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 :))

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

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?)

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

• 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.

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

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

• 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.

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

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

2. what can be enhanced

   • AG 2

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

   
   

• 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

STOs can include how many lettered words to be specific

• 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.

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 :)

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

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

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

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?

• 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.

• 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.

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

• 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)

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.

• 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)

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