Transcript The I-M-ABLE

The I-M-ABLE
(Formerly the “Functional Approach”)
Presented by Diane P. Wormsley and Mary Filicetti
2013 Virginia AER Conference
I-M-ABLE
• Individualized
• Meaning-Centered
• Approach to
• Braille
• Literacy
• Education
• the “Functional Approach”
Essential Elements
Engagement
Success
Motivation
Individualization*
Different At Risk Learners
• Adult learner who is adventitiously blinded
• School-aged learner, adventitiously blinded
• Learner with mild –moderate cognitive
impairment
• Learner with severe to profound cognitive
impairment
• Learner with multiple impairments including
physical impairments
• Learner with deaf-blindness
Emphasis on:
• Assuring early determination of literacy
medium
• Providing early exposure to braille – a braille
rich environment
• Creating stories in print and braille that are
based upon the child’s prior experiences
• Beginning formal reading instruction with
whole words rather than letters
• Selecting individualized reading
vocabulary words that engage the
learner
Emphasis on: (cont.)
• Teaching efficient hand movements when
reading
• Incorporating Language Experience
Approach Stories
• Utilizing “whole-to-part phonics”
• Incorporating writing with reading
• Moving towards functional uses of reading
and writing
Whole words not letters
• Letters are more abstract and don’t have
implicit meaning – we don’t speak in letters
• Words or phrases = meaningful units
• Words with which students have had
experience provide for instant comprehension
when reading
• Words have distinct features which can help
with identification, including tactually
distinct letters within the words
Design of Research Study
• Designed Practice Guide
• Solicited applications from teachers
• Selected ten TVIs to participate (based upon
student criteria)
• Convened TVIs for a two day workshop in
the use of the I-M-ABLE Practice Guide
• Collected Baseline Data
• Began implementation
• Mentoring/website/observations
DPI Funded for July 1, 2011 start date
• Study was approved by the NCCU IRB.
• Permission forms obtained for all participants
Design of Practice Guide – Initial Draft
• Section 1 - Introduction to I-M-ABLE
• Section 2 - Getting Started
• Section 3 - Helping Students Select
Key Vocabulary Words or Phrases for
Reading
• Section 4 - Introducing the Key Vocabulary
• Section 5 - Teaching Students to Track
Design of Practice Guide (cont.)
• Section 6 - Creating Key Vocabulary Stories
• Section 7 - Teaching Phonics, Letter Recognition
and Contractions
• Section 8 - Helping Students Write Their Own
Stories
• Section 9 - Expanding the Student’s Reading
and Writing Vocabulary
• Section 10 – Collecting Baseline Data
• Section 11 - Record Keeping Forms
Design of Practice Guide (cont.)
• References and Bibliography
• Appendix A – Hannah’s Story
Teacher selection/Child criteria
Student with whom you will work
• is legally blind and on the APH Quota
Registration
• is 8 to 18 years of age
• has additional cognitive impairments (mild to
moderate)
• (may have other disabilities -- physical
disability, on autism spectrum, etc.)
• has a primary literacy medium as reported on
the APH Quota Registration of N(non-reader),
A(Auditory) or B(Braille)
Teacher selection/Child criteria
(cont.)
• has not demonstrated success in reading (not all
letters of the alphabet learned, not currently
reading more than a few words consistently,
inconsistent performance on words and letters)
• may or may not know how to write braille letters
on any device
Teacher Incentives
• Flip Video Camera
• Califone Talking Magnetic Card Reader and
starter pack of 50 magnetic cards
• APH Word Playhouse
• Two workshops
▫ One October 17-18, 2011 – Initial training
▫ One January 27, 2012 – follow up training
• Paid attendance at NCCVIB – in March
• Ning Website (private social networking with
Chat and Discussion Board features)
Student Incentives
• Teachers explained that they would be using
their own special words to learn braille
• Students were told they would be able to be
videotaped
• Students were told they would be able to use a
card reader to help them learn their new words.
Participants
•
•
•
•
Ten Teacher-Student pairs
Selected from 14 applications
Received interest from 25 individuals
Settings of instruction
▫ Two resource; eight itinerant –
▫ One special school (developmental center); others
all public school settings
▫ Eight counties represented
▫ Mountains to coast participation
Teacher characteristics
• Training programs:
• 7 different training programs represented
• Years of Experience
▫ 0 – 30 years; mode 12 years
• Date passed Literary Braille Course
▫ 1978 – 2011; mode 1999
Student Characteristics
• Age range
▫ 8 – 14 years old
▫ Youngest just turned 8







8–2
9–1
10 – 0
11 – 2
12 – 2
13 – 1
14 - 2
.
Student Characteristics (cont.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TBI – 1
TBI with mild physical involvement – 2
Autism – 2
Autistic Tendencies ESL, extreme attentional
issues – 1
Physical Disabilities – 1
Speech-language impairment – 1
Second LD – 1
Communication Delay - 1
Baseline Data - Reading
• Letter Recognition
▫ 7 - 0 letters
▫ 1 - 6 letters
▫ 2 - 8-9 letters
• Name Recognition
▫
▫
▫
▫
o/3 times – 2
1/3 times – 2
2/3 times – 4
3/3 times - 2
Baseline Data – Reading (cont.)
• Word Recognition
▫ 8 - 0 words
▫ 1 - 2 words
▫ 1 - 18+ words
• C0ntractions known
▫ 0 contractions – 10 students
Baseline Data – Writing
• Letter writing
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
5 - 0 letters
1 - 11 letters
1 - 17 letters
2 - 18-19 letters
1 - 18-26 letters
• Writes own name
▫ No – 6
▫ Yes - 4
Baseline Data – Writing
• Word Writing
▫
▫
▫
▫
5 children - 0 words
3–2-8 words
1 - 36 words
1 - Yes, ? (same student wrote 19 letters)
Baseline Data – TPRI Results
• Word rhyming – 8 – 0; 1 – 3; 1 – 5
• Blending Onset/rhymes –
▫ 5 – 0; 1 – 1; 1 – 2; 1 – 3; 2 – 5
• Blending phonemes – 7 – 0; 1 – 4; 2 – 5
• Remove last sound – 7 – 0; 3 – 5
• Remove initial sound – 6 – 0; 1 – 1; 1 – 3; 1 – 4;
1–5
• One student had all 5’s; one had three 5’s
Amount of Instructional Time
• Varied from teacher to teacher.
• Minimum of 2 times per week required.
• Some had 5 days a week for an hour a day
minimum.
• One had already increased her time with her
student by end of November.
• Involvement of others was also documented.
Fidelity of Implementation Checklist
• Developed to assist teachers in evaluating
themselves
• Used by PI and Mentors to observe teachers
during lessons and observe using videos taped
by teachers
• Will be modified as necessary for future research
and for inclusion in the Practice Guide.
What questions did teachers have?
• Mechanics – concerning how to share videos
using the flip camera, when to introduce the
card reader, how long to make the cards, should
they have the student record the word
• Questions about when to introduce different
aspects of the approach – when to create stories,
when to create tracking stories, when to
introduce another word, how many to introduce
• Questions about teaching hand movements -
What progress was made?
• Teachers began implementing the approach
after October 31, 2011. Most began from
November 1 through the 10th. School year ended
June 13, 2012.
• All reported increased motivation on the part of
their students to learn braille. Some report that
behaviors have disappeared – more engagement
– liking the card reader and liking the word
cards
• Individual progress varied:
Individual progress
• All reported improvements in tracking words
even with students who didn’t want to touch
braille previously.
• Number of words read at end ranged from four
words to around 80 to 100 words.
• General patterns in data collection emerged:
▫ More time equals more success.
▫ More involvement on part of others equals more
success
More comments about progress
• Teachers reported that their students were being
seen as “readers” after participating
• Two students were moved into a higher category
of instructional placement
• All teachers commented that they realized that
they needed to have daily lessons with their
student
• Highlighting “James”
James
(pseudonym)
st
1
grade
8 years old as of
December 2011
Etiology
• Congenital Cataracts
• Glaucoma
• Persistent Fetal Vasculature
Additional Disabilities and Hindrances
•
•
•
•
Intellectual Disability
Autistic tendencies
Severe Attention difficulties
English as a Second Language
Previous Attempts with Braille
• Pre – Braille activities
• Building on Patterns
Language difficulties and attention issues
prevented progress.
Time Served
• Worked 5 hours a week with VI teacher.
• November 1st – June 5th
• Teacher & assistant listened to him read daily.
Activities
• Word cards – sorting and Monster
Munch
• Card reader
• Stories – Tracking and Short stories
• Student Stories
• APH Word Playhouse
First Words Introduced
• “bumpy ball” – a favorite toy, VERY
motivating
• “scratchy” – his term for the velcro
• “ball” – he dropped “bumpy” in his story
• “Mommy”
• “cupcake” – Birthday treat
Major Progress Noted
• Excitement for Braille
• Asking for words
• Language Development – HUGE!
• Choosing to read for free time
Progress During I-M-ABLE
I-M-ABLE- Two Studies
Mary Filicetti, M.Ed., COMS, TVI
Student Profile #1
• Ebrahim is a totally blind student, second language
learner, preschool/vision services since 2 yrs. Repeated
kg- lack of progress all areas
• By 2nd yr. of k, had following skill deficits:
Lack of foundational phonics skills (letter sounds,
rhyming)
Could read and write only two letters- a, b, in braille
Scribe for all writing, 100% support in school
• Full re-evaluation requested; assessments documented
delays, including language, processing, fine motor skills.
Special education placement considered.
Selecting I-M-ABLE
• Student had extreme confidence issues related to
reading, and learning in general.
• Traditional and “skill and drill” activities were not
motivating, too abstract
• Had developed physiological/behavioral issues revolving
around reading instruction.
• Began using I-M-Able at the end of 2nd k year after
initial attempts at using a more individualized approach
increased motivation
I-M-ABLE and Reading Instruction
• Establish key words via key experiences/high interest
 Selected two words, based on special experience of
student. Games and activities for reinforcement
 Established a routine for pull-out reading
instruction, including tracking activities, reading
word cards, tactile discrimination, fine motor/finger
isolation, reading comprehension and phonics
• Worked with teacher to develop and continually reevaluate push-in versus pull-out instruction in reading
• Assessment- word card reviews, Patterns checkup,
kDRA, ABLS (ongoing)
Tracking
• Tracking to build confidence and separate fine motor
skills from reading, which overloaded student.
• Initial tracking had lead in lines, with a star punch to
mark the beginning of the line (student had
directionality issues, and tended to start on the right
side)
• Tracking pages progressed from 4-5 line spacing to
double spacing, with some tracking exercises single
spaced
• Key words were added, lead in lines diminished
• Tracking incorporated into reading, faded out as
separate activity. Hand positioning , technique were
excellent
Tracking and Word Cards- Video
Word Cards
• Student-created list developed for future words; new
words chosen when previous mastered at 100%.
• Word ring- mastered words added to a word ring.
Student decided mastery point
• Stories created with word cards and filler words.
• Filler words were added to word cards
• APH Patterns series added when student ; it motivating
and confidence building for student, as it allowed for:
 repetition to build confidence
stories about children, including children who were
blind
Current Reading- Video
Current Progress
• Student and family have increased confidence; parents
have new outlook on student’s academic future. Family
attends events at school and community. Parent meets
with TVI weekly to review curriculum, braille and
abacus, a focus on supporting homework.
• Student passed fall/end of year kDRA in spring of 1st
grade year and has improved in all academic areas as
well as independence and socialization skills. Joined 1st
grade class for spelling, and completed tests
independently.
• Currently (in 2nd grade) working at mid/late first grade
year in the Patterns reading series.
Student Profile #2
• Batya is a private school k student , with a progressive
impairment, a visual acuity of approximately 20/800;
scores high in assessments for cognitive skills and
language ability, as well as all oral readiness skills. Uses
dual media learner, CCTV in the classroom.
• Received some braille instruction in preschool, using
Patterns, and a Mountbatten brailler.
• Following preschool, lacked confidence in braille
reading, showed poor finger positioning in
reading/writing, and resisted reading.
Selecting I-M-ABLE
• Lack of confidence in braille reading
• Hand positioning for tracking/using fingertips affected
braille reading
• School-based assessments, show significant discrepancy
between overall skills including braille writing and
contraction usage, vs. reading skills- was only able to
read a few letters, and tentative and unwilling to read
simple sentences.
I-M-ABLE Components
• Selected key words to begin and created a studentselected list of future words
• Began word card and tracking activities, along with
games for motivation.
• Features of new words reviewed- what differentiates a
new word. Student has begun to initiate this process, and
identify what is significant.
Word Card Game- Video
Tracking, Word Cards
• Since fine motor skills are age appropriate, tracking
activities used to improve hand positioning , speed and
technique.
• New words selected which were different tactually from
a previous word. Length of word, capitals,
beginning/ending letters were used to help identify the
word.
• Speed games are highly motivating- student tries to
improve her times by competing with herself in multiple
trials.
• Mangold Developmental Program of Tactile Perception
is incorporated into lessons.
Word Cards- Video
Current Progress
• Student currently receiving instruction 1 time per week.
Improved confidence in braille reading and tracking,
and increased willingness to read braille
• Word cards have increased from 2 to 16 words,
letters/whole word contractions
• Hand positioning, tracking has improved.
Conclusion
• I-M-ABLE successfully used with two very different
students, though both students had in common:
Confidence issues
Not benefiting from traditional approaches
Previously had a negative experience with braille
• Program was individualized for each student depending
on strengths/needs, circumstances, interests and
motivators.
• Both students had highly motivating, personal word
cards and lists, made their own selections, and
independently indicated readiness to move forward.