th grader N=20 117 words CONTROL group of students w/LD EXPERIMENTAL group of students w/LD FLUENCY PretestPost-testPretestPost-test 29 words 26 words 24 words 126 words +97 words more than pretest +9 words more than typical 8 th grader Business-as-usualDVTs TM differentiated visual tools Writing fluency: 8 th grade students with LD

35. 9 Schools Extremely low performance 20.6% before DVTs 8 Schools Low performance 38.83% before DVTs 7 Schools Moderate performance 58.39% before DVTs 2 Schools Good performance 73.02% before DVTs % of students meeting or exceeding standards BEFORE schools started implementing DVTs TM differentiated visual tools Impact on AYP Writing Assessment

36. DVTs 49.24% DVTs 62.41% DVTs 74.81% DVTs 82.68% % of students meeting or exceeding standards AFTER schools started implementing DVTs 20.6% before DVTs 38.83% before DVTs 58.39% before DVTs 73.02% before DVTs + 23.58 pts. +16.42 pts. + 28.64 pts. +9.66 pts. 9 Schools Extremely Low Performing 8 Schools Low Performing 7 Schools Moderate Performing 2 Schools High Performing TM differentiated visual tools Impact on AYP Writing Assessment

37. So how well do these work? Results consistently show that DVTs … FAR better than “business as usual” (control groups) Significantly better than generic graphic organizers Teachers and students HIGHLY value them TM differentiated visual tools Impact on AYP Writing Assessment

38. DVTs implementation Year 1 51.43 36.1 22.0 28.08 10.0 62.24 81.0 71.0 % students meeting or exceeding standards + 23 + 52 +30 School #1 School #2 Year 2Year 3Year 4 Business-as-usual + 9 TM differentiated visual tools Semi-rural 5 th grade Alabama Writing Assessment

39. Non-DVTs High School 53% DVTs High School 77% 26 pt gain 2 pt gain DVTs implementation 51% Both groups performed at the same levels in Year 1 Year 1Year 2 % students meeting or exceeding standards TM differentiated visual tools Semi-rural 5 th grade Alabama Writing Assessment

40. Year 1 Year 2 Gains 32.7157.84+25.13 Rural 7th Grade Suburb 7th Grade 38 61+23.00 % students meeting or exceeding standards Business-as-UsualDVTs TM differentiated visual tools 7 th grade Alabama Writing Assessment