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
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
Top Related