commission on teacher credentialing biennial report...

Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report Addendum

Academic Year 2013-2014

Preliminary Education Specialist Credential Programs

in

Mild/Moderate Disabilities Moderate/Severe Disabilities

Deaf/Hard of Hearing Early Childhood Special Education

Michael D. Eisner College of Education Department of Special Education

August 2014

COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING BIENNIAL REPORT PRELIMINARY EDUCATION SPECIALIST CREDENTIAL PROGRAM

ADDENDUM Academic Year 2013-2014

Table of Contents SECTION A-‐CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION:

PART 1- Contextual Information .......................................................................................... 1 Changes Since Last Accreditation Activity .......................................................................... 1 Demographic Data on Candidates Admitted-Preliminary Credential Programs .................... PART 2- Candidate Assessment/Performance & Program Effectiveness Information ... 3

The Assessment System ........................................................................................................ 3 Transition Point 2: Entry to Student Teaching ...................................................................... 3 Mild/Moderate Disabilities ................................................................................................ 3 Moderate/Severe Disabilities ............................................................................................. 5 Deaf/Hard of Hearing ......................................................................................................... 6 Early Childhood Special Education ................................................................................... 6 Transition Point 3: Exit From Student Teaching .................................................................. 7 Mild/Moderate Disabilities ................................................................................................ 7 Moderate/Severe Disabilities ........................................................................................... 11 Deaf/Hard of Hearing ....................................................................................................... 13 Early Childhood Special Education ................................................................................. 14 Added Authorizations .......................................................................................................... 16

PART 3- Analysis and Discussion of Candidate and Program Data PART 4- Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate & Program Performance..........................................................................................................................17

Candidate Competence…………………………………………………………………….17 Program Effectiveness …………………………………………………………………….18 TABLES

Table 1: Significant Changes Since Commission Approval ..................................................... 1 Table 2: Number of Candidates Admitted by Specialization .................................................... 2 Table 3: Number of Candidates Admitted by Specialization .................................................... 2 Table 4: Candidate Demographics at Admission ...................................................................... 2 Table 5: Transition Point 2 Assessment Measures .................................................................... 3 Table 6: Mild/Moderate: Early Fieldwork Evaluation-Traditional/ITEP ................................ 4 Table 7: Mild/Moderate: ACT/ACT-R ..................................................................................... 4 Table 8: Mild/Moderate: Intern ................................................................................................. 5 Table 9: Moderate/Severe: Early Fieldwork Evaluation ........................................................... 5 Table 10: Deaf and Hard of Hearing: Early Fieldwork Evaluation .......................................... 6 Table 11:Early Childhood Special Education: Early Intervention Evaluation ......................... 7 Table 12: Transition Point 3 Assessment Measures .................................................................. 7 Table 13: Mild/Moderate: Student Teaching Evaluation-Traditional/ITEP ............................. 8 Table 14: Mild/Moderate: Student Teaching Evaluation-ACT/ACT-R ................................... 8 Table 15: Mild/Moderate: Student Teaching Evaluation-Interns ............................................. 9

SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014 ii

Table 16: Teaching Event in MM Disabilities: Traditional/ITEP (2013) ................................ 9 Table 17: Teaching Event in MM Disabilities: Traditional/ITEP (2014) .............................. 10 Table 18: Teaching Event in MM Disabilities: ACT .............................................................. 10 Table 19: Teaching Event in MM Disabilities: ACT-R .......................................................... 11 Table 20: Moderate to Severe: Student Teaching Evaluation-Traditional/ACT-R ................. 12 Table 21: Teaching Event in MS Disabilities: Traditional/ACT-R ........................................ 12

Table 22: Deaf and Hard of Hearing: Student Teaching Evaluation ...................................... 13 Table 23: Teaching Event in DHH .......................................................................................... 14 Table 24: ECSE Student Teaching .......................................................................................... 15 Table 25: Teaching Event in ECSE ......................................................................................... 15 Table 26 Autism Spectrum Disorders Added Authorization .................................................. 16

Appendix A – Survey Instruments for Added Authorizations

SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION Part I – Contextual Information

A comprehensive discussion of contextual information appears in the Biennial Report for Academic Years 2011-2013. Changes Since Last Accreditation Activity Table 1 repeats the significant changes, reported in the Biennial Report for Academic Years 2011-2013. These changes followed university procedures and were approved at department, college and university levels and

Table 1 Significant Changes Since Last Biennial Report in August 2012

Date of Approval Program/Course Modifications

Spring 2014 Implemented Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities

Spring 2014 Piloted Special Education Teaching Event in Moderate/Severe Disabilities, Deaf and Hard of Hearing and Early Childhood Special Education

Spring 2014 Implemented newly developed Teaching Evaluation in Mild/Moderate Disabilities

Spring 2014 Submitted Program Assessment Document for Preliminary Education Specialist Credential and Added Authorizations – May 1, 2014

Spring 2014 Developed evaluation measures for Added Authorizations

Fall 2013 Modified all intern programs to address CTC Intern Preservice, Support and Supervision Requirements: Preparation to Teach English Learners

Fall 2013 Modified all preliminary credential programs to address the CTC Revised Standards Relating to Teaching English Learners

Fall 2013 Revised and implemented Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities based on calibration pilot

Fall 2013 Piloted newly developed Teaching Evaluation in Mild/Moderate Disabilities

Spring 2013 Piloted Special Education Teaching Event with accompanying rubric in Mild/Moderate Disabilities (calibration purposes)

Spring 2013 Developed Teaching Evaluation based on Teaching and Learning Framework

Fall 2012 Modified SPED 655: Promising Practices and Interventions for Students with Autism (one of two courses in the Autism Authorization)

Fall 2012 Implemented Special Education Teaching Event in ACT/ACT-R in Mild-Moderate Disabilities

Spring 2012 Developed guidelines and rubric for ACT/ACT-R video capstone assignment in Mild/Moderate Disabilities (a modified teaching event)

Fall 2011 Revised and implemented video capstone assignment

This biennial report addendum includes demographic, performance and survey data for candidates who participated in Education Specialist preliminary credential programs during the period from Fall 2013 – Spring 2014.

SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014 2

Demographic Data on Candidates Admitted – Preliminary Credential Programs

Table 2 Number of Candidates Admitted by Specialization and Pathway

Fall 2013 Pathway MM MS DHH ECSE Total ACT 22 1 3 6 32 Traditional/ITEP 20 6 12 24 62

Table 3 Number of Candidates Admitted by Specialization and Pathway

Spring 2014

Pathway MM MS DHH ECSE Total ACT Does not admit spring semester Traditional/ITEP 16 3 6 5 30 Demographic data are available for a subset of those admitted fall 2013. These data appear in Table 4 below.

Table 4 Candidate Demographics at Admission- Preliminary Education Specialist

Demographics

Fall 2013

Gender Female Male

68 13

Race/Ethnicity African American Asian American Hispanic White Native American Two or more ethnicities Declined to state

2 5

19 43 2 6 4

Age Under 25 26-29 30-39 40 and over

19 22 23 17


SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION Part II – Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information

The Assessment System The assessment system, including its relationship to professional standards, transition points for data collection, and evaluation measures, is described in the Biennial Report for Academic Years 2011-2013. What follows are data collected at entry and exit from student teaching—Transition Points 2 and 3, fall 2013 and spring 2014. Also included are pilot data for the Autism Spectrum Disorders Added Authorization, its graduate survey and measures for two other Added Authorizations, Resource Specialist and Emotional Disturbance. The Addendum disaggregates data for ACT and ACT-R (a residency program). Portfolio data reported in previous Biennial Reports are replaced in this 2013-2014 Addendum with Special Education Teaching Event scores. The Special Education Teaching Event is modeled after the Performance Assessment of California Teachers (PACT), required of all multiple and single subject credential candidates. The Special Education Teaching Event is an opportunity for teacher candidates to document knowledge and skills in four major areas: planning, instructing, assessing and reflecting. While customized for each specialization, all Special Education Teaching Events include commentaries, teacher and student products, and a video clip embedded within the following tasks: context for learning, planning for instruction, an instructional episode, assessment, the learning environment, and reflections. Pilot data from spring 2013 are reported for Mild/Moderate Disabilities in the 2011-2013 Biennial Report. Data for Mild/Moderate Disabilities, Moderate/Severe Disabilities, Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and Early Childhood Special Education are reported in this addendum. Transition Point 2: Entry to Student Teaching As shown in Table 5 multiple assessments are used for Transition Point 2, entry to student teaching, including standardized examinations, course grades, and early field experience evaluations. All candidates, as assessed by the credential office, must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher to be eligible for student teaching. Assessment findings for performance on the early fieldwork evaluation by specialization and pathway appear in the tables below by CSTP domains.

Table 5 Transition Point 2 Entry to Student Teaching - Assessment Measures

Transition

Point

Knowledge

Skills

Dispositions (2) Entry-

Student Teaching

• Verification of Subject Matter • Completion of all identified courses with

a grade of C or better • Minimum overall 3.0 GPA in professional

courses

• Satisfactory Early Fieldwork Evaluation

• Writing Proficiency • Passage of the ASLPI (DHH) • Verification of Basic Skills (CBEST)

• Satisfactory ratings on disposition items of Early Fieldwork Evaluation

Mild/Moderate Disabilities. The university supervisor and cooperating teacher complete early fieldwork evaluations for candidates in the traditional, ACT, ACT-R and ITEP pathways. Data are aggregated for traditional and ITEP pathways. Early fieldwork only occurs in the fall semester in ACT and ACT-R. The university supervisor completes an evaluation for interns each semester of the two-year program, with the first two semesters considered early fieldwork and


the last two semesters student teaching. Means ratings for all interns fall 2013 are reported in this section.

Table 6 Mild/Moderate: Early Fieldwork Evaluation – Traditional and ITEP

Fall 2013 and Spring 2014

Domain

Fall 2013 Spring 2014 University Supervisor

Cooperating Teacher

University Supervisor

Cooperating Teacher

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning 3.08 12 3.32 11 3.16 10 3.40 8

Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An Effective Environment for Students

2.99 12 3.38 11 3.34 10 3.40 8

Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter Knowledge for Student Learning

3.19 12 3.14 11 3.17 10 3.29 8

Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for Students

3.15 12 3.19 11 3.20 10 3.40 8

Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning 2.83 12 3.18 11 3.0 10 3.5 8

Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator 3.13 12 3.56 11 3.29 10 3.68 8

Notes: 1=Inconsistent practice, 2=Developing practice, 3=Maturing practice, 4=Exemplary practice

Table 7 Mild/Moderate: Early Fieldwork Evaluation – ACT/ACT-R

Fall 2013

Domain

Fall 2013 ACT

Fall 2013 ACT-R University Supervisor

Cooperating Teacher


Cooperating Teacher

Mean N Mean N

Mean

N

Mean

N

Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning 2.85 8 2.74 8 2.77 11 3.23 11


3.02 8 3.16 8 3.22 11 3.28 11


2.75 8 2.86 8 3.00 11 3.17 11


2.86 8 3.02 8 2.79 11 3.23 11

Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning 2.40 8

2.23

8 2.93 11 3.19 11

Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator 2.94 8

2.79

8 3.14 11 3.31 11



Table 8

Mild/Moderate: Interns (Semesters One, Two, Three, and Four) Fall 2013

Domain

Fall 2013 First and Second

Semester Third and Fourth

Semester

Mean N Mean N

Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning 2.5 14 3.5 4

Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An Effective Environment for Students 2.61 14 3.66 4

Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter Knowledge for Student Learning 2.65 14 3.5 4

Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for Students 2.56 14 3.39 4

Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning 2.44 14 3.56 4

Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator 2.51 14 3.53 4


Moderate/Severe Disabilities. The university supervisor and the on-site supervisor complete early fieldwork evaluations for Moderate/Severe Disabilities. Given the low number of candidates, assessment data are aggregated across all pathways. MS candidates in early fieldwork are evaluated on a sub-portion of the competencies student teachers are evaluated on. No candidates were enrolled in early fieldwork fall, 2013.

Table 9

Moderate/Severe: Early Fieldwork Evaluation – Spring 2014

Domain

Spring 2014

University Supervisor On-site

Supervisor

Mean N Mean N

Making Subject Matter Comprehensible 2.00 5 2.83 2 Assessing Student Learning

Engaging and Supporting Students in Learning 2.48 5 3.00 2

Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences 2.42 5 3.00 2

Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments 2.60 5 3.00 2

Developing as a Professional Educator 2.64 5 3.00 2

Notes: 1=Inconsistent practice, 2=Developing practice, 3=Performs as expected, 4=Exceptional performance


Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Early fieldwork evaluations are completed during the spring semester for candidates in all DHH credential pathways. Only the university supervisor completes the evaluation. Students are not placed in a fieldwork assignment until they have successfully passed the American Sign Language Proficiency Interview (ASLPI) to ensure that they are able to adequately communicate with the students in the DHH classroom. Ratings, collected from the university supervisor and aggregated across pathways, appear below.

Table 10 Deaf/Hard of Hearing: Early Fieldwork Evaluation

Spring 2014

Domain

Spring 2014

University Supervisor On-site

Supervisor Mean N NA

Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning 2.50 5 NA

Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An Effective Environment for Students 2.67 5 NA


1.80 5 NA

Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for Students 1.80 5 NA

Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning 1.80 5 NA

Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator 2.50 5 NA

Notes: 1=Inconsistent practice, 2=Developing practice, 3=Performs as expected, 4=Exceptional practice Early Childhood Special Education. The Infant/Toddler student teaching is used as the early fieldwork experience because candidates have little experience with this age group (birth to 3 years). Early intervention (fieldwork) evaluations are completed for candidates in their Infant/Toddler fieldwork in all three pathways (ACT-R, traditional, intern) by the university supervisor and on-site supervisor. Interns complete a traditional student teaching in an early intervention program under the supervision of an on-site supervisor.


Table 11 Early Childhood Special Education: Early Intervention Evaluation

Fall 2013

Domain


On-site Supervisor


On-site Supervisor

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning 3.14 5 3.33 5 3.36 2 3 1


3.08 5 3.25 5 3.04 2 3 1


2.80 5 3.07 5 3.00 2 3 1


3.12 5 3.26 5 3.05 2 3 1

Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning 2.97 5 3.09 5 3.00 2 3 1

Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator 3.35 5 3.53 5 3.21 2 3 1

Notes: 1=Inconsistent practice, 2=Developing practice, 3=Performs as expected, 4=Exceptional practice

Transition Point 3: Exit from Student Teaching As shown below multiple assessments are used for Transition Point 3, exit from student teaching. Assessment findings are summarized by specializations for CSTP domains.

Table 12 Transition Point 3 Exit Student Teaching Assessment Measures

Transition Point

Knowledge

Skills

Dispositions

(3) Exit- Student Teaching

• Completion of all identified coursework with a grade of C or better

• Minimum overall 3.0 GPA in professional courses

• Completion of advanced fieldwork /final practica (interns) with a grade of B or better

•Average of “3” with no rating of “1” on Education Specialist Evaluation (MM, DHH, ECSE): Average between “2” and “3” (MS)

• Special Education Teaching Event

• Satisfactory ratings (no “1”s) on disposition items of Education Specialist Teaching Evaluation

Mild/Moderate Disabilities. The university supervisor and the cooperating teacher complete student teaching evaluations for candidates in ACT/ACT-R, the traditional program and ITEP. Converting to a completely on-line submission process contributed to missing spring 2014 cooperating teacher data. The university supervisor completes an evaluation each semester for interns. ACT/ACT-R offer student teaching spring semester only. This spring the ACT-R university supervisor and cooperating teacher collaborated on the spring 2014 evaluations. For this reason only one score is reported.


Table 13 Mild/Moderate: Student Teaching – Traditional and ITEP

Fall 2013

Domain

Fall 2013

Spring 2014 University Supervisor

Cooperating Teacher


Cooperating Teacher

Mean N Mean N

Mean

N

Mean

N

Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning 3.50 14 3.40 11 3.63 10 4.00 1


3.70 14 3.37 11 3.63 10 4.00 1


3.32 14 3.21 11 3.44 10 3.75 1


3.61 14 3.13 11 3.57 10 4.00 1

Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning 3.45 14 3.38 11 3.45 10 4.00 1 Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator 3.93 14 3.48 11 3.83 10 3.78 1


Table 14

Mild/Moderate: Student Teaching – ACT/ACT-R Spring 2014

Domain

Spring 2014 ACT

Spring 2014 ACT-R University Supervisor Master Teacher

University Supervisor/ Cooperating Teacher

Mean N Mean N

Mean

N

Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning 3.66 8 3.59 8 3.23 12

Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An Effective Environment for Students 3.69 8 3.56 8 3.51 12

Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter Knowledge for Student Learning 3.59 8 3.47 8 3.39 12

Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for Students 3.61 8 3.61 8 3.44 12

Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning 3.58 8 3.48 8 3.01 12 Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator 3.44 8 3.49 8 3.55 12



Table 15 Mild/Moderate: Interns (Semesters One, Two, Three, Four)

Spring 2014

Domain

Spring 2014


Mean N

Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning 3.22 17

Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An Effective Environment for Students 3.32 17

Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter Knowledge for Student Learning 3.22 17

Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for Students 3.15 17

Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning 3.09 17

Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator 3.40 17 The Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities assesses candidates’ performance in planning, implementing and assessing instruction. Teaching Events are rated using a 4-point scale: Level 1 (Does Not Meet Expectations) Level 2 (Approximates Expectations) Level 3 (Meets Expectations) and Level 4 (Exceeds Expectations). Data are reported by CSTP Domain for traditional and ITEP, ACT and ACT-R candidates.

Table 16

Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities – Traditional and ITEP Fall 2013

Domain

Mean N

(Task1) Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter Knowledge for Student Learning

3.56 16

(Task 2) Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for Students

3.5 16

(Task 3) Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning

4 16

(Task 4) Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning

3.88 16

(Task 5) Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An Effective Environment for Students

4 16

(Task 6) Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator 4 16


Table 17 Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities – Traditional and ITEP

Spring 2014 Domain

Mean N


3.86 14


3.21 14


3.5 14


3.36 14


3.57 14

(Task 6) Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator 3.57 14

Table 18 Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities - ACT

Spring 2014 Domain

Mean N


3.75 8


3.63 8


3.63 8


3.63 8


3.88 8

(Task 6) Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator 3.62 8


Table 19 Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities – ACT-R

Spring 2014 Domain

Mean N


3.32

11


3.28

11


3.20

11


3.12

11


3.44

11

(Task 6) Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator

3.32

11

Moderate/Severe Disabilities. Student teaching evaluations for traditional, ACT and ITEP candidates are completed by the university supervisor and the on-site supervisor. Only the university supervisor completes evaluations for interns. Overall, the scores fall between “developing practice” and “performs as expected” with the majority between “2” and a little over “3”. These are expected scores in the area of MS disabilities, where very few ratings of “4” are given. Data re reported for traditional and ACT-R candidates fall 2013 and spring 2014. The Special Education Teaching Event in Moderate/Severe Disabilities is an opportunity for candidates to demonstrate competencies in understanding and organizing subject matter knowledge, (Task 1) planning and designing instruction (Tasks 2 and 3), engaging students in learning (Task 4), assessing student learning (Task 5) and reflecting upon their practices (Task 6). Teaching Events are rated using a 4-point scale: Level 1 (Does Not Meet Expectations) Level 2 (Approximates Expectations) Level 3 (Meets Expectations) and Level 4 (Exceeds Expectations). Data are reported by CSTP Domain for traditional and and ACT-R candidates.


Table 20 Moderate/Severe: Student Teaching Evaluation – Traditional and ACT-R


Domain


On-site Supervisor


On-site Supervisor

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Making Subject Matter Comprehensible

2.60 3 2.93 3 2.16 3 2.89 2

Assessing Student Learning 2.75 3 3.00 3 2.48 3 2.94 2

Engaging and Support Students 2.71 3 2.9 3 2.46 3 3.00 2

Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences

2.75 3 2.9 3 2.59 3 2.93 2

Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments

2.76 3 3.0 3 2.56 3 2.85 2

Developing as a Professional Educator 2.9 3 3 2.80 3 3.00 2


Table 21 Special Education Teaching Event in Moderate/Severe Disabilities

Traditional and ACT-R Spring 2014

Domain

Mean N


3.33

6


3.5

6


3.5

6


3.1

6


3.2

6

(Task 6) Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator 3.67

6


Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Student teaching evaluations are completed for candidates in all three pathways (traditional, ACT, Intern) by the university supervisor and the on-site supervisor. Only the university supervisor completes an evaluation for interns. The Special Education Teaching Event in Deaf and Hard of Hearing assesses candidates’ performance in planning, implementing and assessing instruction. Teaching Events are rated using a 4-point scale: Level 1 (Does Not Meet Expectations) Level 2 (Approximates Expectations) Level 3 (Meets Expectations) and Level 4 (Exceeds Expectations). Data are reported by CSTP Domain for traditional and ACT-R candidates.

Table 22 Deaf and Hard of Hearing: Student Teaching Evaluation – Traditional, ACT-R, Intern


Domain


On-site Supervisor


On-site Supervisor

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Making Subject Matter Comprehensible

2.7 1 2.8 1 3.35 6 3.62 5

Assessing Student Learning 3.0 1 3.4 1 3.37 6 3.52 5

Engaging and Support Students 3.07 1 3.07 1 3.45 6 3.47 5

Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences

3.17 1 3.33 1 3.46 6 3.56 5

Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments

3.2 1 3.5 1 3.52 6 3.47 5

Developing as a Professional Educator 3.08 1 3.77 1 3.69 6 3.66 5



Table 23 Special Education Teaching Event in Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Spring 2014 Domain

Mean N


3.1 5


3.1 5


3.12 5


3 5


3.3 5

(Task 6) Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator 3.8

5

Early Childhood Special Education. Student teaching evaluations are completed for candidates by the university supervisor in all three pathways (traditional, intern and ACT-R) and in two pathways (traditional and ACT-R) by the on-site supervisor. Only the university supervisor evaluates interns. The Special Education Teaching Event in Early Childhood Special Education assesses candidates’ performance in planning, implementing and assessing instruction. Teaching Events are rated using a 4-point scale: Level 1 (Does Not Meet Expectations) Level 2 (Approximates Expectations) Level 3 (Meets Expectations) and Level 4 (Exceeds Expectations). Data are reported by CSTP Domain for traditional and ITEP, ACT and ACT-R candidates


Table 24 ECSE: Preschool/Pre-Kindergarten Traditional, ACT-R, Intern


Domain

Spring 2014

University Supervisor On-site supervisor

Mean N Mean N

Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning 3.4 8 3.6 7


3.29 8 3.5 7


3.29 8 3.57 7


3.29 8 3.48 7

Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning 3.1 8 3.3 7

Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator 3.3 8 3.6 7

Table 25

Special Education Teaching Event in Early Childhood Special Education Spring 2014

Domain

Mean N


3.41

9


3.31

9


3.14

9


3.2

9


3.67

9

(Task 6) Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator

3.56 9


Added Authorizations. The Department of Special Education at CSUN offers three added authorization: Autism Spectrum Disorders, Emotional Disturbance, and Resource Specialist. Pilot data from a group of students completing the Autism Spectrum Disorder Added Authorization (ASDAA) are in the following table. Candidates rates their knowledge of evidence-based practices on a four-point scale: Not Knowledgeable (1); Somewhat Knowledgeable (2); Adequately Knowledge (3); and Very Knowledgeable (4). Candidates also rate the extent to which they are prepared to apply evidence based practices on a four point scale: Not Prepared (1); Somewhat Prepared (2); Adequately Prepared (3); and Very Prepared (4). Surveys developed for candidates completing the Added Authorizations, appearing in Appendix A.

Table 26 Autism Spectrum Disorders Added Authorization

Summer 2014 To what extent are you knowledgeable about evidence-based practices in

teaching students with autism spectrum disorders: Evidence-based practices Mean Number Antecedent-based interventions 3.0 6 Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) 3.2 6 Visual supports 3.2 6 Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) 3 6 Social skills instruction 3.2 6 Transition support 2.8 6 Discrete trial training (DTT) 3.2 6 Peer-mediated instruction 3 6 Social Narratives 3.2 6 Computer aided instruction 3 6 Pivotal Response Training 3.2 6 Structured Teaching (TEACCH) 3.2 6

To what extent are you prepared to: Application of evidence based practices Identify the characteristics of learners with ASD 3.2 6 Deliver social skills lesson to students with ASD 3.2 6 Develop a transition plan for students with ASD 3.0 6 Implement a variety of evidence-based instructional practices for a learners with ASD

3.2 6

Collaborate with other service providers and families 3.4 6


SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION Part III: Analyses and Discussion of Candidate and Program Data

Part IV: Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance Candidate and program assessment continue to be an integral part of faculty work, facilitating the analysis of program effectiveness and informing program practices. As discussed more thoroughly in the 2011-2013 Biennial Report assessment activities are systematically embedded in department activities and are routinely examined at the specialization and department levels. Assessment results are shared with part-time faculty and at Community Advisory Committee meetings. The following findings are noted for the 2013-2014 academic year. Candidate Competence Recruitment of highly qualified candidates: Admission data indicate that a majority of candidates have strong undergraduate GPAs (over 3.0) and meet subject matter and basic skills requirements unless accepted under exceptional admission, allowed for 15% of applicants. Admission numbers and the percentage of candidates from diverse backgrounds have remained consistent since 2012-2013 with an increase since the last reporting period--40% (2009-2011), 46% (2011-2013), 47% (2013-2014). Grant supported recruitment efforts discussed in the 2011-2013 report continued throughout the 2013-2014 academic year. In addition a special education undergraduate course, SPED 200SL Introduction to Disability Studies was approved at the Department, College and University level to satisfy GE requirements. It is anticipated that this course will serve to recruit teacher candidates into the profession. Candidate performance: Data on the performance of candidates is strong at Transition Point 2 (entry to student teaching). Overall university supervisors’ ratings represent developing to maturing practice, very appropriate for candidates in early fieldwork. Ratings for Transition Point 3 are higher than Transition Point 2 primarily indicating “maturing practice” for traditional, ITEP, and ACT-ACT-R candidates, and third and fourth semester interns. Although ratings from cooperating/on-site supervisors remain consistently higher than ratings from the university supervisor, there is reasonable consistency between the two. The Department continues its major effort to to strengthen work with cooperating teachers, including a more standardized selection process and on-going professional development. As noted previously data from our portfolio assessments had limited variability and lacked authenticity. To address this concern faculty developed a Special Education Teaching Event, adopted from the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). As reported the Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities was piloted in the traditional and ACT programs in spring 2013, with the process including multiple meetings for the purpose of calibrating raters. This year data were collected from the Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities, Moderate/Severe Disabilities, Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and Early Childhood Special Education. The range of scores reported suggests that the Special Education Teaching Event has the potential to discriminate performance among candidates and to inform program practices across all specializations. As noted previously the integrity of the student teaching evaluation instrument was questionable, in Mild/Moderate Disabilities, where traditionally there are multiple part-time supervisors. In


particular ratings tended to exceed those in the other specializations. As shown in this report, using the revised evaluation measure and rubric, ratings are more consistent with the other specializations and align with the Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities. Program Effectiveness Efforts to document program efficacy focus on evaluation of Added Authorizations. Surveys for each Added Authorization were developed and piloted with candidates completing the Autism Spectrum Disorder program. Data, from this limited sample suggest, that completers felt adequately to very knowledgeable in all areas, except transition support (2.8) and least prepared to develop a transition plan (3.0). This provides a clear focus for program development. Procedures to promote full participation in surveys will be initiated with surveys administered to all completers in the Emotional Disturbance, Resource Specialist and Autism Spectrum Disorder Added Authorization programs. When available CSU exit and follow-up surveys will be examined. These provide valuable information on candidates’ and employers’ perceptions of the preparation program.


APPENDIX A

SURVEYS FOR ADDED AUTHORIZATIONS

Autism Spectrum Disorders Emotional Disturbance

Resource Specialist


AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS ADDED AUTHORIZATION SURVEY Name: Date: Preliminary Education Specialist Credential Program: 1. To what extent are you knowledgeable about evidence-based practices in teaching

students with autism spectrum disorders: Evidence-based practices Not

Knowledgeable Somewhat

Knowledgeable Adequately

Knowledgeable Very

Knowledgeable Antecedent-based interventions 1 2 3 4 Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS)

1 2 3 4

Visual supports 1 2 3 4 Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) 1 2 3 4 Social skills instruction 1 2 3 4 Transition support 1 2 3 4 Discrete trial training (DTT) 1 2 3 4 Peer-mediated instruction 1 2 3 4 Social Narratives 1 2 3 4 Computer aided instruction 1 2 3 4 Pivotal Response Training Structured Teaching (TEACCH) 2. To what extent are you prepared to: Application of evidence based practices

Not Prepared

Somewhat Prepared

Adequately Prepared

Very Prepared

Identify the characteristics of learners with ASD 1 2 3 4 Deliver social skills lesson to students with ASD 1 2 3 4 Develop a transition plan for students with ASD 1 2 3 4 Implement a variety of evidence-based instructional practices for a learners with ASD

1 2 3 4

Collaborate with other service providers and families

3. List three evidence-based practices you learned in the Added Autism program that you

will apply in your teaching. 4. What suggestions do you have to improve the Added Autism Authorization program?


EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE ADDED AUTHORIZATION SURVEY Date: Preliminary Education Specialist Credential Program: 1. To what extent are you knowledgeable about: Not



Knowledgeable Very

Knowledgeable Definitions and characteristics of Emotional Disturbance

1 2 3 4

Causes of Emotional Disturbance 1 2 3 4 Models of Emotional Disturbance 1 2 3 4 Evidence-based instructional application of models of ED

1 2 3 4

Multi-tiered models of behavior support

1 2 3 4

Social-communication skills in students with ED

1 2 3 4

Community resources and other service providers for students with ED

1 2 3 4

2. To what extent are you prepared to: Not

Prepared Somewhat Prepared

Adequately Prepared

Very Prepared

Identify the characteristics of students with ED 1 2 3 4 Use assessment data to design curriculum for students with ED

Deliver evidence-based and effective instruction to students with ED

1 2 3 4

Design a behavior support plan and/or promote positive/pro-social behavior

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4 Collaborate with other service providers and families

1 2 3 4

Use of Assessment Data to Design Curriculum for Students with Emotional Disturbance Use assessment data to design a behavior support plan


RESOURCE SPECIALIST ADDED AUTHORIZATION SURVEY

Date: Preliminary Education Specialist Credential Program: 1. To what extent are you knowledgeable about: Not



Knowledgeable Very

Knowledgeable Characteristics of students served by RSP

1 2 3 4

Assessment and evaluation of students served by RSP

1 2 3 4

Planning and implementing core curriculum and instruction to students served by RSP

1 2 3 4

Specific instructional strategies appropriate for students served by RSP

1 2 3 4

Positive behavior support for students served by RSP

1 2 3 4

Transition and transition planning for students served by RSP

1 2 3 4

Strategies for collaborating with other service providers and families

1 2 3 4

2. To what extent are you prepared to: Not

Prepared Somewhat Prepared

Adequately Prepared

Very Prepared

Assess students served by RSP 1 2 3 4 Plan and implement core curriculum and instruction to students served by RSP

1 2 3 4

Plan and implement specific instructional strategies appropriate for students served by RSP

1 2 3 4

Provide positive behavior support for students served by RSP

1 2 3 4

Engage in transition and transition planning for students served by RSP

1 2 3

Collaborate with other service providers and families

1 2 3 4

3. What suggestions do you have to improve the Resource Specialist Added Authorization program?

commission on teacher credentialing biennial report...

Documents