WOW !! MUCH LOVE ! SO WORLD PEACE !
Fond bitcoin pour l'amélioration du site: 1memzGeKS7CB3ECNkzSn2qHwxU6NZoJ8o
  Dogecoin (tips/pourboires): DCLoo9Dd4qECqpMLurdgGnaoqbftj16Nvp


Home | Publier un mémoire | Une page au hasard

 > 

The effectiveness of graphic organizers and Baxendell's guiding principles for instructional practices with special needs students

( Télécharger le fichier original )
par Milien Yvon
The School of Education, The City College, The City University of New York - Master of Science in Education  2004
  

Disponible en mode multipage

Bitcoin is a swarm of cyber hornets serving the goddess of wisdom, feeding on the fire of truth, exponentially growing ever smarter, faster, and stronger behind a wall of encrypted energy

The Effectiveness of Graphic Organizers and Baxendell's Guiding Principles for Instructional Practices with Special Needs Students.

By

Yvon Milien

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the

Seminar in Educational Research

The School of Education, The City College

The City University of New York

Spring 2004

(c) Yvon Milien 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................3

ABSTRACT................................................................................................4

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Background - Purpose and Rationale of the Study. ................................................7

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Strategies for the Use of Graphic Organizers - Graphic Instruction and Free or Direct

Instruction - Content Areas in which Graphic Organizers are Used - Summary - Assumptions -

Research questions. ......................................................................................11

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Rationale for Design of the Study - Definition of Study Population or Participants - Materials

and Measures - Procedures - Analysis of the Data .................................................14

CHAPTER IV. FINDING

Performance without Graphic Organizers - Demographic Characteristics - Performance with

Graphic Organizers............................................................... .......................59

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Discussion - Finding - Limitations- recommendation and Suggestions..........................64

REFERENCES..............................................................................................65

APPENDICES...............................................................................................68

Appendix A.................................................................................................69

Appendix B.................................................................................................70

Appendix C.................................................................................................83

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This thesis was prepared under the supervision of Dr. Betty Holmes-Anthony and Dr. James Gelbman. I wish to express my gratitude to all of them for their assistance and guidance in this action research study.

A special thanks is offered to the 12 students at P753K who participated in this project. I also would like to express my appreciation to the Assistant Principal, Mrs. Valerie Wahrman for the invaluable materials she shared with me.

Finally, a particular thanks is offered to the Principal, Mr. Ketler Louissant, for his encouragement.

ABSTRACT

This thesis examines the effectiveness of graphic organizers along with the guiding principles for instructional practices for emotionally disturbed students who also have learning disabilities. Using a scoring rubric which has one dimension: performance (including level of accuracy in focusing on relevant information, building connections, integrating new information, and level of independence in completing graphic organizers), this thesis explores the students' performance with graphic organizers along with the strategies: consistent, coherent, creative. Completed graphic organizers scores by twelve students at P753K and observations suggest that graphic organizers along with the guiding principles produced high performance for this group of students.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Performance Without Graphic Organizers - Mathematics...................................16

Table 2: Performance Without Graphic Organizers - Science.........................................17

Table 3: Age/Sex/Grade Level..............................................................................19

Table 4: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 1- Mathematics ......................... ...23 Table 5: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 2- Mathematics .............................25

Table 6: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 3- Mathematics .............................27

Table 7: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 4- Mathematics ............................29

Table 8: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 5- Mathematics .............................31

Table 9: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 6- Mathematics .............................33

Table 10: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 7- Mathematics ... ........................35

Table 11: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 8- Mathematics ... .......................37

Table 12: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 9- Mathematics ... ........................39

Table 13: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 10- Mathematics ... .................. ...41

Table 14: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 11- Mathematics ... ................. ....43

Table 15: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 12- Mathematics ... ................. ....45

Table 16: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 2- Science ... ........................... ...47

Table 17: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 3- Science ... ..............................49

Table 18: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 4- Science ... ..............................51

Table 19: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 5- Science ... ..............................53

Table 20: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 6- Science... ...............................55

Table 21: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 7- Science ... ..............................57

Table 22: Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 8- Science ... ..............................59

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Most of the students who are attending 753K have difficulty abstracting important information from their content area. In order to solve this problem, the administration requires that all its teachers incorporate graphic organizers into the body of their lessons to help students with special needs to gain an understanding of both content specific vocabulary and concepts. According to the administration, using graphic organizers will facilitate students' comprehension because of the visual display that demonstrates how information is organized.

The administration uses the three established principles for effective graphic organizers: be consistent, make the graphic organizers coherent, and find creative ways to integrate them into lessons (Baxendell, 2003). As a result, learners will pay attention to the relevant information in the text and they will select to build connections among ideas in the text. They will organize information into coherent structure and integrate the new information and/or connect it to their prior knowledge. Therefore, learning will be meaningful. Nevertheless, a history of reports indicating that for many students with special needs, the process of abstracting important information from their assigned content area is difficult because of poor reading and study skills (Deshler, 1978; Torgesen, 1985; Zigmond, Vallecorsa, & Leinhardt, 1980).

It is reasonable, therefore, to propose to determine the effectiveness of graphic organizers for helping students with special needs at 753K to abstract information. Most of the learners at 753K have serious reading and study deficits skills and the use of graphic organizers may facilitate their understanding of content specific.

In this study, the use of graphic organizers along with the proposed guiding principles for instructional practices of the administration will be analyzed. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the use of graphic organizers in conjunction with the proposed guiding principles of the administration will help students with special needs develop their interest in understanding, organizing, or recalling important concepts or content. The result of the study should provide information whether displaying information graphically along with the three established principles, consistent, coherent, and creative need to be adjusted or modified for learners having learning disabilities and who also are emotionally disturbed.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In this study the focus is on the effectiveness of graphic organizers and the three basic principles guiding instructional practices: consistent, coherent, and creative (Baxendell, 2003). The review of the literature includes guiding principles for instructional practices strategies when using graphic organizers, graphic instruction and free or direct instruction, and content areas in which graphic organizers are used.

Although each content area has its own special vocabulary and concepts that must be developed, there are several specific strategies for the use of graphic organizers that can be incorporated into the body of a lesson to help students organize or recall important information. To help general education students understand, organize, or recall important concepts or content, some teachers supplement graphic organizers with questions, study guides, small group discussions, or use graphic organizers as post organizers after content area reading is completed (More & Readence, 1984). Throughout graphic organizers' history, the uses of these strategies prove the effectiveness of graphic organizers with general education students (Fountas & Pinnel, 2001; Ausubel, 1960; Guastello, Beasley & Sinatra, 2000; Jitendra, Hoff & Beck, 1999; Fisher & Schumaker, 1995; Griffin, Malone & Kemeenui, 1995; Griffin & Tulbert, 1995). Recently, the question facing some educators no longer centers on whether graphic organizers are valuable instructional tools, but rather on how to use these learning devices effectively to meet the needs of students with special needs (Baxendell, 2003). In response to this educational issue, Baxendell (2003) suggests that «graphic organizers must be used coherently, consistently, and creatively» to be effective for students with special learning needs (p. 46).

There is reason for optimism that graphic instruction is more effective than instruction free of visual representation (s). A study on the effectiveness of graphic organizers in content area classes found that graphics organizers were more effective than self-study for students with learning disabilities, remedial students, and students in regular education (Horton, Lovitt & Bergerud, 2001). The same results were found in a previous study about secondary students with learning disabilities (Bergerud, Lovitt & Horton, 1988). Therefore, displaying information graphically facilitates comprehension among all types of pupils.

Graphic organizers are used in almost all content areas. They are used in Social Studies, Mathematics, English language Arts, Science, and so forth. For instance, they are used in English Language Arts to find main-idea-and-detail in a topic. They are used in Mathematics to review similarities and differences between the metric and customary measurement systems. They are also used in Mathematics for comparing fractions or to solve verbal problems (Baxendell, 2003; Horton, Lovitt & Bergerud, 2001).

The results from the various studies lend support to the notion that graphic organizers are valuable tools, and that displaying information graphically is more effective than instruction free of visual representation (s) of knowledge because students learn significantly more when taught with visual displays than when taught by a teacher-directed activity (Darch & Carnine, 1986). Furthermore, although each content area has its own special vocabulary and concepts that must be developed, there are many strategies utilizing graphic organizers and that some strategies are effective for general education students while others are effective for learners with special needs.

The three general principles (consistent, coherent, and creative) for the use of graphic organizers emerge from practice in inclusive classrooms (Baxendell, 2003). Would they also be effective for emotionally disturbed students who have learning disabilities? The result of this study may provide information that will determine whether graphic organizers and the three general principles for the use of graphic organizers help emotionally disturbed students who also have learning disabilities understand, organize, or recall important content.

Assumptions

According to Ausubel (1963) and McEneany (1990), when students are introduced to material for which they have little background knowledge, their learning and their ability to retain new information will be improved if they have a structured and clear method for organizing the information. That is, if learners have graphic organizers, they will focus on relevant information within a text or problem, build connections among ideas within a text or elements of a given problem to solve, integrate new information, and perform independently.

It is asserted that the use of graphic organizers will enhance learners' performance. Four types of performance are considered within the research: (1) skills in choosing relevant information (either most significant, or revealing some pattern) with an average of percentage of accuracy; (2) skills in building connections among ideas with an average of percentage of accuracy; (3) skills in integrating new information with an average of percentage of accuracy; and (4) skills in performing independently with an average of percentage of independence.

The assumption in examining the effectiveness of Graphing organizers is that graphic organizers or structured overviews function as a tool kit from which learners clarify, organize information so that new knowledge could be assimilated efficiently (Moore & Readence, 1984; Alvermann, 1982; Alvermann & Boothby, 1993; Herber & Riley, 1979; Herber & Sanders, 1969, Herber & Vecca, 1977). For instance, learners having difficulties learning new concept or solving a given problem will show improvement in their learning or in solving a problem and retain new information when information is structured, or arranged in a labeled graphic pattern because such arrangement will help them see the organization within a text or concept (Bromley, Irwin-DeVitis, & Modlo, 1995, p. 6).

Given students with multiple disabilities with low academic performance in Mathematics and Science, how effective are graphic organizers for helping them in the process of focusing their attention to relevant information in the text, building connections among ideas, and integrating new information, or connecting it with what they already know?

The researcher will seek data to answer the following questions.

Research Questions

1. To what extent do learners demonstrate skills in choosing relevant information in the text using graphic organizers?

2. To what extent do learners demonstrate skills in building connections among ideas in the text using graphic organizers?

3. To what extent do learners demonstrate skills in integrating new information using graphic organizers?

4. To what extent can learners perform independently with graphic organizers?

These questions will guide the study and lead to the indication whether graphic organizers are effective, and whether the proposed guiding principles of the administration need to be adjusted or modified.

CHAPTER III

METHODS and PROCEDURES

This study was concerned about the effectiveness of graphic organizers and the administration guiding principles for making them effective. Two subjects areas was selected for this study: Mathematics and Earth Science. The textbooks used in the investigation were Pre-Algebra (Globe Fearon, 2001) and Earth Science Workshop 1 (Seymour Rosen, 1988). This chapter discusses the (a) design of the study; (b) definition of study population or participants; (c) materials and measures; (d) procedures; and (e) analysis of the data.

Action research strategy was selected to have a greater detail and likelihood of the participants' performance in using graphic organizers. Because of the small number investigated and because the study dealt only with students who are emotionally disturbed with learning disabilities, the researcher is aware of the fact of being less able to make effective generalizations to a larger population of cases. In other words, the results cannot be generalized from the sample of this study to the general population.

Definition of Study Population/Sampling Design

Participants in the study were twelve students with multiple disabilities at P753K. They are classified as emotionally disturbed and learning disabilities students. Their behavioral disorders are primarily externalizing. For instance, they may hit other children, curst at a teacher, be hyperactive, and steal during lesson (Smith and Luckasson, 1992, p. 307). Consequently, they are unable to do well in school. Learning disability means they exhibit a disorder in understanding that manifests itself in imperfect ability to think, or do mathematical calculations (Federal Register/No. 48, Volume 64/Sections 300.7(10) (c) (i and ii)/1999). They are ninth grade-level students, but their reading and mathematics skills are below fourth grade-level. Categories represented students with African American and Hispanic background. The age grouping of the male and female students varied from 16 to 19 years of age. The sample was drawn purposefully. This study used a non-randomized selection of participants. Participants had met the following criteria: (a) be a student at P753K, (b) be a student with special needs, (c) and be in one of the investigator' classrooms.

The class is for Specialized Instructional Environment VII (SIE VII) students. In other words, the class was composed of students with similar educational needs. The class-staffing ratio was 12 : 1 : 1, meaning that twelve students and one full-time special education teacher and one full-time paraprofessional. The staffing ratio was 12 : 1: 1 because students' academic and/or behavioral management needs often interfere with the instructional process. Therefore, one additional adult support or a paraprofessional was needed to engage students in learning.

Materials and Measures

The methodology for the study involved collection of data through a variety of ways such as completed graphic organizers scores, observations, checklist and rubric. The investigator designed graphic organizers such as sequence chart, polygon charts, map charts, and descriptive pattern diagram. A sample of each graphic organizer is included in the Appendix C. Reading passages and mathematics exercises in textbooks were selected for this study. The length of reading passages per session was selected within a developmental lesson of a given text not varying by more than 300 words. The numbers of exercises per Mathematics session were selected within a developmental lesson not varying by more than 25 exercises.

After the teacher presentation/demonstration of the use of graphic organizers in guided instruction, participants were required to complete the students' versions of the graphic organizers with teacher/paraprofessional directions that explain how to complete the graphic organizers. A rubric and checklist were used as measuring devices. I used a scoring rubric to measure performance (see Appendix A). The scoring rubric included categories such as, «students pay attention to relevant information,» «organize,» that is, build connections among the ideas of the text, «connect information with what they already know,» and «independence». In addition to the rubric, I used a Graphic Organizers' Workshop Checklist to measure accuracy (see Appendix B).

Procedures

Two other forms of data collection were used in this study: the checklist and the rubric. In the first form of data collection, I circulated among students during the two-week period from Mars 15, 2004 through Mars 30, 2004. I carried a clipboard and checked off the stages of learning described above that I observed. In addition to the checklist, I collected their completed graphic organizers for further study, and generated study notes and scoring. A predetermined rubric for scoring students' completed graphic organizers, demonstrating skills in choosing relevant information, building connections among ideas, integrating new information, and completing graphic organizers independently was used.

Data Analysis

The analysis was based on grouping participant's completed graphic organizers according to the rubric's categories, grouping observations while students completed graphic organizers according to checklist's categories, analysis of the concrete organization of the graphic organizers - the relevance of the concepts, content or facts that were recorded, the participant`s strategies in completing the graphic organizers, the difficulties encountered during the completion of the graphic organizers, and, matching students' completed graphic organizers with the teacher's completed graphic organizers.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

The findings are presented in two main sections. The first is a brief descriptive report of the demographic characteristics and the background factors: age of participant, sex, and reading level, and the themes, categories, and patterns. The second section focuses on the data concerning the research questions posed at the end of chapter two.

However, before proceeding with the material outlined above, evidence of participants having difficulties learning new concept or solving a given problem and retaining new information when information is not structured, or arranged in a labeled graphic pattern to help them see the organization within a text or concept merit mention. Learners' performance when graphic organizers are not used is illustrated in Table 1 and 2.

Table 1

Performance without the use of graphic organizers - Mathematics

 

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

Case 6

Case 7

Case 8

Case 9

Case 10

Case 11

Case 12

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

60

3

55

2

60

3

55

2

45

2

35

2

60

3

20

1

20

1

15

1

20

1

15

1

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

35

2

25

1

55

2

30

2

25

1

25

1

40

2

10

1

10

1

5

1

15

1

15

1

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

35

2

30

1

45

2

25

1

10

1

35

1

35

2

5

1

5

1

5

1

5

1

10

1

Level of Independence

15

1

10

1

60

3

15

1

5

1

20

1

20

1

5

1

5

1

5

1

5

1

5

1

*Rat = Rating

Table 2

Performance without the use of graphic organizers - Science

 

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

Case 6

Case 7

Case 8

Case 9

Case 10

Case 11

Case 12

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

---

---

55

2

55

2

55

2

45

2

35

2

55

2

20

1

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

---

---

25

1

55

2

30

2

25

1

25

1

40

2

10

1

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

---

---

30

1

45

2

25

1

10

1

35

1

35

2

5

1

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Independence

---

---

10

1

40

2

15

1

5

1

20

1

20

1

5

1

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

*Rat = Rating

The performance without graphic organizers by students, as shown by Table 1 and 2, was low on average for both Mathematics and Science. Out of the 12 participants, only 3 students scored 3 for level of accuracy in focusing on relevant information in the exercise as shown in Table 1. They scored lower for level of accuracy in building connections among ideas and integrating new information. Their lowest score was 1 for performing independently. The majority of the students scored 1 at the other levels including independent performance. The majority of students scored 2 for level of accuracy in focusing on relevant information in the text, and the majority of students scored 1 at the other levels including independent performance as shown by Table 2.

Demographic Characteristics

Table 3

Age/Sex/Grade Level

Sex Age Grade Level

Cases

M

F

15-16

17-18

Grade Level

1

X

 
 

X

9th

2

X

 
 

X

9th

3

X

 
 
 

9th

4

 

X

 

X

9th

5

X

 

X

 

9th

6

X

 
 

X

9th

7

X

 
 

X

9th

8

X

 
 

X

8th

9

 

X

X

 

9th

10

X

 

X

 

8th

11

X

 
 

X

8th

12

X

 

X

 

8th

The analysis in Table 3 shows that 2 out of the 12 participants were females, and 7 were between 17 -18 years of age.

Categories

From the framework outlined in chapter two, the analysis generated one dimension: performance (including level of accuracy in focusing on relevant information, building connections, integrating new information, and level of independence in completing graphic organizers).

Level of accuracy in focusing on relevant information: the student demonstrates skills in choosing relevant information (either most significant, or revealing some pattern) with an average of percent accuracy (see New York State Alternate Assessment Teacher's Guide, 2003).

Level of accuracy in building connection among ideas: the student demonstrates skills in building connections among ideas with an average of percent accuracy (see New York State Alternate Assessment Teacher's Guide, 2003).

Level of accuracy integrating new information: the student demonstrates skills in integrating new information with an average of percent accuracy (see New York State Alternate Assessment Teacher's Guide, 2003).

Perform independently: the student seldom requires cues or prompts/limited cues/extensive cues/constant prompts when completing graphic organizers with an average of percent of independence (see New York State Alternate Assessment Teacher's Guide, 2003).

It is useful at this point to define cues or prompts, and percentage of independence. Any assistance provided to a pupil that increases the likelihood that the student will give the correct or desired response is a cue or prompt. Type of cues or prompts include physical, verbal, auditory, and visual. In this study only verbal prompts or cues are used; therefore the others will not be described. A verbal prompt is any verbal assistance provided to pupil that increases the likelihood that the student will give the correct response (see New York State Alternate Assessment Teacher's Guide, 2003).

Degree of independence is observed and measured from observations of frequency of prompting. In itself the type of intensity of a cue does not determine a measure of independence (see New York State Alternate Assessment Teacher's Guide, 2003).

Finally, it is the number of steps in which the student performed independently in relation to the steps or periods with prompts provided that determine the percentage of pupil independence (see New York State Alternate Assessment Teacher's Guide, 2003).

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 1/Mathematics

The performance with graphic organizers by case 1, as shown by Table 4, was high for Mathematics. Case 1 average 100% correct responses with graphic organizers, 100% correct in building connections among ideas, 100 % correct in integrating new information, and 100% independence. After the initial directions were provided, the student was able to complete 44 activities without any cues or prompts. This student did not participate in the Science study because he was not a Science student.

Table 4

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 1/Mathematics

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

Level of Independence

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 2/Mathematics

The performance with graphic organizers by case 2, as shown by Table 5, was high for Mathematics. Case 1 averages 100% correct responses with graphic organizers, 100% correct in building connections among ideas, 100 % correct in integrating new information, and 100% independence. After the initial directions were provided, the student was able to complete 44 activities without any cues or prompts.

Table 5

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 2/Mathematics

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

Level of Independence

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 3/Mathematics

The performance with graphic organizers by case 3, as shown by Table 6, was high for Mathematics. Case 1 averages 100% correct responses with graphic organizers, 100% correct in building connections among ideas, 100 % correct in integrating new information, and 100% independence. After the initial directions were provided, the student was able to complete 44 activities without any cues or prompts.

Table 6

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 3/Mathematics

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

Level of Independence

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 4/Mathematics

The performance with graphic organizers by case 4, as shown by Table 7, was high for Mathematics. Case 4 averages between 90- 100% correct responses with graphic organizers, 90-100% correct in building connections among ideas, 90-100 % correct in integrating new information, and 85-100% independence. Case 4 averages between 85-100 % independence because after the initial directions were provided, the student seldom requires verbal cues or prompts to complete the 35 activities. Case 4 made minor mistakes such as computation, mixing signs +, - when simplifying expressions). Note that case 4 were absent for two days as shown by Table 7. Despite the student required cues when working on her assignments, once she understood the activity she volunteered to help others by given prompts or cues.

Table 7

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 4/Mathematics

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

90

4

90

4

100

4

98

4

98

4

98

4

---

---

---

---

100

4

100

4

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

90

4

90

4

100

4

95

4

97

4

98

4

---

---

---

---

100

4

100

4

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

90

4

90

4

95

4

95

4

95

4

98

4

---

---

---

---

100

4

100

4

Level of Independence

85

4

85

4

95

4

95

4

95

4

95

4

---

---

---

---

95

4

100

4

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 5/Mathematics

The performance with graphic organizers by case 5, as shown by Table 8, was high for Mathematics. Case 5 averages between 90- 100% correct responses with graphic organizers, 90-95% correct in building connections among ideas, 90-95 % correct in integrating new information, and 85-95% independence. Case 5 averages 85 % independence because after the initial directions were provided, the student seldom requires verbal cues or prompts to complete 31activities. Case 5 made minor mistakes such as computation, mixing signs +, - when simplifying expressions).

Table 8

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 5/Mathematics

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

95

4

95

4

97

4

95

4

98

4

95

4

98

4

90

4

100

4

100

4

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

90

4

90

4

90

4

95

4

95

4

95

4

95

4

90

4

95

4

90

4

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

85

4

95

4

90

4

95

4

90

4

95

4

85

4

90

4

95

4

95

4

Level of Independence

85

4

85

4

85

4

85

4

85

4

85

4

85

4

85

4

85

4

85

4

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 6/Mathematics

The performance with graphic organizers by case 6, as shown by Table 9, was high for Mathematics. Case 6 averages between 98- 100% correct responses with graphic organizers, 100% correct in building connections among ideas, 95-100 % correct in integrating new information, and 85-98% independence. Case 6 averages between 85-98 % independence because after the initial directions were provided, the student very seldom requires verbal cues or prompts to complete the 20 activities. Case 6 made minor mistakes such mixing signs +, - when simplifying expressions). Note that case 6 were absent for two days as shown by Table 9.

Table 9

Performance with graphic organizers - Case6/Mathematics

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

98

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

---

4

100

4

---

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

---

4

100

4

---

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

98

4

98

4

98

4

95

4

---

4

95

4

---

4

98

4

95

4

95

4

Level of Independence

98

4

98

4

98

4

79

4

---

4

90

4

---

4

95

4

85

4

85

4

*Rat = Rating

Table 10

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 7/Mathematics

The performance with graphic organizers by case 7, as shown by Table 10, was high for Mathematics. Case 7 averages 100% correct responses with graphic organizers, 100% correct in building connections among ideas, 100 % correct in integrating new information, and 98% independence. After the initial directions were provided, the student Case 7 averages 98 % independence because after the initial directions were provided, the student very seldom requires verbal cues or prompts to complete 60 activities.

Table 10

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 7/Mathematics

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

Level of Independence

98

4

98

4

98

4

98

4

98

4

98

4

98

4

98

4

98

4

98

4

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 8/Mathematics

The performance with graphic organizers by case 8, as shown by Table 11, was high for Mathematics. Case 8 averages between 95% correct responses with graphic organizers, 85% correct in building connections among ideas, 80 % correct in integrating new information, and 75% independence. Case 8 averages 75 % independence because after the initial directions were provided, prompts were provided in 25 % of the steps (1 out of 4), therefore the student was observed to be 75% independent (100% - 25% = 75 %) in completing 15 activities. Case 8 made some mistakes such as computation, mixing signs +, - when simplifying expressions). Note that case 8 were absent for three days as shown by Table 11.

Table 11

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 8/Mathematics

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

95

4

95

4

95

4

95

4

95

4

95

4

---

---

---

---

95

4

---

---

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

85

4

85

4

85

4

85

4

85

4

85

4

---

---

---

---

85

4

---

---

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

80

4

80

4

80

4

80

4

80

4

80

4

---

---

---

---

80

4

---

---

Level of Independence

75

3

75

3

75

3

75

3

75

3

75

3

---

---

---

---

75

3

---

---

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 9/Mathematics

The performance with graphic organizers by case 9, as shown by Table 12, was high for Mathematics. Case 9 averages 100% correct responses with graphic organizers, 100% correct in building connections among ideas, 100 % correct in integrating new information, and 100% independence. After the initial directions were provided, the student was able to complete 14 activities without any cues or prompts. This student did not participate in the science study because he is not a science student. Note that case 9 were absent for five days as shown by Table 12.

Table 12

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 9/Mathematics

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

---

---

100

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

---

---

100

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

---

---

100

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Independence

100

4

100

4

100

4

100

4

---

---

100

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 10/Mathematics

The performance with graphic organizers by case 10, as shown by Table 13, was high for Mathematics. Case 8 averages between 90-95% correct responses with graphic organizers, 80-85% correct in building connections among ideas, 80 % correct in integrating new information, and 75% independence. Case 9 averages 75 % independence because after the initial directions were provided, prompts were provided in 25 % of the steps (1 out of 4), therefore the student was observed to be 75% independent (100% - 25% = 75 %) in completing 14 activities. Case 8 made some mistakes such as computation, mixing signs +, - when simplifying expressions). Note that case 8 were absent for five days as shown by Table 13.

Table 13

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 10/Mathematics

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

90

4

95

4

95

4

---

---

90

4

95

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

80

4

80

4

85

4

---

---

85

4

85

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

80

4

80

4

80

4

---

---

80

4

80

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Independence

75

3

75

3

75

3

---

---

75

3

75

3

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 11/Mathematics

The performance with graphic organizers by case 11, as shown by Table 14, was average for Mathematics. Case 8 averages 80% correct responses with graphic organizers, 70 % correct in building connections among ideas, 70 % correct in integrating new information, and 59% independence. Case 11averages 59 % independence because after the initial directions were provided, the student requires extensive cues or prompts to demonstrate skills. Case 11completed 16 activities. Case 8 made some mistakes such as computation, mixing signs +, - when simplifying expressions). Note that case 8 were absent for six days as shown by Table 14.

Table 14

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 11/Mathematics

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

80

4

80

4

80

4

---

---

---

---

80

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

70

3

70

3

70

3

---

---

---

---

70

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

70

3

70

3

70

3

---

---

---

---

70

3

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Independence

59

2

59

2

59

2

---

---

---

---

59

2

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 12/Mathematics

The performance with graphic organizers by case 12, as shown by Table 15, was high for Mathematics. Case 12 averages 100% correct responses with graphic organizers, 100% correct in building connections among ideas, 100 % correct in integrating new information, and 100% independence. After the initial directions were provided, the student was able to complete 8 activities without any cues or prompts. Note that case 12 were absent for ten days as shown by Table15.

Table 15

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 12/Mathematics

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

100

4

100

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

100

4

100

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

100

4

100

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Independence

100

4

100

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 2/Science

The performance with graphic organizers by case 2, as shown by Table 16, was high for Science. Case 2 averages 95% correct responses with graphic organizers, 95 % correct in building connections among ideas, 95 % correct in integrating new information, and 90% independence. Case 2 averages 90 % independence because after the initial directions were provided, the student seldom requires cues or prompts to demonstrate skills in completing 4 activities. Note that case 2 were absent for six days as shown by Table 16. Note that Science class is scheduled for last period after Gym class; therefore, most of the time students did not attend class.

Table 16

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 2/Science

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Independence

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 3/Science

The performance with graphic organizers by case 3, as shown by Table 17, was high for Science. Case 3 averages between 95-98 % correct responses with graphic organizers, 90-95 % correct in building connections among ideas, 95 % correct in integrating new information, and 90% independence. Case 3 averages 90 % independence because after the initial directions were provided, the student seldom requires cues or prompts to demonstrate skills in completing 4 activities. Note that case 3 were absent for six days as shown by Table 17. Note that Science class is scheduled for last period after Gym class; therefore, most of the time students did not attend class.

Table 17

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 3/Science

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

95

4

---

---

98

4

---

---

98

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Independence

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 4/Science

The performance with graphic organizers by case 4, as shown by Table 18, was high for Science. Case 4 average 90 % correct responses with graphic organizers, 90 % correct in building connections among ideas, 90 % correct in integrating new information, and 85% independence. Case 4 averages 85 % independence because after the initial directions were provided, the student seldom requires cues or prompts to demonstrate skills in completing 3 activities. Note that case 4 were absent for seven days as shown by Table 18. Note that Science class is scheduled for last period after Gym class; therefore, most of the time students did not attend class.

Table 18

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 4/Science

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

90

4

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

90

4

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

90

4

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Independence

85

4

85

4

---

---

85

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 5/Science

The performance with graphic organizers by case 5, as shown by Table 19, was high for Science. Case 5 averages 90 % correct responses with graphic organizers, 90 % correct in building connections among ideas, 85 % correct in integrating new information, and 80% independence. Case 5 averages 80 % independence because after the initial directions were provided, the student seldom requires cues or prompts to demonstrate skills in completing 4 activities. Note that case 3 were absent for six days as shown by Table 19. Note that Science class is scheduled for last period after Gym class; therefore, most of the time students did not attend class.

Table 19

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 5/Science

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

85

4

---

---

85

4

---

---

85

4

---

---

85

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Independence

80

4

---

---

80

4

---

---

80

4

---

---

80

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 6/Science

The performance with graphic organizers by case 6, as shown by Table 20, was high for Science. Case 6 averages 95 % correct responses with graphic organizers, 95 % correct in building connections among ideas, 90 % correct in integrating new information, and 79% independence. Case 6 averages 79 % independence because after the initial directions were provided, the student requires limited cues or prompts to demonstrate skills in completing 4 activities. Note that case 6 were absent for six days as shown by Table 20. Note that Science class is scheduled for last period after Gym class; therefore, most of the time students did not attend class.

Table 20

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 6/Science

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

95

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

Level of Independence

79

3

---

---

79

3

---

---

79

3

---

---

79

3

---

---

---

---

---

---

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 7/Science

The performance with graphic organizers by case 7, as shown by Table 21, was high for Science. Case 7 averages 90 % correct responses with graphic organizers, 90 % correct in building connections among ideas, 90 % correct in integrating new information, and 79% independence. Case 7 averages 79 % independence because after the initial directions were provided, the student requires limited cues or prompts to demonstrate skills in completing 8 activities.

Table 21

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 7/Science

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

90

4

Level of Independence

79

3

79

3

79

3

79

3

79

3

79

3

79

3

79

3

79

3

79

3

*Rat = Rating

Performance with Graphic Organizers - Case 8/Science

The performance with graphic organizers by case 8, as shown by Table 22, was high for Science. Case 8 averages 90 % correct responses with graphic organizers, 90 % correct in building connections among ideas, 85 % correct in integrating new information, and 75% independence. Case 8 averages 75 % independence because after the initial directions were provided, the student requires limited cues or prompts to demonstrate skills in completing 5 activities. Case 8 was absent for five days.

Table 22

Performance with graphic organizers - Case 8/Science

 

03/15/04

03/16/04

03/17/04

03/18/04

03/19/04

03/22/04

03/23/04

03/24/04

03/29/04

03/30/04

 

%

Rat*

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

%

Rat

Level of Accuracy in relevant Information

90

4

90

4

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

---

---

90

4

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in building Connections

90

4

90

4

90

4

---

---

90

4

---

---

---

---

90

4

---

---

---

---

Level of Accuracy in integrating new Information

85

4

85

4

85

4

---

---

85

4

---

---

---

---

85

4

---

---

---

---

Level of Independence

75

3

75

3

75

3

---

---

75

3

---

---

---

---

75

3

---

---

---

---

*Rat = Rating

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study derive from an interest about the extent to which graphic organizers along with the guiding principles for instructional practices for emotionally disturbed students who also have learning disabilities are effective. More specifically, whether or not the use of graphic organizers in conjunction with the proposed guiding principles of the administration will help students with special needs develop their interest in understanding, organizing, or recalling important concepts or content. The analysis substantiated that graphic organizer in conjunction with the guiding principles: consistent, coherent, and creative, produced high performance for the students. In other words, the findings clearly show that graphic organizers along with the guiding principles are effective procedures to make learning meaningful for students with special needs.

It was evident from the data that students scored significantly low without the use of graphic organizers for both Mathematics and Science. The analysis shows that only three pupils performed 60 % for level accuracy in focusing on relevant information for Mathematics out of the twelve students. The others performed below 60 %. For level of accuracy in building connections, level of accuracy in integrating new information, and level of independence all students performed below 60% for Mathematics. For Science without the use of graphic organizers, all students performed below 60 % for all level. Therefore, students at P753K have difficulties learning new concepts or solving problems and integrating new information when information is not structured, or arranged in a labeled graphic pattern.

The first research question addressed the extent to which learners demonstrated skills in choosing relevant information in the text using graphic organizers. The analysis shows that all pupils scored high (4) for level of accuracy in focusing on relevant information for both Mathematics and Science. This means that they demonstrated skills in choosing relevant information. The pupils who performed 100% for level of accuracy chose the most significant pattern when selecting relevant information to solve the given Mathematics problem or selecting relevant information in the text to answer a Science question. Those who performed at a lower percentage, such as 90% for level of accuracy chose a revealing pattern. Thus, the first research question was answered in the affirmative: learners demonstrated a great deal of skills in choosing relevant information when they use graphic organizers.

The second research question addressed the extent to which students demonstrated skills in building connections among ideas in the text using graphic organizers. The analysis shows that learners scored high (4) for level of accuracy in building connections among ideas or in solving a problem or building connections among ideas in the text of a Science reading or experiment. The students who performed 100 % for level of accuracy in building connections among ideas demonstrated skills in building significant pattern according to the teacher-directed graphic organizers. On the other hands, the others who scored lower than 100% demonstrated skills in building some patterns. Accordingly, the second research question was answered in the affirmative: learners built a great deal of connections among ideas when using graphic organizers.

The third research question focused on the extent to which learners demonstrated skills in integrating new information using graphic organizers. The analysis indicates that learners scored high (4) for demonstrating skills in integrating new information for both Mathematics and Science. The students who performed 100% for this category integrated relevant new information while the others who have an average lower than 100 % integrated some patterns of new information. Therefore, the third research question was answered in the affirmative: learners demonstrated a good deal of skills in integrating new information when using graphic organizers.

The fourth research question addressed the extent to which learners performed independently with the use of graphic organizers. The analysis reveals that for Mathematics out of the twelve students, five students averaged 100 % level of independence or a score of 4, one student averaged 98%, one student averaged between 79 -98%, another one averaged between 85-95%, another one averaged 85%, two students averaged 75%, one student averaged 70%, and another one averaged 59%. The mean for mathematics scores is 4. This means that the level of independence for Mathematics is high. Regarding Science, out of the seven students, two of them averaged 90%, one student averaged 85%, one student averaged 80%, two students averaged 79%, and another one averaged 75%. The mean for Science scores is 3.14. This means that the level of independence for Science is fairly high. Hence, the fourth research question is answered in the affirmative: students performed independently much with the use of graphic organizers.

Note that, the mean for Mathematics scores without the use of graphic organizers is 1.31, and the mean for Science scores without the use of graphic organizers is 1.42. These same mean scores using graphic organizers are about 3.85 for both Mathematics and Science, a significant improvement.

Baxendell (2003) argues that, today, the concern about graphic organizers no longer centers on whether they are valuable instructional tools, but rather on how to use them effectively to meet the varied educational needs of students. Therefore, to meet the educational needs of the pupils at 753K who are learners with special needs, they were exposed to graphic organizers in a consistent manner. That is, the investigator created sets of graphic organizers, and for 10 days he established a routine for implementing them in his classroom. Second, he made relationships coherent by providing labels for the relationship between concepts in graphic organizers. In other words, he made them clear and straight-forwards. Third, he integrated them in creative and engaging ways into different areas such as mathematics and science. Graphic organizers were used in all stages of lesson design. In other words, the investigator used the three established principles for effective graphic organizers: consistent, coherent, creative (see Baxendell, 2003). As a result, as the findings indicate, students paid attention to relevant information in text. They built relevant connections among ideas in the text. They organized information into coherent structure and integrated the new information or connected it to their prior knowledge. Consequently, they scored high (4) on the levels of the accuracy according to the rubrics.

This work is a beginning. I have examined a very small number of trees in the forest. This is a major consequence of working in such a short time period. Further research may modify or reverse the finding. Only twelve subjects participated in this study. Only ten days were devoted to this study. During a few days/hours especially after lunch or gym, some students refused to complete their assignments. Only SIE VII students were involved in the study, because of their handicap, some of them were not motivated and certainly did not feel compel to complete more assignments. These emotionally disturbed students have short attention span and tire quickly with instruction/assignment after a period of twenty minutes. A larger sample and a longer period of time are needed to obtain valid conclusions. In other words, the results cannot be generalized from this sample to the general population. However, this study allow us to see the effectiveness of graphic organizers along with the guiding principles for instructional practices for emotionally disturbed students who also have learning disabilities for a period of ten days.

Despite the limits of this study, it is worthwhile to address the implications for the School administration action. According to the result, the four research questions were answered in the affirmative because at the four levels - accuracy in focusing on relevant information, accuracy in building connections among idea, accuracy in integrating new information, and performing independently - students score high, that is 4. This indicates that there is no need for the administration to adjust or modify the idea of displaying information graphically along with the established guiding principles for the students.

It is useful at this point to mention some of the shortcomings of this action research study. For some, two major problematic features of this research will be the reliance of this study on only a few SIE VII students and on students at P753K/Brooklyn School for Career Development. This study should include other SIE, such as SIE IV and others Special Education schools because the SIE VI students at this school may be special cases, as all of them have a good performance with graphic organizers. It is hoped that future research will take up these tasks.

REFERENECES

Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 267-272.

Alvermann, D. E. (1982). Restructuring text facilitates written recall of main ideas. Journal of

reading, 25, 754 - 758.

Alvermann, D. E. & Boothby, P. R. (1983). A preliminary investigation of the differences in

children's retention of «inconsiderate» text. Reading psychology, 4, 237 - 246.

Baxendell, W. B. (2003). Consistency, coherent, creative: the 3 c' s of graphic organizers. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 35(3), 46-53.

Bromley, K., Irwin-DeVitis, L., & Modlo, M. (1995). Graphic organizers: Visual strategies for

active learning. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.

Bergerud, D. Lowitt, T. C., & Horton, S. V. (1988), The effectiveness of textbook adaptations in

life science for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 21(2), 70-76.

Deshler, D. D. (1978). Psychological aspects of learning disabled adolescents. In L. Mann, L. Goodman, & J.L. Wiederholt (Ed.), Teaching the learning-disabled adolescent (pp. 47- 74): Boston: Houghton Miffin.

Darch, C., & Carnine, D. (1986). Teaching content area material to learning disabled students. Exceptional Children, 53, 240-246.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell. G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers grades 3-6: Teaching comprehension, genre, and content literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fisher, J. B., & Schumaker, J. B. (1995). Searching for validated inclusive practices: A review

of the literature. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28,4, 1-20.

Fearon, G. (2001). Pre-Algebra. Pearson Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey

Guastello, E. F. Beasley, T. M., & Sinatra. R. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension and recall of expository texts. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11, 73-89.

Griffin, C. C., Malone, L. D., & Kameenui, E. J. (1995). Effects of graphic organizer instruction on fifth-grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 98-107.

Griffin, C.C., & Tulbert, B. L. (1995). The effect of graphic organizers on students' comprehension and recall of expository texts. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11, 73-89.

Horton, V. S., Lovitt, C. T., & Bergerud, D. (2001). The effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 12-29.

Herber, H. L., & Riley, J. D. (Eds.). (1979). Research in reading in the content areas: Fourth year

report. Syracuse, NY: University of Syracuse Reading and Language Arts Center.

Herber, H. L., & Sanders, P.L. (Eds.). (1969). Research in reading in the content areas: First

year report, Syracuse, NY: University of Syracuse Reading and Language Arts Center.

Heber, H. L., & Vacca, R. T. (Eds.). (1977). Research in reading in the content areas: Third year

report. Syracuse, NY: University of Syracuse Reading and Language Arts Center.

Jitendra, A. K., Hoff, K., & Beck, M. M. (1999). Teaching middle school students with learning disabilities to solve word problems using a schema-based approach. Remedial and

Special Education, 20, 50-64.

McEneany, J. E. (1990). Do advance organizers facilitate learning? A review of sub-sumption

theory. Journal of research and Development in Education, 23, 89-96.

Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. F. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 11-17.

Smith, D. D., & Luckasson, R. (1992). Introduction to Special Education Teaching in the Age of

Challenge. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Seymour, R. (1988). Earth Science Workshop 1. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Torgesen J. K. (1985). Memory process in reading disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 350-357.

Zigmond, N., Vallecorsa, A., & Leinhardt, G. (1980). Reading instruction for students with learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 1, 89-98.

--------(2003). New York State Alternate Assessment Teacher' s Guide. Revised September.

--------(1999). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 105-17, Federal

Register, Vol. 64. 48.

.

.

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Rubric

The study's scoring rubric has one dimension: Performance (including level of accuracy in focusing on relevant information, building connections, integrating new information, and level of independence in completing graphic organizers).

PERFORMANCE IN USING GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS

SCORE

4

3

2

1

Level of Accuracy in Focusing on Relevant Information in the Text

The student

demonstrates skills in choosing relevant information (either most significant, or revealing some pattern) with an average of 80-100% accuracy.

The student

demonstrates skills in choosing relevant information (either most significant, or revealing some pattern) with an average of 60-79% accuracy.

The student

demonstrates skills in choosing relevant information (either most significant, or revealing some pattern) with an average of 30-59% accuracy.

The student

demonstrates skills in choosing relevant information (either most significant, or revealing some pattern) with an average of 0-29% accuracy.

Level of Accuracy in Building Connections

Among Ideas in the Text

The Student demonstrates

skills in Building connections among ideas with an average of 80-100% accuracy.

The Student demonstrates

skills in Building connections among ideas with an average of 60-79% accuracy.

The Student demonstrates skills in Building connections among ideas with an average of 30-59% accuracy.

The Student demonstrates skills in Building connections among ideas with an average of 0-29% accuracy.

Level of Accuracy Integrating New Information

The student demonstrates

skills in integrating new information with an average of 80-100% accuracy.

The student demonstrates

skills in integrating new information with an average of 60-79% accuracy.

The student demonstrates skills in integrating new information with an average of 30-59% accuracy.

The student demonstrates skills in integrating new information with an average of 0-29% accuracy.

Perform

Independently

The student seldom requires cues or prompts when completing graphic organizers.

(80-100% Independence)

The student requires limited cues or prompts when completing graphic organizers.

(60-79% Independence)

The student requires extensive cues or prompts when completing graphic organizers.

(30-59% Independence)

The student requires constant cues or prompts when completing graphic organizers.

(0-29% Independence)

Comments:

Source: NYSAA, 2003

Appendix B
Checklist for completing graphic organizers performance

Student_______________________

Accuracy Key: (+) Correct Response, (-) Inaccurate response

Independence Key: (+) Independent, (-) Prompted

 

Date

Date

Date

Date

Date

Date

Date

Date

Date

Date

Date

Date

Date

Date

Date

Accuracy in relevant information

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Percent Accuracy

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Accuracy in building connections

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Percent Accuracy

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Accuracy in integrating new information

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Percent Accuracy

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Independence

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Percent Independence

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Observations or comments:

Source: NYSAA, 2003, but this checklist was modified by the investigator.

Appendix C






Bitcoin is a swarm of cyber hornets serving the goddess of wisdom, feeding on the fire of truth, exponentially growing ever smarter, faster, and stronger behind a wall of encrypted energy








"L'ignorant affirme, le savant doute, le sage réfléchit"   Aristote