Program Outcomes Assessment Report
Special Education
Bachelor of Science Degree Program
Department of Educational Instruction and
Leadership
Data for 2010-2011
October 7, 2011
1
Table of Contents
A. Degree program
3
B. Faculty and Date of Submission
3
C. Mission Statement, Goals, Learning Outcomes
3
D. Learning Outcomes
3-8
Assessments and Learning Outcomes Matrix
9
Assessment #1 – Licensure Tests
Learning Outcomes – CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
9
Assessment #2- Teacher Preparation Portfolio – Module III
Learning Outcomes – CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11
Assessment #3 – Candidate’s Ability to Plan Instruction
Learning Outcomes – CEC 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9
13
Assessment #4 – Student Teaching Formative/Summative Evaluation
Learning Outcomes – CEC 12, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
14
Assessment #5 – Candidate’s Impact on Learning
Learning Outcomes – CEC 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8
15
Assessment #6 – Educational Assessment Reports
Learning Outcomes – CEC 1, 6, 8, 9, 10
16
Assessment #7 – Functional Behavioral Assessment & Behavioral
Intervention Plan
Learning Outcomes – CEC 2, 3, 5, 7, 10
17
Assessment #8 – Case study – Preferral, referral and IEP
Learning Outcomes – CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
18
E. Program Modifications
19
F. IETV-Web-based course evaluation
19
G. Faculty Participation
19
2
A. Degree Program
Special Education – Bachelor of Science Degree
Educational Instruction and Leadership Department
B. Name of Faculty and Date Submitted
2010-2011 Faculty
Dr. Shelia Barnes
Dr. Vivian Guarnera
Dr. Michael Kallam
Dr. Charles Weiner
Submitted October 7, 2011
C. Mission Statement, Goals, Learning Outcomes:
Mission Statement
The mission of the Southeastern Oklahoma State University Special Education program is to
produce teacher candidates who demonstrate academic and practical excellence in the field of
special education. Through quality instruction grounded in current research and supported
by diverse field and clinical experiences and technology usage, the teacher candidates will
develop the professional competencies necessary to become life-long learners who are
competent, committed, and ethical practitioners.
Goal
The goal of the Special Education program is to prepare graduates with the knowledge, skills,
and dispositions to successfully teach students with special learning needs in grades PK
through 12.
Learning Outcomes
The learning outcomes for the Special Education program are based on the standards
established by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) which is the learned society that
assesses all special education programs for accreditation and for national recognition.
The Special Education program graduates will demonstrate the following learning outcomes:
Learning Outcome 1: Foundations – Assessments 1, 2, 4, 6, 8
Special educators understand the field as an evolving and changing discipline based on
philosophies, evidence-based principles and theories, relevant laws and policies, diverse and
historical points of view, and human issues that have historically influenced and continue to
influence the field of special education and the education and treatment of individuals with
3
exceptional needs both in school and society. Special educators understand how these
influence professional practice, including assessment, instructional planning,
implementation, and program evaluation.
Special educators understand how issues of human diversity can impact families, cultures,
and schools, and how these complex human issues can interact with issues in the delivery of
special education services.
Special educators understand the relationships of organizations of special education to the
organizations and functions of schools, school systems, and other agencies. Special
educators use this knowledge as a ground upon which to construct their own personal
understandings and philosophies of special education.
Learning Outcome 2: Development and Characteristics of Learners- Assessments 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 8
Special educators know and demonstrate respect for their students first as unique human
beings.
Special educators understand the similarities and differences in human development and the
characteristics between and among individuals with and without exceptional learning needs.
Moreover, special educators understand how exceptional conditions can interact with the
domains of human development and they use this knowledge to respond to the varying
abilities and behaviors of individual’s with exceptional learning needs.
Special educators understand how the experiences of individuals with exceptional learning
needs can impact families, as well as the individual’s ability to learn, interact socially, and
live as fulfilled contributing member of the community.
Learning Outcome 3: Individual Learning Differences- Assessments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8
Special educators understand the effects that an exceptional condition can have on an
individual’s learning in school and throughout life.
Special educators understand that the beliefs, traditions, and values across and within cultures
can affect relationships among and between students, their families, and the school
community. Moreover, special educators are active and resourceful in seeking to understand
how primary language, culture, and familial backgrounds interact with the individual’s
exceptional condition to impact the individual’s academic and social abilities, attitudes,
values, interests, and career options. The understanding of these learning differences and
their possible interactions provide the foundation upon which special educators individualize
instruction to provide meaningful and challenging learning for individuals with exceptional
learning needs.
4
Learning Outcome 4: Instructional Strategies – Assessments 1, 3, 4, 5, 8
Comment [DM1]: …possess…
Special educators posses a repertoire of evidence-based instructional strategies to
individualize instruction for individuals with exceptional learning needs. Special educators
select, adapt, and use these instructional strategies to promote challenging learning results in
general and special curricula and to appropriately modify learning environments for
individuals with exceptional learning needs.
Special educators enhance the learning of critical thinking, problem solving, and
performance skills of individuals with exceptional learning needs, and increase their selfawareness, self-management, self-control, self-reliance, and self-esteem. Moreover, special
educators emphasize the development, maintenance, and generalization of knowledge and
skills across environments, settings, and the lifespan.
Learning Outcome 5: Learning Environments and Social Interactions- Assessments 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8
Special educators actively create learning environments for individuals with exceptional
learning needs that foster cultural understanding, safety and emotional well being, positive
social interactions, and active engagement of individuals with exceptional learning needs.
Special educators foster environments in which diversity is valued and individuals are taught
to live harmoniously and productively in a culturally diverse world.
Special educators shape environments to encourage the independence, self-motivation, selfdirection, personal empowerment, and self-advocacy of individuals with exceptional learning
needs.
Special educators help their general education colleagues integrate individuals with
exceptional learning needs in regular environments and engage them in meaningful learning
activities and interactions.
Special educators use direct motivational and instructional interventions with individuals
with exceptional learning needs to teach them to respond effectively to current expectations.
When necessary, special educators can safely intervene with individuals with exceptional
learning needs in crisis.
Special educators coordinate all these efforts and provide guidance and direction to
paraeducators and others, such as classroom volunteers and tutors.
Standard 6: Language – Assessments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7
Special educators understand typical and atypical language development and the ways in
which exceptional conditions can interact with an individual’s experience with and use of
5
language. Special educators use individualized strategies to enhance language development
and teach communication skills to individuals with exceptional learning needs.
Special educators are familiar with augmentative, alternative, and assistive technologies to
support and enhance communication of individuals with exceptional needs. Special
educators match their communication methods to an individual’s language proficiency and
cultural and linguistic differences.
Special educators provide effective language models, and they use communication strategies
and resources to facilitate understanding of subject matter for individuals with exceptional
learning needs who primary language is not English.
Standard 7: Instructional Planning – Assessments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8
Individualized decision-making and instruction is at the center of special education practice.
Special educators develop long-range individualized instructional plans anchored in both
general and special curricula. In addition, special educators systematically translate these
individualized plans into carefully selected shorter-range goals and objectives taking into
consideration an individual’s abilities and needs, the learning environment, and a myriad of
cultural and linguistic factors.
Individualized instructional plans emphasize explicit modeling and efficient guided practice
to assure acquisition and fluency through maintenance and generalization. Understanding of
these factors as well as the implications of an individual’s exceptional condition, guides the
special educator’s selection, adaptation, and creation of materials, and the use of powerful
instructional variable.
Instructional plans are modified based on ongoing analysis of the individual’s learning
progress. Moreover, special educators facilitate this instructional planning a collaborative
context including the individuals with exceptionalities, families, professional colleagues, and
personnel from other agencies as appropriate.
Special educators also develop a variety of individualized transition plans, such as transitions
from preschool to elementary school and from secondary settings to a variety of
postsecondary work and learning contexts.
Special educators are comfortable using appropriate technologies to support instructional
planning and individualized instruction.
Standard 8: Assessments- 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8
Assessment is integral to the decision-making and teaching of special educators and special
educators use multiple types of assessment information for a variety of educational decisions.
Special educators use the results of assessments to help identify exceptional learning needs
and to develop and implement individualized instructional programs, as well as to adjust
instruction in response to ongoing learning progress.
6
Comment [DM2]: This isn’t clear.
Comment [DM3]: …in a collaborative…
Special educators understand the legal policies and ethical principles of measurement and
assessment related to referral, eligibility, program planning, instruction, and placement for
individuals with exceptional learning needs, including those from culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds.
Special educators understand measurement theory and practices for addressing issues of
validity, reliability, norms, bias, and interpretation of assessment results. In addition, special
educators understand the appropriate use and limitations of various types of assessments.
Special educators collaborate with families and other colleagues to assure non-biased,
meaningful assessments and decision-making.
Special educators conduct formal and informal assessments of behavior, learning,
achievement, and environments to design learning experiences that support the growth and
development of individuals with exceptional learning needs.
Special educators use assessment information to identify supports and adaptations required
for individuals with exceptional learning needs to access the general curriculum and to
participate in school, system, and statewide assessment programs.
Special educators regularly monitor the progress of individuals with exceptional learning
needs in general and special curricula. Special educators use appropriate technologies to
support their assessments.
Standard 9: Professional and Ethical Practice- Assessments: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8
Special educators are guided by the profession’s ethical and professional practice standards.
Special educators practice in multiple roles and complex situations across wide age and
developmental ranges. Their practice requires ongoing attention to legal matters along with
serious professional and ethical considerations.
Special educators engage in professional activities and participate in learning communities
that benefit individuals with exceptional learning needs, their families, colleagues, and their
own professional growth.
Special educators view themselves as lifelong learners and regularly reflect on and adjust
their practice.
Comment [DM4]: …other’s…
Special educators are aware of how their own and others attitudes, behaviors, and ways of
communicating can influence their practice.
Special educators understand that culture and language can interact with exceptionalities,
and are sensitive to the many aspects of diversity of individuals with exceptional learning
needs and their families.
7
Special educators actively plan and engage in activities that foster their professional growth
and keep them current with evidence-based best practices.
Special educators know their own limits of practice and practice within them.
Standard 10: Collaboration Assessments 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8
Special educators routinely and effectively collaborate with families, other educators, related
service providers, and personnel from community agencies in culturally responsive ways.
This collaboration assures that the needs of individuals with exceptional learning needs are
addressed throughout schooling.
Comment [DM5]: …advocates….
Special educators embrace their special role as advocate for individuals with exceptional
learning needs.
Special educators promote and advocate the learning and well being of individuals with
exceptional learning needs across a wide range of settings and a range of different learning
experiences.
Special educators are viewed as specialists by a myriad of people who actively seek their
collaboration to effectively include and teach individuals with exceptional learning needs.
Special educators are a resource to their colleagues in understanding the laws and policies
relevant to individuals with exceptional learning needs.
Special educators use collaboration to facilitate the successful transitions of individuals with
exceptional learning needs across settings and services.
8
D. Learning Outcomes and Assessments Matrix
Assessment
Number
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
Type or Form of Assessment
Licensure Tests –
Oklahoma General Education Test
(OGET)
Oklahoma Subject Area Test –
Mild/Moderate Disabilities (OSAT)
Oklahoma Professional Teachers
Examination (OPTE)
Portfolio – Content Knowledge
Candidates ability to plan instruction –
Academic and Functional
Evaluation during student teaching –
mentor teacher formative and summative
assessments
Candidate impact on student learning –
Teacher Work Sample
Educational assessment reports
Functional Behavioral Assessment and
Behavioral Intervention Plan
Case Study – Preferral, referral and IEP
documents
Learning Outcomes
Assessed
CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
CEC 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9
CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
CEC 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8
CEC 1, 6, 8, 9, 10
CEC 2, 3, 5, 7, 10
CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Assessment #1: Special Education Licensure Tests
a. Learning Outcomes: CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ,9, 10
b. Assessment Method
All special education teacher candidates are required to pass the three licensure tests for an
Oklahoma license in the field of special education. Candidates must pass the Oklahoma
General Education Test prior to admission to Teacher Education and candidates must pass
the Oklahoma Specialization Test – Mild/Moderate Disabilities prior to admission to student
teaching. The final test, Oklahoma Professional Teaching Examination, must be passed prior
to Southeastern recommending a candidate for a certificate. The test is administered at least
five times per year and provides state wide scores for comparison to university and individual
candidates’ scores. A score of 240 out of 300 is considered to be a passing score in
Oklahoma.
9
The Oklahoma General Education Test (OGET) reflects liberal arts preparation courses
common to most majors specifically included in the special education 4 X 12 state
requirements. Under the 4 x 12 requirement, special education majors must 12 hours in the
areas of language arts, science, social studies, and mathematics.
c.
Results of Assessments
Oklahoma General Education Test (OGET) – 2008-2011
Number Tested
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Number Passed
3
6
5
% Pass
3
5
2
100%
100%
100%
Comment [DM6]: Are the bottom two entries in
this column correct? If this column only includes
program completers, that needs to be clarified here.
Oklahoma Subject Area Test (OSAT) – Mild/Moderate Disabilities
Year
Number
passing/Total
SE Pass %
Oklahoma Pass
%
2005-2006
7/10
70%
70%
2006-2007
7/8
87.5%
66%
2007-2008
4/5
80%
75%
2008-2009
7/7
100%
70%
14/16
6/9
88%
67%
75%
71%
2009-2010
2010-2011
Oklahoma Professional Teaching Examination (OPTE)
2008-09
2009-10
2010 -11
Number Tested
2
5
9
Number Passed
2
4
9
% Pass
100%
100%
100%
10
d. Analysis and Interpretation
One hundred percent of the program completers in special education pass the Oklahoma
General Education Test (OGET), Oklahoma Subject Area Test – Mild/Moderate Test
(OSAT), and Oklahoma Professional Teaching Test (OPTE). The charts above include
scores of candidates who are not program completers and may not meet the criteria to
continue in the program. The scores in the three tests continue to be consistent with the
exception of a reduction from 88% to a 67% pass rate on the subject area test. This is
area of concern which will be monitored throughout the next school year.
e.
Program Modifications
The special education program was revised extensively in February 2007 and phased in
beginning in August 2077. The program received national recognition in February 2008
through the learned society, Council for Exceptional Children. Since February 2007, no
significant modifications have occurred in the program. The faculty is currently in the
process of reviewing and revising the program based on new standards which will be
approved during fall 2011 and are required to be implemented by fall 2013.
Assessment # 2: Portfolio – Content Knowledge
a. Learning Outcomes: CEC Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
b. Assessment Method:
The Teacher Preparation Portfolio – Module III for Special Education contains 12 unique
artifacts which are assessed on a 3 point scale, Target, Acceptable, and Unacceptable, based
on detailed rubrics designed by the faculty. The artifacts are developed in selected classes
and are completed and assessed at various times throughout the program. All candidates in
special education are required to complete a Teacher Preparation Portfolio prior to
recommendation for certification by Southeastern.
11
Comment [DM7]: …2007…
c.
Results of Assessment
Assessment Method(s):
Meta-analysis of all rubrics within Portfolio
Module III, Artifact:
Results of the Assessment(s)
2008-09
2009-10*
2010-11
3.0
N = 10
3.0
3.0
N=8
3.0
#9 - Curriculum-based measurement project
(SPED 3313)
3.0
N = 15
2.9
N = 13
3.0
N = 14
No data
available
2.8
N=8
3.0
N=3
#12 - Functional behavioral assessment and
behavior intervention plan (SPED 3613)
3.0
N = 16
3.0
3.0
N=7
#13 - Behavior change project (SPED 3613)
2.7
N = 14
2.6
N=9
2.7
N = 10
2.6
N=9
3.0
3.0
N=4
2.5
N=6
3.0
N=9
3.0
N=6
#6 - Critical readings: Disabilities topics (SPED
4203)
#7 - Case Study Analysis (SPED 3103)
#8 - Evaluation report (SPED 3313)
#16 - Cognitive lesson unit (SPED 4413)
#17 - Affective lesson unit (SPED 4423)
#18 - Field experience (SPED 4443)
•
3.0
3.0
3.0
No Data
3.0
Student numbers were not available for 2009-10
d. Analysis and Interpretation
The data for the 2010-11 school year are consistent with the data from the previous two
years. The mean scores should range from 2.5 to 3.0 and within the past two years scores
have continued to meet the program expectations.
12
e.
Program Modifications
The special education program was totally revised in February 2007 and implemented in
August 2007. The program received national recognition in February 2008 through the
learned society, Council for Exceptional Children. Since February 2007, no significant
modifications have occurred in the program. The faculty is currently in the process of
reviewing and revising the program based on new standards which will be approved
during fall 2011 and are required to be implemented by fall 2013.
Assessment #3 – Candidates ability to plan instruction – Academic and Functional
a. Learning Outcomes: CEC 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9
b. Assessment Method
All special education teacher candidates develop, teach while emphasizing explicit modeling,
guided practice, and independent practice, and evaluate a series of lessons. The lessons are
presents and taught in a microteaching format to classmates in a simulated teaching environment.
The lessons are critiqued by peers and through self-evaluation and revised. This assessment
provides an opportunity to evaluate the teacher candidate’s abilities to plan instruction based on
assessment data of individuals with exceptional learning needs. The artifacts are assessed on a 3
point rubric scale, Target (3), Acceptable (2), and Unacceptable (1) based on detailed rubrics
developed by the faculty.
c.
Results of Assessment
2008-09
2.6
N = 14
Functional Lesson Plans
2.7
N = 13
• Student numbers were not available for 2009-10.
Academic Lesson Plans
2009-10*
3.0
3.0
2010-2011
2.5
N=6
3.0
N=9
d. Analysis and Interpretation
The data has been consistent the past three years. The program expects the class mean to
be in the 2.5 to 3.0 range. Based on the information for the past three year, the candidates
have more difficulty in writing academic lessons plans in comparison to functional plans.
e.
Program Modifications
The special education program was totally revised in February 2007 and implemented in
August 2007. The program received national recognition in February 2008 through the
learned society, Council for Exceptional Children. Since February 2007, no significant
modifications have occurred in the program. The faculty is currently in the process of
reviewing and revising the program based on new standards which will be approved
during fall 2011 and are required to be implemented by fall 2013.
13
Comment [DM8]: For readability, I would
recommend putting this list in parenthesis.
Assessment #4: Student Teaching Formative/Summative Evaluation
a. Learning Outcomes: CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
b. Assessment Method
Professional mentors evaluate teacher candidates four times during student teaching on
indicators of teacher management, instruction, teacher products, professional dispositions
and an overall rating. All mentors are required to go through a training process to assure
complete understanding and consistency of Southeastern’s expectations for teacher
candidates. The special education faculty review the evaluation forms, and any areas of
concern will prompt a conference with the teacher candidate, the mentor, and the fieldexperiences coordinator. The formative and summative evaluations assess the teacher
candidate’s skills in applying the knowledge they obtain through their preparation
program.
The mentor teachers complete summative evaluations on each teacher candidate. The
evaluation instrument is based on the following scale: 5 = Target, 4 = more than
acceptable, 3 = acceptable, 2 = less than acceptable, and 1 = unacceptable. The special
education teacher candidates for 2010-11 were ranked by their mentor teachers as
indicated below:
c.
Results of Assessment
Student Teaching Formative/Summative Evaluation 2010-2011
Areas Rated
Fall 2010 N= 8
Spring 2011
N=4
Teacher Management Indicators
Teacher Instructional Indicators
Teacher Products Indicators
Dispositions
Overall Rating
4.78
4.84
4.81
4.80
4.66
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Areas Rated
Student Teaching Formative/Summative Evaluations 2008-2011
2008-09
2009-10*
2010-11
N=2
N=12
Teacher Management Indicators
Teacher Instructional Indicators
Teacher Product Indicators
Dispositions
Overall Rating
*Student numbers were not available for 2009-10
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.89
4.92
4.92
4.92
4.93
14
d. Analysis and Interpretation
Based on the rating scale, the mentor teachers ranked all special education teacher
candidates in all areas Target to More than Acceptable. This would indicate that all
special education candidates continue to demonstrate competencies in the stated learning
outcomes. In comparing the results for the past three years, the scores remain consistent.
e. Program Modifications
The special education program was totally revised in February 2007 and phased in
August 2007. The program received national recognition in February 2008 through the
learned society, Council for Exceptional Children. Since February 2007, no significant
modifications have occurred in the program. The faculty is currently in the process of
reviewing and revising the program based on new standards which will be approved
during fall 2011 and are required to be implemented by fall 2013.
Assessment #5: Candidate’s Impact on Student Learning – Teacher Work Sample
a. Learning Outcomes: CEC 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8
b. Assessment Method
During student teaching, candidates are required to complete a Teacher Work sample (TWS) that
documents the candidates’ ability to plan, deliver, and asses a standards-based instructional
sequence, and then reflect on the impact of their instruction on student learning. The TWS
contains seven teaching processes identified by research and best practice as fundamental to
improve student learning. In the first process, candidates identify the contextual factors that will
impact the development of the unit. Then candidates develop learning goals and devise an
assessment plan to evaluate their goals. The candidates design instruction based on learning
goals, student characteristics and needs, and learning contexts. The candidates use the
evaluations of student learning to make instructional decisions. The assessment data
demonstrate student learning and provide information about student and group progress. Finally,
the candidates reflect on their instruction and its impact on student learning in order to improve
their teaching practice. . The artifacts are assessed on a 3 point rubric scale, Target (3),
Acceptable (2), and Unacceptable (1) based on detailed rubrics developed by the faculty.
c.
Results of Assessment
Teacher Work Sample 2008-2011
Overall Mean
2008-09
N=2
2.75
2009-10
N=
No Data
2010-11
N = 12
2.60
15
Comment [DM9]: …assess…
d. Analysis and Interpretation
All special education teacher candidates demonstrated competencies through the teacher
work sample in the acceptable to the target range. The scores on the teacher work sample
have been consistent during the past three years.
e.
Program Modifications
The special education program was revised in February 2007 and implemented in August
2007. The program received national recognition in February 2008 through the learned
society, Council for Exceptional Children. Since February 2007, no significant
modifications have occurred in the program. The faculty is currently in the process of
reviewing and revising the program based on new standards which will be approved
during fall 2011 and are required to be implemented by fall 2013.
Assessment # 6: Educational Assessment Reports
a. Learning Outcomes: CEC 1, 6, 8, 9, 10
b. Assessment Method
In SPED 3313 – Assessment, each teacher candidate evaluates two students. One student should
be 1st – 5th grade and the other student will be 6th – 12th grade. Both students will be evaluated
using a comprehensive achievement test battery, language assessment and curriculum-based
measurement probes appropriate to the student. If appropriate, an adaptive behavior instrument
and/or a behavior rating scale may also be included in the test battery. The candidate will
develop a professional report for each student which will contain background and referral
information, observation data, a list of evaluation procedures, test results, conclusions and
recommendations. . The artifacts are assessed on a 3 point rubric scale, Target (3), Acceptable
(2), and Unacceptable (1) based on detailed rubrics developed by the faculty.
c.
Results of Assessment
Assessment Reports
2008-09
N = 14
2.93
2009-10
No data
2010-11
N=8
2.80
16
d. Analysis and Interpretation
All special teacher education candidates scored acceptable or target on the assessment
reports during the 2010-11 school. In comparing this information to the past three years,
the scores remain consistent.
e.
Program Modification
The special education program was revised in February 2007 and implemented in August
2007. The program received national recognition in February 2008 through the learned
society, Council for Exceptional Children. Since February 2007, no significant
modifications have occurred in the program. The faculty is currently in the process of
reviewing and revising the program based on new standards which will be approved
during fall 2011 and are required to be implemented by fall 2013.
Assessment #7: Functional Behavioral Assessment and Behavioral Intervention Plan
a. Learning Outcomes: CEC 2, 3, 5, 7, 10
b. Assessment Method
A requirement of SPED 3613 – Behavior Management class is that candidate will participate in
and develop a functional behavior assessment and link the FBA to a behavioral intervention plan
for a student. A functional behavioral assessment is considered to be a problem-solving process
for addressing student problem behavior. It relies on a variety of techniques and strategies to
identify the purposes of specific behavior and to help professionals select interventions to
directly address the problem behavior. . The artifacts are assessed on a 3 point rubric scale,
Target (3), Acceptable (2), and Unacceptable (1) based on detailed rubrics developed by the
faculty.
c. Assessment Results
Functional Behavior Assessment/BIP
Behavior Change Project
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
3.0
N = 16
2.81
N = 16
3.0
N=8
3.0
N=8
3.0
N=7
3.0
N=4
17
Comment [DM10]: …candidates…
d. Analysis and Interpretation
The data remains consistent for the teacher candidates for the past
three years. The mean scores should range from 2.5 to 3.0 and the special education
teacher candidates have continued to meet the program expectations.
e. Program Modifications
The special education program was revised in February 2007 and implemented in
August 2007. The program received national recognition in February 2008 through
the learned society, Council for Exceptional Children. Since February 2007, no
significant modifications have occurred in the program. The faculty is currently in
the process of reviewing and revising the program based on new standards which will
be approved during fall 2011 and are required to be implemented by fall 2013.
Assessment #8: Case study – Pre-referral, referral and Individual Educational Program
a. Learning Outcomes: CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
b. Assessment Method
SPED 4903 – Seminar in Special Education – requires the teacher candidate to collect, analyze,
and complete various Oklahoma State Department of Education forms related to identification,
prereferral, preassessment, referral, evaluation, identification, placement decisions, individual
education program (IEP) planning, and ongoing timelines based on a student with whom they
will teach during student teaching. . The artifacts are assessed on a 3 point rubric scale, Target
(3), Acceptable (2), and Unacceptable (1) based on detailed rubrics developed by the faculty.
c.
Results of assessment
2008-09
N = 10
Preferral Case Study
Referral Case Study
Individual Education Plan
2.80
2009-10*
2010-11
N = 12
2.50
*No data available for 2009-10
18
Comment [DM11]: Is this correct?
d. Analysis and Interpretation
The special education teacher candidates scored acceptable or target on the case study
with an overall average of 2.50. The score is within the expected range of 2.5 to 3.0,
however the candidates reported that they needed more practice in completing the forms
required for prereferral, referral, and development of the IEP.
e.
Program Modifications
Since the candidates indicated they needed more instruction and practice in the
organization and completion of the required documentation as special education teacher,
the faculty will select addition courses to include the simulation of completing
documentation.
Comment [DM12]: …teachers…
E. Program Modifications
The special education program was totally revised in February 2007 and implemented in August
2007. The program received national recognition in February 2008 through the learned society,
Council for Exceptional Children. Since February 2007, no significant modifications have
occurred in the program. The faculty is currently in the process of reviewing and revising the
program based on new standards which will be approved during fall 2011 and are required to be
implemented by fall 2013.
F. IETV/Web-based Evaluations
The undergraduate special education classes are face to face. The data presented in the
Program Outcomes Assessment Report was collected through face to face classes.
G. Faculty Participation
Each faculty member utilizes the approved artifact and rubric in the courses they teach and are
responsible for collecting the appropriate data to be used in program reports. During the 201011 school year the special education faculty will meet to review the new undergraduate special
education standards and revise the program prior to fall 2013.
19
Comment [DM13]: Should this be 2011-2012?
SIGNATURE PAGE
________________________________________________
Chair, Educational Instruction and Leadership
__________________________
Date
_______________________________________________
Dean, School of Education and Behavioral Sciences
__________________________
Date
_____________________________________________
__________________________
20