EDUC 11: Student Teaching

Classroom Action

Research

EVALUATING CHILDREN WITH AUTISM (CWA) WITH DIFFERENT FUNCTIONING LEVELS

_________________________

An Action Research Presented to the FacultyOf the COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

154

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

University of Southeastern PhilippinesDavao City

_______________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

SubjectEduc 11-

Student Teaching

_____________________

GAIL ANGELA T. MONTEZA

March 2013

155

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

Introduction

A major controversy among autism and parents of

children with autism involves the distinction between

high-functioning autism and low-functioning autism.

There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the

terminology, simply because of how vague it really is.

What exactly is “low functioning” or “high functioning”?

Is it to be measured the same as the wattage of a light

bulb or the complex calculable abilities of a computer?

For many people, as it pertains to Autism, it can simply

be the difference between speaking and not speaking. For

others it can be a difference in perceived IQ levels.

The levels of functioning of Children with Autism

are most often judged according to scores on specific

tests of IQ, assessments and developmental level at a

specific time. Below is a summary of the most common

professional and lay assumptions about the differences

between Low-Functioning Autism and High-Functioning

Autism with an explanation of the controversy surrounding

them.

156

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

Low-functioning means having an IQ below 70 (or 85,

sometimes). This is one of several pretty official

distinctions being made. A problem with this

distinction is that it is often hard to measure IQ

in people with autism: some people may seem high-

functioning at first, but their IQ drops as they age

because of increased developmental demands. Others'

IQ jumps by sometimes as many as 50 points as they

learn to use a communication modality that others

understand. In the Netherlands, autistics whose IQ

can be assessed as being in the mentally retarded

range, are considered autistic as well as mentally

retarded, so they essentially have two disabilities

that may influence each other and each influence the

person's functioning.

Low-functioning means non-verbal. This is the other

kind of official definition. The only thing it omits

to say, is that non-verbal does not necessarily mean

unable to communicate. Speech, after all, may not be

communication, and communication does not need to

157

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

mean speech, since many autistics learn to use

alternative communication methods.

High-functioning autistics live independently, while

low-functioning autistics don't. Many factors

contribute to an autistic's ability to live

independently. Of course, an intellectual or

communicative disability may make it harder, but so

does severe executive dysfunction or the risk of

certain behavior problems or mental health issues.

The concept of independent living is also oftentimes

wrongly perceived as black-or-white: some people

live independently, but do get home support, or they

live in settings with 24-hour assistance but still

have their own apartment, or they live with their

parents till age 30.

As with so much in the world of autism, the

definition of a good educational program depends upon the

needs of the individual child. Thus, while there are

certain elements that are likely to be positive for any

158

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

child with autism, the bottom line is all about your

child's individual strengths and challenges, and whether

they "click" with their teacher and setting.

Gradually, children with autism are always referred

in self-contained class situations. A self-contained

class is located within a regular education school, a

full day or mostly full day class or program for children

with disabilities, usually composed of children in the

same categorical grouping who cannot be educated

appropriately in a regular classroom; characterized by

highly individualized, closely supervised specialized

instruction.

As with the situation of this study, this paper

describes about the situation of a Grade 1 – Self-

contained CWA (Children with Autism) class in Davao City

Special School, Bangkal, Davao City. The study has been

carried out to 14 CWA students with 4 ADHD students—which

are also included in the class—with different functioning

levels, thus, as what the researcher have observed,

evaluation has been a problem in this class.

159

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

In terms with their evaluation, because of having

different functional level in one class, it is not suited

to all of the different needs of each student of the

class. Moreover, students lose their attention in

learning because for some students, it is difficult for

them, and for the rest, it is too easy. And so, the

researcher opt to have this case studied to find ways of

helping these students to learn with uniformity of the

topic with their classmates in spite of having different

exceptionality and level of functioning.

Research Questions

The researcher’s groundwork as a Pre-service teacher

at Davao City Special School exposed that evaluating the

students with different functional level with the same

level of difficulty is a big hindrance upon achieving

one’s goal of the topic of a particular day. In addition,

teachers entertain only those students who can cope with

the lesson well and regret the other students who cannot.

160

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

To help students to learn the lesson with uniformity and

to reach one’s goal for each student, the researcher

decided to suggest and implement strategies to solve this

problem. Separate sheets of evaluation and activities

with different levels of difficulty can help the students

learn the lesson with ease. And to optimize their

learning, attention is the key to it. Games and

Psychomotor activities can make the lesson interesting.

The following are the research questions :

1. What is the effect of having the same evaluation for

all the students with different functioning levels?

2. What is the effect of having varied evaluation which

is appropriate for the different level of functioning of

each student?

3. To what degree did the course of action of having

varied evaluation and activities for each student improve

their learning?

161

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

Review of Related Literature

Autism is a disability that can present itself so

differently in different individuals. According to Rudy

(2011) in her article entitled “ The Difference Between

Autism” , the differences a teacher, a parent, a therapist

and even a doctor can experience are the differences in

physical symptoms, the difference in onset of the

disorder, and the differences in functional or

functioning levels. Now, this action research will focus

on the evaluation of learners with autism with different

functioning levels. Wilson (2006) sorts out the

different levels of autism into three categories: Mild,

Moderate, and Severe and its subtypes: Asperger’s

syndrome, Classic autism, PDD-NOS (Pervasive

Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified), Rett’s

syndrome, and Child Disintegrative Disorder. This

research only focuses on one problem and one goal. The

problem is that the researcher cannot evaluate the

learners with autism with different functioning levels

162

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

(high- functioning and low- functioning) at the same time

and the goal is to evaluate them in a fair way without

discriminating their functioning level.

There have been relatively few studies about the

evaluation of learners with autism. A study was conducted

by Hunt & Goetz (1997) who initiated the inclusion-model

of students with disability to general classrooms, in

evaluating academic outcomes for Children with Autism

(CWA) as an educational placement and had a result

wherein after they have ‘included’ learners with autism,

they found out that the parents of the learners perceived

the outcome of the inclusion more on the social,

behavioral, and emotional functioning skill of their

children rather than the specific academic skill

improvements.

Another study by Harris, Handleman, Gordon, Bass, &

Kristoff (1990) that compared five children with autism

in a segregated preschool classroom, another five

children with autism in an inclusive classroom, and four

typically- developing peers to measure their language

163

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

ability before and after exposure to the specified

fields. The result revealed that there was no significant

difference to either case after the experiment. In line

with this, Harrower (1999) added that the result was

generally interpreted as supporting the educational

inclusion- model since segregated educational placements

or regular classes are alleged to provide more intensive

educational opportunities for students with disabilities.

Unlike with the study of Hunt & Goetz (1997), where

they tested and measured the language ability of the

learners with autism, the researcher of this study

evaluates the mathematical or the logical ability of the

students with autism. Miller (1998) states that things

that can be manipulated and visuals has been an effective

instructional material for students with disabilities in

her study entitled “ Math Intervention For A Student With Autism.” She

also added that “students seem to benefit from methods, which lead

from the concrete, to the semi- concrete, and to the abstract level.”

With all of these studies supporting this action

research, the researcher of this study will solve the

164

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

problem of evaluating learners with autism with different

functioning levels.

Research Approach

The researcher used the Participatory action

research approach since the researcher is part of the

research as the facilitator of the students. (Reason,

1994; van Meel, 1993 ) defines a Participatory action

research approach as a set of approaches to research on

social systems in which the researcher actively engage in

the process under investigation or observation.

As the facilitator and an observer at the same time,

the researcher implemented the research beginning with

motivating them through a game. The researcher then went

on identifying the students who belong to a.) Low

functioning level; and b.) High functioning level through

a diagnostic test in the Math subject with an average

level. The researcher conducted a diagnostic test first

because it is impossible to know a student’s functioning

level by just mere observation only and that the records

of these students are very sensitive and confidential.

165

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

After the researcher has identified the students in their

respective level, a tally was produced and after a day,

the intervention or the action was implemented.

During the second day, the researcher then proceeded

with the action plan starting with a game first to

motivate the students to answer. The researcher then gave

the students an intervention that was appropriate with

their functioning level. The test was still related to

the diagnostic test however, for this time it was varied

according to functioning level. The researcher then gave

them their respective tests and collected their papers

and checked it. After checking it, another tally was

produced showing the improvement of the students after

the intervention.

166

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

Data Collection Tools

The researcher made use of the diagnostic test:

This tool was used to determine Low-functioning and High-functioning students. After determining the studentsthese tools were used for intervention.

For Low functioning CWA students:

167

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

For High-functioning CWA students:

168

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

Data Analysis

Table 1 shows the number of students with their

respective functioning level classification during the

diagnostic test. The results showed that after an average

level test was administered, the students who are in the

low- functioning level had low scores compared to the

students in the high- functioning level.

Table 1. The identified students and theirclassification

Student FunctioningLevel

Score / 8

Student 1 High 7

Student 2 Low 3

Student 3 High 6

Student 4 Low 3

Student 5 Low 2

Student 6 High 7

Student 7 Low 4

Student 8 High 7

Student 9 Low 3

Student 10 Low 2

Student 11 High 6

169

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

Student 12 Low 4

Student 13 High 7

Student 14 Low 3

After the intervention, this table was tallied and

produced. Table 2 shows the result of the students after

being given appropriate tests for their respective

levels. Table 2 shows the improvement of the students

after being given an appropriate test for their level.

Table 2. The comparison of the Diagnosis and Intervention scores

Student FunctioningLevel

Diagnosis / 8

Intervention/ 8

Student 1 High 7 8

Student 2 Low 3 7

Student 3 High 6 6

Student 4 Low 3 6

Student 5 Low 2 6

Student 6 High 7 7

Student 7 Low 4 7

Student 8 High 7 8

170

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

Student 9 Low 3 6

Student 10 Low 2 6

Student 11 High 6 7

Student 12 Low 4 6

Student 13 High 7 6

Student 14 Low 3 7

Conclusion:

The following conclusions are derived after the

research:

1. During the diagnostic test without discriminating

the functioning levels of the participants, the

students in the low- functioning level had low

scores because the test that was given to them was

too advanced for them and it is obviously not

appropriate for their level. However, the students

171

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

in the high- functioning group didn’t show any sign

of difficulty considering that the diagnostic test

was in an average level. An assessment that’s too

easy for the students isn’t good too.

2. After the participants have been classified and

identified according to their respective functioning

levels, the low- functioning performed better in

their intervention test compared to their diagnostic

test after being given an appropriate test for their

level. Similarly, the high- functioning students

showed a slight increase of improvement after being

given an appropriate test for their level though it

is not that significant.

3. Lastly, the improvement of the students

significantly increased after being classified

according to function and was given an appropriate

test for both their levels.

172

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

REFERENCES

Rudy, A. ( 2011). The Difference Between Autism.

Wilson, J. (2006). The levels of Autism.

Eichel, A. (2007). Math Interventions for a student withAutism.

Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive

education programs, practice and outcomes for

students with severe disabilities. Journal of

Special Education, 31(1), 3-29.

Miller, S., Butler, F., & Lee, K. (1998). Validated

Practices for Teaching Mathematics to Students with

Learning Disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31, 1-

24.

https://www.google.com.ph/

#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-

ab&q=qualitative+action+research&oq=qualitative+ac&g

s_l=hp.3.0.0i20j0j0i20j0l7.148.3896.1.6674.14.14.0.0

.0.0.620.3942.0j4j6j3j0j1.14.0.les

%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.hp.H0_GIqr5Uh8&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r

_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.aGc&fp=d8216f4b079e0143&

biw=1024&bih=509. Retrieved February 22, 2013.

173

EDUC 11: Student Teaching

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/high-functioning-

autism?page=2. Retrieved February 22, 2013.

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/

article/view/466/996 Retrieved February 22, 2013.

174