how do we tell which inclusive teaching strategies benefit ...mams.rmit.edu.au/3f1hxa3uq0goz.pdf ·...

How do we tell which inclusive teaching strategies benefit the whole class?

Tom CoverdaleFrom: the Study and Learning CentreFor: the Inclusive Teaching Working Group

You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

http://www.novapdf.com

Inclusive teaching working group 2

This session

1. Who to include and how to include them.

2. Two approaches to inclusive teaching.

3. To what extent is inclusive teaching ‘just good teaching’?

4. Meta-analysis: measuring success of teaching practices.

5. Some evidence-based teaching practices which enhance:• inclusion • academic success• retention

for majority of students.




What is inclusive teaching?

Teaching that accommodates differences:• visible• invisible




Many groups to include

Some of the differences between students:• disabilities• English as a Second Language (ESL)• economic status• religious practices• cultural diversity• indigenous culture• health and medical conditions• gender• sexuality• left school early• mature-age• single parent• refugees• survivors of trauma• learning preferences

(Training Design 2007)




Source: UK Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills 2009

One large and growing group




Source: UK Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills 2009




Source: andrewnorton.info

A second large and growing group



A third large and growing group

University students of Low Socio-Economic Status: federal government target 20% by 2020

Group contains higher proportion of students:

• first in family in tertiary education

• working to put themselves through

• who drop out




How to include them?

Two broad approaches to inclusive teaching:

1. Special-needs-based adjustments for individuals or groups (the main method)

2. ‘Universal’ design.




1. Adjustments approach 2. ‘Universal’ design approach

Two broad approaches to inclusive teaching




First approach: special needs-based adjustments• Post-hoc adjustments to allow access to education e.g.

-students with dyslexia get instruction in assistive software, scribe and extra time on exams

- extra classes for ESL students

• Deficit or remedial model of disability/difference e.g. need to show medical certificate




Second approach: ‘universal’ design for learning

• Sloping forecourts, not temporary ramps

• Inclusion starts at the design stage

• Pre-empts need for individualised adjustments, e.g. everyone is shown assistive software

• Fits a social model of disability

• Addresses diversity of learning preferencesacross the class




When you get a new electronic gadget such as a mobile phone or DVD player is your first instinct to:

• grab the instruction book and start reading?

• ask someone to show you how it works?

• ask someone to explain how it works?

• fiddle with it until you get it working?

We’re all a bit different: Learning preferences

13




Learning preferences: VARK teaching mix

Visualdiagrams, pictures, flowcharts, maps, mindmaps, concept maps, highlighters, outlines

Auditorydiscussion, debate, re-telling activities, explaining to others (e.g. reciprocal teaching), read aloud, tape recording

Read/writeprinted notes, note-taking

Kinaestheticactivities, problem solving, practical exercises, role plays, make own models, computer simulations, teach others

14




Benefits flow from mixing it up

• Preferences – NOT infallible predictors

• Use a mix of these strategies in teaching

• Variety, flexibility, diversity is the key—dual encoding

Adapted from Felder & Spurlin, Application, reliability & Validity of the Index of Learning Preferences



3 principles of ‘universal’ design for learning

Offer the whole class:

1. Multiple means of representation e.g. mix of VARK, individual and group work.

2. Multiple means of engagement, to recruit their interest (e.g. mix of direct teaching and enquiry-based learning, etc)

3. Multiple means of expression, so students have options for demonstrating what they know, e.g. concept map instead of essay,or do project instead of exam




‘Universal’ design: how do we tell which strategies would also help the rest of the class?

1. Some inclusive teaching practices would also benefit majority of class.

2. Others don’t, and should be reserved for those who need them.

3. Meta-analyses useful for showing which is which.




Table 1: Data from educational meta-analyses; n=number of studies

Meta-analysis: how well things have workedEducational intervention Effect sizeUse of manipulatives

Argument mapping for critical thinking (HEd)

Note-taking + note-review strategies (HEd)

Embedded learning skills programs (HEd)

Reciprocal teaching

Enhanced feedback

Meta-cognitive practices

Cooperative v individualistic learning

Direct instruction

Concept mapping

Peer tutoring

Average effect (‘the bar’)

0.89 (Marzano 1998; n=236) [+ 31%]

0.78 (Alvarez 2007; n=7) [+ 28%]

0.77 (Kobayashi 2006; n=33)

0.77 (Hattie, Biggs & Purdie 1996; n=108)

0.74 (Hattie 2009; n=38)

0.73 (Hattie 2009; 1287)

0.69 (Hattie 2009; n=63) [+ 25%]

0.59 (Hattie 2009; n=774)

0.59 (Hattie 2009; n=304)

0.57 (Hattie 2009; n=287) [+ 22%]

0.55 (Hattie 2009; n=767)

0.40 (Hattie 2009; n=52 637) [+ 16%]

Computer-based instruction (HEd)

Individualised instruction

Problem-based learning

0.28 (Schmid et al 2009; n=231) [+ 11%]

0.23 (Hattie 2009; n=600)

0.15 (Hattie 2009; n=285) [+ 6%]




Educational intervention Effect sizeUse of manipulatives (KINAESTHETIC)

Argument mapping for critical thinking (HEd) (VISUAL)

Note-taking + note-review strategies (HEd) (SKILLS)

Embedded learning skills programs (HEd) (SKILLS)

Reciprocal teaching (LARGELY AUDITORY)

Enhanced feedback

Meta-cognitive practices (SKILLS)


Direct instruction

Concept mapping (VISUAL)

Peer tutoring


0.89 (Marzano 1998; n=236)

0.78 (Alvarez 2007; n=7)

0.77 (Kobayashi 2006; n=33)


0.74 (Hattie 2009; n=38)

0.73 (Hattie 2009; 1287)

0.69 (Hattie 2009; n=63)

0.59 (Hattie 2009; n=774)

0.59 (Hattie 2009; n=304)

0.57 (Hattie 2009; n=287)

0.55 (Hattie 2009; n=767)

0.40 (Hattie 2009; n=52 637)

Computer technology on instruction (HEd)


Problem-based learning

0.28 (Schmid et al 2009; n=231)

0.23 (Hattie 2009; n=600)

0.15 (Hattie 2009; n=285)

Table 1: Data from educational meta-analyses; n=number of studies

Meta-analysis: how well things have worked




Educational intervention Effect sizeArgument mapping for critical thinking (HEd)

Concept mapping

0.78 (Alvarez 2007; n=7) [+ 28%]

0.57 (Hattie 2009; n=287) [+ 22%]

An example: mapping

Mapping (turning ideas into diagrams) often recommended for students with dyslexia, and lower ESL proficiency.

Clearly, it also tends to benefit students in general:




Building from the evidence baseUniversal design (offering the adjustment to the whole class) is ‘just good teaching’ when it offers strategies with empirical support.

e.g. teach whole class concept mapping (and argument mapping), and make the software available.

because

because but

but

because however

ContentionThe main issue or topic under consideration.

ReasonInformation which directly supports the contention.

ReasonInformation which backs up the reason above.

ObjectionInformation which goes against the reason above.

ObjectionInformation which directly refutes the contention.

ReasonInformation which provides a reason to believe the objection above.

RebuttalInformation which provides a counter objection to the above.



What else has worked?

Educational intervention Effect size

Use of manipulatives (KINAESTHETIC)

Argument mapping for critical thinking (HEd) (VISUAL)

Note-taking + note-review strategies (HEd) (SKILLS)

Embedded learning skills programs (HEd) (SKILLS)

Reciprocal teaching (LARGELY AUDITORY)

Enhanced feedback

Meta-cognitive practices


Concept mapping (VISUAL)

Peer tutoring


0.89 (Marzano 1998; n=236)

0.78 (Alvarez 2007; n=7)

0.77 (Kobayashi 2006; n=33)


0.74 (Hattie 2009; n=38)

0.73 (Hattie 2009; 1287)

0.69 (Hattie 2009; n=63)

0.59 (Hattie 2009; n=774)

0.58 (Hattie 2009; n=377)

0.57 (Hattie 2009; n=287)

0.55 (Hattie 2009; n=767)

0.40 (Hattie 2009; n=52 637)

Computer technology on instruction (HEd)


0.28 (Schmid et al 2009; n=231)

0.23 (Hattie 2009; n=600)

1. The embedded teaching of skills.

2. The teaching of meta-cognitive strategies (e.g. goal setting, choosing right learning skills for task)

3. Co-operative better than individualistic learning.

4. Self-directed learning only effective after sufficient direct instruction.




We need to use both approaches

• Must still make special-needs-based adjustments to ensure full access.

• Universal design not ‘difference blind’, not ‘one-size-fits all’.

• But we need more of it.

+




Advantages of ‘universal’ design for learning

• Pre-empts need for many time-consuming case-by-case adjustments

• Addresses many invisible and undeclared needs as well as visibleneeds.

• If based on the empirical evidence likely to enhance success and retention across the class.




References

Alvarez Ortiz, CM 2007, ‘Does philosophy improve critical thinking skills?’, Masters thesis, Melbourne University.

Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills 2009, Disabled Students and Higher Education: Higher Educational Analysis, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (UK), viewed 22 September 2009.

Hattie, J 2009, Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement, Routledge, New York.

Hattie, J, Biggs, J & Purdie, N 1996, ‘Effects of learning skills intervention on student learning: a meta-analysis’, International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 187–212.

Kobayashi, K. 2006. ‘Combined effects of note-taking/-reviewing on learning and the enhancement through interventions: A meta-analytic review’. Educational Psychology, 26, 459-477.

Marzano, R 1998, A theory-based meta-analysis of research on instruction, Department of Education. Viewed 14 December 2009, <http://graddiped2007.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/marzarno-instructionmeta_analysis.pdf>.

Marzano, RJ 2004, Classroom instruction that works: research-based strategies for increasing student achievement, Hawker Brownlow Education, Moorabbin, Victoria.

Pashler, H, McDaniel, M, Rohrer, D & Bjork, R 2008, Learning Preferences: concepts and evidence, Psychological science in the public interest, vol 9, no 3, Dec 2008, viewed http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf

Schmid, RF, Bernard, RM, Borokhovski, E, Tamim, R, Abrami, PC, Wade, CA, Surkes, MA, Lowerison, G 2009, ‘Technology’s effect on achievement in higher education: a Stage I meta-analysis of classroom applications’, Journal of computing in higher education, vol 21, pp 95-109, viewed 11 November 2009, ERIC database.

Training Design, 2007, ‘One and all: a facilitator’s guide to assist in the delivery of TAAENV402A foster and promote an inclusive learning culture’, Wodonga Institute of TAFE.


http://graddiped2007.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/marzarno-instructionmeta_analysis.pdf

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf


For more information on inclusive teaching

See the ‘Guide to Inclusive Teaching’ on the RMIT Learning and Teaching website:

http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=c0lyem9i7ze11


http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=c0lyem9i7ze11


how do we tell which inclusive teaching strategies benefit ...mams.rmit.edu.au/3f1hxa3uq0goz.pdf ·...

Documents