PPS Case Study. Part 3

Part 3: Critique and Evaluation of Psychoeducational Assessment Data15 points

Based on our lens of the needs of Bilingual students, discuss the reliability, validity, authenticity, and washback of the data. Does the data communicate a realistic picture of the student’s abilities and needs? Discuss strong points and weak points of the assessment tools, data results, and provide recommendations for interpretation and improvement in relations to multicultural language learners. Also discuss data uses along raciolinguistic perspectives and its impact on equity for your bi/multilingual learner.


Guide for Part 3:

Critique and Evaluation of Psychoeducational Assessment Data

(10 points)


3.1. Psychometrics: 3 points
(1 paragraph each)

1. Describe the test and the use of its results as it relates to our theories on:

a. Reliability

b. Validity

c. Authenticity

d. Washback

Describe any factors that have negatively impacted any and all of the above-mentioned aspects of the assessments and its data.


3.2. Impact on Language Learners: 3 point
(1 paragraph)

Does the data communicate a realistic picture of the student’s abilities and needs? Why or why not? Discuss strong points and weak points of the assessment tools and data results as it relates to bilingual and multicultural students.


3.3 Recommendations: 3 points
(1-2 paragraphs)

a. Provide recommendations for improving the test to increase equity and for interpreting the results based on our theories and learning about multicultural language learners (ex: items, assumptions, psychometrics, et al).

b. Provide recommendations for the administration of the test to other multicultural and multilingual similar to the student you are evaluating. What could have been done to make it more equitable for this student?

Additional points for Part 3: An additional 1 point is reserved for correct grammar and readability.


SAMPLE

Part III:

According to Mahoney (2017), “reliability is measured as a coefficient (a number between 0 and 1), which informs us empirically of how much contamination (or error) is part of the overall test score” (p. 130). It is important to also keep in mind that no test is 100 percent reliable (Mahoney, 2017). According to the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement Technical Manual (2014), “The standard error of the reliability coefficient provides a confidence band within which the true reliability coefficient would be expected to fall. Table 4-2 reports the 68% confidence band for several typical reliabilities and sample sizes” (p. 90). The reliability scores according to the testing manual Table 4.2 are .85, .90 and .95 averaged for diverse testing samples (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p. 91). Mahoney (2017) supports these reliability scores by stating that for a test to be considered to have a reliable coefficient the number needs to be .85 or higher which is what is indicated in the technical manual.

According to the WISC-V Technical and Interpretive Manual (2015), the reliability scores for the WISC-V were determined using 3 methods: Internal consistency, test-retest (stability), and interscorer agreement. Average coefficients across the 11 age groups of composite scores ranged from .88 (Processing speed index) to .96 (FSIQ and general ability Index). The reliability estimates for the complementary subsets, process, and composite scores were outlined in table 4.2 of the WISC-V Technical and Interpretative Manual. Based on tests of reliability, the average coefficients across 11 age groups ranged from .90 to .94 for composite scores. Furthermore, the average coefficients for subtests and process scores were .82 to .89. The internal consistency reliability coefficients ≥ .90 have been recommended for making relevant decisions related to diagnosis, as well as decision about tailored instruction/ interventions for children.

Mahoney (2017) states “each use of the test must be considered for validity on a case-by-case basis.” (p.43). The Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement Technical Manual (2014) states, “in an independent review, Braden and Niebling (2012) judged the quality of the WJ III content validity evidence, upon which the WJ IV continues to build, as near the strong end of their rating scale.” (p. 119). The rating scale ranged from 0-5 in which the test scored at a 4. The content of the test covers a wide range or core curricular areas. According to the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement Technical Manual (2014), “the representativeness of the WJ IV test content, process, and construct validity was addressed through specification of a test revision blueprint informed by contemporary CHC theory and cognitive neuroscience research.” (p. 219). The teaching manual provides detailed graphs and data that support the validity of the test and what it intends to measure.

According to Canivez & Watkins (2016), The evidence for WISC-V validity was structured around standards which reflect Messick’s (1995) unified validity theory which “prescribes evidence based on test content, response processes, internal structure, relations with other variables, and consequences of testing.” Furthermore, Canivez & Watkins (2016) state that for the WISC-V, test content was derived via a review of the literature and item/ subset review by “experts and advisory panel members (specialists in child psychology, neuropsychology, and/or learning disabilities).” A standardization study was conducted using a nationally representative sample to develop norms to support score WISC-V interpretation. Participants included 2,200 children ages 6-16, each of which was closely matched to 2012 US census data on race/ethnicity, parent education level, and geographic region and balanced with respect to gender. The WISC-V results showed “composite and subtest scores demonstrate high levels of internal consistency….both primary index scores and subtest scores demonstrate moderate to high consistency over testing occasion,…[and] scoring of the WISC-V is highly consistent across raters.” (Efficacy Research Report, 2018).

According to the WISC-V Technical and Interpretive Manual, various subsets within the five primary indexes are moderately to highly correlated with one another, this suggests a high probability of construct validity/ convergent validity. The WISC-V was also tested for validity for students in special populations such as, intellectually gifted, intellectual disability-mild severity, intellectual disability-moderate severity, borderline intellectual functioning, specific learning disorder-reading, specific learning disorder-reading and written expression, specific learning disorder-mathematics, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, disruptive behavior, traumatic brain injury, English language learners, Autism Spectrum Disorder with language impairment, and Autism Spectrum Disorder without language impairment,” (Canivez & Watkins, 2016). With that exhaustive list of specific student needs, the “evidence from these studies suggests that the WISC-V subtests are internally consistent for a wide variety of clinical groups, and their consistency is comparable to that for non-clinical test-takers,” (Efficacy Research Report, 2018).

Overall, it was determined that the WISC-V is sensitive to the performance differences of learners in varying reference groups. Furthermore, the identified patterns of score differences were consistent within each diagnostic category, thus providing support for the diagnostic utility of the WISC-V in identifying children with learning disabilities, neurodevelopmental disorders, or intellectual giftedness.

The Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement Technical Manual (2014) is a criterion-referenced test in that it “gathers information about student progress or achievement in relation to a specified criteria” (Gottlieb, 2016, p. 202). This type of testing allows for teachers to be able to understand the language abilities of a student and can develop accommodations appropriate for that child. This allows for the test results to be used in an authentic manner and to help students progress in their language skills.

“[a]ll items from the new WJ IV tests underwent extensive pilot testing. After each test item pool was developed, project staff first administered the items to a restricted sample to try out the item format and verify that the item instructions were clear. After any necessary modifications were made, each test was administered to a convenience sample of approximately 100 to 200 examinees from a wide range of ages and abilities. The purpose of this round of pilot testing was to obtain preliminary item difficulty estimates and other item statistics to assess whether further item development or modifications were needed prior to the tryout study”

In addition, “[a] primary goal for the new tests and items was to capture the important aspects of the underlying constructs and cover a wide range of difficulty (construct-representation), while avoiding the measurement of other, confounding abilities (construct-irrelevant variance)” (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p. 43). Mahoney (2014) states that “[f]airness in testing is closely related to bias” (p. 108). The reviewers of the test looked at the content and format of the questions in order to evaluate any “potential bias or sensitivity issues for women, individuals with certain disabilities, and cultural or linguistic minorities” (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p. 43). Included in the technical manual were examples of questions for a reviewer to consider which included whether the item contained language that may not be familiar to certain groups or whether the item assume familiarity with concepts or relationships that may not be familiar to all groups (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p. 44). If any of these items was considered potentially biased it was removed from the pool. Although these tests seem to be able to adequately capture a student’s learning needs it can also cause students to underperform due to limited familiarity with the person conducting the test. If a student is taking the exam with someone they have no contact with outside of that session the student may feel shy or unable to perform adequately due to feeling embarrassed. It is important to be able to provide these testing tools with people the student has familiarity with such as a teacher whom the student sees regularly.

There were many factors considered when administering the exam in specific clinical groups. According to the Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual (2014), [t]he comprehensiveness of the WJ IV battery made it impossible to administer all key tests and clusters to all clinical groups. To reduce examinee response burden, which is a significant concern in clinical groups, a diagnostic group-targeted approach to test selection was used.” (p. 210). The clinical groups included were: “gifted, intellectual disabilities (ID)/mental retardation (MR), learning disabilities (LD; reading, math, and writing), language delay, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), head injury, and autism spectrum disorders (ASD)” (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p. 209). This differentiation across groups allows for positive washback in that it can provide insight into how these different groups test and what accommodations can be made for their identified learning needs. Also, as stated earlier, the test being criterion-referenced also allows for evaluators to be able to assess a student on an individual basis as opposed to comparing them to their peers which allows for a decrease in anxiety and judgement of a student.

However, due to the WJ IV and WISC-V being administered during school hours, it may cause negative washback where students miss important instruction time in the classroom. Many students who may need to be in class all day to be able to grasp material will miss out on important information during this time which can cause them to feel frustrated and fall behind. Students being pulled out of their classes can also cause them to feel singled out or embarrassed by peers.

As mentioned earlier, research was conducted to assess the validity of the WISC-V across varying subsets of the population, including English Language Learners (ELL). For ELL’s, the sample was “50% female, 88% Hispanic, and 13% Asian. 50% of participants had parents with at least 12 years of education, with 6% reporting at least 16 years of parental education. 38% of participants were drawn from the West, 31% from the South, 19% from the Midwest, and 13% from the Northeast.” (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015). Results showed that ELL’s “scored significantly lower than their matched control counterparts on the Verbal Comprehension and Working Memory indices, as well as the Full-Scale IQ” (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015). However, “index scores containing subtests requiring minimal expressive language and reduced receptive language abilities showed no significant differences between groups” (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015). However, it is important to remember that the WISC-V is an instrument normed on children whose primary language is English and these children may come from a variety of cultural backgrounds. It is the overall responsibility of the individual administering the test to determine if the student being assessed is similar enough to those represented in the normative sample. This feat requires familiarity with the WISC-V, its psychometric properties, and its sample, as well as familiarity with the child. Culture plays an important role in an individual’s development and identity formation, which also influences the types of experiences that an individual is exposed to. Socio-Economic status (SES) is also another factor that plays a role in the development of cognitive skills and oftentimes, the differences that are seen on measures of cognitive ability could be attributed to socio-economic status/exposure/access rather than culture.

The data gathered when administering the WJ IV provides a wide range of results in different content areas such as oral, reading and writing; which is useful to obtain a holistic assessment of a student. It appears that the detailed review of reliability as well as validity included in the Technical Manual helps provide a review of how the test was developed and what considerations were applied when it came to student population which included; disabilities, sex, age and several other criterias. The WJ IV was also developed using a large nationally representative sample pool which helped improve the overall structure and reliability of the test. This assessment is a positive tool used as a starting point to be able to assess English Language Learners and although some parts are available in Spanish it is important to also include other languages in order to make the test more inclusive of other language cultures.

Due to the length of the WJ IV it is important to take into consideration the mental state of students as they move along to the different tests. If a student is fatigued towards the end of the test the results may not be as accurate. Juan seemed to become frustrated during certain parts of the exam due to lack of confidence in responding which could have affected his scores although his scores were consistently low. It is important to check in with the students and if needed, they should be able to take a break and resume testing at an appropriate time. In addition, it is important for the test to be administered by people who are part of the school environment in order for student’s to be able to feel comfortable speaking and answering questions which can diminish the probability of a student underperforming.

Part 1: Knowledge of the Student – 15 points

Identify one bi/ multilingual learner in your practice and provide a social history. This may be a forensic review of a student you recently worked with. Analyze any data provided that distinguishes between educational needs, i.e., SIFE evaluations, and language needs. If this data is not available, add your own interpretation of the same in light of your learning of language assessment gleaned from this course. Identify the reasons and data this student was evaluated for special education or related services. Be sure address any labels (mis)used given and used for this student and for what purpose and effect (see Session 2 video and readings).


Guide for Part 1: Knowledge of the Students

(10 points)


1.1. Description of Students’ Backgrounds
: 3 points (1 paragraph description on the classroom, followed by one paragraph description for the student)

Introduce the classroom/ clinical setting information:

1. Bilingual Program or other program and what that means in your school/ setting

2. Grade Level

3. Social Background

4. Any other information important for us to know this student

Include background information for the students (creating a pseudonym for each student) that you will base this assignment on and that may affect interpretation of assessments:

5. Student country/place of origin

6. Home language practices

7. Time in school and/or time in bilingual program at school (education background)

8. Language proficiency levels as determined by school assessments (NYSESLAT, ELA)

9. SIFE testing results (if any are available)

10. Language goals as determined by school assessments or curricula

For reasons of confidentiality, do not give the school or students’ real names but give each student a pseudonym.


1.2. Description of Diagnostic Assessments and Needs: 3 point
(1 paragraph with table, if data is available in this standard format) Include and discuss any data provided by educators or practitioners that helped merit the need for psychoeducational testing. What did it say about the student’s abilities or progress? How did it reveal a need for additional testing? What suspicions were at play?


1.3. Language Learning Needs : 3 points
(1 paragraph)

Write a reflection on this data in light of the student’s language needs and assumed socioemotional and or educational abilities.

1. How was the students’ language capacities in both home and target language considered (i.e., continuum of promise and deficit?)

2. Were language needs and levels overlooked or overgeneralized? Explain.

Additional points for Part 1: An additional 1 point is reserved for correct grammar and readability.


SAMPLE



Part I:

, Jose’s teacher sent home a classroom inquiry questionnaire to obtain background information Jose and his family. In response to a question, Jose’s father responded, “Jose es lento para aprender,” which translates to, Jose is slow to learn. Initially, when Jose entered school, he only knew his vowels.

As a result, the teacher spent time chunking three letter words at a time to gradually build his vocabulary. Due to Jose’s low academic functioning skills, Jose would forget what was learned in school over the weekend. The teacher, who is the only certified bilingual English Language Arts teacher in the district, collaborated with the coach and an advisor to support and teach Jose, however progress was slow and minimal. As such, school staff spoke to Jose’s father about his lack of academic progress and subsequently began a referral for special education services. Jose’s father was receptive to the feedback and during parent teacher conferences, became emotional and urged teachers to help his son. Jose’s father was encouraged to write a letter to CST principal to push for administrator’s request for evaluation. Initially, the evaluation was denied due to systemic barriers across the district. Jose was finally evaluated 2 years after his arrival in the United States.


Jose received private education paid for by his parents in the Dominican Republic. There were suspicions of delays since he was in pre-kindergarten but no formal evaluations were ever conducted. Jose is currently placed in a bilingual transitional program located in New Jersey. Jose has been in a bilingual classroom since he arrived from the Dominican Republic in the summer of 2016. Jose has very limited English language skills and is currently functioning at a 1st grade reading level. In addition, based on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (5th Edition) (WISC-V), Jose has an intelligence quotient (IQ) of 67. As mentioned earlier, after the initial request for referral, there were barriers to perform the evaluation. Mainly, Jose was denied an evaluation due to not having the sufficient length of time in the country, which was said to be at least two years. A request for another special education evaluation was formally obtained in December 2018 and the most recent IEP was finalized in March 2019.

According to Jose’s father and teacher, Jose has poor memory retention and easily forgets information such as his breakfast in his backpack, where the restroom is located, and his locker combination. Jose also has low maturity and enjoys child-like play such as princesses’ and prince’s. Jose was referred for a speech and language bilingual assessment due to lack of academic progress despite intense intervention in the last two and a half years since he has been in school.

Jose is a very well-kept child who is well liked by his teachers and peers. Jose enjoys school, learning new things, and applies genuine effort in his studies. In addition, Jose considers the needs of others and often brings food for his teacher. In the classroom, Jose’s peers understand thats he has learning difficulties and often help him with tasks. Due to vulnerability of Jose’s socio-emotional health as a result of limited skills, he is in need of positive reinforcement, reminders, one-on-one guidance with tasks, routines, and classroom procedures.

As per Jose’s IEP, his speech and language goals are to correctly respond to “WH” questions when read one to three spoken sentences, improve narrative discourse by retelling a story containing story grammar elements and demonstrating his understanding of the main idea. Lastly, he will develop vocabulary by labeling and categorizing objects, pictures and verbal information. Due to Jose’s limited English language skills, part of his assessment such as the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamental was administered in Spanish to assess his receptive and expressive skills and overall understanding.

Name: Melissa Genao OSSIS: 225356146

Date of Birth: 01/16/2007 Age: 15

Parent: Rosa Martinez Telephone: (646) 250-4985

Address: 350 Gerard Ave. Apt 2N. County: Bronx

Bronx, NY 10451

Interviewer: Wanda Pena, MSW Date Of Report: 02/14/202This report is part of a comprehensive re-evaluation for additional Special Education Services requested by the parent due to concerns with the student’s academic performance. Upon her mother’s referral, Melissa was referred to the School Based Support Team to determine whether she would qualify for additional support. According to Ms. Martinez, her daughter requires support with all subjects in school. She reportedly has difficulty completing her classwork and homework. Ms. Yudith Martinez, Melissa’s parent, conducted the interview in Spanish. The home language is listed as Spanish in ATS, and she reported feeling comfortable continuing in Spanish. Comment by Anel Suriel: When? What supports is she asking for? Comment by Anel Suriel: Only one space per APA 7

Melissa is a 15.0-year-old verbal, ambulatory, petite girl of Hispanic descendent with long dark brown eyes and dark brown hair. She was dressed neatly and appropriate. In addition, present at this evaluation was Melissa’s mother, Yudith Martinez. Due to COVID-19 pandemic, this evaluation was conducted via teleconferencing. Melissa presented with a cooperative, and pleasant demeanor. She willingly answered the questions posed to her by this clinician. Melissa’s mother provided the majority of the information obtained for this evaluation. Melissa presented with good receptive and expressive language skills. Melissa’s mother provided the majority of the information obtained for this evaluation. Melissa presented with good receptive and expressive language skills. Comment by Anel Suriel: Do you think this impacts the intake?

Melissa resides in a two-bedroom apartment located in the South Bronx. She has been living there for almost 12 years. Her mother considers the neighborhood to be fairly safe. Melissa has her own bedroom. Also residing there is Melissa’s mother, Yudith Martinez (42). Melissa’s mother is a social worker for a transitional foster care agency. She is pre-diabetic and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism. Melissa has a close relationship with her mother. Comment by Anel Suriel: Do you think this helps her advocate for her daughter?

Melissa is currently enrolled at Cooke School and Institute. She has been enrolled at this school for about 7 years. She is in a 12:1:1 special education program. According to her IEP dated 10/12/21, she is classified as having “Other Health impairment” She receives speech therapy (individual and group), occupational therapy (individual and group) and counseling (individual and group). She receives hearing education services and has the use of an FM Unit at school. She also use her hearing aids at home.

Melissa’s school has a proficient level scale to provide students grades. The scale is defined as follows: 0 – Did Not Demonstrate Skill. 1 – Is developing the behavior or skill, 2 – Demonstrates the behavior or skill inconsistently, 3 – Demonstrates the behavior or skill most of the time, 4 – Demonstrates the behavior or skill consistently. 5 – Demonstrated Skill Independently. In addition, Scale: A=Always, U=Usually, S=Sometimes, N=Needs Improvement. These scales are used for all subjects. Melissa’s grades levels are as follows; Counseling (2), Speech, Language and Occupational Therapy (2), English Language Arts (3), Explorations in Mathematics (3), American History (3), Explorations in Sciences (3-4), Technology (4), Gym (4-5), Adaptive skills (5), Movement (A), Comment by Anel Suriel: Seems like she is doing well academically for the most part. Why does mom say she is struggling?

During the semester multiple classroom observations was conducted to monitor Melissa’s learning and to provide feedback. It was observed that Melissa works well during class following a checklist of to do things to complete the class. Melissa brings creativity and personal connections into the classroom. She is sometimes willing to participate and engages in class discussion and work though at times she can be seen falling asleep. She works collaboratively with her peers and participates in small group activities. She is able to complete her assignments with little to some support. Comment by Anel Suriel: My previous comment applies here as well.

Melissa loves spending time with her maternal extended family members. She likes to design dresses. She loves any activities related to arts and crafts. She loves to play with slime. One of Melissa’s strengths is that she is friendly and is very social. She is cooperative. She loves to help others, especially younger children. Comment by Anel Suriel: This is welcomed info. Has it been incorporated into her IEP as she transitions to adulthood?

Melissa is well behaved at home and at school. However, she is immature for her age. She becomes frustrated when she is not able to keep up with her typically developing peers. She responds by crying. At times, she is resistant to wearing her hearing aids because she does not want to look different from her peers. Melissa is verbal. However, her pronunciation is sometimes unclear due to her hearing impairment. Melissa is friendly and enjoys socializing. Due to her immaturity, she tends to prefer socializing with younger children.

Melissa has some issues concerning hand strength and balance. This is due to the side effects from a brain surgery she underwent in July 2011. Melissa has good sleeping habits. Her bedtime is 10:00 PM on school nights and she wakes up at 6:00 AM on school mornings. She sleeps through the night.

Melissa is a very picky eater and tends to prefer unhealthy foods. She eats three meals per day and snacks in between meals. Her favorite foods are McDonalds, and pizza. Melissa can become itchy if she eats food containing red 45 dye. If she eats, an excessive amount of red 45 dye can trigger an eczema outbreak. However, this has not occurred in over 10 years.

Melissa’s mother reported that her pregnancy was uneventful for the majority of time. However, she developed preeclampsia during the delivery. Melissa was delivered via natural childbirth, during the 38th week of gestation, at New York Presbyterian Hospital, Allen Pavilion. She weighed 7.2 pounds. Melissa began crawling when she was 4 months old, sat up on her own when she was 6 months old. Melissa began talkitve when she was about 6 months old. She began walking when she was 13 months old. She was fully toilet trained when she was about 3 ½ years old. Melissa was first evaluated when she was 26 months old and was diagnosed with developmental delays. She received early intervention services until she was 3 years old. After this, she stayed home under the supervision of her maternal grandmother and did not attend daycare and/or preschool. When Melissa was 4.5 years old, she was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. More details will be provided in the Medical section of this evaluation. Melissa attended the Immaculate Conception School in the Bronx for kindergarten. She received speech therapy, occupational therapy and SETSS. She remained at this school until she was completed the second grade (which she repeated, due to academic difficulties). She has been attending her present school since the third grade. Melissa was diagnosed with mild high frequency damage of both ears (because of chemotherapy) when she was almost 5 years old. Comment by Anel Suriel: Might not be really needed at this point. However, I notice that you haven’t address her languaging abilities and needs—nor academic needs really other than her grades. Comment by Anel Suriel: She is a survivor! So many challenges so young…!

Both of Melissa’s parents are of Hispanic descent. Melissa’s mother was born in the United States but grew up in the Dominican Republic. Melissa’s father, Barbino Genao (42), was born in the Dominican Republic. He resides in Massachusetts. He maintains a positive relationship with Melissa, although they do not have see each other often. Melissa has a 19-year­ old sister by her father. She lives in Massachusetts and has occasional contact with Melissa.

Melissa’s maternal grandmother resides in the Bronx and is very involved with Melissa’s care. Melissa’s maternal grandfather resides in the Dominican Republic. Melissa’s paternal grandmother resides in Massachusetts. Melissa’s paternal grandfather is deceased. There is a history of high blood pressure and diabetes on the maternal side of Melissa’s family. One of Melissa’s paternal great aunts was diagnosed with some type of developmental disability. There is no reported history of drug or alcohol abuse on either side of Melissa’s family.

Melissa is dependent on her mother to meet her needs. Melissa’s mother receives a lot of support from her extended family and friends. She does not receive any funded services or government benefits. Melissa’s mother would like her to receive care management and community habilitation services. She would like Melissa to attend extracurricular activities.

Melissa is verbal and ambulatory. Sometimes, she requires verbal prompting about bathing and brushing her teeth, appropriate clothing. She is independent concerning dressing herself. Melissa is able to tell time with a digital clock. She is not able to tell time with an analog clock. She reads on an early elementary school level. Melissa is dependent about traveling via bus or subway. She understands the function of money. She requires verbal prompting to check for the correct change. Melissa rarely uses the stove and requires supervision when she does so. She can make Ramen Noodles. She is independent with regards to using the microwave oven. She is independent with regards to making a simple snack or a sandwich. Melissa requires verbal prompting with regards to making her bed. She is dependent with regards to washing dishes, cleaning her room and doing her laundry.y.

Marie, it’s clear you see and consider all aspects of the child when creating these social histories, However, the task and class ask you to consider impact to language as connected to educational achievement. Hone in on these aspects only and eliminate the rest if you feel that they do not impact her languaging and academics.

To give you some support, consider the following questions and see the following article by María Cioè Peña who studies the intersection of dis/abilities and language: https://blmtraue.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2017/02/24/who-is-excluded-from-inclusion-points-of-union-and-division-in-bilingual-and-special-education/

1) What are Melissa’s languages? Are they addressed in school?

2) Do Melissa’s dis/abilities and educational services support or inhibit her bi/multilingualism? How is her bi/multilingualism addressed in her educational services—if at all? How should they be addressed to support her multiple identities?

3) How do her educational experiences support her languaging needs? In what language(s)? How should they/ could they be addressed?



(Feel free to pull from MCP’s work to think through these issues)

Needs help with similar assignment?

We are available 24x7 to deliver the best services and assignment ready within 3-4 hours? Order a custom-written, plagiarism-free paper

Get Answer Over WhatsApp Order Paper Now