Social+Science

==﻿ //Hello, I found the following article on behaviors characteristic of ADHD and Giftedness, in the APU library database. The link below should take you there. [] As I read this article I found interesting common diagnostic and assessment strategies that I may use with ADHD and Giftedness students. Content Knowledge Question: Describe what you learned about diagnostic and assessment strategies that fit your target population. I learned that students are being misdiagnosed and assessed incorrectly. For example, students that are being diagnosed as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) might qualify to be gifted students. There are characteristics that identify ADHD students, but those same characteristics may also be applied to gifted students. This type of evaluation is imperative to a student’s education. It is a decision made by an untrained teacher that will affect a student’s future. This article made me realize that even though a student might show ADHD behaviors, I should not be quick to act. The question that I will always ask myself is: Is this student ADHD or is the student a gifted student, bored and frustrated? Pedagogical Knowledge Question: Describe in what way/s assessment data would determine how you planned your curriculum and lessons for the specific special needs population? What I have learned in the credential program is that I need to include differentiated teaching. The lesson plan would include assignments where ADHD students that require body/kinesthetic needs have those needs met. For the gifted students, become more familiar with Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligence and find out which type of intelligence students respond better to. I have to assess my students and find out which type of learning style students enjoy better. If the students are acting out, investigate why, I should not be quick and diagnose them as ADHD students. I need to assess students so that I can plan the curriculum and lessons to both ADHD and gifted students. Javier Castro //== ==//The article that I read was found on Wilson Web, an educational database available at the APU library website. This article appeared in// Learning Disability Quarterly// in the Winter of 2005. Here's how to get there: [] The thing that stands out most in reading “Responsiveness to Intervention and the Identification of Specific Learning Disability: A Critique and Alternative Proposal” by Kenneth Kavale, James Holdnack, and Mark Mostert, is that the identification of a specific learning disability (SLD) has and continues to be a controversial issue in special education. The problem with identifying students with SLD centers on a debate between the traditional “discrepancy model” for identification and the newer proposed model of reform called “Responsiveness to Intervention” (RTI). Advocates of RTI point out that the use of a marked discrepancy in a student’s IQ and achievement level as the primary means of identification have resulted in an over identification of SLD to the point where it has come to represent 50% of the special education population, or 5% of the total population of students in this country (Holdnack, Kavale, and Mostert, 2005)**.** Moreover, RTI advocates call attention to the fact that IQ/achievement discrepancy is neither sufficient nor necessary for the identification of SLD. Rather, proponents of RTI argue that identification should proceed as follows: “students are provided with empirically validated instruction; progress is monitored; students who do not respond to instruction receive more intensive or different instruction; progress continues to be monitored; and failure to respond may qualify a student for special education” (Holdnack, Kavale, and Mostert, 2005). In response, the authors of this article argue that this process oriented approach to identification fails to give educators any picture of what “a true positive should be.” In the words of Holdnack, Kavale and Mostert (2005), “The value of discrepancy lies in its ability to document the unexpected nature of the learning problem” (p. 5). The heated debate on identifying the true characteristics of SLD shows that determining assessment strategies for this population is extremely difficult. The real problem facing this population is not the identification of SLD, but the definition. The formal definition continues to be debatable because it fails to paint a clear picture of what SLD is and fails to explain reasons why a particular student is SLD (Holdnack, Kavale, and Mostert, 2005). It is therefore, no wonder that one is not able to find a great deal of information on agreed upon assessment strategies for this student population. Signing out, Ryan Lewis == ==The article I found was from the APU database on strategies to accommodate culturally and linguistically diversr students with special needs. Click on the link below to access the article yourself. [] Content Knowledge Question- Describe what you learned about diagnostic and assessment strategies that fit your target population. Before you can effectively assess a students needs, you must first understand that students fit in different categoreis. For example, several special needs studets fall under the categories of English Language Learners in addition to special education levels. I learned that one's language relfects both formative and summative assessments. Students, regardless of their linguistic ability and cultural background have a spectrum of language that they learn in and out of school. Pedagogical Knowledge Question- Describe in what ways assessment data would determine how you plan your curriculum and lessons for specific special needs population. I would plan according to my student population. I would address the academic levels first, whether students are GATE identified or otherwise. Not only that I understand that there is a difference betweeen physical and mental disabilities. I would not change my lessons for a student with a speech impediment because his/her mental capabilities are in tact. I would modify and accommodate my lessons for students with mental disabilities. For example I would speak at a slower rate, use pictures gestures, include kinesthetic activities, and get help from the special education aid on campus. Later, Eric Flores==

The article I chose comes from the ERIC database via APU online library and concerns misdiagnosing of problem readers at a young age. Here is the PermaLink: []
 * Bridget Ortega**

Content Knowledge Question: Describe what you learned about diagnostic and assessment strategies that fit your target population:

Pedagogical Knowledge Question: Describe in what ways assessment data would determine how you plan your curriculum and lessons for specific needs populations:

The article I chose comes from Google Scholar. It is actually a book. I bought the book and read it. Here is the link where I originally found the book: []. Gifted students should be assessed differently than mainstream students. Gifted students often know upto 85% of the material before the assessment. that means that any assessment we give them may not be accurate in measuring what they learned. We should give students exams and assessments before the unit commences. that way teachers can figure out how much studdents learned as opposed to hoping that the assessments are valid and reliable. Aside from changing the structure of assessments we must also find some alternative methods of assessments. Instead of multiple choice, matching, and true false, teachers of gifted students should try to give assessments that allow the students to manipulate the information and make sense of it. By handling the information through tactile methods the students will have a deeper understanding of the information. Having assessment data, gives the teaacher more options regarding instruction, enrighment, and assessment. Instead of relying on regular multiple choice tests that do not truly measure knowledge or learning the teacher can come up with authentic assessments. This not only increases learning it also provides students an opportunity to gain in-depth knowledge.