i
Cover Sheet
Georgia Professional Standards Commission (PSC) Report
Program Name: Master of Education in Special Education: Interrelated, Master of Education
in Special Education: Collaborative Practice & Interrelated Add-on program
Submitted by:
Kennesaw State University
Address:
1000 Chastain Road
Kennesaw, GA 30144-5591
Chief Compiler:
Dr. Susan B. Brown
Phone:
770-423-6577
Email
sbrown1@kennesaw.edu
Fax 770-423-6263
Level offered for review:
Baccalaureate
X
Masters
Post-Bac (Alternative Certification)
X
Endorsement/Add-on
Checklist of Materials to be enclosed in this review document:
Table of Contents
Overview of the Program
Goals and Objectives of the Program
College or Department Responsible for Preparing Candidates
Description of Course(s) of Study
Descriptions of Field Experiences, Student Teaching and Internships
Explanation of How and Why The Program May Vary From the Published
Georgia Standards
List of Faculty Responsible for the Program
Number of Candidates in the Program
Post Baccalaureate Programs
Evidence for Meeting the Georgia 2000 Standards
Standard 1 – Candidate Skills, Knowledge, and Dispositions
Standard 2 – Program Assessment and Unit Capacity
Standard 3 – Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
Standard 7 – Georgia-Specific Requirements for Units and Programs
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
ii
Standard 8 – Content Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs
Required Appendices
A. Assessment instruments referenced in response to Standard 2.
B. Course syllabi for all courses referenced in responses to Standards 7 and 8.
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
iii
PSC PROGRAM REPORTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH ON-SITE
CONTINUING REVIEWS
Kennesaw State University
Master of Education in Special Education: Interrelated
Master of Education in Special Education: Collaborative Practice
and Interrelated Add-on Program
Advanced
Table of Contents
I
II
III
Cover Sheet ................................................................................................. i
Table of Contents ....................................................................................... iii
Overview of the Program .............................................................................1
III.A Goals and Objectives of the Program ..............................................1
III.B College or Department Responsible for Preparing Candidates .......4
III.C Description of Course of Study........................................................6
III.D Descriptions of Field Experiences, Student Teaching &
Internships .....................................................................................10
III.E Explanation of How & Why the Program may vary
from the Published Georgia Standards ..........................................15
III.F List of Faculty Responsible for the Program .................................16
III.G Number of Candidates in the Program...........................................17
III.H Post-Baccalaureate Program ..........................................................17
IV
Evidence for Meeting Georgia 2000 Standards ........................................18
Standard 1 – Candidate Skills, Knowledge, and Dispositions ...................18
Element 1.1 Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates ......21
Element 1.2 Content Knowledge for Other .............................23
Element 1.3 Pedagogical Content Knowledge ........................23
Element 1.4 Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge ..........26
Element 1.5 Professional Knowledge and Skill for Other ......27
Element 1.6 Dispositions for All Candidates ........................27
Element 1.7 Student Learning for Teacher Candidates ........28
Element 1.8 Student Learning for Other .................................29
Standard 2 – Program Assessment and Unit Capacity...........................29
Element 2.1 Assessment System
......................................29
Element 2.2 Data Collection, analysis, and Evaluation ..............
Element 2.3 Use of Data for Program Improvement .................
Standard 3 – Field Experiences and Clinical Practice ...............................
Element 3.1 Collaboration between Unit and School Partners ....
Element 3.2 Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field
Experiences and Clinical Practice ..........................................
Element 3.3 Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of
KSDs to Help All Students Learn ......................................
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
iv
Standard 7 – Georgia-Specific Requirements for Units and Programs .....
Element 1 Meets Minimum Admissions Requirements ............
Element 2 Knowledge of Reading Methods ..............................
Element 3 Knowledge of the Identification and Education of Children with
Special Needs
Element 4 Proficiency in the Use, Application, and Integration
of
Instructional Technology
..........................................
Element 5 Knowledge of the Relevant Sections of the Georgia Quality Core
Curriculum
Element 6 Knowledge of Professional Ethical Standards and Requirements for
Certification and Employment
Element 7 Field Experiences Appropriate to the Grade Level and Field of
Certification Sought Element
Standard 8 – Content Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs..
Council for Exceptional Children review letter .......................
PRAXIS II data
..........................................
V
Assessment instruments referenced in response to Standard 2.
Candidate Performance Instrument
..........................................
Impact on Student Learning
..........................................
Portfolio Narrative Rubric
..........................................
Special Education Performance Outcomes ....................................
Observation Summary Form
..........................................
EXC 7720 Behavior Project Rubric ..........................................
EXC 7730 Case Study Rubric
..........................................
EXC 7760 Curriculum Plan Rubric ..........................................
EXC 7765 Instructional Plan Rubric ..........................................
EXC 7780 Co-teaching Rubric
..........................................
Admissions Rubric
..........................................
Interim Review Rubric
..........................................
Course syllabi for all courses referenced in responses to Standards 7 and 8.
EXC 7700 Data Based Decision Making.......................................
EXC 7705 Special Education Procedures ......................................
EXC 7715 Nature/Needs
..........................................
EXC 7720 Behavior Strategies
..........................................
EXC 7730 Assessment
..........................................
EXC 7735 Current Issues
..........................................
EXC 7760 Teaching & Learning I
..........................................
EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II ..........................................
EXC 7770 Psychoneurological & Medical ...................................
EXC 7780 Collaborative Practice
..........................................
EXC 7790 Documenting Growth
..........................................
EXC 7970/EXC 7980 Internship/Practicum ..................................
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
1
Overview of the Program:
Master of Education in Special Education: Interrelated
Master of Education in Special Education: Collaborative Practice
and Interrelated Add-on Program
III.
A.
Goals And Objectives Of The Program
The Department of Special Education at Kennesaw State University offers three graduate
level add-on programs: Interrelated Special Education (IRR), English to Teachers of
Other Languages (ESOL) and Preschool/Special Education. Candidates must hold a clear,
renewable Georgia Teaching Certificate in some field (Elementary, Middle Grades,
Secondary content or P-12 for the Interrelated and ESOL add-on programs; Early
Childhood or Special Education for the Preschool/Special Education add-on program) as
a prerequisite to admission. After completion of the add-on programs, candidates may
apply to add the new field to their existing certificate.
In addition, candidates may include the add-on programs in a degree program. The
Department of Special Education offers a Master of Education in Special Education
degree with two tracks: Interrelated and Collaborative Practice.
Candidates completing the Master of Education in Special Education: Interrelated also
fulfill requirements for the Interrelated add-on. This track includes three graduate level
professional sequence courses (Research, Issues and Portfolio) and 27 hours (9 courses)
of teaching field courses in special education and no electives.
The Master of Education in Special Education: Collaborative Practice was developed as
part of the Department of Special Education’s mission in inclusive education. Candidates
completing the Master of Education in Special Education: Collaborative Practice take
two graduate level professional sequence courses (Research, Portfolio) and four
additional professional sequence courses (Assessment, Teaching & Learning I,
Behavioral Strategies, and Collaborative Practices) with the IRR candidates. Candidates
in the Collaborative Practice track may elect to use the ESOL or Preschool/Special
Education add-on programs as their teaching field courses (9 hours) and select 3
additional elective courses in consultation with an advisor. Candidates in the Reading
add-on program housed in another department are also offered this option. Add-on
programs in Gifted and Teacher Support Specialist were also part of the Department of
Special Education, but have been discontinued and will not be addressed.
The Preschool and ESOL add-on programs are included in separate reports. The Master
of Education in Special Education: Interrelated, Master of Education in Special
Education: Collaborative Practice and the Interrelated add-on will be presented together
in this report based on data collected in the professional sequence and teaching field
courses.
The following table highlights the similarities and differences across programs.
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
2
Course Requirements within the Department of Special Education
Courses
IRR
MED in SPE: IRR
MED in SPE: CP
EXC 7700 Research
X
X
EXC 7705 Procedures
X
X
EXC 7715 Nature/Needs
X
X
EXC 7720 Behavior
X
X
X
EXC 7730 Assessment
X
X
X
EXC 7735 Issues
X
EXC 7760 T & L I
X
X
X
EXC 7765 T & L II
X
X
EXC 7770 Medical
X
X
EXC 7780 Collaborative
X
X
X
EXC 7790 Portfolio
X
X
EXC 7970/7980 Internship
X
X
ESOL Teaching field (9 hours)
X
Preschool Teaching field (9)
X
Electives (9 hours)
X
Conceptual Framework: Collaborative Development of Expertise
in Teaching and Learning
Kennesaw State University Professional Teacher Education Unit’s conceptual
framework for the preparation of teachers is based on the Collaborative
Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning. This framework succinctly
captures the essence of the university's deep commitment to university-wide and
university-school collaboration in the preparation of teachers. The Kennesaw State
University Professional Teacher Education Unit (KSU-PTEU) is committed to
developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as
teachers and leaders who possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate
high levels of learning in all of their students through effective, research-based
practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance the structures that support all
learning. Performance outcomes demonstrating expertise in subject matter, expertise
as facilitators of teaching and learning and expertise as collaborative professionals
are clearly defined by the Professional Teacher Education Unit within the
Conceptual Framework.
The KSU-PTEU fosters the development of candidates as they progress through stages of growth
from novice (level 1) to proficient (level 2) to expert (level 3) and leader (level 4). Within the
PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued development, not an
end-state. The Department of Special Education utilizes a developmental framework for the
graduate special education program based on the the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)
Common Core Standards and the KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework outcomes :
1 Subject matter experts,
2 Facilitators of teaching and learning, and
3 Collaborative professionals (see chart p. ) .
As subject matter experts (KSU-PTEU 1), candidates know the subjects they teach and how to
teach those subjects to students, and as special educator subject matter experts, candidates
demonstrate mastery of the CEC Common Core and Generalized Curriculum standards.
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
3
Candidates are expected to be knowledgeable of special education policies and procedures (CEC
1), characteristics and needs of students with disabilities (CEC 2, 3, 6) and methods of inquiry and
curriculum differentiation (CEC 7) to support students with disabilities in the general education
curriculum in collaboration with general education teachers with specific subject matter expertise.
Faculty implement constructivist and behaviorist approaches within graduate classes to model
the centrality of expertise as a facilitator of teaching and learning. Candidates are guided
through learning activities, self-evaluation and reflection on their practice, and extension of these
activities to their teaching practice. Teaching and learning are entwined and only through the
implementation of validated practices can all students develop their own mental models or
schema and reach high levels of learning. In that way, candidates are facilitators of the teaching
and learning process (KSU-PTEU 2), committed to students, and responsible for managing and
monitoring student learning. Special education teachers must possess the skills and knowledge to
create environments and learning experiences that engage students in active learning and
authentic achievement and constantly assess and use results for improvement of student learning.
Candidates are expected to demonstrate knowledge and mastery of research-based practices. In
the role of facilitators of teaching and learning, teachers guide, motivate, evaluate, instruct and
advise students. Their classroom practices reflect a repertoire of teacher and learner centered
methods, which they should be able to implement or adapt in response to changes in the
environment and student needs. The awareness of individual differences, knowledge of when and
how to adjust instruction, skill in creating positive learning environments, and mastery of
formative and summative assessment are essential outcomes of the graduate special education
experience (CEC 4, 6, 8, 9). Field experience observations are recorded on the Special Education
Performance Outcomes (SEPO), which is aligned with the KSU-PTEU, the University System of
Georgia requirements (which are based on National Board for Professional Teacher Standards NBPTS), PRAXIS II and CEC standards. KSU field experience supervisors provide coaching
and feedback to assist candidates in refining their practice in the field to meet the needs of all
students.
Finally, the PTEU recognizes, values and demonstrates collaborative practices across the
college and university and extends collaboration to the community-at-large. Through this
collaboration with professionals in the university, the public and private schools, parents and
other professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of assisting Georgia schools in
bringing all students to high levels of learning. Special education graduate candidates meet more
than the academic requirements of the graduate degree program. Candidates are expected to be
collaborative professionals (KSU-PTEU 3).and think systematically about their practice, learn
from experience, and serve as members of learning communities. Professionals are enthusiastic
about their work and positively influence colleagues and students. They are aware that
becoming a better teacher requires a commitment to ownership of the success of all students, use
of data based decision making strategies to maximize impact on student learning, currency in
subject matter knowledge, and continual assessment of their own strengths and areas of need as
facilitators of learning through self-reflection. They take responsibility in their schools for
curriculum initiatives, parental involvement, and collaboration with all constituents. In the
classroom and in all school matters, their relations with students, parents and colleagues show
regard for human dignity. As professionals, KSU candidates are expected to continually seek
ways to improve learning experiences for the students they teach. Candidates are also expected
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
4
to be lifelong learners, participating in learning communities to inform their teaching practice.
Collaborating with professional colleagues, participating in the activities of professional
associations, engaging in self-evaluation, and working with members of the community served
by their schools contribute to their effectiveness as professionals in facilitating student learning
(CEC 9, 10).
B.
College Or Department Responsible For Preparing Candidates
The Master of Education in Special Education is housed in the Department of Special Education.
The Department of Special Education is one of four departments housed in the Bagwell College
of Education. The Department offers the Master of Education in Special Education, the state
required (HB 671) undergraduate Education of Exceptional Students course, and graduate level
add-on programs in Interrelated Special Education, Preschool Special Education, Gifted, English
to Speakers of Other Languages, and Teacher Support Specialist.
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
5
Organizational Structure of the Professional Teacher Education Unit
Kennesaw State University
Dean
Bagwell College of Education
Teacher Education Council
Elementary
&
Early Childhood
Education (P-5)
Middle Grades
Education (4-8)
Secondary
Education (7-12)
Initial
Initial
English Educ.
Initial
(B.S.)
(B.S.)
(College of
Humanities and
Social Sci.)
Adv.
Adv.
(M.Ed
in
ECE)
(M.Ed. in
Adol.
Educ.)
Math Educ.
(College of Sci.
& Math.)
Science
Education
Endorse
-ment
Reading
P-12
Educational
Leadership
Adv.
(M.Ed in
SPE)
Adv.
(M.Ed in
EDL.)
Art Educ.
(School of
the Arts)
Health
Phys.
Educ.
Center for Field
Experiences and
Partnerships (CFEP)
(College of
Health
&
Human
Services)
Foreign
Lang.
Social
Science Educ.
(College of
Humanities
& Soc. Sci.)
Music
Education
Cobb Education
Consortium (CEC)
Educational Technology
Center (EdTech)
&
Endorsements:
IRR
ESOL
Professional Teacher Education Faculty
Endorsement
Leadership
Pre-School
(School of
the Arts)
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
Academic
Support
Initial
(College of Sci.
& Math.)
(College of
Humanities &
Soc. Sci.)
Special
Education
ConEd
*
Teacher Education
Advisement Center
(TEAC)
Teacher Resource and
Activity Center (TRAC)
6
Faculty members in the Department of Special Education teach all courses for the
Interrelated Special Education and Master of Education in Special Education:
Interrelated degree. Candidate advisement is coordinated by the Department Chair, with
full-time faculty each responsible for a cohort of candidates.
Faculty members from the Department of Foreign Languages and Department of
English (College of Humanities and Social Sciences) support the ESOL add-on courses.
Faculty members from the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education
provide support for the Preschool/Special Education courses.
The KSU 2002-2003 Program Review rated the quality of faculty supporting the M.Ed.
in Special Education as very strong (exemplary). There are five full-time tenure-track
faculty positions and a department chair. All faculty hold a Ph.D. in an appropriate field
and have public school experience as a special educator. There is a balance in faculty
specializations to support courses in the program. Faculty are involved in professional
development opportunities to remain up-to-date for program delivery and they provide
leadership in professional service at the department, college, university, state and
national level. The involvement of Special Education faculty in grant, contract, service
and collaborative relationships in schools is reflective of KSU’s strong emphasis on
applied scholarship using Boyer’s (1990) model. In addition to the full-time tenure-track
faculty, four part-time faculty members provide support for field experience supervision
and instruction. (see III. F. p. )
C. Description Of Course(s) Of Study
The requirements for the Interrelated (IRR) add-on (9 courses) are the core of the Master
of Education in Special Education: Interrelated (12 courses). Three courses differentiate
the IRR add-on from the M.Ed.: EXC 7700 (Teacher Researcher), EXC 7735 (Current
Issues) and EXC 7790 (Documenting Professional Growth). These courses support
candidates in expanding their mastery of the IRR competencies to higher levels by
documenting links to research and extensions of competencies in their teaching practice.
Candidates completing the Master of Education in Special Education: Collaborative
Practice take two graduate level professional sequence courses (Research, Portfolio) and
four additional professional sequence courses (Assessment, Teaching & Learning I,
Behavioral Strategies, and Collaborative Practices) with the IRR candidates. Candidates
in the Collaborative Practice track may elect to use the ESOL or Preschool/Special
Education add-on programs as their teaching field courses (9 hours) and select 3
additional elective courses in consultation with an advisor. Candidates in the Reading
add-on program housed in another department are also offered this option. Add-on
programs in Gifted and Teacher Support Specialist were also part of the Department of
Special Education, but have been discontinued and will not be addressed.
The requirements are listed on the following advisement sheets.
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
7
DEPARTMENT OF
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Interrelated add-on program
ADVISEMENT PLAN
2003 Cohort
NAME
ADVISOR
SOCIAL SECURITY #
ADMISSION DATE
ADDRESS
CURRENT CERTIFICATE
CITY, STATE, ZIP
PHONE
COURSE
Meeting Time
SUMMER 2003
EXC 7715 (3) Nature/Needs: Students
with Mild Disabilities
MW
8 AM – Noon
FALL 2003
EXC 7760 (3) Teaching & Learning I
EXC 7730 (3) Assessment
SPRING 2004
EXC 7765 (3) Teaching & Learning II
EXC 7720 (3) Classroom Behavioral
Strategies
SUMMER 2004
EXC 7705 (3) Special Education
Procedures
EXC 7770 (3) Psychoneurological &
Medical Issues in Special Education
FALL 2004
MW
5 – 8 PM
EXC 7780 (3) Collaborative Practices
SPRING 2005
EXC 7970 (3) Internship
OR EXC
7980 (3) Practicum
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
MW
5 - 8 PM
Tu-Th
8 AM – 4 PM
Tu
5 – 8 PM
Tu
5 – 8 PM
Transfer/
Substitution
Semester
Completed/
Grade
8
DEPARTMENT OF
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Master of Education:
Interrelated
ADVISEMENT PLAN
2003 Cohort
NAME
ADVISOR
SOCIAL SECURITY #
ADMISSION DATE
ADDRESS
CURRENT CERTIFICATE
CITY, STATE, ZIP
PHONE
COURSE
Meeting
Time
SUMMER 2003
EXC 7715 (3) Nature/Needs: Students with Mild
Disabilities
EXC 7700 (3) Teacher Researcher
FALL 2003
EXC 7760 (3) Teaching & Learning I
EXC 7730 (3) Assessment
SPRING 2004
EXC 7765 (3) Teaching & Learning II
EXC 7720 (3) Classroom Behavioral Strategies
SUMMER 2004
EXC 7705 (3) Special Education Procedures
EXC 7770 (3) Psychoneurological & Medical
Issues in Special Education
FALL 2004
EXC 7735 (3) Current Trends & Legal Issues or
Elective (3)
EXC 7780 (3) Collaborative Practices
SPRING 2005
EXC 7970 (3) Internship OR EXC 7980 (3)
Practicum
EXC 7790 (3) Documenting Professional Growth
Portfolio Presentation
MW
8 AM – 4 PM
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
MW
5 – 8 PM
MW
5 - 8 PM
Tu-Th
8 AM – 4 PM
Tu – Th
5 – 8 PM
Tu – Th
5 – 8 PM
Transfer/
Substitution
Semester
Completed/
Grade
9
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL
EDUCATION
Master of Education: Collaborative
Practice
ADVISEMENT PLAN
2003 Cohort
NAME
ADVISOR
KSU #
ADMISSION DATE
ADDRESS
CURRENT CERTIFICATE
CITY, STATE, ZIP
PHONE
COURSE
SUMMER 2003
EXC 7700 (3) Teacher Researcher
Elective (3)
FALL 2003
EXC 7760 (3) Curriculum Development
SPRING 2003
EXC 7720 (3) Classroom Behavioral Strategies
SUMMER 2003
ESOL, Reading or Preschool/Special Education Add-on Institute
(9)
FALL 2003
EXC 7780 (3) Collaborative Practices
SPRING 2004
EXC 7730 (3) Assessment
EXC 7790 (3) Documenting Professional Growth
Portfolio /Thesis Presentation
SUMMER 2004
Elective (6)
STUDENT SIGNATURE
ADVISOR SIGNATURE
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
TRANSFER
COMPLETION
SEM/GRADE
10
D. Descriptions Of Field Experiences, Student Teaching And Internships
Field experiences are embedded within the graduate Special Education Program at
Kennesaw State University (KSU). Many classes are designed with field-based
components to link theory to practice. Graduate candidates are employed full time as
teachers and complete field-based activities for their teaching field and capstone courses
on their job site or they are assigned to a site by the Department. Candidates are strongly
encouraged to participate in experiences (within their school or at other settings) to
broaden their knowledge and awareness of diverse populations.
Developmentally sequenced field experiences The KSU Special Education graduate
program provides candidates multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery and reflect
on practice in their job site or KSU selected field experience site. Candidates take
classes in a cohort model to ensure sequencing of courses and requirements to
promote sequential development and extension of skills. Candidates complete two site
visits at KSU selected observation sites and submit written reflections to document a
range of experiences and the application of components observed to their teaching
practice. Candidates submit videotapes with self-evaluation and reflection, as well as
receive peer and faculty feedback, in EXC 7765 (see p. ) and EXC 7780 (see p. ). The
candidate is responsible for obtaining parental permission for videotaping and
maintaining permission on file to assure confidentiality in compliance with local
school/district policies.
A key element in the KSU program is the field-experience supervision component.
Kennesaw State University faculty and field-experience supervisors schedule
observation visits to monitor progress in development of expertise as facilitators of
teaching and learning using the Special Education Performance Objectives (SEPO)
Form (see p. ) linked to the CEC Common Core Standards and KSU-PTEU
Conceptual Framework outcomes (Subject matter experts, Facilitators of teaching
and learning, and Collaborative professionals). KSU field-experience supervisors
observe candidates in their classrooms at least once each semester and provide written
feedback (Observation Summary Form see p. ) and verbal coaching. The initial on-site
supervision visit during Fall I focuses on baseline data collection and support of
candidates in their access to the general education curriculum and Individual Education
Plan development role. Subsequent field experience supervision visits are linked to
specific course requirements as indicated by the goals column of the following chart.
Field experience supervisors rate candidate performance on the Special Education
Performance Outcomes (SEPO) Form and provide verbal coaching and written feedback
on a separate form (Observation Summary) indicating candidate strengths and areas
needing improvement. Additional supervision visits are scheduled when necessary.
The following chart indicates the developmental focus and goals of observation
activities, videotape evidence of performance, and supervision visits.
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
11
Developmental Field Experience Grid
Semester
Course
Course
Observation/Supervision Goals
Site
visits
Summer I
EXC
7700 *
EXC
7730
EXC
7715
EXC
7760
1
Spring 1
EXC
7720
EXC
7765
Summer
2
Fall 2
EXC
7770
EXC
7780
EXC
7705
EXC
7735*
Spring 2
EXC
7790*
EXC
7970
Observation:
Disabilities/diversity
Baseline & curriculum
development
Subject Matter Experts
Classroom management &
instruction
Facilitators of Teaching &
Learning
Observation –
Disabilities/diversity
Co-teaching & extension of
skills
Collaborative Professionals
Mastery of all competencies
Fall 1
Videotape
# of
observation
visits by
field
supervisor
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
*These courses (EXC 7700, EXC 7735, EXC 7790) are not required for IRR
add-on, therefore field experience components are not included. These
courses provide the advanced learning and research base for the M.Ed.
candidates.
There are four levels of field-based activities embedded in courses:
1)
Site visits for observations of other programs & populations (Subject Matter
Experts);
2)
Application activities (Subject Matter Experts);
3)
Demonstration of skill mastery (Facilitators of Teaching & Learning); &
4)
Capstone internship observations (Subject Matter Experts, Facilitators of
Teaching & Learning, & Collaborative Professionals)
Site visits for observations of other programs and populations are required during
summer semesters to develop candidate skills as Subject Matter Experts in the content
of Special Education characteristics (CEC Standard 2), Learning Differences (CEC
Standard 3), and Language (CEC Standard 6). The observation activity was initially
included as an activity within courses during the academic year. The purpose was to
provide candidates with experience in a wide range of special education delivery
settings and with a wide range of special education populations. The KSU-PTEU
provides a system for candidates to monitor racial and socioeconomic diversity of
experiences. In order to standardize the observation requirement to address the specific
goals of the special education graduate program, the observation activities were moved
to courses during the summer sessions for Summer 2003. Candidates in EXC 7715
Nature/Needs: Students with Mild Disabilities (Summer 1) and EXC 7770
Psychoneurological and Medical Issues in Special Education (Summer 2) observe a
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
12
program for students from a different age level, severity level, disability category,
economic level, racial or cultural background than the students in their teaching site and
reflect on the application of observations to their teaching practice. The sites selected for
candidates during Summer 1 highlight the similarities and differences across categories
(LD, MR, BD), levels of severity, and age level (transition). Summer 2 sites target
greater diversity of category (medical, autism, TBI), age level (infants), and alternative
delivery models. These courses are not required for the Collaborative Practice track.
Candidates for the Collaborative Practice track complete a field experience requirement
in their ESOL or Preschool/Special Education add-on courses .
Application Activities embedded in courses require candidates to apply theory and
skills taught in a particular course to their teaching practice to demonstrate mastery of
special education and academic content as Subject Matter Experts. Candidates submit
a product demonstrating skill mastery. For example, in EXC 7730 Assessment (see p. )
during Fall 1, candidates collect data, plan and implement an evaluation plan to
complete a case study report on a student in their classroom or supervised field
experience site (Assessment CEC Standard 8), while in EXC 7760 Teaching &
Learning I (see p. ) candidates work in cooperative groups on a curriculum mapping
and accommodations project (Planning CEC Standard 7). The KSU course faculty
member is responsible for evaluation of application activities as detailed in course
syllabi and project rubrics. The field experience supervisor notes application and
extensions of course skills demonstrated within classroom practice. These courses are
required for both IRR and Collaborative Practice track candidates.
Demonstration of Skill Mastery includes submission of videotapes and observation by
a Kennesaw State University faculty member or field-experience supervisor as evidence
of skill as a Facilitator of Teaching and Learning (Instruction CEC Standard 4,
Environment CEC Standard 5). For example, during Spring 1 in EXC 7765, Teaching
and Learning II (see p. ), candidates develop and deliver instructional lessons.
Candidates are required to videotape their lesson, and complete a reflective selfevaluation and exchange with a colleague for a peer evaluation. Faculty evaluates the
written lesson plan and the videotape of lesson plan implementation according to course
syllabi and rubrics. That same semester, for EXC 7720, Behavioral Strategies (see p. ),
candidates conduct an action research project to address impact of behavior change
strategies (Environment CEC Standard 5). Faculty evaluates the action research project
according to course syllabi and rubrics. A KSU field-experience supervisor observes and
evaluates mastery of instructional and behavioral management skills on-the-job using
the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO). The Field Experience
Supervisor also completes an Observation Summary Form to provide written feedback
during the post-observation conference. Candidates in the Collaborative Practice track
complete the EXC 7720 requirement. The methods and field experience component of
their ESOL or Preschool/Special Education add-on requirements are substituted for the
EXC 7765 course required for the IRR add-on and degree track.
The capstone internship/practicum experience (EXC 7970/7980 see p. ) requires
candidates to demonstrate mastery of all objectives for the special education graduate
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
13
program (Subject Matter Experts, Facilitators of Teaching & Learning,
Collaborative Professionals, Foundations CEC Standard 1, Professionalism CEC
Standard 9, Collaboration CEC Standard 10) Kennesaw State University faculty and
KSU field-experience supervisors evaluate candidates in a full-time teaching position
(for at least 15 weeks). Candidates employed in a teaching position complete EXC 7970
Internship. Candidates not currently employed in a teaching position must apply for a
supervised field experience site supervised by a KSU cooperating teacher to complete
EXC 7980 Practicum. Evidence of mastery of all competencies on the Special
Education Performance Objectives (SEPO) at a Level 3 (Acceptable) or Level 4
(Target) is required for satisfactory completion of this requirement. The Unit level
Impact on Student Learning Assessment (ISLA) form (see p. ) is also completed
within the capstone Internship course as part of the action research assignment. This
experience also documents mastery of Unit level Candidate Performance Instrument
(CPI) (see p. ). For Collaborative Practice Track candidates, the ISLA and CPI are
integrated in the capstone course (EXC 7790 Documenting Professional Growth see p. )
where all degree candidates complete a portfolio.
Diversity of experience Candidates employed in a teaching position including
responsibility for students with disabilities may complete their field experience for each
course on-the-job. Candidates not meeting this condition must apply each semester for a
field experience site supervised by a KSU cooperating teacher to complete application
activities. The number of contact hours typically involves a minimum of 6 hours per
week for at least 15 weeks to complete required field-based activities for each academic
year semester. Placements are assigned to include diversity in age level, disability
category, severity level, ethnic background and/or socioeconomic status.
Supervision by qualified professionals There are six full-time tenure-track faculty
positions (including the department chair) in the Department of Special Education. All
hold a Ph.D. in an appropriate field. There is a balance in specializations to support
courses in the program. Faculty are involved in professional development and
scholarship activities to remain up-to-date for program delivery. In addition, two parttime faculty members provide support for field experience supervision and instruction.
(see III. F). Faculty members in the ESOL and Preschool/Special Education add-on
program are housed in other departments and provide supervision for their respective
programs.
Supervision of field experiences is a shared responsibility KSU Field Experience
Supervisors are part-time faculty members in the Department of Special Education and
participate in Department retreats and Advisory Board meetings. They meet regularly
with KSU faculty and attend class meetings as appropriate to ensure consistency in
expectations. They have been involved in development and refinement of the SEPO and
Observation Summary form. The Kennesaw State University faculty member teaching
the course is responsible for evaluating products. Rubrics are used to evaluate
observation reports and application activities. Specific skills are targeted for each
supervision visit. Faculty and/or field experience supervisors rate each item on the
Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) during scheduled visits each
semester and provide written feedback (Observation Summary Form) and verbal
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
14
conferencing on areas of strength and areas needing improvement. Candidates requiring
a supervised field experience also receive ratings and feedback from their on-site
supervisor.
The on-site cooperating teacher is the master teacher providing direct daily supervision
for KSU candidates requiring supervised field experience placement sites. The
Kennesaw State University Department of Special Education, KSU Office of
Educational Field Experiences, and the school district jointly select the on-site
cooperating teacher. Requirements include clear renewable T-5 (master’s level) Georgia
teacher certification in the appropriate special education field, at least three years
successful teaching experience with students with disabilities, and the Teacher Support
Specialist (TSS) endorsement or participation in supervision and peer coaching training
provided by KSU. The cooperating teacher’s certification and special education program
should be the same as the program the KSU candidate is completing.
The Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) is the assessment
instrument used for supervision in all field experiences to document
candidate development of expertise in teaching and learning throughout the
program. (see p. ) The emphasis is on evaluation of candidate expertise in
identification of ways to change teaching environments, systems or instructional
behaviors to improve student learning. In 1994, the Behaviorally Anchored
Supervision System (BASS) was used to document candidate mastery of
objectives. The BASS was continuously revised and reviewed until the
Department of Special Education Summer 2002 retreat when a new model was
developed as a result of curriculum mapping of program objectives. The new
instrument, the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) Form, was
field tested during 2002-2003. The reporting system was reorganized during
Summer 2003 to show development over time, and linked to the Council for
Exceptional Children Common Core Standards and the KSU-PTEU conceptual
framework.
Candidates for the IRR and both tracks of the M.Ed. receive a rating on each
performance objective on the SEPO and written feedback on strengths and areas
needing improvement. The field experience supervisors also provide verbal
feedback and suggestions to guide the candidate to a higher level of expertise.
Field experience supervisors use a coaching model to provide assistance. They
model the application of Vgotsky’s peer assistance based on the zone of
proximal development. Supervisors serve as adult peers (Tharp & Gallimore,
1988, 1990) coaching candidates to higher levels of performance. The focus is
on implementing best practice in teaching, learning and management strategies
to maximize student outcomes. To receive a grade of satisfactory in the final
capstone course, EXC 7970/7980, candidates must demonstrate mastery of all
performance objectives at Level 3 (acceptable) or Level 4 (target).
Confidentiality: The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of
1974 (FERPA) regulates access to, and disclosure of student information.
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
15
FERPA serves to assure record access by covered students and their guardians
and to prevent disclosure from those records of personally identifying
information to unprivileged parties without the written consent of affected
students and their guardians. Disclosure of confidential information is NOT to
occur. To protect the confidentiality of student information, no identifying
information is included when KSU candidates present written or oral reports.
Kennesaw State University candidates must obtain informed permission from
parents to videotape for KSU class requirements. School district permission
forms should be used and all returned forms kept on file with the school where
videotaping takes place. KSU candidates should include a statement that
permission forms were completed and a sample permission form with any
videotape material submitted to KSU.
Kennesaw State University candidates completing action research projects or applied
research activities required in a KSU syllabus should confer with the course faculty
member when planning their research. KSU faculty obtain Institutional Review Board
approval for course requirements and activities completed in accordance with course
syllabi to ensure protection of participant rights. In some cases, KSU Institutional
Review Board approval may be necessary for candidate research projects. Information
and forms are available from the Department of Special Education.
Candidates completing the Master of Education in Special Education:
Collaborative Practice track are observed during the core courses. They also
receive field-experience during the ESOL or Preschool/Special Education add-on
courses. As of Spring 2004, there were only 5 candidates enrolled in this option.
Strategies for tracking field experience data are still being refined. The
following chart indicates the plan for observation data collection:
Field Experience Data Collection Plan
Semester
Summer I
Fall I
Course
EXC 7770
EXC 7760
Course
Elective
Elective
Field Experience
Spring I
Summer II
EXC 7730
Add-on
3 courses
EXC 7780
Elective
EXC 7720
EXC 7790
Observation by SPE
Field Experience with
add-on program
Observation by SPE &
video-tape
Observation by SPE
Fall II
Spring II
Observation by SPE
(see course syllabi p. )
E.
Explanation Of How And Why The Program May Vary From The
Published Georgia Standards
Not Applicable.
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
16
F.
List Of Faculty Responsible For The M.Ed. in Special Education
Programs
There are five full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty positions and a Department Chair
position to support the M.Ed. in Special Education and Interrelated add-on programs.
All faculty hold a Ph.D. in an appropriate field and have public school experience as a
special educator. In addition to the full-time tenure-track faculty, part-time faculty
members provide support for field experience supervision and instruction. During
Spring 2004, there were two part-time supervisors and one part-time faculty member for
graduate instruction.
Additional part-time faculty (not listed) are used for sections of the undergraduate EXC
3304 Education of Exceptional Students and in support of graduate instruction (support
of development of graduate candidate written expression skills and video-tape
evaluation to assist in triangulating data on skills in facilitating teaching and learning).
Highest
Degree
Rank*
Status**
Yrs
Experience
in Higher
Yrs
Ed
Experience
in P-12 Ed
FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS
Program
Responsibilities
Bessette,
Harriet
Ph.D.
AP
TT
2
9
Assessment,
Teacher As
Researcher, Intro.
To Exceptional
Students
Brown,
Susan
Ph.D.
P
T
21
12
Department Chair
Medical &
Psychoneurological,
Methods
D’Aquanni,
Michaela
Ph.D.
ASP
TT
10
10
Strieker,
Toni
Ph.D.
P
T
20
17
Program
Coordinator
Responsibilities,
Advising,
Curriculum,
Portfolio,
Supervision
Methods, Inclusion
Wallace,
Deborah
Ph.D
P
T
28
4
Name
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
Legal issues,
behavior strategies,
Areas of
Specialization
Other
Qualifications
Co-Teaching;
Teacher
Research;
Assessment &
Evaluation of
Learning
Disabilities;
Curriculum
Learning
Disabilities,
Working with
families,
Literacy
All areas of
disability
Diversity,
Graduate
faculty
Mild disabilities
School
Improvement
Mild
disabilities,
administration
Grants &
contracts
SPA reviewer
Graduate
faculty
Graduate
faculty
17
Advertised
Position
Dirst,
Stephanie
Ph.D
TT
Ed.D.
PT
5
37
Field Experience
Supervision
Fredericks,
Gayle
M.Ed.
PT
5
25
Field Experience
Supervision
Powell,
Michael
Ph.D
PT
21
29
Behavior Strategies
Baugher,
David
MPA
*Key 1:
L - Lecturer
I = Instructor
AP = Assistant Professor
**Key 2:
PT = Part-time
FT = Full-time, temp
Hearing
Impaired,
Administration
Learning
Disabilities,
Behavior
Disorders,
Supervision,
Administration
Behavior
disorders, aba,
action research
Admissions
Advisement
ASP = Associate Professor
P = Professor
SMT = Supervising Master Teacher
TT = Tenure Track
T = Tenured
G. Number Of Candidates In The Program
Spring 2004 Enrollment in M.Ed. Special Education Programs
Master of Education in Special Education (IRR & CP tracks)
Interrelated Add-on program only
Total
H. Post-Baccalaureate Programs
Not Applicable.
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
Director of
Haven
Academy
KSU
Certification
Officer
67
7
74
18
IV.
Evidence for Meeting the Georgia 2000 Standards
Standard 1 – Candidate Skills, Knowledge, and Dispositions
Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school
personnel know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional
knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments
indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.
Alignment of KSU Graduate Proficiencies
With State and National Standards
KSU CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK
Content
OUTCOMES &
PROFICIENCIES
GRADUATE
Outcome 1:
Subject Matter Experts
1.1 Subject matter expert
Pedagogical
Content
Professional
& Pedagogical
K, S
Dispositions
Student
Learning

Knowledge,
Skill, or
Disposition
K
1.2 Understanding of
connections
1.3 Powerful instructional
approaches

K, S

K, S
1.4 Knowledge as
combination of
understanding, skills &
dispositions
Outcome 2:
Facilitators of Learning
2.1 Belief that all students
can learn
2.2 Equitable treatment and
access
2.3 Human development
and learning
2.4 Challenging
environments
2.5 Multiple methods
2.6 Evaluating progress
2.7 Interpreting & reporting
student performance
Outcome 3:
Collaborative Professionals
3.1 Collaboration with
professional partners
3.2 Reflection, research &
scholarship
3.3 Parental and
Community Involvement
3.4 Professional
Development

K, S, D
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs

D




S
K, S, D

K, S









K, S
K, S
K, S
K, D

K, D

D

D
19
SPE Program Alignment to Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) professional organization,
institutional Kennesaw State University Professional Teacher Education Unit (KSU - PTEU) Standards,
Georgia Board of Regents (BoR) standards based on the National Board for Professional Teacher
Standards (NBPTS), Georgia Required Licensure Exam (PRAXIS), and Georgia Professional Standards
Commission (PSC) Interrelated Special Education Standards
CEC
KSU-PTEU
USG -BoR
NBPTS
PRAXIS II
GA PSC IRR
Common
Conceptual NBPTS Core
Exceptional
#20353
Standards
(in addition to
Core
Framework Propositions
Needs
CEC standards)
Standards
Standards
1 Foundations 1 Subject
Knowledge of
Legal and
Matter
Special
Societal Issues
Experts
Education
2
1 Subject
I Teachers
Knowledge of
Understanding
I Characteristics
Development
matter
are
Students
Exceptionalities of BD, LD, MR
&
experts
committed to
VI Early
Characteristics
students and
childhood
of Learners
their learning
3 Individual
1 Subject
I Teachers
Multiple Paths
Understanding
IV Perceptual
Learning
matter
are
to Knowledge
Exceptionalities motor
Differences
experts
committed to
development
students and
Diversity
their learning
4
Instructional
Strategies
1 Expertise
as facilitators
of teaching
& Learning
II Teachers
know the
subjects they
teach and
how to teach
those subjects
to students
Knowledge of
Subject Matter
Delivery of
Services to
Students with
Disabilities
V Reading &
mathematics
difficulties
5 Learning
Environments
& Social
Interactions
2 Expertise
as facilitators
of teaching
& Learning
III Teachers are
responsible for
managing and
monitoring
student learning
Learning
Environment
Delivery of
Services to
Students with
Disabilities
VIII Field
experiences for
levels and
categories
6 Language
1 Subject
matter
experts
7
Instructional
Planning
2 Expertise
as facilitators
of teaching
& Learning
I Teachers are
committed to
students and
their learning
II Teachers
know the
subjects they
teach and
how to teach
those subjects
to students
Knowledge of
Students
Understanding
Exceptionalities
III Language
development,
disorders and
deviations
Instructional
Resources
Delivery of
Services to
Students with
Disabilities
8 Assessment
2 Expertise
as facilitators
of teaching
& Learning
Meaningful
Learning
Social
Development
III Teachers
Assessment
are responsible
for managing
and monitoring
student
learning
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
Understanding
Exceptionalities
II
Psychoeducational
evaluation and
assessment
20
9 Professional
& Ethical
Practice
10
Collaboration
3
Collaborative
professionals
3
Collaborative
professionals
IV Teachers
think
systematically
about their
practice and
learn from
experience
V Teachers
are members
of learning
communities
Reflective
Practice
Contributing to
the Profession
and to Education
Communications
Family
Partnerships
Delivery of
Services to
Students with
Disabilities
Legal and
Societal Issues
Delivery of
Services to
Students with
Disabilities
VII Effective
parent
involvement and
counseling
CEC Standards 1 (Foundations), 2 (Development & Characteristics of Learners), 3
(Individual Learning Differences) and 6 (Communication) are the Content (NCATE
Standard 1.1) standards for special education.
CEC Standards 4 (Instructional Strategies), 5 (learning Environments & Social
Interactions), 7 (Instructional Planning), 8 (Assessment) are the Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (NCATE Standard 1.3) for special education. Mastery of subject matter and
inquiry methods across multiple curriculum areas are also evaluated within Pedagogical
Content Knowledge.
Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills (NCATE Standard 1.4) are
addressed in CEC Standards 9 (Professional & Ethical Practice) and 10 (Collaboration).
Application of these skills is addressed in field experience observations.
Candidate Dispositions (NCATE Standard 1.6) are addressed with individual candidate
reflective activities throughout the program through professionalism and participation
guidelines in course syllabi. Faculty meet to conduct a candidate interim review after
completion of 12 semester hours and 24 semester hours in the program. This form is
used to monitor writing skills and dispositions and determine where intervention is
necessary.
Impact on student learning (NCATE Standard 1.7) is incorporated in assignments in
pedagogical content courses (EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II, EXC 7720 Behavioral
Strategies) and the capstone experience (EXC 7970/7980 Internship/Practicum).
PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs
21
Element 1.1 Content Knowledge (Initial & Advanced)
The Department of Special Education submitted a Program Review folio to the Council for
Exceptional Children to document meeting this standard. The program received notice of
being nationally recognized by CEC (see p. ).
Element 1.1 Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates
Unacceptable
Teacher candidates have
inadequate knowledge of subject
matter that they plan to teach as
shown by their inability to give
examples of important principles
or concepts delineated in
professional, state, and
institutional standards
Acceptable
Teacher candidates know the
subject matter they plan to teach
as shown by their ability to
explain important principles and
concepts delineated in
professional, state, and
institutional standards.
Target
Teacher candidates have in-depth
knowledge of the subject matter
that they plan to teach as
described in professional, state,
and institutional standards. They
demonstrate their knowledge
through inquiry, critical analysis,
and synthesis of the subject.
As a prerequisite for admission to the M.Ed. in Special Education preparation program, graduate
candidates are required to demonstrate content mastery in at least one teaching field as evidenced
by a valid Georgia Teaching Certificate and documentation of completion of coursework in
Human Growth and Development, Education of Exceptional Students, and Teaching of Reading
(KSU 2003-2004 Graduate Catalog p.107). The Department developed the M.Ed. in Special
Education program based on the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Common Core
standards and aligned these with the KSU - PTEU Conceptual Framework, the University
System of Georgia Board of Regents (USG-BoR) National Board for Professional Teacher
Standards (NBPTS) Core Propositions, NBPTS Exceptional Needs Standards, PRAXIS II
(#20353), and the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GA PSC) standards for
Interrelated Special Education (IRR).
Objective examinations are used to assess basic content knowledge and application of special
education content knowledge (CEC 1, 2, 3, 6).
Element 1.1 Content - Special Education Content
Candidates Scoring at Each Level of Performance
Assessment
Foundations
Su 2002 EXC 7705 Ex 1
Su 2002 EXC 7705 Ex 2 (Comp)
Characteristics of Disabilities*
Su 03 EXC 7715 Ex I
Su 03 EXC 7715 Ex 2
Medical*
Su 01 EXC 7770 Ex 1
Su 02 EXC 7770 Ex 1
Su 03 EXC 7770 Ex 1
Neurological *
Su 01 EXC 7770 Ex 2
Su 02 EXC 7770 Ex 2
Su 03 EXC 7770 EX 2
# of
candidates
Unacceptable
<79%
Acceptable 8089%
Target
>90%
71
71
8/11%
14/20%
27/38%
49/69%
36/51%
8/11%
26
26
4/16%
2/8%
7/27%
6/23%
15/58%
18/70%
18
26
23
6%
27%
26%
33%
50%
74%
61%
12%
0%
18
26
23
11%
35%
74%
56%
50%
26%
0%
33%
0%
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
22
*Communication and individual learning differences are embedded in both Characteristics of Disabilities & Medical
exams
Candidates in the Interrelated add-on program and M.Ed. in Special Education programs
demonstrate their academic content subject mastery within pedagogy courses (Teaching &
Learning I, Teaching & Learning II (or add-on methods course) (Program level), in their on-thejob field experience (Program level observations using SEPO), on the Unit level Impact on
Student Learning Assessment (ISLA), and as part of their capstone internship (Unit level CPI)
and portfolio (Unit level Graduate Portfolio Narrative Rubric). (see p. )
Element 1.1 Content – Subject Matter Mastery
Candidates Scoring at Each Level of Performance
Assessment
T&LI
Curriculum
Map
T&LI
Unit Plan
T & L II
DI Lesson
Plan
SEPO #1
Provides
access to rich
curriculum by
successfully
aligning IEP
objectives and
QCC’s with
instruction
and
assessment
SEPO #12
Gives correct
curriculum
content while
teaching.
ISLA # 1.1
Unit Level *
CPI 1.1
Standard
Source/ #
Fa 2002 24
Fa 2002 24
Fa 203 25
Level 1
Unacceptable
0
0
0
Level 2
Unacceptable
2/8%
0
3/12%
Level 3
Acceptable
5/21%
5/21%
6/24%
Level 4
Target
17/71%
19/79%
16/64%
Georgia QCCs are
Mapped out Over a
Year Across all
subjects
Connections between
subject areas are well
thought out to
support an effective
Integrated Unit.
Lesson objective
clearly linked to
grade level QCC
objectives
Objectives and
QCC’s listed and
embedded in the
lesson.
Fa 2002 24
Fa 2002 24
Fa 203 25
0
0
0
2/8%
0
3/12%
5/21%
5/21%
6/24%
17/71%
19/79%
16/64%
SP 2002 20
Fa 2002 25
Sp 2003 27
0
0
6/22%
3/15%
5/20%
2/1%
7/35%
15/60%
13/48%
11/55%
5/20%
9/33%
Sp 2003 17
0
2/12%
3/17%
12/71%
* BASS Content
Coverage
Sp 2003 23*
0
0
5/23%
17/77%
Naturally presents
curriculum content
clearly and
accurately to
students.
Uses broad, current,
and specialized
knowledge of subject
matter and
communicates this
understanding to all
students
Candidate possesses
broad, current and
specialized
Sp 2003 17
0
0
2/12%
15/88%
SP 2003 22
SP 2003 13
0
0
0
0
8/36%
7/54%
14/64%
6/46%
OR
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
23
knowledge of subject
matter and
communicates this
understanding to all
students, and/or
colleagues and
parents.
Unit Level *
CPI 1.2
Candidate possesses
a global
understanding of
connections within
and across disciplines
and applications to
real life and
accurately represents
understanding
through use of
multiple
explanations,
technologies and
strategies.
Unit Level *
Candidate
CPI 1.3
demonstrates a
passion for education
and creates
environments
conducive to the
development of
powerful approaches
to instructional
challenges.
Unit Level *
Candidate teaches or
CPI 1.4
leads in ways that
convey knowledge as
a combination of
skills, dispositions
and beliefsintegrated, flexible,
elaborate & deep.
* CPI data is being collected during Spring 2004. The Portfolio Nnarrative Rubric was used in Spring/Fall 2003.
Element 1.2 Content Knowledge for Other Professional School Personnel (EDL only)
Not applicable
Element 1.3 Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates (Initial & Advanced)
CEC Standards 4 (Instructional Strategies), 5 (Learning Environments & Social Interactions), 7
(Instructional Planning), and 8 (Assessment) are the Pedagogical Content Knowledge for special
education. Mastery of subject matter and inquiry methods across multiple curriculum areas are
also evaluated within Pedagogical Content Knowledge.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
24
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Target
Teacher candidates do not
understand the relationship of
content and pedagogy
delineated in professional,
state, and institutional
standards in a way that helps
that develop learning
experiences that integrate
technology and build on
students’ cultural backgrounds
and knowledge of content so
that students learn.
Teacher candidates have a broad
knowledge of instructional strategies
that draws upon content and
pedagogical knowledge and skills
delineated in professional, state, and
institutional standards to help all
students learn. They facilitate student
learning of the subject matter through
presentation of the content in clear
and meaningful ways and through the
integration of technology.
Teacher candidates reflect a thorough
understanding of pedagogical content
knowledge delineated in professional,
state, and institutional standards. They
have in-depth understanding of the
subject matter that they plan to teach,
allowing them to provide multiple
explanations and instructional strategies
so that all students learn. They present
the content to students in challenging,
clear, and compelling ways and integrate
technology appropriately.
CEC Standard 4 Instructional Strategies Evaluation of written products (lesson plans),
videotape evidence of skill and evaluations of on-the-job performance by KSU field-experience
supervisors are used to assess instructional skills. Triangulation of data from three sources
provides a more complete picture of candidate performance. Data is recorded for each cohort
indicating the number and percentage of candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4
is the target proficiency (90%+ mastery of content) and represents clear, consistent, and
convincing evidence of mastery. Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of mastery
(80-90% mastery of content). Level 1 and 2 represent less than 80% mastery of content and
candidates would be required to document further evidence of mastery before completing their
program. The Unit level Graduate Impact on Student Learning Assessment is also
completed as part of the unit level assessment of this standard.
Assessment
Standard
SEPO # 2
Develops lesson plans using researchbased strategies (Universal Design,
Concept Mapping, Differentiated
Instruction, Multi-level Curriculum)
SEPO # 3
SEPO # 4
SPEO # 10
SEPO # 18
Source/#
Sp 2003 17
<3
Unacceptable
0
3
Acceptable
8/47%
4
Target
9/53%
Or BASS Providing input
Plans the integrated use of technology
Plans for student diversity through
accommodations and modifications for
individual needs.
Sp 2003 23
Sp 2003 17
Sp 2003 17
0
0
0
8/36%
12/71%
13/76%
14/64%
5/29%
4/24%
Or BASS accommodations
Correctly uses a variety of research-based
instructional strategies (direct instruction,
strategy instruction, systematic
prompting, peer mediated learning such
as cooperative learning groups, clas wide
peer tutoring or Peer Assisted Learning
Strategies [PALS], task analysis, and
multiple flexible grouping structures)
Provides manageable positive behavior
supports for all students, consistently
applies rules and consequences, and
models and reinforces appropriate
behavior at all times
Sp 2003 23
Sp 2003 17
0
0
9/41%
13/76%
13/59%
4/24%
Sp 2003 17
0
14/82%
3/18%
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
25
ISLA # 2.2
ISLA # 2.5
ISLA # 2.6
ISLA #2.5
ISLA # 2.6
CPI 2.1 *
CPI 2.2 *
CPI 2.3 *
CPI 2.4 *
CPI 2.5 *
CPI 2.6 *
CPI 2.7 *
T & L II
Lesson **
Rubrics
changed in
2003
Or BASS Positive behavior supports
Treats students equitably and provides
equitable access to the full curriculum by
respecting individual differences and
adjusting practices accordingly
Uses multiple methods to meet goals
articulated for individual students and
class instruction
Monitors student progress with a variety
of evaluation methods
Meets learning goals articulated for
individual students, impacting the
learning of every student
Uses the assessment results to improve
the quality of instruction for every
student
Candidate believes all students can learn
and helps students develop a positive
disposition for learning
Candidate treats students equitably and
provides equitable access to the full
curriculum by respecting individual
differences and adjusting practices
accordingly
Candidate understands human
development and learning and uses this
understanding to create enriching
educational experiences an/or
environments for all students
Candidate creates safe, well-managed,
supportive, inclusive and challenging
learning environments
Candidate uses multiple methods,
technologies, resources, and
organizational arrangements to meet
goals articulated for individual students,
class instruction and the overall school
improvement plan
Candidate monitors student progress with
a variety of formal and informal
evaluation methods and uses results to
improve student learning
Candidate is accountable tomultiple
audiences, accurately interprets student
performance data and communicates
results to multiple audiences in multiple
formats
Lesson objective clearly linked to grade
level QCC objectives
Sp 2003 23
Sp 2003 13
SP 2003 22
0
0
0
6/27%
7/54%
5/23%
16/63%
6/46%
17/67%
Sp 2003 13
SP 2003 22
0
0
7/54%
10/45%
6/46%
12/55%
Sp 2003 13
SP 2003 22
Sp 2003 13
SP 2003 22
0
0
0
0
8/62%
11/50%
7/54%
6/27%
5/38%
11/50%
6/46%
16/63%
Sp 2003 13
SP 2003 22
0
0
8/62%
10/45%
5/38%
12/55%
Sp 2002 20
Fa 2002 25
Sp 2003 27
0
0
6/22%
3/15%
5/20%
2/1%
7/35%
15/60%
13/48%
Lesson objective in behavioral format
with all conditions presented, observable
SP 2003 30
8/27%
13/43%
9/30%
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
26
measurable behaviors as response and
appropriate criteria.
Advanced organizers used
SP 2003 33
6/18%
3/9%
24/73%
Teacher presentation of material includes Sp 2003 33
7/21%
13/39%
13/39%
research-based strategies
Practice and feedback strategies used
SP 2003 33
12/36%
10/30%
8/24%
Mastery learning emphasis
SP 2003 33
13/39%
13/39%
7/21%
Appropriate accommodations indicated
SP 2003 33
12/36%
13/39%
8/24%
for students with disabilities
Post organizer
SP 2003 33
7/21%
13/39%
13/39%
* CPI data is being collected during Spring 2004. The Portfolio Narrative Rubric was used in Spring/Fall 2003.
Element 1.4 Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates
(Initial & Advanced)
Professional knowledge and skills are addressed in CEC Standards 9 (Professional &
Ethical Practice) and 10 (Collaboration). Candidate Dispositions are addressed with
individual candidate reflective activities throughout the program and a candidate interim review
by faculty after completion of 12 semester hours and 24 semester hours in the program. Impact
on student learning is incorporated in assignments in Pedagogical content courses and the
capstone experiences (Internship & Portfolio Presentation).
Unacceptable
Candidates have not
mastered professional and
pedagogical knowledge and
skills delineated in
professional, state, and
institutional standards as
shown in their lack of
knowledge of school, family,
and community contexts or
in their inability to develop
learning experiences that
draw on students’ prior
experiences.
Assessment
SEPO #19
SEPO # 20
SEPO #21
SEPO # 22
Acceptable
Candidates use their
professional and pedagogical
knowledge and skills
delineated in professional,
state and institutional
standards to facilitate
learning. They consider the
school, family, and
community contexts in which
they work and the prior
experiences of students to
develop meaningful learning
experiences.
Target
Candidates reflect a thorough understanding of
professional knowledge and skills delineated in
professional, state, and institutional standards, as
show in their development of meaningful learning
experiences to facilitate student learning for all
students. They reflect on their practice and make
necessary adjustments to enhance student learning.
They know how students learn and how to make
ideas accessible to them. They consider school,
family, and community contexts in connecting
concepts to students’ prior experiences, and
applying the ideas to real-world problems.
Standard
Source/#
<3
Unacceptable
3
Acceptable
4
Target
Effectively manages para
professionals and other support
staff so that thy are effectively
involved in meaningful instruction
Implements correctly a variety of
co-teaching models
Communication, both written and
oral, is clear, concise and
grammatically accurate
Overall appearance and attitude are
positive and indicates respect for
students, parents, and colleagues
SP 2003 17
12/71% * or
not applicable
3/17%
2/12%
SP 2003 17
8/47%
1/6%
SP 2003 17
8/47%* or not
applicable
0
4/24%
13/76%
SP 2003 17
0
3/17%
14/84%
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
27
Or BASS professionalism
SP 2003 23
0
3/14%
19/86%
Candidate collaborates with
colleagues, parents and other
professionals to strengthen school
effectiveness, to advance
knowledge, and to influence policy
and practice
CPI # 3.2 *
Candidate reflects regularly upon
daily practice, and draws upon
experience and the professional
literature to design and conduct
research aimed at improved student
achievement
CPI # 3.3 *
Candidate proactively involves
parents and other members of the
community in support of instruction
and education
CPI # 3.4 *
Candidate engages in on-going
professional development by
joining professional organizations,
participating in conferences,
mentoring new staff
* CPI data is being collected Spring 2004. The Portfolio Narrative Rubric was used in Spring/Fall 2003.
CPI # 3.1 *
Element 1.5 Professional Knowledge and Skills for Other School Personnel (EDL only) Not
applicable.
Element 1.6 Dispositions for All Candidates (All)
Unacceptable
Candidates are not familiar with
professional dispositions delineated
in professional, state, and
institutional standards. They do not
model these dispositions in their
work with students, families, and
communities.
Acceptable
Candidates are familiar with the
dispositions expected of
professionals. Their work with
students, families, and communities
reflects the dispositions delineated in
professional, state, and institutional
standards.
Target
Candidates’ work with students,
families, and communities reflects
the dispositions expected of
professional educators as delineated
in professional, state, and
institutional standards. Candidates
recognize their own dispositions
may need to be adjusted and are able
to develop plans to do so.
Candidates are informed of dispositions expected in the program in an initial orientation session.
Expected dispositions and professional standards (Council for Exceptional Children & Georgia
Professional Standards) are highlighted in course syllabi and are included in course requirement
evaluation. Candidates receive copies of the Candidate Interim Review Rubric. Faculty
(including field experience supervision faculty) meet as a team and complete the Candidate
Interim Review Rubric for each cohort at the completion of twelve and twenty-four semester
hours. Evaluation The rubric was field tested during Fall 2003, and the 2003 Summer Cohort
was scheduled for review in January, 2004.
Field Experience Rating of Candidate Dispositions
Assessment
Standard
Source #
SEPO # 22
Overall
SP 2003
17
Level 1/ Level 2
Not Acceptable
0
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Level 3
Acceptable
3/17%
Level 4
Target
14/83%
28
appearance &
attitude are
positive and
indicate respect
for others
Or
BASS
Professionalism
Sp 2003
23
0
3/14%
19/86%
Element 1.7 Student Learning for Teacher Candidates (Initial & Advanced)
Unacceptable
Teacher candidates do not accurately
assess student learning or develop
learning experiences based on
students’ developmental levels or
prior experience.
Acceptable
Teacher candidates focus on student
learning as shown in their
assessment of student learning, use
of assessments in instruction, and
development of meaningful learning
experiences for students based on
their developmental level and prior
experience.
Target
Teacher candidates accurately assess
and analyze student learning, make
appropriate adjustments to
instruction, monitor student learning,
and have a positive effect on
learning for all students.
Candidates are evaluated on Impact on Student Learning using the KSU -PTEU Unit level ISLA
in EXC 7720 Behavioral Strategies, EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II and EXC 7970/7980
Internship/Practicum).
Impact on Student Learning Data
Assessment
Standard
ISLA Subject
Matter Expert
(CPI 1.1)
Uses broad, current, and specialized
knowledge of subject matter and
communicates this understanding to all
students
Treats students equitably and provides
equitable access to the full curriculum
by respecting individual differences and
adjusting practices accordingly.
Uses multiple methods to meet goals
articulated for individual students and
class instruction
ISLA
Facilitator of
Learning
(CPI 2.2)
ISLA
Facilitator of
Learning
(CPI 2.5)
ISLA
Facilitator of
Learning
(CPI 2.6)
ISLA
Facilitator of
Learning
(CPI 2.5)
ISLA
Facilitator of
Learning
(CPI 2.6)
Source/#
SP 2003 13
<3
Unacceptable
0
3
Acceptable
7/54%
4
Target
6/46%
SP 2003 13
0
7/54%
6/46%
SP 2003 13
0
7/54%
6/46%
Monitors student progress with a
variety of evaluation methods
SP 2003 13
0
6/46%
7/54%
Meets learning goals articulated for
individual students, impacting the
learning of every student
SP 2003 13
0
7/54%
6/46%
Uses the assessment results to improve
the quality of instruction for every
student
SP 2003 13
0
8/62%
5/38%
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
29
ISLA
Collaborative
Professional
(CPI 3.2)
Reflects regularly and draws on
experience aimed at improved student
achievement
SP 2003 13
0
5/38%
8/62%
Element 1.8 Student Learning for Other Professional School Personnel (EDL only) Not
applicable
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
30
Standard 2 – Program Assessment and Unit Capacity
Element 2.1 Assessment System
The Candidate Performance Instrument (CPI), Portfolio Narrative Analysis, and Impact on
Student Learning Assessment (ISLA) are part of the Unit level assessment. The following chart
highlights the required unit level data for graduate programs.
REQUIRED GRADUATE DATA – Fall 2003
In What
Course?
What is
It?
Where
Do I Find
Printable
Copies
I-Drive
and
CFEP’s
website
Who
Completes It?
Submitted
Online?
Submitted
in Hard
Copy?
Where
does It Go?
When is It
Completed?
When
is It
Due?
Portfolio
class
CPI
Professor &
Candidate
Yes
No
*Electronic
submission
End of
Portfolio
class
Last
Day
of
Finals
Portfolio
class
Graduate
Portfolio
Narrative
Rubric
I-Drive
and
CFEP’s
website
Professor
completes
rubric
Yes
No
*Electronic
submission
By end of
Semester
Last
Day
of
Finals
EDUC/EDL/
EECE/EXC
and/or
Content
course
Impact on
Student
Learning
Analysis
Rubric
I-Drive
and
CFEP’s
website
Yes
No
*Electronic
submission
By end of
Semester
Last
Day
of
Finals
Portfolio
class
Diversity
Survey
Online
Professor
completes
Rubric
*Recommend
that candidate
also complete
rubric as part
of narrative
Candidate
Yes
No
*Electronic
submission
By end of
Semester
Last
Day
of
Finals
*Electronic submission for forms can be accessed at www.kennesaw.edu/education Click on “PTEU
Data System.” Then, after logging in, click on “Forms.” Enter candidate’s SSN.
The special education graduate program assessment system includes an external component
for program evaluation and an internal component for individual candidate assessment. A
continuous data collection model is used to support data based decision making on program
evaluation and individual candidate progress.
The external component includes PRAXIS II data (see p.); surveys of candidates, graduates and
employers (see sample results p. ); KSU Review; Department of Special Education Advisory
Board review; and CEC external accreditation review (see p. ).
Internal candidate assessment includes data collected on individual candidates at the four
decision points beginning with (1) the admission rubric (see p. ), (2) 12 hour completion interim
review, (3) 24 hour completion interim review (see p. ), and (4) graduation. Cohort advisors
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
31
continuously monitor performance on specific assignments linked to program outcomes and
SEPO data.
Element 2.2 Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation
The special education graduate program assessment system includes an external component for
program evaluation and an internal component for individual candidate assessment. A
continuous data collection model is used to support data based decision making on program
evaluation and individual candidate progress. External evaluation includes PRAXIS II data.
The program has maintained a 100% rate of passage for M. Ed. in Special Education candidates
since 1999 (see p. ). As part of a 2002 Program Review by KSU and forwarded to the USG
Board of Regents, a survey was sent to candidates, graduates and employers. The external
feedback from the 2002 Program Review survey addressed program success in developing
advanced level skills that was evidenced in responses to the survey stem, “Since you enrolled in
KSU have you: Check all that apply” The following chart indicates the number of
candidates/graduates reporting each outcome.
Candidate/Graduate Self-Report of Success after Graduation
N=99
Honors
Candidates
Graduates
10
14
Leadership
Roles
13
19
Promotion
2
9
Additional
Degrees
1
5
Formal
Research
4
1
Action
Research
10
8
Presentations
21
12
Another source of external evaluation is the Department of Special Education Advisory
Board, including faculty and staff from across campus, current candidates and graduates, parent
and consumer organization representatives from the community, and practicing professionals and
administrators from both public and private schools in the community. It meets twice a year and
provides a forum for discussion and feedback to guide program development and program
evaluation.
External accreditation review provides another level of evaluation. The Kennesaw State
University M.Ed. in Special Education and Interrelated program received CEC Accreditation in
1998 based on the CEC General Curriculum Standards. The programs in Learning Disabilities,
Behavior Disorders and Intellectual Disabilities were approved by CEC based on the individual
disability category standards. The NCATE Board of Examiners and the Georgia Professional
Standards Commission (PSC) approved all programs in the Department of Special Education in
2000. The Special Education programs were approved with no weaknesses. The M.Ed. in
Special Education has been nationally recognized by the Council for Exceptional Children in
2004 based on the performance standards (see. p. ).
The Internal assessment system begins with data collected at the point of admission to the
program. Admission requirements are listed in the Graduate Catalog (see Admission Rubric p. )
Interim review of candidate performance begins with the KSU Graduate School office
monitoring course grades. Candidates not meeting standards are issued letters of warning,
probation or dismissal.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
32
Special education faculty discusses candidates’ strengths and areas needing improvement as
appropriate at faculty meetings. Patterns of concern (written expression skills, professionalism,
classroom performance) were identified and an interim review process was developed, beginning
with the 2002 cohort. It is scheduled at the completion of 12 and 24 semester hours using the
Candidate Interim Review Rubric: (see. p.).
The following chart represents the course-based and field-based assessment plan. Items in bold
are unit level assessments. Others are program level assessments only. Data on candidate
performance on key assignments is collected each semester at the program level and includes
faculty reflection on candidate performance and recommendations for program improvement.
Copies of sample assignments at each level (Unacceptable, Acceptable and Target) are kept with
the data in the Department of Special Education office.
M.Ed. in Special Education Candidate Outcomes and Assessment Plan
CEC
CEC Standard
KSU PTEU
1
Foundations/ Philosophy
2
Learners
3
Individual Differences
4
Instructional Strategies
Subject
Matter
Expert
Subject
Matter
Expert
Subject
Matter
Expert
Facilitator of
Learning
5
Learning Environments
6
Language Development
7
Instructional Planning
8
Assessment
9
Professional & Ethical
Practice
Collaborative Practices
10
Facilitator of
Learning
Subject
Matter
Expert
Facilitator of
Learning
Facilitator of
Learning
Collaborative
Professional
Collaborative
Professional
Product
Assessment
7705 exams
Performance
Assessment
7970
SEPO/CPI
7715 exams
7770 exams
7970
SEPO/CPI
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7715 exams
7770 exams
7970
SEPO/CPI
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7765 rubric
7970
SEPO/CPI
7765 Video
7970
SEPO/CPI
7970
SEPO/CPI
7720 rubric
7715 exams
7730 rubric
7760 rubric
7765 rubric
7730 rubric
7705 exams
7780 rubric
7970
SEPO/CPI
7970
SEPO/CPI
7970
SEPO/CPI
7970
SEPO/CPI
7780 Video
Student
Impact
Capstone
Assessment
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7765
ISLA
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7720
ISLA
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7970
ISLA
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
7790 portfolio &
narrative rubric
The following table illustrates the alignment of KSU-PTEU and CEC outcomes with key course
requirements and field experience documentation for successful completion of the IRR program.
Completion of the M.Ed. in Special Education also requires evidence of extension of skills
beyond course requirements.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
33
KSU - PTEU Candidate Performance
Indicators
OUTCOMES & PROFICIENCIES
Outcome 1:
A Subject Matter Expert knows the
subjects they teach and how to teach those
subjects to students.
1.1 Candidate possesses broad, current
and specialized knowledge of subject
matter and communicates this
understanding to colleagues, parents
and students.
1.2 Candidate possesses a global
understanding of connections within
and across disciplines and applications
to real life and accurately represents
understanding through use of multiple
explanations, technologies and
strategies.
1.3 Candidate demonstrates a passion for
education and creates environments
conducive to the development of
powerful approaches to instructional
challenges.
1.4 Candidate teaches or leads in ways
that convey knowledge as a
combination of skills, dispositions and
beliefs-integrated, flexible, elaborate
and deep.
Outcome 2:
A Facilitator of Learning is committed to
students and is responsible for managing
and monitoring student learning.
2.1 Candidate believes that all students can
learn and helps students develop a
positive disposition for learning.
2.2 Candidate treats students equitably
and provides equitable access to the
full curriculum by respecting
individual differences and adjusting
(or assisting teachers in adjusting)
practices accordingly.
2.3 Candidate
understands
human
development and learning and uses
this understanding to create enriching
educational
experiences
and/or
environments for all students.
Council for
Exceptional
Children
Common Core
Standards
Course
Requirement
Field Experience
Documentation
1 Foundations
EXC 7705
Proficiency Exam
SEPO 1
SEPO 12
VII Instructional
Planning
EXC 7760
Curriculum Plan
IV Instructional
Strategies
EXC 7765 Lesson
Plan
SEPO 2
SEPO 3
SEPO 4
SEPO 6
SEPO 8
SEPO 11
SEPO 12
SEPO 2
SEPO 8
IV Instructional
Strategies
EXC 7765 Lesson
Plan
SEPO 5
SEPO 8
II Development and
Characteristics of
Learners
VI Language
III Individual
Learning
Differences
EXC 7765 Lesson
Plan
SEPO 1
SEPO 4
SEPO 17
SEPO 18
SEPO 2
SEPO 4
SEPO 6
SEPO 7
SEPO 9
V Learning
Environments and
Social Interactions
EXC 7720 Behavior
Project
EXC 7765 Lesson
Plan
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
EXC 7760
Curriculum Plan
EXC 7765 Lesson
Plan
SEPO 4
SEPO 9
SEPO 10
34
KSU - PTEU Candidate Performance
Indicators
OUTCOMES & PROFICIENCIES
Council for
Exceptional
Children
Common Core
Standards
Course
Requirement
Field Experience
Documentation
2.4 Candidate creates safe, well-managed,
supportive, inclusive and challenging
learning environments.
V Learning
Environments and
Social Interactions
EXC 7720 Behavior
Plan
2.5 Candidate uses multiple methods,
technologies, resources, and
organizational arrangements to meet
goals articulated for individual
students, class instruction and the
overall school improvement plan.
VII Instructional
Planning
EXC 7760
Curriculum Plan
2.6 Candidate monitors student progress
with a variety of formal and informal
evaluation methods and uses results to
improve student learning.
VIII Assessment
EXC 7765 Lesson
Plan
EXC 7730
Assessment Case
Study
2.7 Candidate is accountable to multiple
audiences, accurately interprets
student performance data and
communicates results to multiple
audiences in multiple formats.
Outcome 3:
A COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL
thinks systematically about her practice,
learns from experience, and is a member of
learning communities.
3.1 Candidate collaborates with
colleagues, parents and other
professionals to strengthen school
effectiveness, to advance knowledge,
and to influence policy and practice.
3.2 Candidate reflects regularly upon
daily practice, and draws upon
experience and the professional
literature to design and conduct
research aimed at improved student
achievement.
3.3 Candidate proactively involves
parents and other members of the
community in support of instruction
and education.
3.4 Candidate engages in on-going
professional development by joining
VIII Assessment
EXC 7730
Assessment Case
Study
X. Collaboration
EXC 7780 Building
Plan
SEPO 19
SEPO 20
SEPO 21
IX Professional &
Ethical
Practice
EXC 7970/7980
Action Research
Project
SEPO 18
X Collaboration
EXC 7705 Parent
Project
SEPO 19
SEPO 20
IX Professional &
Ethical
EXC 7780 Building
Plan
SEPO 22
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
SEPO 4
SEPO 7
SEPO 11
SEPO 15
SEPO 16
SEPO 17
SEP0 18
SEPO 2
SEPO 3
SEPO 4
SEPO 8
SEPO 10
SEPO 16
SEPO 18
SEPO 5
SEPO 7
SEPO 8
SEPO 13
SEPO 14
SEPO 16
SEPO 18
SEPO 13
SEPO 18
35
KSU - PTEU Candidate Performance
Indicators
OUTCOMES & PROFICIENCIES
professional organizations,
participating in conferences,
mentoring new staff.
Council for
Exceptional
Children
Common Core
Standards
Course
Requirement
Field Experience
Documentation
Practice
Element 2.3 Use of Data for Program Improvement
Program review is an ongoing process built on multiple levels of data collection and
discussions. A major goal of the review has been quality program development, but attention is
also focused on controlled growth. Program growth is controlled by cohort enrollment, and has
leveled off until additional faculty resources are available.
A program review process, initiated by KSU in 2001, serves to provide university wide
feedback for all academic and service units. Completion of the self-study and related survey
developed by the Department provides support for data based decision making at the program
and university level. The program review council supports the department’s self-study
conclusion that the M.Ed. in Special Education is a strong program and should continue to
maximize its potential; however additional resources are needed to support further growth. This
KSU level review is forwarded to the University System of Georgia level.
The program review council highlights the Department of Special Education’s excellent
use of data based decision-making and continuous improvement. The department is committed to
continuous program improvement through formative evaluation and discussion. The relationship
with Advisory Board members and local schools impacts program improvement through regular
meetings addressing the needs of local schools and how to balance quality and the demand for
more teachers. Faculty members are also involved at the state and national level activities such as
the Georgia Professional Standards Commission task force on revision of special education
certification and participation in discussions on special education teacher preparation issues as
part of the executive board of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional
Children (TED).
Faculty meetings include discussions of candidate progress and coordination of program
improvement efforts. A Department of Special Education faculty member serving on the KSUPTEU Conceptual Framework committee developed a survey of candidates, faculty and advisory
board members to address the validity of special education graduate program outcome
assignments. The survey results were used to support the Department’s databased decision
process. Annual faculty retreats are conducted each summer to map out curriculum,
assignments, etc. in response to candidate progress, course evaluations, current best practice
literature, and alignment with changing standards. Summer 2002 featured a curriculum mapping
activity used as a basis for program improvement. Development and field-testing of the Special
Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) form for documenting candidate classroom
performance was a primary goal for 2002-2003. Review of candidate performance data resulted
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
36
in hiring a part-time faculty member and a graduate student assistant to support development of
candidate written expression skills during 2003-2004. Another major emphasis has been
alignment of the portfolio with KSU’s PTEU conceptual framework and outcomes, CEC
standards, USG-BoR standards based on NBPTS, Georgia PSC standards, and the department
mission.
Standard 3 – Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
Candidates in the program participate in field experiences and clinical practice through
which they develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to
help all students learn.
Element 3.1 Collaboration Between Unit and School Partners
Unacceptable
The unit makes decisions
about the nature and
assignment of field
experiences and clinical
practice independently of
the schools or other
agencies hosting them. The
unit’s school partners do
not participate in the
design, delivery, or
evaluation of field
experiences or clinical
practice. Decisions about
the specific placement of
candidates in field
experiences and clinical
practices are solely the
responsibility of the
schools.
Acceptable
The unit, its school
partners, and other
members of the
professional community
design, deliver, and
evaluate field
experiences and clinical
practice to help
candidates develop their
knowledge, skills, and
dispositions. The unit
and its school partners
jointly determine the
specific placement of
student teachers and
interns for other
professional roles to
provide appropriate
learning experiences.
Target
The school and unit share and
integrate resources and expertise to
support candidates’ learning in field
experiences and clinical practice. Both
unit and school-based faculty are
involved in designing, implementing,
and evaluating the unit’s conceptual
framework(s) and the school program;
they each participate in the unit’s and
the school partners’ professional
development activities and
instructional programs for candidates
and for children. The unit and its
school partners jointly determine the
specific placements of student teachers
and interns for other professional roles
to maximize the learning experience
for candidates and P-12 students.
Field experiences are embedded within the graduate Special Education Program at Kennesaw
State University (KSU). Many classes are designed with field-based components to link theory to
practice. Graduate candidates are employed full time as teachers and complete field-based
activities for their teaching field and capstone courses on their job site or unemployed candidates
are assigned to a site by the Department. Candidates are strongly encouraged to participate in
experiences (within their school or at other settings) to broaden their knowledge and awareness
of diverse populations.
The Department of Special Education Advisory Board is an essential element in the collaborative
development of field experience sites and practices. Local school district Directors of Special
Education, principals, teachers, private school representatives, and parents serve as Advisory
Board members. They provide input into field experience models used by the Special Education
programs and they recommend sites for observations.
The KSU Center for Field Experiences and School Partnerships (CFESP) maintains partnership
agreements with local districts. For candidates that are not currently employed, the CFESP works
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
37
with the Department of Special Education to identify appropriate sites and cooperating teachers
for a supervised field experience.
Since most of the candidates are fully employed, the Department maintains contact with
employing districts. KSU field experience supervisors check in with principals when conducting
supervision visits. The Department has developed a relationship with Directors of Special
Education that promotes open communication. Representatives from KSU regularly attend the
Georgia Council for Administrators of Special Education and Georgia Department of Education
Division for Exceptional Students meetings. When a district or the KSU program identifies areas
of need, this open communication provides an opportunity for collaborative efforts to provide
support. KSU has provided extra support and supervision visits for candidates experiencing
difficulty on the job.
Element 3.2 Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiences and
Clinical Practice
Unacceptable
Field experiences are
not linked to the
development of
proficiencies
delineated in
professional, state, and
institutional standards.
Field experiences and
clinical practice do not
reflect the unit’s
conceptual
frameworks(s) and do
not help candidates
develop the
competencies
delineated in
standards. Clinical
practice does not
provide opportunities
to use information
technology to support
teaching and learning.
Clinical practice is not
long or intensive
enough for candidates
to demonstrate their
ability to take full
responsibility for the
roles for which they
are preparing.
Acceptable
Field experiences facilitate
candidates’ development as
professional educators by
providing opportunities for
candidates to observe in
schools and other agencies,
tutor students, assist teachers
or other school personnel,
attend school board meetings,
and participate in educationrelated community events
prior to clinical practice. Both
field experiences and clinical
practice reflect the units’
conceptual framework(s) and
help candidates continue to
develop the content,
professional, and pedagogical
knowledge, skills, and
dispositions delineated in
standards. Clinical practice
allows candidates to use
information technology to
support teaching and learning.
Clinical practice is sufficiently
extensive and intensive for
candidates to demonstrate
proficiencies in the
professional roles for which
they are preparing.
Target
Field experiences allow candidates to
apply and reflect on their content,
professional, and pedagogical
knowledge, skills, and dispositions in
a variety of settings with students and
adults. Both field experiences and
clinical practice extend the unit’s
conceptual framework(s) into
practice through modeling by clinical
faculty and well-designed
opportunities to learn through doing.
During clinical practice, candidate
learning is integrated into the school
program and into teaching practice.
Candidates observe and are observed
by others. They interact with
teachers, college or university
supervisors, and other interns about
their practice regularly and
continually. They reflect on and can
justify their own practice. Candidates
are members of instructional teams in
the school and are active participants
in professional decisions. They are
involved in a variety of school0based
activities directed at the improvement
of teaching and learning, including
the use of information technology.
Candidates collect data on student
learning, analyze them, reflect on
their work, and develop strategies for
improving learning.
A key element in the KSU program is the field-experience supervision component. Kennesaw
State University faculty and field-experience supervisors schedule observation visits to monitor
progress in development of expertise as facilitators of teaching and learning using the
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
38
Special Education Performance Objectives (SEPO) Form (see p. ) linked to the CEC
Common Core Standards and KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework outcomes (Subject
matter experts, Facilitators of teaching and learning, and Collaborative professionals).
KSU field-experience supervisors observe candidates in their classrooms at least once each
semester and provide written feedback (Observation Summary Form see p. ) and verbal
coaching. The initial on-site supervision visit during Fall I focuses on baseline data collection
and support of candidates in their access to the general education curriculum and Individual
Education Plan development role. Subsequent field experience supervision visits are linked to
specific course requirements as indicated by the goals column of the following chart. Field
experience supervisors rate candidate performance on the Special Education Performance
Outcomes (SEPO) Form and provide verbal coaching and written feedback on a separate form
(Observation Summary) indicating candidate strengths and areas needing improvement.
Additional supervision visits are scheduled when necessary.
Candidates are also required to submit video tapes of instruction (EXC 7765) and co-teaching
(EXC 7780) for faculty review. Candidates complete observation visits during summer terms to
provide greater diversity of experience. The following table illustrates the developmental
framework of the field experience component.
Field Experience Component
Semester
Summer I
Fall 1
Spring 1
Summer 2
Course
EXC
7700 *
EXC
7730
EXC
7720
Course
Observation/Supervision Goals
Site
visits
EXC
7715
EXC
7760
EXC
7765
Observation: Disabilities/diversity
1
Baseline & curriculum development
Subject Matter Experts
Classroom management &
instruction
Facilitators of Teaching & Learning
Observation – Disabilities/diversity
Videotape
# of
observation
visits by
field
supervisor
1
2
2
EXC
EXC
1
7770
7705
Fall 2
EXC
Co-teaching & extension of skills
2
1
EXC
7780
Collaborative Professionals
7735*
Spring 2
EXC
Mastery of all competencies
2
EXC
7970
7790*
* Note: EXC 7700, EXC 7735, & EXC 7790 are required for M.Ed. in SPE: IRR candidates only and do not have a
field experience component.
Unacceptable
Criteria for clinical faculty are
not known. Clinical faculty
does not demonstrate the
knowledge and skills expected
of accomplished school
professionals. Clinical faculty
do not provide regular and
continuing support for student
Acceptable
Criteria for clinical faculty
are clear and known to all of
the involved parties. Clinical
faculty are accomplished
school professionals. Clinical
faculty provide regular and
continuing support for
teachers and other interns
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Target
Clinical faculty are
accomplished school
professionals who are jointly
selected by the unit and
partnering schools. Clinical
faculty are selected and
prepared for their roles as
mentors and supervisors and
39
teachers and other interns
through such processes as
observation, conferencing,
group discussion, email, and
the use of other technology.
demonstrate the skills,
knowledge, and dispositions
of highly accomplished
school professionals.
Supervision by qualified professionals There are six full-time tenure-track faculty positions
(including the department chair) in the Department of Special Education. All hold a Ph.D. in an
appropriate field. There is a balance in specializations to support courses in the program. Faculty
are involved in professional development and scholarship activities to remain up-to-date for
program delivery. In addition, two part-time faculty members provide support for field
experience supervision and instruction. (see III. F). Faculty members in the ESOL and
Preschool/Special Education add-on program are housed in other departments and provide
supervision for their respective programs.
Supervision of field experiences is a shared responsibility KSU Field Experience Supervisors
are part-time faculty members in the Department of Special Education and participate in
Department retreats and Advisory Board meetings. They meet regularly with KSU faculty and
attend class meetings as appropriate to ensure consistency in expectations. They have been
involved in development and refinement of the SEPO and Observation Summary form. The
Kennesaw State University faculty member teaching the course is responsible for evaluating
products. Rubrics are used to evaluate observation reports and application activities. Specific
skills are targeted for each supervision visit. Faculty and/or field experience supervisors rate each
item on the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) during scheduled visits each
semester and provide written feedback (Observation Summary Form) and verbal conferencing
on areas of strength and areas needing improvement. Candidates requiring a supervised field
experience also receive ratings and feedback from their on-site supervisor.
Element 3.3 Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of KSDs To Help All
Students Learn
Unacceptable
No entry or exit criteria exist for
candidates in clinical practice.
Assessments used in clinical practice
are not linked to candidate
competencies delineated in
professional, state, and institutional
standards. Assessments do not
examine candidates’ effect on
student learning. Assessments of
candidate performance are not
conducted jointly by candidates, and
college or university and school
faculty. Feedback and coaching
infield experiences and clinical
practice are not evident. Field
experiences and clinical practice do
not provide opportunities for
candidates to develop and
demonstrate knowledge, skills, and
dispositions for helping all students
learn. Candidates do not work with
Acceptable
Entry and exit criteria exist for
candidates in clinical practice.
Assessments used in clinical practice
are linked to candidate competencies
delineated in professional, state, and
institutional standards. Multiple
assessment strategies are used to
evaluate candidates’ performance
and effect on student learning.
Candidates, school faculty, and
college or university faculty jointly
conduct assessments of candidate
performance throughout clinical
practice. Both field experiences and
clinical practice allow time for
reflection and include feedback from
peers and clinical faculty. Field
experiences and clinical practice
provide opportunities for candidates
to develop and demonstrate
knowledge, skills, and dispositions
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Target
Candidates demonstrate mastery of
content areas and pedagogical and
professional knowledge before
admission to and during clinical
practice. Assessments used in
clinical practice indicate that
candidates meet professional, state,
and institutional standards and have
a positive effect on student learning.
Multiple assessments are used by
candidates and clinical faculty to
determine areas that need
improvement and to develop a plan
for improvement. Candidates work
collaboratively with other candidates
and clinical faculty to critique and
reflect on each others’ practice and
their effects on student learning with
the goal of improving practice. Field
experiences and clinical practice
facilitate candidates’ exploration of
40
students with exceptionalities or
with students from diverse ethnic,
racial, gender, and socioeconomic
groups in their field experiences or
clinical practice.
for helping all students learn. All
candidates participate in field
experiences or clinical practice that
include students with
exceptionalities and students from
diverse ethnic, racial, gender, and
socioeconomic groups.
their knowledge, skills, and
dispositions related to al students.
Candidates develop and demonstrate
proficiencies that support learning
by all students as shown in their
work with students with
exceptionalities and those from
diverse, ethnic, racial, gender, and
socioeconomic groups in classrooms
and schools.
Admission to the M.Ed. in Special Education program requires submission of letters of
recommendation addressing candidate success in teaching . The SEPO is used to assess graduate
candidate progress in the field experience component of the M.Ed. in Special Education
program. All competencies are linked to the KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework and to the CEC
Common Core Standards. The form is used as a developmental tool. Candidates are observed at
least once each semester on the SEPO form. Interim review of candidate progress (at the
completion of 12 semester hours and 24 semester hours of coursework) includes review of
performance in field experience setting. Activities embedded in course requirements include self
and peer review of videotapes of instructional lessons (EXC 7765) and co-taught lessons (EXC
7780). Successful completion of the capstone Internship course EXC 7970 requires achieving at
least level 3 (acceptable) on all indicators on the SEPO. Candidate performance is also evaluated
in this course using the Unit level CPI and ISLA.
Standard 7 – Georgia-Specific Requirements for Units and Programs
Element 1 Meets Minimum Admissions Requirements
Candidates admitted to initial certification programs at the baccalaureate level have a minimum grade
point average of 2.5 on a 4.0 scale. Candidates admitted into initial certification programs at the post
baccalaureate level have attained appropriate depth and breadth in both general and content studies,
with a minimum of a bachelor’s degree from a PSC-accepted accredited institution.
KSU 2003-2004 Graduate Catalog (p. 107) M.Ed. program
Requirements for consideration for admission to the M.Ed. in Special Education program
The M. Ed. in Special Education program admissions committee will consider the items
below when making its recommendation to the graduate school regarding an applicant’s
admission to the program. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to take the opportunity
through the items below to make a document their strengths and goals in furthering their
education. All materials must be submitted to be considered for the program.
1. Valid Georgia certificate (clear renewable) in a teaching field
2. A bachelor’s degree with at least a 2.75 GPA (on a scale of 4.0)
3. Official transcripts from all colleges/universities an applicant has attended showing
evidence of a bachelor’s degree with minimum GPA of 2.75 from an accredited
institution
4. Proof of completion of courses in Human Growth & Development, Teaching of
Reading, and Education of Exceptional Students
5. Official GRE scores. No minimum score is required, but the applicant’s GRE scores
will be considered in the review process.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
41
6. Professional résumé documenting education, teaching experience, volunteer, and
service accomplishments, and record of leadership
7. Two letters of recommendation that address applicant’s success in teaching and
ability for success in master’s degree studies
8. A 1-2 page Teaching Experience Essay outlining and reflecting on a significant
teaching event that has personal meaning for you (form available in application
packet)
9. Completed graduate application with application fee
10. Immunization form.
11. A score of at least 550 on the TOEFL is required for all students for whom English is
not the native language. International applicants must have their foreign credentials
evaluated by an independent evaluation service. Course by course evaluations,
equivalence to an accredited US degree or number of years toward completion, and
grade point average equivalents are required.
KSU 2003-2004 Graduate Catalog (p. 112) Add-on programs
Requirements for consideration for admission to the Interrelated, ESOL, Preschool/Special Education addon programs
1.
2.
3.
Baccalaureate degree from an acceptably recognized accredited college or
university.
A minimum undergraduate cumulative grade-point average of 2.5 (on a 4.0 scale).
Clear-renewable Georgia teaching certification (Preschool/Special Education
requires Early Childhood Education or Special Education; ESOL requires any
Teaching Certification.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
42
Element 2 Knowledge of Reading Methods
Candidates in programs in Early Childhood, Middle Grades, English, and the special education fields of
Mental Retardation, Learning Disabilities, Behavior Disorders, Interrelated Special Education and
Interrelated Special Education/Early Childhood have demonstrated competence in the application of
methods of teaching reading to students.
A course in teaching of reading is required as a prerequisite for admission to the M.Ed. in
Special Education program. (KSU 2003-2004 Graduate Catalog, p. 107) Candidates
build on this foundation in EXC 7760 Teaching and Learning I and EXC 7765 Teaching
and Learning II. (see p. )
Element 3 Knowledge of the Identification and Education of Children with Special
Needs
Candidates in all teaching fields, the leadership field of Administration and Supervision, and/or the
service fields of Media Specialist and School counseling have completed five or more quarter hours or
three or more semester hours, or the equivalent, in the identification and education of children who have
special educational needs.
A course in the identification and education of children who have special educational
needs is required as a prerequisite for admission to the M.Ed. in Special Education
program. (KSU 2003-2004 Graduate Catalog, p. 107)
Candidates build on this foundation in all courses within the program.
Element 4 Proficiency in the Use, Application, and Integration of Instructional
Technology
Candidates have demonstrated proficiency in the use, application, and integration of instructional
technology, either by attaining an acceptable score on a PSC-approved test of computer skill competency
or by completing a PSC-approved training course or equivalent.
All candidates in the program hold clear renewable Georgia Teaching Certificates and
have either met this proficiency or are working on this proficiency within their employing
district. The technology requirements within the Master of Education in Special
Education program provide the opportunity for candidates to expand their skills.
On-campus cohorts take classes in a wireless laptop classroom with state-of-the-art
technology. Faculty use department laptop computers and projection systems for
instruction in off-campus sites. Off-campus cohorts utilize school system technology
labs for hands-on activities as needed. In addition to modeling use of technology, faculty
teach and require specific technology competencies within the program.
Technology skill development is addressed by specific requirements embedded within
course requirements. For example, spreadsheet applications and development of graphs
and charts are required as part of the EXC 7720 Behavior Management project,
candidates in EXC 7735 participate in ListServ discussion groups, and PowerPoint
presentations are required in EXC 7970 Internship. Technology accommodations are
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
43
introduced in EXC 7760 Teaching & Learning I, integration of technology in
instructional planning is required in EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II, and hands-on
experience with adaptive/assistive technology is provided in EXC 7770
Psychoneurological and Medical Issues in Special Education.
SEPO 3 Plans the integrated use of technology. (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.2, Facilitator 2.5)
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Technology is neither planned for nor
integrated in the lesson (used as an add on
to the lesson).
Acceptable L-3:
Technology is integrated into the lesson
plan but at the surface level.
Target L-4:
Technology is integrated into the lesson
plan.
SEPO 4 Plans for student diversity through accommodations and modifications for individual needs. (CEC 3,
Subject Matter 2.2, Facilitator 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,2.5)
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
No accommodations or modifications are listed, or
a generic accommodations/modifications checklist
is used with no specific reference to students.
Acceptable L-3:
Accommodations and
modifications are incorporated only
for assignment completion.
Target L-4:
Accommodations and
modifications are incorporated
throughout the entire lesson, during
instruction, as well as for
assignment completion.
Effectively uses technology and adaptive/assistive technology in the lesson and for reinforcement. (CEC 4,
Subject Matter 1.2, Facilitator 2.2)
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Technology is not used during the lesson,
or technology is used as an add-on to the
lesson.
Acceptable L-3:
Technology is integrated into the lesson,
but at the surface level. Used by
teacher or students but not both.
Target L-4:
Technology is integrated into the lesson;
teachers use technology for teaching and
students for learning and completing
assignments.
Element 5 Knowledge of the Relevant Sections of the Georgia Quality Core
Curriculum
Candidates are prepared to implement the appropriate sections of any Georgia mandated curriculum (e.g. Quality
Core Curriculum, QCC) in each relevant content area.
Interrelated Special Education does not have specific QCC's requirements. The KSU Master of
Education in Special Education emphasizes access to the general education curriculum for all
students. Teaching and Learning I addresses curriculum mapping using the Georgia QCC's and
Teaching and Learning II addresses instructional planning using the Georgia QCC's.
Accommodations to provide access for all students to the general education curriculum are
stressed throughout the program. Candidates are evaluated on their skill in meeting these goals in
course assignment rubrics, field experience observation forms and the capstone internship. (See
data included in Element 1.1 pp. )
Element 6 Knowledge of Professional Ethical Standards and Requirements for
Certification and Employment
Candidates are provided with information about professional ethical standards, criminal background check, and
clearance for certification and employment.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
44
Knowledge of professional ethical standards and requirements for certification and
employment are prerequisites for admission to the M.Ed. in Special Education graduate
program. All candidates hold clear renewable Georgia teaching certificates. Ninety-five
percent of the candidates are already fully employed.
Candidates represent Kennesaw State University and are expected to maintain high
standards of personal and professional ethics. The Council for Exceptional Children
(CEC) Code of Ethics and Standards (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm) highlight the
guiding principles for professional practice as a special educator. Candidates also follow
the guidelines for professionalism for Georgia Teachers (http://www.gapsc.com).
Professionalism is emphasized in their classroom, their participation in the graduate
special education program, and with all constituencies (parents, administrators, peers,
faculty).
Course requirements and field experience observations include evaluation of
professionalism and dispositions. Faculty members will conference with candidates not
meeting expectations in this area, and the Candidate Interim Review Process at the end of
12 semester hours and 24 semester hours includes a mandatory conference with the
cohort advisor and/or department chair for candidates not meeting expectations in this
area.
Element 7 Field Experiences Appropriate to the Grade Level and Field of
Certification Sought
Candidates for Early Childhood certification shall complete field experiences in grades PK-K, 1-3, and 4-5.
Candidates for Middle Grades certification shall complete field experiences in grades 4-5 and 6-8. Candidates for
P-12 certification shall complete field experiences in grades PK-K, 1-3, 4-5, 6-8, and 9-12. Candidates for
certification in secondary fields shall complete field experiences in their fields of certification in grades 7-8 and
9-12.
Candidates in the Master of Education in Special Education hold clear renewable Georgia
Teaching Certificates as a prerequisite for admission to the program. Field experiences are
embedded within the graduate Special Education Program at Kennesaw State University (KSU).
Many classes are designed with field-based components to link theory to practice. Ninety-five
percent of graduate candidates are employed full time as teachers and complete field-based
activities for their teaching field and capstone courses on their job site.
Further detail is available in the Council For Exceptional Children Program Review Folio and the
overview in III B of this report (pp. )
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
45
Standard 8 – Content Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs
The following chart shows the alignment of the program with PSC IRR Standards and PRAXIS
II standards for the Interrelated add-on program.
KSU M.Ed. in SPE Content Alignment Matrix
CEC
Common
Core
Standards
1
Foundations
2
Development
&
Characteristics
of Learners
3 Individual
Learning
Differences
4 Instructional
Strategies
KSU-PTEU
Conceptual
Framework
1 Subject
Matter
Experts
1 Subject
matter
experts
1 Subject
matter
experts
1 Expertise
as facilitators
of teaching &
Learning
5 Learning
Environments
& Social
Interactions
2 Expertise
as facilitators
of teaching &
Learning
6 Language
1 Subject
matter
experts
7 Instructional
Planning
2 Expertise
as facilitators
of teaching &
Learning
USG -BoR
NBPTS Core
Propositions
I Teachers
are
committed to
students and
their learning
I Teachers
are
committed to
students and
their learning
II Teachers
know the
subjects they
teach and
how to teach
those
subjects to
students
III Teachers
are
responsible
for managing
and
monitoring
student
learning
I Teachers
are
committed to
students and
their learning
II Teachers
know the
subjects they
teach and
how to teach
those
subjects to
students
NBPTS
Exceptional
Needs
Standards
Knowledge of
Special
Education
Knowledge of
Students
PRAXIS II
#20353
GA PSC IRR
Standards
KSU
course
EXC
7705
Legal and
Societal Issues
Understanding
Exceptionalities
I Characteristics of
BD, LD, MR
VI Early childhood
EXC
7715
EXC
7770
Understanding
Exceptionalities
IV Perceptual
motor
development
EXC
7715
EXC
7770
Delivery of
Services to
Students with
Disabilities
V Reading &
mathematics
difficulties
EXC
7765
Delivery of
Services to
Students with
Disabilities
VIII Field
experiences for
levels and
categories
EXC
7720
Knowledge of
Students
Understanding
Exceptionalities
III Language
development,
disorders and
deviations
EXC
7715
EXC
7770
Instructional
Resources
Delivery of
Services to
Students with
Disabilities
Multiple Paths to
Knowledge
Diversity
Knowledge of
Subject Matter
Meaningful
Learning
Learning
Environment
Social
Development
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
EXC
7760
46
8 Assessment
2 Expertise
as facilitators
of teaching &
Learning
9 Professional
& Ethical
Practice
3
Collaborative
professionals
10
Collaboration
3
Collaborative
professionals
III Teachers
are
responsible
for managing
and
monitoring
student
learning
IV Teachers
think
systematically
about their
practice and
learn from
experience
V Teachers
are members
of learning
communities
Assessment
Understanding
Exceptionalities
Reflective
Practice
Delivery of
Services to
Students with
Disabilities
Legal and
Societal Issues
Contributing to
the Profession
and to
Education
Communications
Family
Partnerships
Delivery of
Services to
Students with
Disabilities
II
Psychoeducational
evaluation and
assessment
All
courses
EXC
7970
VII Effective
parent
involvement and
counseling
PRAXIS II The KSU Candidate pass rate on the PRAXIS II ( and previously the TCT) has
remained above 80% since the program began.
Cohort
Pass
1998 Fall
1998 Spring
1998 Summer
1998 Winter
1999 Fall
1999 Spring
1999 Summer
2000 Fall
2000 Spring
2000 Summer
2001 Bartow
2001 PWT
2001 Fall
2001 Spring
2001 Summer
Total
Fail
16
0
8
4
13
5
5
16
5
4
1
6
2
0
3
88
1998-1999
1998 Summer
1998 Fall
1999 Spring
Total
Pass
1999-2000
1999 Summer
1999 Fall
2000 Spring
Total
Pass
Total Take
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Fail
8
16
5
29
Fail
5
13
5
23
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
16
0
9
4
13
5
5
16
5
4
1
6
2
0
3
89
% Pass
100.0%
0.0%
88.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
98.9%
9
16
5
30
% Pass
88.9%
100.0%
100.0%
96.7%
5
13
5
23
% Pass
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total Take
1
0
0
1
Total Take
0
0
0
0
EXC
7730
All
courses
EXC
7780
47
2000-2001
2000 Summer
2000 Fall
2001 Spring
Total
Pass
2001-2002
2001 Summer
2001 Bartow
2001 PWT
2001 Fall
Total
Pass
Fail
4
16
0
20
Total Take
0
0
0
0
Fail
3
1
6
2
9
4
16
0
20
% Pass
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
3
1
6
2
9
% Pass
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total Take
0
0
0
0
0
The Master of Education in Special Education: Interrelated has been nationally recognized
by the Council for Exceptional Children.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
48
REPORT ON PROGRAM REVIEW DECISION
Initial Review __X_
First Rejoinder ____
Second Rejoinder ____
Institution: Kennesaw State University
Date of Review: October 16-20, 2003
Program(s) Covered by this
Review
Program Type
Award or Degree Level(s)
Interrelated Special Education
Initial teacher licensure in special
education
Master’s
SECTION I.
SPA Decision on Program(s):
(Specifics of decisions on each standard are noted in the second section of this report.)
_X__ Nationally Recognized
____ Not Nationally Recognized (See Comments Section)
_____ Decision Deferred; More Information Required
Standards Met:
C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9
F1, F2, F3
Standards Not Met:
Program meets or exceeds 80% pass rate on state licensure exams: Exempt
Summary of Strengths:
Impressive context statement clarifies the relationship of the program to the unit, local schools, and the community,
shows development of program over time with input from stakeholders from the beginning; it also documents use of
resources to provide quality programming.
A coordinated series of comprehensive, performance-based assessments are conducted throughout the program.
Rubrics are well thought out and individualized for each assessment. Portfolio requirements are well conceived.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
49
Specific plans for improvement are provided based on data collected to date.
Field experiences are developmentally sequenced across the four levels in a unique way.
This appears to be a model program for how to address CEC and NCATE standards with supporting data.
Program report was well organized and well written. Excellent presentation!
Summary of Areas for Improvement:
Other Comments/Concerns:
Directions for Submitting a Rejoinder: A rejoinder should respond to each of the
standards listed as Not Met below. A rejoinder can include greater clarification, new or
additional information, and/or revised information beyond what was in the original
program report. CEC staff will be glad to discuss this with faculty
(margiec@cec.sped.org; 703-264-9484). Submit 4 copies of the rejoinder to NCATE.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
50
SECTION II.
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR EACH STANDARD
Content Standards: All standards are Met. There are clear links between assessments
and the standards. Faculty have planned an appropriate number of assessments that
should provide them with useful data on candidate mastery of the standards.
Decision
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Content Standard
C1. Foundations
C2. Development and Characteristics of Learners
C3. Individual Learning Differences
C4. Instructional Strategies
C5. Learning Environments and Social Interactions
C6. Communication
C7. Instructional Planning
C8. Assessment
C9. Ethics and Professional Practice
C10. Collaboration
Assessment System Standards: All standards are Met. The assessment system
described is comprehensive and well articulated across individual courses and the
program as a whole. The system includes a range of internal and external measures
with appropriate rubrics that provide feedback on the students’ performance and the
program effectiveness. Stakeholders have been actively involved in the development
and implementation of this system and the aggregated data allows the faculty to make
decisions about program improvement.
Decision
Assessment System Standard
Met
A1. Assessments address components of the standard.
Met
A2. Assessments are relevant and consistent with the standard.
Met
A3. Assessments are planned, refined, and implemented by key stakeholders (i.e.,
professional and local community)
Met
A4. Multiple measures (both internal and external) are used and are systematic and
ongoing across components of the program (e.g., content, course work, field
experiences).
Met
A5. The assessment system is clearly delineated and communicated to candidates.
Met
Met
Met
Met
A6. Assessments are credible and rigorous.
A7. The assessment system includes critical decision points.
A8. The assessment data are regularly and systematically compiled, analyzed, and summarized.
A9. Assessment data are used for program improvement.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
51
Field and Clinical Practice Standards: All standards are Met. The program has made
an effort to plan field experiences across four developmental levels with an effort to
address diverse settings even though students are already employed as classroom
teachers.
Decision
Met
Met
Met
Field and Clinical Practice Standard
F1. Developmentally sequenced field experiences
F2. Full range of abilities, ages, types and levels in a variety of settings
F3. Supervised by qualified personnel
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
52
V.
Required Appendices
A. Assessment instruments referenced in response to Standard 2.
UNIT LEVEL
1. Candidate Performance Instrument
2. Impact on Student Learning Assessment
3. Portfolio Narrative Rubric
PROGRAM LEVEL
4. Special Education Performance Outcomes
5. Observation Summary Form
6. EXC 7760 Teaching & Learning I RUBRIC
7. EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II RUBRIC
8. EXC 7720 Behavior Strategies RUBRIC
9. EXC 7780 Collaborative Practice VideoTape RUBRIC
10. EXC 7780 Collaborative Practice BUILDING PLAN RUBRIC
11. EXC 7730 Assessment RUBRIC
12. Admission Rubric
13. Interim Review Rubric
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
53
CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE INSTRUMENT – MASTERS
BAGWELL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
KSU Candidate ________________________
Person completing Performance Rating (Check One)
Degree Program ____________________Date ___________________
___Candidate ___ Faculty ____Peer
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning:
The Kennesaw State University teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers who demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students.
Toward that end, the KSU teacher education community strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring guidance from professionals inside
and outside the university. In tandem with this belief is the understanding that teacher expertise develops along a continuum which includes the stages of
preservice, induction, in-service, and renewal; further, as candidates develop a strong research-based knowledge of content and pedagogy, they develop their
professional expertise in recognizing, facilitating, assessing, and evaluating student learning. Candidates in Advanced Programs develop as teacher leaders by
refining expertise in content knowledge and effective instruction, defining new professional roles and responsibilities, and contributing towards more effective
schools by providing professional support and direction for colleagues, parents, and community members. The graduates of advanced programs, in addition to
being effective classroom teachers, also develop expertise as effective teacher leaders who are self-directed, value a spirit of inquiry, and facilitate learning in all
students.
This evaluation instrument contains expected performance outcomes for graduates of Master’s level programs. KSU expects candidates to continually assess
their own performance and professional growth as part of their professional development. Therefore, whenever an evaluator completes this form, the candidate
should also complete the form. The following levels of performance are to be used in the evaluation of each candidate for each outcome. To determine the
candidate’s level, consider all indicators when determining the level of performance for each outcome. The minimal expected rating for graduates of the
M.Ed. programs is Level 3 for each outcome.
Rating
Level 1
Novice
Level 2
Emerging
Level 3
Advanced
Level 4
Expert
Description
The candidate’s performance offers little or no evidence of achieving the performance expectation. Although there may be occasional points that
vaguely suggest the candidate has achieved the expected outcome, viewed as a whole the candidate’s performance provides little or no evidence of
performance expectations.
The candidate’s performance provides limited evidence that the performance expectation has been met. Performance may occasionally hint at a
higher level of practice but viewed as a whole the candidate’s performance provides limited evidence of performance expectations.
The candidate’s performance provides clear evidence that the performance expectation has been met. Performance may not be as detailed or rich
as Level 4, but overall, there is clear evidence that the candidate has achieved the performance expectations.
The candidate’s performance provides clear, consistent, and convincing evidence that the performance expectation has been met.
Signatures: Candidate_______________________ Faculty ________________________
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Faculty________________________
Date____________
54
Outcome 1: SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS:




L1
L2
L3
L4
L1
L2
L3
L4
Candidate possesses broad, current and specialized knowledge of subject matter and communicates this understanding to all
students, and/or colleagues and parents.
Candidate possesses a global understanding of connections within and across disciplines and applications to real life and
accurately represents understanding through use of multiple explanations, technologies and strategies.
Candidate demonstrates a passion for education and creates environments conducive to the development of powerful approaches
to instructional challenges.
Candidate teaches or leads in ways that convey knowledge as a combination of skills, dispositions and beliefs-integrated,
flexible, elaborate and deep.
Comments
Outcome 2: FACILITATORS OF LEARNING:







Candidate believes that all students can learn and helps students develop a positive disposition for learning.
Candidate treats students equitably and provides equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual differences and
adjusting (or assisting teachers in adjusting) practices accordingly.
Candidate understands human development and learning and uses this understanding to create enriching educational
experiences and/or environments for all students.
Candidate creates safe, well-managed, supportive, inclusive and challenging learning environments.
Candidate uses multiple methods, technologies, resources, and organizational arrangements to meet goals articulated for
individual students, class instruction and the overall school improvement plan.
Candidate monitors student progress with a variety of formal and informal evaluation methods and uses results to improve
student learning.
Candidate is accountable to multiple audiences, accurately interprets student performance data and communicates results to
multiple audiences in multiple formats.
Comments
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
55
Outcome 3. COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONALS:




Candidate collaborates with colleagues, parents and other professionals to strengthen school effectiveness, to advance
knowledge, and to influence policy and practice.
Candidate reflects regularly upon daily practice, and draws upon experience and the professional literature to design
and conduct research aimed at improved student achievement.
Candidate proactively involves parents and other members of the community in support of instruction and education.
Candidate engages in on-going professional development by joining pro-fessional organizations, participating in
conferences, mentoring new staff, etc.
Comments
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
L1
L2
L3
L4
56
GRADUATE
IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING ANALYSIS
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
Bagwell College of Education
Candidate’s Name: ________________________________
Course: ___________________________ Semester: _________
Program: ________________________________________
Evaluator:_____________________________________________
Are you a KSU graduate
If so, what year:_____________
YES
NO
Please indicate the candidate’s rating on each proficiency by checking the appropriate box.
Our use of the phrase “every student” is inclusive of these attributes of multicultural populations: Age, disability, ethnicity, family
structure, gender, geographic region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.
I. Rating
Indicator
1
Little or No Evidence
2
Limited Evidence
3
Clear Evidence
4
Clear, Consistent, and
Convincing Evidence
There is limited evidence of
knowledge
of
subject
matter.
Candidate’s
presentation of content
appears
to
contain
numerous inaccuracies.
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.
J. SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
Uses broad, current, and
specialized knowledge of subject
matter and communicates this
understanding to all students
(1.1)
Ed. Leadership:
Advocates, nurtures, and
sustains a school culture
and instructional program
There is no evidence of
knowledge of subject matter;
unable to give examples of
important principles or concepts.
Ed Leadership: There is
no evidence of
knowledge of school
culture and instructional
program conducive to
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Ed. Leadership: There is
limited evidence of
knowledge of school
Ed. Leadership: There
is clear evidence that
the candidate
promotes the success
Ed. Leadership: There is
clear, consistent, and
convincing evidence of
57
conducive to student
learning and staff
professional growth.
student learning and staff culture and instructional
professional growth.
program conducive to
student learning and staff
professional growth
of all students by
advocating, nurturing,
and sustaining a
knowledge of school
culture and
instructional program
conducive to student
learning and staff
professional growth.
L1
critical analysis and
synthesis of knowledge
allowing candidate
success in knowledge of
school culture and
instructional program
conducive to student
learning and staff
professional growth.
L4
L2
L3
K. FACILITATOR OF LEARNING
Treats students equitably and
provides equitable access to the
full curriculum by respecting
individual differences and
adjusting practices accordingly
(2.2)
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.
L1
L2
(All Graduate Candidates)
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
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.
L3
L4
58
L. FACILITATOR OF LEARNING
M. Rating
Indicator
Uses multiple methods to
meet goals articulated for
individual students and class
instruction (2.5)
Ed. Leadership: Uses multiple
methods to meet goals
articulated for instruction of
all students.
1
Little or No Evidence
The candidate uses
predominantly one form of
instruction, does not
differentiate instruction, and
does not successfully
accommodate the learning
needs of every student
Ed. Leadership: The
candidate does not have
knowledge to effectively
promote various types of
instruction to meet needs of
individual students.
2
Limited Evidence
3
Clear Evidence
4
Clear, Consistent, and
Convincing Evidence
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
There is clear evidence that
the candidate effectively
uses multiple instructional
strategies to differentiate
instruction and successfully
accommodates the learning
needs of every student.
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.
Ed. Leadership: There is
limited evidence that the
candidate effectively
promotes differentiated
instruction to meet needs of
individual students.
Ed. Leadership: There is
clear evidence that the
candidate effectively
promotes differentiated
instruction to meet needs of
individual students.
Ed. Leadership: There is clear,
consistent and convincing
evidence that the candidate
effectively promotes multiple
instructional strategies to
differentiate instruction and
successfully meet the learning
needs of every student.
L3
L4
L2
Monitors student progress
with a variety of evaluation
methods (2.6)
L1
The candidate uses
predominantly one form of
assessment.
(All Graduate Candidates)
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
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
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
59
student.
L2
Meets learning goals
articulated for individual
students, impacting the
learning of every student
(2.5)
L1
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.
(All Graduate Candidates)
student.
L4
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.
L3
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.
L3
L4
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.
L1
Uses the assessment results
to improve the quality of
instruction for every student
(2.6)
(All Graduate Candidates)
In reflecting on his/her
analysis of student learning,
candidate provides no
rationale for why some
activities were more
successful than others.
L2
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.
L2
L4
L1
L3
N. COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL
O. Rating
Indicator
1
Little or No Evidence
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
2
Limited Evidence
3
Clear Evidence
4
Clear, Consistent, and
Convincing Evidence
60
Reflects regularly and draws on
experience aimed at improved
student achievement (3.2)
(All Graduate
Candidates)
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.
L1
L2
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
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.
L4
L3
61
Portfolio Narrative Rubric Form
Graduate Outcomes and Proficiencies
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS: Candidate knows the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to
students.
1.1 Candidate possesses broad, current and specialized knowledge of subject matter and communicates this understanding to all
students, and/or colleagues and parents.
1.2 Candidate possesses a global understanding of connections within and across disciplines and applications to real life and
accurately represents understanding through use of multiple explanations, technologies and strategies.
1.3 Candidate demonstrates a passion for education and creates environments conducive to the development of powerful
approaches to instructional challenges.
1.4 Candidate teaches or leads in ways that convey knowledge as a combination of skills, dispositions and beliefs-integrated,
flexible, elaborate & deep.
FACILITATORS OF LEARNING: Candidate is committed to students and is responsible for managing and
monitoring student learning.
2.1 Candidate believes that all students can learn and helps students develop a positive disposition for learning.
2.2 Candidate treats students equitably and provides equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual differences
and adjusting (or assisting teachers in adjusting) practices accordingly.
2.3 Candidate understands human development and learning and uses this understanding to create enriching educational
experiences and/or environments for all students.
2.4 Candidate creates safe, well-managed, supportive, inclusive and challenging learning environments.
2.5 Candidate uses multiple methods, technologies, resources, and organizational arrangements to meet goals articulated for
individual students, class instruction and the overall school improvement plan.
2.6 Candidate monitors student progress with a variety of formal and informal evaluation methods and uses results to improve
student learning.
2.7 Candidate is accountable to multiple audiences, accurately interprets student performance data and communicates results to
multiple audiences in multiple formats.
COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONALS: Candidate thinks systematically about their practice, learns from experience,
and is a member of learning communities.
3.1 Candidate collaborates with colleagues, parents and other professionals to strengthen school effectiveness, to advance
knowledge, and to influence policy and practice.
3.2 Candidate reflects regularly upon daily practice, and draws upon experience and the professional literature to design and
conduct research aimed at improved student achievement.
3.3 Candidate proactively involves parents and other members of the community in support of instruction and education.
3.4 Candidate engages in on-going professional development by joining professional organizations, participating in conferences,
mentoring new staff.
RATING SCALE
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.
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.
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
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
62
more rich in detail than others. Through writing, candidate makes clear connections between evidence presented
and demonstration of expertise in the outcome.
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 in rich detail. Through writing, candidate makes clear, consistent and convincing connections between evidence
presented and demonstration of expertise in the outcome.
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT (circle one) L1
L2
L3
L4
FACILITATOR OF LEARNING (circle one) L1
L2
L3
L4
L3
L4
COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL (circle one) L1
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
L2
63
GRADUATE ADMISSIONS CRITERIA REVIEW SHEET
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
STUDENT NAME:
PHONE:
CONCENTRATION:
Performance Element
ADDRESS:
EMAIL:
Meets
Provisional
PROGRAM
Does Not Meet
1. Baccalaureate degree from
accredited institution
Documented
Not Documented
Not Documented
2. Undergraduate cumulative
grade point average of 2.75/4.00
Documented
2.5 – 2.75/4.00
Not Documented
3. Minimum score of 800 (Verbal &
Quantitative combined) on GRE
Documented
700-800 GRE
Not Documented
4. Professional Resume
Documents education,
teaching experience,
service and leadership
Meets Partial Criteria
5. Two Letters of Recommendation
Addresses applicant’s
success in teaching; ability
for success in M.Ed. program
Addresses teaching
Tepid review of
success or ability for
applicant’s abilities/only
success in M.Ed. program one letter submitted
6. Current Georgia Certificate
Documented
Pending
Not Documented
7. Proof of Completion of Courses
in Human Growth & Development,
Teaching Reading, and Education
HGD ___
RDG ___
EXC ___
HGD ___
RDG ___
EXC ___
HGD ___
RDG ___
EXC ___
Of Exceptional Students
All 3 Documented
Lacks critical data
2-3 Documented
0-1 Documented
8. M.Ed. Personal Statement

Training, Interests,
Needs, Concerns (a)
Contains a sharp focus and
a clearly identifiable
statement of purpose
Unengaging, poorly
focused statement
Lack of purpose, focus,
major elements

Nature/Quality of
Experiences (b)
Ideas are engaging,
Insightful, illustrate
Understanding of self

Goals/Issues
To Address (c)
Major points are supported
by strong examples.

Style
Writing is clear, inspiring,
and done with a flair.
Writing is fair, not
Particularly engaging
Writing lacks energy, is
narrow, unimaginative

Organization
Contains clearly developed
paragraphs in a logical
sequence.
Contains mostly welldeveloped paragraphs;
Unclear in places
Disorganized and difficult
to follow

Mechanics
No errors
1-3 distracting errors
Some minor difficulties
Many major errors
Ideas are good but
obscured by unclear
writing or lack of
Information
Superficial Support
Ideas Undeveloped,
Random thoughts
Major Points Unsupported
Accept in Full Standing _____
Accept Provisionally ______
Reject _______
Reason for Rejection: _________________________________________________________________________
Decision Approved By: __________________________________________ Date: _______________________
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
64
GRADUATE ADMISSIONS CRITERIA REVIEW SHEET
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
STUDENT NAME:
EMAIL:
Performance Element
ADDRESS:
PROGRAM CONCENTRATION:
Meets
Provisional
PHONE:
DATE:
Does Not Meet
1. Baccalaureate degree from
accredited institution
Documented
Not Documented
Not Documented
2. Undergraduate cumulative
grade point average of 2.75/4.00
Documented
2.5 – 2.75/4.00
Not Documented
3. Minimum score of 800 (Verbal &
Quantitative combined) on GRE
Documented
700-800 GRE
Not Documented
4. Professional Resume
Documents education,
teaching experience,
service and leadership
Meets Partial Criteria
Lacks critical data
5. Two Letters of Recommendation
Addresses applicant’s
success in teaching; ability
for success in M.Ed. program
Addresses teaching
Tepid review of
success or ability for
applicant’s abilities/only
success in M.Ed. program one letter submitted
6. Current Georgia Certificate
Documented
Pending
7. Proof of Completion of Courses
in Human Growth & Development,
Teaching Reading, and Education
Of Exceptional Students
HGD ___
RDG ___
EXC ___
HGD ___
RDG ___
EXC ___
EXC ___
All 3 Documented
2-3 Documented
Contains a sharp focus and
a clearly identifiable
statement of purpose
Unengaging, poorly
focused statement
Not Documented
HGD ___
RDG ___
0-1 Documented
8. M.Ed. Personal Statement

Training, Interests,
Needs, Concerns (a)
Lack of purpose, focus,
major elements

Nature/Quality of
Experiences (b)
Ideas are engaging,
Insightful, illustrate
Understanding of self

Goals/Issues
To Address (c)
Major points are supported
by strong examples.

Style
Writing is clear, inspiring,
and done with a flair.
Writing is fair, not
Particularly engaging
Writing lacks energy, is
narrow, unimaginative

Organization
Contains clearly developed
paragraphs in a logical
sequence.
Contains mostly welldeveloped paragraphs;
Unclear in places
Disorganized and difficult
to follow

Mechanics
No errors
1-3 distracting errors
Some minor difficulties
Many major errors
Ideas are good but
obscured by unclear
writing or lack of
Information
Superficial Support
Ideas Undeveloped,
Random thoughts
Major Points Unsupported
Accept in Full Standing _____
Accept Provisionally ______
Reject _______
Reason for Rejection: _________________________________________________________________________
Decision Approved By: __________________________________________ Date: _______________________
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
65
CANDIDATE INTERIM REVIEW RUBRIC
Candidate Name:
Standards
Candidate’s written expression
is well organized, professional,
and free of mechanical errors.
Name of Reviewer:
L1 - L2
L3
Two or more faculty members have
While the quality of written
voiced concerns over the candidate’s work expression is somewhat inconsistent,
in one or more areas of written expression. it is always acceptable.
Candidate is highly professional
in their approach to their
graduate work.
Candidate is habitually late for class.
Candidate does not attend to class
discussion nor activities.
Candidate consistently comes to
class, is punctual and attends to
topics
of
discussion
and
activities.
Date:
L4
The quality of the candidate’s
written expression is consistently
well organized, professional and free
of errors.
Candidate consistently comes to
class, is punctual and attends to
topics
of
discussion
and
activities.
Candidate is not respectful of the ideas of
others.
Candidate is respectful of colleagues
and peers.
Candidate is respectful of colleagues
and peers.
Candidate does not listen and
appropriately respond to feedback and
dialogue.
Candidate consistently listens and
appropriately responds to feedback
and dialogue.
Candidate consistently listens and
appropriately responds to feedback
and dialogue.
Candidate views course assignments in
isolation and does not find ways to extend
new skills and knowledge to daily
practice.
Candidate does not use People 1st
language when referring to people with
disabilities.
Candidate periodically finds a way
to extend skills and knowledge from
course work to daily practice
Candidate generally uses People 1st
language when referring to people
with disabilities.
Candidate is professional in
their communication,
collaboration & teamwork.
Candidate displays paternalistic attitudes
toward students with disabilities, has low
expectations and increases student
dependency on teachers and caretakers.
Candidate demonstrates
effective teaching and classroom
management skills during field
observations.
Candidate maintains a GPA of
3.0.
Candidate is often accused by peers of
“social loafing” during group work. An
analysis of grades clearly indicates a
discrepancy where the candidates “group
grades” are higher than individual grades.
Two or more faculty have voiced concerns
in either teaching or classroom
management.
Candidate has two or more grades below a
C.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Candidate consistently finds ways to
extend skills and knowledge from
course work to daily practice.
Candidate consistently uses People
1st language when referring to people
with disabilities.
Candidate generally displays a
positive attitude towards all students,
including those with disabilities, has
high expectations and empowers all
students to solve their own problems
and increase independence.
Candidate consistently displays a
positive attitude towards all students,
including those with disabilities, has
high expectations and empowers all
students to solve their own problems
and increase independence.
Candidate successfully collaborates
with peers to complete team-based
assignments.
Candidate consistently leads and
successfully collaborates with peers
to complete team-based assignments.
Candidate has obtained satisfactory
evaluations from university
supervisory staff.
Candidate has obtained exemplary
evaluations from university
supervisory staff.
Candidate maintains a GPA of 3.0,
with incompletes for illness only.
Candidate maintains a GPA of 3.0,
with no incompletes.
Comments
66
Kennesaw State University
Special Education Performance Outcomes Form
Spring 2003
Obs. #
Date
Observer’s Initials
Obs. #1
Obs. # 2
Obs. #3
Obs. # 4
Obs. # 5
*** Planning ***
1. Provides access to rich curriculum by successfully aligning IEP objectives and QCC’s with instruction and
assessment. (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.1, Facilitator 2.1)
1
2
3
4
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
5
Objectives and QCC’s not listed.
Acceptable L-3:
Objectives and QCC’s listed but not
embedded in the lesson.
Target L-4:
Objectives and QCC’s listed and embedded in
the lesson.
2. Develops lesson plans using research-based strategies (Universal Design, Concept Mapping, Differentiated
Instruction, Multi-level Curriculum). (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.2, 1.3, Facilitator 2.2, 2.5)
1
2
3
4
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
5
No lesson plans present, or lesson plan refers
only to page numbers or chapters from
books.
Acceptable L-3:
Lesson plans have stated objectives but there
are limited or no indications that research
based strategies were used to develop the
plans.
Target L-4:
Lesson plans have stated objectives and there
is evidence that research based strategies
were used to develop the plans.
3. Plans the integrated use of technology. (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.2, Facilitator 2.5)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Technology is neither planned for nor
integrated in the lesson (used as an add on to
the lesson).
Acceptable L-3:
Technology is integrated into the lesson plan
but at the surface level.
Target L-4:
Technology is integrated into the lesson
plan.
4. Plans for student diversity through accommodations and modifications for individual needs. (CEC 3, Subject Matter
2.2, Facilitator 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,2.5)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Acceptable L-3:
Target L-4:
67
No accommodations or modifications are
listed, or a generic
accommodations/modifications checklist is
used with no specific reference to students.
Accommodations and modifications are
incorporated only for assignment
completion.
Accommodations and modifications are
incorporated throughout the entire lesson,
during instruction, as well as for assignment
completion.
*** Conducting Lessons ***
5. Demonstrates congruence between the lesson plan and instruction while incorporating student responses to the
lesson. (CEC 4, Subject Matter 1.4, Facilitator 2.6)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Implementation of the lesson does not follow
the lesson plan or is only tangentially related
to it.
Acceptable L-3:
Lesson is implemented according to plan,
but there is little if any response to student
cues or adjustment to instruction based on
those cues.
Target L-4:
Lesson is implemented according to plan and
teacher adjusts instruction based on student
responses. Includes adjusting for student
errors, augmenting instruction to insure
student understanding and providing
enrichment activities.
6. Effectively uses technology and adaptive/assistive technology in the lesson and for reinforcement. (CEC 4, Subject
Matter 1.2, Facilitator 2.2)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Technology is not used during the lesson, or
technology is used as an add-on to the
lesson.
Acceptable L-3:
Technology is integrated into the lesson, but
at the surface level. Used by teacher or
students but not both.
Target L-4:
Technology is integrated into the lesson;
teachers use technology for teaching and
students for learning and completing
assignments.
7. Provides explicit reinforcement to student responses. (CEC 5, Facilitator 2.2, 2.4, 2.6)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Teacher does not provide reinforcement for
correct responses.
Acceptable L-3:
Teacher uses reinforcement, but does not
articulate the specific behavior or skill being
reinforced.
Target L-4:
Teacher uses reinforcement and articulates
the specific behavior or skill that is being
reinforced.
8. Gains the attention of students, incorporates preview and review, connects new learning to previous learning, and
connects use of learning strategies to content to be learned and students’ previous learning. (CEC 4, Subject Matter
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, Facilitator 2.5, 2.6)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Does not gain the students’ attention prior to
teaching, does not provide preview or
review, does not connect new learning to
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Acceptable L-3:
Typically gains students attention prior to
instruction provides preview and review but
only minimally connects new learning to
Target L-4:
Consistently gains students attention prior to
instruction provides preview and review and
connects new learning to previous learning
68
previous learning or learning strategies to the
content to be learned.
previous learning or learning strategies to the
content to be learned.
or learning strategies to the content to be
learned.
9. Effectively paces instruction and promotes equity in student responses. (CEC 4, Facilitator 2.2, 2.3)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Teacher’s pace of instruction is too fast or
too slow and opportunities for every student
to be engaged in the lesson are not provided.
Acceptable L-3:
Teacher typically adjusts pace of instruction
to maintain student attention and
opportunities for every student to be engaged
in the lesson are provided.
Target L-4:
Teacher consistently maintains an effective
pace of instruction and opportunities for
every student to be engaged in the lesson are
provided.
10. Correctly uses a variety of research-based instructional strategies (direct instruction, strategy instruction,
systematic prompting, peer mediated learning such as cooperative learning groups, class wide peer tutoring or Peer
Assisted Learning Strategies [PALS], task analysis, and multiple flexible grouping structures). (CEC 4, Facilitator
2.3, 2.5)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Teacher does not use research-based
strategies effectively and does not involve
the students in active, hands on learning;
instruction is predominantly whole class and
independent work.
Acceptable L-3:
Teacher demonstrates effective
implementation of at least two research-based
strategies and there is a balance between
whole class/independent work and student
collaborative or cooperative groups.
Target L-4:
Teacher demonstrates effective
implementation of at least four researchbased strategies and there is a balance in the
use of a variety of flexible grouping
strategies.
11. Maintains active student engagement through meaningful and motivating lessons. (CEC 5, Subject Matter 1.2,
Facilitator 2.4)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Teacher lectures or reads from the teacher’s
manual, never engaging the students in
hands on activities; students remain passive
recipients of teacher information.
Acceptable L-3:
Teacher shares information with the students
and then engages them in meaningful
activities.
Target L-4:
Teacher actively engages the students in the
learning process by weaving the sharing of
information with meaningful activities;
teacher is animated and enthusiastic.
12. Gives correct curriculum content while teaching. (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.1, 1.2)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Is unable to clearly and accurately explain
curriculum content.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Acceptable L-3:
Teacher hesitates and needs to constantly
refer to curriculum materials in order to
present the content clearly and accurately.
Target L-4:
Naturally presents curriculum content clearly
and accurately to students.
69
*** Assessment ***
13. Embeds authentic assessment in lessons. (CEC 8, Facilitator 2.6, 2.7)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Relies on end of lesson or unit test to assess
learners.
Acceptable L-3:
Uses a form of authentic assessment to
determine student errors and correct
responses and adjusts the lesson accordingly.
Target L-4:
Uses a combination of standard tests and
multiple authentic assessments to adjust
instruction and determine student learning.
14. Provides immediate and appropriate correction to student errors and adjusts instruction accordingly. (CEC 4,
Facilitator 2.6)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Does not stop or alter lesson when students
make errors.
Acceptable L-3:
Teacher stops instruction and gives the
student a correct answer and explanation for
why it is correct.
Target L-4:
Teacher stops instruction and asks the student
how (s) he determined the response. Teacher
adjusts instruction to include a formal error
correction procedure to insure correct student
understanding.
*** Classroom Ecology and Behavior ***
15. Classroom is clean and well organized. (CEC 5, Faciliator 2.4)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Classroom is cluttered and disorganized;
materials for students are not readily
available, desks are not arranged in a manner
conducive to learning, and classroom rules
and consequences are not posted.
Acceptable L-3:
Classroom is uncluttered and organized;
materials for student use are readily
available, but student desks are not arranged
in a manner conducive to learning.
Target L-4:
Classroom is uncluttered and organized.
Materials for student use are readily
available and student desks are arranged in a
manner conducive to learning. There are
clear pathways to and from vital areas in the
room and teacher can see all students at all
times.
16. Provides consistent routines and procedures for managing all class activities. (CEC 5, Facilitator 2.4)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Consistent routines and procedures are not
posted or evident; students clearly do not
know expectations or how to follow through.
Classroom rules are not posted.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Acceptable L-3:
Consistent routines and procedures are
posted and evident; routines and procedures
flow smoothly, students clearly know what
to do, however, the teacher still has to
monitor and re-direct students on a regular
basis. Classroom rules are posted.
Target L-4:
Consistent routines and procedures are
posted and evident; routines and procedures
flow smoothly, students clearly know what to
do, and the teacher only intermittently has to
intervene and redirect students. Students
respond immediately to teacher. Classroom
70
rules are posted.
17. Facilitates positive social interactions among students. (CEC 5, Facilitator 2.1, 2.4)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Student to student conversation is
inappropriate and shows lack of respect for
one another and for adults. Teacher has to
intervene continually to re-direct students
and correct their behaviors.
Acceptable L-3:
Most of the student-to-student interactions
are positive and show respect. Teacher
frequently has to intervene to re-direct
students.
Target L-4:
The majority of student-to-student
interactions are positive and show respect.
Teacher rarely has to intervene to re-direct
students.
18. Provides manageable positive behavior supports for all students, consistently applies rules and consequences, and
models and reinforces appropriate behavior at all times. (CEC 5, Facilitator 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, Collaboration 3.2)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Relies on punishment to control classroom
behavior. No rules or consequences posted.
Tone of voice and body language are harsh
and indicate lack of respect for students.
Corrective action with students is arbitrary
and inconsistent. Provides limited positive
reinforcement
Acceptable L-3:
Typically reinforces appropriate behavior.
Rules and consequences are posted and
followed. Corrective action with students is
more consistent and fair. Tone of voice and
body language show respect for students.
Circulates and maintains good proximity to
all students, but especially those with
problem behaviors. Classroom ecology is
conducive to appropriate behavior.
Target L-4:
Consistently reinforces appropriate behavior
and explicitly describes what the student is
doing that merited the reinforcement. Rules
are stated and consistently and fairly
followed. Students with problem behaviors
have written positive behavior support plans.
Teacher “sets up” students for appropriate
behavior through the use of systematic
prompting procedures.
*** Collaboration ***
19. Effectively manages para professionals and other support staff so that they are effectively involved in meaningful
instruction. (CEC 10, Collaboration 3.1, 3.3)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Para professionals spend the majority of
their time talking or working on noninstructional tasks such as bulletin boards,
cleaning, filing, or other paper work.
Teacher stops instructional tasks to talk
about non-instructional matters with the para
professional or related services personnel,
consistently asks they work with students in
isolation from the rest of the group, or does
not provide clear direction for transitions.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Acceptable L-3:
Para professionals spend the majority of their
time on instructional tasks and interactions
with students. Related services personnel are
working with the student in an integrated
fashion within the curriculum. Teacher
models appropriate instructional and
behavior management strategies. All staff
handle transitions smoothly without
additional instructions being needed. Para
professionals in general education
Target L-4:
Para professionals spend all their time on
instructional tasks and interactions with the
students. Related services personnel are also
working with other students along with the
targeted student in an integrated fashion
within the curriculum. In general education
settings the para professional works
collaboratively with both the general and
special education teachers in teaching all
students in multiple flexible groups.
71
environments work with general education
students too.
20. Implements correctly a variety of co-teaching models (one teach/one drift, one teach/one observe and take data,
station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, duet teaching, team teaching with multiple flexible groups)
(CEC 10, Collaboration 3.1, 3.3)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Teacher only uses one teach and one drift model of
co-teaching.
Acceptable L-3:
Teacher uses two or more different co-teaching
models.
Target L-4:
Teacher uses four or more co-teaching models.
*** Professionalism ***
21. Communication, both written and oral, is clear, concise and grammatically accurate. (CEC 9, Collaboration 3.1)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Written and oral communication is
frequently incorrect in terms of basic
structure and syntax, multiple spelling errors
are noted in written work and the message is
not clearly conveyed
Acceptable L-3:
Written and oral communication contains
occasional errors of structure and syntax, an
occasional spelling error is noted in written
work and message is typically clearly
conveyed.
Target L-4:
Written and oral communication are free of
errors and consistently conveyed in a clear
fashion.
22. Overall appearance and attitude (dress, comments, body language) are positive and indicates respect for students,
parents, and colleagues. (CEC 9, Collaboration 3.4)
1
2
3
4
5
Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):
Teacher uses sarcastic language or language
that ridicules students or colleagues.
Clothing is dirty, disheveled, not neat and or
inappropriate for the classroom. Teacher’s
affect demonstrates no enthusiasm for either
teaching or the subject matter or compassion
for students, parents or colleagues.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Acceptable L-3:
Clothing is neat, clean and appropriate. Body
language is positive and shows respect for
students, parents and colleagues. Verbal
language is free of ridicule and sarcasm.
Target L-4:
Clothing is neat, clean and appropriate. Body
language is positive and indicates not only
respect for students and colleagues but also
pride in the profession. Verbal language is
not only free of ridicule and sarcasm but also
shows enthusiasm for both teaching and the
subject matter and compassion for students,
parents and colleagues.
72
Observation SUMMARY
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
Bagwell College of Education
Student’s Name: ________________________________Course: ___________________Semester:
________
Collaborating Teacher: _________________________University Supervisor:
_________________________
School: ____________________________________Date: ________Beginning Time:____Ending
Time:______
Observer: _________________________________Circle One:
University
Supervisor
Collaborating Teacher Candidate
Description of Situation: Brief description of environment, subject area, type of activity, description
and number of learners, etc.
Directions:
When completing this summary form, please indicate strengths and areas for improvement. For
greater detail, please consult the Conceptual Framework Reference Guide that describes the
proficiencies in each outcome.
Subject Matter Expertise: (knows content; connects to other disciplines; knows and represents
content accurately; uses content and pedagogical knowledge)
Facilitation of Learning: (knowledge of learners; knowledge of society and culture; well-managed
learning environment; sets high expectations for all students; designs and implements effective
instruction; assesses student learning and evaluates instruction)
Collaborative Professional: (reflects on professional performance; builds collaborative and
respectful relationships; uses effective communication skills; maintains professional and ethical
behavior)
Student’s Signature
Date
_______________________
Observer’s Signature
Date
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
73
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
74
EXC 7720 – CLASSROOM BEHAVIORAL STRATEGIES
Rubric – Application Paper
1. Candidate describes subject,
behavior and setting. Candidate states
rationale for why he or she targeted a
specific inappropriate behavior to
decrease and an appropriate behavior
to increase.
2. Candidate applies research to
practice in selection of an
intervention to decrease the
inappropriate behavior.
3. Candidate collects and graphs data
on the inappropriate/appropriate
behavior.
Level 1 & 2
Candidate describes subject,
behavior and setting.
Candidate describes the
inappropriate behavior but
not it’s function and/or does
not state the appropriate
behavior. 5 points
Candidate uses discussions
from class that were related
to either the intervention or
the inappropriate behavior.
3 points
Candidate has fewer than 3
Baseline Data points and/or
fewer than 12 intervention
data points. Labeling on
graph is missing. 3 points
4. Candidate analyzes data and
relates his or her results to published
research.
Results are summarized and
candidate does not relate
results to research articles.
3 points
5. Candidate writes reflection/ selfassessment on related behavior
Candidate describes 1 of 3
levels of change: additional
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Level 3
Candidate describes subject,
behavior and setting. Candidate
describes the function of both the
inappropriate and appropriate
behaviors based on a functional
assessment but does not state the
value of the appropriate behavior
that serves the same function. 10
points
Candidate uses one research
article related to either the
intervention or the inappropriate
behavior. 7points
Level 4
Candidate describes subject, behavior
and setting. Candidate describes the
function of both the inappropriate and
appropriate behaviors based on a
functional analysis and provides a
logical explanation as to the value of
the appropriate behavior he or she
selected. 15 points
Candidate has 3 baseline data
points and at least 12 intervention
data points reflecting 6 weeks of
data collection on a computer
generated graph whose X or Y
axes or Title are incorrectly
stated. 6 points
Results are summarized and
candidate relates results to 1
research article. 7 points
Candidate has 3 baseline data points
and at least (12) intervention data
points reflecting (6) weeks of data
collection on a computer generated
graph whose X and Y axes and Titles
are correctly stated. 10 points
Candidate describes 2 of 3 levels
of change: additional changes in
Candidate describes 3 levels of
change: additional changes in the
Candidate uses three research articles
related to either the intervention
and/or the inappropriate/appropriate
behavior. 10 points
Results are summarized and candidate
related results to 2 research articles.
10 points
75
changes.
* Alternative Standard (5a) if related
changes in related behavior were not
noted.
6. Candidate reflects on feedback
from the instructor from previous
components of the application paper
and reflects on their study. .
7. Candidate writes a logical and
coherent abstract and paper.
changes in the targeted
student (academic,
behavioral, psychological);
changes in the candidate’s
relationship to the targeted
student; or changes in the
targeted student’s
relationship to other
students in the class. 3
points
Candidate does not
incorporate previous
feedback and provides
limited reflection on their
study. 1 point
the targeted student (either
academic, behavioral or
psychological); changes in the
candidate’s relationship to the
targeted student; or changes in the
targeted student’s relationship to
other students in the class. 7
points
targeted student (either academic,
behavioral or psychological); changes
in the candidate’s relationship to the
student; and changes in relationships
between targeted student and other
students in the class. OR If three
changes were not noted, candidate
provides a logical explanation as to
why changes did not occur. 10 points
Candidate reflects on feedback
given and incorporates it into their
study. 6 points
Candidate reflects on feedback given
and incorporates it into their study.
Reflects on what they’ll do differently
to impact student performance.10
points
Abstract and paper are
poorly organized with
multiple errors in paragraph
construction, sentence
formation, and mechanics.
Confidentiality is
maintained. 3 points
Level 1 & 2 (45-60)
Abstract and paper are written in a
logical and coherent manner with
numerous errors in paragraph
construction, sentence formation,
and mechanics. Confidentiality is
maintained.6 points
Abstract and paper are written in a
logical and coherent manner with few
to no errors in paragraph construction,
sentence formation, and mechanics.
Utilizes APA guidelines and
confidentiality is maintained. 10
points
Level 4 (68-75)
Level 3 (60-67)
Level 1 – Little or No Evidence, Level 2 – Limited Evidence, Level 3 – Clear Evidence, and Level 4 - Clear, Consistent, and Convincing Evidence
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
76
EXC 7720 – CLASSROOM BEHAVIORAL STRATEGIES
Rubric – Application Paper
1. Candidate describes subject,
behavior and setting. Candidate states
rationale for why he or she targeted a
specific inappropriate behavior to
decrease and an appropriate behavior
to increase.
2. Candidate applies research to
practice in selection of an
intervention to decrease the
inappropriate behavior.
3. Candidate collects and graphs data
on the inappropriate/appropriate
behavior.
Level 1 & 2
Candidate describes subject,
behavior and setting.
Candidate describes the
inappropriate behavior but
not it’s function and/or does
not state the appropriate
behavior. 5 points
Candidate uses discussions
from class that were related
to either the intervention or
the inappropriate behavior.
3 points
Candidate has fewer than 3
Baseline Data points and/or
fewer than 12 intervention
data points. Labeling on
graph is missing. 3 points
4. Candidate analyzes data and
relates his or her results to published
research.
Results are summarized and
candidate does not relate
results to research articles.
3 points
5. Candidate writes reflection/ selfassessment on related behavior
changes.
Candidate describes 1 of 3
levels of change: additional
changes in the targeted
student (academic,
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Level 3
Candidate describes subject,
behavior and setting. Candidate
describes the function of both the
inappropriate and appropriate
behaviors based on a functional
assessment but does not state the
value of the appropriate behavior
that serves the same function. 10
points
Candidate uses one research
article related to either the
intervention or the inappropriate
behavior. 7points
Level 4
Candidate describes subject, behavior
and setting. Candidate describes the
function of both the inappropriate and
appropriate behaviors based on a
functional analysis and provides a
logical explanation as to the value of
the appropriate behavior he or she
selected. 15 points
Candidate has 3 baseline data
points and at least 12 intervention
data points reflecting 6 weeks of
data collection on a computer
generated graph whose X or Y
axes or Title are incorrectly
stated. 6 points
Results are summarized and
candidate relates results to 1
research article. 7 points
Candidate has 3 baseline data points
and at least (12) intervention data
points reflecting (6) weeks of data
collection on a computer generated
graph whose X and Y axes and Titles
are correctly stated. 10 points
Candidate describes 2 of 3 levels
of change: additional changes in
the targeted student (either
academic, behavioral or
Candidate describes 3 levels of
change: additional changes in the
targeted student (either academic,
behavioral or psychological); changes
Candidate uses three research articles
related to either the intervention
and/or the inappropriate/appropriate
behavior. 10 points
Results are summarized and candidate
related results to 2 research articles.
10 points
77
* Alternative Standard (5a) if related
changes in related behavior were not
noted.
6. Candidate reflects on feedback
from the instructor from previous
components of the application paper
and reflects on their study. .
7. Candidate writes a logical and
coherent abstract and paper.
behavioral, psychological);
changes in the candidate’s
relationship to the targeted
student; or changes in the
targeted student’s
relationship to other
students in the class. 3
points
Candidate does not
incorporate previous
feedback and provides
limited reflection on their
study. 1 point
psychological); changes in the
candidate’s relationship to the
targeted student; or changes in the
targeted student’s relationship to
other students in the class. 7
points
in the candidate’s relationship to the
student; and changes in relationships
between targeted student and other
students in the class. OR If three
changes were not noted, candidate
provides a logical explanation as to
why changes did not occur. 10 points
Candidate reflects on feedback
given and incorporates it into their
study. 6 points
Candidate reflects on feedback given
and incorporates it into their study.
Reflects on what they’ll do differently
to impact student performance.10
points
Abstract and paper are
poorly organized with
multiple errors in paragraph
construction, sentence
formation, and mechanics.
Confidentiality is
maintained. 3 points
Level 1 & 2 (45-60)
Abstract and paper are written in a
logical and coherent manner with
numerous errors in paragraph
construction, sentence formation,
and mechanics. Confidentiality is
maintained.6 points
Abstract and paper are written in a
logical and coherent manner with few
to no errors in paragraph construction,
sentence formation, and mechanics.
Utilizes APA guidelines and
confidentiality is maintained. 10
points
Level 4 (68-75)
Level 3 (60-67)
Level 1 – Little or No Evidence, Level 2 – Limited Evidence, Level 3 – Clear Evidence, and Level 4 - Clear, Consistent, and Convincing Evidence
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
78
Case Study Rubric-EXC 7730
L-1
Segments of Case Study
Description of Target
Student (25 points)






Reason for Referral
Demographic/Historical
Information
Nature of the school performance
problem stated
Student Profile
2/more items missing
Written description is fair






L-2
Reason for Referral
Demographic/Historical
Information
Nature of the school performance
problem stated
Student Profile
No items missing
Written description is good






L-3
Reason for Referral
Demographic/Historical
Information
Nature of the school performance
problem stated
Student Profile
No items missing
Written description is very good
Record Review(50 points)
Introduction
 previous assessment instruments
and/or procedures with results
 teacher observational data,
concerns, and priorities

parent ( “ )
 tables, graphs clearly presented, and
easy to read
 evaluative summary provided
 2/more items missing
 Written description is fair
Introduction
 previous assessment instruments
and/or procedures with results
 teacher observational data,
concerns, and priorities

parent ( “ )
 tables, graphs clearly presented, and
easy to read
 evaluative summary provided
 No items missing
 Written description is good
Introduction
 previous assessment instruments
and/or procedures with results
 teacher observational data,
concerns, and priorities

parent ( “ )
 tables, graphs clearly presented, and
easy to read
 evaluative summary provided
 No items missing
 Written description is very good
Evaluation Plan(25
points)








Testing and Interpretation
(75 points)







Introduction-reiterate purpose of
study
essential questions
standardized and authentic
assessments considered and selected
authentic student work samples
2/more items missing
Written description is fair
Introduction
interpretation of All Recent Results
2 authentic measures (required)
in-depth comparison between past
and current test results
implications for student’s learning
evaluative summary
2/more items missing












Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Introduction-reiterate purpose of
study
essential questions
standardized and authentic
assessments considered and selected
authentic student work samples
No items missing
Written description is good
Introduction
interpretation of All Recent Results
2 authentic measures (required)
in-depth comparison between past
and current test results
implications for student’s learning
evaluative summary
No items missing













Introduction-reiterate purpose of
study
essential questions
standardized and authentic
assessments considered;
Those selected
authentic samples
No items missing
Written description is very good
Introduction
interpretation of All Recent Results
2 authentic measures (required)
in-depth comparison between past
and current test results
implications for student’s learning
evaluative summary
No items missing
L-4
Quality of written
description is
outstanding (well
organized, complete,
accurate, professional
and free of errors).
Quality and consistency
of candidate’s writing is
exemplary.
Quality of written
historical record is
outstanding (well
organized, complete,
professional and free of
errors). All items given
thorough examination.
Quality of candidate’s
written plan is
outstanding (well
organized, complete,
professional and free of
errors).Questions are
insightful and proposed
plan is exemplary
Quality of candidate’s
ability to administer,
interpret and report (in
written format) formal
and informal measures is
outstanding (well
organized, complete,
professional and free of
errors). Comparison of
past and present results is
79

Recommendations &
Appendixes (25 points)






Written description is fair
Introduction & Re-cap
Instructional interventions based on
solid evidence
Parents’/Tchr. concerns
Further testing needed?
2/more items missing
Written description is fair







Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Written description is good
Introduction & Re-cap
Instructional interventions based on
solid evidence
Parents’/Tchr. concerns
Further testing needed?
No items missing
Written description is good







Written description is very good
Introduction & Re-cap
Instructional interventions based on
solid evidence
Parents’/Tchr. concerns
Further testing needed?
No items missing
Written description is very good
exemplary
Overall quality of report
is exemplary (well
organized, complete, free
of errors, and
professional). Data to
support final
recommendations
supported throughout document
80
Final Project EXC 7760
Curriculum Mapping &Accommodation/Modification Rubric
Names of Team Members:______________________________________________
Title of Lesson: _____________________________ Grade Level: ____________
Standards of Performance
Curriculum Mapping is
Complete
Development of an Integrated
Unit
Brief Description of class and
students with IEPs - Profile
Standards and Objectives
Universal Design. Models of
Teaching, and Research Based
Activities
Accommodations &
Modifications
An example must be submitted
with the unit.
Materials
Criteria
Georgia QCCs are Mapped out Over a Year Across all subjects
Points & Instructor Comments
35
Connections between subject areas are well thought out to support an effective
Integrated Unit.
20
Class description is complete to include profiles of students with IEPs that clearly
detail special education classification, strengths and needs, as well as student(s)
who need to be challenged. Description demonstrates thorough understanding of
each student.
A comprehensive list of both QCC standards and IEP objectives of all students must
be provided as appropriate. Note some students may work “off grade level”
(above or below).
A comprehensive list of activities that incorporate multiple intelligences, Bloom’s
Taxonomy, Models of Teaching and Cooperative Learning strategies and are
thematic based. Specify activities for remediation & enrichment.
Accommodations and modifications are:
 Taught in an inclusive setting/classroom;
 Simple and creative;
 Facilitate interaction with non-disabled peers;
 Age appropriate; and
 Flexible for a variety of uses and contexts.
Included is a list of materials to support the teaching of the unit – to include
20
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
20
35
20
5
81
Assessment
Collaboration Points
technology.
A range of authentic assessment tools is outlined which are directly tied to the
QCCs and IEP objectives.
 Points assigned by team members
Points assigned by instructor
Total Points: _________/200
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
20
25
82
EXC 7765 Instructional Design Project:
Math & Reading
Rubric for Self-Evaluation, Peer & Instructor Evaluation
Lesson Component & Standards
Unacceptable
<3
Grade:
/250
Acceptable
3
Target
4
Feedback
Class Description

Age, grade of students, target
students

Class demographics

Co-Teaching, if appropriate
Lesson Plan & Pyramid

Key components of quality lesson
are included: Grade level, # of
students, # of adults, materials,
evaluation, assignments, homework,
procedures.

Lesson is multi-level, differentiated

Task analysis was clearly used to
create the pyramid.

Incorporates technology.
Standards

Lesson is clearly linked to
QCC.

National Technology Standard
is addressed when appropriate
Pts. 0-3
More than one omission.
Pts. 4
One requirement omitted.
Pts. 5
Brief description of all three components.
Pts. 1-10
 Omits key components.
 Lesson is not multi-level or
differentiated
 Task analysis was not used to
develop pyramid.
 Does not incorporate technology
Pts. 11-13

Provides key components

Multi-level & differentiated

Too elaborate or difficult to
understand

Pyramid reflects adequate use
of task analysis.

Incorporates technology
Pts. 14-15

Provides all key components

Multi-level & differentiated

Clear

Pyramid reflects high quality task
analysis of concepts for all learners
including gifted and significant
disabilities.

Incorporates technology
Pts. 0-3

Omissions

Confusing due
variables
Pts. 3-4

Met requirements
Pts. 5

Met requirements

Well written

Lesson designed to
national technology standard.
Objectives

Content & IEP objectives are
written.
Pts. 0-2
 Omissions

to
too
many
Not aligned

Well written
Pts. 3-4

Both written, IEP not in
behavioral terms.

Confusing alignment
Pts. 5

Students are encouraged to
personalize learning objectives.

IEP objectives written in
behavioral terms.

IEP clearly emerge from QCC.
Pts. 7-8
There is clear evidence that the
candidate knows the subject
matter and can explain important
principles to every student.
Pts. 9-10
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.

IEP (SST) clearly emerges
from QCC framework, or task
analysis of QCC, or functional
curriculum that can be embedded in
instruction or class routine.
Subject Matter Expert**
 Uses broad, current, and specialized
knowledge of subject matter

Communicates
specialized
knowledge to all students (1.1)
Pt. 1-6
There is limited evidence of
knowledge of subject matter.
Candidate’s presentation of content
appears to contain numerous
inaccuracies.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
meet
83
Grouping
1. Formal, informal or
groups
2. Heterogeneous groups
3. Small (pair or triads)
4. Face to face
base
Pt. 1-6



Lesson Component & Standards
Omits criteria
Vague
and
confusing
No
research
support
Pts. 7-8




Unacceptable
<3
Addresses all four criteria
Adequate description
Supported by Marzano
Uses informal group
Pts. 9-10

Addresses all four criteria

Well written

Supported by Marzano and
other researchers

Uses formal group.
Acceptable
3
Target
4
Feedback
Pre-Test (Post-Test)

Assess
stated
content
objectives

Include well-stated directions

Are appropriate for age &
development

Result in score that can be
disaggregated

Are parallel in form from pre
to post

Alternate assessment for
SWD are provided as needed
Pts. 0-6
Pts. 7-8
Pts. 9-10
Student assessments were not
created, or were created, but not
administered.
Student assessments are provided,
assess desired content objectives
and result in scores that can be
disaggregated.
Student assessments are submitted and
meet all standards.
DI Step 1: Tell Objective

Objective is clearly stated

Relationships to previous
learning is highlighted

Student is encouraged to
personalize

Learning task is clarified
Pts. 0-6
Pts. 7-8
Pts. 9-10
Script provides explanation that is
vague or confusing in some parts.
There are minor omissions.
Script provides thorough explanation of
how the teacher met all four
requirements with clarity and detail.
DI Step 2: Acquisition
Provide Advance Organizer. Teacher
uses either a graphic organizer,
outline/overview, study guide or song to:

Identify major topics

Clarify actions

Activate prior knowledge

Provide
incentive
and/or
novelty
Pts. 1-6
Pts. 7-8
Pts. 9-10
Meets one criteria or is omitted.
Meets 2 or 3 criteria.
Meets all major criteria.
Uses
Marzano
non
representations.
Explanation is confusing.
omissions are apparent.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Major
linguistic
84
DI Step 3: Describe & Demonstrate

Demonstration
uses
advance
organizer and engages students

Think Aloud provided

Examples
&
non
examples
provided
Pts. 1-10

All lecture

Many gaps

Instructions are unclear or
incomplete

Middle to high interaction rate
Pts. 11-13

Complete presentation

Strategies
are
not
well
implemented

Think aloud is confusing

Either uses examples or non
examples

Very low interaction rate
Pts. 14-15

Very thorough

Instructions to students are clear

Strategies are well implemented

Examples & non examples are
provided

Very low interaction rate with
students
Lesson Component & Standards
Unacceptable
<3
Acceptable
3
Target
4
Pts. 11-13

Complete script

Questions are planned,
but random

Corrective feedback

Reward achievement

Cues or prompts are
omitted.

Some interaction

Spontaneous
error
correction

Spontaneous re-teaching

Mastery check
Pts. 14-15
 Very thorough script
 Logical, planned questioning
 High interaction rate
 Mastery check for content & IEP
progress
 Embedded
assessment
drives
corrective feedback, prompts & error
correction feedback
 Planned error correction strategies
 Planned re-teaching
Pts. 11-13

Clear case for how structure
supports the learning of all
students.
 Informal structure (e.g. pairs’
check or turn to partner)
Pts. 14-15

Thorough
explanation
(with
supportive (Marzano) research) of
how structure supports learning of
objectives of all students.

Formal structure (e.g. CWPT).
DI Step 4: Guided Practice
o
Use logical line of
questioning
o
Very
high
interaction rate with teacher
o
Uses prompts and
cues
o
Uses
error
correction strategies
o
Mastery check of
content and IEP
Marzano
o
Allow students with
ample opportunities for corrective
feedback.

Reinforces effort and achievementUses effective praise
Rational for Selection of Cooperative
Learning Structure

Research-based

Base, formal or informal

Support the learning of the
multi-level objectives.
Pts. 1-10
o
o
o
o
o
Many gaps
script.
Questions are at random.
Low interaction rate.
Rewards achievement with
feedback.
No mastery check
in
no
Pts. 1-10

Confuses small group instruction
with CL

Describes one structure and
implements another.

Structure does not support to
multi-level objectives.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Feedback
85
DI 5: Structured Practice via
Cooperative Learning
1.
Lesson is multilevel
2.
Ample class time
and focus on individual student
mastery
3.
CL Structure is
correctly implemented
4.
Explanation of CL
roles is provided.
5.
Less
teacherstudent interaction
6.
Provides
cues,
prompts & corrective feedback.
7.
Rewards effort and
achievement.
8.
Mastery checks are
provided.
DI 6: Close, Maintain & Generalize

Closing summarizes concepts
& skills through homework; review
activities;
and/or
technology
applications.

Results in transfer and
generalization (e.g. T & G).
Pts. 1-10
-Many gaps in script.
Instruction is not
multi-level
High
interaction
rate with teacher
Neither effort nor
achievement are rewarded.
- Prompts & Error correction are
omitted
- Students are not engaged.
- Mastery check omitted.
Pts. 11-13
-Complete script.
- Meets 6 criteria (including 1, 2, 3
& 4)
High
interaction with peers
Effort
or
achievement rewarded.
Mastery check
provided for either content or IEP
objectives.
Group
processing check provided.
Pts. 14-15
-Very thorough script.
- Meets criteria
- Low interaction rate with teacher.
- Reinforces effort & achievement.
- Corrective feedback provided as
needed.
-High interaction rate with peers.
Mastery
check
provided for IEP, content & group
processing.
Incorporates
Marzano strategy
Pts. 1-6

Closing
is
cute
or
interesting, but not aligned with
lesson (“Fluff with no stuff”!)0
 T & G not evident.
Pts. 7-8

Closing is aligned with
lesson.

Opportunities for T & G
are evident.
Pts. 9-10
 Closing summarizes content
makes it valuable to students

T & G thoroughly described.

Incorporates Marzano strategy
Lesson Component & Standards
Unacceptable
<3
Acceptable
3
Target
4
Embedded Assessment **

Provides mastery check on
individual and group progress on
content objective

Alternate assessments are
provided.

Provided individual mastery
check on progress on IEP objective

Are varied, flexible and easily
integrated into flow of instruction

Drives re-teaching on content
and IEP objectives, as needed.
Pts. 1-10

Adequate mastery checks
do not occur.

Assessments
are
not
submitted to instructor.
Pts. 11-13

Group
or
individual
mastery checks for content.

IEP mastery check.

All
assessments
are
submitted.

Assessments are routine.

Assessment results in reteaching.

Clear evidence that the
candidate effectively uses
multiple
and
appropriate
forms of assessment to
determine the learning needs
of every student.
Pts. 14-15

Three or more mastery checks
(individual, group, IEP) are provided.

All
assessments
are
submitted.

Assessments
are
varied
(checklists, student self-assessments,
rubrics, etc.)

Assessment resulting in reteaching.

Clear,
consistent
and
convincing evidence that the
candidate effectively uses multiple
and
appropriate
forms
of
assessment to determine the
learning needs of every student.

Monitors student progress
with a variety of evaluation
methods (2.6)

Multiple
forms
of
assessment, but there is limited
evidence that the candidate
successfully determines the
learning needs of every student.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
&
Feedback
86
Cues, Prompts & Error Correction

Natural cues support student
mastery

Prompts are planned

Error Correction strategies are
evident.
Differentiation/Multi-Level **

Strategies to differentiate
lesson are provided and described for
target students (including gifted).

Strategies to accommodate
and modify for are described for
target students with disabilities.

Differentiation includes a brief plan
to overcome behavioral hindrances to
student learning through priority
seating, BSP, etc.

Uses multiple methods to meet
goals articulated for individual
students and class instruction.
(2.5)
Lesson Component & Standards
Pts. 1-10

Description of cues is
confusing or omitted.

Prompts are not planned, or
are omitted.

Error correction is provided
at random.
Pts. 11-13

Natural cues are used
throughout the lesson.

Prompts
are
wellplanned.

Error
correction
strategies are planned.
Pts. 14-15
 Thorough script that clearly describes
cues, planned prompts and error
correction.
 All strategies have research-base.
Pts. 1-10

No differentiation.

Lesson not multi-level.

No
considerations
for
student behavior.

Variety
of
instructional
strategies, but there is limited
evidence that the candidate
effectively differentiates instruction
and successfully accommodates
the learning needs of every
student.
Pts. 11-13

Adequate description of
differentiated tasks and use for
target students.

Description of pyramid
implemented for SWD

Plan repeats the BSP
without
articulating
student
needs, environments, etc.

Clear evidence that the
candidate effectively uses
multiple
instructional
strategies to differentiate
instruction and successfully
accommodates the learning
needs of every student.
Unacceptable
<3
Acceptable
3
Pts. 14-15

Thorough description of
differentiated tasks with reference to
Tomlinson & other authors.

Thorough
description
of
accommodations and modifications
for SWD
 Plan considers behavioral needs of
students, the environment, materials
& other strategies.
 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.
Target
4
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Feedback
87
Impact on Student Learning**
Pts. 1-10
Pts. 11-13
Pts. 14-15

Pre-Post student achievement
is graphed according to “No Child”
subgroups*.
Graph is hand written or data is
presented in a table. Data is not
aggregated.
Graph is created using current
software packages.
Aggregates do not reflect “No
Child”.
Graph is created using current software
packages.
Data
is
aggregated
by
class
demographics and reflects “No Child”.
Data reflects average percentage, per
subgroup.

Meets
learning
goals
articulated for individual students,
impacting the learning of every
student (2.5)
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.
Mastery of all content objectives at
70% (or below) for disaggregate
groups. Little progress is made toward
meeting IEP objective.


All students master content,
skills and IEP objectives
Student mastery is below 71-85%.
Student makes clear gains toward
IEP objectives.
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.
All aggregate groups mastered all
content objectives at 85% or higher.
Student masters IEP objective.
Narrative is confusing, with major gaps
in reasoning or interpretation.
Narrative provides an explanation
of all data with no apparent gaps in
logic. Experience is used to support
reasoning.
Narrative describes data,
including mastery of IEP goals and
objectives.
Lesson Component & Standards
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
Unacceptable
<3
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Acceptable
3
Narrative provides thorough explanation
of all data, providing clear insights to
student learning.
Professional literature and experience
are used to support reasoning.
Target
4
Feedback
88
Work Sample Analysis:

Learning profile of the target
student.

Error analysis

Recommendations
for
changes in instruction to increase
student achievement.

Mini-lesson.
Teacher Reflection***

Uses
the
assessment
results to improve the quality of
instruction for every student. (2.6)

Reflects
regularly
and
draws on experience aimed at
improved student achievement.
(3.2)
Lesson Component & Standards
Pts. 1-10

Narrative is confusing, with major
gaps in reasoning or interpretation.

Recommendations are based
upon experience.
Pts. 11-13

Profile is clear.

Error analysis is logical.

Recommendations are logical
and based upon experience and
literature.
Pts. 14-15

Thorough description of profile.

Error
analysis
considers
learning profile

Recommendations are clearly
based upon professional literature.

Mini-lesson is provided.
Pts. 1-10
Pts. 11-13
Pts. 14-15
Limited evidence to identify
successful and unsuccessful
activities and superficially explores
reasons for their success or lack
thereof.
Clear evidence to identify
successful and unsuccessful
activities and provides plausible
reasons for their success or lack
thereof.
Clear, consistent and convincing
evidence to identify successful and
unsuccessful activities and provides
plausible reasons for their success or
lack thereof.
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.
Unacceptable
<3
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
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.
Acceptable
3
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.
Target
4
Feedback
89
Preparation and presentation of
lesson, accompanying materials and
assessments**
1.
Lesson
and
assessments were developed in
concert with syllabi and class
instructions.
2.
Materials are complete
and professionally organized, with
paper folder and dividers.
3.
Narratives and scripts
are typed and written professionally.
4.
Self-assessment
is
conducted using rubric.
5.
Candidate demonstrates
use of technology in preparation of
materials.
6.
Evidence of parental
release for video/photograph.
7.
Professional literature is
cited throughout.
Pts. 1-6
Pts. 7-8
Pts. 9-10
Produce did not meet three minimal
criteria.
Product met all but number 7.
Product
successfully
requirements.
* Disaggregate groups are: Sex, Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, and Disabilities
** Note: You cannot obtain an “A” on this project unless you obtain a 4 on this section of the rubric.
*** Candidate reflection is evaluated, in depth, using a separate rubric.
Reviewer Name:
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Date:
met
all
90
CO-TEACHING RUBRIC, EXC 7780
Name(s):
Total Points:
100
Co-Teaching Model(s):
Standard of Performance
L1
L2
1) Co-Teaching Conversation
2) Class & Student
Description & Diagram
3) Initial Co-Planning
4) Lesson
Implementation
Parity
Roles & Resp.
Content Knowledge
Quality Lesson
Use of Space
Student Feedback
5) Student Engagement
6) Analysis of how coteaching & instruc-tion
interacted and impacted
student engagement.
7) Plan for Improvement
8) Lesson Implementation
9) Student Engagement
10) Growth
Analysis
Implementation
Engagement
TOTAL
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
L3
L4
Comm
ents
91
B. Course syllabi for all courses referenced in responses to Standards 7 & 8.
Professional Teacher Education Unit
Collaborative
Development of Expertise
In Teaching and Learning
Kennesaw State University
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
EDUC 7705 Special Education Procedures
SUMMER, 2002
I.
COURSE NUMBER/SECTION
COURSE TITLE
II.
INSTRUCTOR:
Name: Deborah S. Wallace, Ph.D.
Office: Kennesaw Hall 2333
Office Phone: 770-499-3297
Office Hours: By appointment.
Email: dwallace@kennesaw.edu
Fax: 770-423-6263
III. CLASS MEETING:
EXC 7705 (3 semester hours)
Special Education Procedures
TBA
IV. TEXT: Huefner,D.S. (2001) Getting Comfortable with Special Education Law.
Norwood,Massachusetts: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
V.
Catalog Description: This course focuses on understanding national and state laws, policies
and procedures in special education programs. Emphasis is placed on tracing the way students with
exceptionalities are served from the first risk factors (pre-referral) through post-secondary and
community-based options including screening, transition and record maintenance. Communication
skills required to engage other professionals and parents in the implementation of special education
programs are included. Clinical issues and professional ethics are addressed.
VI. Purpose/Rationale:
As schools become more inclusive, the role of the general education
teacher in the education of students with disabilities continues to expand. The purpose of the course
is to prepare prospective K-12 education teachers to become effective facilitators in the teaching of
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
92
elementary, secondary or alternative curriculum. Both the Professional Standards Commission
(licensure body for Georgia) and the Council for Exceptional Children’s national standards
recognize the importance of the elements of this course in the preparation of teachers for students
with exceptionalities. As part of their professional responsibilities, teachers need to know the
legislative and litigative implications of the demands on their practice in the identification of
students with exceptionalities.
Conceptual Framework: The evolution of the field of special education has been greatly affected
by the courts and federal mandates for services for this population. Legislative recognition of the
needs of students with disabilities (IDEA) has recently been reauthorized. Teachers must
understand these mandates and Section 504, ADA and judicial rulings in both regular education and
special education cases. Issues such as due process and least restrictive environment continue to
demand much teacher attention. Recent debate over the inclusion of new special education
categories has resulted in additional legal issues. Passage of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act and Americans with Disabilities Act have updated requirements for services. Georgia
has updated the Georgia Special Education Rules and Procedures to reflect new or revised federal
regulations due to the recent reauthorization of IDEA. The knowledge base required of professional
learning facilitators in the field of special education is in a constant state of change and growth. To
prepare learning facilitators for their professional responsibility in the identification, assessment,
placement and instruction of exceptional students, attention must be focused on protecting the rights
of these students and their parents. In addition to their role as a representative of the school system,
the teacher of exceptional students is the advocate for these students and their parents. A focus on
consultation and collaboration skills is necessary to prepare teachers for this role. The lifelong
nature of disabilities requires a focus on current research in the field of transition into postsecondary or work environments.
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning: The Kennesaw State
University (KSU) teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers who demonstrate
expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU teacher education
community strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring guidance from
professionals inside and outside the university. In tandem with this belief is the understanding that
teacher expertise develops along a continuum which includes the stages of pre-service, induction,
in-service, and renewal; further, as candidates develop a strong research-based knowledge of
content and pedagogy, they develop their professional expertise in recognizing, assessing,
facilitating, and evaluating student learning.
Use Of Technology: The student will have the opportunity to utilize technological resources at
Kennesaw State University to improve his understanding of current legislative and judicial issues
through the on-line ERIC and LAWTEXT computer systems available in the Kennesaw State
University library. Library research required in this course is supported by the Galileo system. Use
of the Internet is required for accessing information and materials.
Diversity: Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and reasonable
accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to help
disabled students with their academic work. In order to make arrangements for special services,
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
93
students must visit the Office of DisAbled Student Support Services and arrange an individual
assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.
The knowledge base in the field includes many issues of concern in multicultural education. Brown
vs. Board of Education is a hallmark case in special education since it addresses the issue of equal
educational opportunity for ALL students. The issues of discrimination and segregation of racial,
ethnic and disabled populations will be addressed. Concerns include assessment and due process
requirements to meet the needs of culturally diverse populations.
VII. Course Goals/Objectives: The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares learning
facilitators who understand their disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on practice, and
who apply these understandings to making instructional decisions that foster the success of all
learners. As a result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of this course, the student
will demonstrate a broad base of Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions through performance.
In the area of Knowledge, the candidate will be able to:
1.
Identify the historical foundations of special education, with an emphasis on the sociological
and political forces that are the basis for current practice
2.
Identify the major judicial cases and legislation that guide special education practice from
prereferral to transition out of special education programs.
3.
Identify the key principles guiding special education practice and related or support services
(transportation, specialized health care, occupational therapy, etc) and the judicial and
legislative origins of each
4.
Identify the major judicial and legislative protections for student and parent rights with
particular attention to students from diverse cultural, racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.
5.
Articulate sources for advocacy and support within the community, state and internet.
6.
Articulate the current issues impacting special education practices
In the area of Skills, the candidate will be able to:
7.
Trace and articulate the implementation of due process procedures guiding pre-referral
(Georgia Student Support Team), assessment, eligibility determination, development of an
Individualized Education Plan (Individual Family Service, Plan, Individual Transition Plan
and/or Behavior Intervention Plan) and placement in the least restrictive environment.
8.
Identify resources for implementing due process which meet federal and state guidelines,
with special emphasis on documentation procedures and meeting the needs of students with
specialized health care needs, transitioning from private schools or treatment programs, and
other unique circumstances.
Dispositions, the candidate will be able to:
9.
Collaborate with students, colleagues, parents and community to ensure an appropriate
education for all students
10.
Follow the Council for Exceptional Children ethical standards in all interactions.
VIII. COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:
Assignments
Proficiency Exam
1-8
Course Exams
1-8
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Course Objectives
94
Parent Resource Manual
SST Study Case
IEP Case Study
Focused Research
Parent Workshop (Professional Development)
Professional Discussion and Participation
3,4,5,6,7,9,&10
3,4,5,7,8,9,&10
3,4,5,7,8,9,&10
1-10
3,4,5,7,8,9,&10
1-10
EVALUATION AND GRADING
Proficiency Test
Two Exams (see schedule) @ 100
Parent Resource Manual @ 50
Case Study, Focused Research
and Professional Development Activities
(four @ 25)
Professional Discussions
A = 90% or more, 360-400
C = 70-79%, 280-319
F = 59% or below 240
Pass/Fail competency
200 points
50
100
50
400
B = 80-89%, 320-359
D = 60-69%, 240-279
Description of Requirements:
Proficiency test:
The knowledge and understanding of public laws focusing on the provision
of special education services is an important component of this course. You will be asked, as a
special education teacher, to collaborate with other service providers to provide education
opportunities for all students, including those with disabilities. State and federal laws which you, as
a Professional Learning Facilitator, must understand stringently regulate the provision of those
services.
This exercise requires a minimum score of 80% correct responses for an EDUC 7950 course grade
to be recorded with the Registrar's Office. Retakes are taken without prejudice. More than one
retake to meet mastery will entail a personal and private conference with the instructor to develop a
remediation plan. The content of this exercise is the application of the laws studied in class and
evaluated for knowledge at the recall and application level. A FINAL GRADE OF
INCOMPLETE WILL BE REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRAR UNTIL THE
MINIMUM COMPETENCY HAS BEEN REACHED.
EXAMS:
There will be two exams over federal and Georgia laws regulating education of
exceptional students. These will prepare students for the PRAXIS Test. Content will reflect major
units of study in this class:
1)
Historical legislative & judicial issues
2)
Prereferral and eligibility issues (Georgia)
3)
IEP issues
4)
Due process issues (including Sxn 504 & ADA)
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
95
MANUAL: You will develop a parent resource manual.
This manual will include a table of content, a narrative rationale/purpose statement, support
materials such as communication tips & resources, names of contact people in the district & state
and an evaluation form. Materials to complete the manuals are available from your local school
district, GLRS, the Internet or KSU's TRAC. The TRAC center has facilities for developing
materials such as computers, laminators, copiers, etc. Evaluation will include attention to the
visual presentation (typing, written expression skills), & comprehensive coverage.
FOCUSED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES:
SST Plan Development and Case Study: The candidate will development a SST plan
based on a case study. The student will indicate five recommended strategies for two
goals/objectives identified based on student need. In support of the recommendations indicated,
references and web sites (handouts) are to be included. Give your personal reflections on the SST
process (half-page).
IEP Case Study: Based on data given in a case study, the candidate will develop an
Individualized Education Plan. The student will develop goals/objectives for a skill area identified
and reflect on the IEP process.
Focused Research: The focus of the assignment will be the Georgia State Rules And
Regulations and/or IDEA. You will be expected to integrate assigned readings, personal
perspectives and experiences and are strongly encouraged to supplement your presentation and
discussion with additional readings from the professional literature and /or case law.
Parent Workshop Outline: The candidate will develop an outline for a parent workshop
(See grade sheet for items for analysis.) The workshop should be of need and interest to parents.
Academic Honesty: Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student
Code of Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the
Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including
provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials,
misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal,
retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities
and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic
misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program,
which includes with an "informal resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment,
or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one
semester suspension requirement.
Disruptive Behavior: The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with
behavior with disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can
interrupt the learning of others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior
will not be tolerated. (See Campus Policies and Procedures in KSU Graduate Catalog.)
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
96
Human Relations: The University has formulated a policy on human relations, which is intended to
provide a learning environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found in the
KSU Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but
the policy is there for your consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the
spirit and the letter of that policy.
REFERENCES
Clearinghouse on the Handicapped, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
U.s. Department of Education. (1992). Summary of existing legislation affecting persons with
disabilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office
deFur, S.H. & Taymans, J.M (1995). Competencies needed for transition specialists in
vocational rehabilitation, vocational education, and special education. Exceptional Children, 62,
38-51.
Division for Exceptional Students, Office of Special Services, Georgia Department of
Education. (1994). Georgia Special Education Rules. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Department of
Education.
Fischer, L., Schimmel, D. & Kelly, C. (1995). Teachers and the law. White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Freiberg, K.L. (Ed.). (1995). Educating Exceptional Children. Guilford, CT: Dushkin
Publishing.
Georgia Special Education Management System. (1995). Gloucester, MA: Eutectics,
INC.
Harry, B., Allen, N. & McLaughlin, M. Communication versus compliance: AfricanAmerican parents involvement in special education. Exceptional Children, 61, 364- 377.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1991). A "side-by-side"
profile of changes in new IDEA. Liaison Bulletin, 17, 2-18.
Osborne, A.G. (1992). Legal standards for an appropriate education in the post-Rowley era.
Exceptional Children, 58, 488-493.
Putnam, J.W., Spiegel, A.N., & Bruininks, R.H. Future directions in education and
inclusion of students with disabilities: A Delphi Investigation, Exceptional Children, 61, 533-576.
Rothstein, L.F. (1990). Special education law. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Sage, D.D. & Burrello, L.C. (1988). Public Policy and management in special education.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
97
Ysseldyke, J.E., Algozzine, B. & Thurlow, M.L. (2000). Critical issues in special
education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
WEB SITES
www.cec.sped.org
www.nichcy.org
www.chadd.org
www,ldanatl.org
www.autism-society.org
www.thearc.org
www.doe.k12.ga.us
www.biausa.org
www.jdfcure.org
www.efa.org
www.nagc.org
www. aamr.org
EXC 7705—Special Education Procedures
COURSE SCHEDULE
DATE
FOCUS OF CLASS ACTIVITIES
READINGS
Week
1&2



Special Education History
Litigation and Legislation
Professional Discussion
Chapters 1,2,3,&4
Pre-Proficiency Exam

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Chapters 5,6,7,8,&9

Student Support Team Process and
Procedures

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Week 3&4
Week 5&6
Week 7&8

Eligibility

Evaluation and Assessment

IEP Meeting and Plan Development

Professional Discussion





Chapters 10,11,12,&13
SST Plan Due
Post-Proficiency Exam
Chapters 16,17,&18
Related Services
Least Restrictive Environment
Placement
Individual Transition Plan
Individual Family Service Plan
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Exam I
98
Week
9&10
Week
11&12
Final



Discipline Issues
Behavior Intervention Plan
IEP

Parent Workshop
Presentations/Professional Discussion

Collaboration with Parents and Families
Chapter 20

Progress Reports
IEP Plan Due

Support Strategies

Pre-school Issues

Professional Discussion
The syllabus provides a general plan for the
course; deviations may be necessary.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Chapters 14,15, &,19
Parent Resource Manual Due
Exam II
99
Kennesaw State University
Department of Special Education
Summer 2003
I.
EXC 7715/01
NATURE/NEEDS: STUDENTS WITH MILD DISABILITIES
SPECIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
Summer 2003
II.
INSTRUCTOR:
Name:
Deborah S. Wallace, Ph.D
Office:
2333 KH
Phone: 770-499-3297
E-mail: dwallace@kennesaw.edu
Fax:
770-423-6263
OFFICE HOURS: By Appointment
III.
CLASS MEETING: Tues./Thurs., 12:00-3:45PM
KH 1107
IV.
TEXTS:
Required Text:
Raymond, E. B. (2000). Learners with mild disabilities: A characteristics
approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Recommended Text:
American Psychological Association. (2001)Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
V.
CATALOG DESCRIPTION: This course focuses on the systematic analysis of
the physical, affective, behavioral and educational problems of individuals with mild
disabilities (intellectual, behavioral and learning disabilities). There is an emphasis on
the etiological, perceptual motor, language and academic aspects of the problems with
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
100
consideration to parental involvement in the educational process. Clinical applications
in a field site are included. Proof of professional liability insurance is required for
placement.
VI.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE: There have always been exceptional learners, but it is
only in the recent past that the educational needs of these learners have been
addressed in public schools. There is an extensive historical base for special education
in psychology and medicine. Since the formation of the Council for Exceptional
Children (1920) and the development of its journals (Exceptional Children, Teaching
Exceptional Children, etc.), there has been an increase in the number of journals
dedicated to special education issues. The growing trend to include students with
disabilities in general education programs (e.g. as a result of the Regular Education
Initiative) has also provided impetus for research in journals devoted to general
education.
The knowledge base required of professional learning facilitators in the field of special
education is in a constant state of change and growth. To prepare learning facilitators
for their professional responsibility in the identification, assessment, placement and
instruction of students with disabilities, attention must be focused on understanding the
cognitive, sociological, and medical foundations and manifestations of exceptionalities.
The objectives for this course are based on the competencies identified by the Council
for Exceptional Children (CEC). The program also provides competencies identified by
the Professional Standards Commission (licensure body for Georgia).
VII. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:
COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERTISE IN TEACHING AND
LEARNING: The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PETU) at Kennesaw State
University is committed to developing expertise among candidates in initial and
advanced programs as teachers and leaders who possess the capability, intent and
expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all of their students through effective,
research-based practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance the structures that
support all learning. To that end, the PTEU fosters the development of candidates as
they progress through stages of growth from novice to proficient to expert and leader.
Within the PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued
development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational leaders must
embrace the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the
implementation of validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach
high levels of learning. In that way, candidates are facilitators of the teaching and
learning process. Finally, the PTEU recognizes, values, and demonstrates collaborative
practices across the college and university and extends collaboration to the communityat-large. Through this collaboration with professionals in the university, public and
private schools, parents and other professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate
goal of assisting Georgia schools in bringing all students to high levels of learning.
KNOWLEDGE BASE: Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum
that includes four phases: pre-service, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny,
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
101
2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the
teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of
expertise is central to preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers
describe how during the continuum phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to
survive in classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching.
We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued
development.
VIII TECHNOLOGY : Technology standards for educator are required by the
Professional Standards Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies
will be integrated throughout the master teacher preparation program and all candidates
must be able to use technology to improve student learning. During the courses,
candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media
especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of productivity
tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design
multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and develop an electronic
learning portfolio. Students at Kennesaw State University will access the ERIC CDROM database for scholarly activities related to this course. They will also have access
to computers and software through TRAC and the Educational Technology Center.
Library research required in this course is supported by the Galileo system.
Web
Web-sites:
www.cec.sped.org
www.nichcy.org
www.chadd.org
www.ldanatl.org
www.autism-society.org
www.thearc.org
Web
Web-sites:
www.doe.k12.ga.us
www.biausa.org
www.jdfcure.org
www.efa.org
www.nagc.org
www.aamr.org
www.dhr.state.ga.us
IX
DIVERSITY: Differences in the special education field provides a background
for the a variety of material and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the
needs of different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain
knowledge, skills, and understanding to provide effective instruction in multicultural
classrooms. The emphasis on cognitive style consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and reasonable
accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of
services are available to help disabled students with their academic work. In order to
make arrangements for special services students must visit the Office of DisAbled
Student Support Services (770-423-6443) and arrange an individual assistance plan. In
some cases certification of disability is required.
Understanding of the nature and needs of exceptional students requires a sensitivity to
the cultural context of the presenting problems. This course provides candidates with
information and experiences to develop an awareness and appreciation of the diverse
nature of our society and the individual cultural differences as they impact on
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
102
education. The effects of socioeconomic status are also emphasized as a factor in the
educational needs of students. Major issues addressed include cultural and
socioeconomic status bias in assessment and eligibility for special education programs;
as well as, behavioral, language and cognitive style differences related to different
cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. Candidates will investigate the sociological
factors that traditionally result in greater prevalence of diagnosed exceptionalities in
males and in certain socio-economic groups. Candidates will also investigate the
interaction of other variables such as race and ethnicity in identification procedures.
Fully employed graduate candidates enrolled in this course serving as teachers of
students with disabilities may apply for on-the-job field experience placement. Criteria
for the field experience site selection for other candidates will be considered on the
basis of the socio-economic, racial, ethnic and cultural diversity of the student
population served. In addition, candidates will be grouped for activities with candidates
serving diverse populations to maximize their exposure to diverse learning needs.
X COURSE GOALS/OBJECTIVES: The Professional Teacher Education Unit at
Kennesaw State University prepares learning facilitators who understand their
disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on practice, and who apply these
understandings in making instructional decisions that foster the success of all learners.
As a result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of this course, the
candidate will demonstrate a broad base of Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
through performance. NOTE: The assessment of student mastery of objectives is
delineated as follows: RE = Readings, Midterm/final, case study exams, ER= Eligibility
report, AL = Activity log, CP = Class participations.
In the area of Knowledge, the candidate will be able to:
1.
Understand the historical foundations, philosophies, theories and classic studies
including the major contributors, and major legislation that under gird the growth
and improvement of knowledge and practice in the field of special education
2.
Understand the evolution and major perspectives from medicine, psychology,
behavior and education on the definitions and etiologies (common and unique) of
individuals with disabilities.
3.
Understand the State of Georgia terminology and definitions of disabilities,
including the evaluation criteria, labeling controversies, current incidence and
prevalence data.
4.
Understand the continuum of educational placements and services, including
alternative programs for students with disabilities
5.
Understand the assurances provided by special education law including least
restrictive environment; due process; parent involvement; non-discriminatory
evaluation; IEP process; and free, appropriate public education.
6.
Understand all aspects of individuals with disabilities including their psychological
and socio-emotional development, language development, attention and
memory, health, cognition, and how they related to student ability to read, write,
perform mathematical operations, take tests, develop social skills, etc.
7.
Understand the effects of various medications related to the educational,
cognitive, physical, social and emotional behavior of individuals with disabilities.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
103
8.
Understand the impact of disability on family functioning, community
participation, and career development for the life of the student with disabilities.
9.
Understand the necessity of creating a positive learning environment and
providing alternative teaching skills and strategies to students with disabilities.
In the area of Skills, the candidate will be able to:
10.
Compare, contrast and articulate the pro's and con's of current issues and trends
in the education of students with disabilities, including the inclusion, overrepresentation of minorities in special education, etc.
11.
Define and report the general developmental, academic, social, language,
attention/memory, behavioral, social, motor and functional characteristics of
students with disabilities, as well as the level of support needs for them to be
successful.
12.
Define and report all available and relevant information on a student with a
disability.
13.
Participate in the activities of professional organizations relevant to individuals
with disabilities.
In the area of Dispositions, the candidate will be able to:
14.
Maintain confidentiality of all student records and respect for privacy of
individuals with disabilities and their families.
15.
Articulate the teacher's responsibility to, and support of, parents and siblings of
students with disabilities.
XI.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS:
Course Requirements and
Course Objectives
Assignments
Reading Project
1,2,6,7,8,9,10,15
Reflective Journal and Action Plan 1-15
Eligibility Reports (40 points each) 1-12 & 14, 15
Exams (50 points each)
1-12 & 14, 15
Observation Report
1-15
Professional Development Report
13
Professional Reading Log
1-12
8.
Class
Participation 1-15
&Professionalism
9. Field Exp. Observation Report
1-15
CPI
Domains
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1&5
1&5
Points
100
20
120
100
30
5
5
1-5
20
1-5
Required
1. Readings Project: With instructor approval, chose from the following options. Class
presentations may be done in a group. (NOTE: If you do not currently hold an interrelated
certificate, you are required to do Project Option 1 in the area of learning disabilities,
attention deficit disorders, severe emotional disorders and/or intellectual disabilities.) The
Readings Project is worth 100 points and will be graded with the appropriate rubric.
Project Option 1: Issues in Mild/Moderate Disabilities
Each candidate is asked to select a book or set of readings from the enclosed
bibliography and to develop a five-page report consistent with the rubric provided
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
104
in class. Finally the candidate will give a ten-minute presentation to the class and
report significant findings.
Project Option 2: Family Issues
Each candidate is asked to select a book or set or readings from the enclosed
bibliography and to design a parent interview based upon the readings. The
candidate must conduct the interview with one family. Finally the student will
give a ten-minute presentation to the class and report findings to the class.
Confidentiality is required!
Project Option 3: The Disability Experience
Each candidate is asked to select one book from the section in the bibliography
entitled, “authentic voices” and/or “family”. (For our purposes) authentic voice is
the story or descriptive statement written by or made by an individual with a
potentially disabling condition. Next write a five-page summary consistent with
the rubric provided in class and give a ten-minute presentation on significant
findings.
2. Reflective Journal and Action Plan: During class candidates will be asked to participate in
numerous activities that enable them to apply the skills and knowledge used in class. For
example, after the discussion on each area of exceptionality, students will be required to
engage in a variety of activities including attendance at meetings of professional
organizations, interviews with school psychologists, etc. Class assignments support the
belief that learning is an interactive endeavor requiring active participation on the part of the
student. Upon completion of an assigned activity, each student will engage in reflective
practice and incorporate their thoughts in a “Reflective Journal”. At the conclusion of the
course, each student will develop an action plan on the form provided. (20 points)
3.
Observation Activity: Each candidate will complete a full day observation of a special
education or inclusive classroom. To demonstrate mastery of class objectives, students will
submit a 3-5 page double-spaced report relating the information gained in the observation
and interview to class discussion, text, and other professional literature.
 Evaluation will include spelling, punctuation, grammar, clarity of expression and content
analysis (25% of grade).
 Refer to the section on mechanics of writing in the summary form.
 The purpose of this activity is to provide students the opportunity to relate data gathered
in the observation to concepts covered in the text, class, and research articles.
 Refer to the section on APA format for citations and references in the summary form.
 Candidates will demonstrate the ability to synthesize multiple sources of information and
discuss the manner in which the information will affect their practice and beliefs. This
means there should be some reference to class discussions, professional literature, and/or
text, Course Pack or other materials.
The Department of Special Education will assign students to a classroom setting appropriate to
the purposes of the course. Each student must submit a Verification of Liability Insurance form
to the Instructor by the date indicated in the course outline to apply for placement.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
105
To ensure professionalism in the observation, the following procedure is recommended:
 Dress professionally during your visits to the school. This does not require a suit, but refrain
from wearing jeans or T-shirts.
 BE ON TIME FOR APPOINTMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS.
 You are a guest in the school and should sign in at the office. Most schools require a visitor
badge or pass.
 You may sit quietly in the background and take notes or you may participate in classroom
activities at the discretion of the teacher.
 Assure the teacher that all information will be confidential.
 You are a guest in the classroom and should behave appropriately. Students with special
needs are often very sensitive to change and your presence may be disruptive.
REMEMBER CONFIDENTIALITY MUST BE MAINTAINED. Anything you observe or
discuss with the teacher is strictly confidential. Do not discuss what you see or hear with
anyone. Your report must NOT include any identifying information such as school, teacher or
student names. Any report that contains such information will be returned for revision without a
grade or feedback other than the necessity to conform to confidentiality requirements.
OBSERVATION REPORT FORMAT
INTRODUCTION: Identify the type of exceptionality being observed, the level (mild,
moderate, etc) and age group. Describe any special characteristics of the population
(socioeconomic status, etc.)
EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS: Describe the students you see in the classroom. Give examples
of characteristics described in the text, class discussion or professional literature that you
observed. Cite sources in APA format. Application and integration of class concepts should be
emphasized in this section. Remember to address cognitive, behavioral, physical and social
differences as appropriate. How were these students different from your expectations?
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT AND INSTRUCTION: Describe the management or
instructional techniques observed. Relate these to techniques described in the text, class
discussion or professional literature. Be sure to highlight any curricular, environmental or other
accommodations noted. How effective were these techniques/accommodations?
APPLICATION: How will this experience change the way you work in the classroom as a
teacher? Be sure to specify the grade/subjects that you plan to teach. Reflect on the experience
and discuss how it affects your future practice. What ideas do you plan to implement in your
own practice? What kinds of innovative solutions did you see that you want to consider?
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Include full bibliographic references for the sources cited in your report.
Use APA format.
ANY REPORT CONTAINING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WILL NOT BE
GRADED!
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
106
General Guidelines and Standards for Written Assignments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
All individual assignments must be typed, single-spaced (unless specified), with 1”
margins on both sides so I can provide you with feedback. This includes reading
reactions.
Be sure to maintain confidentiality of student, settings, and teachers. All identifying
names and information should be omitted from your written work and discussions.
Late assignments are unacceptable without making prior arrangements with me.
I will be looking for quality writing not quantity. Eliminate jargon and hyperbole and
focus on clearly stating your point.
Examine the language you use within your assignments. Please remember to remove the
focus on a person’s behavior or disability by stating the person first, i.e., "a person with a
disability" is preferable to "a disabled person."
Be careful to avoid judgmental statements and focus on the facts when writing about
students. As teachers we need to put our own biases and opinions aside and view each
student as a capable and valuable human being.
APA STYLE: The American Psychological Association is the standard used for bibliographic
references and citations in special educational literature. This is the format used in the text.
Attention to sequence of data, capitalization & punctuation is essential. See Summary Format
for example of bibliographic format and the APA style manual (5th ed.) in the reference section
of Sturgis Library. A reference librarian can help you find it.
CITATIONS: When substantive ideas are taken from a source other than the article being
summarized, this source needs to be cited. (Author, date). If exact words from a source are
utilized, the citation includes a page number (Author, date, page) and quotation marks. If quoting
from the article being summarized, you need only give page number (p. #) in parenthesis. See the
APA manual if in doubt.
REFLECTION: The KSU Professional Teacher Education Program is based on the belief that
learning occurs when learners connect new information with their previous understandings in a
way that constructs new understandings or meaning. Candidates are encouraged to reflect upon
information and develop their own meanings based on new knowledge and experiences. This
section demonstrates your ability to be a critical consumer of professional literature. That
includes connecting the research findings to your future practice as a professional.
MECHANICS OF WRITING: Programs of study in the BCOE at KSU seek to prepare
professionals in the field of education. A professional seeks to exhibit excellence in all areas.
Candidates will be expected to submit written assignments that demonstrate a mastery of written
expression skills in spelling, grammar, and text structure or organization. Candidates are
encouraged to utilize technological aids such as word processors with spell check and grammar
check to improve their skills in this area. Candidates exhibiting difficulty in this area should
meet with their instructor to discuss referral to the Writing Center.
4. Professional Log: (Turn in as completed to receive feedback on the writing process.). The
log must contain reflections on your professional reading, conferences/in service sessions
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
107
that you have attended, and site visits that you have conducted over the course of the
semester. Each entry must be dated and titled – (include a full citation (APA format) if it is a
reading), followed by your personal response to the material or experience. To obtain full
credit for this activity, you must use the writing format presented in class to complete the
following:
 Read a minimum of three (3) articles from professional journals regarding
universal curriculum design, accommodation and modifications, and/or any other
topics related to our class discussions and text. In addition, you are required to
write a one-page reflection containing your reactions to the reading.
Your completed professional development log must follow the National Board Certification
writing process:
 Description: Summarize the main ideas. This should be strictly factual information
and not contain any of your personal opinions. Exactly what points do the articles
make, or what did you see or hear?
 Analysis: Based on the focus in this program and your own experiences, what is your
opinion about what you have read or observed? Be sure to support your opinion with
specific information from the articles or observation. Do you agree or disagree and
WHY? Please provide more feedback than, “I like it and think it will work.”
 Reflection: How will this information impact your own teaching practice and student
learning in your class? How did it change the way you think about your personal
teaching practice or how did it affirm your current beliefs?
 References for articles: Must be in American Psychological Association (APA) style (5th ed.).
5. Eligibility Reports: Each group of graduate
candidates (maximum of 6 per group) will complete an eligibility report based on a
case study and commercial assessment provided in each area of exceptionality (i.e., LD,
BD, MID). Each group will submit a completed form based on each case study. Each
eligibility report is worth 40 points—total (120 points).
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Reason for referrals to SST and/or special education.
Background information: Family, education, health, school, etc.
Listing of all previous test results
Interpretation of previous testing by the examiners
Rationale for current or suspected IDEA classification
Recommendations for teaching (Note: Must include information from
class discussions and your text.), Etc.
6. Exams: Two examinations will be given. Each will consist of multiple choice and short
answer essay questions. (50 points each)
7. Professional Development Report: Each candidate will keep a log of all
development activities—including documentation of participation.
(5 points)
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
professional
108
8. Professional Reading Log: Each candidate will be responsible for maintaining a reading log
throughout the program. (5 points)
9. Class Participation: Class participation is worth 30 points toward the final grade. As this course unfolds,
students will be asked to conduct various cooperative learning group activities. Small group and team skills
will be assessed by the instructor.
XII.
EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT. Each candidate will be
evaluated according to the point system provided below. Exact standards of performance
and evaluation criteria for written work are in rubrics provided in class.
Major Class Activities:
Eligibility Reports (40 points each-total 120 points)
Readings Project (100 points)
Exams (Two at 50 points each -total 100 points)
Reflective Journal& Action Plan (20 points)
Professional Development Log (5 points)
Professional Reading Log (5 points)
Class Participation (20 points)
Mid/Final
On-going
Candidate Evaluation: 400 Total Possible Points
A = 360-400
B = 319-359
C = 278-318
D = 237-277
F = 236 and below
XIII. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY. Every KSU candidate is responsible for upholding the
provisions of the Student Code of Conduct as published in the Undergraduate and
Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the University
policy on academic honesty, including the provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating,
unauthorized access to University materials, removal retention or destruction of library
materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and
misuses of student identification cards. Incident of alleged academic misconduct will be
handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program which
includes either an “informal” resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade
adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure which may subject a student to the Code of
Conduct’s minimum one semester suspension requirement.
1.
Disruptive Behavior, Human Dignity and Attendance Policy: Candidates are
encouraged to review the 2002-2003 College graduate catalog for procedures for
dealing with behavior that interferes with the learning of others and which
recognizes human worth. The attendance policy can be found in the
undergraduate catalog.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
109
2.
Human Relations: The University has formulated a policy on human relations
intended to provide a learning environment that recognizes individual worth.
That policy may be found in the graduate catalog. It is expected that in EXC
7715, no professional should need reminding, but the policy is there for your
consideration. The activities designed for this class will be conducted in both the
spirit and the letter of that state policy.
EXC 7715 COURSE OUTLINE
Week
Activity
Homework/ Reading Assignment
Week 1
Introductions
Review of Syllabus
Read: Ch. 1 & 2 in Raymond
Perspectives on Disability
Historical Perspectives
Week 1
Discussion of Current Trends in Sp. Ed.
Discussion of Historical Legislation
Overview of Historical Treatment of
Individuals with Disabilities
Discussion of IDEA '97 Amendments
IDEA proposed reauthorization & NCLB
Read: Ch. 3 in Raymond
Learners with Mental
Retardation
Week 2
Discussion of Characteristics of
Individuals with Mild Mental
Retardation
Discussion of Federal Definition
of MMR
Discussion of GA Eligibility
of MMR (MIID)
Work in Groups of 5 on Eligibility
Report for MMR based on a case
study.
Read: Ch. 7 in Raymond
(Cognitive Characteristics)
Week 2
Video
Discussion of Cognitive Disabilities
related to Individuals with Learning
Disabilities featuring Information
Processing, Vygotsky, Piaget
Briefly work in Groups of 5 on
Eligibility Report for MMR
MMR Eligibility Due
Read: Ch. 4 in Raymond
(Learning Disabilities)
Week 3
Film "Fat City"
Discussion of Federal Definition
of LD
Discussion of GA Eligibility of LD
Read: Ch. 8 in Raymond
(Perceptual Characteristics)
Week 3
Discussion of Perceptual Characteristics
Guest Speaker
Begin working in Groups of 5 on
Eligibility Report for LD based on
a case study.
Week 4
Mid-Term
Mid-Term: Ch. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
Work in Groups of 5 on LD
eligibility report.
Read: Ch. 9 & 10 in Raymond
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
110
(Language Characteristics)
(Academic Learning Char.)
Week 4
Discussion of Language
Characteristics
Begin discussion of Academic
Characteristics
LD Eligibility due
Read: Ch. 5 in Raymond
(ADHD)
Week
Activity
Homework/ Reading Assignment
Week 5
Academic Characteristics concluded
Film ADHD " What do we Know"
"What do we Do"
(EBD)
Week 5
Discussion of EBD Characteristics
Discussion of Controversies related
to Federal EBD Definition
Discussion of GA EBD Definition
Work in groups of 5 on the EBD
Eligibility Report
Read: Ch. 11 in Raymond
(Social & Emotional Chara.)
Week 6
Social and Emotional Characteristics
of Individuals with Disabilities
Briefly work in groups of 5 on the
EBD Report. EBD Eligibility Due.
Week 6
Film "Last One Picked, First One
Picked On"
Guest Speaker
Week 7
Discussion of Discipline Related
to Students with Disabilities
based on '97 Amendments
Week 7
Read: Ch. 6 in Raymond
Read: Ch. 12 & 14 in Raymond
(Assessment, ID, Placement)
Issues in Assessment & ID
Issues in Placement
Week 8
General Issue discussion and exam
Review for exam in groups of 5
Final Exam
Final Exam: Ch. 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14
review
Week 8
The course schedule provides a general plan for the course-deviations may be necessary.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
111
EXC 7715 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Academic & Behavor Development
Barber, R. (1993). Jumping the alligators in the ditch. In L. Colker (Ed.)
Beyond reading, writing and arithmetic: A retrospective look at how schools have
responded to changing societal needs. (pp. 79-80) Fairfax: ERIC Document
Reproduction Service.
Brown & Palincsar (1988). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies: A natural history of one
program enhancing learning. In Borkowski and Day (ed.) Intelligence and cognition in special children:
Comparing studies of giftedness, mental retardation and learning disabilities. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Conoridi, C. & Oakhill, J. (Eds.) (1996). Reading comprehension
difficulties: Processes and intervention. Mahwah, New Jersey. Lawrence
Erbaum Associates.
Ehri. (1989). The development of spelling knowledge and its role in reading acquisition and reading
disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 356-365.
Goldstein, A. P., Spraphin, R. P., Gersha, N. J. & Klein, P. (1980). Skillstreaming the adolescent: A
structured learning approach to teaching pro-social skills. Champaign: IL, Research Press.
Gray. (1922). Deficiencies in reading ability. Lexington, MA: DC Health.
Liberman, & Shankweiler. (1985). Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write. Remedial
and Special Education, 8-17.
Lyon & Moats (1989). Critical issues in the instruction of the learning disabled. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 56, 830-835.
McGinnis, E. & Goldstein, A.P. (1984). Skillstreaming the elementary school-aged child: A guide for
teaching pro-social skills. . Champaign: IL, Research Press.
Orton (1937). Reading, writing and speech problems in children. New York: Norton.
Speece. (1990). Aptitude-treatment interaction: Bad rap or bad idea?
Journal of Special Education, 24, 139-149.
Wittrock (Ed.) (1986). Handbook on research on teaching. 3rd Ed.
New York: Macmillan.
Assessment & Classification
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (4 th ed.
DSM_IV) Washington, DC: Author.
Day, K. (1996). Portfolio and dynamic assessment…An authentic look at individual difference. In N.
Gregg, R. S. Curtis, & S. F. Schmidt (Eds.) African American adolescents and adults with learning disabilitieis: An
overview of assessment issues
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
112
(pp. 65-75).
(National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) Funded Grant Monograph).
Athens, GA: The University of Georgia.
Fletcher, Morris & Francis. (1991). Methodological issues in classification of attention-related disorders.
Journal of Learning Disabilities. 24. 118-121.
MacLean, W.E. (1997). Ellis handbook of mental definciency, psychological theory and research (3rd
ed.).Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates Publishers.
Sattler. (1988). Assessment of children’s intelligence and special abilities.
Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders.
Swanson (1991). Handbook on the assessment of learning disabilities: Theory, research and
practice. Autsin, TX: PRO-ED.
Zigmond, McCall & George (1990). The effects of availability, extent of use and teachers perceived
effectiveness on pre-referral interventions and classification rates of mildly handicapped students in school districts
in the Commonwealth of PA. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Boston.
Authentic Voices
Burch, J. M. They cage animals at night. Signet Books.
Cline, J.D. (1997). Silencing the voices: One woman’s triumph over
multiple personality disorder. New York: Berkley Books.
Cohen, H.H. (1995), Train go sorry: Inside a dear world. New York:
Vintage.
Jones, R. (Ed.) (1983). Reflections on growing up disabled. Reston, VA:
The Council for Exceptional Children.
Schwartz, J. (1992). Another door to learning: True stories of learning
disabled children and adults and the keys to their success. New York:
Crossroads.
Williams, D. (1992). Nobody nowhere: The extraordinary autobiography
of an autistic. New York: Times Books.
Williams, D. (1994). Somebody somewhere: Breaking free from the world of autism. New York: Times
Books.
Cognitive, Developmental, Physiological & Neuropsychological
Aspects of Disability
Anderson (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York:
Freeman Press.
Brown & Campione (1986). Psychological theory and the study of learning
disabilities, American Psychologist, 14, 1059-1068.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
113
Day, K. Gregg, N., Stennet, R., Hoy, C., & Darden, C. (1998). Verbal learning ability and language skills
among collgeg students with learning disabilities and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. University of Georgia.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Duane and Gray (Eds.) (1990). The reading brain: The biological basis of dyslexia. Parkton, MD: York
Press.
Fuerst, Fisk & Rourke. (1990). Psychosocial functioning of learning-disabled children: Relations between
WISC Verbal IQ-Performance IQ discrepancies and personality subtypes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 58, 657-660.
Galaburda (1988). The pathogenessi of childhood dyslexia. In F. Plum
(Ed.) Language, communication and the brain. New York: Raven Press.
Gallagher & Ramsey (1987). The malleability of children. Baltimore: Paul Brookes
Publishing
Levine, Hooper, Montgomery, Reed, Sandler, Swartz & Watson (1992).
Learning Disabilities: An Interactive Developmental Paradigm. In Lyon, Gray, Kavanagh &
Krasnegor (1993). Better Understanding Learning Disabilities: New Views from Research
& Their Implications for Education and Public Policies. Paul Brookes Publishing.
Rourke, B. (1985). Neuropsychology of learning disabilities: Essentials in subtype analysis. New
York: Guilford Press.
Rourke (1989) Nonverbal learning disabilities: The syndrome and the model. New York: Guilford Press.
Shinn-Strieker, T. (1986). Patterns of cognitive style in normal and handicapped students. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, Vol. 19, 9, pp. 572-576.
Swanson (1994). The modifiability and predictability of skilled and less skilled readers’ working
memory. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Swanson (1987). Information processing theory and learning disabilities: An overiew. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 20, 3-7.
Diversity of Students: Race, Class & Gender
Kozol, J. (1992). Savage inequities in American schools.
Linan-Thompson, S. & Jean, R. E. (1997). Completing the parent participation puzzle: Accepting
diversity. Teaching Exceptional Children, (1),47-52.
MacMillan, Hendrick, & Watkins (1988). Impact of Diana, Larry, P. and 94-142 on minority students.
Exceptional Children, 54, 426-432.
MacMillan, (1989). Equality, excellence and the EMR populations: 1970-1989. Psychology in Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 15(2)
1, 2-10.
Ogbu, J. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity. Educational Researcher,
21, (5-14).
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
114
Weis, L., Fine, M. & Lareau, A. (1992). Schooling and the silences “others”: Race and class in
schools. Graduate School of Education Publications, SU NY.
Families of Individuals with Disabilities
Barron, J., Barron, S. (1992). There’s a boy in here. Simon & Schuster.
Berube, M. (1996). Life as we know it: A father, a family and an exceptional child. Pantheon
Books, New York: NY.
Brown, S. & Simmons, M. (1998). 365 Positive Strategies for Positive Single Parenting. Macon,
GA: Peake Road.
Carr, M. (1995). A mothers thought on inclusion. In J. M. Kauffman, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.) The
illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Deveson, A. (1990). Tell me I’m here: One families experience of schizophrenia. New York: NY,
Penguin Press.
Dutton
Granger, B. & Granger, L. (1986). The majic father: The truth about special education. E.P.
Jean, R., Lawhon, & Lawhon, D. (1995). Stress in families of chronically ill children, Journal of
Family and Consumer Sciences, 87, (1), 47-52.
Lelewer, N. (1994). Something’s not right: One family’s struggle with learning disabilities.
Action, MA: Vaner Wyk & Burnham.
The Gene Newsletter On-line, www page (1996). An Interview with Michael Berube. On-line
Publication.
Sheiflin, M. (1987). I’m not going to be John’s babysitter forever: Siblings, planning and the
disabled child. Exceptional Parent, 17, 60-64.
Inclusion
Gartner & Lipsky (1989). The yoke of special education: How to break it.
Rochester, NY: The Center on Education and the Economy.
Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education
reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.
Lipsky, D. & Gartner, H. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring and the remaking of American society.
Harvard Educational Review, 66 (4), 762-796.
Logan, K. R. & Malone, D. M. (1998). Comparing instructional contexts of students with and without
severe disabilities in general education classroom. Exceptional Children, 64, 343-358.
Logan, K.R., & Keefe, E.B. (1997). Effects of instructional variables on the engaged behavior of students
with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63, 481-488.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
115
Logan, K. R. & Keefe, E. B. (1997). A comparison of instructional contexts and engaged behavior for
students with severe disabilities in general education and self-contained elementary classrooms. Journal of The
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22,16-27.
Logan, K.R., Gast, D.L., Jacobs, H.A., & Murray, A.S., Daino, K., & Skala, C.(1998). The impact
of typical peers on the perceived happiness of students with profound multiple disabilities. The Journal of The
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 309-318.
Logan, K.R., Diaz, E., Piperno, M., MacFarland, A., Bargamian, K., & Rankin, D.H. (1995). How
inclusion built a community of learners. Educational Leadership, 52, pp. 42-46.
Kauffman, J. & Hallahan, D. (Eds.) (1995). The illusion of full inclusion:
A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon. Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.
Rankin, D.H., Logan, K.R., Adcock, J., Angelucci, J., Pitman, C., Sexstone, A., Straughn, S. (in press).
Small group learning: Effects of including a student with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Developmental and
Physical Disabilities.
Reynolds, Wang & Walberg (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education.
Exceptional Children (53) 391-398.
Salisbury, C., Roach V., & Strieker, T. (1999). Missouri Case Study on the Promotion of Large
Scale Change and Inclusive Practices: 5-Year Longitudinal Report 1994-1999. Consortium on Inclusive
Schooling Practices. ERIC Document.
Stainback, W. & Stainback, S. (Eds.) (1996). Controversial issues confronting special education:
Divergent perspectives. (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Intelligence
Feuerstein (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers, The learning potential assessment
device, theory, instruments and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Ryndes, J. (1988). Don’t accept me as I am. Helping “retarded”
people to excel. New York: Plenum.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: NY, Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice.
New York: NY, Basic Books.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: NY. Bantam Books.
Lyon, (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities: A position in search of logic and
data. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 504-512.
Siegel (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
22, 469-479.
Stanovich (1994). Does reading make you smarter? Literacy and development of verbal intelligence.
Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 24.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
116
Sternberg, R. (1987). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. (1997). What does it mean to be smart? Educational Leadership,
54, (6) 20-14.
Nature & Needs of Students with Mild Disabilities
Attention Deficit Disorders/Hyperactivity
Cantwell, & Baker. (1991). Association between attention deficitHyperactivity disorder and learning disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities,24, 88-95.
Hallowell, E. & Retey, J. Driven to distraction. Touchstone Books.
Safer & Krager. (1988). A survey of medication treatment for hyperactive/
Inattentive students. New England Medical Journal.
Shaywitz & Shaywitz (1988). Attention deficit disorder: Current perspectives. In Kavanaugh & Truss
(Eds.) Learning Disabilities: Proceedings of the National conference pp. 369-523. Parkton, MD: York Press.
Silver. (1990). Attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder: Is it a learning disability or a related disorder?
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 394-397.
Emotional-Behavioral Disorders
Bouner, E.J. (1995). The anxiety & phobia workbook. New Harding Publishers.
Benson, Edwards, Rosell & White (1986). Inclusion of socially maladjusted children and youth in the legal
definition of the behaviorally disordered population: A debate. Behavior Disorders, 11, 213-222.
Clarizio (1987). Differentiating emotionally impaired from socially maladjusted students. Psychology in
the Schools, 24, 237-371.
Duke, M. & Norwiki, S. (1995). Helping the child who doesn’t fit in. Atlanta: Peachtree Publishers.
Nelson, Rutherford, Center & Walker (1991). Do public schools have an obligation to serve troubled
children and youth? Exceptional Children, 57(5) 406-415.
Quay, Routh & Shapiro (1987). Psychopathology of childhood: From description to validation.
Annual Review of Psychology. 38,491-532.
Rourke, Young & Leenaars (1989). A childhood learning disability that predisposes those afflicted to
adolescent and adult depression and suicide risk. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 169-175.
Rutter. (1974). Emotional disorder and educational underachievement.
Archives of Diseases in Childhood, 49, 249-256.
Rappaport, J., (1989). The boy who couldn’t stop washing. New York: NY. Penguin Books, Inc.
Intellectual Disabilities
Bates, P., Morrow, S.A., Pancsofar, E., & Sedlak, R. (1984). The effect of functional vs. non-functional
activities on attitudes/expectations of non-handicapped college students: What they see is what we get. The Journal
of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, pp 73-78.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
117
Brady, M.P., Linehan, S.A., Campbell, P.C., & Neilson, W.L. (1992). Too high, too low, too young: an
ethnography of teachers curriculum and instruction decisions for students with severe disabilities. Education and
Training in Mental Retardation, pp. 354-366.
Forness & MacMillan. (1989). Mental retardation and the special education system. Psychiatric Annals,
19, 190-195
MacMillan (1988). Issues in mild mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23,
273-284.
MacMillan, D.L., Gresham, F.M., Bocian, K.M., & Lambros, K.M. (1998). The plight of borderline
students: Where to they belong? Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33,
pp. 83-94.
Macmillan, D.L., Siperstein, G.N., & Gresham, F.M. (1996). A challenge to the viability of mild mental
retardation as a diagnostic category. Exeptional Children, 62, pp. 356-371.
Patton, J.R., Polloway, E.A., Smith, T.E.C., Edgar, E., Clark, G.M., & Lee, S. (1996). Individuals with
Mild Mental Retardation: Postsecondary outcomes and implications for educational policy. Education and Training
in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31, pp. 75-85.
Polloway, E.A., Smith, J.D., Chamberlain, J., Denning, C.B., Smith, T.E.C. (1999). Levels of deficits or
supports in the classification of mental retardation: Implementation practices. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, pp. 200-206.
Polloway, E.A., Smith, J.D., Patton, J.R., & Smith, T.E.C. (1996). Historic changes in mental retardation
and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31,
pp. 3-12.
Sandieson, R. (1998). A survey on terminology that refers to people with mental retardation/developmental
disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, pp. 290-295.
Smith, J.D. (1997). Mental retardation as an educational construct: Time for a new shared view? Education
and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 32, pp. 167-173.
Tomlinson, C.A., Callahan, C.M., Tomchin, E.M. Eiss, N., Imbeau, M., & Landrum, M. (1997). Becoming
architechts of communities of learning: Addressing academic diversity in contemporary classrooms. Exceptional
Children, 63, 269-282.
Vaughn, S., Moody, S.W., & Schumm, J.S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource
room. Exceptional Children, 64, pp. 211-226.
Waldron, N.L. & McLeskey, J. (1998). The effects of an inclusive school program on students with mild
and severe learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, pp. 395-406.
Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J.N., Jenkins, L., & Couthino, M. (1995).
Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, (March), pp.
531-540
Zigler & Hodapp (1986). Understanding mental retardation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
118
Language Disorders
Bashir, A.S. & Scavuzzo, A. (1992). Children with language disorders: Natural history and academic
success. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, (1), 53-65.
Mann & Brady (1990). Reading disability: The role of language differences. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 56, 811-816.
Shinn-Strieker, T., House, G., & Klink, B. (1989). The roles of cognitive processing and language
development in emergent literacy. Remedial and Special Educataion. Vol. 10, 5, pp.43-50.
Shinn-Strieker, T. (1984). The use of trained communication assistants in the public schools. Language,
Speech & Hearing Services in the Schools. 4, pp.271-280.
Yoder, Kaiser & Alpert (1991). An exploratory study of the interaction between language teaching
methods and child characteristics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 155-167.
Wiig, E. (1994). Human Communication and Language Disorders. Merrill: Texas.
Learning & Behavior Problems
Bos, C.S. & Vaughn, S. (1998). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems. (4th
ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kirk. (1962). Educating exceptional children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Lyon, Gray, Kavanagh & Krasnegor (1993). Better Understanding Learning Disabilities: New Views from
Research & Their Implications for Education and Public Policies. Paul Brookes Publishing.
Wang, Reynolds & Walberg (Eds.) (1988). Handbook of special education: Research and Practice (Vol.
2) Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Specific Learning Disabilities
Algozzine & Ysseldyke (1986). The future of the LD field: Screening and diagnosis. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 19, 291-293.
Bryan, Bay & Donohue (1988). Inplications for the learning disabilities definition for the regular education
initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 23-28.
Coles (1987). The learning msytique: A critical look at “learning disabilities”. New York: P Pantheon.
Cruickshank (1977). Learning disabilities in home school and community.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Freeman. (1976). Minimal brain dysfunction, hyperactivity and learning disorders: Epidemic or episode?
School Review. 85, 5-30.
Hammill. (1990). On defining learning disabilities: An emerging consensus, Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 23, 74-84.
Kavale & Forness (1985). The science of learning disabilities. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Kavale, Forness & Bender (Eds.) (1985). Handbook of learning disabilities
(Vol.2). San Diego: College-Hill Press.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
119
Lyon & Watson, (1981). Empirically derived subgroups of learning disabled readers: Diagnostic
characteristics. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
14, 256-261.
Mann, Davis, Boyer, Metz, Wolford. (1983). LD or not LD, that was the question. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 16, 14-17.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (1987). Learning disabilities: Issues of definition.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 107-108.
Reid, K., Hresko, W., & Swanson, H. (1996). Cognitive approaches to learning disabilities. (3rd ed.)
Austin: PRO-ED.
Shepard, Smith & Vojir. (1983). Characteristics of pupils identified as learning disabled. American
Educational Research Journal, 20, 309-331.
Stanovich (1986). Mathew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the
acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 12, 360-406.
Stanovich (1988). Explaining the differences between dyslexic and the garden-variety
poor reader: The phonological core variable difference model. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 21, 590-604.
Strauss & Lehtinen (1947). Pyschopathology and education of the brain-injured child. New York:
Grune and Stratton
Swanson & Keogh (1989). Learning Disabilities: Theoretical and Research Issues. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Wong (1992). Learning about learning disabilities. San Diego: Academic Press.
Wong, M. (1993). Adapted Learning Environment Model. San Diego: Academic Press.
Willows (1994). Visual processes in reading and reading disabilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Vellutino (1985). Visual processing and reading disabilities. In Rourke, B. Neuropsychology of learning
disabilities: Essentials in subtype analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Secondary and Post-Secondary Outcomes
Zigmond & Baker (1990). Mainstreaming experiences for learning disabled students: A preliminary report.
Exceptional Children, 57 (2), 176-185.
Zigmond, Miller (1991). Improving high school programs for students with learning disabilities: A matter
of substance as well as form. In Rusch, DeStefano, Chadsey-Rusch, Phelps & Szymanski (Eds.) Transition from
school to adult life. Champaign, IL: Sycamore Publishing Co.
Zigmond & Semmel (1994). Educating the nation’s handicapped children: The federal role in special
education. In Lloyd (Ed.) Risking American educational competitiveness in a global economy: Federal education
and training policies 1980-1990. Arlington, VA: Center for Educational competitiveness.
Zigmond & Thorton (1986). Follow-up of post-secondary age LD graduate and drop-outs. LD Research, 1
(1) 50-55.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
120
Sociological Aspects of Disability
Eder. (1981). Ability groupings as a self-fulfilling prophesy: A micro analysis of teacher-student
interaction. Sociology of Education, 54,151-162.
Forness (1985). Effects of public policy at the state level: California’s impact on MR, LD & ED
categories. Remedial and Special Education. 6 (3), 36-43.
Senf (1986). LD research in sociological and scientific perspectives. In Torgesen & Wong (Eds.)
Psychological and educational perspectives in learning disabilities. Orlando: Academic Press
Sigmond (1987). Radical analysis of special education: Focus on historical development and learning
disabilities. London: The Falmer Press.
REFEREED JOURNAL: A refereed journal utilizes a panel of reviewers to select articles with appropriate content
and research design for inclusion in the journal. A list of examples of refereed journals in the field is included here:
Behavioral Disorders
Exceptional Children
Gifted Child Quarterly
Harvard Educational Review
Intervention in School and Clinic
Journal of Learning Disabilities
Journal for the Education of the Gifted
Journal of Early Intervention
Journal of Special Education
Learning Disabilities Quarterly
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice
Mental Retardation
Psychology in the Schools
Remedial and Special Education
Teacher Education Special Education
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education
Young Exceptional Children
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
GLOSSARY OF TERMS: Each student is encouraged to keep an on-going glossary
of terms throughout the semester. The development of a glossary should help to facilitate
greater understanding of information presented in class and in the assigned readings. This is
not a required assignment, but may be a portfolio item.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
121
EXC 7720
I.
II.
EXC 7720 Behavior Strategies
Department of Special Education
Kennesaw State University
Winter, 2004
INSTRUCTORS:
Michael Powell, Ph.D.
Office: 2334 Kennesaw Hall
Office Phone: 770-420-4336
Cell Phone: 404-660-0828
FAX: 770-423-6263
E-mail: powelldm@bellsouth.net
Gail Fredericks, M.Ed.
Office: 2334 Kennesaw Hall
Phone: 770-649-9554
FAX: 770-423-6263
E-mail: sfrederi@bellsouth.net
III.
Class Sessions:
Wednesdays, 5:00-8:00, KH 1107
IV. Texts (required):
Alberto, P.A., & Troutman, A.C. (2003). Applied Behavior Analysis
for Teachers, Sixth Edition.
Additional readings as assigned by instructors.
V.
Catalog Description: The purpose of this course is to promote the development of the
teacher’s own philosophy of classroom management. The course provides a range of theoretical
perspectives on classroom management from which the teacher’s philosophy is developed. The
application of learning and behavioral theories and procedures for planning and evaluating
behavioral change strategies are included.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
122
VI.
Purpose/Rationale: The purpose of this course is to train candidates in effective
strategies for decreasing inappropriate behaviors and increasing appropriate behaviors.
The primary focus of this course is for the candidate to develop a comprehensive
understanding of the learning and behavior principles that underlie effective classroom
management and implement them in his or her classroom. This includes: (1) the
principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA); (2) understanding the links between
curriculum/instruction and behavior problems; (3) the development of a problem solving
mentality toward behavior problems; (4) the ability to plan, implement, and evaluate
behavior change strategies based on student outcomes; and (5) a coherent theoretical
understanding of behavior and behavior interventions based on the research literature.
The course also provides an opportunity for candidates to pursue a range of theoretical
perspectives on classroom management and to integrate them with applied behavior
analysis theory into an overall philosophy of behavior management. The competencies in
this course are derived from the requirements of the Professional Standards Commission
(licensure body for Georgia), the Council for Exceptional Children standards, and PTEU
candidate outcomes based on the conceptual framework. The Praxis II also includes these
competencies.
Conceptual Framework Summary
COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERTISE IN
TEACHING AND LEARNING
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw State University is committed to
developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders
who possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all of their
students through effective, research-based practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance
the structures that support all learning. To that end, the PTEU fosters the development of
candidates as they progress through stages of growth from novice to proficient to expert and
leader. Within the PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued
development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational leaders must embrace
the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the implementation of
validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high levels of learning. In that
way, candidates are facilitators of the teaching and learning process. Finally, the PTEU
recognizes, values and demonstrates collaborative practices across the college and university and
extends collaboration to the community-at-large. Through this collaboration with professionals
in the university, the public and private schools, parents and other professional partners, the
PTEU meets the ultimate goal of assisting Georgia schools in bringing all students to high levels
of learning.
Knowledge Base
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases:
preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg
(1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process,
the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to preparing
effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
123
phases, teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming
Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that
expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.
The knowledge base for methods of teaching students with disabilities continues to develop
rapidly. The historical framework included perceptual training, behavior modification and task
analysis. Current directions include multiple intelligence models, systematic instruction, strategy
approaches to teaching and learning, and direct instruction. The field draws on research
literature from educational psychology, medicine, psychology and special education. The
emphasis in this class will be on developing skills in application of research-based best practice
in the area of behavior management, documenting impact on student learning, and reflective
practice.
Leadership and School-based Activities
While completing your graduate program at Kennesaw State University, you are required to be
involved in a variety of leadership and school-based activities directed at the improvement of
teaching and learning. Appropriate activities may include, but are not limited to, attending and
presenting at professional conferences, actively serving on or chairing school-based committees,
attending PTA/school board meetings, leading or presenting professional development activities
at the school or district level, and participating in education-related community events. As you
continue your educational experiences, you are encouraged to explore every opportunity to learn
by doing.
USE OF TECHNOLOGY: Technology Standards for Educators are required by the
Professional Standards Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies will be
integrated throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be able to
use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for
Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore and use
instructional media, especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of
productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to
design multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and develop an electronic
learning portfolio. Candidates in this course will be expected to apply the use of educational
technology in their classrooms. Specifically, candidates will use spreadsheet software to develop
graphs and tables to record and track student performance, word processing to write papers, web
based data bases to conduct Action Research, and e-mail to communicate with instructors and
peers. Candidates will have access to the ERIC CD-ROM database, TRAC and the Educational
Technology Center. Library research required in this course is supported by the Galileo system.
The password for this semester is “coda”.
Web
Web-cites:
www.cec.sped.org
www.nichcy.org
www.chadd.org
www.ldanatl.org
www.autism-society.org
www.thearc.org
Web
Web-cites:
www.doe.k12.ga.us
www.biausa.org
www.jdfcure.org
www.efa.org
www.nagc.org
www.aamr.org
www.dhr.state.ga.us
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
124
Diversity Statement
A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the
different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as
an understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and
assessment within multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate
awareness of critical multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore
how multiple attributes of multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific
methods and materials for every student. Among these attributes are age, disability, ethnicity,
family structure, gender, geographic region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual
orientation, and socioeconomic status. An emphasis on cognitive style differences provides a
background for the consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons
defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to support students with disabilities
within their academic program. In order to make arrangements for special services, students
must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and develop an individual
assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.
Please be aware there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State
University that address each of the multicultural variables outlined above.
Confidentiality:
The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) regulates access to,
and disclosure of student information. FERPA serves to assure record access by covered students
and their guardians and to prevent disclosure from those records of personally identifying
information to unprivileged parties without the written consent of affected students and their
guardians. Disclosure of confidential information is NOT to occur. To protect the confidentiality
of student information, no identifying information is included when KSU candidates present
written or oral reports.
Kennesaw State University candidates video-taping for KSU class requirements must obtain
informed permission from parents to videotape. School district permission forms should be used
and all returned forms kept on file with the school where videotaping takes place. KSU
candidates should include a statement that permission forms were completed and a sample
permission form with any videotape material submitted to KSU.
VII.
Goals and Objectives
The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of teacher
preparation as a developmental and collaborative process. Research for the past 25 years has
described this process in increasingly complex terms. Universities and schools must work
together to successfully prepare teachers who are capable of developing successful learners
in today’s schools and who choose to continue their professional development. Candidates in
this course are expected to perform at the Advanced or Teacher Leader level of performance.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
125
As a result of Knowledge, the candidate will be able to:
1. Demonstrate an understanding of the causes for inappropriate behavior, the
theoretical perspectives that underlie those causes, and appropriate intervention
programs to decrease inappropriate behavior while increasing appropriate behaviors.
(CEC Cross Reference: FK2, FK3, FS2, CK2, CK4).
2. Discuss theoretical/philosophical differences in managing classroom behavior and be
able to articulate a coherent theoretical perspective that underlies classroom
management for different aged learners. (CEC Cross Reference: IS15, BS7, BS8)
As a result of Skills, candidates will be able to:
3. Articulate the influence of antecedents and consequences on the decrease of
inappropriate behaviors and the increase or maintenance of appropriate behaviors for
individuals and groups. (CEC Cross Reference: BK2, BK3, BS3)
4. Articulate the factors in planning and implementing behavior change for students
with a range of learning, behavior, physical and sensory disabilities. (CEC Cross
Reference = PK2, PK3, PK4, PS5, PS6, PS7, BK1, BK3, BK4, CCK3, CCK4,
CCK5).
5. Demonstrate the ability to select target behaviors and design a systematic functional
behavior assessment and intervention plan that includes a focus on increasing
appropriate behaviors which serve the same “function” as the inappropriate behavior;
demonstrate the ability to track student behavior and develop appropriate data sheets
and graphs to document behavior change. (CEC Cross Reference: CK2, AS1, AS3,
PS2, PS6, PS7, BK2, BK3, BK4, BS1, BS2, BS3, BS6, CCK2, CCK4, CCK5, CCS1,
CCS2).
6. Demonstrate the application of problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills
instruction as part of a proactive management system. This includes the
demonstration of a problem solving mentality on the part of the candidate. (CEC
Cross Reference: CK2, IK6, IS6, IS9, PS1, PS5, BS4, BS5, BS6, BS7, BS8).
7. Demonstrate the ability to plan a learning environment for individuals and groups in
the classroom and school using proactive strategies to minimize inappropriate
behaviors and to identify appropriate reactive strategies for managing disruptions
using the principles of positive behavior support and least intervention.( Cross
Reference: IK6, IK9, IS2, IS4, IS13, PK4, PS1, PS2, PS7, BS6, BS7, BS8).
As a result of professional Dispositions candidates will be able to:
8. Articulate strategies for including peers, parents, other teachers, related service
providers, paraprofessionals, community resources, and etc. in functional analysis,
planning, and implementing behavior change strategies. (CEC Cross Reference: PK3,
PK4, PS7, PS6, PS4, CCK1, CCK2, CCK3, CCS1, EK2).
9. Articulate a theoretical/philosophical, research-based understanding of classroom
management for students with a range of learning, physical, sensory, and behavior
disabilities. (CEC Cross Reference: FS1, FS3, IK9, IS1, BK1, BK2).
10. Articulate the ethical issues in implementation of behavior change strategies for
individuals and groups. (CEC Cross Reference: BS1, CCK3, EK2, EK4, ES1, ES2).
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
126
VIII.
Course Requirements/Assignments
A.) Assurance for Research on Human Subjects: This Assurance, as of August 1, 2003, is
now required by Federal policy and formalizes the institution’s commitment to protect
human subjects. All individuals (faculty, staff, and students) engaged in research on human
subjects must complete a web-based training course. As the instructor for this course, I have
submitted a proposal to KSU’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval. This webbased training will take approximately two hours to complete and can be found at:
http://cme.cancer.gov . When registering for the course, indicate that the course is being
taken for “Completion Certificate only, no continuing education credits.” Upon completion,
print a copy of the Completion Certificate to submitted for the twenty-five points.
B.) Application Paper Components (Assignments):
The candidate will complete 5 assignments which address the major components of
the Application Paper, which is an action research project. In this way, the candidate
builds the structure of the paper throughout the course.
. Each candidate will select a student in his or her classroom who is demonstrating an
inappropriate behavior(s). This student and his or her behavior will be the target student
for the application paper components and the application paper. The specifics of the
components of the application paper for each teacher will vary, given the type of students
each teacher is working with, the settings in which they teach, the presenting behavior
problem, and the location in the school where the behavior(s) occur. Each candidate will
develop his or her own plan. However, candidates will be able to develop these plans
through group work during class.
The teacher will complete the five components (25 points per component) on the
targeted student during the first 12 weeks of the class and will include: (a) functional
assessment, (b) classroom ecology plan, (c) data collection, (d) intervention program to
decrease inappropriate behavior and increase an appropriate behavior that serves the
same function, and (e) maintenance and generalization plan to include self-monitoring
strategies. These components will be turned in on an ongoing basis to the instructor as
noted in the syllabus. These components will be graded based on rubrics and returned on
an ongoing basis by the instructor.
C.)Application Paper: The application paper will be written as an Action Research paper
in APA format. The application paper will be graded based on a rubric by the instructor
(75 points). This paper will include six sections:
(1)
Abstract
(2)
Introduction
(3)
Methods
(4)
Results (Graphs & Tables)
(5)
Discussion
(6.)
References
Further description of final application paper elements will be included in a separate
handout.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
127
D.) Applied Research Presentation: You will give a power-point presentation on your
applied research project. All six sections are to be addressed clearly and concisely. The
presentation should not last longer than 10 minutes. Your data will be graphed and
displayed using Excel. This activity will be worth 25 points.
E.) Midterm Exam:There will be an applied midterm exam (take home) which is worth 25
points
F.) Final Exam: The final has two components. The first is a written exam worth 50
points to be taken in class. This exam will be a short answer, recall of pertinent
information. Candidates will be given a term related to applied behavior analysis and
positive behavior support. These terms will come directly from the text by Alberto and
Troutman, class handouts and discussion. Candidates are advised to read the text and
handouts carefully and actively participate in all discussions. This thorough
preparation will assist you greatly when taking the PRAXIS II exam.
The second component is a case study, also worth 50 points and graded based on a
rubric. Candidates will select one of three case studies (based on student age to include
elementary, middle, and high) and answer questions related to the case study. This
component is a take home exam and is due the day of the final. Candidates will
complete a number of similar type case studies as group activities during the course.
G.) Class Participation: In most classes, candidates will work in groups to complete
specific activities. These include case studies, reflections on readings, and specific
problem solving around problem behaviors in individual candidate classrooms. The
instructor anticipates that candidates will attend class regularly (see policy on tardiness
and absenteeism) and be respectful of the instructors and peers (75 points).
Program Requirements For This Course
Working Portfolio Components
Professional Portfolio Narrative:
A required element in each portfolio for the Graduate Program is the portfolio
narrative. The purpose of the portfolio narrative is to ensure that every candidate
reflects on each of the proficiencies on the CPI with regard to what evidence the
candidate has selected for his/her portfolio. In your portfolio, you need to include a
narrative which includes descriptive, analytic and reflective writing in which you
reflect on each proficiency and how you make the case that the evidence you have
selected in your portfolio supports a particular proficiency, using the Portfolio
Narrative Rubric as a guide. The narrative should be comprehensive, documenting
research-based best practices.
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 its impact on your students’ learning. Then,
you will reflect on the impact on your students’ learning on that particular lesson, activity, unit, or
skill using the “Impact on Student Learning Analysis” Rubric as a guide. You will want to consider
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
128
how the differences that every student brings to the classroom setting may have influenced
learning (see definition of “every student” at the top of attached “Impact on Student Learning”
rubric). Unless your program area tells you differently, the length of the reflection is up to you, but
it should be concise. (See Directions for “Impact on Student Learning Analysis” that accompanies
the Rubric for greater detail.)
Extensions and Impact on Student Learning:
Candidates should keep ongoing documentation of ways in which they extended their
learning and skills from this and other courses they took. For this course, this could
include additional behavior support plans developed, consultations with other teachers
about behavior problems, committees served on, parent consultations and home
intervention plans developed, and building level changes you assisted in implementing.
Candidates should keep documentation of changes in student behavior that results
from these interventions (impact on student learning).
Field Experience Observation:
All candidates will be observed by an adjunct faculty member in the Department of
SpecialEducation. They will observe following a protocol that will be shared with candidates
priorto the observation. The observation for this course will focus on intervention strategies to
decrease inappropriate behavior and increase appropriate behavior and general classroom
organization and management.
IX. Evaluation and Grading
Class Requirements, Assignments, and Grading
Class Activities
Points
Field
Observation
Course
Objectives
Experience Required
Assurance for Research on Human
Subjects
Mid Term Exam
Functional Analysis
Classroom Ecology
Data Collection Plan
Intervention Plan to increase appropriate
behavior and decrease inappropriate
behavior
Maintenance, Generalization, and SelfMonitoring Strategies
Application Paper (Positive Behavior
Support Plan as an Action Research
Paper)
Application Paper Presentation
Case Study Final
Final Exam
Class Participation (Includes in class
group projects)
PTEU
Objectives
4
25 (Required)
25
25
25
25
25
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1,3,4,5,8
1,3,4,7
5
1,3,4,6,8
2
2,3
1,2,3
3
1,2,3
25
1,6
1,2,3
75
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,2,3,4
25
50
50
75
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,
9,10
1,2,3,4
2
2
4,5
Total 450
Grades will be assigned as follows:
405-450 points (Level 4)
A
360-404 points (Level 3)
B
315-359 points (Level 2)
C
<314 points (Level 1)
F
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
129
X. Academic Integrity
Every KSU candidate is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of
Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student
Code of Conduct addresses the University’s policy on academic honesty, including
provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials,
misrepresentation/ falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal,
retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer
facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged
academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University
Judiciary Program, which includes either an “informal” resolution by a faculty member,
resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student
to the Code of Conduct’s minimum one semester suspension requirement.
The student is reminded to consult the KSU Graduate Catalog for the University’s policy.
Any strategy, which has the appearance of improving grades without increasing knowledge,
will be dealt with in accordance with the University’s policy on academic honesty. In
addition, students in the graduate program in special education are held accountable by the
Georgia Professional Code of Ethics for Educators
(http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html) and the Council for Exceptional
Children’s (CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with Exceptionalities
(http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).
XI. Class Attendance Policy
Candidate Expectations for Attendance, Participation and Professionalism
Cooperative learning group activities in class will enable candidates to apply new skills and knowledge.
This requirement emphasizes the importance of class attendance and supports the belief from the
conceptual framework that learning is an interactive endeavor requiring the presence and participation of
all class members in order to facilitate growth and learning. Each candidate has something unique to
contribute to the class experience that will facilitate the learning of other class members. For full credit,
candidates must: a.) Participate fully in collaborative group work and focus groups; b.) Listen attentively to
presentations; and c.) Refrain from working on personal computers (or otherwise) on other assignments
during class presentations.
Candidates, like the instructor, are expected to come to class meetings thoroughly prepared. “Thoroughly
prepared” is defined as having read the readings well enough to verbally and in writing state the
definitions of terms from the readings; discuss ideas, notions, concepts, issues, and procedures in
relation to previous information presented in class or in previous readings; and apply the information from
the readings to problems. It also implies the student has reviewed information from the previous class
meetings. When information from the readings is unclear, the student should prepare questions to
discuss in class.
Regular attendance is required for all scheduled classes in that the student is responsible for
obtaining all materials, instruction, etc. presented during class. Attendance at all class
meetings is stressed because of the interactive nature of the class. Not all material covered
will be found in the required readings. You are required to inform the instructor in advance
of your absence. Failure to do so will result in your not being allowed to make-up any missed
class work (i.e., class activities). Attendance will be monitored and reflected in the class
participation/attendance points (see KSU Graduate Catalog).
All assignments must be submitted on or before the class meeting on the assigned due date.
Failure to turn in assignments when due will result in an automatic 10 percent penalty from
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
130
the points you earn on any given assignment. All grading will be done as objectively as
possible. While rubrics for class presentation and facilitation will be provided. In case of
qualitative assessment, evaluation will be based on instructor judgment.
The assignment of incomplete (“I”) grades is discouraged and will be assigned only in cases of extreme
emergencies and in cases where a passing grade may be earned. It is the student’s responsibility to
notify the instructor when such circumstances exist. Upon notification, a contract between the student and
instructor for completion of the course will be developed before the last week of the semester. (See
attached Candidate Participation and Professionalism Rubric.)
Disruptive Behavior: The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that
disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning
of others, behavior that fits the University’s definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (See
Campus Policies and Procedures in the KSU Graduate Catalog).
Human Dignity: The University has formulated a policy on human rights that is intended to provide a
learning environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found in the KSU Graduate
Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but the policy is there
for your consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that
policy.
Candidate Participation and Professionalism Rubric (Each standard target under L4= 5pts.)
Candidate Name:
Name of Reviewer:
Date:
Pts.
/50
Standards
Candidate’s oral and
written expression is
well organized,
professional, and free of
mechanical errors.
Candidate is highly
professional in his/her
approach to graduate
work.
L1 - L2
Two or more faculty
members have voiced
concerns over the
candidate’s work in one or
more areas of written
expression.
Quality and consistency of
candidate’s oral expression
(e.g., speaking up in class)
is unacceptable
Candidate is habitually late
for class. Candidate does
not attend to class
discussion or
activities.
Candidate is not respectful
of the ideas of others.
Candidate does not listen
and appropriately respond
to feedback and dialogue.
Candidate views course
assignments in isolation
and does not find ways to
extend new skills and
knowledge to daily
practice.
Candidate seldom submits
assignments on time.
L3
While the quality of
written expression is
somewhat inconsistent, it
is always acceptable.
L4
1. The quality of the
candidate’s written expression
is consistently well organized,
professional and free of
errors.
Quality and consistency
of candidate’s oral
expression (e.g.,
speaking up in class) is
acceptable
Candidate
consistently
comes to class,
is punctual and
attends to topics
of discussion and
activities.
2. The quality and consistency
of candidate’s oral expression
(e.g., speaking up in class) is
exemplary
Candidate is usually
respectful of colleagues
and peers.
Candidate usually listens
and appropriately
responds to feedback and
dialogue.
4. Candidate is consistently
respectful of colleagues and
peers.
5. Candidate consistently
listens and appropriately
responds to feedback and
dialogue.
Candidate periodically
finds a way to extend
skills and knowledge
from course work to
daily practice
6. Candidate consistently
finds ways to extend skills
and knowledge from course
work to daily practice.
Candidate occasionally
misses deadlines for
assignments.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
3. Candidate
consistently comes
to class, is
punctual and attends
to topics of
discussion and
activities.
7. Candidate consistently
submits assignments on time.
Comments
131
Candidate is
professional in terms of
his/her manner of
communication,
collaboration &
teamwork.
Candidate does not use
People 1st language when
referring to people with
disabilities.
Candidate generally uses
People 1st language when
referring to people with
disabilities.
8. Candidate consistently uses
People 1st language when
referring to people with
disabilities.
Candidate displays
paternalistic attitudes
toward students with
disabilities, has low
expectations and increases
student dependency on
teachers and caretakers.
Candidate generally
displays a positive
attitude towards all
students, including those
with disabilities, has high
expectations and
empowers all students to
solve their own problems
and increase
independence.
9. Candidate consistently
displays a positive attitude
towards all students,
including those with
disabilities, has high
expectations and empowers
all students to solve their own
problems and increase
independence.
Candidate is often accused
by peers of “social loafing”
during group work. An
analysis of grades clearly
indicates a discrepancy
where the candidates
“group grades” are higher
than individual grades.
Candidate successfully
collaborates with peers to
complete team-based
assignments.
10. Candidate consistently
leads and successfully
collaborates with peers to
complete team-based
assignments.(Point totals
here will be based on “Peer
Evaluation Forms”)
XI. Course Outline (The syllabus schedule reflects a proposed general sequence of topics. Any topic
may be covered in greater or lesser detail depending on the needs of the class. Topics may overlap in
dates. Additional topics may be added as requested by the candidates. However, any changes in due
dates or written products that are part of a “grade” will be changed only after class discussion and written
notification by the professor. Candidates will be expected to initial that they have read the written
notification by the instructor.) [A = Alberto and Troutman; K = Kohn]
Date
Topic
Readings
1/7/04
A: 1&2
1/21/04
Introductions & Syllabus
Review
Roots of Applied Behavior
Analysis
Basic Concepts of ABA
1/28/04
Functional Assessments
A: 7
2/4/04
Classroom Ecology
A: 3 & Handout
2/11/04
Data Collection Procedures
Graphing Data & SingleSubject Research Designs
(Class will be held in KH Lab
2105)
A: 4&5
Handout
2/18/04
Consequences that Increase
Behavior/Schedules of
Reinforcement
A: 8
1/14/04
A: 6 & Handouts
In-Class
Activity
Discussion
Discussion
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Assignment
Due
Functional
Analysis Group
Process
(Pass Out
Midterm)
Discussion
Data Collection
and Display
(Applied
Practice)
Discussion
Assurance of
Human Subjects
Functional
Assessment
Classroom
Ecology
132
2/25/04
Consequences that Decrease
Behavior
A: 9
Discussion
Data Plan
3/3/04
*Spring Bk.
Next Week
3/17/04
Differiential Reinforcement:
Stimulus Control and Shaping
A: 10
Discussion
Midterm Due
Maintenance & Generalization
A: 11
Discussion
Intervention Plan
3/24/04
3/31/04
4/7/04
Self-Management Strategies
Teaching Social Skills
Note: Class meeting on Nov.
13th will attend the
Technology Fair
A;12
Case Study
4/14/04
Applied Research
Presentations
Applied Research
Presentations & Group Case
Study
Case Study
Group Case Study
Maintenance,
Generalization,
and SelfManagement
Plan; Group Case
Study
Group Case Study
Case Study
Group Case Study
Applied Research
Presentations & Group Case
Study
Final
Final Exam Study
Group
Application
Paper; Group
Case Study
Case Study &
Final
4/21/04
4/28/04
5/5/04
5:00 to7:00
Final
The course schedule provides a general plan for the course-deviations may be necessary.
XII.
References/Bibliography
Setting Events
Dadson, S., & Horner, R. H. (1993) Manipulating setting events to decrease problem behaviors: A case
study. Teaching Exceptional Children.
Gardner, W.I., Cole, C. L., Davidson, D. P., Karan, O. C. (1986). Reducing aggression in individuals with
developmental disabilities: An expanded stimulus control, assessment, and intervention model. Education
and Training in Mental Retardation, 21, 3-12.
Kennedy, C., & Itkonen, T. (1993). Effects of setting events on the problem behavior of students with
severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 321-327.
Mace, R. C., & Roberts, M. L. (1992). Factors affecting selection of behavioral interventions. In J. Reichle
and D.P. Wacker (Eds.), Communicative alternatives to challenging behaviors: Integrating functional
assessment and intervention strategies.
Functional Behavior Analysis
O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., & Newton, J. S. (1997). Functional assessment and
program development for problem behavior (2nd Ed.). Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company.
Conroy, M., Fox, J., Crain, L., Jenkins, A., & Belcher, K. (1996). Evaluating the social and ecological
validity of analog assessment procedures for challenging behaviors in young children. Education and
Treatment of Children, 19, 233-256.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
133
Donnellan, A., Mirenda, P., Mesaros, R., & Fassbender, L. (1984). Analyzing the communicative functions
of aberrant behavior. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 201-212.
Evans, I., & Meyer, L. (1985). An educative approach to problem behaviors: A practical decision model for
interventions with severely handicapped learners. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Repp, A., & Karsh, K. (1994). Hypothesis-based interventions for tantrum behaviors in persons with
developmental disabilities in school settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 21-31.
Sasso, G., Reimers, T., Cooper, L., Wacker, D., Berg, W., Steege, M., Kelly, L., & Allaire, A. (1992). Use
of descriptive and experimental analyses to identify the functional properties of aberrant behavior in
school settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 809-821.
Reed, H., Thomas, E., Sprague, J., & Horner, R. (1997). The student guided functional assessment
interview: An analysis of student and teacher agreement. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 33-45.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Professional Teacher Education Unit
134
Collaborative
Development of Expertise
In Teaching and Learning
Kennesaw State University
EXC 7730
EXC 7730
Cross Categorical Assessment Of Exceptionality
Department of Special Education
Kennesaw State University
Spring, 2002
Instructor:
Michaela D’Aquanni, Ph. D.
Name:
Office: KH 2335
Office Phone:
770-423-4336 or 770-423-6577
Fax:
770-423-6263
e-mail:
mdaquann@kennesaw.edu
Home Phone: 770-614-0961
Class Sessions: Day:
Required Text:
Monday, 4:00-7:00 p.m.
Location: Dunwoody High School, 5035 Vermack Road, Dunwoody,
GA, 30338
Taylor, R. L. (2000). Assessment of Exceptional Students (5th
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon,
Catalog Description: This course covers standardization, issues, and vocabulary in assessment.
Students develop competencies in administration and interpretation of norm-referenced tests and
development, administration and interpretation of criterion-referenced, curriculum-based,
observation, checklist/rating scale, authentic and informal assessments. Special emphasis is
placed on screening, eligibility, instructional decision-making and documentation applications in
special education.
Purpose/Rationale: This course will establish foundational knowledge concerning terminology
and conditions inherent to the assessment process, with an emphasis on the use of both
quantitative and qualitative data. The purpose of the course is to prepare prospective K-12
special education teachers to become effective facilitators in the teaching/learning process for
preschool, elementary, middle school and/or secondary populations. The competencies in this
course are derived from the requirements of the Professional Standards Commission (PSC:
licensure body for Georgia) for teachers of students with disabilities and the national standards of
the Council for Exceptional Children. In addition, and as part of their professional
responsibilities, teachers of students with disabilities need to know the legislative and litigative
implications of the demands of their practice in the identification of students with mild
disabilities.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
135
Conceptual Framework Summary:
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
The Kennesaw State University teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers
who demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU
teacher education community strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation
requiring guidance from professionals inside and outside the university. In tandem with this
belief is the understanding that teacher expertise develops along a continuum which includes the
stages of pre-service, induction, in-service, and renewal; further, as candidates develop a strong
research-based knowledge of content and pedagogy, they develop their professional expertise in
recognizing, facilitating, assessing, and evaluating student learning.
Knowledge Base:
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg
(1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning
process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to
preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the
continuum phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms
toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg
(1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.
The knowledge base for curriculum development for students with disabilities is an emerging
issue. The historical framework included remediation of deficit skills, teaching IEP objectives or
functional curriculum. Current directions include merging regular education curriculum and
special educational needs. The field draws on research literature from educational psychology,
psychology and special education. The emphasis in this class will be on critically reviewing
research studies of curriculum development models, current issues in curriculum development for
students with disabilities, and the application of these models in P-12 classrooms. The application
includes curriculum-based assessment.
Use of Technology: (Required by the Professional Standards Commission)
Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated
throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be
able to use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology
Standards for Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with
opportunities to explore and use instructional media, especially microcomputers,
to assist teaching. They will master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia
facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia
instructional materials, create WWW resources, and develop an electronic
learning portfolio.
Students in this course will be expected to understand the use of educational technology in
support of the assessment of students with disabilities. Technology emphasis will include word
processing, computer databases (library access programs, Galileo, internet and email),
technological presentations (PowerPoint) and computer-assisted programs for assessment.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
136
Websites:
www.doe.k12.ga.us
www.cec.sped.org
http://www.asri.edu/CFSP/brochure/acountib.htm
http://www.ode.state.or.us/sped/fedpapers/assessment.htm
http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/special_education/thurlow_assessment.html
http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed381987.html
http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed391984.html
http://www.coled.umn.edu/nceo/onlinepubs/synthesis25.html
Diversity Statement:
A variety of material and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of different learning
styles of diverse learners in class. Students will gain knowledge, skills, and understanding to provide
effective instruction in multicultural classrooms. Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility
and accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to help disabled students
with their academic work. In order to make arrangements for special services, students must visit the Office
of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and arrange an individual assistance plan. In some cases,
certification of disability is required.
The effect of socio-economic, ethnic, gender and cultural differences on the effectiveness of methods for
students with disabilities will be considered. The emphasis on cognitive style differences in the special
education field provides a background for the consideration of cultural context
Goals And Objectives:
The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of teacher
preparation as a developmental and collaborative process. Research for the past 25 years has
described this process in increasingly complex terms. Universities and schools must work
together to successfully prepare teachers who are capable of developing successful learners
in today’s schools and who choose to continue their professional development. Students in
this course are expected to perform at the Advanced or Teacher Leader level of
performance.
As a result of Knowledge, the candidate will be able to:
1. demonstrate an understanding of the changes in assessment practices as mandated by
IDEA 1997.
2. define, using current educational terminology, categories of disability used in the
State of Georgia, as well as the procedures and criteria for classification and
placement.
3. compare and contrast local, state and national incidence and prevalence data and
discuss the findings in terms of controversies of labeling, over-representation of
linguistically and culturally diverse students, and exclusion from general education
curriculum.
4. explain the impact of, and interactions between, learning and various developmental
delays and/or difficulties (e.g.., cognitive, perceptual, behavioral, socio-emotional,
speech and/or language, motor, sensory).
5. demonstrate an understanding of and appropriately use terminology used in the
assessment of students with disabilities.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
137
6. demonstrate an understanding of and describe legal provisions, regulations and
guidelines regarding unbiased assessment, and use of psychometric instruments and
instructional assessment measures with individuals with disabilities.
7. compare and contrast the SST process used in the State of Georgia to the polices and
practices related to screening, referral and placement of students with disabilities.
8. identify various strategies for test-taking and test accommodations, adaptations and
modifications, taking into consideration statewide and classroom assessments.
As a result of Skills, the candidate will be able to:
9. master the basic educational statistics underpinning standardized testing.
10. determine the efficacy of standardized tests commonly used in the identification and
program development of students with disabilities, using appropriate assessment
terminology and criteria provided in class. Candidates will also determine the effects
of socio-economic, language, and cultural differences in making decisions relative to
identification and placement of diverse populations of students
11. develop an assessment plan to include assessment procedures which are appropriate,
unbiased and have a high probability of success measuring the strengths and needs of
individual students. As appropriate, develop and implement an assistive technology
plan for individuals being assessed whose response mode is atypical.
12. assess a student with a disability and then analyze and report the results in at least two of the following
areas, using only assessment instruments for which they hold the appropriate
credentials:
a. General achievement
b. Attention & memory
c. Level of cognitive functioning
d. Motor
e. Sensory-acuity
f. Adaptive behavior
g. Speech and language
h. Cognitive processing
13. implement procedures for assessing and reporting both appropriate and problematic
social behaviors of individuals with disabilities.
14. conduct curriculum-based, performance and/or product assessments, analyze and
report results in at least two of the following areas:
a. General achievement
b. Attention & memory
c. Level of cognitive functioning
d. Motor
e. Sensory-acuity
f. Adaptive behavior
g. Speech and language
h. Cognitive processing
15. adapt and modify ecological inventories, portfolio assessments, functional
assessments, and futures-based and team-based assessments to accommodate unique
needs and abilities of individuals with disabilities.
16. synthesize information collected from standardized and non-standardized procedures,
interpret and report results in terms of the special education categories of disability as
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
138
stated in IDEA 1997 and Georgia state rules (e.g., learning disabled, behavior
disordered, intellectually disabled, other health impaired).
17. make recommendations for educational programming in separate and inclusive
settings, based upon all of the information collected.
As a result of Disposition, the student will be able to:
18. demonstrate understanding of the rights to privacy, confidentiality, and respect for
differences among all persons interacting with individuals with disabilities.
19. maintain confidentiality of all records and individuals (medical, academic,
psychological, etc.).
20. demonstrate a respect for individuals with disabilities by using person-first language.
21. articulate a teacher's ethical responsibility to individuals who function similarly to
individuals with disabilities but have not been identified as having disability.
PTEU (Professional Teachers Education Unit) Objectives:
a. Are committed to students and their learning.
b. Know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.
c. Are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.
d. Think systematically about their practice and learn from experience.
e. Are members of learning communities.
VI.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:
1.
On-Going Development Action Plan: Each of us is at a different point in our own
development as a teacher and a learner. We are unique in that we have different
experiences, skills, and ways of thinking that support our life long growth as a teacher and
learner.
Beginning of class:
a. Outline your strengths and areas of need related to the content of this course.
End of the course:
a. reflect upon the growth you have made regarding your strengths and areas of
need;
b. develop a Personal Action Plan to include a list of goals you are setting for
yourself, related to the material from class, and an action plan for achieving those
goals; and
c. reflect upon how you will continue to use the content from this course to
perpetuate your growth as a teacher and learner. This entire activity should be
completed as part your on-going reflective log.
2.
Reflective Professional Log: The log must contain reflections on your professional
readings, conferences/in-service sessions attended, and site visits conducted over the course
of the semester. Each entry must be dated and titled – followed by your personal response
to the material or experience. To obtain full credit for this activity, you must:
a. Read a minimum of four (4) articles from professional journals regarding
assessment of students with disabilities and/or any other topics related to our class
discussions and text. In addition, you are required to write a one-page reflection
containing your reactions to the reading. (i.e., MAPS, difference between ESL
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
139
and a language disability, use of assistive technology in the assessment process,
cultural variables that affect assessment results, parental involvement in the
assessment process)
b. Attend one in service, conference or professional meeting OR watch a training
video that addresses topics related to course content and/or discussions and write
a one page reflection on the experience.
c. Observe an assessment conducted by a qualified/experienced colleague OR attend
an eligibility meeting and write a one-page reflection.
3.
Table of District Assessment Tools: Fill out the sheet provided indicating the assessment
tools used within your district to assess students with disabilities, as well as students who
may be on the gifted end of the spectrum. This may be completed as a school cadre or
individually.
4.
Presentation of an Assessment Tool: Each student is responsible for working within a
small group to become proficient at administering an assessment tool and understanding the
accommodations and modifications allowed - then assisting other classmates in becoming
familiar with the tool and its purpose. This facilitation should last no longer than 20 - 30
minutes and include a handout of the critical material for the assessment tool. The
assessment tool must be cleared through me before being chosen and the group must present
in class before April 15th. Please see me to sign up.
5.
Case Study Analysis: Students will conduct two analyses of data collected on students
with disabilities. The instructor will provide case studies. These will be completed in-class
as either a group activity or as an independent project. (25 points each)
6.
Quiz: Application of information regarding calculation of mean, median, mode, standard
deviation, CA, etc. (25 points)
7.
Case Study: Each student is to complete one case study on a target student. This project
will be graded according to the rubric provided in class. Your case study must include the
following (200 points total):
a. Target student identified/descriptive data reported: (Demographic Information &
Reason for Referral) Write a one to two page brief description of the student that will
be targeted for completion of assignments in this class. The question that needs to be
answered is: What is the nature of the school performance problem of this student?
(25 points)
b. Record Review: Conduct a record review on your target student. Summarize the
following information (50 points):

Background information

Student history:
 Family/developmental/medical, psychological
 Level of cognitive functioning/ cognitive processing
 Academic performance
 Language issues
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
140




 Social/emotional issues
Teacher observational data, concerns, and priorities (addressed briefly in first
paper)
Parent observational data, concerns, and priorities (addressed briefly in first
paper)
List of all previous assessment instruments and/or procedures with results
Recommendations from most recent IEP team
c. Evaluation Plan: Development of an individualized assessment plan for target
student. (50 points)
d. Testing & Interpretation:
 Observation of Student Behavior During Testing
 Interpretation of All Test Results (Past & Current)
 Cognitive functioning and processing
 Academic performance
 Social/emotional/behavioral status
 Language processing
 On your own, you are required to administer:
 One behavioral assessment
 One diagnostic or standardized test in two academic areas (may be
subtests
only)
 Two authentic measures
 Summary
e. Recommendations for Program Planning: (25 points)
 Summary Statement
 Statement and justification for eligibility for IDEA - Classification (Suspected
or previously established)
 Teacher Recommendations
 Description of Parent Priorities for Student
 Student Recommendations/Choices
 Other Recommendations for appropriate Educational Intervention
NOTE: In order to obtain full credit on your case study, data collection and resulting
recommendations must reflect collaboration with parents and professional partners.
8.
Class Participation: Class participation is part of the overall grade and is worth 50 points.
During class you will be asked to participate in numerous group activities that will enable
you to use the skills and knowledge emphasized in class. These activities support our belief
that learning is an interactive endeavor requiring your presence and active participation. To
receive the full 50 points, your colleagues within the group activities must determine that
you “pulled your weight.”
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
141
EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.
evaluated according to the point system provided below.
 Any assignment turned in early will earn 15% extra credit.
 Any report containing confidential information will not be graded.
Class Requirements and Assignments
Assignment
Each student will be
Possible Points
Course Objectives
Table of District Assessment Tools
Presentation of a Test
In-class case study analyses (25 points each)
25
50
25
50
50
Quiz
Case Study (200):
25
25
18, 20, 21,
3, 6, 7, 10, 20, 21
1, 7, 10,
4, 5, 7, 8, 10,
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10,
13, 15, 16, 17,
2, 9,
1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20,
“
“
“
“
On-Going Development Action Plan
P. Reflective Professional Log
Identify Target Student
Record Review
Evaluation Plan
Testing & Interpretation
Recommendations
50
50
50
25
50
Total Points Possible
Grading Scale:
A = 90% or better
(428 - 475 points)
B = 80-89%
(380 - 427 points)
C = 70-79%
(333 - 379 points)
D = 60-69%
(285 - 332 points)
F = 59% or below
(284 or fewer points)
475
Class Participation
PTEU
Objectives
a, d
a, d
a, c, d, e
b, d
b, c, d, e
a, d
a, b, c, d, e
“
“
“
“
d, e
GENERAL GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS
1. All individual assignments must be typed, single spaced, with 1” margins on both sides so I can provide
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
you with feedback. This includes reflections.
Be sure to maintain confidentiality of student, settings, and teachers. All identifying names and
information should be omitted from your written work and discussions.
Late assignments are unacceptable without making prior arrangements with me.
I will be looking for quality writing not quantity. Eliminate jargon and hyperbole and focus on clearly
stating your point.
Examine the language you use within your assignments. Please remember to remove the focus on a
person’s behavior or disability by stating the person first, i.e., “a person with a disability” is preferable to
“a disabled person.”
Be careful to avoid judgmental statements and focus on the facts when writing about students. As teachers
we need to put our own biases and opinions aside and view each student as a capable and valuable human
being.
A. Academic Integrity
Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of
Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the
Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty,
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
142
including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to
University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic
work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials,
malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of
student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled
through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes
either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or
a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's
minimum one semester suspension requirement.
Pages 142-143 of the KSU Graduate catalog (2001-2002) states: KSU expects that graduate students will
pursue their academic programs in an ethical, professional manner. Any work that students present in
fulfillment of program or course requirements should represent their own efforts, achieved without giving
or receiving any unauthorized assistance. Any student who is found to have violated these expectations
will be subject to disciplinary action. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through
the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal"
resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which
may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.
The student is reminded to consult pp.142-143 of the 2001-2002 KSU Graduate Catalog for the
University's policy. Any strategy, which has the appearance of improving grades without increasing
knowledge, will be dealt with in accordance with the University's policy on academic honesty. In
addition, students in the graduate program in special education are held accountable by the Georgia
Professional Code of Ethics for Educators (http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html)
and the Council for Exceptional Children's (CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with
Exceptionalities (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).
Disruptive Behavior:
The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that
disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can
interrupt the learning of others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive
behavior will not be tolerated. (See Campus Policies and Procedures pp.146-147 of the
2001- 2002 KSU Graduate Catalog).
Human Dignity:
The University has formulated a policy on human rights that is intended to provide a
learning environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found on p.152
in the 2001-2002 KSU Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no professional should need
reminding, but the policy is there for your consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in
both the spirit and the letter of that policy – expecting that students will adhere to the highest professional
standards in the ways they conduct themselves.
CLASS ATTENDANCE POLICY & PARTICIPATION: EVALUATION WILL
INCLUDE ATTENDANCE, COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION SKILLS
DEMONSTRATED DURING CLASS.
Regular attendance is required for all scheduled classes in that the student is responsible for obtaining all
materials, instruction, etc. presented during class. Attendance at all class meetings is stressed because
information provided in class will be assessed on exams and class projects. Not all material covered will be
found in the required readings. You are required to inform the instructor in advance of your absence. Each
absence will result in a five point reduction on your grade and more than three absences will lead to a letter
grade drop.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
143
Students are expected to attend all class sessions and be active participants and in the learning process.
Active Participation requires that candidates come to class prepared and participate in class discussions and
activities by sharing his/her ideas within both large and small groups, as well as respectfully listening to the
ideas of others. This class includes presentations by professionals from other disciplines and class
attendance is essential for participation in development of a multi-disciplinary perspective. Class activities
will include discussion, role-playing and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all
students. Students have many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's learning.
It is also expected that you will read the syllabus to determine what assignments are due and when.
Questions will be answered in class regarding assignments, but it is the candidate’s responsibility to be sure
(s) he has the information necessary to complete required assignments.
The assignment of incomplete (“I”) grades is discouraged and will be assigned only in cases of extreme
emergencies and in cases where a passing grade may be earned. It is the student’s responsibility to notify the
instructor when such circumstances exist. Upon notification, a contract between the student and instructor for
completion of the course will be developed before the last week of the semester.
Course Outline
Class Dates
Week 1:
Jan. 7
Week 2:
Jan. 14
Week 3:
Jan. 21
Week 4:
Jan. 28
Week 5:
Feb. 4
Week 6:
Feb. 11
Week 7:
Feb. 18
Week 8:
Feb.25
Week 9:
March 4
Week 10:
Class Focus
Review syllabus/course requirements

KWL Chart

Begin Reflective Journal

Discuss District Assessment Tool Assignment

Review of the assessment process (SST Process)

Changes mandated by IDEA 1997

Disability Categories & Eligibility Requirements in Georgia

Criteria for classification and placement

Discuss target student identification/descriptive data

Table of District Assessment Tools Due
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. DAY OBSERVED:
CLASS WILL NOT MEET

Review of the assessment process cont.

Assessment of Intelligence

Target student identified/descriptive data due

Assessment of school performance – Achievement, Cognitive,
Behavior

Strategies for test taking – test accommodations & modifications

Informal assessments and classroom assessment techniques

Record review due

Informal assessments and classroom assessment techniques cont.

Quiz

Early childhood and oral language assessment

Developmental Delays – Georgia regulations

Case study in-class group activity: analysis of assessment
data

Parent and family involvement

Bilingual Assessment

Overrepresentation of linguistically & culturally diverse students

Controversies of labeling

Assessment of Reading - Formal, informal, authentic, link to
Class Prep

Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Chapters 1, 2 &
skim 19
Chapters 3 & 8
Chapters 12 & 16
Chapters 4 & 5
Chapters 6 & 7
Chapters 11 & 17
Readings
Chapter 13
144
March 11

Week 11:
March 18
Week 12:
March 25
Week 13:
April 1-5
Week 14:
April 8
Week 15:
April 15





Week 16:
April 22



Week 17:
April 29
Final Projects:
May 6



instructional planning
Evaluation Plan Due
Assessment of Written Language - Formal, informal, authentic,
link to instructional planning
Assessment of Mathematics - Formal, informal, authentic, link
to instructional planning
Assessment of Adaptive Behavior/ Behavior and Emotional
Status
SPRING BREAK OBSERVED:
CLASS WILL NOT MEET
Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) and Strategies: Issues of
acuity, information processing, and strategic learning ability
Reflective Professional Log Due
Assessment for Transition
Case study in-class activity: analysis of assessment data
On-Going Development Action Plan Due
Alternative Assessment/ MAPS
Final Case Study Project Due
Round Table discussion of target student.
Chapter 15
Chapter 14
Chapters 9 & 10
Readings
Chapters18 &
review 19
Readings
Monday, May 6
6:30-8:30 PM
List of References
Assessment of Students with Moderate Disabilities or Significant Needs
Baumgart, D., Johnson, J., & Helmstetter, E. (1990). Augmentative and alternative communication
systems for persons with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul Brooks.
Falvey, M., Forest, M. Jack, P., Rosenberg, R. (1994.) Building connections in J. Thousand, R. Villa, and
A. Nevin (Eds.) Creativity and collaboration: A practical guide to empowering students and teachers. Baltimore:
Paul Brookes.
Forest, M. & Lushaus, E. (1990). Everyone belongs with the MAPS Action Planning System. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 22, 32-35.
Tranchak, T.L., and C. Sawyer (1995). Augmentative communication in Assistive Technology: A resource
for school, work and community, eds. M.F. Flippo, K.J. Inge and J.M. Barcus. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Authentic Assessment
Alper, S., Ryndak, D.L., & Schloss, C.N. (2001). Alternate assessment of students with disabilities in
inclusive settings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
145
Brandt, R. (1992). On performance assessment: A conversation with Grant Wiggins. Educational
Leadership 49: 35-37.
Darling-Hammond, L., J. Ancess, and B. Falk (1995). Authentic assessment in action. Studies of schools
and students at work. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gillespie, C.S., K. Ford, R. Gillespie, and A. Leavell (1996). Portfolio assessment: Some questions, some
answers, some recommendations. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39(6): 480-491.
Shepard, L., and C.L. Bliem (1995). Parents' thinking about standardized testing and performance
assessment. Educational Researcher 24 (8): 25-32.
Bias in Assessment
Taylor, R.L. (1991). Bias in cognitive assessment: Issues, implications and future directions, Diagnostique,
17, (1), 3-5.
Ward, S. B., Ward, T.R. J. & Clark, H.T. (1991). Classification congruence among school psychologists
and its relationship to type of referral questions and professional experience. Journal of school psychology, 29, 89108.
Curriculum-Based Assessment
Chote, J.S., B. E. Enright, L. J. Miller, J.A. Poteet, and T.A. Rakes (1995). Curriculum-based assessment
and programming. Boston, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon.
Idol, L., A. Nevin & W. Paolucci-Whitcomb (1996). Models of curriculum assessment. Austin, TX: PROED.
Ethics in Assessment
Shepard, L.A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning environment. Presidential Address presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
146
Grading
Bursuck, W., EA. Palloway, L. Plante, M. J. Epstein, J. Jayanthi, and J. McConeghy (1996). Report card
grading and adaptations: A national survey of classroom practices. Exceptional Children 62: 301-318.
Gersten, R., S. Vaughn and S. U. Brengelman (1996). Grading and academic feedback for special
education students and students with learning difficulties. In ASCD yearbook (Ed.). T.R. Gusky, 47-57.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Intelligence & Intelligence Assessments
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: NY, Basic Books.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence, New York: NY. Bantam Books.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). What does it mean to be smart? Educational Leadership, 54 (6), 20-24.
Multicultural Assessment
Artiles, A.J. & Trent, S.C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A
continuing debate. The journal of special education, 24 (4), 410-437.
Gordon, E.W., and C. Bonilla-Bowman (1996). Can performance-based assessments contribute to the
achievement of educational equity? In Performance-based student assessment: Challenges and possibilities. J. B.
Baron and D. P. Wolf, eds. 32-51. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
Howell, K.W., and R. Rueda (1996). Achievement testing with culturally and linguistically diverse
students, In Handbook of multicultural assessment, L.S. Suzuki, P. J. Meller and J.G. Ponterotto (Eds.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (1995, Summer). Distinguishing language differences from language disorders in
linguistically and culturally diverse students. Multicultural Education, 12-16.
Special Populations
Barraga, N.C. and J. Erin (1992). Visual handicaps and learning. Austin, Tex:
Pro-Ed.
Bradley-Johnson, S. and L.D. Evans (1991). Psychoeducational assessment of hearing-impaired students.
Austin, Tex: Pro-Ed.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
147
Plazman, K.A., M.R. Stoy, R.T. Brown, C.D. Coles, I.E. Smith, and A. Falek (1992). Review of
observational methods in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for diagnosis. School
Psychology Quarterly. 7(73): 155-177.
Semel, E., E. H. Wiig, and W. Secord. (1996a.) Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals. ed. San
Antonio, Tex: The psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace Javanovich.
Spenciner, L.J. and L.G. Cohen (1994-1995). Recognizing attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD): Defining and assessing the disability. Diagnostique 20 (1-4): 211-224.
Standardized Testing
Mehrens, W.A. & I.J. Lehmann (1991). Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology. Fort
Worth: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Nitko, A.J. (1996). Educational assessment of students. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2002). Assessment in special education: A practical approach. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Salvia, J. & J. Ysseldyke (1995). Assessment. Boston, Mass: Houghton-Mifflin.
Taylor, R.L. (2000). Assessment of exceptional students: Educational and psychological procedures (5 th
ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Statewide Assessment
Kearnes, J. (1997). Statewide assessment of students with significant disabilities: the Kentucky KARIS
model. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23 (2) 231-240.
National Center on Educational Outcomes (1993). Can "all ever really mean "all" in defining and assessing
student outcomes? College of Education: Univ. of MN, Author.
National Center on Educational Outcomes (1993). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: A
review of the literature. College of Education: Univ. of MN, Author.
National Center on Educational Outcomes (1993). Educational Outcomes and Indicators. Vols. 1-4,
College of Education: Univ. of MN, Author.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
148
Shriner, J. Ysseldyk, J, Thurlow, M. & Honetschlage, D. (1994). "All" means "all". Educational
Leadership, 51(6), 38-43.
Staub, D. & Peck, C. (1995). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership, 52,
(4), 36-41.
Thurlow, M. L., Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1998). Testing students with disabilities: Practical
strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
149
Professional Teacher Education Unit
Collaborative Model
For
Preparing Professional
Learning Facilitators
Kennesaw State University
EXC 7735/01/02
Current Trends and Legal Issues
SUMMER SEMESTER 2000
INSTRUCTORS:
Deborah Wallace, Ph. D.
Telephone: 770- 499-3297
Fax: 770-423-6263
Office: KH 233
E-mail: dwallace@kennesaw.edu
Kim Day, Ph.D.
770-423-6958
770-423-6263
KH 2332
kday@kennesaw.edu
daykc@msn.com
Office hours: By Appointment
CLASS MEETING:
TEXT:
Tuesday/Thursday 12:00 – 3:45 PM
Kennesaw Hall 1107 (section 01) TBA (section 02)
Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., Thurlow, M.L. (2000). Critical issues in
special education, 3rd edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
This course focuses on current legal and research issues affecting special education programs. The
emphasis is on preparing teachers to participate in development and implementation of reform efforts in
special education. Analysis of research data and litigative foundations are included.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE:
Master teachers require the advanced skills to assume multiple levels of leadership in
their schools, districts, and states. They must demonstrate collaborative skills that engage colleagues in
a process to cooperate in developing, implementing, and/or sustaining reform efforts in education. Special
education learning facilitators also need to be prepared to participate in general and special education
reform efforts based on research. Master teachers as learning facilitators serve as members of prereferral teams, as members of interdisciplinary placement teams, as consultants to general education
teachers, and as partners with parents. The interdependence of litigation and legislation in professional
practice makes knowledge of the current legal issues pertinent in today’s practice.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:
The “Collaborative Model for Preparing Professional Learning Facilitators” is the basis for all of Kennesaw
State University’s teacher education programs. The term “Learning Facilitator” expresses the University’s
philosophical commitment to the preparation of teachers who possess the skills and knowledge to create
environments and learning experiences that engage students in active learning and authentic
achievement and who constantly assess and seek ways of improvement. In the role of facilitator, the
teacher is a guide, motivator, evaluator, instructor and advisor. KSU’s programs for initial and advanced
certifications are designed to prepare candidates in the understanding of their disciplines and in ways to
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
150
facilitate others to learn. Their classroom practices reflect a repertoire of teacher and learner centered
methods they should be able to implement easily or adapt in response to changes in the environment and
student needs. The awareness of individual differences, knowing when and how to adjust instruction, and
assessing in ways meant to be useful as feedback for instruction and learning reflect, in part, the nature
of the training KSU’s future professionals receive through their academic experiences.
KNOWLEDGE BASE:
This course is intended to serve as a graduate course to develop leaders in the education field. Students
must apply skills from previous courses to addressing current issues and challenges in special education.
Knowledge of the historical base of special education practice is necessary to understand current legal
requirements. The escalating level of special education litigation and legislation requires practitioners to
research current legal issues and apply those to current service delivery to ensure students of their legal
rights. Skills are derived from the national standards of the Council for Exceptional Children and the
requirements of the Professional Standards Commission of Georgia.
USE OF TECHNOLOGY:
During the course, students will be provided with opportunities to explore and research uses of
technology in addressing the needs of individuals with disability. Library research required in this course
is supported by the Galileo system (current password: “tacky”). As a member of the University System in
Georgia, a consortium of major libraries provides electronic as well as hard copy access. During the
course, faculty will model the use of a variety of technologies (both low and high tech) such as videos,
overheads, and multi-media presentation. Web sites of possible interest to students in gathering pertinent
information concerning current issues in special education include the following:
WEB SITES:
www.cec.sped.org
www.nichcy.org
www.chadd.org
www.ldanatl.org
www.autism-society.org
www.thearc.org
www.doe.k12.ga.us
www.biausa.org
www.jdfcure.org
www.efa.org
www.nagc.org
www.aamr.org
DIVERSITY:
One of the most critical issues in special education today is the effect of personal culture on the efficacy of
instruction, prereferral procedures, assessment, placement for students with disabilities, and parenting and
communication styles. Students will be provided with opportunities through direct instruction and class discussion
to gain knowledge, skills, and understanding to provide effective instruction in culturally diverse classrooms. A
variety of materials and instructional strategies will also be used to meet the needs of the diverse learning styles
of members of this class.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and reasonable accommodations for persons
defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and/or the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to help disabled students with their academic
work. In order to make arrangements for special services, students must visit the Office of disAbled
Student Services (770/423-6443) and arrange an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification
of disability is required.
COURSE GOALS/OBJECTIVES:
The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares learning facilitators who understand their disciplines
and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on practice, and who apply these understandings to making
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
151
instructional decisions that foster the success of all learners. As a result of the satisfactory fulfillment of
the requirements of this course, the student will demonstrate a broad base of Knowledge, Skills and
Understanding through performance.
Knowledge - Students will be able to:

Articulate the litigative, legislative, and political foundations of special education

Articulate the effects of historical legislation and litigation on issues of students' rights, equal
educational opportunities, and parents' rights

Articulate the underlying principles and values of right-to-education law and methods for
implementation and protection of due process

Articulate current issues and trends in the field of special education
Skill - Students will be able to:

Research special education trends and legal issues using the internet and electronic databases

Develop position papers and/or presentations related to current trends and legal issues in special
education (e.g., identification, classification, medical services, inclusion)
Understanding through Performance - Students will be able to:

Serve as an advocate to promote the highest educational quality of life for individuals with disabilities

Participate in continued professional development through consumer and professional organizations,
workshops, and professional literature
COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:
Position paper
Issue research and presentation (e.g., debate or BOE presentation)
Class facilitation (assigned by instructors)
Listserve summary
Class participation, cooperation, & attendance
100 points
100 points
50 points
50 points
50 points
Q. EVALUATION AND GRADING
A = 90% or better
B = 80-89%
C = 70-79%
D = 60-69%
F = 59% or below
Description of requirements
POSITION PAPER: Students will write a position paper, using APA format, on a current special education
issue, trend, or area of special interest. The paper should include a brief discussion of information from
professional literature and/or a discussion of relevant case law and federal and state legislation.
Integrated into the paper should be the personal experiences and opinions of the student. The paper will
be 3 - 5 typed written pages, double-spaced and in12 font and will include a minimum of 5 references.
DUE DATE: July 27, 2000.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
152
ISSUE RESEARCH AND CLASS PRESENTATION: Students will be assigned to groups based on topical
interests and will be expected to participate in a professional and equitable manner. Each group will
develop a presentation based on a current trend or issue in special education. The presentation will be
designed as either a debate allowing all sides of an issue to be examined or as a formal Board of
Education presentation in which the group is attempting to gain support and/or funding for an issue
related to current practice in the education of students with disability. Groups will need to develop an
outline stipulating the agenda and each group member’s responsibilities (to be approved by the
instructors), a power point presentation to be used to facilitate the presentation, a list of references (e.g.,
case law, legislation, and/or professional literature), and handouts for other class members and the
instructors. DUE DATE: TBA
CLASS FACILITATION: Each class member will be expected to facilitate a portion of a class session.
Dyads will be assigned by the instructors to complete this assignment. Students will be expected to
integrate assigned readings, personal perspectives and experiences and are strongly encouraged to
supplement the discussion and activities with additional readings from the professional literature and/or
case law. Dyads may also arrange for guest speakers to be in attendance with the approval of the
instructors.
DUE DATE: TBA
LISTSERVE SUMMARY: Students are required to subscribe to a listserve related to special education
and/or issues of disability. Students will periodically be required to provide the class with an oral
summary of discussions from the listserve. This assignment begins the week of June 26, 2000 and will
continue through the end of the course (July 27, 2000). Students will also submit a written summation of
the discussions from the listserve to include a brief discussion of their own perspective or position
concerning issues discussed on the listserve.
DUE DATE: JULY 25, 2000
CLASS PARTICIPATION: Cooperative learning group activities in class will enable students to apply new
skills and knowledge. This requirement emphasizes the importance of class attendance and supports the
belief from the conceptual framework that learning is an interactive endeavor requiring the presence and
participation of all class members in order to facilitate growth and learning. Each student has something
unique to contribute to the class experience that will facilitate the learning of other class members.
STUDENT EXPECTATIONS FOR ATTENDANCE AND PARTICIPATION:

Students, like the instructor, are expected to come to class meetings thoroughly prepared. “Thoroughly
prepared” is defined as having read the readings well enough to verbally and in writing state the
definitions of terms from the readings; discuss ideas, notions, concepts, issues, and procedures in
relation to previous information presented in class or in previous readings; and apply the information from
the readings to problems. It also implies the student has reviewed information from the previous class
meetings. When information from the readings is unclear, the student should prepare questions to
discuss in class.

Regular attendance is required for all scheduled classes in that the student is responsible for
obtaining all materials, instruction, etc. presented during class. Attendance at all class meetings is
stressed because of the interactive nature of the class. Not all material covered will be found in the
required readings. You are required to inform the instructor in advance of your absence. Failure to do
so will result in your not being allowed to make-up any missed class work (i.e., class activities).
Attendance will be monitored and reflected in the class participation/attendance points (see page 49
in the 1999-2000 KSU Graduate Catalog).

All assignments must be turned in at or before the class meeting on the assigned due date. Failure to
turn in assignments when due will result in an automatic 10 percent penalty from the points you earn on
any given assignment.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
153

All grading will be done as objectively as possible. In case of qualitative assessment, evaluation will be
based on instructor judgment. Points will be summed for each student and final course grades will be
based on the percent of total points earned (i.e., A = 100 - 90%, B = 89 - 80%, etc.)

The assignment of incomplete (“I”) grades is discouraged and will be assigned only in cases of extreme
emergencies and in cases where a passing grade may be earned. It is the student’s responsibility to
notify the instructor when such circumstances exist. Upon notification, a contract between the student
and instructor for completion of the course will be developed before the last week of the semester.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY:
Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as
published in the Graduate Catalog (pp. 134-135). Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses
the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating,
unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University records or
academic work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional
misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of
alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University
Judiciary Program, which includes with an "informal resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade
adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's
minimum one semester suspension requirement.
DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR:
The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that disrupts the learning
environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning of others, behavior
that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. Students should refer to the
1999-2000 catalog (p.311) to review this policy.
HUMAN RELATIONS:
The University has formulated a policy on human relations that is intended to provide a learning
environment that recognizes individual worth. That policy is found on page 320 of the 1999-2000 catalog.
It is expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but the policy is there for your
consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that policy.
COURSE OUTLINE
CLASS DATE
FOCUS OF CLASS ACTIVITIES
READINGS
June 15
Course overview; The social construction of disability: definitional debate
and placement controversy; Issues discussion
Chapters 4 & 5
June 20
Class assignments; School reform; new state regulations for special
education; HB 1187
Chapter 10
June 22
Issues of identity and labeling
Chapters 2-3
Facilitators:
June 27
Listserve discussion; Assessment
Chapter 6
Facilitators:
June 29
Listserve discussion; Instructional issues; Early intervention; and the
conundrum of the at-risk population
Chapters 7 & 8
Facilitators:
JULY 4
HOLIDAY
NO CLASS
July 6
Listserve discussion; Transition and quality of life issues
Chapter 9
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
154
Facilitators:
July 11
Listserve discussion; Discipline: manifestation determination and zero
reject
Chapter 12
Facilitators:
July 13
Listserve discussion; Home-School-Community-Agency Partnerships;
Family issues; Shared decision-making
Chapter 11
Facilitators:
July 18
Listserve discussion; Adult/life span issues
Facilitators:
July 20
Listserve discussion; Economic and policy issues
TBA: Canadian
Woman Studies:
pp. 14-15, 34-37,
56-58; Fine &
Asch: Ch.6;
Stainback &
Stainback: Chs.
21-24
Chapter 13
Facilitators:
July 25
Listserve discussion; Issues of educational outcomes; Summary due
Chapter 14
Facilitators:
July 27
Listserve discussion; Future directions and continuing challenges; Round
table discussion; Paper due
Chapter 15
Facilitators: Drs. Wallace and Day
The syllabus provides a general plan for the course; deviations may be necessary.
Readings are in the required text unless otherwise specified: Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., Thurlow, M.L. (2000). Critical issues in special
education, 3rd edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
References
Archwaamety, T. & Katsiyannis, A. (2000). Academic remediation, parole violations, and
recidivism rates among delinquent youths. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 161-170.
Bateman, B.D. (1996). Better IEPs: How to develop legally correct and educationally useful
programs, 2nd edition. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Brozovic, S.A., Taber, T.A., Alberto, P.A., Hughes, M.A. (1999). A guide to the instruction of
students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment: Questions and answers. Georgia Systems
Change Project: Georgia State University.
Bruer, J.T. (1999). The myth of the first three years: A new understanding of early brain
development and lifelong learning. New York: THE FREE PRESS.
Canadian Woman Studies (Summer 1993; 3:4). York University Publishers.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
155
Donegan, M.M., Ostrosky, M.M., Fowler, S.A. (2000). Peer coaching: Teachers supporting
teachers. Young Exceptional Children, 3 (3), 9-17.
Fine, M. & Asch, A. (1988). Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and politics.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Forness, S. R., Ramey, S.L, Ramey, C. T., Hsu, C., Brezausek, C. M, MacMillan, D.L. (1998)
Head Start children finishing first grade: Preliminary data on school identification of children at risk for
special education. Behavioral Disorders, 23, 111-24.
Friend, M. (2000). Perspective: Myths and misunderstandings about professional collaboration.
Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 130-132, 160.
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hertzog, N.B. (1998). The changing role of the gifted education specialist
Teaching Exceptional Children, 30 39-43.
Kavale, K. & Forness, S. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and don’t say: A critical
analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33 (3), 239-256.
Klingner, J.K., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., Cohen, P. & Forgan, J.W. (1998). Inclusion or pull-out:
Which do students prefer? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 148-58.
Lamort, M. W. (1996). School law: Cases and concepts, 5th edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Lanford, A.D. & Lynn, G. C. (2000). Graduation requirements for students with disabilities: Legal
and practice considerations. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 152-160.
Lange, C.M.,& Lehr, C.A. (2000). Charter schools and students with disabilities: Parent
perceptions of reasons for transfer and satisfaction with services. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3),
141-151.
Lloyd, J.W., Kameenui, E.J., & Chard, D. (1997). Issues in educating students with disabilities.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2000). The Inclusive Classroom: Strategies for Effective
Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Osborne, A. G. (1996). Legal issues in special education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
156
Peltier, G. L. (1997). The effect of inclusion on non-disabled children: A review of the research
Contemporary Education, 68, 234 -38.
Rothstein, L..F. (1995). Special Education Law, 2nd edition. New York: Longman Publishers.
Stainback, W. & Stainback, S. (1996). Controversial issues confronting special education:
Divergent perspectives, 2nd edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Carta, J. (2000). Early childhood special education in a new century: Voices from the past, visions
for our future. Topics in Early Childhood Education: Special Issue, 20 (1), 3-61.
Turnbull, H.R. & Turnbull, A. (2000). Free appropriate public education, 6th edition. Denver: Love
Publishing.
Vaughn, V. L. (1997). A K-12 model for talent identification and development program: Gifted
education for the Twenty First Century. Gifted Education International, 12, 106-10.
Waldron, N. L., & McLeskey, J. (1998). The effects of an inclusive school program on students
with mild and severe learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 395-405.
Weigle, K.L. (1997). Positive behavior support as a model for promoting educational inclusion.
Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22, 36-48.
Vallance, D.D., Cummings, R.L., & Humphries, T. (1998). Mediators of the risk for problem
behavior in children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 160-71.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
157
EXC 7760
I.
Teaching & Learning I
Department of Special Education
Kennesaw State University
(Summer, 2002)
II.
Instructor:
Michaela D’Aquanni, Ph. D.
III.
Class Sessions:
June 10 – 21 - M, W & F from 8:00 – 5:00 in Bartow County
IV.
Required texts:
Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cole, W. E. (ed.). (1995). Educating Everybody’s Children: Diverse Teaching
Strategies For Diverse Learners. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Cole, W. E. (ed.). (2001). More Strategies for Educating Everybody’s Children.
Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jacobs, H. H. (1997). Mapping the Big Picture. Alexandria, Virginia:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Payne, R. (1998). A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Highlands, TX:
RFT Publishing Co.
V.
Catalog Description: Teaching & Learning I prepares teachers to develop curriculum and instruction that
is universal in design and based on best practices research in general education. Particular attention is given
to research-based models of teaching and learning including cooperative learning, inductive reasoning,
concept attainment, jurisprudential inquiry, information processing etc. Universally designed instruction is
flexible such that the materials and activities allow different learning goals to be achieved by individuals
with a wider range of abilities (and disabilities). This curriculum model provides build-in adaptations to the
lesson that reduce the amount of time needed to create individual accommodations and modifications for
students with disabilities. The “Big Ideas” addressed in this course include Universal Design,
Interdisciplinary Thematic Units, Multi-Level Instruction, and Multiple Intelligence Theory. Additional
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
158
attention will be paid to the Georgia Learning Connections Website, as well as the alignment of IEP
objectives with the Quality Core Curriculum (QCC).
VI.
Purpose/Rationale: The purpose of this course is to prepare professional learning facilitators for
exceptional students. The competencies in this course are derived from the requirements for teachers
of students with disabilities of the Professional Standards Commission (the licensure body of Georgia)
and the national standards of the Council for Exceptional Children.
Conceptual Framework Summary:
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
The Kennesaw State University teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers who
demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU teacher
education community strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring guidance
from professionals inside and outside the university. In tandem with this belief is the understanding
that teacher expertise develops along a continuum which includes the stages of pre-service, induction,
in-service, and renewal; further, as candidates develop a strong research-based knowledge of content
and pedagogy, they develop their professional expertise in recognizing, facilitating, assessing, and
evaluating student learning.
Knowledge Base:
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases:
pre-service, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as
Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the
teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept
of expertise is central to preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders.
Researchers describe how during the continuum phases teachers progress from being
Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved
elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an endstate but a process of continued development.
The knowledge base for curriculum development for students with disabilities is an emerging issue. The
historical framework included remediation of deficit skills, teaching IEP objectives or functional curriculum.
Current directions include merging regular education curriculum and special educational needs. The field draws
on research literature from educational psychology, psychology and special education. The emphasis in this
class will be on critically reviewing research studies of curriculum development models, current issues in
curriculum development for students with disabilities, and the application of these models in P-12 classrooms.
The application includes curriculum-based assessment.
Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission.
Students in this course will be expected to understand the use of educational technology in support of
curriculum design and instructional planning. Technology emphasis will include word processing,
spreadsheet, computer databases (library access programs, Galileo, internet and email), technological
presentations (PowerPoint). Websites:
www.doe.k12.ga.us
http://www.glc.k12.ga.us
www.nichy.org
www.chadd.org
www.cec.sped.org
www.aamr.org
www.autism-society.org
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
159
Diversity Statement:
A variety of material and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of
different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Students will gain knowledge, skills,
and understanding to provide effective instruction in multicultural classrooms.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for
persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to help
disabled students with their academic work. In order to make arrangements for special
services, students must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443)
and arrange an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is
required.
The effect of socio-economic, ethnic, gender and cultural differences on the effectiveness of methods for
students with disabilities will be considered. The emphasis on cognitive style differences in the special
education field provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.
VII.
Goals and objectives: The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the
concept of teacher preparation as a developmental and collaborative process. Research
for the past 25 years has described this process in increasingly complex terms.
Universities and schools must work together to successfully prepare teachers who are
capable of developing successful learners in today’s schools and who choose to continue
their professional development. Students in this course are expected to perform at the
Advanced or Teacher Leader level of performance.
Within the knowledge domain:
1.
2.
3.
Define the basic models of teaching and learning including cooperative learning, inductive reasoning, concept
attainment, jurisprudential inquiry, information processing, etc;
Define basic constructs of: Universal design, inclusion, accommodation and modification, etc.;
Identify and discuss the three basic approaches to designing curriculum for students with disabilities including
multi-level, curriculum overlap and functional, alternative curriculum.
Within the skills domain:
Develop and teach each one lesson using one of the models of teaching and learning described by Joyce, et al.
2000;
6. Develop a one-week integrated unit plan that meets the needs of students who are classified as gifted, behavior
disordered and moderately mentally impaired;
7. Develop instruction that is multi-level and/or represents curriculum overlapping;
8. Develop an academic content area curriculum for a specific age/grade level including modifications for IEP
specified needs of students with disabilities and a curriculum-based assessment plan to monitor student
progress in the curriculum;
9. Develop accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities (sensory, health, mobility,
communication, etc., including factors affecting cultural context;
10. Develop thematic unit plan, which incorporates cross-curricular activities and incorporates diversity needs as
applicable.
5.
Within the disposition domain:
11. Demonstrate collaborative skills in developing instruction and unit plans and co-teaching a lesson to the class;
12. Demonstrate the ability to analyze instruction and think reflectively about their daily practice;
13. Demonstrate on-going commitment to professional development by engaging in personalized action planning.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
160
PTEU (Professional Teachers Education Unit) Objectives:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
IX.
Are committed to students and their learning.
Know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.
Are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.
Think systematically about their practice and learn from experience.
Are members of learning communities.
Course requirements/assignments:
Class Requirements and Assignments
Class Activities
Points
Course
Objectives
PTEU
Objectives
50
100
2
1, 2, 5, 6, 8
1, 4
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Integrated Thematic Unit: Mapping, Unit, Profiles,
Modifications/Accommodations
200
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
On Going Reflective Development Action
Plan
50
2
1, 4
Class Participation
100
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Professional Log
Models of Teaching: Lesson Plan
& Power Point
IX.
Course Requirements:
1.
Professional Log: The log must contain reflections on your professional reading
over the course of the semester. Each entry must be dated and titled – followed by
your personal response to the material or experience. To obtain full credit for this
activity, you must:

Reflect upon a minimum of four (4) articles from professional journals
regarding universal curriculum design, accommodation and modifications,
and/or any other topics related to our class discussions and text. Your
reflection should be one-page in length containing your reactions to the
reading. This can include readings for the course.
2.
On-Going Development Action Plan: Each of us is at a different point in our
own development as a teacher and a learner. We are unique in that we have
different experiences, skills, and ways of thinking that support our life long
growth as a teacher and learner. At the beginning of class you will be asked to
outline your strengths and areas of need in relation to the content of this course.
At the end of the course you should complete three activities: 1) reflect upon the
growth you have made regarding your strengths and areas of need; 2) develop a
Personal Action Plan to include a list of goals you are setting for yourself, related
to the material from class, and an action plan for achieving those goals; and 3)
reflect upon how you will continue to use the content from this course to
perpetuate your growth as a teacher and learner. This entire activity should be
completed as part your on-going reflective log. Also, at the closure of each class
you should complete the reflective sheet distributed the first day.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
161
3.
Demonstration of Model of Teaching: Each student is responsible for working with a small group of
colleagues to develop and teach a lesson demonstrating one of the models of teaching and learning
described by Joyce, Weil & Calhoun (2000). The lesson must: (a) integrate content from two
disciplines (Language Arts, Social Studies, Science, Math); (b) address QCC’s and 1 embedded skill
(social, functional, leadership or career skill).
 Each group of students will teach a 20 minute lesson to the class.
 Present a 10 minute power point presentation that describes the: (a) major principles of
the model; (b) supporting research; (c) model syntax; (d) the body of the lesson
 Develop an extensive lesson plan following the outline provided - geared towards the
grade level you are focusing on for the course.
4.
Curriculum Mapping Across the Year and an Integrated Thematic Unit Plan: (Presented the last day
of class as a final.)
As a final project, students will work in a small group to map out the Georgia QCC within a grade
level and then develop a one-week Integrated Thematic Unit from that Curriculum Mapping Plan.
The unit must include all four disciplines (Math, Language Arts, Social Studies, & Science), special
areas (music & art), and three embedded skills (social, functional, leadership or career skills).
Students should select a grade level and theme upon which to develop a high quality plan, responsive
to the educational needs of exceptional students who are high flyers, as well as those who have
learning and behavior challenges to mild and moderate degrees. The plan must include:



1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
QCCs “Mapped” out over the year (for a grade level) – including the essential questions;
Theme and grade level;
Description of the class context, including students with IEPs (one per group member – use
profiles) and students who would be classified as “gifted.”
 A broad outline of the Integrated Thematic Unit:
relevant QCC’s:
IEP objectives per student with an IEP (on or off grade level), connected to the QCCs;
a list of activities that incorporate Universal Design, Models of Teaching, Cooperative Learning
and other research based strategies, which you would use to facilitate the learning of the QCCs
and IEP objectives;
examples of accommodations and modifications to support students with IEPs;
specify strategies geared towards challenging students classified as “gifted;”
list of materials (books, tapes, videos, computer programs, websites, etc.);
assessment tools (connected to QCCs and IEP objectives) - to include examples of embedded
assessments for students who need additional support.
Notes: A Model of Teaching, as well as cooperative learning must be incorporated into this unit.
Also, it is recommended that you develop your activities using a Universal Design approach:
integrated units, multiple intelligences theory and Blooms Taxonomy.
5.
Class Participation: Students are expected to attend all class sessions and be active
participants in the learning process. Class activities will include discussions, roleplaying and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all students.
Students have many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate
everyone's learning. Evaluation will include communication and collaboration skills
demonstrated during class. The Cooperative Projects will be designed so that all
students are accountable to themselves and each other. Students will complete peerrating skills for participation in cooperative group activities and projects.
X.
EVALUATION & GRADING:

Any assignment turned in early will earn 15% extra credit.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
162

Any report containing confidential information will not be graded.
General Guidelines and Standards for Written Assignments
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
All individual assignments must be typed, single spaced, with 1” margins on both sides so we can
provide you with feedback. This includes reading reactions.
Be sure to maintain confidentiality of student, settings, and teachers. All identifying names and
information should be omitted from your written work and discussions.
Late assignments are unacceptable without making prior arrangements with us.
We will be looking for quality writing not quantity. Eliminate jargon and hyperbole and focus on
clearly stating your point.
Examine the language you use within your assignments. Please remember to remove the focus on
a person’s behavior or disability by stating the person first, i.e., “a person with a disability” is
preferable to “a disabled person.”
Be careful to avoid judgmental statements and focus on the facts when writing about students. As
teachers we need to put our own biases and opinions aside and view each student as a capable and
valuable human being.
Grades will be assigned as follows:
A = 90% or higher (447 - 500)
B = 80% - 89% (400 - 446)
C = 70% - 79% (350 - 445)
F = 69% or below (below 350)
A. Academic integrity
Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of
Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the
Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty,
including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to
University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic
work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials,
malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of
student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled
through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes
either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or
a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's
minimum one semester suspension requirement.
Pages 142-143 of the KSU Graduate catalog (2001-2002) states: KSU expects that graduate students will
pursue their academic programs in an ethical, professional manner. Any work that students present in
fulfillment of program or course requirements should represent their own efforts, achieved without giving
or receiving any unauthorized assistance. Any student who is found to have violated these expectations
will be subject to disciplinary action. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through
the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal"
resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which
may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.
The student is reminded to consult pp.142-143 of the 2001-2002 KSU Graduate Catalog for the
University's policy. Any strategy, which has the appearance of improving grades without increasing
knowledge, will be dealt with in accordance with the University's policy on academic honesty. In
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
163
addition, students in the graduate program in special education are held accountable by the Georgia
Professional Code of Ethics for Educators (http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html)
and the Council for Exceptional Children's (CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with
Exceptionalities (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).
Disruptive Behavior:
The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that disrupts
the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the
learning of others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will
not be tolerated. (See Campus Policies and Procedures pp.146-147 of the 2001- 2002 KSU
Graduate Catalog).
Human Dignity:
The University has formulated a policy on human rights that is intended to provide a
learning environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found on p.152
in the 2001-2002 KSU Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional
should need reminding, but the policy is there for your consideration. The activities of this
class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that policy – expecting that
students will adhere to the highest professional standards in the ways they conduct
themselves.
ATTENDANCE POLICY
Students are expected to attend all class sessions and be active participants and in the learning process.
Active Participation requires that candidates come to class prepared and participate in class discussions and
activities by sharing his/her ideas within both large and small groups, as well as respectfully listening to the
ideas of others. This class includes presentations by professionals from other disciplines and class
attendance is essential for participation in development of a multi-disciplinary perspective. Class activities
will include discussion, role-playing and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all
students. Students have many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's learning.
It is also expected that you will read the syllabus to determine what assignments are due and when.
Questions will be answered in class regarding assignments, but it is the candidate’s responsibility to be sure
(s) he has the information necessary to complete required assignments. Evaluation will include attendance,
communication and collaboration skills demonstrated during class. Each absence will result in a four point
reduction on your grade and more than three absences will lead to a letter grade drop.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
164
XI.
Course outline
Topic
Date
June
10


Overview of course
Teacher Reflectivity
(Descriptive,
Analytical,
reflective)

June
12
Research Based
Teaching Strategies
– Cole Text
 Understanding
Poverty
 Lesson Plans
 Research Based Teaching Strategies
- Cole Text Section
(reading, writing,
mathematics, oral
communication, civics,
geography, history,
science, diverse learning,
poverty, homeless,
immigrant, gifted)
 Student Profile
 Cooperative
Learning
 Curriculum
Mapping – Jacobs
Text
 Models of
Teaching









Models of
Teaching:
Advance Organizers,
Memorization,
Inductive,
 Models of
Teaching:
Concept Attainment,
Synetics, Jurisprudential,
 Universal Design:
Bloom’s Taxonomy,
Multiple
Intelligences,
Integrated Units
Slides, KWL chart, FISH
View and reflect upon video of
teaching
Sign up for: Cole text section, Model
of Teaching Presentation, Grade for
Curriculum Mapping
TAPS – read to class
Outline initial pieces of 1st Cole text
(1-21)
Ruby Payne Text – Read & outline
Review format for Lesson Plans
Work in Cooperative groups to
complete assignments
Cooperative group activity
Work in Cooperative groups to
complete assignments
Assignments

Complete teacher reflectivity
exercise

Cooperative Activities: Cole
text, Ruby Payne text,
brainstorm and discuss lesson
plan components

Begin Reflective Log


Outline critical elements and
strategies from Cole text
Presentation of section from
Cole Text

Access to IEP/Student

Map out curriculum (vertical
and horizontal) on the grade
of choice with a group of
colleagues
Develop Lesson plan and
Power Point presentation for
Model of Teaching you will
present to class
Complete work on Models of
Teaching
Presentation of Models of
Teaching


June
14
June
17
In-class activities




Work in Cooperative groups to
complete assignments
Presentation

Presentation

Presentation of Models of
Teaching

Work in Cooperative groups to
complete assignments

Design Unit: objectives,
activities, materials,
assessment, (review syllabus)
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education

165
June
19
June
21


Accommodations
and Modifications
Functional
Curriculum


Video: Misunderstood Minds
Work in Cooperative groups to
complete assignments


Reflective activity on video
Continue work on unit – add
accommodations and
modifications for exceptional
students

Working Classroom

Work in Cooperative groups to
complete assignments

Unit completion

Final Project
Presentation

Work in Cooperative groups to
complete assignments
30 minute final presentations


Reflective Log
Professional Log

B. References/bibliography
American Association on Mental Retardation. (1993). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of
supports. 9th ed. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Billingsley, F.F., Burgess, D., Lynch, V.W., & Matlock, B.L. (1991). Toward generalized outcomes: Considerations
and guidelines for writing instructional objectives. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 351-360.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms.
Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Calculator, S. N., & Jorgensen, C. M. (Eds.). (1994). Including students with severe disabilities in schools. San
Diego, California: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
Carnine, D. W. (1991). Curricular interventions for teaching higher order thinking to all students: Introduction to the
special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 261-169.
Cawley, J.F., Baker-Kroczynski, S. & Urban, A. (1992). Seeking excellence in mathematics education for students
with mild disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, 40-43.
Cohen, S.B. & Lynch, D.K. (1991). An instructional modification process. Teaching Exceptional Children, 23, 1218.
Downing, J. E. (1996). Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms. Baltimore,
Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). The new circles of learning: Cooperation in the
classroom and school. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Putnam, J. W. (1993). Cooperative learning and strategies for inclusion: Celebrating diversity in the classroom.
Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
166
Slavin, R.E. (1990) Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1996). Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co.
Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1992). Restructuring for caring & effective
education. Baltimore.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
167
I.
EXC 7765 Content & Instructional Strategies
Department of Special Education
Kennesaw State University
Spring 2003
II.
Teaching Team
Name: Toni Strieker, Ph.D.
Susan Brown, Ph.D.
Room: 3105 Kennesaw Hall
Phone: (770) 423-6593
(770) 423-6577
Email: tstrieke@kennesaw.edu
sbrown1@kennesaw.edu
Name: Stephanie Dirst, Ed.D.
Phone: (770) 921-5815
Email: sdirst@mindspring.com
III.
Class Sessions: Monday 5:00-8:00, Room 1107, Kennesaw Hall
IV.
Required Texts:
Miller, S.P. (2002). Validated Practices for Teaching Students with Diverse Needs &
Abilities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kennedy, C. & Horn, E. (Eds.) Including Students with Severe Disabilities. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Mohler, J. (1976). Personal DISCerment Inventory: An instrument for understanding
yourself and others. Team Resources, Inc. USA.
Marzano, R. , Pickering, D. & Pollock, J. (2001) Classroom Instruction that
Works. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA.
V.
Catalog Description: This course focuses on the various forms of research-based,
specialized instruction for students with disabilities. Specific focus will be on direct
instruction, strategy instruction (meta cognitive and cognitive behavior management),
cooperative learning, social or functional skills development and systematic instruction
using task analysis, prompts & cues. Special attention will be given to embedded forms
of student assessment and ongoing data collection procedures to evaluate the overall
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
168
impact of instruction on student learning will be discussed. Proof professional liability
insurance is required prior to field experience placement.
VI.
Purpose/Rationale: The purpose of this course is to provide teacher candidates with
the information and opportunity to apply different research-based instructional strategies
and/or methods from the field of education and psychology. These instructional
strategies were developed to meet the diverse learning needs of students with mild
disabilities and/or students at-risk for academic failure. The competencies in this course
were derived from the requirement of the Professional Standards Commission (the
licensure body of Georgia) for teachers of students with disabilities and from the national
standards/teacher education competencies of the Council for Exceptional Children.
VII.
Conceptual Framework Summary: Collaborative Development of Expertise in
Teaching and Learning. The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw
State University is committed to developing expertise among candidates in initial and
advanced programs as teachers and leaders who possess the capability, intent and
expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all of their students through effective,
research-based practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance the structures that
support all learning. To that end, the PTEU fosters the development of candidates as
they progress through stages of growth from novice to proficient to expert and leader.
Within the PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued
development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational leaders must
embrace the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the
implementation of validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high
levels of learning. In that way, candidates are facilitators of the teaching and learning
process. Finally, the PTEU recognizes, values and demonstrates collaborative practices
across the college and university and extends collaboration to the community-at-large.
Through this collaboration with professionals in the university, the public and private
schools, parents and other professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of
assisting Georgia schools in bringing all students to high levels of learning.
VIII.
Knowledge Base: Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that
includes four phases: preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and
Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is
central to analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU
believes that the concept of expertise is central to preparing effective classroom
teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum phases
teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward
becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg
(1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued
development.
The knowledge base for methods of teaching students with disabilities continues to
develop rapidly. The historical framework included perceptual training, behavior
modification and task analysis. Current directions include multiple intelligence models
and direct instruction. The field draws on research literature from educational
psychology, medicine, psychology and special education. The emphasis in this class
will be on developing skills in application of research-based best practice, documenting
impact on student learning, and reflective practice.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
169
IX.
Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards
Commission: Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated
throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be able to
use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for
Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore
and use instructional media, especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will
master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and
feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and
develop an electronic learning portfolio.
Resources and activities for this course will be provided on Web CT to model effective
use of technology. Candidates in this course will be expected to apply the use of
educational technology in classrooms for exceptional students. They must understand
the process of selection of appropriate hardware, software and adaptive/assistive
technology for student needs. Technology emphasis will include classroom computers,
computer databases (library access programs, internet and email), CD-ROM programs,
adaptive /assistive for special needs and learning materials such as Spellmaster &
Phonic Ear. Emphasis on classroom publishing programs and software to track progress
and analyze errors will be included. Candidates will be required to videotape their
instruction
X.
Diversity Statement: A variety of material and instructional strategies will be employed
to meet the needs of different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates
will gain knowledge, skills, and understanding to provide effective instruction in
multicultural classrooms. Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and
accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of
services are available to help disabled students with their academic work. In order to
make arrangements for special services, candidates must visit the Office of Disabled
Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and arrange an individual assistance plan. In
some cases, certification of disability is required. The effect of socio-economic, ethnic,
gender and cultural differences on the effectiveness of methods for students with
disabilities will be considered. The emphasis on cognitive style differences in the special
education field provides a background for the consideration of cultural context
XI.
Goals and Objectives:
The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of teacher
preparation as a developmental and collaborative process. Research for the past 25
years has described this process in increasingly complex terms. Universities and schools
must work together to successfully prepare teachers who are capable of developing
successful learners in today’s schools and who choose to continue their professional
development. Candidates in this course are expected to perform at the Advanced or
Teacher Leader level of performance. (See CPI: Graduate Performance Outcomes.)
As a result of Kn

Articulate and apply knowledge of social, cultural, emotional, cognitive and
physical needs of students with disabilities, particularly as they underpin
individualized instructional programming
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
170

Articulate and implement research-based practices and alternatives for teaching
individuals with disabilities who differ in degree and kind of disability

Articulate and apply knowledge regarding the variability (especially in students
of differing cultural backgrounds) of expected learning and problem solving
strategies in the school context

Articulate and apply the theories of learning, motivation and assessment,
particularly as they relate to the individualized programming of students with
disabilities
As a result of Skills, the student will be able to:

Design and implement direct and cooperative instruction to maximize engaged
learning time and meet the unique learning strengths and needs of students with
disabilities

Select, conduct and assess instruction tailored to the individualized learning
needs of students with disabilities in a variety of educational, social and
community contexts, as appropriate

Evaluate, select, develop, and adapt curriculum materials (within copyright laws)
and technology appropriate for individuals with disabilities who differ in degree
and kind of disability, linguistic and cultural background

Use differentiated strategies for acquisition, proficiency building, maintenance
and generalization of skills across settings
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
171
As a result of Disposition, the student will be able to:

Reflect critically on teacher and learner performances and outcomes and modify
practices based upon an action research model

Utilize instructional and management strategies which create a positive learning
environment for individuals with disabilities, including use of positive proactive
and reactive techniques

Apply instructional and management strategies for all students in educational
settings, including non identified individuals who would benefit.
XII.
Course Requirements and Assignments:
All listed below, plus demonstrate
Few
Will
Accomplish
Some will
Accomplish
What All
Candidates Will
Accomplish!




Error correction strategies
Strategy Instruction
Mini-lesson
Other, as approved
All listed below, and will add to Instructional Design Project
 CWPT or other strategy researched in special
education

Technology for students with disabilities

Marzano strategies

Instructional Design Project I: Reading

Instructional Design Project II: Math

Two Videos with Critical Analysis

Field Observations
Based upon candidate progress throughthe levels
of the for
pyramid
based
upon their
Planning
Master’s
Portfolio
performance and faculty approval.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
172
Assignments
Assessment
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Points
Course
Objectives
PTEU
CPI
173
Two Instructional
Design Projects:
One reading and
one math. (This
assignment is
required for all
candidates.)
Formative
Feed back from
instructors & peers
250 pts.*
Graduate CPI
1,2,3,4,6, 7,
8, 9, 10,11 &
12
Self-evaluation using
rubrics
Instruction &
Assessment
 One-page
lesson plan
 Multi-level
objectives
linked to QCC
 Pre-post
assessment
 Implementation
of validated
practice
 Embedded
assessment
 Systematic
error correction
 Graph of
student
achievement
data
 Interpretation of
data with
recommendatio
ns
 Work sample
analysis
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Video and
Critical Analysis
(150 pts.)
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of
Learning
174
Class participation:
Homework
(
W
eb
C
T)
On-going
assessment
Think Sheets
Attendance
Pre-Post Testing
Demonstrated
Dispositions
Peer Review of
Videos
(On-going and
Required of all.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
100 pts.
1,2,3,4,5,6,
7,8,9,10
Graduate CPI
Outcomes 1,
& 3:
175
Classroom
observation:
Two classroom
observations will
be conducted
during the
semester to make
suggestions to
improve daily
practice and
student learning.
On-site observation
50 pts
5, 9, 11,12
25 per visit
Graduate CPI
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of
Learning
(Pass/Fail)
(Required of all
candidates.)
PTEU
Assignments
Assessment
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Points
Course
Objectives
CPI
176
Plan for
Portfolio
Development.
Candidates will
be expected to
monitor their
progress on the
graduate CPI
outcomes &
proficiencies and
organize artifacts,
which provide
evidence of their
mastery of each
proficiency. To
receive full credit
for this project,
you must provide
2 sources of
evidence for each
artifact as well as
a brief plan to
obtain at least 3
different sources
per proficiency.
BCOE Candidate
Outcome Rubric
(Required of all
candidates.)
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
50 Pts.
1,2,3,4,5,6,
Graduate CP
7,8,9,10,
Outcome 3
11,12
Collaborative
Practices
177
Once you have
successfully
completed the
required elements
of this class, you
may contract with
your instructor*
for an A by
successfully
completing one of
the following
demonstration
activities:

Error
correction
;

Mini-lesson;

KSU strategy;

MAP of
student with
significant
disability: or

Other as
agreed with
instructor
Critical Analysis
75 Pts.
& Reflection
1,2,3,4,5,6,
Graduate CPI
7,8,9,10,
Outcome 2:
11,12
Peer review of
demonstration
Note: To get an
“A”, candidates
must also earn a
“4” on items on
the rubric
required by the
College of
Education.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
75 Pts.
Facilitator of
Learning
178
To successfully complete this course with a grade of either B or C, each candidate
must demonstrate mastery on the following assignments at an acceptable level as
measured by the corresponding rubrics. Note: The course rubrics are aligned with
the Impact on Student Learning Analysis (ISLA), which is used by the PTEU of the
BCOE. You must obtain a score of 3 or better to obtain an B or C in this course.
1.
Instructional Design Projects. Each person is required to develop two,
multi-level instructional design projects (1 reading & 1 math). Lesson
design follows the recommendations of Marzano (2001). The projects
must be scripted and follow the rubrics provided in class. (See attached.)
Each person is required to develop a set of assessments for each
instructional design project. All lessons must use pre-post assessment
format to measure the impact of the instruction on student learning for a
group of students. In addition, because the lessons are multi-level, there
must be a set of objectives that represent various levels of participation
in the lesson. Mastery checks must be developed to assess individual
and group performance on content, skills, IEP and/or group processing.
For example, the student with the disability (SWD) may participate in a
cooperative learning activity in reading their social studies text. The
SWD may be working on a speech objective (e.g. initiating conversation
with peers) during that activity that must be measured as part of the
lesson. Error correction procedures must accompany embedded
assessment. Pre-post test scores must be graphed, with data
disaggregated by ‘No Child’ subgroups. Finally data must be interpreted,
reflected upon based upon the professional literature, with
recommendations for changes in instruction that have high probability to
increasing student achievement.
While it is important for you to tailor this project to the instructional needs
of the students in your classrooms, in order to meet the multi-level
criteria you may need to create profiles of students with mild,
moderate and/or severe disabilities. You are encouraged to discuss
your projects with your peers and your instructors (particularly those
conducting your classroom observations). Your instructors will allow
some of this assignment to be done in class, time permitting.
NOTE: Once one of your instructors has approved the core
components of this project, you may then conduct the additional
assignments necessary for an A. Do not begin these assignments
without written faculty approval. (See attached contract.)
Because Impact on Student Learning is measured in this
course, the rubric used by the Bagwell College of Education is
embedded within the rubric of the Instructional Design Project. To
receive an “A” in this course, you must obtain a “4” on the items
noted BCOE on the rubric.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
179
2.
Critical Analysis of Videotaped Lessons. Once the
instructional design projects are complete, each candidate is
required to videotape himself or herself teaching the lessons
submitted to the instructor, or ones mirroring the same
procedures, e.g. direct instruction & cooperative learning. Next
the individual must self-evaluate the implementation of these
lessons, using the procedures prescribed by the National Board
on Professional Teaching (e.g. description, analysis and
reflection). Each video must be no longer than 20 minutes long
and show at least one full phase of the lesson using cooperative
learning or direct instruction. When taping, assure that the
interactions between the teacher and students are visible. Tapes
and self-assessments are due together. (NOTE: Prior to
videotaping, assure that all of the parents of your students have
signed release forms for the photographing/videotaping of their
children. Blank copies of the release form and a statement from
you that you have obtained parent permission must be included
with your projects.)
3.
Classroom Observation: Dr. Dirst will observe you twice over
the course of the semester. Dr. Dirst will evaluate your
instructional implementation of multi-level lessons using
cooperative learning and direct instruction. Please consider this
observation as part of your development. Dr. Dirst will give you
feedback on your teaching skills as they develop throughout your
coursework at KSU will assist you in developing your lessons for
this course. Once the observation is complete, you will be given
a brief summary of her observation. Her summaries will be sent
to the class instructor and you will then be given points for the
site visit. Save your feedback as evidence of meeting
proficiencies!
4.
Class & Internet Participation: Candidates have many
experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate
everyone's learning. Candidates are expected to come prepared
to all class sessions and be active participants in the learning
process. Class activities will include pre-post testing on required
readings, think sheets, homework submission, discussion, roleplaying and collaborative activities. Evaluation will include
attendance and punctuality. In addition, each person is required
to use Web CT on the internet to collaborate with peers and
instructors.
5.
Portfolio Planning. As each graduate student in the Bagwell
College of Education leaves the program, he or she will submit a
portfolio to be evaluated by the faculty on three outcomes,
aligned with the Georgia Board of Regents standards as well as
those from the National Board on Professional teaching. In
addition to being effective teachers, it is expected that graduates
of advanced programs, also develop expertise as effective
teacher leaders who are self-directed, value a spirit of inquiry
and facilitate the learning of all students. In EXC 7765, each
candidate is required to organize artifacts as evidence of your
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
180
mastery of the proficiencies and outcomes on the CPI.
Candidates are also required to develop a plan to meet those
outcomes and guide your work as your complete your graduate
studies at Kennesaw State University. (Note: All of the
assignments in this class may be used as portfolio artifacts.)
XIII.
Evaluation and Grading:
Grades will be assigned as follows:
90-100 average points, and completion of final activity
A
80-89 average points,
B
70-79 average points,
C
69 points and below
F
XIV.
Student Code of Conduct: Every KSU student is responsible for
upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in
the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student
Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty,
including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized
access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of
University records or academic work, malicious removal, retention, or
destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer
facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards.
Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the
established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which
includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in
a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a
student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension
requirement. (For more specific details, see the 2003-2004 graduate
catalogue, beginning on page 177.)
The KSU Graduate catalog (2003-2004) states: KSU expects that
graduate candidates will pursue their academic programs in an ethical,
professional manner. Any work that candidates present in fulfillment of
program or course requirements should represent their own efforts,
achieved without giving or receiving any unauthorized assistance. Any
student who is found to have violated these expectations will be subject
to disciplinary action. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be
handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary
Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty
member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure,
which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one
semester suspension requirement.
The student is reminded to consult the 2003-2004 KSU Graduate
Catalog for the University's policy. Any strategy, which has the
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
181
appearance of improving grades without increasing knowledge, will be
dealt with in accordance with the University's policy on academic
honesty. In addition, candidates in the graduate program in special
education are held accountable by the Georgia Professional Code of
Ethics for Educators
(http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html) and the
Council for Exceptional Children's (CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of
Persons with Exceptionalities (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).
XV.
Class Attendance Policy Candidates are expected to attend all class
sessions and be active participants in the learning process. This class
includes presentations by professionals from other disciplines and class
attendance is essential for participation in development of a multidisciplinary perspective. Class activities will include discussion, roleplaying and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all
candidates. Candidates have many experiences and skills, which they
can share to facilitate everyone's learning. Evaluation will include
attendance, communication and collaboration skills demonstrated during
class.
Disruptive Behavior: The University has a stringent policy and procedure
for dealing with behavior that disrupts the learning environment.
Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning of
others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior
will not be tolerated. (See Campus Policies and Procedures section of
the 2003-2004 KSU Graduate Catalog).
Human Relations: The University has formulated a policy on human
rights that is intended to provide a learning environment, which
recognizes individual worth. That policy is found in the 2001-2002 KSU
Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional
should need reminding but the policy is there for your consideration. The
activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of
that policy.
XVI.
CPI
Outcomes
Course Schedule:
Topic
Activities &
Homework
Date
Facilitators of
Learning
1/12/04
Review of
Syllabus &
Major Class
Assignments
Discuss
procedures
for classroom
observations
Review
National
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Identify lessons
from QCC’
Schedule
observation
Visits.
182
Board
Procedures
for Teacher
Reflections
Introduction
to Web CT
Review of
Technology
Standards
1/19/04
Facilitators of
Learning
1/26/04
5
Dimensions
of Learning
Schools that
Work
Describe how you
incorporate
Marzano
strategies in your
lessons.
Classrooms
that Work
Facilitators of
Learning
2/2/04
ResearchBased
Planning
Strategies
The Planning
Pyramid
Team
Planning
(McGill Action
Planning)
Discuss
Bloom & Task
Analysis
Discuss
Multilevel
Goals and
Objectives
Discuss
Writing IEP’s
from QCC’s
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Develop lesson
plan
using pyramid &
multi-level
objectives.
183
Facilitators of
Learning
2/9/04
Monitoring
Student
Progress
Pre-Post
Assessments
Class Activities
Review of Rubrics
Review of Sample
Lessons
Group &
Individual
Embedded
Assessments
Embedded
IEP
assessment
Group
Processing
Facilitators of
Learning
Differentiated
Instruction
2/16/04
Multi-Level
Instruction
with
Accommodati
ons &
Accommodati
ons
Subject
Matter
Expert
Direct
Instruction
Model: DI and
di
Facilitator of
Learning
2/23/04
Task Analysis
Carol Tomlinson
Video Activities
Class Activities
Review of Rubrics
Review of Sample
Lessons
Response/Pr
ompt
Systems
Systematic
Instruction
with Prompts
& Cues
Error
Correction
Strategies
Facilitator of
Learning
Class Activities
Direct
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Review of Rubrics
184
3/01/04
Instruction
Review of Sample
Lessons
3/3/04
Think Sheet
Facilitator of
Learning
3/8/04
What Works
& What
Doesn’t
Cooperative
Learning
Structures
Literature Circles
CWPT
Critique Video &
Lesson Plans on
CL
Class Wide
Peer Tutoring
(Math)
Facilitator of
Learning
3/15/04
Cooperative
Learning
Structures
Introduce
Jigsaw
Jigsaw: Each
Class Member
present their
structure &
demonstrate
a ten-minute
lesson to class.
Roles and
responsibilitie
s
Management
strategies
Facilitators of
Learning
Peer Review
Strategies
3/22/04
SelfEvaluations
Analysis of
Student Work
3/29/04
Determining
Impact on
Student
Learning
Graphing
Student Data
Critical
Analysis of
Video
4/5/04
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Peer review
185
Subject
Expert
Strategy
Instruction
Model
Facilitator
4/12/04
Facilitator
Content Area
Reading
Subject
Matter
Expert
Demonstration
lessons
Strategies for
Written
Expression
4/19/04
Math
Methods
Collaborative
Professional
What it Takes
to be a
Successful
Teacher
4/26/04
Collegial and
Partner
Learning as
Professional
Development
Practices
5/3/04
Documenting
Professional
Outcomes
XVII.
Portfolio Action
Plan
Demonstration
lessons
Demonstration
lessons
References/Bibliography
American Association on Mental Retardation (1993). Mental retardation: Definition, classification,
and systems of supports. 9th ed. Washington,D.C.: Author.
Anderson, L. W. & Pellicer, L. O. (1990). Synthesis of research on compensatory and remedial
education. Educational Leadership, 48, 10-16.
Billingsley, F.F., Burgess, D., Lynch, V.W., & Matlock, B.L. (1991). Toward generalized outcomes:
Considerations and guidelines for writing instructional objectives. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation, 26, 351-360.
Bos, C.S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Strategies for Teaching Students with Learning and Behavior
Problems (2nd ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
186
Carnine, D. W. (1991). Curricular interventions for teaching higher order thinking to all students:
Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 261-169.
Cawley, J.F., Baker-Kroczynski, S. & Urban, A. (1992). Seeking excellence in mathematics
education for students with mild disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, 40-43.
Christenson, S.L., Ysseldyke, J.E. & Thurlow, M.L. (1989). Critical instructional factors for students
with mild handicaps: An integrative review. Remedial & Special Education, 10, 21-31.
Clark, G.M. & Kolstoe, O.P. (1990). Career development and transition education for adolescents
with disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Cohen, S.B. & deBettencourt, L.V. (1991). Dropout: Intervening with the reluctant learner.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 26, 263-271.
Cohen, S.B. & Lynch, D.K. (1991). An instructional modification process. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 23, 12-18.
Hammill, D.D. & Bartel, N.R. (1990) Teaching Students with Learning and Behavior Problems.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Meese, R.L. (1994). Teaching Learners with Mild Disabilities: Integrating Research &
Practice.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Meyen, E.L., Vergason, G.A., & Whelan, R.J. (Eds.) (1988). Effective instructional strategies for
exceptional children. Denver: Love.
Patton, J.R., Beirne-Smith, M. & Payne, J.S. (1990). Mental Retardation. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Sasso, G.M., Meloy, K.J. & Kavale, K.A. (1990). Generalization, maintenance, and behavioral covariation associated with social skills training through structured learning. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 9-22.
Slavin, R.E. (1990) Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L. & Madden, N.A. (1989). Effective programs for students at risk. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Wang, M.C., Reynolds, M.C. & Walberg, H.J. (Eds.) (1988). Handbook of special education: Research
and practice: Vol.2. Mildly handicapped conditions. New York: Pergamon Press.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
187
EXC 7765: Instructional Design Progress Report
Candidate Name:
Directions: Meet with your professor to determine projected due dates for completion of your project. Complete
your assignments and ask your peers to review your work at designated times. Submit your work to your
instructor only when it is completely finished.
Candidate Plan for Completion of Instructional Design Project
Task
Projected
Due Date
Peer
Review
Dates
&
Initial
Identify 1
reading and
1 math
lesson to use
as foundation
for project.
Develop
multi-level
objectives for
reading and
math lessons
for students
with full
range of
ability and
disability.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Date of
Completion
Resubmission
Date
188
Develop
assessments.
Develop
direct
instruction
components.
Develop
cooperative
learning
components.
Teach and
video
lessons.
Analyze
Work
Samples.
Collect,
organize &
graph data
Interpret and
reflect upon
data.
Peer Review
(Instructor
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
189
Review)
Self-evaluate
video
Peer Review
Plan Approved:
Date:
(Faculty Signature)
Project Complete. Candidate ready to complete assignments for a higher grade.
Faculty Signature:
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Date:
190
I.
EXC 7770 Psychoneurological and Medical Issues in Special Education
Department of Special Education
Kennesaw State University
Summer, 2003
II.
INSTRUCTOR/LOCATION:
III.
Class Sessions:
IV.
Texts (required):
 Bowe, F. (2000). Physical, Sensory and Health Disabilities: An Introduction.
Columbus, OH, Merrill.
 Ratey, J. (2002). A User’s Guide to the Brain: Perception, Attention, and the Four
Theaters of the Brain. New York, NY, Vintage Books, Random House, Inc.
V.
Catalog Description: This course focuses on the psychological, neurological
and medical bases of learning and behavioral differences exhibited by
exceptional students. The link between psychological, neurological and medical
differences and performance in school will be explored to identify differential
programming needs for these students. Multi-disciplinary collaboration, service
coordination and preparation for addressing medical needs within the classroom
setting will be emphasized.
VI.
Mimi Gold, M.Ed.
Dunwoody High School
5035 Vermack Road
Media Center
(W) 40-845-1301
mgoldteach@aol.com
Tuesday/Thursday 4:30-8:30 May 1 through June 5, 2003
Purpose/Rationale: The purpose of this course is to prepare professional learning facilitators
for exceptional students. The competencies in this course are derived from the requirements
for teachers of students with mild disabilities of the Professional Standards Commission (the
licensure body of Georgia), the national standards of the Council for Exceptional Children,
and guidance from the KSU Department of Special Education Advisory Board. This course is
designed to provide the knowledge and skills necessary to work with students with a variety
of physical, medical and health disabilities. It addresses the psychoneurological bases for
development and learning.
Conceptual Framework Summary: Collaborative Development of
Expertise in Teaching and Learning
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
191
The Kennesaw State University teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers who
demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU teacher
education community strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring
guidance from professionals inside and outside the university. In tandem with this belief is the
understanding that teacher expertise develops along a continuum which includes the stages of
preservice, induction, in-service, and renewal; further, as candidates develop a strong researchbased knowledge of content and pedagogy, they develop their professional expertise in
recognizing, facilitating, assessing, and evaluating student learning.
Knowledge Base:
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four
phases: preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny,
2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central
to analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU
believes that the concept of expertise is central to preparing effective classroom
teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum
phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms
toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like
Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of
continued development.
The knowledge base for this course is derived from research literature in the areas of education,
psychology and medicine. The field of special education is in a constant state of transition as
debates continue over the etiology of learning and behavior differences and appropriate
educational placement and methodology for these students. The increase in the number of
students surviving difficult births, the effects of prenatal alcohol or drug exposure, cancer
treatments or accidents resulting in brain injury and the increase in the number of students on
medications or medical support systems in school necessitates that teachers have a greater
knowledge of medical correlates.
Use of Technology:
Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards
Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated
throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be
able to use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia
Technology Standards for Educators. During the courses, candidates will be
provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media, especially
microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of productivity tools,
such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design
multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and develop an
electronic learning portfolio.
Diversity Statement
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons
defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to help disabled students with their
academic work. In order to make arrangements for special services, students must visit the
Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and arrange an individual assistance
plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
192
The effect of culture on is a key component of understanding special education. Consideration of
the impact of socioeconomic and cultural differences on identification, assessment, intervention
and service delivery will be considered.
VII. Goals and Objectives:
The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of
teacher preparation as a developmental and collaborative process. Research for
the past 25 years has described this process in increasingly complex terms.
Universities and schools must work together to successfully prepare teachers
who are capable of developing successful learners in today’s schools and who
choose to continue their professional development. As a result of the satisfactory
fulfillment of the requirements of this course, the student will demonstrate a
broad base of Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions.
Knowledge
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
articulate the major theories of cognitive development and the application of each to
special education students.
describe the causes and effects of sensory, physical and medical problems on learning
and behavior and the implications for special education.
articulate modifications and accommodations in assessment and instruction for students
with sensory, physical and medical problems.
articulate sources for support in addressing needs of students with sensory, physical and
medical problems including assessment, technological support, communication devices,
equipment needs and specialized related services.
describe curricular and instructional needs for medical and behavioral self-management
and independent living skills of students with psychoneurological, sensory, physical or
medical problems.
Skills
6.
7.
8.
articulate the cognitive and biological components of attention disorders and develop
classroom modifications using cognitive techniques for amelioration of attention
problems.
articulate the components of memory and develop appropriate techniques for instruction
of students with memory deficits.
describe the effects of cognitive and biological differences on behavior, reasoning and
problem-solving skills and the develop modifications for special education.
Dispositions
9.
demonstrate skill in researching needs for a specific disability area and identifying
educational needs.
10.
demonstrate skill in collaborative participation in multi-disciplinary planning for life-span
needs of students with disabilities
Course Requirements/Assignments
Class attendance & participation: Students are expected to sign in for class each session and
participate in all class activities.
Objective exam (Neurological): A 50 point objective format exam will be administered covering
content of Ratey text and related in-class presentations.
In-class application activities: Students will participate in simulations and
application activities. Each activity will have an assigned point value.
Final objective exam (Medical & Health): A 50 point objective format exam will
be administered covering content of Bowe text and related in-class presentations.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
193
Reflective activity journal: Students will submit reflective journal assignments
relating applications of class discussion to their teaching practice.
IX. Evaluation and Grading
Requirement
Class attendance & participation
Objective exam (Medical & Health)
Cognitive theorist reflection paper
Accommodations chart with sources
Objective exam (Neurological)
Study tool projects
Reflective activity journal
Total
Points Assessed
30
50
50
50
50
30
40
300
Grades will be assigned as follows:
92-100 average %
85-91 average %
76-84 average %
<76 average %
Course Objectives
10
2,3,4,5
1,9,(10)
6,7,8,9
6,7,8
2,10
5,9
A
B
C
F
X. ACADEMIC HONESTY: Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the
Student Code of Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of
the Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including
provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials,
misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal, retention,
or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services,
and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled
through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an
"informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing
procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester
suspension requirement.
The student is reminded to consult pp. 142 - 143 of the 2000-2001 KSU Graduate Catalog for the
University's policy. Any strategy, which has the appearance of improving grades without increasing
knowledge, will be dealt with in accordance with the University's policy on academic honesty. In
addition, students in the graduate program in special education are held accountable by the Georgia
Professional Code of Ethics for Educators
(http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html) and the Council for Exceptional
Children's (CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with Exceptionalities
(http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).
CLASS PARTICIPATION: Students are expected to attend all class sessions and be active participants
in the learning process. This class includes presentations by professionals from other disciplines and
class attendance is essential for participation in development of a multi-disciplinary perspective. Class
activities will include discussion, role playing and group collaborative activities requiring the participation
of all students. Students have many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's
learning. Evaluation will include attendance, communication and collaboration skills demonstrated during
class.
DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR: The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior
that disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the
learning of others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated.
(See Campus Policies and Procedures p.143 of the 2000- 2001 KSU Graduate Catalog).
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
194
HUMAN DIGNITY: The University has formulated a policy on human rights that is intended to provide a
learning environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found on p.152 in the 2000-2001
KSU Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but the
policy is there for your consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and
the letter of that policy.
Course Outline
Date
TH May 1
TU May 6
TH May 8
TU May 13
TH May 15
TU May 20
TH May 22
TU May 27
TH May 29
Topic
Introduction/requirements
Early Intervention
(readings due on Bowe
Chapters 1-4) populations,
models & laws, early inter.,
related services, advocacy,
mainstream & multiple
needs
Health & Medical
(readings due on Bowe Chapters
7-9) TBI, MS, epilepsy, MD,
arthritis, amputation, little people,
health impairments
Adaptive/Assistive Tech’gy
(readings due on Bowe Chapters
5-6,10) assistive tech, CP, spinal
cord injury, spina bifida, 2nd
conditions-vision, hearing,
cognition
Therapy Overview
(readings due on Bowe Chapters
11-14) accessibility, housing,
transportation, employment
Midterm Exam Bowe Text
Neurological Assessment
(readings due on Ratey Chapters
on: Att’n, Memory & Movement)
Autism
(readings due on Ratey Chapters
on: Intro’n, Develop’t &
Perception)
Psychopharmocology
(readings due on Ratey Chapters
on: Emotions, Social Brain)
In-class activities
Video: Brain Dev’t
Sheila Langston (4:30)
Class Assignment

Reflective
journal 1Locate & evaluate
web site for early
interv’n parents

Dr.Gloria Taylor (4:30)
Dee Dee Bunn (6:30)
Lainie Palefsky (4:30)
Robin Skolsky
Web SearchTheorist Paper

Reflective journal 2Locate your county
(web)medic’n policy,
comment on use and
effectiveness
 Web SearchTheorist Paper

Review Activity
Reflective journal 3Describe value of low
and high tech
support/devices, cite
known/specific cases,
why effective
 Video: Social Brain
General overview on brain
function
Dr. Alcuin Johnson (4:30)

Overview of language
processing/impairments
Denise Browning ((4:30)
Web Searchimpairment +
modifications
 Reflective journal 4Identify students you
suspect need language
ther., why
Dr. Marth Little (6:30)

Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Web Searchimpairment +
modifications
195
TU June 3
TH June 5
Acquired Brain Injury
(readings due on Ratey Chapters
on: Language & 4 Theaters
Final Exam Ratey Text
Mimi Gold (4:30)
Video: Coma
Review Activity
Reflective journal 5- a
student with a TBI is in
your class, how can you
prepare, instruct and
support
Note: Activities listed may be changed due to time or need for further information in content areas
of planned curriculum
References
Aponik, D. & Dembo, M. (1983) Learning disabled and normal adolescents' causal attributions of success
and failure at different levels of task difficulty. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 311-39
Borkowski, J.G., Estrada, M.T., Milstead, M. & Hale, C.A. (1989) General problem-solving skills: Relations
between metacognition and strategic processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 57-701-39
Cosden, M., & Haring, T. (1992). Cooperative learning in the classroom: Contingencies, group
interactions and students with special needs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2 (1),
53-71.
Deno, S. L., Foegen, A., Robinson, S., & Espin, C. (1996). Commentary: Facing the realities of inclusion
for students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 345-357.
Eliason, M.J. and Richman, L.C. (1988) Behavior and attention in LD children. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 11, 360-9.
Felton, R. H. and Wood, F.B. (1989) Cognitive deficits in reading disability and attention deficit disorder.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 3-13
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. , Phillips, M., & Karns, E. (1995). General educators' specialized
adaptations for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 440-459.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Teacher planning for students with learning disabilities:
Differences between general and special educators. Learning Disabilities Research, 7, 120-128.
Giangreco, M., Cloninger, C. & Iverson, V. (1993a). Choosing options and accommodations for children
(COACH): A guide to planning inclusive education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
196
Giangreco, M., & Putnam, J. (1991). supporting the education of students with severe disabilities in
regular education environments. In L. H. Meyer, C. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.) Critical Issues in the
Lives of People with Severe Disabilities. (pp. 245-270.)
Goldman, S.R. (1989) Strategy instruction in mathematics. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 43-56
Gollnick, D.M & Chinn, P.C. (1986) Multicultural Education in a Pluralistic Society. Columbus, OH: Merrill
Hallahan, D.P. & Sapona, R.S. (1983) Self-monitoring of attention with learning disabled children: Past
research
and current issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 16-20.
Holmes, E.E. (1985) Children Learning Mathematics: A Cognitive Approach to Teaching Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, and outcomes for
students with severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 3-29.
Jorgensen, C. (1992). Natural supports in inclusive schools: Curricular and teaching strategies. In J.
Nisbet (Ed.) Natural supports in school, at work, and in the community for people with disabilities.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
LHresko, W.P. & Reid, D.K. (1981) Five faces of cognition: Theoretical influences on approaches to
learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 238-253.
Lewis, S.K. and Lawrence-Patterson, E. (1989) Locus of control of children with learning disabilities and
perceived locus of control by significant others. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 255-7.
Logan, K. R., Bakeman, R., Keefe, E. B. (1997). Effects of instructional variables on engaged behavior of
students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63, (4) 481-498.
Logan, K. R., & Keefe, E. B. (1997). A comparison of instructional context, teacher behavior, and
engaged behavior for students with severe disabilities in general education and self-contained
elementary classrooms. Journal of The Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 22, 1627.
Marston, D. (1996). A comparison of inclusion only, pull-out only, and combined service models for
students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 121-132.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
197
Monda-Amaya, L. & Pearson, P. (1996). Toward a responsible pedagogy for teaching and learning
literacy. In M. C. Pugach & C. Warger (Eds.), Curriculum trends, special education and reform.
Refocusing the conversation. (pp.143-163). New York: Teachers College Press.
Nolet, V., & Tindal, G. (1993). Special education in content area classes: Development of a model and
practical procedures. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 36-48.
Paris, S.G. & Oka, E.R. (1989) Strategies for comprehending text and coping with reading difficulties.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 32-42
Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B.L. and Cariglia-Bull, T. Strategy instruction research comes of age.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16-31
Ratey, John J. (2002) A User’s Guide to the Brain: Perception, Attention, and the Four Theaters of the
Brain. New York: Vintage Books, Random House, Inc.
Reid, D.K. (1988) Teaching the Learning Disabled: A Cognitive Developmental Approach. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon
Rosser, R. (1994) Cognitive Development: Psychological and biological perspectives. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Sands, D. J., Adams, L., & Stout, D. M. (1995). A statewide exploration of the nature and use of
curriculum in special education. Exceptional Children, 62, 68-83.
Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., Alley, G.R., Warner, M.M. & Denton, P.H. (1982) Multipass: A learning
strategy for improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 295-304.
Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L., & Saumell, L. (1995). General
education teacher planning: What can students with learning disabilities expect? Exceptional
Children, 61, 335-352.
Schunk, D.H. (1989) Self-efficacy and cognitive achievement: Implications for students with learning
problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 14-22.
Sleeter, C.E. & Grant, C.A. (1988) Making Choices for Multicultural Education: Five approaches to race,
class and gender Columbus, OH: Merrill
Snider, V. (1988) Use of self-monitoring of attention with LD students: Research & application. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 10, 139-151.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
198
Staub, D., & Peck, C.A. (1995). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational
Leadership, December 1994/January 1995, 36 – 40.
Swanson, H.L. (1988) Memory subtypes in learning disabled readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11,
342-357.
Swanson, H.L. (1989) Strategy instruction: Overview of principles and procedures for effective use.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 3-14.
Stanovich, K.E. (1988) Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor
reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21,
590-604
Torgeson, J.K. (1985) Memory processes in reading disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
18, 350-357.
Torgeson, J.K. (1988) Studies of children with learning disabilities who perform poorly on memory span
tasks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 605-612
Torgeson, J.K. (1988) The cognitive and behavioral characteristics of children with learning disabilities:
An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 587-589
Torgesen, J.K. (1989) Cognitive and behavioral characteristics of children with learning disabilities:
Concluding comments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 166-16.
Udvari-Solner, A. (1995). A process for adapting curriculum in inclusive classrooms. In R. Villa & J.
Thousand (Eds.) Creating an inclusive school. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J. N., Jenkins, L., & Couthino, M.
(1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi
Delta Kappan, 76, 531-540.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
199
EXC 7780
II.
EXC 7780 Collaboration For Inclusive Schools
Department of Special Education
Kennesaw State University
Fall, 2002
II.
INSTRUCTORS:
Name Kent R. Logan, Ph.D.
Room 3107 Kennesaw Hall
Office Phone: 770-499-3126;
Cell Phone: 404-931-6390
e-mail klogan@kennesaw.edu; krlogan1@juno.com
III.
Class Sessions:
Day :
Location:
Tuesday, 5:00 – 7:45 PM
Kennesaw Hall, 1107
IV.
Texts (required): Sands, D. J., Kozleski, E. B., French, N. K. (2000). Inclusive Education For
The 21st Century. Riso, D. R. (1990). Understanding the Enneagram.
Text (optional): Doyle, M.B. (1997). The paraprofessional guide to inclusive classrooms.
Baltimore: Brookes
V.
Catalog Description: This course focuses on development of collaborative and consultative skills for
working with parents, regular education teachers, special education teachers, support personnel, community resource
personnel and others to facilitate delivery of appropriate services for special education students.
VI.
Purpose/Rationale: The purpose of this course is to prepare P-12 special education
teachers to become effective facilitators of elementary, secondary, or alternative curriculum for
students with disabilities within the context of the general education classroom and curriculum.
In order to facilitate this curriculum candidates must be able to co-teach and collaborate with
general educators and build multi-level curriculum plans. In addition, they must be able to assess
their school for barriers to effective inclusive and design plans for building wide change that will
address those barriers.
Conceptual Framework Summary
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
The Kennesaw State University teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers who
demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU teacher education community
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
200
strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring guidance from professionals inside and outside
the university. In tandem with this belief is the understanding that teacher expertise develops along a continuum
which includes the stages of preservice, induction, in-service, and renewal; further, as candidates develop a strong
research-based knowledge of content and pedagogy, they develop their professional expertise in recognizing,
facilitating, assessing, and evaluating student learning.
Knowledge Base Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes
four phases: preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just
as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teachinglearning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is
central to preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how
during the continuum phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in
classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like
Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued
development.
The knowledge base for methods of teaching students with disabilities continues to develop
rapidly. The historical framework included perceptual training, behavior modification and task
analysis. Current directions include multiple intelligence models, systematic instruction, strategy
approaches to teaching and learning, and direct instruction. The field draws on research literature
from educational psychology, medicine, psychology and special education. The emphasis in this
class will be on developing skills in application of research-based best practice in the area of
behavior management, documenting impact on student learning, and reflective practice.
Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards
Commission Telecommunication and information technologies will be
integrated throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all candidates
must be able to use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia
Technology Standards for Educators. During the courses, candidates will be
provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media, especially
microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of productivity tools,
such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design
multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and develop an
electronic learning portfolio.
Candidates in this course will be expected to apply the use of educational technology in
classrooms for students in their classrooms. Specifically, candidates will use spreadsheet
software to develop graphs, charts, and tables, word processing to write papers, and e-mail to
communicate with the instructors and their peers
Diversity Statement
A variety of material and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of
different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge, skills, and
understanding to provide effective instruction in multicultural classrooms. Kennesaw State
University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as disabled
under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990. A number of services are available to help disabled students with their academic work. In
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
201
order to make arrangements for special services, candidates must visit the Office of Disabled
Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and arrange an individual assistance plan. In some cases,
certification of disability is required.
The effect of socio-economic, ethnic, gender and cultural differences on the effectiveness
of methods for students with disabilities will be considered. The emphasis on cognitive style
differences in the special education field provides a background for the consideration of cultural
context
VII.
Goals and Objectives
The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of teacher
preparation as a developmental and collaborative process. Research for the past 25 years has
described this process in increasingly complex terms. Universities and schools must work
together to successfully prepare teachers who are capable of developing successful learners in
today’s schools and who choose to continue their professional development. Candidates in this
course are expected to perform at the Advanced or Teacher Leader level of performance.
As a result of Knowledge, candidates will be able to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Describe and defince the dynamics of the systems’ change process
CEC Cross Reference: N/A
Describe how general education reform serves as the context for inclusion. CEC Cross Reference:
N/A
Compare and contract the concepts of empowerment vs. paternalism as they relate to the education of
students with disabilities. CEC Cross Reference: BS5, FS3, FS1, PK5
Describe and define collaborative and consultative roles of special education teachers in the instruction
of individuals with disabilities in general education curriculum, classrooms, and all other aspects of
school life. CEC Cross Reference: CCK3, PS7, IS16.
Describe and define general developmental, academic, social, career, and functional characteristics of
individuals with disabilities as they relate to the level of support needed to be successful in general
education classrooms and all other aspects of school life. CEC Cross Reference: CS1, IK2-6, IS22,
PK1, PK4, BS5, PS7, IS16.
As a result of Skills, candidates will be able to:
6.
7.
8.
9.
Develop a building plan to implement inclusive education in an elementary, middle, or high school by
assessing the complete school context, identifying the barriers to change, as well as the strategies
necessary to overcome them. CEC Cross Reference: CCK3, PS7, IS16.
Develop and implement a model of co-teaching and classroom-based therapy for students with special
needs that includes the roles and responsibilities of each staff member, team/problem-solving
strategies, and methods of conflict resolution. CEC Cross Reference: CCK3, PS7, IS16.
Include in the building plan and the co-teaching models strategies to optimize parent involvement.
CEC Cross Reference: CCK3, PS7, IS16
Develop lesson plans that use and integrate research-supporte instructional strategies and practice
including cooperative learning, multi-level instruction, differentiated learning, curriculum
accommodation, functional embedded functional skills, community-reference instruction, MAPS,
curriculum matrices, transdisciplinary IEP development when teaching students with disabilities in
school and community settings. CEC Cross-Reference: IK1, IK7, IK8, IS1, IS2, IS$-9, IS12-19, IS21,
IS23, IS25-26, PS4, PS7.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
202
10. Assist students, in collaboration with parents and other professionals, in planning for various school
transitions including preschool to school, class to class, school to school, school to work, etc. CEC
Cross Reference: IS14, IS15, IS17, IS23, PK1, PK4, CCK1, CCK4-5, CCS2, CCK3, BS5, PS7, IS16.
11. Develop and use an assistive technology plan for individuals who lack typical communication and
performance abilities. CEC Cross Reference: AS4, AS5, IS5, IS19, IS21, IS25, PK3, CCK2.
12. Evaluate, select, develop, and adapt/modify general education curriculum materials and technology
appropriate for individuals with disabilities. CEC Cross Reference: IS1, IS2, IS4-9, IS12-19, IS21,
IS23, IS25-26, PS5.
13. Integrate student initiated, peer mediated, and/or social development experiences into ongoing, ageappropriate instruction. CEC Cross Reference, BS5, PS4.
14. Assist paraprofessionals in instructing students in a variety of ways and contexts. CEC Cross
Reference: CCK3, PS7, IS16.
15. Create positive learning environments for all students, including those with moderate/severe
disabilities. CEC Cross Reference IK9, CCK3, BS4-5.
As a result of professional dispositions candidates will be able to:
16. Demonstrate communication, problem solving, and conflice resolution skills when
assisting other professionals, families, or students with disabilities. CEC Cross
Reference: IS16, CCK3.
17. Demonstrate skills in leadership, advocacy, and training to improve services for
students with disabilities. CEC Cross Reference: EK1, ES1-2.
18. Participate in the activities of professional organizations relevant to individuals with
disabilities. ES1
19. Articulate the teacher’s ethical responsibility to non-identified students who function
similarly to students classified as disabled. CEC Cross Reference: U4A, ES2.
20. Always use people first language. CEC Cross Reference: EK2.
X.
Course Requirements/Assignments:
Reflections on Video Tapes and Statements: In some classes, candidates will watch a video tape or be
given a statement on collaboration or problem solving by the instructor. Candidate will write a short
reflection based on the video or the statement. (50 Points)
Co-Teaching Model, Plan, and Video Tape: Each candidate will be required to co-teach two lessons with
a general education teacher. Candidates will identify a model of co-teaching to implement, write
collaboration plans, develop a multi-level curriculum lesson to implement, and video tape the lesson.
Candidates will then watch their video and reflect on the quality of the co-teaching, the instruction, the
curriculum, and student engagement. Following the reflection, candidates will develop another lesson to
improve on the first one. They will identify a different model of co-teaching to implement the lesson, write
collaboration plans, develop a multi-level curriculum lesson to implement, and video tape the lesson. If the
first lesson used a whole class instruction model of co-teaching, the second lesson must employ a small
group model of co-teaching. Candidates will then watch the second video and reflect on the quality of the
co-teaching, the instruction, the curriculum, and student engagement. This reflection will include a
comparison and contrast to the first lesson. All components of this activity will be listed and evaluated
based on a rubric developed by the instructor. (100 Points)
Building Plan: Working in teams, candidates will develop a building plan to increase
co-teaching, collaboration, and inclusion of all students (including those with more severe disabilities) in
general education classrooms and curriculum at their school or a school with similar characteristics to their
school. This plan will be comprehensive and include a building assessment (evaluate your school’s total
context, identify strengths and areas of need for improvement), the identification of barriers to inclusion,
the prioritization of which barriers to work on, and the development of a comprehensive plan to overcome
the selected barriers. This plan will address administrative, school ecology, staff development, school wide
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
203
behavior, co-teaching models (diagram of model), and collaboration (with teachers, paraprofessionals,
related services personnel, parents) issues. It will also include assessment tools, team tools, problem
solving processes, ways to capitalize on learning and personality styles. Candidates will turn in the building
assessment and identification and prioritization components as they are developed for an initial evaluation.
Feedback from the instructor will then be incorporated into the final Building Plan. All components of the
Building Plan will be listed and evaluated based on a rubric developed by the instructor. (120 Points).
Class Participation: In most classes, candidates will work in groups to complete specific activities. These
include reflection on video tapes and statements passed out by the instructor, co-teaching plans/models, and
the building plan. The instructor anticipates that candidates will attend class regularly (see policy on
tardiness and absenteeism), be respectful of the instructor and peers by not talking or working on non-class
materials while the instructor or peers are talking, participate actively in group application activities, and be
respectful of the instructor and peers by not making sarcastic or other denigrating comments to or about
them (20 points).
Working Portfolio Components
Field Experience Observation: All candidates will be observed by an adjunct faculty member.
They will observe following a protocol that will be shared with candidates prior to the
observation. The observation for this course will be focused on curriculum strategies of coteaching, collaboration, multi-level curriculum, and adaptations and modification.
Professional Development Log: Candidates will keep a log of professional development
activities in which they participate during the semester. Candidates will write the topic of the
professional development activity and a paragraph on how that activity impacts their practice.
Professional Readings: Candidates will keep a log of professional readings. Candidates will write
the title and journal from which the reading came and a paragraph on how what they learned from
the reading impacts their teaching.
Reflective Assessment: During the first class, candidates will list their strengths and areas in need
of improvement, as related to behavior strategies, and write a goal statement(s) as to what they
would like to learn and implement during the course. At the end of the class, candidates will write
a short reflection on how they improved their practice based on their goals (strengths and areas in
need of improvement) and develop goals and an action plan for how the information and skills
learned in this course will continue to impact their development as a teacher and leader (10
points).
Extensions and Impact on Student Learning: Candidates should keep ongoing documentation
of ways in which they extended their learning and skills from this and other courses they took. For
this course, this could include identifying students who gain access to more inclusive educational
environments, actual changes implemented in the school as a result of the Building Plan, changes
in student behavior or learning that results from co-teaching, interactions with parents, committees
formed or served on related to inclusive education, peer mediated strategies implemented in your
class or other classrooms, workshops on co-teaching conducted at the school, the establishment of
additional co-teaching teams at your school and etc.Candidates should keep documentation of
changes in student behavior that results from these interventions (impact on student learning).
XI.
Evaluation and Grading
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
204
Class Requirements, Assignments, and Grading
Course Objectives
Class Activities
Points
19
4
10
50
18
18
19
1,2,3,20
4,5
4,5
4,5
4,5
100
4,5,7,9,10,12 13,17,19,20
1,2,3
120
20
1,5,6,7,8,10,14,15,17
2,3,5,9,10,1112,13,15,16,19,20
1,4,5
4,5
Field
Experience
Observation
Professional Development Log
Professional Readings
Reflective Assessment
Individual Reflections on Video
Tapes and Statements given out
by the instructor
Co-Teaching Plan and Video
Tape (Individual Project)
Building Plan (Group Project)
Class Participation (Includes in
class group projects)
PTEU
Objectives
Grades will be assigned as follows:
270 -300 points A
240 -279 points B
210 -239 points C
<210 points
F
X.
Academic Integrity
Every KSU candidate is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as
published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the
University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized
access to University materials, misrepresentation/ falsification of University records or academic work, malicious
removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or
services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled
through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal"
resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a
candidate to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.
The candidate is reminded to consult pp 142-143 of the 2001-2002 KSU Graduate Catalog for the
University's policy. Any strategy, which has the appearance of improving grades without increasing knowledge,
will be dealt with in accordance with the University's policy on academic honesty. In addition, candidates in the
graduate program in special education are held accountable by the Georgia Professional Code of Ethics for
Educators (http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html) and the Council for Exceptional Children's
(CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with Exceptionalities (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).
XI. Class Attendance Policy
Candidates are expected to attend all class sessions and be active participants in the learning process. The
knowledge and skills taught in this class can best be learned by reading the assignments and coming to class to listen
to the instructor, ask questions, and interact with peers during group activities. If, after reviewing the syllabus, class
assignments, and reading, candidates believe they already know the information in this course, they must speak to
the instructor who will arrange for a competency test and then alternative assignments to extend the candidate’s
current understanding co-teaching, collaboration, multi-level curriculum, and building assessment and whole school
change. Class activities will include discussion and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all
candidates. Candidates have many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's learning.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
205
Evaluation will include attendance, communication and collaboration skills demonstrated during class. If candidates
miss more than two classes without written permission of the instructor, their grade will be lowered one letter grade.
Disruptive Behavior: The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that
disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning of others,
behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (See Campus Policies and
Procedures p. 146 of the 2001- 2002 KSU Graduate Catalog).
Human Dignity: The University has formulated a policy on human rights that is intended to provide a
learning environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found on p. 152 in the 2001-2002 KSU
Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but the policy is there for
your consideration. he activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that policy.
XI. Course Outline (The syllabus schedule reflects a proposed general sequence of topics. Any topic may be
covered in greater or lesser detail depending on the needs of the class. Topics may overlap in dates. Additional
topics may be added as requested by the candidates. However, any changes in due dates or written products that are
part of a “grade” will be changed only after class discussion and written notification by the professor. Candidates
will be expected to initial that they have read the written notification by the instructor.) [SKJ = Sands, Kozleski,
French]
Date
Topic
8/27/02
Intro, syllabus, models of coteaching
Co-teaching, collaboration and
planning
Collaboration and
Communication
Collaboration and
Communication
Educational Reform as the
context for inclusion
9/3/02
9/10/02
9/17/02
9/24/02
10/1/02
Readings
SKF: 1, 2
SKF: 4
SKF: 5
Strieker
Monograph
Appreciating Personality
Types and their impact on
collaboration
Appreciating Personality
Types and their impact on
collaboration
School Assessment, ID of
Barriers
Riso
10/22/02
10/8/02
In-Class
Activity
Co-Teaching
Video
Without Pity
Video Reflection
Due
Eric’s Story
Video Reflection
Due
Wins Video, Kunc Video Reflection
Video
Due
Video on
Video Reflection
Collaboration and Due
Problem Solving
Video Reflection
Due
Riso
Personality
Inventory
SKF: 6, 7
Building Plan
Group
School Wide Behavior
SKF: 8, 3
10/29/02
Effective Staff Development
SKF: 9, 10
Building Plan
Group
Building Plan
Group
11/5/02
Administration, School
Ecology, Families
Creative Problem Solving
SKF: 11
10/15/02
11/12/02
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Assignment
Due
Building Group
Plan
Building Group
Plan
Co-Teaching
Plan and Video
Due
Assessment and
Priority
Objectives due for
review
206
11/19/02
11/26/01
12/3/01
XII.
Multi-Level Curriculum and
Accommodations for Learners
with Moderate and Severe
Disabilities
Multi-Level curriculum and
Accommodations for Learners
with Profound Disabilities
Multi-Level curriculum
including related services
Building Plan
Group
Multi-level
curriculum plans
Multi-level plans
Building Plan
Due
References/Bibliography
Augmentative Communication , Assistive Technology & Classroom-Based Therapy
Baumgart, D., Johnson, J., & Helmstetter, E. (1990). Augmentative and alternative communication
systems for persons with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul Brooks.
Mirenda, P. (1985). Designing pictorial communication systems for physically able-bodied
students with severe handicaps. Augmentative and alternative communication, 1, 58-64.
Tranchak, T. L., and C. Sawyer (1995). Augmentative communication in Assistive Technology: A
resource for school, work and community, eds. M.F. Flippo, K.J. Inge and J.M. Barcus. Baltimore: Paul
Brookes.
Reichle, J., & Karlan, G. (1989). The selection of an augmentative system of communication intervention:
A critique of decision rules. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10 (3), 146-156.
Giangreco, M. ,York, J., & Rainforth, B. (1989) Providing related services to learners with
handicaps in educational settings; Pursuing the least restrictive option. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 1 (2),
55-63.
Rainforth, B. & York, J. (1987). Integrating related services into community instruction. Journal of
the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12 (3), 188-198.
Siegel-Causey, E. Guess, D. (1989). Enhancing nonsymbolic communication interactions among learners
with severe communication disabilities. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Collaboration, Consultation & Teamwork
DeBoer, A. (1995). Working together: The art of consulting and communicating. Longmont, CO: Sopris
West.
Emory, M. J. (1991). Building team pride: Teachers and paraeducators working together. Columbia:
University of Missouri.
Friend, M. & Cook, L. (1990). Collaboration as a predictor for success in school reform. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(1), 69-86.
Lyon, S. & Lyon, G. (1980). Team functioning and staff development: A role release approach to
providing integrated educational services to students with moderate to severe disabilities. Journal of the Association
for the Severely Handicapped, 5(3), 250-263.
Pickett, A., Faison, K. & Formanke, J. (1993). A core curriculum and training program to prepare
paraeducators to work in rural special education settings. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 13(4) 3-9.
Raywid, M. (1993). Finding time for collaboration. Educational Leadership, 51(1) 30-35.
Vaughn,. S., Schumm, J. & Arguelles, M. (1997). The ABCDEs of co-teaching in Teaching Exceptional
Children. 30 (2), 4-10.
Creating Inclusive Schools
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
207
Brown, L., Long, E., Udvari-Solnar, A., Davis, L., VanDeventer, P., Ahlgren, C., Johnson, F., Gruenewald,
L., & Jorgensen, J. (1989). The home school: Why students with severe intellectual disabilities must attend the
school of their brothers, sisters, friends and neighbors. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 14 (1), 1-7.
Cross, G., & Villa, R. (1992). The Winooski school system: An evolutionary perspective of a school
restructuring for diversity. In R. Villa, J. Thousand, W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.) Restructuring for caring
and effective education: An administrators guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 219-237). Baltimore: Paul
H. Brookes.
Ford, A. (1994). Assessing Our Practices. Wisconsin Inclusion Project.
Kaskinen-Chapman, A. (1992). Saline Area Schools and inclusive community concepts. In R. Villa, J.
Thousand, W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.) Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrators
guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 169-185). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
LeRoy, B., England, J., Kent, C., Osbeck, R. & St. Peter, S. (1994). Facilitator's guide to inclusive
education: Systems change that supports all students. Inclusive Communities Press, Wayne State University,
Detroit, MI.
Lilly, M. (1987). Lack of focus on special education in literature on educational reform. Exceptional
Children, 53(4), 325-330.
Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring, and the remaking of America society.
Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 762-706.
McGregor, G., & Vogelsberg, T. (1998). Inclusive Schooling Practices: Pedagogical and Research
Foundations. Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices, Allegheny University of the Health Sciences,
Pittsburgh.
National Center for Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (1995). National study of inclusive education.
New York: City University of New York, NCERI.
Salisbury, C., Palombaro, M. & Hollowood, T. (1993). On the nature and change of an inclusive
elementary school. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18 (2) 75-84.
Schaffner, C. & Buswell, B. (1996). Ten critical elements for creating inclusive and effective school
communities. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.) Inclusion. A guide for educators. (pp 49-65). Baltimore: Paul
Brookes.
Schattman, R. (1992). The Franklin Northwest Supervisory Union. In R. Villa, J. Thousand, W. Stainback
& S. Stainback (Eds.) Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrators guide to creating
heterogeneous schools (pp. 143-159). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Thousand, J., & Villa, R. (1995). Managing complex change within an inclusive schooling. In R. Villa & J.
Thousand (Eds.) Creating and inclusive school. (pp.51-79). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
York-Barr, J., Kronberg, R. & Doyle, M. (1996). Creating inclusive school communities. Module 4Collaboration: Redefining roles, practices, and structures. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Curriculum and Instruction
Cosden, M. & Haring, T. (1992). Cooperative learning in the classroom: Contingencies, group interactions
and students with special needs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2 (1), 53-71.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
208
Deno, S. L., Foegen, A., Robinson, S., & Espin, C. (1996). Commentary: Facing the realities of inclusion
for students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 345-357
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D. Hamlett, C. , Phillips, M., & Karns, E. (1995). General educators' specialized
adaptations for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 440-459.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Teacher planning for students with learning disabilities:
Differences between general and special educators. Learning Disabilities Research, 7, 120-128.
Giangreco, M., Cloninger, C. & Iverson, V. (1993a). Choosing options and accommodations for children
(COACH): A guide to planning inclusive education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Giangreco, M., & Putnam, J. (1991). supporting the education of students with severe disabilities in
regular education environments. In L. H. Meyer, C. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.) Critical Issues in the Lives of People
with Severe Disabilities. (pp. 245-270.)
Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, and outcomes for
students with severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 3-29.
Jorgensen, C. (1992). Natural supports in inclusive schools: Curricular and teaching strategies. In J. Nisbet
(Ed.) Natural supports in school, at work, and in the community for people with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Logan, K. Bakeman, R. Keefe, E. (1997). Effects of instructional variables on engaged behavior of
students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63, (4) 481-498.
Logan, K. R., & Keefe, E. B. (1997). A comparison of instructional context, teacher behavior, and engaged
behavior for students with severe disabilities in general education and self-contained elementary classrooms. Journal
of The Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 22, 16-27.
Marston, D. (1996). A comparison of inclusion only, pull-out only, and combined service models for
students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 121-132.
Monda-Amaya, L. & Pearson, P. (1996). Toward a responsible pedagogy for teaching and learning literacy.
In M.C. Pugach & C. Warger (Eds.), Curriculum trends, special education and reform. Refocusing the conversation.
(pp.143-163). New York: Teachers College Press.
Nolet, V., & Tindal, G. (1993). Special education in content area classes: Development of a model and
practical procedures. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 36-48.
Sands, D. J., Adams, L., & Stout, D. M. (1995). A statewide exploration of the nature and use of
curriculum in special education. Exceptional Children, 62, 68-83.
Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L., & Saumell, L. (1995). General
education teacher planning: What can students with learning disabilities expect? Exceptional Children, 61, 335-352.
Staub, D., & Peck, C. A. (1995). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership,
December 1994/January 1995, 36 – 40.
Udvari-Solner, A. (1995). A process for adapting curriculum in inclusive classrooms. In R. Villa & J.
Thousand (Eds.) Creating an inclusive school.Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J. N., Jenkins, L., & Couthino, M.
(1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76,
531-540.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
209
General Education Reform as the Context for Inclusion
Adelman, N. E., & Walking-Eagle, K. P. (1997) Teachers, time and school reform. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.)
1997 ASCD Yearbook. Rethinking education change with a heart and mind (pp 92-110). Alexandria, BA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Apple, M. W. & Beane, J. A. (1995). Democratic schools. Alexandria, BA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Astuto, T. A., Clark, D. L., Read, A., McGree, K., & Fernandez, L. D. (1994). Roots of reform:
Challenging the assumptions that control change in education. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Foundation.
Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding. The case for constructivist classrooms.
Alexandria, BA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Canady, R. L. & Rettig, M. D. (1995). Block scheduling. A catalyst for change in high schools.
Princeton, N.J.: Eye on Education.
Cohen, J. (1986). Theoretical considerations of peer tutoring. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 175-186.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 753-761.
Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action. Studies of schools
and students at work. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dunn, R. (1996). How to implement and supervise a learning styles program. Alexandria, VA:
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school. New York: Flamer Press.
Fullan, M., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta
Kappan, 73, 754-752.
Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school. New York: Haper Collins.
Goodlad, J. (1994). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill.
Goodlad, J. & Lovitt, T. (Eds.) (1994). Integrating general and special education. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Hargreaves, A. (1997a). Introduction. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.) 1997 ASCD yearbook. Rethinking
educational change with heart and mind. (pp. vii-xv). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development
.
Hargreaves, A. (1997b). Rethinking educational change: Going deeper and wider in the quest for success.
In A. Hargreaves (Ed.) 1997 ASCD yearbook. Rethinking educational change with heart and mind. (pp. vii-xv).
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hopfenberg, W. & Levin, H. (1993). The accelerated schools resource guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
210
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1989a) Cooperation and Competition: Theory and research. Eden, MN:
Interaction Books.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1989b). Leading Cooperative Schools. Eden, MN: Interaction Books.
Kohn, A. (1996). What to look for in a classroom. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 54-55.
Lieberman, A. (Ed.) (1995). The work of restructuring schools. Building from the ground up. New York:
Teachers College Press.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational
reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Newmann, F. & Wehlage, G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership,
50(7), 8-12.
Newmann, F. & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Alexandria, VA: Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Teele, S. (1995). The multiple intelligences school. A place for all students to succeed. Redlands, CA:
Citrograph Printing.
United States Senate-House. (1994, March 21). Goals 2000: Educate America Act. (Conference Report
103-446). Washington D.C.: Author.
Legal, Policy , Cost & Urban Issues
Gorves, S., with Hartsfield, S. Ruff, Jones, R., and Holinga, M. (1995). How an urban school promotes
inclusion. Educational Leadership, 52(4) 82-84.
Kubicek, F. (1994). Special education in light of select state and federal court decisions. The Journal of
Special Education 28, 27-42.
Lipton, D. (1994). The "full inclusion" court cases: 1989-1994. National Center on Educational
Restructuring and Inclusion Bulletin, 1, (2), 108.
National Association for State Boards of Education. (1992). Winners All: A Call for Inclusive Schools.
Virginia: Alexandria.
National Association for State Boards of Education. (1992). Winning Ways. Virginia: Alexandria.
Osborne, A. Dimattia, P. (1994). The IDEA's least restrictive environment mandate: Legal implications:
Exceptional Children, 61, 6-14.
Salisbury, C. & Chambers, A. (1994). Instructional costs of inclusive schooling. The Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19(3), 215-222.
Yell, M. (1995). Least restrictive environment, inclusion and students with disabilities: A legal analysis.
The Journal of Special Education, 28, 398-404.
Yell, M. (1995). The least restrictive environment mandate and the courts: Judicial activism or judicial
restraint? Exceptional Children, 61, 578-581.
Parent Issues & Perceptions
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
211
Erwin, E., Sodak, L. (1995). I never knew I could stand up to the system: Families' perspectives on
pursuing inclusive education. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, (2) 136—146.
Green A., & Stone, A. (1989). Attitudes of mothers and fathers of non handicapped children. Journal of
Early Intervention, 13(4), 292-304.
Palmer, D., Borthhart, M., Huang, A. & Melblom, C. (1998). Parent perceptions of inclusive practices for
their children with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64 (1), 271-282.
Ryndak, D., Downing, J., Jaqueline, L. & Morrison, A. (1995) Parents' perceptions after inclusion of their
children with moderate or severe disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,
20,. 147-157.
York, J. & Tunidor, M. (1995). Issues raised in the name of inclusion: Perspectives of educators, parents
and students. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20,. 31--44.
Problem Behavior
Macmillan, D., Gresham, R., & Forness, S. (1996). Full inclusion: An empirical perspective. Behavioral
Disorders, 21(2), 145-159.
Walker, H. M. & M. Bulls (1991). Behavior disorders and social context of regular class integration: A
conceptual dilemma? In The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues and models. J.
W. Lloyd, N Singh, and A. Repps, (Eds.) Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brookes Cole.
Rationale "for and against" Inclusion
Ayers, B. J., Meyer, L. H. Erevelles, N. & Park-Lee, S. (1994). Easy for you to say: Teacher perspectives
on implementing most promising practices. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 8493.
Ciopani, E. (1995). Inclusive education: What do we know and what do we still have to learn?
Exceptional Children, 61, 498-500.
Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (1994). Incsive schools movement and the radicalization of special education
reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.
Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (1995). Counterpoint: Special Education--Ineffective? Immoral? Exceptional
Children, 61, 303-306.
Giangreco, M., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S. Schattman, R. (1993). "I've counted Jon":
Transformational experiences of teachers educating students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 359-372.
Janney, R. E., Snell, M. E., Beers, M. K., Raynes, M. (1995). Integrating students with moderate and severe
disabilities into general education classes. Exceptional Children, 61, 425-438.
Kauffman, J. M. & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.) (1995). The illusion of full inclusion. A comprehensive critique
of a current special education bandwagon. Austin, Tex: PRO-ED.
Kauffman, J. M. (1993). How we might achieve the radical reform for special education. Exceptional
Children, 60, 6-16.
Martin, E. W. (1995). Case studies on inclusion: Worst fears realized. The Journal of Special Education,
29, 192-199.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
212
O'Neil, J. (1995). Can inclusion work? a conversation with Jim Kauffman and Mara Sapon-Shevin.
Educational Leadership, 52(4) 7-11.
Rankin, D., Hallick, A. Hartley, P. Bost, C. & Uggla C. (1994). Who's dreaming? A general education
perspective on inclusion. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 235-237.
Taylor, S. J. (1995). On rhetoric: A response to Fuchs and Fuchs. Exceptional Children. 61, 301-302.
Vergason, G. A. & Anderegg, M. L. (1993). "In my dreams": A second look at inclusion and
programming. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 296-298.
Werts, M., Wolery, M., Snyder, E., Caldwell, N., & Salisbury, C. (1996). Supports and resources
associated with inclusive schooling: Perceptions of elementary-school teachers about need and availability. Journal
of Special Education.
Wolery, M., Werts, M., Caldwell, M., Snyder, E., & Lisowski, L. (1995). Experienced teachers'
perceptions of conditions and supports for inclusion. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Delay, 30, 15-26.
Social, Friendship & Community Issues.
Hall, L. (1994). A descriptive assessment of social relationships integrated classrooms. The Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 302-313.
Helmsetter, E., Peck, C. Giangreco, M. (1994). Outcomes of interactions with peers with moderate or
severe disabilities: A statewide survey of high school students. The Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 19, 263-276.
Janney, R. E., Snell, M. D. (1996). How teachers use peer interactions to include students with moderate to
severe disabilities in elementary general education classes. Journal of Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps.
Kunc, N. (1992). The need to belong: Rediscovering Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In R. A. Villa, J.
Thousand, W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrative
guide to creating heterogeneous schools. (pp. 25-40). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Logan, K., Diaz, E. Piperno, M., Rankin, D., MacFarland, A. & Berbamian, K. (1995). How inclusion built
a community of learners. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 42-45.
Staub, D., Schwartz, I., Gallucci, C., Peck, C. (1994). Four portraits of friendship at an inclusive school.
The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19,
314-325.
Strully, J. & Strully, C. (1992). The struggle toward inclusion and the fulfillment of friendship. In J. Nisbet
(Ed.) Natural supports in school, at work, and in the community for people with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Transition Services
Lake. K. and K. Kafka (1996). Reporting methods in grade K-8. In communicating student learning, ed. T.
Gusky, 90-118. Alexandria: Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Leconte, P. M. Castleberry, S. King & L. West (1994-1995). Critical issues in assessment: Let's take the
mystery out of assessment for vocational preparation, career development and transition. Diagnostique, 20 (1-4):
33-51.
Love, L. (1993). Developing and including transition services in the IEP: transition services program.
Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education (ERIC Document NO. 380 964).
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
213
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
EXC 7790 Documenting Professional Growth
Spring 2003
I.
COURSE NUMBER/SECTION EXC 7790
COURSE TITLE:
Documenting Professional Growth
II.
INSTRUCTOR:
III.
CLASS MEETINGS:
IV.
TEXT:
Costantino, P. M. & DeLorenzo, M. N. (2002). Developing a Professional Teaching Portfolio: A Guide
for Success. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association : Fifth Edition. Washington, D.C.: Author
V.
CATALOG DESCRIPTION: This course provides support for Master of Education in special Education
candidates in completing and presenting their professional portfolio to document their professional
growth. Candidates will work with a Portfolio Committee to organize reflections about their growth
including: highlighting pivotal KSU learning experiences, reflecting on changes in practice, integrating
research and practice, and relating these to the growth of their students. Outcomes will include a written
portfolio and a multi-media presentation summarizing their portfolio to be completed at least three weeks
before their graduation date.
VI.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE: The purpose of this course is to prepare professional learning facilitators for
all students. The competencies in this course are derived from the requirements for teachers by the
Professional Standards Commission (the licensure body of Georgia), the national standards of the Council
for Exceptional Children, the
standards of the NBPTS and NCATE, and guidance from the KSU Department of
Dr. Deborah S. Wallace, Ph. D.
KH 2333
770-499-3297
dwallace@kennesaw.edu
Dr. Michaela D’Aquanni, Ph. D.
KH 2335
770-420-4336
mdaquann@kennesaw.edu
Tuesday 5:00 – 8:00 PM
KH 1107
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
214
Special Education Advisory Board. This course is designed to provide support for
students in documenting their growth as professional learning facilitators.
VII.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: "Preparing Professional Learning Facilitators Through
Collaboration" is the basis for all Kennesaw State University's teacher education programs. Working form
a solid content background, the teacher as facilitator demonstrates proficient and flexible use of different
ways of teaching to actively engage students in learning. Facilitators are well versed in the characteristics
of students of different ages, abilities and cultural backgrounds. They are skilled in integrating technology
into instruction and create an environment in which students can be successful and want to learn;
facilitators know when and how to assess learning by means of various forms of traditional and authentic
assessments. Facilitators are well prepared for successful careers in teaching and are expected to act in a
professional manner in all circumstances with colleagues, parents, community members, and their own
students. As a professional educator, the teacher facilitator values collaboration and seeks opportunities to
work with other professionals and community members to improve the educational experiences for
children and youth. The knowledge base for this course is derived from NBPTS standards and literature on
reflective practice.
VIII.
USE OF TECHNOLOGY: Students in this course will be expected to demonstrate mastery of
technology skills, including word processing, multimedia presentations, and other software necessary to
document their professional growth. Candidates will find a detailed syllabus and activities for the course
at http://www.kennesaw.edu/education/specialed/ and go to the EXC 7790 syllabus link.
IX.
DIVERSITY: A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of
the different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge, as well as an
understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and assessment
within multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate awareness of critical
multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of
multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific methods and materials for every
student. Among these attributes are ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, giftedness,
disability, language, religion, family structure, sexual orientation, and geographic region. An
emphasis on cognitive style differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations
for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are
available to support candidates with disabilities within their academic program.
In order to make arrangements for special services, candidates must visit the
Office of Disabled Student Support Services (770-423- 6443) and develop an
individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.
Please be aware that there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of
Kennesaw State University that address each of the multicultural variables
outlined above. For more information contact the Student Life Center at 770423-6280.
X.
COURSE GOALS/OBJECTIVES: The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares
learning facilitators who understand their disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
215
reflect on practice, and who apply these understandings to making instructional decisions
that foster the success of all learners.
As a result of Knowledge, the candidate will:
1. articulate knowledge of characteristics of students in their classrooms, and
2. articulate knowledge of best educational practices.
As a result of Skills, the candidate will:
3. demonstrate skill in reflecting on practice;
4. demonstrate skill in professional written and oral communication of ideas;
5. demonstrate skill in integrating research findings with reflections on current
practice;
6. demonstrate skill in using action research to improve practice; and
7. demonstrate skill in use of technology to document and exhibit professional
growth.
As a result of Dispositions, the candidate will:
8. exhibit commitment to successful learning of all students in their classrooms, and
9. exhibit commitment to lifelong learning.
PTEU Graduate Proficiencies:
1. Are committed to students and their learning
2. Know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students
3. Are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning
4. Think systematically about their practice and learn from experience
5. Are members of learning communities
XI.
XII.
XIII.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS: Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory grades.
Completion of written professional portfolio with selected appendices to document professional growth and
the presentation of a multimedia summary of their growth.
CLASS PARTICIPATION: Students are expected to attend all class sessions and be
active participants in the learning process. This class includes presentations by
professionals from other disciplines and class attendance is essential for participation in
development of a multi-disciplinary perspective. Class activities will include discussion,
role-playing and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all students.
Students have many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's
learning. Evaluation will include attendance, communication and collaboration skills
demonstrated during class.
ACADEMIC HONESTY: Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the
provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and
Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the
University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism
and
cheating,
unauthorized
access
to
University
materials,
misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic work, malicious
removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse
of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards.
Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established
procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an
"informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
216
formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's
minimum one semester suspension requirement.
The student is reminded to consult the 2002-2003 KSU Graduate Catalog for the
University's policy. Any strategy, which has the appearance of improving grades without
increasing knowledge, will be dealt with in accordance with the University's policy on
academic honesty. In addition, students in the graduate program in special education are
held accountable by the Georgia Professional Code of Ethics for Educators
(http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html) and the Council for
Exceptional Children's (CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with
Exceptionalities (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).
XIV.
DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR: The University has a stringent policy and procedure for
dealing with behavior that disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief
that your behavior can interrupt the learning of others, behavior that fits the University's
definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (See Campus Policies and
Procedures of the 2002- 2003 KSU Graduate Catalog)
XV.
HUMAN DIGNITY: The University has formulated a policy on human rights that is
intended to provide a learning environment, which recognizes individual worth.
That policy is found in the 2002-2003 KSU Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this
class, that no Professional should need reminding but the policy is there for your
consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and
the letter of that policy.
XVI.
Course Requirements
Course Requirements
Journey
Philosophy statement
Impact on student learning
Documenting professional
growth
Reflective practice
Future goals
Presentation (oral &
written communication)
Professionalism
Integration of theory &
practice
Technology skills
Course
&
PTEU
Proficiencies
R. 3, 4, 7, 9
T. 1, 8
V. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
X. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6
Graduate
NCATE
Proficiencies
S. 1, 4, 5
U. 1
W. 1, 2, 3
Y. 1, 2
Z. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6
BB. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9
DD. 2, 3
AA.
CC.
EE.
1, 4
1, 4, 5
2
FF. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9
HH. 2, 4, 5, 6
GG.
II. 2
1, 4, 5
JJ. 2, 7
KK.
2
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
217
EXC 7790 Documenting Professional Growth
Course Schedule
Spring 2003
Date
Activity
1/14
Review course requirements
1/28
Working Portfolio organization – by EXC class
Working Portfolio organization – by domain
Philosophy section – develop outline
Documenting impact on student performance
Linking theory & practice
Documenting your professional growth
Spring Break ??
Linking theory & practice
Setting future goals
Effective presentation skills
2/11
2/18
2/25
3/8-14
3/18
3/25
4/1
4/8
4/15 &
4/22
4/29
5/1
5/6
5/14
5/15
Edit sessions
Consultation sessions
PORTFOLIO PRESENTATIONS
PORTFOLIO PRESENTATIONS
PORTFOLIO PRESENTATIONS
KSU Hooding Ceremony, Wednesday 7:30 PM
KSU Graduation
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Assignment Due
Bring Working Portfolio to class
Journey, Philosophy
Outline for impact section
Impact section
Outline for professional growth
Professional growth section
Outline for goals
Working Portfolio Due
Goals section
Working portfolio evaluations completed
Final copies for signature
Invited guests
218
EXC 7970
Internship in Special Education
Spring Semester 2003
I.
INSTRUCTORS:
Deborah S. Wallace, Ph. D Michaela D’Aquanni, Ph. D.
Ms. Gayle Fredericks
Telephone:
770-499-3297
770-420-4336
770-649-9554
Fax:
770-423-6263
770-423-6263
770-423-6263
Office:
KH 2333
KH 2335
KH 2334
Email:
dwallace@kennesaw.edu mdaquann@kennesaw.edu
sfrederi@bellsouth.net
II.
CLASS MEETING:
Tuesday, 5:00 – 8:00 PM
KH 1107
III.
REQUIRED TEXTS:
Richard Sagor, How To Conduct Collaborative Action Research, Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Pat Hutchings, Opening Lines: Approaches To The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
IV.
V.
Catalog Description: Prerequisite: Completion of all other requirements in the Special
Education Program and approval of department. Contracted employment teaching
individuals with mild disabilities under a temporary teaching credential. A full-time
supervised teaching experience for teachers seeking to add-on a special education area to
a Georgia teaching certificate. May be repeated. Proof of professional liability insurance
is required prior to field experience placement.
Purpose/Rationale: The purpose of the course is to prepare prospective K-12 special
education teachers to become effective facilitators in the teaching of elementary,
secondary or alternative curriculum. Candidates are expected to demonstrate the full range
of competencies for teaching students with special needs, including systematic instruction,
lesson planning, multi-level curriculum and differentiated instruction, behavior
management, and multiple instructional grouping arrangements. In addition, the
Professional Standards Commission (licensure body for Georgia) and the Council for
Exceptional Children (national standards group) recognize the importance of a supervised
field experience in the preparation of teachers for students with disabilities. To
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
219
recommend student for licensure, faculty from Kennesaw State University must observe
that person in the full role of teaching. Since this course is open to employed teachers, it
serves both as confirmation of teaching ability and support for professional development.
Conceptual Framework Summary
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
The Kennesaw State University teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers who
demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU teacher education
community strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring guidance from professionals
inside and outside the university. In tandem with this belief is the understanding that teacher expertise
develops along a continuum which includes the stages of preservice, induction, in-service, and renewal;
further, as candidates develop a strong research-based knowledge of content and pedagogy, they develop
their professional expertise in recognizing, facilitating, assessing, and evaluating student learning.
Knowledge Base
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases:
preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as
Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the
teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept
of expertise is central to preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders.
Researchers describe how during the continuum phases teachers progress from being
Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved
elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an endstate but a process of continued development.
Field Experiences
While participating in all field experiences, you are encouraged to be involved in a
variety of school-based activities directed at the improvement of teaching and learning.
Activities may include, but are not limited to, attending and presenting at professional
conferences, participating in leadership activities, attending PTA/school board meetings,
and participating in education-related community events. As you continue your field
experiences, you are encouraged to explore every opportunity to learn by doing.
Use of Technology
Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards
Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated
throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be able to use
technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for
Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore
and use instructional media, especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will
master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and
feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and
develop an electronic learning portfolio. Candidates in this course will be expected to
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
220
apply the use of educational technology in their classrooms. Specifically, candidates will
use spreadsheet software to develop graphs and tables to record and track student
performance, word processing to write papers, web based data bases to conduct Action
Research, and e-mail to communicate with instructors and peers.
Diversity Statement
A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the different
learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge, as well as an understanding of
differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and assessment within
multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate awareness of critical
multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of
multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific methods and materials for every
student. Among these attributes are ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, giftedness, disability,
language, religion, family structure, sexual orientation, and geographic region. An emphasis on
cognitive style differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations
for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are
available to support candidates with disabilities within their academic program.
In order to make arrangements for special services, candidates must visit the
Office of Disabled Student Support Services (770-423- 6443) and develop an
individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.
Please be aware that there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of
Kennesaw State University that address each of the multicultural variables
outlined above. For more information contact the Student Life Center at 770-4236280.
VI.
Goals and Objectives:
The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of teacher
preparation as a developmental and collaborative process. Research for the past 25 years
has described this process in increasingly complex terms. Universities and schools must
work together to successfully prepare teachers who are capable of developing successful
learners in today’s schools and who choose to continue their professional development.
In the area of Knowledge, the Candidate will:
1.
Articulate the processes for documenting the impact of instruction on student learning through the
action research process. (CEC Cross Reference: CK 1-5)
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
221
2.
Articulate the process for writing and submitting a mini-grant proposal to secure external funding for a
curriculum, instruction, or family oriented program.
3.
Articulate the theories of learning, motivation and assessment, particularly as they relate to the
individualized programming of students with disabilities. (CEC Cross Reference: AK 1-5)
4.
Articulate the theories of classroom and behavior management, particularly as they relate to the social
and behavioral development of students with disabilities. (CEC Cross Reference: CK4, BK 1-4, CCK
2)
In the area of Skills, the Candidate will:
5.
Apply advanced problem-solving and critical thinking in making instructional decisions, as well as in
conducting action research focused upon instructional improvement. (CEC Cross Reference: KS 1-3,
CS 1)
6.
Demonstrate the use of appropriate curriculum design, differentiated instruction, multi-level
curriculum, curriculum overlap, multiple-intelligence’s, and multi-sensory instruction to meet the
curriculum and instruction needs of diverse learners.
7.
Conduct systematic instruction tailored to the individualized learning needs of students with
disabilities in a variety of educational, social and community contexts, as appropriate. This includes
the use of systematic prompting, task analysis, successive approximations, fading, advance organizers,
controlling difficulty or processing demands of a task, directed questioning and responding, and
gaining students’ attention prior to giving instructional cues. (CEC Cross Reference: IK 1-26, PS 1-7,
BS 1-8, CCS 1-2)
8.
Teach students using a balance of direct instruction, strategy instruction, peer tutoring, cooperative
learning, project based learning, teacher directed small groups, whole class instruction, and monitoring
of individual work to meet the unique learning strengths and needs of students with disabilities. (CEC
Cross Reference: IS 1-26, PS 1-7)
9.
Maintain an appropriate pace of instruction, engage all students in learning, and call on all students.
10. Incorporate technology on a regular basis to teach students and to facilitate student performance of
academic and social learning
11. Establish classroom ecology, classroom management strategies, high levels of differentiated
reinforcement of appropriate behavior, and group and individual positive behavior support plans that
facilitate student learning of academic and social skills. Demonstrate positive teacher to student and
student-to-student interactions. Teach social skills in context. (CEC Cross Reference: PS 1-7, BS 1-8)
12. Establish routines and procedures for students to make a variety of transitions, including class-to-class,
building-to-building, school to work. (CEC Cross Reference: PS 1-3, PS 6, BS 5-6, CCS 2)
13. Demonstrate effective use of classroom organization skills: grade level and age-appropriate materials
ready for instruction; schedule posted and followed; behavioral expectations and consequences posted
and followed; class rolls assigned.
14. Monitor student progress through the use of formative and summative data collection.
15. Reflect on teacher instruction and student learning and adapts curriculum and instructional procedures
to meet the needs of students experiencing difficulty learning and behaving.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
222
16. Establish collaboration procedures with peers, parents, para professionals, teachers and related service
providers to facilitate the learning of all students, but particularly those with disabilities. (CEC Cross
Reference: CCS 1-2, PS 1-7)
In the area of Dispositions, the candidate will:
17. Exhibit the attitudes, values and interactions that they expect of all of their students by recognizing that
diversity also applies to ability.
18. Demonstrate ethical behavior and professional attitudes in relationship to other teachers,
administrators, school staff, parents, community members and students.
19. Demonstrate continuous pursuit of learning, service and research by joining professional organizations,
attending workshops and seminars and engaging in classroom inquiry and grant writing. (CEC Cross
Reference: ES 1-2)
VII.
Course Requirements/Assignments
1. Class Participation
The instructor expects candidates to attend class regularly (see University policy on tardiness and
absenteeism), be respectful of the instructor and peers by not talking, making sarcastic or other denigrating
comments, or working on non-class materials while the instructor or peers are talking, and participate
actively in group activities. Attend all on-campus meetings. Since there are only five meetings, they are
all mandatory.
While participating in all field experiences, candidates are encouraged to be involved in a variety of schoolbased activities directed at the improvement of teaching and learning. Activities may include but are not
limited to attending and presenting at professional conferences, participating in leadership activities,
attending PTA/School Board meetings, and participating in education-related community events. As you
continue your field experiences, you are encouraged to explore every opportunity to learn through doing.
2.
Demonstrate the ability to successfully teach students with disabilities and reflect on their teaching.
Candidates who take this internship will be evaluated on their teaching, interpersonal and professional
skills during scheduled and unscheduled observations. More specifically, they will be evaluated on their
ability to select, implement & evaluate:



3.
Instructional practices consistent with best practices research as stated in course objectives;
Classroom management practices as stated in course objectives; and
Satisfactorily fulfill every aspect of the teaching role including reflection on practice, ethical
interactions, professional attitudes, and collaboration with other staff, parents, and students.
Conduct, write up, and present an action research project. Candidates will develop and implement the
action research project in consultation with the instructor and supervising faculty. The action research
project must demonstrate the candidate’s impact on student learning (academic or behavior). In order to get
full credit for the action research project, you must use the information and formats provided in the
required text. There are several components to this project. A rubric for this project will be given on the
first day of class.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Frame your research question based on your classroom practice.
Support your intervention in relationship to published research.
Select and describe your data collection procedures and research design.
Implement the intervention.
Collect your data (Both Baseline/Intervention, or Pre/Post).
Analyze your results and discuss their implications.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
223
g.
h.
i.
Relate your results to published research.
Write action research using APA, 5th Edition, 2001.
Present action research project to the class utilizing power point or some form of multi-media.
4.
Develop a mini-grant proposal.
Candidates will write and submit a mini-grant. An application form for this mini-grant will be given on the
date the class meets to learn how to write a mini-grant.
5.
Participate in group discussion and complete an activity focused on the implications of major concepts in
Opening Lines: Approaches To The Scholarship Of Teaching and Learning and their relationship to the
candidate’s current teaching situation.
6. Professional Log: (Turn in as completed to receive feedback on the writing process.
Must be done by April 8th ). The log must contain reflections on your professional
reading, conferences/in service sessions that you have attended, and site visits that you
have conducted over the course of the semester. Each entry must be dated and titled –
(include a full citation (APA format) if it is a reading), followed by your personal
response to the material or experience. To obtain full credit for this activity, you must
use the writing format presented in class to complete the following:

Read a minimum of three (3) articles from professional journals regarding
universal curriculum design, accommodation and modifications, and/or any other
topics related to our class discussions and text. In addition, you are required to
write a one-page reflection containing your reactions to the reading.

Provide evidence of attendance at a meeting of a professional organization or all day training
activity (brochure, agenda & meeting notes). Suggestions for organizations include the Council
for Exceptional Children, the Learning Disabilities Association, etc. Candidates will submit a
one-page reflection on how this professional development activity will impact their instructional
practice and student learning.

Develop a partnership with a colleague where you will exchange ideas and visit each other’s
school/classroom to learn about innovative curriculum approaches. Write a one-page reflection
on the experience. Be sure to include why it is innovative.
Your completed professional development log must follow the National Board Certification
writing process:
 Description: Summarize the main ideas. This should be strictly factual information
and not contain any of your personal opinions. Exactly what points do the articles
make, or what did you see or hear?
 Analysis: Based on the focus in this program and your own experiences, what is your
opinion about what you have read or observed? Be sure to support your opinion with
specific information from the articles or observation. Do you agree or disagree and
WHY? Please provide more feedback than, “I like it and think it will work.”
 Reflection: How will this information impact your own teaching practice and student
learning in your class? How did it change the way you think about your personal
teaching practice or how did it affirm your current beliefs?
 References for articles: Must be in American Psychological Association (APA) style (5th ed.).
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
224
VIII. Evaluation and Grading
The instructor and university supervisors will conduct performance evaluations of observed teaching. The
overall evaluation will be determined using the BASS Observation Form, which will be distributed and
explained on January 14, 2003. Evaluation is Pass/Fail. Candidates must obtain an L3 or L4 on all
competencies and write a reflection on each observed lesson to receive a passing grade. Evaluation of
Action Research and Mini-Grant Proposal are also on a Pass/Fail basis. Passing criteria are listed on the
Rubrics.
In Class Requirements and Assignments
Class Activities
Points Assessed
Class Attendance and
Participation
BASS
Observation and
Candidate
Reflections
on
observed lesson
Action Research Project
Mini-Grant Proposal
Activity on Opening Lines:
Approaches to…
Professional Development
Log
Course Objectives
PTEU
Proficiencies
Pass/Fail
1,2,16,18
5
Pass/Fail
3,4,5,6,7,8,910,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18
1,2,3,4
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
1,2,4,5
2,19
3,4,17,18,19
1,2,3,4
1,5
4,5
Pass/Fail
19
5
Grades will be assigned as follows: Candidates must receive a Pass on all Class Activities to receive a Pass in the
course.
IX. Academic Integrity
Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of
Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the
Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty,
including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to
University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic
work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials,
malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student
identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through
the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an
"informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal
hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one
semester suspension requirement.
X. Class Attendance Policy
Candidates are expected to attend all class sessions and be active participants in the learning process. The
knowledge and skills taught in this class is learned best by reading the assignments and coming to class to
participate in class discussion, ask questions, and interact with peers during group activities. If, after
reviewing the syllabus, class assignments, and reading, candidates believe they already know the
information in this course, they must speak to the instructor who will arrange for a competency test and
then alternative assignments to extend the candidate’s current understanding co-teaching, collaboration,
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
225
multi-level curriculum, and building assessment and whole school change. Class activities will include
discussion and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all candidates. Candidates have
many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's learning. Evaluation will include
attendance, communication and collaboration skills demonstrated during class. Since there are only five
class meetings, it is mandatory that all candidates attend all five classes in order to receive a Passing grade
under the category, Class Attendance and Participation, unless they are excused by written permission of
the instructor. As noted above, the candidate must receive a Pass in all categories described above in order
to pass the course.
XI. Course Outline (subject to change)
Class #
January 14
Topic
Explanation of Objectives,
Observational Protocols, and
Rubrics. Thinking about Data for
Action Research Project.
January 21
Action Research –
Rationale and Procedures
February 4
Developing Mini Grant
Proposals – Processes and
Procedures
March 4
April 15 & 22
Opening
Approaches to…
In-class activities
Group discussion of
probable Action
Research topics and data
to be collected.
Selection of Action
Research Question
Initial Development of
Mini Grant Proposal
Lines: Class and small group
Action Research Presentations
Class Assignment Due
discussion
Presentation of Action
Research Results
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
Mini Grant Proposal
Read Opening Lines:
Approaches to… preparation
to participate in an activity.
Action Research Project
Professional Development Log
(April 8th)
BASS Observations and
Observation Reflections
226
XII. References/Bibliography
Action Research
Brubacher, J., Case, C. & Reagon, T. (1994). Becoming a reflective educator,. How to build a culture of
inquiry in the schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Eisner, E. (1991). The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice.
New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Goswami, D. & Stillman, P. (1987). Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research as an Agent for
Change. Portsmouth: Heinemann/Boyton-Cook.
Grossen, B. (1996). Making research serve the profession. American Educator, 20, (3). 7-8.
Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to Empowerment. New
York: Falmer.
Miller, J. (1990). Creating Spaces & Finding Voices: Teachers Collaborating for Empowerment. New
York: State University of New York Press.
Murray, D. (1989). Expecting the Unexpected: Teaching Myself--and Others--to Read and Write.
Portsmouth: Boynton/ Cook-Heinemann.
Murray, D. (1990). Shoptalk: Learning to Write with Writers. Portsmouth: Boynton/ Cook-Heinemann.
Nevin, A., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., Danuan, D., & Thiboduar, A. (1982). The consulting teacher as a
clinical researcher. Teacher Education and Special Education, 5, 19-29.
Patterson, L. & Short, K. (1993). Teachers are Researchers: Reflection in Action. Newark: International
Reading Association
Salisbury, C., Wilson, L., Swartz, T., Palombaaro, M. & Wassel, J. (1997). Using action research to solve
instructional challenges in inclusive elementary school settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, (1), 2139.
Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Professional Standards & Issues of Teacher Preparation and Philosophy
Barnes, H. (1989). Structuring knowledge for beginning teaching. In M.C. Reynold (Eds.) Knowledge
Base for the Beginning teacher, (pp. 13-22). New York: Pergammon.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
227
Berliner, D. C. (1984). The half-full glass: A review of research on teaching. In Hosford, P. L. (Ed.)
Using What We Know About Teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Billinsley, B. & Tomchin, E. (1992). Four beginning LD teachers: What their experiences suggest for
trainers and employers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 78, 104-112.
Council for Exceptional Children (1996). What every special educator must know: The International
standards for the preparation and certification of special education teachers. Reston, VA: CEC.
Graves, A., Landers, M. F., Lokerson, J., Luchow, J., Horvath, M., & Garnett, K. (1992). The DLD
Competencies for Teachers of Students with Learning Disabilities. Reston, VA: Division of Learning Disabilities,
Council for Exceptional Children.
Platt, J. & Olson, J. (1990). Why teachers are leaving special education: Implications for pre-service and
inservice educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13, 192-196.
Reynolds (1995). The knowledge base for beginning teachers: Education professionals' expectations vs.
research findings on learning to teach. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 199-221.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. J. & E.
Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York: Macmillan.
Singer, J. D. (1993). Are special educators career paths special: Results from a 13-year longitudinal study.
Exceptional Children, 59, 262-279.
Skrtic, T. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard
Educational Review, 61, 148-206.
Skrtic, T. M. (1996). Voice, collaboration and inclusion: Democratic themes in educational and social
reform initiatives. Remedial and Special Education, 17, (3), 142-57
Swan, W. W. & Sirvis, B. (1992). The CEC Common Core of Knowledge and Skills Essential for All
Beginning Special Education Teachers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 25, 16-20.
Throne, J. (1994). Living with the pendulum: The complex world of teaching. Harvard Educational
Review, 64, 195-208.
Zeichner, K. & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.)
Handbook on Research on Teacher Education (pp. 329-348). New York: Macmillan.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education
228
Effective Instruction
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Henley, M., Ramsey, R., & Algozzine, R. (1995). Characteristics of and Strategies for Teaching Students
with Mild Disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kukic, S. & Fister, S. (1991). For Effective Instruction: Working with Mildly Handicapped Students.
Behaviorally Anchored Supervision System (BASS) for Supporting Teacher Efforts. Reston, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children.
Meese, R. L. (l994). Teaching learners with mild disabilities: Integrating research and practice.
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company: Pacific Grove, California.
Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education