Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Melinda. During interviews both school personnel and family members stated that Melinda was the “lowest functioning” student in the class. Her records indicated that on norm-referenced assessments Melinda scored a2 nd grade 4 th month performance in reading, and a 3 rd grade performance in math. Upon reviewing the norm-referenced scores of her classmates, it was noted that Melinda’s scores were not the lowest; rather she had the third lowest score for reading and the fifth lowest score for math in the class of eight students. Her performance in class, however, gave the impression of a lower capability both because of her inappropriate behaviors and the tasks assigned to her. For example, Melinda consistently refused to do independent seatwork (e.g., math worksheets), read aloud, or summarize reading content. Records indicated that Melinda’s reading instruction incorporated the same materials, at the same performance level, for 3 consecutive years. Specifically, her reading instruction would begin at level 50 of Distar, progress to level 75, and then return to level 50 because of her inability to complete the tasks. Her work in reading, writing, and math incorporated 2 nd grade worksheets, and her annual goals included reading at the 2 nd grade 5 th month level, writing short lists, memorizing math facts, completing simple computations, and adding and subtracting amounts of change. When comparing her current and past records a clear pattern of regression was observed in her use of reading, writing, and math. In relation to social development there was a clear difference in Melinda’s behaviors in self-contained versus inclusive settings. When participating in activities within settings that included schoolmates who did not have disabilities (e.g., at chorus, during assemblies, in the hallways) Melinda modeled her schoolmates; therefore, her behavior was comparable to her non-disabled peers. In addition, she demonstrated independent functioning during school-related activities, such as navigating the campus to complete tasks. On the other hand, when in the self-contained classroom, Melinda demonstrated more age-inappropriate behaviors than her classmates with disabilities. She frequently disrupted instruction and learning. She would make off-task and ageinappropriate comments at any moment, loudly enough for the entire class to hear; she would interrupt the seatwork of classmates who were near to her by kicking them under the table; she would sweep away her class materials to stop her instructional activities. In addition to these disruptive behaviors in the self-contained class, Melinda demonstrated no interest in using her knowledge, or in learning new knowledge, when she interpreted a situation as either academic or evaluative in nature. For instance, whether at school, at home, or in the community, when Melinda was asked a question or asked to complete an activity that required reading, writing, or math, she responded in a defensive and street-wise manner that extricated her from the situation. If she then was pushed to answer the question or complete the activity, Melinda would either tantrum (i.e., yell, gesticulate broadly, walk away briskly) or “shut down” by being totally unresponsive and unmovable. She might sit on the floor or sidewalk for up to 30 minutes, without speaking or responding to any verbalizations from others. In response to Melinda’s inappropriate behaviors in the self-contained classroom, including refusals to do work, tantrums, and “shutting down,” her records indicated that she required a high level of adult supervision. Although Melinda demonstrated appropriate behavior when she was with classmates who did not have disabilities (e.g., chorus, physical education, lunch) her records indicated that she was not allowed to participate in additional activities with these classmates until she consistently demonstrated appropriate social and learning behaviors in the self-contained classroom. In addition to challenging behaviors Melinda had significant difficulty with speech. Her speech was unintelligible to strangers and only fully understood by the few people who spent a great deal of time with her. Constant requests to have her repeat herself, frequently without better understanding of her speech, frustrated Melinda and resulted in her reluctance to respond verbally in most situations. In response, Melinda developed many coping mechanisms for her unintelligible speech, including the use of gestures and reliance on friends and family members to interpret her speech for others. She also used a handful of high frequency phrases and words that helped Long-term Outcomes / 329
her function more independently within her school and community. For example, when ordering food in a restaurant, Melinda would place her order with one clear word (e.g., hamburger) instead of using a complete sentence. She then would wait for questions from the wait person, to which she could respond in one or two words (e.g., yes/no; ketchup). In physical appearance, Melinda had acquired over her 10 years in self-contained classes what her parents called “the special ed shuffle.” Specifically, she had poor posture, consistently looked down at the floor when walking, and shuffled her feet along the floor. Overall she projected a downtrodden appearance both at school and in the community. Phillip. Phillip was described by both school personnel and Melinda’s family members as the highest performing student in the class. In several interviews he was described as the model learner with disabilities, the one that parents of other students with disabilities wanted their child to be like. Phillip’s records indicated that on norm-referenced assessments he scored a 2 nd grade 6 th month performance in reading, and a 3 rd grade 9 th month performance in math. He knew word families, used word attack skills, independently read and followed directions, and performed basic computation with a calculator. When compared with his classmates, Phillip’s norm-referenced scores for math were indeed the highest. In reading, however, his scores were the fifth lowest in the class of eight. In the self-contained classroom Phillip attended to the teacher, followed directions, remained on-task, and completed all assignments. In relation to social development, records indicated that Phillip had a high self-concept and that his independent functioning during school-related activities was appropriate. When functioning within settings that included peers without disabilities, as well as in his self-contained classroom, Phillip’s interactions were described as “moderately appropriate” when compared with his classmates both with and without disabilities. There were no references to differences in his appropriateness or maturity across various settings. In relation to behaviors, Phillip was described as compliant, very friendly, and always eager to help. His eagerness to help was so extreme, however, that at times adults were annoyed with him. His behavior, however, did not interfere with instruction or learning. Instead, he was described as demonstrating “poor judgment” at times. With his appropriate social and instructional behaviors, Phillip rarely required adult intervention beyond initial directions for classroom activities. Because of his “poor judgment,” however, he was described as requiring “moderate adult supervision”. Phillip’s speech was intelligible to everyone, demonstrating no easily recognized speech impairment. In addition he was very communicative with both adults and fellow students, whether or not he knew them. The content of his comments was perceived as relevant to the contexts in which he was interacting. Physically Phillip was not distinguishable in appearance from his peers without disabilities. When walking down a hallway at school, Phillip was described as having an appropriate gait, wearing age-appropriate clothing, and making appropriate eye contact with those he passed. He also frequently stopped and spoke with others between classes. Six Years Later: Last Year of Educational Services For the following six years Melinda received special education and related services in inclusive settings. Five of those years she attended 8 th –12 th grade with the same set of students without disabilities. In the sixth year, as well as her first year of adult services, Melinda audited classes and lived in a dorm at a private four year college out-of-state. In contrast, during the remainder of his educational experiences Phillip continued to receive special education services for six years in self-contained academic and vocational classes. Melinda. During her last year in educational services Melinda consistently used math and reading during activities that were meaningful to her both in the college courses she audited and throughout her daily life (e.g., shopping, navigating the community, work experiences, laundry, dorm activities). She was willing and able to read familiar content aloud across settings (e.g., reading aloud at a national conference a college newspaper article she had written with support, reflecting a 9 th grade reading level) and to complete tasks independently in and out of class with accommodations. With support Melinda was able to write several paragraphs for reports, articles 330 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2010
Page 1 and 2: Education and Training in Autism an
Page 5 and 6: Manuscripts Accepted for Future Pub
Page 7 and 8: dents in classes that included stud
Page 9 and 10: TABLE 1 Summary Descriptors of Meli
Page 11: tions were conducted at their work
Page 15 and 16: eluctant to engage in interactions.
Page 17 and 18: ehaviors were consistent with Phill
Page 19 and 20: disabilities. Second, it has promot
Page 21 and 22: youth with severe disabilities. Min
Page 23 and 24: parents of students with intellectu
Page 25 and 26: tributed to such PSE program compon
Page 27 and 28: TABLE 2 Mean Scores of the 7 PSE Pr
Page 29 and 30: that educators’ and parents’ po
Page 31 and 32: gan, 1997). Despite the challenges
Page 33 and 34: ing the total score of the Family A
Page 35 and 36: with the identified factors being r
Page 37 and 38: of a positive outlook has been docu
Page 41 and 42: TABLE 1 Demographic Characteristics
Page 43 and 44: ways in the same interviews where s
Page 45 and 46: In a number of comments, respondent
Page 47 and 48: practitioners assigned both issues
Page 51 and 52: eliability (r .92) and good inter-
Page 53 and 54: TABLE 2 EQCA Adaptive Behaviors: Me
Page 55 and 56: TABLE 5 ERDCP: Means, SDs, and t Te
Page 57 and 58: teen of these studies (90%) reveale
Page 59 and 60: practice may have had an influence
Page 63 and 64:
ing to questions, (c) the learner f
Page 65 and 66:
around a small instructional table
Page 67 and 68:
TABLE 2 (Continued) 9. Guide studen
Page 69 and 70:
TABLE 3 (Continued) Student Steps B
Page 71 and 72:
TABLE 3 (Continued) Student Steps D
Page 73 and 74:
esponding to errors by interrupting
Page 75 and 76:
Figure 1. Teacher’s number of ste
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 2. Number of inquiry skills
Page 79 and 80:
TABLE 4 Results of Parent Survey It
Page 81 and 82:
data was not simply an artifact of
Page 83 and 84:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 85 and 86:
TABLE 1 Students’ Description Sub
Page 87 and 88:
served a communicative function. In
Page 89 and 90:
Descriptive Analysis The first rese
Page 91 and 92:
eakdown whenever it is the case. He
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
stood attribution when two consecut
Page 97 and 98:
within easy reach. The instructiona
Page 99 and 100:
and provided Takao a pen with thin
Page 101 and 102:
Figure 3. Percentages of correct re
Page 103 and 104:
teacher whether we should fully hon
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
components to be effective promptin
Page 109 and 110:
ability (IQ 44, Stanford-Binet Inte
Page 111 and 112:
TABLE 1 Task Analysis for Cooking R
Page 113 and 114:
pographic); and (c) no response, ch
Page 115 and 116:
Figure 2. Percentage of steps perfo
Page 117 and 118:
Figure 4. Percentage of steps perfo
Page 119 and 120:
ture audio feature of the PDA, but
Page 121 and 122:
M. (1992). The effects of self oper
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
TABLE 1 Stages of The Halliwick’s
Page 127 and 128:
plete other steps (Tekin & Kɹrcaal
Page 129 and 130:
Figure 1. Percentage of correct res
Page 131 and 132:
Martin, J. (1981). The Halliwick Me
Page 133 and 134:
systematic instruction to teach fou
Page 135 and 136:
also extremely low with a standard
Page 137 and 138:
Procedural reliability probes measu
Page 139 and 140:
Discussion The purpose of this stud
Page 141 and 142:
(1986). Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Page 143 and 144:
focus on the important adults in th
Page 145 and 146:
cording to the current environment
Page 147 and 148:
that “she felt very inadequate in
Page 149:
tive research. (2 nd Ed.). New Jers
Page 152:
Search the entire archives of Educa
show all

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?