IES Blog

Institute of Education Sciences

Updates on Research Center Efforts to Increase Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility

As we begin a new school year, NCER and NCSER wanted to share with our community some of the work we have been doing—and are seeking to do more of—in relationship to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). We plan to provide occasional updates via this blog to share progress and keep the conversations going.  

Actions on Diversity

At the end of 2020, IES convened a Technical Working Group (TWG) to get feedback on ways that the research centers could improve our investments focused on DEIA. Under the leadership of Drs. Katina Stapleton and Christina Chhin, we convened a stellar panel that participated in a robust conversation. That conversation and the recommendations from the panel are available in this summary document. We are already implementing some of the recommendations and wanted to share steps that we have taken and our plans for next steps to advance DEIA in IES-funded research.

  1. One of the first steps that we took in response to the TWG recommendations was to take a close look at our Requests for Applications (RFAs), identify potential barriers to applicants from underrepresented groups, and revise and/or add language that more clearly articulated our commitment to DEIA, both in terms of those that conduct the research and in the populations studied. These changes were reflected in our FY 2022 RFAs, and we will continue to revise and improve our application materials.
  2. IES has been committed to building expertise among a broad range of scholars in the education sciences for nearly two decades. The TWG noted, however, that there is a pressing need to provide funds for early career investigators who may be working at MSIs, teaching-intensive institutions, and/or at institutions with limited opportunities for research mentorship. In response, IES launched an Early Career Mentoring for Faculty at MSIs research program. This new program extends our FY 2016 training investment in MSIs that we recompeted in FY 2021: the Pathways to the Education Sciences Training program. This program is designed to encourage undergraduate, post-baccalaureate, and masters-level students in groups that are historically underrepresented in doctoral education to pursue graduate study relevant to education research. Currently, there are seven IES-funded Pathways training programs in the United States, hosted by minority serving institutions (MSIs) and their partners. We are excited to see who applied in this first round of the Early Career Mentoring program and anticipate investing in this program in FY 2023 and beyond.  
  3. The TWG also recommended that IES intentionally reach out to the MSI community to ensure that they know about the opportunities available at IES. We held our first such event since the TWG on September 7, 2021, where IES hosted a virtual listening session at HBCU week. More than 250 scholars attended that session and provided valuable feedback on barriers to HBCU-based researchers applying for research funding from IES. We are in the process of scheduling additional listening sessions with other communities of researchers to provide more opportunities for input from diverse stakeholders and underrepresented groups.
  4. The TWG also recommended that IES take a deeper look at the demographic and institutional data of applicants to our grants programs to identify which groups of researchers and institutions are underrepresented. Data indicate that the percentage of applications received from MSIs between 2013 and 2020 was very small—4% of applications to NCER and 1% to NCSER. Of those applications that were funded, 10% of NCER’s awards were made to MSIs and none of NCSER’s awards were made to MSIs. IES reviewed the demographic information FY 2021 NCER and NCSER grant applicants and awardees voluntarily submitted, and among those who reported their demographic information, we found the following:
    • Gender (response rate of approximately 82%) - The majority of the principal investigators that applied for (62%) and received funding (59%) from IES identified as female.
    • Race (response rate of approximately 75%) - The majority of principal investigators that applied for (78%) and received funding (88%) from IES identified as White, while 22% of applicants and 13% of awardees identified as non-White or multi-racial.
    • Ethnicity (response rate of approximately 72%) - The majority of principal investigators that applied for (95%) and received funding (97%) identified as non-Hispanic.
    • Disability (response rate of approximately 70%) - The majority of principal investigators that applied for (97%) and received funding (96%) identified as not having a disability.

These data underscore the need for IES to continue to broaden and diversify the education research pipeline, including institutions and researchers, and better support the needs of underrepresented researchers in the education community. However, tracking our progress has proven to be a challenge. Responding to the demographic survey was voluntary so a significant number of applicants chose not to respond to particular questions. We strongly encourage all our grant applicants to respond to the demographic survey so that we will be better able to track our progress in improving diversity in our grant programs.

Addressing Misconceptions that Limit Diversity in IES Applicants

TWG panel members and attendees at the HBCU session highlighted a series of misconceptions that the education sciences community holds about the funding process at IES and recommended that IES identify communication strategies to address these misconceptions. IES hears that message loud and clear and wants to address at least a few of those misconceptions here.

Myth: IES only funds randomized controlled trials, limiting the range of researchers and institutions that can be competitive for IES grants.

Reality: IES funds a range of research, including measurement work, exploratory research, intervention development and testing, and efficacy and replication studies. We also fund a wide range of methods, including various experimental and quasi-experimental designs and mixed methods that combine quantitative and qualitative methods.

Myth: IES doesn’t support course buyout or summer salary.

Reality: IES supports grant personnel time to carry out research related activities. This can include course buyout and summer salary. Principal investigators on grants coordinate their budget planning with sponsored projects officers to ensure that their budgets comply with institutional guidelines as well as federal guidelines.

Myth: IES program officers are too busy to help novice applicants.

Reality: Because IES program officers are not involved in the peer review of applications, they can provide in-depth technical assistance and advice throughout the application process. They can even review drafts of proposals prior to submission! IES program officers can be your best resource in helping you submit a competitive grant proposal.

 

If you’d like to learn more about DEIA at IES, please see our Diversity Statement. You can also subscribe to our Newsflash and follow us on Twitter (@IESResearch) for announcements of future listening sessions. Please send any feedback or suggestions to NCER.Commissioner@ed.gov (National Center for Education Research) or NCSER.Commissioner@ed.gov (National Center for Special Education Research). Also, watch this blog over the next few months to read about the wide range of IES grantees and fellows from diverse backgrounds and career paths. Next up is our Hispanic Heritage Month (Sept. 15-Oct. 15, 2021) blog series.


Christina Chhin (Christina.Chhin@ed.gov), Katina Stapleton (Katina.Stapleton@ed.gov), and Katie Taylor (Katherine.Taylor@ed.gov) assisted Commissioners Albro and McLaughlin in writing this blog.

Perspective Matters: How Diversity of Background, Expertise, and Cognition Can Lead to Good Science

IES funds cutting-edge researchers who often bring multiple disciplines together. Dr. Maithilee Kunda (Vanderbilt University) is one such researcher who stands at the juncture of multiple fields, using artificial intelligence (AI) to address questions related to cognition and autism spectrum disorder. Recently, Dr. Kunda received an award from the National Center for Special Education Research to develop an educational game that leverages AI to help students with autism spectrum disorder better infer and understand the beliefs, desires, and emotions of others. As a computer scientist and woman of color performing education research, Dr. Kunda exemplifies the value that diverse backgrounds, experiences, and disciplines bring to the field.

Bennett Lunn, a Truman-Albright Fellow at IES, asked Dr. Kunda about her work and background. Her responses are below.

As a woman of color, how have your background and experiences shaped your scholarship and career?

Photo of Dr. Maithilee Kunda

In college, I was a math major on the theory track, which meant that my math classes were really hard! I had been what one might call a “quick study” in high school, so it was a new experience for me to be floating around the bottom quartile of each class. The classes were mostly men, but it happened that there was a woman of color in our cohort—an international student from Colombia—and she was flat-out brilliant. She would ask the professor a question that no one else even understood, but the professor’s eyes would light up, and the two of them would start having some animated and incomprehensible discussion about whatever “mathy” thing it was. That student’s presence bestowed upon me a valuable gift: the ability to assume, without even thinking twice, that women of color quite naturally belong in math and science, even at the top of the heap! I don’t even remember her name, but I wish I could shake her hand. She was a role model for me and for every other student in those classes just by being who she was and doing what she did.

I have been extremely lucky to have seen diverse scientists and academics frequently throughout my career. My very first computer science teacher in high school was a woman. At a high school science camp, my engineering professor was a man who walked with two forearm crutches. Several of my college professors in math, chemistry, and robotics were women. My favorite teaching assistant in a robotics class was a Black man. In graduate school, I remember professors and senior students who were women, LGBTQ people, and people of color. Unfortunately, I know that the vast majority of students do not have access to such a wealth of diverse role models. It is heartening, though, that even a single role model—just by showing up—has so much power to positively shape the perceptions of everyone who sees them in their rightful place, be it in STEM, academia, or whatever context they inhabit.

What got you interested in a career in education science?

I read a lot of science fiction and fantasy growing up, and in high school, I was wrestling with why I liked these genres so much. I came up with a pet theory about fiction writing. All works of fiction are like extended thought experiments; the author sets up some initial conditions—characters, setting, etc.—and they run the experiment via writing about it. In general fiction, the experiments mostly involve variables at the people scale. In sci-fi and fantasy, on the other hand, authors are trying to run experiments at civilization or planetary scales, and that’s why they have to create whole new worlds to write about. I realized that was why I loved those genres so much: they allowed me to think about planetary-scale experiments! 

This “what if” mindset has continued to weave itself throughout my scholarship and career.

How did it ever become possible for humans to imagine things that don’t exist? Why do some people think differently from others, and how can we redesign the workings of our societies to make sure that everyone is supported, enriched, and empowered to contribute to their fullest potential? These kinds of questions fuel my scientific passions and have led me to pursue a variety of research directions on visual thinking, autism, AI, and education.

How does your research contribute to a better understanding of the importance of neurodiversity and inclusion in education?

Early in graduate school, and long before I heard the term neurodiversity, the first big paper I wrote was a re-analysis of several research studies on cognition in autism. This research taught me there can be significant individual variation in how people think. Even if 99 other people with similar demographic characteristics happen to solve a problem one particular way, that does not mean that the hundredth person from the same group is also going to solve the problem that way.

I realized much later that this research fits very well into the idea of neurodiversity, which essentially observes that atypical patterns of thinking should be viewed more as differences than as being inherently wrong or inadequate. Like any individual characteristics you have, the way you think brings with it a particular set of strengths and weaknesses, and different kinds of thinking come with different strengths and weaknesses.

Much of my team’s current research is a continuation of this theme. For example, in one project, we are developing new methods for assessing spatial skills that dig down into the processes people use to solve problems. This view of individual differences is probably one that teachers know intuitively from working one-on-one with students. One of the challenges for today’s education research is to continue to bring this kind of intuitive expertise into our research studies to describe individual differences more systematically across diverse learner populations.

In your area of research, what do you see as the greatest research needs or recommendations to address diversity and equity and improve the relevance of education research for diverse communities of students and families?

For the past 3 years, I have been leading an IES project to create a new educational game called Film Detective to help students with autism spectrum disorder improve their theory of mind (ability to take another’s perspective) and social reasoning skills. This was my first experience doing research on an interactive application of this kind. I was a newcomer to the idea of participatory design, which basically means that instead of just designing for some particular group of users, you bring their voices in as active contributors early in the design process. Our amazing postdoc Dr. Roxanne Rashedi put together a series of early studies using participatory methods, so we had the opportunity to hear directly from middle schoolers on the spectrum, their parents, and their teachers about what they needed and wanted to see in this kind of technology.

In one of these studies, we had students try out a similar education game and then give us feedback. One young man, about 11 or 12 years old, got frustrated in the middle of the session and had a bit of a meltdown. After he calmed down, we asked him about the game and what he would like to see taught in similar games. He told us that he would really like some help in learning how to handle his frustration better so that he could avoid having those kinds of meltdowns. Impressed by his self-awareness and courage in talking to us about his personal challenges, we ended up designing a whole new area in our game called the Relaxatron arcade. This is where students can play mini-games that help them learn about strategies for self-regulation, like deep breathing or meditation. This whole experience reinforced for me the mindset of participatory design: we are all on a team—researchers, students, parents, and teachers—working collaboratively to find new solutions for education.

We are also proud to work with Vanderbilt’s Frist Center for Autism and Innovation to make our research more inclusive and participatory. One of the many excellent programs run by this center is a software internship program for college students or recent graduates on the spectrum. This summer, we are pleased to be welcoming three Frist Center interns who will be helping us on our Film Detective project.

What has been the biggest challenge you have encountered and how did you overcome the challenge?

Throughout my career, I seem to have gravitated towards questions that not many other people are asking, using methods that not many other people are using. For example, I am a computer scientist who studies autism. My research investigates visual thinking, but not vision. I work in AI, but mostly in areas out of the mainstream.

I get a lot of personal and intellectual satisfaction out of my research, but I do face some steep challenges that I believe are common for researchers working in not-so-mainstream areas. For instance, it is sometimes harder to get our papers published in the big AI conferences because our work does not always follow standard patterns for how studies are designed and implemented. And I do experience my share of impostor syndrome (feeling unqualified for your job even when you are performing well) and FOMO (fear of missing out), especially when I come across some trendy paper that already has a thousand citations in 3 months and I think to myself, “Why am I not doing that? Should I be doing that?”

I try to remember to apply the very lessons that my research has produced, and I am fortunate to have friends and colleagues who help lift me out of self-doubt. I actively remind myself about the importance to our species of having diverse forms of thinking and how my own individual view of things is a culmination of my unique lifetime of educational and intellectual experiences. That particular perspective—my perspective—is irreplaceable, and, more than any one paper or grant or citation, it is the true value I bring to the world as a scientist.

How can the broader education research community better support the careers and scholarship of researchers from underrepresented groups?

I think research communities in general need to recognize that inclusion and diversity are everybody’s business, regardless of what someone’s specific research topic is. For example, we assume that every grant proposal and paper follow principles of rigorous and ethical research design, no matter the specific methodology. While some researchers in every discipline specialize in thinking about research design from a scholarly perspective, everyone has a baseline responsibility for knowing about it and for doing it.

Similarly, while we will always want and need researchers who specialize in research on inclusion and diversity, these topics should not be considered somehow peripheral to “real science." They are just as much core parts of a discipline as anything else is. As I constantly remind my students, science is a social enterprise! The pool of individual minds that make our discoveries for us is just as important as any piece of equipment or research method.

What advice would you give to emerging scholars from underrepresented, minoritized groups that are pursuing a career in education research?

A few years ago, when I was a newly minted assistant professor, I went to a rather specialized AI symposium where I found myself to be one of only two women there—out of over 70 attendees! The other woman was a senior researcher whom I had long admired but never met, and I felt a bit star-struck at the idea of meeting her. During one of the coffee breaks, I saw her determinedly heading my way. I said to myself as she approached, “Be cool, Maithilee, be cool, don’t mention the women thing…”  I was gearing myself up to have a properly research-focused discussion, but when she arrived, the very first words out of her mouth were, “So, there’s only the two of us, huh!” We both burst out laughing, and over the next couple of days, we talked about our research as well as about the lack of diversity at the symposium and in the research area more broadly.

The lesson I learned from this wonderful role model was that taking your rightful place in the research community does not mean papering over who you are. Certain researchers are going to be rarities, at least for a while, because of aspects of who we are, but that is nothing to hide. The value we bring as scientists comes from our whole selves and we should not just accept that but embrace and celebrate it.

This blog is part of a series of interviews showcasing a diverse group of IES-funded education researchers that are making significant contributions to education research, policy, and practice. For the first blog in the series, please see Representation Matters: Exploring the Role of Gender and Race on Educational Outcomes.

Dr. Maithilee Kunda is the director of the Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence and Visual Analogical Systems and founding investigator for the Frist Center for Autism and Innovation at Vanderbilt University. This interview was produced and edited by Bennett Lunn, Truman-Albright Fellow for the National Center for Education Research and the National Center for Special Education Research.

 

English Learners with or at Risk for Disabilities

A young girl is sitting and reading a book

English learners (ELs) are the fastest growing group of students in U.S. public schools. They are disproportionately at risk for poor academic outcomes and are more likely than non-ELs to be classified as having specific learning disabilities and speech/language impairment. Data collected by the U.S. Department of Education in school year 2018-2019 (Common Core of Data, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data) indicate that approximately 14.1% of students in classrooms across the country received services through IDEA Part B. Nationally, 11.3% of students with disabilities were ELs, a little higher than the percentage of total student enrollment who were ELs (10.2%). However, it is important to distinguish between language and literacy struggles that are due to learning English as a second language and those due to a language or reading disability. For those who have or are at risk for a disability and in need of intervention, it is also important that the interventions are linguistically and culturally appropriate for these children.

Since the first round of competitions in 2006, the National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) has funded research on ELs with or at risk for disabilities. The projects are in broad topic areas, including early childhood; reading, writing, and language development; cognition and learning; and social and behavioral skill development. They vary with respect to the types of research conducted (such as exploration, development, efficacy, measurement) as well as the extent to which they focus on ELs, from ELs as the exclusive or primary population of interest to a secondary focus as a student group within the general population.

As an example, David Francis (University of Houston) explored factors related to the identification and classification of reading and language disabilities among Spanish-speaking ELs. The aim was to provide schools with clearer criteria and considerations for identifying learning disabilities among these students in kindergarten through grade 2. Analyzing data from previous studies, the team found that narrative measures (measures in which narrative responses were elicited, transcribed, and scored) were more sensitive to identifying EL students with disabilities than standardized measures that did not include a narrative component. They also found that the differences in student language growth depended on the language used in the instruction and the language used to measure outcomes. Specifically, language growth was greatest for Spanish-instructed students on Spanish reading and language outcomes, followed by English outcomes for English-instructed students, English outcomes for Spanish-instructed students, and with the lowest growth, Spanish outcomes for English-instructed students.

A number of these projects are currently in progress. For example, Ann Kaiser (Vanderbilt University) and her team are using a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of a cultural and linguistic adaptation of Enhanced Milieu Teaching (EMT). EMT en Español aims to improve the language and related school readiness skills of Spanish-speaking toddlers with receptive and expressive language delays who may be at risk for language impairment. In another study, Nicole Schatz (Florida International University) and her team will be using a randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy of a language-only, behavior-only, or combination language and behavior intervention for students in early elementary school who are English language learners with or at risk for ADHD.

Overall, NCSER has funded 12 research grants that focus specifically on English learners, dual-language learners, and/or Spanish-speaking children with or at risk for disabilities, including the following:

In addition to the research focused specifically on English learners, many other projects include ELs as a large portion of their sample and/or focus some of their analyses specifically on the student group of ELs with or at risk for disabilities. A few recently completed studies show encouraging results with little differences between ELs and non-ELs. For example, Nathan Clemens (University of Texas, Austin) investigated the adequacy of six early literacy measures and validated their use for monitoring the reading progress for kindergarten students at risk for reading disabilities. As part of this project, the research team conducted subgroup analyses that indicated ELs do not necessarily demonstrate lower initial scores and rates of growth over time than non-ELs and that there are few differences between ELs and non-ELs in the extent to which the initial performance or rate of growth differentially predict later reading skills. As another example, Jeanne Wanzek (Vanderbilt University) examined the efficacy of an intensive multicomponent reading intervention for fourth graders with severe reading difficulties. The team found that those in the intervention group outperformed their peers in word reading and word fluency, but not reading fluency or comprehension; importantly, there was no variation in outcomes based on English learner status.

NCSER continues to value and support research projects that focus on English learners with or at risk for disabilities throughout its various programs of research funding.

This blog was written by Amy Sussman, NCSER Program Officer

Assessing Math Understanding of Students with Disabilities During a Pandemic

For almost two decades, IES/NCSER has funded Brian Bottge and his teams at the University of Kentucky and University of Wisconsin-Madison to develop and test the efficacy of a teaching method called Enhanced Anchored Instruction (EAI), which helps low-achieving middle school students with math disabilities develop their problem-solving skills by solving meaningful problems related to a real-world problem. The research findings support the efficacy of EAI, especially for students with math disabilities. Most recently, Bottge and his team have been researching innovative forms of assessment that more adequately capture what students with disabilities know both conceptually and procedurally in solving math problems. With supplemental funding, IES/NCSER extended Dr. Bottge’s latest grant to test the use of oral assessment to measure student knowledge and compare that with the knowledge demonstrated on a pencil and paper test. The COVID-19 pandemic introduced added challenges to this work when schools closed and students shifted to online education.

Below we share a recent conversation with Dr. Bottge about the experience of conducting research during a pandemic and what he and his team were still able to learn about the value of oral assessment in mathematics for students with disabilities.

What changes did you observe in the intervention implementation by teachers due to the COVID-related shift to online learning?

Photo of Dr. Brian Bottge

The shift to online learning created changes in class size and structure. For 38 days (22 days in classroom, 16 days online through a virtual meeting platform), the middle school special education teacher first taught concepts through a widely used video-based anchored problem, the Kim’s Komet episode of the Jasper Project, in which characters compete in a “Grand Pentathlon.” The teacher then engaged the students in a hands-on application of the concepts by running a live Grand Pentathlon. In the Grand Pentathlon, students make their own cars, race them on a full-size ramp, time them at various release points on the ramp, and graph the information to estimate the speed of the cars. The purpose of both units was to help students develop their informal understanding of pre-algebraic concepts such as linear function, line of best fit, variables, rate of change (slope), reliability, and measurement error. Midway through the study, in-person instruction was suspended and moved online. Instead of working with groups of three to four students in the resource room throughout the day, the teacher provided online instruction to 14 students at one time and scheduled one-on-one sessions with students who needed extra help.

What challenges did you observe in the students interacting with the activities and their learning once they shifted to online learning?

All students had access to a computer at home and they were able to use the online platform without much confusion because they had used it in other classes. The screen share feature enabled students to interact with much of the curriculum by viewing the activities, listening to the teacher, and responding to questions, although they could not fully participate in the hands-on part of the lessons. Class attendance and student behavior were unexpectedly positive during the days when students were online. For example, one student had displayed frequent behavioral outbursts in school but became a positive and contributing member of the online class. The ability to mute mics in the platform gave the teacher the option of allowing only one student to talk at a time.

Were students still able to participate in the hands-on activities that are part of the intervention?

For the hands-on activities related to the Grand Pentathlon competition, the teacher taught online and a research staff member manipulated the cars, track, and electronic timers from campus. Students watched their computer screens waiting for their turn to time their cars over the length of the straightaway. The staff member handled each student’s cars and one by one released them from the height on the ramp as indicated by each student. After students had recorded the times, the teacher asked students to calculate and share the speeds of their cars for each time trial height.

Do you have any other observations about the impact of COVID-19 on your intervention implementation?

One of the most interesting observations was parent participation in the lessons. Several parents went beyond simply monitoring how their child was doing during the units to actively working out the problems. Some were surprised by the difficulty level of the math problems. One mother jokingly remarked: I thought the math they were going to do was as easy as 5 + 5 = 10. The next time my son might have to be the parent and I might have to be the student. You all make the kids think and I like that.

When COVID-19 shut down your participating schools, how were you able to adjust your data collection to continue with your research?

We used the same problem-solving test that we have administered in several previous studies (Figure 1 shows two of the items). On Day 1 of the study (pre-COVID), students took the math pretest in their resource rooms with pencil and paper. Due to COVID-19 school closures, we mailed the posttest and test administration instructions to student homes. On the scheduled testing day during an online class session, students removed the test from the envelope and followed directions for answering the test questions while we observed remotely. On Days 2 and 3 of the study (pre-COVID), an oral examiner (OE) pretested individual students in person. The OE asked the student questions, prompting the student to describe the overall problem, identify the information needed for solving the problem, indicate how the information related to their problem-solving plan, and provide an answer. Due to COVID-19, students took the oral posttests online. The teacher set up a breakout room in the platform where the OE conducted the oral assessments and a second member of the research team took notes.

A picture depicting two sample questions. The first shows a graph of two running paths along with the text, "3. The total distance covered by two runners is shown in the graph below. a. How much time did it take runner 1 to go 1 mile? b. About how much time after the start of the race did one runner pass the other?" The second image features a marble on top of a ramp accompanied with the question "What is the speed of a marble (feet per second) let go from the top of the ramp? (Round your answer to the nearest tenth.)"Figure 1. Sample Items from the Problem-Solving Test

During the testing sessions, the OE projected each item on the students’ computer screens. Then she asked the student to read the problem aloud and describe how to solve it. The OE used the same problem-solving prompts as was used on the pretests. For problems that involved graphs or charts, the OE used the editing tools to make notations on the screen as the students directed. One challenge is that oral testing online made it more difficult to monitor behavior and keep students on task. For example, sometimes students became distracted and talked to other people in their house.

What were the results of this study of oral assessment in mathematics for students with disabilities?

Our results suggest that allowing students to describe their understanding of problems in multiple ways yielded depth and detail to their answers. We learned from the oral assessment that most students knew how to transfer the data from the table to an approximate location on the graph; however, there was a lack of precision due to a weak understanding of decimals. For item 4 in Figure 1, the use of decimals confused students who did not have much exposure to decimals prior to or during the study. We also found that graphics that were meant to help students understand the text-based items were in some cases misleading. The representation in item 4 was different than the actual ramp and model car activity students experienced virtually. We have used this math test several times in our research and regrettably had no idea that elements of the graphics contributed to misunderstanding.

Unfortunately, our findings suggest that the changes made in response to COVID-19 may have depressed student understanding. Performances on two items (including item 4 in Figure 1) that assessed the main points of the intervention were disappointing compared to results from prior studies. The increase in class size from 3–4 to 14 after COVID and switching to online learning may have reduced the opportunity for repetition and practice. There were reduced opportunities for students to participate in the hands-on activities and participate in conversations about their thinking with other students.

We acknowledge the limitations of this small pilot study to compare knowledge of students when assessed in a pencil and paper format to an oral assessment. We are optimistic about the potential of oral assessments to reveal problem-solving insights of students with math disabilities. The information gained from oral assessment is of value if teachers use it to individualize their instruction. As we learned, oral assessment can also point to areas where graphics or other information are misleading. More research is needed to understand the value of oral assessment despite the increase in time it might add to data collection efforts for students with math disabilities. This experience highlights some of the positive experiences of students learning during COVID-19 virtually at home as well as some of the challenges and risks of reduced outcomes from these virtual learning experiences, especially for students with disabilities.

This blog was written by Sarah Brasiel, program officer for NCSER’s Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math program.

Two-Year Position in the Institute Of Education Sciences (NCSER) to Support Research on Accelerating Pandemic Recovery for Learners With Disabilities

A banner that states "We're Hiring" with the IES logo

The National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) in the Institute of Education Sciences is pleased to announce a two-year position to support the work NCSER is undertaking to accelerate pandemic recovery for learners with disabilities. The position, funded through the American Rescue Plan, is for an Associate Education Research Scientist (position series AD-1730).  The incumbent will work with current NCSER staff to support research that addresses pandemic recovery for students with disabilities and manage projects funded through new pandemic recovery grant competitions and initiatives. 

Those interested in applying can submit their application through USA Jobs through an existing position posting for an Associate Education Research Scientist (AD-1730-00) at https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/603739300.

Please note, IES can support a temporary detail to this position through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) Mobility Program. This program provides for the temporary assignment of personnel between the Federal Government and state and local governments, colleges and universities, Indian tribal governments, federally funded research and development centers, and other eligible organizations. More information on an IPA can be found at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/intergovernment-personnel-act/#url=Overview.

If you are interested in pursuing this opportunity and have additional questions, contact NCSER Commissioner Joan McLaughlin at NCSER.Commissioner@ed.gov.

NCSER is intending to fill this position as soon as possible, so please apply by August 6, 2021.