Alternative Pencils
  • What are they?
  • What does the research say?
  • Alternative pencils in action.
  • Meaningful Writing Activities
  • What can assessment look like?
  • Blog

Assessment

Including students with significant disabilities

More Alternative Pencils

What can assessment look like?

The Developmental Writing Scale for Beginning Writers  (DWS) is a set of writing quantity and quality measures. It is a 14-point ordinal scale which ranges from emergent writing (scribbling) to cohesive and coherent paragraph level writing (Sturm, Cali, Nelson, Staskowski, 2012). It was developed to be sensitive to small changes in writing quality in beginning writers. A second measure, Text Type Diversity (Cali & Sturm, 2010) was developed to assess genre production (e.g., personal narratives, stories, opinions, plans) of beginning writers. These measures are meant to be used to identify individualized goals and show progress for students with significant disabilities.

Picture
The PDF below is a powerpoint outlining the practical application of the DWS and Text Type Diversity measures by Strum herself. This powerpoint is the source of the images you see on this page.
effective_writing_instruction_-_3.pdf
File Size: 3195 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Developmental Writing Scale
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Text Type Diversity
Picture

Staugler Literacy Rubric & Other Assessment Tools

literacy_rubric.pdf
File Size: 86 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

musselwhite_sample_assessment_tools.doc
File Size: 133 kb
File Type: doc
Download File


The Bridge is an early literacy and language assessment framework based on observation and portfolio development/analysis. Developed by Patsy Pierce et al., this tool informs day to day practice and uses multiple, authentic approaches. Observation notes and work samples comprise data to be gathered. The Bridge is available at http://www.med.unc.edu/ahs/clds/resources/early-childhood-resources-1/the-bridgeassessment. Can be applied to all emergent literacy learners despite age.
The Bridge is structured around 11 scales related to:
– Book knowledge
– Knowledge of Writing
– Name writing
– Alphabet Knowledge
– Phonological & Phonemic awareness
– Oral language
Each scale has 6 points. The idea is to gather evidence over time to support decisions about scoring.

Several documents including an experimental version of the Bridge Assessment Tool can be downloaded by clicking on the files below.
bridge_protocol_guidelines.pdf
File Size: 54 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

bridgeactionverbs.pdf
File Size: 19 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

bridgeguide.pdf
File Size: 1035 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

bridgetraining.pdf
File Size: 9811 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File


A powerpoint created by Dr. Vicky Poston Roy that outlines writing IPP goals, informal writing assessment and data collection of unprompted writing samples to track progress over time.
1_min_writing_checklist_final.pdf
File Size: 121 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File


“Scribble” will look different when using an alternative pencil. It is not so much about how the actual letter is formed but more about how the student is interacting with the pencil-facilitator-activity and their attention to the task; as well as subtle changes in these two over time.  
"Students’ success and engagement in emergent writing is highly dependent on the quality of this interaction. This inventory has the key elements that adults need to do in order for their students to learn how to write using an alternative pencil. The inventory can be used to train teachers, teaching assistants, parents, administrators, literacy coaches, OTRs, SLPs, PTs and after school caregivers. This inventory has been specifically designed for students with significant disabilities, including deaf-blindness."
http://www.med.unc.edu/ahs/clds/resources/deaf-blind-model-classroom-resources/Emerg%20Wrtg%20Obs%20Inventory.pdf/view
emerg_wrtg_obs_inventory.pdf
File Size: 125 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File


Collecting Writing Samples- Day to Day

It's important to consider how you will collect writing samples to demonstrate growth over time.  As with all students, we usually save some pieces of writing in order to look for clues that point to growth. Here is a series of writing by Matthew,  (video and further explanation found here: http://www.med.unc.edu/ahs/clds/resources/deaf-blind-model-classroom-resources/db-case-studies/matthews-story-1)


What about the IPP?

emergentliteracygoals2009.pdf
File Size: 131 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Appropriate IPP goals can be challenging to write, to assess and to update. Often IPP goals remain the same year after year for our students with significant disabilities. Erickson and Hanser (2009) from the Center for Literacy and Disabilities Studies offer a fresh look at how to write goals. The research says students with significant disabilities can learn but if the skill isn’t integrated and applied,  generalization is problematic or non existent. Enduring learning doesn't happen when we teach skills in isolation, meaning we must NOT consider literacy a behaviour, it is cognitive and linguistic process.
Carol Zenari has a blog called Praactical AAC and today wrote on the topic of "mastery goals" (ie. student will _______ 80% of the time over three observations) and how they are often not appropriate. Follow the link to see the entire post but here are some highlights:
  • It doesn’t always make sense. Having a single standard for mastery is useful as a clinical management tool, but often doesn’t make sense in individual situations. Consider the skill itself. Would you be comfortable with your clients being 80% accurate when they:
    • Cross the street? (Of course not.They need to be 1,000% accurate with that.)
    • Ask for things? (Probably. Although Johnny has many days where he’s pretty happy with everything and doesn’t really have clear preferences or desires that we can ascertain. It would be nice to respect that. Not to mention the fact that he might want something that we haven’t offered him.)
    • Make a comment? (Possibly. Although in ecologically valid situations, like conversations with peers, it might be more important to think about whether the comment is topically relevant as opposed to how many times comments were made.)
  • It can lead to misplaced priorities. Having a criterion of 80% over 3 consecutive sessions often means that we are sticking with a particular skill for a significant period of time. That may work for some, but we want to be sure to reflect and challenge that assumption rather than automatically sticking with a goal just to see the numbers increase. We have ask ourselves this: What is the best next step? Maybe we DO want to stick with that goal, or maybe moving on to something different makes more sense for a particular learner. 
  • It can slow down progress. How many times have you heard a team member say something like this? “Oh, he CAN do it; He just doesn’t WANT to.” When we stick with goals until they are ‘mastered,’ we run the risk of kids getting bored. And when kids are bored, they aren’t in a ready state for learning.
  • Consistency may be desirable, but does it make sense as a goal? For some learners, inconsistency is the norm. These learners can’t count on their bodies to do what they want each and every time. For some, their inconsistent performance has a neurological basis. They are consistently inconsistent because their brains just aren’t fully cooperating. *This last point is often not considered!


References

Center for Literacy and Disability Studies. Retrived February 2015, from http://www.med.unc.edu/ahs/clds/resources/deaf-blind-model-classroom-resources/db-case-studies/matthews-story-1/matthews-story

Pierce, P.L., Summer, G., O'deKirk, M. (2009) The Bridge: An authentic literacy assessment strategy for individualizing and informing practice with young children with disabilities. Young Exceptional Children, 12(3), 2-14.

Sturm J., Cali K., Nelson N., Staskowski M. (2012). The Developmental Writing Scale: A new progress monitoring tool for beginning writers. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(4), 297–318.

Sturm, J.M. (2013). Effective Writing Instruction for Students with Developmental Disabilities: Curriculum, Measurement, and Accommodations MATN Webinar Part III. Retrieved December 2014, from http://marylandlearninglinks.org/data/ck/sites/121/files/Effective%20Writing%20Instruction%20-%201.pdf




Proudly powered by Weebly