Differentiated
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 40

So how well does this stuff work? PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 53 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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

Download Presentation

So how well does this stuff work?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

So how well does this stuff work?

Extensive research validates use of visual tools…

* Reading comprehension

High-achieving

* Vocabulary acquisition

Typical-achieving

* Writing fluency & ideation

Low-achieving

* Content-area learning

Learning Disabilities


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

Large N quantitative studies (true- & quasi-experimental designs)

Qualitative studies

Program Evaluations

Typical measures include…

General performance on high-stakes tests

Performance in specific skills (writing) and vocabulary

Depth / Breadth / Accuracy of new content knowledge

Social validity (teacher & student satisfaction)

Fidelity & factors that affect it

For example….


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

American History

WEEK 1

WEEK 2

Teaches 2nd mini-unit using

Teacher A

Teaches 1st mini-unit using traditional guided note-taking / discussion instruction

Teaches same 1st mini-unit using

Teacher B

Teaches same 2nd mini-unit using traditional guided note-taking / discussion instruction

32 High Achieving

32 Typical Achieving

32 Low Achieving

16 Students w/LD

Changes in students’ knowledge about the mini-unit topic are measured at end of each mini-unit


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

HA

This allowed us to establish the “high water” line.

TM

American History

First, we measured how much newknowledge of history High Achieving students typically gain when teachers use traditional content instruction methods.

Text-based, guided note-taking / class discussion


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

HA

HA

HA

21% more

Gap between High & Typical Achievers

TA

American History

High Achieving students tend to gain 21% more knowledge than do Typical Achieving students from the same lesson.

This allowed us to establish the “typical amount” line.

Then, we measured how much new knowledge of history Typical Achieving students usually gain when teachers use traditional content instruction methods.


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

HA

HA

HA

29% more

Gap between Typical & Low Achievers

TA

LA

American History

Typical-achievers typically gain 29% more knowledge from a traditional lesson than do Low Achievers.

Then, we measured how much new knowledge of history Low Achieving students typically gain.


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

HA

HA

HA

27% more

Gap between Typical & Students with LD

TA

LD

LA

American History

Typical-achievers typically gain 27% more knowledge from a traditional lesson than do students with LD.

Then, we measured how much new knowledge of history students with LD typically gain from the same ”traditional” lesson.


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

HA

HA

HA

TA

LD

LA

American History

So now we know what to expect in terms of differences in gains in knowledge about a topic among different types of students when business-as-usual teaching techniques are used on the same history lessons.


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

HA

HA

HA

4 % less

TA

American History

When DVTs is used, Typical Achievers increase their learning to within 4% of what High Achievers learned when traditional instruction is used.


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

HA

HA

HA

4 % less

TA

9 % less

LA

American History

When DVTsis used, Low Achievers increase their learning to within 9% of what Typical Achievers learned when traditional instruction is used.


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

HA

HA

HA

TA

11 % less

LD

LA

American History

When DVTsis used, Students with LD increase their learning to within 11% of what Typical Achievers learned when traditional instruction is used.


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

HA

HA

HA

4 % less

TA

9 % less

11 % less

LD

LA

American History

At first glance, it seems like DVTsis a powerful tool for “reducing the achievement gap.”

The reality is that ALL students greatly enhanced their knowledge when teachers used DVTs


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

HA

HA

HA

TA

LD

LA

…and even get wider!

American History

So the effects of DVTs on the “gap” is to “raise the bar…”

All students are significantly increasing their knowledge of history…

But the gaps remain!


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

This study compared the relative impact of….

Essential Understandings

Generative

Idea

Generic Graphic Organizers

VS.

VS.

VS.

…on depth, breadth, and accuracy of new history knowledge

Text

Resources

96 11th grade students…

32 high-achieving, 32 typical achieving, 16 low-achieving, & 16 low-achieving w/ LD

“Business as Usual”


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

PHASE 1

PHASE 2

PHASE 3

PHASE 4

CLASS 1

TEXT RESOURCES

GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS

GENERATIVE IDEA

ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS

depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

Teacher employed a different strategy during each phase of instruction.


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

PHASE 1

PHASE 2

PHASE 3

PHASE 4

CLASS 1

Pre & Post measures of students’

Breadth of knowledge

Depth of knowledge

Accuracy of knowledge

TEXT RESOURCES

GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS

GENERATIVE IDEA

ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS

depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

Learning measured for each phase


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

TM

PHASE 1

PHASE 2

PHASE 3

PHASE 4

TEXT RESOURCES

TEXT RESOURCES

GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS

GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS

GENERATIVE IDEA Visual Tools

GENERATIVE IDEA

ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS

ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS

depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

CLASS 1

CLASS 2

2nd teacher used same strategies, but in a different order


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

PHASE 1

PHASE 2

PHASE 3

PHASE 4

TEXT RESOURCES

TEXT RESOURCES

TEXT RESOURCES

TEXT RESOURCES

GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS

GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS

GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS

GENERIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS

GENERATIVE IDEA Visual Tools

GENERATIVE IDEA Visual Tools

GENERATIVE IDEA Visual Tools

GENERATIVE IDEA Visual Tools

ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS Visual Tools

ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS Visual Tools

ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS Visual Tools

ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDINGS Visual Tools

depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

CLASS 1

CLASS 2

CLASS 3

3rd & 4th teachers used same strategies, also in different orders

CLASS 4


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

Analysis of pre- and post-mini-unit student generated concept maps relative to pre-established criterion maps provided 3 scores

(Ruiz-Primo, Shavelson & Shultz, 1997):

Accuracy of Relational Understanding Score

Breadth of Relational Understanding Score

Depth of Relational Understanding Score

Students orally explained links between the terms & asked to elaborate on concepts relating to the proposition identified.

3 types of oral prompts were provided to encourage elaboration:

Prompts to summarize important ideas about the topic

Prompts to relate or apply ideas

Prompts to think about the idea in a new way (what if…)

Each proposition scored 0-3, depending on whether the proposition appeared on the criterion map, whether the student’s explanation was accurate, factually correct and complete, and the degree of elaboration provided.


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

High Achieving

Typical Achieving

Low Achieving

Learning Disabilities

Generic G.O.s

EU

GI

Text Resources

depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

ANOVA statistical analysis was used to determine the relative impact of each of the four instructional approaches relative to level of student achievement.

TM

Tukey’s HSD was used for post hoc analysis.


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

High Achieving

Typical Achieving

Low Achieving

Learning Disabilities

Generic G.O.s

EU

GI

Text Resources

depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

ANOVA of Accuracyof Knowledge Scores by Level of Student Achievement and Form of Instruction

TM

… no significant differences

In other words, if a treatment worked well with one type of student, it worked equally well with the other types (& vice versa).

Tukey’s HSD was used for post hoc analysis.


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

High Achieving

Typical Achieving

Low Achieving

Learning Disabilities

Generic G.O.s

EU

GI

Text Resources

depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

ANOVA of DEPTHof Relational Understanding Scores by Level of Student Achievement and Form of Instruction

TM

Significant contrasts:

Scores Using Scores Using

EU Visual Tools> GI Visual Tools

EU Visual Tools> Text Resources

Generic Gos> Text Resources

EU Visual Tools had the greatest impact on all students depth of relational understanding.

Tukey’s HSD was used for post hoc analysis.


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

High Achieving

Typical Achieving

Low Achieving

Learning Disabilities

Generic G.O.s

EU

GI

Text Resources

depth / breadth / accuracy of knowledge

ANOVA of BREADTHof Relational Understanding Scores by Level of Student Achievement and Form of Instruction

TM

Significant contrasts:

Scores Using Scores Using

EU Visual Tools> GI Visual Tools

EU Visual Tools> Text Resources

Generic Gos> Text Resources

EU Visual Tools had the greatest impact on all students depthof relational understanding.

Tukey’s HSD was used for post hoc analysis.


So how well does this stuff work

Depth, breadth, & accuracy of new 11th grade history knowledge

ANOVA of Depth of Relational Understanding Scores by Level of Student Achievement and Form of Instruction

Source Sum of Squares dfMean Square F p

Level of Ach. (A) 7990.415 23995.207 159.078 .000

Form of Inst. (B) 740.245 3 246.748 9.825 .000

A X B Interaction 48.095 68.016 .319 .927

A X B within error 9041.321 36025.113

Post Hoc Analysis of Depth of Relational Understanding Scores- Tukey’s HSD

Significant contrasts:

Scores Using Scores Using

EU Visual Tools> GI Visual Tools

EU Visual Tools> Text Resources

Generic GOs> Text Resources

Significant differences were found between the 4 techniques relative to students with and without LD. For students with LD, the EU & Generic Graphic Organizershad the greatest impact on their depth of relational understanding.

Use of traditional-text-based instruction was the least effective.


So how well does this stuff work

Depth, breadth, & accuracy of new 11th grade history knowledge

ANOVA of Breadth of Relational Understanding Scores by Level of Student Achievement and Form of Instruction

Source Sum of Squares dfMean Square F p

Level of Ach. (A) 1481.321 2740.6607 126.603 .000

Form of Inst. (B) 227.494 3 75.831 12.962 .000

A X B Interaction 7.553 6 1.259 .215 .927

A X B within error 9041.321 360 5.850

Post Hoc Analysis of Depth of Relational Understanding Scores- Tukey’s HSD

Significant contrasts:

Scores Using Scores Using

EU Visual Tools >GI Visual Tools

EU Visual Tools >Text Resources

Generic GOs>GI Visual Tools

Generic GOs>Text Resources

Significant differences were found between the 4 techniques relative to students with and without LD. EU Visual Tools had the greatest impact on breadth of relational understanding. Use of GI Visual Tools & traditional-text-based instruction were the least effective.


So how well does this stuff work

Qualitative analysis of history teachers’ & students perceptions of different types of visual tools

* Generic Graphic Organizers

* Essential Understanding Visual Tools

* Generative Idea Visual Tools

* Traditional Guided Note-taking

Teachers taught history units employing instruction featuring each of the four instructional approaches.

Qualitative data, via semi-structured interviews of teachers and students were collected and analyzed.


So how well does this stuff work

Qualitative analysis of history teachers’ & students perceptions of different types of visual tools

Emergent themes…

Generic Graphic Organizers with embedded prompts about the information structure (hierarchic, compare/contrast, cause/effect, and/or sequence) were perceived as useful by teachers because they helped differentiate the curriculum and organize material.

Sample comments:

Teacher:“I could use these (Generic GOs) every day. They really help organize the material. When the students used these to take notes, it really helped them see what was important and how things relate”

Student: “The(Generic GOs) point to the main topics instead of going into long, long notes. It is better than pages of notes.”


So how well does this stuff work

Qualitative analysis of history teachers’ & students perceptions of different types of visual tools

Emergent themes…

Essential Understanding

Both teachers and students perceived that the EU Visual Tools with embedded prompts related to topic-specific essential understandings and prompts to engage in specific information processing skills help make the concepts addressed during the history instruction applicable for the students.

Sample comments:

Teacher: “These (EU Visual Tools) make the information real and personal to the student. It reminds them that history is interconnected and can even apply to their own lives.”

Student: ““These (EU Visual Tools) make it so that you don’t forget what it’s all about. You look at the questions, then the whole topic comes back to you and you say ‘oh yea, I remember that from our notes’.”


So how well does this stuff work

Qualitative analysis of history teachers’ & students perceptions of different types of visual tools

Generative Idea

Teachers and students viewed the Generative Idea Visual Tools somewhat differently.

Teachers perceived them as complex and perceived that their students did not understand the “big ideas”.

Sample comment:

Teacher: “Maybe they would be good for 12th grade second semester students; but my students did not understand these. They did not get the big picture that was trying to be expressed.”


So how well does this stuff work

Qualitative analysis of history teachers’ & students perceptions of different types of visual tools

  • Generative Idea

  • Teachers’ value of the GI Visual Tools seemed to be impacted by:

  • The novelty of teaching generative ideas;

  • Perceived misalignment between generative ideas and what they perceived to be objectives in the state course of study.

Sample comments:

Teacher: “The concepts in these (GI Visual Tools) were not difficult, they were just new. We’ve never taught anything like this.”

Teacher: “I personally don’t have time to teach concepts not on the graduation exam.”

Teacher:“They (the students) needed more experience working with these (GI Visual Tools) and these concepts.”


So how well does this stuff work

Qualitative analysis of history teachers’ & students perceptions of different types of visual tools

Generative Idea

Students, however, valued the GI Visual Tools and appreciated the direct instruction in the generative ideas related to a topic.

TM

Sample comment:

Student: “These (GI Smart-sheets) tell you what is important to understand. It spells it right out.”


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

98%

81%

71%

97%

PRE

PRE

POST

POST

11th grade students w/LD

11TH grade typical achievers

11thgrade history vocabulary

26 pt gain

17 pt gain


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

FLUENCY

117

words

Control GroupStudents w/LD

Experimental Group Students w/LD

Pretest

Pretest

Post-test

Post-test

29

26

words

words

Writing fluency: 8thgrade students with LD

Typical 8th grader

N=20

CONTROL group of students w/LD

N = 28

EXPERIMENTAL group of students w/LD

N = 28

Typical 8th grader produces an average of 117 words on high-stakes essays.

8th students with LD typically produce about 27 words on the same task.


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

FLUENCY

126

words

+9 words more than typical 8th grader

117

words

Pretest

Pretest

Post-test

Post-test

26

29

words

words

24

words

Writing fluency: 8thgrade students with LD

Typical 8th grader

N=20

CONTROL group of students w/LD

EXPERIMENTAL group of students w/LD

Business-as-usual

DVTs

+97 words more than pretest


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

Impact on AYP Writing Assessment

% of students meeting or exceeding standards BEFORE schools started implementing DVTs

73.02%

before DVTs

58.39%

before DVTs

38.83%

before DVTs

20.6%

before DVTs

9 Schools Extremely low performance

8 Schools Low performance

7 Schools Moderate performance

2 Schools Good performance


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

DVTs

82.68%

DVTs

74.81%

DVTs

62.41%

DVTs

49.24%

+ 28.64pts.

+ 23.58pts.

+16.42pts.

+9.66pts.

Impact on AYP Writing Assessment

% of students meeting or exceeding standards AFTER schools started implementing DVTs

73.02%

before DVTs

58.39%

before DVTs

38.83%

before DVTs

20.6%

before DVTs

9 Schools

Extremely Low Performing

8 Schools

Low Performing

7 Schools

Moderate Performing

2 Schools

High Performing


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

Impact on AYP Writing Assessment

So how well do these work?

Results consistently show that DVTs …

FAR better than “business as usual” (control groups)

Significantly better than generic graphic organizers

Teachers and students HIGHLY value them


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

Semi-rural 5th grade Alabama Writing Assessment

% students meeting or exceeding standards

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

DVTs implementation

Business-as-usual

36.1

51.43

81.0

28.08

School #1

+ 23

+30

62.24

22.0

71.0

10.0

School #2

+ 52

+ 9


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

% students meeting or exceeding standards

Year 1

Year 2

Non-DVTs High School

DVTs High School

51%

51%

53%

77%

26 ptgain

2 pt gain

Semi-rural 5th grade Alabama Writing Assessment

Both groups performed at the same levels in Year 1

DVTs implementation


So how well does this stuff work

differentiated visual tools

TM

7thgrade Alabama Writing Assessment

% students meeting or exceeding standards

Year 1 Year 2 Gains

Business-as-Usual

DVTs

Rural 7th Grade

32.71

57.84

+25.13

61

+23.00

Suburb 7th Grade

38


  • Login