xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001447449
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 040114s2003 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000190
Schultz, Lorie G.
Using the ABLLS with second language learners
h [electronic resource] :
implications for students and teachers /
by Lorie G. Schultz.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2003.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 90 pages,
ABSTRACT: English language learners are traditionally behind in academics such as reading, math and science. Hispanics, who make up the vast majority of English language learners, tend to not enroll in pre-school or higher education, have higher dropout rates and as adults earn less than whites. Common instructional strategies used in public schools are not meeting the needs of these students. The field of TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) has typically offered a wide variety of poorly defined teaching strategies that are not based on empirical research. Within public schools, assessment tends to serve the purpose of qualifying students for ESOL services rather than being used to guide instruction. The present study examined using the Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills (ABLLS) with three English language learners in an elementary public school setting to discern its usefulness for teachers and students. Results showed that the ABLLS could be used for English language learners, and teachers generally liked the assessment information, although the current assessment may be too lengthy and time intensive to be practical for regular education settings. Also, it did not appear that reviewing the ABLLS assessment had much effect on teacher behavior in terms of changes in instructional strategies used for the three students, although teachers did indicate that they would target different skills as a result of viewing the assessment. Suggestions are made for developing a modified version of the ABLLS for use with English language learners. Possible trends in student data are examined, as well as possible teaching strategies that may be suggested by the ABLLS.
Adviser: Austin, Jennifer L.
behavioral language assessment.
x Applied Behavior Analysis
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Using The ABLLS with English Language Learners: Implications for Students and Teachers by Lorie G. Schultz A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Appl ied Behavior Analysis College of Graduate Studies University of South Florida Major Professor: Jennifer L. Austin, Ph.D. Darrel Bostow, Ph.D. Pamela Osnes, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 13, 2003 Keywords: esol, esl, behavioral language assessment, second language, verbal behavior Copyright 2003, Lorie G. Schultz
i Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................. .....ii List of Figures................................................................................................................ ....iii Abstract....................................................................................................................... .......iv Chapter One Introduction....................................................................................................1 Chapter Two Method.........................................................................................................16 Participants and Setting..........................................................................................16 Student Assessment Procedure..............................................................................19 Procedural Integrity...............................................................................................26 Inter-rater Reliability.............................................................................................28 Teacher Measures..................................................................................................29 ESOL Specialist and Guidance Counselor Measures............................................29 Chapter Three Results........................................................................................................31 Pre-ABLLS Assessment Teacher Surveys.............................................................31 Student Measures...................................................................................................35 Post ABLLS Assessment Teacher Surveys...........................................................40 Guidance Counselor Measures..............................................................................43 ESOL Specialist Measures.....................................................................................44 Chapter Four Discussion....................................................................................................48 References..................................................................................................................... .....60 Appendices..................................................................................................................... ....64 Appendix A: Assessment of Ba sic Language and Learning Skills Skills Tracking System....................................................................................65 Appendix B: Task Completion List for ABLLS Assessment Tasks Presented Directly to Student and Tasks Presented to Teacher.......................68 Appendix C: Pre ABLLS Assessment Teacher Survey........................................70 Appendix D: Post ABLLS Assessment Teacher Survey......................................73 Appendix E: ESL Specialist and Guidance Counselor Post ABLLS Survey ...............................................................................................75 Appendix F: NathanÂ’s Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills........76 Appendix G: JamesÂ’ Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills..........79 Appendix H: CharlesÂ’ Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills........82
ii List of Tables Table 1 Pre-ABLLS Assessment Teacher Survey Results.....................................32 Table 2 Post ABLLS Assessment Teacher Survey Results....................................42 Table 3 Post ABLLS Assessment Guidance Counselor and ESOL Specialist Survey Results...........................................................................45
iii List of Figures Figure 1 NathanÂ’s percentage of full, pa rtial, failed criteria across performance Sections.....................................................................................................36 Figure 2 JamesÂ’ percentage of full, par tial, failed criteria across performance Sections.....................................................................................................37 Figure 3 CharlesÂ’ percentage of full, pa rtial, failed criteria across performance Sections.....................................................................................................39
iv Using the ABLLS with English Language Learners: Implications for Students and Teachers Lorie G. Schultz ABSTRACT English language learners are traditionally behind in academics such as reading, math and science. Hispanics, who make up the vast majority of English language learners, tend to not enroll in pre-school or higher educ ation, have highe r dropout rates and as adults earn less than whites. Comm on instructional strategies used in public schools are not meeting the needs of these st udents. The field of TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) has typically offered a wide variety of poorly defined teaching strategies that are not ba sed on empirical research. Within public schools, assessment tends to serve the purpos e of qualifying students for ESOL services rather than being used to guide instruc tion. The present study examined using the Assessment of Basic Language and Learni ng Skills (ABLLS) with three English language learners in an elementary public school setting to discern its usefulness for teachers and students. Results showed th at the ABLLS could be used for English language learners, and teachers generally lik ed the assessment information, although the current assessment may be too lengthy and time intensive to be practical for regular education settings. Also, it di d not appear that reviewi ng the ABLLS assessment had much effect on teacher behavior in terms of changes in instructional strategies used for the three students, although teachers did indicate that they would target different skills as
v a result of viewing the assessment. Sugge stions are made for developing a modified version of the ABLLS for use with English la nguage learners. Possible trends in student data are examined, as well as possible teachi ng strategies that may be suggested by the ABLLS.
1 Chapter One Introduction It is predicted that by the 2030s, minor ity language students will comprise 40% of the overall school-age population in the Un ited States (Collier & Thomas, 1999). Unfortunately, long-term studies show th at common instructional programs are not meeting the needs of these students (Collier & Thomas, 1999; U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Individuals who formerly were English as a second language learners (ESL) frequently graduate in the 10th percentile of their class or do not graduate at all (Collier & Thomas, 1999; U.S. Department of Education, 1999). For example, Hispanic students, who make up the vast majority of ESL learners, are le ss likely to attend preschool, have higher dropout rates, are more likely to be behind in reading, mathematics and science, and to not to enroll in higher education. As adults, Hispanics have lower levels of literacy, earn less than whites, and experience higher rates of unemployment (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). In the United States, the numb er of Hispanics has grown by over 50% between 1990 and 2000 (Guzman, 2001). The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 5% of elementary and high school students are forei gn born and that 20% of school-age children have one or more foreign-born parent s (Jamieson, Curry, & Martinez, 1999). Geographically, the state with the highest number of limited English proficiency (LEP) students is California, where approximately 25% of all students are LEP, followed by
2 Texas (13%), Florida (10%), and New York (8%) (National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education survey, 1997-98). Worldwide, approximately 60% of the population speaks more than one language, and the economic and social welfare of many are dependent upon their ability to use a second language (McLaughlin & Zemblidge, 1991) These statistics point to a continued and growing need to focus on effective assessment and teaching methodologies for learning second languages. The number and types of instruct ional methods used in second and foreign language teaching today are extensive (N unan, 1999; Richards & Rodgers, 1986). Not only do the methods and approaches vary wide ly, they are often based on very different views of what language is and how it is learned (Nunan, 1999; Richards & Rodgers, 1986). According to Richards and Rodgers, the main goal of language instruction prior to World War II was to teach the skill of readi ng. However, most current methods place an initial focus on the spoken language. Ten di fferent methods/approaches to language instruction are described by Richards and Rodgers. Some provide very specific instructional guidance for use in the classroom whereas others provide very little. The communicative approach appears to be one of the most widely accepted teaching approaches, although the term is so comprehens ive and its meaning so varied that it is also more ambiguous than any other method or approach. There is no single model or text that is accepted as the standard for this method (Grabe & Kaplan, 1991 ; Richards & Rodgers, 1986). It is generally defined as an approach that seeks to develop competence in communication as well as teaching proce dures that link language and communication. The wide acceptance of this Â“learning by doingÂ” approach is likely because most
3 educators can identify with it, interpret it, and use it in different ways (Richards & Rodgers, 1986). The communicative appro ach, along with most language teaching methods, does not provide the specific lear ning objectives that are to be met, and provides little to no empirica l research on its effectiveness (Collier & Thomas, 1999; Richards & Rodgers, 1986). This lack of theore tical and empirical bases within the field of second language teaching has been acknowledged in the litera ture. Nunan (1999) commented on the lack of a disciplinary base: A challenge for education in general, and TESOL (Teacher s of English to Speakers of Other Languages) in particular, is to define, refine and artic ulate its disciplinary basis. Education is a hybrid, drawing on a range of disciplines such as psychology and sociology. In addition to these, TESOL is in fluenced by linguistics (both theoretical and applied), psycholinguistics, sociolingui stics, cognitive scie nce, and numerous other disciplines. Partly because of this, we donÂ’t have a shared set of rules of the game. In fact, we donÂ’t even come close. (p. 3) NunanÂ’s comments illustrate that data on the ef fectiveness of the various second language teaching methods are for the most part non-existent in the literature. Others in the field of lingui stics have focused their criticisms on the methods used to train teachers in second language learning, and have char acterized this training as Â“haphazard and incompleteÂ” (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1994). Interestingly, these same authors argue that there is no single most effective met hod for teaching or learning a second language and that the quest for one ma y not be prudent. This conclusion is based on the authorsÂ’ agreement with Noam Ch omskyÂ’s (1957) cognitive view of language,
4 which proposes that the basics of language are universal and therefore not greatly affected by instructional variab les. They also propose that a variety of methods may be necessary to prepare learners for the ma ny different language situations they will encounter or in which they wish to be proficient. Despite such claims, Gersten, Baker a nd Unok-Marks (1998) recently compiled research-based practices for teaching sec ond language learners who have learning difficulties and recommended the following key instructional principles: 1) the inclusion of vocabulary instruction, 2) the use of clear, consistent language when introducing new concepts, 3) the provision of many opportunities for the stude nt to speak and use English in academic and social settings with teachers and peers, 4) the use of visual aids and graphic organizers during instruction, 5) the tailoring of feedback to correspond with the studentÂ’s response and/or errors, 6) th e systematic development of background knowledge starting with the studentÂ’s existi ng repertoire, 7) the recognition of the difference between language development in conversational language and complex academic language and the inclusion of both t ypes of learning activities, and 8) the provision of a balanced approach to language development that includes an emphasis on all three traditional approaches: grammar a nd syntax, conversation, and academic (or out of context) language. The basis for much contemporary language teaching comes primarily from three theories of language. These are the stru ctural view, the functional view, and the interactional view (Richards & Rodgers, 1986). The structural view, which still provides the basis for much of the field of linguistics, proposes that language is a system whereby words get their meanings because of their re lation to other words. Grammar and the way
5 that words form sentences are the basic patterns that the learner practices through intensive oral drilling. The second prominent language th eory, the functional view, proposes that language is a way to co mmunicate meaning. Its proponents emphasize meaning and function rather than structure a nd grammar. The third theory, known as the interactional view, proposes th at language serves the purpos e of allowing individuals to interact socially; therefore, it fo cuses on conversational exchanges. In 1957, Skinner offered his theory of language in the book Verbal Behavior In developing this theory, he took the concepts and principles empirica lly verified in the laboratory and applied them to language. His an alysis of language contends that it is learned in the same way that all other beha vior is learned, whic h is through operant conditioning. What is unique, however, is how the reinforcement is achieved. In contrast to most other operant behavior s, which are directly reinforced through mechanical action with the environment, verbal behavior is reinforced indirectly and only through someone elseÂ’s behavior (M ichael, 2001; Skinner, 1957). In functionally analyzing language, Sk inner named elementary verbal operants or relations. These include echoics which are words said under the conditions of hearing someone else say them first; mands which are requests; tacts which are labels or names of objects, properties, or actions in the environment; intraverbals which are words that are said under the conditions of hearing other unrelated words, e.g., as in a conversation or Â“filling in the blankÂ”, and textual which are verbal behavior s that have point-to-point correspondence but no formal similarity, such as when someone read s aloud from a book. The mand is the only verbal relation for which re inforcement is specific to what is being requested. All the other relations receive generalized reinforcement through the verbal
6 community that is not specific to the particular tact or intraverbal response (Michael, 2001). An example of generalized reinforcem ent would be verbal praise for correctly identifying an item. In SkinnerÂ’s behavioral analysis of language, he describe d meaning as being in the speakerÂ’s personal history and present en vironment as opposed to being present in what the speaker says. He described rules of grammar as the contingencies maintained by verbal communities. As for the generation of sentences, he stated that they are a result of contingencies of reinforcement and rarely generated through the use of rules (Skinner, 1987). Initially, SkinnerÂ’s analysis was cr iticized both outside a nd inside the field of behavior analysis. The criticism within the field of behavior analysis appeared to center on the lack of empirical data to support the analysis (Mic hael, 1984 in Sundberg, 1998). Critics outside the field, however, claimed that the theory was inherently flawed. The most prominent of these critics was Noam Ch omsky, whose negative review is cited once for every two times SkinnerÂ’s book, V erbal Behavior was cited during the years 19721990 (Knapp, 1992). ChomskyÂ’s (1957) view of language hypothesized that the speaker has an innate knowledge of syntax and that this knowledge could not have been learned. To support this view, Chomsky cited examples of sentences that people can discern as grammatically correct or incorr ect even when the person has no prior experience with the content of the sentences, and also gave exam ples of sentences that have two meanings, but look the same on the surface (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1994; Chomsky, 1957). Because examples such as those above are not dire ctly taught to the speaker by the verbal community, he argued that this knowledge must be innate (Palmer, 2000).
7 Although there were more than a dozen ot her reviews of SkinnerÂ’s book that were mostly positive, ChomskyÂ’s review has remained the most prominent (Knapp, 1992). Despite the criticism, however, there has been some recent acknowledgment from outside the field of behavior analysis that SkinnerÂ’s work is valuab le for the field of linguistics (Sundberg, 1998). J.T. Andresen (1990), a lingu istics historian, criticized ChomskyÂ’s review on the basis of its repeated references to rats and lever pr essing, despite SkinnerÂ’s focus on the analysis of human language. She positively reviewed SkinnerÂ’s book not only for its broad conception of how language is learned, but for its detailed analysis and focus on the functions of language. SkinnerÂ’s theory has also gained greater acceptance within the field of behavior analysis. This is la rgely due to the amount of empirical research conducted in the last 15 to 20 years. Forty-six articles (out of 126 total papers) publis hed in the journal The Analysis of Verbal Behavior are empirical, as well as a num ber of other articles published in The Journal of the Experime ntal Analysis of Behavior and the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (Sundberg, 1998). Much of the re search to date has focused on the development of teaching programs for indivi duals who lack language skills, such as children with autism (Sundberg, 1998). However, there is very litt le use of SkinnerÂ’s analysis in applied behavioral research on language development in non-developmentally disabled populations (Knapp, 1980 in Sundberg, 1998), including the acquisition of second languages (Sundberg, 1991, 1998). There are, however, a few notable exceptions in which researchers have sought to use operant methods to teach language to nonEnglish speakers.
8 Davis and OÂ’Neill (2001) evaluated the us e of response cards on the behaviors of four middle school students who were Englis h language learners. Response cards are small chalkboards, erasable white boards, or other hand held materials with which students display answers to a teacherÂ’s questions during group instruction. Using a reversal design, the researcher s alternated betwee n hand raising (baseline) and response cards (treatment) conditions. The dependent va riables included: (1) the percentage of trials/questions to which students made a wr itten or verbal res ponse during hand-raising and response card conditions; (2) the percentage of correct wr itten or verbal responses; (3) the percentage of trials/questions to wh ich students responded by raising their hands during hand raising conditions; and (4) the percentage of trials/questions to which students did not respond and were engaging in other disruptiv e behavior. The study also included tracking the percentage of correct responses to weekly quizzes. Results indicated that the use of response cards in creased active student responding, decreased off-task behaviors, and increas ed scores on student quizzes. Peer tutoring has also been shown to be an effec tive strategy in teaching adolescent ESOL students (as well as below average reader s) to read. Houghton and Bain (1993) taught eight below average readers (a ge fourteen) a procedure called Â“Pause, Prompt and PraiseÂ” (developed by Glynn, McNaughton, Robinson and Quinn, 1979) for tutoring the ESOL students. This procedure involved pausing following errors, prompting the correct responses, and praising correct respon ses. Data were collected to measure the degree to which peer tutors accurately implemented the Â“Pause, Prompt and PraiseÂ” procedure. The researchers also measured the mean rate of correct words read per minute as well as the mean rate of errors made per minute for the students being tutored. In
9 addition, the study measured gains in reading achievement for both groups of students by conducting a standardized reading test to m easure reading accuracy and comprehension. Both groups made significant gains in bot h reading accuracy and comprehension. One possible limitation of this study is that it was conducted fo r a period of eight weeks and did not measure the long-term effects of the intervention. Direct Instruction is another met hod that has been shown to be effective in teaching mathematics and reading to elem entary grade Englis h language learners (Gersten, 1981a, 1981b; Gersten, Carnine, & Williams, 1982 in Gersten, Brockway, & Henares, 1983). Direct In struction is a research-bas ed teaching methodology that provides the teacher with a precisely scripted lesson, which allows him or her to present material using Â“faultless communicationÂ” through the use of specific antecedent and consequence stimuli. There are typically ma ny student/teacher interactions in the lesson, and students are placed in small groups accord ing to ability rather than grade. Assessment is conducted throughout the teachi ng, which focuses on teaching skills to mastery. In Gersten, Brockway, and Henares (1983) the direct instruction methods known as SRAÂ’s Corrective Reading as well as direct instruc tion in mathematics, produced significant reading and mathematics gains in st udents with limited English proficiency. The Corrective Reading and direct instruction mathem atics group was compared to a group who received that district Â’s standard bilingual education. Data showed that 75 percent and 96 percent were above grade level in reading an d math, respectively, compared to 19 percent for reading and 62 percent for mathematics in the standard
10 bilingual education group. St udents continued to perform ab ove the national average one and two years after leaving the program. While some behavioral researchers have sought to examine methods for improving learning outcomes for English langua ge learners, others have attempted to more closely examine the ecological variables that are likely to affect these students. Arreaga-Mayer, Carta and Tapi a (1994) conducted a study with 36 elementary students in four different schools. The children were id entified as limited English proficient (LEP) and were receiving special education servic es or were at risk for developmental disabilities. Two of the schools were categ orized as English immersion models, meaning that all instruction was in E nglish with no structured ESOL instruction or support in the native language. However, these schools had pull-out se rvices (meaning students are removed from the regular classroom for sp ecialized instruction) for ESL services, bilingual special education, and special edu cation. One school was a math, science and language magnet school with pullout services to in structional labs, special education, bilingual special education, and ESOL progr ams. The fourth school was a Spanishlanguage magnet school that provided full bi lingual instruction (such as Spanish and English) as well as pull-out services fo r ESOL, language labs, bilingual special education, and special education. The authors developed a comput erized data collection system called ESCRIBE (The Ecobehavioral System for the Contex tual Recording of Interactional Bilingual Environments) in which they examined four categories of variable s. These included stationary variables (e.g., sett ings, number of adults, number of children), instructional variables (e.g., student activiti es, materials, language of materials, instructional
11 grouping), teacher variables (e.g., specific teacher what students the teacher is focusing on, language used, type of correction or affi rmation used by the teacher), and student variables (e.g., language initia ting or responding behaviors, oral responses, language of the student, activity related re sponses). The data produced qu antitative descriptions of important programmatic and linguistic factors present in the childrenÂ’s classrooms, as well as their subsequent effect s on behavior. Data showed th at the students spent 92% of their day neither responding to nor initiating language of a verbal or written nature and that only 44% of their day was spent actively engaged in academic activities. Data also revealed that small-group instruction pr oduced more active res ponding than whole-group instruction in the area of academics and language use, yet students spent 67% of their day engaged in whole-group instructional format s. Additionally, results showed that the English Immersion School produced the highest rates of academic responding across all three types of classrooms (regular edu cation, special education, and ESOL). It is interesting to note that in the behavi oral research reviewed, there is a paucity of data reporting pre-assessment of language sk ills separate from academic skills such as reading and mathematics. This finding is inte resting due to the fact that assessment prior to intervention is one of the foundational principl es of behavior analys is. The role of preintervention assessment is primarily to select and define target beha viors that need to change for the particular person being assessed (Cooper, Heron & Heward, 1987). Although studies on direct inst ruction report pre-assessment data, the assessments focus more on proficiency in a particular academic sk ill rather than the st udentÂ’s competency in English language use (Gersten, 1981a, 1981b; Gersten, Carnine, & Williams, 1982 in Gersten, Brockway, & Henares, 1983).
12 A general type of pre-assessment of English language sk ills occurs for the purposes of qualifying students for ESOL serv ices in public schools. The particular assessment used appears to vary across school districts. One common assessment tool is called the IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test (IPT) (St. Lucie County School Board, 2002). This particular test is normed for students pre-kindergarten through high school, and is used to determine eligibility for ESOL programs/services. It is typically given to an individual student by a sc hool staff member such as the guidance counselor, and consists of various directions and questions, as well as questions that are asked as the examiner refers to a picture book. Based on test results, the student is designated as nonEnglish speaking; limited English speaking; a nd fluent English speaking. The results of this assessment are placed in the studentÂ’s cu mulative folder, but they are not necessarily shared with the classroom teacher. Additionally this assessment is not used to suggest teaching strategies or pinpoint areas of weakne ss. It is used again, however, as a tool to determine continued eligibility for ESOL servi ces after a student has been in the program for three years (St. Lucie County School Board, 2002). Another common initial assessment test is called the Language Assessment Scales, Oral (LAS-O) (M.Ware, personal communication, March 12, 2003; Hargett, 1998). Also individually admini stered, it includes a variety of oral responses, such as naming pictures, answering comprehension que stions, and commenting on pictures. This test classifies a student into one of five proficiency levels within the broad categories of non-English speaking, limited English speaking, and fluent English speaking. This test not only determines eligibility, but can also be used to determine instructional grouping, and to track annual progress with oral English proficiency. It can al so be used to help
13 determine whether a student is proficient w ith English and ready to exit the program. Because the type of assessment that is used varies across school districts and states, it is difficult to determine to what extent these particular assessments are used. Of three additional Florida school districts that were randomly surveyed by the principal investigator, one used the IDEA assessm ent and two used the LAS assessment. In unstructured interviews with three regular education elementary teachers (selected by convenience and willingness to be interviewed) within th e school district of St. Lucie County, Florida (D. Scellato, personal communication, March 8, 2003; J. Summerall, personal communication, Ap ril 22, 2003; I. Williams, personal communication, May 21, 2003), teachers commented on the lack of information regarding specific language ski lls for ESOL students. They were in agreement that information on present levels of various la nguage skills, includi ng requesting, labeling, receptive and imitative skills, as well as specifi c levels in the areas of mathematics and reading, is not provided. When asked, the thr ee teachers all stated th at this information would be helpful in guiding instruction and in helping them to interact with the students when they first come to the classroom. One language assessment tool that might prove helpful to teachers of English language learners is the Assessment of Ba sic Language and Learning Skills or ABLLS (Partington & Sundberg, 1998). The ABLLS is an assessment, curriculum guide, and skills tracking system for children with langua ge delays. This assessment is used most frequently with children with autism or other developmental disabilities. It is unique in that it is based on B.F. SkinnerÂ’s behavior al analysis of language outlined in his book Verbal Behavior (1957).
14 The ABLLS focuses not only on the verbal operants outlined by B.F. Skinner (1957), but includes these in with what are termed Â“Basic Learner SkillsÂ”. These skills have been identified because they appear to be crucial in order for students to learn from their everyday interactio ns (Partington & Sundberg, 1998) These skills include cooperation and reinforcer eff ectiveness, imitation, social in teraction, appropriate play, participation in group instruction, following classroom routines and generalization of acquired skills. These skills were identifie d through observation of typically-developing, kindergarten students (Partington & Sundberg, 1998). The ABLLS also includes four areas that assess specific acad emic skills: reading, math, writing, and spelling. Also included are sections on self -help skills, such as dre ssing and grooming, as well as sections on gross and fine motor skills. After the ABLLS has been comple ted, it is intended to guide instructional objectives by providing very specific informa tion on skills that the student has and does not have. This allows the teacher to choos e specific skill deficits and teach those objectives. The goals of the present study we re to complete the ABLLS assessment with three Limited English Speaking (LES) or Non-English Speaking (NES) public elementary school students in three different classrooms and to assess the usefulness of the assessment information to the childrenÂ’s teachers. Th e study attempts to draw possible conclusions about how the ABLLS a ssessment may impact instructional goals and teaching methods used for the three students. In addition, the individual ABLLS data for each student were analyzed to see if any pa rticular trends appear to exist in terms of
15 skills and/or skill deficits across the three ESOL students. Such trends may suggest particular teaching methods or strategies.
16 Chapter Two Method Participants and Setting The student participants were one male Limited English Speaking (LES) and two male Non-English Speaking (NES) public elem entary school students in three different classrooms in St. Lucie County, Florida. The first student, Nathan, was labeled NonEnglish Speaking (NES) after being tested by a St. Lucie County Guidance Counselor at the beginning of the school year. He was in the fourth grade and was ten years, zero months old at the time of the ABLLS assessmen t. He was born in Columbia and entered school in the United States in at the begi nning of the school year (August, 2003). His native language was Spanish. The second st udent, James, was labeled Non-English Speaking (NES) after being tested at the end of the previous school ye ar. He was in the second grade and was seven years, seven months old at the time of the ABLLS assessment. He was born in the Dominican Republic and entered school in the United States in August, 2002. His native language was Spanish. The third student, Charles, was labeled Limited English Speaking (LES) after being tested in September of the present school year. He was in the fifth gr ade and ten years old, four months at the time of the ABLLS assessment. He was born in Columbia and entered school in the United States in February, 2003. His native langua ge was also Spanish. The rationale for
17 choosing the age range of second through fifth grades was based in part upon anecdotal data gathered through personal communications with a guidance counselor and with a district ESOL coordinato r from St. Lucie County, FL (L. Ambrose, personal communication, October 15, 2002; M. Ware, personal communication, March 12, 2003), who indicated that children who are non-English speaking when they begin kindergarten or first grade generally appear to progress we ll compared to children who enter at later grades. It was therefore hypothe sized that if the ABLLS asse ssment has value in terms of its potential impact on instruc tion, it may be more beneficial to children in higher grades, such as two through five. As for choosing el ementary age children as opposed to middle or high school students, it was speculated that it may be more feasible for elementary teachers, who are the primary teachers for th e students, to complete the assessment and implement more consistent instructional strategi es than would be feasible at the middle or high school levels. A list of potential participants was ge nerated from the school data base by the guidance counselor, who performe d the screenings for ESOL eligibility and oversaw the ESL program for the school. This list iden tified the children by grade and by their classification (NES or LES). From the list of the five potential participants who met all the grade-level and language background (Spa nish speaking as opposed to Creole or French, for example) criteria, three student s were randomly selected by the principal investigator. The principal investigator ha d no previous knowledge of the children, but had met one of the teachers approximately tw o years prior to the study being conducted. However, the principal investigator did not have ongoing contact with that teacher since that time. Informed written consent (trans lated into Spanish for the parents of the
18 students) was obtained for all three student part icipants and their parents, as well as the three teachers, the ESOL specialist, and the Guidance Counselor, following the Institutional Review Board guidelines. Th e students were all enrolled in regular education classes and were not receiving or appear to be qualified for any additional services (such as any of those offered th rough special education or a 504 plan). The services provided as a result of their ESOL eligibility were delivered by the regular education teacher. These strategies are lis ted in the Pre-ABLLS Assessment teacher survey answers grid (Table 1). Instructi on for the three student s did not involve any pullout services or any other special services offered by othe r school personnel. Initially, each teacher participating in the study was to be certified through the state of Florida in ESOL teaching strategies. However, upon in terviewing the teachers to ensure this certification, it was learned th at four of the five teacher s of the potential student participants did not yet have this certification, although most had some type of ESOL training (such as a workshop or some classe s). Based on this development, a decision was made to document during the interview pr ocess the specific type of formal training each teacher had completed. There were no ot her criteria (such as level of experience) used to select teachers. NathanÂ’s teacher was Ms. Harrington, who had been a fourth grade teacher for three years. She stated that she had taught three ESOL students (including the student in this study) during that time. She wa s not certified in ESOL, but had completed one formal college course that focused on ESOL teaching strategies. JamesÂ’ teacher was Ms. Stewart, a second grad e teacher with three ye ars experience (one year as a first grade teacher and two years as a second grade teacher). She reported that she taught four ESOL students during that time. She was certified in ESOL through
19 university coursework. Char lesÂ’ teacher was Ms. Ramsey, who was not certified in ESOL, but had completed sixty hours of relate d coursework while in college. She had three years experience as a fifth grade teacher and reported that she had taught Â“severalÂ” ESOL students during that time. The guidance counselor was Ms. Walker, who had been an elementary guidance counselor for sixteen years and had overseen the ESOL program at the elementary level for twelve years. The district ESOL speci alist was Ms. Anderson, who had been working in the ESOL field for eighteen years (six y ears as a classroom teacher) and had been the district ESOL specialist for thirteen years. Data collection occurred either in the classroom (for assessment items as well as pre and post questionnaire items answered by the teacher) or in one of two classrooms that were not being used for items that were presented to the stude nt individually. Within the two settings that were used to asse ss students, both the principal investigator and the student were seated at a table. Student Assessment Procedure All children were individually assessed by the researcher for the following areas of the ABLLS: cooperation a nd reinforcer effectiveness, receptive language, vocal imitation, labeling, intraverbals, reading, math, writing, and spelling. Items presented to the teachers were for the following areas of the ABLLS: requests, spontaneous vocalizations, syntax and gramma r, play and leisure, social interaction, group instruction, and classroom routines. However, within many of these areas, some items were presented to the teacher or the student. The exact items, as they were presented, are listed in Appendix B.
20 The ABLLS includes both an assessment tool to record scores and track progress for each child (ABLLS Protocol) and a gui de book. The ABLLS Protocol provides an initial assessment of a variety of language sk ills as well as a means to review and update progress. It includes a set of grids (see Appendix A) that allow the person(s) administering it to track the skills that ha ve been acquired and to document the progress with skills over time. Rather than grouping skil ls together as expressi ve or receptive, the assessment targets individual skills such as th e mand (referred to as requests), the tact (referred to as labeling), the intrav erbal, and the echoic, among others. The materials used in the assessment pr ocedures included hundreds of pictures and common items as well as academic materials compiled by the researcher based on the tasks in those secti ons of the assessment. A brief initial reinforcer assessment was conducted with each child. The following items were presented all at the same time: pretzels, two kinds of Goldfish crackers, Oreo cookies, chocolate chip cookies, Skittles, M&Ms, and small toys, including a car and a ba ll. The student was encouraged to select whatever items they liked, and these were available throughout the assessment in small quantities (4 or 5 of each particular food ite m). The investigator al so used praise and other gestures such as a Â“thumbs upÂ”, Â“high fiveÂ” or a pat on the s houlder at various times during the assessment. Throughout the assessment, if a student indicated an interest in some other activity in the classroom, such as building blocks, books, or the computer, these items were also offered for 10-15 minut es following the completion of parts of the assessment. Access to items or activities was not contingent upon correct responding. Students were given breaks dur ing the assessment as deemed necessary by the principal investigator. One of the students, James, o ccasionally made comments such as Â“This too
21 hardÂ”, or showed other signs that he need ed a break, such as looking away, or fidgeting with materials. This occurred infrequently and only with this student. Under these circumstances, the investigator would allo w a brief break (approximately 10 minutes) contingent upon 3-5 additional responses. During this time, the student could engage in a preferred activity. Each student had his own ABLLS protocol. As each task was presented, the score was recorded in the protocol. Each task or skill assessed on th e ABLLS has a row of columns that include the task number, range of scores, task name, task objective, questions to ask about the child Â’s skill, examples of respons es (that may be required to clarify the response), scoring criteria, and a section for notes. The scoring column has four rows for each skill or task assessed. The score column corresponds to the criteria column (for example, a score of 1, 2, 3, or 4). A score of zero means that the student does not meet the lowest criterion for that item as described in the criteria column. Depending on the particular skil l, the scoring column may co nsist of only a 0 and a 1 or may have 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4. When the skill is assessed for the first time, the top row is completed. The other three rows are to be used and completed in different color ink when the ABLLS is updated For the purposes of this study, which was to examine the potential usefulness of The ABLLS as an assessment tool (as opposed to measuring progress with skills over time) for Eng lish language learners, the investigator completed only the initial assessment. The ABLLS is divided into four main areas : basic learner skills, academic skills, self-help skills, and motor sk ills. The 13 areas described be low were all included in the basic learner skills section and were incl uded in this study. The first area on the
22 assessment is cooperation and reinforcer eff ectiveness. This section assessed not only what items or activities may serve as reinforc ers for a student, but also identified if the student could work to receive intermittent social praise and/or for task completion alone. To assess this skill, the researcher presented di rectly to the student each task listed in that section beginning with task A1 (Take reinforc er when offered) through task A11 (Waits appropriately if reinforcer delivery is dela yed). Two exceptions for this section of the assessment were tasks A6 (Variation in reinforcement (non-ed ible) and A9 (Seeks approval for task completion). These two task s were asked as questions to the teacher, because this information appeared more appr opriately gathered from the teacher, based on their knowledge of the student. If the te acher was unclear as to whether the student had the particular skill to comp lete any of the tasks, the researcher then presented the task directly to the student, as feasible. A detailed notation was made next to the particular task in the ABLLS protocol if the latter si tuation occurred. The note included a question mark as well as a notation that the principa l investigator needed to test, and then a notation regarding the outcome of that asse ssment. This procedure was used throughout the assessment process for any ta sks that the teachers were un sure of, or if they had not observed the behavior. The receptive language section assessed th e studentÂ’s ability to respond to the language of others, including responding to their own name, following both simple and more complex directions, selecting pictures, items, body parts, or people from simple to more complex arrays as well as according to by feature, function, or class. To assess these skills, the resear cher presented directly to the student the tasks in that section, beginning with task C1 (responds to own name ) through task C52 (selects pictures [of]
23 social interactions). Exceptions that were asked of the teacher rather than presented directly to the student were: tasks C2 (follo w instructions to do an enjoyable action in context), C7 (follow instructions to do an enjoyable action out of context), C8 (follow instructions in routine situations). The vocal imitation section assessed a studentÂ’s ability to imitate from simple sounds to complex phrases with varying into nation as well as spontaneous imitation of words and phrases. To assess these skills, the researcher presented directly to the student each task in that section, beginning with E1 (imitates sounds on request) through E9 (spontaneous imitation of phrases). Exceptions were tasks E8 (spontaneous imitation of words), and E9 (spontaneous imitation of phras es). Student competency in these tasks was assessed by presenting the tasks to the teacher. The requests section assessed a studentÂ’s ability to request wanted items or activities. Many of the tasks listed in this se ction needed to be obs erved in the natural environment. Therefore, the researcher firs t asked the teacher about each task in that section beginning with F1 (requests by indica ting) through F27 (spontaneous requests). The labeling section assessed the studentÂ’ s ability to vocally label reinforcers, objects, pictures, actions, body pa rts, by feature, function, or class, by indicating yes/no, and labeling missing or incorrect items. To assess these skills, the researcher presented directly to the student each task in that section, beginning with G1 (labels reinforcers) through G42 (spontaneous labeling). Exceptions were G7 (acquires novel labels without intensive training), G8 (labels items using a carrier phrase) G24 (labels two component with carrier phrase), G29 (u ses carrier phrase when la beling nouns with verbs or adjectives), G31 (uses carrier phrases when us ing prepositions), G33 (uses carrier phrases
24 when using pronouns) G35 (labels three component + with carrier phra se), G40 (internal events and emotions), G41 (labels social interaction behavior), and G42 (spontaneous labeling). Student competency in these tasks was assessed by presenting the tasks to the teacher. The intraverbal section assessed simple fill in the blank conversation skills up through complex skills such as answering nove l questions, telling stories and engaging in spontaneous conversation. To asse ss these skills, the researcher presente d directly to the student each task in that section, beginning with H1 (fill in words from songs) through H42 (tell stories). Exceptions were H1 (f ill in words from songs) H39 (maintains a conversation with an adult or peer), H40 (answers novel questions), H41 (spontaneous conversation), and H42 (tell stories). Because these tasks primarily involve language skills used in the classroom or school envir onment, student competency in these tasks was assessed by presenting the task to the teach er. Item H3 (sign English words) was not applicable and was not presented. The spontaneous vocalizations section assessed the range of the studentÂ’s ability to spontaneously make simple speech sounds up through being able to spontaneously request, label and converse with others. The ta sks listed in this section needed to be observed in the natural envir onment; therefore, the research er first asked the teacher about each task in that section beginning with I1 (vocalize id entifiable speech sounds) through I9 (spontaneous conversation). The syntax and grammar section assessed a studentÂ’s ability to use phrases and sentences according to correct syntax and gram mar rules. Many of the tasks listed in this section needed to be observed in the natural environment; ther efore, the researcher first
25 asked the teacher about each ta sk in that section beginning with J1 (mean length of response) through J20 (label emotional state associated with a verbal response). The section entitled Â“play/leisure skills Â” assessed the studentÂ’s ability to appropriately and independently play with t oys or other leisure items as well as with peers. Many of the tasks listed in this sect ion needed to be observed in the natural environment; therefore, the researcher first asked the teacher about each task in that section beginning with K1 (explores toys in the environment) through K10 (outdoor games and activities). The section entitled Â“social interaction sk illsÂ” assessed the studentÂ’s ability and tendency to interact with othe rs, both physically a nd verbally. Many of the tasks listed in this section needed to be obs erved in the natural environmen t; therefore, the researcher first asked the teacher about each task in that section beginning with L1 (looks at others to start a social interactio n) through L22 (maintains attention of others). The section entitled Â“group instructionÂ” in cluded many tasks that needed to be observed in the natural environm ent; therefore, the researcher first asked the teacher each task in that section beginning with M1 (sit appropriately in small group) through M12 (learns new skills in group teaching format). The classroom routines section contained many tasks that needed to be observed in the natural environment; th erefore, the researcher firs t asked the teacher about each task in that section beginning with N1 (line up on request) th rough N10 (follows daily routines). The academic portion of the ABLLS incl uded sections on reading, math, writing, and spelling. To assess the reading skills, th e researcher presented each item directly to
26 the student beginning with Q1 (receptive le tters) through Q15 (read passages and answer comprehension questions). To assess the math skills, the researcher presented each item directly to the student begi nning with R1 (rote counts with prompts) through R42 (labels zero/none). To assess the writing skills, the re searcher presented each item directly to the student beginning with S1 (mark on paper) thro ugh S9 (print number s). To assess the spelling skills, the researcher presented each item directly to the student beginning with T1 (match individual letters to letters on word card ) through T6 (spell words in a written form). As with the other portions of this assessment, the researcher used the same assessment materials across all three participants. Materials were gathered at the discretion of the investigator from a vari ety of sources, includ ing student workbooks, passages from childrenÂ’s books, and manipul atives commonly used in classrooms. Nine sections of the ABLLS were not included in this study. The omitted sections were: visual performance, imita tion, generalized responding, the self-help sections that include dressing, eating, groom ing and toileting, and the fine and gross motor sections. These skill areas appear to be more relevant for children with autism or other developmental delays, so they were not included in the pr esent study. It was assumed that typical second language learners do not need assessmen t or intervention in these areas. Procedural Integrity The assessment materials used for each st udent were consistent across all three participants, with the exception of the specific edible or tangible items that students chose for participating in the assessment. The orde r of the tasks presented was similar, but not exactly the same for each student, due to the availability of the second observer. The
27 second observer schedule was spread across a ll areas of the assessm ent, so that the second observer was observing for many different task areas of the assessment. For example, with student number 1, the sec ond observer was scheduled to observe the labeling and intraverbal sections. With student number 2, the second observer was scheduled to observe the receptive and the re ading sections. With student number 3, the second observer was scheduled to observe the math, writing, and reading sections. The principal investigator began each student asse ssment with the cooperation and reinforcer effectiveness section and then progressed forw ard through the other sections in the order that they are listed in the ABLLS. However, it was deemed impractical to not proceed with other areas of the as sessment because the second observer was not available to observe the receptive section, for example. Un der these circumstances the investigator completed the other areas of the assessment and then went back to the area(s) that were not yet completed when the second observer was available. It was presumed by the principal investigator that the order of the tasks presented would not affect the outcome of the assessment. To ensure that all children were given all tasks within the assessment, specific tasks provided to both students and th e teachers were guided by a task list that was checked off as each section of the ABLLS was completed (see Appendix B). Some tasks in the ABLLS assessment were straightforward a nd had only one way to assess the skill, such as task C1 (responds to own name) where the question to be asked is Â“Will the student look at or come to a person when called by his name?Â” For other tasks, all the questions, words, objects or pictures that need to be asked or used are not defined, such as in task H27 (states item when told its functions, features, or class), where the criteria range up to 20 or more quest ions answered. For tasks such as these,
28 the researcher created a set list of questions, wo rds or phrases, or in other tasks, objects to be used so that the procedures were the sa me across all three part icipants. These items (available from the researcher upon request) included a twenty-five page document used for recording lengthy responses and a large three-ring binder with pictures on pages, a bag of over 100 common items, and bags of pict ures and/or other items as required to assess various skills. Inter-rater Reliability A second observer trained in scoring th e ABLLS also completed items on the ABLLS simultaneously but independent of the researcher. Training for the second observer included attending a general training session offered by the author of the ABLLS, as well as some specific scoring practi ce with a seven year old regular education student. The second observer was present dur ing the actual assessment sessions, but did not confer with the primary obs erver about data scoring. This occurred for at least 30% of the sessions with each student and at least 30% of the assessment items presented to each teacher. In the case of a student response, both observers recorded the response that reflected the studentÂ’s level of skill as dem onstrated by the student. In the case of a teacher response, the researcher presented the question followed by the choices of criteria and then recorded, along with the observer, the number that the teacher chose as the response. For example, the investigator read the question and then gave an example of the skill if necessary, followed by the choices of criteria along with the number that corresponds with that level of skill. The scores were then compared for reliability. Agreement was defined as both scorers havi ng the exact same score level on the ABLLS (e.g., both observers must have recorded the same score of 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 in order for an
29 agreement to be scored). Agreement was computed by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. The second observer was present for 30% of the sessions. The range of agreement per session ranged from 87% to 100%, and the overa ll rate of agreement was 97%. It should be noted that agreement for teacher item s was 100% for each session, likely because the numerical score was determined with th e teacher prior to it being recorded. Teacher Measures A questionnaire was administered to teach ers at the beginning of the study to gather specific information about the student, as well as teaching st rategies or methods that were used for the particular student (see Appendix C). Once the ABLLS Protocol was completed and the data transferred to the grids, the results were shared orally with the teacher and a second copy of the ABLLS was scored and th en given to the teacher to keep. A post-ABLLS questionnaire was then ad ministered to gather data regarding the usefulness of the information gained from the ABLLS assessment, as well as to identify any reported changes in teaching strategies or methods as a result of viewing the assessment (see Appendix D). A meeting was held with the parents of the three students and an interpreter, as needed, to explain the results of the assessment and answer any questions regarding the study. ESOL Specialist and Guidance Counselor Measures A questionnaire was administered to the district ESOL specia list and the guidance counselor after the completion of the assessmen ts. The results of the assessments were reviewed by the researcher w ith the ESOL specialist and gui dance counselor prior to the
30 questions being answered. The purpose of th e questions (see Appendix E) was to assess the specialistÂ’s and the guidance counselorÂ’s opinions of the usefulne ss of the assessment information, possible teaching strategies that may be used as a result of the assessment, as well as to get their opinions on how the ABLLS assessment compared to other assessments typically used for English language learners.
31 Chapter Three Results Pre-ABLLS Assessment Teacher Surveys: Table 1 shows the results of the pre-ABLLS teacher surveys. Two of the students had been in the classroom since the begi nning of the school year, and one student (Charles) arrived six weeks after school bega n. The particular strate gies ESL strategies reported varied: two teachers reported using peer tutoring (d efined as having the student sit next to a peer for academic assistance as opposed to a formal peer tutoring program), two reported that they modified the curricu lum (for example, fewer spelling words and books at lower reading levels), two reported the use of visual aides or strategies (for example, the use of items, demonstrations a nd examples during teaching). Other reported strategies included the use of labeling cards on items in the environment (putting the word Â“doorÂ” on the door, for example), the use of picture/word cards as flash cards, the use of books that are in both Spanish a nd English with audio tapes, the use of manipulatives for mathematics, extra time on the computer to use a program called Â“EarobicsÂ” (Â“EarobicsÂ” is a program intende d to develop phonologi cal awareness through the presentation of phonics activ ities), and the use of Language Master cards (Language Master is a program in which the student sees the written letter or word and also hears it to review letters, lett er sounds and/or words). The information about specific language sk ills that was provided to the teacher upon the student entering the class was simila r for all three students. No formal
32 Table 1 Pre-ABLLS Assessment Teacher Survey Results Question Ms. Harrington (Nathan) Ms. Stewart (James) Ms. Ramsey (Charles) Length of time student in class Since 8/11/03 (six weeks) Since 8/11/03 (eight weeks) Since 8/18/03 (six weeks) Teacher certification /training in ESL strategies One college course (not certified) Certified in ESOL strategies 60 hours at university level/not certified ESOL instructional strategies used currently Visual strategies, written labeling of items, picture/word cards, Spanish/English books with audio tapes Peer tutoring, modified curriculum, manipulatives for math, Â“EarobicsÂ” computer program, Â“Language MasterÂ” cards Peer tutoring, modified curriculum, visual strategies Information that was provided on specific language skills upon studentÂ’s entry into class From parents: previous education, no other information provided by school None None Formal assessments given to student Accelerated Reader, classroom reading and math assessments, math inventory test at beginning of school year, DAR (Diagnostic Assessment of Reading), written writing assessments DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills), Fox in the Box DAR (Diagnostic Assessment of Reading), STAR Assessments same as for all students? Yes Yes Yes Is student below grade levelÂ—if yes, what subjects Below grade level in reading and with any subject when it required reading Below grade level in reading and with any subject when it required reading, also below grade level in math and writing Below grade level in reading and with any subject when it required reading Information teacher would like to have in order to provide effective instruction What type of learner student is (visual, hands-on), through what senses he learns best Proficiency of skills in his native language Information on reading including phonics skills
33Table 1 (conÂ’t) Pre-ABLLS Assessment Teacher Survey Results Question Ms. Harrington (Nathan) Ms. Stewart (James) Ms. Ramsey (Charles) StudentÂ’s strengths in terms of language skills Following directions, imitating others, labeling Imitating others, following directions, requesting is Â“okÂ” Good conversation skills with other students, follows simple directions, imitates others StudentÂ’s weaknesses in terms of language skills Requesting, conversations, reading and writing Conversation skills, unsure of labeling Multi-step directions, short responses to questions, needs to improve vocabulary Specific skills most important to learn at this time Improve fluency to verbally express himself Letter recognition, letter sounds, reading, basic math facts More sophisticated responses to questions, following multistep directions information (based on assessments or otherwis e) was provided to the teachers. However, one teacher obtained some information from the studentÂ’s parents regarding his academic history in Columbia, including that he was repeating the 4th grade. The formal assessments given to students included: The DAR (Diagnostic Assessment of Reading) and the computerized STAR test for Charles, the DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills) for James, and regular classroom assessments such as those normally given for reading, math and writing, as well as Accelerated Reader tests for Na than. Two tests had not yet been administered, but were reported as upcoming: the Fox in the Box fo r James, and the DAR for Nathan. All three teachers reported that these same assessments ar e given to all students in their class, with the exception of those students who have an academic improvement plan being the only ones who receive the DAR test.
34 According to teacher reports, all three students were belo w grade level in reading. Charles (the fifth grade student ) had an overall reading level of second grade, Nathan (the fourth grade student) had an overall reading level of first grade, and James (the second grade student) was a beginning reader who had not yet mast ered letter recognition or letter sounds. He was also below grade leve l in math. All three t eachers reported that the problems with reading caused difficulty with progress in other subject areas, and two teachers (Ms. Hamilton and Ms. Ramsey) reported that math skills were on grade level except when reading was required, such as with word problems. The type of information the teachers wanted to know about these students varied: Ms. Stewart, reported wanting to know the studentÂ’s skill levels in his native language (for all academic subjects), Ms. Ramsey repor ted wanting a breakdown of skills in areas such as phonics and reading, and Ms. Harringto n wanted to know what type of learner the student was, for example, was he a visual l earner, or a hands-on learner, as well as to know through what senses he would learn best. All three teachers reported that the st udentsÂ’ strengths included following directions and imitating ot hers. Other strengths re ported included good social (conversation) skills with peer s (Charles), labeling skills (N athan), and requesting skills (reported as Â“OKÂ”) for James. Weakne sses reported include d requesting and conversation skills as well as reading and writ ing in English (Natha n); weak conversation skills and possible labeling problems (James ); following multi-step directions, poor vocabulary and short responses to questions (conversation skills ) for Charles. The specific skills that the teachers iden tified as being most important for the student to learn at this time included: improving fluency with verbal expression (Nathan),
35 improving letter recognition, letter sounds, readi ng skills, and basic math skills (James), and developing more sophisticated respons es to questions and following multi-step directions (Charles). Student Measures Figure 1 shows a summary of the results of the ABLLS assessment for Nathan (refer to Appendix F for ABLLS form). In the area of cooperation and reinforcer effectiveness, this student met the highest criteria for all the skills (100%). In the area of receptive language, he met full criteria for 41 sk ills (79%) and partial criteria for 11 skills (21%). In the vocal imitation area, he met full criteria for five skills (56%), partial criteria for two skills (22%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for two skills (22%). In the requesting area, the student met full criteria fo r three skills (11%), partial criteria for sixteen skills (59%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for eight skills (30%). In the labeling area, the student met full criteria for 14 skills (33%), partial criteria for 19 skills (45%), and failed to meet the mini mum criteria for eight skills (19%). In the intraverbal area, the student met full criteria for eight skills (19%), partial criteria for thirty skills (71%), and failed to meet the mi nimum criteria for three skills (7%). In the area of spontaneous vocalizations this student met full criteria for one skill (11%), partial criteria for three skills (33%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for five skills (55%). Under the syntax and grammar area, th e student met full criteria for two skills (10%), partial criteria for six skills (30%), and failed to meet the minimum requirements for twelve skills (60%). In the play and leis ure area, the student met the full criteria for five skills (50%), met partial criteria for one skill (10%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for four skills (40%). In the area of social interacti on, the student met full criteria
36 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Coope r at i on an d r e i n force r effect i vene s s Recept i ve l a n guag e V o cal i m ita t ion Re q ue s t i ng L a beling Intrav e rbal S p o n t a n e ou s v o ca liz a tio n Synt a x & G r a m mar Play & Lei s ure S o ci al I n t e ra c t i o n Gr oup I n s truction C la s sroo m routi n es Re a din g Math e ma t i c s W ri ting Spel l i n gPercentage Fail Partial Full Figure 1 NathanÂ’s percentage of full, partial, failed criteria across performance sections for nine skills (41%), met partial criteria fo r eleven skills (50%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for two skills (9%). In the group instruction area, the student met full criteria for ten skills (83%), partial criter ia for one skill (8%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for one skill (8%). In the classroom routines area, the student met full criteria for every skill (100%). In the reading area, the student met full criteria for eleven skills (73%), and partial criter ia for four skills (27%). In the mathematics area, the student met full criteria for thirty-seven skills (88%) and failed to meet the minimum requirement for five skills (12%). In the writi ng area, he met full criteria for all the skills (100%). In the spelling area, he also met fu ll criteria for all the skills (100%). Figure 2 shows a summary of the results of the ABLLS assessment for James (refer to Appendix G for ABLLS form). In the area of cooperation and reinforcer
37 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Cooper a tion an d r einforcer ef f e ct ivene s s Rece pt i v e la n gu ag e Vocal im i tation R e qu esting Labeling I ntr a ve r b al Spontaneous vocalization S yn t ax & Gr a mm a r Play & Leisure S oci a l Int e r a ct i o n Group Instruction C l a ssroo m r o u t i ne s Rea d ing Mat h e m a t i cs Writing S pe l l i n gPercentage Fail Partial Full Figure 2 JamesÂ’ percentage of full, partial, fa iled criteria across performance sections. effectiveness, the student met the highest criter ia for all the skills (100% ). In the area of receptive language, the student met full criteria for forty-seven skills (90%) and partial criteria for five skills (10%). In the vocal imitation area, he met full criteria for four skills (44%), partial criteria for three sk ills (33%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for two skills (22%). In the reque sting area, he met full criteria for eighteen skills (67%), partial criteria for eight sk ills (30%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for one skill (3%). In the labeling area, the student met full criteria for eight skills (19%), partial criteria for thirty-two skills ( 76%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for two skills (5%). In the intraverbal area, he met full criteria for six skills (15%), partial criteria for thirty-two skills (76%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for three skills (7%). In the area of spontaneous vocaliza tions, this student met full criteria for five skills (56%), partial criteria for three sk ills (33%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for one skill (11%). Under the syntax and grammar area, he met full criteria for
38 one skill, partial criteria for eleven sk ills (55%), and failed to meet the minimum requirements for eight skills (40%). In the pl ay and leisure area, the student met the full criteria for nine skills (90%), and met partia l criteria for one skill (10%). In the area of social interaction, he met full criteria for twen ty skills (91%), and met partial criteria for two skills (9%). In the group instruction area the student met full criteria for eleven skills (92%), and partial criteria for one skill (8%). In the classroom routines area, he met full criteria for nine skills (90%) and met pa rtial criteria for one skill (10%). In the reading area, the student met full criteria for two skills (14%), partia l criteria for four skills (27%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for nine skills (60%). In the mathematics area, the student met full criteria fo r fifteen skills (36%), met partial criteria for seven skills (17%), and failed to meet th e minimum criteria for twenty skills (48%). In the writing area, he met full criteria for thr ee skills (33%), partial criteria for five skills (56%), and failed to meet the minimum criteri a for one skill (11%). In the spelling area, he met full criteria for one skill (17%), part ial criteria for one skill(17%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for four skills (67%). Figure 3 shows a summary of the results of the ABLLS assessment for Charles (refer to Appendix H for ABLLS form). In the area of cooperation and reinforcer effectiveness, he met full criteria for all the skills (100%). In the area of receptive language, the student met full crite ria for forty-six skills (88%), and partial criteria for six skills (12%). In the vocal im itation area, he met full criteria for seven skills (78%), and partial criteria for two skills (22%). In the requesting area, he met full criteria for thirteen skills (48%), partial criteria for ten skills (37%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for four skills (15%). In the labeling area, the student met full criteria for fifteen
39 skills (36%), partial criteria for twenty-five skills (60%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for two skills (5%). In the intraver bal area, the student met full criteria for ten skills (24%), partial criteria for thirty sk ills (71%), and failed to meet the minimum criteria for one skill (2%). In the area of spontaneous vocal izations, this student met full criteria for four skills (44%), and met par tial criteria for five skills (56%). Under the syntax and grammar area, the student met full cr iteria for six skills (30%), partial criteria for ten skills (50%), and failed to meet the mi nimum criteria for four sk ills (20%). In the play and leisure area, the student met the full cr iteria for all the skills (100%). In the area of social interaction, the student met full crit eria for twenty skills (91%), and met partial criteria for two skills (9%). In the group instruction area, the student met full criteria for all the skills (100%). In the classroom routines area, the student met full criteria for nine skills (90%) and met partial criteria for one sk ill (10%). In the read ing area, the student met full criteria for fourteen skills (93%), and partial criteria for one skill (7%). In the 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%C o op e r a ti o n a n d r ei nf orc er e ffe c ti v en es s Rec e pt iv e l an g ua ge Vocal i mi t ati o n Requ e sting Labeling Int ra ve rb al Spo n ta ne ou s v o ca l izati o n Syn t ax & G ramm a r Play & Leisure So c i al In t era c tio n Grou p Ins t ruc ti o n C l as s room ro u tines Rea d in g Mathematics Wri ti ng Spe l li n gPercentage Fail Partial Full Figure 3 CharlesÂ’ percentage of full, partial, failed criteria across performance sections.
40 mathematics area, the student met full criteria fo r thirty-six skills (86%), partial criteria for two skills (5%), and failed to meet the mini mum criteria for four skills (10%). In the writing area, he met full criteria for all the sk ills (100%). In the sp elling area, he met full criteria for five skills (83%), and part ial criteria for one skill (17%). The amount of time to complete the asse ssment for each student was: Nathan: twelve hours; James: ten hours, fifty-five minutes; Charles: ten hours, fifty minutes. The sessions with the individua l students averaged approximately one hour. The time to conduct assessment items with the teachers was a pproximately one hour total per teacher. Post ABLLS Assessment Teacher Survey The results of the Post ABLLS Assessmen t Teacher Survey are shown in Table 2. When asked if any of the specific skill areas were useful in terms of providing assessment information, two teachers (Ms. Hamilton and Ms. Stewart) stated that they viewed the entire assessment as valuable, but identified so me areas as being more useful than others; all three teachers stated that the labeling section was useful; Ms. Hamilton and Ms. Ramsey found the intraverbal section usef ul; Ms. Hamilton and Ms. Stewart found the academic sections (reading, math, writing a nd spelling) useful; Ms. Stewart found the syntax and grammar section useful; Ms. Ham ilton stated that the social interaction section was very useful, and Ms. Hamilton stated that the sections listed on the first page were especially interesting in the way that the receptive skills, vocal imitation skills, requesting, labeling and intraverba l all related to one another in that they seemed to build upon one another. When asked what specific areas of the ABLLS they did not find useful, Ms. Hamilton stated that the play and leisure se ction may not be usefu l; Ms. Ramsey stated
41 that the play and leisure secti on, as well as the social intera ction section were not useful; she also stated that the writing and spelling sections were too basic to be generally useful. Two teachers (Ms. Hamilton and Ms. Ramsey) stated that the results of the ABLLS were consistent with their existing knowledge of their studentsÂ’ skills and the assessment did not provide them with any ne w information. Ms. Stewart noted that the ABLLS gave her more insight into what the st udent could do and stated that she was not aware of his specific requesting skills. When asked if they learned from the ABLLS of any skills that the student did not have, that they previously thought the student di d have, all three teache rs stated that they thought their students would have done better w ith the labeling skills. Ms. Ramsey stated that she also thought conversation skills would have been better. The next question asked teachers what spec ific ESOL strategies and/or teaching strategies they believed would be best to teach this student needed skills, based on the information provided in the ABLLS. Ms. Ramsey stated that she would use more visual strategies, more pictures, mo re manipulatives, formal and informal peer tutoring, and flashcards that would focus on weak skills as pointed out in the ABLLS. Ms. Stewart stated that she would likely use the same stra tegies as before, but would target more of the weaknesses pointed out in the ABLLS. Sh e also stated that she would focus more on labeling by using printed words on items in th e classroom and pictures with English and Spanish words on them. Ms. Harrington stated that she would continue with lots of repetition and practice with language skills, use manipulatives for math, and interactive programs on the computer. She also stated that she would try to increase the
42Table 2 Post ABLLS Assessment Teacher Survey Results Question Ms. Harrington (Nathan) Ms. Stewart (James) Ms. Ramsey (Charles) Specific areas of the ABLLS that they find useful in terms of assessment Receptive, vocal imitation, requesting, labeling, intraverbals, social interaction, academic sections (reading math, writing and spelling) Stated that all are useful, but especially the labeling, syntax and grammar, reading and math Labeling and conversation (intraverbals), reading Specific areas of the ABLLS that they find not useful in terms of assessment Play and leisure None Play and leisure, social interaction, writing and spelling because too basic Did ABLLS provide new information regarding skills that student had that they were not aware of prior to the assessment No Yes. Specifics of requesting she did not know prior No. She felt that he knew more than he demonstrated in class Did ABLLS provide new information regarding skills that student did not have that they thought he did prior to the assessment Yesthought that labeling skills were better Yesthought that labeling skills were better Yesthought that labeling and intraverbal skills were better Based on information in ABLLS assessment, what ESOL strategies or teaching strategies would be best to teach this student Continue with repetition, practice, math manipulatives, interactive programs on the computer, small group instruction to try to increase talking Same strategies but more targeted toward weak areas such as labeling, Use Language Master, more written labeling of things around the room More visual strategies, pictures, manipulatives, peer tutoring (both structured and unstructured), flash cards based on weaknesses from the ABLLS (phonics for example) Comments on the ABLLS as an assessment tool for ESOL students/value for teachers and impact on instructional strategies It does have value; shows how basic some of the skill needs are and good to track progress Has value because it is so specific. It would affect strategies because teaching would be modified based on the info from assessment Definitely usefulÂ— will now pay more attention to areas of weakness. Some assessment questions hard to answer because the classroom doesnÂ’t allow time/resources to assess Probability that they will continue to use ABLLS to track progress with this student Moderate because itÂ’s time consuming and one on one Moderate because more assistance would be needed to understand how to administer it High Probability that they would use the ABLLS for other ESOL students Moderate because itÂ’s time consuming and one on one Low. Would like the information, but may not have time to complete it Moderate, because of the time required
43 opportunities for the student to work in small gr oups so that the chances for interactions would be greater. When asked about the probability that they would conti nue to use the ABLLS assessment to track progress for this st udent, two teachers (Ms. Hamilton and Ms. Stewart) selected Â“moderateÂ”, Ms. Hamilt on stating because of the amount of time involved to do it and Ms. Stewar t because she would need more information to know how to administer it. Ms. Ramsey stated that the probability would be Â“highÂ”, but did not make any other comments immediately following that statement. When asked about the probability th at they would use the ABLLS assessment for other ESOL students, two teachers (Ms. Ha milton and Ms. Ramsey) stated Â“moderateÂ”, both noting time constraints. Ms. Stewart select ed Â“lowÂ” because she said she did not feel she would have the time or resources to complete it. Guidance Counselor Measures The results of the Guidance Counselor pos t ABLLS survey are shown in Table 3. In comparing the ABLLS assessment to other assessments typically given to ESOL students, Mrs. Walker stated that the ABLLS was a much more detailed assessment than the typical classroom assessments given. (She was referring to the Diagnostic Assessment of Reading [DAR], the Fox in the Box, and other standard ized tests given to all students. She did not consid er the IDEA test, which is gi ven when students are tested for ESOL eligibility, as this is not shared with the teacher or used in the classroom). When asked how the ABLLS assessment co mpared to other assessments in terms of being more or less useful to teachers, she stated that the ABLLS appeared to be extremely detailed, but that all of these de tails may not be needed (she did not expound
44 further on this comment). She also stated th at the skills in the AB LLS appear to build on one another, for example, labeling skills and their relation to intraverbal skills. She added that teachers may need to go down to lower le vels of language instru ction than they are accustomed to. She stated that teachers at the elementary level probably do not address such basic skills once students are at a grade where they should already have those skills. In terms of particular areas of the ABLLS that may be more important for teachers to know about, she stated that the requests, labeling, and intraverbal sections may be helpful to teachers. In her experience, students do not just Â“pick upÂ” more complex statements such as, Â“ThatÂ’s a pretty green plantÂ”, and may need direct teaching to talk in more complex sentences. When asked if she believed that the in formation from the ABLLS would possibly lead to different or specific teaching strategies, she stated that she was unsure. Because the ABLLS is so in-depth, and would take so long to administer, she thought that it would be more useful to have researchers ad minister the ABLLS to many second language learners at various ages to see if certain tre nds in deficits exist th at would then point to particular teaching strategies for ESOL student s in general. Last, she stated that it appeared to her that many times adults accept short responses from ESOL students because they are happy to get any responses, but that this assessment shows teachers the need to teach basic skills, especi ally with older students. ESOL Specialist Measure The results of the ESOL Specialist post AB LLS survey are also shown in Table 3. In comparing the ABLLS assessment to other assessments typically given to ESOL students, Mrs. Anderson stated that the items are very similar to those given on the IDEA
45 Table 3 Post ABLLS Assessment Guidance Counselor and ESOL Specialist Survey Results Question Guidance Counselor ESOL Specialist How does the ABLLS compare to other assessments typically given to ESOL students More detailed compared to regular classroom assessments such as DAR (Diagnostic Assessment of Reading), Fox in the Box As compared to the IDEA eligibility test, the items are similar, but the time to give the ABLLS is much longer; scoring is di fferent, liked the graphic display in ABLLS How does ABLLS compare to typical assessments in terms of being more or less useful to teachers This tool is extremely detailed; may not need all the information, but useful in the sense that it would tell teachers to go back to teach basic skills even with older students Teachers donÂ’t participate in IDEA testing and the results arenÂ’t given to them. This test (The ABLLS) is more explicit and may help with diagnostics and instruction) Particular areas of the ABLLS that they see as more important for teachers to know about Requests, labeling, then building to intraverbals, because they donÂ’t just Â“pick upÂ” these skills; Play and leisure, social interaction, requests, and labeling to build vocabulary, higher level skills such as syntax and grammar and conversation are important, but may need to be taught later, reading and math may not need to be included here, writing and spelling may or may not be important depending on the level of the student Would information in ABLLS possibly lead to different or specific teaching strategies, and if so, what May not lead to different strategies, so in-depth that it likely takes too long to administer, but it may be useful to know results of this assessment with many second language learners of various ages Because this assessment is so comprehensive it tells the teacher what skills are lacking. ItÂ’s not so much a matter of strategies, this tells them what skills to teach and how to plan for ESOL students Comments on the ABLLS as an assessment tool for ESOL students/value for teachers and impact on instructional strategies It does have value; shows how basic some skill needs are and good to track progress Has value because it is so specific. It would affect strategies because teaching would be modified based on the info from assessment
46 test, but the time needed to administer the ABLLS is much greater. The average IDEA test takes approximately 25 minutes to admini ster, she stated. She also noted that the scoring is different, that she liked the graphic display of data, and that the ABLLS was very comprehensive. When asked how the ABLLS assessment co mpared to other assessments in terms of being more or less useful to teachers, she stated that the ABLLS was much more explicit and that the teachers do not participate or get the resu lts of the IDEA test. (She noted that as a teacher she used to use the ID EA as a diagnostic tool, but that this is not currently being done for reasons that she was unsure of.) In terms of particular areas of the ABLLS that may be more important for teachers to know about, she stated that she thought that the play and leisure sections might be important to identify individual tre nds with children like Nathan, who was very shy. She also mentioned the requesting, labeli ng, conversation (intra verbal), syntax and grammar, (but not until skills are more developed) sections as being important for teachers. She added that three of the acad emic sections (reading, writing, and spelling) appeared to be limited in that they may not be appropriate for stude nts on different grade levels. She commented that overall, reading wa s an area of great c oncern for her because approximately 80% of 10th grade ESOL students in the dist rict are currently reading at very low levels, as measured by the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test). She felt that the math section should be omitte d from this type of a language assessment because it could be tested in other ways. When asked if she believed that the in formation from the ABLLS would possibly lead to different or specific teaching stra tegies, she stated that the ABLLS assessment
47 appeared to be very appropriate to identify what skills the st udent is lacking so that the teacher can better plan for instruction.
48 Chapter Four Discussion The overall results of this study show th at the ABLLS may be used to assess the skills of typically developing children w ith language deficits in a second language. Further, they suggest that assessing the language skill s of second language learners according to functional categories such as t hose contained in the ABLLS may be useful in providing teachers with additional informa tion about the skills of those students. However, comments made by teachers and by othe r participants suggest that the amount of time required to conduct the ABLLS protocol would make it less likely to be used by teachers for monitoring progress, or by othe r professionals who typically assess ESOL students. The fact that teachers stated concer ns regarding the amount of time required to administer the ABLLS is a limitation to the u tility of this assessment (even modified as it was) and appears to be a common limitati on with many behavioral approaches or strategies (Axelrod, 1996). Ar eas or sections of the ABLLS that teachers and other participants noted as useful varied, so it is difficult to draw conclusions from their verbal reports regarding how the current assessment c ould be modified further to create a more realistic assessment for school settings. However, the following suggestions might be potential ways to make this assessment le ss cumbersome and more realistic for school environments: Nine sections of The ABLLS were omitted for the present study, and it is likely that some additional entire sections as well as many other individual tasks could be eliminated. For example, the cooperation and re inforcer effectiveness section is an area
49 where all three students met 100% of the crit eria. Although it may have some usefulness in facilitating the iden tification of potential re inforcers, this could likely be done through a simple reinforcer assessment, if a teacher chose to assess this. Another section that may not be necessary for this population is the play and leisure section. Even though one student failed to meet minimum criteria for th ree of these skills, (the other two met 100% of the criteria) it is likely that a teacher could informally rather than formally assess whether or not a student needs to increase certain play behavi ors. The social interaction section may also not be needed, as some items are not necessarily appropriate for typically developing students (L1: Appropriate when near peers or siblings and L2: Tolerates/responds appropriately to positive touches by peers or siblings). Some items are redundant, because they can be found el sewhere in the assessment (L5: Listener/receptive, L20: Asks for information). It is interesting to note, however, that Nathan had many areas of weakness in this se ction, which his teacher attributed to him being shy. Also, two adult participants, Ms. Hamilton (teacher) and Ms. Anderson, (ESOL specialist) reported that this area was important to assess. The group instruction section may not be appropriate for this population because it assesses a studentÂ’s ability to respond and learn during group instruction and it appears from the data that these typically developing students donÂ’t usually ha ve deficits in this area. Nathan was the only student who had more than one weakness in this area, but this appeared to be attributed to w eak intraverbal skills rather than his ability to raise his hand to answer questions. The other student, James, got less than full cr iteria for one of the items because he tended to talk too much during large group instruction.
50 The classroom routines section is another area that may not be necessary to include. All three students met full criteria for most of the skills in these sections. The few areas of weakness appeared to be related to a studentÂ’s academic ability, tendency to talk too much with a peer, or shyness. The academic sections of The ABLLS (reading, math, writing, and spelling) also might prove expendable for two reasons: First, the teachers all do other assessments in these areas and it does not appear that these particular assessments yield new or different informati on. Second, the level of assessment for these areas is very basic and may only be appropr iate for students who are beginning in school as opposed to in higher grades. This is suppor ted by the data for Nathan and Charles, the fourth and fifth graders, respectively, who me t full criteria for most of these sections. Based on the information collected in this study, it appears there are several sections of the ABLLS that are redundant with existing school assessme nts. Therefore, it might be wise to suggest that only those sect ions that are unique a nd do not appear to be covered by other school assessments be includ ed in school-based a ssessments of second language learners. Specifically, the most important sections appear to be receptive language, vocal imitation, request s, labeling, intraverbals, and some parts of the social interaction section. It is al so possible that tasks with ex tensive criteria, such as H28, where the highest level of criteria involves answering at least 50 yes/no questions, could be assessed with a small sampling of these types of questions. A more extensive list could be provided separately to guide instru ction; this would allow for a much shorter assessment of this skill and still allow fo r the detail and comprehensiveness provided by the ABLLS. The separate guide for instruction could be li nked directly to particular verbal operants and sugges t specific ways to teach those particular skills.
51 One other important consideration in adapting this assessment for secondlanguage learners concerns the issue of latency to re spond. One student, Nathan, frequently had long latencies (15 -20 seconds ) prior to both receptive and expressive responses. This led the principal investigator to question correct re sponses (for receptive skills) and to conclude that whether recep tively or expressively, long latencies may indicate weakness in language skills, even though the results reco rded may look similar to those of a student who did not exhi bit long latencies in responding. Although broad generalizations about the language characteri stics of the children should be avoided due to the limited sample size, it is interesting to note some of the similarities in student data. Receptive skills were much higher than any of the expressive skills (requests, labeling and intraverbal) for all three students. Inte restingly, James, the youngest of the participants, had the strongest requesting repertoire although receptive skills were quite similar across students. It a ppeared that JamesÂ’ other expressive skills (labeling and intraverbals) were slightly lo wer than the other two students. Two of the students (Nathan and James) had similar wea knesses in vocal imitation skills, related to imitating words or numbers of longer durati on. Labeling and intraverbal skills were weak in all three students, although Charles wa s the most skilled of the three. It did appear that the labeling skills were related to the intraverbal skills, in that a student with a weak labeling repertoire would be likely to also have a weak intraverbal repertoire. This pattern may occur because conversational skills ar e often dependent on oneÂ’s ability to label the things they are talking about. Syntax and grammar was an area of si gnificant weakness for all three students. This information might suggest th at these skills shoul d be taught after basic skills such as
52 requesting, labeling, and conversation are fu rther developed. Only Nathan had significant weaknesses in the areas of play and leisure, social interaction, group instruction, and classroom routin es, likely because his tendenc y to talk, in general, and interact with others, was limited. He also ha d the fewest skills in both the requesting and spontaneous vocalizations areas. The youngest student, James, had weaknesse s in all the academic areas, whereas the other two students had very few areas of weakness for those sections. One trend noted was in the area of reading. All three students showed deficits with phonics skills. None of the three students could la bel all letter sounds, yet two of them (Nathan and Charles) could read many words. One possibility is th at these students were instructed to read using a Â“whole-wordÂ” approach versus a phoni cs approach. This trend may have some significance in helping to expl ain why so many second language learners continue to read below grade level even after they are determined to be proficient with English. It would also be interesting to know more about the relationship between language development such as requesting, labeling and intraverbals a nd reading skills. In general, it may be that many second language learners in regular edu cation classrooms are wo rking on skills that focus heavily on academics that are far too ad vanced for their present level of language skills. Looking at how typically developi ng English speaking children develop these skills may give insight into what these student s should learn first. For example, a typical four or five year old has us ually acquired an extensive recep tive and expressive repertoire prior to learning how to read. It was interesting that all three teachers stated in the post interview that they thought that their students were better at labe ling. This may suggest that teachers assume
53 that second language learners have adequate labeling skills and therefore do not provide instruction for these skills. It also may s uggest that second language learners need to spend more time in this particular area if othe r areas such as intraverbals and syntax and grammar are to develop. The effects of the ABLLS results on teachersÂ’ choices of instructional strategies did not appear striking; in fact, most teachers reported the use of general ESOL strategies, which were largely unrelated to the data ava ilable from the assessment. However, it is possible that the results of the assessment mi ght allow them to target specific skills (labeling skills, for example) th at might otherwise go unaddressed. One possible explanation for this lack of ef fect on instructional strategies could be that teachers were not given enough information about the assessmen t in general, including its purpose, and possible teaching strategies that might coinci de with the various skill areas. This might have been in part because of the limited ti me spent with each teacher due to their schedule constraints and the fact that the ABLLS is an in-depth assessment that may take significant time to comprehend and become familiar with. It is also possible that teachers were given too much information in the brief time (approximat ely one hour) spent reviewing the ABLLS and answer ing interview questions. Another possible explanation is that most teachers lack background or training in teaching strategies that may be indicated by a functional assessment such as the ABLLS and that are more commonly used with chil dren with language de lays and/or other developmental disabilities. For example, a teacher who has never been exposed to teaching strategies such as discrete tr ial training (providing an antecedent and a consequence for some student behavior), e rrorless teaching (which involves providing
54 prompts and then fading them as the skill is acquired) contriving motivations (such as having certain items missing during a task or otherwise manipulating the delivery and availability of reinforcers), is probably not likely to think of these strategies, much less engage in them, as a result of viewing the ABLLS assessment. This may suggest that if certain strategies such as those listed above are indica ted and proven effective with second language learners, they may need to be taught to teachers. An example of potential deficits in teacher skills was illustrated by one of the teachers during a discussion (post ABLLS) about th e studentÂ’s weaknesses in la beling skills. The teacher stated that to teach the student labeling, sh e would put more written word cards around the room. Since this was a student who coul d not yet read, and the weaknesses we were discussing were actually in verb al labeling, it suggested to the principal investigator that teachers may need additional information or training to understand what the different verbal operants are and how they might be taugh t. It would have be en interesting to see if the teachers were receptiv e to trying some different teach ing strategies if training had been offered as a part of this study. One way that the present study was limited is that it did not explore prescriptive possibilities that might result from using the ABLLS to guide instruction. For example, it would be interesting to know if the ABLLS would have any potential impact on the number of learn units occurring in a classroom or the general freque ncy of active student responding. The following are some general s uggestions of possible teaching strategies that might be used as a result of conducti ng the ABLLS assessment, based on strategies often used with students w ith developmental disabilitie s or language delays. One example would be to give direct and frequent, if po ssible, practice of those skills noted as
55 weaknesses. For example, if receptive skills are weak, a teacher could have the student practice those receptive skills using an errorl ess approach that involves prompting and then fading prompts until the skill is occurri ng independently. If the studentÂ’s requesting repertoire is weak, the teacher might set up c onditions whereby the student is prompted to request the needed item or activity. An exam ple of this would be having the teacher look for motivations as they occur (getting a dr ink, sharpening a pencil) and then use a vocal prompt (vocal imitation) to get the student to ask for the item or activity. Another possible method would be to give the student most, but not all of the items needed for a task so that the student then needs to ask for a particular item. If the student needed to work on labeling skills, this could be done throughout the day with items in the immediate environment and could also be taugh t in sessions with peers using items or pictures. Weaknesses in the in traverbal area could also like ly be targeted through peer tutoring and in the natural environment as t hose particular opportuni ties arise. However, as stated before, the ABLLS data may s uggest that teachers s hould establish strong labeling skills prior to working on intraverbal skills. Again, an errorless approach using prompting and fading of vocal prompts may be an efficient way to teach these skills. Because most of the skills to be taught are at a basic learner level, it should be possible to have peers provide some of the instruction. Again, it is important to temper all conclusions drawn from this study with acknowledgement of the limitations imposed by using such a small sample size. Other methodological limitations should also be noted. Namely, all three teachers were relatively inexperienced with re spect to the number of second language learners they had taught. Including teachers with more experi ence in general and with more experience
56 teaching second language learners may have yi elded different results. Also, including more teachers with certificat ion in teaching ESOL (only one of the three teachers was certified) may also yield different results. It would be intere sting for future research to address the issue of what type of teacher is most likely to benefit from access to ABLLS data. One might find that teachers more e xperienced in ESOL strategies might find the information more useful for refining existi ng strategies and indi vidualizing them for different student needs. In addition to limitations with the studyÂ’s design, it is also important to consider the limitations of the ABLLS tool itself. One striking limitation is that there is no empirical research to date that validates th e ABLLS as an assessment tool. Even though it covers many skills, the authors acknowledge that it does not include assessment of all the skills necessary to teach language. Al so, the tasks are offered in a somewhat developmental sequence, but these are only guidelin es in terms of what skills to teach. It does not provide age norms, rather, it is a criterion referenced assessment that may identify where to begin teaching and what sk ills to teach (Partington & Sundberg, 1998). Another consideration is the inhere nt subjectivity in data collection when one administers the ABLLS. The present study assessed 337 skills for each student. As described earlier, some tasks in the ABLLS assessment were straightforward and had only one way to assess the skill, such as task C1 (responds to own name) where the question to be asked is Â“Will the student look at or come to a person when called by his name?Â” For other tasks, all the questions, word s, objects or pictures that needed to be asked or used were not defined, such as in ta sk H27 (states item when told its functions, features, or class), where the criteria range up to 20 or more questi ons answered. Since
57 many parts of the assessment are compiled by the person doing the assessment, it should be noted that the questions, materials and obj ects used vary from person to person. The extent to which this affects the assessment re sults has yet to be re searched. In addition, the way in which one assesses receptive skills may also vary and could have an effect on the results of the assessment. For example, in an array of two or three pictures or objects, the student may choose the right response because they know the other item(s) or picture(s), or because they have guessed. It would appear important to adhere to some procedure such as repeating the presentation multiple times with varied objects. Also, in the present study, and with the administra tion of the ABLLS in general, many of the skills are assessed by asking those who know the student whether or not the skill has been learned or demonstrated. In the case of pare nts answering questions or in the case of the present study, teachers, it should be noted th at the verbal report may or may not be accurate. Also, a score of zero in a particular skill area (given because the teacher has not observed a skill or does not think the student has acquired the skill) would not necessarily mean that the student has not acquired the ski ll. Because the teacher would likely be the person to conduct some similar type of asse ssment, if it were developed, it would be important for the teacher to try to assess the sk ills in the natural e nvironment and to leave that area of the assessment blank (rather than scoring a zero) until such time as the skill is observed. One limitation with regard to interpreting th e results of the assessment is the level of skill that can be assessed with the AB LLS. Because the assessment was developed with atypical children in mind, the skills asse ssed are very basic. In fact, a typical kindergarten or first grade child should be able to meet full criteria for most tasks. When
58 reviewing the results of the ABLLS, especially fo r children in older grades, adults need to keep this basic skill level in mind. Another limitation is related to the requirements for meeting the highest criteria for a skill. For some objectives, students met full criteria even though there were some weaknesses or erro rs observed for that particular skill. An example of this occurred with Charles, fo r task C32. The task was to follow an instruction to do a simple action when presen ted with several objects. Examples given were: sleeping, writing, tapping, cutt ing, rolling. This student was able to meet the full criteria because he could do five correctly without prompts, but still showed some weaknesses with the skill (he couldnÂ’t demonstr ate Â“rollingÂ” or Â“tappingÂ”). It may be necessary for teachers to make notations in th e assessment or to not credit full criteria in situations such as these. Recommendations for further resear ch might be completing the ABLLS assessment on typically developing students of various ages, and on second language learners from a variety of b ackgrounds and languages. It would be interesting to know, for example, how skills develop for students with very few skills in English or very little previous education in thei r native language. As the guida nce counselor, Ms. Walker, suggested, it may be beneficial to gather ABLLS assessment data on a variety of ESOL children to see if certain tre nds exist that may suggest ge neral teaching strategies for second language learners. Another possibility might be to assess the effect of teaching one of the verbal operants (labeling, for example) on the acquisition of other verbal operants. In addition, it may be interesting to us e the ABLLS (or a modified version of it) to assess baseline skills of second language learners and then compare some traditional ESOL teaching strategies to those more commonly used in the verbal behavior literature.
59 The ABLLS could then be used to track acquisition of skills under the different conditions.
60 References Andresen, J. T. (1990). Skinner a nd Chomsky thirty years later. Historiographia Linguistica XVII: 1/2, 145-165. Arreaga-Mayer, C., Carta, J., & Tapia, Y. (1994). Ecobehavioral assessment of bilingual special educati on settings: The opportunity to respond. In: Gardner, R. III, Ed; Sainato, D., et al B ehavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (225-239) Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Axelrod, S. (1996). WhatÂ’s wr ong with behavior analysis? Journal of Behavioral Education, 6 (3), 247-256. Bialystok E. & Hakuta, K., (1994). In Other Words The Science and Psychology of Second-Language Learning New York: Basic Books Chomsky, N., (1957, sixth printing 1966). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton Collier, V. & Thomas, W. (1999). Making U.S. schools effe ctive for English language learners. Teache rs of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Tesol Matters, 9 (4), 1-3. Retrieved August 5, 2001 from http://www.te sol.org/pubs/articles/1999/tm9908-01.html Cooper, J., Heron, T., & Heward, W. (1987). Applied Behavior Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Davis, L. & OÂ’Neill, R. (2001). Use of res ponse cards with a group of students with learning disabilities in cluding English language learners. Unpublished manuscript, Universi ty of Utah at Salt Lake City.
61 Gersten, R., Baker, S., and Unok Marks, S. (1998 ). Teaching english language learners with learning difficulties Eugene, Oregon: Eugene Research Institute Gersten, R., Brockway, M.A., & Henares, N. (1983) The Monterey DI program for students. Direct Instruction News p. 8-9 Glynn, T., McNaughton, S., Robinson, V, & Quinn, M. (1979). Remedial reading at home: Helping you to help your child. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research Guzman, B. (2001). The Hispanic population (Census 2000 Brief No. C2KBR/ 013) Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. (1991). Introduction to Applied Linguistics Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Pp 61-75. Hargett, G. R. (1998) Assessment in ESL and bilingual education. Northwest Regional Educational LaboratoryÂ’s Co mprehensive Center, Region X. Retrieved from http://www.nwrac.org/ pub/hot/assessment.html on April 1, 2003. Houghton, S. & Bain, A. (1993). Peer tutoring with ESL and below-average readers. Journal of Behavioral Education 3 (2), 125-142. Jamieson, A., Curry, A., & Martinez, G. ( 1999). School enrollment in the United States-Social and econom ic characteristics of students (Current Population Report No. P20533). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Knapp, T. J. (1992). Verbal Be havior: the other reviews. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior 10 87-95. McLaughlin, B. & Zemblidge, J. (1991). S econd Language Learning. In W. Grabe and R. Kaplan Introduction to A pplied Linguistics Reading,
62 Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley. Pp. 61-75. Michael, J. (2001, May). The Elementary Verbal Operants. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Convention of the Associ ation for Behavior Analys is, New Orleans, LA. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education Center for the Study of Language and Education (1997-98). Summary re port of the survey of the statesÂ’ limited English proficient students and availa ble educational programs and services. Retrieved August 5, 2001, from http:/ /www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/seareports/199798/part1.htm. Nunan, D.C. (1999). So you think that language teachi ng is a profession (part 1). Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Tesol Matters, 9(4). Retrieved August 5, 2001 from http://www.tesol.org/assoc/prez/1999/ pm9908.html. Palmer, D.C. (2000). ChomskyÂ’s nativism revisited. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior 17 51-56 Partington, J.W. and Sun dberg, M. L. (1998). The ABLLS -The Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills. Behavior Analysts, Inc., Pleasant Hill, CA. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T.S., (1986, ninth printing 1993). Approaches and Methods In Language Teaching, New York: Cambridge University Press. Savignon, S.J. (1991). Current directions in foreign language teaching. In W. Grabe and R. Kaplan Introduction to A pplied Linguistics ) Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley. Pp. 109-122. Skinner, B.F. (1987). Upon Further Reflection Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Pp. 107-108.
63 Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Behavior Acton, Massachusetts: Prentice-Hall, Inc. St. Lucie County School Board (2002). Limited English Proficient Plan. Sundberg, M.L. (1991) 301 research topics from SkinnerÂ’s book ve rbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior 9 81-96. Sundberg, M. L. (1998) Realizing the potential of SkinnerÂ’s analysis of verbal behavior, The Analysis of Verbal Behavior 15 143-147. U.S. Department of Education (1999), Latinos in education: Early childhood, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, graduate. Washington, DC: The White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. ERIC abstract NO: ED440817.
65 Appendix A
66 Appendix A (conÂ’t)
67 Appendix A (conÂ’t)
68 Appendix B Task Completion List for ABLLS Assessment Tasks Presented Directly to Student Student Name:__________________________ Date(s):_____________________________ Task Task Task Task Task A1 C41 G34 Q5 R36 A2 C42 G36 Q6 R37 A3 C43 G37 Q7 R38 A4 C44 G38 R22 R39 A5 C45 G39 R23 R40 A7 C46 H2 R24 R41 A8 C47 H4 R25 R42 A10 C48 H5 R26 S1 A11 C49 H6 Q8 S2 C1 C50 H7 Q9 S3 C3 C51 H8 Q10 S4 C4 C52 H9 Q11 S5 C5 E1 H10 Q12 S6 C6 E2 H11 Q13 S7 C9 E3 H12 Q14 S8 C10 E4 H13 Q15 S9 C11 E5 H14 R1 T1 C12 E6 H15 R2 T2 C13 E7 H16 R3 T3 C14 G1 H17 R4 T4 C15 G2 H18 R5 T5 C16 G3 H19 R6 T6 C17 G4 H20 R7 C18 G5 H21 R8 C19 G6 H22 R9 C20 G9 H23 R10 C21 G10 H24 R11 C22 G11 H25 R12 C23 G12 H26 R13 C24 G13 H27 R14 C25 G14 H28 R15 C26 G15 H29 R16 C27 G16 H30 R17 C28 G17 H31 R18 C29 G18 H32 R19 C30 G19 H33 R20 C31 G20 H34 R21 C32 G21 H35 R27 C33 G22 H36 R28 C34 G23 H37 R29 C35 G25 H38 R30 C36 G26 H42 R31 C37 G27 Q1 R32 C38 G28 Q2 R33 C39 G30 Q3 R34 C40 G32 Q4 R35
69 Appendix B (ConÂ’t) Tasks Presented to Teacher Teacher name:________________Student name ____________________Date(s)___________ Task Task Task Task A6 G41 K8 N6 A9 G42 K9 N7 C2 H1 K10 N8 C7 H39 L1 N9 C8 H40 L2 N10 E8 H41 L3 E9 I1 L4 F1 I2 L5 F2 I3 L6 F3 I4 L7 F4 I5 L8 F5 I6 L9 F6 I7 L10 F7 I8 L11 F8 I9 L12 F9 J1 L13 F10 J2 L14 F11 J3 L15 F12 J4 L16 F13 J5 L17 F14 J6 L18 F15 J7 L19 F16 J8 L20 F17 J9 L21 F18 J10 L22 F19 J11 M1 F20 J12 M2 F21 J13 M3 F22 J14 M4 F23 J15 M5 F24 J16 M6 F25 J17 M7 F26 J18 M8 F27 J19 M9 G7 J20 M10 G8 K1 M11 G24 K2 M12 G29 K3 N1 G31 K4 N2 G33 K5 N3 G35 K6 N4 G40 K7 N5
70 Appendix C Pre-ABLLS Assessment Teacher Survey TeacherÂ’s name: ____________________________________ StudentÂ’s name:_____________________________________ How long have you had this student in your class? Have you received training in ESOL strategies? If so, please describe when, and where, as well as the duration or number of courses. Which ESOL instructional strategies do you use with this student? What information about specific language skills was provided to you when this student entered your classroom?
71 Appendix C (conÂ’t) What specific formal assessments have you completed on this student? (For example, Fox in the Box, DAR (Diagnostic Assessment of Reading), DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills), Brigance, IRI (Informa l Reading Inventory), computerized STAR test, or any others) Do you do these same assessments on all students in your regular education class? If no, please explain. Is this student on grade level in all academic areas (as determined by standard assessments listed above)? If no, please specify which subjects are below grade level. What information would you like to know about this student in order to provide more effective instruction?
72 Appendix C (conÂ’t) What are this student's strengths in term s of language skills? (for example, can the student ask for things they want, label things in the environment, converse with others, imitate others, follow directions) What are this student's weaknesses in terms of language skills? (For example, the student doesn't ask for things they want, doesn't label things in the environment, doesn't converse with others, doesn't imitate ot hers, doesn't follow directions) What specific skills would you say are most im portant for this student to learn at this time?
73 Appendix D Post ABLLS Assessment Teacher Survey TeacherÂ’s name: ____________________________________ StudentÂ’s name:_____________________________________ Do you find any of the specific skill areas of the ABLLS (A-T) useful in terms of providing you with useful assessment information? If yes, what skill specific areas do you find useful? What specific skill areas of the ABLLS (A-T) do you find NOT useful in terms of providing you with useful assessment information? Based on the information provided from the ABLLS, did the ABLLS provide you with any new information regarding specific skills that the student has that you were not aware of? If yes, please describe.
74 Appendix D (conÂ’t) Based on the information provided from the ABLLS, did the ABLLS provide you with any new information regarding specific skills th at the student does NOT have, (that you previously thought they did)? If yes, please describe. Based on the information provided in the ABLLS, what specific ESOL strategies and/or teaching strategies do you believe would be th e best to teach this student needed skills? Please comment on The ABLLS as an assessment tool for ESOL students. Please give specific information as to why you think it does or does not have value for teachers and/or as to how it may or may not affect instru ctional strategies used for ESOL students. What is the probability that you will continue to use the ABLLS assessment to track progress on this student? Please choose one: high, moderate, low What is the probability that you will use the ABLLS for other ESOL students? Please choose one: high, moderate, or low
75 Appendix E ESOL Specialist and Guidance Counselor Post ABLLS Survey After reviewing the ABLLS assessments on the three students, how does the ABLLS compare to other assessments typically given to ESOL students? How does the ABLLS assessment compare in terms of being more or less useful to teachers than the information that is typically provided through other assessments? Are there particular areas of the ABLLS that you see as being more important for teachers to know about? Do you believe that this information would possibly lead to different or specific teaching strategies, and if so, what?
76Appendix F Student: Nathan AssessorDateColor Code lgs1003 C52 C51 C50 C49 C48 C47 C46 C45 C44 C43 C42 G42 H42 C41 G41 H41 C40 G40 H40 C39 G39 H39 C38 G38 H38 C37 G37 H37 C36 G36 H36 C35 G35 H35 C34 G34 H34 C33 G33 H33 C32 G32 H32 C31 G31 H31 C30 G30 H30 C29 G29 H29 C28 G28 H28 C27 F27 G27 H27 C26 F26 G26 H26 C25 F25 G25 H25 C24 F24 G24 H24 C23 F23 G23 H23 C22 F22 G22 H22 B21 C21 F21 G21 H21 B20 C20 F20 G20 H20 B19 C19 F19 G19 H19 B18 C18 F18 G18 H18 B17 C17 F17 G17 H17 B16 C16 F16 G16 H16 B15 C15 F15 G15 H15 B14 C14 F14 G14 H14 B13 C13 D13 F13 G13 H13 B12 C12 D12 F12 G12 H12 A11 B11 C11 D11 F11 G11 H11 A10 B10 C10 D10 F10 G10 H10 A9 B9 C9 D9 E9 F9 G9 H9 I9 A8 B8 C8 D8 E8 F8 G8 H8 I8 A7 B7 C7 D7 E7 F7 G7 H7 I7 A6 B6 C6 D6 E6 F6 G6 H6 I6 A5 B5 C5 D5 E5 F5 G5 H5 I5 A4 B4 C4 D4 E4 F4 G4 H4 I4 A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3 G3 H3 I3 A2 B2 C2 D2 E2 F2 G2 H2 I2 A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1 G1 H1 I1 cooperation &visualr eceptiveimitationvocalrequestslabelingintraverbalsspontaneo reinforcer performance language imitation vocalizatio effectiveness Figure 1 Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills Skill Tracking System
77Appendix F (Continued) Student Nathan AssessorDateColor Code lgs1003 R42 R41 R40 R39 R38 R37 R36 R35 R34 R33 R32 R31 R30 R29 R28 R27 R26 R25 R24 R23 L22 R22 L21 R21 J20 L20 R20 J19 L19 R19 J18 L18 R18 J17 L17 R17 J16 L16 R16 J15 L15 Q15 R15 J14 L14 Q14 R14 J13 L13 Q13 R13 J12 L12 M12 Q12 R12 J11 L11 M11 Q11 R11 J10 K10 L10 M10 N10 Q10 R10 J9 K9 L9 M9 N9 Q9 R9 J8 K8 L8 M8 N8 Q8 R8 J7 K7 L7 M7 N7 Q7 R7 J6 K6 L6 M6 N6 P6 Q6 R6 J5 K5 L5 M5 N5 P5 Q5 R5 J4 K4 L4 M4 N4 P4 Q4 R4 J3 K3 L3 M3 N3 P3 Q3 R3 J2 K2 L2 M2 N2 P2 Q2 R2 J1 K1 L1 M1 N1 P1 Q1 R1 syntax &play &socialgroupclassroomgeneralizedreadingmath grammarleisureinteractioninstructionroutinesresponding Nathan's Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills
78Appendix F (Continued) Student Nathan AssessorDateColor Code lgs1003 Y28 Z28 Y27 Z27 Y26 Z26 Y25 Z25 Y24 Z24 Y23 Z23 Y22 Z22 Y21 Z21 Y20 Z20 Y19 Z19 Y18 Z18 Y17 Z17 Y16 Z16 U15 Y15 Z15 U14 Y14 Z14 U13 Y13 Z13 U12 Y12 Z12 U11 Y11 Z11 U10 V10 X10 Y10 Z10 S9 U9 V9 X9 Y9 Z9 S8 U8 V8 X8 Y8 Z8 S7 U7 V7 W7 X7 Y7 Z7 S6 T6 U6 V6 W6 X6 Y6 Z6 S5 T5 U5 V5 W5 X5 Y5 Z5 S4 T4 U4 V4 W4 X4 Y4 Z4 S3 T3 U3 V3 W3 X3 Y3 Z3 S2 T2 U2 V2 W2 X2 Y2 Z2 S1 T1 U1 V1 W1 X1 Y1 Z1 writingspellingdressingeatinggroomingtoiletinggrossfine motormotor Nathan's Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills
79Appendix G Student: James AssessorDateColor Code lgs1003 C52 C51 C50 C49 C48 C47 C46 C45 C44 C43 C42 G42 H42 C41 G41 H41 C40 G40 H40 C39 G39 H39 C38 G38 H38 C37 G37 H37 C36 G36 H36 C35 G35 H35 C34 G34 H34 C33 G33 H33 C32 G32 H32 C31 G31 H31 C30 G30 H30 C29 G29 H29 C28 G28 H28 C27 F27 G27 H27 C26 F26 G26 H26 C25 F25 G25 H25 C24 F24 G24 H24 C23 F23 G23 H23 C22 F22 G22 H22 B21 C21 F21 G21 H21 B20 C20 F20 G20 H20 B19 C19 F19 G19 H19 B18 C18 F18 G18 H18 B17 C17 F17 G17 H17 B16 C16 F16 G16 H16 B15 C15 F15 G15 H15 B14 C14 F14 G14 H14 B13 C13 D13 F13 G13 H13 B12 C12 D12 F12 G12 H12 A11 B11 C11 D11 F11 G11 H11 A10 B10 C10 D10 F10 G10 H10 A9 B9 C9 D9 E9 F9 G9 H9 I9 A8 B8 C8 D8 E8 F8 G8 H8 I8 A7 B7 C7 D7 E7 F7 G7 H7 I7 A6 B6 C6 D6 E6 F6 G6 H6 I6 A5 B5 C5 D5 E5 F5 G5 H5 I5 A4 B4 C4 D4 E4 F4 G4 H4 I4 A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3 G3 H3 I3 A2 B2 C2 D2 E2 F2 G2 H2 I2 A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1 G1 H1 I1 cooperation &visualreceptiveimitationvocalrequestslabelingintraverbalsspontaneo u reinforcerperformancelanguageimitation vocalizatio n effectiveness James' Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills
80Appendix G (continued) Student James AssessorDateColor Code lgs1003 R42 R41 R40 R39 R38 R37 R36 R35 R34 R33 R32 R31 R30 R29 R28 R27 R26 R25 R24 R23 L22 R22 L21 R21 J20 L20 R20 J19 L19 R19 J18 L18 R18 J17 L17 R17 J16 L16 R16 J15 L15 Q15 R15 J14 L14 Q14 R14 J13 L13 Q13 R13 J12 L12 M12 Q12 R12 J11 L11 M11 Q11 R11 J10 K10 L10 M10 N10 Q10 R10 J9 K9 L9 M9 N9 Q9 R9 J8 K8 L8 M8 N8 Q8 R8 J7 K7 L7 M7 N7 Q7 R7 J6 K6 L6 M6 N6 P6 Q6 R6 J5 K5 L5 M5 N5 P5 Q5 R5 J4 K4 L4 M4 N4 P4 Q4 R4 J3 K3 L3 M3 N3 P3 Q3 R3 J2 K2 L2 M2 N2 P2 Q2 R2 J1 K1 L1 M1 N1 P1 Q1 R1 syntax &play &socialgroupclassroomgeneralizedreadingmath grammarleisureinteractioninstructionroutinesresponding James' Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills
81Appendix G (continued) Student: James AssessorDateColor Code lgs1003 Y28 Z28 Y27 Z27 Y26 Z26 Y25 Z25 Y24 Z24 Y23 Z23 Y22 Z22 Y21 Z21 Y20 Z20 Y19 Z19 Y18 Z18 Y17 Z17 Y16 Z16 U15 Y15 Z15 U14 Y14 Z14 U13 Y13 Z13 U12 Y12 Z12 U11 Y11 Z11 U10 V10 X10 Y10 Z10 S9 U9 V9 X9 Y9 Z9 S8 U8 V8 X8 Y8 Z8 S7 U7 V7 W7 X7 Y7 Z7 S6 T6 U6 V6 W6 X6 Y6 Z6 S5 T5 U5 V5 W5 X5 Y5 Z5 S4 T4 U4 V4 W4 X4 Y4 Z4 S3 T3 U3 V3 W3 X3 Y3 Z3 S2 T2 U2 V2 W2 X2 Y2 Z2 S1 T1 U1 V1 W1 X1 Y1 Z1 writingspellingdressingeatinggroomingtoiletinggrossfine moto r moto r James' Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills
82Appendix H Student: Charles AssessorDateColor Code lgs1003 C52 C51 C50 C49 C48 C47 C46 C45 C44 C43 C42 G42 H42 C41 G41 H41 C40 G40 H40 C39 G39 H39 C38 G38 H38 C37 G37 H37 C36 G36 H36 C35 G35 H35 C34 G34 H34 C33 G33 H33 C32 G32 H32 C31 G31 H31 C30 G30 H30 C29 G29 H29 C28 G28 H28 C27 F27 G27 H27 C26 F26 G26 H26 C25 F25 G25 H25 C24 F24 G24 H24 C23 F23 G23 H23 C22 F22 G22 H22 B21 C21 F21 G21 H21 B20 C20 F20 G20 H20 B19 C19 F19 G19 H19 B18 C18 F18 G18 H18 B17 C17 F17 G17 H17 B16 C16 F16 G16 H16 B15 C15 F15 G15 H15 B14 C14 F14 G14 H14 B13 C13 D13 F13 G13 H13 B12 C12 D12 F12 G12 H12 A11 B11 C11 D11 F11 G11 H11 A10 B10 C10 D10 F10 G10 H10 A9 B9 C9 D9 E9 F9 G9 H9 I9 A8 B8 C8 D8 E8 F8 G8 H8 I8 A7 B7 C7 D7 E7 F7 G7 H7 I7 A6 B6 C6 D6 E6 F6 G6 H6 I6 A5 B5 C5 D5 E5 F5 G5 H5 I5 A4 B4 C4 D4 E4 F4 G4 H4 I4 A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3 G3 H3 I3 A2 B2 C2 D2 E2 F2 G2 H2 I2 A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1 G1 H1 I1 cooperation &visualreceptiveimitationvocalrequestslabelingintraverbalsspontaneo reinforcer performance language imitation vocalizatio effectiveness Charles' Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills
83Appendix H (continued) Student: Charles AssessorDateColor Code lgs1003 R42 R41 R40 R39 R38 R37 R36 R35 R34 R33 R32 R31 R30 R29 R28 R27 R26 R25 R24 R23 L22 R22 L21 R21 J20 L20 R20 J19 L19 R19 J18 L18 R18 J17 L17 R17 J16 L16 R16 J15 L15 Q15 R15 J14 L14 Q14 R14 J13 L13 Q13 R13 J12 L12 M12 Q12 R12 J11 L11 M11 Q11 R11 J10 K10 L10 M10 N10 Q10 R10 J9 K9 L9 M9 N9 Q9 R9 J8 K8 L8 M8 N8 Q8 R8 J7 K7 L7 M7 N7 Q7 R7 J6 K6 L6 M6 N6 P6 Q6 R6 J5 K5 L5 M5 N5 P5 Q5 R5 J4 K4 L4 M4 N4 P4 Q4 R4 J3 K3 L3 M3 N3 P3 Q3 R3 J2 K2 L2 M2 N2 P2 Q2 R2 J1 K1 L1 M1 N1 P1 Q1 R1 syntax &play &socialgroupclassroomgeneralizedreadingmath g rammarleisureinteractioninstructionroutinesres p ondin g Charles' Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills
84Appendix H (continued) Student: Charles AssessorDateColor Code lgs1003 Y28 Z28 Y27 Z27 Y26 Z26 Y25 Z25 Y24 Z24 Y23 Z23 Y22 Z22 Y21 Z21 Y20 Z20 Y19 Z19 Y18 Z18 Y17 Z17 Y16 Z16 U15 Y15 Z15 U14 Y14 Z14 U13 Y13 Z13 U12 Y12 Z12 U11 Y11 Z11 U10 V10 X10 Y10 Z10 S9 U9 V9 X9 Y9 Z9 S8 U8 V8 X8 Y8 Z8 S7 U7 V7 W7 X7 Y7 Z7 S6 T6 U6 V6 W6 X6 Y6 Z6 S5 T5 U5 V5 W5 X5 Y5 Z5 S4 T4 U4 V4 W4 X4 Y4 Z4 S3 T3 U3 V3 W3 X3 Y3 Z3 S2 T2 U2 V2 W2 X2 Y2 Z2 S1 T1 U1 V1 W1 X1 Y1 Z1 writingspellingdressingeatinggroomingtoiletinggrossfine motormotor Charles' Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills