Post on 28-May-2020
transcript
Running Head: RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 1
A Study Utilizing Resource Classrooms with a Technological Course Management System to
Improve Literacy and Math in Special Education
Julious Morris
University of St. Thomas
Research Professor: Dawn Bradford, Ed.D.
Program Directors: Catherine Barber, Ph.D.
May 2012
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 2
Table of Contents
Abstract 4
Chapter 1: Introduction 5
Special Education Law 5
Disabilities & Education 5
Resource Classrooms 6
Definition of Key Terms 8
Chapter 2: Literature Review 9
One-to-one Laptop 9
Learning Styles 10
Reading/Literacy Resource Classroom 11
Math Resource Classroom 11
Chapter 3: Method 13
Participants & Sampling 13
District & School Demographics 13
Teacher Demographics 13
Teacher Background 14
Participants 14
Measures 15
Assessment Tools 15
Procedures 16
Data Analysis Plan 17
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 3
Chapter 4: Results 18
Implementing the Study 18
Presentation of Results 18
Data Analysis 18
Chapter 5: Conclusion 21
References 23
Appendix 26
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 4
Abstract
This study investigated the use of the special education resource classroom along with the
use of one-to-one technology to help improve student literacy and math word problem solving.
The seven participants, with varying disabilities, in this study were in the 6th
to 8th
grades and
were placed by Admission, Review, Dismissal (ARD) committee decision in the special
education setting of the resource classroom. The researcher found that the participants in the
study were reading two or more years below grade level and performed poorly on math word
problems. During this study, the teachers were to utilize their interactive white boards along
with the district Classroom Management System (CMS) training site to enhance their instruction
in the resource classroom. The participants in the study were to utilize their issued laptops along
with the use of the district training site to improve their reading and math problem solving skills,
particularly in word problems. The study revealed that students were assessed with modified
curriculum and had taken the modified version of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills (TAKS) state assessment the prior year. In comparison with the new State of Texas
Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) requirements, the researcher found that the
results from numerous math assessments developed and administered with the new requirements
proved to be quite difficult for the participants. During the course of the study the participating
teachers had not utilized his/her interactive white boards and the district CMS training site to
enhance the participants learning. The study also showed that the participants were too
preoccupied with other things on the laptops. The scores from assessments revealed the
participants’ ability to complete math word problems was not successful. Recommendations on
addressing solutions to enhance this study better are provided.
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 5
Chapter 1
Introduction
Special Education Law
Public Law 94-142 – Education for All Handicapped Children, later renamed Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), guarantees a “free appropriate public education (FAPE)
to all children with disabilities” (Protigal, 1999). Since the enactment of IDEA, children can be
identified and receive special services from birth to age 21. When looking at the educational
aspect, children identified with a disability as early as age 3 can receive educational services.
Special Education in the United States has shown an increase in numbers of children identified
under IDEA with one or possibly more of the 13 disabilities listed in Figure 1 (see Appendix).
The 25th
Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of Individuals with Disabilities Act,
Vol. 1, 2003, showed a remarkable increase in children served under IDEA, Parts B and C, over
a 10-year period from the 1992-1993 to 2001-2002 school years. To be age specific, the report
showed the age group 3-21 grew from “5,080,651” to “6,487,260” in the 10-year period (U.S.
Department of Education, 2003). Many changes in education have taken place since the
enactment of IDEA and the current implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of
2001.
Disabilities & Education
Children that qualify for special education services under IDEA, as seen in Figure 1 (see
Appendix), can be identified with a specific learning disability which is broken down into
various disorders, such as basic reading skills to math calculations, or a child can be identified as
having a mild to severe intellectual disability, formerly known as mental retardation. In
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 6
addressing how these children learn, administrators, teachers, and special education teachers
need to know how to approach and adapt their teaching of these children. Regular and special
education teachers are always looking for ways to help their students. The goal of special
education is that children are in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) by being educated with
their peers in the regular classroom, commonly called an inclusion or mainstream setting, yet at
times these students’ levels are severe enough that they can be one or more grade levels behind
their peers. Even with accommodations or modifications in the regular classroom, the student
would not learn the concepts that are being taught. At this point, parents and educators look at
student success in the regular classroom and may decide that a more restricted environment of a
special education resource classroom would be more suitable for the student.
Resource Classrooms
“The goal of the resource room is to plan, develop, and provide educational strategies that
meet the unique and varied learning needs of an individual with a disability” (Phillips, 2008). A
resource classroom usually contains a small group of students who can receive specialized
instruction to help raise the students’ academic levels of his/her peers. In a report by Kerri
Phillips, titled The Resource Room in Special Education wrote,
The resource room was originally developed as a way to provide education to individuals
who had difficulty learning in the regular educational classroom. The typical resource
room is a separate classroom where a teacher certified in special education teaches a child
daily for brief periods of time (Blosser & Neidecker, 2002; Fletcher-Janzen, & Reynolds,
2000).
As students are being placed in a more restrictive environment of a resource classroom, the job
of the special education teacher now plays an important role of specializing student instruction.
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 7
In today’s technological era, students are growing up with technology as part of their lives, and
teachers are trying to adapt their lessons and teaching to utilizing such technology. School
districts are trying to address this issue by providing teachers with the needed technology in
his/her classrooms. The Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP) in Texas pioneered an entirely new
concept in educational technology—total immersion of faculty and students in technology (TIP,
2009). Alvin ISD in Alvin, TX, has incorporated the project by implementing a one-to-one
laptop initiative for all students in grades 6th
to 8th
, and all core subject teachers will have an
interactive white board in his/her classroom, which includes the special education teachers’
classrooms. The current mathematics textbook being used in the Alvin ISD district incorporates
technology by offering compact discs containing video demonstrations of mathematical concepts
and is readily available to the teachers to show in their classroom which, it is hoped, will
enhance the concept being taught. The job now of educators is to find ways of teaching students
while utilizing this technology. While examining a resource classroom, the question being raised
on a junior high campus, grades 6th
to 8th
, in Alvin ISD was what can be done to help reach these
struggling students in the resource classroom all the while utilizing technology? This study will
show that utilizing the technology will help students in a resource classroom improve student
literacy (reading/writing) and math levels, especially in the areas of solving word problems.
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 8
Definition of Key Words
IEP – Individualized Education Plan
IDEA – federal program for individuals with a disability.
FAPE – all children be given free education no matter their disability.
NCLB – federal legislation that identifies/controls student achievement and progress in schools.
Learning disability – child may have a deficit in the area of basic reading, reading
comprehension, reading fluency, written or oral expression, math problem solving, math
calculations, and/or math reasoning.
Intellectual disability – child has mild to moderate cognitive deficits.
LRE – consideration of educating the handicapped student with regular education peers.
Inclusion/ mainstream – student with disability is in the regular classroom with support of a
special education teacher or paraprofessional.
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 9
Chapter 2
Literature Review
One-to-One Laptop Programs
Many school districts across the country are implementing some sort of one-to-one
computing program with students in grades 6 to 8 with support of numerous studies on the
effectiveness of these programs. The programs have their pros and cons as noted by Bryan
Goodwin (2011) in his article Teaching Screenagers: One-to-One Laptop Programs Are No
Silver Bullet. Goodwin (2011) states,
“…some school systems that ushered in one-to-one laptop programs amid great fanfare
have begun to scrap them because of budget cuts (Lemagie, 2010); mushrooming
maintenance costs (Vascellaro, 2006); and concerns about how students are using the
computer” (Hu, 2007).
Goodwin (2011) goes on to list some encouraging information with the one-to-one programs
such as,
More engaged learners. A four-year study of 5,000 middle school students in Texas
found that those engaged in laptop immersion programs were less likely to have
disciplinary problems (but slightly more likely to be absent from school) than students in
schools without laptops (Shapley et al., 2009).
Better technology skills. The Texas study also found that the technology skills of
students in the laptop programs improved significantly – so much so that after three
years, low-income students in the laptop schools displayed the same levels of technology
proficiency as wealthier students in the control schools (Shapley et al., 2009).
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 10
Cost efficiencies. Proponents of one-to-one programs also assert that such programs
create savings in other areas, including reduced costs for textbooks, paper, assessments,
and paperwork, as well as a reduction in disciplinary actions (Greaves, Hayes, Gielniak,
& Peterson, 2010).
“There is strong evidence that student engagement increased dramatically…” and “… student
research skills and collaboration were enhanced by the improved educational access and
opportunities afforded by the 1:1 pilot program” (Bebell & Kay, 2010). The utilization of the
one-to-one program requires teachers to find ways to enhance their instruction in the classroom
when utilizing this technology. One of the ways that special education teachers are utilizing
technology is through the use of interactive websites that students can use on their laptops all the
while addressing the students’ different learning styles as well.
Learning Styles
Special education teachers look at learning styles to help their students in all settings. It
has been known by educators for years that children do learn by various modalities, and a leader
of addressing this is Neil D. Fleming with the support of David Baum. Fleming & Baum (2006)
address these modalities through their studies and further report that people do learn Visually,
Auditory, Reading/writing, or Kinesthetically (VARK) or a combination of the four categories.
According to Fleming and Baum (2006), who developed the VARK questionnaire, stated that “it
is, technically, not a learning styles’ questionnaire, as it provides feedback only on one’s
preferred modes for communicating” (Fleming & Baume, 2006). Teachers and students can
understand further by “knowing one’s learning style [which] can be beneficial if learners take the
next step, and consider how and when they learn, as part of a reflective, metacognitive process,
with action to follow” (Fleming & Baume, 2006).
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 11
Reading/Literacy Resource Classroom
Literacy is a very important factor when educating students today. It is not only the
reading classroom with some writing involved, it is now heavily linked to the writing process
that becomes cross curricular, hitting all subject areas which is a literacy classroom. Savilla
Banister from Bowling Green State University studied the use of technology and how it could
affect literacy in today’s society, titled Web 2.0 Tools in the Reading Classroom: Teachers
Exploring Literacy in the 21st Century. Bannister (2008) reported that for reading specialists,
dedicated to student growth and achievement in reading and writing effectively across the
subject areas, the newest evolution of the World Wide Web provides opportunities for students
to challenge their literacy skills. Teachers are now incorporating the use of the web to deliver
instruction and to enhance student literacy skills. English teachers who currently support the use
of audio podcasts for part of their instruction of reading as reported by Banister (2008) states by
acquiring and listening to these podcasts, their awareness and comfort with the medium
increased. The possibilities of podcasting and vodcasting for students in the resource classroom
has not been explored at this point in time, but the potential for student growth is very promising
when utilizing technology with literacy.
Math Resource Classroom
The possibilities when using the technologies of the one-to-one laptop program in the
special education reading (literacy) classroom are hoped to be a benefit to the teacher and the
student. In the subject of mathematics, however, students learning mathematical concepts could
also benefit from the use of such technology.
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 12
“The use of video and audio provides opportunities for all sensory perceptions – auditory,
visual, and kinesthetic – to be engaged during the learning process (Saylor 2004). These
new technologies provide opportunities to improve the educational process” (Franklin &
Peng 2008).
Textbook companies are addressing technology use with mathematics by the issue of videos
which mirror important concepts in the textbook to enhance the learning of the students and the
ease of teacher use in the classroom. Franklin and Peng (2008) studied the use of the iPod
Touch and videos that were pushed out through Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds to the
students “that allow students to subscribe and have information sent directly to their devices to
be read as needed 24/7 (i.P.O.C. 2006).” Technology of this magnitude has unlimited potential
to help special education teachers reach their students not only at school but at home as well.
“Schools at all levels are beginning to use iPods and other mobile devices as a means of
delivering coursework and content” (Franklin & Peng 2008). Not only were videos pushed out
to the student but the students in the study made videos themselves about the particular
mathematical concept being taught. The results from Franklin & Pengs’ 2008 study had some
interesting results. One teacher reported that “the iPod was so much fun for the students and
provided ownership to the math concepts being developed into movies. All of the students
talked about how hard it is to explain math to someone” (Franklin & Peng 2008). Teaching
mathematical concepts to students can prove to be a difficult task at times to regular students, yet
when one thinks about how a special needs student learns, this task can be most unbearable.
With the help of technology, one-to-one laptop programs, and knowing how special needs
students learn can be the most beneficial mechanism that a special education teacher can use
today, especially when students are lower than their peers.
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 13
Chapter 3
Method
Participants and Sampling
District and School Demographics. Alvin Independent School District is located in
Alvin, Texas, and covers 250 square miles in northern Brazoria County. It serves the
communities of Alvin, Manvel, Iowa Colony, Liverpool, Amsterdam, and parts of Rosharon,
Arcola, and Pearland. The district currently educates over 18,000 students, and the district's
ethnic composition is 44.5% Hispanic, 34% White, 12% African American, 8% Asian, and 1%
other.
The campus where this study will be conducted has a current enrollment of 670 students.
The campus ethnic breakdown is 0.15% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 2.39%
African American, 0.45% American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.9% Asian, 62.69%
Hispanic/Latino, 32.39% White, and 0.75% two or more races. The current special education
count for the campus is 74, which is 11% of the campus receiving special education services. Of
the 74 students in special education, 12 or 16% of these students are in the resource classroom
less than 50% of the day.
Teacher Demographics. There are two teachers being utilized for this study; both
teachers are currently employed by Alvin ISD. Both teachers’ current assignments are special
education inclusion support, co-teaching, and resource classes. Teacher A teaches English
Language Arts/Reading, and teacher B teaches Math. Teacher A is currently teaching two
resource classes during the school day for 50 minutes per class, co-teaches three periods, one
conference period, and one inclusion period during the school day. Teacher B currently teaches
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 14
two resource classes during the school day for 50 minutes per class, co-teaches two periods, one
period for conference, and teaches athletics one period.
Teachers Background. Teacher A (female) has a B.A. degree in Anthropology, an M.S.
in Education Management, and is certified to teach Secondary English 6-12, holds a Gifted and
Talented (GT) rider, Special Education PK-12, and Principal PK-12. Teacher A has taught for
12 years in Language Arts grades 7 and 8. She is currently teaching two special education
resource classes in Language Arts grades 6 to 8, and her philosophy is that children in the
resource classroom need some help from a teacher who has the training, experience, and desire
to do exactly what each individual needs to move the students’ forward in the language arts, but
especially in reading.
Teacher B (male) has a B.S. degree in Human Performance and is certified in Physical
Education EC-12, Health EC-12, Special Education EC-12, and is currently waiting for
certification in Math 4-8. Teacher B is currently teaching two special education resource math
classes grades 6 to 8. Teacher B’s philosophy about the resource classroom is that there is a
need for accommodating students with the need for a positive math enrichment program. The
goal is to fill the gaps and assist students at their level of learning.
Participants. The participants in this study are students who have been placed in a more
restricted environment of the resource classroom. There are currently 10 students receiving
special education resource instruction in Language Arts/Reading and 12 students in Math. Of
the total students in the resource classes, permission for participation in the study was only
obtained from eight parents, and during the study one student was removed due to his/her
withdrawal. The participants’ disability range from Intellectually Disabled, Autism, to Specific
Learning Disabilities with various related services they receive, as seen in Table 1 (see
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 15
Appendix). In Table 2 (see Appendix), you will see the educational placement of the
participants in the study from his/her Individualized Education Plan (IEP) placement
determination. The students who are scheduled for the resource classroom are divided by grade,
each teacher teaches a class of 6th
graders, and then the second class is a combination of 7th
and
8th
graders due to changes in curriculum requirements from 6th
grade to 7th
grade. Each student
has been issued a laptop mini for use in all of their core subject areas and has access to the
internet and Moodle, the current district training site.
Measures
Assessment Tools. At the beginning of the study, the students completed a
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). The DRA it is a set of individually administered
criterion-referenced reading assessments for students in kindergarten through Grade 8. Modeled
after an informal reading inventory, the DRA is intended to be administered, scored, and
interpreted by classroom teachers. (Natalie Rathvon, PhD., n.d.) This gave a further
understanding of student reading comprehension as a predictor for student accuracy on solving
word problems. Students’ scores on the prior year’s TAKS-Modified test were used as the
starting point of the analysis. These scores were the indicator of where the students should be at
his/her grade level 6th
– 8th
in Reading and Math. Throughout the course of the year students
were given various assessments to measure their progress in reading and math. All students
received accommodations as noted in their current IEP. As a final assessment, the students
completed a Simulated STAAR assessment in Reading and Math. The new STAAR assessment
“tests content students studies that year, as opposed to testing content studied over multiple
years” (TEA, 2010)
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 16
Procedures
This study began with gaining permission for the students to participate in the study. Of
the 12 students who were placed in the resource classroom, only 7 students were participants of
the study. The resource teachers were eager to participate and support the study. Each student in
the study had previously been issued a laptop mini to be used in their academic classes and was
to participate in the district training site Moodle. Moodle is a Course Management System
(CMS), also known as a Learning Management System (LMS) or a Virtual Learning
Environment (VLE). This web application allows educators to create effective online learning
sites through the utilization of forums, glossaries, wikis, assignments, quizzes, choices (polls),
and databases. (Moodle, 2012) Teachers of this study were to utilize this site by creating
projects and lessons on various topics to support his/her lessons with the use of links to various
sites that students, who enroll in the class, can access 24/7. This encourages students to add to
the total course experience for others. (Moodle, 2012) Each of the participants completed a
DRA, Reading and Math simulation assessment, and several Math Unit Tests. Through these
assessments, the reading and math objectives are aligned with the Texas Essential Knowledge
and Skills (TEKS) for the particular grade levels which are aligned with the National Standards
for reading and math. During the study, the students were to utilize their laptops to access
lessons through the district training site which supported what was being taught in the resource
classroom. It is noted, this is the first year for this campus to have resource classes in many
years. Data collection of student scores was gained through the website utilized by the district
called Eduphoria, a web application from School Objects, which is a database warehouse site
that houses all students’ assessment scores in the district.
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 17
Data Analysis Plan
During this study, several instruments were used to assess the participants. For the
purpose of this study, the participants were assessed with the Developmental Reading
Assessment (DRA) in the fall and previous Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills-
Modified (TAKS-Modified) scores on the Reading and Math. These scores are being reported as
part of the data to establish a baseline for further assessments. The students were given a
simulated State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness-Modified (STAAR-M) assessment
in Reading and Math, and the data are being used for reporting purposes. The participants were
also given Math Unit Tests in which the majority of the tests consist of word problems and were
modified at the appropriate grade level. A Math Unit Test sample could not be obtained due to
district copyright, and permission was not obtained. Since the STAAR test does not have
computation or vocabulary questions, the TEKS that are connected to these problems closely
meet the intent of the TEKS. The ultimate goals of these assessments demonstrate an authentic
assessment of progress. The statistical information of the assessments that were given is
presented in the next chapter.
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 18
Chapter 4
Results
Implementing the Study
Analysis was composed of identifying areas associated with comprehension of material
that is being taught with the support of the resource classroom. Reading comprehension was
analyzed by the number of questions correct in all reading objectives. Math was an analyses of
the students’ correct answers of word problems and a further breakdown of the six math
objectives. The study looked at the use of the CMS training site Moodle that the teachers were
to utilize to enhance their classroom teaching for the students in the resource classroom. Data
were gathered on numerous Math Unit Tests taken by the participants.
Presentation of Results
Figure 2 and Table 3 (see Appendix) display the results of the participants’ fall reading
levels gained from the DRA assessment. Figure 2 illustrates the participants’ scores to be
significantly low compared to where they should be for their grade level. Table 3 shows the
equivalent grade level for their scores, which shows that the participants are reading two or more
years below grade level. This information is an important factor of how the students performed
on the Reading and Math assessments.
Data Analysis
Data that are collected on the participants was from the students’ current IEP and scores
from TAKS-Modified assessments, STAAR-Modified simulation assessments, and Math Unit
Tests-Modified that each participant in the study had completed. Figures 3 and 4 (see Appendix)
show his/her previous school years TAKS assessment percentage scores in comparison with the
STAAR simulation percentage scores for Reading and Math. The STAAR simulation
Table 3: DRA Levels
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 19
assessments are based on the new state requirements and administered according to new
regulations. To further analyze this data, the objectives for the math assessments are displayed
in Figures 5 through 9 (see Appendix). The information gathered on each of the participants in
the study was gained through the Eduphoria-School Objects website, which houses the database
of student scores for all assessments taken within the district. The assessments were by order of
particular objectives for each assessment. The information was input into a spreadsheet to
further analyze the data and to gain the average, median, standard deviation, and t-scale for each
objective represented in the Math Unit Tests. As seen in Figures 3 and 4 (see Appendix), one
can see the students’ performance on their TAKS-Modified assessments, which assesses
students’ minimal skills, as compared to the STAAR-Modified simulation assessments, which
shows significant differences of student performance.
The data show that with the difference of requirements of the Reading TAKS-M to the
STAAR-M simulation this difference to be considered extremely statistically significant with a
two-tailed P value of 0.05, with an average of the TAKS-Modified tests to be 62.14%, and a
standard deviation and a t-scale score of σ=13.85. This is compared to the STAAR-Modified
simulation tests, with an average of 43%, with a standard deviation of σ=5.10, for an overall
t-scale score of t=3.43, with a difference df=12, and the standard error of difference of 5.58. The
mean of the TAKS-M to the STAAR-M simulation equals 19.14 with an interval difference from
6.99 to 31.30.
As for the Math TAKS-M to the STAAR-M simulation difference, it is considered to be
extremely statistically significant with a two-tailed P value equal to 0.0007. Results of an
average of the TAKS-Modified tests were 60.43%, and a standard deviation of σ=14.68. This is
compared to the STAAR-Modified simulation test, which had a mean of 26.43 with a standard
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 20
deviation of σ=13.39. An overall t-scale score of t= 4.53 showed a difference of df=12 and the
standard error of difference of 7.51. The mean of TAKS-M to STAAR-M simulation equals
34%, with a 95% confidence interval difference from 17.63 to 50.37.
The participants in the study completed seven math unit tests with the following
statistical information. Figure 6 (see Appendix) displays the students’ scores for Objective One
to have a mean score of 48%, with a median score of 44%, and a standard deviation of 0.1.
Objective Two, Figure 7 (see Appendix), had a mean score of 51%, with a median score of 45%,
and a standard deviation of σ= 0.26. On Objective Three, Figure 8 (see Appendix), had a mean
score was 72%, with a median score of 71%, and a standard deviation of σ= 0.26. Figure 9
(see Appendix) displays Objective Four with a mean of 49%, with a median of 72%, and a
standard deviation of σ=0.42. Objective Four was only assessed on two of the seven
participants. Objective Five was only assessed on one participant in the study, therefore no
relevant data are presented. Objective Six, Figure 10 (see Appendix), had a mean score of 64%,
and a median of 67%, and a standard deviation of σ=0.37. In comparison of the students’
scores from the first math unit test to the seventh test, the following statistical information to be
considered to be not statistically significant from a two-tailed P value was equal to 0.68. The
mean of the first test was 48%, with a standard deviation of σ=9.87 compared to the seventh
tests, with a mean of 54.86%, standard deviation of σ=41.66. The mean of the first test to the
seventh test was equal to -6.86 with a 95% confidence interval difference from -42.11 to 28.40,
with a t-scale score of t=0.42, with a difference of 12, and a standard error of difference of 16.18.
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 21
Chapter 5
Conclusion
This study was to show that utilizing the CMS technology would help students in a
resource classroom improve student literacy (reading/writing) and math level, especially in the
areas of solving word problems. This study can be of use for special and regular education
teachers as well as campus principals and district administration.
Throughout the study, the resource teachers were to utilize the CMS site Moodle, in
conjunction specifically with the students’ laptop minis, to coincide with their lessons to help the
student improve on assessments, especially in the areas of reading math word problems. The
researcher found that the teachers had great difficulty integrating the technology with their
lessons. The teachers’ interactive white boards were not properly installed until half of the study
was implemented. The participants themselves did not utilize the laptops to the degree they were
meant to be used. One example was that upon the researchers’ observation, the participants were
playing games instead of working on skills to improve their reading ability and math problem
solving skills.
Therefore, the study did reveal that with the support of the resource classroom, one-to-
one laptops, and the utilization of the CMS technology students’ scores showed no improvement
when it came to reading and math assessments. The researcher also found that the new STAAR
assessment requirements are very difficult, and the scores showed this could be a true indicator
of the participants’ ability. The lack of teacher experience in teaching a resource class could
have been a factor. The researcher would recommend that professional development for the
teachers is warranted in utilizing technology in the classroom. The researcher also noted that
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 22
results could have been a factor of the teachers’ instructional methods in the classroom. The
research would warrant that further study could be conducted to see if the teachers’ instructional
methods and use of technology could efficiently prepare the students in the resource classroom
for stronger performance on the new regulations of the STAAR assessments.
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 23
References
25th Annual (2003) Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilties
Education Act, vol. 1. (2005). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
Banister, S. (2008). Web 2.0 tools in the reading classroom: Teachers exploring literacy in the
21st century. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 109-116.
Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from
the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. 9(2), 9/3/2011. Retrieved from
http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1607/
Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from
the berkshire wireless learning initiative. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and
Assessment, 9(2) Retrieved from www.jtla.org
Blosser, J., & Neidecker, E. (2002). School programs in speech-language pathology:
Organization and service delivery.
Fleming, N., & Baume, D. (Nov 2006). Learning styles again: VARKing up the right tree!
Educational Developments, SEDA Ltd., (7.4), 4.
Fletcher-Janzen, E., & Reynolds, C. (2000). Encyclopedia of special education.
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 24
Franklin, T., & Peng, L. (2008). Mobile math: Math educators and students engage in mobile
learning. Journal of Computer in Higher Education, 20, 69-80. doi:10.1007/s12528-008-
9005-0
Goodwin, B. (2011). Teaching screenagers: One-to-one laptop programs are no silver bullet.
Educational Leadership, 68(5), 78-79.
Greaves, T., Hayes, J., Wilson, L., Gielniak, M. & Peterson, E. (2010). Project RED key
findings. Retrieved 9/2011, 2011, from http://www.one-to-
oneinstitute.org/docs/project_red_key_findings%281%29.pdf
Hu, W. (2007, 2007, May 4). Seeing no progress, some schools drop laptops. The New York
Times, pp. 1. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html
i.P.O.C. (2006, iPods on campus. BizEd, 46(January-February)
Lemagie, S. (2010, 2010, November 21). 1 student, 1 laptop proves costly. Minneapolis Star-
Ribune, Retrieved from www.startribune.com/local/109779099.html
Moodle. (2012). Pedagogy. Retrieved 4/26/12, 2012, from
http://docs.moodle.org/22/en/Pedagogy
Phillips, Kerri, SLP.D., CC-SLP. (2008). The resource room in special education. EBSCO
Research Starters,
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 25
Protigal, S. (2009).
Public law 94-142 – education of all handicapped children act. Retrieved 10/2011 from
http://www.scn.org/~bk269/94-142.html
Rathvon, N. P. D. (2006). DRA review. Retrieved 10/2011, 2011, from
http://natalierathvon.com/images/DRA_Review-08-25-2006.pdf
Saylor, K. (2004, Enjoying math through interactive approaches. Media and Methods, 40, 4-5.
Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Sturges, K., Caranikas-Walker, F., Huntsberger, B., & Maloney, C.
(2009). Evaluation of the texas technology immersion pilot: Final outcomes for a four-year
study (2004-05 to 2007-08).
Texas Education Agency. (2010). Technology immersion pilot (TIP). Retrieved 10/2011, 2011,
from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/technology/tip/
Texas Education Agency, (2010). The State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness
(STAAR) A New Assessment Model. Retrieved 10/2011, 2010, from
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/staar/
Vascellaro, J. E. (2006, 2006, August 31). Saying no to school laptops. Wall Street Journal, , D1.
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 26
Appendix
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1: Categories of Disabilities under IDEA
Table 1: Student Demographics
Table 2: Participants Placement
Figure 2: Fall DRA Level at a Glance
Table 3: Fall DRA Level Equivalents
Figure 3: TAKS to STAAR Simulation Scores Reading
Figure 4: TAKS to STAAR Simulation Scores Math
Figure 5: Math Unit Tests Objective 1
Figure 6: Math Unit Tests Objective 2
Figure 7: Math Unit Tests Objective 3
Figure 8: Math Unit Tests Objective 4
Figure 9: Math Unit Tests Objective 6
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 27
Figures 1: Categories of Disabilities under IDEA
Categories of Disabilities under IDEA
1. Autism 2. Deaf-Blindness 3. Deafness 4. Emotional Disturbance 5. Hearing Impairment 6. Intellectual Disability (Mental Retardation) 7. Multiple Disabilities 8. Orthopedic Impairment 9. Other Health Impairment 10. Specific Learning Disability 11. Speech or Language Impairment 12. Traumatic Brain Injury 13. Visual Impairment (including Blindness)
Adapted from NICHCY Web
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 28
Student Grade Gender Disability Related Service SES ESL
A 8 M AU, OHI (ADHD) Counseling N N
B 8 M AI None Y N
C 7 M ID, SI Occupational Therapy Y N
D 7 M LD (RC, LC, OE) None Y Y
E 7 F LD (MP, OE) None Y N
F 8 M AU, SI PASS Y N
G 6 M LD (BR,RC,RF,WE) None N Y
Disability: AU-Autism; OHI-Other Health Impairment; SI- Speech Impairment; LD-Learning Disability
Qualifying Areas of LD: BR-Basic Reading; RC-Reading Comprehension, RF-Reading Fluency; OE-Oral Expression, WE-Written
Expression, LC-Listening Comprehension, MC-Math Calculations, MP-Math Problem Solving
Table 1. Student Demographics
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 29
Student Grade Gender Educational Placement Type Resource Class
A 8 M 42-at least 21% & < 50% Reading & Math
B 8 M 42-at least 21% & < 50% Reading & Math
C 7 M 42-at least 21% & < 50% Reading & Math
D 7 M 42-at least 21% & < 50% Reading & Math
E 7 F 41-less than 21% Math
F 8 M 41-less than 21% Math
G 6 M 42-at least 21% & < 50% Reading & Math
Table 2. Participants’ Placement
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 30
80 80
70 70 70
80
60
50
42 39 40
46
40 37
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7
DRA Levels
Required Reading Level Fall DRA Level
Figure 2: Fall DRA Level at a Glance
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 31
Student Grade Required
Reading Level DRA Level Grade Equivalent
A 8 80 50 5th
grade
B 8 80 42 4th
grade mid-year
C 7 70 39 3rd
grade end of year
D 7 70 40 4th
grade beginning of year
E 7 70 46 4th
grade end of year
F 8 80 40 4th
grade beginning of year
G 6 60 37 3rd
grade end of year
Table 3: Fall DRA Level Equivalents
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 32
34%
76%
59% 59%
71% 68% 68%
48%
40% 44%
33%
47% 45% 44%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reading Assessments
Reading TAKS Score Reading STAAR Simulation Score
Figure 3: TAKS to STAAR simulation scores Reading
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 33
42%
55%
62%
76%
43%
79%
66%
36%
30% 34%
40%
23%
0%
22%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Math Assessment
Math TAKS Score Math STAAR simulation Score
Figure 4: TAKS to STAAR simulation scores Math
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 34
49%
36%
43%
55%
66%
44% 43%
48% 44%
0.10
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Average Mean St. Dev.
Math Unit Tests
Obj 1
Figure 5: Math Unit Test Objective 1
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 35
45%
53%
30%
96%
22%
37%
73%
51% 45%
0.26
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Average Mean St. Dev.
Math Unit Tests
Obj 2
Figure 6: Math Unit Test Objective 2
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 36
76%
31%
100% 100%
62% 65% 72% 71%
0.26
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Average Mean St. Dev.
Math Unit Tests
Obj 3
Figure 7: Math Unit Test Objective 3
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 37
72% 75%
0%
49%
72%
0.42
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Average Mean St. Dev.
Math Unit Tests
Obj 4
Figure 8: Math Unit Tests Objective 4
RESOURCE AND CMS TECHNOLOGY 38
0%
67%
50%
100% 100%
67% 64%
67%
0.37
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Average Mean St. Dev.
Math Unit Tests
Obj 6
Figure 9: Math Unit Test Objective 6