1. education
2. special education

Program Report for the Preparation of Special Educators
Council for Exceptional Children
(CEC)
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDIATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION
COVER SHEET
Institution:
Weber State University, Utah
Date submitted:
February 2005
Name of preparer: Fran Butler, Jack Mayhew
Phone No.:
801 626-7410, 801 626-6268
Email:
[email protected], [email protected]
Program Documented in this report:
Name of program:
Grade levels for which candidates are being prepared:
Special Education
K -12
Degree or award level: Secondary Endorsement, Bachelor’s degree for Elementary
Education
Is this program offered at more than one site:
No
Title of the state license for which
candidates are prepared:
Utah Professional
Educator License,
Special Ed. Endorsement
Program report status:
Initial review
State licensure requirement for national recognition:
NO
Section I- CONTEXT
1. State and Institutional Policies
The Utah State Office of Education (USOE) adopted the INTASC standards in August 2002 for
the standards for new teachers to meet in order to move from a Provisional to a Professional
Educator License. The Weber State Teacher Education program then adopted these standards as
program standards in the Fall of 2002 and began work restructuring the program to align with
these standards.
The USOE has not required beginning teachers to test for licensure. They will begin requiring
Praxis II content tests as of July 2005. The teacher education program will require all students to
test in their major and minor areas beginning this fall 2004.
Weber State University’s special education program is housed within and is an integral part of
the Teacher Education department. The special education program prepares individuals to teach
pupils with mild to moderate disabilities. Under the Utah guidelines, pupils with mild to
moderate disabilities participate in the general curriculum according to an individualized
program and are not in need of a functional or life-skills curriculum.
2. FIELD EXPERIENCE
One of the strengths of the WSU Teacher Education programs is the integrated field experience
component associated with each of the professional levels. These provide opportunity for teacher
candidates to be in classrooms where they will observe, assist, and teach individuals, small
groups, or whole classes. Each field experience is valuable for candidates to see and experience
actual application and implementation of learning from the perspective of a teacher.
In the WSU special education program, field experience occurs in special education practica and
prestudent teaching, in the professional teaching levels, and culminates in general education and
special education student teaching. The level of complexity increases with each course as
students are asked to build on skills from previous course work and field experience combined
with new skills acquired in each successive course and field experience.
General Education Field Experiences.
The general education course work is divided into four levels for elementary composite majors
and three levels for secondary content majors. Students are required to complete field
experiences in four courses in each level. Field experience begins with classroom observation in
Level I. Level II students develop and adapt lesson plans to meet the needs of all students in the
classroom and deliver instruction in several subjects. Level III elementary composite students
spend 40 hours in practicum experience in elementary content areas. Level IV elementary and
Level III secondary comprise student teaching experience. Students are required to put into
practice all of the skills learned in the preceding three levels. Because exceptionality is one of
five strands in the elementary program, students are required to spend a portion of their time
developing assignments that take into consideration planning for the needs of diverse learners.
Special Education Field Experiences
The following practica comprise the special education field experiences:
Practicum in Special Education. Students must complete this practicum after completing or
while concurrently enrolled in Educ 4510, Foundations in Special Education and Educ 4520,
Planning and Managing the Special Education Learning Environment. They are required to
spend 30 clock hours in the community, school and on the internet completing a life span case
study project on elementary and secondary age pupils with disabilities. This is an unstructured
experience designed to help the prospective teacher to learn what it is like to be a person with a
disability. In addition, students build on the interview skills gained in Educ 4510 and the
observation skills learned in the elementary level courses to build consultation and collaboration
skills by observing and interviewing teachers in order to understand the complexity of the role of
special educators. Students also interview parents of special needs students and write a paper
summarizing their findings.
Pre-student Teaching. This experience follows Educ 4530, Assessment in Special Education,
Educ 4540, Behavior Management in Special Education, Educ 4550, Content and Methods for
Elementary Special Education Students, and Educ 4580, Content, Methods and Transition for
Secondary Special Education Students. Students spend a minimum of 60 hours in a public school
under the supervision of a licensed special educator while they complete four specific
assignments related to the course material they have learned.
1. Assessment. Students work with cooperating classroom teachers in administering tests,
evaluating data, and originating IEP goals based on these data. Students practice both
formal and informal assessment procedures.
2. Behavior Management. Students conduct an environmental assessment of the classroom,
charting undesirable behaviors and social skills deficits in a Functional Behavior Analysis
and develop a Behavior Intervention Plan based on observation and charting. Results of this
assignment are reported in a case study report detailing any mismatch between the
classroom expectation and the environment, results of the charting and a plan to remediate
the charted behavior.
3. Planning Instruction. While in the special education setting, students practice effective
instruction methods and procedures applicable to the education of students with mild to
moderate disabilities. Students assess the classroom environment, practice adaptive
instructional techniques, adapt curriculum, and collaborate with a classroom teacher.
Students may choose to teach an academic instructional unit or a unit on social skills.
4. Planning for Transition. Students assess student needs, develop and teach cognitive strategy
units, adapt curriculum, and collaborate with the classroom teacher and other professionals.
Students also examine post secondary transition programs and practice developing
transition plans for students with disabilities.
Clinical Practice: The student teaching experience is the culminating learning experience in the
program. Candidates must apply for clinical practice the semester before they plan to do their
clinical work. The rigorous experience is carefully planned, guided, assessed, and evaluated.
Candidates spend between 70 and 100 days (minimum 400 hours) in the classroom for their
clinical practice; this time is split equally between a general education setting and a special
education setting. Clinical practice assignments are determined according to the license
requirements, concentration, major and minor, and abilities of the candidates, with the resources
available at the university and the district schools. The Department of Teacher Education has
collaborated with the local school district partners to develop a plan and process for the selection
and training of collaborating teachers, as well as for placing student teachers. During clinical
practice candidates are assessed on progress by the university supervisor, collaborating teacher,
and the special education supervisor. A final evaluation by these supervisors is completed at the
end of the student teaching assignment. All candidates have the opportunity to assess the
program and those supervising their clinical practice. In addition, all candidates for licensure in
special education complete comprehensive, cumulative portfolios in special education; these
portfolios are assessed prior to completion of the student teaching experience.
Student teachers are required to attend on-campus seminars corresponding to times when the
public schools are not in session. Senior synthesis seminars are held at the completion of the
clinical practice. Candidates completing additional endorsements will do clinical practice in
their specific area for a minimum of five weeks.
3. Program Admission, Retention, Exit
The teacher education program is a competitive admissions process. A limited number of
applicants are admitted in March for Fall Semester and in October for Spring Semester.
Admission to the teacher education program is a separate process from Weber State University
admission. Candidates are initially admitted to the program on a provisional basis. Upon
successful completion of Levels 1 and 2, they become fully admitted candidates for licensure.
Provisional admission to a specific program is valid for a period of five years. Candidates not
completing the program within the five-year period are required to seek readmission under the
current admission standards.
Prerequisites for application to the program are current enrollment in or completion of the
following classes: English competency (grade C or above in EN1010 and EN2010 or
equivalent); Quantitative literacy (grade C or above in MATH QL1050 or equivalent);
Communication proficiency (grade B- or above in COMM HU1020, COMM 1050, or
equivalent); Computer and Information Literacy.
Undergraduate students are considered for admission based on a 100-point system: 30 points
maximum for GPA; 30 points maximum for the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency
(CAAP); 40 points maximum for the interview. Points are awarded based upon the following
criteria.
1. Completion of at least 40 semester hours of general education or relevant prerequisite
courses and (a) have an overall GPA of 3.00 or higher, or (b) 3.25 GPA or higher on the last
30 semester hours.
2. Achieve minimum scores on the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP)
standardized assessment designed to show achievement levels in reading, writing and
mathematics. Current minimum scores required for admission to the teacher education
programs are: Writing- 61, Writing Essay- 3.0, Math- 54 and Reading-59.
3. Successful completion of a formal interview with a three-member faculty committee. In
preparation for the interview students are asked to prepare a two-page statement detailing
their (a) reasons for wanting to become a teacher, and (b) past teaching experiences.
Interview questions focus on the student’s interest/commitment to teaching, understanding of
education issues, ability to relate past experiences to their role as a teacher, interpersonal
skills, communication abilities, professionalism, and preliminary evidence of course
dispositions. Students who do not obtain the required interview score are not eligible for
admittance and may reapply for a subsequent semester. If the second interview score is also
below the minimum, students must wait at least one year to reapply.
Students who already hold a baccalaureate degree and elementary or secondary teaching license
may be admitted to the special education program licensure-only program, and they are not
subject to the above criteria.
Retention in the program is based upon the following conditions.
1. Completion of a background check as soon as admitted and before being placed in a public
school for field experiences. Candidates cannot enroll in Level 1 or EDUC 2890/4890
courses until cleared. Admission to the teacher education programs will be immediately
revoked for those with a criminal record which has not been cleared by the Utah Professional
Practices Advisory Commission.
2. Candidates are expected to maintain high professional and academic standards. Quality of
work and timely progress through the program are two (2) criteria considered as evidence of
professional competence.
3. Candidates must maintain a GPA of 3.00 in all university course work, not receiving a grade
lower than a B- in any professional education course work. A professional education course
may be repeated once.
4. Documented violations of the WSU Student Code of Conduct will be considered grounds for
suspension or dismissal from the teacher education program.
5. Provisional status is revoked by an informal hearing organized by the Teacher Education
Admission and Retention Committee. Candidates may appeal the ruling by following WSU
Student Rights and Responsibilities policy.
A minimum of 34-38 credit hours is required in special education courses (in addition to specific
elementary or content major requirements), with a minimum of 120 credit hours required for
university graduation. To graduate from the program candidates must meet these graduation
requirements, successfully complete clinical practice, and participate in an exit interview for
completion of licensing materials and graduation clearance.
4. Relationship of the program to the unit’s conceptual framework.
The Special Education program is housed within and is an integral part of the Teacher Education
Department and shares the vision of the Conceptual Framework: Student Achievement: Teachers,
Students, and Communities Working Together. The foundations of the Conceptual Framework
are national and state standards that incorporate professional knowledge, skills, and disposition
necessary for teacher candidates to be successful in their classrooms and to improve student
performance. Such standards have been thoroughly researched and described in the professional
literature and are incorporated into the Unit’s knowledge base.
5. Program assessments and relationship to unit’s assessment system.
The Special Education program has defined six specific assessments (see Section II). All
programs in the unit require four of the six assessments; Praxis II, minimum GPA, Teacher
Work Sample, and Portfolio. However, the Special Education program requires two unique
assessments; Case Study, and Comprehensive Evaluation in Clinical Practice. While all six
assessments relate to the program, these unique assessments permit candidates to demonstrate
more clearly the specific knowledge and skills required of Special Educators as outlined by the
Council for Exceptional Children.
6. Program description.
Weber State University offers only one program in special education, and it is housed within
and is an integral part of the Teacher Education department. The special education program
prepares individuals to teach pupils K-12 with mild to moderate disabilities using three
different routes; Elementary Education/Special Education Composite major, secondary teaching
minor in conjunction with a content area teaching major, or postgraduate licensure program for
licensed elementary or secondary teachers. Under the Utah guidelines, pupils with mild to
moderate disabilities participate in the general curriculum according to an individualized
program. This term includes pupils with learning disabilities, mental retardation/developmental
disabilities, or emotional/behavioral disabilities who are not in need of a functional or life-skills
curriculum.
Composite Elementary Education and Special Education Major
BACHELOR DEGREE (B.S. or B.A.)
» Program Prerequisite: Provisional admission to a Teacher Education Program
(see the admission requirements described under the Teacher Education
Department).
» Minor/Concentration: Not required.
» Grade Requirements: Elementary Education majors must maintain a cumulative GPA
of 3.00 or higher in all college/university work. They must also achieve at least a "B-"
grade in each professional education course to continue in the program.
» Credit Hour Requirements: A minimum of 120 credit hours is required for
graduation -- a minimum of 37 semester hours is required within the Elementary
Professional Education Courses and 31 semester hours in the Special Education Courses.
A total of 40 upper division credit hours is required (courses number 3000 and above).
Admission Requirements
Declare a program of study. Follow the provisional admission requirements outlined
under the Teacher Education department. (Also refer to the Department Advisor Referral
List.)
Advisement
All Composite Elementary and Special Education majors should meet with an advisor in
the Teacher Education Advisement Center and also an assigned advisor from the Special
Education faculty. Call 801-626-6309 for more information or to schedule an
appointment.
For Composite Elementary and Special Education majors, there are 4 areas of course
work that are required: I. University and General Education Requirements; II. Support
Courses; III. Professional Education Courses; IV. and Special Education Courses. Details
for each of these required areas follow.
General Education
I. University and General Education Requirements
Refer to General Requirements for either Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts
requirements. The following courses required for the Elementary Education/Special
Education major will also satisfy general education requirements: Comm HU1020 and
ChFam SS1500.
Meeting the general education science requirements may not meet elementary education
science requirements. Following the suggested guidelines below will assure that both
University general education and Elementary Education requirements are met:
Students pursuing a B.S. or B.A. degree must take 9 credit hours, at least one (1) course
from a life science group and at least one (1) course from a physical science group. One
of the courses must be PS1350 (Principles of Earth Science), PS1360 (Principles of
Physical Science), or LS1370 (Principles of Life Science), or at least one science lab
course.
Course Requirements for B.S. or B.A. Degree
II. Support Courses Required (or equivalent)
• ChFam SS1500 Human Development (3)
• Comm HU1020 Principles of Public Speaking (3)
or Comm HU1050 Introduction to Interpersonal and Small Group
Communication (3)
or Comm 3070 Performance Studies (3)
• MathEd 2310 Mathematics for Elementary Teachers (3)
• MathEd 2320 Mathematics for Elementary Teachers (3)
• PE 3630 Physical Education K-6 (2)
• Health 4300 Health Education in the Elementary School (2)
at least six credit hours from the following
• Music 3824 Music for Elementary Teachers (4)
• Dance 3640 Creative Movement in Elementary School (2)
• Theatr 4603 Creative Drama (3)
• Educ 2000 Social Studies Concepts for Elementary Teachers (3)
• Educ 3390 Literacy in the Primary Grades (2)
• Educ 3430 Creative Processes in Elementary School (3)
• Engl 3300 Children's Literature (3)
• ChFam 2400 Family Relations (3)
• ChFam 2500 Development of the Child: Birth to Eight (3)
• ChFam 2570 The Child from Six to Twelve (3)
• ChFam 3640 Working with Parents (3)
• Psych 3000 Child Psychology (3)
• Psych 3140 Psychology of Adolescence (3)
• Psych 3250 Conditioning & Learning (3)
• Psych 3300 Applied Behavior Intervention with Children (3)
III. Professional Education Courses Required (37 credits)
° Level 1 (Core)
• Educ 3100 Instructional Planning and Assessment (3)
• Educ 3110 Instructional Technology (1)
• Educ 3140 Educational Psychology, Interpersonal Skills & Classroom
Management (3)
° Level 2 (Learners and Literacy)
• Educ DV3200 Foundations of Diversity: Culturally, Linguistically Responsive
Teaching (3)
• Educ 3240 Foundations, Methods & Assessments of Elementary Reading (3)
• Educ 3280 Elementary Social Studies Methods (3)
° Level 3 (Interdisciplinary Methods)
• Educ 4300 Elementary Mathematics Methods (3)
or Educ 4640 Diagnosis & Remediation of Math Problems (3)
• Educ 4320 Elementary Language Arts Methods (3)
• Educ 4330 Elementary Science Methods (3)
• Educ 4340 Elementary Art/Music Methods (3)
° Level 4 (Synthesis)
• Educ 4840 Student Teaching in Elementary Education (8)
•
Educ 4860 Elementary Senior Synthesis Seminar (1)
IV. Special Education Courses Required (31 credits)
• Educ 4510 Foundations in Special Education (3)
• Educ 4520 Planning & Managing the Special Education Learning Environment
(3)
• Educ 4521 Practicum in Special Education (2)
• Educ SI4530 Principles and Applications of Special Education Assessment (3)
• Educ 4540 Managing Student Behavior & Teaching Social Skills (3)
• Educ 4550 Instructional Content & Methods for Elementary Students (3)
• Educ 4580 Instructional Content, Methods & Transition for Secondary Special
Education Students (3)
• Educ 4581 Pre-Student Teaching in Special Education (4)
• Educ 4650 Diagnosis & Remediation of Reading Problems (3)
• Educ 4670 Special Education Student Teaching (4)
(completed with Level 4)
Provisional admission to teacher education is required prior to enrollment in 3000 level
and above education classes.
The Professional Education component of the Composite Elementary Education and
Special Education majors requires four semesters to complete. Therefore, it is very
important that candidates have completed the General Education requirements and have
taken at least some of the required Support Courses prior to entering the program.
Because of possible scheduling difficulties, failure to do so could mean spending an extra
semester (or more) in completing the program.
SPECIAL EDUCATION
MINOR/ENDORSEMENT (Secondary only)
» Grade Requirements:
A GPA of 3.00 or better in courses used toward the minor in addition to an overall GPA
of 3.00 or higher.
» Credit Hour Requirements: 20 credit hours required.
Students must satisfy the Teacher Education admission and licensure requirements as
described earlier in this section of the catalog.
Course Requirements for the Minor
Required Courses (34 credit hours)
• Educ 4510 Foundations in Special Education (3)*
• Educ 4520 Planning & Managing the Special Education Learning Environment
(3)*
• Educ 4521 Practicum in Special Education (2)
• Educ SI4530 Principles and Applications of Special Education Assessment (3)*
• Educ 4540 Managing Student Behavior & Teaching Social Skills (3)
• Educ 4550 Instructional Content & Methods for Elementary Students (3)
• Educ 4580 Instructional Content, Methods & Transition for Secondary Special
Education Students (3)
• Educ 4581 Pre-Student Teaching in Special Education (4)
and 3 credit hours in reading
• Educ 4650 Diagnosis & Remediation of Reading Problems (3)
or
• MEduc 6315 Foundations of Teaching Reading in Secondary Education (3)
and 3 credit hours in math
• Educ 4640 Diagnosis & Remediation of Math Problems (3)
and student teaching
• Educ 4670 Special Education Student Teaching (4) (If not completed as a part of
Educ 4880)
*May be taken prior to provisional admission. See Teacher Education Advisement
Center, ED230, for assistance with registration for these courses if not admitted.
ATTACHMENT A
Candidate Information
Directions: Provide three years of data on candidates enrolled in the program and
completing the program, beginning with the most recent academic year for which
numbers have been tabulated. Please report the data separately for the levels/tracks
(e.g., baccalaureate, post-baccalaureate, alternate routes, master’s, doctorate) being
addressed in this report.
Program: Special Education Elementary and Secondary
Academic
Year
2003-2004
2002-2003
2001-2002
1
# of Candidates
Enrolled in the
Program
34
38
28
# of Program
Completers1
22
19
18
Program completers are defined for Title II purposes as persons who have met all the requirements of a
state-approved teacher preparation program. Program completers include all those who are documented as
having met such requirements. Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional certificate,
program credential, transcript, or other written proof of having met the program’s requirements.
ATTACHMENT B
Department of Teacher Education Faculty
Faculty
Rank
Tenure
Track
(Yes/
No)
Scholarship, Leadership in
Professional Associations, and
Service: List 2-3 major
contributions in the past 3 years
Department
Chair
Associate
Professor
Yes/
Tenured
Curriculum
Director
Associate
Professor
Yes/
Tenured
Penee Stewart Ph.D.
Instructional
Psychology
Level 1
Assistant
Professor
Yes
Vicki Napper
Ph. D.
Education
Level 1
Assistant
Professor
Yes
Louise
Moulding
Ph. D.
Evaluation &
Research
Assistant
Professor
Yes
• Editorial Board: The Reading
Teacher
• President, Utah Council IRA
• Presented at 49th Annual IRA
Conference: “Beyond
Traditional Phonics
Instruction”
• 7th Ed. Of “A Practical Guide
to Early Childhood
Curriculum”
• Chair of WSU Storytelling
Committee 2003-present
• Faculty Advisor to WSU IRA
• Co-Editor UCIRA Journal
• WSU Teaching Learning
Forum Committee
• AERA Presentation 2004
• Associate V.P. SITE TIG
efolios & assessment
• Chapter AECT Definitions
(Ethics issues)
• Member USOE Mentor Group
• Board Member Utah ASCD
• Higher Ed Rep: Northern Utah
Curriculum Consortium
Faculty
Member
Name
Degree &
Field
Michael E.
Cena
Ph.D.
Elementary
Education
w/emphasis
in reading
Claudia
Eliason
Ed.D
Educational
Leadership
Assignment:
Indicate the
role of the
faculty
member
Level 1
Teaching or other
professional
experience in schools
18 years elementary
teacher, 4 years
district office, Current
Utah Level 3
Elementary license
with basic and
advanced reading
9 years Elementary
/Preschool teaching,
Current Utah Level 3
Elementary/Early
Childhood License
2 yrs school wide
enrichment leader, 1
yrs reading specialist
8 yrs HS science
teacher, 7 yrs district
administration,
Current Level 3
Marilyn
Lofgreen
MS
Curriculum &
Instruction
Level 1
Instructor
Specialist
Yes/
Tenured
• Presenting Northern Utah
Curriculum Consortium
• WSU Teaching and Learning
Forum Presentations
• TAPT Program Curriculum
Coordinator
Ann Ellis
Ph.D.
Educational
Psychology
emphasis in
Gifted Ed.
Level 1
Associate
Professor
Yes/
Tenured
Ray Wong
Ph.D.
Education
Ed.D
Curriculum&
Instruction
Level 2E
Professor
Level 2E
Professor
Yes/
Tenured
Yes/
Tenured
• Weber State University Faculty
Senate, College of Education
Senator
• Utah Association for Gifted
Children, Creativity
Extravaganza, Co-chair
• “The Child as Storyteller:
Identifying Characteristics.”
presentation at the annual
meeting of the National
Association for Gifted
• Board member UASCD
Al Forsyth,
Jr.
Ed.D
Curriculum&
Instruction
Level 2E
Professor
Yes/
Tenured
Shirley Leali
Ph. D.
Curriculum &
Instruction
Mathematics
Level 3E
Professor
Yes/
Tenured
Mike Smith
• President, Utah Assoc. of
Teacher Educators
• Distinguished Teaching Award,
NCGE
• Eisenhower Prof. Development
Grant
• “Do We have to Test Teacher
Content Knowledge” at AERA
Secondary License
13 yrs Elementary,
K-12 Administration
Endorsement,
Current Utah Level 2
Elementary License,
USOE Curriculum
Trainer
6 yrs elementary/
gifted & talented
program teacher
Current Utah
Elementary Level 2
License/Resource
endorsement
2 yrs Middle School
ESL
High School Social
Studies
25 yrs teaching
Elementary, Middle
School and High
School
Education
• Member-Advisory Council Utah
Black Educators
• T.E. Reading Committee
• Member UCIRA and IRA
• Society of Children Book
Writers and Illustrators
Paul Pitts
Ed.D
Educational
Leadership
Level 3E
Associate
Professor
Yes
Richard
Pontius
Ph.D.
Science
Education
Level 3E
Assistant
Professor
Yes
Karen
Lofgreen
Ed.D.
Higher
Education
Ed. D.
Special
Education
Level 3E
Professor
Yes/Ten
ured
Special
Education
Program
Associate
Professor
Yes/
Tenured
• WSU Teaching& Learning
forum chair
• CEC Teacher
John C.
Mayhew
Ph. D.
Special
Education
Level 2S
Special
Education
Program
Assistant
Professor
Yes
Judy Bezoski
MS
Special
Education
Instructor
Specialist
Yes/
Tenured
Kristin
Radulovich
MS Business
Information
Systems
Level 2E
Special
Education
Program
Advisement
Coordinator
• President Utah Division for
learning Disabilities
• VP Utah CEC
• Program Chair Am. Councio on
Rural Special Ed.
• Admission & Retention
Committee
• Americans with Disabilities
• Member UCIRA, IRA, CEC
Fran Butler
Professional
Staff
• “Scaffolding Techniques in
Science Classroom” NRMERA,
10/04
• “Strategies for Increasing
Science Comprehension”
TESOL 10/04
• Chair WSU Story Telling
Festival 1995-2003
31 yrs Elementary
teacher
Current Utah Level 3
Elementary License/
ESL endorsement
13 yrs Elementary
teacher, 1 yr MS
Science teacher,
*Retired 12/04
24 yrs Elementary
teacher
10 yrs teaching
Licensed in
Elementary and
Special Education
5 yrs teaching
Current Utah Level 3
Elementary License
12 yrs teaching
Special Education k12
Daryl Attig
MA
Administration
Clinical
Practice
Coordinator
Professional
Staff
16 yrs classroom
teaching,
14 yrs administration
Section II - chart
Title of Assessment1
Type or
Form of
Assessment2
When the
Assessment Is
Administered3
Assessment
Scoring
Guides/Criteria
Data
Table
□
□
□
□
□
x
x
x
x
x
□
x
x
x
x
□
□
□
1
Praxis II
2
Course Grade Point Averages
State licensure
exam
GPA
3
Case Study
Case Study
4
Student Teaching Checklist
Checklist
5
Teacher Work Sample
Project
6
Portfolio
Portfolio
7
[Additional assessment that addresses CEC
standards (optional)]
x
x
x
x
□
8
[Additional assessment that addresses CEC
standards (optional)]
□
1
Admission to
student teaching
Ongoing
throughout
program
Educ 4550
Educ 4580
Completion of
program
Completion of
program
Completion of
program
Attachments
4
Identify assessment by title used in the program; refer to Section IV for further information on appropriate assessment to include.
Identify the type of assessment (e.g., essay, case study, project, comprehensive exam, reflection, state licensure test, portfolio, etc.).
3
Indicate the point in the program when the assessment is administered (e.g., admission to the program, admission to student teaching/internship, required
course [specify title and number], or completion of the program).
4
NCATE requires that 80% of program completers in the most recent academic year must pass the required state licensure test in the content area in order to be
eligible for program recognition. Programs are exempt from this requirement when the state does not have a required test, or if the program does not have a total
of ten completers over the past three years. NCATE uses the Title II definition of “program completers,” i.e. persons who have met all the requirements of a
degree program or a state-approved preparation program.
Licensure test data must reflect the percentage of candidates who have passed the state licensure test for each year over the past three academic years,
including the most recent year. The most recent year of data must include the mean and range of total scores and subscores on the licensure test. Data must be
presented for all program completers, even if there were fewer than 10 test takers in a given year. A Title II, state, or test agency report may be submitted as a
scanned attachment, as long as those reports present data as specified above.
2
Section II assessment 2
Course Grade Point Averages
Aggregated Assessment Results for Fall 2004:
Table 1. WSU Course Content Emphasis of CEC Special Education Content Standards
Course
4510
4520
4530
4540
4550
4580
4640
4650
4521
4581
Std. 1
Std. 2
Std. 3
HE
E
E
E
HE
E
HE
E
E
E
E
E
E
HE
E
HE
E
HE
E
Std. 4
Std. 5
Std. 6
E
E
E
E
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
E
E
HE
E
HE
HE
Std. 7
HE
HE
HE
HE
HE
E
E
E
E
E
HE
HE
HE = High Emphasis
E = Emphasis
Table 2. Mean Course Grade by Semester*
Course
4510
4520
4530
4540
4550
4580
4640
4650**
4521
4581
Spring 2004
Summer 2004
3.35
4.0
3.85
Fall 2004
3.7
3.3
3.66
3.85
3.97
3.76
4.0
4.0
Std. 8
3.41
3.44
3.98
3.85
3.6
* A = 4.0
** course includes non-special education program students
Std. 9
E
E
HE
E
E
E
E
HE
Std.
10
HE
E
E
E
E
E
E
HE
Section II assessment 3
Case Study
You will be applying the TREC model as you reflect, collaborate, and engage in the
following activity.
Using the assigned case study, you will:
¾ identify needs
¾ assess settings
¾ design a behavior management plan
¾ plan instruction.
The following items must be turned in for full credit:
• Cover page.
• Needs Assessment. Use the form provided in the program. Explain how you
arrived at your conclusions with specific examples.
• Settings Assessment. Use the form provided in the program. Describe specific
instances where the student is successful and where she or he is unsuccessful.
Discuss why you think this is so.
• Instructional Plan. Write at least 3 goals with accompanying benchmarks which
could be used in the student’s IEP. Be sure to fully explain why you think these
are important and realistic for this student. Give specific examples.
• Behavior Management Plan. Design a behavior intervention plan for the student
based on your observations and other data. Again, explain why you think these
are important and realistic for this student. Give specific examples. Include any of
the Tools you would use to implement this plan.
• IEP. We will work on this together in class, but you must include your copy in the
folder.
• Summary and Reflections. You should describe your overall project here,
including your reflections on the case.
1.
Open the case study and determine a location for saving your work files – probably
on a floppy disk. View the Meet the Student component first. You will have an
overview of the steps in the instruction and management process, an orientation to the
case study, a video showing the student, and an interview with his program
coordinator.
2.
Watch the videos for the case study and listen to interviews contained in Assess
Needs.
3.
Review the information contained in Get Information for background to the case and
educational programming. Search for the student’s assessment and programming
information in Case Records. Review the school’s disciplinary policies in
Disciplinary Policies. Learn about various approaches in Poster Sessions. You can
jump directly to Tool Resources from the Get Information screen.
4.
Use the Take Notes option to make notes for yourself while you gather information.
5.
Use the Read Notes option to view the notes you have taken.
6.
Do the instruction and planning activities in Plan Instruction. Complete “Identify
Needs,” “Assess Setting,” “Design Management,” and “Plan Instruction.” Be sure to
save your work in each activity. You will have an opportunity to add to your planning
documents later in the case program.
7.
Tool Resources can be used to create instruction and management materials for the
student. Background information, steps for construction, tips for effectiveness,
examples, and further references for each tool are provided.
8.
In the Work with Others component, listen to recommendations on generalization
procedures in school, home, and community settings by three experts.
9.
In the Evaluate Plans component, you can “Consult with Experts” to receive case
commentaries. After listening to their recommendations, go to “Reflect on your
Plans” in the two areas of instruction and management. For each planning area, you
can view your previously-made plans, reflect on your plans by entering reflections,
and evaluate and up-date your plans.
10.
After closing the program, open the files on your floppy disk using a word processing
program. You can edit these files with your word processor.
Student:
Date completed:
Date scored:
Case Study Rubric
Project Element
Cover page and Organization
Needs Assessment
Setting Analysis
Plan Instruction and Reflection
Management Design and Reflection
IEP
Summary and Reflections
Project Total
Points
Possible
5
15
15
15
15
15
20
100
My Points
Cover Page and Organization
Beginning – 1/5
Developing – 3/5
Accomplished – 5/5
Points
Stated Objective
or Performance
Performance
characteristics reflecting
a beginning level of
performance
Performance
characteristics reflecting
a development toward
mastery
Performance characteristics
reflecting a mastery of
performance
0-5
Organization
No cover page;
Content somewhat
organized; ideas not
presented coherently;
transition not always
smooth which was
distracting
Acceptable cover
page; Presented in a
thoughtful manner;
signs of organization
but at times ideas were
unclear
Acceptable or superior
cover page; Extremely
well organized; easy to
follow format; flowed
smoothly; organization
enhanced effectiveness of
project
Identify Needs
Points
Beginning – 1/3
Stated Objective or
Performance
Performance
characteristics reflecting a
beginning level of
performance
Indicator 1
Developing – 2/3
Accomplished – 3/3
Performance
characteristics
reflecting a
development toward
mastery
Performance
characteristics
reflecting a mastery of
performance
Indicator 2
Indicator 3
Completeness
Only 1 need is
identified (4/5 steps
completed).
2-3 needs are
identified (4/5 steps
completed).
4-5 needs are
identified (4/5 steps
completed).
Identification
Correctness
Analysis of an
academic need.
Description of need
includes case-based
information.
Desired alternative
has a direct
correspondence to
identified need.
Analysis
demonstrates
sensitivity to the
child’s perspective.
Identification
Correctness
Analysis of
behavioral need.
Description of need
includes case-based
information.
Desired alternative
has a direct
correspondence to
identified need.
Analysis
demonstrates
sensitivity to the
child’s perspective.
Identification
Correctness
Analysis of social
skill need.
Description of need
includes case-based
information.
Desired alternative
has a direct
correspondence to
identified need.
Analysis
demonstrates
sensitivity to the
child’s perspective.
Identification
Correctness
Analysis of any
other (one)
analysis (Choose
the most complete
or “best” for
scoring).
Description of need
includes case-based
information.
Desired alternative
has a direct
correspondence to
identified need.
Analysis
demonstrates
sensitivity to the
child’s perspective.
Comments:
0-3
Setting Analysis
Points
Beginning – 1/3
Stated Objective or
Performance
Performance
characteristics
reflecting a beginning
level of performance
Indicator 1
Developing – 2/3
Accomplished – 3/3
Performance
characteristics
reflecting a
development toward
mastery
Performance
characteristics reflecting
a mastery of
performance
Indicator 2
Indicator 3
Completeness
A few parts of the
activity are
attempted or
completed (2-3
notes).
About half of the
parts of the activity
are attempted or
completed (4-5
notes).
Most parts of the
activity are attempted
or completed (6-8
notes).
Information
Information
provided in the case
is used in problem
solving.
Information is
included from
videos and/or
audios.
Information is
included from
school policies.
Information is related
to specifics in case
records and/or IEP
document.
Process
Process
demonstrates
multiple views or
considerations in
problem solving.
Comments include
differences across
settings, teachers,
and/or peers.
Critical discussion
or reflection is
included relative to
differences across
settings, teachers,
and/or peers.
Questions or needs for
further information are
identified.
Decision
Proposed decision
or solution
addresses unique
needs of case.
Recommendations
for change are
provided for 1
setting area.
Recommendations
for change are
provided for 2
setting area.
Recommendations for
change are provided
for 3 setting area.
Appropriateness
or Correctness
Solution is
consistent with best
practices contained
in Tool Resources
or Skill Resources
Comments about
rules are consistent
with factors of
effectiveness.
Comments about
behavioral
contingencies are
consistent with
recommendations
for external control
procedures.
Comments about
interpersonal
relationships suggest
cognitive-behavioral
instruction (e.g., social
skills).
Comments:
Only one example of an indicator is required to give credit to that indicator.
0-3
Plan Instruction and Reflection
Points
Beginning – 1/3
Stated Objective or
Performance
Developing – 2/3
Accomplished – 3/3
Performance
characteristics
reflecting a beginning
level of performance
Performance
characteristics
reflecting a
development toward
mastery
Performance
characteristics reflecting
a mastery of performance
Indicator 1
Indicator 2
Indicator 3
Completeness
Only one
instructional plan is
designed (4/6 areas
completed).
Two instructional
plans are designed
(4/6 areas
completed).
Three instructional
plans are designed (4/6
areas completed).
Information
Information
provided in the case
is used to identify
curriculum.
Curriculum areas
are selected that
can be observed in
the videos showing
child’s instruction.
Curriculum areas are
selected that were
described in the needs
analysis activity.
* Instruction
Planning
Complete planning
process is evident.
Specified
Curriculum
Curriculum planning
includes cognitivebehavioral
instruction.
Child’s background
information is
relevant to the
instruction.
At least one area of
cognitivebehavioral
instruction is
developed (4 out of
6 areas).
Reflections are
provided that are
consistent with
recommendations
made by the
experts (make
overall judgment
on similarity to
expert thinking).
Curriculum areas
are selected that
were described in
the case records
and/or IEP (must
address documented
needs).
Instructional
approach and/or
materials/activities
“fit” the instruction.
The proposed plan
is based on steps of
direct instruction.
(Provide description
of direct
instruction?)
Reflections are
provided that
demonstrate critical
thinking by
applying strategies
for transfer (make
overall judgment).
* Reflections
Instructional plans
demonstrate
movement to
thinking like an
expert.
The evaluation strategy
“fits” the instruction.
The evaluation strategy
“fits” the cognitivebehavioral skill.
Answers to best
practice prompts are
consistent with the
plan.
Comments:
* Select the one most complete or “best” plan for scoring and use that plan for all indicators.
0-3
Management Design and Reflection
Points
Beginning – 1/3
Stated Objective or
Performance
Developing – 2/3
Accomplished – 3/3
Performance
characteristics
reflecting a beginning
level of performance
Performance
characteristics
reflecting a
development toward
mastery
Performance
characteristics reflecting a
mastery of performance
Indicator 1
Indicator 2
Indicator 3
Completeness
Only one
management plan is
designed (4/6 areas
completed).
Two management
plans are designed
(4/6 areas
completed).
Three management
plans are designed (4/6
areas completed).
* Process
Process integrates
information from
earlier steps in
planning.
Behaviors are
selected that can be
observed in the
videos.
Behaviors are
selected that were
described in the
case records and/or
IEP.
Behaviors are selected
that were described in
the needs analysis
activity.
* Intervention
Management plan is
consistent with
approach taught in
case.
Identified
behaviors are fair
pairs.
Separate
interventions are
described for the
two behaviors.
The plan includes
changes or supports
through the setting
and/or instruction.
* Appropriateness
or Correctness
Solution is consistent
with best practices in
case program and
KidTools.
Recommendations
are consistent with
effective behavioral
programming (an
emphasis on
proactive behavior
change).
Recommendations
include setting
factors and/or
instructional
support.
* Reflections
Management plans
demonstrate
movement to thinking
like an expert.
Reflections are
provided that are
consistent with
recommendations
made by the
experts (make
overall judgment
on similarity to
expert thinking).
Reflections are
provided that
demonstrate critical
thinking by
applying strategies
for transfer (make
overall judgment).
Recommendations
include cognitivebehavioral instruction
through social skills,
conflict resolution,
cognitive restructuring,
or problem solving,
and/or anger control
training.
Answers to best
practice prompts are
consistent with the
plan.
Comments:
Select the one most complete or “best” plan for scoring and use that plan for all indicators.
0-3
Individual Education Program
Points
Beginning – 1/3
Developing – 2/3
Accomplished – 3/3
Performance
characteristics
reflecting a beginning
level of performance
Performance
characteristics
reflecting a
development toward
mastery
Performance
characteristics reflecting a
mastery of performance
Indicator 1
Indicator 2
Indicator 3
Completeness
A few parts of the
IEP are attempted or
completed.
Professional
Presentation
.
Jargon is used
inappropriately, or
labeling is used, or
confidentiality is
violated.
Current Level of
Educational
Performance.
PLEP lacks link to
assessment.
About half of the
parts of the IEP are
attempted or
completed.
Inconsistently
provides examples
to enhance
understanding of
jargon; uses nonlabeling language
and maintains
confidentiality.
PLEP is justified
by assessment data
and provides some
error analysis.
Annual Goals.
Annual goals lack
priority and fail to
reflect PLEP; goals
lack a direction for
student growth.
Annual goals
reflect PLEP; goals
show direction for
student growth.
Benchmarks/
Short-Term
Objectives
Benchmarks/STIOs
generally fail to
directly relate to
annual goals.
All
benchmarks/STIOs
directly relate to
goal and contain
condition,
observable and
measurable
behavior, and
verifiable criteria.
Stated Objective or
Performance
Most parts of the IEP
are attempted or
completed.
Consistently provides
examples to enhance
understanding of
jargon; uses nonlabeling language and
maintains
confidentiality.
PLEP is justified by
assessment data,
provides error analysis,
and is tied to Core
curriculum.
Annual goals are
prioritized according to
state, national, and
local standards and
reflect PLEP; goals
reflect skill direction;
transition planning is
included.
All benchmarks/STIOs
directly relate to goal
and contain condition,
observable and
measurable behavior,
and verifiable criteria;
benchmarks/STIOs are
sequenced correctly.
Comments:
Only one example of an indicator is required to give credit to that indicator.
0-3
Reflection and Summary
Points
Beginning – 1/5
Developing – 3/5
Accomplished – 5/5
Performance
characteristics
reflecting a beginning
level of performance
Performance
characteristics
reflecting a
development toward
mastery
Performance
characteristics reflecting a
mastery of performance
Indicator 1
Indicator 2
Indicator 3
Clarity and
Accuracy
Unclear; inaccurate;
rambling.
Well-written, articulate
paper; no errors
Overall Project
Summary and
Exemplars
(What)
.
One or more
sections are not
addressed; missing
or misidentified
examples
Description of
Implications
(So What)
Missing or unclear;
difficult to
determine personal
stance.
Direction for
Future Growth
(Now What).
Little connection is
made between the
project and future
career in teaching.
Commonalities are
not identified.
Paper is easy to
understand;
contains few errors.
Superficial
summary; all
sections addressed;
two or three
obvious examples
presented.
Clear statements of
belief reflective of
a personal
philosophy of
special education.
Several
commonalities are
identified between
project and future
career.
Stated Objective or
Performance
Comments:
Detailed summary
using four or more
examples which are
analyzed and
contrasted.
Articulate, reflective
statements based on
theory and personal
experience.
Commonalities are
explored and
summarized by clearly
communicated themes.
0-5
Aggregated Assessment Results for Fall 2004:
Project Element
Cover page and Organization
Needs Assessment
Setting Analysis
Plan Instruction and Reflection
Management Design and Reflection
IEP
Summary and Reflections
N = 13
Percentage of Students
Beginning Developing Accomplished
0
0
100
0
8
92
0
8
92
0
15
85
0
15
85
0
0
100
0
8
92
Section II assessment 4
Aggregated Assessment Results for Fall 2004
Comprehensive Evaluation of Special Education Student Teaching (Checklist)
Completed by the Candidate’s Collaborating Teacher
Criteria
I. Assessment & Evaluation Skills
A. Standardized Test
B. Curriculum Based Assessment
C. Behavioral Observation
D. Environmental Assessment
II. Program Planning & Development
A. IEP Development
B. Daily Instructional Planning
III. Program Implementation
A. Presents Instruction
B. Practice Opportunities
C. Evaluation
D. Closure
E. Setting
IV. Management
A. Program and Classroom
B. Behavior Management
C. Record
V. Professionalism
A. Interpersonal Relations
B. Commitment to the Profession
C. Image
Percentage of Candidates Receiving Each Rating
1
2
3
4
5
6
100%
100%
100%
92%
8%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
92%
83%
83%
92%
100%
100%
8%
17%
8%
8%
8%
N = 12
Rating Scale:
1= consistently demonstrates skill
2= often demonstrates skill, sometimes requires support or reminders
3= sometimes demonstrates skill, frequently requires support or reminders
4= is knowledgeable of the skill but rarely demonstrates utilization
5= is not knowledgeable of the skill and does not demonstrate utilization
6= not observed
Section II assessment 5
Teacher Work Sample (TWS)
You are required to teach a comprehensive unit. Before you teach the unit, you will describe
contextual factors, identify learning goals based on your state or district content standards, create
an assessment plan designed to measure student performance before (pre-assessment), during
(formative assessment) and after (post-assessment), and plan for your instruction. After you
teach the unit, you will analyze student learning and then reflect upon and evaluate your teaching
as related to student learning.
Format
Ownership. Complete a cover page that includes a) your name, b) date submitted, c) grade level
taught, d) subject taught, and d) your university.
Table of Contents. Provide a Table of Contents that lists the sections and attachments in your
TWS document with page numbers.
Attachments. Charts, graphs and assessment instruments are required as part of the TWS
document. You may also want to provide other attachments, such as student work. However, you
should be very selective and make sure your attachments provide clear, concise evidence of your
performance related to TWS standards and your students’ learning progress.
Narrative length. You have some flexibility of length across components, but the total length of
your written narrative (excluding charts, graphs, attachments and references) should not exceed
twenty (20) word-processed pages, double-spaced in 12-point font, with 1-inch margins.
References and Credits (not included in total page length). If you referred to another person’s
ideas or material in your narrative, you should cite these in a separate section at the end of your
narrative under References and Credits. You may use any standard form for references;
however, the American Psychological Association (APA) style is a recommended format
(explained in the manual entitled “Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association”). (See APA website.)
Instructions: Use the following 7 sections as a guideline to plan and create a TWS for a two or
three-week long unit you both plan and teach.
Contextual Factors
The teacher uses information about the learning-teaching context and students’ individual differences to set learning
objectives and plan instruction and assessment.
•
•
•
•
•
Knowledge of community, school, and classroom factors:
Knowledge of characteristics of student(s):
Knowledge of students’ varied approaches to learning:
Knowledge of students’ skills and prior knowledge:
Implications for instructional planning and assessment
Objectives/Intended Learning Outcomes
The teacher sets significant, challenging, varied and appropriate objectives.
•
•
•
•
Alignment with national or state standards
Significant, challenging, and variety
Clarity
Appropriateness for students
Assessment Plan
The teacher uses multiple assessment modes and approaches aligned with objectives to assess student learning
before, during, and after instruction.
•
•
•
•
•
Alignment with objectives and instruction
Clarity of criteria for performance
Multiple modes and approaches
Technical soundness
Adaptations based on the individual needs of students
Design for Instruction
The teacher designs instruction for specific learning objectives, student characteristics and needs, and learning
contexts.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alignment with objectives
Accurate representation of content
Sound lesson structure (Hunter, 4MAT, Inquiry, Multiple Intelligences, etc.)
Use of a variety of strategies, activities, assignments, and resources
Use of contextual information and data to select appropriate and relevant activities, assignments and resources.
Integration of appropriate technology
Instructional Decision- Making
The teacher uses ongoing analysis of student learning to make instructional decisions.
•
•
•
Utilizes sound professional practices
Adjustments based on analysis of student learning and incorporation of correctives and extensions.
Congruence between modifications and objectives
Analysis of Student Learning
The teacher uses assessment data to profile student learning and communicate information about student progress
and achievement.
•
•
•
•
Clarity and accuracy of presentation
Alignment with learning goals
Interpretation of data
Evidence of impact on student learning
Reflection and Self-Evaluation
The teacher reflects on his or her instruction and student learning in order to improve teaching practice.
•
•
•
•
•
Interpretation of student learning
Insights on effective instruction and assessment
Alignment among objectives, instruction, and assessment
Implications for future teaching
Implications for professional development
TWS Rubric
Description of
Expectation
Met
Developing
Beginning
Contextual
Factors
Identify the target grade
and describe the target
population. This should
be a full paragraph that
describes the
population's likes,
dislikes, their
developmental stage, etc.
The unique attributes of
your target population are
very clear AND you
provide specific details.
Description of target
population is general.
You provide some
details.
Description of target
population is vague.
You provide few or
irrelevant details.
Objectives /
Learning
Outcomes
Describe the goal of the
unit and the relevance of
the unit and lessons for
this population. Use a
Unit Organizer to show
the relationships of
lessons within your unit.
Explain the scope and
sequence. What should
the students already have
learned? How do you
know they are ready?
Your goal is clearly stated
and the unit and lessons
are obviously appropriate
for this group. You
provide a complete unit
organizer. Lessons fit into
the unit plan logically.
Your goal is stated but
is wordy and the unit
and lessons are
clearly appropriate for
this group. You provide
a unit organizer but the
linkage among the
lessons is not logical.
Your goal is vague
or unclear and/or,
the appropriateness
of the unit and
lessons (for this
group) is not
convincing. Your
unit organizer is
unclear and/or
incomplete.
Describe the specific
behavior that the students
will perform, the
conditions under which it
will be performed, and
the criteria for assessing
mastery. Objectives must
be aligned with Core
Curriculum and national
standards.
Behavior, criteria, and
conditions are clearly
communicated and clearly
and concisely written (no
unnecessary
words). Standards are
clearly identified and
appropriate.
Two of the three
(behavior, criteria,
and/or conditions) are
apparent. Objectives are
not clearly tied to Core
Curriculum.
Behavior, criteria,
and/or conditions
are unclear or
missing. No
reference to Core
Curriculum.
For each lesson, describe
the assessment measure
for determining whether
the lesson's objective(s)
were met. Provide a
summative assessment
for the unit.
The behavior assessed
exactly matches the
behavior described in the
objective and description
of each lesson. Your
summative assessment
covers the entire unit and
clearly relates to the unit’s
goal. You have used
multiple means of
assessment and have
adapted to meet the needs
of your students.
The behavior assessed
closely resembles the
behavior described in
the objective and
description of each
lesson. Your summative
assessment does not
address each of the
lessons or does not
relate to the unit’s goal.
There is little evidence
of adapting to meet the
needs of your students.
The behavior
assessed is
inconsistent with
that described in the
objective and/or
description of one or
more lessons.
Summative
assessment is
incomplete or not
present.
Overview
Objectives /
Learning
Outcomes
Lesson and
Unit
Objectives
Assessment
Plan
List all materials (and
explanations if
necessary) including
electronic files, that are
needed for lesson. Be
sure to have a reference
list!
Materials are listed and
explained. Materials are
carefully chosen to
enhance the concepts
being taught. There is a
complete reference list.
All materials are listed,
but how they are to be
used is a bit
unclear. Some items are
not referenced.
All materials are not
listed and/or are
poorly organized.
There is no
reference list
provided.
Describe how the lesson
will work. Describe the
lesson so that another
teacher could understand
it and implement it
without your presence.
(Note - use a bulleted or
numbered list to clearly
organize the procedures
to follow. Use active
voice, direct address as if
you were talking to the
instructor)
Description is sufficiently
clear to enable a third
party to try the lesson out.
Description is clear yet
economically
written. Lessons align
with objectives, and
contextual information is
used to select appropriate
activities, assignments,
and resources. You have
used an appropriate
planning format. The
content is accurately
presented.
Description is fairly
clear. It may be a bit
wordy and/or repetitive.
Limited variety of
strategies, assignments,
and resources, or
contextual content is not
reflected adequately.
There are few errors in
content presented. You
have used an
appropriate planning
format but elements
may be missing.
Description is
unclear and difficult
to follow. Limited
variety of strategies,
assignments, and
resources, or
contextual content is
not reflected
adequately. There
are several errors in
content presented.
Your planning
format is sketchy
and many elements
are missing.
Instructional Is there evidence of
changes based on student
Decisionlearning? Have you used
Making
Universal Design for
Learning as appropriate
so modifications are
minimized?.
Your decisions are based
on sound professional
practices, and you have
indicated changes based
on student learning. Any
necessary modifications
retain the integrity of your
lesson objectives.
There is evidence of
some adjustment based
on student learning.
However, modifications
could have been made
that would have
benefited more of your
students. Some
adjustments or
modifications changed
the lesson’s objectives.
Modifications were
made that did not
relate to objectives.
Little use of
modifications or
adjustments. Little
awareness of student
learning.
Analysis of
Student
Learning
Describe how you used
assessment data to
profile student learning
and communicate student
progress and
achievement. Present
data on pre- and posttest
assessments, and
describe target students
at the high, median, and
low levels.
Data are presented clearly
and accurately. There is a
direct alignment with
stated learning goals. You
have provided a clear and
concise interpretation of
the data which provides
evidence of student
learning.
Data are presented
clearly and accurately,
and you have attempted
to align the data with
lesson and unit
objectives. Student
learning is evident, but
your interpretation is
vague or lacks sufficient
depth.
Data are unclear and
confusing and do
not seem to align
with objectives.
There is little
attempt to interpret
student learning or
to analyze your
impact.
Reflection
and SelfEvaluation
Describe and reflect on
your instruction and
student learning; how
will you improve your
teaching in the future?
What lessons have you
learned from this
experience?
You have meaningful
insights on student
learning, your instruction,
and assessment. You have
described implications for
future teaching and
professional growth
clearly and in depth.
You have identified
some areas for future
professional growth, but
have not linked them to
this experience. Some
observations are
shallow. You have more
description than
reflection.
Little evidence of
reflection.
Professional
development is not
addressed, or it is
unclear. Few
insights on effective
instruction or
assessment.
Design for
Instruction
Lesson
Materials
Design for
Instruction
Lesson
Description
Aggregated Assessment Results for Fall 2004:
Criteria
Contextual Factors
Objectives/Learning Outcomes
– Overview
Objectives/Learning Outcomes
– Objectives
Assessment Plan
Design for Instruction – Lesson
Materials
Design for Instruction – Lesson
Description
Instructional Decision-Making
Analysis of Student Learning
Reflection and Self-Evaluation
N = 12
MET
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
92%
100%
83%
Percentage of Students
DEVELOPING
BEGINNING
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
0%
0%
0%
17%
0%
Section II assessment 6
Portfolios for Beginning Special Educators
All candidates for licensure in special education are required to develop a professional portfolio
during their student teaching experience. The portfolio demonstrates the candidate’s knowledge
and skills of the Council for Exceptional Children’s Standards for Beginning Special Educators.
Choose artifacts that best demonstrate your understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of
the standard. Develop reflection statements for each artifact that provide an overview of the
artifact, justify how the artifact relates to the standard, and that describes your professional
development and learning. The portfolio should contain two - three artifacts for each standard
area. Artifacts should include: work samples, journals, photos, observations, lesson plan, course
work from classes, behavior plans, team meeting notes, etc. Please use the following information
for guidelines and examples.
Portfolio Guidelines
Your portfolio should be organized using the following format:
1. Table of contents: Identifies each section and the artifacts for each standard.
2. Overview:
-What is the purpose of your portfolio and what will the reader find in your portfolio?
-Philosophy of Special Education
-Resume
3. CEC Standards: A section for each standard. The section should include:
-Narrative Description of the CEC Standard
-Reflection: Overview of artifact, relationship to the standard and identification of what
you have learned
-Artifact: Clean copy, creatively and professionally presented
Please include 2-3 artifacts per standard. Each artifact needs its own reflection.
.We recommend that Standards 4, 7, and 8 have three artifacts.
Artifacts in Standards 4 and 7 should only include lessons you actually taught and include
an assessment component.
4. Professional Information
-Recommendations
-Evaluations
-PRAXIS Scores
-Transcripts
5. Final Reflection
-What have you learned and accomplished during your teacher preparation program?
-What are your goals and aspirations?
Adapted from Louise Supnick, http://pages.towson.edu/lsupnick/eportfolio
1
Sample Artifacts
The following is a list of sample artifacts for each CEC standard. You may choose artifacts from
this list or other artifacts that demonstrate your competence and knowledge.
Standard 1: Foundations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction to Special Education: observation
Families Interview
IEP Observation
Journal entry/observation addressing IEP process
Trends
Laws, rights, responsibilities of parents, teachers and other professionals
Why I Want to Be a Teacher?
Philosophy of behavior management
Philosophies that form the basis of education
Standard 2: Development and Characteristics of Learners
•
•
•
•
•
•
Knowledge of typical and atypical development
Observation of similarities and differences and individuals with and without exceptional
learning needs.
Research of a disability area
Learning styles
Inclusion observation
Family characteristics: impact of disability
Standard 3: Individual Learning Differences
•
•
•
•
•
Lesson plan using Visual, Auditory, Tactile, Kinesthetic
Lesson plan using Multiple Intelligences Theory
Observations of student with exceptional needs
Differentiated lessons, materials
Cultural Issues and the family
Standard 4: Instructional Strategies
•
•
•
•
Lesson plans and sample materials, photos, student work
Vary types, subjects, format: cooperative groups, reading, etc
Weekly plans
Detailed instructional strategies
2
Standard 5: Learning Environments and Social Interactions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Management plans
Positive Behavior Support Plan
Social Skills Lesson
Social skills portfolio summary
Behavior management strategies
Inclusion observation
Philosophy of Behavior Management
Standard 6: Language
•
•
•
•
•
Assistive Technology Projects
Communication books/devices
Adapted books
Family service learning project: literacy
Literacy activities
Standard 7: Instructional Planning
•
•
•
•
•
•
Choose examples from a variety of developmental areas/ages
Unit plans
IEP
Lesson plans
Student work samples
Case study
Standard 8: Assessment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Choose from a variety of developmental areas/age
Formal
Informal
Assessment reports
Observation of an assessment
Sample lesson plan assessments
Case Study
Standard 9: Professional and Ethical Practice
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lesson plans: self assessments
Parent support groups
Families shock journal
Reflections
Evaluation and feedback conferences
Service learning projects
Journal entries: goals/summary
3
Standard 10: Collaboration
•
•
•
•
•
Observations of team, IEP meetings
Collaboration project/presentation
Observation of parent support group
Family Resource folder
Collaboration Interview
4
PROFESSIONAL CEC PORTFOLIO RUBRIC
Directions to rater:
Criteria
CEC STANDARDS/
Artifacts
• Check only one box for each criterion.
• Circle words and phrases within cells that describe your observations
MET
• Artifacts included for course
work and Teacher Work
Sample (TWS)
• Evidence of student centered
lessons as artifacts
• Artifacts demonstrate clear
understanding of CEC
STANDARDS
• (Resume’ included for Sr.
Synthesis)
• Portfolio is neat, nicely
formatted, appealing.
• Minimum of two artifacts for
each CEC standard
• Portfolio purpose (to
document professional
growth) is clearly evident
DEVELOPING
• Limited artifacts that
represent course work and/or
TWS
• Weak evidence of student
centered lessons as artifacts
• Artifacts do not clearly
indicate understanding of
CEC STANDARDS
• (Limited resume’ at Sr.
Synthesis)
• Portfolio covers basics but
little attention given to details
• At least one artifact
representing each standard
• Portfolio purpose generally
evident
ORGANIZATION
• Portfolio well organized in
logical sequence
• Layout easy to understand
• Table of Contents makes
items and artifacts easy to
find
• Electronic artifacts clearly
identified (file names)
VARIETY OF MATERIALS
• Artifacts reflect broad range
of knowledge, skills, interests,
achievement
• Professionalism evident in
spelling, grammar,
punctuation, sentence
structure, clarity of writing
• Linkages obvious between
artifact, experience, and
CEC STANDARD
• Thoughtful reflections explain
why pieces included
• Reflections are relevant,
demonstrate personal
strengths and weaknesses,
show depth in reflecting on
practice
• Future goals indicate a
commitment to professional
growth
• Philosophy shows depth of
understanding and practicality
• Clearly and succinctly written
• Portfolio somewhat
organized, not all artifacts
easy to locate
• Layout plan not clear and
obvious
• Table of Contents included
but less than effective
• Electronic Artifacts identified
but not easy to find (file
names not helpful)
• Artifacts suggest limited
interests and/or talents
QUALITY and
APPEARANCE
MECHANICS
REFLECTIONS
PHILOSOPHY OF SPECIAL
EDUCATION
• Several mistakes in spelling,
grammar, punctuation, and
sentence structure
• Writing less than clear
• Reflections are surface and
need greater depth of
processing, but indicate some
thought
• Reflections do not explain
why artifacts are included or
lack of thought about why
artifact included
• Future goals not thoughtfully
chosen
•
Philosophy beginning to form
but not fully developed
NOT MET
• Artifacts are vague or absent
• Missing examples of student
centered lessons as artifacts
• Artifacts do not match CEC
standard they are submitted for.
• (No resume’ at Sr. Synthesis)
• Portfolio seems thrown together
with little attention to detail
• Graphics fail to enhance
purpose of portfolio
• Missing artifacts
• Purpose of portfolio vague or
inappropriate for professional
growth
• Little evidence of
organization; difficulty
finding artifacts
• Table of Contents not
included
• Electronic artifacts not easy to
find (file names inappropriate,
e.g. untitled.doc”)
• Scope of artifacts reflects
narrowness of interests and
limited experiences
• Many spelling, punctuation,
grammar, and sentence
structure errors
• Writing unclear
• Reflections missing or
sporadic
• No match between standards,
artifact, and reflection
• Reflections lack depth and
insight
• No understanding of why
artifact matches CEC
STANDARD
• Lacks future goals or
mismatch of goal and
standard
•
Philosophy statement
missing
5
Aggregated Assessment Results for Fall 2004:
Criteria
CEC Standards/ Artifacts
Quality and Appearance
Organization
Variety Of Materials
Mechanics
Reflections
Philosophy Of Special
Education
MET
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percentage of Students
DEVELOPING
NOT MET
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N = 12
6
Section III – chart
CEC STANDARD
1
FIELD EXPERIENCES AND CLINICAL PRACTICE STANDARD
Special education 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. These field and clinical experiences
are supervised by qualified professionals.
CONTENT STANDARDS
1. Foundations.
Content
Knowledge
Pedagogical/ Effect on
Professional
Student
KSD2
Learning3
Information is provided in Section I (Context) to address this standard.
◙
□
□
2. Development and Characteristics of Learners.
◙
□
□
3. Individual Learning Differences.
◙
□
□
4. Instructional Strategies.
□
◙
◙
5. Learning Environments and Social Interactions.
□
◙
◙
6. Language.
□
◙
◙
1
2
3
APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTS
FROM SECTION II
NCATE will provide a link to the full set of SPA standards, including indicators and supporting explanations.
KSD = knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
Student learning refers to students in P-12 classrooms and includes creating environments that support learning.
x1
x2
x1
x2
x1
x2
x1
x2
x1
x2
x1
x2
□#3
□#4
□#3
□#4
x3
□#4
x3
x4
x3
x4
□#3
x4
□#5 □#7
x6 □#8
□#5 □#7
x6 □#8
x5 □#7
x6 □#8
x5 □#7
x6 □#8
x5 □#7
x6 □#8
x5 □#7
x6 □#8
CEC STANDARD1
Content
Knowledge
Pedagogical/ Effect on
Professional
Student
KSD2
Learning3
7. Instructional Planning.
□
◙
◙
8. Assessment.
□
◙
◙
9. Professional and Ethical Practice.
□
◙
□
10. Collaboration.
□
◙
□
APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTS
FROM SECTION II
x1
x2
x1
x2
x1
x2
x1
x2
x3
x4
□#3
x4
□#3
x4
x3
x4
x5
x6
x5
x6
x5
x6
x5
x6
□#7
□#8
□#7
□#8
□#7
□#8
□#7
□#8
Section IV – EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS
Assessment #1 CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Praxis II Assessment 0353 Education of
Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge
1. Description
The Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge test is designed for individuals
who plan to teach in a special education program at any grade level from preschool through
grade 12. This one-hour exam is comprised of 60 multiple-choice questions that assess the
examinee’s knowledge of the basic principles of special education, focusing on three major
content areas: Understanding Exceptionalities, Legal and Societal Issues, and Delivery of
Services to Students with Disabilities. Although questions on the test address disabilities from
any degree varying from mild to profound, extensive knowledge of individual specialty areas
such as visual impairment or hearing loss is not required. A brief description of each content
area is provided in the following paragraphs:
Understanding Exceptionalities: Approximately 25-30% of the questions address this area, and
include the following topics: (a) Human development and behavior, including social and
emotional development and behavior, language development and behavior, cognition, physical,
motor, and sensory development; (b) Characteristics of students with disabilities, including the
influence of cognitive factors, affective and social-adaptive factors, including cultural, linguistic,
gender, and socioeconomic factors, genetic, medical, motor, sensory, and chronological-age
factors; (c) Basic concepts in special education, including definitions of all major categories and
specific disabilities, causation and prevention, degrees of severity, classifications as represented
in the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA’97), the
effects of labeling, ADHD, and the influence of level of severity and presence of multiple
exceptionalities; and (d) The influence of an exceptional condition throughout an individual’s
life span.
Legal and Societal Issues: Approximately 15-20% of the questions focus on this area. Questions
assess the candidate’s knowledge of federal laws and legal issues related to special education.
Topics addressed include: Public Law 94-142, Public Law 105-17 (IDEA’97), Section 504,
American with Disabilities Act (ADA), and important legal issues raised by the court cases,
including program appropriateness (Rowley), related services (Tatro), discipline (Honig), and
inclusion (Oberti). This part of the test also addresses the school’s connections with the families,
prospective and actual employers, and communities of students with disabilities. Topics
addressed include teacher advocacy, student self-advocacy, parent partnerships, public attitudes,
cultural and community influences, interagency agreements, and cooperative transition planning.
Historical movements and trends are also covered, including deinstitutionalization, application of
technology, transition, advocacy, accountability and meeting educational standards.
Delivery of Services to Students with Disabilities: Over half (50-60%) of the questions focus on
the delivery of services to students, and address the following five broad categories: (a)
Background knowledge, including conceptual approaches underlying service delivery, placement
and program issues, and integrating best practices from multidisciplinary research and
professional literature; (b) Curriculum and instruction and their implementation across the
continuum of educational placements, including the individualized family service plan (IFSP),
the individualized education program (IEP) process, instructional development and
implementation, teaching strategies and methods, instructional format and components, career
development and transition issues, and technology for teaching and learning in special education
settings; (c) Assessment, including use of assessment for screening, diagnosis, placement, and
instructional decision-making, formal and informal procedures and test materials; (d) Structuring
and managing the learning environment, and classroom management techniques; and (e)
Professional roles and responsibilities, including collaboration with other professionals, selfreflection, influence of teacher attitudes, values, and behaviors on the learning of exceptional
students, and communicating with parents, guardians, and appropriate community collaborators.
2. Alignment with SPA Standards:
The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) worked closely with ETS to align the Praxis II
assessments with the CEC Standards for the Preparation of Special Educators. CEC’s
Professional Standards and Practice Standing Committee (PSPSC) recommended and approved
Praxis II Assessment 0353 Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge as
meeting the CEC Common Core standards.
3. Summary of the Data
The Utah State Office of Education (USOE) will begin requiring Praxis II content tests as of July
2005. Beginning in the fall 2004 semester, WSU Teacher Education program will require all
students to test in their major and minor areas. Therefore, Praxis II data are not available at this
time but will be available for candidates completing the program in Spring 2005.
4. Interpretation of the Data
Currently, CEC is working with ETS to develop a national performance standard (or cut score)
for this test, to provide guidance to states as they establish state standards. The USOE has not set
a cut score for the Praxis II Assessment 0353 Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content
Knowledge at this time. When a cut score is set, the WSU Teacher Education Program will use
that score as an indicator of the candidate’s level of mastery of program content knowledge.
Assessment #2 CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Course Grade Point Average (GPA)
1. Description
Candidates are expected to maintain high professional and academic standards. Quality of work
and timely progress through the program are two criteria considered as evidence of professional
competence. Weber State University uses a 4-point grading system in which a grade of A (4.0) or
A- (3.7) designates excellent work, and B+ (3.3), B (3.0), and B- indicates good work.
Candidates must maintain a GPA of 3.0 in all university course work, not receiving a grade
lower than B- in any professional education course.
2. Alignment with SPA Standards
The WSU Special Education Mild/Moderate program consists of eight courses and two field
experiences taught in hierarchal order. Candidates use the knowledge and skills acquired in each
course to develop the dispositions and ethics required for success as a special educator. Each
course and field experience in the program has been designed to address one or more of the 10
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Special Education Content Standards as demonstrated
in Section II assessment 2.. The program includes the following courses and practica:
EDUC4510: Foundations in Special Education (3)
EDUC 4520: Planning and Managing the Special Education Learning Environment (3)
EDUC 4521: Practicum in Special Education (2)
EDUC 4530: Principles and Applications of Special Education Assessment (3)
EDUC 4540: Managing Student Behavior and Teaching Social Skills (3)
EDUC 4550: Instructional Content and Methods for Elementary Special Education
Students (3)
EDUC 4580: Instructional Content, Methods, and Transition for Secondary Special
Education Students (3)
EDUC 4581: Pre-Student Teaching in Special Education (4)
EDUC 4640: Diagnosis and Remediation of Math Problems (3)
EDUC 4650: Diagnosis and Remediation of Reading Problems (3)
3. Summary of Data
Over the last three semesters, mean course GPA scores have ranged from 3.3 – 4.0 (B+ - A).
4. Interpretation of the Data
Overall, the data show that the students in the special education mild/moderate program are
achieving at a high level. Having a competitive admissions process has been very helpful. One of
the requirements for admission is completion of at least 40 semester hours of general education
or relevant prerequisite courses with an overall GPA of 3.0 or higher, or 3.25 on the last 30
hours. Each course in the program is taught with an appropriate level of rigor, and assignments
are designed to help candidates apply concepts learned in class that they will find valuable in
their future careers. Candidates also demonstrate content knowledge through exams, research
projects, case studies and applied projects. Upon completion of the program, the vast majority of
our students have developed the entry-level skills needed to ensure success in the culminating
student teaching experience. Moreover, our program graduates are highly sought after by the
local school districts.
Assessment #3. ABILITY TO PLAN INSTRUCTION: Interactive Case Studies
1. Description
A series of interactive case studies presented on CD was developed by the University of
Missouri, Columbia and partially funded by Grant #H029K70089 from the U.S. Department
of Education. These case studies were designed to improve the knowledge and skills needed
by classroom teachers to successfully teach and manage children with emotional and
behavioral disorders. The CD presents three individual case studies, one each at the early
childhood, elementary, and secondary levels, with a wealth of supporting material. The CD
includes comprehensive assessment data, seven to eight 2-minute video clips of the child in
an actual school setting, and presentations by recognized experts in the field on a variety of
cognitive and behavioral interventions. In addition, a variety of teacher tools and templates
are provided to help candidates design items such as point cards, self-monitoring forms, and
token economy systems.
Each candidate is required to complete a comprehensive case study of Amy, an elementary
student, in Education 4550 – Instructional Content and Methods for Elementary Special
Education Students and of Deangelo, a secondary student, in Education 4580 – Instructional
Content, Methods, and Transition for Secondary Special Education Students, the final
courses before Clinical Practice. Candidates must identify needs, assess settings, and develop
instructional and behavioral plans appropriate for Amy and Deangelo. Candidates work on
these case studies individually throughout the semester, and the final class of the semester is
devoted to an IEP meeting for Amy or Deangelo. During the final class session, each
candidate is assigned a specific role on the IEP team and participates in the IEP from the
perspective of that team member. Candidates work together as they share their findings and
collaborate to develop effective and appropriate plans. The final case study is turned in to the
instructor for evaluation as a culminating project. A detailed rubric is used as the evaluation
instrument with 100 points possible for the project.
2. Alignment with SPA Standards:
This assessment is intended to address CEC Standards 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10.
Standard 3. Candidates must consider the developmental, social, and cultural characteristics
of Amy and Deangelo as they develop their instructional and behavioral plans. Because Amy
and Deangelo come from family and cultural backgrounds quite different from that of most
of our candidates, we are able to explore the impact that these factors have on an individual’s
development. This is demonstrated in the Assess Needs section of the assignment.
Standard 4. Candidates use validated instructional methods to plan appropriate and effective
instruction in the least restrictive environment. In addition to methods taught in the Special
Education program, the CD provides candidates with many evidence-based interventions
from which to choose. Through this activity, candidates learn that there are multiple valid
approaches to working with students with exceptional learning needs. This is indicated in the
Plan Instruction section of the assignment.
Standard 5. Candidates complete detailed setting analyses for Amy and Deangelo in order to
determine the conditions under which the student succeeds or struggles. Candidates consider
school-wide and classroom behavior expectations, individual preferences, and student
motivation as they design an effective behavior intervention plan. This is demonstrated in the
Setting Assessment and Plan Behavior Intervention sections of the assignment.
Standard 7. Candidates develop comprehensive IEPs for Amy and Deangelo as a
culminating activity. From their needs assessments, candidates select and prioritize needs,
develop long-range goals and short-term objectives, and plan for transition. This is
demonstrated in the IEP section of the assignment..
Standard 10. Candidates experience collaboration with families, other educators, and related
service providers through vignettes presented on the CD. During the culminating IEP,
candidates are assigned a role and participate from the perspective of that individual as they
develop IEP goals and objectives. This is demonstrated in the IEP section of the assignment.
3. Summary of the Data
Each case study is awarded up to 100 points based on a rubric. Over the last three semesters,
the mean score received was 91.6, with a range of 67-100. Although this assessment has been
used for the last three semesters, data were not collected for each separate category until Fall
2004. Thus, the attached table in Section II only gives data for Fall 2004, and each category
is reported as “Beginning,” “Developing,” or “Accomplished.”
4. Interpretation of the Data
The data presented above indicate that candidates effectively meet program standards for
each of the areas addressed by this assessment. Further, candidates have an opportunity to
improve their knowledge and skills because this assessment is administered twice in the
program. Thus, candidates who receive a lower score due to possible misinterpretation of
assignment expectations have the opportunity to score higher on the second case study after
consultation with a faculty member. Candidates who receive a rating of “Beginning” in any
category are required to resubmit until they meet at least the “Developing” criteria in each
category.
Assessment # 4. Pedagogical and Professional Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions:
Comprehensive Evaluation of Special Education Student Teaching (Checklist)
1. Description
To assess each candidate’s performance during the pre-student teaching and student teaching
experiences, the special education faculty have developed and utilize the Comprehensive
Evaluation of Special Education Student Teaching checklist. The checklist was developed to
reflect the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Knowledge and Skill Base Common Core
and Individualized General Curriculum Knowledge and Skills Base. The checklist assesses five
specific areas: (a) assessment and evaluation skills, (b) program planning and development, (c)
program implementation, (d) management, and (e) professionalism. Candidates are assessed
through direct observation by the cooperating teacher and university supervisor, and by artifacts
produced during the clinical practica. A 6-point rating scale is utilized:
1= consistently demonstrates skill
2= often demonstrates skill, sometimes requires support or reminders
3= sometimes demonstrates skill, frequently requires support or reminders
4= is knowledgeable of the skill but rarely demonstrates utilization
5= is not knowledgeable of the skill and does not demonstrate utilization
6= not observed
2. Alignment with SPA standards:
The pre-student teaching and student teaching experiences are designed to provide candidates
with opportunities to demonstrate competency in all 10 of the CEC Special Education Content
Standards. However, the checklist is primarily utilized to assess the candidates’ pedagogical and
professional knowledge, skills and dispositions on Standards 4 – 10. A brief summary of each
standard follows:
Standard 4 - Instructional Strategies: Candidates are assessed on their ability to utilize
effective models, strategies, techniques, and materials in the teaching process.
Standard 5 - Learning Environments and Social Interactions: Candidates are assessed on
program and classroom management, behavior management, and records management.
Standard 6 – Language: Candidates are assessed on their ability to adapt curriculum and
instruction to individual students’ language proficiency, and to utilize augmentative technologies
when needed.
Standard 7 – Instructional Planning: Candidates are required to develop daily written
lesson plans consistent with IEP goals and objectives.
Standard 8 – Assessment: Candidates administer, score, and interpret standardized normreferenced tests; develop, administer, score and interpret curriculum-based assessments; and
conduct and interpret behavioral and environmental assessments.
Standard 9 – Professional and Ethical Practice: Candidates are assessed on their
commitment to the profession, support of system standards, compliance with professional ethics,
and their professional image and dispositions.
Standard 10 – Collaboration: Candidates must demonstrate the ability to effectively
communicate and work with others across a variety of settings and situations; they are assessed
on their ability to develop and maintain positive relationships with supervisors, parents, students,
and colleagues.
3. Summary of Data:
Data from the fall 2004 semester show that all but one of the 12 candidates received ratings of 1
or 2 in each of the five categories; one candidate received a rating of 4 (knowledgeable of the
skill but rarely demonstrates it) in the area of management.
4. Interpretation of the Data:
The data presented above suggest that most candidates develop the necessary entry-level skills
required for successful practice upon completion of the program. However, classroom
management is typically one area with which beginning teachers struggle, and the data from this
assessment suggest that candidates will continue to need quality clinical experiences in which to
apply the knowledge acquired in their course work and to refine their skills.
Assessment #5. EFFECTS ON STUDENT LEARNING: Teacher Work Sample.
1. Description
The Teacher Work Sample (TWS) is a process that enables teacher candidates to demonstrate
teaching performances directly related to planning, implementing, assessing student learning,
and evaluating teaching and learning for a standards-based instructional unit. The TWS provides
opportunity for candidates to develop, organize, implement, assess, and reflect upon instruction
in their assigned subject and grade level. The focus of the TWS is on student achievement and
competence in knowledge and skills. Therefore, teacher work samples provide credible evidence
of a candidate’s ability to facilitate learning of all students.
Sections of Teacher Work Sample
. Contextual Factors
. Objectives/Learning Outcomes
. Assessment Plan
. Design for Instruction
. Instructional Decision-Making
. Analysis of Student Learning
. Reflection and Self-Evaluation
In the Special Education program, candidates create a TWS for a two-three week unit which is
taught during clinical practice under the guidance and supervision of the cooperating teacher and
university supervisor. Throughout the Clinical Practice, candidates receive ongoing feedback on
their lessons and assessment plan. During the final Clinical Practice synthesis, faculty members
meet with candidates to evaluate and reflect upon the TWS.
2. Alignment with SPA standards.
This assessment is intended to address CEC Standards 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Standard 3. Candidates must consider the developmental, social, and cultural characteristics
of their pupils in the contextual factors section of the TWS as they develop their instructional
and behavioral plans. .
Standard 4. Candidates use validated instructional methods to plan appropriate and effective
instruction in the least restrictive environment. In addition to methods taught in the Special
Education program, candidates consult with their cooperating teacher and university
supervisor.
Standard 5. The learning environment is described in the Contextual Factors section, and
candidates take that information into consideration when designing appropriate learning
environments and social interactions for pupils in their classroom. Candidates consider
school-wide and classroom behavior expectations, individual preferences, and student
motivation as they design effective behavior interventions and classroom management plans.
Standard 6. Candidates describe linguistic deficiencies and language and cultural differences
in the Contextual Factors section. These factors are specifically addressed when they plan for
instruction and assess pupil learning. Accommodations are designed to enhance the learning
of each individual in the classroom.
Standard 7. Candidates select and prioritize needs, develop long-range goals and short-term
objectives, and plan for transition in the Instructional Decision Making component of the
TWS.
Standard 8. Candidates employ multiple forms of assessment to insure the value of their
instruction. Assessments may be informal, such as student answers to teacher questions,
games, and observation of students. The unit also includes traditional assessments such as
quizzes, tests, reports, as well as other authentic assessments.
Section 9. Reflection and self-evaluation are an important feature of the TWS. Candidates
reflect on how their own attitudes, behaviors, and communication styles influence their
effectiveness as a teacher. Cooperating teachers and University Supervisors regularly
counsel candidates concerning professionalism and ethical practice.
Standard 10. Candidates collaborate closely with their cooperating teacher, other educators,
and related service providers in developing the TWS.
3. Summary of the Data. Faculty have been developing this model for the past several
semesters; however, it was first formally implemented Fall 2004. All 12 candidates met the
standards as outlined on the scoring rubric. Overall, each candidate’s TWS was of high quality.
4. Interpretation of the Data. Prior to meeting with the faculty members who evaluate the
TWS, candidates participate in peer-review sessions and have the chance to receive feedback and
make changes prior to formal evaluation. Thus, candidates have ample opportunity to revise and
refine their work. The data presented above indicate that candidates effectively meet program
standards for each of the areas addressed by this assessment.
Assessment #6. ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT THAT ADDRESSES CEC STANDARDS:
Portfolio
1. Description
All candidates for licensure in special education are required to develop a professional
portfolio during their student teaching experience. The portfolio demonstrates the candidate’s
knowledge and skills as outlined in the Council for Exceptional Children’s Standards for
Beginning Special Educators. Candidates choose artifacts that best demonstrate their
understanding, knowledge, and/or performance in each of the 10 CEC standards. As part of
this process, candidates must develop reflection statements for each artifact that provide an
overview of the artifact, justify how the artifact relates to the standard, and that describes
their professional development and learning. The portfolio contains two - three artifacts for
each standard area. Artifacts include work samples, journals, photos, observations, lesson
plans, course work from classes, behavior plans, team meeting notes, or other forms of
evidence.
Throughout the program, candidates are encouraged to continue work on their portfolios, and
portfolios are reviewed informally in the final two courses prior to student teaching. At the
end of each semester, a committee of faculty members in special education meets with
candidates who have completed student teaching for the purpose of evaluating the portfolios.
Portfolios are judged according to a rubric which lists six criteria. A criterion can be judged
as “met”, “developing”, or “not met”.
2. Alignment with SPA Standards:
This assessment is intended to address each of the CEC Standards specifically and in depth.
Instructions given to candidates list examples of artifacts that may be used to demonstrate
competency in each standard, but candidates are free to submit any artifact that they consider
relevant to the standard. Each artifact is accompanied by a reflective piece which details how
the candidate views the relationship between the artifact and the standard. Please see the
attached instructions and rubric for further detail.
3. Summary of the Data
For the 12 candidates completing student teaching in Fall 2004, all 12 candidates received
ratings of “met” on all six criteria.
4. Interpretation of the Data
The data presented above indicate that candidates effectively meet program standards for
each of the 10 CEC Standards. Further, the portfolios are a valuable tool to showcase
candidates’ readiness and preparation when they interview for professional teaching
positions.
SECTION V – USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE CANDIDATE AND
PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
1. Content Knowledge
Content knowledge is assessed from candidate performance on the Praxis II Assessment 0353
Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge, and on Course Grade Point
Average (GPA). The requirement to take the Praxis II test was initiated during the fall 2004
semester. At this time, no data are available for analysis. Also, the Utah State Office of
Education (USOE) has not established a cut score. When one is set, the special education faculty
will use that score as an indicator of the candidate’s level of mastery of program content
knowledge based on the Council for Exceptional Children’s (CEC) Common Core Standards.
The special education faculty will also use the Praxis II data to identify areas needing more
emphasis in course work, as well as areas in which candidates excel.
An analysis of the mean course grades in each of the eight program courses indicates that the
majority of the candidates are achieving at a high level. For the 16 course sections that were
taught between the spring 2004 semester and the fall 2004 semester, the mean course grade was
3.73, with a range of 3.3 to 4.0. Coursework and field experiences in the program have been
designed to address the 10 CEC Special Education Content Standards. Specific CEC knowledge
and skills are identified on each course syllabus, and a variety of assignments and exams are
used to assess students’ mastery of content knowledge. The faculty share a philosophy of
mastery learning, and candidates are provided opportunities to correct and refine assignments
until mastery is achieved. Moreover, faculty have made an on-going attempt to keep course
content current by attending national conferences and the Utah CSPD Consortium, actively
participating in professional organizations, reading current literature, and engaging in research
activities. Course content is revised each semester so that candidates have the most up-to date
information available.
2. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Candidates demonstrate professional and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions in a
variety of ways throughout the program. Each candidate is required to complete two
comprehensive case studies prior to Clinical Practice. Candidates must identify needs, assess
settings, and develop instructional and behavioral plans appropriate for the case subjects. Each
case study is awarded up to 100 points based on a rubric. Over the last three semesters, the mean
score received initially was 91.6, with a range of 67-100. These data indicate that candidates
effectively meet program standards for each of the areas addressed by this assessment.
To assess each candidate’s performance during the pre-student teaching and student teaching
experiences, the special education program uses a comprehensive checklist. The instrument was
developed using the CEC Knowledge and Skill Base Common Core and Individualized General
Curriculum Knowledge and Skills Base, and assesses five specific areas: (a) assessment and
evaluation skills, (b) program planning and development, (c) program implementation, (d)
management, and (e) professionalism. Candidates are assessed through direct observation by the
cooperating teacher and university supervisor, and by artifacts produced during the clinical
practica. A 6-point rating scale is utilized (1= consistently demonstrates skill; 6= not observed).
Data from the fall 2004 semester show that all but one candidate received ratings of 1 or 2 in
each of the five categories; one candidate received a rating of 4 (knowledgeable of the skill but
rarely demonstrates it) in the area of management. This suggests that most candidates develop
the necessary entry-level skills required for successful practice upon completion of the program.
However, classroom management is typically one area with which beginning teachers struggle,
and the data from this assessment suggest that candidates will continue to need quality clinical
experiences in which to apply the knowledge acquired in their course work and to refine their
skills. Data from past evaluations indicated that candidates often struggled in one or more areas
during the student teaching practicum. Prior to 2002, each course in the program had a
concurrent one-hour practicum attached. Moreover, candidates only had a five-week student
teaching experience in special education. The faculty determined that the series of one-hour
practica was not adequate to provide opportunities for candidates to develop and refine their
skills, and that the five-week student teaching practicum did not allow enough time for
candidates to demonstrate mastery of each of the skills listed on the checklist. Therefore, the
one-hour practica were reconfigured to provide a two-hour field experience attached to the
foundation courses (Educ 4510 and 4520), and a four-hour pre-student teaching practicum was
attached to the methods courses (Educ 4530, 4540, 4550, and 4580). The student teaching
practicum was also increased to 7 ½ weeks. These changes gave candidates 22 ½ weeks to
complete the checklist rather than five. Since making the change, cooperating teachers and
university supervisors have noted that the skill level of our candidates has increased
substantially.
Candidates also demonstrate pedagogical knowledge and skills through the development and
implementation of a comprehensive Teacher Work Sample (TWS) during clinical practice. The
TWS provides candidates with an opportunity to demonstrate teaching performances directly
related to planning, implementing, assessing student learning, and evaluating teaching and
learning for a standards-based instructional unit. A scoring rubric is used by faculty to assess
each candidate’s performance on the TWS. During the fall 2004 semester, all of the 12
candidates met the specified standards, and produced TWS that were effective and of highquality.
All candidates in the special education program are required to develop a professional portfolio
during their student teaching experience. The portfolio demonstrates the candidate’s knowledge
and skills as outlined in the Council for Exceptional Children’s Standards for Beginning Special
Educators. Candidates choose artifacts that best demonstrate their understanding, knowledge,
and/or performance in each of the 10 CEC standards. At the end of each semester, a committee
of faculty members in special education meets with candidates who have completed student
teaching for the purpose of evaluating the portfolios. Portfolios are judged according to a rubric
which lists six criteria. A criterion can be judged as “met”, “developing”, or “not met”.
For the 12 candidates completing student teaching in Fall 2004, all 12 candidates received
ratings of “met” on all six criteria. The data indicate that candidates effectively meet program
standards for each of the 10 CEC Standards.
3. Effects on Student Learning and on Creating Environments that Support Learning
Candidates demonstrate their effects on student learning primarily through the Teacher Work
Sample (TWS), the Comprehensive Evaluation of Special Education Student Teaching checklist,
and the professional portfolio. The focus of the TWS is on student achievement and competence
in knowledge and skills. Candidates design and employ multiple forms of assessments of the
lessons as part of the TWS. Assessments may be informal, such as student answers to teacher
questions, games, and observation of students. The TWS also includes traditional assessments
such as quizzes, tests, reports, as well as other authentic assessments. Candidates are encouraged
to utilize frequent assessment of student learning to monitor individual progress. Faculty have
been developing this model for the past several semesters; however, it was first formally
implemented Fall 2005. All 12 candidates met the standards as outlined on the scoring rubric,
and each candidate’s TWS was of high quality. The data presented above indicate that candidates
effectively assess student learning.
One section of the Comprehensive Evaluation of Special Education Student Teaching checklist is
devoted to assessment. Candidates are evaluated on their ability to administer, score, and
interpret standardized norm-referenced tests; develop, administer, score and interpret curriculumbased assessments; and conduct and interpret behavioral and environmental assessments.
Data from the fall 2004 semester show that all 12 candidates received ratings of 1 or 2 in the
assessment category (1= consistently demonstrates skill).
The professional portfolio is organized around the CEC Standards for Beginning Special
Educators. Candidates choose artifacts that best demonstrate their understanding, knowledge,
and/or performance in each of the 10 standards. Artifacts include work samples, journals, photos,
observations, lesson plans, course work from classes, behavior plans, team meeting notes, or
other forms of evidence. During the fall 2004 semester, all 12 candidates were rated as having
“met” CEC Standard 8 for assessment of student learning.