# data[].attributes.body
- Strength and Weaknesses are clear

- STOs for (academic) is there a way to increment the number of words George is then going to work up to his independence?

- STOs for (non-acadmic) how are you planning to quantify how many times George will be discussing?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NED113 Tutorial Groupwork - Adam, Conrad, Fazilah (18 Jan 2023)

# data[].attributes.body
- PLOP is detailed and balanced
- AG and STOs are good for both academic and non-academic

- for the STO1 for academics, why have you guys chosen 2 consecutive weekly spelling? will it be guided or independent?

# data[].attributes.body
Please forgive our non-academic STO 2 & 3, we ran out of time and space to write :(

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP is reasonable, focusing on strengths, followed by observable behaviour
AG (Acad) is reasonable. Can improve by including the type of resource for spelling, e.g., spelling book.
STOs are to the point and systematic.
Progress Mtg  can include who is doing it.
AG (N-Acad) is reasonable.
STO3 is similar to AG - 70%
Overall good team effort!

# data[].attributes.body
I like how the PLOP is balanced, consisting of both her strengths as well as the areas she needs to work on. However, it seems to be missing her current level of performance on her spelling (e.g. given a P3 level spelling list, how many words can Mire spell accurately on average on 2 consecutive weekly spelling tests now?)

The academic AG and STOs, they are systematic and incremental. Well done :D

For the non-academic AG, I think the behaviours we expect of Mire should depend on the reason behind why she is daydreaming and playing with her stationeries. More info regarding this would can be included in the PLOP. However,  assuming that she engages in the off-task behaviours because she needs help and does not know how to seek it, then I think it's valid to ask of her to raise her hand to ask for help.

In addition, I think the AG can be more specific. For example, "during a 1-hour English lesson, when the teacher is teaching or giving instructions, Mire will look at the teacher and the whiteboard for at least 70% of the time over 3 consecutive twice weekly classroom observations." This can be measured using an interval recording behavioural checklist where the behaviour will be monitored once every 5 mins.

Overall, I think the group need a good job with their IEP. Well done!!! :D

# data[].attributes.body
Student Profile:

Mire Bte Poix

Primary 3

9 years old girl

Strengths:

Well-liked by peers and teachers

CCA (Band Leader)

Needs:

Displays off-task behaviour (daydreaming) → loses focus easily→ Work is incomplete

Poor spelling skill (Schonell Graded Word Spelling Test → 7 years old)

PLOP:

Mire is well-liked by her peers. She was nominated as the band leader for her CCA. Recently, her English teacher reported that she has been displaying off-task behaviours such as daydreaming and playing with her stationeries. These behaviours occur at least 8 times in a 30 minutes English lesson, which leads to incomplete written work (e.g. P3 Stellar Booklet). Based on the Schonell Graded Word Spelling Test, her current spelling age is 7 years old.

Academic:

AG - Given a P3 level spelling list, Mire will be able to spell with 85% accuracy on 2 consecutive weekly spelling test.

STO 1- Given a P3 level spelling list, Mire will be able to spell with 55% accuracy on 2 consecutive weekly spelling test.

STO 2- Given a P3 level spelling list, Mire will be able to spell with 65% accuracy on 2 consecutive weekly spelling test.

STO 3- Given a P3 level spelling list, Mire will be able to spell with 75% accuracy on 2 consecutive weekly spelling test.

Progress Monitoring:
- Weekly Spelling test results

Non-Academic:

AG -  During a 1 hour English lesson, Mire will demonstrate appropriate classroom engagement (look at the speaker and whiteboard, raise hand to ask for help and keep hands to herself) for at least 70% of the time over 3 consecutive twice weekly classroom observations.

STO 1 - During a 1 hour English lesson, Mire will look at the speaker for at least 70% of the time over 3 consecutive twice weekly classroom observations.
STO 2 - During a 1 hour English lesson, Mire will raise her hand to ask for help at least 70% of the time over 3 consecutive twice weekly classroom observations.
STO 3 - During a 1 hour English lesson, Mire will keep hands to herself for at least 70% of the time over 3 consecutive twice weekly classroom observations.

Progress Monitoring:
- Interval recording behavioural checklist

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP (Academic)

I like that the PLOP described the student’s strengths in a nutshell. It may be useful to add in the number of words that makes up her weekly spelling list and how many she can spell accurately.

AG
Better to include the number of words on her spelling list to determine a more concrete figure when calculating accuracy.

STO1/2
Just a thought, maybe we can offer Mire assisted spelling tests with some blanks answered. (Example: ‘friendly’ — assisted, ‘f r _ _ n d l y’)

(Non-Academic)
Just a thought - maybe we can focus on 1 behaviour at a time? To keep her hands to herself.

Overall, great work! :)

# data[].attributes.body
Hello! Student profile and PLOP are clear and easy to understand :)

Acad:
I'd think that the condition and degree for the AG (acad) are missing. So it should be "Given a list of 20 words, George will be able to spell three-syllable words independently, over two consecutive trials."

To add on, what kind of assistance would be given for STO 1 and 2?

# data[].attributes.body
The overview of student has his strengths and behaviour issue.
PLOP is to the point.
AG is reasonable, can improve by including resource, type of spelling resource, e.g., spelling book.

# data[].attributes.body
-  PLOP (academic & non-academic) shows strengths and weakness
- AG & STO (academic & non-academic) was very clear and broken down even till a deadline (e.g. Terms)

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP: Detailed and well-written, agree with Rebecca that current level of spelling tests results can be included for a more understanding of her spelling level (easier for teachers to know where student is at).

Academic: Great!

Non-academic: I personally would focus on one specific behaviour at a time (e.g. self-monitoring interval recording to remind student to pay attention to the task at hand).

# data[].attributes.body
PLOPs are easy to understand - clear and concise. The AGs/STOs are realistic too - much easy to read with specific scores (compared to percentages)

# data[].attributes.body
1. PLOP

- Objective

- Measurable

- Very specific

- Good use of data

- Jargon free

- Maybe can add strengths

2. Annual Goal

- Well linked to PLOP

- Very measurable and specific

- Condition, audience, behaviour and criterion were present

3. STO/BM

- Observable, trackable STOs

- Descriptive

- Maybe can add in time element (e.g., on 3 consecutive weekly assessments)

# data[].attributes.body
-        PLOP did include both academic and non-academic areas

-        However, the degree to which Mire’s spelling skill is not on par was not stated (read _ words per minute).

-        AG is broad enough (to display appropriate classroom behaviour) but gives depth, it seems like an achievable goal that Mire will be able to accomplish with help given. There is C, A, B and D!

-        I am just wondering, for the AG would you have to elaborate more on the strategy, eg Given a P3 grade spelling list, Mire will apply basic spelling strategies and be able to spell with 85% accuracy.. Just a thought!

-        Nice STOs!

# data[].attributes.body
Succinct overview of student.
PLOP includes all criteria.
AG has CABD criteria.
STOs is progress and measurable.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi guys well done, I liked that you mentioned the Schonell Graded Word Spelling Test in the PLOP as her baseline. I was just wondering if you would be doing another one at the end of the intervention to see if there is any improvement. It would be interesting to see the difference. The other two minor observations are:

Academic  AG/ STO

1.       How many words in the spelling list? What kind of words?

Non- Academic  AG/ STO

2.       How do you gauge that she has met the 70% of the time? I find it hard to estimate. Do you time how long she keeps her eyes on the speaker or keeps her hand raised or do you count the number of times observed? How many times observed is expected ?

# data[].attributes.body
The PLOPs and AGs are clear. STOs are consistent throughout with CABD present for all. Great! :)

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP – Detailed and well written with both positive and negative points. Good that the result of the assessment was also included. However, it is not stated how many words the student is able to achieve currently for her spelling test.

AG & STO (acad) - Well written, specific

AG & STO (non- acad) – Well written. Just a suggestion, maybe we can focus on 1 behaviour first, like raising her hand?

# data[].attributes.body
just thinking maybe for AG/STOs - we can be more specific by grouping the questions into topics. Is she not answering open-ended questions for all topics or are there chapters she's not confident in?

for the reading (drama) - does she read in other lessons? maybe we can conduct a reading assessment to know her reading level first.

:)

# data[].attributes.body
Acad domain and it's PLOP, AG & STOs to the point and follow CABD.
Non-Acad STOs can improve by unpacking engage into more measurable behaviour, e.g. begin, continue...

# data[].attributes.body
Academic PLOP:
Grade 8 passage -- able to read all of it independently with 100% accuracy?
Struggles to spell words -- quantify how many words he spells wrongly when given a spelling list of two syllable words?

Academic AG:
With 100% accuracy?

Non-academic: Reasonable, maybe I would quantify how many times he does it in a 20-mins session.

# data[].attributes.body
- PLOPs are easy to read and clear.
- AGs and STOs (academic) are incremental and achievable
- AGs and STOs (non-academic) what do you mean by on-task behaviours? maybe specify what you are looking for. because any student can finish the task but how well do you want the student to complete it?

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP:
- PLOP shows both strengths and weakness of the student
- May be useful to elaborate on the graded word spelling test e.g. a list of ____ words

Academic:
- AG: May be useful to include the number of words in the spelling list
- Good use of CABD used in STOs!

Non-academic:
- Maybe focus on 1 behavior for a start? e.g. raise hand to ask for help
- STOs are clear and systematic

# data[].attributes.body
Student's profile and needs are very clear! =)

Maybe can elaborate more on PLOP #2? Why student refused to take part in reading script given by the teacher?

Overall well done guys!

# data[].attributes.body
Academic:
- PLOP is descriptive but does not clearly state current level of performance for spelling to treat is as a baseline

- Current spelling age = 7y/o, achieving 85% accuracy level on a P3 spelling list for an AG may be too high for the student? May want to consider lowering the level to 50%? We want to make sure AG is achievable so that we do not need to create more STOs in the long run

Non-academic:
- May want to focus on max 2 behaviours so as not to overwhelm both student and SENO

# data[].attributes.body
1. PLOP

- Measurable

- Very detailed

- Good use of data (e.g., schonell results)

- Strengths included which is a plus

- Can add degree of skills

2. Annual Goal

- Condition, audience, behaviour and criterion were present

- More details can be included

3. STO/BM

- Systematic breakdown/increment of STO

- Good indication of time element (e.g., 3 consecutive twice weekly classroom observation)

# data[].attributes.body
Both domains answered well.
Acad : PLOP meets Criteria. AG has CABD, can improve by including the duration of goal, e.g., over 3 weekly consec. trials

# data[].attributes.body
1. PLOP

- Measurable and observable

- Very clear and relevant details included

2. Annual Goal

- Condition, audience, behaviour and criterion were present

- Specific details provided

3. STO/BM

- Systematic breakdown/increment of STO

- Maybe can indicate that passage for weekly reading exercise is P3 level also?

# data[].attributes.body
Good Job guys, Its very clear and concise. I totally understand your Plop and AG. Just some very minor observations.

Academic  AG/ STO

1.       The last part sounds like BM instead of STO because of the milestone. Will he need to achieve once only to be considered met the STO or AG?

Non- Academic AG/ STO

2.       Sounds like BM too instead of STO. When is the checklist introduced before the AG?

Well done guys

# data[].attributes.body
Everything is straightforward and easy to understand. If I were to do anything differently, for non-academic AG, I personally would work on 1 STO per behaviour leading up to the AG.

STO 1: Pencil case on table with prompt
STO 2: Pencil case on table + wait quietly with prompt
STO 3: Pencil case on table + wait quietly + stay seated with prompt
AG: Pencil case on table + wait quietly + stay seated independently

# data[].attributes.body
-       PLOP is specific (mentions about his degree of difficulty, George is unable to spell words with more than 2 syllables)

-       Is George able to read Grade 8 passage independently or with help?

-       CABD components in academic Annual Goal may not be entirely present

- STOs are short and succinct!

# data[].attributes.body
Acad:
The PLOP is clear but maybe can add in about his overview performance during English lesson. At the end of the day, spelling usually is conducted during EL lesson

For STO, can also include the list of words is from the weekly/termly spelling list?

Non Acad:
It's clear and straight forward. However, I would quantify "engage" further.

Good job guys! :)

# data[].attributes.body
This group's PLOP is short and sweet. However, I am unable to tell how well George is able to read a Grade 8 passage from the PLOP. With regards to his spelling, perhaps more information can be given on what he is able to do and to what degree (use CABD).

For the academic AG, the condition is missing. Also, "3-syllable words" is very general. There are words which are spelled using certain syllabication patterns (e.g. vccv, vcccv, etc) and there are words that are spelled using morphology. Perhaps the goal and the STOs can be more specific in that respect.

For the non-academic AG and STOs, I like how the STOs are systematically arranged such that I can see George's progression. However, for the assessment tool, if English lessons doesn't happen everyday or if there are no group discussions in English lessons, then perhaps a behavioural checklist will do? He can be monitored on a weekly basis instead of daily (e.g. for at least 2 group work sessions in a week) something like that.

# data[].attributes.body
PLOPs are clear, measurable and easy to understand.
For the AGs and STOs, perhaps to include the D as mentioned by others above :)

# data[].attributes.body
- Missing condition and degree for Acad PLOP
- The STOs and AG for the non-academic domain are well-thought out. May want to add how to record the level of engagement e.g. times he contributed ideas?

# data[].attributes.body
I like that the PLOP starts off with a strength of the student. Just a thought, if the student's current spelling age is 7 years old (grade 1), should we set an AG based on the next grade (P2) instead so that the progression is more manageable?

# data[].attributes.body
(Academic)
well assessed and clear PLOP/AG. realistic goals!

(Non-Acad)
monitoring goals - can add the duration to be monitored. i like that the chart will include a column of 'number of prompts given by teacher'

# data[].attributes.body
I think the PLOP, AGs and STOs are very well-written. I can easily understand what the child is expected to achieve and by when.

Just 1 qn: for the non-academic PLOP, does the behaviour of shouting and throwing his pencil case happen every time there is a spelling test?

# data[].attributes.body
- PLOP is concise and clearly explains student’s strengths and needs

- Non-academic STOs seem more like a BM due to the phrasing ‘by end of Term 2’, may want to edit it to gradual changes in acceptable behaviour as mentioned by Maddie

Overall, good work! :)

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP – Well written. just a suggest, maybe you include he baseline of the student's spelling ability.

AG & STO (acad) -  For AG, there is no criterion, and degree. The STOs are SMART.

AG & STO (non-acad) – Very clear. Student will be able to understand and follow.

# data[].attributes.body
IEP is very well done.

For strengths, it might be good to include the specific strengths. The specific traits as to why she is well-liked.

Needs stated were specific and stated how it affects her class work.

Plop is detailed and precise and includes a lot of specifics.

Overall, a job well done!

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP:
- Clear and succinct but may be useful to elaborate further on the passage used

Academic:
- AG: May want to include the condition for greater clarity
- STOs: Specific and measurable

Non-academic:
- STOs: Specific and measurable

# data[].attributes.body
-       Maybe can elaborate a bit more on her disengagement behaviours during Science and Drama lessons to provide the person reading more background information

-       Yay to including the degree of her strength in the academic PLOP, maybe can include what she is unable to do that is affecting her as well?

-       CABD observed in your AG!

- Her disengagement behaviour was clearly defined in your PLOP description!

# data[].attributes.body
Acad:
PLOP is clear and easy to understand! The STO and AGs contains all elements of CABD :)

Non-acad:
Just wondering, maybe to include in the PLOP that Tom does not complete his work since the AG and STOs mentioned about it.

# data[].attributes.body
Acad.
PLOP, AG and STO's are well written and succinct. Easy to understand and achievable for the student as well as teacherS.

Non Acad.
PLOP and AG is very well written. However, as shared by Madeleine, the STO can be broken down further too. One STO to one behaviour.

Overall good work guys!

# data[].attributes.body
Clear profile and needs.
Question: "High functioning" --> Do we use "low support needs" instead?

Non-academic: Rather than going by how many lines she can read, I personally would quantify it as a percentage of how many lines she does read out of how many lines she's required to read. (If the script usually has about 10 lines, STO and AG can reflect 20% --> 40% --> 60% --> 80% of the 10 lines)

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP - Detailed and well written with both positive and negative points. Good that the baseline and the results of the assessment were included in the PLOP

AG & STO (acad) – Very straightforward. Easy to understand.

AG & STO (non-acad) – Agreeing to Madeline’s comment on working on 1 STO per behaviour.

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths and weaknesses for both acad and non-acad are clear and succinct. Very straight-forward.

PLOP for both acad as well as non-acad are also very clear. However maybe for the AG for acad...show examples of three-syllable words? and must he get it with 100% accuracy?

# data[].attributes.body
1. PLOP

- Strengths of child included

- Can have more details for reading and spelling

2. Annual Goal

- Succinct and to the point

- Can improve on condition and criterion

3. STO/BM

- Specific and measurable

- Easy to observe

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP - Balance with student strength and weakness
- Include both academic and non-academic

AG (Acad & Non-Acad) - Reasonable and can be achieve by student

STOs (Acad & Non-Acad) - Very detailed :)

Suggestion: For Non-Academic, maybe to focus on 1 behaviour such as keeping hands to herself.

Overall: Good job ladies! :)

STOs -

# data[].attributes.body
Very well done! Needs and strengths are very clear. PLOPs are easy to understand too.

Maybe you STOs can change them to BMs instead as there are deadlines in them.

# data[].attributes.body
- Clear PLOP and AGs

- For the academic domain, STOs are clearly defined and has a systematic increment
- For non-acad STOs, are we looking at completing task irregardless of its accuracy?

I really like how this team included a detailed progress monitoring for both domains. Good job ladies!

# data[].attributes.body
Hm.. For the academic AG, I'm wondering what is the main reason behind her only 60% answering accuracy. Is it because she doesn't understand the question? or does she not understand the Science concepts and thus cannot answer the questions accurately? Or is she refusing to do the work? Perhaps more information about this can be included in the PLOP.

For the non-academic goal, I think the AG and STOs can be more specific. For example, for the AG,  "when given a 1-page drama script with at least 2 characters, A will read 6 of her lines independently during her turn."

Overall, very good attempt! Well done :)

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP:
- Clear and succinct
- Specific and measurable

Academic:
- AG and STOs are SMART

Good use of CABD :)

# data[].attributes.body
-       Tom’s weaknesses are specific

-       In your PLOP, it has been clearly defined what he can do and cannot do!

-       CABD components are observed in your AGs as well!

- Does the reading exercise include the grade level passage or an excerpt chosen?

# data[].attributes.body
Hi guys, the PLOP and AG are very clear with just 1 observation.

For Non- Academic AG/ STO, the STO 2 ending should be the same as AG and STO 1 ending if I remember correctly. It should remain at 2 consecutive week instead of 1.

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP - . acceptable PLOP. But to improve futher you can be more detailed in terms of what kind of words she often misspelled? having it in will help in performance monitoring and also for intervention  (eg. monosyllabic, CVC) so that the STO can be more focused in terms of the condition- Given 30 list of CCVC words from Stellar Spelling List.

# data[].attributes.body
It might be good to include the extent of his current difficulty.

STO1 is for him to spell with 50% accuracy. What is his current accuracy level?

It would be similar for the non-academic PLOP. Maybe responding may be more achievable as initiating might be a bit high level for George.

# data[].attributes.body
Acad.
PLOP - Can be further elaborated. Is it she only has difficulty on booklet B? Could it be the topic? How about booklet A?

STO and AG are very clear. Only the PLOP can add in more information.

Non Acad.
Maybe can retrieve more information from her EL teacher on her ability during reading first? Before deciding on the AG and STO's.

# data[].attributes.body
IEP is clear, straight-forward and easy to understand.

Academic PLOP: more details are needed for the degree of difficulty the student is encountering for spelling words with more than 2 syllabus.

Non-academic AG and STO: should include the number of times the student needs to engage/ initiate discussion.

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP – Specific.

AG & STO– Well written. Maybe you might want to include to what degree.

# data[].attributes.body
Acad:
For the needs, is her disengagement in Science class because of off-task behaviours or that she does not understand the lesson? I would assume that she understands the lesson since the STOs and AG has incremental accuracy.

Non-acad:
Is there an underlying reason as to why she refuses to take part?

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP (Academic) - Well written
- Student able to read independently with 100% accuracy?

AG & STOs (Acad & Non-Acad) - Deatiled and easy to understand

Good job guys! :)

# data[].attributes.body
The PLOP and the academic AG are very clear.  Just take note that the condition for the academic STOs needs to reflect the same condition as the academic AG (i.e. given a P3 level reading passage).

For the non-academic AG and STOs, they are all good except that the monitoring schedule should also be kept the same (i.e. over 2 consecutive weekly observations).

Overall, very well done! :D

# data[].attributes.body
-       By hands on learner, do you refer to Gary as a Kinaesthetic learner or a tactile, sensory learner hmm ? might help reader to better understand the child (but I fully understand we were time bound..)

-       In your PLOPs, what he can and cannot do have been clearly defined! You guys also elaborated on his degree of disruption in class.

-       CABD components observed in your AGs!

# data[].attributes.body
Clear and measurable as the others have mentioned.

Question: My understanding of measuring WPM is that it's usually used for improving the speed of reading? In this case, would it be more appropriate to measure number/ percentage of multi-syllabic words read accurately?

# data[].attributes.body
Clear and succinct!
Both PLOP and AG are easy to understand.

# data[].attributes.body
Clear and easy to understand Student profile, strengths and needs.

For Mire's CCA strengths, she is in P3 and already a band leader, maybe can explain when did she join the CCA.

STO's looks clear and easily understandable,

For the spelling test, do we need to indicate the number of words given or any specific method we can use to help her learn?

# data[].attributes.body
The PLOP is clear, easy and simple to understand.

AG & STOs (Academic and Non-Academic) are detailed and easy to understand.

Well Done Good Job.

# data[].attributes.body
Clear and succinct!
PLOPs are easy to understand.
AG and STOs are measurable.

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP:
- May want to include student's strengths

AG, STOs:
- Clear and succinct
- Specific and measurable
- Good use of CABD! But can include degree

# data[].attributes.body
overall looks great!

simple to read and understand

Are we able to indicate how you will check the number of times, he discuss in class? Engaging the teacher's help or will SENO be in there?

# data[].attributes.body
The PLOP is detailed and balanced focusing on her strengths and areas which she can improve and work on
AG and STOs are clearly defined for both academic and non-academic

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP - very detailed with both strength and weakness
- clear

AG & STO - Easy to understand and very clear

Suggestion: Might want to focus on 1 behaviour first for the non-academic :)

Good job guys!:)

# data[].attributes.body
I like how you have incorporated CABD in the AG.

PLOPs are clear and easy to understand.

If child is high functioning ASD, but not keen in Drama, is there a possibility to explore her other interests? Or she must clear Drama?
*just thinking, cause, will her disengagement disrupt the overall class's progress?

# data[].attributes.body
Clear and easy to read PLOPs, AGs and STOs.

i like what is done in the monitoring goal section

# data[].attributes.body
Plop is clear and easy to read.

CABD! Yeah!...:)

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP is very clear with baseline details.

STOs: maybe to include the number of consecutive times that skill / behaviour should be exhibited to deem that the AG has been achieved.

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP- Clear and detailed

AG & STOs - Easy to understand

Good job ladies! :)

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP is very clear - easily read to be understood. I like that both academic and non-academic are included.
Great STOs.
One thing - include the words in Spelling List?

# data[].attributes.body
PLOP and AG - I love it. It was clear and precise.
A detailed PM too. Great job! Lots to learn from you guys!

# data[].attributes.body
The PLOP shows strengths and weakness for Academic and Non-Academic.
- AG & STOs are clear, easy to understand and detailed.

# data[].attributes.body
The PLOP is specific and measurable. AG and STOs are SMART.