slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Bridging the Gap Between FIEs and Classroom Instruction: KABC II Educational Implications and Recommendations Rueter, 20 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Bridging the Gap Between FIEs and Classroom Instruction: KABC II Educational Implications and Recommendations Rueter, 20

Bridging the Gap Between FIEs and Classroom Instruction: KABC II Educational Implications and Recommendations Rueter, 20

630 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Bridging the Gap Between FIEs and Classroom Instruction: KABC II Educational Implications and Recommendations Rueter, 20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Bridging the Gap Between FIEs and Classroom Instruction:KABC 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” FederalRegister 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 student’s 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 evaluation’s 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 vary—choose as if writing a student’s goals and objectives. (Generally 4-6 is plenty). • Try to be specific as possible. • Choose strategies and interventions (not accommodations—that 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 student’s 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 brain’s basic functions to be represented by 3 main blocks or functional systems • Block 1—Arousal and Attention • Block 2—The use of one’s sense to analyze, code, and store information • Block 3—Application 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 • Luria’s 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 Luria’s 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; Gc—Comprehension-Knowledge (i.e. crystallized ability); Gv-Visual Spatial Thinking; Gsm—Short term memory; Glr-Long-term retrieval; Ga-Auditory processing; Gs—Processing 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 9:00 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 <1% Learning/Glr 73 66-82 4 >10% Planning/Gf 108 100-116 70 <1% Know./Gc 95 86-104 37 >10% 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