1 / 24

Carly Roberts 4/22/11

Functional Content & Core Content Instruction for Students with Moderate Disabilities: A Discussion. Carly Roberts 4/22/11. Reviewed Article.

vila
Télécharger la présentation

Carly Roberts 4/22/11

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Functional Content & Core Content Instruction for Students with Moderate Disabilities: A Discussion Carly Roberts 4/22/11

  2. Reviewed Article • Collins, B. C., Hagar, K. L., & Galloway, C. C. (2011). Addition of functional content during core content instruction with students with moderate disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Development Disabilities, 46, 22-39.

  3. Pause for discussion… • What does “access to the general curriculum” mean? • What does it look like in practice? • What should be the focus of instruction for adolescents with significant cognitive disabilities? • What does “meaningful” instruction mean? What does it look like?

  4. Research Questions • Will middle school students with moderate to severe disabilities acquire both core content and a functional application through direct instruction? • Will the students generalize that content across probe trials using novel materials and activities?

  5. Student Participants • 3 middle school students identified with moderate to severe disabilities who participate in alternate assessments • Jason • 14 year old male included 50-60% of the day • IQ 55 and adaptive behavior score of 56 • Morgan • 14 year old male with autism included 40% of the day • IQ 47 • Rena • 15 year old female with Down Syndrome included 40% of the day • IQ 41

  6. Teacher Participants • Special education teacher • 3 years of teaching experience • Previously worked as a paraprofessional • Working on her master’s degree • Paraprofessional took over when the teacher went on maternity leave • Experienced • Had participated in a previous study • Trained by the teacher

  7. Goals • Teacher chose content standards to work on and then created a academic content goal as well as a functional goal for that standard • Chose content standards in language arts, science, and math

  8. Reading Goals • Content Standard Goal: Identify meanings of words/phrases from a grade level passage newspaper • Functional Goal: functional application of the grade level words

  9. Specific Reading Goals

  10. Science Goals • Content Standard Goal: Identify chemical and physical properties of elements and compounds for the basic properties of (a) gas, (b) liquid, and (c) solid. • Functional Goal: Identify change in properties for weather and cooking

  11. Specific Science Goals

  12. Math Goals • Content Standard Goal: Apply order of operations using addition and multiplication. • Functional Goal: Use the order of operations for computing sales tax.

  13. Specific Math Goals

  14. Teaching Procedures • Setting: self-contained special education class • Duration: 1 hour each day in the morning from September-April. • Procedure: The teacher used constant time delay (CTD) to instruct and conduct one trial per stimulus per session. Each subject was taught to 100% criterion before beginning the next subject. The order was: (a) language arts, (b) science, and (c) math

  15. Pause for discussion… • What is the best setting to teach academic content area goals in—an inclusive setting or a self-contained setting? • Is there time to do both?

  16. Design • Multiple probe design across behaviors (reading, science, and math tasks) replicated across participants • Baseline: • Students did not begin instruction in next subject area goals until they reached 100% criterion in previous subject. • Baseline sessions consisted of three probe trials for functional and three probe trials for core content. • Given task direction and tasks and waited 3 seconds for student response (no prompting, no CTD).

  17. Design Continued… • Instruction • Constant time delay (first session 0 delay, subsequent sessions 3 second delay) • Prompts were verbal models or verbal models paired with gestures • Praise for correct responses and a model for incorrect responses • Generalization • Alternate assessment trials • Same standard addressed using different materials or applications • Maintenance • After they reached mastery (100% for 3 sessions) in each subject only intermittent probes were conducted

  18. Jason’s Results

  19. Morgan’s Results

  20. Rena’s Results

  21. Conclusions • Academic instruction of core content and functional instruction can be combined, although time constraints make it difficult. • It improved the students’ ability to answer generalization probes based on the alternate assessment. • Combining core content and functional content and basing the functional content off of grade level standards can help make instruction more meaningful.

  22. Limitations • They ran out of time! We don’t know if the students would have had more success if they started earlier in the year. • Instructional time was limited (approximately five minutes per student per day) • Instruction was in a self-contained class. Can it work in an inclusive classroom?

  23. Discussion questions… • Can academic core content and functional content be taught together? Does it make instruction more meaningful? • Can this strategy improve student scores on the alternate assessment? • Is it okay to prioritize instruction for subjects (i.e. wait to focus on math standards until prior subjects mastered)? • Additional thoughts…

  24. Thank You!

More Related