Examining The Effect of Interactive Feedback Procedure on the Individualized Education Program (IEP) Goals

Year 2022, Volume: 11 Issue: 3, 602 - 616, 13.10.2022

Neslihan Ünlüol Ünal , Muhammed A. Karal , Sema Tan

https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.1052406

Abstract

An Individualized Education Program (IEP) is essential for both assisting students to meet their needs and enabling professionals to evaluate the students’ progress. The purpose of this study was to enhance the teacher candidates’ performance of writing IEP goals and objectives by using interactive feedback procedures. Seventy-three pre-service teachers in elementary education program participated in the study. They were required to write IEP goals according to case scenarios at three different times. A two-factor analysis of variance with repeated measures was completed for the dependent variables. The results of this study indicate that there are statistically significant differences between the means at each measurement time for pretest-posttest-maintenance scores. Implementation of interactive feedback procedures are found to be successful at improving the IEP goals and objectives writing skills of the teacher candidates. Limitations and implications for practitioners are presented.

Keywords

goal writing, pre-service teacher education, individualized education program (IEP), interactive feedback, students with special needs

Etkileşimli Geribildirim Prosedürlerinin Bireyselleştirilmiş Eğitim Programı (BEP) Amaçları Üzerindeki Etkisinin İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bireyselleştirilmiş Eğitim Programı (BEP), hem öğrencilerin ihtiyaçlarına cevap vermek hem de onların ilerlemelerini değerlendirebilmek için kritik öneme sahiptir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğretmen adaylarının etkileşimli geri bildirim prosedürlerini kullanarak BEP amaç ve hedeflerini yazma performanslarını arttırmaktır. Araştırmaya sınıf öğretmenliği programında öğrenim gören 73 öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarından, kendilerine verilen olay senaryolarına üç farklı zamanda BEP amaçları yazmaları istendi. Bu amaçlar puanlandıktan sonra, tekrarlı ölçümlerde iki faktörlü varyans analizi uygulandı. Çalışmanın sonuçları, ön test-son test- izleme puanları için ortalamalar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar olduğunu göstermektedir. Buna göre, etkileşimli geribildirim prosedürleri uygulaması öğretmen adaylarının BEP amaç ve hedeflerini yazma becerilerini geliştirmede başarılı bulunmuştur. Araştırmacılar, bulguları güncel alan yazın ile tartışmış ve uygulamacılar için çeşitli öneriler sunmuşlardır.

Keywords

amaç yazma, öğretmen eğitimi, bireyselleştirilmiş eğitim programı (BEP), etkileşimli geribildirim, özel gereksinimli öğrenciler

References

• Agricola, B. T., Prins, F. J., & Sluijsmans, D. M. (2020). Impact of feedback request forms and verbal feedback on higher education students’ feedback perception, self-efficacy, and motivation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27, 6- 25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1688764
• Alberto, P., & Troutman, A. C. (2013). Applied Behavior Analysis for Teachers. Pearson.
• Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41, 77- 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00027-7
• Bateman, B. D., & Linden, M. A. (2006). Better IEPs: How to develop legally correct and educationally useful programs. Attainment Company, Inc.
• Beaumont, C., O’Doherty, M., & Shannon, L. (2011). Reconceptualising assessment feedback: a key to improving student learning? Studies in Higher Education, 36, 671- 687. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003731135
• Blair, A., & McGinty, S. (2013). Feedback dialogues: Exploring the student perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38, 466- 476. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.649244
• Boavida, T., Aguiar, C., & McWilliam, R.A. (2014). A training program to improve IFSP/IEP goals and objectives through the routines-based interview. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 33, 200- 211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121413494416
• Boavida, T., Aguiar, C., McWilliam, R. A., & Pimentel, J. (2010). Quality of individualized education program goals of preschoolers with disabilities. Infants and Young Children, 23(3), 233- 243. https://doi.org/10.1097/iyc.0b013e3181e45925
• Bowl, M. (2003). Non-traditional entrants to higher education. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books. Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219- 233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132
• Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395- 407. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003642449
• Caruana, V. (2015). Accessing the common core standards for students with learning disabilities: Strategies for writing standards-based IEP goals. Preventing School Failure, 59(4), 237- 243. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.924088
• Courey, S. J., Tappe, P., Siker, J., & LePage, P. (2012). Improved lesson planning with universal design for learning (UDL). Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(1), 7-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412446178
• Davis, P., & Bates, P. (1997). Transition-related IEP objectives: Ensuring their functionality, technical adequacy, and generality. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 7, 37- 60. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex0701_3
• Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 51- 62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903197883
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Hartmann, D. P., Barrios, B. A., & Wood, D. D. (2004). Principles of behavioral observation. In S. N. Haynes & E. M. Hieby (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment (Vol. 3, pp. 108-127). John Wiley & Sons.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81- 112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
• Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and feedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(1), 21- 27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.04.001
• Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2001). Getting the message across: The problem of communicating assessment feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 269- 274.
• Hyatt, D. F. (2005). ‘Yes, a very good point!’: A critical genre analysis of a corpus of feedback commentaries on master of education assignments. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(3), 339- 353. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510500122222
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. (2004)
• Jung, L. A. (2007). Writing SMART objectives and strategies that fit the ROUTINE. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(4), 48-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990703900406
• Jung, L. A., Gomez, C., & Baird, S. M. (2003). Family-centered intervention: Bridging the gap between IFSPs and implementation. In E. Horn, M. M. Ostrosky, & H. Jones (Eds), Young Exceptional Children Monograph Series No. 5: Family-based Practices (pp. 61- 76). Sopris West Educational Services
• Kamens, M. W. (2004). Learning to write IEPs: A personalized, reflective approach for preservice teachers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40 (2), 76- 80. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512040400020201
• Kargın, T. (2007). Egitsel degerlendirme ve bireysellestirilmis egitim programı hazırlama sureci [The process of educational assessment and individualized education program]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 8, 1- 13.
• Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of learning technologies. (2nd ed.). RoutledgeFalmer.
• Lignugaris-Kraft, B., Marchand-Martella, N., & Martella, R. C. (2001). Writing better goals and short term objectives or benchmarks. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(1), 52- 58. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990103400107
• Lomax, R. G., & Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. (2012). An introduction to statistical concepts (3rd ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
• Lucas, A., K. Gillaspy, M. L. Peters, & J. Hurth, (2014). Enhancing recognition of high-quality, functional IFSP outcomes and IEP goals. EctaCenter. http://www.ectacenter.org/ ~pdfs/pubs/rating-ifsp.pdf
• Lynch, E. C., & P. L. Beare. (1990). The quality of IEP objectives and their relevance to instruction for students with mental retardation and behavior disorders. Remedial & Special Education, 11, 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259001100207
• McLean, A. J., Bond, C. H., & Nicholson, H.D. (2014). An anatomy of feedback: A phenomenological investigation of undergraduate students’ conceptions of feedback. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.855718
• McLinden, M., McCall, S., Hinton, D., & Weston, A. (2007). Embedding online problem-based learning case scenarios in a distance education programme for specialist teachers of children with visual impairment. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22, 275- 293. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250701430844
• McLinden, M., McCall, S., Hinton, D., & Weston, A. (2010). Developing authentic online problem-based learning case scenarios for teachers of students with visual impairments in the United Kingdom. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104 (1), 30- 42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1010400107
• Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Fearon.
• More, C. M., & Hart-Barnett, J. E. (2014). Developing individualized IEP goals in the age of technology: Quality challenges and solutions. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 58(2), 103- 109. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2013.782533
• Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback process in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, (5), 501- 517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559
• Nicol, D., & McFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199- 218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
• Obradović, S., Bjekić, D., & Zlatić, L. (2011). Special education in pre-service training. Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology, 1, 28- 35.
• Ozyurek, M. (2005). Olumlu Sınıf Yönetimi. [Positive Classroom Management]. Kök Yayıncılık.
• Pereira, D., Flores, M. A., Veiga-Simão, A. M., & Barros, A. (2016). Effectiveness and relevance of feedback in higher education: A study of undergraduate students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 49, 7- 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.03.004
• Poulos, A., & Mahony, M. J. (2008). Effectiveness of feedback: The students’ perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 143- 154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930601127869
• Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Bricker, D. (2000). Enhancing the quality of individualized education plan (IEP) goals and objectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 92- 105. https://doi.org/10.1177/105381510002300204
• Price, M., Handley, K., & O’Donovan, B. (2008). Feedback- all that effort but what is the effect?. Paper presented at the EARLI/ Northumbria assessment conference.
• Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the affect?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277- 289. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541007
• Rakap, S. (2015). Quality of individualised education programme goals and objectives for preschool children with disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(2), 173- 186. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2014.986909
• Räty, L., Vehkakoski, T., & Pirttimaa, R. (2018). Documenting pedagogical support measures in Finnish IEPs for students with intellectual disability. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 34(1), 35- 49. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2018.1435011
• Robinson, S., Pope, D., & Holyoak, L. (2013). Can we meet their expectations? Experiences and perceptions of feedback in first year undergraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38, 260- 272. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.629291
• Ruble, L. A., McGrew, J., Dalrymple, N, & Jung, L. (2010). Examining the quality of IEPs for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 1459-1470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-1003-1
• Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535- 550. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015
• Sanches-Ferreira, M., Lopes-dos-Santos, P., Alves, S., Santos, M., & Silveira-Maia, M. (2013). How individualised are the individualised education programmes (IEPs): An analysis of the contents and quality of the IEPs goals. European Journal of Special Needs Education 28, 507- 520. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2013.830435
• Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153- 189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
• Stothart, C. (2008). Cryptic feedback baffles students. Times Higher Education Supplement. http://www.timeshigereducation.co.uk/storycode=403625 (accessed June 18, 2020)
• Thompson, S., Thurlow, M., Esler, A., & Whetstone, P. (2001). Addressing standards and assessments on the IEP. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26(2), 77-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724770102600213
• Van der Schaaf, M. F., Baartman, L. K. J., Prins, F. J., Oosterbaan, A., & Schaap, H. (2013). Feedback dialogues that stimulate students’ reflective thinking. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(3), 227- 245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.628693
• Wolery, M. R., Bailey, D. B., Jr., & Sugai, G. M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional students. Allyn & Bacon.
• Yazedjian A., & Kolkhorst, B. B. (2010). Implementing small-group activities in large lecture classes. College Teaching, 55 (4), 164- 169.