ld program, october 2016 mission statement p. 1 · ld program, october 2016 mission statement p. 3...

LD Program, October 2016 Mission Statement p. 1

Summary Goal #1: Learner Development and Individual Learning Differences LD Program candidates demonstrate an understanding how exceptionalities may interact with development and learning and use this knowledge to provide meaningful and challenging learning experiences for individuals with exceptionalities. Not Met #1: Only 66% of candidates obtained a sub-test average of correct responses at or above 70% SLO 1.1-1.2;

6 out of 9 candidates’ performance demonstrates having the desired level of knowledge about development and characteristics of individuals with disabilities.

Met #2: 100% of the candidates achieved a rating of satisfactory (3.5 points on a 5.0 scale) on APS #4 SLO 1.2; the candidates’ “teacher” expectations were appropriate for the ability levels of the particular students and for the subject area in addition to involving considerations of the students’ cultural and linguistic as well as developmental differences.

Met #3: 100% candidates obtained a total score of at least 16 out of 20 (80%) SLO 1.1-1.2; the candidates recognized the potential impact of differences in values, languages, and customs that can exist between the home and school, identified concerns of families of individuals with exceptional learning needs, recognized strategies to help address these concerns, and acknowledged similarities and differences of individuals with and without exceptional learning needs.

Goal #2 Learning Environments LD Program candidates create safe, inclusive, culturally responsive learning environments so that individuals with exceptionalities become active and effective learners and develop emotional well-being, positive social interactions, and self-determination. Met #1: 70% of candidates obtained a sub-test average of correct responses at or above 70% on the Core test SLO

2.1-2.3; the candidates demonstrated knowledge of planning and managing the learning environment for Special Education in general. Not Met: Only 66% (not 70%) of the candidates achieved the target score on the LD Test for demonstrating knowledge of planning and managing the learning environment for students with Learning Disabilities.

Met #2: 100% candidates attained a rating of satisfactory (3.5 points on a 5.0 scale) SLO 2.1-2.3; candidates possess the understandings of basic classroom management theories and strategies of how to use a functional behavior assessment to develop a behavior intervention plan for students with learning disabilities (LD).

Goal #3: Curricular Content Knowledge LD Program candidates use knowledge of general and specialized curricula to individualize learning for individuals with exceptionalities Met #1: 70% of candidates obtained a minimum score of 151 (minimum score for licensure) SLO 3.1-3.3;

candidates understood and used general and specialized content knowledge for teaching across curricular content areas to individualize learning for individuals with exceptionalities.

Met #2: 100% of the candidates attained a rating of satisfactory (3.5 points on a 5.0 scale) SLO 3.1-3.3; candidates developed instructional plans that include content, strategies, materials, and resources that are appropriate for students with LD.

Met #3: 100% candidates obtained a score of 4 or better on a 5.0 scale (80% = More Than Satisfactory) SLO 3.1-3.3; candidates demonstrated the ability to align instruction appropriately with the desired student learning outcomes.

Goal #4: Assessment LD Program candidates use multiple methods of assessment and data-sources in making educational decisions. Met #1: 70% of candidates obtained a sub-test average of correct responses at or above 70% on LD SLO 4.1-4.4;

candidates demonstrated knowledge and skills for using assessments for students with learning disabilities. Not Met: Only 55% of the candidates met the target score on Core Test thereby demonstrating the knowledge of assessment in special education.

Met #2: 100% candidates attained a rating of satisfactory (3.5 points on a 5.0 scale) or better on each SLO 4.1-4.4; candidates successfully conducted assessments, interpreted the results, and developed instruction for improving the performances of students of whom they completed a case-study report.

Met #3: 100% candidates attained a total score of 8 or better on a 10 point score (80% = More Than Satisfactory) SLO 4.1-4.4; candidates used multiple types of assessment information in making decisions about individuals with exceptionalities in collaboration with their host teacher.


Goal #5: Instructional Planning and Strategies LD Program candidates select, adapt, and use a repertoire of evidence-based instructional strategies to advance learning of individuals with exceptionalities. Not Met 66% (not 70%) of candidates obtain a sub-test average of correct responses at or above 70% SLO 5.1-5.7. Only 66% of candidates met the target for instruction. Met #2: 100% of candidates attained a rating of satisfactory (3.5 points on a 5.0 scale) or better on each SLO 5.1 and

5.7; candidates created observable and measurable instructional objectives, developed and implemented lesson plans that apply task analysis to instructional planning, and adapted strategies, interventions, and resources appropriate to the needs of individual students.

Met #3: 100% candidates obtained a score or at least 12 out of 15 points (80% = More Than Satisfactory) SLO 5.1-5.7; candidates appropriately applied methods, techniques, technologies, activities, or assignments to help students achieve the learning objectives.

Goal #6: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice LD Program candidates use foundational knowledge of the field and the their professional Ethical Principles and Practice Standards to inform special education practice, to engage in lifelong learning, and to advance the profession. Met #1: 70% of candidates obtained a sub-test average of correct responses at or above 70% SLO 6.1-6.6;

candidates have knowledge of special education (e.g., laws, policies, history, and practices) as well as of LD (e.g., definitions, etiology, and practices).

Met #2: 100% of candidates attained a rating of satisfactory (3.5 points on a 5.0 scale) or better on each SLO 6.1-6.4; candidates engaged in activities such as advocacy and mentoring as well as possess the foundation knowledge of their field.

Met #3: 100% of candidates achieved a score of 4 or better on a 5-point scale (80% = More Than Satisfactory) SLO 6.1-6.6; candidates conduct meaningful reflection of their practice.

Goal #7: Collaboration LD Program candidates collaborate with families, other educators, related service providers, individuals with exceptionalities, and personnel from community agencies in culturally responsive ways to address the needs of individuals with exceptionalities across a range of learning experiences Met #1: 100% of the candidates participated in at least one setting in a school with 40% or more students receiving

free and reduced lunches or a setting with a diverse student population in terms of race (moderate to high demographics) SLO 7.4.

Met #2: 100% of the candidates minimally received three consecutive positive ratings (i.e., yes) from their mentor teacher SLO 7.1-7.3; candidates performed in a professional manner.

Actions to be taken

• In Stages II & III the candidates will be provided instruction for preparing one of the two ADEPT portfolio artifacts to include case history information about the student academic, social and emotional development and its comparison to the expectations of the peer group. SLO 1.1-1.2 Additionally, candidates will be guided on how to provide evidence of how they modified the artifact to meet the intra-individual needs of the student identified in the case history (EDLD 440 assignment modification) SLO 1.1-1.2.

• After given appropriate instruction, candidates will compare students’ demographics and school-age expected learning outcomes by completing the IRIS case studies for developing and individualizing instruction to meet students’ needs in the Module exercises (EDLD 415 added assignment) SLO 1.1-1.2.

• Candidates will continue to receive one-on-one tutoring if s/he do not achieve the minimum APS score of 3.5 on a 5.0 scale and will submit a revision to meet the minimum requirements SLO 1.1-6.6.

• Candidates will receive an emphasized focus upon developing their knowledge of how to use a functional behavior assessment to develop a behavior intervention plan in both EDLD 485 (1-credit hour Behavior management class) and EDLD 483 (3-credit hour assessment class). SLO 2.1-2.3

• The courses (EDLD 483 and 485) will provide additional instruction to facilitate the candidates’ ability to develop safe, inclusive, culturally responsive learning environments for all students and provide learning opportunities that broaden their perspectives and their knowledge about individual’s language, family, culture, and other significant contextual factors and how these conditions interact with an individual’s exceptionality, guides them in modifying learning environments, and provides for the maintenance and generalization of acquired skills across environments and subjects SLO 2.1-2.3.

• After given appropriate instruction, candidates will complete a revised behavior management plan activity and assignment during the spring semester EDLD 440 practicum SLO 2.1-2.3.


• The LD Program Coordinator will examine the difference in content assessed between the two Praxis II Assessment sub-tests and identify the knowledge expected by the Core test to be reinforced in lecture and exam questions provided in EDLD 412 during Stage I of the LD Program SLO 4.1-4.4.

• After given appropriate instruction, candidates will prepare and implement at lest three learning learning/teaching strategies for a target population. They will have at least one post-observation conference with the lesson’s observer and review the strengths and weaknesses of the lesson in EDLD 440 Stage II SLO 3.1 and 5.2-5.7.

• Candidates will participate in at settings with diverse groups of individuals with disabilities on EDLD 411. Three new settings were added in Stage I Fall of 2016 SLO 6.1-6.3.

• Candidates will develop and present an advocacy plan for an individual in his/her EDLD 440 practicum (new assignment) SLO 6.5.

• The LD Program will implement an instrument for the public school host teacher can electronically submit an evaluation of the candidates’ professional performance in order to provide the candidates additional guidance for performance improvements. SLO 7.1-7.3

• Praxis II exam preparation materials were purchased and are made available at the library. SLO 1.1-.6.5


Academic Program: Assessment Report 2016 (For 2015-2016 Performance)

Unit/Department: SOE Leaning Disability Program Division: Leaning Disability Program Component Description

Program Mission Statement

From your Program Assessment Plan (Statement should articulate the unit/ program mission in support of the institutional mission and include a clearly defined purpose appropriate to collegiate education.)

The School of Education’s (SOE) mission supports the University of South Carolina Upstate’s “aim to become one of the Southeast’s leading “metropolitan” universities -- a university that acknowledges as its fundamental reason for being its relationship to expanding populations along the I-85 corridor” (USC Upstate Academic Catalog 2016-2017, p. 7) by preparing highly qualified teachers to serve the needs of the Upstate’s public schools. The SOE mission is three-fold— Candidates 1) possess a broad knowledge of the liberal arts and applicable content areas, the latest developments in curriculum and instruction, as well as the foundations of education, 2) they respect cultural diversity and place the welfare and educational needs of their students first and 3) they are reflective practitioners who are committed to service built upon professional standards and ethics. The University’s metropolitan mission “to prepare its students to participate as responsible citizens in a diverse, global, and knowledge-based society, to pursue excellence in their chosen careers and to continue learning throughout life” (USC Upstate Academic Catalog 2016-2017, p. 7) underpins five principles used to guide the Learning Disability (LD) Program’s curricular design. First, the LD Program prepares its teacher candidates to “participate as responsible citizens” by providing them with a general exposure to and an appreciation of the traditional liberal arts and sciences of both western and non-western traditions (that are established by the Institutional General Education Standards). Second, candidates are equipped with skills to excel in a “knowledge-based society” by having a specific exposure to the most up-to-date pedagogical theories and practices (that are assessed by standardized tests and LD Program performance-based evaluations that align with both the national Council of Exceptional Children (CEC) the South Carolina ADEPT Standards). Third, the LD Program curriculum is guided by the Council for Exceptional Children’s ethical principles and practice standards in ways that respect the diverse characteristics and needs of individuals with exceptionalities and their families “to participate as responsible citizens in a diverse, global…society.” Forth, “as citizens in a diverse… society,” the LD Program fosters candidates’ commitment to the principle of equality of educational opportunity for all students, regardless of race, ethnic background, religious affiliation, or gender (as outlined in the LD Program curricular alignment with multicultural responsive pedagogy). Finally, LD Program candidates “pursue excellence in their chosen careers and [to] continue learning throughout life” by demonstrating their commitment to knowledge of both theory and practice and an understanding of how one informs and strengthens the other (as measured by LD Program assessments that align with the CEC and SC ADEPT Standards).

LD Program, October 2016 LD Program Goals, SLOs, Assessment Methods, Criteria, Results, Action Plan, and Responses p. 5

Goal Goal #1: Learner Development and Individual Learning Differences LD Program candidates understand how exceptionalities may interact with development and learning and use this knowledge to provide meaningful and challenging learning experiences for individuals with exceptionalities.

SLOs (1.1) LD Program candidates understand how language, culture, and family background influence the learning of individuals with exceptionalities. (1.2) LD Program candidates use understanding of development and individual differences to respond to the needs of individuals with exceptionalities.

Assessment Methods

Assessment #1: LD and Core ETS Praxis II Examinations (Development & Characteristics Sub-tests) SLO 1.1-1.2 [LD Program Stage IV] Assessment #2: ADEPT Portfolio Evaluation-APS 4 High Expectations SLO 1.2 [LD Program Stages II, III, & IV] Assessment #3: Teacher Work Sample—Teaching Context-- Community, School, Classroom, Student SLO 1.1-1.2 [LD Program Stage IV]

Assessment Criteria

Assessment #1: 70% of candidates will obtain a sub-test average of correct responses at or above 70% SLO 1.1-1.2. Assessment #2: 100% candidates will achieve a rating of satisfactory (3.5 points on a 5.0 scale) SLO 1.2. Assessment #3: 100% candidates will obtain a total score of at least 16 out of 20 (80%) SLO 1.1-1.2.

Assessment Results and Analysis

Assessment #1 Praxis II Core and LD Praxis Sub-Test Averages of Correct Responses for 2015-2016

Praxis II Sub-Section: SLO 1.1-1.2 Core Development & Characteristics LD Development & Characteristics Stud. W/LD

(N=6) Spring % Correct Range 52-83 (66%) 4 of 6 achieved above 70% correct

% Correct Range 55-83 (66%) 4 of 6 achieved above 70% correct

(N=3) Fall* *One candidate did not take these tests.

% Correct Range 64-83 (66%) 2 of 3 achieved above 70%

% Correct Range 66-83 (66%) 2 of 3 achieved above 70%

Only 66% of candidates’ average of scores achieved at or above the 70% performance rating on the Core and LD Praxis II tests for 2015-2016. The target 70% was not met. All candidates however achieved the minimal score required for licensure. Six of the nine candidates’ performances indicate having a desired level of understanding of how language, culture, and family background influence the learning of individuals with exceptionalities as well as use their understanding of development and individual differences to respond to the needs of individuals with exceptionalities. Assessment #2: ADEPT Portfolio Evaluation-APS 4 High Expectations (see Appendix for scoring rubric) Stage IV Student-Teaching N =6 N = 10 % Earned score at or above 3.5 (rating at or above Satisfactory) Domain II (APS 4, 5, 6, & 7)/SLO 1.2 Mean Score: 4.6 100% Stage III Pre-Student Teaching APS 4 (High Expectations)/ SLO 1.2 Mean Score: 4.3 100% Stage II Initial Evaluation APS 4 (High Expectations)/ SLO 1.2 Mean Score: 4.0 100%

The average of candidates’ scores achieved a rating above 3.5 (on a five-point scale) each time the instrument was administered.

The candidates’ performance on the #4 APS reflects that their “teacher” expectations are appropriate for the ability levels of the particular students and for the subject area in addition to involving considerations of the students’ cultural and linguistic as well as developmental differences.

LD Program, October 2016 LD Program Goals, SLOs, Assessment Methods, Criteria, Results, Action Plan, and Responses p. 6 Assessment #3: Teacher Work Sample—Teaching Context (Community, School, Classroom, Student) SLO 1.1-1.2 (see Appendix for scoring rubric)

5= E Exemplary; 4 = MS More Than Satisfactory; 3 = S Satisfactory; 0-2 U Unsatisfactory (see Appendix for scoring rubric).

Community SLO 1.1 School SLO 1.1 Classroom SLO 1.2 Student SLO 1.2 E MS S E MS S E MS S E MS S Score Spring N = 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 Score Fall N = 4 3 1 0 2 2 0 1 3 0 3 1 0 Percent of achieved score 90% 10% 0% 80% 20% 0 70% 30% 0 90% 10% 0

All candidates achieved a performance level at or above Satisfactory. 100% of the candidates earned a total score 16 or above. Performance in this area of the Teacher Work Sample reflects the candidates’ ability to recognize the potential impact of differences in values, languages, and customs that can exist between the home and school; identify concerns of families of individuals with exceptional learning needs and strategies to help address these concerns; and acknowledge similarities and differences of individuals with and without exceptional learning needs.

Action Plan

• In Stages II & III the candidates will be provided instruction for preparing one of the two ADEPT portfolio artifacts to include case history information about the student academic, social and emotional development and its comparison to the expectations of the peer group. Additionally, candidates will provide evidence of how they modified the artifact to meet the intra-individual needs of the student identified in the case history (EDLD 440 assignment modification).

• After given appropriate instruction, candidates will compare students’ demographics and school-age expected learning outcomes by completing the IRIS case studies for developing and individualizing instruction to meet students’ needs in the Module exercises (EDLD 415 added assignment).

• Candidates will continue to receive one-on-one tutoring if s/he do not achieve the minimum APS score of 3.5 on a 5.0 scale and will submit a revision to meet the minimum requirements.

• Praxis II exam preparation materials were purchased and will be made available at the library.

Implement action and Evaluation of Previous Years’ Action Plan

The previously proposed revised rubric for the Responsive Pedagogy Term Paper and Presentation evaluation that is completed in EDLD 412: Characteristics of Students with LD is now in use. (This assessment data is collected during the Fall semester in Stage I.) It is too soon to see if this assessment’s feedback improves candidates’ performances on the Praxis II tests taken during Stage IV of the Program. The ADEPT #4 APS High Expectations, TWS, and ADEPT Portfolio rubrics were revised and implemented since the last LD Program Assessment Report. These changes have provided clarity to assignments’ expectations and provide candidates with more direct opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge of how exceptionalities can interact with development and learning, and their skills to modify developmentally appropriate learning environments. (The Action Plan’s recommendations are an extension of these findings.)

Goal #2 Goal #2 Learning Environments LD Program candidates create safe, inclusive, culturally responsive learning environments so that individuals with exceptionalities become active and effective learners and develop emotional well-being, positive social interactions, and self-determination.

SLOs

(2.1) LD Program candidates through collaboration with general educators and other colleagues create safe, inclusive, culturally responsive learning environments to engage individuals with exceptionalities in meaningful learning activities and social interactions.

(2.2) LD Program candidates use motivational and instructional interventions to teach individuals with exceptionalities how to adapt to different environments.

(2.3) LD Program candidates know how to intervene safely and appropriately with individuals with exceptionalities in crisis.

Assessment Methods

Assessment #1: LD and Core ETS Praxis II Examinations (Planning & the Learning Environment Sub-tests) SLO 2.1-2.3 [LD Program Stage IV] Assessment #2: ADEPT Portfolio Evaluation -- APS 8. Maintaining a Classroom Environment that Promotes Learning & APS 9. Managing the

Classroom SLO 2.1-2.3 [LD Program Stages II, III, & IV]

LD Program, October 2016 LD Program Goals, SLOs, Assessment Methods, Criteria, Results, Action Plan, and Responses p. 7 Assessment Criteria

Assessment #1: 70% of candidates will obtain a sub-test average of correct responses at or above 70% correct responses (SLO 2.1-2.3). Assessment #2: All Candidates will attain a rating of satisfactory (3.5 points on a 5.0 scale) or better on each (SLO 2.1-2.3).


Assessment #1 Praxis II Core and LD Praxis Sub-Test Averages of Correct Responses for 2015-2016

At best only 66% of all candidates earned scores at or above the 70% criteria on the LD Praxis II sub-tests; the target percentage was not met. 77% of all candidates earned scores at or above the 70% criteria on the Core Praxis II sub-tests (target % is met). All candidates achieved the minimum score required for licensure.

The performance on these Praxis II subtests demonstrates a level of the candidates’ understanding of basic classroom management theories and strategies for students with learning disabilities as well as their knowledge of how to use a functional behavior assessment to develop a behavior intervention plan. Test items also evaluate the candidates’ability to provide appropriate learning environments.

Assessment #2: ADEPT Portfolio Evaluation-- APS 8. Maintaining a Classroom Environment that Promotes Learning & APS 9. Managing the Classroom SLO 2.1-2.3 (see Appendix for scoring rubric) Stage IV Student-Teaching N = 10 % Earned score at or above 3.5 (Satisfactory or above) Domain III (APS 8 & 9)/SLO 2.1-2.3 Mean Score: 4.8 100% Stage III Pre-Student Teaching APS 8 (Classroom Environment)/ SLO 2.1-2.2 Mean Score: 3.5 100% APS 9 (Classroom Management)/ SLO 2.3 Mean Score: 3.6 100% Stage II Initial Evaluation (APS 9 & APS 8 are not completed at this stage) The average of scores of candidates achieved a rating above 3.5 each time the instrument was administered. The target was met. The candidates’ performances on APS 8 demonstrate how they make and maintain the physical environment of classroom as a safe place that is conducive to learning and how they promote positive affective climate. The APS 9’s delineates that candidates manages student behavior appropriately, uses instructional time, as well as manages essential non-instructional routines in an efficient manner.

Praxis II Sub-Section: SLO 2.1-2.3 Core Planning & the Learning Environment LD Planning & Managing the Learning Environment Spring (N=6) % Correct Range 69-83

(66%) 4 of 6 achieved above 70% correct % Correct Range 54-77

(66%) 4 of 6 achieved above 70% correct

Fall (N=3)* * One candidate did not take the test.

% Correct Range 80-100% (100%) 3 of 3 achieved above 70% correct


Action Plan

• Candidates will receive an emphasized focus upon developing their knowledge of how to use a functional behavior assessment to develop a behavior intervention plan in both EDLD 485 (1-credit hour Behavior management class) and EDLD 483 (3-credit hour assessment class).

• The courses will provide additional instruction to facilitate the candidates’ ability to develop safe, inclusive, culturally responsive learning environments for all students and provide learning opportunities that broaden their perspectives and their knowledge about individual’s language, family, culture, and other significant contextual factors and how these conditions interact with an individual’s exceptionality, guides them in modifying learning environments, and provides for the maintenance and generalization of acquired skills across environments and subjects.

• After given appropriate instruction, candidates will complete a revised behavior management plan activity and assignment during the spring semester EDLD 440 practicum.

• Candidates will continue to receive one-on-one tutoring if s/he do not achieve the minimum APS score of 3.5 on a 5.0 scale and will submit a revision to meet the minimum requirements.

LD Program, October 2016 LD Program Goals, SLOs, Assessment Methods, Criteria, Results, Action Plan, and Responses p. 8 Implement action & Evaluation of Previous Years’ Action Plan

The proposed ADEPT #8 & #9 APS revised rubrics were made and are now implemented. These changes have provided clarity to assignments’ expectations and provide candidates with more direct opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge and skills. The current action plan identifies instructional opportunities to support candidates’ learning outcomes in these areas.

Goal #3 Goal #3: Curricular Content Knowledge LD Program candidates use knowledge of general and specialized curricula to individualize learning for individuals with exceptionalities.

SLOs

(3.1) LD Program candidates understand the central concepts, structures of the discipline, and tools of inquiry of the content areas they teach, and can organize this knowledge, integrate cross- disciplinary skills, and develop meaningful learning progressions for individuals with exceptionalities.

(3.2) LD Program candidates understand and use general and specialized content knowledge for teaching across curricular content areas to individualize learning for individuals with exceptionalities.

(3.3) LD Program candidates modify general and specialized curricula to make them accessible to individuals with exceptionalities.

Assessment Methods

Assessment #1: LD and Core ETS Praxis II Examinations (Total Scores) (SLO 3.1-3.3) [LD Program Stage IV] Assessment #2: ADEPT Portfolio Evaluation—APS 1 Long-Term Planning, APS 2 Short-Term Planning, & APS 6 Content (SLO 3.1-3.3) [LD Program Stages II, III, & IV] Assessment #3: Teacher Work Sample—Alignment with Goals (SLO 3.1- 3.3) [LD Program Stage IV]

Assessment Criteria

Assessment #1: ETS Exams (LD Program SLO 3.1-3.3). Pre-service teachers must receive a passing score (set by the SC Department of Education) in order to be recommended for certification. On the Special Education: Core Knowledge and Applications (Test 5354) and the Special Education: Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities (Test 5883), 70% of the candidates must earn a minimum score of 151 points or above. Assessment #2: All candidates will achieve a rating of satisfactory (3.5 points on a 5.0 scale) or better on each SLO 3.1-3.3. Assessment #3: All candidates will obtain a score of 4 or better on a 5.0 scale (80% = More Than Satisfactory) (SLO 3.1-3.3).


Assessment #1: 2015-2016 Praxis II LD and Core Total Score Pass Rate

Graduation: Range of scores Spring: N = 6 Fall: N = 31 Overall Pass Rate

Core SLO 3.1-3.3 168-183 167-191 100%

Learning Disabilities SLO 3.1-3.3 165-179 151-178 100%

Yearly Pass Rate 100% 100% 1 One candidate did not take the tests.

All candidates earned the minimum passing score required for certification on all the Praxis II exams. The target was met.

Assessment #2: ADEPT Portfolio Evaluation APS 1 Long-Term Planning, APS 2 Short-Term Planning, & APS 6 Content (see Appendix for scoring rubric)

Stage IV Student-Teaching N=10 % Scored at or above 3.5 (Satisfactory rating) Domain I (APS 1 & 2)/SLO 3.1-3.2 Mean Score: 4.5 100% Stage III Pre-Student Teaching APS 1 (Long-Term Planning)/ SLO 3.1 Mean Score: 4.3 100% APS 2 (Short-Term Planning)/ SLO 3.2 Mean Score: 4.1 100% APS 6 (Content) SLO 3.3 Mean Score: 4.1 100%

LD Program, October 2016 LD Program Goals, SLOs, Assessment Methods, Criteria, Results, Action Plan, and Responses p. 9 Stage II Initial Evaluation APS 1 (Long-Term Planning)/ SLO 3.1 Mean Score: 4.0 100% APS 2 (Short-Term Planning)/ SLO 3.2 Mean Score: 4.0 100% APS 6 (Content)/SLO 3.3 Mean Score: 3.7 100% All candidates achieved a rating above 3.5 each time the instrument was administered. The target was met. The candidates performances on APS 1 (Long-Term Planning) is based upon their artifacts in which they obtain student information, analyzes this information to determine the learning needs of all students, and uses this information to guide instructional planning. Each is required to submit an Individual Education Plan (IEP) that establishes appropriate standards-based long-range learning and developmental goals as well as appropriate processes for evaluating and recording student’s progress and achievement. Under APS 2 (Short-Term Planning) candidates’ scores demonstrate their performance with developing instructional plans that include content, strategies, materials, and resources that are appropriate for the particular students. They must create plans that use both direct and indirect instructional methodology. The candidates provide appropriate content and structure the content to promote meaningful learning as measured by APS 6 (Content).

Assessment #3: Teacher Work Sample: Alignment with Goals (See Appendix for scoring rubric)

Alignment with Goals (SLO 3.1-3.3). Score Exemplary More Than Satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Score Spring N = 6 6 0 0 0 Score Fall N = 4 2 2 0 0 Percent of achieved score 80% 20% 0% 0

All candidates achieved a performance level at or above Satisfactory. The target was met.

All candidates demonstrated the ability to align instruction appropriately with the desired student learning outcomes.

Action Plan Candidates will continue to complete a minimum of five lesson plans and one unit plan in EDLD 410 during Stage I of the LD Program. Candidates who do not achieve a satisfactory rating of 3.5 on a 5.00 scale will receive on-one-one tutoring from the instructor. Candidates will revise their work to achieve the above the minimum criterion, yet the grade earned will not be a rating above 3.5.


Last year’s Report shared: The LD Candidates now have the option take the new Praxis II Elementary Education: Instructional Practice and Applications test (5019) in order to be considered Highly Qualified for licensure in South Carolina. The test was first offered after September 1, 2014. Since this test is still an option, it is to soon to determine Program areas for improvement with respect to the test’s focus upon General Education preparation. The SC State Department now has omitted this test as a requirement for teacher licensure in Special education. The LD Program will not be able to use this assessment to identify areas for improvement.

Goal Goal #4: Assessment LD Program candidates use multiple methods of assessment and data-sources in making educational decisions.

SLOs

(4.1) LD Program candidates select and use technically sound formal and informal assessments that minimize bias. (4.2) LD Program candidates use knowledge of measurement principles and practices to interpret assessment results and guide educational decisions

for individuals with exceptionalities. (4.3) LD Program candidates in collaboration with colleagues and families use multiple types of assessment information in making decisions about

individuals with exceptionalities. (4.4) Candidates engage individuals w/exceptionalities to work toward quality learning & performance and provide feedback to guide them.


Assessment Methods

Assessment #1: Core ETS Praxis II (Assessment & Identification, Eligibility, and Placement Sub-tests) (SLO 4.1-4.4) [LD Program Stage IV]. Assessment #2: ADEPT Portfolio Evaluation—APS 3 Assessment and APS 7 Monitoring (SLO 4.1-4.4) [LD Program Stages II, III, & IV]. Assessment #3: Teacher Work Sample—Analysis and Impact on Learning (SLO 4.1-4.4) [LD Program Stage IV]

Assessment Criteria

Assessment #1: 70% of candidates must obtain a sub-test average of correct responses at or above 70% (SLO 4.1-4.4). Assessment #2: 100% of candidates will achieve a rating of satisfactory (3.5 points on a 5.0 scale) or better on each SLO (4.1-4.4). Assessment #3: 100% candidates must attain a total score of 8 or better on a 10 point score (80% = More Than Satisfactory) (SLO 4.1-4.4).


Assessment #1: Praxis II Core and LD Sub-Tests Averages of Correct Responses for 2015-2016

Praxis II Sub-Sections: SLO 4.1-4.2 LD: Identification, Eligibility, and Placement Core: Assessment

Spring (N=6) % Correct Range 63-90 (83%) 5 of 6 achieved above 70% correct


Fall (N=31) 1 One candidate did not take these tests.



All candidates scored at or above the 70% criteria on the LD Praxis II sub-test (target met). Only 55% of the candidates scored above the 70% criterion for the Core Praxis II Test. This target was not met, however all candidates’ earned the minimal score required for licensure. The candidates’ performance on the LD Praxis II’s Identification, Eligibility, and Placement sub-test demonstrates that they understand the basic terminology used in assessment, follow the procedures for the formal and informal assessment of students with learning disabilities, and know how to interpret data for identification, eligibility, placement, and program recommendations. Their performances on the Core Praxis II’s Assessment sub-test reflect their level of ability to define and use various assessments, interpret the results, and use the results of assessments for instruction and or identification as applied in general by special educators.

Assessment #2: ADEPT Portfolio Evaluation—APS 3 Assessment and APS 7 Monitoring (See Appendix for scoring rubric)

Stage IV Student-Teaching N= 10 % earned score at or above 3.5 (rating at or above Satisfactory) Domain I (APS 3)/SLO 4.1-4.3 Mean Score: 4.5 100% Stage III Pre-Student Teaching APS 3 (Assessment)/ SLO 4.1-4.3 Mean Score: 3.8 100% APS 7 (Monitoring)/ SLO 4.4 Mean Score: 4.7 100% Stage II Initial Evaluation (APS 3 & APS 7 are not completed at this stage) 100% of candidates achieved a rating above 3.5 each time the instrument was administered. The target was met. The ADEPT APS #3 and #7 ratings reflect the candidates’ ability to conduct assessments, interpret the results, and develop instruction for improving the performances of students of whom they completed a case-study report. The candidates also must describe the assessment processes used for identifying students for special education services. This includes their naming the persons involved at each stage, the instruments used and why, and the rights of the individual undergoing the identification process.

LD Program, October 2016 LD Program Goals, SLOs, Assessment Methods, Criteria, Results, Action Plan, and Responses p. 11 Assessment #3: Teacher work Sample—Analysis and Impact on Student Learning (See Appendix for scoring rubric)

Analysis SLO 4.1-4.2 Impact on Student Learning SLO 4.3-4.4 Score Exemplary More Than

Satisfactory Satisfactory Exemplary More Than

Satisfactory Satisfactory

Score Spring N=6 6 0 0 5 1 0 Score Fall N=4 0 4 0 0 4 0 Percent at achieved score 60% 40% 0 50% 50% 0

Group average total score is 8.7 out of 10. All candidates achieved a total score performance level at or above 80%. The target is met.

Action Plan The LD Program Coordinator will examine the difference in content assessed between the two Praxis II tests and identify the knowledge expected by the Core test will be reinforced in lecture and exam questions provided in EDLD 412 during Stage I of the LD Program.


The revised rubrics meet the needs that were identified as reasons for modifying them—they will continue to be used. The changes provide clarity to assignments’ expectations and provide candidates with more direct opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge and skills. The assessment batteries that were purchased enhanced the candidates’ opportunity to conduct authentic assessments with students. This practice will continued to be a requirement in EDLD 483.

Goal Goal #5: Instructional Planning and Strategies LD Program candidates select, adapt, and use a repertoire of evidence-based instructional strategies to advance learning of individuals with exceptionalities.

SLOs

(5.1) LD Program candidates consider an individual’s abilities, interests, learning environments, and cultural and linguistic factors in the selection, development, and adaptation of learning experiences for individual with exceptionalities.

(5.2) LD Program candidates use technologies to support instructional assessment, planning, and delivery for individuals with exceptionalities. (5.3) LD Program candidates are familiar with augmentative and alternative communication systems and a variety of assistive technologies to support

the communication and learning of individuals with exceptionalities. (5.4) LD Program candidates use strategies to enhance language development and communication skills of individuals with exceptionalities (5.5) LD Program candidates develop and implement a variety of education and transition plans for individuals with exceptionalities across a wide range

of settings and different learning experiences in collaboration with individuals, families, and teams (5.6) LD Program candidates teach to mastery and promote generalization of learning. (5.7) LD Program candidates teach cross-disciplinary knowledge and skills such as critical thinking and problem solving to individuals with

exceptionalities.

Assessment Methods

Assessment #1: LD and Core ETS Praxis II Examinations (Instruction Sub-tests) SLO 5.1-5.7 [LD Program Stage IV] Assessment #2: ADEPT Portfolio Evaluation—APS 5 Teaching Strategies SLO 5.1 & 5.7 [LD Program Stages II, III & IV] Assessment #3: Teacher Work Sample—Sample, Design, and Procedures SLO 5.1-5.7 [LD Program Stage IV]

Assessment Criteria

Assessment #1: 70% of candidates must obtain a sub-test average of correct responses at or above 70% SLO 5.1-5.7. Assessment #2: 100% of candidates will achieve a rating of satisfactory (3.5 points on a 5.0 scale) or better on each SLO 5.1 and 5.7. Assessment #3: 100% candidates must obtain a score or at least 12 out of 15 points (80% = More Than Satisfactory) SLO 5.1-5.7.



#1 Praxis II Core and LD Sub-Test Averages of Correct Responses for 2015-2016

Praxis II Sub-Sections: SLO 5.1-5.7 Core Instruction LD Instruction

Spring (N=6) % Correct Range 60-79% (50%) 3of 6 achieved above 70% correct

% Correct Range 64-86% (83%%) 5 of 6 achieved above 70% correct

Fall (N=31) 1 One candidate has not taken the tests.

% Correct Range 73-100% (100%) 3 of 3 achieved above 70% correct

% Correct Range 58-86% (33%) 1of 3 achieved above 70% correct

66% of the candidates scored at or above the 70% criteria on the Core and LD Praxis II sub-tests; the target percentage was not met. All candidates however achieved the minimal score required for licensure.

The performance outcomes reflect the candidates’ level of understanding how to create observable and measurable instructional objectives, develop and implement lesson plans that apply task analysis to instructional planning, and adapt strategies, interventions, and resources appropriate to the needs of individual students.

Assessment #2: ADEPT Portfolio Evaluation—APS 5 Teaching Strategies (see Appendix for scoring rubric)

Stage IV Student-Teaching N=10 % Earned at or above 3.5 (rating of Satisfactory) Domain II (APS 4, 5, 6, & 7)/ SLO 5.1 & 5.7 Mean Score: 4.25 100% Stage III Pre-Student Teaching APS 5 (Teaching Strategies)/ SLO 5.1 & 5.7 Mean Score: 4.0 100% Stage II Initial Evaluation APS 5 (Teaching Strategies)/ SLO 5.1 & 5.7 Mean Score: 3.9 100%

100% of candidates achieved a rating above 3.5 each time the instrument was administered. The target was met. Moreover, the average of scores increased at each assessment point.

The candidates’ performance reflects an ability to appropriately apply methods, techniques, technologies, activities, or assignments to help students achieve the learning objectives. Assessment #3: Teacher Work Sample-- Sample, Design, and Procedures (see Appendix for scoring rubric) 5 = E Exemplary; 4 = MS More Than Satisfactory; 3 = S Satisfactory; 0-2 points U Unsatisfactory (see Appendix for scoring rubric)

Sample SLO 5.1 Design SLO 5.2-5.7 Procedures SLO 5.2-5.7

Score E MS S E MS S E MS S

Spring N=6 6 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0

Fall N=4 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 3 0

Percent of achieved score 60% 40% 0 60% 40% 0 70% 30% 0

Group average total score is 13.9 out of 15; All candidates achieved a total score performance level at or above 80% or rating of More Than Satisfactory. The target was met.


Action Plan

After given appropriate instruction, candidates will prepare and implement at lest three learning learning/teaching strategies for a target population. They will have at least one post-observation conference with the lesson’s observer and review the strengths and weaknesses of the lesson in EDLD 440 Stage II. Candidates will continue to receive one-on-one tutoring if s/he do not achieve the minimum APS score of 3.5 on a 5.0 scale and will submit a revision to meet the minimum requirements.


The LD Program will continue to implement revised rubrics that resulted from last year’s Assessment Report recommendations. The changes provide clarity to assignments’ expectations and provide candidates with more direct opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge and skills.

Goal Goal #6: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice LD Program candidates use foundational knowledge of the field and the their professional Ethical Principles and Practice Standards to inform special education practice, to engage in lifelong learning, and to advance the profession.

SLOs

(6.1) LD Program candidates use professional Ethical Principles and Professional Practice Standards to guide their practice. (6.2) LD Program candidates understand how foundational knowledge and current issues influence professional practice. (6.3) LD Program candidates understand that diversity is a part of families, cultures, and schools, and that complex human issues can interact with the

delivery of special education services. (6.4) LD Program candidates understand the significance of lifelong learning and participate in professional activities and learning communities. (6.5) LD Program candidates advance the profession by engaging in activities such as advocacy and mentoring. (6.6) LD Program candidates provide guidance and direction to paraeducators, tutors, and volunteers.

Assessment Methods

Assessment #1: LD & Core ETS Praxis II Examinations (Foundations & Professional Responsibilities Sub-tests) SLO 6.1-6.6 [LD Program Stage IV]. Assessment #2: ADEPT Portfolio Evaluation—APS 10 Fulfilling Professional Responsibilities SLO 6.1-6.6 [LD Program Stages II, III, & IV]. Assessment #3: Teacher Work Sample—Professional Implications SLO 6.1-6.6 [LD Program Stage IV].

Assessment Criteria

Assessment #1: 70% of candidates must obtain a sub-test average of correct responses at or above 70% SLO 6.1-6.6. Assessment #2: 100% of candidates will achieve a rating of satisfactory (3.5 points on a 5.0 scale) or better on each SLO 6.1-6.4. Assessment #3: 100% of candidates must achieve a score of 4 or better on a 5-point scale (80% = More Than Satisfactory) SLO 6.1-6.6


Assessment #1: Praxis II Core and LD Sub-Test Averages of Correct Responses for 2015-2016

Praxis II Sub-Sections: SLO 6.1-6.6 Core Foundations & Professional Responsibilities LD Foundations & Professional Responsibilities

Spring N=6 % Correct Range 73-90 (100%) 6 of 6 achieved above 70% correct


Fall N=31

1 One candidate has not taken the tests. % Correct Range 71-85

(100%) 3 of 3 achieved above 70% correct % Correct Range 50-86

(66%) 2 of 3achieved above 70% correct

At minimum 88% of the candidates’ scores were at or above the 70% criteria on both the LD and Core Praxis II sub-tests. The target was met.

The scores reflect the candidates’ knowledge of special education (e.g., laws, policies, history, and practices) as well as of LD (e.g., definitions, etiology, and practices).

LD Program, October 2016 LD Program Goals, SLOs, Assessment Methods, Criteria, Results, Action Plan, and Responses p. 14 Assessment #2: ADEPT Portfolio Evaluation—APS 10 Fulfilling Professional Responsibilities (See Appendix for scoring rubric) Stage IV Student-Teaching N=10 % Earned at or above 3.5 (Rating of Satisfactory) Domain IV (APS 10)/SLO 6.1-6.6 Mean Score: 4.5 100% Stage III Pre-Student Teaching APS 10 (Fulfilling Professional Responsibilities)/ SLO 6.1-6.6 Mean Score: 3.7 100% Stage II Initial Evaluation (APS 10 is not evaluated)

100% of the candidates achieved a rating at or above 3.5 each time the instrument was administered. The target was met.

Under APS 10 candidates demonstrate how they advance the profession by engaging in activities such as advocacy and mentoring as well as possess the foundation knowledge of their field.

Assessment #3: Teacher Work Sample—Professional Implications (See Appendix for scoring rubric)

Professional Implications SLOs 6.1-6.6 Score Exemplary More Than Satisfactory Satisfactory Spring N=6 5 1 0 Fall N=4 0 4 0 Percent of achieved score 50% 50% 0

The average score is 4.5 on a five-point scale; all candidates scored above the 80% performance criterion. The target was met.

Action Plan

Candidates will participate in at settings with diverse groups of individuals with disabilities on EDLD 411. Three new settings were added in Stage I Fall of 2016.

Candidates will develop and present an advocacy plan for an individual in his/her EDLD 440 practicum (new assignment).

Candidates will continue to receive one-on-one tutoring if s/he do not achieve the minimum APS score of 3.5 on a 5.0 scale and will submit a revision to meet the minimum requirements.


The LD Program will continue to implement revised rubrics that resulted from last year’s Assessment Report recommendations. These changes provide clarity to assignments’ expectations and provide candidates with more direct opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge and skills.

Goal Goals #7: Collaboration LD Program candidates collaborate with families, other educators, related service providers, individuals with exceptionalities, and personnel from community agencies in culturally responsive ways to address the needs of individuals with exceptionalities across a range of learning experiences.

SLOs

(7.1) LD Program candidates use the theory and elements of effective collaboration. (7.2) LD Program candidates serve as a collaborative resource to colleagues. (7.3) LD Program candidates use collaboration to promote the well-being of individuals with exceptionalities across a wide range of settings and

collaborators. (7.4) LD Program candidates progress through a series of developmentally sequenced field experiences for the full range of ages, types and levels of

abilities, and collaborative opportunities that are appropriate to the license or roles for which they are preparing.


Assessment Methods

Assessment #1: LD Program Graduates’ Field Experience Placement Analysis SLO 7.4 [LD Program Stages II, III, & IV]

Assessment #2: LD Practicum Update Form SLO 7.1-7.3 [Stage II & Stage III]

Assessment Criteria

Assessment #1: 100% of the candidates participate in at least one setting with a s schools with 40% or more students receiving free and reduced lunches or a setting with a diverse student population in terms of race (moderate to high demographics) SLO 7.4.

Assessment #2: 100% of the candidates will minimally receive three consecutive positive ratings (i.e., yes) from their mentor teacher SLO 7.1-7.3.


Assessment #1: Level of Student Minority Populations & Free and Reduce Lunch Ratings above 40% for Schools Hosting field-Based Experiences County and Number of Schools

High (H) ‘minority’ population is 50-100%

Moderate (M) ‘minority’ population is 25-49%

Low (L) ‘minority’ population is 0-24%

Free and Reduced Lunch is above 40%

N=10 3 (30%) 6 (60%) 1 (00%) 7 (70%) 70% of the candidates, taught in a school with more than 40% of the student population enrolled in the free and reduced lunch program. 90% of candidates had a field-based placement in a school setting with 50% or more of the student population representing diversity in terms of race. 100% of the candidates had at least one placement in a setting diverse student population in terms of race or elevated number of students receiving free and reduced lunch. The target was met. All candidates demonstrated the appropriate professional dispositions in their field-based settings. All received minimally three consecutive positive ratings (i.e., yes) from their mentor teachers. The target was met.

Action Plan The LD Program will implement an instrument in EDLD 470 for the public school host teacher can electronically submit an evaluation of the candidates’ professional performance in order to provide the candidates additional guidance for performance improvements.


The LD Program will continue to use the instrument for the public school host teacher to electronically submit an evaluation of the candidates’ professional performance (EDLD 4225 and 440) in order to provide the candidates additional guidance for performance improvements. The revisions to the EDLD Term paper requirements will continue to have candidates demonstrate their knowledge and practices regarding collaboration.

LD Program, October 2016 Appendix 1: ADEPT Portfolio Rubrics p. 16

ADEPTPerformanceStandards(APS)DemonstratingEvidenced-BasedPractices:Initial(Knowledge/Understanding)andPre-DirectedTeaching(Understanding/Application)PortfolioContentsStagesIIandIII

APS 1: Long-Range Planning, APS 2: Short-Range Planning of Instruction, & APS 6: Providing Content for Learners SLO 3.1-3.2 (Teacher establishes appropriate long-range and short-rang learning goals, is knowledgeable of and selects content, strategies, & materials necessary to help all students’ progress

toward meeting the goals) CEC Initial Preparation Standard 3: Curricular Content Knowledge

APS Description: Knowledge of a CEC Standard correspondence with the APS.

Artifact: Description of the artifacts (two are required for each APS).

Artifact Analysis: Artifacts demonstrate application of the APS.

APS Reflection: APS and artifacts’ importance to the field of special education.

Candidates recognize how to identify and prioritize areas of the general curriculum and accommodations for individuals with exceptionalities (S1).

Candidates include national, state or provincial, and local curricula standards (K3) and identify the scope and sequences of general and special curricula (K2).

Candidates demonstrate application of at least two theories and research that form the basis of curriculum development and instructional practice (K1).

Candidates explore the importance to integrate affective, social, and life skills with academic curricula (S7) and the importance of technology for the planning and managing the teaching and learning environment (K4).

APS Standard 4: Establishing and Maintaining High Expectations for Learners SLO 1.2 (Effective teacher establishes, clearly communicates, and maintains appropriate expectations for student learning, participation, & responsibility)

CEC Initial Preparation Standard 1: Learner Development & Individual Learning Differences

APS Description: Knowledge of a CEC Standard correspondence with the APS



APS Reflection: APS & artifacts’ importance to the field of special education

Candidates recognize similarities & differences of individuals w/ & w/out exceptionalities (K8), the similarities and differences among individuals with exceptionalities (K3) and cultural perspectives influencing relationships as related to instruction (K5).

Candidates address educational implications of characteristics of various exceptionalities (K3) and the impact of learners’ academic, social abilities, attitudes, interests, and values on instruction and career development (K11).

Candidates examine differing ways of learning of individuals w/ exceptionalities, including those from culturally diverse backgrounds and strategies for addressing these differences (K12).

Candidates demonstrate an understanding of the psychological, social, and emotional characteristics of individuals with learning disabilities (LD K3) and the effects an exceptional condition(s) can have on an individual’s life (K10).

APS 5: Using Instructional Strategies to Facilitate Learning SLO 5.1 & 5.7 (An effective teacher promotes student learning through the effective use of appropriate instructional strategies)

CEC Initial Preparation Standard 5: Instructional Planning & Strategies





Candidates demonstrate ability to identify and teach basic structures and relationships within and across curricula (S4) including the need to develop and select instructional content, resources, and strategies that respond to cultural, linguistic, and gender differences (S6).

Candidates demonstrate ability to select, adapt, and use instructional strategies and materials according to characteristics of the individual with exceptionalities (S15) and incorporate and implement instructional and assistive technology into the educational program (S7).

Candidates demonstrate how s/he teach individuals to use self-assessment, problem-solving, and other cognitive strategies to meet their needs (S14), use specialized methods for teaching basic skills (LDS2), and sequence, implement, and evaluate individualized learning objectives (S5).

Candidates document sources of specialized curricula, materials, and resources for individuals with LD (LDK7) and the importance to use instructional methods to strengthen and compensate for deficits in perception, comprehension, memory, and retrieval (LDS 5).


ADEPTPerformanceStandardsDomainsDemonstratingEvidenced-BasedPractices:ADEPTExitPortfolioContents(StageIV)

APS 3: Planning Assessments & Using Data and APS 7: Monitoring, Assessing, & Enhancing Learning SLO 4.1-4.4 (An effective teacher facilitates student achievement by assessing and analyzing student performance and using this information to measure student progress and guide instructional

planning, instruction, and provides appropriate feedback to students) CEC Initial Preparation Standard 4: Assessment

APS Description: Knowledge of a CEC Standard’s correspondence with the APS.




Candidates apply basic terminology used in assessment (K1) and how professionals choose and administer assessment instruments appropriate to the individual with learning disabilities (S1).

Candidates include nonbiased formal and informal assessments administered by the candidate (S2), and demonstrate how they create and maintain records (S9), and how they interpret information from formal and informal assessments (S5).

Candidates demonstrate ability to evaluate instruction and monitor progress of individuals with exceptionalities (S8) as well as develop or modify individualized assessment strategies (S4).

Candidates explore the legal provisions and ethical principles regarding assessment of individuals (K2). Candidates understand the terminology and procedures used in the assessment of individuals with learning disabilities (LD K1).

APS 8: Maintaining an Environment that Promotes Learning and APS 9: Managing the Classroom SLO 2.1-2.3 (An effective teacher creates and maintains a classroom environment that encourages and supports student learning. S/he maximizes instructional time by efficiently managing student

behavior, instructional routines and materials, and essential non-instructional tasks) CEC Initial Preparation Standard 2: Learning Environments





Candidates recognize the demands of learning environments (K1) and practices of effective management of teaching and learning. Candidates have ability to identify realistic expectations for personal and social behavior in various settings (S1).

Candidates demonstrate understandings of social skills needed for educational and other environments (K5) and use strategies for preparing individuals to live harmoniously and productively in a culturally diverse world (K7).

Candidates explore how to modify the learning environment to manage behaviors (S5) and argue how the artifact(s) create a safe, equitable, positive, and supportive learning environment in which diversities are valued (S1).

Candidates apply basic classroom management theories and strategies for individuals with exceptionalities (K3) and demonstrate ability to create an environment that encourages self-advocacy and increased independence (S9).

APS 10: Fulfilling Professional Responsibilities SLO 6.1-6.6 (An effective teacher is an ethical, responsible, contributing, and ever-learning member of the profession)

Preparation Standard 6: Professional Learning & Ethical Practice and Preparation Standard 7: Collaboration



Artifact Analysis: Artifacts demonstrate application of the APS


Candidates uphold professional standards of competence; integrity and exercise sound judgment (6S2), a commitment to the highest education and quality-of-life potential of individuals with exceptionalities (6S5), and collaborate with school personnel and community members in integrating individuals w/ exceptionalities into various settings (7S6).

Candidates engage in professional activities that benefit individuals with exceptionalities, their families, and one’s colleagues (6S12) and demonstrate how they assist individuals with exceptionalities and their families in becoming active participants in the educational team (7S4).

Candidates recognize the relationship of special education to the organization and function of educational agencies (6K3) and their importance as a teacher serving as a model for individuals with exceptionalities (6K12). Candidates use models and strategies of consultation and collaboration (7K1).

Candidates recognize the continuum of lifelong professional development (6K3) and use methods to be current regarding research-validated practice (6K14). They demonstrate sensitivity for the culture, language, religion, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, and sexual orientation (6S6) and foster respectful and beneficial relationships between families and professionals (7S3).


TheEvaluationAssumestheCECStandardsandLDSpecialtySetElementsStatedintheAssessmentToolforPerviousStages

Domain&Evidence-Based

Practices

ADEPT Portfolio Components

Domain Description Comprehension

Required Artifact Reports Knowledge

Justification Analysis

Professional Implications Synthesis

DomainISLO3.1-3.2;4.1-4.3APS1.Long-termplanningCEC3(CurricularContent)APS2.Short-termPlanningCEC3(CurricularContent)APS3.AssessmentCEC4(Assessment)Evidence-BasedPracticeFocus:Literacy&Assessment

Candidates use LTP, STP, and assessment to increase student literacy (elements, processes & purposes); Justifications as evidence-based practices. Candidates identify and prioritize areas of the general curriculum & accommodations for individuals with exceptionalities.

1) Candidates create IEPs in literacy (i.e., fluency, comprehension, recognition); 2) Unit plan(s) with literacy component(s) and pre-/post assessments. Candidates include national, state or provincial, and local curricula standards and identify the scope and sequences of general and special curricula.

Candidates understand theoretical orientations used to improve literacy and recognizes why or how an approach is effective; They cite research that forms the basis of curriculum development and instructional practice. Candidates provide sources of validation for practices, and demonstrate skills required conducting assessments.

Candidates know the laws and policies governing practices associated with the Domain (what they protect and why); Design instructional components critical to increasing literacy; Use of assessments in achieving such aims. Candidates recognize the importance to integrate affective, social, and life skills with academic curricula.

DomainIISLO1.2;5.1&5.7APS4.HighExpectationsCEC1(LearnerDevelopment)APS5.InstructionalStrategiesCEC5(Planning&Strategies)APS6.ProvidingContentCEC3(CurricularContent)APS7.MonitoringCEC4(Assessment)Evidence-BasedPracticeFocus:Instruct.Strategies/Assessment

Candidates apply theories and research that form the basis of instructional strategy development and assessment practices (elements & purposes) for improving learning outcomes and evaluating instructional effectiveness; Candidates use evidence-based practices with increasing content knowledge and monitoring student progress.

1) Application of assessments containing elements for progress monitoring; 2) Application of specific instructional strategies for increasing student content knowledge including methods to strengthen and compensate for deficits in perception, comprehension, memory, and retrieval.

Candidates design instruction to meet both state curriculum mandates and intra-individual learning needs; They apply theoretical orientation of the instructional strategies and scrutiny of how individualized assessment strategies are developed and/or modified; Candidates use source(s) of validation for evidence-based practices.

Candidates use selected instructional strategies and assessments in addressing characteristics of students with learning disabilities; Candidates understand the educational implications of characteristics of various exceptionalities and identifies perspective for addressing diverse (i.e., social, emotional, cultural) needs.

DomainIIISLO2.1-2.3APS8.MaintainingaClassroomEnvironmentthatPromotesLearningAPS9.ManagingtheClassroomCEC2(LearningEnvironments)Evidence-BasedPracticeFocus:Behavior&InclusiveStrategies

Candidates recognize demands of learning environments; apply basic behavior management theories and proactive inclusive practices used with individuals with LD; They use behavior strategies for preparing students to live harmoniously & productively in a culturally diverse world.

1) Applications of inclusive practices for creating classrooms that encourage active (individual and group) participation, value diversity, and address behavior and social skills needed for positive educational environments; 2) Applications of strategies for crisis prevention & intervention.

Candidates know and address how cultural perspectives influence the relationships among teachers, students, and families relate to their social and behavior skills instruction; Candidates use theoretical orientations underpinning behavior and inclusive management strategies.

Candidates recognize how attitudes and behaviors can influence behavior of individuals with exceptional learning needs; They provide supports needed for inclusion into various program placements and measures for identifying realistic expectations for personal and social behavior in various settings.

DomainIVSLO4.1-4.4;6.1-6.6APS10.ProfessionalismCEC6(Ethics)CEC7(Collaboration)Evidence-BasedPracticeFocus:InclusiveStrategies

Candidates demonstrate integrity, competence, and exercise sound judgment in promoting inclusive practices; Candidates engage in professional development and supportive relationships with community and families.

1) Candidates practice collaboration in implementing inclusive strategies; 2) Candidates participate in professional activities that benefit individuals with exceptional learning needs.

Candidates apply theoretical orientations underpinning practice; uses inclusive strategies and recognize beneficial relationships for integrating individuals into various settings.

Candidates use methods to remain current in research-validated practice; They exhibit ethical responsibility to advocate for appropriate services for individuals w/ LD; Candidates know rights and responsibilities of stakeholders.

LD Program, October 2016 Appendix 1:ADEPT Portfolio Scoring Rubric p. 19USC Upstate School of Education Portfolio Scoring Rubric

Initial (Stage II), Pre-Directed Teaching (Stage III), & Exit (Stage IV) Component Exemplary(E) MorethanSatisfactory(M) Satisfactory(S) Unsatisfactory(U)

Description of APS/Domain & CEC Standards

(Comprehension) 4√s (.25 each) = 1.00 [Total point value 1.0]

Candidates indicate an exemplary degree of understanding of the APS/Domain; Recognize the relationship between related APSs and CEC Standards with the evidence-based practice focus; Apply at least four critical elements discussed and supported as significant.

Candidates indicate a high degree of understanding of the APS/Domain and the CEC Standards with evidence-based practice focus; Apply at least three critical elements discussed and supported as significant.

Candidates indicate a moderate degree of understanding of the APS/Domain and the CEC Standards with the evidence-based practice focus; Apply at least two critical elements discussed and supported as significant.

Candidates indicate an insufficient degree of understanding of the APS/Domain and the CEC Standards; Apply one critical element discussed and supported as significant.

Point value 1.00 .75 .5 .25 Descriptions of Artifacts

(Comprehension) (Two are required) [.75 points per artifact- A total point value of 1.5]

Candidates show exemplary understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the APS/Domain and its evidence-based practice focus. Apply four elements or properties that exemplify key components underpinning the APS/Domain and the CEC Standards.

Candidate shows a high degree of understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the APS/Domain and its evidence-based practice focus. Applies three elements or properties that exemplify key components underpinning the APS/Domain and the CEC Standards.

Candidates show a moderate degree of understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the APS/Domain and the CEC Standards. Apply one element or property that exemplify a key component underpinning the APS/Domain and the CEC Standards.

Candidates have a weak degree of understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the APS/Domain and the CEC Standards and/or are not complete.

Artifact Description #1 .75 .5 .25 0 Artifact Description #2 .75 .5 .25 0

Relationship Between Artifact & APS/Domain

(Analysis) (Two are required) [.75 points per artifact- A total point value of 1.5]

Candidates demonstrate at least three clear, thorough connections between the artifact, APS/Domain, and evidence-based practice focus; Apply three strong justifications of how s/he demonstrates effective teaching skills related to the APS/Domain and the CEC Standards.

Candidates demonstrate at least two clear, thorough connections between the artifact, APS/Domain, and evidence-based practice focus; Apply two strong justifications of how s/he demonstrates effective teaching skills related to the APS/Domain and the CEC Standards.

Candidates demonstrate one connection between the artifact, the APS/Domain and evidence-based practice focus; An under-developed justification of s/he demonstrates effective teaching skills related to the APS/Domain and CEC Standards.

Candidates demonstrate weak connection between the artifact, APS/Domain, and evidence-based practice focus; Lacks demonstration of skills used in best practices.

Artifact Analysis #1 .75 .5 .25 0 Artifact Analysis #2 .75 .5 .25 0

Implications of APS/Domain & CEC Standards to Profession

(Synthesis) 4√s (.25 each) = 1.00

Candidates recognize how the APS/Domain and its evidence-based practice focus is important to the field of Special Education; Apply at least four clear, developed, and specific drawn conclusions related to the CEC Standards; Make strong connections with major theories, people, and/or organizations related to best practice.

Candidates recognize how the APS/Domain and its evidence-based practice focus is important to the field of Special Education; Apply less than three drawn conclusions related to the CEC Standards; Recognizes connections with major theories, people, and/or organizations related to best practice

Candidates recognize limited synthesis of how the APS/Domain and its evidence-based practice focus is important to the field of Special Education; Lack specificity; Apply less than two drawn conclusions related to the CEC Standards; No citations of theories, people, and/or organizations related to best practice.

Little, if any, synthesis of how the APS/Domain and its evidence-based practice focus is related to the field of Special Education; Lack necessary development and specificity.

Point value 1.00 .75 .5 .25 Quality of Writing Well written Well written Satisfactorily written Poorly written; obtrusive

errors Total Score 5.0-4.5 4.25-4.0 3.75-3.5 3.25-0

LD Program, October 2016 Appendix 2: TWS Scoring Rubric p. 20

Name__________________________Semester____________CandidateImpactonStudentLearningTeacherWorkSampleScoringRubricRating→Indicator↓

5pointsIndicatorMet

3.5pointsIndicatorPartiallyMet

0pointIndicatorNotMet Score

I. Contextual Factors

A. Community Level SLO 1.1

Candidates demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of the community that may affect learning: Well-developed analysis of a variety of community demographics with supporting data; Reflection contains three or more suggested CEC considerations.

Candidates demonstrate some knowledge of the characteristics of the community that may affect learning: developing or partial analysis of information about the community and supporting data; Reflection contains two suggested CEC considerations.

Candidates demonstrate minimal, irrelevant, or biased knowledge of the characteristics of the community; Partial reflection contains 0-1 suggested CEC considerations.

B. School Level SLO 1.1

Candidates demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of the school that may affect learning; Well-developed analysis of a variety of school demographics with supporting data; Three or more suggested CEC considerations.

Candidates demonstrate some knowledge of the characteristics of the school that may affect learning; Developing or partial analysis of school information \and with supporting data; Two suggested CEC considerations.

Candidates demonstrate minimal, irrelevant, or biased knowledge of the characteristics of the school; Partial reflection contains 0-1 suggested CEC considerations.

C. Classroom Level SLO 1.2

Candidates demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of the classroom that may affect learning: Well-developed analysis of a variety of classroom demographics with supporting data; Three or more suggested CEC considerations.

Candidates demonstrate some knowledge of the characteristics of the classroom that may affect learning: developing or partial analysis information about the classroom supporting data; Two suggested CEC considerations.

Candidates demonstrate minimal classroom information and supporting data; Partial reflection contains 0-1 suggested CEC considerations.

D. Student Level SLO 1.2

Candidates demonstrate general & specific understanding of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/ disabilities) that may affect learning. They display general & specific understanding of the different ways students learn (e.g., styles, modalities) that may affect learning. Variety of student demographics with supporting data; Three or more suggested CEC considerations.

Candidates demonstrate general knowledge of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities) that may affect learning; Display general knowledge about the different ways students learn (e.g., styles, learning modalities). Partial information about the students supporting data; Reflection contains two suggested CEC considerations.

Candidates lack understanding of student differences and or the different ways students learn that may affect learning. Minimal student information and supporting data; Partial reflection; Reflection contains 0-1 suggested CEC considerations.

II. Instructional Planning

A. Curriculum & Goal Alignment SLO 3.1-3.3

Candidates select researched-based intervention with both references to literature and state curriculum goals; Reflection contains three or more CEC considerations and or skill applications.

Candidates select researched-based intervention with limited reference to literature and/or state curriculum goals; Two suggested CEC considerations and or skill applications.

Candidate selects intervention and states curriculum goals; Lack references Reflection contains 0-1 suggested CEC considerations.

B.SampleSLO5.1

Candidates clearly define sample w/ multiple details; Most activities and assignments appear productive and appropriate for each student; Reflection appropriately contains three or more CEC considerations and or skill applications.

Candidates clearly define sample, adequate details; Some activities and assignments appear productive, appropriate for each student; Appropriately contains two CEC considerations and/or skill applications.

Candidates partially define sample; Lack activities productive and/or appropriate for each student; 0-1 CEC consideration/skill applications.

LD Program, October 2016 Appendix 2: TWS Scoring Rubric p. 21

Name__________________________Semester____________CandidateImpactonStudentLearningTeacherWorkSampleScoringRubric

Rating→Indicator↓

5pointsIndicatorMet

3.5pointsIndicatorPartiallyMet

0pointIndicatorNotMet Score

C.DesignSLO5.2-5.7

Candidates clearly define dependent and independent variables; State appropriate hypothesis; Most instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. Reflection contains three or more suggested CEC considerations.

Candidates clearly define dependent and independent variables; State appropriate hypothesis; Some instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. Reflection contains two suggested CEC considerations.

Candidates partially define variables or hypothesis; Instruction lack reference to contextual factors and or pre-assessment data. Contains 0-1 CEC considerations.

D.ProcedureSLO5.2-5.7

Candidates clearly state procedures (daily and weekly expected outcomes and teaching strategies explained). Significant variety across instruction, activities, assignments, and/or resources. Appropriately describe how progress monitoring is continuous and used to inform instruction; Includes three or more CEC considerations/skill applications.

Candidates state procedures (daily and or weekly expected outcomes and teaching strategies explained). Some variety across instruction, activities, assignments, and/or resources; Adequately describe how progress monitoring is used to inform instruction; Two suggested CEC considerations and or skill applications.

Minimal detail for explaining procedures and or Lack daily and/or weekly expected outcomes and teaching strategies used to improve performance; Progress monitoring is incomplete. 0-1 CEC considerations.

E.DataAnalysisandPresentationSLO4.1-4.2

Candidates clearly define summative and formative performance data; Each learning objectives is assessed though the plan; assessments are congruent with the learning objectives in content and cognitive complexity. Reflection contains three or more CEC considerations and or skill applications.

Candidates provide brief summative and formative performance data; Some of the learning objectives are assessed through the plan, but many are not congruent with learning objectives in content and cognitive complexity; Two suggested CEC considerations and or skill applications.

Candidates state only one method for determining student performance outcomes; Lack congruency; Reflection contains 0-1 suggested CEC considerations and or skill applications.

III.Results:EvidenceofImpactonStudentLearningSLO4.3-4.4

Candidates appropriately draw conclusions from data; Presents both graphical and narrative data interpretations Reflection contains three or more suggested CEC considerations or skill applications.

Interpretation is technically accurate, but conclusions are missing or not fully supported by data and or presents graph or narrative. Reflection contains two suggested CEC considerations or skill applications.

Candidates’ interpretation is inaccurate and/or conclusions are missing or unsupported by data; Lack graph and/or narrative.

IV.Reflection&ProfessionalImplicationsSLOs6.1-6.6

Candidates fully demonstrate meaningful implication for theory/ and future practice; Reflection contains three or more suggested CEC considerations.

Candidates partially discuss of implication for theory and practice; Reflection contains two suggested CEC considerations and or skill applications.

Candidates’ implication lacks theory and practice; Reflection contains 0-1 CEC considerations.

LD Program, October 2016 Appendix 3: Disposition Form p. 22

Stage II and Stage III Special Education – LD Practicum Update Form Please complete the below information regarding the progress of your assigned Special Education – LD practicum student. Cooperating Teacher Last Name: _________________________ Cooperating Teacher Email: _________________________ Upstate Student First Name: _________________________ Upstate Student Last Name: _________________________ Date: Has your practicum student attended each scheduled session? Yes No If your answer was “no”, were you notified in advance? Yes No Has your practicum student arrived on time? Yes No Has your practicum student dressed appropriately? Yes No For the following items, please provide a response if the candidate is lacking or needs further development in their conduct The University faculty member will address any concerns or needs for further development with the candidate. Does your practicum student behave professionally? Yes (absolutely) Yes (developing) No Comments: Has your practicum student shown initiative? Yes (absolutely) Yes (developing) No Comments: Is your practicum student relating well to your students? Yes (absolutely) Yes (developing) No Comments: Does the practicum student routinely discuss instructional matters with you (ISCI7 K1)? Comments: Yes (absolutely) Yes (developing) No

Does the practicum student interact with student in culturally responsive ways (ISCI7 S10)? Comments: Yes (absolutely) Yes (developing) No Did the practicum student participate in a parent meeting (ISCI7 S5)? (Answer for term since last evaluation) Yes (absolutely) Yes (developing) No Comments: Additional Comments?

ld program, october 2016 mission statement p. 1 · ld program, october 2016 mission statement p. 3...

Documents