Paper presented by Dr. Edwin Ellis (edwinellis1@gmail.com 205-394-5512) at the Annual International Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Conference, April 3, 2013
The presentation focused on Dr. Ellis’ work developing interactive, discipline-specific digital tools designed for teaching specific complex Common Core Language Arts Standards. Multiple examples of visual tools are provided to demonstrate how the tools are tailored to specific standards.
KEY POINTS
• K-12 CCS-LA Standards can be categorized into language-literacy / critical thinking skill categories:
o Asking and Answering Questions
o Summarizing Key Ideas/Messages & Themes
o Forming & Explaining Opinions
o Drawing & Explaining Inferences & Conclusions
o Making & Explaining Relationship Connections
o Analyzing & Explaining Point-of-View / Bias
o Making and Explaining Comparisons
• Very strong research-base for using visual tools for increasing literacy skills (reading comprehension, writing fluency, organization and ideation, vocabulary) and content-knowledge (history, science) across all students
• Generic visual tools (e.g., webs & Venns) can be very effective for teaching basic CCSS literacy skills, but not particularly effective when teaching complex standards, such as Career/College Readiness standards.
• Specialized, discipline-specific visual tools…
o Individually tailored to address specific CCSS standards are very effective when paired with high-engagement, strategic instruction routines
o Utilize embedded semantic prompts that focus on “essential understandings” of a topic
• Scaffolding the complexity of discipline-specific visual tools is an effective way to teach students complex CCS Standards.
Instructional resources may be accessed at www.GraphicOrganizers.com
To read more about the Genius Visual Tools, see…
Ellis, E.S., Wills, S.A., & Deshler, D.D. (2011). Toward Validation of the Genius Domain-specific Literacy Model. Journal of Education 191(1), 13-32
60. 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
61. So how well do these work?
research
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
Results consistently show that …
FAR better than “business as usual” (control groups)
Significantly better than generic graphic organizers
Teachers and students HIGHLY value them