college of education department of educational leadership...

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

GIFTED AND TALENTD EDUCATION GATE M. ED.

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT SUBMITTED APRIL, 2013

FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD JULY, 2011 – JUNE, 2012

FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS REPORT, PLEASE EMAIL THE COE ASSESSMENT COORDINATOR, DR. BRUCE SMITH, COE ASSOCIATE DEAN

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) Purpose. The purpose of the Gifted and Talented program at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock is to prepare graduates who have the knowledge and competencies needed to meet the challenge of providing an appropriate education for children and youth with gifts and talents. Objectives. The central objectives of the program are based on the Arkansas Teacher Licensure Outcomes for Gifted and Talented Personnel (GATE) and teacher outcome standards from the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) / Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Teacher Preparation Standards. There are 122 specific learning objectives for the Gifted and Talented program drawn from the NAGC/CEC Joint Standards. The 122 specific learning objectives for candidates are grouped into 10 Standards:

1. Foundations 2. Development and Characteristics of Learners 3. Individual Learning Differences 4. Instructional Strategies 5. Learning Environments and Social Interactions 6. Language 7. Instructional Planning 8. Assessment 9. Professional and Ethical Practice 10. Collaboration

The specific learning objectives are embedded in the key assessments that are attached to this report in the order listed below. Key Assessments. The GATE program presently uses seven key assessments aligned with the 122 specific learning objectives. These are:

1. Licensure assessment (Praxis 0357 Gifted Education developed by the Educational Testing Service [ETS]),

2. Content knowledge (Comprehensive Examination Rubric developed by program faculty)

3. Ability to plan instruction (NAGC Curriculum Studies rubric developed by a national committee and modified by program faculty)

4. Purdue Teacher Observation Form (TOF) (reliability and validity reported in the literature)

5. Candidate effect on student learning (Assessment of Student Learning based on NAGC/CEC Teacher Knowledge and Skills Standards)

6. Case Analysis Assessment (based on “Helping Juan” and developed by program faculty),

7. GATE Research Paper Assessment (developed by program faculty based on NAGC/CEC Teacher Knowledge and Skills Standards).

Six measures provide data on candidate learning. These are Assessments #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, and #7. Assessment #5 measures candidate impact on student learning.

Assessment System. The COE unit assessment system provides the vehicle for assessing continuously all professional educator programs, including the GATE program. The assessment system uses multiple measures to assess and report the performance of candidates. Data are analyzed with the help of an electronic data reporting system, Chalk and Wire. Data are reported for each of the seven key assessments and interpretations are made for each assessment in the attachments. Use of Results for Decision Making and Reporting to Stakeholders. Program faculty have the opportunity to meet and discuss the results of the assessment data. This occurs at two key points during the academic year. First, two faculty supervise practicum candidates in the summer. In the specialized summer enrichment setting, faculty can observe their own practicum candidates, but can also share their observations with one another and subsequently debrief the GATE program coordinator who does not have the opportunity to observe classroom performance directly. In 2010-2011, however, the GATE program coordinator observed candidates in the practicum courses even though she did not serve as the instructor of record. The goal was to get a snapshot of enacted curriculum and to observe a problematic candidate who subsequently exited the program. Second, GATE faculty members convene during Stakeholders meetings to secure additional input and to follow-up with one another as to needed changes in the curriculum. In Fall of 2011, two stakeholders attended the GATE break-out session. They were extremely insightful in their comments. Discussions centered on technology, both in terms of what candidates need and what is at their disposal. Program Changes. Of primary concern is the access to technology during practicum placements. Efforts must be made in 2011-2012 for candidates to have access to technology as part of their instructional experiences in the field. A second theme was the inclusion of Common Core Standards in relevant GATE courses, including those courses focused on Pre-AP and AP where differentiation for the most advanced students does not appear to be taking place. Stakeholders also recommended that taking the licensure examination should be preceded by GATE 7356, Current Issues. Program faculty will need to consider this recommendation carefully as GATE 7356 is a capstone course. Faculty members also need to monitor carefully candidate acceptance of our increased reliance on online courses and examine candidate course performance in them. If candidates are doing well in face-to-face courses, but not in online courses, then appropriate supports need to be put in place.

Assessment 1 1

Assessment 1

Praxis II Gifted Education Test 0357 Addresses COE unit standard #1 CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Data from licensure tests or

professional examination of content knowledge.

1. Provide a brief description of the assessment and its use in the program (one

sentence may be sufficient).

Praxis 0357 is used as a content-based assessment for GATE M.Ed. candidates seeking

licensure. It is offered multiple times a year, is 2 hours in length and is made up of 120

multiple choice items. The exam is administered under secure conditions at various

locations around the state. A passing score of 156 set by the Arkansas Department of

Education, is required for licensure.

2. Provide a description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it

is cited for in Section III.

The Praxis II: Gifted Education Test assesses educators’ knowledge of:

definitions, development, and characteristics of giftedness

identification, assessment, and eligibility of gifted students

curricular and instructional modifications for gifted students

program placements for gifted students

professional knowledge.

The Praxis exam aligns with each of the ten NAGC/CEC standards. The five exam

categories align strongly with the knowledge outcomes NAGC/CEC Standards 1, 2, 3, 4,

5, 7, 8, and 9. NAGC/CEC Standards 6 and 10 are not as strongly aligned but are

addressed to a lesser extent based on the Table of Specifications and the preparation

study guide provided by ETS for the Praxis Exam #357. NAGC/CEC Standard 6 has four

test outcomes aligned and Standard 10 has one aligned. Knowledge outcomes for

NAGC/CEC Standards 6 and 10 are included in the alignment table in association with

other standards. We are extremely proud of our alignment work shown (Tables 1.1, 1.2,

and 1.3) illustrating the connection between the national standards at the specific

outcome level and the ETS licensure exam at the specific objective level.

Assessment 1 2

The Praxis II Gifted Education Test alignment with

NAGC/CEC Standards

The set of alignment Tables, 1.1,1.2, 1.3, illustrate the relationship between the NAGC/CEC

Standards with the ETS Praxis Exam Content Categories for Gifted and Talented Education

Licensure with increasing specificity.

Table 1.1. NAGC/CEC Standards and Praxis Content Categories

NAGC/CEC STANDARDS PRAXIS CONTENT CATEGORIES

Standard 1: Foundations

Standard 2: Development and Characteristics

Standard 3: Individual Learning Differences

Standard 4: Instructional Strategies

Standard 5: Learning Environments and

Social Interactions

Standard 6: Language and Communication

Standard 7: Instructional Planning

Standard 8: Assessment

Standard 9: Professional and Ethical Practice

Standard 10: Collaboration

I. Definitions, Development and

Characteristics of Giftedness

II. Identification, Assessment, and

Eligibility of Gifted Students

III. Curricular and Instructional

Modifications for Gifted Students

IV. Program Placements for Gifted Students

V. Professional Knowledge

Table 1.2. ALIGNMENT OF NAGC/CEC STANDARDS and PRAXIS CATEGORIES NAGC/ CEC STANDARD

PRAXIS ALIGNMENT

GATE #357

1. Foundations I.Definitions, Development and Characteristics of Giftedness

2. Development and Characteristics of

Learners

I.Definitions, Development and Characteristics of Giftedness

3. Individual Learning Differences I. Definitions, Development and Characteristics of Giftedness,

III. Curricular and Instructional Modifications for Gifted Students

4. Instructional Strategies III. Curricular and Instructional Modifications for Gifted Students,

5. Learning Environments

and Social Interactions

I.Definitions, Development and Characteristics of Giftedness,

II. Identification, Assessment, and Eligibility of Gifted Students

6. Language I. Definitions, Development and Characteristics of Giftedness,


7. Instructional Planning III. Curricular and Instructional Modifications for Gifted Students,


8. Assessment II. Identification, Assessment, and Eligibility of Gifted Students,


9. Professional and Ethical Practice I.Definitions, Development and Characteristics of Giftedness,


10. Collaboration V. Professional Knowledge

Assessment 1 3

Table 1.3. ALIGNMENT OF NAGC/CEC STANDARDS WITH PRAXIS TEST TOPICS

The Praxis II Gifted Education Test 0357 addresses the following NAGC/CEC knowledge

standards:


NAGC/CEC Standard 1: Foundations

NAGC/CEC

Standard

PRAXIS CONTENT

CATEGORIES: The Praxis II Gifted Education Test Topics Covered

1K2

(Foundations) V

(Professional Knowledge)

Identify rationales, philosophical principles, and goals of

gifted education

1K1

V

Identify major trends and event in the history of gifted

education

1K7

V

Identify current national trends and practices in gifted

education

1K7

V

Demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between

gifted education and general education

1K7

V

Demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between

gifted education and special education

1K3

V

Identify federal laws, regulations, and policies concerned

with gifted education

1K7

V

Demonstrate an understanding of current issues and

controversies related to the provision of special programs for

gifted students

1K2

V

Demonstrate an understanding of the principles of program

evaluation

1K2

V

Demonstrate an understanding of special issues and problems

related to the evaluation of gifted education programs

1K3

I

(Definitions,

Development and

Characteristics of

Giftedness)

Demonstrate an understanding of current procedural

safeguards and legal issues related to the identification,

assessment, and eligibility of gifted students

1K2

III

(Curricular and

Instructional

Modifications for Gifted

Students)

Demonstrate an understanding of educational practices and

attitudes that tend to enhance creativity

1K4

I

Analyze issues involved in the definition of giftedness

1K6

III

Identify approaches that may enhance the performance of

underachievers

Assessment 1 4

Table 1.3 Continued. ALIGNMENT OF NAGC/CEC STANDARDS WITH PRAXIS TEST


NAGC/CEC Standard 2: Development and Characteristics

NAGC/CEC

Standard

PRAXIS CONTENT

CATEGORIES: The Praxis II Gifted Education Test

2K5

(Development and

Characteristics of

Learners)

I

(Definitions,

Development and

Characteristics of

Giftedness)

Demonstrate an understanding of different types of

giftedness

2K5,

5K2

(Learning

Environments and

Social Interactions)

I Identify social characteristics related to intellectual

giftedness

2K5,

5K2

I Identify emotional characteristics related to intellectual

giftedness

2K4 I Identify aesthetic and intuitive characteristics related to

intellectual giftedness

2K1 I Demonstrate an understanding of the characteristics of and

measurement problems related to creativity in gifted students

2K2

5K1

I Demonstrate an understanding of genetic and environmental

factors in the development of giftedness

2K1,

6K3

(Language)

I Demonstrate an understanding of characteristics of giftedness

among students (e.g., female students, minority students,

disadvantaged students, students with disabilities)

2K1, 2K5 I Demonstrate an understanding of variation among

intellectually gifted students in the areas of academic

achievement and classroom performance

2K3,

6K1, 6K2,

10K1

(Collaboration)

V


Demonstrate an understanding of the role of parents in gifted

education programs

2K3,

5K1

V Demonstrate an understanding of the influences of the

general community on gifted education

Assessment 1 5



NAGC/CEC Standard 3: Individual Learning Differences

NAGC/CEC

Standard

PRAXIS CONTENT


3K4,

(Individual Learning

Differences)

5K1

(Learning

Environments and

Social Interactions)

I

(Definitions,

Development and

Characteristics of

Giftedness)

Identify factors that may obstruct the development of

giftedness

3K4 I Identify factors that may enhance the development of

giftedness

3K3 I Demonstrate an understanding of the thinking and learning

styles of intellectually gifted students

3K2,

5K2

I Identify social characteristics related to intellectual

giftedness

3K2,

5K2

I Identify emotional characteristics related to intellectual

giftedness

3K1,

6K3

I Demonstrate an understanding of characteristics of giftedness

among students (e.g., female students, minority students,

disadvantaged students, students with disabilities)

Assessment 1 6



NAGC/CEC Standard 4: Instructional Strategies

NAGC/CEC

Standard

PRAXIS CONTENT


4K1, 4S2

(Instructional

Strategies)

III

(Curricular and

Instructional


Students)

Demonstrate an understanding of research, programs,

practices, and issues related to metacognitive skills

development for gifted students

4K1, 4S5 III Demonstrate an understanding of accelerative practices and

programs in Mathematics education for gifted students at the

elementary and secondary levels


programs in science education for gifted students at the


4K1, 4K2, 4S2 III Demonstrate an understanding of enrichment approaches in

science education for gifted students at the elementary and

secondary levels


programs in social studies for gifted students at the



social studies for gifted students at the elementary and

secondary levels


programs in language arts education for gifted students at the



language arts education for gifted students at the elementary

and secondary levels

4K2, 4S7 III Identify methods for the effective use of instructional

technology in gifted

Education

Assessment 1 7



NAGC/CEC Standard 5: Learning Environments and Social

Interactions

NAGC/CEC

Standard

PRAXIS CONTENT


5K1

(Learning

Environments)

I

(Definitions,

Development and

Characteristics of

Giftedness)

Demonstrate an understanding of genetic and environmental

factors in the development of giftedness

5K1

I

Identify factors that may obstruct the development of

giftedness

5K1

V


Demonstrate an understanding of the influences of the

general community on gifted education

5K2 I Identify social characteristics related to intellectual

giftedness

5K2 I Identify emotional characteristics related to intellectual

giftedness

5K2 I Identify social characteristics related to intellectual

giftedness

5K2 I Identify emotional characteristics related to intellectual

giftedness

Assessment 1 8



NAGC/CEC Standard 7: Instructional Planning

NAGC/CEC

Standard

PRAXIS CONTENT


7K1 V


Demonstrate an understanding of the principles of program


7K3 III

(Curricular and

Instructional


Students)

Apply appropriate criteria for selection of curriculum

materials for gifted students

7K3 III Demonstrate an understanding of affective process models

used in gifted education

7K3 III Demonstrate an understanding of cognitive process models

used in gifted education

7K2 III Identify procedures involved in the development,

implementation, and evaluation of an IEP

7K6 III Demonstrate an understanding of issues in advising gifted

students with special needs (e.g., female students, minority

students, disadvantaged students) at the elementary and

secondary levels

7K3 III Demonstrate an understanding of programs, practices, and

current affective education issues in gifted students at the


7K1 III Demonstrate an understanding of research, programs,

practices, and issues related to acceleration for gifted

students

7K3 III Demonstrate an understanding of problem finding and

problem

solving as key mental processes in gifted education

7K2 III Demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between

content and process skills education

7K1 III Demonstrate an understanding of research, programs,

practices, and issues related to enrichment for gifted students

7K5 III Demonstrate an understanding of enrichment approaches in

mathematics education for gifted students at the elementary

and secondary levels

7K1 III Demonstrate an understanding of models of curriculum


7K2 IV

(Program Placements for

Gifted Students)

Analyze factors involved in matching specific program

options to the individual needs of gifted students

Assessment 1 9



NAGC/CEC Standard 8: Assessment

NAGC/CEC

Standard

PRAXIS CONTENT


8K2

(Assessment) II

(Identification,

Assessment, and

Eligibility of Gifted

Students)

Demonstrate and understanding of principles of qualitative

and quantitative measurement related to gifted education

8K2 II Demonstrate an understanding of statistical concepts

commonly used in psychological measurement and

evaluation in gifted education

8K2 II Identify and interpret quantitative measures of giftedness

8K2 II Identify and interpret qualitative measures of giftedness

8K1 II Identify appropriate test administration procedures for the

assessment of gifted students

8K3, 8K1 II Evaluate advantages and disadvantages of quantitative versus

qualitative measures of intellectual giftedness

8K4 II Apply multidimensional methods of identification and

assessment of gifted students

8S1, 8K2 II Demonstrate an understanding of problems in the

identification

of hard-to-identify groups of gifted students

8K1, 8S1, 8S4 II Identify methods and approaches for seeking out hard-to-

identify gifted students


NAGC/CEC Standard 9: Professional and Ethical Practice

NAGC/CEC

Standard

PRAXIS CONTENT


9K1

(Professional and

Ethical Practice)

V


Demonstrate an understanding of the characteristics of

effective teachers of gifted students

9S4 V Identify federal laws, regulations, and policies concerned

with gifted education

9K2 V Identify types and functions of professional organizations

and publications in the field of gifted education

Assessment 1 10

3. Provide a brief analysis of the data findings.

Praxis II 0357 Gifted Education became a requirement for Gifted and Talented licensure

in the State of Arkansas as of September 1, 2007. Because of its recent implementation

date, limited data are available at this time. Table 1.4 provides the licensure exam and

Praxis exam (2008-2009) candidate score results and pass rates. Data demonstrate that

candidates are consistently scoring at a satisfactory level with a 100% pass rate each

year with the exception of 2006-2007 when a candidate did not pass the new middle

school Praxis exam on Principles of Teaching and Learning.

The previous licensure exam provided by ETS and required by the state, PLT 521, 522,

523, and 524, did not align with the NAGC/CEC Standards; the new Praxis 0357 exam

does align. We are excited to make the transition to the new exam.

Assessment 1 11

Table 1.4. GIFTED LICENSURE EXAM CANDIDATE PASS RATES (N=44)

EXAM

FOR

LICENSURE

CUT SCORE FOR

LICENSURE

TOTAL N OF

CANDIDATES

TAKING

EXAM

(2005-2009)

TOTAL N OF

CANDIDATES

PASSING

EXAM

(2005-2009)

BY

YEAR

(AUG.1

TO

JULY

31)

TOTAL N OF

CANDIDATES

TAKING

EXAM BY

YEAR

TOTAL N OF

CANDIDATES

PASSING

EXAM BY

YEAR

521 – PLT

Early

Childhood

(up through

4th grade)

159 9 9

2005-

2006 4 4

2006-

2007 2 2

2007-

2008 3 3

2008-

2009 - -

523 - PLT

Grades 5-9

(overlap 4-

8)

164 14 13

2005-

2006 9 9

2006-

2007 4 3

2007-

2008 1 1

2008-

2009 - -

524 - PLT

Grades 7-12 164 10 10

2005-

2006 1 1

2006-

2007 7 7

2007-

2008 2 2

2008-

2009 - -

357 - GATE

PRAXIS 156 34 34

2006-

2007 - -

2007-

2008 7 7

2008-

2009 3 3

2009-

2010 6 5

2010-

2011 18 18

2011-

2012 23 23

OTHER:

522 – PLT

K-6, not

accepted

test,

discontinued

Indeterminable 4 NA NA NA NA

Assessment 1 12

in 2004

4. Provide an interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards.

Table 1.5 indicates that candidates are scoring at a satisfactory level in their knowledge

of key concepts in gifted education as measured by the Praxis II exam. Table 1.5 also

summarizes candidate sub-scores on the licensure exam; a previous table, Table 1.2,

aligned Praxis sub-scores with NAGC/CEC Standards. Sub-score data suggest that

candidates are scoring lowest in the second sub-score area of Identification, Assessment,

and Eligibility of Gifted Students (Mean=10.47), but these scores are improved from

previous years. Information about identification and assessment of gifted students is

addressed in the introductory course, the assessment course, and in the practicum course.

Table 1.5. GIFTED LICENSURE EXAM STUDENT SUB SCORE CANDIDATES (N=8)

Year Graduated 2008-2009

TOTAL N OF CANDIDATES

TAKING EXAM 8


PASSING EXAM 8

Candidate Pass Rate 100%

Exam Subscores Maximum

performance

Average

performance

Raw points possible

Exam Subscore 1

(Definitions, Development, and

Characteristics of Giftedness)

12 9.66 14

Exam Subscore 2

(Identification, Assessment, and

Eligibility of Gifted Students)

9 8.33 14

Exam Subscore 3

(Curricular and Instructional


Students)

24 21.33 33

Exam Subscore 4

(Program Placement for Gifted

Students)

14 12.33 15

Exam Subscore 5

(Professional Knowledge) 15 13.00 18

Table 1.6 GIFTED LICENSURE EXAM STUDENT SUB SCORE CANDIDATES (N=6)


Assessment 1 13


TAKING EXAM 6


PASSING EXAM 5



performance

Average

performance

Raw points possible

Exam Subscore 1



12 13.0 14

Exam Subscore 2



10 8.5 14

Exam Subscore 3



Students)

25 21.75 33

Exam Subscore 4


Students)

13 12.25 15

Exam Subscore 5

(Professional Knowledge) 12 11.66 (missing case) 18




TAKING EXAM 18


PASSING EXAM 18



performance

Average

performance

Raw points possible

Exam Subscore 1



13 11.05 14

Exam Subscore 2



14 10.47 14

Exam Subscore 3



Students)

31 25.28 33

Exam Subscore 4


Students)

(18) 14.22 15

Assessment 1 14

Exam Subscore 5


Table 1.8 indicates that candidates are scoring at a satisfactory level in their knowledge

of key concepts in gifted education as measured by the Praxis II exam. Table 1.8 also

summarizes candidate sub-scores on the licensure exam; a previous table, Table 1.2,

aligned Praxis sub-scores with NAGC/CEC Standards. Sub-score data suggest that

candidates are scoring lowest in the fifth sub-score area of Professional Knowledge

(Mean=12.90 out of 20 points possible). Information about professional knowledge in the

gifted field is addressed in the introductory course, the current issues course, and in the

administrative and legal issues course.




TAKING EXAM 23


PASSING EXAM 23



performance

Average

performance

Raw points possible

Exam Subscore 1



13 11.19 16

Exam Subscore 2



14 10.61 15

Exam Subscore 3



Students)

28 22.61 31

Exam Subscore 4


Students)

17 14.90 18

Exam Subscore 5


5. Provide attachment of assessment documentation, including:

(a) the assessment tool or description of the assignment;

(b) the scoring guide for the assessment; and

(c) candidate data derived from the assessment.

Assessment 1 15

(a) The description of the Praxis II 0357 Gifted Education Test can be found on the ETS

website:

http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.1488512ecfd5b8849a77b13bc3921509/?vgne

xtoid=fa8a21d533ce8110VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD&vgnextchannel=89a25ee3d7

4f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD

Free Test Preparation: http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/PRAXIS/pdf/0357.pdf

(b) ETS does not provide a scoring guide.

(c) Due to the state’s implementation date of September 1, 2007, candidate data are limited

to four years. See Table 1.4 for licensure assessment data prior to the implementation of

the ETS Praxis 0357 Exam in Gifted Education.

http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.1488512ecfd5b8849a77b13bc3921509/?vgnextoid=fa8a21d533ce8110VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD&vgnextchannel=89a25ee3d74f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD



http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/PRAXIS/pdf/0357.pdf

Assessment 2 1

Assessment 2 Comprehensive Examination Assessment

Addresses COE unit standard # 2 CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Assessment of content knowledge in gifted education.

Although comprehensive examinations have been a requirement in the GATE program for over 10 years, electronic collection of the comprehensive examination rubric ratings was initiated in 2006. Previously, ratings were collected, noted as either Pass or Fail on a graduate school Comprehensive Examination Report form, and examination artifacts were destroyed after two years. Due to implementation of electronic record keeping, data from comprehensive examinations are now disaggregated and analyzed for candidate performance on specific criteria each year.

1. Provide a brief description of the assessment and its use in the program (one sentence may be sufficient).

The Comprehensive Examination is used as a content-based assessment near the end of the candidates’ program. It is considered an exit assessment. Each candidate writes for three examination committee members: one foundations faculty and two faculty in or associated with gifted education. In general, candidates respond to a minimum of two integrative essay prompts specific to gifted education and one general foundations question (usually research design) over a four-hour examination period supervised by college proctors.



The Comprehensive Examination Assessment specifically aligns with NAGC/CEC Standards 1, 2, 3, and 9. The assessment documents candidates’ knowledge of:

• foundations of gifted education • development and characteristics of gifted learners • individual learning differences • professional and ethical practice.

Comprehensive Examination topics vary by individual candidates, but at least one of the essay prompts for each candidate must be on a topic of diversity with respect to gifted education. Examples of such topics include: identification of culturally diverse students with gifts and talents, the effects of diversity on talent development, the patterns of family interactions of students with gifts and talents from diverse backgrounds, or the development of cultural identity among students with gifts and talents.

Table 2.1 summarizes the alignment of the criteria for the Comprehensive Examination Assessment with the NAGC/CEC Standards.

Assessment 2 2

Table 2.1 Alignment of NAGC/CEC Standards with Comprehensive Examination Criteria

NAGC/CEC Standard Assessment Criterion

NAGC/CEC Standard 1K1- Historical foundations of gifted and talented education including points of view and contributions of individuals from diverse backgrounds. NAGC/CEC Standard 1K2 – Key philosophies, theories, models, and research supporting gifted and talented education. NAGC/CEC Standard 1K6- Societal, cultural, and economic factors, including anti-intellectualism and equity vs. excellence, enhancing or inhibiting the development of gifts, and talents. NAGC/CEC Standard 1K7- Key issues and trends, including diversity and inclusion, connecting general, special, and gifted and talented education.

Content Knowledge as Reflected in Key Concepts

NAGC/CEC Standard 1K5- Impact of dominant culture’s role in shaping schools and the differences in values, languages, and customs between school and home. NAGC/CEC Standard 2K2-Characteristics and effects of culture and environment on the development of individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standard 3K1-Influences of diversity factors on individuals with gifts and talents.

NAGC/CEC Standard 3K2-Academic and affective characteristics and learning needs of individuals with gifts, talents, and disabilities.

Diversity

NAGC/CEC 9K2 Organizations and publications relevant to the field of gifted education.

Application as Reflected in Citations


Assessment 2 3

The Comprehensive Examination Ratings are found in Tables 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 at the end of this document and provide the average ratings of GATE Masters’ candidates across two raters. The mean scores demonstrate that GATE candidates are knowledgeable about the key concepts associated with gifted education, are able to cite related literature to construct an evidence-based essay, are proficient in organizing their written arguments, and are judged by a minimum of two faculty raters to produce comprehensive essays that are effective overall.

4. Provide an interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards. According to the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 data, the majority of candidates scored Proficient or better (at least a 3 on a 4-point scale) in their knowledge of key concepts in gifted education. This criterion of the rubric includes the knowledge outcomes from Standards 1, 2, and 3. Candidates are also citing research literature (Criterion: Use of Evidence) related to gifted education. In 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, all candidates scored proficient or better on all criteria on the Comprehensive Examination. The results provide evidence for meeting the NAGC/CEC Foundations Standards 1K1, 1K2, 1K5, 1K7, 2K2, 3K1, 3K2, and 9K2. 5. Provide attachment of assessment documentation, including:

(a) the assessment tool or description of the assignment; (b) the scoring guide for the assessment; and (c) candidate data derived from the assessment. (a) The description of the Comprehensive Examination can be found below and is titled

Comprehensive Examination Questions. (b) The Comprehensive Examination Scoring Rubric immediately follows the

Comprehensive Examination Questions and is titled GATE Comprehensive Examination Rubric.

(c) Candidate data related to the Comprehensive Examination can be found in Tables 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 immediately following the GATE Comprehensive Examination Rubric.

Assessment 2 4

(a) Description of the Assignment (Assessment 2, Question #5a)

Comprehensive Examination Questions

For [Candidate Name]

In partial fulfillment of the Masters in Gifted Education

From [Faculty Name]

Date of Examination:

Candidate Instructions: Please select one question from among the three questions below. You should plan to write [or compose at the computer] for approximately one hour on a question from each Comprehensive Examination Committee member. You may use a dictionary or a thesaurus. Please avoid the excessive use of lists; your response should be in narrative form. Your essay response will be evaluated on the criteria found in the Chalk and Wire assessment system. These criteria are: (a) Understanding of key concepts, (b) Citation of research to support argument, (c) Organization of persuasive essay, (d) Overall effectiveness. For your diversity essay, you will also be assessed with (e) the diversity criterion. Across your three faculty Comprehensive Examination Committee members, you will be expected to respond to: (a) One question on a current issue in gifted education, (b) One question on professional knowledge in gifted education, and (c) One question which requires you to construct a research-based design. One of the two integrative gifted education questions you select must focus on diversity; it will be assessed with the Diversity Criterion on the rubric in addition to the other criteria outlined above.

1. [Question on a current issue] Example: English Language Learners are frequently overlooked in the identification process for gifted programs and services. Lohman and Naglieri approach the issue of identifying these learners differently. Review their differing assumptions, instruments, and recommendations for serving gifted English Language Learners.

2. [Question on Professional Knowledge] Example: Acceleration has been called the great

mystery of gifted education. While research supports some forms of acceleration, it is not widely used as a program intervention and is viewed suspiciously by many educators. Select one or more forms of acceleration, review the literature on its effects, and suggest reasons for the reluctance of schools to adopt accelerative practices.

3. [Question on design] Example: The research portion of your examination is designed to

allow you to demonstrate your knowledge and skills in research design. Using the research context provided below; construct research questions and write the methods

Assessment 2 5

portion for EITHER a quantitative or a qualitative research study to answer your research question.

Research Context: You are a teacher in an elementary school that has a cluster-grouped program for high ability learners. You have been asked to teach the 4th grade classroom in which the high ability learners have been clustered. Your central office intends to evaluate this program model in three years. How might you design a study that would investigate the effects of this program model on students, teachers, and/or families?

(b) GATE Comprehensive Examination Rubric (Assessment 2, Question #5b)

Criterion 1 Content Knowledge as reflected in key concepts NAGC-CEC Standard 1K1 NAGC-CEC Standard 1K2 NAGC-CEC Standard 1K3 NAGC-CEC Standard 1K7

Historical foundations of gifted and talented education, including points of view and contributions of individuals from diverse backgrounds. Key philosophies, theories, models, and research that support gifted and talented education. Local, state/provincial, and federal laws and policies related to gifted and talented education. Key issues and trends, including diversity and inclusion, connecting general, special, and gifted and talented education.

Level 1 Not Acceptable

Does not respond to the key concepts relevant to the question.

Level 2 Acceptable

Responds to at least two key concepts relevant to the question.

Level 3 Proficient

Responds to more than two key concepts relevant to the question including appropriate theory or philosophy.

Level 4 Exemplary

Responds to multiple key concepts relevant to the question including appropriate theory, philosophy, or policy.

Criterion 2 Application of literature as reflected in citations NAGC-CEC Standard 9K2

Organizations and publications relevant to the field of gifted and talented education


Does not cite the literature.

Level 2 Acceptable

Cites literature and links to key concepts.

Level 3 Proficient

Cites literature and links to key concepts. Provides key authors names and dates.

Assessment 2 6

Level 4 Exemplary

Cites literature and links to key concepts. Provides key authors names, dates, and article titles. Notes gaps and contradictions in the literature.

Criterion 3 Organization Level 1 Not Acceptable

Organization is unclear with few topic sentences and poorly developed paragraphs.

Level 2 Acceptable

Topic sentences communicate what will be included in each paragraph.

Level 3 Proficient

Topic sentences communicate what will be included in each paragraph. Paragraphs are logically organized.

Level 4 Exemplary

Topic sentences communicate what will be included in each paragraph. Paragraphs are logically organized. Transition between paragraphs and between concepts is evident.

Criterion 4 Overall effectiveness of essay Level 1 Not Acceptable

Essay is not effective in content or writing.

Level 2 Acceptable

Essay is acceptable in content and is reasonably well written.

Level 3 Proficient

Essay demonstrates command of key content and is well written.

Level 4 Exemplary

Essay demonstrates mastery of key content and is memorably written.

This new diversity criterion is added to clarify the importance placed on diversity in the GATE program. This criterion is applied to the response of a candidate to the Comprehensive Examination essay prompt focused on one or more diversity issues. At least one question, in other words, one-third of the Comprehensive Examination is focused on diversity issues. Criterion 5 Diversity NAGC-CEC Standard 1K5 NAGC-CEC Standard 2K2 NAGC-CEC Standard 3K1 NAGC-CEC Standard 3K2 NAGC-CEC

Impact of the dominant culture’s role in shaping schools and the differences in values, languages, and customs between school and home. Characteristics and effects of culture and environment on the development of individuals with gifts and talents. Influences of diversity factors on individuals with gifts and talents. Academic and affective characteristics and learning needs of individuals with gifts, talents, and disabilities.

Assessment 2 7

Standard 3K4 Influences of different beliefs, traditions, and values across and within diverse groups on relationships among individuals with gifts and talents, their families, schools, and communities.


Does not address diversity issues.

Level 2 Acceptable

Addresses at least two diversity issues relevant to the question.

Level 3 Proficient

Addresses to more than two diversity issues relevant to the question and links to the literature.

Level 4 Exemplary

Addresses more than two diversity issues relevant to the question and links to the literature and/or theory or policy.

(c)Candidate Data (Assessment 2; Question #5c)

Table 2.2 2005-2006 Comprehensive Examination Scores Averaged Across Two Raters

Candidate Key Concepts Use of Evidence

Organization Overall

#1 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 #2 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 #3 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 #4 3.0 2.5 3.5 3.0 #5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 #6 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

100% Pass Rate Table 2.3 2006-2007 Comprehensive Examination Scores Averaged Across Two Raters



#7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 #8 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 #9 3.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 #10 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 #11 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 #12 3.0 3.0 3.75 3.0 #13 3.0 2.75 2.0 3.0 #14 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 #15 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 #16 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0

100% Pass Rate Table 2.4

Assessment 2 8

2007-2008 Comprehensive Examination Scores Averaged Across Two Raters Candidate Key Concepts Use of

Evidence Organization Overall

#17 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 #18 3.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 #19 3.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 #20 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 #21 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 #21 3.0 1.5 3.5 3.0 #22 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 #23 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 #24 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0




#25 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 #26 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.54 #27 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 #28 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 #29 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 #30 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0




#31 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 #32 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 #33 2.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 #34 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 #35 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 #36 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 #37 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0




#38 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0

Assessment 2 9

#39 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 #40 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 #41 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 #42 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 #43 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0




#44 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 #45 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 #46 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 #47 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 #48 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0

100% Pass Rate

Assessment 3 1

Assessment 3 National Association for Gifted Children Curriculum and Instruction Division Rubric for Rating Outstanding Curriculum Materials Addresses COE unit standard # 3 PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS: Assessment that demonstrates candidates can effectively plan classroom-based instruction (e.g., unit plan).

1. Provide a brief description of the assessment and its use in the program (one sentence may be sufficient). The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) Curriculum and Instruction Division Rubric is used as an evaluation of candidates’ abilities to develop a differentiated unit of instruction. The rubric is a product assessment. It is applied to the completed differentiated curriculum unit in GATE 7357.

2. Provide a description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the

standards it is cited for in Section III. This assessment specifically aligns with NAGC/CEC Standards 4 and 7. To a lesser degree, there is also alignment to Standards 6 and 10. The NAGC Curriculum Assessment documents educators’ abilities to develop evidence-based curriculum and instructional strategies to promote challenging learning opportunities. Candidates enhance the learning of critical and creative thinking, problem solving, and performance skills in specific domains. They systematically translate short and long-range goals and objectives that take into consideration an individual’s abilities and needs, the learning environment, and cultural and linguistic factors. The candidates must also use technologies to support instructional planning and delivery for gifted students. Specifically, the NAGC Curriculum Assessment requires candidates to address 13 components and addresses the following NAGC/CEC knowledge and skills as shown in Table 3.1. Table 3.1. Alignment of NAGC/CEC Standards to the Curriculum Unit Components NAGC/CEC Standard Curriculum Unit Components Addressed 7S1 1. Clarity of Objectives 7K2, 7S1 2. Nature of Objectives 7SI, 4S4 3. Evaluation Components 4K2, 4S2, 6S2, 7S1, 7K3 4. Learning Activities 7SI, 4K2, 4S1, 4S2, 4S5 5. Instructional Strategies 4S1, 4S3, 6S2, 7S4, 7S1 6. Student Product and Assignments 4K1, 7S1 7. Resources 7S1, 7S2, 7S5 8. Nature of Differentiation 4K1, 4S2, 4S3, 4S6, 7K2, 7K3, 7S1, 7S4

9. Opportunities for Talent Development

7S1, 7S3 10. Alignment of Curricular Components

Assessment 3 2

4S4, 7S1 11. Evidence of Effectiveness 7S1 12. Ease of Use by Other Educators 4S6, 4S7, 7S4, 10K1 13. Evidence of Diversity


The NAGC Curriculum Rubric Ratings found in Tables 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 have been disaggregated by year from 2005-2012. The four tables (3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9) detail the percentages of candidate scores across the rubric criteria as well as the means and standard deviations associated with these scores across the immediate past four years. The majority of candidates scored at the Proficient level or better on all criteria across four years of data; Ninety percent of candidates scored Proficient or better across 11 areas during the years of 2008-2012. This shows growth from the years of 2005-2008 when seventy-six percent of candidates scored Proficient or better across 11 areas. Trends in the data across the immediate past four years indicate that candidates consistently scored high (Proficient or better) on the criteria of designing and describing learning activities, instructional strategies, student products/assignments, and opportunities for talent development. Specifically, these data disaggregated across three years of 2008-2011 are: Learning Activities (2008-2009 - 100% of candidates; 2009-2010 - 100% of candidates; 2010-2011 - 100% of candidates; 2011-2012- 100% of candidates). Opportunities for Talent Development (2008-2009 - 100% of candidates; 2009-2010 - 100% of candidates; 2010-2011 - 100% of candidates; 2011-2012- 100% of candidates). Alignment of Curricular Components (2008-2009 - 100% of candidates; 2009-2010 - 100% of candidates; 2010-2011 - 90% of candidates; 2011-2012- 100% of candidates). Other criteria of improvement across the four years included: Instructional Strategies (2005-2006 - 96% of candidates; 2006-2007 - 94% of candidates; 2007-2008 - 95% of candidates; 2008-2009 – 95% of candidates; 2009-2010 – 100% of candidates; 2010-2011 - 100% of candidates; 2011-2012- 100% of candidates). Student Products (2005-2006 - 96% of candidates; 2006-2007 - 94% of candidates; 2007-2008 - 100% of candidates; 2008-2009 – 95% of candidates; 2009-2010 – 100% of candidates; 2010-2011 - 100% of candidates; 2011-2012- 100% of candidates). Resources including technology (2008-2009 – 96% of candidates; 2009-2010 – 95% of candidates; 2010-2011 - 100% of candidates; 2011-2012- 100% of candidates). Ease of Use by Other Educators was a criterion that some candidates showed as an area for improvement (2005-2006 - 88% of candidates; 2006-2007 - 82% of candidates; 2007-2008 - 85% of candidates). This is an area that has been addressed by providing candidates with a template of recommended formatting

Assessment 3 3

and unit layout to enhance consistency across candidate curriculum products for other educators to use easily and resulted with improved scores (2008-2009 – 96% of candidates; 2009-2010 – 94% of candidates; and 2010-2011 - 94% of candidates; 2011-2012- 100% of candidates). Trends in the data also revealed improvements in candidate performance in the criteria related to the Clarity of Writing Objectives, the Nature of the Objectives, the Nature of Differentiation, and the Alignment of Curricular Components. Trends showed ratings moved from Unsatisfactory and Needs Improvement to Proficient and Exemplary levels. Specifically, the data disaggregated across the four years are: Clarity of objectives (2005-2006 - 89% of candidates; 2006-2007 - 82% of candidates; 2007-2008 - 95% of candidates; 2008-2009 - 100% of candidates; 2009-2010 - 100% of candidates; 2010-2011 - 94% of candidates; 2011-2012- 100% of candidates). Nature of the Objectives (2005-2006 - 93% of candidates; 2006-2007 - 82% of candidates; 2007-2008 - 91% of candidates; 2008-2009 - 100% of candidates; 2009-2010 - 100% of candidates; 2010-2011 - 98% of candidates; 2011-2012- 100% of candidates). Nature of Differentiation (2005-2006 - 93% of candidates; 2006-2007 - 76% of candidates; 2007-2008 - 91% of candidates; 2008-2009 - 100% of candidates; 2009-2010 - 100% of candidates; 2010-2011 - 90% of candidates; 2011-2012- 100% of candidates). Alignment of Curricular Components (2005-2006 - 85% of candidates; 2006-2007 - 88% of candidates; 2007-2008 - 100% of candidates; 2008-2009 - 100% of candidates; 2009-2010 - 100% of candidates; 2010-2011 - 90% of candidates; 2011-2012- 100% of candidates).

4. Provide an interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting

standards. With the exception of the criterion, Evidence of Effectiveness, the data indicate that the majority of candidates (90%) are scoring at Proficient or above in all components of curriculum development. In 2011-2012, 100% of the candidates scored at the Proficient or above in all components of curriculum development. This is a consistent improvement from 76% during the years of 2005-2008. The N/A rating for Evidence of Effectiveness is expected since candidates are required to develop a new unit of study; they have not had the opportunity to demonstrate its effectiveness in a classroom setting at this point in their program of study. Some candidates have piloted activities or lessons from their curriculum unit in their regular classrooms with pupils. Candidates have consistently scored well on the criteria of Learning Activities, Instructional Strategies, Student Products/Assignments, and Opportunities for Talent Development. Candidates demonstrate these pedagogical skills with considerable prowess.

Assessment 3 4

The criteria related to the Clarity of Writing Objectives, the Nature of the Objectives, the Nature of Differentiation, and the Alignment of Curricular Components are difficult skills and purposeful attention has been focused on them to improve candidate performance. Trends across the four years (2008-2012) reveal that the additional focus on these criteria have shown consistent improvements in candidate performance in these skill areas. Since 2008, candidate score performance has improved significantly on the criteria related to Clarity of Writing Objectives and the Nature of Objectives.


(a) the assessment tool or description of the assignment; (b) the scoring guide for the assessment; and (c) candidate data derived from the assessment.

(a) The NAGC Curriculum Assessment description follows and is titled

Curriculum and Instruction Unit Assignment. (b) The NAGC Curriculum Assessment scoring rubric follows and is titled NAGC

Curriculum Unit Scoring Rubric. (c) The candidate data are reported in Tables 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 immediately following

the rubric and are titled (Year) NAGC Curriculum Rubric Ratings.

(a) Description of the Assignment (Assessment 3, Question #5a)

Curriculum and Instruction Unit Assignment

Curriculum Unit Product: You are to construct a differentiated unit of study appropriate for gifted learners consisting of the following:

1. Unit Web: A conceptual web of a unit topic. 2. Unit: A-three week curriculum unit (approximately 8-10

activities). See additional information concerning unit requirements.*

3. Technology Application (Required): A detailed description of an application of technology to your unit.

4. Curriculum Extension** 5. Each unit will be accompanied by an assessment plan for student

learning. 6. You must note the instructional model being utilized for each

lesson. *Curriculum units will include the following features:

Description of rationale, purpose, and target audience, including discussion of appropriateness for gifted learners and prerequisites for students

Assessment 3 5

Curriculum framework citing goals and outcomes reflecting concept, process/product, and content emphases

Organization around an interdisciplinary concept and key process skill Outline demonstrating organization of unit topics Incorporation of activities that support multiple modes of learning Discussion of major instructional strategies employed Lesson plans that describe key activities and questions to be employed to

support objectives Description of at least one learning center that may be used to support

objectives. Discussion of evaluation procedures and an assessment plan Incorporation of relevant technology applications Listing of key resources

**Blueprints for Biography:

One way to increase the depth of a curriculum unit is through the use of biographies written for children and adolescents. Select 1 to 3 biographies relevant to the content or topic of your curriculum unit, write annotations for each biography, and develop questions and activities for 1 of them.

Please see the attached rubric for detailed information about scoring.

Curriculum units will be assessed based on satisfactory completion of all sections, reflection of key principles for teaching gifted learners, and attention to general and content-specific curriculum features, including careful alignment of objectives, activities, and assessments. Students will self-evaluate their products, using given evaluation criteria, and submit their self-evaluation with their unit.

(b) Scoring Guide for the Assessment (Assessment 3, Question #5b)

NAGC Curriculum Unit Scoring Rubric Criterion 1 Clarity of Objectives (7S1) NAGC/CEC Standards 7S1: Align differentiated instructional plans with local, state/ provincial, and national curricular standards. Level 1 Unsatisfactory

Objectives are not stated.

Level 2 Needs Improvement

Objectives are discernable, but vague or confusing; assumptions need to be made by the reader.

Level 3 Proficient

Objectives are reasonably clear; reader is fairly confident he/she understands what students need to know and be able to do.

Level 4 Exemplary

Objectives are clearly stated, specific, and unambiguous.

Assessment 3 6

Criterion 2 Nature of the Objectives (7K2, 7S1) NAGC/CEC Standards 7K2: Design differentiated learning plans for individuals with gifts and talents, including individuals from diverse backgrounds. NAGC/CEC Standards 7S1: Align differentiated instructional plans with local, state/ provincial, and national curricular standards. Level 1 Unsatisfactory

The majority of objectives are concerned with details, basic skill, and factual knowledge.


Objectives for learning incorporate some major concepts and sophisticated skills within field of study.

Level 3 Proficient

Objectives for learning incorporate concepts, principles, cognitive skills, methodologies, and dispositions within a field of study.

Level 4 Exemplary

Objectives for learning incorporate concepts, principles, cognitive skills, methodologies, and dispositions that can be transferred across disciplines.

Criterion 3 Evaluation Components (4S4, 7S1) NAGC/CEC Standards 4S4: Pre-assess the learning needs of individuals with gifts and talents in various domains and adjust instruction based on continual assessment. NAGC/CEC Standards 7S1: Align differentiated instructional plans with local, state/ provincial, and national curricular standards. Level 1 Unsatisfactory

The student evaluation component is missing or not explicitly stated.


The assessment model includes only paper and pencil evaluation instruments (i.e., tests, quizzes).

Level 3 Proficient

The assessment model includes at least two different approaches to evaluation design.

Level 4 Exemplary

The assessment model includes at least three different evaluation measures including, for example, student portfolios, observational checklists of student behaviors, product evaluation, or self or peer evaluation.

Criterion 4 Learning Activities (4K2, 4S2, 6S2, 7S1, 7K3) NAGC/CEC Standards 4K2: Curricular, instructional, and management strategies effective for individuals with exceptional learning needs. NAGC/CEC Standards 4S2: Apply higher-level thinking and metacognitive models to content areas to meet the needs of individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standards 6S2: Use advanced oral and written communication tools, including assistive technologies, to enhance the learning experiences of individual with exceptional learning needs. NAGC/CEC Standards 7S1: Align differentiated instructional plans with local, state/ provincial, and national curricular standards. NAGC/CEC Standards 7K3: Curriculum emphases for learners with talents and gifts

Assessment 3 7

within cognitive, affective, aesthetic, social, and linguistic domains.

Level 1 Unsatisfactory

No student learning activities are described.


At least two different types of learning activities are described.

Level 3 Proficient

At least three different types of learning activities are described. Many of these involve cognitive engagement or hands-on learning.

Level 4 Exemplary

At least three different types of learning activities are described. The majority of these activities involve constructivist learning, problem solving, research, investigation, cognitive engagement, and/or hands-on learning.

Criterion 5 Instructional Strategies (4K2, 4S1, 4S2, 4S5, 7S1,) NAGC/CEC Standards 4K2: Curricular, instructional, and management strategies effective for individuals with exceptional learning needs. NAGC/CEC Standards 4S1: Apply pedagogical content knowledge to instructing learners with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standards 4S2: Apply higher-level thinking and metacognitive models to content areas to meet the needs of individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standards 4S5: Pace delivery of curriculum and instruction consistent with needs of individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standards 7S1: Align differentiated instructional plans with local, state/ provincial, and national curricular standards. Level 1 Unsatisfactory

The instructional strategies are not explicitly stated or described.


The instructional strategies are described. Strategies involve direct instruction or self-study.

Level 3 Proficient

At least two different instructional strategies are described. At least one of these strategies involves inductive teaching, concept based teachings, teacher-as-facilitator, high-level questioning, Socratic questioning, or teacher as mentor.

Level 4 Exemplary

At least three different instructional strategies are described. At least one of these strategies involves inductive teaching, concept based teachings, teacher-as-facilitator, high-level questioning, Socratic questioning, or teacher as mentor.

Criterion 6 Student Product and Assignments (4S1, 4S3, 6S2, 7S4, 7S1) NAGC/CEC Standards 4S1: Apply pedagogical content knowledge to instructing learners with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standards 4S3: Provide opportunities for individuals with gifts and talents to explore, develop, or research their areas of interest or talent. NAGC/CEC Standards 6S2: Use advanced oral and written communication tools,

Assessment 3 8

including assistive technologies, to enhance the learning experiences of individual with exceptional learning needs. NAGC/CEC Standards 7S4: Select curriculum resources, strategies, and product options that respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual differences among individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standards 7S1: Align differentiated instructional plans with local, state/ provincial, and national curricular standards. Level 1 Unsatisfactory

Fewer than two kinds of student products or assignments are described.


The author describes at least three different kinds of student projects or assignments. The majority of these assignments involve convergent thinking, recall, and practice.

Level 3 Proficient

The author describes at least three different kinds of student projects or assignments that are embedded in the lesson plans. The majority of these assignments involve open-ended assignments that are subject to personal interpretation or accommodate varying levels of expertise.

Level 4 Exemplary

The author describes at least three different kinds of student projects or assignments. The majority of these assignments involve open-ended assignments, development of creative products, or the development of products related to real-world applications or problem solving. These products are closely aligned with other curriculum components.

Criterion 7 Resources (4K1, 7S1) NAGC/CEC Standards 4K1: School and community resources, including content specialists, that support differentiation. NAGC/CEC Standards 7S1: Align differentiated instructional plans with local, state/ provincial, and national curricular standards. Level 1 Unsatisfactory

Resources derived solely from textbooks.


Two or three resources of one type, i.e., texts, books, articles are used in this unit.

Level 3 Proficient

Three or more varied resources, including print and non-print materials, i.e., books, video tapes, audio tapes, hands-on materials, software, internet sources are used in this unit.

Level 4 Exemplary

Four or more varied resources and realia, including primary source materials, are used in this unit.

Criterion 8 Nature of Differentiation (7S1, 7S2, 7S5) NAGC/CEC Standards 7S1: Align differentiated instructional plans with local, state/ provincial, and national curricular standards. NAGC/CEC Standards 7S2: Design differentiated learning plans for individuals with gifts and talents, including individuals from diverse backgrounds. NAGC/CEC Standards 7S5: Select and adapt a variety of differentiated curricula that incorporate advanced, conceptually challenging, in-depth, distinctive, complex content.

Assessment 3 9


No opportunities for differentiation are evident.


Some open-ended activities are included in the unit.

Level 3 Proficient

This unit allows for at least two of the following adjustments: pacing, depth, breadth, level of abstraction, level of complexity, degree of generalization, or talent development

Level 4 Exemplary

Activities and assignments that accommodate the learning needs of high achieving students are explicitly described. At least three or more of the adjustments (listed above) are included.

Criterion 9 Opportunities for Talent Development (4K1, 4S2, 4S3, 4S6, 7K2, 7K3,

7S1, 7S4) NAGC/CEC Standards 4K1: School and community resources, including content specialists, that support differentiation. NAGC/CEC Standards 4S2: Apply higher-level thinking and metacognitive models to content areas to meet the needs of individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standards 4S3: Provide opportunities for individuals with gifts and talents to explore, develop, or research their areas of interest or talent. NAGC/CEC Standards 4S6: Engage individuals with gifts and talents from all backgrounds in challenging multicultural curricula. NAGC/CEC Standards 7K2: Design differentiated learning plans for individuals with gifts and talents, including individuals from diverse backgrounds. NAGC/CEC Standards 7K3: Curriculum emphases for learners with talents and gifts within cognitive, affective, aesthetic, social, and linguistic domains. NAGC/CEC Standards 7S1: Align differentiated instructional plans with local, state/provincial, and national curricular standards. NAGC/CEC Standards 7S4: Select curriculum resources, strategies, and product options that respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual differences among individuals with gifts and talents.

• Opportunities for kid watching and talent spotting. • Opportunities for students to engage in some activities aligned with their strengths,

preferences, or interests. • Opportunities to foster the connection between unit activities and potential career fields,

leadership opportunities, or real-world applications. • Opportunities to interact with role models, community resources, mentors, or

professionals in that field. • Opportunities to investigate real-world problems and to develop authentic products and

services in that field. Level 1 Unsatisfactory

The unit includes none of the activities listed above.


The unit includes at least one of the activities listed above.

Assessment 3 10

Level 3 Proficient

The unit includes at least two of the activities listed above.

Level 4 Exemplary

The unit includes at least three of the activities listed above.

Criterion 10 Alignment of Curricular Components (7S1, 7S3) NAGC/CEC Standards 7S1: Align differentiated instructional plans with local, state/ provincial, and national curricular standards. NAGC/CEC Standards 7S3: Develop scope and sequence plans for individuals with gifts and talents. Level 1 Unsatisfactory

No lesson plans are evident or fewer than three lesson plans were developed for this curriculum unit, or the lesson plans contained fewer than three of the components listed below, or the plans were not explicit enough for other educators to follow.


The curriculum unit contains more than three lessons. Each lesson describes at least three of the following instructional components: objectives, assessments, introduction, teaching strategies, learning activities, products, resources, differentiation strategies, and talent development activities.

Level 3 Proficient

The curriculum unit contains more than three lessons. Each lesson describes at least five of the components listed above. Most of the components are sequenced and aligned (related to one another).

Level 4 Exemplary

The curriculum unit contains more than three lessons. Each lesson describes at least five of the components listed above. All the components are sequenced and closely aligned (rely strongly on each other to accomplish lesson objectives).

Criterion 11 Evidence of Effectiveness (4S4, 7S1) NAGC/CEC Standards 4S4: Pre-assess the learning needs of individuals with gifts and talents in various domains and adjust instruction based on continual assessment. NAGC/CEC Standards 7S1: Align differentiated instructional plans with local, state/ provincial, and national curricular standards. Level 1 Unsatisfactory

No evidence of effectiveness is provided.


The unit has been used at least once with students; anecdotal evidence is included.

Level 3 Proficient

The unit has been used more than once. Evidence that supports general student growth was gathered and provided.

Level 4 Exemplary

The unit has been taught more than once. Developers describe a systematic effort to assess growth and change in gifted education students.

Criterion 12 Ease of Use by Other Educators (7S1) NAGC/CEC Standards 7S1: Align differentiated instructional plans with local, state/ provincial, and national curricular standards.

Assessment 3 11


Vital curriculum components are missing.


Most curriculum components are evident, but some are not described in enough detail to foster ease of use by other educators.

Level 3 Proficient

Most curriculum components are evident. Components are explicit, well-sequenced, and easy to follow.

Level 4 Exemplary

Most curriculum components are evident. Components are explicit, well-sequenced, and easy to follow. Field test suggestions for planning and implementation are included.

Criterion 13 Evidence of Diversity (4S6, 4S7, 7S4, 10K1) NAGC/CEC Standard 4S6: Engage individuals with gifts and talents from all backgrounds in challenging multicultural curricula. NAGC/CEC Standard 4S7: Use information and/or assistive technologies to meet the needs of individuals with exceptional learning needs. NAGC/CEC Standard 7S4: Select curriculum resources, strategies, and product options that respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual differences among individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standard 10K1: Culturally responsive behaviors that promote effective communication and collaboration with individuals with gifts and talents, their families, school personnel, and community members. Level 1 Unsatisfactory

No evidence of engaging individual with gift and talents from all backgrounds in challenging, multicultural curricula. (NAGC/CEC 4S6)


The unit has at least one example of curricular resources, strategies and product options that respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual differences among individuals with gifts and talents. (NAGC/CEC 4S6, 7S4)

Level 3 Proficient

The unit has at least two examples of curricular resources, strategies and product options that respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual differences among individuals with gifts and talents. (NAGC/CEC 4S6, 7S4)

Level 4 Exemplary

The unit has at least three examples of curricular resources, strategies and product options that respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual differences among individuals with gifts and talents and uses collaboration, information and/or assistive technologies to meet the needs of individuals with exceptional needs. (NAGC/CEC 4S6, 4S7, 7S4, 10K1)

Assessment 3 12

(c) Candidate data (Assessment 3, Question #5c) Table 3.3. 2005-2006 NAGC Curriculum Rubric Ratings *Percentages indicate candidates at each performance level.

Criterion

Score 1-1.99

(unsatisfactory)

Score 2-2.99 (needs

improvement)

Score 3-3.99 (pro-

ficient)

Score 4

(exemplary)

N Mean SD

Clarity of Objectives

1% 12% 35% 54% 26 3.4 0.7

Nature of the Objectives - 8% 35% 58% 26 3.5 0.6

Evaluation Components - - 31% 69% 26 3.7 0.5

Learning Activities

- - 12% 88% 26 3.9 0.3

Instructional Strategies - 4% 15% 81% 26 3.8 0.5

Student Product and Assignments

- 4% 8% 88% 26 3.8 0.5

Resources (includes technology)

- 4% - 96% 26 3.9 0.4

Nature of Differentiation

-

8%

35%

58%

26

3.5

0.6

(includes diversity) Opportunities for Talent Development

-

-

12%

88%

26

3.9

0.3

(includes diversity) Alignment of Curricular Components

-

15%

8%

77%

26

3.6

0.7

Evidence of Effectiveness

100%

-

N/A

N/A

1

1

N/A

Ease of Use by Other Educators

- 12 73% 15% 26 3.0 0.5

*Note: The assessment has four levels of rating: 1 (unsatisfactory), 2 (needs improvement), 3 (proficient), and 4 (exemplary).

Assessment 3 13

Table 3.4. 2006-2007 NAGC Curriculum Rubric Ratings *Percentages indicate candidates at each performance level.

Criterion

Score 1-1.99

(unsatis-factory)

Score 2-2.99 (needs

improve-ment)

Score 3-3.99 (pro-

ficient)

Score 4

(exem-plary)

N Mean SD


- 18% 41% 41% 17 3.2 0.7

Nature of the Objectives 3% 12% 29% 53% 17 3.3 0.9

Evaluation Components 6% - 29% 65% 17 3.5 0.8

Learning Activities

- - 24% 76% 17 3.8 0.4

Instructional Strategies 6% - - 94% 17 3.8 0.7


- 6% 12% 82% 17 3.8 0.5


- 18% 6% 76% 17 3.6 0.8


- 24% 47% 29% 17 3.1 0.7


-

12%

12%

76%

17

3.6

0.7


-

12%

35%

53%

17

3.4

0.7


N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


6%

12%

82%

-

17

2.8

0.5


Assessment 3 14


Criterion

Score 1-1.99

(unsatis-factory)

Score 2-2.99 (needs

improve-ment)

Score 3-3.99 (pro-

ficient)

Score 4

(exem-plary)

N Mean SD


- 5% 19% 76% 21 3.7 0.5

Nature of the Objectives 5% 5% 43% 48% 21 3.3 0.8

Evaluation Components - 5% 29% 67% 21 3.6 0.6

Learning Activities

- - 24% 76% 21 3.8 0.4

Instructional Strategies 5% - 19% 76% 21 3.7 0.7


- -% 14% 86% 21 3.9 0.3


- 14% 5% 81% 21 3.7 0.7


- 10% 29% 62% 21 3.5 0.7


-

-

5%

95%

21

4.0

0.2


-

-

19%

81%

21

3.8

0.4


N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A


-

14%

71%

14%

21

3.0

0.5


Assessment 3 15


Criterion

Score 1-1.99

(unsatis-factory)

Score 2-2.99 (needs

improve-ment)

Score 3-3.99 (pro-

ficient)

Score 4

(exem-plary)

N Mean SD


- - - 100% 21 4.0 -

Nature of the Objectives - - 10% 90% 21 3.9 0.3


Learning Activities

- - 10% 90% 21 3.9 0.3

Instructional Strategies - 5% 19% 76% 21 3.7 0.5


- 5% 14% 81% 21 3.8 0.5


- 5% 10% 86% 21 3.8 0.5


- - 29% 71% 21 3.7 0.5


-

-

19%

81%

21

3.8

0.4


-

-

24%

76%

21

3.8

0.4


-

100%

-

-

1

3.4

0.6


-

5%

48%

48%

21

3.4

0.6


Assessment 3 16


Criterion

Score 1-1.99

(unsatis-factory)

Score 2-2.99 (needs

improve-ment)

Score 3-3.99 (pro-

ficient)

Score 4

(exem-plary)

N Mean SD


- - 5% 95% 19 3.9 0.2

Nature of the Objectives - - 5% 95% 19 3.9 0.2

Evaluation Components - - - 100% 19 4.0 -

Learning Activities

- - 32% 68% 19 3.7 1.5

Instructional Strategies - - 21% 79% 19 3.8 1.4


- - 16% 84% 19 3.8 0.4


- 5 11% 84% 19 3.8 0.5


- - 32% 68% 19 3.7 0.5


-

-

21%

79%

19

3.8

0.4


-

-

5%

95%

19

3.9

0.2


N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0

N/A

N/A


-

5%

68%

26%

19

3.2

0.5


Assessment 3 17


Criterion

Score 1-1.99

(unsatis-factory)

Score 2-2.99 (needs

improve-ment)

Score 3-3.99 (pro-

ficient)

Score 4

(exem-plary)

N Mean SD


- 6 16% 78% 50 3.7 0.6

Nature of the Objectives - 2 26% 72% 50 3.7 0.5


Learning Activities

- - 30% 70% 50 3.7 0.5

Instructional Strategies - - 28% 72% 50 3.7 0.4


- - 18% 82% 50 3.8 0.4


- - 20% 80% 50 3.8 0.4


- 10 32% 58% 50 3.5 0.7


-

-

28%

72%

50

3.7

0.4


-

10

18%

72%

50

3.6

0.7


N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0

N/A

N/A


-

6%

64%

30%

50

3.2

0.5


Assessment 3 18


Criterion

Score 1-1.99 (unsatis-factory)

Score 2-2.99 (needs improve-ment)

Score 3-3.99 (pro-ficient)

Score 4 (exem-plary)

N Mean SD


- - 50% 50% 4 3.5 .5

Nature of the Objectives - - 25% 75% 4 3.8 .4

Evaluation Components - - - 100% 4 4.0 0.0

Learning Activities

- - - 100% 4 4.0 0.0

Instructional Strategies - - 25% 75% 4 3.8 .4


- - 25% 75% 4 3.8 .4


- - - 100% 4 4.0 0.0


- - 50% 50% 4 3.5 .5


-

-

25% 75% 4 3.8 .4


-

- 25% 75% 4 3.8 .4


N/A

N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A


-

- 75% 25% 4 3.3 .4


Assessment 4 1

Assessment 4 Purdue Teacher Observation Form (TOF) Addresses COE unit standard # 4 PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS: Assessment demonstrates candidates’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions are applied effectively in practice.


The Purdue Teacher Observation Form (TOF) is used as a field experience observation instrument in Year 1 (licensure and Master’s candidates) and Year 2 (Master’s candidates only) GATE 7390 Supervised Practica.



The TOF addresses NAGC/CEC Standards 3, 5 and 6 and aligns tightly with NAGC/CEC Standards 4 and 7. Direct classroom observation in the practicum courses has been carried out since 1998 and produces a range of teacher performances across time. Candidates are assessed on the following:

• subject matter coverage • clarity of teaching, motivation techniques • pace of instruction • opportunity for self-determination of activities by student • student involvement in a variety of experiences • interaction between teacher and student, student and peers, appropriate course objectives • opportunity for student follow-through of activities outside class • emphasis on higher-level thinking skills • emphasis on creativity • lesson plans designed to meet program, course, and daily objectives • use of teaching and learning aids • individual learning differences • instructional planning for diverse populations

Specifically, the Purdue Teacher Observation Form addresses the following NAGC/CEC knowledge and skills:

Table 4.1 Alignment of NAGC/CEC Standards to Student Learning Assessment Criteria


Standard 3S1: Integrate perspectives of diverse groups into planning instruction for

Interaction Between Teacher and Student,

Assessment 4 2

individuals with gifts and talents.

Student and Peers, Appropriate to Course Objectives

Standard 4S1: School and community resources, including content specialists that support differentiation. Standard 4S3: Provide opportunities for individuals with gifts and talents to explore, develop, or research their areas of interest or talent. Standard 4S5: Pace delivery of curriculum and instruction consistent with needs of individuals with gifts and talents. Standard 4S7: Use information and / or assistive technologies to meet the needs of individuals with exceptional learning needs. Standard 4K2: Curricular, instructional, and management strategies effective for individuals with exceptional learning needs.

Subject Matter Coverage Opportunity for Self-Determination of Activities by Student; Student Involvement in a Variety of Experiences Pace of Instruction; Lesson Plans Designed to Meet Program, Course, and Daily Objectives Use of Teaching and Learning Aids Opportunity for Student Follow-Through of Activities Outside of Class; Emphasis on Creativity

Standard 5S3: Create safe learning environments for individuals with gifts and talents that encourage active participation in individual and group activities to enhance independence, interdependence, and positive peer relationships.

Motivational Techniques

Standard 6S1: Access resources and develop strategies to enhance communication skills for individuals with gifts and talents, including those with advanced communication and /or English language learners.

Clarity of Teaching

Standard 7S4: Select curriculum resources, strategies, and product options that respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual differences among individuals with gifts and talents.

Opportunity for Self-Determination of Activities by Student

Assessment 4 3

Standard 7S5: Select and adapt a variety of differentiated curricula that incorporate advanced, conceptually challenging, in-depth, distinctive, and complex content.

Emphasis on Higher-Level Thinking Skills

3. Provide a brief analysis of the data findings. The Teacher Observation Form Ratings, found at the end of this document, detail the percentage of candidate scores across the TOF criteria as well as the means and standard deviations associated with these scores. These scores indicate that nearly all candidates demonstrate proficiency in the classroom setting. In 2005-2006, 100% of candidates scored Proficient or better across all criteria. Ninety-five percent of candidates scored Proficient or better in 2006-2007, 98% of candidates scored Proficient or better in 2007-2008, 100% of candidates scored Proficient or better in 2008-2009; 100% of candidates scored Proficient or better in 2009-2010; and 88% of candidates scored Proficient or better across all criteria in 2010-2011.

From 2005-2011, Practicum candidates consistently scored highest on the criterion Subject Matter Coverage. It is gratifying that candidates scored well on Subject Matter Coverage since teachers are often criticized for their lack of content knowledge. These results do not appear to support that contention. From 2007-2011, practicum candidates also scored high on the criterion Interaction between teacher and student, student and peers, appropriate to course objectives. This too is gratifying in the illustrating the development of high quality teaching dispositions and skills among practicum candidates.

Although still high, the lower score, from 2005-2008, on Student Involvement in a Variety of Experiences may be the result of a very brisk schedule in the practicum setting. Candidates may be intent upon demonstrating specific instructional strategies for which they are held accountable and less likely to offer opportunities for students to visit learning centers or to have free choice time. From 2008-2011, the lower score on criterion Opportunity for student follow through of activities outside of class (homework) is recognized to exist due to the summer nature of the practicum where assigning homework is not encouraged for the summer setting.

4. Provide an interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards. From 2005-2008, fewer than one percent of candidates scored below Proficient in an overall analysis on the Purdue TOF. The data indicate that nearly all candidates are scoring at the Proficient or Exemplary level in both Practicum 1 and Practicum 2 field experiences. In 2005-2006, 100% of candidates scored Proficient or better. Ninety-five percent of candidates scored Proficient or better across all criteria in 2006-2007, 98% of candidates scored Proficient or better in 2007-2008, and 100% of candidates scored Proficient or better in 2008-2009. The results provide evidence for meeting NAGC/CEC Standards 3S1, 4S1, 4S3, 4S5, 4S7, 4K2, 5S3, 6S1, 7S4, 7S5. We are extremely gratified by these data as they indicate our candidates are able to translate their knowledge into skilled classroom performance.

Assessment 4 4

From 2007-2010, the data indicate that nearly all candidates are scoring at the Proficient or Exemplary level in both Practicum 1 and Practicum 2 field experiences. 98% of candidates scored Proficient or better in 2007-2008; 100% of candidates scored Proficient or better in 2008-2009; 80% of candidates in Practicum 1 scored Proficient or better and 87% of candidates in Practicum 2 scored Proficient or better in 2009-2010; and 100% of candidates in Practicum 1 scored Proficient or better and 100% of candidates in Practicum 2 scored Proficient or better in 2010-2011. The change in scores is accounted for due to a change in the format of the instrumentation used to assess candidates. The scale of the Purdue TOF instrument was revised with an increase of the number of scaled points. The revision allows for measuring the nuances of each criterion more specifically. The results provide evidence for meeting NAGC/CEC Standards 3S1, 4S1, 4S3, 4S5, 4S7, 4K2, 5S3, 6S1, 7S4, 7S5. We are extremely gratified by these data as they indicate our candidates are able to translate their knowledge into skilled classroom performance.



(a) The assessment tool and the scoring guide are one in the same and can be found

immediately below titled Purdue University Teacher Observation Form. (b) The Purdue University Teacher Observation Form scoring rubric and the assessment tool

are the same document and can be found immediately below titled Purdue University Teacher Observation Form.

(c) The candidate data derived from the TOF are located immediately following the Purdue University Teacher Observation Form and in Tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 titled (Year) Teacher Observation Form Ratings.

The Assessment Tool and Scoring Rubric (Assessment 4, Question # 5a & 5b)

Purdue University Teacher Observation Form

Criterion 1 Subject matter coverage (4S1) NAGC/CEC Standards 4S1: Apply pedagogical content knowledge to instructing learners with gifts and talents. Level 1 Not Acceptable Level 2 Acceptable Level 3 Proficient Level 4 Exemplary N/O Not Observed

Assessment 4 5

Criterion 2 Clarity of Teaching (6S1) NAGC/CEC Standard 6S1: Access resources and develop strategies to enhance communication skills for individuals with gifts and talents, including those with advanced communication and/ or English language learners. Level 1 Not Acceptable Level 2 Acceptable Level 3 Proficient Level 4 Exemplary N/O Not Observed

Criterion 3 Motivational techniques (5S2, 5S3) NAGC/CEC Standard 5S2: Create learning environments for individuals with gifts and talents that promote self-awareness, self-efficacy, leadership, and lifelong learning. NAGC/CEC Standard 5S3: Create safe learning environments for individuals with gifts and talents that encourage active participation in individual and group activities to enhance independence, interdependence, and positive peer relationships. Level 1 Not Acceptable Level 2 Acceptable Level 3 Proficient Level 4 Exemplary N/O Not Observed

Criterion 4 Pace of instruction (4S5) NAGC/CEC Standard 4S5: Pace delivery of curriculum and instruction consistent with needs of individuals with gifts and talents. Level 1 Not Acceptable Level 2 Acceptable Level 3 Proficient Level 4 Exemplary N/O Not Observed

Criterion 5 Opportunity for self-determination of activities by student (4S3, 7S4) NAGC/CEC Standards 4S3: Provide opportunities for individuals with gifts and talents to explore, develop, or research their areas of interest or talent. NAGC/CEC Standards 7S4: Select curriculum resources, strategies, and product options that respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual differences among individuals with gifts and talents. Level 1 Not Acceptable Level 2 Acceptable

Assessment 4 6

Level 3 Proficient Level 4 Exemplary N/O Not Observed

Criterion 6 Student involvement in a variety of experiences (4S3) NAGC/CEC Standards 4S3: Provide opportunities for individuals with gifts and talents to explore, develop, or research their areas of interest or talent. Level 1 Not Acceptable Level 2 Acceptable Level 3 Proficient Level 4 Exemplary N/O Not Observed

Criterion 7 Interaction between teacher and student, student and peers, appropriate to course objectives (3S1, 5S3)

NAGC/CEC Standard 3S1: Integrate perspectives of diverse groups into planning instruction for individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standard 5S3: Create safe learning environments for individuals with gifts and talents that encourage active participation in individual and group activities to enhance independence, interdependence, and positive peer relationships. Level 1 Not Acceptable Level 2 Acceptable Level 3 Proficient Level 4 Exemplary N/O Not Observed

Criterion 8 Opportunity for student follow-through of activities outside class (4K2)

NAGC/CEC Standard 4K2: Curricular, instructional, and management strategies effective for individuals with exceptional learning needs. Level 1 Not Acceptable Level 2 Acceptable Level 3 Proficient Level 4 Exemplary N/O Not Observed

Criterion 9 Emphasis on higher-level thinking skills (7S5) NAGC/CEC Standards 7S5: Select and adapt a variety of differentiated curricula that incorporate advanced, conceptually challenging, in-depth, distinctive, complex content.

Assessment 4 7

Level 1 Not Acceptable Level 2 Acceptable Level 3 Proficient Level 4 Exemplary Level 5 Exemplary N/O Not Observed

Criterion 10 Emphasis on creativity (4K2, 5S2) NAGC/CEC Standard 4K2: Curricular, instructional, and management strategies effective for individuals with exceptional learning needs. NAGC/CEC Standard 5S2: Create learning environments for individuals with gifts and talents that promote self-awareness, self-efficacy, leadership, and lifelong learning. Level 1 Not Acceptable Level 2 Acceptable Level 3 Proficient Level 4 Exemplary N/O Not Observed

Criterion 11 Lesson plans designed to meet program, course, and daily objectives (4S5)

NAGC/CEC Standard 4S5: Pace delivery of curriculum and instruction consistent with needs of individuals with gifts and talents. Level 1 Not Acceptable Level 2 Acceptable Level 3 Proficient Level 4 Exemplary N/O Not Observed

Criterion 12 Use of teaching and learning aids (4S7) NAGC/CEC Standard 4S7: Use information and / of assistive technologies to meet the needs of individuals with exceptional learning needs. Level 1 Not Acceptable Level 2 Acceptable Level 3 Proficient Level 4 Exemplary N/O Not Observed

Criterion 13 Individual learning differences (3S1) NAGC/CEC Standard 3S1: Integrate perspectives of diverse groups into planning

Assessment 4 8

instruction fro individuals with gifts and talents. Level 1 Not Acceptable Level 2 Acceptable Level 3 Proficient Level 4 Exemplary N/O Not Observed

Criterion 14 Instructional Planning for Diverse Populations (7S2, 7S4) NAGC/CEC Standard 7S2: Design differentiated learning plans for individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standard 7S4: Select curriculum resources, strategies, and product options that respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual differences among individuals with gifts and talents. Level 1 Not Acceptable Level 2 Acceptable Level 3 Proficient Level 4 Exemplary N/O Not Observed

This page is intentionally left blank.

Assessment 4 10

(c) Candidate Data (Assessment 4, Question # 5c)

Table 4.2 2005-2006 Teacher Observation Form Ratings

*Percentages indicate candidates at each performance level. Year 1 Practicum Criterion Not

Acceptable Score

1.00-1.99

Acceptable Score

2.00-2.99

Proficient Score

3.00-3.99

Exemplary Score

4.00

# of Candidates

Mean SD

Purdue University Teacher Observation Form (TOF)

Subject matter coverage - - 5% 95% 22 3.9 0.2

Purdue University TOF Clarity of Teaching - - 5% 95% 23 3.9 0.2

Purdue University TOF Motivational techniques - - 9% 91% 23 3.9 0.3

Purdue University TOF Pace of instruction - - 5% 95% 23 3.9 0.2

Purdue University TOF Opportunity for self-determination of activities by

student.

- - - 100% 8 4.0 -

Purdue University TOF Student involvement in a variety of experiences

- - 9% 91% 23 3.9 0.3

Purdue University TOF Interaction between teacher and student, student and peers,

appropriate to course objectives.

- - 5% 95% 23 3.9 0.2

Purdue University TOF Opportunity for student follow-through of activities outside class

(homework)

- - - 100% 7 4.0 -

Purdue University TOF Emphasis on higher-level thinking skills

- - 5% 95% 20 3.9 0.2

Assessment 4 11

Purdue University TOF Emphasis on creativity - - - 100% 16 4.0 -

Purdue University TOF Lesson plans designed to meet program, course, and daily

objectives

- - - 100% 22 4.0 -

Purdue University TOF Use of teaching and learning aids - - - 100% 20 4.0 -

Purdue University TOF Overall Evaluation - - - 100% 23 4.0 -

YEAR 2 PRACTICUM

Purdue University TOF Subject matter coverage - - - 100% 3 4.0 -

Purdue University TOF Clarity of Teaching - - - 100% 4 4.0 -

Purdue University TOF Motivational techniques - - - 100% 4 4.0 -



student

- - - 100% 4 4.0 -


- - - 100% 4 4.0 -


appropriate to course objectives

- - - 100% 4 4.0 -


(homework)

- - - 100% 4 4.0 -

Assessment 4 12


- - 33% 64% 3 3.7 0.6



objectives

- - - 100% 2 4.0 -

Purdue University TOF Use of teaching and learning aids - - - 100% 4 4.0 -

Purdue University TOF Overall Evaluation - - - 100% 4 4.0 -

Note: Exemplary=4-5 Proficient=3 Needs Improvement=2 Unsatisfactory=1 Not Observed=N/A

Table 4.3 2006-2007 Teacher Observation Form Ratings *Percentages indicate candidates at each performance level.

Year 1 Practicum Criterion Not Acceptable

Score 1.00-1.99

Acceptable Score

2.00-2.99

Proficient Score

3.00-3.99

Exemplary Score

4.00

# of Candidates

Mean SD


Subject matter coverage - - - 100% 36 4.0 -

Purdue University TOF Clarity of Teaching - - - 100% 37 4.0 -



Assessment 4 13

Purdue University TOF Opportunity for self-determination of activities by student.

- - 4% 96% 24 3.9 0.2


- - 13% 87% 31 3.9 0.3

Purdue University TOF Interaction between teacher and student, student and peers, appropriate

to course objectives.

- - 8% 92% 38 3.9 0.3


(homework)

- - 33% 64% 3 3.7 0.6


- - 3% 97% 37 4.0 0.2

Purdue University TOF Emphasis on creativity - - 3% 97% 33 4.0 0.2

Purdue University TOF Lesson plans designed to meet program, course, and daily objectives

- - - 100% 34 4.0 -

Purdue University TOF Use of teaching and learning aids - - 7% 93% 31 3.9 0.2

Purdue University TOF Overall Evaluation - - 3% 97% 38 4.0 0.2

YEAR 2 PRACTICUM

Purdue University TOF Subject matter coverage - - 5% 95% 19 3.9 0.2



Assessment 4 14

Purdue University TOF Pace of instruction - - - 100% 16 4.0 -

Purdue University TOF Opportunity for self-determination of activities by student

- - 8% 92% 13 3.9 0.3


- - 28% 72% 18 3.7 0.5

Purdue University TOF Interaction between teacher and student, student and peers, appropriate

to course objectives

- - 25% 75% 20 3.8 0.5


(homework)

- - - 100% 1 4.0 -


- - 5% 95% 20 3.9 0.2


Purdue University TOF Lesson plans designed to meet program, course, and daily objectives

5% - 11% 84% 18 3.7 0.8




Assessment 4 15



Score 1.00-1.99

Acceptable Score

2.00-2.99

Proficient Score

3.00-3.99

Exemplary Score

4.00

# of Candidates

Mean SD







student.

- - 7% 93% 27 3.9 0.3


- - 28% 72% 49 3.7 0.5



- - 9% 91% 55 3.9 0.3


(homework)

- - - 100% 1 4.0 -


- - 14% 86% 51 3.9 0.4

Assessment 4 16



objectives

- - 22% 78% 50 3.8 0.4


Purdue University TOF Overall Evaluation - 2% 9% 89% 55 3.9 0.3

YEAR 2 PRACTICUM






student

- - - 100% 9 4.0 -


- - 9% 91% 11 3.9 0.3



- - - 100% 12 4.0 -


- - 8% 92% 12 3.9 0.3

Assessment 4 17



objectives

- - - 100% 10 4.0 -






Score 1.00-1.99

Acceptable Score

2.00-2.99

Proficient Score

3.00-3.99

Exemplary Score

4.00

# of Candidates

Mean SD







student.

- - 16% 84% 18 3.8 0.4

Assessment 4 18


- - 37% 63% 40 3.6 0.5



- - 11% 89% 44 3.9 0.3


(homework)

- - - 100% 1 4.0 -


- - 17% 83% 40 3.8 0.4



objectives

- - 29% 71% 41 3.7 0.5



YEAR 2 PRACTICUM





Assessment 4 19


student

- - 50% 50% 2 3.5 0.7


- - 60% 40% 5 3.4 0.5



- - - 100% 5 4.0 -


- - 20% 80% 5 3.8 0.4



objectives

- - 33% 67% 3 3.6 0.3




Assessment 4 20



Acceptable Score

1.00-1.99

Acceptable Score

2.00-2.99

Proficient Score

3.00-3.99

Exemplary Score

4.00

# of Candidates

Mean SD


Subject matter coverage - 5% 20% 75% 20 4.7 0.6

Purdue University TOF Clarity of Teaching - 20% 48% 32% 25 4.1 0.7

Purdue University TOF Motivational techniques 4% 15% 62% 19% 26 4.0 0.7

Purdue University TOF Pace of instruction - 32% 53% 16% 19 3.8 0.7


student.

- 33% 67% 100% 3 3.7 0.5


5% 18% 64% 14% 22 3.9 0.7



- 8% 12% 81% 26 4.7 0.6


(homework)

- 67% 33% - 9 3.3 0.5


- 14% 55% 32% 22 3.9 0.2

Purdue University TOF Emphasis on creativity - 25% 55% 20% 20 4.0 0.7

Assessment 4 21


objectives

- 12% 54% 35% 26 4.0 0.6

Purdue University TOF Use of teaching and learning aids - 22% 56% 22% 18 4.0 0.7

Purdue University TOF Overall Evaluation - 19% 69% 12% 26 4.0 0.5

YEAR 2 PRACTICUM

Purdue University TOF Subject matter coverage - 14% 29% 57% 7 4.4 0.7


Purdue University TOF Motivational techniques - 29% 57% 14% 7 3.9 0.6

Purdue University TOF Pace of instruction - 25% 25% 50% 4 4.3 0.8


student

- - - 100% 0 - -


- - 100% 100% 5 4.0 -



- - 57% 43% 7 4.4 0.5


(homework)

- 100% - - 1 3.0 -


- 14% 57% 29% 7 4.1 0.6

Assessment 4 22

Purdue University TOF Emphasis on creativity - 29 71 - 7 3.7 0.5


objectives

- - 67 33% 6 4.3 0.5

Purdue University TOF Use of teaching and learning aids - - 75 25% 4 4.3 0.4

Purdue University TOF Overall Evaluation - 14 71 14% 7 4.0 0.5


Assessment 4 23



Acceptable Score

1.00-1.99

Acceptable Score

2.00-3.99

Proficient Score

4.00-5.99

Exemplary Score

6.00-7.00

# of Candidates

Mean SD


Subject matter coverage - - 6.7 93.3 15 6.5 0.6

Purdue University TOF Clarity of Teaching - - 23.5 76.5 17 6.2 0.8

Purdue University TOF Motivational techniques - - 35.3 64.7 17 5.7 0.7

Purdue University TOF Pace of instruction / Pedagogy Instructional Techniques

- - 47 52.9 17 5.6 1.0


student.

- - 30 70 10 5.7 1.0


- - 29.4 70.6 17 5.8 1.0



- - 5.9 94.1 17 6.6 0.6


(homework)

- - 50 50 4 5.8 0.8


- - 35.2 64.7 17 5.7 1.0

Purdue University TOF Emphasis on creativity - - 33.3 66.7 15 5.5 0.7

Assessment 4 24


objectives

- - 31.3 68.8 16 6.1 0.8

Purdue University TOF Use of teaching and learning aids / Appropriate use of classroom

technology

- - 85.7 14.3 7 4.4 0.7

Purdue University TOF Individual Learning Differences - - 90 10 10 5.9 0.5

Purdue University TOF Instructional Planning for Diverse Populations

- - 62.5 37.5 16 5.3 1.0

Purdue University TOF Overall Evaluation - - - 100 17 5.8 -

YEAR 2 PRACTICUM

Purdue University TOF Subject matter coverage - - 12.5 87.5 8 6.5 0.7

Purdue University TOF Clarity of Teaching - - 50 50 8 5.8 0.8

Purdue University TOF Motivational techniques - - 12.5 87.5 8 5.9 0.3


- - 37.5 62.5 8 5.6 0.9


student

- - - 100 3 6.3 0.5


- - 50 50 8 5.5 0.9



- - 12.5 87.5 8 6.5 0.7

Assessment 4 25


(homework)

- - 100 - 1 5 0


- - 37.5 62.5 8 6.0 0.9

Purdue University TOF Emphasis on creativity - - 60 40 5 5.4 1.0


objectives

- - 50 50 8 5.8 1.1


technology

- - 100 - 2 4.0 0

Purdue University TOF Individual Learning Differences - - 80 20 5 6.0 0.6


- - 100 - 6 5.8 0.4

Purdue University TOF Overall Evaluation - - - 100 8 5.9 -


Assessment 4 26

Table 4.8 DATA FORTHCOMING 2011-2012 Teacher Observation Form Ratings


Acceptable Score

1.00-1.99

Acceptable Score

2.00-3.99

Proficient Score

4.00-5.99

Exemplary Score

6.00-7.00

# of Candidates

Mean SD


Subject matter coverage

Purdue University TOF Clarity of Teaching

Purdue University TOF Motivational techniques



student.





(homework)


Assessment 4 27

Purdue University TOF Emphasis on creativity


objectives


technology

Purdue University TOF Individual Learning Differences


Purdue University TOF Overall Evaluation

YEAR 2 PRACTICUM

Purdue University TOF Subject matter coverage

Purdue University TOF Clarity of Teaching

Purdue University TOF Motivational techniques



student


Assessment 4 28




(homework)


Purdue University TOF Emphasis on creativity


objectives


technology

Purdue University TOF Individual Learning Differences


Purdue University TOF Overall Evaluation


Assessment 5 1

Assessment 5 Assessment of Student Learning Addresses COE unit standard # 5 EFFECTS ON STUDENT LEARNING: Assessment that demonstrates candidate effects on student learning.


The Assessment of Student Learning was developed by program faculty to assess candidate effects on student learning. Candidates implement informal and formal assessments of student learning in the supervised practicum setting, report on the assessments, and reflect on their practice.



The Assessment of Student Learning aligns with multiple outcomes from NAGC/CEC Standards 4, 7, 8, and 9; it also aligns with one outcome each from Standards 3 and 5. The Assessment of Student Learning was initiated in 2006-2007. Candidates are assessed on the following rubric dimensions which are aligned with the Standards:

• instructional strategies – preassessment of learning needs • assessment-uses, limitations, alternative types and technologies • individual learning differences-diverse perspectives • instructional strategies- management • instructional strategies – pedagogical content knowledge • learning environments and social interactions • instructional planning-plans, resources, and differentiated curricula • quality of teacher reflection on professional/ethical practice.

Table 5.1 below summarizes the alignment of specific NAGC/CEC knowledge and skill outcomes with the Assessment of Student Learning by criterion. Table 5.1 Alignment of NAGC/CEC Standards to Assessment of Student Learning

NAGC/CEC Standard Assessment Criterion Standard 3S1: Integrate perspectives of diverse groups into planning instruction for individuals with gifts and talents.

Individual Learning Differences – Diverse Perspectives

Standard 4S1: Apply pedagogical content knowledge to instructional learners with gifts and talents. Standard 4S3: Provide opportunities for individuals with gifts and talents to explore, develop, or research their areas of interest or

Instructional Strategies – Pedagogical Content and Interest-based

Assessment 5 2

talent. Standard 4S4: Pre-assess the learning needs of individuals with gifts and talents in various domains and adjust instruction based on continual assessment. Standard 4K2: Curricular, instructional, and management strategies effective for individuals with exceptional learning needs.

Instructional Strategies – Pre-Assessment Instructional Strategies – Management

Standard 5S3: Create safe learning environments for individuals with gifts and talents that encourage active participation in individual and group activities to enhance independence, and positive peer relationships.

Learning Environments and Social Interactions

Standard 7S2: Design differentiated learning plans for individuals with gifts and talents, including individuals from diverse background. Standard 7S4: Select curriculum resources, strategies, and product options that respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual differences among individuals with gifts and talents. Standard 7S5: Select and adapt a variety of differentiated curricula that incorporate advanced, conceptually challenging, in-depth, distinctive, and complex content.

Instructional Planning – plans, resources, and differentiated curricula

Standard 8K3: Uses and limitations of assessments documenting academic growth of individuals with gifts and talents. Standard 8S3: Develop differentiated curriculum-based assessments for use in instructional planning and delivery for individuals with gifts and talents Standard 8S4: Use alternative assessments and technologies to evaluate learning of individuals with gifts and talents.

Assessment – Uses, limitations, curriculum-based assessments, alternative assessments and technologies

Standard 9K1: Personal and cultural frames of reference that affect one’s teaching of individuals with gifts and talents, including biases about individuals from diverse backgrounds. Standard 9S1: Assess personal skills and limitations in teaching individuals with exceptional learning needs.

Professional and Ethical Practice – reflection on personal and cultural frames, skills, and limitations, and confidentiality

Assessment 5 3

Standard 9S2: Maintain confidential communication about individuals with gifts and talents. Standard 9S7: Reflect on personal practice to improve teaching and guide professional growth in gifted and talented education.

3. Provide a brief analysis of the data findings. The Assessment of Student Learning Results details the percentage of candidate scores across criteria as well as the means and standard deviations associated with these scores for 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010; 2010-2011; 2011-2012. In 2006-2007, 77% or more of the candidates scored at the Proficient or exemplary level across all criteria; 23% of candidates still need improvement in at least one area. In 2007-2008, 70% of candidates scored at the Proficient or exemplary level across all criteria; 30% of candidates still need improvement in at least one area. In 2008-2009, 74% of candidates scored at the Proficient or exemplary level across all criteria; 41% of candidates still need improvement in at least one area. In 2009-2010, 78% of the candidates scored at the Proficient or exemplary level across all criteria; 22% of candidates still need improvement in at least one area. In 2010-2011, 88% of the candidates scored at the Proficient or exemplary level across all criteria; 11% of candidates still need improvement in at least one area. In 2011-2012, 89% of the candidates scored at the Proficient or exemplary level across all criteria; 11% of candidates still need improvement in at least one area.

4. Provide an interpretation of how these data provide evidence for meeting standards.

Candidates consistently scored highest with the rubric criterion Instructional Strategies-Preassessment and Learning Environments and Social Interactions. On the rubric criterion aligned with Instructional Strategies-Preassessment, 92% of candidates in 2006-2007 scored Proficient or better; in 2007-2008, a full 100% of candidates scored Proficient or better, with a still impressive 96% of candidates scoring Proficient or better in 2008-2009; 81% of candidates in 2009-2010; and 91% of candidates scoring Proficient or better in 2010-2011. From 2006-2011, on the rubric criterion aligned with Learning Environments and Social Interactions, 92% of candidates in 2006-2007, 94% of candidates in 2007-2008, 89% of candidates in 2008-2009; 84% of candidates in 2009-2010; and 97% of candidates scored Proficient or better in 2010-2011. In 2011-2012, 100% of candidates scored Proficient or better with the rubric criterion Instructional Strategies-Preassessment and Learning Environments and Social Interactions. Nevertheless, there are candidates who need improvement. Across recent years from 2007-2010, faculty considered the lowest performance in the areas of Individual Learning Differences and Quality of Teacher Reflection. While these figures are likely the result of a large cohort with great variation and 1 or 2 low-scoring candidates, the program faculty revisited the assessment and its accompanying assignments to provide additional guidance to the struggling candidates in the next practica cycle. In 2010-2011, candidates

Assessment 5 4

improved on the criterions of Individual Learning Differences with 94% of candidates and Quality of Teacher Reflection with 88% of candidates scoring Proficient or better. In 2011-2012, 88% scored Proficient or better on Quality of Teacher Reflection and 92% scored Proficient or better on Individual Learning Differences. Overall, the results provide evidence for meeting NAGC/CEC Standards 3S1, 4K2, 4S1, 4S3, 4S4, 5S3, 7S2, 7S4, 7S5, 8K3, 8S3, 8S4, and 9K1, 9S1, 9S2, and 9S7.


(a) the assessment tool or description of the assignment; (b) the scoring guide for the assessment; and (c) candidate data derived from the assessment. (a) The assignment description can be found below, and is titled, Assessment of Student

Learning Assignment. (b) The scoring rubric can be found immediately following the assignment description and is

titled, Assessment of Student Learning NAGC-CEC Teacher Knowledge and Skill Standards Rubric.

(c) The candidate data are reported in Tables 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 immediately following the rubric and are titled, (Year) Assessment of Student Learning Results.

(a) Description of the Assignment (Assessment 5, Question # 5A)

Assessment of Student Learning Assignment

Overview As a reflective teacher, we want to focus on gifted students’ needs and our own personal skills, limitations, and cultural frames of reference that affect our practice. One way to reflect is to administer pretests and posttests to determine what gifted students don’t know. If students already know the information we are planning to teach, there is no reason to deliver that instruction again. The pretest documents areas of strength for students as well as areas of weaknesses. We can adjust our instruction to fit the needs of our gifted students, spending little time on content these students have mastered and more time on content and skills the students need next. Instruction, then, is driven by student need. Responding to student need means that we should have flexibility in our lesson plans. If you have to change lessons plans based on the results of the pretest or posttest, then change the plans. At all times, we are to provide a supportive environment for gifted students. This is done in part by pretesting and post-testing using multiple strategies that focus on key concepts found in the critical knowledge base, articulating the criteria for teaching and assessment strategy selection, and creating equitable, caring, and productive learning environments. We should also use a variety of formal and informal assessments and use this information to adjust future lesson plans.

Assessment 5 5

Instructions During the field experiences in the classroom setting, you need to do multiple pre/post student learning assessments. Choose one of these assessments to be submitted to Chalk and Wire. Document each step you take in the process. Pretest your gifted students, adjust your lesson plans according to the outcome of the pretest (formal assessment) and formative evaluations (usually informal assessments), and then posttest (formal assessment). You need to use the same assessment for the posttest as you used for the pretest. The following artifacts go into Chalk and Wire.

• A table listing each objective and standard met • Pre/post assessment (this should be the same document) • Original lesson plan • Revised lesson plan • Graphic or tabled representation of the class results on the pre/post assessment

(aggregated data) • Written reflection on

o the type of assessment you selected o the results o how you adjusted lesson plans based on the results o why you chose the assessment strategy that you chose o the type of informal assessments you used and how you adjusted instruction

because of the formative evaluations o how these data will affect future lesson plans for this curriculum unit o how you created an equitable, caring, and productive learning environment o how your personal frames of reference affect your teaching of individuals with

gifts and talents, including your biases about individuals from diverse backgrounds or with exceptional learning needs

• Several representative student artifacts (pre and post) with names deleted to ensure that you maintain confidential communication about individuals with gifts and talents

Grading

Your Assessment of Student Learning will be graded using the following 4-point scale: Level 1- Not acceptable Level 2- Acceptable Level 3- Proficient Level 4- Exemplary For detailed information about the 4-point grading scale for each of the criteria for this assignment, see the Assessment of Student Learning Rubric found in the Electronic Management System, Chalk and Wire. (b) Assessment of Student Learning Rubric (Assessment 5, Question #5b)

Assessment 5 6

Assessment of Student Learning NAGC-CEC

Teacher Knowledge and Skill Standards Rubric

Criterion 1 Instructional Strategies- Pre-Assessment 4S4 NAGC/CEC Standard 4S4: Pre-assess the learning needs of individuals with gifts and talents in various domains and adjust instruction based on continual assessment. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Pre-assessment of learning needs of individuals with gifts and talents in various domains is not evident.

Level 2 Acceptable

Pre-assessment of learning needs of individuals with gifts and talents in some domains is somewhat evident. It is unknown if adjustments to instruction are based on continual assessment.

Level 3 Proficient

Pre-assessment of learning needs of individuals with gifts and talents in various domains is evident. Some adjustments to instruction are based on continual assessment.

Level 4 Exemplary

Pre-assessment of learning needs of individuals with gifts and talents in various domains is exemplary. Adjustments to instruction are clearly based on continual assessment.

Criterion 2 Assessment- 8K3, 8S3, 8S4 – Uses, limitations, alternative

technologies NAGC/CEC Standard 8K3: Uses and limitations of assessments documenting academic growth of individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standard 8S3: Develop differentiated curriculum-based assessments for use in instructional planning and delivery for individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standard 8S4: Use alternative assessments and technologies to evaluate learning of individuals with gifts and talents. Level 1 Not Acceptable

There is no evidence of differentiated curriculum-based assessments for use in instructional planning and delivery for individuals with gifts and talents.

Level 2 Acceptable

There is some evidence of differentiated curriculum-based assessments for use in instructional planning and delivery for individuals with gifts and talents.

Level 3 Proficient

There is evidence of curriculum-based assessments, their uses and limitations in instructional planning, delivery and evaluation, including alternate assessments and technologies, for individuals with gifts and talents.

Level 4 Exemplary

There is exemplary evidence throughout of differentiated curriculum-based assessments for use in instructional planning and delivery for individuals with gifts and talents.

Criterion 3 Individual Learning Differences- 3S1 – Diverse Perspectives NAGC/CEC Standard 3S1: Integrate perspectives of diverse groups into planning

Assessment 5 7

instruction for individuals with gifts and talents. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Instructional planning does not include perspectives of diverse groups with individual gifts and talents.

Level 2 Acceptable

Instructional planning minimally includes perspectives of diverse groups with individual gifts and talents.

Level 3 Proficient

Instructional planning includes perspectives of diverse groups with individual gifts and talents.

Level 4 Exemplary

Instructional planning clearly includes multiple perspectives of diverse groups with individual gifts and talents.

Criterion 4 Instructional Strategies- Management 4K2 NAGC/CEC Standard 4K2: Curricular, instructional, and management strategies effective for individuals with exceptional learning needs.


Curricular, instructional, and management strategies effective for individuals with exceptional learning needs are not evident.

Level 2 Acceptable

At least one (but not all) curricular, instructional and management strategies are effective for individuals with exceptional learning needs.

Level 3 Proficient

At least two (but not all) curricular, instructional and management strategies are effective for individuals with exceptional learning needs.

Level 4 Exemplary

All curricular, instructional and management strategies are effective for individuals with exceptional learning needs.

Criterion 5 Instructional Strategies- Pedagogical Content and Interest-

based Opportunities 4S1, 4S3 NAGC/CEC Standard 4S1: Apply pedagogical content knowledge to instructing learners with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standard 4S3: Provide opportunities for individuals with gifts and talents to explore, develop, or research their areas of interest or talent. Level 1 Not Acceptable

There is no evidence of application of pedagogical content knowledge to instructing learners. There is no evidence of opportunities for individuals to explore, develop, or research their areas of interest or talent.

Level 2 Acceptable

There is some evidence of the application of content knowledge to instructing learners with gifts and talents. There is some evidence of opportunities for individuals to explore, develop, or research their areas of interest or talent.

Assessment 5 8

Level 3 Proficient

There is evidence of the application of content knowledge to instructing learners with gifts and talents. There is evidence of opportunities for individuals to explore, develop, or research their areas of interest or talent.

Level 4 Exemplary

There is clear evidence of the application of content knowledge to instructing learners with gifts and talents. There is clear evidence of opportunities for individuals to explore, develop, or research their areas of interest or talent.

Criterion 6 Learning Environments and Social Interactions- 5S3 NAGC/CEC Standard 5S3: Create safe learning environments for individuals with gifts and talents that encourage active participation in individual and group activities to enhance independence, and positive peer relationships.


The learning environment does not encourage active participation in individual and group activities to enhance independence, and positive peer relationships.

Level 2 Acceptable

The learning environment minimally encourages active participation in individual and group activities to enhance independence, and positive peer relationships.

Level 3 Proficient

The learning environment encourages active participation in individual and group activities to enhance independence, and positive peer relationships.

Level 4 Exemplary

The learning environment clearly encourages active participation in individual and group activities to enhance independence, and positive peer relationships.

Criterion 7 Instructional Planning- 7S2, 7S4, 7S5 – Plans, Resources,

Differentiated Curricula NAGC/CEC Standard 7S2: Design differentiated learning plans for individuals with gifts and talents, including individuals from diverse background. NAGC/CEC Standard 7S4: Select curriculum resources, strategies, and product options that respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual differences among individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standard 7S5: Select and adapt a variety of differentiated curricula that incorporate advanced, conceptually challenging, in-depth, distinctive, and complex content. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Differentiated learning plans are not evident. Curriculum resources, strategies, and product options do not respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual differences among individuals with gifts and talents.

Level 2 Acceptable

Differentiated learning plans are somewhat evident. Curriculum resources, strategies, and product options minimally respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual differences among individuals

Assessment 5 9

with gifts and talents.

Level 3 Proficient

Differentiated learning plans are evident. Curriculum resources, strategies, and product options respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual differences among individuals with gifts and talents.

Level 4 Exemplary

Differentiated learning plans are clearly evident. Curriculum resources, strategies, and product options clearly respond to cultural, linguistic, and intellectual differences among individuals with gifts and talents. A variety of differentiated curricula that incorporate advanced, conceptually challenging, in-depth, distinctive, and complex content are evident.

Criterion 8 Quality of Teacher Reflection on Professional and Ethical Practice-Standard 9K1, 9S1, 9S2, 9S7

NAGC/CEC Standard 9K1: Personal and cultural frames of reference that affect one’s teaching of individuals with gifts and talents, including biases about individuals from diverse backgrounds. NAGC/CEC Standard 9S1: Assess personal skills and limitations in teaching individuals with exceptional learning needs. NAGC/CEC Standard 9S2: Maintain confidential communication about individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standard 9S7: Reflect on personal practice to improve teaching and guide professional growth in gifted and talented education. Level 1 Not Acceptable

There is no evidence of reflection on personal practices (e.g. skills, limitations, professional growth, and biases), sensitivity to diversity, and maintaining ethical standards.

Level 2 Minimally Acceptable

There is minimal evidence of reflection on personal practices (e.g. skills, limitations, professional growth, and biases), sensitivity to diversity, and maintaining ethical standards.

Level 3 Proficient

There is evidence of reflection indicating on personal practices (e.g. skills, limitations, professional growth, and biases), sensitivity to diversity, and maintaining ethical standards.

Level 4 Exemplary

There is clear evidence of exemplary reflection on personal practices (e.g. skills, limitations, professional growth, and biases), sensitivity to diversity, and maintaining ethical standards.

Assessment 5 10

(c) Candidate Data (Assessment 5, Question #5c) Table 5.2 2006-2007 Assessment of Student Learning Results *Percentages indicate candidates at each performance level.

Criterion

Scores 1.00-1.99

unsatisfactory

Scores 2.00-2.99

acceptable

Scores 3.00-3.99

proficient

Scores 4.0

exemplary

N Mean SD

Instructional Strategies-Pre-assess

- 8% 38% 54% 13 3.5 0.6

Assessment - 8% 54% 38% 13 3.3 0.6

Individual Learning Differences

- 23% 23% 54% 13 3.3 0.8

Instructional Strategies- Management

8% 15% 15% 62% 13 3.3 1.0

Instructional Strategies- Pedagogical Content Knowledge

- 15% 31% 54% 13 3.4 0.7


- 8% - 92% 13 3.8 0.5

Instructional Planning - 15% 31% 54% 13 3.4 0.7

Quality of Teacher Reflection

- 15% 31% 54% 13 3.4 0.7

*Note: The assessment has four levels of rating: 1 (unsatisfactory), 2 (acceptable), 3 (proficient), and 4 (exemplary).

Assessment 5 11

Table 5.3 2007-2008 Assessment of Student Learning Results *Percentages indicate candidates at each performance level.

Criterion

Scores 1.00-1.99

unsatisfactory

Scores 2.00-2.99

acceptable

Scores 3.00-3.99

proficient

Scores 4.0

exemplary

N Mean SD


- - 24% 76% 37 3.8 0.4

Assessment 3% 11% 49% 38% 37 3.2 0.7


5% 14% 30% 51% 37 3.3 0.9


5% 3% 35% 57% 37 3.4 0.8


3% 8% 27% 62% 37 3.5 0.8


3% 3% 24% 70% 37 3.6 0.7

Instructional Planning 5% 8% 27% 59% 37 3.4 0.9


11% 19% 30% 41% 37 3.0 1.0


Assessment 5 12


Criterion

Scores 1.00-1.99

unsatisfactory

Scores 2.00-2.99

acceptable

Scores 3.00-3.99

proficient

Scores 4.0

exemplary

N Mean SD


4% 26% 70% 27 3.7 0.5

Assessment 4% 11% 52% 33% 27 3.1 0.8


7% 19% 41% 33% 27 3.0 0.9


7% 4% 48% 41% 27 3.2 0.8


4% 15% 33% 48% 27 3.3 0.8


4% 7% 33% 56% 27 3.4 0.8



15% 26% 37% 22% 27 2.7 1.0


Assessment 5 13


Criterion

Scores 1.00-1.99

unsatisfactory

Scores 2.00-2.99

acceptable

Scores 3.00-3.99

proficient

Scores 4.0

exemplary

N Mean SD


- 13% 23% 65% 31 3.5 0.7

Assessment - 19% 32% 48% 31 3.3 0.8


16% 13% 39% 32% 31 2.9 1.0


6% 13% 32% 48% 31 3.2 0.9


- 19% 26% 55% 31 3.4 0.8


3% 13% 26% 58% 31 3.4 0.8



10% 29% 23% 39% 31 2.9 1.0


Assessment 5 14


Criterion

Scores 1.00-1.99

unsatisfactory

Scores 2.00-2.99

acceptable

Scores 3.00-3.99

proficient

Scores 4.0

exemplary

N Mean SD


- 8% 21% 70% 61 3.6 0.7

Assessment - 5% 33% 62% 61 3.6 0.6


- 7% 38% 56% 61 3.5 0.6


2% 3% 26% 69% 61 3.6 0.7


- 5% 23% 72% 61 3.7 0.6


2% 2% 23% 74% 61 3.7 0.7



3% 8% 31% 57% 61 3.4 0.7


Assessment 5 15


Criterion

Scores 1.00-1.99 unsatisfactory

Scores 2.00-2.99 acceptable

Scores 3.00-3.99 proficient

Scores 4.0 exemplary

N Mean SD


- - 7.7% 92.3% 26 3.9 .3

Assessment - - 23.1% 76.9% 26 3.8 .4


- 7.7% 46.2% 46.2% 26 3.4 .6


- 3.8% 15.4% 80.8% 26 3.8 .5


- - 30.8% 69.2% 26 3.7 .5


- - 23.1% 76.9% 26 3.8 .4

Instructional Planning

- 7.7% 38.5% 53.8% 26 3.5 .6


7.7% 3.8% 34.6% 53.8% 26 3.3 .9


Assessment 6 1

Assessment #6 GATE Case Analysis Assessment Addresses COE unit standard # 6 ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT THAT ADDRESSES NAGC/CEC STANDARDS


The GATE Case Analysis is an extensive project based on specific outcomes from eight NAGC/CEC Standards. In the first course, GATE 7350 Introduction to Gifted and Talented, candidates are presented with a complex and ambiguous case about a culturally diverse student. Over the course of the semester, candidates revisit the case as they are exposed to content which helps them to analyze the case and develop a plan for the student.

2. Provide a description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it is cited for in Section III.

This assessment specifically aligns with NAGC/CEC Standards 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10. Although the case analysis scenario, “Helping Juan” has been in place since 2005, the detailed assessment based on the new NAGC/CEC standards was implemented in 2006. Candidates are assessed on their knowledge and skills in the following areas: • cognitive/affective characteristics • developmental milestones and idiosyncratic patterns • comparison with general population • effects on culture • diversity factors, including language • beliefs, traditions, values • communication • effects of the dominant culture • anti-intellectualism • family in talent development • learning environments to foster social/emotional development • pre-assessment and identification processes • learning plan, including academic/career guidance • collaboration with family members, other educators, community members,

and advocates.

Table 6.1 aligns the case analysis assessment and the NAGC/CEC standards.

Assessment 6 2

Table 6.1 Alignment of NAGC/CEC Standards to Case Analysis Criteria

NAGC/CEC Standard Assessment Criterion 2K1: Cognitive and affective characteristics of individuals with gifts and talents, including those from diverse backgrounds, in intellectual, academic, creative, leadership, and artistic domains. 3K2: Academic and affective characteristics and learning needs of individuals with gifts, talents, and disabilities.

Cognitive / Affective Characteristics

2K4: Advanced developmental milestones of individuals with gifts and talents from early childhood through adolescence. 3K3: Idiosyncratic learning patterns of individuals with gifts and talents, including those from diverse backgrounds.

Developmental Milestones and Idiosyncratic Patterns

2K5: Similarities and differences within the group of individuals with gifts and talents as compared to the general population.

Comparison with General Population

2K2: Characteristics and effects of culture and environment on the development of individuals with gifts and talents.

Effects of Culture

3K1: Influences of diversity factors on individuals with exceptional learning needs. 6K2: Impact of diversity on communication. 6K3: Implications of culture, behavior, language on the development of individuals with gifts and talents.

Diversity Factors, Including Language

3K4: Influences of different beliefs, traditions, and values across and within diverse groups on relationships among individuals with gifts and talents, their families, schools, and communities.

Beliefs, Traditions, Values

6K1: Forms and methods of communication essential to the education of individuals with gifts and talents, including those from diverse backgrounds.

Communication

1K5: Impact of the dominant culture’s role in shaping schools and the differences in values, languages, and customs between school and home.

Dominant Culture

1K6: Societal, cultural, and economic factors, including anti-intellectualism and equity versus excellence, enhancing or inhibiting the

Anti-intellectualism

Assessment 6 3

development of gifts and talents. 2K3: Role of families and communities in supporting the development of individuals with gifts and talents.

Family in Talent Development

5K1: Ways in which groups are stereotyped and experience historical and current discrimination and implications for gifted and talented education. 5K2: Influence of social and emotional development on interpersonal relationships and learning of individuals with gifts and talents. 5S1: Design learning opportunities for individuals with gifts and talents that promote self-awareness, positive peer relationships, intercultural experiences, and leadership. 5S2: Create learning environments for individuals with gifts and talents that encourage active participation in individual and group activities to enhance independence, and positive peer relationships. 5S3: Create safe learning environments for individuals with gifts and talents that encourage active participation in individual and group activities to enhance independence, interdependence, and positive peer relationships. 5S4: Create learning environments and intercultural experiences that allow individuals with gifts and talents to appreciate their own and others’ language and cultural heritage. 5S5: Develop social interaction and coping skills in individuals with gifts and talents to address personal and social issues, including discrimination and stereotyping.

Learning Environments to Foster Social/Emotional Development

4S4: Pre-assess the learning needs of individuals with gifts and talents in various domains and adjust instruction based on continual assessment.

Pre-assessment

7S2: Design differentiated learning plans for individuals with gifts and talents, including individuals from diverse backgrounds. 7S6: Integrate academic and career guidance experiences into the learning plan for individuals with gifts and talents.

Learning Plan, Including Academic/Career Guidance

10K1: Culturally responsive behaviors that promote effective communication and

Collaboration with Family Members, Other

Assessment 6 4

collaboration with individuals with gifts and talents, their families, school personnel, and community members. 10S1: Respond to concerns of families of individuals with gifts and talents. 10S2: Collaborate with stakeholders outside of the school setting who serve individuals with exceptional learning needs and their families. 10S3: Advocate for the benefit of individuals with gifts and talents and their families. 10S4: Collaborate with individuals with gifts and talents, their families, general, and special educators, and other school staff to articulate a comprehensive preschool through secondary educational plan. 10S5: Collaborate with families, community members, and professionals in assessment of individuals with gifts and talents.

Educators, Community Members, Advocates


The Case Analysis Results are disaggregated for 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012. They are found in the Tables 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6 , 6.7 which summarize the percentage of candidate scores across criteria as well as the means and standard deviations associated with these scores. In 2006-2007, candidates scored highest in Pre-Assessment and Collaboration; in 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, those two criteria again produced the highest ratings at the Exemplary level. However, there was considerable growth across all criteria from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011. More than 80% of candidates scored at the Acceptable level across all criteria in 2008-2009. In addition, ten criteria had at least 90% of 2008-2009 candidates scoring Proficient or better. In 2009-2010, more than 88% of candidates scored Proficient or better. In 2010-2011, 87% of candidates scored Proficient or better. Analyzing the data across years, candidates have shown significant improvement across all criteria. These results are gratifying since the case analysis is a very challenging assignment and assessment for candidates who are just entering the program. In 2011-2012, candidates scored the highest in Cognitive/Affective Characteristics, Diversity Factors, Effects of Culture, and Pre-assessment. In addition, 74% of candidates scored Proficient or better. In 2010-2011, no candidates scored at the unacceptable level in terms of overall scores. One candidate did score unacceptable on the criterion, Assessment of student learning. And, once again, in 2010-2011, the criterion of Anti-intellectualism produced the greatest number of unacceptable ratings, 4 individuals or 8% of those completing the case analysis. Lower scores on this

Assessment 6 5

criterion have been a consistent finding in more than one year. Although there are three readings which address anti-intellectualism in the introductory course, greater attention is needed. The classic research study by Tannenbaum on anti-intellectualism among adolescents should be added to course readings. A surprising result in 2010-2011 is the lower number of Exemplary ratings for the criterion, Learning environments to foster social and emotional development. A review of the course syllabus for the Affective Needs course should be undertaken in the coming year. Finally, the greatest percentage of ratings at the Exemplary level were on the criteria related to Culture, Diversity, and Collaboration with family members. These Exemplary scores are extremely gratifying as the case analysis was specifically constructed to focus on talent development in a culturally diverse child. In 2011-2012, 11% scored not acceptable on Anti-Intellectualism. Lower scores on this criterion have been a consistent finding in more than one year. Although there are three readings which address anti-intellectualism in the introductory course, greater attention is needed. The only unacceptable scores came from criteria related to Communication, Anti-intellectualism, Family in talent development, and Learning environments to foster social/emotional development. The greatest percentages of ratings at the exemplary level were on the criteria related to Cognitive/Affective Characteristics, Diversity Factors, Effects of Culture, and Pre-assessment.

4. Provide an interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting

standards. In 2011-2012, candidates scored the highest in criteria related to Cognitive/Affective Characteristics, Diversity Factors, Effects of Culture, and Pre-assessment. In 2010-2011 candidates score high in the following four criterion areas: Culture Diversity, Collaboration with family members, and Pre-Assessment. In 2009-2010, candidates scored high in the following two criterion areas: Cognitive/Affective Characteristics and Collaboration with family members, other educators, community members, advocates. Likewise, in 2008-2009, candidates scored relatively high in the following three areas: Cognitive/Affective Characteristics, Pre-Assessment, and Collaboration with Family Members, Other Educators, Community Members, Advocates. The majority of candidates are Proficient or Exemplary in these critical criteria aligned with Standard 2 Development and Characteristics, Standard 3 Individual Learning Differences and Standard 4 Instructional Strategies, i.e. Pre-assessment. Analyzing the data across multiple years, candidates have shown significant improvement across all criteria. This is in part due to faculty focusing on areas needing particular attention. Faculty hope to continue the trend of increased performance by providing candidates with additional reading materials related to the lowest

Assessment 6 6

scoring criterion, Anti-intellectualism. Candidate scores provide evidence for meeting Standards 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10.


(a) the assessment tool or description of the assignment; (b) the scoring guide for the assessment; and

(c) candidate data derived from the assessment. (a) The GATE Case Analysis description, Helping Juan: Meeting the Needs of the

High Ability Learner, is found below. (b) The GATE Case Analysis rubric follows the assignment description below and is

titled Case Analysis Rubric. (c) The candidate data are reported in Tables 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5 immediately

following the rubric and are titled (Year) GATE Case Analysis Results.

Assessment 6 7

(a) Description of the Assignment (Assessment 6, Question # 5a)

Helping Juan: Meeting the Needs of the High Ability Learner Case analysis for GATE 7350

Juan is acting out in his 4th grade classroom. His classroom teacher, Mrs. Bryant, notes that he alternates between dreamy, withdrawn episodes and angry outbursts during seat work sessions, particularly in mathematics. She is particularly concerned because Juan is viewed as a leader by several of his peers. Both boys and girls in the class seek Juan out during group work to get his help on problems in math and to find information in reference sources during library time. Mrs. Bryant does not want students to model after his angry episodes.

According to the school counselor, Mrs. Lopez, Juan comes from a bilingual home. His parents speak both English and Spanish, but prefer Spanish. Juan’s grandmother, who lives in the home, speaks Spanish exclusively. The counselor notes that Juan takes the lead in communicating for his parents whenever they come to the school and will translate from English to Spanish for them on the spot. She also noted that Juan tends to fill out his own forms and asks his parents to sign “on the dotted line.” Juan has one younger sister, Carmelita, who has just entered first grade, and is also fluent in both languages. Juan is an omnivorous reader and chooses non-fiction whenever given the choice. His last selection from the library was a biography of Edmund Halley. Mrs. Bryant “caught” him drawing his own illustrations to Halley’s biography. At the request of the counselor and the teacher, Juan was nominated for the services offered to high ability learners in the districts. A norm-referenced test battery, the SAT-9, resulted in an overall composite in the 97th percentile using national norms. His reading scores were in the 99th percentile, his language composite (which includes spelling and grammar) was in the 89th percentile, and his math problem solving was again in the 99th. A writing sample was scored as about average for his grade level except for his use of advanced vocabulary words. He holds a pencil awkwardly. Based on his high achievement scores, additional testing was undertaken with an individually administered aptitude test. On the WISC-R, Juan received a 140 Performance IQ, a 125 Verbal IQ and an overall IQ of 135 with a standard error of plus or minus 4 points. One characteristic of a case is that the information presented may be ambiguous. Life in the classroom is never simple; neither is this case. After reading the information above, we will discuss the following questions. Tonight, our discussion will begin your thinking about Juan, his school and his family. Over the semester, your course readings will continue to inform your thinking about this case. You are also encouraged to retrieve additional information outside class discussions and course readings that will enrich your understanding of “Helping Juan.”

Assessment 6 8

What is going on in this case?

What are some of the issues in this case?

What else would you like to know?

About Juan?

About Juan’s family?

About Juan’s school experience?

What additionally, specific information would be helpful?

How do we get it?

What should be done to help Juan?

Case Analysis Instructions

Instructions to Student:

Write a case analysis based on the information from the case, “Helping Juan.” Your case should include material from your textbook, information from class discussion about the case, and additional readings from journal resources you select and secure on your own. The case should be written as a “flowing narrative” with subheadings to guide the reader. A thorough case analysis will be 6 to 8 pages in length and will include references. Finally, your case should address the elements in the rubric found in the Electronic Management System, Chalk and Wire.

**Note to Course Instructor

The case has been constructed so that multiple approaches are possible; however, key issues should be revisited in class discussions as these issues are crucial to understanding this case. In responding to “Helping Juan,” candidates must address issues of diversity, including language and communication, collaboration with the family and community to develop a plan for this gifted learner, and must acknowledge the possibility of acceleration as a program option for Juan. The course syllabus includes training on the Iowa Acceleration Scale, so candidates should connect this knowledge and these skills to this case. It will be necessary for the instructor to lead candidates to the small, but important literature by Guadalupe Valdes on children and adolescents who serve as translators for their families.

Assessment 6 9

(b) Case Analysis Rubric (Assessment 6, Question #5b)

Criterion 1 Cognitive/ Affective characteristics (2K1 & 3K2) NAGC/CEC Standard 2 - K1.: Cognitive and affective characteristics of individuals with gifts and talents, including those from diverse backgrounds, in intellectual, academic, create leadership, and artistic domains. NAGC/CEC Standard 3 - K2.: Academic and affective characteristics and learning needs of individuals with gifts, talents, and disabilities. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Relevant characteristics NOT considered.

Level 2 Acceptable

Three relevant characteristics identified and described.

Level 3 Proficient

Three relevant characteristics identified, described and linked to the literature.

Level 4 Exemplary

More than three relevant characteristics identified, described and linked to the literature and theory.

Criterion 2 Development milestones & idiosyncratic patters (2K4 & 3K3) NAGC/CEC Standard 2 - K4.: Advanced development milestones of individuals with gifts and talents from early childhood through adolescence. NAGC/CEC Standard 3 - K3.: Idiosyncratic learning patterns of individuals with gifts and talents, including those from diverse backgrounds. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Developmental and idiosyncratic patterns NOT identified.

Level 2 Acceptable

Developmental and idiosyncratic patterns discussed.

Level 3 Proficient

Developmental and idiosyncratic patterns discussed/ linked to the literature.

Level 4 Exemplary

Developmental and idiosyncratic patterns discussed/ linked to the literature and theory.

Criterion 3 Comparison with general population (2K5) NAGC/CEC Standard 2 - K5.: Similarities and differences within the group of individuals with gifts and talents as compared to the general population. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Similarities/differences NOT considered.

Level 2 Acceptable

Similarities/differences identified and described.

Level 3 Proficient

Similarities/differences identified and described and linked to the literature.

Assessment 6 10

Level 4 Exemplary

Similarities/differences identified and described and linked to the literature and to theory.

Criterion 4 Effects of Culture (2K2) NAGC/CEC Standard 2 - K2.: Characteristics and effects of culture and environment on the development of individuals with gifts and talents. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Effects of culture NOT considered.

Level 2 Acceptable

Effects of culture considered.

Level 3 Proficient

Effects of culture considered and linked to the literature.

Level 4 Exemplary

Effects of culture considered and linked to the literature and to theory.

Criterion 5 Diversity factors, including language (3K1, 6K2, 6K3) NAGC/CEC Standard 3 - K1.: Influences of diversity factors on individuals with exceptional learning needs. NAGC/CEC Standard 6 - K2.: Impact of diversity on communication. NAGC/CEC Standard 6 - K3.: Implications of culture, behavior, and language on the development of individuals with gifts and talents. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Effects of diversity on communication NOT considered.

Level 2 Acceptable

Effects of diversity on communication considered.

Level 3 Proficient

Effects of diversity on communication considered and linked to the literature.

Level 4 Exemplary

Effects of diversity on communication considered and linked to the literature and to theory.

Criterion 6 Beliefs, traditions, values (3K4) NAGC/CEC Standard 3 - K4.: Influences of different beliefs, traditions, and values across and within diverse groups on relationships among individuals with gifts and talents, their families, schools, and communities. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Differing beliefs, traditions, values NOT considered.

Level 2 Acceptable

Differing beliefs, traditions, values considered.

Level 3 Proficient

Differing beliefs, traditions, values considered and linked to the literature.

Level 4 Exemplary

Differing beliefs, traditions, values considered and linked to the literature and to theory.

Assessment 6 11

Criterion 7 Communication (6K1) NAGC/CEC Standard 6 - K1.: Forms and methods of communication essential to the education of individuals with gifts and talents, including those from diverse backgrounds. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Methods of communication NOT considered.

Level 2 Acceptable

Methods of communication considered.

Level 3 Proficient

Methods of communication considered and linked to the literature.

Level 4 Exemplary

Methods of communication considered and linked to the literature and to theory.

Criterion 8 Dominant culture (1K5) NAGC/CEC Standard 1 - K5.: Impact of the dominant culture's role in shaping schools and the differences in values, languages, and customs between school and home. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Impact of dominant culture on school and home NOT considered.

Level 2 Acceptable

Impact of dominant culture on school and home considered.

Level 3 Proficient

Impact of dominant culture on school and home considered and linked to the literature.

Level 4 Exemplary

Impact of dominant culture on school and home considered and linked to the literature and to theory.

Criterion 9 Anti-intellectualism (1K6) NAGC/CEC Standard1-K6: Societal, cultural, and economic factors, including anti-intellectualism and equity versus excellence, enhancing or inhibiting the development of gifts and talents. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Impact of societal values, especially anti-intellectualism NOT considered.

Level 2 Acceptable

Impact of societal values, especially anti-intellectualism considered.

Level 3 Proficient

Impact of societal values, especially anti-intellectualism considered and linked to the literature.

Level 4 Exemplary

Impact of societal values, especially anti-intellectualism considered and linked to the literature and to historical foundations.

Criterion 10 Family in talent development (2K3) NAGC/CEC Standard 2 - K3: Role of families and communities in supporting the development of individuals with gifts and talents. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Role of families/communities in talent development NOT considered.

Assessment 6 12

Level 2 Acceptable

Role of families/communities in talent development considered.

Level 3 Proficient

Role of families/communities in talent development considered and linked to the literature.

Level 4 Exemplary

Role of families/communities in talent development considered and linked to the literature in at least two ways.

Criterion 11 Learning environments to foster social/ emotional development

(5K1,5K2,5S1,5S2,5S3,5S4,5S5) NAGC/CEC Standard 5 - K1.: Ways in which groups are stereotyped and experience historical and current discrimination and implications for gifted and talented education. NAGC/CEC Standard 5 - K2.: Influence of social and emotional development on interpersonal relationships and learning of individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standard 5 - S1.: Design learning opportunities for individuals with gifts and talents that promote self-awareness, positive peer relationships, intercultural experiences, and leadership. NAGC/CEC Standard 5 - S2.: Create learning environments for individuals with gifted and talents that promote self-awareness, self-efficacy, leadership, and lifelong learning. NAGC/CEC Standard 5 - S3.: Create safe learning environments for individuals with gifts and talents that encourage active participation in individual and group activities to enhance independence, interdependence, and positive peer relationships. NAGC/CEC Standard 5 - S4.: Create learning environments and intercultural experiences that allow individuals with gifts and talents to appreciate their own and others’ language and cultural heritage. NAGC/CEC Standard 5 - S5.: Develop social interaction and coping skills in individuals with gifts and talents to address personal and social issues, including discrimination and stereotyping. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Role of learning environments on social/emotional development NOT considered.

Level 2 Acceptable

Role of learning environments on social/emotional development considered.

Level 3 Proficient

Role of learning environments on social/emotional development considered and linked to the literature.

Level 4 Exemplary

Role of learning environments on social/emotional development considered and linked to the literature and to theory.

Criterion 12 Pre-assessment (4S4) and Identification Processes (8K1, 8K2) NAGC/CEC Standard 4 - S4: Pre-assess the learning needs of individuals with gifts and talents in various domains and adjust instruction based on continual assessment. NAGC/CEC Standard 8 - K1: Processes and procedures for the identification of individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standard 8 – K2: Uses, limitations, and interpretation of multiple

Assessment 6 13

assessments in different domains for identifying individuals with exceptional learning needs, including those from diverse backgrounds. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Pre-assessment of learning needs and identification processes NOT considered.

Level 2 Acceptable

Pre-assessment strategies of learning needs and identification processes identified.

Level 3 Proficient

Pre-assessment of learning needs and identification processes identified and tied to two specific assessments.

Level 4 Exemplary

Pre-assessment of learning needs and identification processes identified and tied to at least three assessments, including one formal and one informal assessment.

Criterion 13 Learning plan, including academic/ career guidance (7S2, 7S6) NAGC/CEC Standard 7 - S2.: Design differentiated learning plans for individuals with gifts and talents, including individuals from diverse backgrounds. NAGC/CEC Standard 7 - S6.: Integrate academic and career guidance experiences into the learning plan for individuals with gifts and talents. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Learning plan NOT based on learner talents and interests.

Level 2 Acceptable

Learning plan based on learner talents and interests.

Level 3 Proficient

Learning plan based on learner talents and interests and linked to the literature.

Level 4 Exemplary

Learning plan based on learner talents and interests and linked to the literature and to theory.

Criterion 14 Collaboration with family members, other educators, community

members, advocates (10K1,10S1,10S2,10S3,10S4,10S5,10S6) NAGC/CEC Standard 10 - K1.: Culturally responsive behaviors that promote effective communication and collaboration with individuals with gifts and talents, their families, school personnel, and community members. NAGC/CEC Standard 10 - S1.: Respond to concerns of families of individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standard 10 - S2.: Collaborate with stakeholders outside the school setting who serve individuals with exceptional learning needs and their families. NAGC/CEC Standard 10 - S3.: Advocate for the benefit of individuals with gifts and talents and their families. NAGC/CEC Standard 10 - S4.: Collaborate with individuals with gifts and talents, their families, general, and special educators, and other school staff to articulate a comprehensive preschool through secondary educational program. NAGC/CEC Standard 10 - S5.: Collaborate with families, community members, and professionals in assessment of individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standard 10 - S6.: Communicate and consult with school personnel about the characteristics and needs of individuals with gifts and talents, including individuals from diverse backgrounds.

Assessment 6 14


Collaboration NOT considered.

Level 2 Acceptable

Collaboration with one stakeholder identified.

Level 3 Proficient

Collaboration with two stakeholders identified.

Level 4 Exemplary

Collaboration with three stakeholders identified.

Criterion 15 Organization Effectiveness of Writing Level 1 Not Acceptable

Text is confusing with few topic sentences.

Level 2 Acceptable

Text is organized with topic sentences and unelaborated paragraphs.

Level 3 Proficient

Text is organized with topic sentences and developed paragraphs.

Level 4 Exemplary

Text is organized with topic sentences, developed paragraphs and transitions.

Criterion 16 Mechanics Effectiveness of Writing Level 1 Not Acceptable

Several mistakes in grammar, spelling and diction.

Level 2 Acceptable

Few mistakes in grammar, spelling and diction.

Level 3 Proficient

No mistakes in grammar, spelling and diction.

Level 4 Exemplary

Skillful use of writing conventions.

Assessment 6 15

(c) Candidate Data (Assessment 6, Question #5c) Table 6.2 2006-2007 GATE Case Analysis Results *Percentages indicate candidates at each performance level. Criterion

Scores 1.00-1.99

not

acceptable




N Mean SD

Cognitive/Affective Characteristics(2K1 & 3K2)

- 33% 17% 50% 6 3.2 0.9

Developmental milestones & idiosyncratic patterns (2K4 & 3K3)

- 50% 33% 17% 6 2.7 0.7

Comparison with general population (2K5) - 50% 33% 17% 6 2.7 0.7

Effects of Culture (2K2) - 50% 50% - 6 2.7 0.7

Diversity factors, including language (3K1, 6K2, 6K3)

- 50% 50% - 6 2.5 0.5

Beliefs, traditions, values (3K4) 33% 17% 50% - 6 2.2 0.9

Communication (6K1) - 50% 50% - 6 2.5 0.5

Dominant culture (1K5) - 50% 50% - 6 2.5 0.5

Anti-intellectualism (1K6) 50% 33% 17% - 6 1.7 0.7

Family in talent development (2K3) - 50% 50% - 6 2.5 0.5

Learning environments to foster social/emotional development (5K1,5K2,5S1,5S2,5S3,5S4,5S5)

- 50% 33% 17% 6 2.7 0.7

Pre-assessment (4K4) - - 33% 67% 6 3.7 0.5

Learning plan, including academic/career guidance (7S2,7S6)

- 33% 33% 33% 6 3.0 0.8

Collaboration with family members, other educators, community members, advocates (10K1,10S1,10S2,10S3,10S4,10S5,10S6)

- - 33% 67% 6 3.7 0.5


Assessment 6 16

Table 6.3 2007-2008 GATE Case Analysis Results *Percentages indicate candidates at each performance level. Criterion

Scores 1.00-1.99

not acceptable




N Mean SD

Cognitive/Affective Characteristics - 30% 11% 59% 37 3.3 0.9


3% 38% 11% 49% 37 3.1 1.0


Effects of Culture (2K2) - 35% 24% 41% 37 3.1 0.9


5% 35% 24% 35% 37 2.9 1.0

Beliefs, traditions, values (3K4) 19% 22% 14% 46% 37 2.9 1.2

Communication (6K1) 3% 41% 19% 38% 37 2.9 0.9

Dominant culture (1K5) 8% 32% 14% 46% 37 3.0 1.1

Anti-intellectualism (1K6) 11% 41% 11% 38% 37 2.8 1.1

Family in talent development (2K3) 3% 35% 11% 51% 37 3.1 1.0


- 46% 3% 51% 37 3.1 1.0

Pre-assessment (4K4) - 5% 8% 86% 37 3.8 0.5


3% 32% 14% 51% 37 3.1 1.0


- 3% 11% 86% 37 3.8 0.4

*Note: The assessment has four levels of rating: 1 (not acceptable), 2 (not acceptable), 3 (proficient), and 4 (exemplary).

Assessment 6 17


Scores 1.00-1.99

not acceptable




N Mean SD



- 11% 26% 63% 27 3.5 0.7

Comparison with general population (2K5) 4% 7% 37% 52% 27 3.4 0.8



- 7% 22% 70% 27 3.6 0.6


Communication (6K1) - 7% 30% 63% 27 3.6 0.6

Dominant culture (1K5) - 7% 7% 85% 27 3.8 0.6

Anti-intellectualism (1K6) - 30% 11% 59% 27 3.3 0.9

Family in talent development (2K3) - 11% 7% 81% 27 3.7 0.7


- 11% 37% 52% 27 3.4 0.2

Pre-assessment (4K4) - - 4% 96% 27 4.0 0.2


- 7% 15% 78% 27 3.7 0.6


- 4% 7% 89% 27 3.6 0.7


Assessment 6 18


Scores 1.00-1.99

not

acceptable

Scores 2.00-2.99

acceptable

Scores 3.00-3.99

proficient

Scores 4.00

exemplary

N Mean SD



- 7% 15% 78% 27 3.7 0.6




- 19% 11% 70% 27 3.5 0.8

Beliefs, traditions, values (3K4) - 99% 4% 74% 27 3.5 0.9

Communication (6K1) - 19% 15% 67% 27 3.5 0.8


Anti-intellectualism (1K6) - 15% 11% 70% 27 3.5 0.9

Family in talent development (2K3) - 19% 11% 70% 27 3.5 0.8


- 7% 22% 70% 27 3.6 0.6

Pre-assessment (4K4) - 15% 4% 81% 27 3.7 0.7


- 15% 26% 59% 27 3.4 0.7


- 4% 4% 93% 27 3.9 0.4


Assessment 6 19


Scores 1.00-1.99

not

acceptable

Scores 2.00-2.99

acceptable

Scores 3.00-3.99

proficient

Scores 4.00

exemplary

N Mean SD



- 16% 29% 55% 49 3.4 0.6


Effects of Culture (2K2) 2% 6% 18% 73% 49 3.6 0.8


- 10% 16% 73% 49 3.6 0.7


Communication (6K1) 2% 8% 27% 63% 49 3.5 0.6


Anti-intellectualism (1K6) 8% 12% 18% 61% 49 3.3 0.9

Family in talent development (2K3) 2% 12% 18% 67% 49 3.5 0.8


2% 14% 35% 49% 49 3.3 0.6

Pre-assessment (4K4) - 8% 14% 78% 49 3.7 0.7


- 20% 41% 39% 49 3.2 0.7


- 10% 8% 82% 49 3.7 0.4


Assessment 6 20


Scores 1.00-1.99

not

acceptable

Scores 2.00-2.99

acceptable

Scores 3.00-3.99

proficient

Scores 4.00

exemplary

N Mean SD

Cognitive/Affective Characteristics - 3.7% 14.8% 81.5% 27 3.8 .5


- 22.2% 29.6% 48.1% 27 3.3 .8

Comparison with general population (2K5)

- 22.2% 37.0% 40.7% 27 3.2 .8

Effects of Culture (2K2) - 7.4% 7.4% 85.2% 27 3.8 .6


- 7.4% 3.7% 88.9% 27 3.8 .5

Beliefs, traditions, values (3K4) - 7.4% 25.9% 66.7% 27 3.6 .6

Communication (6K1) 3.7% 7.4% 14.8% 74.1% 27 3.6 .8

Dominant culture (1K5) - 11.1% 22.2% 66.7% 27 3.6 .7

Anti-intellectualism (1K6) 11.1% 11.1% 18.5% 59.5% 27 3.3 1

Family in talent development (2K3) 3.7% 7.4% 22.2% 66.7% 27 3.5 .8


3.7% 18.5% 29.6% 48.1% 27 3.2 .9

Pre-assessment (4K4) - 3.7% 14.8% 81.5% 27 3.8 .5


- 25.9% 40.7% 33.3% 27 3.1 .8


- 14.8% 11.1% 74.1% 27 3.6 .7


Assessment 7 1

Assessment 7 GATE Creativity Seminar Research Paper Assessment Addresses COE unit standard # 6 ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT THAT ADDRESSES NAGC/CEC STANDARDS


The GATE Creativity Research Paper Assessment is used to assess candidates’ ability to construct a review of the research literature addressing creativity, particularly as it relates to cultural diversity.

2. Provide a description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it is cited for in Section III.

The GATE Creativity Research Paper Assessment is tied to the NAGC/CEC Standards 1, 2, and 3. Specifically, it addresses:

• the foundations of creativity and creativity theory • the development and characteristics of learners, including culturally diverse

learners • individual learning differences, including influences of diversity factors on

individuals with exceptional learning needs

Table 7.1 summarizes the alignment between the assessment and the NAGC/CEC standards. Table 7.1 Alignment of NAGC/CEC Standards to Research Paper Criteria


Standard 1K2: Key philosophies, theories, models, and research supporting gifted and talented education. Standard 1K4: Issues in conceptions, definitions, and identification of gifts and talents, including those of individuals from diverse backgrounds. Standard 1K5: Impact of the dominant culture’s role in shaping schools and the differences in values, languages, and customs between school and home.

Foundations

Assessment 7 2

Standard 1K7: Key Issues and trends, including diversity and inclusion that connect general, special, and gifted and talented education. Standard 2K1: Cognitive and affective characteristics of individuals with gifts and talents, including those from diverse backgrounds, in intellectual, academic, creative, leadership, and artistic domains. Standard 2K2: Characteristics and effects of culture and environment on the development of individuals with gifts and talents. Standard 2K4: Advanced developmental milestones of individuals with gifts and talents from early childhood through adolescence. Standard 2K5: Similarities and differences within the group of individuals with gifts and talents as compared to the general population.

Development and Characteristics of Learning

Standard 3K1: Influences of diversity factors on individuals with exceptional learning needs. Standard 3K2: Academic and affective characteristics and learning needs of individuals with gifts, talents, and disabilities. Standard 3K3: Idiosyncratic learning patterns of individuals with gifts and talents, including those from diverse backgrounds. Standard 3K4: Influences of different beliefs, traditions, and values across and within diverse groups on relationships among individuals with gifts and talents, their families, schools and communities.



The GATE Creativity Research Paper Assessment Results detail the percentage of candidate scores across criteria as well as the mean and standard deviation associated with these scores for the years, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011. The assessment was first used in the spring semester of 2007. The data indicate that 73% of candidates scored Proficient or better in their knowledge of key concepts including Foundations, Development and Characteristics of Learners, and Individual Differences in the 2006-2007 school year; 87% of candidates scored Proficient or better in the 2007-2008 school year; 86% of candidates scored Proficient or better in the 2008-2009 school year; 93% of candidates scored Proficient or better in the 2009-2010 school year; and 91% of candidates scored Proficient or better in 2010-2011. When comparing the three years of data from 2005-2009, the number of candidates scoring Proficient or better increased in all areas with the greatest gains in Organization. In

Assessment 7 3

2006-2007, there was a small percentage (6 to 11%) of scores in the not acceptable range. Faculty traced these data back to two candidates who were not fluent writers. Faculty increased their feedback to these candidates; scores on this assessment showed gains in the following year, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. When comparing the three years of data from 2007-2010, the number of candidates scoring Proficient or better increased in all areas with the greatest gains in Development and Characteristics of Learners. In 2011-2012, 100% of candidates scored proficient or better in the areas of Foundations and Organization. In addition, 82% of candidates scored proficient or better in the area of Development and Characteristics of Learners and 91% scored proficient or better in the area of Individual Learning Differences.

4. Provide an interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards.

The data reveal that the most candidates (87% in 2008-2009; 93% in 2009-2010; 91% in 2010-2011; 82% in 2011-2012) scored Proficient or better in their knowledge of key concepts including Foundations, Development and Characteristics of Learners, Individual Differences, and Organization.

The relative area of weakness from 2005-2008 appeared to be Standard 3, Individual Learning Differences, which is actually quite high (72% of candidates scored Proficient or better in 2006-2007; 87% in 2007-2008; 88% in 2008-2009). Faculty revisited how Individual Learning Differences was taught to improve the teaching of this topic. Student achievement gains increased in the following years (93% in 2009-2010; 91% in 2010-2011; 91% in 2011-2012). Results, including the means and standard deviations, and percentages across criteria, provide evidence for meeting the NAGC/CEC Standards 1K2, 1K4, 1K5, 1K7, 2K1, 2K2, 2K4, 2K5, and 3K1, 3K2, 3K3, 3K4.

The relative area of weakness from 2007-2011 appeared to be Standard 4, Organization, which is actually quite high (87% of candidates scored Proficient or better in 2007-2008; 86% in 2008-2009; 89% in 2009-2010; 77% in 2010-2011). Faculty revisited how writing Organization was taught to improve the teaching of this topic with specific models and discussions. This assignment is the first literature review writing assignment in the graduate program and is a challenging written endeavor for many students. Student achievement gains increased in the following year with 100% of candidates scoring proficient or better in Organization. Results, including the means and standard deviations, and percentages across criteria, provide evidence for meeting the NAGC/CEC Standards 1K2, 1K4, 1K5, 1K7, 2K1, 2K2, 2K4, 2K5, and 3K1, 3K2, 3K3, 3K4.



Assessment 7 4

a. The Creativity Research Paper Assessment description can be found below and is titled

GATE 7355 Creativity Research Paper Assessment Assignment. b. The Creativity Research Paper Assessment scoring rubric follows the assignment

description below and is titled Creativity Research Paper Scoring Rubric. c. The candidate data are reported in Tables 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 immediately following the

rubric and are titled (Year) GATE Creativity Research Paper Assessment Results.

(a) Description of the Assignment (Assessment 7, Question # 5a)

GATE 7355 Creativity Research Paper Assessment Assignment

The GATE Creativity Research Paper Assessment is used to assess candidates’ abilities to construct a review of literature addressing creativity as it relates to gifted education, including creativity and diverse groups of students with gifts and talents.

This assessment is based on NAGC/CEC Standards 1, 2, and 3. It is used to assess candidates’ abilities to construct a review of literature addressing creativity as it relates to gifted education, including diversity. The rubric addresses the following criteria:

• foundations of creativity • development and characteristics of learners, including culturally diverse learners • individual learning differences, including influences of diversity factors on individuals

with exceptional learning needs • and organization of text including topic sentences, developed paragraphs and transitions

Assignment Instructions

You are to construct a 6 page, double-spaced review of literature that focuses on creativity and diverse learners with gifts and talents. Your search for literature should focus on the foundations of creativity, development and characteristics of learners, including culturally diverse learners, and individual learning differences including influences of diversity factors on individuals with exceptional learning needs. Your review of literature should include a minimum of 5-8 citations within text from recent (2000 or newer) literature addressing the topic. A complete bibliographic reference page is required in addition to the 6 page review of literature. APA formatting is required. You must also demonstrate effective writing skills that include organized topic

Assessment 7 5

sentences, developed paragraphs, and transitions. One goal of the assignment is to communicate what you have learned effectively to others. Please refer to the attached rubric for specific details.

(b) Scoring Rubric (Assessment 7, Question # 5b)

Creativity Seminar Research Paper Scoring Rubric

(Response to Assessment 7, Question Number 5B)

Criterion 1 Foundations (1K2, 1K4, 1K5, & 1K7) NAGC/CEC Standard 1-K2: Key philosophies, theories, models, and research supporting gifted and talented education. NAGC/CEC Standard 1-K4: Issues in conceptions, definitions, and identification of gifts and talents, including those of individuals from diverse backgrounds. NAGC/CEC Standard –K5: Impact of dominant culture’s role in shaping schools and the differences in values, languages, and customs between school and home. NAGC/CEC Standard 1-K7: Key issues and trends, including diversity and inclusion that connect general, special, and gifted and talented education.


Relevant gifted and talented education philosophies, theories, models, conceptions, definitions, identification of gifts and talents (including diverse backgrounds), issues (including diversity), and impact and differences of dominant culture are NOT considered.

Level 2 Acceptable

Relevant gifted and talented education philosophies, theories, models, conceptions, definitions, identification of gifts and talents (including diverse backgrounds), issues (including diversity), and impact and differences of dominant culture are identified and described.

Level 3 Proficient

Relevant gifted and talented philosophies, theories, models, conceptions, definitions, identification of gifts and talents (including diverse backgrounds), issues (including diversity), and impact and differences of dominant culture are identified, described, and supported by research (fewer than 5 references).

Level 4 Exemplary

Relevant gifted and talented philosophies, theories, models, conceptions, definitions, identification of gifts and talents (including diverse backgrounds), issues (including diversity), and impact and differences of dominant culture are identified, described, and supported by research (5 or

Assessment 7 6

more references).

Criterion 2 Development and Characteristics of Learners (2K1, 2K2, 2K4, 2K5) NAGC/CEC Standard 2-K1: Cognitive and affective characteristics of individuals with gifts and talents, including those from diverse backgrounds, in intellectual, academic, creative, leadership, and artistic domains. NAGC/CEC Standard 2-K2: Characteristics and effects of culture and environment on the development of individuals with gifts and talents. NAGC/CEC Standard 2-K4: Advanced developmental milestones of individuals with gifts and talents from early childhood through adolescence. NAGC/CEC Standard 2-K5: Similarities and differences within the group of individuals with gifts and talents as compared to the general population. Level 1 Not Acceptable

Cognitive and affective characteristics, advanced developmental milestones, characteristics and effects of culture and environment on development of gifts and talents, or similarities and differences with the group of individuals with gifts and talents are NOT considered.

Level 2 Acceptable

Cognitive and affective characteristics, advanced developmental milestones, characteristics and effects of culture and environment on development of gifts and talents, and similarities and differences with the group of individuals with gifts and talents are identified and described.

Level 3 Proficient

Cognitive and affective characteristics, advanced developmental milestones, characteristics and effects of culture and environment on development of gifts and talents, and similarities and differences with the group of individuals with gifts and talents are considered, identified, described and linked to the literature.

Level 4 Exemplary

Cognitive and affective characteristics, advanced developmental milestones, characteristics and effects of culture and environment on development of gifts and talents, and similarities and differences with the group of individuals with gifts and talents are considered, identified, described, linked to the literature, and tied to the theory.

Criterion 3 Individual Learning Differences (3K1, 3K2, 3K3, 3K4) NAGC/CEC Standard 3-K1: Influences of diversity factors on individuals with exceptional learning needs. NAGC/CEC Standard 3-K2: Academic and affective characteristics and learning needs of individuals with gifts, talents, and disabilities. NAGC/CEC Standard 3-K3: Idiosyncratic learning patterns of individuals with gifts and talents, including those from diverse backgrounds. NAGC/CEC Standard 3-K4: Influences of different beliefs, traditions, and values across and within diverse groups on relationships among individuals with gifts and talents, their families, schools, and communities.

Assessment 7 7


Influences of diversity factors, academic and affective characteristics, idiosyncratic learning patterns, and influences of different beliefs, traditions, and values across and within diverse groups are NOT considered.

Level 2 Acceptable

Influences of diversity factors, academic and affective characteristics, idiosyncratic learning patterns, and influences of different beliefs, traditions, and values across and within diverse groups are identified and described.

Level 3 Proficient

Influences of diversity factors, academic and affective characteristics, idiosyncratic learning patterns, and influences of different beliefs, traditions, and values across and within diverse groups are identified, described, and linked to the literature.

Level 4 Exemplary

Influences of diversity factors, academic and affective characteristics, idiosyncratic learning patterns, and influences of different beliefs, traditions, and values across and within diverse groups are identified, described, linked to the literature, and tied to theory.

Criterion 4 Organization Level 1 Not Acceptable

Text is confusing and lacks topic sentences, paragraphs, and transitions.

Level 2 Acceptable

Text is organized with topic sentences and paragraphs, but lacks transitions.

Level 3 Proficient

Text is organized with clear topic sentences, developed paragraphs, but lacks transitions.

Level 4 Exemplary

Text is organized in an exemplary manner with clear topic sentences, developed paragraphs, and skillful transitions.

(c) Scoring Rubric (Assessment 7, Question # 5c)

Assessment 7 8

Table 7.2 2006-2007 GATE Creativity Research Paper Assessment Results *Percentages indicate candidates at each performance level. Criterion Scores

1.00-1.99 Not

Acceptable

Scores 2.00-2.99

Acceptable

Scores 3.00-3.99 Proficient

Scores 4.00

Exemplary

N Mean SD

Foundations 11% - 22% 67% 18 3.4 1.0

Development and Characteristics of Learners

6% 11% 39% 44% 18 3.4 1.0


11%

17%

11%

61%

18

3.2

1.1

Organization 6% - 44% 50% 18 3.1 1.0

*Note: The assessment has four levels of rating: 1 (not acceptable), 2 (acceptable), 3 (proficient), and 4 (exemplary). Table 7.3 2007-2008 GATE Creativity Research Paper Assessment Results *Percentages indicate candidates at each performance level. Criterion Scores

1.00-1.99 Not

Acceptable

Scores 2.00-2.99

Acceptable


Scores 4.00

Exemplary

N Mean SD

Foundations - 10% 33% 57% 30 3.5 0.7


- 10% 27% 63% 30 3.5 0.7


3% 10% 27% 60% 30

3.4

0.8

Organization - 13% 20% 67% 30 3.5 0.7

*Note: The assessment has four levels of rating: 1 (not acceptable), 2 (acceptable), 3 (proficient), and 4 (exemplary).

Assessment 7 9


1.00-1.99 Not

Acceptable

Scores 2.00-2.99

Acceptable


Scores 4.00

Exemplary

N Mean SD

Foundations 8% 29% 63% 24 3.5 0.6


13% 17% 70% 24 3.6 0.7


4% 8% 25% 63% 24 3.5 0.8

Organization 13% 28% 58% 24 3.5 0.7


1.00-1.99 Not

Acceptable

Scores 2.00-2.99

Acceptable


Scores 4.00

Exemplary

N Mean SD

Foundations - - 11% 89% 28 3.9 0.3


- 4% 36% 61% 28 3.6 0.6


- 7% 18% 75% 28 3.7 0.6

Organization 4% 7% 32% 57% 28 3.4 0.8


Assessment 7 10


1.00-1.99 Not

Acceptable

Scores 2.00-2.99

Acceptable


Scores 4.00

Exemplary

N Mean SD

Foundations - - 22% 78% 23 3.8 0.3


- 9% 52% 39% 23 3.3 0.5


- 9% 39% 52% 23 3.4 0.6

Organization 6% 9% 22% 65% 23 3.5 1.0


1.00-1.99 Not Acceptable

Scores 2.00-2.99 Acceptable


Scores 4.00 Exemplary

N Mean SD

Foundations - - 36.4 63.6 11 3.6 .5


- 18.2 54.5 27.3 11 3.1 .7


- 9.1 54.5 36.4 11 3.3 .6

Organization - - 36.4 63.6 11 3.6 .5


college of education department of educational leadership...

Documents