1. ALICE RHODES VICTORIA SLOCUM UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY Applications of a Changing Curricular Focus on the Ecological Curricular Framework

2. Introduction

3. define ecological curricular framework (ECF) explain changes in the curricular focus since 1979 describe recent empirical research efforts utilizing ECF evaluate the impact of these research efforts outline areas of future research By the end of today’s presentation you will be able to…

4. Purpose Describe the changing curricular focus for students with moderate to severe disabilities since Brown et al. (1979) Describe recent empirical research efforts that have utilized strategies focused on the six steps within the Ecological Curricular Framework (ECF) as described by Hunt et al. (2012) Describe the implications of research efforts

5. Rationale Current Federal legislation  Focuses on how students with disabilities are served in the schools, community, etc.  Added to the discussion of what approach may be best in the development of programs for students with disabilities  Requirement that IEP teams must determine how students with disabilities will participate and progress in general education curriculum

6. 1979: Top Down Approach 2012: Balanced Approach Evaluating the environments where they currently function (or will function), Evaluating sub-environments where they currently function (or will function) Evaluating activities in those environments Designing instructional programs to teach skills in a students natural environment. Identify quality of life goal areas Identify priority, grade-level content standards Identify the "critical function" of each selected standard Identify meaningful, individualized outcomes Generate the IEP goals and objectives Teach skills within and across meaningful activities Changes in Curricular Focus

7. www.clipartpanda.com Application of the ECF

8. The Ecological Curricular Framework Process* Step 1: Identify quality of life goal areas for individual students through family and student centered assessment activities Step 2: Identify priority, grade-level content standards from state standards frameworks Step 3: Identify the "critical function" of each selected standard in terms of enriching students' lives Step 4: Identify meaningful, individualized performance outcomes associated with the critical function of selected standards that reflect the student's quality of life goal areas and current level of symbol use Step 5: Generate the IEP goals and objectives to address the performance outcomes Step 6: Teach These Skills Within and Across Meaningful Activities That Provide Context and Motivation and That Are Relevant to the Student's Daily Life *Process for goal identification to instruction focusing on quality of life goal areas as defined by Hunt et al, (2012)

9. Method How has the ecological framework been applied in recent literature? A comprehensive literature review was conducted Inclusion criteria for the literature review:  Participants identified as having moderate to severe ID or ASD  Participants receiving special education services in public Elementary, Middle or High School  Dependent variable related to curricular outcomes  Independent variables were systematic instructional strategy  Published in peer-reviewed journal  Single-case or empirical/quantitative design 2012-2014

10. Findings: Studies Varied Intervention  Systematic Instruction  Simultaneous prompting  Constant time delay  Structured inquiry Targeted Skills  Core academic standards  Science  Social studies  Reading Settings  Public Middle or High School  Urban  Special education classroom Participants  7 males, 5 females  11 to 18 years old  9 ID, 3 ASD

11. Findings Three studies met inclusion criteria  Karl, Collins, Hager, & Ault (2013)  Riggs, Collins, Kleinert, & Knight (2013)  Schenning, Knight, & Spooner (2013) kidsinthegame.org

12. Findings (cont.) Each study utilized a portion of the steps described by Hunt et al. (2012)  Step 2: Identifying priority, grade level content standards  Step 3: Identifying critical function of selected standard in enriching student’s lives  Step 6: Teaching skills within and across meaningful activities noop.nl

13. Findings (cont.) Participants met criteria for learning all targeted skills as well as non-targeted information Able to generalize skills to real-world situations www.rickety.us

14. Conclusions The curricular focus debate is ‘vigorous’  “Reconciling the perceived conflicts between ecological frameworks for curriculum design and students' participation in states' core curricula provides an exciting opportunity for us to make that happen” (Hunt et al., 2012, p. 150).

15. Conclusions The steps described in the ECF were designed as an:  “Educational planning process that attempts to blend ecological frameworks for curriculum design and state core curricula in a way that takes into account the traditional values of the field of severe disabilities including individualization, self-determination, inclusion, and a focus on improving students' quality of life” (Hunt et al. 2012, p. 147).

16. Conclusions It was noted by the authors (in the reviewed studies) that the ECF steps of 1, 4, and 5 presented more of a challenge in terms of explicitly describing these steps within the study’s design and due to the difficulty in truly quantifying ‘quality of life’ and ‘individualized outcomes ’  Step 1: Identifying quality of life goal areas for individual students through family and student centered assessment activities;  Step 4: identifying meaningful, individualized performance outcomes associated with the critical function of selected standards that reflect the student's quality of life goal areas and current level of symbol use; and  Step 5: generating the IEP goals and objectives to address the performance outcomes

17. Conclusions The areas of curriculum planning, described in the ECF steps 1, 4, & 5, are often conducted before and not explicitly described within the narrative of the study The fact that these three studies show a quantifiable application to three of the six steps gives good evidence as to whether this type of curricular planning was in fact conducted prior to and during the study with participants

18. Future Research More empirical research should be conducted  Across settings  Across behaviors  Across students  Applying and describing the application of all of the steps in the ECF  More explicit description of the ECF steps that are difficult to quantify www.cse.unsw.edu.au

19. Let’s Review: Today We… Defined ecological curricular framework (ECF) Explained changes in the curricular focus since 1979 Described recent empirical research efforts utilizing ECF Evaluated the impact of these research efforts Outlined areas of future research

20. Questions & Discussion lifehacker.com

21. References Brown, L., Branston, M. B., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Pumpian, I., Certo, N., & Gruenewald, L. (1979). A strategy for developing chronological-age- appropriate and functional curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young adults. Journal of Special Education, 13, 81-90. Hunt, P., McDonnell J., & Crockett MA. (2012). Reconciling an ecological curricular framework focusing on quality of life outcomes with the development and instruction of standards-based academic goals. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 37, 139-152. Karl, J., Collins, B.C., Hager, K.D., & Ault, M.J. (2013). Teaching core content embedded in a functional activity to students with moderate intellectual disability using a simultaneous prompting procedure. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 363-378. Riggs, L., Collins, B.C., Kleinert, H., & Knight, V.F. (2013). Teaching principles of heredity to high school students with moderate and severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38, 30-43. Schenning, H., Knight, V., & Spooner, F. (2013). Effects of structured inquiry and graphic organizers on social studies comprehension by students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, 526-540.

22. Contact Information Alice L. Rhodes: alice.rhodes@uky.edualice.rhodes@uky.edu Victoria Slocum: victoria.slocum@uky.eduvictoria.slocum@uky.edu Department of Early Childhood, Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling 229 Taylor Education Building Lexington, KY 40506-0001