# data[].attributes.body
Good thing:

AG: Clearly defined classroom engagement. Good progress monitoring in STOs linked to their AG

To be enhanced:

The sentence, "Damian has a tendency to be rude and impulsive" is prescriptive. Maybe we can tweak is as giving examples of his actions or the things that he said.

AG1: 20 words might be too much for Damien considering that his Schonell test is at a grade 1 level and he struggles to read more than three letter. We recommed to have it at 10 words and preferably words with less than 5 letters :))

# data[].attributes.body
Good description of plop with specific behaviours, there is strengths included in the plop

Degree could be included, and more specific as words like tendency/constantly/often/on occasions can be quite vague and subjective

# data[].attributes.body
What we liked:

1) Second AG had clear definition of appropriate classroom management skills

2) PLOP was clear

Improve:

1) AG 1 and 2 can be more specific about the conditions (what type of spelling test? Which lessons?)

# data[].attributes.body
Good description of the progress monitoring methods, specific degrees mentioned in the plop correspond to the behaviours

More clearly defined domains would be better (off tasks behaviours and social behaviours could be separated to have more clarity)

# data[].attributes.body
Positives

STOs are very clear - number of words, type of words (CVCC)

Suggestions

For the STOs, we understand that the accuracy is lowered as the objective becomes harder to let the child experience more success. However, our group wonders if it might be seem to the child that his marks are declining yet he is achieving the goal.

# data[].attributes.body
what we liked:

1) well-written PLOP with clear headers

2) good that AG2 was specified to be for lessons for no group work only

what can be enhanced:

1) for AG2: perhaps can specify the duration of the random observations

# data[].attributes.body
Good description of STOs, very clear and very specific

Subjective words could be replaced, such as often/tends to

# data[].attributes.body
Positives

On task behaviour is clearly defined and distinguished, very specific on what is provided to guide the child (cues).

Suggestions

For AG 1, the group can consider removing the "100% accuracy" as it seems a bit redundant.

# data[].attributes.body
Organising the PLOP into academic and non-academic allows clearer distinction between the two. However, we would suggest including the strengths into each domain as when we read the domains individually, it felt very negatively framed and the focus is on Damien rather than his behaviours. This will help to provide a more balanced POV :)

Progress monitoring for AG1 includes post-test of schonell, great idea!!!

# data[].attributes.body
Clear AGs and STOs

Not necessary to include accessor's names in the plop, could be more specific in stating the degree for other behaviours

# data[].attributes.body
1. What we liked

PLOP is detailed and clear explanation of each domain

2. what can be enhanced

AG 2

STO 1: time frame can be specified into minutes (e.g., 2 min) instead of immediately

# data[].attributes.body
Positives:

AG2 has good use of prompt hierarchy to allow for fading of prompts during STO progression

AG2 Encourages ownership through self-monitoring. Buddy system also allows him to ensure he's on the right track.

Suggestion:

English spelling's goals seem to overlap with each other, could be more specific on the maximum number of letters for spelling

# data[].attributes.body
Clear and defined plop defining all the behaviours

STOs can include how many lettered words to be specific

# data[].attributes.body
Positives

We liked how they included the word "customised" in the STOs as it shows that the spelling list is created based on student's needs

Suggestions

For AG 2, the evaluation might not be very aligned with the AG? Will it better if the AG is revised to be during recess, so the evaluation of the recess time could be more aligned to the AG.

# data[].attributes.body
Good areas:

AG #1 was specific in stating at least 6 letters. AG #2 Progress monitoring included both teacher & buddy checklist, self-monitoring forms which uses a variety of platforms to assess child.

To be improved: STO3 for AG2 should not exactly be the same as AG. Should be one tier lower :)

# data[].attributes.body
Positive: Gave examples and are clear in their descriptions. They incorporate test data while describing Damian’s profile of needs.

Improvement: “EMS”, “SDQ” - good to spell out, reduce usage of jargons.

# data[].attributes.body
Positive: Clear categorisation but would be good to include more information? e.g., social skills. We like how they include verbal prompts but perhaps they can include more levels of prompts, e.g., gestural, then slowly fade out?

# data[].attributes.body
Positive: written clearly and accurately brought in the test data to describe Damian’s needs. Good to indicate to “spell and write out” because he cannot really hear the sounds.

Improvement: “CVC” - reduce usage of jargons. good to include legend. for three consecutive weeks might be abit too difficult because there are 15 days. the tendency of breaking the streak is pretty high

# data[].attributes.body
Positive: They are very specific in their STOs and that will help the process of implementing and monitoring.

Improvement: To categorise the various domains to ease reading and understanding; reduce usage of jargons, “MAS”.

# data[].attributes.body
Positive: Perhaps specific which area of the non-academic domain.

Improvement: The social skills are written under the academic domain. May be good to separate it out . Perhaps write the examples/details beneath rather than in parenthesis?

# data[].attributes.body
Positives

PLOP is very clear with sub-heading and good organisation.

Suggestions:

For AG 1, can consider removing STO 3, as it is the same as the AG.

Can consider specifying what grade level words for the spelling.

# data[].attributes.body
Positives

It was good that the group clearly defined what was meant by appropriate classroom engagement.

Suggestions

For AG1, the group might want to consider specifying the grade level of the spelling words to be tested.

# data[].attributes.body
AG1 and STO3 is the same? :o

Does the buddy have rapport with Damien? maybe can specify (since he has a history of poor peer relations)

Progress monitoring for AG2 is creative! ;) pun intended

# data[].attributes.body
Positives:

Each paragraph of PLOP has a topic sentence

Spelling goals are clear and progressive

AG 2's type of recording for evaluation was specific

Suggestions:

PLOP could be more specific (specifying hyperactivity and conduct problems, what does motivated by attention and escape mean?)

AG 2 can be more specific on the visual cues (how many times)

Can be more specific on what whole body listening is (not everyone will know what it is)

# data[].attributes.body
1. what we liked

1. STO 1 of AG1 is achievable hence student can get a sense of success to further motivate him

2. What can be enhanced

1. STO 1 of AG2 below baseline of 60%

# data[].attributes.body
1. What we liked:

1. condition such as number of words (CVC --> CCVCC) is very specific

2. What can be enhanced:

1. AG 1: too many changing variables, can consider either changing the difficulty of condition, (3 to 5) or keeping the criterion level of degree constant (75% across all STO)

# data[].attributes.body
We think there is a typo for the spelling age and not the reading age (for PLOP).

It's really great to think about the television shows in a positive light as Damien's interest! <3

AG1: it's great that you guys decided on CV words, wtargeting his > 3-letter word limitations as your STO1 and gradually increased the difficulty on the following STOs.

AG2: i think this goal can be worked on with the parents instead rather than as an IEP AG as there are alot of factors that are beyond control (eg. parents send him late, or weather conditions). This goal may also be achieved in a short period of time rather than a year.

# data[].attributes.body
what we like:

the PLOP is clear and includes information about current strategies that teachers' use

AG2: good that the 3 step strategy of Stop-Think-Do was specified

what can be enhanced:

for AG1: we feel that the jump from STO to AG is not very sequential (i.e. would the jump from customised tests in STOs to the standardised class tests in the AG be too big for Damien?)

for AG2: we thought it might be better for the AG to be a behaviour that is exhibited in the natural setting instead of being in a role play session (to ensure generalisability of the skill)

for AG2: the student progress (recess time observation) is not aligned with the AG (role play session)

# data[].attributes.body
1. What we liked

1. STO of AG2, fading off of verbal prompt of teacher

2. What can be enhanced

1. PLOP can included title for the different domains

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP was very descriptive and written in a very positive light.

We like that you included the teacher's accomodations to Damien (eg. the current measures taken to manage his behaviour).

For AG1, it might be more achievable with an STO3 as the jump seems abit sudden/wide but the progression was good between STO 1 & STO 2.

We really liked AG2. It is nice that you guys specified the appropriate response and STO 1 & 2 were clear and logical to achieving the AG! <3

# data[].attributes.body
Good to state strengths. For the start of each domain descriptors, do also start with some positive aspects for that domain for that student. Good advice from your peers on being more specific and to have degree specified for your AGs.

# data[].attributes.body
Good to state strengths. For the start of each domain descriptors, do also start with some positive aspects for that domain for that student. Do heed your peers’ advice on having a clearer PLOP.

# data[].attributes.body
Good to state strengths and interests. Try to title it as such to make it clearer ‘Strengths and Interests’. For AG1, do note that AG1 should actually be the final ‘STO’ although you don’t name it as such- so there should not be any STO3 as it is the same as your AG1.

# data[].attributes.body
Good to state strengths and interests. There may be strengths and interests that is general or that will impact all domains. For such strengths and interests, you may wish to have a section right before stating all the domains. Please note Effective Group’s response for your AG2. Work on goals that you can address in school. Unfortunately your AG2 involves parental and other factors which may be out of your control. Choose to work with your parents on this issue of punctuality but not have it in your IEP. IEP is a plan that you can work with the students in school. Also it is not advisable to lower accuracy,  you may reduce no. of words but still ensure similar level of accuracy. E.g. 10 words, 15 words, 20 words but still at 80% accuracy.

# data[].attributes.body
Good to state interest and strengths. Try to label and categorise your segments e.g. Strengths and interests, Academic (English) and even sub-segments and Behaviour etc… See the labels (bold and underlined) used in Amazing group’s submission. Do heed feedback from peers as well.

# data[].attributes.body
Good to state strengths and interests. There may be strengths and interests that is general or that will impact all domains. For such strengths and interests, you may wish to have a section right before stating all the domains. For labelling of sections, do bold and underline. Do note that you need to adjust your STOs such that it is a logical step forward and not a bigger jump. Do heed feedback from peers.