Reading, Math, and
Science for Middle School
Students with Significant
Cognitive Disabilities
Diane Browder, Ph.D., Katherine
Trela,M.S., & Bree Jimenez,M.Ed. 2006
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Something is changing in curriculum for
students with significant cognitive
disabilities
Changing Curricular Context for
Students with Significant
Disabilities

Early 1970s

Adapting infant/
early childhood
curriculum for
students with
significant
disabilities of all
ages
1980s




Rejected
“developmental model”
Functional, life skills
curriculum emerged

1990s

Also: social inclusion
focus

Also: self
determination focus
2000

General curriculum
access (academic
content)

Plus earlier priorities
(functional, social, self
determination)
What promoted general
curriculum access….



A national focus on
reading, math, and
science…
Includes all
students (yes,
including Ss with
significant cognitive
disabilities)…
Schools report as
part of AYP for
NCLB

(yes, including Ss
with significant
cognitive
disabilities)
Research to Date

What does
research indicate
about whether
students with
moderate and
severe disabilities
can learn
academics?
Reading: Mostly sight words
(without comprehension)
Literature Review Categories for Reading
128 experiments (119 articles)
140
117
Frequency
120
100
80
60
40
36
31
13
20
5
0
Fluency
Vocab
Phonics
Phonemic
Awareness
Comp
Components of Reading

Browder, D. Wakeman, S., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, R.F. (2006). A
comprehensive review of reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 72, 392-408.
Math: Mostly money

Browder, D., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Harris, A., & Wakeman, S. (in submission). A
comprehensive review of research to teach math to students with significant cognitive
disabilities.
Science: Almost nothing!

Courtade-Little, G., Spooner, F., & Browder, D. (Accepted). A literature review of science for students with
significant disabilities. Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities.
Academics vs. Life Skills






Both can be taught; both are important
Academics can be taught in ways that are meaningful
We do not know what students can learn until we try
teaching the content; educational opportunity
Life skills are not a prerequisite to learning academics
Students who are not disabled do not have to master all
life skills to be eligible to learn to read; double standard
Balance is needed-in planning IEPs and developing daily
schedule
Knowledge Needed to Implement
General Curriculum Content
A clear understanding of what it
means to teach general curriculum
content linked to grade level
standards
 Examples of interventions teachers
can follow as models for planning
instruction
 Social validation from students and
parents that goals and outcomes are
valued and meaningful

Focus for this SessionExamples of Interventions




Part I: Literacy
Part II: Mathematics
Part III: Science
Support for this research was provided in part by Grant
No. H324M03003 of the U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Special Education Programs,
awarded to the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte. The opinions expressed do not necessarily
reflect the position or policy of the Department of
Education, and no official endorsement should be
inferred.
Part I: Literacy

Browder, D.M.,
Trela, K.C., &
Jimenez, B. (In
preparation).
Increasing
participation of
middle school
students with
severe disabilities
in reading of grade
appropriate
literature.
Reading Instruction for
Students with Significant
Disabilities


Most research has been on sight word
instruction (Browder & Xin, 1998; Al Otaiba & Hosp, 2004)
Some research has shown positive effects
for phonological awareness training (O’Connor,
Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993; O’Connor, Jenkins, & Slocum, 1995;
O’Connor, Notari-Syverson, & Vadasy, 1996)

Recent review of literature showed no
studies demonstrated a longitudinal
approach to reading and all targeted only
one or two components of reading. (Browder,
Wakeman, Spooner, Algrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006)
Teaching Reading to Students
with Significant Disabilities

Reading intervention needed that:
Includes all components of reading
instruction
 Uses grade-appropriate literature to
access general curriculum
 Promotes acquisition of literacy skills
 Assesses acquisition of early literacy
skills

Purpose
To examine the effects of training
teachers to use a literacy lesson plan
based on NRP components of reading
and self-monitor literacy instruction
Research Questions


a) What is the effect of the use of self
monitoring and a lesson template in
teachers’ use of components of reading to
teach grade-appropriate literature to
students with significant cognitive
disabilities?
b) What is the effect of teachers’ training in
the components of reading following the
template on student’s emergent literacy
skills?
Design, Participants, &
Setting
Multiple probe across participants
 3 teachers of students with significant
disabilities
 6 students:2 students selected by
each teacher

(2 students with autism, 2 students with severe MR, 2 students with
moderate MR)
3 Language Arts Teachers
 In self contained special education
classes

Variables

Independent Variable:


Teacher training in use of lesson
template to deliver and self – monitor
literacy lesson using gradeappropriate adapted books
Dependent Variable:
Teacher: Number of steps followed on
a literacy lesson task analysis
 Students: Number of independent,
prompted, and overall responses
recorded on a student response

Materials

Literacy Lesson Task Analysis
Steps addressed the NRP’s 5 Components of
Reading:
•
•
•
•
•

Phonemic Awareness
Phonics
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Student Response Checklist
 Observed emergent literacy behaviors (prompted and
independent):
• Point to text
Student Response Checklist
(cont’d)

Observed emergent literacy
behaviors:
• Read repeated story line
• Turn page at appropriate time
• Respond to literal comprehension
questions
• Respond to inferential comprehension
questions
• Make predictions
• Identify letters and letter sounds
• Blend sounds to make words
Task Analysis:Literacy Lesson
I. OPENING: All students.
____1. Attention grabber activity : Sensory stimulation (AVTKGO*)
Description
* Auditory, Visual, Tactile, Kinesthetic, Gustatory (taste), Olfactory
II. WORD STUDY : Words taught in isolation and identified explicitly as target vocabulary.
Time Delay
Target Vocabulary:
Student:
Response mode:
____2. Teacher says vocabulary word and gives student an opportunity to repeat. (0 delay)
____3. Give student opportunity to say or recognize vocabulary word.(Wait #sec for response; may repeat)
Time Delay
Target Sound/s
Student:
Response mode:
____4. Teacher says letter sound and gives student an opportunity to repeat. (0 delay)
____5. Give student opportunity to say or recognize letter sound. (Wait #sec for response;may repeat)
III. TEXT AWARENESS
____6. Teacher reads title.
____ 7. Give each student an opportunity to point to/say title on own book or checks for group to respond.
____8. Teacher reads author’s name.
____9. Gives each student an opportunity to say/point to author’s name on own book or checks for group to respond.
___ 10. Teacher models opening book.
___ 11 Gives each student an opportunity to open own book (1)without being told, then (2) prompts as necessary
___ 12. Teacher asks prediction question.
___13. Gives each student an opportunity to answer prediction question.
Reading the Chapter
Read aloud pages:
___14.Teacher reads 1 or more pages aloud to get story started. (Read aloud only pages:___________OR may read aloud entire chapter, then go back to do the following:)
Review last page read to practice text-point:
___15. Teacher points to each word in chosen sentence while reading aloud on “text point page.”
___16. Gives each student an opportunity to point to chosen line on “text point page” in own book.
Identify vocabulary in context:
___17. Teacher reads vocabulary in context..
___18. Teacher points out (points physically or draws attention to) vocabulary word in context.
___19. Gives students opportunity to point to/ say vocabulary word.
Throughout the story, teacher will:
___ 20.Give students an opportunity to anticipate repeated story line.
____21. Give students an opportunity to imitate repeated story line.
___ 22.Give students an opportunity to anticipate turning page without being told.
____23. Give students an opportunity to turn own page/ask for help to stay on same page with teacher.
IV. COMPREHENSION
____24. Teacher asks comprehension question of each student at end OR throughout story.
____25 Gives opportunity for student to answer comprehension question providing scaffolding as necessary to get answer.
Thank you for teaching this lesson…remember to praise your students’ effort, too!
Materials (cont’d)

Grade-appropriate Literature:
Chosen from school district’s list of
recommended supplemental reading
 Adapted to support emergent literacy
skills:

• Chapters summarized & re-written at
Grade 2-3 listening comprehension level
• Repeated story line on each page-change
with each chapter to support main idea
• Picture symbols to support key
vocabulary (character names, places,
Procedure

Pre-baseline:



Teachers asked to “Show
us a literacy lesson”
TA & Student Response
Form used to observe
Teacher & Student
Behaviors
1st General Workshop:




All teachers attended (i.e.,
Special and General
Education Teachers)
Overview of study
Collaborative planning
session
Received first adapted
book (Call of the Wild by
Jack London)
Procedure (cont’d)


Baseline :
 Teachers asked to “Show us a literacy lesson using
the adapted book”
 Additional observation point for Teacher 2 (used
adapted story from previous year’s study)
Intervention:
 1st Teacher enters intervention-self selected to
accommodate teaching schedule
 Training site: chosen by teacher (school’s conference
room)
 Substitute provided with project funds
 Trainers explain & demonstrate each step of TA
 Trainers role play entire lesson, using TA to selfmonitor, teacher observes, compare observations
 Teacher role plays entire lesson, uses TA to selfmonitor,trainers observe, compare observations
Procedure (Cont’d)

Post-Intervention
Teachers continue to receive new
titles (1 book / month)
 Observations for 2 weeks immediately
following training
 Teacher & Observer compared
observation & self-monitoring checklist
after each visit


Maintenance

Observations before each new
teacher entered training
Results


Functional relationship indicated between
training in use of Literacy Lesson TA (with selfmonitoring) and number of steps followed in
lesson plan delivery
Functional relationship indicated between
teacher training and:

Increase in overall student responses,
with:
• Decrease in prompted responses
• Increase in independent responses
Teacher Behaviors
Baseline
Intervention
Maintenance
25
20
15
Teacher 1
10
5
0
2
3
4
Lesson Plan Steps
1
Teacher 2
5
6
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
8
9
10
11
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22
23 24
25
18
19
21 22 23
19
20
26
25
20
15
10
5
0
3
4
5
6
7
12
13
14
15
14
15
16
17
20
24 25
26
25
Teacher 3
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Probes
16
17
18
21
22
23
24
25
26
Teacher 1 : Student Responses
JoshTotal Responses
Josh I
12
Josh P
10
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
8
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526
Henry Total Responses
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526
12
10
Henry I
8
Henry P
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526
Teacher 2: Student Responses
Independent vs. Prompted
KarenTotal Responses
12
10
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Karen I
Karen P
8
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526
Independent vs. Prompted
Ann Total Responses
12
12
10
10
8
6
4
6
2
0
2
Ann I
Ann P
8
4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526
Teacher 3 : Student Responses
Cheryl Total Responses
Independent vs. Prompted
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
4
6
2
0
2
Cheryl I
Cheryl P
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 1314151617181920212223242526
Independent vs. Prompted
Sam Total Responses
12
12
Sam I
10
Sam P
8
10
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 1314151617181920212223242526
Interrater Reliability
IRR recorded for 38% of lessons

Teacher behaviors:
Between researchers: 97%
 Between teachers & observers: 98%


Student responses:

Between researchers: 94%
Social Validity

Teacher Intervention Rating Profile

Teachers agreed that intervention was fair, practical,
and would recommend to other teachers.

Most useful component/s: Task
Analysis & Adapted Books
• Teachers had little previous training in
teaching reading

Least useful: collaborative planning
materials
• Teachers reported lack of common
planning time to work with general
education teacher
Limitations
Small sample size
 Lessons delivered in self-contained
setting
 Few opportunities for special
education and general education
teachers to collaborate
 Adapting books is labor-intensive;
may not be practical for teachers to do
on their own

Implications for Research
Systematic replication in other
locations
 Instructional delivery to groups of
students
 Instruction in general education
classroom
 Examine use of task analysis with
self-monitoring to teach other subject
areas (e.g., science, math)

Implications for Practice
Staff development for administrators
to support collaborative planning for
special and general education
teachers
 Parent & sibling workshops to
encourage literacy behaviors at home
 Enlist support of peers to adapt and
produce grade-appropriate books

Summary

Evidence for teacher training that
includes
Background information (e.g., 5
components of reading, systematic
instruction techniques)
 Task analytic instruction


Evidence for supporting student
participation with
Adapted grade-appropriate materials
 Increased opportunities to respond

Next Steps
District-wide teacher training in use of
lesson plan and adapting books
 Post adapted books on website
 Collaborate with Parent Center


Exceptional Children Assistance
Center, Davidson, NC ( ECAC) will
hire staff member to train parents in
use of story-based lessons at home
Part II: Mathematics
Algebra

Jimenez, B.,
Browder, D.M., &
Courtade, G. (In
submission).
Teaching an
algebraic equation
to students with
moderate
disabilities.
Teaching Math Skills



Reading, math, and science part of NCLB
(2001) mandate
High stakes testing raised standard for
teaching academics
Comprehensive review of teaching math
skills to students with significant cognitive
disabilities (Browder, Spooner, AhlgrimDelzell, Harris, & Wakeman, 2006)
1975-2005
 55 studies in 53 publications

• 2 articles had double experiments

Math skills taught to students with
moderate mental disabilities

Money management
• Colyer & Collins (1996)
• Borakove & Cuvo (1977)
• McDonnell, Horner, & Williams (1984)

Counting and number identification
• Lalli, Mace, Browder, & Brown (1989)
• Matson & Long (1986)
• Morin & Miller (1998)

Time telling
• Polychronis, McDonnell, Johnson, Riesen
& Jameson (2004)
• Vacc & Cannon (1991)

Basic number identification and
number matching
• Polychronis et al. (2004)
• Repp, Karsh, & Lenz (1990)
• Lalli et al. (1989)
Many students are not being exposed
to a wide variety of math skills
 Historically, focus on math skills has
been within activities of daily living like
shopping

Aeschleman & Schladenauffen (1984)
 Browder, Snell, & Wildonger (1988)
 Haring, Kennedy, Adams, & PittsConway (1987)


Some work in teaching algebra to students
with Learning Disabilities

Witzel, Mercer, & Miller (2003)
• Effect of an explicit concrete-torepresentational-to-abstract (CRA) on
teaching students with learning disabilities
algebra skills
• Lack of studies involving students with
moderate disabilities in higher-level
mathematical skills

Purpose

To determine the effect of systematic
instruction on the acquisition of
computation skills in an algebraic
component
Method

Participants

Inclusion criteria
• Self-contained high school classroom for
students with moderate mental disabilities
• Current IEP
• Signed parental consent forms
• Meet pre-screening academic guidelines
(number identification of 1-9 & the ability
to rote count 1-9)

Jack
• 17 years old – 11th grade, male, WISCIII
42

Leo
• 15 years old – 9th grade, male, WISCIII 49

Cindy
• 15 years old – 9th grade, female, WISCIII
42

Setting
Classroom for student with moderate
mental disabilities within a public high
school in a large urban school system
 Intervention takes place within the
classroom, with individual 1:1
instruction


Dependent Variable

Number of steps correct on task
analysis
Task Analysis for Solving
Equation

Response Definition
Student points to sum on equation
 Moves red marker to sum on chart
 Counts number of items in container
and finds number on equation
 Moves the green marker to number on
chart
 Count to the sum with materials
 Selects the number counted
 Puts correct number in for X in for
formula
 Puts correct number needed in

Objective

Task
Student will complete algebraic
addition equation to complete
vocational task
 #+x=#
x = _____

Equation Prompt
First
Fact
Solution :
*
Sign
X =
*
Second
Fact
12 3 4 5
6 7 8 9
Last
Fact
=
place number card in box
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
X
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ADD
SUBTRACT
+
-
Design and Data Collection

Experimental Design


Multiple probe across participants
Data Collection Procedure
Taken by teacher
 Baseline data =3 consecutive days
 After baseline, the first participant will
receive the intervention alone
 5 steps correct for P1, P2 and P3 =
probe, and P2 will receive the
intervention
 Finally, P3 = probe, and intervention

Intervention

Systematic instruction application

Constant Time-delay
• Session one –0 second verbal and model
• Session two –0 second verbal . . .4
second model
• Session three - (continue until mastery)
• 4 second verbal . . . 4 second model
Errorless learning – error correction
 If errors persist – repeat 0 second
time-delay for 1 session

Procedural Fidelity

Procedural fidelity
Once a week during intervention with
each participant (15%) of sessions
 Second rater used the task analysis to
take data of student performance at
the same time as the teacher
 Second rater checked procedural
fidelity by scoring if each step was
taught using the correct order of
prompts, timing of prompts, timing of
praise, and interruption of errors
 Mean of 98.9%

Interrater Reliability

Interrater reliability
Once a week (15% of sessions)
 Point-by point agreement
 Second rater used the task analysis to
take data of student performance at
the same time as the teacher
 Teacher and second-rater compared
data collection after the teaching
session
 Percentage agreement 100%

Results

Student 1 – Jack



Student 2 – Leo



Mastery after 46 sessions (15 absences)
Generalization –materials and other algebra equations
Mastery after 11 sessions
Generalization – materials and other algebra equations
Student 3 – Cindy



Cindy was able to learn 8 out of the 9 steps by lesson 31
At session 15 was given the task-analysis to help her selfmonitor the steps to be completed
Additional modification after the 29th lesson, due to errors
• A 15-second time delay was built in prior to the first step
to allow Cindy time to focus on the task analysis
Baseline
Intervention
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
NUMBER OF STEPS CORRECT ON TASK ANALYSIS
2
Jack
1
0
-1 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Leo
1
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Ss given task
analysis
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Cindy
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
SESSIONS
Triangle = generalization across materials
Square = generalization to general ed setting, with peer
Star = Maintenance Data
65
70
Discussion



While concrete referents used in earlier
algebra studies faded to Arabic symbols;
ongoing support in current study
Task analytic instruction with systematic
prompting similar to that used in life skills;
teaching fewer skills with more repetition
another difference in algebra for this
population
Gave skill a functional context- materials
needed for a job; students with significant
cognitive disabilities may need to know why
to do the skill not just how
Discussion

Introduction of self-instruction and
increased time to respond promoting
learning by third participant


May be preferable to begin with self
directed learning
Need for social validation of outcomes by
parents and students

Informal feedback -students eager to
do algebra lessons; told friends that
they were learning algebra
Limitations and Future
Research

Limitations –
P1 absences
 Limited data on P3 with task-analysis
– time factor


Future Research –
More generalization to General
Education Classroom
 Fading of concrete referents
 Other high school math skills –
systematic instruction
 Replication with more students and by

Part III: Science

Courtade, G. The effects of inquirybased science instruction training for
teachers of students with significant
disabilities. Doctoral Dissertation at
University of North Carolina at
Charlotte.

Presented by Diane Browder,
Dissertation advisor.
Science

Courtade, G. (2006). The
Effects of Inquiry-Based
Science Instruction
Training on Teachers of
Students with Significant
Disabilities. Doctoral
Dissertation, UNC
Charlotte.

Students learn about
density.
Introduction

Why teach science to students with
significant disabilities?
A Nation at Risk (1983); Project 2061:
Science for all Americans (1985);
 National Science Education Standards
(1996)
 No Child Left Behind (2002)
 Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA, 1997)

Teaching Science

National Science Education
Standards (NSES)

recommends the use of inquiry based
instruction for science
• students can learn science in a way that
represents how science actually works
Teaching Science to Students
with Significant Disabilities

Limited research





must be extrapolated from skills often
categorized as daily living skills (firstaid skills, self-protective skills, safety
skills)
Only found 10 studies; all single subject
Total N=42 participants
All in separate special education contexts;
one in a summer program
Nearly all were Science for Personal and
Social Perspective (First aid and safety
research)
Purpose
To determine if training teachers of
students with significant disabilities to
teach science concepts using a
guided inquiry-based method would
change the way science was
instructed in the classroom.
 Further objectives:


to determine if training the teachers
would increase students’ participation
and achievement in science.
Significance



Adds to the research demonstrating that
students with significant disabilities can
make progress within academic content
standards
Expands the research on how to teach
science and academics to students with
significant disabilities (currently no
evidence-based practice)
Provides a method that can be used to
teach science across content standards
Method

Participants
4 teachers of middle school aged
students with significant disabilities
 8 students with moderate cognitive
disabilities in grades 6-8


Setting

4 self-contained classrooms in a large
urban school district located in the
southeastern US
Variables

Independent Variable


Teacher training using a multicomponent approach consisting of
written and verbal instructions, role
playing, feedback, and an observation
Dependent Variables
Checklist for an Inquiry Based
Science Lesson
 Checklist for Student Acquisition of
Inquiry Skills

Science Steps

Engage


Investigate & Describe Relationships



Plans ways to gather information
Looks for pattern
Construct Explanation



Student interacts with materials and
communicates what wants to know
Communicates explanation
Tests explanation
Report

Communicates what found (e.g., selects picture)
• Contact Ginevra Courtade for more information.
Baseline
Intervention
12
10
8
6
ResultsTeachers
Number of lesson components taught during science instruction
4
Teacher 1
2
0
12
10
8
6
4
Teacher 2
2
0
12
10
8
6
4
Teacher 3
2
0
12
10
8
6
4
2
Teacher 4
0
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
12
Baseline
Intervention
10
ResultsStudents
Number of Inquiry Skills Acquired by the Students during Science Instruction
8
Monica
6
Kyle
4
2
0
12
10
8
Valerie
6
Charlotte
4
2
0
12
10
8
Max
6
David
4
2
0
12
10
8
Susan
6
Edw ard
4
2
0
1
6
11
16
21
26
31
Percentage of lessons in
each science content area
100
80
60
40
20
0
Physical
Science
Life
Science
Earth & Science & Personal History &
Space
Tech
& Social Nature
Content Standards
Discussion
Teachers were able to teach inquirybased science lessons after training
 Teachers taught across different
content areas
 Students acquired science skills

Contact Information
Dbrowder@email.uncc.edu
 kctrela@email.uncc.edu
 B.jimenez@cms.k12.nc.us
 Website:
http://education.uncc.edu/access
