Topical Team 2.2 Academic Content and Content Best Practices

1. Topical Team 2.2Academic Content and Content Best Practices October 25 and 27, 2004 Brenda Simmons, University of Tennessee

2. Topical Team Leaders • Brenda Simmons, University of Tennessee • Science/Math Focus • Susan Easterbrooks, Georgia State University • Literacy Focus

3. Team Experts • Harry Lang, National Technical Institute for the Deaf • Science/math • Gay Su Pinnell, Ohio State University • Literacy

4. Overall Outcomes Expected for Grant Period • Research supporting increased academic achievement as a result of using the most effective standards-based content resources and content-specific strategies for teaching academic content to PK-12 students who are d/hh, improving d/hh teacher preparation program designs and increasing d/hh preservice teachers’ abilities to demonstrate content best practices competence.

5. Activities proposed in the grant • Activity 1: • Conduct needs assessment of the content best practices (standards-based content resources and content-specific strategies) that have been empirically demonstrated to increase student academic (i.e., literacy, mathematics and science) achievement for ALL PK-12 students. • Outcome: baseline empirical data

6. Response to Activity 1 • Team of deaf educators evaluated state’s core curriculum websites and conducted interviews with state level representatives from departments of education to determine what states are expecting TOD to know and be able to do. • Participants: Susan Easterbrooks, Kathleena Whitesell, Elaine Gale, Marcia Virts, Len Roberson, David Smith

7. Literature Reviews (will be posted on deafed.net) • Harry Lang- Science completed • Brenda Simmons- Math completed • Susan Easterbrooks and Kathleena Whitesell- Literacy 2/3 completed

8. Literature reviews were organized by the reviewers surrounding concepts identified in the literature • Each review provides information regarding best practices with DHH students in that area • This will be addressed further in Activity 2.

9. Date collection process for Activity 1: State-by-state review • Team members were assigned states in regions of the country identified by the Regional Resource Centers • http://www.dssc.org/frc/rrfc.htm

11. Posed following questions to Department of Ed officials • How does the state require teachers of the deaf/hard of hearing to respond to the general education curriculum? • Are teachers of the deaf/hard of hearing required to address these standards or are alternative curricula permissible? • Do you have any standards that are differentiated for exceptional learners, specifically are there any designed for learners who are deaf/hard of hearing?

12. What resources are available on the website to assist teacher? • Regarding students who are deaf/hard of hearing, how does your state recommend that teachers bridge the gap between the child’s present levels of performance and mandated standards for that age? • Is there any specific guidance for teachers of the deaf/hard of hearing?

13. Do deaf/hard of hearing students need to pass exit exams to get a regular diploma? If yes, what happens if deaf/hard of hearing students do not pass the exam? • Are there specific data on graduation rates of deaf/hard of hearing students? • What else can you tell us about the state’s response to performance or outcomes that will be evaluated via high stakes assessments?

14. Team members looked at the core curriculum for each state and identified: • Name of the curriculum • url • Structure of the standards • Resources

15. Were able to get data on 33 of the 50 states. • Kathleena Whitesell is writing up an executive summary of the data, to be published on deafed.net

16. General findings • Most states require their TODs to teach from the general ed curriculum • Most (but not all) states have highly specified core curricula; some identify mandated test objectives, and it is the responsibility of the local schools to identify appropriate curricula to meet these objectives

17. Few states give TODs any specific guidance on how to make appropriate modifications to the general ed curriculum • Few, if any, states have any graduation data on DHH students that are disaggregated from all of special education • Very little is being done to address the problems surrounding high school exit exams

18. How can this information be applied and used? • Teacher prep programs need to make sure that TOD have had experience in navigating the state’s curriculum and curriculum website. • Teacher prep programs need to give teachers in training experience in identifying general ed curriculum objectives and relating these to IEP objectives to identify how to bridge the gap. • Deaf education professionals need to support dis-aggregation of deaf ed data from special ed data

19. Teacher prep programs need to infuse information from the literature reviews into their courses • Your ideas?

20. Activity 2 • Conduct research concerning the use of the content best practices (content resources and content-specific strategies) that have been empirically demonstrated to increase academic (i.e., literacy, math, science) achievement by Master Teachers of students who are DHH and within DHH teacher preparation programs. • Outcome: Increase the knowledge base

21. Brenda and Susan are in the process of developing a survey to be sent to Master Teachers based on the Maximum Benefit/Maximum Likelihood research model. • Best practices will be identified from activity 1. • MT will be asked to provide 3 ratings:

22. How beneficial is this practice to your students’ achievement (least beneficial to most beneficial on a scale of 1 to 5) • How likely is it that you will use this practice? • If you are not likely to use this practice, why not?

23. Donna Mertens will place the survey on the Gallaudet website using Perseus Software • Result will be an analysis of what works and what teachers will in reality do.

24. How can others help? • One person to review the literature and make sure that the questions we developed address the most pertinent findings.

25. Activity 3 • Disseminate resulting research and offer professional development support for the use of the research information to DHH preservice teachers, their faculty, MT and the entire CoP. • Outcome: Increase in knowledge base and use of content best practices by DHH preservice teachers, their faculty and MT.

26. Dissemination • Via deafed.net • Professional Development • Powerpoints developed and used in teacher prep programs.

27. What can you do? (After data are back from Master Teachers) • Design Powerpoint presentations that teach students in teacher prep programs how to use the content-specific strategies identified in activities 1 and 2 • Maximum of 10 in literacy and 10 in science/math

28. Activity 4 • Conduct follow-up research on the impact of the disseminated information on DHH teacher preparation programs and their preservice teachers’ demonstrations of content best practices competence. • Outcome: Empirical evidence.

29. Team leaders will identify team members to assist in developing a data collection process. • Team members will work with individual teacher prep programs to implement use of the Powerpoints • Team members will work with teachers in training to gather data about application of the practices.

30. Critical Problem: • We KNOW what to do but we do not have the administrative structures within which we can do it, so how do we prepare TODs to provide what students truly need in an environment where their needs do not drive the curriculum?

31. Brenda Simmons bsimmon1@utk.edu Susan Easterbrooks seasterbrooks@gsu.edu STAY TUNED