|
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
| 
