1 / 35

Completed Progress Note

Completed Progress Note. Progress note that was done for the child after the activity. Measurable Outcomes of Project TRiPS. Child 2 GRST 1 GRST 2 Gross Motor 7-10 yrs. 7-10 yrs. Physical Fine Motor 3-6 yrs. 7-10 yrs. Eye Hand 1-3 yrs. 7-10 yrs.

mairi
Download Presentation

Completed Progress Note

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Completed Progress Note Progress note that was done for the child after the activity

  2. Measurable Outcomes of Project TRiPS • Child 2 GRST 1 GRST 2 • Gross Motor 7-10 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • Physical Fine Motor 3-6 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • Eye Hand 1-3 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • Play Behavior 3-6 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • Play Structure 3-6 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • Language Use 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Language Compr. 3-6 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • CognitiveNumbers 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Object Use 1-3 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Follow Directions 3-6 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • Problem Solving 1-3 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Attending Behavior 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Possessions 3-6 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • Emotional Control 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Imitation Play 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • AffectivePeople Skills 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Music 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Stories/Drama 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs.

  3. Final Evaluation 4

  4. Teacher’s Mid-Term Evaluations 5

  5. Teacher’s Final Evaluation 6

  6. Measurable Outcomes of Project TRiPS

  7. Project TRIPS

  8. Measurable Outcomes of Project TRiPS • The overall figures for the Fall 2011 Semester are: • Total number of Special Education Children involved: 56 • Total number of UT students involved: 43 • Total number of Direct Contact Hours (# of UT students x # of CDC students x 1 hour): 3,105 • Total number of Indirect Contact Hours (UT Students): 655 • Total number of Contact Hours: 3,760 • The overall figures for the Spring 2012 Semester are: • Total number of Special Education Children involved: 67 • Total number of UT students involved: 56 • Total number of Direct Contact Hours (# of UT students x # of CDC students x 1 hour): 3,548 • Total number of Indirect Contact Hours (UT Students): 720 • Total number of Contact Hours: 4,268

  9. The Measureable Outcomes of Project TRiPS • Examples of a specific student’s goals are as follows: • Child #1: The goals set for this child were to participate in group activities by sitting at the table with the group and not leaving; to improve balance; increase fine motor skills; and engage with others. • Examples of selected student’s performance (based on the final evaluations): • Child #1: “Child #1 has improved in the following areas: problem solving, play behavior, and people skills. He will show signs of joy at times as evidence by smiling or laughing during certain activities. Child #1 is more willing to participate in activities as being less resistant to physical prompting and facial cues. He had also developed an interacting play behavior that involves one other person. “This is a huge step for Child #1!” reports the teacher.

  10. Measureable Outcomes of Project TRIPS • Child 1 GRST 1 GRST 2 • Gross Motor 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Physical Fine Motor 1-3 yrs. 1-3 yrs. • Eye Hand 1-3 yrs. 1 yr. • Play Behavior 2 yrs. 5 yrs. • Play Structure 1 yr. 4 yrs. • Language Use 0-6 mos. 0-6 mos. • Language Compr. --- --- • CognitiveNumbers --- --- • Object Use 6-12 mos. 6-12 mos. • Follow Directions 6 mos. 1 yr. • Problem Solving 6 mos. 2 yr. • Attending Behavior 6-12 mos. 6-12 mos. • Possessions 6 mos. 3 yrs. • Emotional Control 6 mos. 6 mos. • Imitation Play 4-6 mos. 6-12 mos. • AffectivePeople Skills 4-6 mos. 1 yr. • Music 6 mos. 6 mos. • Stories/Drama 6 mos. 6 mos.

  11. Measureable Outcomes of Project TRIPS • Examples of a specific student’s goals are as follows: • Child #2: The goals set for this child were to improve fine and gross motor skills; engage with others in the classroom; reading; time; money skills; writing; spelling; and functional communication. • Examples of selected students’ performance (based on the final evaluations): • Child #2: “Child #2’s functional communication improved drastically. Fine and gross motor skills have improved throughout the term with activities such as bowling, stringing beads on a string, and cutting with scissors. Child #2 works better if he had the same person working with him week after week. He has some more fine motor skills that he can improve on.”

  12. Measureable Outcomes of Project TRIPS • Child 2 GRST 1 GRST 2 • Gross Motor 7-10 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • Physical Fine Motor 3-6 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • Eye Hand 1-3 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • Play Behavior 3-6 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • Play Structure 3-6 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • Language Use 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Language Compr. 3-6 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • CognitiveNumbers 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Object Use 1-3 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Follow Directions 3-6 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • Problem Solving 1-3 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Attending Behavior 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Possessions 3-6 yrs. 7-10 yrs. • Emotional Control 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Imitation Play 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • AffectivePeople Skills 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Music 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs. • Stories/Drama 3-6 yrs. 3-6 yrs.

  13. The Measureable Outcomes of Project TRIPS • Examples of a specific student’s goals are as follows: • Child #3: The goals set for this child were to work on communication of yes and no; initiate and sustain interaction with others; decision making (choose between 2 choices); and fine and gross motor skills. • Examples of selected student’s performance (based on the final evaluations): • Child #3: “Child #3 made progress in communicating with new people. She indicates yes and no by movements of her head as well as facial expressions”

  14. Measurable Outcomes of Project TRiPS • Physical Cognitive Social/ Emotional •  Child 1 • FACTR 1 63 45 100 • FACTR 2 72 27 90 • Child 2 • FACTR 1 45 45 0 • FACTR 2 45 54 45 • Child 3 • FACTR 1 100 64 9 • FACTR 2 100 91 91 • Child 4 • FACTR 1 64 36 0 • FACTR 2 82 55 73 • Child 5 • FACTR 1 55 55 18 • FACTR 2 27 82 27

  15. The Impact of Project TRiPS

  16. The Impact of Project TRiPS • Students Perspectives: • Awareness of individuals with disabilities • Increased documentation skills • Hands on learning skills • Ability to learn from ones mistakes • Being apart of and noting changes in youth • *Some have even changed their major to • Therapeutic Recreation

  17. The Impact of Project TRiPS • CDC Teachers’ Perspectives: • “I am truly amazed by the effectiveness of this program! Each TRiPS participant had been so positive, enthusiastic and performed at a professional level. I feel so pleased that they are working with my students.”

  18. The Impact of Project TRiPS • CDC Teachers’ Perspectives: • Our class has several students with brain trauma or orthopedic impairments. The combination of fine-motor – gross motor activities, that were planned, improved [Jasmine’s] handwriting as well as meeting her social/emotional goal of speaking more loudly to people outside of the classroom. We have [four] children with autism whose needs for routine and consistency were met with intentional re-direction, frequent reminders and visual cues. The mentors were very intuitive about adjusting to the needs and emotions of each child. They will be amazing professionals!

  19. The Impact of Project TRiPS • CDC Teachers’ Perspectives: • “this has been a great experience for my students. The activities and lessons were very appropriate for my students. All of the TRiPS members appeared to be engaged with every student. Life skills were addressed at every meeting. My students really benefit from interacting with TRiPS positive role model.”

  20. Project TRIPS

  21. Benefits of University-School Partnerships • “Collaboration is a planning approach where two or more parties form a relationship for the purpose of gathering resources to implement a program, activity, or action plan” (Wiewel & Lieber, 1998). • “Meaningful collaboration happens when people labor together to achieve more than a single entity could accomplish separately” (Checkoway, 2004). • “If universities can partner with schools and community organizations to solve community problems, ‘university-school partnerships are justified” (LeGates and Robinson, 1998, p.235). • (as cited in Waller et al., in review)

  22. Benefits of University-School Partnerships • For the community: • - Generate needed consultation • - Technical assistance • - Provide student assistance • - Faculty expertise • - Establish a strong link with the university • (Waller et al., in review)

  23. Benefits of University-School Partnerships • For the university: • - Partnerships bring new viewpoints • - Contribute to quality research and learning • - Engage students • - Empower faculty • - Enable the university to support student • learning and scholarly engagement • (Checkoway, 2004) • (as cited in Waller et al., in review)

  24. Conclusion • Project TRiPS provides a unique opportunity to answer the call of research, teaching, and service in an innovative way. • Project TRiPS fosters a positive university-community partnership that is mutually beneficial. • Also, TRiPS enables a practical partnership that UT students benefit from.

  25. Published Articles • Wilson, G.T. (1969). Status of recreation for the handicapped - school centered. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, III (Second Quarter), p. 10-12. • Johnson, D.A., & Ashton-Shaffer, C. (2000). A framework for TR outcomes in school-based settings. Annual In Therapeutic Recreation, 9, p. 57-69.

  26. Published Articles • Etzel-Wise, D. & Mears, B. (2004). Adapted physical education and therapeutic recreation in schools. Intervention in school and clinic, 39, 4, p. 223-232. • Fenty, N.S., Lampi, A., & Miller, M.A. (2008) Embed social skills instruction in inclusive settings. Intervention in school and clinic, 43,3, p. 186-192.

  27. Published Articles • Lynch, S.A., Simpson, C.G., & Spencer, V.G. (2008). Using social stories to increase positive behaviors for children with autism spectrum disorders. Intervention in school and clinic. 44, p. 58-61. • Arroyos-Jurado, E. & Savage, T.A.(2008). Intervention strategies for serving students with traumatic brain injury. Intervention in school and clinic. 43, p. 252-254.

  28. Published Articles • Maag, J.W. (2008). Rational emotive therapy to help teachers control their emotions and behavior when dealing with disagreeable students. Intervention in school and clinic. 44, p.52-57. • Hyatt, K.J. (2007). The new IDEA: changes, concerns, and questions. Intervention in school and clinic. 42, p. 131-136.

  29. Published Articles • Sable, J., Powell, L., & Aldrich, L. (1993-1994). Transdisciplinary principles in the provision of therapeutic recreation services in inclusionary school settings. Annual in Therapeutic Recreation, 4. • Downing, J.A., Aldrich, J.E., & Shelly, T. (2006). See me! Hear me! Touch me! Move me!: sensory activities in the early childhood classroom. Intervention in school and clinic. 42, p. 54-55.

  30. Published Articles • Lock, R.H. & Press, M.R. (2006). Use music in the classroom. Intervention in school and clinic. 41, p. 307-309.

  31. Want an Electronic Copy of the Presentation ? • Contact: Dr. Gene Hayes at ghayes1@utk.edu or Grant Staff at thecampkoinonia@gmail.com

  32. References Checkoway, B.(2004). Renewing the civic mission of the American research university. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 125-147. LeGates, R.T. & Robinson, G. (1998). Institutionalizing university-community partnerships. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(4), 312-322. Waller, S., Wozencroft, A., Keith, C., Kessler, E, Smith, R., Thomas, G, Pihera, A., Rangel, S. (In Review). Developing university school partnerships to serve students with disabilities: Project TRiPS: A case study. Submitted to Journal of University and Community Partnership. Wiewel, W. & Lieber, MN. (1998), Goal achievement, relationship building, and incrementalism: The Challenge of university-community partnerships. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(4), 291-301.

More Related