Categories
- 2008 Conference (1)
- Accessibility (37)
- Assessment (1)
- Assistive Technology (73)
- Commercialization (44)
- Disability (1)
- Education (116)
- Implementation (71)
- Leadership (9)
- News (85)
- Research (30)
- Technology Transfer (9)
- Universal Design [UD] (20)
- Videos (18)
- I Can Soar Video (13)
Documenting the Impact of Project SOLO on Writing Outcomes
Tags:Case Studies, Collaboration, Innovators, NCTI Technology in the Works, ResearchClassroom Teachers as Researchers
The researchers at the SEAT Center, (Peterson-Karlan, Parette, and Brian Wojcik), had previously established a collaborative relationship with the HILIA in central Illinois. Peterson-Karlan was a regular member of the professional development planning committee, had provided professional development directly to the schools, and worked closely with schools to find high-quality student teacher placements for Illinois States’ 200 student teachers each year. This relationship had been beneficial to both entities for a number of years, and this research project created the opportunity for the relationship to take on a new dimension – involving classroom teachers as participant researchers.
Tech in the Works funding provided a missing piece—hard-to-find support for stipends. This allowed experienced teacher leaders to collaborate with the researchers as instruments, professional development, and implementation of the research was being designed. The teacher leaders then coached their peers during implementation, offering troubleshooting support and an interface with the goals of the study. As the data was collected, teacher leaders again collaborated with the researchers to assist in the scoring of the writing samples, therby providing valuable reliability and face validity to the findings.
This involvement with the schools and teachers added the benefit of working with teachers who were already tech-savvy. The teacher participants were members of a User Group, a professional development community of practice moderated by researchers at the SEAT Center, and had received prior training on technology implementation and coordination with the curriculum. Peterson-Karlan noted that he couldn’t underscore enough that the assistive and learning technology field should now be at a place where teachers can use the technology in ways that allow for more complex and extensive implementation and research efforts.
Ben Johnston, Product Manager at Don Johnston, also reiterated the importance of conducting research on AT with tech-savvy teachers, saying, “In many research studies teachers receive no training before they get the tool, so the implementation or adoption is questionable in terms of the outcomes. When you have teachers who are adept at implementing tools, they will go about it in a way to prepare the students that best approximates real-world implementation.”
Extending the Research Base
Peterson-Karlan conducted an extensive literature review in the summer of 2005 that revealed that there had not been a study that directly evaluated the effect of technology in improving writing skills. The researchers at ISU were eager to explore this important and seemingly untouched topic and add to the research base in assistive technology outcomes. Peterson-Karlan and Wojcik developed a research design that combined quantitative achievement with the Six Plus One Writing Rubric that focuses on more qualitative achievement, resulting in data speaking directly to the following elements:
- word production,
- spelling,
- punctuation and capitalization,
- sentence accuracy and length,
- voice, tone, and style qualities, and
- attititude toward writing.
|
|
Moreover, they designed a Concurrent Time Series Measurement design. This design gave the researchers two different ways to look at student achievement. They gathered data at three different sampling times through the school year each with three conditions: without any technology (handwritten), with general word processing technology, and with the use of assistive technology (SOLO®). The probes evaluated the effects of AT on students’ abilities to complete key aspects of the writing process (prewriting and organization, production of a draft, and editing and revising the draft). Each student served as his or her own control in the three conditions. The following table (see Final Report, pg. 8) shows the technology supports used for each of the three conditions:
The results of the study, therefore, are strikingly detailed findings of students’ performance without technology supports, with general technology and with assistive technology.
The Time Frame Dilemma
While the relatively small award served their purposes, the constraints on time did not; the team had not yet completed their research in mid-January. Originally, the Tech in the Works timeline ran from proposals due at the end of June, 2006 to awards announced in July through a six-month research project, preliminary findings to be reported at the November, 2006 NCTI conference and at the Assistive Technology Industry Association conference in January, 2007 with final reports due in February. This tight timeline was emphasized in order to highlight the great need for research that could be completed in time to impact tool development or refinement. The mismatch of research and development timelines has been a major finding of NCTI’s stakeholder research over the past several years.
Peterson-Karlan reflected that a research project of this nature and scope – with three probes taken at least six weeks apart – implemented during the school year would require at least a six month span. Ideally, the researchers thought a cycle should start with a May award, enabling researchers to train teachers over the summer. However, there would be an inevitable pause in September as teachers coordinated classes and arranged student releases. If projects began in mid-to-late October, researchers and teachers would have only six weeks of time before the end of the year, given holiday schedules.
As with other Tech in the Works awards implemented in school settings as part of the curriculum, this timeline was unworkable. Observations of technology use in classrooms proved possible in some Tech in the Works awards, but instructional implementation with professional development required more time during the school year.
Screenshot of SOLO® Software
On Collaboration and the Future
Don Johnston, Inc. thought it was important to allow the research to be conducted independently to ensure the fidelity of the research. On this study, they offered one day of training and donated the SOLO® software to the schools. After the training, the research unfolded without their involvement.
Ruth Ziolkowski, President of Don Johnston, Inc., says, “This distance gives us results that would mirror the situation typically seen in schools and districts. It was hard to wait for the results but we are also very appreciative of the care of the design and implementation of this research.”
The real collaboration opportunities are ahead of the researcher-vendor team. Don Johnston, Inc. only recently received a presentation of the data from Peterson-Karlan and are “wowed” by the depth and breadth of the data.
George Peterson-Karlan expressed his excitement at taking a more in-depth look at the results of the study in the future and disaggregating the data. “In the future, we’ll look at determining why certain effects occur. Further analysis is needed on what happens with the most struggling writers.”
Don Johnston plans to publish professional development materials out of another NCTI Tech in the Works award made to Karen Erickson and her team at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. The team studied the effects of professional development on writing strategies plus access to SOLO® software on student writing (click here to view full report). Don Johnston hopes to be able to publish materials for schools based on this research as well. Ben Johnston reflected, “I’d like to see whole districts replicate this study and create their own research. We may be able to help other districts put elements of the design in place [by providing guides, form, and procedures]. Those districts that do collect data create a lot of credibility for their administrative decisions on the effectiveness of technology.”
When asked how the data might inform their product development, Ziolkowski commented that preliminarily, she was thinking about the progress monitoring features implemented in the SOLO® package. “WriteOutloud has progress monitoring information embedded into it for individual student data, but now we are looking at implementing reporting on classes and schools. I believe the entire system of assistive technology evaluations could be shifted if we had formative data for all our students. We could identify kids [who need remediation] more proactively. I think so much time is spent evaluating students that we run out of time for teacher and student training, classroom mentoring and modeling, and implementation. Embedded assessment tools could make these tools part of a formative assessment and instruction solution.”
While the data analysis will continue, the researchers and the vendor team are very excited about the study’s preliminary findings. They plan to work more closely on practical applications of the results for future product development and implementation.
Cameos of Featured Collaborators
GEORGE PETERSON-KARLAN, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Special Education at Illinois State University. He previously served as a special education administrator with the Fort Wayne (IN) Community Schools (1997-2002) where he coordinated the Assistive Technology Services team and co-led the Autism Support Team. Dr. Peterson-Karlan previously served on the faculties of University of Illinois (1987-81) and Purdue University (1981-1997) where he developed the first university courses at both the undergraduate and graduate levels in AT offered in Indiana.
PHIL PARETTE, Ed.D., completed an Ed.D. degree in Special Education (Multidisabilities) from the University of Alabama in 1982. In 2003, he was appointed the Kara Peters Endowed Chair in Assistive Technology and Professor at Illinois State University. Dr. Parette has published more than 200 scholarly works since 1982, with the preponderance of his work in the field of assistive technology (AT). In recent years, his work has focused on cross-cultural AT applications.
RUTH ZIOLKOWSKI received her Bachelor of Science Degree in Occupational Therapy in 1985 from University of Illinois. Early in her career she worked with augmentative communication and assistive technology as an occupational therapist. She received her MBA from the Keller Graduate School of Management in 1987. Ziolkowski, President and Proprietor of Don Johnston Incorporated, began working with the company in 1987 and is proud to celebrate Don Johnston’s more than 25 years of success.
BEN JOHNSTON received his Bachelor’s Degrees in Psychology and Marketing from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. His studies in psychology focused on child development and human motivation. Over the past four years he has developed new products, coordinated educational research, and led communication campaigns for Don Johnston Incorporated.
For More Information
