Preparation Manual

Score Point 4

Mariana, a ten-year-old fifth grader, has been identified as a student with a specific learning disability (SLD) in reading comprehension and written expression. Based on her present level of performance she will need additional accommodations to access the given written assignment in this prompt.

According to her teacher, Mariana's strengths lie in her preference for routine and structure and her ability to visualize and create mental pictures during reading to increase understanding. She is able to generate ideas by drawing and can dictate personal messages. These are cognitive strengths that are linked to academic skills. Mariana continues to demonstrate a weakness in written expression, as indicated by a standard score 60 on the WIAT and as observed in the student work sample. In her writing, she is able to discern facts, but not in an organized or coherent manner.

The given assignment requires students to respond to sources that are read, heard, or viewed by summarizing the text in a meaningful way. A current instructional accommodation (Exhibit #2) is a graphic organizer provided during reading and writing tasks. Graphic organizers are an especially helpful tool for teaching written expression. To build upon Mariana's strength as a visual learner, she can be taught by the special education teacher to create and use a specific graphic organizer called a story map. A story map helps students to monitor their understanding of materials by reflecting upon specific questions while reading in order to organize a written response. She will use her story map to summarize the assignment by drawing the characters and setting. The teacher will guide her by reminding her to picture the characters, where they were, what they were doing, and what happened and why, as she remembers it happening in the book. Next, the teacher would encourage her to draw at least three events involving the characters. Then they would talk about which of her pictures happened first and she could number them in order, representing the sequence of events. This strategy will help Mariana to see how the events in a story build upon each other to reach the final outcome. She can then dictate a description of the event under each drawing, using a speech-to-text program, helping her to see the connection between "telling" and writing.

Mariana's teacher noted that creating mental images during reading to deepen meaning was one of Mariana's strengths. The strategy of using story maps would be helpful to Mariana because they provide a visual of key information from texts. As indicated in Exhibit #1, giving Mariana the option to draw and dictate the description rather than writing builds upon her mastery of dictating narratives and generating ideas through brainstorming.

One possible way to monitor the success of story mapping and decide if it is a viable strategy for her is to present Mariana with a set of sequence cards that tell a story and have her put them in order and record her story using the speech-to-text program. In reviewing her dictated descriptions together Mariana and her teacher can determine if she knows what the story was about by asking who is in the story, what happens, when and where it happens, how does it end. If she is successful in generalizing this skill to sequence cards, she should be able to meet her current IEP goals by using the same technique. This may initially require the explicit instruction and the cuing of connector words such as first, then, afterwards, and finally.

Rationale for the Score of 4

This "4" response reflects a thorough understanding of the relevant content knowledge and skills. The response fully addresses all parts of the assignment and demonstrates an accurate, highly effective application of the relevant content knowledge and skills. The response provides strong, relevant evidence; specific examples; and well-reasoned explanations.

Completion: Each of the four tasks presented in the assignment is completely answered and in the order presented in the prompt. The response identifies areas of strength and need that are supported by evidence from the Student Profile, the Student Assessment Results, and the Student Work Sample. The response fully describes an additional accommodation that would promote the student's access to the given assignment and builds on the student's identified strengths. The response provides a strong, evidence-based rationale for why this additional accommodation would be effective. This response fully describes how to best monitor the student's progress with the given assignment using the accommodation recommended.

Application of Content: The "4" response provides accurate, current application of professional knowledge. The first paragraph demonstrates a strong understanding of the task by specifically focusing on the need for an additional accommodation to help Mariana access the given assignment. The candidate uses appropriate data to accurately identify Mariana's strengths, which provides a foundation for the description of an additional accommodation that builds on these strengths. Mariana's need is also accurately identified and supported with specific evidence. Story mapping is fully described using specific examples and includes the teacher's role, which demonstrates highly effective pedagogy. The effectiveness of story mapping is well reasoned and supported. The response includes curriculum-based formative assessment to monitor progress and an understanding of the importance of meeting IEP goals.

Support: The ideas in this response are well supported by specific evidence; examples and explanations are reasoned using the most relevant exhibits. The accommodation, explanation of effectiveness, and monitoring have strong, specific examples. Story mapping is clearly presented with specific details for each step. The rationale for the effectiveness of this accommodation reflects sound reasoning, use of evidence, and professional knowledge.

Score Point 3

According to the evidence, Mariana has been struggling academically with reading and writing since second grade. She has become more dependent on others to help her with reading and writing. Since receiving special education services, she is continuing to learn how to generalize and reread and ask questions when necessary. Mariana's strength lies in her ability to articulate thoughts and questions when reading and dictating. These are strengths that need continued reinforcement as the academic workload requiring these skills becomes more apparent across the curriculum. A need for Mariana is to develop her writing skills to include varied sentence structures and more information because this will add to her arsenal of writing techniques as she approaches middle school and high school. It is also a goal on her IEP, and her parents recognize this is a need that should be addressed.

There are many accommodations, strategies, and approaches that could help Mariana. For instance, one approach is that we could use is explicit instruction, which breaks down learning into smaller steps by practicing I do, We do, You do. In addition, a graphic organizer is a strategy that is always helpful in encouraging students to put thoughts together. For writing, sentence starters are a tried-and-true strategy. Another appropriate instructional strategy that I would use to promote Mariana's access to the assignment would be the accommodation of assistive technology. There are many programs in assistive technology that offer student's the opportunity to use text-to-speech or speech-to-text capabilities to help them see their own storytelling in writing. This strategy will give Mariana a way to tell her own stories. The activity can be expanded and connected to the student assignment by having her pretend Wilbur is her pet. This would help Mariana make a connection between reading and writing and her own life. In education, research shows that making real-life connections is very meaningful for students and helps them to achieve.

Mariana is a fifth grader so she would be able to access the assistive technology on her own after she has been instructed on how to use the software. Fifth graders are usually quite tech savvy and love being able to showcase this skill.

I would observe how often she begins to use the software without my direct instruction. I would review with Mariana how, by comparing her written story retell to when she uses speech to text to relate her story, it has improved. Together we can look at how her sentences got longer and words she used to make it more interesting. If she is unable to articulate the differences in her writing, I will help direct her and encourage her to do so. I am hopeful that by using speech to text, Mariana will realize that writing is really a form of spoken expression.

Rationale for the Score of 3

This "3" response reflects a general understanding of the relevant content knowledge and skills. The response addresses most of the assignment and demonstrates a generally accurate, effective application of the relevant content knowledge and skills. The response provides sufficient evidence, some examples, and generally sound explanations.

Completion: Notice that most parts of the four tasks presented in the assignment are addressed. The response identifies an area of strength and an area of need for the student. Instead of one well-described additional accommodation, instructional strategy, or approach, this response offers several without description. Ultimately this candidate does suggest assistive technology with some description and does tie this accommodation to the given assignment. The accommodation builds on Mariana's strength, but the reader is left to make that connection rather than it being explicitly stated. Although the rationale for why assistive technology would be effective makes sense, it is not supported by information from the exhibits as we saw in the "4" response. Monitoring of student progress is addressed but lacks the detail and description seen in a "4" response.  This response differs from the score point "4" response, which clearly addresses all parts of the prompt, shows highly effective application of relevant knowledge and skills, and is specific in its support and details. 

Application of Content: The "3" response provides generally accurate and effective application of professional knowledge. The identification of one area of strength and one area of need for Mariana is appropriate given the review of the data; however, the data is not specifically cited from the exhibits as they are in the "4" response. There are several additional accommodations, instructional strategies, and approaches suggested that have potential merit given the description of this student, but most do not specifically build on her identified strength. Effectiveness is addressed for the use of assistive technology and this accommodation might build on her identified strength, but it contains an assertion that is unsupported by evidence (fifth graders "love being able to showcase this skill").  The response does recognize the importance of students making real-life connections, which is accurate and appropriate. Generally accurate professional knowledge is demonstrated in the brief description of monitoring. Observation and comparison of Mariana's writing before and after the introduction of assistive technology is appropriate but lacks the detail seen in the "4" response. Unlike the "3" response, the application of professional content knowledge in the "4" response is highly effective and demonstrates a strong understanding of Mariana's needs and how to support the student.

Support: The ideas in this response are supported with some evidence and examples, and the explanations are generally sound. Mariana's strength and need clearly come from the exhibits but lack specific support. Several strategies/approaches/accommodations are proposed but lack the detailed description you see in the "4" response. This response uses the evidence from the exhibits in a general way to support claims, without citing specific details. A "4" response uses specific details from the prompt to support ideas and explanations of effectiveness are well reasoned given the exhibits.

Score Point 2

After reviewing the formal and informal assessment data provided in the exhibits, I see that Mariana, a 10-year-old fifth grader, has many areas of strength. For instance, according to the exhibits, with special education services, Mariana is demonstrating mastery of being able to create mental pictures, ask questions, monitor her own understanding, and knows how to ask questions when necessary. Not only that, but she can brainstorm and dictate through drawing and speaking. This is supported by her IEP progress report, where she continues to show slow but steady growth in reading comprehension and written expression. Go Mariana!

In addition in the exhibits, we see that the accommodations for Mariana are audiobooks, a graphic organizer to be used during reading and writing tasks, and additional time to complete her work and assessments. I believe these to be totally appropriate and should continue for the given assignment as they seem to have been successful. I also see that according to the Fifth Grade Reading Inventory, Mariana's teacher reports that she is an enthusiastic learner who is making academic progress in all areas with support. I definitely would not add any additional strategy or approach because Mariana might find it confusing to have something else on her plate. Mariana appreciates classroom routines and structure. We don't want to discourage her so keeping everything exactly as she is used to would be better. Her steady academic progress, although slow, has been satisfactory. Many children with specific learning disabilities start out just needing more time and then show a sudden spurt of growth. I think this may be the case for Mariana. That is why I am making this recommendation. I do so believe in the Eureka moment!

As I said before, the teacher's use of the accommodations of additional time, the graphic organizer and audiobooks will continue to be effective in helping Mariana access the assignment which was about Charlotte's Web. Clearly in the student work sample, Mariana was able to fulfill the success criteria, which included finishing the book, identifying at least two characters, and using the graphic organizer. As she grows and matures, she will be able to expand on these ideas. If we give her time to grow, she will get there. In the meantime I would assure Mariana's parents and other teachers that she is progressing even if it appears to be slow.

Of course I do want to make sure that Mariana is continuing to progress, even if it's slowly, so I will track her progress with the given assignment using the accommodation, strategy or approach that has been recommended. All good teachers know the importance of monitoring and evaluating progress and do it continually. One criteria to use is to look at her IEP and see if she has met the goals.

Rationale for the Score of 2

The "2" response reflects a limited understanding of the relevant content knowledge and skills. The response partially addresses some of the parts of the assignment and demonstrates a limited application of the relevant content knowledge and skills. The response provides limited evidence and examples or explanations, when provided, are only partially appropriate.

Completion: The response does not fully respond to all of the tasks in the assignment. The response does cite Mariana's strengths but fails to identify a need. The response recognizes that the prompt asks for an additional accommodation, instructional strategy, or approach but demonstrates limited professional knowledge in understanding how to capitalize on Mariana's strengths to describe an appropriate strategy. In addition, the statement that her academic progress has been adequate is inaccurate. The explanation of effectiveness is prompt dependent and based on a misinterpretation of the evidence. Although the candidate recognizes the importance of monitoring and meeting IEP goals, there is no description of how this should happen. The "2" response differs from the "3" response in that the task is not fully addressed. The "3" response addresses most parts of the assignment with generally accurate relevant knowledge and skills and support, and the "4" responds fully to each part of the assignment with specificity and strong professional knowledge.

Application of Content: This response demonstrates a partially accurate, limited application of the relevant content knowledge and skills. The strengths listed in the first paragraph are accurate, but the candidate does not recognize a need. The candidate fails to offer an additional accommodation, instructional strategy, or approach and instead inaccurately and inappropriately uses the evidence to support the idea that teacher should keep doing what they are doing. There are editorialized statements (e.g., Go Mariana! I do so believe in the Eureka moment!) that show limited professional knowledge. Although monitoring is addressed, there is no description of what that monitoring would look like. Unlike the "2" response, the "3" response, although not specific, is generally accurate throughout. And the "4" response demonstrates strong professional knowledge with specificity.

Support: The response provides limited evidence and examples or explanations, when provided, are only partially appropriate. There is some support for the strengths, which are evidence based; however, the candidate misconstrues the information from the exhibits in order to reinforce their idea that a new accommodation, strategy, or approach should not be used but that the teacher should keep doing what they are doing. In turn, the attempt at the strategy's effectiveness is limited and reflects weak reasoning. Monitoring is mentioned without description, examples, or evidence of how it would work.  Unlike the "3" response, the support in this response, where found, tends to be assertions that are not based on the given exhibits. A "3" response uses the evidence to support claims in a general way, and a "4" response uses strong specific support throughout the response. 

Score Point 1

The case study presented to us is about Mariana who is ten years old and in fifth grade. It gives us information about her background and her present levels of achievement and functional performance. We also see her IEP goals and progress and, in addition, Mariana's student assessment results, which includes the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. The case study also includes a fifth-grade reading comprehension inventory with teacher comments. In Exhibit 4, we are given the learning objective and success criteria for the student assignment and student work sample, which is Exhibit 5.

This assignment requires us to identify an area of strength and an area of need for Mariana. I am having some difficulty with understanding why since the exhibits clearly indicate that a strength for Mariana is that she successfully participated and was engaged in Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions. I believe it would have been appropriate to continue these interventions. In addition, the student work sample indicates that Mariana was able to complete the assignment given to her, which required independent reading and writing. For instance, Mariana's written story retell about Charlotte's Web seemed to meet the daily learning success criteria and the assignment itself. I read Charlotte's Web a long time ago, but I know that the information she gives is correct.

If Mariana has some specific needs, it seems that they are already being met by her general ed and special ed teachers. It is reported that she is receiving inclusion support in her general education fifth-grade class. Her teachers also consult two times per week. The teachers provide Mariana with instructional accommodations, which provide for differentiated instruction that include audiobooks, graphic organizers during reading and writing tasks, and additional time to complete classwork and assessments. This meets all the requirements for a Free and Appropriate Public Education.

One proposed additional accommodation or instructional strategy that I would use with Mariana's identified strength that would promote her access to the given assignment would be to simply have her socialize with peers and allow her to express her own ideas. That makes perfect sense. An additional approach I might use is to encourage Mariana to join afterschool clubs as she clearly enjoys singing and playing sports and games. The additional accommodation, instructional strategy, and approach would be effective because it has been shown that this is something that Mariana would enjoy. As educators, we know from experience that this would provide for intrinsic motivation, and nothing can replace that!

The charge for this case study also requires us to monitor and evaluate Mariana's progress using the accommodation, strategy, and approach we recommended. This could best be done by the Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) committee when they go over her Individual Education Plan.

Rationale for the Score of 1

The "1" response reflects little or no understanding of the relevant content knowledge and skills. The response addresses few, if any, parts of the assignment. The response demonstrates a largely inaccurate, ineffective application of relevant content knowledge and skills and provides little to no evidence and, if provided, examples or explanations are weak or inappropriate.

Completion: This response responds to very little of the given assignment. The first paragraph is simply a reworking of information from the exhibits with no original ideas.  The response does not describe areas of strength or need and in fact inaccurately implies that all of Mariana's needs should have already been met (Exhibit 1, Education History states that after Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions, Mariana was referred for a special education evaluation and was determined eligible for services). It appears that the response provides an additional accommodation, strategy, or approach; however, the idea has nothing to do with the information provided in the exhibits ("simply have her socialize with peers  . . ."). The attempt at monitoring of progress is minimal and demonstrates no knowledge of how a teacher would monitor and evaluate student progress. This differs from the "2" response in that the information provided is weak or inappropriate and in most cases beside the point. The "2" response attempts to answer some parts of the question by showing a limited understanding of Mariana's strengths, the need for an additional strategy and the idea of the importance of monitoring. And the "3" response does address most parts of the prompt.

Application of Content: The "1" response demonstrates inaccurate and ineffective content knowledge throughout. Although exhibit information is restated, this response does not recognize any of the student's strengths or needs, which were recognized in the "2" response.  The additional accommodation/strategy/approach makes little sense, except that it is something Mariana would "enjoy". This reflects a lack of professional knowledge.  The attempt to address monitoring also shows a lack of relevant knowledge and skills by suggesting that the ARD committee should monitor progress. The "2" response indicates some limited professional knowledge by recognizing Mariana's strengths and referencing the use of an IEP and goals in monitoring progress. And the "3" response demonstrates generally accurate professional knowledge throughout.

Support: This response retells information from the exhibits but does not use it to support ideas. It is merely a reworking of the exhibit information. Where there are attempts to address parts of the prompt, support is ineffective and not based on any of the evidence or relevant content knowledge. For example, the idea that Mariana simply needs to "socialize with peers" and "join afterschool clubs" is not reflective of the exhibit information or best practice in the field. The "2" response, which differs from the "1" response, does integrate some limited evidence from the exhibits in supporting Mariana's strengths. The "3" response integrates evidence from the exhibits throughout the response, although the evidence is not specific.