12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
Compliance with NCATE/PSC Requirements
New or Significantly Revised Program or Concentration, or New Degree Approval
Undergraduate and Graduate Programs
Kennesaw State University
Please be precise and specific in responding to these items. Responses to these items will accompany the standard UPCC or
GPCC forms and, if required, PSC standards. Concise narrative will be sufficient. Contact Beverly for templates related to
Standards/Curriculum Matrix and Assessment System (next 2 tables) that are appropriate for your program.
1.
(CF) Describe how this program reflects the unit’s conceptual framework.
The graduate level embedded gifted endorsement supports the Kennesaw State University (KSU)
Bagwell College of Education’s commitment to preparing accomplished educational teachers and
leaders through the collaborative development of expertise in teaching and learning. This commitment is
consistent with the conceptual framework of the Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU), which
outlines a vision for developing educators from novice to proficient to expert and leader. The MED
programs and this endorsement aims to foster the development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions
required to be an effective teacher and learner. In concert with the PTEU vision, the goal is to better
prepare teachers who are experts in their field, facilitators of twenty-first century learning, and
collaborative professionals who are active leaders in their profession. This program further develops
Kennesaw State University’s philosophical foundation emphasizing ethics, leadership and community
engagement by preparing an accomplished community of leaders to advocate for school improvement.
2.
(National/State Standards) Specify applicable national and/or state standards
to which this program will demonstrate compliance. Please attach a copy of
the applicable standards.
PSC Standards Rule 505-3-.71 Gifted Infield Education Endorsement Program
3.
(Institutional Standards) Specify candidate proficiencies to be demonstrated
and assessed during the program.
Kennesaw State Univerity Candidate Performance Instrument (CPI) Advanced
4.
(Assessment System) Using the curriculum matrix (next page), indicate where
the subject area standards are addressed in the proposed curriculum. Then
identify in the next chart (Assessment System) the unit and program
assessments that will be used to determine if candidates meet proficiencies and
standards. The three items to follow should be addressed as well in narrative
form:
a) Transition Points
Program Entry
1. Valid teaching certificate (clear renewable) in Middle Grades or Secondary Education in the
concentration for which one is applying.
D:\219546840.doc
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
2. A 1-2 page personal statement describing one’s beliefs about education at the middle grades or
secondary level and one’s professional goals relative to the Master of Education in Adolescent
Education degree.
3. Professional résumé documenting education, teaching experience, volunteer, and service
accomplishments, and record of leadership.
4. Two letters of recommendation that address applicant’s success in teaching and ability for
success in graduate study, and commitment to adolescent learners.
5. Official transcripts from all colleges/universities the applicant has attended showing evidence of
a bachelor’s degree with a minimum GPA of 2.75 from an accredited institution.
6. Completed graduate application with application fee.
Transition Points: Entry to EDUC 7763
1. Completion of Pre-Requisite coursework with grade of B or above. (EDUC 7761, 7762)
Completion:
1. Completion of all four courses in sequence with grade of B or above.
b) Data Collection, Analysis and Evaluation
Describe how this program meets the applicable portions of Standard 2,
element b. Describe the processes and procedures used to regularly and
systematically collect, compile, aggregate, summarize, and analyze candidate
and program performance data.
This program will participate in the Chalk and Wire collection, analysis and evaluation system.
c) Use of Data for Program Improvement
Describe how this program meets the applicable portions of Standard 2,
element c. Describe the processes and procedures used to evaluate the efficacy
of this program, the processes and procedures used to make candidate
performance data available to candidates and faculty, and how candidate and
program performance data are used to initiate changes in the program.
Program will participate in data reflections monthly in department/program curriculum meetings. Additionally
Program will participate in the PTEU-wide data reflection activity in the fall utilizing the PTEU “so What Forms”.
Finally, faculty will solicit external feedback from principals, and other interest P-12 personnel.
5.
(Field Experiences) Describe required field experiences and clinical practice
that help candidates develop knowledge and skills in helping all students
learn. Include:
This endorsement is a 12 semester hour program (4 courses). Each course contains an embedded
field experience requiring educators to demonstrate classroom-acquired proficiencies in a school
D:\219546840.doc
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
environment. All assignments are completed in field with the gifted population. In all classes,
students must log and reflect upon their work, identifying how classroom practice is integrated
into student performance tasks. The portfolio of work and reflections are evaluated by the
professor using the CPI and gifted standards as the expected outcomes.
6.
(Field Experiences and Diversity) Describe how the program ensures that all
candidates have opportunities to work with P-12 students with exceptionalities
and from diverse populations.
Candidates re asked to document the student diversity occurring in each of their classroom periods. If the practicing
teacher does not have opportunities to work with students with exceptionalities and from diverse populations in their
own classroom, they are required to visit other classrooms and log their visits.
7.
(Technology) Describe how the program ensures candidates can integrate
technology in their practice.
Teachers will use GeorgiaView Vista, a Chalk and Wire Portfolio system, as well as complete all assignments with
multimedia web design. Most communication with peer groups will utilize social networking and other Web 2.0
communication tools.
8.
(Capacity) How does the program ensure that its resources are adequate to prepare candidates
to meet professional, state, and institutional standards?
No new coursework is offered.
D:\219546840.doc
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
Gifted Endorsment Standards/Curriculum Matrix
Standards Based On: /PSC standards here Gifted In-Field
Subject Area
Standards
Foundations
Characteristics
Learning
Preferences
Instructional
Strategies
Learning
Environment
Language/Culture
Instructional
Planning
Assessment
Ethical Practice
Collaboration
Prefix &
Course
Number
EDUC 7761
X
X
X
Required Course Work That Addresses Subject Area Standards
Prefix &
Prefix &
Prefix &
Prefix &
Prefix &
Prefix &
Course
Course
Course
Course
Course
Course
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
XXXX-xxxx XXXX-xxxx XXXX-xxxx
EDUC 7762 EDUC 7763 EDUC 7764
Prefix &
Course
Number
XXXX-xxxx
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EDUC 7761: This course provides an introduction to the psychological and personality characteristics of gifted and talented children with
implications for their education. It includes: philosophy of gifted education; definition (according to federal, state and local guidelines);
identification procedures; characteristics; types of gifted children; learning styles; learning environments, description of teaching-learning
models; implications for program development, administration and evaluation; and characteristics of teachers and other personnel concerned
with the education of gifted students.
EDUC 7762: Prerequisite: Admission to M.Ed. program and EDUC 7761.
This course is designed to explore and apply knowledge about curriculum theory, measurement, learning theories and evaluation procedures
to plan qualitatively different educational experiences for the gifted and talented. The course will orient prospective gifted educators to the
attitudes, skills and knowledge deemed appropriate and necessary for assuming instructional leadership roles.
D:\219546840.doc
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
EDUC 7763: Prerequisite: Admission to M.Ed. program and EDUC 7761.
This course explores theories of mental abilities and provides knowledge and skills in the measurement of intelligence, achievement,
creativity and other dimensions of giftedness. Various plans for identification are examined including the case study and State of Georgia
regulations.
EDUC 7764: This course is designed to explore and apply knowledge about curriculum theory for the development of effective programs in
gifted education. A number of exemplary models recommended by national authorities are examined for their use in creating and evaluating
programs for gifted students. The course will orient prospective educators of the gifted to the attitudes, skills and knowledge deemed
appropriate and necessary for assuming instructional leadership roles.
D:\219546840.doc
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
Assessment System
Insert Name of Program Here
In this chart, list the 6-8 (if applicable) assessments that will be used to verify how your candidates meet national/state/institutional standards.
If a state licensure exam in the content area is not required, you should substitute an assessment that verifies candidate attainment of content
knowledge. This table is set up for “initial” programs and parallels the Faculty Assessor and Assessment Form (FAAR). Contact Beverly
Mitchell for new advanced, cert-only, endorsement, and EdL program charts.
Type of Assessment
NCATE #5: Assessment
of candidate effect on
student learning
Candidates’ ISLA
NCATE #3: Assessment of candidate ability
to plan and implement appropriate teaching
and learning experiences.
WHAT
Actual Title of
the Assessment
Actual Title of
Rubric in
C & W or Other
Location
ISLAImpact student
Learning
Assessment
WHERE
In What
Course/Transition
Point The
Assessment is
Administered
EDUC 7763
Video Analysis of
Teaching
EDUC 7762
Candidate
Performance
Instrument
EDUC 7764
WHEN
Semester(s)
Course/
Assessment
is
Offered
Alignment
Standards
Addressed by this
Assessment
Semester III
ASSESSMENT, Ethical Practice,
Language/Literacy
Semester II
Instructional Strategies, Instructional
Planning, Ethical
Semester IV
Learning Environment, Learning
Strategies, Assessment, Collaboration
Video Analysis of Teaching
NCATE # 7: Collaborative Reflective Professional:
Assessment of Candidate’s Ability to document and
reflect on candidate performance outcomes
(SME,FL,CP) in CPI.
CPI
PRN
D:\219546840.doc
Portfolio
Reflection
Narrative
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
ISLA
Impact on Student Learning Analysis: It is our assumption that you are already assessing the influence of your instruction on your students’
learning and that you are considering what factors, such as student diversity, might affect your students’ achievement. For this assignment,
you will select a lesson, activity, unit, or skill that you plan to teach this semester and analyze how your teaching impacted your students’
learning. Then, using the “Impact on Student Learning Analysis” Rubric as a guide, you will write a narrative about the impact your teaching
had on your students learning, addressing in part, how the differences that every student brings to the classroom setting may have influenced
learning (see definition of “every student” at the top of the Impact on Student Learning rubric. The length of the reflection is up to you, but it
should be concise and address all aspects of the assignment as outlined below.
Purpose:
This assessment is to give you the opportunity to tie together many pieces of the assessment process to help you:
1) determine the effect of instruction on all your students’ learning (NCATE/PSC Standards 1, 3, 4)
2) guide decisions about future instruction and plans to improve upon every student’s performance (NCATE/PSC Standards 1, 3, 4)
3) communicate performance results to others (NCATE/PSC Standard 2)
Method:
Select a class/group of students whom you are teaching and a lesson/activity/unit/skill on which to evaluate the impact on every student’s
learning. Decide on a method of collecting data on your impact upon student learning using an assessment that will generate data suitable for
analysis, such as a pre- and post-test. The assessment(s) you choose should be aligned with your objectives. The assessments can be of the
authentic/alternative or traditional nature or a combination of both.
In assessing the impact of your lesson on all students’ learning, you will need to interpret the results within the contexts of the setting and
student diversity. Contextual factors are important for teachers to know because they often help explain student behaviors and achievements.
In your analysis, you need to investigate these contextual factors of the class you evaluated:
 geographic location, community and school population, socio-economic profile and race/ethnicity,
 physical features of setting, availability of equipment/technology and other resources,
 student characteristics such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, exceptionalities (disability and giftedness), achievement/developmental
levels, culture, language, interests, learning styles or skill levels.
Analyzing and Reporting the Data:
Perform the analysis on three levels:
 Whole group: Compile the data as a whole group by using simple descriptive techniques. If you gave a pre-test, compare the pre-and
post-test results.
D:\219546840.doc
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10


Sub group: You should compile the data into groups for comparison (select two) from those identified under student characteristics.
This analysis should include the contextual factors of exceptionalities, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, language,
religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area (NCATE/PSC Standard 3, Element 3; Standard 4, Elements 1 & 4).
Individuals: Select two students who represent different levels of performance and examine the data you have on them.
Reflecting on the Data:
After analyzing and reporting the data, reflect on your performance as a teacher and link your performance to student learning results using
the “Impact on Student Learning” Rubric as a guide for reflection. Evaluate your performance and identify future action for improved practice
and professional growth.
Additional Prompts for Reflection:
 Select the learning objective where your students were most successful.
 Select the learning objective where your students needed more opportunity to grow.
 Consider the individual items on your assessment and their effectiveness in measuring student learning. Upon which items were your
students most successful? Least successful? Reflect on reasons for the levels of performance on those items, including student
prerequisite knowledge, student motivation, instructional strategies, and item design.
 What instructional strategies did you use? Reflect on relationships between teaching strategies and performance on related objectives.
 What other forms of assessment (including informal assessment such as questioning, large/small group response, etc) did you use?
Reflect on the appropriateness of the assessments and on the relationships between the feedback you got from those assessments and
performance on related objectives.
In each case, provide two or more possible reasons for these outcomes. Consider your objectives, instruction, and assessment along with
student characteristics and other contextual factors that you can influence to continue to have a positive impact on student learning.
Reflect on the possibilities for professional development.
 Describe at least two professional learning goals that emerged from your insights and experiences with this assignment.
 Identify two specific steps you will immediately take to improve your performance in the critical areas(s) you identified.
Organization of the Paper for Submission (refer to preceding sections for specific information):
Introduction - In this section, describe the occasion, the setting, the students and the instructional unit they were engaged in. Provide
an outline of the content of the unit you taught. It is also here that contextual factors are described.
Assessments - Provide a complete description of each assessment including, but not limited to purpose, instructions, scoring (provide
copy of rubric if one was used), score sheet, equipment, administrator details, and connection with the instructional unit.
Analyzing and Reporting Data - Wherever statistical techniques, charts, or other representations are used, describe them adequately
D:\219546840.doc
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
in the narrative. Provide the rationale for each of the statistical techniques used, a description of the findings, and meaningful
interpretation (finding and matching patterns, categorizing, drawing inferences, and making meaning from the data).
Reflection on What You Learned – Based on the results you obtained and analyzed, write a reflection (using the section above on
“Reflecting on the Data” as a guide) on what you think the results say about what students learned as a result of the instructional unit.
Discuss the implications of the results to instruction and what should be changed or given different or greater emphasis if the unit were
to be taught again. Be specific about the implications to a teaching method, assignments/activities that students might complete to
minimize knowledge gaps or increase understanding. Identify any changes you would make in preparation, procedures, and data
collection if you were able to administer the assessments again.
L1
1
Little or No Evidence
L2
Limited Evidence
L3
Clear Evidence
L4
Clear, Consistent, and Convincing
Evidence
There is clear evidence that the
candidate knows the subject
matter and can explain important
principles to every student.
There is clear, consistent, and
convincing evidence of critical
analysis and synthesis of the
subject. Where appropriate,
candidate makes connections
from the content to other parts of
the content and to other content
areas.
Rating Indicator
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
Possesses broad,
current and specialized
knowledge of subject
matter and
demonstrates this
knowledge to
colleagues, parents and
students. (1.1)
D:\219546840.doc
There is no evidence of
knowledge of subject
matter; unable to give
examples of important
principles or concepts.
There is limited evidence
of knowledge of subject
matter. Candidate’s
presentation of content
appears to contain
numerous inaccuracies
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
FACILITATORS OF LEARNING
Treats students
equitably and provides
equitable access to the
full curriculum by
respecting individual
differences and
adjusting (or assisting
teachers in adjusting)
practices accordingly.
(2.1)
The candidate
incorporates information
restricted to those of
similar beliefs and
cultural identity. There is
no evidence that the
candidate incorporates
multiple perspectives
and accurate
information.
The candidate makes
minimal attempts to
incorporate multiple
perspectives or accurate
information to address the
multiple attributes of
multicultural populations,
in order to provide a rich
diverse curriculum.
There is clear evidence that the
candidate incorporates multiple
perspectives and accurate
information to address the
multiple attributes of
multicultural populations, in
order to provide a rich diverse
curriculum.
There is clear, consistent and
convincing evidence that the
candidate incorporates multiple
perspectives and accurate
information to address the
multiple attributes of
multicultural populations, in
order to provide a rich diverse
curriculum.
NOTE: Diversity “IN”
the curriculum: relates
to content.
FACILITATORS OF LEARNING
1
Little or No Evidence
2
Limited Evidence
The candidate uses
predominantly one form
of instruction, does not
differentiate instruction,
and does not successfully
accommodate the
learning needs of every
student
The candidate
incorporates a variety
of instructional
strategies, but there is
limited evidence that
the candidate
effectively
differentiates
instruction and
successfully
accommodates the
learning needs of every
student
3
Clear Evidence
Rating Indicator
Uses multiple
methods,
technologies,
resources and
organizational
arrangements to
meet goals
articulated for
individual students,
class instruction
and the overall
school improvement
plan. (2.4)
NOTE: Diversity “OF”
the curriculum: relates to
how material is presented
and how students
complete assignments
D:\219546840.doc
There is clear evidence that
the candidate effectively uses
multiple instructional
strategies to differentiate
instruction and successfully
accommodates the learning
needs of every student.
4
Clear, Consistent, and Convincing
Evidence
There is clear, consistent and
convincing evidence that the candidate
effectively uses multiple instructional
strategies to differentiate instruction
and successfully accommodates the
learning needs of every student.
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
Monitors student
progress with a
variety of formal and
informal evaluation
methods . (2.5)
The candidate uses
predominantly one form of
assessment.
The candidate uses
multiple forms of
assessment, but there is
limited evidence that the
candidate successfully
determines the learning
needs of every student.
There is clear evidence that the
candidate effectively uses
multiple and appropriate forms of
assessment to determine the
learning needs of every student.
There is clear, consistent and convincing
evidence that the candidate effectively uses
multiple and appropriate forms of
assessment to determine the learning needs
of every student.
And uses results to
improve student
learning. (2.5)
There is no evidence of
impact on the learning of
every student. Data is poorly
presented, the interpretation
is inaccurate, and
conclusions are missing or
unsupported.
There is limited or
incomplete evidence of
the impact on learning of
every student in terms of
numbers of students who
achieved and made
progress towards each
learning objective.
Conclusions are limited,
incomplete, and/or not
fully supported by data.
Analysis of student learning
includes complete evidence of the
impact on learning of every
student in terms of the number of
students who achieved and made
progress towards each learning
objective. Interpretation is
technically accurate, complete,
and consistent.
Analysis of student learning includes clear,
consistent and convincing evidence of the
impact on learning of every student in terms
of the number of students who achieved and
made progress towards each learning
objective. Meaningful interpretation and
appropriate conclusions are determined
based on the data.
Is accountable to
multiple audiences,
accurately interprets
student performance
and data and
communicates results
to multiple audiences.
(2.6)
In reflecting on his/her
analysis of student learning,
candidate provides no
rationale for why some
activities were more
successful than others.
In reflecting on his/her
analysis of student
learning, candidate
provides limited evidence
to identify successful and
unsuccessful activities and
superficially explores
reasons for their success
or lack thereof.
In reflecting on his/her analysis of
student learning, candidate
provides evidence to identify
successful and unsuccessful
activities and provides plausible
reasons for their success or lack
thereof.
In reflecting on his/her analysis of student
learning, candidate provides clear,
consistent and convincing evidence to
identify successful and unsuccessful
activities and provides plausible reasons for
their success or lack thereof.
COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONALS
1
Little or No Evidence
D:\219546840.doc
2
Limited Evidence
3
Clear Evidence
4
Clear, Consistent, and Convincing
Evidence
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
Rating
Indicator
Reflects regularly
upon daily practice,
and draws upon
experience and the
professional literature
to design and conduct
research aimed at
improved student
achievement. (3.2)
There is no evidence that the
candidate reflects upon and
improves professional
performance based on
professional standards,
feedback, best practices, and
effective communication.
Candidate provides no
reflection on future
professional performance
related to insights and
experiences.
There is limited evidence that the
candidate reflects upon and
improves professional
performance based on
professional standards, feedback,
best practices, and effective
communication. Candidate
provides limited reflection on the
impact of the candidate’s insights
and experiences for future
professional performance.
There is clear evidence that
the candidate reflects upon
and improves professional
performance based on
professional standards,
feedback, best practices, and
effective communication.
Candidate provides clear
reflection on future
professional performance
related to insights and
experiences.
There is clear, consistent, and convincing
evidence that the candidate reflects upon
and improves professional performance
based on professional standards,
feedback, best practices, and effective
communication. The candidate
recognizes improvements for future
professional performance related to
insights and experiences and identifies
ways to improve.
Video Analysis of Teaching (VAT) Assessment of Clinical Practice – PART I
Your VAT focuses on a different component of teaching and learning that you were to have looked for in the video of your
instruction: e.g. behaviorist/social cognitive learning, and cognitive/cognitive constructivism/memory/metacognition theories of
learning and their application in your classroom (NCATE 3b. Design, Implementation and Evaluation of Clinical Experiences)
This project has two parts:
1. A PowerPoint presentation of no more than 8 slides in which you identify specific areas of your teaching practice that the video made
you want to improve or develop further.
a. Overview of your observations and the overall experience
D:\219546840.doc
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
b. VAT Plan 1: Based on your observations, choose an area of instruction that might be improved or changed and suggest your
plan for improvement. In other words, identify an end goal and tell what you want to see in your practice as evidence of
development: What is the area? Why does it need improvement? What will be your plan? The second and third questions
should be based on material from Ormrod or other Ed Psych text. Please cite sources.
c. VAT Plan 2: Same as above.
d. VAT Plan 3: Same as above. Note: For the VAT Plans, you may choose an area addressed in the different VATs throughout
the semester, but I do not require that each Plan be from a different VAT. You may have three that deal with social cognitive
learning, for example.
L1
(0-1)
Powerpoint
A. Presentation: Appropriate number of slides presented in
allotted time frame. Presentation was engaging.
B. Content: Overview of VAT experience provided
context and presented objectives. VAT Plan slides
identified an area for improvement, as well as a plan for
improvement.
C. Learning theories accurately identified and rationale for
using them provided. Learning theory and instruction
connected to context and objectives.
Narrative
A. Presentation: APA format followed; appropriate
grammar, usage, mechanics used.
B. Content: Contextualizes the VAT experience.
Discusses, using citations from text, end goals for
improving teaching based on observations of instruction.
Provides a summary that indicates the significance of the
self-observation, self-reflective study.
Overall
A. Project is well-constructed, well-presented, and wellwritten.
B. Project reflects the comprehensive Video Analysis of
Teaching experience that has been the focus of student
D:\219546840.doc
L2
(2-3)
L3
(4-5)
L4
(6-7)
Comments
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
knowledge, skills, and dispositions throughout the
semester.
e. A
C. Project is both reflective and scholarly. The student’s
work clearly illustrates a sense of professional self in
addition to professional knowledge of teaching and
learning.
TOTAL
A narrative that accompanies the presentation. You may use the same format as outlined above for the PowerPoint. Your concluding section
of the narrative should explain the importance of the Video Analysis of Teaching as a whole (i.e. all of the VATs). What did you learn from
the experience? How will it affect your teaching? Your students’ learning? Etc. The narrative should be 4 ½ to 5 pages in length, double
spaced, times/ariel/palatino linotype font, size 12, APA format
PART II
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), our primary accrediting agency in the Bagwell College of
Education, expects institutions to ensure that candidates
"demonstrate dispositions that value fairness and learning by all students." See NCATE Standard 4 In addition to these common
sense expectations, institutions may develop additional dispositions that fit their mission. NCATE refers institutions to licensing
standards for professional educators adopted or adapted by most of the states. Institutions often identify dispositions that encourage
pre-service educators to be caring teachers, collaborative partners, life-long learners, and reflective practitioners. Institutions are
encouraged to measure dispositions by translating them into observable behaviors in school settings. The caring teacher creates a
classroom in which children respect each other. The collaborative practitioner works with parents and other teachers to help students
learn. The life-long learner reads education literature and the reflective practitioner re-thinks how she teaches the unit on geometric
shapes.
NCATE expects candidates to demonstrate classroom behavior that is consistent with the idea of fairness and the belief that all
students can learn. Consistent with their mission, colleges of education may determine additional professional dispositions they want
their candidates to develop.
D:\219546840.doc
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
How should dispositions be measured? NCATE expects institutions to assess teacher candidate dispositions based on
observable behavior in the classroom. (Retrieved 08/17/06 http://www.ncate.org/public/0616_MessageAWise.asp?ch=150)
Graduates of the M.Ed in Adolescent Education at Kennesaw State University should possess appropriate professional and ethical
dispositions as outlined in the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards for each content area and level (Early Adolescent or
Adolescent Young Adult). These dispositions are consistent with the ones embedded in our Candidate Performance Instrument. Questions
1-5 below directly address the behaviors associated with the professional dispositions we expect of our M.Ed graduates.
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR ASSIGNMENT
Read the essential question below and the additional prompts in questions 1-6. After viewing your entire videotape several times, in a four
(4) page written reflection, address the following essential question and each of the following questions numbered 1-6.
Essential Question: What behaviors do you see in the videotape which provide evidence of the dispositions you hold toward students,
teaching and learning?
Consider these possibilities:
1. Do you respond to or interact differently with students in ways that could hinder their learning? Consider gender, ethnicity, SES, ability,
linguistically diverse, diverse learning styles, etc. Reference evidence from the tape to support your evaluation?
2. What evidence is there on the tape that you hold the belief that all students can learn? Is there evidence on the tape which is inconsistent
with this belief? Reference evidence from the tape to support your evaluation.
3. What evidence is there on the tape that you treat students equitably and that you provide equitable access to the full curriculum? Is there
evidence on the tape which is inconsistent with equitable treatment and access? Reference evidence from the tape to support your evaluation.
4. What evidence exists on the tape that supports the practice that you create safe, inclusive, challenging environments for all of your
students? Is there evidence that contradicts this practice? Reference evidence from the tape to support your evaluation.
5. What evidence exists on the tape that supports the practice of adjusting instruction for individual differences? Is there evidence that
contradicts this practice? Reference evidence from the tape to support your evaluation.
6. Identify at least two areas (more if you have noted them in questions 1-5) and describe a plan you will follow to strengthen OR to
develop the professional dispositions noted above. Be specific about the dispositions you are addressing AND be specific about the details
(time line, activities, etc) which you will follow to accomplish your plan.
Your response should follow appropriate APA guidelines and formatting.
D:\219546840.doc
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
Performance Standard
Level 1
Unacceptable
Level 2
Unacceptable
Level 3
Acceptable
Level 4
Target/Exemplary
Analyzes interactions with diverse
students. Considers gender,
ethnicity, SES, ability,
linguistically diverse, learning
styles, exceptionalities, etc.
Fails to identify or analyze
interactions that do not
support diverse learners
AND does not model
appropriate interactions with
diverse learners AND does
not cite evidence from tape.
Identifies and analyzes
interactions that are and
are not supportive of
diverse learners and cites
appropriate evidence from
tape.
Identifies and analyzes
interactions that are and
are not supportive.
Consistently models
appropriate, supportive,
interactions citing
evidence from tape.
Addresses equity and equitable
access to the full curriculum by
recognizing and analyzing
practices that are equitable or
inequitable.
Fails to identify or analyze
practices that are not
equitable AND does not
model equitable practice
AND does not cite evidence
from tape.
Fails to identify or
analyze interactions that
do not support diverse
learners OR does not
model appropriate
interactions with diverse
learners OR does not cite
evidence from tape.
Fails to identify or
analyze practices that are
not equitable OR does not
model equitable practice
OR does not cite evidence
from tape.
Identifies and analyzes
practices that are and are
not equitable and cites
appropriate evidence from
tape. Models equitable
practices.
Addresses safe, inclusive,
challenging environments for all
students. Identifies and analyzes
practices that support or inhibit
these environments.
Fails to identify or analyze
aspects of the environment
that are not safe, inclusive
and challenging for all
students AND does not
create a safe, inclusive and
challenging environment
AND does not cite
evidence from the tape
Fails to identify or
analyze aspects of the
environment that are not
safe, inclusive and
challenging for all
students OR does not
create a safe, inclusive
and challenging
environment OR does not
cite evidence from the
tape
Identifies and analyzes at least
two aspects of practice (and the
related dispositions) that could be
Fails to identify aspects of
practice and the related
dispositions that could be
Fails to identify aspects of
practice and the related
dispositions that could be
Identifies and analyzes
aspects of the
environment that are not
safe, inclusive and
challenging (if
appropriate). Identifies
strategies and means used
to create safe, inclusive
and challenging
environments. Models
appropriate strategies.
Cites evidence from the
tape.
Identifies at least two
areas for strengthening or
improvement and related
Identifies and analyzes
practices that are and
are not equitable.
Consistently models
equitable practices
citing evidence from
tape.
Identifies and analyzes
strategies and means
used to create safe,
inclusive and
challenging
environments.
Consistently models
appropriate strategies.
Cites evidence from the
tape.
D:\219546840.doc
Identifies at least two
areas for strengthening
or improvement and
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
strengthened or developed.
strengthened or developed
AND does not provide plan
for improvement.
strengthened or developed
OR does not provide plan
for improvement.
dispositions and provides
simple, brief plan for
improvement.
related dispositions
AND provides specific,
detailed plan.
Reflective Portfolio
During EDUC 7764, you will be asked to pull your capstone portfolio together and write an overview reflective piece. However, much of the
required writing describing and analyzing the evidence should be done beforehand when you linked your artifacts and evidence to the various
standards. The following is the portfolio narrative rubric descriptors for a exemplary Level 4 - used to “grade” all CPI outcomes as Pand
proficiencies in your final capstone portfolio. You can see how keeping up with your evidence is helpful.
Descriptor:
Clear, consistent, and convincing evidence exists that the proficiency is addressed through reflective analysis.
Writing is rich in description, analysis, and reflection.
Evidence presented addresses the proficiency 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 is
positive about teaching every student and about each student’s ability to learn.
If appropriate:
Candidate consistently assesses impact on student learning and provides examples of adjusting practice accordingly.
If appropriate:
positive opinions and interactions with students, parents, and other professionals are evident.
HOW DO I ASSEMBLE, PLACE, DESCRIBE, AND ANALYZE MY EVIDENCE?
Details: Here is where you must address two concerns:
1. Provide a brief description of the evidence. According to materials available
for candidates writing for their National
Boards “Descriptive writing is logically
ordered retelling of what happened; including enough detail to allow assessors to
have a basic sense of your situation. (Answers questions: “What, When,
Where”.)”
2. Provide a brief analysis of why this evidence was chosen to address the
standards. Again, the writing
descriptors for National Boards are: “Analytical
writing deals with reasons, motives, and interpretation that is grounded in
concrete evidence. Shows the reader the thought processes you used to arrive
at the conclusions you made about a
teaching situation. I like to say analytical
writing “makes your thinking visible. It helps the reader see the significance of
the evidence you submit. It provides rationale, justification for actions. (Answers
questions: “How, Why”.)”
(Available at
http://www.coe.ilstu.edu/ilnbpts/NBCT/CandidateSupportModules/WritingforNBPTSPortfolio/WritingfortheNationalBoar dProcess.doc
G. Then continue to scroll down and add the file (if you have not done so) to your portfolio. Again you browse and attach in the traditional manner.
JUST MAKE SURE YOU SAVE.
D:\219546840.doc
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
H. Complete this for each piece of evidence.
2. Write a 10 – 15 page reflective Portfolio Narrative that “makes clear, consistent, and convincing connections between evidence presented and
demonstration of expertise in the outcomes and is rich in reflection” (Level 4 : Portfolio Narrative Rubric available at end of this syllabus and WebCT)
What is Reflective Writing?
“Reflective writing is largely concerned with looking back - but with a view to the future” (Girot, 2001, p.3). You should:
A. Reflect on the totality of evidence within each outcome (in our case SME, FL, CP)
B. Make links between theory and practice (using APA citations)
C. Integrate your new knowledge with previous knowledge and develop successful themes and principles which will be applied to other situations in the
future.
Dr. John Zubizarreta, Director of Honors and Faculty Development; Professor of English
http://www.columbiacollegesc.edu/faculty/johnz/learningportfolio.html suggests reviewing all the evidence in one section of your portfolio (CME, FL,
CP)and ask the “big” picture questions: Use these themes as the basis of your reflection.
What have I accomplished with my learning? And perhaps, most importantly, what I have learned and implemented that affected my students’ learning.
What difference has this learning made in my teaching and in my students’ learning?
What plans do I have to continue learning?
During EDUC 7797 you will be asked to pull your portfolio together and write a brief reflective piece. However, much of the required
writing describing and analyzing the evidence should be done beforehand when you link artifacts to standards (see above). The following is
the portfolio narrative rubric descriptors for a Level 4 - used to “grade” your final portfolio. You can see how keeping up with your evidence
is helpful.
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.
MASTERS
PORTFOLIO NARRATIVE RUBRIC
Kennesaw State University
Bagwell College of Education
Candidate’s Name: __________________________________
D:\219546840.doc
Course: ___________________________ Semester: ________
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
Program: __________________________________________
Evaluator:____________________________________________
Are you a KSU graduate?
If so, what year? ____________________
YES
NO
Please evaluate the candidate’s reflective narrative of the Graduate Portfolio using the Portfolio Narrative Rating Scale found on Page Two.
Summary rating for SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
L1
L2
L3
L4
1.1 Possesses broad, current and specialized knowledge of subject matter and demonstrates this knowledge to colleagues,
parents and students.
1.2 Possesses an interdisciplinary understanding of curriculum and its applications to real life and accurately represents
understanding through use of multiple explanations, technologies and/or strategies.
1.3 Possesses strong pedagogical content knowledge and uses that knowledge to create approaches to instructional challenges.
1.4 Actualizes the integration of content, pedagogy and interdisciplinary understanding through instruction that is integrated,
flexible, elaborate and deep.
Summary rating for FACILITATORS OF LEARNING
L1
L2
L3
L4
2.1 Treats students equitably and provides equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual differences and
adjusting (or assisting teachers in adjusting) practices accordingly.
2.2 Understands human development and learning and uses this understanding to create enriching educational experiences
and/or environments for all students.
2.3 Creates safe, well-managed, supportive, inclusive and challenging learning environments.
2.4 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 Monitors student progress with a variety of formal and informal evaluation methods and uses results to improve student
learning.
2.6 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
L4
3.1 Collaborates with colleagues, parents and/or other professionals and leads appropriately to strengthen school effectiveness,
to advance knowledge, and to influence policy and practice.
3.2 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 Proactively involves and leads parents and other members of the community in support of instruction and education.
3.4 Engages in on-going professional development by joining professional organizations, participating in conferences, mentoring
new staff, etc.
D:\219546840.doc
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
3.5 Adheres to professional ethical standards while reporting, conducting and publishing research.
Comments:
D:\219546840.doc
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
MASTERS PORTFOLIO NARRATIVE RATING SCALE
Please use the following RATING SCALE to complete the Masters 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
D:\219546840.doc
12-08-04, 1-10-05, 1-25-05, 2-15-06, 10-17-08, 11-13-08, 8-09, 6-2-10, 10-5-10; 12-16-10
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.
D:\219546840.doc