0527-745 Alternative Assessment Techniques
i.e., “Assessment for Academic Interventions”
Thursday 12:00-3:50; Booth 1441
Suzanne Bamonto (Graney), Ph.D.
Office: 01-3380 Office hours: Tuesday 12:30-2:00
Phone: 475-2765 Thursday 10:00-12:00
Cell: 797-7938 and by appointment
The prime focus of this course is on the assessment of academic problems in the classroom with special emphasis on the collection of data that allow the planning of interventions. Students will learn direct methods of academic or behavioral assessment for both performance and skill deficits. Emphasis will be on the integration of these assessment techniques, collaborative problem solving, systematic observation, the principles of applied behavior analysis and the psychology of learning for the purpose of intervention development. Pre-requisites for this course include: Applied Behavior Analysis, Advanced Consultation, and Psychoeducational Assessment I, II, and III (RIT School Psychology Handbook).
Required Texts and Materials:
McDougal, J.L., Graney, S.B., Wright, J.A., & Ardoin, S.P. (2009). RTI in Practice: A practical guide to implementing evidence-based interventions in your school. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Hosp, M., Hosp, J., & Howell, K. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to Curriculum-Based Measurement. New York: Guilford. ISBN-13: 978-1-59385-399-0
AIMSWeb Preservice Student Package (Go to http://www.aimsweb.com to order)
Various journal articles and book chapters (see Reading List on last page of syllabus). Most of these readings are available to download from myCourses, under Content. Any others will be made available by the instructor.
Howell, K.W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making (3rd ed.). Wadsworth. (Note. Some chapters from this book are required reading)
Shinn, M.R. (1998). Advanced applications of Curriculum-Based Measurement. New York: Guilford.
Shaywitz , S. (2003). Overcoming Dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. Random House.
In this course, participants will learn to apply a problem-solving approach to academic skills and performance problems, with an emphasis on the identification and manipulation of alterable variables that are relevant to student academic functioning. Alterable variables are those over which we have some degree of control, and relevant variables are those with a demonstrated link to academic learning. These include student, curricular, instructional, and environmental variables. Alterable and relevant student variables include pre-skills, prior knowledge and experiences related to the learning environment, academic motivation and enabling skills. They do not include explanatory constructs such as intelligence or psychological processes.
Course participants will learn to assess student academic functioning within the learning environment, identify specific target areas for intervention, set appropriate goals and objectives, monitor student progress toward those goals and objectives, and evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention(s) in place as a result of the assessment. Participants are expected to leave this course with a cursory understanding of the problem-solving process and the development and monitoring of effective interventions, and basic competence in applying this process. However, the amount of skill and knowledge required to apply these principles effectively cannot be imparted adequately in one quarter. Therefore, participants will need to work actively to expand their knowledge and skills in these areas by seeking additional information through relevant educational experiences long after this course is completed.
This course will address the following learning goals:
- Drawing on information from a thorough analysis of the reading skills and instructional environment of a child with an identified reading delay, participants will develop and monitor the implementation and outcomes of a research-based reading intervention.
- Participants will be able to apply information gained through the intervention process in making special education eligibility decisions about children.
- Participants will be able to use the knowledge gained through this course to be a leader in their district in moving toward a Response to Intervention (RtI) service delivery model.
Assignments and Projects
A. Assigned readings and weekly reflective activities. Reading material will be assigned from the textbooks and additional articles, book chapters, and materials provided by the instructor. Every week you will be required to complete and submit responses to questions provided for key readings. Questions will be provided at least one week in advance.
B. Projects. You will complete three projects throughout the quarter, and summarize those projects at the end of the quarter into a Final Portfolio. These projects will be completed at your practicum sites whenever possible. If your practicum site does not have a student who meets the criteria outlined below or will not allow you to complete these projects, please see the instructor to work out alternative arrangements.
For completion of these projects, select one (1) student to work with for the entire quarter. This student must meet the following criteria:
- The student must have an academic skill deficit in reading or early literacy skills. Students may be in secondary school settings as long as this criterion is met and the student receives some basic reading instruction.
- The student may receive special education services, but this is not a requirement. For students who receive special education services, the project must be completed in the setting where the student’s primary reading instruction takes place.
Written products should be in a psychological report format and include some relevant background information on your student (grade level, special education placement, any presenting concerns, teacher, school, date, etc.). Each report should also include a description of the assessment procedures used, results in text, table, and graph, and a summary statement of the most salient findings or conclusions based on the information.
- Analysis of Student Reading Skills. Submit an analysis of the student’s reading competence which describes the student’s current level of performance with respect to grade-level expectations, and a specific skills analysis that describes a student’s current strengths and academic needs. The report should reflect your evaluation of the student using the following methods:
- Conduct a Survey-Level Assessment using CBM methods, record errors, and develop hypotheses for these errors. Be sure to outline the measurement materials used for the SLA and an overview of the results.
- Conduct a Specific-Level Assessment by generating measurement materials and testing the hypotheses generated during the SLA process. Be sure your report describes the assessment procedures, materials, and results for the Specific-Level Assessment. Due 9/29.
- Analysis of the Instructional Environment. Submit a report describing and evaluating the environment in which your student currently receives instruction in reading or early literacy. The report should reflect an integration of your knowledge of effective reading instruction with data gathered at the school via the following methods:
- Complete three systematic observations of your student in the setting where the primary reading instruction takes place. Use observation codes or techniques discussed in class. Submit a written summary of methods employed including times, definition of behaviors, results on a daily and summative basis, and a summary analysis of the student’s performance in the instructional environment. Please use tabular and graphic data displays to illustrate your findings.
- Complete a brief interview with the student’s teacher to obtain a description of the student’s reading instructional plan and the teacher’s view of the content and effectiveness of the instructional plan. Include in the written report a completed Instructional Planning Form (IPF) along with a narrative summary of the interview, including an evaluative statement (your own view) of the effectiveness of the plan. Due 10/13.
- Intervention Plan and Evaluation. Submit a report detailing an intervention plan, evaluation strategy, and initial evaluation data (even if the intervention is not implemented). It is not required that the intervention be implemented. The intervention plan should be well-designed and tailored to the student’s specific needs and current program. It should reflect your knowledge of effective reading instruction combined with the data collected for the first two projects. Be sure to incorporate both the student’s current instructional program and identified needs into the intervention plan. Be specific in the plan about the methods and arrangements of the intervention. Also include a data-based goal statement, a rationale for the goal, and a chart detailing the student’s current rate of progress toward that goal. Be sure that your written report includes the following components:
- Rationale for the intervention selected
- Thorough description of the intervention, including what will be taught, who is responsible, how much time will be spent on the intervention, materials used, etc.
- Data-based goal and rationale for the goal you selected
- Graph of progress and summary analysis of that progress (not a reiteration of the data in the chart, rather a description of what the data reveals about the child’s progress and response to the intervention).
- Detailed plan for monitoring implementation fidelity (even if the intervention is not implemented). Due 10/27.
C. Final Portfolio. The Final Portfolio will include a completed, integrated summary of your case study. You will be expected to integrate the data from Projects 1 to 3 into the report to provide data to answer the following questions:
- How severe is the academic problem?
- What are the student’s strengths and weaknesses within the curriculum?
- What are the various components of the student’s instructional plan?
- What is the student’s rate of progress toward the objective you have written and monitored?
- What suggestions could be made to further increase the student’s rate of progress?
The written report is to be turned in and presented in class on 11/10.
Assignments and Readings
Overview of Literacy
Overview of CBM
Introduction to AIMSweb
Administration and Scoring of CBM reading
Nelson & Machek (2007)
Hosp et al., Chapters 1-3
Bring to class: AIMSweb Administration and Scoring R-CBM and Administration and Scoring CBM-Maze
Administration and Scoring of Early Literacy Measures (DIBELS)
Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins (2001)
Good, Simmons, & Kame’enui (2001)
Bring to class: AIMSweb workbooks: (1) Progress Monitoring, and (2) Administration and Scoring Early Literacy Measures; DIBELS Administration and Scoring Guide
Due: Questions from Fuchs et al. reading
Instructional Issues - intro
Case Updates – Survey-Level Assessment
Project 1 requirements
McDougal et al., Ch. 2
Howell & Nolet Chapters 8 and 9 – skim and bring to class
Due: Questions from Heward reading
Effective Reading Instruction
Assessing the Instructional Environment
Case updates – Survey and/or Specific-Level Assessment
Watson, Gable, & Greenwood (2011)
Foorman and Torgesen (2001)
Pressley et al. (2002)
Due: Questions from Watson et al. reading
Project #1 due
Exploring Solutions: Developing Interventions
Case Updates – Specific-Level Assessment, Classroom data
Project 2 requirements
McDougal et al., Ch. 5
Peruse list of websites provided by instructor
Due: Questions from websites
Case updates – Interpreting observation and interview data
Exploring and Evaluating Solutions: Goal-setting and monitoring progress
Lab: Setting up AIMSweb Progress Monitor
McDougal et al., Ch. 6
Fuchs et al. (1993)
Deno et al. (2001)
Bring to class: AIMSweb Progress Monitoring Workbook; AIMSweb Progress Monitor Guide
Due: Questions from McDougal et al.
Project #2 due
Problem Solution Decisions
Assessing Treatment Integrity Case updates – Interventions
Project 3 requirements
McDougal et al., Ch. 10
Due: Questions from Chapter 10
CBM Revisited and Expanded
~ Big picture issues
~ Applications in math and writing
~ Applications for secondary level
Hosp et al., Chapters 5, 6, 7 (preview and bring to class)
Espin, Shin, & Busch (2005: recommended)
Due: Questions from Deno reading
Project #3 due
Response-to-Intervention (RTI) Eligibility Model
Pros and cons of RTI and traditional approaches
McDougal et al., Ch 1 and 12
Willis & Dumont (2006)
Lau et al. (2006)
Due: Questions from Willis & Dumont
Student Portfolio Presentations
Final Portfolio due
The instructor reserves the right to change the course schedule if needed.
Grades will be determined by the extent to which each participant demonstrates (1) mastery of the core concepts and knowledge base related to problem-solving assessment as evidenced by the quality of their reaction papers, participation in class discussions, and explanations of their work during classroom presentations, and (2) ability to apply the knowledge and skills as evidenced by the quality of their mini-projects and Final Portfolio.
Mini-projects and final portfolio. Participants need to be prepared to make weekly presentations of their projects and give case updates.
Class discussions and reflective activities. There will be weekly discussions centered around the readings. Each class member is expected to be an active participant in these discussions and class activities.
Final Exam. A final exam will be given the week of 11/16.
Points for each assignment and/or project will be assigned as follows:
Assignments Points Possible
Reading Questions (8) 35 (4 pts each + 3 points for not missing any week)
Projects (3) 75 (25 pts each)
Final Portfolio/Presentation 40 (30/10)
Final Exam 30
Class Preparation/Participation 20
Final grades will reflect the percentage of total points earned to total points possible. All assigned work must be completed and turned in to receive a grade for the course.
Additional Required Readings
- Nelson, J. M., & Machek, G. R. (2007). A survey of training, practice, and competence in reading assessment and intervention. School Psychology Review, 36, 311-327.
- Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K, & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256.
- Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.
- Heward, W. L. (2003). Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that hinder the effectiveness of special education. Journal of Special Education, 36, 186-205.
- Watson, S.M.R., Gable, R.A., & Greenwood, C.R. (2011). Combining ecobehavioral assessment, functional assessment, and response to intervention to promote more effective classroom instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 334-344.
- Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 203-212.
- Pressley, M., Roehrig, A., Bogner, K., Raphael, L. M., & Dolezal, S. (2002). Balanced literacy instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(5), 1-14.
- Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., Walz, & Germann (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27-49.
- Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using Curriculum-Based Measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507-524.
- Deno (2003). Developments in Curriculum-Based Measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37, 184-192
- Willis, J. O. & Dumont, R. (2006) And never the twain shall meet: Can response to intervention and cognitive assessment be reconciled? Psychology in the Schools, 43, 901-908.
- Espin, C.A., Shin, J., & Busch, T.W. (2003). Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Vocabulary matching as an indicator of progress in social studies learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 353-363.
- Lau, M.Y., Sieler, J.D, Muyskens, P., Canter, A., Vankeuren, B., & Marston, D. (2006). Perspectives on the use of the problem-solving model from the viewpoint of a school psychologist, administrator, and teacher from a large Midwest urban school district. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 117-127.
* The instructor reserves the right to assign additional readings if deemed appropriate.
Marston, D.B. (1989). A Curriculum-Based Measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-Based Measurement: Assessing special children (pp 17-78). New York: Guilford Press.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Report of the National Reading Panel [On-line]. Available: http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/Documents
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 137-146.
Shapiro, E. S., Angello, L. M., & Eckert, T. L. (2004). Has curriculum-based assessment become a staple of school psychology practice? An update and extension of knowledge, use and attitudes from 1990 to 2000. School Psychology Review, 33, 249-257.
Good, R. H., III, Simmons, D. C., & Smith, S. B. (1998). Effective academic interventions in the United States: Evaluating and enhancing the acquisition of early reading skills. School Psychology Review, 27, 45-56.
Hamilton, C., & Shinn, M. R. (2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of reading comprehension and oral reading skills. School Psychology Review, 32, 228-240.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward the development of reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom-based assessment. School Psychology Review, 28, 659-671.
Crawford, L., Tindal, G., & Steiber, S. (2001). Using oral reading rate to predict student performance on statewide achievement tests. Educational Assessment, 7, 303-323.
Case, L. P., Speece, D. L., & Molloy, D. E. (2003). The validity of a Response-To-Instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and contextual factors. School Psychology Review, 32, 557-582.
Hale, Naglieri, Kaufman, & Kavale (2004). Specific Learning Disability classification in the new Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: The danger of good ideas. The School Psychologist, 6-13.
Fletcher & Reschly (2005). Changing procedures for identifying Learning Disabilities: The danger of perpetuating old ideas. The School Psychologist, 10-15.
Kavale, K. A., Kaufman, A. S., Naglieri, J. A., & Hale, J. B. (2005). Changing procedures for identifying Learning Disabilities: The danger of poorly supported ideas. The School Psychologist, 16-25.