Back

Weatherbee School (2018)

Hampden, ME

Small Group Responsive Services

Lunch groups at Weatherbee school are planned based on data collected in previous years paired with current data. For example, I know from previous data that I need to run a group on academic skills, friendship, social skills, self esteem and relational aggression based on developmental needs. In 2017-18 I also added the behavioral “Decision-making” group to target my second goal on behavior. Mid-winter I saw a growing trend of third graders struggling with worry/anxiety (from the “goals” survey). I added a worry group in the spring. Each group topic could have more than one rotation, for example the decision-making group was actually run 8 times (twice in the first session, twice in the second, three times in the third,and once in the fourth). I planned lessons that are driven by the ASCA mindsets/behaviors. For the relational aggression group I choose 'The Ophelia Project' curriculum because it targets the correct skills/attitudes/knowledge and mindsets/behaviors. I made sure that my perception data addressed the ASCA mindset standards that targeted in this group.



Participants for each group are selected from data. Students in the ‘diligent decision making’ group could be selected based on their levels of concern data (teachers rank student’s behavior each week), behavioral referrals or by their survey answers on the behavior survey. Many parents and teachers would like to make referrals for students to join lunch groups, but I need to make sure that data is leading the selection of students. Often, if it’s a parent/teacher referral, there’s data that supports the student joining the group. If there’s a discrepancy between the referral and the data then I need to access more data sources (iep, 504, doctor’s report, etc.) or I need more time to collect data.



The results report helps me to deliver groups more effectively. In the 2017-18 school year, I had four rounds of groups: each group met for 6 to 8 sessions. This was a change from the previous school year when I ran 5 rounds of groups because I wanted to provide more interventions to students. I found that having 5-6 lessons per group meetings was too rushed, and led to less valuable learning experiences. Students reported less mastery of mindsets and behaviors when there were five rounds of groups. For example, my post data for the social skills group in the 2016-17 school year was 84%, in 2017-18 the it was 92%. It was clear that I needed to go back to four rounds of groups in the 2017-18 school year.



The results report helps me to collect data more accurately. The surveys I created were often yes/no surveys, occasionally I used likert scales. Developmentally, my students are ready to change from yes/no surveys to likert scales. Using likert scale surveys would increase the quality and accuracy of the data collected. In the future I will transition third grade groups from yes/no surveys to likert surveys during the year.



The results report helps me to target mindsets and behaviors. There were several times that looking back at the data I realized I had targeted the wrong mindset/behavior. For example in my self-esteem group I wanted to target B:SMS-5 (perseverance to achieve long and short term goals). When planning the group, I had originally wanted to set goals with students about self-esteem. I found that the lesson was rushed. Data on this standard was poor (0% improvement.). I’ve decided to leave this standard off the plan for next year and add more opportunities for students to discuss the future of their self-esteem without the pressure of setting a goal (dropping to a different level of bloom's taxonomy: from synthesis to application.) Normally I would strive to increase the bloom’s level of bloom’s taxonomy, but seeing as we are trying to minimize pressure, “synthesis” was the wrong choice on the taxonomy.



The results report helps me to make decisions about which lessons to continue, add or discontinue. I found part way through the year that it may be important for me to add a second (or maybe third) level to my diligent decision making group. I found that I needed to differentiate to accommodate students newly added, but also allow for students who needed reviews later in the year. In the future, I’ll offer a group for students who are ready for the next level of intervention.

Group Name: Bobcat Bunch (Relational Aggression)

Goal: By June 1, 2018, students at Weatherbee identified with lower than 60% positive behavior will increase positive behavior by 10% from 60% to 70%.

Target Group: 4th grade students

Data Used to Identify Students: Friendship Survey, Levels of Concern Data, Behavior Referrals

School Counselor(s): Kelly O'Brien Wever

ASCA Domain, Mindsets & Behaviors Standard(s): Social Emotional Domain B:LS-7 B::SMS-1 B:SMS-7 B:SS-2 B:SS-4 B:SS-9

Outline of Group Sessions Delivered: Session #1- Language of Peer Aggression Session #2- The Bystander Session #3-Norms and Rules Session #4-Friendship Session #5- Leadership Session #6-Social Goals and Conclusion

Process Data (Number of students affected): 8 students (This small group was also provided several other times over the school year, 13 students total participated in this group over the year) 6 Sessions 25 minutes per session

Perception Data (Surveys or assessments used): Pre Survey: 61% (Skills-52% Attitudes/ Beliefs-69% Knowledge- 63%) Post Survey: 88% (Skills-74% Attitudes/ Beliefs-92% Knowledge- 86%)

Outcome Data (Achievement, attendance, and/or behavior data): ‘Levels of concern’ data increased in positivity. Students are ranked in behavior on a scale between 0 and 3. 0 means that teacher has no concerns about that students behavior. 3 means that teachers are extremely concerned about the students behavior. Before the small group, student’s levels of concern averaged a 2.1. After the small group was implemented the average score for these students was a 0.625.

Implications: -The data from this lesson shows that it was a very effective small group, improvements were noted in all areas. -The data from this small group shows that students improved 23% in the knowledge and beliefs/attitudes portion of the survey. Students reported that the skills portion was lower at 20%, in the future I’ll try to make sure that I target the skills portion to a greater extent -The data from this small group helps me to collect data more accurately. In the future a likert scale will give me more information than a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ -This data helps me make decisions about the mindsets and behavior standards. Of the 6 targeted mindsets and behaviors, B:LS-7 (Identify long term and short term academic, career and social/emotional goals) was the least successful with only 5% growth. This helps me to realize that this goal wasn’t targeted as much as the others. After looking at the scope of the lesson, I don’t know if this lesson fits with the others. I think that instead of focusing on friendship goals, I will use this session to discuss cyber-bullying: an increasing problem in our school. -The data helps me to made decisions about which lessons to continue, add or discontinue. I’ve decided to rework the last lesson to better reflect the growing need to address relational aggression and technology.

Attachments


PDF
Download

PDF
Download

PDF
Download

PDF
Download

PDF
Download

PDF
Download

PDF
Download

PDF
Download

PDF
Download