South carolina state university college of education

Doc File 569.00 KByte,



Special Education Eight Key Assessments

Eight key assessments are being submitted as evidence for meeting the CEC standards. For each assessment, the type or form of the assessment and when it is administered in the program are indicated. The competencies on each assessment are introduced at stage I, reinforced at stage II and mastered at stage III of the Special Education Program.

|Name of Assessment |Type or |When the Assessment |

| |Form of Assessment |Is Administered |

| | [Licensure assessment] |Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge |Prior to student teaching and stage II of the |

|1 |PRAXIS II |(0353) |admission and monitoring process. |

|2 | Content knowledge In Special Education |Content Observation Rubric |During stage II and stage III-Student Teaching |

| | | |and Capstone Course. |

|3 | [Assessment of candidate ability to plan |Candidates develop four culturally sensitive lesson plans |In required methods courses |

| |Instruction] |in the area of concentration/discipline. Instruction in | |

| |Lesson Plans are aligned with CEC |technology and the principles of teaching and learning are | |

| |standards. |integrated throughout each lesson. | |

|4 |[Assessment of student teaching] Student |Candidates are observed by both an on-site supervising |Student Teaching semester: either fall or spring |

| |Teaching Observation Report aligned with |cooperating teacher and a program supervisor during the |of the senior year |

| |CEC standards. |student teaching semester. All points of focus in the | |

| | |observation report are aligned with CEC Standards. | |

| 5 |[Assessment of candidate effect on student|Similar to a unit of study in a content area, candidates |ED 425: Application and Assessment in Specialized|

| |learning] Teacher Work Sample aligned with|are assessed on contextual factors (learning goals, an |Methods (This course is required in the semester |

| |CEC standards. |assessment plan, a design for instruction, instructional |prior to student teaching.) |

| | |decision making, and self evaluation and reflection. | |

| | |Candidates teach a portion of the unit in a classroom. | |

|6 |Portfolio Summative Evaluation |The Portfolio is designed to be comprehensive in nature and|Student Teaching semester: either fall or spring |

| | |the artifacts are developed around all of the CEC |of the senior year in ED 430 where the |

| | |Standards. They are collected in key courses at stages I, |competencies are mastered. |

| | |II, III, and IV of the Admissions and Monitoring Process. | |

|7 | |ED 425 and ED 430 |Dispositions are mastered at stage III and are |

| |Additional assessment that addresses CEC | |assessed during student teaching. |

| |standards (required)] Dispositional Survey| | |

| |aligned with CEC standards, communication | | |

| |Additional | | |

|8 |Alumni-Follow-up Survey and the Senior |The Alumni-Follow-up survey and the Senior Exit Survey are |The senior exit survey is administered either |

| |Exit Survey |aligned to the Units Conceptual Framework and the CEC |fall or spring of the senior year in ED 430 where|

| | |Standards. |the competencies are mastered. |

Council for Exceptional Children EDUCATION

ASSESSMENT #1 – PRAXIS II

1. Description of Assessment

The Praxis II: Special Education: Teaching Students with Learning disabilities (0371) is required by the State of South Carolina for certification in Special Education. The Special Education: Teaching Students with learning disabilities examination is designed for examinees that plan to teach learning disabled students, at any grade level from preschool through grade 12. The 50 multiple-choice questions assess the knowledge and understanding of the principles and other factors related to the teaching of students with learning disabilities. Some of these questions are based on a case study of about 500 words that relates to the teaching of students. There are two parts to the Special Education: Teaching Students with learning disabilities test. Part A covers Factors Other than Direct Instruction that Influence the Education of Students with Learning disabilities and Part B covers Delivery of Services to Students with Learning disabilities.

2. Alignment with CEC Standards

|Praxis II Test Categories |CEC Standards |

|Factors Other than Direct Instruction that Influence the Education of | |

|Students with Learning disabilities | |

|Basic concepts | 2, 3, and 5 |

|Definitions/terminology |1 |

|Delivery of Services to Students with Learning disabilities | |

|Conceptual approaches |2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 |

|Professional roles/issues/literature |1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 |

|Assessment |1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 |

|Placement and program issues |1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 |

|Curriculum and instruction |2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 |

|How to manage the learning environment |1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 |

3. Summary of Data Findings

South Carolina State University requires candidates to pass Praxis II prior to student teaching; therefore, the pass rate for this assessment is 100%. According to the data collected from 2007-2008, the undergraduate completers consistently scored within the above average performance range in all test categories.

4. Interpretation of how the data provides evidence for meeting standards

On the content area exercise on the PRAXIS II, the special education majors’ scores are cited in the 3rd quartile. The PRAXIS II is aligned to the CEC Standards and provides information on the special education candidates’ (3) content knowledge and skills which indicate that the teacher education candidates fall within the above average range on the content exercises. This is evidenced that our candidates have obtained the content knowledge necessary to teach K-12 grade students in a variety of settings.

ASSESSMENT #2 – CONTENT KNOWLEDGE RUBRIC

1. Description of Assessment

University supervisors and cooperating teachers use a rubric to assess the candidates’ content knowledge during their student teaching experience. The items in this rubric are based on CEC Standards. Standards place emphasis on the fact that candidates understand the importance of each content area in teaching children with learning disabilities. Candidates must know the key concepts, inquiry tools, and structure of each content area according to CEC Standards. Additionally, CEC Standards highlight the importance of candidates having the ability to identify resources to expand their understanding and apply the content in varied inclusive settings.

2. Alignment with CEC Standards (See rubric below)

| |Linked to EP, RD |Evidence in |Evidence in |Evidence in |

| |and HP and ADEPT |Planning |Teaching |Producing the |

|Association for Special Education International Standards | | | |Intended Student |

| | | | |Learning |

|Standard 1: Foundations | |□ 1 |□ 1 |□ 1 |

| | | | | |

| |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 2 |□ 2 |□ 2 |

| |1, 2, 3 & 4 | | | |

| | |□ 3 |□ 3 |□ 3 |

| | | | | |

| | |□ No |□ No |□ No |

|1.1 Special educators understand the field as an evolving and changing discipline | | | | |

|based on philosophies, evidence-based principles and theories, relevant laws and | | | | |

|policies, diverse and historical points of view, and human issues that have | | | | |

|historically influenced and continue to influence the field of special education and| | | | |

|the education and treatment of individuals with exceptional needs both in school and| | | | |

|society. | | | | |

|Standard 2. Standard 2: Development and Characteristics of Learners |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 1 |□ 1 |□ 1 |

| |1, 2, 3 |□ 2 |□ 2 |□ 2 |

| | |□ 3 |□ 3 |□ 3 |

| | |□ No |□ No |□ No |

|2.1 Special educators know and demonstrate respect for their students first as | | | | |

|unique human beings. | | | | |

|Standard 3. Individual Learning Differences | | | | |

| |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 1 □ 2 |□ 1 □ 2 |□ 1 □ 2 |

| |3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9|□ 3 □ No |□ 3 □ No |□ 3 □ No |

|3.1 Special educators understand the effects that an exceptional condition can have | | | | |

|on an individual’s learning in school and throughout life. Special educators | | | | |

|understand that the beliefs, traditions, and values across and within cultures can | | | | |

|affect relationships among and between students, their families, and the school | | | | |

|community. | | | | |

|Standard 4.0: Standard 4: Instructional Strategies | | | | |

| | |□ 1 |□ 1 |□ 1 |

| |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 2 |□ 2 |□ 2 |

| |10 |□ 3 |□ 3 |□ 3 |

| | |□ No |□ No |□ No |

|4.1 Special educators’ posses a repertoire of evidence-based instructional | | | | |

|strategies to individualize instruction for individuals with learning disabilities. | | | | |

|Special educators select, adapt, and use these instructional strategies to promote | | | | |

|challenging learning results in general and special curricula and to appropriately | | | | |

|modify learning environments for individuals with learning disabilities. | | | | |

|Standard 5: Learning Environments and Social Interactions |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 1 □ 2 |□ 1 □ 2 |□ 1 □ 2 |

| |10 |□ 3 □ No |□ 3 □ No |□ 3 □ No |

|5.1 Special educators actively create learning environments for individuals with | | | | |

|learning disabilities that foster cultural understanding, safety and emotional well | | | | |

|being, positive social interactions, and active engagement of individuals with . | | | | |

|Standard 6: Language | | | | |

| | | | | |

| |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 1 □ 2 |□ 1 □ 2 |□ 1 □ 2 |

| |10 |□ 3 □ No |□ 3 □ No |□ 3 □ No |

|6.1 Special educators understand typical and atypical language development and the | | | | |

|ways in which exceptional conditions can interact with an individual’s experience | | | | |

|with and use of language. Special educators use individualized strategies to enhance| | | | |

|language development and teach communication skills to individuals with learning | | | | |

|disabilities. | | | | |

|Standard 7: Instructional Planning |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 1 □ 2 |□ 1 □ 2 |□ 1 □ 2 |

| |10 |□ 3 □ No |□ 3 □ No |□ 3 □ No |

|7.1 Individualized decision-making and instruction is at the center of special | | | | |

|education practice. Special educators develop long-range individualized | | | | |

|instructional plans anchored in both general and special curricula. | | | | |

|Standard 8: Assessment |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 1 □ 2 |□ 1 □ 2 |□ 1 □ 2 |

| |10 |□ 3 □ No |□ 3 □ No |□ 3 □ No |

|8.1 Assessment is integral to the decision-making and teaching of special educators | | | | |

|and special educators use multiple types of assessment information for a variety of | | | | |

|educational decisions. | | | | |

|Standard 9: Professional and Ethical Practice |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 1 □ 2 |□ 1 □ 2 |□ 1 □ 2 |

| |6 |□ 3 □ No |□ 3 □ No |□ 3 □ No |

|9.1 Special educators are guided by the profession’s ethical and professional | | | | |

|practice standards. Special educators practice in multiple roles and complex | | | | |

|situations across wide age and developmental ranges. | | | | |

|Standard 10: Collaboration | | | | |

| |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 1 □ 2 |□ 1 □ 2 |□ 1 □ 2 |

| |7 |□ 3 □ No |□ 3 □ No |□ 3 □ No |

|10.1 Special educators routinely and effectively collaborate with families, other | | | | |

|educators, related service providers, and personnel from community agencies in | | | | |

|culturally responsive ways. | | | | |

3. Summary of Data Findings

University supervisors and cooperating teachers conduct four formal observations of student teachers during their thirteen-week internship. A four-level rating criteria is used: needs improvement, developing competence, competent, and not observed. Although the university supervisors and cooperating teachers rated the candidates’ knowledge of content independently, A consensus is derived on the final rating. All teacher candidates were rated as “competent”.

Assessment 2 – Attachment A

Content Observation Rubric

SPECIAL EDUCATION CONTENT OBSERVATION RUBRIC

Candidate: ________________ School: _________________ Subject/leve1(s): _____________

Evaluator: ___________________________ Dates covered: From__________ To___________

For each observation, evaluate the intern for each CEC standard to indicate (a) evidence in planning, (b) evidence in teaching, and (c) evidence in producing intended student learning. Record your evaluation by checking the appropriate box. Use the following scale:

1= Needs Improvement 2= Developing Competency 3= Competent No= Not Observed

N=2

| |Linked to EP, RD |Evidence in |Evidence in |Evidence in |

| |and HP and ADEPT |Planning |Teaching |Producing the |

|Association for Special Education International Standards | | | |Intended Student |

| | | | |Learning |

|Standard 1: Foundations | |□ 1 |□ 1 |□ 1 |

| | | | | |

| |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 2 |□ 2 |□ 2 |

| |1, 2, 3 & 4 | | | |

| | |x 3 |x 3 |x 3 |

| | | | | |

| | |□ No |□ No |□ No |

|1.1 Special educators understand the field as an evolving and changing discipline | | | | |

|based on philosophies, evidence-based principles and theories, relevant laws and | | | | |

|policies, diverse and historical points of view, and human issues that have | | | | |

|historically influenced and continue to influence the field of special education and| | | | |

|the education and treatment of individuals with exceptional needs both in school and| | | | |

|society. | | | | |

|Standard 2. Standard 2: Development and Characteristics of Learners |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 1 |□ 1 |□ 1 |

| |1, 2, 3 |□ 2 |□ 2 |□ 2 |

| | |x 3 |x 3 |x 3 |

| | |□ No |□ No |□ No |

|2.1 Special educators know and demonstrate respect for their students first as | | | | |

|unique human beings. | | | | |

|Standard 3. Individual Learning Differences | |□ 1 |□ 1 |□ 1 |

| |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 2 |□ 2 |□ 2 |

| |3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9|x 3 |x 3 |x 3 |

| | |□ No |□ No |□ No |

|3.1 Special educators understand the effects that an exceptional condition can have | | | | |

|on an individual’s learning in school and throughout life. Special educators | | | | |

|understand that the beliefs, traditions, and values across and within cultures can | | | | |

|affect relationships among and between students, their families, and the school | | | | |

|community. | | | | |

|Standard 4.0: Standard 4: Instructional Strategies | |□ 1 |□ 1 |□ 1 |

| | |□ 2 |□ 2 |□ 2 |

| |EP, RD, HP and APS |x 3 |x 3 |x 3 |

| |10 |□ No |□ No |□ No |

|4.1 Special educators’ posses a repertoire of evidence-based instructional | | | | |

|strategies to individualize instruction for individuals with learning disabilities. | | | | |

|Special educators select, adapt, and use these instructional strategies to promote | | | | |

|challenging learning results in general and special curricula and to appropriately | | | | |

|modify learning environments for individuals with learning disabilities. | | | | |

|Standard 5: Learning Environments and Social Interactions |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 1 |□ 1 |□ 1 |

| |10 |□ 2 |□ 2 |□ 2 |

| | |x 3 |x 3 |x 3 |

| | |□ No |□ No |□ No |

|5.1 Special educators actively create learning environments for individuals with | | | | |

|learning disabilities that foster cultural understanding, safety and emotional well | | | | |

|being, positive social interactions, and active engagement of individuals with | | | | |

|learning disabilities. | | | | |

|Standard 6: Language | |□ 1 |□ 1 |□ 1 |

| | |□ 2 |□ 2 |□ 2 |

| |EP, RD, HP and APS |x 3 |x 3 |x 3 |

| |10 |□ No |□ No |□ No |

|6.1 Special educators understand typical and atypical language development and the | | | | |

|ways in which exceptional conditions can interact with an individual’s experience | | | | |

|with and use of language. Special educators use individualized strategies to enhance| | | | |

|language development and teach communication skills to individuals with learning | | | | |

|disabilities. | | | | |

|Standard 7: Instructional Planning |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 1 |□ 1 |□ 1 |

| |10 |□ 2 |□ 2 |□ 2 |

| | |x 3 |x 3 |x 3 |

| | |□ No |□ No |□ No |

|7.1 Individualized decision-making and instruction is at the center of special | | | | |

|education practice. Special educators develop long-range individualized | | | | |

|instructional plans anchored in both general and special curricula. | | | | |

|Standard 8: Assessment |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 1 |□ 1 |□ 1 |

| |10 |□ 2 |□ 2 |□ 2 |

| | |x 3 |x 3 |x 3 |

| | |□ No |□ No |□ No |

|8.1 Assessment is integral to the decision-making and teaching of special educators | | | | |

|and special educators use multiple types of assessment information for a variety of | | | | |

|educational decisions. | | | | |

|Standard 9: Professional and Ethical Practice |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 1 |□ 1 |□ 1 |

| |6 |□ 2 |□ 2 |□ 2 |

| | |x 3 |x 3 |x 3 |

| | |□ No |□ No |□ No |

|9.1 Special educators are guided by the profession’s ethical and professional | | | | |

|practice standards. Special educators practice in multiple roles and complex | | | | |

|situations across wide age and developmental ranges. | | | | |

|Standard 10: Collaboration | |□ 1 |□ 1 |□ 1 |

| |EP, RD, HP and APS |□ 2 |□ 2 |□ 2 |

| |7 |x 3 |x 3 |x 3 |

| | |□ No |□ No |□ No |

|10.1 Special educators routinely and effectively collaborate with families, other | | | | |

|educators, related service providers, and personnel from community agencies in | | | | |

|culturally responsive ways. | | | | |

4. Interpretation of how the Data Provides Evidence that the CEC standards were met

The rubric used for this assessment is based on the CEC Standards, which focuses on the content knowledge that candidates should possess. Based on the data, the Special Education candidates demonstrated a strong understanding of content knowledge and can apply knowledge, skills and dispositions in a variety of diverse settings. CEC Standards were met at the competent level.

ASSESSMENT #3 – LESSON PLAN RUBRIC

1. Description of Assessment

Candidates write lesson plans in all methods classes, and a standardized lesson plan format is used in all Special Education classes at each stage of the Admission and Monitoring Process. Candidates must align their lessons with the South Carolina Curriculum Standards. The lesson plans must include appropriate objectives and procedures that support the standards and objectives. Some of the other evaluation criteria include an engaging introduction that effectively activates prior knowledge and accommodations for differences in rates of learning, learning styles, diversity, and special needs. The university supervisors and cooperating teachers collect the data on lesson plans during the student teaching experience, Stage III of our transition point.

2. Alignment with CEC Standards (See rubric below)

SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

(Program Area: Special Education)

Key Assessment # 3

LESSON PLAN RUBRIC

|Criteria |Competent |Developing |Needs Improvement |Score |

|Evaluation |3 |Competence |1 | |

| | |2 | | |

|Instructional Objectives; CEC 7|Concise statements of what students|The statements are vague and not in |Statements of what students are | |

| |are expected to demonstrate. The |the ABCD and taxonomies of learning |expected to demonstrate are not in| |

| |statements follow the ABCD and |formats. |the ABCD and taxonomies of | |

| |taxonomies of learning formats. | |learning formats. | |

|Lesson Plan Language, Grammar, |Language particularly descriptive; |Sufficient detail so another teacher |Detail lacking (another teacher | |

|Punctuation, Spelling; CEC 6 |all portions complete, thoroughly |could implement lesson; all portions |would have difficulty implementing| |

| |developed and clearly written; and |completed and clearly written; a few |lesson); portions missing, poorly | |

| |no grammatical or mechanical |grammatical and mechanical errors. |written, unclear; several | |

| |errors. | |grammatical and mechanical errors.| |

|Citations of Sources of Ideas |Sources cited using publication |All sources cited so another teacher |Sources not cited or not cited | |

|(optional); CEC 6 |format (APA, for example). |could locate sources. |with enough detail. | |

|Procedures; CEC 7 |Procedures provide detailed |Procedures provide vague information |Procedures provided no information| |

| |information on the preparation, |on the preparation, implementation, |on the preparation, but not the | |

| |implementation, and integration of |and integration of instruction |implementation or integration | |

| |instruction | |instruction | |

|Modeling Behaviors; CEC 4 & 7 |Several examples include |Few examples of |No examples are provided of how | |

| |demonstrations on how students are |how students are to go |students are to go about | |

| |to go about |completing the about completing the |completing the lesson. | |

| |completing the lesson that includes|lesson. No accommodations for diverse | | |

| |detailed description about |learning styles. | | |

| |incorporating diverse | | | |

|Guided and Independent |Opportunities are provided for |Opportunities are guided for |Limited opportunities guided or | |

|Practices; CEC 7 |guided and/or on guided independent|independent studies practice only. |independent practice. | |

| |practice. | | | |

|Variety of Strategies; CEC 7 |Used a variety of strategies that |The learners are actively engaged in |Limited strategies were used and | |

| |allowed the learners to be actively|the learning, but limited strategies |the learners were not actively | |

| |engaged in the learning. |were used. |engaged in the learning. | |

3. Summary of Data Findings

University supervisors and cooperating teachers assess candidates in the area of lesson planning during the student teaching process. According to the data at mid-term, the candidates received a competent rating in instructional planning, objectives, guided and independent practices, and materials. All other components of the lesson plan rubric are in the developing competency and needs improvement range.

SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

(Program Area: Special Education)

Key Assessment # 3

LESSON PLAN RUBRIC

N=1

|Criteria |Competent |Developing |Needs Improvement |Score |

|Evaluation |3 |Competence |1 | |

| | |2 | | |

|SC Curricular Standards; CEC 7 |Complete citation of SC standards | |No SC standard is cited and/or|3.0 |

|Instructional Planning |Standards match content area |Complete citation of SC standards |Content area omitted | |

| |Grade level and ability noted |Standards do not match content area |and/or Grade level and ability| |

| | |Grade level and ability noted |omitted, and/or standards do | |

| | | |not match content area | |

|Instructional Objectives; |Concise, clear, objective, measurable |General non-objective, immeasurable |No objectives |3.0 |

|CEC 4,7 |statements of what students are expected |statements of what students are expected | | |

| |to know and learn |to know and learn | | |

| |Objectives reflect an individual’s |Objectives reflect an individual’s | | |

| |abilities and needs children with |abilities and needs | | |

| |exceptional learning needs are included |The objectives fail to follow the ABCD and| | |

| |The objectives follow the ABCD and |taxonomies of learning formats | | |

| |taxonomies of learning formats1 |Objectives do not reflect planning for | | |

| | |children with exceptional learning needs | | |

|Lesson Plan Format, Language, |All 8 sections complete, thoroughly |5 to 7 sections completed; 2 to 4 |0-4 sections completed; more |2.5 |

|Grammar, Punctuation, Spelling |developed and clearly written; and no |grammatical and mechanical errors, easily |than 5 grammatical and | |

|CEC 6 |grammatical or mechanical errors, easily |followed |mechanical errors | |

| |followed. | | | |

|Procedures; |All 5 sections completed; detailed |3-4 of the sections completed; sufficient |Most sections of the |2.5 |

|CEC 3, 4, 7 |information on the preparation, |detail on the preparation, implementation,|procedures are incomplete; | |

| |implementation, integration and |integration and individualization of |insufficient detail on the | |

| |individualization of instruction, easily |instruction such that another teacher |implementation, integration, | |

| |followed |could follow |and individualization of | |

| | | |instruction; unable to be | |

| | | |followed | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| |Examples of the skill or knowledge which |Examples of the skill or knowledge which | | |

|Modeling Behaviors; |students are expected to learn are |students are expected to learn are | | |

|CEC 3, 4, 8, 10 |indicated in clear, concise detail; |indicated in sufficient detail; | |2.0 |

| |demonstrations to be used are indicated in|demonstrations to be used are indicated in|Minimal to no examples of the | |

| |clear, concise, detail; clear, concise |sufficient detail; sufficient detailed |skill or knowledge which | |

| |detailed description about incorporating |description about incorporating diverse |students are expected to | |

| |diverse and multiple strategies and |and multiple strategies and assessments |learn; minimal to no | |

| |assessments for culturally and |for culturally and linguistically diverse |demonstrations to be used are | |

| |linguistically diverse students |students |indicated; minimal to no | |

| | | |description about | |

| | | |incorporating diverse and | |

| | | |multiple strategies and | |

| | | |assessments for culturally and| |

| | | |linguistically diverse | |

| | | |students | |

|Guided and Independent |Opportunities are provided for guided and|Opportunities for either guided or |No opportunities for guided or|3.0 |

|Practices; |independent practice |independent practice only. |independent practice. | |

|CEC 3, 6 | | | | |

|Variety of strategies |Used a variety of strategies appropriate |Strategies provided limited attention to |Strategies do not address |2.5 |

|encompassing the Awareness of |for students’ abilities, roles and |differences in learning styles and rates |learning styles were not | |

|Different Learning Styles, |learning styles to actively engage them |of learning, especially for culturally and|addressed | |

|Rates of Learning and Abilities|that provided for differences in learning |linguistically diverse students | | |

|of culturally and |styles, rates of learning and abilities | | | |

|linguistically diverse students|especially for culturally and | | | |

|CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, |linguistically diverse students | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

|Assessment; |Clearly written and detailed description |sufficiently written description of how |vaguely written description of|1.5 |

|CEC 8, 9 |of how standards and objectives and |standards and objectives and students will|how standards and objectives | |

| |students will be assessed; assessments |be assessed; assessments appropriate for |and students will be | |

| |appropriate for the ability, developmental|the ability, developmental level and |assessed; assessments | |

| |level and background of culturally and |background of culturally and |inappropriate for the ability,| |

| |linguistically diverse students |linguistically diverse students |developmental level and | |

| | | |background of culturally and | |

| | | |linguistically diverse | |

| | | |students | |

|Materials |All materials needed for lesson are listed|Some materials needed for lesson are | No materials needed for |3.0 |

|CEC 4, 6, 7 |to enhance critical thinking, objectives, |listed to enhance critical thinking, |lesson are listed | |

| |and activities for culturally, and |objectives, and activities for culturally,| | |

| |linguistically diverse student |and linguistically diverse student | | |

|Reflection; |The teaching experience is clearly |The teaching experience is clearly |No reflection is given. |2.0 |

|CEC 9, 10 |analyzed. The strengths and weaknesses of |analyzed. The strengths and weaknesses of| | |

| |the lesson are identified along with |the lesson are identified, but does not | | |

| |suggestions to adjust and improve practice|include suggestions to adjust and improve| | |

| | |practice | | |

| | | |TOTAL POINTS |23 /30 |

__ Overall Rating

X Competent (34-39 Points)

— Developing Competence (28-33 Points)

— Needs Improvement (0-27 Points)

4. Interpretation of how the Data Provides Evidence that the CEC standards were met

The rubric used for this assessment is based on the CEC Standards, which focuses on the content knowledge that candidates should possess. Based on the data, the special education candidate demonstrated further needed help in CEC Curriculum Standards 7-Instructional Planning; CEC 8- Assessment; and CEC 10- Collaboration, Reflection and Evaluation.

However, requiring our candidates to pass this test to be eligible to enroll in student teaching ensures that our candidates possess mastery of instruction and assessment strategies; student development and learning, including diversity in student populations; communication techniques; and issues related to the teaching profession and larger community. However, further assistance in developing activities and experiences in varied inclusive classes maybe conducted by the college supervisor and the Office of Clinical Experience for teacher candidates who may demonstrate weaknesses at various transitional points. The fact that the mean and median scores for this candidate were higher than the state required minimum score is further indication of candidate mastery of this professional knowledge. However, application of skills in a variety of settings were required and provided through additional training, activity sessions, and further application at varied school sites.

ASSESSMENT #4 -- ADEPT

1. Description of Assessment

South Carolina’s system for Assisting, Developing, and Evaluating Professional Teaching (ADEPT) grew out of the knowledge that good teaching is important to student achievement. The primary focus of ADEPT is a set of expectations for what teaching professionals should know, be able to do, and assume responsibility for accomplishing on an ongoing basis. These expectations are called ADEPT Performance Standards. There are ten ADEPT Performance Standards, and they are grouped into the following four domains:

Domain 1: Planning

APS 1 Long-Range Planning

APS 2 Short-Range Planning of Instruction

APS 3 Planning Assessments and Using Data

Domain 2: Instruction

APS 4 Establishing and Maintaining High Expectations for Learners

APS 5 Using Instructional Strategies to Facilitate Learning

APS 6 Providing Content for Learners

APS 7 Monitoring, Assessing, and Enhancing Learning

Domain 3: Classroom Environment

APS 8 Maintaining an Environment That Promotes Learning

APS 9 Managing the Classroom

Domain 4: Professionalism

APS 10 Fulfilling Professional Responsibilities

Each Performance Standard contains a set of key elements. The key elements are crucial to the standards.

As aforementioned, the ADEPT system focuses on teacher performance through three key processes: assisting, developing, and evaluating. During the initial phase of their careers, candidates enrolled in teacher education programs focus on developing the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are central to the ADEPT Performance Standards. ADEPT Standards are among the state accreditation requirements for college and university teacher education programs.

New teachers receive assistance, which is intended to promote their successful transition into professional practice. The third stage of ADEPT, formal evaluation, is successfully achieved by most teachers. The primary focus of the fourth stage, informal evaluation, is continuous professional growth.

ADEPT was chosen as one of our eight assessments because of the central role we have in preparing candidates who are developing the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are necessary to be successful in the ADEPT process. Hence, the ADEPT system is highlighted in all of our classes. Our candidates are evaluated by the ADEPT instrument during their student teaching experience.

2. Alignment with CEC Standards (See rubric below)

The ADEPT instrument has been revised to make it Special Education-specific. The alignment highlights the key elements within each Performance Standard.

SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

ADEPT Summative Evaluation

Key Assessment # 4

|Domain 1. Planning APS 1 Long-Range Planning |Rating |

| |Met |Not Met |

|CEC 1 |l. A The student teacher obtains student information, analyzes this information to determine the | | |

| |learning needs of all students, and uses this information to guide instructional planning. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 2 |1. B The student teacher establishes appropriate standards-based long-range learning and developmental | | |

| |goals for all students. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 3 & 4 |1. C The student teacher identifies and sequences instructional units in a manner that facilitates the | | |

| |accomplishment of the long-range goals. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 8 |1.D The student teacher develops appropriate processes for evaluating and recording students’ progress | | |

| |and achievement. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 5 |1. E The student teacher plans appropriate procedures for managing the classroom. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|Domain 1: Planning APS 2 Short-Range Planning of Instruction |Rating |

| |Met |Not Met |

|CEC 4 & 7 |2. A The student teacher develops unit objectives that facilitate student achievement of appropriate | | |

| |academic standards and long-range learning and developmental goals. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 4 & 7 |2. B The student teacher develops instructional plans that include content, strategies, materials, and | | |

| |resources that are appropriate for the particular students. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 4 |2. C The student teacher routinely uses student performance data to guide short-range planning of | | |

| |instruction. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|Domain 1: Planning APS 3: Planning Assessments and Using Data |Rating |

| |Met |Not Met |

|CEC 8 |3. A The student teacher develops/selects and administers a variety of appropriate assessments. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 8 |3. B At appropriate intervals, the student teacher gathers and accurately analyzes student performance | | |

| |data and uses this information to guide instructional planning. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 8 |3. C The student teacher uses assessment data to assign grades (or other indicators) that accurately | | |

| |reflect student progress and achievement. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|Domain 2: Instruction APS 4: Establishing and Maintaining High Expectations for Learners |Rating |

| |Met |Not Met |

|CEC 5 |4. A The student teacher establishes, communicates, and maintains high expectations for student | | |

| |achievement. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 5 |4. B The student teacher establishes, communicates, and maintains high expectations for student | | |

| |participation. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 5 |4. C The student teacher helps students assume responsibility for their own participation and learning. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|Domain 2: Instruction APS 5: Using Instructional Strategies to Facilitate Learning |Rating |

| |Met |Not Met |

|CEC 4 |5. A The student teacher uses appropriate instructional strategies. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 4 |5. B The student teacher uses a variety of instructional strategies. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 4 |5. C The student teacher uses instructional strategies effectively. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|Domain 2: Instruction APS 6: Providing Content for Learners |Rating |

| |Met |Not Met |

|CEC 6 & 9 |6. A The student teacher demonstrates a thorough command of the discipline that he or she teaches. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 6 & 9 |6. B The student teacher provides appropriate content. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 6 & 9 |6. The student teacher structures the content to promote meaningful learning. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|Domain 2: Instruction APS 7: Monitoring, Assessing, and Enhancing Learning |Rating |

| |Met |Not Met |

|CEC 8 |7. A The student teacher continually monitors student learning during instruction by using a variety of | | |

| |informal and formal assessment strategies. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 8 |7. B The student teacher enhances student learning by using information from informal and formal | | |

| |assessments to guide instruction. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 8 |7. C The student teacher enhances student learning by providing appropriate instructional feedback to all | | |

| |students. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|Domain 3: Environment APS 8: Maintaining an Environment That Promotes Learning |Rating |

| |Met |Not Met |

|CEC 5 |8. A The student teacher creates and maintains the physical environment of his or her classroom as a safe | | |

| |place that is conducive to learning. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 5 |8. B The student teacher creates and maintains a positive affective climate in his or her classroom. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 9 |8. C The student teacher creates and maintains a culture of learning in his or her classroom. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|Domain 3 Environment APS 9 Managing the Classroom |Rating |

| |Met |Not Met |

|CEC 9 |9. A The student teacher manages student behavior appropriately. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 9 |9. B The student teacher makes maximal use of instructional time. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 9 |9. C The student teacher manages essential non instructional routines in an efficient manner. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|Domain 4: APS 10: Fulfilling Professional Responsibilities |Rating |

|Professionalism | |

| |Met |Not Met |

|CEC 10 |10. A The student teacher is an advocate for the students. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 10 |10. B The student teacher works to achieve organizational goals in order to make the entire school a | | |

| |positive and productive learning environment. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 9 |10. C The student teacher is an effective communicator. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 9 |10. D The student teacher exhibits professional demeanor and behavior. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

|CEC 10 |10. E The student teacher is an active learner. | | |

| |Comments: | | |

SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

ADEPT Summative Evaluation

Student Teacher __________________________ School _____________________________

Date _______ University Supervisor _____________________ Cooperating Teacher ________________

| | | | | |

|ADEPT Performance Standards for Student Teachers |Consensus Judgment |

|Domain |ADEPT Performance |Total Key |Number of Key |DOMAIN |DOMAIN |

| |Standards in the |Elements in the |Elements Met in the|MET |NOT MET |

| |Domain |Domain |Domain | | |

|Domain 2: Instruction |APS 4 |12 |      |x | |

| |APS 5 | | |> 11 |< 10 |

| |APS 6 | | | | |

| |APS 7 | | | | |

|Domain 3: Classroom |APS 8 |6 |      |x | |

|Environment |APS 9 | | |> 5 |< 4 |

|Domain 4: Professionalism|APS 10 |5 |      |x | |

| | | | |> 4 |< 3 |

|Overall Judgment |Met |Not Met |

|An overall judgment of met indicates that the student teacher achieves the criterion | | |

|level in all four domains at the time of the final evaluation. | | |

| |X | |

| |

| | | | | |

|University Supervisor | | |Date | |

| | | | | |

|Cooperating Teacher | | |Date | |

| | | | | |

|Student Teacher’s signature: By signing below, I verify that I have received the results of this summative evaluation. My signature does not |

|necessarily imply that I agree with these results. |

| | | | | |

|Student Teacher | | |Date | |

3. Summary of Data Findings

The Special Education candidate is evaluated by the ADEPT instrument during the student teaching experience. The university supervisor and cooperating teacher conduct formal observations four times during the thirteen-week internship. After the university supervisor and cooperating teacher have conducted their observations, they will meet to discuss their independent ratings and reach a consensus on the final score/s. The performance levels are “met” or “not met.” According to the data from 2007-2008, the candidate received a rating of 100% of “met.”

4. Interpretation of how Data Provides Evidence that the CEC Standards were met.

According to the data from 2007-2008, our candidate consistently received a 100% consensus judgment of “met.” Hence, the alignment of the CEC Standards with the key elements of the 10 ADEPT Performance Standards and the 100% ratings of “met” provide strong evidence that our candidates are proficient in all of the CEC Standards.

ASSESSMENT #5 – UNIT WORK SAMPLE

1. Description of Assessment

Successful teacher candidates support learning by designing a teacher work sample that employs a range of strategies that builds on each student’s strengths, needs, and prior experiences. Teacher candidates provide credible evidence to show their ability to facilitate learning by identify contextual factors, learning goals, designing instructional plans and assessment instruments. In addition, analysis of students learning allows the teacher candidate to reflect on the lesson and complete a self evaluation to make decision to enhance the learning process.

The Special Education Teacher Candidate complete professional clinical experience at The Special Center located in Orangeburg School district No. 5, Orangeburg, South Carolina. Information about the district included the community’s demographic information, mission of the district, classroom organization, and student characteristics. A pretest was administered to give the Teacher Candidate first had knowledge about the student’s ability enrolled in the specific course, i.e., Integrated Special and Engineering. This information allowed the Teacher Candidate to write lesson plans, plan strategies, and activities that would address the various learning styles located in the classroom. Emphasis was place on making sure all levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy would be implemented during the clinical experience. The post-test was administer to assess the instruction and measure the students; comprehension/mastery of the objective of the lesson. It also allowed the teacher candidate to reflect on the positive teaching attributes, and to do a self evaluation to enhance the learning experience.

2. Alignment with CEC Standards (See rubric on the following page)

Key Assessment # 5

Summative Assessment

Unit Work Sample Rubric

Special Education

Section 1: TWS Standard: The teacher uses information about the learning/teaching context and student individual differences to set learning goals, plan instruction and assess learning.

Effective Performer =EP; Reflective Decision-RD and Humanistic Practitioner=HP

|Rating |Competent |Developing |Needs Improvement |Score |

|Indicator |3 |Competence |1 | |

| | |2 | | |

|Knowledge of |Teacher displays a comprehensive |Teacher displays some knowledge of the |Teacher displays minimal, irrelevant, or | |

|Community, School |understanding of the |characteristics of the community, school, |biased knowledge of the characteristics | |

|and Classroom |characteristics of the community, |and classroom that may affect learning in |of the community, school, and in the | |

|Factors (CEC 1; ADEPT 1, EP and|school, and classroom that may |the Special Education diverse classroom. |Special Education diverse classroom. | |

|RD). |affect learning in the Special | | | |

| |Education diverse classroom. | | | |

|Knowledge of |Teacher displays general & specific|Teacher displays general knowledge of |Teacher displays minimal, stereotypical, | |

|Characteristics of Students |understanding of student |student differences (e.g., development, |or irrelevant knowledge of student | |

|(CEC 1; ADEPT 1, EP and RD). |differences (e.g., development, |interests, culture, |differences (e.g. development, interests,| |

| |interests, culture, |abilities/disabilities) that may affect |culture, abilities/disabilities) in the | |

| |abilities/disabilities) that may |learning in the Special Education diverse |Special Education diverse classroom. | |

| |affect learning in the Special |classroom. | | |

| |Education diverse classroom. | | | |

|Knowledge of |Teacher displays general & specific|Teacher displays general knowledge about |Teacher displays minimal, stereotypical, | |

|Students’ Varied |understanding of the different ways|the different ways students learn (e.g., |or irrelevant knowledge about the | |

|Approaches to |students learn (e.g., learning |learning styles, learning modalities) in |different ways students learn (e.g., | |

|Learning (CEC 1; ADEPT 1, EP |styles, learning modalities) that |the Special Education diverse classroom. |learning styles, learning modalities) in | |

|and RD). |may affect learning in the Special | |the Special Education diverse classroom. | |

| |Education diverse classroom. | | | |

|Knowledge of |Teacher displays general & specific|Teacher displays general knowledge of |Teacher displays little or irrelevant | |

|Students’ Skills |understanding of students’ skills |students’ skills and prior learning that |knowledge of students’ skills and prior | |

|And Prior Learning (CEC 1; |and prior learning that may affect |may affect learning in the Special |learning in the Special Education diverse| |

|ADEPT 1, EP and RD). |learning in the Special Education |Education diverse classroom. |classroom. | |

| |diverse classroom. | | | |

|Implications for |Teacher provides specific |Teacher provides general implications for |Teacher does not provide implications for| |

|Instructional |implications for instruction and |instruction and assessment based on |instruction and assessment based on | |

|Planning and |assessment based on student |student individual differences and |student individual differences and | |

|Assessment (CEC 1; ADEPT 1, EP |individual differences and |community, school, and classroom |community, school, and classroom | |

|and RD). |community, school, and classroom |characteristics in the Special Education |characteristics OR provides inappropriate| |

| |characteristics in the Special |diverse classroom. |implications in the Special Education | |

| |Education diverse classroom. | |diverse classroom. | |

Instructional Objectives

Rubric

Special Education

TWS Standard: The teacher sets significant, challenging, varied and appropriate learning goals.

Effective Performer =EP; Reflective Decision-RD and Humanistic Practitioner=HP

|Rating |Competent |Developing |Needs Improvement |Score |

|Indicator |3 |Competence |1 | |

| | |2 | | |

|Significance, |Objectives reflect several types or levels|Objectives reflect several types or |Goals reflect only one type or | |

|Challenge and |of learning and are significant and |levels of learning but lack significance |level of learning for high school | |

|Variety (CEC 2; ADEPT 1, EP and RD). |challenging for high school diverse |or challenge for high school diverse |diverse settings. | |

| |settings. |settings. | | |

|Clarity (CEC 2; ADEPT 1, EP and RD). |Most of the goals are clearly stated as |Some of the goals are clearly stated as |Goals are not stated clearly and | |

| |learning outcomes for high school diverse |learning outcomes for high school diverse|are activities rather than learning| |

| |settings. |settings. |outcomes for high school diverse | |

| | | |settings. | |

|Appropriateness |Most objectives appropriate for the |Some goals are appropriate for the |Goals are not appropriate for the | |

|For Students (CEC 2; ADEPT 1, EP and |development; pre-requisite knowledge, |development; pre- requisite knowledge, |development; pre-requisite | |

|RD). |skills, experiences; and other student |skills, experiences; and other student |knowledge, skills, experiences; or | |

| |needs in high school diverse settings. |needs in high school diverse settings. |other student needs in high school | |

| | | |diverse settings. | |

|Alignment with |Most of the goals are explicitly aligned |Some goals are aligned with national, |Goals are not aligned with | |

|National, State or Local Standards |with national, state or local standards in|state or local standards in high school |national, state or local standards | |

|(CEC 2; ADEPT 1, EP and RD). |high school diverse settings. |diverse settings. |in high school diverse settings. | |

Assessment Plan

Rubric

Special Education

Section 3: TWS Standard: The teacher uses multiple assessment modes and approaches aligned with learning goals to assess student learning before, during and after instruction.

Effective Performer =EP; Reflective Decision-RD and Humanistic Practitioner=HP

|Rating |Competent |Developing |Needs Improvement |Score |

|Indicator |3 |Competence |1 | |

| | |2 | | |

|Alignment with |Each of the learning goals is assessed |Some of the learning goals are |Content and methods of assessment | |

|Learning Goals and |through the assessment plan; assessments |assessed through the assessment plan, |lack congruence with learning goals | |

|Instruction (CEC 3; ADEPT 1, EP |are congruent with the learning goals in |but many are not congruent with |or lack cognitive complexity for high| |

|and RD). |content and cognitive complexity for high |learning goals in content and |school diverse settings. | |

| |school diverse settings. |cognitive complexity for high school | | |

| | |diverse settings. | | |

|Clarity of Criteria |Assessment criteria are clear and are |Assessment criteria have been |The assessments contain no clear | |

|and Standards for Performance |explicitly linked to the learning goals for|developed, but they are not clear or |criteria for measuring student | |

|(CEC 3; ADEPT 1, EP and RD). |high school diverse settings. |are not explicitly linked to the |performance relative to the learning | |

| | |learning goals for high school diverse|goals for high school diverse | |

| | |settings. |settings. | |

|Multiple Modes and |The assessment plan includes multiple |The assessment plan includes multiple |The assessment plan includes only one| |

|Approaches |assessment modes (including performance |modes but all are either pencil paper |assessment mode and does not assess | |

|(CEC 3; ADEPT 1, EP and RD). |assessments, lab reports, research |based (i.e. they are not performance |students before, during, and after | |

| |projects, etc.) and assesses student |assessments) and/or do not require the|instruction for high school diverse | |

| |performance throughout the instructional |integration of knowledge, skills and |settings. | |

| |sequence for high school diverse settings. |reasoning ability for high school | | |

| | |diverse settings. | | |

| | | | | |

|Technical |Assessments appear to be valid; scoring |Assessments appear to have some |Assessments are not valid; scoring | |

|Soundness |procedures are explained; most items or |validity. Some scoring procedures are |procedures are absent or inaccurate; | |

|(CEC 3; ADEPT 1, EP and RD). |prompts are clearly written; directions and|explained; some items or prompts are |items or prompts are poorly written; | |

| |procedures are clear to students in high |clearly written; some directions and |directions and procedures are | |

| |school diverse settings. |procedures are clear to students in |confusing to students in high school | |

| | |high school diverse settings. |diverse settings. | |

| | | | | |

|Adaptations Based on the |Teacher makes adaptations to assessments |Teacher makes adaptations to |Teacher does not adapt | |

|Individual |that are |assessments that are |assessments to meet the individual | |

|Needs of Students (CEC 3; ADEPT |appropriate to meet the individual needs of|appropriate to meet the |needs of students or these | |

|1, EP and RD). |most students in high school diverse |individual needs of some students in |assessments are | |

| |settings. |high school diverse settings. |inappropriate for high school diverse| |

| | | |settings. | |

Design for Instruction

Rubric

Special Education

Section 4: TWS Standard: The teacher designs instruction for specific learning goals, student characteristics and needs, and learning contexts.

Effective Performer =EP; Reflective Decision-RD and Humanistic Practitioner=HP

|Rating |Competent |Developing |Needs Improvement |Score |

|Indicator |3 |Competence |1 | |

| | |2 | | |

|Alignment with |All lessons are explicitly linked to |Most lessons are explicitly linked to learning |Few lessons are explicitly linked to | |

|Instructional Objectives |learning goals. All learning activities, |goals. Most learning activities, assignments |learning goals. Few learning | |

|(CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, |assignments and resources are aligned with |and resources are aligned with learning goals. |activities, | |

|8, 9 and 10). |learning goals. All learning goals are |Most learning goals are covered in the design |assignments and resources are aligned | |

| |covered in the design for high school |for high school diverse settings. |with learning goals, Not all learning | |

| |diverse settings. | |goals are covered in the design for | |

| | | |high school diverse settings. | |

|Accurate |Teacher’s use of content is accurate. Focus|Teacher’s use of content appears to be mostly |Teacher’s use of content appears to | |

|Representation of Content |of the content is congruent with the big |accurate. Shows some awareness of the big ideas|contain numerous inaccuracies. Content | |

|(CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, |ideas or structure of the discipline for |or structure of the discipline for high school |seems to be viewed more as isolated | |

|8, 9 and 10). |high school diverse settings. |diverse settings. |skills and facts rather than as part of| |

| | | |a larger conceptual structure for high | |

| | | |school diverse settings. | |

|Lesson and Unit |All lessons within the unit are logically |The lessons within the unit have some logical |The lessons within the unit are not | |

|Structure (CEC 1, 2, 3, 4,|organized and are useful in moving students|organization and appear to be somewhat useful |logically organized organization (e.g.,| |

|5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10). |toward achieving the learning goals for |in moving students toward achieving the |sequenced) for high school diverse | |

| |high school diverse settings. |learning goals for high school diverse |settings. | |

| | |settings. | | |

|Use of a Variety of |Significant variety across instruction, |Some variety in instruction, activities, |Little variety of instruction, | |

|Instruction, |activities, assignments, and/or resources. |assignments, or resources but with limited |activities, assignments, and resources.| |

|Activities, |This variety makes a clear contribution to |contribution to learning in high school diverse|Heavy reliance on textbook or single | |

|Assignments and |learning in high school diverse settings. |settings. |resource (e.g., work sheets) in high | |

|Resources (CEC 1, 2, 3, 4,| | |school diverse settings. | |

|5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10). | | | | |

|Use of Contextual |Most instruction has been designed with |Some instruction has been designed with |Instruction has not been designed with | |

|Information and |reference to contextual factors and |reference to contextual factors and pre- |reference to contextual factors and | |

|Data to Select |pre-assessment data. Most activities and |assessment data. Some activities and |pre- assessment data. Activities and | |

|Appropriate and |assignments are productive and appropriate |assignments appear productive and appropriate |assignments do not appear productive | |

|Relevant Activities, |for each student in high school diverse |for each student in high school diverse |and appropriate for each student in | |

|Assignments and |settings. |settings. |high school diverse settings. | |

|Resources (CEC 1, 2, 3, 4,| | | | |

|5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10). | | | | |

|Use of Special |Teacher integrates appropriate special |Teacher uses special education but it does not |Special Education is inappropriately | |

|(CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, |education that makes a significant |make a significant contribution to teaching and|used OR teacher does not use special | |

|8, 9 and 10). |contribution to teaching and learning in |learning OR teacher provides limited rationale |education and no (or inappropriate) | |

| |high school diverse settings. |for not using special education in high school |rationale is provided in high school | |

| | |diverse settings. |diverse settings. | |

Instructional Decision-Making

Rubric Special Education

Section 5: TWS Standard: The teacher uses on-going analysis of student learning to make instructional decisions.

Effective Performer =EP; Reflective Decision-RD and Humanistic Practitioner=HP

|Rating |Competent |Developing |Needs Improvement |Score |

|Indicator |3 |Competence |1 | |

| | |2 | | |

|Sound Professional |Most instructional decisions are pedagogically |Instructional decisions are mostly |Many instructional decisions are | |

|Practice (CEC 1, 2, 3, |sound (i.e., they lead to student learning) in |appropriate, but some decisions are not |inappropriate and not | |

|4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and |high school diverse settings. |pedagogically sound in high school |pedagogically sound in high school| |

|10). | |diverse settings. |diverse settings. | |

|Modifications Based |Appropriate modifications of the instructional |Some modifications of the instructional |Teacher treats class as “one plan | |

|on Analysis of |plan are made to address individual student |plan are made to address individual |fits all” with no modifications in| |

|Student Learning (CEC 1,|needs. These modifications are informed by the |student needs, but these are not based on|high school diverse settings. | |

|2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 |analysis of student learning/performance, best |the analysis of student learning, best | | |

|and 10). |practice, or contextual factors. Include |practice, or contextual factors in high | | |

| |explanation of why the modifications would |school diverse settings. | | |

| |improve student progress in high school diverse| | | |

| |settings. | | | |

|Congruence |Modifications in instruction are congruent with|Modifications in instruction are somewhat|Modifications in instruction lack | |

|Between |Instructional Objectives in high school diverse|congruent with learning goals in high |congruence with learning goals in | |

|Modifications and |settings. |school diverse settings. |high school diverse settings. | |

|Instructional Objectives| | | | |

|(CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, | | | | |

|7, 8, 9 and 10). | | | | |

Analysis of Student Learning

Rubric Special Education

Section 6: TWS Standard: The teacher uses assessment data to profile student learning and communicate information about student progress and achievement.

|Rating |Competent |Developing |Needs Improvement |Score |

|Indicator |3 |Competence |1 | |

| | |2 | | |

|Clarity and |Presentation is easy to understand and |Presentation is understandable and |Presentation is not clear and | |

|Accuracy of |contains no errors of representation in|contains few errors in high school diverse|accurate; it does not accurately | |

|Presentation (CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, |high school diverse settings. |settings. |reflect the data in high school | |

|5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10). | | |diverse settings. | |

|Alignment with |Analysis is fully aligned with learning|Analysis of student learning is partially |Analysis of student learning is | |

|Learning Goals (CEC 1, 2, 3, |goals and provides a comprehensive |aligned with learning goals and/or fails |not aligned with learning goals | |

|4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10). |profile of student learning for the |to provide a comprehensive profile of |for high school diverse settings. | |

| |whole class, subgroups, and at least |student learning relative to the goals for| | |

| |two individuals in high school diverse |the whole class, subgroups, and two | | |

| |settings. |individuals in high school diverse | | |

| | |settings. | | |

|Interpretation of Data CEC 1, |Interpretation is meaningful, and |Interpretation is technically accurate, |Interpretation is inaccurate, and | |

|2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and |appropriate conclusions are drawn from |but conclusions are missing or not fully |conclusions are missing or | |

|10). |the data for high school diverse |supported by data for high school diverse |unsupported by data for high | |

| |settings. |settings. |school diverse settings. | |

|Evidence of Impact on Student |Analysis of student learning includes |Analysis of student learning includes |Analysis of student learning fails| |

|Learning (CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, |evidence of the impact on student |incomplete evidence of the impact on |to include evidence of impact on | |

|6, 7, 8, 9 and 10). |learning in terms of number of students|student learning in terms of numbers of |student learning in terms of | |

| |who achieved and made progress toward |students who achieved and made progress |numbers of students who achieved | |

| |each instructional objectives in high |toward learning goals in high school |and made progress toward learning | |

| |school diverse settings. |diverse settings. |goals in high school diverse | |

| | | |settings. | |

|Value Added | | | | |

Reflection and Self-Evaluation

Rubric

Section 7: TWS Standard: The teacher analyzes the relationship between his or her instruction and student learning in order to improve teaching practice.

|Rating |Competent |Developing |Needs Improvement |Score |

|Indicator |3 |Competence |1 | |

| | |2 | | |

|Interpretation of |Uses evidence to support conclusions |Provides evidence but no (or simplistic, |No evidence or reasons provided to | |

|Student Learning (CEC 1, 2, 3, 4,|drawn in “Analysis of Student Learning” |superficial) reasons or hypotheses to support |support conclusions drawn in | |

|5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10). |section. Explores multiple hypotheses for|conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student |“Analysis of Student Learning” | |

| |why some students did not meet |Learning” section in high school diverse |section in high school diverse | |

| |instructional objectives in high school |settings. |settings. | |

| |diverse settings. | | | |

|Insights Effective |Identifies successful and unsuccessful |Identifies successful and unsuccessful |Provides no rationale for why some | |

|Instruction and |activities and assessments and provides |activities or assessments and superficially |activities or assessments were more | |

|Assessment (CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,|plausible reasons (based on theory or |explores reasons for their success or lack |successful than others in high | |

|7, 8, 9 and 10). |research) for their success or lack |thereof (no use of theory or research) in high |school diverse settings. | |

| |thereof in high school diverse settings. |school diverse settings. | | |

| | | | | |

|Alignment Among |Logically connects instructional |Connects learning goals, instruction, and |Does not connect learning goals, | |

|Goals, Instruction |objectives instruction, and assessment |assessment results in the discussion of student|instruction, and assessment results | |

|and Assessment (CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, |results in the discussion of student |learning and effective instruction, but |in the discussion of student | |

|5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10). |learning and effective instruction in |misunderstandings or conceptual gaps are |learning and effective instruction | |

| |high school diverse settings. |present in high school diverse settings. |and/or the connections are | |

| | | |irrelevant or inaccurate in high | |

| | | |school diverse settings. | |

| | | | | |

|Implications for |Provides ideas for redesigning learning |Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, |Provides no ideas or inappropriate | |

|Future Teaching (CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, |goals, instruction, and assessment and |instruction, and assessment but offers no |ideas for redesigning learning | |

|5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10). |explains why these modifications would |rationale for why these changes would improve |goals, instruction, and assessment | |

| |improve student learning in high school |student learning in high school diverse |in high school diverse settings. | |

| |diverse settings. |settings. | | |

|Implications for |Presents a small number of professional |Presents professional learning goals that are |Provides no professional learning | |

|Professional |learning goals that clearly emerge from |not strongly related to the insights and |goals or goals that are not related | |

|Development (CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, |the insights and experiences described in|experiences described in this section and/or |to the insights and experiences | |

|6, 7, 8, 9 and 10). |this section. Describes specific steps to|provides a vague plan for meeting the goals in |described in this section in high | |

| |meet these objectives in high school |high school diverse settings. |school diverse settings. | |

| |diverse settings. | | | |

3. Summary of Data Findings

The UWS is completed during the student teaching experience. Two professors, including a university supervisor, review the Work Samples and rate them by using a 3-level scale which consists of “needs improvement,” “developing competence,” and “competent.” During the 2007-2008 semesters, the Special Education candidate received a rating of “competent” in the areas of contextual factors, instructional objectives, assessment plan, design for instruction, instructional decision-maker, analysis of student learning, and reflection and self-evaluation. Assessment 5 must provide data on the impact that candidates have on student learning. Thus, one rating indicator of “analysis of student learning” that offers additional evidence in this area has been highlighted. The rating indicator is “evidence of impact on student learning.” This criterion shows 100% of the candidates had a positive impact on student learning.

Key Assessment # 5

Summative Assessment

Unit Work Sample Rubric

Special Education

Section 1: TWS Standard: The teacher uses information about the learning/teaching context and student individual differences to set learning goals, plan instruction and assess learning.

Effective Performer =EP; Reflective Decision-RD and Humanistic Practitioner=HP ASSESSMENT #5

SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

CLINICAL EXPERIENCES, EVALUATION & CERTIFICATION

UNIT WORK SAMPLE RUBRIC ASSESSMENT #5

Student Teacher Name___________________ __ Date of Review

School

Grade Level(s)/Subject area(s)_ ____________________ Academic Year Spring 08

Dates of unit From__________ to __________ Numbers of Lesson in Unit

University Supervisor George L, Johnson, Jr. Ph.D. Cooperating Teacher Frances Waddell

UWS SECTION I: Unit Topic or Title : Romeo and Juliet

1.C The student teacher identifies and sequences instructional units in a manner that facilitates the accomplishment of the long-range goals.

In this context, an instructional unit is a set of integrated lessons that is designed to accomplish learning objectives related to a curricular theme, an area of knowledge, or a general skill or process. Consistent with relevant federal, state, and local curriculum and/or academic standards, the teacher’s instructional units provide for appropriate coverage of the key themes, concepts, skills, and standards related to the subject area(s) and are designed to expose students to a variety of intellectual, social, and cultural perspectives. The sequence of the teacher’s units (as presented through timelines, curriculum maps, planning and pacing guides, and so forth) follows a logical progression, with an appropriate amount of time allocated to each instructional unit. CEC, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

|Judgment : The Information: x Met  Met with Weakness Not Met |

|Comments: |

|The teachers’ instructional units provided for appropriate coverage of the key themes, concepts, skills, and standards related to|

|the subject area(s) and were designed to expose students to a variety of intellectual, social, and cultural perspectives. The |

|sequence of the teacher’s units (as presented through timelines, curriculum maps, planning and pacing guides, and so forth) |

|followed a logical progression, with an appropriate amount of time allocated to each instructional unit. |

| |

|2 out of 2 met standard |

| |

UWS SECTION II: CONTEXTUAL FACTORS

1.A The student teacher obtains student information, analyzes this information to determine the learning needs of all students, and uses this information to guide instructional planning.

The student teacher began the long-range planning process by gaining a thorough understanding of students’ prior achievement levels, learning styles and needs, cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, and individual interests. The student teachers gathered this information from a variety of sources, including student records (e.g., permanent records, individualized education programs) and individuals such as other teachers, special-area professionals, administrators, service providers, parents, and the students themselves. From this information, the teachers identified the factors that were likely to impact student learning. The student teachers then used this information to develop appropriate plans for meeting the diverse needs of their students. CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10

|Judgment : The Information: xMet  Met with Weakness Not Met |

|Comments: |

| |

|The student teachers began their long-range planning process by gaining a thorough understanding of students’ prior achievement |

|levels, learning styles and needs, cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, and individual interests. They gathered this |

|information from a variety of sources, including student records (e.g., permanent records, individualized education programs) and|

|individuals such as other teachers, special-area professionals, administrators, service providers, parents, and the students |

|themselves. From this information, the teachers identified the factors that were likely to impact student learning. The teachers |

|used this information to develop appropriate plans for meeting the diverse needs of their students. |

| |

|2 out of 2 met standard |

| |

| |

UWS SECTION III: PART A: Describe the unit objectives and their correlated standards or expectations.

2.A The teacher develops unit objectives that facilitate student achievement of appropriate academic standards and long-range learning and developmental goals.

The student teachers’ objectives defined what the students should know (i.e., the factual, conceptual, procedural, and/or meta-cognitive knowledge) and be able to do (e.g., the cognitive processes—remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and/or creating) upon completing the unit. The student teachers’ objectives were student-oriented, explicit, and assessable statements of intended learning outcomes. There was a clear connection between the unit objectives and grade-level academic standards (or, for preschool children or students with severe disabilities, between the unit objectives and appropriate developmental and/or functional expectations). The unit objectives were consistent with the long-range goals, assessment results from previous instructional units, state and local curriculum guidelines, individualized education programs (IEPs), and the needs and interests of the students. The unit objectives were logically linked to previous and future learning objectives. CEC 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

|Judgment : The Information: xMet  Met with Weakness Not Met |

|Comments: |

| |

|The student teachers’ objectives did not define what the students should have known (i.e., the factual, conceptual, procedural, |

|and/or meta-cognitive knowledge) or tell what they would be able to do (e.g., the cognitive processes—remembering, understanding,|

|applying, analyzing, evaluating, and/or creating) upon completing the unit. The student teachers; objectives were |

|student-oriented, explicit, and assessable statements of intended learning outcomes. There was a clear connection between the |

|unit objectives and grade-level academic standards. The unit objectives were consistent with the long-range goals, assessment |

|results from previous instructional units, state and local curriculum guidelines, individualized education programs (IEPs), and |

|the needs and interests of the students. The unit objectives were logically linked to previous and future learning objectives. |

| |

|2 out of 2 met standards |

UWS SECTION III: PART B: Describe and/or attaches the assessments for each unit objective. Include descriptions of any necessary accommodations. For each assessment, include the evaluation criteria (i.e., describe and or attach appropriate scoring rubics, observation checklist, rating scales, item weights, and the like. Note: Attachments must be clearly labels to indicate their relationship to the elements in the table.

3.A The teacher develops/selects and administers a variety of appropriate assessments.

The assessments used by the teachers were technically sound indicators of students’ progress and achievement in terms of the unit objectives, the grade-level (or individually determined) academic standards, and the student achievement goals. The assessments aligned with the learning objectives and the instruction in terms of the type(s) of knowledge (i.e., factual, conceptual, procedural, and/or meta-cognitive) and the cognitive processes (i.e., remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and/or creating). The teachers were not overly reliant on commercially produced assessments, but when they used them, they were careful to ensure that any necessary modifications were made. Assessment materials were free of content errors, and all assessments included verbal and/or written directions, models, and/or prompts that clearly defined what the students were expected to do. The assessments were appropriate for the ability and developmental levels of the students in the class. The teachers provided appropriate accommodations for individual students who required them in order to participate in assessments. CEC 1, 8, 10

|Judgment : The Information: x Met  Met with Weakness Not Met |

|Comments: |

| |

|The assessments used by the teacher were sound indicators of students’ progress and achievement in terms of the unit objectives. |

|The assessments aligned with the learning objectives and standards, while the instructions, and were reflective of the type(s) of|

|knowledge (i.e., factual, conceptual, procedural, and/or meta cognitive) and the cognitive processes (i.e., remembering, |

|understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and/or creating) |

| |

|2 out of 2 met standard |

| |

3.C The teacher uses assessment data to assign grades (or other indicators) that accurately reflect student progress and achievement.

The teachers made decisions about student performance, progress, and achievement on the basis of explicit expectations that clearly aligned with the learning objectives and achievement goals, the assessments, and the students’ level of ability. The teachers may have presented his or her evaluation criteria in the form of scoring rubrics, vignettes, grading standards, answer keys, rating scales, and the like. Assessments were weighted on the basis of the relative importance of each in determining overall progress and achievement. The teachers maintained accurate, current, well-organized, and confidential records of assessment results. The teachers used available information technology to store and assist with the analysis of student data. CEC 2, 3, 4, 7, 8

|Judgment : The Information: xMet  Met with Weakness Not Met |

|Comments: |

| |

|The teachers made decisions about student performance, progress, and achievement on the basis of explicit expectations that |

|somewhat aligned with the learning objectives and achievement goals, the assessments, and the students’ level of ability. The |

|teachers presented their evaluation criteria in the form of scoring rubrics, and grading standards. Assessments were |

|appropriately weighted on the basis of the relative importance of each in determining overall progress and achievement. The |

|teachers maintained accurate, current, well-organized, and confidential records of assessment results. The teachers used |

|available information technology to store and assist with the analysis of student data. |

| |

|2 out of 2 met standard |

| |

UWS SECTION III: PART C: After administering the pre-assessment(s), analyze student performance relative to the unit objectives. Attach one or more clearly labeled tables, graphs, or charts that depict the results of the pre-assessment(s) in a format that allows you to find patterns of student performance relative to each objective. Summarize the results of the pre-assessment(s) and describe the implications of these results on instruction.

3.B At appropriate intervals, the teacher gathers and accurately analyzes student performance data and uses this information to guide instructional planning.

The teacher routinely obtains student baseline data, analyzes the data to determine student learning needs, and uses this information to develop appropriate instructional plans. At appropriate intervals throughout instruction, the teacher analyzes student performance on informal assessments (e.g., individual and group performance tasks, quizzes, assignments) and formal assessments (e.g., tests, projects, portfolios, research papers, performances) to determine the extent to which both individual students and groups of students are progressing toward accomplishing the learning objectives. On the basis of these analyses, the teacher determines the impact of instruction on student learning and makes appropriate decisions about the need to modify his or her instructional plans. CEC 2, 3, 4, 7, 8

|Judgment : The Information: x Met  Met with Weakness Not Met |

|Comments: |

| |

|2 out of 2 met standard |

UWS SECTION III, PART D: Describe the key instructional activities, strategies, materials, and resources (including instructional technology), and indicate the unit objectives (numbered according to the order in which they are listed in UWS Section III, Part A) that are addressed.

2.B The teacher develops instructional plans that include content, strategies, materials, and resources that are appropriate for the particular students.

The content of the teacher’s instructional plans is drawn from multiple sources that are accurate and current and is applicable to the students’ grade-level academic standards, instructional needs, ability and developmental levels, and interests. The sources of the content expose students to a variety of intellectual, social, and cultural perspectives as appropriate. The teacher selects a variety of instructional strategies and materials in order to present content in formats that accommodate learning differences and that translate into real-life contexts for the students. Instructional technology is included as appropriate. The instructional strategies are logically sequenced and include sufficient opportunities for initial learning, application and practice, and review. The strategies lead the students to increasingly higher levels of thinking and problem solving. They promote active student engagement during both independent and collaborative learning tasks, and they provide opportunities for the teacher and students to vary their roles in the instructional process (e.g., instructor, facilitator, coach, audience). CEC 2, 3, 4, 5, 7

|Judgment : The Information: x Met  Met with Weakness Not Met |

|Comments: |

| |

| |

|2 out of 2 met standard |

| |

UWS SECTION IV: ANALYSIS OF STUDENT LEARNING

Once you have completed the unit, analyze all of your assessments and determine your students’ progress relative to the unit objectives. Attach clearly labeled tables, graphs, or charts that depict student performance for the entire class, for one selected subgroups, and for at least two individual students. For each visual representation, provide a descriptive narrative that summarizes your analysis of student progress and achievement. Finally, explain the ways in which you have assigned student grades (or other indicators of student performance), and include a description of the ways in which these results have been recorded as well as how and to whom they have been reported.

3.B At appropriate intervals, the teacher gathers and accurately analyzes student performance data and uses this information to guide instructional planning.

The teacher routinely obtains student baseline data, analyzes the data to determine student learning needs, and uses this information to develop appropriate instructional plans. At appropriate intervals throughout instruction, the teacher analyzes student performance on informal assessments (e.g., individual and group performance tasks, quizzes, assignments) and formal assessments (e.g., tests, projects, portfolios, research papers, performances) to determine the extent to which both individual students and groups of students are progressing toward accomplishing the learning objectives. On the basis of these analyses, the teacher determines the impact of instruction on student learning and makes appropriate decisions about the need to modify his or her instructional plans. CEC 2, 3, 4, 7, 8

|Judgment : The Information: xMet x Met with Weakness Not Met |

|Comments: |

| |

| |

|1 met standard |

|1 met standard with weakness |

| |

3.C The teacher uses assessment data to assign grades (or other indicators) that accurately reflect student progress and achievement.

The teacher makes decisions about student performance, progress, and achievement on the basis of explicit expectations that clearly align with the learning objectives and achievement goals, the assessments, and the students’ level of ability. The teacher may present his or her evaluation criteria in the form of scoring rubrics, vignettes, grading standards, answer keys, rating scales, and the like. Assessments are appropriately weighted on the basis of the relative importance of each in determining overall progress and achievement. The teacher maintains accurate, current, well-organized, and confidential records of assessment results. The teacher uses available information technology to store and assist with the analysis of student data. CEC 8

|Judgment : The Information: x Met  Met with Weakness Not Met |

|Comments: |

| |

| |

|2out of 2 met standard |

| |

UWS SECTION V: REFLECTION AND ASSESSMENT

Reflect on and describe the relationship between your students’ progress and achievement and your teaching performance. If you were o teach this unit again to the same group of students, what, if anything, would you do differently, and why?

3.B At appropriate intervals, the teacher gathers and accurately analyzes student performance data and uses this information to guide instructional planning.

The teacher routinely obtains student baseline data, analyzes the data to determine student learning needs, and uses this information to develop appropriate instructional plans. At appropriate intervals throughout instruction, the teacher analyzes student performance on informal assessments (e.g., individual and group performance tasks, quizzes, assignments) and formal assessments (e.g., tests, projects, portfolios, research papers, performances) to determine the extent to which both individual students and groups of students are progressing toward accomplishing the learning objectives. On the basis of these analyses, the teacher determines the impact of instruction on student learning and makes appropriate decisions about the need to modify his or her instructional plans. CEC 8

|Judgment : The Information: xMet x Met with Weakness Not Met |

|Comments: |

| |

| |

|1 met standard |

|1 met standard with weakness |

2.C The teacher routinely uses student performance data to guide short-range planning of instruction.

The teacher develops lesson and unit plans on the basis of accurate conclusions that he or she has drawn from analyses of the particular students’ prior performance (i.e., their behavior, progress, and achievement). CEC 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9

|Judgment : The Information: x Met  Met with Weakness Not Met |

|Comments: |

| |

| |

| |

|2 out of 2 met standard |

| |

4. Interpretation of how Data Provides Evidence that the CEC Standards were met

On item 3.B, “At appropriate intervals, the teacher gathers and accurately analyzes student performance data and uses this information to guide instructional planning,” the candidate received a 1 out of 1 Met Rating. This indicates that CEC Standards 7 and 8 demonstrated more assistance from the College Supervisor and the Office of Clinical Experiences. After additional guidance, modeling and experiences were provided the candidate received a “Met Rating” from both observers. On All other items and according to the data, the candidate consistently met the established criteria in the UWS. Thus, we believe the candidate have the ability to assess students, plan instruction based on assessment results, evaluate students following instruction, and present the data in a comprehensible manner. Additionally, based on the data, the CEC Standards were met inclusively.

ASSESSMENT #6 – PORTFOLIO

1. Description of Assessment

A portfolio is a compilation of works, records, and accomplishments that teacher candidates prepare for a specific purpose to demonstrate their learning, performances, and contribution.

The Special Education Teacher Candidate completed a portfolio for the Spring 2008 Semester. The portfolio contained the following artifacts: purpose, Philosophy Statement, Professional Growth Testimony, Resume, Degree Audit, Praxis Scores, Program of Study, INTASC Principles, ADEPT Standards, Special Education Standards, Application Standards, ADEPT Performance dimension 1 – 10 documentations.

2. Alignment with CEC Standards (See rubric below)

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

CEC PORTFOLIO EVALUATION

Undergraduate - (Stage III – ED 430) Candidate

Candidate _______________________________ School ________________________________

Professor of ED 430 __________________________ Field Supervisor__________________________

Semester ___________________________________ Date __________________________________

|Evaluation Criteria |Competent |Developing |Needs |Score |

| | |Competence |Improvement | |

| |3 |2 |1 | |

|Table of Contents, Purpose, |The candidate has clearly included |Most of the categories/artifacts |Most of the categories/artifacts | |

|Philosophy, and Personal Data |a table of contents and purpose as |are included in the table of |are not included in the table of | |

|(including a resume, test scores, |well as his/her philosophy and |contents. The purpose, philosophy |contents. The purpose, | |

|and curriculum ledger) (EP) |personal data. |and personal data are somewhat |philosophy and personal data are | |

| | |sketchy. |quite sketchy. | |

|Selection of Artifacts that Address|All artifacts are clearly related |Most artifacts are related to the |Most artifacts are not related to| |

|the Outcomes Established by the |to the Outcomes established by the |Outcomes established by the DOE. |the Outcomes. | |

|Department of Education (DOE) -- |DOE. | | | |

|Effective Performer (EP), | | | | |

|Reflective Decision Maker (RM) and | | | | |

|Humanistic Practitioner (HP) | | | | |

|Selection of Artifacts that Address|All artifacts are clearly related |Most artifacts are related to the |Most artifacts are not related to| |

|the CEC 1-10, INTASC, EEDA and |to the CEC, INTASC, and ADEPT |CEC, INTASC, and ADEPT Standards. |state and national standards. | |

|ADEPT Standards (EP) |Standards. | | | |

|A Rationale Attached to Artifacts |Presents a strong rationale for |Presents a rationale for some |A rationale is not included for | |

|that Relates to the CEC 4, INTASC, |artifacts that clearly relates to a|artifacts that partially relates to|most of the artifacts. | |

|EEDA or ADEPT Standards (EP) |national or state standard. |national or state standards. | | |

|Knowledge of Subject Matter (EP) |The artifacts clearly demonstrate |The candidate has some |The candidate’s knowledge of | |

|CEC 4; INTASC 1, 2, 5 & 6; EEDA; |that the candidate has an |understanding of the subject |subject matter is beginning to | |

|APS 6 |understanding of the subject |matter. |develop. | |

| |matter. | | | |

|Long- and Short-range Planning |Long- and short-range planning is |Most long- and short-range planning|Most planning is not related to | |

|Related to the South Carolina |clearly related to the SC |is related to the SC Curriculum |the SC Curriculum Standards. | |

|Curriculum Standards (EP) |Curriculum Standards. |Standards. | | |

|CEC 7; INTASC 7; EEDA; APSs 1 & 2 | | | | |

|Lesson Plans (EP) |The candidate designed a variety of|Most of the activities follow an |Most of the activities do not | |

|CEC 7; INTASC 7; EEDA; APS 2 |well-organized activities that |organized sequence, but do not |follow an organized sequence or | |

| |clearly support the objective(s) of|always support the objective(s). |support the objective(s). | |

| |each lesson. | | | |

|Unit Work Sample (EP) |The candidate designed a Unit Work |Some of the teaching processes were|Many of the teaching processes | |

|CEC 9; INTASC 8; EEDA; APS 3 |Sample that includes all seven |not included and/or the quality is |were not included and/or the | |

| |teaching processes. |poor. |quality is poor. | |

|Assessment Strategies |The candidate uses a variety of |Most of the lessons include some |Most of the lessons do not | |

|(EP) CEC 8; INTASC 8; |appropriate assessment strategies |type of assessment. |include strategies to assess | |

|EEDA; APS 3 |to monitor student progress. | |student progress. | |

|Use of Technology (EP) |Artifacts show sufficient |Artifacts show the use of |Artifacts show some use of | |

|CEC 7; INTASC 6; EEDA; APS 9 |integration of technology in |technology in most lessons. |technology. | |

| |lessons. | | | |

|Use of Content and Prior Knowledge,|The activities clearly reflect a |Most of the activities show that |Most of the activities do not | |

|Experiences, and Feedback (RM) (HP)|strong relationship between new |children’s prior knowledge, |reflect the use of children’s | |

|CEC 1; INTASC 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7; APSs |content and children’s prior |experiences and feedback were |prior knowledge, experiences and | |

|7 & 8 |knowledge, experiences and |considered. |feedback. | |

| |feedback. | | | |

|Awareness of Culture, Interests, |The lessons and activities clearly |Most of the lessons and activities |Most of the lessons and | |

|and Abilities of Children (RM) |reflect the candidate’s awareness |reflect the candidate’s |activities do not reflect an | |

|(HP) |of children’s cultural heritage, |understanding of different |understanding of different | |

|CEC 3; INTASC 7 & 10; APSs 1, 2, 4 |interests, and abilities. |cultures, interests, and abilities.|cultures, interests, and | |

|& 8 | | |abilities. | |

|Awareness of Different Learning |The artifacts clearly reflect |Most of the artifacts reflect the |Most of the artifacts do not | |

|Styles (RM) (HP) |planning and assessing with |consideration of different learning|reflect an understanding of | |

|CEC 3; INTASC 2, 3 & 7; EEDA; APS 1|consideration for different |styles. |different learning styles. | |

|& 3 |learning styles. | | | |

|Developmental Learning for Disabled|All artifacts designed for or |Most of the artifacts for pre-k – |Most of the artifacts for pre-k –| |

|Students (EP) |completed by pre-k – 12th grade |12th grade students are |12th grade students are | |

|CEC 2; INTASC 2; EEDA; APSs 1, 2 & |students during Pre-STEP and |developmentally appropriate. |developmentally inappropriate. | |

|5 |student teaching experiences are | | | |

| |appropriate and reflect a sound | | | |

| |understanding of developmental | | | |

| |characteristics of elementary | | | |

| |students. | | | |

|Involving Families in Children’s |The artifacts clearly reflect the |There is some evidence of the |There is little or no evidence of| |

|Development and Learning (RM) (HP)|candidate’s understanding of the |importance of involving families. |the importance of involving | |

|CEC 10; INTASC 3, 7 & 10; EEDA; |importance of involving families in| |families. | |

|APSs 1 & 10 |children’s development and | | | |

| |learning. | | | |

|Reflections (RM) |All reflections illustrate the |Most of the reflections illustrate |Most reflections do not | |

|CEC 1; INTASC 9; EEDA; APS 10 |ability to effectively critique |the ability to effectively critique|illustrate the ability to | |

| |work and identify areas for |work and identify areas for |effectively critique work or | |

| |improvement. |improvement. |identify areas for improvement. | |

|Professional Growth and Development|The artifacts clearly reflect the |There is some evidence of the |There is little or no evidence of| |

|(RM) |candidate’s understanding of the |importance of engaging in continual|engaging in continual learning. | |

|CEC 9; INTASC 9; EEDA; APS 10 |importance of engaging in continual|learning. | | |

| |learning and improvement. | | | |

|Well Organized (EP); |Everything is easily found. |Some organization, but artifacts |Poorly organized | |

|CEC 9; INTASC 10; EEDA; APS 10 | |are not easily found. | | |

|Work Samples from |A variety of artifacts are |More than one type of artifact |Only one type of artifact | |

|Pre-k - 12th Grade Students (EP) |included. | | | |

|(RM) (HP); CEC 1; INTASC 3, 4, 5, | | | | |

|6 & 7; EEDA; APSs 5 & 6 | | | | |

Total ________

Evaluation Scale:

Competent: 40-48

Developing Competence: 31-39

Needs Improvement: 0-30

___________________________ ___________________________ ____________________________

University Supervisor Cooperating Teacher Student Teacher

3. Summary of Data Findings

During the student teaching process, a cooperating teacher and university supervisor rate each candidate’s portfolio. A three-level rating criteria is used which consist of “needs improvement,” “developing competence,” and “competent.” Ratings of “developing competence” and “competent” are necessary for successful performance. The evaluation criteria are aligned with the CEC Standards. According to the 2007-2008 data, the Special Education candidate received a rating of “competent.”

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

CEC PORTFOLIO EVALUATION

Undergraduate - (Stage III – ED 430) Candidate

Candidate _____________________ School _______________________

Professor of ED 430 _Dr. Janice Owens Field Supervisor_Dr. George Johnson

Semester __Spring 2008 Date _April 30, 2008

|Evaluation Criteria |Competent |Developing |Needs |Score |

| | |Competence |Improvement | |

| |3 |2 |1 | |

|Table of Contents, Purpose, |The candidate has clearly included|Most of the categories/artifacts |Most of the categories/artifacts|3 |3 |

|Philosophy, and Personal Data |a table of contents and purpose as|are included in the table of |are not included in the table of| | |

|(including a resume, test scores, |well as his/her philosophy and |contents. The purpose, philosophy|contents. The purpose, | | |

|and curriculum ledger) (EP) |personal data. |and personal data are somewhat |philosophy and personal data are| | |

| | |sketchy. |quite sketchy. | | |

|Selection of Artifacts that |All artifacts are clearly related |Most artifacts are related to the |Most artifacts are not related |3 |3 |

|Address the Outcomes Established |to the Outcomes established by the|Outcomes established by the DOE. |to the Outcomes. | | |

|by the Department of Education |DOE. | | | | |

|(DOE) -- Effective Performer (EP),| | | | | |

|Reflective Decision Maker (RM) and| | | | | |

|Humanistic Practitioner (HP) | | | | | |

|Selection of Artifacts that |All artifacts are clearly related |Most artifacts are related to the |Most artifacts are not related |3 |3 |

|Address the CEC, INTASC, EEDA and |to the CEC, INTASC, and ADEPT |CEC, INTASC, and ADEPT Standards. |to state and national standards.| | |

|ADEPT Standards (EP) |Standards. | | | | |

|A Rationale Attached to Artifacts|Presents a strong rationale for |Presents a rationale for some |A rationale is not included for |2.5 |2 |

|that Relates to the CEC 4, INTASC,|artifacts that clearly relates to |artifacts that partially relates |most of the artifacts. | | |

|EEDA or ADEPT Standards (EP) |a national or state standard. |to national or state standards. | | | |

|Knowledge of Subject Matter (EP) |The artifacts clearly demonstrate |The candidate has some |The candidate’s knowledge of | | |

|CEC 4; INTASC 1, 2, 5 & 6; EEDA; |that the candidate has an |understanding of the subject |subject matter is beginning to |3 |3 |

|APS 6 |understanding of the subject |matter. |develop. | | |

| |matter. | | | | |

|Long- and Short-range Planning |Long- and short-range planning is |Most long- and short-range |Most planning is not related to | | |

|Related to the South Carolina |clearly related to the SC |planning is related to the SC |the SC Curriculum Standards. |3 |3 |

|Curriculum Standards (EP) |Curriculum Standards. |Curriculum Standards. | | | |

|CEC 7; INTASC 7; EEDA; APSs 1 & 2 | | | | | |

|Lesson Plans (EP) |The candidate designed a variety |Most of the activities follow an |Most of the activities do not | | |

|CEC 7; INTASC 7; EEDA; APS 2 |of well-organized activities that |organized sequence, but do not |follow an organized sequence or |3 |3 |

| |clearly support the objective(s) |always support the objective(s). |support the objective(s). | | |

| |of each lesson. | | | | |

|Unit Work Sample (EP) |The candidate designed a Unit Work|Some of the teaching processes |Many of the teaching processes | | |

|CEC 9; INTASC 8; EEDA; APS 3 |Sample that includes all seven |were not included and/or the |were not included and/or the |3 |3 |

| |teaching processes. |quality is poor. |quality is poor. | | |

|Assessment Strategies |The candidate uses a variety of |Most of the lessons include some |Most of the lessons do not | |3 |

|(EP) CEC 8; INTASC 8; |appropriate assessment strategies |type of assessment. |include strategies to assess |2 | |

|EEDA; APS 3 |to monitor student progress. | |student progress. | | |

|Use of Technology (EP) |Artifacts show sufficient |Artifacts show the use of |Artifacts show some use of | | |

|CEC 7; INTASC 6; EEDA; APS 9 |integration of technology in |technology in most lessons. |technology. |2 |1 |

| |lessons. | | | | |

|Use of Content and Prior |The activities clearly reflect a |Most of the activities show that |Most of the activities do not | | 2 |

|Knowledge, Experiences, and |strong relationship between new |children’s prior knowledge, |reflect the use of children’s |3 | |

|Feedback (RM) (HP) |content and children’s prior |experiences and feedback were |prior knowledge, experiences and| | |

|CEC 1; INTASC 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7; APSs|knowledge, experiences and |considered. |feedback. | | |

|7 & 8 |feedback. | | | | |

|Awareness of Culture, Interests, |The lessons and activities clearly|Most of the lessons and activities|Most of the lessons and | | |

|and Abilities of Children (RM) |reflect the candidate’s awareness |reflect the candidate’s |activities do not reflect an |3 |3 |

|(HP) |of children’s cultural heritage, |understanding of different |understanding of different | | |

|CEC 3; INTASC 7 & 10; APSs 1, 2, 4|interests, and abilities. |cultures, interests, and |cultures, interests, and | | |

|& 8 | |abilities. |abilities. | | |

|Awareness of Different Learning |The artifacts clearly reflect |Most of the artifacts reflect the |Most of the artifacts do not | | |

|Styles (RM) (HP) |planning and assessing with |consideration of different |reflect an understanding of |2.5 |3 |

|CEC 3; INTASC 2, 3 & 7; EEDA; APS |consideration for different |learning styles. |different learning styles. | | |

|1 & 3 |learning styles. | | | | |

|Developmental Learning for |All artifacts designed for or |Most of the artifacts for pre-k – |Most of the artifacts for pre-k | | |

|Disabled Students (EP) |completed by pre-k – 12th grade |12th grade students are |– 12th grade students are | | |

|CEC 2; INTASC 2; EEDA; APSs 1, 2 &|students during Pre-STEP and |developmentally appropriate. |developmentally inappropriate. |3 |3 |

|5 |student teaching experiences are | | | | |

| |appropriate and reflect a sound | | | | |

| |understanding of developmental | | | | |

| |characteristics of elementary | | | | |

| |students. | | | | |

|Involving Families in Children’s |The artifacts clearly reflect the |There is some evidence of the |There is little or no evidence | | |

|Development and Learning (RM) |candidate’s understanding of the |importance of involving families. |of the importance of involving |3 |3 |

|(HP) |importance of involving families | |families. | | |

|CEC 10; INTASC 3, 7 & 10; EEDA; |in children’s development and | | | | |

|APSs 1 & 10 |learning. | | | | |

|Reflections (RM) |All reflections illustrate the |Most of the reflections illustrate|Most reflections do not | | |

|CEC 1; INTASC 9; EEDA; APS 10 |ability to effectively critique |the ability to effectively |illustrate the ability to |1 |1 |

| |work and identify areas for |critique work and identify areas |effectively critique work or | | |

| |improvement. |for improvement. |identify areas for improvement. | | |

|Professional Growth and |The artifacts clearly reflect the |There is some evidence of the |There is little or no evidence | | |

|Development (RM) |candidate’s understanding of the |importance of engaging in |of engaging in continual | |2 |

|CEC 9; INTASC 9; EEDA; APS 10 |importance of engaging in |continual learning. |learning. |2 | |

| |continual learning and | | | | |

| |improvement. | | | | |

|Well Organized (EP); |Everything is easily found. |Some organization, but artifacts |Poorly organized | | |

|CEC 9; INTASC 10; EEDA; APS 10 | |are not easily found. | |2 |3 |

|Work Samples from |A variety of artifacts are |More than one type of artifact |Only one type of artifact | | |

|Pre-k - 12th Grade Students (EP) |included. | | |3 |3 |

|(RM) (HP); CEC 1; INTASC 3, 4, 5,| | | | | |

|6 & 7; EEDA; APSs 5 & 6 | | | | | |

| | | |Average | | |

| | | | |2.68 |2.63 |

Evaluation Scale:

Competent: 2.1-3.0

Developing Competence: 1.1-2.0

Needs Improvement: 0.0-1.0

___________________________ ___________________________ ____________________________

4. Interpretation of how Data Provides Evidence that the CEC Standards were met

During the period highlighted by the data, the candidates received an average rating of 2.65 indicating “competent.” Based on the alignment of the evaluation criteria for the portfolio with the CEC Standards, all of the standards were met.

ASSESSMENT 7 – DISPOSITION SURVEY

1.Description of Assessment

The Dispositional survey Instrument monitors a candidate’s teacher dispositions and is linked to the Department of Teacher Education Special Education Program outcomes and CEC Standards (1-9). The specific items listed to CEC Standards appear on the Disposition Survey. A goal of the instrument is to create a discussion about and guidance on appropriate teacher dispositions for the pre-clinical and clinical teacher candidates. The candidate, supervising teacher and the college supervisor complete the form together and the completed form should be included in the teacher candidate’s portfolio.

2. Alignment with CEC Standards (See rubric on the following page)

SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

SPECIAL EDUCATION CANDIDATE DISPOSITION SURVEY

ASSESSMENT #7

Evaluated by: Candidate _______________________ Self _________________ School _______________________

Evaluated by: Advisor: ________________________ Evaluated by: Principal _________________________________________

Evaluated by: Cooperating Teacher ______________ Evaluated by: University Supervisor _______ Semester ___________ Date _________

|CEC STANDARDS |DISPOSITION | |

|EP; CEC 7; INTASC 2, 4; APSs 1, 2,|Relate students’ development to planning and organizing educational activities. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|& 5 | | |

|EP; CEC 8; INTASC 8; APS 3 |Use diagnostic test, observation, and student records to assess student learning |1       2      3 4 5 |

| |needs. | |

|EP; CEC 1-3; |Identify causes of school or classroom misbehavior and employ techniques for |1       2      3 4 5 |

|INTASC 7, APS 6 |correction. | |

|EP; CEC 6; INTASC 1; APSs 1, 2, 5 |Use effective oral and written communication skills. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|& 6 | | |

|EP; CEC 1-5; INTASC 1; APSs 1, 2, |Exhibit knowledge of the subject matter. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|5 & 6 | | |

|EP; CEC 7 & 8; INTASC 7; APSs 1 & |Demonstrate flexibility in adjusting plans to deal with unplanned events in the |1       2      3 4 5 |

|2 |classroom. | |

|EP &HP; CEC 5; INTASC 5, 6, 7 & |Hold high but reasonable expectation for students. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|10; APS 4 | | |

|EP; CEC 5 & 6; INTASC 5; APS 9 |Manage the school, classroom, and maximize instructional time. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|EP; CEC7; INTASC 4; APS 5 |Use critical thinking and problem solving skills. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|HP; CEC 5, INTASC 3, 7 & 10; APSs |Express ideas in a logical and clear manner. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|8 & 10 | | |

|HP; CEC 2, 3, 4; INTASC 3, 7 & 10;|Value the commonalities and differences of students. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|APS 6 | | |

|EP & HP; CEC 2, 3, & 4; INTASC 3, |Provide content that promotes respect and acceptance of all cultures. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|7 & 10; APS 6 | | |

|EP; CEC 3 & 4; INTASC 1; APS 1 |Stimulate students’ interests and value their ideas. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|HP; CEC 5, 6, & 7; INTASC 3; APS 1|Work effectively with exceptional and diverse students. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|HP; CEC 10; INTASC 5 & 10; APSs8 &|Develop and maintain good relations with parents of students. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|10 | | |

|EP; CEC 9 & 10; INTASC 10; APS 10 |Develop and maintain good relations with the school and district staff. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|EP; CEC 5, 5 & 7; INTASC 4; APS 5 |Use technology in the delivery of instruction. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|EP; CEC 9 & 10; INTASC 9; APS 10 |Participate as an active member of professional organizations. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|EP; CEC 8, & 9; INTASC 9; APS 10 |Keep abreast of best practices. |1       2      3 4 5 |

|RDM; CEC 1- 10; INTASC 9; APS 10 |Make decisions based on reflection and best practice. |1       2      3 4 5 |

 

COMMENTS: 

 

 

SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

FOLLOW-UP SURVEY ASSESSMENT #8

N=37

|A. Please circle the appropriate response: |

|Gender |

|Female |Male |

|33(89%) |4(11%) |

|African-American |Caucasian |Hispanic |Native American |Other |

|35(95%) |2(5%) | | | |

|Year Complete Bachelor’s Degree |

|2007 |2006 |2005 |2004 |

|4(11%) |12(32%) |16(43%) |5(14%) |

|Are You Employed? |

|Yes |No |

|37 (100%) | |

|B. How well did the Counselor Education Program prepare you to perform the following activities? |

|Exceptional |Very Good |Adequately |Moderately |Poorly |

|5 |4 |3 |2 |1 |

|1. Relate students’ development to planning and organizing educational activities. |

|33(89%) |4(11%) |0 |0 |0 |

|2. Use diagnostic test, observation, and student records to assess student learning. |

|30(81%) |7(19%) |0 |0 |0 |

|3. Identify causes of school or classroom misbehavior and employ techniques for correction. |

|25(68%) |12(32%) |0 |0 |0 |

|4. Use effective oral and written communication skills. |

|29(78%) |8(22%) |0 |0 |0 |

|5. Exhibit knowledge of the subject matter. |

|33(89%) |3(8%) |0 |0 |0 |

|6. Demonstrate flexibility in adjusting plans to deal with unplanned events in the classroom. |

|30(81%) |7(19%) |0 |0 |0 |

|7. Hold high but reasonable expectation for students. |

|34(92%) |3(8%) |0 |0 |0 |

|8. Manage the school, classroom, and maximize instructional time. |

|24(65%) |13(35%) |0 |0 |0 |

|9. Use critical thinking and problem solving skills. |

|31(84%) |6(16%) |0 |0 |0 |

|10. Express ideas in a logical and clear manner. |

|32(86%) |5(14%) |0 |0 |0 |

|11. Value the commonalities and differences of students. |

|34(92%) |3(8%) |0 |0 |0 |

|12. Provide content that promotes respect and acceptance of all cultures. |

|34(92%) |3(8%) |0 |0 |0 |

|13. Stimulate students’ interests and value their ideas. |

|32(86%) |5(14%) |0 |0 |0 |

|14. Work effectively with exceptional and diverse students. |

|29(78%) |8(22%) |0 |0 |0 |

|15. Develop and maintain good relations with parents of students. |

|32(86%) |4(11%) |0 |0 |0 |

|16. Develop and maintain good relations with the school and district staff. |

|29(78%) |8(22%) |0 |0 |0 |

|17. Use special in the delivery of instruction. |

|26(70%) |10(27%) |0 |0 |0 |

|18. Participate as an active member of professional organizations. |

|32(86%) |5(14%) |0 |0 |0 |

|19. Keep abreast of best practices. |

|36(97%) |1(2%) |0 |0 |0 |

|20. Make decisions based on reflection and best practice. |

|36(97%) |1(2%) |0 |0 |0 |

**Note: % of error is + 1%.

Open ended responses:

I enjoyed and was given all the tools necessary in becoming competent in my area of study. Best wishes to the Department.

After one year reflecting on the past year to improve the next year.

My overall experience at SCSU was great. I learned many things that will help me to become an effective teacher.

I am a second year teacher and I am thankful for the opportunities that were given to me as a collegian. The Education Dept. did a great job in preparing my fellow teachers and myself for the future as teachers.

I believe SCSU fully prepared me for my career in education; however I think that more classroom experience with students and teachers would truly benefit the candidates. (Prior to the student teaching experience) candidates should be encouraged to begin taking the required assessment within their freshman year. Again I am pleased with the training I received and encourage future educators to attend SCSU and gain future employment with Calhoun county public schools.

Summary For the items, 100% of the alumni provided a rating of “exceptional or very good” indicating their abilities to demonstrate the qualities of the outcomes. For example, the alumni indicated that in a variety of settings in the different places that they work, they are able to demonstrate at a competent level the following standards (a) responsible for learning the following content (CEC 1-7); (b) believes all children are capable of learning (CEC 4, 6, and 7); (c) established an environment of respect (CEC 1, 6, and 7); (d) demonstrate concern for diversity (CEC 7); (e) use diverse teaching strategies (CEC 7); (f) listen and promote discourse (CEC 4); (g) encourage participation in governance (CEC 4 and 7); (h) relates lessons to personal interest (CEC 6 and 7); use special (CEC 1-7); (i) incorporates community resources (CEC 5); (j) understands the value of assessment (CEC 1 and 7); (k) understands the expectations of professional behavior and the ethics of teaching (CEC 1 and 7); (l) solicits input and feedback (CEC 2, 3, and 4);(m) is enthusiastic about content (CEC 6); and evidences a commitment to scholarship (CEC 1, 4, 6, and 7).

4. Interpretation of how Data Provides Evidence that the CEC Standards were met

According to the data from the follow-up survey, our alumni clearly believe they were prepared well by our Special Education Program. Additionally, based on the alignment of the 20 items with the CEC Standards, all standards were met.

Download Doc File