The author: Don Deshler, director, University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. A version of this article originally appeared in the January 2001 issue of Stratenotes, a newsletter for SIM Professional Developers.
In a large school district in the Northeast, school administrators recently concluded, after reviewing state assessment results, that the area of greatest need in their district was their ailing middle schools. Large percentages of the students are failing state tests, and they are clearly on the road to dropping out of school altogether. After one district administrator had read a journal article on some Strategic Instruction Model intervention research, she was convinced that this was exactly what her middle schools needed. In desperation, she called the Center for Research on Learning for help. As the discussion unfolded, it became clear that she wanted each of the teachers in the middle schools to be trained to use the interventions described in the article (in this case it was a set of learning strategy interventions)--and she wanted it done now! As schools are under increased pressure to respond to the growing challenges of low achievement, educators are in search of the "magic widget." As much as there isn't a Santa Claus or an Easter Bunny, neither is there a magic widget when it comes to dramatically affecting student achievement.
The reality is, it would be highly unlikely that training all of the teachers in those middle schools to use the strategies described in the article would result in the hoped for outcomes by that desperate school administrator. Why would that be? While we all probably know the answer to that question, it is well for all of us to be reminded that at least five factors are required to bring about meaningful, long-lasting change. The administrator who called the Center was talking about only one part of one of the factors listed below. As we talk with others about SIM, it is important that we keep these five factors foremost in mind.
Generally speaking, no one intervention within SIM is sufficiently powerful to put an at-risk student in a position to be successful in school. Similarly, if a school staff is trained in the use of only a limited number of interventions from SIM, many student needs will not be addressed across the school and the amount of change realized probably will fall far short of expectations. Thus, highly significant change within individual students and across entire schools only occurs when teachers are armed with numerous intervention strategies and procedures. Hence, within a school staff, different teachers should be prepared to use various learning strategies, content enhancement routines, cooperative strategies, etc. Only when teachers are armed with a broad array of interventions can meaningful gains be made for at-risk students. Again, no one intervention or even a small grouping of interventions is sufficient. Finally, in the selection of interventions, it is important to remember that other intervention strategies, besides SIM, have been validated and might be considered as a part of an overall intervention program. Remember, our goal is to improve student outcomes, including making students more independent. Anything that has a strong track record of research validation that can help educators meet this goal should be considered seriously.
If SIM is to have an effect on the performance of students, its implementation can't occur in a vacuum. In other words, the "right" kind of conditions must be present for teacher planning/coordination and for implementation. Teachers must be afforded sufficient time every week to plan what they are going to teach and plan how they are going to teach in a strategic fashion. In addition, teachers must have an opportunity to work with other teachers for the purpose of coordinating instruction across classes and settings to ensure that critical strategies and behaviors are prompted and reinforced. Student progress occurs when instruction is carefully orchestrated to be practiced and reinforced multiple times throughout the day.
The "right" kinds of conditions for implementation include such things as student/teacher ratios that enable students to have sufficient opportunities to practice and receive feedback on the skills or strategies they are trying to master. Additionally, it is critical that interventions be taught and reinforced across multiple classes throughout the course of the day. In short, effective SIM instruction does not occur unless the conditions are "right" for teachers to effectively plan, coordinate, and teach in a way that promotes intensive instruction across classes and teachers.
To meet the highly diverse needs of students who are at risk for failure, a well-designed and coordinated service delivery system that involves several settings and educators must be in place. Interestingly, the emphasis on inclusion in recent years has resulted in educators focusing on the general education classroom as the sole venue for service delivery to at-risk students. Clearly, the needs of a large proportion of students who are at risk (especially those with significant disabilities) necessitate a broader array of services than can be provided within the general education class. Thus, students need to have opportunities to receive intensive learning strategies instruction in a setting in which the teacher/student ratio is small. The service delivery system that has emerged from the work of KU-CRL is referred to as the Supported Inclusion Model. It is a service delivery system in which many at-risk students are enrolled in general education classes while their work in those classes is supported through a variety of mechanisms. This service delivery system consists of three components:
(see Hock, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1999).
The system has been designed in such a way that the instructional goals and strengths of each professional and his or her role relative to educating students who are at risk for failure have been taken into account.
Most importantly, professional development must be viewed as a continuous process in which everyone in the school engages. Instead of participating in "one-shot" sessions about a variety of topics, teachers need to participate in a planned sequence of learning sessions that pertain to them and their roles in the educational mission. The professional development sequence must involve at least four phases:
Additionally, teachers must be given the materials they need to support their instruction (for example, progress charts, lessons, and supplementary materials). Those materials need to be organized and ready to use. Teachers must be afforded opportunities to meet together regularly as support teams for the purpose of reviewing the new methods, sharing ideas, and solving problems. They must develop a set of policies and procedures for ensuring the efficient delivery and management of instruction. They must be provided specific, immediate feedback on the effectiveness of their implementation of a newly learned instructional procedure by showing them videotapes of their performance and discussing that performance. Finally, professional development sessions must be conducted within a new paradigm that Jim Knight of the KU-CRL has developed founded on the notion of Partnership Learning (Eisler, 2000), a method for planning and delivering professional development sessions in which meaningful conversations take a central role. Partnership Learning embodies several core principles, including equality, choice, dialogue, praxis, and voice.
School administrators play a key role in ensuring that each of the factors described above takes place. They can put the weight of their office behind the implementation of each factor in a variety of ways. First, they can ensure that funds are appropriated for the needed staff who will be involved in the service delivery system and for the needed professional development sequences, and they can set priorities and restructure how their budget is spent. Second, they can ensure that research-based interventions are the focus of professional development activities, they can structure the professional development sequence, and they can attend all professional development activities. Third, they can take an active role as instructional leaders by visiting classrooms, taking part in support team meetings, insisting that interventions be implemented, and ensuring that each staff member is accountable for student outcomes. Finally, they can help staff specify and maintain their roles within the service delivery system and document policies and procedures for institutionalizing components of the service delivery system.
Can SIM come to the rescue of students or schools that are falling far short of expectations? It can if the five factors are in place. However, if these factors are not in place, the chances are very remote. One of the most important roles that we as professional developers play is to help those who want SIM training to understand the five factors listed above. A failure to do so is to set them up for failure because SIM won't be a part of the hoped for solution.
Eisler, R. (2000). Tomorrow's children: A blueprint for partnership in the 21st century. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hock, M. F., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1999). Closing the gap to success in secondary schools: A model for cognitive apprenticeship. In S. Graham, K. R. Harris, & M. Pressley (Series Eds.) & D. D. Deshler, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham. (Vol. Eds.), Advances in teaching and learning, Teaching Every Child Every Day: Learning in Diverse Middle and High School Classrooms, (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Return to Article Archive
