Learning Curriculum in Calculus and

Chemistry
1

for Undergraduate Students

with Learning and Attention Disabilities
RDE-DEI Grant #0726664

Christine Street, J.D., LL.M. and David R.

Parker, Ph.D.
Washington University in St. Louis
Joint Annual Meeting (JAM) of RDE
Investigators and Project Teams - June 18,
2008
 Mastery PLTL (MPLTL)
2
Project Goal
 Overall Goal of Grant Project - Develop and evaluate
supports that can enhance the academic proficiency and
retention of WU undergraduates with learning
disabilities (LD) and/or Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD) in science, technology, engineering, or
mathematics (STEM) coursework.
 Our Mission – Cornerstone: The Center for Advanced
Learning was established to help ensure the academic
success of all undergraduates. Its formation represents
a strong institutional commitment to excellence in
academic student support services, which includes the
provision of services to students with disabilities.
 Students with LD/ADHD - Of the 321 undergraduates
currently registered with Disability Resources, 59% have
a diagnosis of LD and/or ADHD.
 Rationale for MPLTL
3
Project
 Migration - Fall 2005 to Spring 2007: Large number of
students who initially declared interest in a STEM major
changed to a non-STEM discipline after disappointing
academic performances. Migration rate for all WU
undergraduates (40%); students with disabilities (55%).
 Academic Success – Final Grade of “C+” or Below in
Course
STEM Courses Class Students with
Chemistry Average
40% Disabilities
50%
111A 1
Calculus 20% 25%

 Impact of PLTL - Fall 2005 to Spring 2007: Students

with disabilities who participated in PLTL earned a
course GPA average of 2.68 (n = 26). Students with
disabilities who took the same STEM courses but did not
 PLTL
4
Model
 The PLTL model was developed by a consortium consisting of
City College of New York, New York City Technical College, St.
Xavier University, and University of Rochester.
www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~chemwksp/index.html
 WU’s PLTL was introduced in General Chemistry in 2001; since
then, it has been expanded to General Physics and courses in
the Calculus sequence.
 Unlike most campuses, WU makes PLTL participation optional.
 The PLTL model consists of study groups containing 6-8
students facilitated by a student (peer) leader who has close
interaction with the instructor of the class. The purpose of the
PLTL model is to accomplish the following goals:
 To teach undergraduates how to effectively use group study
 To improve students’ problem-solving skills
 To provide facilitated help for students
 PLTL Model  MPLTL
5
Project
 What Did We Change?

 MPLTL Sessions (Chemistry 112A, Calculus 3)

 Training of Peer Leaders (Principles of Universal Design for
Instruction; Learners with LD/ADHD)
 http://www.facultyware.uconn.edu/
 Pairing of Peer Leaders (Community of Learners; Weekly
observations)
 MPLTL Group Composition (sections for students with
LD/ADHD only)

 Addition of Academic Coaching Seminar

 Strategy Instruction and Coaching
 Increased Knowledge about LD/ADHD Issues and Peers’
Experiences
 PLTL Model  MPLTL
6
Project
 Why Make These Adaptations?

 Create a more universally accessible MPLTL environment

 Promote students’ development of content-specific learning
strategies and self-regulatory skills to address difficulties with
executive functioning
 Facilitate peer leaders’ creation/use of “templates”
 Template: “Any tool or strategy that enhances students’
understanding, retention, or application of course concepts,
formulas, or procedures.”
 Pilot the development of training procedures and educational
products that could be tested in a larger study.
Spring 2008 Overview
7

 Student (Participant) Information

 20 students (LD/ADHD) enrolled in CHEM 112A, CALC 233

 Total of 586 students registered for these two courses:

 SAT Math Average (740); ACT Composite (32); no

differences due to disability
 Cumulative GPA of students in both courses (3.27); GPA of
students with disabilities (2.9)
 8 participated in MPLTL:

 CHEM 112A (5 out of 17)

 CALC 233 (3 out of 3)
 Demographic Information about 20 students with disabilities:

 Race/ethnicity: 2 African-American, 15 Caucasian, 1

Hispanic, 2 Not Reported
 Gender: 4 female, 16 male
Spring 2008 Interventions
8

 MPLTL Sessions
 11 weekly sessions (Sundays 3:00 to 5:00)

 Peer leaders submitted weekly observation notes

 Peer leaders attended weekly Peer Leader Seminar

 Project Manager often joined by content experts

 Ongoing training and support
 Creation of templates (videotaped, written products)

 Academic Coaching Seminar

 12 weekly sessions (Wednesdays 4:00 to 5:00)

 Modeling and practicing of new strategies, present coaching

techniques
 Enhancement of disability awareness

 Informal opportunities for peer exchange of challenges and

supports
Spring 2008 Products
Created
9

 MPLTL Sessions
 Training workshop, weekly activities

 7 “self-talk” videos, 10 written templates to date

 Generation of formal, informal data

 Academic Coaching Seminar

 Seminar syllabus, instructional materials

 LASSI online pre- and post-test scores

 mpltl.org website
 Primary dissemination site

 To register:
http://www.mpltl.org/index.php?option=com_user&task=regis
ter
 Spring 2008 Findings
(Quantitative)
10

 Persistence in STEM
 All 20 students with LD and/or ADHD successfully completed
the courses regardless of MPLTL participation. In Chemistry
112A, 42 students withdrew from the course (approximately
10%). In Calculus 233, only one student withdrew from the
course.
 16 of the 20 students are registered to continue in STEM
courses as of this date; four students have not registered for
courses as yet. In recent years, nearly one-third of WU
students migrated out of STEM fields.
 Academic Success
 Final course grades reiterate success of CALC participants and
Grades
the persistence (asClass Non-MPLTL
well as academic needs) MPLTL
of CHEM
CHEM 112A Average
2.69 2.34 1.72
participants.
CALC 233 2.78 N/A 3.2
 Spring 2008 Findings
(Qualitative)
11

 Two Focus Groups

 Conducted by Assistant Director of Evaluation

 MPLTL participants (3 in Chemistry 112A, 2 in Calculus 233);

Non-MPLTL participants (3).
 Explored STEM barriers, decision-making factors, MPLTL
experiences
 Themes
1) STEM courses are often more challenging than other courses
for all students.
2) Divergent views about impact of LD/ADHD on STEM
outcomes/majors.
3) Limited strategies for recognizing need for academic
assistance in STEM courses.
4) Students utilize individualized methods, however, to obtain
this assistance.
 Students’ Perspectives
12
(STEM)
 [STEM courses] are not up to interpretation to a large
extent, whereas a philosophy course where your opinion is
used [is]. It’s a lot easier to use semantics and other
techniques to get around what you are supposed to do.
STEM courses tend to be black and white…and [I’m] now
trying to adjust to those different restrictions so I feel like
it’s a lot harder to BS.
 In high school they drew on the board, in college they tend
to use slides. They don’t draw on the board and the
drawing on the board actually explains it and follows the
process it shows. Whereas with slides it’s really hard to
see the order that something happens [in] and so it’s a lot
harder to follow.
 So far this year I’ve had more issues or problems attending
lecture. I can monitor how well I’m doing in a class by how
often I go to lecture. If I miss two weeks in Calc I know I
have a lot of work to do in Calc.
 Students’ Perspectives
13
(MPLTL)
 I think for me [MPLTL] gets me to think a little bit about
math before Monday or I find myself forgetting about it and
not remembering last week’s work. It’s also a great forum
to ask questions you fundamentally don’t understand. To
really clarify fundamental questions in Calc that I wouldn’t
ask otherwise or I wouldn’t seek out; I figure I’ll ask the
questions in MPLTL.

 The biggest problem was that I needed time to keep up

with other activities and classes. There wasn’t enough
time to attend. If it had been offered for credit, I would
have made it a greater priority.

 The [Academic Coaching Seminar] was a bit elementary as

well. It would have helped to be more focused on specific
skills such as test taking, studying skills, and
reinforcement. Just being more practical would be a big
help.
 Next Steps
14

 Summer 2008
 Finalize remaining data analysis (LASSI, MPLTL course
evaluations)
 Establish Academic Coaching Seminar as 1 credit course

 Actively recruit Fall ’08 participants

 Hire additional Peer Leaders

 Refine Peer Leader Seminar topics, Academic Coaching

Seminar content
 Present current findings at AHEAD ’08 conference

 Develop qualitative manuscript

 Fall 2008
 Replicate project’s interventions (MPLTL sessions, Academic
Coaching Seminar)
 Study use of “self-talk” videos (proficient problem solving)