program reports - kennesaw state universityksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~sbrown1/psc report ksu...

Cover SheetGeorgia Professional Standards Commission (PSC) Report

Program Name: Master of Education in Special Education: Interrelated, Master of Education in Special Education: Collaborative Practice & Interrelated Add-on program

Submitted by: Kennesaw State University

Address: 1000 Chastain Road

Kennesaw, GA 30144-5591

Chief Compiler: Dr. Susan B. Brown

Phone: 770-423-6577 Fax 770-423-6263

Email [email protected]

Level offered for review:

Baccalaureate Post-Bac (Alternative Certification)

X Masters X Endorsement/Add-on

Checklist of Materials to be enclosed in this review document:

Table of Contents

Overview of the Program Goals and Objectives of the Program College or Department Responsible for Preparing Candidates Description of Course(s) of Study Descriptions of Field Experiences, Student Teaching and Internships Explanation of How and Why The Program May Vary From the Published

Georgia Standards List of Faculty Responsible for the Program Number of Candidates in the Program Post Baccalaureate Programs

Evidence for Meeting the Georgia 2000 Standards Standard 1 – Candidate Skills, Knowledge, and Dispositions Standard 2 – Program Assessment and Unit Capacity Standard 3 – Field Experiences and Clinical Practice Standard 7 – Georgia-Specific Requirements for Units and Programs

PSC Report 2003 KSU Special Education programs

i

mailto:[email protected]

Standard 8 – Content Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs

Required Appendices A. Assessment instruments referenced in response to Standard 2. B. Course syllabi for all courses referenced in responses to Standards 7 and 8.


ii

PSC PROGRAM REPORTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH ON-SITECONTINUING REVIEWSKennesaw State University

Master of Education in Special Education: InterrelatedMaster of Education in Special Education: Collaborative Practice

and Interrelated Add-on ProgramAdvanced

Table of Contents

I Cover Sheet ..................................................................................................iII Table of Contents........................................................................................iiiIII Overview of the Program.............................................................................1

III.A Goals and Objectives of the Program..............................................1III.B College or Department Responsible for Preparing Candidates.......4III.C Description of Course of Study........................................................6III.D Descriptions of Field Experiences, Student Teaching &

Internships.....................................................................................10III.E Explanation of How & Why the Program may vary

from the Published Georgia Standards..........................................15III.F List of Faculty Responsible for the Program.................................16III.G Number of Candidates in the Program...........................................17III.H Post-Baccalaureate Program..........................................................17

IV Evidence for Meeting Georgia 2000 Standards ........................................18Standard 1 – Candidate Skills, Knowledge, and Dispositions...................18

Element 1.1 Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates ......21 Element 1.2 Content Knowledge for Other.............................23Element 1.3 Pedagogical Content Knowledge ...............23 Element 1.4 Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge ..........26

Element 1.5 Professional Knowledge and Skill for Other ......27Element 1.6 Dispositions for All Candidates 27 Element 1.7 Student Learning for Teacher Candidates 28 Element 1.8 Student Learning for Other .................................29

Standard 2 – Program Assessment and Unit Capacity...........................29 Element 2.1 Assessment System 29

Element 2.2 Data Collection, analysis, and Evaluation Element 2.3 Use of Data for Program Improvement

Standard 3 – Field Experiences and Clinical Practice...............................Element 3.1 Collaboration between Unit and School Partners Element 3.2 Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field

Experiences and Clinical Practice


iii

Element 3.3 Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of KSDs to Help All Students Learn......................................

Standard 7 – Georgia-Specific Requirements for Units and Programs.....

Element 1 Meets Minimum Admissions Requirements Element 2 Knowledge of Reading Methods

Element 3 Knowledge of the Identification and Education of Children with Special Needs

Element 4 Proficiency in the Use, Application, and Integration of Instructional Technology

Element 5 Knowledge of the Relevant Sections of the Georgia Quality Core Curriculum

Element 6 Knowledge of Professional Ethical Standards and Requirements for Certification and Employment

Element 7 Field Experiences Appropriate to the Grade Level and Field of Certification Sought Element

Standard 8 – Content Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs..Council for Exceptional Children review letter.......................PRAXIS II data ..........................................

V Assessment instruments referenced in response to Standard 2.Candidate Performance Instrument ..........................................Impact on Student Learning ..........................................Portfolio Narrative Rubric ..........................................Special Education Performance Outcomes....................................

Observation Summary Form ..........................................EXC 7720 Behavior Project Rubric ..........................................EXC 7730 Case Study Rubric ..........................................EXC 7760 Curriculum Plan Rubric ..........................................EXC 7765 Instructional Plan Rubric ..........................................EXC 7780 Co-teaching Rubric ..........................................Admissions Rubric ..........................................Interim Review Rubric ..........................................

Course syllabi for all courses referenced in responses to Standards 7 and 8.EXC 7700 Data Based Decision Making.......................................EXC 7705 Special Education Procedures......................................EXC 7715 Nature/Needs ..........................................EXC 7720 Behavior Strategies ..........................................EXC 7730 Assessment ..........................................EXC 7735 Current Issues ..........................................EXC 7760 Teaching & Learning I ..........................................EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II ..........................................EXC 7770 Psychoneurological & Medical...................................EXC 7780 Collaborative Practice ..........................................


iv

EXC 7790 Documenting Growth ..........................................EXC 7970/EXC 7980 Internship/Practicum..................................


v

III. Overview of the Program: Master of Education in Special Education: Interrelated

Master of Education in Special Education: Collaborative Practice and Interrelated Add-on Program

A. Goals And Objectives Of The Program

The Department of Special Education at Kennesaw State University offers three graduate level add-on programs: Interrelated Special Education (IRR), English to Teachers of Other Languages (ESOL) and Preschool/Special Education. Candidates must hold a clear, renewable Georgia Teaching Certificate in some field (Elementary, Middle Grades, Secondary content or P-12 for the Interrelated and ESOL add-on programs; Early Childhood or Special Education for the Preschool/Special Education add-on program) as a prerequisite to admission. After completion of the add-on programs, candidates may apply to add the new field to their existing certificate.

In addition, candidates may include the add-on programs in a degree program. The Department of Special Education offers a Master of Education in Special Education degree with two tracks: Interrelated and Collaborative Practice.

Candidates completing the Master of Education in Special Education: Interrelated also fulfill requirements for the Interrelated add-on. This track includes three graduate level professional sequence courses (Research, Issues and Portfolio) and 27 hours (9 courses) of teaching field courses in special education and no electives.

The Master of Education in Special Education: Collaborative Practice was developed as part of the Department of Special Education’s mission in inclusive education. Candidates completing the Master of Education in Special Education: Collaborative Practice take two graduate level professional sequence courses (Research, Portfolio) and four additional professional sequence courses (Assessment, Teaching & Learning I, Behavioral Strategies, and Collaborative Practices) with the IRR candidates. Candidates in the Collaborative Practice track may elect to use the ESOL or Preschool/Special Education add-on programs as their teaching field courses (9 hours) and select 3 additional elective courses in consultation with an advisor. Candidates in the Reading add-on program housed in another department are also offered this option. Add-on programs in Gifted and Teacher Support Specialist were also part of the Department of Special Education, but have been discontinued and will not be addressed.

The Preschool and ESOL add-on programs are included in separate reports. The Master of Education in Special Education: Interrelated, Master of Education in Special Education: Collaborative Practice and the Interrelated add-on will be presented together in this report based on data collected in the professional sequence and teaching field courses.

The following table highlights the similarities and differences across programs.


1

Course Requirements within the Department of Special EducationCourses IRR MED in SPE: IRR MED in SPE: CPEXC 7700 Research X XEXC 7705 Procedures X XEXC 7715 Nature/Needs X XEXC 7720 Behavior X X XEXC 7730 Assessment X X XEXC 7735 Issues XEXC 7760 T & L I X X XEXC 7765 T & L II X XEXC 7770 Medical X XEXC 7780 Collaborative X X XEXC 7790 Portfolio X XEXC 7970/7980 Internship X XESOL Teaching field (9 hours) XPreschool Teaching field (9) XElectives (9 hours) X

Conceptual Framework: Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning

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

The KSU-PTEU fosters the development of candidates as they progress through stages of growth from novice (level 1) to proficient (level 2) to expert (level 3) and leader (level 4). Within the PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued development, not an end-state. The Department of Special Education utilizes a developmental framework for the graduate special education program based on the the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Common Core Standards and the KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework outcomes :

1 Subject matter experts, 2 Facilitators of teaching and learning, and 3 Collaborative professionals (see chart p. ) .

As subject matter experts (KSU-PTEU 1), candidates know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students, and as special educator subject matter experts, candidates demonstrate mastery of the CEC Common Core and Generalized Curriculum standards.


2

Candidates are expected to be knowledgeable of special education policies and procedures (CEC 1), characteristics and needs of students with disabilities (CEC 2, 3, 6) and methods of inquiry and curriculum differentiation (CEC 7) to support students with disabilities in the general education curriculum in collaboration with general education teachers with specific subject matter expertise.

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

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


3

to be lifelong learners, participating in learning communities to inform their teaching practice. Collaborating with professional colleagues, participating in the activities of professional associations, engaging in self-evaluation, and working with members of the community served by their schools contribute to their effectiveness as professionals in facilitating student learning (CEC 9, 10).

B. College Or Department Responsible For Preparing Candidates

The Master of Education in Special Education is housed in the Department of Special Education. The Department of Special Education is one of four departments housed in the Bagwell College of Education. The Department offers the Master of Education in Special Education, the state required (HB 671) undergraduate Education of Exceptional Students course, and graduate level add-on programs in Interrelated Special Education, Preschool Special Education, Gifted, English to Speakers of Other Languages, and Teacher Support Specialist.


4


Organizational Structure of the Professional Teacher Education UnitKennesaw State University

DeanBagwell College of Education

Teacher Education Council

Elementary & Early Childhood Education (P-5)

Middle Grades Education (4-8) P-12

Educational Leadership

Secondary Education (7-12)

Academic Support

Initial(B.S.)

Adv. (M.Ed in ECE)

Initial (B.S.)

Adv.(M.Ed. in Adol. Educ.)

Initial

English Educ.(College of

Humanities and Social Sci.)

Math Educ.(College of Sci.

& Math.)

Science Education

(College of Sci. & Math.)

Social Science Educ.

(College of Humanities &

Soc. Sci.)

Initial

Art Educ.(School of the Arts)

Health & Phys. Educ.(College of Health & Human Services)

Foreign Lang.(College of Humanities & Soc. Sci.)

Music Education(School of the Arts)

Adv.(M.Ed in SPE)

Endorse-ments:

IRR

ESOL

Pre-School

Cobb Education Consortium (CEC)

Educational Technology Center (EdTech)

Center for Field Experiences and

Partnerships (CFEP)

Teacher Education Advisement Center

(TEAC)

Teacher Resource and Activity Center (TRAC)

Professional Teacher Education Faculty

Special Education

Adv.(M.Ed in EDL.)

Endorse-ment

Leadership

Endorse-ment

Reading

ConEd

5

Faculty members in the Department of Special Education teach all courses for the Interrelated Special Education and Master of Education in Special Education: Interrelated degree. Candidate advisement is coordinated by the Department Chair, with full-time faculty each responsible for a cohort of candidates.

Faculty members from the Department of Foreign Languages and Department of English (College of Humanities and Social Sciences) support the ESOL add-on courses. Faculty members from the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education provide support for the Preschool/Special Education courses.

The KSU 2002-2003 Program Review rated the quality of faculty supporting the M.Ed. in Special Education as very strong (exemplary). There are five full-time tenure-track faculty positions and a department chair. All faculty hold a Ph.D. in an appropriate field and have public school experience as a special educator. There is a balance in faculty specializations to support courses in the program. Faculty are involved in professional development opportunities to remain up-to-date for program delivery and they provide leadership in professional service at the department, college, university, state and national level. The involvement of Special Education faculty in grant, contract, service and collaborative relationships in schools is reflective of KSU’s strong emphasis on applied scholarship using Boyer’s (1990) model. In addition to the full-time tenure-track faculty, four part-time faculty members provide support for field experience supervision and instruction. (see III. F. p. )

C. Description Of Course(s) Of Study

The requirements for the Interrelated (IRR) add-on (9 courses) are the core of the Master of Education in Special Education: Interrelated (12 courses). Three courses differentiate the IRR add-on from the M.Ed.: EXC 7700 (Teacher Researcher), EXC 7735 (Current Issues) and EXC 7790 (Documenting Professional Growth). These courses support candidates in expanding their mastery of the IRR competencies to higher levels by documenting links to research and extensions of competencies in their teaching practice.

Candidates completing the Master of Education in Special Education: Collaborative Practice take two graduate level professional sequence courses (Research, Portfolio) and four additional professional sequence courses (Assessment, Teaching & Learning I, Behavioral Strategies, and Collaborative Practices) with the IRR candidates. Candidates in the Collaborative Practice track may elect to use the ESOL or Preschool/Special Education add-on programs as their teaching field courses (9 hours) and select 3 additional elective courses in consultation with an advisor. Candidates in the Reading add-on program housed in another department are also offered this option. Add-on programs in Gifted and Teacher Support Specialist were also part of the Department of Special Education, but have been discontinued and will not be addressed.

The requirements are listed on the following advisement sheets.


6

NAME ADVISOR

SOCIAL SECURITY # ADMISSION DATE

ADDRESS CURRENT CERTIFICATE

CITY, STATE, ZIP PHONE

COURSE Meeting Time Transfer/Substitution

Semester Completed/ Grade

SUMMER 2003 EXC 7715 (3) Nature/Needs: Students with Mild Disabilities

MW8 AM – Noon

FALL 2003 EXC 7760 (3) Teaching & Learning I EXC 7730 (3) Assessment

MW5 – 8 PM

SPRING 2004 EXC 7765 (3) Teaching & Learning II EXC 7720 (3) Classroom Behavioral Strategies

MW5 - 8 PM

SUMMER 2004 EXC 7705 (3) Special Education Procedures EXC 7770 (3) Psychoneurological & Medical Issues in Special Education

Tu-Th8 AM – 4 PM

FALL 2004 EXC 7780 (3) Collaborative Practices

Tu 5 – 8 PM

SPRING 2005 EXC 7970 (3) Internship OR EXC 7980 (3) Practicum

Tu 5 – 8 PM


DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

Interrelated add-on programADVISEMENT PLAN

2003 Cohort

7

NAME ADVISOR

SOCIAL SECURITY # ADMISSION DATE



COURSE Meeting Time

Transfer/Substitution

Semester Completed/ Grade

SUMMER 2003 EXC 7715 (3) Nature/Needs: Students with Mild Disabilities EXC 7700 (3) Teacher Researcher

MW8 AM – 4 PM

FALL 2003 EXC 7760 (3) Teaching & Learning I EXC 7730 (3) Assessment

MW5 – 8 PM

SPRING 2004 EXC 7765 (3) Teaching & Learning II EXC 7720 (3) Classroom Behavioral Strategies

MW5 - 8 PM

SUMMER 2004 EXC 7705 (3) Special Education Procedures EXC 7770 (3) Psychoneurological & Medical Issues in Special Education

Tu-Th8 AM – 4 PM

FALL 2004 EXC 7735 (3) Current Trends & Legal Issues or Elective (3) EXC 7780 (3) Collaborative Practices

Tu – Th5 – 8 PM

SPRING 2005 EXC 7970 (3) Internship OR EXC 7980 (3) Practicum EXC 7790 (3) Documenting Professional Growth Portfolio Presentation

Tu – Th5 – 8 PM



Master of Education: Interrelated

ADVISEMENT PLAN2003 Cohort

8

NAME ADVISOR

KSU # ADMISSION DATE



COURSE TRANSFER COMPLETION SEM/GRADE

SUMMER 2003 EXC 7700 (3) Teacher Researcher Elective (3)FALL 2003 EXC 7760 (3) Curriculum DevelopmentSPRING 2003EXC 7720 (3) Classroom Behavioral StrategiesSUMMER 2003ESOL, Reading or Preschool/Special Education Add-on Institute (9)FALL 2003EXC 7780 (3) Collaborative Practices

SPRING 2004 EXC 7730 (3) Assessment EXC 7790 (3) Documenting Professional Growth Portfolio /Thesis PresentationSUMMER 2004 Elective (6)STUDENT SIGNATURE

ADVISOR SIGNATURE



Master of Education: Collaborative Practice

ADVISEMENT PLAN2003 Cohort

9

D. Descriptions Of Field Experiences, Student Teaching And Internships

Field experiences are embedded within the graduate Special Education Program at Kennesaw State University (KSU). Many classes are designed with field-based components to link theory to practice. Graduate candidates are employed full time as teachers and complete field-based activities for their teaching field and capstone courses on their job site or they are assigned to a site by the Department. Candidates are strongly encouraged to participate in experiences (within their school or at other settings) to broaden their knowledge and awareness of diverse populations.

Developmentally sequenced field experiences The KSU Special Education graduate program provides candidates multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery and reflect on practice in their job site or KSU selected field experience site. Candidates take classes in a cohort model to ensure sequencing of courses and requirements to promote sequential development and extension of skills. Candidates complete two site visits at KSU selected observation sites and submit written reflections to document a range of experiences and the application of components observed to their teaching practice. Candidates submit videotapes with self-evaluation and reflection, as well as receive peer and faculty feedback, in EXC 7765 (see p. ) and EXC 7780 (see p. ). The candidate is responsible for obtaining parental permission for videotaping and maintaining permission on file to assure confidentiality in compliance with local school/district policies.

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

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


10

Developmental Field Experience GridSemester Course Course Observation/Supervision

GoalsSite visit

s

Videotape # of observation visits by

field supervisor

Summer I

EXC 7700 *

EXC 7715

Observation: Disabilities/diversity

1

Fall 1 EXC 7730

EXC 7760

Baseline & curriculum developmentSubject Matter Experts

1

Spring 1 EXC 7720

EXC 7765

Classroom management & instructionFacilitators of Teaching & Learning

2 2

Summer 2

EXC 7770

EXC 7705

Observation – Disabilities/diversity

1

Fall 2 EXC 7780

EXC 7735*

Co-teaching & extension of skillsCollaborative Professionals

2 1

Spring 2 EXC 7790*

EXC 7970

Mastery of all competencies 2

*These courses (EXC 7700, EXC 7735, EXC 7790) are not required for IRR add-on, therefore field experience components are not included. These courses provide the advanced learning and research base for the M.Ed. candidates.

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

Experts);2) Application activities (Subject Matter Experts);3) Demonstration of skill mastery (Facilitators of Teaching & Learning); &4) Capstone internship observations (Subject Matter Experts, Facilitators of

Teaching & Learning, & Collaborative Professionals)

Site visits for observations of other programs and populations are required during summer semesters to develop candidate skills as Subject Matter Experts in the content of Special Education characteristics (CEC Standard 2), Learning Differences (CEC Standard 3), and Language (CEC Standard 6). The observation activity was initially included as an activity within courses during the academic year. The purpose was to provide candidates with experience in a wide range of special education delivery settings and with a wide range of special education populations. The KSU-PTEU provides a system for candidates to monitor racial and socioeconomic diversity of experiences. In order to standardize the observation requirement to address the specific goals of the special education graduate program, the observation activities were moved to courses during the summer sessions for Summer 2003. Candidates in EXC 7715 Nature/Needs: Students with Mild Disabilities (Summer 1) and EXC 7770 Psychoneurological and Medical Issues in Special Education (Summer 2) observe a


11

program for students from a different age level, severity level, disability category, economic level, racial or cultural background than the students in their teaching site and reflect on the application of observations to their teaching practice. The sites selected for candidates during Summer 1 highlight the similarities and differences across categories (LD, MR, BD), levels of severity, and age level (transition). Summer 2 sites target greater diversity of category (medical, autism, TBI), age level (infants), and alternative delivery models. These courses are not required for the Collaborative Practice track. Candidates for the Collaborative Practice track complete a field experience requirement in their ESOL or Preschool/Special Education add-on courses .

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

Demonstration of Skill Mastery includes submission of videotapes and observation by a Kennesaw State University faculty member or field-experience supervisor as evidence of skill as a Facilitator of Teaching and Learning (Instruction CEC Standard 4, Environment CEC Standard 5). For example, during Spring 1 in EXC 7765, Teaching and Learning II (see p. ), candidates develop and deliver instructional lessons. Candidates are required to videotape their lesson, and complete a reflective self-evaluation and exchange with a colleague for a peer evaluation. Faculty evaluates the written lesson plan and the videotape of lesson plan implementation according to course syllabi and rubrics. That same semester, for EXC 7720, Behavioral Strategies (see p. ), candidates conduct an action research project to address impact of behavior change strategies (Environment CEC Standard 5). Faculty evaluates the action research project according to course syllabi and rubrics. A KSU field-experience supervisor observes and evaluates mastery of instructional and behavioral management skills on-the-job using the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO). The Field Experience Supervisor also completes an Observation Summary Form to provide written feedback during the post-observation conference. Candidates in the Collaborative Practice track complete the EXC 7720 requirement. The methods and field experience component of their ESOL or Preschool/Special Education add-on requirements are substituted for the EXC 7765 course required for the IRR add-on and degree track.

The capstone internship/practicum experience (EXC 7970/7980 see p. ) requires candidates to demonstrate mastery of all objectives for the special education graduate


12

program (Subject Matter Experts, Facilitators of Teaching & Learning, Collaborative Professionals, Foundations CEC Standard 1, Professionalism CEC Standard 9, Collaboration CEC Standard 10) Kennesaw State University faculty and KSU field-experience supervisors evaluate candidates in a full-time teaching position (for at least 15 weeks). Candidates employed in a teaching position complete EXC 7970 Internship. Candidates not currently employed in a teaching position must apply for a supervised field experience site supervised by a KSU cooperating teacher to complete EXC 7980 Practicum. Evidence of mastery of all competencies on the Special Education Performance Objectives (SEPO) at a Level 3 (Acceptable) or Level 4 (Target) is required for satisfactory completion of this requirement. The Unit level Impact on Student Learning Assessment (ISLA) form (see p. ) is also completed within the capstone Internship course as part of the action research assignment. This experience also documents mastery of Unit level Candidate Performance Instrument (CPI) (see p. ). For Collaborative Practice Track candidates, the ISLA and CPI are integrated in the capstone course (EXC 7790 Documenting Professional Growth see p. ) where all degree candidates complete a portfolio.

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

Supervision by qualified professionals There are six full-time tenure-track faculty positions (including the department chair) in the Department of Special Education. All hold a Ph.D. in an appropriate field. There is a balance in specializations to support courses in the program. Faculty are involved in professional development and scholarship activities to remain up-to-date for program delivery. In addition, two part-time faculty members provide support for field experience supervision and instruction. (see III. F). Faculty members in the ESOL and Preschool/Special Education add-on program are housed in other departments and provide supervision for their respective programs.

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


13

conferencing on areas of strength and areas needing improvement. Candidates requiring a supervised field experience also receive ratings and feedback from their on-site supervisor.

The on-site cooperating teacher is the master teacher providing direct daily supervision for KSU candidates requiring supervised field experience placement sites. The Kennesaw State University Department of Special Education, KSU Office of Educational Field Experiences, and the school district jointly select the on-site cooperating teacher. Requirements include clear renewable T-5 (master’s level) Georgia teacher certification in the appropriate special education field, at least three years successful teaching experience with students with disabilities, and the Teacher Support Specialist (TSS) endorsement or participation in supervision and peer coaching training provided by KSU. The cooperating teacher’s certification and special education program should be the same as the program the KSU candidate is completing.

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

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

Confidentiality: The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) regulates access to, and disclosure of student information.


14

FERPA serves to assure record access by covered students and their guardians and to prevent disclosure from those records of personally identifying information to unprivileged parties without the written consent of affected students and their guardians. Disclosure of confidential information is NOT to occur. To protect the confidentiality of student information, no identifying information is included when KSU candidates present written or oral reports.

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

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

Candidates completing the Master of Education in Special Education: Collaborative Practice track are observed during the core courses. They also receive field-experience during the ESOL or Preschool/Special Education add-on courses. As of Spring 2004, there were only 5 candidates enrolled in this option. Strategies for tracking field experience data are still being refined. The following chart indicates the plan for observation data collection:

Field Experience Data Collection PlanSemester Course Course Field ExperienceSummer I EXC 7770 ElectiveFall I EXC 7760 Elective Observation by SPE

Spring I EXC 7730 Elective Observation by SPESummer II Add-on

3 coursesField Experience with add-on program

Fall II EXC 7780 Observation by SPE & video-tape

Spring II EXC 7720 EXC 7790 Observation by SPE(see course syllabi p. )

E. Explanation Of How And Why The Program May Vary From The Published Georgia Standards

Not Applicable.


15

F. List Of Faculty Responsible For The M.Ed. in Special Education Programs

There are five full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty positions and a Department Chair position to support the M.Ed. in Special Education and Interrelated add-on programs. All faculty hold a Ph.D. in an appropriate field and have public school experience as a special educator. In addition to the full-time tenure-track faculty, part-time faculty members provide support for field experience supervision and instruction. During Spring 2004, there were two part-time supervisors and one part-time faculty member for graduate instruction.

Additional part-time faculty (not listed) are used for sections of the undergraduate EXC 3304 Education of Exceptional Students and in support of graduate instruction (support of development of graduate candidate written expression skills and video-tape evaluation to assist in triangulating data on skills in facilitating teaching and learning).

FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS

Name

Hig

hest

D

egre

e

Ran

k*

Stat

us**

Yrs

Ex

perie

ncY

rs

Expe

rienc

Program Responsibilities

Areas of Specialization

Other Qualification

s

Bessette, Harriet

Ph.D. AP TT 2 9 Assessment, Teacher As Researcher, Intro. To Exceptional Students

Co-Teaching; Teacher Research; Assessment & Evaluation of Learning Disabilities; Curriculum

Graduate faculty

Brown, Susan

Ph.D. P T 21 12 Department ChairMedical & Psychoneurological, Methods

Learning Disabilities, Working with families, Literacy

SPA reviewerGraduate faculty

D’Aquanni, Michaela

Ph.D. ASP

TT

10

10

Program Coordinator Responsibilities, Advising, Curriculum, Portfolio, Supervision

All areas of disability Diversity,

Graduate faculty

Strieker, Toni

Ph.D. P T 20 17 Methods, Inclusion Mild disabilities School Improvement

Grants & contracts

Wallace, Deborah

Ph.D P T 28 4 Legal issues, behavior strategies,

Mild disabilities, administration


16

Advertised Position

Ph.D TT

Dirst, Stephanie

Ed.D. PT 5 37 Field Experience Supervision

Hearing Impaired, Administration

Fredericks, Gayle

M.Ed.

PT 5 25 Field Experience Supervision

Learning Disabilities, Behavior Disorders, Supervision, Administration

Powell, Michael

Ph.D PT 21 29 Behavior Strategies Behavior disorders, aba, action research

Director of Haven Academy

Baugher, David

MPA AdmissionsAdvisement

KSU Certification Officer

*Key 1: L - Lecturer ASP = Associate ProfessorI = Instructor P = ProfessorAP = Assistant Professor SMT = Supervising Master Teacher

**Key 2: PT = Part-time TT = Tenure TrackFT = Full-time, temp T = Tenured

G. Number Of Candidates In The Program

Spring 2004 Enrollment in M.Ed. Special Education Programs Master of Education in Special Education (IRR & CP tracks) 67Interrelated Add-on program only 7

Total 74

H. Post-Baccalaureate ProgramsNot Applicable.


17

IV. Evidence for Meeting the Georgia 2000 Standards

Standard 1 – Candidate Skills, Knowledge, and Dispositions

Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school personnel know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

Alignment of KSU Graduate ProficienciesWith State and National Standards

KSU CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OUTCOMES & PROFICIENCIES

Content Pedagogical Content

Professional & Pedagogical

K, S

Dispositions Student Learning

Knowledge, Skill, or

Disposition

GRADUATE

Outcome 1:Subject Matter Experts1.1 Subject matter expert K

1.2 Understanding of connections

K, S

1.3 Powerful instructional approaches

K, S

1.4 Knowledge as combination of understanding, skills & dispositions

K, S, D

Outcome 2:Facilitators of Learning2.1 Belief that all students can learn

D

2.2 Equitable treatment and access

S

2.3 Human development and learning

K, S, D

2.4 Challenging environments

K, S

2.5 Multiple methods K, S2.6 Evaluating progress K, S2.7 Interpreting & reporting student performance

K, S

Outcome 3:Collaborative Professionals3.1 Collaboration with professional partners

K, D

3.2 Reflection, research & scholarship

K, D

3.3 Parental and Community Involvement

D

3.4 Professional Development

D


18

SPE Program Alignment to Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) professional organization, institutional Kennesaw State University Professional Teacher Education Unit (KSU - PTEU) Standards,

Georgia Board of Regents (BoR) standards based on the National Board for Professional Teacher Standards (NBPTS), Georgia Required Licensure Exam (PRAXIS), and Georgia Professional Standards

Commission (PSC) Interrelated Special Education StandardsCEC

Common Core

Standards

KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework

USG -BoR NBPTS

Core Propositions

NBPTS Exceptional

Needs Standards

PRAXIS II#20353

GA PSC IRR Standards

(in addition to CEC standards)

1 Foundations

1 Subject Matter Experts

Knowledge of Special Education

Legal and Societal Issues

2 Development & Characteristics of Learners

1 Subject matter experts

I Teachers are committed to students and their learning

Knowledge of Students

Understanding Exceptionalities

I Characteristics of BD, LD, MRVI Early childhood

3 Individual Learning Differences



Multiple Paths to Knowledge

Diversity


IV Perceptual motor development

4 Instructional Strategies

1 Expertise as facilitators of teaching & Learning

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

Knowledge of Subject Matter

Meaningful Learning

Delivery of Services to Students with Disabilities

V Reading & mathematics difficulties

5 Learning Environments & Social Interactions


III Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning

Learning Environment

Social Development


VIII Field experiences for levels and categories

6 Language 1 Subject matter experts




III Language development, disorders and deviations

7 Instructional Planning



Instructional Resources


8 Assessment

2 Expertise as facilitators

III Teachers are responsible for

Assessment Understanding Exceptionalities

II Psychoeducational evaluation and


19

of teaching & Learning

managing and monitoring student learning

assessment

9 Professional & Ethical Practice

3 Collaborative professionals

IV Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience

Reflective Practice

Contributing to the Profession and to Education

Delivery of Services to Students with DisabilitiesLegal and Societal Issues

10 Collaboration


V Teachers are members of learning communities

CommunicationsFamily Partnerships


VII Effective parent involvement and counseling

CEC Standards 1 (Foundations), 2 (Development & Characteristics of Learners), 3 (Individual Learning Differences) and 6 (Communication) are the Content (NCATE Standard 1.1) standards for special education.

CEC Standards 4 (Instructional Strategies), 5 (learning Environments & Social Interactions), 7 (Instructional Planning), 8 (Assessment) are the Pedagogical Content Knowledge (NCATE Standard 1.3) for special education. Mastery of subject matter and inquiry methods across multiple curriculum areas are also evaluated within Pedagogical Content Knowledge.

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills (NCATE Standard 1.4) are addressed in CEC Standards 9 (Professional & Ethical Practice) and 10 (Collaboration). Application of these skills is addressed in field experience observations.

Candidate Dispositions (NCATE Standard 1.6) are addressed with individual candidate reflective activities throughout the program through professionalism and participation guidelines in course syllabi. Faculty meet to conduct a candidate interim review after completion of 12 semester hours and 24 semester hours in the program. This form is used to monitor writing skills and dispositions and determine where intervention is necessary.

Impact on student learning (NCATE Standard 1.7) is incorporated in assignments in pedagogical content courses (EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II, EXC 7720 Behavioral Strategies) and the capstone experience (EXC 7970/7980 Internship/Practicum).


20

Element 1.1 Content Knowledge (Initial & Advanced)

The Department of Special Education submitted a Program Review folio to the Council for Exceptional Children to document meeting this standard. The program received notice of being nationally recognized by CEC (see p. ).

Element 1.1 Content Knowledge for Teacher CandidatesUnacceptable Acceptable Target

Teacher candidates have inadequate knowledge of subject matter that they plan to teach as shown by their inability to give examples of important principles or concepts delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards

Teacher candidates know the subject matter they plan to teach as shown by their ability to explain important principles and concepts delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards.

Teacher candidates have in-depth knowledge of the subject matter that they plan to teach as described in professional, state, and institutional standards. They demonstrate their knowledge through inquiry, critical analysis, and synthesis of the subject.

As a prerequisite for admission to the M.Ed. in Special Education preparation program, graduate candidates are required to demonstrate content mastery in at least one teaching field as evidenced by a valid Georgia Teaching Certificate and documentation of completion of coursework in Human Growth and Development, Education of Exceptional Students, and Teaching of Reading (KSU 2003-2004 Graduate Catalog p.107). The Department developed the M.Ed. in Special Education program based on the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Common Core standards and aligned these with the KSU - PTEU Conceptual Framework, the University System of Georgia Board of Regents (USG-BoR) National Board for Professional Teacher Standards (NBPTS) Core Propositions, NBPTS Exceptional Needs Standards, PRAXIS II (#20353), and the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GA PSC) standards for Interrelated Special Education (IRR).

Objective examinations are used to assess basic content knowledge and application of special education content knowledge (CEC 1, 2, 3, 6).

Element 1.1 Content - Special Education ContentCandidates Scoring at Each Level of Performance

Assessment # of candidates

Unacceptable <79%

Acceptable 80-89%

Target >90%

FoundationsSu 2002 EXC 7705 Ex 1Su 2002 EXC 7705 Ex 2 (Comp)

7171

8/11%14/20%

27/38%49/69%

36/51%8/11%

Characteristics of Disabilities*Su 03 EXC 7715 Ex I Su 03 EXC 7715 Ex 2

2626

4/16%2/8%

7/27%6/23%

15/58%18/70%

Medical*Su 01 EXC 7770 Ex 1Su 02 EXC 7770 Ex 1Su 03 EXC 7770 Ex 1Neurological *Su 01 EXC 7770 Ex 2Su 02 EXC 7770 Ex 2Su 03 EXC 7770 EX 2

182623

182623

6%27%26%

11%35%74%

33%50%74%

56%50%26%

61%12%0%

0%33%0%

Kennesaw State University PSC 2003 report Special Education

21

*Communication and individual learning differences are embedded in both Characteristics of Disabilities & Medical exams

Candidates in the Interrelated add-on program and M.Ed. in Special Education programs demonstrate their academic content subject mastery within pedagogy courses (Teaching & Learning I, Teaching & Learning II (or add-on methods course) (Program level), in their on-the-job field experience (Program level observations using SEPO), on the Unit level Impact on Student Learning Assessment (ISLA), and as part of their capstone internship (Unit level CPI) and portfolio (Unit level Graduate Portfolio Narrative Rubric). (see p. )

Element 1.1 Content – Subject Matter Mastery Candidates Scoring at Each Level of Performance

Assessment Standard Source/ # Level 1Unacceptabl

e

Level 2Unacceptabl

e

Level 3Acceptabl

e

Level 4Target

T & L I Curriculum Map

Georgia QCCs are Mapped out Over a Year Across all subjects

Fa 2002 24Fa 2002 24Fa 203 25

000

2/8%0

3/12%

5/21%5/21%6/24%

17/71%19/79%16/64%

T & L I Unit Plan

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

Fa 2002 24Fa 2002 24Fa 203 25

000

2/8%0

3/12%

5/21%5/21%6/24%

17/71%19/79%16/64%

T & L II DI Lesson Plan

Lesson objective clearly linked to grade level QCC objectives

SP 2002 20Fa 2002 25Sp 2003 27

00

6/22%

3/15%5/20%2/1%

7/35%15/60%13/48%

11/55%5/20%9/33%

SEPO #1Provides access to rich curriculum by successfully aligning IEP objectives and QCC’s with instruction and assessment

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

OR

* BASS Content Coverage

Sp 2003 17

Sp 2003 23*

0

0

2/12%

0

3/17%

5/23%

12/71%

17/77%

SEPO #12 Gives correct curriculum content while teaching.

Naturally presents curriculum content clearly and accurately to students.

Sp 2003 17 0 0 2/12% 15/88%

ISLA # 1.1 Uses broad, current, and specialized knowledge of subject matter and communicates this understanding to all students

SP 2003 22SP 2003 13

00

00

8/36%7/54%

14/64%6/46%


22

Unit Level * CPI 1.1

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


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


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


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

* CPI data is being collected during Spring 2004. The Portfolio Nnarrative Rubric was used in Spring/Fall 2003.

Element 1.2 Content Knowledge for Other Professional School Personnel (EDL only) Not applicable

Element 1.3 Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates (Initial & Advanced)

CEC Standards 4 (Instructional Strategies), 5 (Learning Environments & Social Interactions), 7 (Instructional Planning), and 8 (Assessment) are the Pedagogical Content Knowledge for special


23

education. Mastery of subject matter and inquiry methods across multiple curriculum areas are also evaluated within Pedagogical Content Knowledge.

Unacceptable Acceptable TargetTeacher candidates do not understand the relationship of content and pedagogy delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards in a way that helps that develop learning experiences that integrate technology and build on students’ cultural backgrounds and knowledge of content so that students learn.

Teacher candidates have a broad knowledge of instructional strategies that draws upon content and pedagogical knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards to help all students learn. They facilitate student learning of the subject matter through presentation of the content in clear and meaningful ways and through the integration of technology.

Teacher candidates reflect a thorough understanding of pedagogical content knowledge delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. They have in-depth understanding of the subject matter that they plan to teach, allowing them to provide multiple explanations and instructional strategies so that all students learn. They present the content to students in challenging, clear, and compelling ways and integrate technology appropriately.

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

Assessment Standard Source/# <3Unacceptable

3Acceptable

4Target

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

Or BASS Providing input

Sp 2003 17

Sp 2003 23

0

0

8/47%

8/36%

9/53%

14/64%SEPO # 3 Plans the integrated use of technology Sp 2003 17 0 12/71% 5/29%SEPO # 4 Plans for student diversity through

accommodations and modifications for individual needs.

Or BASS accommodations

Sp 2003 17

Sp 2003 23

0

0

13/76%

9/41%

4/24%

13/59%SPEO # 10 Correctly uses a variety of research-based

instructional strategies (direct instruction, strategy instruction, systematic prompting, peer mediated learning such as cooperative learning groups, clas wide peer tutoring or Peer Assisted Learning Strategies [PALS], task analysis, and multiple flexible grouping structures)

Sp 2003 17 0 13/76% 4/24%

SEPO # 18 Provides manageable positive behavior Sp 2003 17 0 14/82% 3/18%


24

supports for all students, consistently applies rules and consequences, and models and reinforces appropriate behavior at all times

Or BASS Positive behavior supports Sp 2003 23 0 6/27% 16/63%ISLA # 2.2 Treats students equitably and provides

equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual differences and adjusting practices accordingly

Sp 2003 13SP 2003 22

00

7/54%5/23%

6/46%17/67%

ISLA # 2.5 Uses multiple methods to meet goals articulated for individual students and class instruction

Sp 2003 13 SP 2003 22

00

7/54%10/45%

6/46%12/55%

ISLA # 2.6 Monitors student progress with a variety of evaluation methods

Sp 2003 13 SP 2003 22

00

8/62%11/50%

5/38%11/50%

ISLA #2.5 Meets learning goals articulated for individual students, impacting the learning of every student

Sp 2003 13 SP 2003 22

00

7/54%6/27%

6/46%16/63%

ISLA # 2.6 Uses the assessment results to improve the quality of instruction for every student

Sp 2003 13 SP 2003 22

00

8/62%10/45%

5/38%12/55%

CPI 2.1 * Candidate believes all students can learn and helps students develop a positive disposition for learning

CPI 2.2 * Candidate treats students equitably and provides equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual differences and adjusting practices accordingly

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

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

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

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

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

T & L II Lesson ** Rubrics

Lesson objective clearly linked to grade level QCC objectives

Sp 2002 20Fa 2002 25Sp 2003 27

00

6/22%

3/15%5/20%2/1%

7/35%15/60%13/48%


25

changed in 2003

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

SP 2003 30 8/27% 13/43% 9/30%

Advanced organizers used SP 2003 33 6/18% 3/9% 24/73%Teacher presentation of material includes research-based strategies

Sp 2003 33 7/21% 13/39% 13/39%

Practice and feedback strategies used SP 2003 33 12/36% 10/30% 8/24%Mastery learning emphasis SP 2003 33 13/39% 13/39% 7/21%Appropriate accommodations indicated for students with disabilities

SP 2003 33 12/36% 13/39% 8/24%

Post organizer SP 2003 33 7/21% 13/39% 13/39%* CPI data is being collected during Spring 2004. The Portfolio Narrative Rubric was used in Spring/Fall 2003.

Element 1.4 Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates (Initial & Advanced)

Professional knowledge and skills are addressed in CEC Standards 9 (Professional & Ethical Practice) and 10 (Collaboration). Candidate Dispositions are addressed with individual candidate reflective activities throughout the program and a candidate interim review by faculty after completion of 12 semester hours and 24 semester hours in the program. Impact on student learning is incorporated in assignments in Pedagogical content courses and the capstone experiences (Internship & Portfolio Presentation).

Unacceptable Acceptable TargetCandidates have not mastered professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards as shown in their lack of knowledge of school, family, and community contexts or in their inability to develop learning experiences that draw on students’ prior experiences.

Candidates use their professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state and institutional standards to facilitate learning. They consider the school, family, and community contexts in which they work and the prior experiences of students to develop meaningful learning experiences.

Candidates reflect a thorough understanding of professional knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards, as show in their development of meaningful learning experiences to facilitate student learning for all students. They reflect on their practice and make necessary adjustments to enhance student learning. They know how students learn and how to make ideas accessible to them. They consider school, family, and community contexts in connecting concepts to students’ prior experiences, and applying the ideas to real-world problems.

Assessment Standard Source/# <3Unacceptable

3Acceptable

4Target

SEPO #19 Effectively manages para professionals and other support staff so that thy are effectively involved in meaningful instruction

SP 2003 17 12/71% * or not applicable

3/17% 2/12%

SEPO # 20 Implements correctly a variety of co-teaching models

SP 2003 17 8/47%* or not applicable

8/47% 1/6%

SEPO #21 Communication, both written and oral, is clear, concise and grammatically accurate

SP 2003 17 0 4/24% 13/76%


26

SEPO # 22 Overall appearance and attitude are positive and indicates respect for students, parents, and colleagues

Or BASS professionalism

SP 2003 17

SP 2003 23

0

0

3/17%

3/14%

14/84%

19/86%CPI # 3.1 * Candidate collaborates with

colleagues, parents and other professionals to strengthen school effectiveness, to advance knowledge, and to influence policy and practice

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

CPI # 3.3 * Candidate proactively involves parents and other members of the community in support of instruction and education

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

* CPI data is being collected Spring 2004. The Portfolio Narrative Rubric was used in Spring/Fall 2003.

Element 1.5 Professional Knowledge and Skills for Other School Personnel (EDL only) Not applicable.

Element 1.6 Dispositions for All Candidates (All)Unacceptable Acceptable Target

Candidates are not familiar with professional dispositions delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. They do not model these dispositions in their work with students, families, and communities.

Candidates are familiar with the dispositions expected of professionals. Their work with students, families, and communities reflects the dispositions delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards.

Candidates’ work with students, families, and communities reflects the dispositions expected of professional educators as delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. Candidates recognize their own dispositions may need to be adjusted and are able to develop plans to do so.

Candidates are informed of dispositions expected in the program in an initial orientation session. Expected dispositions and professional standards (Council for Exceptional Children & Georgia Professional Standards) are highlighted in course syllabi and are included in course requirement evaluation. Candidates receive copies of the Candidate Interim Review Rubric. Faculty (including field experience supervision faculty) meet as a team and complete the Candidate Interim Review Rubric for each cohort at the completion of twelve and twenty-four semester hours. Evaluation The rubric was field tested during Fall 2003, and the 2003 Summer Cohort was scheduled for review in January, 2004.


27

Field Experience Rating of Candidate DispositionsAssessment Standard Source # Level 1/ Level 2

Not AcceptableLevel 3Acceptable

Level 4Target

SEPO # 22 Overall appearance & attitude are positive and indicate respect for others

Or BASS Professionalism

SP 2003 17

Sp 2003 23

0

0

3/17%

3/14%

14/83%

19/86%

Element 1.7 Student Learning for Teacher Candidates (Initial & Advanced)Unacceptable Acceptable Target

Teacher candidates do not accurately assess student learning or develop learning experiences based on students’ developmental levels or prior experience.

Teacher candidates focus on student learning as shown in their assessment of student learning, use of assessments in instruction, and development of meaningful learning experiences for students based on their developmental level and prior experience.

Teacher candidates accurately assess and analyze student learning, make appropriate adjustments to instruction, monitor student learning, and have a positive effect on learning for all students.

Candidates are evaluated on Impact on Student Learning using the KSU -PTEU Unit level ISLA in EXC 7720 Behavioral Strategies, EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II and EXC 7970/7980 Internship/Practicum).

Impact on Student Learning DataAssessment Standard Source/# <3

Unacceptable

3Acceptabl

e

4Target

ISLA Subject Matter Expert (CPI 1.1)

Uses broad, current, and specialized knowledge of subject matter and communicates this understanding to all students

SP 2003 13 0 7/54% 6/46%

ISLA Facilitator of Learning (CPI 2.2)

Treats students equitably and provides equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual differences and adjusting practices accordingly.

SP 2003 13 0 7/54% 6/46%


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

SP 2003 13 0 7/54% 6/46%


Monitors student progress with a variety of evaluation methods

SP 2003 13 0 6/46% 7/54%


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

SP 2003 13 0 7/54% 6/46%


28


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

SP 2003 13 0 8/62% 5/38%

ISLA Collaborative Professional (CPI 3.2)

Reflects regularly and draws on experience aimed at improved student achievement

SP 2003 13 0 5/38% 8/62%

Element 1.8 Student Learning for Other Professional School Personnel (EDL only) Not applicable


29

Standard 2 – Program Assessment and Unit Capacity

Element 2.1 Assessment System

The Candidate Performance Instrument (CPI), Portfolio Narrative Analysis, and Impact on Student Learning Assessment (ISLA) are part of the Unit level assessment. The following chart highlights the required unit level data for graduate programs.

REQUIRED GRADUATE DATA – Fall 2003In What Course?

What is It?

Where Do I Find Printable Copies

Who Completes It?

Submitted Online?

Submitted in Hard Copy?

Where does It Go?

When is It Completed?

When is It Due?

Portfolio class

CPI I-Drive and CFEP’s website

Professor &Candidate

Yes No *Electronic submission

End of Portfolio class

Last Day of Finals

Portfolio class

Graduate Portfolio Narrative Rubric

I-Drive and CFEP’s website

Professor completes rubric


By end of Semester

Last Day of Finals

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

Impact on Student Learning Analysis Rubric

I-Drive and CFEP’s website

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


By end of Semester

Last Day of Finals

Portfolio class

Diversity Survey

Online Candidate Yes No *Electronic submission

By end of Semester

Last Day of Finals

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

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

The external component includes PRAXIS II data (see p.); surveys of candidates, graduates and employers (see sample results p. ); KSU Review; Department of Special Education Advisory Board review; and CEC external accreditation review (see p. ).

Internal candidate assessment includes data collected on individual candidates at the four decision points beginning with (1) the admission rubric (see p. ), (2) 12 hour completion interim review, (3) 24 hour completion interim review (see p. ), and (4) graduation. Cohort advisors


30

http://www.kennesaw.edu/education

continuously monitor performance on specific assignments linked to program outcomes and SEPO data.

Element 2.2 Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation

The special education graduate program assessment system includes an external component for program evaluation and an internal component for individual candidate assessment. A continuous data collection model is used to support data based decision making on program evaluation and individual candidate progress. External evaluation includes PRAXIS II data. The program has maintained a 100% rate of passage for M. Ed. in Special Education candidates since 1999 (see p. ). As part of a 2002 Program Review by KSU and forwarded to the USG Board of Regents, a survey was sent to candidates, graduates and employers. The external feedback from the 2002 Program Review survey addressed program success in developing advanced level skills that was evidenced in responses to the survey stem, “Since you enrolled in KSU have you: Check all that apply” The following chart indicates the number of candidates/graduates reporting each outcome.

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

RolesPromotion Additional

DegreesFormal Research

Action Research

Presentations

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

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

External accreditation review provides another level of evaluation. The Kennesaw State University M.Ed. in Special Education and Interrelated program received CEC Accreditation in 1998 based on the CEC General Curriculum Standards. The programs in Learning Disabilities, Behavior Disorders and Intellectual Disabilities were approved by CEC based on the individual disability category standards. The NCATE Board of Examiners and the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (PSC) approved all programs in the Department of Special Education in 2000. The Special Education programs were approved with no weaknesses. The M.Ed. in Special Education has been nationally recognized by the Council for Exceptional Children in 2004 based on the performance standards (see. p. ).

The Internal assessment system begins with data collected at the point of admission to the program. Admission requirements are listed in the Graduate Catalog (see Admission Rubric p. ) Interim review of candidate performance begins with the KSU Graduate School office monitoring course grades. Candidates not meeting standards are issued letters of warning, probation or dismissal.


31

Special education faculty discusses candidates’ strengths and areas needing improvement as appropriate at faculty meetings. Patterns of concern (written expression skills, professionalism, classroom performance) were identified and an interim review process was developed, beginning with the 2002 cohort. It is scheduled at the completion of 12 and 24 semester hours using the Candidate Interim Review Rubric: (see. p.).

The following chart represents the course-based and field-based assessment plan. Items in bold are unit level assessments. Others are program level assessments only. Data on candidate performance on key assignments is collected each semester at the program level and includes faculty reflection on candidate performance and recommendations for program improvement. Copies of sample assignments at each level (Unacceptable, Acceptable and Target) are kept with the data in the Department of Special Education office.

M.Ed. in Special Education Candidate Outcomes and Assessment Plan CEC CEC Standard KSU PTEU Product

AssessmentPerformance Assessment

Student Impact

Capstone Assessment

1 Foundations/ Philosophy Subject Matter Expert

7705 exams 7970 SEPO/CPI

7790 portfolio & narrative rubric

2 Learners Subject Matter Expert

7715 exams7770 exams

7970 SEPO/CPI


3 Individual Differences Subject Matter Expert

7715 exams7770 exams

7970 SEPO/CPI


4 Instructional Strategies Facilitator of Learning

7765 rubric 7970 SEPO/CPI7765 Video

7765ISLA


5 Learning Environments

Facilitator of Learning

7720 rubric 7970 SEPO/CPI

7720 ISLA


6 Language Development Subject Matter Expert

7715 exams 7730 rubric

7970 SEPO/CPI


7 Instructional Planning Facilitator of Learning

7760 rubric 7765 rubric

7970 SEPO/CPI


8 Assessment Facilitator of Learning

7730 rubric 7970 SEPO/CPI



Collaborative Professional

7705 exams 7970 SEPO/CPI


10 Collaborative Practices Collaborative Professional

7780 rubric 7970 SEPO/CPI7780 Video

7970 ISLA


The following table illustrates the alignment of KSU-PTEU and CEC outcomes with key course requirements and field experience documentation for successful completion of the IRR program. Completion of the M.Ed. in Special Education also requires evidence of extension of skills beyond course requirements.


32

KSU - PTEU Candidate Performance Indicators

OUTCOMES & PROFICIENCIES

Council for Exceptional

Children Common Core

Standards

Course Requirement

Field Experience Documentation

Outcome 1:A Subject Matter Expert knows the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.1.1 Candidate possesses broad, current

and specialized knowledge of subject matter and communicates this understanding to colleagues, parents and students.

1 Foundations EXC 7705 Proficiency Exam

SEPO 1SEPO 12

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

VII Instructional Planning

EXC 7760 Curriculum Plan

EXC 7765 Lesson Plan

SEPO 2SEPO 3SEPO 4SEPO 6SEPO 8SEPO 11SEPO 12

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

IV Instructional Strategies


SEPO 2SEPO 8

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

IV Instructional Strategies


SEPO 5SEPO 8

Outcome 2: A Facilitator of Learning is committed to students and is responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.2.1 Candidate believes that all students

can learn and helps students develop a positive disposition for learning.

II Development and Characteristics of LearnersVI Language


SEPO 1SEPO 4SEPO 17SEPO 18

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

III Individual Learning Differences

EXC 7760 Curriculum PlanEXC 7765 Lesson Plan

SEPO 2SEPO 4SEPO 6SEPO 7SEPO 9

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

V Learning Environments and Social Interactions

EXC 7720 Behavior Project

SEPO 4SEPO 9SEPO 10


33





Standards

Course Requirement


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

V Learning Environments and Social Interactions

EXC 7720 Behavior Plan

SEPO 4SEPO 7SEPO 11SEPO 15SEPO 16SEPO 17SEP0 18

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

VII Instructional Planning

EXC 7760 Curriculum Plan


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

VIII Assessment EXC 7765 Lesson PlanEXC 7730 Assessment Case Study


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

VIII Assessment EXC 7730 Assessment Case Study

SEPO 13SEPO 18

Outcome 3: A COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL thinks systematically about her practice, learns from experience, and is a member of learning communities. 3.1 Candidate collaborates with

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

X. Collaboration EXC 7780 Building Plan

SEPO 19SEPO 20SEPO 21

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

IX Professional & Ethical Practice

EXC 7970/7980 Action Research Project

SEPO 18

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

X Collaboration EXC 7705 Parent Project

SEPO 19SEPO 20

3.4 Candidate engages in on-going professional development by joining

IX Professional & Ethical

EXC 7780 Building Plan

SEPO 22


34





Standards

Course Requirement


professional organizations, participating in conferences, mentoring new staff.

Practice

Element 2.3 Use of Data for Program Improvement

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

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

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

Faculty meetings include discussions of candidate progress and coordination of program improvement efforts. A Department of Special Education faculty member serving on the KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework committee developed a survey of candidates, faculty and advisory board members to address the validity of special education graduate program outcome assignments. The survey results were used to support the Department’s databased decision process. Annual faculty retreats are conducted each summer to map out curriculum, assignments, etc. in response to candidate progress, course evaluations, current best practice literature, and alignment with changing standards. Summer 2002 featured a curriculum mapping activity used as a basis for program improvement. Development and field-testing of the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) form for documenting candidate classroom performance was a primary goal for 2002-2003. Review of candidate performance data resulted


35

in hiring a part-time faculty member and a graduate student assistant to support development of candidate written expression skills during 2003-2004. Another major emphasis has been alignment of the portfolio with KSU’s PTEU conceptual framework and outcomes, CEC standards, USG-BoR standards based on NBPTS, Georgia PSC standards, and the department mission.

Standard 3 – Field Experiences and Clinical Practice

Candidates in the program participate in field experiences and clinical practice through which they develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to help all students learn.

Element 3.1 Collaboration Between Unit and School PartnersUnacceptable Acceptable Target

The unit makes decisions about the nature and assignment of field experiences and clinical practice independently of the schools or other agencies hosting them. The unit’s school partners do not participate in the design, delivery, or evaluation of field experiences or clinical practice. Decisions about the specific placement of candidates in field experiences and clinical practices are solely the responsibility of the schools.

The unit, its school partners, and other members of the professional community design, deliver, and evaluate field experiences and clinical practice to help candidates develop their knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The unit and its school partners jointly determine the specific placement of student teachers and interns for other professional roles to provide appropriate learning experiences.

The school and unit share and integrate resources and expertise to support candidates’ learning in field experiences and clinical practice. Both unit and school-based faculty are involved in designing, implementing, and evaluating the unit’s conceptual framework(s) and the school program; they each participate in the unit’s and the school partners’ professional development activities and instructional programs for candidates and for children. The unit and its school partners jointly determine the specific placements of student teachers and interns for other professional roles to maximize the learning experience for candidates and P-12 students.

Field experiences are embedded within the graduate Special Education Program at Kennesaw State University (KSU). Many classes are designed with field-based components to link theory to practice. Graduate candidates are employed full time as teachers and complete field-based activities for their teaching field and capstone courses on their job site or unemployed candidates are assigned to a site by the Department. Candidates are strongly encouraged to participate in experiences (within their school or at other settings) to broaden their knowledge and awareness of diverse populations.

The Department of Special Education Advisory Board is an essential element in the collaborative development of field experience sites and practices. Local school district Directors of Special Education, principals, teachers, private school representatives, and parents serve as Advisory Board members. They provide input into field experience models used by the Special Education programs and they recommend sites for observations.

The KSU Center for Field Experiences and School Partnerships (CFESP) maintains partnership agreements with local districts. For candidates that are not currently employed, the CFESP works


36

with the Department of Special Education to identify appropriate sites and cooperating teachers for a supervised field experience.

Since most of the candidates are fully employed, the Department maintains contact with employing districts. KSU field experience supervisors check in with principals when conducting supervision visits. The Department has developed a relationship with Directors of Special Education that promotes open communication. Representatives from KSU regularly attend the Georgia Council for Administrators of Special Education and Georgia Department of Education Division for Exceptional Students meetings. When a district or the KSU program identifies areas of need, this open communication provides an opportunity for collaborative efforts to provide support. KSU has provided extra support and supervision visits for candidates experiencing difficulty on the job.

Element 3.2 Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical PracticeUnacceptable Acceptable Target

Field experiences are not linked to the development of proficiencies delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. Field experiences and clinical practice do not reflect the unit’s conceptual frameworks(s) and do not help candidates develop the competencies delineated in standards. Clinical practice does not provide opportunities to use information technology to support teaching and learning. Clinical practice is not long or intensive enough for candidates to demonstrate their ability to take full responsibility for the roles for which they are preparing.

Field experiences facilitate candidates’ development as professional educators by providing opportunities for candidates to observe in schools and other agencies, tutor students, assist teachers or other school personnel, attend school board meetings, and participate in education-related community events prior to clinical practice. Both field experiences and clinical practice reflect the units’ conceptual framework(s) and help candidates continue to develop the content, professional, and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions delineated in standards. Clinical practice allows candidates to use information technology to support teaching and learning. Clinical practice is sufficiently extensive and intensive for candidates to demonstrate proficiencies in the professional roles for which they are preparing.

Field experiences allow candidates to apply and reflect on their content, professional, and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions in a variety of settings with students and adults. Both field experiences and clinical practice extend the unit’s conceptual framework(s) into practice through modeling by clinical faculty and well-designed opportunities to learn through doing. During clinical practice, candidate learning is integrated into the school program and into teaching practice. Candidates observe and are observed by others. They interact with teachers, college or university supervisors, and other interns about their practice regularly and continually. They reflect on and can justify their own practice. Candidates are members of instructional teams in the school and are active participants in professional decisions. They are involved in a variety of school0based activities directed at the improvement of teaching and learning, including the use of information technology. Candidates collect data on student learning, analyze them, reflect on their work, and develop strategies for improving learning.

A key element in the KSU program is the field-experience supervision component. Kennesaw State University faculty and field-experience supervisors schedule observation visits to monitor progress in development of expertise as facilitators of teaching and learning using the Special Education Performance Objectives (SEPO) Form (see p. ) linked to the CEC


37

Common Core Standards and KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework outcomes (Subject matter experts, Facilitators of teaching and learning, and Collaborative professionals). KSU field-experience supervisors observe candidates in their classrooms at least once each semester and provide written feedback (Observation Summary Form see p. ) and verbal coaching. The initial on-site supervision visit during Fall I focuses on baseline data collection and support of candidates in their access to the general education curriculum and Individual Education Plan development role. Subsequent field experience supervision visits are linked to specific course requirements as indicated by the goals column of the following chart. Field experience supervisors rate candidate performance on the Special Education Performance Outcomes (SEPO) Form and provide verbal coaching and written feedback on a separate form (Observation Summary) indicating candidate strengths and areas needing improvement. Additional supervision visits are scheduled when necessary.

Candidates are also required to submit video tapes of instruction (EXC 7765) and co-teaching (EXC 7780) for faculty review. Candidates complete observation visits during summer terms to provide greater diversity of experience. The following table illustrates the developmental framework of the field experience component.

Field Experience ComponentSemester Course Course Observation/Supervision Goals Site

visits

Videotape # of observation visits by

field supervisor

Summer I EXC 7700 *

EXC 7715

Observation: Disabilities/diversity 1

Fall 1 EXC 7730

EXC 7760

Baseline & curriculum developmentSubject Matter Experts

1

Spring 1 EXC 7720

EXC 7765

Classroom management & instructionFacilitators of Teaching & Learning

2 2

Summer 2 EXC 7770

EXC 7705

Observation – Disabilities/diversity 1

Fall 2 EXC 7780

EXC 7735*

Co-teaching & extension of skillsCollaborative Professionals

2 1

Spring 2 EXC 7790*

EXC 7970

Mastery of all competencies 2

* Note: EXC 7700, EXC 7735, & EXC 7790 are required for M.Ed. in SPE: IRR candidates only and do not have a field experience component.

Unacceptable Acceptable TargetCriteria for clinical faculty are not known. Clinical faculty does not demonstrate the knowledge and skills expected of accomplished school professionals. Clinical faculty do not provide regular and continuing support for student teachers and other interns

Criteria for clinical faculty are clear and known to all of the involved parties. Clinical faculty are accomplished school professionals. Clinical faculty provide regular and continuing support for teachers and other interns through such processes as

Clinical faculty are accomplished school professionals who are jointly selected by the unit and partnering schools. Clinical faculty are selected and prepared for their roles as mentors and supervisors and demonstrate the skills,


38

observation, conferencing, group discussion, email, and the use of other technology.

knowledge, and dispositions of highly accomplished school professionals.

Supervision by qualified professionals There are six full-time tenure-track faculty positions (including the department chair) in the Department of Special Education. All hold a Ph.D. in an appropriate field. There is a balance in specializations to support courses in the program. Faculty are involved in professional development and scholarship activities to remain up-to-date for program delivery. In addition, two part-time faculty members provide support for field experience supervision and instruction. (see III. F). Faculty members in the ESOL and Preschool/Special Education add-on program are housed in other departments and provide supervision for their respective programs.

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

Element 3.3 Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of KSDs To Help All Students LearnUnacceptable Acceptable Target

No entry or exit criteria exist for candidates in clinical practice. Assessments used in clinical practice are not linked to candidate competencies delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. Assessments do not examine candidates’ effect on student learning. Assessments of candidate performance are not conducted jointly by candidates, and college or university and school faculty. Feedback and coaching infield experiences and clinical practice are not evident. Field experiences and clinical practice do not provide opportunities for candidates to develop and demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions for helping all students learn. Candidates do not work with students with exceptionalities or with students from diverse ethnic,

Entry and exit criteria exist for candidates in clinical practice. Assessments used in clinical practice are linked to candidate competencies delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. Multiple assessment strategies are used to evaluate candidates’ performance and effect on student learning. Candidates, school faculty, and college or university faculty jointly conduct assessments of candidate performance throughout clinical practice. Both field experiences and clinical practice allow time for reflection and include feedback from peers and clinical faculty. Field experiences and clinical practice provide opportunities for candidates to develop and demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions for helping all students

Candidates demonstrate mastery of content areas and pedagogical and professional knowledge before admission to and during clinical practice. Assessments used in clinical practice indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards and have a positive effect on student learning. Multiple assessments are used by candidates and clinical faculty to determine areas that need improvement and to develop a plan for improvement. Candidates work collaboratively with other candidates and clinical faculty to critique and reflect on each others’ practice and their effects on student learning with the goal of improving practice. Field experiences and clinical practice facilitate candidates’ exploration of their knowledge, skills, and dispositions


39

racial, gender, and socioeconomic groups in their field experiences or clinical practice.

learn. All candidates participate in field experiences or clinical practice that include students with exceptionalities and students from diverse ethnic, racial, gender, and socioeconomic groups.

related to al students. Candidates develop and demonstrate proficiencies that support learning by all students as shown in their work with students with exceptionalities and those from diverse, ethnic, racial, gender, and socioeconomic groups in classrooms and schools.

Admission to the M.Ed. in Special Education program requires submission of letters of recommendation addressing candidate success in teaching . The SEPO is used to assess graduate candidate progress in the field experience component of the M.Ed. in Special Education program. All competencies are linked to the KSU-PTEU Conceptual Framework and to the CEC Common Core Standards. The form is used as a developmental tool. Candidates are observed at least once each semester on the SEPO form. Interim review of candidate progress (at the completion of 12 semester hours and 24 semester hours of coursework) includes review of performance in field experience setting. Activities embedded in course requirements include self and peer review of videotapes of instructional lessons (EXC 7765) and co-taught lessons (EXC 7780). Successful completion of the capstone Internship course EXC 7970 requires achieving at least level 3 (acceptable) on all indicators on the SEPO. Candidate performance is also evaluated in this course using the Unit level CPI and ISLA.

Standard 7 – Georgia-Specific Requirements for Units and Programs

Element 1 Meets Minimum Admissions Requirements

Candidates admitted to initial certification programs at the baccalaureate level have a minimum grade point average of 2.5 on a 4.0 scale. Candidates admitted into initial certification programs at the post baccalaureate level have attained appropriate depth and breadth in both general and content studies, with a minimum of a bachelor’s degree from a PSC-accepted accredited institution.

KSU 2003-2004 Graduate Catalog (p. 107) M.Ed. programRequirements for consideration for admission to the M.Ed. in Special Education programThe M. Ed. in Special Education program admissions committee will consider the items below when making its recommendation to the graduate school regarding an applicant’s admission to the program. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to take the opportunity through the items below to make a document their strengths and goals in furthering their education. All materials must be submitted to be considered for the program.1. Valid Georgia certificate (clear renewable) in a teaching field2. A bachelor’s degree with at least a 2.75 GPA (on a scale of 4.0)3. Official transcripts from all colleges/universities an applicant has attended showing

evidence of a bachelor’s degree with minimum GPA of 2.75 from an accredited institution

4. Proof of completion of courses in Human Growth & Development, Teaching of Reading, and Education of Exceptional Students

5. Official GRE scores. No minimum score is required, but the applicant’s GRE scores will be considered in the review process.


40

6. Professional résumé documenting education, teaching experience, volunteer, and service accomplishments, and record of leadership

7. Two letters of recommendation that address applicant’s success in teaching and ability for success in master’s degree studies

8. A 1-2 page Teaching Experience Essay outlining and reflecting on a significant teaching event that has personal meaning for you (form available in application packet)

9. Completed graduate application with application fee10. Immunization form.11. A score of at least 550 on the TOEFL is required for all students for whom English is

not the native language. International applicants must have their foreign credentials evaluated by an independent evaluation service. Course by course evaluations, equivalence to an accredited US degree or number of years toward completion, and grade point average equivalents are required.

KSU 2003-2004 Graduate Catalog (p. 112) Add-on programsRequirements for consideration for admission to the Interrelated, ESOL, Preschool/Special Education add-on programs1. Baccalaureate degree from an acceptably

recognized accredited college or university.2. A minimum undergraduate cumulative

grade-point average of 2.5 (on a 4.0 scale).3. Clear-renewable Georgia teaching

certification (Preschool/Special Education requires Early Childhood Education or Special Education; ESOL requires any Teaching Certification.


41

Element 2 Knowledge of Reading Methods

Candidates in programs in Early Childhood, Middle Grades, English, and the special education fields of Mental Retardation, Learning Disabilities, Behavior Disorders, Interrelated Special Education and Interrelated Special Education/Early Childhood have demonstrated competence in the application of methods of teaching reading to students.

A course in teaching of reading is required as a prerequisite for admission to the M.Ed. in Special Education program. (KSU 2003-2004 Graduate Catalog, p. 107) Candidates build on this foundation in EXC 7760 Teaching and Learning I and EXC 7765 Teaching and Learning II. (see p. )

Element 3 Knowledge of the Identification and Education of Children with Special Needs

Candidates in all teaching fields, the leadership field of Administration and Supervision, and/or the service fields of Media Specialist and School counseling have completed five or more quarter hours or three or more semester hours, or the equivalent, in the identification and education of children who have special educational needs.

A course in the identification and education of children who have special educational needs is required as a prerequisite for admission to the M.Ed. in Special Education program. (KSU 2003-2004 Graduate Catalog, p. 107)Candidates build on this foundation in all courses within the program.

Element 4 Proficiency in the Use, Application, and Integration of Instructional Technology

Candidates have demonstrated proficiency in the use, application, and integration of instructional technology, either by attaining an acceptable score on a PSC-approved test of computer skill competency or by completing a PSC-approved training course or equivalent.

All candidates in the program hold clear renewable Georgia Teaching Certificates and have either met this proficiency or are working on this proficiency within their employing district. The technology requirements within the Master of Education in Special Education program provide the opportunity for candidates to expand their skills.

On-campus cohorts take classes in a wireless laptop classroom with state-of-the-art technology. Faculty use department laptop computers and projection systems for instruction in off-campus sites. Off-campus cohorts utilize school system technology labs for hands-on activities as needed. In addition to modeling use of technology, faculty teach and require specific technology competencies within the program.

Technology skill development is addressed by specific requirements embedded within course requirements. For example, spreadsheet applications and development of graphs and charts are required as part of the EXC 7720 Behavior Management project, candidates in EXC 7735 participate in ListServ discussion groups, and PowerPoint presentations are required in EXC 7970 Internship. Technology accommodations are


42

introduced in EXC 7760 Teaching & Learning I, integration of technology in instructional planning is required in EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II, and hands-on experience with adaptive/assistive technology is provided in EXC 7770 Psychoneurological and Medical Issues in Special Education.

SEPO 3 Plans the integrated use of technology. (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.2, Facilitator 2.5)

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

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

Technology is integrated into the lesson plan.

SEPO 4 Plans for student diversity through accommodations and modifications for individual needs. (CEC 3, Subject Matter 2.2, Facilitator 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,2.5)

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

Accommodations and modifications are incorporated only for assignment completion.

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

Effectively uses technology and adaptive/assistive technology in the lesson and for reinforcement. (CEC 4, Subject Matter 1.2, Facilitator 2.2)Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Technology is not used during the lesson, or technology is used as an add-on to the lesson.

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

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

Element 5 Knowledge of the Relevant Sections of the Georgia Quality Core Curriculum

Candidates are prepared to implement the appropriate sections of any Georgia mandated curriculum (e.g. Quality Core Curriculum, QCC) in each relevant content area.

Interrelated Special Education does not have specific QCC's requirements. The KSU Master of Education in Special Education emphasizes access to the general education curriculum for all students. Teaching and Learning I addresses curriculum mapping using the Georgia QCC's and Teaching and Learning II addresses instructional planning using the Georgia QCC's. Accommodations to provide access for all students to the general education curriculum are stressed throughout the program. Candidates are evaluated on their skill in meeting these goals in course assignment rubrics, field experience observation forms and the capstone internship. (See data included in Element 1.1 pp. )

Element 6 Knowledge of Professional Ethical Standards and Requirements for Certification and Employment

Candidates are provided with information about professional ethical standards, criminal background check, and clearance for certification and employment.


43

Knowledge of professional ethical standards and requirements for certification and employment are prerequisites for admission to the M.Ed. in Special Education graduate program. All candidates hold clear renewable Georgia teaching certificates. Ninety-five percent of the candidates are already fully employed.

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

Course requirements and field experience observations include evaluation of professionalism and dispositions. Faculty members will conference with candidates not meeting expectations in this area, and the Candidate Interim Review Process at the end of 12 semester hours and 24 semester hours includes a mandatory conference with the cohort advisor and/or department chair for candidates not meeting expectations in this area.

Element 7 Field Experiences Appropriate to the Grade Level and Field of Certification Sought

Candidates for Early Childhood certification shall complete field experiences in grades PK-K, 1-3, and 4-5. Candidates for Middle Grades certification shall complete field experiences in grades 4-5 and 6-8. Candidates for P-12 certification shall complete field experiences in grades PK-K, 1-3, 4-5, 6-8, and 9-12. Candidates for certification in secondary fields shall complete field experiences in their fields of certification in grades 7-8 and 9-12.

Candidates in the Master of Education in Special Education hold clear renewable Georgia Teaching Certificates as a prerequisite for admission to the program. Field experiences are embedded within the graduate Special Education Program at Kennesaw State University (KSU). Many classes are designed with field-based components to link theory to practice. Ninety-five percent of graduate candidates are employed full time as teachers and complete field-based activities for their teaching field and capstone courses on their job site.

Further detail is available in the Council For Exceptional Children Program Review Folio and the overview in III B of this report (pp. )


44

http://www.gapsc.com/

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

Standard 8 – Content Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs

The following chart shows the alignment of the program with PSC IRR Standards and PRAXIS II standards for the Interrelated add-on program.

KSU M.Ed. in SPE Content Alignment MatrixCEC

Common Core

Standards

KSU-PTEU Conceptua

l Framewor

k

USG -BoR NBPTS Core

Propositions

NBPTS Exceptional

Needs Standards

PRAXIS II#20353

GA PSC IRR Standards

KSU cours

e

1 Foundations

1 Subject Matter Experts

Knowledge of Special Education

Legal and Societal Issues

EXC 7705

2 Development & Characteristics of Learners





I Characteristics of BD, LD, MRVI Early childhood

EXC 7715EXC 7770

3 Individual Learning Differences



Multiple Paths to Knowledge

Diversity


IV Perceptual motor development

EXC 7715EXC 7770

4 Instructional Strategies



Knowledge of Subject Matter

Meaningful Learning


V Reading & mathematics difficulties

EXC 7765

5 Learning Environments & Social Interactions



Learning Environment

Social Development


VIII Field experiences for levels and categories

EXC 7720

6 Language 1 Subject matter experts




III Language development, disorders and deviations

EXC 7715 EXC 7770

7 Instructional

2 Expertise

II Teachers know the

Instructional Resources

Delivery of Services to

EXC 7760


45

Planning as facilitators of teaching & Learning

subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students

Students with Disabilities

8 Assessment



Assessment Understanding Exceptionalities

II Psychoeducational evaluation and assessment

EXC 7730



IV Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience

Reflective Practice

Contributing to the Profession and to Education

Delivery of Services to Students with DisabilitiesLegal and Societal Issues

All coursesEXC 7970

10 Collaboration


V Teachers are members of learning communities

CommunicationsFamily Partnerships


VII Effective parent involvement and counseling

All coursesEXC 7780

PRAXIS II The KSU Candidate pass rate on the PRAXIS II ( and previously the TCT) has remained above 80% since the program began.

Cohort Pass Fail Total Take % Pass1998 Fall 16 0 16 100.0%

1998 Spring 0 0 0 0.0%1998 Summer 8 1 9 88.9%

1998 Winter 4 0 4 100.0%1999 Fall 13 0 13 100.0%

1999 Spring 5 0 5 100.0%1999 Summer 5 0 5 100.0%

2000 Fall 16 0 16 100.0%2000 Spring 5 0 5 100.0%

2000 Summer 4 0 4 100.0%2001 Bartow 1 0 1 100.0%

2001 PWT 6 0 6 100.0%2001 Fall 2 0 2 100.0%

2001 Spring 0 0 0 0.0%2001 Summer 3 0 3 100.0%

Total 88 1 89 98.9%

1998-1999 Pass Fail Total Take % Pass1998 Summer 8 1 9 88.9%


46

1998 Fall 16 0 16 100.0%1999 Spring 5 0 5 100.0%

Total 29 1 30 96.7%


1999 Fall 13 0 13 100.0%2000 Spring 5 0 5 100.0%

Total 23 0 23 100.0%


2000 Fall 16 0 16 100.0%2001 Spring 0 0 0 0.0%

Total 20 0 20 100.0%


2001 Bartow 1 0 1 100.0%2001 PWT 6 0 6 100.0%

2001 Fall 2 0 2 100.0%Total 9 0 9 100.0%

The Master of Education in Special Education: Interrelated has been nationally recognized by the Council for Exceptional Children.


47

REPORT ON PROGRAM REVIEW DECISION

Initial Review __X_First Rejoinder ____

Second Rejoinder ____

Institution: Kennesaw State University Date of Review: October 16-20, 2003

Program(s) Covered by this Review

Program Type Award or Degree Level(s)

Interrelated Special Education Initial teacher licensure in special education

Master’s

SECTION I.

SPA Decision on Program(s):(Specifics of decisions on each standard are noted in the second section of this report.)

_X__ Nationally Recognized

____ Not Nationally Recognized (See Comments Section)

_____ Decision Deferred; More Information Required

Standards Met: C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9F1, F2, F3

Standards Not Met:

Program meets or exceeds 80% pass rate on state licensure exams: Exempt

Summary of Strengths:

Impressive context statement clarifies the relationship of the program to the unit, local schools, and the community, shows development of program over time with input from stakeholders from the beginning; it also documents use of resources to provide quality programming.

A coordinated series of comprehensive, performance-based assessments are conducted throughout the program. Rubrics are well thought out and individualized for each assessment. Portfolio requirements are well conceived.


48

Specific plans for improvement are provided based on data collected to date.

Field experiences are developmentally sequenced across the four levels in a unique way.

This appears to be a model program for how to address CEC and NCATE standards with supporting data.

Program report was well organized and well written. Excellent presentation!

Summary of Areas for Improvement:

Other Comments/Concerns:

Directions for Submitting a Rejoinder: A rejoinder should respond to each of the standards listed as Not Met below. A rejoinder can include greater clarification, new or additional information, and/or revised information beyond what was in the original program report. CEC staff will be glad to discuss this with faculty ([email protected]; 703-264-9484). Submit 4 copies of the rejoinder to NCATE.


49


SECTION II.

REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR EACH STANDARD

Content Standards: All standards are Met. There are clear links between assessments and the standards. Faculty have planned an appropriate number of assessments that should provide them with useful data on candidate mastery of the standards.Decision Content StandardMet C1. FoundationsMet C2. Development and Characteristics of LearnersMet C3. Individual Learning DifferencesMet C4. Instructional StrategiesMet C5. Learning Environments and Social InteractionsMet C6. CommunicationMet C7. Instructional PlanningMet C8. AssessmentMet C9. Ethics and Professional PracticeMet C10. Collaboration

Assessment System Standards: All standards are Met. The assessment system described is comprehensive and well articulated across individual courses and the program as a whole. The system includes a range of internal and external measures with appropriate rubrics that provide feedback on the students’ performance and the program effectiveness. Stakeholders have been actively involved in the development and implementation of this system and the aggregated data allows the faculty to make decisions about program improvement. Decision Assessment System StandardMet A1. Assessments address components of the standard.Met A2. Assessments are relevant and consistent with the standard.Met A3. Assessments are planned, refined, and implemented by key stakeholders (i.e.,

professional and local community)Met A4. Multiple measures (both internal and external) are used and are systematic and

ongoing across components of the program (e.g., content, course work, field experiences).

Met A5. The assessment system is clearly delineated and communicated to candidates.Met A6. Assessments are credible and rigorous.Met A7. The assessment system includes critical decision points.


50

Met A8. The assessment data are regularly and systematically compiled, analyzed, and summarized.Met A9. Assessment data are used for program improvement.


51

Field and Clinical Practice Standards: All standards are Met. The program has made an effort to plan field experiences across four developmental levels with an effort to address diverse settings even though students are already employed as classroom teachers.Decision Field and Clinical Practice StandardMet F1. Developmentally sequenced field experiencesMet F2. Full range of abilities, ages, types and levels in a variety of settingsMet F3. Supervised by qualified personnel


52

V. Required Appendices

A. Assessment instruments referenced in response to Standard 2. UNIT LEVEL

1. Candidate Performance Instrument2. Impact on Student Learning Assessment3. Portfolio Narrative Rubric

PROGRAM LEVEL4. Special Education Performance Outcomes5. Observation Summary Form6. EXC 7760 Teaching & Learning I RUBRIC7. EXC 7765 Teaching & Learning II RUBRIC8. EXC 7720 Behavior Strategies RUBRIC9. EXC 7780 Collaborative Practice VideoTape RUBRIC10. EXC 7780 Collaborative Practice BUILDING PLAN RUBRIC11. EXC 7730 Assessment RUBRIC12. Admission Rubric13. Interim Review Rubric


53

CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE INSTRUMENT – MASTERSBAGWELL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

KSU Candidate ________________________ Degree Program ____________________Date ___________________Person completing Performance Rating (Check One) ___Candidate ___ Faculty ____Peer

Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning:The Kennesaw State University teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers who demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU teacher education community strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring guidance from professionals inside and outside the university. In tandem with this belief is the understanding that teacher expertise develops along a continuum which includes the stages of preservice, induction, in-service, and renewal; further, as candidates develop a strong research-based knowledge of content and pedagogy, they develop their professional expertise in recognizing, facilitating, assessing, and evaluating student learning. Candidates in Advanced Programs develop as teacher leaders by refining expertise in content knowledge and effective instruction, defining new professional roles and responsibilities, and contributing towards more effective schools by providing professional support and direction for colleagues, parents, and community members. The graduates of advanced programs, in addition to being effective classroom teachers, also develop expertise as effective teacher leaders who are self-directed, value a spirit of inquiry, and facilitate learning in all students.

This evaluation instrument contains expected performance outcomes for graduates of Master’s level programs. KSU expects candidates to continually assess their own performance and professional growth as part of their professional development. Therefore, whenever an evaluator completes this form, the candidate should also complete the form. The following levels of performance are to be used in the evaluation of each candidate for each outcome. To determine the candidate’s level, consider all indicators when determining the level of performance for each outcome. The minimal expected rating for graduates of the M.Ed. programs is Level 3 for each outcome.

Rating Description Level 1Novice

The candidate’s performance offers little or no evidence of achieving the performance expectation. Although there may be occasional points that vaguely suggest the candidate has achieved the expected outcome, viewed as a whole the candidate’s performance provides little or no evidence of performance expectations.

Level 2Emerging

The candidate’s performance provides limited evidence that the performance expectation has been met. Performance may occasionally hint at a higher level of practice but viewed as a whole the candidate’s performance provides limited evidence of performance expectations.

Level 3Advanced

The candidate’s performance provides clear evidence that the performance expectation has been met. Performance may not be as detailed or rich as Level 4, but overall, there is clear evidence that the candidate has achieved the performance expectations.

Level 4Expert

The candidate’s performance provides clear, consistent, and convincing evidence that the performance expectation has been met.

Signatures: Candidate_______________________ Faculty ________________________ Faculty________________________ Date____________


54

Outcome 1: SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS: L1 L2 L3 L4

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

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

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

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

Comments

Outcome 2: FACILITATORS OF LEARNING:

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

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

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

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

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

multiple audiences in multiple formats.

L1 L2 L3 L4

Comments


55

Outcome 3. COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONALS: L1 L2 L3 L4

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

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

Candidate proactively involves parents and other members of the community in support of instruction and education. Candidate engages in on-going professional development by joining pro-fessional organizations, participating in

conferences, mentoring new staff, etc.

Comments


56

GRADUATEIMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING ANALYSISKENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITYBagwell College of Education

Candidate’s Name: ________________________________ Course: ___________________________ Semester: _________

Program: ________________________________________ Evaluator:_____________________________________________

Are you a KSU graduate YES NO If so, what year:_____________

Please indicate the candidate’s rating on each proficiency by checking the appropriate box.

Our use of the phrase “every student” is inclusive of these attributes of multicultural populations: Age, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.

I. Rating Indicator

1Little or No Evidence

2Limited Evidence

3Clear Evidence

4Clear, Consistent, and Convincing Evidence

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

Ed. Leadership: Advocates, nurtures, and sustains a school culture and instructional

There is no evidence of knowledge of subject matter; unable to give examples of important principles or concepts.

Ed Leadership: There is no evidence of knowledge of school culture and instructional program conducive to

There is limited evidence of knowledge of subject matter. Candidate’s presentation of content appears to contain numerous inaccuracies.

Ed. Leadership: There is limited evidence of knowledge of school

There is clear evidence that the candidate knows the subject matter and can explain important principles to every student.

Ed. Leadership: There is clear evidence that the candidate promotes the success

There is clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of critical analysis and synthesis of the subject. Where appropriate, candidate makes connections from the content to other parts of the content and to other content areas.

Ed. Leadership: There is clear, consistent, and


57

program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

student learning and staff professional growth.

L1

culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth

L2

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

L3

convincing evidence of critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge allowing candidate success in knowledge of school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

L4

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

(All Graduate Candidates)

The candidate incorporates information restricted to those of similar beliefs and cultural identity. There is no evidence that the candidate incorporates multiple perspectives and accurate information.

L1

The candidate makes minimal attempts to incorporate multiple perspectives or accurate information to address the multiple attributes of multicultural populations, in order to provide a rich diverse curriculum.

L2

There is clear evidence that the candidate incorporates multiple perspectives and accurate information to address the multiple attributes of multicultural populations, in order to provide a rich diverse curriculum.

L3

There is clear, consistent and convincing evidence that the candidate incorporates multiple perspectives and accurate information to address the multiple attributes of multicultural populations, in order to provide a rich diverse curriculum.

L4


58

L. FACILITATOR OF LEARNING

M. Rating Indicator


2Limited Evidence

3Clear Evidence


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

Ed. Leadership: Uses multiple methods to meet goals articulated for instruction of all students.

The candidate uses predominantly one form of instruction, does not differentiate instruction, and does not successfully accommodate the learning needs of every student

Ed. Leadership: The candidate does not have knowledge to effectively promote various types of instruction to meet needs of individual students.

L1

The candidate incorporates a variety of instructional strategies, but there is limited evidence that the candidate effectively differentiates instruction and successfully accommodates the learning needs of every student

Ed. Leadership: There is limited evidence that the candidate effectively promotes differentiated instruction to meet needs of individual students.

L2

There is clear evidence that the candidate effectively uses multiple instructional strategies to differentiate instruction and successfully accommodates the learning needs of every student.

Ed. Leadership: There is clear evidence that the candidate effectively promotes differentiated instruction to meet needs of individual students.

L3

There is clear, consistent and convincing evidence that the candidate effectively uses multiple instructional strategies to differentiate instruction and successfully accommodates the learning needs of every student.

Ed. Leadership: There is clear, consistent and convincing evidence that the candidate effectively promotes multiple instructional strategies to differentiate instruction and successfully meet the learning needs of every student.

L4

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


The candidate uses predominantly one form of assessment.

The candidate uses multiple forms of assessment, but there is limited evidence that the candidate successfully determines the learning needs of every student.

There is clear evidence that the candidate effectively uses multiple and appropriate forms of assessment to determine the learning needs of every

There is clear, consistent and convincing evidence that the candidate effectively uses multiple and appropriate forms of assessment to determine the learning needs


59

L1L2

student.

L3

of every student.

L4

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


There is no evidence of impact on the learning of every student. Data is poorly presented, the interpretation is inaccurate, and conclusions are missing or unsupported.

L1

There is limited or incomplete evidence of the impact on learning of every student in terms of numbers of students who achieved and made progress towards each learning objective. Conclusions are limited, incomplete, and/or not fully supported by data.

L2

Analysis of student learning includes complete evidence of the impact on learning of every student in terms of the number of students who achieved and made progress towards each learning objective. Interpretation is technically accurate, complete, and consistent.

L3

Analysis of student learning includes clear, consistent and convincing evidence of the impact on learning of every student in terms of the number of students who achieved and made progress towards each learning objective. Meaningful interpretation and appropriate conclusions are determined based on the data.

L4

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


In reflecting on his/her analysis of student learning, candidate provides no rationale for why some activities were more successful than others.

L1

In reflecting on his/her analysis of student learning, candidate provides limited evidence to identify successful and unsuccessful activities and superficially explores reasons for their success or lack thereof.

L2

In reflecting on his/her analysis of student learning, candidate provides evidence to identify successful and unsuccessful activities and provides plausible reasons for their success or lack thereof.

L3

In reflecting on his/her analysis of student learning, candidate provides clear, consistent and convincing evidence to identify successful and unsuccessful activities and provides plausible reasons for their success or lack thereof.

L4

N. COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL

O. Rating Indicator


2Limited Evidence

3Clear Evidence



60

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


There is no evidence that the candidate reflects upon and improves professional performance based on professional standards, feedback, best practices, and effective communication. Candidate provides no reflection on future professional performance related to insights and experiences.

L1

There is limited evidence that the candidate reflects upon and improves professional performance based on professional standards, feedback, best practices, and effective communication. Candidate provides limited reflection on the impact of the candidate’s insights and experiences for future professional performance.

L2

There is clear evidence that the candidate reflects upon and improves professional performance based on professional standards, feedback, best practices, and effective communication. Candidate provides clear reflection on future professional performance related to insights and experiences.

L3

There is clear, consistent, and convincing evidence that the candidate reflects upon and improves professional performance based on professional standards, feedback, best practices, and effective communication. The candidate recognizes improvements for future professional performance related to insights and experiences and identifies ways to improve.

L4


61

Portfolio Narrative Rubric Form

Graduate Outcomes and Proficiencies

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS: Candidate knows the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.1.1 Candidate possesses broad, current and specialized knowledge of subject matter and communicates this understanding to all students, and/or colleagues and parents.1.2 Candidate possesses a global understanding of connections within and across disciplines and applications to real life and accurately represents understanding through use of multiple explanations, technologies and strategies.1.3 Candidate demonstrates a passion for education and creates environments conducive to the development of powerful approaches to instructional challenges. 1.4 Candidate teaches or leads in ways that convey knowledge as a combination of skills, dispositions and beliefs-integrated, flexible, elaborate & deep.FACILITATORS OF LEARNING: Candidate is committed to students and is responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.2.1 Candidate believes that all students can learn and helps students develop a positive disposition for learning.2.2 Candidate treats students equitably and provides equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual differences and adjusting (or assisting teachers in adjusting) practices accordingly.2.3 Candidate understands human development and learning and uses this understanding to create enriching educational experiences and/or environments for all students.2.4 Candidate creates safe, well-managed, supportive, inclusive and challenging learning environments.2.5 Candidate uses multiple methods, technologies, resources, and organizational arrangements to meet goals articulated for individual students, class instruction and the overall school improvement plan.2.6 Candidate monitors student progress with a variety of formal and informal evaluation methods and uses results to improve student learning.2.7 Candidate is accountable to multiple audiences, accurately interprets student performance data and communicates results to multiple audiences in multiple formats.COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONALS: Candidate thinks systematically about their practice, learns from experience, and is a member of learning communities. 3.1 Candidate collaborates with colleagues, parents and other professionals to strengthen school effectiveness, to advance knowledge, and to influence policy and practice.3.2 Candidate reflects regularly upon daily practice, and draws upon experience and the professional literature to design and conduct research aimed at improved student achievement.3.3 Candidate proactively involves parents and other members of the community in support of instruction and education.3.4 Candidate engages in on-going professional development by joining professional organizations, participating in conferences, mentoring new staff.

RATING SCALE

L1 – Little or No Evidence - Little or no evidence exists that proficiencies are addressed through reflective analysis. Writing may be only descriptive in nature and lack analysis or critical reflection. Evidence presented may be vague, brief , or not linked to proficiencies. Reference to the proficiencies may be missing altogether. Through writing, candidate fails to make connections between evidence presented and demonstration of expertise in the outcome.

L2 – Limited Evidence - Limited evidence exists that proficiencies are addressed through reflective analysis. Writing is mostly descriptive with limited elements of analysis or critical reflection. Evidence presented may address some of the proficiencies while others are not addressed at all or are hard to identify. Through writing, candidate makes limited connections between evidence presented and demonstration of expertise in the outcome.

L3 – Clear Evidence - Clear evidence exists that proficiencies are addressed through reflective analysis. Writing is descriptive, analytical, and reflective. Evidence presented clearly addresses all of the proficiencies with some being more rich in detail than others. Through writing, candidate makes clear connections between evidence presented and demonstration of expertise in the outcome.


62

L4 – Clear, Consistent, and Convincing Evidence - Clear, consistent, and convincing evidence exists that proficiencies are addressed through reflective analysis. Writing is rich in description, analysis and reflection. Evidence presented addresses all proficiencies in rich detail. Through writing, candidate makes clear, consistent and convincing connections between evidence presented and demonstration of expertise in the outcome.

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT (circle one) L1 L2 L3 L4

FACILITATOR OF LEARNING (circle one) L1 L2 L3 L4

COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL (circle one) L1 L2 L3 L4


63

GRADUATE ADMISSIONS CRITERIA REVIEW SHEET

DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONSTUDENT NAME: ADDRESS:PHONE: EMAIL: PROGRAM CONCENTRATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Current Georgia Certificate Documented Pending Not Documented

7. Proof of Completion of Courses HGD ___ HGD ___ HGD ___in Human Growth & Development, RDG ___ RDG ___ RDG ___Teaching Reading, and Education EXC ___ EXC ___ EXC ___Of Exceptional Students All 3 Documented 2-3 Documented 0-1 Documented

8. M.Ed. Personal Statement

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

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

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

To Address (c) by strong examples.

Style Writing is clear, inspiring, Writing is fair, not Writing lacks energy, is and done with a flair. Particularly engaging narrow, unimaginative

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

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

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


64

GRADUATE ADMISSIONS CRITERIA REVIEW SHEET


STUDENT NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE:EMAIL: PROGRAM CONCENTRATION: DATE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Current Georgia Certificate Documented Pending Not Documented

7. Proof of Completion of Courses HGD ___ HGD ___ HGD ___in Human Growth & Development, RDG ___ RDG ___ RDG ___Teaching Reading, and Education EXC ___ EXC ___ EXC ___Of Exceptional Students All 3 Documented 2-3 Documented 0-1 Documented

8. M.Ed. Personal Statement

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

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

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

To Address (c) by strong examples.

Style Writing is clear, inspiring, Writing is fair, not Writing lacks energy, is and done with a flair. Particularly engaging narrow, unimaginative

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

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

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


65

CANDIDATE INTERIM REVIEW RUBRIC

Candidate Name: Name of Reviewer: Date: Standards L1 - L2 L3 L4 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Candidate is not respectful of the ideas of others.

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

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

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

Candidate is respectful of colleagues and peers.

Candidate consistently listens and appropriately responds to feedback and dialogue.

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


Candidate is respectful of colleagues and peers.

Candidate consistently listens and appropriately responds to feedback and dialogue.

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

Candidate is professional in their communication, collaboration & teamwork.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Candidate has obtained satisfactory evaluations from university supervisory staff.

Candidate has obtained exemplary evaluations from university supervisory staff.

Candidate maintains a GPA of 3.0.

Candidate has two or more grades below a C.

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

Candidate maintains a GPA of 3.0, with no incompletes.


66

Kennesaw State University Special Education Performance Outcomes Form

Spring 2003

Obs. # Obs. #1 Obs. # 2 Obs. #3 Obs. # 4 Obs. # 5DateObserver’s Initials

*** Planning ***

1. Provides access to rich curriculum by successfully aligning IEP objectives and QCC’s with instruction and assessment. (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.1, Facilitator 2.1)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Objectives and QCC’s not listed. Objectives and QCC’s listed but not

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

2. Develops lesson plans using research-based strategies (Universal Design, Concept Mapping, Differentiated Instruction, Multi-level Curriculum). (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.2, 1.3, Facilitator 2.2, 2.5)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: No lesson plans present, or lesson plan refers only to page numbers or chapters from books.

Lesson plans have stated objectives but there are limited or no indications that research based strategies were used to develop the plans.

Lesson plans have stated objectives and there is evidence that research based strategies were used to develop the plans.

3. Plans the integrated use of technology. (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.2, Facilitator 2.5)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Technology is neither planned for nor integrated in the lesson (used as an add on to the lesson).

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

Technology is integrated into the lesson plan.

4. Plans for student diversity through accommodations and modifications for individual needs. (CEC 3, Subject Matter 2.2, Facilitator 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,2.5)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4:


67

No accommodations or modifications are listed, or a generic accommodations/modifications checklist is used with no specific reference to students.

Accommodations and modifications are incorporated only for assignment completion.

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

*** Conducting Lessons ***

5. Demonstrates congruence between the lesson plan and instruction while incorporating student responses to the lesson. (CEC 4, Subject Matter 1.4, Facilitator 2.6)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Implementation of the lesson does not follow the lesson plan or is only tangentially related to it.

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

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

6. Effectively uses technology and adaptive/assistive technology in the lesson and for reinforcement. (CEC 4, Subject Matter 1.2, Facilitator 2.2)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Technology is not used during the lesson, or technology is used as an add-on to the lesson.

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

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

7. Provides explicit reinforcement to student responses. (CEC 5, Facilitator 2.2, 2.4, 2.6)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Teacher does not provide reinforcement for correct responses.

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

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

8. Gains the attention of students, incorporates preview and review, connects new learning to previous learning, and connects use of learning strategies to content to be learned and students’ previous learning. (CEC 4, Subject Matter 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, Facilitator 2.5, 2.6)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Does not gain the students’ attention prior to teaching, does not provide preview or

Typically gains students attention prior to instruction provides preview and review but

Consistently gains students attention prior to instruction provides preview and review and


68

review, does not connect new learning to previous learning or learning strategies to the content to be learned.

only minimally connects new learning to previous learning or learning strategies to the content to be learned.

connects new learning to previous learning or learning strategies to the content to be learned.

9. Effectively paces instruction and promotes equity in student responses. (CEC 4, Facilitator 2.2, 2.3)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Teacher’s pace of instruction is too fast or too slow and opportunities for every student to be engaged in the lesson are not provided.

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

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

10. Correctly uses a variety of research-based instructional strategies (direct instruction, strategy instruction, systematic prompting, peer mediated learning such as cooperative learning groups, class wide peer tutoring or Peer Assisted Learning Strategies [PALS], task analysis, and multiple flexible grouping structures). (CEC 4, Facilitator 2.3, 2.5)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Teacher does not use research-based strategies effectively and does not involve the students in active, hands on learning; instruction is predominantly whole class and independent work.

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

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

11. Maintains active student engagement through meaningful and motivating lessons. (CEC 5, Subject Matter 1.2, Facilitator 2.4)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Teacher lectures or reads from the teacher’s manual, never engaging the students in hands on activities; students remain passive recipients of teacher information.

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

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

12. Gives correct curriculum content while teaching. (CEC 7, Subject Matter 1.1, 1.2)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Is unable to clearly and accurately explain curriculum content.

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

Naturally presents curriculum content clearly and accurately to students.


69

*** Assessment ***

13. Embeds authentic assessment in lessons. (CEC 8, Facilitator 2.6, 2.7)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Relies on end of lesson or unit test to assess learners.

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

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

14. Provides immediate and appropriate correction to student errors and adjusts instruction accordingly. (CEC 4, Facilitator 2.6)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Does not stop or alter lesson when students make errors.

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

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

*** Classroom Ecology and Behavior ***

15. Classroom is clean and well organized. (CEC 5, Faciliator 2.4)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Classroom is cluttered and disorganized; materials for students are not readily available, desks are not arranged in a manner conducive to learning, and classroom rules and consequences are not posted.

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

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

16. Provides consistent routines and procedures for managing all class activities. (CEC 5, Facilitator 2.4)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Consistent routines and procedures are not posted or evident; students clearly do not know expectations or how to follow through. Classroom rules are not posted.

Consistent routines and procedures are posted and evident; routines and procedures flow smoothly, students clearly know what to do, however, the teacher still has to

Consistent routines and procedures are posted and evident; routines and procedures flow smoothly, students clearly know what to do, and the teacher only intermittently has to


70

monitor and re-direct students on a regular basis. Classroom rules are posted.

intervene and redirect students. Students respond immediately to teacher. Classroom rules are posted.

17. Facilitates positive social interactions among students. (CEC 5, Facilitator 2.1, 2.4)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Student to student conversation is inappropriate and shows lack of respect for one another and for adults. Teacher has to intervene continually to re-direct students and correct their behaviors.

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

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

18. Provides manageable positive behavior supports for all students, consistently applies rules and consequences, and models and reinforces appropriate behavior at all times. (CEC 5, Facilitator 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, Collaboration 3.2)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Relies on punishment to control classroom behavior. No rules or consequences posted. Tone of voice and body language are harsh and indicate lack of respect for students. Corrective action with students is arbitrary and inconsistent. Provides limited positive reinforcement

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

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

*** Collaboration ***

19. Effectively manages para professionals and other support staff so that they are effectively involved in meaningful instruction. (CEC 10, Collaboration 3.1, 3.3)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Para professionals spend the majority of their time talking or working on non-instructional tasks such as bulletin boards, cleaning, filing, or other paper work. Teacher stops instructional tasks to talk about non-instructional matters with the para professional or related services personnel, consistently asks they work with students in

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

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


71

isolation from the rest of the group, or does not provide clear direction for transitions.

additional instructions being needed. Para professionals in general education environments work with general education students too.

special education teachers in teaching all students in multiple flexible groups.

20. Implements correctly a variety of co-teaching models (one teach/one drift, one teach/one observe and take data, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, duet teaching, team teaching with multiple flexible groups) (CEC 10, Collaboration 3.1, 3.3)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Teacher only uses one teach and one drift model of co-teaching.

Teacher uses two or more different co-teaching models.

Teacher uses four or more co-teaching models.

*** Professionalism ***

21. Communication, both written and oral, is clear, concise and grammatically accurate. (CEC 9, Collaboration 3.1)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Written and oral communication is frequently incorrect in terms of basic structure and syntax, multiple spelling errors are noted in written work and the message is not clearly conveyed

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

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

22. Overall appearance and attitude (dress, comments, body language) are positive and indicates respect for students, parents, and colleagues. (CEC 9, Collaboration 3.4)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsatisfactory (L-1 & L-2): Acceptable L-3: Target L-4: Teacher uses sarcastic language or language that ridicules students or colleagues. Clothing is dirty, disheveled, not neat and or inappropriate for the classroom. Teacher’s affect demonstrates no enthusiasm for either teaching or the subject matter or compassion for students, parents or colleagues.

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

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


72

Observation SUMMARYKENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY

Bagwell College of Education

Student’s Name: ________________________________Course: ___________________Semester: ________

Collaborating Teacher: _________________________University Supervisor: _________________________

School: ____________________________________Date: ________Beginning Time:____Ending Time:______

Observer: _________________________________Circle One: University Supervisor

Collaborating Teacher Candidate

Description of Situation: Brief description of environment, subject area, type of activity, description and number of learners, etc.

Directions:When completing this summary form, please indicate strengths and areas for improvement. For greater detail, please consult the Conceptual Framework Reference Guide that describes the proficiencies in each outcome.

Subject Matter Expertise: (knows content; connects to other disciplines; knows and represents content accurately; uses content and pedagogical knowledge)

Facilitation of Learning: (knowledge of learners; knowledge of society and culture; well-managed learning environment; sets high expectations for all students; designs and implements effective instruction; assesses student learning and evaluates instruction)

Collaborative Professional: (reflects on professional performance; builds collaborative and respectful relationships; uses effective communication skills; maintains professional and ethical behavior)

___ ____________________ Student’s Signature Date Observer’s Signature Date


73


74

EXC 7720 – CLASSROOM BEHAVIORAL STRATEGIES

Rubric – Application Paper

Level 1 & 2 Level 3 Level 4 1. Candidate describes subject, behavior and setting. Candidate states rationale for why he or she targeted a specific inappropriate behavior to decrease and an appropriate behavior to increase.

Candidate describes subject, behavior and setting. Candidate describes the inappropriate behavior but not it’s function and/or does not state the appropriate behavior. 5 points

Candidate describes subject, behavior and setting. Candidate describes the function of both the inappropriate and appropriate behaviors based on a functional assessment but does not state the value of the appropriate behavior that serves the same function. 10 points

Candidate describes subject, behavior and setting. Candidate describes the function of both the inappropriate and appropriate behaviors based on a functional analysis and provides a logical explanation as to the value of the appropriate behavior he or she selected. 15 points

2. Candidate applies research to practice in selection of an intervention to decrease the inappropriate behavior.

Candidate uses discussions from class that were related to either the intervention or the inappropriate behavior. 3 points

Candidate uses one research article related to either the intervention or the inappropriate behavior. 7points

Candidate uses three research articles related to either the intervention and/or the inappropriate/appropriate behavior. 10 points

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

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

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

Candidate has 3 baseline data points and at least (12) intervention data points reflecting (6) weeks of data collection on a computer generated graph whose X and Y axes and Titles are correctly stated. 10 points

4. Candidate analyzes data and relates his or her results to published research.

Results are summarized and candidate does not relate results to research articles. 3 points

Results are summarized and candidate relates results to 1 research article. 7 points

Results are summarized and candidate related results to 2 research articles. 10 points

5. Candidate writes reflection/ self-assessment on related behavior

Candidate describes 1 of 3 levels of change: additional

Candidate describes 2 of 3 levels of change: additional changes in

Candidate describes 3 levels of change: additional changes in the


75

changes.

* Alternative Standard (5a) if related changes in related behavior were not noted.

changes in the targeted student (academic, behavioral, psychological); changes in the candidate’s relationship to the targeted student; or changes in the targeted student’s relationship to other students in the class. 3 points

the targeted student (either academic, behavioral or psychological); changes in the candidate’s relationship to the targeted student; or changes in the targeted student’s relationship to other students in the class. 7 points

targeted student (either academic, behavioral or psychological); changes in the candidate’s relationship to the student; and changes in relationships between targeted student and other students in the class. OR If three changes were not noted, candidate provides a logical explanation as to why changes did not occur. 10 points

6. Candidate reflects on feedback from the instructor from previous components of the application paper and reflects on their study. .

Candidate does not incorporate previous feedback and provides limited reflection on their study. 1 point

Candidate reflects on feedback given and incorporates it into their study. 6 points

Candidate reflects on feedback given and incorporates it into their study. Reflects on what they’ll do differently to impact student performance.10 points

7. Candidate writes a logical and coherent abstract and paper.

Abstract and paper are poorly organized with multiple errors in paragraph construction, sentence formation, and mechanics. Confidentiality is maintained. 3 points

Abstract and paper are written in a logical and coherent manner with numerous errors in paragraph construction, sentence formation, and mechanics. Confidentiality is maintained.6 points

Abstract and paper are written in a logical and coherent manner with few to no errors in paragraph construction, sentence formation, and mechanics. Utilizes APA guidelines and confidentiality is maintained. 10 points

Level 1 & 2 (45-60) Level 3 (60-67) Level 4 (68-75)

Level 1 – Little or No Evidence, Level 2 – Limited Evidence, Level 3 – Clear Evidence, and Level 4 - Clear, Consistent, and Convincing Evidence


76

EXC 7720 – CLASSROOM BEHAVIORAL STRATEGIES

Rubric – Application Paper

Level 1 & 2 Level 3 Level 4 1. Candidate describes subject, behavior and setting. Candidate states rationale for why he or she targeted a specific inappropriate behavior to decrease and an appropriate behavior to increase.

Candidate describes subject, behavior and setting. Candidate describes the inappropriate behavior but not it’s function and/or does not state the appropriate behavior. 5 points

Candidate describes subject, behavior and setting. Candidate describes the function of both the inappropriate and appropriate behaviors based on a functional assessment but does not state the value of the appropriate behavior that serves the same function. 10 points

Candidate describes subject, behavior and setting. Candidate describes the function of both the inappropriate and appropriate behaviors based on a functional analysis and provides a logical explanation as to the value of the appropriate behavior he or she selected. 15 points

2. Candidate applies research to practice in selection of an intervention to decrease the inappropriate behavior.

Candidate uses discussions from class that were related to either the intervention or the inappropriate behavior. 3 points

Candidate uses one research article related to either the intervention or the inappropriate behavior. 7points

Candidate uses three research articles related to either the intervention and/or the inappropriate/appropriate behavior. 10 points

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

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

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

Candidate has 3 baseline data points and at least (12) intervention data points reflecting (6) weeks of data collection on a computer generated graph whose X and Y axes and Titles are correctly stated. 10 points

4. Candidate analyzes data and relates his or her results to published research.

Results are summarized and candidate does not relate results to research articles. 3 points

Results are summarized and candidate relates results to 1 research article. 7 points

Results are summarized and candidate related results to 2 research articles. 10 points

5. Candidate writes reflection/ self-assessment on related behavior changes.

Candidate describes 1 of 3 levels of change: additional changes in the targeted student (academic,

Candidate describes 2 of 3 levels of change: additional changes in the targeted student (either academic, behavioral or

Candidate describes 3 levels of change: additional changes in the targeted student (either academic, behavioral or psychological);


77

* Alternative Standard (5a) if related changes in related behavior were not noted.

behavioral, psychological); changes in the candidate’s relationship to the targeted student; or changes in the targeted student’s relationship to other students in the class. 3 points

psychological); changes in the candidate’s relationship to the targeted student; or changes in the targeted student’s relationship to other students in the class. 7 points

changes in the candidate’s relationship to the student; and changes in relationships between targeted student and other students in the class. OR If three changes were not noted, candidate provides a logical explanation as to why changes did not occur. 10 points

6. Candidate reflects on feedback from the instructor from previous components of the application paper and reflects on their study. .

Candidate does not incorporate previous feedback and provides limited reflection on their study. 1 point

Candidate reflects on feedback given and incorporates it into their study. 6 points

Candidate reflects on feedback given and incorporates it into their study. Reflects on what they’ll do differently to impact student performance.10 points

7. Candidate writes a logical and coherent abstract and paper.

Abstract and paper are poorly organized with multiple errors in paragraph construction, sentence formation, and mechanics. Confidentiality is maintained. 3 points

Abstract and paper are written in a logical and coherent manner with numerous errors in paragraph construction, sentence formation, and mechanics. Confidentiality is maintained.6 points

Abstract and paper are written in a logical and coherent manner with few to no errors in paragraph construction, sentence formation, and mechanics. Utilizes APA guidelines and confidentiality is maintained. 10 points

Level 1 & 2 (45-60) Level 3 (60-67) Level 4 (68-75)

Level 1 – Little or No Evidence, Level 2 – Limited Evidence, Level 3 – Clear Evidence, and Level 4 - Clear, Consistent, and Convincing Evidence


78

Case Study Rubric-EXC 7730

Segments of Case Study L-1L-2 L-3 L-4

Description of Target Student (25 points)

Reason for Referral Demographic/Historical

Information Nature of the school performance

problem stated Student Profile 2/more items missing Written description is fair



problem stated Student Profile No items missing Written description is good



problem stated Student Profile No items missing Written description is very good

Quality of written description is outstanding (well organized, complete, accurate, professional and free of errors). Quality and consistency of candidate’s writing is exemplary.

Record Review(50 points) Introduction previous assessment instruments

and/or procedures with results teacher observational data,

concerns, and priorities parent ( “ ) tables, graphs clearly presented,

and easy to read evaluative summary provided 2/more items missing Written description is fair

Introduction previous assessment instruments



and easy to read evaluative summary provided No items missing Written description is good

Introduction previous assessment instruments



and easy to read evaluative summary provided No items missing Written description is very good

Quality of written historical record is outstanding (well organized, complete, professional and free of errors). All items given thorough examination.

Evaluation Plan(25 points)

Introduction-reiterate purpose of study

essential questions standardized and authentic

assessments considered and selected

authentic student work samples 2/more items missing Written description is fair



assessments considered and selected

authentic student work samples No items missing Written description is good



assessments considered; Those selected authentic samples No items missing Written description is very good

Quality of candidate’s written plan is outstanding (well organized, complete, professional and free of errors).Questions are insightful and proposed plan is exemplary

Testing and Interpretation(75 points)

Introduction interpretation of All Recent Results 2 authentic measures (required) in-depth comparison between past

and current test results implications for student’s learning evaluative summary 2/more items missing Written description is fair


and current test results implications for student’s learning evaluative summary No items missing Written description is good


and current test results implications for student’s learning evaluative summary No items missing Written description is very good

Quality of candidate’s ability to administer, interpret and report (in written format) formal and informal measures is outstanding (well organized, complete, professional and free of errors). Comparison of past and present results is


79

exemplaryRecommendations & Appendixes (25 points)

Introduction & Re-cap Instructional interventions based

on solid evidence Parents’/Tchr. concerns Further testing needed? 2/more items missing Written description is fair


on solid evidence Parents’/Tchr. concerns Further testing needed? No items missing Written description is good


on solid evidence Parents’/Tchr. concerns Further testing needed? No items missing Written description is very good

Overall quality of report is exemplary (well organized, complete, free of errors, and professional). Data to support final recommendations supported through-out document


80

Final Project EXC 7760

Curriculum Mapping &Accommodation/Modification Rubric

Names of Team Members:______________________________________________

Title of Lesson: _____________________________ Grade Level: ____________

Standards of Performance Criteria Points & Instructor CommentsCurriculum Mapping is Complete

Georgia QCCs are Mapped out Over a Year Across all subjects 35

Development of an Integrated Unit

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

20

Brief Description of class and students with IEPs - Profile

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

20

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

20

Universal Design. Models of Teaching, and Research Based Activities

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

35

Accommodations & Modifications

An example must be submitted with the unit.

Accommodations and modifications are: Taught in an inclusive setting/classroom; Simple and creative; Facilitate interaction with non-disabled peers; Age appropriate; and Flexible for a variety of uses and contexts.

20

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

5


81

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

20

Collaboration Points Points assigned by team membersPoints assigned by instructor

25

Total Points: _________/200


82

EXC 7765 Instructional Design Project: Math & Reading Grade: /250 Rubric for Self-Evaluation, Peer & Instructor Evaluation

Lesson Component & Standards Unacceptable<3

Acceptable3

Target4

Feedback

Class Description Age, grade of students,

target students Class demographics Co-Teaching, if appropriate

Pts. 0-3More than one omission.

Pts. 4One requirement omitted.

Pts. 5Brief description of all three components.

Lesson Plan & Pyramid Key components of quality lesson

are included: Grade level, # of students, # of adults, materials, evaluation, assignments, homework, procedures.

Lesson is multi-level, differentiated Task analysis was clearly used to

create the pyramid. Incorporates technology.

Pts. 1-10 Omits key components. Lesson is not multi-level or

differentiated Task analysis was not used to

develop pyramid. Does not incorporate technology

Pts. 11-13 Provides key components Multi-level & differentiated Too elaborate or difficult to

understand Pyramid reflects adequate use

of task analysis. Incorporates technology

Pts. 14-15 Provides all key components Multi-level & differentiated Clear Pyramid reflects high quality task

analysis of concepts for all learners including gifted and significant disabilities.

Incorporates technology

Standards Lesson is clearly linked to

QCC. National Technology

Standard is addressed when appropriate

Pts. 0-3 Omissions Confusing due to too many

variables

Pts. 3-4 Met requirements

Well written

Pts. 5 Met requirements Well written Lesson designed to meet

national technology standard.

Objectives Content & IEP objectives are

written.

IEP (SST) clearly emerges from QCC framework, or task analysis of QCC, or functional curriculum that can be embedded in instruction or class routine.

Pts. 0-2 Omissions

Not aligned

Pts. 3-4 Both written, IEP not in

behavioral terms. Confusing alignment

Pts. 5 Students are encouraged to

personalize learning objectives. IEP objectives written in

behavioral terms. IEP clearly emerge from QCC.

Subject Matter Expert** Uses broad, current, and specialized

knowledge of subject matter

Communicates specialized knowledge to all students (1.1)

Pt. 1-6There is limited evidence of knowledge of subject matter. Candidate’s presentation of content appears to contain numerous inaccuracies.

Pts. 7-8There is clear evidence that the candidate knows the subject matter and can explain important principles to every student.

Pts. 9-10There is clear, consistent, and convincing evidence of critical analysis and synthesis of the subject. Where appropriate, candidate makes connections from the content to other parts of the content and to other content areas.

Grouping1. Formal, informal or base

groups2. Heterogeneous groups3. Small (pair or triads)4. Face to face

Pt. 1-6 Omits criteria Vague and confusing No research support

Pts. 7-8 Addresses all four

criteria Adequate description Supported by Marzano Uses informal group

Pts. 9-10 Addresses all four criteria Well written Supported by Marzano and

other researchers Uses formal group.


83

Lesson Component & Standards Unacceptable

<3Acceptable

3Target

4Feedback

Pre-Test (Post-Test) Assess stated content

objectives Include well-stated directions Are appropriate for age &

development Result in score that can be

disaggregated Are parallel in form from pre

to post Alternate assessment for

SWD are provided as needed

Pts. 0-6

Student assessments were not created, or were created, but not administered.

Pts. 7-8

Student assessments are provided, assess desired content objectives and result in scores that can be disaggregated.

Pts. 9-10

Student assessments are submitted and meet all standards.

DI Step 1: Tell Objective Objective is clearly stated Relationships to previous

learning is highlighted Student is encouraged to

personalize Learning task is clarified

Pts. 0-6

Explanation is confusing. Major omissions are apparent.

Pts. 7-8 Script provides explanation that is vague or confusing in some parts. There are minor omissions.

Pts. 9-10

Script provides thorough explanation of how the teacher met all four requirements with clarity and detail.

DI Step 2: AcquisitionProvide Advance Organizer. Teacher uses either a graphic organizer, outline/overview, study guide or song to: Identify major topics Clarify actions Activate prior knowledge Provide incentive and/or

novelty

Pts. 1-6

Meets one criteria or is omitted.

Pts. 7-8

Meets 2 or 3 criteria.

Pts. 9-10

Meets all major criteria.Uses Marzano non linguistic representations.

DI Step 3: Describe & Demonstrate Demonstration uses advance

organizer and engages students Think Aloud provided Examples & non examples provided

Pts. 1-10 All lecture Many gaps Instructions are unclear or

incomplete Middle to high interaction rate

Pts. 11-13 Complete presentation Strategies are not well

implemented Think aloud is confusing Either uses examples or non

examples Very low interaction rate

Pts. 14-15 Very thorough Instructions to students are clear Strategies are well implemented Examples & non examples are

provided Very low interaction rate with

students


84


Acceptable3

Target4

Feedback

DI Step 4: Guided Practice o Use logical line of

questioning o Very high interaction rate

with teachero Uses prompts and cueso Uses error correction

strategieso Mastery check of content and

IEP

Marzanoo Allow students with ample

opportunities for corrective feedback. Reinforces effort and

achievement-Uses effective praise

Pts. 1-10o Many gaps in script.o Questions are at random.o Low interaction rate.o Rewards achievement with no

feedback.o No mastery check

Pts. 11-13 Complete script Questions are planned,

but random Corrective feedback Reward achievement Cues or prompts are

omitted. Some interaction Spontaneous error

correction Spontaneous re-

teaching Mastery check

Pts. 14-15 Very thorough script Logical, planned questioning High interaction rate Mastery check for content & IEP

progress Embedded assessment drives

corrective feedback, prompts & error correction feedback

Planned error correction strategies Planned re-teaching

Rational for Selection of Cooperative Learning Structure Research-based Base, formal or informal Support the learning of the

multi-level objectives.

Pts. 1-10 Confuses small group instruction

with CL Describes one structure and

implements another. Structure does not support to

multi-level objectives.

Pts. 11-13 Clear case for how structure

supports the learning of all students.

Informal structure (e.g. pairs’ check or turn to partner)

Pts. 14-15 Thorough explanation (with

supportive (Marzano) research) of how structure supports learning of objectives of all students.

Formal structure (e.g. CWPT).

DI 5: Structured Practice via Cooperative Learning1. Lesson is multi-

level2. Ample class time

and focus on individual student mastery

3. CL Structure is correctly implemented

4. Explanation of CL roles is provided.

5. Less teacher-student interaction

6. Provides cues, prompts & corrective feedback.

7. Rewards effort and achievement.

8. Mastery checks are provided.

Pts. 1-10-Many gaps in script.- Instruction is not multi-level

- High interaction rate with teacher

- Neither effort nor achievement are rewarded.

- Prompts & Error correction are omitted- Students are not engaged.- Mastery check omitted.

Pts. 11-13-Complete script.- Meets 6 criteria (including 1, 2, 3 & 4) - High interaction with peers

- Effort or achievement rewarded.

- Mastery check provided for either content or IEP objectives.

- Group processing check provided.

Pts. 14-15-Very thorough script.- Meets criteria- Low interaction rate with teacher.- Reinforces effort & achievement.- Corrective feedback provided as needed.-High interaction rate with peers.- Mastery check

provided for IEP, content & group processing.

- Incorporates Marzano strategy

DI 6: Close, Maintain & Generalize Closing summarizes

Pts. 1-6 Closing is cute or

Pts. 7-8 Closing is aligned with

Pts. 9-10 Closing summarizes content &


85

concepts & skills through homework; review activities; and/or technology applications.

Results in transfer and generalization (e.g. T & G).

interesting, but not aligned with lesson (“Fluff with no stuff”!)0

T & G not evident.

lesson. Opportunities for T & G

are evident.

makes it valuable to students T & G thoroughly described. Incorporates Marzano strategy


Acceptable3

Target4

Feedback

Embedded Assessment ** Provides mastery check on

individual and group progress on content objective

Alternate assessments are provided.

Provided individual mastery check on progress on IEP objective

Are varied, flexible and easily integrated into flow of instruction

Drives re-teaching on content and IEP objectives, as needed.

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

Pts. 1-10 Adequate mastery checks

do not occur. Assessments are not

submitted to instructor.

Multiple forms of assessment, but there is limited evidence that the candidate successfully determines the learning needs of every student.

Pts. 11-13 Group or individual

mastery checks for content. IEP mastery check. All assessments are

submitted. Assessments are

routine. Assessment results in

re-teaching. Clear evidence that the

candidate effectively uses multiple and appropriate forms of assessment to determine the learning needs of every student.

Pts. 14-15 Three or more mastery

checks (individual, group, IEP) are provided.

All assessments are submitted.

Assessments are varied (checklists, student self-assessments, rubrics, etc.)

Assessment resulting in re-teaching.

Clear, consistent and convincing evidence that the candidate effectively uses multiple and appropriate forms of assessment to determine the learning needs of every student.

Cues, Prompts & Error Correction Natural cues support student

mastery

Prompts are planned

Error Correction strategies are evident.

Pts. 1-10 Description of cues is

confusing or omitted. Prompts are not planned, or

are omitted. Error correction is provided

at random.

Pts. 11-13 Natural cues are used

throughout the lesson. Prompts are well-

planned. Error correction

strategies are planned.

Pts. 14-15 Thorough script that clearly

describes cues, planned prompts and error correction.

All strategies have research-base.

Differentiation/Multi-Level ** Strategies to differentiate

lesson are provided and described for target students (including gifted).

Strategies to accommodate and modify for are described for target students with disabilities.

Differentiation includes a brief plan to overcome behavioral hindrances to student learning through priority seating, BSP, etc.

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

Pts. 1-10 No differentiation. Lesson not multi-level. No considerations for

student behavior. Variety of instructional

strategies, but there is limited evidence that the candidate effectively differentiates instruction and successfully accommodates the learning needs of every student.

Pts. 11-13 Adequate description of

differentiated tasks and use for target students.

Description of pyramid implemented for SWD

Plan repeats the BSP without articulating student needs, environments, etc.

Clear evidence that the candidate effectively uses multiple instructional strategies to differentiate instruction and successfully accommodates the learning needs of every student.

Pts. 14-15 Thorough description of differentiated tasks with reference to Tomlinson & other authors. Thorough description of

accommodations and modifications for SWD

Plan considers behavioral needs of students, the environment, materials & other strategies.

Clear, consistent and convincing evidence that the candidate effectively uses multiple instructional strategies to differentiate instruction and successfully accommodates the learning needs of every student.


86


Acceptable3

Target4

Feedback

Impact on Student Learning**

Pre-Post student achievement is graphed according to “No Child” subgroups*.

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

All students master content, skills and IEP objectives

Narrative describes data, including mastery of IEP goals and objectives.

Pts. 1-10

Graph is hand written or data is presented in a table. Data is not aggregated.

There is limited or incomplete evidence of the impact on learning of every student in terms of numbers of students who achieved and made progress towards each learning objective. Conclusions are limited, incomplete, and/or not fully supported by data.

Mastery of all content objectives at 70% (or below) for disaggregate groups. Little progress is made toward meeting IEP objective.

Narrative is confusing, with major gaps in reasoning or interpretation.

Pts. 11-13

Graph is created using current software packages.Aggregates do not reflect “No Child”.

Analysis of student learning includes complete evidence of the impact on learning of every student in terms of the number of students who achieved and made progress towards each learning objective. Interpretation is technically accurate, complete, and consistent

Student mastery is below 71-85%. Student makes clear gains toward IEP objectives.

Narrative provides an explanation of all data with no apparent gaps in logic. Experience is used to support reasoning.

Pts. 14-15

Graph is created using current software packages.Data is aggregated by class demographics and reflects “No Child”. Data reflects average percentage, per subgroup.

Analysis of student learning includes clear, consistent and convincing evidence of the impact on learning of every student in terms of the number of students who achieved and made progress towards each learning objective. Meaningful interpretation and appropriate conclusions are determined based on the data.

All aggregate groups mastered all content objectives at 85% or higher. Student masters IEP objective.

Narrative provides thorough explanation of all data, providing clear insights to student learning.Professional literature and experience are used to support reasoning.


Acceptable3

Target4

Feedback

Work Sample Analysis: Learning profile of the target

student. Error analysis Recommendations for

changes in instruction to increase

Pts. 1-10 Narrative is confusing, with major

gaps in reasoning or interpretation.

Recommendations are based upon experience.

Pts. 11-13 Profile is clear. Error analysis is logical. Recommendations are logical

and based upon experience and literature.

Pts. 14-15 Thorough description of

profile. Error analysis considers

learning profile Recommendations are clearly


87

student achievement. Mini-lesson.

based upon professional literature. Mini-lesson is provided.

Teacher Reflection*** Uses the assessment

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

Reflects regularly and draws on experience aimed at improved student achievement. (3.2)

Pts. 1-10

Limited evidence to identify successful and unsuccessful activities and superficially explores reasons for their success or lack thereof.

Limited evidence that the candidate reflects upon and improves professional performance based on professional standards, feedback, best practices, and effective communication. Candidate provides limited reflection on the impact of the candidate’s insights and experiences for future professional performance.

Pts. 11-13

Clear evidence to identify successful and unsuccessful activities and provides plausible reasons for their success or lack thereof.

Clear evidence that the candidate reflects upon and improves professional performance based on professional standards, feedback, best practices and effective communication. Candidate provides clear reflection on future professional performance related to insights and experiences.

Pts. 14-15

Clear, consistent and convincing evidence to identify successful and unsuccessful activities and provides plausible reasons for their success or lack thereof.

Clear, consistent, and convincing evidence that the candidate reflects upon and improves professional performance based on professional standards, feedback, best practices, and effective communication. The candidate recognizes improvements for future professional performance related to insights and experiences and identifies ways to improve.


Acceptable3

Target4

Feedback

Preparation and presentation of lesson, accompanying materials and assessments**1. Lesson and assessments were

developed in concert with syllabi and class instructions.

2. Materials are complete and professionally organized, with paper folder and dividers.

3. Narratives and scripts are typed and written professionally.

4. Self-assessment is conducted using rubric.

5. Candidate demonstrates use of technology in preparation of materials.

6. Evidence of parental release for video/photograph.

7. Professional literature is cited

Pts. 1-6

Produce did not meet three minimal criteria.

Pts. 7-8

Product met all but number 7.

Pts. 9-10

Product successfully met all requirements.


88

throughout.

* Disaggregate groups are: Sex, Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, and Disabilities** Note: You cannot obtain an “A” on this project unless you obtain a 4 on this section of the rubric.*** Candidate reflection is evaluated, in depth, using a separate rubric.

Reviewer Name: Date:


89

CO-TEACHING RUBRIC, EXC 7780

Name(s): Total Points: 100

Co-Teaching Model(s):

Standard of Performance

L1 L2

L3

L4

Comments

1) Co-Teaching Conversation

2) Class & Student Description & Diagram

3) Initial Co-Planning4) LessonImplementation

- Parity - Roles & Resp.- Content

Knowledge- Quality Lesson- Use of Space- Student

Feedback

5) Student Engagement 6) Analysis of how co-teaching & instruc-tion interacted and impacted student engagement.

7) Plan for Improvement

8) Lesson Implementation9) Student Engagement10) Growth

- Analysis- Implementation- Engagement

TOTAL


90

B. Course syllabi for all courses referenced in responses to Standards 7 & 8.

KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITYDEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

EDUC 7705 Special Education ProceduresSUMMER, 2002

I. COURSE NUMBER/SECTION EXC 7705 (3 semester hours) COURSE TITLE Special Education Procedures

II. INSTRUCTOR: Name: Deborah S. Wallace, Ph.D. Office: Kennesaw Hall 2333

Office Phone: 770-499-3297 Office Hours: By appointment.

Email: [email protected] Fax: 770-423-6263

III. CLASS MEETING: TBA IV. TEXT: Huefner,D.S. (2001) Getting Comfortable with Special Education Law. Norwood,Massachusetts: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.

V. Catalog Description: This course focuses on understanding national and state laws, policies and procedures in special education programs. Emphasis is placed on tracing the way students with exceptionalities are served from the first risk factors (pre-referral) through post-secondary and community-based options including screening, transition and record maintenance. Communication skills required to engage other professionals and parents in the implementation of special education programs are included. Clinical issues and professional ethics are addressed.

VI. Purpose/Rationale: As schools become more inclusive, the role of the general education teacher in the education of students with disabilities continues to expand. The purpose of the course is to prepare prospective K-12 education teachers to become effective facilitators in the teaching of elementary, secondary or alternative curriculum. Both the Professional Standards Commission


91


(licensure body for Georgia) and the Council for Exceptional Children’s national standards recognize the importance of the elements of this course in the preparation of teachers for students with exceptionalities. As part of their professional responsibilities, teachers need to know the legislative and litigative implications of the demands on their practice in the identification of students with exceptionalities.

Conceptual Framework: The evolution of the field of special education has been greatly affected by the courts and federal mandates for services for this population. Legislative recognition of the needs of students with disabilities (IDEA) has recently been reauthorized. Teachers must understand these mandates and Section 504, ADA and judicial rulings in both regular education and special education cases. Issues such as due process and least restrictive environment continue to demand much teacher attention. Recent debate over the inclusion of new special education categories has resulted in additional legal issues. Passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Americans with Disabilities Act have updated requirements for services. Georgia has updated the Georgia Special Education Rules and Procedures to reflect new or revised federal regulations due to the recent reauthorization of IDEA. The knowledge base required of professional learning facilitators in the field of special education is in a constant state of change and growth. To prepare learning facilitators for their professional responsibility in the identification, assessment, placement and instruction of exceptional students, attention must be focused on protecting the rights of these students and their parents. In addition to their role as a representative of the school system, the teacher of exceptional students is the advocate for these students and their parents. A focus on consultation and collaboration skills is necessary to prepare teachers for this role. The lifelong nature of disabilities requires a focus on current research in the field of transition into post-secondary or work environments.

Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning: The Kennesaw State University (KSU) teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers who demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU teacher education community strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring guidance from professionals inside and outside the university. In tandem with this belief is the understanding that teacher expertise develops along a continuum which includes the stages of pre-service, induction, in-service, and renewal; further, as candidates develop a strong research-based knowledge of content and pedagogy, they develop their professional expertise in recognizing, assessing, facilitating, and evaluating student learning.

Use Of Technology: The student will have the opportunity to utilize technological resources at Kennesaw State University to improve his understanding of current legislative and judicial issues through the on-line ERIC and LAWTEXT computer systems available in the Kennesaw State University library. Library research required in this course is supported by the Galileo system. Use of the Internet is required for accessing information and materials.

Diversity: Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and reasonable accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to help disabled students with their academic work. In order to make arrangements for special services,


92

students must visit the Office of DisAbled Student Support Services and arrange an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.

The knowledge base in the field includes many issues of concern in multicultural education. Brown vs. Board of Education is a hallmark case in special education since it addresses the issue of equal educational opportunity for ALL students. The issues of discrimination and segregation of racial, ethnic and disabled populations will be addressed. Concerns include assessment and due process requirements to meet the needs of culturally diverse populations.

VII. Course Goals/Objectives: The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares learning facilitators who understand their disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on practice, and who apply these understandings to making instructional decisions that foster the success of all learners. As a result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of this course, the student will demonstrate a broad base of Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions through performance. In the area of Knowledge, the candidate will be able to:1. Identify the historical foundations of special education, with an emphasis on the sociological

and political forces that are the basis for current practice2. Identify the major judicial cases and legislation that guide special education practice from

prereferral to transition out of special education programs. 3. Identify the key principles guiding special education practice and related or support services

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

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

5. Articulate sources for advocacy and support within the community, state and internet. 6. Articulate the current issues impacting special education practices

In the area of Skills, the candidate will be able to:7. Trace and articulate the implementation of due process procedures guiding pre-referral

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

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

Dispositions, the candidate will be able to:9. Collaborate with students, colleagues, parents and community to ensure an appropriate

education for all students10. Follow the Council for Exceptional Children ethical standards in all interactions.

VIII. COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:Assignments Course Objectives

Proficiency Exam 1-8


93

Course Exams 1-8Parent Resource Manual 3,4,5,6,7,9,&10SST Study Case 3,4,5,7,8,9,&10IEP Case Study 3,4,5,7,8,9,&10Focused Research 1-10Parent Workshop (Professional Development) 3,4,5,7,8,9,&10Professional Discussion and Participation 1-10

EVALUATION AND GRADINGProficiency Test Pass/Fail competencyTwo Exams (see schedule) @ 100 200 pointsParent Resource Manual @ 50 50Case Study, Focused Research and Professional Development Activities(four @ 25) 100Professional Discussions 50

400

A = 90% or more, 360-400 B = 80-89%, 320-359C = 70-79%, 280-319 D = 60-69%, 240-279F = 59% or below 240

Description of Requirements:

Proficiency test: The knowledge and understanding of public laws focusing on the provision of special education services is an important component of this course. You will be asked, as a special education teacher, to collaborate with other service providers to provide education opportunities for all students, including those with disabilities. State and federal laws which you, as a Professional Learning Facilitator, must understand stringently regulate the provision of those services.

This exercise requires a minimum score of 80% correct responses for an EDUC 7950 course grade to be recorded with the Registrar's Office. Retakes are taken without prejudice. More than one retake to meet mastery will entail a personal and private conference with the instructor to develop a remediation plan. The content of this exercise is the application of the laws studied in class and evaluated for knowledge at the recall and application level. A FINAL GRADE OF INCOMPLETE WILL BE REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRAR UNTIL THE MINIMUM COMPETENCY HAS BEEN REACHED.

EXAMS: There will be two exams over federal and Georgia laws regulating education of exceptional students. These will prepare students for the PRAXIS Test. Content will reflect major units of study in this class:

1) Historical legislative & judicial issues2) Prereferral and eligibility issues (Georgia)3) IEP issues4) Due process issues (including Sxn 504 & ADA)


94

MANUAL: You will develop a parent resource manual.

This manual will include a table of content, a narrative rationale/purpose statement, support materials such as communication tips & resources, names of contact people in the district & state and an evaluation form. Materials to complete the manuals are available from your local school district, GLRS, the Internet or KSU's TRAC. The TRAC center has facilities for developing materials such as computers, laminators, copiers, etc. Evaluation will include attention to the visual presentation (typing, written expression skills), & comprehensive coverage.

FOCUSED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES:

SST Plan Development and Case Study: The candidate will development a SST plan based on a case study. The student will indicate five recommended strategies for two goals/objectives identified based on student need. In support of the recommendations indicated, references and web sites (handouts) are to be included. Give your personal reflections on the SST process (half-page).

IEP Case Study: Based on data given in a case study, the candidate will develop an Individualized Education Plan. The student will develop goals/objectives for a skill area identified and reflect on the IEP process.

Focused Research : The focus of the assignment will be the Georgia State Rules And Regulations and/or IDEA. You will be expected to integrate assigned readings, personal perspectives and experiences and are strongly encouraged to supplement your presentation and discussion with additional readings from the professional literature and /or case law.

Parent Workshop Outline : The candidate will develop an outline for a parent workshop (See grade sheet for items for analysis.) The workshop should be of need and interest to parents.

Academic Honesty: Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes with an "informal resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.

Disruptive Behavior: The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior with disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can


95

interrupt the learning of others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (See Campus Policies and Procedures in KSU Graduate Catalog.)

Human Relations: The University has formulated a policy on human relations, which is intended to provide a learning environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found in the KSU Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but the policy is there for your consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that policy.

REFERENCES

Clearinghouse on the Handicapped, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.s. Department of Education. (1992). Summary of existing legislation affecting persons with disabilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office

deFur, S.H. & Taymans, J.M (1995). Competencies needed for transition specialists in vocational rehabilitation, vocational education, and special education. Exceptional Children, 62, 38-51.

Division for Exceptional Students, Office of Special Services, Georgia Department of Education. (1994). Georgia Special Education Rules. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Department of Education.

Fischer, L., Schimmel, D. & Kelly, C. (1995). Teachers and the law. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Freiberg, K.L. (Ed.). (1995). Educating Exceptional Children. Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing.

Georgia Special Education Management System. (1995). Gloucester, MA: Eutectics, INC.

Harry, B., Allen, N. & McLaughlin, M. Communication versus compliance: African-American parents involvement in special education. Exceptional Children, 61, 364- 377.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1991). A "side-by-side" profile of changes in new IDEA. Liaison Bulletin, 17, 2-18.

Osborne, A.G. (1992). Legal standards for an appropriate education in the post-Rowley era. Exceptional Children, 58, 488-493.

Putnam, J.W., Spiegel, A.N., & Bruininks, R.H. Future directions in education and inclusion of students with disabilities: A Delphi Investigation, Exceptional Children, 61, 533-576.

Rothstein, L.F. (1990). Special education law. White Plains, NY: Longman.


96

Sage, D.D. & Burrello, L.C. (1988). Public Policy and management in special education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ysseldyke, J.E., Algozzine, B. & Thurlow, M.L. (2000). Critical issues in special education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

WEB SITES

www.cec.sped.org www.nichcy.org www.chadd.org www,ldanatl.org www.autism-society.org www.thearc.org www.doe.k12.ga.us www.biausa.org www.jdfcure.org www.efa.org www.nagc.org w ww. aamr.org

EXC 7705—Special Education Procedures

COURSE SCHEDULE

DATE FOCUS OF CLASS ACTIVITIES READINGS

Week 1&2

Special Education History Litigation and Legislation Professional Discussion

Chapters 1,2,3,&4Pre-Proficiency Exam

Week 3&4

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Student Support Team Process and

Procedures

Chapters 5,6,7,8,&9

Week 5&6

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Eligibility

Evaluation and Assessment

IEP Meeting and Plan Development

Professional Discussion

Chapters 10,11,12,&13SST Plan Due Post-Proficiency Exam

Week 7&8 Related Services

Least Restrictive Environment Placement Individual Transition Plan Individual Family Service Plan

Chapters 16,17,&18

Exam I


97

http://www.cec.sped.org/

Week 9&10

Discipline Issues Behavior Intervention Plan IEP Parent Workshop

Presentations/Professional Discussion

Chapters 14,15, &,19Parent Resource Manual Due

Week 11&12

Collaboration with Parents and Families

Progress Reports

Support Strategies

Pre-school Issues

Chapter 20

IEP Plan Due

Final Professional Discussion Exam II

The syllabus provides a general plan for the course; deviations may be necessary.


98

Kennesaw State UniversityDepartment of Special Education

Summer 2003

I. EXC 7715/01NATURE/NEEDS: STUDENTS WITH MILD DISABILITIES

SPECIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY Summer 2003

II. INSTRUCTOR: Name: Deborah S. Wallace, Ph.D Office: 2333 KH Phone: 770-499-3297 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 770-423-6263

OFFICE HOURS: By Appointment

III. CLASS MEETING: Tues./Thurs., 12:00-3:45PM KH 1107

IV. TEXTS:Required Text:

Raymond, E. B. (2000). Learners with mild disabilities: A characteristics approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Recommended Text:American Psychological Association. (2001)Publication manual of the American

Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

V. CATALOG DESCRIPTION: This course focuses on the systematic analysis of the physical, affective, behavioral and educational problems of individuals with mild disabilities (intellectual, behavioral and learning disabilities). There is an emphasis on the etiological, perceptual motor, language and academic aspects of the problems with


99


consideration to parental involvement in the educational process. Clinical applications in a field site are included. Proof of professional liability insurance is required for placement.

VI. PURPOSE/RATIONALE: There have always been exceptional learners, but it is only in the recent past that the educational needs of these learners have been addressed in public schools. There is an extensive historical base for special education in psychology and medicine. Since the formation of the Council for Exceptional Children (1920) and the development of its journals (Exceptional Children, Teaching Exceptional Children, etc.), there has been an increase in the number of journals dedicated to special education issues. The growing trend to include students with disabilities in general education programs (e.g. as a result of the Regular Education Initiative) has also provided impetus for research in journals devoted to general education.

The knowledge base required of professional learning facilitators in the field of special education is in a constant state of change and growth. To prepare learning facilitators for their professional responsibility in the identification, assessment, placement and instruction of students with disabilities, attention must be focused on understanding the cognitive, sociological, and medical foundations and manifestations of exceptionalities.The objectives for this course are based on the competencies identified by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). The program also provides competencies identified by the Professional Standards Commission (licensure body for Georgia).

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


100

KNOWLEDGE BASE: Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: pre-service, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.

VIII TECHNOLOGY : Technology standards for educator are required by the Professional Standards Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the master teacher preparation program and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve student learning. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and develop an electronic learning portfolio. Students at Kennesaw State University will access the ERIC CD-ROM database for scholarly activities related to this course. They will also have access to computers and software through TRAC and the Educational Technology Center. Library research required in this course is supported by the Galileo system.

Web Web-sites: www.cec.sped.orgwww.nichcy.orgwww.chadd.orgwww.ldanatl.orgwww.autism-society.orgwww.thearc.org

Web Web-sites: www.doe.k12.ga.us

www.biausa.orgwww.jdfcure.orgwww.efa.orgwww.nagc.orgwww.aamr.org

www.dhr.state.ga.us

IX DIVERSITY: Differences in the special education field provides a background for the a variety of material and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge, skills, and understanding to provide effective instruction in multicultural classrooms. The emphasis on cognitive style consideration of cultural context. Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and reasonable accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to help disabled students with their academic work. In order to make arrangements for special services students must visit the Office of DisAbled Student Support Services (770-423-6443) and arrange an individual assistance plan. In some cases certification of disability is required.


101

http://www.aamr.org/

http://www.nagc.org/

http://www.efa.org/

http://www.jdfcure.org/

http://www.biause.org/

http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/

http://www.thearc.org/

http://www.autism-society.org/

http://www.ldanatl.org/

http://www.chadd.org/

http://www.nichcy.org/


Understanding of the nature and needs of exceptional students requires a sensitivity to the cultural context of the presenting problems. This course provides candidates with information and experiences to develop an awareness and appreciation of the diverse nature of our society and the individual cultural differences as they impact on education. The effects of socioeconomic status are also emphasized as a factor in the educational needs of students. Major issues addressed include cultural and socioeconomic status bias in assessment and eligibility for special education programs; as well as, behavioral, language and cognitive style differences related to different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. Candidates will investigate the sociological factors that traditionally result in greater prevalence of diagnosed exceptionalities in males and in certain socio-economic groups. Candidates will also investigate the interaction of other variables such as race and ethnicity in identification procedures.

Fully employed graduate candidates enrolled in this course serving as teachers of students with disabilities may apply for on-the-job field experience placement. Criteria for the field experience site selection for other candidates will be considered on the basis of the socio-economic, racial, ethnic and cultural diversity of the student population served. In addition, candidates will be grouped for activities with candidates serving diverse populations to maximize their exposure to diverse learning needs.

X COURSE GOALS/OBJECTIVES: The Professional Teacher Education Unit at Kennesaw State University prepares learning facilitators who understand their disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on practice, and who apply these understandings in making instructional decisions that foster the success of all learners. As a result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of this course, the candidate will demonstrate a broad base of Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions through performance. NOTE: The assessment of student mastery of objectives is delineated as follows: RE = Readings, Midterm/final, case study exams, ER= Eligibility report, AL = Activity log, CP = Class participations.In the area of Knowledge, the candidate will be able to:1. Understand the historical foundations, philosophies, theories and classic studies

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

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

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

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

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

6. Understand all aspects of individuals with disabilities including their psychological and socio-emotional development, language development, attention and


102

memory, health, cognition, and how they related to student ability to read, write, perform mathematical operations, take tests, develop social skills, etc.

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

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

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

In the area of Skills, the candidate will be able to:10. Compare, contrast and articulate the pro's and con's of current issues and trends

in the education of students with disabilities, including the inclusion, over-representation of minorities in special education, etc.

11. Define and report the general developmental, academic, social, language, attention/memory, behavioral, social, motor and functional characteristics of students with disabilities, as well as the level of support needs for them to be successful.

12. Define and report all available and relevant information on a student with a disability.

13. Participate in the activities of professional organizations relevant to individuals with disabilities.

In the area of Dispositions, the candidate will be able to:14. Maintain confidentiality of all student records and respect for privacy of

individuals with disabilities and their families. 15. Articulate the teacher's responsibility to, and support of, parents and siblings of

students with disabilities.

XI. COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS: Course Requirements and

AssignmentsCourse Objectives CPI

DomainsPoints

1. Reading Project 1,2,6,7,8,9,10,15 1-5 1002. Reflective Journal and Action Plan 1-15 1-5 203. Eligibility Reports (40 points each) 1-12 & 14, 15 1-5 1204. Exams (50 points each) 1-12 & 14, 15 1-5 1005. Observation Report 1-15 1-5 306. Professional Development Report 13 1&5 57. Professional Reading Log 1-12 1&5 58. Class Participation &Professionalism

1-15 1-5 20

9. Field Exp. Observation Report 1-15 1-5 Required

1. Readings Project: With instructor approval, chose from the following options. Class presentations may be done in a group. (NOTE: If you do not currently hold an interrelated certificate, you are required to do Project Option 1 in the area of learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, severe emotional disorders and/or intellectual disabilities.) The Readings Project is worth 100 points and will be graded with the appropriate rubric.


103

Project Option 1: Issues in Mild/Moderate DisabilitiesEach candidate is asked to select a book or set of readings from the enclosed bibliography and to develop a five-page report consistent with the rubric provided in class. Finally the candidate will give a ten-minute presentation to the class and report significant findings.

Project Option 2: Family IssuesEach candidate is asked to select a book or set or readings from the enclosed bibliography and to design a parent interview based upon the readings. The candidate must conduct the interview with one family. Finally the student will give a ten-minute presentation to the class and report findings to the class. Confidentiality is required!

Project Option 3: The Disability ExperienceEach candidate is asked to select one book from the section in the bibliography entitled, “authentic voices” and/or “family”. (For our purposes) authentic voice is the story or descriptive statement written by or made by an individual with a potentially disabling condition. Next write a five-page summary consistent with the rubric provided in class and give a ten-minute presentation on significant findings.

2. Reflective Journal and Action Plan: During class candidates will be asked to participate in numerous activities that enable them to apply the skills and knowledge used in class. For example, after the discussion on each area of exceptionality, students will be required to engage in a variety of activities including attendance at meetings of professional organizations, interviews with school psychologists, etc. Class assignments support the belief that learning is an interactive endeavor requiring active participation on the part of the student. Upon completion of an assigned activity, each student will engage in reflective practice and incorporate their thoughts in a “Reflective Journal”. At the conclusion of the course, each student will develop an action plan on the form provided. (20 points)

3. Observation Activity: Each candidate will complete a full day observation of a special education or inclusive classroom. To demonstrate mastery of class objectives, students will submit a 3-5 page double-spaced report relating the information gained in the observation and interview to class discussion, text, and other professional literature. Evaluation will include spelling, punctuation, grammar, clarity of expression and content

analysis (25% of grade). Refer to the section on mechanics of writing in the summary form. The purpose of this activity is to provide students the opportunity to relate data gathered

in the observation to concepts covered in the text, class, and research articles. Refer to the section on APA format for citations and references in the summary form. Candidates will demonstrate the ability to synthesize multiple sources of information and

discuss the manner in which the information will affect their practice and beliefs. This means there should be some reference to class discussions, professional literature, and/or text, Course Pack or other materials.


104

The Department of Special Education will assign students to a classroom setting appropriate to the purposes of the course. Each student must submit a Verification of Liability Insurance form to the Instructor by the date indicated in the course outline to apply for placement.

To ensure professionalism in the observation, the following procedure is recommended: Dress professionally during your visits to the school. This does not require a suit, but refrain

from wearing jeans or T-shirts. BE ON TIME FOR APPOINTMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS. You are a guest in the school and should sign in at the office. Most schools require a visitor

badge or pass. You may sit quietly in the background and take notes or you may participate in classroom

activities at the discretion of the teacher. Assure the teacher that all information will be confidential. You are a guest in the classroom and should behave appropriately. Students with special

needs are often very sensitive to change and your presence may be disruptive.

REMEMBER CONFIDENTIALITY MUST BE MAINTAINED. Anything you observe or discuss with the teacher is strictly confidential. Do not discuss what you see or hear with anyone. Your report must NOT include any identifying information such as school, teacher or student names. Any report that contains such information will be returned for revision without a grade or feedback other than the necessity to conform to confidentiality requirements.

OBSERVATION REPORT FORMATINTRODUCTION: Identify the type of exceptionality being observed, the level (mild, moderate, etc) and age group. Describe any special characteristics of the population (socioeconomic status, etc.)

EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS: Describe the students you see in the classroom. Give examples of characteristics described in the text, class discussion or professional literature that you observed. Cite sources in APA format. Application and integration of class concepts should be emphasized in this section. Remember to address cognitive, behavioral, physical and social differences as appropriate. How were these students different from your expectations?

CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT AND INSTRUCTION: Describe the management or instructional techniques observed. Relate these to techniques described in the text, class discussion or professional literature. Be sure to highlight any curricular, environmental or other accommodations noted. How effective were these techniques/accommodations?

APPLICATION: How will this experience change the way you work in the classroom as a teacher? Be sure to specify the grade/subjects that you plan to teach. Reflect on the experience and discuss how it affects your future practice. What ideas do you plan to implement in your own practice? What kinds of innovative solutions did you see that you want to consider?

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Include full bibliographic references for the sources cited in your report. Use APA format.


105

ANY REPORT CONTAINING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WILL NOT BE GRADED!

General Guidelines and Standards for Written Assignments

1. All individual assignments must be typed, single-spaced (unless specified), with 1” margins on both sides so I can provide you with feedback. This includes reading reactions.

2. Be sure to maintain confidentiality of student, settings, and teachers. All identifying names and information should be omitted from your written work and discussions.

3. Late assignments are unacceptable without making prior arrangements with me.4. I will be looking for quality writing not quantity. Eliminate jargon and hyperbole and

focus on clearly stating your point.5. Examine the language you use within your assignments. Please remember to remove the

focus on a person’s behavior or disability by stating the person first, i.e., "a person with a disability" is preferable to "a disabled person."

6. Be careful to avoid judgmental statements and focus on the facts when writing about students. As teachers we need to put our own biases and opinions aside and view each student as a capable and valuable human being.

APA STYLE: The American Psychological Association is the standard used for bibliographic references and citations in special educational literature. This is the format used in the text. Attention to sequence of data, capitalization & punctuation is essential. See Summary Format for example of bibliographic format and the APA style manual (5th ed.) in the reference section of Sturgis Library. A reference librarian can help you find it.

CITATIONS: When substantive ideas are taken from a source other than the article being summarized, this source needs to be cited. (Author, date). If exact words from a source are utilized, the citation includes a page number (Author, date, page) and quotation marks. If quoting from the article being summarized, you need only give page number (p. #) in parenthesis. See the APA manual if in doubt.

REFLECTION: The KSU Professional Teacher Education Program is based on the belief that learning occurs when learners connect new information with their previous understandings in a way that constructs new understandings or meaning. Candidates are encouraged to reflect upon information and develop their own meanings based on new knowledge and experiences. This section demonstrates your ability to be a critical consumer of professional literature. That includes connecting the research findings to your future practice as a professional.

MECHANICS OF WRITING: Programs of study in the BCOE at KSU seek to prepare professionals in the field of education. A professional seeks to exhibit excellence in all areas. Candidates will be expected to submit written assignments that demonstrate a mastery of written expression skills in spelling, grammar, and text structure or organization. Candidates are encouraged to utilize technological aids such as word processors with spell check and grammar check to improve their skills in this area. Candidates exhibiting difficulty in this area should meet with their instructor to discuss referral to the Writing Center.


106

4. Professional Log: (Turn in as completed to receive feedback on the writing process.). The log must contain reflections on your professional reading, conferences/in service sessions that you have attended, and site visits that you have conducted over the course of the semester. Each entry must be dated and titled – (include a full citation (APA format) if it is a reading), followed by your personal response to the material or experience. To obtain full credit for this activity, you must use the writing format presented in class to complete the following:

Read a minimum of three (3) articles from professional journals regarding universal curriculum design, accommodation and modifications, and/or any other topics related to our class discussions and text. In addition, you are required to write a one-page reflection containing your reactions to the reading.

Your completed professional development log must follow the National Board Certification writing process:

Description : Summarize the main ideas. This should be strictly factual information and not contain any of your personal opinions. Exactly what points do the articles make, or what did you see or hear?

Analysis : Based on the focus in this program and your own experiences, what is your opinion about what you have read or observed? Be sure to support your opinion with specific information from the articles or observation. Do you agree or disagree and WHY? Please provide more feedback than, “I like it and think it will work.”

Reflection: How will this information impact your own teaching practice and student learning in your class? How did it change the way you think about your personal teaching practice or how did it affirm your current beliefs?

References for articles : Must be in American Psychological Association (APA) style (5th ed.).

5. Eligibility Reports: Each group of graduate candidates (maximum of 6 per group) will complete an eligibility report based on a case study and commercial assessment provided in each area of exceptionality (i.e., LD, BD, MID). Each group will submit a completed form based on each case study. Each eligibility report is worth 40 points—total (120 points).

A. Reason for referrals to SST and/or special education.B. Background information: Family, education, health, school, etc.C. Listing of all previous test resultsD. Interpretation of previous testing by the examinersE. Rationale for current or suspected IDEA classificationF. Recommendations for teaching (Note: Must include information from

class discussions and your text.), Etc.

6. Exams: Two examinations will be given. Each will consist of multiple choice and short answer essay questions. (50 points each)

7. Professional Development Report: Each candidate will keep a log of all professional development activities—including documentation of participation.


107

(5 points)

8. Professional Reading Log: Each candidate will be responsible for maintaining a reading log throughout the program. (5 points)

9. Class Participation: Class participation is worth 30 points toward the final grade. As this course unfolds, students will be asked to conduct various cooperative learning group activities. Small group and team skills will be assessed by the instructor.

XII. EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT. Each candidate will be evaluated according to the point system provided below. Exact standards of performance and evaluation criteria for written work are in rubrics provided in class.Major Class Activities:

Eligibility Reports (40 points each-total 120 points)Readings Project (100 points) Exams (Two at 50 points each -total 100 points) Mid/FinalReflective Journal& Action Plan (20 points) Professional Development Log (5 points)Professional Reading Log (5 points) Class Participation (20 points) On-going

Candidate Evaluation: 400 Total Possible PointsA = 360-400B = 319-359C = 278-318D = 237-277F = 236 and below

XIII. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY. Every KSU candidate is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the University policy on academic honesty, including the provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, removal retention or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuses of student identification cards. Incident of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program which includes either an “informal” resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct’s minimum one semester suspension requirement.

1. Disruptive Behavior, Human Dignity and Attendance Policy: Candidates are encouraged to review the 2002-2003 College graduate catalog for procedures for dealing with behavior that interferes with the learning of others and which recognizes human worth. The attendance policy can be found in the undergraduate catalog.


108

2. Human Relations: The University has formulated a policy on human relations intended to provide a learning environment that recognizes individual worth. That policy may be found in the graduate catalog. It is expected that in EXC 7715, no professional should need reminding, but the policy is there for your consideration. The activities designed for this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that state policy.

EXC 7715 COURSE OUTLINE

Week Activity Homework/ Reading Assignment

Week 1 Introductions Read: Ch. 1 & 2 in RaymondReview of Syllabus Perspectives on Disability

Historical Perspectives

Week 1 Discussion of Current Trends in Sp. Ed. Read: Ch. 3 in RaymondDiscussion of Historical Legislation Learners with Mental Overview of Historical Treatment of Retardation Individuals with DisabilitiesDiscussion of IDEA '97 Amendments

IDEA proposed reauthorization & NCLB

Week 2 Discussion of Characteristics of Work in Groups of 5 on Eligibility Individuals with Mild Mental Report for MMR based on a case

Retardation study.Discussion of Federal Definition Read: Ch. 7 in Raymond of MMR (Cognitive Characteristics)Discussion of GA Eligibility of MMR (MIID)

Week 2 Video Briefly work in Groups of 5 on Discussion of Cognitive Disabilities Eligibility Report for MMR

related to Individuals with Learning Disabilities featuring Information Processing, Vygotsky, Piaget MMR Eligibility Due

Read: Ch. 4 in Raymond (Learning Disabilities)

Week 3 Film "Fat City" Read: Ch. 8 in RaymondDiscussion of Federal Definition (Perceptual Characteristics) of LDDiscussion of GA Eligibility of LD

Week 3 Discussion of Perceptual Characteristics Begin working in Groups of 5 onGuest Speaker Eligibility Report for LD based on a case study.

Week 4 Mid-Term Mid-Term: Ch. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8Work in Groups of 5 on LD eligibility report.


109

Read: Ch. 9 & 10 in Raymond(Language Characteristics)(Academic Learning Char.)

Week 4 Discussion of Language LD Eligibility dueCharacteristics Read: Ch. 5 in RaymondBegin discussion of Academic (ADHD)Characteristics

Week Activity Homework/ Reading Assignment

Week 5 Academic Characteristics concluded Read: Ch. 6 in RaymondFilm ADHD " What do we Know" (EBD)

"What do we Do"

Week 5 Discussion of EBD Characteristics Work in groups of 5 on the EBDDiscussion of Controversies related Eligibility Report to Federal EBD Definition Read: Ch. 11 in RaymondDiscussion of GA EBD Definition (Social & Emotional Chara.)

Week 6 Social and Emotional Characteristics Briefly work in groups of 5 on the of Individuals with Disabilities EBD Report. EBD Eligibility Due.

Week 6 Film "Last One Picked, First One Picked On"Guest Speaker

Week 7 Discussion of Discipline Related to Students with Disabilities Read: Ch. 12 & 14 in Raymondbased on '97 Amendments (Assessment, ID, Placement)

Week 7 Issues in Assessment & IDIssues in Placement

Week 8 General Issue discussion and exam Review for exam in groups of 5 review

Week 8 Final Exam Final Exam: Ch. 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14

The course schedule provides a general plan for the course-deviations may be necessary.


110

EXC 7715 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Academic & Behavor Development

Barber, R. (1993). Jumping the alligators in the ditch. In L. Colker (Ed.) Beyond reading, writing and arithmetic: A retrospective look at how schools have responded to changing societal needs. (pp. 79-80) Fairfax: ERIC Document Reproduction Service.

Brown & Palincsar (1988). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies: A natural history of one program enhancing learning. In Borkowski and Day (ed.) Intelligence and cognition in special children: Comparing studies of giftedness, mental retardation and learning disabilities. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Conoridi, C. & Oakhill, J. (Eds.) (1996). Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention. Mahwah, New Jersey. Lawrence Erbaum Associates.

Ehri. (1989). The development of spelling knowledge and its role in reading acquisition and reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 356-365.

Goldstein, A. P., Spraphin, R. P., Gersha, N. J. & Klein, P. (1980). Skillstreaming the adolescent: A structured learning approach to teaching pro-social skills. Champaign: IL, Research Press.

Gray. (1922). Deficiencies in reading ability. Lexington, MA: DC Health.

Liberman, & Shankweiler. (1985). Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write. Remedial and Special Education, 8-17.

Lyon & Moats (1989). Critical issues in the instruction of the learning disabled. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 830-835.

McGinnis, E. & Goldstein, A.P. (1984). Skillstreaming the elementary school-aged child: A guide for teaching pro-social skills. . Champaign: IL, Research Press.

Orton (1937). Reading, writing and speech problems in children. New York: Norton.

Speece. (1990). Aptitude-treatment interaction: Bad rap or bad idea?Journal of Special Education, 24, 139-149.

Wittrock (Ed.) (1986). Handbook on research on teaching. 3rd Ed. New York: Macmillan.

Assessment & Classification

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (4 th ed. DSM_IV) Washington, DC: Author.

Day, K. (1996). Portfolio and dynamic assessment…An authentic look at individual difference. In N. Gregg, R. S. Curtis, & S. F. Schmidt (Eds.) African American adolescents and adults with learning disabilitieis: An overview of assessment issues


111

(pp. 65-75). (National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) Funded Grant Monograph). Athens, GA: The University of Georgia.

Fletcher, Morris & Francis. (1991). Methodological issues in classification of attention-related disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 24. 118-121.

MacLean, W.E. (1997). Ellis handbook of mental definciency, psychological theory and research (3rd ed.).Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates Publishers.

Sattler. (1988). Assessment of children’s intelligence and special abilities.Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders.

Swanson (1991). Handbook on the assessment of learning disabilities: Theory, research and practice. Autsin, TX: PRO-ED.

Zigmond, McCall & George (1990). The effects of availability, extent of use and teachers perceived effectiveness on pre-referral interventions and classification rates of mildly handicapped students in school districts in the Commonwealth of PA. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.

Authentic Voices

Burch, J. M. They cage animals at night. Signet Books.

Cline, J.D. (1997). Silencing the voices: One woman’s triumph over multiple personality disorder. New York: Berkley Books.

Cohen, H.H. (1995), Train go sorry: Inside a dear world. New York: Vintage.

Jones, R. (Ed.) (1983). Reflections on growing up disabled. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Schwartz, J. (1992). Another door to learning: True stories of learning disabled children and adults and the keys to their success. New York: Crossroads.

Williams, D. (1992). Nobody nowhere: The extraordinary autobiography of an autistic. New York: Times Books.

Williams, D. (1994). Somebody somewhere: Breaking free from the world of autism. New York: Times Books.

Cognitive, Developmental, Physiological & Neuropsychological

Aspects of Disability

Anderson (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York:Freeman Press.

Brown & Campione (1986). Psychological theory and the study of learning disabilities, American Psychologist, 14, 1059-1068.


112

Day, K. Gregg, N., Stennet, R., Hoy, C., & Darden, C. (1998). Verbal learning ability and language skills among collgeg students with learning disabilities and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. University of Georgia. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Duane and Gray (Eds.) (1990). The reading brain: The biological basis of dyslexia. Parkton, MD: York Press.

Fuerst, Fisk & Rourke. (1990). Psychosocial functioning of learning-disabled children: Relations between WISC Verbal IQ-Performance IQ discrepancies and personality subtypes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 657-660.

Galaburda (1988). The pathogenessi of childhood dyslexia. In F. Plum(Ed.) Language, communication and the brain. New York: Raven Press.

Gallagher & Ramsey (1987). The malleability of children. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing

Levine, Hooper, Montgomery, Reed, Sandler, Swartz & Watson (1992).Learning Disabilities: An Interactive Developmental Paradigm. In Lyon, Gray, Kavanagh & Krasnegor (1993). Better Understanding Learning Disabilities: New Views from Research & Their Implications for Education and Public Policies. Paul Brookes Publishing.

Rourke, B. (1985). Neuropsychology of learning disabilities: Essentials in subtype analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

Rourke (1989) Nonverbal learning disabilities: The syndrome and the model. New York: Guilford Press.

Shinn-Strieker, T. (1986). Patterns of cognitive style in normal and handicapped students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 19, 9, pp. 572-576.

Swanson (1994). The modifiability and predictability of skilled and less skilled readers’ working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology.

Swanson (1987). Information processing theory and learning disabilities: An overiew. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 3-7.

Diversity of Students: Race, Class & Gender

Kozol, J. (1992). Savage inequities in American schools.

Linan-Thompson, S. & Jean, R. E. (1997). Completing the parent participation puzzle: Accepting diversity. Teaching Exceptional Children, (1),47-52.

MacMillan, Hendrick, & Watkins (1988). Impact of Diana, Larry, P. and 94-142 on minority students. Exceptional Children, 54, 426-432.

MacMillan, (1989). Equality, excellence and the EMR populations: 1970-1989. Psychology in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 15(2)1, 2-10.

Ogbu, J. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity. Educational Researcher, 21, (5-14).


113

Weis, L., Fine, M. & Lareau, A. (1992). Schooling and the silences “others”: Race and class in schools. Graduate School of Education Publications, SU NY.

Families of Individuals with Disabilities

Barron, J., Barron, S. (1992). There’s a boy in here. Simon & Schuster.

Berube, M. (1996). Life as we know it: A father, a family and an exceptional child. Pantheon Books, New York: NY.

Brown, S. & Simmons, M. (1998). 365 Positive Strategies for Positive Single Parenting. Macon, GA: Peake Road.

Carr, M. (1995). A mothers thought on inclusion. In J. M. Kauffman, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.) The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Deveson, A. (1990). Tell me I’m here: One families experience of schizophrenia. New York: NY, Penguin Press.

Granger, B. & Granger, L. (1986). The majic father: The truth about special education. E.P. Dutton

Jean, R., Lawhon, & Lawhon, D. (1995). Stress in families of chronically ill children, Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 87, (1), 47-52.

Lelewer, N. (1994). Something’s not right: One family’s struggle with learning disabilities. Action, MA: Vaner Wyk & Burnham.

The Gene Newsletter On-line, www page (1996). An Interview with Michael Berube. On-line Publication.

Sheiflin, M. (1987). I’m not going to be John’s babysitter forever: Siblings, planning and the disabled child. Exceptional Parent, 17, 60-64.

InclusionGartner & Lipsky (1989). The yoke of special education: How to break it.

Rochester, NY: The Center on Education and the Economy.

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.

Lipsky, D. & Gartner, H. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring and the remaking of American society. Harvard Educational Review, 66 (4), 762-796.

Logan, K. R. & Malone, D. M. (1998). Comparing instructional contexts of students with and without severe disabilities in general education classroom. Exceptional Children, 64, 343-358.

Logan, K.R., & Keefe, E.B. (1997). Effects of instructional variables on the engaged behavior of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63, 481-488.


114

Logan, K. R. & Keefe, E. B. (1997). A comparison of instructional contexts and engaged behavior for students with severe disabilities in general education and self-contained elementary classrooms. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22,16-27.

Logan, K.R., Gast, D.L., Jacobs, H.A., & Murray, A.S., Daino, K., & Skala, C.(1998). The impact of typical peers on the perceived happiness of students with profound multiple disabilities. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 309-318.

Logan, K.R., Diaz, E., Piperno, M., MacFarland, A., Bargamian, K., & Rankin, D.H. (1995). How inclusion built a community of learners. Educational Leadership, 52, pp. 42-46.

Kauffman, J. & Hallahan, D. (Eds.) (1995). The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Rankin, D.H., Logan, K.R., Adcock, J., Angelucci, J., Pitman, C., Sexstone, A., Straughn, S. (in press). Small group learning: Effects of including a student with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities.

Reynolds, Wang & Walberg (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children (53) 391-398.

Salisbury, C., Roach V., & Strieker, T. (1999). Missouri Case Study on the Promotion of Large Scale Change and Inclusive Practices: 5-Year Longitudinal Report 1994-1999. Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices. ERIC Document.

Stainback, W. & Stainback, S. (Eds.) (1996). Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives. (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

IntelligenceFeuerstein (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers, The learning potential assessment

device, theory, instruments and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Ryndes, J. (1988). Don’t accept me as I am. Helping “retarded” people to excel. New York: Plenum.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: NY, Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: NY, Basic Books.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: NY. Bantam Books.

Lyon, (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities: A position in search of logic and data. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 504-512.

Siegel (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469-479.

Stanovich (1994). Does reading make you smarter? Literacy and development of verbal intelligence. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 24.

Sternberg, R. (1987). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence.


115

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. (1997). What does it mean to be smart? Educational Leadership,54, (6) 20-14.

Nature & Needs of Students with Mild Disabilities

Attention Deficit Disorders/Hyperactivity

Cantwell, & Baker. (1991). Association between attention deficit-Hyperactivity disorder and learning disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities,24, 88-95.

Hallowell, E. & Retey, J. Driven to distraction. Touchstone Books.

Safer & Krager. (1988). A survey of medication treatment for hyperactive/Inattentive students. New England Medical Journal.

Shaywitz & Shaywitz (1988). Attention deficit disorder: Current perspectives. In Kavanaugh & Truss (Eds.) Learning Disabilities: Proceedings of the National conference pp. 369-523. Parkton, MD: York Press.

Silver. (1990). Attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder: Is it a learning disability or a related disorder? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 394-397.

Emotional-Behavioral Disorders

Bouner, E.J. (1995). The anxiety & phobia workbook. New Harding Publishers.

Benson, Edwards, Rosell & White (1986). Inclusion of socially maladjusted children and youth in the legal definition of the behaviorally disordered population: A debate. Behavior Disorders, 11, 213-222.

Clarizio (1987). Differentiating emotionally impaired from socially maladjusted students. Psychology in the Schools, 24, 237-371.

Duke, M. & Norwiki, S. (1995). Helping the child who doesn’t fit in. Atlanta: Peachtree Publishers.

Nelson, Rutherford, Center & Walker (1991). Do public schools have an obligation to serve troubled children and youth? Exceptional Children, 57(5) 406-415.

Quay, Routh & Shapiro (1987). Psychopathology of childhood: From description to validation. Annual Review of Psychology. 38,491-532.

Rourke, Young & Leenaars (1989). A childhood learning disability that predisposes those afflicted to adolescent and adult depression and suicide risk. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 169-175.

Rutter. (1974). Emotional disorder and educational underachievement.Archives of Diseases in Childhood, 49, 249-256.

Rappaport, J., (1989). The boy who couldn’t stop washing. New York: NY. Penguin Books, Inc.

Intellectual Disabilities

Bates, P., Morrow, S.A., Pancsofar, E., & Sedlak, R. (1984). The effect of functional vs. non-functional activities on attitudes/expectations of non-handicapped college students: What they see is what we get. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, pp 73-78.


116

Brady, M.P., Linehan, S.A., Campbell, P.C., & Neilson, W.L. (1992). Too high, too low, too young: an ethnography of teachers curriculum and instruction decisions for students with severe disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, pp. 354-366.

Forness & MacMillan. (1989). Mental retardation and the special education system. Psychiatric Annals, 19, 190-195

MacMillan (1988). Issues in mild mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 273-284.

MacMillan, D.L., Gresham, F.M., Bocian, K.M., & Lambros, K.M. (1998). The plight of borderline students: Where to they belong? Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, pp. 83-94.

Macmillan, D.L., Siperstein, G.N., & Gresham, F.M. (1996). A challenge to the viability of mild mental retardation as a diagnostic category. Exeptional Children, 62, pp. 356-371.

Patton, J.R., Polloway, E.A., Smith, T.E.C., Edgar, E., Clark, G.M., & Lee, S. (1996). Individuals with Mild Mental Retardation: Postsecondary outcomes and implications for educational policy. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31, pp. 75-85.

Polloway, E.A., Smith, J.D., Chamberlain, J., Denning, C.B., Smith, T.E.C. (1999). Levels of deficits or supports in the classification of mental retardation: Implementation practices. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, pp. 200-206.

Polloway, E.A., Smith, J.D., Patton, J.R., & Smith, T.E.C. (1996). Historic changes in mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31, pp. 3-12.

Sandieson, R. (1998). A survey on terminology that refers to people with mental retardation/developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, pp. 290-295.

Smith, J.D. (1997). Mental retardation as an educational construct: Time for a new shared view? Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 32, pp. 167-173.

Tomlinson, C.A., Callahan, C.M., Tomchin, E.M. Eiss, N., Imbeau, M., & Landrum, M. (1997). Becoming architechts of communities of learning: Addressing academic diversity in contemporary classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63, 269-282.

Vaughn, S., Moody, S.W., & Schumm, J.S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64, pp. 211-226.

Waldron, N.L. & McLeskey, J. (1998). The effects of an inclusive school program on students with mild and severe learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, pp. 395-406.

Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J.N., Jenkins, L., & Couthino, M. (1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, (March), pp. 531-540

Zigler & Hodapp (1986). Understanding mental retardation. New York: Cambridge University Press.


117

Language Disorders

Bashir, A.S. & Scavuzzo, A. (1992). Children with language disorders: Natural history and academic success. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, (1), 53-65.

Mann & Brady (1990). Reading disability: The role of language differences. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 811-816.

Shinn-Strieker, T., House, G., & Klink, B. (1989). The roles of cognitive processing and language development in emergent literacy. Remedial and Special Educataion. Vol. 10, 5, pp.43-50.

Shinn-Strieker, T. (1984). The use of trained communication assistants in the public schools. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in the Schools. 4, pp.271-280.

Yoder, Kaiser & Alpert (1991). An exploratory study of the interaction between language teaching methods and child characteristics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 155-167.

Wiig, E. (1994). Human Communication and Language Disorders. Merrill: Texas.

Learning & Behavior Problems

Bos, C.S. & Vaughn, S. (1998). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems. (4th ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kirk. (1962). Educating exceptional children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Lyon, Gray, Kavanagh & Krasnegor (1993). Better Understanding Learning Disabilities: New Views from Research & Their Implications for Education and Public Policies. Paul Brookes Publishing.

Wang, Reynolds & Walberg (Eds.) (1988). Handbook of special education: Research and Practice (Vol. 2) Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Specific Learning DisabilitiesAlgozzine & Ysseldyke (1986). The future of the LD field: Screening and diagnosis. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 19, 291-293.

Bryan, Bay & Donohue (1988). Inplications for the learning disabilities definition for the regular education initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 23-28.

Coles (1987). The learning msytique: A critical look at “learning disabilities”. New York: P Pantheon.

Cruickshank (1977). Learning disabilities in home school and community.Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Freeman. (1976). Minimal brain dysfunction, hyperactivity and learning disorders: Epidemic or episode? School Review. 85, 5-30.

Hammill. (1990). On defining learning disabilities: An emerging consensus, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 74-84.

Kavale & Forness (1985). The science of learning disabilities. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.

Kavale, Forness & Bender (Eds.) (1985). Handbook of learning disabilities(Vol.2). San Diego: College-Hill Press.


118

Lyon & Watson, (1981). Empirically derived subgroups of learning disabled readers: Diagnostic characteristics. Journal of Learning Disabilities,14, 256-261.

Mann, Davis, Boyer, Metz, Wolford. (1983). LD or not LD, that was the question. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 14-17.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (1987). Learning disabilities: Issues of definition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 107-108.

Reid, K., Hresko, W., & Swanson, H. (1996). Cognitive approaches to learning disabilities. (3rd ed.) Austin: PRO-ED.

Shepard, Smith & Vojir. (1983). Characteristics of pupils identified as learning disabled. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 309-331.

Stanovich (1986). Mathew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 12, 360-406.

Stanovich (1988). Explaining the differences between dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological core variable difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590-604.

Strauss & Lehtinen (1947). Pyschopathology and education of the brain-injured child. New York: Grune and Stratton

Swanson & Keogh (1989). Learning Disabilities: Theoretical and Research Issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Wong (1992). Learning about learning disabilities. San Diego: Academic Press.

Wong, M. (1993). Adapted Learning Environment Model. San Diego: Academic Press.

Willows (1994). Visual processes in reading and reading disabilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vellutino (1985). Visual processing and reading disabilities. In Rourke, B. Neuropsychology of learning disabilities: Essentials in subtype analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

Secondary and Post-Secondary Outcomes

Zigmond & Baker (1990). Mainstreaming experiences for learning disabled students: A preliminary report. Exceptional Children, 57 (2), 176-185.

Zigmond, Miller (1991). Improving high school programs for students with learning disabilities: A matter of substance as well as form. In Rusch, DeStefano, Chadsey-Rusch, Phelps & Szymanski (Eds.) Transition from school to adult life. Champaign, IL: Sycamore Publishing Co.

Zigmond & Semmel (1994). Educating the nation’s handicapped children: The federal role in special education. In Lloyd (Ed.) Risking American educational competitiveness in a global economy: Federal education and training policies 1980-1990. Arlington, VA: Center for Educational competitiveness.

Zigmond & Thorton (1986). Follow-up of post-secondary age LD graduate and drop-outs. LD Research, 1 (1) 50-55.


119

Sociological Aspects of Disability

Eder. (1981). Ability groupings as a self-fulfilling prophesy: A micro analysis of teacher-student interaction. Sociology of Education, 54,151-162.

Forness (1985). Effects of public policy at the state level: California’s impact on MR, LD & ED categories. Remedial and Special Education. 6 (3), 36-43.

Senf (1986). LD research in sociological and scientific perspectives. In Torgesen & Wong (Eds.) Psychological and educational perspectives in learning disabilities. Orlando: Academic Press

Sigmond (1987). Radical analysis of special education: Focus on historical development and learning disabilities. London: The Falmer Press.

REFEREED JOURNAL: A refereed journal utilizes a panel of reviewers to select articles with appropriate content and research design for inclusion in the journal. A list of examples of refereed journals in the field is included here:

Behavioral DisordersExceptional ChildrenGifted Child QuarterlyHarvard Educational ReviewIntervention in School and ClinicJournal of Learning DisabilitiesJournal for the Education of the GiftedJournal of Early InterventionJournal of Special Education

Learning Disabilities QuarterlyLearning Disabilities Research & PracticeMental RetardationPsychology in the SchoolsRemedial and Special EducationTeacher Education Special EducationTopics in Early Childhood Special EducationYoung Exceptional ChildrenJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis

GLOSSARY OF TERMS: Each student is encouraged to keep an on-going glossaryof terms throughout the semester. The development of a glossary should help to facilitate greater understanding of information presented in class and in the assigned readings. This is not a required assignment, but may be a portfolio item.


120

EXC 7720

I. EXC 7720 Behavior Strategies Department of Special Education Kennesaw State University Winter, 2004

II. INSTRUCTORS: Michael Powell, Ph.D.Office: 2334 Kennesaw HallOffice Phone: 770-420-4336

Cell Phone: 404-660-0828FAX: 770-423-6263 E-mail: [email protected]

Gail Fredericks, M.Ed.Office: 2334 Kennesaw HallPhone: 770-649-9554FAX: 770-423-6263E-mail: [email protected]

III. Class Sessions: Wednesdays, 5:00-8:00, KH 1107

IV. Texts (required): Alberto, P.A., & Troutman, A.C. (2003). Applied Behavior Analysis for Teachers, Sixth Edition.

Additional readings as assigned by instructors.

V. Catalog Description: The purpose of this course is to promote the development of the teacher’s own philosophy of classroom management. The course provides a range of theoretical perspectives on classroom management from which the teacher’s philosophy is developed. The application of learning and behavioral theories and procedures for planning and evaluating behavioral change strategies are included.


121



VI. Purpose/Rationale: The purpose of this course is to train candidates in effective strategies for decreasing inappropriate behaviors and increasing appropriate behaviors. The primary focus of this course is for the candidate to develop a comprehensive understanding of the learning and behavior principles that underlie effective classroom management and implement them in his or her classroom. This includes: (1) the principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA); (2) understanding the links between curriculum/instruction and behavior problems; (3) the development of a problem solving mentality toward behavior problems; (4) the ability to plan, implement, and evaluate behavior change strategies based on student outcomes; and (5) a coherent theoretical understanding of behavior and behavior interventions based on the research literature. The course also provides an opportunity for candidates to pursue a range of theoretical perspectives on classroom management and to integrate them with applied behavior analysis theory into an overall philosophy of behavior management. The competencies in this course are derived from the requirements of the Professional Standards Commission (licensure body for Georgia), the Council for Exceptional Children standards, and PTEU candidate outcomes based on the conceptual framework. The Praxis II also includes these competencies.

Conceptual Framework Summary

COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERTISE IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

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

Knowledge Base Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to preparing


122

effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum phases, teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development. The knowledge base for methods of teaching students with disabilities continues to develop rapidly. The historical framework included perceptual training, behavior modification and task analysis. Current directions include multiple intelligence models, systematic instruction, strategy approaches to teaching and learning, and direct instruction. The field draws on research literature from educational psychology, medicine, psychology and special education. The emphasis in this class will be on developing skills in application of research-based best practice in the area of behavior management, documenting impact on student learning, and reflective practice.

Leadership and School-based Activities While completing your graduate program at Kennesaw State University, you are required to be involved in a variety of leadership and school-based activities directed at the improvement of teaching and learning. Appropriate activities may include, but are not limited to, attending and presenting at professional conferences, actively serving on or chairing school-based committees, attending PTA/school board meetings, leading or presenting professional development activities at the school or district level, and participating in education-related community events. As you continue your educational experiences, you are encouraged to explore every opportunity to learn by doing.

USE OF TECHNOLOGY: Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media, especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and develop an electronic learning portfolio. Candidates in this course will be expected to apply the use of educational technology in their classrooms. Specifically, candidates will use spreadsheet software to develop graphs and tables to record and track student performance, word processing to write papers, web based data bases to conduct Action Research, and e-mail to communicate with instructors and peers. Candidates will have access to the ERIC CD-ROM database, TRAC and the Educational Technology Center. Library research required in this course is supported by the Galileo system. The password for this semester is “coda”.

Web Web-cites: www.cec.sped.orgwww.nichcy.orgwww.chadd.orgwww.ldanatl.orgwww.autism-society.orgwww.thearc.org

Web Web-cites: www.doe.k12.ga.us

www.biausa.orgwww.jdfcure.orgwww.efa.orgwww.nagc.orgwww.aamr.org

www.dhr.state.ga.us


123

http://www.dhr.state.ga.us/



http://www.efa.org/










Diversity StatementA variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and assessment within multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate awareness of critical multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific methods and materials for every student. Among these attributes are age, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. An emphasis on cognitive style differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural context. Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to support students with disabilities within their academic program. In order to make arrangements for special services, students must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and develop an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.

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

Confidentiality:The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) regulates access to, and disclosure of student information. FERPA serves to assure record access by covered students and their guardians and to prevent disclosure from those records of personally identifying information to unprivileged parties without the written consent of affected students and their guardians. Disclosure of confidential information is NOT to occur. To protect the confidentiality of student information, no identifying information is included when KSU candidates present written or oral reports. Kennesaw State University candidates video-taping for KSU class requirements must obtain informed permission from parents to videotape. School district permission forms should be used and all returned forms kept on file with the school where videotaping takes place. KSU candidates should include a statement that permission forms were completed and a sample permission form with any videotape material submitted to KSU.

VII. Goals and Objectives

The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of teacher preparation as a developmental and collaborative process. Research for the past 25 years has described this process in increasingly complex terms. Universities and schools must work together to successfully prepare teachers who are capable of developing successful learners in today’s schools and who choose to continue their professional development. Candidates in this course are expected to perform at the Advanced or Teacher Leader level of performance.


124

As a result of Knowledge, the candidate will be able to:1. Demonstrate an understanding of the causes for inappropriate behavior, the

theoretical perspectives that underlie those causes, and appropriate intervention programs to decrease inappropriate behavior while increasing appropriate behaviors. (CEC Cross Reference: FK2, FK3, FS2, CK2, CK4).

2. Discuss theoretical/philosophical differences in managing classroom behavior and be able to articulate a coherent theoretical perspective that underlies classroom management for different aged learners. (CEC Cross Reference: IS15, BS7, BS8)

As a result of Skills, candidates will be able to:3. Articulate the influence of antecedents and consequences on the decrease of

inappropriate behaviors and the increase or maintenance of appropriate behaviors for individuals and groups. (CEC Cross Reference: BK2, BK3, BS3)

4. Articulate the factors in planning and implementing behavior change for students with a range of learning, behavior, physical and sensory disabilities. (CEC Cross Reference = PK2, PK3, PK4, PS5, PS6, PS7, BK1, BK3, BK4, CCK3, CCK4, CCK5).

5. Demonstrate the ability to select target behaviors and design a systematic functional behavior assessment and intervention plan that includes a focus on increasing appropriate behaviors which serve the same “function” as the inappropriate behavior; demonstrate the ability to track student behavior and develop appropriate data sheets and graphs to document behavior change. (CEC Cross Reference: CK2, AS1, AS3, PS2, PS6, PS7, BK2, BK3, BK4, BS1, BS2, BS3, BS6, CCK2, CCK4, CCK5, CCS1, CCS2).

6. Demonstrate the application of problem solving, conflict resolution, and social skills instruction as part of a proactive management system. This includes the demonstration of a problem solving mentality on the part of the candidate. (CEC Cross Reference: CK2, IK6, IS6, IS9, PS1, PS5, BS4, BS5, BS6, BS7, BS8).

7. Demonstrate the ability to plan a learning environment for individuals and groups in the classroom and school using proactive strategies to minimize inappropriate behaviors and to identify appropriate reactive strategies for managing disruptions using the principles of positive behavior support and least intervention.( Cross Reference: IK6, IK9, IS2, IS4, IS13, PK4, PS1, PS2, PS7, BS6, BS7, BS8).

As a result of professional Dispositions candidates will be able to:8. Articulate strategies for including peers, parents, other teachers, related service

providers, paraprofessionals, community resources, and etc. in functional analysis, planning, and implementing behavior change strategies. (CEC Cross Reference: PK3, PK4, PS7, PS6, PS4, CCK1, CCK2, CCK3, CCS1, EK2).

9. Articulate a theoretical/philosophical, research-based understanding of classroom management for students with a range of learning, physical, sensory, and behavior disabilities. (CEC Cross Reference: FS1, FS3, IK9, IS1, BK1, BK2).

10. Articulate the ethical issues in implementation of behavior change strategies for individuals and groups. (CEC Cross Reference: BS1, CCK3, EK2, EK4, ES1, ES2).


125

VIII. Course Requirements/AssignmentsA.) Assurance for Research on Human Subjects: This Assurance, as of August 1, 2003, is now required by Federal policy and formalizes the institution’s commitment to protect human subjects. All individuals (faculty, staff, and students) engaged in research on human subjects must complete a web-based training course. As the instructor for this course, I have submitted a proposal to KSU’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval. This web-based training will take approximately two hours to complete and can be found at: http://cme.cancer.gov . When registering for the course, indicate that the course is being taken for “Completion Certificate only, no continuing education credits.” Upon completion, print a copy of the Completion Certificate to submitted for the twenty-five points.

B.) Application Paper Components (Assignments): The candidate will complete 5 assignments which address the major components of the Application Paper, which is an action research project. In this way, the candidate builds the structure of the paper throughout the course.. Each candidate will select a student in his or her classroom who is demonstrating an inappropriate behavior(s). This student and his or her behavior will be the target student for the application paper components and the application paper. The specifics of the components of the application paper for each teacher will vary, given the type of students each teacher is working with, the settings in which they teach, the presenting behavior problem, and the location in the school where the behavior(s) occur. Each candidate will develop his or her own plan. However, candidates will be able to develop these plans through group work during class. The teacher will complete the five components (25 points per component) on the targeted student during the first 12 weeks of the class and will include: (a) functional assessment, (b) classroom ecology plan, (c) data collection, (d) intervention program to decrease inappropriate behavior and increase an appropriate behavior that serves the same function, and (e) maintenance and generalization plan to include self-monitoring strategies. These components will be turned in on an ongoing basis to the instructor as noted in the syllabus. These components will be graded based on rubrics and returned on an ongoing basis by the instructor.

C.)Application Paper: The application paper will be written as an Action Research paper in APA format. The application paper will be graded based on a rubric by the instructor (75 points). This paper will include six sections: (1) Abstract(2) Introduction

(3) Methods (4) Results (Graphs & Tables) (5) Discussion

(6.) References

Further description of final application paper elements will be included in a separate handout.


126

http://cme.cancer.gov/

D.) Applied Research Presentation: You will give a power-point presentation on your applied research project. All six sections are to be addressed clearly and concisely. The presentation should not last longer than 10 minutes. Your data will be graphed and displayed using Excel. This activity will be worth 25 points.

E.) Midterm Exam:There will be an applied midterm exam (take home) which is worth 25 points

F.) Final Exam: The final has two components. The first is a written exam worth 50 points to be taken in class. This exam will be a short answer, recall of pertinent information. Candidates will be given a term related to applied behavior analysis and positive behavior support. These terms will come directly from the text by Alberto and Troutman, class handouts and discussion. Candidates are advised to read the text and handouts carefully and actively participate in all discussions. This thorough preparation will assist you greatly when taking the PRAXIS II exam. The second component is a case study, also worth 50 points and graded based on a rubric. Candidates will select one of three case studies (based on student age to include elementary, middle, and high) and answer questions related to the case study. This component is a take home exam and is due the day of the final. Candidates will complete a number of similar type case studies as group activities during the course.

G.) Class Participation: In most classes, candidates will work in groups to complete specific activities. These include case studies, reflections on readings, and specific problem solving around problem behaviors in individual candidate classrooms. The instructor anticipates that candidates will attend class regularly (see policy on tardiness and absenteeism) and be respectful of the instructors and peers (75 points).

Program Requirements For This Course

Working Portfolio ComponentsProfessional Portfolio Narrative:

A required element in each portfolio for the Graduate Program is the portfolio narrative. The purpose of the portfolio narrative is to ensure that every candidate reflects on each of the proficiencies on the CPI with regard to what evidence the candidate has selected for his/her portfolio. In your portfolio, you need to include a narrative which includes descriptive, analytic and reflective writing in which you reflect on each proficiency and how you make the case that the evidence you have selected in your portfolio supports a particular proficiency, using the Portfolio Narrative Rubric as a guide. The narrative should be comprehensive, documenting research-based best practices.

Impact on Student Learning AnalysisIt is our assumption that you are already assessing the influence of your instruction on your students’ learning and that you are considering what factors, such as student diversity, might affect your students’ achievement. For this assignment, you will select a lesson, activity, unit, or skill that you plan to teach this semester and analyze its impact on your students’ learning. Then, you will reflect on the impact on your students’ learning on that particular lesson, activity, unit, or skill using the “Impact on Student Learning Analysis” Rubric as a guide. You will want to consider


127

how the differences that every student brings to the classroom setting may have influenced learning (see definition of “every student” at the top of attached “Impact on Student Learning” rubric). Unless your program area tells you differently, the length of the reflection is up to you, but it should be concise. (See Directions for “Impact on Student Learning Analysis” that accompanies the Rubric for greater detail.)

Extensions and Impact on Student Learning:Candidates should keep ongoing documentation of ways in which they extended their learning and skills from this and other courses they took. For this course, this could include additional behavior support plans developed, consultations with other teachers about behavior problems, committees served on, parent consultations and home intervention plans developed, and building level changes you assisted in implementing. Candidates should keep documentation of changes in student behavior that results from these interventions (impact on student learning).

Field Experience Observation:All candidates will be observed by an adjunct faculty member in the Department of SpecialEducation. They will observe following a protocol that will be shared with candidates priorto the observation. The observation for this course will focus on intervention strategies to decrease inappropriate behavior and increase appropriate behavior and general classroom organization and management.

IX. Evaluation and Grading

Class Requirements, Assignments, and GradingClass Activities Points Course

ObjectivesPTEU Objectives

Field Experience Observation

Required 4

Assurance for Research on Human Subjects

25 (Required)

Mid Term Exam 25 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 2Functional Analysis 25 1,3,4,5,8 2,3Classroom Ecology 25 1,3,4,7 1,2,3Data Collection Plan 25 5 3Intervention Plan to increase appropriate behavior and decrease inappropriate behavior

25 1,3,4,6,8 1,2,3

Maintenance, Generalization, and Self-Monitoring Strategies

25 1,6 1,2,3

Application Paper (Positive Behavior Support Plan as an Action Research Paper)

75 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 1,2,3,4

Application Paper Presentation 25 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 1,2,3,4Case Study Final 50 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 2Final Exam 50 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 2Class Participation (Includes in class group projects)

75 9,10 4,5

Total 450Grades will be assigned as follows:405-450 points (Level 4) A360-404 points (Level 3) B315-359 points (Level 2) C <314 points (Level 1) F


128

X. Academic Integrity

Every KSU candidate is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the University’s policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/ falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an “informal” resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct’s minimum one semester suspension requirement.

The student is reminded to consult the KSU Graduate Catalog for the University’s policy. Any strategy, which has the appearance of improving grades without increasing knowledge, will be dealt with in accordance with the University’s policy on academic honesty. In addition, students in the graduate program in special education are held accountable by the Georgia Professional Code of Ethics for Educators (http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html) and the Council for Exceptional Children’s (CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with Exceptionalities (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).

XI. Class Attendance Policy

Candidate Expectations for Attendance, Participation and ProfessionalismCooperative learning group activities in class will enable candidates to apply new skills and knowledge. This requirement emphasizes the importance of class attendance and supports the belief from the conceptual framework that learning is an interactive endeavor requiring the presence and participation of all class members in order to facilitate growth and learning. Each candidate has something unique to contribute to the class experience that will facilitate the learning of other class members. For full credit, candidates must: a.) Participate fully in collaborative group work and focus groups; b.) Listen attentively to presentations; and c.) Refrain from working on personal computers (or otherwise) on other assignments during class presentations.Candidates, like the instructor, are expected to come to class meetings thoroughly prepared. “Thoroughly prepared” is defined as having read the readings well enough to verbally and in writing state the definitions of terms from the readings; discuss ideas, notions, concepts, issues, and procedures in relation to previous information presented in class or in previous readings; and apply the information from the readings to problems. It also implies the student has reviewed information from the previous class meetings. When information from the readings is unclear, the student should prepare questions to discuss in class. Regular attendance is required for all scheduled classes in that the student is responsible for obtaining all materials, instruction, etc. presented during class. Attendance at all class meetings is stressed because of the interactive nature of the class. Not all material covered will be found in the required readings. You are required to inform the instructor in advance of your absence. Failure to do so will result in your not being allowed to make-up any missed class work (i.e., class activities). Attendance will be monitored and reflected in the class participation/attendance points (see KSU Graduate Catalog).All assignments must be submitted on or before the class meeting on the assigned due date. Failure to turn in assignments when due will result in an automatic 10 percent penalty from


129

http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1)

http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html

the points you earn on any given assignment. All grading will be done as objectively as possible. While rubrics for class presentation and facilitation will be provided. In case of qualitative assessment, evaluation will be based on instructor judgment. The assignment of incomplete (“I”) grades is discouraged and will be assigned only in cases of extreme emergencies and in cases where a passing grade may be earned. It is the student’s responsibility to notify the instructor when such circumstances exist. Upon notification, a contract between the student and instructor for completion of the course will be developed before the last week of the semester. (See attached Candidate Participation and Professionalism Rubric.)

Disruptive Behavior: The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning of others, behavior that fits the University’s definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (See Campus Policies and Procedures in the KSU Graduate Catalog).Human Dignity: The University has formulated a policy on human rights that is intended to provide a learning environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found in the KSU Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but the policy is there for your consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that policy.

Candidate Participation and Professionalism Rubric (Each standard target under L4= 5pts.)Candidate Name: Name of Reviewer: Date: Pts. /50

Standards L1 - L2 L3 L4 CommentsCandidate’s oral and written expression is well organized, professional, and free of mechanical errors.

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

Quality and consistency of candidate’s oral expression (e.g., speaking up in class) is unacceptable

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

Quality and consistency of candidate’s oral expression (e.g., speaking up in class) is acceptable

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

2. The quality and consistency of candidate’s oral expression (e.g., speaking up in class) is exemplary

Candidate is highly professional in his/her approach to graduate work.

Candidate is habitually late for class. Candidate does not attend to class discussion oractivities. Candidate is not respectful of the ideas of others.

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

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

Candidate seldom submits assignments on time.


Candidate is usually respectful of colleagues and peers. Candidate usually listens and appropriately responds to feedback and dialogue.

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

Candidate occasionally misses deadlines for

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

4. Candidate is consistently respectful of colleagues and peers. 5. Candidate consistently listens and appropriately responds to feedback and dialogue.

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

7. Candidate consistently submits assignments on time.


130

assignments.Candidate is professional in terms of his/her manner of communication, collaboration & teamwork.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Candidate consistently leads and successfully collaborates with peers to complete team-based assignments.(Point totals here will be based on “Peer Evaluation Forms”)

XI. Course Outline (The syllabus schedule reflects a proposed general sequence of topics. Any topic may be covered in greater or lesser detail depending on the needs of the class. Topics may overlap in dates. Additional topics may be added as requested by the candidates. However, any changes in due dates or written products that are part of a “grade” will be changed only after class discussion and written notification by the professor. Candidates will be expected to initial that they have read the written notification by the instructor.) [A = Alberto and Troutman; K = Kohn]Date Topic Readings In-Class

ActivityAssignment Due

1/7/04 Introductions & Syllabus Review

A: 1&2

1/14/04 Roots of Applied Behavior Analysis

A: 6 & Handouts Discussion

1/21/04 Basic Concepts of ABA Discussion Assurance of Human Subjects

1/28/04 Functional Assessments A: 7

2/4/04 Classroom Ecology A: 3 & Handout Functional Analysis Group Process(Pass Out Midterm)

2/11/04 Data Collection ProceduresGraphing Data & Single-Subject Research Designs (Class will be held in KH Lab 2105)

A: 4&5Handout

DiscussionData Collection and Display (Applied Practice)

Functional Assessment

2/18/04 Consequences that Increase Behavior/Schedules of Reinforcement

A: 8 Discussion Classroom Ecology


131

2/25/04 Consequences that Decrease Behavior

A: 9 Discussion Data Plan

3/3/04*Spring Bk. Next Week

Differiential Reinforcement: Stimulus Control and Shaping

A: 10 Discussion Midterm Due

3/17/04 Maintenance & Generalization A: 11 Discussion Intervention Plan

3/24/04 Self-Management Strategies A;123/31/04 Teaching Social Skills Case Study Group Case Study4/7/04 Note: Class meeting on Nov.

13th will attend the Technology Fair

Maintenance, Generalization, and Self-Management Plan; Group Case Study

4/14/04 Applied Research Presentations

Case Study Group Case Study

4/21/04 Applied Research Presentations & Group Case Study

Case Study Group Case Study

4/28/04 Applied Research Presentations & Group Case Study

Final Exam Study Group

Application Paper; Group Case Study

5/5/045:00 to7:00

Final Final Case Study & Final

The course schedule provides a general plan for the course-deviations may be necessary.

XII. References/Bibliography

Setting Events Dadson, S., & Horner, R. H. (1993) Manipulating setting events to decrease problem behaviors: A case study. Teaching Exceptional Children.Gardner, W.I., Cole, C. L., Davidson, D. P., Karan, O. C. (1986). Reducing aggression in individuals with developmental disabilities: An expanded stimulus control, assessment, and intervention model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 21, 3-12.Kennedy, C., & Itkonen, T. (1993). Effects of setting events on the problem behavior of students with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 321-327.Mace, R. C., & Roberts, M. L. (1992). Factors affecting selection of behavioral interventions. In J. Reichle and D.P. Wacker (Eds.), Communicative alternatives to challenging behaviors: Integrating functional assessment and intervention strategies.Functional Behavior AnalysisO’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., & Newton, J. S. (1997). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior (2 nd Ed.). Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Conroy, M., Fox, J., Crain, L., Jenkins, A., & Belcher, K. (1996). Evaluating the social and ecological validity of analog assessment procedures for challenging behaviors in young children. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 233-256.


132

Donnellan, A., Mirenda, P., Mesaros, R., & Fassbender, L. (1984). Analyzing the communicative functions of aberrant behavior. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 201-212.Evans, I., & Meyer, L. (1985). An educative approach to problem behaviors: A practical decision model for interventions with severely handicapped learners. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Repp, A., & Karsh, K. (1994). Hypothesis-based interventions for tantrum behaviors in persons with developmental disabilities in school settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 21-31.Sasso, G., Reimers, T., Cooper, L., Wacker, D., Berg, W., Steege, M., Kelly, L., & Allaire, A. (1992). Use of descriptive and experimental analyses to identify the functional properties of aberrant behavior in school settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 809-821.Reed, H., Thomas, E., Sprague, J., & Horner, R. (1997). The student guided functional assessment interview: An analysis of student and teacher agreement. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 33-45.


133

EXC 7730

EXC 7730 Cross Categorical Assessment Of ExceptionalityDepartment of Special EducationKennesaw State UniversitySpring, 2002

Instructor: Name: Michaela D’Aquanni, Ph. D. Office: KH 2335Office Phone: 770-423-4336 or 770-423-6577Fax: 770-423-6263e-mail: [email protected] Home Phone: 770-614-0961

Class Sessions: Day: Monday, 4:00-7:00 p.m. Location: Dunwoody High School, 5035 Vermack Road, Dunwoody,

GA, 30338

Required Text: Taylor, R. L. (2000). Assessment of Exceptional Students (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon,

Catalog Description: This course covers standardization, issues, and vocabulary in assessment. Students develop competencies in administration and interpretation of norm-referenced tests and development, administration and interpretation of criterion-referenced, curriculum-based, observation, checklist/rating scale, authentic and informal assessments. Special emphasis is placed on screening, eligibility, instructional decision-making and documentation applications in special education.

Purpose/Rationale: This course will establish foundational knowledge concerning terminology and conditions inherent to the assessment process, with an emphasis on the use of both quantitative and qualitative data. The purpose of the course is to prepare prospective K-12 special education teachers to become effective facilitators in the teaching/learning process for preschool, elementary, middle school and/or secondary populations. The competencies in this course are derived from the requirements of the Professional Standards Commission (PSC: licensure body for Georgia) for teachers of students with disabilities and the national standards of the Council for Exceptional Children. In addition, and as part of their professional responsibilities, teachers of students with disabilities need to know the legislative and litigative implications of the demands of their practice in the identification of students with mild disabilities.


134


Conceptual Framework Summary: Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning The Kennesaw State University teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers who demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU teacher education community strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring guidance from professionals inside and outside the university. In tandem with this belief is the understanding that teacher expertise develops along a continuum which includes the stages of pre-service, induction, in-service, and renewal; further, as candidates develop a strong research-based knowledge of content and pedagogy, they develop their professional expertise in recognizing, facilitating, assessing, and evaluating student learning.

Knowledge Base: Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: pre-service, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.

The knowledge base for curriculum development for students with disabilities is an emerging issue. The historical framework included remediation of deficit skills, teaching IEP objectives or functional curriculum. Current directions include merging regular education curriculum and special educational needs. The field draws on research literature from educational psychology, psychology and special education. The emphasis in this class will be on critically reviewing research studies of curriculum development models, current issues in curriculum development for students with disabilities, and the application of these models in P-12 classrooms. The application includes curriculum-based assessment.

Use of Technology: (Required by the Professional Standards Commission) Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media, especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and develop an electronic learning portfolio.

Students in this course will be expected to understand the use of educational technology in support of the assessment of students with disabilities. Technology emphasis will include word processing, computer databases (library access programs, Galileo, internet and email), technological presentations (PowerPoint) and computer-assisted programs for assessment.


135

Websites:www.doe.k12.ga.uswww.cec.sped.orghttp://www.asri.edu/CFSP/brochure/acountib.htmhttp://www.ode.state.or.us/sped/fedpapers/assessment.htmhttp://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/special_education/thurlow_assessment.htmlhttp://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed381987.htmlhttp://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed391984.htmlhttp://www.coled.umn.edu/nceo/onlinepubs/synthesis25.html

Diversity Statement: A variety of material and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Students will gain knowledge, skills, and understanding to provide effective instruction in multicultural classrooms. Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to help disabled students with their academic work. In order to make arrangements for special services, students must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and arrange an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.

The effect of socio-economic, ethnic, gender and cultural differences on the effectiveness of methods for students with disabilities will be considered. The emphasis on cognitive style differences in the special education field provides a background for the consideration of cultural context

Goals And Objectives: The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of teacher preparation as a developmental and collaborative process. Research for the past 25 years has described this process in increasingly complex terms. Universities and schools must work together to successfully prepare teachers who are capable of developing successful learners in today’s schools and who choose to continue their professional development. Students in this course are expected to perform at the Advanced or Teacher Leader level of performance.

As a result of Knowledge, the candidate will be able to:1. demonstrate an understanding of the changes in assessment practices as mandated by

IDEA 1997. 2. define, using current educational terminology, categories of disability used in the

State of Georgia, as well as the procedures and criteria for classification and placement.

3. compare and contrast local, state and national incidence and prevalence data and discuss the findings in terms of controversies of labeling, over-representation of linguistically and culturally diverse students, and exclusion from general education curriculum.

4. explain the impact of, and interactions between, learning and various developmental delays and/or difficulties (e.g.., cognitive, perceptual, behavioral, socio-emotional, speech and/or language, motor, sensory).

5. demonstrate an understanding of and appropriately use terminology used in the assessment of students with disabilities.


136

http://www.coled.umn.edu/nceo/onlinepubs/synthesis25.html

http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed391984.html

http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed381987.html

http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/special_education/thurlow_assessment.html

http://www.ode.state.or.us/sped/fedpapers/assessment.htm

http://www.asri.edu/CFSP/brochure/acountib.htm



6. demonstrate an understanding of and describe legal provisions, regulations and guidelines regarding unbiased assessment, and use of psychometric instruments and instructional assessment measures with individuals with disabilities.

7. compare and contrast the SST process used in the State of Georgia to the polices and practices related to screening, referral and placement of students with disabilities.

8. identify various strategies for test-taking and test accommodations, adaptations and modifications, taking into consideration statewide and classroom assessments.

As a result of Skills, the candidate will be able to: 9. master the basic educational statistics underpinning standardized testing. 10. determine the efficacy of standardized tests commonly used in the identification and

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

11. develop an assessment plan to include assessment procedures which are appropriate, unbiased and have a high probability of success measuring the strengths and needs of individual students. As appropriate, develop and implement an assistive technology plan for individuals being assessed whose response mode is atypical.

12. assess a student with a disability and then analyze and report the results in at least two of the following areas, using only assessment instruments for which they hold the appropriate credentials:

a. General achievementb. Attention & memoryc. Level of cognitive functioningd. Motore. Sensory-acuityf. Adaptive behaviorg. Speech and languageh. Cognitive processing

13. implement procedures for assessing and reporting both appropriate and problematic social behaviors of individuals with disabilities.

14. conduct curriculum-based, performance and/or product assessments, analyze and report results in at least two of the following areas:

a. General achievementb. Attention & memoryc. Level of cognitive functioningd. Motore. Sensory-acuityf. Adaptive behaviorg. Speech and languageh. Cognitive processing

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

16. synthesize information collected from standardized and non-standardized procedures, interpret and report results in terms of the special education categories of disability as


137

stated in IDEA 1997 and Georgia state rules (e.g., learning disabled, behavior disordered, intellectually disabled, other health impaired).

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

As a result of Disposition, the student will be able to: 18. demonstrate understanding of the rights to privacy, confidentiality, and respect for

differences among all persons interacting with individuals with disabilities. 19. maintain confidentiality of all records and individuals (medical, academic,

psychological, etc.). 20. demonstrate a respect for individuals with disabilities by using person-first language.21. articulate a teacher's ethical responsibility to individuals who function similarly to

individuals with disabilities but have not been identified as having disability.

PTEU (Professional Teachers Education Unit) Objectives:a. Are committed to students and their learning.b. Know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.c. Are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.d. Think systematically about their practice and learn from experience. e. Are members of learning communities.

VI. COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:

1. On-Going Development Action Plan: Each of us is at a different point in our own development as a teacher and a learner. We are unique in that we have different experiences, skills, and ways of thinking that support our life long growth as a teacher and learner. Beginning of class:

a. Outline your strengths and areas of need related to the content of this course. End of the course:

a. reflect upon the growth you have made regarding your strengths and areas of need;

b. develop a Personal Action Plan to include a list of goals you are setting for yourself, related to the material from class, and an action plan for achieving those goals; and

c. reflect upon how you will continue to use the content from this course to perpetuate your growth as a teacher and learner. This entire activity should be completed as part your on-going reflective log.

2. Reflective Professional Log: The log must contain reflections on your professional readings, conferences/in-service sessions attended, and site visits conducted over the course of the semester. Each entry must be dated and titled – followed by your personal response to the material or experience. To obtain full credit for this activity, you must:

a. Read a minimum of four (4) articles from professional journals regarding assessment of students with disabilities and/or any other topics related to our class discussions and text. In addition, you are required to write a one-page reflection containing your reactions to the reading. (i.e., MAPS, difference between ESL


138

and a language disability, use of assistive technology in the assessment process, cultural variables that affect assessment results, parental involvement in the assessment process)

b. Attend one in service, conference or professional meeting OR watch a training video that addresses topics related to course content and/or discussions and write a one page reflection on the experience.

c. Observe an assessment conducted by a qualified/experienced colleague OR attend an eligibility meeting and write a one-page reflection.

3. Table of District Assessment Tools: Fill out the sheet provided indicating the assessment tools used within your district to assess students with disabilities, as well as students who may be on the gifted end of the spectrum. This may be completed as a school cadre or individually.

4. Presentation of an Assessment Tool: Each student is responsible for working within a small group to become proficient at administering an assessment tool and understanding the accommodations and modifications allowed - then assisting other classmates in becoming familiar with the tool and its purpose. This facilitation should last no longer than 20 - 30 minutes and include a handout of the critical material for the assessment tool. The assessment tool must be cleared through me before being chosen and the group must present in class before April 15th. Please see me to sign up.

5. Case Study Analysis: Students will conduct two analyses of data collected on students with disabilities. The instructor will provide case studies. These will be completed in-class as either a group activity or as an independent project. (25 points each)

6. Quiz: Application of information regarding calculation of mean, median, mode, standard deviation, CA, etc. (25 points)

7. Case Study: Each student is to complete one case study on a target student. This project will be graded according to the rubric provided in class. Your case study must include the following (200 points total):

a. Target student identified/descriptive data reported : (Demographic Information & Reason for Referral) Write a one to two page brief description of the student that will be targeted for completion of assignments in this class. The question that needs to be answered is: What is the nature of the school performance problem of this student? (25 points)

b. Record Review : Conduct a record review on your target student. Summarize the following information (50 points):

Background information Student history:

Family/developmental/medical, psychological Level of cognitive functioning/ cognitive processing Academic performance Language issues


139

Social/emotional issues Teacher observational data, concerns, and priorities (addressed briefly in first

paper) Parent observational data, concerns, and priorities (addressed briefly in first

paper) List of all previous assessment instruments and/or procedures with results Recommendations from most recent IEP team

c. Evaluation Plan : Development of an individualized assessment plan for target student. (50 points)

d. Testing & Interpretation : Observation of Student Behavior During Testing Interpretation of All Test Results (Past & Current)

Cognitive functioning and processing Academic performance Social/emotional/behavioral status Language processing

On your own, you are required to administer: One behavioral assessment One diagnostic or standardized test in two academic areas (may be

subtests only) Two authentic measures

Summary e. Recommendations for Program Planning : (25 points)

Summary Statement Statement and justification for eligibility for IDEA - Classification (Suspected

or previously established) Teacher Recommendations Description of Parent Priorities for Student Student Recommendations/Choices Other Recommendations for appropriate Educational Intervention

NOTE: In order to obtain full credit on your case study, data collection and resulting recommendations must reflect collaboration with parents and professional partners.

8. Class Participation: Class participation is part of the overall grade and is worth 50 points. During class you will be asked to participate in numerous group activities that will enable you to use the skills and knowledge emphasized in class. These activities support our belief that learning is an interactive endeavor requiring your presence and active participation. To receive the full 50 points, your colleagues within the group activities must determine that you “pulled your weight.”


140

EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT. Each student will be evaluated according to the point system provided below.

Any assignment turned in early will earn 15% extra credit. Any report containing confidential information will not be graded.

Class Requirements and Assignments Assignment Possible Points Course Objectives PTEU

ObjectivesOn-Going Development Action Plan 25 18, 20, 21, a, d

P. Reflective Professional Log 50 3, 6, 7, 10, 20, 21 a, dTable of District Assessment Tools 25 1, 7, 10, a, c, d, ePresentation of a Test 50 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, b, dIn-class case study analyses (25 points each) 50 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10,

13, 15, 16, 17,b, c, d, e

Quiz 25 2, 9, a, dCase Study (200): Identify Target Student 25 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,

a, b, c, d, e

Record Review 50 “ “ Evaluation Plan 50 “ “ Testing & Interpretation 50 “ “ Recommendations 25 “ “Class Participation 50 d, e

Total Points Possible 475Grading Scale: A = 90% or better (428 - 475 points)B = 80-89% (380 - 427 points)C = 70-79% (333 - 379 points)D = 60-69% (285 - 332 points)F = 59% or below (284 or fewer points)

GENERAL GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS1. All individual assignments must be typed, single spaced, with 1” margins on both sides so I can provide

you with feedback. This includes reflections.2. Be sure to maintain confidentiality of student, settings, and teachers. All identifying names and

information should be omitted from your written work and discussions.3. Late assignments are unacceptable without making prior arrangements with me. 4. I will be looking for quality writing not quantity. Eliminate jargon and hyperbole and focus on clearly

stating your point. 5. Examine the language you use within your assignments. Please remember to remove the focus on a

person’s behavior or disability by stating the person first, i.e., “a person with a disability” is preferable to “a disabled person.”


a. Academic IntegrityEvery KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the


141

Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.

Pages 142-143 of the KSU Graduate catalog (2001-2002) states: KSU expects that graduate students will pursue their academic programs in an ethical, professional manner. Any work that students present in fulfillment of program or course requirements should represent their own efforts, achieved without giving or receiving any unauthorized assistance. Any student who is found to have violated these expectations will be subject to disciplinary action. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.

The student is reminded to consult pp.142-143 of the 2001-2002 KSU Graduate Catalog for the University's policy. Any strategy, which has the appearance of improving grades without increasing knowledge, will be dealt with in accordance with the University's policy on academic honesty. In addition, students in the graduate program in special education are held accountable by the Georgia Professional Code of Ethics for Educators (http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html) and the Council for Exceptional Children's (CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with Exceptionalities (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).

Disruptive Behavior: The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning of others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (See Campus Policies and Procedures pp.146-147 of the 2001- 2002 KSU Graduate Catalog).

Human Dignity: The University has formulated a policy on human rights that is intended to provide a learning environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found on p.152 in the 2001-2002 KSU Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no professional should need reminding, but the policy is there for your consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that policy – expecting that students will adhere to the highest professional standards in the ways they conduct themselves.

CLASS ATTENDANCE POLICY & PARTICIPATION: EVALUATION WILL INCLUDE ATTENDANCE, COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION SKILLS DEMONSTRATED DURING CLASS.

Regular attendance is required for all scheduled classes in that the student is responsible for obtaining all materials, instruction, etc. presented during class. Attendance at all class meetings is stressed because information provided in class will be assessed on exams and class projects. Not all material covered will be found in the required readings. You are required to inform the instructor in advance of your absence. Each


142

absence will result in a five point reduction on your grade and more than three absences will lead to a letter grade drop.

Students are expected to attend all class sessions and be active participants and in the learning process. Active Participation requires that candidates come to class prepared and participate in class discussions and activities by sharing his/her ideas within both large and small groups, as well as respectfully listening to the ideas of others. This class includes presentations by professionals from other disciplines and class attendance is essential for participation in development of a multi-disciplinary perspective. Class activities will include discussion, role-playing and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all students. Students have many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's learning.

It is also expected that you will read the syllabus to determine what assignments are due and when. Questions will be answered in class regarding assignments, but it is the candidate’s responsibility to be sure (s) he has the information necessary to complete required assignments.

The assignment of incomplete (“I”) grades is discouraged and will be assigned only in cases of extreme emergencies and in cases where a passing grade may be earned. It is the student’s responsibility to notify the instructor when such circumstances exist. Upon notification, a contract between the student and instructor for completion of the course will be developed before the last week of the semester.

Course OutlineClass Dates Class Focus Class Prep

Week 1: Jan. 7

Review syllabus/course requirements KWL Chart Begin Reflective Journal Discuss District Assessment Tool Assignment

Week 2: Jan. 14

Review of the assessment process (SST Process) Changes mandated by IDEA 1997 Disability Categories & Eligibility Requirements in Georgia Criteria for classification and placement Discuss target student identification/descriptive data Table of District Assessment Tools Due

Chapters 1, 2 & skim 19

Week 3: Jan. 21

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. DAY OBSERVED:CLASS WILL NOT MEET

Week 4: Jan. 28

Review of the assessment process cont. Assessment of Intelligence Target student identified/descriptive data due

Chapters 3 & 8

Week 5: Feb. 4

Assessment of school performance – Achievement, Cognitive, Behavior

Strategies for test taking – test accommodations & modifications

Chapters 12 & 16

Week 6: Feb. 11

Informal assessments and classroom assessment techniques Record review due

Chapters 4 & 5

Week 7: Feb. 18

Informal assessments and classroom assessment techniques cont. Quiz

Chapters 6 & 7

Week 8: Feb.25

Early childhood and oral language assessment Developmental Delays – Georgia regulations Case study in-class group activity: analysis of assessment

data

Chapters 11 & 17

Week 9: March 4

Parent and family involvement Bilingual Assessment Overrepresentation of linguistically & culturally diverse students

Readings


143

Controversies of labelingWeek 10: March 11

Assessment of Reading - Formal, informal, authentic, link to instructional planning

Evaluation Plan Due

Chapter 13

Week 11: March 18

Assessment of Written Language - Formal, informal, authentic, link to instructional planning

Chapter 15

Week 12: March 25

Assessment of Mathematics - Formal, informal, authentic, link to instructional planning

Chapter 14

Week 13: April 1-5

Assessment of Adaptive Behavior/ Behavior and Emotional Status

Chapters 9 & 10

Week 14: April 8

SPRING BREAK OBSERVED:CLASS WILL NOT MEET

Week 15: April 15

Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) and Strategies: Issues of acuity, information processing, and strategic learning ability

Reflective Professional Log Due

Readings

Week 16:April 22

Assessment for Transition Case study in-class activity: analysis of assessment data On-Going Development Action Plan Due

Chapters18 & review 19

Week 17:April 29

Alternative Assessment/ MAPS Final Case Study Project Due

Readings

Final Projects: May 6

Round Table discussion of target student. Monday, May 66:30-8:30 PM

List of References

Assessment of Students with Moderate Disabilities or Significant Needs

Baumgart, D., Johnson, J., & Helmstetter, E. (1990). Augmentative and alternative communication

systems for persons with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul Brooks.

Falvey, M., Forest, M. Jack, P., Rosenberg, R. (1994.) Building connections in J. Thousand, R. Villa, and

A. Nevin (Eds.) Creativity and collaboration: A practical guide to empowering students and teachers. Baltimore:

Paul Brookes.

Forest, M. & Lushaus, E. (1990). Everyone belongs with the MAPS Action Planning System. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 22, 32-35.

Tranchak, T.L., and C. Sawyer (1995). Augmentative communication in Assistive Technology: A resource

for school, work and community, eds. M.F. Flippo, K.J. Inge and J.M. Barcus. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.


144

Authentic AssessmentAlper, S., Ryndak, D.L., & Schloss, C.N. (2001). Alternate assessment of students with disabilities in

inclusive settings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Brandt, R. (1992). On performance assessment: A conversation with Grant Wiggins. Educational

Leadership 49: 35-37.

Darling-Hammond, L., J. Ancess, and B. Falk (1995). Authentic assessment in action. Studies of schools

and students at work. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gillespie, C.S., K. Ford, R. Gillespie, and A. Leavell (1996). Portfolio assessment: Some questions, some

answers, some recommendations. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39(6): 480-491.

Shepard, L., and C.L. Bliem (1995). Parents' thinking about standardized testing and performance

assessment. Educational Researcher 24 (8): 25-32.

Bias in Assessment

Taylor, R.L. (1991). Bias in cognitive assessment: Issues, implications and future directions, Diagnostique,

17, (1), 3-5.

Ward, S. B., Ward, T.R. J. & Clark, H.T. (1991). Classification congruence among school psychologists

and its relationship to type of referral questions and professional experience. Journal of school psychology, 29, 89-

108.

Curriculum-Based Assessment

Chote, J.S., B. E. Enright, L. J. Miller, J.A. Poteet, and T.A. Rakes (1995). Curriculum-based assessment

and programming. Boston, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon.

Idol, L., A. Nevin & W. Paolucci-Whitcomb (1996). Models of curriculum assessment. Austin, TX: PRO-

ED.

Ethics in Assessment


145

Shepard, L.A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning environment. Presidential Address presented at

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans

Grading

Bursuck, W., EA. Palloway, L. Plante, M. J. Epstein, J. Jayanthi, and J. McConeghy (1996). Report card

grading and adaptations: A national survey of classroom practices. Exceptional Children 62: 301-318.

Gersten, R., S. Vaughn and S. U. Brengelman (1996). Grading and academic feedback for special

education students and students with learning difficulties. In ASCD yearbook (Ed.). T.R. Gusky, 47-57.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Intelligence & Intelligence Assessments

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: NY, Basic Books.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence, New York: NY. Bantam Books.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). What does it mean to be smart? Educational Leadership, 54 (6), 20-24.

Multicultural Assessment

Artiles, A.J. & Trent, S.C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A

continuing debate. The journal of special education, 24 (4), 410-437.

Gordon, E.W., and C. Bonilla-Bowman (1996). Can performance-based assessments contribute to the

achievement of educational equity? In Performance-based student assessment: Challenges and possibilities. J. B.

Baron and D. P. Wolf, eds. 32-51. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Howell, K.W., and R. Rueda (1996). Achievement testing with culturally and linguistically diverse

students, In Handbook of multicultural assessment, L.S. Suzuki, P. J. Meller and J.G. Ponterotto (Eds.). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (1995, Summer). Distinguishing language differences from language disorders in

linguistically and culturally diverse students. Multicultural Education, 12-16.Special Populations

Barraga, N.C. and J. Erin (1992). Visual handicaps and learning. Austin, Tex:

Pro-Ed.


146

Bradley-Johnson, S. and L.D. Evans (1991). Psychoeducational assessment of hearing-impaired students.

Austin, Tex: Pro-Ed.

Plazman, K.A., M.R. Stoy, R.T. Brown, C.D. Coles, I.E. Smith, and A. Falek (1992). Review of

observational methods in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Implications for diagnosis. School

Psychology Quarterly. 7(73): 155-177.

Semel, E., E. H. Wiig, and W. Secord. (1996a.) Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals. ed. San

Antonio, Tex: The psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace Javanovich.

Spenciner, L.J. and L.G. Cohen (1994-1995). Recognizing attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder

(ADHD): Defining and assessing the disability. Diagnostique 20 (1-4): 211-224.Standardized Testing

Mehrens, W.A. & I.J. Lehmann (1991). Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology. Fort

Worth: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Nitko, A.J. (1996). Educational assessment of students. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2002). Assessment in special education: A practical approach. Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Salvia, J. & J. Ysseldyke (1995). Assessment. Boston, Mass: Houghton-Mifflin.

Taylor, R.L. (2000). Assessment of exceptional students: Educational and psychological procedures (5 th

ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Statewide Assessment

Kearnes, J. (1997). Statewide assessment of students with significant disabilities: the Kentucky KARIS

model. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23 (2) 231-240.

National Center on Educational Outcomes (1993). Can "all ever really mean "all" in defining and assessing

student outcomes? College of Education: Univ. of MN, Author.

National Center on Educational Outcomes (1993). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: A

review of the literature. College of Education: Univ. of MN, Author.


147

National Center on Educational Outcomes (1993). Educational Outcomes and Indicators. Vols. 1-4,

College of Education: Univ. of MN, Author.

Shriner, J. Ysseldyk, J, Thurlow, M. & Honetschlage, D. (1994). "All" means "all". Educational

Leadership, 51(6), 38-43.

Staub, D. & Peck, C. (1995). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership, 52,

(4), 36-41.

Thurlow, M. L., Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1998). Testing students with disabilities: Practical

strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc.


148

EXC 7735/01/02

Current Trends and Legal IssuesSUMMER SEMESTER 2000

INSTRUCTORS: Deborah Wallace, Ph. D. Kim Day, Ph.D.

Telephone: 770- 499-3297 770-423-6958Fax: 770-423-6263 770-423-6263Office: KH 233 KH 2332E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

[email protected] Office hours: By Appointment

CLASS MEETING: Tuesday/Thursday 12:00 – 3:45 PMKennesaw Hall 1107 (section 01) TBA (section 02)

TEXT: Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., Thurlow, M.L. (2000). Critical issues in special education, 3 rd edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

CATALOG DESCRIPTION: This course focuses on current legal and research issues affecting special education programs. The emphasis is on preparing teachers to participate in development and implementation of reform efforts in special education. Analysis of research data and litigative foundations are included.

PURPOSE/RATIONALE: Master teachers require the advanced skills to assume multiple levels of leadership intheir schools, districts, and states. They must demonstrate collaborative skills that engage colleagues in a process to cooperate in developing, implementing, and/or sustaining reform efforts in education. Special education learning facilitators also need to be prepared to participate in general and special education reform efforts based on research. Master teachers as learning facilitators serve as members of pre-referral teams, as members of interdisciplinary placement teams, as consultants to general education teachers, and as partners with parents. The interdependence of litigation and legislation in professional practice makes knowledge of the current legal issues pertinent in today’s practice.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: The “Collaborative Model for Preparing Professional Learning Facilitators” is the basis for all of Kennesaw State University’s teacher education programs. The term “Learning Facilitator” expresses the University’s philosophical commitment to the preparation of teachers who possess the skills and knowledge to create environments and learning experiences that engage students in active learning and authentic achievement and who constantly assess and seek ways of improvement. In the role of facilitator, the teacher is a guide, motivator, evaluator, instructor and advisor. KSU’s programs for initial and advanced


149Professional Teacher Education Unit

Kennesaw State University

Collaborative Model For

Preparing Professional Learning Facilitators



certifications are designed to prepare candidates in the understanding of their disciplines and in ways to facilitate others to learn. Their classroom practices reflect a repertoire of teacher and learner centered methods they should be able to implement easily or adapt in response to changes in the environment and student needs. The awareness of individual differences, knowing when and how to adjust instruction, and assessing in ways meant to be useful as feedback for instruction and learning reflect, in part, the nature of the training KSU’s future professionals receive through their academic experiences.

KNOWLEDGE BASE:This course is intended to serve as a graduate course to develop leaders in the education field. Students must apply skills from previous courses to addressing current issues and challenges in special education. Knowledge of the historical base of special education practice is necessary to understand current legal requirements. The escalating level of special education litigation and legislation requires practitioners to research current legal issues and apply those to current service delivery to ensure students of their legal rights. Skills are derived from the national standards of the Council for Exceptional Children and the requirements of the Professional Standards Commission of Georgia.

USE OF TECHNOLOGY: During the course, students will be provided with opportunities to explore and research uses of technology in addressing the needs of individuals with disability. Library research required in this course is supported by the Galileo system (current password: “tacky”). As a member of the University System in Georgia, a consortium of major libraries provides electronic as well as hard copy access. During the course, faculty will model the use of a variety of technologies (both low and high tech) such as videos, overheads, and multi-media presentation. Web sites of possible interest to students in gathering pertinent information concerning current issues in special education include the following:

WEB SITES:www.cec.sped.orgwww.nichcy.orgwww.chadd.orgwww.ldanatl.orgwww.autism-society.orgwww.thearc.orgwww.doe.k12.ga.uswww.biausa.orgwww.jdfcure.orgwww.efa.orgwww.nagc.orgwww.aamr.org

DIVERSITY: One of the most critical issues in special education today is the effect of personal culture on the efficacy of instruction, prereferral procedures, assessment, placement for students with disabilities, and parenting and communication styles. Students will be provided with opportunities through direct instruction and class discussion to gain knowledge, skills, and understanding to provide effective instruction in culturally diverse classrooms. A variety of materials and instructional strategies will also be used to meet the needs of the diverse learning styles of members of this class.

Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and reasonable accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to help disabled students with their academic work. In order to make arrangements for special services, students must visit the Office of disAbled Student Services (770/423-6443) and arrange an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.

COURSE GOALS/OBJECTIVES:


150



http://www.efa.org/










The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares learning facilitators who understand their disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on practice, and who apply these understandings to making instructional decisions that foster the success of all learners. As a result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of this course, the student will demonstrate a broad base of Knowledge, Skills and Understanding through performance.

Knowledge - Students will be able to:

Articulate the litigative, legislative, and political foundations of special education

Articulate the effects of historical legislation and litigation on issues of students' rights, equal educational opportunities, and parents' rights

Articulate the underlying principles and values of right-to-education law and methods for implementation and protection of due process

Articulate current issues and trends in the field of special education

Skill - Students will be able to:

Research special education trends and legal issues using the internet and electronic databases

Develop position papers and/or presentations related to current trends and legal issues in special education (e.g., identification, classification, medical services, inclusion)

Understanding through Performance - Students will be able to:

Serve as an advocate to promote the highest educational quality of life for individuals with disabilities

Participate in continued professional development through consumer and professional organizations, workshops, and professional literature

COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:

Position paper 100 pointsIssue research and presentation (e.g., debate or BOE presentation) 100 pointsClass facilitation (assigned by instructors) 50 pointsListserve summary 50 pointsClass participation, cooperation, & attendance 50 points

Q. EVALUATION AND GRADING

A = 90% or betterB = 80-89% C = 70-79%D = 60-69% F = 59% or below

Description of requirements

POSITION PAPER: Students will write a position paper, using APA format, on a current special education issue, trend, or area of special interest. The paper should include a brief discussion of information from professional literature and/or a discussion of relevant case law and federal and state legislation. Integrated into the paper should be the personal experiences and opinions of the student. The paper will be 3 - 5 typed written pages, double-spaced and in12 font and will include a minimum of 5 references.


151

DUE DATE: July 27, 2000. ISSUE RESEARCH AND CLASS PRESENTATION: Students will be assigned to groups based on topical interests and will be expected to participate in a professional and equitable manner. Each group will develop a presentation based on a current trend or issue in special education. The presentation will be designed as either a debate allowing all sides of an issue to be examined or as a formal Board of Education presentation in which the group is attempting to gain support and/or funding for an issue related to current practice in the education of students with disability. Groups will need to develop an outline stipulating the agenda and each group member’s responsibilities (to be approved by the instructors), a power point presentation to be used to facilitate the presentation, a list of references (e.g., case law, legislation, and/or professional literature), and handouts for other class members and the instructors. DUE DATE: TBA

CLASS FACILITATION: Each class member will be expected to facilitate a portion of a class session. Dyads will be assigned by the instructors to complete this assignment. Students will be expected to integrate assigned readings, personal perspectives and experiences and are strongly encouraged to supplement the discussion and activities with additional readings from the professional literature and/or case law. Dyads may also arrange for guest speakers to be in attendance with the approval of the instructors.DUE DATE: TBA

LISTSERVE SUMMARY: Students are required to subscribe to a listserve related to special education and/or issues of disability. Students will periodically be required to provide the class with an oral summary of discussions from the listserve. This assignment begins the week of June 26, 2000 and will continue through the end of the course (July 27, 2000). Students will also submit a written summation of the discussions from the listserve to include a brief discussion of their own perspective or position concerning issues discussed on the listserve. DUE DATE: JULY 25, 2000

CLASS PARTICIPATION: Cooperative learning group activities in class will enable students to apply new skills and knowledge. This requirement emphasizes the importance of class attendance and supports the belief from the conceptual framework that learning is an interactive endeavor requiring the presence and participation of all class members in order to facilitate growth and learning. Each student has something unique to contribute to the class experience that will facilitate the learning of other class members.

STUDENT EXPECTATIONS FOR ATTENDANCE AND PARTICIPATION:

Students, like the instructor, are expected to come to class meetings thoroughly prepared. “Thoroughly prepared” is defined as having read the readings well enough to verbally and in writing state the definitions of terms from the readings; discuss ideas, notions, concepts, issues, and procedures in relation to previous information presented in class or in previous readings; and apply the information from the readings to problems. It also implies the student has reviewed information from the previous class meetings. When information from the readings is unclear, the student should prepare questions to discuss in class.

Regular attendance is required for all scheduled classes in that the student is responsible for obtaining all materials, instruction, etc. presented during class. Attendance at all class meetings is stressed because of the interactive nature of the class. Not all material covered will be found in the required readings. You are required to inform the instructor in advance of your absence. Failure to do so will result in your not being allowed to make-up any missed class work (i.e., class activities). Attendance will be monitored and reflected in the class participation/attendance points (see page 49 in the 1999-2000 KSU Graduate Catalog).

All assignments must be turned in at or before the class meeting on the assigned due date. Failure to turn in assignments when due will result in an automatic 10 percent penalty from the points you earn on any given assignment.


152

All grading will be done as objectively as possible. In case of qualitative assessment, evaluation will be based on instructor judgment. Points will be summed for each student and final course grades will be based on the percent of total points earned (i.e., A = 100 - 90%, B = 89 - 80%, etc.)

The assignment of incomplete (“I”) grades is discouraged and will be assigned only in cases of extreme emergencies and in cases where a passing grade may be earned. It is the student’s responsibility to notify the instructor when such circumstances exist. Upon notification, a contract between the student and instructor for completion of the course will be developed before the last week of the semester.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in the Graduate Catalog (pp. 134-135). Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes with an "informal resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.

DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR: The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning of others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. Students should refer to the 1999-2000 catalog (p.311) to review this policy.

HUMAN RELATIONS: The University has formulated a policy on human relations that is intended to provide a learning environment that recognizes individual worth. That policy is found on page 320 of the 1999-2000 catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but the policy is there for your consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that policy.

COURSE OUTLINE

CLASS DATE FOCUS OF CLASS ACTIVITIES READINGS

June 15 Course overview; The social construction of disability: definitional debate and placement controversy; Issues discussion

Chapters 4 & 5

June 20 Class assignments; School reform; new state regulations for special education; HB 1187

Chapter 10

June 22 Issues of identity and labeling

Facilitators:

Chapters 2-3

June 27 Listserve discussion; Assessment

Facilitators:

Chapter 6

June 29 Listserve discussion; Instructional issues; Early intervention; and the conundrum of the at-risk population

Facilitators:

Chapters 7 & 8

JULY 4 HOLIDAY NO CLASS


153

July 6 Listserve discussion; Transition and quality of life issues

Facilitators:

Chapter 9

July 11 Listserve discussion; Discipline: manifestation determination and zero reject

Facilitators:

Chapter 12

July 13 Listserve discussion; Home-School-Community-Agency Partnerships; Family issues; Shared decision-making

Facilitators:

Chapter 11

July 18 Listserve discussion; Adult/life span issues

Facilitators:

TBA: Canadian Woman Studies: pp. 14-15, 34-37, 56-58; Fine & Asch: Ch.6; Stainback & Stainback: Chs. 21-24

July 20 Listserve discussion; Economic and policy issues

Facilitators:

Chapter 13

July 25 Listserve discussion; Issues of educational outcomes; Summary due

Facilitators:

Chapter 14

July 27 Listserve discussion; Future directions and continuing challenges; Round table discussion; Paper due

Facilitators: Drs. Wallace and Day

Chapter 15

The syllabus provides a general plan for the course; deviations may be necessary.

Readings are in the required text unless otherwise specified: Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., Thurlow, M.L. (2000). Critical issues in special education, 3 rd edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

References

Archwaamety, T. & Katsiyannis, A. (2000). Academic remediation, parole violations, and

recidivism rates among delinquent youths. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 161-170.

Bateman, B.D. (1996). Better IEPs: How to develop legally correct and educationally useful

programs, 2 nd edition . Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Brozovic, S.A., Taber, T.A., Alberto, P.A., Hughes, M.A. (1999). A guide to the instruction of

students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment: Questions and answers. Georgia Systems

Change Project: Georgia State University.

Bruer, J.T. (1999). The myth of the first three years: A new understanding of early brain

development and lifelong learning. New York: THE FREE PRESS.


154

Canadian Woman Studies (Summer 1993; 3:4). York University Publishers.

Donegan, M.M., Ostrosky, M.M., Fowler, S.A. (2000). Peer coaching: Teachers supporting

teachers. Young Exceptional Children, 3 (3), 9-17.

Fine, M. & Asch, A. (1988). Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and politics.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Forness, S. R., Ramey, S.L, Ramey, C. T., Hsu, C., Brezausek, C. M, MacMillan, D.L. (1998)

Head Start children finishing first grade: Preliminary data on school identification of children at risk for

special education. Behavioral Disorders, 23, 111-24.

Friend, M. (2000). Perspective: Myths and misunderstandings about professional collaboration.

Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 130-132, 160.

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hertzog, N.B. (1998). The changing role of the gifted education specialist

Teaching Exceptional Children, 30 39-43.

Kavale, K. & Forness, S. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and don’t say: A critical

analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33 (3), 239-256.

Klingner, J.K., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., Cohen, P. & Forgan, J.W. (1998). Inclusion or pull-out:

Which do students prefer? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 148-58.

Lamort, M. W. (1996). School law: Cases and concepts, 5 th edition . Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Lanford, A.D. & Lynn, G. C. (2000). Graduation requirements for students with disabilities: Legal

and practice considerations. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 152-160.

Lange, C.M.,& Lehr, C.A. (2000). Charter schools and students with disabilities: Parent

perceptions of reasons for transfer and satisfaction with services. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3),

141-151.

Lloyd, J.W., Kameenui, E.J., & Chard, D. (1997). Issues in educating students with disabilities.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2000). The Inclusive Classroom: Strategies for Effective

Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Osborne, A. G. (1996). Legal issues in special education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.


155

Peltier, G. L. (1997). The effect of inclusion on non-disabled children: A review of the research

Contemporary Education, 68, 234 -38.

Rothstein, L..F. (1995). Special Education Law, 2 nd edition . New York: Longman Publishers.

Stainback, W. & Stainback, S. (1996). Controversial issues confronting special education:

Divergent perspectives, 2 nd edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Carta, J. (2000). Early childhood special education in a new century: Voices from the past, visions

for our future. Topics in Early Childhood Education: Special Issue, 20 (1), 3-61.

Turnbull, H.R. & Turnbull, A. (2000). Free appropriate public education, 6 th edition . Denver: Love

Publishing.

Vaughn, V. L. (1997). A K-12 model for talent identification and development program: Gifted

education for the Twenty First Century. Gifted Education International, 12, 106-10.

Waldron, N. L., & McLeskey, J. (1998). The effects of an inclusive school program on students

with mild and severe learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 395-405.

Weigle, K.L. (1997). Positive behavior support as a model for promoting educational inclusion.

Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22, 36-48.

Vallance, D.D., Cummings, R.L., & Humphries, T. (1998). Mediators of the risk for problem

behavior in children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 160-71.


156

EXC 7760

I. Teaching & Learning IDepartment of Special Education

Kennesaw State University(Summer, 2002)

II. Instructor: Michaela D’Aquanni, Ph. D.

III. Class Sessions: June 10 – 21 - M, W & F from 8:00 – 5:00 in Bartow County

IV. Required texts: Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. (2nd ed.).

Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Cole, W. E. (ed.). (1995). Educating Everybody’s Children: Diverse Teaching Strategies For Diverse Learners. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Cole, W. E. (ed.). (2001). More Strategies for Educating Everybody’s Children. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jacobs, H. H. (1997). Mapping the Big Picture. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Payne, R. (1998). A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Highlands, TX: RFT Publishing Co.

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


157

attention will be paid to the Georgia Learning Connections Website, as well as the alignment of IEP objectives with the Quality Core Curriculum (QCC).

VI. Purpose/Rationale: The purpose of this course is to prepare professional learning facilitators for exceptional students. The competencies in this course are derived from the requirements for teachers of students with disabilities of the Professional Standards Commission (the licensure body of Georgia) and the national standards of the Council for Exceptional Children.

Conceptual Framework Summary:Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning The Kennesaw State University teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers who demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU teacher education community strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring guidance from professionals inside and outside the university. In tandem with this belief is the understanding that teacher expertise develops along a continuum which includes the stages of pre-service, induction, in-service, and renewal; further, as candidates develop a strong research-based knowledge of content and pedagogy, they develop their professional expertise in recognizing, facilitating, assessing, and evaluating student learning.

Knowledge Base: Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: pre-service, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.

The knowledge base for curriculum development for students with disabilities is an emerging issue. The historical framework included remediation of deficit skills, teaching IEP objectives or functional curriculum. Current directions include merging regular education curriculum and special educational needs. The field draws on research literature from educational psychology, psychology and special education. The emphasis in this class will be on critically reviewing research studies of curriculum development models, current issues in curriculum development for students with disabilities, and the application of these models in P-12 classrooms. The application includes curriculum-based assessment.

Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission. Students in this course will be expected to understand the use of educational technology in support of curriculum design and instructional planning. Technology emphasis will include word processing, spreadsheet, computer databases (library access programs, Galileo, internet and email), technological presentations (PowerPoint). Websites:www.doe.k12.ga.ushttp://www.glc.k12.ga.us www.nichy.orgwww.chadd.orgwww.cec.sped.orgwww.aamr.orgwww.autism-society.org


158





http://www.nichy.org/

http://www.glc.k12.ga.us/


Diversity Statement:A variety of material and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Students will gain knowledge, skills, and understanding to provide effective instruction in multicultural classrooms. Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to help disabled students with their academic work. In order to make arrangements for special services, students must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and arrange an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.

The effect of socio-economic, ethnic, gender and cultural differences on the effectiveness of methods for students with disabilities will be considered. The emphasis on cognitive style differences in the special education field provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.

VII. Goals and objectives: The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of teacher preparation as a developmental and collaborative process. Research for the past 25 years has described this process in increasingly complex terms. Universities and schools must work together to successfully prepare teachers who are capable of developing successful learners in today’s schools and who choose to continue their professional development. Students in this course are expected to perform at the Advanced or Teacher Leader level of performance.

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

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

multi-level, curriculum overlap and functional, alternative curriculum.

Within the skills domain:5. Develop and teach each one lesson using one of the models of teaching and learning described by Joyce, et al.

2000;6. Develop a one-week integrated unit plan that meets the needs of students who are classified as gifted, behavior

disordered and moderately mentally impaired;7. Develop instruction that is multi-level and/or represents curriculum overlapping;8. Develop an academic content area curriculum for a specific age/grade level including modifications for IEP

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

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

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

Within the disposition domain:11. Demonstrate collaborative skills in developing instruction and unit plans and co-teaching a lesson to the class;12. Demonstrate the ability to analyze instruction and think reflectively about their daily practice;13. Demonstrate on-going commitment to professional development by engaging in personalized action planning.


159

PTEU (Professional Teachers Education Unit) Objectives:

1. Are committed to students and their learning.2. Know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.3. Are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.4. Think systematically about their practice and learn from experience. 5. Are members of learning communities.

IX. Course requirements/assignments:

Class Requirements and AssignmentsClass Activities Points Course

ObjectivesPTEU Objectives

Professional Log 50 2 1, 4

Models of Teaching: Lesson Plan & Power Point

100 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Integrated Thematic Unit: Mapping, Unit, Profiles, Modifications/Accommodations

200 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

On Going Reflective Development Action Plan

50 2 1, 4

Class Participation 100 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

IX. Course Requirements:1. Professional Log: The log must contain reflections on your professional reading over

the course of the semester. Each entry must be dated and titled – followed by your personal response to the material or experience. To obtain full credit for this activity, you must:

Reflect upon a minimum of four (4) articles from professional journals regarding universal curriculum design, accommodation and modifications, and/or any other topics related to our class discussions and text. Your reflection should be one-page in length containing your reactions to the reading. This can include readings for the course.

2. On-Going Development Action Plan: Each of us is at a different point in our own development as a teacher and a learner. We are unique in that we have different experiences, skills, and ways of thinking that support our life long growth as a teacher and learner. At the beginning of class you will be asked to outline your strengths and areas of need in relation to the content of this course. At the end of the course you should complete three activities: 1) reflect upon the growth you have made regarding your strengths and areas of need; 2) develop a Personal Action Plan to include a list of goals you are setting for yourself, related to the material from class, and an action plan for achieving those goals; and 3) reflect upon how you will continue to use the content from this course to perpetuate your growth as a teacher and learner. This entire activity should be completed as part your on-going reflective log. Also, at the closure of each class you should complete the reflective sheet distributed the first day.


160

3. Demonstration of Model of Teaching: Each student is responsible for working with a small group of colleagues to develop and teach a lesson demonstrating one of the models of teaching and learning described by Joyce, Weil & Calhoun (2000). The lesson must: (a) integrate content from two disciplines (Language Arts, Social Studies, Science, Math); (b) address QCC’s and 1 embedded skill (social, functional, leadership or career skill).

Each group of students will teach a 20 minute lesson to the class. Present a 10 minute power point presentation that describes the: (a) major principles of

the model; (b) supporting research; (c) model syntax; (d) the body of the lesson Develop an extensive lesson plan following the outline provided - geared towards the

grade level you are focusing on for the course.

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

QCCs “Mapped” out over the year (for a grade level) – including the essential questions; Theme and grade level; Description of the class context, including students with IEPs (one per group member – use

profiles) and students who would be classified as “gifted.” A broad outline of the Integrated Thematic Unit:

1. relevant QCC’s:2. IEP objectives per student with an IEP (on or off grade level), connected to the QCCs;3. a list of activities that incorporate Universal Design, Models of Teaching, Cooperative Learning

and other research based strategies, which you would use to facilitate the learning of the QCCs and IEP objectives;

4. examples of accommodations and modifications to support students with IEPs;5. specify strategies geared towards challenging students classified as “gifted;”6. list of materials (books, tapes, videos, computer programs, websites, etc.);7. assessment tools (connected to QCCs and IEP objectives) - to include examples of embedded

assessments for students who need additional support.

Notes: A Model of Teaching, as well as cooperative learning must be incorporated into this unit. Also, it is recommended that you develop your activities using a Universal Design approach: integrated units, multiple intelligences theory and Blooms Taxonomy.

5. Class Participation: Students are expected to attend all class sessions and be active participants in the learning process. Class activities will include discussions, role-playing and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all students. Students have many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's learning. Evaluation will include communication and collaboration skills demonstrated during class. The Cooperative Projects will be designed so that all students are accountable to themselves and each other. Students will complete peer-rating skills for participation in cooperative group activities and projects.

X. EVALUATION & GRADING:


161

Any assignment turned in early will earn 15% extra credit. Any report containing confidential information will not be graded.

General Guidelines and Standards for Written Assignments

7. All individual assignments must be typed, single spaced, with 1” margins on both sides so we can provide you with feedback. This includes reading reactions.

8. Be sure to maintain confidentiality of student, settings, and teachers. All identifying names and information should be omitted from your written work and discussions.

9. Late assignments are unacceptable without making prior arrangements with us. 10. We will be looking for quality writing not quantity. Eliminate jargon and hyperbole and focus on

clearly stating your point. 11. Examine the language you use within your assignments. Please remember to remove the focus on

a person’s behavior or disability by stating the person first, i.e., “a person with a disability” is preferable to “a disabled person.”


Grades will be assigned as follows:

A = 90% or higher (447 - 500)B = 80% - 89% (400 - 446)C = 70% - 79% (350 - 445)F = 69% or below (below 350)

a. Academic integrityEvery KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.

Pages 142-143 of the KSU Graduate catalog (2001-2002) states: KSU expects that graduate students will pursue their academic programs in an ethical, professional manner. Any work that students present in fulfillment of program or course requirements should represent their own efforts, achieved without giving or receiving any unauthorized assistance. Any student who is found to have violated these expectations will be subject to disciplinary action. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.

The student is reminded to consult pp.142-143 of the 2001-2002 KSU Graduate Catalog for the University's policy. Any strategy, which has the appearance of improving grades without increasing


162

knowledge, will be dealt with in accordance with the University's policy on academic honesty. In addition, students in the graduate program in special education are held accountable by the Georgia Professional Code of Ethics for Educators (http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html) and the Council for Exceptional Children's (CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with Exceptionalities (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).

Disruptive Behavior: The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning of others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (See Campus Policies and Procedures pp.146-147 of the 2001- 2002 KSU Graduate Catalog).

Human Dignity: The University has formulated a policy on human rights that is intended to provide a learning environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found on p.152 in the 2001-2002 KSU Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding, but the policy is there for your consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that policy – expecting that students will adhere to the highest professional standards in the ways they conduct themselves.

ATTENDANCE POLICYStudents are expected to attend all class sessions and be active participants and in the learning process. Active Participation requires that candidates come to class prepared and participate in class discussions and activities by sharing his/her ideas within both large and small groups, as well as respectfully listening to the ideas of others. This class includes presentations by professionals from other disciplines and class attendance is essential for participation in development of a multi-disciplinary perspective. Class activities will include discussion, role-playing and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all students. Students have many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's learning. It is also expected that you will read the syllabus to determine what assignments are due and when. Questions will be answered in class regarding assignments, but it is the candidate’s responsibility to be sure (s) he has the information necessary to complete required assignments. Evaluation will include attendance, communication and collaboration skills demonstrated during class. Each absence will result in a four point reduction on your grade and more than three absences will lead to a letter grade drop.


163

XI. Course outline Date Topic In-class activities AssignmentsJune 10

Overview of course Teacher

Reflectivity (Descriptive, Analytical, reflective)

Slides, KWL chart, FISH View and reflect upon video of

teaching Sign up for: Cole text section, Model

of Teaching Presentation, Grade for Curriculum Mapping

Complete teacher reflectivity exercise

Research Based Teaching Strategies – Cole Text

Understanding Poverty

Lesson Plans

TAPS – read to class Outline initial pieces of 1st Cole text

(1-21) Ruby Payne Text – Read & outline Review format for Lesson Plans

Cooperative Activities: Cole text, Ruby Payne text, brainstorm and discuss lesson plan components

Begin Reflective Log

June 12

Research Based -Teaching Strategies - Cole Text Section

(reading, writing, mathematics, oral communication, civics, geography, history, science, diverse learning, poverty, homeless, immigrant, gifted) Student Profile

Work in Cooperative groups to complete assignments

Outline critical elements and strategies from Cole text

Presentation of section from Cole Text

Access to IEP/Student

Cooperative Learning

Curriculum Mapping – Jacobs Text

Models of Teaching

Cooperative group activity Work in Cooperative groups to

complete assignments Map out curriculum (vertical

and horizontal) on the grade of choice with a group of colleagues

Develop Lesson plan and Power Point presentation for Model of Teaching you will present to class

June 14


Complete work on Models of Teaching

Models of Teaching:

Advance Organizers, Memorization, Inductive,

Presentation Presentation of Models of Teaching

June 17

Models of Teaching:

Concept Attainment, Synetics, Jurisprudential,

Presentation Presentation of Models of Teaching

Universal Design: Bloom’s Taxonomy, Multiple Intelligences,


Design Unit: objectives, activities, materials, assessment, (review syllabus)


164

Integrated UnitsJune 19

Accommodations and Modifications

Functional Curriculum

Video: Misunderstood Minds Work in Cooperative groups to

complete assignments

Reflective activity on video Continue work on unit – add

accommodations and modifications for exceptional students

Working Classroom


Unit completion

June 21

Final Project Presentation


30 minute final presentations

Reflective Log Professional Log

b. References/bibliography

American Association on Mental Retardation. (1993). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of

supports. 9th ed. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Billingsley, F.F., Burgess, D., Lynch, V.W., & Matlock, B.L. (1991). Toward generalized outcomes: Considerations

and guidelines for writing instructional objectives. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 351-360.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms.

Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Calculator, S. N., & Jorgensen, C. M. (Eds.). (1994). Including students with severe disabilities in schools. San

Diego, California: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.

Carnine, D. W. (1991). Curricular interventions for teaching higher order thinking to all students: Introduction to the

special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 261-169.

Cawley, J.F., Baker-Kroczynski, S. & Urban, A. (1992). Seeking excellence in mathematics education for students

with mild disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, 40-43.

Cohen, S.B. & Lynch, D.K. (1991). An instructional modification process. Teaching Exceptional Children, 23, 12-

18.

Downing, J. E. (1996). Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms. Baltimore,

Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). The new circles of learning: Cooperation in the

classroom and school. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.


165

Putnam, J. W. (1993). Cooperative learning and strategies for inclusion: Celebrating diversity in the classroom.

Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Slavin, R.E. (1990) Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1996). Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes

Publishing Co.

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1992). Restructuring for caring & effective

education. Baltimore.


166

I. EXC 7765 Content & Instructional StrategiesDepartment of Special Education

Kennesaw State University

Spring 2003

II. Teaching TeamName: Toni Strieker, Ph.D. Susan Brown, Ph.D.

Room: 3105 Kennesaw Hall

Phone: (770) 423-6593 (770) 423-6577

Email: [email protected]@kennesaw.edu

Name: Stephanie Dirst, Ed.D.

Phone: (770) 921-5815

Email: [email protected]

III. Class Sessions: Monday 5:00-8:00, Room 1107, Kennesaw Hall

IV. Required Texts: Miller, S.P. (2002). Validated Practices for Teaching Students with Diverse Needs &

Abilities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kennedy, C. & Horn, E. (Eds.) Including Students with Severe Disabilities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Mohler, J. (1976). Personal DISCerment Inventory: An instrument for understanding yourself and others. Team Resources, Inc. USA.

Marzano, R. , Pickering, D. & Pollock, J. (2001) Classroom Instruction that Works. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA.

V. Catalog Description: This course focuses on the various forms of research-based, specialized instruction for students with disabilities. Specific focus will be on direct instruction, strategy instruction (meta cognitive and cognitive behavior management), cooperative learning, social or functional skills development and systematic instruction using task analysis, prompts & cues. Special attention will be given to embedded forms of student assessment and ongoing data collection procedures to evaluate the overall


167


impact of instruction on student learning will be discussed. Proof professional liability insurance is required prior to field experience placement.

VI. Purpose/Rationale: The purpose of this course is to provide teacher candidates with the information and opportunity to apply different research-based instructional strategies and/or methods from the field of education and psychology. These instructional strategies were developed to meet the diverse learning needs of students with mild disabilities and/or students at-risk for academic failure. The competencies in this course were derived from the requirement of the Professional Standards Commission (the licensure body of Georgia) for teachers of students with disabilities and from the national standards/teacher education competencies of the Council for Exceptional Children.

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

VIII. Knowledge Base: Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.

The knowledge base for methods of teaching students with disabilities continues to develop rapidly. The historical framework included perceptual training, behavior modification and task analysis. Current directions include multiple intelligence models and direct instruction. The field draws on research literature from educational psychology, medicine, psychology and special education. The emphasis in this class will be on developing skills in application of research-based best practice, documenting impact on student learning, and reflective practice.


168

IX. Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission: Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media, especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and develop an electronic learning portfolio.

Resources and activities for this course will be provided on Web CT to model effective use of technology. Candidates in this course will be expected to apply the use of educational technology in classrooms for exceptional students. They must understand the process of selection of appropriate hardware, software and adaptive/assistive technology for student needs. Technology emphasis will include classroom computers, computer databases (library access programs, internet and email), CD-ROM programs, adaptive /assistive for special needs and learning materials such as Spellmaster & Phonic Ear. Emphasis on classroom publishing programs and software to track progress and analyze errors will be included. Candidates will be required to videotape their instruction

X. Diversity Statement: A variety of material and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge, skills, and understanding to provide effective instruction in multicultural classrooms. Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to help disabled students with their academic work. In order to make arrangements for special services, candidates must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and arrange an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required. The effect of socio-economic, ethnic, gender and cultural differences on the effectiveness of methods for students with disabilities will be considered. The emphasis on cognitive style differences in the special education field provides a background for the consideration of cultural context

XI. Goals and Objectives:

The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of teacher preparation as a developmental and collaborative process. Research for the past 25 years has described this process in increasingly complex terms. Universities and schools must work together to successfully prepare teachers who are capable of developing successful learners in today’s schools and who choose to continue their professional development. Candidates in this course are expected to perform at the Advanced or Teacher Leader level of performance. (See CPI: Graduate Performance Outcomes.)

As a result of Knowledge, Articulate and apply knowledge of social, cultural, emotional, cognitive and

physical needs of students with disabilities, particularly as they underpin individualized instructional programming


169

Articulate and implement research-based practices and alternatives for teaching individuals with disabilities who differ in degree and kind of disability

Articulate and apply knowledge regarding the variability (especially in students of differing cultural backgrounds) of expected learning and problem solving strategies in the school context

Articulate and apply the theories of learning, motivation and assessment, particularly as they relate to the individualized programming of students with disabilities

As a result of Skills, the student will be able to:

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

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

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

Use differentiated strategies for acquisition, proficiency building, maintenance and generalization of skills across settings


170

As a result of Disposition, the student will be able to:

Reflect critically on teacher and learner performances and outcomes and modify practices based upon an action research model

Utilize instructional and management strategies which create a positive learning environment for individuals with disabilities, including use of positive proactive and reactive techniques

Apply instructional and management strategies for all students in educational settings, including non identified individuals who would benefit.

XII. Course Requirements and Assignments:


171

What All Candidates Will

Accomplish!

Instructional Design Project I: Reading Instructional Design Project II: Math Two Videos with Critical Analysis Field Observations Planning for Master’s Portfolio

Some will Accomplish All listed below, and will add to Instructional Design Project

CWPT or other strategy researched in special education

Technology for students with disabilities Marzano strategies

All listed below, plus demonstrate

Error correction strategies Strategy Instruction Mini-lesson Other, as approved

FewWill

Accomplish

Based upon candidate progress through the levels of the pyramid based upon their performance and faculty approval.

Assignments

Ass P Course Objecti

ves

P

C

Two Instructional Design Projects: One reading and one math. (This assignment is required for all candidates.)

Instruction & Assessment One-

page lesson plan

Multi-level objectives

Formative

Feed back from instructors & peers

Self-evaluation using rubrics

250 pts.*

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

8, 9, 10,11 &

12

Graduate CPI

Outcome 2: Facilitator of Learning


172

linked to QCC

Pre-post assessment

Implementation of validated practice

Embedded assessment

Systematic error correction

Graph of student achievement data

Interpretation of data with recommendations

Work sample


173

analysis

Video and Critical Analysis (150 pts.)Video Taping of 15 min segment

Critical Analysis of Video

Reflection on Instruction

(Due: Each candidate will develop a plan for completion of the project which must be approved by the faculty.)


174

Class participation:

Ho

Think Sheets

Attendance

Pre-Post Testing

Demonstrated Dispositions

Peer Review of Videos

(On-going and Required of all.

On-going assessment

100 pts.

1,2,3,4,5,6,

7,8,9,10

Graduate CPI Outcomes 1, 2, & 3:

Classroom observation: Two classroom observations will be conducted during the semester

On-site observation

50 pts25 per

visit

(Pass/Fail)

5, 9, 11,12

Graduate CPI

Outcome 2:



175

to make suggestions to improve daily practice and student learning.

(Required of all candidates.)

Assignments

Ass P Course Objecti

ves

P

C

Plan for Portfolio Development. Candidates will be expected to monitor their progress on the

BCOE Candidate Outcome Rubric

50 Pts.

1,2,3,4,5,6,

7,8,9,10,

11,12

Graduate CPI

Outcome 3

Collaborative Practices


176

graduate CPI outcomes & proficiencies and organize artifacts, which provide evidence of their mastery of each proficiency. To receive full credit for this project, you must provide 2 sources of evidence for each artifact as well as a brief plan to obtain at least 3 different sources per proficiency.

(Required of all


177

candidates.)

Once you have successfully completed the required elements of this class, you may contract with your instructor* for an A by successfully completing one of the following demonstration activities:

Error correction;

Critical Analysis

& Reflection

Peer review of demonstration

75 Pts.

75 Pts.

1,2,3,4,5,6,

7,8,9,10,

11,12

Graduate CPI

Outcome 2:



178

Mini-lesson;

KSU strategy;

MAP of student with significant disability: or

Other as agreed with instructor

Note: To get an “A”, candidates must also earn a “4” on items on the rubric required by the College of Education.


179


180

To successfully complete this course with a grade of either B or C, each candidate must demonstrate mastery on the following assignments at an acceptable level as measured by the corresponding rubrics. Note: The course rubrics are aligned with the Impact on Student Learning Analysis (ISLA), which is used by the PTEU of the BCOE. You must obtain a score of 3 or better to obtain an B or C in this course.

1. Instructional Design Projects. Each person is required to develop two, multi-level instructional design projects (1 reading & 1 math). Lesson design follows the recommendations of Marzano (2001). The projects must be scripted and follow the rubrics provided in class. (See attached.)

Each person is required to develop a set of assessments for each instructional design project. All lessons must use pre-post assessment format to measure the impact of the instruction on student learning for a group of students. In addition, because the lessons are multi-level, there must be a set of objectives that represent various levels of participation in the lesson. Mastery checks must be developed to assess individual and group performance on content, skills, IEP and/or group processing. For example, the student with the disability (SWD) may participate in a cooperative learning activity in reading their social studies text. The SWD may be working on a speech objective (e.g. initiating conversation with peers) during that activity that must be measured as part of the lesson. Error correction procedures must accompany embedded assessment. Pre-post test scores must be graphed, with data disaggregated by ‘No Child’ subgroups. Finally data must be interpreted, reflected upon based upon the professional literature, with recommendations for changes in instruction that have high probability to increasing student achievement.

While it is important for you to tailor this project to the instructional needs of the students in your classrooms, in order to meet the multi-level criteria you may need to create profiles of students with mild, moderate and/or severe disabilities. You are encouraged to discuss your projects with your peers and your instructors (particularly those conducting your classroom observations). Your instructors will allow some of this assignment to be done in class, time permitting.

NOTE: Once one of your instructors has approved the core components of this project, you may then conduct the additional assignments necessary for an A. Do not begin these assignments without written faculty approval. (See attached contract.)

Because Impact on Student Learning is measured in this course, the rubric used by the Bagwell College of Education is embedded within the rubric of the Instructional Design Project. To receive an “A” in this course, you must obtain a “4” on the items noted BCOE on the rubric.


181

2. Critical Analysis of Videotaped Lessons. Once the instructional design projects are complete, each candidate is required to videotape himself or herself teaching the lessons submitted to the instructor, or ones mirroring the same procedures, e.g. direct instruction & cooperative learning. Next the individual must self-evaluate the implementation of these lessons, using the procedures prescribed by the National Board on Professional Teaching (e.g. description, analysis and reflection). Each video must be no longer than 20 minutes long and show at least one full phase of the lesson using cooperative learning or direct instruction. When taping, assure that the interactions between the teacher and students are visible. Tapes and self-assessments are due together. (NOTE: Prior to videotaping, assure that all of the parents of your students have signed release forms for the photographing/videotaping of their children. Blank copies of the release form and a statement from you that you have obtained parent permission must be included with your projects.)

3. Classroom Observation: Dr. Dirst will observe you twice over the course of the semester. Dr. Dirst will evaluate your instructional implementation of multi-level lessons using cooperative learning and direct instruction. Please consider this observation as part of your development. Dr. Dirst will give you feedback on your teaching skills as they develop throughout your coursework at KSU will assist you in developing your lessons for this course. Once the observation is complete, you will be given a brief summary of her observation. Her summaries will be sent to the class instructor and you will then be given points for the site visit. Save your feedback as evidence of meeting proficiencies!

4. Class & Internet Participation: Candidates have many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's learning. Candidates are expected to come prepared to all class sessions and be active participants in the learning process. Class activities will include pre-post testing on required readings, think sheets, homework submission, discussion, role-playing and collaborative activities. Evaluation will include attendance and punctuality. In addition, each person is required to use Web CT on the internet to collaborate with peers and instructors.

5. Portfolio Planning. As each graduate student in the Bagwell College of Education leaves the program, he or she will submit a portfolio to be evaluated by the faculty on three outcomes, aligned with the Georgia Board of Regents standards as well as those from the National Board on Professional teaching. In addition to being effective teachers, it is expected that graduates of advanced programs, also develop expertise as effective teacher leaders who are self-directed, value a spirit of inquiry and facilitate the learning of all students. In EXC 7765, each candidate is required to organize artifacts as evidence of your


182

mastery of the proficiencies and outcomes on the CPI. Candidates are also required to develop a plan to meet those outcomes and guide your work as your complete your graduate studies at Kennesaw State University. (Note: All of the assignments in this class may be used as portfolio artifacts.)

XIII. Evaluation and Grading:

Grades will be assigned as follows:

90-100 average points, and completion of final activityA

80-89 average points, B

70-79 average points, C

69 points and belowF

XIV. Student Code of Conduct: Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement. (For more specific details, see the 2003-2004 graduate catalogue, beginning on page 177.)

The KSU Graduate catalog (2003-2004) states: KSU expects that graduate candidates will pursue their academic programs in an ethical, professional manner. Any work that candidates present in fulfillment of program or course requirements should represent their own efforts, achieved without giving or receiving any unauthorized assistance. Any student who is found to have violated these expectations will be subject to disciplinary action. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.

The student is reminded to consult the 2003-2004 KSU Graduate Catalog for the University's policy. Any strategy, which has the


183

appearance of improving grades without increasing knowledge, will be dealt with in accordance with the University's policy on academic honesty. In addition, candidates in the graduate program in special education are held accountable by the Georgia Professional Code of Ethics for Educators (http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html) and the Council for Exceptional Children's (CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with Exceptionalities (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).

XV. Class Attendance Policy Candidates are expected to attend all class sessions and be active participants in the learning process. This class includes presentations by professionals from other disciplines and class attendance is essential for participation in development of a multi-disciplinary perspective. Class activities will include discussion, role-playing and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all candidates. Candidates have many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's learning. Evaluation will include attendance, communication and collaboration skills demonstrated during class.

Disruptive Behavior: The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning of others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (See Campus Policies and Procedures section of the 2003-2004 KSU Graduate Catalog).

Human Relations: The University has formulated a policy on human rights that is intended to provide a learning environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found in the 2001-2002 KSU Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but the policy is there for your consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that policy.

XVI. Course Schedule:

CPI Outcomes Date

Topic Activities & Homework

Facilitators of Learning

1/12/04

Review of Syllabus & Major Class Assignments

Discuss procedures for classroom observations

Review

Identify lessons from QCC’

Schedule observation

Visits.


184

National Board Procedures for Teacher Reflections

Introduction to Web CT

Review of Technology Standards

1/19/04


1/26/04

5 Dimensions of LearningSchools that WorkClassrooms that Work

Describe how you incorporate Marzano strategies in your lessons.


2/2/04

Research-Based Planning StrategiesThe Planning Pyramid

Team Planning (McGill Action Planning)

Discuss Bloom & Task Analysis

Discuss Multilevel Goals and Objectives

Discuss Writing IEP’s

Develop lesson plan

using pyramid & multi-level objectives.


185

from QCC’s


2/9/04

Monitoring Student ProgressPre-Post Assessments

Group & Individual Embedded Assessments

Embedded IEP assessment

Group Processing

Class Activities

Review of Rubrics

Review of Sample Lessons


2/16/04

Differentiated Instruction

Multi-Level Instruction with Accommodations & Accommodations

Carol Tomlinson

Video Activities

Subject Matter Expert


2/23/04

Direct Instruction Model: DI and di

Task Analysis

Response/Prompt Systems

Systematic Instruction with Prompts & Cues

Error Correction Strategies

Class Activities

Review of Rubrics



186


3/01/04Direct Instruction

Class Activities

Review of Rubrics


3/3/04


3/8/04

What Works & What Doesn’t

Cooperative Learning Structures

Class Wide Peer Tutoring (Math)

Think Sheet

Literature Circles

CWPT

Critique Video & Lesson Plans on CL


3/15/04

Cooperative Learning Structures

Introduce Jigsaw

Roles and responsibilities

Management strategies

Jigsaw: Each Class Member present their structure & demonstrate

a ten-minute lesson to class.


3/22/04

Peer Review Strategies

Self-Evaluations

Analysis of Student Work

3/29/04 Determining Impact on Student LearningGraphing

Peer review


187

Student Data

Critical Analysis of Video

4/5/04

Subject Expert

Facilitator

4/12/04

Strategy Instruction Model

Facilitator

Subject Matter Expert

4/19/04

Content Area Reading

Strategies for Written Expression

Math Methods

Demonstration lessons

Collaborative Professional

4/26/04

What it Takes to be a Successful Teacher

Collegial and Partner Learning as Professional Development Practices

Portfolio Action Plan


5/3/04 Documenting Professional Outcomes


XVII. References/Bibliography

American Association on Mental Retardation (1993). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of supports. 9th ed. Washington,D.C.: Author.

Anderson, L. W. & Pellicer, L. O. (1990). Synthesis of research on compensatory and remedial education. Educational Leadership, 48, 10-16.


188

Billingsley, F.F., Burgess, D., Lynch, V.W., & Matlock, B.L. (1991). Toward generalized outcomes: Considerations and guidelines for writing instructional objectives. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 351-360.

Bos, C.S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Strategies for Teaching Students with Learning and Behavior Problems (2nd ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Carnine, D. W. (1991). Curricular interventions for teaching higher order thinking to all students: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 261-169.

Cawley, J.F., Baker-Kroczynski, S. & Urban, A. (1992). Seeking excellence in mathematics education for students with mild disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, 40-43.

Christenson, S.L., Ysseldyke, J.E. & Thurlow, M.L. (1989). Critical instructional factors for students with mild handicaps: An integrative review. Remedial & Special Education, 10, 21-31.

Clark, G.M. & Kolstoe, O.P. (1990). Career development and transition education for adolescents with disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Cohen, S.B. & deBettencourt, L.V. (1991). Dropout: Intervening with the reluctant learner. Intervention in School and Clinic, 26, 263-271.

Cohen, S.B. & Lynch, D.K. (1991). An instructional modification process. Teaching Exceptional Children, 23, 12-18.

Hammill, D.D. & Bartel, N.R. (1990) Teaching Students with Learning and Behavior Problems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Meese, R.L. (1994). Teaching Learners with Mild Disabilities: Integrating Research & Practice.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Meyen, E.L., Vergason, G.A., & Whelan, R.J. (Eds.) (1988). Effective instructional strategies for exceptional children. Denver: Love.

Patton, J.R., Beirne-Smith, M. & Payne, J.S. (1990). Mental Retardation. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Sasso, G.M., Meloy, K.J. & Kavale, K.A. (1990). Generalization, maintenance, and behavioral co-variation associated with social skills training through structured learning. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 9-22.

Slavin, R.E. (1990) Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


189

Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L. & Madden, N.A. (1989). Effective programs for students at risk. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Wang, M.C., Reynolds, M.C. & Walberg, H.J. (Eds.) (1988). Handbook of special education: Research and practice: Vol.2. Mildly handicapped conditions. New York: Pergamon Press.


190

EXC 7765: Instructional Design Progress Report

Candidate Name:

Directions: Meet with your professor to determine projected due dates for completion of your project. Complete your assignments and ask your peers to review your work at designated times. Submit your work to your instructor only when it is completely finished.

Candidate Plan for Completion of Instructional Design Project

Task Projected

Due Date

Peer Revie

wDates

& Initial

Date of Completio

n

Re-submissio

nDate

Identify 1 reading and 1 math lesson to use as foundation for project.

Develop multi-level objectives for reading and math lessons for students with full


191

range of ability and disability.

Develop assessments.

Develop direct instruction components.

Develop cooperative learning components.

Teach and video lessons.

Analyze Work Samples.

Collect, organize & graph data

Interpret and reflect upon


192

data.

Peer Review (Instructor Review)

Self-evaluate video

Peer Review

Plan Approved: Date:

(Faculty Signature)

Project Complete. Candidate ready to complete assignments for a higher grade.

Faculty Signature: Date:


193

I. EXC 7770 Psychoneurological and Medical Issues in Special EducationDepartment of Special Education

Kennesaw State UniversitySummer, 2003

II. INSTRUCTOR/LOCATION: Mimi Gold, M.Ed.Dunwoody High School5035 Vermack RoadMedia Center(W) 40-845-1301

[email protected]

III. Class Sessions: Tuesday/Thursday 4:30-8:30 May 1 through June 5, 2003

IV. Texts (required): Bowe, F. (2000). Physical, Sensory and Health Disabilities: An Introduction.

Columbus, OH, Merrill. Ratey, J. (2002). A User’s Guide to the Brain: Perception, Attention, and the Four

Theaters of the Brain. New York, NY, Vintage Books, Random House, Inc.

V. Catalog Description: This course focuses on the psychological, neurological and medical bases of learning and behavioral differences exhibited by exceptional students. The link between psychological, neurological and medical differences and performance in school will be explored to identify differential programming needs for these students. Multi-disciplinary collaboration, service coordination and preparation for addressing medical needs within the classroom setting will be emphasized.

VI.Purpose/Rationale: The purpose of this course is to prepare professional learning facilitators for exceptional students. The competencies in this course are derived from the requirements for teachers of students with mild disabilities of the Professional Standards Commission (the licensure body of Georgia), the national standards of the Council for Exceptional Children, and guidance from the KSU Department of Special Education Advisory Board. This course is designed to provide the knowledge and skills necessary to work with students with a variety of physical, medical and health disabilities. It addresses the psychoneurological bases for development and learning.

Conceptual Framework Summary: Collaborative Development ofExpertise in Teaching and Learning


194

The Kennesaw State University teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers who demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU teacher education community strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring guidance from professionals inside and outside the university. In tandem with this belief is the understanding that teacher expertise develops along a continuum which includes the stages of preservice, induction, in-service, and renewal; further, as candidates develop a strong research-based knowledge of content and pedagogy, they develop their professional expertise in recognizing, facilitating, assessing, and evaluating student learning.

Knowledge Base: Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.

The knowledge base for this course is derived from research literature in the areas of education, psychology and medicine. The field of special education is in a constant state of transition as debates continue over the etiology of learning and behavior differences and appropriate educational placement and methodology for these students. The increase in the number of students surviving difficult births, the effects of prenatal alcohol or drug exposure, cancer treatments or accidents resulting in brain injury and the increase in the number of students on medications or medical support systems in school necessitates that teachers have a greater knowledge of medical correlates.

Use of Technology: Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media, especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and develop an electronic learning portfolio.

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


195

The effect of culture on is a key component of understanding special education. Consideration of the impact of socioeconomic and cultural differences on identification, assessment, intervention and service delivery will be considered.

VII. Goals and Objectives: The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of teacher preparation as a developmental and collaborative process. Research for the past 25 years has described this process in increasingly complex terms. Universities and schools must work together to successfully prepare teachers who are capable of developing successful learners in today’s schools and who choose to continue their professional development. As a result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of this course, the student will demonstrate a broad base of Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions.

Knowledge1. articulate the major theories of cognitive development and the application of each to

special education students.2. describe the causes and effects of sensory, physical and medical problems on learning

and behavior and the implications for special education. 3. articulate modifications and accommodations in assessment and instruction for students

with sensory, physical and medical problems. 4. articulate sources for support in addressing needs of students with sensory, physical and

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

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

Skills

6. articulate the cognitive and biological components of attention disorders and develop classroom modifications using cognitive techniques for amelioration of attention problems.

7. articulate the components of memory and develop appropriate techniques for instruction of students with memory deficits.

8. describe the effects of cognitive and biological differences on behavior, reasoning and problem-solving skills and the develop modifications for special education.

Dispositions

9. demonstrate skill in researching needs for a specific disability area and identifying educational needs.

10. demonstrate skill in collaborative participation in multi-disciplinary planning for life-span needs of students with disabilities

Course Requirements/AssignmentsClass attendance & participation: Students are expected to sign in for class each session and participate in all class activities.

Objective exam (Neurological): A 50 point objective format exam will be administered covering content of Ratey text and related in-class presentations. In-class application activities: Students will participate in simulations and application activities. Each activity will have an assigned point value.Final objective exam (Medical & Health): A 50 point objective format exam will be administered covering content of Bowe text and related in-class presentations.


196

Reflective activity journal: Students will submit reflective journal assignments relating applications of class discussion to their teaching practice.

IX. Evaluation and Grading

Requirement Points Assessed Course ObjectivesClass attendance & participation 30 10

Objective exam (Medical & Health) 50 2,3,4,5Cognitive theorist reflection paper 50 1,9,(10)Accommodations chart with sources 50 6,7,8,9Objective exam (Neurological) 50 6,7,8Study tool projects 30 2,10Reflective activity journal 40 5,9

Total 300

Grades will be assigned as follows:92-100 average % A85-91 average % B76-84 average % C <76 average % F

X. ACADEMIC HONESTY: Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.

The student is reminded to consult pp. 142 - 143 of the 2000-2001 KSU Graduate Catalog for the University's policy. Any strategy, which has the appearance of improving grades without increasing knowledge, will be dealt with in accordance with the University's policy on academic honesty. In addition, students in the graduate program in special education are held accountable by the Georgia Professional Code of Ethics for Educators (http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html) and the Council for Exceptional Children's (CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with Exceptionalities (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).

CLASS PARTICIPATION: Students are expected to attend all class sessions and be active participants in the learning process. This class includes presentations by professionals from other disciplines and class attendance is essential for participation in development of a multi-disciplinary perspective. Class activities will include discussion, role playing and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all students. Students have many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's learning. Evaluation will include attendance, communication and collaboration skills demonstrated during class.

DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR: The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning of others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (See Campus Policies and Procedures p.143 of the 2000- 2001 KSU Graduate Catalog).


197

HUMAN DIGNITY: The University has formulated a policy on human rights that is intended to provide a learning environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found on p.152 in the 2000-2001 KSU Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but the policy is there for your consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that policy.

Course Outline

Date Topic In-class activities Class AssignmentTH May 1 Introduction/requirements Video: Brain Dev’tTU May 6 Early Intervention

(readings due on Bowe Chapters 1-4) populations, models & laws, early inter., related services, advocacy,mainstream & multiple needs

Sheila Langston (4:30) Reflective journal 1-

Locate & evaluate web site for early interv’n parents

Web Search- Theorist Paper

TH May 8 Health & Medical(readings due on Bowe Chapters 7-9) TBI, MS, epilepsy, MD, arthritis, amputation, little people, health impairments

Dr.Gloria Taylor (4:30) Reflective journal 2-Locate your county (web)medic’n policy, comment on use and effectiveness

TU May 13 Adaptive/Assistive Tech’gy(readings due on Bowe Chapters 5-6,10) assistive tech, CP, spinal cord injury, spina bifida, 2nd conditions-vision, hearing, cognition

Dee Dee Bunn (6:30) Web Search-Theorist Paper

TH May 15 Therapy Overview (readings due on Bowe Chapters 11-14) accessibility, housing, transportation, employment

Lainie Palefsky (4:30)Robin Skolsky

Overview of language processing/impairments

Reflective journal 3-Describe value of low and high tech support/devices, cite known/specific cases, why effective

TU May 20 Midterm Exam Bowe Text Review Activity

General overview on brain function

Video: Social Brain

TH May 22 Neurological Assessment(readings due on Ratey Chapters on: Att’n, Memory & Movement)

Dr. Alcuin Johnson (4:30) Web Search-impairment + modifications

TU May 27 Autism(readings due on Ratey Chapters on: Intro’n, Develop’t & Perception)

Denise Browning ((4:30) Reflective journal 4-Identify students you suspect need language ther., why

TH May 29 Psychopharmocology(readings due on Ratey Chapters on: Emotions, Social Brain)

Dr. Marth Little (6:30) Web Search- impairment + modifications

TU June 3 Acquired Brain Injury Mimi Gold (4:30) Video: Coma


198

(readings due on Ratey Chapters on: Language & 4 Theaters

TH June 5 Final Exam Ratey Text Review Activity Reflective journal 5- a student with a TBI is in your class, how can you prepare, instruct and support

Note: Activities listed may be changed due to time or need for further information in content areas of planned curriculum

References

Aponik, D. & Dembo, M. (1983) Learning disabled and normal adolescents' causal attributions of success

and failure at different levels of task difficulty. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 311-39

Borkowski, J.G., Estrada, M.T., Milstead, M. & Hale, C.A. (1989) General problem-solving skills: Relations

between metacognition and strategic processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 57-701-39

Cosden, M., & Haring, T. (1992). Cooperative learning in the classroom: Contingencies, group

interactions and students with special needs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2 (1),

53-71.

Deno, S. L., Foegen, A., Robinson, S., & Espin, C. (1996). Commentary: Facing the realities of inclusion

for students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 345-357.

Eliason, M.J. and Richman, L.C. (1988) Behavior and attention in LD children. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 11, 360-9.

Felton, R. H. and Wood, F.B. (1989) Cognitive deficits in reading disability and attention deficit disorder.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 3-13

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. , Phillips, M., & Karns, E. (1995). General educators' specialized

adaptations for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 440-459.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Teacher planning for students with learning disabilities:

Differences between general and special educators. Learning Disabilities Research, 7, 120-128.

Giangreco, M., Cloninger, C. & Iverson, V. (1993a). Choosing options and accommodations for children

(COACH): A guide to planning inclusive education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.


199

Giangreco, M., & Putnam, J. (1991). supporting the education of students with severe disabilities in

regular education environments. In L. H. Meyer, C. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.) Critical Issues in the

Lives of People with Severe Disabilities. (pp. 245-270.)

Goldman, S.R. (1989) Strategy instruction in mathematics. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 43-56

Gollnick, D.M & Chinn, P.C. (1986) Multicultural Education in a Pluralistic Society. Columbus, OH: Merrill

Hallahan, D.P. & Sapona, R.S. (1983) Self-monitoring of attention with learning disabled children: Past

research and current issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 16-20.

Holmes, E.E. (1985) Children Learning Mathematics: A Cognitive Approach to Teaching Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, and outcomes for

students with severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 3-29.

Jorgensen, C. (1992). Natural supports in inclusive schools: Curricular and teaching strategies. In J.

Nisbet (Ed.) Natural supports in school, at work, and in the community for people with disabilities.

Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

LHresko, W.P. & Reid, D.K. (1981) Five faces of cognition: Theoretical influences on approaches to

learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 238-253.

Lewis, S.K. and Lawrence-Patterson, E. (1989) Locus of control of children with learning disabilities and

perceived locus of control by significant others. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 255-7.

Logan, K. R., Bakeman, R., Keefe, E. B. (1997). Effects of instructional variables on engaged behavior of

students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63, (4) 481-498.

Logan, K. R., & Keefe, E. B. (1997). A comparison of instructional context, teacher behavior, and

engaged behavior for students with severe disabilities in general education and self-contained

elementary classrooms. Journal of The Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 22, 16-

27.

Marston, D. (1996). A comparison of inclusion only, pull-out only, and combined service models for

students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 121-132.


200

Monda-Amaya, L. & Pearson, P. (1996). Toward a responsible pedagogy for teaching and learning

literacy. In M. C. Pugach & C. Warger (Eds.), Curriculum trends, special education and reform.

Refocusing the conversation. (pp.143-163). New York: Teachers College Press.

Nolet, V., & Tindal, G. (1993). Special education in content area classes: Development of a model and

practical procedures. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 36-48.

Paris, S.G. & Oka, E.R. (1989) Strategies for comprehending text and coping with reading difficulties.

Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 32-42

Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B.L. and Cariglia-Bull, T. Strategy instruction research comes of age.

Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16-31

Ratey, John J. (2002) A User’s Guide to the Brain: Perception, Attention, and the Four Theaters of the

Brain. New York: Vintage Books, Random House, Inc.

Reid, D.K. (1988) Teaching the Learning Disabled: A Cognitive Developmental Approach. Boston: Allyn

& Bacon

Rosser, R. (1994) Cognitive Development: Psychological and biological perspectives. Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Sands, D. J., Adams, L., & Stout, D. M. (1995). A statewide exploration of the nature and use of

curriculum in special education. Exceptional Children, 62, 68-83.

Schumaker, J.B., Deshler, D.D., Alley, G.R., Warner, M.M. & Denton, P.H. (1982) Multipass: A learning

strategy for improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 295-304.

Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L., & Saumell, L. (1995). General

education teacher planning: What can students with learning disabilities expect? Exceptional

Children, 61, 335-352.

Schunk, D.H. (1989) Self-efficacy and cognitive achievement: Implications for students with learning

problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 14-22.

Sleeter, C.E. & Grant, C.A. (1988) Making Choices for Multicultural Education: Five approaches to race,

class and gender Columbus, OH: Merrill

Snider, V. (1988) Use of self-monitoring of attention with LD students: Research & application. Learning

Disability Quarterly, 10, 139-151.


201

Staub, D., & Peck, C.A. (1995). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational

Leadership, December 1994/January 1995, 36 – 40.

Swanson, H.L. (1988) Memory subtypes in learning disabled readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11,

342-357.

Swanson, H.L. (1989) Strategy instruction: Overview of principles and procedures for effective use.

Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 3-14.

Stanovich, K.E. (1988) Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor

reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21,

590-604

Torgeson, J.K. (1985) Memory processes in reading disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

18, 350-357.

Torgeson, J.K. (1988) Studies of children with learning disabilities who perform poorly on memory span

tasks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 605-612

Torgeson, J.K. (1988) The cognitive and behavioral characteristics of children with learning disabilities:

An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 587-589

Torgesen, J.K. (1989) Cognitive and behavioral characteristics of children with learning disabilities:

Concluding comments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 166-16.

Udvari-Solner, A. (1995). A process for adapting curriculum in inclusive classrooms. In R. Villa & J.

Thousand (Eds.) Creating an inclusive school. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J. N., Jenkins, L., & Couthino, M.

(1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi

Delta Kappan, 76, 531-540.


202

EXC 7780

II. EXC 7780 Collaboration For Inclusive SchoolsDepartment of Special Education

Kennesaw State UniversityFall, 2002

II. INSTRUCTORS: Name Kent R. Logan, Ph.D.Room 3107 Kennesaw HallOffice Phone: 770-499-3126; Cell Phone: 404-931-6390e-mail [email protected]; [email protected]

III. Class Sessions: Day : Tuesday, 5:00 – 7:45 PMLocation: Kennesaw Hall, 1107

IV. Texts (required): Sands, D. J., Kozleski, E. B., French, N. K. (2000). Inclusive Education For The 21st Century. Riso, D. R. (1990). Understanding the Enneagram.

Text (optional): Doyle, M.B. (1997). The paraprofessional guide to inclusive classrooms.

Baltimore: Brookes

V. Catalog Description: This course focuses on development of collaborative and consultative skills for working with parents, regular education teachers, special education teachers, support personnel, community resource personnel and others to facilitate delivery of appropriate services for special education students.

VI. Purpose/Rationale: The purpose of this course is to prepare P-12 special education teachers to become effective facilitators of elementary, secondary, or alternative curriculum for students with disabilities within the context of the general education classroom and curriculum. In order to facilitate this curriculum candidates must be able to co-teach and collaborate with general educators and build multi-level curriculum plans. In addition, they must be able to assess their school for barriers to effective inclusive and design plans for building wide change that will address those barriers.

Conceptual Framework SummaryCollaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning

The Kennesaw State University teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers who demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU teacher education community


203



strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring guidance from professionals inside and outside the university. In tandem with this belief is the understanding that teacher expertise develops along a continuum which includes the stages of preservice, induction, in-service, and renewal; further, as candidates develop a strong research-based knowledge of content and pedagogy, they develop their professional expertise in recognizing, facilitating, assessing, and evaluating student learning.

Knowledge Base Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.

The knowledge base for methods of teaching students with disabilities continues to develop rapidly. The historical framework included perceptual training, behavior modification and task analysis. Current directions include multiple intelligence models, systematic instruction, strategy approaches to teaching and learning, and direct instruction. The field draws on research literature from educational psychology, medicine, psychology and special education. The emphasis in this class will be on developing skills in application of research-based best practice in the area of behavior management, documenting impact on student learning, and reflective practice.

Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media, especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and develop an electronic learning portfolio.

Candidates in this course will be expected to apply the use of educational technology in classrooms for students in their classrooms. Specifically, candidates will use spreadsheet software to develop graphs, charts, and tables, word processing to write papers, and e-mail to communicate with the instructors and their peers

Diversity StatementA variety of material and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of

different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge, skills, and understanding to provide effective instruction in multicultural classrooms. Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to help disabled students with their academic work. In


204

order to make arrangements for special services, candidates must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and arrange an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.

The effect of socio-economic, ethnic, gender and cultural differences on the effectiveness of methods for students with disabilities will be considered. The emphasis on cognitive style differences in the special education field provides a background for the consideration of cultural context

VII. Goals and Objectives

The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of teacher preparation as a developmental and collaborative process. Research for the past 25 years has described this process in increasingly complex terms. Universities and schools must work together to successfully prepare teachers who are capable of developing successful learners in today’s schools and who choose to continue their professional development. Candidates in this course are expected to perform at the Advanced or Teacher Leader level of performance.

As a result of Knowledge, candidates will be able to:

1. Describe and defince the dynamics of the systems’ change processCEC Cross Reference: N/A

2. Describe how general education reform serves as the context for inclusion. CEC Cross Reference: N/A

3. Compare and contract the concepts of empowerment vs. paternalism as they relate to the education of students with disabilities. CEC Cross Reference: BS5, FS3, FS1, PK5

4. Describe and define collaborative and consultative roles of special education teachers in the instruction of individuals with disabilities in general education curriculum, classrooms, and all other aspects of school life. CEC Cross Reference: CCK3, PS7, IS16.

5. Describe and define general developmental, academic, social, career, and functional characteristics of individuals with disabilities as they relate to the level of support needed to be successful in general education classrooms and all other aspects of school life. CEC Cross Reference: CS1, IK2-6, IS22, PK1, PK4, BS5, PS7, IS16.

As a result of Skills, candidates will be able to:

6. Develop a building plan to implement inclusive education in an elementary, middle, or high school by assessing the complete school context, identifying the barriers to change, as well as the strategies necessary to overcome them. CEC Cross Reference: CCK3, PS7, IS16.

7. Develop and implement a model of co-teaching and classroom-based therapy for students with special needs that includes the roles and responsibilities of each staff member, team/problem-solving strategies, and methods of conflict resolution. CEC Cross Reference: CCK3, PS7, IS16.

8. Include in the building plan and the co-teaching models strategies to optimize parent involvement. CEC Cross Reference: CCK3, PS7, IS16

9. Develop lesson plans that use and integrate research-supporte instructional strategies and practice including cooperative learning, multi-level instruction, differentiated learning, curriculum accommodation, functional embedded functional skills, community-reference instruction, MAPS, curriculum matrices, transdisciplinary IEP development when teaching students with disabilities in school and community settings. CEC Cross-Reference: IK1, IK7, IK8, IS1, IS2, IS$-9, IS12-19, IS21, IS23, IS25-26, PS4, PS7.


205

10. Assist students, in collaboration with parents and other professionals, in planning for various school transitions including preschool to school, class to class, school to school, school to work, etc. CEC Cross Reference: IS14, IS15, IS17, IS23, PK1, PK4, CCK1, CCK4-5, CCS2, CCK3, BS5, PS7, IS16.

11. Develop and use an assistive technology plan for individuals who lack typical communication and performance abilities. CEC Cross Reference: AS4, AS5, IS5, IS19, IS21, IS25, PK3, CCK2.

12. Evaluate, select, develop, and adapt/modify general education curriculum materials and technology appropriate for individuals with disabilities. CEC Cross Reference: IS1, IS2, IS4-9, IS12-19, IS21, IS23, IS25-26, PS5.

13. Integrate student initiated, peer mediated, and/or social development experiences into ongoing, age-appropriate instruction. CEC Cross Reference, BS5, PS4.

14. Assist paraprofessionals in instructing students in a variety of ways and contexts. CEC Cross Reference: CCK3, PS7, IS16.

15. Create positive learning environments for all students, including those with moderate/severe disabilities. CEC Cross Reference IK9, CCK3, BS4-5.

As a result of professional dispositions candidates will be able to:

16. Demonstrate communication, problem solving, and conflice resolution skills when assisting other professionals, families, or students with disabilities. CEC Cross Reference: IS16, CCK3.

17. Demonstrate skills in leadership, advocacy, and training to improve services for students with disabilities. CEC Cross Reference: EK1, ES1-2.

18. Participate in the activities of professional organizations relevant to individuals with disabilities. ES1

19. Articulate the teacher’s ethical responsibility to non-identified students who function similarly to students classified as disabled. CEC Cross Reference: U4A, ES2.

20. Always use people first language. CEC Cross Reference: EK2.

X. Course Requirements/Assignments:

Reflections on Video Tapes and Statements: In some classes, candidates will watch a video tape or be given a statement on collaboration or problem solving by the instructor. Candidate will write a short reflection based on the video or the statement. (50 Points)

Co-Teaching Model, Plan, and Video Tape: Each candidate will be required to co-teach two lessons with a general education teacher. Candidates will identify a model of co-teaching to implement, write collaboration plans, develop a multi-level curriculum lesson to implement, and video tape the lesson. Candidates will then watch their video and reflect on the quality of the co-teaching, the instruction, the curriculum, and student engagement. Following the reflection, candidates will develop another lesson to improve on the first one. They will identify a different model of co-teaching to implement the lesson, write collaboration plans, develop a multi-level curriculum lesson to implement, and video tape the lesson. If the first lesson used a whole class instruction model of co-teaching, the second lesson must employ a small group model of co-teaching. Candidates will then watch the second video and reflect on the quality of the co-teaching, the instruction, the curriculum, and student engagement. This reflection will include a comparison and contrast to the first lesson. All components of this activity will be listed and evaluated based on a rubric developed by the instructor. (100 Points)

Building Plan: Working in teams, candidates will develop a building plan to increaseco-teaching, collaboration, and inclusion of all students (including those with more severe disabilities) in general education classrooms and curriculum at their school or a school with similar characteristics to their school. This plan will be comprehensive and include a building assessment (evaluate your school’s total context, identify strengths and areas of need for improvement), the identification of barriers to inclusion, the prioritization of which barriers to work on, and the development of a comprehensive plan to overcome


206

the selected barriers. This plan will address administrative, school ecology, staff development, school wide behavior, co-teaching models (diagram of model), and collaboration (with teachers, paraprofessionals, related services personnel, parents) issues. It will also include assessment tools, team tools, problem solving processes, ways to capitalize on learning and personality styles. Candidates will turn in the building assessment and identification and prioritization components as they are developed for an initial evaluation. Feedback from the instructor will then be incorporated into the final Building Plan. All components of the Building Plan will be listed and evaluated based on a rubric developed by the instructor. (120 Points).

Class Participation: In most classes, candidates will work in groups to complete specific activities. These include reflection on video tapes and statements passed out by the instructor, co-teaching plans/models, and the building plan. The instructor anticipates that candidates will attend class regularly (see policy on tardiness and absenteeism), be respectful of the instructor and peers by not talking or working on non-class materials while the instructor or peers are talking, participate actively in group application activities, and be respectful of the instructor and peers by not making sarcastic or other denigrating comments to or about them (20 points).

Working Portfolio Components

Field Experience Observation: All candidates will be observed by an adjunct faculty member. They will observe following a protocol that will be shared with candidates prior to the observation. The observation for this course will be focused on curriculum strategies of co-teaching, collaboration, multi-level curriculum, and adaptations and modification.

Professional Development Log: Candidates will keep a log of professional development activities in which they participate during the semester. Candidates will write the topic of the professional development activity and a paragraph on how that activity impacts their practice.

Professional Readings: Candidates will keep a log of professional readings. Candidates will write the title and journal from which the reading came and a paragraph on how what they learned from the reading impacts their teaching.

Reflective Assessment: During the first class, candidates will list their strengths and areas in need of improvement, as related to behavior strategies, and write a goal statement(s) as to what they would like to learn and implement during the course. At the end of the class, candidates will write a short reflection on how they improved their practice based on their goals (strengths and areas in need of improvement) and develop goals and an action plan for how the information and skills learned in this course will continue to impact their development as a teacher and leader (10 points).

Extensions and Impact on Student Learning: Candidates should keep ongoing documentation of ways in which they extended their learning and skills from this and other courses they took. For this course, this could include identifying students who gain access to more inclusive educational environments, actual changes implemented in the school as a result of the Building Plan, changes in student behavior or learning that results from co-teaching, interactions with parents, committees formed or served on related to inclusive education, peer mediated strategies implemented in your class or other classrooms, workshops on co-teaching conducted at the school, the establishment of additional co-teaching teams at your school and etc.Candidates should keep documentation of changes in student behavior that results from these interventions (impact on student learning).

XI. Evaluation and Grading


207

Class Requirements, Assignments, and GradingClass Activities Points Course Objectives PTEU

ObjectivesField

Experience Observation

19 4

Professional Development Log 18 4,5Professional Readings 18 4,5Reflective Assessment 10 19 4,5Individual Reflections on Video Tapes and Statements given out by the instructor

50 1,2,3,20 4,5

Co-Teaching Plan and Video Tape (Individual Project)

100 4,5,7,9,10,12 13,17,19,20 1,2,3

Building Plan (Group Project) 120 1,5,6,7,8,10,14,15,17 1,4,5Class Participation (Includes in class group projects)

20 2,3,5,9,10,1112,13,15,16,19,20 4,5

Grades will be assigned as follows:270 -300 points A240 -279 points B210 -239 points C <210 points F

X. Academic Integrity

Every KSU candidate is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/ falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a candidate to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.

The candidate is reminded to consult pp 142-143 of the 2001-2002 KSU Graduate Catalog for the University's policy. Any strategy, which has the appearance of improving grades without increasing knowledge, will be dealt with in accordance with the University's policy on academic honesty. In addition, candidates in the graduate program in special education are held accountable by the Georgia Professional Code of Ethics for Educators (http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html) and the Council for Exceptional Children's (CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with Exceptionalities (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).

XI. Class Attendance Policy

Candidates are expected to attend all class sessions and be active participants in the learning process. The knowledge and skills taught in this class can best be learned by reading the assignments and coming to class to listen to the instructor, ask questions, and interact with peers during group activities. If, after reviewing the syllabus, class assignments, and reading, candidates believe they already know the information in this course, they must speak to the instructor who will arrange for a competency test and then alternative assignments to extend the candidate’s current understanding co-teaching, collaboration, multi-level curriculum, and building assessment and whole school change. Class activities will include discussion and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all candidates. Candidates have many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's learning.


208

Evaluation will include attendance, communication and collaboration skills demonstrated during class. If candidates miss more than two classes without written permission of the instructor, their grade will be lowered one letter grade.

Disruptive Behavior: The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning of others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (See Campus Policies and Procedures p. 146 of the 2001- 2002 KSU Graduate Catalog).

Human Dignity: The University has formulated a policy on human rights that is intended to provide a learning environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found on p. 152 in the 2001-2002 KSU Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but the policy is there for your consideration. he activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that policy.

XI. Course Outline (The syllabus schedule reflects a proposed general sequence of topics. Any topic may be covered in greater or lesser detail depending on the needs of the class. Topics may overlap in dates. Additional topics may be added as requested by the candidates. However, any changes in due dates or written products that are part of a “grade” will be changed only after class discussion and written notification by the professor. Candidates will be expected to initial that they have read the written notification by the instructor.) [SKJ = Sands, Kozleski, French]

Date Topic Readings In-Class Activity

Assignment Due

8/27/02 Intro, syllabus, models of co-teaching

Co-Teaching Video

9/3/02 Co-teaching, collaboration and planning

SKF: 1, 2 Without Pity Video Reflection Due

9/10/02 Collaboration and Communication

SKF: 4 Eric’s Story Video Reflection Due

9/17/02 Collaboration and Communication

SKF: 5 Wins Video, Kunc Video

Video Reflection Due

9/24/02 Educational Reform as the context for inclusion

Strieker Monograph

Video on Collaboration and Problem Solving

Video Reflection Due

10/1/02 Appreciating Personality Types and their impact on collaboration

Riso Video Reflection Due

10/8/02 Appreciating Personality Types and their impact on collaboration

Riso Personality Inventory

10/15/02 School Assessment, ID of Barriers

SKF: 6, 7 Building Plan Group

Co-Teaching Plan and Video Due

10/22/02 School Wide Behavior SKF: 8, 3 Building Plan Group

10/29/02 Effective Staff Development SKF: 9, 10 Building Plan Group

Assessment and Priority Objectives due for review

11/5/02 Administration, School Ecology, Families

SKF: 11 Building Group Plan

11/12/02 Creative Problem Solving Building Group Plan


209

11/19/02 Multi-Level Curriculum and Accommodations for Learners with Moderate and Severe Disabilities

Building Plan Group

11/26/01 Multi-Level curriculum and Accommodations for Learners with Profound Disabilities

Multi-level curriculum plans

12/3/01 Multi-Level curriculum including related services

Multi-level plans Building Plan Due

XII. References/Bibliography

Augmentative Communication , Assistive Technology & Classroom-Based Therapy

Baumgart, D., Johnson, J., & Helmstetter, E. (1990). Augmentative and alternative communication systems for persons with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul Brooks.

Mirenda, P. (1985). Designing pictorial communication systems for physically able-bodied students with severe handicaps. Augmentative and alternative communication, 1, 58-64.

Tranchak, T. L., and C. Sawyer (1995). Augmentative communication in Assistive Technology: A resource for school, work and community, eds. M.F. Flippo, K.J. Inge and J.M. Barcus. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.

Reichle, J., & Karlan, G. (1989). The selection of an augmentative system of communication intervention: A critique of decision rules. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10 (3), 146-156.

Giangreco, M. ,York, J., & Rainforth, B. (1989) Providing related services to learners with handicaps in educational settings; Pursuing the least restrictive option. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 1 (2), 55-63.

Rainforth, B. & York, J. (1987). Integrating related services into community instruction. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12 (3), 188-198.

Siegel-Causey, E. Guess, D. (1989). Enhancing nonsymbolic communication interactions among learners with severe communication disabilities. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.

Collaboration, Consultation & TeamworkDeBoer, A. (1995). Working together: The art of consulting and communicating. Longmont, CO: Sopris

West.

Emory, M. J. (1991). Building team pride: Teachers and paraeducators working together. Columbia: University of Missouri.

Friend, M. & Cook, L. (1990). Collaboration as a predictor for success in school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(1), 69-86.

Lyon, S. & Lyon, G. (1980). Team functioning and staff development: A role release approach to providing integrated educational services to students with moderate to severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 5(3), 250-263.

Pickett, A., Faison, K. & Formanke, J. (1993). A core curriculum and training program to prepare paraeducators to work in rural special education settings. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 13(4) 3-9.

Raywid, M. (1993). Finding time for collaboration. Educational Leadership, 51(1) 30-35.

Vaughn,. S., Schumm, J. & Arguelles, M. (1997). The ABCDEs of co-teaching in Teaching Exceptional Children. 30 (2), 4-10.

Creating Inclusive Schools


210

Brown, L., Long, E., Udvari-Solnar, A., Davis, L., VanDeventer, P., Ahlgren, C., Johnson, F., Gruenewald, L., & Jorgensen, J. (1989). The home school: Why students with severe intellectual disabilities must attend the school of their brothers, sisters, friends and neighbors. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14 (1), 1-7.

Cross, G., & Villa, R. (1992). The Winooski school system: An evolutionary perspective of a school restructuring for diversity. In R. Villa, J. Thousand, W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.) Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrators guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 219-237). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Ford, A. (1994). Assessing Our Practices. Wisconsin Inclusion Project.

Kaskinen-Chapman, A. (1992). Saline Area Schools and inclusive community concepts. In R. Villa, J. Thousand, W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.) Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrators guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 169-185). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

LeRoy, B., England, J., Kent, C., Osbeck, R. & St. Peter, S. (1994). Facilitator's guide to inclusive education: Systems change that supports all students. Inclusive Communities Press, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.

Lilly, M. (1987). Lack of focus on special education in literature on educational reform. Exceptional Children, 53(4), 325-330.

Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring, and the remaking of America society. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 762-706.

McGregor, G., & Vogelsberg, T. (1998). Inclusive Schooling Practices: Pedagogical and Research Foundations. Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices, Allegheny University of the Health Sciences, Pittsburgh.

National Center for Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (1995). National study of inclusive education. New York: City University of New York, NCERI.

Salisbury, C., Palombaro, M. & Hollowood, T. (1993). On the nature and change of an inclusive elementary school. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18 (2) 75-84.

Schaffner, C. & Buswell, B. (1996). Ten critical elements for creating inclusive and effective school communities. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.) Inclusion. A guide for educators. (pp 49-65). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.

Schattman, R. (1992). The Franklin Northwest Supervisory Union. In R. Villa, J. Thousand, W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.) Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrators guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 143-159). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Thousand, J., & Villa, R. (1995). Managing complex change within an inclusive schooling. In R. Villa & J. Thousand (Eds.) Creating and inclusive school. (pp.51-79). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

York-Barr, J., Kronberg, R. & Doyle, M. (1996). Creating inclusive school communities. Module 4-Collaboration: Redefining roles, practices, and structures. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Curriculum and Instruction

Cosden, M. & Haring, T. (1992). Cooperative learning in the classroom: Contingencies, group interactions and students with special needs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2 (1), 53-71.


211

Deno, S. L., Foegen, A., Robinson, S., & Espin, C. (1996). Commentary: Facing the realities of inclusion for students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 345-357

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D. Hamlett, C. , Phillips, M., & Karns, E. (1995). General educators' specialized adaptations for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 440-459.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Teacher planning for students with learning disabilities: Differences between general and special educators. Learning Disabilities Research, 7, 120-128.

Giangreco, M., Cloninger, C. & Iverson, V. (1993a). Choosing options and accommodations for children (COACH): A guide to planning inclusive education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Giangreco, M., & Putnam, J. (1991). supporting the education of students with severe disabilities in regular education environments. In L. H. Meyer, C. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.) Critical Issues in the Lives of People with Severe Disabilities. (pp. 245-270.)

Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, and outcomes for students with severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 3-29.

Jorgensen, C. (1992). Natural supports in inclusive schools: Curricular and teaching strategies. In J. Nisbet (Ed.) Natural supports in school, at work, and in the community for people with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Logan, K. Bakeman, R. Keefe, E. (1997). Effects of instructional variables on engaged behavior of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63, (4) 481-498.

Logan, K. R., & Keefe, E. B. (1997). A comparison of instructional context, teacher behavior, and engaged behavior for students with severe disabilities in general education and self-contained elementary classrooms. Journal of The Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 22, 16-27.

Marston, D. (1996). A comparison of inclusion only, pull-out only, and combined service models for students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 121-132.

Monda-Amaya, L. & Pearson, P. (1996). Toward a responsible pedagogy for teaching and learning literacy. In M.C. Pugach & C. Warger (Eds.), Curriculum trends, special education and reform. Refocusing the conversation. (pp.143-163). New York: Teachers College Press.

Nolet, V., & Tindal, G. (1993). Special education in content area classes: Development of a model and practical procedures. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 36-48.

Sands, D. J., Adams, L., & Stout, D. M. (1995). A statewide exploration of the nature and use of curriculum in special education. Exceptional Children, 62, 68-83.

Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L., & Saumell, L. (1995). General education teacher planning: What can students with learning disabilities expect? Exceptional Children, 61, 335-352.

Staub, D., & Peck, C. A. (1995). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership, December 1994/January 1995, 36 – 40.

Udvari-Solner, A. (1995). A process for adapting curriculum in inclusive classrooms. In R. Villa & J. Thousand (Eds.) Creating an inclusive school.Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J. N., Jenkins, L., & Couthino, M. (1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 531-540.


212

General Education Reform as the Context for Inclusion

Adelman, N. E., & Walking-Eagle, K. P. (1997) Teachers, time and school reform. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.) 1997 ASCD Yearbook. Rethinking education change with a heart and mind (pp 92-110). Alexandria, BA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Apple, M. W. & Beane, J. A. (1995). Democratic schools. Alexandria, BA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Astuto, T. A., Clark, D. L., Read, A., McGree, K., & Fernandez, L. D. (1994). Roots of reform: Challenging the assumptions that control change in education. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Foundation.

Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding. The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, BA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Canady, R. L. & Rettig, M. D. (1995). Block scheduling. A catalyst for change in high schools. Princeton, N.J.: Eye on Education.

Cohen, J. (1986). Theoretical considerations of peer tutoring. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 175-186.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 753-761.

Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action. Studies of schools and students at work. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Dunn, R. (1996). How to implement and supervise a learning styles program. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school. New York: Flamer Press.

Fullan, M., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 754-752.

Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school. New York: Haper Collins.

Goodlad, J. (1994). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill.

Goodlad, J. & Lovitt, T. (Eds.) (1994). Integrating general and special education. New York: McGraw Hill.

Hargreaves, A. (1997a). Introduction. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.) 1997 ASCD yearbook. Rethinking educational change with heart and mind. (pp. vii-xv). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Hargreaves, A. (1997b). Rethinking educational change: Going deeper and wider in the quest for success. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.) 1997 ASCD yearbook. Rethinking educational change with heart and mind. (pp. vii-xv). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Hopfenberg, W. & Levin, H. (1993). The accelerated schools resource guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


213

Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1989a) Cooperation and Competition: Theory and research. Eden, MN: Interaction Books.

Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1989b). Leading Cooperative Schools. Eden, MN: Interaction Books.

Kohn, A. (1996). What to look for in a classroom. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 54-55.

Lieberman, A. (Ed.) (1995). The work of restructuring schools. Building from the ground up. New York: Teachers College Press.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Newmann, F. & Wehlage, G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8-12.

Newmann, F. & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Teele, S. (1995). The multiple intelligences school. A place for all students to succeed. Redlands, CA: Citrograph Printing.

United States Senate-House. (1994, March 21). Goals 2000: Educate America Act. (Conference Report 103-446). Washington D.C.: Author.

Legal, Policy , Cost & Urban Issues

Gorves, S., with Hartsfield, S. Ruff, Jones, R., and Holinga, M. (1995). How an urban school promotes inclusion. Educational Leadership, 52(4) 82-84.

Kubicek, F. (1994). Special education in light of select state and federal court decisions. The Journal of Special Education 28, 27-42.

Lipton, D. (1994). The "full inclusion" court cases: 1989-1994. National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion Bulletin, 1, (2), 108.

National Association for State Boards of Education. (1992). Winners All: A Call for Inclusive Schools. Virginia: Alexandria.

National Association for State Boards of Education. (1992). Winning Ways. Virginia: Alexandria.

Osborne, A. Dimattia, P. (1994). The IDEA's least restrictive environment mandate: Legal implications: Exceptional Children, 61, 6-14.

Salisbury, C. & Chambers, A. (1994). Instructional costs of inclusive schooling. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19(3), 215-222.

Yell, M. (1995). Least restrictive environment, inclusion and students with disabilities: A legal analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 398-404.

Yell, M. (1995). The least restrictive environment mandate and the courts: Judicial activism or judicial restraint? Exceptional Children, 61, 578-581.


214

Parent Issues & Perceptions

Erwin, E., Sodak, L. (1995). I never knew I could stand up to the system: Families' perspectives on pursuing inclusive education. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, (2) 136—146.

Green A., & Stone, A. (1989). Attitudes of mothers and fathers of non handicapped children. Journal of Early Intervention, 13(4), 292-304.

Palmer, D., Borthhart, M., Huang, A. & Melblom, C. (1998). Parent perceptions of inclusive practices for their children with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64 (1), 271-282.

Ryndak, D., Downing, J., Jaqueline, L. & Morrison, A. (1995) Parents' perceptions after inclusion of their children with moderate or severe disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20,. 147-157.

York, J. & Tunidor, M. (1995). Issues raised in the name of inclusion: Perspectives of educators, parents and students. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20,. 31--44.

Problem Behavior

Macmillan, D., Gresham, R., & Forness, S. (1996). Full inclusion: An empirical perspective. Behavioral Disorders, 21(2), 145-159.

Walker, H. M. & M. Bulls (1991). Behavior disorders and social context of regular class integration: A conceptual dilemma? In The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues and models. J. W. Lloyd, N Singh, and A. Repps, (Eds.) Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brookes Cole.

Rationale "for and against" Inclusion

Ayers, B. J., Meyer, L. H. Erevelles, N. & Park-Lee, S. (1994). Easy for you to say: Teacher perspectives on implementing most promising practices. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 84-93.

Ciopani, E. (1995). Inclusive education: What do we know and what do we still have to learn? Exceptional Children, 61, 498-500.

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (1994). Incsive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (1995). Counterpoint: Special Education--Ineffective? Immoral? Exceptional Children, 61, 303-306.

Giangreco, M., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S. Schattman, R. (1993). "I've counted Jon": Transformational experiences of teachers educating students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 359-372.

Janney, R. E., Snell, M. E., Beers, M. K., Raynes, M. (1995). Integrating students with moderate and severe disabilities into general education classes. Exceptional Children, 61, 425-438.

Kauffman, J. M. & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.) (1995). The illusion of full inclusion. A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon. Austin, Tex: PRO-ED.

Kauffman, J. M. (1993). How we might achieve the radical reform for special education. Exceptional Children, 60, 6-16.

Martin, E. W. (1995). Case studies on inclusion: Worst fears realized. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 192-199.


215

O'Neil, J. (1995). Can inclusion work? a conversation with Jim Kauffman and Mara Sapon-Shevin. Educational Leadership, 52(4) 7-11.

Rankin, D., Hallick, A. Hartley, P. Bost, C. & Uggla C. (1994). Who's dreaming? A general education perspective on inclusion. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 235-237.

Taylor, S. J. (1995). On rhetoric: A response to Fuchs and Fuchs. Exceptional Children. 61, 301-302.

Vergason, G. A. & Anderegg, M. L. (1993). "In my dreams": A second look at inclusion and programming. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 296-298.

Werts, M., Wolery, M., Snyder, E., Caldwell, N., & Salisbury, C. (1996). Supports and resources associated with inclusive schooling: Perceptions of elementary-school teachers about need and availability. Journal of Special Education.

Wolery, M., Werts, M., Caldwell, M., Snyder, E., & Lisowski, L. (1995). Experienced teachers' perceptions of conditions and supports for inclusion. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Delay, 30, 15-26.

Social, Friendship & Community Issues.

Hall, L. (1994). A descriptive assessment of social relationships integrated classrooms. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 302-313.

Helmsetter, E., Peck, C. Giangreco, M. (1994). Outcomes of interactions with peers with moderate or severe disabilities: A statewide survey of high school students. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 263-276.

Janney, R. E., Snell, M. D. (1996). How teachers use peer interactions to include students with moderate to severe disabilities in elementary general education classes. Journal of Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.

Kunc, N. (1992). The need to belong: Rediscovering Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In R. A. Villa, J. Thousand, W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools. (pp. 25-40). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Logan, K., Diaz, E. Piperno, M., Rankin, D., MacFarland, A. & Berbamian, K. (1995). How inclusion built a community of learners. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 42-45.

Staub, D., Schwartz, I., Gallucci, C., Peck, C. (1994). Four portraits of friendship at an inclusive school. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 314-325.

Strully, J. & Strully, C. (1992). The struggle toward inclusion and the fulfillment of friendship. In J. Nisbet (Ed.) Natural supports in school, at work, and in the community for people with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Transition Services

Lake. K. and K. Kafka (1996). Reporting methods in grade K-8. In communicating student learning, ed. T. Gusky, 90-118. Alexandria: Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Leconte, P. M. Castleberry, S. King & L. West (1994-1995). Critical issues in assessment: Let's take the mystery out of assessment for vocational preparation, career development and transition. Diagnostique, 20 (1-4): 33-51.

Love, L. (1993). Developing and including transition services in the IEP: transition services program. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education (ERIC Document NO. 380 964).


216

KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITYDEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

EXC 7790 Documenting Professional GrowthSpring 2003

I. COURSE NUMBER/SECTION EXC 7790

COURSE TITLE: Documenting Professional Growth

II. INSTRUCTOR: Dr. Deborah S. Wallace, Ph. D. Dr. Michaela D’Aquanni, Ph. D.KH 2333 KH 2335770-499-3297 [email protected] [email protected]

III. CLASS MEETINGS: Tuesday 5:00 – 8:00 PM

KH 1107 IV. TEXT:

Costantino, P. M. & DeLorenzo, M. N. (2002). Developing a Professional Teaching Portfolio: A Guide for Success. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association : Fifth Edition . Washington, D.C.: Author

V. CATALOG DESCRIPTION: This course provides support for Master of Education in special Education

candidates in completing and presenting their professional portfolio to document their professional growth. Candidates will work with a Portfolio Committee to organize reflections about their growth including: highlighting pivotal KSU learning experiences, reflecting on changes in practice, integrating research and practice, and relating these to the growth of their students. Outcomes will include a written portfolio and a multi-media presentation summarizing their portfolio to be completed at least three weeks before their graduation date.

VI. PURPOSE/RATIONALE: The purpose of this course is to prepare professional learning facilitators for all students. The competencies in this course are derived from the requirements for teachers by the Professional Standards Commission (the licensure body of Georgia), the national standards of the Council for Exceptional Children, the

standards of the NBPTS and NCATE, and guidance from the KSU Department of


217


Special Education Advisory Board. This course is designed to provide support for students in documenting their growth as professional learning facilitators.

VII. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: "Preparing Professional Learning Facilitators Through

Collaboration" is the basis for all Kennesaw State University's teacher education programs. Working form a solid content background, the teacher as facilitator demonstrates proficient and flexible use of different ways of teaching to actively engage students in learning. Facilitators are well versed in the characteristics of students of different ages, abilities and cultural backgrounds. They are skilled in integrating technology into instruction and create an environment in which students can be successful and want to learn; facilitators know when and how to assess learning by means of various forms of traditional and authentic assessments. Facilitators are well prepared for successful careers in teaching and are expected to act in a professional manner in all circumstances with colleagues, parents, community members, and their own students. As a professional educator, the teacher facilitator values collaboration and seeks opportunities to work with other professionals and community members to improve the educational experiences for children and youth. The knowledge base for this course is derived from NBPTS standards and literature on reflective practice.

VIII. USE OF TECHNOLOGY: Students in this course will be expected to demonstrate mastery of

technology skills, including word processing, multimedia presentations, and other software necessary to document their professional growth. Candidates will find a detailed syllabus and activities for the course at http://www.kennesaw.edu/education/specialed/ and go to the EXC 7790 syllabus link.

IX. DIVERSITY: A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge, as well as an understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and assessment within multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate awareness of critical multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific methods and materials for every student. Among these attributes are ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, giftedness, disability, language, religion, family structure, sexual orientation, and geographic region. An emphasis on cognitive style differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.

Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to support candidates with disabilities within their academic program. In order to make arrangements for special services, candidates must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (770-423- 6443) and develop an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required. Please be aware that there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State University that address each of the multicultural variables outlined above. For more information contact the Student Life Center at 770-423-6280.

X. COURSE GOALS/OBJECTIVES: The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares learning facilitators who understand their disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on practice, and who apply these understandings to making instructional decisions that foster the success of all learners.

As a result of Knowledge, the candidate will:


218

http://www.kennesaw.edu/education/specialed/

1. articulate knowledge of characteristics of students in their classrooms, and2. articulate knowledge of best educational practices.

As a result of Skills, the candidate will:3. demonstrate skill in reflecting on practice; 4. demonstrate skill in professional written and oral communication of ideas; 5. demonstrate skill in integrating research findings with reflections on current practice; 6. demonstrate skill in using action research to improve practice; and7. demonstrate skill in use of technology to document and exhibit professional growth.

As a result of Dispositions, the candidate will:

8. exhibit commitment to successful learning of all students in their classrooms, and9. exhibit commitment to lifelong learning.

PTEU Graduate Proficiencies:1. Are committed to students and their learning2. Know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students3. Are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning4. Think systematically about their practice and learn from experience5. Are members of learning communities

XI. COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS: Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory grades.

Completion of written professional portfolio with selected appendices to document professional growth and the presentation of a multimedia summary of their growth.

XII. CLASS PARTICIPATION: Students are expected to attend all class sessions and be active participants in the learning process. This class includes presentations by professionals from other disciplines and class attendance is essential for participation in development of a multi-disciplinary perspective. Class activities will include discussion, role-playing and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all students. Students have many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's learning. Evaluation will include attendance, communication and collaboration skills demonstrated during class.

XIII. ACADEMIC HONESTY: Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the

provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.

The student is reminded to consult the 2002-2003 KSU Graduate Catalog for the University's policy. Any strategy, which has the appearance of improving grades without


219

increasing knowledge, will be dealt with in accordance with the University's policy on academic honesty. In addition, students in the graduate program in special education are held accountable by the Georgia Professional Code of Ethics for Educators (http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html) and the Council for Exceptional Children's (CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with Exceptionalities (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1). XIV. DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR: The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning of others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (See Campus Policies and Procedures of the 2002- 2003 KSU Graduate Catalog)

XV. HUMAN DIGNITY: The University has formulated a policy on human rights that is intended to provide a learning environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found in the 2002-2003 KSU Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but the policy is there for your consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that policy.

XVI. Course Requirements

Course Requirements Course & PTEU Proficiencies

Graduate NCATE Proficiencies

Journey R. 3, 4, 7, 9 S. 1, 4, 5 Philosophy statement T. 1, 8 U. 1Impact on student learning V. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 W. 1, 2, 3Documenting professional growth

X. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 Y. 1, 2

Reflective practice Z. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 AA. 1, 4Future goals BB. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 CC. 1, 4, 5Presentation (oral & written communication)

DD. 2, 3 EE. 2

Professionalism FF.1, 4, 5, 8, 9 GG. 1, 4, 5Integration of theory & practice

HH. 2, 4, 5, 6 II. 2

Technology skills JJ. 2, 7 KK. 2


220

EXC 7790 Documenting Professional Growth Course Schedule

Spring 2003

Date Activity Assignment Due

1/14 Review course requirements

1/28 Working Portfolio organization – by EXC classWorking Portfolio organization – by domainPhilosophy section – develop outline

Bring Working Portfolio to class

2/11 Documenting impact on student performance Journey, Philosophy2/18 Linking theory & practice Outline for impact section2/25 Documenting your professional growth Impact section3/8-14 Spring Break ??3/18 Linking theory & practice Outline for professional growth3/25 Setting future goals Professional growth section4/1 Effective presentation skills Outline for goals

Working Portfolio Due4/8 Edit sessions Goals section4/15 & 4/22

Consultation sessions Working portfolio evaluations completed

4/29 PORTFOLIO PRESENTATIONS Final copies for signature5/1 PORTFOLIO PRESENTATIONS5/6 PORTFOLIO PRESENTATIONS5/14 KSU Hooding Ceremony, Wednesday 7:30 PM Invited guests5/15 KSU Graduation


221

EXC 7970Internship in Special Education

Spring Semester 2003

I. INSTRUCTORS: Deborah S. Wallace, Ph. D Michaela D’Aquanni, Ph. D. Ms. Gayle Fredericks

Telephone: 770-499-3297 770-420-4336 770-649-9554Fax: 770-423-6263 770-423-6263 770-423-6263Office: KH 2333 KH 2335 KH 2334Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

II. CLASS MEETING: Tuesday, 5:00 – 8:00 PMKH 1107

III. REQUIRED TEXTS: Richard Sagor, How To Conduct Collaborative Action Research, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Pat Hutchings, Opening Lines: Approaches To The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning IV. Catalog Description: Prerequisite: Completion of all other requirements in the Special

Education Program and approval of department. Contracted employment teaching individuals with mild disabilities under a temporary teaching credential. A full-time supervised teaching experience for teachers seeking to add-on a special education area to a Georgia teaching certificate. May be repeated. Proof of professional liability insurance is required prior to field experience placement.

V. Purpose/Rationale: The purpose of the course is to prepare prospective K-12 special education teachers to become effective facilitators in the teaching of elementary, secondary or alternative curriculum. Candidates are expected to demonstrate the full range of competencies for teaching students with special needs, including systematic instruction, lesson planning, multi-level curriculum and differentiated instruction, behavior management, and multiple instructional grouping arrangements. In addition, the Professional Standards Commission (licensure body for Georgia) and the Council for Exceptional Children (national standards group) recognize the importance of a supervised field experience in the preparation of teachers for students with disabilities. To recommend student for licensure, faculty from Kennesaw State University must observe


222



that person in the full role of teaching. Since this course is open to employed teachers, it serves both as confirmation of teaching ability and support for professional development.

Conceptual Framework Summary

Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning

The Kennesaw State University teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers who demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU teacher education community strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring guidance from professionals inside and outside the university. In tandem with this belief is the understanding that teacher expertise develops along a continuum which includes the stages of preservice, induction, in-service, and renewal; further, as candidates develop a strong research-based knowledge of content and pedagogy, they develop their professional expertise in recognizing, facilitating, assessing, and evaluating student learning.

Knowledge Base

Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.

Field Experiences

While participating in all field experiences, you are encouraged to be involved in a variety of school-based activities directed at the improvement of teaching and learning. Activities may include, but are not limited to, attending and presenting at professional conferences, participating in leadership activities, attending PTA/school board meetings, and participating in education-related community events. As you continue your field experiences, you are encouraged to explore every opportunity to learn by doing.

Use of Technology

Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media, especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and develop an electronic learning portfolio. Candidates in this course will be expected to apply the use of educational technology in their classrooms. Specifically, candidates will


223

use spreadsheet software to develop graphs and tables to record and track student performance, word processing to write papers, web based data bases to conduct Action Research, and e-mail to communicate with instructors and peers.

Diversity Statement

A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge, as well as an understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and assessment within multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate awareness of critical multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific methods and materials for every student. Among these attributes are ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, giftedness, disability, language, religion, family structure, sexual orientation, and geographic region. An emphasis on cognitive style differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.

Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to support candidates with disabilities within their academic program. In order to make arrangements for special services, candidates must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (770-423- 6443) and develop an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.

Please be aware that there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State University that address each of the multicultural variables outlined above. For more information contact the Student Life Center at 770-423-6280.

VI. Goals and Objectives:

The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of teacher preparation as a developmental and collaborative process. Research for the past 25 years has described this process in increasingly complex terms. Universities and schools must work together to successfully prepare teachers who are capable of developing successful learners in today’s schools and who choose to continue their professional development.

In the area of Knowledge, the Candidate will:

1. Articulate the processes for documenting the impact of instruction on student learning through the action research process. (CEC Cross Reference: CK 1-5)

2. Articulate the process for writing and submitting a mini-grant proposal to secure external funding for a curriculum, instruction, or family oriented program.

3. Articulate the theories of learning, motivation and assessment, particularly as they relate to the individualized programming of students with disabilities. (CEC Cross Reference: AK 1-5)


224

4. Articulate the theories of classroom and behavior management, particularly as they relate to the social and behavioral development of students with disabilities. (CEC Cross Reference: CK4, BK 1-4, CCK 2)

In the area of Skills, the Candidate will:

5. Apply advanced problem-solving and critical thinking in making instructional decisions, as well as in conducting action research focused upon instructional improvement. (CEC Cross Reference: KS 1-3, CS 1)

6. Demonstrate the use of appropriate curriculum design, differentiated instruction, multi-level curriculum, curriculum overlap, multiple-intelligence’s, and multi-sensory instruction to meet the curriculum and instruction needs of diverse learners.

7. Conduct systematic instruction tailored to the individualized learning needs of students with disabilities in a variety of educational, social and community contexts, as appropriate. This includes the use of systematic prompting, task analysis, successive approximations, fading, advance organizers, controlling difficulty or processing demands of a task, directed questioning and responding, and gaining students’ attention prior to giving instructional cues. (CEC Cross Reference: IK 1-26, PS 1-7, BS 1-8, CCS 1-2)

8. Teach students using a balance of direct instruction, strategy instruction, peer tutoring, cooperative learning, project based learning, teacher directed small groups, whole class instruction, and monitoring of individual work to meet the unique learning strengths and needs of students with disabilities. (CEC Cross Reference: IS 1-26, PS 1-7)

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

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

11. Establish classroom ecology, classroom management strategies, high levels of differentiated reinforcement of appropriate behavior, and group and individual positive behavior support plans that facilitate student learning of academic and social skills. Demonstrate positive teacher to student and student-to-student interactions. Teach social skills in context. (CEC Cross Reference: PS 1-7, BS 1-8)

12. Establish routines and procedures for students to make a variety of transitions, including class-to-class, building-to-building, school to work. (CEC Cross Reference: PS 1-3, PS 6, BS 5-6, CCS 2)

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

14. Monitor student progress through the use of formative and summative data collection.

15. Reflect on teacher instruction and student learning and adapts curriculum and instructional procedures to meet the needs of students experiencing difficulty learning and behaving.

16. Establish collaboration procedures with peers, parents, para professionals, teachers and related service providers to facilitate the learning of all students, but particularly those with disabilities. (CEC Cross Reference: CCS 1-2, PS 1-7)

In the area of Dispositions, the candidate will:

17. Exhibit the attitudes, values and interactions that they expect of all of their students by recognizing that diversity also applies to ability.


225

18. Demonstrate ethical behavior and professional attitudes in relationship to other teachers, administrators, school staff, parents, community members and students.

19. Demonstrate continuous pursuit of learning, service and research by joining professional organizations, attending workshops and seminars and engaging in classroom inquiry and grant writing. (CEC Cross Reference: ES 1-2)

VII. Course Requirements/Assignments

1. Class ParticipationThe instructor expects candidates to attend class regularly (see University policy on tardiness and absenteeism), be respectful of the instructor and peers by not talking, making sarcastic or other denigrating comments, or working on non-class materials while the instructor or peers are talking, and participate actively in group activities. Attend all on-campus meetings. Since there are only five meetings, they are all mandatory.

While participating in all field experiences, candidates are encouraged to be involved in a variety of school-based activities directed at the improvement of teaching and learning. Activities may include but are not limited to attending and presenting at professional conferences, participating in leadership activities, attending PTA/School Board meetings, and participating in education-related community events. As you continue your field experiences, you are encouraged to explore every opportunity to learn through doing.

2. Demonstrate the ability to successfully teach students with disabilities and reflect on their teaching. Candidates who take this internship will be evaluated on their teaching, interpersonal and professional skills during scheduled and unscheduled observations. More specifically, they will be evaluated on their ability to select, implement & evaluate:

Instructional practices consistent with best practices research as stated in course objectives; Classroom management practices as stated in course objectives; and Satisfactorily fulfill every aspect of the teaching role including reflection on practice, ethical

interactions, professional attitudes, and collaboration with other staff, parents, and students.

3. Conduct, write up, and present an action research project. Candidates will develop and implement the action research project in consultation with the instructor and supervising faculty. The action research project must demonstrate the candidate’s impact on student learning (academic or behavior). In order to get full credit for the action research project, you must use the information and formats provided in the required text. There are several components to this project. A rubric for this project will be given on the first day of class.

a. Frame your research question based on your classroom practice.b. Support your intervention in relationship to published research.c. Select and describe your data collection procedures and research design.d. Implement the intervention.e. Collect your data (Both Baseline/Intervention, or Pre/Post).f. Analyze your results and discuss their implications.g. Relate your results to published research.h. Write action research using APA, 5th Edition, 2001.i. Present action research project to the class utilizing power point or some form of multi-media.

4. Develop a mini-grant proposal.Candidates will write and submit a mini-grant. An application form for this mini-grant will be given on the date the class meets to learn how to write a mini-grant.


226

5. Participate in group discussion and complete an activity focused on the implications of major concepts in Opening Lines: Approaches To The Scholarship Of Teaching and Learning and their relationship to the candidate’s current teaching situation.

6. Professional Log: (Turn in as completed to receive feedback on the writing process. Must be done by April 8th ). The log must contain reflections on your professional reading, conferences/in service sessions that you have attended, and site visits that you have conducted over the course of the semester. Each entry must be dated and titled – (include a full citation (APA format) if it is a reading), followed by your personal response to the material or experience. To obtain full credit for this activity, you must use the writing format presented in class to complete the following:

Read a minimum of three (3) articles from professional journals regarding universal curriculum design, accommodation and modifications, and/or any other topics related to our class discussions and text. In addition, you are required to write a one-page reflection containing your reactions to the reading.

Provide evidence of attendance at a meeting of a professional organization or all day training activity (brochure, agenda & meeting notes). Suggestions for organizations include the Council for Exceptional Children, the Learning Disabilities Association, etc. Candidates will submit a one-page reflection on how this professional development activity will impact their instructional practice and student learning.

Develop a partnership with a colleague where you will exchange ideas and visit each other’s school/classroom to learn about innovative curriculum approaches. Write a one-page reflection on the experience. Be sure to include why it is innovative.

Your completed professional development log must follow the National Board Certification writing process:

Description : Summarize the main ideas. This should be strictly factual information and not contain any of your personal opinions. Exactly what points do the articles make, or what did you see or hear?

Analysis : Based on the focus in this program and your own experiences, what is your opinion about what you have read or observed? Be sure to support your opinion with specific information from the articles or observation. Do you agree or disagree and WHY? Please provide more feedback than, “I like it and think it will work.”

Reflection: How will this information impact your own teaching practice and student learning in your class? How did it change the way you think about your personal teaching practice or how did it affirm your current beliefs?

References for articles : Must be in American Psychological Association (APA) style (5th ed.).

VIII. Evaluation and Grading

The instructor and university supervisors will conduct performance evaluations of observed teaching. The overall evaluation will be determined using the BASS Observation Form, which will be distributed and explained on January 14, 2003. Evaluation is Pass/Fail. Candidates must obtain an L3 or L4 on all competencies and write a reflection on each observed lesson to receive a passing grade. Evaluation of Action Research and Mini-Grant Proposal are also on a Pass/Fail basis. Passing criteria are listed on the Rubrics.


227

In Class Requirements and AssignmentsClass Activities Points Assessed Course Objectives PTEU

ProficienciesClass Attendance and Participation

Pass/Fail 1,2,16,18 5

BASS Observation and Candidate Reflections on observed lesson

Pass/Fail 3,4,5,6,7,8,910,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18

1,2,3,4

Action Research Project Pass/Fail 1,2,4,5 1,2,3,4Mini-Grant Proposal Pass/Fail 2,19 1,5Activity on Opening Lines: Approaches to…

Pass/Fail 3,4,17,18,19 4,5

Professional Development Log

Pass/Fail 19 5

Grades will be assigned as follows: Candidates must receive a Pass on all Class Activities to receive a Pass in the course.

IX. Academic IntegrityEvery KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.

X. Class Attendance Policy Candidates are expected to attend all class sessions and be active participants in the learning process. The knowledge and skills taught in this class is learned best by reading the assignments and coming to class to participate in class discussion, ask questions, and interact with peers during group activities. If, after reviewing the syllabus, class assignments, and reading, candidates believe they already know the information in this course, they must speak to the instructor who will arrange for a competency test and then alternative assignments to extend the candidate’s current understanding co-teaching, collaboration, multi-level curriculum, and building assessment and whole school change. Class activities will include discussion and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all candidates. Candidates have many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's learning. Evaluation will include attendance, communication and collaboration skills demonstrated during class. Since there are only five class meetings, it is mandatory that all candidates attend all five classes in order to receive a Passing grade under the category, Class Attendance and Participation, unless they are excused by written permission of the instructor. As noted above, the candidate must receive a Pass in all categories described above in order to pass the course.


228

XI. Course Outline (subject to change)

Class # Topic In-class activities Class Assignment DueJanuary 14 Explanation of Objectives,

Observational Protocols, and Rubrics. Thinking about Data for Action Research Project.

Group discussion of probable Action Research topics and data to be collected.

January 21 Action Research – Rationale and Procedures

Selection of Action Research Question

February 4 Developing Mini Grant Proposals – Processes and Procedures

Initial Development of Mini Grant Proposal

March 4 Opening Lines: Approaches to…

Class and small group discussion

Mini Grant ProposalRead Opening Lines: Approaches to… preparation to participate in an activity.

April 15 & 22 Action Research Presentations Presentation of Action Research Results

Action Research ProjectProfessional Development Log (April 8th)BASS Observations and Observation Reflections


229

XII. References/BibliographyAction Research

Brubacher, J., Case, C. & Reagon, T. (1994). Becoming a reflective educator,. How to build a culture of

inquiry in the schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Eisner, E. (1991). The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice.

New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Goswami, D. & Stillman, P. (1987). Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research as an Agent for

Change. Portsmouth: Heinemann/Boyton-Cook.

Grossen, B. (1996). Making research serve the profession. American Educator, 20, (3). 7-8.

Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to Empowerment. New

York: Falmer.

Miller, J. (1990). Creating Spaces & Finding Voices: Teachers Collaborating for Empowerment. New

York: State University of New York Press.

Murray, D. (1989). Expecting the Unexpected: Teaching Myself--and Others--to Read and Write.

Portsmouth: Boynton/ Cook-Heinemann.

Murray, D. (1990). Shoptalk: Learning to Write with Writers. Portsmouth: Boynton/ Cook-Heinemann.

Nevin, A., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., Danuan, D., & Thiboduar, A. (1982). The consulting teacher as a

clinical researcher. Teacher Education and Special Education, 5, 19-29.

Patterson, L. & Short, K. (1993). Teachers are Researchers: Reflection in Action. Newark: International

Reading Association

Salisbury, C., Wilson, L., Swartz, T., Palombaaro, M. & Wassel, J. (1997). Using action research to solve

instructional challenges in inclusive elementary school settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, (1), 21-

39.

Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Professional Standards & Issues of Teacher Preparation and Philosophy

Barnes, H. (1989). Structuring knowledge for beginning teaching. In M.C. Reynold (Eds.) Knowledge

Base for the Beginning teacher, (pp. 13-22). New York: Pergammon.


230

Berliner, D. C. (1984). The half-full glass: A review of research on teaching. In Hosford, P. L. (Ed.)

Using What We Know About Teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Billinsley, B. & Tomchin, E. (1992). Four beginning LD teachers: What their experiences suggest for

trainers and employers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 78, 104-112.

Council for Exceptional Children (1996). What every special educator must know: The International

standards for the preparation and certification of special education teachers. Reston, VA: CEC.

Graves, A., Landers, M. F., Lokerson, J., Luchow, J., Horvath, M., & Garnett, K. (1992). The DLD

Competencies for Teachers of Students with Learning Disabilities. Reston, VA: Division of Learning Disabilities,

Council for Exceptional Children.

Platt, J. & Olson, J. (1990). Why teachers are leaving special education: Implications for pre-service and

inservice educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13, 192-196.

Reynolds (1995). The knowledge base for beginning teachers: Education professionals' expectations vs.

research findings on learning to teach. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 199-221.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. J. & E.

Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York: Macmillan.

Singer, J. D. (1993). Are special educators career paths special: Results from a 13-year longitudinal study.

Exceptional Children, 59, 262-279.

Skrtic, T. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard

Educational Review, 61, 148-206.

Skrtic, T. M. (1996). Voice, collaboration and inclusion: Democratic themes in educational and social

reform initiatives. Remedial and Special Education, 17, (3), 142-57

Swan, W. W. & Sirvis, B. (1992). The CEC Common Core of Knowledge and Skills Essential for All

Beginning Special Education Teachers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 25, 16-20.

Throne, J. (1994). Living with the pendulum: The complex world of teaching. Harvard Educational

Review, 64, 195-208.

Zeichner, K. & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.)

Handbook on Research on Teacher Education (pp. 329-348). New York: Macmillan.


231

Effective Instruction

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Henley, M., Ramsey, R., & Algozzine, R. (1995). Characteristics of and Strategies for Teaching Students

with Mild Disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kukic, S. & Fister, S. (1991). For Effective Instruction: Working with Mildly Handicapped Students.

Behaviorally Anchored Supervision System (BASS) for Supporting Teacher Efforts. Reston, VA: Council for

Exceptional Children.

Meese, R. L. (l994). Teaching learners with mild disabilities: Integrating research and practice.

Brooks/Cole Publishing Company: Pacific Grove, California.


232