SFASU · Web viewDHH COMS 5823 Lit. Dev. - DHH SPH 471 CSD 4660 Internship I EC-12 Part 1 PEDG 5383 Internship EDSP 5093* Internship for DHH I SPH 476 CSD 4360 Language …

2015: THECB Program Review Report; DHH, SPED, VI

Program Review, 2015

Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH, Undergraduate)

Special Education (SPED; BSIS, M.Ed. Initial Certification and M.Ed. Diagnostician)

Visual Impairment (VI, M.Ed. in Special Education – Certification as Teacher of the Visually Impaired)

1


Program Review (Overview)TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH, Undergraduate)2. Special Education (BSIS, M.Ed. Initial Certification, and M.Ed. Diagnostician)3. Visual Impairment (VI, M.Ed in Special Education -Certification as Teacher of the

Visually Impaired)

I. Deaf and Hard-of Hearing (DHH) Self-Study Review (Undergraduate) 4-21Introduction 04Faculty Qualifications 04Full-time/Part-time (F/P) Faculty 04Additional Faculty 07Faculty Publications 07Faculty External Grants 08Faculty Teaching Load 08Faculty/Student Ration 08Student Demographics 09Student Time-to-Degree 10Student Publication and Awards 12Student Retention, Graduation, Enrollment Rates, and Degrees Conferred 12Graduate Licensure Rates & Placement 14Alignment of Program with Stated Program and Institutional Goals & Purposes 15Program Curriculum and Duration in Comparison to Peer Programs 15Program Facilities and Equipment 19Program Finance and Resources 20Program Administration 20Conclusion 20

II. THECB Special Education … (BSIS; M.Ed. initial certification; M.Ed. Diagnostician) 22-78Faculty Qualifications 22Faculty Publications 25Faculty External Grants 26Faculty Teaching Load 27Faculty/Student Ratio 28Student Information by Program 28Program and Accreditation Standard Alignment 36Principal Undergraduate Assessment Findings Based on CEC Standards 37

BSIS 37M.Ed. in Special Education with Initial Teacher Certification 55M.Ed. in Special Education with Certification as an Educational Diagnostician 70

Program Finance and Resources 78Program Administration 78

2


III. Visual Impairment 79-123Faculty Qualifications 79Faculty Publications 83Faculty External Grants 84Faculty Teaching Load 85Faculty/Student Ratio 86Student Demographics 86Personnel Prep Advisory Group (PPAG) 86M.Ed. in Special Education – Certification as Teacher of the Visually Impaired 90Student Publications and Awards 91Student Enrollment and Retention Rates 92Student Graduation Rates 94Graduate Licensure Rates 96Graduate Placement 96Number of Degrees Conferred Annually 97Program and Accreditation Standard Alignment 98Assessment of Student Learning and Alignment with CEC 102Program Curriculum and Duration in Comparison to Peer Programs 122Program Facilities and Equipment 122Program Finance and Resource 122Program Administration 89

3


Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) Self-Study Review (Undergraduate)

Introduction

The following document serves as the program report for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) program in the James I. Perkins College Education at Stephen F. Austin State University (SFASU). The SFASU DHH program is a four-year, undergraduate educator preparation program (EPP), offering educator preparation for students desiring to teach deaf and hard of hearing students in grade PK – 12. The DHH degree offers students opportunity to obtain highly-qualified status with a Texas educator certification in Deaf and Hard of Hearing (PK – 12). This report spans a seven year period (2008 – 2015) and was compiled for review by The Higher Education Coordinating Board.

Faculty Qualifications

The DDH program employs three full-time faculty. Additionally, adjunct faculty are utilized on a semester-by-semester basis according to program needs. The following table lists the qualifications (including education, courses taught, certifications, and/or licensures) of the current full-time faculty and part-time faculty (2014 - 2015 academic year). Also following is a description of the current full-time and part-time faculty.

Full-Time/Part-Time (F/P) Faculty:

Scott Whitney, Ed.D. Scott Whitney, Associate Professor, has three years’ teaching experience in a Deaf Education classroom. He has also been teaching American Sign Language I and II since 1997, beginning his career in teaching sign language at Lamar State College. Scott Whitney also has 8 years of experience supervising student teachers and practicum students. He has been employed in the teacher preparation program (Deaf and hard of hearing) at Stephen F. Austin since 2002. His experience includes applying for and receiving NCATE accreditation, with the collaboration of other faculty.

J. Lindsey Kennon, M.Ed. Lindsey Kennon has been teaching in the field of Deaf Education for eleven years. She has experience teaching in deaf education public school settings (five years) and at the university level (six years). Her public school experience includes teaching all levels of students (PK - 12) in self-contained settings, itinerant settings, co-teach settings, and teaching elective ASL courses. She has taught a diverse population of students with regard to hearing levels, communication modalities, use of amplification devices, literacy levels, grade levels, etc. During her time as a classroom teacher, she served as a mentor to new deaf education teachers and also served as a mentor to university preservice student teachers. Lindsey began her tenure at Stephen F. Austin in 2008, teaching adjunct courses in deaf education. Hired full-time in 2010 at SFA, Lindsey has taught upper-level deaf education courses as well as American Sign Language. She continues to work with student teachers and practicum students as a field supervisor. She is currently a tenure-track instructor with coursework completed in an Educational Doctoral program with Sam Houston State University (Ed.D. Developmental

4


Education Administration). At the time of this report, she has a current status in her doctoral work of “ABD”, with an anticipated completion of her doctoral degree in August 2015.

Shelia Dyer, M.A. Shelia Dyer has extensive experience interpreting for the Deaf Community. She has also been instrumental in setting up workshops at Stephen F. Austin for the benefit of existing ASL students. She has been teaching ASL courses and Deaf culture at Stephen F. Austin State University since 2000. Her connections with the Deaf Community, expertise in American Sign Language, and contributions to the language-learning of our students are critical to the success of the program.

Maggie Hilton, M.A. Maggie currently works as the Coordinator of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services and Senior Interpreter for the disability services office at Stephen F. Austin State University. Before her current position, she was employed by the same program from 2005-2009 as an American Sign Language Interpreter. Her skills as an interpreter and position as an interpreter coordinator give her valuable insight into the needs of a program which will train potential future interpreters. She has taught ASL I (SPH 172) as an adjunct faculty member since 2010.

Mandy Seybold, M.Ed. Mandy has served in the field of education for 13 years. She has experience in many roles: elementary classroom teacher, auditory impaired specialist, and adjunct faculty for Angelina Community College, University of Phoenix and Stephen F. Austin State University. She has also served as the Professional Development Trainer for Literacy for Coastal Region Adult Education and as the Professional Development Coordinator and ESL Assessment Trainer for Region V Adult Education.

Nancy Burleson, M.S. Nancy has 6.75 years of experience in teaching deaf and hard of hearing students in the Texas Regional Day School Program (RDSPD) for the Deaf system. She has taught grades K – 5 in self-contained and itinerant settings in various content areas. She has experience in writing Individualized Education Plans (IEP’s), attending Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) meetings, and monitoring student progress. She served as deaf education team leader for one year during her teaching experience.

FACULTY QUALIFICATIONSFACULTY COURSES

TAUGHTACADEMIC DEGREES &

COURSEWORK OTHER

QUALIFICATIONS & COMMENTS

Scott Whitney, Ed.D. (F)

SPH 172 - ASL ISPH 272SPH 414SPH 274SED 442SPH 470SPH 471DHH 442

Ed.D. Lamar University, Deaf Education/Deaf Studies

M.A. Illinois State University, Special Education

B.A. North Park College, Biology

Texas Certificates Held - Deaf Education (EC – 12)

Passed the TASC-ASL Certification Exam

5


Lindsey Kennon, M.Ed. (F)

SPH 172SPH 470 DHH 350 SPH 476SPE 443 SPH 471SPH 414 SPH 442

Ed.D. (Aug 2015) Sam Houston State University (ABD), Developmental Education Administration

M. Ed. (2008) Stephen F. Austin State University, Educational Leadership

B.S. (2004) Stephen F. Austin State University, Hearing Impairment

Texas Certificates Held- Hearing Impaired (EC-12)- American Sign Language - Generalist (EC-4)- Generalist (4 – 8) - English (8 – 12)

Passed the All-Level Principal Exam (2008)

Shelia Dyer, M.A. (F)

SPH 172SPH 476SPH 479SPH 478SPH 483SPH 414

M.A. Stephen F. Austin State University, Interdisciplinary Studies

B.A. East Central State University, Human Services Rehabilitation

Certificates Held- BEI Level III American Sign Language Interpreting Certification- DARS - Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Certificate Court Interpreter

Maggie Hilton, M.A.(P)

SPH 172SPH 272

M.A. (2009) Stephen F. Austin State University, Public Administration

B.S. (2008) Stephen F. Austin State University, Deaf and Hard of Hearing (Magna Cum Laude)

Texas Certificates Held- Deaf and Hard of Hearing(PK – 12)

Other Certificates- BEI III American Sign Language Interpreting Certification

Burleson, Nancy E. (P)

SPH 272SPH 172SPH 274

M.A. (2006) Lamar University, Deaf Education

B.A. (2004) Texas Woman’s University, Communication Sciences and Disorders

Texas Certificates Held- Deaf and Hard of Hearing (PK – 12)- English as a Second Language (EC – 12)- Generalist (EC-4)

Other Certificates- Texas BEI Certified Sign Language Interpreter

Seybold, Mandy (P)

SPH 172 M.Ed. (2007) Stephen F. Austin State University, Professional Reading Specialist

M. Ed. (2005) Stephen F. Austin State University, Educational Leadership

Texas Certificates Held- Hearing Impaired (EC – 12)- Generalist (EC – 4)- English (4 – 8)- Master Reading (EC – 12)- Principal (EC – 12)- Reading Specialist (EC – 12)

6


B.S. (2002) Stephen F. Austin State University, Hearing Impaired

Additional faculty. Although the faculty members currently employed in the program are fully qualified to teach in the proposed degree program, the quality and quantity of the coursework for this degree are demanding and would stretch the current faculty members thinly. An addition of one, possibly two, new faculty positions are necessary in order to run a program of excellence and of the quality SFA demands. These faculty members will be highly qualified to teach the required course load and will allow all members of the faculty to fully focus on student learning and success for the program.

Faculty Publications

A listing of SFASU DHH program faculty publications follows this report. Additional publications are projected for the 2014-2015 and 2015 – 2016 academic terms. Publication is a goal and requirement of all SFASU DHH program full-time faculty. Faculty are also frequently involved in presentations at the local, regional, state, and national levels.

Scott Whitney, Ed.D.Peer ReviewedWhitney, S. (2015). Intel App Challenge: Snapshot ASL Recorder and Handshape Recognizer.

Competition results announced mid-April 2015. Retrieved March 9, 2015 from: http://faculty.sfasu.edu/whitneyscott/RealSenseAppChallenge/Submission/SnapShotASLDemo.mp4

Whitney, S. (2004). Mocap ASL for the Sciences. National Science Foundation RDE-DEI: award #HRD-0435679.

Whitney, S. (2007). Adventure Games as Teaching Tools for Deaf and Hard of Hearing students. Journal of Border Education Research. (In print, Journal discontinued before published).

Whitney, S. (2007). ASL for the Sciences: Needs, Resources, and Research. Retrieved October 19, 2007, from DeafEd.net Web site. Site has been revised. Original file: http://faculty.sfasu.edu/whitneyscott/StateWide/statewide06.ppt

Requested for Student ThesisWhitney, S. (2007). Animal Signs 3D. Retrieved October 19, 2007, from Faculty Page - Scott

Whitney Web site: http://www.faculty.sfasu.edu/whitneyscott/AnimalSigns/animalsigns3d.zip

Requested by Local TeachersWhitney, S. (2007). TAKS Signs. Retrieved November 2, 2007, Faculty Page - Scott Whitney

Web site: http://faculty.sfasu.edu/whitneyscott/TAKSSigns/TAKSSigns.htmSelf-PublishedWhitney, S. (2012). Online Study tool. Retrieved October 10, 2013, from Faculty Page - Scott

Whitney Web site: Migrating to new server Whitney, S. (2005). Survey of Deaf Education Teacher Attrition in Texas. Retrieved November

2, 2007, from Faculty Page - Scott Whitney Web site: http://www.faculty.sfasu.edu/whitneyscott/DHHTeacherAttritionTX.htm

Whitney, S. (2007). Science Signs Quiz – 3D and QuickTime.

7

http://www.faculty.sfasu.edu/whitneyscott/DHHTeacherAttritionTX.htm

http://faculty.sfasu.edu/whitneyscott/TAKSSigns/TAKSSigns.htm

http://www.faculty.sfasu.edu/whitneyscott/AnimalSigns/animalsigns3d.zip

http://faculty.sfasu.edu/whitneyscott/StateWide/statewide06.ppt

http://faculty.sfasu.edu/whitneyscott/RealSenseAppChallenge/Submission/SnapShotASLDemo.mp4

http://faculty.sfasu.edu/whitneyscott/RealSenseAppChallenge/Submission/SnapShotASLDemo.mp4


Faculty External Grants

SFASU’s DHH program has not been funded by any grants during the reporting period. There are plans to seek out existing grants as well as write new grants for the future. SFASU boasts outstanding resources for locating and writing grants, the Office of Research and Sponsored Projects. Utilizing the resources on campus will allow the DHH program to pursue external funding with greater fervor.

Faculty Teaching Load

All full-time faculty have a required teaching load of 24 teaching load credits (TLC’s) per academic year. Typically, this is allocated by 12 teaching hours per long semester (fall and spring), the equivalent of four, three-hour courses. There are occasions in which the TLC’s may be split differently between long semesters, depending upon the courses offered, student enrollment, and special circumstances. Part-time faculty, while not guaranteed teaching hours each semester, typically have a course load of three to six credit hours, depending upon the courses offered, student enrollment, and special circumstances. The following chart offers a summary of full-time faculty course loads during the reporting period.

SEMESTER 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Scott Whitney SPRING

FALL 4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

Shelia Dyer SPRINGFALL

5 5

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 6

5 4

Lindsey Kennon SPRINGFALL

03 (Adj)

44

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

Faculty/Student Ratio

American Sign Language (ASL) classes have been between 15 and 30 students. Within the past two years, we have moved to reduce class sizes in ASL classes to 15 students per section in order to allow better feedback on expressive performance. The senior level Deaf education pedagogy courses average 15 students while those courses available to deaf education and interpreting minors enroll an average of 25 students. The larger groups tend to be online courses in the program. This allows for positive student-instructor relationships to develop with each cohort. Even the largest classes (online and ASL) still offer the support of a low faculty-to-student ratio.

8


Student DemographicsEtnicity

Demographic data for the reporting period were requested by program faculty from various university offices. For the 2014-2015 Academic year, the DHH program student demographics are as follows:

Ethnicity

Demographic data for the reporting period were requested by program faculty from various university offices. For the 2014-2015 Academic year, the DHH program student demographics are as follows:

# of Newly Enrolled Students in each category

Percent of total newly enrolled students in program

2011 Black or African American 1 4.76%Hispanic of any race 2 9.52%Race and ethnicity unknown 1 4.76%White 17 80.95%

2012 Asian 1 3.33%Black or African American 3 10.00%Hispanic of any race 6 20.00%Race and ethnicity unknown 2 6.67%White 18 60.00%

2013 American Indian or Alaskan 2 7.14%Black or African American 3 10.71%Hispanic of any race 4 14.29%Race and ethnicity unknown 1 3.57%White 18 64.29%

2014 Black or African American 3 7.69%Hispanic of any race 7 17.95%White 29 74.36%

Grand Total 118 100.00%

Geographical distribution of students:BatchGeo was used (https://en.batchgeo.com) to create a visual map representing the regional areas from which our students permanently reside. In additional to enabling understanding of our student population demographics, this is useful data in terms of recruitment efforts. The map makes it clear from which areas our students typically reside, allowing for reinforcing recruitment in those areas. It also makes it clear from which areas recruitment efforts should be increased and targeted.

Using Webfocus to generate addresses of students enrolled in Human Services programs and data on high schools from which the students graduated, we generated a visual representation of the geographical origin of the students. Where data was provided, we used the home address,

9

Scott Whitney, 05/07/15,

For future reports add description of the WebFocus reports used to generate this data


For future reports, include description of WebFocus reports used to generate this data

https://en.batchgeo.com/


where it was not provided; we used the high school name and cross-referenced the name with the Texas School Directory generated by AskTED.http://mansfield.tea.state.tx.us/TEA.AskTED.Web/Forms/SearchScreen.aspx?orgType=State Of 131 students who started the program from 2010 to 2014, only 2 had no data from either source.

Data from students who began the program between 2010 and 2014 indicate a strong student pool permanently residing in the Dallas/Fort Worth area as well as the Houston area.

The map is located at https://batchgeo.com/map/3cd39b559a50c1900c95cbb4955af0fa

Student Time-to-Degree

The DHH program is a four-year, undergraduate degree. The degree is designed to be completed in a four-year time period. Typically, students adhere to this format. At times, transfer students will veer from the set plan due to factors such as date of entry in the program, when courses are offered, and what credit hours were able to transfer from their previous course work. Four (4) years of data were available in the WebFocus system which is available to faculty members. From the fall 2010 semester through the Spring 2013 semester, 7 students graduated. 6 of the students completed the degree within 2 years of “starting” and one completed the degree within 3 years. It is not yet clear if “start” means enrolling in the university or declaring their major as DHH, though it would seem logical that it would mean the time at which students declared their major. It is important to note that the program may have had more than 7 students graduate over the four years of data available, but the student began the program before 2010. The date they began the program is not available though WebFocus.

10

https://batchgeo.com/map/3cd39b559a50c1900c95cbb4955af0fa

http://mansfield.tea.state.tx.us/TEA.AskTED.Web/Forms/SearchScreen.aspx?orgType=State


There are other factors that affect time-to-degree for our students, delaying or accelerating graduation. Dual credit high school programs are becoming more prevalent. Due to this, students entering the University might be able to begin major course work sooner. Admission to Teacher Education requires certain criteria to be met. At times, some students might experience difficulties meeting these requirements (GPA, cut scores on exams, clearing background checks), which delay graduation. The Perkins College of Education also has a policy that all students must pass their content certification exams (required by the Texas Education Agency for certification) prior to being allowed to student teach. Occasionally, a student might be delayed in student teaching as they attempt to pass exams required in the timeframe established. Below is a typical four-year plan for a student in the DHH program.

TIME-TO-DEGREE – TYPICAL FOUR-YEAR PLANFreshman Year

COURSE # COURSE TITLE COURSE # COURSE TITLE

SPH 172Beginning American Sign Language SPH 272 American Sign Language II

Science Many choices available PSC 142Intro to American Government: Structure

PSC 141Intro to American Government: Theory ENG 132

Comp & Rhetoric: Critical & Analytical

ENG 131Composition: Rhetoric & Argument MTH 127

Intro to Math for Elem. Teachers

Humanities Many choices available Science Many Choices Available

HIS 133U.S. History Survey, 1000-1877 HIS 134

U.S. History Survey, 1877 – Present

Sophomore YearCourse # Course Title Course # Course Title

SPH 477American Sign Language III SPH 479 American Sign Language IV

MTH 128Intermediate Math for Elem. Teachers

MTH 129 or up Many Choices Available

SpecializationFor Highly Qualified Status Specialization For Highly Qualified Status

Soc/Beh Sci. Many Choices Available EPS 380 Educational Psychology

RDG 318Early Literacy Development SPH 274 Introduction to Deaf Education

Junior Year

SPH 470 Language for the Deaf SPH 442Seminar in Speech and Language Methods

SPH 478Manual Communication Interpreting SED 372

Reading & Info Literacy in Secondary Schools

SpecializationFor Highly Qualified Status Specialization For Highly Qualified Status

SED 370 Intro to Pedagogy & SED 450 Facilitating a Learner-Centered

11


Active Learning Environment

RDG 320Upper Level Literacy Department SPH 350

Access to the Phonemic Code – DHH

SPH 476Literacy Development for the Deaf

Senior Year

SPH 471Practicum: Deaf and Hard of Hearing SED 442

Student Teaching in a Secondary Learning Community

SPE 329 Survey of Exceptionalities

SpecializationFor Highly Qualified Status ELE 441

Student Teaching in the Elementary School

SPH 414 Deaf Culture SED 443 Synthesis Seminar

Student Publication and Awards

During the Spring 2012 semester, DHH major Allyson Hall was awarded recognition as Outstanding Secondary Education Student Teacher among a pool of regular education, special education, and deaf education students. Allyson was applauded for her professionalism, teaching, and overall performance as a student educator. Another DHH major, Sarah Tinsley, was awarded the prestigious University Scholars Award scholarship through the School of Honors. This award considers all students across all colleges in the university. Sarah being the recipient speaks to the high quality of students the DHH program attracts. The DHH program students and faculty are proud of the student achievements and recognition.

These awards are not necessarily continuous. We encourage students to apply for awards as we learn of them. Periodically, our students are awarded these external awards. We have no awards tied specifically to the DHH program that are given on a regular basis.

Student Retention, Graduation, Enrollment Rates, and Degrees Conferred Annually

The following chart contains information regarding enrollment and degrees awarded from 2008 – 2015. There is a trend of steady growth over the seven year span. Recruitment events indicate an increased awareness and interest in the program. There also exists a steady need for educators in this field, a high-need area as identified by the Texas Education Agency.

YEAR2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15 AVG

DEGREES AWARDED 15 15 9 9 12 10.2

ENROLLMENT 70 67 76 90 105 93 106

From the WebFocus data available to faculty, we were able to partially determine retention data over the past four years. The data consists of the sre422_fr_retions_study_prod (address, id, name, demographic data, and enrollment status) with the sre350_grade_sheets_prod reports.

12


Of 131 students identified as DHH majors, 87 have not graduated and are not currently enrolled. This, however, does not accurately reflect attrition. 64 out of the 87 students not enrolled or attending never took a class in the DHH degree plan. It may be that the 64 students either did not attend the university after applying or they dropped out before the program had a chance to work with them to any significant degree.

23 students who selected DHH as their major did take at least one course in the DHH degree plan, but have now been identified as not attending or not enrolled. 46 students who selected DHH as their major either graduated or are still enrolled.

The data was calculated as follows:46 students enrolled or graduated23 students took at least one class. No longer enrolled, did not graduate (attrition).69 students total

Attrition:23/69 = 33%

Of the students who left the program, 5 students took only 2 courses, only one of those 5 took the first pedagogy course. In total, 7 students who took the first pedagogy course are no longer enrolled and have not graduated. The majority (14 out of 23) of students who took at least one DHH course left the program after the first one or two ASL courses. This may indicate that they were unsure of their major or that they had excessive difficulty acquiring American Sign Language. A survey would help us identify strategies to improve retention. A similar survey would help identify strategies to retain students who take the first pedagogy course in the DHH major and then withdraw from the university.

We would like t answer the following questions: Are students choosing their major accurately? The number of students who never took a DHH course may indicate errors in selecting a major. An unquantified number of conversations with students have indicated that many choose a DHH major when they actually intend to become interpreters. We need to find a means of assessing the frequency of students choosing the wrong major and then find ways to decrease such errors.

We have experienced at least 3 students who have temporarily withdrawn for personal reasons, then return to the program. We need to accurately assess the number of students who have done so.

It would be extremely useful to determine if the attrition represents a loss of students with high or low GPA. If we are losing students with a high GPA, we may want to take steps to prevent the loss of such students. If we are losing students with a low GPA, we may want to take steps to increase the success of students who are struggling.

Graduate Licensure Rates & Placement (i.e. Employment or Further Education/Training)

From the SBEC Educator Certification website:

13


Because the data for certificates awarded is aggregated under Special Education in the SBEC Educator Certification Online System as well as the TEA TPEIR reports, we will use the passing rates on certification tests. The data presented was downloaded from the SBEC Educator Certification Oline system using ASEP reports on certification test pass rates. 2013-2014 data is not available at this time. The report, therefore, includes 6 years’ worth of data.

For the TExES 181 exam, we have pass rates of 84.6 to 88.9 for 3 of the years of available data. For the remaining 3 years, pass rates exceeded 90%. For one year, we had a 100% pass rate.

Data source:https://secure.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECONLINE/ASEP2/rpt_web_initial_pass_rate_menu.asp?sid=Initial Pass Rates By Entity – one year’s data downloaded at a time, combined into a single spreadsheet.

Stephen F Austin State University DHH program

Statewide

Ac. Yr Takers Passers PercentTakers

Passers Percent

2006-2007 13 13 100 54 50 96.509090912007-2008 9 8 88.9 55 49 81.11252008-2009 11 10 90.9 53 45 80.672009-2010 14 13 92.9 25 24 88.888888892010-2011 14 12 85.7 44 40 86.142011-2012 13 11 84.6 26 24 81.81818182

Grand Total 90.5 257 232 86.0779661

The Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program at Stephen F. Austin State University compares favorably to the statewide pass rates. With the exception of 2011, the SFASU passing rates have exceeded the Statewide averages (calculated with the SFA data removed).

Graduates of the DHH program have a high rate of employability upon graduation and certification. Typically, students in the program receive multiple job offers prior to graduation. It is common for Texas school districts to contact program faculty with openings throughout the year, especially in the early spring semesters.

Based on informal faculty observation, many SFASU DHH program graduates tend to pursue post-baccalaureate graduate degrees. Typically, these students are seeking Masters level degrees ranging from special education, diagnostician, reading specialists, deaf studies, and educational leadership. Recently, a former graduate contacted program faculty to request a letter of recommendation for a doctoral program. SFASU DHH program graduates tend to be the leaders in their districts and programs, a point for which the DHH faculty are proud.

14


Can we get numbers?


Where can we get employment data?

https://secure.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECONLINE/ASEP2/rpt_web_initial_pass_rate_menu.asp?sid


Alignment of Program with Stated Program and Institutional Goals and Purposes

The Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program at SFASU is closely aligned with the mission, goals and values of the Unit, the College of Education. The mission of the College of Education is to prepare competent, successful, caring and enthusiastic professionals dedicated to responsible service, leadership, and continued professional and intellectual development. We share the mission and goals of the Unit. Preparing competent special educators

Further, the goals of the Unit are 1) to provide programs based upon sound pedagogical and clinical practice, 2) to prepare teachers, support personnel, and educational leaders for Texas, 3) to employ and support faculty members who are committed to excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service, 4) to provide a variety of teaching venues incorporating the latest technologies to a range of diverse student interests, backgrounds, and aspirations, 5) to maintain resources and facilities that allow each program to meet its expected outcomes, 6) to collaborate with external partners to enhance students’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions, and to influence the ongoing exchange of ideas for mutual benefit, and 7) to conduct research to advance knowledge and to contribute to the common good. Department and program faculty embrace these goals and strive to achieve them to the best of their ability with the resources available.

In the College of Education we value and are committed to the following values: (1) academic excellence through critical, reflective, and creative thinking, (2) life-long learning, (3) collaboration and shared decision-making, (4) openness to new ideas, to culturally diverse people, and to innovation and change, (5) integrity, responsibility, diligence, and ethical behavior, and (6) service that enriches the community.

The “theme” of the Unit is “preparing professional educators who positively impact learning for all students.” Deaf and Hard of Hearing teaching candidates value and demonstrate academic excellence, collaboration, openness, and integrity. They are dedicated to service and committed to lifelong learning and professional development.

Program Curriculum and Duration in Comparison to Peer Programs

SFA Course

Baylor – B.A. Lamar – M.S. Texas Tech – M.S. TWU M.S.

SPH 172 CSD 1405 ASL I DSDE 2375 ASL 1301 - ASL I COMS 4553 ASL I

SPH 272 1406 ASL II DSDE 2376 ASL 1302 - ASL II COMS 4613 ASL II

SPH 477 2301 ASL III DSDE 3306 ASL 2301 - ASL III COMS 4913 ASL III

SPH 479 2302 ASL IV DSDE 4307 ASL 2302 - ASL IV

SPH 483 SPH478 DSDE 1378 ASL 3301 - ASL V

15


SPH 274 CSD 1360 Introduction to Deaf Education

DSDE 1377 EDSP 5350* Foundations DHH

COMS 5753 History and Trends

SPH 414 CSD 3312 Deaf Studies

DSDE 1374 ASL 3312 - Deaf Culture

COMS 2513 Deaf Culture

DHH 442 DSDE 5322 Modern Math & Science

EDSP 5307 Problems and Trends in Special Education

COMS 5403 Language through content

SPH 470 CSD 2318 Language Development

DSDE 5318 ASL/ENG Bilingual Ed. DHH

EDSP 5351* Emergent Lang & Lit. DHH

COMS 5823 Lit. Dev. - DHH

SPH 471 CSD 4660 Internship I EC-12 Part 1

PEDG 5383 Internship

EDSP 5093* Internship for DHH I

SPH 476 CSD 4360 Language and Reading DHH I

DSDE 5319 Bilingual Lit & Deaf

EDSP 5353* Advanced Language & Literacy DHH

COMS 5663 Strategies Language Dev.

DHH 350 CSD 4368 Introduction to Aural Rehab

DSDE 5313 Speech & Audio Deaf Education

EDSP 5352* Oral Communication for DHH Students

COMS 5683 Spoken lang. & listening

SED 370 TED 1312 Introduction to Teaching

PEDG 5350 The Learning Process

SED 372 TED 1112 Instructional Technology Lab

DSDE 5321 Instructional Design

SPE 443 CSD 4662 Internship II EC-12 Part 1

DSDE 5309 Advanced Practicum

EDSP 5093* Internship DHH II

Student Teaching

SED 450 CSD 4661 Internship I EC-12 Part 2

PEDG 5330 Effective Teaching

COMS 5513 Instructional Processes DHH

SPE 329 TED 2360 Teaching Special Education

DSDE 5328 Multi-disabled Deaf

EDSP 5389 DHH with additional disabilities

COMS 5303 Differentiated Instr. For addn’l disabilities

RDG 318 PEDG 5387 Reading in Elementary Sch.

HMS 203 PEDG 5340 Normal Human

16


Growth & DevSED 443 PEDG 5345

Instructional Design

DSDE 5314 Adv. Deaf Studies

DSDE 5320 ASL/ENG Bilingual Assessment

DSDE 5326 Psych. of Deaf

DSDE 5329 Law and Deaf Ed.

PEDG 5375 Content Area Reading

DSDE 5310 Multicultural Deaf

DSDE 5311 ASL V

CSD 4301

Introduction to Audiology

AHSL 5344* Basics of Audiology

COMS 5013 Audiology for Deaf Education

AHSL 5345* Aural Habilitation

EDSP 5303 ABA I: Applied Behavior Analysis in Special Education

EDSP 5354* Accessing the General Education Curriculum for Students who are DHH

CSD 4663 Internship II EC-12 Part 2

CSD 4352 Diagnostic Methods

COMS 5853 Teacher Friendly Assessment Strategies

CSD 4361

17


Language and Reading Instruction for the Deaf II

COMS 5123 Family-Centered Early Ed. DHHCOMS 4653 Literacy Dev. HI

COMS 5803 Parent-Professional Comm. Collab.

COMS 5903 Linguistics of Sign Communication

Of the undergraduate programs offered, Lamar University’s B.A. in American Sign Language and TCU’s B.S. in Habilitation of Deaf and Hard of Hearing are the most comparable to the DHH program at SFASU. Like our program, both of these university programs are Educator Preparation Programs (EPP’s), allowing graduates the opportunity to obtain a Texas teaching certificate in Deaf and Hard of Hearing (EC – 12). Both programs, like SFASU, require practicum experiences in classrooms with deaf and hard of hearing students.

With regard to program curriculum, Lamar University’s B.A. in American Sign Language is the most comparable to SFASU’s DHH program with regard to philosophy, methodology, and course content. With a primary focus on language (preferably with the use of American Sign Language), SFASU’s program and Lamar’s program both offer rich coursework in American Sign Language and education courses specifically related to teaching deaf and hard of hearing students. TCU’s B.S. in Habilitation of Deaf and Hard of Hearing has a central focus that falls more in the area of clinical intervention with many courses in speech and language pathology as required coursework. TCU’s degree plan lists “Basic Sign” and “Intermediate Sign” in addition to ASL I and ASL II. This likely suggests there is less emphasis on American Sign Language in this program and more of an overview in ASL paired with an overview of other sign coding systems.

Requirements for number of hours in each of the three comparable programs (SFASU, Lamar, TCU) are very much aligned, which each program requiring between 120-124 hours of coursework. As mentioned, all programs offer certification in the area of Deaf and Hard of Hearing. A sampling of course syllabi were pulled for each program. It was found that the coursework offered for all undergraduate programs, is similar (with the exception of TCU’s program – which still offered comparable classes in deaf education, just not as many). Course assignments were also comparable, as were philosophies for SFASU and Lamar Deaf Education programs.

18


I don’t really see much overlap


A small national comparison study was conducted to determine the degree to which SFASU’s Deaf and Hard of Hearing program compared. Utah State University (USU) has a comparable Deaf Education program, offering a B.S. in Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education. As with comparable undergraduate programs, USU offers similarity in coursework, number of required hours, course assignments, and even textbooks. Interestingly, USU’s program was the most comparable to SFASU’s with regard to philosophy and methodology, more so than the state comparative programming.

Overall, SFASU’s Deaf and Hard of Hearing program is doing well when compared to state and national programs. There are areas identified in which expansion could occur (how teachers obtain highly qualified status, offering additional certifications, offering more varied coursework). SFASU’s DHH program continues to offer a degree that is rare in the state and that continues to be fueled by a high need area in public education. The comparative study was worthwhile to bring validation to current practice and offer insight for future needs and improvement.

Program Facilities and Equipment

The DHH program has two labs: the American Sign Language (ASL) Media Development Lab and the ASL Student Lab (listed as a single lab). The media development lab has a full video recording and processing studio. The ASL laboratory is outfitted with three recording booths and additional recording capability through four MacIntosh computers. The lab serves approximately 250 students enrolled in ASL courses each semester.

Additional video recording capability has been added with the purchase of 25 high quality webcams. The webcams are used with GoREACT – a video-based learning management system which allows feedback to be synchronized with the video recordings. It also allows the use of video prompts and rubrics. One instructor uses the webcams in Infolab I of the Ralph W. Steen Library which allows an entire class to record videos simultaneously. This eases the burden on the ASL Lab. In addition, the library has several other labs available that have been beneficial to the DHH program. All have proven instrumental in our assessment system as all students report to one of the labs for their final exams. The library also provides ready resources for research and other projects students complete.

To address future needs, there are plans to purchase three full class sets of webcams and add an additional two recording booths in the ASL Lab as HEF funds, grants, and course fees permit. Also under consideration is the need to increase bandwidth and will require the request of a server to handle the increased demands on University bandwidth caused by our need for online video recording and viewing.

19


Program Finance and Resources

Faculty members are aware that support is allowed through professional development, course fees, and HEF (Higher Education Funds). Each faculty member is informed about these funding sources. Course fees are strategically placed in key courses in order to finance software purchases used in courses to prepare for state certification examinations.

Program financial resources include student course fees only. Faculty can request HEF funds to be decided upon and allocated by the department chair. Faculty collaborate to determine needs on a semester by semester basis (biweekly program faculty members). All full-time faculty are involved in how course fees and HEF funds are to be spent. From those needs, course fees are set and proposed to the Curriculum Committee. This is the only source of funding currently available to the program. No outside grants or external means of funding have been identified at this time.

For example, for the 2013-2014 academic year, faculty determined that there was a need to adopt a benchmark testing procedure for our American Sign Language students utilizing outside signing proficiency assessments. Faculty chose the SLPI (Sign Language Proficiency Interview) administered by the NTID (National Institute for the Deaf). This decision was made by all program faculty being in agreement after researching possible assessment methods during faculty meetings. Course fees were then utilized to pay for individual student assessment.

Program Administration

During the time period reported for this review, the DHH program has been advised by an ad hoc steering committee comprised of various stakeholders. Included in past meetings have been community members, administrators in public education, parents of deaf and hard of hearing children, former students, educators in the field of deaf education in public schools, and educators in the field of deaf education/sign language in postsecondary settings. Dr. Scott Whitney served as the program coordinator from 2002 to 2014. Currently serving as program coordinator is Dr. Frank Mullins. The program is overseen at the departmental level by Dr. Robbie Steward, at the College level by Dean Judy Abbott, and at the University level by campus administration.

During bi-monthly faculty program meetings, general agenda items are discussed and decisions are made at the program level by discussion and collaboration. The department chair hosts bi-monthly Chair’s Advisory Council meetings. Program directors represent each program in the advisory council attendance. This is a general sharing of information from the chair in order for programs to be aware of policy, policy changes, etc. In addition, some joint decisions are made.

Conclusion

The DHH program at SFASU continues to experience growth and steady improvement. There are many projects and plans for future program development and refinement. Faculty constantly assess program elements, students, and themselves in order to insure excellence. This program

20


report highlighted strengths of the program as well as surfaced new avenues to explore to stay competitive and relevant.

21


THECB Special Education (BSIS, M.Ed. initial certification; M.Ed. Diagnostician) Self-Study Review

In accord with NCATE policy, the approval of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Preparation Standards in December 2012 begins a 2 year transition during which preparation program faculty may choose to use the "old" CEC Content Standards or the "new" CEC Preparation Standards. Beginning in the spring of 2015 all preparation program reports must align to the "new" CEC Preparation Standards. This preparation program has begun the process for the “new” alignment of CEC Preparation Standards.

Faculty Information

A. Faculty Qualifications

Paige Mask, Ph.D. Educational Background

Ph.D. Texas Woman’s University – Denton, Texas (2004); Special Education, Educational Administration; Dissertation: A survey of adult postsecondary education student characteristics and perceptions on academic support services received at Texas Woman’s University. (Doctoral Dissertation, Texas Woman’s University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 466.M.Ed.Texas Woman’s University – Denton, Texas (1997); Special Education, Educational DiagnosticianB.A.Texas Woman’s University – Denton, Texas (1994); Psychology, Special Education

Licensures and Certifications2012 Registered Professional Educational Diagnostician, granted by the Texas

Professional Educational Diagnostician Board of Registry.2007 Master Certified Online Instructor, Stephen F. Austin (SFA), Office of

Instructional Technology (OIT). Blackboard®2006 Certified Online Instructor, Stephen F. Austin (SFA), Office of Instructional

Technology (OIT). Blackboard®2001 Educational Diagnostician PK-12, Texas State Board for Educator Certification.

(Obtained 2001–Renewal 2017)2000 Mid-Management Administrator PK-12, Texas State Board for Educator

Certification. (Obtained 2000–Renewal 2017)2000 Instructional Leadership Development (ILD), Certified to be a Professional

Development and Appraisal System (PDAS) Appraiser Supervisor PK-12, Texas State Board for Educator Certification. (Lifetime)1997 Special Education Supervisor PK-12, Texas State Board for Educator

Certification. (Lifetime)1996 Seriously Emotionally Disturbed and Autistic 6-12, Texas State Board for

Educator Certification. (Lifetime)1996 Secondary Physical Education 6-12, Texas State Board for Educator

Certification. (Lifetime)1995 Generic Special Education PK-12, Texas State Board for Educator

Certification. (Lifetime)1995 Secondary Psychology 6-12, Texas State Board for Educator Certification. (Lifetime)

22


1995 Secondary English Language Arts 6-12, Texas State Board for Educator Certification. (Lifetime)Employment History

2011 - Associate Professor, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX2005-2011 Assistant Professor, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacog., TX2004-2005 Assistant Professor, University of Texas – Brownsville, Department of School Specialties. 2001-2004 Denton County Special Education CO-OP – Educational Diagnostician and Transition Specialist.1997-2000 Gainesville ISD – Educational Diagnostician1997-2000 Texas Youth Commission, Gainesville State School – Special Education and GED teacher1994-1997 Northwest ISD – Special Education Teacher

Frank Mullins, Ph.D.Educational Background

Doctorate: Special Education, Leadership Program, Behavioral Disorders, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, 76203. Summer, 1993-Summer, 1996. Graduation Date: December, 1996.

Master of Science, Education: Special Education, Learning Disabilities. Emporia Kansas State College, Emporia, Kansas 66801. Summer, 1974-Summer, 1975. Graduation Date: August, 1975.

Bachelor of Science, Education: Special Education, Educable Mentally Handicapped, Emotionally Disabled, Elementary Education. Kansas State Teachers College, Emporia, Kansas, 66801. Fall, 1970-Spring, 1974. Graduation Date: May, 1974.Professional Certifications

Kansas … Elementary Education (K-9), Educable Mentally Retarded (K-9), Learning Disabilities (K-9), Behavior Disorders, (K-12) … renewed every five years, expiration, 09/02/18.

Texas … Elementary Self-Contained (1-8) (Lifetime), Language and/or Learning Disabled (PK-12) (Lifetime), and Mental Retarded (PK-12), (Lifetime).Employment History

2014 (fall) – Present … Associate Professor, tenure track, College of Education, Department of Human Services, Special Education Program, Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA), Nacogdoches Texas 75965. Dr. Robbie Steward, Department Chair, 1-936-468-1238.

2011 (fall) – 2014 (summer) … Associate Professor, tenure track, School of Education, Department of Curriculum Instruction, Program Coordinator for the Special Education program, University of Texas of the Permian Basin (UTPB), Odessa Texas 79762. Dr. Roy Hurst, Department Chair & Certification Officer, 1-432-552-2132.

2006 (fall) – 2011 (summer) … Associate Professor, tenure track, Department of Special Education, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston Illinois 61920-3099. Dr. Kathlene Shank, Department Chair, 1-217-581-5315.

1999 (fall) – 2006 (summer) … Associate Professor, tenure track, Division of Psychology and Special Education, Area of Emotional Disturbance, Emporia State University, Emporia Kansas 66801. Dr. Weaver may be contacted.

23


Lorna Kathleen Sheriff, Ed.D.: Educational BackgroundEd.D. - 2012- Texas Tech University in Special EducationM.Ed. – 2009- Texas A & M University in Educational Psychology (Low Incidence Disabilities)B.S. – 1981-University of Arkansas in Home Economics (Human Development/Family Studies)Lorna Kathleen Sheriff : Professional CertificationsTeacher Certification issued by the State of Texas:Elementary Self-Contained: Grades 1-8 (Lifetime)Generic Special Education: All Level (Lifetime)Family Consumer Science: Grades 6-12 (Renewal in 2017)Human Development: Grades 8-12 (Renewal in 2017)Dual Sensory Impairments Certification: All Level (Texas Tech University) (Lifetime)Certified On-line Instructor (Stephen F Austin State University) (Lifetime)Lorna Kathleen Sheriff: Employment HistoryK-12 Education Experience:(2010-2012) Employed at Education Service Center, Region VI, in Texas, as an Educational Specialist for 58 school districts in 15 rural counties in Texas. Technical Assistance areas assigned: Preschool Programs for Children with Disabilities (Primary), Parent Coordination Statewide Committee for Parents of Children with Disabilities, Child Find, Low Incidence Disabilities & Autism, Access to the General Curriculum, Deafblind Services, and Least Restrictive Environment(1993-2010) Seventeen Years Public School Teaching Experience in Texas in the Following K-12 Teaching Environments:Grades 6-12 Special Education Resource, Inclusion, & Adaptive Behavior Teacher, 7 years, Cypress Fairbanks ISD, Houston, Texas.Grades 6-8 Alternative School Regular Education & Special Education Middle School Language Arts Teacher, 3 years, Cypress Fairbanks ISD, Houston, Texas.Grades 6-7 Special Education Adaptive Behavior Teacher, 1 year, Klein ISD, Houston, Texas.Grades 6-8 Special Education Self-Contained & Content Mastery Teacher, 1 year, Marble Falls ISD, Marble Falls, Texas.Grades 7-8 Special Education Self-Contained Teacher, 1 year, Katy ISD, Katy, Texas.Grades 6-8 Special Education Inclusion, Self-Contained, In-Home Trainer Teacher, 2 years, Willis ISD, Willis, Texas.Grades 6-8 Special Education Team Leader, Dept. Chair, Mentor Teacher, Inclusion Support Services Teacher, Special Education Testing Coordinator, 3 years, Spring ISD, Spring, Texas.

Lorna Kathleen Sheriff : University Teaching ExperienceStephen F. Austin State University2012-2015 – Assistant Professor, Undergraduate and Online Coordinator for Special Education Program, Stephen F Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, College of Education, Department of Human Services, I participate in Service Learning Projects, Student Advisement, Recruitment for Undergraduate and Masters programs, teach in Graduate school and in Undergraduate program, and perform On-line Course Development.Sam Houston State University2011-2012 – Adjunct Professor, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, College of Education, Department of Language, Literacy and Special Populations.

24


Online Course:SPED 3301 - Learning and Instruction for Young Children with Disabilities – Pre-Service Field Experience Special Education Course (Junior Level Undergraduate Course)Texas Tech University2009-2010 – Instructor and Research Associate, Texas Tech University, Full-time Research Associate and Instructor in the Virginia Murray Sowell Center for Education and Research in Visual Impairments, College of Education, Texas Tech University, in Lubbock, TX. Wrote Grant Performance Report for Continuation Funding with Roseanna Davidson, Ed.D. CSI Grant at Texas Tech University for Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities (CFDA 84.325). Performed research and writing for Institute of Education Sciences Special Education Research and Development Center Program Grant for Development Center on Reading Instruction for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students. I was Evaluation Coordinator for the Rural Children’s Initiative Grant Project for eleven rural counties in the South Plains area of Texas for Dr. DeAnn Lechtenberger, Ph.D. I also participated in Student Advisement and Recruitment for Masters and Doctoral Programs.

B. Faculty Publications

Paige MaskSolmonson, L., Larson, A. & Mask, P. (2011). The professional school counselor’s

role in working with students with ADHD. School Counseling Research and Practice, 1(2), 39-44.

Mask, P. R., Solmonson, L. & Welsh, K. A. (2011). A second longitudinal snapshotof RTI implementation in Texas public elementary schools. The National Social Science Journal, 35(2), 112-123.

Mask, P. R., & McGill, M. J. (2010). Response to intervention: A work in progress. The National Social Science Journal, 34(2), 85-92.

Mask, P. R., Solmonson, L. & Welsh, K. A. (2010). Facilitating the implementation of an RTI model. The State of Reading, 13(1), 17-22.

Mask, P. R. (2010). Expanding the role of educational diagnosticians and school psychologists in the response to intervention model. The Dialog Fall 2010.

Irons, E. J., Carlson, N. L., & Mask, P. R. (2007). Pedagogy differences found betweentraditionally and alternatively prepared teachers. National Social Science Journal, (32)1, 87-92.

Frank MullinsArticles in Refereed JournalsAjuwon, P. M., Lechtenberger, D., Griffin-Shirley, N., Zhou, L., Mullins, F. E.,

& Sokolosky, S.(2012). General education pre-service teachers' perceptions ofincluding students with disabilities in their classrooms, International Journal of Special Education, 27(3),Vancouver, B.C., Canada

Lechtenberger, D., Mullins, F., & Greenwood, D. (2008). “Achieving the promise: Thesignificant role of schools in transforming children’s mental health in America,”

Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(4).

25


DissertationMullins, F. (1996).Rural shared service arrangements: An analysis of perceived

responsibilities/roles with and without site-based decision-making. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton TX. Dr. Lyndal M. Bullock, Major Professor.

Book ChaptersLechtenberger, D. & Mullins, F. (2009). “The Significant Role of Highly Qualified

Teachers In Transforming Children’s Mental Health in America” chapter in OurPromise: Achieving Educational Equality for America’s Children, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA.

Lorna Kathleen SheriffSheriff, L.K., & Hallak, T. (2015). Incidental learning for children with deafblindness.

National Forum of Special Education Journal, 26(1).Sheriff, L.K., & Lechtenberger, D. (2014). Parent and teacher perceptions of challenging

behavior in their children and students with CHARGE syndrome. Journal of Academic Perspectives, 2014(3).

Sheriff, L.K. (2014). Autism and CHARGE syndrome: Parallels in challenging behaviors(Peer review process with editor of Journal of Academic Perspectives)

Sheriff, L.K. (2014). Transition 360: The journey of one man with CHARGE syndrome(In process)

Sheriff, L.K., & Johnson, R. (2014) A study of the impact of service learning onpre-service teachers’ self-efficacy towards students from diverse populations (Inprocess)

Sheriff, L.K., (2014). Parenting my son with CHARGE syndrome: My road to spiritualinsight and positive benefits. In Airen, O., Belanger, K., & Childress, J. (Eds).

Book ChaptersSheriff, L.K., (1014). Faith and loss, light in darkness: Proceedings from the 3rd annual

conference on faith and community. Nacogdoches, TX: SFASU Press. (In Press)

C. Faculty External Grants

Paige Mask Mask, P. (2010). Service Learning, SFA Academic Affairs. (Fall, 2010, $500.00).Mask, P. (2006). Preparing Assessment Personal for Changing Roles and Responsibilities, U.S. Department of Education, (October, 2006, Approved – Not Funded).

Frank MullinsUniversity of Texas of the Permian BasinCEPS Faculty Research Grant Application, Dr. Sham’ah Md-Yunus (EC/ELE/MLE, EIU), Dr.

Mei Ling Li (Special Education, EIU), Dr. Rose Gong (Secondary Education and Foundations, EIU), and Dr. Frank Mullins (University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Special Education), The Pygmalion Effect on Immigrant Children: The Influence of Filial Piety among Asian Students, (submitted and funded Oct. 30, 2013, one year, $50,000), Eastern Illinois University.

26


Principle Investigator (PI), Combined Personnel Preparation (325K-Focus Area D, #H325K100432-11), REACH TO TEACH: Serving Infants, Toddlers, and Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Other Developmental Disabilities. (submitted and funded … four (4) years, $1,065,396), August, 2011-December, 2014.

Eastern Illinois UniversityCEPS Development Grant, 2008-2009 award recipient, Response to Intervention and Readiness

to Implement (RtI2): Are Educators and Administrators Prepared? (submitted and funded, one year, $25,000).

Lorna Kathleen Sheriff: Teaching Grants and Awards2014-2015 – Selected for participation in Faculty Learning Community – Field-Based Learning Collaborative, Center for Teaching & Learning, Office of High Impact Programs, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX. ($3000.00)2013-2014 – Teaching Excellence Honorable Mention Award for ECH 332 Service Learning Grant, University Service Learning Committee, SFASU, Nacogdoches, TX.2013-2014 – Sheriff, L.K., & Johnson, R.D. Service Learning Grant for ECH 332 pre-service general education teachers to participate in an inclusive effort to make an adapted book for the Nacogdoches Public Library for children from diversity and disability, Office of Student Affairs Programs, SFASU, Nacogdoches, TX. ($500.00).2012-2013 – Sheriff, L.K. Service Learning Grant for SPE 329 pre-service special education teachers to participate in making assistive technology devices for children with autism attending private school at The Helping House, Office of Student Affairs Programs, SFASU, Nacogdoches, TX. ($500.00).

D. Faculty Teaching LoadFrank Mullins

24 TLC’s per academic year; Undergraduate and Graduate courses

Fall, 2014 Spring, 2015 Summer, 2015 Fall, 2015

SPE 434 501 (3)SPE 439 002 (3)SPE 460 020 (3)

SPE 329-001 (3)SPE 460-001 (3)SPE 464-002 (3)SPE 465-002 (3)

Kathleen Sheriff

24 TLC’s per academic year; Undergraduate and Graduate courses


SPE 434.501 (3)SPE 439.501 (3)SPE 460.501 (3)SPE 461.501 (3)

SPE 460.501 (3)SPE 466.501 (3)SPE 461.501 (3)SPE 464.501 (3)

SPE 329.501 (6)SPE 539.501 (3)SPE 466.501 (3)EPS 475.001 (3)Independent Study

SPE 434.501 (3)SPE 438.501 (3)SPE 439.501 (3)SPE 566.501 (3)

27


Paige Mask24 TLC’s per academic year

E. Faculty/Student Ratio

Paige Mask 15-32 students for each graduate course taught during the academic year

Frank Mullins


SPE 434 501 (28/1)SPE 439 002 (4/1)SPE 460 020 (10/1)

SPE 329-001 (16/1)SPE 460-001 (13/1)SPE 464-002 (16/1)SPE 465-002 (12/1)

Kathleen Sheriff


SPE 434.501 ()SPE 439.501 (/1)SPE 460.501 (/1)SPE 461.501(/1)

SPE 460.501 (30/1)SPE 466.501 (14/1)SPE 461.501 (05/1)SPE 464.501 (30/1)

SPE 329.501 (30/1)SPE 539.501 (15/1)SPE 466.501 (30/1)EPS 475.001 (01/1)Indep Study

SPE 434.501 (30/1)SPE 438.501 (30/1)SPE 439.501 (30/1)SPE 566.501 (15/1)

Student Information By ProgramBachelor of Science in Interdisciplinary Studies (BSIS): Undergraduate enrollment trends in the combined (face-to-face and online) undergraduate BSIS in special education program are indicative of the current enrollment of 111 (n=111) undergraduates. Information provided below is representative sample of the types of candidates the program attracts, admits, retains, and serves through program completion for the last 7 years via both face to face courses and online courses. This representative sample is based on the current enrollment of 111 candidates.

Ethnicity (n = 111) 82% (91) White 11% (12) African American 7% (8) Unknown

28


Gender (n = 111) 89% (99) Female 11% (12) Male

Currently the numbers reflected in the chart below categorize the 111 students majoring in the BSIS Special Education program:

Class Levels for BSIS/SpEd

17 Freshman

21 Sophomore

31 Junior

42 Senior

111 Total BSIS SpEd

Students

Additional Undergraduate Data:

BSIS Special Education (SPE) Online Undergraduate Online Student Demographics

BSIS Trends for Online Courses as Indicated by Program Majors Required SPE 460 Capstone Course for 2011-2014: N=155

2014-2015 SPE 460.501 n = 62

2013-2014 SPE 460. 501 n = 31

2012-2013 SPE 460.501 n = 52

2011-2012 SPE 460.501 n = 34

Additional Online BSIS Student Data

N = 155Average age: 28.96Gender: M = 16, F = 139

Students Geographic Locations (based on zip code):

Additional BSIS Student Minor Data:

29


Minors in Special Education students take the following 18 hours in special education: SPE 329, SPE 432, SPE 434, SPE 438, SPE 439, SPE 461. Minors in Early Intervention take the following 21 hours: SPE 329, SPE 434, SPE 439, SPE 460, SPE 463, SPE 464, SPE 465. The only Minor Data shown in the chart below are Perkins College of Education students. Currently there are 24 students in Human Sciences minoring in Special Education Early Intervention or Special Education non-teaching as reflected on the table below.

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Early Intervention 1 1 4 17

Special Ed/Non Teaching 1

M.Ed. … Graduate Enrollment Trends, Recruitment and RetentionRepresentation of program diversity is evidenced in ethnicity, grade point average (GPA), PK-12 content knowledge, and location (urban, suburban, and rural teaching experience). Information provided below is representative sample of the types of candidates the program attracts, admits, retains, and serves through program completion for the last 7 years. This representative sample is based on the current enrollment of 58 candidates. Data was not available for some candidates and this caused the sample number to fluctuate between 56-58 candidates in diversity areas depicted below.

Ethnicity (n = 58) 79% (46) White 9% (5) Black 9% (5) Hispanic 3% (2) Other (American Indian or Pacific Islander or Ukrainian)

Due to the online Educational Diagnostician serving candidates across the state of Texas, candidates’ ethnicity is more representative of America’s diverse population.

GPA Overall & Last 60 Hours Categories (n = 56) 33% (19) GPA Overall & Last 60 Hours >3.4 29% (16) GPA Overall & Last 60 Hours 3.0 - 3.39 20% (11) GPA Overall 3.0 – 3.39 & GPA Last 60 Hours >3.4 4% (2) GPA Overall <2.99 & GPA Last 60 Hours >3.4 14% (8) GPA Overall & Last 60 Hours < 2.99

The undergraduate Overall and/or Last 60 Hours GPA of 86% of our candidates falls above a 3.0. The Last 60 Hours GPA of 57% of our candidates falls above a 3.4. NOTE: Candidates with the lowest undergraduate GPA (Overall and Last 60 Hours < 2.99) were carefully reviewed and selected based on evidence of graduate school aptitude and dispositions valued in the field. Examples of evidence include one or more of the following: possessing 6 or more graduate school credits (GPA > 3.0) from an accredited university, teacher certifications (2 or more), key dispositions identified in the entrance essay, teaching experience, and bilingualism.

30


Note: GPA data was not available for 2 candidates who completed their undergraduate coursework in another country. Both of these candidates were rated as “in good standing” on the transcript interpretation.

Teacher Certifications Currently Held by Candidates (n = 56) 1 certification – 21% (12) 2 certifications – 36% (20) 3 certifications – 29% (16) 4 certifications – 5% (3) 5 certifications – 9% (5)

The most common teacher certifications held by candidates were Generic Special Education, EC-6 Generalist, ESL, 4-8 Generalist, English Grades 1-8, English, and Language Arts 8-12. Certifications in mathematics, science, history, and social studies were represented, but held by fewer of the candidates. A graphic depiction of program candidate geographic location Fall 2010 through Fall 2014 is provided below. Information from this graphic provides evidence that the Special Education program is currently or has served candidates from north, central, east, and south Texas locations. Candidate Demographic Location - Urban, Suburban & Rural (n = 88). Note: The number of candidates reported in this section is higher than previously reported numbers due to this graphic depicting candidates who have completed the practicum course EPS 555 Fall 2010 through Fall 2014.

M.ED. SPE Program Demographics; Based on Enrollment in EPS 555 501 and 502 from Fall 2010 to Fall 2014; N = 88; Average age: 39.25; Gender: M = 3, F = 85; Geographic location (based on zip code)

RetentionRetention of quality candidates is a program priority. The graduate program advisor works closely with graduate candidates to ensure that semester course loads are appropriate based on the demands the candidate is juggling with regards to work and family responsibilities and financial aid course load criteria. Program course rigor is considered and courses sequenced in a balanced manner to facilitate candidate success.Candidate retention is also strengthened due to the M.ED. in Special Education with Educational Diagnostician certification being offered online and this format affords candidates the necessary flexibility to pursue their graduate studies while fulfilling their work and family responsibilities. Another retention practice, direct and individualized instruction, is conducted through online Collaborate assessment scoring sessions. There are 3 testing courses that conduct these online

31


Collaborate assessment scoring sessions (EPS 544 Achievement Testing, EPS 545 IQ Testing, and SPE 571 The Educational Diagnostician.

In order to exit from the program, the candidate is required to satisfactorily complete all required course work with an overall GPA of 3.0 or higher, complete 160 practicum hours, as well as meeting or exceeding the requirements for testing clearance for the #153 Educational Diagnostician Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES) exam.

Student Time to Degree

BSIS: 120 Credit Hours; Undergraduate Special Education Course Sequence

Sophomore I

SPE 329 (Survey of Exceptionalities)HMS 203 (Human Growth & Development)RDG 320 (Lit Dev. Mid Childhood)

Sophomore II

SPE 466 (Asst. Technology)RDG 322(Reading Acquis & Comm)SED 370 (Intro Pedagogy)

File Tentative Degree Plan

Summer

Finish any core courses as needed

Junior I

SPE 432 (Excep Children)SPE 434 (Living w/Disabilities)SPE 438 (Inst Strag for People w/Disabilities)SPE 439 (Function Behav Analysis)

Apply to Teacher Ed

Junior II

SPE 460 (Child w/Behav Disorders)SPE 464 (Early Child SpEd)SPE 465 (Students w/Autism)SED 372

*Summer Prior to Senior Year

ELE 301*ELE 302*ELE 303*

Senior ISED 450 + LabSPE 461 (Practicum)

Take TExES 161 SpEd TExES & PPR certification examsApply for Student Teaching

Senior IIStudent TeachingSPE 443SED 443

Take TExES EC-6 or 4-8 Elementary certification exams

Total Special Education Hours:

36

M.Ed in Special Education with Initial Teacher Certification

Status Fall Spring Summer 1 and/or 2

32


Year 1

SPE 539.501 Principles of Behavior (prerequisite)SPE 567 Trends in Educating Exceptional Children

SPE 562 Instructional StrategiesSPE 560 Children with Behavior Disorders

ELE 521 Elem. MathRDG 519 Secondary LiteracyRDG 501 Early Literacy

Year 2

SPE 532 Educational Appraisal of ExceptionalSPE 561 Educating Students w/ Physical and Health ImpairmentsSED 521 Learning Theory

SPE 565 AutismSED 522 Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment

SED 543 The Professional EducatorSED 525 Classroom Management

Year3

SED 541 Probationary Contract SPE 564 Early Childhood Special Education

SED 542 Probationary Contract Total Hours 45-48

M.Ed in Special Education With Educational Diagnostician CertificationDegree Requirements; Major in Special Education With Certification as an Educational Diagnostician

Status Fall Spring Summer 1 and/or 2

Year 1

SPE 539.501 Principles of BehaviorSPE 567 Trends in Educating Exceptional Children

SPE 562 Instructional Strategies

SPE 560 Children with Behavior Disorders

EPS 545 IQ TestingSPE 571 The Educational DiagnosticianSPE 565 AutismEPS 544 Achievement Testing

Year 2

EPS 555 Practicum in Diagnostic EvaluationSPE 561 Educating Students w/ Physical and Health Impairments

EPS 555 Practicum in Diagnostic EvaluationSPE 564 Early Childhood Special Education

SPE 566 Assistive Technology

Total Hours 36-39

Schedule of classes may vary due to semester of graduate entry. Depending on candidate characteristics such as teacher certifications held, experience in

the field of education, and career goals the graduate program coordinator may allow the candidate to substitute one or more of the SPE courses for the following:

ELE 505 Foundations of ESL/Bilingual ELE 506 Assessment of ESL/Bilingual AED 501 Introduction to Educational Leadership AED 519 Instructional Leadership

33


Student Publications and AwardsBSIS NA

M.Ed in Special Education with Initial Teacher CertificationNA

M.Ed in Special Education with Educational Diagnostician CertificationNA

Student Retention Rates

BSISNo Data. Data is included in Elementary Education BSIS count.

M.Ed in Special Education with Initial Teacher CertificationThe retention rate for this graduate degree is approximately 85% - 90%. Attrition occurs for different reasons. Documentation for discontinuing the program has included one or more of the following reasons:

caring for the health needs of an aging parent the health needs of the candidate financial reasons work and/or family responsibilities

M.Ed in Special Education with Certification as an Educational DiagnosticianThe retention rate for this graduate degree is approximately 85% - 90%. Attrition occurs for different reasons. Documentation for discontinuing the program has been due to one or more of the following reasons:

the health needs of aging parents the health needs of the candidate financial reasons work and/or family responsibilities inability to meet program rigor requirements

Student Graduation Rates

BSISNo Data. Data is included in Elementary Education BSIS count.

M.Ed in Special Education with Initial Teacher CertificationThis program graduates approximately 2-5 candidates a year.

M.Ed in Special Education with Certification as an Educational DiagnosticianThis program graduates approximately 20 candidates a year.

34


Student Enrollment

BSISFor the 2014-2015 academic year, there were 111 BSIS in Special Education candidates seeking initial teacher certification. There are 24 Minors in Special Education with majors in the Human Sciences program.

M.Ed in Special Education with Initial Teacher CertificationFor the 2014-2015 academic year, there are 6 candidates seeking initial teacher certification.

M.Ed in Special Education with Certification as an Educational DiagnosticianThe number of candidates for this degree program ranges from 45-60 candidates a year.

Graduate Licensure Rates

BSISNo Data. Degrees are counted in Elementary Education BSIS Program.

M.Ed in Special Education with Initial Teacher CertificationInformation has been requested from Richard Barnhart.

M.Ed in Special Education with Certification as an Educational DiagnosticianThere are approximately 20 graduates a year.

Graduate Placement (i.e., employment or further education/training)

BSISThe majority of these candidates will obtain a teaching contract with a school district.

M.Ed in Special Education with Initial Teacher CertificationThe majority of these candidates will obtain a 1-year Probationary Contract with a school district.

M.Ed in Special Education with Certification as an Educational DiagnosticianThe majority of these candidates will secure an Educational Diagnostician position in a school district within 1 year of graduation.

Number of Degrees Conferred Annually

BSISNo Data. Degrees are counted in Elementary Education BSIS Program.

M.Ed in Special Education with Initial Teacher CertificationThis program graduates approximately 2-5 candidates annually.

M.Ed in Special Education with Certification as an Educational Diagnostician

35


This program graduates approximately 20 candidates annually.

36


Program and Accreditation Standard AlignmentA. Alignment of Program with State Program and Institutional Goals and Purposes

BSIS: Assessment of Student Learning and Alignment with Council for Exceptional Children Standards:Since 2006 and as part of the NCATE (now called CAEP) continuing accreditation process, the undergraduate special education faculty developed and implemented a performance-based assessment system aligned with the Council for Exceptional standards for professional special educators. Six assessments were selected and data has been collected on our candidates’ performance for the majority of semesters since implementation began. Program and curriculum decisions have been based on this assessment data. Undergraduate BSIS special education program assessments are outlined and described in the following chart.

Assessment When Administered

(1) #161 General Special Education EC-12 TExES Certification Exam

At the end of the SPE 461 Practicum Course prior to Student Teaching

(2) Language Project (New in 2012-13) In SPE 465 Educational Programming for Students with Autism

(3) Individualized Education Plan, IEP Project In SPE 434 Functional Living Skills for People with Disabilities

(4) Student Teaching Performance In SPE 461 Practicum and SPE 443 Student Teaching

(5)Lesson Plan & Delivery Project

In SPE 461 Practicum Course prior to Student Teaching

(6) Behavior Change Project In SPE 439 Introduction to Applied Behavior Analysis

The BSIS in Special Education faculty meets regularly to interpret program LiveText and TracDat data relative to the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) standards and the six undergraduate special education program assessments identified in the table above. Principal findings regarding student data on the six assessments in tandem with CEC standards required for the BSIS special education program and our candidates are presented in the paragraphs below. Data tables with each of the six assessments and supporting data precedes the narrative paragraphs. Example data tables and information submitted to the 2014 SPA report follow the narratives.

37


Principal Undergraduate Assessment Findings Based on CEC StandardsAssessment #1 BSIS: TExES Special Education EC – 12 #161 Exam; Total Test Score Data Report; September 2007 – August 2014; N = 178

Year Percent: %Pass Rate

Number of StudentsCompletingExam #161

Percent: %ExemplaryScore of 3(280-300)

Percent: %AcceptableScore of 2(240-279)

Percent: %Unacceptable

Score of 1(<240)

2013-2014 100% 30 13% 87% 0

2012-2013 100% 21 10% 90% 0

2011-2012 100% 24 4% 96% 0

2010-2011 97% 24 8% 88% 4%

2009-2010 100% 32 9% 88% 3%

2008-2009 100% 14 14% 86% 0

2007-2008 97% 33 16% 81% 3%

NOTE: This narrative below consists of Part A and Part B, as candidate performance on both state licensure tests required for certification in Texas have been combined into this assessment.

Part A: TExES EC-12 Pedagogy & Professional Responsibilities (PPR) Exam #160

Brief Description of BSIS Assessment #1 (Part A)

The Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES™) program was developed to ensure that each educator has the prerequisite content and professional knowledge necessary for an entry-level position in Texas public schools. The TExES tests are criterion-referenced examinations designed to measure a candidate’s knowledge in relation to an established criterion rather than to the performance of other candidates. All of the TExES exams contain multiple-choice questions. Some tests also have additional assessment modes (e.g., open-ended written responses).

Example of Data Analysis: Twenty-one (21) candidates took the TExES #160 during 2012-2013 academic year. In these two applications (Fall 2012 and Spring 2013), 100 percent of candidates passed the exam, with Total Scores in the Exemplary or Acceptable range. Likewise, 100 percent of candidates scored in the Exemplary or Acceptable range in Domains I and II. In Domain III, 86 percent of candidates scored Exemplary or Acceptable, with14 percent (3 candidates) scoring in the Unacceptable range. For Domain IV, 91 percent scored Exemplary or Acceptable, with 9 percent (2 candidates) scoring in the Unacceptable range. Overall, we are satisfied with candidates’ performance on the exam, but will purchase EC-12 PPR logins for CertifyTeacher, a TExES preparation software program with flashcards, practice tests, and study mode that gives candidates feedback on their performance and helps with confidence,

38


application, review, etc. This may help those few candidates performing in the Unacceptable range on Domains III and IV, in spite of passing the exam.

An interpretation of how that data provides EVIDENCE for meeting standards: The TExES EC-12 PPR scores provide evidence that the vast majority of our candidates are meeting or exceeding the minimum state requirements for beginning educators. This data suggests that our candidates have the foundational knowledge and skills necessary to design and evaluate instruction so that it is responsive to student needs and promotes learning. Passing PPR scores also suggest that our candidates have an awareness of their professional roles and responsibilities as an educator.

Assessment #1 (Part A) Documentation Recorded in TracDat, LiveText, and SPA Report: Overall Passing Rate; TExES EC-12 PPR Certification Exam: N = 21; (2012-2013)

% Passing % Exemplary3

% Acceptable2

% Unacceptable1

100% 24% 76% 0%

Candidate Domain Scores; Assessment #1; TExES EC-12 PPR Certification Exam: N = 21; (2012=2013)

% ExemplaryScore of 3

% AcceptableScore of 2

% UnacceptableScore of 1

Domain I: Designing Instruction & Assessment

24% 76% 0%

Domain II: Positive Productive Classroom Environment

19% 81% 0%

Domain III: Implementing Effective Instruction & Assessment

14% 72% 14%

Domain IV: Professional Roles & Responsibilities

48% 43% 9%

Description of BSIS Program Assessment #2 (Part A) (alignment with CEC Standards): The EC-12 Pedagogy & Professional Responsibilities test has been cited as an assessment that aligns with CEC Content Standards 1 and 9. The following four domains are assessed by the EC-12 Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities exam:

Domain I: Designing instruction and assessment to promote student learning (31% of the test)

Domain II: Creating a positive, productive classroom environment (15% of the test) Domain III: Implementing effective, responsive instruction and assessment (31% of the

test)

39


Domain IV: Fulfilling professional roles and responsibilities (23% of the test)

To become certified in EC-12 Special Education, individuals must pass the EC-12 Pedagogy & Professional Responsibilities exam.

This assessment aligns with CEC Content standards 1, 2 and 3. These standards require the candidate to have knowledge of evidence-based principles and theories, human development and individual differences, and how students’ culture, and background impact student motivation and learning. In addition, the PPR Exam assesses candidates’ knowledge of professional roles and responsibilities, CEC Content standard 9. Part B: TExES EC-12 Special Education Exam #161

Brief description of BSIS Assessment #1 (Part B): The Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES™) is our state licensure exam developed to ensure that each educator has the prerequisite content and professional knowledge necessary for an entry-level position in Texas public schools. To become certified in EC-12 Special Education, individuals must pass the EC-12 Special Education exam in addition to the EC-12 PPR exam. According to State of Texas regulations, candidates must pass this content exam prior to student teaching.

Description of BSIS Program Assessment #1 (Part B) Alignment with CEC Standards: The special education program at SFA teaches according to the CEC Content Standards throughout the candidate’s coursework The EC-12 Special Education TExES exam has been cited as an assessment that aligns with all ten of the CEC Content Standards identified in Section III. Near the completion of their coursework, candidates are assessed in their ability to demonstrate a working knowledge of the CEC Content Standards as assessed by the EC-12 Special Education TExES exam. Following are four domains that outline the knowledge assessed in the exam and how they relate to CEC Content standards:

Domain I – Understanding individuals with disabilities and evaluating their needs (13% of the test) aligns with CEC Content Standards 1, 2 and 3 because it requires the candidate to have a working knowledge of how foundational influences affect professional practice, and of the characteristics of individuals with ELN’s as well as the ability to use this knowledge to respond to their needs.

Domain II - Promoting student learning and development (33% of the test) aligns with CEC standards 3 and 5. Standard 3 requires the candidate to have an awareness of how students with ELNs culture, and background impact student motivation and learning. This awareness is vital to the candidate making sound instructional decisions that positively impact student learning and the ongoing assessment of student progress. Standard 5 requires that candidates know and understand strategies for establishing a positive learning environment to increase academic success and social acceptance.

Domain III - Promoting student achievement in English language arts and reading and mathematics (33% of the test) aligns with CEC standards 4, 6, 7, and 8. Student academic achievement is emphasized in these standards by requiring candidates to have knowledge of motivational, communication, and instructional strategies that facilitate understanding of subject matter. This assessment measures candidates’ knowledge of

40


how to facilitate student achievement by organizing long-term goals into meaningful and manageable short-term objectives with regular assessment of student progress.

Domain IV - Foundations and professional roles and responsibilities (20% of the test) aligns with CEC standards 1 and 9. These standards emphasize the candidate’s future and varied role as a special education professional and the ethical and professional standards by which they will abide.

Analysis of the data: Twenty-one (21) candidates took the TExES #161 during the 2012-2013 academic year. In these two applications (Fall 2012 and Spring 2013), 100 percent of candidates passed the exam, with Total Scores in the Exemplary or Acceptable range. Likewise, 100 percent of candidates scored in the Exemplary or Acceptable range in Domains I and II. In Domain III, 86 percent of candidates scored Exemplary or Acceptable, with14 percent (3 candidates) scoring in the Unacceptable range. For Domain IV, 91 percent scored Exemplary or Acceptable, with 9 percent (2 candidates) scoring in the Unacceptable range.

Domain 1 –76% of candidates scored Exemplary or Acceptable, while 24% scored Unacceptable;

Domain II - 95% scored Exemplary or Acceptable while 5% (1 candidate) scored Unacceptable;

Domain III - 95% of candidates scored Exemplary or Acceptable while 5% (1 individual) scored Unacceptable;

Domain IV - 86% of candidates scored Exemplary or Acceptable while 14% (1 individuals) scored Unacceptable. These results are significant because Domain scores far exceed the NCATE criterion of 80%. Domains II and III are significant areas of strength, while the program completers' performance was more scattered in the areas of Domain I and IV.

The following additional programmatic changes were implemented in the past two years and have contributed to the success of our candidates:

Candidates are encouraged to test immediately after receiving clearance to test, after completing the capstone course.

We have purchased EC-12 Special Education logins for CertifyTeacher, a TExES preparation software program with flashcards, practice tests, and study mode that gives candidates feedback on their performance and helps candidates with confidence, application, review, etc.

Multiple opportunities are provided for candidates to take pencil and paper exams and receive one-on-one feedback and remediation from faculty members. This has helped our faculty to understand candidates’ weak areas and further enhance coursework to better address those areas.

We believe the relative weakness in Domain I (24% Unacceptable) to be at least partly due to lack of retention of material covered in the earliest class taken in sophomore year. We are proposing a portfolio, which candidates will use to store assignments, and materials that can be used for reflection and review.

41


Quizzes are offered in all courses on language and reading vocabulary.

The #161 TExES EC-12 Special Education Certification Exam data provides evidence that the vast majority of our candidates are meeting or exceeding the minimum state requirements for a beginning special educator. This data suggests that our candidates have the foundational knowledge and skills necessary to evaluate and promote student learning and development in English language arts and reading and mathematics (Domain III), an area in which they have previously shown weakness.

Assessment #1 (Part B) Special Education Certification Exam Data Recorded in TracDat & SPA Report: Candidate Score Data; Assessment #1 (Part B); TExES #161 Certification Exam: N = 21; (2012-2013)

% Passing % Exemplary % Acceptable % Unacceptable100% 10% 90% %0

Candidate Domain Scores; Assessment #1 (Part B); TExES 161 Certification Exam: N – 21; (2012-2013)

% Exemplary3

%Acceptable 2

%Unacceptable 1

Domain I: Understanding Individuals with Disabilities

24% 52% 24%

Domain II: Promoting Student Learning & Development

26% 66% 5%

Domain III: Promoting Student Achievement in English Language Arts, Reading, Math

19% 76% 5%

Domain IV: Foundations and Professional Roles and Responsibilities

29% 57% 14%

Assessment #2 (Part B) BSIS: Language Project (SPE 465); Total Test Score Data Report; September 2012 – August 2013; N = 33

Candidates complete this project and assessment while enrolled in SPE 465 Educating Students with Autism because most students with autism have specific deficits in communication/language. In the Language Project, candidates are required to plan, implement, and revise, based on data, a program to teach basic language skills to a child with developmental delay or autism. They can complete the project with a student in our Autism Clinic, if it is in session, or with a case study if the Clinic is not in session.

42


Description of BSIS Program Assessment #2 (Part B) Alignment with CEC Standards This assessment aligns with Content Standards 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, as informed by IGC Knowledge and Skill Sets as follows:

Standard 1 – Foundations - Through this project the candidate uses a case study or works with a clinic client to design a language curriculum, thus allow him or her to develop knowledge and understanding of the effect of learning conditions, language, culture, and familial backgrounds on language. It is also aligned with ICC1K1, ICC1K10, IGC1K9.

Standard 4 – Instructional Strategies – Knowledge of evidenced-based practices including methods to shift stimulus control from teacher to student and steps of tutorial instruction will be demonstrated by candidates (ICC4K1, ICC4S3, ICC4S4, IGC4SI). Recommendations for the family and others in the child’s natural environment will be provided.

Standard 5 – Learning Environments and Social Interactions – Candidates will identifies a variety of appropriate strategies and reinforcers to increase or decrease student behavior and to motivate the student to make progress towards his or her objective (ICC5S5, ICC5S10, IGC5S2).

Standard 6 – Language - Candidates will demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of typical and atypical language development through assessment of the student and/or development of appropriate language objectives. Candidate must consider how the student is affected if primary language if not English and plan accordingly. Candidates must also consider the use of augmentative, alternative, and assistive technology to enhance the student’s communication and/or language. (ICC6K4, IGC6K2, IGC6K3, IGC6S5)

Standard 7 – Instructional Planning – This project requires the candidate to demonstrate knowledge, understanding, and application of instructional planning including identification of goals and objectives, modeling and guided practice, and modification based on learning progress. (ICC7S8, ICC7S9, ICC7S10)

Standard 8 – Assessment – Candidates will conduct assessments to determine the student’s communication skills, to gather baseline data, and to monitor progress. (IGC8K4, ICC8S5)

Analysis of first year data findings: This academic year (2012-13) was the first and only year for the implementation of this assessment. Significant progress was made in candidate performance from Fall 2012 to Spring 2013. In the fall semester all candidates scored in the Exemplary or Acceptable range in Standards 1, 4 and 6. Standards 5, 7 and 8 were more challenging and a relatively small number of candidates scored in the Unacceptable range. In the spring semester, candidates were more successful, with all scoring Exemplary or Acceptable with the exception of one student whose score was Unacceptable in the area of Standard 8 - Assessment. No data was collected for academic year (2013-2014) due to faculty retirement and adjunct taught course without Language Project.

Example of Assessment # 2 (Part B) Language Project Data Recorded in TracDat, LiveText, and SPA Report:Example of candidate domain score data; N = 33; (2012-2013)

43


CEC Standard % Exemplary3

% Acceptable2

% Unacceptable1

Standard 1: Foundations 91% 9% 0%Standard 4: Instructional Strategies

65% 35% 0%

Standard 5: Learning Environments and Social Interactions

91% 3% 6%

Standard 6: Language 76% 24% 0%Standard 7: Instructional Planning

71% 26% 3%

Standard 8: Assessment 91% 3% 6%

Assessment #3 (Part B) BSIS: Individual Education Plan (IEP) Project (SPE 434)Total Test Score Data Report

September 2007 – August 2014N = 175

Year Percent: %Overall Pass Rate

Number of Students Percent: %ExemplaryScore of 3

Percent: %AcceptableScore of 2


Score of 1

2013-2014 100% 57 62.5% 31.5% 6%

2012-2013 100% 38 52.5% 42% 5.5%

2011-2012 No data No data No data No data No data

2010-2011 No data No data No data No data No data

2009-2010 100% 26 20% 80% 0%

2008-2009 100% 21 0% 95% 5%

2007-2008 97% 33 16% 81% 3%

While enrolled in SPE 434, candidates will complete a learning module to prepare them for development of a “Standards-Based” IEP according to the model utilized in Texas. IEP goals must be related to the standards for all students in Texas, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). After completing this task and passing a mastery test, candidates will review a Full and Individual Evaluation case study of a student with exceptional learning needs (ELN), the develop goals and benchmarks/objectives.

Description of BSIS Program Assessment #2 Alignment with CEC Standards The Standards-Based IEP Project aligns in the following manner with the CEC Content Standards: Standard 2 - Development and Characteristics of Learners - Candidates must demonstrate knowledge of child development and characteristics of exceptional learners and understand the

44


effects of disabilities on developmental processes in order to interpret the student’s Full and Individual Evaluation and select developmentally appropriate goals and objectives. (ICC2K1, ICC2K2)Standard 3 - Individual Learning Differences – In this assessment, candidates must demonstrate knowledge of the effects that an exceptional condition can have on learning, varied abilities and learning styles, and how culture and language can impact learning. (ICC3K1, ICC3K2)Standard 7 - Instructional Planning – This project requires candidates to review assessment information and develop instructional goals and benchmarks that are related to standards for students in Texas, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). Goals and objectives must be measurable and observable behaviors or skills and must contain fourrequired elements: timeframe, conditions, behavior, and criterion. Standards-based goals and benchmarks/objectives increase the probability of students with ELN to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum or with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. Knowledge of evidence-based instructional strategies is the foundation for the development of quality goals and objectives. (ICC4K1, IGC4K1)Analysis of the data findings The majority of our candidates (95%) demonstrated the ability to successfully create a individualized instructional plan linked to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards, based on a full and independent evaluation outlining assessment findings, student abilities, behaviors, and learning differences. Development of goals and objectives that relate to the TEKS and contain all four required elements presented challenge to 5-6% of candidates. It appears that candidates need further development with additional practice and feedback in this area.An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standardsOverall, the results of this assessment show that most candidates are competent in the development of a standards-based IEP. Therefore the results provide evidence of candidates meeting CEC Content Standards 2, 3 and 7, as informed by selected IGC initial level knowledge and skills.

Example of Assessment #3 Standards-based IEP Project Recorded in TracDat, LiveText, and SPA Report: CEC Standards Score Data for Assessment #3 Standards-based IEP Project: N = 30; (2012-2013)

CEC Standards % Exemplary3

% Acceptable2

% Unacceptable1

Standard 2: Development and Characteristics of Learners

62% 38% 0%

Standard 3: Individual Learning Differences

48% 62% 0%

Standard 7: Instructional Planning (Goals)

45% 38% 17%

Standard 7: Instructional Planning

43% 35% 22%

45


(Objectives)

Assessment #4 BSIS: Student Teaching Observations (SPE 443), Total Test Score Data ReportSeptember 2007 – August 2014, N = 102





Score of 1

2013-2014 100% 27 86% 14% 0%

2012-2013 100% 11 0% 100% 0%

2011-2012 100% 16 0% 100% 0%

2010-2011 96% 24 50% 46% 4%

2009-2010 100% 20 No Data No Data No Data

2008-2009 100% No Data No Data No Data No Data

2007-2008 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Brief description of Assessment #4 Student Teaching Program:A qualified university mentor (Mentor 1) observes student teachers a minimum of 5 times during their student teaching experience. A school district mentor (Mentor 2) supervises student teachers daily in the classroom. Since the certification is EC-12, candidates are involved in full time student teaching in two settings – one elementary level placement and one at the secondary level. The Special Education Addendum form is used to assess their performance relative to CEC Content standards 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 (see section f). A formal evaluation using this assessment instrument is completed at the end of each placement: a Mid-Term Evaluation and a Final Evaluation. Description of BSIS Program Assessment #4 Student Teaching Alignment with CEC Standards Student teaching is aligned with Standards 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10. It is designed for candidates to demonstrate their knowledge and skills while teaching children with ELN, showing respect and understanding of students’ exceptional conditions, culture, and family background and how these factors affect learning. During the student teaching experience candidates must implement evidence-based instructional strategies and modifications of the learning environment for students with ELN. Candidates must work with general education staff, families, and community agencies in an effective, collaborative manner and by promoting the independence of students with ELN. This includes enhancing language development and teaching appropriate communication skills. During their student teaching experience, candidates demonstrate their ability to develop long-range instructional plans and shorter-range goals and objectives. This includes planning not only for the acquisition and proficiency of targeted skills, but also for the maintenance and generalization of those skills. Candidates must use multiple types of assessment information and

46


conduct formal and informal assessments of behavior, learning, achievement, and environments. Moreover, they must adjust instruction in response to students’ learning progress. Finally, it is essential that candidates demonstrate professional ethical and practice. Furthermore, they must show the ability to take responsibility for their own professional growth through participation in professional activities and reflection on practice.

Example of Data AnalysisData was collected and analyzed for the 2012-2013 academic year, with four applications of this assessment (a Mid-Term and a Final Evaluation for each candidate). This resulted in a great deal of data. Analysis of the data revealed a significant problem with the Special Education Addendum form completed by University mentors – it apparently does not include the criteria for Standard 9: Professional and Ethical Practice because no data was reported in that area. Candidates demonstrate their knowledge of professional and ethical practice in their certification exams but they demonstrate the actual behaviors while in student teaching. This is a very unfortunate omission in the data collection and will need follow-up with the Office of Educator Certification. In spite of this problem, it is commendable that all candidates scored exemplary or acceptable in all areas with the exception of one candidate who scored unacceptable in one section of Standard 10: Collaboration during the spring semester.The new scoring guide that is aligned with CEC standards provides a great deal more evidence as to how our candidates are meeting standards. Evaluation of the data on candidate performance during student teaching indicates that they are performing at the exemplary or acceptable level in all areas. This demonstrates that our candidates are assuming all roles and responsibilities at the level expected of a beginning teacher.

BSIS Student Teaching Assessment Documentation Recorded in SPA ReportsBrief Description of Assessment #4 Student Teaching Policies

Student TeachingThe major policies that guide the student teaching experience at SFASU have been approved by the Board of the Center for Educational Partnerships and the Teacher Education Council. The policies as approved are shown below.

1. The student teaching experience is a 6 credit hours experience for all students. The calendar is set to coincide with the public school calendar and fulfills the 12-week* minimum required by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. *Since the teaching certificate is all level (EC-12), Special Education student teachers complete a 6-week assignment at the elementary level and a 6-week assignment at the secondary level. 2. Placements are made according to the following guidelines:

a. Arrangements for placements and contacts with schools are made by personnel in the Office of the Associate Dean, College of Education. It is inappropriate for students to contact schools for their own placement.b. Subject and level assignments are made according to State Board of Education requirements for teacher certification.c. Once a placement has been made and a student has been accepted for student teaching by a school, changes are made only in cases of serious need.

47


3. District mentor teachers are selected by principals using the following criteria:Three years of successful teaching experienceDesire to work with student teachersTeaching assignment required by the student’s teaching field(s)

4. Student teachers adhere to ethical standards of the teaching profession, to SFA policies for university students, and to the policies of the school where they are assigned.5. Student teachers are responsible for the roles and responsibilities described in the Handbook. These include making complete lesson plans for each class taught.6. Student teachers are responsible for being on duty each school day during the semester. Any absences beyond two days must be made up with documentation provided for the permanent file. University mentors will help students plan a make-up schedule.7. All lessons taught, tests given, and grades assigned to students by student teachers must have prior approval of the mentor teacher.8. University mentors serve as supporters and guides for student teachers, making a minimum of five (5) site visits. Mentors observe the student teacher and complete an evaluation during each visit, using the Student Teacher/Intern Evaluation form (see form and scoring guide) and the Special Education Field Experience Addendum. District mentors provide daily supervision and participate in a final evaluation in each of the two placements.9. Final evaluation of the student teacher’s performance is made cooperatively by the university mentor, the mentor teacher, and the student teacher. This document becomes a part of the student’s permanent record in the Educator Certification Office. A final evaluation for students visiting at another university must be received before a grade can be recorded.10. The final grade given for student teaching will be pass or fail.

Example Candidate Student Teaching Data for Assessment #4 Student Teaching Documentation Recorded in LiveText, and SPA Accountability Systems:

Example Candidate Score Charts for CEC Standards and Professional Teaching Skills for Student Teaching in Second Placement – Final Evaluation: N = 6; Fall 2012; Exceptional Learning Needs (ELN)CEC Standard & Skills

% Exemplary3

% Acceptable2

% Unacceptable1

Standard 4: Instructional StrategiesSelects, adapts and uses instructional strategies that promote positive learning results in general and special curricula for *ELN students

83% 17%

Utilizes evidence-based instructional strategies to

33% 67%

48


individualize instruction for ELN studentsAppropriately modifies instructional strategies for ELN students

67% 83%

Utilizes instructional strategies that promote self-awareness, self-management, self-control, self-reliance and self-esteem of ELN students

100%

Utilizes strategies that promote development, maintenance and generalization of knowledge and skills of ELN students across environments, settings and lifespan.

100%

Standard 5: Instructional StrategiesCreates learning environments for ELN students that foster cultural understanding, safety and emotional well-being, positive social interactions and active engagement

100%

Shapes environment to encourage independence, self-motivation, self-direction, personal empowerment and self-advocacy of ELN students

100%

Assists general education colleagues integrate ELN

50% 50%: Not observed

49


students in regular environments, and engage them in meaningful learning activities and interactionsUses direct motivational and instructional interventions with ELN students

100%

Intervenes as necessary with ELN students in crisis

100%

Provides guidance and direction to para-educators and others

83% 17%

Standard 7: Instructional PlanningDevelops long-range individualized instructional plans in both general and special curricula

50% 50%

Systematically translates individualized plans into short-ranged goals and objectives

50% 50%

Plans emphasize explicit modeling and efficient guided practice for ELN students

100%

Modifies instructional plans based on ongoing analysis of the individual’s learning progress

67% 33%

Facilitates instructional planning through collaboration with general education colleagues, families and others

100%

50


Uses appropriate technologies to support instructional planning and individualized instruction

83% 17%

Standard 8: AssessmentUses multiple types of assessment information for a variety of educational decisions

67% 33%

Conducts informal and formal assessments of behavior, learning, achievements and environments

83% 17%

Regularly monitors the progress of ELN students

83% 17%

Uses appropriate technologies to support assessments

83% 17%

Standard 9: Professional Ethical PracticeOngoing attention to legal matters, professional and ethical considerations

No Opportunity to Observe

Engages in professional activities, views self as lifelong learner


Sensitive to diversity of individuals with ELN and their families


Current with evidence–based best practices


Standard 10: CollaborationCollaborates 67% 33%

51


effectively with families, other educators, related service providers, and personnel from community agencies in culturally responsive waysPromotes learning and well being of ELN students across range of settings and experiences

83% 17%

Serves as a resource to colleagues

67% 33%

Facilitates successful transitions of ELN students.

67% 33%

Assessment #5 BSIS: Lesson Plan Delivery Project (Practicum: SPE 461), Total Test Score Data Report, September 2007 – August 2014, N = 198





Score of 1

2013-2014 100% 34 10% 89% 0

2012-2013 100% 37 5% 92% 3%

2011-2012 100% 24 4% 96% 0

2010-2011 97% 24 8% 88% 4%

2009-2010 100% 32 9% 88% 3%

2008-2009 100% 14 14% 86% 0

2007-2008 97% 33 16% 81% 3%

Brief description of Assessment #5:Candidate effect on student learning is demonstrated through a Lesson Planning and Delivery Project that is accomplished while the candidate is participating in his or her Field Experience during the capstone course SPE 461 Practicum in Special Education. This assessment is a culminating activity after candidates have completed core courses. The candidate’s professional knowledge and skills are utilized to identify an academic objective and create a lesson plan with pre- and post-test to assess student learning. The instructor observes the delivery of the lesson

52


and uses a scoring rubric related to the CEC Content standards, as informed by the Individualized General Curriculum skill set.

NOTE: This assessment is a significant revision of the previously used Data-Based Instruction Project (DBIP) previously submitted as Assessment 5. Revision was necessary because of significant changes implemented in the College of Education. The content area TExES exam was moved from the Student Teaching semester into the Practicum Semester, therefore, the number of practicum hours was reduced and emphasis was placed on test preparation and mastery testing in the first half of the course. Additional practicum hours were added to methods courses through service learning projects. The new Lesson Planning and Delivery Project was designed with the same scoring guide will be used to measure candidate performance. Candidates submit the project in LiveText, our new data management system, which facilitates the process.

Description of BSIS Program Assessment #5 Alignment with CEC Standards Standard 1 - Foundations - The Lesson Planning and Delivery Project aligns with this

standard because candidates demonstrate the importance of evidence-based principles and theories of learning to create and conduct their lesson plan. The candidate will develop his or her understanding on how evidence-based professional practices influence the student's instructional plan, its implementation, and evaluation of student progress.

Standard 4 Instructional Planning – This project requires candidates to demonstrate knowledge of evidence-based practices validated for specific learners and settings. They must also select, adapt and use instructional strategies and materials for teaching academic or pre-academic skills, according to the characteristics of students. (ICC4K1, IGC4K3, IGC4S1, IGC4S6)

Standard 5 - Learning Environments and Social Interactions - This project aligns with Standard 5 because candidates must create a positive learning environment with active engagement of students and demonstrate motivational and instructional interventions. ((ICCK2, ICCK4, ICCK5, IGC5K3, ICC5S1-7).

Standard 7 - Instructional Planning – In order to complete this assignment candidate must develop specific learning objectives, taking into consider the learners’ abilities and needs, and related to state standards for students. They develop and implement an instructional lesson plan that includes selection and/or creation of materials and definition of specific instructional strategies. (ICCK1-3, IGC7K1, ICC7S5-10, ICC7S12, IGC7S2)

Standard 8 - Assessment –This project requires candidates to conduct informal and/or formal assessments in pre- and post-testing to determine student progress. (ICC8S2)

Example Assessment Documentation Recorded in TracDat and LiveText Accountability Systems:

Example of Analysis of the data: Thirty-seven (37) candidates completed this assessment during the SPE 461 capstone course during the 2012-2013 academic year (15 during the fall semester, 22 during the spring semester). All candidates scored in the Exemplary or Acceptable range with the exception of 3 individuals who scored Unacceptable in the area of assessment (standard 8).These results provide evidence that our candidates are achieving competence relative to CEC

53


Content Standards 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 as informed by selected IGC initial level knowledge and skills. Significant coaching and feedback in the preparation of the lesson plan most likely attributed to this high level of success.

Example Assessment #5 Lesson Planning and Delivery Project Documentation Recorded in TracDat, LiveText, and SPA Accountability Systems: Candidate Score Data from Assessment #5 Lesson Planning and Delivery Project: N = 37; (2012-2013)

% Exemplary % Acceptable % UnacceptableStandard 1: Foundations

55% 45% 0%

Standard 4:Instructional Strategies

60% 40% 0%

Standard 5:LearningEnvironments andSocial Interactions

60% 40% 0%

Standard 7:Instructional Planning

55% 45% 0%

Standard 8:Assessment

52% 41% 7%

Assessment #6 BSIS: Behavior Change Project (SPE 439), Total Test Score Data Report, September 2007 – August 2014, N = 211





Score of 1

2013-2014 100% 43 0% 100% 0%

2012-2013 100% 29 0% 100% 0%

2011-2012 94% 48 51% 43% 6%

2010-2011 88% 41 31% 57% 12%

2009-2010 95% 22 18% 77% 5%

2008-2009 97% 28 0% 97% 3%

2007-2008 76% No Data 38% 38% 24%

Brief description of Assessment #6:In the Behavior Change Project, candidates are required to plan, implement, and revise, based on data, a program to affect change on a functional living skill with an individual in their environment. Taking into consideration the targeted individual’s abilities and needs, learning

54


environment, and cultural and linguistic factors, the candidate targets a skill, defines it into measurable actions, and writes an objective. The candidate then identifies an appropriate observational recording procedure. Once approved by the instructor, the candidate begins baseline measures. Once baseline measures demonstrate stability, the candidate plans and implements positive intervention procedures to promote acquisition of the targeted skill. These procedures are based on the evidence-based principles of Applied Behavior Analysis as learned in class. The candidate is then required to modify the intervention based on progress. As the project progresses, procedures to address fluency, maintenance, and generalization are implemented or, the candidate should detail procedures in the narrative that would address these learning stages. Finally, candidates present their projects to the class during the final week of class

Description of BSIS Program Assessment #4 Alignment with CEC Standards This assessment aligns with Content Standards 3, 4, 7, and 8 as follows:

Standard 3 Individual Learning Differences – In this assessment, candidates must demonstrate knowledge of the effects that varied abilities and learning styles, and how culture and language can impact learning. (ICC3K1, ICC3K2)

Standard 4 Instructional Strategies – This project requires candidates to demonstrate knowledge of applied behavior analysis. Candidates must develop an individualized objective that is specific and measurable, then must select strategies for increasing desired behavior. (ICC4K1, IGC4K3, IGC4S1, IGC4S6)

Standard 7 - Instructional Planning – In order to complete this assignment candidate must develop specific behavioral objective, develop and implement a plan to increase desired behavior. (ICCK1-3, IGC7K1, ICC7S5-10, ICC7S12, IGC7S2)

Standard 8 - Assessment –This project requires candidates to conduct observational assessment, measure and graph the frequency of behaviors, and assess progress over time during the intervention. (ICC8S2)

Example Analysis of Assessment #6 In 2013-2014: After combination of the two administrations of the assessment, 100% of candidates scores Exemplary or Acceptable in Standard 3, 88-100% scored in this range on Standard 4, 94-100% scored in this range on Standard 7, and 67-90% scored Exemplary or Acceptable in Standard 8, the weakest area of performance.

Example of interpretation of data provides EVIDENCE for meeting standards:These findings (2013-2014) suggest the following with regard to candidates’ meeting the standards for which this assessment was designed:

Standard 3: Candidates demonstrated knowledge of the evidenced-based procedures of applied behavior analysis and considered the beliefs, traditions, and values of their subjects in targeting skills for intervention. These considerations assisted candidates in planning the individualized instruction required to teach targeted skills.

Standard 4: Candidates selected primarily positive procedures for intervention. While no candidates used punitive methods, several initially attempted procedures that did not use reinforcement procedures. Also, many candidates had difficulty in the time allotted for the project to program for the generalization and/or maintenance of acquired skills. While this has not been a requirement, it has been encouraged.

55


Standard 7: Candidates targeted appropriate goals and objectives to enhance their subjects’ participation in family, school and/or community activities. These targeted skills were based on abilities and needs, the learning environment and candidates competently factored in the cultural and linguistic characteristics of their subjects.

Standard 8: A majority of candidates and described their use of observational recording procedures such as event, interval, or time sampling. However, some candidates struggled with in this area.

Overall, in two administrations of this assessment, results show evidence that most candidates are mastering elements of Standards # 3, 4, 7 and 8, as informed by selected IGC initial level knowledge and skills.

Example Assessment #6 Behavior Change Project Documentation Recorded in TracDat, LiveText, and SPA Accountability Systems: Candidate score data from Assessment #6 Behavior Change Project: N= 29; (2012-2013)

% Exemplary % Acceptable % UnacceptableStandard 3:Individual LearningDifferences

77% 23% 0%

Standard 4:Instructional Strategies

62% 32% 6%

Standard 7:Instructional Planning

70% 27% 3%

Standard 8:Assessment

51% 26% 23%

Future BSIS Assessment Improvement PlanThe CEC Standards for Special Education were revised in 2012. The elements of the standards are now dispersed among 7 Domains rather than the 12 currently used in the collected data for this review document for BSIS in the special education undergraduate program. Program faculties will address the new 7 Domains in the CEC standards and refine and crosswalk program assessments for realignment with current 2012 CEC standards.


Program and Accreditation Standard AlignmentB. Alignment of Program with State Program and Institutional Goals and Purposes


Since 2006 and as part of the NCATE (now called CAEP) continuing accreditation process, the undergraduate special education faculty developed and implemented a performance-based assessment system aligned with the Council for Exceptional standards for professional special educators. Eight (8) assessments were selected and data has been collected on our candidates’ performance for the majority of semesters since implementation began. Program and curriculum

56


decisions have been based on this assessment data. M.Ed. special education program assessments are outlined and described in the following chart.

Assessment When Administered

(1) #160 TExES Pedagogy & Professional Responsibilities (PPR) EC-12 Certification Exam

At the end of the M.ED. in SED 543

(2) #161 TExES Special Education EC-12 Certification Exam

Towards the end of the M.ED. program in SPE 561

(3) Individualized Education Plan, IEP Project

In SPE 567 Trends in Educating Exceptional Children

(4) Student Teaching Performance In SED 542 Internship

(5) Lesson Plan & Delivery Project In SPE 561 Educating Students with Physical and Health Impairments

(6) Behavior Change Project In SPE 539 Applied Behavior Analysis

(7) Norm-Referenced Assessment In SPE 532 Educational Appraisal of Exceptional Children

(8) Curriculum-Based Assessment In SPE 562 Instructional Strategies for Exceptional Learners

M.Ed. in Special Education Graduate Assessment Findings Based on CEC Standards

Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Standards

Standard 1: Foundations (Models, theories, and philosophies) Standard 2: Development and Characteristics of Learners (typical and atypical

human growth and development; effects of various medication on individuals Standard 3: Individuals Learning Differences (standers of learning; cultural

perspectives) Standard 4: Instructional Strategies (use self-assessment problem solving, and

other cognitive strategies to meet their needs) Standard 5: Learning Environments and Social Interactions (basic classroom

management; social interactions) Standard 6: Language (effects of cultural and linguistic communication skills for

diverse learners) Standard 7: Instructional Planning (theories and research that form the basis of

curriculum development and instructional practice)

57


Standard 8: Assessment (basic terminology used in assessment, accommodations, and modifications)

Standard 9: Professional and Ethical Practice (personal cultural biases and differences that affect one’s teaching)

Standard 10: Collaboration (models and strategies of consultation and collaboration)

Assessment #1 (Content Knowledge): TExES Pedagogy & Professional Responsibilities (PPR) EC-12 is a state licensure exam. This exam is used to assess a candidate’s knowledge and mastery of professional roles and responsibilities of the EC-12 educator. This exam is taken after completion of EC-12 professional education course3work and passing the #161 EC-12 Special Education TExES exam.

Assessment #1: #160 TExES Pedagogy & Professional Responsibilities (PPR) EC-12 Certification Exam; Total Test Score Data Report; 2008-2014. Assessment #1 specifically aligns with CEC standards: 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9.



CandidateExemplaryScore of 3

CandidateAcceptableScore of 2

CandidateUnacceptable

Score of 1

2013-2014 100% 2 0 2 0

2012-2013 100% 7 0 7 0

2011-2012 No Candidate testing

2010-2011 100% 3 1 2 0

2009-2010 100% 11 2 9 0

2008-2009 100% 4 0 4 0

The scoring guide for the assessment: Maximum score = 300, Exemplary = 280-300, Acceptable = 240-279, Unacceptable = <240

2010-2011: All 3 of the candidates passed the #160 PPR TExES exam. One candidate performed in the Exemplary range (280-300) while the other 2 candidates performed in the Acceptable range.

2009-2010: All of the eleven candidates passed the #160 PPR TExES. Two candidates performed in the Exemplary range (280-300) and 9 candidates performed in the Acceptable range.

2008-2009: All 4 of the candidates passed the #160 PPR TExES and performed in the Acceptable Range.

58


In summary, the pass rate for the TExES EC-12 PPR was 100 percent for the past 3 years. Approximately 17 percent of the candidates performed in the Exemplary range and 83 percent of the candidates performed in the Acceptable range.

#160 TExES Professional Roles and Responsibilities Exam Data Report, Total Test Score Data Report, September 2008 – Fall 2014, N = 24

Year% Pass Number of

Students

% Exemplary3

(280-300)

% Acceptable2

(240-279)

% Unacceptable1

(<240)Fall 2014 100% 2 100% (2)

2013 - 2014 100% 3 100% (3)

2012 - 2013 100% 4 100% (4)

2011 – 2012No candidates

2010 - 2011 100% 3 33% (1) 67% (2)

2009 - 2010 100% 11 18% (2) 82% (9)

2008 - 2009 100% 4 100% (4)

In summary, the pass rate for the TExES #160 EC-12 PPR was 100 percent for the past 6 years. The majority of candidates perform in the Acceptable range with smaller numbers of candidates (1 and 2) performing the Exemplary range during the academic years of 2009 – 2010 and 2010 - 2011. The TExES EC-12 PPR scores provide evidence that our candidates are meeting or exceeding the minimum state requirements for beginning educators. This data suggests that our candidates have the foundational knowledge and skills necessary to design and evaluate instruction so that it is responsive to student needs and promotes learning. Passing PPR scores also suggest that our candidates have an awareness of their professional roles and responsibilities as an educator.

Assessment #2 (Content Knowledge): #161 TExES Special Education EC-12 Certification Exam is a state licensure exam used to assess the candidate’s knowledge and mastery of CEC standards. This exam is taken near completion of EC-12 professional education coursework and after passing the program comprehensive exam.

Assessment #2: #161 TExES Special Education EC-12 Certification Exam specifically aligns with CEC Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9.



CandidateExemplaryScore of 3(280-300)

CandidateAcceptableScore of 2(240-279)


Score of 1(<240)

2013-2014 100% 2 0 2 0

59


2012-2013 100% 4 0 4 0

2011-2012 50% 2 0 1 1

2010-2011 100% 3 1 2 0

2009-2010 100% 11 1 10 0

2008-2009 100% 4 0 4 0

2007-2008 No Data Available


In summary, the pass rate for the TExES EC-12 Special Education was 100 percent for the past 6 years except for one candidate (2011/2012).

#161 All-Level Special Education TExES Exam Data Report, Total Test Score Data Report, September 2008 – Fall 2014, N = 24Year

% Pass Number ofStudents

% Exemplary3

(280-300)

% Acceptable2

(240-279)

% Unacceptable1

(<240)Fall 2014 100% 1 100% (1)

2013 - 2014 100% 2 100% (2)

2012 - 2013 100% 4 100% (4)

2011 – 2012 100% 1 100% (1)

2010 - 2011 100% 3 33% (1) 67% (2)

2009 - 2010 100% 11 9% (1) 91% (10)

2008 - 2009 100% 4 100% (4)

In summary, the pass rate for the TExES #161 EC-12 Special Education was 100 percent for the past 7 years. The majority of candidates perform in the Acceptable range with 1 candidate performing the Exemplary range during the academic years of 2009 – 2010 and 2010 - 2011. The TExES #161 EC-12 Special Education scores provide evidence that our candidates are meeting or exceeding the minimum state requirements for beginning special educators. This data suggests that our candidates have the foundational knowledge and skills necessary to apply theory and knowledge of the impact of disabilities to instructional planning in order to create an environment and education plan that is responsive to student needs and promotes learning.

60


Assessment #3: Individualized Education Plan (IEP), IEP Project … The IEP Project utilizes a case study of a student with an exceptional learning need and requires the candidate to assimilate the information in order to create annual goals reflecting cognitive, psychomotor, and affective/behavioral domains of the student. Specific observable, measurable outcome based instructional objectives will be developed for each annual goal. This assessment is measures a candidate’s ability to create a standards-based IEP. Candidates complete this project in SPE 567.

Assessment #3: Individualized Education Plan, IEP Project … The IEP Project specifically aligns with CEC Standards 2, 3, & 7.


Number of StudentsCompletingIEP Project

Candidate:ExemplaryScore of 3

Candidate:AcceptableScore of 2

Candidate:Unacceptable

Score of 1

2013-2014 100% 5 3 2 0

2012-2013 100% 3 0 3 0

2011-2012 91% 23 16 5 2

2010-2011 No assessment was used





IEP Project Data Report, Fall 2011 to Present, N = 13CEC Standard & Performance % Exemplary

3% Acceptable

2% Unacceptable

1CEC Standard 2 Development and Characteristics of Learners

61% (8) 31% (4) 8% (1)

CEC Standard 3 Individual Learning Differences

69% (9) 23% (3) 8% (1)

CEC Standard 7a Instructional Planning: Goals

46% (6) 39% (5) 15% (2)

CEC Standard 7b Instructional Planning: Objectives

38% (5) 31% (4) 31% (4)

Fall 2011 was the first administration of a revised IEP project. On CEC Standards 2 and 3, the majority of candidates (92%) performed in the Acceptable to Exemplary range. These data appear to indicate that candidates are strong in their knowledge and understanding of the developmental characteristics of learners and individual differences. Fewer candidates (69%)

61


performed in the Acceptable to Exemplary on CEC Standard 7b Objectives. This information indicates that about 1/3 of our candidates are needing more instruction and practice in order to increase their understanding of student objectives and performance components of Standard 7b.

Assessment #4: Student Teaching Performance (Clinical Practice Evaluation). The candidate is evaluated on his/her ability to implement the following characteristics: I. Assessment. II. Appropriate Instructional Planning, III. Positive Classroom Environment/Climate, IV. Responsive Instructional Communication, V. Professional Behavior/Advocacy, VI. Impact on PK-12 Learning.

Assessment #4: Student Teaching Performance (Clinical Practice Evaluation) specifically aligns with CEC Standards 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10. Note: The results provided are based on available data and do not accurately reflect the number of graduate students seeking initial teaching certification in special education for the identified year.

2013-2014

No data found in LiveText or TracDat specific to initial certification. Initial certification is combined under M.Ed. in Special Education.

2012-2013

No data found in LiveText or TracDat specific to initial certification. Initial certification is combined under M.Ed. in Special Education.

2011-2012

No data found in LiveText or TracDat specific to initial certification . Initial certification is combined under M.Ed. in Special Education.

2010-2011

For the AY 2010-2011, data was available for 1 candidate involved in a clinical internship. Areas of strength or Exemplary performance were obtained in Instructional Planning, Positive Classroom Environments, Responsive Instructional Communication, and Professional Behavior & Advocacy. Areas of Acceptable performance were in Assessment and Impact on PK-12 Learning.

2009-2010

For the AY 2009-2010, data was available for 2 candidates involved in clinical internships. Both candidates performed in the Acceptable to Exemplary range in assessed areas. Areas of strength or Exemplary performance for our candidates were Instructional Planning, Positive Classroom Environments, Responsive Instructional Communication, and Professional Behavior &

62


Advocacy. Areas of Acceptable performance were in Assessment and Impact on PK-12 Learning.

2008-2009

For the AY 2008-2009, data was available for 5 candidates involved in clinical internships. All 5 candidates performed in the Acceptable to Exemplary range in assessed areas. Areas of strength for our candidates were Positive Classroom Environments (5/6 candidates Exemplary) and Professional Behavior and Advocacy (4/6 candidates exemplary). Acceptable performance for 5/6 candidates was obtained in the area of Impact on PK-12 Learning

Assessment #4 Clinical Practice Assessment #4 (Focus on Student Learning): Clinical Practice Evaluation Note: Prior to enrolling in SED Teaching Internship, candidates will have completed the majority of his or her graduate course work, have passed a program comprehensive mastery exam, and the #161 EC-12 Special Education TExES. Assessment #4 Clinical Practice specifically aligns with CEC Standards 4 Instructional Strategies, Standards 5 Learning Environments and Social Interactions, Standard 7 Instructional Planning, Standard 8 Assessment, Standard 9 Professional and Ethical Practice, Standard 10 Collaboration.

In the SED Teaching Internship, the candidate enrolls in a Teaching Intern course for two consecutive semesters. The school district assigns a trained mentor to the teaching candidate. Mentor training to candidate intern may be provided by school districts, Education Service Centers or by SFASU. If an SFASU Mentor is utilized, the mentor communicates regularly with the candidate and provides on-site visits and consultations using the Experience/Clinical Practice Evaluation form. Key areas assessed during the teaching observation include the following: Assessment (CEC Standard 8), Appropriate Instructional Planning (CEC Standard 7), Positive Classroom Environment/Climate (CEC Standard 5), Responsive Instructional Communication (CEC Standards 4 and 7), Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities (CEC Standard 9), and Impact on PK-12 Learning (CEC Standards 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10). At the end of the year, the mentor and district personnel determine whether the teaching intern candidate receives a passing grade for the one-year internship.

In SED Teaching Internship, candidate instructional delivery performance scores are tabulated for each section of the scoring guide and a total score is calculated. For Assessment #4, the Overall Total Score is analyzed. The university mentors reviews the Scoring Guide instrument with candidates participating in internships. The candidate is evaluated on his/her ability to implement the following characteristics:

I. Assessment (CEC Standard 8)– The candidate administers pre and post assessments and uses data to guide planning. The candidate utilizes technology for progress monitoring and data analysis and recording. II. Appropriate Instructional Planning (CEC Standard 7) – The candidate plans developmentally appropriate activities, creates well-structured and varied lesson plans, utilizes Texas statewide curriculum, promotes critical, reflective and creative thinking,

63


continuously evaluates student achievement, incorporates technology, and promotes students’ use of self-assessment. III. Positive Classroom Environment/Climate (CEC Standard 5) – The candidate demonstrates respect for diversity/individual differences, promotes respectful and productive interactions among students, communicates importance of content, uses time effectively, and maintains a safe and productive physical environment.IV. Responsive Instructional Communication (CEC Standard 4 and 7) – The candidate communicates effectively, uses appropriate language, exhibits effective interpersonal skills, extends students’ thinking, utilizes effective questioning, engages students, creates engaging lessons, links content to prior knowledge, sets appropriate lesson pace, encourages students’ self-motivation, provides appropriate and immediate feedback to students, promotes students’ ability to use feedback, bases feedback on high expectations for all students, demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness, responds appropriately to various learning situations, ensures students’ success through alternative approaches, and effectively communicates with parents, colleagues, and others. V. Professional Behavior/Advocacy (CEC Standard 9) – The candidate promotes professionalism through appropriate dress, interacts and collaborates appropriately with staff and other educators, works productively with supervisors and mentors to enhance professional knowledge and skills, interacts and collaborates appropriately with parents, community members, and others, uses knowledge of legal and ethical guidelines to guide behavior in education-related settings, and complies with state, university, district, and campus policies. Additionally, the candidate displays a desire to become a contributing member of the profession and advocate for children and youth. VI. Impact on PK-12 Learning (CEC Standards (4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10) – Learning profiles are well-developed, complete, and accurate. The candidate evaluates how each individual and subgroup has performed. The candidate utilizes technology, documents growth, explains student outcomes, and clearly shows the impact on PK-12 learning. The candidate’s reflective analysis is based on data and is accurate and insightful indicating continuous planning for professional growth.

Analysis of the Available Data Findings

For the AY 2010-2011, data was available for 1 candidate involved in a clinical internship. Areas of strength or Exemplary performance were obtained in Instructional Planning, Positive Classroom Environments, Responsive Instructional Communication, and Professional Behavior & Advocacy. Areas of Acceptable performance were in Assessment and Impact on PK-12 Learning.

For the AY 2009-2010, data was available for 2 candidates involved in clinical internships. Both candidates performed in the Acceptable to Exemplary range in assessed areas. Areas of strength or Exemplary performance for our candidates were Instructional Planning, Positive Classroom Environments, Responsive Instructional Communication, and Professional Behavior & Advocacy. Areas of Acceptable performance were in Assessment and Impact on PK-12 Learning.

64


For the AY 2008-2009, data was available for 5 candidates involved in clinical internships. All 5 candidates performed in the Acceptable to Exemplary range in assessed areas. Areas of strength for our candidates were Positive Classroom Environments (5/6 candidates Exemplary) and Professional Behavior and Advocacy (4/6 candidates exemplary). Acceptable performance for 5/6 candidates was obtained in the area of Impact on PK-12 Learning.

Data is not available for the academic years of 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and the SED Teaching Internship. Records are not clear if this is due to there being no candidates completing a probationary contract during these years. The LiveText data collection system was implemented for the next academic year 2013-2014.

For the AY 2013 -2014, data was available for 5 candidates. All 5 candidates performed in the Acceptable to Exemplary range in assessed areas. Areas of strength for our candidates were Domain II Learner Centered Instruction (4/5 candidates Exemplary) and Domain IV Positive Classroom Environment (4/5 candidates exemplary). Acceptable performance for 4/5 candidates was obtained in the area of Impact on PK-12 Learning. One candidate performed in the Exemplary range in the area of Impact on PK-12 Learning

For the AY 2014-2015, data was available for 2 candidates. Both candidates performed in the Acceptable to Exemplary range in assessed areas. Areas of strength for our candidates were Domain II Learner Centered Instruction (both candidates Exemplary), Domain III Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress (both candidates Exemplary), and Domain V Professional Competences (both candidates Exemplary) Acceptable performance for both candidates was obtained in the area of Impact on PK-12 Learning.

In summary for 100% of the candidates, Acceptable or Exemplary scores were obtained for all categories on the Experience/Clinical Practice Evaluation form. This information is collected at the end of the clinical field experience and demonstrates the effectiveness of the candidates’ ability to apply knowledge, skills, and dispositions effectively in practice. The data below demonstrates that special education candidates effectively apply the knowledge, skills, and dispositions learned in the program. Clinical Practice Evaluation Data, 2008 – Fall 2014, N = 16

Category Years

Total

Exemplary3

Acceptable2

Unacceptable1

Percent acceptable or above

AssessmentCEC Standard 8

2008-2009 6 4 2 0 100%

2009-2010 2 0 2 0 100%

2010-2011 1 0 1 0 100%

2013-2014 5 3 2 0 100%

2014-2015 2 1 1 0 100%

65


Appropriate Instructional

PlanningCEC Standard 7

2008-2009 6 3 3 0 92%

2009-2010 2 1 1 0 100%

2010-2011 1 1 0 0 100%

2013-2014 5 4 1 0 100%

2014-2015 2 2 0 0 100%

Positive Classroom Environment/Climat

eCEC Standard 5

2008-2009 6 5 1 0 100%

2009-2010 2 0 2 0 100%

2010-2011 1 1 0 0 100%

2013-2014 5 2 3 0 100%

2014-2015 2 2 0 0 100%

Responsive Instructional

CommunicationCEC Standards 4

and 7

2008-2009 6 3 3 0 100%

2009-2010 2 0 2 0 100%

2010-2011 1 1 0 0 100%

2013-2014 5 4 1 0 100%

2014-2015 2 1 1 0 100%

ProfessionalProfessional

Behavior AdvocacyCEC Standard 9

2008-2009 6 4 2 0 100%

2009-2010 2 1 1 0 100%

2010-2011 1 1 0 0 100%

2013-2014 5 3 2 0 100%

2014-2015 2 2 0 0 100%

Impact on PK-12 Learning

CEC Standards 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10

2008-2009 6 1 5 0 100%

2009-2010

2 0 2 0 100%

66


2010-2011 1 0 1 0 100%

2013-2014 5 1 4 0 100%

2014-2015 2 0 2 0 100%

Assessment #5: Lesson Plan & Delivery Project (focus on student learning). The Lesson Plan Project requires the candidate to create a lesson that considers and plans for each of the lesson cycle components and then delivers the lesson, following the lesson cycle, to a student or student’s with ELN. Candidates complete this project in SPE 561 and this practice will begin Spring 2012. Candidate performance will be evaluated by the course instructor using the Experience/Clinical Practice Evaluation form. The feedback from this evaluation will emphasize individual candidate strengths and weaknesses; thereby, providing the candidate with information needed to improve his or her lesson delivery during student teaching or teaching internship.

Assessment #5: Lesson Plan & Delivery Project (focus on student learning) specifically aligns with CEC Standards 1, 4, 5, 7, & 8


Number of StudentsCompleting

Lesson Plan & Delivery Project




Score of 1

2013-2014 100% 2 0 2 0

2007-2013 Project Initiated in 2013-2014 … No Data Available

2007-2014

Assignment Description: Project initiated in the 2013-2014 school year. Candidates need to create or find a lesson for grades 1-12 (reading, math, writing, science, social studies). This lesson will be created on grade level using a Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) objective with accommodations for the students with disabilities. For example, this means that 3rd grade students would be administered a lesson using a 3rd grade level TEKS or concept that is adjusted to the students' understanding level or abilities. If you are working with students with intellectual disabilities for your field experience, you will have to carefully choose a TEKS that can be adjusted or delivered appropriately with accommodations. You must include the TEKS number on your lesson plan. You will complete the lesson plan form of your choosing (Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction or Madeline Hunter’s Lesson Cycle) and you will be evaluated on our ability to demonstrate evidence of following the lesson cycle, the incorporation of evidence-based academic and motivational strategies, enthusiasm and knowledge of content, as well as implementation and use of pre and post assessment data. Lesson Plan Project Data Report, Spring 2013 & Spring 2014, N = 8

CEC Standards & Overall Performance

% Exemplary3

% Acceptable2

% Unacceptable1

67


CEC Standard 1 Foundations 100% (7)CEC Standard 4 Instructional Strategies

71% (5) 29% (2)

CEC Standard 5 Learning Environments and Social Interactions

43% (3) 57% (4)

CEC Standard 7 Instructional Planning

29% (2) 42% (3) 29% (2)

Standard 8 Assessment 100% (7)

Performance measures for the IEP project indicate that candidates perform in the Exemplary to Acceptable range on CEC Standards 1, 5 and 8. This information suggests that candidates understand theories, evidence-based principles, and law related to learning environments and instruction for children with disabilities. The majority of candidates (71%) have developed abilities in delivering lessons that include key lesson cycle components. Two candidates (29%) were unable to use pre-assessment information to create and deliver a lesson that included key lesson cycle components.

Assessment #6: Behavior Change Project: used to assess the candidate’s knowledge of Applied Behavior Analysis principles and his or her ability to appropriately apply these principles to improve a candidate chosen behavior. Candidates complete this project in SPE 539.

Assessment #6 The Behavior Change Project specifically aligns with CEC Standards 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, & 8.



Behavior Change Project




Score of 1

2013-2014 100% 6 6 0 0

2012-2013 0 0 0 0

2011-2012 0 0 0 0

2010-2011 100% 3 1 2 0

2007-2010 Current projected initiated 2010

Summary: Three candidates completed the project and course. One candidate was eligible for a grade of WH. Overall, all three candidates performed within the Acceptable range. One candidate performed in the Exemplary range on Standards 3, 4, and 7 due to additional efforts to conduct and implement research interventions. Data obtained from candidate performance on the Behavior Change Project is limited due to there being only one semester of data (Fall 2011) and the fact that only 4 of the candidates were seeking initial teacher certification in Special Education. Performance on this assessment does suggest that the candidates are able to apply

68


ABA concepts for self-improvement, empowerment, and long-term maintenance of the targeted behavior.

Behavior Change Project Results, Spring 2013, Summer 2014, & Spring 2014, N = 8CEC Standard and

Performance Exemplary Acceptable Unsatisfactory

Standard 1 100% (8)

Standard 3 87.5% (7) 12.5% (1)

Standard 4 75% (6) 25% (2)

Standard 5 75% (6) 25% (2)

Standard 7 75% (6) 25% (2)

Standard 8 62.5% 37.5%

Performance on this assessment does suggest that the candidates are able to apply ABA concepts for self-improvement, empowerment, and long-term maintenance of the targeted behavior. After a review of the projects and data, the course instructor has rearranged some instructional modules so that candidates will begin researching interventions specific to his or her target behavior earlier in the semester so that the research-based interventions can be implemented more readily in the project.

Assessment #7: Norm-Referenced Assessment (Pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions):

The Norm-Referenced Test Interpretation assignment is used to assess the candidate’s ability to interpret a norm-referenced assessment (academic or adaptive behavior) using standard language to describe performance and scores. Candidates complete this assignment in SPE 532.

Assessment # 7: Norm-Referenced Assessment specifically aligns with CEC Standards 1, 3, 5, 7, & 8.

Norm-Referenced Assessment Interpretation

Standard 1 Standard 3 Standard 5 Standard 7 Standard 8

2013-2014 this assessment not offered due to course SPE 532 not offered

2012-2013 this assessment not offered due to course SPE 532 not offered

2011-2012 this assignment will be implemented Fall 2012

Assessment #8: Curriculum-Based Assessment … is used to assess the candidate’s ability to create grade level probes (reading or math), administer the probes, score the assessment, and

69


then utilize the information to create a reading or mathematics instructional aim line using research-based growth rates. Candidates complete this assignment in SPE 562. Assessment #8: the Curriculum Based Assessment assignment specifically aligns with CEC Standards1, 2, 3, 7, & 8

Analysis of Data Findings

Curriculum-Based Assessment



Behavior Change Project




Score of 1

2013-2014 100% 8 0 8 0

2012-2013 100% 4 0 4 0

2011-2012 100% 3 2 1 0

2010-2011 100% 11 0 11 0

2007-2010 Current projected initiated 2010

Norm-Referenced Assessment Results, Fall 2014, N = 5CEC Standard and

Performance Exemplary Acceptable Unsatisfactory

Standard 1 100% (5)

Standard 3 100% (5)

Standard 7 100% (5)

Standard 8 100% (5) 3

Assessment data indicates that candidates are able to use provided achievement information and course resources (Sentence Score Description content page) along with module information to accurately interpret (strengths and weaknesses) achievement assessment results as it relates to the Bell Curve and translate this information into understandable terms or score descriptions for school professionals and parents.

70


M.Ed in Special Education with Certification as an Educational Diagnostician

Assessment of Student LearningThere are six key assessments for the Educational Diagnostician M.ED. and data has been collected on our candidates’ performance for the majority of semesters since implementation began. Program and curriculum decisions have been based on this assessment data. Educational Diagnostician graduate program assessments are outlined and described below.

Assessment When administered

(1) #153 Educational Diagnostician TExES Exam

At the end of the M.ED. program in EPS 555 Practicum

(2) Comprehensive Mastery Exam At the end of the M.ED. program in EPS 555 Practicum

(3) Curriculum-Based Assessment In SPE 562 Instructional Strategies for Exceptional Learners

(4) Practicum Performance At the end of the M.ED. program in EPS 555 Practicum

(5) Norm-Referenced Assessment Project In EPS 545 IQ Testing

(6) Individualized Education Plan, IEP Project

In SPE 567 Trends in Educating Exceptional Children

The faculty meets regularly to interpret program LiveText and TracDat data relative to the key areas or assessments identified in the table above. Principal findings and proposed changes for the program are presented in the paragraphs below.

Assessment #1 #153 Educational Diagnostician State TExES#153 TExES Educational Diagnostician Exam Data Report

Total Test Score Data ReportSeptember 2007 – August 2014 (year-to-date)

N = 44

Year % Pass Rate Numberof

Students

% Exemplary3

(280-300)

% Acceptable2

(240-279)

% Unacceptable1

(<240)

2013 -2014 100% 9 100% (9)

2012 -2013 86% 7 14% (1) 72% (5) 14% (1)

2011 -2012 93% 6 16% (1) 68% (5) 16% (1)

2010 -2011 100% 6 100% (5)

71


2009 -2010 92% 13 92% (12) 8% (1)

2008 -2009100% 2 100% (2)

2007 -2008 100% 1 100% (1)

M.ED. Educational Diagnostician candidates have demonstrated competence on Educational Diagnostician content measured on the state #153 Educational Diagnostician TExES exam. Total Test data for the #153 Educational Diagnostician TExES indicates that for 4 out of 7 academic years (2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2010-2011, 2013-2014) the program had a 100% pass rate on the Educational Diagnostician TExES exam. Total Test percentages dropped during 2009-2010 (92%), 2011-2012 (84%) and 2012-2013 (86%) based on the failing performance of 1 candidate each year.

Assessment #2 Educational Diagnostician Comprehensive Mastery ExamNear completion of the Educational Diagnostician graduate program, candidates must demonstrate their knowledge and skills of the program standards and curriculum through successful completion of a Comprehensive Mastery Exam. Successful completion of the Comprehensive Mastery Exam leads to testing clearance for the #153 Educational Diagnostician TExES – assessment #1. In order to pass the Comprehensive Mastery Exam, candidates must obtain a score of 2 (Acceptable) on Parts I-IV of the exam. Parts I-III of this exam are comprised of essay questions, multiple-choice, and electronic Full and Individual Evaluation (FIE) forms. Candidate performance for each essay question is based on the scoring guide criteria and each question evaluates candidate knowledge of multiple key areas with each exam question addressing multiple key areas.

Tests and Measurement Evidence-Based Research/Instruction Federal and State Law/Legal Roles & Responsibilities Diversity Discipline

Comprehensive Mastery Exam, Spring 2008 – Spring 2013, N = 35

CEC Standard Aligned Mastery Exam Question/Component

% Exemplary

3

% Acceptable

2

% Unacceptable

1

CEC Standard 1: Foundations and Diagnostic Specialist Standards:ACC1K4, ACC1K5, ED1K1.Mastery Exam: Legal Roles & Responsibilities & Test and Measurement

14% (5) 86% (30)

CEC Standard 2: Development and Characteristics of Learners and

14% (5) 86% (30)

72


Diagnostic Specialist Standards: ACC2K1, ACC2K4, ED2K1, and ED2S1.Mastery Exam: Diversity, Evidence-Based Practices, Test and Measurement & Behavior Analysis/Discipline

CEC Standard 3: Individual Learning Differences and Diagnostic Specialist Standard: ED3K1.Mastery Exam: Diversity, Test and Measurement, & Evidence-Based Practices

14% (5) 86% (30)

CEC Standard 5: Learning Environments and Social Interactions and Diagnostic Specialist Standards: ACC5K1, ACC5K2, ED5K3, and ED5S5Mastery Exam: Diversity, Evidence-Based Practices, Test and Measurement & Behavior Analysis

11% (4) 83% (29) 6% (2)

CEC Standard 6: LanguageMastery Exam: Diversity

11% (4) 89% (31)

CEC Standard 8: Assessment and Diagnostic Specialist Standards: ED3K1, ED5K3, ED5S5, ED1K2, ED1K3, ED1K4, ED1K6Mastery Exam: Tests & Measurement I & II

14% (5) 83% (29) 3% (1)

CEC Standard 9: Professional and Ethical Practice and Diagnostic Specialist Standards: ACC1K4, ACC1K5, ED1K1.Mastery Exam: Legal Roles & Responsibilities

11% (4) 89% (31)

Assessment data for the Comprehensive Mastery Exam Spring 2008 – Spring 2013 indicates that the majority (83 – 89%) of candidates were performing in the Acceptable range on 4 Comprehensive Mastery Exam questions. As the number of program candidates increased and the course instructor of EPS 555 changed to a faculty member certified as an educational diagnostician (2010), the percentage of candidates performing in the Exemplary range increased slightly (11-14%) due to the creation of comprehensive mastery exam questions that were tailored to the specific roles and responsibilities of an educational diagnostician and content knowledge of instruction, objectives, and services across the PK-12 spectrum.

Revised Comprehensive Mastery Examination, Fall 2013 – Spring 2014, N = 10

CEC Standard Aligned Mastery Exam Question. Standard 1 Assessment;

Standard 3 Programs, Services, and Outcomes; Standard

% Exemplary 3

% Acceptable 2

% Unacceptable 1

73


4 Research and Inquiry; Standard 5 Leaders Leadership and Policy; and Standard 6 Professional and Ethical Practice.

CEC Standard 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & Comprehensive Mastery Exam Part I

Test and Measurement, Federal and State Law & Legal Roles and

Responsibilities, and Evidence or Research-Based Instruction

20% (2) 80% (8)

CEC Standard 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & Comprehensive Mastery Exam Part II

Test and Measurement, Federal and State Law & Legal Roles/ Responsibilities, Diversity Diversity

10% (1) 90% (9)

CEC Standard 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & Comprehensive Mastery Exam Essay Part IIIT Test and Measurement, Federal and State Law & Legal Roles and Responsibilities, Diversity, and Discipline

10%(1) 90% (9)

CEC CEC Standards 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and Comprehensive Mastery Exam Part 4 Domain I (TEXES

50% (5) 40% (4) 10% (1)

CEC Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and Comprehensive Exam Part 4 Domain I (TExES Mastery simulation.

30% (3) 70% (7)

CEC Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and Comprehensive Maste Exam Part 4 Domain III (TEXES simulation)

50% (5)

20% (2) 30% (3)

CEC Standards 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and Comprehensive Mastery Exam

Part 4 Domain IV (TEXES simulation)

50% (5) 30% (3) 20% (2)

Note: For the software simulation of the #153 Educational Diagnostician TExES exam, a Total Test score of 250 is also required.

The Comprehensive Mastery Exam was revised for the academic year of 2013 – 2014. The revised Comprehensive Mastery Exam contains 4 components and is designed to more representative of the #153 TExES exam. During this academic year, candidate performance was similar to the previous Comprehensive Mastery Exam (majority of candidates performing in the Acceptable range with smaller percentages performing in the Exemplary range) for Parts I – III. Assessment data for Comprehensive Mastery Exam Part 4, which is a software-based simulation of the #153 Educational Diagnostician TExES, points out that candidate performance on TExES Domains I, III, and IV could be improved or increased to the Acceptable range of 80% or higher. The course instructor of EPS 555 will require candidates to go back to the software program and spend time working in Quiz/Study Mode on competencies percentages that fall below 80%.

74


Candidate review time on lowest competencies will be verified within the software program by the course instructor using her administrator privileges.

Assessment #3 Educational Diagnostician Curriculum-Based Assessment, Curriculum-Based Assessment Project Data Report, Spring 2010 – Spring 2014, N = 45

% Exemplary 3

% Acceptable 2

% Unacceptable 1

CEC Standard 2 Development & Characteristics of Learners

31% (14) 60% (27) 9% (4)

CEC Standard 4 Instructional Strategies

31% (14) 60% (27) 9% (4)

Overall, the majority of candidates (91%) performed in the Acceptable to Exemplary range for CEC standards 2 and 4. Unacceptable performance (9%) was due to a small number of candidates (4) not following directions on the assignment to create an informative and accurate Excel aim line graph based on student performance.

Assessment #4 Educational Diagnostician Practicum Evaluation; Practicum Evaluation Data Report; Spring 2010 – Spring 2014; N = 26

% Exemplary 3

% Acceptable 2

% % Unacceptable 1

CEC Standard 2 12% (3) 84% (22) 4% (1)

CEC Standard 3 12% (3) 84% (22) 4% (1)

CEC Standard 8 8% (2) 88% (23) 4% (1)

CEC Standard 9 8% (2) 88% (23) 4% (1)

CEC Standard 10 8% (2) 88% (23) 4% (1)

The majority of Educational Diagnostician candidates (84 – 88%) are provided satisfactory experiences during the practicum. Candidates that obtain a score in the Exemplary range (8-12%) are usually in a school district position that affords them more opportunities to work and observe across the PK-12 spectrum and disability types. These positions would include an ARD Facilitator, bilingual interpretation, and PIEMS (attendance and classification) personnel. The course instructor of EPS 555 is requesting practicum experiences across the PK-12 spectrum and disability types for all candidates and again during the practicum visit with the school district mentor. The final decision on provided practicum experiences resides with the special education director, district mentor, and the approval of the candidate’s school principal. It is hoped that the increase in practicum course hours (3 to 6 credit hours and beginning Fall 2014) will allow more time for school district mentors and candidates to plan and participate in practicum experiences across the PK-12 spectrum and disability types.

75


Revised Practicum Evaluation Data Report, Fall 2014, N = 9

CEC Standards 2012 % Exemplary

3

% Acceptable

2

% Unacceptable

1

CEC Standard 1 Assessment 33% (3) 67% (6)

CEC Standard 2 Curricular Content Knowledge

33% (3) 67% (6)

CEC Standard 3 Programs, Services, & Outcomes

44% (3) 67% (6)

CEC Standard 4 Research and Inquiry 33% (3) 67% (6)

CEC Standard 5 Leadership and Policy 44% (4) 56% (5)

CEC Standard 6 Professional and Ethical Practice

44% (4) 56% (5)

CEC Standard 7 Collaboration 44% (4) 56% (5)

The majority of Educational Diagnostician candidates (56 - 67%) are provided satisfactory experiences during the practicum. The increase in Exemplary performance is due to some candidates being in the school district position of an ARD Facilitator and this affords them more opportunities to work and observe across the PK-12 spectrum and disability types. Other school district positions with more opportunities across the PK-12 spectrum and disabilities types include a bilingual interpreter, assistant principal, and PIEMS (attendance and classification) personnel. The course instructor of EPS 555 is continuing to request practicum experiences across the PK-12 spectrum and disability types for all candidates and again during the practicum visit with the school district mentor. The final decision on provided practicum experiences remains with the special education director, district mentor, and the approval of the candidate’s school principal. It is hoped that the increase in practicum course hours (3 to 6 credit hours and beginning Fall 2014) will allow more time for school district mentors and candidates to plan and participate in practicum experiences across the PK-12 spectrum and disability types.

Assessment #5 Educational Diagnostician Norm-Referenced Assessment Project, Overall Norm-Referenced Assessment Data Report, Academic Years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and Fall 2014, N = 57

CEC Standard & Assignment Reference %Exemplary

3

%Acceptable

2

%Unacceptable

1

CEC Standard 2: Development and Characteristics of Learners and Diagnostic Specialist Standards: ED1K1, ACC2K1, ED3K1, ACC4K2, ACC5K2,

14% (8) 84% (48) 2% (1)

76


ACC5K3. Pre-Assessment and/or Needs Assessment.

CEC Standard 3. Individual Learning Differences and Diagnostic Specialist Standards: ACC1K4, ED1K1, ACC2K1, ED3K1, ACC4K2, ED4K7, ED4K8, ED4K9, ED4S1, ED4S4, ACC5K2, ED5K3. Pre-Assessment and/or Needs Assessment.

8% (5) 90% (51) 2% (1)

CEC Standard 7. Instructional Planning and Diagnostic Specialist Standards: ACC1K4, ACC2K1, ACC3S3, ED4S6, ED5K3, ED6S1, ED6S2. Recording and/or Documentation of Assessment, Reflection

7% (4) 91% (52) 2% (1)

CEC Standard 8. Assessment and Diagnostic Specialist Standards: ACC1K4, ACC2K1, ACC3S3, ED3K1, ED4S6, ED5K3, ED6S1, ED6S2. Implementation of Plan, Future Plans, and Impact on PK-12 Learning.

16% (9) 82% (47) 2% (1)

In all, there were 57 M.ED. Educational Diagnostician candidates that completed the Norm-Referenced Assessment from Fall 2008 - Fall 2014. Candidate performance for each CEC standard is provided below. The majority of candidates (82 - 91%) are performing in the Acceptable range for CEC standards 2, 3, 7, & 8. Fewer candidates (7 - 16%) are able to independently complete assignment tasks using course resources with minimal support from the course instructor. One candidate (2%) obtained a score of 1, which falls in the Unacceptable range. Unacceptable performance was due to the candidate not being able to use course resources and instructor feedback to independently apply assessment components and consequently failing the course.

Assessment #6 Educational Diagnostician Individualized Education Plan (IEP) Project, IEP Project Data Report, Fall 2011 – Spring 2014, N = 41

% Exemplary 3

% Acceptable 2

% Unacceptable 1

CEC Standard 2 Development and Characteristics of Learners

22% (9) 76% (31) 2% (1)

CEC Standard 3 Individual Learning Differences

42% (17) 56% (23) 2% (1)

CEC Standard 7a Instructional Planning Goals

37% (15) 51% (21) 12% (5)

77


CEC Standard 7b Instructional Planning Objectives

34% (14) 56% (23) 10% (4)

Fall 2011 was the first administration of the revised IEP Project. Assessment data suggests that Educational Diagnostician candidates have a foundational understanding of applying learner characteristics and competencies to the writing of “standards-based” goals and objectives based on Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). The majority of candidates (88 – 90%) are able to write instructional objectives (CEC standard 7). A small percentage of students (10 - 12%) of the candidates were unsuccessful in using course resources to write instructional goals and objectives.

B. Program Curriculum and Duration in Comparison to Peer Programs

BSIS … The BSIS Program in Special Education is 120 undergraduate credits as established by the state. The 120 hours includes 42 core credits, 30 special education course credits, 9 Student Teaching credits (General/Special Ed.), and 42 additional credits in supporting educational courses.

M.Ed in Special Education with Initial Teacher Certification … M.Ed. in Special Education with Initial Teacher Certification in Special Education, Online (Teaching Internship - 45 hour program without prerequisite SPE 539 course or Student Teaching - 48 hour program without prerequisite SPE 539 course). SPE 567, 568, 561, 562, 564, 532, 560; EPS 585; plus an additional 21-24 hours of teacher certification courses (reading, math, and pedagogy) planned with the advisor. SPE 539 or an equivalent is a prerequisite for coursework. To obtain certification, an individual must also pass the following TExES exams #161, #160 and #191 (or other general education content area).

M.Ed in Special Education with Certification as an Educational Diagnostician … This degree plan is a 36 hour M.ED. and is comparable to peer programs.

C. Program Facilities and Equipment

BSIS … Program faculty access course fees for student certification preparation software. Facilities include furnished equipped office space and laptop computer for each faculty member with an open space reserved for maintaining assessment materials.

M.Ed in Special Education with Initial Teacher Certification … This M.Ed. is offered online.

M.Ed in Special Education with Certification as an Educational Diagnostician … This M.Ed. is offered online. Publisher assessment kits (IQ, achievement, language, adaptive behavior, and fine and gross motor) and videos are utilized in this program.

78


D. Program Finance and Resource

BSIS … Faculty members are aware that support is allowed through professional development, course fees, and HEF funds. Each faculty member is informed about these funding sources. Course fees are strategically placed in key courses in order to finance software purchases used in courses to prepare for state certification examinations.

M.Ed in Special Education with Initial Teacher Certification … Course fees are strategically placed in key courses in order to finance test kit, consumable, and software purchases.

M.Ed in Special Education with Certification as an Educational Diagnostician … Course fees are strategically placed in key courses in order to finance test kit, consumable, and software purchases.

E. Program Administration

OVERALL PROGRAM; Special Education … Frank Mullins is the Program Director of Special Education as of 2014-2015

BSIS … Lorna Kathleen Sheriff is the coordinator for this program. Dr. Sheriff advises students informally. Formal advising is completed by the Perkins College of Education (PCOE) Advising Center.

M.Ed in Special Education with Initial Teacher Certification … Paige Mask is the coordinator and advisor for this program.

M.Ed in Special Education with Certification as an Educational Diagnostician … Paige Mask is the coordinator and advisor for this program.

79


Visual Impairment Self-Study Report, 2015

Criteria for the review of program must include, but are not limited to the following for the last 7 years:Faculty InformationA. Faculty Qualifications

Michael Munro – Program Director M.Ed. Stephen F. Austin State University 2002 SPED/VIB.S. University of Texas at Dallas 1993 Admin/Mgt.*Current doctoral candidate Texas A&M UniversityMichel Munro : Professional CertificationsTeacher Certification issued by the State of Texas:

Classroom teacher- Visually Handicapped 2002 - CurrentGeneric Special Education 1996 - Current Online Instructor Certification (SFASU) Earned 2010College Teaching Certificate (TAMU) Earned 2012

Michael Munro: Work Experience2011-present Instructor, Stephen F. Austin State University (SFASU), Nacogdoches, TX2007- 2011 Clinical Instructor, SFASU, Nacogdoches, TX2003 - 2007 Adjunct Instructor, SFASU, Nacogdoches, TX2000- 2007 Itinerant Teacher of the Visually Impaired Tri County Vision Services

Consortium for the Visually Impaired, Bi-County Cooperative Fairfield ISD- Fiscal Agent, Fairfield, TX

2000- 2007 Special Education Teacher - Coolidge Independent School DistrictCoolidge, TX

Deborah Cady - InstructorM. A. University of Northern Colorado 1990 Special Education; Severe Needs:

Vision/Orientation and MobilityE.C. Cert McNeese State University 1987 Special Education: Early Childhood B. S. University of Southern Mississippi 1978 Special Education; Deborah Cady: Professional CertificationsOrientation and Mobility (COMS), ACVREP, National. 1990 to PresentTeacher Certification

Certified Teacher of the Visually Impaired, 1978 to PresentPhysically Impaired 1978 to PresentElementary Education 1978 to Present

Online Instructor Certification (SFASU)Deborah Cady: Work Experience2011-present Instructor, Stephen F. Austin State University, Department of Human

Services, Instructor, Orientation and Mobility Program; Graduate and Undergraduate programs

2008-2011 Certified Orientation and Mobility Specialist; Birdville Independent School District, Haltom City, TX

2006-2008 Teacher of the Visually Impaired and Certified Orientation and Mobility Specialist; Kennedale Independent School District, Kennedale, TX

80


(Previously part of Bi-County Co-op listed below)1999-2006 Teacher of the Visually Impaired and Certified Orientation and Mobility

Specialist; Bi-County Co-op, Burleson, TX1998-1999 Teacher of the Visually Impaired, Parker County Co-op, Weatherford, TX1995-1998 Resource Teacher, K-6th grade, Reading and Math, Burleson Independent School

District, Burleson, TX1994-1995 Grade 5 Teacher, Anaheim Unified School District, Anaheim, CA1993-1994 Teacher of the Visually Impaired, K-8th grade, Long Beach Unified School

District, Long Beach, CA

Tracy HallakM. Ed. Stephen F. Austin State University 2004 Special Education,

Concentration: Visual ImpairmentB.S. California State University, 1993 Child Development/SPEDTracy Hallak: Professional CertificationsTeacher Certification

Elementary Self-Contained - Grades 1-8 1996 - currentGeneric Special Education - Grades PK-12 1996 - currentCertified Teacher of the Visually Impaired 1996 - current

Certified Orientation and Mobility Specialist –ACVREP Certifying Board - 2000, 2005, 2010

Online Instructor Certification (SFASU) 2013 - currentTracy Hallak: Work Experience2011-present Instructor, Stephen F. Austin State University, Department of Human

Services, Instructor, Orientation and Mobility Program; Graduate and Undergraduate programs

2008-2011 Certified Orientation and Mobility Specialist; Birdville Independent School District, Haltom City, TX

2006-2008* Teacher of the Visually Impaired and Certified Orientation and Mobility Specialist; Kennedale Independent School District, Kennedale, TX(Previously part of Bi-County Co-op listed below)

1999-2006 Teacher of the Visually Impaired and Certified Orientation and Mobility Specialist; Bi-County Co-op, Burleson, TX

1998-1999 Teacher of the Visually Impaired, Parker County Co-op, Weatherford, TX1995-1998 Resource Teacher, K-6th grade, Reading and Math, Burleson Independent School

District, Burleson, TX1994-1995 Grade 5 Teacher, Anaheim Unified School District, Anaheim, CA1993-1994 Teacher of the Visually Impaired, K-8th grade, Long Beach Unified School

District, Long Beach, CA

Vicki DePountisPh.D. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. 2012 Special Education/Visual

ImpairmentsM. Ed. University of Texas, Austin, TX 1996 Special EducationB. S. New York University, New York, NY 1987 Business/Marketing

81


Vicki DePountis: Professional CertificationsTeacher Certifications from the State of Texas

Teacher of Students with Visual Impairments 2008 - CurrentGeneric Special Education 2006 - CurrentMathematics 1996 - Current

Certified Orientation and Mobility Specialist –ACVREP Certifying Board - 2010 - Current

Online Instructor Certification (SFASU) 2014 - CurrentVicki DePountis: Work Experience2010 - 2013 Orientation & Mobility Specialist: Austin ISD, Austin, TX2011 Course Instructor - Basic Orientation & Mobility Texas Tech University,

Lubbock, TX2005–2010 Lead Layout Coordinator—Book and Test Designer PRO-ED, Inc. - A Special

Education Publishing Company, Austin, TX2009 Technology Consultant—Online Special Education Course Designer

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX2008 Itinerant Substitute Teacher of Students with Visual Impairments Austin

Independent School District, Austin, TX2000–2004 Media Production Manager ETS-Lindgren, Cedar Park, TX1999–2000 Marketing & Communications Specialist GSI Technology, Austin, TX1998–1999 Mathematics Teacher Crockett High School, Austin, Texas1997–1998 Special Education/Mathematics Teacher Institute for Collaborative Education,

New York, New York1998–1999 Special Education/Mathematics Teacher Lakeside High School, Wilmington,

North Carolina

Phoebe OkunguPh.D. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX. 2014 Special Education/Visual

Impairments M.Phil. University of Oslo, Norway. 2005 Special Needs Education B.Ed. Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya. 2000 Special Education (Visual

Impairments)Phoebe Okungu: Professional Certifications1993-1995: Dept. Ed. Kenya Institute of Special Education, Nairobi, Kenya. Special Education (Visual Impairments)Phoebe Okungu: Work Experience2010- 2014 Graduate/Research Assistant College of Education, Texas Tech University 2006-2007 Visiting lecturer Kyambogo University in Kampala, Uganda.2005-2010 Lecturer Kenya Institute of Special Education, Nairobi Kenya2001-2003 Assistant lecturer Kenya institute of Special education, Nairobi Kenya2000-2001 College Tutor Eregi Teachers training College, Kakamega Kenya1997 Educational Program Officer Schools Improvement program, Municipal

Education office, Kisumu Kenya1995-1997 Special Education Teacher of the VI Kibos School for Children with Visual Impairments, Kisumu Kenya1994-1995 Teacher at Thika School for the Blind, Kenya

82


Heather Munro: M. Ed. Stephen F. Austin State University 2004 Serious Emotional Disturbance/

AutismB. S. SFASU 2000 Rehabilitation/Orientation &

Mobility Current doctoral student Texas Tech UniversityHeather Munro: Professional CertificationsTeacher Certifications from the State of Texas

Teacher of Students with Visual Impairments 2002 - CurrentGeneric Special Education 2007 - Current

Certified Orientation and Mobility Specialist –ACVREP Certifying Board - 2000 - Current

Online Instructor Certification (SFASU) 2014 - CurrentHeather Munro: Work Experience2014- Clinical Instructor - Stephen F. Austin State University, Department of Human

Services, Instructor, Orientation and Mobility Program2011-2014 Teacher of the Visually Impaired/ Orientation & Mobility Specialist independent

contractor2012-2014 Adjunct faculty and contracted trainer of program students. Stephen F. Austin

State University 2007-2011 Teacher of the Visually Impaired/ Orientation & Mobility Specialist Sabine

County, SSA – Hemphill, Texas.2004- 2007 Orientation & Mobility Specialist – Deer Park ISD Deer Park, Texas (returned to

position after earning M. Ed.)2001-2003 Orientation & Mobility Specialist – Deer Park ISD Deer Park, Texas2000-2001 Orientation & Mobility Specialist – Texas Commission for the Blind

Deborah Louder; Adjunct FacultyPost Graduate Study in Deficient Vision Texas Tech UniversityM.Ed. (1981) in Guidance & Counseling Pan American UniversityB.S. (1973) in Elementary Education McMurry CollegeDeborah Louder – Professional CertificationsProfessional Certifications from the State of Texas

Counselor 1982- currentSpecial Education Counselor 1982- current

Teacher Certifications from the State of TexasElementary History 1973- currentElementary Self-Contained 1973- currentSeverely and Profoundly Handicapped 1980- currentEarly Childhood -Handicapped 1978 – currentDeficient Vision 1982 – currentLanguage and/or Learning Disabled 1973 - current

Deborah Louder – Work experience2010- Instructor for Courses in Vision, SFASU 2013-14 Private contractor as a VI teacher Region XV districts, San Angelo, TX

83


2013-14 Supervision of grad student teachers in VI, Texas Tech University1990-2012 Educational Specialist for VI, Deaf-Blind and students with Low Incidence

Disabilities ESC Region XV 2001-2011 TSBVI Board Member President, VP and Secretary1990-2002 Educational Specialist for Assistive Technology& Contact Person for Autism, ESC Region XV 2002 - 2003 Instructor for Graduate Course in Vision, SFASU 1980 – 1990 Educational Specialist for Early Childhood & VI, ESC Region 1 Program

Manager for ECI, Edinburg, TX1975 – 1980 Special Education Teacher for Early Childhood Weslaco ISD 1973 – 1975 Special Education Resource Teacher for Bryan ISD

B. Faculty PublicationsMichael MunroPogrund, R. L., Cowan, C., Darst, S., Gray, K., Hallak, T., Miller, C., Munro, M., Robinson, C.,

Siller, M. A., & Swift, F. (2014). VISSIT: Visual Impairment Scale of Service Intensity of Texas [Scale]. Texas School for the Blind http://www.tsbvi.edu/vissit

Munro, M. P. & Munro, H. R. (2013). Infusion of print literacy methodology into braille Instruction for students with visual impairments. Journal of Blindness

Innovation and Research, 3(2). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5241%2F3-36Munro, M. P. & Stafford, B. H. (2012). Transforming training in orientation and mobility: Examining the effect of the use of an audio link on the distance between trainer and trainee. International Journal of Orientation and Mobility, 5(1), 16-27.Munro. M. P. & Kamps, J. L. (2012). Interstate distance education partnerships:

Case study of challenges and accomplishment. Texas Journal of DistanceLearning. Fall Issue. Txjournal-DL.org

Deborah CadyNelson, Deborah R., Functional Vision Evaluation Dilemma: Too Many Pieces, Too Many Parts, 1991.DePountis, V. M., Cady, D., & Hallak, T. (2013). Body Awareness and Movement for Students

with Multiple Disabilities Including Visual Impairments. ERIC Number: ED547788.

Tracy HallakSheriff, L. K., Hallak, T.L. (2015) Incidental learning for children with deafblindness. National

Forum of Special Education Journal, 26(1).DePountis, V., Cady D., Hallak, T.L. (2013) Body awareness and movement for students with

multiple disabilities including visual impairment. http://eric.ed.gov/?q=body+awarenessUriegas, O., Sewel, D., Hallak, T.L. et al. Texas 2 S.T.E.P.S: Successfully Teaching Early

Purposeful Skills – Pilot (Orientation and Mobility Evaluation). Pogrund, R. L., Cowan, C., Darst, S., Gray, K., Hallak, T., Miller, C., Munro, M., Robinson, C.,

Siller, M. A., & Swift, F. (2014). VISSIT: Visual Impairment Scale of Service Intensity of Texas [Scale]. Texas School for the Blind. http://www.tsbvi.edu/vissit

84

http://www.tsbvi.edu/vissit

http://eric.ed.gov/?q=body+awareness

http://dx.doi.org/10.5241%2F3-36


Vicki DePountisDePountis, V.M., Pogrund, R.L., Griffin-Shirley, N., & Lan, W. (accepted, in revision).

Technologies used in the study of advanced mathematics by students who are blindin American classrooms: Teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Visual Impairment andBlindness.

DePountis, V. M., Cady, D., & Hallak, T. (2013). Body Awareness and Movement forStudents with Multiple Disabilities Including Visual Impairments. ERIC Number:ED547788.

DePountis, V.M., Tabb, C., Pogrund, R.L. (2012). Appendix C: Research studies inorientation and mobility supporting evidence-based practices. In R.L. Pogrund, et al.(Eds). TAPS: Orientation and mobility curriculum for students with visualimpairments (3rd edition). Austin, TX: Texas School for the Blind and VisuallyImpaired.

DePountis, V.M., Pogrund, R.L., Griffin-Shirley, N., & Lan, W. (2012). Technologies thatfacilitate the study of advanced mathematics by students who are blind: Teachers’perspectives. Dissertation. Texas Tech University Holdings.

Phoebe OkunguZhou, L., Griffin-Shirley, N., Parker, A. T., Smith, D. W., & Okungu, A. P. (2012). Assistive

technology use and competencies by teachers of students with visual impairments in the United States of America: Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 106, 656-665.

Devender, B., Griffin-Shirley, N., Okungu, A. P., Ogot, O. P., & Meeks, M. K. (2014): A review of intervention studies conducted with individuals with autism and sensory impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness (accepted for publication).

Devender, B., Okungu, A. P., Meeks, M. K., & Griffin-Shirley, N. (2014). A single subject study on orientation and mobility for students with autism spectrum disorders and visual impairment. The International Journal of Orientation and Mobility (accepted for publication)

Banda, D. R., & Okungu, P. A. (2011; Commentary Authors). This review suggests that video-based instruction improves skills in persons with autism spectrum disorders: Some limitations in review methodology and the original data set render this conclusion tentative. Evidence-based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 5, 144-148.

Heather MunroMunro, M. P. & Munro, H. R. (2013). Infusion of print literacy methodology into

braille instruction for students with visual impairments. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 3(2). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5241%2F3-36

C. Faculty External GrantsMichael Munro: Teaching Awards2014 SFASU Teaching Excellence-Department of Human Services2012 Awarded College Teaching Certificate – Texas A7M UniversityMichael Munro: Teaching Grants2012 -2014 Principal Investigator - Visual Impairment Professional Preparation $500,000 annual

award

85

http://dx.doi.org/10.5241%2F3-36


2014 SFASU Faculty Project Support Minigrant- Student Voices research project2014 Constellation Community Champions Grant2014 All Blind Children of Texas – Expanded Core Curriculum Grant2014 SFASU Teaching Excellence – Department of Human Services 2013-14 SFASU Service Learning Grant2013 All Blind Children of Texas - Etiquette Experience for Students with Visual Impairments,

grantee, Camp Independence Program2012 All Blind Children of Texas – Astros Project, grantee, Camp Independence Program2012 Awarded Delta Gamma Foundation Graduate Student Fellowship Award 2012 Awarded College Teaching Certificate – Texas A&M University2011 All Blind Children of Texas – ECC Project – grantee, Camp Independence Program2011 SFA Service Learning Grant – grantee - $8002011 Virginia Bishop Stipend – co-winner- for Camp Independence Program2010 All Blind Children of Texas - Program Funds – grantee, Camp Independence Program - $700

Tracy Hallak2014- 2019 Principal Investigator – Project COMIT (Certified Orientation and Mobility Instructor Training). A 5-year Rehabilitation Services Agency training project, $750,000 per year.

Vicki DePountis Current Principal Investigator - Visual Impairment Professional Preparation $500,000 annual award

D. Faculty Teaching LoadThe Visual Impairment and Orientation & Mobility program employs six full time faculty members and one adjunct instructor. Faculty members do all instruction and field supervision of new teachers who are entering the field of visual impairment. Full time instructors teach between 3-5 courses per semester and maintain a full faculty load as described by university policy. Our adjunct faculty member teaches one course per semester on an on needed basis. The chart below represents the number of courses taught by each faculty member with each of the numbers representing one 3-hour class.

2015 2014 2013Michael Munro Spring

FallSummer

432

454

554

Debbie Cady Spring FallSummer

444

444

544

Tracy Hallak Spring FallSummer

455

454

454

Vicki DePountis Spring Fall

34

43

New

86


Summer 0 0Heather Munro Spring

FallSummer

354

New

Phoebe Okungu Spring FallSummer

322

New

E. Faculty/Student RatioThe program works diligently to maintain low teacher to faculty rations. The specialized nature of the discipline and the Academy for Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and Education Professionals (ACVREP) accreditation standards guides the program. The use of the certain on-line learning systems allows for faculty and students to engage in real-time discussion and collaboration and to build a sense of community and support in this small field of educators. Guidelines from the SFASU Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) have also provided guidelines of best practices that have been used to keep faculty/student ration low. These standards and guidelines have helped the program establish the following Faculty/Student ratios; on-line courses using collaborate have an established maximum of 12 students, face to face classes have a maximum of 20, and simulation courses have a maximum of 8 students for each faculty.

Student Information By Program

A. Student Demographics

Representation of program diversity is evidenced in ethnicity, discipline, and location (urban, suburban, and rural teaching experience). The program reports statistics, demographics, and enrollment numbers on an annual basis to the Professional Preparation Advisory Group (PPAG). The program and the advisory group, hosted by the Texas School for the Blind (TSBVI) Outreach Department, collects and analyzes data each year, collects feedback from leaders and stakeholders, responds to requests/additions, and plans accordingly. The PPAG is made up of various stakeholders including: university faculty from the only two programs in the state who provide instruction in visual impairment (SFASU and Texas Tech), representatives of the 20 Educational Service Centers in Texas, Texas School for the Blind (TSBVI) outreach staff and other faculty, TSBVI administrators, parents of students with visual impairments, as well as teachers, leaders, and vision professionals across the state. Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services (DARS) also are represented. The statewide advisory group meets twice a year. The mission of the advisory group is detailed below.

Personnel Prep Advisory Group(PPAG)

PURPOSE:

In 1991 The Personnel Preparation Advisory Group adopted goals to insure that personnel preparation programs will:

87


1. Prepare qualified teachers and O & M instructors so that professionals will be available to all students with visual impairments.2. Be accessible regionally and locally.3. Meet the standards delineated by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and the Visually Impaired (AERBVI).4. Include a theoretical base, skill development, and practical application experiences.5. Collaborate to utilize all available resources to the best of their ability. Resource options include (but are not limited to) instruction, personnel, funds, and technology.6. Be coordinated with professional development systems.7. Include mentorship programs at both preservice and inservice levels.

All of the stakehoders and entities monitor the goals of the PPAG. The advisory group provides guidance, support, advocacy, and challenges that must be addressed by university programs.

The table below is the 2014 data update provided to the advisory group and reflects the data that is reported to PPAG and to the Texas School for the Blind each year. The advisory group and TSBVI use the Fall semester as the ‘snapshot’ period to collect data.

Stephen F. Austin 2014

Total number of students registered for classes in Fall 2014

Undergraduate Visual Impairment (VI) program 0Orientation & Mobility (O&M) program 11Total Ung. 11

Post-baccalaureate students registered for classes in Fall 2014

VI 40O&M 11Total Post-Bac 51

Program totals for all levels of training VI 40O&M 22Total in Program 62

Total number of students receiving Texas stipends in Fall 2014

VI 36

88


O&M 6Total receiving Texas stipend 42

Program completers during the 2013-2014 cohort VI 22O&M 22Total Completers 44

New students during the 2013-2014 cohort (includes graduate and undergraduate) ESC Participation

VI 31 ESCNo of

studentsO&M 14 1 Total New Students 45 2 1

3 2Number of probationary certificates issued by university during the 2013-2014 cohort 22 4 14

5 2

Cultural Diversity - Students registered during the Fall, Spring, and Summer 2013-2014 semesters. 6 African-American Students 7 0

VI 6 8 2O&M 3 9 2Total African-American students 9 10 12

11 5Hispanic Students 12

VI 3 13 O&M 1 14 2Total Hispanic students 4 15

16 1Asian Students 17

VI 1 18 O&M 19 Total Asian students 1 20 2

89


On Campus

Only Ungrad 14P.Bac 3

. 62

The following ethnicity breakdown is drawn from the annual report figures. Information provided below is representative sample of the types of candidates the program attracts, admits, retains, and serves through program completion for the last 7 years. This representative sample is based on the current enrollment of 62 candidates in all areas and levels of visual Impairment training. Ethnicity (n = 62)

● 77% White● 14% Black● 7% Hispanic● 3% Other

The Visual Impairment Preparation Program (VIP) provides training to teachers and specialists across the state of Texas. One piece of the annually reported includes reporting where the program is training specialists and instructors. The map below shows how the state is broken up into 20 Education Service Center (ESC) regions. The VIP serves students in regions sixteen of the twenty ESC regions (Region 1-Edinburg, Region 2-Corpus Christi, Region 3-Victoria, Region 4-Houston, Region 5- Beaumont, Region 6- Huntsville, Region 7- Kilgore, Region 8- Mount Pleasant, Region 9-Wichita Falls, Region 10- Richardson, Region 11- Fort Worth, Region 12-Waco, Region 14- Abilene, Region 15- San Angelo, Region 16- Amarillo, and Region 20- San Antonio). In the past seven years we have placed, visited, supported, and trained new instructors in each of these regions. In the 2014-2015 school year we are supporting new Teachers of the Visually Impaired (TVI) in Region 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, & 20

90


M.Ed in Special Education -Certification as Teacher of the Visually Impaired Graduate Enrollment Trends, Recruitment and Retention

There is no separate institutional designation that emphasizes or separates candidates who earn a Master’s degree associated with the Visual Impairment Program from those who earn a M. Ed. in Special Education.

The program has significantly increased the number of professionals who achieved Masters of Education status in the last 7 years. In the four year period 2008-2011, the program generated 1.25 graduates per year (total graduates, n=5). In the subsequent three years, the program averaged 12 graduates per year (total graduates, n=36). The program had one completer in 2008, two in 2009, two in 2010, and none in 2011. The program revised degree plans, recruited, supported student development, and maintained high standards throughout this process. Through the work of faculty, and with the support of the Human Services Department Chair, Dean of the College of Education, and the Dean of the Graduate School, the program has produced 36 M.Ed. completers over the subsequent 3-year period. This increase came after the 2011 where the number of completers had been zero.

Enrollment - Time to degree - RecruitmentThe VIP delivers instruction using a cohort model. Applications for the program are accepted once per year for cohorts beginning in the summer. Students can complete the didactic portion of training in one calendar year. The student practicum is typically reserved for the time that the candidate is employed as a TVI under emergency certification regulations of the state. A candidate can begin work, perform assessments, sign educational paperwork, and serve as the TVI of record for a school district anytime after they successfully complete the two summer courses (Eye Anatomy and Braille). The eligibility for hire as a TVI is not based on successful completion of state examination (TExES). Eligibility for emergency does require that the student provide a program developed deficiency plan to the school district. To complete certification as a TVI the student must complete the 18-hour didactic portion of the program, successfully complete 2 TExES tests (Visual Impairment and Braille) AND successfully complete a 3-hour

91


university supervised practicum. The student is allowed to work under the emergency certificate for three years. On average students complete the certification in one to two years.

Program faculty work with the Texas School for the Blind, Education Service Centers VI representatives, and the officers of the Statewide Leadership Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired (SLSBVI), to actively recruit new professionals to the field. VIP faculty also participated in onsite recruiting visits to in various regions (e.g. Beaumont & Victoria, TX; Little Rock, AR) and regularly attends university recruitment events. The program also supports recruiting efforts of the Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER) National Recruitment Committee. Michael Munro is an active member of the national committee and has been part of presentations and webinars associated with this national recruitment effort. Program faculty also work with ESC representatives and make on-site presentations to candidates and administrators to recruit to the field and SFASU.

Over 85% of the program students are supported by scholarships managed through the SFASU ORSP. The Program is working with the leadership at the Texas School for the Blind to increase the amount of funding available to train students in the state. The amount of available funds from the state has remained relatively steady in spite of increases in tuition and other costs of delivery. Over this period the program has increased the number of individuals who enter the program on a “self-pay” basis.

Student Publications and AwardsProgram students are regularly present their research and practices at statewide and regional conferences. Faculty have begun submitting student work for publication and award. At the time of this compilation of this document two different student articles have been submitted for publication. Our most recent national recipient was awarded a fellow ship at the American Council for the Blind National Leadership Conference.

Awards2015 – Texas Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually

Impaired AER Professional Preparation Scholarship Award – Angela Pozzuoli2014- Gamma Foundation Graduate Student Fellowship Award – Jennifer Reed

Student Publications and PresentationsReed, J., & Munro, M. P. (2014, March). How does vision therapy fit into the educational

system? Texas Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (TAER) Statewide Conference. Austin, TX.

DePountis, V. M., Okungu, P., Hallak, T. L., Taylor, J. L. (April 29, 2015). Teaching Body Awareness to Students with Visual Impairments and Additional

Disabilities ‘15: Bright Ideas Conference. Nacogdoches, TxMunro, M. P., Murrell, M. & Becerra, R. (2013, March). The legislature and you: You make the difference. Texas Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and

Visually Impaired (TAER) Statewide Conference. Dallas, TX

92


Moderated Student Panel PresentationsMunro, M. P. & Stafford, B. H. (2012, March). Transitions that work: Student voices,

too. Student Panel. Texas Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind andVisually Impaired (TAER) Statewide Conference. Houston, TX.

Munro, M. P. & Stafford, B. H. (2009, March). Transitions that work: Student voices. Student Panel. Texas Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (TAER) Statewide Conference. San Antonio, TX.

Munro, M. P. & Stafford, B. H. (2009, November). Transitions to college: Student experiences. Student Panel. In-Step: Getting Started on the Right Foot Conference. Nacogdoches, TX.

A. Student Enrollment and Retention RatesBeing a shortage field has prompted the program to view each program candidate as a valuable and essential resource. This view relates to funding for classes and to the ongoing and regular remediation of skills until mastered. The investment into students, by faculty and grantor, makes the development of quality, skilled, and ethical completers essential. Once through the summer semester the program regularly retains over 90% of the students through completion of the didactic portion of training.

Below is the alignment of standards for each of the courses and the numbers of students beginning in the summer and completing the required didactic courses. 2009-10 Certification CohortCourse Name and Number

CEC Standards Addressed

Range of Grades

# Students Beginning

Number Completing

AverageGrades

Percentage Meeting Standard

Braille SPE-517

1, 6 4.00-0.00 49 46 3.57 94%

Eye and Function SPE-516

2, 3, 8, 9, 10 4.00-0.00 49 47 3.63 95%

Foundations

SPE- 515

1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10,

4.00-2.00 48 47 3.70 97%

Multiple & Visual Impairments

SPE-552

2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,

4.00-2.00 48 46 3.04 91%

Basic O&M

SPE-518

4, 5, 9, 10 4.00 48 47 4.00 100%

Academic MethodsSPE-551

2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10

48 47 3.38 93%

93


2010-11 Certification CohortCourse Name and Number


Range of Grades

Number Students Beginning

Number Completing

Average Grades


Braille SPE-517

1, 6 4.00-0.00 34 33 3.40 91%


2, 3, 8, 9, 10 4.00-3.00 34 34 3.82 100

Foundations SPE- 515

1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10,

4.00-2.00 34 34 3.71 97%

Multiple & Visual Impairments SPE-552

2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 4.00-3.00 34 34 3.68 100%

Basic O&M SPE-518

4, 5, 9, 10 4.00 33 33 4.00 100%


2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10

4.00-3.00 33 33 3.70 100%



Range of Grades


Number Completing

AverageGrades


Braille SPE-517

1, 6 4.00-0.00 30 28 3.71 92%


2, 3, 8, 9, 10 4.00-0.00 30 28 3.85 96%


1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10,

4.00-0.00 26 26 3.84 96%


2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,

4.00-0.00 26 26 3.84 96%

Basic O&M SPE-518

4, 5, 9, 10 4.00- 26 26 4.00 100%


2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10

4.00-0.00 26 26 3.84 96%

94




Range of Grades


Number Completing

Average Grades


Braille SPE-517

1, 6 4.00-0.00 31 30 3.80 93%


2, 3, 8, 9, 10 4.00-0.00 32 31 3.71 96%


1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10,

4.00-3.00 31 31 3.80 100%


2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,

4.00-3.00 30 30 3.76 100%

Basic O&M SPE-518

4, 5, 9, 10 4.00-0.00 31 30 3.41 87%


2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10

4.00-2.00 31 3130 31 3.77 96%

B. Student Graduation Rates

The primary focus of the VIP is to train professionals to gain certification in the field of visual impairment. Candidates are required to gain employment as a Teacher of Students with Visual Impairment to complete certification.

Certification Completers … Program completers were initially reported at the end of the didactic classes required for certification.

Program: Visual Impairment

Academic Year (Cohorts beginning

Summer I – Reporting as of fall)

# of Candidates Enrolled in the

Program

# of Program Completers1

2010-2011 31 28

2009-2010 43 391 NCATE uses the Title II definition for program completers. Program completers are 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.

95


2008-2009 28 25

As a result Texas Senate Bill 54 of the 82nd legislative session, and the Act passed when the bill became law (effective in Sept. 2011), the requirements for certification as a Teacher of Students with Visual Impairments in Texas were changed. As a result of this change in legislation, the program’s attempt to meet the NCATE Title II definition of what it means to be a program completer requires us to alter our reporting for clarity. The new law prohibits teachers from taking the certification TExES tests without university permission, without completion of all courses, and without completion of their practicum assignments. This removes the previously allowed ability of certified teachers to add an endorsement through the independent challenging and passing the state certification tests even if they had not completed practicum and/or if they were not working in the field as a Teacher of the Visually Impaired (TVI). Practicum is only assigned when a student begins work as a TVI and becomes teacher of record for a student with a visual impairment. Employment as a TVI can begin after the first two summer courses (Braille and the Eye course), or after the completion of all the didactic courses. In both situations, TVIs begin work under a modified certificate (as of 2013 to be called Emergency Certification). All of the program’s TVIs who began work in the field are provided direct faculty support for up to three years in their practicum assignment. These TVIs are also provided a local or statewide mentor from the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired (the program grantee). In the past, once these teachers were able to gain access and pass the TExES tests there was little motivation to complete the practicum unless they were going to continue on to become a M.Ed. candidate. New legislation requires completion of the practicum before certification, and completion of the practicum requires working in the field as a TVI. The requirement of obtaining a position in the field makes the reporting of completers in accordance to NCATE definition challenging. Therefore, future reporting will include two additional categories to indicate enrollment in practicum and to indicate attaining full certification. This additional data will enable us to track the students who were able to complete the didactic courses and to track those who are working in some capacity in the field as a TVI.

Program: Visual Impairment

Academic Year (Cohorts begin

Summer I – Reporting as of

# of Candidates

Enrolled in the Program

# of Program Completers2

(Didactic

# of Teachers employed

and

# of Teachers

attaining full

2 NCATE uses the Title II definition for program completers. Program completers are 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.

96


fall) courses) enrolled in practicum

(Placed)

certification

2014-2015 32 inc 24 inc

2013-2014 31 30 26 Inc.

2012-2013 31 30 34 18

2011-2012 26 26 23 16

The fact that the number of instructors enrolled in practicum exceeds those who were enrolled in that year reflects the fact stated earlier, that students can begin their role as a TVI (and start practicum) after their first two classes or after completion of all didactic classes. Additionally, several students are in their second or third year of practicum before completion. The number in the practicum column above represents those who have begun jobs during that year.

C. Graduate Licensure Testing RatesTExES 182 Visual Impairment (VI) Test:

Year VI Tested VI-PassedVI-Not Passed

VI Passed in later attempt

% VI Passed in current year

Total % passed

2011 4 2 2 2 50.00% 100.00%2012 30 25 5 3 83.33% 93.33%2013 23 23 0 100.00% 100.00%

The two candidates who were not successful have not retaken the examination.

TExES 183 Braille (Br) Test:

YearBr Tested Br-Passed

Br-Not Passed

Br Passed in later attempt

% Br Passed in current yr

Br Total % passed

2011 20 19 1 0 95.00% 95.00%2012 26 23 3 1 88.46% 92.31%2013 24 22 2 1 91.66% 95.83%

The Braille TExES has very limited administration dates and is only offered twice a year (typically in June and late September). The cohorts do not complete the braille class (SPE 517) until August and must wait till the following September to test. Two of the candidates who were not successful have not retaken the examination.

D. Graduate Placement

97


The American Association for Employment in Education Report (2014) specifically cites visual impairment as an area of high-need. In Texas, the need for professionals in the field of visual impairment is increasing beyond the supply of trained professionals. “Unlike other disciplines, even other high-need areas like math, when a VI professional is unavailable, no one else can help meet blind students’ needs. As a result, students’ functional and academic progress may suffer” (p. 29). An increase in attrition, due to retirement of professionals, and the increase of the number of students who are identified as being visually impaired has created more jobs than there are teachers to fill the positions. Since 1996, Dr. K. C. Dignan of the Texas School for the Blind has tracked the supply and demand for vision professionals in the state. The annual report is known as the Summary of Need for VI Professionals in Texas and is posted on the Texas School for the Blind website (http://tsbvi.edu/pds). Dignan details the impact of attrition, growth of the population of students with visual impairments, and the gap in need versus availability of professionals in the 2014 edition by stating:

Academic Year Number of Teachers employed

(Placed)

2014-2015 24

2013-2014 26

2012-2013 34

2011-2012 23

Combining projected growth and attrition, Texas will need between 143 and 168 individuals with certification in visual impairments in the next 3 years to replace those who are likely to leave and respond to anticipated growth. Universities are maximizing their existing resources to produce TVIs. In 2014, 102 people were seeking VI certification. Forty-seven are working with either a probationary certificate or emergency permit. These TVIs are already working with students and included in this count as TVIs. They will not contribute to closing the gap.

Based on this data and the practice/experience in the program, there is and will continue to be a demand for professionals in the field of visual impairment.

E. Number of Degrees Conferred Annually

As stated earlier in this report:There is no separate institutional designation that emphasizes or separates candidates who earn a Master’s degree associated with the Visual Impairment Program from those who earn a M. Ed. in Special Education. Program students who earned a M.Ed. through work with faculty in the Visual Impairment and Orientation & Mobility Program are detailed below.

Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014# M.Ed 1 2 2 0 10 14 12

98


Earned

We do not currently have in place a method to track the numbers of students who continue on from certification to Med. The program is proposing a policy of continuous enrollment to help avoid the current practice where students leave for extended periods and then return. Often candidates will complete the TVI program and then switch to our other certification program, Orientation and Mobility. It is often only after adding both certifications that the student decides to makes the decision to complete his or her M.Ed.

Program and Accreditation Standard AlignmentA. Alignment of Program with State Program and Institutional Goals and Purposes

The program faculty works with officials at the Texas Education Agency and in the SFASU certification office to meet rules and standards for certification as a TVI. The faculty consistently responds to legislative changes that impact professionals in the field of visual impairment. Moreover, the program collaborates with individuals and entities (such as the Alliance of and for Visually Impaired Texans (AVIT), Texas University Professors in Visual Impairment (TUPVI), PPAG, and the Texas Action Committee for Students with Visual Impairments) to advocate and champion changes to the state legislation and administrative codes. Over the past sever (7) years the program faculty have actively advocated for three major changes that have impacted instruction. In 2011 the 82nd Texas Legislative Session passed SB 54. The enacting of this bill changed the course completion, testing, and full certification requirements for all TVI students.

In 2013 the 83rd Texas Legislative Session passed two bills that altered programs and programming. SB 39 (amending Section 30.002 of the Educational Code) and House Bill 590 (adding subsections 30,002 (c-1) and (c-2)) were both passed. The ratification of these bills changed the instructional, assessment, referral process for, and services provided to students with visual impairments in Texas. One of these bills, SB 39, originated on the SFASU campus from a discussion between a student and program faculty member.

Additionally, a revision and clarification on certification procedures was instituted in 2013. A change in requirements and process students would have to follow to complete the application for certification (probationary versus emergency certification) was orchestrated through a meeting at the TEA field office in Austin with state officials, university faculty (TTU and SFASU), and Texas School for the Blind. This drastically changed how students would begin their career as VI professionals while altering the way these students would be monitored by the universities.

Finally, a major revision in the braille code adopted by the Braille Authority of North America (BANA) in 2014 will require overhaul of the state testing and instructional content developed for and delivered to university TVI candidates.

By staying current, advocating for change, meeting demands of lawmakers, working with stakeholders, modifying instruction, and focusing on the needs of the population of persons who are visually impaired in Texas the VIP faculty have demonstrated innovative leadership that

99


supports and demonstrates the core values of the James I. Perkins College of Education detailed below:

• Academic excellence through critical, reflective, and creative thinking• Life-long learning• Collaboration and shared decision-making• Openness to new ideas, to culturally diverse people, and to innovation and change• Integrity, responsibility, diligence, and ethical behavior, and• Service that enriches the community.

Assessment of Student Learning and Alignment with Council for Exceptional Children Since 2006 and as part of the NCATE (now called CAEP) continuing accreditation process, the visual impairment faculty have developed and implemented a performance-based assessment system. The program is currently listed as recognized and the 2014 SPA recertification report was considered recognized with conditions. The recertification document reflects a complete overhaul of assessments that align to the revision of the CEC standards since being initially certified as Recognized in 2006. This overhaul of the plan for data collected by the program was developed for the Special Programs Assessment SPA report in response to Recognized with Conditions response from NCATE in 2013. The new plan and the revision are described below.

Eight key assessments were developed and data collection has begun on our candidates’ performance since implementation began in 2014. Program and curriculum decisions will continue to be based on this assessment data, guidance from TEA, from the grantor, and the PPAG. The newly developed graduate program assessments are outlined and described below.

Name of Assessment Type or Form of Assessment

1 [Licensure assessment, or other content-based assessment]

Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES) – Braille Exam (Test 183) and Visual Impairment Exam (Test 182)

State Licensure TestsTExES (Texas Examination of Educator Standards – Braille) – state licensure exam (transcription and proofreading of literary and Nemeth codes) and

TExES (Texas Examination of Educator Standards – visual impairment) – scenario based

2 [Assessment of content knowledge in special education] Certification Cohort Course Content GPA

Portfolio of course grades GPA of certification cohorts across the 6 didactic courses associated with the program. Range of grades, averages, standards addressed, completers, and percentage meeting standard included.

3 [Assessment of the ability to plan Project

100



instruction]

Lesson Plan Development

Development of lesson plan based on data and/or recorded assessment.

4 [Assessment of student practicum performance*** All candidates evaluated are graduate students and already have a teaching certificate. Students complete a practicum rather than a traditional student teaching assignment.)

Onsite Practicum Evaluation

Observation of performance Clinical Practicum Evaluation – Use of both CEC based evaluation and University Standard based assessment tools.

5 [Assessment of candidate effect on student learning)

Pre- and Post-Appraisal of student Learning in selected assessed area of the expanded core curriculum (ECC)

Project (pre-assessment, plan development and implementation, post-assessment, evaluation of specific skill area of the ECC) & Reflection on outcomes and impact of instruction.

6 [Assessment of candidate effect on student learning]

Braille Content Mastery Examination

Comprehensive Exam The program-developed examination is used to assess competency and to provide data to the program that is not available from state testing agencies.

7 Additional assessment that addresses CEC standards (required)

Assessment of Functional Vision Evaluation Report and associated recommendations

Project and Reflection The FVE/LMA is a multifaceted assessment that requires collaboration with doctors, families, and school personnel. It is used to determine the needs, abilities, modifications, instructional recommendations, and eligibility of a learner as a student with visual impairment. Recommendations from these evaluations are used to guide general and special education services and provide guidance for teachers to help students access curricular materials.

8 Additional assessment that addresses CEC standards (optional)

Case Study of individual with visual impairment

Case StudyDevelopment of a report that displays a view of the whole individual, respectful of cultural and learning differences, and demonstrates collaboration with families,

101



educators, and service providers to meet individual needs.

The faculty meet regularly to interpret program data relative to the key areas or assessments identified in the table above.

REVISED REPORT IN RESPONSE TO CONDITIONS STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UUNIVERSITY

VISUAL IMPAIRMENT PROGRAMThe National Recognition Report states that three standards are not met and that 8 other standards were met with conditions. Thought he overall report was rated Nationally Recognized with Conditions, the evaluation of program report evidence (PART C Sections C-1, C-2, and C-3) along with the additional comment section (PART F Section F-1) gave clear guidance that led to the significant revision of this report. Many of the below revisions are being introduced in the current year and therefore may be offered with a limited amount of interpretative data.

Revisions –

Section 1. Part A

Program is to be listed as a Post Bachelorette Graduate program of study but still considered an initial program even though candidates are adding a visual impairment certification to an existing special education license.

The two Texas Examinations of Educator Standards tests (TExES test 182 – Visually Impaired (VI) and TExES test 183 – Braille) that are required for certification as a Teacher of the Visually Impaired (TVI) are now joined into one assessment (Assessment I) as required for an Option A submission.

Pass rates and domain breakdown are provided for the TExES VI examination for review. Only pass rates are provided for the Braille exam since that exam is based upon a single domain and no domain data is available beyond overall score, mean, and range. The program uses the newly developed Assessment 6 –Braille Content Mastery Exam as a data collection tool. Additionally, program faculty are currently working with the Statewide Braille Task Force in cooperation with TEA to revise the Braille test to meet new Unified English Braille (UEB) code changes and to facilitate better sharing of data between testing companies and the university.

Section 1 Part B

Both course descriptions and descriptions of field hour experiences are enhanced to demonstrate the purpose and scope of the classes as well as the nature and focus of the field experiences.

The program focuses the field experiences upon populations of students and requires written reflection on all activities completed. Examples of field experience activities are also provided.

102


The two assessment rubrics used to evaluate the Clinical Practicum are provided. The original rubric is a general one required by the university and a newly developed rubric (one which is clearly aligned with CEC Standards 4-10) is also provided.

Assessment of Student Learning and Alignment with CEC

Assessment 1 (Licensure)

Modified to include both state assessments (Braille and VI) as described above. Domain alignment and domain scores are provided for the VI test along with passing

rates for both examinations. Pass rates are included above. Additional data is below.

2011 Visual Impairment: Data from 4 Tests only Range

MeanDomain I 63–79

69.5Domain II 43–86

62.5Domain III 47–88

71.25Domain IV 60–100

83.25Total Score 206–271 247

2012 Visual Impairment: 38 TestsRange

MeanDomain I 47–95 75.84

Domain II 43–93 75.13

Domain III 47–91 74.42

Domain IV 40–100 80.16

Total Score 210–271 247

2013 Visual Impairment: 28 TestsRange

MeanDomain I 53–100 82.21

103


Domain II 47–93 76.29

Domain III 65–91 77.25

Domain IV 47–100 79.79

Total Score 222–280 251

Braille

YearNumber Tests Range Mean

2011 20229–281

257.55

2012 26219–281

259.23

2013 24214-286

253.58

Assessment 2 (Content Knowledge) The document provided for Assessment 2 (Q32319) in the original submission detailed

the belief of the original author of this SPA (now retired) that data in this area did not apply or was unnecessary since Visual Impairment is an endorsement to an existing licensure and no data or assessment was detailed. This view is not shared.

To meet the requirement of content assessment current authors have developed an assessment related to GPA data of program completers across all of the didactic courses.

Standards addressed by each course, grade ranges, average grades, and percentage meeting acceptable passing standards are included in the data as a method to measure content knowledge in the special education area of visual impairment.

The new Assessment 2 is intended to meet the requirements of an Option A submission. The current data collected for this assessment is provided as evidence of student

enrollment and retention above. Though that data was deemed meaningful by the reviewer here it will be replaced or supplemented with a comprehensive examination to be delivered during the final didactic course in certification.

Assessment 3 (Planning Instruction) The data originally provided as Assessment 3 (Q32320) was drawn from the state braille

examination. This data has been combined into Assessment 1 as requested and required. A new Assessment 3, centered on lesson plan development, has been developed for this

revision to measure candidate’s ability to plan instruction. This new Assessment 3 is designed to meet the requirements of an Option A submission. The new assessment is aligned to the CEC standards; rubrics and curricular materials are

provided.

104


General concepts from the previous assessment that was submitted to assess the candidate’s ability to plan instruction (submitted as Assessment 4 in original) is used in the revision but has been revised so that it aligns to CEC standards, addresses specific populations of students, and meets the needs of the program.

Assessment 3 Instructional Planning RubricLesson Plans and Routine Development

CEC

Standard

Unacceptable (Score 1)

Marginal

(Score 2)

Proficient

(Score 3)

Exemplary (Score 4)

CEC

2, 3

Lesson plan includes little information about the background and/or characteristics of the learner.

Lesson plan includes some information about the background and/or characteristics of the learner, but is incomplete.

Lesson plan is organized and includes most information about the background and/or characteristics of the learner.

Lesson plan is well organized and well written, and includes thorough information about the background and/or characteristics of the learner.

CEC

4, 5

Lesson plan includes little to no description of environments, types of materials, staffing, group size, instructional routine, and timeframe.

Lesson plan includes a partial description of environments, types of materials, staffing, group size, instructional routine, and timeframe.

Lesson plan includes a brief description of environment, types of materials, staffing, group size, instructional routine, and timeframe.

Lesson plan includes a thorough description of environment, types of materials, staffing, group size, instructional routine, and timeframe.

CEC

6, 7

Lesson plan does not include planning category, activity of focus, and/or address communication by student to show choice or

Lesson plan includes a partial account of the planning category, activity of focus, and/or address communication by student to

Lesson plan includes the planning category, activity of focus, and/or address communication by student to

Lesson plan includes the planning category, activity of focus within the Planning category, and addresses adapted or modified communication by student to show

105


mastery. show choice or mastery.

show choice or mastery.

choice or mastery in a cohesive and clear format.

CEC

7, 9

Lesson plan does not include rationale.

Lesson plan includes a rationale but lacks detail or support from material or literature.

Lesson plan includes a rationale of the lesson with at least one clear reference to material.

Lesson plan includes a thorough rationale of the lesson that provides substantial support from the lesson, reading, and/or material.

CEC

10

Lesson plan’s long-term goals and short-term objectives are not collaborative or not reflective of the lesson.

Lesson plan includes minimal collaboration, an

incomplete long-term goal and short-term objective.

Lesson plan contains one long-term goal and one short-term objective that are collaborative and appropriate for the learner.

Lesson plan contains one long-term goal and one short-term objective that collaboratively support 2 or more stakeholders including the conditions.

CEC

4, 5, 9

The lesson plan fails to use and address the accepted Standards Based IEP development procedures

The lesson plan fails to address all of the accepted Standards Based IEP development procedures

The lesson plan adequately uses and address the accepted Standards Based IEP development procedures and requirements

The lesson plan effectively uses and addresses the accepted Standards Based IEP development procedures

CEC

9, 10

Lesson plan fails to include a self evaluation and a plan for collaborative role release

Lesson plan fails to include either a self evaluation piece or a plan for collaborative role release

Lesson plan includes both a self evaluation piece and a plan for collaborative role release

Lesson plan includes both a thorough self evaluation piece and a comprehensive plan for collaborative role release

106


This rubric was instituted in the 2014-15 year and will have supporting data at the close of the fall semester.

Assessment 4 (Practicum Performance)

The concepts originally submitted for Assessment 4 (Q32321) related to planning and have been used to develop Assessment 3 above.

Data originally submitted for Assessment 5 – Clinical Practicum Evaluation (Q32323) has been modified and moved here to meet the requirements of assessment 4.

Per feedback, a second rubric has been developed that aligns this assessment to meet the specifics of CEC standards 4 through 10.

The program plans on using two separate rubrics to assess students’ onsite performance and will record data on both documents to measure long-term growth. The second rubric is mandated by the institution and addresses

Data from the original Practicum/Teacher rubric is reflected below

2010-2011 Practicum/Student Teacher

Scores

CategoryAbov

e Met Below Average

Assessment 4 4 0 2.50

Instructional Planning 5 3 0 2.63

Instructional Environment 8 0 0 3.00

Communication 8 0 0 3.00

Professional Roles and Responsibilities 7 1 0 2.88

Total (per item on rubric) 32 8 0 2.80

Over-all Scores- 2010-2011Abov

e Met Below Total

Graduate - TETN 6 2 0

107


Percentages75.00

% 25.00% 0.00%


Scores

CategoryAbov

e Met Below Average








e Met Below Total

Graduate - TETN 22 8 0 30

Percentages73.30

% 26.70%


Scores

CategoryAbov

e Met Below Average

108









e Met Below Total

Graduate - TETN 25 3 0 28

Percentages92.60

% 7.40%

A second rubric was developed to better align with CEC standard will be used in conjunction with the rubric above beginning in the 2014-15 year. The new rubric is below.

Assessment 5 (Effect on Student Learning)

Effect on student learning was not addressed in the previous submission In response a new assessment 5, the Pre and Post Appraisal of Student Learning in

Selected Assessed Areas of the Expanded Core Curriculum (ECC) Project was developed to assess the candidate’s effect on the learning of their students.

The new assessment is aligned to the CEC and is provided with a rubric. The focus on the ECC by the new Assessment 5 is felt to be responsive to changes in

legislation (Texas SB 39 mandates ECC assessment and instruction) and to support best practices in the field of visual impairment (National Agenda).

The new assessment is collaborative, and assesses the candidate’s ability to plan role release and transition of training to other under supervision.

109


Impact on Student Learning; Pre and Post Appraisal of Student Learning in Selected Assessed Areas of the Expanded Core Curriculum (ECC) Project Rubric CEC Standards 7, 8, 9. 10

Standards Target (Exemplary)

(3 points)

Acceptable (Proficient)

(2 point)

Unacceptable (Developing)

(1 points)7: Instructional PlanningSequence, implement, and evaluate, learning objectives of the ECC.

B&VIS72

Candidate identifies and selects primary ECC areas to address, plans for instruction, and develops detailed learning objectives to meet students specific needs

Candidate selects appropriate ECC areas to address and develops adequate learning objectives to meet students specific needs

Candidate fails to select appropriate ECC areas to address and/or fails to develops adequate learning objectives to meet students specific needs

Use of functional assessments. ICC7S4

Candidate uses a variety of functional assessments to develop intervention plans.

Candidate uses functional assessment to develop intervention plans.

Candidate does not use functional assessment to develop intervention plans.

Prepares lesson plans. ICC7S10

Candidate prepares comprehensive lesson plans based on ECC assessment data.

Candidate prepares adequate lesson plans based on ECC assessment data.

Candidate does not adequately prepare lesson plans based on assessment of ECC areas.

Modifies instructional practices in response to ongoing assessment data. ICC7S15

Candidate evaluates and modifies instructional practices in response to a variety of ongoing assessment data.

Candidate evaluates and modifies instructional practices in response to ongoing assessment data primarily from observation.

Candidate does not evaluate and/or modify instructional practices or does not use ongoing assessment data.

8: AssessmentUse specialized ECC assessment tools to determine need areas in pre assessment.

The candidate appropriately selects and uses ECC evaluation tools to identify specific areas

The candidate selects and uses ECC evaluation tools to identify general areas of need for individual

The candidate fails to appropriately select and/or use ECC evaluation tools to identify specific

110


B&VI8S1 of need for individual students.

students. areas of need for individual students.

Use functional evaluations related to the ECC.

B&VI8S2

Candidate effectively uses functional evaluations of ECC skills to develop and plans/interventions to enhance the unique abilities and address the needs of individual students with visual impairments

Candidate uses functional evaluations of ECC skills to develop basic plans/interventions to address the needs and abilities of individual students with visual impairments

Candidate does not uses functional evaluations of ECC skills to develop and plans/interventions to enhance the unique abilities and address the needs of individual students with visual impairments

Post-assess to evaluate progress.ICC8S8

Candidate uses a range of assessment tools and techniques to accurately detail and post-assess the impact of ECC instruction of student(s) to determine impact

Candidate uses an assessment tools or techniques to post-assess the impact of ECC instruction of student(s) to determine impact

Candidate does not adequately post-assess assess the impact of ECC instruction of student(s) to

Report assessment results.ICC8S7

Candidate reports results to all stakeholders highlighting the importance of the ECC and using effective communication skills.

Candidate reports results to stakeholders using effective communication skills.

Candidate does not effectively report results to stakeholders using effective communication skills.

9: Professional and Ethical PracticeReflect upon one’s practice.ICC9S9, ICC9S11

Candidate reflects on his/her practice to improve instruction in the addressed areas of the ECC and can articulate the changes that will be made in the future.

Candidate reflects on his/hers practice to improve instruction and identifies opportunities to improve instruction in ECC instruction.

Candidate does not adequately reflect on his/her practice to improve instruction in the ECC.

111


Demonstrate commitment to engage in evidence-based practice.ICC9S13

Candidate reflects on his/her commitment to ECC instruction and offers evidence of the need to provide instruction in ECC areas.

Candidate reflects on his/her commitment to ECC instruction and offers limited evidence of the need to provide instruction in ECC areas.

Candidate does not reflect on his/her ECC instruction and offers little to no evidence of the need to provide instruction in ECC areas.

10: CollaborationCommunicates learning needs to parents.

ICC10S10

Candidate effectively communicates ECC areas, individual ECC learning needs of the student, and details interventions and outcomes of instruction to family members

Candidate communicates individual ECC learning need and plans of the student to family members

Candidate fails to communicate individual ECC learning needs of the student, and/or fails detail plans of instruction to family members

Communicates learning needs to educators.

ICC10S9

Candidate effectively communicates ECC areas, individual ECC learning needs of the student, and details interventions and outcomes of instruction to education personnel

Candidate communicates individual ECC learning need and plans of the student to education personnel

Candidate fails to communicate individual ECC learning needs of the student, and/or fails detail plans of instruction to education personnel

Supervise and structure activities of others who work with individuals with visual impairments.

B&VI0S1

Candidate evaluates the ability to share ECC instructional activities with others and develops a detailed plan to monitor and/or train others to facilitate role release of ECC skill training

Candidate develops a plan to monitor and/or train others to facilitate role release of ECC skill training

The candidate fails to develop an adequate plan to facilitate role release of ECC skill training

Minimum score of acceptable in each element required


112


Assessment 6 (Braille Content Mastery Exam)

The document, Assessment 6, failed to be attached to the original report and has been rewritten to meet requirements for this revision.

The new Assessment 6 is Braille Content Mastery Examination data, and is used to assess candidate learning and to provide information to the program on braille skills.

This assessment is required because the reporting of the state licensure test reporting data is based on one domain and may not be enough to meet program needs or SPA standards.

The assessment here is aligned with CEC standards and is designed to assess the ability to interpret data, communicate with other stakeholders, and effectively communicate with students and educators using braille and braille technology.

09-10 Certification Cohort – 43 Students

Slate and Stylus Above Met Below Average

Transcribing Uncontracted Braille 20 23 0 2.40

Transcribing Contracted Braille 18 25 0 2.42

Transcribing Nemeth Code 14 29 0 2.33

Braillewriter




Reading Braille Visually

Overall 28 15 0 2.65

100% of students met or exceeded standards in all components of the BCME.

10-11 Certification Cohort – 27 Students*





Braillewriter


113





Overall 22 7 0 2.76

*Two students who were not meeting standards dropped the course without completing the slate and stylus portion of the test. > 90% of all students who tested in a component met the standards for that component.

11-12 Certification Cohort – 32 Students





Braillewriter





Overall 28 4 0 2.87

100% of students met standards in all parts of the Slate and Stylus and Reading Braille components of the BCME in which they tested. 85% of all students who tested in the Braillewriter component met the standards for that component.

12-13 Certification Cohort – 32 StudentsSlate and Stylus Above Met Below Average

Transcribing into Contracted Braille 22 10 0 2.69

Transcribing into Uncontracted Braille 24 8 0 2.75

Transcribing with Punctuation 22 9 1 2.66

114


Braillewriter

Transcribing into Contracted Braille 17 10 5 2.38

Nemeth Braillewriter 29 2 1 2.88

Transcribing Print into Linear Nemeth 30 1 1 2.91

Transcribing Word Problems into Nemeth 29 2 1 2.88


Overall 16 16 0 2.50

> 97% of all students met the standards for all parts of all components except for 1 part of the Braillewriter component in which 85% of students met or exceeded standards.

Assessment 7 (Functional Vision Evaluation and Associated Recommendations)

What was originally submitted for Assessment 7 (Q32324) has been modified and moved to Assessment 6 above.

A new Assessment 7 has been developed that is designed to address the candidate’s ability to perform VI specific assessments (in this case a Functional Vision Evaluation and Learning Media Assessment –FVE/LMA).

Candidates are also assessed on their ability to collaborate with families and educators in the collection of information to perform assessments and to make recommendations based on the assessment to facilitate acquisition of skills and/or access to curriculum. The program has been collecting data on this activity.

2011-2012 FVE/LMA Evaluation Assessment Rubric

Comparison to Standard

Category (per item) Above Met Below Average

Information Collected 26 5 0 2.84

Assessment Protocol 31 0 0 3.00

Recommendations 16 15 2 2.52

Legal Requirements 19 10 2 2.48


Total - (per item on rubric) 110 43 5 2.69

115


\ Total Points

Over-all Scores- Assessment 1 Above Met Below Total Average

Graduduate Students- 17 14 0 31 2.54

Total 54.8% 45.2% 0.0%

2010-2011 FVE/LMA Evaluation Assessment Rubric

Comparison to Standard

Category (per item) Above Met Below Average

Information Collected 27 9 1 2.70

Assessment Protocol 19 17 1 2.49




Total - (per item on rubric) 97 76 12 2.46

Total Points

Over-all Scores- Assessment 1 Above Met Below Total Average

Graduduate Students- 13 13 3 29 2.38

Practicum 5 3 8 2.63

Total 18 16 3 37 2.4

116


2009- 2010- FVE/LMA Evaluation Assessment Rubric

Category Above Met Below Average

Information Collection 48 11 0 2.81

Direct Assessment and Protocol 39 18 2 2.59





Over-all Scores- Assessment 2 Exceed Met Below Total Average

TETN - Distance 29 7 1 37 2.76

Face to Face 10 12 0 22 2.45

Total 39 19 1 59 2.61

The new assessment is aligned to the CEC and is provided with a rubric.

Functional Vision Learning Media AssessmentCEC

Standard

Unacceptable (Score 1)

Marginal

(Score 2)

Proficient

(Score 3)

Exemplary (Score 4)

Background FVE/LMA report includes little to

FVE/LMA report includes some

FVE/LMA report includes

FVE/LMA report includes

117


CEC

2,3

no information about the background and/or characteristics of the learner. The life-long impact of the visual impairment is not explored

information about the background and characteristics of the learner and the impact of the visual impairment on learning

significant information about the background and characteristics of the learner and the impact of the visual impairment on learning

extensively detailed information about the background and characteristics of the learner and his/her learning

Legal Rights and Responsibilities

CEC

1, 9

FVE/LMA report fails to meet the legal requirements in one or more area. The rights of the individual are not supported or the report is unprofessional

FVE/LMA report meets the minimum legal requirements. The rights of the individual are indirectly addressed

FVE/LMA report is well written, meets all legal requirements, and addresses the rights of the individual with the visual impairment

FVE/LMA report is professionally written, meets all legal requirements, and cleary addresses the rights of the individual with the visual impairment

Impact on development and learning

CEC

2, 3

Candidate fails to explore the impact of the visual impairment and/or additional disabilities on the learning and development of the student

Candidate minimally explores the impact of the visual impairment and/or additional disabilities on the learning and development of the student

Candidate explores the impact of the visual impairment and/or additional disabilities on the learning and development of the student.

Candidate extensively explores the impact of the visual impairment and/or additional disabilities on the learning and development of the student.

Recommendations

CEC

7, 8

The candidate fails to make recommendations or fails to link recommendations to the findings of the FVE

The candidate makes a minimal number of recommendations that can be linked to the findings of the FVE

The candidate makes several recommendations that can be clearly linked to the findings of the FVE

The candidate makes a variety of quality recommendations that are directly linked to the findings of the FVE

118


Collaboration

CEC

10

The FVE/LMA report provides little or no evidence of collaboration. Input from other stakeholders is ignored or not accessed.

The FVE/LMA report indicates some collaborative effort, some input from other stakeholders is used in making decisions and recommendations

The FVE/LMA report indicates collaborative effort that has led to stakeholder’s input to be used in making decisions and recommendations

The FVE/LMA report models extensive collaborative effort that has led to stakeholder’s involvement in all decisions and recommendations

Usefulness

CEC 8, 10

The FVE/LMA report fails to provide results in a manner that is useful to parents or educators. The report is poorly written and difficult to share with others

The FVE/LMA report provide results in a manner that could be useful to parents or educators. The report is adequately written but contains jargon

The FVE/LMA report is easy to use for parents or educators. The report is well written and explains terms in an understandable way

The FVE/LMA report is tailored and/or adapted to meet communication needs of parents or educators. The report is very well written and easy to share

Reflection

CEC

9

Candidate fails to include a self evaluation or includes one that is not reflective and/or poorly written

Candidate includes a self evaluation piece that is only marginally reflective or is poorly writtten

Candidate includes a reflective self evaluation that is communicated with minimal errors

Candidate includes a thorough self evaluation piece that is communicated without errors

Evaluation and Placement

CEC

1,7

Educational implications related to eligibility, programming and placement are not addressed

Educational implications related to eligibility, programming and placement are adequately addressed

Educational implications related to eligibility, programming and placement are clearly addressed

A variety of educational implications related to eligibility, programming and placement are addressed

119



120


Assessment 8 (Case Study)

Assessment 8 is newly developed, but is drawn from an assignment that was part of the assessment that was not attached to the original submission (Assessment 6).

Assessment 8 is aligned to the CEC standards and is used to assess the candidate’s ability to view the student as more than a condition or an acuity measurement.

The assessment requires students to work collaboratively with caregivers, families and educators to meet the student’s individual needs.

Candidates are assessed on their ability to be respectful of cultural differences and to use a holistic view of the student to better assess the individuals learning differences.

The new CEC aligned Case Study Rubric is attached

Case Study RubricCEC Standards 1, 2, 3, 7, 9. 10

Standards Target (Exemplary)

(3 points)

Acceptable (Proficient)

(2 point)

Unacceptable (Developing)

(1 points)Investigation of Family and Culture

Information gathering techniques are varied. Candidate investigates effectively and shows complete results that are linked to data collected. Candidate has collected rich data and done investigation beyond that required in assignment. Candidate includes all original data and forms.

Information gathering techniques meet minimum requirements. Candidate investigates and shows results that can be linked to data collected. Candidate includes all original data and forms.

Too few Information gathering techniques are used, and the data collected lacks the depth needed for the assignment. Results are generally accurate but contain mistakes or are incomplete. Some forms or data may be missing or incomplete.

Cultural Awareness and the Impact on learning

Narrative clearly and accurately describes the components of the culture(s) of the student and the family; strong evidence of understanding of the impact of the prevalent culture on learning is present; objective

Narrative accurately describes the components of the culture(s) of the student and the family; general understanding of the impact of the prevalent culture on learning is present;

Narrative has errors of analysis related to components of the culture(s) of the student and the family; little to no understanding of the impact of the prevalent culture on learning is present;

121


analysis of data presented and strong relevant examples provided from case study data

objective analysis of some of the data presented; examples cited from case study data

narrative not backed up by evidence from case study

Culture and Impairment

Student’s background and history are referenced with strong insights into cultural and experiential differences; the cultural perception of visual impairment and disability is clearly addressed; clear evidence of research into cultural differences that influence development; educational opportunities associated with culture and impairment are examined and understood

Student’s background and history are referenced with some insights into cultural or experiential differences. the cultural perception of visual impairment and disability is considered; Some research of cultural differences on development; educational opportunities associated with culture and impairment are examined

Little evidence of understanding student’s cultural and experiential background; lack of insight into influence of culture on development; Combined impact of visual impairment and culture are not addressed; poor recognition of impact of culture and visual impairment on learning and on student success in classroom

Impact of Culture and Impairment on Leaning Characteristics

Candidate displays a strong understanding of impact of both culture and visual impairment on the leaning characteristics and differences in students

Candidate displays a good understanding of impact of culture and visual impairment on the leaning characteristics and differences in students

Candidate fails to displays understanding of impact of culture and visual impairment on the leaning characteristics and differences in students

Importance of Cultural Awareness

Candidate reports results to all stakeholders highlighting the importance of cultural

Candidate reports results some stakeholders. The importance of cultural awareness

Candidate does not effectively report results to stakeholders using effective

122


awareness and diversity and uses effective communication skills to mediate any challenges.

and diversity is addressed. Results are communicated in a professional manner.

communication skills.

Reflection Candidate reflects on his/her practice and cultural awareness to improve instruction to students from diverse backgrounds and clearly articulates planned changes that will be made in the future.

Candidate reflects on his/hers practice and cultural awareness to related to students from diverse backgrounds; Candidate identifies opportunities to improve service and awareness

Candidate does not adequately reflect on his/her cultural awarnesss.

Communication Candidate effectively communicates awareness and respect for cultural differences that may impact learning; learning needs of the student, related to culture are used to detail interventions and to plan instruction

Candidate communicates awareness of cultural differences; learning needs of the student, related to culture are part of interventions and instructional plans

Candidate fails to communicate awareness of cultural differences; learning needs of the student, related to culture are not part of interventions and instructional plans

Collaboration and Planning

Candidate effectively communicates and collaborates with families from diverse backgrounds to develop and environment of trust and cooperation in educational planning

Candidate communicates individual ECC learning need and plans of the student to education personnel

Candidate fails to communicate individual ECC learning needs of the student, and/or fails detail plans of instruction to education personnel

Minimum score of acceptable in each element required


123


B. Program Curriculum and Duration in Comparison to Peer Programs

The Visual Impairment Preparation Program is one of only two programs that train teachers and specialists to work with individuals who are blind or visually impaired in the state of Texas. The other program in the state is housed at Texas Tech University (TTU). The SFASU & TTU programs were developed collaboratively in 1996 with the assistance of TSBVI Outreach and guidelines from Texas Education Agency. The programs co developed curriculum and even co-taught program student candidates for the first 2-3 years in a “co-enrollment” system. The programs have since separated but still collaborate in advocacy, planning, and resource development.

The following is a breakdown of how program completers at SFASU compare to the statewide average. Since there is only one other university training professionals for the Texas Examination of Educator Standards (TExES) test the following can be used to compare performance of the two institutions.

Test: 1182 - VISUALLY IMPAIREDAverage Scaled Scores Program Statewide254.3 255.2

Number of Examinees Program Statewide26 55

Average Percent CorrectProgram Statewide

Domain I 82 % 82 %Domain II 79 % 80 %Domain III 80 % 80 %Domain IV 83 % 84 %

C. Program Facilities and Equipment

All information regarding program facilities and equipment can be found in the office of Dr. Robbie Steward, Chair, Human Services Department, SFASU. Each full-time faculty member and administrative support staff has a furnished office equipped with necessary technology and telephone service within a designated bay on the 2nd floor of the Human Services Building.

D. Program Finance and Resource

Faculty members are aware that support is allowed through professional development, course fees, and HEF funds. Each faculty member is informed about these funding sources. Course fees are strategically placed in key courses in order to support instruction, support on-site student

124


supervision, and to purchase review materials and optical devices that are used to improve instruction.

Additional information regarding finance and resources can be found in the office of Dr. Robbie Steward, Chair, Human Services Department, SFASU. Additional information regarding VIP Grant funding from the State of Texas can be accessed by contacting the SFASU Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP). Two (2) of the full-time, clinical faculty with 12-month appointments are VIP-funded. The remaining four (4) faculty have 9-month, tenure-track appointments that are supported by the department’s personnel account. All faculty have access to: annual departmental allocations for professional development and HEF allocations for instructional improvements; college funding for out of state and international travel for conference presentations; and university funding to support travel for conference presentations from the ORSP.

E. Program Administration

Program administration is done at the discretion of the Dean of the College of Education, the Chair of the Human Services Department at SFASU, and with the support, commitment, and dedication of all program faculty and a grant-supported administrative assistant, Ms. Donna Wood. Governance of grants and grant funding is also supported through the SFASU ORSP.

Dr. Dixie Mercer was Program Director of Visual Impairment Teacher Preparation Program until her retirement in December 2012. Frankie Swift and Michal Munro served as Co-directors of the Vision Impairment program until Ms. Swift retired in August 2014. The Orientation & Mobility Program went through a similar transition of leadership due to retirement or faculty departure over the past several years. Finally, in October 2014 Human Services Department Chair, Dr. Robbie Steward, requested that the administration of the Visual Impairment and the Orientation & Mobility program be unified to have one Program Director for the purpose of efficiency and because of the degree of shared curriculum.

At that time Michael Munro was named Program Director of the unified Visual Impairment/Orientation & Mobility. The director collaborates with leadership and faculty in the daily management of the program including curriculum development, program certification & assessment, scheduling of classes, service on university and statewide committees, information collection and dissemination, collaboration with faculty in and outside the program, student recruitment and student support, and responding to needs and requests of the university offices and administration, advisory groups, and students. Regularly scheduled program faculty meetings occur to address these issues and for future planning. The position of program director has a 3-year term.

125

Documents

SFASU · Web viewDHH COMS 5823 Lit. Dev. - DHH SPH 471 CSD 4660 Internship I EC-12 Part 1 PEDG 5383 Internship EDSP 5093* Internship for DHH I SPH 476 CSD 4360 Language …