Annual Initial Licensure Program Assessment Report
Modified Special Education Program
Due June 15th
Date of Meeting:
Participants/Role: Andrea Capizzi, Assistant Professor of the Practice
Kim Paulsen, Associate Professor of the Practice
Joseph Wehby, Associate Professor
Donald Compton, Professor
Dan Reschly, Professor
(do I add everyone?)
Program Progression
1. How many undergraduate candidates applied for Screening I during the academic year? How many of those candidates were admitted into Teacher Education?
8 candidates applied for Screening I in Fall 2011 and 4 applied in Spring 2012. All of these candidates were admitted into Teacher Education.
2. How many master’s level candidates were admitted into the program during the academic year?
3.
17 master’s level candidates were admitted
4. How many undergraduate candidates applied for Screening II during the academic year? How many of those candidates were approved for student teaching?
10 undergraduate candidates applied for Screening II (9 in Fall 2011 and 1 in Spring 2012) and were approved for student teaching.
5. How many master’s level candidates were approved for student teaching?
14 masters level candidates were approved for student teaching and engaged in student teaching in Spring 2012.
6. How many candidates successfully completed their student teaching experience?
9 undergraduate and 14 masters students successfully completed their student teaching experience during the 2011-2012 academic year.
Additional Comments:
We continued to use admission to the Masters program as fulfillment of Screening I for the masters student and completion of the Screening I interviews along with the required GPA for entrance into the Teacher Education Program for the undergraduate students. During Screeing I, interviews were conducted by practicing teachers, concern was noted about one undergraduate’s communication skills. Following the interview, the student was told of the teachers’ concerns so that she could work to address these issues in subsequent field placements. All candidates who applied for Screening II successfully completed the process and were admitted to student teaching.
Review of data on admission to programs, teacher education, and student teaching, supports continuation of current structures, supports, and outreach efforts for masters candidates. No changes are needed.
Candidate Performance on Key Assessments
Undergraduate Program
PRAXIS II Exams: All candidates passed all of their PRAXIS II Exams taken during the 2011-2012 academic year.
Comprehensive Exams: Nine undergraduate candidates completed the comprehensive exam in Spring 2012. All candidates passed the exam.
Behavior Change Project
Student / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / Course AverageBehavior Change Project
Target Student / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3.91
Setting / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3.91
Target Behavior Increased / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3.82
Target Behavior Decreased / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3.82
Social Validation / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 3.09
Observation and Recording Procedures / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 3.82
Baseline / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.91
Intervention / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 3.55
Program Evaluation / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 4 / 4 / 3.55
Generalization and Maintenance / 3 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1 / 4 / 3.18
Data Collection Sheets & Graph / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3.91
PowerPoint and Presentation / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4
Final Score / 3.67 / 3.75 / 4 / 3.83 / 3.83 / 4 / 3.83 / 3.42 / 3.17 / 3.33 / 3.92 / 3.70
In this assessment, candidates develop, implement, and evaluate a behavior management intervention for a school-age student. The assignment is completed in a field-based site through the following steps: (1) observing and identifying classroom procedures, rules, and physical environment; (2) identifying a target student and target behavior; (3) collecting and graphing data for their target behavior; (4) developing, implementing, and evaluating an intervention for the target behavior; (5) summarizing their intervention and findings in a final write up and presentation.
Based on the data provided above, students average at the proficient or greater level in all areas. The areas that were of greatest weakness for students were “social validation” and “generalization and maintenance”. These data suggest that, overall, students are meeting the expectations of the assignment. The data support overall maintenance of the structures that are in place to teach the assignments. The lower averages in “generalization and maintenance” and “social validation” suggest that greater time and attention should be paid to teaching and reinforcing these skills. These course sections will be expanded.
Class Wide Plan
Student / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / Course AverageClass-Wide Plan
Level of Structure / 3 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3.6
Schedule Considerations / 2 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 4 / 4 / 3.5
Physical Arrangement / 3 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 3.4
Class Rules / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3.7
Attention Signal / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.7
Class Routines / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 2 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 3.6
Teaching Expectations / 2 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 3.4
Methods to Increase Positive Behavior / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 2 / 4 / 3 / 3.4
Methods to Decrease Negative Behavior / 3 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 2 / 4 / 4 / 3.4
Monitoring Procedures / 2 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 2 / 3 / 3 / 3.1
Data Decision Rules / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 4 / 4 / 3.4
Family Collaboration / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 3.5
Organization / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3.9
Style / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 3.7
Mechanics / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 3 / 2.8
Final Score / 3.27 / 3.6 / 3.67 / 3.6 / 3.67 / 3.8 / 3.27 / 2.6 / 3.53 / 3.73 / 3.47
In this assessment, students develop a comprehensive class-wide plan including a) class physical arrangement, b) class rules, c) positive and corrective consequences, d) attention signal and routines, f) methods for evaluation with decision rules. Some sections require a rationale based on best practices from readings and class discussion. The data provided in the table above show that students all performed at or above the proficient level on the assignment, with averages of each of the assignment indicators averaging above proficient levels. Students #1 and 8 were at emergent level on several indicators.
The lowest average was on Mechanics and on Monitoring Procedures. Based on the data collected for the assignment, students demonstrate proficiency in developing a class-wide management plan. “Mechanics” and “Monitoring Procedures” were the weakest areas, suggesting that these areas require greater attention in lectures, discussions, and readings. Mechanics scores tended to be low due to typographical errors. No revisions to the full assignment are needed.
Math Units
Student / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / Course AverageMath Unit 1
Pre-Teaching Components / 4 / 4 / 2 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.7
Instructional Sequence / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3.7
CRA Sequence / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.9
Post-Teaching Components / 4 / 4 / 2 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.7
Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation / 4 / 4 / 2 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 3.4
Final Score / 4 / 4 / 2 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.7
Math Unit 2
Pre-Teaching Components / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4.0
Instructional Sequence / 4 / 4 / 2 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.7
CRA Sequence / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3.9
Post-Teaching Components / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4.0
Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3.7
Final Score / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.9
Math Unit 3
Pre-Teaching Components / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4.0
Instructional Sequence / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.9
CRA Sequence / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4.0
Post-Teaching Components / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4.0
Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4.0
Final Score / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.97
Math Unit 4
Pre-Teaching Components / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4.0
Instructional Sequence / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.9
CRA Sequence / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4.0
Post-Teaching Components / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4.0
Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4.0
Final Score / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.97
Candidates develop mathematical units addressing early numeracy activities, rational numbers, measurement, and algebra. Each unit consists of a series of lesson plans using the concrete/representational/abstract sequence of teaching mathematics to students with learning difficulties. Each unit includes SmartBoard and learning center activities that reinforce the objectives addressed in the lessons. Candidates also develop differentiation plans for each lesson that detail additional specific activities to further support conceptual understanding and vocabulary development for struggling students. The average score of 3.4 and above for each indicator suggests that candidates fall into the proficient-accomplished range. Candidate 3 struggled with the first unit and met with the instructor frequently to strengthen her understanding of mathematical concepts and integral components of the lesson plan format. Her performance improved significantly with subsequent assignments. Analysis of the data for the remaining candidates indicates changes are not necessarily needed in this assignment.
Language Assessment
Student / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / Course AverageLanguage Assessment
Introduction / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4
Response to Language Analysis Protocol / 3 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 2 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3.5
Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3.71
Rationale for targeting weaknesses / 2 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 2 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3.57
Lesson Plans and Materials / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 2 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.71
Elements of Effective Writing / 3 / 2 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 3 / 3.21
Final Score / 3.17 / 3.67 / 3.67 / 3.67 / 3.67 / 3.83 / 3.17 / 3.5 / 4 / 4 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3.5 / 3.83 / 3.62
Each student will analyze transcripts from two visual story retellings (2 children retelling a story from a movie clip they watched) using a language assessment protocol provided by the instructor. Based on the analysis, the student will write a short paper that includes: a comparison of the students’ language strengths and weaknesses, a rationale for a lesson plan to address 1 language skill problem, and a brief description of how the potential lesson plan would be carried out in the classroom. Based on student scores (provided above), students averaged at the proficient level or greater on all requirements for the assignment. The area that was of greatest weakness for students was elements of effective writing, which required students to submit an assignment that was free of errors (spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) and contained proper use of APA format. A second area of weakness was response to language analysis protocol. However, overall, students met the expectations for this assignment. The data support continued use of this assignment as well as continued use of the instructional methods for introducing information for this assignment to students. The lower average in elements of effective writing indicates students may need more reminders to proofread assignments before turning them in or a short review of APA procedures for citations. The lower average in response to language analysis protocol suggests that students may need additional instruction and reinforcement of the requirements for this aspect of the assignment. The course section covering completion of the language analysis protocol will be expanded to address this weakness.
Literacy Unit
Student / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / Course AvgLiteracy Unit
Rationale for Unit / 3 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.79
Rationale for Readings / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3.37
Goals and Objectives / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 3.74
Rationale for 5 Areas of NRP / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.89
Expository and Narrative Text Used / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 2 / 2 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.47
Lessons Clearly Organized / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.79
Skills/Strategies in Detail / 2 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3.53
Lessons Systematic/Appropriate / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4.00
Evaluation Procedures / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3.42
Skills/Strategies Taught / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.53
Time Shown / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 3.58
Overall Presentation / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 3.95
Final Score / 3.58 / 3.92 / 3.75 / 3.92 / 3.83 / 3.5 / 3.75 / 3.67 / 3.42 / 3.42 / 3.67 / 3.75 / 3.42 / 3.58 / 3.75 / 3.67 / 3.83 / 3.58 / 3.75 / 3.67
Each student developed a weeklong literacy unit for a group of five struggling readers; this included a series of lessons for five days (90 minutes per day). The unit was built around a theme appropriate for the student’s specified grade-level. The unit integrated instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Students were required to include both expository and narrative texts. The literacy unit included (a) overall goals and objectives for the unit, (b) rationale for the scope and sequence of instruction, (c) overview of how the lessons build upon one another to achieve the identified objectives, (d) detailed lesson plans, and (e) assessment procedures. Based on the summarized data provided above, students performed in the average or greater range across on all evaluation indices. The area that appears to be of most difficult for students was provided a clear rationale for their text selections and appropriate integration of text use within their lessons. Further, students showed some weakness with describing appropriate evaluation procedures to assess children’s strategy and/or skill use. Overall, these data suggest that students were able to meet the expectations for the assignment, but that certain aspects of the assignment may be improved for the future. In general, the data demonstrate that students had adequate knowledge and preparation to perform well on this assignment. The lower averages on criteria related to text selection and evaluation suggest that greater time could be spent supporting students in their application of these elements. This will be included in components of the course next year. Furthermore, changes will be proposed to the overall structure of the literacy unit—reducing several of the requirements (e.g., length, theme selection) so that students may have the opportunity to put their full efforts into developing a comprehensive unit that demonstrates integration of instruction across skill areas.