Using the Classroom Observation Instrument for Educational Environments

Using the Classroom Observation Instrument for Educational Environments Serving Students with Deaf-Blindness in Order to Assist Low Incidence Classrooms Ella Taylor, Kat Stremel, Nancy Steele National Technical Assistance Consortium for Children and Youth who are Deaf-Blind (NTAC) Teaching Research Institute Western Oregon University

Setting the Stage: Need Too many children with deaf-blindness and other complex impairments are often placed in classrooms that demonstrate a collaborative process of day care Lack of a comprehensive framework that outlined critical quality services and effective practices in a user-friendly format Lack of tools to identify “Model Classrooms” for Technical Assistance

Uses for Instrument Determination of a potential “Model Classroom” Determination of potential “Practicum sites” for Personnel Preparation projects Determination of additional Technical Assistance needs to bring a classroom to model status Determination of additional TA needs

Alignment with Standards Review of CEC’s Knowledge and Skill Base for All Beginning Special Education Teachers of Students in Individualized General Curriculums Individualized Independence Curriculums Review of Competencies for Teachers of Learners who are Deaf-Blind Review of the Rhode Island Services to Students with Dual Sensory Impairments Instrument

Alignment: Interview Deaf-Blind Individualized General Curriculum Individualized Independence Curriculum Deaf-Blindness Foundations Personal Identity, Relationships & Self. Esteem (PIRSE) Developmental Characteristics Hearing-Vision Individual Learning Differences Environment & Materials Instructional Planning Professional & Ethical Practice

Alignment: Observation Instrument Deaf-Blind CEC: IGC, IIC Curriculum Concept Development Communication O&M Instructional Strategies (IS), Learning Environments (LE) & Social Interactions (SI), Instructional Planning (IP), Collaboration Data-based Assessment Communication Embedded throughout IS, LE & SI, IP, Assessment Preservation of Dignity PIRSE LE & SI, Collaboration Communication PIRSE, Concept Development, Communication, Environment & Materials Individual Learning Differences, IS, LE & SI, Communication Social PIRSE LE & SI Assistive Technology Comm. , H-V, O & M, Environment & Materials IS, LE & SI, Comm. , Collaboration

Design Phase Items adapted from the three reviewed documents Focus groups Stakeholders rank order items Parents provide input on relative importance of items/sections Teachers provide input on format Field testing across multiple classrooms

Re-design Identified the most critical elements that could be observed Curriculum Data-based assessment Preservation of dignity Communication Social Assistive Technology Development of teacher interview section Refinement of the rubric Achieved, Nearly achieved, Making progress, Nonexistent, Not applicable

Research Phase 2 Field testing of the instrument in classroom observation with interviews Interview provides the context for the observation Interview helps focus everyone Rubric options are more discriminating Protocol is understandable

Outside Consultant Review “The instrument has value for students beyond a strict eligibility of deaf-blind. Students who have multiple disabilities and are severely sensory impaired would benefit from this observational overview. All reviewers urged a broader marketing and I suggest that you disseminate to programs that serve more than students who are deafblind. ”

Validation Phase Content validity -- achieved Construct validity Concurrent validity • Identify exemplary classrooms and determine if the observation instrument aligns with the characteristics within the classroom Reliability

Identification of Classrooms Requested nominations from directors of state deaf-blind projects From the nominations, eight classrooms were selected Seven interviews and observations were conducted (one dropped out)

Findings Teacher interview is critical Review of IEP by observer is not critical Clear alignment in Curriculum Preservation of Dignity Communication Social Assistive Technology Not so clear alignment in Data-based assessment

Validation Phase Content validity -- achieved Construct validity -- achieved Concurrent validity Reliability Inter-rater reliability of 0. 95

Review of the Instrument Teacher Interview Context of the classroom (# of students, # or assistants, type of classroom, information about students) Teacher’s main goals for student(s) Family involvement Family communication about student’s needs

Review of the Instrument Student’s areas of strengths and weaknesses How these are used in planning for instruction? Inclusion in general education curriculum Interaction with peers

Review of the Instrument IEP Review (usually conducted through teacher interview) IEP goals Educational assessments (cognitive, adaptive, sensory and motor) • How used for planning instruction? Student’s vision and hearing Curricular and instructional modifications for functional vision and hearing

Curriculum 8 items Daily schedule Engagement in learning Varied activities O&M Classroom management IEP goals addressed Varied participation

Data-Based Assessment 2 items Student’s instructional program demonstrates ongoing use of a data system that measures student progress on IEP objectives. Data are collected on a regular and consistent basis. Data are reviewed frequently to make programmatic and instructional changes to meet the student’s needs.

Preservation of Dignity 4 items Age-appropriate and respectful Care-giving and personal mgmt routines Self-determination and choice making Frequent opportunities for engagement

Communication 8 items Receptive communication cues Receptive communication Access to communication Communication functions Expressive communication Response time Behavior Communication partners

Social 3 items Social skills General education curriculum Peer interaction

Assistive Technology Description of AT available and AT used for vision, hearing, communication, behavior, daily life skills AT aligns with student’s IEP AT incorporated into student’s educational program as appropriate

Overall Impressions What were areas of strength within this classroom? What areas need improvement within this classroom? What were your overall impressions of this classroom for serving the needs of students who are deaf-blind?

Scoring Each section is equally weighted Item score is based on rubric scale Section score is total points for section divided by total items Do not count items with non-applicable

Case study South Carolina Staff had varying levels of expertise in deaf -blindness (TVI, THI, SLP, O & M, EI) Needed a simple tool for identification of TA needs within a variety of classrooms • Needed clear and concise way to provide recommendations to classroom teachers Classroom teachers needed to know what the targets were Implemented for one year with success

Next Steps Potential revision for transition age and early childhood Volunteers for field testing transition Volunteers for field testing early childhood (homebased) Volunteers for field testing early childhood (educational setting) Using COI to collect data about classrooms serving students with deafblindness