音声ブラウザご使用の方向け: SKIP NAVI GOTO NAVI

"BUT ....MY PORTFOLIO HAS NOTHING IN IT!": ISSUES AND STRATEGIES FOR INCLUSION FOR STUDENTS WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES

Pati King-DeBaun, M.S. CCC-SLP
Creative Communicating
P.O. Box 3358
Park City, UT 84060
Internet: http://www.creative-com.com

Web Posted on: December 8, 1997


Increasingly, educators are using alternative assessment strategies, such as portfolio assessments. What exactly is a student portfolio? Lindy Visyak describes it as follows, "A student portfolio is a carefully selected collection of student work that provides clear evidence to the student, parents, and other educators of the student's knowledge, skills, strategies, grasp of concepts, attitudes, and achievement in a given area or areas over a specific time frame" (1996, p. 7). As Tierney, Carter, and Desai (1991) observe, portfolio assessment has the advantages of highlighting process as well as product, valuing effort and improvement along with product, and continually engaging students in self-reflection.

Portfolios for students with disabilities may be "conspicuous by their absence"! When portfolios do exist, they may include few entries. The emptiness of portfolios, compared to those of typical peers, may serve as a wake-up call to teachers, therapists, and parents that the target student is not receiving sufficient, appropriately adapted literacy opportunities.


What to Put in Portfolios

Valencia and Calfee (1991) note that portfolios contribute to validity in assessment, because they permit contextualization of literacy assessment within routine classroom activities. However, they note that portfolios may not have reliability ("consistent interpretation of student work over judges and tasks," Valencia & Calfee, 1991, p. 338), or generalizability across contexts. Jeanne Paratore (1995) asserts the need to establish common standards in portfolio assessments. She argues that this may increase both the reliability and the generalizability of portfolios. Paratore suggests a "portfolio framework," which includes both core elements and optional elements selected by children, teachers, and parents. Core elements include three types of performance samples:

  • A reading log (including a reading list plus a place to respond to the selection and to the difficulty level).
  • Writing samples, selected weekly by students, representing samples of description and summary works.
  • Student self-evaluation, through a monthly response form.

Core Portfolio Elements for Students at Early Emergent and Emergent Stages of Literacy Learning

Students with severe disabilities who are at very early stages of emergent literacy may not be able to independently complete reading log forms, are not likely to have conventional writing samples to include in portfolios, and may have difficulty with self-evaluation. Thus, the content of core elements may differ from those described previously. However, standardization of portfolios is still an important goal. So, what should be included?

  • 1) Reading Log and/or Story Listening Log
  • 2) Language/Communication Samples During Story-Related Activities
  • 3) Anecdotal Evidence of Student Learning
    • a) Clipboards with paper grids having a labeled box for each student (Lescher, 1995).
    • b) Spiral-bound 5" x 8" index cards (or cards kept on a metal ring), with a card for each student (Eisle, 1991; Lescher, 1995).
    • c) Blank self-adhesive labels or sticky notes, writing observations on labels/notes and placing them on a large chart (e.g., inside cupboard door) or in a notebook with a section for each student (Lescher, 1991; Maehr, 1991; Visyak, 1996).
  • 4) Emergent Art Samples for Students with Severe Disabilities
  • 5) Emergent Writing Samples
    S - Symbols (generates word with symbols)
    TM - Teacher Modeled
    ISP - Independent Student Spelling
    ASP - Assisted Spelling (teacher gives sound cues)
    AS - Assisted Symbols (teacher gives symbol cues)
  • 6) Checklists for Students with Severe Disabilities at the Early Emergent Stage of Literacy Learning
    • a) Story Enjoyment Observation Checklist
    • b) Story Listening Observation Checklist
    • c) Oral/Device Reading Observation Checklist
    • d) Emergent Art/Writing Observation Checklist
  • 7) Reading Log
  • 8) Reading Response

Summary

The idea of assessment can be overwhelming and discouraging, if viewed in traditional perspectives. This presentation recommends that we "eat the elephant in small bites," making assessment truly an ongoing process.

Portions of this paper were taken from Musselwhite & King-DeBaun (1997) Emergent Literacy Success: Merging Technology and Whole Language for Students with Disabilities. Creative Communicating.

Eisle, B. (1991). Managing the whole language classroom. Cypress, CA: Creative Teaching Press, Inc.

Lesher, M. (1995). Portfolios: Assessing learning in the primary grades. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association Professional Library.

Maehr, J. (1991). Language and literacy. Ypsilanti, MI: The High/Scope Press.

Paratore, J. (1995). Assessing literacy: Establishing common standards in portfolio assessment. Topics in Language Disorders, 16, 67-82.

Tierney, R., Carter, M., & Desai, L. (1991). Portfolio assessment in the reading-writing classroom. Norwook, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Vizyak, L. (1996). Student portfolios: A practical guide to evaluation. Bothell, WA: The Wright Group.