Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Assessment Type
Developed in the early 20th century, the Stanford-Binet is one of the most commonly used formal assessments measuring cognitive functioning. While it is a general assessment test instrument, the Stanford-Binet is commonly used as a means by which to screen children for exceptionalities in specific types of cognitive functioning. The specific types of cognitive functioning the Stanford-Binet test measures include memory, cognitive, processing, and general intelligence (“When Is the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale Not Valid?,” n.d.). Because the Stanford-Binet test measures general cognitive functioning along certain core parameters, it may not be the most reliable means by which to evaluate the potential for specific learning, intellectual, or developmental disabilities. Nevertheless, the Stanford-Binet is among the most reputable and valid assessment tests of cognitive functioning used in education and psychology. In fact, the Stanford-Binet measures cognitive functioning in various categories including verbal and non-verbal communication, which also allows the instrument to be used as an initial means of formally assessing students (“When Is the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale Not Valid?,” n.d.). The Stanford-Binet can be used as an aptitude test, too, and has also been efficacious in use for identifying learning disabilities or giftedness to help with individualized education planning (“When Is the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale Not Valid?,” n.d.).
Grade Level
The grade level observed was the fourth grade, a class size of 45 children at a suburban elementary school.
Disability Category
The classroom was a blended general education classroom in which the special education instructor cooperatively taught with the general education teacher. Disability categories that were represented in the student body in the classroom included physical disabilities (including two students with motor dysfunction and one with hearing impairments), developmental disabilities as yet unspecified, and some students who through Response to Intervention had been flagged for possible intellectual or learning disabilities. Therefore, the Stanford-Binet test was administered to a diverse classroom to students who had already been diagnosed with specific disabilities and those who had not.
Service Delivery Model
As per the typical standards for administering the Stanford-Binet test, the special education teacher had acknowledged that it would take more than two hours. However, some students were given pared-down versions of the Stanford-Binet because they had already taken the test and had not exhibited any special needs. Several students had been set aside for the administration of sub-tests. Those sub-tests included the quantitative processing module, pattern analysis, and vocabulary portion of the Stanford-Binet cluster. The special education instructor selected these sub-tests based on the preliminary assessments—the informal assessments—completed by the general education teachers.
Evaluation of Location
The location for the administration of the Stanford-Binet test was an ordinary classroom in the suburban elementary school. There was nothing out of the ordinary in the location; there were no distractions either in terms of light or sound, and none of the students seemed to be uncomfortable. Windows provided some natural lighting, but the room used fluorescent lights. Posters and student drawings adorned the wall.
Teacher Reactions
The special education teacher and the general education teacher administered the Stanford-Binet test together, each taking turns talking to the students. Both teachers seemed to take their roles seriously, and because both had more than five years of experience administering the Stanford-Binet, seemed confident and assertive in iterating the instructions and helping...…Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI). RTI methods are also grounded in federal law and are applicable in situations like these in which general education teachers recognize the ways different students react to the test taking environment (Kame’enui, 2007). Because RTI is also an evidence-based practice, it can and should become more actively incorporated into special education pedagogy. As Zirkel (2007) also points out, general education teachers can use RTI in order to become more aware of the gamut of presenting symptoms that may indicate the presence of a cluster of disabilities including intellectual, developmental, and psychological issues—as well as physical issues that impact a student’s ability to learn or function in the classroom. The gap between aptitude and achievement should also be noted through the RTI process, and via the interpretation of the results of standardized tests like the Stanford-Binet. When a student has multiple types of disabilities, it may be difficult for the general education teacher to understand how to best approach the situation, which is why the special education teacher provides support and assistance.
The complexity of issues in special education warrants a great deal of compassion for special education teachers. As valid and reliable as standardized and formal assessments are, students need to be appreciated from a holistic standpoint, never reduced to the results of any one instrument. Ongoing assessments and observations allow all teachers, counselors, and caregivers to contribute information regarding observations of the child’s performance and changes in behavioral responses to interventions. As the child progresses through their educational and developmental cycle, the same assessment instrument can be administered to reveal progress or to imply necessary changes to the IEP.…
References
Braden, J.P. & Elliott, S.N. (2003). Accommodations on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, Assessment Service Bulletin Number 2. Riverside: Houghton Mifflin.
Daniel, P.T.K. (2008). “Some benefit” or “Maximum Benefit.” Journal of Law and Education 37(3): 347-365.
Kame’enui, E.J. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children 39(5): 6-7.
Mahdavi, A. & Zkamkari, K. (2016). The diagnostic validity of new version of Tehran-Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale in students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies 2356(5926).
“When is the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale Not Valid?” (n.d.). Bright Hub Education. https://www.brighthubeducation.com/special-ed-learning-disorders/13503-when-is-the-stanford-binet-intelligence-scale-not-valid/
Zirkel, P.A. (2009). What does the law say? Teaching Exceptional Children 41(4): 68-71.
"By the 1980s, the field had moved to a functional skills model. As the evidence for this approach mounted, the field refocused on age appropriate skills and knowledge performed in authentic settings and the functional life skills curriculum became best practice. The functional, age-appropriate curricular focus resulted in these students demonstrating skills and knowledge not thought possible earlier" (Quenemoen, 2008). In the 1990s, added significant new practices were acknowledged as
Thus, efforts aimed at helping teachers to avoid harmful stereotyping of students often begin with activities designed to raise teachers' awareness of their unconscious biases." (1989) Cotton goes on the relate that there are specific ways in which differential expectations are communicated to students according to the work of: "Brookover, et al. (1982); Brophy (1983); Brophy and Evertson (1976); Brophy and Good (1970); Cooper and Good (1983); Cooper and
It would not only be time consuming and expensive for each classroom teacher to develop an effective basic reading skills curriculum but such a curriculum is also fraught with a high degree of error. There is compelling evidence that supports the use of scripted programs rather than teacher-developed approaches to teach complex skills (Benner, 2005). Second, apply positive behavioral supports to manage the behaviors of students with behavioral difficulties during
In their study, "Thinking of Inclusion for All Special Needs Students: Better Think Again," Rasch and his colleagues (1994) report that, "The political argument in favor of inclusion is based on the assumption that the civil rights of students, as outlined in the 1954 decision handed down in Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down the concept of 'separate but equal,' can also be construed as applying to special
These are the students who are suffering from sort of problem; it may be a cognitive disorder, a memory problem, a writing problem, or some sort of physical problem that does not allow him to cope with the burden of the educational system without special help and instruction, or anything else. The proponents of the exit exams also state that unless students are held to certain high standards, it
Just as physically impaired students receive the benefit of appropriate testing accommodations, so should all special needs students. Ultimately, imposing certain minimal standards of overall academic achievement in connection with graduation may, in fact, serve a beneficial purpose. However, in order to do so, it must employ standards and methods that do not unfairly penalize special education students or the educational institutions that serve them. References Bush, T., and Amundson, E. "Should