6.6: Embedding Evidence-Based Practices within CAPs
- Page ID
- 57859
While Mayer’s model provides the roadmap for considering and designing the looks and sounds of instruction, it offers no guidance in terms of the substance of the content to be delivered. Therefore, CAPs must draw from a menu of EBPs for vocabulary instruction depending on the term or concept being taught. A menu containing EBPs that make particular sense for inclusion within the CAP model for vocabulary instruction is presented in Table 6.6.1. It is important to note that more is not necessarily better when it comes to including EBPs within CAPs. Instead, logical choices supported by the term/concept, the meaning, and how much information students need to know should drive decision-making. To illustrate, it might make sense when teaching the term biodegradable to explicitly teach students about the prefix bio-, the root word degrade, the suffix -able, to give an example and non-example of the term, and to define the term using a student-friendly definition attached to an anchor image. In addition, it would make sense to create CAPs for other terms being taught in this unit such as biodiversity, recycling, and conservation.
Review and Select Relevant Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs) Choose from this menu of vocabulary instruction EBPs that make sense for the term being taught, given its content-specific meaning and students’ learning needs. (Note: This list is not exhaustive.) |
|
---|---|
✓ | Evidence-based practices |
Semantic feature analysis and mapping (Ebbers & Denton, 2008) | |
Explicit instruction, using examples/non-examples, student-friendly definitions, explicit language (Archer & Hughes, 2011) | |
Keyword mnemonic strategy (Mastropieri, Berkeley, & Graetz, 2010) | |
Word ID strategy (Lenz & Hughes, 1990) | |
Morphemic awareness & analysis (Reed, 2008) | |
Using instructional technology including visuals (Xin & Rieth, 2001) | |
Graphic organizers (Dexter, Park, & Hughes, 2011) | |
Content enhancements (Deshler & Shumaker, 2006) | |
Anchored instruction (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990) |
Table 6.6.2 provides a worksheet teachers and other educators can use to plan the content of CAPs before bringing them to life with Mayer’s instructional design principles. Some recommendations to help guide teachers planning to create CAPs include the following:
- Take a bank of vocabulary terms for a unit and practice matching them to EBPs that would be appropriate given student needs and the features of the term.
- Write a script for the CAP in advance and share with a colleague.
- Justify selection of EBPs during a planning meeting with teammates, including other special educators or general-education teachers.
To operationalize these recommendations, Table 6.6.3 is a functional score sheet an instructor can use to evaluate a CAP’s use of EBPs within the video. Kennedy et al. (2014) used this score sheet in a recent study in which teacher candidates were taught how to make CAPs; the products were evaluated using this, and the rubric of Mayer’s principles noted in Table 6.4.1.
Term/Concept: Fancy Definition: Student-Friendly Definition:
|
||||
Term | Similarity One: | Similarity Two: | Difference One: | Difference Two: |
|
Name: | Term/Concept: | |||
Preteaching/Word choice | Y | N | Notes | |
Word choice is appropriate for content | ||||
Word choice is appropriate for grade/skill level | ||||
Provides rationale for word selection | ||||
Background knowledge is provided for word | ||||
Puts word in context | ||||
Explains how word connects to class content | ||||
Word is pronounced correctly | ||||
Word is sounded out and pronounced by syllable | ||||
Definition | ||||
Provides formal definition | ||||
Provides student friendly definition | ||||
Definition given at beginning | ||||
Definition given at end | ||||
Definition repeated | ||||
Multiple definitions provided | ||||
Compared to definition of known words | ||||
Teaching Behaviors | ||||
Uses explicit language | ||||
Uses examples | ||||
Uses non-examples | ||||
Provides opportunities to practice | ||||
Breaks instruction into manageable chunks | ||||
Connections to known words | ||||
Evidence-based Practices: Select which practice is used and fill out the chart for that practice | ||||
1. Semantic Feature Analysis | ||||
Characteristics identified | ||||
Characteristics defined | ||||
Other terms given | ||||
Comparisons made | ||||
Concluding statement | ||||
2. Keyword Mnemonic | ||||
Keyword given | ||||
Keyword appropriate | ||||
Interaction given | ||||
Retrieval steps given | ||||
Retrieval practiced | ||||
Definition practiced | Number of times? | |||
3. Word ID/morphemic analysis | ||||
Correct root word identified | ||||
Correct root word defined | ||||
Correct prefix identified | ||||
Correct prefix defined | ||||
Correct suffix identified | ||||
Correct suffix defined | ||||
Root, prefix, suffix stated together with definition | ||||
Retrieval/definition practiced | Number of times: | |||
4. Graphic organizer/content enhancement | ||||
Appropriate GO/CE device chosen | ||||
GO/CE presented | ||||
Each component of GO/CE taught | ||||
Each component of GO/CE reviewed | ||||
Retrieval practice | How many times? | |||
5. Anchored instruction | ||||
Appropriate anchor chosen | ||||
Critical components of anchor identified | ||||
Critical components of anchor explained | ||||
Critical components of term identified | ||||
Critical components of term explained | ||||
Term and anchor explicitly compared | ||||
Retrieval practice | How many times? | |||
6. Other | ||||
What practice? | Name the practice: | |||
Is the practice used correctly? |