Transcript Iowa Twice-Exceptional Needs Assessment

Identification of Students for Gifted Programs
and
Assessment of Gifted Students
for Programming:
What’s the Difference?
Presented at the
Pennsylvania Department of Education Conference
by
Susan Assouline, Ph.D.
Associate Director of The Belin-Blank Center for
Gifted Education
Presentation Goals
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identification and Assessment – are they synonymous?
Identification in the K-12 systems
Ability/ Achievement continuum
The discovery model of University-based talent searches
Group vs. individual tests as a component of assessment
Special Issues
• General vs. specific aptitude
• Students who are still learning English – are nonverbal tests
the answer?
• Twice-exceptional learners – a case example of the
importance of a comprehensive assessment
Identification and Assessment – are they
synonymous?
Identification:
Testing
to determine
qualification for
A program
Assessment:
Testing
to answer
a referral question
Identification and Assessment – are they
synonymous?
• Identification typically means selecting students for
a program should be based on program criteria. It
usually includes testing as a major component to the
decision-making process
• Assessment includes testing as one of four
components of a comprehensive process focused on
responding to a referral question
Identification (K-12)
typically means selecting
students for a program and
should be based on program
criteria.
Why Test/Assess
Testing produces facts. Assessment
adds meaning to those facts within the
context of the person/ group who is/are
being assessed.
Placement vs. Programming
For gifted students, placement may be
part of the goal, but this should not be in
the absence of programming.
Definitions of Giftedness and
Programming
What role does a definition play in identification ?
Who is served by the definition?
Who is NOT served by the definition?
What is your personal definition of giftedness?
Which comes first – the definition or the student?
Does your district have a definition of giftedness?
How does the definition relate to the program?
Identification
•
Program definition
• Take a few minutes to describe your district’s program. Is it:
• Enrichment . . . pull-out from regular class
• Self-contained gifted program
• Subject acceleration (e.g., math)
• Autonomous Learner Model (ALM)
• Classroom Differentiation
Enrichment Programs (K-12)
Program goals: add depth and breadth to the regular
curriculum.
Delivery systems include:
Resource room, special interest clubs, summer
programs, etc.
Approaches to instruction focus on:
Process, Content, Product
Pennsylvania TAG
•
www.nagc.org/CMS400Min/index.aspx?id=37
•
www.nagc.org/CMS400Min/index.aspx?id=677
•
www.penngifted.org/
Pennsylvania TAG: Statistics and
Policies
•
•
Total Student Population (K-12): 1,820,136
Number of Identified Gifted Students 76,549 (Gifted
identification only; there may be others who have a primary
identification of disabled.)
•
State Funding for Gifted and Talented Education
• $2.5 million Gov. School & RSSE (2003-2004) and
(2004-2005)
• Mandate for ID and Services, early entrance permitted
• Dual enrollment and alternate high school certificate –
local decision
Gifted Education – K-12 or precollege
• In-School Programming
– Goal of SEM = a comprehensive menu of
challenging opportunities
– Identification of students for SEM = aboveaverage achievement, creativity, and motivation
– (Gifted students with disabilities may be
inadvertently excluded from participation)
• Outside-of-School Programming
1972 the Talent Search is established
(Gifted students with disabilities may be
inadvertently recruited for participation)
Identification for K- 12 Programs
Program goals: add depth and breadth to the regular
curriculum:
Resource room, special interest clubs, summer
programs, etc.
Identification of students = above-average
achievement, creativity, and motivation
Which of these three is easiest to measure?
What is the relationship between ability,
aptitude, and achievement testing?
Ability
Aptitude
IQ
Talent Search
Achievement
ITBS
Grade-level tests can not provide
sufficient information to plan
for excellence
What Happens When Students with Scores at the
Upper Percentiles Take an Above-level test?
There is a new bell curve.
Some students who were at the upper
percentiles on the grade level test also
score well on the above-level test;
others do not do as well
Talent Search as a Discovery
Model of Gifted Students
What is a talent search?
Why is it a system of discovery rather than identification?
How do students benefit from a talent search?
What have we learned about talented students who have
participated in talent searches?
Alternatives to Acceleration
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Enrichment
Pull-out Resource
Classroom Differentiation
Independent Projects
Cooperative Learning
Special-topic Projects
Field Trips
Competitions
• Some students’ needs can
be met be these approaches
• Anything that helps is a plus
but:
These Alternatives are
Weaker
• Because, for high ability
students none of these
approaches has produced
the compelling research
evidence of acceleration.
Types of Acceleration and
Identification of Gifted Students
18 forms of acceleration identified in A Nation Deceived
Those 18 forms fall into one of two broad categories:
Subject-based acceleration
Students typically remain with peers of same age and
grade
Grade-based acceleration (“grade skipping”)
Students typically do not remain with same-age peers
Appropriate for most highly talented students
Subject-based Acceleration
Provides student advanced content, skills, and
understanding before expected age or grade level
•
•
•
•
•
•
Single-subject acceleration
Compacted curriculum
Distance learning
Talent search programs
Independent study/Mentoring
AP courses
Grade-based Acceleration
Shortens the number of years a student remains in
the K-12 school system
•
•
•
•
•
Early entrance to kindergarten or first grade
Grade skipping
Multi-grade classrooms
Grade telescoping (2 years in one)
Early admission to college
Grade-based Acceleration
“Not only was academic achievement more
positive for the grade skipped learners, but
also their social adjustment and academic
self-esteem were more positive.”
Karen B. Rogers
University of St Thomas (Minnesota)
Dimensions to Acceleration
Pacing:
Rate of Instruction
Salience:
Prominence to Others
Peers:
Degree of Social Separation
Access:
Availability of Offerings
Timing:
Age of Options
From Nation Deceived Chapter 1 (Southern & Jones)
www.nationdeceived.org
Assessment and Acceleration
Decisions: Ability Tests
• Required
– Cognitive Abilities Test
– Differential Ability Scales
– Kaufman Assessment
Battery for Children
– SB:V
– WISC-IV
– Woodcock-Johnson
Cognitive Ability Scale
• Supplemental
– Cognitive Abilities Test
– Otis-Lennon School
Ability Test
– Raven’s Progressive
Matrices
– Slosson Intelligence Test
– Other
Assessment and Acceleration Decisions:
Aptitude and Achievement Tests
• Aptitude
• EXPLORE
• ACT
• CAT
• PLUS
• SAT
• SCAT
• CTP-IV
• Achievement
– Group Administered
• California
• ITBS
– Individually Administered
• Stanford Diagnostic
Mathematics or Reading
• Woodcock Johnson IIIAchievement
Students for whom English is not
their first language/ or the
dominant language in the home:
Verbal and Non-verbal tests: Which is the
better predictor?
What is the proper role of testing in
identification of gifted students who are
not fluent in English?
Can students be gifted and disabled?
Javits Twice Exceptional Project
The SLD component:
– Diagnosis of SLD has doubled since it was
introduced as a category in 1975
– Extensive number of articles, mainly
anecdotal case studies, and not necessarily
with gifted students
Students with
Disabilities
Gifted Students
Twice Exceptional Students
Special Education
• 1975 Federal Legislation
• Evolution of the categories (currently 13) as
understanding increased
• Dramatic increases in numbers
– From 1991 to 2000 an increase of 28.4% in the
number of students ages 6 to 21 receiving services;
in 2005, 13.8%
– In 1976, only ¼ of students were considered LD,
but by 1990, LD represented ½ and LD has
maintained its first-place rank
IDEA 2004
• Gifted and Talented Students with a
disability are recognized as one of the
groups of students whose needs have
priority in US DOE grants to guide
research, personnel preparation, and
technical assistance
Specific Learning Disabilities
•
Students with “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 an imperfect ability to listen, think,
speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical
calculations including conditions such a perceptual
disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction,
dyslexia, and developmental apahasia.” (Similar to
federal definition)
Disorder of Written Expression
•
•
•
Writing skills below expectations given
age, IQ, and age-appropriate education
Interferes with academic achievement
or writing grammatically correct
sentences and organized paragraphs
If sensory deficit present, difficulties in
writing are more than what is
associated with the deficit
The Assessment Process
Comprehensive assessment to rule-out Specific
Learning Disorder includes:
Individualized Intelligence Test -(WISC-IV)
2 Individualized Achievement Tests (e. g., WJ-III and the WIAT)
Behavioral Assessment (BASC-2) Self Report, Parent, and Teacher
Scales
Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, (VMI)
Grooved Pegboard Test
Results -- Ability
IQ Scales (Wechsler)
Verbal Comprehension (VCI)
Perceptual Reasoning (PRI)
Processing Speed (PSI)
Median
126
121
91
Range
112-150
108-138
83-112
General Ability Index**
124
101-148
*** WJ-Cog for 3 students not reported
Results -- Achievement
WJIII Scales
Broad Written Language
Spelling
Writing Fluency
Writing Samples
Editing
Median
96.5
97
93
99
103
Range
80-115
65-129
66-114
70-119
91-116
Cognitive Profile
Ability and Achievement Discrepancies
General Ability
Verbal Ability
Processing Speed
Broad WL
Case Example: Specific Learning
Disability in Written Language
•
•
•
•
A.L.—A bright student with problems completing assignments
Age 17, Junior in High School
Current classes include
– AP Language and Composition
– Physics
– Chemistry
– Anatomy and Physiology
– Pre-Calculus
Interests
– Reading (science fiction, suspense)
– Computers
Brief background
• Developmental
– Healthy
– Genetic vision abnormality (esotropia) Dx age 9 mos.
(glasses)
– Developmental milestones normal, except reading (age 8)
– Periodic complaints of eye fatigue and headaches
• Educational
– Home-schooled through 3rd grade
– Public school beginning in 4th grade
– 4th Grade ITBS: Reading 98, Language 64, Math 99
Brief background
• Previous evaluation
by AEA
– Prompted by
difficulties in written
language in 6th
grade
– Assessment:
Woodcock-Johnson
Written Language
(Grade percentiles)
Spelling
73
Writing Fluency
30
Writing Samples
97
Editing
69
Punctuation/
Capitalization
88
Brief background
• AEA Interventions during 6th grade
• Direct instruction in writing & editing
strategies
– Promotion of writing fluency
– Instruction on ways to manage frustration
– Recommendations for future use of
dictation/computer
th
7
Grade ITBS Scores
• Total Scores
(National
Percentiles)
Reading
99
Language
Capitalization
Punctuation
90
51
79
99
Usage/Expression
Math
99
Social Studies
99
Science
94
Composite
99
10th Grade ITED Scores
• Total Scores
(National
Percentiles)
Reading
99
Revising Written
Materials
79
Math
94
Social Studies
98
Science
97
Composite
97
ACT (11th Grade)
• Total Scores
(National
Percentiles)
English
70
Math
81
Reading
87
Science
90
Composit
e
89
Assessment Results (WAIS-III)
Index
Standard Score
Percentile
Verbal Comprehension
Index
Perceptual Organization
Index
Working Memory Index
138
99
109
73
108
70
Processing Speed Index
96
39
*Full Scale IQ=119
Assessment Results (WJIII)
Composite Score
Standard Score
Percentile
Broad Reading
117
87
Broad Math
119
90
Broad Written Language 105
62
Oral Language
94
123
Assessment Results (WJIII):
Written Language
Written Language
Composite (Standard Score/
105
62
Spelling
111
77
Writing Fluency
93
32
Writing Samples
111
77
Editing
111
77
Percentile)
Assessment Results
WIAT-II Written Language
Composite (Standard
99
47
Spelling
103
58
Written Expression
96
39
Score/Percentile)
Beery VMI: Standard Score=94, 34th percentile
Grooved Pegboard: Dominant hand (Right) > 2
S.D. below Mean,
Non-dominant hand WNL
Conclusions
•
Uneven cognitive profile (Very Superior verbal
abilities; Average in other areas)
•
Learning Disability in Written Language
•
-
VCI 138 vs WJIII WL Index 105 and WIAT-II
WL Composite 99
-
Much more apparent when asked to compose
written essay than when responding to
structured or multiple choice items.
Previously able to compensate, now increased
expectations for amount and complexity of written
work
Selected Recommendations
1. Support talent areas as well as special needs in written
language
2. Establish 504 Plan to provide services in WL
3. Consider strategies:
1.
Promotion of keyboarding skills
2.
Use of voice recognition software
3.
Direct instruction of organizational skills for writing
assignments
4.
Use of graphic organizers or webs
5.
Record lectures
Selected Recommendations
4. Obtain tutoring in AP Language Arts
5. Continue participation in TAG and AP courses in
appropriate areas
Conclusions about assessing twiceexceptional students
Comprehensive evaluations are necessary to
identify twice-exceptional students with SLD in
WL
RTI – helpful to know interventions attempted to
guide recommendations
Students’ performance not because they are lazy or
unmotivated – because of a disability
Clinical evaluation needs an educationally tailored
report
Questions/Comments?
Thank you