|
Functional Behavior Assessment
|
|
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Functional Behavior Assessment
Just from $13/Page
|
Early childhood teachers will encounter children with behaviors that are not within the typical realm of development for that age. To assist in meeting the needs of these children, teachers can collect data and conduct a Functional Behavior Assessment as a foundation to develop a plan to address the behaviors.
Read “Student Scenario: Mark” to inform the assignment.
Based on the information and data in the case study, complete a Functional Behavior Assessment for the student using the provided template.
In addition, identify two research-based interventions that would be appropriate for the student described. If the intervention ideas from your RTI Graphic Organizer assignment are applicable, you may use them.
In a 500-word summary, rationalize your intervention choices and Functional Behavior Assessment choices.
Support your findings with 2-3 scholarly resources.
|
Clinical Field Experience C: Functional Behavior Assessment Processes
|
Allocate at least 6 hours in the field to support this assignment.
Observe an early childhood classroom that includes children with exceptionalities, paying attention to behaviors that may require a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA). Observing an inclusive or resource room is acceptable. Additionally, interview one or more school administrators (i.e., principal, school psychologist) about FBA processes and best practices.
Your interview should address the following questions:
· Regarding a Functional Behavior Assessment, who usually observes the student and collects the data?
· Is the student observed in more than one environment?
· Is information from the parent included in the data collection? How is the data collected?
· What are some of the most common behaviors you have observed?
· How are the FBA results used to make decisions about children’s development and learning?
· How is consistency regarding behavior management promoted throughout the school?
· How are expectations communicated throughout the school?
Rubic_Print_Format
| Course Code |
Class Code |
Assignment Title |
Total Points |
| ECS-550 |
ECS-550-O500 |
Functional Behavior Assessment |
80.0 |
|
| Criteria |
Percentage |
No Submission (0.00%) |
Insufficient (69.00%) |
Approaching (74.00%) |
Acceptable (87.00%) |
Target (100.00%) |
Comments |
Points Earned |
Criteria
| 100.0% |
| Functional Behavior Assessment [CEC S4.4, NAEYC 3b; InTASC 6(b), 6(k)] |
35.0% |
|
|
|
| Not addressed. |
Functional Behavior Assessment for the case study student is inappropriate or incomplete. |
Functional Behavior Assessment for the student described in the scenario is lacking detail. Case study information and data were not adequately incorporated. |
Functional Behavior Assessment is complete and relevant, clearly using case study information and data. |
Functional Behavior Assessment is professional and comprehensively uses case study information and data. |
| Research-Based Student Interventions [CEC S4.5, NAEYC 3c; InTASC 2(b), 2(h), 6(l)] |
25.0% |
Not addressed.
Research-based interventions for the case study student are inappropriate or incomplete. |
Research-based interventions for the case study student are lacking clarity and definition, or are not ideal choices for the student. |
Appropriate research-based interventions for the case study student described are clearly presented. |
Exceptional, well researched interventions for the case study student are professionally presented. |
| Summary [CEC S4.5, NAEYC 3c; InTASC 2(b), 2(h), 6(l)] |
20.0% |
Not addressed.
Summary for intervention choices in the Functional Behavior Assessment poorly explains how decisions support the development and learning of the case study student. |
Summary for intervention choices in the Functional Behavior Assessment provides a marginal validation of how decisions support the development and learning of the case study student. |
Summary for intervention choices in the Functional Behavior Assessment provides a sound reasoning of how decisions directly support the development and learning of the case study student. |
Summary for intervention choices in the Functional Behavior Assessment provides a compelling justification of how decisions directly support the development and learning of the case study student. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
| 10.0% |
Not addressed.
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. |
Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension. A variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some practice and content-related language. |
Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related language. Sentence structures are varied and engaging. |
| Format and Documentation of Sources (layout, citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) |
10.0% Not addressed.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting and citation errors are present. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. |
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style. Format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage |
100% |
Rubic_Print_Format
| Course Code |
Class Code |
Assignment Title |
Total Points |
| ECS-550 |
ECS-550-O500 |
Clinical Field Experience C: Functional Behavior Assessment Processes |
30.0 |
|
| Criteria |
Percentage |
No Submission (0.00%) |
Insufficient (69.00%) |
Approaching (74.00%) |
Acceptable (87.00%) |
Target (100.00%) |
Comments |
Points Earned |
Criteria
| 100.0% |
| FBA Processes Interview Summary [CEC S4.5, NAEYC 3c; InTASC 2(b), 2(h), 6(l)] |
30.0% |
|
|
| Not addressed. |
Summary is weak with little or irrelevant detail of FBA processes interview content. |
Summary of FBA processes interview content is overly simplistic. |
Sound summary of FBA processes interview content is provided, with appropriate detail. |
Summary of FBA processes interview content is proficient and presents outstanding details. |
| Interview and Future Professional Practice Reflection [CEC S4.5, NAEYC 3c; InTASC 2(b), 2(h), 6(l)] |
40.0% |
Not addressed.
Vague or irrelevant reflection of interview and application to future professional practice is provided. |
Interview and future professional practice reflection is overly simplistic. |
Reflection of interview and application to future professional practice is sound and provides reference to support the premises made. |
Reflection of interview and application to future professional practice is thorough, with insightful reasoning. |
| Organization |
10.0% |
Not addressed.
An attempt is made to organize the content, but the sequence is indiscernible. The ideas presented are compartmentalized and may not relate to each other; or the summary is widely outside of the required word count. |
The content is not adequately organized even though it provides the audience with a sense of the main idea. The summary may not be within a reasonable range of the required word count. |
The content is logically organized. The ideas presented relate to each other. The content provides the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary is within a reasonable range of the required word count. |
The content is well-organized and logical. There is a sequential progression of ideas that relate to each other. The content is presented as a cohesive unit and provides the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary is within the required word count. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
20.0% |
Not addressed.
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. |
Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension. A variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some practice and content-related language. |
Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related language. Sentence structures are varied and engaging. |
| Total Weightage |
100% |
