Using the Classroom Observation Instrument for Educational Environments Serving Students with Deaf-Blindness in Order to

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

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

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

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

5. Alignment: Interview

6. Alignment: Observation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. Validation Phase • Content validity -- achieved • Construct validity -- achieved • Concurrent validity • Reliability • Inter-rater reliability of 0.95

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22. Social • 3 items • Social skills • General education curriculum • Peer interaction

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

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

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

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

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