JTC Event 2012 - Designing Technology-Enhanced Inclusive Learning Environments - Belina Caissie, Toby Scott, and Karen Perdersen-Bayus

  • View
    452

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Text of JTC Event 2012 - Designing Technology-Enhanced Inclusive Learning Environments - Belina Caissie,...

  • 1. Designing Technology-Enabled Classrooms for Diverse Learners: An Overview of the Alberta Smart Inclusion Project and One-to-One Mobile Tablet Project Belina Caissie November 28th, 2012

2. Background Sept. 2008 - Sept. 2012: Innovative Classrooms Technology Funding ($56 million) June 2011: Setting the Direction Government Response, Strategic Direction 7- Increase access to technologies to support the learning of all students. 3. As more and more schools integrate technology into their classrooms, how do we ensure we truly leverage the transformative nature of these modern tools to re-imagine what our schools can be and allow more children to create authentic powerful artifacts of their learning? Chris Lehmann 4. Alberta Smart Inclusion Project 1:1 Mobile Tablet Project http://121mobiletabletproject.wikispaces.com/http://albertasmartinclusion.wikispaces.com/ 5. Everyone realizes that it is carpenters who use wood, hammers and saws to produce houses and furniture, and the quality of the product depends on the quality of the work. Seymour Papert 6. Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Activities 7. TPACK An ability to draw from and integrate knowledge of technology, pedagogy and content (and their relationship to each other) into your curriculum and instructional practices. Mishra & Koehler 8. This process is impacted by every new change that is introduced into teachers overlapping circles of knowledge. (i.e. teaching a new subject and/or grade for the first time, new technology in their classroom) Developing TPACK is a process. 9. It seemed ironic to us that legislators and architects were working very hard to ensure that educational buildings were universally accessible, but no such movement pursued universal accessibility for the methods and materials used inside the buildings; the curriculum. Rose & Meyer, 2002 Universal Design for Learning (UDL) 10. UniversalDesign(UD) UniversalDesignforLearning(UDL) Proac&velydesigningphysical environmentstoreduce poten&albarriersforawide varietyofusers. Proac&velydesigninglearning environments(goals, materials,methodsand assessments)toreduceor eliminatebarrierstostudent learning. Consider the needs of the broadest possible range of users from the beginning. 11. Barriers to learning are not, in fact, inherent in the capacities of learners, but instead arise in learners interactions with inflexible educational materials and methods. Rose & Meyer, 2002 One size does not fit all!!! 12. A key goal of UDL is to design learning environments in which each and every student will have the opportunity to authentically participate and become expert learners. 13. Purpose of UDL Purpose of ATL To proactively design learning environments (goals, materials, methods and assessments) to reduce potential barriers for a wide variety of users which supports access to and progress in the Programs of Study for all students. To retrofit learning environments to reduce or remove barriers to student learning which increases, improves or maintains the functional capabilities of individual students with special needs in educational settings. Both UDL and ATL support increased educational participation and achievement! 14. Dave Edyburn Text 15. Alberta Smart Inclusion Project 1:1 Mobile Tablet Project 16. build will upon the original Smart Inclusion Research Project in Ontario by engaging four* jurisdictions in a community of practice for the purpose of informing promising practices in the use of technology to support the learning of all students. Alberta Smart Inclusion Project Purpose The Alberta Smart Inclusion Project will: 17. Alberta Smart Inclusion Project Lead Team Belina Caissie (Project Manager) Cecelia Hund-Ried (Lead Researcher) Alberta Smart Inclusion Project Lead Team Belina Caissie (Project Manager) Cecelia Hund-Ried (Lead Researcher) Alberta Smart Inclusion Project Lead Team Belina Caissie (Project Manager) Cecelia Hund-Ried (Lead Researcher) Greater St. Albert Catholic Schools Implementation Team Carla Durocher (Project Lead) Inclusive Learning Implementation Team Darlene Kowalchuk (Project Lead) Parkland School Division Implementation Team Nicole Lakusta (Project Lead) 18. Project Objectives 1) Create a multi-district Community of Practice on the effective use of core educational technologies, assistive technology for learning, and emergent technologies to support the learning of students with diverse and complex learning needs. 2) Research the Alberta SmartInclusion Project and compile lessons learned. 19. Does the use of interactive whiteboards integrated with specialized software and AAC, set within a framework of Universal design for Learning, Differentiated Instruction, Aided Language Stimulation, and the Participation Model increase the academic, communication, behavior, and academic & social participation for students with communication challenges? Research Question 20. Will & Skill Building policy barriers, practice barriers, attitude barriers, knowledge barriers, and skill barriers The Beyond Access Model acknowledges and systematically deals with the that often inhibit the effective implementation of inclusive education. 21. Phase 1: Assessment Two essential questions frame the CASTS: 1) What supports are currently in place that promote the students full membership, participation, communication, and learning of general education core academics? 2) How does the learning team currently work together to support these outcomes? 22. Phase 2: Explore & Describe Two questions focus the teams work during this phase: 1) What supports are needed for the students full engagement in and learning of general education curriculum content? 2) How does the learning team need to work together to support the students full engagement and learning? 23. Phase 3: Implement & Document systematically implement and gather performance data engage in professional development related to the desired student outcomes (ie Smart Inclusion Community of Practice days) provide coaching to improve the consistency and quality of the communication and instructional supports provided 24. Phase 4: Review & Sustain systematically review and reect on both student and team performance data identify areas that require further exploration re: possible additions to the student and/or team supports 25. BA Model Outcomes Two main categories of outcomes: Clearly articulating ultimate and intermediate outcomes increases the likelihood educators collect the right data for the right purposes. 1) Ultimate Outcomes 2) Intermediate Outcomes 26. Ultimate Outcomes students membership, participation, and learning in the general education curriculum content in the general education classroom 27. Intermediate Outcomes 1) presuming competence 2) collaborative teaming 3) the provision of other students-level supports 4) other student or team outcomes that are not representative of changes in student membership, participation, and learning in the general education curriculum content 28. 5 Step Framework for Instructional Planning for Full Participation 1) Identify the subject and skill being taught. 2) Identify what classmates will do to show that they are engaged in the instruction / learning event. 3) Identify how the target student can demonstrate those same or similar behaviours through the same or alternate means of communicating and/or demonstrating engagement. 29. 4) Identify what supports the target student needs in order to participate and what supports would help elicit or teach the behaviours in Step 3. 5) Identify what planning must be done by team members to ensure that the supports are available and delivered at the time they are needed. Promoting full membership and utilizing the 5 step instructional planning process sets the stage for a students demonstration of both anticipated and unanticipated learning (p. 64-65). 30. Action Research: Setting large urban school district 2 congregated classrooms for students with ASD FM sound field system and SMARTboard school-based Inclusive Learning Team: SLP, OT & Ed Behaviour Consultants 31. Participant characteristics were as follows: a)a) 4 males b)b) Age 7:0-8:6 years; 3 in Grade 2, 1 in Grade 3 c)c) Medical diagnosis of ASD d)d) Severe receptive and expressive language delay e)e) Used Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) supports (e.g. Pointing to pictures, Picture Exchange Communication System) and trialed Speech Generating Communication Devices and mainstream technology, including iPads, during the project f)f) Context Dependent Communicator Level 1 or 2 based on Alberta Aids to Daily Living Guidelines for Selecting Speech Generating Communication Devices Within Mid-Tech Category g)g) English spoken in the home (as reported by parents and programming staff) Participants 32. DATA MEASURE October 2011 December 2011 March 2012 June 2012 Norm-referenced, StandardizedNorm-referenced, StandardizedNorm-referenced, StandardizedNorm-referenced, StandardizedNorm-referenced, Standardized Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test-2 Matrices Subtest (KBIT-2 Matrices) X X Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-4 (PPVT-4) X X Expressive Vocabulary Test-2 (EVT-2) X X Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4 (CELF-4 ) X X Non-StandardizedNon-StandardizedNon-StandardizedNon-StandardizedNon-Standardized SI Tracking and Evaluation Questionnaire X X Participation Matrix X X Activity Standards Inventory (revised) X X X SI Project Needs/Interest Survey X X Beliefs about Learning & Teaching Questionnaire X X Student and Team Outcomes Survey X X X X Merged CAST-SETT Model X X Communication Intentions X X Motivation Assessment Scale X X 33. Results (Surveys) A B C D 34. A B C D 35. A B C D 36. A B C D 37. A B C D 38. A B C D 39. A B C D 40. A B C D 41. A B C D 4