Summary on Education: 2014

Video Modeling References

Barton, E.E. & Wolery, M. (2008). Teaching pretend play to children with disabilities. Topics in

Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 109-125.

Cannella-Malone, H., Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M., De La Cruz, B., Edrisinha, C., & Lancioni, G.E.

(2006). Comparing video prompting to video modeling for teaching daily living skills to six adults with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 344-356.

Cihak, D., Fahrenkrog, C., Ayres, K.M., & Smith, C. (2009). The use of video modeling via

video I-Pod and a system of least prompts to improve transitional behaviors for students with Autism Spectrum Disorders in the general education classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 103-115.

Delano, M.E. (2007). Improving written language performance of adolescents with Asperger

Syndrome. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 345-351.

Goodson, J., Sigafoos, J., O’Rielly, M., Cannella, H., & Lancioni, G.E. (2007). Evaluation of a

video based error correction procedure for teaching a domestic skill to individuals with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28, 458-467.

Kroeger, K. A., Schultz, J. R., & Newsom, C. (2007). A comparison of two group-delivered

social skills programs for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(5), 808-817.

MacDonald, R., Sacramone, S., Mansfield, R., Wiltz, K., & Ahearn, W.H. (2009). Using video

modeling to teach reciprocal pretend play to children with Autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 43-55.

McCoy, K. & Hermansen, E. (2007). Video modeling for individuals with Autism: A review of

model types and effects. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 183-213.

Mechling, L.C. & Ortega-Hurndon, F. (2007). Computer-based video instruction to teach young

adults with moderate intellectual disabilities to perform multiple step, job tasks in a generalized setting. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42, 24-37.

Mechling, L.C., Gast, D.L., & Fields, E.A. (2008). Evaluation of a portable DVD player and

system of least prompts to self-prompt cooking task-completion by young adults with moderate intellectual disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 42 (3), 179-190.

Murzynski, N.T. & Bouret, J.C. (2007). Combining video modeling and least-to-most prompting

for establishing response chains. Behavioral Interventions, 22, 147-152.

Nikopoulus, C.K. & Keenan, M. (2007). Using video modeling to teach complex social

sequences to children with Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 678-693.

Paterson, C.R. & Arco, L. (2007). Using video modeling for generalizing toy play in children

with Autism. Behavior Modification, 31, 660-681.

Sansosti, F.J., & Powell-Smith, K.A. (2008). Using computer-presented social stories and video

models to increase the social communication skills of children with high-functioning Autism Spectrum Disorders. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 162-178.

Scattone, D. (2008). Enhancing the conversation skills of a boy with Asperger’s Disorder

through social stories and video modeling. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 395-400.

Shukla-Mehta, S., Miller, T., & Callahan, K.J. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of video

instruction on social and communication skills training for children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A review of the literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25, 23-36.

Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M., Cannella, H., Edrisinha, C., De La Cruz, B., Upadhyaya, M.,

Video modeling is an effect method utilized within the classroom, business meeting or at home. It is a proven reseach baased learning strategy I have employed this strategy in my classroom and with individual clients. So, I think this list of references can aide you in expolring this wonderful topic much further.

Lancioni, G.E., Hundley, A., Andrews, A., Garver, C., & Young, D. (2007). Evaluation

of a video prompting and fading procedure for teaching dish washing skills to adults with developmental disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 93-109.

Van Laarhoven, T., & Van Laarhoven-Myers, T. (2006). Comparison of three video-based

instructional procedures for teaching daily living skills to persons with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 365-381.

Van Laarhoven, T., Van Laarhoven-Myers, T., Johnson, J.W., Grider, K.L., & Grider, K.M.

(2009). The effectiveness of using a video I-Pod as a prompting device in employment settings. Journal of Behavior and Education, 18, 119-141.

Vig, S. (2007). Young children’s object play: A window on development. Journal of

Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 19, 201-215.

Application of Mastery and Progress Monitoring with a Specific Student

By: Brian E. Mac Farlane, MA.Ed

Introduction:

The purpose of this project is to develop a CBM probe and administer it to a student over a five week period beginning November 7, 2009. CBM refers to a Mastery Measurement which corresponds to a precise point on a yearlong continuum of learning objective, so it provides student assessment data that is cumulative . Similarly, a Mastery Measurement Assessment or MM is an assessment probe based on a pre-planned instructional sequence. Moreover, there are several ways in which CBM assessment probes can be used to help high-risk students. First, CBM can help identify those skills in which students may have the greatest challenge. Next, CBM can support the process of identifying those students who are not making progress in a general education setting. Last, CBM can track the student progress towards their IEP goals.

Progress monitoring was selected as the bases of this project because it will provide a number of benefits to teachers and students with special needs. First, it allows teachers to estimate the student rates of improvement verses rates of growth. Therefore, when teachers use progress monitoring it provides vital feedback on the skills currently being taught verses all the skills of a particular unit of study. A second advantage of progress monitoring is how it identifies students who are not making satisfactory progress and therefore need additional or alterative instruction. Finally, the third advantage of progress monitoring is how it evaluates the effectiveness of instruction so that teachers can create better instructional programs.

Instructional Strategy:

I selected to use the PALS as my instructional strategy approach for this CBM plan. Peer tutoring is a PALS approach instructional strategy that consist of pairing a high-performing reader with a low-performing one in order to complete activities designed to promote the development of reading skills. Moreover, this is approach ( peer tutoring ) represents a highly structured activity that have been demonstrated to improve students' learning. For example, Peer tutoring allows all students with and without learning difficulties to be actively involved in peer-mediated sessions Peer tutoring will also make it possible for students with disabilities to spend more time in the least restrictive environment.

Supporting Research: The below list of research supports my selection and use of Peer Tutoring.

• Peer tutoring can be effective when working with groups of students who have different instructional levels (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Mortweet et. al, 1999).

• Peer tutoring provides increased, focused instructional time that is linked to improvements in reading skills (Foorman &Torgesen, 2001).

• Peer tutoring increases the opportunities to practice skills (Mathes & Babyak, 2001)

• Peer tutoring allows students to receive more feedback and encouragement from peers (Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000).

• Peer tutoring increases positive social contacts linked to improvements in social and behavioral skills for students with emotional or behavioral disorders (Falk & Wehby, 2001).

• Both the tutors and the tutees show gains in the academic area addressed during the peer tutoring session (Falk & Wehby, 2001).

The CBM Plan:

Student Name: Pink Glory

Academic Subject: Language Arts

Focus: Reading / Decoding and Word Recognition

Content Standard: 2.1.3 decode two syllable nonsense words and regular multisyllable words.

Skill Tested: Word Identification Fluency

Teaching Strategy: Peer Tutoring

Mastery Measurement Probe: The student was asked to read a list of 20 sight words at the second grade level. The student attempted to read as many sight-words as possible she could within one minute.

Probe Administration: I administer the attached CBM and MM probes to the student in a one to one setting.

Mastery Measurement Probe Frequency: I created CBM and MM probes which were administered after each peer activity and every Friday to my student over a fiver week period. We sat at a small round table I use for one on one student testing.

MM Probe Scoring: I scored student performance based on the number of correct words read in one minute.

CBM Annual Goal:

By December 4, 2010, when given a list of 20 basic sight words for second grade, Pink will decode the target words with 100 % accuracy in 1 of 2 trials as measured by teacher created master measurement charted records.

Student Objective:

When given a list of 20 basic sight words for second grade, Pink will decode the target words with 100% accuracy as measured by teacher-charted records.

Student Profile & Selection Rationale:

Grade: 3, Age: 10, female, Disability: Other Learning Disability

Pink Glory was selected after an analysis of her current academic reading performance. Pinks can decode 80 words per minute at the independent 1^st grade level. I also selected Pink because she is an English language learner, enjoys learning, and her parents are very cooperative. Further, upon investigating Pink’s demographic data sheets, I discovered that both parents are Hispanic and list Spanish as their primary language.

CELDT overall test records indicate Pink began first grade at level B ( Beginning Level ) and by third grade she had advanced to I Level (intermediate). Therefore, I learned that Pink has a rich linguistic background that now includes the acquisition of English. So, she is currently at the initial acquisition level stage of the learning process as it relates to decoding and reading second grade sight words. This stage of the learning process involves helping students perform a skill through modeling, giving specific directions, providing feedback, and rewarding ( intrinsic ) for accuracy. Consequently, I selected Pink because she would profit academically from the benefits of the PAL strategy ( peer tutoring) and overall CBM process.

The CBM Process.

Step 1: Create or select appropriate tests (called probes) for the student's grade and skill level.

Step 2: Administer and score probes at regular intervals (weekly

Step 3: Graph the scores.

Step 4: Set goals.

Step 5: Make instructional decisions based on CBM data.

Step 6: Communicate the progress by providing students, parents, and other educational professionals with information about student growth throughout the school year.

CBM Plan Application (Narrative) :

Step 1:

Step one began by creating the appropriate probes at one grade level above Pink’s independent decoding skill level. Pink is decodes independently at the first grade level. She can read 20 first grade sight words within one minute. I teach a scripted SRA reading program that does not have a specific probe for sight words. Therefore, I used the Dolce Sight word list at the second grade level to construct her master probe, weekly mastery probes, and daily mastery measurement probes documents. This was somewhat of a laborious task because I have a very busy work schedule. So finding the time was somewhat of a challenge.

Step 2:

I administered three mastery probes the first of week 1. The Iris script I used each time I administered a probe was very helpful because it was very direct and clear.

Iris Reading Script:

Hand the specific probe to the student and ask the student to write their name on the reading sheet ( point to the name section).

Say: When I say start, “ I want you to read these words as correctly as you can.” Start here ( point to the first word) and read the page ( run your index finger down the list of sight words). Keep reading until you hear me say stop!

Check for Understanding: Ask: What are we going to do now?

Ask: Do you have any questions?

Trigger the stop watch for one minute.

So, Pink’s baseline was 3 out of 20 sight words in one minute. The weekly probes consists of 5 words, 10 words, 15 words, and finally 20 words respectively. Pink was intimidated when asked to read the sight words listed on a particular daily mastery measurement or weekly CBM probe within 1 minute. The probe score was calculated by subtracting the total correct answers from the total number of listed words . This calculation gave me her probe base-line score.

Peer Tutoring Activity:

I created flash cards with the sight words written on them. My students worked in pairs as the peer tutor “flashes” the white card and Pink read the word to the best of her ability. My students placed the correctly identified words in one pile and missed words in another. I reward the students with extra grade points for correctly identified words.

Step 3: I used a line graph to graph the student’s weekly probe percentage scores. This was an important step in the CBM process because, it symbolize a visual representation of the student’s progress towards academic goals.

Step 4: My next step entailed establishing student academic decoding goals. This step is important to indicate the expected level of proficiency that students will demonstrate by the end of the school year and the amount of growth expected in shorter periods of time (e.g., weekly goals). Therefore, the academic goal for Pink in this project was to read 20 sight words correctly within one minute. She was expected to achieve this goal at the end of a five week period.

Step 5: Data Analysis - MM Daily Probes

The trend-line analysis of the MM daily probes shows that Pink learned 3 per week verse the 4 words she actually needed to learn in order to achieve the learning goal. The MM daily probe contained 14 data points , whose mean value equaled 9.1. This means the instructional strategy was working because Pink generally averaged 4 words in a prior 5 week period. The data points also indicated a drop in the data trend after thanksgiving break. However, Pink was able to recover as the two data points on Dec. 1st and 3^rdshow an upward recover trend.

After an analysis of the student progress data, I made any necessary instructional decisions. For example, I provided practice to decode the sight words by supplying Pink with a set of index cards for her to practice at home with her mother. Mrs. Glory was more than happy to work with her daughter.

Step 6: The feedback and intrinsic rewards I gave Pink helped her become aware of any gaps that exist between the desired goal of 20 words and their current understanding. Communicating student progress is actually a fundamental component of the CBM process. So, I meet individually with my student to review the goals and actual performance. We also discussed her progress by utilizing the probe graphs. In addition, I communicated the student progress her mother. Similarly, other educational professionals were provided with copies of Pinks probes and or graphs at our grade level meetings. My colleagues were impressed that I would go through such trouble to teach a single student 20 sight words. However, by week three they were asking me for more details about the CBM process.

Personal Reflection:

This entire project reminded me about the excitement of science because it was filled with so many opportunities to make discovery. So, I began the CBM process by examining the class Year-end SRA and statewide assessment results to estimate a growth in knowledge and skills from one year to the next, identify academically at-risk students, and evaluate students' progress against national norms. Then, I estimated rates of improvement for each student. In addition, the assessment data had to be analyzed to identify students who are not making adequate progress and need additional or alternative instruction. Last, I would use the student assessment results to identify specific curriculum standards my students were struggling with. Moreover, this discovery process helped me select Pink Glory as my targeted student. Further, I initially hoped that this assignment would help me evaluate the effectiveness of my instructional strategy and CBM.

I teach a scripted math and reading program that does not have a specific probe for multiplication. So, the mastery measurement probe had to be teacher generated. Next, I had to schedule the actual times for administer as well as scoring the student weekly mastery probe. This phase presented a challenge because I cannot reduce the amount of instructional RSP time Pink receives on a daily basis. So , I used the time I had for initial testing and Pink’s PE time to set-up the teaching strategy. All MM data results had to be recorded and displayed in a line graph. This is an important step in the CBM process because; it makes a visual representation of the student’s progress towards goals. Pink was very curious the first time she saw her graph. However, she gained a better understanding of when I graphed and presented her math lesson scores.

In retrospect, I am happy about my selection of Peer tutoring primarily because it symbolized a researched based strategy that require a minimal amount of time for implementation. My target student and a peer used flash cards to practice new sight words (high frequency or irregular words ). I must say that this part of the process requires a lot of modeling and monitoring. For example, at first I misjudged how much both students understood the peer activity as they saw it as a game. However, I was able to change their understanding through additional modeling and monitoring the activity. Further, this learning strategy actually provided an opportunity for Pink to review previously taught sight words and learn new ones in a systematic way. Likewise, the practice helped my student build upon her oral language because it included targeted sight words and short sentences containing the selected sight words.

Establishing student academic a CBM bench mark was the next stage in my process. I can now understand the importance of communicating the expected level of proficiency that students will demonstrate over the next four weeks in a visual format. Similarly, it was vital to use the graph to communicate the amount of growth expected in shorter periods of time ( weekly goals) . After analysis of the student progress data, I made minor changes in my instructional strategies. For example, I provided practice using a computer software program for reading. Pink used Accelerated Reader to practice reading and it give her immediate feedback.

The final step in the CBM process is to communicate student progress. All my student’s parents currently receive trimester progress reports, however I communicated the MM assessment results in student progress report phone call and sent a copy of the daily probe home. Pink’s mother really liked the phone call and supporting student work because prior RSP teachers only communicated her daughters progress at the IEP meting. Similarly, I shard the results of the mastery measurement probes with Pink, in a short one on one weekly progress towards goal meeting. At first she did’nt offer much of a response. Yet, by the third mastery probe she began to see and understand her progress.

The line graphs were a great source of pride for pink as she would often share her results with friends. I plan to expand this project and use it with my other students who receive decoding instruction because they are asking to see their graphs. I recommend all teachers really spend some time with this portion of the process because it provides an great opportunity to use graphs to make a connection between their effort and incremental progress. So, I plan post MM line graphs of my other student in the next reading process monitoring as it will act as a visual motivator as we celebrate the their success. Finally, I enjoyed sharing the student progress data with my special education program specialist, site administrator and special education teachers at my school site.

Procedure Effectiveness:

Data Analysis:

Overall, although Pink did not score a perfect score on the final CBM Probe, the CBM process proved effective. Pink was able to make satisfactory progress because she was learning about four new sight words per week. Her incremental growth rate was acceptable for someone with her disability because without this process it took her roughly two months to make the same amount of progress. Pink did not meet the intended project learning objective, but I am please twith the effect CBM had on her ability to learn. The final CBM probe assessment score indicate Pink was able to read 17 out of 20 sight words in 1 minute. Wow, this represents a proficiency score of 85%. Pink actually scored better than the our school district proficiency rate is 80 % . Moreover, the CBM weekly probes data chart show Pink was always progressing as evidenced by the upward trend line. So, the CBM process and instructional strategy had a positive effect on my student because Pink was able to learn.

I will use the results of this plan in my instructional planning by changing the instruction to meet the needs of my class and individual students. For example, I will use more time to drill the class or a particular student through the use of flash cards or timed drills. In addition, I plan to reduce the amount of direct instruction and include more peer activities in which the students practice reading aloud the sight words in one minute. Further, I will use the results of the data to support my efforts to have my students take more responsibility for their academic progress. I will allow students to full access to their individual performance data through the use of folders. In addition, I will have my students self reflect on their own efforts as it relates to CBM goals, and make the appropriate adjustment for success.

Moreover, there were several ways in which CBM assessment probes helped my high-risk student. First, the CBM helped me identify those skills in which Pink had the greatest challenge ( remembering and learning sight words). Next, the CBM process supported how I identified Pink progress in a RSP educational setting. Last, the CBM process defined how to track Pinks’s progress towards her IEP goals.

Finally, the application of a CBM process in my classroom actually supported the current reading / SRA decoding curriculum. I currently teach a scripted reading /decoding curriculum program to students with mild-to moderate learning disabilities. It is an elementary basal reading program for grades K-6 developed by SRA/McGraw-Hill. This curriculum was designed to systematically teach decoding, comprehension, inquiry and investigation, and writing in a logical progression. However, the program does not segregate a specific content standard or stand because they are embedded into a single lesson with multiple objectives. In addition, decoding lessons lacked a systematic way to track and communicate student progress. Thus, incorporating the CBM process will provide a positive addition to the SRA reading and decoding curriculum program I currently use to teach my students with disabilities.