Draft 10-29-03
Kennesaw State University
Professional Teacher Education Unit
Department of Special Education
Council for Exceptional Children Report
Context Statement
Kennesaw State University (www.kennesaw.edu) serves a diverse student
body in the northern suburbs of Atlanta and extending into northwest Georgia.
Effective teaching and learning are central institutional priorities. Service and
research that strengthen teaching and address the public's interests are
important supportive priorities. Faculty, staff and administrators are committed to
providing a challenging and facilitative collegiate environment that fosters highquality academic preparation, critical thinking, global and multicultural
perspectives, effective communication and interpersonal skills, leadership
development, social responsibility and lifelong learning. Founded in 1963 as a
junior college, Kennesaw State University now offers fifty-five undergraduate and
graduate programs serving over 18,000 students and growing.
The Professional Teacher Education Unit governs teacher education at
Kennesaw State University. The Dean of the Bagwell College of Education
presides over the Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU), which oversees
all education programs. Membership includes deans, department chairs, faculty
and program coordinators in education programs across the University (College
of Education, College of Health and Human Services, College of Science and
Mathematics, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, and the School of
Arts). The PTEU meets monthly to address issues affecting education programs.
The PTEU Teacher Education Council governs curriculum and policy and the
Program Coordinators address consistency across programs.
The Professional Teacher Education Unit is the second largest and fastest
growing teacher preparation program in the state of Georgia. Faculty is strongly
committed to developing future teachers through a collaborative process. In
addition to academic excellence, its focus is community-based service learning.
We value diversity and our role in the community. The Professional Teacher
Education Unit prepares Professional Learning Facilitators who extend their
understanding of the theoretical and methodological aspects of their teaching in
the broader context of theory and research, and employ this knowledge in
making decisions as instructional leaders who will enhance the education
programs for all students, while advancing knowledge in their fields.
The Department of Special Education is one of four departments housed
in the Bagwell College of Education. The Department offers the Master of
Education in Special Education, the state required undergraduate Education of
Exceptional Students course, and graduate level add-on programs in Interrelated
Special Education, Preschool Special Education, Gifted, English to Speakers of
Other Languages, and Teacher Support Specialist. The Department of Special
401280716
-1-
Draft 10-29-03
Education, in collaboration with the Advisory Board, revised the Departmental
mission in 2002:
To provide leadership in the preparation of teacher-leaders who
work collaboratively with families, school systems and community
agencies to have a positive impact on the educational, social and
behavioral development of all students in a diverse society through
a focus on best practice in teaching and learning and
accountability through assessment of outcomes for individuals
and programs. To provide leadership in system change to build the
capacity of all schools to meet the needs of all learners.
Conceptual Framework: Collaborative Development of Expertise in
Teaching and Learning
Kennesaw State University Professional Teacher Education Unit’s
conceptual framework for the preparation of teachers is based on the
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning.
(Appendix A). This framework succinctly captures the essence of the university's
deep commitment to university-wide and university-school collaboration in the
preparation of teachers. The Kennesaw State University Professional Teacher
Education Unit (KSU-PTEU) is committed to developing expertise among
candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders who
possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in
all of their students through effective, research-based practices in classroom
instruction, and who enhance the structures that support all learning.
Performance outcomes demonstrating expertise in subject matter, expertise as
facilitators of teaching and learning and expertise as collaborative professionals
are clearly defined by the Professional Teacher Education Unit within the
Conceptual Framework.
The KSU-PTEU fosters the development of candidates as they progress
through stages of growth from novice to proficient to expert and leader. Within
the PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued
development, not an end-state. The Department of Special Education utilizes a
developmental framework for the graduate special education program based on
the KSU conceptual framework and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)
Ethics and Standards. As subject matter experts, candidates know the subjects
they teach and how to teach those subjects to students (KSU-PTEU 1), and as
special educator subject matter experts, candidates demonstrate mastery of
the CEC Common Core and Generalized Curriculum standards. Candidates
are expected to be knowledgeable of special education policies and procedures
(CEC 1), characteristics and needs of students with disabilities (CEC 2, 3, 6) and
methods of inquiry and curriculum differentiation (CEC 7) to support students
with disabilities in the general education curriculum in collaboration with general
education teachers with specific subject matter expertise.
401280716
-2-
Draft 10-29-03
Faculty implement constructivist and behaviorist approaches within
graduate classes to model the centrality of expertise as a facilitator of
teaching and learning. Candidates are guided through learning activities, selfevaluation and reflection on their practice, and extension of these activities to
their teaching practice. Teaching and learning are entwined and only through the
implementation of validated practices can all students develop their own mental
models or schema and reach high levels of learning. In that way, candidates are
facilitators of the teaching and learning process, committed to students, and
responsible for managing and monitoring student learning (KSU-PTEU 2).
Special education teachers must possess the skills and knowledge to create
environments and learning experiences that engage students in active learning
and authentic achievement and who constantly assess and use results for
improvement of student learning. Candidates are expected to demonstrate
knowledge and mastery of research-based practices. In the role of facilitators of
teaching and learning, teachers guide, motivate, evaluate, instruct and advise
students. Their classroom practices reflect a repertoire of teacher and learner
centered methods, which they should be able to implement or adapt in response
to changes in the environment and student needs. The awareness of individual
differences, knowing when and how to adjust instruction, and formative and
summative assessment are essential outcomes of the graduate special
education experience (CEC 4, 6, 8, 9). Field experience observations are
recorded on the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO), which is
aligned with the KSU-PTEU, the University System of Georgia requirements
(which are based on National Board for Professional Teacher Standards NBPTS) and CEC standards. KSU field experience supervisors provide coaching
and feedback to assist candidates in refining their practice in the field to meet the
needs of all students.
Finally, the PTEU recognizes, values and demonstrates collaborative
practices across the college and university and extends collaboration to the
community-at-large. Through this collaboration with professionals in the
university, the public and private schools, parents and other professional
partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of assisting Georgia schools in
bringing all students to high levels of learning. Special education graduate
candidates meet more than the academic requirements of the graduate degree
program. Candidates are expected to be collaborative professionals and think
systematically about their practice, learn from experience, and serve as members
of learning communities (KSU-PTEU 3). Professionals are enthusiastic about
their work and positively influence colleagues and students. They are aware that
becoming a better teacher requires a commitment to ownership of the success of
all students, use of data based decision making strategies to maximize impact on
student learning, currency in subject matter knowledge, and continual
assessment of their own strengths and areas of need as facilitators of learning
through self-reflection. They take responsibility in their schools for curriculum
initiatives, parental involvement, and collaboration with all constituents. In the
classroom and in all school matters, their relations with students, parents and
401280716
-3-
Draft 10-29-03
colleagues show regard for human dignity. As professionals, KSU candidates are
expected to continually seek ways to improve learning experiences for the
students they teach. Candidates are also expected to be lifelong learners,
participating in learning communities to inform their teaching practice.
Collaborating with professional colleagues, participating in the activities of
professional associations, engaging in self-evaluation, and working with
members of the community served by their schools contribute to their
effectiveness as professionals in facilitating student learning (CEC 9, 10).
Link to Kennesaw State University and Professional Teacher Education
Unit Mission
Kennesaw State University (KSU) and the Professional Teacher
Education Unit (PTEU) value collaborative relationships. The first graduate
special education program was developed by a team of educators from
Kennesaw State University and local school districts based on the Georgia
Professional Standards Commission (PSC) requirements for teachers of students
with learning disabilities and approved in 1994. The KSU mission statement
emphasizes responsiveness to needs within our scope of influence.
Feedback from the Metropolitan Atlanta Learning Disabilities Consortia during
1994-1995, however, indicated that the categorical model for preparing teachers
was not in line with district needs. Field experience observations by the program
coordinator reinforced the need for a better model of preparation.
By 1995, the program had been revised to meet the Georgia Professional
Standards Commission (PSC) standards for teachers of Interrelated special
education (Appendix E) and the Council for Exceptional Children Common Core
standards. Kennesaw State University was the first university in Georgia to utilize
a competency model to document alignment with standards (reference grid)
rather than the course-by-course model previously used by the PSC. This model
and the KSU program were in greater alignment with district needs, delivery
systems, and best practice in special education than the former model.
Further responsiveness to needs within our scope of influence
resulted in discussions with Bartow County Schools and a partnership in support
of the Bartow County ReEnvisioning initiative. Bartow County Schools were
implementing a blended service delivery model to meet the needs of all students
in a more inclusive setting. KSU began delivering the Interrelated add-on
program on-site in Bartow County in January, 1996, for thirty teachers. The
number of courses per semester, sequence of courses, and course assignments
were adjusted to meet the needs of the district. A second off-campus cohort
program was initiated in 2000 by Project Winning Team (PWT), Georgia's
statewide initiative to prepare all teachers in inclusive schooling practices. The
PWT cohort participants represented three districts in north Georgia and were
funded by a contract with the Georgia Division for Exceptional Students.
401280716
-4-
Draft 10-29-03
The Department of Special Education was formed in 1998. The
Department was charged with delivering the special education programs, the
state required undergraduate course on educating exceptional students, the
English to Speakers of Other Languages and the Gifted add-on programs. The
initial faculty allocation included a Department Chair and four faculty positions.
This reflected an expansion of the special education inclusive education model to
meeting the needs of all students. An Advisory Board including faculty and
staff from across campus, current candidates and graduates, parent
representatives from the community, and practicing professionals from the
community to support program development and program evaluation was
convened in Fall 1998. It meets twice a year and provides a forum for discussion
and feedback to guide program development.
In addition to graduate program delivery, the Department of Special
Education has been actively involved in scholarship and professional service to
build the capacity of schools to meet the needs of all learners, especially
students with disabilities. Special Education Department scholarship and
professional service reflects the KSU mission commitment to scholarly and
creative work to enhance instructional effectiveness and to encourage
faculty scholarly pursuits, a commitment to applied research, and a
commitment to public service. The 2002 KSU Program Review Committee
rated the Department’s contribution to achieving KSU mission as very strong.
They recommended that the Department continue grant, contract and service
projects and collaborative relationships.
The department emphasis on system change and building the capacity of
schools to meet the needs of all students have been a major factor in the
success in obtaining external funds to support collaborative projects promoting
systems change in Georgia schools. Project WINS, the first grant, has expanded
over time to include a parent component, leadership training, collaboration with
schools and statewide policy analysis. KSU was awarded a contract for Project
Winning Team in 2000 to implement the on-site KSU interrelated add-on program
in conjunction with the Project WINS technical assistance model. In 2001, a grant
for on-site delivery of the ESOL program in Cobb County including data collection
and an emphasis on culture sensitive conflict resolution was implemented. A
contract to support balanced literacy instruction in Dalton, Georgia Public
Schools (80+% ESOL students) was implemented in 2002.
These funded programs provide opportunities for faculty to remain
involved in schools and conduct action research that enriches their
instruction for candidates in the special education program. Special education
faculty is also very involved in university service, community service, professional
service (see vita) and professional development at the local, state and national
level. They serve as role models for life-long learning and professionalism.
Candidates in the EXC 7735 Current Issues course in 2002 were given the
opportunity to participate in data collection and analysis for a statewide policy
401280716
-5-
Draft 10-29-03
analysis. Candidates and graduates are included in presentations at state and
national level conferences.
Special Education Faculty
The KSU Program Review rated the quality of faculty supporting the M.Ed. in
Special Education as very strong (exemplary). There are five full-time tenuretrack faculty positions and a department chair. All faculty hold a Ph.D. in an
appropriate field and have public school experience as a special educator. There
is a balance in faculty specializations to support courses in the program. Faculty
are involved in professional development opportunities to remain up-to-date for
program delivery and they provide leadership in professional service at the
department, college, university, state and national level. The involvement of
Special Education faculty in grant, contract, service and collaborative
relationships in schools is reflective of KSU’s strong emphasis on applied
scholarship using Boyer’s (1990) model. In addition to the full-time tenure-track
faculty, four part-time faculty members provide support for field experience
supervision and instruction. (Appendix B)
Policies and practices
Minor changes in curriculum (realignment of objectives and/or
assignments) and policies (rubrics used to evaluate candidates) are
departmental functions. The KSU Graduate Program and Policy Committee and
the PTEU Teacher Education Council govern major changes in curriculum (new
courses), policies (changes in admission standards) and practices.
The Master of Education in Special Education is an advanced program for
development of teacher leaders. Although approved by the Georgia Professional
Standards Commission as an initial certificate, the Interrelated special education
core at KSU is only offered as an add-on to an existing certificate and not as an
initial teaching credential. This also supports the Department of Special
Education focus on inclusive education. Candidates for the graduate special
education program at Kennesaw State University must be fully certified teachers
in Georgia in any field (K-12). This provides a grounding in curriculum content,
instruction and behavior management skills. Candidates must also provide
evidence of coursework in Human Growth and Development, Education of
Exceptional Students, and Teaching Reading before admission. These
prerequisite requirements are the basis for developing advanced skills.
The Department of Special Education requires that candidates are
admitted to the program in a cohort and take all courses together in sequence.
This process supports enrollment management and provides an opportunity for
candidates to demonstrate collaborative practice throughout the program. Field
experience is integrated throughout the program based on candidate job sites or
supervised field experience assigned by the Department. Portfolio linked
assignments are included in each course and emphasize extensions beyond
401280716
-6-
Draft 10-29-03
class assignments. Documentation of impact of student learning is expected
throughout the program.
Once admitted into the program, GPA requirements are monitored by the
KSU Graduate Office and the Department of Special Education has implemented
interim review of candidate progress and dispositions at the completion of 12 and
24 semester hours in the 36-hour program. Candidates must demonstrate
mastery of all components of the SEPO and Portfolio Narrative before credit is
awarded for the final capstone courses. Syllabi statements outline policies on
attendance, academic honesty and respect for human dignity.
Diversity
One of the core values of Kennesaw State University, the Professional
Teacher Education Unit and the Department of Special Education is the tenet
that society is diverse so we must prepare teachers to teach all students. The
Council for Exceptional Children states that, "Diversity, when conceptualized
within an educational context, includes culturally, ethnically, and linguistically
diverse learners from variant socioeconomic levels, urban and rural learners, as
well as any other learner who may have educationally relevant differences."
(CEC policy statement,1999).
The Department of Special Education, through campus-based programs,
external grant functions, collaboration across the PTEU, and leadership in
professional and consumer organizations, promotes inclusive education to
address the needs of all students. All courses address the impact of diversity on
learning needs and identification. Student diversity is a key element in selection
of grant sites. The Department of Special Education participated as a pilot site in
the National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education use of public
service announcements to recruit minority populations to enter the field of special
education. As part of this commitment, all full-time and part-time special
education faculty and members of the PTEU Diversity Committee attended a
two-day professional development workshop on poverty by Ruby Payne in 2002.
The Professional Teacher Education Unit has adopted the following diversity
statement to be included in all syllabi:
A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed
to meet the needs of the different learning styles of diverse learners
in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an
understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing
effective instruction and assessment within multicultural
classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate
awareness of critical multicultural issues. A second element is to
cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of multicultural
populations influence decisions in employing specific methods and
materials for every student. Among these attributes are age,
disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic
401280716
-7-
Draft 10-29-03
region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation,
and socioeconomic status. An emphasis on cognitive style
differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural
context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and
accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to
support students with disabilities within their academic program. In
order to make arrangements for special services, students must
visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443)
and develop an individual assistance plan. In some cases,
certification of disability is required.
Please be aware there are other support/mentor groups on the
campus of Kennesaw State University that address each of the
multicultural variables outlined above.
Technology:
On-campus cohorts take classes in a wireless laptop classroom with stateof-the-art technology. Faculty use department laptop computers and projection
systems for instruction in off-campus sites. Off-campus cohorts utilize school
system technology labs for hands-on activities as needed. In addition to modeling
use of technology, faculty teach and require specific technology competencies
within the program. Technology skill development is addressed by specific
requirements embedded within course requirements. For example, spreadsheet
applications and development of graphs and charts are required as part of the
EXC 7720 Behavior Management project, candidates in EXC 7735 participate in
ListServ discussion groups, and PowerPoint presentations are required in EXC
7970 Internship. Technology accommodations are introduced in EXC 7760
Teaching & Learning I, integration of technology in instructional planning is
required in EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II, and hands-on experience with
adaptive/assistive technology is provided in EXC 7770 Psychoneurological and
Medical Issues in Special Education.
Professional Roles of Graduates
The M.Ed. in Special Education includes the Georgia Interrelated Special
Education add-on as the teaching field component. Candidates completing the
M.Ed. program are eligible for a Master’s level teaching certificate, and may take
the PRAXIS II exams and apply for the Interrelated add-on to their existing
teaching certificate. According to the Georgia teacher certification Rule 505-2.75
(6) (effective January 2003) in-field statement, “An individual with a certificate in
Interrelated Special Education is in-field to be a resource teacher in the fields of
Behavior Disorders, Learning Disabilities, and Mild Mental Retardation; and to
teach students in self-contained classrooms with Behavior Disorders, Learning
401280716
-8-
Draft 10-29-03
Disabilities, and Mild Mental Retardation in grades P-12; to teach preschool
special education students; to teach autistic students; and to teach remedial
mathematics, reading and writing in grades P-12.” (Appendix E)
A task force convened by the Georgia Professional Standards
Commission and composed on district personnel directors, special education
administrators, National Board Teachers, and University teacher educators met
during Spring 2003 to address the impact of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
mandate for fully qualified teachers. The draft of a proposed Revised Rule 505-3.37 in-field statement proposes “field-specific content standards for approving
programs that prepare teachers to teach all students P-12 with disabilities whose
individual education program indicates instruction using the general education
curriculum and participation in the general statewide assessment.” The shift
proposed by the task force drafting the new rules is to move from the view of
special education as a location (placement) to emphasize special education as a
service (delivered to the student) to meet the need of each student. The
proposed new rules would replace the current standards with a competencybased model based on the CEC standards for Generalized Curriculum.
Accreditation Review
The Kennesaw State University M.Ed. in Special Education and
Interrelated program received CEC Accreditation in 1998 based on the CEC
General Curriculum Standards. The programs in Learning Disabilities, Behavior
Disorders and Intellectual Disabilities were approved by CEC based on the
individual disability category standards. The NCATE Board of Examiners and the
Georgia Professional Standards Commission (PSC) approved all programs in the
Department of Special Education in 2000. The Special Education programs were
approved with no weaknesses.
Program self-evaluation and continuous program improvement
The Master of Education in Special Education program was revised from a
quarter system format to a semester system format mandated for the University
System of Georgia for Fall 1998. Using feedback from student course
evaluations and products and observations in the field, the program revisions
included realignment of outcomes and objectives to increase the focus on
curriculum development and accommodations, instructional strategies, data
collection and use, collaborative practice and action research skills.
A learning outcomes assessment was developed by the KSU-PTEU
Special Education Program Coordinator in 1998 to track assessment of the CEC
standards and candidate performance. The matrix has been reviewed annually
by the Department of Special Education to determine program strengths
and to implement changes to improve candidate success. Refinement of
course outcome indicators and realignment of course objectives to promote
improved candidate performance were examples of recommended changes. The
development of the accommodations outcome assignment was tried in three
401280716
-9-
Draft 10-29-03
different courses and multiple formats before faculty were satisfied that
candidates were meeting the desired level of proficiency on the outcome. A
report was submitted to KSU administrators each summer to document selfevaluation and implementation of changes.
Program review is an ongoing process built on multiple levels of data
collection and discussions. A major goal of the review has been quality program
development, but attention is also focused on controlled growth. Program growth
is controlled by cohort enrollment, and has leveled off until additional faculty
resources are available.
Enrollment Trends in Program Courses FY 2001-FY 2002
SU 00
Professional Sequence
EXC 7790 (new 2001)
EXC 7700 (new 2002)
EXC 7735
EXC 7770
EXC 7780
Teaching Field
EXC 7705
EXC 7715
EXC 7720
EXC 7730
EXC 7760
EXC 7765
EXC 7970
35 (2)
29
F00
12
12
SP01
27
13
29
26
SU01
24
26
27
22
27
29
23
33
28
FA01
Mean
12
12
30
22
22
23
42 (2)
27
22
22
37 (2)
SP02
38 (2)
27
17
20
18
25
24
25
28
22
19
The first graduates completed the Master of Education in Special
Education: Interrelated in Summer 1998. Graduation rates have increased from
17 in Fiscal Year 1999 to 32 in Fiscal Year 2002. Graduation rates vary based on
off-campus cohort schedules.
M.Ed. in SPE Degrees Conferred FY 1998-FY 2002
FY 1998
0
FY 1999
17
FY 2000
24
FY 2001
26
FY 2002
32
The portfolio component of the program became a source of concern as
the program grew. Feedback from candidates and faculty indicated that the
portfolio development process was stressful and did not align with other special
education program goals. After a careful review of the portfolio process, the
department developed and implemented a new model in 2001-2002 that helped
students and faculty see the alignment between the learning outcomes matrix
and the working portfolio. All course syllabi were revised to include specific
portfolio related assignments. Candidates began enrolling in a research course
401280716
- 10 -
Draft 10-29-03
specifically designed to develop skills appropriate for special educators and a
capstone portfolio course to document their professional growth. Candidates
completing the new portfolio course in Spring 2002 reported satisfaction with the
new model. Faculty was still struggling with how to assess the portfolios in
relation to the KSU-PTEU and NBPTS model. Written and oral portfolio
evaluation forms were modified by portfolio course faculty and the format for the
working portfolio was changed for the Spring 2003 course (2001 cohort
candidates). The working portfolio was aligned with the KSU-PTEU Candidate
Performance Indicators which were linked to the five core propositions of
NBPTS.
Revisions in the KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework, however, resulted in
additional discussions across departments about the goals for graduate
candidates and how they could be assessed. These discussions resulted in the
development of new evaluation instruments that are being implemented in 20032004.
A program review process, initiated by KSU in 2001, serves to provide
university wide feedback for all academic and service units. Completion of the
self-study and related survey developed by the Department provides support for
data based decision making at the program and university level. The program
review council supports the department’s self-study conclusion that the M.Ed. in
Special Education is a strong program and should continue to maximize its
potential; however additional resources are needed to support further growth.
This KSU level review is forwarded to the University System of Georgia level.
The program review council highlights the Department of Special
Education’s excellent use of data based decision-making and continuous
improvement. The department is committed to continuous program improvement
through formative evaluation and discussion. The relationship with Advisory
Board members and local schools impacts program improvement through regular
meetings addressing the needs of local schools and how to balance quality and
the demand for more teachers. Faculty members are also involved at the state
and national level activities such as the Georgia Professional Standards
Commission task force on revision of special education certification and
participation in discussions on special education teacher preparation issues as
part of the executive board of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children (TED).
Faculty meetings include discussions of candidate progress and
coordination of program improvement efforts. A Department of Special Education
faculty member serving on the KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework committee
developed a survey of candidates, faculty and advisory board members to
address the validity of special education graduate program outcome
assignments. The survey results were used to support the Department’s
databased decision process. Annual faculty retreats are conducted each
401280716
- 11 -
Draft 10-29-03
summer to map out curriculum, assignments, etc. in response to candidate
progress, course evaluations, current best practice literature, and alignment with
changing standards. Summer 2002 featured a curriculum mapping activity used
as a basis for program improvement. Development and field-testing of the
Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) form for documenting
candidate classroom performance was a primary goal for 2002-2003. Another
major emphasis has been alignment of the portfolio with KSU’s PTEU conceptual
framework and outcomes, CEC standards, USG-BoR standards based on
NBPTS, Georgia PSC standards, and the department mission.
Key elements of the KSU Special Education program
There are 3 key quality indicators of the KSU Special Education program:
(1) Link to CEC standards, (2) Extensive field experience component, and (3)
Continuous improvement model. The KSU special education program has been
linked to CEC standards since its inception in 1994 and has been modified as
needed as CEC standards have been revised. Faculty participation in CECNCATE training sessions has contributed to keeping this link up-to-date. The
extensive field experience component of the program, implemented in 1994,
monitors candidate progress through the developmental framework and informs
program faculty of the varied needs of program candidates. The continuous
improvement model is based on the program’s commitment to data based
decision-making. Efforts continue to refine data-collection to inform program
improvement.
401280716
- 12 -
Draft 10-29-03
Kennesaw State University
Professional Teacher Education Unit
Department of Special Education
Special Education Program Assessment System
The link to CEC Content standards is a key element of the Kennesaw
State University Special Education program. Programmatic learning outcomes
were originally developed in 1994 in alignment with the Council for Exceptional
Children (CEC) Common Core Standards and the Kennesaw State University
Professional Teacher Education Unit (KSU PTEU) Conceptual Framework. As
part of the continuous improvement emphasis, outcomes have been revised and
alignment with other initiatives developed. The following table highlights
alignment of the current CEC Common Core standards, the KSU-PTEU
conceptual framework, the University System of Georgia Board of Regents (USG
BoR) Principles linked to the National Board of Professional Teacher Standards
(NBPTS) core propositions, the NBPTS Exceptional Needs Standards and the
Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GA PSC) requirements which are
linked to the CEC standards plus nine additional standards.
Curriculum Alignment with Standards
CEC
Common
Core
Standards
1 Foundations
KSU-PTEU
Conceptual
Framework
USG -BoR
NBPTS Core
Propositions
1 Subject
Matter Experts
2
Development
&
Characteristics
of Learners
3 Individual
Learning
Differences
1 Subject
matter experts
I Teachers are
committed to
students and their
learning
1 Subject
matter experts
4 Instructional
Strategies
1 Expertise as
facilitators of
teaching &
Learning
I Teachers are
committed to
students and their
learning
II Teachers know
the subjects they
teach and how to
teach those subjects
to students
III Teachers are
responsible for
managing and
monitoring student
learning
I Teachers are
committed to
students and their
learning
5 Learning
Environments
& Social
Interactions
2 Expertise as
facilitators of
teaching &
Learning
6 Language
1 Subject
matter experts
401280716
NBPTS
Exceptional
Needs
Standards
Knowledge of
Special
Education
Knowledge of
Students
Multiple Paths to
Knowledge
Diversity
Knowledge of
Subject Matter
Meaningful
Learning
Learning
Environment
Social
Development
Knowledge of
Students
GA PSC IRR
Standards
I Characteristics of
BD, LD, MR
VI Early childhood
IV Perceptual
motor
development
V Reading &
mathematics
difficulties
VIII Field
experiences for
levels and
categories
III Language
development,
disorders and
deviations
- 13 -
Draft 10-29-03
7 Instructional
Planning
2 Expertise as
facilitators of
teaching &
Learning
8 Assessment
2 Expertise as
facilitators of
teaching &
Learning
9 Professional
& Ethical
Practice
3 Collaborative
professionals
10
Collaboration
3 Collaborative
professionals
II Teachers know
the subjects they
teach and how to
teach those subjects
to students
III Teachers are
responsible for
managing and
monitoring student
learning
IV Teachers think
systematically about
their practice and
learn from
experience
V Teachers are
members of learning
communities
Instructional
Resources
Assessment
II
Psychoeducational
evaluation and
assessment
Reflective
Practice
Contributing to
the Profession
and to Education
Communications
Family
Partnerships
VII Effective
parent
involvement and
counseling
The KSU Special Education program emphasis on data based continuous
improvement is a strength of the program highlighted by the KSU Program
Review Council in 2002. (Appendix C) The original KSU Special Education
learning outcomes assessment was a matrix of learning outcomes linked to
program goals (CEC Common Core Standards) developed in 1998. Data
collected annually as part of the learning outcomes assessment were
continuously used to refine course assignments, content and delivery. Revisions
such as moving objectives or assignments among courses, re-sequencing
courses, team-teaching courses, and coordination of assignments across
courses were implemented to improve candidate mastery of goals. An annual
summer retreat including all faculty (full-time and part-time) served to review data
collected from candidate evaluations, candidate products, advisory board
recommendations and faculty input to make programmatic decisions.
Revisions in the Kennesaw State University Professional Teacher
Education Unit (KSU-PTEU) Conceptual Framework as KSU moved to a
performance-based assessment system included discussions across
departments about the goals for graduate candidates and how they could be
assessed. These discussions resulted in revision of the KSU-PTEU unit level and
the graduate special education program level assessment derived from the
PTEU Conceptual Framework. The Candidate Performance Instrument (CPI),
Portfolio Narrative Analysis, and Impact on Student Learning Assessment (ISLA)
are part of the Unit level assessment. The following chart highlights the
required unit level data for graduate programs.
401280716
- 14 -
Draft 10-29-03
REQUIRED GRADUATE DATA – Fall 2003
In What
Course?
What is
It?
Where
Do I
Find
Printable
Copies?
I-Drive
and
CFEP’s
website
Who
Completes
It?
Submitted
Online?
Submitted
in Hard
Copy?
Where
does It
Go?
When is It
Completed?
When
is It
Due?
Portfolio
class
CPI
Professor &
Candidate
Yes
No
*Electronic
submission
End of
Portfolio
class
Last
Day
of
Finals
Portfolio
class
Graduate
Portfolio
Narrative
Rubric
I-Drive
and
CFEP’s
website
Professor
completes
rubric
Yes
No
*Electronic
submission
By end of
Semester
Last
Day
of
Finals
EDUC/EDL/
EECE/EXC
and/or
Content
course
Impact
on
Student
Learning
Analysis
Rubric
I-Drive
and
CFEP’s
website
Yes
No
*Electronic
submission
By end of
Semester
Last
Day
of
Finals
Portfolio
class
Diversity
Survey
Online
(see
below for
address)
Professor
completes
Rubric
*Recommend
that
candidate
also complete
rubric as part
of narrative
Candidate
Yes
No
*Electronic
submission
By end of
Semester
Last
Day
of
Finals
*Electronic submission for forms can be accessed at www.kennesaw.edu/education Click on
“PTEU Data System.” Then, after logging in, click on “Forms.” Enter candidate’s SSN.
 Printable copies of all forms reference above are available on the I-Drive by accessing the “TED
Teachers Education” folder; then access the “Graduate Reporting Forms and Rubrics” folder.
 The Diversity Survey is available at http://bcoe.kennesaw.edu/diversity
The Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) (Appendix D) and
selected course assignments are part of the Program level assessment. The
SEPO is also aligned with the Unit level Graduate Candidate Performance
Instrument (CPI) (Appendix A) and serves as an additional Unit level indicator.
The following chart highlights the Program assessment model. Unit level
assessments are in bold font. Other assessments are program level.
Candidate Outcomes and Assessment Plan 2002-2003
CEC
CEC Standard
Product
Assessment
7705 exams
1
Foundations/ Philosophy
2
Learners
3
Individual Differences
4
Instructional Strategies
7715 exams
7770 exams
7715 exams
7770 exams
7765 rubric
5
Learning Environments
7720 rubric
Performance
Assessment
7970
SEPO/CPI
7970
SEPO/CPI
7970
SEPO/CPI
7970
SEPO/CPI
7970
SEPO/CPI
401280716
Student
Impact
7765
ISLA
Capstone
Assessment
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
- 15 -
Draft 10-29-03
6
Language Development
7
Instructional Planning
8
Assessment
9
Professional & Ethical
Practice
Collaborative Practices
10
7715 exams
7730 rubric
7760 rubric
7765 rubric
7730 rubric
7705 exams
7780 rubric
7970
SEPO/CPI
7970
SEPO/CPI
7970
SEPO/CPI
7970
SEPO/CPI
7970
SEPO/CPI
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
The special education graduate program assessment system includes an
external component for program evaluation and an internal component for
individual candidate assessment. A continuous data collection model is used to
support data based decision making on program evaluation and individual
candidate progress.
External Evaluation and Program Review Component
External evaluation includes PRAXIS II data. The KSU M. Ed. in Special
Education program has maintained a 100% rate of passage for candidates.
2001 Cohort
2000 Cohort
1999 Cohort
1998 Cohort
Graduation
2003
2002
2001
2000
Praxis Pass Rate *
100%
100%
100%
100%
*M.Ed. in Special Education Candidates only
Over 95% of candidates are employed as teachers while enrolled in the
program. As part of a 2002 Program Review by KSU and forwarded to the USG
Board of Regents, a survey was sent to candidates, graduates and employers.
The external feedback from the 2002 Program Review survey addressed
program success in developing advanced level skills that was evidenced in
responses to the survey stem, “Since you enrolled in KSU have you: Check all
that apply”
Candidate/Graduate Self-Report of Success after Graduation
N=99
Honors
Candidates
Graduates
10
14
Leadership
Roles
13
19
Promotion
2
9
Additional
Degrees
1
5
Formal
Research
4
1
Action
Research
10
8
Presentations
21
12
Another source of external evaluation is the Department of Special
Education Advisory Board, including faculty and staff from across campus,
current candidates and graduates, parent representatives from the community,
and practicing professionals from the community. It meets twice a year and
provides a forum for discussion and feedback to guide program development and
program evaluation.
401280716
- 16 -
Draft 10-29-03
Accreditation review provides external evaluation. Kennesaw State
University Program Review Council, the University System of Georgia Board of
Regents, Georgia Professional Standards Commission, NCATE and CEC, and
the KSU Program Review Council have reviewed the M.Ed. in Special Education.
The Georgia Professional Standards Commission provided initial approval for the
special education add-on programs (LD 1994; BD, MR, IRR 1995). The Board of
Regents approved the M.Ed. in Special Education in 1996 and a five-year followup review in 2001. The Kennesaw State University M.Ed. in Special Education
and Interrelated program received CEC Accreditation in 1998 based on the CEC
General Curriculum Standards. The programs in Learning Disabilities, Behavior
Disorders and Intellectual Disabilities were approved by CEC based on the
individual disability category standards. The NCATE Board of Examiners and the
Georgia Professional Standards Commission (PSC) approved all programs in the
Department of Special Education in 2000. The Special Education programs were
approved with no weaknesses. The KSU Program Review Council in 2002 gave
the M.Ed. in Special Education program Strong or Very Strong ratings for all
Quality Indicators. (Appendix C)
Internal Candidate Assessment Component
The assessment system begins with data collected at the point of
admission to the program. Admission requirements are listed in the Graduate
Catalog. The original admission requirements were developed in alignment with
other KSU graduate education programs and emphasized undergraduate grade
point average (GPA) and scores on the Verbal and Quantitative subtests of the
Graduate Record Examination (GRE). All candidates are screened by the Office
of Graduate Education to determine eligibility. The following chart reflects
Graduate Record Exam (GRE) scores and final Grade Point Average (GPA) for
Fall Semester 2001 candidates.
SPE Candidate Performance 2001 Cohort
M.Ed. in SPE
Candidates
GRE Verbal
GRE
Quantitative
Total GRE
Spring 2003
Graduation GPA
520
470
990
3.86
Departmental discussions and informal review of candidate performance
has resulted in changes in admission requirements. Consistent concerns were
raised about candidate written expression skills and interpersonal skills. A rubric
was implemented in the 2003 admission review to provide better documentation
of the admissions process. The Special Education Admissions Review
Committee (at least 3 faculty) reviewed all candidates during Spring 2003 using
the following rubric.
401280716
- 17 -
Draft 10-29-03
GRADUATE ADMISSIONS CRITERIA REVIEW SHEET
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
STUDENT NAME:
EMAIL:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
PROGRAM CONCENTRATION:
DATE:
Performance Element
Meets
Provisional
Does Not Meet
1. Baccalaureate degree from
accredited institution
Documented
Not Documented
Not Documented
2. Undergraduate cumulative
grade point average of 2.75/4.00
Documented
2.5 – 2.75/4.00
Not Documented
3. Minimum score of 800 (Verbal &
Quantitative combined) on GRE
Documented
700-800 GRE
Not Documented
4. Professional Resume
Documents education,
teaching experience,
service and leadership
Meets Partial Criteria
5. Two Letters of Recommendation
Addresses applicant’s
success in teaching; ability
for success in M.Ed. program
Addresses teaching
Tepid review of
success or ability for
applicant’s abilities/only
success in M.Ed. program one letter submitted
6. Current Georgia Certificate
Documented
Pending
Not Documented
7. Proof of Completion of Courses
in Human Growth & Development,
Teaching Reading, and Education
HGD ___
RDG ___
EXC ___
HGD ___
RDG ___
EXC ___
HGD ___
RDG ___
EXC ___
Of Exceptional Students
All 3 Documented
2-3 Documented
Lacks critical data
0-1 Documented
8. M.Ed. Personal Statement

Training, Interests,
Needs, Concerns (a)
Contains a sharp focus and
a clearly identifiable
statement of purpose
Unengaging, poorly
focused statement
Lack of purpose, focus,
major elements

Nature/Quality of
Experiences (b)
Ideas are engaging,
Insightful, illustrate
Understanding of self

Goals/Issues
To Address (c)
Major points are supported
by strong examples.

Style
Writing is clear, inspiring,
and done with a flair.
Writing is fair, not
Particularly engaging
Writing lacks energy, is
narrow, unimaginative

Organization
Contains clearly developed
paragraphs in a logical
sequence.
Contains mostly welldeveloped paragraphs;
Unclear in places
Disorganized and difficult
to follow

Mechanics
No errors
1-3 distracting errors
Some minor difficulties
Many major errors
Ideas are good but
obscured by unclear
writing or lack of
Information
Superficial Support
Ideas Undeveloped,
Random thoughts
Major Points Unsupported
Accept in Full Standing _____
Accept Provisionally ______
Reject _______
Reason for Rejection: _________________________________________________________________________
Decision Approved By: __________________________________________ Date: _______________________
401280716
- 18 -
Draft 10-29-03
Candidates scoring low on written expression of the admission rubric were
brought in for a conference and remediation suggestions. Changes submitted for
the 2003-2004 KSU Graduate Catalog include submission of a 1-2 page
Teaching Experience Essay outlining and reflecting on a significant teaching
event that has personal meaning for the candidate to replace the current
personal statement of goals for professional development. This essay format is
based on research on teacher dispositions presented at a conference last fall.
The Office of Graduate Education sends out letters informing candidates
of the special education admission committee’s decision. Candidates that meet
all standards are granted admission in full standing. Candidates that do not meet
all requirements are granted provisional admission with specific stipulations and
their performance in the program is reviewed before granting full standing.
Individual candidate appointments are scheduled as necessary to address issues
for provisional admission. Candidates granted provisional admission are
reviewed at the end of each semester and must satisfy requirements for full
admission by the completion of nine semester hours in the program. Further
revisions in admission standards to be addressed during 2003-2004 are the GRE
Writing subtest scores and submission of teaching videotapes.
An orientation session is scheduled before initial cohort registration.
Candidates receive information on program requirements and websites for
accessing forms. Subsequent advising sessions are conducted within cohorts.
Candidates receive copies of the unit and program level assessments with
references to the aligned standards. Forms have been revised for the 2003
cohorts. The Department of Special Education website is scheduled to be
upgraded and all forms will be available online.
Interim review of candidate performance begins with the KSU Graduate
School office monitoring course grades. Candidates not meeting standards are
issued letters of warning, probation or dismissal.
Special education faculty discusses candidates’ strengths and areas needing
improvement as appropriate at faculty meetings. Patterns of concern (written
expression skills, professionalism, classroom performance) were identified and
an interim review process was developed, beginning with the 2002 cohort. It is
scheduled at the completion of 12 semester hours using the Candidate Interim
Review Rubric:
401280716
- 19 -
Draft 10-29-03
CANDIDATE INTERIM REVIEW RUBRIC
Standards
Candidate’s written
expression is well
organized,
professional, and
free of mechanical
errors.
L1 - L2
Two or more faculty
members have voiced
concerns over the
candidate’s work in one
or more areas of written
expression.
L3
While the quality of
written expression is
somewhat
inconsistent, it is
always acceptable.
Candidate is highly
professional in their
approach to their
graduate work.
Candidate is habitually
late for class. Candidate
does not attend to class
discussion nor activities.
Candidate
consistently comes
to class, is punctual
and attends to topics
of discussion and
activities.
L4
The quality of the
candidate’s written
expression is
consistently well
organized,
professional and
free of errors.
Candidate
consistently comes
to class, is punctual
and attends to topics
of discussion and
activities.
Candidate is
respectful of
colleagues and
peers.
Candidate is
respectful of
colleagues and
peers.
Candidate
consistently listens
and appropriately
responds to
feedback and
dialogue.
Candidate
consistently listens
and appropriately
responds to
feedback and
dialogue.
Candidate
periodically finds a
way to extend skills
and knowledge from
course work to daily
practice
Candidate generally
uses People 1st
language when
referring to people
with disabilities.
Candidate
consistently finds
ways to extend
skills and
knowledge from
course work to daily
practice.
Candidate
consistently uses
People 1st language
when referring to
people with
disabilities.
Candidate is not
respectful of the ideas of
others.
Candidate does not listen
and appropriately
respond to feedback and
dialogue.
Candidate views course
assignments in isolation
and does not find ways to
extend new skills and
knowledge to daily
practice.
Candidate is
professional in their
communication,
collaboration &
teamwork.
Candidate does not use
People 1st language when
referring to people with
disabilities.
Candidate displays
paternalistic attitudes
toward students with
disabilities, has low
expectations and
increases student
dependency on teachers
and caretakers.
Candidate is often
accused by peers of
“social loafing” during
group work. An analysis
of grades clearly
indicates a discrepancy
where the candidates
“group grades” are higher
than individual grades.
Candidate generally
displays a positive
attitude towards all
students, including
those with
disabilities, has high
expectations and
empowers all
students to solve
their own problems
and increase
independence.
Candidate
successfully
collaborates with
peers to complete
team-based
assignments.
401280716
Comments
Candidate
consistently displays
a positive attitude
towards all students,
including those with
disabilities, has high
expectations and
empowers all
students to solve
their own problems
and increase
independence.
Candidate
consistently leads
and successfully
collaborates with
peers to complete
team-based
assignments.
- 20 -
Draft 10-29-03
Candidate
demonstrates
effective teaching
and classroom
management skills
during field
observations.
Candidate
maintains a GPA of
3.0.
Two or more faculty have
voiced concerns in either
teaching or classroom
management.
Candidate has
obtained
satisfactory
evaluations from
university
supervisory staff.
Candidate has
obtained exemplary
evaluations from
university
supervisory staff.
Candidate has two or
more grades below a C.
Candidate maintains
a GPA of 3.0, with
incompletes for
illness only.
Candidate maintains
a GPA of 3.0, with
no incompletes.
Candidates exhibiting deficiencies in any of the five areas are invited for
an advising meeting and a remediation plan developed. Letters indicating
conditions for continuing in the program are sent out to candidates identified as
exhibiting difficulty in completing program requirements. Candidates are
reviewed again at the completion of 24 semester hours (out of a 36-semester
hour program).
Course requirements reflect a developmental model of program and
candidate evaluation. Activities in each course build on skills and knowledge
developed in previous courses. Faculty meetings regularly include discussion of
candidate progress and standards. These issues are addressed at the summer
faculty retreat and formalized in course syllabi for the next academic year.
Course requirements include a variety of types of assessment:
multiple choice exams, case study response exams, assessment data collection
and reporting, collaborative group projects, individual projects, in-class activities,
and field-based activities. Course requirements serve to monitor effectiveness of
instruction, model formative assessment, develop skills for extension in the field
experience, and document progress in the program. Technology skill assessment
is embedded in activities within courses. Documentation of candidate mastery of
knowledge competencies is evidenced by evaluation rubrics of course outcomes.
The Unit level ISLA is completed in EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II and the
capstone portfolio course (EXC 7970). During 2003-2004 this will be
implemented in additional courses.
Course requirements include field-based as well as traditional course
assessment. Field-based supervision supports the links between theory and
practice. All candidates are observed each semester by KSU faculty and/or field
experience supervisors who provide documentation of performance on the
Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) form (Appendix D)
documenting development of expertise in teaching and learning
throughout the program. This instrument is intentionally linked to the Unit
level Gradate Candidate Performance Instrument (CPI) outcomes (Appendix
A). Candidates must demonstrate mastery of all outcomes at a Level 3
(acceptable) or Level 4 (target) before receiving a satisfactory grade in the
capstone Internship course (EXC 7970). Additional supervision visits are
401280716
- 21 -
Draft 10-29-03
scheduled as necessary throughout the program to support candidate
development.
Candidates maintain a working portfolio throughout the program
including course requirements and evaluation rubrics, personal reflections,
extensions in their classroom, student work samples, video-tapes, and feedback
from supervision visits. A written portfolio and multi-media presentation
documenting personal philosophy, impact on student learning, and professional
growth is developed from the working portfolio of products from courses within
the program. Candidates are expected to include extensions of skills beyond
course requirements. Candidates must complete a working portfolio, written
portfolio and presentation with mastery at a Level 3 (acceptable) or Level 4
(target) on all performance rubric indicators before receiving a satisfactory
grade in the capstone portfolio course (EXC 7790). The Unit level Portfolio
Narrative Rubric (p. 62) and Unit level Candidate Performance Indicators
(Appendix A) form are completed at this point.
Candidate assessment: Follow-up: As a result of the 2002 Program
Review process, the Department identified follow-up of graduates as an area
needing improvement. Ninety-nine candidates, graduates and supervisors
responded to the 2002 Program Review Survey. This represented a return rate of
approximately thirty-five percent. The Department has maintained many unofficial
lines of communication including using graduates as part-time instructors,
attending informal reunion groups with former cohorts, and soliciting feedback in
the department newsletter. The university and PTEU focus has been on
following-up and providing induction services for undergraduates, and with
administrative reorganization in 2001, responsibility for follow-up of graduates
was not assigned. A major goal for the 2003-2004 academic year will be
developing a system to follow-up graduates. This will be discussed with the
appropriate PTEU committee and established as a PTEU function.
401280716
- 22 -
Draft 10-29-03
Kennesaw State University
Professional Teacher Education Unit
Department of Special Education
Field Experiences and Clinical Practice Standard
Field experiences are embedded within the graduate Special Education
Program at Kennesaw State University (KSU). Many classes are designed with
field-based components to link theory to practice. Ninety-five percent of graduate
candidates are employed full time as teachers and complete field-based activities
for their teaching field and capstone courses on their job site.
Developmentally sequenced field experiences
The KSU Special Education graduate program provides candidates
multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery and reflect on practice in their
job site or KSU selected field experience site. Candidates take classes in a
cohort model to ensure sequencing of courses and requirements to promote
sequential development and extension of skills. Candidates complete two
observation visits and reflections to document a range of experiences and the
application of components observed to their teaching practice. Candidates
submit videotapes with self-evaluation and reflection, as well as peer and faculty
feedback, in specific courses. The candidate is responsible for obtaining parental
permission for videotaping and maintaining permission on file to assure
confidentiality in compliance with local school/district policies.
A key element in the KSU program is the field-experience supervision
component. Kennesaw State University faculty and field-experience supervisors
schedule observation visits to monitor progress in development of expertise
as facilitators of teaching and learning using the Special Education
Performance Objectives (SEPO) Form (Appendix D) that is linked to the CEC
Standards and KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework outcomes (Subject matter
experts, Facilitators of teaching and learning, and Collaborative
professionals). KSU field-experience supervisors observe candidates in their
classrooms at least once each semester and provide written feedback
(Observation Summary Form) and verbal coaching. The initial on-site supervision
visit during Fall I focuses on baseline data collection and support of candidates in
their curriculum development and evaluation role. Subsequent field experience
supervision visits are linked to specific course requirements as indicated by the
goals column of the following chart. Field experience supervisors rate candidate
performance on the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) Form
and provide verbal coaching and written feedback on a separate form
(Observation Summary) indicating candidate strengths and areas needing
improvement. Additional supervision visits are scheduled when necessary.
The following chart indicates the developmental focus and goals of
observation activities, videotape evidence of performance, and supervision visits.
401280716
- 23 -
Draft 10-29-03
Developmental Field Experience Grid
Semester
Course
Course
Summer I
EXC
7700
EXC
7730
EXC
7715
EXC
7760
Spring 1
EXC
7720
EXC
7765
Summer 2
EXC
7770
EXC
7780
EXC
7705
EXC
7735
EXC
7790
EXC
7970
Fall 1
Fall 2
Spring 2
Observation/Supervision
Goals
Observation:
Disabilities/diversity
Baseline & curriculum
development
Subject Matter Experts
Classroom management &
instruction
Facilitators of Teaching &
Learning
Observation –
Disabilities/diversity
Co-teaching & extension of
skills
Collaborative
Professionals
Mastery of all competencies
Obs
Videotape
# of
visits
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
There are four levels of field-based activities embedded in courses:
1) Observations of other programs & populations (Subject Matter
Experts);
2) Application activities (Subject Matter Experts);
3) Demonstration of skill mastery (Facilitators of Teaching &
Learning); and
4) Capstone internship (Subject Matter Experts, Facilitators of
Teaching & Learning , Collaborative Professionals)
Observations of other programs and populations are required during
summer semesters to develop candidate skills as Subject Matter Experts in the
content of Special Education characteristics (CEC Standard 2), Learning
Differences (CEC Standard 3), and Language (CEC Standard 6). The
observation activity was initially included as an activity within courses during the
academic year. The purpose was to provide candidates with experience in a wide
range of special education delivery settings and with a wide range of special
education populations. The KSU-PTEU provides a system for candidates to
monitor racial and socioeconomic diversity of experiences. In order to
standardize the observation requirement to address the specific goals of the
special education graduate program, the observation activities were moved to
courses during the summer sessions for Summer 2003. Candidates in EXC 7715
Nature/Needs: Students with Mild Disabilities (Summer 1) and EXC 7770
Psychoneurological and Medical Issues in Special Education (Summer 2)
observe a program for students from a different age level, severity level, disability
category, economic level, racial or cultural background than the students in their
teaching site and reflect on the application of observations to their teaching
practice. The sites selected for candidates during Summer 1 highlight the
similarities and differences across categories (LD, MR, BD), levels of severity,
401280716
- 24 -
Draft 10-29-03
and age level (transition). Summer 2 sites target greater diversity of category
(medical, autism, TBI), age level (infants), and alternative delivery models.
Application Activities embedded in courses require candidates to apply
theory and skills taught in a particular course to their teaching practice to
demonstrate mastery of special education and academic content as Subject
Matter Experts. Candidates submit a product demonstrating skill mastery. For
example, in EXC 7730 Assessment during Fall 1, candidates collect data, plan
and implement an evaluation plan to complete a case study report on a student
in their classroom or supervised field experience site (Assessment CEC
Standard 8), while in EXC 7760 candidates work in cooperative groups on a
curriculum mapping and accommodations project (Planning CEC Standard 7).
The KSU course faculty member is responsible for evaluation of application
activities as detailed in course syllabi and project rubrics. The field experience
supervisor notes extensions of course skills demonstrated within classroom
practice.
Demonstration of Skill Mastery includes submission of videotapes and
observation by a Kennesaw State University faculty member or field-experience
supervisor as evidence of skill as a Facilitator of Teaching and Learning
(Instruction CEC Standard 4, Environment CEC Standard 5). For example,
during Spring 1 in EXC 7765, Teaching and Learning II, candidates develop and
deliver instructional lessons. Candidates are required to videotape their lesson,
and complete a reflective self-evaluation and exchange with a colleague for a
peer evaluation. Faculty evaluates the lesson plan and the videotape of lesson
plan implementation according to course syllabi and rubrics. That same
semester, for EXC 7720, Behavioral Strategies, candidates conduct an action
research project to address impact of behavior change strategies (Environment
CEC Standard 5). Faculty evaluates the action research project according to
course syllabi and rubrics. A KSU field-experience supervisor observes and
evaluates mastery of instructional and behavioral management skills on-the-job.
Specific rubrics presented in the course are used as the basis for evaluation of
written and videotaped lessons and the Special Education Performance
Outcomes (SEPO) Form is used for evaluation of mastery of skills on the job.
The Field Experience Supervisor also completes an Observation Summary Form
to provide written feedback during the post-observation conference. The Unit
level Impact on Student Learning form is also completed at this level.
The capstone internship/practicum experience requires candidates to
demonstrate mastery of all objectives for the special education graduate program
(Subject Matter Experts, Facilitators of Teaching & Learning, Collaborative
Professionals, Foundations CEC Standard 1, Professionalism CEC
Standard 9, Collaboration CEC Standard 10) Kennesaw State University
faculty and KSU field-experience supervisors evaluate candidates in a full-time
teaching position (for at least 15 weeks). Candidates employed in a teaching
position complete EXC 7970 Internship. Candidates not currently employed in a
401280716
- 25 -
Draft 10-29-03
teaching position must apply for a supervised field experience site supervised by
a KSU cooperating teacher to complete EXC 7980 Practicum. Evidence of
mastery of all competencies on the Special Education Performance
Objectives (SEPO) at a Level 3 (Acceptable) or Level 4 (Target) is required for
satisfactory completion of this requirement. This also documents mastery of Unit
level Candidate Performance Instrument (CPI).
Diversity of experience
Candidates employed in a teaching position including responsibility for
students with disabilities may complete their field experience for each course onthe-job. Candidates not meeting this condition must apply each semester for a
supervised field experience site supervised by a KSU cooperating teacher to
complete application activities. The number of contact hours typically involves a
minimum of 6 hours per week for at least 15 weeks to complete required fieldbased activities for each academic year semester. Placements are assigned to
include diversity in age level, disability category, severity level, ethnic
background and/or socioeconomic status.
One concern has been providing diverse experiences for the graduate
candidates in the program who are fully employed. Ninety-five percent of the
candidates are fully employed as teachers and complete their field experience
on-the-job. Although the individual sites reflect diversity, candidates were limited
in their experiences outside of their job site. Collaborative projects and activities
expose candidates to content and issues for diverse settings, but do not meet
programmatic goals. Infusing observations of diverse sites in academic year
classes is not always effective because candidates must obtain release time from
their teaching job to complete the observations. Beginning Summer 2003, the
observations are linked to specific summer courses and structured to meet the
goal of diversity in age level, disability category, severity level, ethnic background
and/or socioeconomic status. Course requirements in EXC 7715 Nature/Needs:
Students with Mild Disabilities (Summer 1) and EXC 7770 Psychoneurological
and Medical Issues in Special Education (Summer 2) were modified to include
observation of a special education setting identified by the Department of Special
Education that includes students/clients at different age level, disability category,
severity level, ethnic background and/or socioeconomic status than the
candidate’s teaching site and submission of written reflections on application to
their teaching practice.
Supervision by qualified professionals
There are six full-time tenure-track faculty positions (including the
department chair) in the Department of Special Education. All hold a Ph.D. in an
appropriate field. There is a balance in specializations to support courses in the
program. Faculty are involved in professional development and scholarship
activities to remain up-to-date for program delivery. In addition, two part-time
faculty members provide support for field experience supervision and instruction.
(Appendix B) The following chart highlights faculty credentials.
401280716
- 26 -
Draft 10-29-03
Faculty Degrees & Specializations
Name of Professor
Susan Brown
Degree
Ph. D. Special Education,
Learning Disabilities
Harriet Bessette
Ph. D. Teacher Education
Curriculum & Instruction
Special Education
Ph. D. Special Education
All categories
Ph. D. Special Education
Mental Retardation
Michaela D’Aquanni
Kent Logan
Toni Strieker
Ph. D. Special Education
Educational Leadership
Deborah Wallace
Ph. D. Special Education
Behavior Disorders
Learning Disabilities
Ed. D. Education
Special Education
Administration
Deaf Education
M.Ed. Education
Supervision/Administration
Learning Disabilities
Behavior Disorders
Stephanie Dirst
Gail Fredericks
Specializations
Working with parents, learning disabilities,
balanced literacy, diversity, medical &
neurological
Assessment, curriculum development,
research, school administration,
collaboration, co-teaching
Curriculum development, collaboration,
school administration, diversity, inclusion
Low-incidence disabilities, community Based
instruction, school change, inclusion, coteaching, collaboration, behavior
management
Policy analysis, assessment, administration,
school change, inclusion, collaboration, coteaching
Administration, special education law,
behavior analysis
Part-time- supervision
Part-time- supervision
Supervision of field experiences is a shared responsibility. KSU Field
Experience Supervisors participate in Department retreats and Advisory Board
meetings. They meet regularly with KSU faculty and attend class meetings as
appropriate to ensure consistency in expectations. They have been involved in
development and refinement of the SEPO and Summary form. The Kennesaw
State University faculty member teaching the course is responsible for evaluating
products. Rubrics are used to evaluate observation reports and application
activities. Specific skills are targeted for each supervision visit. Faculty and/or
field experience supervisors rate each item on the Special Education
Performance Outcomes (SEPO)(Appendix D) during scheduled visits each
semester and provide written feedback (Observation Summary
Form)(Appendix D) and verbal conferencing on areas of strength and areas
needing improvement. Candidates requiring a supervised field experience also
receive ratings and feedback from their on-site supervisor.
The on-site cooperating teacher is the master teacher providing direct
daily supervision for KSU candidates requiring supervised field experience
placement sites. The Kennesaw State University Department of Special
Education, KSU Office of Educational Field Experiences, and the school district
jointly select the on-site cooperating teacher. Requirements include clear
renewable T-5 (master’s level) Georgia teacher certification in the appropriate
401280716
- 27 -
Draft 10-29-03
special education field, at least three years successful teaching experience with
students with disabilities, and the Teacher Support Specialist (TSS) endorsement
or participation in supervision and peer coaching training provided by KSU. The
cooperating teacher’s certification and special education program should be the
same as the program the KSU candidate is completing.
Candidates receive a rating on each performance objective on the SEPO
and written feedback on strengths and areas needing improvement. The field
experience supervisors also provide verbal feedback and suggestions to guide
the candidate to a higher level of expertise. Field experience supervisors use a
coaching model to provide assistance. They model the application of Vgotsky’s
peer assistance based on the zone of proximal development. Supervisors serve
as adult peers (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, 1990) coaching candidates to higher
levels of performance. The focus is on implementing best practice in teaching,
learning and management strategies to maximizing student outcomes. To
receive a grade of satisfactory in the final capstone course, EXC 7970/7980,
candidates must demonstrate mastery of all performance objectives at Level 3
(acceptable) or Level 4 (target).
The Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) is the
assessment instrument used for supervision in all field experiences to
document candidate development of expertise in teaching and learning
throughout the program. (Appendix D) The emphasis is on evaluation of
candidate expertise in identification of ways to change teaching environments,
systems or instructional behaviors to improve student learning. In 1994, the
Behaviorally Anchored Supervision System (BASS) was used to document
candidate mastery of objectives. The BASS was continuously revised and
reviewed until the Department of Special Education Summer 2002 retreat when a
new model was developed as a result of curriculum mapping. The new
instrument, the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) Form, was
field tested during 2002-2003. The reporting system was reorganized during
Summer 2003 to show development over time, and linked to the Council for
Exceptional Children Standards, the University System of Georgia Board of
Regents standards (based on NBPTS), and the KSU-PTEU conceptual
framework.
Confidentiality: The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of
1974 (FERPA) regulates access to, and disclosure of student information.
FERPA serves to assure record access by covered students and their guardians
and to prevent disclosure from those records of personally identifying information
to unprivileged parties without the written consent of affected students and their
guardians. Disclosure of confidential information is NOT to occur. To
protect the confidentiality of student information, no identifying information is
included when KSU candidates present written or oral reports.
401280716
- 28 -
Draft 10-29-03
Kennesaw State University candidates video-taping for KSU class requirements
must obtain informed permission from parents to videotape. School district
permission forms should be used and all returned forms kept on file with the
school where videotaping takes place. KSU candidates should include a
statement that permission forms were completed and a sample permission form
with any videotape material submitted to KSU.
Kennesaw State University candidates completing action research
projects or applied research activities required in a KSU syllabus should confer
with the course faculty member when planning their research. KSU faculty obtain
Institutional Review Board approval for course requirements and activities
completed in accordance with course syllabi to ensure protection of participant
rights. In some cases, KSU Institutional Review Board approval may be
necessary for candidate research projects. Information and forms are available
from the Department of Special Education office (770-423-6577).
Professionalism: Candidates represent Kennesaw State University and
are expected to maintain high standards of personal and professional ethics. The
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Code of Ethics and Standards
(http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm) highlight the guiding principles for
professional practice as a special educator. Candidates also follow the guidelines
for professionalism for Georgia Teachers (http://www.gapsc.com).
Professionalism is emphasized in their classroom, their participation in the
graduate special education program, and with all constituencies (parents,
administrators, peers, faculty).
401280716
- 29 -
Draft 10-29-03
Kennesaw State University
Professional Teacher Education Unit
Department of Special Education
Performance Data
Since its formation in 1998, the Department of Special Education has
utilized a data based model for assessment of candidates and program
improvement. Performance data in this report includes objective exam scores
and rubric summaries for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. In addition to assessment
activities within courses, candidates are observed in field experience settings
(Program level Special Education Performance Outcomes SEPO Appendix D)
and candidates must document mastery of standards in a working portfolio (Unit
Level Portfolio narrative Rubric, Unit level Impact on Student Learning
Assessment ISLA, and Unit level Graduate Candidate Performance Indicators
CPI). Program level assessment includes evaluation of course products
and evaluation of candidates in the field experience. Data reported for course
products includes a description of the assessment activity, related course
objectives, rubrics, numerical data, and reflections on practice by the faculty
member addressing recommendations for future program improvement.
Evaluation of the field experience component was initially based on the
Behaviorally Anchored Supervision System (BASS). The BASS has been
continuously adjusted to reflect best practice and program outcomes. In 20022003, the department field-tested the Special Education Performance
Outcomes (SEPO) (Appendix D) developed by KSU faculty. It is now explicitly
aligned with CEC, NBPTS, and PTEU standards. Performance data in this report
include BASS summaries for 2001-2002 and SEPO summaries for 2002-2003.
The SEPO is explicitly linked to the PTEU Unit level Candidate Performance
Indicator (Appendix A) requirement.
KSU PTEU unit level assessment includes the KSU PTEU Impact on
Student Learning Rubric, which was implemented with candidates completing
the program in Spring 2003. The Department of Special Education will expand
this to other courses during 2003-2004. The structure and evaluation of the
portfolio has also evolved over time. In response to candidate and faculty
feedback, two new courses were developed to support special education
graduate candidates in portfolio development (EXC 7700 Teacher Researcher:
Data based Decision Making and EXC 7790 Documenting Professional Growth).
Specific portfolio requirements were integrated and identified in each course
syllabus. The unit level Graduate Candidate Performance Instrument was
based on NBPTS and that data is reported for 2001-2002 candidates. The
revised Graduate Candidate Performance Instrument is now linked to the
PTEU Conceptual Framework and is completed during the portfolio course. The
unit level Graduate Portfolio Narrative Rubric was developed and approved by
the PTEU and is reported for 2002-2003 candidates. The following chart is a
guide to the data presented in this section:
401280716
- 30 -
Draft 10-29-03
Special Education Graduate Program
Summary Performance Data
CEC
Standard
Standard
1
Foundations
2
Characteristics
3
Differences
4
Instruction
5
Environments
6
Communication
7
Planning
8
Assessment
9
Professionalism
10
Collaboration
Performance
Assessment
Video-tape
SEPO/CPI
SEPO/CPI
SEPO/CPI
Interim
Review
SEPO/CPI
Product
Assessment
EXC 7705
Exams
EXC 7715
Exams
EXC 7770
Exams
EXC 7715
Exams EXC
7770 Exams
EXC 7765
Lesson Plan
EXC 7720
Appl Paper &
Exam
Criteria
80%
minimum
80%
minimum
80%
minimum
Page
#
32-33
34-36
34-36
Rubric Level 37-46
3
Rubric Level 47-49
3
Rubric Level 50,
3
34-36
EXC 7760 Unit
Plan
EXC 7730 Case
Study
SEPO/CPI
Interim
review
SEPO/CPI
Interim
review
Rubric Level 51-54
3
Rubric Level 55-58
3
Rubric Level 59
3
Rubric Level 59
3
Rubric Level
3
60-69,
APP
D
70-71
76-77
73-76
SEPO
ISLA
Portfolio
Narrative
CPI
APP
A
401280716
- 31 -
Draft 10-29-03
CEC Standard 1 Foundations
Objective Examination Data
Objective examinations are used to assess basic knowledge and application of
knowledge. Data is recorded for each cohort indicating the number and percentage of
candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target proficiency (90%+
mastery of content) and represents clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of mastery.
Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of content mastery (80-90% mastery
of content). Level 1 and 2 represent less than 80% mastery of content and candidates
would be required to document further evidence of mastery for their portfolio.
In EXC 7705 Special Education Procedures, candidates take a pre-test and post-test to
document impact of course experiences on their mastery of the content including judicial,
legislative, and collaborative foundations in special education.
In the area of Knowledge, the candidate will be able to:




Identify the historical foundations of special education, with an emphasis on the sociological and
political forces that are the basis for current practice.
Identify the major judicial cases and legislation that guide special education practice from prereferral to transition out of special education programs.
Identify the key principles guiding special education practice and related or support services
(transportation, specialized health care, occupational therapy, etc) and the judicial and legislative
origins of each.
Identify the major judicial and legislative protections for student and parent rights with particular
attention to students from diverse cultural, racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.
In the area of Skills, the candidate will be able to:


Trace and articulate the implementation of due process procedures guiding pre-referral (Georgia
Student Support Team), assessment, eligibility determination, development of an Individualized
Education Plan (Individual Family Service, Plan, Individual Transition Plan and/or Behavior
Intervention Plan) and placement in the least restrictive environment.
Identify resources for implementing due process that meet federal and state guidelines, with
special emphasis on documentation procedures and meeting the needs of students with specialized
health care needs, transitioning from private schools or treatment programs, and other unique
circumstances.
Pre-Proficiency Exam
Proficiency Exam
N=27 Su 2002
N=21 Su 2002
N=23 Su 2002
Level 1
Below 70%
Little or No
Evidence
8/30%
6/29%
6/26%
Level 2
(70-79%)
Limited Evidence
Level 3
(80-89%)
Clear Evidence
7/26%
6/29%
7/30%
8/30%
9/43%
9/39%
Level 4
(90%+)
Clear, Consistent, and
Convincing Evidence
4/15%
0/0%
¼%
Post-Proficiency Exam
Proficiency Exam
N=27 Su 2002
Level 1
Below 70%
Little or No
Evidence
0/0%
Level 2
(70-79%)
Limited Evidence
Level 3
(80-89%)
Clear Evidence
0/0%
8/30%
401280716
Level 4
(90%+)
Clear, Consistent, and
Convincing Evidence
19/70%
- 32 -
Draft 10-29-03
N=21 Su 2002
0/0%
N=23 Su 2002
0/0%
Pre/Post Proficiency Exam Comparisons
Proficiency
Level 1
Exam
Below 70%
Total for All
Little or No
Sections
Evidence
Pre-test
20/28%
Post-test
0/0%
Gain Score
(-)20/(-)28%
0/0%
0/0%
8/38%
9/39%
Level 2
(70-79%)
Limited Evidence
Level 3
(80-89%)
Clear Evidence
20/28%
0/0%
(-)20/(-)28%
25/35%
25/35%
0/0%
13/62%
14/61%
Level 4
(90%+)
Clear, Consistent, and
Convincing Evidence
5/7%
46/65%
(+)41/(+)58%
TOTAL LEVELS 3+4 = 71/100%
Exam I
Exam I
N=27
N=21
N=23
Level 1
Below 70%
Little or No
Evidence
0/0%
0/0%
0/0%
Level 2
(70-79%)
Limited Evidence
Level 3
(80-89%)
Clear Evidence
2/7%
4/19%
2/9%
8/30%
8/38%
11/48%
Level 4
(90%+)
Clear, Consistent, and
Convincing Evidence
17/63%
9/43%
10/43%
Exam II (Comprehensive)
Exam II
N=27
N=21
N=23
Level 1
Below 70%
Little or No
Evidence
¼%
0/0%
0/0%
Level 2
(70-79%)
Limited Evidence
Level 3
(80-89%)
Clear Evidence
7/26%
1/5%
5/22%
18/67%
16/76%
15/65%
Level 4
(90%+)
Clear, Consistent, and
Convincing Evidence
¼%
4/19%
3/13%
Reflection: The Pre-Proficiency Exam was first given with the Su 2002 sections of this
course. Since so much information was covered during the course I decided to do what I
call a “Walk Through” which serves as a review for the Post-test and takes the candidate
from the first sign of a student academic or behavior deficiency through the develop of
the Individualized Education Program (IEP) if needed. Included in this journey are all
related litigation, legislation, requirements and due process procedures.
Exam I & II also cover litigation, legislation, requirements and due process procedures.
In addition Exam II covers additional parental and student rights, exceptions, and
application questions. To enhance learning and thus performance, reviews prior to the
exams were conducted.
The course also requires simulations, role-playing, collaborative activities, and the
development of a Parent Resource Manual and a parent workshop.
Note: In most circumstances, where higher pre-test scores were exhibited, the candidates
had been enrolled in the program longer and taken more courses prior to taking this
course.
401280716
- 33 -
Draft 10-29-03
CEC Standard 2 Characteristics
CEC Standard 3 Differences
Objective Examination Data
Objective examinations are used to assess basic knowledge and application of
knowledge. Data is recorded for each cohort indicating the number and percentage of
candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target proficiency (90%+
mastery of content) and represents clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of mastery.
Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of content mastery (80-90% mastery
of content). Level 1 and 2 represent less than 80% mastery of content and candidates
would be required to document further evidence of mastery for their portfolio.
In EXC 7715 Nature/Needs: Students with Mild Disabilities is based on a coursecategorical model integrating characteristics of students with disabilities and
highlighting similarities and differences across categorical labels. Two objective exams
are used to assess mastery of characteristics, individual differences and accommodations
for students with mild/moderate learning disabilities, behavior disorders and intellectual
disabilities.
In the area of Knowledge, the candidate will be able to:









Understand the historical foundations, philosophies, theories and classic studies including the
major contributors, and major legislation that under gird the growth and improvement of
knowledge and practice in the field of special education.
Understand the evolution and major perspectives from medicine, psychology, behavior and
education on the definitions and etiologies (common and unique) of individuals with disabilities.
Understand the State of Georgia terminology and definitions of disabilities, including the
evaluation criteria, labeling controversies, current incidence and prevalence data.
Understand the continuum of educational placements and services, including alternative programs
for students with disabilities.
Understand the assurances provided by special education law including least restrictive
environment; due process; parent involvement; non-discriminatory evaluation; IEP process; and
free, appropriate public education.
Understand all aspects of individuals with disabilities including their psychological and socioemotional development, language development, attention and memory, health, cognition, and how
they related to student ability to read, write, perform mathematical operations, take tests, develop
social skills, etc.
Understand the effects of various medications related to the educational, cognitive, physical, social
and emotional behavior of individuals with disabilities.
Understand the impact of disability on family functioning, community participation, and career
development for the life of the student with disabilities.
Understand the necessity of creating a positive learning environment and providing alternative
teaching skills and strategies to students with disabilities.
Exam I
N=20
Fall 2002
Exam I & II Nature/Needs: Students with Mild Disabilities
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Below 70%
(70-79%)
(80-89%)
Little or No
Limited Evidence
Clear Evidence
Evidence
1/5%
0/0%
1/5%
401280716
Level 4
(90+%)
Clear, Consistent, and
Convincing Evidence
18/90%
- 34 -
Draft 10-29-03
Exam II
N=20
Fall 2002
Level1
Below 70%
Little or No
Evidence
4/20%
Level 2
(70-79%)
Limited Evidence
Level 3
(80-89%)
Clear Evidence
7/35%
8/40%
Level 4
(90%+)
Clear, Consistent, and
Convincing Evidence
1/5%
Reflection: There was a review for each exam, however, for the first exam a study guide
was provided and the format of the exam was multiple choice. The second exam had
short answer and several applied activity questions. I will provide a study guide for
second exam in the future to further direct the emphasis of the information to be covered.
In addition, I have added Eligibility Report assignments to this course. Candidates are
given a case study, meet as an eligibility team and complete the report for ID, LD & BD.
In EXC 7770 Psychoneurological and Medical Issues in Special Education, the
content includes the characteristics and individual differences of students with health,
medical, physical, sensory, and neurological issues. The course also addresses Autism,
Traumatic Brain Injury, and Attention Deficit Disorder categories. Two objective exams
are used to assess mastery of characteristics, individual differences and accommodations
for students with physical, health, sensory, autistic spectrum and neurological disorders.
Knowledge of health and medical issues:




EXAM
N=18
Su 2002
N=26
Su 2001
describe the causes and effects of sensory, physical and medical problems on learning and
behavior and the implications for special education.
articulate modifications and accommodations in assessment and instruction for students with
sensory, physical and medical problems.
articulate sources for support in addressing needs of students with sensory, physical and medical
problems including assessment, technological support, communication devices, equipment needs
and specialized related services.
describe curricular and instructional needs for medical and behavioral self-management and
independent living skills of students with sensory, physical or medical problems.
Level 1
Below 70%
Little or No
Evidence
0%
Level 2
(70-80%)
Limited Evidence
Level 3
(80-90%)
Clear Evidence
6%
33%
Level 4
(90%+)
Clear, Consistent, and
Convincing Evidence
61%
12%
27%
50%
12%
Knowledge of psychoneurological issues:





describe the causes and effects of cognitive differences and neurological problems on learning and
behavior and the implications for special education.
articulate modifications and accommodations in assessment and instruction for students with
cognitive differences and neurological problems.
articulate sources for support in addressing needs of students with cognitive differences and
neurological problems including assessment, technological support, communication devices,
equipment needs and specialized related services.
describe curricular and instructional needs for medical and behavioral self-management and
independent living skills of students with cognitive differences and psychoneurological, problems.
401280716
- 35 -
Draft 10-29-03
EXAM
N=18
Su 2002
N=26
Su 2001
Level 1
Below 70%
Little or No
Evidence
0%
Level 2
(70-80%)
Limited Evidence
Level 3
(80-90%)
Clear Evidence
11%
56%
Level 4
(90%+)
Clear, Consistent, and
Convincing Evidence
33%
8%
27%
50%
15%
Reflection:
Instructional activities modified for SU 2002: Having students
develop sample questions and then discussing them in class improved mastery of content
and test-taking skills
401280716
- 36 -
Draft 10-29-03
CEC Standard 4 Instruction
Evaluation of written products (lesson plans), videotape evidence of skill and evaluations
of on-the-job performance by KSU field-experience supervisors are used to assess
instructional skills. Triangulation of data from three sources provides a more complete
picture of candidate performance. Data is recorded for each cohort indicating the number
and percentage of candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target
proficiency (90%+ mastery of content) and represents clear, consistent, and convincing
evidence of mastery. Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of content
mastery (80-90% mastery of content). Level 1 and 2 represent less than 80% mastery of
content and candidates would be required to document further evidence of mastery for
their portfolio. The Unit level Graduate Impact on Student Learning is also completed as
part of assessment of this standard.
EXC 7765: Teaching & Learning II
Assignment: Multi-Level Cooperative
Learning, Direct Instruction and Strategy Instruction Lessons, with Embedded
Assessment.
As a result of Knowledge, the student will be able to:
1) Articulate and implement research-based practices and alternatives for teaching individuals with
disabilities who differ in degree and kind of disability
2) Articulate and apply knowledge regarding the variability (especially in students of differing
cultural backgrounds) of expected learning and problem solving strategies in the school context
3) Articulate and apply the theories of learning, motivation and assessment, particularly as they relate
to the individualized programming of students with disabilities
4) Articulate and apply theories of classroom and behavior management, particularly as they relate to
the social and behavioral development of students with disabilities
As a result of Skills, the student will be able to:
5) Design and implement direct and cooperative instruction to maximize engaged learning time and
meet the unique learning strengths and needs of students with disabilities
6) Select, conduct and assess instruction tailored to the individualized learning needs of students with
disabilities in a variety of educational, social and community contexts, as appropriate
7) Evaluate, select, develop, and adapt curriculum materials (within copyright laws) and technology
appropriate for individuals with disabilities who differ in degree and kind of disability, linguistic
and cultural background
8) Use differentiated strategies for acquisition, proficiency building, maintenance and generalization
of skills across setting
As a result of Disposition, the student will be able to:
9) Reflect critically on teacher and learner performances and outcomes and modify practices based
upon an action research model
10) Utilize instructional and management strategies which create a positive learning environment for
individuals with disabilities, including use of positive proactive and reactive techniques
11) Apply instructional and management strategies for all students in educational settings, including
non identified individuals who would benefit.
Lesson Plans. Each person is required to develop three lesson plans (2 reading & 1 math)
using specialized instruction. To successfully complete this assignment, you must
develop one lesson using cooperative learning, one using direct instruction and one using
strategy instruction. The fourth lesson can be a combination of direct and strategy
instruction or systematic instruction, using prompts and cues. You may not use a
401280716
- 37 -
Draft 10-29-03
commercially prepared lesson plan (e.g. SRA) to count as direct instruction. Rather you
are to design your own lessons. The lesson plans must be scripted, of 20 minutes in
duration, and follow the rubrics provided in class. In addition to the script, you are
required to adopt one of the lesson planning graphics discussed in your class to depict
your lesson in an abbreviated format. Each lesson must be tailored to the instructional
needs of the students in your classrooms. This activity must be completed in its entirety
by October 8, 2002. You are encouraged to discuss your lesson plans with your peers
and all of your instructors (particularly those conducting your classroom observations).
Your instructors will allow some of this assignment to be done in class, time permitting.
Assessments. Each person is required to develop a minimum of six assessments. All
three lessons must use pre-post assessment format to measure the impact of the
instruction on student learning for a group of students. In addition, each person is
required to design two more embedded assessments for two individual students. One
embedded assessment must measure the student’s progress on an IEP objective that is
embedded in content area instruction. For example, the student with the disability
(SWD) may participate in a cooperative learning activity in reading a social studies text.
The SWD may be working on a speech goal (e.g. initiating conversation with peers)
during that activity that must be measured as part of the lesson. The second embedded
assessment must include an error correction procedure for an individual student. For
example, the SWD may need additional support conducting math lessons that require
additional prompts and cues.
EXC 7765 Spring 2002 Direct Instruction Lesson
Category
4 Level Teacher 3 Level Teacher
Plan: Evaluation Rubric
<3 Level
4
Objectives
QCC Link
Lesson objective
in behavioral
format with all
conditions
presented,
observable
measurable
behaviors as
response and
appropriate
criteria.
Lesson objective
clearly linked to
grade level QCC
objectives
Lesson objective
in behavioral
format meeting 2
or 3 Level 4
criteria.
Lesson objective
not in behavioral
format. Does not
communicate
skill to be
taught.
Lesson objective
linked to a QCC
objective
No link to QCC
401280716
Totals
3
<3
6
10
4
11
7
3
- 38 -
Draft 10-29-03
Embedded
Assessment
Error correction
or pre/post
assessment
strategies are
clear.
Assessment
clearly measures
objective(s).
Measures do not
employ error
correction or
pre/post
strategies.
Assessment
clearly measures
objective(s).
Tell
objective/review
Objective is
clearly stated and
relation to
previous learning
is highlighted
Strategies to
actively engage
students in
learning are
included
throughout the
lesson
Acquisition stage
strategies and
active learning
strategies are
used to maximize
student
engagement in
learning
Objective or
relation to
previous learning
is clearly
presented
Strategies to
actively engage
students in
learning are
included
Engage students
Acquisition/
Active
engagement
Checks mastery/
provides closure
Hindrances to
learning
anticipated
Teacher
frequently checks
group and
individual
mastery during
the lesson
Lesson includes a
closure activity
that a summary
of content and
provides check of
mastery
Lesson plan
includes plans for
hindrances
(priority seating,
manipulatives,
materials
prepared in
advance, etc.)
Measures do not
employ error
correction or
pre/post
strategies.
Assessment
does not
measure
objective(s).
Objective and
relation to
previous
learning are not
presented
Learning
activities do not
actively engage
students in
learning
Some acquisition
stage strategies
and active
learning
strategies are
used to promote
student
engagement in
learning
Teacher checks
group and/or
individual
mastery
Lesson includes
summary closure
Acquisition
stage strategies
or active
learning
strategies are not
evident
Lesson plan
includes at least
one plan for
hindrances
Lesson plan
does not include
plans for
hindrances.
401280716
Teacher does
not provide
adequate checks
for mastery
Lesson does not
include
summary
closure
6
9
5
10
6
4
10
6
4
9
6
5
8
10
2
7
10
3
- 39 -
Draft 10-29-03
Student materials Student materials
included (or
included (or
described) are
described) meet
appropriate in
¾ of criteria for
content, format,
4 Level teacher
directions and
linked to
objective
Accommodations
Accommodations Appropriate
accommodations indicated for
indicated for
students with
students with
disabilities
disabilities
Off grade level
Off grade level
Modifications
activities and
activities and
materials
materials
provided for
provided
students not
available if
demonstrating
needed
prerequisite skills
Pre-/post-test
Pre-/post-test
Impact on
included to
included to
student learning
demonstrate
demonstrate
impact of lesson
impact of lesson
on student
on student
learning
learning
Format follows
Format follows
Format
all directions
most directions
presented in class presented in class
and is easy to
follow
Professional
Minimal
Other
presentation of
presentation of
material
material
NCATE Summary Scores
Number and Percentage of individuals at each level
Student
materials
401280716
Student
materials
included (or
described) meet
less than ¾ of
criteria for 4
Level teacher
No
accommodations
addressed
No off grade
level activities
or materials
included
No pre- or posttest included to
demonstrate
impact of lesson
on student
learning
Format not in
compliance with
assignment
Presentation is
not appropriate
for submission
8
10
2
8
8
4
7
10
3
9
7
4
8
10
2
6
10
4
L3
8
(40%)
L4
4
(20%)
L1-L2
8
(40%)
- 40 -
Draft 10-29-03
Assessment
Points
Class Activities
Lesson Plans: Design two reading
and one math 20-minute lessons,
each using a different form of
specialized instruction. (You are
to design one (scripted) lesson
using cooperative learning, one
lesson using direct instruction,
and one lesson using strategy
instruction, one combination or
systematic.)
Formative
feedback from
instructors &
peers
Assessments:
Design pre-post assessments for
each lesson (4) that measures the
impact of the instruction on student
learning.
Design two embedded
assessments: One to measure
progress on embedded IEP
objectives and one error correction
procedure.
Same as above
50 pts ea
Course
Objectives
1,2,3,4,6,7,
8,9,12
CPI Domain/
Graduate CPI
Domain 2:
Know & Teach
Subjects
200 total
Rubrics
25 pts ea
7, 8, 10,11,12
Graduate CPI
Domain 3:
150 total
Manage &
Monitor Learning
Comments & Concerns:
16/20 candidates obtained and “acceptable” (3) or “target” (4) on this assignment. Three
of the four people who failed, also failed the assignment for cooperative learning.








It seems that the assumption is made that several topics have been covered in previous courses and
will not have to be re-taught to graduate students. This may not be the case. Of particular concern
are the scores on “hindrances to learning” and “modifications”, as well as, “objectives”. Even
though this is a special education class, these teacher candidates were not able to write multi-level
objectives and create the modifications and accommodations for students with disabilities.
Also, virtually all of the assessments created for this assignment lacked the depth to measure
multi-level objectives.
It was the opinion of the instructor and the TA that this rubric did not discriminate accurately
between Level 3 & 4 on several standards. This rubric is also very similar to the one for
cooperative learning.
Candidates enjoyed the guest presentations on direct instruction by KSU faculty.
While the majority of these candidates passed this assignment, the concepts of direct instruction
did not transfer well to research-based strategy instruction, which also relies heavily on direct
instruction.
Recommendations for Next Semester:
Spend more time teaching the differences between accommodations & modifications, as well as
different types of assessments.
Refine this rubric such that criteria are more discrete and also develop it so that the standards are
clearly aligned with research on direct instruction.
Find someone to who is certified to teach learning strategies who is certified by University of
Kansas.
401280716
- 41 -
Draft 10-29-03
Direct Instruction Lesson Plan EXC 7765 Summary Table & Graduate
Impact on Student Learning
Lesson Component
Lesson Goals & Objectives
Lesson Goal are written in global
terms.
Lesson objectives are written in
behavioral format with conditions of
learning stated in observable,
measurable behaviors, with appropriate
criteria.
Alignment of goals & objectives
Goals & objectives are linked to grade
level primary QCC.
IEP goals & objectives are linked (or
embedded) into QCC.
Tell Objective.
Objective is clearly stated.
Criteria & Score
Criteria & Score
Criteria & Score
Criteria &
Score
L-1
Not multi-level
L-2
Omissions
L-3
1 omission
Not written in
behavioral terms
Too many
variables
Vague or
confusing
L-4
Met
requirements
Omissions
Either content or
IEP objectives are
not aligned with
QCC’s
1 omission
Not aligned with
QCC’s
Not aligned
Addresses
IEP, SST
&/or SqB
-Written
objective is
aligned with
lesson
- Student
accountability
established
- Students
get “big idea”
- Written obj. is
not aligned lesson
and is poorly
written and/or
stated
- Section is vague
or confusing
- Major omissions
- Lesson is aligned
- Minor parts are
Vague or
confusing
- Minor omissions
Organizers are
not used.
Meets one criteria
or is omitted
Meets 2 of 3
criteria
Identifies
major topics
Clarifies
actions
Provides
background
All lecture
many gaps
Instructions are
unclear or
incomplete
Complete
presentation
Strategies are not
well implemented
Very
thorough
Instructions
to students
are clear
Strategies are
well
implemented
Learning task is clarified: Student gets
the “big idea”
With organizer & explanation,
model
Teacher presentation of information
Maximally engages students with
strategies that involve:

Activation of Prior Knowledge

Experimentation

Incentives and/or Novelty
Only primary
QCC’s are
listed
Section omitted.
Student accountability is established.
Provide Advance Organizer

Pre-Test

Graphic/Visual Organizer

Outline/Overview

Study Guide
Vague or
confusing
alignment
Well written
401280716
NCATE
Summary
4.0=9
3.0=13
2.0=2
1.0=6
4.0=24
3.0=3
2.0=0
1.0=6
4.0=21
3.0=8
2.0=0
1.0=6
4.0=21
3.0=6
2.0=0
1.0=6
4.0=13
3.0=13
2.0=1
1.0=6
- 42 -
Draft 10-29-03
Guided or structured practice allows
students with opportunities for
feedback.

Use logical line of questioning

Vary instructional techniques

Interact with students
Provide ample class time and focus
on individual student mastery





Much less interaction with teacher
Increase academic engaged time
Cue (prompt) appropriate
responses
Foster high success rate
Maximize natural cues
NOTE: This is not homework. Reteaching may be necessary if the
students are not able to master concepts
on their own.
Guided practice
is merged with
demonstration or
independent
practice.
Independent
practice is not
provided.
Lesson may be
sent home as
homework.
Many gaps in
script.
-Cues and
prompts are
omitted.
-Questions are
omitted.
-Instruction is
singular.
-No opportunity
to interact with
students.
- Error correction
is omitted.
- Re-teaching is
not provided.
-Complete script.
-Cues or prompts
are omitted.
-Questions are
provided.
-Instruction is
varied.
-Some interaction
with students.
- Re-teaching is
spontaneous
rather than
planned.
-Many gaps in
script.
-Cues and
prompts are
omitted.
-Questions are
omitted.
-Instruction is
singular.
-No opportunity
to interact with
students.
- Prompts &
Error correction
are omitted.
- Mastery check
omitted
-Complete script.
-Cues or prompts
are omitted.
-Questions are
provided.
-Instruction is
varied.
-High interaction
with students.
- Mastery checks
are poorly
implemented
401280716
-Very
thorough
script.
-Script
describes
model for
structured
practice.
-Teacher
questioning
supports
student
success.
-Instructional
practice is
varied and
interesting.
-High
interaction
rate.
-Embedded
assessment
for mastery
check and
IEP progress
- Assessment
drives
prompts &
error
correction
- Re-teaching
is done as
needed.
Opportunities
to re-teach
are provided.
-Very
thorough
script.
-Script
describes
ample time
for class
practice.
- Natural cues
are
maximized.
-Instructional
practice is
varied and
interesting.
-Low
interaction
rate with
teacher.
- Mastery
check
(embedded
assessment)
for content &
IEP
objectives.
- Prompts
and Error
correction
strategies are
conducted as
needed
4.0=8
3.0=10
2.0=6
1.0=6
4.0=7
3.0=13
2.0=7
1.0=6
- 43 -
Draft 10-29-03
Post organizer provides closure to the
activity and leads to judicious review of
the concepts through:



Closing is cute or
interesting, but
not aligned with
lesson. (“Fluff
with no stuff”!)
Homework
Review activities
Technology applications
Plan to overcome hindrances to
learning is provided.
- Appropriate accommodations are
indicated for SWD, SST, SqB.
- Appropriate modifications are
indicated
for students with significant disabilities.
- Proactive & reactive managements
strategies are provided.
Student materials (including
technology are appropriate for:
-age
-content
-format
-directions
-objectives
Presentation of materials
-Follows directions
-Is easy to read
-Is typed
-Is professional
NCATE Summary Scores

Number & (percentage) of
candidates who performed
at each level


Lesson is not
summarized
No opportunity to
generalize is
provided.
Closing is aligned
with lesson
Closing is
incomplete, vague
or confusing.
Section is
omitted
- Plan omitted.
- Adaptations are
not done for
anyone, but for
students with IEP.
They are not age
appropriate, nor
linked to lesson.
-Plan lacks insight,
is vague of
confusing.
-Adaptations are
Age appropriate,
consistent with
IEP.
-Accommodation
and/or
modifications are
standard and lack
creativity.
Student materials
are not
submitted.
Student materials
do not meet two
or more criteria.
Student materials
are submitted and
do not meet one
criteria.
-Lesson was
commercially
prepared.
-Lesson does not
meet
requirements
Lesson meets all
but two
requirements.
- Lesson is
developed in line
with course
requirements.
-Lesson meets all
but one
requirement.
Closing is
aligned with
lesson
Closing
summarizes
content &
makes it
valuable to
students.
Closing
provides
opportunities
to generalize.
-Plan is
thoughtful,
but not
necessarily
lengthy.
Considers
behavioral
and academic
needs of all
students, the
environment,
materials &
strategies.
-Adaptations
are wellwritten or
conceived,
ageappropriate,
linked to
lesson,
creative &
flexible.
Student
materials
(instructional
and
assessment)
are submitted.
Materials
meet all
criteria
Lesson is
developed in
line with
course
requirements.
L-1
L-2
L-3
Lesson meets
criteria.
L-4
6 (18%)
3 (9%)
11 (33%)
13 (39%)
4.0=13
3.0=13
2.0=1
1.0=6
4.0=8
3.0=13
2.0=6
1.0=6
4.0=13
3.0=13
2.0=1
1.0=6
4.0=11
3.0=12
2.0=4
1.0=6
Disaggregate groups are: Sex, Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, and Disabilities
Faculty Reflection:
Based upon these results the following changes will be made:
 Merge with DI Assessment Rubric
 Tier assignments so that practice can be provided on error correction.
 Teach graphing procedures.
401280716
- 44 -
Draft 10-29-03
EXC 7765: VIDEO OBSERVATION GUIDE
Direct Instruction & Cooperative Learning
Overall Rating of Video: Spring 03
Standard
Unacceptable
L1-L2
Could not see
teacher or
students on video
Acceptable
L-3
5-14 min of video
clearly captured
both
Student Engagement
Of the students
photographed,
several were
disruptive and the
teacher did not
intervene.
Only a few of the
students
photographed
were not engaged
in the lesson.
Critical Analysis &
Reflection
Key issues were
missed
Addressed issues
Related to
improving
instruction
Video captured teacher
implementing
cooperative learning as
well as student response.
Teacher analysis
or reflection were
developed
Narrative relied
on data or teacher
experience.
Teacher analysis
and reflection
were well
developed.
Narrative relied
on student data
and teacher
experience.
Target
L-4
15-20 minute
video clearly
captured both and
at least one stage
of cooperative
learning.
All of the
students
photographed
were actively
engaged in the
lesson. (Note:
This does not
mean that all
students were
engaged all the
time.)
Thoroughly
addressed key
issues related to
improving the
instruction and
advancing all
learners to high
levels of
achievement.
DI
CL
4=29
3=2
2=0
1=2
4=29
3=2
2=0
1=2
4=28
3=2
2=1
1=2
4=27
3=1
2=1
1=2
4=5
3=24
2=3
1=2
4=4
3=25
2=3
1=2
Balanced
narrative across
description,
analysis and
reflection
Narrative relied
upon student data,
professional
literature and
teacher
experience.
401280716
- 45 -
Draft 10-29-03
NCATE Summary
Scores

Number and
percentage of
candidates who
performed at each
level on DI Lesson

Number and
percentage of
candidates who
performed at each
level on CL Lesson.


L-1
L-2
L-3
L-4
2 (6%)
2 (6%)
9 (27%)
20 (60%)
2 (6%)
2 (6%)
9 (27%)
20 (60%)
Faculty Reflection:
Adjunct faculty who reviewed these tapes seemed to inflate scores on standards 1
& 2. These scores are consistent with those obtained by candidates during field
observations. We need greater clarity and agreement between tenured faculty and
field supervisors relative to evaluating these procedures. Next year, the field
supervisors need to attend/co-teach classes in order to obtain a clear
understanding of the expectations of this course.
Tenured faculty evaluated standard 3, written component of the critical analysis.
The scores on this standard were much more consistent with those obtained in the
course. Few candidates understood the level of analysis required to reach target.
Next year, faculty will provide models and samples of target responses.
401280716
- 46 -
Draft 10-29-03
CEC STANDARD 5 Learning Environments and Social Interactions
Evaluation of written products (action research project) and evaluations of on-the-job
performance by KSU field-experience supervisors are used to assess management skills.
Candidates also take exams to document knowledge and application of knowledge. Data
is recorded for each cohort indicating the number and percentage of candidates achieving
each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target proficiency (90%+ mastery of content)
and represents clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of mastery. Level 3 is
acceptable and indicates clear evidence of content mastery (80-90% mastery of content).
Level 1 and 2 represent less than 80% mastery of content and candidates would be
required to document further evidence of mastery for their portfolio.
EXC 7720 Classroom Behavior Strategies
As a result of Knowledge, the candidate will be able to:

Demonstrate an understanding of the causes for inappropriate behavior, the theoretical
perspectives that underlie those causes, and appropriate intervention programs to decrease
inappropriate behavior while increasing appropriate behaviors.
As a result of Skills, candidates will be able to:





Articulate the influence of antecedents and consequences on the decrease of inappropriate
behaviors and the increase or maintenance of appropriate behaviors for individuals and groups.
Articulate the factors in planning and implementing behavior change for students with a range of
learning, behavior, physical and sensory disabilities.
Demonstrate the ability to select target behaviors and design a systematic functional behavior
assessment and intervention plan, which includes a focus on increasing appropriate behaviors,
which serve the same “function” as the inappropriate behavior; demonstrate the ability to track
student behavior and develop appropriate data sheets and graphs to document behavior change.
Demonstrate the application of problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills instruction as
part of a proactive management system. This includes the demonstration of a problem solving
mentality on the part of the candidate.
Demonstrate the ability to plan a learning environment for individuals and groups in the classroom
and school using proactive strategies to minimize inappropriate behaviors and to identify
appropriate reactive strategies for managing disruptions using the principles of positive behavior
support and least intervention.
Rubric – Application Paper EXC 7720
Standard
1. Candidate states
rationale for why he or
she targeted a specific
inappropriate behavior to
decrease and an
appropriate behavior to
increase. (1/2 - 1 page)
Level 1 - 2
Candidate describes
the inappropriate
behavior but not it’s
function and/or does
not state the
appropriate behavior.
Level 3
Candidate describes the
function of both the
inappropriate and
appropriate behaviors
based on a functional
assessment but does not
state the value of the
appropriate behavior that
serves the same function.
2. Candidate applies
research to practice in
selection of an
intervention to decrease
the inappropriate
behavior. (1/2 - 1 page)
Candidate uses
discussions from class
that were related to
either the intervention
or the inappropriate
behavior.
Candidate uses one
research article related to
either the intervention or
the inappropriate
behavior.
401280716
Level 4
Candidate describes the
function of both the
inappropriate and
appropriate behaviors
based on a functional
analysis and provides a
logical explanation as to
the value of the
appropriate behavior he
or she selected.
Candidate uses two
research articles related to
either the intervention or
the inappropriate
behavior.
- 47 -
Draft 10-29-03
3. Candidate collects and
graphs data on the
inappropriate behavior.
Candidate has fewer
than 3 Baseline Data
points and/or fewer
than 12 intervention
data points. Labeling
on graph is missing.
4. Candidate collects and
graphs data on the
appropriate behavior.
Candidate has fewer
than 2 intervention
data points on a
computer-generated
graph. Labeling on
graph is missing
* Alternative Standard
(4a) requires prior
approval of the
instructor.
* 4a. Candidate does not
collect and graph data on
the appropriate behavior.
5. Candidate analyzes
data and relates his or her
results to published
research. (1 – 3 pages)
6. Candidate writes selfassessment on related
behavior changes. (1 – 3
pages)
* Alternative Standard
(6a) if related changes in
related behavior were not
noted.
* 6a Candidate explains
why limited or no related
behavior changes were
noted.
7. Candidate reflects on
feedback from the
instructor from previous
components of the
application paper. (1 – 3
pages)
Candidate provides no
rationale as to why an
appropriate behavior
was not graphed
Results are
summarized and
candidate relates
results to 1 research
article.
Candidate describes 1
of 3 levels of change:
additional changes in
the targeted student
(academic, behavioral,
psychological);
changes in the
candidate’s
relationship to the
targeted student; or
changes in the
targeted student’s
relationship to other
students in the class
Candidate does not
provide a rationale as
to why changes in
related behavior did
not occur.
Previously graded
components are
turned in with no
reflections.
Candidate has 3 Baseline
data points and at least
12 intervention data
points reflecting 6 weeks
of data collection on a
computer generated
graph whose X or Y axes
or Title are incorrectly
stated.
Candidate has between 2
– 4 data points reflecting
1 – 2 weeks of
intervention data on a
computer generated
graph whose X and Y
axes or Title are
incorrectly stated.
Candidate provides a
poorly developed
rationale as to why an
appropriate behavior was
not graphed.
Results are summarized
and candidate relates
results to 2 research
articles
Candidate has 3 Baseline
data points and at least 12
intervention data points
reflecting 6 weeks of data
collection on a computer
generated graph whose X
and Y axes and Title are
correctly stated.
Candidate describes 2 of
3 levels of change:
additional changes in the
targeted student (either
academic, behavioral or
psychological); changes
in the candidate’s
relationship to the
targeted student; or
changes in the targeted
student’s relationship to
other students in the
class.
Candidate describes 3
levels of change:
additional changes in the
targeted student (either
academic, behavioral or
psychological); changes
in the candidate’s
relationship to the
student; and changes in
relationships between
targeted student and other
students in the class. OR
If three changes were not
noted, candidate provides
a logical explanation as to
why changes did not
occur.
Candidate provides a
logically supported
explanation as to why
related changes in
behavior did not occur.
Previously graded
components are turned in
and candidate reflects on
what he or she changed in
his or her intervention
process as a result of
feedback and what he or
Candidate provides a
poorly supported
rationale as to why
changes in related
behavior did not occur.
Previously graded
components are turned in
and candidate reflects on
either changes he or she
made in the intervention
process as a result of
feedback or what he or
401280716
Candidate has between 6
– 12 data points reflecting
3 – 6 weeks of
intervention data on a
computer generated graph
whose X and Y axes and
Title are correctly stated.
Candidate provides
logical and coherent
rationale as to why an
appropriate behavior was
not graphed.
Results are summarized
and candidate related
results to 3 research
articles.
- 48 -
Draft 10-29-03
* Alternative Standard
(7a) if no reflection is
provided.
* 7a Candidate explains
why reflection wasn’t
necessary.
8. Candidate writes a
logical and coherent
paper.
Candidate does not
provide a rationale as
to why no changes
were made in the
positive behavior
support plan as it was
developed.
Paper is poorly
organized with
multiple errors in
paragraph
construction, sentence
formation, and
mechanics.
she would do differently
next time a positive
behavior support plan is
developed.
Candidate provides a
poor explanation as to
why no changes were
made in the positive
behavior support plan as
it was developed.
she would do differently
next time a positive
behavior support plan is
developed.
Candidate provides a
logical explanation as to
why no changes were
made in the positive
behavior support plan as
it was developed.
Paper is written in a
logical and coherent
manner with numerous
errors in paragraph
construction, sentence
formation, and
mechanics.
Paper is written in a
logical and coherent
manner with few to no
errors in paragraph
construction, sentence
formation, and
mechanics.
EXC 7720 Classroom Behavior Strategies
Application Paper Summary Data
Application Paper
Level 1
Below 70%
Little
or
No
Evidence
Level 2
(70-79%)
Limited Evidence
N=15
Spring 2002
1/7%
2/13%
Level 3
(80-89%)
Clear Evidence
4/27%
Level 4
(90%+)
Clear, Consistent,
and Convincing
Evidence
8/53%
EXC 7720 Final Exam
Summary Data
Exam
Level 1
Below 70%
Little
or
No
Evidence
Level 2
(70-79%)
Limited Evidence
N=15
Spring 2002
0/0%
0/0%
Level 3
(80-89%)
Clear Evidence
1/7%
Level 4
(90%+)
Clear, Consistent,
and Convincing
Evidence
14/93%
Reflection: The final exam was comprehensive and the candidates were given a study
guide. Everyone seemed to do very well on the exam with all candidates achieving in the
Levels 3 &4 range. Even though each component of the final application paper was
sequenced and constructive feedback given prior to completion of the final paper there
were a few students who didn’t follow suggestions given. I have decided to now use the
proposed manuscript format given in Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis as the format
for their final application paper in the future. Based on candidate feedback, I will
continue to have the candidates complete the components in sequential parts and receive
feedback prior to the final submission.
401280716
- 49 -
Draft 10-29-03
CEC STANDARD 6 Communication
Assessment of communication knowledge is embedded in data for Standard 2
(Characteristics) and Standard 3 (Differences). Application of communication knowledge
is embedded in Standard 4 (Instruction), Standard 7 (Planning), and Standard 8
(Assessment). Data are recorded for each cohort indicating the number and percentage of
candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target proficiency (90%+
mastery of content) and represents clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of mastery.
Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of content mastery (80-90% mastery
of content). Levels 1 and 2 represent less than 80% mastery of content and candidates
would be required to document further evidence of mastery for their portfolio.
401280716
- 50 -
Draft 10-29-03
CEC Standard 7 Planning
Evaluation of written products (curriculum map and integrated unit plan) and evaluations
of on-the-job performance by KSU field-experience supervisors are used to assess
instructional planning skills. Data is recorded for each cohort indicating the number and
percentage of candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target
proficiency (90%+ mastery of content) and represents clear, consistent, and convincing
evidence of mastery. Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of content
mastery (80-90% mastery of content). Level 1 and 2 represent less than 80% mastery of
content and candidates would be required to document further evidence of mastery for
their portfolio.
EXC 7760:Teaching & Learning I Catalog Description: Teaching & Learning I
prepares teachers to develop curriculum and instruction that is universal in design and
based on best practices research in general education. Particular attention is given to
research-based models of teaching and learning including cooperative learning, inductive
reasoning, concept attainment, jurisprudential inquiry, information processing etc.
Universally designed instruction is flexible such that the materials and activities allow
different learning goals to be achieved by individuals with a wider range of abilities (and
disabilities). This curriculum model provides build-in adaptations to the lesson that
reduce the amount of time needed to create individual accommodations and
modifications for students with disabilities. The “Big Ideas” addressed in this course
include Universal Design, Interdisciplinary Thematic Units, Multi-Level Instruction, and
Multiple Intelligence Theory. Additional attention will be paid to the Georgia Learning
Connections Website, as well as the alignment of IEP objectives with the Quality Core
Curriculum (QCC).
Within the knowledge domain:
1) Define the basic models of teaching and learning including cooperative learning, inductive
reasoning, concept attainment, jurisprudential inquiry, information processing, etc;
2) Define basic constructs of: Universal design, inclusion, accommodation and modification, etc.;
3) Identify and discuss the three basic approaches to designing curriculum for students with disabilities
including multi-level, curriculum overlap and functional, alternative curriculum.
Within the skills domain:
4) Develop and teach each one lesson using one of the models of teaching and learning described by
Joyce, et al. 2000;
5) Develop a one-week integrated unit plan that meets the needs of students who are classified as
gifted, behavior disordered and moderately mentally impaired;
6) Develop instruction that is multi-level and/or represents curriculum overlapping;
7) Develop an academic content area curriculum for a specific age/grade level including
modifications for IEP specified needs of students with disabilities and a curriculum-based
assessment plan to monitor student progress in the curriculum;
8) Develop accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities (sensory, health,
mobility, communication, etc., including factors affecting cultural context;
9) Develop thematic unit plan, which incorporates cross-curricular activities and incorporates diversity
needs as applicable.
Within the disposition domain:
10) Demonstrate collaborative skills in developing instruction and unit plans and co-teaching a lesson
to the class;
401280716
- 51 -
Draft 10-29-03
11) Demonstrate the ability to analyze instruction and think reflectively about their daily practice;
12) Demonstrate on-going commitment to professional development by engaging in personalized
action planning.
Curriculum Mapping Across the Year and an Integrated Thematic Unit Plan:
As a final project, students will work in a small group to map out the Georgia QCCs
within a grade level and then develop a one-week Integrated Thematic Unit from that
map. The unit must include all four disciplines (Math, Language Arts, Social Studies, &
Science), special areas (music & art), and three embedded skills (social, functional,
leadership or career skills). Students should select a grade level and theme upon which to
develop a high quality plan, responsive to the educational needs of exceptional students
who are high flyers, as well as those who have learning and behavior challenges to mild
and moderate degrees. The plan must include:




Theme and grade level;
QCCs “Mapped” out over the year – including the essential questions;
Description of the class context, to include a profile for each of the three students who need
additional support; (Student with a moderate disability, one with a mild disability, and a student
who needs to be challenged)
A broad outline of the Integrated Thematic Unit:
1. list of the relevant QCC’s; (more than one per subject area)
2. a description of universal design to be used (methods on presentation and
expression);
3. List of IEP objectives per student (tied to QCCS on or off grade level);
4. list examples of accommodations and/or modifications to support exceptional
students (must have a hands on product (model) included with unit );
5. outline of the model(s) of co-teaching you would use;
6. list of materials (books, tapes, videos, etc.);
7. outline of the assessment tools - to include examples of embedded assessments for
students working on functional skills.
Notes: A model of teaching and learning must be demonstrated in this unit, as well as the incorporation of
cooperative learning. Also, it is recommended that your foundation for universal design be couched in
multiple intelligences theory.
Curriculum Mapping &Accommodation/Modification Rubric
PWT – Fall 2002 Total Number of Students 24
Standards
Criteria
L1
L2
L3
of Performance
Curriculum
Mapping is
Complete (35)
Development of an
Integrated Unit
(20)
L4
Georgia QCCs are Mapped out Over a
Year Across all subjects
21%
(5)
79%
(19)
Connections between subject areas are
well thought out to support an effective
Integrated Unit.
21%
(5)
79%
(19)
401280716
- 52 -
Draft 10-29-03
Brief Description
of class and
students with IEPs
– Profile (20)
Standards and
Objectives (20)
Universal Design.
Models of
Teaching, and
Research Based
Activities (35)
Accommodations
& Modifications
(20)
An example must
be submitted with
the unit.
Materials (5)
Assessment (20)
Collaboration (20)
Class description is complete to include
profiles of students with IEPs that
clearly detail special education
classification, strengths and needs, as
well as student(s) who need to be
challenged. Description demonstrates
thorough understanding of each student.
A comprehensive list of both QCC
standards and IEP objectives of all
students must be provided as
appropriate. Note some students may
work “off grade level” (above or
below).
A comprehensive list of activities that
incorporate multiple intelligences,
Bloom’s Taxonomy, Models of
Teaching and Cooperative Learning
strategies and are thematic based.
Specify activities for remediation &
enrichment.
Accommodations and modifications
are:
 Taught in an inclusive
setting/classroom;
 Simple and creative;
 Facilitate interaction with nondisabled peers;
 Age appropriate; and
 Flexible for a variety of uses and
contexts.
Included is a list of materials to support
the teaching of the unit – to include
technology.
A range of authentic assessment tools is
outlined which are directly tied to the
QCCs and IEP objectives.
21%
(5)
79%
(19)
21%
(5)
79%
(19)
21%
(5)
79%
(19)
21%
(5)
79%
(19)
21%
(5)
79%
(19)
21%
(5)
79%
(19)


21%
(5)
79%
(19)
21%
(5)
79%
(19)
Points assigned by team members
Points assigned by instructor
Total
401280716
- 53 -
Draft 10-29-03
Curriculum Mapping &Accommodation/Modification Rubric
Fall 2002 – On campus Cohort Total Number of students 24
Standards of
Criteria
L1
L2
L3
Performance
Curriculum
Mapping is
Complete (35)
Development of
an Integrated Unit
(20)
Brief Description
of class and
students with IEPs
– Profile (20)
Standards and
Objectives (20)
Universal Design.
Models of
Teaching, and
Research Based
Activities (35)
Accommodations
& Modifications
(20)
An example must
be submitted with
the unit.
Materials (5)
Assessment (20)
Collaboration (20)
L4
Georgia QCCs are Mapped out Over a
Year Across all subjects
8%
(2)
21%
(5)
71%
(17)
Connections between subject areas are
well thought out to support an effective
Integrated Unit.
8%
(2)
21%
(5)
71%
(17)
Class description is complete to include
profiles of students with IEPs that clearly
detail special education classification,
strengths and needs, as well as student(s)
who need to be challenged. Description
demonstrates thorough understanding of
each student.
A comprehensive list of both QCC
standards and IEP objectives of all
students must be provided as appropriate.
Note some students may work “off grade
level” (above or below).
A comprehensive list of activities that
incorporate multiple intelligences,
Bloom’s Taxonomy, Models of Teaching
and Cooperative Learning strategies and
are thematic based. Specify activities for
remediation & enrichment.
Accommodations and modifications are:
 Taught in an inclusive
setting/classroom;
 Simple and creative;
 Facilitate interaction with nondisabled peers;
 Age appropriate; and
 Flexible for a variety of uses and
contexts.
Included is a list of materials to support
the teaching of the unit – to include
technology.
A range of authentic assessment tools is
outlined which are directly tied to the
QCCs and IEP objectives.
8%
(2)
21%
(5)
71%
(17)
8%
(2)
21%
(5)
71%
(17)
8%
(2)
21%
(5)
71%
(17)
8%
(2)
21%
(5)
71%
(17)
8%
(2)
21%
(5)
71%
(17)
8%
(2)
21%
(5)
71%
(17)


8%
(2)
21%
(5)
71%
(17)
8%
(2)
21%
(5)
71%
(17)
Points assigned by team members
Points assigned by instructor
TOTAL
401280716
- 54 -
Draft 10-29-03
CEC Standard 8 Assessment
Evaluation of written products (assessment case study) and evaluations of on-the-job
performance by KSU field-experience supervisors are used to assess assessment skills.
Evaluation of assessment skills are also embedded in Instructional Planning and Lesson
Plan rubrics. Data is recorded for each cohort indicating the number and percentage of
candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target proficiency (90%+
mastery of content) and represents clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of mastery.
Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of content mastery (80-90% mastery
of content). Level 1 and 2 represent less than 80% mastery of content and candidates
would be required to document further evidence of mastery for their portfolio.
EXC 7730: Assessment
Within the Skills and Dispositions domains, the candidate will be able to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Master the basic educational statistics underpinning standardized testing.
Determine the efficacy of standardized tests commonly used in the identification and program
development of students with disabilities, using appropriate assessment terminology and criteria
provided in class. Candidates will also determine the effects of socio-economic, language, and
cultural differences in making decisions relative to identification and placement of diverse
populations of students.
Develop an assessment plan to include assessment procedures which are appropriate, unbiased and
have a high probability of success measuring the strengths and needs of individual students.
Assess a student with a disability and analyze and report the results in at least two of the following
areas, using only assessment instruments for which they hold the appropriate credentials: (a)
general achievement; (b) attention and memory;
© level of cognitive functioning; (d) motor; (e) sensory-acuity; (f) adaptive behavior; (g) speech
and language; and (h) cognitive processing.
5.
Implement procedures for assessing and reporting both appropriate and problematic social
behaviors of individuals with disabilities.
6. Conduct curriculum-based, performance and/or product assessments, analyze and report results in
at least two of the following areas: (a) general achievement; (b) attention and memory; (c) level of
cognitive functioning; (d) motor; (e) sensory-acuity; (f) adaptive behavior; (g) speech and
language; and (h) cognitive processing.
7. Adapt and modify ecological inventories, portfolio assessments, functional assessments, and
futures-based and team-based assessments to accommodate unique needs and abilities of
individuals with disabilities.
8. Synthesize information collected from standardized and non-standardized procedures, interpret
and report results in terms of the special education categories of disability as stated in IDEA 1997
and Georgia state rules (e.g., learning disabled, behavior disordered, intellectually disabled, other
health impaired).
9. Make recommendations for educational programming in separate and inclusive settings, based
upon all of the information collected.
10. Demonstrate understanding of the rights to privacy, confidentiality, and respect for differences
among all persons interacting with individuals with disabilities;
11. Maintain confidentiality of all records and individuals (e.g., medical, psychological, etc).
401280716
- 55 -
Draft 10-29-03
EXC 7730: Assessment Fall 2002– EXC 7730-01
Standards of
Performance
DESCRIPTIVE
SEGMENT (25)
RECORD REVIEW (50)
EVALUATION PLAN
(50)
TESTING AND
INTERPRETATION
(75)
RECOMMENDATIONS
(25)
TOTAL
Total Number of students 17
Criteria
Must state reason for referral, medical history
to present, social/behavioral history to
present, disability diagnosis, school and
academic history to present, family background, headings, pseudonyms, CA & grade.
 Introduction
 Tables
 Dates
 Interpretation
 Evaluative Summary
 Introduction
 Pertinent Questions
 Assessments considered (at least 2-3
in each targeted area)
 Assessments selected (must be in
area of suspected/documented
disability & included in prior
section)
 Authentic assessments & work
samples (appendix)
 Introduction
 Tables & Dates tests were given
 Administered by 7730 student
 Strong Interpretation
 Evaluative Summary
 Complete Student Profile
 Placement addressed
 Instruction program addressed
 Accommodations/Modifications
 Eligibility and/or further testing
(225)
L1
L2
L3
L4
1
(5%)
2
(12%)
9
(53%)
5
(30%)
1
(5%)
2
(12%)
9
(53%)
5
(30%)
1
(5%)
2
(12%)
9
(53%)
5
(30%)
1
(5%)
2
(12%)
9
(53%)
5
(30%)
1
(5%)
2
(12%)
9
(53%)
5
(30%)
1
(5%)
2
(12%)
9
(53%)
5
(30%)
Reflection: Modified instructional activities include: greater emphasis on examination of
authentic and standardized assessment results, less emphasis on high-stakes testing
procedures and greater emphasis on implications of such testing; deeper analysis and
interpretation of standardized test scores; greater linkage to implications for instructional
programming.
401280716
- 56 -
Draft 10-29-03
Final Project: Case Study Rubric
Spring 2003– EXC 7730-02 (Off campus Cohort)
Standards
of Performance
DESCRIPTIVE
SEGMENT (25)
RECORD REVIEW (50)
EVALUATION PLAN
(50)
TESTING AND
INTERPRETATION
(75)
RECOMMENDATIONS
(25)
TOTAL
Total Number of students 21
Criteria
L1
Must state reason for referral, medical history
to present, social/behavioral history to
present, disability diagnosis, school and
academic history to present, family background, headings, pseudonyms, CA & grade.
 Introduction
 Tables
 Dates
 Interpretation
 Evaluative Summary
 Introduction
 Pertinent Questions
 Assessments considered (at least 2-3
in each targeted area)
 Assessments selected (must be in
area of suspected/documented
disability & included in prior
section)
 Authentic assessments & work
samples (appendix)
 Introduction
 Tables & Dates tests were given
 Administered by 7730 student
 Strong Interpretation
 Evaluative Summary
 Complete Student Profile
 Placement addressed
 Instruction program addressed
 Accommodations/Modifications
 Eligibility and/or further testing
(225)
(0%)
L2
L3
L4
2
(10%)
7
(33%)
12
(57%)
2
(10%)
7
(33%)
12
(57%)
2
(10%)
7
(33%)
12
(57%)
2
(10%)
7
(33%)
12
(57%)
2
(10%)
7
(33%)
12
(57%)
2
(10%)
7
(33%)
12(57%)
Reflection: Modified instructional activities include: Greater emphasis on appropriate
use of scores, comparing derived scores, and identifying percentile, stanine, t-score,
scaled score and standard score equivalents; connecting case study examples to realworld problems; outlines for each segment more clearly delineated through use of
handouts, examples, sample case studies, overheads and power point presentations;
reflection videos shown in class; recommendations expanded to include complete student
profile re-cap; appendix including work samples and protocols necessary component;
students wrote draft for recommendations section in-class, receiving immediate feedback
from professor on implications for instructional programming, accommodations &
modifications needed, and further testing.
401280716
- 57 -
Draft 10-29-03
Final Project: Case Study Rubric
Spring 2003– EXC 7730-01
Standards of
Performance
DESCRIPTIVE
SEGMENT (25)
RECORD REVIEW (50)
EVALUATION PLAN
(50)
TESTING AND
INTERPRETATION
(75)
RECOMMENDATIONS
(25)
TOTAL
Total Number of students 19
Criteria
L1
Must state reason for referral, medical history
to present, social/behavioral history to
present, disability diagnosis, school and
academic history to present, family background, headings, pseudonyms, CA & grade.
 Introduction
 Tables
 Dates
 Interpretation
 Evaluative Summary
 Introduction
 Pertinent Questions
 Assessments considered (at least 2-3
in each targeted area)
 Assessments selected (must be in
area of suspected/documented
disability & included in prior
section)
 Authentic assessments & work
samples (appendix)
 Introduction
 Tables & Dates tests were given
 Administered by 7730 student
 Strong Interpretation
 Evaluative Summary
 Complete Student Profile
 Placement addressed
 Instruction program addressed
 Accommodations/Modifications
 Eligibility and/or further testing
(225)
(0%)
L2
L3
L4
4
(21%)
8
(42%)
7
(37%)
4
(21%)
8
(42%)
7
(37%)
4
(21%)
8
(42%)
7
(37%)
4
(21%)
8
(42%)
7
(37%)
4
(21%)
8
(42%)
7
(37%)
4(21%)
8(42%)
7(37%)
Reflection: Modification of instructional activities include: providing models of prior
case studies for reflection and critique; in-class sample case study exercise expanded to
include case studies in progress within class; greater emphasis on appropriate use of
scores, comparing derived scores, and identifying percentile, stanine, t-score, scaled score
and standard score equivalents.
401280716
- 58 -
Draft 10-29-03
CEC STANDARD 9 Professionalism
Assessment of professionalism is included in the SEPO/CPI indicators evaluated
as part of the field experience. The Candidate Performance Instrument and
Graduate Portfolio Narrative also include elements of professionalism. During
2003-2004, implementation of the Interim Candidate Review is providing
additional data.
CEC STANDARD 10 Collaboration
Assessment of collaboration is also included in the SEPO/CPI indicators
evaluated as part of the field experience. The Candidate Performance Instrument
and Graduate Portfolio Narrative also include elements of collaboration. During
2003-2004, implementation of the Interim Candidate Review is providing
additional data.
401280716
- 59 -
Draft 10-29-03
Observation of Skills in the Field – Special Education Performance
Outcomes
All candidates are assessed in the field by special education field
supervisors each academic year semester using the Special Education
Performance Objectives (SEPO) observation instrument. This instrument is
linked to CEC and KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework outcomes. During the first
year of the program, candidates may reach a Level 3 (Acceptable - indicates
clear evidence of skill mastery). The first supervision visit is linked to EXC 7760
Teaching & Learning I and provides baseline data on candidate performance and
support for curriculum development. This provides a benchmark for the Unit
Level Subject Matter Expert CPI indicator.
The second semester, field supervisors conduct two visits to observe
candidates delivering lessons developed for EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II.
Field supervision visits provide feedback on progress to candidates and faculty,
and include written and verbal feedback to coach candidates to higher levels of
performance. This provides a benchmark for the Unit level Facilitator of Teaching
and Learning CPI indicator.
During the first semester of the second year, candidates are observed
participating in team teaching lessons with general education peers for EXC
7780 Collaborative Practice. This provides a benchmark for the Unit level
Collaborative Professional indicator. The expectation is that candidates should
be reaching higher levels of proficiency and achieving Level 4 (Target - clear,
consistent, and convincing evidence of mastery) on many SEPO indicators.
During the final semester, candidates in EXC 7970 Internship must have reached
a minimum of Level 3 on all SEPO indicators and have developed extensions in
their classroom practice to demonstrate a Level 4 on many of the indicators.
Data is recorded for each cohort indicating the number and percentage of
candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target proficiency
and represents clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of performance
objective mastery, including extensions beyond course requirements in their
teaching practice. Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of mastery
of performance objectives. Level 1 and 2 are not acceptable and candidates
would not receive a Satisfactory grade in the EXC 7970 Internship course without
achieving a minimum Level 3 on all indicators.
Performance data summarized for this report include the Behaviorally
Anchored Supervision System (BASS) indicators. The BASS preceded the
SEPO, which was field-tested during 2002-2003. The different versions of the
form represent the improvements implemented. The final SEPO was reorganized
to align with the revised PTEU Conceptual Framework. The Graduate Impact on
Student Learning Analysis (ISLA) was also implemented in Spring 2003 as part
of the PTEU unit level assessment.
401280716
- 60 -
Draft 10-29-03
EXC 7970 Internship in Special Education, Summary of Observational Tool,
BASS Observation (BASS) Objectives and Description
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
Demonstrate the use of appropriate curriculum design, differentiated instruction, multi-level
curriculum, curriculum overlap, multiple-intelligence’s, and multi-sensory instruction to meet the
curriculum and instruction needs of diverse learners. Conduct systematic instruction tailored to the
individualized learning needs of students with disabilities in a variety of educational, social and
community contexts, as appropriate. This includes the use of systematic prompting, task analysis,
successive approximations, fading, advance organizers, controlling difficulty or processing
demands of a task, directed questioning and responding, and gaining students’ attention prior to
giving instructional cues
Teach students using a balance of direct instruction, strategy instruction, peer tutoring, cooperative
learning, project based learning, teacher directed small groups, whole class instruction, and
monitoring of individual work to meet the unique learning strengths and needs of students with
disabilities
Maintain an appropriate pace of instruction, engage all students in learning, and call on all
students.
Incorporate technology on a regular basis to teach students and to facilitate student performance of
academic and social learning
Establish classroom ecology, classroom management strategies, high levels of differentiated
reinforcement of appropriate behavior, and group and individual positive behavior support plans
that facilitate student learning of academic and social skills. Demonstrate positive teacher to
student and student-to-student interactions. Teach social skills in context
Establish routines and procedures for students to make a variety of transitions, including class-toclass, building-to-building, school-to-work.
Demonstrate effective use of classroom organization skills: grade level and age-appropriate
materials ready for instruction; schedule posted and followed; behavioral expectations and
consequences posted and followed; class rolls assigned.
Monitor student progress through the use of formative and summative data collection.
Reflect on teacher instruction and student learning and adapts curriculum and instructional
procedures to meet the needs of students experiencing difficulty learning and behaving.
Establish collaboration procedures with peers, parents, paraprofessionals, teachers and related
service providers to facilitate the learning of all students, but particularly those with disabilities.
Description: Candidates who take this internship will be evaluated using the BASS on
their teaching, interpersonal and professional skills during scheduled and unscheduled
observations. More specifically, they will be evaluated on their ability to select,
implement & evaluate: instructional practices consistent with best practices research as
stated in course objectives; classroom management practices as stated in course
objectives; and satisfactorily fulfill every aspect of the teaching role including reflection
on practice, ethical interactions, professional attitudes, and collaboration with other staff,
parents, and students.
401280716
- 61 -
Draft 10-29-03
SUMMARY SPRING 2003 PROJECT WINNING TEAM COHORT 22 CANDIDATES
Academic Learning Time: Provides frequent and ongoing opportunities for all students
to be involved/engaged in group/individual activities
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
6
Candidates, 27%
L4 Date:
16
Candidates, 73%
Level of Success: Provides frequent and ongoing opportunities for student involvement,
which ensure appropriately high levels of success for all students.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
9
Candidates, 41%
L4 Date:
13 Candidates, 59%
Content-coverage. Provides instruction, which is consistently focused on critical
content, linked to Georgia QCC and IEP goals and is conducted efficiently.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
5 Candidates, 23%
L4 Date:
17 Candidates, 77%
Gaining attention. Uses effective prompts to immediately gain the attention of all
students before beginning instruction; follows prompt with silence to monitor student
attending.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
9 Candidates, 41%
L4 Date:
13 Candidates, 59%
Reviewing. Systematically establishes a link between new information and previously
taught concepts for skills by actively eliciting responses from all students regarding what
has already been taught.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
12 Candidates, 55%
L4 Date:
10 Candidates, 45%
Communicating goals. Communicates learning goals/outcomes and makes frequent
reference to what is being learned and why it is important; checks to determine that all
students understand expectations; responds appropriately to feedback.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
11 Candidates, 50%
L4 Date:
11 Candidates, 50%
Providing input. Actively models/provides multiple demonstrations when presenting
skills, concepts, strategies, or rules; elicits responses form all students; checks to verify
understanding.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
8 Candidates, 36%
L4 Date:
14 Candidates, 64%
Prompted practice. Provides frequent and appropriate opportunities for all students to
practice the behavior independently or with supervision/ monitors student responses and
provides feedback on both correct and incorrect responses.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
8 Candidates, 36%
401280716
L4 Date:
14 Candidates, 64%
- 62 -
Draft 10-29-03
Unprompted practice. Provides frequent and appropriate opportunities for all students
to practice the behavior independently or with supervision; monitors student responses
and provides feedback after each item that students perform.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
9 Candidates, 41%
L4 Date:
13 Candidates, 59%
Closing. Provides appropriate opportunities for direct responses for all students in
closing/reviewing the lesson; clearly specifies what the students are to do next; checks to
ensure students understand expectations.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
10 Candidates, 45%
L4 Date:
12 Candidates, 55%
Eliciting frequent responses. Uses appropriate techniques to actively elicit individual
and group responses from all students during the lesson.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
5 Candidates, 23%
L4 Date:
17 Candidates, 67%
Maintaining appropriate pace. Consistently controls the pace of all instruction based on
student feedback and content to be covered.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
7 Candidates, 32%
L4 Date:
15 Candidates, 68%
Maintaining attention. Consistently adjusts instruction to focus the attention of all
students on the outcomes.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
6 Candidates, 27%
L4 Date:
16 Candidates, 63%
Monitoring and adjusting correct responses. Consistently provides immediate and
specific positive responses based on student needs. Adjusts instruction based on student
feedback.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
8 Candidates, 36%
L4 Date:
14 Candidates, 64%
Monitoring and adjusting incorrect responses. Provides immediate and appropriate
correction, checking to ensure that all student errors are corrected. Adjusts instruction
based on student feedback.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
20 Candidates, 91%
L4 Date:
2 Candidates, 9%
Ensuring all have equal chance. Consistently makes appropriate attempts to provide all
students with equal opportunities to learn.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
5 Candidates, 23%
L4 Date:
17 Candidates, 67%
Selection. Selects instructional activities and independent assignments, which are
relevant to all student needs and focused on skills taught and mastered.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
6 Candidates, 27%
401280716
L4 Date:
16 Candidates, 63%
- 63 -
Draft 10-29-03
Routines: Provides consistent routines for managing all class activities.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
6 Candidates, 27%
L4 Date:
16 Candidates, 63%
Strategies for completion. Provides students with functional and generalizable strategies
for completing all independent work.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
9 Candidates, 41%
L4 Date:
13 Candidates, 59%
Monitoring and correction. Effectively monitors the completion of activities and
independent work and adjusts requirements or provides corrective feedback to guide
learning.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
12 Candidates, 55%
L4 Date:
10 Candidates, 45%
Homework and parent involvement. Provides appropriate homework opportunities for
all students and uses procedures to actively involve parents.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
4 Candidates, 18%
L4 Date:
18 Candidates, 82%
Accommodations. Consistently uses universal design and provides appropriate
accommodations to provide access to learning for all students.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
9 Candidates, 41%
L4 Date:
13 Candidates, 59%
Positive Behavior Supports. Provides an environment conducive to learning including
positive behavior supports for all students, consistent application of rules/consequences,
and models of appropriate behavior at all times.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
6 Candidates, 27%
L4 Date:
16 Candidates, 63%
Professionalism. Works collaboratively with others; systematically reflects on practice
and implements best practice; continues professional development; follows CEC Code of
Ethics and Standards.
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
3 Candidates, 14%
L4 Date:
19 Candidates, 86%
Overall Instructor Ratings of Spring 2003 PWT Candidates’ Mastery of Teaching
L1 Date:
L2 Date:
L3 Date:
L4 Date:
10 Candidates, 45%
12 Candidates, 55%
Course Reflection and Plans for Improvement: An analysis of the Rubric summary scores shows that
candidates need improvement in the areas of Reviewing, Communicating Learning Goals, Providing
Closings with Review, and Responding to Student Errors. These areas are crucial to good special education
teaching and student learning. It is somewhat troubling that these areas, which are essential to direct
instruction, aren’t being implemented at the L-4 level by all or almost all of our candidates. As a
department we must look at our curriculum and methods courses (Teaching and Learning I and II) to insure
that candidates are learning these essential direct instruction skills. In the Internship course we must
provide more modeling, coaching, and feedback on these critical skills.
401280716
- 64 -
Draft 10-29-03
Outcomes in Special Education Observation Form Spring 2003 (2001 Cohort)
*** Planning ***
1.
Successfully aligns IEP objectives and QCC’s with instruction and assessment.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Objectives and QCC’s not
listed.
(12.% (2) not
applicable)
2.
Acceptable L-3:
Objectives and QCC’s listed but not embedded
in the lesson.
17.% (3)
Develops lesson plans using research-based strategies (Universal Design, Concept Mapping,
Differentiated Instruction, Multi-level Curriculum).
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
No lesson plans present, or lesson
plan refers only to page numbers or
chapters from books.
3.
Acceptable L-3:
Lesson plans have stated objectives
but there are limited or no indications
that research based strategies were
used to develop the plans.
47% (8)
Target L-4:
Lesson plans have stated objectives
and there is evidence that research
based strategies were used to develop
the plans.
53% (9)
Plans the integrated use of technology.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Technology is neither planned for nor
integrated in the lesson (used as an
add on to the lesson).
4.
Target L-4:
Objectives and QCC’s listed and
embedded in the lesson.
71% (12)
Acceptable L-3:
Technology is integrated into the
lesson plan but at the surface level.
Target L-4:
Technology is integrated into the
lesson plan.
71% (12)
29% (5)
Plans for student diversity through accommodations and modifications for individual needs.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
No accommodations or modifications are
listed, or a generic
accommodations/modifications checklist
is used with no specific reference to
students.
Acceptable L-3:
Accommodations and
modifications are incorporated only
for assignment completion.
76% (13)
Target L-4:
Accommodations and
modifications are incorporated
throughout the entire lesson, during
instruction, as well as for
assignment completion.
24% (4)
*** Conducting Lessons ***
5.
Demonstrates congruence between the lesson plan and instruction while incorporating student
responses to the lesson.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Implementation of the lesson does not
follow the lesson plan or is only
tangentially related to it.
Acceptable L-3:
Lesson is implemented according to
plan, but there is little if any
response to student cues or
adjustment to instruction based on
those cues.
24% (4)
6.
Target L-4:
Lesson is implemented according to
plan and teacher adjusts instruction
based on student responses. Includes
adjusting for student errors,
augmenting instruction to insure
student understanding and providing
enrichment activities.
76% (13)
Effectively uses technology and adaptive/assistive technology in the lesson and for
reinforcement.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Technology is not used during the
lesson, or technology is used as an
add-on to the lesson.
Acceptable L-3:
Technology is integrated into the
lesson, but at the surface level. Used
by teacher or students but not both.
Target L-4:
Technology is integrated into the
lesson; teachers use technology for
teaching and students for learning
and completing assignments.
88% (15)
12.% (2)
401280716
- 65 -
Draft 10-29-03
7.
Provides explicit reinforcement to student responses.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Teacher does not provide
reinforcement for correct responses.
8.
Does not gain the students’ attention
prior to teaching, does not provide
preview or review, does not connect
new learning to previous learning or
learning strategies to the content to be
learned.
Teacher’s pace of instruction is too
fast or too slow and opportunities for
every student to be engaged in the
lesson are not provided.
Teacher does not use research-based
strategies effectively and does not
involve the students in active, hands
on learning; instruction is
predominantly whole class and
independent work.
Acceptable L-3:
Teacher typically adjusts pace of
instruction to maintain student
attention and opportunities for every
student to be engaged in the lesson
are provided.
47% (8)
Target L-4:
Teacher consistently maintains an
effective pace of instruction and
opportunities for every student to be
engaged in the lesson are provided.
53% (9)
Acceptable L-3:
Teacher demonstrates effective
implementation of at least two
research-based strategies and there is
a balance between whole
class/independent work and student
collaborative or cooperative groups.
76% (13)
Target L-4:
Teacher demonstrates effective
implementation of at least four
research-based strategies and there is
a balance in the use of a variety of
flexible grouping strategies.
24% (4)
Maintains active student engagement through meaningful and motivating Lessons.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Teacher lectures or reads from the
teacher’s manual, never engaging the
students in hands on activities;
students remain passive recipients of
teacher information.
Acceptable L-3:
Teacher shares information with the
students and then engages them in
meaningful activities.
53% (9)
12.
Target L-4:
Consistently gains students attention
prior to instruction provides preview
and review and connects new
learning to previous learning or
learning strategies to the content to be
learned.
59% (10)
Correctly uses a variety of research-based instructional strategies (direct instruction, strategy
instruction, systematic prompting, peer mediated learning such as cooperative learning groups,
class wide peer tutoring or Peer Assisted Learning Strategies [PALS], task analysis, and
multiple flexible grouping structures).
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
11.
Acceptable L-3:
Typically gains students attention
prior to instruction provides preview
and review but only minimally
connects new learning to previous
learning or learning strategies to the
content to be learned.
41% (7)
Effectively paces instruction and promotes equity in student responses.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
10.
Target L-4:
Teacher uses reinforcement and
articulates the specific behavior or
skill that is being reinforced.
47% (8)
Gains the attention of students, incorporates preview and review, connects new learning to
previous learning, and connects use of learning strategies to content to be learned and students’
previous learning.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
9.
Acceptable L-3:
Teacher uses reinforcement, but does
not articulate the specific behavior or
skill being reinforced.
53% (9)
Target L-4:
Teacher actively engages the students
in the learning process by weaving
the sharing of information with
meaningful activities; teacher is
animated and enthusiastic.
47% (8)
Gives correct curriculum content while teaching.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Is unable to clearly and accurately
explain curriculum content.
Acceptable L-3:
Teacher hesitates and needs to
constantly refer to curriculum
materials in order to present the
content clearly and accurately.
Target L-4:
Naturally presents curriculum
content clearly and accurately to
students.
12.% (2)
88% (15)
401280716
- 66 -
Draft 10-29-03
*** Assessment ***
13.
Embeds authentic assessment in lessons.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Relies on end of lesson or unit test to
assess learners.
14.
Acceptable L-3:
Uses a form of authentic assessment
to determine student errors and
correct responses and adjusts the
lesson accordingly.
71% (12)
Target L-4:
Uses a combination of standard tests
and multiple authentic assessments to
adjust instruction and determine
student learning.
29% (5)
Provides immediate and appropriate correction to student errors and adjusts instruction
accordingly.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Does not stop or alter lesson when
students make errors.
Acceptable L-3:
Teacher stops instruction and gives
the student a correct answer and
explanation for why it is correct.
59% (10)
Target L-4:
Teacher stops instruction and asks the
student how (s) he determined the
response. Teacher adjusts instruction
to include a formal error correction
procedure to insure correct student
understanding.
41% (7)
*** Classroom Ecology and Behavior ***
15. Classroom is clean and well organized.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Classroom is cluttered and
disorganized; materials for students
are not readily available, desks are not
arranged in a manner conducive to
learning, and classroom rules and
consequences are not posted.
Acceptable L-3:
Classroom is uncluttered and
organized; materials for student use
are readily available, but student
desks are not arranged in a manner
conducive to learning.
41% (7)
16.
Provides consistent routines and procedures for managing all class activities.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Consistent routines and procedures
are not posted or evident; students
clearly do not know expectations or
how to follow through. Classroom
rules are not posted.
Acceptable L-3:
Consistent routines and procedures
are posted and evident; routines and
procedures flow smoothly, students
clearly know what to do, however,
the teacher still has to monitor and
re-direct students on a regular basis.
Classroom rules are posted.
65% (11)
17.
Target L-4:
Classroom is uncluttered and
organized. Materials for student use
are readily available and student
desks are arranged in a manner
conducive to learning. There are
clear pathways to and from vital
areas in the room and teacher can see
all students at all times.
59% (10)
Target L-4:
Consistent routines and procedures
are posted and evident; routines and
procedures flow smoothly, students
clearly know what to do, and the
teacher only intermittently has to
intervene and redirect students.
Students respond immediately to
teacher. Classroom rules are posted.
35% (6)
Facilitates positive social interactions among students.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Student to student conversation is
inappropriate and shows lack of
respect for one another and for adults.
Teacher has to intervene continually
to re-direct students and correct their
behaviors.
Acceptable L-3:
Most of the student-to-student
interactions are positive and show
respect. Teacher frequently has to
intervene to re-direct students.
Target L-4:
The majority of student-to-student
interactions are positive and show
respect. Teacher rarely has to
intervene to re-direct students.
88% (15)
12.% (2)
401280716
- 67 -
Draft 10-29-03
18.
Provides manageable positive behavior supports for all students, consistently applies rules and
consequences, and models and reinforces appropriate behavior at all times.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Relies on punishment to control
classroom behavior. No rules or
consequences posted. Tone of voice
and body language are harsh and
indicate lack of respect for students.
Corrective action with students is
arbitrary and inconsistent. Provides
limited positive reinforcement
Acceptable L-3:
Typically reinforces appropriate
behavior. Rules and consequences
are posted and followed. Corrective
action with students is more
consistent and fair. Tone of voice and
body language show respect for
students. Circulates and maintains
good proximity to all students, but
especially those with problem
behaviors. Classroom ecology is
conducive to appropriate behavior.
82% (14)
Target L-4:
Consistently reinforces appropriate
behavior and explicitly describes
what the student is doing that merited
the reinforcement. Rules are stated
and consistently and fairly followed.
Students with problem behaviors
have written positive behavior
support plans. Teacher “sets up”
students for appropriate behavior
through the use of systematic
prompting procedures.
18% (3)
*** Collaboration ***
19.
Effectively manages para professionals and other support staff so that they are effectively
involved in meaningful instruction.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Para professionals spend the majority
of their time talking or working on
non-instructional tasks such as
bulletin boards, cleaning, filing, or
other paper work. Teacher stops
instructional tasks to talk about noninstructional matters with the para
professional or related services
personnel, consistently asks they
work with students in isolation from
the rest of the group, or does not
provide clear direction for
transitions.
(71% (12) not applicable)
20.
Acceptable L-3:
Para professionals spend the majority
of their time on instructional tasks
and interactions with students.
Related services personnel are
working with the student in an
integrated fashion within the
curriculum. Teacher models
appropriate instructional and
behavior management strategies. All
staff handle transitions smoothly
without additional instructions being
needed. Para professionals in general
education environments work with
general education students too.
17.% (3)
Target L-4:
Para professionals spend all their time
on instructional tasks and interactions
with the students. Related services
personnel are also working with other
students along with the targeted
student in an integrated fashion within
the curriculum. In general education
settings the para professional works
collaboratively with both the general
and special education teachers in
teaching all students in multiple
flexible groups.
12.% (2)
Implements correctly a variety of co-teaching models (one teach/one drift, one teach/one
observe and take data, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, duet teaching,
team teaching with multiple flexible groups)
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Teacher only uses one teach and one
drift model of co-teaching.
(47% (8) not applicable)
Acceptable L-3:
Teacher uses two or more different
co-teaching models.
47% (8)
Target L-4:
Teacher uses four or more coteaching models.
6% (1)
*** Professionalism ***
21.
Communication, both written and oral, is clear, concise and grammatically accurate.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Written and oral communication is
frequently incorrect in terms of basic
structure and syntax, multiple
spelling errors are noted in written
work and the message is not clearly
conveyed
Acceptable L-3:
Written and oral communication
contains occasional errors of structure
and syntax, an occasional spelling
error is noted in written work and
message is typically clearly
conveyed.
24% (4)
401280716
Target L-4:
Written and oral communication are
free of errors and consistently
conveyed in a clear fashion.
76% (13)
- 68 -
Draft 10-29-03
22.
Overall appearance and attitude (dress, comments, body language) are positive and indicates
respect for students, parents, and colleagues.
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Teacher uses sarcastic language or
language that ridicules students or
colleagues. Clothing is dirty,
disheveled, not neat and or
inappropriate for the classroom.
Teacher’s affect demonstrates no
enthusiasm for either teaching or the
subject matter or compassion for
students, parents or colleagues.
Acceptable L-3:
Clothing is neat, clean and
appropriate. Body language is
positive and shows respect for
students, parents and colleagues.
Verbal language is free of ridicule
and sarcasm.
17.% (3)
Target L-4:
Clothing is neat, clean and
appropriate. Body language is
positive and indicates not only
respect for students and colleagues
but also pride in the profession.
Verbal language is not only free of
ridicule and sarcasm but also shows
enthusiasm for both teaching and the
subject matter and compassion for
students, parents and colleagues.
83% (14)
During Spring 2003, the Department began implementation of the PTEU Graduate
Impact on Student Learning Analysis (ISLA) in the EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning
II and EXC 7790 Internship courses. The ISLA is aligned with the PTEU Conceptual
Framework and will be implemented in EXC 7720, 7760, 7765 and 7970 in the future as
part of the unit level assessment.
401280716
- 69 -
Draft 10-29-03
GRADUATE IMPACT ON STUDENT
LEARNING ANALYSIS
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
Bagwell College of Education
Number of Candidates
_22____ Course: _EXC 7970 Semester:
Sp 2003 PWT
Please indicate the candidate’s rating on each proficiency by checking the appropriate box. Our use of the
phrase “every student” is inclusive of these attributes of multicultural populations: Age, disability,
ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual
Rating Indicator
Uses broad, current, and
specialized knowledge of
subject matter and
communicates this
understanding to all students
(1.1)
FACILITATOR OF LEARNING
Treats students equitably
and provides equitable
access to the full curriculum
by respecting individual
difference sand adjusting
practices accordingly (2.2)
Uses multiple methods to
meet goals articulated for
individual students and class
instruction (2.5)
Monitors student progress
with a variety of evaluation
methods (2.6)
Meets learning goals
articulated for individual
students, impacting the
learning of every student
(2.5)
Uses the assessment results
to improve the quality of
instruction for every student
(2.6)
Reflects regularly and draws
on experience aimed at
improved student
achievement (3.2)
Totals – Overall Rating
1
2
3
Little or No
Limited Evidence Clear Evidence
Evidence
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
8 Candidates
36%
4
Clear, Consistent, and
Convincing Evidence
14 Candidates
64%
5 Candidates
23%
17 Candidates
67%
10 Candidates
45%
12 Candidates
55%
11 Candidates
50%
11 Candidates
50%
6 Candidates
27%
16 Candidates
63%
10 Candidates
45%
12 Candidates
55%
COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL
14 Candidates
45%
8 Candidates
36%
10 Candidates
45%
12 Candidates
55%
orientation, and socioeconomic status.
401280716
- 70 -
Draft 10-29-03
Indicators where approximately half the candidates were scores L3 and half L4 were in
the areas of using multiple methods, monitoring student progress, using assessment
results, and reflecting on experience. Overall, the instructor rated half the candidates at
L3 and half at L4 in their overall ability to impact student progress. At the masters level, I
would like to see at least 75% of candidates in the L4 category. This data may suggest
that these candidates are not using enough special education oriented strategies for
teaching, monitoring student progress, and reflecting on their practice. Part of these
results may be explained by the fact that 73% of these candidates are full time general
education teachers. Given their class sizes and range of normal learners, these candidates
may not see the value, or feel they have the time to use some of, the special education
curriculum and instructional procedures they were taught. I would also suggest that we,
as a department look at our Teaching and Learning I and II courses (curriculum and
methods) to be sure we are teaching special education procedures to competency levels. I
would also suggest that during the Internship we more carefully continue to model,
coach, and provide feedback to our candidates on these special education oriented
procedures. In addition, it may be necessary to increase the number of class meetings in
the Internship (only 4 or 5 are required) to review and re-teach certain key special
education strategies.
401280716
- 71 -
Draft 10-29-03
Portfolio Narrative Rubric
A major component of the graduate special education program is the
development of teacher leaders. Candidates may exhibit Level 1 (Little or no
evidence) or Level 2 (Limited evidence) mastery of performance objectives
through course requirements, but Level 3 (Clear evidence) and Level 4 (Clear,
consistent and convincing evidence) require that candidates develop extensions
of skills into their teaching practice. Field supervision visits and feedback on the
SEPO provide one level of evidence, but the capstone portfolio experience
provides the best opportunity for candidates to showcase their extensions.
The working portfolio is developed as candidates complete
assignments throughout the program. Final entries are selected by the
candidates during EXC 7790 Documenting Professional Growth and include their
extensions and reflections on how they have documented their performance The
Unit Level Candidate Performance Instrument is completed at this point. The
portfolio is also evaluated using the Graduate Portfolio Narrative Rating Scale as
part of the PTEU unit data collection.
A major emphasis in the graduate portfolio is evidence documenting the
candidate’s impact on the learning of their students. Evidence including charts,
graphs and student work samples are required. Many candidates have also
included video clips, photographs of classroom activities, and other
documentation.
M. Ed. in Special Education candidates also complete a written
portfolio and a presentation portfolio. The format of the written portfolio has
evolved from a review of the literature format to an emphasis on documenting
impact on student learning with references to related literature integrated as
appropriate. The presentation portfolio is a summary presentation from the
written portfolio to demonstrate mastery of presentation technology skills.
Discussions across graduate education programs will continue to address
common formats and data collection strategies across programs.
401280716
- 72 -
Draft 10-29-03
GRADUATE PORTFOLIO NARRATIVE RATING SCALE
Please use the following RATING SCALE to complete the Graduate Portfolio Narrative
Rubric.
L1 – Little or No Evidence - Little or no evidence exists that proficiencies are addressed through
reflective analysis. Writing may be only descriptive in nature and lack analysis or critical
reflection. Evidence presented may be vague, brief, or not linked to proficiencies. Reference to
the proficiencies may be missing altogether. Through writing, candidate fails to make
connections between evidence presented and demonstration of expertise in the outcome.
Candidate is unable to assess impact on student learning. There is little to no evidence that the
candidate has been able to extend and apply knowledge and skills to daily practice. Finally, the
candidate’s reflective analysis may express negative opinions about students, parents, or other
professionals or blame students and parents for the student’s inability to learn.
L2 – Limited Evidence - Limited evidence exists that proficiencies are addressed through
reflective analysis. Writing is mostly descriptive with limited elements of analysis or critical
reflection. Evidence presented may address some of the proficiencies while others are not
addressed at all or are hard to identify. Through writing, candidate makes limited connections
between evidence presented and demonstration of expertise in the outcome. Candidate has
difficulty assessing impact on student learning or adjusting practice accordingly. Opinions toward
students, parents, or other professionals are difficult to identify.
L3 – Clear Evidence - Clear evidence exists that proficiencies are addressed through reflective
analysis. Writing is descriptive, analytical, and reflective. Evidence presented clearly addresses
all of the proficiencies with some being richer in detail than others. Through writing, candidate
makes clear connections between evidence presented and demonstration of expertise in the
outcome. Candidate assesses impact on student learning and adjusts practice accordingly. There is
clear evidence that the candidate has been able to extend and apply knowledge and skills to daily
practice. Positive opinions and behaviors about students, parents, or other professionals are
evident.
L4 – Clear, Consistent, and Convincing Evidence - Clear, consistent, and convincing evidence
exists that proficiencies are addressed through reflective analysis. Writing is rich in description,
analysis, and reflection. Evidence presented addresses all proficiencies with evidence of multiple
examples of extensions and application of learning to teaching practices. Through writing,
candidate makes clear, consistent, and convincing connections between evidence presented and
demonstration of expertise in the outcome. Candidate consistently assesses impact on student
learning and provides multiple examples of adjusting practice accordingly. Positive opinions and
interactions with students, parents, and other professionals are evident. Candidate is positive
about teaching every student and about each student’s ability to learn.
401280716
- 73 -
Draft 10-29-03
GRADUATE PORTFOLIO NARRATIVE
RUBRIC
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
Bagwell College of Education
Summary rating for SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
L1
L2
L3
22% (2)
L4
78% (7)
1.1 Candidate possesses broad, current and specialized knowledge of subject matter and communicates this
understanding to all students, and/or colleagues and parents.
1.2 Candidate possesses a global understanding of connections within and across disciplines and applications to real
life and accurately represents understanding through use of multiple explanations, technologies and strategies.
1.3 Candidate demonstrates a passion for education and creates environments conducive to the development of
powerful approaches to instructional challenges.
1.4 Candidate teaches or leads in ways that convey knowledge as a combination of skills, dispositions and beliefsintegrated, flexible, elaborate & deep.
Summary rating for FACILITATORS OF LEARNING
L1
L2
L3
44% (4)
L4
56% (5)
2.1 Candidate believes that all students can learn and helps students develop a positive disposition for learning.
2.2 Candidate treats students equitably and provides equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual
differences and adjusting (or assisting teachers in adjusting) practices accordingly.
2.3 Candidate understands human development and learning and uses this understanding to create enriching
educational experiences and/or environments for all students.
2.4 Candidate creates safe, well-managed, supportive, inclusive and challenging learning environments.
2.5 Candidate uses multiple methods, technologies, resources, and organizational arrangements to meet goals
articulated for individual students, class instruction and the overall school improvement plan.
2.6 Candidate monitors student progress with a variety of formal and informal evaluation methods and uses results to
improve student learning.
2.7 Candidate is accountable to multiple audiences, accurately interprets student performance data and communicates
results to multiple audiences in multiple formats.
Summary rating for COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONALS
L1
L2
L3
33% (3)
L4
67% (6)
3.1 Candidate collaborates with colleagues, parents and other professionals to strengthen school effectiveness, to
advance knowledge, and to influence policy and practice.
3.2 Candidate reflects regularly upon daily practice, and draws upon experience and the professional literature to design
and conduct research aimed at improved student achievement.
3.3 Candidate proactively involves parents and other members of the community in support of instruction and
education.
3.4 Candidate engages in on-going professional development by joining professional organizations, participating in
conferences, mentoring new staff.
401280716
- 74 -
Draft 10-29-03
Master of Special Education Portfolio Evaluation EXC 7790 Spring 2003
Evaluation Criteria
L-1 or L-2
Needs Significant revision (No
evidence or very limited
evidence)
L-3
Satisfactory Quality (Clear evidence)
L-4
High Quality (Clear,
consistent, and convincing
evidence)
Candidate
Written Document
Oral Presentation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(3)
(3)
(4)
(3)
(4)
(3)
(4)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(3)
(4)
TOTAL
L-1 or L-2
7
L-3
L-4
57% (4)
43% (3)
L-1 or L2
L-3
L-4
29% (2)
71% (5)
Note: Each part of the portfolio must receive at least a L-3 or L-4 on each criterion. (See the attached Graduate
Outcomes L1-L4 Performance Characteristics for further clarification.) Each of the student’s master’s portfolio
committee members must complete this form. A L-3 or L-4 rating must be obtained from the committee members.
401280716
- 75 -
Draft 10-29-03
GRADUATE IMPACT ON STUDENT
LEARNING ANALYSIS
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
Bagwell College of Education
Number of Candidates _____13
Course: ______EXC 7790__ Semester: Spring 2003__
Program: ___Special Education
Evaluator:__Self-Evaluation of Skills Upon Completing Program_
Our use of the phrase “every student” is inclusive of these attributes of multicultural populations:
Age, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic region, giftedness, language, race,
religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.
1
2
3
4
Rating Indicator
Little or No
Limited
Clear
Clear,
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Consistent,
and
Convincing
Evidence
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
Uses broad, current, and specialized
knowledge of subject matter and
54% (7)
46% (6)
communicates this understanding to
all students (1.1)
FACILITATOR OF LEARNING
Treats students equitably and
provides equitable access to the full
curriculum by respecting individual
54% (7)
46% (6)
difference sand adjusting practices
accordingly (2.2)
Uses multiple methods to meet goals
articulated for individual students
54% (7)
46% (6)
and class instruction (2.5)
Monitors student progress with a
variety of evaluation methods (2.6)
46% (6)
54% (7)
Meets learning goals articulated for
individual students, impacting the
54% (7)
46% (6)
learning of every student (2.5)
Uses the assessment results to
improve the quality of instruction for
62% (8)
38% (5)
every student (2.6)
COLLABORATIVE/PROFESSIONAL
Reflects regularly and draws on
experience aimed at improved
38% (5)
62% (8)
student achievement (3.2)
401280716
- 76 -
Draft 10-29-03
Appendix A
Conceptual Framework
Professional Teacher Education Unit
Bagwell College of Education
Kennesaw State University
Collaborative Development Of Expertise In Teaching And Learning
Abstract
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw State University is
committed to developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as
teachers and leaders who possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high
levels of learning in all of their students through effective, research-based practices in
classroom instruction, and who enhance the structures that support all learning. To that
end, the PTEU fosters the development of candidates as they progress through stages of
growth from novice to proficient to expert and leader. Within the PTEU conceptual
framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued development, not an end-state.
To be effective, teachers and educational leaders must embrace the notion that teaching
and learning are entwined and that only through the implementation of validated practices
can all students construct meaning and reach high levels of learning. In that way,
candidates are facilitators of the teaching and learning process. Finally, the PTEU
recognizes, values and demonstrates collaborative practices across the college and
university and extends collaboration to the community-at-large. Through this
collaboration with professionals in the university, the public and private schools, parents
and other professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of assisting Georgia
schools in bringing all students to high levels of learning.
401280716
- 77 -
Draft 10-29-03
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning.
Unit Vision
At Kennesaw State University (KSU), the Professional Teacher Education
Unit (PTEU) envisions teacher education programs as pivotal in the preparation of a
workforce composed of subject matter experts. In a variety of professional roles, these
developing teachers and educational leaders work collaboratively, wholeheartedly, and
effectively to serve learners by facilitating learning and developing successful learners
across multicultural educational communities.
The PTEU embraces Dewey’s vision of education as a “…process in
which the immature members of the teaching profession are shaped, formed, and molded
into the profession’s own social form” (1916/1956). This vision presupposes “schools as
places where only such as would make a better future society is transmitted--and where
each individual gets an opportunity to escape from the limitations of the social group in
which he/she was born, and to come into living contact with a broader environment”
(Dewey, 1916/1956).
What unites the diverse work of the PTEU is the underlying aspiration to guide
educators who bring learners of diverse backgrounds to high levels of learning. As part of
that work, we believe that collaborative teaching partnerships have the potential to play a
significant role in advancing education toward this desired future (Dottin, 2001). As a
result, the vision for the Professional Teacher Education program at Kennesaw State
University may be captured in the following theme:
Collaborative Development Of Expertise In Teaching And Learning.
This theme is directed by the following definitions as applied to the initial
and advanced Professional Teacher Education Programs:
Collaboration. Working together in an intellectual effort is the hallmark
of collaboration (Earle, Seehafer, & Ostlund, 2001; Friend & Cook, 2000; Galassi, 2000).
The concept encompasses how professionals work together, and unfolds as a
developmental process that proceeds from networking to coordination to cooperation
until true collaboration is achieved. Effective educators who are capable of meeting the
needs of every learner must work collaboratively and in partnership with parents,
professional colleagues, and the community (Strieker, & Logan, 2001). In the context of
increased student diversity, teachers need to support one another in an intellectual effort
to serve multicultural communities. In the absence of collaboration, it will be difficult to
assure that each student is accepted and actively supported in accessing the full array of
education experiences (Lipsky & Gartner, 1989). Thus, at KSU one portion of our theme
rests on collaboration.
Development of Expertise. Another aspect of our theme includes the development
of expertise. According to Odell, Huling and Sweeny (2000), each teacher progresses
through stages of development that advance from novice to proficient to expert to teacher
leader. This progression occurs in a continuum of growth from pre-service to induction
to in-service and finally renewal (Huling, 1997). To move from one stage to the next,
graduates must recognize and act upon the significance of life-long professional
development of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical practice. Expertise is viewed
as a process of continued development, not an end state (Berlinger, 1988). In developing
401280716
- 78 -
Draft 10-29-03
expertise, teachers work to achieve intellectual proficiency or "know-how" in the
teaching/learning process (Marshall, Fittinghoff, & Cheney, 1990; Katz, 1972).
Educators with expertise in both areas hold high expectations for every learner, possess
professional insight, use and organize knowledge about teaching and learning effectively,
and search for creative solutions to problems and challenges. At KSU, we use the terms
expertise and expert in the same way as the National Board on Professional Teacher
Standards (The National Board, 1999) uses the term accomplished.
Teaching and Learning. Besides collaboration and development of
expertise, our theme also includes consideration for the teaching and learning process that
is demonstrated and facilitated by the PTEU faculty, to the teacher candidates, and
ultimately, to their students. To be effective, teachers and educational leaders must meet
the needs of diverse student populations by understanding individual students’
backgrounds, preferences and interests, and by using this information in the instructional
process (Salisbury & Strieker, 2004; Ross, Seaborn & Wilson, 2002). KSU faculty
embrace and model the intertwined processes of teaching and learning. That is, expert
teachers use validated practices to facilitate the learning process and assist their students
as they explore and investigate concepts so that learning becomes the acquisition of
personal meaning, knowledge, and skills rather than simply the acquisition of a
measurable outcome (Dottin, 2001, p. 40). The acquisition of meaning, knowledge, and
skills is consonant with a constructivist paradigm of teaching and learning in which
candidates (as well as their students) build their “…own knowledge and their own
representations of knowledge from their own experiences and thought…” (Martin, 2003,
p.169). Thus, the learning and development of candidates (and their future students) is
assisted within an environment where emphasis is placed on a recursive process for the
construction of knowledge (Elam & Duckinfield, 2000).
Unit Mission
The unit mission is built upon the PTEU vision and theme. KSU is
committed to providing a challenging and facilitative collegial environment that fosters
high-quality academic preparation, critical thinking, global and multicultural
perspectives, effective communication and interpersonal skills, leadership development,
social responsibility, and lifelong learning (KSU Catalog, 2002-03). In concert with this
institutional mission, the PTEU embraces the commitment of developing educational
professionals who, as collaborative partners, engaged in local, national, and international
endeavors in teaching, research, and service, become subject matter experts capable of
facilitating high levels of learning within diverse student populations. Paramount to this
activity is scholarly activity, which, broadly defined, is multi-dimensional in nature, is
methodologically based upon the level and context of inquiry, and is combined with
service activities that promote the well being of the University and the community-atlarge. The PTEU, therefore, is committed to building a community of learners, who in
turn will enfold, nurture, and engender in the Pre-K through grade 12 students a “shared
vision of intellectual and social possibilities” (Boyer, 1995) as they prepare to live
productively within a global society.
401280716
- 79 -
Draft 10-29-03
Philosophy
“…education must be conceived as a continuing reconstruction of experience;
that the process and the goal of education are one and the same thing” (Dewey,
1910:1937).
Teacher as Nurturer, Facilitator (of Learning), Collaborator
Within the context of our general mission and vision, the PTEU philosophy is
based upon a shared view of teacher preparation. The Professional Teacher Education
Unit at Kennesaw State University views teachers and other school personnel as
nurturers, facilitators, and collaborators. Since teachers and other school personnel in the
PTEU care deeply about candidate learners and are particularly responsive to learners’
needs, they act as nurturers to assist candidates in the development of necessary basic
learning skills and dispositions (ERIC Digest, 1993). Professional educators in the PTEU
use validated practices to facilitate a learning process that acknowledges and values
prospective teachers’ constructions of knowledge and aid candidates in reflecting about
their content areas. Finally, these professional educators embrace an ideology that speaks
to the collective and collaborative nature of shared work among effective professionals in
the field.
Nurturer. “To see teaching and learning as the act of nurturing is to understand
the essence of the phrase, to educate.” As Dewey posits, learners grow in concert with
others. “Every experience lives on in further experiences. Hence, the central problem
of…education…is to select the kind of present experiences that develop fruitfully and
creatively in subsequent experiences” (Dewey, 1937, p.45).
Facilitator. “Real, genuine attention means mental movement, not only on the
part of the individual but also on the part of the class. It means that ideas come into the
class, various persons follow out those ideas, and new points are brought out; and yet the
teacher harmonizes it all, combining this play of variety, this expression of different
elements, so that it leads consistently and consecutively in a definite direction” (Dewey,
1904).
To see teaching and learning as the act of facilitating is to see the teacher
as one who views students as curious, active, and capable learners who are able to obtain
complex understandings and skills through the guidance of a knowledgeable instructor.
There is a philosophical perspective that asserts that teachers cannot “give” knowledge to
their students. Rather, each individual constructs meaning based on prior knowledge and
experiences (Bruner, 1960). Teachers' making sense of their classrooms is a constructivist
process; understanding evolves and is influenced by teachers' prior knowledge, values,
and beliefs. Interpretation of classroom events is viewed as a quest for order and
intelligibility among the many possible patterns of sense that a classroom scene affords
the teacher. The sense that a teacher makes of a particular scene is a product of ordered
prior knowledge of classroom scenes, awareness of particular features of the present
scene, and cognitive processes that connect knowledge with current awareness
(Calderhead, 1987).
As teacher educators, our task is to assist our candidates in examining, critiquing,
and refining their meaning (constructions) as they search for greater understanding.
Moreover, while we understand that learners create their own meanings, we also
understand that not all constructions are of the same worth or usefulness. One of the
401280716
- 80 -
Draft 10-29-03
dangers of misunderstood and misapplied constructivism is rampant relativism.
Constructions that are justified solely on the basis of uniqueness and “reality” for the
particular individual are potentially biased and self-serving. Thus, while we embrace
constructivist teacher education programs, we do so with the understanding and intent
that the constructions must be subjected to standards, a knowledge base, and processes by
which they can be examined, reflected upon; and evaluated on a basis more persuasive
than one’s personal reality.
Collaborators. “…it behooves the school to make ceaseless and intelligently
organized effort to develop above all else the will for co-operation and the spirit which
sees in every other individual one who has an equal right to share in the cultural and
material fruits of collective human invention…” (Dewey, 1937)
Dewey’s ideology and his approach to education encompassed a view that
human beings had the natural tendency to connect with others, “to give out, to do, and to
serve” (Dewey, 1916, p. 55). This led him to take an approach to education which
stressed the importance of learning to get along with others because cooperation actually
satisfies a deep-seated human need (Purkey & Siegel, 2003).
To see teaching and learning as the act of collaborating is to see the
teacher as one who values teaching and learning as more than just an end unto itself.
Teachers are charged to create a community of learners who construct meaning within a
socio-cultural context. As Vygotsky (1962) theorized, learning is enhanced through
social interaction. Later, Johnson & Johnson (1994) posited that learning is sociallymediated and that interaction with more capable peers and/or more knowledgeable others,
and under the guidance of accomplished, mentor teachers produces higher levels of
achievement.
Beyond these defined philosophical tenets, the PTEU has agreed upon the
following Belief and Action Statements to elucidate how learning occurs. The model of
teaching and learning envisioned at KSU brings to the foreground the needs of the learner
rather than the teacher.
Belief and Action Statements
1. All human beings are worthy of respect; high regard for human dignity
is essential.
2. All students are capable of high-levels of learning, and it is the
responsibility of faculty and candidates to ensure this occurs by using a
variety of validated practices in a constructivist learning environment.
3. Development of teaching expertise by faculty and candidates is a
complex intellectual and developmental process requiring the integration
of strong content and pedagogical knowledge within well-structured
classroom experiences. Teaching expertise is facilitated through
thoughtful reflection on practice, student success, and on-going
professional development.
4. Appropriate use of technology is essential to effective teaching and
learning for faculty and candidates. Instructional plans that use researchbased methods, materials, and technologies are necessary to meet the
needs of all students.
401280716
- 81 -
Draft 10-29-03
5. To enhance candidate learning, faculty members must model best
educational practice, who possess a spirit of inquiry and engage in
professional collaboration and professional development that enhances
candidate learning.
6. Collaboration with the professional education community is essential for
the successful preparation of effective teachers and teacher leaders.
7. Ongoing candidate evaluation, both formative and summative, is
necessary for documenting candidates’ development of teaching
expertise.
8. Teachers use the results of ongoing program evaluation, scholarly
inquiry about best educational practice in teaching and learning, and an
understanding of changes in state policy and professional standards.
9. To facilitate high levels of learning in all students, initial and advanced
programs support candidates’ efforts to be self-directed and to value a
spirit of inquiry through research.
We believe that learning is both personally and socially mediated. Personally,
KSU candidates build upon their own experiences to construct their own meaning, gain
sophisticated pedagogical skills, and demonstrate dispositions that enhance their daily
practice and ultimately, student learning. Socially, KSU candidates engage in collegial
discourse and are recipients of extended practice, mentoring, and assistance to help them
learn.
Aim Directed Purpose
The aim is the directed purpose for all unit activity that emerges from its vision
(theme), its mission, and its underlying beliefs (Dottin, 2001, p. 45). The PTEU seeks to
facilitate high levels of candidate learning and the development of teaching expertise
through extensive collaboration among numerous departments across the university and
with many partner schools and practicing professionals in the field. Such collaborative
efforts are designed to aid in the candidate’s acquisition of critical understandings,
knowledge, and skills, as well as foster dispositions that reflect high regard for learner
diversity, professional reflection and growth, and student success. The unit’s
commitment to collaboration with the professional educational community serves as a
model, the purpose of which is to develop expertise among candidates in their initial and
advanced programs as teachers and leaders who possess the capability, intent, and
expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all students through effective classroom
instruction, and who enhance structures that support learning. Our aim is to produce
teachers and school leaders who are
 Subject Matter Experts who assist students in subject matter mastery, who
accurately represent content, and who use effective instructional
strategies/techniques, including the use of technology.
 Facilitators of Learning who understand how individuals construct
knowledge, who help learners develop complex cognitive structures, who
adapt instruction to accommodate learners’ levels of understanding, and
who
401280716
- 82 -
Draft 10-29-03


Know Subject Matter Deeply who use a wide array of teaching strategies
and methodologies.
Collaborative Professionals who work together to improve teaching and
learning, who are committed to life-long learning, who promote a climate
of collaboration and trust, and who have high ethical and professional
values.
Institutional Standards
Institutional standards are used in unit evaluation to measure candidate
proficiencies in mastering the desired outcomes mentioned above. All of the instruction
provided on campus, as well as in field experiences, is designed to meet the unit aim.
Candidate assessment is divided into three succinct categories of a) Subject Matter
Experts; b) Facilitators of Learning; and c) Collaborative Professionals.
The justification for the development of unit outcomes and proficiencies is
grounded in research and a knowledge base that emerges from the professional literature
on the preparation of teachers and other school personnel.
Wilson, Schulman & Richert (1987) identified three critical components of a
teacher’s professional knowledge base: subject matter content knowledge, pedagogical
content knowledge, and curricular knowledge. Thus, teacher candidates must be
knowledgeable of their content areas (The National Boards, 1999) and the state-approved
standards and curriculum, as well as possess a broad repertoire of instructional and
assessment practices (McGregor & Vogelsberg, 1998), technology applications (Ross,
2003; Churma, 1999), and know how to collaborate with other professionals (Kohler, et.
al., 1997).
Sternberg (1998) supports our belief that expertise is a process of continued
development, not an end state. In developing expertise, teachers exhibit characteristics
that set them apart from novice teachers. They differentiate themselves in the areas of
knowledge, efficiency, and insight (Sternberg, 1996). Expert teachers use knowledge
effectively in professional problem-solving, organize their knowledge, and have tacit
situational knowledge (Robbins, 2001). Finally, teachers with higher levels of expertise
search for solutions to teaching/learning situations through creative problem-solving.
Accomplished, expert teachers command the specialized knowledge of their
discipline (Robbins, 2001) and know how to present that information to a diverse group
of students (Buckman, 1984; The National Board, 1999; Zheng, 1999). Accomplished,
expert teachers are aware of the background knowledge students bring to the subject area
as well as necessary instructional strategies to help students capitalize upon their
background knowledge. Also, accomplished, expert teachers predict where instruction
can be hindered or enhanced and have the ability to modify practices accordingly.
Facilitate Learning
Teachers assume the role of facilitators of learning (Johnson, 2000) by assisting
students as they explore and investigate concepts. This role, grounded in constructivist
philosophy, transforms learning from the demonstration of a measurable outcome to the
acquisition of personal meaning (Dottin, 2001). In all teacher preparation programs at
KSU, facilitation is key to the teaching and learning process. Teacher facilitation fosters
an instructional climate that promotes active and authentic learning of a standards-based
401280716
- 83 -
Draft 10-29-03
curriculum (Zemelman, Daniels & Hyde, 1998). The instructional climate in the
facilitated classroom supports risk-taking and inquiry (Elias, et. al., 1997) so that students
are able to make connections between and among disciplines and apply knowledge and
skills from one discipline or situation to another (Brigman, 2000). Elam and Duckenfield
(2000) describe the teacher facilitator as an instructional leader who, through
collaboration with university faculty, master teachers, cooperating teachers, and role
models in the community, provides collective experiences and opportunities for student
learning (Robbins & Cooper, 2003; Robbins, Miesiazek & Andrews, 2002). An
instructional leader fosters a climate that encourages and promotes active learning of a
standards-based curriculum.
Constructivist teaching and learning approaches act in tandem with this belief.
With constructivist approaches, “the single most important factor influencing learning is
what the learner already knows” (Ausubel, Novak & Hanessian, 1978, p. iv). Therefore, it
is critical that teachers embrace diversity and use students’ knowledge and experiences to
build the instructional program. Von Glassersfield (1991) states, “Teachers must try to
infer, from what they can observe, what students’ concepts are and how they operate with
them. Only on the basis of some such hypothesis can teachers devise ways and means to
orient, direct, or modify the students’ mental operating” (p. 22). In constructivist
classrooms “…learning activities must begin by considering the role of students’ current
knowledge, how knowledge is constructed, and the role of the activity in building
knowledge” (Penner, 2001, p. 3). Zahorik, (1997) suggests that teachers “help students
negotiate meaning” by extending activities with discussions in which children compare
their constructions with the experts’ constructions to “gain insights into both and begin to
reconceptualize their constructions in the direction of those of the experts” (p. 32).
While facilitation and constructivist thinking permeate the teacher preparation
program, particular emphasis is also placed upon validated methods and procedures for
planning curriculum (Miller, 2002), delivering instruction (Daniels & Bazar, 1998;
Miller, 2002; Zimelman, Damiels & Hyde, 1998), and evaluating and reporting student
progress (Herman, Gearhart & Baker, 1993) that result in high levels of student learning
and teacher effectiveness. Such validated practices include, but are not restricted to,
direct instruction (Engelmann, Becker, Carnine & Gersten (1998), cooperative learning
(Johnson & Johnson, 1994), strategy instruction (Englert, 1984), classroom and
behavioral management (Taylor-Green, Horner, Sugai & Sprague, 1999), and authentic
assessment (Valencia, 1990).
Engender Collaboration
The Holmes Group (1990) and NCATE (1997) proposed professional
development schools as the means of connecting schools and universities in a
collaborative endeavor. The essential attributes of collaboration between the university
and partner schools and/or professional development schools are commitment,
collaboration, and connectedness. These partnerships are based on mutual trust,
understanding, and collaboration (Osguthorpe, et. al., 1995). Coalitions, consortiums,
networks, and partnerships have been developed to provide the connections between
schools and universities. These terms are often used interchangeably and represent the
idea of making connections in the learning process.
401280716
- 84 -
Draft 10-29-03
Historically, there has been a call for collaboration between schools and
universities. John Dewey (1904, p.10) urged schools and colleges of education to look to
“the matured experience” of other professional callings to provide lessons and insight
into an improved teaching/learning experience. Goodlad and Sirotnick (1988) interpreted
this statement to mean that professions such as law and medicine connected the scholarly
endeavors of the academy with application of the discipline in the courts and in hospitals
to produce effective lawyers and doctors. Dewey was suggesting a similar collaboration
between schools and colleges of education to produce effective teachers.
The National Board (1999) ascribes a leadership role to teachers that is directed
primarily at the building level but certainly could be accomplished in larger communities.
In that regard, the National Board encourages teachers to work collaboratively with
parents and other professionals and to be proactive and creative--engaging them in
development of curriculum, coordination and implementation of instruction, new teacher
professional development and other policy decisions fundamental to development of
quality learning environments. Expert teachers focus upon their students’ educational
needs by developing their partnerships with parents, the community, and other
professional colleagues (Bessette, 1999).
Candidate Outcomes and Proficiencies
Candidate proficiencies represent a common core of essential knowledge, skills, and
dispositions of effective classroom instruction. Candidate proficiencies are organized into
three outcomes that are linked to the institutional standards and unit aim. They are: a)
Subject Matter Experts,
b) Facilitators of Learning, and c) Collaborative
Professionals. Candidates’ performance of specific teaching or professional decisions
and actions will occur in numerous and varied contexts, which means that the evidence of
candidates’ performance vis-à-vis the institutional standards will be numerous and varied.
Candidates in the initial programs develop beginning levels of expertise, facilitate
learning in all students, and recognize the significance of life-long professional
development and collaboration. Proficiencies in each area reflect a continuum of
development and expectation as candidates proceed through their programs from initial
field experiences through student teaching. Table 1 depicts the PTEU outcomes and
proficiencies at the initial level as well as their designations to categories of “Knowledge,
Skills and/or Dispositions” and their alignment with NCATE standards.
401280716
- 85 -
Draft 10-29-03
Table 1
PTEU Outcomes and Proficiencies for Initial Programs
OUTCOMES & PROFICIENCIES
KSD
Outcome 1: Subject Matter Expert
1.1 Candidate possesses knowledge of discipline content, methods of
inquiry, and connections to other disciplines and applications to
common life experiences.
1.2 Candidate knows and represents content accurately in multiple
explanations, technology integration, and the application of
various instructional strategies.
1.3 Candidate uses content and pedagogical knowledge to assist
students in the mastery of subject matter knowledge.
Outcome 2: Facilitator of Learning
2.1 Candidate demonstrates knowledge of how learners develop, learn
and think about subject content, as well as successful strategies
to motivate students to learn.
2.2 Candidate uses knowledge of the influences of society, culture,
community, and family on schools and learning to create and
implement instruction that embodies multiple cultures and a rich,
diverse curriculum.
2.3 Candidate creates effective, well-managed and active learning
environments that reflect high expectations for student
achievement.
2.4 Candidate designs and implements instruction that makes
effective use of a variety of methods, materials, and
technologies to positively impact learning of all students.
2.5 Candidate utilizes a variety of assessments to evaluate student
learning and uses the results to improve the quality of instruction
that is differentiated to accommodate students’ diversities.
Outcome 3: Collaborative Professional
3.1 Candidate reflects upon and improves professional performance
based on professional standards, feedback, best practices and
effective communication.
3.2 Candidate builds collaborative and respectful relationships with
colleagues, supervisors, students, parents and community
members.
3.3 Candidate displays professional and ethical behavior consistent
with recognized educational standards and codes of ethics.
NCATE Standard
K
Content
S
Pedagogical
Content
S
Pedagogical
Content
K
Pedagogical &
Professional
K
Pedagogical &
Professional
S
Pedagogical &
Professional
S
Pedagogical &
Professional
Student Learning
Pedagogical &
Professional Student
Learning
S
D
Disposition
D
Disposition
D
Disposition
Candidates in the advanced programs develop expertise in sophisticated
pedagogical skills and as leaders in their educational community. Proficiencies in each
area in the advanced programs and are organized under the same three outcomes: a)
Subject Matter Experts, b) Facilitators of Learning, and c) Collaborative Professionals. At
the advanced level, KSU offers programs in teacher education and educational
leadership. Thus, the outcomes and proficiencies are broad enough to encompass both
types of advanced programs and to reflect professional standards in both arenas.
Table 2 depicts the PTEU outcomes and proficiencies at the advanced level as
well as their designations to categories of “Knowledge, Skills and/or
Dispositions” and their alignment with NCATE and National Board Standards.
401280716
- 86 -
Draft 10-29-03
Table 2
Outcomes and Proficiencies for Advanced Programs
OUTCOMES & PROFICIENCIES
KSD
Outcome 1: A Subject Matter Expert knows the
subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects
to students.
1.1 Candidate possesses broad, current and
specialized knowledge of subject matter and
communicates this understanding to colleagues,
parents and students.
– OR –
1.1 EDL: Candidate promotes the success of all
students by advocating, nurturing, and
sustaining a school culture and
instructional program conducive to
student learning and staff professional
growth.
1.2 Candidate possesses a global understanding of
connections within and across disciplines and
applications to real life and accurately represents
understanding through use of multiple
explanations, technologies and strategies.
1.3 Candidate demonstrates a passion for education
and creates environments conducive to the
development of powerful approaches to
instructional challenges.
1.4 Candidate teaches or leads in ways that convey
knowledge as a combination of skills,
dispositions and beliefs-integrated, flexible,
elaborate and deep.
Outcome 2: A Facilitator of Learning is
committed to students and is responsible for
managing and monitoring student learning.
2.1 Candidate believes that all students can learn and
helps students develop a positive disposition for
learning.
2.2 Candidate treats students equitably and provides
equitable access to the full curriculum by
respecting individual differences and adjusting
(or assisting teachers in adjusting) practices
accordingly.
2.3 Candidate understands human development and
learning and uses this understanding to create
enriching educational experiences and/or
environments for all students.
NCATE
Standard 1
Element
NBPTS
Core
Principles
ISLLC
Standard
2
K
Content
2
1, 4
K/S
Pedagogical
Content
2
2, 3
K/S
Pedagogical
Content
2
2
K/S/D
Pedagogical
Content
2
1, 2, 5
1, 3
D
S
K/S/D
401280716
Disposition
Professional
&
Pedagogical
Student
Learning
Professional
& Pedagogical
Disposition
1
2
1
5
1
2
- 87 -
Draft 10-29-03
OUTCOMES & PROFICIENCIES
KSD
2.4 Candidate
creates
safe,
well-managed,
supportive, inclusive and challenging learning
environments.
2.5 Candidate uses multiple methods, technologies,
resources, and organizational arrangements to
meet goals articulated for individual students,
class instruction and the overall school
improvement plan.
2.6 Candidate monitors student progress with a
variety of formal and informal evaluation
methods and uses results to improve student
learning.
K/S
2.7 Candidate is accountable to multiple audiences,
accurately interprets student performance data
and communicates results to multiple audiences
in multiple formats.
Outcome 3: A COLLABORATIVE
PROFESSIONAL thinks systematically about her
practice, learns from experience, and is a member
of learning communities.
3.1 Candidate collaborates with colleagues, parents
and other professionals to strengthen school
effectiveness, to advance knowledge, and to
influence policy and practice.
3.2 Candidate reflects regularly upon daily practice,
and draws upon experience and the professional
literature to design and conduct research aimed
at improved student achievement.
3.3 Candidate proactively involves parents and
other members of the community in support of
instruction and education.
3.4 Candidate engages in on-going professional
development by joining professional
organizations, participating in conferences,
mentoring new staff.
K/S
K/S
K/S
NCATE
Standard 1
Element
Professional
& Pedagogical
Professional
& Pedagogical
Student
Learning
Professional
&
Pedagogical
Student
Learning
Professional
&
Pedagogical
NBPTS
Core
Principles
3
ISLLC
Standard
3
3
3
3, 2
3
4
2
4, 5
K/D
K/D
Professional
& Pedagogical
Disposition
Professional
& Pedagogical
Disposition
Student
Learning
5
4, 6
4
2
D
Disposition
5
4
D
Disposition
4, 5
3, 6
Standards Alignment
At KSU, the institutional standards for the unit are derived from the expected
outcomes and proficiencies for candidate learning and are aligned with the knowledge,
skills, or dispositions identified in professional and state standards. Tables 3 and 4 depict
the alignment of initial and advanced outcomes and proficiencies with the Georgia Board
of Regents’ (BOR) Principles, Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium (INTASC) standards, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium
(ISLLC) standards [advanced program in educational leadership only], and the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).
Table 3
401280716
- 88 -
Draft 10-29-03
Alignment of Initial Program Outcomes & Proficiencies With State
and National Standards
INITIAL
GEORGIA BOARD
PROGRAM
OF REGENTS’
OUTCOMES and
PRINCIPLES
PROFICIENCIES
Outcome 1: Subject Matter Experts
INTASC
STANDARDS
1.1
Discipline Content
Knowledge
NBPTS
STANDARDS
II B (1) - Depth in
1 - Concepts, Inquiry, and
Content
Structures of Discipline
II B (2) – High Lrning
Stds
1.2
II B (3) - Customize Inst 1 - Concepts, Inquiry, and
Multiple Explanations
Structures of Discipline
4 - Instructional Strategies
7 - Plans Instruction
1.3
II B (3) - Customize Inst 1 - Concepts, Inquiry, and
Use of Content &
Structures of Discipline
Pedagogical
4 - Instructional Strategies
Knowledge
7 - Plans Instruction
Outcome 2: Facilitators of Learning
2 - Know & Tch Subjects
3 - Manage & Monitor
Learning
2.1
Learner Characteristics
& Motivation
2.2
Influences of Society
2.3
Management of
Learning
Environments
2.4
Design &
Implementation of
Instruction
2.5
Assess, Evaluate,
Improve
1 - Commitment to
Students
2 - Learning &
Development
5 – Motivation
II B (3) - Customize Inst 3 - Diverse Learners
10 - Collaboration
II B (2) - High Lrning
4 - Instructional Strategies
Stds
1 - Concepts, Inquiry, and
II B (7) - Manage
Structures of Discipline
Classrooms
5 – Motivation
II B (6) - Telecommun 4 - Instructional Strategies
& Info Tech
5 - Motivation
6 - Communication
7 - Plans Instruction
II B (5) - Use Stu Data 8 – Assessment
III A - Inst Results in St 4 - Instructional Strategies
Learning - Init
III B - Inst Results in St
Learning - Induction
Outcome 3: Collaborative Professionals
3.1
Reflect, Improve
Professional
Performance
3.2
Collaborative,
Respectful
Relationships
3.3
Professional & Ethical
Behavior
2 – Know & Tch Subjects
2 – Know & Tch Subjects
1 - Commitment to
Students
3 - Manage & Monitor
Learning
2 – Know & Tch Subjects
3 - Manage & Monitor
Learning
9 – Reflection
6 - Communication
4 – Think About Practice
10 – Collaboration
6 Communication
9 – Reflection
5 - Learning Communities
4 – Think About Practice
9 – Reflection
4 – Think About Practice
Table 4
401280716
- 89 -
Draft 10-29-03
Alignment of Advanced Program Outcomes & Proficiencies With State and
National Standards
ADVANCED PROGRAM GEORGIA BOARD
OUTCOMES AND
OF REGENTS’
PROFICIENCIES
PRINCIPLES
Outcome 1:
Subject Matter Experts
1.1 Subject matter expert
ISLLC
STANDARDS
2 - Know & Tch Subjects
III C
1.2 Understanding of
connections
1.3 Powerful instructional
approaches
1.4 Knowledge as
combination of
understanding, skills &
dispositions
Outcome 2:
Facilitators of Learning
1, 4
2 - Know & Tch Subjects
2, 3
2 - Know & Tch Subjects
2
2 - Know & Tch Subjects
1, 2, 5
2 - Know & Tch Subjects
III C
2.1 Belief that all students
can learn
2.2 Equitable treatment and
access
2.3 Human development
and learning
2.4 Challenging
environments
2.5Multiple methods
2
1- Commitment to Students
3 - Manage & Monitor
Learning
1- Commitment to Students
5
1- Commitment to Students
2
1- Commitment to Students
2
3 - Manage & Monitor
Learning
3 - Manage & Monitor
Learning
3 - Manage & Monitor
Learning
3 - Manage & Monitor
Learning
4 - Think About Practice
5 - Learning Communities
5 - Learning Communities
3
2.6 Evaluating progress
2.7 Interpreting & reporting
student performance
Outcome 3:
Collaborative Professionals
3.1 Collaboration with
professional partners
3.2 Reflection, research &
scholarship
3.3 Parental and
Community Involvement
3.4 Professional
Development
NBPTS
STANDARDS
3, 2
4
III C
4, 5
401280716
2
4 - Think About Practice
4
5 - Learning Communities
3, 6
4 - Think About Practice
5 - Learning Communities
- 90 -
Draft 10-29-03
Unit Assessment System Goal
The goal of the unit and program evaluation system at KSU is to determine
whether candidates acquire the unit’s outcomes and as a result whether the unit is
achieving its aim to develop expertise among candidates in their initial and advanced
programs as teachers and leaders who possess the capability, intent, and expertise to
facilitate high levels of learning in all students through effective classroom instruction,
and who enhance structures that support learning. To achieve this aim, the unit has
developed internal and external assessments of candidate performance to be used in
combination with unit and program operational assessments to determine overall
effectiveness in meeting the unit goal and institutional standards.
Two-Tiered Assessment System
The unit assessment system in the PTEU and Bagwell College of
Education is designed to inform all stakeholders of overall unit effectiveness and to guide
the unit’s efforts in making improvements in programs and services that help produce
highly qualified beginning and experienced teachers and school leaders. Initial and
advanced candidate proficiencies listed in Tables 1 and 2 of the conceptual framework
serve as the primary focus of internal and external assessments to determine candidate
qualifications. The unit ensures common collection and reporting of information
pertaining to all programs and services, but some assessments originate at the program
level and become the basis for analysis and application to the unit. A similar structure
provides the unit with information regarding field experiences, diversity, faculty and
resources. Table 5 PTEU Assessment System summarizes the two-tiered conceptual
structure to show how various sources of data interrelate and compliment the unit’s
ability to maintain or improve its effectiveness. Although the unit is the level most
accountable for the delivery of teacher education programs and services, it recognizes
and depends upon the unique contributions of programs in supplementing its major
assessments (e.g. program specific requirements at points of admission, state licensure
exams in the content field, technology competencies).
Table 5
PTEU Assessment System
TIER
DATA
SOURCE
Internal
Program Assessment
Candidate Performance:

Program specific requirements at
admission points and exit

Key assessments of professional
content standards (SPA & PSC)

Candidate Performance Assessment
Instrument (CPI)

Portfolio Narrative Rubric

Impact on Student Learning Rubric

Infusion of technology
Field Experiences:
 Placements in content area courses
 Placements in TOSS/practicum
 Observations
401280716
Unit Assessment
Candidate Performance:

Common requirements at
each decision point of
admission/exit

Candidate Performance
Assessment Instrument (CPI)
at Exit

Portfolio Narrative Rubric

Impact on Student Learning
Rubric
Field Experiences:

Placements in core courses
(EDUC 2201, 2204, EXC 3304,
& student teaching)

Observations
- 91 -
Draft 10-29-03
TIER
DATA
SOURCE
Program Assessment
External


Candidate Performance:

Praxis I
Praxis II
Cooperating teachers
Unit Assessment
Diversity:

Candidates

Field Experiences

Faculty

Recruitment & Retention
Faculty:

Characteristics

Vita and supporting
documentation

Performance reviews
Resources:
 Budget
 Facilities
 Technology
End of Program

Candidate survey

Cooperating teachers survey

Principal survey
Graduates:
 First Year Induction Survey
 Second Year Induction Survey
Employers:
 Surveys
General Description
Candidate performance assessment and the evaluation of learning in field and
clinical experiences is the crux of unit evaluation. However, to assure that the unit
meets its overall aim, faculty vitality and unit accountability are also continuously
assessed.
At the unit level, candidate assessments are related to requirements agreed upon
by all programs and are consistent with the unit’s beliefs about the qualifications its
candidates should have; however, each program retains the right and responsibility for
keeping records on additional requirements. At the initial certification level, quantitative
data (e.g. GPAs and Praxis scores) are collected and summarized at each of four phases
in a candidate’s initial program:
1. Admission to Teacher Education,
2. Admission to TOSS or Practicum,
3. Admission to Student Teaching, and
4. Graduation or completion of program.
5.
The capability of aggregating data by program, semester, and demographics enables the
unit and programs to observe change over time. Unit data on candidates enrolled in
Advanced Programs (M.Ed.), endorsement, and add-on certificate programs are kept at
the time of 1) initial admission and 2) exit/graduation. Unit data, like those kept at the
initial level, are summarized on quantitative measures such as GPAs and SAT scores;
however, the uniqueness of each discipline’s specific criteria for admission, including
qualitative measures, requires some data be kept at the program level.
Candidate assessment reflects the unit’s commitment to the development of
expertise. Within each phase of preparation, initial and advanced candidates are assessed
401280716
- 92 -
Draft 10-29-03
on competencies derived from the institutional standards by integrating components of
the unit’s principle instrument called the Candidate Performance Instrument (CPI) into
various program-created assessments. At the program level, the CPI is also aligned with
the professional standards of each program area. In this manner, our programs ensure
that each candidate has mastered the outcomes and proficiencies identified by the unit as
well as those articulated by their professional organizations. The integrated program
assessments are used routinely in designated courses and field observations.
As a unit instrument, the CPI is used for exit evaluation to assess and document
candidate performance at the end of each initial and advanced program; but its
comprehensiveness and adaptable rubric also make it easy to extend use to other
unit assessments, such as the portfolio narrative and impact on student learning.
As previously noted, the two-tiered assessment system ensures common
collection and reporting of information pertaining to all programs because critical
assessments originate at the program level and become the basis for analysis and
application to the unit. For example, the Impact on Student Learning rubric is
administered throughout the initial and advanced candidate preparation programs
to ensure that each candidate is able to bring all students to high levels of
learning. Similarly, all programs use the Portfolio Narrative rubric is used to
assess candidate mastery of desired outcomes and proficiencies as they exit their
programs of study. The aggregate scores on both rubrics are reported regularly to
the unit for interpretation and analysis college-wide. In this manner, the inherent
alignment between the criteria/rubrics of related assessments and the CPI
preserves the connection with our conceptual framework.
The assessment system also includes external measures to assess candidates in
field and clinical experiences as well as the quality of the experience as perceived by the
cooperating school personnel. Surveys by cooperating teachers and principals evaluate
the adequacy of preparation, logistical arrangements for placements, and
awareness/application of the conceptual framework. Following graduation, the unit
monitors all of its graduates for two years following completion of the degree program in
accordance with the Georgia Board of Regent’s policy, Principles for the Preparation of
Educators for the Schools (1998). The unit honors the commitment to the specific
Regents’ principle that guarantees the quality of any teacher it [system institution]
prepares by providing any graduate deemed less than effective in helping students make
satisfactory progress additional preparation at no cost to the teacher or school district.
Furthermore, by offering first and second year induction programs throughout the service
area to all teachers, the unit recognizes the benefit of early mentoring and support to
inexperienced teachers in offsetting a national trend of significant attrition among highly
qualified teachers in their first years of teaching. Surveys completed by graduates and
employers of graduates constitute the unit’s primary source of feedback used to
determine the following: a.) quality of the induction program, b.) the extent to which the
induction program influences teaching and students’ learning, and c.) quality of the KSU
teacher education program in preparing teachers and school leaders for their roles.
Assessments of unit capacity related to field experiences and diversity utilize a
variety of paper and electronic surveys and electronic tracking systems to ensure balance
in initial and advanced field and clinical placements with diverse teachers and students.
The unit uses a combination of electronic vita templates and surveys completed by
401280716
- 93 -
Draft 10-29-03
candidates as well as professional participation/contribution records to show the quality
of its faculty, and instruction and supervision of candidates. Evidence to show the
adequacy of available resources, including technology, and the effectiveness of unit
governance comes from unit, departmental and university sources. This evidence
represents a different level of data reporting and access because of the complexities
associated with shared resources.
Because of generous financial and personnel support from key university
administrative levels, the unit is able to develop and maintain a state-of-the-art, electronic
data management system (DMS). The purpose of the DMS is to improve the accuracy
and lessen the burden of record keeping through advanced electronic and technologic
means. As the DMS develops in sophistication, it will expand from its current focus on
candidate tracking to support the electronic entry, storage, and reporting of data related to
faculty qualifications, field experience and diversity placements, and unit/program
resources. In addition, the system will monitor and electronically notify programs about
candidates whose records are ready for review for admission or graduation. The
capability for examining cross-sectional and longitudinal slices of data will be possible
through live and archival components. Integrating this system with the BANNER system
that supports university student records provides an almost limitless potential for
managing data electronically.
The unit is committed to the delivery of quality experiences in all phases of
candidate preparation, including the essential services that provide advisement and
technology support. As the assessment system develops and broadens its scope, the unit
will utilize more comprehensive feedback to make positive changes.
401280716
- 94 -
Draft 10-29-03
References
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D. & Hanessian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A
cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Berliner, D. C. (1988). The development of expertise in pedagogy. Charles W. Hunt
Memorial Lecture, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. New
Orleans, LA.
Bessette, H. J. (1999). A Case Study of General and Special Educators’ Perspectives on
Co-teaching and Collaboration within an Integrated, Language-Based Elementary
Classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.
Brigman, D.C. (2000). Building social skills in a learning environment. In Creating a
community of learners. In K.G. Elam & M. Duckenfield (Eds.), Clemson, SC:
National Dropout Prevention Center, Clemson University.
Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. (1998). Making the commitment:
Guaranteeing the quality of future educators. [Brochure]. Atlanta, GA: Author.
Boyer, E. (1995). The Basic School: A Community of Learners. The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teachers, Princeton: NJ.
Brookhart, S.M. (1994). Teachers’ grading: Practice and theory. Applied Measurement in
Education, 7(4), 279-301.
Bruner, J.S. (1960). The process of education. New York: Vintage.
Calderhead, J. (Ed.) (1987). Explaining Teachers Thinking. (pp. 1-4-124). London:
Cassell.
Churma, M. (1999). A guide to integrating technology standards into the curriculum.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Daniels, H. & Bizar, M. (1998) Methods that Matter: Six structures for best practice
classrooms. York: ME. Stenhouse Publishers.
Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In C. A. McMurry
(Ed.), The relation of theory to practice in the education of teachers, 3rd Yearbook,
National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: Heath.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Holt.
Dewey, J. (1937). Experience and education. New York: McMillan.
Dewey, J. (1956). The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1960). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dottin, E. S. (2001). The development of a conceptual framework: The stimulation for
coherence and continuous improvement in teacher education. Lanham: MD:
University Press of America.
Earle, R.S., Seehafer, S., & Ostlund, M.F. (2001). Systematic reform in teacher
education: Quality teachers through partnering. Teacher Education Quarterly,
14(28), 53-69.
Englert, C.S. (1984). Effective instructional practices in special education settings.
Remedial and Special Educatoin, 5(2), 38-47.
Engelmann, S., Becker, W., Carnine, D. & Gersten, R. (1988). The Direction Instruction
Follow Through Model: Design and outcomes. Education and Treatment of Children,
11(4), 303-317.
401280716
- 95 -
Draft 10-29-03
Elam, K.G., & Duckenfield, M. (2000) (Eds.). Creating a community of learners.
Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center, Clemson University.
Friend, M. & Cook, L. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals.
Allyn & Bacon, Boston: MA.
Galassi, J.P. (2000). PDS site selection: Implications for educational reform and
restructuring. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA. ERIC. ED 444984.
Goodlad, J. & Sirotnik, K. (1988). The future of school-university partnerships. In K. A.
Sirotnick and J. I. Goodlad (Eds.), School-university partnerships in action:
Concepts, cases and concerns. New York: Teachers College Press.
Herman, J., Aschbacher, P. & Winters, L. (1992). A Practical Guide to Alternative
Assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design of professional
development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.
Huling, L. 1997. Novice teacher needs. A commissioned paper. Raleigh: North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction.
Johnson, R. (2000). The accidental theorist: Constructivist foundations and applications
in teacher’s odyssey. In K. G. Elam and M. Duckenfield (Eds.), Creating a
community of learners. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center, Clemson
University.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive and individualistic learning (4th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Katz, L.G. (1972). Developmental stages of preschool teachers. Elementary School
Journal, 73, (1), 50-54.
--- (1993, September). Dispositions as educational goals. ERIC Digest. Urbana, IL: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (EDO-PS-93-10).
Kennesaw State University (2002). Kennesaw state university catalogued, 2002-2003.
Kennesaw, GA: Author.
Kohler, F., Crilley, K., & Shearer, D. (1997). Effects of peer coaching on teaching and
student outcomes, Journal of Educational Research, 90(4), 240-250.
Lipsky, D. & Gardner, A. (1989). Beyond separate education: Quality education for all.
Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Martin, D. J. (2003). Elementary science methods: A constructivist approach. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Marshall, P., Fittinghoff, S., & Cheney, C. O. (1990). Beginning teacher developmental
stages: Implications for creating collaborative internship programs. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 17, (3), 25-35.
McGregor, G. & Vogelsberg, T. (1998). Inclusive Schooling Practices: Pedagogical &
Research Foundations. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs. Washington, D.C.
Miller, S. (2002). Validated practices for teaching students with diverse needs and
abilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1999). What teachers should know
and be able to do. Washington, DC: Author.
401280716
- 96 -
Draft 10-29-03
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (1997). Draft
standards for identifying and supporting quality professional development schools.
Washington, DC: Author.
Odell, S.J., Huling, L., & Sweeny, B.W. (2000). Conceptualizing quality mentoring-Background information. In S.J. Odell & L. Huling (Eds.), Quality mentoring for
novice teachers (pp. 3-14). Indianapolis, IA: Kappa Delta Pi.
Osguthorpe, R.T., Harris, R. C., Black, S., Cutler, B. R., & Harris, M. F. (1995).
Introduction: Understanding school-university partnerships. In R. T. Osguthorpe, R.
C. Harris, S. Black, B. R. Cutler, and M. F. Harris (Eds.), Partner schools. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Penner, D. E. (2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge
and meaning through modeling. Review of Research in Education, 25 (2000-2001), 135).
Purkey, W. & Siegel, B. (2003). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach to
professional and personal success. Atlanta: Humanics.
Robbins, S. & Cooper, M. (April, 2003). Creating a shared space for English education:
The history of a personal and professional collaboration. English Education. 35, pp
223-224.
Robbins, S., Miesiazek, M & Andrews, B. (2002). Promoting a relevant classroom
literacy. In R. Yagelski & S. Leonard (Eds.) In the relevance of English: Teaching
that matters to students’ lives. Urbana: NCTC, pp. 157-182.
Robbins, S. (2001). Afterword: Where do we go from here? Future work for making
American literatures. In A. Ruggles-Gere & P. Shaheen. In making American
literatures. Urbana: NCTE Press, pp.210-220.
Ross, M. C. (2003). Blending Cooperative Learning and Technology in the Classroom,
Georgia Council of Teachers of English, 40, (1) 7-12.
Ross, M. Seaborn, A. & Wilson, E. (2002). Is cooperative learning a valuable
instructional method for teaching social studies to urban African American students?
An imperfect world: Resonance from the nation’s violence. (Volumne II). 2002
National Conference Education Monograph Series (pp. 687-720).
Salisbury, C. & Strieker, T. (2004). Inclusive education in elementary school. In C.
Kennedy & E. Horn (Eds.) Including students with severe disabilities. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Sparks, D., & Hirsch, S. (1997). A New Vision for Staff Development. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Sternberg, R.J. (1996). Educational psychology has fallen, but it can get up. Educational
Psychology Review, 8 (2), 175-185.
Sternberg, R.J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes
an expert student? Instructional Science, 26, 127-140.
Strieker, T. & Logan, K. (2001). Everybody WINS! The State Education Standard.
Autumn, Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education.
Taylor-Green, A., Horner, R., Sugai, G., & Sprague, J. (1999). Effective behavior
support: Strengthening school-wide systems through a team-based approach. Effective
School Practices, 17(4), 23-33.
Valencia, S. (1990). A portfolio approach to classroom reading assessment: The why’s,
what’s, and how’s. The Reading Teacher, 43, 338-340.
401280716
- 97 -
Draft 10-29-03
Von glassersfeld, E. (1991). Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical
constructivist position. In F. Steier, Research and reflexivity (pp. 22-27). London:
Sage Publishers.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wilson, S., Shulman, L., & Rickert, A. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing:
Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.) Explaining
Teachers Thinking. (pp. 1-4-124). London: Cassell.
Zahorik, J. A. (1997). Encouraging – and challenging- students’ understandings.
Educational researcher, 54(6), 30-32).
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practice: New standards for
teaching and learning in America’s schools (2nd Ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Zheng, B. (1999). Working with cultural differences: Some aspects teachers need to
know. Becoming, 11(1), 16-18.
401280716
- 98 -
Draft 10-29-03
Glossary
Advanced Preparation. Programs at the postbaccalaureate levels for (1) the continuing
education of teachers who have previously completed initial preparation or (2) the
preparation of other professional school personnel. Advanced preparation programs
commonly award graduate credit and include master’s, specialist, and doctoral degree
programs as well as nondegree licensure programs offered at the graduate level.
(NCATE, 2001, p. 54)
ALL students. “All students includes students with exceptionalities and of different
ethnic, racial, gender, language, religious, socioeconomic, [sexual orientation], and
regional/geographic origins.” (NCATE, 2001, p.10).
Best Practice. This term is borrowed from the field of medicine and law where the
phrase is used to describe solid, reputable, state-of-the-art work in a field. If a
practitioner is following best practice standards, he or she is aware of current research
and consistently offers clients the full benefits of the latest knowledge, technology, and
procedures….the term Best Practice—“as a shorthand emblem of serious, thoughtful,
informed, responsible, state-of-the-art teaching.” Best practice reflects teaching that is
“student-centered, active experiential, democratic, collaborative, and yet rigorous and
challenging.” (Zemelman, Daniels, Hyde, Best Practice, p. viii, 1998)
Candidates. "Individuals admitted to, or enrolled in, programs for the initial or
advanced preparation of teachers, teachers continuing their professional development, or
other professional school personnel. Candidates are distinguished from "students" in P12 schools" (NCATE, 2001, p. 53).
Collaborative. Working together especially in an intellectual effort is the hallmark of
collaboration. “The developmental nature of collaboration includes:
 Networking – exchanging information for mutual benefit
 Coordination – exchanging information and altering strategies for mutual benefit
 Cooperation – exchanging information, altering strategies, and integrating
resources for mutual benefit
 Collaboration – exchanging information, altering activities, integrating resources,
and initiating new synergistic approaches for mutual benefit.” (School & Main
Institute, Inc, Boston, MA, 2000)
Cultural Background. "The context of one's life experience as shaped by me
membership in groups based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender,
exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area" (NCATE,
2001, p. 53).
Dispositions. "The values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence
behaviors toward students, families, colleagues, and communities and affect student
learning, motivation, and development as well as the educator's own professional growth.
401280716
- 99 -
Draft 10-29-03
Dispositions are guided by beliefs and attitudes related to values such as caring, fairness,
honesty, responsibility, and social justice. For example, they might include a belief that
all students can learn, a vision of high and challenging standards, or a commitment to a
safe and supportive learning environment" (NCATE, 2001, p. 53).
Diversity. "Differences among groups of people and individuals based on ethnicity, race,
socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and
geographical area" (NCATE, 2001, p. 53).
Expert Learner. Expert learners when compared to novice learners are those who are
able to use their learning in appropriate situations, use a range of "learning-to-learn"
skills, utilize a variety of resources (info and people) in problem solving, and reflect on
and improve their learning performance (Sternberg, 1996, pp 179-80)
Expert Teacher. According to Sternberg (1996) expert teachers as compared to novices
can be characterized as using more knowledge more effectively in professional problem
solving, organizing their knowledge differently, and possessing more tacit situational
knowledge. Expert teachers are able to solve problems more efficiently than novices by
showing more automatization of functioning, using smoothly functioning metacognitive
processes, and using new problems as opportunities to expand their knowledge and
competence. Expert teachers possess insight and are more likely to search for
nonobvious solutions to novel problems (Sternberg, 1996, pp 179-80)
Expertise. To develop expertise in an area is to achieve a state of proficiency or
"know-how." “Expertise is not an endstate but a process of continued development.”
(Sternberg, 1996, pp 179-80)
Facilitate learning. To facilitate learning is to assist or help learning occur. Teachers
provide new and varied experiences, which learners can use to build upon their own
foundation of existing knowledge. Teachers must understand that students construct their
own knowledge, how they construct that knowledge, and how each student recognizes
and understands his or her own learning experiences. To support this process of learning,
teachers must work at creating environments, implementing strategies, and selecting
teaching and learning resources that will maximize learning for each student’s unique
learning abilities. Teacher-centered instruction shifts to learner-centered instruction.
Initial Teacher Preparation. Programs at the baccalaureate or postbaccalaureate levels
that prepare candidates for the first license to teach (NCATE, 2001, p. 54).
Teacher development. Teacher development is “a continuum of growth that includes
four phases: pre-service, induction, in-service, renewal” (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny,
2000).
401280716
- 100 -
Draft 10-29-03
Graduate Outcomes and Proficiencies
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
1.1 Candidate possesses broad, current and specialized
knowledge of subject matter and communicates this
understanding to colleagues, parents and students.
1.2 Candidate possesses a global understanding of
connections within and across disciplines and applications to
real life and accurately represents understanding through use
of multiple explanations, technologies and strategies.
1.3 Candidate demonstrates a passion for education and
creates environments conducive to the development of
powerful approaches to instructional challenges.
1.4 Candidate teaches or leads in ways that convey
knowledge as a combination of skills, dispositions and beliefsintegrated, flexible, elaborate and deep.
FACILITATORS OF LEARNING
2.1 Candidate believes that all students can learn and helps
students develop a positive disposition for learning.
2.2 Candidate treats students equitably and provides
equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual
differences and adjusting (or assisting teachers in adjusting)
practices accordingly.
2.3 Candidate creates safe, well-managed, supportive,
inclusive and challenging learning environments.
2.4 Candidate uses multiple methods, technologies,
resources, and organizational arrangements to meet goals
articulated for individual students, class instruction and the
overall school improvement plan.
2.5 Candidate monitors student progress with a variety of
formal and informal evaluation methods and uses results to
improve student learning.
2.6 Candidate is accountable to multiple audiences,
accurately interprets student performance data and
communicates results to multiple audiences in multiple
formats.
COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONALS
3.1 Candidate collaborates with colleagues, parents and other
professionals to strengthen school effectiveness, to advance
knowledge, and to influence policy and practice.
3.2 Candidate reflects regularly upon daily practice, and
draws upon experience and the professional literature to
design and conduct research aimed at improved student
achievement.
3.3 Candidate proactively involves parents and other
members of the community in support of instruction and
education.
3.4 Candidate engages in on-going professional development
by joining professional organizations, participating in
conferences, mentoring new staff, etc.
401280716
KSD
NCATE
Standard
K
Content
NBPTS
Core
Principles
2
S
S
S
D
Subject
Matter
Pedagogical
Content
Subject
Matter
Pedagogical
Content
Subject
Matter
Pedagogical
Content
2
2
2
Disposition
1
S
Professional
Pedagogical
S
S
S
S
Professional
Pedagogical
Professional
&
Pedagogical
Professional
Pedagogical
Professional
&
Pedagogical
1
3
T
3
3
3
Disposition
D
D
5
Disposition
4
D
Disposition
5
D
Disposition
4,5
- 101 -
Draft 10-29-03
Appendix B
Supervision Faculty Vita
STEPHANIE DIRST
5676 Bob White Circle Lilburn, Georgia 30047
770-921-5815 sdirst@ mindspring.com
EDUCATION
Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Doctor of Education
Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia Education Specialist
Educational Administration and Supervision
University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado Master of Arts
Education of the Acoustically Handicapped
Blackburn College, Carlinville, Illinois Bachelor of Arts
English and Education
WORK EXPERIENCE
Director, Georgia Evaluation Project for Students with Disabilities
Directed and coordinated: finances, budget, staff, medical consultants, and referring
school systems, and oversaw the physical plant for the past 22 years. The diagnostic
facility was a special project of the Georgia Department of Education, Program for
Exceptional Students, which provided comprehensive medical and psychoeducational
evaluations to students with disabilities statewide. Disabilities served included learning
disabilities, sensory losses, intellectual disabilities, autism, physical disabilities,
emotional disabilities and medical syndromes.
Lead Teacher, Georgia Evaluation Project for Students with Disabilities, Atlanta,
Georgia Supervised diagnostic classroom in which the educational section of the
transdisciplinary evaluation of the students with disabilities was performed. Contributed
to the findings and recommendations regarding language skills and academics in the
written diagnostic report.
Instructor, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia Instructed graduate level
courses in basic and advanced sign language skills to future teachers of the
hearing impaired, audiologists, and speech pathologists in the Department of
Communicative Disorders.
Instructor, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia Taught courses m the deaf
education program: Manual Communication, Teaching Reading to the Hearing Impaired,
Elementary Methods for the Hearing Impaired, Curriculum for the Hearing Impaired, and
Psychology of Deafness.
Instructor, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Taught graduate level courses in
the deaf education program: Language Development for the Hearing Impaired and
Curriculum for the Hearing Impaired.
Instructor, DeKalb Community College (now Georgia Perimeter College), Clarkston,
Georgia Taught language skills to deaf adults.
401280716
- 102 -
Draft 10-29-03
Teacher, American School for the Deaf, West Hartford, Connecticut
Taught 8th grade Language Arts, l2th grade Consumer Education, lath grade Language
Arts. Served as advisor to the yearbook and the Alice Cog swell Club (high school girls
club) Active in the Deaf community.
Teacher, Carl Littlejohn School, DeKalb Public Schools, DeKalb, Illinois Taught
English and Social Studies to junior high school students.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
American Association of University Women
Council for Exceptional Children, Georgia Federation Council for Exceptional Children—
State Treasurer, State President (two terms), Governor Council of Administrators of Special
Education
Georgia Deaf Blind Advisory Committee—Chairman
Georgia Council of Administrators of Special Education Georgia Educators of the
Hearing Impaired Georgia Council for the Hearing Impaired
GABell Georgia Chapter of Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf National
Organization of Self Help for the Hearing Impaired Georgia Peach Cochlear Implant
Club Atlanta Hears—Professional Advisor
Georgia Peach Association of Late Deafened Adults
HONORS
Vital Service Award Retarded Citizens Atlanta Governor’s Service Award of Excellence
Who’s Who in American Education Who’s Who in American Women
Recognition Certificate Atlanta Hears
COMMUNITY ACTlVITIES
Local School Advisory Committee, Gwinnett County Schools
Berkrmar High School Tip Off Club—Membership Chair (7years)
Harmony Grove United Methodist Church, Staff-Parish Committee, Social Concerns
Chair, Administrative Board, Women’s Retreat Committee
State Certified Mediator, Justice Center of Atlanta
1996 Paralympics Advisory Committee
MAKATON Georgia Association, Incorporated, Board of Directors
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Frequent presenter/lecturer regarding the child with multiple disabilities, families of
children with disabilities, adaptive devices and equipment, the education of the student
with disabilities, and related issues at local, state, regional and national workshops and
conferences.
Past editor, GLRS Journal Quarterly newsletter with a statewide circulation of
approximately 22,000 in Georgia.
Member—Georgia Learning Resources System Technology Task Force. Member—
Advisory Committee to the Georgia Deaf Blind Project.
Member—Georgia State University Advisory Board for Visual Impairments and Deaf
Blind Personnel Preparation Grant. SERID 2000 Committee
401280716
- 103 -
Draft 10-29-03
GAYLE E. FREDERICK
4658 Warrington Drive Roswell, Georgia 30075
(770) 649-9554
PROFESSIONAL OBJECTIVE:
Seeking a career position in diagnostic testing/special education/elementary
education/middle school education utilizing acquired skills, abilities, and knowledge with
a progressive school system, which offers opportunity for growth and advancement.
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS:
Offering master’s degree achievement with certification in learning disabilities and
behavior disorders. Experienced in educational diagnostic testing and using the
Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational test system. Trained by Nancy Mather,
consultant and-00-developer -ofW-oodcock-Jo1mson”TestOf Achievement Standard And
Supplemental Batteries.” Over 23 years teaching in diverse school settings, working with
K-6. Related experience includes educational support specialist, diagnostic testing in
Connecticut and Virginia, educational evaluations, team teaching, and consultation.
Educational Diagnostic Testing Instruction/Training Diagnostic Skills Student
Evaluation/Reporting Curriculum Development New Program Design/Implementation
Staff Coordination/instruction Liaison Activity with
Staff/Students/Administration/Community
EDUCATION AND TRAINING:
Cleveland State University Cleveland, Ohio Master’s Degree- Education
Major-Supervision/ Administration 1979
Kent State University Kent, Ohio Bachelor of Science Degree-Education 1973 Special
Study in the area of learning disabilities and behavior disorders.
Practicum- Administration/Supervision Student Program Scheduling Student Counseling
Workshop on Use of Manipulative Material in Teaching Mathematics Conducting
Student Activities Staff Development
New Teacher Orientation
Classroom Management/Control Teacher Evaluation
Conducting Student Assemblies
Certifications:
Virginia- Post Graduate Professional License Emotional Disturbance NK-12
Specific Learning Disabilities NK-12 Early Education NK-4 Middle education 4-8
Expires 2000
Connecticut- Standard
Elementary Education Grades 1-8
Special Education Grades 1-12 (L.D./B.D.)
Ohio - Standard
Elementary Education Grades 1-8
Special Education Grades (K-12) Certification area L.D./B.D.
HIGHLIGHTS OF EXPERIENCE
Teacher in GA. 1996-1997
Project WINS 1998-1999 Atlanta Consultant
401280716
- 104 -
Draft 10-29-03
Kennesaw State University-Supervision 1998-1999 Student Teachers
Kennesaw State University- Exceptional Children 2000-present
Chesterfield County Schools Chesterfield, Virginia Educational Diagnostician 1993 to
present Experienced and skilled in the administration and interpretation of Standardized
and/or criterion referenced diagnostic instrument measures to include achievement and
processing tests. Grades K-5
Bon Air Elementary School Chesterfield County Schools District E.M.Davis Elementary
School Chesterfield, Virginia Robious Elementary School
Educational Supports Specialist 9/93 to 6/93 Learning Disability Teacher, Grades 1-5
Squadron Line School Simsbury, Connecticut Education Support Specialist 9183 to 6189
Learning Disability Teacher, Grades 1-6
Naubuc School Glastonbury, Connecticut Learning Disability Teacher 9/82 to 6/83
Taught grades 2 through 5, part-time
William Harper Elementary School Cleveland, Ohio Learning Disability Teacher 9/79 to
6/82 Grades 1 through 6
Milford Elementary School Cleveland, Ohio Learning Disability Teacher 9/73 to 6/74
Grades 1 through 6
Woodland Hills Elementary School Cleveland, Ohio Teacher 3/73 to 7/73 Grade 5
Adult Basic Education Cleveland Ohio,
Teacher 3/73 to 7/73 Taught Reading and Math.
Cleveland Scholarship Program Cleveland, Ohio Counselor for High School Seniors 6/74
to 9/74
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Council of Exceptional Children NAACP
National Education Association
401280716
- 105 -
Draft 10-29-03
Appendix C
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM REVIEW 2002-2003
UNIVERSITY PROGRAM REVIEW COUNCIL'S EVALUATION
for the
MASTER OF EDUCATION IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
GRADUATE PROGRAM
I. COUNCIL'S GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE PROGRAM
Focus of Evaluation
Self-Study Eval
QUALITY INDICATORS
Council's Eval
II. Summary of Program's Overall Quality
Strong
Strong
Council's Observations:
•very strong curriculum
•excellent use of data-based decision making and continuous improvement
•Faculty involvement in over $3,000,000 of externally funded projects since 1998
•faculty are leaders in professional organizations at the state and national level
•continue quality improvement and refinements
•continue to develop regional and statewide partnerships
IIA. Curricular Adherence to Quality/Accreditation Standards Very Strong
Very Strong
Council's Observations:
•Extensive accreditation standards result from approval by 4 accrediting agencies
o Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GA PSC teacher licensure agency)
o Council for Exceptional Children (CEC - NCATE specialty professional association)
o NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education)
o National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS- NCATE advanced programs
•Notable recognitions include:
o After the M.Ed. in Special Education and all related special education add-on programs
received accreditation from CEC in 1999, KSU portfolio selected as a model for CEC training
sessions.
o At the NCATE Board of Examiners and the Georgia Professional Standards Commission
on-site review in Spring 2001, all programs approved with no weaknesses emphasis on
accountability and outcomes
IIB. Quality of Faculty Supporting the Program
Very Strong
Very Strong
Council's Observations:
•All faculty hold Ph.D.
•Balance of specializations
•Program could be strengthened by a faculty tenure-track position with expertise in
improving education in diverse and at-risk schools
IIC. Quality of Facilities, Equipment, Learning Resources,
Satisfactory
Strong
And Placements
(facilities and equip.=Satisfactory)
Council's Observations:
•Program growth has led to need for more facilities
•Department has provided equipment support using redirected grant funds
•Program needs classrooms with tables and flexibility for collaborative group activities
•Program needs funds for adaptive/assistive technology
•Self-study needs more information regarding practicum placement sites
IID. Quality of KSU's Annual Financial Investment
Weak
Satisfactory
Council's Observations:
•Self-study lists numerous concerns and unmet financial needs, including budget line for
equipment, additional faculty, calculation of cost per student credit hour
401280716
- 106 -
Draft 10-29-03
•Redirected grant and contract funds have been used to support instruction and program
growth
•Additional faculty positions at a competitive salary level are needed to support program
growth
•Greater financial support for field experience supervision needed to meet accreditation
standards
•Only weaknesses are presented in the Self-Study. What about strengths?
IIE. Use of Advanced Technology for
Satisfactory
Strong
Program Delivery and Support
Council's Observations:
•KH 1107, is a fully equipped presentation classroom, with wireless internet access and
notebook computers for candidate use
•Acquire adaptive/assistive technology devices for instructional use
•update department web site to increase marketing potential
IIF. Quality of Program Advising, Enrollment
Strong
Strong
Management & Student Services
Council's Observations:
•Strong assessment measures
•faculty member is assigned to monitor and assist each cohort
•Department Chair monitors registration and contacts inappropriately enrolled students
•On-site supervision
•Faculty mentoring needs improvement
IIG. Program Graduates' Competitive Advantages
Very Strong
Strong
Council's Observations:
•Degree candidates can add specialties to their teaching certification
•emphasis on skill development in collaboration and group process
•Faculty model and emphasize best practice from current literature
•Portfolio development process
•Data needed: How are these advantages measured in terms of job acquisitions and
contributions to society?
IIH. Faculty's & Program's Diversity & Global Perspective
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Council's Observations:
•Project WINS, Winning Team, and the Dalton Cornerstone project serve schools with
diverse populations
•Faculty travel to study other systems (China, Cuba, England)
•Continue ongoing discussions with universities in Spain and Mexico
•Faculty not necessarily that diverse
•Continue efforts to recruit more diverse candidates
•Continue efforts to work in schools reflecting diversity and articulating lessons learned into
curriculum
III. Endowments, Scholarships, Gifts, Grants, and Fees
Strong
Strong
Council's Observations:
•Two-thirds of poll respondents received external assistance
•Hope Teacher Scholarship program a major incentive for prospective students
•Bartow County partnership arrangements
•KSU Foundation fellowships
•Identify other sources of financial support
IIJ. Program's Honors, Awards & Recognition
Council's Observations:
Strong
401280716
Strong
- 107 -
Draft 10-29-03
•M.Ed. in Special Education folio was selected for use in CEC training for folio
preparation.
•Project WINS is a National Association of State Boards of Education exemplar program.
IIK. Honors of Program's Students, Graduates & Faculty
Council's Observations:
•Several faculty and student awards
•Improve tracking of accomplishments
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
IIL. Success of Program's Graduates
Strong
Strong
Council's Observations:
•pass rate of 100% on PRAXIS II licensure exam
•respondents have taken on leadership roles and have completed additional degrees
•Develop a system to track graduates and conduct targeted surveys
IIM. Stakeholder Satisfaction with Program
Strong
Council's Observations:
•Good awareness of and response to stakeholder concerns
•Advisory Board with comprehensive representation
•Collaborative Partnerships
•Continue to seek input from stakeholders
Strong
IIN. Selectivity & Achievement of Students
Satisfactory
Selectivity =Satisfact.
Council's Observations:
Acad. Achive.=Strong
•Selectivity data are very good
•Academic achievement data are missing from study, but GPA is 3.73 and pass rate of
100% on PRAXIS
IIO. Program's Responsiveness to Assessment,
Very Strong
Very Strong
Change & Improvement
Council's Observations:
•Numerous program assessments
•Move towards a greater emphasis on NBPTS and revised CEC standards in preparation
for CEC and NCATE review under new standards
PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS
III. Summary of Program's Overall Productivity
Council's Observations:
Strong
Strong
IIIA. Enrollment of Graduate Students in Program
Satisfactory
Strong
Council's Observations:
•on-campus cohort model and contractual arrangements for off-campus cohorts to manage
enrollment have led to relatively steady enrollment
•Implement competitive admission review date
•Improve M.Ed.’s admission processing for off-campus cohorts
•Monitor impact of the increase in competition by other universities (alternative delivery
models) and staffdevelopment programs (ESOL/Gifted/Preschool-special education) that
are less expensive than our creditbearing courses. Marketing the quality of our program is
vital to recruitment.
IIIB. Program's Annual Degree Completions
Satisfactory
Strong
Council's Observations:
•steady increase in number of degrees granted annually
•Currently 4 th largest program in state
•Consider separate tracking of data for 2 year on- campus cohorts and 3 year off-campus
cohorts
401280716
- 108 -
Draft 10-29-03
IIIC. Graduation Rate & Program Completion Efficiency
Satisfactory
Strong
Council's Observations:
•graduation rate commensurate with other graduate programs in Education and exceeds the
KSU average
•Improve the development of gates within the program to assist in documenting progress
•Continue assigning faculty to monitor cohorts and track non-completers.
IIID. Efficiency & Clarity of Curricular Design
Strong
Council's Observations:
•straightforward cohort programs
•requirements listed in Grad Catalog and on website
Strong
IIIE. Scheduling Frequency & Sequencing of Required Courses Very Strong
Council's Observations:
•Predetermined cohort sequence
•Address off-campus summer scheduling issues
Very Strong
IIIF. Enrollment Levels in Required Courses
Strong
Council's Observations:
•Cohort model insures consistent full enrollments
•monitor M.Ed. in Special Education: Collaborative Practice track
Very Strong
IIIG. Diversity of Program's Majors & Graduates
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Council's Observations:
improvement in diversity shown by number of males, blacks, and multi-racial candidates in
current cohorts compared to graduates
•Self-study chart only shows black, mulit- and white. What about other populations (e.g.,
Asian)
•Recruit additional minority and international students
IIIH. Faculty's Instructional Productivity
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Council's Observations:
•8 factors listed to explain lower credit hour productivity than KSU average
•2 examples:
o Special Education has extensive grant and contract commitments that provide funded
reassigned time for full-time faculty (the equivalent of 2 full-time faculty positions a year
plus summer term) and these commitments are essential for the Special Education mission,
but do not generate student credit hours
o The Special Education cost per weighted credit hour does not reflect the external funds
generated by the department that contribute to the cost of part-time faculty to cover
undergraduate teaching assignments for reassigned time and to pay for part-time faculty to
supervise field experiences to improve program quality. If the data were adjusted to reflect
the external funds the productivity of the full-time faculty and the cost per credit hour
would be more in line with or above KSU averages
IIII. Cost-Effectiveness of Program Instruction
Strong
Satisfactory
Council's Observations:
•Cost data does not include external funds from grants/contracts that pay for faculty
reassigned time for grant activities and fund part-time faculty for supervision
•Above KSU average, but not unusual for graduate programs, especially for a graduateonly program
IIIJ. Responsiveness to State Needs & Demand for Graduates
Council's Observations:
401280716
Satisfactory
Strong
- 109 -
Draft 10-29-03
•critical shortage of teachers for students with disabilities and general education teachers
prepared to meet the needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms
•Employer demand for graduates is evident in numerous inquiries from local districts
•Growth, including recruitment of off-campus cohorts, exceeds original program goals
•All students in the program are fully employed (in education?) as they work on program
requirements
IIIK. Program's Ranking in the University System
Strong
Strong
Council's Observations:
•In 2001, KSU was fourth in graduate special education programs, but in the top tier by the
number of graduates
•Additional classroom space and additional faculty necessary to support additional cohorts.
IIIL. Program's Contribution to Achieving KSU Mission
Very Strong
Very Strong
Council's Observations:
•Consistent with many aspects of KSU mission
•Continue grant, contract and service projects and collaborative relationships that
contribute to the KSU mission.
IV. PROGRAM'S VIABILITY AT KSU
Council's Observations:
Viable
Program has maintained consistent growth
•Program provides valuable training and services to region
V. MODEL PROGRAM POTENTIAL
Council's Observations:
•Program has already achieved recognition
Viable
Strong
VI. COUNCIL'S OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE PLANS FOR IMPROVING QUALITY
& PRODUCTIVITY
•Self-study reiterates problems with receiving adequate financial resources, faculty
lines,and classroom space
•The Council recognizes that the program is doing strong work and would like to expand,
but needs more support to do so. The program would be a good place to invest money
if it is available.
VII. EXPAND, MAINTAIN, CONSOLIDATE, OR DISCONTINUE
Council's Observations:
Expand*
Maintain**
o *Not clearly indicated in the Self-Study in section VII., but in the summary at the
beginning
o **The rating of “Maintain” is given here as a recommendation to maximize potential
given the current resources, but the program could be expanded if resources are
available
o The Council notes that the potential for the program and for program growth is great
because there is a high need for special education teachers in the state
COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDED FOLLOW-UP
401280716
- 110 -
Draft 10-29-03
Appendix D
Kennesaw State University
Special Education Performance Outcomes Form
Obs. #
Date
Observer’s Initials
Obs. #1
Obs. # 2
Obs. #3
Obs. # 4
Obs. # 5
*** Planning ***
1.
Provides access to rich curriculum by successfully aligning IEP objectives and QCC’s with
instruction and assessment. (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.1, Facilitator 2.1)
1 2 3 4 5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Objectives and QCC’s not
listed.
Objectives and QCC’s
listed but not embedded in
the lesson.
Objectives and QCC’s
listed and embedded in the
lesson.
2. Develops lesson plans using research-based strategies (Universal Design, Concept Mapping,
Differentiated Instruction, Multi-level Curriculum). (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.2, 1.3,
Facilitator 2.2, 2.5)
1 2 3 4 5
3.
1
2
4.
1 2
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
No lesson plans present, or
lesson plan refers only to
page numbers or chapters
from books.
Lesson plans have stated
objectives but there are
limited or no indications
that research based
strategies were used to
develop the plans.
Lesson plans have stated
objectives and there is
evidence that research
based strategies were used
to develop the plans.
Plans the integrated use of technology. (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.2, Facilitator 2.5)
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Technology is neither
planned for nor integrated
in the lesson (used as an
add on to the lesson).
Technology is integrated
into the lesson plan but at
the surface level.
Technology is integrated
into the lesson plan.
Plans for student diversity through accommodations and modifications for individual needs.
(CEC 3, Subject Matter 2.2, Facilitator 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,2.5)
3
4 5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
No accommodations or
modifications are listed, or a
generic
accommodations/modifications
checklist is used with no specific
reference to students.
Accommodations and
modifications are
incorporated only for
assignment completion.
Accommodations and
modifications are
incorporated
throughout the entire
lesson, during
instruction, as well as
for assignment
completion.
401280716
- 111 -
Draft 10-29-03
*** Conducting Lessons ***
5.
1
2
6.
1
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Implementation of the
lesson does not follow the
lesson plan or is only
tangentially related to it.
Lesson is implemented
according to plan, but
there is little if any
response to student cues
or adjustment to
instruction based on those
cues.
Lesson is implemented
according to plan and
teacher adjusts instruction
based on student
responses. Includes
adjusting for student
errors, augmenting
instruction to insure
student understanding and
providing enrichment
activities.
Effectively uses technology and adaptive/assistive technology in the lesson and for
reinforcement. (CEC 4, Subject Matter 1.2, Facilitator 2.2)
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Technology is not used
during the lesson, or
technology is used as an
add-on to the lesson.
Technology is integrated
into the lesson, but at the
surface level. Used by
teacher or students but not
both.
Technology is integrated
into the lesson; teachers
use technology for
teaching and students for
learning and completing
assignments.
7.
Provides explicit reinforcement to student responses. (CEC 5, Facilitator 2.2, 2.4, 2.6)
2
3
8.
1
Demonstrates congruence between the lesson plan and instruction while incorporating
student responses to the lesson. (CEC 4, Subject Matter 1.4, Facilitator 2.6)
2
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-
2):
Teacher does not provide
reinforcement for correct
responses.
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Teacher uses
reinforcement, but does
not articulate the specific
behavior or skill being
reinforced.
Teacher uses
reinforcement and
articulates the specific
behavior or skill that is
being reinforced.
Gains the attention of students, incorporates preview and review, connects new learning to
previous learning, and connects use of learning strategies to content to be learned and
students’ previous learning. (CEC 4, Subject Matter 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, Facilitator 2.5, 2.6)
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Does not gain the students’
attention prior to teaching,
does not provide preview
or review, does not connect
new learning to previous
learning or learning
strategies to the content to
be learned.
Typically gains students
attention prior to
instruction provides
preview and review but
only minimally connects
new learning to previous
learning or learning
strategies to the content
to be learned.
Consistently gains
students attention prior to
instruction provides
preview and review and
connects new learning to
previous learning or
learning strategies to the
content to be learned.
401280716
- 112 -
Draft 10-29-03
9.
1
1
2
Effectively paces instruction and promotes equity in student responses. (CEC 4, Facilitator
2.2, 2.3)
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-
2):
Teacher’s pace of
instruction is too fast or
too slow and opportunities
for every student to be
engaged in the lesson are
not provided.
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Teacher typically adjusts
pace of instruction to
maintain student attention
and opportunities for
every student to be
engaged in the lesson are
provided.
Teacher consistently
maintains an effective
pace of instruction and
opportunities for every
student to be engaged in
the lesson are provided.
10.
Correctly uses a variety of research-based instructional strategies (direct instruction,
strategy instruction, systematic prompting, peer mediated learning such as cooperative
learning groups, class wide peer tutoring or Peer Assisted Learning Strategies [PALS], task
analysis, and multiple flexible grouping structures). (CEC 4, Facilitator 2.3, 2.5)
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
2):
Teacher does not use
research-based strategies
effectively and does not
involve the students in
active, hands on learning;
instruction is
predominantly whole
class and independent
work.
Teacher demonstrates
effective implementation of
at least two research-based
strategies and there is a
balance between whole
class/independent work and
student collaborative or
cooperative groups.
Teacher demonstrates
effective implementation
of at least four researchbased strategies and there
is a balance in the use of a
variety of flexible
grouping strategies.
11. Maintains active student engagement through meaningful and motivating lessons. (CEC 5,
Subject Matter 1.2, Facilitator 2.4)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Teacher lectures or reads
from the teacher’s manual,
never engaging the
students in hands on
activities; students remain
passive recipients of
teacher information.
Teacher shares
information with the
students and then engages
them in meaningful
activities.
Teacher actively engages
the students in the
learning process by
weaving the sharing of
information with
meaningful activities;
teacher is animated and
enthusiastic.
12. Gives correct curriculum content while teaching. (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.1, 1.2)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Is unable to clearly and
accurately explain
curriculum content.
Teacher hesitates and
needs to constantly refer
to curriculum materials in
order to present the
content clearly and
accurately.
Naturally presents
curriculum content
clearly and accurately to
students.
401280716
- 113 -
Draft 10-29-03
*** Assessment ***
13. Embeds authentic assessment in lessons. (CEC 8, Facilitator 2.6, 2.7)
1
2
14.
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Relies on end of lesson or
unit test to assess learners.
Uses a form of authentic
assessment to determine
student errors and correct
responses and adjusts the
lesson accordingly.
Uses a combination of
standard tests and multiple
authentic assessments to
adjust instruction and
determine student
learning.
Provides immediate and appropriate correction to student errors and adjusts instruction
accordingly. (CEC 4, Facilitator 2.6)
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-
2):
Does not stop or alter
lesson when students
make errors.
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Teacher stops instruction
and gives the student a
correct answer and
explanation for why it is
correct.
Teacher stops instruction
and asks the student how
(s) he determined the
response. Teacher adjusts
instruction to include a
formal error correction
procedure to insure correct
student understanding.
*** Classroom Ecology and Behavior ***
15. Classroom is clean and well organized. (CEC 5, Faciliator 2.4)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Classroom is cluttered and
disorganized; materials for
students are not readily
available, desks are not
arranged in a manner
conducive to learning, and
classroom rules and
consequences are not
posted.
Classroom is uncluttered
and organized; materials
for student use are readily
available, but student
desks are not arranged in
a manner conducive to
learning.
Classroom is uncluttered
and organized. Materials
for student use are readily
available and student
desks are arranged in a
manner conducive to
learning. There are clear
pathways to and from
vital areas in the room
and teacher can see all
students at all times.
16. Provides consistent routines and procedures for managing all class activities. (CEC 5,
Facilitator 2.4)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Consistent routines and
procedures are not posted
or evident; students clearly
do not know expectations
or how to follow through.
Classroom rules are not
posted.
Consistent routines and
procedures are posted
and evident; routines and
procedures flow
smoothly, students
clearly know what to do,
however, the teacher still
has to monitor and redirect students on a
regular basis. Classroom
rules are posted.
Consistent routines and
procedures are posted and
evident; routines and
procedures flow smoothly,
students clearly know what
to do, and the teacher only
intermittently has to
intervene and redirect
students. Students respond
immediately to teacher.
Classroom rules are
posted.
401280716
- 114 -
Draft 10-29-03
17. Facilitates positive social interactions among students. (CEC 5, Facilitator 2.1, 2.4)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Student to student
conversation is
inappropriate and shows
lack of respect for one
another and for adults.
Teacher has to intervene
continually to re-direct
students and correct their
behaviors.
Most of the student-tostudent interactions are
positive and show respect.
Teacher frequently has to
intervene to re-direct
students.
The majority of studentto-student interactions are
positive and show respect.
Teacher rarely has to
intervene to re-direct
students.
18. Provides manageable positive behavior supports for all students, consistently applies rules
and consequences, and models and reinforces appropriate behavior at all times. (CEC 5,
Facilitator 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, Collaboration 3.2)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-
2):
Relies on punishment to
control classroom
behavior. No rules or
consequences posted.
Tone of voice and body
language are harsh and
indicate lack of respect for
students. Corrective action
with students is arbitrary
and inconsistent. Provides
limited positive
reinforcement
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Typically reinforces
appropriate behavior.
Rules and consequences
are posted and followed.
Corrective action with
students is more
consistent and fair. Tone
of voice and body
language show respect for
students. Circulates and
maintains good proximity
to all students, but
especially those with
problem behaviors.
Classroom ecology is
conducive to appropriate
behavior.
Consistently reinforces
appropriate behavior and
explicitly describes what
the student is doing that
merited the reinforcement.
Rules are stated and
consistently and fairly
followed. Students with
problem behaviors have
written positive behavior
support plans. Teacher
“sets up” students for
appropriate behavior
through the use of
systematic prompting
procedures.
*** Collaboration ***
19. Effectively manages para professionals and other support staff so that they are effectively
involved in meaningful instruction. (CEC 10, Collaboration 3.1, 3.3)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
2):
Para professionals spend
the majority of their time
talking or working on
non-instructional tasks
such as bulletin boards,
cleaning, filing, or other
paper work. Teacher stops
instructional tasks to talk
about non-instructional
matters with the para
professional or related
services personnel,
consistently asks they
work with students in
isolation from the rest of
Para professionals spend
the majority of their time
on instructional tasks and
interactions with students.
Related services personnel
are working with the
student in an integrated
fashion within the
curriculum. Teacher
models appropriate
instructional and behavior
management strategies.
All staff handle transitions
smoothly without
additional instructions
Para professionals spend
all their time on
instructional tasks and
interactions with the
students. Related services
personnel are also working
with other students along
with the targeted student in
an integrated fashion
within the curriculum. In
general education settings
the para professional works
collaboratively with both
the general and special
education teachers in
401280716
- 115 -
Draft 10-29-03
the group, or does not
provide clear direction for
transitions.
being needed. Para
professionals in general
education environments
work with general
education students too.
teaching all students in
multiple flexible groups.
20. Implements correctly a variety of co-teaching models (one teach/one drift, one teach/one
observe and take data, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, duet
teaching, team teaching with multiple flexible groups) (CEC 10, Collaboration 3.1, 3.3)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Acceptable L-3:
Teacher only uses one teach and one drift model of
co-teaching.
Teacher uses two or more different co-teachin
models.
*** Professionalism ***
21. Communication, both written and oral, is clear, concise and grammatically accurate. (CEC
9, Collaboration 3.1)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
2):
Written and oral
communication is
frequently incorrect in
terms of basic structure
and syntax, multiple
spelling errors are noted in
written work and the
message is not clearly
conveyed
Written and oral
communication contains
occasional errors of
structure and syntax, an
occasional spelling error is
noted in written work and
message is typically
clearly conveyed.
Written and oral
communication are free of
errors and consistently
conveyed in a clear
fashion.
22. Overall appearance and attitude (dress, comments, body language) are positive and indicates
respect for students, parents, and colleagues. (CEC 9, Collaboration 3.4)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
Teacher uses sarcastic
language or language that
ridicules students or
colleagues. Clothing is
dirty, disheveled, not neat
and or inappropriate for the
classroom. Teacher’s affect
demonstrates no
enthusiasm for either
teaching or the subject
matter or compassion for
students, parents or
colleagues.
Clothing is neat, clean and
appropriate. Body
language is positive and
shows respect for
students, parents and
colleagues. Verbal
language is free of
ridicule and sarcasm.
Clothing is neat, clean and
appropriate. Body
language is positive and
indicates not only respect
for students and
colleagues but also pride
in the profession. Verbal
language is not only free
of ridicule and sarcasm
but also shows enthusiasm
for both teaching and the
subject matter and
compassion for students,
parents and colleagues.
401280716
- 116 -
Draft 10-29-03
Observation SUMMARY
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
Bagwell College of Education
Student’s Name: _________________________Course: ____________Semester: _______
Collaborating Teacher: ___________________University Supervisor_________________
School: ______________________Date: ________Beginning Time:____Ending Time:___
Observer: _________________________________Circle One: University Supervisor
Collaborating Teacher
Candidate
Description of Situation: Brief description of environment, subject area, type of activity,
description and number of learners, etc.
Directions: When completing this summary form, please indicate strengths and areas for
improvement. For greater detail, please consult the Conceptual Framework Reference Guide
that describes the proficiencies in each outcome.
Subject Matter Expertise: (knows content; connects to other disciplines; knows and
represents content accurately; uses content and pedagogical knowledge)
Facilitation of Learning: (knowledge of learners; knowledge of society and culture; wellmanaged learning environment; sets high expectations for all students; designs and
implements effective instruction; assesses student learning and evaluates instruction)
Collaborative Professional: (reflects on professional performance; builds collaborative and
respectful relationships; uses effective communication skills; maintains professional and
ethical behavior)
Student’s Signature
Date
Observer’s Signature
401280716
Date
- 117 -
Draft 10-29-03
Appendix E
Georgia Professional Standards Commission
Interrelated Special Education Standards
505-3-.37 SPECIAL EDUCATION (BEHAVIOR DISORDERS (BD),
LEARNING DISABILITIES (LD), MENTAL RETARDATION (MR),
INTERRELATED SPECIAL EDUCATION, AND INTERRELATED
SPECIAL EDUCATION/EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM)
Effective 12/1/01
(1) Purpose. This rule states field-specific content standards for approving programs that
prepare teachers to be certified in: Behavior Disorders (BD), Learning Disabilities, (LD), Mental
Retardation (MR), Interrelated Special Education, and Interrelated Special Education/Early
Childhood and supplements requirements in Rule 505-3-.01, Requirements and Standards for
Approving Professional Education Units and Programs Preparing Education Personnel.
(2) Requirements.
(a) To receive approval for interrelated special education, interrelated special education/early
childhood, and specialty programs in Behavior Disorders (BD), Learning Disabilities (LD), and/or
Mental Retardation (MR), a State Approved Professional Education Unit shall offer a preparation
program described in program planning forms, catalogs, and syllabi addressing the following
general and subject field specialty standards:
1. GENERAL STANDARDS. Interrelated Special Education, and Interrelated Special
Education/Early Childhood shall conform to the general and common core standards for Preparation of
Teachers of Special Education published by the Council for Exceptional Children.
2. SPECIALTY STANDARDS. In addition to the general standards, these standards pertain to the
unique skills and knowledge necessary for a specialty in BD, LD, or MR. Individuals are prepared
to teach students at all levels of severity, P-12 in each specialty area.
Special
Georgia Requirements.
3. INTERRELATED SPECIAL EDUCATION (i) Purpose. This preparation program prepares
individuals to be resource teachers in BD, LD
and MR as well as to teach in self-contained classrooms in the fields of BD and LD and mild MR,
P-12,
at all levels of severity.
(ii) Requirements. In addition to the general standards, the following standards are required:
(I) STANDARD I: The program shall required demonstrated competence in the knowledge of
characteristics of exceptional children, to include appropriate content from the areas of behavioral
disorders, learning disabilities, and mental retardation.
(II) STANDARD II: The program shall require demonstrated competence in psychoeducational
evaluation and assessment procedures and strategies.
(III) STANDARD III: The program shall require demonstrated competence in the knowledge of
language development, disorders, and deviations.
(IV) STANDARD IV: The program shall require demonstrated competence in the knowledge of
perceptual motor development.
(V) STANDARD V: The program shall require demonstrated competence in the knowledge and
skills for dealing with reading and mathematics difficulties.
(VI) STANDARD VI: The program shall require demonstrated competence in the knowledge of
early childhood exceptionalities.
(VII) STANDARD VII: The program shall require demonstrated competence in the knowledge
of effective parent involvement and counseling.
(VIII) STANDARD VIII: The program shall require field experiences integrated into the program
with students who have mild, moderate, severe and profound learning and/or behavioral
problems,
and mild mental retardation.
(IX) STANDARD IX: The program shall meet all requirements specified in rule 505-2-.08, Special
401280716
- 118 -
Draft 10-29-03
Georgia Requirements.
4. INTERRELATED SPECIAL EDUCATION/EARLY CHILDHOOD.
(i) Purpose. An individual with a certificate in Interrelated Special Education/Early Childhood is
in-field to teach Preschool Handicapped; to be a resource teacher in the fields of Behavior
Disorders,
Learning Disabilities, and Mental Retardation in grades P-5; to teach students in self-contained
classrooms with Behavior Disorders, Learning Disabilities, and Mild Mental Retardation in grades
P-5;
and to teach all subjects in Early Childhood Education in grades P-5:
(ii) A prerequisite for entering this program shall be eligibility for a professional teaching
certificate in early childhood education, elementary education, or special education other than
Gifted
and Talented.
(iii) Effective September 1, 1997, an institution shall have approved programs in the field of
Interrelated Special Education and Early Childhood Education in order to be reviewed by the PSC
to
offer an approved program in Interrelated Special Education/Early Childhood.
(iv) Requirements. In addition to the general standards, the following standards are required. (I)
STANDARD I: The program shall conform to the standards for the specialty area of Early Childhood
Special Education published by the Council for Exceptional Children.
(II) STANDARD II: The program shall meet all requirements specified in rule 505-2-.08, Special
Georgia Requirements.
Authority O.C.G.A. § 20-2-200
401280716
- 119 -