Assessment 5: Assessment that demonstrates candidate effect on student learning: Student
Portfolio
1. A brief description of the assessment and its use in the program (one sentence may be sufficient)
The Student Portfolio is a written evaluation of sample pupil work collected by the candidate during
his/her student teaching/practicum experience. The information presented in the report shows the
candidate’s impact on student learning.
2. A description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it is cited for in Section
III.
As indicated in Section III, this assignment addresses the following CEC Standards: (4)
Instructional Strategies, (5) Learning Environments and Social Interactions, (6) Language, (7)
Instructional Planning and (8) Assessment.
As the assessment tools and rubric (sections 5a (column 1 of rubric) and 5b) describe, the Student
Portfolio assignment specifically aligns with several CEC Standards. It is aligned with Standard 4 by
requiring candidates to conduct specific assessments and develop instructional strategies that are
individualized to each learner who is blind/visually impaired. The portfolio assignment is aligned
with Standard 5 by requiring teacher candidates to produce a variety of individualized assessment
results for learners with visual impairment that would help these learners be integrated into general
education classes; this assignment is also aligned with Standard 6 by l requiring candidates to report
findings related to learning and literacy media and literacy tools; it is aligned with Standard 7 by
requiring candidates to write IEP//IFSP long and short term goals and Standard 8 by requiring
candidates to conduct, interpret and make recommendations on several important assessment tools
used with learners who are blind/visually impaired. Examples of such assessments include the
Functional Vision Assessment (FVA), the Learning Media Assessment (LMA), and other
Compensatory Assessments to report student behaviors in objective terms.
3. A brief analysis of the data findings
The data in section 5c show student performance scores for 6 teacher candidates in Fall 2006. There
were no advanced certificate students in the courses for spring 2006 or spring 2007 semesters and
therefore data are not available for those terms. In total, all 6 of the candidates performed at or
above standard and none of the candidates performed below standard. Since the number of scores is
small, before drawing a conclusion, we will continue collecting student performance data each
semester as a way to monitor emerging trends.
4. An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards
The data shown in section 5c affirms that the candidates met the standards. One hundred percent of
the candidates (6 out of 6) performed at or above standard.
5. Attachment of assessment documentation, including1:
(a) the assessment tool or description of the assignment
Students will:
1. develop and implement lessons plans for diverse learners with visual impairments in a
variety of service delivery models during student teaching or field based practicum
2. submit 5 lesson plans for students who are blind and low vision in academic and expanded
core curriculum areas and follow guidelines for lesson plans. One lesson plan should teach
student to use adaptive technology (CCTV, JAWS, Magic Window)
3. implement lesson plans in academic content and expanded core curriculum areas with
learners who are blind/low vision on two different age levels at placement
4. administer a functional vision assessment to a student with a visual impairment during
student teaching/practicum and write a detailed report of the findings
5. modify through a drawing the classroom setting making it appropriate for a student with a
visual impairment or blindness;
6. role play and simulate a team meeting and collaborate to create a shared vision for planning
an IEP meeting;
1
All three components of the assessment – as identified in 5a-c – must be attached, with the following exceptions: (a)
the assessment tool and scoring guide are not required for reporting state licensure data, and (b) for some
assessments, data may not yet be available.
(b) the scoring guide for the assessment
Area to be Evaluated
Unacceptable
Proficient
Exemplary
Provided background information and
purpose of assessment.
Report contains very few of the
components of background
information, e.g., medical, visual and
developmental information. Little
information about current educational
placement, related services, past
functional vision assessment results or
reason for assessment are included.
Current educational placement may or
may not be noted. Few details are
given about any category in
background information. If areas
were not included, intern does not
explain why the areas were not
addressed.
Student’s report contained some of
the components of the functional
vision assessment/learning media
assessment. Some information about
medical, educational and
developmental history, previous
functional vision assessments
included. Some categories or
important subheadings don’t appear in
body of report. Some background
information provided about reasons
for LMA, but more general than
specific. If components for category
are missing, intern reports that
information was unavailable for the
purposes of writing the current
assessment.
Assessment strategies
Student provides very limited
information about assessment
strategies. Report does not clearly
explain which strategies, e.g., what
environments, interviews with
student, parents, teachers,
diagnosticians, other related service
providers, assessment/checklists used
or review of records and previous
assessment results were used. If areas
were not included in report, intern
does give an explanation as to why
the areas were not addressed.
Student briefly explains how the
assessment was conducted by
including some of the areas:
environments, interviews with
student, parents, teachers,
diagnosticians, other related service
providers, assessment./checklists
used, review of records and previous
assessment results. Intern selects
some appropriate assessment
strategies, but does not include all.
FVA/Compensatory assessment:
Student provided medical, visual and
developmental information about the
student. Included information on
current educational placement and
related services received. Gave
information on past functional vision
assessment results/ educational testing
where appropriate. Reason for
assessment provided where
applicable. Noted educational
placement.
LMA: Student noted reason for
assessment, e.g., initial selection of
learning media, readiness for a
literacy program, selection of
secondary literacy medium or media,
documentation of time
accommodations and testing
accommodations given reading
efficiency, selection of additional
literacy tools for future goals.
Student makes observations in
specific environments, interviews
with student, parents, teachers, and
diagnosticians, other related service
providers, assessments/checklists
used, review of records and previous
assessment results. Intern selected
strategies for student appropriate for
functioning level and environments
within which learning occurs.
Functional Vision Assessment
Compensatory Assessment
Learning Media Assessment
Development of an IEP/IFSP
Student writes report that contains
very few functional vision
assessment components. Categories
for components, e.g., ophthalmologic
information, visual acuity, fields,
stability of condition, etc. are not
described in detail or are inaccurate.
Report does not clearly discuss
student’s visual function.
Student makes conclusions and
inferences throughout the report.
Checklists were not included or
referred to within assignment.
Student was not observed across
multiple settings.
Student does not include many areas
of the learning media assessment per
the attached checklist. Intern
provides little documentation to
substantiate written analyses of
student’s use of sensory channels,
learning and literacy media and tools.
The student has developed some
components of the IFSP/IEP. The
Present Level of Performance is
provided, but may not contain all
relevant observation and assessment
data. Most IFSP/IEP goals and
objectives are clearly written and are
measurable. Some goals and
objectives tie clearly to the Present
Level of Performance. Some
evaluation criteria for the objectives
are measurable and appropriate.
Student writes report that contains
some but not all of the components of
a functional vision assessment. Some
of the descriptions in the component
areas are lacking detail, e.g.,
instruments or procedures used. An
occasional description does not match
the component area assessed.
Student used some checklists or
informal observation, but these were
not used in multiple environments.
Some student behaviors were reported
as conclusions not based on
observations. Limited student
strengths and needs were reported and
some were not based on objective
observation.
Student includes some areas e.g.,
learning media, literacy media or
literacy tools that were not supported
through intern observation or
interview. Intern mentions all areas
but descriptions/observations of
student were limited and some areas
were not included without a clear
explanation for their absence.
The student has developed all
components of the IFSP/IEP. The
Present Level of Performance is
provided and states observation and
assessment data. Most IFSP/IEP
goals and objectives are clearly
written and are measurable. Most
goals and objectives tie clearly to the
Present Level of Performance. Most
evaluation criteria for the objectives
are measurable and appropriate.
Student describes these component
parts in detail (see checklist of
components). Descriptions of the
instruments used are included.
Procedures for conducting assessment
is included in appropriate. If an area
of visual functioning was not
assessed, the intern describes the
reason for not conducting an activity.
Student used checklists, informal
observations and discrepancy
analyses to report student behaviors in
objective terms without drawing
conclusions or inferences. Gave
many examples of student’s strengths
and needs based on
observations/checklists.
Student includes all components of
the learning media assessment per the
attached checklist. Each area was
described with enough detail to
understand the student’s use of
sensory channels, learning and
literacy media and literacy tools
The student has developed all
components of the IFSP/IEP. The
Present Level of Performance is
accurate and reflects a synthesis of
observation and assessment data.
IFSP/IEP goals and objectives are
clearly written and are measurable.
The goals and objectives tie clearly to
the Present Level of Performance.
Evaluation criteria for the objectives
are measurable and appropriate.
Summary of Recommendations Based
on Assessment
Student’s summary does not
accurately reflect assessment results
as stated in report. Intern makes little
reference to the results obtained
through assessment activities of either
the functional vision assessment or
learning media assessment
Organization and structure of report
was well formulated.
More than 4 errors in sentence
structure, typos or spelling errors.
Report is poorly organized and lacks
structure and continuity.
Student writes a loosely written
summary and doesn’t always reflect
the student’s strengths and need.
Intern does not include some of the
areas of the functional vision
assessment or learning media
assessment in summarizing student
functioning in each area per the
attached checklist
2-4 mechanical errors in sentence
structure; typos or spelling errors.
Report needs reorganization, e.g.,
subheadings, continuity, etc
Sharon Sacks, program coordinator is the author of this document. (California State University, LA)
Student includes all components of
the learning media assessment per the
attached checklist. Each area was
described with enough detail to
understand the student’s use of
sensory channels, learning and
literacy media and literacy tools.
Grammar, structure and organization
of report is flawless, no spelling or
other technical errors noted.
Consistently wrote in past tense.
(c) candidate data derived from the assessment.
Key Assessment 5
Student Portfolio
Student Portfolio
Student Portfolio
Student Portfolio
Student Portfolio
Student Portfolio
Total
Total
Format of
Data
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Semester
Spring 2006
Spring 2006
Fall 2006
Fall 2006
Spring 2007
Spring 2007
Candidate Performance Ratings
Below
Standard
At
Standard
Above
Standard
Grand
Total
0
0%
2
33%
4
67%
6
100%
0
0
0%
2
33%
4
67%
6
100%