Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
