1 / 43

Grading Students with Disabilities in General Physical Education

Grading Students with Disabilities in General Physical Education. Kristi Roth, PhD University of Wisconsin Stevens Point 2009 National AAHPERD Convention Tampa, FL March 31, 2009. Legal Requirements. IDEA – must report grades with the same frequency as students without disabilities.

zamir
Télécharger la présentation

Grading Students with Disabilities in General Physical Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Grading Students with Disabilities in General Physical Education Kristi Roth, PhD University of Wisconsin Stevens Point 2009 National AAHPERD Convention Tampa, FL March 31, 2009

  2. Legal Requirements • IDEA – must report grades with the same frequency as students without disabilities. • If a modified grading system is going to be used, it should be identified on the student’s IEP • Section 504 and Title II of the ADA • Cannot treat students differently • Can use a modified grading system if it is available to all students • Can differentiate in grading if the class is taken for no credit

  3. Legal Requirements • If a student earns a failing grade, yet meets IEP goals, justification must be provided in the progress report. • It is the responsibility of the school district to ‘reasonably calculate’ the student’s IEP so they may advance from grade to grade. • Rowley v. Board of Ed. Of Hendrick Hudson

  4. Preliminary Steps • Review the general physical education current assessment practices. Are they assessing current district, state, and NASPE standards. • Establish the purpose of assessment • Gather evidence of learning • Evaluate instructional practices and programming • Student motivation

  5. Grading Systems • Numeric/Letter Grades • Checklist/Rating Scales • Portfolio • Pass/Fail • Mastery Level • Multiple Grading • Participation, skills testing, • Contract Grading • IEP Reporting Salend, 2001

  6. Rationale • District requirements to report a letter grade. • Methods to align with current assessment practices. • Involvement of students • Improve and broaden current grading practices.

  7. Modified Grading System • Weighting of grade components • Verifiable effort grade • Weighting of skills • Assignment of difficulty level • Achievement grade • Attainment grade • Level of independence grade

  8. Elijah Elijah is an eighth grade student with Down syndrome. He attends physical education with his same age peers without disabilities. He is a very happy boy who enjoys and gets along with his classmates. He is able to participate in all activities with modifications

  9. Weighting of Components Average class: 50% participation, 25% skills, 25% cognitive Elijah: 70% participation, 15% skills, 15% cognitive

  10. What’s My Score?85 participation, 60 skills, 55 cognitive (70, 15, 15) 82 66 73 90

  11. Advantages and Disadvantages • Easy • Can change based on student • Participation is a subjective measurement • Reduces emphasis on skill performance – busy, happy, good syndrome 

  12. Veritable Effort Grade Measurable ways of assessing effort: minutes on task, pedometer steps, minutes in zone Set a goal with the student and divide the final score or average by the goal at the end of the unit or semester.

  13. Set a goal with Elijah: 15 minutes on task per class. At the end of the semester Elijah averages 12 minutes on task. What would his participation grade equal? 80% 76% 45% 73%

  14. Plus and Minus • Personal determination • Motivational tool • Fairly simple • Documentation of time on task

  15. Weight Components of the Unit Use when you have a particular unit that may be difficult. Example: Badminton Assessment = skills (20%), history and rules test (10%), and participation (70%). For Elijah, weight skills 20%, oral history and rules test 5%, part. 75%

  16. Good and Bad • Easy • Can tailor parts of the curriculum • Need to know the student

  17. Weight Units Differently Use when the student has noted units of weakness due to inherent disability. Example: A child with autism may struggle with team activities, yet thrive in individual sports. Weight basketball, flag football, and ultimate frisbee 10% of the overall grade and wall climbing, tennis, and badminton 30%.

  18. Table 1 – What’s My Score? 65.5 33.5 55.5 85.5

  19. Apples and Oranges • Can assess in all domains • Can individualize • Time • Have to know the student • Helpful if you already use rubrics

  20. Level of Difficulty Rating Give level of difficulty to the skills within a unit. Should fall between 1.0-2.0. Established by the physical educator and student if possible. Higher rank = more difficult skills. Score on test is multiplied by the level of difficulty rank. Tennis serve, level of difficulty rank = 1.5 – 60 (student test score) x1.5 = 90 Tennis forehand, level of difficulty 1.0: 80X1.0 = 80

  21. What’s my score? Tennis serve, level of difficulty rank = 1.5. Student test score was 60 85 60 70 90

  22. Sweet and Sour • Can individualize • Many options • Helps teacher to organize curriculum • Can involve student in determination • Requires pretesting or knowing the student • Can be time intensive – especially the first time

  23. Points Per Skill Method Assign a point number to each skill. The more difficult the skill, the lower the point value they can earn UP TO. Add up total number of points on the assessment and divide by the number of possible points.

  24. What’s My Score? • 71% • 86% • 62% • 45%

  25. Student Goal Setting Have a checklist of skills to attain in a unit. The student and teacher agree how many the student should attain by the end of the unit for an ‘A’. Can categorize as functional and not observed or as initial and mature movement. Divide the number attained by the goal number.

  26. Table 4 – What’s My Score? 49% 87% 85% 92%

  27. Achievement Grading • Set a scale prior to testing with ‘improvement points’. • Example: 15-20 better on the post test = 100% for the skills grade. • Averaged in with the other components (skills, participation)

  28. What’s My Score? I improved 8 points from my pre to post test (refer to table 5) 100% 85% 75% 60% 40%

  29. Achievement Grading cont. Can use this by weighting also. Set a goal and a scale for improvement points from the pre to post test. The numbers are given weights. Eg 18-20 = weight of .9. The student improves 19 points from the pre to post test, so the post test score is multiplied by the weight value (.9) and that is added to the post test score.

  30. Elijah improved 16 points from his pre to post test in archery. His post test score was 45. What is his score? Refer to Table 6 77 95 81 42

  31. Independence Grade • For example: skills (40%), participation (30%), cognitive (10%), independence (20%) • Can evaluate with number of minutes, units, or skills • Develop a Target Chart

  32. Pros and Cons • Ultimate goal is for participation as independently as possible anyway. • Student motivation can increase. • ‘Participation’ becomes less subjective • Need to establish current levels. • Requires documentation throughout each class.

  33. Supplemental Report Card Information Utilize open ended statements: Average minutes on task per class: Number of days per week dressed out: Number of activities with functional participation: Functionally participated in the following units: Did not functionally participate in the following units: Can place expected amount or accommodations in parentheses

  34. Closing Thoughts • Many methods become easier with time • Involve the student and, if applicable the IEP team in the grading system(s) selected.

  35. Nontraditional Assessment Portfolios: Descriptive grading, video clips, pictures IEP grading: Based on level of attainment

  36. References Duchane, K., & French, R. (1998). Attitudes and grading practices of secondary physical educators in regular education settings. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,15(4), 370-380. Halstad, D.N., & Lacy, A.C. (1998). Measurement and evaluation in physical education and exercise science (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Piletic, C. (2007). Grading processes used by physical educators for students with and without disabilities. Unpublished manuscript. Salend, S. (2002). Grading students in inclusive settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(3), 8.

More Related