LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1.877.453.2721
www.louisianaschools.net
State Board of Elementary
and Secondary Education
Mr. Keith Guice
Mr. Charles E. Roemer
President
5th BESE District
6th BESE District
Mr. Walter Lee
Mr. Dale Bayard
Vice President
4th BESE District
7th BESE District
Ms. Louella Givens
Mr. John L. Bennett
Secretary/Treasurer
2nd BESE District
Member-at-Large
Mr. James D. Garvey, Jr.
Ms. Penny Dastugue
1st BESE District
Member-at-Large
Ms. Glenny Lee Buquet
Ms. Tammie A. McDaniel
3rd BESE District
Member-at-Large
Ms. Linda Johnson
Ms. Jeanette Vosburg
8th BESE District
Executive Director
For further information, contact:
Tasha P. Anthony, (225) 342-4776
or toll free at 1-877-453-2721
Office of Student and School Performance
School Improvement Section
The Louisiana Department of Education (LDE) does not discriminate on the basis of sex
in any of the education programs or activities that it operates, including employment and
admission related to such programs and activities. The LDE is required by Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) and its implementing regulations not to engage
in such discrimination. LDE’s Title IX Coord. is Patrick Weaver, Deputy Undersecretary,
LDE, Exec. Office of the Supt.; PO Box 94064, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9064; 877-4532721 or customerservice@la.gov. All inquiries pertaining to LDE’s policy prohibiting
discrimination based on sex or to the requirements of Title IX and its implementing
regulations can be directed to Patrick Weaver or to the USDE, Asst. Sec. for Civil Rights.
This public document was printed at a cost of $46.25. Five Thousand (5000) copies of this document were printed
in this second printing at a cost of $231,250.00. The total cost for printing of this document, including reprints was
$231,250.00. This document was printed by the Louisiana Department of Education, Office of Student and School
Performance, School Improvement Section; Post Office Box 94064, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9604. This material
was printed in accordance with the standards for printing by State Agencies established pursuant to R.S. 43:31.
Table of Contents
Louisiana Department of Education Goals ...................................................................................... 1
How Effective Schools Use Their Funds ........................................................................................... 2
Louisiana Department of Education Initiatives ............................................................................... 3
Response to Intervention (RtI)......................................................................................................... 5
Response to Intervention – Action Plan ............................................................................. 7
Response to Intervention Innovation Configuration .......................................................... 8
Brief Summary of the Research ........................................................................................ 15
Data-Driven, Decision-Making ....................................................................................................... 18
Data-Driven, Decision-Making Action Plan ....................................................................... 20
Data-Driven, Decision-Making Innovation Configuration................................................. 21
Brief Summary of the Research ........................................................................................ 24
Job-Embedded Professional Development.................................................................................... 28
Job-Embedded Professional Development Action Plan ................................................... 30
Job-Embedded Professional Development Innovation Configuration ............................. 31
Brief Summary of the Research ........................................................................................ 37
Curriculum Alignment
Curriculum Alignment Action Plan ................................................................................... 41
Curriculum Alignment Innovation Configuration ............................................................. 42
Brief Summary of the Research ........................................................................................ 48
Meaningful, Engaged Learning ...................................................................................................... 51
Meaningful, Engaged Learning Action Plan ...................................................................... 53
Meaningful, Engaged Learning Innovation Configuration ................................................ 54
Brief Summary of Research
Model from North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) ................ 58
Model from Phillip Schlechty ............................................................................... 63
Model from Mike Muir ........................................................................................ 68
Meaningful, Engaged Learning Flow Chart Mike Muir ..................................................... 69
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................... 74
Strategic Instruction Model ......................................................................................................... 75
Brief Summary of the Research ........................................................................................ 76
SIM Strategic Instruction Model Learning Strategies and Content Enhancement ........... 91
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) ............................................................................................ 101
Bibliographic Notation .................................................................................................... 102
Bridging the Gap – Universal Design for Learning and UDL Guidelines ......................... 103
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................. 104
Response to Instruction and Universal Design for Learning: How Might They
Intersect in the General Education Classroom? ................................................ 105
Action Research .............................................................................................................. 116
Job-Embedded Learning ................................................................................................. 133
Importance of On-the-Job Experiences in Developing Leadership Capabilities ............. 136
Content Literacy Strategy Descriptions .......................................................................... 140
Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum Considerations for
Determining Equivalent Activities ..................................................................... 141
From Activity to Lesson Plan ........................................................................................... 142
Strategies for the Advanced Learner .............................................................................. 143
The Access Guide ............................................................................................................ 145
Meaningful, Engaged Learning (NCREL) ......................................................................... 147
Indicators of Engaged Learning and Chart ...................................................................... 149
Meaningful, Engaged Learning Checklist ........................................................................ 161
Louisiana Department of Education
Vision: Create a world-class education system
for all students in Louisiana
Mission:
 Ensure Higher Academic Achievement for all Students
 Eliminate all Achievement Gaps
 Prepare Students to be Effective Citizens in Global market
State Goals
Louisiana students will:
1. Enter kindergarten ready to learn
 Goal: 75% of students on benchmark
2. Be literate by 3rd grade
 Goal: 90% basic or above on ELA portion of state standardized
assessment
3. Arrive in 4th grade on time
 Goal: 90% of students arrive on-time
4. Perform adequately in the area of English Language Arts by 8th grade
 Goal: 90% basic or above on state standardized assessment
5. Have necessary numeracy skills by 8th grade
 Goal: 90% basic or above on Math portion of state standardized
assessment
6. Graduate on time
 Goal: 85% of students graduate on time
7. Enroll in a post-secondary institution or workforce ready
 Goal: 75% of students earn IBC or enroll in post-secondary education
8. Achieve these goal regardless of race or SES
 Goal: eliminate all achievement gaps
1
HOW EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS USE THEIR FUNDS

































RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RTI)
INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES
GRADUATION COACHES
INTERVENTIONISTS
CO-TEACHING
STRATEGIC INSTRUCTION MODEL
(SIM)
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION
SMALL GROUP INSTRUCTION
PARENT LITERACY TRAINING
DATA DECISION MAKING DECISIONS
SUSTAINED JOB-EMBEDDED
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (SITEBASED)
EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR/DAY
CREDIT RECOVERY
DROP OUT PREVENTION
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SYSTEM
6TH & 8TH GRADE TRANSITION
ACADEMY
9TH GRADE ACADEMY
SATURDAY ACADEMY
WHOLE SCHOOL REFORM MODEL
HIGH SCHOOLS THAT WORK (HSTW)
MAKING MIDDLE GRADES WORK
(MMGW)
NEW TECHNOLOGY HIGH
DUAL ENROLLMENT
PROJECT-BASED/SENIOR PROJECT
COUNSELOR SUPPORT
SOCIAL WORKER/SCHOOL
PARTNERSHIPS
COURSE DEVELOPMENT (Hybrid
Courses)
ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER
RECRUIT/RETAIN/SUPPORT






















2
TITLE IID TEACHER SUPPORT
TRUANCY/ATTENDANCE
PARENT COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
TEACHER BUSINESS CAMPS
TEACHER NIGHT OUT
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING
SITE-BASED TECHNOLOGY COACHES
DROPOUT EARLY WARNING SYSTEM
(DEWS)
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN
DIRECT EXPLICIT COMPREHENSION
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO
EMBED LITERACY STRATEGIES
ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
STUDENT MOTIVATION
LITERACY/NUMERACY FOCUS AT
MIDDLE GRADES (5-9)
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN
WRITING
TECHNOLOGY WITH A MIDDLE
GRADES EMPHASIS
FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT TO
DETERMINE INTERVENTIONS
EXTENDED TIME IN
LITERACY/NUMERACY (GRADES 5-9)
COMPREHENSIVE LITERACY PLAN
FORMATIVE/SUMMATIVE
ASSESSMENTS
TEACHER TEAMS
BREAKING RANKS NASSP MODEL
QUALITY SCHOOL LIBRARIES
PROMOTE PLEASURE READING
ADVISOR/ADVISEE PROGRAMS
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ACADEMIES
ADOLESCENT LITERACY
CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT
Louisiana Department of Education Initiatives
Best Practices included in School Improvement Plan
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Response to Intervention (RtI)
Data-Driven, Decision-Making
Job-Embedded Professional Development
Curriculum Alignment
Meaningful, Engaged Learning
A brief description of each of the best practices is listed below.
1. Response to Intervention (RtI)
Response to Intervention (RtI) is a general education process that provides students with high-quality
research based instruction and interventions that are matched to the student’s specific needs. Data is used
to drive decisions about student progress and to determine the appropriate instructional plan necessary for
a student to achieve grade-level success. Daily instruction is delivered to maximize instruction and
intervention benefits.
RtI in Louisiana follows a three-tiered process – Tier I provides high-quality instruction that is differentiated
to meet each student’s needs in the general education setting. Tier II provides targeted interventions for
students who need additional support in addition to Tier I instruction. Tier III, also in addition to Tier I
instruction, provides intensive interventions for students significantly below grade level, and/or students who
do not respond to Tier II instruction. RtI is a dynamic process that has dramatically improved the skill level
of students in Louisiana and across the country as measured by state assessments.
2. Data-Driven Decision Making
Data-driven decision making is the ongoing process of collecting, analyzing, and using numerous types of
data effectively. Changes driven by data have a better chance of assisting school leaders in meeting school
improvement goals. For districts and schools to identify and meet the specific needs of students detailed
data must be collected and disaggregated (Boudett, City, & Murnane, 2004).
3. Job-Embedded Professional Development
Job-embedded professional development (e.g., study groups, coaching, job shadowing) is also known as
on-the-job learning. It occurs while school leaders and staff engage in their daily work. Research shows
traditional methods of professional development, such as attending inservices and conferences, are not
always effective. Job-embedded learning maximizes time efficiency, promotes immediate application of
what is learned, and is more sustainable and cost-effective than “one-shot” workshops (e-Lead: Leadership
for Student Success, 2005; Galloway, 1995).
4. Curriculum Alignment
Curriculum alignment has been defined as the “congruence of the content, context, and cognitive demands
present in the written, taught, and tested curriculum” (English & Steffy, 2001). Addressing curriculum
alignment includes: 1) the scope of the content covered, 2) the level of sophistication and complexity of the
content, 3) the sequence of the content to be presented, and 4) the richness of the content (Reeves, 2003;
English & Steffy, 2001). Research indicates an aligned curriculum increases student achievement,
engagement, attendance, and graduation rates. In addition, curriculum alignment allows teachers to focus
on lessons and meaningful content (Allen, 2002; Reeves, 2003).
3
5. Meaningful, Engaged Learning (MEL)
Current research indicates that students learn when they are highly involved in meaningful tasks. Student
motivation is one aspect of MEL; however, motivation is more than a quality within students. In fact,
motivation is greatly affected by the attitudes and actions of the educators themselves. Recognizing this and
the changing needs of the 21st century, researchers have determined that reform of instruction and
strategies are necessary. Three models that have been recognized as leaders in MEL are:
1. North Central Educational Laboratory (NCREL) which includes eight specific indicators of engaged
learning: 1) Vision of Engaged Learning, 2) Tasks for Engaged Learning, 3) Assessment of
Engaged Learning, 4) Instructional Models and Strategies for Engaged Learning, 5) Learning
Context for Engaged Learning, 6) Grouping for Engaged Learning, 7) Teacher Roles for Engaged
Learning, and 8) Student Roles for Engaged Learning (http://www.ncrel.org) ;
2. Schlechty Center for Leadership in School Reform, which is based on theories of change and of
engagement; and
3. Mike Muir of the Maine Center for Meaningful Engaged Learning (McMEL), which has identified four
key components of MEL – Relationship and Rapport, Experience, Motivation, and Meaning.
4
5
Response to Intervention
(RtI)
Response to Intervention is the practice of providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student
needs, using learning rate over time, and reviewing levels of performance to make important educational
decisions. RtI can also be defined as the change in behavior or performance as a function of an
intervention. Although there is no universal RtI model, it is generally understood to include multiple tiers
that provide a sequence of programs and services for students showing academic difficulties. Tier one
provides high-quality instruction and behavioral supports in general education; tier two provides more
specialized instruction for students whose performance and rate of progress lag behind classroom peers;
and tier three provides intensive, usually longer term, intervention. The emphasis of RtI is to focus on
providing more effective instruction by encouraging earlier intervention for at-risk students. Research has
demonstrated through a number of studies that an RtI framework can benefit students by addressing
academic difficulties in an individualized and timely way (Mellard, Byrd, Johnson, Tollefson, & Boesche,
2004).
6
Action Plan Activities indicated should address all subgroups – Response-to-Intervention
GOAL 1
Research-Based Strategy 1:
RTI
JEPD
DDD
MEL
CA
SIM
UDL
Indicator of Implementation (250 Characters): Assess you current level of fidelity based on the rating scale for your chosen strategy. Use the results of your rating
to help to develop your action plan.
Procedures for Evaluating Indicators of Implementation (250 Characters):
OBJECTIVES:
DESIRED OUTCOMES:
1.1
1.2
Responsible
Person
Activity
(500 Characters)
Start Date
Completion
Date
Estimated
Cost
Funding
Source
(100 Characters)
date
date
cost
T1 SI
date
date
cost
T1 SI
date
date
cost
T1 SI
Summative Evaluation (250 Characters):
Implementation Issues (250 Characters)
FCI-Indicates Family Community Involvement Activities
D-Indicates Discipline Support Activities
Date Presented
Resolution(s) (250 Characters)
Date Resolved
date
date
date
date
C-Indicates Curriculum Activities
L-Indicates Literacy Activities
Louisiana Department of Education
N-Indicates Numeracy Activities
T-indicates K – 12 Transition Activities
School Improvement Plan
Revised Spring 2009
7
Response to Intervention Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Universal Screening
Early screening of all
students to identify those
at risk for academic
and/or behavior
difficulties
Screening of all students
to identify those at risk
for academic and/or
behavior difficulties
Screenings are completed
on students identified at
risk for academic and/or
behavior difficulties
Screenings are completed
on students who have a
history of academic
and/or behavior
challenges
Progress Monitoring
Student performance
data are collected on a
weekly basis and used to
identify trend data
Student performance
data are collected on a
monthly basis and used
to identify trends
Student performance
data are collected on a
quarterly basis and used
to identify trend data
Student performance
data are collected on an
annual basis and used to
identify trends
Student performance is
used to determine
primary, secondary and
tertiary preventions
Student performance is
used to determine
primary and secondary
preventions
Student performance is
used to determine
secondary and tertiary
preventions
Student performance is
used to determine
interventions
Rating
Tiered Instruction/Interventions: The instruction delivered to students varies on several dimensions that are related to the nature and severity
of a student’s difficulties and allows for consistent progress
Provide high-quality,
Provide instruction that is Provide instruction that is
Tier 1 - Core Instructional Provide high-quality,
scientifically based
scientifically based
aligned to state content
not scientifically based,
Interventions
instruction that is aligned
to state content
standards, and
differentiated to meet
student needs.
instruction that is aligned
to state content
standards
8
standards.
not aligned to state
content standards, and is
not differentiated to
match student needs.
Response to Intervention Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Instructional practices
and classroom strategies
are culturally and
linguistically diverse
Instructional practices
and classroom strategies
are culturally diverse
Cultural activities are
embedded in learning but
are not infused into daily
instructional practices
Instructional practices
and classroom strategies
are not culturally or
linguistically diverse
Tier 2 - Targeted Group
Instruction
Target groups of students
are provided with
intensive instruction
matched to their needs
on the basis of levels of
performance and rates of
progress
Target groups of students
are provided with
intensive instruction
matched to their needs
on the basis of levels of
performance
Target groups of students
are provided with
intensive instruction
Target groups of students
are provided with group
instruction
Tier 3 - Targeted Group
Interventions
Students receive
individualized, intensive
interventions that target
the student skill deficits
for the remediation of
existing problems and the
prevention of more
severe problems
Students receive
individualized, intensive
interventions that target
the student skill deficits
for the remediation
Students receive
individualized, intensive
interventions
Students receive
interventions
9
Rating
Response to Intervention Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Rating
Family and Community Engagement: A high level of family and community involvement is one of the common characteristics of high-performing
schools (Henderson& Mapp, 2002)
A variety of school-wide
structures are
consistently used to
engage parents in
providing targeted
support for learning
A variety of school-wide
structures are in place
and often used to engage
parents in providing
targeted support for
learning
Structures are
implemented and used to
communicate with
parents
Teachers implement a
variety of methods to
engage parents in
learning process
A variety of school-wide
communication methods
are used to inform,
encourage and assist
parents in supporting
learning
Communication methods
are used to inform and
assist parents in
supporting learning
Communication methods
are used to inform
parents of students’
academic and behavior
performance
Teachers implement a
variety of methods to
communicate with
parents
Leveled or tiered familyschool collaboration
occurs on an on-going
basis
Family-school
collaboration occurs but
is specific to tiers 2 & 3
Degrees of family-school
collaboration exist
Family-school
collaboration is limited
10
Response to Intervention Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Rating
Collaboration: Some of the most important forms of professional learning and problem solving occur in group settings within schools and school
districts.
Consistent, on-going and
structured collaboration
throughout the school
results in improved
educational practices
supported by several
commonly understood
data sources
Consistent and structured
collaboration throughout
the school results in
improved practices
supported by at least two
commonly understood
data sources
On-going collaboration
occurs throughout the
school supported by
limited data sources
Collaboration is evident
in the school but is only
supported by
perceptional data
All stakeholders share
responsibility for the
effectiveness of
interventions using the
RtI structures in the
school
Teachers and parents
share responsibility for
the effectiveness of
interventions using the
RtI structures in the
school
Teachers share
responsibility for the
effectiveness of
interventions using the
RtI structures in the
school
Teachers share
responsibility for the
effectiveness of
interventions used with
their students
Professional Learning: Effective professional learning provides adequate time for teachers to acquire, practice, and reflect on new concepts and
skills as well as time to collaborate and interact with peers.
The entire school
community is aware of
the research-based
practices that are being
implemented with fidelity
school-wide at all three
tiers
The entire school
community is aware of
the research-based
practices that are being
implemented with fidelity
school-wide at two tiers
11
Teachers are aware of
the research-based
practices that are being
implemented with fidelity
school-wide
Some members of the
school community are
aware of the researchbased practices that are
being implemented
Response to Intervention Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Impact on student
learning is systematically
analyzed and shared to
continue improving
student performance
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Impact on student
learning is analyzed and
shared to continue
improving student
performance
Impact on student
learning is analyzed
Low Fidelity
1
Rating
Impact on student
learning is not analyzed
Data Driven Decision-Making in education refers to teachers, principals, and administrators systematically collecting and analyzing various types
of data to guide a range of decisions to help improve the success of students and schools.
Analyze disaggregated student data to determine school improvement/professional development goals
The faculty analyzes a
variety of student
achievement/learning
results to determine
school improvement
goals
A representative group of
faculty members analyze
a variety of student
achievement/learning
results to determine
school improvement
goals
Individual teachers
analyze a variety of
student achievement
/learning results to
determine school
improvement goals
Personal experiences and
district goals guide school
improvement goals
The faculty analyzes a
variety of student
achievement/learning
results to determine
adult learning needs
A representative group of
faculty members analyze
a variety of student
achievement/learning
results to determine
adult learning needs
Individual teachers
analyze a variety of
student achievement
/learning results to
determine adult learning
needs
Personal experiences and
district goals guide school
wide staff development
12
Response to Intervention Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Analyze a variety of disaggregated data to identify school improvement/professional development goals
The faculty analyzes a
variety of data sources
i.e., student
achievement, discipline
referrals, grade retention,
high school completion,
and enrollment in
advanced courses, to
determine school
improvement goals
The faculty collects and
uses a variety of student
and staff data to design
professional learning
experiences
The faculty analyzes a
variety of academic data
sources only related to
formative assessments
only to determine school
improvement goals
The faculty analyzes a
variety of student
achievement results
(norm referenced and
criterion-referenced) to
determine school
improvement/staff
development goal
Leadership analyzes data
to determine school
improvement needs/staff
development
The faculty collects and
uses a variety of staff
data to design
professional learning
experiences
The faculty collects and
uses a variety of student
data to design
professional learning
experiences
Leadership analyzes data
to determine staff
development needs
The faculty disaggregates
the data by race, gender,
SES, and special needs
The faculty disaggregates
the data by race and
gender
Leadership consults with
selected teachers and/or
community members
before making decisions
about the focus of
school-wide work
The school informs
parents about how
decisions are made about
the focus of school-wide
work
Engages school community in data-driven decision-making
The school engages
parents and community
members in making
decisions about the focus
of school-wide work
The school engages a
select group of parents
and community members
in making decisions about
the focus of school-wide
work
13
Rating
Response to Intervention Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Collects, uses, and disseminates data that monitor the accomplishment of school-wide goals
The school collects and
analyzes student and
teacher data at least four
times a year to monitor
the accomplishment of
school-wide goals
Collects and analyzes
student and teacher data
at the beginning and end
of the school year to
monitor the
accomplishment of
school-wide goals
Reports results to parents
and the community
throughout the year, as
well as results required
by the state and district
Reports results to parents Reports results as
and the community
required by the state or
throughout the year, as
district
well as results required
by the state or district
Uses baseline data to
monitor improvement
within the school year
Celebrates improvements
and accomplishments
based on data
14
Collects and analyzes
student and teacher data
at the end of the year to
monitor the
accomplishment of
school-wide goal
Does not collect or use
student and teacher data
to monitor the
accomplishments of
school wide goals
Rating
Response-To-Intervention (RtI)
Brief Summary of Research:
Responsiveness to Intervention can be defined as the change in behavior or performance as a
function of an intervention (Gresham, 1991).
The Individuals With Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA; P.L. 108-446) encourages educators to use Response-ToIntervention (RtI) as a substitute for, or supplement to, the Discrepancy Model to identify
students with learning disabilities (LD). Although there is no universal RtI model, it is generally
understood to include multiple tiers that provide a sequence of programs and services for
students showing academic difficulties.
Tier one provides high-quality instruction and
behavioral supports in general education, tier two provides more specialized instruction for
students whose performance and rate of progress lag behind classroom peers, and tier three
provides comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary team to determine if the student has a
disability and is eligible for special education and related services.
The emphasis of RtI is to focus on providing more effective instruction by encouraging earlier
intervention for at-risk students and represent a better method of LD identification. The IQachievement discrepancy, which had been the predominant method of identifying learning
disabilities since the original establishment of regulations, was challenged on a number of
issues (identifying wrong, requiring that students “wait to fail” before receiving needed services,
not leading to useful educational remediation of academic difficulties). The research has
demonstrated through a number of studies (Mellard, Byrd, Johnson, Tollefson, & Boesche,
2004) that an RtI framework can benefit students by addressing academic difficulties in an
individualized and timely way.
In current aptitude-achievement discrepancy models, the standard of unexpected
underachievement is when the student’s achievement score is significantly lower than a
predicted achievement score or a measure of cognitive ability or aptitude. In contrast, in the RtI
concept, the student’s achievement is lower than expected when compared to his/her grade
level placement or same-age peers’ performance where all students have been provided
appropriate, scientifically-based instruction. RtI proposes discrepancy relative to opportunities
to learn as a way of defining unexpected underachievement and, as such, offers promise for
identifying at risk students for whom appropriate instruction has not proven effective.
Bibliographic Notation:
Deno, S.L. and Mirkin, P.K. (1997) Data-based Program Modification: A Manual, Reston, VA:
Council for Exceptional Children.
Fuchs, Douglas, Fuchs, Lynn. (Sept/Oct 2001). Responsiveness –To-Intervention: A Blueprint
for Practitioners, Policymakers, and Parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 57 – 61.
Fuchs, Douglas; Devery Mock; Paul L. Morgan and Caresa L. Young Responsiveness-toIntervention: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications for Learning Disabilities Construct
Gresham, F.M. (1991). Conceptualizing behavior disorders in terms of resistance to
intervention, School Psychology Review, 20, 23-36.
15
Gresham, Frank Responsiveness to Intervention: an Alternative Approach to the Identification of
Learning Disabilities. University of California, Riverside.
Grimes, J., & Kurns, S. (2003). An intervention-based system for addressing NCLB and IDEA
expectations: A multiple tiered model to ensure every child learns. Paper presented at
the Responsiveness to Intervention Symposium sponsored by the National Research
Center on Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO.
Mellard, Daryl. (Sept 2004) NRCLD Principal Investigator. Understanding Responsiveness to
Intervention in Learning Disabilities Determination. Understanding RTI.
Mellard, D.F., Byrd, S.E., Johnson, E., Tollefson, J.M., & Boesche, L. (Fall 2004). Foundations
and Research on Identifying Model Responsiveness-to-Intervention Sites. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 27, 243-256.
Torgesen, Joseph K. Individual Differences in Response to Early Interventions in Reading: The
Lingering Problem of Treatment Resisters Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
15(1), 55-64.
Tilly, W.D. and Grimes (1998). Curriculum-based measurement: One vehicle for systemic
educational reform. In Shinn, M.R. Advanced Applications of Curriculum-based
Measurement. New York: Guilford Press.
Torgesen, Joseph K. Individual Differences in Response to Early Interventions in Reading: The
Lingering Problem of Treatment Resisters Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
15(1), 55-64.
Brown-Chidsey, R., Steege, M.W. (2005). Response to Intervention Principles and Strategies
for Effective Practice. New York: Guilford Publications.
Brown-Chidsey, Ra chel. Assessment for Intervention : A Problem-Solving Approach (Guilford
School Practitioner Series)
Shapiro, Edward S. Academic Skills Problems: Direct Assessment and Intervention, Third
Edition (Guilford School Practitioner)
Shapiro, Edward S. Academic Skills Problems Workbook, Revised Edition (Guilford School
Practitioner Series)
The Response-To-Intervention (RTI) Model
www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/assessment/response_to_intervention.httml
Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium
http://www.nrcld.org/html/symposium2003/index.html
Information Sheet for Regional Resource Centers Response-To-Intervention Models Identify,
Evaluate & Scale 6/14/03 http://www.nrcld.org/html/research/rti/RTIinfor.pdf
16
Responsiveness-to-Intervention Evaluation Technical Assistance & Dissemination Activities
http://www.nrcld.org/html/research/rti,.html
Mellard, Daryl Basic Principles of the Responsiveness-to-Intervention Approach in two parts
http://www.schwablearning.org
What You Need to Know about IDEA 2004 Articles and Free Publications:
Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI)
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/rti.index.html
Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation. National Association of
State Directors of Special Education, Inc. Alexandria, VA, 2005
Responsive to Intervention and Learning Disabilities, a report by the National Joint Commission
on Learning Disabilities representing eleven national and international organizations,
June 2005. This document was approved by the National Joint Committee on Learning
Disabilities (NJCLD) as an official paper of the NJCLD in June 2005.
Response to Intervention: A Case Illustration, Ernst, Lowell, Miller, Brian, Robinson, Wendy,
Tilly, W. David, Presentation provided to the National Association of State Directors of
Special Education Satellite Series, November 9, 2005.
National Center on Student Progress Monitoring http://www.studentprogress.org/
Research Institute on Progress Monitoring http://www.progressmonitoring.net/
Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium
http://www.nrcld.org/html/symposium2003/index.html
Information Sheet for Regional Resource Centers Response-To-Intervention Models Identify,
Evaluate & Scale 6/14/03 http://www.nrcld.org/html/research/rti/RTIinfor.pdf
Responsiveness-to-Intervention Evaluation Technical Assistance & Dissemination Activities
http://www.nrcld.org/html/research/rti,.html
17
18
Data-Driven, Decision-Making
Collecting, analyzing, and using numerous types of data effectively are important components of
Accountability and School Improvement. In addition, collecting and analyzing data is the ongoing
process of confronting sometimes brutal facts and then doing something about them. Data-Driven
Decision Making should be the process for identifying goals for school improvement. Changes driven by
data have a better chance of assisting school leaders in meeting those goals. For districts and schools
to identify specific needs of students, detailed data must be collected and disaggregated (Boudett, City,
& Murnane, 2004).
19
Action Plan - Activities indicated should address all subgroups – Data –Driven, Decision Making
GOAL 1
Research-Based Strategy 1:
RTI
JEPD
DDD
MEL
CA
SIM
UDL
Indicator of Implementation (250 Characters): Assess your current level of fidelity based on the rating scale for your chosen strategy. Use the results of your rating to
help to develop your action plan.
Procedures for Evaluating Indicators of Implementation (250 Characters):
OBJECTIVES:
DESIRED OUTCOMES:
1.1
1.2
Activity
Responsible Person
(500 Characters)
(100 Characters)
Start Date
Completion
Date
Estimated
Cost
Funding
Source
date
date
cost
T1 SI
date
date
cost
T1 SI
date
date
cost
T1 SI
Summative Evaluation (250 Characters):
Implementation Issues (250 Characters)
FCI-Indicates Family Community Involvement Activities
D-Indicates Discipline Support Activities
Date Presented
Resolution(s) (250 Characters)
Date Resolved
date
date
date
date
C-Indicates Curriculum Activities
L-Indicates Literacy Activities
Louisiana Department of Education
N-Indicates Numeracy Activities
T-Indicates K – 12 Transition Activities
School Improvement Plan
Revised Spring 2009
20
Data-Driven, Decision-Making Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Rating
Data Driven Decision-Making: education refers to teachers, principals, and administrators systematically collecting and analyzing various types
of data, including input, process, outcome and satisfaction data, to guide a range of decisions to help improve the success of students and
schools.
Analyze disaggregated student data to determine school improvement/professional development goals
The faculty analyzes a variety
of student
achievement/learning results
to determine school
improvement goals
A representative group of
faculty members analyzes a
variety of student
achievement/learning
results to determine school
improvement goals
Individual teachers analyze
a variety of student
achievement /learning
results to determine school
improvement goals
Personal experiences and
district goals guide school
improvement goals
The faculty analyzes a variety
of student achievement/
learning results to determine
adult learning needs
A representative group of
faculty members analyzes a
variety of student
achievement/learning
results to determine adult
learning needs
Individual teachers analyze
a variety of student
achievement /learning
results to determine adult
learning needs
Personal experiences and
district goals guide school
wide staff development.
21
Data-Driven, Decision-Making Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Engages school community in data-driven decision-making
The school engages parents
and community members in
making decisions about the
focus of school-wide work
The school engages a select
group of parents and
community members in
making decisions about the
focus of school-wide work
Leadership consults with
selected teachers and/or
community members
before making decisions
about the focus of schoolwide work
The school informs parents
about how decisions are
made about the focus of
school-wide work
Collects, uses, and disseminates data that monitor the accomplishment of school-wide goals
The school collects and
analyzes student and teacher
data at least four times a year
to monitor the
accomplishment of schoolwide goals
Collects and analyzes
student and teacher data at
the beginning and end of
the school year to monitor
the accomplishment of
school-wide goals
Collects and analyzes
student and teacher data
at the end of the year to
monitor the
accomplishment of schoolwide goals
Reports results to parents and
the community throughout
the year, as well as results
required by the state and
district.
Reports results to parents
and the community
throughout the year, as well
as results required by the
state or district
Reports results as required
by the state or district
22
Does not collect or use
student and teacher data
to monitor the
accomplishments of school
wide goals
Rating
Data-Driven, Decision-Making Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Uses baseline data to monitor
improvement within the
school year
Celebrates improvements and
accomplishments based on
data
23
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Rating
DATA-DRIVEN, DECISION-MAKING
Brief Summary of Research:
Data-driven, decision-making is the process of gathering student data – academic performance,
attendance, demographic, and other information – which aids administrators, teachers, and parents in
accurately assessing student learning. With this information, adjustments to teaching styles or curricula
can be made, resulting in measurable improvements. Also, students encountering difficulty can be
identified and helped earlier. The concept of Data-Driven, Decision-Making stresses continuous
improvements as data are collected for a well-defined set of objectives in an ongoing basis, so that
subsequent action plans can be designed to address these objectives.
Bibliographic Notation:
Bernhardt. V. (Winter 2000). Intersections—New routes open wide when one type of data crosses
another. Journal of Staff Development.
Black, S. (1996). Redefining the teacher’s role. The Executive Educator (March). 23-26.EJ 519 765.
Blum, R., Yap, K., & Butler, J. (1992). Onward to excellence impact study. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Brederson, P. (March 1989). Redefining leadership and the roles of school principals: Responses to
changes in the professional worklife of teachers. ED 304 782. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Boudett, K., & et al., eds. Data Wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve
teaching and learning. 2005.
Calhoun, E. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hirsh, S. (December 2002). Data tell a school’s full story. Results.
Johnson, J. (May 1996). Data-Driven School Improvement. OSSC Bulletin Series. Eugene, OR: Oregon
School Study Council, 38 pages.
Killion, J. & Bellamy, T. (Winter 2000). On the job: Data analysts focus school improvement efforts.
Journal of Staff Development.
Kirby, P. & Bogoteh, I. (April 1993). Information utilization in restructuring schools: The role of the
beginning principal. ED 359 646. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Atlanta. 18 pages.
Love, N. (Fall 2004). Taking data to new depths. Journal of Staff Development.
McLean, J. (1995). Improving education through action research: A guide for administrators and
teachers. ED 380 884. The Practicing Administrator’s Leadership Series. Roadmaps to Success.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
24
National Staff Development Council (Summer 2001). Standards for Staff Development.
Richardson, J. (February 1997). Translating school improvement into numbers. Innovator.
Richardson, J. (September 1997). Data-driven improvement effort leads to results in Oak Park. Results.
Richardson, J. (February/March 1998). Continuous Improvement. Tools for Schools.
http://www.nsdc.org/news/tools/index.cfm
Richardson, J. (Fall 1998). We’re all here to learn. Journal of Staff Development.
http://www.nsdc.org/news/tools/index.cfm
Richardson, J. (November 1999). World-class learning: Making the best even better. Results.
http://www.nsdc.org/news/tools/index.cfm
Richardson, J. (February/March 2000). Teacher research leads to learning, action. Tools for Schools.
http://www.nsdc.org/news/tools/index.cfm
Richardson, J. (August/September 2000). Smart moves: Achieving your vision depends on followthrough. Tools for Schools. http://www.nsdc.org/news/tools/index.cfm
Richardson, J. (October/November 2000). The numbers game: Measure progress by analyzing data.
Tools for Schools. http://www.nsdc.org/news/tools/index.cfm
Richardson, J. (February 2002). No excuse for low learning. Results.
http://www.nsdc.org/news/tools/index.cfm
Richardson, J. (March 2002). Diverse, mobile students successful in DOD schools. Results.
http://www.nsdc.org/news/tools/index.cfm
Richardson, J. (May 2005). Up close and personal: Data review creates an ‘aha’ moment for suburban
teachers. Results. http://www.nsdc.org/news/tools/index.cfm
Richardson, J. (October 2005). 8 steps to improvement: Indiana district examines student data and
adjusts instruction. The Learning System. http://www.nsdc.org/news/system/index.cfm
Sparks, D. (Winter 2000). Results are the reason –Data should be used to select the most resultsoriented initiatives. Journal of Staff Development.
Wallace, R. Jr., (1996) From vision to practice: The art of educational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Watt, M. & Watt, D. (1991). Teacher research, Action research. The LOGO Action Research
Collaborative, Report No. 91-4. ED 341 686 Newton, MA: Education Development Center
NOTE: The entire winter 2000 issue of the Journal of Staff Development was devoted to Data-Driven,
Decision-Making. Several articles from that issue are included here. Comprehensive members can
access the entire issue by logging into the members only area of the site and selecting the publications
link. The Summer 2009 Tools for Schools issue includes several relevant tools for analyzing data, also
available to comprehensive members.
25
Journals:
“Data and Research.” National Staff Development Council, 2006.
http://www.nsdc.org/library/reserach.cfm
“Resources for Staff Development.” National Staff Development Council, 2006.
http://www.nsdc.org/library/resources.cfm
“Publication.” 3D Data-Driven Decision Making. ERIC Literature Review. 2005.
http://3d2know.cosn.org/publications.html
“Presentation.” 3D Data-Drivne Decision Making. ERIC Literature Review. 2005.
http://3d2know.cosn.org/other.html
“Self Assessment.” 3D Data-Driven Decision Making. ERIC Literature Review. 2005.
http://3d2know.cosn.org/assessment/survey.cfm
Internet Resources:
Data-Driven Decision Making 1/10/2003 [PDF 398kb]
This Education Commission of the States’ No Child Left Behind issue briefly discusses how districts can
support schools’ use of data.
ECS Issue Paper: Informing Practices and improving Results with Data-Driven Decisions 1/10/2003
[PDF 619kb]
The various stages of working with data to inform education decision making and improve results are
explored in this ECS paper.
Links:
Data-Driven School Improvement
http://www.ericdigests.org/1997-3/data.html
John, J. ERIC Digest, No. 109, 1997. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management
This digest provides an overview of the use of data in school improvement, what types of data can be
collected, and the role of teachers as researchers.
Data Inquiry and Analysis for Educational Reform
http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest153.html
Wade, H. ERIC Digest, No. 153, 2001. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management
As more states and districts turn to data analysis, educators need to understand the types of data to be
collected, the uses of those data, and how to engage teachers in data analysis.
Educational Policy Publications: Data-Driven, Decision-Making
http://www.ncrel.org/policy/pubs/dddm.htm
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2000.
Two articles describe the use of different student assessment strategies for gathering information about
instructional improvement and student achievement. An additional report describes the issues related to
accountability systems that can be of use in gathering and analyzing school-based data.
Data Use: School Improvement Through Data-Driven, Decision-Making
http://www.ncrel.org/toolbelt/index.html
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL)
26
NCREL has gathered a selection of web-based tools for collecting information, ranging from checklists to
surveys, and including information about software tools for data collection and analysis. A tutorial
provides an overview of the use of data in school improvement; bibliography and background sections
are also included.
Tools for School Improvement Planning
http://www.annenberginstitute.org/tools/index.php
A project of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform
This website offers a link to using data to drive school improvement planning efforts.
Improving School Board Decision-Making: The Data Connection
http://www.schoolboarddata.org/index.htm
The National School Boards Foundation.
Created to support the book of the same name, this website offers discussion tools, surveys, and
readings to guide school boards through the effective use of data to make good decisions for schools,
students, and teachers.
http://www.sonoma.edu/users/p/phelan/404/data.htm
27
28
Job-Embedded Professional Development
Job-Embedded Professional Development or Job-Embedded Learning is also known as on-thejob learning. It occurs while school leaders and staff engage in their daily work. While
simultaneously carrying out their job responsibilities and duties, leaders and staff learn by doing,
reflect on their experiences, and then create and share new insights with their colleagues.
Because of its practicality, Job-Embedded Professional Development, both formal and informal,
has become popular among educators throughout the country. Research shows the traditional
methods of professional development, such as attending workshops and in-service, are not
always effective. School leaders often have a limited amount of time to attend workshops,
conferences, etc. Moreover, many school leaders find it difficult to implement what they learned
from the workshops and in-service training. Job-embedded learning does not require
participants to set aside a separate time to learn, since they are participating in on-the-job
learning. Thus, time efficiency is maximized. Finally, job-embedded learning is beneficial
because it promotes immediate application of what is learned and it costs less than expensive
consultants who conduct high-priced training (e-Lead: Leadership for Student Success, 2005;
Galloway, 1995).
29
Action Plan Activities indicated should address all subgroups – Job-Embedded Professional Development
GOAL 1
Research-Based Strategy 1:
RTI
JEPD
DDD
MEL
CA
SIM
UDL
Indicator of Implementation (250 Characters): Assess your current level of fidelity based on the rating scale for your chosen strategy. Use the results of your rating
to help to develop your action plan.
Procedures for Evaluating Indicators of Implementation (250 Characters):
OBJECTIVES:
DESIRED OUTCOMES:
1.1
1.2
Responsible
Person
Activity
(500 Characters)
Start Date
Completion
Date
Estimated
Cost
Funding
Source
(100 Characters)
date
date
cost
T1 SI
date
date
cost
T1 SI
date
date
cost
T1 SI
Summative Evaluation (250 Characters):
Implementation Issues (250 Characters)
FCI-Indicates Family Community Involvement Activities
D-Indicates Discipline Support Activities
Date Presented
Resolution(s) (250 Characters)
Date Resolved
date
date
date
date
C-Indicates Curriculum Activities
L-Indicates Literacy Activities
Louisiana Department of Education
N-Indicates Numeracy Activities
T-indicates K – 12 Transition Activities
School Improvement Plan
Revised Spring 2009
30
Job-Embedded Professional Development Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Communicates a clear vision for continuous, job-embedded professional learning.
The faculty/staff meet
before the school year
begins to verbally
discuss and commit in
writing to the
expectations and
parameters for
continuous, jobembedded professional
learning, describing
each staff member’s
role for engaging in
and/or supporting
professional learning
teams. The norms of
professional learning
teams will be
established in all small
group and large group
meetings.
The faculty/staff meet
before the school year
begins to verbally
discuss and commit in
writing to the
expectations and
parameters for
continuous, jobembedded professional
learning, describing
each staff member’s
role for engaging in
and/or supporting
professional learning
teams. Professional
learning team norms are
honored in large group
settings at least
monthly.
31
The faculty/staff meet
before the school year
begins to verbally
discuss and commit in
writing to the
expectations and
parameters for
continuous, jobembedded professional
learning. Professional
learning team norms are
honored in large group
settings once or twice
per semester.
The faculty/staff meet
before the school year
begins to verbally
discuss expectations for
continuous, jobembedded professional
learning. Reference is
rarely made to the work
of professional learning
teams in either large or
small group settings.
Rating
Job-Embedded Professional Development Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Works in a learning
team to address issues
related to specific grade
or subject area.
Works alone; addresses
individualized issues,
rather than school or
grade level issues.
Aligns collaborative work with school improvement goals.
Professional staff
frequently meet to
discuss, document, and
demonstrate how their
work aligns with school
and district goals.
Engages in professional
learning with colleagues
to support this work.
Aligns the work of the
learning team with
school-wide goals.
Works in a learning
team to address issues
related to the grade or
subject area.
Participate in a variety of appropriate staff development designs aligned with expected improvement outcomes.
Engages in collaborative
interactions in learning
teams and participates
in a variety of activities
that are aligned with
expected improvement
outcomes.
Selects and engages in a
variety of staff
development activities
that are aligned with
expected improvement
outcomes.
32
Attends workshops to
gain information and
receives classroombased coaching to assist
with the
implementation of new
strategies that may be
aligned with expected
improvement
outcomes.
Experiences a single
model or inappropriate
models of professional
development that are
not aligned with
expected outcomes.
Rating
Job-Embedded Professional Development Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Participates in long-term and in-depth professional learning.
Participates in
professional learning
that involves extensive
support for the
implementation of new
practices over a two-tothree-year period. Gives
and receives classroom
feedback in which the
goal is to implement
new instructional
practices. Participates in
multiple sessions on the
same topic with practice
and feedback on new
skills.
Gives and receives
classroom feedback in
which the goal is to
implement new
instructional practices.
Participates in multiple
sessions on the same
topic scheduled over
the school year, with
practice and feedback
on new skills and
expectations for
implementation
between sessions.
33
Participates in multiple
sessions on the same
topic scheduled over
the school year, with
practice and feedback
on new skills and
expectations for
implementation
between sessions.
Experience staff
development as single,
stand-alone event.
Rating
Job-Embedded Professional Development Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Implements new classroom practices as a result of follow-up support.
Participates in planning,
feedback, and problemsolving with the learning
community until new
practices are used
consistently, effectively,
and masterfully.
Participates in multiple
experiences with a
classroom coach in
which the use of new
practices is the goal.
Participates in multiple
experiences with a
classroom coach in
which the use of new
practices is the goal.
Experiments with new
practices in the
classroom alone and on
an infrequent basis.
Does not transfer
knowledge gained in
professional
development to the
classroom.
Participates in professional learning that mirrors expected instructional methods.
Engages in professional
development that
consistently employs
the same instructional
strategies that are
expected in the
classroom.
Engages in professional
development that
models and
demonstrates expected
classroom practices.
34
Participates in
professional
development that
demonstrates classroom
practice through
videotapes and
simulations.
Participates in
professional
development strategies
that are unrelated to
those expected to be
used in the classroom.
Rating
Job-Embedded Professional Development Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Gains an understanding
of new content
knowledge, but cannot
translate that
understanding into new
practices.
Gains awareness of new
content knowledge and
skill, but not deep
understanding.
Participates in professional learning that impacts depth of understanding.
Exhibits deep
understanding and
meaning of new
concepts and strategies.
Solves problems and
adapts new strategies to
match classroom
circumstances.
Exhibits deep
understanding of new
content knowledge and
uses new strategies
routinely.
Engages in professional learning that considers participants’ concerns about new practices.
Expresses concerns
related to
implementation of
innovations and
engages in professional
development that
adjusts its design to
accommodate those
expressed needs.
Expresses feelings and
concerns related to
implementation of
innovations and
regularly accesses
support to address
those needs.
35
Voices concerns about
personal needs related
to the implementation
of new practices.
Engages in staff
development that does
not reflect participant
concerns about the use
of new practices.
Rating
Job-Embedded Professional Development Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Participates in a variety of learning experiences appropriate to career stage.
Selects among multiple
professional
development
opportunities that
reflect various career
stage needs.
Participates in
specialized staff
development focused
on teacher leaders,
teacher trainers, new
teachers, and mentor
training.
Participates in staff
development focused
on new teachers and
mentor training.
Experiences no
differentiation or
accommodation for
years of experience or
career stage.
Uses technology as a component of professional learning when appropriate.
Participates in collegial
exchange facilitated
through technology.
Uses technology for
professional learning.
36
Establishes electronic
collegial relationships to
further support
professional learning
Uses technology as a
management tool or as
a research resource.
Rating
Job-Embedded Professional Development
Brief Summary of Research:
Professional development that is conducted during the hours of an educator’s work day is
described as job-embedded professional development. This concept is derived from fairly
recent research which concludes that in order for professional development to be truly effective,
it should be integrated into the established teaching schedule. Two studies in particular
articulate and validate the importance of embedding training into the school day. Every Child
Reading: A Professional Development Guide from the Learning First Alliance (2000) and
Teachers Who Learn, Kids Who Achieve: A Look at Schools with Model Professional
Development, a report of WestEd (2000).
Malcolm Knowles, in his book The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species, makes several
assumptions about adults which are all addressed with properly conducted job-embedded
professional development. Teachers are problem-centered and learn best, he states, when
self-directed. They also use past experiences to understand new information and are willing to
learn when they consider it important.
Mike Schmoker, for instance, argues that data should first be examined in order to determine
which staff development initiative should be used to target a school’s student achievement goals
(1996). The study of student work, for example, can result in the collection of such data that
reveal student strengths and weaknesses. Rick Stiggins advises that this, along with effective
monitoring of student progress, is crucial. (Sparks, 1999). Katherine Nolan (2000) discovered
seven qualities that have proven effective in improving the quality of teacher assignments and
student work, and a particular approach to examining student work is advocated by Lois Easton
(2002).
Susan Loucks-Horsley (1999) promotes the use of several learning strategies for teachers
which, she argues, is coincidental to the progress of designing staff development. Leaders
must ask themselves which strategies “make sense to use at what particular time with that
particular set of teachers for a particular set of outcomes.”
There are pitfalls, of course. Michael Fullan (2001) defines perhaps the most common of all--fragmentation/coherence. Powerful professional development must pursue only one or two
student learning goals, and there must be alignment between those goals and teacher training.
Goals also provide a meaningful purpose for teamwork and goal-oriented units, says Schmoker
(1996). Moreover, teachers find it difficult to sustain a sense of passion for their time and effort
if they are unable to see real growth. This will not occur, explains Tom Guskey, if focus is
diffused (1986). Bringing All Students to High Standards, the 2000 report of the National
Education Goals Panel, links sustained professional development directly to student
achievement. So too does How Teaching Matters: Bringing the Classroom Back into
Discussions of Teacher Quality (Wellington, 2000).
37
Bibliographic Notation:
Easton, L.B. (2002, March). How the Tuning Protocol Works. Educational Leadership, 59(6),
28-30.
Guskey, T. (1996, June). Staff Development and the Process of Teacher Change. Educational
Researcher, 15(5)5-12.
Learning First Alliance. (2000) Every Child Reading: A Professional Developmental Guide.
Washington, D.C.: Author. www.learningfirst.org/readingguide.html
National Education Goals Panel. (2000, Dec.). Bringing All Students to High Standards. NEGP
Monthly. www.negp.gov/issues/issu/monthly/1200.pdf
Nolan, K. (2000). Looking at Student Work: Improving Practice by Closing in. Providence, R.I:
Annenburg Institute for School Reform.
Schmoker, M. (1996). Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
Sparks, D. Designing Powerful Professional Development for Teachers and Principals. NSDC,
2002. http://www.nsdc.org/library/book/sparksbook.pdf
Sparks, D. (1999, Spring). Assessment Without Victims: An Interview with Rick Stiggins.
Journal of Staff Development. 20(2), 54-56. www.nscd.org/library/jsd/stiggins203.html
Sparks, D. (1999, Summer). Try on Strategies to Get a Good Fit: An Interview with Susan
Loucks-Horsley. Journal Of Staff Development. 20(3), 56-60.
www.nscd.org/library/jsd/loucks-horsley203.html
WestEd. (2000). Teachers Who Learn, Kids Who Achieve: A Look at Schools with Model
Professional Development. San Francisco: Author.
Web/WestEd.org/online_pubs/modelIPD/welcome.shtml
38
39
Curriculum Alignment
Curriculum Alignment has been defined as the “congruence of the content, context, and
cognitive demands present in the written, taught, and tested curriculum” (English & Steffy,
2001). Research has established deep curriculum alignment as one of the prominent tools used
by educators today to ensure content is valid and assessed (Allen, 2002; Downey, 2001). To
determine whether the curriculum is aligned with the intended content, one must evaluate the
following five components: 1) the scope of the content covered, 2) the level of sophistication
and complexity of the knowledge, 3) the sequence or order of presentation, 4) the richness of
the content, and 5) the texture of the content (Reeves, 2003;English & Steffy, 2001). Research
indicates an aligned and balanced curriculum increases student achievement; test scores have
shown a dramatic increase in subjects where the curricula are deeply aligned. In addition,
because of deep curriculum alignment, teachers have more time to focus on lessons and to
provide more meaningful content; therefore, students are more actively engaged. With an
increase in student performance and achievement, attendance rate has increased and dropout
rates have decreased in numerous schools across the nation (Allen, 2002; Reeves, 2003).
40
Action Plan Activities indicated should address all subgroups – Curriculum Alignment
GOAL 1
Research-Based Strategy 1:
RTI
JEPD
DDD
MEL
CA
SIM
UDL
Indicator of Implementation (250 Characters): Assess your current level of fidelity based on the rating scale for your chosen strategy. Use the results of your rating
to help to develop your action plan.
Procedures for Evaluating Indicators of Implementation (250 Characters):
OBJECTIVES:
DESIRED OUTCOMES:
1.1
1.2
Responsible
Person
Activity
(500 Characters)
Start Date
Completion
Date
Estimated
Cost
Funding
Source
(100 Characters)
date
date
cost
T1 SI
date
date
cost
T1 SI
date
date
cost
T1 SI
Summative Evaluation (250 Characters):
Implementation Issues (250 Characters)
FCI-Indicates Family Community Involvement Activities
D-Indicates Discipline Support Activities
Date Presented
Resolution(s) (250 Characters)
Date Resolved
date
date
date
date
C-Indicates Curriculum Activities
L-Indicates Literacy Activities
Louisiana Department of Education
N-Indicates Numeracy Activities
T-indicates K – 12 Transition Activities
School Improvement Plan
Revised Spring 2009
41
Curriculum Alignment Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Written Curriculum: Is simply that which is written as part of formal instruction of schooling experiences.
Curriculum resources and
supplemental materials
are available for use by
teachers.
Curriculum resources and
supplemental materials
are available for use by
teachers, but not all
teachers are using them.
Curriculum resources are
available for use by
teachers.
Curriculum resources are
available for use by
teachers, but are
infrequently used.
Specific learning goals
aligned with learning
standards and address
essential understandings;
knowledge and skills are
established.
Most of the learning
goals are aligned with
learning standards and
address essential
understandings,
knowledge and skills.
Learning goals are
aligned with learning
standards, but do not
address essential
understandings,
knowledge and skills.
Learning goals are not
aligned with learning
standards.
Instructional
strategies/designed
learning activities are
aligned with state
standards and address
essential understanding,
knowledge and skills.
Instructional
strategies/designed
learning activities are
aligned with standards in
core content areas and
address essential
understanding,
knowledge and skills.
Instructional strategies
and designed learning
activities are aligned with
state standards.
Instructional strategies
and designed learning
activities are not aligned
with state standards.
Daily lesson plans fit
logically within the unit
and within the context of
the overall curriculum.
Daily lesson plans are
developed to fit logically
within the unit.
Daily lesson plans are not
designed to fit logically
within a unit.
Daily lesson plans are not
developed.
42
Rating
Curriculum Alignment Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Daily lesson plans are
informed by student
performance data.
Weekly lesson plans are
informed by student
performance data.
Core Content lesson
plans are informed by
student performance
data.
Lesson plans do not
reflect the learning
strengths and needs of
students.
Teacher implementation
of the curriculum is
monitored throughout
the year.
Teacher implementation
of the curriculum is
monitored quarterly.
Teacher implementation
of the curriculum is
monitored annually.
Teacher implementation
of the curriculum is not
monitored.
Taught Curriculum: the delivered curriculum, a curriculum that an observer sees in action as the teacher teaches.
Instruction is focused on
specific learning
objectives that promote
the attainment of the
state standards and
address essential
understandings,
knowledge, and skills.
Instruction is focused on
specific learning
objectives in core content
areas that promote the
attainment of the state
standards and address
essential understandings,
knowledge, and skills.
Instruction is focused on
specific learning
objectives that promote
the attainment of the
state standards.
Instruction is not focused
on specific learning
objectives.
Curriculum resources and
supplemental materials
are used appropriately to
promote attainment of
state learning standards.
Curriculum resources and
supplemental materials
are often used
appropriately to promote
attainment of state
learning standards.
Curriculum resources are
used appropriately to
promote attainment of
state learning standards.
Curriculum resources and
supplemental materials
are not used
appropriately to promote
attainment of state
learning standards.
43
Rating
Curriculum Alignment Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Accurate knowledge is
presented through
meaningful contexts and
connected disciplines
Accurate knowledge is
presented through
meaningful contexts and
connected to most
disciplines.
Accurate knowledge is
presented through
meaningful contexts.
Accurate knowledge is
presented, however it is
neither meaningful to the
contexts nor connected.
Employing instructional
strategies that are
research-based and
proven effective.
Most teachers are using
instructional strategies
that are research-based
and proven effective.
Some teachers are using
instructional strategies
that are research-based
and proven effective.
Teachers are using many
instructional strategies
that are proven effective,
but not research-based.
Students are assigned
projects and tasks that
require the integration
and application of
learning in meaningful
contexts and to reflect on
what they have learned.
Students are assigned
projects and tasks that
require the integration
and application of
learning in meaningful
contexts.
Students are assigned
tasks that require the
application of learning.
Students are not assigned
projects or tasks that
require the integration
and application of
learning.
Students are provided
learning experiences that
engage them in active
learning.
Most students are
provided learning
experiences that engage
them in active learning.
Students are provided
learning experiences;
however, they seldom
engage them in active
learning.
Students are not
provided learning
experiences that engage
them.
44
Low Fidelity
1
Rating
Curriculum Alignment Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Instruction is
differentiated to meet
the identified needs of
individual students and
groups of students.
Instruction is
differentiated to meet
the needs of individual
students and groups of
students.
Instruction is
differentiated to meet
the identified needs of
certain groups of
students.
Whole-group instruction
is not differentiated.
All students all provided
access to available
materials, resources, and
services to support
learning.
The majority of the
students are provided
access to available
materials, resources, and
services to support
learning.
Many students are
provided access to
available materials,
resources, and services to
support learning.
Some students are
provided access to
services to support
learning.
Teachers are provided
feedback on the
alignment of instruction
to state learning
standards and essential
understandings,
knowledge, and skills.
The majority of teachers
are provided feedback on
the alignment of
instruction to state
learning standards and
essential understandings,
knowledge, and skills.
Many teachers are
provided feedback on the
alignment of instruction
to state learning
standards and essential
understandings,
knowledge, and skills.
Teachers are not
provided feedback on the
alignment of instruction
to state learning
standards.
Student progress is
assessed after each unit
of study.
Student progress is
assessed each grading
period.
Assessed Curriculum: The set of learnings that are assessed.
Student progress is
assessed on a regular
basis.
Student progress is
assessed at least 4 times
per year.
45
Rating
Curriculum Alignment Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Assessments are aligned
with state learning
standards and essential
understandings,
knowledge, and skills.
Low Fidelity
1
The majority of the
assessments are aligned
with state learning
standards and essential
understandings,
knowledge, and skills.
Provide opportunities for Provide opportunities for
students to take tests
students to take tests
that are similar in content that are similar in content
and format to state
and format to state
assessment in all core
assessment.
content areas.
Assessments in core
content areas are aligned
with state learning
standards.
Assessments are not
aligned with state
learning standards.
Opportunities for
students to take tests
that are similar in format
to state assessment.
Students take practice
tests, but they are not
similar in content and
format to state
assessment.
Use a variety of
classroom-based
assessment methods and
tools before, during, and
after units of study to
monitor student
progress.
Use a variety of
classroom-based
assessment methods and
tools before, during, and
after most units of study
to monitor student
progress.
Use a variety of
classroom-based
assessment methods and
tools before and after
units of study to monitor
student progress.
Use classroom-based
assessment methods
after units of study to
monitor student
progress.
Assessments that require
students to use
knowledge,
comprehension,
application and reasoning
skills.
Assessments used
require students to
exhibit knowledge,
comprehension,
application and reasoning
skills.
Assessments used
require students to use
knowledge.
Classroom-based
assessments are used.
46
Rating
Curriculum Alignment Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Periodically reporting to
students and parents of
student progress toward
mastery of learning
objectives, in a way that
is clear and
understandable.
Reporting to students
and parents of student
progress toward mastery
of learning objectives, in
a way that is clear and
understandable.
Quarterly reporting to
students and parents of
student progress toward
mastery of learning
objectives.
Annual reporting to
students and parents of
student progress.
The results of classroombased assessments are
monitored to ensure
attainment of the
knowledge and skills
required for success on
state assessments.
Core content area
classroom-based
assessments are
monitored to ensure
attainment of the
knowledge and skills
required for success on
state assessments.
The results of classroombased assessments are
monitored, but don’t
ensure attainment of the
knowledge and skills
required for success on
state assessments.
The results of classroombased assessments are
not monitored.
47
Low Fidelity
1
Rating
Curriculum Alignment
Brief Summary of Research:
English (1992) considers curriculum alignment a process that improves the agreement between
the written, the taught, and the tested curriculum. Many researchers support the idea that
alignment of instruction and assessment is crucial to success in improving instruction (Gorin &
Blanchard, 2004; Liebling, 1997; Johnson & Asera, 1999; Mitchell, 1998).
Most states, including Louisiana, have mandated standards-based and high stakes tests.
Therefore, the question is not “Should we align curriculum, instruction and assessment?”
Rather, the question is “How can we make the alignment process teacher-directed and teacherfriendly?” (Glatthorn, 1999).
In a 1999 comparative study commissioned by the United States Department of Education of
nine high-performing, high-poverty urban elementary schools, curriculum alignment was among
the strategies used to improve student academic achievement (Johnson et al. 1999). Teachers
and administrators worked together to understand precisely what students were expected to
know and be able to do. Then, they planned instruction to ensure that students would have an
excellent chance to learn what was expected of them. Likewise, a 1999 study by the Education
Trust found that hundreds of poor and minority schools are succeeding with exceptional
numbers of students by teaching to assessed standards and by continuously learning and
refining better ways to teach to these standards. At the majority of these schools, teachers
meet with colleagues regularly to discuss standards and how to teach them (Barth et al. 1999).
A two-year longitudinal study of mathematics and reading achievement scores was conducted
by Gorin (1999) to analyze the effectiveness of curriculum alignment. Based on reports of
standardized tests in both reading and math, students exposed to curriculum alignment showed
improvement in their scores between the 3rd and 5th grade.
Rightly or wrongly, the No Child Left Behind law has accelerated the importance of curriculum
alignment. The large number of descriptive and comparative studies and the long-term studies
underway tend to favor alignment as a positive influence on achievement.
48
Curriculum Alignment
Bibliographic Notation:
Empirical Research:
Gorin, J., & Blanchard, J. (2004). The effect of curriculum alignment on elementary
mathematics and reading achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona
State University.
Gorin, J., & Blanchard, J. (2004). The effect of curriculum alignment on reading. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
Comparative Study:
Barth, P., K. Haycock, H. Jackson, K. Mora, P. Ruiz, S. Robinson, and A. Wilkins, eds, 1999.
Dispelling the Myth: High-Poverty Schools Exceeding Expectations. Washington, DC:
Education Trust in cooperation with the Council of Chief State School Officers.
Liebling, C.R (1997). Achieving standards-based curriculum alignment through mindful
teaching. New York, NY: The New York Technical Assistance Center and Region III
Comprehensive Center, Arlington, VA.
Mitchell, F. (1998). The effects of curriculum alignment on the mathematics achievement of
third-grade students as measured by the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills: Implications for
educational administrators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Clark Atlanta University.
Johnson, J. F. & Asera, R. (1999). Hope for urban education: A study of nine high-performing,
high-poverty, urban elementary schools. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Zellmer, M. (1997). Effect on reading test scores when teachers are provided information that
relates local curriculum documents to the test. Dissertation Abstracts International, 5902A, 412.
Books:
English, F.W. (1992). Deciding what to teach and test: Developing, aligning, and auditing the
curriculum. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
English, F.W., & Steffy, B.E. (2001). Deep curriculum alignment: Creating a level playing field
for all children on high-stakes tests of educational accountability. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Glatthorn, A.A. (1994). Developing a quality curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
49
Steffy, B.E. (1995). Authentic assessment and curriculum alignment: Meeting the challenge of
national standards. Rockport, MA: Pro-Active.
Internet Resources:
http://www.flbsi.org/newsdesk/waveseries/wave9.pdf
Cook, C. J. (1995) Critical Issues: Implementing Curriculum, instruction, and assessment
standards in mathematics. Retrieved May 9, 2005, from
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/math/ma600.htm
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue
_0=curriculum+alignment
http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu
http://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=600
Journals:
Brown, K. and Capp, R. (November/December 2003). “Better Data for Better Learning.”
Leadership 33, 2: 18-19, 39.
Bruner, D.Y., and Greenlee, B.J. (January 2002). “Bring Standards from the State House to the
Schoolhouse.” Principal 81, 3: 23-25.
Fox, D. (November/December). “Guiding Instruction Through Assessment: What Principals
Need to Know.” Principal 33, 2: 14-17.
Levine, D. and Stark, J. (December 1982). “Instructional and Organizational Arrangements that
Improve Achievement in Inner-City Schools.” Educational Leadership 40, 3: 41-46.
Rice-Crenshaw, M. and Howard, W.C. (Fall 2003). “Curriculum Alignment and Assessment:
An Adaptable Model.” Rural Educator 25, 1: 36-39.
Schmoker, M. (2002). “The Real Causes of Higher Achievement.” SEDLetter 14, 2.
Sherman, L. (Fall 2001). “Taking a Second Look at Standards.” Northwest Education 7, 1: 2-11.
Sparks, D. (2001). Conversations That Matter: Ideas about Education I Can’t Wait to Share.
Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Strong, R. W., Silver, H.F., and Perini, M.J. (November 2001). “Making Students as Important
as Standards.” Educational Leadership 59, 2: 56-61.
50
51
Meaningful Engaged Learning (MEL)
Current research indicates engaged learning is most important to student learning. Students
learn when they are highly involved in meaningful tasks. Student motivation is one aspect of
MEL; however, motivation is more than a quality within students. In fact, as most educators
know, motivation can be greatly affected by the attitudes and actions of the educators
themselves. Recognizing the changing needs of the 21st century, researchers have determined
reform of instruction and strategies are necessary. Therefore, three models have been
recognized as leaders in MEL. They are as follows:
1. North Central Educational Laboratory (NCREL), which includes eight specific indicators
of engaged learning 1)Vision of Engaged Learning, 2) Tasks for Engaged Learning, 3)
Assessment of Engaged Learning, 4) Instructional Models and Strategies for Engaged
Learning, 5) Learning Context for Engaged Learning, 6) Grouping for Engaged Learning,
7) Teacher Roles for Engaged Learning, and 8) Student Roles for Engaged Learning
(http://www.ncrel.org)
2. Schlechty Center for Leadership in School Reform, which is based on theories of change
and of engagement.
3. Mike Muir of the Maine Center for Meaningful Engaged Learning (McMEL), which has
identified four key components (Environment: Relationship and Rapport, Experience,
Motivation, and Meaning) for MEL.
52
Action Plan Activities indicated should address all subgroups – Meaningful, Engaged Learning
GOAL 1
Research-Based Strategy 1:
RTI
JEPD
DDD
MEL
CA
SIM
UDL
Indicator of Implementation (250 Characters): Assess your current level of fidelity based on the rating scale for your chosen strategy. Use the results of your rating
to help to develop your action plan.
Procedures for Evaluating Indicators of Implementation (250 Characters):
OBJECTIVES:
DESIRED OUTCOMES:
1.1
1.2
Responsible
Person
Activity
(500 Characters)
Start Date
Completion
Date
Estimated
Cost
Funding
Source
(100 Characters)
date
date
cost
T1 SI
date
date
cost
T1 SI
date
date
cost
T1 SI
Summative Evaluation (250 Characters):
Implementation Issues (250 Characters)
FCI-Indicates Family Community Involvement Activities
D-Indicates Discipline Support Activities
Date Presented
Resolution(s) (250 Characters)
Date Resolved
date
date
date
date
C-Indicates Curriculum Activities
L-Indicates Literacy Activities
Louisiana Department of Education
N-Indicates Numeracy Activities
T-indicates K – 12 Transition Activities
School Improvement Plan
Revised Spring 2009
53
Meaningful, Engaged Learning Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Rating
Vision of Engaged Learning – Students are self-regulated, able to define learning goals and evaluate their learning in a collaborative setting.
Responsible Learners
build on Standards of
Excellence
Students strategically learn
and transfer knowledge to
collaboratively solve
problems.
Students are self-regulated
and energized by their
learning.
Students are self-regulated
and energized by their
learning.
Students are energized by
their learning.
Set and use standards of
excellence to evaluate
achievement of goals.
Students lead the
collaborative process of
defining learning goals and
evaluating their own
achievement.
Students are involved in
defining learning goals and
evaluating their own
achievement.
Students are involved in
defining learning goals, but
do not take an active role
in evaluating their own
achievement.
Tasks for Engaged Learning – Tasks need to be challenging, authentic, and multidisciplinary in order to have learners engaged.
Learning tasks often
require integrated
instruction that
incorporates problembased learning and
curriculum by project.
Integrated instruction that
incorporates collaborative,
problem-based learning and
curriculum by project through
challenging, authentic,
continuous and
multidisciplinary learning
tasks.
Instruction that
incorporates problem-based
learning and curriculum by
project through challenging
and multidisciplinary
learning tasks.
54
Problem-based learning
that incorporates
curriculum by project.
Problem-based learning
guides the learning tasks at
the classroom level.
Meaningful, Engaged Learning Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Assessment of Engaged Learning – Assessment of engaged learning involves performance-based assessments.
Performance –based
assessments represent
all aspects of
performance and are
based on equitable
standards
Performance-based
assessments are reliable,
equitable and have a seamless
connection to curriculum and
instruction.
Performance-based
assessments are reliable
and have a seamless
connection to curriculum
and instruction, but are not
equitable.
Performance-based
assessments are being
used to assess learning
tasks.
Assessments are reliable
but are not performancebased assessments.
.
Instructional Models + Strategies for Engaged Learning – Instruction interactively engages the learner, and is generative.
The most powerful
modes of instruction
are interactive and
build on prior
knowledge
Students engage and interact
generatively with their
teachers and peers using
interactive instructional
strategies that build on prior
knowledge.
Students interact
generatively with their
teachers through the use of
interactive instructional
strategies that build on prior
knowledge.
.
55
Instructional strategies
used to engage learning
are interactive, but do not
build on prior knowledge.
Instructional strategies
used to engage learning
are not interactive or build
on prior knowledge.
Rating
Meaningful, Engaged Learning Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
Rating
Learning Context of Engaged Learning – The classroom must be conceived of as a knowledge-building learning community.
Learning communities
develop shared
understandings and
create empathetic
learning environments.
The school community is a
learning community that
values diversity and multiple
perspectives and builds on the
strengths of community
members through
entrepreneurial partnerships
and interim programs.
The school community
values diversity and multiple
perspectives by encouraging
community involvement
and entrepreneurship.
The school community has
partnerships with local
businesses in the
community.
The school community
encourages community
involvement
Grouping for Engaged Learning – Learner-centered collaborative work often involves small groups of students within a classroom or across classroom
boundaries.
Effective grouping is
equitable and ensures
increased learning
opportunities.
Engaged learning is facilitated
through the use of various
forms of collaborative
grouping in all content areas.
Engaged learning is
facilitated through the use
of various forms of
collaborative grouping in
most content areas.
Engaged learning is
facilitated through the use
of heterogeneous grouping
and whole-group
instruction.
Engaged learning is
facilitated through the use
of whole group instruction.
Teacher Roles for Engaged Learning – The teacher’s role has shifted from the primary role of information-giver to that of facilitator, guide, and learner.
Teacher serves as the
guide on the side.
Teachers are lifelong learners
and serve as facilitators of
collaboration.
Teachers serve as
facilitators of collaboration.
56
Teachers serve in the role
of information-giver more
than as facilitators of
Teachers serve as
information-givers.
Meaningful, Engaged Learning Innovation Configuration
High Fidelity
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Improvement
2
Low Fidelity
1
collaboration.
Student Roles for Engaged Learning – Apprenticeship takes place when students observe and apply the thinking processes used by practitioners.
Student role as learner.
Students are becoming
practitioners by interacting
with the physical world to
discover concepts and apply
skills, reflect to apply thinking
processes and serve as
producers of knowledge.
Students interact to
discover concepts, apply
skills, reflect to apply
thinking processes and
serve as producers of
knowledge.
57
Students interact to
discover concepts and
apply skills.
Students interact with the
classroom teacher and
peers.
Rating
MEANINGFUL, ENGAGED LEARNING
Brief Summary of Research:
Model from the North Central Educational Laboratory (NCREL)
Current research supports the role of engaged learning as important to student achievement.
Students learn when they are highly involved in meaningful tasks. Student motivation is one
aspect of MEL; however, motivation is more than a quality within students. Motivation is a
quality that can be profoundly affected by the attitudes and actions of educators. The three
models discussed below provide an overview of meaningful, engaged learning.
The work of Mike Muir of McMEL has identified a model for meaningful engaged learning
focusing on four key components and nine essential elements. These components and
essential elements are outlined below.




Environment: Relationship and Rapport
 Student/Teacher Relationship – positive attitude, fun, sense of humor, physically
and emotionally safe, belonging and respect
 Helping Students Succeed – high expectations, confidence in abilities
Experience
 Hands-On – doing things, activities, experiential learning, learning = patterns
from experience
 Learning Styles – multiple intelligences, differentiated instruction
Motivation
 Interest – novelty, mystery, curiosity, “blood and guts,” fantasy, driven by
students’ questions
 Autonomy – choices, decision-making, planning, designing, creating
 Avoid Rewards
Meaning
 Connections – to previous learning, relates to students’ lives, the “Velcro mind”
 Context – making personal meaning, real world work or audience, metaphors
and mental frameworks, how used or useful
Model from the North Central Educational Laboratory (NCREL)
http://www.ncrel.org
Researchers at NCREL developed eight specific indicators of engaged learning. These
indicators can inform instructional decisions by helping educators understand what MEL looks
like in the classroom. The indicators are:
1. Vision of Engaged Learning – Students are responsible for and energized by learning.
They are strategic and collaborative.
2. Tasks for Engaged Learning – Learning tasks are challenging, authentic, and integrative.
3. Assessment of Engaged Learning – Assessment tasks are performance-based, involve
students in generating their own performance, and are aligned with curriculum and
instruction. Equitable standards are employed to evaluate performance.
4. Instructional Models and Strategies for Engaged Learning – Instruction actively engages
learners and encourages them to construct and produce knowledge in meaningful ways.
58
5. Learning Context for Engaged Learning – The classroom is a collaborative and
empathetic learning community that resists fragmentation and competition.
6. Grouping for Engaged Learning – To ensure equitable access to learning for all
students, heterogeneous groups are configured and reconfigured according to the
purposes of instruction.
7. Teacher Roles for Engaged Learning – The role of the teacher in the classroom is that of
facilitator, guide, and learner/investigator.
8. Student Roles for Engaged Learning – Students explore the physical world in order to
discover concepts and apply skills. They observe and apply thinking processes used by
practitioners. They are producers of knowledge as they integrate what they’ve learned.
Bibliographic Notation:
Note that the primary source of information for this model is http://www.ncrel.org/tech.
Much of the literature concerning meaningful, engaged learning has strong links to motivation
literature and to technology use in the classroom; therefore, much of the literature cited focuses
on these topics more directly than on MEL. This bibliography contains articles supporting each
of the models, with the majority of them from a NCREL document.
http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/literacy/readers.pdf
Blachowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2001). Reading comprehension: Strategies for independent
learners. New York: Guilford Press.
Blackford, L. (2002). Secondary school reading. The School Administrator. 59(1). Retrieved
June 7, 2005, from
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Secondary+School+Reading%3a+Specialists+in+high+sc
hool+may+be+rare%2c+but...-a081220131
Boston Plan for Excellence. (2002). Introduction to CCL:Collaborative coaching & learning.
Retrieved June 7, 2005, from http://www.bpe.org/files/Getting%20Started%20CCL.pdf
Collins, A., et al. (1991). Three different views of students: The role of technology in assessing
student performance. (Technical Report No. 12) New York: Center for Technology in
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 337 150)
Dillon, D. R. (1989). Showing them that I want them to learn and that I care about who they are:
A microethnography of the social organization of a secondary low-track English-reading
classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 227-259.
Dillon, D. R., Moje, E. B. (1998). Listening to the talk of adolescent girls: Lessons about literacy,
school, and life. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F Phelps, & D. R.
Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives (pp. 193-223).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Engaged learning (Chapter 11 from Microsoft's "The Connected Learning Community:
Technology Road map"). [Online]. Available:
http://www.schoollink.org/Engaged%2520Learning.html
59
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. (1999). K-12 classroom projects. [Online]. Available:
http://www-ed.fnal.gov/trc/projects/project_index.html
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Education Office. (1997). Handbook of engaged learning
projects. [Online]. Available: http://ed.fnal.gov/help/index.html
Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement & students at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Grassl, R., & Mingus, T. (1997 Fall). Using technology to enhance problem solving and critical
thinking skills. Mathematics and Computer Education 31, 293-300.
Greenleaf, G. L., Jimenez, R. T., & Roller, C. M. (2002). Reclaiming secondary reading
interventions: From limited to rich conceptions, from narrow to broad conversations.
Reading Research Quarterly, 37(4), 484-496.
Guthrie, J., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Context for engagement and motivation in reading. In M.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research:
Volume III. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hunter, B., & Richards, J. (1996). Learner contributions to knowledge, community, and learning
[Online]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Futures/hunter.html
Kamil, M. L., Intrator, S., & Kim, H. S. (2000). The effects of other technologies on literacy and
literacy learning. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook
of reading research: Volume III (pp. 773-788). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kirsch, I., de Jong, J., LaFontaine, D., McQueen, J., Mendelovits, J., & Monseur, C. (2002).
Reading for change: Performance and engagement across countries: Results from PISA
2000. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Retrieved June 7, 200t, form
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/socialinclusion/children/OECDresearch.html
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998).
Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 313-350.
Means, B. (1997. Using technology to enhance engaged learning for at-risk students. Pathways
to School Improvement [Online]. Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at400.htm
Means, B. (Ed.) (1994). Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Means, B., & Olson, K. (1997). *Studies of education reform: Technology and education reform.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement
60
Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., & Middleton, T. (1993) Using technology to support education
reform. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Available
online: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/TechReforms/title.html
Meltzer, J., Smith, N. C., & Clark, H. (2001). Adolescent literacy resources: Linking research
and practice. Providence, RI: Education Alliance at Brown University.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2005). Breakthrough high schools:
Fenway High School. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from
http://www.principals.org/s_nassp/sec.asp?CID=66&DID=47034
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003a). The NAEP reading achievement levels.
Retrieved June 7, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieve.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003b). The NAEP writing achievement levels.
Retrieved June 7, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/achieve.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003c). Reading: The nation’s report card: Percentage
of students, by reading achievement level results, grade 8: 1992-2002. Retrieved June
7, 2005, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2
9/db/f0.pdf
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (2005). Using Student Engagement to Improve
Adolescent Literacy. Retrieved February 7, 2006, from http://www.learningpt.org
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2000). A Bibliography of Research and
Resources on Technology and Engaged Learning. Retrieved January 17, 2006, from
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/techbib.htm
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1997). Using technology to enhance engaged
learning for at-risk students [Online]. Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at400.htm
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1999). Using technology to improve student
achievement [Online]. Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te800.htm
North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium. (1997). Learning with technology
profile tool [Online]. Available: http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/profile/profile.htm
Northbrook School District 28. (1999). Engaged learning resources. [Online]. Available:
http://www.greenbriar.district28.k12.il.us/Engaged/engaged.htm
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (1998, Spring). Taking off: A teacher's guide to
technology. Northwest Education, 3, 3.
61
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991, January). Higher levels of agency for children in
knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 37-68.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989, January).
Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational
Computing Research,.51-68.
Schlechty, Phillip. (2002) Working on the Work: An Action Plan for Teachers, Principals, and
Superintendents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Schrock, K. (1995-1998). WebQuests in our future: The teacher's role in cyberspace. [Online].
Available: http://discoveryschool.com/schrockguide/webquest/webquest.html
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on selfefficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services.
Journal of Special Education, 27(3), 257-273.
Vosniadou, S., DeCorte, E., Glaser, R., & Mandl, H. (Eds.). (1996). International perspectives
on the design of technology-supported learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Wigfield, A. (2004). Motivation for reading during the early adolescent and adolescent years. In
D. S. Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the literacy achievement gap, grades
4-12. (pp. 56-69). New York: Teachers College Press.
62
MEANINGFUL, ENGAGED LEARNING
Phillip Schlechty Model
Brief Summary of Research:
Current research supports the role of engaged learning as important to student achievement.
Students learn when they are highly involved in meaningful tasks. Student motivation is one
aspect of MEL. However, motivation is more than a quality within students. Motivation is a
quality that can be profoundly affected by the attitudes and actions of educators. The three
models discussed below provide an overview of meaningful, engaged learning.
Phillip Schlechty advocates meaningful, engaged learning within a larger framework of school
reform, which is based on theories of change and of engagement. The Theory of Engagement
focuses on student motivation and strategies needed to incorporate engaging tasks into
instruction. The Theory of Engagement is the basis of the Working on the Work framework
espoused by Dr. Schlechty. Schlechty views the likelihood that students will learn as linked
directly to the level of student engagement. Teachers must focus on designing learning tasks
that increase engagement, and must continuously assess the level of engagement in their
classrooms.
Schlechty states that the “core business of schools is to provide students with high content
engaging school work: work that is challenging to students, work with which students persist
when they experience difficulty, and work from which students gain a sense of satisfaction.” To
this end, qualities of highly engaging tasks address:










Product Focus
Protection from adverse consequences for initial failures
Affiliation
Choice
Organization of knowledge
Clear and compelling product standards
Affirmation of the significance of performance
Novelty and variety
Authenticity
Content and substance
63
Bibliographic Notation:
Note that the primary source of information for this model is
http://www.schlechtycenter.org/index.asp. Much of the literature concerning meaningful,
engaged learning has strong links to motivation literature and to technology use in the
classroom. Therefore, much of the literature cited focuses on these topics more directly than on
MEL. This bibliography contains articles supporting each of the models, with the majority of
them from a NCREL document.
Alvermann, D. E. (2003). Seeing themselves as capable and engaged readers: Adolescents
and re/mediated instruction. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved June 7,
2005, from http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/literacy/readers.pdf
Blackford, L. (2002). Secondary school reading. The School Administrator. 59(1). Retrieved
June 7, 2005, from http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_01/balckford.htm
Membership is needed in AASA in order to access this link)
Boston Plan for Excellence. (2002). Introduction to CCL: Collaborative coaching & learning.
Retrieved June 7, 2005, from
http://www.bpe.org/pubs/ccl/Getting&20Started&20CCL.pdf ;http://www.bpe.org/
Boston Plan for Excellence. (2002). Work with schools 2002-2003. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from
http://www.bpe.org/text/workwithschools.aspx; http://www.bpe.org/
Dillon, D. R., Moje, E. B. (1998). Listening to the talk of adolescent girls: Lessons about literacy,
school, and life. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F Phelps, & D. R.
Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives (pp. 193-223).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
http://www.learningpt.org/expertise/literacy/bestpractices/adolescentOverview.php
Engaged learning (Chapter 11 from Microsoft's "The Connected Learning Community:
Technology Road map"). [Online]. Available:
http://www.schoollink.org/Engaged%2520Learning.html
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. (1999). K-12 classroom projects. [Online]. Available:
http://www-ed.fnal.gov/trc/projects/project_index.html
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Education Office. (1997). Handbook of engaged learning
projects. [Online]. Available: http://www-ed.fnal.gov/help/cover.html
Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement & students at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/
Grassl, R., & Mingus, T. (1997 Fall). Using technology to enhance problem solving and critical
thinking skills. Mathematics and Computer Education 31, 293-300.
http://www.macejournal.org/
Greenleaf, G. L., Jimenez, R. T., & Roller, C. M. (2002). Reclaiming secondary reading
interventions: From limited to rich conceptions, from narrow to broad conversations.
64
Reading Research Quarterly, 37(4), 484-496. (must have membership to access or go to
public library)
Guthrie, J., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Context for engagement and motivation in reading. In M.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research:
Volume III. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/handbook/guthrie/index.html
Hunter, B., & Richards, J. (1996). Learner contributions to knowledge, community, and learning
[Online]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Futures/hunter.html
Johnson, M. (1998). Engaged learning with technology online resources. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ash.udel.edu/incoming/mjohnson/el.html
Jonassen, D. H. (1995, Spring). Computers as cognitive tools: Learning with technology, not
from technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 6, 40-73. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. EJ 506 904)
Jones, B. F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1994). Designing learning and
technology for educational reform. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory.
Jones, B. F., Valdez, G., & Rasmussen, C. (1994). Toward redefining technology effectiveness
in education. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Kamil, M. L., Intrator, S., & Kim, H. S. (2000). The effects of other technologies on literacy and
literacy learning. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook
of reading research: Volume III (pp. 773-788). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998).
Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 313-350. ( membership required for
access)
Marx, R. W., et al. (1997, March). Enacting project-based science. Elementary School Journal
97, 341-58. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 541 662)( membership
required for access)
Means, B. (1997. Using technology to enhance engaged learning for at-risk students. Pathways
to School Improvement [Online]. Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at400.htm
Means, B. (Ed.) (1994). Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=973365
Microsoft (1999). The Connected Learning Community: Technology Roadmap. (Chapter 11:
Engaged Learning) [Online]. Available:
http://www.microsoft.com/education/vision/roadmap/engage.asp
65
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2005). Breakthrough high schools:
Fenway High School. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from
http://www.principals.org/s_nassp/sec.asp?CID=66&DID=47034 (membership required
to access)
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1997). Using technology to enhance engaged
learning for at-risk students [Online]. Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at400.htm
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1999). Using technology to improve student
achievement [Online]. Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te800.htm
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory & Illinois State Board of Education. (1995).
Learning through technology: A planning and implementation guide [Online]. Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/tandl/homepg.htm
North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium. (1997). Learning with technology
profile tool [Online]. Available: http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/profile/profile.htm
Northbrook School District 28. (1999). Engaged learning resources. [Online]. Available:
http://www.greenbriar.district28.k12.il.us/Engaged/engaged.htm
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (1998, Spring). Taking off: A teacher's guide to
technology. Northwest Education, 3, 3.
Northwestern University. (1997). CoVis Project. Evanston, IL: School of Education and Social
Policy. [Online]. Available: http://www2.covis.nwu.edu/papers/Papers.html
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991, January). Higher levels of agency for children in
knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 37-68. (membership is needed to access or library reference
availability)
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989, January).
Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational
Computing Research,.51-68. (membership is needed to access or library reference
availability)
Schlechty, Phillip. (2002) Working on the Work: An Action Plan for Teachers, Principals, and
Superintendents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. (a purchased product)
Schlechty, Phillip. Working on the Work: Making Student Engagement Central. (A two-part video
series) The Video Journal of Education. http://www.schoolimprovment.com/products (a
purchased product)
Schrock, K. (1995-1998). WebQuests in our future: The teacher's role in cyberspace. [Online].
Available: http://discoveryschool.com/schrockguide/webquest/webquest.html
66
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on selfefficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services.
Journal of Special Education, 27(3), 257-273.
Secules, T. et al. (1997, March). Creating schools for thought. Educational Leadership, 54, 5660. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 540 882). (membership is needed to
access or library reference availability)
Sweet, J. R., Rasher, S. P., Abromitis, B. S., & Johnson, E. M. (2004). Case studies of highperforming, high-technology schools: Final research report on schools with
predominantly low-income, African-American, or Latina student populations. Naperville,
IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from
http://www.ncrel.org/tech/hpht/hpht.pdf
Vosniadou, S., DeCorte, E., Glaser, R., & Mandl, H. (Eds.). (1996). International perspectives
on the design of technology-supported learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc. .(membership is needed to access or library reference
availability)
Whelan, C. (1997). Promoting high standards through engaged learning and technology.
[Online]. Available: http://etrc33.usl.edu/wkshops/la-lagniappe/cswpres.html
Wigfield, A. (2004). Motivation for reading during the early adolescent and adolescent years. In
D. S. Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the literacy achievement gap, grades
4-12. (pp. 56-69). New York: Teachers College Press.
67
MEANINGFUL, ENGAGED LEARNING
Mike Muir Model
Maine Center for Meaningful Engaged Learning (McMEL) http://www.mcmel.org
Brief Summary of Research:
Current research supports the role of engaged learning as important to student achievement.
Students learn when they are highly involved in meaningful tasks. Student motivation is one
aspect of MEL. However, motivation is more than a quality within students. Motivation is a
quality that can be profoundly affected by the attitudes and actions of educators. The three
models discussed below provide an overview of meaningful, engaged learning.
The work of Mike Muir of McMEL has identified a model for meaningful, engaged learning
focusing on four key components and nine essential elements. These components and
essential elements are outlined below.




Environment: Relationship and Rapport
 Student/Teacher Relationship – positive attitude, fun, sense of humor, physically
and emotionally safe, belonging and respect
 Helping Students Succeed – high expectations, confidence in abilities
Experience
 Hands-On – doing things, activities, experiential learning, learning = patterns
from experience
 Learning Styles – multiple intelligences, differentiated instruction
Motivation
 Interest – novelty, mystery, curiosity, “blood and guts,” fantasy, driven by
students’ questions
 Autonomy – choices, decision-making, planning, designing, creating
 Avoid Rewards
Meaning
 Connections – to previous learning, relates to students’ lives, the “Velcro mind”
 Context – making personal meaning, real world work or audience, metaphors
and mental frameworks, how used or useful
68
Mike Muir - Winter 2001
http://www.mcmel.org
• Hands-On: Doing things,
• Student/teacher relationship:
Activities, Experiential
Learning, Learning =
Patterns from
Experience
• Learning styles: Multiple
Intelligences,
Differentiated Instruction
Positive attitude, Fun, Sense
of Humor, Physically &
Emotionally Safe, Belonging &
Respect
• Helping Students Succeed:
High expectations,
Confidence in abilities
Experience: Patterns
and Learning Styles
Environment:
Relationship and
Rapport
Meaningful
Engaged
Learning
Motivation: Why would
I want to learn this?
Meaning: Connections
and Mental Frameworks
• Interest: Novelty, Mystery,
• Connections: To Previous
Curiosity, “Blood &
Guts,” Fantasy, Driven
by Students’ Questions
• Autonomy: Choices,
Decision-Making,
Planning, Designing,
Creating
Learning, Relates to
Students’ Lives, The “Velcro
Mind”
• Context: Making Personal
Meaning, Real World Work
or Audience, Metaphors &
Mental Frameworks, How
Used or Useful
• Avoid Rewards
69
Bibliographic Notation:
Note that the primary source of information for this model is http://www.mcmel.org. Much of
the literature concerning meaningful, engaged learning has strong links to motivation literature
and to technology use in the classroom; therefore, much of the literature cited focuses on these
topics more directly than on MEL. This bibliography contains articles supporting each of the
models, with the majority of them from a NCREL document.
Model from the North Central Educational Laboratory (NCREL)
http://www.ncrel.org
Researchers at NCREL developed eight specific indicators of engaged learning. These
indicators can inform instructional decisions by helping educators understand what MEL looks
like in the classroom. The indicators are:
1. Vision of Engaged Learning – Students are responsible for and energized by learning.
They are strategic and collaborative.
2. Tasks for Engaged Learning – Learning tasks are challenging, authentic, and integrative.
3. Assessment of Engaged Learning – Assessment tasks are performance-based, involve
students in generating their own performance, and are aligned with curriculum and
instruction. Equitable standards are employed to evaluate performance.
4. Instructional Models and Strategies for Engaged Learning – Instruction actively engages
learners and encourages them to construct and produce knowledge in meaningful ways.
5. Learning Context for Engaged Learning – The classroom is a collaborative and
empathetic learning community that resists fragmentation and competition.
6. Grouping for Engaged Learning – To ensure equitable access to learning for all
students, heterogeneous groups are configured and reconfigured according to the
purposes of instruction.
7. Teacher Roles for Engaged Learning – The role of the teacher in the classroom is that of
facilitator, guide, and learner/investigator.
8. Student Roles for Engaged Learning – Students explore the physical world in order to
discover concepts and apply skills. They observe and apply thinking processes used by
practitioners. They are producers of knowledge as they integrate what they’ve learned.
Alvermann, D. E. (2003). Seeing themselves as capable and engaged readers: Adolescents
and re/mediated instruction. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/literacy/readers.pdf
Blachowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2001). Reading comprehension: Strategies for independent
learners. New York: Guilford Press.
Blackford, L. (2002). Secondary school reading. The School Administrator. 59(1).
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Secondary+School+Reading%3a+Specialists+in+high+sc
hool+may+be+rare%2c+but...-a081220131
Boston Plan for Excellence. (2002). Introduction to CCL:Collaborative coaching & learning.
http://www.bpe.org/files/Getting%20Started%20CCL.pdf
70
Collins, A., et al. (1991). Three different views of students: The role of technology in assessing
student performance. (Technical Report No. 12) New York: Center for Technology in
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 337 150)
Dillon, D. R. (1989). Showing them that I want them to learn and that I care about who they are:
A microethnography of the social organization of a secondary low-track English-reading
classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 227-259.
Dillon, D. R., Moje, E. B. (1998). Listening to the talk of adolescent girls: Lessons about literacy,
school, and life. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F Phelps, & D. R.
Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives (pp. 193-223).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Engaged learning (Chapter 11 from Microsoft's "The Connected Learning Community:
Technology Road map"). [Online]. Available:
http://www.schoollink.org/Engaged%2520Learning.html
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. (1999). K-12 classroom projects. [Online]. Available:
http://www-ed.fnal.gov/trc/projects/project_index.html
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Education Office. (1997). Handbook of engaged learning
projects. [Online]. http://ed.fnal.gov/help/index.html
Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement & students at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Grassl, R., & Mingus, T. (1997 Fall). Using technology to enhance problem solving and critical
thinking skills. Mathematics and Computer Education 31, 293-300.
Greenleaf, G. L., Jimenez, R. T., & Roller, C. M. (2002). Reclaiming secondary reading
interventions: From limited to rich conceptions, from narrow to broad conversations.
Reading Research Quarterly, 37(4), 484-496.
Guthrie, J., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Context for engagement and motivation in reading. In M.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research:
Volume III. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hunter, B., & Richards, J. (1996). Learner contributions to knowledge, community, and learning
[Online]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Futures/hunter.html
Jonassen, D. H. (1995, Spring). Computers as cognitive tools: Learning with technology, not
from technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 6, 40-73.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u66nx1n144748757/ ACCESS RESTRICTED
Kamil, M. L., Intrator, S., & Kim, H. S. (2000). The effects of other technologies on literacy and
literacy learning. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook
of reading research: Volume III (pp. 773-788). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
71
Kirsch, I., de Jong, J., LaFontaine, D., McQueen, J., Mendelovits, J., & Monseur, C. (2002).
Reading for change: Performance and engagement across countries: Results from PISA
2000. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/socialinclusion/children/OECDresearch.html
Koschmann,T.D. et al. (1994 ). Using technology to assist in realizing effective learning and
instruction: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 227-264. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1466821 RESTRICTED ACCESS
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998).
Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 313-350.
Means, B. (1997. Using technology to enhance engaged learning for at-risk students. Pathways
to School Improvement [Online]. Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at400.htm
Means, B. (Ed.) (1994). Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Means, B., & Olson, K. (1997). *Studies of education reform: Technology and education reform.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement
Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., & Middleton, T. (1993) Using technology to support education
reform. Washington DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Available
online: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/TechReforms/index.html
Meltzer, J., Smith, N. C., & Clark, H. (2001). Adolescent literacy resources: Linking research
and practice. Providence, RI: Education Alliance at Brown University.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2005). Breakthrough high schools:
Fenway High School. Retrieved June 7, 2005, from
http://www.principals.org/s_nassp/sec.asp?CID=66&DID=47034
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003a). The NAEP reading achievement levels.
Retrieved June 7, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieve.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003b). The NAEP writing achievement levels.
Retrieved June 7, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/achieve.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003c). Reading: The nation’s report card: Percentage
of students, by reading achievement level results, grade 8: 1992-2002.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2
9/db/f0.pdf
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (2005). Using Student Engagement to Improve
Adolescent Literacy. Retrieved February 7, 2006, from http://www.learningpt.org
72
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2000). A Bibliography of Research and
Resources on Technology and Engaged Learning. Retrieved January 17, 2006, from
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/techbib.htm
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1997). Using technology to enhance engaged
learning for at-risk students [Online]. Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at400.htm
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1999). Using technology to improve student
achievement [Online]. Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te800.htm
North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium. (1997). Learning with technology
profile tool [Online]. Available: http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/profile/profile.htm
Northbrook School District 28. (1999). Engaged learning resources. [Online]. Available:
http://www.greenbriar.district28.k12.il.us/Engaged/engaged.htm
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (1998, Spring). Taking off: A teacher's guide to
technology. Northwest Education, 3, 3.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991, January). Higher levels of agency for children in
knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 37-68.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989, January).
Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational
Computing Research,.51-68.
Schlechty, Phillip. (2002) Working on the Work: An Action Plan for Teachers, Principals, and
Superintendents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Schrock, K. (1995-1998). WebQuests in our future: The teacher's role in cyberspace. [Online].
Available: http://discoveryschool.com/schrockguide/webquest/webquest.html
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on selfefficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services.
Journal of Special Education, 27(3), 257-273.
Vosniadou, S., DeCorte, E., Glaser, R., & Mandl, H. (Eds.). (1996). International perspectives
on the design of technology-supported learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Wigfield, A. (2004). Motivation for reading during the early adolescent and adolescent years. In
D. S. Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the literacy achievement gap, grades
4-12. (pp. 56-69). New York: Teachers College Press.
73
74
Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)
The Strategic Instruction Model (SIM), developed by the University of Kansas Center for
Research on Learning, is a comprehensive approach to teaching adolescents who struggle with
becoming good readers, writers, and learners. It is based on the reality that to meet high
standards, adolescents must be able to read and understand large volumes of complex, difficult
reading materials. In addition, students must acquire the skills necessary to express themselves
effectively in writing. The Strategic Instruction Model's approach to instruction involves intensive,
individualized work with students and high quality professional development and supporting
materials for teachers. SIM integrates two kinds of interventions designed to address the gap
between what students are expected to do and what students are able to do: student-focused
interventions (Learning Strategies) and teacher-focused interventions (Content Enhancement
Routines).
75
Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)
Brief Summary of Research:
The Strategic Instruction Model is based on research from a variety of fields and theoretical
perspectives and is designed to serve as a guide or umbrella for secondary program
development. All components of the model have been evaluated in light of rigorous standards
we have set for ourselves.
1. An instructional procedure must be palatable for teachers. If it isn't, teachers won't adopt
it for use in their classrooms.
2. The instructional procedure must have value and be perceived to have value by highachieving and average-achieving students.
3. The procedure must be sufficiently powerful to have an effect on low-achieving students.
4. The procedure must result in statistically significant gains for students.
5. The procedure must result in socially significant gains for students. In other words, if a
procedure results in an increase in a student's performance from 20 percent to 40
percent, although the result might be statistically significant, it is not socially significant
because the student is still failing.
6. The degree to which students will maintain a skill or strategy they have been taught and
generalize it for use in other settings is important in determining whether the instructional
procedure is successful and has merit.
SIM's components--Content Enhancement Routines, Learning Strategies Curriculum, and
supporting materials--give teachers access to a breadth and depth of instructional
procedures to address many of the challenges they face in the classroom. As a result,
more students who are at risk now can realize success in school.
SIM Resources
SIM http://www.ku-crl.org/sim/
Additional sites of interest are:
Adolescent literacy - http://www.kucrl.org/featured/adollit.shtml
Content Literacy Continuum - http://clc.kucrl.org/
Whole School Improvement - http://www.kucrl.org/featured/wholeschool.shtml
76
Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)
Bibliographic Notation:
www.ku-crl/publications/index.html
KU – CRL publishes two newsletters for teachers and professional developers interested in the
Strategic Instruction Model.
http://www.sedl.org/cgi-bin/mysql/buildingreading.cgi?showrecord=14&l=description
SEDL publishes updated research and effectiveness of the Strategic Instructional Model.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/f8/01.
pdf
ERIC ED475506 - Improving Word Identification Skills Using Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)
Strategies. Research to Practice Brief.
Characteristics of Adolescents with Learning Disabilities
Hock, M.F., Brasseur, I.F., Deshler, D.D., Catts, H.W., Marquis, J.G., Mark, C.A., & Stribling,
J.W. (2009). What is the reading component profile of adolescent struggling readers in
urban schools? Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 21-38.
Biancarosa, G., Palincsar, A.S., Deshler, D.D., & Nair, M. (2007). Adolescent literacy: Myths
and realities. In Deshler, D.D., Palincsar, A.S., Biancarosa, G., & Nair, M., Informed
Choices for Struggling Adolescent Readers: A Research-Based Guide to Instructional
Programs and Practices (pp. 11-36).
Brownell, M.T., Mellard, D.F., & Deshler, D.D. (1993). Differences in the learning and transfer
performance between students with learning disabilities and other low-achieving
students on problem-solving tasks. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16 (23), 138-156.
(Research)
Deshler, D.D., Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., Davis, B. Grossen, B., & Marquis, J.
(2004). Adolescents with disabilities in high school setting: Student characteristics and
setting dynamics. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2 (2), 30-48.
(Research)
Mellard, D.F., & Deshler, D.D. (1992). Learning disabilities. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Educational Research (6th Edition). New York: Macmillan. (Big Picture)
Robinson, S.M., & Deshler, D.D. (1995). Learning disabled. In E. L. Meyen and T. M. Skrtic
(Eds.), Special education and student disability: Traditional, emerging, and alternative
perspectives (pp. 171-212). Denver, CO: Love Publishing
Scanlon, D., & Mellard, D.F. (2002). Academic and participation profiles of school-age dropouts
with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68 (2), 239-257. (Research)
77
Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., Bulgren, J.A., Davis, B., Lenz, K.B., & Grossen, B. (2005).
Access of adolescents with disabilities to general education curriculum: Myth or reality?
In T.M Skrtic, K.R. Harris, J.G Shriner (Eds.) Special Education Policy and Practice:
Accountability, Instruction, and Social Challenges (pp.129-155). Denver, CO: Love
Publishing.
Collaborative Instruction Model and Collaboration
Boudah, D.J., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1997). Collaborative instruction: Is it an
effective option for inclusion in secondary classrooms? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20
(4), 293-316.
Knackendoffel, E.A. (1996). Collaborative teaming in the secondary school. In D.D. Deshler,
E.S. Ellis. & B.K. Lenz (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies
and methods (2nd ed., pp. 579-616). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Scanlon, D., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1994). Collaborative dialogues between
teachers and researchers to create education interventions: A case study. Educational
and Psychological Consultation, 5 (1), 69-76.
Content Enhancement
Bulgren, J., Deshler, D.D., & Lenz, B.K. (2007). Engaging adolescents with LD in higher order
thinking about history concepts using integrated content enhancement routines. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 40 (2), 121-133.
Boudah, D.J., Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (2000). Content
Learning through the Unit Organizer Routine. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32 (3), 4856.
Bulgren, J. (2004). Effective content-area instruction for all students. In T.E. Scruggs & M.A.
Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Vol. 17. Research in
secondary schools (pp. 147-174). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Ltd
Bulgren, J.A., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1997). Use of a recall enhancement routine
and strategies in inclusive secondary classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
12 (4), 198-208.
Bulgren, J.A., Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., & Lenz, B.K. (2000). The use and effectiveness
of analogical instruction in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92 (3), 426-441.
Bulgren, J.A., & Lenz, B.K. (1996). Strategic instruction in the content areas. In D.D. Deshler,
E.S. Ellis, & B.K. Lenz (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies
and methods (2nd ed., pp. 409-473). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Bulgren, J.A., Lenz, B.K., Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., & Marquis, J.G. (2002). The use and
effectiveness of a comparison routine in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 94 (2), 356-371.
78
Bulgren, J.A., & Schumaker, J.B. (In prep. 2005). Teaching practices that optimize curriculum
access.
Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching
routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream
classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11 (1), 3-17.
Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1994). The effects of a recall enhancement
routine on the test performance of secondary students with and without learning
disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9 (1), 2-11.
Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., Bulgren, J.A., Lenz, B.K., Jantzen, J.E., Adams, G., Carnine,
D., Grossen, B., Davis, B. & Marquis, J. (2001). Making learning easier: Connecting new
knowledge to things students already know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 (4), 8285.
Lenz, B.K., & Adams, G. (In prep. 2005). Teacher Planning: The Cornerstone to Accessing the
General Education Curriculum.
Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J.A., & Hudson, P. (1990). Content enhancement: A model for promoting
the acquisition of content by individuals with learning disabilities. In T. E. Scruggs & B. L.
Y. Wong (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 122-165). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Lenz, B.K., & Schumaker, J.B. (2003). Adapting language arts, social studies, and science
materials for the inclusive classroom. OSEP Digest, E645.
Mittag, K.C., & Van Reusen, A.K. (1999). One fish, two fish, pretzel fish: Learning estimation
and other advanced mathematics concepts in an inclusive class. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 31 (6), 66-72.
Rademacher, J.A. (1999) Enhancing assignment completion for academically diverse learners.
In D.D. Deshler, J. Schumaker, K.R. Harris, & S. Graham, (Eds.), Teaching every
adolescent every day: Learning in diverse middle and high school classrooms (pp. 146206). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Rademacher, J.A. (2000). Involving students in assignment evaluation. Intervention in school
and clinic, 35 (3), 151-156.
Rademacher, J.A., Schumaker, J.B. & Deshler, D.D. (1996). Development and validation of a
classroom assignment routine for inclusive settings. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19 (3),
163-178.
Rademacher, J., Tyler-Wood, T., Doclar, J., & Pemberton, J. (2001). Developing learnercentered technology assignments with student teachers. Journal of Computing in
Teacher Education, 17 (3), 18-25.
79
Shaw, J.M., Thomas, C., Hoffman, A., & Bulgren, J. (1995). Using concept diagrams to promote
understanding in geometry. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2 (3), 184-189.
Content Literacy Continuum
Lenz, B.K., Ehren, B.J., & Deshler, D.D. (2005). The content literacy continuum: A school reform
framework for improving adolescent literacy for all students. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 37(6), 60-63.
Deshler, D.D., Hock, M.F., & Catts, H.W. (2006). Enhancing outcomes for struggling adolescent
readers. Perspectives, 32(3), 21-25.
Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., & Woodruff, S.K. (2004). Improving literacy skills of at-risk
adolescents: A schoolwide response. In D.S. Strickland & D.E. Alvermann (Eds.),
Bridging the literacy achievement gap grades 4-12 (pp. 86-104). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Ehren, B.J., Lenz, B.K., & Deshler, D.D. (2004). Enhancing literacy proficiency with adolescents
and young adults. In C.A. Stone, E.R. Silliman, B.J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook
of language and literacy development and disorders (pp. 681-701). New York: Guilford
Press.
Instruction and Intervention Issues
Bulgren, J.A., Lenz, B.K., Marquis, J.G., Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., Davis, B., & Grossen,
B. (2006). The instructional context of inclusive secondary general education classes:
Teachers' instructional roles and practices, curricular demands, and research-based
practices and standards. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 39-65.
Chamberlain, S.P. (2006). Don Deshler: Perspectives on teaching students with learning
disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 302-306.
Brasseur, I., Gildroy, P., Schumaker, J., Deshler, D., Begun, W., & Passman, B. (2004).
Profiling the quality of educational programs for adolescents with disabilities. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 37 (2), 62-65.
Bulgren, J.A., & Carta, J.J. (1992). Examining the instructional contexts of students with learning
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59 (3), 182-191.
Crank, J.N., & Bulgren, J.A. (1993). Visual depictions as information organizers for enhancing
achievement of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 8 (3), 140-147.
Deshler, D.D. (1998). Grounding interventions for students with learning disabilities in "powerful
ideas." Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13 (1), 29-34.
Deshler, D.D. (2003). Intervention research and bridging the gap between research and
practice. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 1 (1), 1-7. Deshler, D.D., &
Berry, G.C. (1998, Summer). The critical issue is how not where. Perspectives, 6-8.
80
Deshler, D.D., & Bulgren, J.A. (1997). Redefining instructional directions for gifted students with
learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 8 (3), 121-132.
Deshler, D.D., & Putnam, M.L. (1996). Learning disabilities in adolescents: A perspective. In
D.D. Deshler, E.S. Ellis, & B.K. Lenz (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning
disabilities:
Deshler, D.D., Robinson, S., & Mellard, D. (2004). Instructional principles for optimizing
outcomes for adolescents with learning disabilities. In M.K Riley & T.A. Citro, (Eds.) Best
practices for the inclusionary classroom: Leading researches talk directly with teachers
(pp. 65-79). Weston, MA: Learning Disabilities of Massachusetts.
Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (1999). Meeting the challenge of
diversity in secondary schools. In D.D. Deshler, J. Schumaker, K.R. Harris, & S.
Graham, (Eds.), Teaching every adolescent every day: Learning in diverse middle and
high school classrooms (pp. vii-xii). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Ehren, B.J. (2000). Maintaining a therapeutic focus and sharing responsibility for student
success: Keys to in-classroom speech-language services. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 31 (3), 219-229.
Ehren, B.J. (2002). Speech-language pathologists contributing significantly to the academic
success of high school students: A vision for professional growth. Topics in Language
Disorders, 22 (2), 60-80.
Ehren, B.J. (2002). Vocabulary intervention to improve reading comprehension for students with
learning disabilities. Perspectives on Language and Education, 9 (3), 12-18.
Fisher, J.B., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1995). Searching for validated inclusive
practices: A review of the literature. Focus On Exceptional Children, 28 (4), 1-20.
Gildroy, P., & Deshler, D.D. (2005). Reading development and suggestions for teaching reading
to students with learning disabilities. Insights on Learning Disabilities 2(2), 1-10.
Greenwood, C.R., Delquadri, J., & Bulgren, J. (1993). Current challenges to behavioral
technology in the reform of schooling: Large-scale, high-quality implementation and
sustained use of effective educational practices. Education and Treatment of Children,
16 (4), 401-440.
Grossen, B., Caros, J., Carnine, D., Davis, B., Deshler, D., Schumaker, J., Bulgren, J., Lenz, K.,
Adams, G., Jantzen, J., & Marquis, J. (2002). BIG ideas (plus a little effort) produce big
results. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34 (4), 70-73.
Kline, F.M., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1991). Development and validation of feedback
routines for instructing students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
14 (3), 191-207.
81
Knight, J. (2005). Crossing boundaries: What constructivists can teach intensive-explicit
instructors and vice versa. In T.M Skrtic, K.R. Harris, & J.G. Shriner (Eds.) Special
education policy and practice: Accountability, instruction, and social challenges (pp. 242266). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Lancaster, P.E., & Gildroy, P. (1999). Facilitating transitions from elementary through high
school. In D.D. Deshler, J. Schumaker, K.R. Harris, & S. Graham, (Eds.), Teaching
every adolescent every day: Learning in diverse middle and high school classrooms (pp.
207-249). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Lenz, B.K., & Adams, G. (In prep. 2005). Teacher Planning: The Cornerstone to Accessing the
General Education Curriculum.
Lenz, B.K., & Deshler, D.D. (2004). Adolescents with learning disabilities: Revisiting "The
educator's enigma." In B.Y.L. Wong, (Ed.) Learning about learning disabilities (3rd ed.),
(pp. 535-564). New York: Academic Press.
Lenz, B.K., & Mellard, D. (1990). Content area skill assessment. In R. A. Gable & J. M.
Hendrickson (Eds.), Assessing students with special needs: A source book for analyzing
and correcting errors in academics (pp. 117-145). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Mainzer, R.W., Deshler, D.D., Coleman, M.R., Kozleski, E., Rodriguez-Walling, M. (2003). To
ensure the learning of every child with a disability. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35
(5), 1-12.
Mainzer, R.W., Deshler, D.D., Coleman, M.R., Kozleski, E., Rodriguez-Walling M. (2005). To
ensure the learning of every child with a disability. In T.M. Skrtic, K.R. Harris, & J.G.
Shriner (Eds.) Special education policy and practice: Accountability, instruction, and
social challenges (pp. 83-102). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Mercer, C.D., Lane, H.B, Jordan, L., Allsopp, D.H., & Eilsele, M.R. (1996). Empowering
teachers and students with instructional choices in inclusion settings. Remedial and
Special Education, 17 (4), 226-236.
Putnam, M.L. (1992). Characteristics of questions on tests administered by mainstream
secondary classroom teachers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 129-136.
Putnam, M.L. (1992). Readability estimates of content area textbooks used by students
mainstreamed into secondary classrooms. Learning Disabilities, 3 (2), 53-59.
Putnam, M.L. (1992). The testing practices of mainstream secondary classroom teachers.
Remedial and Special Education, 13 (5), 11-21.
Putnam, M.L. (1992). Written feedback provided by mainstream secondary classroom teachers.
Learning Disabilities, 3 (1), 35-41.
Putnam, M.L., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1993). The investigation of setting demands:
A missing link in learning strategies instruction. In L. J. Meltzer (Ed.), Strategy
82
assessment and instruction for students with learning disabilities: From theory to
practice. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., Bui, Y., & Vernon, S. (In prep. 2005). High schools and
adolescents with disabilities: Challenges at every turn.
Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., & Denton, P.H. (1984). An integrated system for providing
content to learning disabled adolescents using an audio-taped format. In W. M.
Cruickshank & J. M. Kliebhan (Eds.), Early adolescence to early adulthood: Vol. 5 The
best of ACLD (pp. 79-107). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., & McKnight, P. (2002). Ensuring success in the secondary
general education curriculum through the use of teaching routines. In M.A. Shinn, H.M.
Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II:
Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 791-823). Bethesda, MD: NASP Publications.
Tralli, R., Colombo, B., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1996). The strategies intervention
model: A model for supported inclusion at the secondary level. Remedial and Special
Education, 17 (4), 204-216.
Tralli, R., Colombo, B., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1999). The strategic intervention
model: A model for supported inclusion at the secondary level. In D.D. Deshler, J.
Schumaker, K.R. Harris, & S. Graham, (Eds.), Teaching every adolescent every day:
Learning in diverse middle and high school classrooms (pp. 250-280). Cambridge, MA:
Brookline Books.
Instructional Coaching
Knight, J. (2006). Instructional coaching: Eight factors for realizing better classroom teaching
through support, feedback and intensive, individualized professional learning. The
School Administrator, 63(4), 36-40.
Knight, J., Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D. (2002). Partnership Learning: Putting Conversation at
the Heart of Professional Development.
Knight, J. (2005). A primer on instructional coaches. Principal Leadership, 5 (9), 16-21.
LD Determination
Fuchs, D., Deshler, D.D., & Reschly, D.J. (2004). National Research Center on Learning
Disabilities: Multimethod studies of identification and classification issues. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 27, 189-195.
Mellard, D.F., Byrd, S.E., Johnson, E., Tollefson, J.M., & Boesche, L. (2004). Foundations and
research on identifying model responsiveness-to-intervention sites. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 27, 243-256.
Mellard, D.F., Deshler, D.D., & Barth, A. (2004). LD identification: It's not simply a matter of
building a better mousetrap. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 229-242.
83
Learning Strategies
Bulgren, J.A., Hock, M.F., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1995). The effects of instruction in
a paired associates strategy on the information mastery performance of students with
learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10 (1), 22-37.
Carpenter, S.L., & King-Sears, M.E. (1997). Strategy instruction. In D.F. Bradley, M.E. KingSears, & D.M. Switlick. Teaching students in inclusive settings (pp. 283-321). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Clark, F.L. (1993). Preparing teachers to implement strategy instruction. Preventing School
Failure, 38 (1), 50-52.
Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1993). Strategy mastery by at-risk students: Not a simple
matter. Elementary School Journal, 94 (2), 153-167.
Duchardt, B.A., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1995). A strategic intervention for enabling
students with learning disabilities to identify and change their ineffective beliefs. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 18 (3), 186-201.
Ellis, E.S., Deshler, D.D., Lenz, B.K., Schumaker, J.B., & Clark, F.L. (1991). An instructional
model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23 (6), 1-24
Ellis, E.S., & Lenz, B.K. (1996). Perspectives on instruction in learning disabilities. In D.D.
Deshler, E.S. Ellis, & B.K. Lenz (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities:
Strategies and methods (2nd ed., pp. 9-60). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Glaeser, B.J., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1996). Improving self-regulation of students
with learning disabilities. Learning disabilities: Information and resources (pp. 41-44).
Prides Crossing, MA: Landmark Foundation.
Hock, M.F. & Deshler, D.D. (2003). Don't forget the adolescents. Principal Leadership, 4 (3), 5056
Hughes, C.A., Deshler, D.D., Ruhl, K.L., & Schumaker, J.B. (1993) Test-taking strategy
instruction for adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 1 (3), 189-198.
Hughes, C.A., Ruhl, K.L., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (2002). Effects of instruction in an
assignment completion strategy on the homework performance of students with learning
disabilities in general education classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17
(1), 1-18.
Hughes, C.A., & Schumaker, J.B. (1991). Reflections on "test-taking strategy instruction for
adolescents with learning disabilities." Exceptionality, 2, 237-242.
Hughes, C.A., & Schumaker, J.B. (1991). Test-taking strategy instruction for adolescents with
learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 2, 205-221.
84
Lancaster, P.E., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (2002). The development and validation of
an interactive hypermedia program for teaching a self-advocacy strategy to students with
disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 25, 227-302.
Lenz, B.K. (1991). In the spirit of strategies instruction: Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of
the strategies intervention model. In S. A. Vogel (Ed.), Educational alternatives for
students with learning disabilities (pp. 1-25). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lenz, B.K. (1992). Self-managed learning strategy systems for children and youth. School
Psychology Review, 21 (2), 211-228.
Lenz, B.K., & Duchardt, B. (1990, Spring). Toward an understanding of the strategies
instructional approach. Learning Consultant Journal, 13-22.
Lenz, B.K., Ehren, B.J., & Smiley, L.R. (1991). A goal attainment approach to improve
completion of project-type assignments by adolescents with learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 166-176.
Lenz, B.K., & Hughes, C.A. (1990). A word identification strategy for adolescents with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23 (3), 149-158, 163.
McNaughton, D., Hughes, C., & Ofiesh, N. (1997). Proofreading for students with learning
disabilities: Integrating computer and strategy use. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 12 (1), 16-28.
Oas, B.K., Schumaker, J.A., & Deshler, D.D. (1995). Learning strategies: Tools for learning to
learn in middle and high schools. Secondary education and beyond: Providing
opportunities for students with learning disabilities. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Disabilities
Association of America.
Scanlon, D., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1996). Can a strategy be taught and learned in
secondary inclusive classrooms? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11 (1), 4157.
Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (2003). Can students with LD become competent writers?
Learning Disability Quarterly, 26 (2), 129-141.
Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1992). Validation of learning strategy interventions for
students with learning disabilities: Results of a programmatic research effort. In B. Y. L.
Wong (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities: An international
perspective (pp. 22-46). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (In prep. 2005). Teaching Adolescents to be Strategic
Learners.
Van Reusen, A.K. (1998). Self-advocacy strategy instruction: Enhancing student motivation,
self-determination, and responsibility in the learning process. In M. L. Wehmeyer & D. J.
85
Sands (Eds.), Making it happen: Student involvement in education planning, decisionmaking, and instruction (pp. 133-152). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.
Learning Strategies/Content Enhancement
Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., Woodruff, S.K., Hock, M.F., Bulgren, J.A., & Lenz, B.K. (2006).
Reading strategy interventions: Can literacy outcomes be enhanced for at-risk
adolescents? Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(3), 64-68.
Bulgren, J., & Scanlon, D. (1997). Instructional routines and learning strategies that promote
understanding of content area concepts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41 (4),
292-302.
Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., Lenz, B.K., Bulgren, J.A., Hock, M.F., Knight, J., & Ehren, B.
(2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16 (2), 96-108.
Ellis, E.S., & Lenz, B.K. (1990). Techniques for mediating content area learning: Issues and
research. Focus on Exceptional Children, 22 (9), 1-16.
Fisher, J.B. (1999) Mediating the learning of academically diverse secondary students in
content-area courses. In D.D. Deshler, J. Schumaker, K.R. Harris, & S. Graham, (Eds.),
Teaching every adolescent every day: Learning in diverse middle and high school
classrooms (pp. 53-105). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Fisher, J.B., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (2002). Improving the reading comprehension of
at-risk adolescents. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction:
Research-based best practices (pp. 351-364). New York: Guildford Press.
Lenz, B.K., & Bulgren, J.A. (1995). Promoting learning in content classes. In P. T. Cegelka & W.
H. Berdine (Eds.), Effective instruction for students with learning disabilities (pp. 385417). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Miller, S. & Strawser, S. (1996). Promoting strategic math performance among students with
learning disabilities. Learning Disability Forum, 21 (2), 34-40.
Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1994). Secondary classes can be inclusive, too. Educational
Leadership, 52 (4), 50-51.
Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., & McKnight, P.C. (1991). Teaching routines for content areas
at the secondary level. In G. Stover, M. R. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions
for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 473-494). Washington, DC: National
Association of School Psychologists
Swanson, H.L. & Deshler, D.D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities:
Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36 (2), 124-135.
86
Motivation
Hock, M.F., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (2006). Enhancing student motivation through the
pursuit of possible selves. In C. Dunkel & J. Kerpelman (Eds.), Possible Selves: Theory,
Research and Application. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Hock, M.F. (2005). Students with learning disabilities or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
In E.E. Getzel & P. Wehman (Eds.) Going to College: Expanding Opportunities for
People with Disabilities (pp. 233-251).
Professional Development
Boudah, D.J., Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., Lenz, B.K., & Cook, B. (1997). Student-centered
or content-centered? A case study of a middle school teacher's lesson planning and
instruction in inclusive classes. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20 (3), 189203.
Crank, J.N., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1990). A self-instructional surface-counseling
program: Development and validation. Learning Disabilities, 1 (3), 102-112.
Ellis, E.S. (1990). What's so strategic about teaching teachers to teach strategies? Teacher
Education and Special Education, 13 (2), 59-62.
Ellis, E.S., & Sabornie, E.J. (1990). Strategy-based adaptive instruction in content-area classes.
Social validity of six options. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13 (2) 133-144.
Feldman, K. (1990). Reflection on a five-year learning strategies project implemented in the
public schools. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13 (2), 117-125.
Fisher, J.B., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1999). The effects of an interactive multimedia
program on teachers' understanding and implementation of an inclusive practice.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 22 (2), 127-142.
Kline, F.M., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1992). Implementing learning strategy instruction
in class settings: A research perspective. In M. Pressley, K. Harris, & J. Guthrie (Eds.),
Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 361-406). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Knight, J. (1998). Do schools have learning disabilities? Focus on Exceptional Children, 30 (9),
1-14.
Lenz, B.K., & Deshler, D.D. (1990). Principles of strategies instruction as the basis of effective
preservice teacher education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13 (2), 82-95.
Lenz, B.K., & Scanlon, D. (1998). SMARTER teaching: Developing accommodations to reduce
cognitive barriers to learning for individuals with learning disabilities. Perspectives, 24
(3), 16-19.
87
Lenz, B.K., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1991). Planning in the face of academic diversity:
Whose questions should we be answering? A paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL.
Schumaker, J.B., & Clark, F.L. (1990). Achieving implementation of strategy instruction through
effective inservice education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13 (2), 105116.
Post-Secondary Education
Bulgren, J.A., & Kline, F.M. (1991). An instructional model for use by counselors: Promoting
independence in post-secondary students with learning disabilities. IACD Quarterly, 123,
33-49.
Hock, M.F., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (1999). Tutoring programs for academically
underprepared college students: A review of the literature. Journal of College Reading
and Learning, 29 (2), pp. 101-122.
Hughes, C.A. (1998). Effective instruction for adults with learning disabilities. In B.K. Lenz, N.A.
Sturomski, & M.A. Corley (Eds.) Serving adults with learning disabilities: Implications for
effective practice (pp. 27-43). Washington, DC: National Adult Literacy and Learning
Disabilities Center.
Knight, J. (1993). Learning strategies go to college: Six years of learning strategy instruction in
composition classes. Preventing School Failure, 39 (1), 36-42.
Lancaster, S., & Mellard, D. (2005). Adult learning disabilities screening using an Internetadministered instrument. Learning
McNaughton, D., Hughes, C., & Clark, K. (1997). The effect of five proofreading conditions on
the spelling performance of college students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 30 (6), 643-651.
Mellard, D. (1996). Strategies for transition to postsecondary education settings. In D.D.
Deshler, E.S. Ellis, & B.K. Lenz (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities:
Strategies and methods (2nd ed., pp. 475-523). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Mellard, D.F. (1990). The eligibility process: Identifying students with learning disabilities in
California's community colleges. Learning Disabilities Focus, 5 (2), 75-90.
Mellard, D.F. (1994). Services for students with learning disabilities in the community colleges.
In P. J. Gerber & H. B. Reiff (Eds.), Learning disabilities in adulthood: Persisting
problems and evolving issues. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Mellard, D.F., & Byrne, M. (1993). Learning disabilities referrals, eligibility outcomes, and
services in community colleges: A four-year summary. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16
(3), 199-218.
88
Serna, L.A., Schumaker, J.B., & Sheldon, J.B. (1992). A comparison of the effects of feedback
procedures on college student performance on written essay papers. Behavior
Modification, 16.
Social Skills
Kamps, D.M., Leonard, B.R., Vernon, S., Dugan, E.P., Delquadri, J.C., Gershon, B., Wade, L.,
& Folk, L. (1992). Teaching social skills to students with autism to increase peer
interactions in an integrated first-grade classroom, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
25 (2), 281-288.
Mellard, D.F., & Hazel, J.S. (1992). Social competencies as a pathway to successful life
transitions. Learning Disability Quarterly,
Powers, L., Deshler, D.D., Jones, B., & Simons, M. (In prep. 2005) Strategies for Enhancing
Nonacademic Outcomes. Scanlon, D. (1996). Social skills strategy instruction. In D.D.
Deshler, E.S. Ellis & B.K. Lenz (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities:
Strategies and methods (2nd ed., pp. 369-408). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Schumaker, J.B. (1992). Social performance of individuals with learning disabilities: Through the
looking glass of KU-IRLD research. School Psychology Review, 21 (3), 387-399.
Serna, L.A., Schumaker, J.B., Sherman, J.A., & Sheldon, J.B. (1991). In-home generalization of
social interactions in families of adolescents with behavior problems. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 4 (24), 733-746.
Van Reusen, A.K. (1999). Developing social competence in diverse secondary schools and
classrooms. In D.D. Deshler, J. Schumaker, K.R. Harris, & S. Graham, (Eds.), Teaching
every adolescent every day: Learning in diverse middle and high school classrooms (pp.
106-144). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Vernon, D.S., & Schumaker, J.B. (1993). Who benefits from social skills instruction in the
mainstream classroom? Exceptionality Education Canada, 3 (1 & 2), 9-38.
Vernon, S., Hazel, J.S., & Schumaker, J.B. (1988). Now that the door is open: Social skills
instruction in the classroom. PRISE Reporter, 20, 1-2.
Walther-Thomas, C., Hazel, J.S., Schumaker, J.B., Vernon, S., & Deshler, D.D. (1991). A
program for families with children with learning disabilities. In M. Fine (Ed.),
Collaboration with parents of exceptional children (pp. 219-237). New York: Clinical
Psychology Publishing Co.
Technology
Marcaruso, P., Rodman, A., (2009). Benefits of Computer-Assisted Instruction for Struggling
Readers in Middle School. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24 (1), 103113.
89
Waxman, H. C., Connell, M. L., & Gray, J. (2002). A quantitative synthesis of recent research on
the effects of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Naperville, IL :
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Meyen, E.L. (2000). Using technology to move research to practice: The Online Academy. Their
World 2000. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities, pp. 13-17.
U.S. Department of Education, (1998) Educational Technology: Preparing America for the 21st
Century, meeting of education leaders and business representatives.
Wellens, S.J., (1998) “The Computer Hearth,” Basic Education, Washington, D.C.: Council on
Basic Education, 42 (5), 4-6.
Tutoring
Hock, M.F., Deshler, D.D. & Schumaker, J.B. (1993). Learning strategy instruction for at-risk
and learning-disabled adults: The development of strategic learners through
apprenticeship. Preventing School Failure, 38 (1), 43-49.
Hock, M.F., Pulvers, K.A., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J.B. (2001). The effects of an afterschool tutoring program on the academic performance of at-risk students and students
with LD. Remedial and Special Education, 22(3), 172-186.
Hock, M.F., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1995). Training strategic tutors to enhance
learner independence. Journal of Developmental Education, 19(1), 18-26.
Hock, M.F., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1999). Closing the gap to success in secondary
schools: A model for cognitive apprenticeship. In D.D. Deshler, J. Schumaker, K.R.
Harris, & S. Graham. (Eds.), Teaching every adolescent every day: Learning in diverse
middle and high school classrooms (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Hock, M.F., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (2001). The case for strategic tutoring.
Educational Leadership, 58(7), 50-52.
90
91
Learning Strategies
The learning strategies listed here have been successfully field tested with students judged to be at risk
for academic failure; additionally, all of the strategies have been field tested with students judged to
have learning disabilities. Research has demonstrated that consistent, intensive explicit instruction and
support are key ingredients for instructional success. The research took place in public schools, primarily
in middle and high school settings, and the strategies were field tested by teachers. A combination of
instructional models involving general education teachers and special education teachers, individually
and collaboratively, has been successfully tested. All of the strategies are taught using a standard set of
instructional procedures. These procedures define the necessary instructional conditions needed
regardless of where the instruction occurs.
STRATEGIES RELATED TO READING
• The Word Identification Strategy provides a functional and efficient strategy to help challenged readers
successfully decode and identify unknown words in their reading materials. The strategy is based on the premise
that most words in the English language can be pronounced by identifying prefixes, suffixes, and stems and by
following three short syllabication rules. In a research study, students made an average of 20 errors in a passage of
400 words before learning this strategy. Having learned the Word Identification Strategy, students reduced their
errors to an average of three per 400 words. Reading comprehension increased from 40 percent on the pretest to
70 percent on grade-level passages.
• The Visual Imagery Strategy is a reading comprehension strategy for creating mental movies of narrative
passages. Students visualize the scenery, characters, and action and describe the scenes to
themselves. Research results showed that students who demonstrated a 35 percent comprehension and
recall rate before learning the strategy improved to an 86 percent comprehension and recall rate after
learning the strategy.
• The Self-Questioning Strategy helps students create their own motivation for reading. Students create questions
in their minds, predict the answers to those questions, search for the answers to those questions as they read, and
paraphrase the answers to themselves. Research results have shown average gains of 40 percentage points in
reading comprehension on grade-level materials after students have learned the strategy.
• The Inference Strategy is aimed at improving students’ ability to comprehend reading passages and to improve
their ability to respond to inferential questions as required in most of their subject matter classes as well as on
state assessments.
• The Fundamentals of Paraphrasing and Summarizing helps students acquire the fundamental skills they need to
be able to identify and paraphrase main ideas and details. Fundamentals contains lessons on paraphrasing words,
phrases, and sentences, as well as lessons on identifying main ideas and details in paragraphs and short essays.
• The Paraphrasing Strategy is designed to help students focus on the most important information in a passage.
Students read short passages of materials, identify the main idea and details, and rephrase the content in their
92
own words. Using grade-level materials, students performed at a 48 percent comprehension rate before learning
the strategy. During the posttest, these students comprehended 84 percent of the material.
STRATEGIES RELATED TO STORING & REMEMBERING INFORMATION
• The FIRST-Letter Mnemonic Strategy is a strategy for independently studying large bodies of information that
need to be mastered. Specifically, students identify lists of information that are important to learn, generate an
appropriate title or label for each set of information, select a mnemonic device for each set of information, create
study cards, and use the study cards to learn the information. Research results showed that students who learned
the FIRST-Letter Mnemonic Strategy received test grades that increased from an average of 51 percent to 85
percent.
• The Paired Associates Strategy is designed to help students learn pairs of informational items, such as names and
events, places and events, or names and accomplishments. Students identify pairs of items, create mnemonic
devices, create study cards, and use the study cards to learn the information. Research has shown that before
students learned this strategy, they answered correctly only an average of 8 percent of test questions related to
paired information when the paired information was identified for them. After they mastered the strategy, they
answered correctly an average of 85 percent of the questions about paired information that were identified for
them. When given reading passages to study on their own, they answered an average of 22 percent of test
questions correctly before instruction in the strategy versus answering 76 percent correctly after mastering the
strategy.
• The LINCS Vocabulary Strategy helps students learn the meaning of new vocabulary words using powerful
memory-enhancement techniques. Strategy steps cue students to focus on critical elements of the concept; to use
visual imagery, associations with prior knowledge, and key-word mnemonic devices to create a study card; and to
study the card to enhance comprehension and recall of the concept. Research results showed that in a social
studies class in which the LINCs Vocabulary Strategy was taught to the students, the students with LD performed at
a mean of 53 percent in the pretest and at a mean of 77 percent correct answers after learning the strategy. In the
control class in which students did not learn the strategy, the mean percentage of correct answers decreased from
the pretest to the posttest.
STRATEGIES RELATED TO EXPRESSING INFORMATION
• The Sentence Writing Strategy program comprises two parts: Fundamentals in the Sentence Writing Strategy and
Proficiency in the Sentence Writing Strategy. Together, these components constitute a strategy for recognizing and
writing 14 sentence patterns with four types of sentences: simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex.
The program consists of two products: an Instructor’s Manual and a Student Lessons Manual. The Instructor’s
Manual features a systematic sequence of instructional procedures; the Student Lessons Manual features exercises
that correspond to instructional procedures. Research results showed that students wrote an average of 65
percent complete sentences on the pretest and an average of 88 percent complete sentences on the posttest.
• The Paragraph Writing Strategy is a strategy for organizing ideas related to a topic, planning the point of view
and verb tense to be used in the paragraph, planning the sequence in which ideas will be expressed, and writing a
variety of topic, detail, and clincher sentences. The program consists of two products: an Instructor’s Manual and a
Student Lessons Manual. The Instructor’s Manual features a systematic sequence of instructional procedures; the
Student Lessons Manual features exercises that correspond to the instructional procedures. Research results
showed that students earned an average of 40 percent of the points available when writing a paragraph on the
pretest and an average of 71 percent of the points available when writing a paragraph on the posttest.
• The Theme Writing Strategy focuses on the fundamental skills associated with writing themes and provides
learning sheets to accompany instruction. Research studies show the quantity and quality of students’ expression
of information greatly improves as a result of instruction in the Theme Writing Strategy. In one study, although
93
experimental students earned pretest scores that were significantly lower than those of comparison students, they
earned significantly higher scores at the end of the semester.
In addition, there were no significant differences between experimental and comparison groups’ English 101
grades and overall grade-point averages, even though experimental students entered college with poorer skills.
• The Error Monitoring Strategy can be used by students to independently detect and correct errors in their
written work to increase the overall quality of their final product. Instruction stresses the importance of
proofreading written work for content and mechanical errors and eliminating those errors before work is
submitted. This strategy also includes the development of personal strategies to avoid future errors. Research
results demonstrated that students who mastered this strategy dramatically increased their ability to find and
correct errors in their written products. Before instruction, they were making one error in every four words. After
instruction, they made only one error in every 20 words.
• The InSPECT Strategy can be used by students to detect and correct spelling errors in their documents either by
using a computerized spellchecker or a hand-held spelling device. Research results showed that students corrected
41 percent of the errors in their compositions before learning the InSPECT Strategy and corrected 75 percent of
the errors in their composition after learning the strategy.
STRATEGIES RELATED TO DEMONSTRATING COMPETENCE
• The Assignment Completion Strategy is designed to enable students to complete and hand in assignments on
time. The package consists of two books: the Instructor’s Manual, which provides step-by-step instruction for
teaching this strategy, and the Quality Quest Planner, a spiral-bound notebook designed specifically for student
use with the strategy. Each Instructor’s Manual comes with one Quality Quest Planner and contains the materials
needed to teach the strategy, including blank copies of the forms used with the planner. The planner contains
sufficient forms for recording, scheduling, and evaluating assignments for an entire academic year. Performance
results in general education classes showed that the number of students who simply turned in their assignments
before learning the Assignment Completion Strategy was 43 percent, with the percentage increasing to 77 percent
after students learned the strategy. Before learning the strategy, the number of students who did the assignment
correctly was 45 percent. After learning the strategy, the number of students who did the assignment correctly
increased to 73 percent.
• Strategic Tutoring describes a new vision of the tutoring process in which the tutor not only helps the student
complete and understand the immediate assignment but also teaches the student the strategies required to
complete similar tasks independently in the future. Research results showed that the students in Strategic Tutoring
improved their achievement test scores in reading comprehension, written expression, and basic math skills. On
average, their grade-level achievement scores increased by 10 months during a four-month instructional period. In
contrast, the students in the comparison group without the Strategic Tutoring instruction experienced a mean gain
of only 3.5 months during the same period.
• The Test-Taking Strategy is designed to be used while taking classroom tests. Students allocate time and priority
to each section of the test, carefully read and focus on important elements in the test instructions, recall
information by accessing mnemonic devices, systematically and quickly progress through a test, make wellinformed guesses, check their work, and take control of the testing situation. The emphasis is on teaching
adolescents and adults who struggle with learning. In studies, students who learned the Test-Taking Strategy
achieved an average 10-point increase on tests.
94
STRATEGIES RELATED TO SOCIAL INTERACTION
• SLANT: A Starter Strategy for Class Participation is a simple, easy-to-teach strategy designed to help students
learn how to use appropriate posture, track the talker, activate their thinking, and contribute information.
• Cooperative Thinking Strategies:
– The THINK Strategy is used by students working together in teams to systematically solve problems. The research
studies in which this strategy was used developed school improvement goals in which problem solving, reasoning,
and communicating were major targeted areas. Results showed that the mean percentage of points earned by the
groups before instruction was the same for experimental and comparison groups at 34 percent. However, at the
end of the school year, the mean percentage score for the experimental groups was 84 percent and for the
comparison groups 39 percent.
The LEARN Strategy was designed to enable students to work in teams to learn together. Each step promotes
creative cooperation; students think together to generate ideas to help them learn. Research results indicated that
students in the experimental classes performed a significantly higher percentage of study behaviors than
comparison students in their cooperative study groups at the end of the school year. Experimental group pretest
scores averaged 18 percent with posttest scores averaging 70 percent. The comparison group pretest score
average was 27 percent with the posttest score average 35 percent.
– The BUILD Strategy is a strategy students can use to work together to resolve a controversial issue. The purpose
of the strategy is to enable students to work together to make decisions using a process similar to a debate.
Research results showed that the average score for students in the experimental group from the observational
measure and products written by students as they discussed the issue was 21.4 percent on the pretest and 80.1
percent after learning the BUILD Strategy. The comparison group that did not learn the strategy scored 15.1
percent on the pretest and 19.6 percent on the posttest.
– SCORE Skills: Social Skills for Cooperative Groups describes a set of social skills that are fundamental to effective
groups. Students learn to share ideas, compliment others, offer help or encouragement, recommend changes
nicely, and exercise self-control. Results showed the mean percentage of cooperative skills used by students in
cooperative groups in class before learning SCORE was 25 percent. The mean percentage increased to 78 percent
after learning SCORE. The students in the comparison group that had no instruction in SCORE had average scores
of 25 percent and 28 percent for the cooperative skills they used in the cooperative groups.
– The Teamwork Strategy provides a framework for organizing and completing tasks in small groups. Students
analyze an assignment and divide it into specific tasks, equitably assign those tasks to individuals, offer and request
help to complete the individual jobs, ask for and give feedback to other group members, assemble the individual
jobs into one product, and evaluate the process used to complete the project and assess the interpersonal skills of
group members. In field tests, students in experimental classes increased their use of cooperative skills
dramatically, from one-quarter to one-third of identified skills to three-quarters of the skills. Some groups chose
not to use the strategy for some tasks. When students used the strategy, cooperative skill performance was close
to 100 percent.
• The Community Building Series: In this series, the general goal is to create safe and supportive learning
environments for students with disabilities in inclusive classes. This is done through teaching students
about concepts such as respect and tolerance and providing each student a partner who can provide
support during the learning process.
– Focusing Together is an instructional program that promotes self-management skills in association with a set of
classroom expectations that defines responsible work habits, respect, and emotional and physical safety. Students
learn how to live by a set of learning community expectations; how their choice of whether or not to abide by
those expectations affects their personal power; and how to follow a self-management strategy for staying on task
when they must work independently or in small groups. In research studies, students in experimental classes
reduced the number of off-task behaviors during the time they were expected to work independently (from a
95
mean of 21 to a mean of 4.5 per 45-minute period; comparison class means were 21.9 and 18.3). Students in
experimental classes were more pleased with the classroom management procedures used by their teachers.
Teachers in experimental classes reported a 72 percent reduction of rule infractions, while comparison teachers
reported no change. Teachers in experimental classes also were more satisfied with the program and their
students’ behavior.
– Following Instructions Together is designed to teach students concepts and strategies associated with following
instructions effectively. In a field test involving 20 elementary teachers and their students, significant differences
were found between students who participated in the Following Instructions Together program (experimental
group) and students who did not (comparison group). Experimental students answered significantly more
questions correctly about community concepts and followed complex instructions significantly more accurately
than comparison students.
– Organizing Together is a program that can be used to provide instruction in some basic strategies associated with
keeping notebooks, schedules/calendars, desks, lockers/cubbies, and backpacks organized. In a field test involving
six elementary teachers and their students, significant differences were found between the students who
participated in the Organizing Together program (experimental group) and those who did not. Experimental
students answered significantly more questions correctly about community concepts, they understood and could
more accurately use a weekly calendar, and their notebooks, desks, backpacks, and lockers were significantly more
organized than those of comparison students.
– Taking Notes Together is a program that can be used to teach students a simple strategy for taking notes in
response to a variety of stimuli, including lectures, demonstrations, movies/videotapes, and reading assignments.
In a field test involving 12 teachers and their elementary students, significant differences were found between
students who participated in the Taking Notes Together program (experimental group) and students who did not
(comparison group). Experimental students answered significantly more questions correctly about community
concepts, and they understood and could more accurately and comprehensively take notes related to lectures,
reading assignments, videotapes, and demonstrations than comparison students.
– Talking Together is an instructional program designed for introducing the concept of learning community to
students and for teaching them how to participate respectfully in class discussions.
In a research study involving 20 teachers and 377 students, results showed that students in experimental classes
that had participated in Talking Together lessons knew significantly more about how to create a classroom
community, participated more frequently, and engaged in fewer behaviors that would disrupt a discussion than
the comparison classes.
STRATEGIES RELATED TO MOTIVATION
• The Self-Advocacy Strategy can be used by students when preparing for and participating in any type of
conference, including education and transition planning conferences (IEP or ITP conferences). Strategy steps
provide a way of getting organized before a conference and effective communication techniques to use during the
conference. When students learned the Self-Advocacy Strategy, 86 percent of the goals they most valued were
found in their IEPs. Students who had not learned the Self-Advocacy Strategy had only 13 percent of their desired
goals in their IEPs.
• Possible Selves is designed to increase student motivation by having students examine their futures and think
about goals that are important to them. Students think about and describe their hoped-for possible selves,
expected possible selves, and feared possible selves. They set goals, create plans, and work toward their goals as
part of this program. In research studies, students in the Possible Selves condition scored significantly higher than
students in the control group on measures of goal identification. In one study, at the end of six years, the students
in the Possible Selves group had earned higher grade-point averages than the students in other groups.
96
STRATEGIES RELATED TO MATH
• The Strategic Math Series focuses on how to teach basic math facts and operations to students of any age.
Content is built upon the concrete-representational-abstract method of instruction. In this approach,
understanding of mathematics is developed through the use of concrete objects, representational drawings, and
an easy-to-learn strategy that turns all students into active problem solvers. The series includes Addition Facts 0 to
9, Addition Facts 10 to 18, Subtraction Facts 0 to 9, Subtraction Facts 10 to 18, Multiplication Facts 0 to 81, Division
Facts 0 to 81, and Place Value.
97
Content Enhancement
The research took place in public schools, primarily in middle and high school settings, and the routines
were field tested by teachers. The routines were designed for use during group instruction to help a
teacher provide instruction more sensitive to the learning needs of individuals in the group. A
combination of instructional models involving general education teachers and special education
teachers, individually and collaboratively, have been successfully tested. All of the routines are taught
using a standard set of instructional procedures, which define the necessary instructional conditions
needed regardless of where the routine is used.
ROUTINES FOR PLANNING & LEADING LEARNING
• The Course Organizer Routine is used to plan courses around essential learning and critical concepts. The teacher
uses the routine to introduce the course and the rituals that will be used throughout the course. The teacher then
uses this framework throughout the year to maintain the big ideas and rituals. Research showed that the use of
the Course Organizer Routine helps teachers and students keep the big ideas in mind and focus their attention to
understand important relationships. Instruction results in learning more about the big picture and less in trying to
cover large amounts of information. Teachers using the routine spent more time introducing major course ideas,
concepts, themes, and routines to students than did the comparison teachers who did not learn the routine.
Students with LD answered an average of three “big idea” course questions correctly at the beginning of the year.
Students with LD in the class that used the Course Organizer answered correctly an average of eight “big idea”
questions by the end of the course while students with LD in the class that did not use the Course Organizer
answered only an average of four of the “big idea” questions correctly. • The Unit Organizer Routine is used to plan
units; introduce and maintain the big ideas in units; and show how units, critical information, and concepts are
related. Research results showed that when teachers used the Unit Organizer Routine, understanding and
retention of information by low-achieving students, students with learning disabilities, and average-achieving
students improved substantially over baseline as reflected in unit test scores and in scores on unit content maps
and explanations of these maps. Students of teachers who used the Unit Organizer Routine regularly and
consistently scored an average of 15 percentage points higher on unit tests than students of teachers who used it
only irregularly.
• The Lesson Organizer Routine is used to plan lessons and then introduce and connect ideas to the unit and the
course. Research has shown that regular, explicit, and flexible use of the lesson organizer routine by secondary
classroom teachers can have a significant influence on student learning. Studies showed that use of the routine
increased student learning and performance. Research results showed that the students of teachers who used the
Lesson Organizer Routine regularly and consistently scored an average of 15 percentage points higher on unit tests
than students of teachers who used it irregularly.
98
ROUTINES FOR EXPLORING TEXT, TOPICS, AND DETAILS
• The Clarifying Routine is used to focus on a topic and then explore related details and the topic’s importance to
the critical ideas and concepts. Using this routine, teachers can help students master the meaning of targeted
words and phrases. Studies in upper-elementary and middle-school general education classes composed of highly
diverse student populations, including students with learning disabilities and those for whom English is a second
language, have shown that students benefit from teacher use of the routine. When teachers used the Clarifying
Routine, high socioeconomic level students improved their number of correct answers by an average of 14
percentage points, middle socioeconomic level students by an average of 30 percentage points, and low
socioeconomic level students by an average of 20 percentage points.
• The Framing Routine is used to transform abstract main ideas and key topics into a concrete representation that
helps students think and talk about the key topic and essential related information. Research results have
consistently demonstrated that the routine can effectively facilitate subject-matter learning as well as the
development of literacy and thinking skills. In a study focusing on written products of 35 eighth-grade students,
students who were taught with the Framing Routine wrote an average of 102 words more per product than did the
students who were in the comparison group.
• The ORDER Routine is used to organize and make sense of information once it has been “received.” Students take
a second pass at new information, think about what they have just learned or read, understand how it all fits
together, look for any missing information or errors in their notes, and begin to apply it by trying to fit it all
together to make a graphic organizer. The ORDER Routine was studied in intermediate and secondary classes
(grades 7 to 12) characterized by diversity. In each study, teachers and researchers observed student learning
gains. In one study, students without LD in the ORDER classes far outperformed comparison students during the
posttest, even though comparison students, on average, earned more points during the pretest. Average gains for
students with LD in the ORDER classes also were greater than those of students in comparison classes.
• The Survey Routine provides an overview of a reading assignment when students are having difficulty reading
and sorting out information from inconsiderate text. Research has shown that students with LD and other lowachieving students as well as average- and high-achieving students correctly answered an average of 10 percent to
15 percent more of their test questions when the Survey Routine was used than when the Survey Routine was not
used.
ROUTINES FOR TEACHING CONCEPTS
• The Concept Anchoring Routine is used to introduce and anchor a new concept to a concept that is already
familiar to students. In research studies with students in secondary science and social studies classes, highachieving, average-achieving, and low-achieving students (including those with learning disabilities) who had been
taught with the Concept Anchoring Routine correctly answered more test questions than students who had not
received the routine instruction. Students with LD taught with the Concept Anchoring Routine scored an average of
25 percentage points higher than those who were not taught with the routine. Low-achieving, average-achieving,
and high-achieving students taught with the Concept Anchoring Routine scored averages of 27, 19, and 7
percentage points higher than their respective groups that were not taught with the routine.
• The Concept Comparison Routine is used to help students compare and contrast key concepts. Research with
students enrolled in general secondary science and social studies classes showed that students correctly answered
substantially more test questions related to information that had been presented through the use of the routine
than test questions related to information presented using traditional teaching methods. Students with LD and
other low-achieving students correctly answered an average of 71.2 percent (LD) and 86.4 percent (NLD) of the
test questions associated with information presented through the use of the routine, compared to 56.7 percent
99
(LD) and 62.6 percent (NLD) of the questions associated with information presented through traditional means.
The experimental study involved 107 students.
• The Concept Mastery Routine is used to define, summarize, and explain a major concept and where it fits within
a larger body of knowledge. Research shows that secondary teacher use of the routine benefits the student in
several ways. First, students scored significantly better on tests designed to assess concept acquisition. Second,
students scored significantly better on regularly scheduled, teacher-made or commercial unit tests during the
enhancement condition than during baseline. Gains by students with LD (from a mean score of 60 percent to 71
percent) were comparable to those of their NLD peers (from a mean score of 72 percent to 87 percent) on these
regular tests. The percentage of students with LD who passed increased from 57 percent to 75 percent; the
percentage of NLD students who passed increased from 68 percent to 97 percent. Third, the students took better
notes during the enhancement condition than before using the routine.
ROUTINES FOR INCREASING PERFORMANCE
• The Quality Assignment Routine is used to plan, present, and engage students in quality assignments and then
evaluate assignments with students. In a research study, teachers and students completed surveys and groups of
teachers and students participated in focus groups. From these activities, researchers identified characteristics of
good assignments and the important elements such as planning behaviors, presentation behaviors, and evaluation
procedures. Research study results showed the following: Before the study, teachers were observed to include an
average of 50.5 percent of the planning behaviors, 32.8 percent of the presentation behaviors, and 8.2 percent of
the evaluation procedures. After the intervention, participants used an average of 96.1 percent of the planning
behaviors, 89.3 percent of the presentation behaviors, and 93.8 percent of the evaluation procedures. In contrast,
a group of comparison teachers used an average of 45 percent of the planning behaviors, 26 percent of the
assignment presentation behaviors, and 10 percent of the evaluation procedures at the end of the study. Teachers
who received instruction in the use of the routine and their students were significantly more satisfied with
assignments.
• The Question Exploration Routine is a package of instructional methods that teachers can use to help a diverse
student population understand a body of content information by carefully answering a “critical question” to arrive
at a main idea answer. Research results showed that students who were taught a lesson using the Question
Exploration Routine earned an average test score of 70 percent while students who were taught the lesson with
traditional methods scored an average of 48 percent.
• The Recall Enhancement Routine focuses on procedures teachers can use to help students remember
information. A post-test only comparison group study indicated that performance of students was related to the
teacher’s use of the routine. Students with or without disabilities in the classes of teachers who used the routine
performed significantly better on test items that could best be addressed through the creation of the types of
Recall Devices that their teachers had presented than did students in the comparison classes. The recall
performance of both LD and NLD students in the experimental group was higher by 29.10 and 20.5 points,
respectively, than the performance of similar students in the control group on reviewed facts.
• The Vocabulary LINCing Routine is designed to facilitate student use of two powerful tools —an auditory memory
device and a visual memory device—that will help them learn and remember the meaning of complex terms.
Research results showed that students, including those with LD, improved their performance by an average of 19
percentage points on vocabulary tests.
NOTE:
Most Strategic Instruction Model instructional materials are available only in conjunction with professional development
provided by certified SIM Professional Developers. For more information, contact Louisiana Department of Education, 225-3420520 or KU-CRL's director of professional development at 785.864.4780 or crl@ku.edu.© 2007 of Kansas Center for Research
on
Learning
100
Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
The goal of education is not simply the mastery of knowledge; it is the mastery of learning.
Education should help turn novice learners into expert learners – individuals who know how to
learn, who want to learn, and who, in their own highly individual ways, are well prepared for a
lifetime of learning (CAST, 2009). Universal Design for Learning is not a “retrofit” when students
fail to succeed. It is a process that should be present in all stages of teaching and learning –
from the development of curriculum goals to lesson planning to assessment of student work.
Technology plays an important role in creating accessible environments where all students can
fully participate in the learning process, but is not the only means for creating flexibility. The
“universal” in Universal Design does not limit itself to one optimal solution for all. Instead, it
focuses on and brings an awareness of the distinctive nature of each learner and the need to
account for natural differences by creating learning experiences that will suit the learner and
maximize his ability to progress. Universal Design for Learning calls for: 1) Multiple means of
representation, to give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge, 2)
Multiple means of action and expression, to provide learners alternatives for demonstrating what
they know, and 3) Multiple means of engagement, to tap into learners' interests, offer
appropriate challenges, and increase motivation.
101
Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
Bibliographic Notation:
Universal Design for Learning is a concept developed by the Center for Applied Special
Technology (CAST), a leading authority on Universal Design for Learning and whose mission is
to expand educational opportunities for individuals with disabilities through the development and
innovative uses of technology.
Research into the UDL concept should begin at:
http://www.cast.org
Center for Applied Special Technology http://www.cast.org
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for
Learning. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Supplemental Links:
http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/
http://advocacyinstitute.org/UDL/CASTfaqs.shtml
http://www.nectac.org/topics/atech/udl.asp
.
102
103
Bridging the Gap through Universal Design for Learning
"Bridging the Gap through Universal Design for Learning" (UDL) is a DOE cross- division initiative for educators who
are committed to improving educational outcomes for all learners. The central practical premise of UDL is that a
curriculum should include alternatives to make it accessible and appropriate for individuals with different
backgrounds, learning styles, abilities, and disabilities in widely varied learning contexts. The "universal" in universal
design does not imply one optimal solution for everyone. Rather, it reflects an awareness of the unique nature of
each learner and the need to accommodate differences, creating learning experiences that suit the learner and
maximize his or her ability to progress. (CAST)
The goals of this professional development are: Identifying principles of UDL, applying UDL strategies to classroom
practices, using technologies that support UDL in the classroom, applying UDL to curriculum planning, and developing
concrete action plans for the continuous integration of UDL principles.
Districts that are interested in addressing the challenges of IDEA and learning how to make the general curriculum
accessible for all learners should participate in the online or the residential UDL institute. The suggested audience is
district and/or school-based teams. Team Membership for a District Team should include: Special Education Teacher,
Regular Education Teacher, Curriculum Supervisor, Special Education Supervisor and Technology Supervisor. A schoolbased team may also register for the online institute. The school team should include: Special Education Teacher,
Regular Education Teacher, Administrator, and Librarian/Media Specialist or Technology Specialist.
The institute is offered in two formats: face-to-face and online. The two designs will include the same content, just
presented in a different format.
The residential component of "Bridging the Gap" is designed to provide a hands-on experience that highlights UDL.
Participants will receive the Teaching Every Student through UDL Textbook, explore software with UDL features,
interact with other professionals from various schools and districts, review laws and legal parameters of IDEA, Section
504 and 508, and have the opportunity to develop a district or school-wide action plan.
The online institute will be conducted "anytime, anywhere" using a computer that has connectivity to the Internet.
The online component consists of weekly assignments, posting to the discussion board, and assigned readings.
Although online education provides a flexible environment for learning, there are certain skills that are necessary for
success. In an asynchronous course, the participant should possess self-discipline, good reading and writing skills, and
a willingness to work independently. If you have a school or district team that is interested in this style of learning and
have a desire to address the needs of all learners in a classroom, please register for "Bridging the Gap through
Universal Design for Learning" using the online registration provided on this website.
Districts and schools interested in face-2-face opportunities should contact Quentina Timoll or send an e-mail to the
address provided.
For additional information or answers to questions email:
UDL@ladoe.org
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
i
We welcome your feedback, comments and discussion.
Please post your comments at
http://udlguidelines.wordpress.com
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
ii
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING (UDL) GUIDELINES
Version 1.0
Table of Contents
Introduction ...............................................................................................................1
What are expert learners? .............................................................................................. 3
What is meant by the term curriculum?......................................................................... 3
What does it mean to say curricula are “disabled”? ...................................................... 4
How does UDL address and redress curricular disabilities? ........................................... 4
What evidence supports the practices of Universal Design for Learning? ..................... 5
How are the Guidelines organized and how should they be used? ............................... 6
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING GUIDELINES..........................................................7
Principle I. Provide Multiple Means of Representation.................................................. 8
Guideline 1: Provide options for perception .............................................................. 8
Guideline 2: Provide options for language and symbols .......................................... 10
Guideline 3: Provide options for comprehension ..................................................... 12
Principle II. Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression .................................... 15
Guideline 4: Provide options for physical action ...................................................... 15
Guideline 5: Provide options for expressive skills and fluency................................. 16
Guideline 6: Provide options for executive functions .............................................. 18
Principle III. Provide Multiple Means of Engagement .................................................. 21
Guideline 7: Provide options for recruiting interest ................................................. 21
Guideline 8: Provide options for sustaining effort and persistence ......................... 23
Guideline 9: Provide options for self-regulation ...................................................... 25
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
iii
Introduction
Introduction
The goal of education in the 21st century is not simply the mastery of knowledge. It is the
mastery of learning. Education should help turn novice learners into expert learners—individuals
who know how to learn, who want to learn, and who, in their own highly individual ways, are
well prepared for a lifetime of learning.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is an approach that addresses and redresses the primary
barrier to making expert learners of all students: inflexible, one-size-fits-all curricula that raise
unintentional barriers to learning. Learners with disabilities are most vulnerable to such barriers,
but many students without disabilities also find that curricula are poorly designed to meet their
learning needs.
Diversity is the norm, not the exception, wherever individuals are gathered, including schools.
When curricula are designed to meet the needs of the broad middle—at the exclusion of those
with different abilities, learning styles, backgrounds, and even preferences, they fail to provide
all individuals with fair and equal opportunities to learn.
Universal Design for Learning helps meet the challenge of diversity by suggesting flexible
instructional materials, techniques, and strategies that empower educators to meet these varied
needs. A universally designed curriculum is designed from the outset to meet the needs of the
greatest number of users, making costly, time-consuming, and after-the-fact changes to
curriculum unnecessary.
Three primary principles guide UDL—and provide structure for these Guidelines:



Principle I: Provide Multiple Means of Representation (the “what” of learning).
Students differ in the ways that they perceive and comprehend information that is
presented to them. For example, those with sensory disabilities (e.g., blindness or
deafness); learning disabilities (e.g., dyslexia); language or cultural differences, and so
forth may all require different ways of approaching content. Others may simply grasp
information better through visual or auditory means rather than printed text. In reality,
there is no one means of representation that will be optimal for all students; providing
options in representation is essential.
Principle II: Provide Multiple Means of Expression (the “how” of learning). Students
differ in the ways that they can navigate a learning environment and express what they
know. For example, individuals with significant motor disabilities (e.g. cerebral palsy),
those who struggle with strategic and organizational abilities (executive function
disorders, ADHD), those who have language barriers, and so forth approach learning
tasks very differently and will demonstrate their mastery very differently. Some may be
able to express themselves well in writing text but not oral speech, and vice versa. In
reality, there is no one means of expression that will be optimal for all students;
providing options for expression is essential.
Principle III: Provide Multiple Means of Engagement (the “why” of learning). Students
differ markedly in the ways in which they can be engaged or motivated to learn. Some
students are highly engaged by spontaneity and novelty while other are disengaged,
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
1
Introduction
even frightened, by those aspects, preferring strict routine. In reality, there is no one
means of representation that will be optimal for all students; providing multiple options
for engagement is essential.
At CAST (the Center for Applied Special Technology), we began working nearly 25 years ago to
develop ways to help students with disabilities gain access to the general education curriculum.
In the early years, we focused on helping individuals adapt or “fix” themselves – overcoming
their disabilities in order to learn within the general education curriculum. That work,
commonly focused on assistive technologies, is an important facet of any comprehensive
educational plan.
However, we also came to see that this focus on assistive technologies was too narrow. It
obscured the critical role of the environment in determining who is or who is not considered
“disabled.” In the 1990s, we shifted our focus towards the general curriculum and its limitations:
how do those limitations contribute to the “disabling” of our students?
This shift led to a simple, yet profound realization: the burden of adaptation should be first
placed on the curriculum, not the learner. Because most curricula are unable to adapt to
individual differences, we have come to recognize that our curricula, rather than our students,
are disabled.
CAST began in the early 1990s to research, develop, and articulate the principles and practices
of Universal Design for Learning. The term was inspired by the universal design concept from
architecture and product development pioneered by Ron Mace of North Carolina State
University in the 1980s, which aims to create built environments and tools that are usable by as
many people as possible. Of course, since people are not buildings or products, we approached
the universal design problem via the learning sciences. Thus, the UDL principles go deeper than
merely focusing on access to the classroom; they focus on access to learning as well.
This work has been carried out in collaboration with many talented and dedicated education
researchers, practitioners, and technologists. As the UDL field has grown, so has the demand
from stakeholders for Guidelines to help make applications of these principles and practices
more concrete.
These UDL Guidelines will assist curriculum developers (these may include teachers, publishers,
and others) in designing flexible curricula that reduce barriers to learning and provide robust
learning supports to meet the needs of all learners. They will also help educators evaluate both
new and existing curricula goals, media and materials, methods and assessments.
But first, some clarifications of terms and underlying concepts of UDL may be helpful for
understanding these Guidelines. These include:






What are expert learners?
What is meant by the term “curriculum”?
What does it mean to say that curricula are “disabled”?
How does UDL address and redress curricular disabilities?
What evidence supports the practices of UDL?
How are the UDL Guidelines organized and how should they be used
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
2
Introduction
The pedagogical, neuroscientific, and practical underpinnings of UDL are discussed at greater
length in books such as Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age by Rose & Meyer (ASCD, 2002),
The Universally Designed Classroom (Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock, Eds.; Harvard Education Press,
2005), and A Practical Reader in Universal Design for Learning (Rose & Meyer, Eds.; Harvard
Education Press, 2006).
What are expert learners? Expert learners are:
1. Strategic, goal-directed learners. They formulate plans for learning, devise effective
strategies and tactics to optimize learning; they organize resources and tools to facilitate
learning; they monitor their progress toward mastery; they recognize their own
strengths and weaknesses as learners; and they abandon plans and strategies that are
ineffective.
2. Resourceful, knowledgeable learners. They bring considerable prior knowledge to
new learning; they activate that prior knowledge to identify, organize, prioritize and
assimilate new information. They recognize the tools and resources that would help
them find, structure, and remember new information; and they know how to transform
new information into meaningful and useable knowledge.
3. Purposeful, motivated learners. Their goals are focused on mastery rather than
performance; they know how to set challenging learning goals for themselves and how
to sustain the effort and resilience that reaching those goals will require; they can
monitor and regulate emotional reactions that would be impediments or distractions to
their successful learning.
What is meant by the term curriculum?
In this document, curriculum (or curricula) is defined broadly to include four basic components:
1. Goals: The benchmarks or expectations for teaching and learning, often made explicit
in the form of a scope and sequence of skills to be addressed;
2. Methods: The specific instructional methods for the teacher, often described in a
teacher’s edition;
3. Materials: The media and tools that are used for teaching and learning;
4. Assessment: The reasons for and methods of measuring student progress.
The term curriculum is often used to describe only the goals, objectives, or plans, something
distinct from the “means” of methods, materials, and assessment. Yet since each of these
components are essential for effective learning—and since each includes hidden barriers that
undermine student efforts to become master learners—curriculum design should consider each
of them as a piece.
These guidelines apply to the general education curriculum which, when universally designed,
should meet the educational needs of most students, including those with disabilities. This
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
3
Introduction
document can help guide the design of expectations, content, methods, and outcomes across
differing classrooms in each school or system.
What does it mean to say curricula are “disabled”?
General education curricula are often disabled in the following ways:
1. They are disabled in WHO they can teach. Curricula are often not conceived, designed
or validated for use with the diverse populations of students which actually populate
our classrooms. Students “in the margins”—those with special needs or disabilities,
those who are “gifted and talented,” those who are English language learners, etc.—
often bear the brunt of curriculum devised for the happy medium.
2. They are disabled in WHAT they can teach. Curricula are often designed to deliver
information, or content, without consideration for the development of learning
strategies—the skills students need to comprehend, evaluate, synthesize, and transform
information into usable knowledge. Mainstream curricula are largely constructed
around print-based media, which are good at delivering narrative and expository
content (such as literature or history) to students who are facile with print but are not
ideal for domains—like math, science, and language—that require an understanding of
dynamic processes and relationships, computations, or procedures.
3. They are disabled in HOW they can teach. Curricula often provide for very limited
instructional options or modalities. Not only are they typically ill-equipped to
differentiate instruction for differing students, or even for the same student at different
levels of mastery, but they are handicapped by their inability to provide many of the key
elements of evidence-based pedagogy: the ability to highlight critical features or big
ideas, the ability to provide relevant background knowledge as needed, the ability to
actively model successful skills and strategies, the ability to monitor progress
dynamically, the ability to offer graduated scaffolding, and so forth. Present curricula
are typically much better designed to present information than to teach.
How does UDL address and redress curricular disabilities?
The usual process for making existing curricula more accessible is adaptation of curricula—and
especially instructional materials and methods—so that they are more accessible to students.
Often, teachers themselves are forced to make heroic attempts to adapt curricular elements
that were not designed to meet the learning needs of diverse students. The term “universal
design” is often mistakenly applied to such after-the-fact adaptations.
However, Universal Design for Learning refers to a process by which a curriculum (i.e., goals,
methods, materials, and assessments) is intentionally and systematically designed from the
beginning to address individual differences. With curricula that are universally designed, much
of the difficulties of subsequent “retrofitting” and adaptation can be reduced or eliminated–and
a better learning environment for all students can be implemented.
The challenge of diversity is not merely to differentiate the curriculum but to do so effectively.
To do that, UDL depends upon identifying practices that have proven effective not just for the
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
4
Introduction
“average” student, if such a student exists, but for those students who are distinctly “not
average”: students with disabilities, English language learners, students who have endured suboptimal instruction in the past, students who are “gifted and talented,” students who are
otherwise “in the margins.” Considerable research already exists that identifies evidence-based
optimal practices for students presently in the margins. Unfortunately, these best practices have
been sparsely available, typically provided only after students have already failed in the
mainstream curriculum. They are subsequently provided in separate remedial or special
placements where ties to the mainstream curriculum and its high standards have been severed
entirely. A UDL curriculum provides the means to repair those severed ties.
While the best educators have found ways to differentiate curriculum for thousands of years,
the field of UDL has benefited greatly from the recent advent of powerful digital technologies
that make it possible to more easily and effectively customize or personalize curriculum for
diverse students. Advances in technology and the learning sciences have made such “on-the-fly”
individualization of curricula possible in practical, cost-effective ways. Furthermore, learning and
demonstrating effective uses of new media is itself an important instructional outcome. New
media dominate our culture in the workforce, communication, and entertainment. Every
student now in school needs a much higher level of literacy than ever before, but also a literacy
that is much broader and more inductive of the media of our culture.
Consequently, the UDL Guidelines make frequent references to technology options for
implementing UDL.
What evidence supports the practices of Universal Design for Learning?
UDL is based upon the most widely replicated finding in educational research: students are
highly variable in their response to instruction. In virtually every report of research on
instruction or intervention, individual differences are not only evident in the results, they are
prominent. Rather than treat these individual differences as irrelevant (or even annoying)
sources of error variance, UDL treats them as main effects; they are fundamental to
understanding and designing effective instruction. Accordingly, to meet the challenge of high
standards, the UDL approach eschews “one size fits all” curriculum in favor of flexible designs
with customizable options to meet individual needs. Such options are varied and robust enough
to optimize instruction for diverse learners—the learners that are found in every classroom.
The research that supports UDL comes from three categories: first, there is the research basis
for the general principles of UDL. The three basic principles are derived from modern
neuroscience and the cognitive science of learning, but they also are deeply rooted in the
foundational work of Lev Vygotsky and Benjamin Bloom, who espoused nearly identical
principles for understanding individual differences and the pedagogies required for addressing
them. (For example, Vygotsky emphasized what is also a key point of a UDL curriculum—that
supports or “scaffolds” are not permanent but rather are gradually removed as an individual
becomes an expert learner—the way training wheels are unnecessary once are person has
successfully mastered bike-riding.)
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
5
Introduction
Second, there is the research identifying the specific practices that are critical to meeting the
challenge of individual differences—research that has been amassed over decades and by many
different researchers in many different universities and laboratories.
Third, there is the research on specific applications of UDL—this new area of research is in its
early stages but will take a more prominent place as full-scale curricular applications and
system-wide implementations are developed. Because the research on which these the UDL
guidelines are based would extend this summary unmanageably, we will be providing the
research associated with each guideline in a separate document on this website.
How are the Guidelines organized and how should they be used?
The UDL Guidelines are organized according to the three main principles of UDL that address
representation, expression, and engagement. For each of these areas, specific “Checkpoints” for
options are highlighted, followed by examples of practical suggestions.
Like UDL itself, these Guidelines are flexible and should be mixed and matched into the
curriculum as appropriate. The UDL Guidelines are not meant to be a “prescription” but a set of
strategies that can be employed to overcome the barriers inherent in most existing curricula.
They may serve as the basis for building in the options and the flexibility that are necessary to
maximize learning opportunities for all students. Educators may find that they are already
incorporating many of these guidelines into their practice.
The Guidelines presented here are a first draft; they are an outline or précis of what will
eventually emerge. While the UDL Guidelines will eventually address the whole curriculum in
depth, this first effort focuses most heavily on two curricular components: instructional
methods and materials. Admittedly, instructional goals and assessment do not receive adequate
consideration in this initial edition but will be in later versions.
These Guidelines are labeled Version 1.0 because we expect that as others contribute
suggestions, we will be able to revise and vastly improve them in future “editions.” Our
intention is to collect and synthesize comments from the field, weigh it against the latest
research evidence, and, in consultation with an editorial advisory board, make appropriate
changes, additions, and updates to the UDL Guidelines on a regular basis. This is just a beginning
but, we hope, a promising one for improving opportunities for all individuals to become expert
learners.
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
6
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
7
Principle I: Representation
UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING GUIDELINES
Principle I. Provide Multiple Means of Representation
Students differ in the ways that they perceive and comprehend information that is presented to
them. For example, those with sensory disabilities (e.g., blindness or deafness); learning
disabilities (e.g., dyslexia); language or cultural differences, and so forth may all require different
ways of approaching content. Others may simply grasp information better through visual or
auditory means rather than printed text. In reality, there is no one means of representation that
will be optimal for all students; providing options in representation is essential.
Guideline 1: Provide options for perception
To be effective in diverse classrooms, curricula must present information in ways that are
perceptible to all students. It is impossible to learn information that is imperceptible to the
learner, and difficult when information is presented in formats that require extraordinary effort
or assistance. To reduce barriers to learning, therefore, it is important to ensure that key
information is equally perceptible to all students by: 1) providing the same information through
different sensory modalities (e.g. through vision, or hearing, or touch); 2) providing information
in a format that will allow for adjustability by the user (e.g. text that can be enlarged, sounds
that can be amplified). Such multiple representations not only ensure that information is
accessible to students with particular sensory and perceptual disabilities, but also easier to
access for many others. When the same information, for example, is presented in both speech
and text, the complementary representations enhance comprehensibility for most students.
1.1 Options that customize the display of information
In print materials, the display of information is fixed, permanent, one size fits all. In
properly prepared digital materials, the display of the same information is very
malleable; it can easily be changed or transformed into a different display, providing
great opportunities for customizability. For example, a call-out box of background
information may be displayed in a different location, or enlarged, or emphasized by use
of color, or deleted entirely. Such malleability provides many options for increasing the
perceptual clarity and salience of information for a wide range of students and
adjustments for preferences of others. While these customizations are difficult with
print materials, they are commonly available automatically in digital materials.
Examples:
 Information should be displayed in a flexible format so that the following perceptual
features can be varied:
o the size of text or images
o the amplitude of speech or sound
o the contrast between background and text or image
o the color used for information or emphasis
o the speed or timing of video, animation, sound, simulations, etc
o the layout of visual or other elements
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
8
Principle I: Representation
1.2 Options that provide alternatives for auditory information
Sound is a particularly effective way to convey the impact or “energetics” of
information, which is why sound design is so important in movies and why the human
voice is particularly effective for conveying emotion and significance. However,
information conveyed solely through sound is not equally accessible to all students and
is especially inaccessible for students with hearing disabilities, for students who need
more time to process information, or for students who have memory difficulties. To
ensure that all students have equivalent access to learning, options should be available
for any information, including emphasis, presented aurally.
Examples:
 Text equivalents in the form of captions or automated speech-to-text (voice
recognition) for spoken language
 Visual analogues for emphasis and prosody (e.g. emoticons or symbols)
 Visual equivalents for sound effects or alerts
1.3 Options that provide alternatives for visual information
Graphics, Animations, or Video are often the optimal way to present information,
especially when the information is about the relationships between objects, actions,
numbers, or events. But such visual representations are not equally accessible to all
students, especially students with visual disabilities or those who are not familiar with
the graphical conventions employed. To ensure that all students have equal access to
that information, provide non-visual alternatives that use other modalities: text, touch,
or audition.
Examples:
 Descriptions (text or spoken) for all graphics, video or animations
 Touch equivalents (tactile graphics) for key visuals
 Physical objects and spatial models to convey perspective or interaction
Text is a special case of visual information. Since text is a visual representation of spoken
language, the transformation from text back into speech is among the most easily
accomplished methods for increasing accessibility. The advantage of text over speech is its
permanence, but providing text that is easily transformable into speech accomplishes that
permanence without sacrificing the advantages of speech. Digital synthetic text to speech is
increasingly effective but still disappoints in the ability to carry the valuable information in
prosody.
Examples:
 Properly formatted digital text (e.g. NIMAS, DAISY). Such text can be automatically
transformed into other modalities (e.g. into speech by using speech by text-tospeech software or into touch by using refreshable Braille devices) and navigated
efficiently by ScreenReaders
 A competent aide, partner, or “intervener” who can read text aloud as needed
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
9
Principle I: Representation
Guideline 2: Provide options for language and symbols
Students vary in their facility with different forms of representation – both linguistic and nonlinguistic. Vocabulary that may sharpen and clarify concepts for one student may be opaque
and foreign to another. A graph that illustrates the relationship between two variables may be
informative to one student and inaccessible or puzzling to another. A picture or image that
carries meaning for some students may carry very different meanings for students from differing
cultural or familial backgrounds. As a result, inequalities arise when information is presented to
all students through a single form of representation. An important instructional strategy is to
ensure that alternative representations are provided not only for accessibility, but for clarity and
comprehensibility across all students.
2.1 Options that define vocabulary and symbols
The semantic elements through which information is presented – the words, symbols,
and icons – are differentially accessible to students with varying backgrounds,
languages, lexical knowledge, and disabilities. To ensure accessibility for all, key
vocabulary, labels, icons, and symbols should be linked to, or associated with, alternate
representations of their meaning (e.g. an embedded glossary or definition, a graphic
equivalent). Idioms, archaic expressions, culturally exclusive phrases, and slang, are
translated.
Examples:
 Pre-teach vocabulary and symbols, especially in ways that promote connection
to the students’ lived experiences and prior knowledge
 Highlight how complex expressions are composed of simpler words or symbols
(e.g. “power – less – ness”)
 Embed support for vocabulary and symbols within the text (e.g. hyperlinks or
footnotes to definitions, explanations, illustrations, previous coverage)
 Embed support for unfamiliar references (e.g. domain specific notation, idioms,
figurative language, jargon, archaic language, colloquialism, and dialect) within
the text
2.2 Options that clarify syntax and structure
Single elements of meaning (like words or numbers) can be combined to make new
meanings. Those new meanings, however, depend upon understanding the rules or
structures (like syntax in a sentence, or the conventions of a formula) with which those
elements are combined. When the syntax of a sentence or the structure of a graphical
presentation is not obvious or familiar to students, intelligibility suffers. To ensure that
all students have equal access to information, provide alternative representations that
clarify, or make more explicit, the syntactic or structural relationships between
elements of meaning.
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
10
Principle I: Representation
Examples:
 Complex syntax (in language or in math formulas) or underlying structure (in
diagrams, graphs, illustrations, extended expositions or narratives) is clarified
through alternatives that:
o highlight structural relations or make them more explicit
o offer less complex alternatives
o make relationships between elements explicit (e.g. highlighting the
transition words in an essay, antecedents for anaphoric references, links
between ideas in a concept map, etc.)
2.3 Options for decoding text or mathematical notation
The ability to fluently decode words, numbers or symbols that have been presented in
an encoded format (e.g. visual symbols for text, haptic symbols for Braille, algebraic
numbers for quantity) takes years of practice for any student, and some students never
reach automaticity. That lack of fluency or automaticity greatly increases the cognitive
load of decoding, thereby reducing the capacity for information processing and
comprehension. To ensure that all students have equal access to knowledge, at least
when the ability to decode is not the focus of instruction, it is important to provide
options that reduce the barriers that decoding raises for students who are unfamiliar or
dysfluent with the symbols.
Examples:
 Digital text used with automatic text-to-speech programs
 Digital mathematical notation (Math ML) with automatic voicing
 Digital text with accompanying human voice recording (e.g. Daisy Talking Books)
2.4 Options that promote cross-linguistic understanding
The language of curricular materials is usually monolingual, but the students in the
classroom often are not. Especially for new learners of the dominant language (e.g.,
English in American schools) the accessibility of information is greatly reduced when no
linguistic alternatives are available that provide entry points for non-native speakers of
the dominant language, or students with limited English proficiency. Providing
alternatives as an option, especially for key information or vocabulary is an important
aspect of accessibility.
Examples:
 Make all key information in the dominant language (e.g. English) also available
in first languages (e.g. Spanish) for students with limited-English proficiency and
in ASL for students who are deaf whenever possible
 Link key vocabulary words to definitions and pronunciations in both dominant
and heritage languages
 Define domain-specific vocabulary (e.g. “matter” in English, “material” in
Spanish) using both domain-specific and common terms
 Provide electronic translation tools or links to multilingual glossaries on the
web. (e.g., www.google.com/translate)
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
11
Principle I: Representation
2.5 Options that illustrate key concepts non-linguistically
Classroom materials are often dominated by information in text. But text is a weak
format for presenting many concepts and for explicating most processes. Furthermore,
text is a particularly weak form of presentation for students who have text- or languagerelated disabilities. Providing alternatives - especially illustrations, simulations, images
or interactive graphics – can make the information in text more comprehensible for any
student and accessible for some who would find it completely inaccessible in text.
Examples:
 Key concepts presented in one form of symbolic representation (e.g. an
expository text or a math equation) are complemented with an alternative form
(e.g. an illustration, diagram, model, video, comic strip, storyboard, photograph,
animation, physical or virtual manipulative)
 Key concepts presented in illustrations or diagrams are complemented with
verbal equivalents, explanations, or enhancements
 Explicit links are made between information provided in texts and any
accompanying representation of that information in illustrations, charts, or
diagrams
Guideline 3: Provide options for comprehension
The purpose of education is not to make information accessible (that is the purpose of libraries),
but to teach students how to transform accessible information into useable knowledge.
Decades of cognitive science research has demonstrated that the capability to transform
accessible information into useable knowledge is not a passive process but an active one.
Constructing useable knowledge, knowledge that is accessible for future decision-making,
depends not upon merely perceiving information but upon active “information processing skills”
like selective attending, integrating new information with prior knowledge, strategic
categorization, and active memorization. Individuals differ greatly in their skills in information
processing and in their access to prior knowledge through which they can assimilate new
information. Proper design and presentation of information – the responsibility of any
curriculum or instructional methodology - can provide the cognitive ramps that are necessary to
ensure that all students have access to knowledge.
3.1 Options that provide or activate background knowledge
Information – facts, concepts, principles, or ideas - is more accessible and open to
assimilation as knowledge when it is presented in a way that primes, activates, or
provides any pre-requisite knowledge. Differential barriers and inequities exist when
some students lack the background knowledge that is critical to assimilating or using
new information (e.g. knowing the rules that underlie math operations). Those barriers
can be reduced when options are available that supply or activate relevant prior
knowledge, or link to the pre-requisite information elsewhere.
Examples:
 Anchoring instruction by activating relevant prior knowledge (e.g. using visual
imagery, concept anchoring, or concept mastery routines)
 Using advanced organizers (e.g. KWL methods, concept maps)
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
12
Principle I: Representation


Pre-teaching critical prerequisite concepts through demonstration or models,
concrete objects
Bridging with relevant analogies and metaphors
3.2. Options that highlight critical features, big ideas, and relationships
One of the big differences between experts and novices (including those with
disabilities) in any domain is the facility with which they distinguish what is critical from
what is unimportant or irrelevant. Because experts quickly recognize the most
important features in information, they allocate their time efficiently, quickly identifying
what is valuable and finding the right “hooks” with which to assimilate that most
valuable information into existing knowledge. As a consequence, one of the most
effective ways to make information more accessible is to provide explicit cues or
prompts that assist individuals in attending to those features that matter most while
avoiding those that matter least. Depending on the goal of the lesson, highlighting may
emphasize 1) the critical features that distinguish one concept from another, 2) the “big
ideas” that organize domains of information, 3) the relationships between disparate
concepts and ideas, 4) the relationships between new information and prior knowledge
to build networks and contexts in which the new information has meaning.
Examples:
 Highlight or emphasize key elements in text, graphics, diagrams, formulas
 Use outlines, graphic organizers, unit organizer routines, concept organizer
routines and concept mastery routines to emphasize key ideas and relationships
 Use multiple examples and non-examples to emphasize critical features
 Reduce background of extraneous features, use masking of non-relevant
features
 Use cues and prompts to draw attention to critical features
3.3 Options that guide information processing
Successful transformation of information into useable knowledge often requires the
application of mental strategies and skills for “processing” that information. These
cognitive, or meta-cognitive, strategies involve the selection and manipulation of
information so that it can be better summarized, categorized, prioritized, contextualized
and remembered. While some students in any classroom may have a full repertoire of
these strategies, along with the knowledge of when to apply them, most students do
not. For those latter students, one of the most beneficial interventions is to teach them
explicitly those strategies and have them practice in their appropriate use in context.
Well-designed materials can provide customized and embedded models, scaffolds, and
feedback to assist students who have very diverse abilities and disabilities in using those
strategies effectively.
Examples:
 Explicit prompts for each step in a sequential process
 Interactive models that guide exploration and inspection
 Graduated scaffolds that support information processing strategies
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
13
Principle I: Representation



Multiple entry points to a lesson and optional pathways through content
Chunking information into smaller elements
Progressive release of information, sequential highlighting
3.4 Options that support memory and transfer
While each of the cognitive scaffolds described above is likely to enhance retention for
some students, others have weaknesses or disabilities that will require explicit supports
for memory and transfer in order to improve cognitive accessibility. Supports for
memory and transfer include techniques that are designed to heighten the
memorability of information as well as those that prompt and guide students to employ
explicit mnemonic strategies.
Examples:
 Checklists, organizers, sticky notes, electronic reminders
 Prompts for using mnemonic strategies and devices (e.g. visual imagery,
paraphrasing strategies, method of loci, etc.)
 Explicit opportunities for spaced review and practice
 Templates, graphic organizers, concept maps to support note-making
 Scaffolding that connects new information to prior knowledge (e.g. word webs,
half-full concept maps)
 Embedding new ideas in familiar ideas and contexts, use of analogy, metaphor
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
14
Principle II: Expression
Principle II. Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression
Students differ in the ways that they can navigate a learning environment and express what they
know. For example, individuals with significant motor disabilities (e.g. cerebral palsy), those who
struggle with strategic and organizational abilities (executive function disorders, ADHD), those
who have language barriers, and so forth approach learning tasks very differently. Some may be
able to express themselves well in writing text but not oral speech, and vice versa. In reality,
there is no one means of expression that will be optimal for all students; providing options for
expression is essential.
Guideline 4: Provide options for physical action
A textbook or workbook in a print format provides limited means of navigation or physical
interaction (e.g. by turning pages with fingers, handwriting in spaces provided). Many
interactive pieces of educational software similarly provide only limited means of navigation or
interaction (e.g. via dexterously manipulating a joystick or keyboard). Navigation and
interaction in those limited ways will raise barriers for some students – those who are physically
disabled, blind, dysgraphic, or who have various kinds of executive function disorders. It is
important to provide materials with which all students can interact. Properly designed
curricular materials provide a seamless interface with common assistive technologies through
which individuals with motor disabilities can navigate and express what they know – to allow
navigation or interaction with a single switch, through voice activated switches, expanded
keyboards and others.
4.1 Options in the mode of physical response
Students differ widely in their motor capacity and dexterity. To reduce barriers to
learning that would be introduced by the differential motor demands of a particular
task, provide alternative means for response, selection, and composition.
Examples:


Provide alternatives in the requirements for rate, timing, amplitude and range
of motor action required to interact with instructional materials, physical
manipulatives, and technologies
Provide alternatives for physically responding or indicating selections among
alternatives (e.g. alternatives to marking with pen and pencil, to mouse control)
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
15
Principle II: Expression
4.2 Options in the means of navigation
Students differ widely in their optimal means for navigating through information and
activities. To provide equal opportunity for interaction with learning experiences, ensure
that there are multiple means for navigating so that navigation and control is accessible
to all students.
Examples:

Provide alternatives for physically interacting with materials:
o by hand
o by voice
o by single switch
o by joystick
o by keyboard or adapted keyboard
4.3 Options for accessing tools and assistive technologies
Significant numbers of students consistently use assistive technologies for navigation,
interaction, and composition. It is critical that instructional technologies and curricula
not impose inadvertent barriers to the use of these assistive technologies that would
interfere with instructional progress. An important design consideration, for example, is
to ensure that there are keyboard commands for any mouse action so that students can
use common assistive technologies that depend upon those commands. It is also
important, however, to ensure that making a lesson physically accessible does not
inadvertently remove its challenge to learning. The goal is not to make answers
physically accessible, but to make the learning that underlies those answers accessible.
Examples:




Keyboard commands for mouse action
Switch options
Alternative keyboards
Customized overlays for touch screens and keyboards
Guideline 5: Provide options for expressive skills and fluency
There is no medium of expression that is equally suited for all students or for all kinds of
communication. On the contrary, there are media which seem poorly suited for some kinds of
expression, and for some kinds of students. While a student with dyslexia may excel at storytelling in conversation, he may falter drastically when telling that same story in writing.
Alternative modalities for expression should be provided both to level the playing field among
students, and to introduce all students to the full range of media that are important for
communication and literacy in our multimedia culture. Additionally, students vary widely in
their familiarity and fluency with the conventions of any one medium. Within media, therefore,
alternative supports should be available to scaffold and guide students who are at different
levels of their apprenticeships in learning to express themselves competently.
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
16
Principle II: Expression
5.1 Options in the media for communication
Unless specific media and materials are critical to an objective (e.g. the objective is to
learn to paint specifically with oils, or to learn to handwrite with calligraphy) it is
important to provide alternative media for expression. Such alternatives reduce mediaspecific barriers to expression among students with a variety of special needs but also
increase the opportunities for all students to develop a wider palette of expression in a
media-rich world. For example, it is important for all students to learn composition, not
just writing, and to learn the optimal medium for any particular content of expression
and audience.
Examples:

Composing in multiple media:
o text
o speech
o drawing, illustration, design
o physical manipulatives (e.g. blocks, 3D models)
o film or video
o multimedia (Web designs, storyboards, comic strips)
o music, visual art, sculpture
5.2 Options in the tools for composition and problem solving
There is a pervasive tendency in schooling to focus on traditional tools for literacy rather
than contemporary ones. This tendency has several liabilities: 1) It does not prepare
students for their future; 2) It limits the range of content and teaching methodologies
that can be implemented; and, most importantly, 3) It constricts the kinds of students
who can be successful. Modern media tools provide a more flexible and accessible
toolkit with which students with a variety of abilities and disabilities can more
successfully articulate what they know. Unless a lesson is focused on learning to use a
specific tool (e.g. learning to draw with a compass), curricula should allow many
alternatives. Like any craftsman, students should learn to use tools that are an optimal
match between their abilities and the task demands.
Examples:






Spellcheckers, grammar checkers, word prediction software
Speech to Text software (voice recognition), human dictation, recording
Calculators, graphing calculators, geometric sketchpads
Sentence starters, sentence strips
Story webs, outlining tools, concept mapping tools
Computer-Aided-Design (CAD), Music notation (writing) software
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
17
Principle II: Expression
5.3 Options in the scaffolds for practice and performance
Students who are developing a target skill often need multiple scaffolds and graduated
supports to assist them as they practice and develop independence. Those same
scaffolds that are important for any novice are often critical for students with disabilities
in both practice and performance. Curricula should offer alternatives in the degrees of
freedom available, with highly scaffolded and supported opportunities (e.g., templates,
physical and mnemonic scaffolds, procedural checklists, etc.) provided for some
followed by gradual release and wide degrees of freedom for others who are ready for
independence.
Examples:




Provide differentiated models to emulate (i.e. models that demonstrate the
same outcomes but use differing approaches, strategies, skills, etc.)
Provide differentiated mentors (i.e., teachers/tutors who use different
approaches to motivate, guide, feedback or inform)
Provide scaffolds that can be gradually released with increasing independence
and skills (e.g. embedded into digital reading and writing software)
Provide differentiated feedback (e.g. feedback that is accessible because it can
be customized to individual learners – see also Guideline 6.4)
Guideline 6: Provide options for executive functions
At the highest level of the human capacity to act skillfully are the so-called “executive
functions.” Associated with prefrontal cortex in the brain, these capabilities allow humans to
overcome impulsive, short-term reactions to their environment and instead to set long-term
goals, plan effective strategies for reaching those goals, monitor their progress, and modify
strategies as needed. Of critical importance to educators is the fact that executive functions
have very limited capacity and are especially vulnerable to disability. This is true because
executive capacity is sharply reduced when: 1) executive functioning capacity must be devoted
to managing “lower level” skills and responses which are not automatic or fluent (due to either
disability or inexperience) and thus the capacity for “higher level” functions is taken; and 2)
executive capacity itself is reduced due to some sort of higher level disability or to lack of
fluency with executive strategies. The UDL approach typically involves efforts to expand
executive capacity in two ways: 1) by scaffolding lower level skills so that they require less
executive processing; and 2) by scaffolding higher level executive skills and strategies so that
they are more effective and developed. Previous guidelines have addressed lower level
scaffolding, this guideline addresses ways to provide scaffolding for executive functions
themselves.
6.1 Options that guide effective goal-setting
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
18
Principle II: Expression
When left on their own, most students - especially those who are immature or who
have disabilities that affect executive function - set learning and performance goals for
themselves that are inappropriate or unreachable. The most common remedy is to have
adults set goals and objectives for them. That short-term remedy, however, does little
to develop new skills or strategies in any student, and does even less to support
students with executive function weaknesses. A UDL approach embeds graduated
scaffolds for learning to set personal goals that are both challenging and realistic right in
the curriculum
Examples:



Prompts and scaffolds to estimate effort, resources, and difficulty
Models or examples of the process and product of goal-setting
Guides and checklists for scaffolding goal-setting
6.2 Options that support planning and strategy development
Once a goal is set, effective learners and problem-solvers plan a strategy for reaching
that goal. For young children in any domain, older students in a new domain, or any
student with one of the disabilities that compromise executive functions (e.g. ADHD,
ADD, Autism Spectrum Disorders), the strategic planning step is often omitted and
impulsive trial and error trials take its place. To help students become more plan-full
and strategic a variety of options – cognitive “speed bumps” that prompt them to “stop
and think;” graduated scaffolds that help them actually implement strategies;
engagement in decision-making with competent mentors – are needed.
Examples:




Embedded prompts to “stop and think” before acting
Checklists and project planning templates for setting up prioritization,
sequences and schedules of steps
Embedded coaches or mentors that model think-alouds of the process
Guides for breaking long-term goals into reachable short-term objectives
6.3 Options that facilitate managing information and resources
One of the limits of executive function is that imposed by the limitations of so-called
working memory. This “scratch pad” for maintaining chunks of information in
immediate memory where they can be accessed as part of comprehension and
problem-solving is very limited for any student and even more severely limited for many
students with learning and cognitive disabilities. As a result, many such students seem
disorganized, forgetful, unprepared. Wherever short-term memory capacity is not
construct-relevant in a lesson, it is important to provide a variety of internal scaffolds
and external organizational aids – exactly those kinds that executives use - to keep
information organized and “in mind.”
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
19
Principle II: Expression
Examples:



Graphic organizers and templates for data collection and organizing information
Embedded prompts for categorizing and systematizing
Checklists and guides for note-taking
6.4 Options that enhance capacity for monitoring progress
Many students seem relatively unresponsive to corrective feedback or knowledge of
results. As a result they seem “perseverative,” careless or unmotivated. For these
students all of the time, and for most students some of the time, it is important to
ensure that options can be customized to provide feedback that is more explicit, timely,
informative, and accessible (see representational guidelines above and guidelines for
affective feedback.). Especially important is providing “formative” feedback that allows
students to monitor their own progress effectively and to use that information to guide
their own effort and practice.
Examples:




Guided questions for self-monitoring
Representations of progress (e.g. before and after photos, graphs and charts
showing progress over time)
Templates that guide self-reflection on quality and completeness
Differentiated models of self-assessment strategies
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
20
Principle III: Engagement
III. Provide Multiple Means of Engagement
Students differ markedly in the ways in which they can be engaged or motivated to learn. Some
students are highly engaged by spontaneity and novelty while other are disengaged, even
frightened, by those aspects, preferring strict routine. In reality, there is no one means of
representation that will be optimal for all students; providing multiple options for engagement
is essential.
Guideline 7: Provide options for recruiting interest
Information that is not attended to, that does not engage student’s cognition, is in fact
inaccessible. It is inaccessible both in the moment - relevant information goes unnoticed and
unprocessed - and in the future: relevant information is unlikely to be remembered. As a result,
teachers devote considerable effort to recruiting student attention and engagement. But
students differ significantly in what attracts their attention and engages their interest. Even the
same student will differ over time and circumstance: their “interests” change as they develop
and gain new knowledge and skills, as their biological environments change, and as they
differentiate into self-determined adolescents and adults. It is, therefore, important to have
alternative ways to recruit student interest; ways that reflect the important inter- and intraindividual differences amongst those students.
7.1 Options that increase individual choice and autonomy
One of the most successful ways of recruiting any student’s interest is by providing them
with choices and opportunities for personal control. In an instructional setting, it is often
inappropriate to provide choice of the learning objective itself. But it is often
appropriate to offer choices in how that objective can be reached, in the context for
achieving the objective, in the tools or supports available, and so forth. It is often even
sufficient to provide peripheral options – in the appearance or sequence of options – to
recruit interest. Offering students choices can develop self-determination, pride in
accomplishment, and increase the degree to which they feel connected to their
learning. (It is important to note that providing choices is an important option, not a
fixed feature - there are cultural and individual differences where increased choice is a
negative rather than a positive influence.) (See also Guidelines 6.1 and 6.2.)
Examples:
 Provide students with as much discretion and autonomy as possible by
providing choices in such things as:
o the level of perceived challenge
o the type of rewards or recognition available
o the context or content used for practicing skills
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
21
Principle III: Engagement


o the tools used for information gathering or production
o the color, design, or graphics of layouts, etc.
o the sequence or timing for completion of subcomponents in tasks
Allow students to participate in the design of classroom activities and academic
tasks
Involve students, wherever possible, in setting their own personal academic and
behavioral goals
7.2 Options that enhance relevance, value, and authenticity
Individuals are engaged by information and activities that are relevant and valuable to
their authentic interests and goals. Conversely, individuals are rarely interested in
information and activities that have no relevance or value. In an educational setting,
one of the most important ways that teachers recruit interest is to highlight the utility,
the relevance, of learning and to demonstrate that relevance through authentic,
meaningful activities. It is a mistake, of course, to assume that all students will find the
same activities or information equally relevant or valuable. To recruit all students
equally, it is critical to have options in the kinds of activities and information that are
available.
Examples:
 Vary activities and sources of information so that they can be:
o personalized and contextualized to students’ lives
o socially relevant
o age and ability appropriate
o appropriate for different racial, cultural, ethnic, and gender groups
 Design activities so that outcomes are authentic, communicate to real
audiences, and are purposeful
 Provide tasks that allow for active participation, exploration and
experimentation
 Invite personal response, evaluation and self-reflection to content and activities
7.3 Options that reduce threats and distractions
Students differ considerably in their response to stimuli and events in their
environment. The same novel event in a classroom can be exciting and interesting to
one individual but ominous and frightening to another. Similarly, for some students
reducing potential distractions is of great benefit to sustaining effort and concentration.
For others, the presence of “distracters” in the environment may actually have
beneficial effects: they study better in a noisy environment than in a quiet one.
Differences in the effects of novelty, change, stimulation, complexity, and touch, are just
a few examples of stable differences among individuals that have both physiological and
environmental roots. The optimal instructional environment offers options that, in their
aggregate, reduce threats and negative distractions for everyone.
Examples:
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
22
Principle III: Engagement



Vary the level of novelty or risk
o charts, calendars, schedules, visible timers, cues, etc. that can increase
the predictability of daily activities and transitions
o alerts and previews that can help students anticipate and prepare for
changes in activities, schedules, novel events
o options that can, in contrast to the above, maximize the unexpected,
surprising, or novel in highly routinized activities
Vary the level of sensory stimulation
o variation in the presence of background noise or visual stimulation,
noise buffers, optional headphones, number of features or items
presented at a time
o variation in pace of work, length of work sessions, availability of breaks
or time-outs, timing or sequence of activities
Vary the social demands required for learning or performance, the perceived
level of support and protection, the requirements for public display and
evaluation
Guideline 8: Provide options for sustaining effort and persistence
Many kinds of learning, particularly the learning of skills and strategies, require sustained
attention and effort. When motivated to do so, many students can regulate their attention and
affect in order to sustain the effort and concentration that such learning will require. However,
students differ considerably in their ability to self-regulate in this way. Their differences reflect
disparities in their initial motivation, their capacity and skills for self-regulation, their
susceptibility to contextual interference, and so forth. A key instructional goal is to build the
individual skills in self-regulation and self determination that will equalize such learning
opportunities (see Guideline 9). In the meantime, however, the external environment must
provide options that can equalize accessibility by supporting students who differ in initial
motivation, self-regulation skills, etc.
8.1 Options that heighten salience of goals and objectives
Over the course of any sustained project or systematic practice, there are many sources
of interest and engagement that compete for attention and effort. For some students, a
significant limitation exists in merely remembering the initial goal or in maintaining a
consistent vision of the rewards of reaching that goal. For those students it is important
to build in periodic or persistent “reminders” of both the goal and its value in order for
them to sustain effort and concentration in the face of attractive distracters.
Examples:
 Prompt or requirement to explicitly formulate or restate goal
 Persistent display, concrete or symbolic, of goal
 Division of long-term goals into short-term objectives
 Use of hand-held or computer-based scheduling tools with reminders
 Prompts or scaffolds for visualizing desired outcome
8.2 Options that vary levels of challenge and support
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
23
Principle III: Engagement
Students vary not only in their skills and abilities but in the kinds of challenges that
motivate them to do their best work. Some students prefer high-risk, highly challenging
endeavors, for example, while others prefer safely reachable objectives with predictable
outcomes. Students with emotional and behavioral disabilities may fall at either end of
that spectrum. Providing a range of challenges, and a range of possible supports, allows
all students to find objectives that are optimally motivating.
Examples:





Differentiation in the degree of difficulty or complexity within which core
activities can be completed
Alternatives in the permissible tools and scaffolds
Opportunities for collaboration
Variation in the degrees of freedom for acceptable performance
Emphasize process, effort, improvement in meeting standards as alternatives to
external evaluation, performance goals, competition
8.3 Options that foster collaboration and communication
For some, but not all, students, the option of working collaboratively with other
students is an effective way to sustain engagement in protracted projects and activities.
The distribution of mentoring through peers can greatly increase the opportunities for
one-on-one support. When carefully structured, such peer cooperation can significantly
increase the available support for sustained engagement. Flexible rather than fixed
grouping allows better differentiation and multiple roles. For other students, especially
those for whom peer interactions are problematic, encouraging open lines of
communication helps to develop student-teacher relationships that support
achievement and engagement.
Examples:





Cooperative learning groups with scaffolded roles and responsibilities
School-wide programs of positive behavior support with differentiated
objectives and supports
Prompts that guide students in when and how to ask peers and/or teachers for
help
Peer tutoring and support
Construction of virtual communities of learners engaged in common interests or
activities
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
24
Principle III: Engagement
8.4 Options that increase mastery-oriented feedback
Assessment is most productive for sustaining engagement when the feedback is
relevant, constructive, accessible, consequential and timely. But the type of feedback is
also critical in helping students to sustain the motivation and effort essential to learning.
Feedback that orients students toward mastery (rather than compliance or
performance) and that emphasizes the role of effort and practice rather than
“intelligence” or inherent “ability” is an important factor in guiding students toward
successful long-term habits of mind. These distinctions may be particularly important for
students whose disabilities have been interpreted, by either themselves or their
caregivers, as permanently constraining and fixed.
Examples:





Feedback that encourages perseverance, focuses on development of efficacy
and self-awareness, and encourages the use of specific supports and strategies
in the face of challenge
Feedback that emphasizes effort, improvement and achieving a standard rather
than on relative performance
Feedback that is frequent, on-going, and presented in multiple modalities
Feedback that is substantive and informative rather than comparative or
competitive
Feedback that models how to incorporate evaluation, including errors and
wrong answers, into positive strategies for future success
Guideline 9: Provide options for self-regulation
While it is important to design the extrinsic environment so that it can support motivation and
engagement (see guidelines 7 and 8), it is also important to develop students’ intrinsic abilities
to regulate their own emotions and motivations. The ability to self-regulate – to strategically
modulate one’s emotional reactions or states in order to be more effective at coping and
engaging with the environment – is a critical aspect of human development. While many
individuals develop self-regulatory skills on their own, either by trial and error or by observing
successful adults, many others have significant difficulties in developing these skills.
Unfortunately most classrooms do not address these skills explicitly, leaving them as part of the
“implicit” curriculum that is often inaccessible or invisible to many. Furthermore, those
classrooms that address self-regulation explicitly generally assume a single model or method for
doing so. As in other kinds of learning, considerable individual differences are much more likely
than uniformity. A successful approach requires providing sufficient alternatives to support
learners with very different aptitudes and prior experience in learning to effectively manage
their own engagement and affect.
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
25
Principle III: Engagement
9.1 Options that guide personal goal-setting and expectations
In learning to set goals for self-regulation, the goals are explicitly affective – learning to
avoid frustration, learning to modulate anxiety, learning to set positive expectations.
The actual goals that are optimum, however, will depend on the individual – some
students need to dampen anxiety to succeed while others may need to elevate it
somewhat. Consequently, it is essential that the models, prompts, guides and rubrics
must also be varied enough to accommodate the full range of students who will need
the support. Students need to see models, for example, that differ in the kinds of
expectations and self-regulatory goals they set.
Examples:


Prompts, reminders, guides, rubrics, checklists that focus on:
o self-regulatory goals like reducing the frequency of tantrums or
aggressive outbursts in response to frustration
o increasing the length of on-task task orientation in the face of
distractions
o elevating the frequency of self-reflection and self-reinforcements
Coaches, mentors, or agents that model the process of setting personally
appropriate goals that take into account both strengths and weaknesses
9.2 Options that scaffold coping skills and strategies
Providing a model of self-regulatory skills is not enough for most students. They will
need sustained apprenticeships with a gradual release of scaffolding Reminders,
models, checklists, and so forth can assist students in choosing and trying an adaptive
strategy – from among several alternatives – for managing and directing their emotional
responses to external events (e.g. strategies for coping with anxiety-producing social
settings or for reducing task-irrelevant distracters) or internal events (e.g. strategies for
decreasing rumination on depressive or anxiety-producing ideation). Such scaffolds
should provide sufficient alternatives to meet the challenge of individual differences in
the kinds of strategies that might be successful and the independence with which they
can be applied.
Examples:

Differentiated models, scaffolds and feedback for:
o managing frustration
o seeking external emotional support
o developing internal controls and coping skills
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
26
Principle III: Engagement
9.3 Options that develop self-assessment and reflection
In order to develop better capacity for self-regulation, students need to learn to monitor
their emotions and reactivity carefully and accurately. Individuals differ considerably in
their capability and propensity for such monitoring and some students will need a great
deal of explicit instruction and modeling in order to learn how to do this successfully.
For many students, merely recognizing that they are making progress toward greater
independence is highly motivating. Alternatively, one of the key factors in students
losing motivation is their inability to recognize their own progress. It is important,
moreover that students have multiple models and scaffolds of different techniques so
that they can identify, and choose, ones that are optimal.
Examples:
 Recording devices, aids, or charts are available to assist individuals in learning to
collect, chart and display data from their own behavior (including emotional
responses, affect, etc.) for the purpose of monitoring changes in those
behaviors
 These devices should provide a range of options that vary in their intrusiveness
and support – providing a graduated apprenticeship in the development of
better ability to monitor behavior and build skills in self-reflection and
emotional awareness
 Activities should include means by which students get feedback and have access
to alternative scaffolds (charts, templates, feedback displays) that support them
in understanding their progress in a manner that is understandable and timely
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
27
Acknowledgements:
The UDL Guidelines were compiled by David H. Rose, Ed.D., Co-Founder and Chief Education Officer at
CAST, and Jenna Wasson, M.Ed., Instructional Designer and Research Associate at CAST. They have
received extensive review and comments from colleagues at CAST—past and present—will be inviting
peer review and comments in the coming months from individuals throughout the field.
Copyright © 2008 by CAST, Inc. All rights reserved.
28
104
Response-to-Instruction and Universal Design for Learning: How Might They
Intersect in the General Education Classroom?
Prepared by Nicole Strangman, Chuck Hitchcock, Tracey Hall, Grace Meo, and Peggy Coyne
Introduction
Response-to-Instruction1 (RTI) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) represent innovative approaches to addressing the
needs of students with disabilities. In recent years, RTI and UDL have both received increased attention from the education,
policy, and disability communities. Both of these strategies are important to improve the ability of students with disabilities to
participate and progress in the general education curriculum. The purpose of this paper is to provide an introduction to RTI
and UDL and to explore their possible intersection in the classroom. It is structured into three sections: the first providing a
basic overview of RTI; the second providing a basic overview of UDL; and the third sharing ideas for the possible synergism of
these two approaches in the general education classroom. Sections 1 and 2 are descriptive, while Section 3 is largely
theoretical.
Response-to-Instruction
As a result of its federal approval (Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004), Response-to-Instruction has
recently garnered great attention as a means to identify students with learning disability (LD). 2 Within the context of LD
identification, RTI aptly may be described as an operational definition for LD and an alternative to IQ-achievement
discrepancy, which the federal government previously recognized as the primary operational definition of LD (U.S. Office of
Education, 1977). Although the use of RTI for LD identification is a major emphasis within IDEA 2004, RTI may be more broadly
defined as an approach that uses students’ response to high-quality instruction to guide educational decisions, including
decisions about the efficacy of instruction and intervention, eligibility for special programs, design of individual education
programs, and effectiveness of special education services (Batsche et al., 2005). Thus, RTI has the potential to influence how
and when LD is identified, as well as the nature of early intervention and instruction.
1
2
Also referred to as “response-to-intervention,” “response-to-treatment,” and “responsiveness-to-intervention.”
Note that the legislation does not require the use of RTI for LD identification.
105
IQ-Achievement Discrepancy and Concerns Motivating Response-to-Instruction
IQ-achievement discrepancy, as its name suggests, identifies LD based on
severe discrepancy between intelligence and achievement test scores.
Although this approach has long been in use, in recent years it has been
called into question by some professionals and academics (Speece &
Shekitka, 2002). Concerns have been motivated in part by the burgeoning
numbers of students identified as LD, which has increased special education
costs (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003). The
approach has been criticized on a number of fronts. First, critics have
disapprovingly described IQ-achievement discrepancy as a “wait to fail” approach; because intervention is
withheld until discrepancy can be demonstrated, students may experience years of decline before an identification
is made, at which time remediation may be more difficult (Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004; Fuchs et al.,
2003; Gersten & Dimino, 2006; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Second, the approach has been criticized for its variable
implementation (Fuchs et al., 2003; Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert, 2005; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003), with inconsistent
or even arbitrary definition of LD (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Fuchs et al., 2003), owing perhaps to the fact that the
teacher-based referral process is vulnerable to bias (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Third, although regulations stipulate
that students must show discrepancy under conditions of appropriate learning experiences, critics raise concerns
about false positives, where low achievement reflects poor teaching rather than disability (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
Fourth, and conversely, it has been argued that IQ-achievement discrepancy overlooks a population of students
with similarly low achievement and processing deficits but no discrepancy (Fletcher et al., 2004; Fuchs & Fuchs,
2006; Fuchs et al., 2003). Collectively, these concerns helped to propel the emergence of RTI.
First, critics have disapprovingly
described IQ-achievement discrepancy
as a “wait to fail” approach; because
intervention is withheld until
discrepancy can be demonstrated,
students may experience years of
decline before an identification is
made.
The Process of Response-to-Instruction
RTI is used to identify students with LD and to determine early intervention.
This is accomplished through evaluation of student response to targeted,
high-quality instruction that has been demonstrated as effective for most
students (Batsche et al., 2005). In this sense, RTI emphasizes “student
outcomes instead of student deficits” (Kavale et al., 2005) and makes a clear
connection between identification and instruction (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003).
Whereas IQ-achievement discrepancy is focused on identifying LD (Kavale et
al., 2005), RTI informs both LD identification and the design of early intervention and instruction (Batsche et al.,
2005). Moreover, it has been argued that RTI can be used for all students, not just those with LD. RTI also
prescribes the use of research-validated interventions to help ensure that students have access to appropriate
learning experiences. It is focused on providing early and more immediate support for student needs by screening
students as early as kindergarten (Fletcher et al., 2004; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003).
The process of RTI involves: 1) screening for at-risk students; 2) monitoring of responsiveness to instruction; and 3)
determination of the course of action (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Kavale et al., 2005). Steps 2 and 3 are iterative. The
process begins with the selection of a subgroup of at-risk students (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Initially, students are
monitored for their responsiveness to general education instruction, that is, instructional approaches validated as
effective for most students and differentiated as needed to meet broad student needs (Batsche et al., 2005).
Different courses of action can be taken depending on the number of students found not able to perform. If the
number is sufficiently large, it is concluded that the instructional program is inadequate and the overall program is
modified. If instead only a small percentage of students fail to perform, such students are removed from the
general program of instruction to participate in a targeted, empirically validated intervention.
Student responsiveness to intervention is used to determine further course of action. Students who are responsive
to the intervention are reintegrated into the traditional program of instruction. Students determined to be
unresponsive are promoted to the next “tier” of intervention, different in content or rigor. Their progress is again
monitored and the course redetermined. Ultimately, failure to respond leads either to LD diagnosis and special
education or to LD evaluation, depending on the RTI model (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Fuchs et al., 2003). Although
The process of RTI involves: 1)
screening for at-risk students; 2)
monitoring of responsiveness to
instruction; and 3) determination of
the course of action. Steps 2 and 3
are iterative. (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006;
Kavale et al., 2005).
106
some students may respond to an intervention, they still may be referred to special education if it is determined
infeasible to maintain the intervention in the regular classroom (Batsche et al., 2005)
Selecting At-risk Students
A variety of methods may be used to identify at-risk students. For example, teachers may apply a criterion to
student performance on the previous year’s high-stakes assessment; newly test all students and compare their
performance to norms (local- or classroom-based) or criterions; or use a benchmark demonstrated to predict endof-year performance on high-stakes tests or graduation requirements (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Because RTI is best
established with respect to reading, screening measures and intervention typically focus on this skill area (Gersten
& Dimino, 2006; Kavale et al., 2005).
Intervention
RTI uses empirically-validated interventions that have been demonstrated as effective for most students. The
number of levels or “tiers of intervention” ranges from 2-4. The tiers vary in their intensiveness (i.e., frequency and
duration), instructor expertise, and size and homogeneity of student groupings. Those who view RTI as primarily a
means for identification advocate using fewer tiers, which produces fewer false negatives (i.e., identification of
children who cannot succeed in the mainstream classroom as responsive to treatment). Those who view RTI more
as a means for improving instruction and remediating students advocate using more tiers, which enables more
intensive intervention and produces fewer false positives (i.e., identification of children who can succeed in the
mainstream classroom as non-responsive).
Currently, there are two primary intervention approaches: the problem-solving method and the standard
treatment response method (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Practitioners generally use the problem-solving method, while
the standard treatment response method has been used in most research studies.
The distinguishing features of the problem-solving approach are that
The distinguishing features of the
intervention occurs within the classroom and is individualized to the student.
problem-solving approach are that
intervention occurs within the
The individualized nature of the approach is based on the belief that success
classroom and is individualized to
of an intervention cannot be predicted based on student characteristics, and
the student.
no single intervention will be successful for all students (Fuchs et al., 2003).
The different versions of problem-solving RTI vary in the number of tiers of
intervention. However, all use a 4-step process at each tier: 1) problem identification; 2) problem
analysis/selection of intervention; 3) implementation of intervention; and 4) monitoring of response (Fuchs &
Fuchs, 2006; Fuchs et al., 2003). The process can involve a range of personnel including parents, general educators,
special educators, and school psychologists (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
The standard treatment response approach provides the same empirically
The standard treatment response
validated, fixed-duration intervention to all students with similar problems
approach provides the same
empirically validated, fixed-duration
in a domain (Fuchs et al., 2003). Unlike the problem-solving approach, the
intervention to all students with
standard treatment response intervention is provided individually or in small
similar problems in a domain (Fuchs
groups outside the classroom. Intervention is 2-tiered, and lack of progress
et al., 2003).
in Tier 2 elicits evaluation for possible disability. Because the standardtreatment approach has only 2 tiers, it is thought to be more straightforward to implement, and therefore more
practical (Fuchs et al., 2003). However, it is not known for certain that this approach is implemented more
faithfully than the problem-solving approach (Fuchs et al., 2003).
Assessment of Responsiveness
There is no standardized method for assessing student responsiveness to intervention. Measurement may be
based on performance at the end of the intervention, growth over the course of the intervention, or both (dual
discrepancy [Fuchs, 2003]). However, RTI has its roots in curriculum-based measurement (Batsche et al., 2005), a
form of ongoing instructional assessment (progress monitoring) where short, growth-sensitive measures are
administered during an instructional episode in order to determine further course of instruction (Atkin, Black, &
Coffey, 2001). Moreover, progress monitoring has been recommended over final status measurement for RTI on
the basis that growth during the intervention is more important than absolute performance at the end of the
intervention (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Fuchs, 2003). Use of multiple data sources is also encouraged (Fuchs et al.,
2003). Therefore, progress monitoring is a frequent form of RTI assessment and considered by some a key
component of effective RTI (Batsche et al., 2005; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
107
A reference standard for assessing progress must also be chosen: scores may be compared to a normative sample;
a limited norm (developed using a subset of students who are the focus of the intervention); or a benchmark
(Fuchs, 2003). Choice of reference method may be constrained by the type of intervention. With an intensive
intervention, it may be necessary to use a limited norm (Fuchs, 2003).
Teacher Roles
It is unclear how RTI may affect teacher roles. However, it is likely that professionals that formerly spent time
administering IQ tests will take on responsibilities focused more on intervention-related assessment (Fletcher et
al., 2004). According to one model, general educators will be primarily responsible for instruction; monitoring; and
advancement through Tiers 1, 2, and 3; whereas special educators will be responsible for instruction and
monitoring in Tier 4 (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005). However, general and special educators are also expected to
play a collaborative role, particularly within the problem-solving approach (Batsche et al., 2005).
Evidence for the Effectiveness of RTI
RTI has the endorsement of many researchers and professional and government organizations (Fletcher et al.,
2004; Fuchs et al., 2003). Controlled, research studies using the standard treatment model have shown a
significant impact of RTI on student progress (Marston, 2005). Evidence addressing the effectiveness of the
problem-solving model is less plentiful and has been described as less persuasive (Fuchs et al., 2003; Kovaleski,
Gickling, Morrow, & Swank, 1999; Marston, 2005; Tilly, 2003).
The approach is not without potential problems. Presently, RTI may not be feasible for large-scale adoption (Fuchs
et al., 2003) given the necessary knowledge and skill on the part of teachers, particularly if intervention is to be
individualized (Gersten & Dimino, 2006; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005). As with IQ-achievement discrepancy, fidelity
of implementation is crucial (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Johnson, Mellard, & Byrd, 2005; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005),
but has been questionable with the problem-solving method (Telzrow, McNamara, & Hollinger, 2000). It also has
been pointed out there are few criteria for distinguishing between “no response to instruction” and “marginal
response to instruction,” making it difficult to accomplish consistent implementation (Kavale et al., 2005). And it is
less apparent how RTI would be applied at the middle and secondary school levels (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005).
Another criticism is RTI’s emphasis on reading disability. Contemporary conceptualizations of LD include deficits in
math, writing, and reading comprehension; thus RTI is considered by some an inadequate means to gauge LD
(Johnson et al., 2005; Kavale et al., 2005; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005). Critics also allege that by excluding
general cognitive ability as a consideration, RTI fails to document underachievement/unexpected learning failure,
which is an important defining feature of LD (Kavale et al., 2005). However, from an instructional standpoint, RTI
can be used with any academic subject for which frequent data-sensitive measurements are available (Batsche et
al., 2005). Although these are generally less well developed outside of reading, they are potentially feasible.
Potential change to how students with LD are identified and early intervention is designed is of great potential
significance, and RTI is currently being investigated by the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities and
the Office of Special Education Programs. Many experts believe that more needs to be understood before RTI can
be accepted as a valid method for LD identification (Fuchs et al., 2003).
Universal Design for Learning
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a new approach to curriculum (goals,
materials, methods, and assessment) that is firmly grounded in the belief
that every learner is unique and brings different strengths and weaknesses
to the classroom (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Indeed, today’s classrooms are
incredibly diverse, housing students from different cultures, socioeconomic
backgrounds, and disability groups. By contrast, traditional curricula are
“one-size-fits-all,” designed to meet the needs of the “typical” student. The
result is a host of barriers for any student that falls outside of this narrow
category, such as barriers that impede access, participation, and progress in the general curriculum (Hitchcock,
Meyer, Rose, & Jackson, 2002).
UDL reconceptualizes curriculum design by bringing student diversity to the forefront and supporting the design of
curricula that are more flexible and accommodating of diverse students’ needs (Rose & Meyer, 2002). UDL was
inspired by universal design in architecture, a movement to design structures with all potential users in mind and
incorporate at the outset access features such as ramps and elevators (Connell et al., 1997). By working at the
Universal Design for Learning
reconceptualizes curriculum design
by bringing student diversity to the
forefront and supporting the design
of curricula that are more flexible
and accommodating of diverse
students’ needs (Rose & Meyer,
2002).
108
design level, accessibility features could be incorporated more elegantly and inexpensively. Moreover, beyond
providing access for individuals with disabilities, these features had unanticipated benefits for the population at
large, producing more widespread usability (Rose & Meyer, 2002). UDL applies this same strategy to curricula,
considering the needs of all students at the design stage and building in features that support full accessibility. In
addition, UDL extends the concept of universal design by incorporating features that maximize not only access to
information, but also access to learning (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Technology plays an important role in UDL, its
flexibility enabling practical and elegant solutions.
Another source of guidance and inspiration for UDL is neuroscience. Neuroscience research suggests the existence
of three broad neural networks in the brain that oversee three fundamental facets of learning (e.g., the
recognition of patterns, the planning and generation of patterns, and the selection and prioritization of patterns
[Cytowic, 1996; Luria, 1973; Rose & Strangman, in review]). UDL identifies these three learning substrates as
recognition, strategic, and affective networks (Cytowic, 1996; Luria, 1973; Rose & Strangman, in review; Rose &
Meyer, 2002). Their respective functions coincide with the three learning prerequisites identified by developmental
psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1962/1996), whose work is highly respected in the field of education: 1) recognition of
the information to be learned; 2) application of strategies to process that information; and 3) engagement with
the learning task. What is distinctive about the UDL perspective is that this triad of abilities is understood to differ
from student to student.
The three UDL principles guide the design of flexible curricula by calling for the embedding of options that support
differences in recognition, strategic, and affective networks:
To support recognition learning, provide multiple, flexible methods of presentation.
To support strategic learning, provide multiple, flexible methods of expression and apprenticeship.
To support effective learning, provide multiple, flexible options for engagement. (Rose & Meyer, 2002)
Using these three principles, all aspects of the curriculum – goals, methods, materials, and assessments – are
made flexible. With respect to assessment, for example, a range of media, formats, and response options are used
so that a student’s knowledge and skills are not confounded by his or her aptitude with the medium (Rose & Dolan,
2000). In addition, during testing students have access to the same supports that they have during instruction –
unless those supports undermine the purpose of the assessment (Dolan & Hall, 2001; Rose & Meyer, 2002). Ideally,
curriculum-based measurement is used to perform ongoing assessment, providing a window into the learning
process as well as the effectiveness of instruction (Rose & Dolan, 2000).
For teachers wondering how to customize instruction, the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) has
devised three sets of broad teaching methods that support each UDL principle (see Figure 1; Rose & Meyer, 2002).
These teaching methods reflect neuroscience-based insights into how each learning network functions, combined
with an understanding of how digital media can support flexibility. For example, the third teaching method to
support recognition learning is to provide multiple media and formats. This teaching method leverages the fact
that recognition networks can extract meaning using different sensory modalities and acknowledges that the
optimal presentation modality may differ from student to student. Although presentation of multiple media and
formats might be challenging in a classroom limited to printed text and hardcopy images, it is realizable using
digital materials. This is one example of how digital materials and UDL teaching methods can facilitate the
successful implementation of UDL.
109
Figure 1. CAST has developed three sets of UDL teaching methods to help teachers support learners’ diverse
recognition, strategic, and affective networks.
Network-Appropriate Teaching Methods
To support diverse recognition networks:
Provide multiple examples
Highlight critical features
Provide multiple media and formats
Support background context
To support diverse strategic networks:
Provide flexible models of skilled performance
Provide opportunities to practice with supports
Provide ongoing, relevant feedback
Offer flexible opportunities for demonstrating skill
To support diverse affective networks:
Offer choices of content and tools
Offer adjustable levels of challenge
Offer choices of rewards
Offer choices of learning context
CAST is working with schools to implement and research UDL curricula and innovative UDL instructional
approaches. For example, CAST has developed digital, supported reading environments that integrate researchsupported approaches to reading comprehension instruction with UDL features. These features include text-tospeech and multimedia dual-language glossaries to support differences in recognition; multiple levels of
instructional challenge and support; multiple response modes to support differences in strategy; and a choice of
multiple animated characters as tutors and varied support and response options to support differences in student
engagement (Dalton & Coyne, 2002; Dalton, Pisha, Eagleton, Coyne, & Deysher, 2002; Dalton, Schleper, Kennedy,
& Lutz, 2005; Proctor, Dalton, & Grisham, in press; Strangman, 2003). CAST is also researching a technology-based
environment for writing science reports that integrates research-based writing strategies and curriculum-based
measurement with flexible UDL supports (Murray & Hall, 2006). CAST is conducting this work with diverse students
including students with learning disabilities, students who are deaf or hard of hearing, students with cognitive
disabilities, and English language learners. Strands of UDL are increasingly apparent in broader research reporting
innovative uses of technology to individualize instruction (Erdner, Guy, & Bush, 1998; Hay, 1997; MacArthur &
Haynes, 1995).
Response-to-Instruction and Universal Design for Learning
RTI and UDL differ from one another in that RTI is a process for making educational decisions based on an at-risk
student's success or failure during specialized intervention, while UDL is a process for making curriculum design
decisions to maximize success in the general curriculum. However, RTI and UDL share the objective of improving
educational outcomes for students with disabilities and are similar in several important ways.
First, both RTI and UDL recognize that poor achievement does not necessarily reflect disability, but rather may also
reflect poor instruction. That is, in some cases the curriculum, not the student, may be deficient. RTI puts this belief
into practice by prescribing that general education curricula incorporate research-validated instruction and
intervention by making LD identification contingent on the program of instruction and by acknowledging that
there are cases where changes should be made to general classroom instruction in place of student intervention
(Batsche et al., 2005). UDL also encourages the use of research-validated instruction and intervention (Dalton et
al., 2002; Murray & Hall, 2006) and emphasizes the notion of disabled curriculum by further stating that the
curriculum, and not the student, must bear the burden of adaptation (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
110
Second, RTI and UDL both reflect the understanding that a curriculum that is effective for one student may not be
effective for another student. With RTI, this is most readily apparent with the individualized approach to
intervention that is part of the problem-solving method. With UDL, the curriculum is designed to incorporate a
wide variety of options in its goals, materials, methods, and assessment so that the curriculum in its entirety is
flexible and accommodating of individual student needs.
Third, RTI and UDL treat assessment as something that should inform instruction and intervention and consider
once-a-year test scores insufficient to determine student ability. In RTI, students’ responsiveness is commonly
monitored over time and with respect to multiple interventions; while in UDL, multiple, ongoing assessments are
administered. The use of curriculum-based measurement as a means to inform teachers about the effectiveness of
instruction and guide decision-making regarding appropriate instruction and intervention is a key point of
convergence of RTI and UDL. With effective implementation of curriculum-based measurement, interventions can
be determined while instruction is still ongoing and before a student fails.
It is important to acknowledge that teachers need new knowledge and skills to successfully implement both RTI
and UDL (Dalton et al., 2005; Howard, 2003; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005; Rose & Meyer, 2002). Thus, professional
development and ongoing support within the schools is important. In addition, technology may be an important
tool. UDL solutions often make use of technology to increase flexibility and adaptability, with the added benefit of
improving teacher support and student engagement (Pisha & Coyne, 2001). Thus, technology can be used to
reduce some of the difficulties of implementation. Its inherent flexibility helps make the design of an adaptable
curriculum much more feasible.
Although IDEA 2004 is largely focused on the use of RTI to identify students with LD, we believe that the greatest
potential for synergism with UDL is around instruction. In particular, the UDL framework may be able to support
more effective decision-making within RTI, which remains a significant challenge in RTI. Indeed, RTI has been
criticized as lacking a systematic decision-making process (i.e., few criteria for distinguishing between no response
to instruction and marginal response to instruction, and little ability to predict which intervention will be effective
for a particular student [Kavale et al., 2005]). Teachers often struggle with interpreting curriculum-based
measurement data and using it to modify instructional programs effectively (Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984; Fuchs,
Fuchs, & Hamlett, 1989). Moreover, individualization, a central component of the problem-solving approach, is of
great difficulty for teachers (Batsche et al., 2005; Gersten & Dimino, 2006).
The UDL framework offers a potential means to guide such decisions. For example, differences in recognition,
strategic, and affective learning parameters offer a means for selecting effective interventions. The problemsolving approach to RTI is already an individualized approach that considers students in a case-by-case fashion.
The UDL framework could help to guide analysis and decision-making for each student as part of RTI by focusing
attention on individual learner’s recognition, strategic, and affective strengths and challenges. (CAST has
developed an online tool, the UDL Class Profile Maker, for helping teachers to use the UDL framework to better
understand students [CAST, 2002-2006b].)
Another means in which to integrate RTI and UDL is to use UDL to design more flexible RTI interventions. Research
has shown that instructional programs designed according to the UDL principles can be effective for a range of
students (Dalton & Coyne, 2002; Dalton et al., 2002; Dalton et al., 2005). By designing interventions with flexible
supports for recognition, strategy, and affect it may be possible to reduce the number of RTI tiers that are
necessary and increase the number of students who respond.
Currently, some students identified as responders with RTI are not reintegrated into traditional instruction because
they have been determined to require intervention that is too resource-heavy for the general education classroom.
It may be possible to extend the ability of the general education curriculum to offer various nontraditional forms of
instruction by integrating more technology, guided by the UDL principles and teaching methods. Technology can
make it more practical and feasible to provide alternative means of instruction in the same classroom and,
111
together with UDL, might better support the delivery of specialized RTI intervention in the general education
classroom.
Beyond improving the efficiency of RTI, UDL might ultimately be used to limit its necessity by building the capacity
of the general education curriculum to accommodate the diverse needs of students. This could help to reduce the
numbers of students requiring intervention and/or special education. For example, UDL could be used to identify
and minimize barriers in the general education curriculum that, if left unaddressed, might unnecessarily undermine
student performance and increase the number of students selected for targeted intervention. (CAST’s Curriculum
Barriers Finder and UDL Solutions Finder can assist with these tasks. [CAST, 2002-2006a, 2002-2006c].)
Conclusion
Access, participation, and progress for all students in the general education curriculum are sought-after goals of
education. However, in spite of impressive reform (Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004;
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq., 2000; U. S. Department of Education, 2001),
there remains a significant gap in the performance of students with and without disabilities (Blackorby et al., 2004;
Frieden, 2004; National Center for Education Statistics, 2003).
The success of our efforts to provide students equal access, participation, and progress in the general education
curriculum hinges on how we understand the curriculum or, more precisely, the “conception, design, and
implementation of the general curriculum and the assumptions that underlie it” (Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose, &
Jackson, 2005, p. 1). Response-to-Instruction and UDL embody a new and important understanding about
curriculum: Poor performance may reflect curriculum disability rather than student disability. They also represent
relevant and useful approaches for improving student learning based on manipulation of instruction. Response-toInstruction uses a tiered approach of specialized intervention to identify disability and investigate the effectiveness
of alternative instructional approaches. Universal Design for Learning seeks to design curricula that are capable of
meeting every student’s needs through flexible and adaptive instruction.
These two approaches are still being developed, and RTI is a topic of current debate. By applying the UDL
framework, it may be possible to target some of the key uncertainties about RTI, such as how to effectively
individualize intervention and make instructional decisions. Beyond this, their synergism may enable achievement
of a loftier goal: By simultaneously implementing RTI and using UDL to build the capacity of the general education
curriculum, it may be possible to realize broadly effective general education curricula that anticipate students’
difficulties and eliminate the need for intervention.
References
Atkin, J. M., Black, P. J., & Coffey, J. E. (2001). Classroom assessment and the National Science Education
Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, National Academy Press.
Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention:
Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of
Special Education, Inc.
Blackorby, J., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Davies, E., Levine, P., Newman, L., et al. (2004). SEELS: Engagement,
academics, social adjustment, and independence: The achievements of elementary and middle school
students with disabilities. Retrieved March 31, 2005, from
http://www.seels.net/info_reports/engagement.htm
CAST. (2002-2006a). Curriculum barriers finder. Retrieved May 4, 2006, from
http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/tools/curriculumbarriers.cfm
112
CAST. (2002-2006b). UDL class profile maker. Retrieved May 4, 2006, from
http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/tools/classprofile.cfm
CAST. (2002-2006c). UDL solutions finder. Retrieved May 4, 2006, from
http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/tools/udlsolutionsfinder.cfm
Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., et al. (1997). The principles. Retrieved June
10, 2004, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/univ_design/princ_overview.htm
Cytowic, R. E. (1996). The neurological side of neuropsychology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Dalton, B., & Coyne, P. (2002). Universally designed digital picture books to support beginning reading in children
with cognitive disabilities. 52nd Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference. San Antonio, Texas.
Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Eagleton, M., Coyne, P., & Deysher, S. (2002). Engaging the text: Final report to the U.S.
Department of Education. Peabody: CAST.
Dalton, B., Schleper, D., Kennedy, M., & Lutz, L. (2005). Shared reading project: chapter by chapter -- thinking
reader: Final report. Wakefield, MA.
Dolan, R. P., & Hall, T. E. (2001). Universal design for learning: Implications for large-scale assessment. IDA
Perspectives, 27(4), 22-25.
Erdner, R. A., Guy, R. F., & Bush, A. (1998). The impact of a year of computer assisted instruction on the
development of first grade learning skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(4), 369-386.
Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, W. A., Reschly, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and
identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 304-331.
Frieden, L. (2004). Improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities. Retrieved September 8, 2004,
from http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/NCD.pdf
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading
Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence,
and implications for the learning disabilities construct., Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice (Vol. 18,
pp. 157-171).
Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities:
Research & Practice (Vol. 18, pp. 172-186).
Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and
evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational
Research Journal, 21, 449-460.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989). Monitoring reading growth using student recalls: Effects of two
teacher feedback systems. Journal of Educational Research, 83(2), 103-110.
113
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (response to intervention): Rethinking special education for students with
reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 99-108.
Hay, L. (1997). Tailor-made instructional materials using computer multimedia technology. Computers in the
Schools, 13(1-2), 61-68.
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the general education
curriculum. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8-17.
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Jackson, R. (2005). Equal access, participation, and progress in the general
education curriculum. In D. H. Rose, A. Meyer & C. Hitchcock (Eds.). The universally designed classroom:
Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp. 52-96). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Howard, J. B. (2003). Universal design for learning: An essential concept for teacher education. Journal of
Computing in Teacher Education, 19(4), 113-118.
Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (2000).
Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., & Byrd, S. E. (2005). Alternative models of learning disabilities identification:
Considerations and initial conclusions. Journal of Learning Disabilities (Vol. 38, pp. 569-572).
Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of
specific learning disability: A Critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly (Vol. 28, pp.
2).
Kovaleski, J. F., Gickling, E. E., Morrow, H., & Swank, H. (1999). Best practices in operating pre-referral
intervention teams in Pennsylvania. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.). Best practices in school psychology-IV
(pp. 645-645). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Luria, A. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology. New York: Basic Books.
MacArthur, C. A., & Haynes, J. B. (1995). Student assistant for learning from text (SALT): A hypermedia reading aid.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(3), 150-159.
Marston, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention: Prevention outcomes and learning
disabilities identification patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities (Vol. 38, pp. 539-544).
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination
of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities (Vol. 38, pp. 525-531).
Murray, E., & Hall, T. (2006). Science writer: A universally designed thinking writer for Science. Wakefield, MA:
CAST.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Digest of Education Statistics, 2003. Retrieved March 31, 2005,
from http://nces.ed.gov//programs/digest/d03/
114
Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for learning. Remedial and
Special Education, 22(4), 197-203.
Proctor, P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. (in press). Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a
digital environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. To appear in Journal of
Literacy Research.
Rose, D., & Strangman, N. (in review). Universal access in the information society.
Rose, D. H., & Dolan, R. P. (2000). Universal design for learning: Assessment. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 15(4).
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the Digital Age: Universal design for learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Speece, D. L., & Shekitka, L. (2002). How should reading disabilities be operationalized? A survey of experts.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17(2), 118-123.
Strangman, N. (2003). Strategy instruction goes digital: Two teachers' perspectives on digital texts with embedded
learning supports. Reading Online, 6(9).
Telzrow, C. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and
relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29(3), 443-461.
Tilly, W. D. (2003). How many tiers are needed for successful prevention and early intervention? Heartland Area
Education Agency's evolution from four to three tiers. Paper presented at the National Research Center of
Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
U. S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved May 4, 2006, from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
U.S. Office of Education. (1977). Assistance to states for educating of handicapped children: Procedures for
evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 42 (25), 65082-65085. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The
promise and potential problems., Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice (Vol. 18, pp. 137-146).
Vygotsky, L. (1962/1996). Thought and language (Vol. (Rev. Ed.)). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Grant # H326K020003 with the American Institutes for
Research. Jane Hauser served as the project officer. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions
or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product,
commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred.
This product was written by CAST (www.cast.org), under a subcontract agreement with the Access Center. For additional
information on this or other topics, please contact The Access Center at accesscenter@air.org.
The Access Center: Improving Outcomes for All Students K-8
The Access Center is a cooperative agreement (H326K020003) funded by the U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Special Education Programs, awarded to the American Institutes for Research
1000 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Washington, DC 20007
Ph: 202-403-5000 TTY: 877-334-3499 Fax: 202-403-5001
e-mail: accesscenter@air.org website: www.k8accesscenter.org
115
ACTION RESEARCH
Northeast and Islands Regional Educational
Laboratory At Brown University
by Eileen Ferrance
The LAB, a program of The Education Alliance at Brown University, is one of ten educational laboratories
funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Our
goals are to improve teaching and learning, advance school improvement, build
capacity for reform, and develop strategic alliances with key members of the region’s education and
policy making community.
The LAB develops educational products and services for school administrators, policymakers, teachers,
and parents in New England, New York, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Central to our efforts is a
commitment to equity and excellence.
Information about LAB programs and services is available by contacting:
LAB at Brown University
The Education Alliance
222 Richmond Street, Suite 300
Providence, RI 02903-4226
Phone: (800) 521-9550
E-mail: info@lab.brown.edu
Web: www.lab.brown.edu
Fax: (401) 421-7650
Copyright © 2000 Brown University. All rights reserved.
About This Series
This is another edition in a series of “Themes in Education” booklets produced by the Northeast and
Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University. The topics addressed by these booklets are
generated in response to requests for information from practitioners, parents, and other members of
the public. Each booklet aims to present a balanced view of its topic and a glimpse of how the
approach works in schools. Some discussions may lend themselves to a state-by-state summary; others
are illustrated by a series of vignettes that demonstrate the central concepts. For topics that are more
global in nature, the booklet will cite a few illustrations within the region or nationally.
The goal of this series is to provide resources containing useful information on education-related topics
of interest. Connections to other relevant resources, selected current references, and ways to obtain
more information are provided in each booklet.
This publication is based on work supported by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI),
Department of Education, under Contract Number RJ96006401. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of OERI, the U.S. Department of Education, or any other agency of the U.S. Government.
116
INTRODUCTION
Action research is one of those terms that we hear quite often in today’s educational circles. But just
what does it mean? If you ask three people to define action research, you may find yourself with three
different responses.
Typically, action research is undertaken in a school setting. It is a reflective process that allows for
inquiry and discussion as components of the “research.” Often, action research is a collaborative activity
among colleagues searching for solutions to everyday, real problems experienced in schools, or looking
for ways to improve instruction and increase student achievement. Rather than dealing with the
theoretical, action research allows practitioners to address those concerns that are closest to them,
ones over which they can exhibit some influence and make change.
Practitioners are responsible for making more and more decisions in the operations of schools, and they
are being held publicly accountable for student achievement results. The process of action research
assists educators in assessing needs, documenting the steps of inquiry, analyzing data, and making
informed decisions that can lead to desired outcomes.
This booklet discusses several types of action research, its history, and a process that may be used to
engage educators in action research. Two stories from the field, written by teachers about their own
reflections on the process, are given as illustrations of action research.
117
What is Action Research?
Action research is a process in which participants examine their own educational practice systematically
and carefully, using the techniques of research. It is based on the following assumptions:
• Teachers and principals work best on problems they have identified for themselves
• Teachers and principals become more effective when encouraged to examine and assess their own work
and then consider ways of working differently
• Teachers and principals help each other by working collaboratively
• Working with colleagues helps teachers and principals in their professional development
(Watts, 1985, p. 118)
Although there are many types of research that may be undertaken, action research specifically refers to
a disciplined inquiry done by a teacher with the intent that the research will inform and change his or
her practices in the future. This research is carried out within the context of the teacher’s
environment—that is, with the students and at the school in which the teacher works—on
questions that deal with educational matters at hand. While people who call for greater
professionalization say that teachers should be constantly researching and educating themselves about
their area of expertise, this is different from the study of more educational questions that arise from the
practice of teaching.
Implicit in the term action research is the idea that teachers will begin a cycle of posing questions,
gathering data, reflection, and deciding on a course of action. When these decisions begin to change the
school environment, a different set of circumstances appears with different problems posed, which
require a new look. Indeed, many action research projects are started with a particular problem to
solve, whose solution leads into other areas of study. While a teacher may work alone on these studies,
it is also common for a number of teachers to collaborate on a problem, as well as enlist support and
guidance from administrators, university scholars, and others. At times, whole schools may decide to
tackle a school-wide study to address a common issue, or join with others to look at district-wide issues.
What is Not Action Research?
Action research is not what usually comes to mind when we hear the word “research.” Action research
is not a library project where we learn more about a topic that interests us. It is not problem-solving in
the sense of trying to find out what is wrong, but rather a quest for knowledge about how to improve.
Action research is not about doing research on or about people, or finding all available information on a
topic looking for the correct answers. It involves people working to improve their skills, techniques, and
strategies. Action research is not about learning why we do certain things, but rather how we can
do things better. It is about how we can change our instruction to impact students.
Types of Action Research
Part of the confusion we find when we hear the term “action research” is that there are different types
of action research depending upon the participants involved. A plan of research can involve a single
teacher investigating an issue in his or her classroom, a group of teachers working on a common
problem, or a team of teachers and others focusing on a school- or district-wide issue.
Individual teacher research usually focuses on a single issue in the classroom. The teacher may be
seeking solutions to problems of classroom management, instructional strategies, use of materials, or
student learning. Teachers may have support of their supervisor or principal, an instructor for a course
they are taking, or parents. The problem is one that the teacher believes is evident in his or her
118
classroom and one that can be addressed on an individual basis. The research may then be such that the
teacher collects data or may involve looking at student participation. One of the drawbacks of individual
research is that it may not be shared with others unless the teacher chooses to present findings at a
faculty meeting, make a formal presentation at a conference, or submit written material to a listserv,
journal, or newsletter. It is possible for several teachers to be working concurrently on the same
problem with no knowledge of the work of others.
Collaborative action research may include as few as two teachers or a group of several teachers and
others interested in addressing a classroom or department issue. This issue may involve one classroom
or a common problem shared by many classrooms. These teachers may be supported by individuals
outside of the school, such as a university or community partner. The LAB at Brown has just such a
relationship with several teams.
School-wide research focuses on issues common to all. For example, a school may have a concern about
the lack of parental involvement in activities, and is looking for a way to reach more parents to involve
them in meaningful ways. Or, the school may be looking to address its organizational and decisionmaking structures. Teams of staff from the school work together to narrow the question, gather and
analyze the data, and decide on a plan of action. An example of action research for a school could be to
examine their state test scores to identify areas that need improvement, and then determine a plan of
action to improve student performance. Team work and individual contributions to the whole are very
important, and it may be that problem points arise as the team strives to develop a process and make
commitments to each other. When these obstacles are overcome, there will be a sense of ownership
and accomplishment in the results that come from this school-wide effort.
District-wide research is far more complex and utilizes more resources, but the rewards can be great.
Issues can be organizational, community-based, performance-based, or processes for decision-making. A
district may choose to address a problem common to several schools or one of organizational
management. Downsides are the documentation requirements (communication) to keep everyone in
the loop, and the ability to keep the process in motion. Collecting data from all participants needs a
commitment from staff to do their fair share and to meet agreed-upon deadlines for assignments. On
the positive side, real school reform and change can take hold based on a common understanding
through inquiry. The involvement of multiple constituent groups can lend energy to the process and
create an environment of genuine stakeholders.
Figure 1. Types of action research
Individual
teacher
research
Collaborative
action research
School-wide
action
research
District-wide
action
research
Focus
Single classroom
issue
Single classroom
or several
classrooms with
common issue
School issue,
problem, or area
of collective
interest
District issue
Organizational
structures
Possible
support
needed
Coach/mentor
Access to
technology
Assistance with
Substitute
teachers
Release time
Close link with
School
commitment
Leadership
Communication
District
commitment
Facilitator
Recorder
119
Potential
impact
Side
effects
data organization
and analysis
Curriculum
Instruction
Assessment
administrators
External partners
Curriculum
Instruction
Assessment
Policy
Potential to
impact school
restructuring
and change
Policy
Parent
involvement
Evaluation
of programs
Practice informed
by data
Information not
always shared
Improved
collegiality
Formation of
partnerships
Improved
collegiality,
collaboration,
and
communication
Team building
Disagreements
on process
Communication
External partners
Allocation
of resources
Professional
development
activities
Organizational
structures
Policy
Improved
collegiality,
collaboration,
and
communication
Team building
Disagreements
on process
Shared vision
A Brief History of Action Research
The idea of using research in a “natural” setting to change the way that the researcher interacts with
that setting can be traced back to Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist and educator whose work on action
research was developed throughout the 1940s in the United States. “Lewin is credited with coining the
term ‘action research’ to describe work that did not separate the investigation from the action needed
to solve the problem” (McFarland & Stansell, 1993, p. 14). Topics chosen for his study related directly to
the context of the issue. His process was cyclical, involving a “non-linear pattern of planning, acting,
observing, and reflecting on the changes in the social situations” (Noffke & Stevenson, 1995, p. 2).
Stephen Corey at Teachers College at Columbia University was among the first to use action research in
the field of education. He believed that the scientific method in education would bring about change
because educators would be involved in both the research and the application of information. Corey
summed up much of the thought behind this fledgling branch of inquiry.
We are convinced that the disposition to study…the consequences of our own teaching
is more likely to change and improve our practices than is reading about what someone
else has discovered of his teaching.
(Corey, 1953, p. 70)
Corey believed that the value of action research is in the change that occurs in everyday practice, rather
than the generalization to a broader audience. He saw the need for teachers and researchers to work
together. However, in the mid 1950s, action research was attacked as unscientific, little more than
common sense, and the work of amateurs (McFarland & Stansell, 1993, p. 15). Interest in action
120
research waned over the next few years as experiments with research designs and quantitative data
collection became the norm.
By the 1970s, we saw again the emergence of action research. Education practitioners questioned the
applicability of scientific research designs and methodologies as a means to solve education issues. The
results of many of these federally funded projects were seen as theoretical, not grounded in practice.
The practice of action research is again visible and seen to hold great value. Over time, the definition has
taken on many meanings. It is now often seen as a tool for professional development, bringing a greater
focus on the teacher than before (Noffke & Stevenson, 1995). It is increasingly becoming a tool for
school reform, as its very individual focus allows for a new engagement in educational change.
Action research emphasizes the involvement of teachers in problems in their own
classrooms and has as its primary goal the in-service training and development of the
teacher rather than the acquisition of general knowledge in the field of education.
(Borg, 1965, p. 313)
Steps in Action Research
Within all the definitions of action research, there are four basic themes: empowerment of participants,
collaboration through participation, acquisition of knowledge, and social change. In conducting action
research, we structure routines for continuous confrontation with data on the health of a school
community. These routines are loosely guided by movement through five phases of inquiry:
1. Identification of problem area
2. Collection and organization
3. Interpretation of data
4. Action based on data
5. Reflection
IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM
GATHER DATA
NEXT STEPS
INTERPRET DATA
EVALUATE RESULTS
ACT ON EVIDENCE
Figure 2. Action Research Cycle
121

IDENTIFY A PROBLEM AREA
Teachers often have several questions they wish to investigate; however, it is important to limit the
question to one that is meaningful and doable in the confines of their daily work. Careful planning at this
first stage will limit false starts and frustrations. There are several criteria to consider before investing
the time and effort in “researching” a problem. The question should
• be a higher-order question—not a yes/no
• be stated in common language, avoiding jargon
• be concise
• be meaningful
• not already have an answer
An important guideline in choosing a question is to ask if it is something over which the teacher has
influence. Is it something of interest and worth the time and effort that will be spent? Sometimes there
is a discrete problem that is readily identifiable. Or, the problem to be studied may come from a feeling
of discomfort or tension in the classroom. For example, a teacher may be using the latest fashionable
teaching strategy, yet not really knowing or understanding what or how kids are learning.

GATHER DATA
The collection of data is an important step in deciding what action needs to be taken. Multiple sources
of data are used to better understand the scope of happenings in the classroom or school. There are
many vehicles for collection of data:
interviews
portfolios
diaries
field notes
audio tapes
photos
memos
questionnaires
focus groups
anecdotal records
checklists
journals
individual files
logs of meetings
videotapes
case studies
surveys
records – tests, report cards,
attendance
self-assessment
samples of student work,
projects, performances
Select the data that are most appropriate for the issue being researched. Are the data easy to collect?
Are there sources readily available for use? How structured and systematic will the collection be? Use at
least three sources (triangulation) of data for the basis of actions. Organize the data in a way that makes
it useful to identify trends and themes. Data can be arranged by gender, classroom, grade level, school,
etc.

INTERPRET DATA
Analyze and identify major themes. Depending upon the question, teachers may wish to use classroom
data, individual data, or subgroup data. Some of the data are quantifiable and can be analyzed without
the use of statistics or technical assistance. Other data, such as opinions, attitudes, or checklists, may be
summarized in table form. Data that are not quantifiable can be reviewed holistically and important
elements or themes can be noted.

ACT ON EVIDENCE
Using the information from the data collection and review of current literature, design a plan of action
that will allow you to make a change and to study that change. It is important that only one variable be
122
altered. As with any experiment, if several changes are made at once, it will be difficult to determine
which action is responsible for the outcome. While the new technique is being implemented, continue
to document and collect data on performance.

EVALUATE RESULTS
Assess the effects of the intervention to determine if improvement has occurred. If there is
Improvement, do the data clearly provide the supporting evidence? If no, what changes can be made to
the actions to elicit better results?

NEXT STEPS
As a result of the action research project, identify additional questions raised by the data and plan for
additional improvements, revisions, and next steps.
Benefits of Action Research
Action research can be a worthwhile pursuit for educators for a number of reasons. Foremost among
these is simply the desire to know more. Good teachers are, after all, themselves students, and often
look for ways to expand upon their existing knowledge.

Focus on school issue, problem, or area of collective interest
Research done with the teacher’s students, in a setting with which the teacher is familiar, helps to
confer relevance and validity to a disciplined study. Often, academic research is seen as disconnected
from the daily lives of educators. While this might not always be true, it can be very helpful for teachers
to pick up threads suggested in academic circles, and weave them in to their own classroom. It is
also comforting for parents, or education administrators outside of the school, to know that a teacher is
not just blindly following what the latest study seems to suggest, but is transforming the knowledge into
something meaningful.

Form of teacher professional development
Research and reflection allow teachers to grow and gain confidence in their work. Action research
projects influence thinking skills, sense of efficacy, willingness to share and communicate, and attitudes
toward the process of change. Through action research, teachers learn about themselves, their
students, their colleagues, and can determine ways to continually improve.

Collegial interactions
Isolation is one of the downsides of teaching. A teacher is often the sole adult in a room of children, and
has little or no time scheduled for professional conversations with others. Action research in pairs or by
teams of teachers allows time to talk with others about teaching and teaching strategies. By working on
these teams, teachers must describe their own teaching styles and strategies and
share their thoughts with others. As a team they examine various instructional strategies, learning
activities, and curricular materials used in the classroom. Through these discussions with colleagues they
develop stronger relationships. As the practice of action research becomes part of the school culture, we
see increased sharing and collaboration across departments, disciplines, grade levels, and schools.

Potential to impact school change
As teachers get into action research, they are more apt to look at questions that address school and
district concerns rather than questions that affect the individual teacher. This process creates new
patterns of collegiality, communication, and sharing. Contributions to the body of knowledge about
teaching and learning may also result. Development of priorities for school-wide planning and
123
assessment efforts arise from inquiry with potential to motivate change for improvement’s sake.

Reflect on own practice
Opportunities for teachers to evaluate themselves in schools are often few, and usually happen only in
an informal manner. Action research can serve as a chance to really take a look at one’s own teaching in
a structured manner. While the focus of action research is usually the students, educators can also
investigate what effect their teaching is having on their students, how they could work better with other
teachers, or ways of changing the whole school for the better. Conversations can take on a different
focus from attempting to “fix” to arriving at understanding.

Improved communications
Team work within the school or district brings individuals together for a shared purpose. Educators
involved in action research become more flexible in their thinking and more open to new ideas (Pine,
1981). Studies by Little (1981) suggest positive changes in patterns of collegiality, communication, and
networking.
Stories from the Field
Rebecca Wisniewski
Charlotte M. Murkland School
Lowell, Massachusetts
W
hen I sat down to write about my experience with action research, I began by looking over my
team’s final report, my meeting notes, and my e-mails to our consultant from the LAB at Brown. I am
glad I did. Doing action research can be a little like labor. You forget what it was really like. The notes
and e-mails reminded me of the messiness of our meetings and our struggle to pare down
the project into something manageable.
I am the Title I Resource Teacher for the Charlotte M. Murkland School in Lowell, Massachusetts. Our
school is in the inner city and has about 530 students in pre-school to fourth grade. The Murkland has a
Khmer bilingual strand and more than 60% of our students are from homes in which English is not
spoken. Our poverty rate is one of the highest in the city, at about 89%-92%, depending on the month.
The Murkland is a new building with an experienced, stable staff that formed when the school was built
six years ago. Although our school offers us many challenges, on most days, most of us are glad to be at
the Murkland.
“Do you like research?” asked my Title I facilitator, Eileen Skovholt. “Yes,” I said, “I loved research in
college.” With those words I was on my way to becoming a teacher–researcher. That conversation led to
a multidisciplinary team, made up of our vice principal, the city-wide Title I facilitator, an ESL teacher, a
bilingual teacher, a special education teacher, and myself, being asked to attend the LAB Institute on
Cultural and Linguistic Diversity: Problem Solving through Action Research, held at Brown University.
At the conference, our group was taken with the idea that we could actually begin to conduct inquiries
into our own teaching. We have so often felt pulled in one direction or another by the swing of the
educational pendulum. By doing our own action research we could gain a better perspective into our
own teaching and the students’ learning. The changes that we would make in our teaching would come
out of our own work. Perhaps most importantly, we would be working as a community of learners.
124
During the conference, we began to talk about a group of bilingual Cambodian students in our third and
fourth grades who were non-readers. Most of them were new to our school. They would, of course, be
referred to special education for testing. The truth is, we see students such as these just about every
year. At this age, time is short and the testing process is time-consuming. Even when the testing is
completed, we still need to develop a program for them. Action research would provide us the
opportunity to try different strategies and see which ones actually brought about significant change for
our students. After visiting Brown, we were invited to write the grant that led to this project. Several of
us had never worked together before. The discussion that occurred as we were writing the grant
generated many ideas. As we wrote the grant, there was a sense of common goals and a feeling
that what we were about to do was important to our school and to our own personal growth.
Our Approach
Our research question became, “What can we provide for effective reading instruction for third- and
fourth-grade English language learners who are limited readers or nonreaders?”
We began the literature research project by gathering articles that we felt would be of interest. We each
read the articles and set aside a day to report our findings back to the group.
We also collected as much information as possible on our target students. We looked at their past
records and at their current programs.
Then we had to determine where we would go from here. This was the most difficult time for our team.
Up to this point we seemed to have moved along with only a few problems. Now, our meetings seemed
to go in circles. We became very frustrated with our lack of progress. Our impatience caused discord
among the members of the team. We were able to move past this point by allowing each member to
choose a different strategy to research. We chose among strategies that we had either discussed or read
about, and then worked with a targeted group of students. Each teacher collected data and then
looked to see how her own practice might be improved. In retrospect, this was a good decision. Looking
at your own teaching is real professional development.
Working With the Students
My part in the project was to work each morning with two of our target fourth-grade students. They
would sit with me at the computer and we would write a few sentences about what they were doing in
school. This became a newspaper that was sent home to parents. Students had to read what they wrote
to their parents and the parents had to sign the newspaper and return it to school. In later editions, we
began to have students ask the parents for feedback.
As students sat with me and we talked, I was able to help them build and write sentences in English. The
process was easy and non-threatening. We also talked about vocabulary and what concepts they were
learning in their other content areas. We wrote articles to inform their parents about this. The concept
of how to use a pulley is the same in any language.
Findings
What makes action research so powerful? As a team, we interviewed our students and asked for their
views on which of our strategies helped them to become stronger readers. It is powerful to listen to
students. Even as seasoned teachers, we can make wrong assumptions about how a child is learning. A
125
staff member from the LAB at Brown helped us to do a linguistic analysis of the students’ comments. For
me, this was the most interesting piece. We looked at all the student comments and then charted their
responses. For example, we counted how many times they talked about needing to obtain support from
a Khmer-speaking teacher. What they said made perfect sense. They needed the most support when
their English skills were less developed. This need lessened as they became better English speakers. For
us, this supported our own feelings that a few words in Khmer at the right time can make a big
difference in their learning. For my own research piece, it was good to learn that most of the parents
liked and enjoyed reading the newspaper. By the end of the project, parents began to request articles.
Helping Parents To Be Involved With Their Child’s Learning
The newspaper was a wonderful way to communicate with our parents about what their children were
learning. By having the students write the articles, they were reinforcing their own learning and they
were practicing English. Therefore, the student newspaper was a viable idea to teach English sentence
structure, reinforce vocabulary, reinforce content skills and information, and communicate with parents.
The one common finding from everyone’s research was that students needed to have their lessons
supported in Khmer. As they are learning English, they need to be able to go back to their first language
to have their learning verified.
Action research allows us the opportunity to shape and refine our own teaching and to build on our own
successes.
In a climate that is at best stressful, action research allows a teacher to focus her energy in a positive
way. So many of the issues in education today are out of our hands. As education continues through the
reform process, teachers must have a say in how they change their own practices. I found that action
research was a process that helped me to put some of my assumptions to the test. I made unexpected
discoveries about my own teaching by listening carefully to students. Action research changes the
conversations that take place in a school. This has an incredible effect on the school climate for staff and
children.
Need For Professional Educational Researchers
When doing action research it is vital to have the input of professional researchers. They can bring a
perspective and experience to the work that is invaluable. Their presence in the project helps to
legitimize that work. With their involvement, there is an increased chance that the work will play a role
in school or district priorities. Our consultants aided us by helping us to refine our question, establish an
action plan and timetable, and reflect on our data to find trends or patterns. Our consultants were able
to give us that third-party perspective and reassure us that our work and pace were on target.
126
Julie Nora
Roger Williams Middle School
Providence, Rhode Island
(At the time this reflection was written, Julie Nora taught at the Roger Williams Middle School in Providence, Rhode Island. She
is now a program planning specialist at The Education Alliance Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown
University (LAB). A version of this reflection first appeared in the LAB’s online periodical, Voices from the Field.)
B
efore being sent to an action research conference by my department head more than a year ago, I
hadn’t given much thought to what educational research could teach me about my own busy classroom.
Researchers, it seemed, imagined a reality quite different from my own. Rubrics, flow charts, and
scaffolding offered me little in the way of keeping my students engaged or of personally gauging how
many of my lessons led to serious learning.
My attitude changed when I joined several colleagues at an action research conference in November
1997. As a tool to help teachers ask questions about their everyday work, action research promised
something a little different: a chance to study my own practices and the proficiencies of my students
with an eye toward what worked and what didn’t. My goals were to assess the current level of
performance in my classroom, to experiment with new ways of doing things, to measure the results, and
to begin again as necessary.
I teach ESL at the Roger Williams Middle School in Providence, Rhode Island. This state now requires
most fourth-, eighth- and tenth-graders to take part in a standards-based assessment tool created by
the National Center for Education and the Economy (NCEE). The test is administered entirely in English
and norm-referenced on monolingual English language users. Because of this, and because the state has
mandated a 3-5% increase in each school’s level of performance, my concern is on what the
consequences of this new assessment will be on non-native speakers of English. As a teacher of these
students, what matters most to me can be summed up in the simple question that forms the basis of my
classroom inquiry: Does the explicit teaching of the NCEE standards enhance ESL student performance?
One of the basic principles of action research is that researchers need each other’s ideas for stimulation
and depend on other people’s perspectives to enrich their own. For this reason, I elected to become
part of an action research team that would apply for and receive technical assistance from an outside
consultant. The group was initially comprised of all of the teachers from our district’s bilingual
department who had participated in the conference; but it wasn’t long before our 12-person team
dwindled down to just two, myself and an elementary school ESL teacher. Many of the members had
joined more out of a sense of obligation to our director than out of a desire to participate at that
particular time, while others faced personal obstacles that interfered with their ability to take part. Only
the two final members were involved with writing the proposal for assistance. In hindsight we saw that
these factors crippled our efforts to build a larger team that could reap the greatest benefits of
research collaboration.
Still, our two-woman group continued to meet once per quarter to engage in dialogue about our
individual questions. The contact I had with my colleague was a 100% increase from the previous year
and allowed me to share triumphs and concerns in a productive environment. Knowing that I would be
presenting my findings to someone else also helped me to organize my thoughts and my data. Though
my usual way of teaching was indeed student-centered, I came to see that it wasn’t building in a circular
127
way as I had thought it was. The increased dialogue between us contributed to the development of our
knowledge about teaching and learning.
Over time, I came to see that action research demands the skills of two types of professionals: teachers
who work in the trenches every day and educational researchers who can help us to assess our teaching
in a way that gives us meaningful information. Teaching is, after all, quite subjective. Our consultant
helped us in the initial stages to become aware of the need to conduct consistent data collection. He
also helped me to think more about the instruments of assessment I choose so that I am clearly
witnessing the results of student change and not of differing conditions.
As a result, I became more consistent in the creation of tasks and the assessment of student work. For
example, in a weekly computer lab each student read from a book called The House On Mango Street for
a fixed period of time, summarized some aspect of what he or she had read, and related it to his or her
personal life. The task addressed two NCEE standards: reading and writing. I documented student
progress quantitatively and qualitatively on each element of these tasks. That is, I counted and recorded
the number of pages read during the 10-minute period and the number of words written during the
remaining 40 minutes. Qualitatively speaking, I was able to document students’ abilities to summarize,
relate the reading to their personal lives, and express their ideas in writing. I also began to document
student errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling and to use student work as the basis of explicit
instruction of common areas of weakness.
In the course of the past year, the students in this class have improved dramatically, as action research
has allowed me to address their needs and to document their progress. This has felt especially
significant in the current atmosphere of accountability. When testing time comes, I certainly hope that
my students will be deemed “at standard”; but if they are not, I will know more about their progress
than the simple fact that they have failed. I will know what they still need to reach the next level and
how I can best help them to get there. Action research has allowed me to see the bigger picture in my
work.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. What is action research?
A. Action research is deliberate, solution-oriented investigation that is group or personally owned and
conducted. It is characterized by spiraling cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection,
reflection, analysis, data-driven action taken, and, finally, problem redefinition. The linking of the
terms “action” and “research” highlights the essential features of this method: trying out ideas in
practice as a means of increasing knowledge about or improving curriculum, teaching, and learning
(Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988).
Q. What is the purpose of action research?
A. Action research is used for various purposes: school-based curriculum development, professional
development, systems planning, school restructuring, and as an evaluative tool.
Q. How can teachers become researchers?
A. A teacher can decide to tackle a problem alone or join with others to learn more about how children
learn.
They can meet after school or during common time to discuss the nature of a problem and decide on a
strategy based on an analysis of data.
128
Q. How do I learn more about action research?
A. Many local colleges and universities offer coursework on action research. Some private organizations
offer workshops on the basic principles of action research and have networks that are open to
interested educators. Additionally, you may contact the regional educational laboratory in your area.
Q. How can I use action research in my classroom?
A. You can use it to chart the effects of implementation of a curriculum or strategy, to study student
learning and responses, or to profile individual students.
Q. How does action research benefit students in the classroom?
A. Action research can improve the teaching and learning process by reinforcing, or changing
perceptions based on informal data and nonsystematic observations.
Q. How does action research benefit teachers?
A. Teachers learn what it is that they are able to influence and they make changes that produce results
that show change. The process provides the opportunity to work with others and to learn from the
sharing of ideas.
Q. Why should schools engage in action research?
A. Reasons for performing action research fall into three categories: to promote personal and
professional growth, to improve practice to enhance student learning, and to advance the teaching
profession (Johnson, 1995).
Q. What gains can be made from action research that affect students?
A. Change is based on data; the student is the subject and object of inquiry.
Q. Does action research take away from other instructional time?
A. Time must be made to organize, study, collect data, analyze data, and for dissemination.
Q. Who will manage action research projects?
A. Projects can be managed by the individual teacher or a team leader. With school-wide or district-wide
projects, it is not unusual for an outside facilitator to manage the project.
Conclusion
This booklet provides information about action research—its history, the different variations occurring
in the field, and a step-by-step process that may be adapted by educators or schools to address their
need for learning more about practice and successful interventions. While there may be different terms
to describe the steps in action research, the basic concept is the same. Educators are working in their
own environment, with their own students, on problems that affect them directly. They are at the place
where research and practice intersect and real change can occur. Results of their actions can be seen
first-hand, and they can build on this information.
There are many uses for action research. It is used in curriculum development, as a strategy for
professional development, as part of pre-service and in-service programs, and in systems planning for
schools and districts. The active participation of teachers and others is part of what makes this a viable
and useful tool. The investment of time and energy by the participants provides a sense of ownership
and connection to the process and outcomes. Activities of action research and the mindset of those
129
involved in the process become an integral part of the professional repertoire of many educators. When
they see the value of their work as they progress through the steps and the reflection time that is used
to discuss strategies and methods, they find that the benefits go far beyond student achievement.
Practitioners develop skills in analyzing their own teaching methods and begin to unconsciously utilize
the principles of action research in their professional lives.
Action research will not provide all the answers to our questions about how students learn or what
educators can do to improve practice. But action research happens at the place where these questions
arise; it happens where the real action is taking place; and it allows for immediate action.
How Do I Get More Information?
For more information about action research or other publications in this series, contact the Information
Center of the LAB at Brown University at 1-800-521-9550, (401) 274-9548, or e-mail to
info@lab.brown.edu.
Acknowledgments
The LAB at Brown University wishes to acknowledge Donald Bouchard for reviewing the material for
factual accuracy and for providing helpful suggestions. The LAB also wishes to acknowledge and thank
the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, whose successful By Request booklets on educational
hot topics spurred us to develop our Themes in Education series.
References
Best, J.W., & Kahn, J.V. (1998). Research in education (8th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Borg, W. (1981). Applying educational research: A practical guide for teachers. New York: Longman.
Brennan, M., & Williamson, P. (1981). Investigating learning in schools. Victoria, Australia: Deakin
University Press.
Calhoun, E.F. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (Eds.). (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Corey, S.M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
Johnson, B.M. (1995, Fall). Why conduct action research? Teaching and Change, 1, 90-105.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Victoria, Australia: Deakin
University Press.
Kochendorfer, L. (1994). Becoming a reflective teacher. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Little, J.W. (1981). School success and staff development: The role of staff development in urban
desegregated schools. Boulder, CO: Center for Action Research, Inc.
130
McFarland, K.P., & Stansell, J.C. (1993). Historical perspectives. In L. Patterson, C.M. Santa, C.G. Short, &
K. Smith (Eds.), Teachers are researchers: Reflection and action. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
McTaggart, R. (Ed.). (1997). Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Noffke, S.E., & Stevenson, R.B. (Eds.). (1995). Educational action research: Becoming practically critical.
New York: Teachers College Press.
O’Hanlon, C. (Ed.). (1996). Professional development through action research in educational settings.
Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Oja, S.N., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental approach. New York:
Falmer Press.
Pine, G.J. (1981). Collaborative action research: The integration of research and service. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Detroit,
MI.
Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Watts, H. (1985). When teachers are researchers, teaching improves. Journal of Staff Development, 6
(2), 118-127.
Internet Resources
http://ousd.k12.ca.us/netday/links/Action_Research/begin_guide_action_research
This site gives a clear outline and summary of the steps involved in action research. In addition, this site
highlights the benefits of the action research process.
http://www.phy.nau.edu/~danmac/actionrsch.html
This site gives descriptions and diagrams of action research cycles. It also describes the function of each
stage in the action research process.
http://elmo.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/arr/arr-home.html
This site provides a brief summary of the methodologies used in action research, a bibliography with a
substantial list of authors and titles, frequently asked questions, and links to various action research
sites.
http://educ.queensu.ca/~ar/
This site has various informational and personal essays on action research. It also provides links to other
action research sites.
http://www.tiac.net/users/dfleming/resource/arwhatis.html
This site describes many different forms of action research and how each one is unique and useful.
131
The Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory
a program of The Education Alliance at Brown University
Adeline Becker
Executive Director, The Education Alliance
Vincent Ferrandino
Chair, LAB Board of Governors
Phil Zarlengo
Executive Director, The LAB at Brown University
Marjorie Medd
Vice Chair, LAB Board of Governors
Board Members
J. Duke Albanese
Barbara Bailey
Pamela Berry
Paul Crowley
David Driscoll
Victor Fajardo
Charlotte K. Frank
Edward McElroy
Peter McWalters
Richard Mills
Thong Phamduy
Daria Plummer
Olga Lucia Sallaway
Theodore Sergi
David Sherman
Ruby Simmonds
Jeanette Smith
Jill Tarule
Elizabeth Twomey
David Wolk
LAB
Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory
The Education Alliance
222 Richmond Street, Suite 300
Providence, RI 02903-4226
Phone: 800.521.9550
Fax: 401.421.7650
Email: info@lab.brown.edu
Web: www.lab.brown.edu
132
Job-Embedded Learning
Background
Job-embedded learning, also known as on-the-job learning, is learning that occurs while
teachers and administrators engage in their daily work. While simultaneously performing their
job duties, participants learn by doing, reflecting on their experiences, and then generating and
sharing new insights and learning with one another. This type of learning, formal and informal, is
becoming more popular because of its practicality.
Benefits
Recently gathered research shows that the traditional methods of professional development,
such as attending workshops, are not very effective. Administrators have a limited amount of
time to attend workshops. Furthermore, it is difficult for administrators to implement what they
learn from these workshops into their everyday job.
On-the-job learning provides a solution to these problems. Because administrators are learning
while they are in their jobs, integrating their new knowledge is not difficult.
Furthermore, job-embedded learning does not require participants to set aside a separate time
to learn. Because learning occurs while on-the-job, time efficiency is maximized.
Finally, job-embedded learning is beneficial because it promotes immediate application of what
is learned and costs less, in most cases, than paying a high-priced consultant to conduct
training.
Examples
There are many types of on-the-job learning, some formal and others informal. Study groups,
reflective logs, action research, peer coaching, and mentoring are just a few examples of jobembedded learning. In study groups, a small number of administrators come together to learn
more about a particular topic. The group reviews and discusses the topic, reads literature on it,
and may visit model programs.
In contrast to study groups, keeping a reflective log is a more individual practice. Reflective logs
are used to encourage learning from the successes and problems a participant encounters
during the workday. Administrators not only summarize what happened, but they summarize
what they have learned. Typically, participants share these logs with other colleagues who offer
further insight and advice.
A third example of job-embedded learning is action research. Administrators gather data and
information about their performance and their work environment and then systematically
analyze their findings individually or with other colleagues. This practice reveals certain trends
and tendencies and allows participants to reflect on what changes need to be made.
Administrators then implement these changes and continue to gather research to see if the new
approach is effective.
Overall, on-the-job learning is a practical method that offers an easier, more effective method to
ensure that education is constantly improving.
133
Related Links
•
What is it?
On-the-Job Learning
This article provides an excellent description of on-the-job learning. Three approaches to
this type of learning are facilitating study groups, engaging in action research, and
keeping reflective logs. Several types of activities, such as school meetings, also hold
promise for on-the-job learning. (From Journal of Staff Development, Summer 1999,
National Staff Development Council)
On-the-job Training (http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/history/history2.html )
This brief overview of on-the-job training provides access to other articles and webpages that focus on action research and keeping reflective journals, two specific
examples of job-embedded learning. (From A Time Capsule of Training and Learning)
Themes in Education: Action Research
(http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/themes_ed/act_research.pdf )
This booklet describes action research by giving its definition, history, and a list of
different types that exist. Also included are sections on how to implement action
research, its benefits, and 2 stories of schools that implemented this concept. (From
Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University)
What is Job-Embedded Learning and Why Should I Know About it?
Job-embedded learning is a professional development strategy used by many school
districts across the country. This type of learning is often done in the form of study
groups and action research. When engaged in job-embedded learning, professionals
continue to foster their learning without being taken away from their jobs. (From National
Training Partnership, p.7, Vol. 4, no. 3, September 1999. Education Development
Center, Inc.)
134

Tools & Resources
Designing Job-Embedded Professional Learning: The Authentic Task Approach
The Authentic Task Approach is a model for educational leaders who want to implement
job-embedded learning to help improve their schools. This approach describes eight
steps in a program designed for working and learning that most effectively capitalizes on
the increasingly pressing need to continuously learn more while tackling the real world.
(From Learning Innovations, a Division of WestEd)
Leadership Development On-The-Job Learning
(http://www.pao.gov.ab.ca/toolkit/on-the-job/on-the-job-learning.htm )
On-The-Job Learning is a practical way to incorporate learning into your everyday
activities at work. Here you can access a broad range of creative ideas to help you get
started. (From Knowledge Fair 2000)
New Book in On-the-job Learning Launched
For those interested in job-embedded learning, there is a book available entitled, "Onthe-job Learning: Creating Productive Work Environments." The review of this book
briefly gives an overview of what on-the-job learning is and how it is beneficial when
implemented in the workplace. (From August 28, 2000, Massey University, New
Zealand)

Model Programs
On-the-Job Learning of Nontraditional Superintendents
Author Jay Matthews tells the story of a former US attorney who was hired as a
superintendent by a San Diego school district. Matthews relates the on-the-job learning
that occurred for this administrator, as well as other nontraditional administrators, in the
educational system. (From The School Administrator Web Edition, February 1999,
American Association of School Administrators)
Perspectives on School Leadership
(http://forms.ncsl.org.uk/mediastore/image2/lgresources/lskills/bbcpl/ncsl.htm )
This professional-development learning module, produced in cooperation with the BBC,
provides school leaders with important practical and theoretical information on
leadership. (From National College for School Leadership)

Selected Research & Articles
Importance of On-the-Job Experiences in Developing Leadership Capabilities
(http://vocserve.berkeley.edu/Summaries/814sum.html )
This study explores the importance of on-the-job learning experiences which
complement and supplement leadership development provided in formal education
programs.
135
Importance of On-the-Job Experiences in Developing
Leadership Capabilities (MDS-814)
J. J. Lambrecht, C. Hopkins, J. Moss, Jr., C. R. Finch
The purpose of this study was to explore the importance of on-the-job experiences as a means
of complementing and supplementing leadership development provided in formal education
programs. Not only do on-the-job experiences have potential to assist persons who are actively
involved in leadership programs; they may also be of value in reaching and impacting vocational
education professionals who have not had an opportunity to attend these programs. This study
used the following seven questions to guide its procedures:
1. What are the characteristics of on-the-job experiences that successful vocational
education administrator-leaders consider most helpful to their development as leaders?
Are there differences that relate to gender?
2. What leader qualities are perceived to be improved by the on-the-job experience?
3. What developmental aspects are associated with various types of on-the-job
experiences? (What is it about the experiences that make them effective?)
4. What developmental aspects of on-the-job experiences are associated with improved
leader qualities?
5. What improved leader qualities are associated with various types of experiences?
6. What types of experiences do vocational education administrator-leaders recommend for
preparing future leaders?
7. What are the perceived developmental aspects of the experiences recommended for
future leaders? (What is perceived to make the experiences effective?)
This study builds directly on research findings from the corporate world that indicate how on-thejob experiences relate to leadership development. This research also responds to the need to
determine the ways in which these findings apply to education in general and vocational
education professionals in particular. And, finally, this study links closely to and builds directly
on more than six years of leadership research and development conducted by the National
Center for Research in Vocational Education (NCRVE). It was the next logical step in NCRVE's
long-term research and development program.
From among the 220 chief vocational administrators who participated in the collection of
normative and standard data for the Leader Attributes Inventory (LAI) and the Leader
Effectiveness Inventory (LEI), the 78 with the highest scores (top one-third) on the LEI were
identified and asked to participate in a study to examine the importance of on-the-job
experiences in the development of leadership capabilities. Seventy-two vocational education
administrator-leaders (26 women and 46 men) from 12 states participated in the telephone
interview process. The Behavioral Event Interview (BEI) technique was chosen as the data
collection method because of its ability to focus on meaningful dynamic behaviors demonstrated
by leaders that they judge have had an impact on their development as leaders. The Interview
Protocol asked each vocational administrator-leader to describe two on-the-job incidents that
had the most impact on their professional development as leaders. Specific probes were then
used: (1) Can you give a brief overview of the incident (that had the most impact on the
development of your leadership qualities)? (2) Can you briefly describe what made this on-thejob incident developmental? (3) When in your career did the incident take place? (4) Who or
what initiated the incident? (5) How did the incident unfold? (6) In what ways did your leadership
qualities improve or develop as a result of the incident? (7) Are there other things I should know
136
about the context of this incident? (8) If I wanted to provide a similar on-the-job developmental
experience for someone else, what else would I need to know?
The intent of these probes was to gain as much information as possible about the incident and
to obtain specific examples to capture what happened and what the administrator was thinking
and feeling during the experience. The ultimate goal was to gain an understanding of how this
experience was developmental and how its developmental effects might be replicated on the job
for others. A total of 140 incidents were described by the vocational education administratorleaders.
Five types of experiences were identified by successful vocational education administratorleaders as most helpful to their development as leaders: (1) new positions that offer new and/or
increased responsibilities; (2) special start-up work assignments; (3) handling personnel
problems like conflicts and firings; (4) being mentored, counseled, supported; and (5) working
with a supervisor. These experiences were perceived to provide the following kinds of
opportunities for leadership development: (1) the challenge of new and/or complex tasks or
problems; (2) the chance to learn new ideas, practices, insights; (3) the opportunity to apply and
practice skills and knowledge; (4) encouragement and confidence building; and (5) exposure to
positive role models. The kinds of leadership development opportunities identified were most
frequently perceived to result in the development of the following leadership qualities: (1)
communication (listening, oral, written) skills; (2) administrative/management knowledge and
skills; (3) unspecified interpersonal skills; (4) team building skills; (5) sensitivity, respect; (6)
confidence, self-acceptance; (7) a broader perspective about the organization; and (8) the
appropriate use of leadership styles.
Men tended more than women to initiate their own challenging experiences, and were more
frequently motivated by the risk of failure and/or by the interest and excitement generated by the
experience. On the other hand, challenging experiences for women came more often from new
and complex tasks, where they had the support of superiors and/or other positive role models,
or from job stress and barriers they perceived to accomplishing the tasks. Further, more men
than women used their on-the-job experiences to improve their team building, motivational, and
use of leadership styles qualities, while more women than men felt they improved their
insightful, networking, and organizational skills. With two exceptions, men and women agreed
upon the qualities most frequently perceived to have been improved by on-the-job experiences.
Women included networking and organizing, rather than team building and using appropriate
leadership styles among the seven most frequently perceived improved qualities. It is also
noteworthy that a higher proportion of women than men reported gains in insightfulness, while a
higher proportion of men than women indicated the quality of motivating others to have been
developed.
The five most frequently recommended types of experiences for future leaders were (1)
mentoring, counseling and advocate support; (2) formal training programs (e.g., leadership
academy); (3) internships; (4) various special assignments (while on-the-job); and (5)
simulations/case studies. Missing from this list were three of the most frequently mentioned
types of on-the-job experiences that respondents had reported were effective in developing their
own leadership abilities: (1) providing new and/or increased responsibilities, (2) special start-up
assignments, and (3) handling personnel problems like conflicts and firings. Men and women
differed somewhat in their recommendations for the types of experiences that future leaders
should have. A higher proportion of women than men favored mentoring, counseling and
advocate support, as well as formal training programs and simulations/case studies. A greater
proportion of men than women favored internships.
137
Based on the results of this study, on-the-job experiences can certainly be promoted as one
effective, and perhaps indispensable, means for developing future leaders. Successful leaders
participating in this study all had vivid positive memories of experiences which they said
significantly effected their development as leaders. Further, the successful leaders advocated
on-the-job activities that they believed could be used effectively in developing future leaders for
vocational education. The findings of this study are consistent with studies in business and
industry, which also report that certain kinds of on-the-job experiences are effective for
developing leaders. Thus, it is important that current vocational education administrator-leaders
take advantage of the opportunities they have for using on-the-job experiences to develop and
improve the leadership capabilities of persons on their staffs who are preparing to assume new
and more advanced leadership roles.
Not all on-the-job experiences are equal in their potential effectiveness for leadership
development. Two characteristics of effective experiences have been consistently revealed by
this and other research. On-the-job learning is most likely to occur for both men and women
when:
1. Individuals are placed in a variety of challenging situations with problems to solve and
choices to make under conditions of risk. These situations (1) motivate individuals to
learn, (2) provide opportunities to gain new ideas and knowledge and to practice skills
and apply knowledge, and (3) encourage new insights through reflection on prior
actions.
2. Individuals gain their experiences in a supportive environment with supervisors who
provide positive role models and constructive support and mentors who provide counsel.
Some examples of challenging situations include the provision of new or increased
responsibilities; special start-up assignments such as initiating a new program or project; and
handling personnel problems such as hiring and firing.
Given that men were more likely than women to be the initiators of their developmental
experiences, vocational education administrator-leaders may need to be more aggressive in
identifying and providing appropriate on-the-job developmental opportunities for women
preparing for leadership roles.
The most important kinds of outcomes from on-the-job experiences for both men and women
appear to be growth in personal and interpersonal leadership skills, knowledge, and values.
These outcomes most typically include improvement in communication (listening, speaking,
writing) skills, sensitivity to and respect for others, team building skills, appropriate use of
leadership styles, self-confidence, networking, planning, organizing, and decision-making.
Additionally,
it
is
common
for
on-the-job
experiences
to
further
develop
administrative/management knowledge and skills specific to the context, as well as to broaden
one's perspective about the organization.
Vocational education administrator-leaders participating in this study were not asked to identify
examples of formal education program-related experiences through which they developed their
leadership qualities. Thus, relatively few (9%) reported formal training programs (e.g.,
leadership academies) and the use of simulations/case studies as significant leadership
development experiences in their own development. Yet, about 30% of them recommended the
use of formal preparation programs for future leaders. Formal preparation programs should not
be considered as a substitute for appropriately challenging on-the-job experiences, but only as a
very useful supplement to them.
138
It is safe to conclude that when using on-the-job assignments for leader development purposes,
the key is to provide multiple opportunities to assume responsibility for challenging assignments
and to reflect on the meaning of these events for accomplishing important common purposes
within given communities of practice.
http://vocserve.berkeley.edu/Summaries/814sum.html
Informal Training: A Review of Existing Data and New Evidence
Because on-the-job training is a relatively new concept, there are few concrete studies
that look in-depth at this concept. This paper analyzes the formal and the informal
training information from four commonly used surveys, paying particular attention to
1993 and 1994 data from the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth. One conclusion
this survey reached is that job wage-growth increased with on-the-job training. (From US
Department of Labor, 1998)
New Ways of Learning in the Workplace
Professionals should be engaged in continuous on-the-job learning and development.
This digest addresses some of the new ways to learn at work, such as action learning,
situated learning, and incidental learning. (From ERIC Digest No. 161, ED385778)
Contact:
e-Lead
4455 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 310
Washington, DC 20008
Pbone: (202) 822-8405 | Fax: (202) 872-4050 | Email: e-lead@iel.org
139
CONTENT LITERACY STRATEGY DESCRIPTIONS
for the
2008 LOUISIANA COMPREHENSIVE CURRICULUM
Dr. William G. Brozo
May 2008
140
Table of Contents
Brainstorming
DR-TA – Directed Reading-Thinking Activity
GISTing
Graphic Organizers
Learning Log
Opinionnaire/Anticipation Guide
Professor Know-It-All
Process Guide
Questioning the Author (QtA)
RAFT Writing
Reciprocal Teaching
SPAWN Writing
Split-Page Notetaking
SQPL – Student Questions for Purposeful Learning
Story Chains
Vocabulary Cards
Vocabulary Self-Awareness
Word Grid
141
1
2
3
5
6
7
9
10
12
14
16
19
21
23
25
27
28
30
Brainstorming
Rationale
Brainstorming involves students working together to generate ideas quickly without stopping to judge their
worth. In brainstorming, students in pairs or groups freely exchange ideas and lists in response to an open-ended
question, statement, problem, or other prompt. Students try to generate as many ideas as possible, often
building on a comment or idea from another participant. This supports creativity and leads to expanded
possibilities. The process activates students’ relevant prior knowledge, allows them to benefit from the
knowledge and experience of others, and creates an anticipatory mental set for new learning (Buehl, 2001;
Dreher, 2000).
Teaching Process
1. Begin by posing a question, problem, or other prompt to students. For example, “How many ways can
you…” “What would happen if…?” Frame the prompt in such a way as to generate ideas and input from as
many students as possible. Make sure students understand the prompt being addressed and the purpose
and background of the brainstorming activity.
Brainstorm Prompt for a Geography Lesson on New Orleans
We have been learning about how the unique geography of the New Orleans area contributed to the
devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. With a partner, think of all the possible things that could be
done to compensate for the area’s geography that might help prevent another similar disaster. Be
creative and remember that no idea is too far-fetched. Work quickly; you have five minutes.
2. Ask students to work with a partner or in designated groups to brainstorm responses to the prompt.
State to the students in the very beginning that all ideas are welcome, including those that might be
considered out of the ordinary. These often stimulate the best contributions from the group.
3. After a set period of time, invite students to share their brainstormed ideas. Ideas should be listed on the
board, overhead, or flipchart and should be in view of all students. Either designate a group
spokesperson or encourage all students to call out ideas while you write them down. Avoid being
judgmental about ideas as they are shared.
4. Once an initial list is established, tell students to build on the suggested ideas and to connect ideas that
are seemingly unrelated. Focus on quantity.
5. Frequently, after an initial burst of ideas, there will be a time of silence. Allow the group to be silent for a
moment. Most of the time, additional ideas will begin flowing and this will generate the eventual solution
to the question.
6. Connect the brainstormed ideas with the content and information to be learned in the upcoming lesson.
This can be accomplished by making statements, such as “We now have all these interesting ideas; let’s
see what the author says about…” or “Now let’s compare your brainstormed solutions to the problem
with the process recommended on page…”
Sources
Buehl, D. (2001). Classroom strategies for interactive learning. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Dreher, M.J. (2000). Fostering reading for learning. In L. Baker, M.J. Dreher, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Engaging
young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation (94-118). New York: Guilford Press.
1
DR-TA – Directed Reading-Thinking Activity
Rationale
DR-TA is an instructional approach that invites students to make predictions, and then check their predictions
during and after the reading (Stauffer, 1980). The DR-TA teaches students how to self-monitor as they read and
learn, which leads to an increase in attention, comprehension, and achievement (Duke & Pearson, 2002).
Teaching Process
1. First, activate and build background knowledge for the content to be read. This often takes the form
of a discussion designed to elicit information the students may already have, including personal
experience, prior to reading. Also, direct students’ attention to title, subheadings, and other textual
and format clues. Students’ ideas and information should be recorded on the board or on chart
paper.
2. Next, students are encouraged to make predictions about the text content. Ask questions, such as
“What do you expect the main idea of this text will be?” From the title, what do you expect the
author to say in this piece?” Students are often asked to write their predictions, so as to preserve a
record of them as they read the actual text.
3. Then, guide students through a section of the text, stopping at predetermined places to ask students
to check and revise their predictions. This is a crucial step in DR-TA instruction. When a stopping
point is reached, ask students to reread the predictions they wrote and change them, if necessary, in
light of new evidence that has influenced their thinking. Their new prediction and relevant evidence
should be written down, as well. This cycle gets repeated several times throughout the course of the
reading. There are numerous opportunities for the teacher to model his/her predictions, revisions,
and evidence. Also, prod students’ growing understanding of the text with questions, such as “What
do you know so far from this reading?” “What evidence do you have to support what you know?”
“What do you expect to read next?”
4. Once the reading is completed, students’ predictions can be used as discussion tools. When students
write and revise predictions throughout the reading, they have a great deal to say about the text.
Ask, “What did you expect to learn before we began reading?” and “What did you actually learn?”
5. Students should be guided to employ the DR-TA process on their own when reading.
Sources
Duke, N., & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S.J.
Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (205-242). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Stauffer, R.B. (1980). Directing the reading-thinking process. New York: Harper & Row.
2
GISTing
Rationale
The ability to summarize is perhaps the most important subskill involved in comprehension (Caccamise &
Snyder, 2005; Friend, 2000). But it is a difficult skill to teach. Unskilled students are prone to say too little
or too much in their summaries (Thiede & Anderson, 2003). GISTing is an excellent strategy for helping
students paraphrase and summarize essential information. Students are required to limit the gist of a
paragraph to a set number of words. Individual sentences from a paragraph are presented one at a time
while students create a gist that must contain only the predetermined number of words. By limiting the
total number of words, students can use, this approach to summarizing forces them to think about only
the most important information in a paragraph, which is the essence of comprehension (Brown & Day,
1983).
Teaching Process
1. For the first step in teaching GISTing, select appropriate paragraphs on which to write gists. It is
best to start with relatively short paragraphs of no more than three to five sentences that are
easily understood.
2. Next, establish a limited number of spaces to represent the total number of words of the gist, say
15 or so.
3. Students read the first sentence of the paragraph and, using only the spaces allowed, write a
statement in those spaces capturing the essential information of the sentence. This is the
beginning of their gist.
4. Have students read the second sentence of the paragraph and, using the information from the
first and second sentences of the paragraph, they rewrite their gist statement by combining
information from the first sentence with information from the second. Again, the students’
revised gist statement should be no more than the allotted number of spaces. This process
continues with the remaining sentences of the paragraph.
5. As students read each succeeding sentence, they should rework their gist statement by
accommodating any new information from the sentence into the existing gist statement, while
not using any more than the allotted number of spaces.
6. Finally, students should share their gists for comment and critique.
A GISTing Example
A social studies teacher taught the GISTing strategy while his class was learning about ancient Rome. He
selected a sample three-sentence paragraph from the textbook to teach gist writing. He began by typing
the first sentence of the paragraph on the computer and projected it on the screen for his class to see.
He then directed students to write a summary of the first sentence using only 15 words. He allowed
students to work in pairs. Afterward, he elicited the various first-sentence gists from several pairs of
students and typed and projected a version the whole class could agree upon. The teacher and his social
studies students went through the same process for the remaining two sentences of the paragraph. As
they read the new sentences, they revised their original gist, but kept it within the 15 word limit (See the
paragraph and gist sentences below.) By conducting the GISTing lesson with his students, the teacher
was able to model and clarify the process throughout, until a final acceptable gist was crafted for the
entire paragraph.
3
Paragraph from social studies text
Julius Caesar was famous as a statesman, a general, and an author, but
ancient traffic jams forced him to become a traffic engineer, too. These
traffic snarls were so acute in the marketplace of Imperial Rome and
around the Circus Maximus that all chariots and ox carts were banned
for ten hours after sunrise. Only pedestrians were allowed into the streets
and markets. Caesar also found it necessary to abolish downtown parking
and establish one-way streets.
Class gist statements for each sentence of paragraph
1. Julius Caesar was famous for many things including traffic engineer. ________
________ ________ ________ ________
2. As traffic engineer Julius Caesar banned chariots and ox carts from Rome during the
daytime.
3. As traffic engineer Julius Caesar banned all but pedestrians from
Rome during the daytime.
4. As Rome’s traffic engineer Julius Caesar allowed only pedestrians, created one-way streets,
and banned parking.
After several gisting activities using this approach, the teacher guided students in constructing summaries
without having to gist each sentence of a paragraph. It is more important that students recognize that the gisting
process is a mental one and not necessarily a written one. Eventually, the teacher was gathering overall gists for
sections of text by having students combine essential information from summary statement made from several
paragraphs.
Sources
Brown, A., & Day, J. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing text: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
Caccamise, D., & Snyder, L. (2005). Theory and pedagogical practices of text comprehension. Topics in Language
Disorders, 25, 5-20.
Friend, R. (2000). Teaching summarization as a content area reading strategy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 44, 320-330.
Thiede, K., & Anderson, M.C. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 28, 129-161.
4
Graphic Organizers
Rationale
Graphic organizers are visual displays teachers use to organize information in a manner that makes the
information easier to understand and learn. Graphic organizers are effective in enabling students to assimilate
new information by organizing it in visual and logical ways (Bromley, Irwin-Devitis, & Modlo, 1995). Flowcharts,
semantic maps, t-charts, webs, KWL charts, and Venn diagrams are all examples of graphic organizers.
Using graphic organizers is associated with improved reading comprehension for students (Robinson, Robinson, &
Katayama, 1999). In addition, graphic organizers have been effectively applied across other content areas, such as
science, math, and social studies (Guastello, Beasley, & Sinatra, 2000; Hanselman, 1996).
Teaching Process
1. Select a graphic organizer that matches the concepts and information students will be reading and
learning. For example, information that relates to steps in a process may be displayed in a flow chart;
comparing and contrasting information is well suited to a Venn diagram; a branching, hierarchical chart
can accurately display ideas supported by specific details.
2. Decide whether you will give students the graphic organizer partially filled in or blank.
3. Distribute the graphic organizer and review it with students. Make sure students are aware of the logic
behind the particular visual format being used. Tell students the content they are about to learn can be
organized in the format, making it easier to understand, study, and remember.
4. As content is covered, work with students to fill in the graphic organizer. It is useful to have students do
this with a partner to create opportunities for oral language development.
5. Once the graphic organizer is completed, demonstrate for students how it can be used as a study aid for
recalling important ideas, supporting details, and processes. Be sure to base assessments on visual
displays to reinforce for students the value of organizing information and ideas in graphic formats.
Sources
Bromley, K., Irwin-Devitis, L., & Modlo, M. (1995). Graphic organizers: Visual strategies for active learning. New
York: Scholastic Professional Books.
Guastello, E. F., Beasley, T. M., & Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content
comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 356–365.
Hanselman, C. A. (1996). Using brainstorming webs in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Teaching in the
Middle School, 1, 766–770.
Robinson, D.H., Robinson, S.L., Katayama, A.D. (1999). When words are represented in memory like pictures:
Evidence for spatial encoding of study materials. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 38-54.
5
Learning Log
Rationale
A learning log is a notebook, binder, or some other repository that students maintain in order to record ideas,
questions, reactions, and reflections, and to summarize newly learned content. Documenting ideas in a log about
the content being read and studied forces students to “put into words” what they know or do not know (Audet,
Hichman, & Dobrynina, 1996). This process offers a reflection of understanding that can lead to further study and
alternative learning paths (Baker, 2003). It combines writing and reading with content learning (McIntosh &
Draper, 2001; Sanders, 1985). Learning logs can become the place for virtually any kind of content-focused
writing (Brozo & Simpson, 2007).
Teaching Process
1. Begin by requesting students to use a special notebook or binder for learning log entries. Students should
be encouraged to personalize their logs by decorating the cover or in some other way to distinguish it as
unique.
2. Share examples of log entries you have written to serve as models for students. Use these examples to
explain the process and your expectations for entries.
3. Give students prompts for short content-focused writing and allow them to practice writing entries,
discussing strengths and areas needing further development. For example, at the start of class you might
ask students to predict what will be covered in the next chapter, or at the conclusion of class have
students write a reflection of what was learned in that day’s lesson.
4.
Sample Learning Log Prompt and Entry
Teacher Prompt: In your own words, tell what you have learned about the human brain from today’s reading and
activities.
Student Log Entry: I learned that the brain has a right and left half that are called cerebral hemispheres. But
really the brain has four main parts—the cerebrum, the pons, the cerebellum, and the medulla oblongata. I also
learned that when the arteries in the brain become blocked it can cause strokes. The brain doesn’t get enough
oxygen and is damaged.
5. Regularly, if not daily, prompt students to write in their learning logs. Log entries should be dated and
include the prompt. A time limit for writing should be set, and students should be allowed to share their
entries with a partner or the class for feedback and comments.
6. Consider ways in which learning logs can be evaluated. Since log writing is typically short in length,
written within a limited amount of time, and does not require much if any revisionary effort, grading
should be holistic. Most teachers give completion grades based on a weekly collection and check of the
logs.
Sources
Audet, R.H., Hichman, P., & Dobrynina, G. (1996). Learning logs: A classroom practice for enhancing scientific
sense making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 205-222.
Baker, H.J. (2003). The learning log. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14, 11-14.
McIntosh, M.E., & Draper, R.J. (2001). Using learning logs in mathematics: Writing to learn. Mathematics
Teacher, 94, 554-557.
Sanders, A. (1985). Learning logs: A communication strategy for all subject areas. Educational
Leadership, 42, 7-10.
6
Opinionnaire/Anticipation Guide
Rationale
White and Johnson (2001) discovered that opinionnaires are highly beneficial in promoting deep and meaningful
understandings of content area topics by activating and building relevant prior knowledge and building interest in
and motivation to learn more about particular topics. Opinionnaires also promote self-examination, value
students’ points of view, and provide a vehicle for influencing others with their ideas.
Opinionnaires are developed by generating statements about a topic that force students to take positions and
defend them. The emphasis is on students’ points of view and not the “correctness” of their opinions. By taking a
stand on issues related to the topic of study and engaging in critical discussion about those issues, students not
only heighten their expectation of the content to follow, but also make many new connections from their
opinions and ideas to those of their classmates.
Similar to the opinionnaire, the anticipation guide involves giving students a list of statements about the topic to
be studied and asking them to respond to it before reading and learning, and then again after reading and
learning. While the opinionnaire works well with ideas that are open to debate and discussion, the anticipation
guide strategy is better suited to information that is verifiable. Like opinionnaires, anticipation guides can activate
prior knowledge of text topics and help students set purposes for reading and learning (Duffelmeyer & Baum,
1992; Merkley, 1996/97).
Sample Opinionnaire and Anticipation Guide Statements
Opinionnaire Statements
1. Algebra is relevant to me in my everyday life
Agree_____ Disagree______
Explain:
2. Jack was silly for selling his cow for a sack of “magic” beans.
Agree_____ Disagree______
Why:
Anticipation Guide Statements
1. There are cases when two negative numbers multiplied together do not yield a positive number.
True_____
False______
2. Amelia Earhart was the first person to fly across the Atlantic Ocean from the United States to Europe.
Yes_____
No______
Teaching Process
1. Begin by looking over the content you will be covering related to a particular topic. Decide whether the
content lends itself to an open-ended discussion of issues or demands the learning of specific information
and concepts.
2. Based on the content, craft statements that elicit either attitudes and beliefs or reactions to their
accuracy and decide on a response mode. Statements may require an “agree” or “disagree” a “true” or
“false” or a “yes” or “no.” Statements do not have to be factually accurate.
3. Before exploring the new content, present students with the statements and response options. These can
be given in handout form, written on the board, overhead, or projected. Tell students to respond
individually to the statements and be prepared to explain their responses.
4. Next, put students in pairs and have them compare and discuss their responses to the opinionnaire or
anticipation guide statements before reading and learning. Emphasize that there is no “correct” answer
at this stage of the lesson and that students should discuss freely.
7
5. Open the discussion to the whole class so as many different opinions, beliefs, points of view, and hunches
about the accuracy of the statements are expressed.
6. Transition from the discussion by telling students that they are about to read and explore the topic (Any
information source is amenable to the opinionnaire and anticipation guide strategies, such as a reading, a
lecture, a PowerPoint presentation, a guest speaker, a lab experiment, etc.). Tell them to pay particular
attention to content related to the statements.
7. Stop periodically as content is covered to consider the statements from the opinionnaire or anticipation
guide and have students reconsider their pre-lesson responses. Students should revise their original
responses to reflect their new learning.
8. If necessary, once the lesson content has been presented, engage students in a discussion around the
statements. This gives you an opportunity to clarify any lingering misconceptions about issues,
information, and concepts.
Sources
Duffelmeyer, R., & Baum, D. (1992). The extended anticipation guide revisited. Journal
of Reading, 35, 654-656.
Merkley, D. (1996/97). Modified anticipation guide. The Reading Teacher, 50, 365-368.
White, B., & Johnson, T.S. (2001). We really do mean it: Implementing language arts
Standard #3 with opinionnaires. The Clearing House, 74, 119-123.
8
Professor Know-It-All
Rationale
Once coverage of content has been completed, the professor know-it-all strategy can be enacted. The strategy is
appropriate after reading a story, a chapter from a novel or textbook, a lecture or presentation, a field trip, a film,
or any other information source. Professor know-it-all is an effective review strategy because it positions students
as “experts” on topics to inform their peers and be challenged and held accountable by them (Paris & Paris, 2001;
Zimmerman, 2002). Other benefits are that students become well versed in the content, learn to ask a variety of
questions at different levels of difficulty, and actively participate in the review process (Boekaerts, Pintrich, &
Zeidner, 2000; Spratt & Leung, 2000).
Teaching Process
1. Begin by forming groups of three or four students. The students should be given time to review the
content just covered. Tell them they will be called on randomly to come to the front of the room and
provide “expert” answers to questions from their peers about the content. Also ask the groups to
generate 3-5 questions that they think they may be asked about the content and tell them they can ask
other experts.
2. To add a level of novelty to the strategy, some teachers keep on hand ties, graduation caps and gowns,
lab coats, clip boards, or other symbols of professional expertise for students to don when it is their turn
to be know-it-alls.
3. Call a group to the front of the room and ask them to face the class standing shoulder to shoulder. The
know-it-alls invite questions from the other groups. Students should ask their prepared questions first,
then add others if more information is desired.
4. When the strategy is first employed, demonstrate with the class how the professor know-it-alls should
respond to their peers’ questions. Typically, students are asked to huddle after receiving a question,
discuss briefly how to answer it, and then have the know-it-all spokesperson give the answer.
5. Remind students asking the questions to think carefully about the answers received and challenge or
correct the professor know-it-alls if answers were not correct or need elaboration and amending. Initially,
it may be necessary and helpful to model the various types of questions expected from students about
the content.
6. After 5 minutes or so, a new group of professor know-it-alls can take their place in front of the class and
continue the process of students questioning students.
Sources
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 1339). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Spratt, M., & Leung, B. (2000). Peer teaching and peer learning revisited. ELT Journal,
54, 218-226.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41, 64-70.
Paris, S.G., & Paris, A.H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated
learning. Educational Psychologist, 36, 89-101
9
Process Guide
Rationale
As students progress through information sources learning about a content area topic, their processing of
the information and concepts can be guided. Process guides scaffold students’ comprehension within
unique formats. They‘re designed to stimulate students’ thinking during or after their reading, listening, or
involvement in any content area instruction. Guides also help students focus on important information and
ideas, making their reading or listening more efficient (Kintsch, 2005; Kintsch & Kintsch, 2005). Process
guides prompt thinking, ranging from simple recall to connecting information and ideas to prior experience,
applying new knowledge, and problem-solving (Best, Rowe, Ozuru, & McNamara, 2005).
Teaching Process
1. It is important to be prepared by reading the text material thoroughly, in order to decide what
information and concepts need to be emphasized.
2. You must then determine how much assistance students will need to construct and use meaning at
the higher levels of processing. If students already possess a basic understanding of the content,
guides can emphasize higher level thinking. If, on the other hand, the content is new to students, then
guides might balance text-based and higher-level processing.
3. You should ask: “What format will stimulate students to think about the content in a meaningful and
useful fashion, as well as motivate and appeal to them?” Although there are no set procedures for
creating process guides, the more imaginative they are, the greater the chance that students will
complete them.
4. It is critical that students be prepared to use process guides. You should begin by explaining the
guide’s features, intent, and benefits. Students should be allowed to meet in small groups and
complete the guide in class with teacher assistance. Engage the class in discussion based on their
responses to the guide, and use this feedback to provide additional explanation and to make any
necessary modifications to the guide.
5. It is important that students be responsible for explaining their responses to the guide. This should be
an integral part of the process guide activity.
6. Finally, at every opportunity, reinforce the connection between the mental activity required to
complete the guide and expectations of how and what students should be reading and learning.
Sample Process Guide Prompts for a Chapter in a History Textbook
1. In the section under “Afghanistan,” you will learn the background of this country and why there is so much
unrest there. Now read the first paragraph. Be prepared to explain the term—Taliban.
The Taliban is_____________________________________________________
2. The paragraph on page 66 will discuss some events caused by the Taliban. Read the paragraph carefully. List
below some of the events connected with the Taliban:
The Taliban did these things:_________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3. On page 67, the last paragraph of this section tells us whether the Taliban has been successful in its attempt to
control Afghanistan. Read the paragraph and decide. Write your response here.
Sources
Best, R., Rowe., M., Ozuru, Y., McNamara, D. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of
science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders,
25, 65-83.
10
Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension theory as a guide for the design of thoughtful
questions. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 51-65.
Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. Paris & S. Stahl (Eds.),
Current issues on reading comprehension and assessment. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
11
Questioning the Author (QtA)
Rationale
Students need to be taught that they can, and should, ask questions of authors as they read. The goal of QtA is to
teach students to use a questioning process to construct meaning of text, to go beyond the words on the page,
and to relate outside experiences to the texts being read (Beck, McKeown, Hamilton, & Kucan, 1997). QtA
involves the teacher and the class in a collaborative process of building understanding during reading (Beck &
McKeown, 2001). The teacher participates in QtA as a facilitator, guide, initiator, and responder. The teacher
strives to elicit readers’ thinking while keeping them focused in their discussion (Beck & McKeown, 2002).
Teachers should make a poster of the types of questions students are expected to ask. These should be modeled
by the teacher, and students should be encouraged to ask their own.
Teaching Process
1. The QtA process begins by providing students the types of questions they are expected to ask about the
texts they read. These can be given to students in a handout, projected on the board, or made into a
poster and attached to the classroom wall. Students should have access to these questions whenever
they’re needed.
2. Model the QtA process with students, using a text from class. Demonstrate for students how the QtA
questions can be asked in ways that apply directly to the content of the text.
3. Put students in pairs to practice questioning the author together while you monitor, providing additional
modeling and clarification. While QtA is an interactive strategy, the goal is to make the questioning
process automatic for students, so they use it on their own.
Typical Goals and Queries for QtA
Goal
Query
________________________________________________________________________
Initiate discussion
What is the author trying to say?
What is the author’s message?
What is the author talking about?
Focus on author’s message
That’s what the author says, but what does
it mean?
Why did the author choose this word?
Link information
How does that connect with what the author
already told us?
What information has the author added here
that connects or fits in with_________?
Identify difficulties with the way the
author has presented information or
ideas
Does that make sense?
Did the author state or explain that clearly?
why or why not?
What do we need to figure out or find out?
Encourage students to refer to the text
Did the author tell us that?
because they have misinterpreted, or to
Did the author give us the answer to that?
help them recognize that they have
made an inference
Sources
Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M.G. (2001). Inviting students into the pursuit of meaning.
12
Educational Psychology Review, 13, 225-241.
Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M.G. (2002). Questioning the author: Making sense of social
studies. Educational Leadership, 60, 44-47.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., Hamilton, R.L., & Kucan, L. (1997). Questioning the
author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
13
RAFT Writing
Rationale
Once students have acquired new content information and concepts, they need opportunities to rework, apply,
and extend their understandings (Graham, 2005). RAFT writing is uniquely suited to do just that (Santa & Havens,
1995). This form of writing gives students the freedom to project themselves into unique roles and look at
content from unique perspectives. From these roles and perspectives, RAFT writing has been used to explain
processes, describe a point of view, envision a potential job or assignment, or solve a problem (Brozo & Simpson,
2007). It is the kind of writing that, when crafted appropriately, should be creative and informative.
Teaching Process
1. Once particular content or topics have been covered, consider all of the various roles and audiences that
would allow students to demonstrate their new understandings from different perspectives. Sometimes
teachers conduct a class brainstorm to gather numerous possible perspectives on a topic.
2. Review the RAFT acronym with students, explaining what each letter stands for:
R – Role (role of the writer)
A – Audience (to whom or what the RAFT is being written)
F – Form (the form the writing will take, as in letter, song, etc.)
T – Topic (the subject focus of the writing)
It may be helpful to put the RAFT acronym on a chart in the classroom as a reminder.
Also stress to students that RAFT writing allows for creativity, but must accurately reflect
the content just learned.
3. Give students a RAFTed assignment. RAFTs can be prescribed or left open to students to choose. Initially,
it is best to assign students to complete specific RAFTs. As they gain more experience and familiarity with
the writing strategy, they can be allowed more freedom. For example, after learning about the water
cycle in science, the teacher might assign the following RAFT to students new to the process:
R – water droplet
A – water vapor in clouds
F – travel journal
T – the water cycle
A more experienced group of history students after learning about the battle of the Alamo might be
assigned a RAFT that gives them more options, such as:
R – Any observer or participant in the battle
A – Any relevant audience based on format
F – A newspaper article, a letter, a diary entry, dialog, etc.
T – The events of March 6, 1836, the final siege of the Alamo
4. Students may write RAFTs individually or with partners.
5. Once completed, students should share their RAFTs with a partner or the whole class. While students
read their RAFTed assignments, other students should listen for accuracy and logic. Listening to students’
RAFTs will allow you to evaluate whether students adequately understood the material and whether
further teaching or independent study is needed.
6. RAFT writing may be put into student learning logs and graded along with other
learning log entries.
14
Student Examples of RAFT Writing in Math and Science
R – A whole number between 1 and 9
A – A whole number equal to 10 minus their number
F – A letter
T – Why it is important to be a positive role model for the fractions less than one.
Dear Number 7:
It has come to my attention that you are not taking seriously your responsibilities as a role model for the
fractions. With this letter, I would like to try to convince you of the importance of being a positive role model for
the little guys. Some day, with the proper combinations, they, too will be whole numbers. It is extremely
important for them to understand how to properly carry out the duties of a whole number. For them to learn
this, it is imperative for them to have good, positive role models to emulate. Without that, our entire numbering
system could be in ruins. They must know how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide properly and efficiently.
They must know how to respond if ever asked to become a member of a floating point gang. Since they are not
yet whole, it is our duty to numberkind to make sure they are brought up properly to the left of the decimal.
Thank you in advance for our support,
The Number 3
**************************
R – Chromosome
A – Daughter Chromosomes
F – Letter
T – Cell division during mitosis
Dear Daughter Chromosomes,
You are moving on to better things as part of separate, but equal cells. You don’t remember me because
you are both part of what I was. You see, during Anaphase, I split in two at my centromere. My last minutes were
spent with what now accompany you as other daughter chromosomes. Please do not be afraid of the double
membrane, called the nuclear envelope, which will soon surround you. It is going to form in order to protect you
while you replicate and proceed through what I did. You will eventually split as I did in order to help form another
duplicate cell. I write you to wish you luck and share with you my experience, so that you may pass it on to
others.
Sincerely,
Mr. Chromosome
Sources
Brozo, W.G., & Simpson, M.L. (2007). Content literacy for today’s adolescents: Honoring diversity and
building competence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Graham, S. (2005). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Santa, C., & Havens, L. (1995). Creating independence through student-owned strategies: Project CRISS.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
15
Reciprocal Teaching
Rationale
Reciprocal teaching is a strategy in which the teacher models and the students use summarizing, questioning,
clarifying, and predicting to better understand content text (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Because the emphasis is
on understanding these four processes, students will need many exposures and much practice with each. The
benefits of reciprocal teaching are well-documented. The approach has been shown to increase comprehension,
overall achievement, and standardized test scores (Alfassi, 1998; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994).
Teaching Process
1. Begin by introducing summarizing. Share several short sections at the beginning of a text taken from the
textbook, website, or other source and write a summary statement with the class. Talk out loud about
your summary thinking as you work with students. Put the statements on the board for analysis and
revision. Next, have students work in groups of four to read a following short section of text and generate
a summary statement. Write the various statements on the board and work with the class to select the
best one.
2. Follow this approach for each of the remaining comprehension processes that comprise reciprocal
thinking: questioning, clarifying, and predicting. For example, state a prediction about the section of text
about to be read and write it on the board. After reading the section, direct students’ attention to the
prediction and discuss how accurate it was and how it helped guide thinking while reading. Then, for the
next short section, have students make predictions. Ask questions aloud while reading to focus attention
on important information and ideas in the text, then have students ask questions. Finally, demonstrate
how you use the text to clarify confusing points or ideas, and then ask students to do the same thing with
a new section of text.
3. After modeling the comprehension processes of reciprocal teaching, have students work in groups of four
with each one taking responsibility for one of the comprehension processes as either a summarizer,
questioner, clarifier, or predictor. Assign the next section of text and tell students to interact while
reading, with each student taking the lead to model and guide the others in the comprehension process
over which he or she is responsible. A Discussion Guide for Reciprocal Teaching can be used to help
students fulfill their roles.
4. Monitor student groups by moving throughout the room. Provide extra support and modeling for groups
having difficulty with the reciprocal processes.
5. It takes time to take ownership of the reciprocal teaching process, so it needs to be modeled and
supported frequently.
16
Discussion Guide for Reciprocal Teaching
Reading:________________________________________ Date:_________________
Prediction:
Questions:
Clarifications:
Summary Statement:
Was the prediction confirmed:
YES
NO
Details:
Sources
17
Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering
Reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading classes.
American Educational Research Journal, 35, 309-332.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering
and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117175.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research.
Review of Educational Research, 64, 479-530.
18
SPAWN Writing
Rationale
Students need regular content-focused writing opportunities in the classroom (Graham & Perrin, 2007; Sorcinelli
& Elbow, 1997). Writing to learn in the content areas can be fostered with SPAWN prompts (Martin, Martin, &
O’Brien, 1984). SPAWN is an acronym that stands for five categories of writing prompts (Special Powers, Problem
Solving, Alternative Viewpoints, What If?, and Next), which can be crafted in numerous ways to stimulate
students’ predictive, reflective, and critical thinking about content-area topics.
Teaching Process
1. Begin by targeting the kind of thinking students should be exhibiting. If they are to anticipate the content
to be presented or reflect on what has just been learned, then certain prompts work best.
2. Next, select a category of SPAWN that best accommodates the kind of thinking about the content you
would like students to exhibit. For example, if you want students to regard recently learned material in
unique and critical ways, the Alternative Viewpoints category prompts writing of this nature. If, on the
other hand, you desire students to think in advance about an issue and brainstorm their own resolutions,
the Next and Problem Solving prompts may work best.
3. Then present the SPAWN prompt to students. This can be done by simply writing it on the board or
projecting it from the overhead or computer. If an anticipatory prompt, students will need to see it and
begin writing before the new material is presented. If a reflective prompt, it should be revealed after new
content has been covered.
4. Allow students to write their responses within a reasonable period of time. In most cases, prompts
should be constructed in such a way that adequate responses can be made within 10 minutes. Students
should be asked to copy the prompt in their learning logs before writing responses, and record the date.
5. Students can share their SPAWN responses with a partner or the class to stimulate discussion, heighten
anticipation, and check for logic and accuracy.
6. Instead of a thorough assessment of students’ SPAWN writing, most teachers who use this strategy give
simple grades, such as points for completing responses.
Examples of SPAWN Prompts for the Topic of World War I
SPAWN prompts can be used to prepare students to learn new information about the topic or reflect on what has
been learned. Students should receive one prompt on any given day as the topic of WWI is covered. SPAWN
prompts can be written on the board for students to find as they enter the classroom, and to which they respond
in their logs before the day's lesson begins. This kind of writing usually calls for students to anticipate what will be
learned that day, as in the following prompts:
P - Problem Solving
We have been reading about how most people in the United States were isolationists at the start of World War I.
How do you think President Wilson can convince his country to enter the war?
N - Next
We learned yesterday that Germany has decided to use poison gas as part of trench warfare. What do you think
the Allies will do next?
On other days, the lesson can be written with a SPAWN prompt that asks students to reflect on or think more
critically about what they have just learned:
S - Special Powers
19
You have the power to change an important event leading up to America's entry into World War I. Describe what
it is you changed, why you changed it, and the consequences of the change.
W - What If?
What might have happened if the Turks hadn't entered the war on the side of the Germans?
A - Alternative Viewpoints
Imagine you’re the commander of the Lusitania. Write an accurate description in a letter format of your ship’s
being torpedoed.
Sources
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in
middle and high schools. New York/Washington, DC: Carnegie
Corporation/Alliance for Excellent Education. (http://www.all4ed.org).
Martin, C., Martin, M., & O’Brien, D. (1984). Spawning ideas for writing in the content areas. Reading
World, 11, 11-15.
Corcinelli, M., & Elbow, P. (1997). Writing to learn: Strategies for assigning and responding to writing
across the disciplines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20
Split-Page Notetaking
Rationale
Notetaking is an essential skill students must develop in order to be effective readers and learners in the
content areas (Broz & Simpson, 2007). The sheer volume of information, vocabulary, and concepts students
are expected to learn will be easier if they develop a notetaking system that facilitates meaningful reading
and listening (Faber, Morris, & Lieberman, 2000; Lebauer, 2000), leads to an organized record of learning
(Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004), and makes review and study efficient (Williams & Eggert, 2002).
Teaching Process
1. Present a section of the material to be covered in the split-page format (See an example). This is
done by drawing a straight line from top to bottom of a piece of paper (preferably a sheet of normal
sized, lined notebook paper) approximately 2 – 3 inches from the left edge. The page should be split
into one-third/two-thirds. In the left column big ideas, key dates, names, etc. should be written and
supporting information in the right column. Students should be urged to paraphrase and abbreviate
as much as possible (See example).
2. Discuss the advantages of taking notes in this way. Show students how they can prompt recall by
bending the sheet or using another sheet of paper so that information in the right or left columns is
covered. The uncovered information is then used as prompts for the information in the column that
is covered.
3. Next, present another section of the material while students attempt to take split-page notes on
their own. In advance, a model of the information in split-page format should be prepared and used
to compare the organization of the content with students’ attempts.
4. Continue to guide students in the process of taking split-page notes by modeling the format with
notes of the content and eliciting similar styled notes from students. It will take time for students to
become comfortable with the format and develop their own individual styles within the split-page
structure. This guided practice time is the best way to ensure students learn and take full advantage
of the note taking system.
Split-Page Notes for English
“The Most Dangerous Game” – Richard Connell
February 12, 2007
English 10, 3rd Block
Plot defined
--related events that present and resolve a problem/conflict
Rainsford Sanger
--celebrated hunter
--forced to become hunted
--Ship Trap island
--Caribbean Sea
--jungle environment
--General Zaroff’s preserve
Setting
Plot
--R. falls overboard
--R. swims to shore
--Zaroff admits to hunting men
--Zaroff hunts R.
21
Sources
Brozo, W.G., & Simpson, M.L. (2007). Content literacy for today’s adolescents: Honoring diversity and
building competence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Faber, J.E., Morris, J.D., & Lieberman, M.G. (2000). The effect of note taking on ninth grade
students’ comprehension. Reading Psychology, 21, 257-270.
Lebauer, R.S. (2000). Learn to listen: Listen to learn. Academic listening and note-taking (2nd
ed.). New York: Longman.
Titsworth, B.S., & Kiewra, K.A. (2004). Spoken organizational lecture cues and student
note-taking as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 234-237.
William, R.L., & Effert, A. (2002). Note-taking predictors of test performance. Teaching of
Psychology, 29, 234-237.
22
SQPL – Student Questions for Purposeful Learning
Rationale
All students need to develop the ability to read, listen, and learn with a purpose (Brozo & Simpson, 2007).
Purposeful learning is associated with higher levels of engagement and achievement (Ediger & Pavlik, 1999;
Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998). When students learn purposefully, they focus and sustain attention (Guthrie &
Humenick, 2004). SQPL promotes purposeful reading and learning by prompting students to ask and answer their
own questions about content.
Teaching Process
1. Create an SQPL lesson by first looking over the material to be read and covered in the day’s lesson. A
statement is then generated related to the material that would cause students to wonder, challenge, and
question. The statement does not have to be factually true as long as it provokes interest and curiosity, as
in the examples below of question-provoking statements for various disciplinary topics.
Sample SQPL Question-Provoking Statements for Disciplinary Topics
English
Topic: Courtroom chapters in To Kill a Mockingbird
SQPL Statement: Atticus is wasting his time defending Tom.
Math
Topic: Measuring 3-dimensional objects
SQPL Statement: With just a ruler I can tell you the total distance around the Earth.
History
Topic: Communism in post-WWII Europe
SQPL Statement: People are happiest when government takes care of all their needs, and
everyone is equal.
2. Next, present the statement to students. Most often teachers write the statement on the board, though
it can also be projected on the overhead or from a computer, put on a handout, and even stated orally for
students to record in their notebooks.
3. Students should pair up and, based on the statement, generate 2-3 questions they would like answered.
The questions must be related to the statement and should not be purposely farfetched or parodies.
4. When all student pairs have thought of their questions, ask someone from each team to share questions
with the whole class. As students ask their questions aloud, write them on the board. Eventually, similar
questions will be asked by more than one pair. These should be starred or highlighted in some way.
5. Once all questions have been shared, look over the student-generated list and decide whether your own
questions need to be added. This may be necessary when students have failed to ask about important
information they need to be sure to learn.
6. At this point, students will be ready for the information source, so they can seek answers to their
questions. Tell them as they read and/or listen to pay attention to information that helps answer
questions from the board. They should be especially focused on material related to the questions that
were starred. These might be considered class consensus questions.
As content is covered, stop periodically and have students discuss with their partners which questions could be
answered; then ask for volunteers to share. Students might be required to record the questions from the board
and the answers they find in their notebooks for later study.
23
Sources
Brozo, W.G., & Simpson, M.L. (2007). Content literacy for today’s adolescents: Honoring diversity and
building competence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Ediger, A., & Pavlik, C. (1999). Reading connections: Skills and strategies for purposeful reading. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Guthre, J., & Humenick, N. (2004). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom Practices that
increase reading motivation and achievement. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of
evidence in reading research (329-354). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing.
Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (1998). Self-regulated learning from teaching to
self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford Press.
24
Story Chains
Rationale
As with other content-focused writing strategies, the story chain strategy gives students the opportunity to
demonstrate their understanding of newly learned material (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004). Story
chains are especially useful for promoting application of content area concepts through writing (Saddler, Moran,
Graham, & Harris, 2004). The process involves a small group of students writing a story using the information and
the concepts they learn. The story chain will include a beginning, middle, and a logical ending or the solution to a
problem. By writing out new understandings in a collaborative context, students provide themselves and the
teacher a reflection of their developing knowledge (Graham & Perin, 2007).
Teaching Process
1. After a new content is learned, groups of students should be formed. The group size will vary depending
upon the nature of the content.
2. Model the story chain process with the class by brainstorming lines or sentences related to content the
class has recently learned that could be crafted. You might initiate the process by writing the first line on
the board, and then eliciting a second line, a third line, and so on until the story is completed, with a total
number of lines corresponding to the total number of the group members. Emphasize that the last
student to contribute to the story chain must write a logical concluding sentence or solution to a problem.
All the group members should then look over the story chain composition and check for accuracy and
logic relative to the content just learned.
3. Ask the first student to initiate a story based on information and concepts they acquired in that day’s
lesson. The next adds a second line. The next, a third line, etc. until the last student writes a concluding
line or solves the problem. All group members should be prepared to revise the story based on the last
student’s input as to whether it was clear or not. Students can be creative and use information and
characters from their everyday interests and media.
4. Groups can exchange their story chains with other groups or share them with the entire class.
Story Chain Example from Math
Put students in groups of four. On a sheet of paper, ask the first student to write the opening sentence of a math
story chain:
The Green Goblin goes up 5 plus 2 tens buildings.
The student then passes the paper to the student sitting to the right, and that student writes the next sentence in
the story:
Spiderman chases him up 4 plus ten of those buildings.
The paper is passed again to the right to the next student who writes the third sentence of the story:
How many more buildings must Spiderman climb to catch The Green Goblin?
The paper is now passed to the fourth student who must solve the problem and write out the answer. The other
three group members review the answer for accuracy.
Answer: 1 plus 10 or eleven buildings
This activity allows students to use their writing, reading, and speaking skills, while learning important math
concepts.
Sources
Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Hurley, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn
25
interventions on academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29-58.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in
middle and high schools. New York/Washington, DC: Carnegie Corporation/Alliance for Excellent
Education. (http://www.all4ed.org).
Saddler, B., Moran, S., Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2004). Preventing writing difficulties: The effects of
planning strategy instruction on writing performance of struggling writers. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26
Vocabulary Cards
Rationale
Vocabulary knowledge is one of the five essential components of effective reading (RAND Reading Study Group,
2002). The content areas are packed with concepts and technical vocabulary that students must understand if
they are to be successful readers and learners (Harmon, Hedrick, & Wood, 2005). A strategy designed to help
students learn content-specific terminology is the use of vocabulary cards (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2002). This
strategy has been shown to increase depth and breadth of word knowledge, resulting in greater comprehension
(Rekrut, 1996).
Teaching Process
1. Demonstrate with students how to create a vocabulary card by writing a key term on the board and
drawing a large, rectangular card-like frame around it, so that it is in the center of the rectangle.
2. In the corners of the card, write a definition, characteristics, examples, and an illustration of the term
(Note: You may require students to learn other information or demonstrate other applications with the
terms, which would necessitate a modification of the card features described here.)
3. Discuss with students how the card can be reviewed quickly and easily in preparation for tests, quizzes,
and other activities with the word.
4. Identify a list of key vocabulary terms from the lesson and have students write them in the center of a 3x5
index card. As material is covered and content is read, guide students as they fill out their cards with the
required information.
5. Once cards are completed, allow time for students to review their words individually and with a partner.
6. Quiz students over the content of their cards with questions and tasks that require recall and
understanding of all the information on the vocabulary cards.
Example of Vocabulary Card for Social Studies
Characteristics
Definition
Manifest
Destiny
Illustration
Example
Sources
Blachowicz, C.L., & Fisher, P. (2004). Teaching vocabulary in all classrooms. Columbus,OH: Merrill.
Harmon, J.M., Hedrick, W.B., & Wood, K.D. (2005). Research on vocabulary instruction in the content
areas: Implications for struggling readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 261-280.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading
comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Rekrut, M.D. (1996). Effective vocabulary instruction. High School Journal, 80, 66-74.
27
Vocabulary Self-Awareness
Rationale
Because students bring a range of word understandings to the learning of new topics in the content areas, it is
important to assess students’ vocabulary knowledge before reading or other tasks involving text (Fisher, Brozo,
Frey, & Ivey, 2006). This awareness is valuable for students because it highlights their understanding of what they
know, as well as what they still need to learn in order to fully comprehend the reading (Goodman, 2001).
Teaching Process
1. Provide students a list of important words at the beginning of the reading or unit and have students write
them in a vocabulary self-assessment chart (See example below).
2. Ask students to complete the chart before the lesson begins by rating each vocabulary word according to
their level of familiarity and understanding. A plus sign (+) indicates a high degree of comfort and
knowledge, a check mark (√) indicates uncertainty, and a minus sign (--) indicates the word is brand new
to them.
3. Also ask students to try to supply a definition and example for each word. For words with check marks or
minus signs, students may have to make guesses about definitions and examples.
4. Over the course of the reading or unit, allow time for students to revisit their self-awareness charts to add
new information and update their growing knowledge about key vocabulary. The goal is to bring all
students to a comfortable level with the unit’s important content terminology. Because students
continually revisit their vocabulary charts to revise their entries, they have multiple opportunities to
practice and extend their growing understanding of the words.
Example of a Vocabulary Self-Awareness Chart in Science
Word
+
√
-
Example
Definition
density
mass
volume
weight
Sources
28
Fisher, D., Brozo, W.G., Frey, N., & Ivey, G. (2006). 50 content area strategies for adolescent literacy. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Goodman, L. (2001). A tool for learning: Vocabulary self-awareness. In C. Blanchfield (Ed.), Creative vocabulary:
Strategies for teaching vocabulary in grades K-12. Fresno, CA: San Joaquin Valley Writing Project.
29
Word Grid
Rationale
The word grid is an effective visual technique for helping students learn important related terms and concepts
from the content areas (Baumann, Kame’enui, & Ash, 2003). It provides students with an organized framework for
learning words by analyzing the similarities and differences of key features (Johnson & Pearson, 1984). Learning
vocabulary through the use of word grids allows students to contextualize vocabulary knowledge, which increases
comprehension of disciplinary texts (Nagy & Scott, 2000).
Teaching Process
1. Put a simple word grid on the wall that will serve as an example for explaining how it is constructed and
used. After analyzing a demonstration word grid, students will be much better prepared to create and
study from one with actual disciplinary content.
2. Students should be provided a blank word grid with plenty of columns and rows for an upcoming lesson
or chapter. A large version of the grid could be put on poster paper and attached to the wall, or one could
be projected from an overhead or computer. As critical related terms and defining information are
encountered, students should write them into the grid. The teacher can invite students to suggest key
terms and features, too. To take full advantage of word grids, they should be co-constructed with
students, so as to maximize participation in the word learning process.
3. Once the grid is complete, the teacher should quiz students by asking questions about the words related
to their similarities and differences. In this way, students will make a connection between the effort they
put into completing and studying the grid, and the positive outcome on word knowledge quizzes.
4. Once several related terms are written along the vertical dimension of the grid, then add features,
characteristics, or other defining information in the spaces at the top of the grid, moving left to right.
5. The teacher can demonstrate for students how the grid can be used to study key terminology based on
critical defining characteristics. Students can be asked to provide features of similarity and difference for
pairs of terms, as in “What are two common characteristics of apples and bananas?” or “Give me two
ways that oranges and grapes are different.”
6. Students should be allowed time to quiz each other over the content of the grids in preparation for tests
and other vocabulary-related activity.
Sample Word Grid for “Fruit”
Tree-grown
Edible skin
Tropical
Citrus
Apple
Y
Y
N
N
Banana
Y
N
Y
N
Grape
N
Y
N
N
Orange
Y
N
Y
Y
Y = Yes N = No
Sources
Bauman, J., Kame’enui, E., & Ash, G. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D.
Lapp, J. Squire, & J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp.
752-785). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, D., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). Teaching reading vocabulary. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
30
Nagy, W., & Scott, J. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D.Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 269-284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31
Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum
Considerations for Determining Equivalent Activities
1) Is the activity one of the CC activities at another grade level? If so, the activity should not be used unless
there is clear evidence that the learning outcomes are significantly different and meet GLEs for the grade
level in which the activity is to be used.
2) Are all GLEs identified in the CC activity addressed in the substitute activity? If not, more than one
substitute activity may be needed.
3) If a GLE has multiple parts and the activity addresses only one of those parts, does the substitute activity
address the same part of the GLE?
4) Does the substitute activity ask the student to perform the same skill or demonstrate evidence of the
knowledge for each GLE listed? Use the verbs in the GLEs as a guide. For example, a GLE which asks a
student to describe cannot be met by asking the student to identify it.
5) Are there skills/content specific to the CC activity that are not addressed in the substitute activity? How
can the missing components be added to the substitute activity?
Possible Time Savers
1) Have district teams of teachers correlate activities in the CC with the district’s textbooks.
2) Have teams of teachers develop lesson plans using the existing activities.
3) Have teams of teachers work to find/develop/modify substitute activities.
141
From Activity to Lesson Plan
Implementing Activities from the Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum
in the Classroom
Activity to be Reviewed:
Procedure:
A) Locate the content that the Comprehensive Curriculum activity addresses in the textbook. Use the table
of contents and the index to determine if appropriate content is contained in more than one location in
the textbook. List the appropriate page(s) and the primary content below.
B) Carefully read the Grade-Level Expectations (GLEs), paying particular attention to the verbs. Determine
whether the information in the textbook addresses the content at the level specified in the GLE(s).
Questions to Consider in Lesson Planning
1. What prerequisite knowledge is needed for the student to be successful when executing the activity? If
these are GLEs from previous grades, which ones are reinforced in the activity?
2. What GLEs in later grades does this activity introduce?
3. Is this activity dependent upon the use of other activities in the CC? If so, which ones?
4. What textbook lessons provide prerequisite information (i.e., what lessons from the textbook need to be
taught prior to this activity)?
5. What additional information/resources will the teacher need to provide (i.e., does the textbook lack
needed information, is special equipment needed)? What sources might be used to locate this
information?
6. How can the teacher set the stage for the activity? How might the activity be introduced/modified to
make it more appealing to students?
7. Are there textbook activities (or others the teacher has successfully used in the past) that are appropriate
for practice problems or follow-up activities?
142
STRATEGIES FOR THE ADVANCED LEARNER
Inquiry-Based Instruction
Acceleration
Compacting
Grouping
Enrichment in Content Areas
Curriculum Models for Gifted
Affective Learning
Leadership Development
Addressing Culturally Different and Economically Disadvantaged Children
Addressing Underachievement
Addressing The Advanced Learner with a Disability
Accelerating Learning Experiences in Core Content Areas
Incorporating Higher Order Thinking in all Content Areas
Critical Thinking
Problem-Solving and Problem-Based Learning
Analytical Thinking Skills
Creativity
Imagination
Invention
Design Thinking
Image Streaming
Lateral Thinking
Divergent Thinking
Research
Observation
Discussion
Experimentation
Ethics
Interpersonal Skills
Intrapersonal Skills
Task Commitment
Cultural Diversity
Citizenship
Resource Retrieval
Environmental Awareness & Responsibility
Memory Techniques
Social Skills
143
Activities:
Shadowing Experiences
Mentorship
Independent study
Demonstrations/Modeling
Synectics
Socratic Questioning
Role playing
Jurisprudence
Simulation
Visualization
Cooperative Learning
Analytical Thinking Skills
-identifying characteristics
-recognizing attributes
-making observations
Diagnostic assessment, cluster grouping based on results, and follow-up curricular intervention
Use of accelerative practices such as early admission, content acceleration and/or compacting, grade
advancement, high school availability of AP courses, dual enrollment and early admissions to universities
Professional development of teachers working with students
 A positive willingness to accelerate for able students
 Capability to adapt and modify a curriculum to provide accelerative experiences
 Adequate training and competence for teaching in the content area in an accelerated way
 Preparation in organizing and managing classroom activities
Incorporating Higher Order Process Skills into Content








Creative Student Products
Concept Development and Learning
Adapting Language Arts Curricula for Advanced Learners
Adapting Mathematics Curricula for Advanced Learners
Adapting Science Curricula for Advanced Learners
Adapting Social Studies Curricula for Advanced Learners
Selecting Resources and Materials
Assessing Student Learning
144
The Access Guide
The goal of the Access Guide is to provide teachers with a repository of strategies, accommodations,
technology, and product options (formative and summative assessments), as well as information regarding
access for students with Significant Disabilities and for Advanced Learners that will facilitate student access to
the curriculum.
The Access Guide
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
New feature of the Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum Guides
Fall, 2008 to be piloted at 4th & 8th
Users will query for type of info
Survey for user feedback *
Glossary and website
Instructional Decision-Making Cycle
Informational brochure
A Repository of Resources
•
•
•
•
•
•
Teaching Strategies
Accommodations
Assistive Technology (AT)
Product Options (formative assessments, PM)
Support for advanced learners
Support for students with significant disabilities addressing the Extended Standards
Access for All Means ALL
•
•
•
•
NCLB now states “all children must have access to and show progress in the general education curriculum
Strategies, accommodations, AT, and product options, for all students
Resources for advanced learners
Resources for students with significant disabilities.
Collaborative Effort
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Division of Student Standards and Accountability
Division of Leadership and Technology
Division of Educational Improvement and Assistance
Division of Communication
AT Centers Region 2 and 3
Taskforce of Teachers & Administrators
Contracted Consultants
Plan for multiple “ramps” to get to the Access Guide:
– Logo now visible at the Unit level of every course
– Logo placed on Student Standards, Assessment and Accountability page
– Listed under “Most Requested Info”
– Listed under Division of Educational Improvement and Assistance, Special Education drop down
145
Instructional Decision-Making Cycle
•
•
•
•
•
Electronic version has pop up “talking points”
Designed for problem solving
Designed for collaboration among school personnel (GenEd, SpEd, ancillary, admin.)
Represent best practices in providing access to any struggling student.
Included in Access Guide brochure
Significant Disabilities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section of the Access Guide focused on students qualifying for LEAP Alternate Assessment, Level 1 (LAA1)
Curriculum, instruction, and classroom assessment information
Multiple ramps to section (e.g., via Access Guide, LDE’s home page)
Writing standards-based IEPs for students participating in LAA1
Case studies
Video clips of effective strategies to support curriculum access
Questions and Answers
Essential Issues related to program development
External links related to curriculum, instruction, & assessment for these students
Quality program indicators
Literacy access support
Calendar of professional development events
Tools to support programming linked to GLEs
Showcase success stories around the state
Info: Nanette.Olivier@la.gov (225) 342-0520
Information related to
•
•
Extended Standards
Sample modified instructional materials (accessible format) linked to Extended Standards and GLEs
– Geared to students functioning at various symbolic levels (from pre-symbolic to symbolic)
– Examples across content areas and grade spans
146
Meaningful, Engaged Learning
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
Learning Point Associates™
In recent years, researchers have formed a strong consensus on the importance of engaged learning in
schools and classrooms. This consensus, together with a recognition of the changing needs of the 21st
century, has stimulated the development of specific indicators of engaged learning. Jones, Valdez,
Nowakowski, and Rasmussen (1994) developed the indicators described below. These indicators of
engaged learning can act as a "compass" for reform instruction, helping educators chart an instructional
course and maintain an orientation based on a vision of engaged learning and what it looks like in the
classroom and community.
1. Indicator: Vision of Engaged Learning
What does engaged learning look like? Successful, engaged learners are responsible for their own
learning. These students are self-regulated and able to define their own learning goals and evaluate their
own achievement. They are also energized by their learning; their joy of learning leads to a lifelong
passion for solving problems, understanding, and taking the next step in their thinking. These learners
are strategic in that they know how to learn and are able to transfer knowledge to solve problems
creatively. Engaged learning also involves being collaborative--that is, valuing and having the skills to
work with others.
2. Indicator: Tasks for Engaged Learning
In order to have engaged learning, tasks need to be challenging, authentic, and multidisciplinary. Such
tasks are typically complex and involve sustained amounts of time. They are authentic in that they
correspond to the tasks in the home and workplaces of today and tomorrow. Collaboration around
authentic tasks often takes place with peers and mentors within school, as well as with family members
and others in the real world outside of school. These tasks often require integrated instruction that
incorporates problem-based learning and curriculum by project.
3. Indicator: Assessment of Engaged Learning
Assessment of engaged learning involves presenting students with an authentic task, project, or
investigation, and then observing, interviewing, and examining their presentations and artifacts to assess
what they actually know and can do. This assessment. often called performance-based assessment, is
generative in that it involves students in generating their own performance criteria and playing a key role
in the overall design, evaluation, and reporting of their assessment. The best performance-based
assessment has a seamless connection to curriculum and instruction so that it is ongoing. Assessment
should represent all meaningful aspects of performance and should have equitable standards that apply
to all students.
4. Indicator: Instructional Models & Strategies for Engaged Learning
The most powerful models of instruction are interactive. Instruction actively engages the learner, and is
generative. Instruction encourages the learner to construct and produce knowledge in meaningful ways.
Students teach others interactively and interact generatively with their teacher and peers. This allows for
co-construction of knowledge, which promotes engaged learning that is problem-, project-, and goalbased. Some common strategies included in engaged learning models of instruction are individual and
147
group summarizing, means of exploring multiple perspectives, techniques for building upon prior
knowledge, brainstorming, Socratic dialogue, problem-solving processes, and team teaching.
5. Indicator: Learning Context of Engaged Learning
For engaged learning to happen, the classroom must be conceived of as a knowledge-building learning
community. Such communities not only develop shared understandings collaboratively but also create
empathetic learning environments that value diversity and multiple perspectives. These communities
search for strategies to build on the strengths of all of their members. Truly collaborative classrooms,
schools, and communities encourage students to ask hard questions, define problems, lead
conversations, set goals, have work-related conversations with family members and other adults in and
out of school, and engage in entrepreneurial activities.
6. Indicator: Grouping for Engaged Learning
Collaborative work that is learning-centered often involves small groups or teams of two or more students
within a classroom or across classroom boundaries. Heterogeneous groups (including different sexes,
cultures, abilities, ages, and socioeconomic backgrounds) offer a wealth of background knowledge and
perspectives to different tasks. Flexible grouping, which allows teachers to reconfigure small groups
according to the purposes of instruction and incorporates frequent heterogeneous groups, is one of the
most equitable means of grouping and ensuring increased learning opportunities.
7. Indicator: Teacher Roles for Engaged Learning
The role of the teacher in the classroom has shifted from the primary role of information giver to that of
facilitator, guide, and learner. As a facilitator, the teacher provides the rich environments and learning
experiences needed for collaborative study. The teacher also is required to act as a guide--a role that
incorporates mediation, modeling, and coaching. Often the teacher also is a co-learner and coinvestigator with the students.
8. Indicator: Student Roles for Engaged Learning
One important student role is that of explorer. Interaction with the physical world and with other people
allows students to discover concepts and apply skills. Students are then encouraged to reflect upon their
discoveries, which is essential for the student as a cognitive apprentice. Apprenticeship takes place
when students observe and apply the thinking processes used by practitioners. Students also become
teachers themselves by integrating what they've learned. Hence, they become producers of knowledge,
capable of making significant contributions to the world's knowledge.
Reference:
Jones, B., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1994). Designing Learning and Technology for
Educational Reform. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Copyright © North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. All rights reserved.
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/engaged.htm Retrieved March 19, 2009
148
Indicators of Engaged Learning
http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/profile/profwww.htm
Retrieved March 19, 2009
VISION OF LEARNING
Responsibility for Learning
Students take charge and are self-regulated learners. They define learning goals and problems that are
meaningful to them and understand how specific activities relate to these goals. Students are also
involved in setting and using standards of excellence to evaluate whether they have achieved their
goals.
Teachers set learning goals, make assignments, monitor progress, and grade assignments.
Students discuss learning goals with their teacher, are given a range of options for assignments, take
some responsibility for monitoring progress, and are aware of assessment standards.
Students work with their teacher to set learning goals and assessment standards and have a range of
options for assignments and opportunities to design learning activities. They are responsible for setting
timelines and monitoring progress toward completion of their goals.
Strategic
Students continually develop and refine learning and problem solving strategies. They apply and transfer
knowledge to solve problems creatively.
Most students' work involves determining the right answer on pencil and paper tasks.
Students learn to use a variety of instructional strategies and resources, but not how to select among
and apply them to unfamiliar tasks.
Students are able to select resources and strategies thoughtfully as well as apply them to unfamiliar
tasks.
Energized by Learning
Engaged learners derive excitement and pleasure from learning and are intrinsically motivated.
Students complete required assignments and are motivated mainly by grades and competition.
Students are actively engaged in their work and take pride in doing a good job.
Students are so excited by learning that they spend extra time and effort doing their work.
149
Collaborative
Students have and value the skills to work with others. They understand that learning is social, and they
understand that many problems/issues have multiple points of view.
Students work mostly at seatwork and individual tasks.
Students work in cooperative groups with clearly defined tasks.
Students work in collaborative groups in which the groups make decisions regarding planning,
implementing, and evaluating their work, making explicit use of multiple and differing points of view.
TASKS
Authentic
Tasks bear a close relationship to real world problems in the home and workplaces of today and
tomorrow. They build on life experiences, require in-depth work, benefit from frequent collaboration,
and are of relevance and interest to learner(s).
Most tasks are pencil and paper, often seatwork. Students respond to recall questions provided by
teachers and textbooks.
The class discusses how the skills they learn and their instructional tasks apply to real world
situations.
Tasks derive authenticity from student interests, work with experts, societal value, and public
assessments. They often involve inquiry and/or research, but not as an end in itself.
Challenging
Tasks are complex and typically involve sustained amounts of time. Students must stretch their thinking
and social skills in order to be successful.
Tasks focus on the basics, and there is much attention to mastery of specific skills and facts, e.g., drill
and practice, recall questions, integrated learning systems, decontextualized math problems, or workbook
pages.
Tasks are novel, involve higher order thinking, and require many days or weeks to complete.
Tasks are complex and designed so that the students have to stretch conceptually and take greater
responsibility for learning.
150
Multidisciplinary
Disciplines are wholly integrated in order to solve problems or address issues.
Tasks are content-specific and designed to focus on specific skills and concepts.
Tasks are content-specific but connections are made across disciplines through chronological or
thematic alignment. Teachers maintain their discipline-centered expertise while attempting to help
students make connections across disciplines.
Multiple disciplines must be integrated in order to complete a task or solve a problem. Teachers and
other support staff, e.g., library media specialists, take responsibility for more than one discipline and
assist students in making connections across disciplines.
ASSESSMENT
Performance-Based
Assessments are meaningful, challenging experiences that involve presenting students with an authentic
task, project, or investigation, and then observing, interviewing and/or examining their artifacts and
presentations to assess what they actually know and can do.
Students primarily take pencil and paper tests with combinations of short answer and essay
questions, emphasizing recall and discussion of facts.
Students conduct investigations or produce written or oral presentations for their teacher and class,
and the teacher evaluates their performance.
Students conduct investigations or produce written or oral presentations for authentic purposes and
audiences. The presentations are evaluated by the teacher, the audience, and themselves.
Generative
Students and their teachers create the assessment criteria and/or tools so that they are meaningful and
generate knowledge.
Assessment standards are set by the teacher and shared with students, often after the work is
graded.
Assessment standards and tools are developed by the teacher and fully explained to students before
they begin their work.
Assessment standards and tools are discussed, created, agreed upon, and used by both the teacher
and students to judge and report on the quality of their products and performances.
151
Seamless and Ongoing
Instruction and assessment are integrated; assessment of the process and products occurs throughout
the instruction.
Assessment occurs after instruction and both teacher and students view it as separate from the
instruction, e.g., students read and discuss a chapter and then take a unit test.
The teacher defines assessment criteria at the beginning of instruction and uses them at designated
check points and at the end of instruction.
The teacher and students generate assessment criteria at the beginning of their instructional task and
use those criteria to measure the process and products of their learning throughout their work as well as
at the end. The teacher frequently checks for understanding by listening to student discussions and
probing the depths of their knowledge while students engage in self-assessment.
INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL
Interactive
The course of instruction responds to student needs and interests, and students can make key decisions
regarding their learning.
Students respond to questions posed by the teacher and have some choices with regard to
assignments and work.
Students have opportunities to select among projects to match their interests with assignments.
Students have frequent opportunities to communicate interests and problems to the teachers and
other support staff as well as to design and plan their work.
Generative
Students are encouraged to construct and produce knowledge in meaningful and deep ways. They solve
problems, conduct meaningful inquiry, engage in reflection, and build a repertoire of effective
strategies.
Students solve problems or respond to questions with unequivocal answers.
Students work independently to review, summarize, and synthesize existing materials to solve
problems and conduct research, without drawing their own conclusions.
Students are engaged in research and problem solving where there are multiple perspectives and a
152
variety of individual and team-based solution strategies, e.g., Socratic dialogue, brainstorming and
categorizing, individual and group summarizing, and debriefing.
LEARNING CONTEXT
Collaborative
The school is conceptualized and designed as a learning community where students learn to work
collaboratively.
Students complete most assignments individually, and the sharing of ideas and resources is seldom
actively encouraged.
Students work together on highly structured tasks. Student roles are defined and controlled by the
teacher.
Projects and other instructional tasks are designed to be completed by groups, and students are
encouraged to share ideas and resources. Students are encouraged to take responsibility for defining
problems, setting goals, learning to evaluate and use information resources, and assessing their progress.
Knowledge Building
Learning is made public so that the learner can get input from diverse perspectives and build on that
knowledge.
Students work individually to do the best they can. Sharing information and resources may be
considered "cheating."
Students periodically work in groups. Competition across groups is valued and encouraged.
Students are provided many opportunities within the course of their work on an assignment to
gather information and feedback from multiple sources including libraries, museums, colleges, other
community information sources as well as other students, community members, experts, etc.
Empathetic
Diversity and multiple perspectives are valued and utilized to build on the strengths of all students.
Students have limited opportunities to learn about the experiences and perspectives of other
students.
Students have opportunities to learn about the knowledge, experiences, and perspectives of others,
but those opportunities are not directly linked to instructional tasks.
153
Instruction is explicitly designed to solicit, incorporate, and build upon the knowledge, experiences,
and perspectives of all students, e.g., through the use of brainstorming and other strategies.
GROUPING
Flexible
Groups are formed and reformed according to the purpose of instruction. Groups are formed based on
common needs and interests, usually for short periods of time.
Students remain in the same group for the entire semester or year.
Groups are formed for the entire semester or year, but individual students may be moved to a
different group as indicated by performance.
Groups are formed for specific purposes-- e.g., common interest and need for specific skill building-and reformed on a regular basis.
Equitable
Groups are organized so that over time students have opportunities to learn from all other students.
Students primarily work with students of similar abilities.
Students have occasional opportunities to work beyond their ability groups.
Students have frequent opportunities to get to know and work with all other students. All students
have challenging roles.
Heterogeneous
Groups include males and females and a mix of cultures, learning styles, abilities, socioeconomic status,
and ages in order to capitalize on the range of background knowledge and differing perspectives.
Students are sometimes grouped by ability within and between grades. At other times, whole-group
instruction is used.
Students are often grouped by ability but periodically work in heterogeneous groups.
Students primarily work in heterogeneous groups and less often in ability groups.
TEACHER ROLES
154
Facilitator
Teachers create opportunities for students to work collaboratively to solve problems, do authentic tasks,
and share knowledge and responsibility.
The teacher is the primary source of information and resources.
The teacher creates highly structured learning opportunities. As students work, he or she circulates
among them to insure that they are following directions.
The teacher, in collaboration with others, e.g., library media specialist, creates learning opportunities.
As students work, he or she circulates among them to monitor and stimulate their discussion and project
work and pose questions or suggest resources as requested or appropriate.
Guide
Teachers help students to construct their own meaning by modeling, mediating, and coaching. They
constantly adjust the level of information and support according to students' needs.
The teacher gives explicit directions on how to complete assignments.
The teacher helps students to learn how, when, and why to use different strategies and provides
hints, clues, and other feedback to the entire class based on an observation of individual students or in
anticipation of likely problems.
The teacher and other instructional partners model their thinking processes, help students to learn
how, when, and why to use different strategies, and provide hints, clues, or other feedback on a studentby-student and as-needed basis.
Co-Learner/Co-Investigator
Teachers learn along with students, and students may serve as teachers.
The teacher has expertise in the area of study and experience using the instructional materials.
The teacher provides students opportunities to explore areas outside of the teacher's expertise, but
always stays a step ahead of the students.
The teacher extends his or her own knowledge along with the students.
STUDENT ROLES
155
Explorer
Students discover concepts and connections and apply skills by interacting with the physical world,
materials, technology, and other people. Often students are encouraged to jump into an open-ended
activity in order to stimulate their curiosity, become familiar with the instructional materials, and
formulate early understandings of the task.
-‘
Students learn the required information through structured activities that provide some
opportunities to make their own discoveries and draw their own conclusions.
Students have opportunities to explore topics of interest without making connections to their
curriculum.
Students have opportunities to pose questions, initiate projects, and explore issues linked to the
curriculum, often with little prior background knowledge. Additionally, they have time to explore
"uncharted territory," e.g., the Internet.
Cognitive Apprentice
Students observe, apply, and refine through practice the thinking processes used by practitioners in
specific content areas. They receive ongoing feedback on many aspects of a complex problem or skill.
Students receive feedback, usually in the form of grades or scores on their assignments, often only
after they are completed.
Teachers observe students as they work on instructional tasks, in order to provide ongoing feedback.
Teachers and other instructional partners regularly model their own thinking processes and
strategies, and observe students as they work on instructional tasks in order to observe thinking
processes and provide ongoing feedback. They also connect students with appropriate experts who also
provide models and feedback.
Teacher
In order to teach others, students must integrate and holistically represent what they have learned.
Students have few opportunities to share what they are learning with others.
Students have opportunities to present what they have learned to others, primarily within their
classroom, e.g. oral reports.
Students have frequent opportunities to share and discuss what they have learned with others, e.g.,
jigsawing, reciprocal teaching, demonstrations, and presentations within and outside their classroom.
156
Producer
Students generate knowledge and products for themselves and the community which synthesize and
integrate knowledge and skills.
Student assignments generally require them to study or respond to existing knowledge, e.g.,
workbooks, and chapter questions.
Students have opportunities to conduct research using original source materials and then summarize
their findings in reports or presentations.
Students are often involved in instructional activities in which they create novel products and ideas to
represent their learning, e.g., Energy net.
157
Indicators of Engaged Learning Chart
Variable
Indicator of
Engaged Learning
Responsible
learning
Learner involved in setting goals, choosing tasks, developing
assessments and standards for the tasks; has big picture of
learning and next steps in mind.
Strategic
Learner actively develops repertoire of thinking/learning
strategies.
Visions of
Learning
Energized
by learning
Collaborative
Authentic
Tasks
Indicator Definition
Learner is not dependent on rewards from others; has a passion
for learning.
Learner develops new ideas and understanding in conversations
and work with others.
Pertains to real world, may be addressed to personal interest.
Challenging
Difficult enough to be interesting but not totally frustrating,
usually sustained.
Multidisciplinary
Involves integrating disciplines to solve problems and address
issues.
Performancebased
Generative
Involving a performance or demonstration, usually for a real
audience and useful purpose.
Assessments having meaning for learner; maybe produce
information, product, service.
Assessment
Seamless
and ongoing
Equitable
Assessment is part of instruction and vice versa; students learn
during assessment.
Assessment is culture fair.
158
Interactive
Teacher or technology program responsive to student needs,
requests (e.g., menu driven).
Generative
Instruction oriented to constructing meaning, providing
meaningful activities/experiences.
Collaborative
Instruction conceptualizes students as part of learning
community; activities are collaborative.
Knowledgebuilding
Learning experiences set up to bring multiple perspectives to
solve problems such that each perspective contributes to shared
understanding for all; goes beyond brainstorming.
Empathetic
Learning environment and experiences set up for valuing
diversity, multiple perspectives, strengths.
Heterogeneous
Small groups with persons from different ability levels and
backgrounds.
Equitable
Small groups organized so that over time all students have
challenging learning tasks/experiences.
Instructional
Model
Learning
Context
Grouping
Flexible
Facilitator
Teacher Roles
Guide
Co-learner/coinvestigator
Different groups organized for different instructional purposes so
each person is a member of different groups; works with different
people.
Engages in negotiation, stimulates and monitors discussion and
project work but does not control.
Helps students to construct their own meaning by modeling,
mediating, explaining when needed, redirecting focus, providing
options.
Teacher considers self as learner; willing to take risks to explore
areas outside his/her expertise; collaborates with other teachers
and practicing professionals.
159
Student Roles
Explorer
Students have opportunities to explore new ideas/tools; push the
envelope in ideas and research.
Cognitive
Apprentice
Learning is situated in relationship with mentor who coaches
students to develop ideas and skills that stimulate the role of
practicing professionals (i.e., engage in real research).
Teacher
Students encouraged to teach others in formal and informal
contexts.
Producer
Students develop products of real use to themselves and others.
From: Jones, B.F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., Rasumssen, C. (1995). Plugging In: Choosing and Using Educational Technology.
Council for Educational Development and Research, NCREL.
http://www.rmcdenver.com/useguide/assessme/engaged.htm
Indicators of Engaged Learning
File Updated August 25, 2005
Copyright © 2000 RMC Research Corporation
160
Retrieved March 20, 2009
Meaningful, Engaged Learning Checklist
Meaningful, engaged learning
Yes!
1. Offer a "hook" that piques student curiosity
and let that curiosity lead to more inquiry
2. Guide students as they set their own learning
goals within your local performance standards.
3. Offer authentic tasks and encourage students
to develop their own.
4. Allow students to choose among tasks.
5. Involve a real audience and useful purpose for
tasks.
6. Allow interactive instruction and support coconstruction of knowledge.
7. Allow collaboration and multiple perspectives.
8. Encourage flexible heterogeneous grouping.
9. Give students the freedom to explore new
ideas.
10. Allow students to develop products of real
use.
11. Allow time for long term projects.
12. Facilitate student work across content areas
when completing tasks or solving problems.
13. Accept the role of facilitator, guide and colearner rather than dispenser of all knowledge.
14. Allow students to develop assessment and
standards for tasks - the rubrics.
15. Incorporate ongoing assessment as part of
instruction.
Millennium Minds
Educational Computing in the Internet Age
Cape Town, South Africa 29 September - 1 October 1999
The Western Cape Schools Network and SchoolNet SA
161
Maybe not