kennesaw state university - ksu web homeksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~sbrown1/kennesaw state...

Draft 10-29-03

Kennesaw State UniversityProfessional Teacher Education Unit

Department of Special EducationCouncil for Exceptional Children Report

Context StatementKennesaw State University (www.kennesaw.edu) serves a diverse student

body in the northern suburbs of Atlanta and extending into northwest Georgia. Effective teaching and learning are central institutional priorities. Service and research that strengthen teaching and address the public's interests are important supportive priorities. Faculty, staff and administrators are committed to providing a challenging and facilitative collegiate environment that fosters high-quality academic preparation, critical thinking, global and multicultural perspectives, effective communication and interpersonal skills, leadership development, social responsibility and lifelong learning. Founded in 1963 as a junior college, Kennesaw State University now offers fifty-five undergraduate and graduate programs serving over 18,000 students and growing.

The Professional Teacher Education Unit governs teacher education at Kennesaw State University. The Dean of the Bagwell College of Education presides over the Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU), which oversees all education programs. Membership includes deans, department chairs, faculty and program coordinators in education programs across the University (College of Education, College of Health and Human Services, College of Science and Mathematics, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, and the School of Arts). The PTEU meets monthly to address issues affecting education programs. The PTEU Teacher Education Council governs curriculum and policy and the Program Coordinators address consistency across programs.

The Professional Teacher Education Unit is the second largest and fastest growing teacher preparation program in the state of Georgia. Faculty is strongly committed to developing future teachers through a collaborative process. In addition to academic excellence, its focus is community-based service learning. We value diversity and our role in the community. The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares Professional Learning Facilitators who extend their understanding of the theoretical and methodological aspects of their teaching in the broader context of theory and research, and employ this knowledge in making decisions as instructional leaders who will enhance the education programs for all students, while advancing knowledge in their fields.

The Department of Special Education is one of four departments housed in the Bagwell College of Education. The Department offers the Master of Education in Special Education, the state required undergraduate Education of Exceptional Students course, and graduate level add-on programs in Interrelated Special Education, Preschool Special Education, Gifted, English to Speakers of Other Languages, and Teacher Support Specialist. The Department of Special

document.doc - 1 -

http://www.kennesaw.edu/

Draft 10-29-03

Education, in collaboration with the Advisory Board, revised the Departmental mission in 2002:

To provide leadership in the preparation of teacher-leaders who work collaboratively with families, school systems and community agencies to have a positive impact on the educational, social and behavioral development of all students in a diverse society through a focus on best practice in teaching and learning and accountability through assessment of outcomes for individuals and programs. To provide leadership in system change to build the capacity of all schools to meet the needs of all learners.

Conceptual Framework: Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning

Kennesaw State University Professional Teacher Education Unit’s conceptual framework for the preparation of teachers is based on the Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning. (Appendix A). This framework succinctly captures the essence of the university's deep commitment to university-wide and university-school collaboration in the preparation of teachers. The Kennesaw State University Professional Teacher Education Unit (KSU-PTEU) is committed to developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders who possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all of their students through effective, research-based practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance the structures that support all learning. Performance outcomes demonstrating expertise in subject matter, expertise as facilitators of teaching and learning and expertise as collaborative professionals are clearly defined by the Professional Teacher Education Unit within the Conceptual Framework.

The KSU-PTEU fosters the development of candidates as they progress through stages of growth from novice to proficient to expert and leader. Within the PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued development, not an end-state. The Department of Special Education utilizes a developmental framework for the graduate special education program based on the KSU conceptual framework and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Ethics and Standards. As subject matter experts, candidates know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students (KSU-PTEU 1), and as special educator subject matter experts, candidates demonstrate mastery of the CEC Common Core and Generalized Curriculum standards. Candidates are expected to be knowledgeable of special education policies and procedures (CEC 1), characteristics and needs of students with disabilities (CEC 2, 3, 6) and methods of inquiry and curriculum differentiation (CEC 7) to support students with disabilities in the general education curriculum in collaboration with general education teachers with specific subject matter expertise.

document.doc - 2 -

Draft 10-29-03

Faculty implement constructivist and behaviorist approaches within graduate classes to model the centrality of expertise as a facilitator of teaching and learning. Candidates are guided through learning activities, self-evaluation and reflection on their practice, and extension of these activities to their teaching practice. Teaching and learning are entwined and only through the implementation of validated practices can all students develop their own mental models or schema and reach high levels of learning. In that way, candidates are facilitators of the teaching and learning process, committed to students, and responsible for managing and monitoring student learning (KSU-PTEU 2). Special education teachers must possess the skills and knowledge to create environments and learning experiences that engage students in active learning and authentic achievement and who constantly assess and use results for improvement of student learning. Candidates are expected to demonstrate knowledge and mastery of research-based practices. In the role of facilitators of teaching and learning, teachers guide, motivate, evaluate, instruct and advise students. Their classroom practices reflect a repertoire of teacher and learner centered methods, which they should be able to implement or adapt in response to changes in the environment and student needs. The awareness of individual differences, knowing when and how to adjust instruction, and formative and summative assessment are essential outcomes of the graduate special education experience (CEC 4, 6, 8, 9). Field experience observations are recorded on the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO), which is aligned with the KSU-PTEU, the University System of Georgia requirements (which are based on National Board for Professional Teacher Standards - NBPTS) and CEC standards. KSU field experience supervisors provide coaching and feedback to assist candidates in refining their practice in the field to meet the needs of all students.

Finally, the PTEU recognizes, values and demonstrates collaborative practices across the college and university and extends collaboration to the community-at-large. Through this collaboration with professionals in the university, the public and private schools, parents and other professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of assisting Georgia schools in bringing all students to high levels of learning. Special education graduate candidates meet more than the academic requirements of the graduate degree program. Candidates are expected to be collaborative professionals and think systematically about their practice, learn from experience, and serve as members of learning communities (KSU-PTEU 3). Professionals are enthusiastic about their work and positively influence colleagues and students. They are aware that becoming a better teacher requires a commitment to ownership of the success of all students, use of data based decision making strategies to maximize impact on student learning, currency in subject matter knowledge, and continual assessment of their own strengths and areas of need as facilitators of learning through self-reflection. They take responsibility in their schools for curriculum initiatives, parental involvement, and collaboration with all constituents. In the classroom and in all school matters, their relations with students, parents and

document.doc - 3 -

Draft 10-29-03

colleagues show regard for human dignity. As professionals, KSU candidates are expected to continually seek ways to improve learning experiences for the students they teach. Candidates are also expected to be lifelong learners, participating in learning communities to inform their teaching practice. Collaborating with professional colleagues, participating in the activities of professional associations, engaging in self-evaluation, and working with members of the community served by their schools contribute to their effectiveness as professionals in facilitating student learning (CEC 9, 10).

Link to Kennesaw State University and Professional Teacher Education Unit Mission

Kennesaw State University (KSU) and the Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) value collaborative relationships. The first graduate special education program was developed by a team of educators from Kennesaw State University and local school districts based on the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (PSC) requirements for teachers of students with learning disabilities and approved in 1994. The KSU mission statement emphasizes responsiveness to needs within our scope of influence. Feedback from the Metropolitan Atlanta Learning Disabilities Consortia during 1994-1995, however, indicated that the categorical model for preparing teachers was not in line with district needs. Field experience observations by the program coordinator reinforced the need for a better model of preparation.

By 1995, the program had been revised to meet the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (PSC) standards for teachers of Interrelated special education (Appendix E) and the Council for Exceptional Children Common Core standards. Kennesaw State University was the first university in Georgia to utilize a competency model to document alignment with standards (reference grid) rather than the course-by-course model previously used by the PSC. This model and the KSU program were in greater alignment with district needs, delivery systems, and best practice in special education than the former model.

Further responsiveness to needs within our scope of influence resulted in discussions with Bartow County Schools and a partnership in support of the Bartow County ReEnvisioning initiative. Bartow County Schools were implementing a blended service delivery model to meet the needs of all students in a more inclusive setting. KSU began delivering the Interrelated add-on program on-site in Bartow County in January, 1996, for thirty teachers. The number of courses per semester, sequence of courses, and course assignments were adjusted to meet the needs of the district. A second off-campus cohort program was initiated in 2000 by Project Winning Team (PWT), Georgia's statewide initiative to prepare all teachers in inclusive schooling practices. The PWT cohort participants represented three districts in north Georgia and were funded by a contract with the Georgia Division for Exceptional Students.

document.doc - 4 -

Draft 10-29-03

The Department of Special Education was formed in 1998. The Department was charged with delivering the special education programs, the state required undergraduate course on educating exceptional students, the English to Speakers of Other Languages and the Gifted add-on programs. The initial faculty allocation included a Department Chair and four faculty positions. This reflected an expansion of the special education inclusive education model to meeting the needs of all students. An Advisory Board including faculty and staff from across campus, current candidates and graduates, parent representatives from the community, and practicing professionals from the community to support program development and program evaluation was convened in Fall 1998. It meets twice a year and provides a forum for discussion and feedback to guide program development.

In addition to graduate program delivery, the Department of Special Education has been actively involved in scholarship and professional service to build the capacity of schools to meet the needs of all learners, especially students with disabilities. Special Education Department scholarship and professional service reflects the KSU mission commitment to scholarly and creative work to enhance instructional effectiveness and to encourage faculty scholarly pursuits, a commitment to applied research, and a commitment to public service. The 2002 KSU Program Review Committee rated the Department’s contribution to achieving KSU mission as very strong. They recommended that the Department continue grant, contract and service projects and collaborative relationships.

The department emphasis on system change and building the capacity of schools to meet the needs of all students have been a major factor in the success in obtaining external funds to support collaborative projects promoting systems change in Georgia schools. Project WINS, the first grant, has expanded over time to include a parent component, leadership training, collaboration with schools and statewide policy analysis. KSU was awarded a contract for Project Winning Team in 2000 to implement the on-site KSU interrelated add-on program in conjunction with the Project WINS technical assistance model. In 2001, a grant for on-site delivery of the ESOL program in Cobb County including data collection and an emphasis on culture sensitive conflict resolution was implemented. A contract to support balanced literacy instruction in Dalton, Georgia Public Schools (80+% ESOL students) was implemented in 2002.

These funded programs provide opportunities for faculty to remain involved in schools and conduct action research that enriches their instruction for candidates in the special education program. Special education faculty is also very involved in university service, community service, professional service (see vita) and professional development at the local, state and national level. They serve as role models for life-long learning and professionalism. Candidates in the EXC 7735 Current Issues course in 2002 were given the opportunity to participate in data collection and analysis for a statewide policy

document.doc - 5 -

Draft 10-29-03

analysis. Candidates and graduates are included in presentations at state and national level conferences.

Special Education FacultyThe KSU Program Review rated the quality of faculty supporting the M.Ed. in Special Education as very strong (exemplary). There are five full-time tenure-track faculty positions and a department chair. All faculty hold a Ph.D. in an appropriate field and have public school experience as a special educator. There is a balance in faculty specializations to support courses in the program. Faculty are involved in professional development opportunities to remain up-to-date for program delivery and they provide leadership in professional service at the department, college, university, state and national level. The involvement of Special Education faculty in grant, contract, service and collaborative relationships in schools is reflective of KSU’s strong emphasis on applied scholarship using Boyer’s (1990) model. In addition to the full-time tenure-track faculty, four part-time faculty members provide support for field experience supervision and instruction. (Appendix B)

Policies and practices Minor changes in curriculum (realignment of objectives and/or

assignments) and policies (rubrics used to evaluate candidates) are departmental functions. The KSU Graduate Program and Policy Committee and the PTEU Teacher Education Council govern major changes in curriculum (new courses), policies (changes in admission standards) and practices.

The Master of Education in Special Education is an advanced program for development of teacher leaders. Although approved by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission as an initial certificate, the Interrelated special education core at KSU is only offered as an add-on to an existing certificate and not as an initial teaching credential. This also supports the Department of Special Education focus on inclusive education. Candidates for the graduate special education program at Kennesaw State University must be fully certified teachers in Georgia in any field (K-12). This provides a grounding in curriculum content, instruction and behavior management skills. Candidates must also provide evidence of coursework in Human Growth and Development, Education of Exceptional Students, and Teaching Reading before admission. These prerequisite requirements are the basis for developing advanced skills.

The Department of Special Education requires that candidates are admitted to the program in a cohort and take all courses together in sequence. This process supports enrollment management and provides an opportunity for candidates to demonstrate collaborative practice throughout the program. Field experience is integrated throughout the program based on candidate job sites or supervised field experience assigned by the Department. Portfolio linked assignments are included in each course and emphasize extensions beyond

document.doc - 6 -

Draft 10-29-03

class assignments. Documentation of impact of student learning is expected throughout the program.

Once admitted into the program, GPA requirements are monitored by the KSU Graduate Office and the Department of Special Education has implemented interim review of candidate progress and dispositions at the completion of 12 and 24 semester hours in the 36-hour program. Candidates must demonstrate mastery of all components of the SEPO and Portfolio Narrative before credit is awarded for the final capstone courses. Syllabi statements outline policies on attendance, academic honesty and respect for human dignity.

DiversityOne of the core values of Kennesaw State University, the Professional

Teacher Education Unit and the Department of Special Education is the tenet that society is diverse so we must prepare teachers to teach all students. The Council for Exceptional Children states that, "Diversity, when conceptualized within an educational context, includes culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse learners from variant socioeconomic levels, urban and rural learners, as well as any other learner who may have educationally relevant differences." (CEC policy statement,1999).

The Department of Special Education, through campus-based programs, external grant functions, collaboration across the PTEU, and leadership in professional and consumer organizations, promotes inclusive education to address the needs of all students. All courses address the impact of diversity on learning needs and identification. Student diversity is a key element in selection of grant sites. The Department of Special Education participated as a pilot site in the National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education use of public service announcements to recruit minority populations to enter the field of special education. As part of this commitment, all full-time and part-time special education faculty and members of the PTEU Diversity Committee attended a two-day professional development workshop on poverty by Ruby Payne in 2002.

The Professional Teacher Education Unit has adopted the following diversity statement to be included in all syllabi:

A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and assessment within multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate awareness of critical multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific methods and materials for every student. Among these attributes are age, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic

document.doc - 7 -

Draft 10-29-03

region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. An emphasis on cognitive style differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.

Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to support students with disabilities within their academic program. In order to make arrangements for special services, students must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and develop an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.

Please be aware there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State University that address each of the multicultural variables outlined above.

Technology:On-campus cohorts take classes in a wireless laptop classroom with state-

of-the-art technology. Faculty use department laptop computers and projection systems for instruction in off-campus sites. Off-campus cohorts utilize school system technology labs for hands-on activities as needed. In addition to modeling use of technology, faculty teach and require specific technology competencies within the program. Technology skill development is addressed by specific requirements embedded within course requirements. For example, spreadsheet applications and development of graphs and charts are required as part of the EXC 7720 Behavior Management project, candidates in EXC 7735 participate in ListServ discussion groups, and PowerPoint presentations are required in EXC 7970 Internship. Technology accommodations are introduced in EXC 7760 Teaching & Learning I, integration of technology in instructional planning is required in EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II, and hands-on experience with adaptive/assistive technology is provided in EXC 7770 Psychoneurological and Medical Issues in Special Education.

Professional Roles of Graduates The M.Ed. in Special Education includes the Georgia Interrelated Special Education add-on as the teaching field component. Candidates completing the M.Ed. program are eligible for a Master’s level teaching certificate, and may take the PRAXIS II exams and apply for the Interrelated add-on to their existing teaching certificate. According to the Georgia teacher certification Rule 505-2.75 (6) (effective January 2003) in-field statement, “An individual with a certificate in Interrelated Special Education is in-field to be a resource teacher in the fields of Behavior Disorders, Learning Disabilities, and Mild Mental Retardation; and to teach students in self-contained classrooms with Behavior Disorders, Learning

document.doc - 8 -

Draft 10-29-03

Disabilities, and Mild Mental Retardation in grades P-12; to teach preschool special education students; to teach autistic students; and to teach remedial mathematics, reading and writing in grades P-12.” (Appendix E)

A task force convened by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission and composed on district personnel directors, special education administrators, National Board Teachers, and University teacher educators met during Spring 2003 to address the impact of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandate for fully qualified teachers. The draft of a proposed Revised Rule 505-3-.37 in-field statement proposes “field-specific content standards for approving programs that prepare teachers to teach all students P-12 with disabilities whose individual education program indicates instruction using the general education curriculum and participation in the general statewide assessment.” The shift proposed by the task force drafting the new rules is to move from the view of special education as a location (placement) to emphasize special education as a service (delivered to the student) to meet the need of each student. The proposed new rules would replace the current standards with a competency-based model based on the CEC standards for Generalized Curriculum.

Accreditation ReviewThe Kennesaw State University M.Ed. in Special Education and

Interrelated program received CEC Accreditation in 1998 based on the CEC General Curriculum Standards. The programs in Learning Disabilities, Behavior Disorders and Intellectual Disabilities were approved by CEC based on the individual disability category standards. The NCATE Board of Examiners and the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (PSC) approved all programs in the Department of Special Education in 2000. The Special Education programs were approved with no weaknesses.

Program self-evaluation and continuous program improvementThe Master of Education in Special Education program was revised from a

quarter system format to a semester system format mandated for the University System of Georgia for Fall 1998. Using feedback from student course evaluations and products and observations in the field, the program revisions included realignment of outcomes and objectives to increase the focus on curriculum development and accommodations, instructional strategies, data collection and use, collaborative practice and action research skills.

A learning outcomes assessment was developed by the KSU-PTEU Special Education Program Coordinator in 1998 to track assessment of the CEC standards and candidate performance. The matrix has been reviewed annually by the Department of Special Education to determine program strengths and to implement changes to improve candidate success. Refinement of course outcome indicators and realignment of course objectives to promote improved candidate performance were examples of recommended changes. The development of the accommodations outcome assignment was tried in three

document.doc - 9 -

Draft 10-29-03

different courses and multiple formats before faculty were satisfied that candidates were meeting the desired level of proficiency on the outcome. A report was submitted to KSU administrators each summer to document self-evaluation and implementation of changes.

Program review is an ongoing process built on multiple levels of data collection and discussions. A major goal of the review has been quality program development, but attention is also focused on controlled growth. Program growth is controlled by cohort enrollment, and has leveled off until additional faculty resources are available.

Enrollment Trends in Program Courses FY 2001-FY 2002

SU 00 F00 SP01 SU01 FA01 SP02 MeanProfessional Sequence

EXC 7790 (new 2001) 12 12EXC 7700 (new 2002) EXC 7735 35 (2) 24 30EXC 7770 29 12 26 22EXC 7780 12 27 27 23 22

Teaching FieldEXC 7705 13 22 18EXC 7715 29 27 42 (2) 25EXC 7720 26 29 27 38 (2) 24EXC 7730 23 27 25EXC 7760 33 22 28EXC 7765 28 22 17 22EXC 7970 37 (2) 20 19

The first graduates completed the Master of Education in Special Education: Interrelated in Summer 1998. Graduation rates have increased from 17 in Fiscal Year 1999 to 32 in Fiscal Year 2002. Graduation rates vary based on off-campus cohort schedules.

M.Ed. in SPE Degrees Conferred FY 1998-FY 2002

FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 20020 17 24 26 32

The portfolio component of the program became a source of concern as the program grew. Feedback from candidates and faculty indicated that the portfolio development process was stressful and did not align with other special education program goals. After a careful review of the portfolio process, the department developed and implemented a new model in 2001-2002 that helped students and faculty see the alignment between the learning outcomes matrix and the working portfolio. All course syllabi were revised to include specific portfolio related assignments. Candidates began enrolling in a research course

document.doc - 10 -

Draft 10-29-03

specifically designed to develop skills appropriate for special educators and a capstone portfolio course to document their professional growth. Candidates completing the new portfolio course in Spring 2002 reported satisfaction with the new model. Faculty was still struggling with how to assess the portfolios in relation to the KSU-PTEU and NBPTS model. Written and oral portfolio evaluation forms were modified by portfolio course faculty and the format for the working portfolio was changed for the Spring 2003 course (2001 cohort candidates). The working portfolio was aligned with the KSU-PTEU Candidate Performance Indicators which were linked to the five core propositions of NBPTS.

Revisions in the KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework, however, resulted in additional discussions across departments about the goals for graduate candidates and how they could be assessed. These discussions resulted in the development of new evaluation instruments that are being implemented in 2003-2004.

A program review process, initiated by KSU in 2001, serves to provide university wide feedback for all academic and service units. Completion of the self-study and related survey developed by the Department provides support for data based decision making at the program and university level. The program review council supports the department’s self-study conclusion that the M.Ed. in Special Education is a strong program and should continue to maximize its potential; however additional resources are needed to support further growth. This KSU level review is forwarded to the University System of Georgia level.

The program review council highlights the Department of Special Education’s excellent use of data based decision-making and continuous improvement. The department is committed to continuous program improvement through formative evaluation and discussion. The relationship with Advisory Board members and local schools impacts program improvement through regular meetings addressing the needs of local schools and how to balance quality and the demand for more teachers. Faculty members are also involved at the state and national level activities such as the Georgia Professional Standards Commission task force on revision of special education certification and participation in discussions on special education teacher preparation issues as part of the executive board of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children (TED).

Faculty meetings include discussions of candidate progress and coordination of program improvement efforts. A Department of Special Education faculty member serving on the KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework committee developed a survey of candidates, faculty and advisory board members to address the validity of special education graduate program outcome assignments. The survey results were used to support the Department’s databased decision process. Annual faculty retreats are conducted each

document.doc - 11 -

Draft 10-29-03

summer to map out curriculum, assignments, etc. in response to candidate progress, course evaluations, current best practice literature, and alignment with changing standards. Summer 2002 featured a curriculum mapping activity used as a basis for program improvement. Development and field-testing of the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) form for documenting candidate classroom performance was a primary goal for 2002-2003. Another major emphasis has been alignment of the portfolio with KSU’s PTEU conceptual framework and outcomes, CEC standards, USG-BoR standards based on NBPTS, Georgia PSC standards, and the department mission.

Key elements of the KSU Special Education program There are 3 key quality indicators of the KSU Special Education program:

(1) Link to CEC standards, (2) Extensive field experience component, and (3) Continuous improvement model. The KSU special education program has been linked to CEC standards since its inception in 1994 and has been modified as needed as CEC standards have been revised. Faculty participation in CEC-NCATE training sessions has contributed to keeping this link up-to-date. The extensive field experience component of the program, implemented in 1994, monitors candidate progress through the developmental framework and informs program faculty of the varied needs of program candidates. The continuous improvement model is based on the program’s commitment to data based decision-making. Efforts continue to refine data-collection to inform program improvement.

document.doc - 12 -

Draft 10-29-03


Department of Special Education

Special Education Program Assessment SystemThe link to CEC Content standards is a key element of the Kennesaw

State University Special Education program. Programmatic learning outcomes were originally developed in 1994 in alignment with the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Common Core Standards and the Kennesaw State University Professional Teacher Education Unit (KSU PTEU) Conceptual Framework. As part of the continuous improvement emphasis, outcomes have been revised and alignment with other initiatives developed. The following table highlights alignment of the current CEC Common Core standards, the KSU-PTEU conceptual framework, the University System of Georgia Board of Regents (USG BoR) Principles linked to the National Board of Professional Teacher Standards (NBPTS) core propositions, the NBPTS Exceptional Needs Standards and the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GA PSC) requirements which are linked to the CEC standards plus nine additional standards.

Curriculum Alignment with Standards

CEC Common

CoreStandards

KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework

USG -BoR NBPTS Core Propositions

NBPTS Exceptional

Needs Standards

GA PSC IRR Standards

1 Foundations

1 Subject Matter Experts

Knowledge of Special Education

2 Development & Characteristics of Learners

1 Subject matter experts

I Teachers are committed to students and their learning

Knowledge of Students

I Characteristics of BD, LD, MRVI Early childhood

3 Individual Learning Differences

1 Subject matter experts


Multiple Paths to Knowledge

Diversity

IV Perceptual motor development

4 Instructional Strategies

1 Expertise as facilitators of teaching & Learning

II Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students

Knowledge of Subject Matter

Meaningful Learning

V Reading & mathematics difficulties

5 Learning Environments & Social Interactions


III Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning

Learning Environment

Social Development

VIII Field experiences for levels and categories

6 Language 1 Subject matter experts


Knowledge of Students

III Language development, disorders and deviations

document.doc - 13 -

Draft 10-29-03

7 Instructional Planning


II Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students

Instructional Resources

8 Assessment


III Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning

Assessment II Psychoeducational evaluation and assessment

9 Professional & Ethical Practice

3 Collaborative professionals

IV Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience

Reflective Practice

Contributing to the Profession and to Education

10 Collaboration

3 Collaborative professionals

V Teachers are members of learning communities

CommunicationsFamily Partnerships

VII Effective parent involvement and counseling

The KSU Special Education program emphasis on data based continuous improvement is a strength of the program highlighted by the KSU Program Review Council in 2002. (Appendix C) The original KSU Special Education learning outcomes assessment was a matrix of learning outcomes linked to program goals (CEC Common Core Standards) developed in 1998. Data collected annually as part of the learning outcomes assessment were continuously used to refine course assignments, content and delivery. Revisions such as moving objectives or assignments among courses, re-sequencing courses, team-teaching courses, and coordination of assignments across courses were implemented to improve candidate mastery of goals. An annual summer retreat including all faculty (full-time and part-time) served to review data collected from candidate evaluations, candidate products, advisory board recommendations and faculty input to make programmatic decisions.

Revisions in the Kennesaw State University Professional Teacher Education Unit (KSU-PTEU) Conceptual Framework as KSU moved to a performance-based assessment system included discussions across departments about the goals for graduate candidates and how they could be assessed. These discussions resulted in revision of the KSU-PTEU unit level and the graduate special education program level assessment derived from the PTEU Conceptual Framework. The Candidate Performance Instrument (CPI), Portfolio Narrative Analysis, and Impact on Student Learning Assessment (ISLA) are part of the Unit level assessment. The following chart highlights the required unit level data for graduate programs.

document.doc - 14 -

Draft 10-29-03

REQUIRED GRADUATE DATA – Fall 2003In What Course?

What is It?

Where Do I Find Printable Copies?

Who Completes It?

Submitted Online?

Submitted in Hard Copy?

Where does It Go?

When is It Completed?

When is It Due?

Portfolio class

CPI I-Drive and CFEP’s website

Professor &Candidate

Yes No *Electronic submission

End of Portfolio class

Last Day of Finals

Portfolio class

Graduate Portfolio Narrative Rubric

I-Drive and CFEP’s website

Professor completes rubric


By end of Semester

Last Day of Finals

EDUC/EDL/EECE/EXC and/or Content course

Impact on Student Learning Analysis Rubric

I-Drive and CFEP’s website

Professor completes Rubric*Recommend that candidate also complete rubric as part of narrative


By end of Semester

Last Day of Finals

Portfolio class

Diversity Survey

Online (see below for address)

Candidate Yes No *Electronic submission

By end of Semester

Last Day of Finals

*Electronic submission for forms can be accessed at www.kennesaw.edu/education Click on “PTEU Data System.” Then, after logging in, click on “Forms.” Enter candidate’s SSN.

Printable copies of all forms reference above are available on the I-Drive by accessing the “TED Teachers Education” folder; then access the “Graduate Reporting Forms and Rubrics” folder.

The Diversity Survey is available at http://bcoe.kennesaw.edu/diversity

The Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) (Appendix D) and selected course assignments are part of the Program level assessment. The SEPO is also aligned with the Unit level Graduate Candidate Performance Instrument (CPI) (Appendix A) and serves as an additional Unit level indicator. The following chart highlights the Program assessment model. Unit level assessments are in bold font. Other assessments are program level.

Candidate Outcomes and Assessment Plan 2002-2003CEC CEC Standard Product

AssessmentPerformanc

e Assessment

Student

Impact

Capstone Assessment

1 Foundations/ Philosophy 7705 exams 7970 SEPO/CPI

7790 portfolio & narrative rubric

2 Learners 7715 exams7770 exams

7970 SEPO/CPI


document.doc - 15 -

http://bcoe.kennesaw.edu/diversity

http://www.kennesaw.edu/education

Draft 10-29-03

3 Individual Differences 7715 exams7770 exams

7970 SEPO/CPI


4 Instructional Strategies 7765 rubric 7970 SEPO/CPI

7765ISLA


5 Learning Environments 7720 rubric 7970 SEPO/CPI


6 Language Development 7715 exams 7730 rubric

7970 SEPO/CPI


7 Instructional Planning 7760 rubric 7765 rubric

7970 SEPO/CPI


8 Assessment 7730 rubric 7970 SEPO/CPI


9 Professional & Ethical Practice

7705 exams 7970 SEPO/CPI


10 Collaborative Practices 7780 rubric 7970 SEPO/CPI


The special education graduate program assessment system includes an external component for program evaluation and an internal component for individual candidate assessment. A continuous data collection model is used to support data based decision making on program evaluation and individual candidate progress.

External Evaluation and Program Review Component

External evaluation includes PRAXIS II data. The KSU M. Ed. in Special Education program has maintained a 100% rate of passage for candidates.

Graduation Praxis Pass Rate *2001 Cohort 2003 100%2000 Cohort 2002 100%1999 Cohort 2001 100%1998 Cohort 2000 100%

*M.Ed. in Special Education Candidates only

Over 95% of candidates are employed as teachers while enrolled in the program. As part of a 2002 Program Review by KSU and forwarded to the USG Board of Regents, a survey was sent to candidates, graduates and employers. The external feedback from the 2002 Program Review survey addressed program success in developing advanced level skills that was evidenced in responses to the survey stem, “Since you enrolled in KSU have you: Check all that apply”

Candidate/Graduate Self-Report of Success after GraduationN=99 Honors Leadership

RolesPromotion Additional

DegreesFormal Research

Action Research

Presentations

Candidates 10 13 2 1 4 10 21Graduates 14 19 9 5 1 8 12

document.doc - 16 -

Draft 10-29-03

Another source of external evaluation is the Department of Special Education Advisory Board, including faculty and staff from across campus, current candidates and graduates, parent representatives from the community, and practicing professionals from the community. It meets twice a year and provides a forum for discussion and feedback to guide program development and program evaluation.

Accreditation review provides external evaluation. Kennesaw State University Program Review Council, the University System of Georgia Board of Regents, Georgia Professional Standards Commission, NCATE and CEC, and the KSU Program Review Council have reviewed the M.Ed. in Special Education. The Georgia Professional Standards Commission provided initial approval for the special education add-on programs (LD 1994; BD, MR, IRR 1995). The Board of Regents approved the M.Ed. in Special Education in 1996 and a five-year follow-up review in 2001. The Kennesaw State University M.Ed. in Special Education and Interrelated program received CEC Accreditation in 1998 based on the CEC General Curriculum Standards. The programs in Learning Disabilities, Behavior Disorders and Intellectual Disabilities were approved by CEC based on the individual disability category standards. The NCATE Board of Examiners and the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (PSC) approved all programs in the Department of Special Education in 2000. The Special Education programs were approved with no weaknesses. The KSU Program Review Council in 2002 gave the M.Ed. in Special Education program Strong or Very Strong ratings for all Quality Indicators. (Appendix C)

Internal Candidate Assessment ComponentThe assessment system begins with data collected at the point of

admission to the program. Admission requirements are listed in the Graduate Catalog. The original admission requirements were developed in alignment with other KSU graduate education programs and emphasized undergraduate grade point average (GPA) and scores on the Verbal and Quantitative subtests of the Graduate Record Examination (GRE). All candidates are screened by the Office of Graduate Education to determine eligibility. The following chart reflects Graduate Record Exam (GRE) scores and final Grade Point Average (GPA) for Fall Semester 2001 candidates.

SPE Candidate Performance 2001 CohortGRE Verbal GRE

QuantitativeTotal GRE Spring 2003

Graduation GPAM.Ed. in SPE Candidates 520 470 990 3.86

Departmental discussions and informal review of candidate performance has resulted in changes in admission requirements. Consistent concerns were raised about candidate written expression skills and interpersonal skills. A rubric was implemented in the 2003 admission review to provide better documentation of the admissions process. The Special Education Admissions Review

document.doc - 17 -

Draft 10-29-03

Committee (at least 3 faculty) reviewed all candidates during Spring 2003 using the following rubric.

document.doc - 18 -

Draft 10-29-03

GRADUATE ADMISSIONS CRITERIA REVIEW SHEET DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

STUDENT NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE:

EMAIL: PROGRAM CONCENTRATION: DATE:

Performance Element Meets Provisional Does Not Meet 1. Baccalaureate degree from Documented Not Documented Not Documentedaccredited institution

2. Undergraduate cumulative Documented 2.5 – 2.75/4.00 Not Documentedgrade point average of 2.75/4.00

3. Minimum score of 800 (Verbal & Documented 700-800 GRE Not DocumentedQuantitative combined) on GRE

4. Professional Resume Documents education, Meets Partial Criteria Lacks critical data teaching experience,

service and leadership

5. Two Letters of Recommendation Addresses applicant’s Addresses teaching Tepid review of success in teaching; ability success or ability for applicant’s abilities/only

for success in M.Ed. program success in M.Ed. program one letter submitted

6. Current Georgia Certificate Documented Pending Not Documented

7. Proof of Completion of Courses HGD ___ HGD ___ HGD ___in Human Growth & Development, RDG ___ RDG ___ RDG ___Teaching Reading, and Education EXC ___ EXC ___ EXC ___

Of Exceptional Students All 3 Documented 2-3 Documented 0-1 Documented

8. M.Ed. Personal Statement

Training, Interests, Contains a sharp focus and Unengaging, poorly Lack of purpose, focus, Needs, Concerns (a) a clearly identifiable focused statement major elements statement of purpose

Nature/Quality of Ideas are engaging, Ideas are good but Ideas Undeveloped, Experiences (b) Insightful, illustrate obscured by unclear Random thoughts

Understanding of self writing or lack of Information Goals/Issues Major points are supported Superficial Support Major Points Unsupported

To Address (c) by strong examples.

Style Writing is clear, inspiring, Writing is fair, not Writing lacks energy, is

and done with a flair. Particularly engaging narrow, unimaginative

Organization Contains clearly developed Contains mostly well- Disorganized and difficult paragraphs in a logical developed paragraphs; to follow sequence. Unclear in places

Mechanics No errors 1-3 distracting errors Many major errors Some minor difficulties

Accept in Full Standing _____ Accept Provisionally ______ Reject _______Reason for Rejection: _________________________________________________________________________Decision Approved By: __________________________________________ Date: _______________________

document.doc - 19 -

Draft 10-29-03

Candidates scoring low on written expression of the admission rubric were

brought in for a conference and remediation suggestions. Changes submitted for the 2003-2004 KSU Graduate Catalog include submission of a 1-2 page Teaching Experience Essay outlining and reflecting on a significant teaching event that has personal meaning for the candidate to replace the current personal statement of goals for professional development. This essay format is based on research on teacher dispositions presented at a conference last fall.

The Office of Graduate Education sends out letters informing candidates of the special education admission committee’s decision. Candidates that meet all standards are granted admission in full standing. Candidates that do not meet all requirements are granted provisional admission with specific stipulations and their performance in the program is reviewed before granting full standing. Individual candidate appointments are scheduled as necessary to address issues for provisional admission. Candidates granted provisional admission are reviewed at the end of each semester and must satisfy requirements for full admission by the completion of nine semester hours in the program. Further revisions in admission standards to be addressed during 2003-2004 are the GRE Writing subtest scores and submission of teaching videotapes.

An orientation session is scheduled before initial cohort registration. Candidates receive information on program requirements and websites for accessing forms. Subsequent advising sessions are conducted within cohorts. Candidates receive copies of the unit and program level assessments with references to the aligned standards. Forms have been revised for the 2003 cohorts. The Department of Special Education website is scheduled to be upgraded and all forms will be available online.

Interim review of candidate performance begins with the KSU Graduate School office monitoring course grades. Candidates not meeting standards are issued letters of warning, probation or dismissal. Special education faculty discusses candidates’ strengths and areas needing improvement as appropriate at faculty meetings. Patterns of concern (written expression skills, professionalism, classroom performance) were identified and an interim review process was developed, beginning with the 2002 cohort. It is scheduled at the completion of 12 semester hours using the Candidate Interim Review Rubric:

document.doc - 20 -

Draft 10-29-03

CANDIDATE INTERIM REVIEW RUBRICStandards L1 - L2 L3 L4 Comments

Candidate’s written expression is well organized, professional, and free of mechanical errors.

Two or more faculty members have voiced concerns over the candidate’s work in one or more areas of written expression.

While the quality of written expression is somewhat inconsistent, it is always acceptable.

The quality of the candidate’s written expression is consistently well organized, professional and free of errors.

Candidate is highly professional in their approach to their graduate work.

Candidate is habitually late for class. Candidate does not attend to class discussion nor activities.

Candidate is not respectful of the ideas of others.

Candidate does not listen and appropriately respond to feedback and dialogue.

Candidate views course assignments in isolation and does not find ways to extend new skills and knowledge to daily practice.

Candidate consistently comes to class, is punctual and attends to topics of discussion and activities.

Candidate is respectful of colleagues and peers.

Candidate consistently listens and appropriately responds to feedback and dialogue.

Candidate periodically finds a way to extend skills and knowledge from course work to daily practice

Candidate consistently comes to class, is punctual and attends to topics of discussion and activities.

Candidate is respectful of colleagues and peers.

Candidate consistently listens and appropriately responds to feedback and dialogue.

Candidate consistently finds ways to extend skills and knowledge from course work to daily practice.

Candidate is professional in their communication, collaboration & teamwork.

Candidate does not use People 1st language when referring to people with disabilities.

Candidate displays paternalistic attitudes toward students with disabilities, has low expectations and increases student dependency on teachers and caretakers.

Candidate is often accused by peers of “social loafing” during group work. An analysis of grades clearly indicates a discrepancy where the candidates “group grades” are higher than individual grades.

Candidate generally uses People 1st language when referring to people with disabilities.

Candidate generally displays a positive attitude towards all students, including those with disabilities, has high expectations and empowers all students to solve their own problems and increase independence.

Candidate successfully collaborates with peers to complete team-based assignments.

Candidate consistently uses People 1st language when referring to people with disabilities.

Candidate consistently displays a positive attitude towards all students, including those with disabilities, has high expectations and empowers all students to solve their own problems and increase independence.

Candidate consistently leads and successfully collaborates with peers to complete team-based

document.doc - 21 -

Draft 10-29-03

assignments.Candidate demonstrates effective teaching and classroom management skills during field observations.

Two or more faculty have voiced concerns in either teaching or classroom management.

Candidate has obtained satisfactory evaluations from university supervisory staff.

Candidate has obtained exemplary evaluations from university supervisory staff.

Candidate maintains a GPA of 3.0.

Candidate has two or more grades below a C.

Candidate maintains a GPA of 3.0, with incompletes for illness only.

Candidate maintains a GPA of 3.0, with no incompletes.

Candidates exhibiting deficiencies in any of the five areas are invited for an advising meeting and a remediation plan developed. Letters indicating conditions for continuing in the program are sent out to candidates identified as exhibiting difficulty in completing program requirements. Candidates are reviewed again at the completion of 24 semester hours (out of a 36-semester hour program).

Course requirements reflect a developmental model of program and candidate evaluation. Activities in each course build on skills and knowledge developed in previous courses. Faculty meetings regularly include discussion of candidate progress and standards. These issues are addressed at the summer faculty retreat and formalized in course syllabi for the next academic year.

Course requirements include a variety of types of assessment: multiple choice exams, case study response exams, assessment data collection and reporting, collaborative group projects, individual projects, in-class activities, and field-based activities. Course requirements serve to monitor effectiveness of instruction, model formative assessment, develop skills for extension in the field experience, and document progress in the program. Technology skill assessment is embedded in activities within courses. Documentation of candidate mastery of knowledge competencies is evidenced by evaluation rubrics of course outcomes. The Unit level ISLA is completed in EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II and the capstone portfolio course (EXC 7970). During 2003-2004 this will be implemented in additional courses.

Course requirements include field-based as well as traditional course assessment. Field-based supervision supports the links between theory and practice. All candidates are observed each semester by KSU faculty and/or field experience supervisors who provide documentation of performance on the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) form (Appendix D) documenting development of expertise in teaching and learning throughout the program. This instrument is intentionally linked to the Unit level Gradate Candidate Performance Instrument (CPI) outcomes (Appendix A). Candidates must demonstrate mastery of all outcomes at a Level 3 (acceptable) or Level 4 (target) before receiving a satisfactory grade in the capstone Internship course (EXC 7970). Additional supervision visits are

document.doc - 22 -

Draft 10-29-03

scheduled as necessary throughout the program to support candidate development.

Candidates maintain a working portfolio throughout the program including course requirements and evaluation rubrics, personal reflections, extensions in their classroom, student work samples, video-tapes, and feedback from supervision visits. A written portfolio and multi-media presentation documenting personal philosophy, impact on student learning, and professional growth is developed from the working portfolio of products from courses within the program. Candidates are expected to include extensions of skills beyond course requirements. Candidates must complete a working portfolio, written portfolio and presentation with mastery at a Level 3 (acceptable) or Level 4 (target) on all performance rubric indicators before receiving a satisfactory grade in the capstone portfolio course (EXC 7790). The Unit level Portfolio Narrative Rubric (p. 62) and Unit level Candidate Performance Indicators (Appendix A) form are completed at this point.

Candidate assessment: Follow-up: As a result of the 2002 Program Review process, the Department identified follow-up of graduates as an area needing improvement. Ninety-nine candidates, graduates and supervisors responded to the 2002 Program Review Survey. This represented a return rate of approximately thirty-five percent. The Department has maintained many unofficial lines of communication including using graduates as part-time instructors, attending informal reunion groups with former cohorts, and soliciting feedback in the department newsletter. The university and PTEU focus has been on following-up and providing induction services for undergraduates, and with administrative reorganization in 2001, responsibility for follow-up of graduates was not assigned. A major goal for the 2003-2004 academic year will be developing a system to follow-up graduates. This will be discussed with the appropriate PTEU committee and established as a PTEU function.

document.doc - 23 -

Draft 10-29-03


Department of Special Education

Field Experiences and Clinical Practice StandardField experiences are embedded within the graduate Special Education

Program at Kennesaw State University (KSU). Many classes are designed with field-based components to link theory to practice. Ninety-five percent of graduate candidates are employed full time as teachers and complete field-based activities for their teaching field and capstone courses on their job site.

Developmentally sequenced field experiencesThe KSU Special Education graduate program provides candidates

multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery and reflect on practice in their job site or KSU selected field experience site. Candidates take classes in a cohort model to ensure sequencing of courses and requirements to promote sequential development and extension of skills. Candidates complete two observation visits and reflections to document a range of experiences and the application of components observed to their teaching practice. Candidates submit videotapes with self-evaluation and reflection, as well as peer and faculty feedback, in specific courses. The candidate is responsible for obtaining parental permission for videotaping and maintaining permission on file to assure confidentiality in compliance with local school/district policies.

A key element in the KSU program is the field-experience supervision component. Kennesaw State University faculty and field-experience supervisors schedule observation visits to monitor progress in development of expertise as facilitators of teaching and learning using the Special Education Performance Objectives (SEPO) Form (Appendix D) that is linked to the CEC Standards and KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework outcomes (Subject matter experts, Facilitators of teaching and learning, and Collaborative professionals). KSU field-experience supervisors observe candidates in their classrooms at least once each semester and provide written feedback (Observation Summary Form) and verbal coaching. The initial on-site supervision visit during Fall I focuses on baseline data collection and support of candidates in their curriculum development and evaluation role. Subsequent field experience supervision visits are linked to specific course requirements as indicated by the goals column of the following chart. Field experience supervisors rate candidate performance on the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) Form and provide verbal coaching and written feedback on a separate form (Observation Summary) indicating candidate strengths and areas needing improvement. Additional supervision visits are scheduled when necessary.

The following chart indicates the developmental focus and goals of observation activities, videotape evidence of performance, and supervision visits.

document.doc - 24 -

Draft 10-29-03

Developmental Field Experience GridSemester Course Course Observation/Supervision

GoalsObs Videotape # of

visitsSummer I EXC

7700 EXC 7715

Observation: Disabilities/diversity

1

Fall 1 EXC 7730

EXC 7760

Baseline & curriculum developmentSubject Matter Experts

1

Spring 1 EXC 7720

EXC 7765

Classroom management & instructionFacilitators of Teaching & Learning

2 2

Summer 2 EXC 7770

EXC 7705

Observation – Disabilities/diversity

1

Fall 2 EXC 7780

EXC 7735

Co-teaching & extension of skillsCollaborative Professionals

2 1

Spring 2 EXC 7790

EXC 7970

Mastery of all competencies 2

There are four levels of field-based activities embedded in courses:1) Observations of other programs & populations (Subject Matter

Experts);2) Application activities (Subject Matter Experts);3) Demonstration of skill mastery (Facilitators of Teaching &

Learning); and 4) Capstone internship (Subject Matter Experts, Facilitators of

Teaching & Learning , Collaborative Professionals)

Observations of other programs and populations are required during summer semesters to develop candidate skills as Subject Matter Experts in the content of Special Education characteristics (CEC Standard 2), Learning Differences (CEC Standard 3), and Language (CEC Standard 6). The observation activity was initially included as an activity within courses during the academic year. The purpose was to provide candidates with experience in a wide range of special education delivery settings and with a wide range of special education populations. The KSU-PTEU provides a system for candidates to monitor racial and socioeconomic diversity of experiences. In order to standardize the observation requirement to address the specific goals of the special education graduate program, the observation activities were moved to courses during the summer sessions for Summer 2003. Candidates in EXC 7715 Nature/Needs: Students with Mild Disabilities (Summer 1) and EXC 7770 Psychoneurological and Medical Issues in Special Education (Summer 2) observe a program for students from a different age level, severity level, disability category, economic level, racial or cultural background than the students in their teaching site and reflect on the application of observations to their teaching practice. The sites selected for candidates during Summer 1 highlight the similarities and differences across categories (LD, MR, BD), levels of severity,

document.doc - 25 -

Draft 10-29-03

and age level (transition). Summer 2 sites target greater diversity of category (medical, autism, TBI), age level (infants), and alternative delivery models.

Application Activities embedded in courses require candidates to apply theory and skills taught in a particular course to their teaching practice to demonstrate mastery of special education and academic content as Subject Matter Experts. Candidates submit a product demonstrating skill mastery. For example, in EXC 7730 Assessment during Fall 1, candidates collect data, plan and implement an evaluation plan to complete a case study report on a student in their classroom or supervised field experience site (Assessment CEC Standard 8), while in EXC 7760 candidates work in cooperative groups on a curriculum mapping and accommodations project (Planning CEC Standard 7). The KSU course faculty member is responsible for evaluation of application activities as detailed in course syllabi and project rubrics. The field experience supervisor notes extensions of course skills demonstrated within classroom practice.

Demonstration of Skill Mastery includes submission of videotapes and observation by a Kennesaw State University faculty member or field-experience supervisor as evidence of skill as a Facilitator of Teaching and Learning (Instruction CEC Standard 4, Environment CEC Standard 5). For example, during Spring 1 in EXC 7765, Teaching and Learning II, candidates develop and deliver instructional lessons. Candidates are required to videotape their lesson, and complete a reflective self-evaluation and exchange with a colleague for a peer evaluation. Faculty evaluates the lesson plan and the videotape of lesson plan implementation according to course syllabi and rubrics. That same semester, for EXC 7720, Behavioral Strategies, candidates conduct an action research project to address impact of behavior change strategies (Environment CEC Standard 5). Faculty evaluates the action research project according to course syllabi and rubrics. A KSU field-experience supervisor observes and evaluates mastery of instructional and behavioral management skills on-the-job. Specific rubrics presented in the course are used as the basis for evaluation of written and videotaped lessons and the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) Form is used for evaluation of mastery of skills on the job. The Field Experience Supervisor also completes an Observation Summary Form to provide written feedback during the post-observation conference. The Unit level Impact on Student Learning form is also completed at this level.

The capstone internship/practicum experience requires candidates to demonstrate mastery of all objectives for the special education graduate program (Subject Matter Experts, Facilitators of Teaching & Learning, Collaborative Professionals, Foundations CEC Standard 1, Professionalism CEC Standard 9, Collaboration CEC Standard 10) Kennesaw State University faculty and KSU field-experience supervisors evaluate candidates in a full-time teaching position (for at least 15 weeks). Candidates employed in a teaching position complete EXC 7970 Internship. Candidates not currently employed in a

document.doc - 26 -

Draft 10-29-03

teaching position must apply for a supervised field experience site supervised by a KSU cooperating teacher to complete EXC 7980 Practicum. Evidence of mastery of all competencies on the Special Education Performance Objectives (SEPO) at a Level 3 (Acceptable) or Level 4 (Target) is required for satisfactory completion of this requirement. This also documents mastery of Unit level Candidate Performance Instrument (CPI).

Diversity of experienceCandidates employed in a teaching position including responsibility for

students with disabilities may complete their field experience for each course on-the-job. Candidates not meeting this condition must apply each semester for a supervised field experience site supervised by a KSU cooperating teacher to complete application activities. The number of contact hours typically involves a minimum of 6 hours per week for at least 15 weeks to complete required field-based activities for each academic year semester. Placements are assigned to include diversity in age level, disability category, severity level, ethnic background and/or socioeconomic status.

One concern has been providing diverse experiences for the graduate candidates in the program who are fully employed. Ninety-five percent of the candidates are fully employed as teachers and complete their field experience on-the-job. Although the individual sites reflect diversity, candidates were limited in their experiences outside of their job site. Collaborative projects and activities expose candidates to content and issues for diverse settings, but do not meet programmatic goals. Infusing observations of diverse sites in academic year classes is not always effective because candidates must obtain release time from their teaching job to complete the observations. Beginning Summer 2003, the observations are linked to specific summer courses and structured to meet the goal of diversity in age level, disability category, severity level, ethnic background and/or socioeconomic status. Course requirements in EXC 7715 Nature/Needs: Students with Mild Disabilities (Summer 1) and EXC 7770 Psychoneurological and Medical Issues in Special Education (Summer 2) were modified to include observation of a special education setting identified by the Department of Special Education that includes students/clients at different age level, disability category, severity level, ethnic background and/or socioeconomic status than the candidate’s teaching site and submission of written reflections on application to their teaching practice.

Supervision by qualified professionalsThere are six full-time tenure-track faculty positions (including the

department chair) in the Department of Special Education. All hold a Ph.D. in an appropriate field. There is a balance in specializations to support courses in the program. Faculty are involved in professional development and scholarship activities to remain up-to-date for program delivery. In addition, two part-time faculty members provide support for field experience supervision and instruction. (Appendix B) The following chart highlights faculty credentials.

document.doc - 27 -

Draft 10-29-03

Faculty Degrees & SpecializationsName of Professor Degree SpecializationsSusan Brown Ph. D. Special

Education, Learning Disabilities

Working with parents, learning disabilities, balanced literacy, diversity, medical & neurological

Harriet Bessette Ph. D. Teacher EducationCurriculum & InstructionSpecial Education

Assessment, curriculum development, research, school administration, collaboration, co-teaching

Michaela D’Aquanni

Ph. D. Special EducationAll categories

Curriculum development, collaboration, school administration, diversity, inclusion

Kent Logan Ph. D. Special EducationMental Retardation

Low-incidence disabilities, community Based instruction, school change, inclusion, co-teaching, collaboration, behavior management

Toni Strieker Ph. D. Special EducationEducational Leadership

Policy analysis, assessment, administration, school change, inclusion, collaboration, co-teaching

Deborah Wallace Ph. D. Special EducationBehavior DisordersLearning Disabilities

Administration, special education law, behavior analysis

Stephanie Dirst Ed. D. EducationSpecial Education AdministrationDeaf Education

Part-time- supervision

Gail Fredericks M.Ed. EducationSupervision/AdministrationLearning Disabilities Behavior Disorders

Part-time- supervision

Supervision of field experiences is a shared responsibility. KSU Field Experience Supervisors participate in Department retreats and Advisory Board meetings. They meet regularly with KSU faculty and attend class meetings as appropriate to ensure consistency in expectations. They have been involved in development and refinement of the SEPO and Summary form. The Kennesaw State University faculty member teaching the course is responsible for evaluating products. Rubrics are used to evaluate observation reports and application activities. Specific skills are targeted for each supervision visit. Faculty and/or field experience supervisors rate each item on the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO)(Appendix D) during scheduled visits each semester and provide written feedback (Observation Summary Form)(Appendix D) and verbal conferencing on areas of strength and areas needing improvement. Candidates requiring a supervised field experience also receive ratings and feedback from their on-site supervisor.

The on-site cooperating teacher is the master teacher providing direct daily supervision for KSU candidates requiring supervised field experience placement sites. The Kennesaw State University Department of Special Education, KSU Office of Educational Field Experiences, and the school district jointly select the on-site cooperating teacher. Requirements include clear

document.doc - 28 -

Draft 10-29-03

renewable T-5 (master’s level) Georgia teacher certification in the appropriate special education field, at least three years successful teaching experience with students with disabilities, and the Teacher Support Specialist (TSS) endorsement or participation in supervision and peer coaching training provided by KSU. The cooperating teacher’s certification and special education program should be the same as the program the KSU candidate is completing.

Candidates receive a rating on each performance objective on the SEPO and written feedback on strengths and areas needing improvement. The field experience supervisors also provide verbal feedback and suggestions to guide the candidate to a higher level of expertise. Field experience supervisors use a coaching model to provide assistance. They model the application of Vgotsky’s peer assistance based on the zone of proximal development. Supervisors serve as adult peers (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, 1990) coaching candidates to higher levels of performance. The focus is on implementing best practice in teaching, learning and management strategies to maximizing student outcomes. To receive a grade of satisfactory in the final capstone course, EXC 7970/7980, candidates must demonstrate mastery of all performance objectives at Level 3 (acceptable) or Level 4 (target).

The Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) is the assessment instrument used for supervision in all field experiences to document candidate development of expertise in teaching and learning throughout the program. (Appendix D) The emphasis is on evaluation of candidate expertise in identification of ways to change teaching environments, systems or instructional behaviors to improve student learning. In 1994, the Behaviorally Anchored Supervision System (BASS) was used to document candidate mastery of objectives. The BASS was continuously revised and reviewed until the Department of Special Education Summer 2002 retreat when a new model was developed as a result of curriculum mapping. The new instrument, the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) Form, was field tested during 2002-2003. The reporting system was reorganized during Summer 2003 to show development over time, and linked to the Council for Exceptional Children Standards, the University System of Georgia Board of Regents standards (based on NBPTS), and the KSU-PTEU conceptual framework.

Confidentiality: The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) regulates access to, and disclosure of student information. FERPA serves to assure record access by covered students and their guardians and to prevent disclosure from those records of personally identifying information to unprivileged parties without the written consent of affected students and their guardians. Disclosure of confidential information is NOT to occur. To protect the confidentiality of student information, no identifying information is included when KSU candidates present written or oral reports.

document.doc - 29 -

Draft 10-29-03

Kennesaw State University candidates video-taping for KSU class requirements must obtain informed permission from parents to videotape. School district permission forms should be used and all returned forms kept on file with the school where videotaping takes place. KSU candidates should include a statement that permission forms were completed and a sample permission form with any videotape material submitted to KSU.

Kennesaw State University candidates completing action research projects or applied research activities required in a KSU syllabus should confer with the course faculty member when planning their research. KSU faculty obtain Institutional Review Board approval for course requirements and activities completed in accordance with course syllabi to ensure protection of participant rights. In some cases, KSU Institutional Review Board approval may be necessary for candidate research projects. Information and forms are available from the Department of Special Education office (770-423-6577).

Professionalism: Candidates represent Kennesaw State University and are expected to maintain high standards of personal and professional ethics. The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Code of Ethics and Standards (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm) highlight the guiding principles for professional practice as a special educator. Candidates also follow the guidelines for professionalism for Georgia Teachers (http://www.gapsc.com). Professionalism is emphasized in their classroom, their participation in the graduate special education program, and with all constituencies (parents, administrators, peers, faculty).

document.doc - 30 -

http://www.gapsc.com/

http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm

Draft 10-29-03


Department of Special EducationPerformance Data

Since its formation in 1998, the Department of Special Education has utilized a data based model for assessment of candidates and program improvement. Performance data in this report includes objective exam scores and rubric summaries for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. In addition to assessment activities within courses, candidates are observed in field experience settings (Program level Special Education Performance Outcomes SEPO Appendix D) and candidates must document mastery of standards in a working portfolio (Unit Level Portfolio narrative Rubric, Unit level Impact on Student Learning Assessment ISLA, and Unit level Graduate Candidate Performance Indicators CPI). Program level assessment includes evaluation of course products and evaluation of candidates in the field experience. Data reported for course products includes a description of the assessment activity, related course objectives, rubrics, numerical data, and reflections on practice by the faculty member addressing recommendations for future program improvement.Evaluation of the field experience component was initially based on the Behaviorally Anchored Supervision System (BASS). The BASS has been continuously adjusted to reflect best practice and program outcomes. In 2002-2003, the department field-tested the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) (Appendix D) developed by KSU faculty. It is now explicitly aligned with CEC, NBPTS, and PTEU standards. Performance data in this report include BASS summaries for 2001-2002 and SEPO summaries for 2002-2003. The SEPO is explicitly linked to the PTEU Unit level Candidate Performance Indicator (Appendix A) requirement.

KSU PTEU unit level assessment includes the KSU PTEU Impact on Student Learning Rubric, which was implemented with candidates completing the program in Spring 2003. The Department of Special Education will expand this to other courses during 2003-2004. The structure and evaluation of the portfolio has also evolved over time. In response to candidate and faculty feedback, two new courses were developed to support special education graduate candidates in portfolio development (EXC 7700 Teacher Researcher: Data based Decision Making and EXC 7790 Documenting Professional Growth). Specific portfolio requirements were integrated and identified in each course syllabus. The unit level Graduate Candidate Performance Instrument was based on NBPTS and that data is reported for 2001-2002 candidates. The revised Graduate Candidate Performance Instrument is now linked to the PTEU Conceptual Framework and is completed during the portfolio course. The unit level Graduate Portfolio Narrative Rubric was developed and approved by the PTEU and is reported for 2002-2003 candidates. The following chart is a guide to the data presented in this section:

document.doc - 31 -

Draft 10-29-03

Special Education Graduate ProgramSummary Performance Data

CEC Standard

Standard Performance Assessment

Product Assessment

Criteria Page #

1 Foundations EXC 7705 Exams

80% minimum

32-33

2 Characteristics EXC 7715 ExamsEXC 7770 Exams

80% minimum

34-36

3 Differences EXC 7715 Exams EXC 7770 Exams

80% minimum

34-36

4 Instruction Video-tapeSEPO/CPI

EXC 7765 Lesson Plan

Rubric Level 3

37-46

5 Environments SEPO/CPI EXC 7720Appl Paper & Exam

Rubric Level 3

47-49

6 Communication

SEPO/CPIInterim Review

Rubric Level 3

50,34-36

7 Planning SEPO/CPI EXC 7760 Unit Plan

Rubric Level 3

51-54

8 Assessment EXC 7730 Case Study

Rubric Level 3

55-58

9 Professionalism SEPO/CPIInterim review

Rubric Level 3

59

10 Collaboration SEPO/CPI

Interim review

Rubric Level 3

Rubric Level 3

59

SEPO 60-69, APP D

ISLA 70-7176-77

Portfolio Narrativ

e

73-76

CPI APP A

document.doc - 32 -

Draft 10-29-03

CEC Standard 1 FoundationsObjective Examination Data

Objective examinations are used to assess basic knowledge and application of knowledge. Data is recorded for each cohort indicating the number and percentage of candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target proficiency (90%+ mastery of content) and represents clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of mastery. Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of content mastery (80-90% mastery of content). Level 1 and 2 represent less than 80% mastery of content and candidates would be required to document further evidence of mastery for their portfolio. In EXC 7705 Special Education Procedures, candidates take a pre-test and post-test to document impact of course experiences on their mastery of the content including judicial, legislative, and collaborative foundations in special education.

In the area of Knowledge, the candidate will be able to: Identify the historical foundations of special education, with an emphasis on the sociological and

political forces that are the basis for current practice. Identify the major judicial cases and legislation that guide special education practice from pre-

referral to transition out of special education programs. Identify the key principles guiding special education practice and related or support services

(transportation, specialized health care, occupational therapy, etc) and the judicial and legislative origins of each.

Identify the major judicial and legislative protections for student and parent rights with particular attention to students from diverse cultural, racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

In the area of Skills, the candidate will be able to: Trace and articulate the implementation of due process procedures guiding pre-referral (Georgia

Student Support Team), assessment, eligibility determination, development of an Individualized Education Plan (Individual Family Service, Plan, Individual Transition Plan and/or Behavior Intervention Plan) and placement in the least restrictive environment.

Identify resources for implementing due process that meet federal and state guidelines, with special emphasis on documentation procedures and meeting the needs of students with specialized health care needs, transitioning from private schools or treatment programs, and other unique circumstances.

Pre-Proficiency ExamProficiency Exam Level 1

Below 70%Level 2

(70-79%)Level 3

(80-89%)Level 4(90%+)

Little or NoEvidence

Limited Evidence Clear Evidence Clear, Consistent, andConvincing Evidence

N=27 Su 2002 8/30% 7/26% 8/30% 4/15%N=21 Su 2002 6/29% 6/29% 9/43% 0/0%N=23 Su 2002 6/26% 7/30% 9/39% ¼%

Post-Proficiency ExamProficiency Exam Level 1

Below 70%Level 2

(70-79%)Level 3

(80-89%)Level 4(90%+)

Little or No Limited Evidence Clear Evidence Clear, Consistent, and

document.doc - 33 -

Draft 10-29-03

Evidence Convincing EvidenceN=27 Su 2002 0/0% 0/0% 8/30% 19/70%N=21 Su 2002 0/0% 0/0% 8/38% 13/62%N=23 Su 2002 0/0% 0/0% 9/39% 14/61%

Pre/Post Proficiency Exam ComparisonsProficiency

ExamLevel 1

Below 70%Level 2

(70-79%)Level 3

(80-89%)Level 4(90%+)

Total for All Sections

Little or No Evidence


Pre-test 20/28% 20/28% 25/35% 5/7%Post-test 0/0% 0/0% 25/35% 46/65%

Gain Score (-)20/(-)28% (-)20/(-)28% 0/0% (+)41/(+)58%

TOTAL LEVELS 3+4 = 71/100%

Exam IExam I Level 1

Below 70%Level 2

(70-79%)Level 3

(80-89%)Level 4(90%+)



N=27 0/0% 2/7% 8/30% 17/63%N=21 0/0% 4/19% 8/38% 9/43%N=23 0/0% 2/9% 11/48% 10/43%

Exam II (Comprehensive)Exam II Level 1

Below 70%Level 2

(70-79%)Level 3

(80-89%)Level 4(90%+)



N=27 ¼% 7/26% 18/67% ¼%N=21 0/0% 1/5% 16/76% 4/19%N=23 0/0% 5/22% 15/65% 3/13%

Reflection: The Pre-Proficiency Exam was first given with the Su 2002 sections of this course. Since so much information was covered during the course I decided to do what I call a “Walk Through” which serves as a review for the Post-test and takes the candidate from the first sign of a student academic or behavior deficiency through the develop of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) if needed. Included in this journey are all related litigation, legislation, requirements and due process procedures.Exam I & II also cover litigation, legislation, requirements and due process procedures. In addition Exam II covers additional parental and student rights, exceptions, and application questions. To enhance learning and thus performance, reviews prior to the exams were conducted.The course also requires simulations, role-playing, collaborative activities, and the development of a Parent Resource Manual and a parent workshop.Note: In most circumstances, where higher pre-test scores were exhibited, the candidates had been enrolled in the program longer and taken more courses prior to taking this course.

document.doc - 34 -

Draft 10-29-03

CEC Standard 2 CharacteristicsCEC Standard 3 DifferencesObjective Examination Data

Objective examinations are used to assess basic knowledge and application of knowledge. Data is recorded for each cohort indicating the number and percentage of candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target proficiency (90%+ mastery of content) and represents clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of mastery. Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of content mastery (80-90% mastery of content). Level 1 and 2 represent less than 80% mastery of content and candidates would be required to document further evidence of mastery for their portfolio.

In EXC 7715 Nature/Needs: Students with Mild Disabilities is based on a course-categorical model integrating characteristics of students with disabilities and highlighting similarities and differences across categorical labels. Two objective exams are used to assess mastery of characteristics, individual differences and accommodations for students with mild/moderate learning disabilities, behavior disorders and intellectual disabilities.

In the area of Knowledge, the candidate will be able to: Understand the historical foundations, philosophies, theories and classic studies including the

major contributors, and major legislation that under gird the growth and improvement of knowledge and practice in the field of special education.

Understand the evolution and major perspectives from medicine, psychology, behavior and education on the definitions and etiologies (common and unique) of individuals with disabilities.

Understand the State of Georgia terminology and definitions of disabilities, including the evaluation criteria, labeling controversies, current incidence and prevalence data.

Understand the continuum of educational placements and services, including alternative programs for students with disabilities.

Understand the assurances provided by special education law including least restrictive environment; due process; parent involvement; non-discriminatory evaluation; IEP process; and free, appropriate public education.

Understand all aspects of individuals with disabilities including their psychological and socio-emotional development, language development, attention and memory, health, cognition, and how they related to student ability to read, write, perform mathematical operations, take tests, develop social skills, etc.

Understand the effects of various medications related to the educational, cognitive, physical, social and emotional behavior of individuals with disabilities.

Understand the impact of disability on family functioning, community participation, and career development for the life of the student with disabilities.

Understand the necessity of creating a positive learning environment and providing alternative teaching skills and strategies to students with disabilities.

Exam I & II Nature/Needs: Students with Mild DisabilitiesExam I Level 1

Below 70%Level 2

(70-79%)Level 3

(80-89%)Level 4(90+%)



N=20Fall 2002

1/5% 0/0% 1/5% 18/90%

document.doc - 35 -

Draft 10-29-03

Exam II Level1Below 70%

Level 2(70-79%)

Level 3(80-89%)

Level 4(90%+)



N=20Fall 2002

4/20% 7/35% 8/40% 1/5%

Reflection: There was a review for each exam, however, for the first exam a study guide was provided and the format of the exam was multiple choice. The second exam had short answer and several applied activity questions. I will provide a study guide for second exam in the future to further direct the emphasis of the information to be covered.In addition, I have added Eligibility Report assignments to this course. Candidates are given a case study, meet as an eligibility team and complete the report for ID, LD & BD.

In EXC 7770 Psychoneurological and Medical Issues in Special Education, the content includes the characteristics and individual differences of students with health, medical, physical, sensory, and neurological issues. The course also addresses Autism, Traumatic Brain Injury, and Attention Deficit Disorder categories. Two objective exams are used to assess mastery of characteristics, individual differences and accommodations for students with physical, health, sensory, autistic spectrum and neurological disorders. Knowledge of health and medical issues:

describe the causes and effects of sensory, physical and medical problems on learning and behavior and the implications for special education.

articulate modifications and accommodations in assessment and instruction for students with sensory, physical and medical problems.

articulate sources for support in addressing needs of students with sensory, physical and medical problems including assessment, technological support, communication devices, equipment needs and specialized related services.

describe curricular and instructional needs for medical and behavioral self-management and independent living skills of students with sensory, physical or medical problems.

EXAM Level 1Below 70%

Level 2(70-80%)

Level 3(80-90%)

Level 4(90%+)


Limited Evidence Clear Evidence Clear, Consistent, and Convincing Evidence

N=18Su 2002

0 % 6% 33% 61%

N=26Su 2001

12% 27% 50% 12%

Knowledge of psychoneurological issues: describe the causes and effects of cognitive differences and neurological problems on learning and

behavior and the implications for special education. articulate modifications and accommodations in assessment and instruction for students with

cognitive differences and neurological problems. articulate sources for support in addressing needs of students with cognitive differences and

neurological problems including assessment, technological support, communication devices, equipment needs and specialized related services.

describe curricular and instructional needs for medical and behavioral self-management and independent living skills of students with cognitive differences and psychoneurological, problems.

EXAM Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

document.doc - 36 -

Draft 10-29-03

Below 70% (70-80%) (80-90%) (90%+)Little or No

EvidenceLimited Evidence Clear Evidence Clear, Consistent, and

Convincing EvidenceN=18Su 2002

0% 11% 56% 33%

N=26Su 2001

8% 27% 50% 15%

Reflection: Instructional activities modified for SU 2002: Having students develop sample questions and then discussing them in class improved mastery of content and test-taking skills

document.doc - 37 -

Draft 10-29-03

CEC Standard 4 Instruction

Evaluation of written products (lesson plans), videotape evidence of skill and evaluations of on-the-job performance by KSU field-experience supervisors are used to assess instructional skills. Triangulation of data from three sources provides a more complete picture of candidate performance. Data is recorded for each cohort indicating the number and percentage of candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target proficiency (90%+ mastery of content) and represents clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of mastery. Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of content mastery (80-90% mastery of content). Level 1 and 2 represent less than 80% mastery of content and candidates would be required to document further evidence of mastery for their portfolio. The Unit level Graduate Impact on Student Learning is also completed as part of assessment of this standard.

EXC 7765: Teaching & Learning II Assignment: Multi-Level Cooperative Learning, Direct Instruction and Strategy Instruction Lessons, with Embedded Assessment.

As a result of Knowledge, the student will be able to:1) Articulate and implement research-based practices and alternatives for teaching individuals with

disabilities who differ in degree and kind of disability2) Articulate and apply knowledge regarding the variability (especially in students of differing

cultural backgrounds) of expected learning and problem solving strategies in the school context3) Articulate and apply the theories of learning, motivation and assessment, particularly as they relate

to the individualized programming of students with disabilities4) Articulate and apply theories of classroom and behavior management, particularly as they relate to

the social and behavioral development of students with disabilitiesAs a result of Skills, the student will be able to:

5) Design and implement direct and cooperative instruction to maximize engaged learning time and meet the unique learning strengths and needs of students with disabilities

6) Select, conduct and assess instruction tailored to the individualized learning needs of students with disabilities in a variety of educational, social and community contexts, as appropriate

7) Evaluate, select, develop, and adapt curriculum materials (within copyright laws) and technology appropriate for individuals with disabilities who differ in degree and kind of disability, linguistic and cultural background

8) Use differentiated strategies for acquisition, proficiency building, maintenance and generalization of skills across setting

As a result of Disposition, the student will be able to:9) Reflect critically on teacher and learner performances and outcomes and modify practices based

upon an action research model10) Utilize instructional and management strategies which create a positive learning environment for

individuals with disabilities, including use of positive proactive and reactive techniques11) Apply instructional and management strategies for all students in educational settings, including

non identified individuals who would benefit.

Lesson Plans. Each person is required to develop three lesson plans (2 reading & 1 math) using specialized instruction. To successfully complete this assignment, you must develop one lesson using cooperative learning, one using direct instruction and one using strategy instruction. The fourth lesson can be a combination of direct and strategy instruction or systematic instruction, using prompts and cues. You may not use a

document.doc - 38 -

Draft 10-29-03

commercially prepared lesson plan (e.g. SRA) to count as direct instruction. Rather you are to design your own lessons. The lesson plans must be scripted, of 20 minutes in duration, and follow the rubrics provided in class. In addition to the script, you are required to adopt one of the lesson planning graphics discussed in your class to depict your lesson in an abbreviated format. Each lesson must be tailored to the instructional needs of the students in your classrooms. This activity must be completed in its entirety by October 8, 2002. You are encouraged to discuss your lesson plans with your peers and all of your instructors (particularly those conducting your classroom observations). Your instructors will allow some of this assignment to be done in class, time permitting. Assessments. Each person is required to develop a minimum of six assessments. All three lessons must use pre-post assessment format to measure the impact of the instruction on student learning for a group of students. In addition, each person is required to design two more embedded assessments for two individual students. One embedded assessment must measure the student’s progress on an IEP objective that is embedded in content area instruction. For example, the student with the disability (SWD) may participate in a cooperative learning activity in reading a social studies text. The SWD may be working on a speech goal (e.g. initiating conversation with peers) during that activity that must be measured as part of the lesson. The second embedded assessment must include an error correction procedure for an individual student. For example, the SWD may need additional support conducting math lessons that require additional prompts and cues.

EXC 7765 Spring 2002 Direct Instruction Lesson Plan: Evaluation RubricCategory 4 Level Teacher 3 Level Teacher <3 Level Totals

4 3 <3Objectives Lesson objective

in behavioral format with all conditions presented, observable measurable behaviors as response and appropriate criteria.

Lesson objective in behavioral format meeting 2 or 3 Level 4 criteria.

Lesson objective not in behavioral format. Does not communicate skill to be taught.

6 10 4

QCC Link Lesson objective clearly linked to grade level QCC objectives

Lesson objective linked to a QCC objective

No link to QCC11 7 3

Embedded Assessment

Error correction or pre/post assessment strategies are clear.Assessment clearly measures objective(s).

Measures do not employ error correction or pre/post strategies. Assessment clearly measures objective(s).

Measures do not employ error correction or pre/post strategies. Assessment does not measure objective(s).

6 9 5

Tell objective/review

Objective is clearly stated

Objective or relation to

Objective and relation to 10 6 4

document.doc - 39 -

Draft 10-29-03

and relation to previous learning is highlighted

previous learning is clearly presented

previous learning are not presented

Engage students Strategies to actively engage students in learning are included throughout the lesson

Strategies to actively engage students in learning are included

Learning activities do not actively engage students in learning

10 6 4

Acquisition/ Active engagement

Acquisition stage strategies and active learning strategies are used to maximize student engagement in learning

Some acquisition stage strategies and active learning strategies are used to promote student engagement in learning

Acquisition stage strategies or active learning strategies are not evident

9 6 5

Checks mastery/ provides closure

Teacher frequently checks group and individual mastery during the lessonLesson includes a closure activity that a summary of content and provides check of mastery

Teacher checks group and/or individual masteryLesson includes summary closure

Teacher does not provide adequate checks for mastery Lesson does not include summary closure

8 10 2

Hindrances to learning anticipated

Lesson plan includes plans for hindrances (priority seating, manipulatives, materials prepared in advance, etc.)

Lesson plan includes at least one plan for hindrances

Lesson plan does not include plans for hindrances.

7 10 3

Student materials

Student materials included (or described) are appropriate in content, format, directions and linked to objective

Student materials included (or described) meet ¾ of criteria for 4 Level teacher

Student materials included (or described) meet less than ¾ of criteria for 4 Level teacher

8 10 2

Accommodations

Appropriate accommodations indicated for students with disabilities

Accommodations indicated for students with disabilities

No accommodations addressed

8 8 4

document.doc - 40 -

Draft 10-29-03

Modifications Off grade level activities and materials provided for students not demonstrating prerequisite skills

Off grade level activities and materials provided available if needed

No off grade level activities or materials included

7 10 3

Impact on student learning

Pre-/post-test included to demonstrate impact of lesson on student learning

Pre-/post-test included to demonstrate impact of lesson on student learning

No pre- or post-test included to demonstrate impact of lesson on student learning

9 7 4

Format Format follows all directions presented in class and is easy to follow

Format follows most directions presented in class

Format not in compliance with assignment

8 10 2

Other Professional presentation of material

Minimal presentation of material

Presentation is not appropriate for submission

6 10 4

NCATE Summary Scores Number and Percentage of individuals at each level

L1-L2 8 (40%)

L38

(40%)

L44

(20%)

Class ActivitiesAssessment Points Course

ObjectivesCPI Domain/

Lesson Plans: Design two reading and one math 20-minute lessons, each using a different form of specialized instruction. (You are to design one (scripted) lesson using cooperative learning, one lesson using direct instruction, and one lesson using strategy instruction, one combination or systematic.)

Formative feedback from instructors & peers

Rubrics

50 pts ea

200 total

1,2,3,4,6,7,

8,9,12

Graduate CPI Domain 2:

Know & Teach Subjects

Assessments: Design pre-post assessments for each lesson (4) that measures the impact of the instruction on student learning. Design two embedded assessments: One to measure progress on embedded IEP objectives and one error correction procedure.

Same as above 25 pts ea

150 total

7, 8, 10,11,12

Graduate CPI Domain 3:

Manage & Monitor Learning

Comments & Concerns:

document.doc - 41 -

Draft 10-29-03

16/20 candidates obtained and “acceptable” (3) or “target” (4) on this assignment. Three of the four people who failed, also failed the assignment for cooperative learning.

It seems that the assumption is made that several topics have been covered in previous courses and will not have to be re-taught to graduate students. This may not be the case. Of particular concern are the scores on “hindrances to learning” and “modifications”, as well as, “objectives”. Even though this is a special education class, these teacher candidates were not able to write multi-level objectives and create the modifications and accommodations for students with disabilities.

Also, virtually all of the assessments created for this assignment lacked the depth to measure multi-level objectives.

It was the opinion of the instructor and the TA that this rubric did not discriminate accurately between Level 3 & 4 on several standards. This rubric is also very similar to the one for cooperative learning.

Candidates enjoyed the guest presentations on direct instruction by KSU faculty. While the majority of these candidates passed this assignment, the concepts of direct instruction

did not transfer well to research-based strategy instruction, which also relies heavily on direct instruction.

Recommendations for Next Semester: Spend more time teaching the differences between accommodations & modifications, as well as

different types of assessments. Refine this rubric such that criteria are more discrete and also develop it so that the standards are

clearly aligned with research on direct instruction. Find someone to who is certified to teach learning strategies who is certified by University of

Kansas.

Direct Instruction Lesson Plan EXC 7765 Summary Table & Graduate Impact on Student Learning

Lesson ComponentCriteria & Score

Criteria & Score

Criteria & Score

Criteria & Score

NCATE Summa

ryLesson Goals & Objectives L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4Lesson Goal are written in global terms.Lesson objectives are written in behavioral format with conditions of learning stated in observable, measurable behaviors, with appropriate criteria.

Not multi-level

Not written in behavioral terms

Omissions

Too many variables

1 omission

Vague or confusing

Met requirements

Well written

4.0=93.0=132.0=21.0=6

Alignment of goals & objectivesGoals & objectives are linked to grade level primary QCC.

IEP goals & objectives are linked (or embedded) into QCC.

Omissions

Not aligned with QCC’s

Either content or IEP objectives are not aligned with QCC’s

Not aligned

1 omission

Vague or confusing alignment

Only primary QCC’s are listed

Addresses IEP, SST &/or SqB

4.0=243.0=32.0=01.0=6

Tell Objective.Objective is clearly stated.

Student accountability is established.

Learning task is clarified: Student gets the “big idea”

Section omitted.

- Written obj. is not aligned lesson and is poorly written and/or stated- Section is vague or confusing - Major omissions

- Lesson is aligned- Minor parts areVague or confusing- Minor omissions

-Written objective is aligned with lesson- Student accountability established - Students

4.0=213.0=82.0=01.0=6

document.doc - 42 -

Draft 10-29-03

get “big idea”

Provide Advance Organizer

Pre-Test Graphic/Visual

Organizer Outline/Overview Study Guide

Organizers are not used.

Meets one criteria or is omitted

Meets 2 of 3 criteria

Identifies major topicsClarifies actionsProvides background

4.0=213.0=62.0=01.0=6

With organizer & explanation, model Teacher presentation of informationMaximally engages students with strategies that involve: Activation of Prior

Knowledge Experimentation Incentives and/or Novelty

All lecturemany gaps Instructions are unclear or incomplete

Complete presentationStrategies are not well implemented

Very thoroughInstructions to students are clearStrategies are well implemented

4.0=133.0=132.0=11.0=6

Guided or structured practice allows students with opportunities for feedback. Use logical line of

questioning Vary instructional

techniques Interact with students

Guided practice is merged with demonstration or independent practice.

Many gaps in script.-Cues and prompts are omitted.-Questions are omitted.-Instruction is singular.-No opportunity to interact with students.- Error correction is omitted.- Re-teaching is not provided.

-Complete script.-Cues or prompts are omitted.-Questions are provided.-Instruction is varied.-Some interaction with students.- Re-teaching is spontaneous rather than planned.

-Very thorough script.-Script describes model for structured practice.-Teacher questioning supports student success.-Instructional practice is varied and interesting.-High interaction rate.-Embedded assessment for mastery check and IEP progress- Assessment drives prompts & error correction- Re-teaching is done as

4.0=83.0=102.0=61.0=6

document.doc - 43 -

Draft 10-29-03

needed.- Opportunities to re-teach are provided.

Provide ample class time and focus on individual student mastery

Much less interaction with teacher

Increase academic engaged time

Cue (prompt) appropriate responses

Foster high success rate Maximize natural cues

NOTE: This is not homework. Re-teaching may be necessary if the students are not able to master concepts on their own.

Independent practice is not provided.

Lesson may be sent home as homework.

-Many gaps in script.-Cues and prompts are omitted.-Questions are omitted.-Instruction is singular.-No opportunity to interact with students.- Prompts & Error correction are omitted.- Mastery check omitted

-Complete script.-Cues or prompts are omitted.-Questions are provided.-Instruction is varied.-High interaction with students.- Mastery checks are poorly implemented

-Very thorough script.-Script describes ample time for class practice.- Natural cues are maximized.-Instructional practice is varied and interesting.-Low interaction rate with teacher.- Mastery check (embedded assessment) for content & IEP objectives.- Prompts and Error correction strategies are conducted as needed

4.0=73.0=132.0=71.0=6

Post organizer provides closure to the activity and leads to judicious review of the concepts through:

Homework Review activities Technology applications

Lesson is not summarized

Closing is cute or interesting, but not aligned with lesson. (“Fluff with no stuff”!)

No opportunity to generalize is provided.

Closing is aligned with lesson

Closing is incomplete, vague or confusing.

Closing is aligned with lesson

Closing summarizes content & makes it valuable to students.

Closing provides opportunities to generalize.

4.0=133.0=132.0=11.0=6

document.doc - 44 -

Draft 10-29-03

Plan to overcome hindrances to learning is provided.- Appropriate accommodations areindicated for SWD, SST, SqB.- Appropriate modifications are indicated for students with significant disabilities.- Proactive & reactive managements strategies are provided.

Section is omitted

- Plan omitted.- Adaptations are not done for anyone, but for students with IEP.They are not age appropriate, nor linked to lesson.

-Plan lacks insight, is vague of confusing.-Adaptations are Age appropriate, consistent with IEP.-Accommodation and/or modifications are standard and lack creativity.

-Plan is thoughtful, but not necessarily lengthy. Considers behavioral and academic needs of all students, the environment, materials & strategies. -Adaptations are well-written or conceived, age-appropriate, linked to lesson, creative & flexible.

4.0=83.0=132.0=61.0=6

Student materials (including technology are appropriate for: -age-content -format -directions -objectives

Student materials are not submitted.

Student materials do not meet two or more criteria.

Student materials are submitted and do not meet one criteria.

Student materials (instructional and assessment) are submitted.

Materials meet all criteria

4.0=133.0=132.0=11.0=6

Presentation of materials

-Follows directions -Is easy to read-Is typed-Is professional

-Lesson was commercially prepared.-Lesson does not meet requirements

Lesson meets all but two requirements.

- Lesson is developed in line with course requirements.-Lesson meets all but one requirement.

Lesson is developed in line with course requirements.

Lesson meets criteria.

4.0=113.0=122.0=41.0=6

NCATE Summary Scores Number &

(percentage) of candidates who performed at each level

L-1

6 (18%)

L-2

3 (9%)

L-3

11 (33%)

L-4

13 (39%)

Disaggregate groups are: Sex, Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, and Disabilities

Faculty Reflection:Based upon these results the following changes will be made:

Merge with DI Assessment Rubric

document.doc - 45 -

Draft 10-29-03

Tier assignments so that practice can be provided on error correction. Teach graphing procedures.

EXC 7765: VIDEO OBSERVATION GUIDEDirect Instruction & Cooperative Learning

Overall Rating of Video: Spring 03 Standard Unacceptable Acceptable Target DI CL

L1-L2 L-3 L-4

Video captured teacher implementing cooperative learning as well as student response.

Could not see teacher or students on video

5-14 min of videoclearly captured both

15-20 minute video clearly captured both and at least one stage of cooperative learning.

4=293=22=01=2

4=293=22=01=2

Student Engagement Of the students photographed, several were disruptive and the teacher did not intervene.

Only a few of the students photographed were not engaged in the lesson.

All of the students photographed were actively engaged in the lesson. (Note: This does not mean that all students were engaged all the time.)

4=283=22=11=2

4=273=12=11=2

Critical Analysis & Reflection

Key issues were missed

Teacher analysis or reflection were developed

Narrative relied on data or teacher experience.

Addressed issuesRelated to improving instruction

Teacher analysis and reflection were well developed.

Narrative relied on student data and teacher experience.

Thoroughly addressed key issues related to improving the instruction and advancing all learners to high levels of achievement.

Balanced narrative across description, analysis and reflection

Narrative relied upon student data, professional literature and teacher experience.

4=53=242=31=2

4=43=252=31=2

NCATE Summary Scores

Number and percentage of candidates who

L-1

2 (6%)

L-2

2 (6%)

L-3

9 (27%)

L-4

20 (60%)

document.doc - 46 -

Draft 10-29-03

performed at each level on DI Lesson

Number and percentage of candidates who performed at each level on CL Lesson.

2 (6%) 2 (6%)

9 (27%) 20 (60%)

Faculty Reflection: Adjunct faculty who reviewed these tapes seemed to inflate scores on standards 1

& 2. These scores are consistent with those obtained by candidates during field observations. We need greater clarity and agreement between tenured faculty and field supervisors relative to evaluating these procedures. Next year, the field supervisors need to attend/co-teach classes in order to obtain a clear understanding of the expectations of this course.

Tenured faculty evaluated standard 3, written component of the critical analysis. The scores on this standard were much more consistent with those obtained in the course. Few candidates understood the level of analysis required to reach target. Next year, faculty will provide models and samples of target responses.

document.doc - 47 -

Draft 10-29-03

CEC STANDARD 5 Learning Environments and Social Interactions

Evaluation of written products (action research project) and evaluations of on-the-job performance by KSU field-experience supervisors are used to assess management skills. Candidates also take exams to document knowledge and application of knowledge. Data is recorded for each cohort indicating the number and percentage of candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target proficiency (90%+ mastery of content) and represents clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of mastery. Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of content mastery (80-90% mastery of content). Level 1 and 2 represent less than 80% mastery of content and candidates would be required to document further evidence of mastery for their portfolio.

EXC 7720 Classroom Behavior StrategiesAs a result of Knowledge, the candidate will be able to:

Demonstrate an understanding of the causes for inappropriate behavior, the theoretical perspectives that underlie those causes, and appropriate intervention programs to decrease inappropriate behavior while increasing appropriate behaviors.

As a result of Skills, candidates will be able to: Articulate the influence of antecedents and consequences on the decrease of inappropriate

behaviors and the increase or maintenance of appropriate behaviors for individuals and groups. Articulate the factors in planning and implementing behavior change for students with a range of

learning, behavior, physical and sensory disabilities. Demonstrate the ability to select target behaviors and design a systematic functional behavior

assessment and intervention plan, which includes a focus on increasing appropriate behaviors, which serve the same “function” as the inappropriate behavior; demonstrate the ability to track student behavior and develop appropriate data sheets and graphs to document behavior change.

Demonstrate the application of problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills instruction as part of a proactive management system. This includes the demonstration of a problem solving mentality on the part of the candidate.

Demonstrate the ability to plan a learning environment for individuals and groups in the classroom and school using proactive strategies to minimize inappropriate behaviors and to identify appropriate reactive strategies for managing disruptions using the principles of positive behavior support and least intervention.

Rubric – Application Paper EXC 7720 Standard Level 1 - 2 Level 3 Level 4

1. Candidate states rationale for why he or she targeted a specific inappropriate behavior to decrease and an appropriate behavior to increase. (1/2 - 1 page)

Candidate describes the inappropriate behavior but not it’s function and/or does not state the appropriate behavior.

Candidate describes the function of both the inappropriate and appropriate behaviors based on a functional assessment but does not state the value of the appropriate behavior that serves the same function.

Candidate describes the function of both the inappropriate and appropriate behaviors based on a functional analysis and provides a logical explanation as to the value of the appropriate behavior he or she selected.

2. Candidate applies research to practice in selection of an intervention to decrease the inappropriate behavior. (1/2 - 1 page)

Candidate uses discussions from class that were related to either the intervention or the inappropriate

Candidate uses one research article related to either the intervention or the inappropriate behavior.

Candidate uses two research articles related to either the intervention or the inappropriate behavior.

document.doc - 48 -

Draft 10-29-03

behavior.3. Candidate collects and graphs data on the inappropriate behavior.

Candidate has fewer than 3 Baseline Data points and/or fewer than 12 intervention data points. Labeling on graph is missing.

Candidate has 3 Baseline data points and at least 12 intervention data points reflecting 6 weeks of data collection on a computer generated graph whose X or Y axes or Title are incorrectly stated.

Candidate has 3 Baseline data points and at least 12 intervention data points reflecting 6 weeks of data collection on a computer generated graph whose X and Y axes and Title are correctly stated.

4. Candidate collects and graphs data on the appropriate behavior.

* Alternative Standard (4a) requires prior approval of the instructor.

Candidate has fewer than 2 intervention data points on a computer-generated graph. Labeling on graph is missing

Candidate has between 2 – 4 data points reflecting 1 – 2 weeks of intervention data on a computer generated graph whose X and Y axes or Title are incorrectly stated.

Candidate has between 6 – 12 data points reflecting 3 – 6 weeks of intervention data on a computer generated graph whose X and Y axes and Title are correctly stated.

* 4a. Candidate does not collect and graph data on the appropriate behavior.

Candidate provides no rationale as to why an appropriate behavior was not graphed

Candidate provides a poorly developed rationale as to why an appropriate behavior was not graphed.

Candidate provides logical and coherent rationale as to why an appropriate behavior was not graphed.

5. Candidate analyzes data and relates his or her results to published research. (1 – 3 pages)

Results are summarized and candidate relates results to 1 research article.

Results are summarized and candidate relates results to 2 research articles

Results are summarized and candidate related results to 3 research articles.

6. Candidate writes self-assessment on related behavior changes. (1 – 3 pages)

* Alternative Standard (6a) if related changes in related behavior were not noted.

Candidate describes 1 of 3 levels of change: additional changes in the targeted student (academic, behavioral, psychological); changes in the candidate’s relationship to the targeted student; or changes in the targeted student’s relationship to other students in the class

Candidate describes 2 of 3 levels of change: additional changes in the targeted student (either academic, behavioral or psychological); changes in the candidate’s relationship to the targeted student; or changes in the targeted student’s relationship to other students in the class.

Candidate describes 3 levels of change: additional changes in the targeted student (either academic, behavioral or psychological); changes in the candidate’s relationship to the student; and changes in relationships between targeted student and other students in the class. OR If three changes were not noted, candidate provides a logical explanation as to why changes did not occur.

* 6a Candidate explains why limited or no related behavior changes were noted.

Candidate does not provide a rationale as to why changes in related behavior did not occur.

Candidate provides a poorly supported rationale as to why changes in related behavior did not occur.

Candidate provides a logically supported explanation as to why related changes in behavior did not occur.

7. Candidate reflects on feedback from the instructor from previous components of the

Previously graded components are turned in with no reflections.

Previously graded components are turned in and candidate reflects on either changes he or

Previously graded components are turned in and candidate reflects on what he or she changed

document.doc - 49 -

Draft 10-29-03

application paper. (1 – 3 pages)

* Alternative Standard (7a) if no reflection is provided.

she made in the intervention process as a result of feedback or what he or she would do differently next time a positive behavior support plan is developed.

in his or her intervention process as a result of feedback and what he or she would do differently next time a positive behavior support plan is developed.

* 7a Candidate explains why reflection wasn’t necessary.

Candidate does not provide a rationale as to why no changes were made in the positive behavior support plan as it was developed.

Candidate provides a poor explanation as to why no changes were made in the positive behavior support plan as it was developed.

Candidate provides a logical explanation as to why no changes were made in the positive behavior support plan as it was developed.

8. Candidate writes a logical and coherent paper.

Paper is poorly organized with multiple errors in paragraph construction, sentence formation, and mechanics.

Paper is written in a logical and coherent manner with numerous errors in paragraph construction, sentence formation, and mechanics.

Paper is written in a logical and coherent manner with few to no errors in paragraph construction, sentence formation, and mechanics.

EXC 7720 Classroom Behavior StrategiesApplication Paper Summary Data

Application Paper Level 1Below 70%

Level 2(70-79%)

Level 3(80-89%)

Level 4(90%+)



N=15Spring 2002

1/7% 2/13% 4/27% 8/53%

EXC 7720 Final ExamSummary Data

Exam Level 1Below 70%

Level 2(70-79%)

Level 3(80-89%)

Level 4(90%+)



N=15Spring 2002

0/0% 0/0% 1/7% 14/93%

Reflection: The final exam was comprehensive and the candidates were given a study guide. Everyone seemed to do very well on the exam with all candidates achieving in the Levels 3 &4 range. Even though each component of the final application paper was sequenced and constructive feedback given prior to completion of the final paper there were a few students who didn’t follow suggestions given. I have decided to now use the proposed manuscript format given in Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis as the format for their final application paper in the future. Based on candidate feedback, I will

document.doc - 50 -

Draft 10-29-03

continue to have the candidates complete the components in sequential parts and receive feedback prior to the final submission.

document.doc - 51 -

Draft 10-29-03

CEC STANDARD 6 Communication

Assessment of communication knowledge is embedded in data for Standard 2 (Characteristics) and Standard 3 (Differences). Application of communication knowledge is embedded in Standard 4 (Instruction), Standard 7 (Planning), and Standard 8 (Assessment). Data are recorded for each cohort indicating the number and percentage of candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target proficiency (90%+ mastery of content) and represents clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of mastery. Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of content mastery (80-90% mastery of content). Levels 1 and 2 represent less than 80% mastery of content and candidates would be required to document further evidence of mastery for their portfolio.

document.doc - 52 -

Draft 10-29-03

CEC Standard 7 Planning

Evaluation of written products (curriculum map and integrated unit plan) and evaluations of on-the-job performance by KSU field-experience supervisors are used to assess instructional planning skills. Data is recorded for each cohort indicating the number and percentage of candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target proficiency (90%+ mastery of content) and represents clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of mastery. Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of content mastery (80-90% mastery of content). Level 1 and 2 represent less than 80% mastery of content and candidates would be required to document further evidence of mastery for their portfolio.

EXC 7760:Teaching & Learning I Catalog Description: Teaching & Learning I prepares teachers to develop curriculum and instruction that is universal in design and based on best practices research in general education. Particular attention is given to research-based models of teaching and learning including cooperative learning, inductive reasoning, concept attainment, jurisprudential inquiry, information processing etc. Universally designed instruction is flexible such that the materials and activities allow different learning goals to be achieved by individuals with a wider range of abilities (and disabilities). This curriculum model provides build-in adaptations to the lesson that reduce the amount of time needed to create individual accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities. The “Big Ideas” addressed in this course include Universal Design, Interdisciplinary Thematic Units, Multi-Level Instruction, and Multiple Intelligence Theory. Additional attention will be paid to the Georgia Learning Connections Website, as well as the alignment of IEP objectives with the Quality Core Curriculum (QCC).

Within the knowledge domain: 1) Define the basic models of teaching and learning including cooperative learning, inductive

reasoning, concept attainment, jurisprudential inquiry, information processing, etc;2) Define basic constructs of: Universal design, inclusion, accommodation and modification, etc.;3) Identify and discuss the three basic approaches to designing curriculum for students with disabilities

including multi-level, curriculum overlap and functional, alternative curriculum.Within the skills domain:

4) Develop and teach each one lesson using one of the models of teaching and learning described by Joyce, et al. 2000;

5) Develop a one-week integrated unit plan that meets the needs of students who are classified as gifted, behavior disordered and moderately mentally impaired;

6) Develop instruction that is multi-level and/or represents curriculum overlapping;7) Develop an academic content area curriculum for a specific age/grade level including

modifications for IEP specified needs of students with disabilities and a curriculum-based assessment plan to monitor student progress in the curriculum;

8) Develop accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities (sensory, health, mobility, communication, etc., including factors affecting cultural context;

9) Develop thematic unit plan, which incorporates cross-curricular activities and incorporates diversity needs as applicable.

Within the disposition domain:10) Demonstrate collaborative skills in developing instruction and unit plans and co-teaching a lesson

to the class;

document.doc - 53 -

Draft 10-29-03

11) Demonstrate the ability to analyze instruction and think reflectively about their daily practice;12) Demonstrate on-going commitment to professional development by engaging in personalized

action planning.

Curriculum Mapping Across the Year and an Integrated Thematic Unit Plan: As a final project, students will work in a small group to map out the Georgia QCCs within a grade level and then develop a one-week Integrated Thematic Unit from that map. The unit must include all four disciplines (Math, Language Arts, Social Studies, & Science), special areas (music & art), and three embedded skills (social, functional, leadership or career skills). Students should select a grade level and theme upon which to develop a high quality plan, responsive to the educational needs of exceptional students who are high flyers, as well as those who have learning and behavior challenges to mild and moderate degrees. The plan must include:

Theme and grade level; QCCs “Mapped” out over the year – including the essential questions; Description of the class context, to include a profile for each of the three students who need

additional support; (Student with a moderate disability, one with a mild disability, and a student who needs to be challenged)

A broad outline of the Integrated Thematic Unit:1. list of the relevant QCC’s; (more than one per subject area)2. a description of universal design to be used (methods on presentation and

expression);3. List of IEP objectives per student (tied to QCCS on or off grade level);4. list examples of accommodations and/or modifications to support exceptional

students (must have a hands on product (model) included with unit );5. outline of the model(s) of co-teaching you would use;6. list of materials (books, tapes, videos, etc.);7. outline of the assessment tools - to include examples of embedded assessments for

students working on functional skills.

Notes: A model of teaching and learning must be demonstrated in this unit, as well as the incorporation of cooperative learning. Also, it is recommended that your foundation for universal design be couched in multiple intelligences theory.

Curriculum Mapping &Accommodation/Modification RubricPWT – Fall 2002 Total Number of Students 24

Standards of Performance

Criteria L1 L2 L3 L4

Curriculum Mapping is Complete (35)

Georgia QCCs are Mapped out Over a Year Across all subjects

21% (5)

79% (19)

Development of an Integrated Unit (20)

Connections between subject areas are well thought out to support an effective Integrated Unit.

21% (5)

79% (19)

Brief Description of class and students with IEPs

Class description is complete to include profiles of students with IEPs that clearly detail special education classification, strengths and needs, as

21% (5)

79% (19)

document.doc - 54 -

Draft 10-29-03

– Profile (20) well as student(s) who need to be challenged. Description demonstrates thorough understanding of each student.

Standards and Objectives (20)

A comprehensive list of both QCC standards and IEP objectives of all students must be provided as appropriate. Note some students may work “off grade level” (above or below).

21% (5)

79% (19)

Universal Design. Models of Teaching, and Research Based Activities (35)

A comprehensive list of activities that incorporate multiple intelligences, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Models of Teaching and Cooperative Learning strategies and are thematic based. Specify activities for remediation & enrichment.

21% (5)

79% (19)

Accommodations & Modifications (20)An example must be submitted with the unit.

Accommodations and modifications are: Taught in an inclusive

setting/classroom; Simple and creative; Facilitate interaction with non-

disabled peers; Age appropriate; and Flexible for a variety of uses and

contexts.

21% (5)

79% (19)

Materials (5) Included is a list of materials to support the teaching of the unit – to include technology.

21% (5)

79% (19)

Assessment (20) A range of authentic assessment tools is outlined which are directly tied to the QCCs and IEP objectives.

21% (5)

79% (19)

Collaboration (20) Points assigned by team members Points assigned by instructor

21% (5)

79% (19)

Total 21% (5)

79% (19)

document.doc - 55 -

Draft 10-29-03

Curriculum Mapping &Accommodation/Modification RubricFall 2002 – On campus Cohort Total Number of students 24



Curriculum Mapping is Complete (35)

Georgia QCCs are Mapped out Over a Year Across all subjects

8% (2)

21% (5)

71% (17)

Development of an Integrated Unit (20)

Connections between subject areas are well thought out to support an effective Integrated Unit.

8% (2)

21% (5)

71% (17)

Brief Description of class and students with IEPs – Profile (20)

Class description is complete to include profiles of students with IEPs that clearly detail special education classification, strengths and needs, as well as student(s) who need to be challenged. Description demonstrates thorough understanding of each student.

8% (2)

21% (5)

71% (17)

Standards and Objectives (20)

A comprehensive list of both QCC standards and IEP objectives of all students must be provided as appropriate. Note some students may work “off grade level” (above or below).

8% (2)

21% (5)

71% (17)

Universal Design. Models of Teaching, and Research Based Activities (35)

A comprehensive list of activities that incorporate multiple intelligences, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Models of Teaching and Cooperative Learning strategies and are thematic based. Specify activities for remediation & enrichment.

8% (2)

21% (5)

71% (17)

Accommodations & Modifications (20)An example must be submitted with the unit.

Accommodations and modifications are: Taught in an inclusive

setting/classroom; Simple and creative; Facilitate interaction with non-

disabled peers; Age appropriate; and Flexible for a variety of uses and

contexts.

8% (2)

21% (5)

71% (17)

Materials (5) Included is a list of materials to support the teaching of the unit – to include technology.

8% (2)

21% (5)

71% (17)

Assessment (20) A range of authentic assessment tools is outlined which are directly tied to the QCCs and IEP objectives.

8% (2)

21% (5)

71% (17)

Collaboration (20)

Points assigned by team members Points assigned by instructor

8% (2)

21% (5)

71% (17)

TOTAL 8% (2)

21% (5)

71% (17)

document.doc - 56 -

Draft 10-29-03

CEC Standard 8 Assessment

Evaluation of written products (assessment case study) and evaluations of on-the-job performance by KSU field-experience supervisors are used to assess assessment skills. Evaluation of assessment skills are also embedded in Instructional Planning and Lesson Plan rubrics. Data is recorded for each cohort indicating the number and percentage of candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target proficiency (90%+ mastery of content) and represents clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of mastery. Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of content mastery (80-90% mastery of content). Level 1 and 2 represent less than 80% mastery of content and candidates would be required to document further evidence of mastery for their portfolio.

EXC 7730: AssessmentWithin the Skills and Dispositions domains, the candidate will be able to:

1. Master the basic educational statistics underpinning standardized testing.2. Determine the efficacy of standardized tests commonly used in the identification and program

development of students with disabilities, using appropriate assessment terminology and criteria provided in class. Candidates will also determine the effects of socio-economic, language, and cultural differences in making decisions relative to identification and placement of diverse populations of students.

3. Develop an assessment plan to include assessment procedures which are appropriate, unbiased and have a high probability of success measuring the strengths and needs of individual students.

4. Assess a student with a disability and analyze and report the results in at least two of the following areas, using only assessment instruments for which they hold the appropriate credentials: (a) general achievement; (b) attention and memory; © level of cognitive functioning; (d) motor; (e) sensory-acuity; (f) adaptive behavior; (g) speech and language; and (h) cognitive processing.

5. Implement procedures for assessing and reporting both appropriate and problematic social behaviors of individuals with disabilities.

6. Conduct curriculum-based, performance and/or product assessments, analyze and report results in at least two of the following areas: (a) general achievement; (b) attention and memory; (c) level of cognitive functioning; (d) motor; (e) sensory-acuity; (f) adaptive behavior; (g) speech and language; and (h) cognitive processing.

7. Adapt and modify ecological inventories, portfolio assessments, functional assessments, and futures-based and team-based assessments to accommodate unique needs and abilities of individuals with disabilities.

8. Synthesize information collected from standardized and non-standardized procedures, interpret and report results in terms of the special education categories of disability as stated in IDEA 1997 and Georgia state rules (e.g., learning disabled, behavior disordered, intellectually disabled, other health impaired).

9. Make recommendations for educational programming in separate and inclusive settings, based upon all of the information collected.

10. Demonstrate understanding of the rights to privacy, confidentiality, and respect for differences among all persons interacting with individuals with disabilities;

11. Maintain confidentiality of all records and individuals (e.g., medical, psychological, etc).

document.doc - 57 -

Draft 10-29-03

EXC 7730: Assessment Fall 2002– EXC 7730-01 Total Number of students 17



DESCRIPTIVESEGMENT (25)

Must state reason for referral, medical history to present, social/behavioral history to present, disability diagnosis, school and academic history to present, family back-ground, headings, pseudonyms, CA & grade.

1(5%)

2(12%)

9(53%)

5(30%)

RECORD REVIEW (50)

Introduction Tables Dates Interpretation Evaluative Summary

1(5%)

2(12%)

9(53%)

5(30%)

EVALUATION PLAN (50)

Introduction Pertinent Questions Assessments considered (at

least 2-3 in each targeted area) Assessments selected (must be

in area of suspected/documented disability & included in prior section)

Authentic assessments & work samples (appendix)

1(5%)

2(12%)

9(53%)

5(30%)

TESTING AND INTERPRETATION

(75)

Introduction Tables & Dates tests were

given Administered by 7730 student Strong Interpretation Evaluative Summary

1(5%)

2(12%)

9(53%)

5(30%)

RECOMMENDATIONS

(25)

Complete Student Profile Placement addressed Instruction program addressed Accommodations/

Modifications Eligibility and/or further

testing

1(5%)

2(12%)

9(53%)

5(30%)

TOTAL (225) 1 (5%)

2 (12%)

9 (53%)

5 (30%)

Reflection: Modified instructional activities include: greater emphasis on examination of authentic and standardized assessment results, less emphasis on high-stakes testing procedures and greater emphasis on implications of such testing; deeper analysis and interpretation of standardized test scores; greater linkage to implications for instructional programming.

document.doc - 58 -

Draft 10-29-03

Final Project: Case Study RubricSpring 2003– EXC 7730-02 (Off campus Cohort)

Total Number of students 21





2(10%)

7(33%)

12(57%)

RECORD REVIEW (50)


2(10%)

7(33%)

12(57%)






2(10%)

7(33%)

12(57%)


(75)



2(10%)

7(33%)

12(57%)

RECOMMENDATIONS

(25)



testing

2(10%)

7(33%)

12(57%)

TOTAL (225) (0%)

2 (10%)

7 (33%)

12(57%)

Reflection: Modified instructional activities include: Greater emphasis on appropriate use of scores, comparing derived scores, and identifying percentile, stanine, t-score, scaled score and standard score equivalents; connecting case study examples to real-world problems; outlines for each segment more clearly delineated through use of handouts, examples, sample case studies, overheads and power point presentations; reflection videos shown in class; recommendations expanded to include complete student profile re-cap; appendix including work samples and protocols necessary component; students wrote draft for recommendations section in-class, receiving immediate feedback

document.doc - 59 -

Draft 10-29-03

from professor on implications for instructional programming, accommodations & modifications needed, and further testing.

document.doc - 60 -

Draft 10-29-03

Final Project: Case Study RubricSpring 2003– EXC 7730-01

Total Number of students 19Standards of

PerformanceCriteria L1 L2 L3 L4



4(21%)

8(42%)

7(37%)

RECORD REVIEW (50)


4(21%)

8(42%)

7(37%)






4(21%)

8(42%)

7(37%)


(75)



4(21%)

8(42%)

7(37%)

RECOMMENDATIONS

(25)



testing

4(21%)

8(42%)

7(37%)

TOTAL (225) (0%)

4(21%)

8(42%)

7(37%)

Reflection: Modification of instructional activities include: providing models of prior case studies for reflection and critique; in-class sample case study exercise expanded to include case studies in progress within class; greater emphasis on appropriate use of scores, comparing derived scores, and identifying percentile, stanine, t-score, scaled score and standard score equivalents.

document.doc - 61 -

Draft 10-29-03

CEC STANDARD 9 Professionalism

Assessment of professionalism is included in the SEPO/CPI indicators evaluated as part of the field experience. The Candidate Performance Instrument and Graduate Portfolio Narrative also include elements of professionalism. During 2003-2004, implementation of the Interim Candidate Review is providing additional data.

CEC STANDARD 10 Collaboration

Assessment of collaboration is also included in the SEPO/CPI indicators evaluated as part of the field experience. The Candidate Performance Instrument and Graduate Portfolio Narrative also include elements of collaboration. During 2003-2004, implementation of the Interim Candidate Review is providing additional data.

document.doc - 62 -

Draft 10-29-03

Observation of Skills in the Field – Special Education Performance Outcomes

All candidates are assessed in the field by special education field supervisors each academic year semester using the Special Education Performance Objectives (SEPO) observation instrument. This instrument is linked to CEC and KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework outcomes. During the first year of the program, candidates may reach a Level 3 (Acceptable - indicates clear evidence of skill mastery). The first supervision visit is linked to EXC 7760 Teaching & Learning I and provides baseline data on candidate performance and support for curriculum development. This provides a benchmark for the Unit Level Subject Matter Expert CPI indicator.

The second semester, field supervisors conduct two visits to observe candidates delivering lessons developed for EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II. Field supervision visits provide feedback on progress to candidates and faculty, and include written and verbal feedback to coach candidates to higher levels of performance. This provides a benchmark for the Unit level Facilitator of Teaching and Learning CPI indicator.

During the first semester of the second year, candidates are observed participating in team teaching lessons with general education peers for EXC 7780 Collaborative Practice. This provides a benchmark for the Unit level Collaborative Professional indicator. The expectation is that candidates should be reaching higher levels of proficiency and achieving Level 4 (Target - clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of mastery) on many SEPO indicators. During the final semester, candidates in EXC 7970 Internship must have reached a minimum of Level 3 on all SEPO indicators and have developed extensions in their classroom practice to demonstrate a Level 4 on many of the indicators.

Data is recorded for each cohort indicating the number and percentage of candidates achieving each level of proficiency. Level 4 is the target proficiency and represents clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of performance objective mastery, including extensions beyond course requirements in their teaching practice. Level 3 is acceptable and indicates clear evidence of mastery of performance objectives. Level 1 and 2 are not acceptable and candidates would not receive a Satisfactory grade in the EXC 7970 Internship course without achieving a minimum Level 3 on all indicators.

Performance data summarized for this report include the Behaviorally Anchored Supervision System (BASS) indicators. The BASS preceded the SEPO, which was field-tested during 2002-2003. The different versions of the form represent the improvements implemented. The final SEPO was reorganized to align with the revised PTEU Conceptual Framework. The Graduate Impact on Student Learning Analysis (ISLA) was also implemented in Spring 2003 as part of the PTEU unit level assessment.

document.doc - 63 -

Draft 10-29-03

EXC 7970 Internship in Special Education, Summary of Observational Tool, BASS Observation (BASS) Objectives and Description

1) Demonstrate the use of appropriate curriculum design, differentiated instruction, multi-level curriculum, curriculum overlap, multiple-intelligence’s, and multi-sensory instruction to meet the curriculum and instruction needs of diverse learners. Conduct systematic instruction tailored to the individualized learning needs of students with disabilities in a variety of educational, social and community contexts, as appropriate. This includes the use of systematic prompting, task analysis, successive approximations, fading, advance organizers, controlling difficulty or processing demands of a task, directed questioning and responding, and gaining students’ attention prior to giving instructional cues

2) Teach students using a balance of direct instruction, strategy instruction, peer tutoring, cooperative learning, project based learning, teacher directed small groups, whole class instruction, and monitoring of individual work to meet the unique learning strengths and needs of students with disabilities

3) Maintain an appropriate pace of instruction, engage all students in learning, and call on all students.

4) Incorporate technology on a regular basis to teach students and to facilitate student performance of academic and social learning

5) Establish classroom ecology, classroom management strategies, high levels of differentiated reinforcement of appropriate behavior, and group and individual positive behavior support plans that facilitate student learning of academic and social skills. Demonstrate positive teacher to student and student-to-student interactions. Teach social skills in context

6) Establish routines and procedures for students to make a variety of transitions, including class-to-class, building-to-building, school-to-work.

7) Demonstrate effective use of classroom organization skills: grade level and age-appropriate materials ready for instruction; schedule posted and followed; behavioral expectations and consequences posted and followed; class rolls assigned.

8) Monitor student progress through the use of formative and summative data collection.9) Reflect on teacher instruction and student learning and adapts curriculum and instructional

procedures to meet the needs of students experiencing difficulty learning and behaving.10) Establish collaboration procedures with peers, parents, paraprofessionals, teachers and related

service providers to facilitate the learning of all students, but particularly those with disabilities.

Description: Candidates who take this internship will be evaluated using the BASS on their teaching, interpersonal and professional skills during scheduled and unscheduled observations. More specifically, they will be evaluated on their ability to select, implement & evaluate: instructional practices consistent with best practices research as stated in course objectives; classroom management practices as stated in course objectives; and satisfactorily fulfill every aspect of the teaching role including reflection on practice, ethical interactions, professional attitudes, and collaboration with other staff, parents, and students.

document.doc - 64 -

Draft 10-29-03

SUMMARY SPRING 2003 PROJECT WINNING TEAM COHORT 22 CANDIDATES

Academic Learning Time: Provides frequent and ongoing opportunities for all students to be involved/engaged in group/individual activitiesL1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date: 6

Candidates, 27%L4 Date: 16 Candidates, 73%

Level of Success: Provides frequent and ongoing opportunities for student involvement, which ensure appropriately high levels of success for all students.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date: 9

Candidates, 41%L4 Date: 13 Candidates, 59%

Content-coverage. Provides instruction, which is consistently focused on critical content, linked to Georgia QCC and IEP goals and is conducted efficiently.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:

5 Candidates, 23%L4 Date: 17 Candidates, 77%

Gaining attention. Uses effective prompts to immediately gain the attention of all students before beginning instruction; follows prompt with silence to monitor student attending.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Reviewing. Systematically establishes a link between new information and previously taught concepts for skills by actively eliciting responses from all students regarding what has already been taught.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Communicating goals. Communicates learning goals/outcomes and makes frequent reference to what is being learned and why it is important; checks to determine that all students understand expectations; responds appropriately to feedback.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Providing input. Actively models/provides multiple demonstrations when presenting skills, concepts, strategies,

document.doc - 65 -

Draft 10-29-03

or rules; elicits responses form all students; checks to verify understanding.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Prompted practice. Provides frequent and appropriate opportunities for all students to practice the behavior independently or with supervision/ monitors student responses and provides feedback on both correct and incorrect responses.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:

8 Candidates, 36%L4 Date:14 Candidates, 64%

Unprompted practice. Provides frequent and appropriate opportunities for all students to practice the behavior independently or with supervision; monitors student responses and provides feedback after each item that students perform.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Closing. Provides appropriate opportunities for direct responses for all students in closing/reviewing the lesson; clearly specifies what the students are to do next; checks to ensure students understand expectations.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Eliciting frequent responses. Uses appropriate techniques to actively elicit individual and group responses from all students during the lesson.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Maintaining appropriate pace. Consistently controls the pace of all instruction based on student feedback and content to be covered.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Maintaining attention. Consistently adjusts instruction to focus the attention of all students on the outcomes.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


document.doc - 66 -

Draft 10-29-03

Monitoring and adjusting correct responses. Consistently provides immediate and specific positive responses based on student needs. Adjusts instruction based on student feedback.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Monitoring and adjusting incorrect responses. Provides immediate and appropriate correction, checking to ensure that all student errors are corrected. Adjusts instruction based on student feedback.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Ensuring all have equal chance. Consistently makes appropriate attempts to provide all students with equal opportunities to learn.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Selection. Selects instructional activities and independent assignments, which are relevant to all student needs and focused on skills taught and mastered.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Routines: Provides consistent routines for managing all class activities.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Strategies for completion. Provides students with functional and generalizable strategies for completing all independent work.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Monitoring and correction. Effectively monitors the completion of activities and independent work and adjusts requirements or provides corrective feedback to guide learning.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Homework and parent involvement. Provides appropriate homework opportunities for all students and uses procedures to actively involve parents.

document.doc - 67 -

Draft 10-29-03

L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date: 4 Candidates, 18%

L4 Date:18 Candidates, 82%

Accommodations. Consistently uses universal design and provides appropriate accommodations to provide access to learning for all students.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Positive Behavior Supports. Provides an environment conducive to learning including positive behavior supports for all students, consistent application of rules/consequences, and models of appropriate behavior at all times.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Professionalism. Works collaboratively with others; systematically reflects on practice and implements best practice; continues professional development; follows CEC Code of Ethics and Standards.L1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Overall Instructor Ratings of Spring 2003 PWT Candidates’ Mastery of TeachingL1 Date: L2 Date: L3 Date:


Course Reflection and Plans for Improvement: An analysis of the Rubric summary scores shows that candidates need improvement in the areas of Reviewing, Communicating Learning Goals, Providing Closings with Review, and Responding to Student Errors. These areas are crucial to good special education teaching and student learning. It is somewhat troubling that these areas, which are essential to direct instruction, aren’t being implemented at the L-4 level by all or almost all of our candidates. As a department we must look at our curriculum and methods courses (Teaching and Learning I and II) to insure that candidates are learning these essential direct instruction skills. In the Internship course we must provide more modeling, coaching, and feedback on these critical skills.

Outcomes in Special Education Observation Form Spring 2003 (2001 Cohort)*** Planning ***1. Successfully aligns IEP objectives and QCC’s with instruction and assessment.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Objectives and QCC’s not listed.

Objectives and QCC’s listed but not embedded in the lesson.

Objectives and QCC’s listed and embedded in the lesson.

(12.% (2) not applicable)

17.% (3) 71% (12)

2. Develops lesson plans using research-based strategies (Universal Design, Concept Mapping, Differentiated Instruction, Multi-level Curriculum).

Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: No lesson plans present, or lesson plan refers only to page numbers or

Lesson plans have stated objectives but there are limited or no

Lesson plans have stated objectives and there is evidence that research

document.doc - 68 -

Draft 10-29-03

chapters from books. indications that research based strategies were used to develop the plans.

based strategies were used to develop the plans.

47% (8) 53% (9)

3. Plans the integrated use of technology.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Technology is neither planned for nor integrated in the lesson (used as an add on to the lesson).

Technology is integrated into the lesson plan but at the surface level.

Technology is integrated into the lesson plan.

71% (12) 29% (5)

4. Plans for student diversity through accommodations and modifications for individual needs.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: No accommodations or modifications are listed, or a generic accommodations/modifications checklist is used with no specific reference to students.

Accommodations and modifications are incorporated only for assignment completion.

Accommodations and modifications are incorporated throughout the entire lesson, during instruction, as well as for assignment completion.

76% (13) 24% (4)

*** Conducting Lessons ***5. Demonstrates congruence between the lesson plan and instruction while incorporating student responses to the lesson.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Implementation of the lesson does not follow the lesson plan or is only tangentially related to it.

Lesson is implemented according to plan, but there is little if any response to student cues or adjustment to instruction based on those cues.

Lesson is implemented according to plan and teacher adjusts instruction based on student responses. Includes adjusting for student errors, augmenting instruction to insure student understanding and providing enrichment activities.

24% (4) 76% (13)

6. Effectively uses technology and adaptive/assistive technology in the lesson and for reinforcement.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Technology is not used during the lesson, or technology is used as an add-on to the lesson.

Technology is integrated into the lesson, but at the surface level. Used by teacher or students but not both.

Technology is integrated into the lesson; teachers use technology for teaching and students for learning and completing assignments.

88% (15) 12.% (2)

7. Provides explicit reinforcement to student responses.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Teacher does not provide reinforcement for correct responses.

Teacher uses reinforcement, but does not articulate the specific behavior or skill being reinforced.

Teacher uses reinforcement and articulates the specific behavior or skill that is being reinforced.

53% (9) 47% (8)

8. Gains the attention of students, incorporates preview and review, connects new learning to previous learning, and connects use of learning strategies to content to be learned and students’ previous learning.

Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Does not gain the students’ attention prior to teaching, does not provide preview or review, does not connect new learning to previous learning or learning strategies to the content to be learned.

Typically gains students attention prior to instruction provides preview and review but only minimally connects new learning to previous learning or learning strategies to the content to be learned.

Consistently gains students attention prior to instruction provides preview and review and connects new learning to previous learning or learning strategies to the content to be learned.

document.doc - 69 -

Draft 10-29-03

41% (7) 59% (10)

9. Effectively paces instruction and promotes equity in student responses.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Teacher’s pace of instruction is too fast or too slow and opportunities for every student to be engaged in the lesson are not provided.

Teacher typically adjusts pace of instruction to maintain student attention and opportunities for every student to be engaged in the lesson are provided.

Teacher consistently maintains an effective pace of instruction and opportunities for every student to be engaged in the lesson are provided.

47% (8) 53% (9)

10. Correctly uses a variety of research-based instructional strategies (direct instruction, strategy instruction, systematic prompting, peer mediated learning such as cooperative learning groups, class wide peer tutoring or Peer Assisted Learning Strategies [PALS], task analysis, and multiple flexible grouping structures).

Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Teacher does not use research-based strategies effectively and does not involve the students in active, hands on learning; instruction is predominantly whole class and independent work.

Teacher demonstrates effective implementation of at least two research-based strategies and there is a balance between whole class/independent work and student collaborative or cooperative groups.

Teacher demonstrates effective implementation of at least four research-based strategies and there is a balance in the use of a variety of flexible grouping strategies.

76% (13) 24% (4)

11. Maintains active student engagement through meaningful and motivating Lessons.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Teacher lectures or reads from the teacher’s manual, never engaging the students in hands on activities; students remain passive recipients of teacher information.

Teacher shares information with the students and then engages them in meaningful activities.

Teacher actively engages the students in the learning process by weaving the sharing of information with meaningful activities; teacher is animated and enthusiastic.

53% (9) 47% (8)

12. Gives correct curriculum content while teaching.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Is unable to clearly and accurately explain curriculum content.

Teacher hesitates and needs to constantly refer to curriculum materials in order to present the content clearly and accurately.

Naturally presents curriculum content clearly and accurately to students.

12.% (2) 88% (15)

*** Assessment ***13. Embeds authentic assessment in lessons.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Relies on end of lesson or unit test to assess learners.

Uses a form of authentic assessment to determine student errors and correct responses and adjusts the lesson accordingly.

Uses a combination of standard tests and multiple authentic assessments to adjust instruction and determine student learning.

71% (12) 29% (5)

14. Provides immediate and appropriate correction to student errors and adjusts instruction accordingly.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Does not stop or alter lesson when students make errors.

Teacher stops instruction and gives the student a correct answer and explanation for why it is correct.

Teacher stops instruction and asks the student how (s) he determined the response. Teacher adjusts instruction to include a formal error correction

document.doc - 70 -

Draft 10-29-03

procedure to insure correct student understanding.

59% (10) 41% (7)

*** Classroom Ecology and Behavior ***15. Classroom is clean and well organized.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Classroom is cluttered and disorganized; materials for students are not readily available, desks are not arranged in a manner conducive to learning, and classroom rules and consequences are not posted.

Classroom is uncluttered and organized; materials for student use are readily available, but student desks are not arranged in a manner conducive to learning.

Classroom is uncluttered and organized. Materials for student use are readily available and student desks are arranged in a manner conducive to learning. There are clear pathways to and from vital areas in the room and teacher can see all students at all times.

41% (7) 59% (10)

16. Provides consistent routines and procedures for managing all class activities.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Consistent routines and procedures are not posted or evident; students clearly do not know expectations or how to follow through. Classroom rules are not posted.

Consistent routines and procedures are posted and evident; routines and procedures flow smoothly, students clearly know what to do, however, the teacher still has to monitor and re-direct students on a regular basis. Classroom rules are posted.

Consistent routines and procedures are posted and evident; routines and procedures flow smoothly, students clearly know what to do, and the teacher only intermittently has to intervene and redirect students. Students respond immediately to teacher. Classroom rules are posted.

65% (11) 35% (6)

17. Facilitates positive social interactions among students.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Student to student conversation is inappropriate and shows lack of respect for one another and for adults. Teacher has to intervene continually to re-direct students and correct their behaviors.

Most of the student-to-student interactions are positive and show respect. Teacher frequently has to intervene to re-direct students.

The majority of student-to-student interactions are positive and show respect. Teacher rarely has to intervene to re-direct students.

88% (15) 12.% (2)

18. Provides manageable positive behavior supports for all students, consistently applies rules and consequences, and models and reinforces appropriate behavior at all times.

Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Relies on punishment to control classroom behavior. No rules or consequences posted. Tone of voice and body language are harsh and indicate lack of respect for students. Corrective action with students is arbitrary and inconsistent. Provides limited positive reinforcement

Typically reinforces appropriate behavior. Rules and consequences are posted and followed. Corrective action with students is more consistent and fair. Tone of voice and body language show respect for students. Circulates and maintains good proximity to all students, but especially those with problem behaviors. Classroom ecology is conducive to appropriate behavior.

Consistently reinforces appropriate behavior and explicitly describes what the student is doing that merited the reinforcement. Rules are stated and consistently and fairly followed. Students with problem behaviors have written positive behavior support plans. Teacher “sets up” students for appropriate behavior through the use of systematic prompting procedures.

82% (14) 18% (3)*** Collaboration *** 19. Effectively manages para professionals and other support staff so that they are effectively involved in meaningful

instruction.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4:

document.doc - 71 -

Draft 10-29-03

Para professionals spend the majority of their time talking or working on non-instructional tasks such as bulletin boards, cleaning, filing, or other paper work. Teacher stops instructional tasks to talk about non-instructional matters with the para professional or related services personnel, consistently asks they work with students in isolation from the rest of the group, or does not provide clear direction for transitions.

Para professionals spend the majority of their time on instructional tasks and interactions with students. Related services personnel are working with the student in an integrated fashion within the curriculum. Teacher models appropriate instructional and behavior management strategies. All staff handle transitions smoothly without additional instructions being needed. Para professionals in general education environments work with general education students too.

Para professionals spend all their time on instructional tasks and interactions with the students. Related services personnel are also working with other students along with the targeted student in an integrated fashion within the curriculum. In general education settings the para professional works collaboratively with both the general and special education teachers in teaching all students in multiple flexible groups.

(71% (12) not applicable) 17.% (3) 12.% (2)

20. Implements correctly a variety of co-teaching models (one teach/one drift, one teach/one observe and take data, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, duet teaching, team teaching with multiple flexible groups)

Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Teacher only uses one teach and one drift model of co-teaching.

Teacher uses two or more different co-teaching models.

Teacher uses four or more co-teaching models.

(47% (8) not applicable) 47% (8) 6% (1)

*** Professionalism ***21. Communication, both written and oral, is clear, concise and grammatically accurate.Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Written and oral communication is frequently incorrect in terms of basic structure and syntax, multiple spelling errors are noted in written work and the message is not clearly conveyed

Written and oral communication contains occasional errors of structure and syntax, an occasional spelling error is noted in written work and message is typically clearly conveyed.

Written and oral communication are free of errors and consistently conveyed in a clear fashion.

24% (4) 76% (13)

22. Overall appearance and attitude (dress, comments, body language) are positive and indicates respect for students, parents, and colleagues.

Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Teacher uses sarcastic language or language that ridicules students or colleagues. Clothing is dirty, disheveled, not neat and or inappropriate for the classroom. Teacher’s affect demonstrates no enthusiasm for either teaching or the subject matter or compassion for students, parents or colleagues.

Clothing is neat, clean and appropriate. Body language is positive and shows respect for students, parents and colleagues. Verbal language is free of ridicule and sarcasm.

Clothing is neat, clean and appropriate. Body language is positive and indicates not only respect for students and colleagues but also pride in the profession. Verbal language is not only free of ridicule and sarcasm but also shows enthusiasm for both teaching and the subject matter and compassion for students, parents and colleagues.

17.% (3) 83% (14)

During Spring 2003, the Department began implementation of the PTEU Graduate Impact on Student Learning Analysis (ISLA) in the EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II and EXC 7790 Internship courses. The ISLA is aligned with the PTEU Conceptual Framework and will be implemented in EXC 7720, 7760, 7765 and 7970 in the future as part of the unit level assessment.

document.doc - 72 -

Draft 10-29-03

GRADUATE IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING ANALYSISKENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITYBagwell College of Education

Number of Candidates _22____ Course: _EXC 7970 Semester: Sp 2003 PWT

Please indicate the candidate’s rating on each proficiency by checking the appropriate box. Our use of the phrase “every student” is inclusive of these attributes of multicultural populations: Age, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.Rating Indicator 1


2Limited Evidence

3Clear Evidence

4Clear, Consistent, and Convincing Evidence

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTSUses broad, current, and specialized knowledge of subject matter and communicates this understanding to all students (1.1)

8 Candidates36%

14 Candidates64%

FACILITATOR OF LEARNINGTreats students equitably and provides equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual difference sand adjusting practices accordingly (2.2)

5 Candidates23%

17 Candidates67%

Uses multiple methods to meet goals articulated for individual students and class instruction (2.5)

10 Candidates45%

12 Candidates55%

Monitors student progress with a variety of evaluation methods (2.6)

11 Candidates50%

11 Candidates50%

Meets learning goals articulated for individual students, impacting the learning of every student (2.5)

6 Candidates27%

16 Candidates63%

Uses the assessment results to improve the quality of instruction for every student (2.6)

10 Candidates45%

12 Candidates55%

COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONALReflects regularly and draws on experience aimed at improved student achievement (3.2)

14 Candidates45%

8 Candidates 36%

Totals – Overall Rating 10 Candidates45%

12 Candidates55%

document.doc - 73 -

Draft 10-29-03

Indicators where approximately half the candidates were scores L3 and half L4 were in the areas of using multiple methods, monitoring student progress, using assessment results, and reflecting on experience. Overall, the instructor rated half the candidates at L3 and half at L4 in their overall ability to impact student progress. At the masters level, I would like to see at least 75% of candidates in the L4 category. This data may suggest that these candidates are not using enough special education oriented strategies for teaching, monitoring student progress, and reflecting on their practice. Part of these results may be explained by the fact that 73% of these candidates are full time general education teachers. Given their class sizes and range of normal learners, these candidates may not see the value, or feel they have the time to use some of, the special education curriculum and instructional procedures they were taught. I would also suggest that we, as a department look at our Teaching and Learning I and II courses (curriculum and methods) to be sure we are teaching special education procedures to competency levels. I would also suggest that during the Internship we more carefully continue to model, coach, and provide feedback to our candidates on these special education oriented procedures. In addition, it may be necessary to increase the number of class meetings in the Internship (only 4 or 5 are required) to review and re-teach certain key special education strategies.

document.doc - 74 -

Draft 10-29-03

Portfolio Narrative Rubric

A major component of the graduate special education program is the development of teacher leaders. Candidates may exhibit Level 1 (Little or no evidence) or Level 2 (Limited evidence) mastery of performance objectives through course requirements, but Level 3 (Clear evidence) and Level 4 (Clear, consistent and convincing evidence) require that candidates develop extensions of skills into their teaching practice. Field supervision visits and feedback on the SEPO provide one level of evidence, but the capstone portfolio experience provides the best opportunity for candidates to showcase their extensions.

The working portfolio is developed as candidates complete assignments throughout the program. Final entries are selected by the candidates during EXC 7790 Documenting Professional Growth and include their extensions and reflections on how they have documented their performance The Unit Level Candidate Performance Instrument is completed at this point. The portfolio is also evaluated using the Graduate Portfolio Narrative Rating Scale as part of the PTEU unit data collection.

A major emphasis in the graduate portfolio is evidence documenting the candidate’s impact on the learning of their students. Evidence including charts, graphs and student work samples are required. Many candidates have also included video clips, photographs of classroom activities, and other documentation.

M. Ed. in Special Education candidates also complete a written portfolio and a presentation portfolio. The format of the written portfolio has evolved from a review of the literature format to an emphasis on documenting impact on student learning with references to related literature integrated as appropriate. The presentation portfolio is a summary presentation from the written portfolio to demonstrate mastery of presentation technology skills. Discussions across graduate education programs will continue to address common formats and data collection strategies across programs.

document.doc - 75 -

Draft 10-29-03

GRADUATE PORTFOLIO NARRATIVE RATING SCALE

Please use the following RATING SCALE to complete the Graduate Portfolio Narrative Rubric.

L1 – Little or No Evidence - Little or no evidence exists that proficiencies are addressed through reflective analysis. Writing may be only descriptive in nature and lack analysis or critical reflection. Evidence presented may be vague, brief, or not linked to proficiencies. Reference to the proficiencies may be missing altogether. Through writing, candidate fails to make connections between evidence presented and demonstration of expertise in the outcome. Candidate is unable to assess impact on student learning. There is little to no evidence that the candidate has been able to extend and apply knowledge and skills to daily practice. Finally, the candidate’s reflective analysis may express negative opinions about students, parents, or other professionals or blame students and parents for the student’s inability to learn.

L2 – Limited Evidence - Limited evidence exists that proficiencies are addressed through reflective analysis. Writing is mostly descriptive with limited elements of analysis or critical reflection. Evidence presented may address some of the proficiencies while others are not addressed at all or are hard to identify. Through writing, candidate makes limited connections between evidence presented and demonstration of expertise in the outcome. Candidate has difficulty assessing impact on student learning or adjusting practice accordingly. Opinions toward students, parents, or other professionals are difficult to identify.

L3 – Clear Evidence - Clear evidence exists that proficiencies are addressed through reflective analysis. Writing is descriptive, analytical, and reflective. Evidence presented clearly addresses all of the proficiencies with some being richer in detail than others. Through writing, candidate makes clear connections between evidence presented and demonstration of expertise in the outcome. Candidate assesses impact on student learning and adjusts practice accordingly. There is clear evidence that the candidate has been able to extend and apply knowledge and skills to daily practice. Positive opinions and behaviors about students, parents, or other professionals are evident.

L4 – Clear, Consistent, and Convincing Evidence - Clear, consistent, and convincing evidence exists that proficiencies are addressed through reflective analysis. Writing is rich in description, analysis, and reflection. Evidence presented addresses all proficiencies with evidence of multiple examples of extensions and application of learning to teaching practices. Through writing, candidate makes clear, consistent, and convincing connections between evidence presented and demonstration of expertise in the outcome. Candidate consistently assesses impact on student learning and provides multiple examples of adjusting practice accordingly. Positive opinions and interactions with students, parents, and other professionals are evident. Candidate is positive about teaching every student and about each student’s ability to learn.

document.doc - 76 -

Draft 10-29-03

GRADUATE PORTFOLIO NARRATIVE RUBRICKENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITYBagwell College of Education

Summary rating for SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS

L1 L2 L3 L422% (2) 78% (7)

1.1 Candidate possesses broad, current and specialized knowledge of subject matter and communicates this understanding to all students, and/or colleagues and parents.

1.2 Candidate possesses a global understanding of connections within and across disciplines and applications to real life and accurately represents understanding through use of multiple explanations, technologies and strategies.

1.3 Candidate demonstrates a passion for education and creates environments conducive to the development of powerful approaches to instructional challenges.

1.4 Candidate teaches or leads in ways that convey knowledge as a combination of skills, dispositions and beliefs-integrated, flexible, elaborate & deep.

Summary rating for FACILITATORS OF LEARNING

L1 L2 L3 L444% (4) 56% (5)

2.1 Candidate believes that all students can learn and helps students develop a positive disposition for learning.2.2 Candidate treats students equitably and provides equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual

differences and adjusting (or assisting teachers in adjusting) practices accordingly.2.3 Candidate understands human development and learning and uses this understanding to create enriching

educational experiences and/or environments for all students.2.4 Candidate creates safe, well-managed, supportive, inclusive and challenging learning environments.2.5 Candidate uses multiple methods, technologies, resources, and organizational arrangements to meet goals

articulated for individual students, class instruction and the overall school improvement plan.2.6 Candidate monitors student progress with a variety of formal and informal evaluation methods and uses results

to improve student learning.2.7 Candidate is accountable to multiple audiences, accurately interprets student performance data and

communicates results to multiple audiences in multiple formats.

Summary rating for COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONALS

L1 L2 L3 L433% (3) 67% (6)

3.1 Candidate collaborates with colleagues, parents and other professionals to strengthen school effectiveness, to advance knowledge, and to influence policy and practice.

3.2 Candidate reflects regularly upon daily practice, and draws upon experience and the professional literature to design and conduct research aimed at improved student achievement.

3.3 Candidate proactively involves parents and other members of the community in support of instruction and education.

3.4 Candidate engages in on-going professional development by joining professional organizations, participating in conferences, mentoring new staff.

document.doc - 77 -

Draft 10-29-03

Master of Special Education Portfolio Evaluation EXC 7790 Spring 2003

Evaluation CriteriaL-1 or L-2 L-3 L-4

Needs Significant revision (No evidence or very limited evidence)

Satisfactory Quality (Clear evidence)

High Quality (Clear, consistent, and convincing evidence)

Candidate

Written Document Oral Presentation

1 (3) (3)2 (3) (4)3 (4) (4)4 (3) (4)5 (4) (4)6 (3) (3)7 (4) (4)

TOTALL-1 or L-2 L-3 L-4 L-1 or

L-2L-3 L-4

7 57% (4) 43% (3) 29% (2) 71% (5)

Note: Each part of the portfolio must receive at least a L-3 or L-4 on each criterion. (See the attached Graduate Outcomes L1-L4 Performance Characteristics for further clarification.) Each of the student’s master’s portfolio committee members must complete this form. A L-3 or L-4 rating must be obtained from the committee members.

document.doc - 78 -

Draft 10-29-03

GRADUATE IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING ANALYSISKENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITYBagwell College of Education

Number of Candidates _____13 Course: ______EXC 7790__ Semester: Spring 2003__Program: ___Special Education Evaluator:__Self-Evaluation of Skills Upon Completing Program _ Our use of the phrase “every student” is inclusive of these attributes of multicultural populations: Age, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.

Rating Indicator1


2Limited Evidence

3Clear Evidence

4Clear,

Consistent, and

Convincing Evidence

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTSUses broad, current, and specialized knowledge of subject matter and communicates this understanding to all students (1.1)

54% (7) 46% (6)

FACILITATOR OF LEARNINGTreats students equitably and provides equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual difference sand adjusting practices accordingly (2.2)

54% (7) 46% (6)

Uses multiple methods to meet goals articulated for individual students and class instruction (2.5)

54% (7) 46% (6)

Monitors student progress with a variety of evaluation methods (2.6) 46% (6) 54% (7)Meets learning goals articulated for individual students, impacting the learning of every student (2.5)

54% (7) 46% (6)

Uses the assessment results to improve the quality of instruction for every student (2.6)

62% (8) 38% (5)

COLLABORATIVE/PROFESSIONALReflects regularly and draws on experience aimed at improved student achievement (3.2)

38% (5) 62% (8)

document.doc - 79 -

Draft 10-29-03

Appendix AConceptual Framework

Professional Teacher Education UnitBagwell College of EducationKennesaw State University

Collaborative Development Of Expertise In Teaching And LearningAbstract

The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw State University is committed to developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders who possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all of their students through effective, research-based practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance the structures that support all learning. To that end, the PTEU fosters the development of candidates as they progress through stages of growth from novice to proficient to expert and leader. Within the PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational leaders must embrace the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the implementation of validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high levels of learning. In that way, candidates are facilitators of the teaching and learning process. Finally, the PTEU recognizes, values and demonstrates collaborative practices across the college and university and extends collaboration to the community-at-large. Through this collaboration with professionals in the university, the public and private schools, parents and other professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of assisting Georgia schools in bringing all students to high levels of learning.

document.doc - 80 -

Draft 10-29-03

Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning. Unit Vision

At Kennesaw State University (KSU), the Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) envisions teacher education programs as pivotal in the preparation of a workforce composed of subject matter experts. In a variety of professional roles, these developing teachers and educational leaders work collaboratively, wholeheartedly, and effectively to serve learners by facilitating learning and developing successful learners across multicultural educational communities.

The PTEU embraces Dewey’s vision of education as a “…process in which the immature members of the teaching profession are shaped, formed, and molded into the profession’s own social form” (1916/1956). This vision presupposes “schools as places where only such as would make a better future society is transmitted--and where each individual gets an opportunity to escape from the limitations of the social group in which he/she was born, and to come into living contact with a broader environment” (Dewey, 1916/1956).

What unites the diverse work of the PTEU is the underlying aspiration to guide educators who bring learners of diverse backgrounds to high levels of learning. As part of that work, we believe that collaborative teaching partnerships have the potential to play a significant role in advancing education toward this desired future (Dottin, 2001). As a result, the vision for the Professional Teacher Education program at Kennesaw State University may be captured in the following theme:

Collaborative Development Of Expertise In Teaching And Learning.This theme is directed by the following definitions as applied to the initial

and advanced Professional Teacher Education Programs:Collaboration. Working together in an intellectual effort is the hallmark

of collaboration (Earle, Seehafer, & Ostlund, 2001; Friend & Cook, 2000; Galassi, 2000). The concept encompasses how professionals work together, and unfolds as a developmental process that proceeds from networking to coordination to cooperation until true collaboration is achieved. Effective educators who are capable of meeting the needs of every learner must work collaboratively and in partnership with parents, professional colleagues, and the community (Strieker, & Logan, 2001). In the context of increased student diversity, teachers need to support one another in an intellectual effort to serve multicultural communities. In the absence of collaboration, it will be difficult to assure that each student is accepted and actively supported in accessing the full array of education experiences (Lipsky & Gartner, 1989). Thus, at KSU one portion of our theme rests on collaboration.

Development of Expertise. Another aspect of our theme includes the development of expertise. According to Odell, Huling and Sweeny (2000), each teacher progresses through stages of development that advance from novice to proficient to expert to teacher leader. This progression occurs in a continuum of growth from pre-service to induction to in-service and finally renewal (Huling, 1997). To move from one stage to the next, graduates must recognize and act upon the significance of life-long professional development of subject matter knowledge and pedagogical practice. Expertise is viewed as a process of continued development, not an end state (Berlinger, 1988). In developing

document.doc - 81 -

Draft 10-29-03

expertise, teachers work to achieve intellectual proficiency or "know-how" in the teaching/learning process (Marshall, Fittinghoff, & Cheney, 1990; Katz, 1972). Educators with expertise in both areas hold high expectations for every learner, possess professional insight, use and organize knowledge about teaching and learning effectively, and search for creative solutions to problems and challenges. At KSU, we use the terms expertise and expert in the same way as the National Board on Professional Teacher Standards (The National Board, 1999) uses the term accomplished.

Teaching and Learning. Besides collaboration and development of expertise, our theme also includes consideration for the teaching and learning process that is demonstrated and facilitated by the PTEU faculty, to the teacher candidates, and ultimately, to their students. To be effective, teachers and educational leaders must meet the needs of diverse student populations by understanding individual students’ backgrounds, preferences and interests, and by using this information in the instructional process (Salisbury & Strieker, 2004; Ross, Seaborn & Wilson, 2002). KSU faculty embrace and model the intertwined processes of teaching and learning. That is, expert teachers use validated practices to facilitate the learning process and assist their students as they explore and investigate concepts so that learning becomes the acquisition of personal meaning, knowledge, and skills rather than simply the acquisition of a measurable outcome (Dottin, 2001, p. 40). The acquisition of meaning, knowledge, and skills is consonant with a constructivist paradigm of teaching and learning in which candidates (as well as their students) build their “…own knowledge and their own representations of knowledge from their own experiences and thought…” (Martin, 2003, p.169). Thus, the learning and development of candidates (and their future students) is assisted within an environment where emphasis is placed on a recursive process for the construction of knowledge (Elam & Duckinfield, 2000).

Unit MissionThe unit mission is built upon the PTEU vision and theme. KSU is

committed to providing a challenging and facilitative collegial environment that fosters high-quality academic preparation, critical thinking, global and multicultural perspectives, effective communication and interpersonal skills, leadership development, social responsibility, and lifelong learning (KSU Catalog, 2002-03). In concert with this institutional mission, the PTEU embraces the commitment of developing educational professionals who, as collaborative partners, engaged in local, national, and international endeavors in teaching, research, and service, become subject matter experts capable of facilitating high levels of learning within diverse student populations. Paramount to this activity is scholarly activity, which, broadly defined, is multi-dimensional in nature, is methodologically based upon the level and context of inquiry, and is combined with service activities that promote the well being of the University and the community-at-large. The PTEU, therefore, is committed to building a community of learners, who in turn will enfold, nurture, and engender in the Pre-K through grade 12 students a “shared vision of intellectual and social possibilities” (Boyer, 1995) as they prepare to live productively within a global society.

document.doc - 82 -

Draft 10-29-03

Philosophy“…education must be conceived as a continuing reconstruction of experience;

that the process and the goal of education are one and the same thing” (Dewey, 1910:1937).

Teacher as Nurturer, Facilitator (of Learning), CollaboratorWithin the context of our general mission and vision, the PTEU philosophy is

based upon a shared view of teacher preparation. The Professional Teacher Education Unit at Kennesaw State University views teachers and other school personnel as nurturers, facilitators, and collaborators. Since teachers and other school personnel in the PTEU care deeply about candidate learners and are particularly responsive to learners’ needs, they act as nurturers to assist candidates in the development of necessary basic learning skills and dispositions (ERIC Digest, 1993). Professional educators in the PTEU use validated practices to facilitate a learning process that acknowledges and values prospective teachers’ constructions of knowledge and aid candidates in reflecting about their content areas. Finally, these professional educators embrace an ideology that speaks to the collective and collaborative nature of shared work among effective professionals in the field.

Nurturer. “To see teaching and learning as the act of nurturing is to understand the essence of the phrase, to educate.” As Dewey posits, learners grow in concert with others. “Every experience lives on in further experiences. Hence, the central problem of…education…is to select the kind of present experiences that develop fruitfully and creatively in subsequent experiences” (Dewey, 1937, p.45).

Facilitator. “Real, genuine attention means mental movement, not only on the part of the individual but also on the part of the class. It means that ideas come into the class, various persons follow out those ideas, and new points are brought out; and yet the teacher harmonizes it all, combining this play of variety, this expression of different elements, so that it leads consistently and consecutively in a definite direction” (Dewey, 1904).

To see teaching and learning as the act of facilitating is to see the teacher as one who views students as curious, active, and capable learners who are able to obtain complex understandings and skills through the guidance of a knowledgeable instructor. There is a philosophical perspective that asserts that teachers cannot “give” knowledge to their students. Rather, each individual constructs meaning based on prior knowledge and experiences (Bruner, 1960). Teachers' making sense of their classrooms is a constructivist process; understanding evolves and is influenced by teachers' prior knowledge, values, and beliefs. Interpretation of classroom events is viewed as a quest for order and intelligibility among the many possible patterns of sense that a classroom scene affords the teacher. The sense that a teacher makes of a particular scene is a product of ordered prior knowledge of classroom scenes, awareness of particular features of the present scene, and cognitive processes that connect knowledge with current awareness (Calderhead, 1987).

As teacher educators, our task is to assist our candidates in examining, critiquing, and refining their meaning (constructions) as they search for greater understanding. Moreover, while we understand that learners create their own meanings, we also understand that not all constructions are of the same worth or usefulness. One of the

document.doc - 83 -

Draft 10-29-03

dangers of misunderstood and misapplied constructivism is rampant relativism. Constructions that are justified solely on the basis of uniqueness and “reality” for the particular individual are potentially biased and self-serving. Thus, while we embrace constructivist teacher education programs, we do so with the understanding and intent that the constructions must be subjected to standards, a knowledge base, and processes by which they can be examined, reflected upon; and evaluated on a basis more persuasive than one’s personal reality.

Collaborators. “…it behooves the school to make ceaseless and intelligently organized effort to develop above all else the will for co-operation and the spirit which sees in every other individual one who has an equal right to share in the cultural and material fruits of collective human invention…” (Dewey, 1937)

Dewey’s ideology and his approach to education encompassed a view that human beings had the natural tendency to connect with others, “to give out, to do, and to serve” (Dewey, 1916, p. 55). This led him to take an approach to education which stressed the importance of learning to get along with others because cooperation actually satisfies a deep-seated human need (Purkey & Siegel, 2003).

To see teaching and learning as the act of collaborating is to see the teacher as one who values teaching and learning as more than just an end unto itself. Teachers are charged to create a community of learners who construct meaning within a socio-cultural context. As Vygotsky (1962) theorized, learning is enhanced through social interaction. Later, Johnson & Johnson (1994) posited that learning is socially-mediated and that interaction with more capable peers and/or more knowledgeable others, and under the guidance of accomplished, mentor teachers produces higher levels of achievement.

Beyond these defined philosophical tenets, the PTEU has agreed upon the following Belief and Action Statements to elucidate how learning occurs. The model of teaching and learning envisioned at KSU brings to the foreground the needs of the learner rather than the teacher. Belief and Action Statements

1. All human beings are worthy of respect; high regard for human dignity is essential.

2. All students are capable of high-levels of learning, and it is the responsibility of faculty and candidates to ensure this occurs by using a variety of validated practices in a constructivist learning environment.

3. Development of teaching expertise by faculty and candidates is a complex intellectual and developmental process requiring the integration of strong content and pedagogical knowledge within well-structured classroom experiences. Teaching expertise is facilitated through thoughtful reflection on practice, student success, and on-going professional development.

4. Appropriate use of technology is essential to effective teaching and learning for faculty and candidates. Instructional plans that use research-based methods, materials, and technologies are necessary to meet the needs of all students.

document.doc - 84 -

Draft 10-29-03

5. To enhance candidate learning, faculty members must model best educational practice, who possess a spirit of inquiry and engage in professional collaboration and professional development that enhances candidate learning.

6. Collaboration with the professional education community is essential for the successful preparation of effective teachers and teacher leaders.

7. Ongoing candidate evaluation, both formative and summative, is necessary for documenting candidates’ development of teaching expertise.

8. Teachers use the results of ongoing program evaluation, scholarly inquiry about best educational practice in teaching and learning, and an understanding of changes in state policy and professional standards.

9. To facilitate high levels of learning in all students, initial and advanced programs support candidates’ efforts to be self-directed and to value a spirit of inquiry through research.

We believe that learning is both personally and socially mediated. Personally, KSU candidates build upon their own experiences to construct their own meaning, gain sophisticated pedagogical skills, and demonstrate dispositions that enhance their daily practice and ultimately, student learning. Socially, KSU candidates engage in collegial discourse and are recipients of extended practice, mentoring, and assistance to help them learn.

Aim Directed PurposeThe aim is the directed purpose for all unit activity that emerges from its vision

(theme), its mission, and its underlying beliefs (Dottin, 2001, p. 45). The PTEU seeks to facilitate high levels of candidate learning and the development of teaching expertise through extensive collaboration among numerous departments across the university and with many partner schools and practicing professionals in the field. Such collaborative efforts are designed to aid in the candidate’s acquisition of critical understandings, knowledge, and skills, as well as foster dispositions that reflect high regard for learner diversity, professional reflection and growth, and student success. The unit’s commitment to collaboration with the professional educational community serves as a model, the purpose of which is to develop expertise among candidates in their initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders who possess the capability, intent, and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all students through effective classroom instruction, and who enhance structures that support learning. Our aim is to produce teachers and school leaders who are

Subject Matter Experts who assist students in subject matter mastery, who accurately represent content, and who use effective instructional strategies/techniques, including the use of technology.

Facilitators of Learning who understand how individuals construct knowledge, who help learners develop complex cognitive structures, who adapt instruction to accommodate learners’ levels of understanding, and who

document.doc - 85 -

Draft 10-29-03

Know Subject Matter Deeply who use a wide array of teaching strategies and methodologies.

Collaborative Professionals who work together to improve teaching and learning, who are committed to life-long learning, who promote a climate of collaboration and trust, and who have high ethical and professional values.

Institutional StandardsInstitutional standards are used in unit evaluation to measure candidate

proficiencies in mastering the desired outcomes mentioned above. All of the instruction provided on campus, as well as in field experiences, is designed to meet the unit aim. Candidate assessment is divided into three succinct categories of a) Subject Matter Experts; b) Facilitators of Learning; and c) Collaborative Professionals.

The justification for the development of unit outcomes and proficiencies is grounded in research and a knowledge base that emerges from the professional literature on the preparation of teachers and other school personnel.

Wilson, Schulman & Richert (1987) identified three critical components of a teacher’s professional knowledge base: subject matter content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge. Thus, teacher candidates must be knowledgeable of their content areas (The National Boards, 1999) and the state-approved standards and curriculum, as well as possess a broad repertoire of instructional and assessment practices (McGregor & Vogelsberg, 1998), technology applications (Ross, 2003; Churma, 1999), and know how to collaborate with other professionals (Kohler, et. al., 1997).

Sternberg (1998) supports our belief that expertise is a process of continued development, not an end state. In developing expertise, teachers exhibit characteristics that set them apart from novice teachers. They differentiate themselves in the areas of knowledge, efficiency, and insight (Sternberg, 1996). Expert teachers use knowledge effectively in professional problem-solving, organize their knowledge, and have tacit situational knowledge (Robbins, 2001). Finally, teachers with higher levels of expertise search for solutions to teaching/learning situations through creative problem-solving.

Accomplished, expert teachers command the specialized knowledge of their discipline (Robbins, 2001) and know how to present that information to a diverse group of students (Buckman, 1984; The National Board, 1999; Zheng, 1999). Accomplished, expert teachers are aware of the background knowledge students bring to the subject area as well as necessary instructional strategies to help students capitalize upon their background knowledge. Also, accomplished, expert teachers predict where instruction can be hindered or enhanced and have the ability to modify practices accordingly.

Facilitate LearningTeachers assume the role of facilitators of learning (Johnson, 2000) by assisting

students as they explore and investigate concepts. This role, grounded in constructivist philosophy, transforms learning from the demonstration of a measurable outcome to the acquisition of personal meaning (Dottin, 2001). In all teacher preparation programs at KSU, facilitation is key to the teaching and learning process. Teacher facilitation fosters an instructional climate that promotes active and authentic learning of a standards-based

document.doc - 86 -

Draft 10-29-03

curriculum (Zemelman, Daniels & Hyde, 1998). The instructional climate in the facilitated classroom supports risk-taking and inquiry (Elias, et. al., 1997) so that students are able to make connections between and among disciplines and apply knowledge and skills from one discipline or situation to another (Brigman, 2000). Elam and Duckenfield (2000) describe the teacher facilitator as an instructional leader who, through collaboration with university faculty, master teachers, cooperating teachers, and role models in the community, provides collective experiences and opportunities for student learning (Robbins & Cooper, 2003; Robbins, Miesiazek & Andrews, 2002). An instructional leader fosters a climate that encourages and promotes active learning of a standards-based curriculum.

Constructivist teaching and learning approaches act in tandem with this belief. With constructivist approaches, “the single most important factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows” (Ausubel, Novak & Hanessian, 1978, p. iv). Therefore, it is critical that teachers embrace diversity and use students’ knowledge and experiences to build the instructional program. Von Glassersfield (1991) states, “Teachers must try to infer, from what they can observe, what students’ concepts are and how they operate with them. Only on the basis of some such hypothesis can teachers devise ways and means to orient, direct, or modify the students’ mental operating” (p. 22). In constructivist classrooms “…learning activities must begin by considering the role of students’ current knowledge, how knowledge is constructed, and the role of the activity in building knowledge” (Penner, 2001, p. 3). Zahorik, (1997) suggests that teachers “help students negotiate meaning” by extending activities with discussions in which children compare their constructions with the experts’ constructions to “gain insights into both and begin to reconceptualize their constructions in the direction of those of the experts” (p. 32).

While facilitation and constructivist thinking permeate the teacher preparation program, particular emphasis is also placed upon validated methods and procedures for planning curriculum (Miller, 2002), delivering instruction (Daniels & Bazar, 1998; Miller, 2002; Zimelman, Damiels & Hyde, 1998), and evaluating and reporting student progress (Herman, Gearhart & Baker, 1993) that result in high levels of student learning and teacher effectiveness. Such validated practices include, but are not restricted to, direct instruction (Engelmann, Becker, Carnine & Gersten (1998), cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1994), strategy instruction (Englert, 1984), classroom and behavioral management (Taylor-Green, Horner, Sugai & Sprague, 1999), and authentic assessment (Valencia, 1990).

Engender Collaboration The Holmes Group (1990) and NCATE (1997) proposed professional

development schools as the means of connecting schools and universities in a collaborative endeavor. The essential attributes of collaboration between the university and partner schools and/or professional development schools are commitment, collaboration, and connectedness. These partnerships are based on mutual trust, understanding, and collaboration (Osguthorpe, et. al., 1995). Coalitions, consortiums, networks, and partnerships have been developed to provide the connections between schools and universities. These terms are often used interchangeably and represent the idea of making connections in the learning process.

document.doc - 87 -

Draft 10-29-03

Historically, there has been a call for collaboration between schools and universities. John Dewey (1904, p.10) urged schools and colleges of education to look to “the matured experience” of other professional callings to provide lessons and insight into an improved teaching/learning experience. Goodlad and Sirotnick (1988) interpreted this statement to mean that professions such as law and medicine connected the scholarly endeavors of the academy with application of the discipline in the courts and in hospitals to produce effective lawyers and doctors. Dewey was suggesting a similar collaboration between schools and colleges of education to produce effective teachers.

The National Board (1999) ascribes a leadership role to teachers that is directed primarily at the building level but certainly could be accomplished in larger communities. In that regard, the National Board encourages teachers to work collaboratively with parents and other professionals and to be proactive and creative--engaging them in development of curriculum, coordination and implementation of instruction, new teacher professional development and other policy decisions fundamental to development of quality learning environments. Expert teachers focus upon their students’ educational needs by developing their partnerships with parents, the community, and other professional colleagues (Bessette, 1999).

Candidate Outcomes and Proficiencies Candidate proficiencies represent a common core of essential knowledge, skills, and dispositions of effective classroom instruction. Candidate proficiencies are organized into three outcomes that are linked to the institutional standards and unit aim. They are: a) Subject Matter Experts, b) Facilitators of Learning, and c) Collaborative Professionals. Candidates’ performance of specific teaching or professional decisions and actions will occur in numerous and varied contexts, which means that the evidence of candidates’ performance vis-à-vis the institutional standards will be numerous and varied. Candidates in the initial programs develop beginning levels of expertise, facilitate learning in all students, and recognize the significance of life-long professional development and collaboration. Proficiencies in each area reflect a continuum of development and expectation as candidates proceed through their programs from initial field experiences through student teaching. Table 1 depicts the PTEU outcomes and proficiencies at the initial level as well as their designations to categories of “Knowledge, Skills and/or Dispositions” and their alignment with NCATE standards.

document.doc - 88 -

Draft 10-29-03

Table 1PTEU Outcomes and Proficiencies for Initial Programs

OUTCOMES & PROFICIENCIES KSD NCATE Standard

Outcome 1: Subject Matter Expert1.1 Candidate possesses knowledge of discipline content, methods

of inquiry, and connections to other disciplines and applications to common life experiences.

K Content

1.2 Candidate knows and represents content accurately in multiple explanations, technology integration, and the application of various instructional strategies.

S PedagogicalContent

1.3 Candidate uses content and pedagogical knowledge to assist students in the mastery of subject matter knowledge.

S PedagogicalContent

Outcome 2: Facilitator of Learning2.1 Candidate demonstrates knowledge of how learners develop,

learn and think about subject content, as well as successful strategies to motivate students to learn.

K Pedagogical &Professional

2.2 Candidate uses knowledge of the influences of society, culture, community, and family on schools and learning to create and implement instruction that embodies multiple cultures and a rich, diverse curriculum.

K Pedagogical &Professional

2.3 Candidate creates effective, well-managed and active learning environments that reflect high expectations for student achievement.

S Pedagogical &Professional

2.4 Candidate designs and implements instruction that makes effective use of a variety of methods, materials, and technologies to positively impact learning of all students.

S Pedagogical &Professional

Student Learning2.5 Candidate utilizes a variety of assessments to evaluate student

learning and uses the results to improve the quality of instruction that is differentiated to accommodate students’ diversities.

S Pedagogical &Professional Student

Learning

Outcome 3: Collaborative Professional3.1 Candidate reflects upon and improves professional performance

based on professional standards, feedback, best practices and effective communication.

D Disposition

3.2 Candidate builds collaborative and respectful relationships with colleagues, supervisors, students, parents and community members.

D Disposition

3.3 Candidate displays professional and ethical behavior consistent with recognized educational standards and codes of ethics.

D Disposition

Candidates in the advanced programs develop expertise in sophisticated pedagogical skills and as leaders in their educational community. Proficiencies in each area in the advanced programs and are organized under the same three outcomes: a) Subject Matter Experts, b) Facilitators of Learning, and c) Collaborative Professionals. At the advanced level, KSU offers programs in teacher education and educational leadership. Thus, the outcomes and proficiencies are broad enough to encompass both types of advanced programs and to reflect professional standards in both arenas.

document.doc - 89 -

Draft 10-29-03

Table 2 depicts the PTEU outcomes and proficiencies at the advanced level as well as their designations to categories of “Knowledge, Skills and/or Dispositions” and their alignment with NCATE and National Board Standards.

document.doc - 90 -

Draft 10-29-03

Table 2Outcomes and Proficiencies for Advanced Programs

OUTCOMES & PROFICIENCIES KSDNCATE

Standard 1 Element

NBPTSCore

Principles

ISLLCStandard

Outcome 1: A Subject Matter Expert knows the subjects they teach and how to teach those

subjects to students.2

1.1 Candidate possesses broad, current and specialized knowledge of subject matter and communicates this understanding to colleagues, parents and students.

– OR –1.1 EDL: Candidate promotes the success of all

students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

K Content 2

1, 4


K/S Pedagogical Content

2 2, 3


K/S PedagogicalContent

2 2

1.4 Candidate teaches or leads in ways that convey knowledge as a combination of skills, dispositions and beliefs-integrated, flexible, elaborate and deep.

K/S/D

Pedagogical Content

2 1, 2, 5

Outcome 2: A Facilitator of Learning is committed to students and is responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.

1, 3

2.1 Candidate believes that all students can learn and helps students develop a positive disposition for learning.

D Disposition 1 2

2.2 Candidate treats students equitably and provides equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual differences and adjusting (or assisting teachers in adjusting) practices accordingly.

SProfessional

&Pedagogical

Student Learning

1 5

2.3 Candidate understands human development and learning and uses this understanding to create enriching educational experiences and/or environments for all students.

K/S/D

Professional &

PedagogicalDisposition

1 2

document.doc - 91 -

Draft 10-29-03

OUTCOMES & PROFICIENCIES KSDNCATE

Standard 1 Element

NBPTSCore

Principles

ISLLCStandard

2.4 Candidate creates safe, well-managed, supportive, inclusive and challenging learning environments.

K/S Professional &

Pedagogical

3 2

2.5 Candidate uses multiple methods, technologies, resources, and organizational arrangements to meet goals articulated for individual students, class instruction and the overall school improvement plan.

K/SProfessional

& Pedagogical

Student Learning

3 3

2.6 Candidate monitors student progress with a variety of formal and informal evaluation methods and uses results to improve student learning.

K/S Professional &

PedagogicalStudent

Learning

3 3, 2

2.7 Candidate is accountable to multiple audiences, accurately interprets student performance data and communicates results to multiple audiences in multiple formats.

K/S Professional &

Pedagogical

3 4

Outcome 3: A COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL thinks systematically about her practice, learns from experience, and is a

member of learning communities.

4, 5

3.1 Candidate collaborates with colleagues, parents and other professionals to strengthen school effectiveness, to advance knowledge, and to influence policy and practice.

K/D Professional &

PedagogicalDisposition

5 4, 6


K/D Professional & Pedagogical

DispositionStudent

Learning

4 2

3.3 Candidate proactively involves parents and other members of the community in support of instruction and education.

D Disposition 5 4

3.4 Candidate engages in on-going professional development by joining professional organizations, participating in conferences, mentoring new staff.

D Disposition 4, 5 3, 6

Standards Alignment

At KSU, the institutional standards for the unit are derived from the expected outcomes and proficiencies for candidate learning and are aligned with the knowledge, skills, or dispositions identified in professional and state standards. Tables 3 and 4 depict the alignment of initial and advanced outcomes and proficiencies with the Georgia Board of Regents’ (BOR) Principles, Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) standards, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards [advanced program in educational leadership only], and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).

document.doc - 92 -

Draft 10-29-03

Table 3Alignment of Initial Program Outcomes & Proficiencies With State and

National StandardsINITIAL PROGRAMOUTCOMES and PROFICIENCIES

GEORGIA BOARD OF REGENTS’ PRINCIPLES

INTASCSTANDARDS

NBPTSSTANDARDS

Outcome 1: Subject Matter Experts

1.1 Discipline Content Knowledge

II B (1) - Depth in ContentII B (2) – High Lrning Stds

1 - Concepts, Inquiry, and Structures of Discipline

2 - Know & Tch Subjects3 - Manage & Monitor Learning

1.2Multiple Explanations

II B (3) - Customize Inst

1 - Concepts, Inquiry, and Structures of Discipline4 - Instructional Strategies7 - Plans Instruction

2 – Know & Tch Subjects

1.3Use of Content & Pedagogical Knowledge


1 - Concepts, Inquiry, and Structures of Discipline4 - Instructional Strategies7 - Plans Instruction


Outcome 2: Facilitators of Learning

2.1Learner Characteristics & Motivation

2 - Learning & Development5 – Motivation

1 - Commitment to Students

2.2Influences of Society


3 - Diverse Learners10 - Collaboration

1 - Commitment to Students

2.3Management of Learning Environments

II B (2) - High Lrning StdsII B (7) - Manage Classrooms

4 - Instructional Strategies1 - Concepts, Inquiry, and Structures of Discipline 5 – Motivation

3 - Manage & Monitor Learning

2.4Design & Implementation of Instruction

II B (6) - Telecommun & Info Tech

4 - Instructional Strategies5 - Motivation6 - Communication7 - Plans Instruction


2.5Assess, Evaluate, Improve

II B (5) - Use Stu DataIII A - Inst Results in St Learning - InitIII B - Inst Results in St Learning - Induction

8 – Assessment4 - Instructional Strategies

3 - Manage & Monitor Learning

Outcome 3: Collaborative Professionals

3.1 Reflect, Improve Professional Performance

9 – Reflection6 - Communication

4 – Think About Practice

3.2Collaborative, Respectful Relationships

10 – Collaboration6 Communication9 – Reflection

5 - Learning Communities4 – Think About Practice

3.3Professional & Ethical

9 – Reflection 4 – Think About Practice

document.doc - 93 -

Draft 10-29-03

INITIAL PROGRAMOUTCOMES and PROFICIENCIES


INTASCSTANDARDS

NBPTSSTANDARDS

Behavior

Table 4Alignment of Advanced Program Outcomes & Proficiencies With State and

National Standards ADVANCED PROGRAMOUTCOMES AND PROFICIENCIES


ISLLCSTANDARDS

NBPTSSTANDARDS

Outcome 1:Subject Matter Experts

III C 2 - Know & Tch Subjects

1.1 Subject matter expert 1, 4 2 - Know & Tch Subjects

1.2 Understanding of connections

2, 3 2 - Know & Tch Subjects

1.3 Powerful instructional approaches

2 2 - Know & Tch Subjects

1.4 Knowledge as combination of understanding, skills & dispositions

1, 2, 5 2 - Know & Tch Subjects

Outcome 2:Facilitators of Learning

III C 1- Commitment to Students3 - Manage & Monitor Learning

2.1 Belief that all students can learn

2 1- Commitment to Students

2.2 Equitable treatment and access


2.3 Human development and learning


2.4 Challenging environments

2 3 - Manage & Monitor Learning

2.5Multiple methods 3 3 - Manage & Monitor Learning

2.6 Evaluating progress 3, 2 3 - Manage & Monitor Learning

2.7 Interpreting & reporting student performance

4 3 - Manage & Monitor Learning

Outcome 3:Collaborative Professionals

III C 4 - Think About Practice5 - Learning Communities

3.1 Collaboration with professional partners

4, 5 5 - Learning Communities

3.2 Reflection, research & scholarship

2 4 - Think About Practice

3.3 Parental and Community Involvement

4 5 - Learning Communities

3.4 Professional Development

3, 6 4 - Think About Practice5 - Learning Communities

document.doc - 94 -

Draft 10-29-03

document.doc - 95 -

Draft 10-29-03

Unit Assessment System GoalThe goal of the unit and program evaluation system at KSU is to determine

whether candidates acquire the unit’s outcomes and as a result whether the unit is achieving its aim to develop expertise among candidates in their initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders who possess the capability, intent, and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all students through effective classroom instruction, and who enhance structures that support learning. To achieve this aim, the unit has developed internal and external assessments of candidate performance to be used in combination with unit and program operational assessments to determine overall effectiveness in meeting the unit goal and institutional standards.

Two-Tiered Assessment SystemThe unit assessment system in the PTEU and Bagwell College of

Education is designed to inform all stakeholders of overall unit effectiveness and to guide the unit’s efforts in making improvements in programs and services that help produce highly qualified beginning and experienced teachers and school leaders. Initial and advanced candidate proficiencies listed in Tables 1 and 2 of the conceptual framework serve as the primary focus of internal and external assessments to determine candidate qualifications. The unit ensures common collection and reporting of information pertaining to all programs and services, but some assessments originate at the program level and become the basis for analysis and application to the unit. A similar structure provides the unit with information regarding field experiences, diversity, faculty and resources. Table 5 PTEU Assessment System summarizes the two-tiered conceptual structure to show how various sources of data interrelate and compliment the unit’s ability to maintain or improve its effectiveness. Although the unit is the level most accountable for the delivery of teacher education programs and services, it recognizes and depends upon the unique contributions of programs in supplementing its major assessments (e.g. program specific requirements at points of admission, state licensure exams in the content field, technology competencies).

Table 5PTEU Assessment System

DATA SOURCE

TIERProgram Assessment Unit Assessment

InternalCandidate Performance: Program specific requirements at

admission points and exit Key assessments of professional

content standards (SPA & PSC) Candidate Performance Assessment

Instrument (CPI) Portfolio Narrative Rubric Impact on Student Learning Rubric Infusion of technology

Candidate Performance: Common requirements at

each decision point of admission/exit

Candidate Performance Assessment Instrument (CPI) at Exit

Portfolio Narrative Rubric Impact on Student Learning

RubricField Experiences: Placements in content area courses Placements in TOSS/practicum Observations

Field Experiences: Placements in core courses

(EDUC 2201, 2204, EXC 3304, & student teaching)

Observations

document.doc - 96 -

Draft 10-29-03

DATA SOURCE

TIERProgram Assessment Unit Assessment

Diversity: Candidates Field Experiences Faculty Recruitment & Retention

Faculty: Characteristics Vita and supporting

documentation Performance reviews

Resources: Budget Facilities Technology

ExternalCandidate Performance:

Praxis I Praxis II Cooperating teachers

End of Program Candidate survey Cooperating teachers

survey Principal survey

Graduates: First Year Induction Survey Second Year Induction Survey

Employers: Surveys

General DescriptionCandidate performance assessment and the evaluation of learning in field and

clinical experiences is the crux of unit evaluation. However, to assure that the unit meets its overall aim, faculty vitality and unit accountability are also continuously assessed.

At the unit level, candidate assessments are related to requirements agreed upon by all programs and are consistent with the unit’s beliefs about the qualifications its candidates should have; however, each program retains the right and responsibility for keeping records on additional requirements. At the initial certification level, quantitative data (e.g. GPAs and Praxis scores) are collected and summarized at each of four phases in a candidate’s initial program:

1. Admission to Teacher Education, 2. Admission to TOSS or Practicum, 3. Admission to Student Teaching, and 4. Graduation or completion of program.5.

The capability of aggregating data by program, semester, and demographics enables the unit and programs to observe change over time. Unit data on candidates enrolled in Advanced Programs (M.Ed.), endorsement, and add-on certificate programs are kept at the time of 1) initial admission and 2) exit/graduation. Unit data, like those kept at the initial level, are summarized on quantitative measures such as GPAs and SAT scores; however, the uniqueness of each discipline’s specific criteria for admission, including qualitative measures, requires some data be kept at the program level.

document.doc - 97 -

Draft 10-29-03

Candidate assessment reflects the unit’s commitment to the development of expertise. Within each phase of preparation, initial and advanced candidates are assessed on competencies derived from the institutional standards by integrating components of the unit’s principle instrument called the Candidate Performance Instrument (CPI) into various program-created assessments. At the program level, the CPI is also aligned with the professional standards of each program area. In this manner, our programs ensure that each candidate has mastered the outcomes and proficiencies identified by the unit as well as those articulated by their professional organizations. The integrated program assessments are used routinely in designated courses and field observations.As a unit instrument, the CPI is used for exit evaluation to assess and document candidate performance at the end of each initial and advanced program; but its comprehensiveness and adaptable rubric also make it easy to extend use to other unit assessments, such as the portfolio narrative and impact on student learning. As previously noted, the two-tiered assessment system ensures common collection and reporting of information pertaining to all programs because critical assessments originate at the program level and become the basis for analysis and application to the unit. For example, the Impact on Student Learning rubric is administered throughout the initial and advanced candidate preparation programs to ensure that each candidate is able to bring all students to high levels of learning. Similarly, all programs use the Portfolio Narrative rubric is used to assess candidate mastery of desired outcomes and proficiencies as they exit their programs of study. The aggregate scores on both rubrics are reported regularly to the unit for interpretation and analysis college-wide. In this manner, the inherent alignment between the criteria/rubrics of related assessments and the CPI preserves the connection with our conceptual framework.

The assessment system also includes external measures to assess candidates in field and clinical experiences as well as the quality of the experience as perceived by the cooperating school personnel. Surveys by cooperating teachers and principals evaluate the adequacy of preparation, logistical arrangements for placements, and awareness/application of the conceptual framework. Following graduation, the unit monitors all of its graduates for two years following completion of the degree program in accordance with the Georgia Board of Regent’s policy, Principles for the Preparation of Educators for the Schools (1998). The unit honors the commitment to the specific Regents’ principle that guarantees the quality of any teacher it [system institution] prepares by providing any graduate deemed less than effective in helping students make satisfactory progress additional preparation at no cost to the teacher or school district. Furthermore, by offering first and second year induction programs throughout the service area to all teachers, the unit recognizes the benefit of early mentoring and support to inexperienced teachers in offsetting a national trend of significant attrition among highly qualified teachers in their first years of teaching. Surveys completed by graduates and employers of graduates constitute the unit’s primary source of feedback used to determine the following: a.) quality of the induction program, b.) the extent to which the induction program influences teaching and students’ learning, and c.) quality of the KSU teacher education program in preparing teachers and school leaders for their roles.

Assessments of unit capacity related to field experiences and diversity utilize a variety of paper and electronic surveys and electronic tracking systems to ensure balance

document.doc - 98 -

Draft 10-29-03

in initial and advanced field and clinical placements with diverse teachers and students. The unit uses a combination of electronic vita templates and surveys completed by candidates as well as professional participation/contribution records to show the quality of its faculty, and instruction and supervision of candidates. Evidence to show the adequacy of available resources, including technology, and the effectiveness of unit governance comes from unit, departmental and university sources. This evidence represents a different level of data reporting and access because of the complexities associated with shared resources. Because of generous financial and personnel support from key university administrative levels, the unit is able to develop and maintain a state-of-the-art, electronic data management system (DMS). The purpose of the DMS is to improve the accuracy and lessen the burden of record keeping through advanced electronic and technologic means. As the DMS develops in sophistication, it will expand from its current focus on candidate tracking to support the electronic entry, storage, and reporting of data related to faculty qualifications, field experience and diversity placements, and unit/program resources. In addition, the system will monitor and electronically notify programs about candidates whose records are ready for review for admission or graduation. The capability for examining cross-sectional and longitudinal slices of data will be possible through live and archival components. Integrating this system with the BANNER system that supports university student records provides an almost limitless potential for managing data electronically.

The unit is committed to the delivery of quality experiences in all phases of candidate preparation, including the essential services that provide advisement and technology support. As the assessment system develops and broadens its scope, the unit will utilize more comprehensive feedback to make positive changes.

document.doc - 99 -

Draft 10-29-03

References

Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D. & Hanessian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Berliner, D. C. (1988). The development of expertise in pedagogy. Charles W. Hunt Memorial Lecture, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. New Orleans, LA.

Bessette, H. J. (1999). A Case Study of General and Special Educators’ Perspectives on Co-teaching and Collaboration within an Integrated, Language-Based Elementary Classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.

Brigman, D.C. (2000). Building social skills in a learning environment. In Creating a community of learners. In K.G. Elam & M. Duckenfield (Eds.), Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center, Clemson University.

Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. (1998). Making the commitment: Guaranteeing the quality of future educators. [Brochure]. Atlanta, GA: Author.

Boyer, E. (1995). The Basic School: A Community of Learners. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teachers, Princeton: NJ.

Brookhart, S.M. (1994). Teachers’ grading: Practice and theory. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(4), 279-301.

Bruner, J.S. (1960). The process of education. New York: Vintage.Calderhead, J. (Ed.) (1987). Explaining Teachers Thinking. (pp. 1-4-124). London:

Cassell.Churma, M. (1999). A guide to integrating technology standards into the curriculum.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Daniels, H. & Bizar, M. (1998) Methods that Matter: Six structures for best practice

classrooms. York: ME. Stenhouse Publishers.Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In C. A. McMurry

(Ed.), The relation of theory to practice in the education of teachers, 3rd Yearbook, National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: Heath.Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Holt.Dewey, J. (1937). Experience and education. New York: McMillan.Dewey, J. (1956). The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Dewey, J. (1960). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Dottin, E. S. (2001). The development of a conceptual framework: The stimulation for

coherence and continuous improvement in teacher education. Lanham: MD: University Press of America.

Earle, R.S., Seehafer, S., & Ostlund, M.F. (2001). Systematic reform in teacher education: Quality teachers through partnering. Teacher Education Quarterly, 14(28), 53-69.

Englert, C.S. (1984). Effective instructional practices in special education settings. Remedial and Special Educatoin, 5(2), 38-47.

Engelmann, S., Becker, W., Carnine, D. & Gersten, R. (1988). The Direction Instruction Follow Through Model: Design and outcomes. Education and Treatment of Children, 11(4), 303-317.

document.doc - 100 -

Draft 10-29-03

Elam, K.G., & Duckenfield, M. (2000) (Eds.). Creating a community of learners. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center, Clemson University.

Friend, M. & Cook, L. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Allyn & Bacon, Boston: MA.

Galassi, J.P. (2000). PDS site selection: Implications for educational reform and restructuring. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. ERIC. ED 444984.

Goodlad, J. & Sirotnik, K. (1988). The future of school-university partnerships. In K. A. Sirotnick and J. I. Goodlad (Eds.), School-university partnerships in action: Concepts, cases and concerns. New York: Teachers College Press.

Herman, J., Aschbacher, P. & Winters, L. (1992). A Practical Guide to Alternative Assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Huling, L. 1997. Novice teacher needs. A commissioned paper. Raleigh: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.

Johnson, R. (2000). The accidental theorist: Constructivist foundations and applications in teacher’s odyssey. In K. G. Elam and M. Duckenfield (Eds.), Creating a community of learners. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center, Clemson University.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning (4th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Katz, L.G. (1972). Developmental stages of preschool teachers. Elementary School Journal, 73, (1), 50-54.

--- (1993, September). Dispositions as educational goals. ERIC Digest. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (EDO-PS-93-10).

Kennesaw State University (2002). Kennesaw state university catalogued, 2002-2003. Kennesaw, GA: Author.

Kohler, F., Crilley, K., & Shearer, D. (1997). Effects of peer coaching on teaching and student outcomes, Journal of Educational Research, 90(4), 240-250.

Lipsky, D. & Gardner, A. (1989). Beyond separate education: Quality education for all. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.

Martin, D. J. (2003). Elementary science methods: A constructivist approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Marshall, P., Fittinghoff, S., & Cheney, C. O. (1990). Beginning teacher developmental stages: Implications for creating collaborative internship programs. Teacher Education Quarterly, 17, (3), 25-35.

McGregor, G. & Vogelsberg, T. (1998). Inclusive Schooling Practices: Pedagogical & Research Foundations. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Washington, D.C.

Miller, S. (2002). Validated practices for teaching students with diverse needs and abilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1999). What teachers should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: Author.


Draft 10-29-03

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (1997). Draft standards for identifying and supporting quality professional development schools. Washington, DC: Author.

Odell, S.J., Huling, L., & Sweeny, B.W. (2000). Conceptualizing quality mentoring--Background information. In S.J. Odell & L. Huling (Eds.), Quality mentoring for novice teachers (pp. 3-14). Indianapolis, IA: Kappa Delta Pi.

Osguthorpe, R.T., Harris, R. C., Black, S., Cutler, B. R., & Harris, M. F. (1995). Introduction: Understanding school-university partnerships. In R. T. Osguthorpe, R. C. Harris, S. Black, B. R. Cutler, and M. F. Harris (Eds.), Partner schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Penner, D. E. (2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modeling. Review of Research in Education, 25 (2000-2001), 1-35).

Purkey, W. & Siegel, B. (2003). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach to professional and personal success. Atlanta: Humanics.

Robbins, S. & Cooper, M. (April, 2003). Creating a shared space for English education: The history of a personal and professional collaboration. English Education. 35, pp 223-224.

Robbins, S., Miesiazek, M & Andrews, B. (2002). Promoting a relevant classroom literacy. In R. Yagelski & S. Leonard (Eds.) In the relevance of English: Teaching that matters to students’ lives. Urbana: NCTC, pp. 157-182.

Robbins, S. (2001). Afterword: Where do we go from here? Future work for making American literatures. In A. Ruggles-Gere & P. Shaheen. In making American literatures. Urbana: NCTE Press, pp.210-220.

Ross, M. C. (2003). Blending Cooperative Learning and Technology in the Classroom, Georgia Council of Teachers of English, 40, (1) 7-12.

Ross, M. Seaborn, A. & Wilson, E. (2002). Is cooperative learning a valuable instructional method for teaching social studies to urban African American students? An imperfect world: Resonance from the nation’s violence. (Volumne II). 2002 National Conference Education Monograph Series (pp. 687-720).

Salisbury, C. & Strieker, T. (2004). Inclusive education in elementary school. In C. Kennedy & E. Horn (Eds.) Including students with severe disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sparks, D., & Hirsch, S. (1997). A New Vision for Staff Development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Sternberg, R.J. (1996). Educational psychology has fallen, but it can get up. Educational Psychology Review, 8 (2), 175-185.

Sternberg, R.J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert student? Instructional Science, 26, 127-140.

Strieker, T. & Logan, K. (2001). Everybody WINS! The State Education Standard.Autumn, Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education.Taylor-Green, A., Horner, R., Sugai, G., & Sprague, J. (1999). Effective behavior

support: Strengthening school-wide systems through a team-based approach. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 23-33.

Valencia, S. (1990). A portfolio approach to classroom reading assessment: The why’s, what’s, and how’s. The Reading Teacher, 43, 338-340.


Draft 10-29-03

Von glassersfeld, E. (1991). Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. In F. Steier, Research and reflexivity (pp. 22-27). London: Sage Publishers.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Wilson, S., Shulman, L., & Rickert, A. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing:

Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.) Explaining Teachers Thinking. (pp. 1-4-124). London: Cassell.

Zahorik, J. A. (1997). Encouraging – and challenging- students’ understandings. Educational researcher, 54(6), 30-32).

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in America’s schools (2nd Ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Zheng, B. (1999). Working with cultural differences: Some aspects teachers need to know. Becoming, 11(1), 16-18.


Draft 10-29-03

Glossary

Advanced Preparation. Programs at the postbaccalaureate levels for (1) the continuing education of teachers who have previously completed initial preparation or (2) the preparation of other professional school personnel. Advanced preparation programs commonly award graduate credit and include master’s, specialist, and doctoral degree programs as well as nondegree licensure programs offered at the graduate level. (NCATE, 2001, p. 54)

ALL students. “All students includes students with exceptionalities and of different ethnic, racial, gender, language, religious, socioeconomic, [sexual orientation], and regional/geographic origins.” (NCATE, 2001, p.10).

Best Practice. This term is borrowed from the field of medicine and law where the phrase is used to describe solid, reputable, state-of-the-art work in a field. If a practitioner is following best practice standards, he or she is aware of current research and consistently offers clients the full benefits of the latest knowledge, technology, and procedures….the term Best Practice—“as a shorthand emblem of serious, thoughtful, informed, responsible, state-of-the-art teaching.” Best practice reflects teaching that is “student-centered, active experiential, democratic, collaborative, and yet rigorous and challenging.” (Zemelman, Daniels, Hyde, Best Practice, p. viii, 1998)

Candidates. "Individuals admitted to, or enrolled in, programs for the initial or advanced preparation of teachers, teachers continuing their professional development, or other professional school personnel. Candidates are distinguished from "students" in P-12 schools" (NCATE, 2001, p. 53).

Collaborative. Working together especially in an intellectual effort is the hallmark of collaboration. “The developmental nature of collaboration includes:

Networking – exchanging information for mutual benefit Coordination – exchanging information and altering strategies for mutual benefit Cooperation – exchanging information, altering strategies, and integrating

resources for mutual benefit Collaboration – exchanging information, altering activities, integrating resources,

and initiating new synergistic approaches for mutual benefit.” (School & Main Institute, Inc, Boston, MA, 2000)

Cultural Background. "The context of one's life experience as shaped by me membership in groups based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area" (NCATE, 2001, p. 53).

Dispositions. "The values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence behaviors toward students, families, colleagues, and communities and affect student learning, motivation, and development as well as the educator's own professional growth.


Draft 10-29-03

Dispositions are guided by beliefs and attitudes related to values such as caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility, and social justice. For example, they might include a belief that all students can learn, a vision of high and challenging standards, or a commitment to a safe and supportive learning environment" (NCATE, 2001, p. 53).

Diversity. "Differences among groups of people and individuals based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area" (NCATE, 2001, p. 53).

Expert Learner. Expert learners when compared to novice learners are those who are able to use their learning in appropriate situations, use a range of "learning-to-learn" skills, utilize a variety of resources (info and people) in problem solving, and reflect on and improve their learning performance (Sternberg, 1996, pp 179-80)

Expert Teacher. According to Sternberg (1996) expert teachers as compared to novices can be characterized as using more knowledge more effectively in professional problem solving, organizing their knowledge differently, and possessing more tacit situational knowledge. Expert teachers are able to solve problems more efficiently than novices by showing more automatization of functioning, using smoothly functioning metacognitive processes, and using new problems as opportunities to expand their knowledge and competence. Expert teachers possess insight and are more likely to search for nonobvious solutions to novel problems (Sternberg, 1996, pp 179-80)

Expertise. To develop expertise in an area is to achieve a state of proficiency or "know-how." “Expertise is not an endstate but a process of continued development.” (Sternberg, 1996, pp 179-80)

Facilitate learning. To facilitate learning is to assist or help learning occur. Teachers provide new and varied experiences, which learners can use to build upon their own foundation of existing knowledge. Teachers must understand that students construct their own knowledge, how they construct that knowledge, and how each student recognizes and understands his or her own learning experiences. To support this process of learning, teachers must work at creating environments, implementing strategies, and selecting teaching and learning resources that will maximize learning for each student’s unique learning abilities. Teacher-centered instruction shifts to learner-centered instruction.

Initial Teacher Preparation. Programs at the baccalaureate or postbaccalaureate levels that prepare candidates for the first license to teach (NCATE, 2001, p. 54).

Teacher development. Teacher development is “a continuum of growth that includes four phases: pre-service, induction, in-service, renewal” (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000).


Draft 10-29-03

Graduate Outcomes and Proficiencies KSD

NCATE Standard

NBPTSCore Principles

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS1.1 Candidate possesses broad, current and specialized knowledge of subject matter and communicates this understanding to colleagues, parents and students.

K Content2


S Subject Matter

Pedagogical Content

2


S Subject Matter

Pedagogical

Content

2

1.4 Candidate teaches or leads in ways that convey knowledge as a combination of skills, dispositions and beliefs-integrated, flexible, elaborate and deep.

S Subject Matter

Pedagogical Content

2

FACILITATORS OF LEARNING2.1 Candidate believes that all students can learn and helps students develop a positive disposition for learning.

D Disposition1

2.2 Candidate treats students equitably and provides equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual differences and adjusting (or assisting teachers in adjusting) practices accordingly.

S ProfessionalPedagogica

l

1

2.3 Candidate creates safe, well-managed, supportive, inclusive and challenging learning environments. S

Professional

Pedagogical

3

2.4 Candidate uses multiple methods, technologies, resources, and organizational arrangements to meet goals articulated for individual students, class instruction and the overall school improvement plan.

SProfessiona

l & Pedagogica

l

T 3

2.5 Candidate monitors student progress with a variety of formal and informal evaluation methods and uses results to improve student learning.

S Professional

Pedagogical

3

2.6 Candidate is accountable to multiple audiences, accurately interprets student performance data and communicates results to multiple audiences in multiple formats.

SProfessiona

l & Pedagogica

l

3

COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONALS3.1 Candidate collaborates with colleagues, parents and other professionals to strengthen school effectiveness, to advance knowledge, and to influence policy and practice.

DDisposition

5


D Disposition 4

3.3 Candidate proactively involves parents and other members of the community in support of instruction and

D Disposition 5


Draft 10-29-03

education.3.4 Candidate engages in on-going professional development by joining professional organizations, participating in conferences, mentoring new staff, etc.

D Disposition 4,5


Draft 10-29-03

Appendix BSupervision Faculty Vita

STEPHANIE DIRST 5676 Bob White Circle Lilburn, Georgia 30047 770-921-5815 sdirst@ mindspring.com EDUCATION Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Doctor of Education

Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia Education Specialist Educational Administration and Supervision University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado Master of Arts Education of the Acoustically Handicapped Blackburn College, Carlinville, Illinois Bachelor of Arts English and Education

WORK EXPERIENCE Director, Georgia Evaluation Project for Students with Disabilities Directed and coordinated: finances, budget, staff, medical consultants, and referring school systems, and oversaw the physical plant for the past 22 years. The diagnostic facility was a special project of the Georgia Department of Education, Program for Exceptional Students, which provided comprehensive medical and psychoeducational evaluations to students with disabilities statewide. Disabilities served included learning disabilities, sensory losses, intellectual disabilities, autism, physical disabilities, emotional disabilities and medical syndromes.

Lead Teacher, Georgia Evaluation Project for Students with Disabilities, Atlanta, Georgia Supervised diagnostic classroom in which the educational section of the transdisciplinary evaluation of the students with disabilities was performed. Contributed to the findings and recommendations regarding language skills and academics in the written diagnostic report.

Instructor, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia Instructed graduate level courses in basic and advanced sign language skills to future teachers of the hearing impaired, audiologists, and speech pathologists in the Department of Communicative Disorders. Instructor, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia Taught courses m the deaf education program: Manual Communication, Teaching Reading to the Hearing Impaired, Elementary Methods for the Hearing Impaired, Curriculum for the Hearing Impaired, and Psychology of Deafness. Instructor, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Taught graduate level courses in the deaf education program: Language Development for the Hearing Impaired and Curriculum for the Hearing Impaired.

Instructor, DeKalb Community College (now Georgia Perimeter College), Clarkston, Georgia Taught language skills to deaf adults.


Draft 10-29-03

Teacher, American School for the Deaf, West Hartford, Connecticut Taught 8th grade Language Arts, l2th grade Consumer Education, lath grade Language Arts. Served as advisor to the yearbook and the Alice Cog swell Club (high school girls club) Active in the Deaf community. Teacher, Carl Littlejohn School, DeKalb Public Schools, DeKalb, Illinois Taught English and Social Studies to junior high school students.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONAmerican Association of University WomenCouncil for Exceptional Children, Georgia Federation Council for Exceptional Children—State Treasurer, State President (two terms), Governor Council of Administrators of Special Education Georgia Deaf Blind Advisory Committee—Chairman Georgia Council of Administrators of Special Education Georgia Educators of the Hearing Impaired Georgia Council for the Hearing Impaired GABell Georgia Chapter of Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf National Organization of Self Help for the Hearing Impaired Georgia Peach Cochlear Implant Club Atlanta Hears—Professional Advisor Georgia Peach Association of Late Deafened Adults

HONORS Vital Service Award Retarded Citizens Atlanta Governor’s Service Award of Excellence Who’s Who in American Education Who’s Who in American Women Recognition Certificate Atlanta Hears

COMMUNITY ACTlVITIES Local School Advisory Committee, Gwinnett County Schools Berkrmar High School Tip Off Club—Membership Chair (7years) Harmony Grove United Methodist Church, Staff-Parish Committee, Social Concerns Chair, Administrative Board, Women’s Retreat CommitteeState Certified Mediator, Justice Center of Atlanta 1996 Paralympics Advisory Committee MAKATON Georgia Association, Incorporated, Board of Directors

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIESFrequent presenter/lecturer regarding the child with multiple disabilities, families of children with disabilities, adaptive devices and equipment, the education of the student with disabilities, and related issues at local, state, regional and national workshops and conferences. Past editor, GLRS Journal Quarterly newsletter with a statewide circulation of approximately 22,000 in Georgia. Member—Georgia Learning Resources System Technology Task Force. Member—Advisory Committee to the Georgia Deaf Blind Project. Member—Georgia State University Advisory Board for Visual Impairments and Deaf Blind Personnel Preparation Grant. SERID 2000 Committee


Draft 10-29-03

GAYLE E. FREDERICK 4658 Warrington Drive Roswell, Georgia 30075 (770) 649-9554 PROFESSIONAL OBJECTIVE: Seeking a career position in diagnostic testing/special education/elementary education/middle school education utilizing acquired skills, abilities, and knowledge with a progressive school system, which offers opportunity for growth and advancement. SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS: Offering master’s degree achievement with certification in learning disabilities and behavior disorders. Experienced in educational diagnostic testing and using the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational test system. Trained by Nancy Mather, consultant and-00-developer -ofW-oodcock-Jo1mson”TestOf Achievement Standard And Supplemental Batteries.” Over 23 years teaching in diverse school settings, working with K-6. Related experience includes educational support specialist, diagnostic testing in Connecticut and Virginia, educational evaluations, team teaching, and consultation. Educational Diagnostic Testing Instruction/Training Diagnostic Skills Student Evaluation/Reporting Curriculum Development New Program Design/Implementation Staff Coordination/instruction Liaison Activity with Staff/Students/Administration/Community

EDUCATION AND TRAINING: Cleveland State University Cleveland, Ohio Master’s Degree- Education Major-Supervision/ Administration 1979 Kent State University Kent, Ohio Bachelor of Science Degree-Education 1973 Special Study in the area of learning disabilities and behavior disorders.

Practicum- Administration/Supervision Student Program Scheduling Student Counseling Workshop on Use of Manipulative Material in Teaching Mathematics Conducting

Student Activities Staff Development New Teacher Orientation Classroom Management/Control Teacher Evaluation Conducting Student Assemblies Certifications: Virginia- Post Graduate Professional License Emotional Disturbance NK-12 Specific Learning Disabilities NK-12 Early Education NK-4 Middle education 4-8 Expires 2000 Connecticut- Standard Elementary Education Grades 1-8 Special Education Grades 1-12 (L.D./B.D.) Ohio - StandardElementary Education Grades 1-8 Special Education Grades (K-12) Certification area L.D./B.D.

HIGHLIGHTS OF EXPERIENCE Teacher in GA. 1996-1997 Project WINS 1998-1999 Atlanta Consultant


Draft 10-29-03

Kennesaw State University-Supervision 1998-1999 Student Teachers Kennesaw State University- Exceptional Children 2000-present Chesterfield County Schools Chesterfield, Virginia Educational Diagnostician 1993 to present Experienced and skilled in the administration and interpretation of Standardized and/or criterion referenced diagnostic instrument measures to include achievement and processing tests. Grades K-5 Bon Air Elementary School Chesterfield County Schools District E.M.Davis Elementary School Chesterfield, Virginia Robious Elementary School Educational Supports Specialist 9/93 to 6/93 Learning Disability Teacher, Grades 1-5 Squadron Line School Simsbury, Connecticut Education Support Specialist 9183 to 6189 Learning Disability Teacher, Grades 1-6 Naubuc School Glastonbury, Connecticut Learning Disability Teacher 9/82 to 6/83 Taught grades 2 through 5, part-time William Harper Elementary School Cleveland, Ohio Learning Disability Teacher 9/79 to 6/82 Grades 1 through 6 Milford Elementary School Cleveland, Ohio Learning Disability Teacher 9/73 to 6/74 Grades 1 through 6 Woodland Hills Elementary School Cleveland, Ohio Teacher 3/73 to 7/73 Grade 5 Adult Basic Education Cleveland Ohio, Teacher 3/73 to 7/73 Taught Reading and Math. Cleveland Scholarship Program Cleveland, Ohio Counselor for High School Seniors 6/74 to 9/74

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONSCouncil of Exceptional Children NAACP National Education Association


Draft 10-29-03

Appendix CCOMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM REVIEW 2002-2003

UNIVERSITY PROGRAM REVIEW COUNCIL'S EVALUATIONfor the

MASTER OF EDUCATION IN SPECIAL EDUCATIONGRADUATE PROGRAM

I. COUNCIL'S GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE PROGRAMFocus of Evaluation Self-Study Eval Council's EvalQUALITY INDICATORS

II. Summary of Program's Overall Quality Strong StrongCouncil's Observations:

•very strong curriculum•excellent use of data-based decision making and continuous improvement•Faculty involvement in over $3,000,000 of externally funded projects since 1998•faculty are leaders in professional organizations at the state and national level•continue quality improvement and refinements•continue to develop regional and statewide partnerships

IIA. Curricular Adherence to Quality/Accreditation Standards Very Strong Very StrongCouncil's Observations:

•Extensive accreditation standards result from approval by 4 accrediting agencieso Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GA PSC teacher licensure agency)o Council for Exceptional Children (CEC - NCATE specialty professional association)o NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education)o National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS- NCATE advanced programs•Notable recognitions include:o After the M.Ed. in Special Education and all related special education add-on programs received accreditation from CEC in 1999, KSU portfolio selected as a model for CEC training sessions.o At the NCATE Board of Examiners and the Georgia Professional Standards Commission on-site review in Spring 2001, all programs approved with no weaknesses emphasis on accountability and outcomes

IIB. Quality of Faculty Supporting the Program Very Strong Very StrongCouncil's Observations:

•All faculty hold Ph.D.•Balance of specializations•Program could be strengthened by a faculty tenure-track position with expertise in improving education in diverse and at-risk schools

IIC. Quality of Facilities, Equipment, Learning Resources, Satisfactory StrongAnd Placements (facilities and equip.=Satisfactory)Council's Observations:

•Program growth has led to need for more facilities•Department has provided equipment support using redirected grant funds•Program needs classrooms with tables and flexibility for collaborative group activities•Program needs funds for adaptive/assistive technology•Self-study needs more information regarding practicum placement sites

IID. Quality of KSU's Annual Financial Investment Weak SatisfactoryCouncil's Observations:

•Self-study lists numerous concerns and unmet financial needs, including budget line for equipment, additional faculty, calculation of cost per student credit hour


Draft 10-29-03

•Redirected grant and contract funds have been used to support instruction and program growth•Additional faculty positions at a competitive salary level are needed to support program growth•Greater financial support for field experience supervision needed to meet accreditation standards•Only weaknesses are presented in the Self-Study. What about strengths?

IIE. Use of Advanced Technology for Satisfactory StrongProgram Delivery and SupportCouncil's Observations:

•KH 1107, is a fully equipped presentation classroom, with wireless internet access and notebook computers for candidate use•Acquire adaptive/assistive technology devices for instructional use•update department web site to increase marketing potential

IIF. Quality of Program Advising, Enrollment Strong StrongManagement & Student ServicesCouncil's Observations:

•Strong assessment measures•faculty member is assigned to monitor and assist each cohort•Department Chair monitors registration and contacts inappropriately enrolled students•On-site supervision•Faculty mentoring needs improvement

IIG. Program Graduates' Competitive Advantages Very Strong StrongCouncil's Observations:

•Degree candidates can add specialties to their teaching certification•emphasis on skill development in collaboration and group process•Faculty model and emphasize best practice from current literature•Portfolio development process•Data needed: How are these advantages measured in terms of job acquisitions and contributions to society?

IIH. Faculty's & Program's Diversity & Global Perspective Satisfactory SatisfactoryCouncil's Observations:

•Project WINS, Winning Team, and the Dalton Cornerstone project serve schools with diverse populations•Faculty travel to study other systems (China, Cuba, England)•Continue ongoing discussions with universities in Spain and Mexico•Faculty not necessarily that diverse•Continue efforts to recruit more diverse candidates•Continue efforts to work in schools reflecting diversity and articulating lessons learned into curriculum

III. Endowments, Scholarships, Gifts, Grants, and Fees Strong StrongCouncil's Observations:

•Two-thirds of poll respondents received external assistance•Hope Teacher Scholarship program a major incentive for prospective students•Bartow County partnership arrangements•KSU Foundation fellowships•Identify other sources of financial support

IIJ. Program's Honors, Awards & Recognition Strong StrongCouncil's Observations:


Draft 10-29-03

•M.Ed. in Special Education folio was selected for use in CEC training for folio preparation.•Project WINS is a National Association of State Boards of Education exemplar program.

IIK. Honors of Program's Students, Graduates & Faculty Satisfactory SatisfactoryCouncil's Observations:

•Several faculty and student awards•Improve tracking of accomplishments

IIL. Success of Program's Graduates Strong StrongCouncil's Observations:

•pass rate of 100% on PRAXIS II licensure exam•respondents have taken on leadership roles and have completed additional degrees•Develop a system to track graduates and conduct targeted surveys

IIM. Stakeholder Satisfaction with Program Strong StrongCouncil's Observations:

•Good awareness of and response to stakeholder concerns•Advisory Board with comprehensive representation•Collaborative Partnerships•Continue to seek input from stakeholders

IIN. Selectivity & Achievement of Students Satisfactory Selectivity =Satisfact.Council's Observations: Acad. Achive.=Strong

•Selectivity data are very good•Academic achievement data are missing from study, but GPA is 3.73 and pass rate of 100% on PRAXIS

IIO. Program's Responsiveness to Assessment, Very Strong Very StrongChange & ImprovementCouncil's Observations:

•Numerous program assessments•Move towards a greater emphasis on NBPTS and revised CEC standards in preparation for CEC and NCATE review under new standards

PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORSIII. Summary of Program's Overall Productivity Strong StrongCouncil's Observations:

IIIA. Enrollment of Graduate Students in Program Satisfactory StrongCouncil's Observations:

•on-campus cohort model and contractual arrangements for off-campus cohorts to manage enrollment have led to relatively steady enrollment•Implement competitive admission review date•Improve M.Ed.’s admission processing for off-campus cohorts•Monitor impact of the increase in competition by other universities (alternative delivery models) and staffdevelopment programs (ESOL/Gifted/Preschool-special education) that are less expensive than our creditbearing courses. Marketing the quality of our program is vital to recruitment.

IIIB. Program's Annual Degree Completions Satisfactory StrongCouncil's Observations:

•steady increase in number of degrees granted annually•Currently 4 th largest program in state•Consider separate tracking of data for 2 year on- campus cohorts and 3 year off-campus cohorts


Draft 10-29-03

IIIC. Graduation Rate & Program Completion Efficiency Satisfactory StrongCouncil's Observations:

•graduation rate commensurate with other graduate programs in Education and exceeds the KSU average•Improve the development of gates within the program to assist in documenting progress•Continue assigning faculty to monitor cohorts and track non-completers.

IIID. Efficiency & Clarity of Curricular Design Strong StrongCouncil's Observations:

•straightforward cohort programs•requirements listed in Grad Catalog and on website

IIIE. Scheduling Frequency & Sequencing of Required Courses Very Strong Very StrongCouncil's Observations:

•Predetermined cohort sequence•Address off-campus summer scheduling issues

IIIF. Enrollment Levels in Required Courses Strong Very StrongCouncil's Observations:

•Cohort model insures consistent full enrollments•monitor M.Ed. in Special Education: Collaborative Practice track

IIIG. Diversity of Program's Majors & Graduates Satisfactory SatisfactoryCouncil's Observations:

improvement in diversity shown by number of males, blacks, and multi-racial candidates in current cohorts compared to graduates•Self-study chart only shows black, mulit- and white. What about other populations (e.g., Asian)•Recruit additional minority and international students

IIIH. Faculty's Instructional Productivity Satisfactory SatisfactoryCouncil's Observations:

•8 factors listed to explain lower credit hour productivity than KSU average•2 examples:o Special Education has extensive grant and contract commitments that provide fundedreassigned time for full-time faculty (the equivalent of 2 full-time faculty positions a yearplus summer term) and these commitments are essential for the Special Education mission,but do not generate student credit hourso The Special Education cost per weighted credit hour does not reflect the external fundsgenerated by the department that contribute to the cost of part-time faculty to coverundergraduate teaching assignments for reassigned time and to pay for part-time faculty tosupervise field experiences to improve program quality. If the data were adjusted to reflectthe external funds the productivity of the full-time faculty and the cost per credit hour would be more in line with or above KSU averages

IIII. Cost-Effectiveness of Program Instruction Strong SatisfactoryCouncil's Observations:

•Cost data does not include external funds from grants/contracts that pay for faculty reassigned time for grant activities and fund part-time faculty for supervision•Above KSU average, but not unusual for graduate programs, especially for a graduate-only program

IIIJ. Responsiveness to State Needs & Demand for Graduates Satisfactory StrongCouncil's Observations:


Draft 10-29-03

•critical shortage of teachers for students with disabilities and general education teachers prepared to meet the needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms•Employer demand for graduates is evident in numerous inquiries from local districts•Growth, including recruitment of off-campus cohorts, exceeds original program goals•All students in the program are fully employed (in education?) as they work on program requirements

IIIK. Program's Ranking in the University System Strong StrongCouncil's Observations:

•In 2001, KSU was fourth in graduate special education programs, but in the top tier by the number of graduates•Additional classroom space and additional faculty necessary to support additional cohorts.

IIIL. Program's Contribution to Achieving KSU Mission Very Strong Very StrongCouncil's Observations:

•Consistent with many aspects of KSU mission•Continue grant, contract and service projects and collaborative relationships that contribute to the KSU mission.

IV. PROGRAM'S VIABILITY AT KSUCouncil's Observations: Viable Viable

Program has maintained consistent growth•Program provides valuable training and services to region

V. MODEL PROGRAM POTENTIAL StrongCouncil's Observations:

•Program has already achieved recognition

VI. COUNCIL'S OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE PLANS FOR IMPROVING QUALITY& PRODUCTIVITY

•Self-study reiterates problems with receiving adequate financial resources, faculty lines,and classroom space•The Council recognizes that the program is doing strong work and would like to expand,

but needs more support to do so. The program would be a good place to invest money if it is available.

VII. EXPAND, MAINTAIN, CONSOLIDATE, OR DISCONTINUECouncil's Observations: Expand* Maintain**

o *Not clearly indicated in the Self-Study in section VII., but in the summary at the beginningo **The rating of “Maintain” is given here as a recommendation to maximize potential given the current resources, but the program could be expanded if resources are availableo The Council notes that the potential for the program and for program growth is great because there is a high need for special education teachers in the state

COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDED FOLLOW-UP


Draft 10-29-03

Appendix DKennesaw State University

Special Education Performance Outcomes Form

Obs. # Obs. #1 Obs. # 2 Obs. #3 Obs. # 4 Obs. # 5Date

Observer’s Initials

*** Planning ***

1. Provides access to rich curriculum by successfully aligning IEP objectives and QCC’s with instruction and assessment. (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.1, Facilitator 2.1)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2):

Acceptable L-3: Target L-4:

Objectives and QCC’s not listed.

Objectives and QCC’s listed but not embedded in the lesson.

Objectives and QCC’s listed and embedded in the lesson.

2. Develops lesson plans using research-based strategies (Universal Design, Concept Mapping, Differentiated Instruction, Multi-level Curriculum). (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.2, 1.3, Facilitator 2.2, 2.5)



No lesson plans present, or lesson plan refers only to page numbers or chapters from books.

Lesson plans have stated objectives but there are limited or no indications that research based strategies were used to develop the plans.

Lesson plans have stated objectives and there is evidence that research based strategies were used to develop the plans.

3. Plans the integrated use of technology. (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.2, Facilitator 2.5)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Technology is neither planned for nor integrated in the lesson (used as an add on to the lesson).

Technology is integrated into the lesson plan but at the surface level.

Technology is integrated into the lesson plan.

4. Plans for student diversity through accommodations and modifications for individual needs. (CEC 3, Subject Matter 2.2, Facilitator 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,2.5)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: No accommodations or modifications are listed, or a generic accommodations/modifications checklist is used with no specific reference to students.

Accommodations and modifications are incorporated only for assignment completion.

Accommodations and modifications are incorporated throughout the entire lesson, during instruction, as well as for assignment completion.


Draft 10-29-03

*** Conducting Lessons ***

5. Demonstrates congruence between the lesson plan and instruction while incorporating student responses to the lesson. (CEC 4, Subject Matter 1.4, Facilitator 2.6)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Implementation of the lesson does not follow the lesson plan or is only tangentially related to it.

Lesson is implemented according to plan, but there is little if any response to student cues or adjustment to instruction based on those cues.

Lesson is implemented according to plan and teacher adjusts instruction based on student responses. Includes adjusting for student errors, augmenting instruction to insure student understanding and providing enrichment activities.

6. Effectively uses technology and adaptive/assistive technology in the lesson and for reinforcement. (CEC 4, Subject Matter 1.2, Facilitator 2.2)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Technology is not used during the lesson, or technology is used as an add-on to the lesson.

Technology is integrated into the lesson, but at the surface level. Used by teacher or students but not both.

Technology is integrated into the lesson; teachers use technology for teaching and students for learning and completing assignments.

7. Provides explicit reinforcement to student responses. (CEC 5, Facilitator 2.2, 2.4, 2.6)



Teacher does not provide reinforcement for correct responses.

Teacher uses reinforcement, but does not articulate the specific behavior or skill being reinforced.

Teacher uses reinforcement and articulates the specific behavior or skill that is being reinforced.

8. Gains the attention of students, incorporates preview and review, connects new learning to previous learning, and connects use of learning strategies to content to be learned and students’ previous learning. (CEC 4, Subject Matter 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, Facilitator 2.5, 2.6)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Does not gain the students’ attention prior to teaching, does not provide preview or review, does not connect new learning to previous learning or learning strategies to the content to be learned.

Typically gains students attention prior to instruction provides preview and review but only minimally connects new learning to previous learning or learning strategies to the content to be learned.

Consistently gains students attention prior to instruction provides preview and review and connects new learning to previous learning or learning strategies to the content to be learned.


Draft 10-29-03

9. Effectively paces instruction and promotes equity in student responses. (CEC 4, Facilitator 2.2, 2.3)



Teacher’s pace of instruction is too fast or too slow and opportunities for every student to be engaged in the lesson are not provided.

Teacher typically adjusts pace of instruction to maintain student attention and opportunities for every student to be engaged in the lesson are provided.

Teacher consistently maintains an effective pace of instruction and opportunities for every student to be engaged in the lesson are provided.

10. Correctly uses a variety of research-based instructional strategies (direct instruction, strategy instruction, systematic prompting, peer mediated learning such as cooperative learning groups, class wide peer tutoring or Peer Assisted Learning Strategies [PALS], task analysis, and multiple flexible grouping structures). (CEC 4, Facilitator 2.3, 2.5)



Teacher does not use research-based strategies effectively and does not involve the students in active, hands on learning; instruction is predominantly whole class and independent work.

Teacher demonstrates effective implementation of at least two research-based strategies and there is a balance between whole class/independent work and student collaborative or cooperative groups.

Teacher demonstrates effective implementation of at least four research-based strategies and there is a balance in the use of a variety of flexible grouping strategies.

11. Maintains active student engagement through meaningful and motivating lessons. (CEC 5, Subject Matter 1.2, Facilitator 2.4)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Teacher lectures or reads from the teacher’s manual, never engaging the students in hands on activities; students remain passive recipients of teacher information.

Teacher shares information with the students and then engages them in meaningful activities.

Teacher actively engages the students in the learning process by weaving the sharing of information with meaningful activities; teacher is animated and enthusiastic.

12. Gives correct curriculum content while teaching. (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.1, 1.2)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Is unable to clearly and accurately explain curriculum content.

Teacher hesitates and needs to constantly refer to curriculum materials in order to present the content clearly and accurately.

Naturally presents curriculum content clearly and accurately to students.

*** Assessment ***


Draft 10-29-03

13. Embeds authentic assessment in lessons. (CEC 8, Facilitator 2.6, 2.7)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Relies on end of lesson or unit test to assess learners.

Uses a form of authentic assessment to determine student errors and correct responses and adjusts the lesson accordingly.

Uses a combination of standard tests and multiple authentic assessments to adjust instruction and determine student learning.

14. Provides immediate and appropriate correction to student errors and adjusts instruction accordingly. (CEC 4, Facilitator 2.6)



Does not stop or alter lesson when students make errors.

Teacher stops instruction and gives the student a correct answer and explanation for why it is correct.

Teacher stops instruction and asks the student how (s) he determined the response. Teacher adjusts instruction to include a formal error correction procedure to insure correct student understanding.

*** Classroom Ecology and Behavior ***15. Classroom is clean and well organized. (CEC 5, Faciliator 2.4)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Classroom is cluttered and disorganized; materials for students are not readily available, desks are not arranged in a manner conducive to learning, and classroom rules and consequences are not posted.

Classroom is uncluttered and organized; materials for student use are readily available, but student desks are not arranged in a manner conducive to learning.

Classroom is uncluttered and organized. Materials for student use are readily available and student desks are arranged in a manner conducive to learning. There are clear pathways to and from vital areas in the room and teacher can see all students at all times.

16. Provides consistent routines and procedures for managing all class activities. (CEC 5, Facilitator 2.4)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Consistent routines and procedures are not posted or evident; students clearly do not know expectations or how to follow through. Classroom rules are not posted.

Consistent routines and procedures are posted and evident; routines and procedures flow smoothly, students clearly know what to do, however, the teacher still has to monitor and re-direct students on a regular basis. Classroom rules are posted.

Consistent routines and procedures are posted and evident; routines and procedures flow smoothly, students clearly know what to do, and the teacher only intermittently has to intervene and redirect students. Students respond immediately to teacher. Classroom rules are posted.

17. Facilitates positive social interactions among students. (CEC 5, Facilitator 2.1, 2.4)


Draft 10-29-03

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Student to student conversation is inappropriate and shows lack of respect for one another and for adults. Teacher has to intervene continually to re-direct students and correct their behaviors.

Most of the student-to-student interactions are positive and show respect. Teacher frequently has to intervene to re-direct students.

The majority of student-to-student interactions are positive and show respect. Teacher rarely has to intervene to re-direct students.

18. Provides manageable positive behavior supports for all students, consistently applies rules and consequences, and models and reinforces appropriate behavior at all times. (CEC 5, Facilitator 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, Collaboration 3.2)



Relies on punishment to control classroom behavior. No rules or consequences posted. Tone of voice and body language are harsh and indicate lack of respect for students. Corrective action with students is arbitrary and inconsistent. Provides limited positive reinforcement

Typically reinforces appropriate behavior. Rules and consequences are posted and followed. Corrective action with students is more consistent and fair. Tone of voice and body language show respect for students. Circulates and maintains good proximity to all students, but especially those with problem behaviors. Classroom ecology is conducive to appropriate behavior.

Consistently reinforces appropriate behavior and explicitly describes what the student is doing that merited the reinforcement. Rules are stated and consistently and fairly followed. Students with problem behaviors have written positive behavior support plans. Teacher “sets up” students for appropriate behavior through the use of systematic prompting procedures.

*** Collaboration ***

19. Effectively manages para professionals and other support staff so that they are effectively involved in meaningful instruction. (CEC 10, Collaboration 3.1, 3.3)



Para professionals spend the majority of their time talking or working on non-instructional tasks such as bulletin boards, cleaning, filing, or other paper work. Teacher stops instructional tasks to talk about non-instructional matters with the para professional or related services personnel, consistently asks they work with students in isolation from the rest of the group, or does not provide clear direction for

Para professionals spend the majority of their time on instructional tasks and interactions with students. Related services personnel are working with the student in an integrated fashion within the curriculum. Teacher models appropriate instructional and behavior management strategies. All staff handle transitions smoothly without additional instructions being needed. Para professionals in general

Para professionals spend all their time on instructional tasks and interactions with the students. Related services personnel are also working with other students along with the targeted student in an integrated fashion within the curriculum. In general education settings the para professional works collaboratively with both the general and special education teachers in teaching all students in multiple flexible groups.


Draft 10-29-03

transitions. education environments work with general education students too.

20. Implements correctly a variety of co-teaching models (one teach/one drift, one teach/one observe and take data, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, duet teaching, team teaching with multiple flexible groups) (CEC 10, Collaboration 3.1, 3.3)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3:Teacher only uses one teach and one drift model of co-teaching.

Teacher uses two or more different co-teaching models.

*** Professionalism ***

21. Communication, both written and oral, is clear, concise and grammatically accurate. (CEC 9, Collaboration 3.1)



Written and oral communication is frequently incorrect in terms of basic structure and syntax, multiple spelling errors are noted in written work and the message is not clearly conveyed

Written and oral communication contains occasional errors of structure and syntax, an occasional spelling error is noted in written work and message is typically clearly conveyed.

Written and oral communication are free of errors and consistently conveyed in a clear fashion.

22. Overall appearance and attitude (dress, comments, body language) are positive and indicates respect for students, parents, and colleagues. (CEC 9, Collaboration 3.4)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Teacher uses sarcastic language or language that ridicules students or colleagues. Clothing is dirty, disheveled, not neat and or inappropriate for the classroom. Teacher’s affect demonstrates no enthusiasm for either teaching or the subject matter or compassion for students, parents or colleagues.

Clothing is neat, clean and appropriate. Body language is positive and shows respect for students, parents and colleagues. Verbal language is free of ridicule and sarcasm.

Clothing is neat, clean and appropriate. Body language is positive and indicates not only respect for students and colleagues but also pride in the profession. Verbal language is not only free of ridicule and sarcasm but also shows enthusiasm for both teaching and the subject matter and compassion for students, parents and colleagues.


Draft 10-29-03

Observation SUMMARYKENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITYBagwell College of Education

Student’s Name: _________________________Course: ____________Semester: _______

Collaborating Teacher: ___________________University Supervisor_________________

School: ______________________Date: ________Beginning Time:____Ending Time:___Observer: _________________________________Circle One: University Supervisor Collaborating Teacher Candidate

Description of Situation: Brief description of environment, subject area, type of activity, description and number of learners, etc. Directions: When completing this summary form, please indicate strengths and areas for improvement. For greater detail, please consult the Conceptual Framework Reference Guide that describes the proficiencies in each outcome.

Subject Matter Expertise: (knows content; connects to other disciplines; knows and represents content accurately; uses content and pedagogical knowledge)

Facilitation of Learning: (knowledge of learners; knowledge of society and culture; well-managed learning environment; sets high expectations for all students; designs and implements effective instruction; assesses student learning and evaluates instruction)

Collaborative Professional: (reflects on professional performance; builds collaborative and respectful relationships; uses effective communication skills; maintains professional and ethical behavior)

Student’s Signature Date Observer’s Signature Date


Draft 10-29-03

Appendix EGeorgia Professional Standards Commission

Interrelated Special Education Standards

505-3-.37 SPECIAL EDUCATION (BEHAVIOR DISORDERS (BD),LEARNING DISABILITIES (LD), MENTAL RETARDATION (MR),INTERRELATED SPECIAL EDUCATION, AND INTERRELATEDSPECIAL EDUCATION/EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM)Effective 12/1/01(1) Purpose. This rule states field-specific content standards for approving programs thatprepare teachers to be certified in: Behavior Disorders (BD), Learning Disabilities, (LD), Mental Retardation (MR), Interrelated Special Education, and Interrelated Special Education/Early Childhood and supplements requirements in Rule 505-3-.01, Requirements and Standards for Approving Professional Education Units and Programs Preparing Education Personnel.(2) Requirements.(a) To receive approval for interrelated special education, interrelated special education/early childhood, and specialty programs in Behavior Disorders (BD), Learning Disabilities (LD), and/or Mental Retardation (MR), a State Approved Professional Education Unit shall offer a preparation program described in program planning forms, catalogs, and syllabi addressing the following general and subject field specialty standards:1. GENERAL STANDARDS. Interrelated Special Education, and Interrelated Special Education/Early Childhood shall conform to the general and common core standards for Preparation of Teachers of Special Education published by the Council for Exceptional Children.2. SPECIALTY STANDARDS. In addition to the general standards, these standards pertain to the unique skills and knowledge necessary for a specialty in BD, LD, or MR. Individuals are prepared to teach students at all levels of severity, P-12 in each specialty area.SpecialGeorgia Requirements.3. INTERRELATED SPECIAL EDUCATION (i) Purpose. This preparation program prepares individuals to be resource teachers in BD, LDand MR as well as to teach in self-contained classrooms in the fields of BD and LD and mild MR, P-12,at all levels of severity.(ii) Requirements. In addition to the general standards, the following standards are required:(I) STANDARD I: The program shall required demonstrated competence in the knowledge ofcharacteristics of exceptional children, to include appropriate content from the areas of behavioraldisorders, learning disabilities, and mental retardation.(II) STANDARD II: The program shall require demonstrated competence in psychoeducationalevaluation and assessment procedures and strategies.(III) STANDARD III: The program shall require demonstrated competence in the knowledge oflanguage development, disorders, and deviations.


Draft 10-29-03

(IV) STANDARD IV: The program shall require demonstrated competence in the knowledge ofperceptual motor development.(V) STANDARD V: The program shall require demonstrated competence in the knowledge andskills for dealing with reading and mathematics difficulties.(VI) STANDARD VI: The program shall require demonstrated competence in the knowledge ofearly childhood exceptionalities.(VII) STANDARD VII: The program shall require demonstrated competence in the knowledgeof effective parent involvement and counseling.(VIII) STANDARD VIII: The program shall require field experiences integrated into the programwith students who have mild, moderate, severe and profound learning and/or behavioral problems,and mild mental retardation.(IX) STANDARD IX: The program shall meet all requirements specified in rule 505-2-.08, SpecialGeorgia Requirements.4. INTERRELATED SPECIAL EDUCATION/EARLY CHILDHOOD.(i) Purpose. An individual with a certificate in Interrelated Special Education/Early Childhood isin-field to teach Preschool Handicapped; to be a resource teacher in the fields of Behavior Disorders,Learning Disabilities, and Mental Retardation in grades P-5; to teach students in self-containedclassrooms with Behavior Disorders, Learning Disabilities, and Mild Mental Retardation in grades P-5;and to teach all subjects in Early Childhood Education in grades P-5:(ii) A prerequisite for entering this program shall be eligibility for a professional teachingcertificate in early childhood education, elementary education, or special education other than Giftedand Talented.(iii) Effective September 1, 1997, an institution shall have approved programs in the field ofInterrelated Special Education and Early Childhood Education in order to be reviewed by the PSC tooffer an approved program in Interrelated Special Education/Early Childhood.(iv) Requirements. In addition to the general standards, the following standards are required. (I) STANDARD I: The program shall conform to the standards for the specialty area of Early ChildhoodSpecial Education published by the Council for Exceptional Children.(II) STANDARD II: The program shall meet all requirements specified in rule 505-2-.08, SpecialGeorgia Requirements.Authority O.C.G.A. § 20-2-200
