Bridging the Gap Between FIEs and Classroom Instruction: KABC II Educational Implications and Recommendations Rueter, 2008 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Bridging the Gap Between FIEs and Classroom Instruction: KABC II Educational Implications and Recommendations Rueter, 2008 PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 11adb9-MjBmZ



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Bridging the Gap Between FIEs and Classroom Instruction: KABC II Educational Implications and Recommendations Rueter, 2008

Description:

Rebus Delayed. Number Recall. Word Order. Hand Movements ... Rebus 6 9. Rueter, 2008. Juggling Jessi. KABC II Scoring Information. Subtest Scaled Score P. Rank ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:389
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 52
Provided by: jessica178
Learn more at: http://txeda.org
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Bridging the Gap Between FIEs and Classroom Instruction: KABC II Educational Implications and Recommendations Rueter, 2008


1
Bridging the Gap Between FIEs and Classroom
InstructionKABC II Educational Implications and
RecommendationsRueter, 2008
2
Agenda
  • Key components of an evaluation process
  • Psychological processing and connection to
    classroom instruction
  • KABC II and connection to classroom instruction
  • Case study scenario and discussion
  • Wrap-up/conclusion
  • Rueter, 2008

3
Key Components of an Evaluation Process
  • Plan, Plan, Plan
  • Review gathered information and collect any
    missing information
  • Teacher/Student/Parent Interviews
  • Observations
  • Form preliminary hypothesis
  • Review recommendations/interventions that have
    been suggested and tried. Did they work?
  • Select assessment instruments that will assist in
    confirming your hypothesis
  • Remember to be flexible (things happen!)
  • Rueter, 2008

4
Data Collection Phase
  • Conduct a case history review
  • Analyze eligibility file If three year
    reevaluation, start with the initial assessment
    proceeding to most current (look for
    trends/patterns)
  • Review cumulative file data and referral data
    Examine attendance, discipline, grades, CBM data,
    state assessment and any other information (look
    for trends/patterns).
  • Rueter, 2008

5
Data Collection Phase
  • Conduct Interviews
  • Parent/caregiver interview (i.e. sociological
    case history)
  • Student interviews
  • Teacher interviews
  • Rueter, 2008

6
Data Collection Phase
  • Observations
  • Observe student in a variety of settings
  • Classroom setting (observe in settings which
    student is doing well and in settings student is
    struggling)
  • Non academic settings
  • Rueter, 2008

7
Hypothesis Selection
  • What questions were presented during the data
    collection phase
  • Analyze trends/patterns
  • Narrow the focus
  • Write a hypothesis
  • Rueter, 2008

8
Instrument Selection
  • Choose assessment instruments that will
  • Answer your hypothesis
  • Based on individual needs of the student
  • Assist in answering referral/three year
    reevaluation question
  • Rueter, 2008

9
Definition of SLDFederal Register, 2006
  • Specific learning disability means a disorder in
    one or more of the basic psychological processes
    involved in understanding or in using language,
    spoken or written, that may manifest itself in
    the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak,
    read, write, spell, or to do mathematical
    calculations, including conditions such as
    perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal
    brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental
    aphasia
  • Federal Register 300.8(10).

10
Psychological Processes
  • Mind contains variety of processes whose
    functioning is prerequisite for learning
  • Pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses
    which adversely affects academic achievement
  • May present as deficits in attention, memory,
    linguistic processing, metacognition, perception,
    and social cognition
  • Intra-Individual Differences
  • Rueter, Stephens, Kinnison, 2007

11
Psychological Processes, Recommendations, and
Connection to Classroom Instruction
  • Psychological Processes
  • Look beyond global scores to specific cognitive
    abilities
  • (Dig Deep)
  • Investigate psychological processes that have an
    adverse impact on students academic achievement
  • Review original hypothesis
  • Triangulate data sources
  • Are the data sources consistent? Does it make
    sense?
  • Recommendations
  • Recommendations are the bridge between FIEs and
    classroom instruction.
  • Rueter, 2008

12
Recommendations
  • The recommendations section contains specific
    ways to resolve the referral questions by
    addressing the evaluations key findings.
  • Focus of the recommendations should address the
    specific areas of concern.
  • The goal is to select specific evidence-based
    interventions that will enhance an individual's
    opportunities for success.
  • Litchtenberger, Mather, Kaufman, N. L.,
    Kaufman, A. S., 2004

13
Recommendations (cont.)
  • Select recommendations by triangulating the data
    collected and by reviewing your original
    hypothesis
  • Triangulation of data sources include but not
    limited to
  • Data collected from Tiers I-III
  • Referral data/Three year reevaluation data
  • Interventions that have been tried
  • Past recommendations
  • Norm-referenced testing results
  • Rueter, 2008

14
Recommendations (cont.)
  • Recommendations only belong in the
    recommendations section. Do not embed
    recommendations in other areas of the report.
    They will be ignored if you do this.
  • Number of recommendations will varychoose as if
    writing a students goals and objectives.
    (Generally 4-6 is plenty).
  • Try to be specific as possible.
  • Choose strategies and interventions (not
    accommodationsthat is the function of an ARD c).
  • Litchtenberger, Mather, Kaufman, N. L.,
    Kaufman, A. S., 2004 Rueter, 2007

15
Reason Why Recommendations Are Not Followed
  • Too vague
  • Not shared
  • Too complex
  • Too lengthy
  • Inappropriate for students age/grade
  • Not understood by person responsible for
    implementation
  • Too time consuming
  • Rejected by student
  • Litchtenberger, Mather, Kaufman, N. L.,
    Kaufman, A. S., 2004

16
Use of Norm Referenced Tests and Interventions
  • Unfortunately, norm-referenced testing results
    have only traditionally been used in
    determination of eligibility for services, rather
    than in establishing and designing individualized
    intervention programs (Mather Wendling, 2005).
    Conversely, if utilized appropriately
    norm-referenced testing can aid in the
    identification of individual differences and
    provide insight into the nature of underlying
    processing deficits. By so doing, enhanced
    understanding will result in better
    individualized interventions (Kavale, 2005).
  • Rueter, Stephens, Kinnsion, 2007

17
What is problem-solving?
A decision making process
1. Problem Identification
2. Problem Analysis
5. Plan Evaluation
Revise Modify Intensify With Expanding Support
3. Plan Development
4. Plan Implementation
Naquin, 2007
18
Historical Context of the KABC II
  • KABC 1983
  • The KABC broke from traditional models of
    intelligence
  • Rooted in neuropsychological theory
  • First intelligence test to measure intelligence
    from a processing approach
  • Kaufman, Lichtenberger, Fletcher-Janzen, Kaufman,
    2005

19
KABC II Overview
  • Appropriate for ages 3 18
  • 2 Theoretical Models
  • Luria Neuropsychological Processing Model
  • Cattell Horn Carroll (CHC)
  • Provides a Non-Verbal Scale
  • Organized in Core and Supplementary
  • Reduces score differences between ethnic and
    cultural groups, providing confidence in the
    assessment of persons from a variety of
    backgrounds.
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004

20
Dual ModelsOverviewLuria CHC
KABC II Scale
Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004
21
Three Main Blocks
  • Luria perceived the brains basic functions to be
    represented by 3 main blocks or functional
    systems
  • Block 1Arousal and Attention
  • Block 2The use of ones sense to analyze, code,
    and store information
  • Block 3Application of executive functions for
    formulating plans and programming behavior
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004

22
Integration of the 3 Blocks
  • Luria distinguished between the 3 blocks and
    their separate aspects of brain functions,
    however, his main emphasis was on the INTEGRATION
    of these blocks into functional systems that
    could support complex behaviors.
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004

23
Block 1 (Maintains Arousal)
  • Mediates attention and concentration Allows
    focus of attention
  • Recognizes significance of incoming stimuli
    Allows receiving and processing of information
  • Regulates energy level and tone of cerebral
    cortex
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004

24
Block 2 (Codes Stores Information)
  • Analyzes, codes, and stores incoming information
    via the senses
  • Uses successive and simultaneous processing
  • Integrates incoming sensory information
  • Establishes connections with Block 3
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004

25
Block 3 (Plans Organizes Behavior)
  • Deals with overall efficiency of brain functions
    Involves all complex behavior
  • Represents the output or response center of the
    brain Not directly involved with motor/speech
    functions
  • Involves decision making, generating hypotheses,
    planning, self-monitoring, and programming (i.e.
    Executive Functioning)
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004

26
Luria the KABC II
  • Interpreted from the Luria perspective the KABC
    II focus is on mental processing deemphasizes
    acquired knowledge
  • Yields Mental Processing Index (MPI)
  • Features assessment of Sequential and
    Simultaneous Processing
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004

27
Luria and the KABC II (cont.)
  • Includes measures of learning ability and
    planning ability
  • Lurias Theory considers acquired knowledge
    (language proficiency or general information) to
    lie outside the realm of mental processing
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004

28
KABC II Luria Scales
  • Learning/Glr
  • Simultaneous/Gv
  • Sequential/Gsm
  • Planning/Gf
  • MPI
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004

29
Learning
  • Integration of Processes within all 3 blocks
  • Emphasis on Attention-Concentration Processes of
    Block 1 and the coding, storage, and sensory
    integration processes of Block 2. Requires Block
    3 strategy generation to learn and retain new
    information
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004

30
Simultaneous Processing
  • Associated with Block 2
  • Input for simultaneous processing tasks must be
    integrated and synthesized simultaneously,
    usually spatially to produce appropriate solution
  • The KABC II measure of simultaneous processing
    blends Blocks 2 3
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004

31
Sequential Processing
  • Associated with Block 2
  • Measures the kind of coding function that Luria
    labeled successive
  • Involves arranging input in sequential or serial
    order to solve a problem, where each idea is
    linearly and temporally related to the preceding
    one
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004

32
Planning Ability
  • Measures the high-level decision making executive
    processes associated with Block 3
  • Executive Functioning Processes
  • Requires integration of Blocks 1 2.
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004

33
Mental Processing Index (MPI)
  • Global overview of the KABC II scales that make
    up the Luria model
  • Emphasizes the processing functions in Lurias
    neuropsychological theory, not the knowledge base
    that is needed for measures of acquired
    knowledge.
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004

34
CHC and KABC II
  • Learning/Glr Long Term Retrieval
  • Sequential/Gsm Short-Term Memory
  • Simultaneous/Gv Visual Processing
  • Planning/Gf Fluid Reasoning
  • Knowledge/Gc Crystallized Ability
  • Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI)
  • Kaufman, Lichtenberger, Fletcher-Janzen, Kaufman
    2005

35
Fluid Crystallized Index (FCI)
  • CHC
  • Acquired Knowledge
  • Consistent with traditional views of cognitive
    ability
  • Includes Language Component (i.e. Verbal
    Knowledge and Riddles subtests)
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L., 2004

36
Broad CHC Abilities/ProcessesKABC II
Gf-Fluid Reasoning GcComprehension-Knowledge
(i.e. crystallized ability) Gv-Visual Spatial
Thinking GsmShort term memory Glr-Long-term
retrieval Ga-Auditory processing GsProcessing
Speed Table adapted from Flanagan, Ortiz,
Alfonso, 2007
37
Broad CHC Abilities/ProcessesKTEA II
Two broad abilities of the CHC model are not
measured on KABC II or KTEA II Processing Speed
(Gs) and Decision Speed/Reaction Time (Gt). Not
measured on either battery because they are only
concerned with speed, not quality, of processing.
They are readily available in other tests (i.e.
WJ III and WISC IV). Kaufman, Lichtenberger,
Fletcher-Janzen, Kaufman (2005), pp. 247-256
38
Juggling JessiReferral Information
  • Female, Caucasian
  • 2 parent home, 2 siblings both younger
  • 3rd grade 7.9 years old
  • Attended public schools since age 5
  • Attended full-day kindergarten
  • Passing all classes, but noticeably struggles in
    all areas of mathematics
  • Rueter, 2008

39
Juggling JessiReferral Information
  • Teacher reports the following
  • Attentive in all classes
  • Follows 1 to 2 step oral and written directions
    in language related areas
  • Intensive small group math interventions at Tier
    II (Standard Protocol Approach)
  • Little to no progress even with small group
    interventions that ranged from 20 to 25 weeks
  • Rueter, 2008

40
Juggling JessiReferral Information
  • CBM average 10 problems per minute
  • Spring math norm mean for 3rd graders 30
    problems per 2 minutes (AimsWeb)
  • Unable to solve multi-step word problems
  • Benchmark testing places Juggling Jessi at below
    the 16 percentile in mathematics
  • Mathematically, Juggling Jessi is able to work
    simple calculation problems, but has difficulty
    with higher level mathematical problem solving
    especially geometry related tasks
  • Rueter, 2008

41
Juggling JessiReferral Information
  • Parent Information
  • Parents report that Juggling Jessi has always
    struggled with concepts related to math
    counting, one to one correspondence, money
    skills, and multi-step problem solving skills
  • Parents report that birth and milestones were
    appropriate on no medicine eats breakfast and
    has a regular bedtime of 900 p.m.
  • Rueter, 2008

42
Juggling JessiKABC II Scoring Information
  • Scale S. Score C. Interval P. Rank Freq. of
  • 95 Difference
  • Seq./Gsm 91 82-102 27
  • Simult./Gv 55 48-68 0.1 lt1
  • Learning/Glr 73 66-82 4 gt10
  • Planning/Gf 108 100-116 70 lt1
  • Know./Gc 95 86-104 37 gt10
  • FCI 73 73-85 8
  • Rueter, 2008

43
Juggling JessiReferral Information
  • Observations
  • Attentive in all classes followed oral and
    written directions in language classes
  • In math, confused asked basic questions unable
    to complete independent work without one to one
    assistance engaged in cooperative group group
    members assisted J. Jessi with group assignment
  • Rueter, 2008

44
Juggling JessiKABC II Scoring Information
  • Subtest Scaled Score P. Rank
  • Sequential
  • Recall 9 37
  • Word Order 8 25
  • Simultaneous
  • Rover 3 1
  • Triangles 2 0.4
  • Learning
  • Atlantis 4 2
  • Rebus 6 9
  • Rueter, 2008

45
Juggling JessiKABC II Scoring Information
  • Subtest Scaled Score P. Rank
  • Planning
  • Story Completion 14 91
  • Pattern Reasoning 9 37
  • Knowledge
  • Verbal Knowledge 9 37
  • Riddles 9 37
  • Rueter, 2008

46
Achievement Data
  • All areas of reading and written expression are
    within the average range
  • Listening comprehension and oral expression are
    within the average range
  • Math Concepts and Application and Math
    Computations are 1.5 and 1.0 standard deviations
    below average respectively
  • Rueter, 2008

47
Your Task
  • Write hypothesis
  • Identify strengths
  • Identify weaknesses
  • Determine psychological processing deficit(s)
  • Rueter, 2008

48
Your Task (cont.)
  • Make connection from psychological processing
    deficits to achievement by answering the
    following questions What impact does
    psychological processing deficit(s) have on math
    achievement? Does the connection make sense?
  • Review hypothesis triangulate data
  • Write 2-3 recommendations that address
    psychological processing deficit(s)
  • Rueter, 2008

49
References
  • Federal Register (2006), Rules and regulations,
    71(156), 300.8(10)).
  • Flanagan, D.P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C.
    (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment
    (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ John Wiley Sons.
  • Fletcher, J. M., Morris, R. D., Lyon, G. R.
    (2003). Classification and definition of
    learning disabilities An integrative
    perspective. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris,
    S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning
    disabilities (pp. 30-56). New York Guilford
    Press.
  • Kaufman, A. S., Lichtenberger, E. O.,
    Fletcher-Janzen, E., Kaufman, N. L. (2005)
    Essential of KABC II assessment. Hoboken, NJ
    Wiley.
  • Kaufman, A. S. Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman
    assessment battery for children (2nd ed.).
    Circle Pines, MN AGS Publishing.
  • Kavale, K. A. (2005). Identifying specific
    learning disability Is responsiveness to
    intervention the answer? Journal of Learning
    Disabilities 38(6), 553-562.
  • Lichtenberger, E. O., Mather, N., Kaufman, N. L.,
    Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of assessment
    report writing. Hoboken, NJ John Wiley Sons.
  • Mather, N., Wendling, B. J. (2005). Linking
    cognitive assessment results to academic
    interventions for students with learning
    disabilities. In D. P. Flanagan P. L. Harrison
    (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (pp.
    269-294).
  • Naquin, G. (2007). Problem Solving Model slide.
  • Rueter, J. A., Stephens, T. L., Kinnison, L.
    (2007). Consultants to early intervening teams
    The changing roles of evaluation personnel within
    an integrated model framework. Manuscript in
    preparation.
  • Stephens, T. L., Kinnison, L., Naquin, G.,
    Rueter, J. A. (2007). The changing roles for
    educational diagnosticians with a
    response-to-intervention framework in the
    identification of students with learning
    disabilities. The DiaLog, 36(2), 16-20.

50
Acknowledgments
  • Lloyd Kinnison, Ed.D.
  • Tammy Stephens, Ph.D.
  • NISD

51
Contact Information
  • Jessi Rueter
  • jrueter_at_nisdtx.org (work)
  • jrueter_at_sbcglobal.net (home)
  • 817-698-1315 (work)
About PowerShow.com