Michelle Hinzman Barbara Pline Chamoni DeLong Pamela Fields Functional Assessment of Academic...
-
Upload
trevor-simpson -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Michelle Hinzman Barbara Pline Chamoni DeLong Pamela Fields Functional Assessment of Academic...
Michelle HinzmanBarbara PlineChamoni DeLongPamela Fields
Functional Assessment of Academic PerformanceHow to select, assess, and provide interventions for students
• Framework used to identify the most effective evidence-based intervention for students
• Before recommending an intervention, AEA staff test a series of interventions during brief instructional trials
• The effect on a specific target (e.g., oral reading) is assessed during each trial
• The intervention that produces the largest gains is implemented for an extended period
What is FAA?
• Time-efficient, reliable, and cost effective
• Links assessment directly to intervention
• Combines evidence-based instruction, formative assessment, and response to intervention
• Prevents the necessity of ineffective interventions being implemented for extended time
Why is FAA effective?
Who has been trained?• 4 Fluency Cohorts
– Fall 2012
– Spring 2013
– 2013-14 Academic Year
– 2014-15 Academic Year
• 41 AEA Staff– 26 School Psychologists
– 10 Consultants
– 5 Social Workers
• 1 Decoding Cohort– 2014-15 Academic
Year
• 11 AEA Staff– 9 School Psychologists
– 2 Consultants
Where has FAA been implemented?
FAA Fluency Interventions
Grade
1
Grade
2
Grade
3
Grade
4
Grade
5
Grade
6
Grade
7
Grade
8
Grade
9
Grade
10
Grade
11
Grade
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Number of Students
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
den
ts
Student Outcomes
All Students
Very Effective Above 90%, N=25
Effective 70-90%, N=17
Ques-tionable Effec-
tiveness 50-70%,
N=4
Ineffec-tive Be-
low 50%, N=11
All Students
Teacher Perceptions of the FAA Process
Behavior Intervention Rating Scale (BIRS) • 24 self-report items
• 6-point Likert scale
• Higher mean score reflects higher acceptability (i.e., 1-Strongly Disagree, 6-Strongly Agree)
• Three factors– Acceptability
– Effectiveness
– Time to Effect
Question: This was an acceptable intervention for the child’s reading concerns.
Mean: 5.30/Standard Deviation: .89
Agree Disagree0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Nu
mb
er
of
Resp
on
den
ts
96%
Question: The intervention proved effective in improving the child’s reading skills.
Mean: 4.83/Standard Deviation: 1.01
Agree Disagree0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Nu
mb
er
of
Resp
on
den
ts
96%
Question: I would suggest the use of this intervention to other teachers.
Mean: 5.17/Standard Deviation: 0.78
Agree Disagree0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Nu
mb
er
of
Resp
on
den
ts
98%
Question: I would be willing to use this intervention in the classroom setting.
Mean: 5.09/Standard Deviation: 0.81
Agree Disagree0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Nu
mb
er
of
Resp
on
den
ts
96%
Question: The intervention quickly improved the child’s reading skills.
Mean: 4.36/Standard Deviation: 1.13
Agree Disagree0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Nu
mb
er
of
Resp
on
den
ts
85%
Question: Soon after the intervention started, a positive change in classroom performance was noticeable.
Mean: 3.96/Standard Deviation: 1.27
Agree Disagree0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Nu
mb
er
of
Resp
on
den
ts
75%
Question: The intervention produced lasting improvements in the child’s reading skills.
Mean: 4.46/Standard Deviation: 1.03
Agree Disagree0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Nu
mb
er
of
Resp
on
den
ts
85%
Chami DeLong
NPR: 1-10 NPR: 11-34 NPR: 35-65 NPR: 66-89 NPR 90-99 Overall0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
450%
5th Grade Class 2014-2015
Average Growth 2nd-3rdAverage Growth 3rd-4th
Average Growth 2nd-3rd Average Growth 3rd-4th0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
5th Grade Class 2014-2015
Special EdNon-Special Ed
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2014-2015 5th Grade
Non-Proficient %Proficient %
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2014-2015 5th Grade Percent Proficient
IEPNon-IEP
Laura Ramaekers
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-20140
20
40
60
80
100
120
103
84
64
81
33
70
Office Discipline ReferralsTrendline
Time Gained
Instructional Time-hours 25 hours
Instructional Time-days 4 days
Administrative Time-hours
17 hours
Instructional Time-days 2 days
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
61
79
84
7774
79
Self Assessment SurveyFidelity 80%
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
0
20
40
60
80
100
120103
84
64
81
33
70
Office Discipline ReferralsTrendline
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
0
20
40
60
80
100
61
79 8477 74 79
PBIS Self Assessment Survey
Fidelity 80%
3rd 4th 5th0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Reading Proficiency Rates
08-09: ITBS09-10: ITBS10-11: ITBS11-12: IA12-13: IA13-14: IA
Perc
ent
Pro
ficie
nt