Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LEARNING AND BEHAVIOR DISORDERS 2009-2010
Assessment 1: State Licensure Examinations--LBD Praxis II Series
Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge (0353); Education of Exceptional Students Mild to Moderate Disabilities (0542)
Learning and Behavior Disorders Licensure (LBD)
Description of the Assessment:
Eastern Kentucky University and the Commonwealth of Kentucky require that all initial candidates seeking a teaching license take and pass the appropriate subtests of the Praxis II exam. Since all initial candidates in the Special Education Department at EKU will be dually certified, they are required to take subtests for each of their licensure areas. Students seeking elementary education certification must take and pass the Principles of Learning and Teaching K-6 along with the Elementary Education Content Knowledge exam. Those wanting middle school certification must take and pass Principles of Learning and Teaching 5-9 along with the specific content knowledge exam in which they are seeking licensure – language arts, mathematics, science, or social studies. To satisfy the special education licensure requirements they must also take Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge and Education of Students with Mild to Moderate Disabilities. These licensure examinations are taken during the student’s senior year, generally while the candidate is student teaching. All exams must be taken and passed prior to graduation from EKU. While some testing may need to be spread over two semesters, candidates are never encouraged to take the Praxis II prior to their senior year. Passing assessment scores must be received by EKU before a recommendation for certification can be approved. The successful completion of all required exams is mandatory for graduation by EKU and for certification by the Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB). Passing scores as determined by EPSB are as follows:
Examination Principles of Learning and Teaching K-6 (0522) 161
Passing Score
Elementary Education Content Knowledge (0014) 148 Principles of Learning and Teaching 5-9 (0523) 161 Middle Grades Content Areas: Language Arts (0049) 158 Mathematics (0069) 148 Science (0439) 144 Social Studies (0089) 149 Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content (0353) 157 Education of Exceptional Students Mild to Moderate (0542) 172 Description of Test Content: Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content (0353) 60 multiple choice questions Understanding Exceptionalities
Human development and behavior including social, emotional, language, cognition, physical and sensory development and behavior Characteristics of students with disabilities including cognitive, affective, social-adaptive, cultural, linguistic, gender, socioeconomic, genetic, medical, motor, sensory, and age factors Basic concepts including definitions, prevalence, incidence, causation, prevention, behavior, classification and labeling issues, and multiple disabilities Influence of a disability across the life span Legal and Societal Issues Federal laws including IDEA, Section 504, ADA and relevant court cases related to disabilities School’s connection with families including advocacy, partnerships, roles, attitudes, cultural and community influences, interagency agreements and transition planning Historical influences, for example, deinstitutionalization, community-based placements, inclusion, technology, advocacy, accountability, and meeting educational standards Delivery of Services to Students with Disabilities Background knowledge including conceptual approaches, placement and program issues, integrating best practices and research Curriculum and instruction implementation including IFSP, IEP, instructional development and implementation, teaching strategies and methods, instructional format, career and transition issues, and integrating technology Assessment including appropriate uses of different assessments, procedures and test materials, constructing or selecting effective informal assessments including CBA Structuring and managing the learning environment including structuring the physical-social environment, classroom management techniques, and behavior management strategies Professional roles including roles and responsibilities of the teacher, influence of teacher attitudes, values, and behavior, communication with parents and community collaborators Education of Exceptional Students Mild to Moderate (0542) 5 constructed open response questions Assessment Assessment including screening, prereferral, referral, and placement Informal and formal assessment for eligibility Using assessment for instruction Curriculum and Instruction Curriculum and instruction implementation to include evaluating, selecting, and developing materials using resources, writing IEP goals, planning based on IEP goals Structuring and Managing the Learning Environment Behavior management, problem solving, conflict resolution, integrating students into other settings, Collaboration
Standards Addressed by this Assessment: See attached standards chart (A) Summary of Findings:
See attached charts (B)
The Department of Special Education is committed to offering candidates a comprehensive educational background that will prepare them for the challenges of working with students with disabilities and their families. To that end, the Department aligned their curriculum with the CEC Standards and the Kentucky Teacher Standards starting in 2006. Questions related to these standards are included on both the Praxis 0353 and 0542. In addition to ensuring our curriculum covered the necessary standards, the Department faculty created a study guide for the Praxis and offered our students practice tests and individual and group tutoring. Scores on both tests from 2006 to 2009 show that the majority of our students passed the tests and therefore have the requisite skills for a successful career. Candidates who were not successful continue to have access to the study guides and tutoring sessions.
In 2006 and 2008 several Praxis tests were discontinued and/or replaced. Several of our students took these tests but not enough to report as statistically significant. Those scores are as follows:
2006 – 2007
Number Taking Tests
Number Passing
Assessment
Institutional Pass Rate
0352 Application of Core Principals 3 3 100% 0371 Special Education Behavioral/Emotional 4 4 100% 2008 – 2009 0321 Students with Mental Retardation 1 1 100% 0352 Application of Core Principals 1 1 100%
0352 was replaced by 0353 effective 9-1-06 0371 was replaced by 0542 effective 9-1-06 0321 had one test taker but this test was still effective at the time the student took it 0321 was replaced by 0544 effective 9-1-08 0352 had one test taker after the test was no longer in effect
How Data Provides Evidence for Meeting Standards:
The data collected are for the years 2006 through 2009. The scores for the Elementary and Middle Grades Content tests are not disaggregated to show our special education majors so no test results can be reported for this part of the Praxis. However, passing scores on the Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content (0353) and the Education of Exceptional Students Mild to Moderate (0542) across all three years show that the undergraduate students in the LBD program within the Department of Special Education at EKU have meet the CEC standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Attachment A
Licensure Assessment – Praxis II
RELATIONSHIP TO:
College of Education Conceptual Framework
K- Basic Knowledge, A- Application, PA- Portfolio Artifact, KA 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6- Key Assessments CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 K K K K K
Kentucky Teacher Standards – Initial or Advanced
K- Basic Knowledge, A- Application, PA- Portfolio Artifact, KA 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6- Key Assessments TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 TS5 TS6 TS7 TS8 TS9 TS10 K K K K K K K K K K
EKU Goals
EKU-G1 EKU–G2 EKU-G3 EKU-G4 EKU-G5 -- -- X X --
KERA Initiatives
Identify the initiative number(s) for each category Learner
Goals/Academic Expectations
Program of Studies:
Understandings
Program of Studies: Skills &
Concepts Core Content
K K K K
EPSB Themes
K- Basic Knowledge, A- Application, PA- Portfolio Artifact, KA 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6- Key Assessments Diversity Assessment Literacy/Reading Closing Achievement Gap
K K K K
SPA
Council for Exceptional Children New Teacher Standards CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Attachment B
Summary of Findings for Praxis II
Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content (0353)
Core Content Number Taking Tests
Number Passing Assessment
Institutional Pass Rate
2006 – 2007 42 40 95% 2007 – 2008 38 37 97% 2008 – 2009 59 58 98%
Education of Exceptional Students Mild to Moderate (0542)
Core Content Number Taking Tests
Number Passing Assessment
Institutional Pass Rate
2006 – 2007 18 17 94% 2007 – 2008 21 19 90% 2008 – 2009 35 34 97%
Pass rates for 0353 and 0542 from 2006 to 2009
Blue is Praxis Test 0353 Red is Praxis Test 0542
86%
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
353
542
94%
94%
95%
95%
96%
96%
97%
97%
98%
98%
99%
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
Pass Rates for 0353
Pass Rate
86%
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
Pass Rates for 0542
Pass Rates
Assessment 2: Behavior Change Project Description of the Assessment: Candidates in the Learning and Behavior Disorders program in Department of Special Education implement an intervention plan to address either an academic or behavioral issue demonstrated by a student(s) at their practicum site and complete a written report about the impact of the intervention on the child’s performance. The purpose of the assignment is for candidates to:
1. Demonstrate the ability to identify a target behavior for intervention and develop an appropriate behavior objective related to this target behavior.
2. Demonstrate the ability to select an appropriate data collection method and intervention based on the target behavior and behavior objective.
3. Demonstrate the ability to accurately implement an intervention and analyze data related to implementation.
4. Demonstrate the ability to write a summary report using objective, professional language.
5. Demonstrate the ability to reflect on the process of developing and implementing an intervention plan in order to improve student performance as well professional skills.
The assignment is currently evaluated using a scoring rubric that focuses on the candidate’s ability to identify and define a problem behavior exhibited by a student in the practicum setting, to develop a plan to address this problem behavior and gather data to document impact on student performance, to accurately implement the data collection method and intervention described in the plan, to report results in an objective manner, and to reflect on the experience in order to improve student performance and grow as a professional. Candidate performance is rated as Beginning (1), Developing (2), Competent (3), and Exemplary (4) with a final score of pass or fail being given for each section of the project. The scoring rubric has been aligned with the Kentucky Teacher Standards and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) standards. Standards Addressed by Assessment: The following KY Teacher Standards and CEC standards are addressed by the Behavior Change Project: Behavior Change Project KY Standards CEC Standards Student Identification 2.1, 5.1, 8.1 CC5S6, CC7S1, CC7S4,
CC8S1, CC8S2, CC8S5, CC9S8, CC10S1, CC10S9
Collaboration Plan 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 8.2 CC4S3, CC4S5, CC5S4, CC5S5, CC5S6, CC5S10, CC7S6,
CC8S2, CC8S4, CC9S8, CC10S1
Documentation Monitoring 4.2, 5.2, 5.2, 7.1, 8.4 CC5S6, CC7S6, CC7S13, CC8S5, CC8S7, CC8S8, CC8S9, CC10S1
Student Impact 5.4, 5.5, 7.1, 7.2, 8.4 CC8S5, CC8S7, CC9S8, CC9S11, CC10S1
Directions for Completion of this Assessment: The following directions were developed and provided to students during the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 semesters:
Student Identification
During your first few weeks of practicum experience, you should target a student/s who demonstrates an academic behavior (i.e, reading, writing, math, study skills, test taking) or social behavior (e.g., work completion, following directions, raising hand) that needs to be targeted for change. You may pinpoint this behavior yourself, but it must be approved by your cooperating teacher AND university supervisor. Your cooperating teacher may have suggestions for you. Whenever possible, it should be connected to the student's IEP. Once you have selected a student and a target behavior, you should develop a written description of the student. Please select a pseudonym for the student to respect confidentiality. This section should include the following information: (1) age, (2) grade, (3) disability category, (4) services, (5) strengths, and (6) weaknesses. In addition, you should include a statement regarding why the intervention is needed as well as the importance and/or functionality of the targeted behavior for current and future student success. NOTE: For the social behavior change project, you must include data from a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) to determine the function of the behavior. While you are developing the student identification section of your project plan, you also should be developing your collaboration plan with your cooperating teacher and other school personnel at your practicum site to intervene on the student's targeted behavior.
Collaboration Plan
This section of your project plan will include the following subsections: • Objective • Assessment Plan • Proposed Activities • Timeline • Persons Involved • Resources
Objective
In this section of the collaboration plan, you should begin by clearly identifying the target behavior and providing an operational definition of this behavior. Next, write a behavior objective related to the behavior to be targeted in your project. You will write a short term objective estimating where you would like the student to be at the end of your placement. Please remember that you may need to adjust this objective after collecting your baseline data and prior to implementing your intervention as your estimation may be too high or low to be reasonable based on student performance during baseline.
Assessment Plan
The next step in the process should be to select a data collection method that is aligned with your behavior objective and intervention. For most academic behaviors, this will be event recording. For social behaviors, you should one of the data collection methods presented in SED 341/590. Your data collection method should be appropriate for use during both the baseline phase and the intervention phase. In this section of the collaboration plan, you should identify your data collection method using professional terminology. In addition, you should list how and when data will be collected during baseline and intervention -- it must be the same for both in order to determine the effectiveness of your intervention. Finally, you should provide a clear description of how to implement the data collection method you have selected. It should be listed in specific enough terms that a novice reader could implement your assessment plan without assistance. NOTE: Be sure to include a sample data collection sheet with your project plan.
Proposed Activities
After developing your objective and identifying your data collection method, you should select an evidence-based intervention to change the targeted behavior. NOTE: Your intervention should be appropriate for the target behavior. In this section of the collaboration plan, you should identify your intervention using professional terminology. In addition, you should list how and when you will implement the intervention. Next, you should provide a clear description of how to implement the intervention you have selected. It should be listed in specific enough terms that a novice reader could implement your intervention without assistance. Be sure to include sample intervention materials with your project plan. Finally, you should include a data decision-making rule related to what you will do if the intervention is not successful based on a review of the trend of your data.
Timelines
In this section of the collaboration plan, you should discuss the length of time you will spend in each phase of your project. You should spend a minimum of 3 days/sessions during the baseline phase for academic behaviors and 5 days/sessions for social behaviors. For both academic and social behaviors, you should spend a minimum of 5 days/sessions during the intervention phase. For baseline, you should have stable data before proceeding so you may gather more data points than required during this phase. For intervention, you should gather a minimum of 5 data points; but, you should not stop the intervention until time runs out or the objective is achieved.
Persons Involved
In this section of the collaboration plan, you should identify the individuals who will participate in gathering data under the assessment plan. In addition, you should identify the individuals who will participate in implementing the intervention. NOTE: These individuals may or may not be the same.
Resources
In this section of the collaboration plan, you should identify the materials needed to gather data under the assessment plan. In addition, you should identify the materials needed to implement the intervention.
SED 375 - Documentation Monitoring At the conclusion of the semester, you should analyze your results and develop a final report presenting your project. The final report consists of the student description and collaboration plan developed in your project plan plus student data and an analysis of this data. In this section of the final report, you should include all raw data from your project as well as a graph of this data. The graph and raw data should include a minimum of 3/5 baseline data points and 5 intervention data points. NOTE: You can scan a handwritten graph into your document if you prefer not to develop an electronic version.
SED 375 - Impact on Student In addition to a visual representation of your data, you should provide a written summary of baseline and intervention data. NOTE: Please save your opinion about the effectiveness of your project until the impact section. This section is a factual discussion of the data gathered including ranges and means. In this section of your final report, you should discuss the impact of your intervention on student learning. Your discussion should be supported by trends present in your graph. In addition, you should discuss what you would recommend as next steps related to the project and student.
Rubrics Used to Evaluate this Assessment: The following rubrics were developed and used for Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 data collection: COMPONENT BEGINNING DEVELOPING COMPETENT EXEMPLARY
Student Identification: Student Demographics
Student demographic information is included, but it does not provide accurate information using professional terminology.
Some of the required student demographic information is included, but it does not describe all demographic information using professional terminology.
All required student demographic information is included with sufficient detail using professional terminology, but it has some errors present in writing style.
All required student demographic information is included with detail and clarity, using professional terminology, and few errors present in writing style.
Student Identification: Statement of Need
Statement of need for intervention is included, but it lacks support, detail, and clarity.
Statement of need for intervention is included, but it lacks support and/or detail.
Clear statement of need for intervention is included with support and sufficient detail.
Statement of need is clearly aligned with IEP goals and/or state-mandated curriculum standards with detailed data to document need for intervention.
Collaboration Plan: Objective
Objective is written, but it is not in behavioral format nor is the target behavior operationally defined.
Objective is written in behavioral format, but one or more elements are missing and/or target behavior is not operationally defined.
Objective is written in behavioral format and target behavior is operationally defined.
Objective is written in behavioral format and target behavior is operationally defined. Objective is clearly aligned with IEP goals as well as targeted behavior.
Collaboration Plan:
Assessment plan is briefly
Assessment plan is
Assessment plan is
Assessment plan is clearly
Assessment Plan
described, but lacks detail, accuracy, and clarity for implementation. Data collection method is not aligned with objective.
described, but lacks sufficient detail for implementation or data collection method is not aligned with objective.
described in sufficient detail for implementation and data collection method is aligned with objective. Sample data collection sheet with majority of required components is included.
described in a systematic and organized fashion and data collection method is aligned with objective and intervention. Data collection sheet with all necessary components is included. Few if any errors are present in writing style.
Collaboration Plan: Proposed Activities
Intervention is briefly described, but lacks detail, accuracy, and clarity for implementation. Intervention is not aligned with the target behavior and a data decision-making rule is missing.
Intervention is named and described, but lacks sufficient detail for implementation, is not aligned with the target behavior, or is missing a data decision-making rule.
Intervention is described in sufficient detail for implementation, is aligned with the target behavior, and includes a data decision- making rule.
Intervention is clearly described in a systematic and organized fashion, is aligned with the objective and assessment plan, and includes a clear data decision-making rule. Few if any errors are present in writing style.
Collaboration Plan: Timeline
The proposed timeline does not include sufficient time for implementing the assessment plan and proposed activities in accordance with project
The proposed timeline does not include sufficient time for implementing the assessment plan and/or the proposed activities in accordance with project
The proposed timeline includes sufficient time for implementing the assessment plan and proposed activities in accordance with project
The proposed timeline includes sufficient time for implementing the assessment plan and proposed activities in accordance with project
requirements. requirements. requirements. requirements and addresses modifications to the timeline based on student data.
Collaboration Plan: Persons Involved
Individuals involved in the project are identified, but their roles in the assessment plan and proposed activities are not clearly described.
Roles of individuals are identified, but not clearly described, for the assessment plan or proposed activities.
Roles of individuals are clearly described for the assessment plan and proposed activities.
Roles of individuals are clearly described for the assessment plan and proposed activities, with the candidate's role including monitoring and modifications to the proposed activities based on student performance.
Collaboration Plan: Resources
Resources are identified, but lacks detail and accuracy to implement assessment plan and proposed activities.
Some, but not all, resources are listed for implementation of the assessment plan and/or proposed activities.
All necessary resources are
listed for implementation
of the assessment plan
and proposed activities.
All necessary resources are included for implementation of assessment plan and proposed activities. Resources are appropriate based on instructional level and classroom setting.
Documentation Monitoring: Raw Data
Raw data are included, but were inaccurately collected based on the assessment plan.
Raw data are collected in accordance with the assessment plan, but do not meet project requirements related to number of data
Raw data are collected in
accordance with the assessment plan and meet
project requirements
related to number of data
Raw data are presented in systematic and organized fashion and in alignment with the assessment plan and project
points. points. requirements. Documentation Monitoring: Graph
A graph is included, but is an inaccurate representation of raw data submitted.
The graph accurately represents a visual display of raw data, but is missing some of the required components.
The graph accurately
represents a visual display
of raw data with all required components
present.
The graph accurately represents a visual display of raw data with all required components present and is developed in electronic format using an application such as Microsoft Excel.
Documentation Monitoring: Written Summary
Results are reported, but data do not match with raw data and the graph submitted.
Results are accurately reported, but include only range of scores or means for each phase of the project.
Results are accurately
reported with means and
ranges reported for each phase of the project.
Results are accurately
reported in a systematic
manner across all phases with
means and ranges. Results are presented in
an objective manner with few if any errors in
writing style. Impact on Student Learning
A brief impact statement is included, but there is no clear identification of project effectiveness and discussion of implications of the project for future use.
A discussion of project effectiveness is provided, but there is no discussion of implications of the project for future use.
A discussion of project
effectiveness and
implications of the project for future use are
provided.
A discussion of project
effectiveness, implications
for future use, and limitations of the current
project are provided.
Discussion is presented in
objective manner with few if any
errors present
in writing style. Summary of Findings: Data collected in Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 is reported in Graphs 1, 2, 3, and 4. The data was collected within Task Stream and was scored using the rubrics for each component of the assessment. All students in Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 received a passing grade for the assessment and were considered to have demonstrated competency in all components of the assessment. For the Fall 2009 semester, candidates were competent in all areas. However, they received the highest scores in the areas of developing the collaboration plan and documenting student progress (3.4 for both area) and the lowest score in the area of reporting and reflecting on student impact (3.1). The average score for the area of identifying the student was 3.3, which was in the competent range. For the Spring 2010 semester, candidates were competent in all areas. However, they received the highest score in the areas of documenting student progress (3.6) and the lowest score in the area of reporting and reflecting on student impact (3.2). The average scores for identifying the student and developing the collaboration plan (3.3 for both areas) were in the competent range. In the area of student identification, candidates are required to provide relevant demographic information about the targeted student as well as present the case for intervening on the targeted behavior. Candidates from both semesters demonstrated slightly lower scores in presenting the statement of need as opposed to providing student demographics. Students in Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 averaged scores of 3.2 for presenting the statement of need and 3.4 for providing student demographics. In the area of developing a collaboration plan, candidates are required to select and describe implementation of a data collection method and intervention to address a targeted behavior demonstrated by a student in the practicum setting. Within this area, candidates from both semesters had lower scores related to writing a behavior objective (3.2 for Fall 2009; 3.1 for Spring 2010). While candidates from Spring 2010 had lower scores in the development of an assessment plan (3.1) and description of the proposed activities (3.0), candidates from Fall 2009 had lower scores in providing a timeline for the project (3.2) and describing the persons involved (3.2). The highest scores for Fall 2009 candidates was in the development of the assessment plan (3.5), while the highest score for Spring 2010 candidates was in providing a timeline for implementation (3.7). In the area of documenting student progress, candidates are required to present results from the assessment in visual and written form using professional language. The highest scores for candidate for both semesters were in this area (3.4 for Fall 2009 and 3.6 for Spring 2010). While all scores were in the competent range for both semesters, candidates from Fall 2009 had lower scores in the area of writing a summary of the results (3.3) as compared to those for presenting raw data and graphing the results (3.5
for both areas). Candidates from Spring 2010 had scores 3.5 or higher in all three components, with presenting raw data as the highest (3.7). In the area of student impact, candidates are required to discuss the impact on the intervention on the targeted student, provide recommendations for future use of the intervention with the targeted student, and describe any limitations with the data collection method and/or intervention as implemented. As discussed previously, the lowest scores on the assessment were in this area. Although candidates scored within the competent range (3.1 for Fall 2009 and 3.2 for Spring 2010), the lower scores in this area indicate the need to work more closely with candidates to more fully develop their ability to reflect on their performance and the impact of interventions of targeted behaviors in order to grow professionally. How Data Provides Evidence for Meeting Standards: The average scores provided in Graph 1 indicate that candidates from the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 semesters met the Kentucky Teacher Standards and CEC Special Education Standards. Additionally, the data provided in Graphs 2, 3, and 4 provide more comprehensive data that further validates that candidates from both semesters have met the standards addressed in this assessment. Assessment Documentation: Graph 1. Average Scores for Areas of the Assessment
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Student Identification
Collaboration Plan
Progress Monitoring
Student Impact
Fall 2009Spring 2010
Graph 2. Average Scores for Specific Items in the Student Identification Section
Graph 3. Average Scores for Specific Items in Collaboration Plan Section
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Student Demographics Statement of Need
Fall 2009Spring 2010
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Fall 2009Spring 2010
Graph 4. Average Scores for Specific Items in the Progress Monitoring Section
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Raw Data Graph Written Summary
Fall 2009Spring 2010
Assessment 3: Lesson Plans Description of the Assessment: Candidates in the Learning and Behavior Disorders program in Department of Special Education design modified lesson plans for students with learning disabilities. The purpose of the assignment is for candidates to:
1. Demonstrate the ability to identify a target academic area for intervention, and 2. Develop an appropriate instructional lesson(s) that incorporate best practice
for the student with learning disabilities in the designated content area. The assignment is currently evaluated using the standard scoring guide. Candidate performance is rated as Beginning (1), Developing (2), Competent (3), and Exemplary (4) with a final score of pass or fail being given for each section of the project. The scoring rubric has been aligned with the Kentucky Teacher Standards and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) standards. Target level of performance for candidates was 3 or higher on each component of the scoring rubric. Standards Addressed by Assessment: The following KY Teacher Standards and CEC standards are addressed by the Lesson Plan Project Lesson Plan Project KY Standards CEC Standards Alignment of goals/objectives with appropriate state standards
1, 2, 3 4, 7
Accurate presentation of content
1 7
Use of a variety of instructional strategies
2, 3 4, 5
Use of appropriate strategies to address individual student needs
2 2, 3, 5, 7
Rubrics Used to Evaluate this Assessment: The following rubric was designed in 2009 and implemented in Fall 09 and Spring 10. Rubric
Beginning (1 pt)
Developing (2 pts)
Competent (3 pts)
Exemplary (4 pts)
DI: Alignment with State Standards (1, 3%) Few lessons are explicitly linked to learning
CEC 7, CEC4,KTS 2, KTS 3 Most lessons are explicitly linked to
All lessons are explicitly linked to learning
All lessons are explicitly linked to learning
goals. Few learning activities, assignments and resources are aligned with learning goals. Not all learning goals are covered in the design.
learning goals. Most learning activities, assignments and resources are aligned with learning goals. Most learning goals are covered in the design.
goals. All learning activities, assignments and resources are aligned with learning goals. All learning goals are covered in the design.
goals. All learning activities, assignments and resources are clearly aligned with learning goals. All learning goals are thoroughly addressed in the design.
DI: Accurate Representation of Content CEC 7, KTS 1
Teacher’s use of content appears to contain numerous inaccuracies. Content seems to be viewed more as isolated skills and facts rather than as part of a larger conceptual structure.
Teacher’s use of content appears to be mostly accurate. Shows some awareness of the big ideas or structure of the discipline.
Teacher’s use of content appears to be accurate. Focus of the content is congruent with the big ideas or structure of the discipline.
Teacher’s use of content is accurate. Focus of the content is congruent with and extends the big ideas or structure of the discipline.
DI: Use of a Variety of Instruction, Activities, Assignments and Resources CEC 4, CEC 5, KTS 2, KTS 3
– The lessons within the unit are not logically organized organization (e.g., sequenced). Lack of clarity about how students will be moved toward using oral, written, visual literacy
The lessons within the unit have some logical organization and appear to be somewhat useful in moving students toward achieving the learning goals in oral, written, and/or visual literacy.
All lessons within the unit are logically organized and appear to be useful in moving students toward achieving the learning goals in oral, written, and/or visual literacy
All lessons within the unit are logically organized and are useful in moving students toward achieving the learning goals in oral, written and/or visual literacy.
DI: Use of Appropriate Strategies to Address Individual Student Needs CEC 2, CEC 3, CEC 5, CEC 7,CEC 7, KTS 2, KTS 3
Instruction has not been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. Activities and assignments do not appear productive and appropriate for each student.
Some instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. Some activities and assignments appear productive and appropriate for each student.
Most instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. Most activities and assignments appear productive and appropriate for each student.
All instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. All activities and assignments are productive and appropriate for each student.
Summary of Findings: Data collected in Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 is reported as aggregated data in Table 1. The data was collected within Task Stream and was scored using the rubric. All students in Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 received a passing grade for the assessment and were considered to have demonstrated competency in all components of the assessment. Targeted Skill: Average of Candidate Scores Alignment of goals/objectives with state standards 4 Accurate presentation of content 4 Use of a variety of instructional strategies 3.74 Use of appropriate strategies to address individual student needs 3.79 How Data Provides Evidence for Meeting Standards: The average scores provided in Graph 1 indicate that candidates from the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 semesters met the Kentucky Teacher Standards and CEC Special Education Standards. Target level of performance was a score of 3 or higher (competent to exemplary) on each component of the lesson plan project.
Initial Certification LBD 2009
Key Assessment 4: Assessment of Student Teaching
Description of Assessment:
Candidates for initial licensure in Learning and Behavior Disorders/Elementary Education OR Learning and Behavior Disorders/Middle Grades with emphasis are evaluated with the KTIP (Kentucky Teaching Intern Program) observation instrument and with a Presentation Portfolio during their student teaching experience.
KTIP is a comprehensive system of formal evaluation of beginning teachers in Kentucky. The observation/performance instrument has been adopted and is applied to all candidates at EKU during their student teaching experience to measure their performance skills.
There are 10 Kentucky Teacher Standards that are incorporated in the KTIP Performance Instrument:
KTS 1: Applied Content Knowledge
KTS 2: Designs and Plans Instruction
KTS 3: Creates and Maintains a Learning Climate
KTS 4: Implements and Manages Instruction
KTS 5: Assesses and Communicates Learning Results
KTS 6: Demonstrates the Implementation of Technology
KTS 7: Reflects on and Evaluates Teaching and Learning
KTS 8: Collaborates with Colleagues, Parents and Others
KTS 9: Evaluates Teaching and Implements Professional Development
KTS 10: Provides Leadership within the School, Community, and Profession
In the adapted KTIP Performance Instrument, candidates are not evaluated on Kentucky Teacher Standard 10.
There are two measures of the Assessment of Student Teaching Index. They are (1) the KTIP Performance Record and (2) the score received on the final Presentation Portfolio.
(1) KTIP Performance Record: The KTIP system has a complete set of detailed scales, rubrics and subscales that elaborate on each Kentucky Teacher Standard. For example, KentuckyTeacher Standard 1 has 5 subindicators for which each candidate is evaluated. Based upon the candidate’s performance on these subindicators throughout student teaching, the candidate is scored globally on each of the Kentucky Teacher Standards by the College Supervisor and the Cooperating Teaching. This KTIP Performance Record is scored at mid-term and again at the completion of student teaching providing a source of
Initial Certification LBD 2009
formative-summative data for the assessment of student teaching. Each subindicator is evaluated on a 4 point rubric with Beginning rated as 1, Developing rated as 2, Competent rated as 3 and Exemplary rated as 4. The target performance for student teaching is a rating of 3 or higher on each subindicator.
(2) Presentation Portfolio: The Presentation Portfolio is a compilation of evidence (artifacts, reflective statements, photos, work samples, lesson plans, sample tests, units, etc.) which substantiate the candidate’s performance on each Kentucky Teacher Standard. Through structured seminars, course orientations, and advisement sessions, candidates are provided detailed information about compiling the Portfolio.
The candidate commences building their Presentation Portfolio as soon as he/she enters the Professional Education Program. Over the course of his/her college career, he/she collects, documents, reflects, and refines the Portfolio and the Portfolio is scored at the transition points. At each of these reviews, faculty note the completion of the finished project and provide evaluative scoring to the candidate. The data from the Presentation Portfolio are compiled for program review through TaskStream. Presentation portfolios are scored with a point-value rating. Candidates must achieve a passing number of points on their portfolios.
How the Assessment Aligns with Standards:
The following charts demonstrate how the KTIP Performance Record (based on the Kentucky Teacher Standards) and the Presentation Portfolio which is also organized using the Kentucky Teacher Standards align with CEC and CED Initial Teaching Standards:
Kentucky Teacher Standards CEC 1. Teacher demonstrates applied content knowledge. 1, 2, 6 2. Teacher designs and plans instruction. 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8 3. Teacher creates and maintains a learning climate. 5 4. Teacher implements and manages instruction. 4, 5, 7, 8 5. Teacher assesses and communicates learning results. 8 6. Teacher demonstrates the implementation of technology. 4, 5, 7 7. Teacher reflects on and evaluates teaching and learning. 9 8. Teacher collaborates with colleagues, parents and others. 10 9. Teacher evaluates teaching and implements professional development. 9 10. Teacher provides leadership within the school, community, and profession. 9, 10
Initial Certification LBD 2009
Data Findings:
2007-2008 and 2008-2009: During the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years, data for student teaching was collected with the KTIP Performance Record that used a 3 point rubric scale. The target performance for each subindicator was a 2 (Acceptable) or higher. Graph 1 and Graph 2 report the average performance of candidates on the subindicators for 2007-08 and 2008-09.
2009-2010:
Graph 1
In 2009-10, faculty began using the revised KTIP Performance Record as the evaluation instrument for student teaching and incorporated a 4 point scoring rubric. Data from this year has been aggregated and displayed Graph 3 and Graph 4. The target performance on each subindicator is a score of 3 or higher. In examining the data, it is clear that in each year, the average level of performance on each of the subindicators was a score of 3 or higher.
2.7
2.75
2.8
2.85
2.9
2.95
3
3.05
1.1 1.3 1.5 2.1 2.3 2.5 3.2 3.4 3.6 4.2 4.4 4.6
Average 2007_08
Avg 2008-09
Initial Certification LBD 2009
Graph 2
Graph 3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5
#REF!
LBD499Final09_10Average
2.55
2.6
2.65
2.7
2.75
2.8
2.85
2.9
2.95
3
3.05
5.1 5.3 5.5 6.1 6.3 7.1 7.3 7.5 8.1 8.3 8.5 9.1 9.3 9.5
Avg 2007_08
Avg 2008_09
Initial Certification LBD 2009
Graph 4
How Do Data Provide Evidence Standards Are Met
Each of the subindicators has been aligned with the CEC standards. Average performance on each of the subindicators is above the target scores of 2 for 2007-2009 and 3 for 2009-2010. This is evidence that candidates are meeting the aligned CEC and Kentucky Teacher Standards during their student teaching experiences.
3.6
3.65
3.7
3.75
3.8
3.85
3.9
3.95
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.1 9.2 9.3
Average 2009-2010
Average 2009-2010
Initial Certification LBD 2009
Assessment 5: KTIP Unit Work Sample—Impact on Student Learning
Candidates in the initial certification program in Learning and Behavior Disorders complete a KTIP Unit Work Sample designed to measure the candidate’s impact on student learning. The KTIP Unit Work Sample is done during the student teaching experience by all candidates in initial certification programs. Candidates are required to demonstrate their ability to select goals, plan instruction that incorporates pre- and post -assessment, and complete an analysis of student learning within the KTIP Unit Work Sample. Reflection and self-analysis provide the candidate with the opportunities to share their insight into their practices and how practices impact student learning. In the KTIP Unit Work Sample, the candidates complete an instructional unit that includes the following:
Description of the Assessment:
• A description of the classroom, school, and community contextual factors • A description of students within the classroom including their diversity, learning styles and
academic and language skills • Detailed learning goals that align with the Kentucky Curriculum Standards • Detailed pre- and post-assessment plans aligned with the learning goals and instruction • An instructional plan is comprised of all lessons within the unit of study. Lessons are
aligned with the learning goals and the Kentucky Curriculum Standards and with the information gained from pre-assessments and lessons include use of technology and a variety of instructional activities, strategies and resources.
• A narrative that summarizes instructional decisions including modifications made based on student performance during implementation of the unit of study.
• A summary of the analysis of student learning as a result of instruction. This analysis must include some graphic representation of student progress (charts, graphs, etc.).
• A reflection section that includes an interpretation of student learning, insights into effective instruction and assessment and implications for future teaching and professional development.
For this assessment, data from the following parts of the KTIP Unit Work Sample are collected, analyzed, and interpreted to demonstrate the candidates’ impact on student learning: • Contextual Factors • Assessment Plan • Design for Instruction • Analysis of Student Learning • Reflection and Self Evaluation The Scoring Guide for the KTIP Unit Work Sample is a detailed rubric in which candidate performance is scored as Beginning (1), Developing (2), Competent (3), and Exemplary (4) on key elements that comprise each of the above-specified focus areas. Each key element is incorporated into the scoring guide that has been aligned with CEC and Kentucky Teacher Standards. (See below.) Candidates must score at the Competent or Exemplary level to successfully complete the KTIP Unit Work Sample (3 or above).
CEC and CED Aligned TWS Rubric Scoring Guide:
Assessment
Purpose This assessments is intended to evaluate the candidate's impact on student learning.. Rubric Component Codes
Contextual Factors CF
Design of Instruction DI
Assessment Plan AP
Analysis of Student Learning ASL
Reflection and Self-Evaluation RSE
Rubric Rubric
Beginning (1 pt) Developing (2 pts) Competent (3 pts) Exemplary (4 pts)
CF Knowledge of Community, School and Classroom Factors
Teacher displays minimal, irrelevant, or biased knowledge of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom.
CEC 2, CEC 3, CEC 5, KTS 2
Teacher displays some knowledge of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom that may affect learning.
Teacher displays a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom that may affect learning
Teachers display an exemplary understanding of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom that may affect learning.
CF: Knowledge of Characteristics of Students (1, 3%)
Teacher displays minimal, stereotypical, or irrelevant knowledge of student differences (e.g. development, interests, culture, and abilities/disabilities).
CEC 2, CEC 3, KTS 2
Teacher displays general knowledge of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, and abilities/disabilities) that may affect learning.
Teacher displays general & specific understanding of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, and abilities/disabilities) that may affect learning.
Teacher displays exemplary general & specific understanding of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, and abilities/disabilities) that may affect learning.
CF: Knowledge of Students’ Varied Approaches to Learning (1, 3%)
Teacher displays minimal, stereotypical, or irrelevant knowledge about the different ways students learn (e.g.,
CEC 2, CEC 3, CEC 4, CEC 5, KTS 2, KTS 3
Teacher displays general knowledge about the different ways students learn (e.g., learning styles, learning
Teacher displays general & specific understanding of the different ways students learn (e.g., learning styles, learning
Teacher displays exemplary general & specific understanding of the different ways students learn (e.g., learning
learning styles, learning modalities).
modalities). modalities) that may affect learning.
styles, learning modalities) that may affect learning.
CF: Knowledge of Students’ Skills (1, 3%)
Teacher displays little or irrelevant knowledge of students’ skills and prior learning.
CEC 3, , KTS 2
Teacher displays general knowledge of students’ skills and prior learning that may affect learning.
Teacher displays general & specific understanding of students’ skills and prior learning that may affect learning.
Teacher displays exemplary general & specific understanding of students’ skills and prior learning that may affect learning.
CF: Instructional Planning and Assessment CEC 2, CEC 3, CEC 6, KTS 2, KTS 3
Candidate does not provide implications for instruction and assessment based on student individual differences and community, school, and classroom characteristics OR provides inappropriate implications.
Candidate provides general implications for instruction and assessment based on student individual differences and community, school, and classroom characteristics.
Candidate provides specific implications for instruction and assessment based on student individual differences and community, school, and classroom characteristics.
Candidate provides exemplary specific implications for instruction and assessment based on student individual differences and community, school, and classroom characteristics.
AP: Alignment with Learning Goals and Instruction (1, 3%)
Content and methods of assessment lack congruence with learning goals or lack cognitive complexity.
CEC 8; KTS 5
Some of the learning goals are assessed through the assessment plan, but many are not congruent with learning goals in content and cognitive complexity.
Each of the learning goals is assessed through the assessment plan; assessments are congruent with the learning goals in content and cognitive complexity
Each of the learning goals is thoroughly assessed through the assessment plan; assessments are congruent with the learning goals in content and cognitive complexity.
AP: Clarity of Criteria and Standards for Performance (1, 3%)
The assessments contain no clear criteria for measuring student performance relative to the learning goals.
CEC 8, KTS 5
Assessment criteria have been developed, but they are not clear or are not explicitly linked to the learning goals.
Assessment criteria are clear and are explicitly linked to the learning goals.
Assessment criteria are comprehensive and clear and are explicitly and thoroughly linked to the learning goals.
AP: Multiple Modes and Approaches
The assessment plan includes only one assessment mode and does not assess students before, during, and after instruction.
CEC 8, KTS 5 The assessment plan includes multiple modes but all are either pencil/paper based (i.e. they are not performance assessments) and/or do not require the integration of knowledge, skills and reasoning ability.
The assessment plan includes multiple assessment modes (including performance assessments, lab reports, research projects, etc.) and assesses student performance throughout the instructional
The assessment plan includes multiple and comprehensive assessment modes (including performance assessments, lab reports, research projects, etc.) and assesses student performance thoroughly throughout the
sequence. instructional sequence.
AP: Technical Soundness (1, 3%)
Assessments are not valid; scoring procedures are absent or inaccurate; items or prompts are poorly written; directions and procedures are confusing to students.
CEC 8, KTS 5
Assessments appear to have some validity. Some scoring procedures are explained; some items or prompts are clearly written; some directions and procedures are clear to students.
Assessments appear to be valid; scoring procedures are explained; most items or prompts are clearly written; directions and procedures are clear to students.
Assessments are valid; scoring procedures are thoroughly explained; all items or prompts are clearly written; directions and procedures are clear to students.
AP: Adaptations Based on the Individual Needs of Students (1, 3%)
Teacher does not adapt assessments to meet the individual needs of students or these assessments are inappropriate.
CEC 8, CEC 3, KTS 5
Teacher makes adaptations to assessments that are appropriate to meet the individual needs of some students.
Teacher makes adaptations to assessments that are appropriate to meet the individual needs of most students.
Teacher makes adaptations to assessments that are appropriate to meet the individual needs of all students.
DI: Alignment with Learning Goals (1, 3%)
Few lessons are explicitly linked to learning goals. Few learning activities, assignments and resources are aligned with learning goals. Not all learning goals are covered in the design.
CEC 7, CEC4,KTS 2, KTS 3
Most lessons are explicitly linked to learning goals. Most learning activities, assignments and resources are aligned with learning goals. Most learning goals are covered in the design.
All lessons are explicitly linked to learning goals. All learning activities, assignments and resources are aligned with learning goals. All learning goals are covered in the design.
All lessons are explicitly linked to learning goals. All learning activities, assignments and resources are clearly aligned with learning goals. All learning goals are thoroughly addressed in the design.
DI: Accurate Representation of Content CEC 7, KTS 1
Teacher’s use of content appears to contain numerous inaccuracies. Content seems to be viewed more as isolated skills and facts rather than as part of a larger conceptual structure.
Teacher’s use of content appears to be mostly accurate. Shows some awareness of the big ideas or structure of the discipline.
Teacher’s use of content appears to be accurate. Focus of the content is congruent with the big ideas or structure of the discipline.
Teacher’s use of content is accurate. Focus of the content is congruent with and extends the big ideas or structure of the discipline.
DI: Use of a Variety of Instruction, Activities, Assignments and Resources CEC 4, CEC 5, KTS 2, KTS 3
–
The lessons within the unit are not logically organized organization (e.g., sequenced). Lack of clarity about how students will be moved toward using oral, written, visual literacy
The lessons within the unit have some logical organization and appear to be somewhat useful in moving students toward achieving the learning goals in oral, written, and/or visual
All lessons within the unit are logically organized and appear to be useful in moving students toward achieving the learning goals in oral, written, and/or visual literacy
All lessons within the unit are logically organized and are useful in moving students toward achieving the learning goals in oral, written and/or visual literacy.
literacy.
DI: Use of Contextual Information and Data to Select Appropriate and Relevant Activities, Assignments and Resources CEC 2, CEC 3, CEC 5, CEC 7,CEC 7, KTS 2, KTS 3
Instruction has not been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. Activities and assignments do not appear productive and appropriate for each student.
Some instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. Some activities and assignments appear productive and appropriate for each student.
Most instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. Most activities and assignments appear productive and appropriate for each student.
All instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. All activities and assignments are productive and appropriate for each student.
DI: Use of Technology Technology is inappropriately used OR teacher does not use technology, and no (or inappropriate) rationale is provided.
CEC 4, KTS 6 Teacher uses technology but it does not make a significant contribution to teaching and learning OR teacher provides limited rationale for not using technology.
Teacher integrates appropriate technology that makes a significant contribution to teaching and learning OR provides a strong rationale for not using technology.
Teacher integrates appropriate technology that makes a significant contribution to teaching and learning.
ASL: Clarity and Accuracy of Presentation (1, 3%)
Presentation is not clear and accurate; it does not accurately reflect the data.
CEC 8, CEC 3, KTS 5
Presentation is understandable and contains few errors.
Presentation is easy to understand and contains no errors of representation.
Presentation is exemplary—easy to understand and contains no errors of representation.
ASL: Alignment with Learning Goals
Analysis of student learning is not aligned with learning goals. CEC 8, CEC 3, KTS 5, KTS
1
Analysis of student learning is partially aligned with learning goals and/or fails to provide a comprehensive profile of student learning relative to the goals for the whole class, subgroups, and two individuals.
Analysis is fully aligned with learning goals and provides a comprehensive profile of student learning for the whole class, subgroups, and two individuals.
Analysis is fully aligned with learning goals and provides a comprehensive and exemplary profile of student learning for the whole class, subgroups, and two individuals.
ASL: Interpretation of Data CEC 8, CEC 9, CEC 3, KTS 5, KTS 7, KTS 9
Interpretation is inaccurate, and conclusions are missing or unsupported by data.
Interpretation is technically accurate, but conclusions are missing or not fully supported by data.
Interpretation is meaningful, and appropriate conclusions are drawn from the data.
Interpretation is exemplary and meaningful, and appropriate conclusions are drawn from the data.
ASL: Evidence of Impact on Student Learning CEC 8, CEC 9, KTS 5, KTS 7, KTS 9
Analysis of student learning fails to include evidence of impact on student learning in terms of numbers of students
Analysis of student learning includes incomplete evidence of the impact on student learning in terms of numbers of
Analysis of student learning includes evidence of the impact on student learning in terms of number of students
Analysis of student learning includes exemplary evidence of the impact on student learning in terms of number of
who achieved and made progress toward learning goals
students who achieved and made progress toward learning goals.
who achieved and made progress toward each learning goal.
students who achieved and made progress toward each learning goal.
RSE: Interpretation of Student Learning CEC 3, CEC 8, CEC 9, KTS 5, KTS 7, KTS 9
No evidence or reasons provided to support conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student Learning” section
Provides evidence but no (or simplistic, superficial) reasons or hypotheses to support conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student Learning” section.
Uses evidence to support conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student Learning” section. Explores multiple hypotheses for why some students did not meet learning goals.
Uses compelling evidence to support conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student Learning” section. Explores multiple logical hypotheses for why some students did not meet learning goals.
RSE: Insights on Effective Instruction and Assessment CEC 8, CEC 9, KTS 5, KTS 7, KTS 9
Provides no rationale for why some activities or assessments were more successful than others in accomplishing learning goals.
Identifies successful and unsuccessful activities or assessments and superficially explores reasons for their success or lack thereof (no use of theory or research).
Identifies successful and unsuccessful activities and assessments and provides plausible reasons (based on theory or research) for their success or lack thereof.
Comprehensively identifies successful and unsuccessful activities and assessments and provides plausible reasons (based on theory or research) for their success or lack thereof.
RSE: Alignment Among Goals, Instruction and Assessment CEC 4, CEC 8, KTS 5, KTS 8, KTS 9
Does not connect learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction and/or the connections are irrelevant or inaccurate.
Connects learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction, but misunderstandings or conceptual gaps are present.
Logically connects learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction
Comprehensively and logically connects learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction.
RSE: Implications for Future Teaching CEC 8, CEC 9, KTS 7, KTS
Provides no ideas or inappropriate ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment.
Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment but offers no rationale for why these changes would improve student learning.
Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment and explains why these modifications would improve student learning.
Comprehensively provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment and explains why these modifications would improve student learning.
RSE: Implications for Professional Development
Provides no professional learning goals or goals that are not related to the insights and experiences described in this section.
CEC 9, KTS 7, 9
Presents professional learning goals that are not strongly related to the insights and experiences described in this section and/or provides a vague plan for meeting the goals.
Presents a small number of professional learning goals that clearly emerge from the insights and experiences described in this section. Describes specific steps to meet these goals.
Presents a number of professional learning goals that clearly emerge from the insights and experiences described in this section. Describes specific steps to meet these goals.
Standards Addressed by this Assessment:
The following chart demonstrates how this assessment aligns with the NCTE standards. FOCUS SECTIONS OF THE TWS For Assessment 5
CEC Standards Kentucky Teacher Standards
1. Contextual Factors 2, 3, 4, 5 2, 3 2. Assessment Plan 3, 8 5 3. Design of Instruction 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 1, 2, 3, 6 4. Analysis of Student Learning
3, 8, 9 1, 5, 7, 9
5. Reflection and Self Evaluation
4, 8, 9 5, 7, 8, 9
Summary of Findings:
During the 2007-2008 and 2008 academic years, evidence for candidate’s impact on student learning was “measured” by looking at the candidate’s Student Teaching Portfolio (Standard 5). The Portfolio was given a holistic score of pass/fail. All candidates in the LBD program received passing scores on their portfolio for both 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.
2007-2008 and 2008-2009
In Fall of 2008, the College of Education was encouraged to look at the Teacher Work Sample format as a model for a more precise measure of candidate’s impact on student learning. Because candidates would be required to do a unit work sample in their KTIP year, the College began attempting to implement the KTIP Unit Work Sample with data being entered into TaskStream. This process has been very slow for a number of reasons—faculty buy-in, student teaching supervision buy-in, and consistent access to TaskStream.
2009-2010
In the academic year 2009-2010, candidates in Student Teaching in the Learning and Behavior Disorders Program submitted their KTIP Unit Work Sample through TaskStream. In looking at the KTIP Unit Work Sample, the focus is on the candidates’ ability to impact student learning. The five major components that will be reported to address this ability are Contextual Factors, (How well does the candidate know the students, their skills and learning styles as well as the community and school factors?); Assessment Plan (How well does the candidate identify what must be assessed and how?); Design of Instruction (How well does the candidate use the information from context and assessment to design effective instruction?); Analysis of Student Learning (How well does the candidate implement the assessment and lesson plan, collect and analyze assessment results, and explain those results to others?); and Reflection and Self Evaluation (How well does the candidate connect assessment results to what needs to be done next in terms of instruction?). Data indicate that candidates perform at a competent to exemplary level in each component of the KTIP Unit Work Sample. Clearly for this first group of candidates, there are some areas that are
stronger than others. Faculty will be reviewing candidate performance over the coming semesters to see if there are any trends that emerge. The following chart demonstrates the average score for the targeted components from Student Teaching candidates in the 2009-2010 academic year.
Interpretation of How Data Provide Evidence that Standards Have Been Met:
The KTIP Unit Work Sample is completed during student teaching. Candidates select, plan, and implement a unit of instruction for a specific area of content that incorporates pre- and post -assessments to measure impact on student learning. The KTIP Unit Work Sample is scored by the University supervisor for student teaching. For each of the focus areas in the KTIP Unit Work Sample that were used to demonstrate impact on student learning, candidates in the Learning and Behavior Disorders program scored in the Competent to Exemplary range. This evidence indicates that candidates have met the CEC and Kentucky Teacher standards addressed in this assessment (See Standards Addressed by this Assessment above.).
Assessment 6: Assessment Case Study
SED 351 Administer, score, and interpret assessment instruments
Description of the Assessment:
Correctly administer, score, and interpret assessment instruments. Each student must administer and score one achievement test or one diagnostic test. After administering the test to one subject, each student will write a brief interpretation of the results outlining educational, social, and behavioral goals as indicated. Grading for this assignment is based on the accuracy of administration and scoring of the instrument, along with an accurate interpretation of the results.
Standards Addressed by this Assessment:
See attached standards chart (A)
Summary of Findings:
See attached charts and narrative (B)
How Data Provides Evidence for Meeting Standards:
The data collected show the current level of understanding of our undergraduate certification students pertaining to how to select, administer, score, and interpret assessment data needed to determine special education eligibility. This assignment mirrors the procedures used in the public schools for the purpose of identification. Further, the interpretation of the results gives the students an initial opportunity to make suggestions related to the academic, behavioral, and/or social needs of the student.
Assessment Documentation:
Scoring Guide
See attached description of activity and scoring rubric (C)
Candidate data
SED 351 is an undergraduate course generally taken by sophomores and juniors. The work of 15 undergraduate students was included in this report.
Attachment A
SED 351 Special Education Assessment
RELATIONSHIP TO:
College of Education Conceptual Framework
K- Basic Knowledge, A- Application, PA- Portfolio Artifact, KA 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6- Key Assessments
CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5
K, KA1 K K K K
Kentucky Teacher Standards – Initial or Advanced
K- Basic Knowledge, A- Application, PA- Portfolio Artifact, KA 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6- Key Assessments TS1 TS2 TS3 TS4 TS5 TS6 TS7 TS8 TS9 TS10
K, KA1 K K K K, A K K K -- --
EKU Goals
EKU-G1 EKU–G2 EKU-G3 EKU-G4 EKU-G5
-- -- X X --
EPSB Themes
K- Basic Knowledge, A- Application, PA- Portfolio Artifact, KA 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6- Key Assessments Diversity Assessment Literacy/Reading Closing Achievement Gap
K K, A -- K
SPA
Council for Exceptional Children New Teacher Standards
CEC 1, 2, 3, 8, 9
Attachment B
Summary of Findings for SED 351
Assessment Section Total Points Average Protocol scoring 50 46.67 Background information 4 3.6 Family information 2 2.0 Educational background 2 1.93 Testing observations 7 6.53 Testing results – narrative 20 14.8 Summary/conclusions 7 4.4 Recommendations 8 5.13 Total Score – Report 50 38.53
Items 1 through 9 correspond to sections of assessment project listed in chart above. Findings: Overall, these undergraduate students are performing above average on all areas of the assessment project. The strongest skill area was administering and scoring the test with an average of 46.67. One of the students did not turn in a protocol resulting in a zero. Without that student as an outlier, the average would have been 50 out of 50. Students are supervised as they give the assessments and given opportunities to check and recheck their work ensuring they have scored them correctly. The weakest areas for these students are interpreting the results and then writing suggestions for how to remediate deficit areas. Most of these students have not taken a methods and materials course so their knowledge of strategies and recommendations is limited. Their skills in these areas are strengthened the next semester when they take their methods classes and can begin to tie these skills together. However, during the course, they are given the opportunity to review and analyze three to four other case studies.
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Attachment C
Criteria for Case Report for SED 351
1. Case reports must be type-written using 12 point font and double spaced.
2. The format for the written report should be as follows:
A. Personal Background
Personal Data – must include student’s name, age, testing date, and grade
Also include any information that could be significant to the student's education, severe childhood illnesses, premature birth, etc.
B. Family Background
Include only significant events that could be relevant to the education of the student, such as frequent moves, lives in foster care, etc. - AVOID GOSSIP
C. Educational Background
Include any information about past school experiences, both positive and negative, that could be relevant to the student's current educational level (office referrals, retention, etc.)
D. Testing Observations
Include any significant behavior observed during the testing sessions such as unusual anxiety or fatigue, lack of cooperation, too eager to answer, impulsivity, etc.
E. Testing Results
1. Create a table or chart showing the test results – include name of test, subtest name, grade equivalent, and any other score you want to include (SS, percentile, etc.)
2. Provide a detailed narrative of test results – what do the scores mean (Susie is performing 2 grade levels below average), and how does that impact on the student’s academic success (Susie’s word attack skills are currently 3.2 grade levels below average indicating that she will have difficulty using phonics skills to learn to read…)
F. Summary and Conclusions In a short paragraph, offer a recap of the testing results and what they mean for the child's educational
development using “global” language (Overall, Susie is currently performing significantly below her same aged peers in all reading skills but is on grade level in math. This would indicate that she will have difficulty in all content areas that require reading skills…)
G. Recommendations
Based on the strengths and weaknesses determined by the student’s test scores, include here educational recommendations for the child both in academics and/or behavioral programming, include any related services including more testing, and any suggestions for parents/guardians for support at home
Scoring Rubric for SED 351
Administering, Scoring, and Interpreting Assessment Instrument
PROJECT COMPONENT TOTAL POSSIBLE
POINTS POINTS AWARDED
Administer and Score Assessment Cover Page Complete/Correct Basal/Ceiling Calculated Correctly Raw Scores Correct Computer Scoring Correct Protocol/Computer Printout Included
50
*Individual points taken for each error
Written Interpretation of Results Personal Background
(50) 4
Family Background 2 Educational Background 2 Testing Observations 7 Testing Results Chart Included with GE Discussion of Strengths/Weaknesses
20
Summary and Conclusions 7 Recommendations Strategies for Weaknesses Maintenance of Skills Recommendations for Parents
8
Total Points for Project 100 *See testing protocol for explanation of scoring errors.
