Fluent Essays

see attachment title finalWeek 6 - Final Paper   · Points 25   Individualized Education Program Throughout this course you have been developing your skills in aspects of curriculum design and delivery to create meaningful classroom instruction that aligns with curriculum, standards, and individualized education program goals. In this program, we have located and evaluated evidence-based instructional strategies and curriculum design, including collaboration with service providers to best meet the academic needs of students with mild to moderate disabilities. We have examined assessment-driven instruction, background and cultural influences, and factors of maintenance and generalization of skills. The purpose of this assignment is the culmination of the learning achieved in this course through a real-world application of the content. This summative assessment supports your achievement of Course Learning Outcomes 1, 2, 3, and 4 and the MASE Program Learning Outcomes 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. For this assignment you will be assuming the role of a special educator working with Mr. Franklin and will create important components of an IEP. As you have read in the Instructor Guidance and throughout this course and the MASE program; an IEP · Consists of a legal document outlining an assessment-based measurable goals and objectives. · Provides more intensive intervention and services. · Specifies supports around the student’s specific needs. · Involves active collaboration with teachers, support staff, the student, and parents. · Dictates progress measurement and monitoring. Bridging this real-life experience with the theories of instruction in the virtual course environment, this assignment mirrors a career building experience. In this course and in previous coursework you have learned about the process of developing an IEP document and the participation in a multidisciplinary team to, in part, plan and collaboratively develop key goals around the student’s areas of strengths and weaknesses. It is important to access previous video examples, discussions, and other coursework as your develop this plan. You have been collecting these web addresses in your link library. This would be a perfect time to access them. In this example, you will focus on components of an IEP that are written by the team and that support the assessment-based functional performance skills. A student in Mr. Franklin’s class has been assessed for special education eligibility and services. This young man, Huang, was determined to be eligible under the primary handicapping condition of high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and the secondary handicapping condition of speech/language impairment. A full comprehensive individualized evaluation (including a summative assessment report) has been completed and it is now time for the IEP team, including you serving as the special educator, Mr. Franklin, Huang’s parents, the diagnostic team, and the district administrator to develop an appropriate IEP for him. InRequired Resources Articles Burns, M. K., Egan, A. M., Kunkel, A. K., McComas, J., Peterson, M. M., Rahn, N. L., & Wilson, J. (2013).  Training for generalization and maintenance in RTI implementation: Front-loading for sustainability . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(2), 81-88. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12009 · The full-text version of this article is available through the EBSCOhost database in the Ashford University Library. This article discusses ways in which programming for generalization and maintenance can be incorporated into interventions such as RTI. This article will support your Promotion Maintenance and Generalization discussion this week. Osnes, P. G., & Lieblein, T. (2003).  An explicit technology of generalization . The Behavior Analyst Today, 3(4), 364-374. doi:10.1037/h0099994 · The full-text version of this article is available through the EBSCOhost database in the Ashford University Library. This article builds upon the seminal article from Stokes and Baer (1977) to extend the strategies that can be used for targeting generalization of skills. This article will support your Promotion Maintenance and Generalization discussion this week. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977).  An implicit technology of generalization (Links to an external site.) . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(2), 349-367. doi:10.1901/jaba.1977.10-349 · The full-text version of this article is available through the National Center for Biotechnology Information website at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1311194/pdf/jaba00113-0179.pdf. This seminal article on generalization provides seven strategies for promoting generalization of skills. This article will support your Promotion Maintenance and Generalization discussion this week. Recommended Resource Article Young, K.R., West, R., Howard, V., & Whitney, R. (1986).  Acquisition, fluency training, generalization, and maintenance of dressing skills of two developmentally disabled children (Links to an external site.) . Education and Treatment of Children, 9(1), 16-29. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42898943 · This article on stages of learning provides a background on acquisition, fluency, generalization, and maintenance of skills. This article will support your Promotion Maintenance and Generalization discussion this week.ESE668: EVIDENCE-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS FOR STUDENTS WITH MILD TO MODERATE DISABILITIES Instructor Guidance Week 6 Congratulations! Welcome to the final week of ESE 668: Evidence-Based Instructional Methods for Students with Mild to Moderate Disabilities. Please be sure to review the Week Six homepage for this course to see: · The specific learning outcomes for the week. · The schedule overview. · The required and recommended resources. · The introduction to the week. · A listing of the assessments. Next, be sure to read this entire Instructor Guidance page. Overview This week, we will discuss one final component needed in EBP methods for students with mild to moderate disabilities: Maintenance and generalization of skills. Now is the time to reflect upon all you have learned and experienced in this course. In Week Six, you will prepare your Final Project consisting of the requirements in the guidance.  Intellectual Elaboration Stages of Skill Development and Learning When a student is presented with a new skill, there are four stages of learning they will go through (Young, West, Howard, & Whitney, 1986): 1. Acquisition. 2. Fluency. 3. Maintenance. 4. Generalization. As educators, our initial aim is acquisition. Goals and objectives must be written using S.M.A.R.T. for this express purpose of skill acquisition. What about the other stages? Is it enough for a student to be able to perform a skill in the classroom? What about their efficiency in doing so? Fluency involves accuracy and speed. If a student can add numbers when provided a problem on paper, is it enough that she is successful in doing so in 30 minutes per problem? Probably not. We also need to consider writing goals to ensure fluency of skills. Maintenance of Skills Now what about maintenance? Will skills be helpful for our students if they are able to fluently complete the skill in the classroom when it is taught, but a week later cannot perform the skill as a prerequisite for the next stage of the task? What about if a student was able to complete math facts fluently in 5th grade, but did not maintain the skill after secondary school? Goals must be explicitly written to consider maintenance of skills. One way to do this is to align goals and objectives with CCSS as we discussed in Week Four of this course. When we have long-term goals that build upon the previously mastered skills, we promote maintenance of acquired skills over time. Technology of Generalization in Special Education “Generalization refers to the transfer of what is learned in one setting or situation to another setting or situation without explicit teaching or programming in the second transfer setting.” --Autism Ontario, 2011, pg. 35 One of your required readings this week is a seminal article discussing the technology of generalization, which is often a missed step in the education process. We cannot assume that all students with passively generalize the skills they have learned in the classOregon Department of Education Office of Learning/Student Services 255 Capitol Street NE Salem, OR 97310-0203 Oregon Standard INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM DEMOGRAPHICS ___Huang Le ____________ __Anytown School District __________ __________________________________ Student Resident District IEP Meeting Date __ Anytown School District __________ __________________________________ Gender: _X_ M ___ F Grade: _____ Attending District Annual IEP Review Date ___xx/xx/xx_______________ __ Anytown School ___________ __________________________________ Date of Birth (mm/dd/yy) Attending School Amendment Date __111-111-111______________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Secure Student Identifier (SSID) Case Manager Most Recent (re)Evaluation Date __AU Autism Spectrum Disorder ______ _SI Speech/Language Impairment ___ __________________________________ Primary Disability Code & Category Secondary Disability Code & Category – OPTIONAL Re-Evaluation Due Date MEETING PARTICIPANTS _Huang Le _____ __Duyi Le __________ __An Liu ______________ Student Parent/Guardian/Surrogate Parent/Guardian/Surrogate __________________________________ ____________________________________ __Dr. Susan Jones __________ Special Education Teacher / Provider Special Education Teacher / Provider District Representative _Mr. Franklin________________________ ____________________________________ ___Dr. John Smith _________________ General Education Teacher General Education Teacher Individual Interpreting Instructional Implications of Evaluations _N/A ___________________________ Denay Gonzales, Speech/Language Pathologist Shiri Ali, BCBA, Autism Specialist________ Agency Representative, if appropriate Other Other __________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Other Other Other NOTE: If required team member participates through written input or is excused from all or part of the IEP meeting, attach documentation of parent’s and district’s agreement to participate by written input or excuse. A district provided interpreter was used for this meeting: YES ( NO ( Name _______________________________________________ PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARD NOTIFICATION 34 CFR 300.504(a) ( * ) To note required team members? SPECIAL FACTORS In developing each student’s IEP, the IEP team must consider (34 CFFULL COMPREHENSIVE INDIVIDUALIZED EVALUATION REPORT DEMOGRAPHICS ___Huang Le_______ __Anytown School District _________________ __ Student Resident District IEP Meeting Date __ Anytown School District _________________ __ Gender: _X_ M ___ F Grade: _____ Attending District Annual IEP Review Date ___xx/xx/xx_________ __ Anytown School ___________ _________________ ___ Date of Birth (mm/dd/yy) Attending School Amendment Date __111-111-111_____ ____________________________ _________________ __ Secure Student Identifier (SSID) Case Manager Most Recent (re)Evaluation Date AU Autism Spectrum Disorder _SI Speech/Language Impairment _________________ ___ Primary Disability Code & Category Secondary Disability Code & Category – OPTIONAL Re-Evaluation Due Date INITIAL EVALUATIONS A. the evaluation is conducted in accordance with the procedures in federal and state law, B. the results of the evaluation are used by the IEP Committee in developing an individualized education program (IEP) TIME LINE A written report of a full individual evaluation of a student for purposes of special education services shall be completed not later than the 60th calendar day following the date on which the referral for assessment was initiated by school personnel, the student’s parent or legal guardian, or another appropriate person. The assessment shall be conducted using procedures that are appropriate for the student’s most proficient method of communication. The 60 calendar day time line requirements for the special education department processing and assessment begins from the time that the parent/guardian signs notice and consent for FIE. Data should be gathered and sent to special education assessment person as soon as possible. PURPOSE The purpose of the full individual evaluation is to: A. determine eligibility and the presence or absence of a physical, mental, or emotional disability which may affect the student’s successful participation in the general education curriculum; B. determine the presence or absence of a significant educational deficit and the need for special education instructional and/or related services; C. identify specific learning competencies in instructional and related service areas; D. make recommendations for determining the grading criteria and procedures for participation in extracurricular activities; and E. provide information relative to the appropriate mastery level or levels at which the student should be expected to achieve in order to receive passing grades in all content areas of instruction. EVALUATION DATA: PLAAFP Based on observation and data collected: PRESENT LEVELS OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE PRESENT LEVELS OF FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE STRENGTHS OF THE STUDENT Huang has shown on or above grade level performance for CCSS in: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(2), 81–88 C© 2013 The Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children Training for Generalization and Maintenance in RtI Implementation: Front-Loading for Sustainability Matthew K. Burns, Andrea M. Egan, Amy K. Kunkel, Jennifer McComas, Meredith M. Peterson, Naomi L. Rahn, and Jennifer Wilson University of Minnesota Response to Intervention (RtI) is being implemented as a new initiative in PK-12 schools with increasing frequency. However, the model must be sustained at the school level, which is potentially difficult due to a number of challenges brought about by systems change. This article applied the Stokes and Baer (1977) framework for programming for generalization and maintenance of behavior change to suggest specific activities in which schools could engage to better ensure RtI sustainability. We specifically discussed ways to (1) introduce to natural maintaining contingencies, (2) train with sufficient exemplars, (3) train loosely, (4) program common stimuli, (5) mediate generalization, and (6) train to generalize. Directions for future research are included. Response to Intervention (RtI) and other multitiered inter- vention systems are being adopted nationwide with increas- ing frequency (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster & Saunders, 2009) to increase student achievement for all students, reduce re- ferrals to special education, and close existing achievement gaps (Fuchs, Fuchs & Stecker, 2010). RtI has the potential to positively affect both systemic and student outcomes (Burns, Appleton & Stehouwer, 2005), but, some question whether the RtI movement will sustain over time (Burns, 2007; Ys- seldyke, 2005). RtI initiatives must ultimately be sustained at the school level, and organizations adopting a system of RtI are faced with a multitude of challenges brought about by systems change (Grimes, Kurns & Tilly, 2006). Previous research has found that implementation integrity could be a serious threat to the validity of RtI models (Gansle & Noell, 2007). For example, school personnel consistently assessed fidelity of implementation for interventions that oc- curred at tier 2, but did not assess fidelity at tier 1, and the alignment between tiers was not explicit (Hill, King, Lemons & Partanen, 2012). Moreover, implementation integrity of problem-solving teams (PSTs) was low to the point of po- tentially affecting student outcomes (Burns & Symington, 2002). Some of the challenges regarding implementation in- tegrity can be avoided by building on the existing knowledge of the school personnel, streamlining processes, and using a clear system of communication between interventionist and teacher (Johnson, Pool & Carter, 2012). However, implemen- tation integrity can still wane as the implementation moves further from the initial supports (Burns & Symington, 2002; Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow & Swank, 1999), which further highlights the need to focus on sustainability. RequeO S N E S & L I E B L E I N AN EXPLICIT TECHNOLOGY OF GENERALIZATION Pamela G. Osnes & Tara Lieblein University of South Florida The publication of the now classic article on generalization, “An Implicit Technology of Generalization” (Stokes & Baer, 1977), spurred interest in generalization as an active process rather than a passive process consisting primarily of a failure to discriminate between training and nontraining settings. Following their description of nine areas in which the extant behavioral research addressed generalization issues, a new interest in generalization of behavior change was borne. More than a decade later, their description of categories of techniques that purportedly could be used to produce generalization was refined in “An Operant Pursuit of Generalization” (Stokes & Osnes, 1989). Stokes and Osnes described 12 generalization-promoting strategies that were classified within three broader areas. Their description assisted the field in continuing to focus interest on the fundamental need for the results of behavioral interventions to generalize effectively and to be durable and for behavioral research to actively address generalization. Now, more than a decade following the publication of “An Operant Pursuit of Generalization” and a quarter century after “An Implicit Technology of Generalization” was published, the time has arrived to address the status of generalization-promotion by behavior analysts, both in their conceptual and empirical investigations. The publication of “An Implicit Technology of Generalization” (Stokes & Baer, 1977) resulted in a groundswell of interest in generalization as an active process that is important for behavior analysts to pursue directly to validate the effectiveness of behavioral programming. This classic article embedded in behavior analysis the realization that our work is functional not only when it produces immediate effects in the immediate environment that is targeted for change, but more importantly, when the effects are more widespread. Baer, Wolf, and Risley (1968) included generality of behavior change as one of the seven dimensions of applied behavior analysis, and concluded that, “in general, generalization should be programmed, rather than expected or lamented” (p 97). Their description of generality is consistent with the description provided by Stokes and Baer: “A therapeutic behavioral change, to be effective, often (not always) must occur over time, persons, and settings, and the effects of the change sometimes should spread to a variety of related behaviors” (p. 350). While acknowledging that their conceptualization of generalization was not consistent necessarily with the traditional understanding and descriptions of the phenomenon, they proceeded to provide a description of generalization as “...the occurrence of relevant behavior under different, non-training conditions (i.e., across subjects, 1977, 10, 349-367 AN IMPLICIT TECHNOLOGY OF GENERALIZATION TREVOR F. STOKES AND DONALD M. BAER THE UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA AND THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS Traditionally, discrimination has been understood as an active process, and a technology of its procedures has been developed and practiced extensively. Generalization, by con- trast, has been considered the natural result of failing to practice a discrimination technology adequately, and thus has remained a passive concept almost devoid of a technology. But, generalization is equally deserving of an active conceptualization and technology. This review summarizes the structure of the generalization literature and its implicit embryonic technology, categorizing studies designed to assess or program generalization according to nine general headings: Train and Hope; Sequential Modifi- cation; Introduce to Natural Maintaining Contingencies; Train Sufficient Exemplars; Train Loosely; Use Indiscriminable Contingencies; Program Common Stimuli; Mediate Generalization; and Train To Generalize. DESCRIPTORS: generalization, treatment-gain durability, followup measures, main- tenance, postcheck methodology Traditionally, many theorists have considered generalization to be a passive phenomenon. Gen- eralization was not seen as an operant response that could be programmed, but as a description of a natural outcome of any behavior-change process. That is, a teaching operation repeated over time and trials inevitably involves varying samples of stimuli, rather than the same set every time; in the same way, it inevitably evokes and reinforces varying samples of behavior, rather than the same set every time. As a conse- quence, it is predictable that newly taught re- sponses would be controlled not only by the stimuli of the teaching program, but by others somewhat resembling those stimuli (Skinner, 1953, p. 107ff.). Similarly, responses resembling those established directly, yet not themselves ac- tually touched by the teaching procedures, would appear as a result of the teaching (Keller and Preparation of this paper was supported in part by PHS Training Grant 00183, Program Project Grant HD 00870, and Research Grant MH 11739. Reprints may be obtained either from T. F. Stokes, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2, or D. M. Baer, Depart- ment of Human Development, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045. Schoenfeld, 1950, p. 168ff.). Thus, generaliza- tion was something that happened, not some- thing produced by procedures specific to it. If generalization seemed absent or insignifi- cant, it was simply to be assumed that the teach- ing process had managed to maintain unusually tight control of the stimuli and responses in- volved, allowing little sampling of their varie- ties. This assumption was strongly supported by the well-known techniques of discrimination: by differential reinforcement (in general, by any differential teaching) of certain stim