Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
The Portage Guide: Birth to Six
Transcript of The Portage Guide: Birth to Six
Birth to Six What is it? Research be conducted and published
Items be more detailed and tiered (so if the main goal isn't yet met there are steps provided to show prerequisite skills needed)
Items be expanded to show more strengths and allow for more focused instruction for interventions
Provide a user-friendly website with online resources and tools to assist in delivering the assessment and developing instruction [The website does provide a caveat that they are working on improving their website (Portage Project, 2012).]
Professional development offered
Training on how to use the TOP
Training on how to use results
Market this as a Progress/Performance Monitoring tool
This tool allows for quick monitoring of an entire class
It is easy for a teacher to see which students are struggling in an area and to use that information to plan instruction Recommendations Curriculum Based Assessment (CBA)
Serves children birth through six years
Informal, functional assessment tool
Strength-based and ecological process
Relationship-based and family-focused
Guide for teachers and parents
All aspects include families
Supports learning through various developmental domains Barakat, R., Drylie, L., & Nash, J. (2004). The Portage Project: An overview of a model for early childhood education. Retrieved from: faculty.unlv.edu/jgelfer/ece707/ theportageproject(group).doc.
Bagnato, S.J., Neisworth, J.T.,Pretti-Frontczak, K. (2010). LINKing authentic assessment and early childhood intervention: Best measures for best practices. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Grisham-Brown, J.L. & Pretti-Frontczak, K. (Eds.). (2010). Assessing young children in inclusive settings: The blended practices approach. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Larson, N., Herwig, J., Wollenburg, K., Olsen, E., Bowe, W., Chvojicek, R., . . .Benish, D. (2003). New Portage Guide birth to six, "User's Guide". Portage, WI: Cooperative Educational Service Agency 5.
Portage Project. (2012). Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/a/cesa5.org/portage-project/home. Components Tools for Observation Planning
Activity/Interaction Card Set
User's Guide Cons Website offers little training or information on using the tool
There is no technology to accompany this tool
No research has been conducted
i.e.: no validity
Activity cards are written from child's point-of-view
Low sensitivity (almost dichotomous)
Does not include content area objectives (like pre-math or reading)
Item strands are too narrow Pros Tools for
(TOP) Developmental Areas
Exploration/Approaches to learning
Purposeful Motor Activity
Sensory Organization This tool guides the user through gathering data on children in several domains according to specific age ranges: Age Ranges
Young Infant: Birth to 9 months
Mobile Infant: 9 to 18 months
Toddlers: 18 to 36 months
Three to Four years
Four to Five years
Five to Six years Research According to Bagnato, Neisworth, and Pretti-Frontczak (2010), there is no published research on this assessment tool.
In April 2013 we conducted a search of academic databases and did not find that any research has been published since 2010. Easy to follow User's Guide
Good for progress monitoring of individual student or entire class
Provides Authentic Assessment
Easy for families to follow
Easy for families to use
Covers all developmental domains
Fairly Inexpensive ($150 for entire kit) (Barakat, Drylie, & Nash, 2004; Larson, et al., 2003) Uses Progress monitoring
Observational assessment data collection
Plan instruction to match development
Develop family partnerships
Log group summary information
Used in variety of settings
infant programs References CBA Rating Rubric (Grisham-Brown & Pretti-Frontczak, 2011, p.175-180) Scored 15/36
Alignment with standards: Low
Collaboration/Family Involvement: High
Comprehensive Coverage: Low
Equitable Design: Moderate
Professional Development: Very Low
Sensitivity: Very Low
Useful for Interventions: Moderate
Validity: None (Larson, et al., 2003) (Barakat, Drylie, & Nash, 2004) Alignment with Standards Collaboration Comprehensive Coverage Equitable Design Family Involvement Multifactors Professional Development Reliability Sensitivity Technology Usefulness for Intervention Validity The objectives in this assessment do not align with any state or federal standards, but it is evident that they could be. The entire assessment process (initial testing through instruction planning) involves all team members, including the families. (We had a positive experience working as a team and involving the child's mother.) The assessment covers all developmental domain areas, but does not cover content areas. The developmental domains could be more detailed and include more skill sets and tiers. This tool does allow children to express their competence through a variety of forms (verbal, gestures, drawing, etc.) and modifications may be made to assist the child in expressing their competence. Families are encouraged to participate in the assessment process and to provide information about their routines that will aid in planning instruction. Children are observed around familiar people in familiar settings. However, this assessment is conducted in a single setting and time frame rather than across time periods. The materials (print and web) offer little training on how to deliver the assessment and use the information gathered. Children's scores can vary within short amounts of time in between assessments. This tool does not have an adequate amount of objectives to determine extreme levels of functioning and the scores are nearly dichotomous. This tool does not use any electronic elements. (There is a website that offers little to no assistance with the tool, rather it is merely a place to order the kit.) The data collected from this assessment can be used to identify strengths and areas of need and does offer a teacher/family collaboration form in which ideas for instruction can be listed for the classroom and at home.
However, the age ranges of this assessment are so broad (ex. 18-36 months) and the items are so general it is hard to pinpoint exactly where interventions should occur. There is no published research or evidence on the validity of this tool as a means for assessment. Debbie Remley and Allyson Roach
SPED 63957 | Spring 2013