1 / 161

Together we can do more

Together we can do more. Kansas Instructional Resource Center for the Visually Impaired April 15-16, 2010. What’s Different about children with visual impairments. (3) DEFINITION- . . . the term 'low-incidence disability' means --

theo
Download Presentation

Together we can do more

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. Together we can do more Kansas Instructional Resource Center for the Visually Impaired April 15-16, 2010 National Center on Severe and Sensory Disabilities 20010

  2. What’s Different about children with visual impairments

  3. (3) DEFINITION- . . . the term 'low-incidence disability' means -- (A) a visual or hearing impairment, or simultaneous visual and hearing impairments; (B) a significant cognitive impairment; or (C) any impairment for which a small number of personnel with highly specialized skills and knowledge are needed in order for children with that impairment to receive early intervention services or a free appropriate public education. 20 U.S.C.1400 § 662(c)(3) What is Low-Incidence Disabilities?

  4. (Multiple disabilities, 2.18%) Autism, 1.67% Orthopedic impairments, 1.26% Hearing impairments, 1.21% Visual impairments, 0.44% Traumatic brain injury, 0.35% Deafblindness, 0.03% Developmental delay, 0.76% 25th Annual Report to Congress (2005) Less than 2% of all children with disabilities, ages 6-21

  5. Multiple disabilities, 0.19% Autism, 0.15% Hearing impairments, 0.11% Orthopedic impairments, 0.11% Visual impairments, 0.04% Traumatic brain injury, 0.03% Deafblindness, 0.00% Developmental delay, 0.07% 25th Annual Report to Congress (2005) Less than one-fifth of 1% of the estimated resident school-age population

  6. Tip of the Iceberg

  7. Sensory inputs altered Discrete Fragmented Intermittent Passive Incidental learning opportunities Inductive learning What’s Different About Low-Incidence Disabilities?

  8. Learning, Generally

  9. Learning with Sensory Deficits

  10. More than adjustments to the learning environment; More than modifications of instructional methods; More than adaptation of curricula; More than use of positive behavioral supports and interventions; More than accommodations . . . Teaching is different:

  11. Instruction is Different • Deliberate not incidental • Parts to wholes • Inductive vs. deductive • Concrete experiences

  12. Developmental Hurdles • Sensory information • Intersensory coordination • Imitation • Motor

  13. Understanding our Colleagues(Readings)

  14. One of the key strategic goals of the U.S. Department of Education is to "transform education into an evidence-based field." This focus on "what works" includes a call for investment in research-based programs and instructional strategies. (www.ed.gov) Evidence-Based Practice

  15. Tradition Superstition Anecdote “Common sense” Whatever Works It worked for me . . . How To Decide?

  16. People's opinions are interesting, but it is not something you want to necessarily base the lives . . . of children on with great confidence.Reyna (2002)

  17. Mentions “scientifically-based research” 69-111 times Best practices based on scientifically-based research Accountability for student proficiency No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

  18. “Research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs” No Child Left Behind Act (2001) Scientifically-Based Research

  19. Systematic, empirical methods Rigorous data analysis Measurements or observational methods Random assignment or other techniques to eliminate competing explanations Sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication Peer-reviewed journal or independent panel of experts Appropriate designs and methods for research question Components of Scientifically-Based Research

  20. Scientific Method Replicated Generalized Meets rigorous standards Convergent findings NCLB, 2001 Characteristics of Reliable Research

  21. Scientific merit (quality) Relevance (to practice) Significance (importance) Evaluating Scientific Research

  22. Is the intervention supported by “strong” evidence of effectiveness? If the intervention is not supported by “strong” evidence, is it nevertheless supported by “possible” evidence of effectiveness? If the intervention is backed by neither “strong” nor “possible” evidence, one may conclude that it is not supported by meaningful evidence of effectiveness. Evaluating Research

  23. http://whatworks.ed.gov

  24. Few resources exist to help education decision makers differentiate high-quality research from weaker research and promotional claims. There is no Consumer Reports for blindness and visual impairment. What Works in Education of Students with VI

  25. Sponsored by Colorado Department of Education 652 articles located 32 qualifying articles 10 reported no data 2 reported data contradictory to conclusions Literacy, 1963-2003

  26. http://www.unco.edu/ncssd/research/ • literacy_meta_analyses.shtml

  27. Conducted in 2005-06 Found and analyzed 125 articles Found 10 qualifying studies: Intervention Comparison group Participants with visual impairments, 3-21 With or without additional disabilities APH Math Meta-Analysis1965-2005

  28. http://www.unco.edu/ncssd/research/math_meta_analysis.shtml

  29. Low Vision Meta-Analysis1964-2006 • Also commissioned by APH • Analyzed 2011 articles • Found 31 qualifying studies: • Intervention • Comparison group • Participants with visual impairments, B-21 • With or without additional disabilities

  30. Qualifying Low Vision Studies • 7 visual development -- mixed • 15 low vision devices -- positive • 2 print size -- inconclusive • 2 black light -- inconclusive • 2 accommodations -- positive • 3 miscellaneous National Center on Severe and Sensory Disabilities  2008

  31. No replications Insufficient information reported Gender Additional disability Placement Cognitive ability Visual status Concerns

  32. The primary question is not what you know, but how you know it. Aristotle

  33. Research on early intervention for children with visual impairments has progressed more slowly. . . . This literature reflects a lack of focus on empirical tests of actual intervention models. Indeed, the bulk of published reports address either the application of technological devices or a description of developmental processes for blind children. Davidson & Harrison, 1997, p. 487

  34. Literature addressing many aspects of early intervention and education for children with visual impairments seems to reflect a pattern of tradition and ordinary knowledge rather than empirically validated practice. Ross, 2000, p. 1191

  35. Research . . . Is also frequently characterized by specialization and separation from the larger contexts of education, social services, psychology, and medicine in which the children, their families, and their services are embedded. Zambone, 2000, p. 1196

  36. The literature on the development of children with visual impairments is remarkably devoid of explicit concern for theory. Warren, 1994, p. 4

  37. Began as conference proposal Group organized after submission! Consortium of New York City service providers and 1 university faculty No money/all volunteer No agreement on assessment battery Visually Impaired Infants Research Consortium (VIIRC)

  38. Identified 21 milestones Individual biases/concerns Existing records or parent information Published when n = 81 Ferrell, Trief, Deitz, Bonner, Cruz, Ford, & Stratton (1991) Nationwide contributions Final n = 314

  39. Increase sample size Increase reliability Increase rigor Increase confidence in results What if:

  40. Project PRISMA National Collaborative Study on the Early Development of Children with Visual Impairments

  41. U.S. Department of Education, 1991-96 $775,000 1/5 for travel Additional funding from Hilton/Perkins National Program, funded by a grant from the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation of Reno, NV Funding

  42. Developmental Milestones: Do children with visual impairments attain developmental milestones at chronological ages that differ from sighted children? Do they acquire these milestones in a different sequence? Research Questions

  43. Are there differences in the rate and sequence of development among children: With different visual disorders? With different visual function? With and without additional disabilities? Who differ across other variables?

  44. Find “truth” Demonstrate the impact of blindness on development Prove: Young children with visual impairments develop differently Specialized programs superior Specialized teachers superior Hopes

  45. Collaborating Agencies • Anchor Center for Blind Children • Blind Childrens Center • Dallas Services for Visually Impaired Children • The Foundation for Blind Children • New Mexico School for the Visually Handicapped Preschool • Perkins School for the Blind Preschool • Visually Impaired Preschool Services

  46. Laurie Hudson Earl Palmer Tom Miller Mirna Pineda Debbie Gleason Mary Ellen McCann Pam Crane Marion Yoshida Donald P. Bailey David Warren Sally J. Deitz Lynne Webber Prism People Deborah Hatton JC Greeley Jim Warnke Allen Huang Corinne Kirchner Janis Mountford Verna Hart Sharon Bensinger Madeline Milian Marianne Riggio Chris Tompkins Terry Goldfarb Bill Muir Stuart Teplin Amy Murphy Suze Staugus RichardGibboney Schel Nietenhoefer Kelly Parrish John Jostad Diane Pena Carol Danielson RoseShaw Fran Black Tina Sustaeta Carol King Beth Teeters Betty Dominguez Brenda Hoy Kathy Tompkins Dean Tuttle Patrika Griego Patti Watts Jan Nash Din Tuttle Dana King Ann Estensen Debbie Symington Sharon Nichols

  47. New referrals to collaborating agencies Less than 12 months’ CA Diagnosed visual impairment, with or without additional disabilities and/or health conditions Subject Selection

More Related