Program Report for the
Preparation of Special Education: General Curriculum K-12
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Standards
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION
COVER SHEET
Institution
Radford University
State
Virginia
Date submitted December 15, 2010
Name of Preparer
Ellen B. Austin, MS
Phone # 540-831-5549
Email [email protected]
Program documented in this report:
Name of institution’s program (s) MS in Special Education: Hearing Impairment
Grade levels for which candidates are being prepared PreK-12
Degree or award level Master of Science Degree
Is this program offered at more than one site? Yes
X No
If yes, list the sites at which the program is offered
Title of the state license for which candidates are prepared
Collegiate Professional – Hearing Impairment PreK-12
Program report status:
 Initial Review
 Response to a Not Recognized Decision
 Response to National Recognition With Conditions
 Response to a Deferred Decision
State licensure requirement for national recognition:
NCATE requires 80% of the program completers who have taken the test to pass the applicable
state licensure test for the content field, if the state has a testing requirement. Test information
and data must be reported in Section III. Does your state require such a test?
X Yes
□ No
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
1
GENERAL DIRECTIONS
To complete a program report, institutions must provide evidence of meeting CEC standards based on
data from 6-8 assessments. In their entirety, the assessments and data required for submission in this
report will answer the following questions:





Have candidates mastered the necessary knowledge for the subjects they will teach or the jobs they
will perform?
Do candidates meet state licensure requirements?
Do candidates understand teaching and learning and can they plan their teaching or fulfill other
professional education responsibilities?
Can candidates apply their knowledge in classrooms and schools?
Do candidates focus on student learning?
To that end, the program report form includes the following sections:
Section I. Context (See each question for character limit)
Provide general information on the program as specified by the directions for this section. Please attach
a copy of the program of study and one (if possible) attachment containing any charts, graphs, or tables.
Master-level courses at Radford University are taken by those seeking the degree of Master of
Science in Special Education, offered both with and without licensure options, and those who
seek licensure only with no degree. The graduate-level coursework prepares students to be
effective teachers for children and youth with hearing impairment in grades PreK-12 and to be
advocates for children, families, and the profession. The program emphasizes knowledge and
skills in characteristics, assessment and evaluation, communication approaches, understanding
and application of service delivery, curriculum and instruction, IEP development and monitoring,
transition, proactive classroom management and positive behavior supports, and collaboration
and teamwork. The program of study includes a common core of 12 credit hours, and an
additional 18 credit hours selected from a menu of courses. Those seeking initial teacher
licensure may have 9 or more additional hours of supporting coursework. Internship experiences
of 6-12 hours are also required to obtain postgraduate professional licensure or to complete
requirements for provisional licensure in one or more areas of specialization within special
education. The Masters only, non-licensure option is intended for graduate students who already
have initial teacher licensure in an area of special education or those who desire to enhance their
knowledge and skills in diverse areas of special education.
Section II. List of Assessments (completion of chart)
Using the chart included in this report form, indicate the name, type, and administration point for each of
the 6-8 assessments documented in this report. (Note that Section IV of the report form lists examples of
assessments that may be appropriate for each type of assessment that must be documented in the
program report.)
Section III. Relationship of Assessments to Standards (completion of chart)
Using the chart included in this report form, indicate which of the assessments listed in Section II provide
evidence of meeting specific program standards.
Section IV. Evidence for Meeting Standards (attachments of the assessment, scoring guide/criteria,
and data tables plus a 2-page maximum narrative for each of the 6-8 assessments)
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
2
Attach assessment documentation plus a narrative statement for each assessment as specified by the
directions for this section. For each assessment attach one (if possible) attachment that includes the 2page narrative, assessment, scoring guide, and data table(s).
Section V. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
(12,000- character maximum narrative)
Describe how faculty are using the data from assessments to improve candidate performance and the
program, as it relates to content knowledge; pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills, and
dispositions; and student learning.
Section VI. For Revised Reports Only
Describe what changes or additions have been made in the report to address the standards that were not
met in the original submission. List the sections of the report you are resubmitting and the changes that
have been made. Specific instructions for preparing a revised report are available on the NCATE web site
at http://www.ncate.org/institutions/process.asp?ch=4.
Format and page limits for narrative sections and attachments:
Narrative: Sections I, IV, and V include narrative sections based on specific directions and character
limits. Character limits are based on single-spaced text using 12-point type.
Attachments: Sections I and IV include attachments. In general, attachments should be no longer than
the equivalent of five text pages. NOTE: The report should contain no more than 20
attachments.
 NCATE staff may require institutions to revise reports that do not follow directions on format and page
limits. In addition, hyperlinks imbedded in report documentation will not be read by reviewers and cannot
be used as a means of providing additional information.
______________________________________________________
Program report information on the web: http://www.ncate.org/institutions/process.asp?ch=10.
To download report forms: http://www.ncate.org/institutions/programStandards.asp?ch=4.
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
3
SECTION I—CONTEXT
Provide the following contextual information:
1. Description of any state or institutional policies that may influence the application of CEC
standards. [Response limited to 4000 characters]
2. Description of the field and clinical experiences required for the program, including the
number of hours for early field experiences and the number of hours/weeks for student
teaching or internships. [Response limited to 8000 characters]
3. Description of the criteria for admission, retention, and exit from the program, including
required GPAs and minimum grade requirements for the content courses accepted by the
program. [Response limited to 4000 characters]
4. Description of the relationship1 of the program to the unit’s conceptual framework.
[Response limited to 4000 characters]
5. Indication of whether the program has a unique set of program assessments and their
relationship of the program’s assessments to the unit’s assessment system2. [Response
limited to 4000 characters]
6. The On-line PRS system will not permit you to include tables or graphics in text fields.
Therefore any tables or charts must be attached as files. The title of the file should clearly
indicate its content. Word documents, .pdf files, and other commonly used file formats are
acceptable. The system will not accept .docx files. [In PRS you will be able to attach files
here]
7. Please attach files to describe a program of study that outlines the courses and experiences
required for candidates to complete the program. The program of study must include course
titles. [This information may be provided as an attachment from the college catalog (not the
complete catalog) or as a student advisement sheet.]
8. Candidate Information
Directions: Provide three years of data on candidates enrolled in the program and
completing the program, beginning with the most recent academic year for which numbers
have been tabulated. Report the data separately for the levels/tracks (e.g., baccalaureate,
post-baccalaureate, alternate routes, master's, doctorate) being addressed in this report.
Data must also be reported separately for programs offered at multiple sites. Update
academic years (column 1) as appropriate for your data span. [A copy of the Candidate and
Completers chart is included as Attachment A at the end of this document.]
9. Faculty Information
Directions: Complete the following information for each faculty member responsible for
professional coursework, clinical supervision, or administration in this program. [A copy of
the Faculty chart is included as Attachment B at the end of this document.]
1
The response should describe the program’s conceptual framework and indicate how it reflects the unit’s conceptual
framework
2 This response should clarify how the key assessments used in the program are derived from or informed by the
assessment system that the unit will address under NCATE Standard 2.
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
4
1. CEC Standards Description of any state or institutional policies that may influence
the application of CEC standards. [Response limited to 4000 characters]
The deaf and hard of hearing teacher preparation program was developed based on
CEC / CED (Council on Education of the Deaf) and Virginia Department of Education
state standards. When the standards were updated a few years ago, the courses
leading to licensure in Hearing Impairment PreK-12 were updated as well to ensure
standards based instruction for all candidates. Along with SPA and state standards,
research was done on current trends in the field of deaf education. The subsequent
intentional planning and development of coursework ensured that Radford
University provide a deaf education program focused on a comprehensive approach
to deaf education where students gain knowledge and skills necessary to meet the
needs of students with hearing loss despite severity and type of loss, audiologic
ability, communication preference, cultural diversity, etc. Students leave with
proficiency in American Sign Language as well as exposure to best practice used
with families who choose an oral approach to education.
2. Description of Field Experiences
During EDSP 628/Language Development and Literacy for Deaf and Hard of
Hearing Students, candidates shadow an itinerant teacher for the deaf and hard of
hearing and participate in a tutoring program for students with hearing loss for 612 hours. If seeking licensure, candidates spend 250-280+ hours in
preschool/elementary and/or middle school/high school classrooms during an early
field experience if they have not had previous teaching experience. They spend
490-525+ hours (total of 14-15 weeks) of full time class involvement in their
Student Teaching Field Experience placement(s) during the final year of their
program (often in two classroom settings pre-k/elementary and/or middle/high
school). Candidates easily exceed the VA licensure requirement minimum of 150
hours of supervised instruction. Teacher candidates in schools are also closely
supervised, supported, and evaluated. Most candidates are given access to
placements in inclusive settings with an itinerant teacher, in self-contained classes
within a public school setting and in a residential setting at the Virginia School for
the Deaf and Blind. They work with children who have cochlear implants, those
show wear hearing aids, and those who use no amplification.
Early Field "Block" Experience: The Early Field Experience is an
integrated semester of coursework, field experiences, and seminars that
teacher candidates complete prior to student teaching if they have had
no previous teaching experience before entering the Masters program.
The goals of the experience are to:
 practice and reflect upon the application of professional knowledge in
teaching,
 enhance the capacity for deliberate self-study and inquiry into teaching,
 increase understanding of diverse learners and of strategies that meet
a variety of students' needs, and
 receive formative and summative evaluation from a variety of professional
educators within multiple task settings.
Teacher candidates are in classrooms 20 hours per week across four-five school
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
5
days for fourteen weeks. Teacher candidates attend classes in the afternoon and
evening. Most teacher candidates accumulate 250-280+ clock hours of work in the
schools during this experience, including the supervised teaching and embedded
assignments from coursework.
The university supervisor observes teacher candidates in the field; conferences
with individual teacher candidates in the field and on campus; plans and
implements professional development seminars based on the needs of candidates
and program; serves as the primary liaison in developing and implementing
partnership activities with the school(s); works closely with the cooperating teacher
in planning and evaluating the candidate's involvement in the classroom; and
collaborates with other supervisors in developing, implementing, and evaluating
the courses, field experiences, and seminars. University supervisors contact
teacher candidates regarding their field experiences on a weekly basis through
seminars or through individual communications, observations, and conferences.
The program requires teacher candidates to meet certain qualifications for
admission and retention in Early Field Experience. In order to participate and
benefit from the program candidates must have basic skills and dispositions in the
following areas:
 effective oral, written, and sign communication skills,
 knowledge of the disciplines,
 interpersonal skills and dispositions, and
 appropriate professional conduct.
Teacher candidates are expected to communicate effectively orally and in writing with
usage, spelling, pronunciation, and punctuation appropriate to Standard English. They
should be able to articulate clearly and effectively and project and modulate their
voice. They are also expected to communicate effectively in American Sign Language
using appropriate syntax, non-manual markers, classifiers, fingerspelling, etc. They
must exhibit skills at least at the intermediate level as demonstrated on the Sign
Communication Proficiency Interview Assessment (SCPI). Radford University has
several resources to help teacher candidates meet requirement for demonstrating
oral, written, and sign communication skills required for retention in the program.
Student Teaching Field Experience: In their last semester, teacher candidates
complete a fourteen-fifteen week full-day internship (student teaching). Candidates
must log a minimum of 300 hours in the classroom, including a minimum of 150
hours of direct instruction. Students usually log in 490-525+ hours in the classroom
during this experience. The university supervisor meets with teacher candidates on a
weekly basis and conducts at least six structured observations and conferences. He
or she also meets regularly with the cooperating teacher.
Teacher candidates must apply and be accepted for admission to the Teacher
Education Program before being placed in the schools.
3. Description of criteria for admission, retention, and exit
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE TEACHER EDUCATION
PROGRAM
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
6
All Candidates have responsibilities both as a university student and as a pre-service
professional. Teacher candidates must meet minimal requirements in three primary
areas: academic excellence, basic proficiency skills, and professional
dispositions and characteristics of teacher candidates. Policy and procedure
requirements for admission into the Radford University Teacher Education Program
are outlined on the Field Experiences webpage.
Prior to applying to the Teacher Education Program, teacher candidates should:
• document fifty hours of working with children in structured learning situations;
• earn a 2.75 or better GPA overall college work and in their major courses;
• complete a speech and hearing test;
• pass the basic proficiency exams required for entry into Virginia Teacher
Preparation Programs:
 Praxis I Math with at least a score of 178 or a composite score of 532 from
the reading, writing, and math portions of the test,
 Virginia Communication and Language Assessment (VCLA);
Prior to Student Teaching, teacher candidates should:
 submit scores on the Virginia Reading Assessment (being replaced by the Reading
for Virginia Educators assessment in fall, 2011.)
 pass the Sign Communication Proficiency Interview assessment with a score of at
least intermediate
 be recommended by departmental faculty using the Departmental Review process.
In additional Teacher Candidates are expected to:
 Demonstrate proficiency in oral, written, and sign communication.
 Demonstrate knowledge of content and content pedagogy.
 Exhibit responsible professional conduct at all times by assuming the
characteristics and dispositions of a professional educator. The Code of Ethics of
the Education Profession and Radford University Teacher Preparation Programs
Professional Characteristics and Dispositions, both of which can be found in the
Field Experiences Handbook. Candidates are strongly encouraged to become
familiar with this document.
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS FOR EARLY FIELD EXPERIENCE
QUALIFICATIONS FOR RETENTION IN EARLY FIELD EXPERIENCE
Candidates enrolled in early field experience are expected to meet the minimal
requirements within the three primary areas of academic excellence, basic proficiency
skills, and interpersonal and professional qualities. These qualifications are more fully
described in the Field Experiences Handbook.
Oral, Written, and Sign Communication
Candidates are expected to communicate effectively both orally, through ASL, and in
writing. Candidates should be able to:
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
7



use appropriate Standard English, including grammar usage, spelling,
pronunciation, and punctuation;
articulate clearly and effectively project and modulate their voice;
communicate effectively in American Sign Language using appropriate syntax,
non-manual markers, classifiers, fingerspelling, etc.
Content Knowledge
Candidates should demonstrate sufficient mastery of the knowledge and skills they will
be teaching to ensure student learning. Candidates are expected to:
 exhibit an interest in content subjects, including the knowledge of
accommodating and instructing learners with disabilities;
 demonstrate a willingness to collaborate with general educators;
 have the ability to use a variety of resources for enhancing their skills and
understanding.
Interpersonal Skills and Dispositions
Candidates must be able to establish a positive and productive working relationship with
their peers, teachers, and instructors. (See Field Experiences Handbook for a detailed
listing.) They must already exhibit interpersonal skills and dispositions such as:
• unconditional positive regard for children, youth and their families;
• professional respect for others and for programs in the school;
• ability to handle stress and to deal with change, unexpected events, ambiguity;
• ability to positively influence others;
• ability to work in a manner that contributes to group goals;
• maintain a problem-solving attitude;
• observe confidentiality;
• use active listening skills;
• express opinions in a mature manner in spite of disagreement;
• engage in and benefit from constructive criticism.
Professional Conduct
Candidates are to assume the attitude, bearing, and responsible actions of a person
entrusted with the role of a professional educator. (See the Field Experiences Handbook
for a detailed listing).Candidates must:
 know and abide by all school and university policies and procedures;
 be punctual, reliable, and dependable;
 maintain satisfactory attendance and time schedules;
 commit to the work necessary to accomplish requirements and meet goals;
 demonstrate a professional attitude in all contacts with the school, community, and
university;
 recognize situations which require confidentiality and be extremely cautious in
dealing with such situations.
4. Description of relationship of program to the unit’s conceptual framework
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
8
Conceptual Framework
Radford University believes that learning to teach is a career-long process, and
candidates must therefore demonstrate a commitment to life-long learning. Radford
designs programs that integrate knowledge and skills from several areas of study and
experience over time: prior beliefs, research, expert counsel of practitioners,
guidelines from professional organizations, and the candidates' own study and
experience. Radford encourages candidates and faculty to use and examine their own
beliefs and concepts of teaching, their continued experiences and experiences of
others, the craft knowledge of mentor teachers, and research literature on teaching
and learning. Evidence-based practices in education are emphasized in coursework
and throughout the internship for the maximum impact on student learning.
Candidates are expected to demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions in six key
areas: (a) understanding content and engaging students meaningfully with content;
(b) understanding how students learn and develop, understanding individual
differences, and being able to adapt instruction for diverse learners; (c) establishing a
culture for learning; (d) demonstrating research-based, effective strategies in planning,
(e) in instruction and assessment of student learning; and (f) demonstrating
professionalism by seeking opportunities for professional growth, being proficient in
implementing state and national standards, fostering relationships with colleagues,
families, and communities to support students' learning and well-being.
Thus the design of the program, in support of and parallel with the unit's conceptual
framework, is that of a professional learning community in which all-candidates,
experienced teachers, faculty, university and school administrators-work together in a
purposeful and reflective manner to support the development of children, communities,
and each other. Inquiring into teaching and learning and exploring the use of inquiry to
promote children's literacy in the disciplines serve as departure points for professional
development and for collaborative work addressing the needs of children within varying
school contexts.
Radford’s Expectations
The expectation for Radford University professional education candidates is that they
demonstrate a commitment to life-long learning. Studies of experts and novices in
education suggest that professional knowledge and dispositions emerge from livedexperience reflections: situated learning that takes place within an environment that
values and pursues inquiry into professional practice and student development and
learning. Thus, a second underlying tenet in Radford University's program is the
emphasis on professional learning communities that promote the development and
wellbeing of students and families, professional education candidates, and university
and school-based faculty.
Programs are also designed to encourage candidates to integrate knowledge gained
over time from several areas of study and experience: from candidates' prior beliefs
and understanding, from research in their fields, from the expert counsel of
practitioners, from guidelines from professional organizations, and from their own
study and experiences as teachers.
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
9
Research has heightened awareness of the pervasive impact that content knowledge
has on professional practice. Deep content knowledge is essential in promoting
student learning. Teacher candidates understand the central concepts, tools of inquiry,
and structures of the discipline(s). Candidates create learning experiences that make
these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students. They are able to address
content in ways that motivate and engage students, using multiple modes for
representing content and for assessing learning in order to meet the needs of diverse
learners.
Professional expertise includes the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to engage in
learner and family centered work. Informed decision-making requires a strong
understanding of various aspects of human development. Candidates understand how
children and youth learn and develop, and can provide learning opportunities that
support their intellectual, linguistic, social, and personal development. They understand
how students differ in their approaches to learning and can create instructional
opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners. They use an understanding of
individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that
encourages positive social interaction, optimal audiologic enhancement, active
engagement in learning, and self- motivation. The increasing diversity of students in
schools requires that professionals have strong foundations in multicultural and global
perspectives, in the socio-cultural contexts of human growth and development, in
learning styles, in communication and interaction styles, in family systems, and in
student exceptionalities. Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and
commitment needed to advocate for quality education for all students, and to recognize
and eliminate structures, assumptions, and practices that restrict access or perpetuate
inequities in education.
Best practice requires a commitment to inquiry and reflection, attention to multiple
variables impacting student development and learning, and a proactive stance toward
schools as learning communities. Candidates apply best practices in order to ensure
that all children and youth are successful learners. Candidates use knowledge of
effective verbal, nonverbal, sign, and media communication strategies to foster active
inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction among students and professionals.
Candidates plan instruction and services based upon knowledge of subject matter,
students, families, the community, and curriculum goals. They understand and use
formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous
intellectual, social and physical development of the learner. Candidates are able to
explain what they believe, know, and do based upon research and best practice. They
are able to integrate technology into their practice to promote student learning,
enhance students’ audiologic abilities, to access information to enhance
communication, to manage their roles and responsibilities effectively and to extend
their own learning.
Candidates actively seek opportunities to develop professionally and to promote
renewal and best practice in the learning community. Candidates reflect systematically
upon their practice and continually evaluate the effects of their choices, decision, and
actions on others. Candidates are knowledgeable about and proficient in meeting
professional and state standards for practitioners in their field. Candidates foster
relationships with school colleagues, families, agencies, and the community to support
students' learning and well-being. They are able to communicate effectively and
sensitively with families about school programs and about the progress of their
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
10
children, and are successful in engaging families in the education of their children and
youth.
Program Description
Radford's teacher preparation program in Deaf and Hard of Hearing contains several
components that make it successful in preparing teachers. These components are:
 CEC/CED and VDOE standards based curriculum requirements,
 a comprehensive approach to education of the deaf that provides candidates
with a broad range of knowledge and skills to meet the needs of students
regardless of audiologic ability or communication preference,
 require proficiency in American Sign Language and knowledge and skills in
developing listening skills and spoken language,
 pedagogical studies,
 extensive clinical experiences in a variety of education placements and a variety
of educational levels
 interaction and mentoring among university faculty and candidates.
Program Vision and Mission
Vision: The Radford University Masters of Science Degree Program with Licensure in
Hearing Impairment PreK-12 emphasizes the preparation of effective teachers who can
work collaboratively in today’s complex and diverse classrooms and employ specialized
instruction to maximize learning for children and youth who are deaf or hard of hearing
regardless of audiologic ability, communication preference, or academic ability. The
program fosters collaborative teaching and learning experiences that prepare educators
of students with hearing loss to work as 21st century agents of positive change.
Mission: Radford University Special Education programs offer practicing educators and
those intending to enter the teaching profession the opportunity to engage in a
program of study that meets their interests and teacher licensure needs in the area of
special education. Our programs emphasize knowledge and skills in characteristics,
assessment and evaluation, understanding and application of service delivery,
curriculum and instruction, IEP development and monitoring, transition, proactive
classroom management and positive behavior support, and collaboration and
teamwork. The goal of the program is to develop professionals who can work
effectively with children and youth with disabilities, ensure their academic and personal
success through collaboration with families, general educators and other team
members, and advocate for children, families and the profession to improve the quality
of life for all children and youth.
Radford University’s Masters in Science – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Teacher Education
Program, in addition to the above, provides teacher candidates with the knowledge and
skills necessary to work with children and youth who are deaf / hard of hearing with
varying audiologic, linguistic, academic, and communication needs.
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
11
5. Indication of whether the program has a unique set of assessments
Common Assessments across the Unit include the following:
1. Content Knowledge Licensure Assessment/s – Praxis I, Virginia Communication and
2.
3.
4.
5.
Language Assessment (VCLA) and the Virginia Reading Assessment (VRA) – to be
replaced by Reading for Virginia Educators assessment (RVE)
Content Knowledge – Departmental Review Process
Assessment of Student Teaching – Teacher Candidate Evaluation form
Additional Assessment - Professional Characteristics & Dispositions form
Additional Assessment – Employer/Alumni Survey
Assessments that are unique to the Masters of Science – Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Teacher Preparation Program
1. Content Knowledge – Family Information Website/Booklet Assessment
2. Assessment of Candidate ability to Plan – Lesson Plan Assessment
3. Assessment of Candidate effect on Student Learning – Written Language Sample
Diagnostic Analysis Assessment
4. Additional Assessment – IEP Assignment Assessment, Diagnostic Report, and
Functional Behavior Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plan
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
12
PROGRAM OF STUDY
MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING PLUS LICENSURE, PreK-12
INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete this form and meet with your academic advisor for signatures
within your first 9 semester hours of graduate course work. Changes in your program of study must
be requested and approved using the Change of Program of Study form
http://www.radford.edu/gradcollege/current_students/petprogch.pdf
Student Name
ID Number
RU Email
Phone Number
Date of Entry into Program
Catalogue Year
REQUIRED CORE COURSES
Course
Number
Course Title
EDSP 651
Credits
Students with Diverse Learning Needs and
the Special Education Process
(Prerequisite for all other courses)
EDSP 622
Collaboration to Teach and Support Diverse
Learners
EDSP 670
Proactive Classroom Management and
Advanced Positive Behavior Support
EDEF 606
Educational Research
(must be taken within first 9 hours of program)
REQUIRED CONCENTRATION COURSES
Course
Course Title
Number
EDSP 526
Introduction to Deaf and Hard of Hearing
(Prerequisite for EDSP 527 and 628)
EDSP 527
Curriculum and Methods for Deaf and
Hard of Hearing Students
EDSP 628
Language Development and Literacy for Deaf
and Hard of Hearing Students
EDSP 625
Audiologic Assessment and Intervention
3
EDSP 669
3
Diagnostic and Assessment Procedures for
Individuals with Disabilities
EDSP/EDRD Assessment and Intervention for Language
641
Development
Total Hours
Semester
Planned
Grade
Sem.
Semester
Planned
Grade
Sem.
Faculty Use
Faculty Use
3
3
3
Credits
3
3
3
3
3
30
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
13
ADDITIONAL COURSES FOR LICENSURE
Course
Credit from
Course Title
Credits Semester
Grade
Sem.
Number
UG/G Course
Planned
Faculty Use
Faculty Use
EDEF 320
Foundations of
3
or 607
Education
HUMD 300
Human Growth and
3
or
Development Birth
EDEF 600
Through Adolescence
EDRD 414
Foundations of Literacy
3
or 688
Instruction
EDET 620
Educational Technology:
3
Applications, Applied
Research and Integration
COSD 223
American Sign Language:
3
III
Practicum: Deaf and Hard 4
EDSP 432
of Hearing Students
TEACHING INTERNSHIP
Course
Course Title
Credits Semester
Grade
Semester
Number
Planned
Faculty Use
EDSP 755
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Teaching Internship 6
– Preschool / Elementary
EDSP 756
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Teaching Internship 6
– Secondary
REQUIRED TESTS, MUST PASS TO ENROLL IN INTERNSHIP AND FOR LICENSURE
Test Name
Test Date
Test Score
Faculty Use
ASL Proficiency Examination – Equivalent to Level
III
Praxis I (for initial licensure candidates only)
Virginia Communication and Literacy Assessment
(for initial licensure candidates only)
Virginia Reading Assessment (recommended after
completion of reading coursework)
Expected Date of Required Comprehensive Exam (completed in
your last semester of coursework)
Student Signature: _________________________________________ Date: _____________________
Advisor Signature: _________________________________________ Date: _____________________
Program Coordinator Signature: ______________________________ Date: _____________________
Dean, Graduate College Signature: ____________________________ Date: _____________________
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
14
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
15
SECTION II— LIST OF ASSESSMENTS
In this section, list the 6-8 assessments that are being submitted as evidence for meeting the CEC standards. All programs must provide a minimum of six
assessments. If your state does not require a state licensure test in the content area, you must substitute an assessment that documents candidate attainment of
content knowledge in #1 below. For each assessment, indicate the type or form of the assessment and when it is administered in the program.
Name of Assessment3
Type or
When the Assessment
Form of Assessment4
Is Administered5
1
[Licensure assessment, or other content-based
assessment]
Teacher Candidate Evaluation
2
[Assessment of content knowledge in special
education]
Family Information Website/Booklet
Performance Assessment Task
3
Lesson Plan Performance Assessment Task
[Assessment of student teaching]
5
[Assessment of candidate effect on student learning]
6
Additional assessment that addresses CEC standards
(required) ]
Teacher Candidate Evaluation
Written Language Sample Diagnostic
Analysis Performance Assessment Task
Diagnostic Report
FBA/BIP Performance Assessment Task
Additional assessment that addresses CEC standards
(optional) ]
IEP Performance Assessment Task
8
Additional assessment that addresses CEC standards
(optional) ]
Employer and Alumni Surveys
3
EDSP 755/756
Taken during the final semester of the
program
EDSP 526
Course Project
[Assessment of candidate ability to plan instruction]
4
7
Student Teaching Final Teacher
Candidate Evaluation
(Category I and IV – Final only)
First course taken in the program
specific to deaf education
EDSP 628
Course Project
Taken in the latter half of the program
after EDSP 526
Student Teaching Final Teacher
Candidate Evaluation
(All categories)
Course Project / Case Study
EDSP 755/756
Taken during the final semester of the
program
EDSP 628
Taken in the latter half of the program
after EDSP 526
EDSP 669 / EDSP 670
Course Project / Case Study
Typically taken while participating in
teaching internship
EDSP 527
Course Project / Case Study
Typically taken while participating in
teaching internship
Survey
Following graduation
Identify assessment by title used in the program; refer to Section IV for further information on appropriate assessment to include.
Identify the type of assessment (e.g., essay, case study, project, comprehensive exam, reflection, state licensure test, portfolio).
5 Indicate the point in the program when the assessment is administered (e.g., admission to the program, admission to student teaching/internship, required
courses [specify course title and numbers], or completion of the program).
4
CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
Initial and Advanced Teacher Preparation Programs
PROGRAM ___Interdisciplinary Studies: Deaf and Hard of Hearing____
Decision Points 1*
Admission
To Program
Submitted by _Ellen Austin_
Admission
to Student Teaching

Assessment Components
(NCATE Standards)
Date December, 2010_
Program
Completion


Evidence collected prior to
admission.
Evidence collected after formal
admission and prior to internship
Content Knowledge (NCATE
1a)
Departmental Review
-EDSP 432 Early Field Experience
Teacher Candidate Evaluation –if
required
-EDSP 755/756 Student Teaching Teacher
Candidate Evaluation
-Employer and Alumni Survey
Pedagogical Content
Knowledge and Skills (1b)
Departmental Review
-EDSP 755/756 Student Teaching Teacher
Candidate Evaluation
-Employer and Alumni Survey
Professional Knowledge and
Skills (1c)
-EDSP 526 Family Information
Website/Booklet Performance
Assessment
-EDSP 628 Written Language Sample
Diagnostic Analysis Performance
Assessment Task
-EDSP 628 Lesson Plan Candidate
Performance Assessment
-EDSP 628 Written Language Sample
Diagnostic Analysis Performance
Assessment Task
-EDSP 628 Lesson Plan Candidate
Performance Assessment
- EDSP 432 Early Field Experience
Teacher Candidate Evaluation–if
required
- EDSP 527 IEP Performance Assessment
Task
- EDSP 432 Early Field Experience
Teacher Candidate Evaluation–if
required
-EDSP 527 IEP Performance Assessment
Task
-EDSP 755/756 Student Teaching Teacher
Candidate Evaluation
-Employer and Alumni Survey
-EDSP 527 IEP Performance Assessment
Task
- EDSP 432 Early Field Experience
Teacher Candidate Evaluation-if required
-EDSP 670 FBA/BIP
-EDSP 669 Diagnostic Report
- EDSP 432 Early Field Experience
Teacher Candidate Evaluation-if required
-EDSP 755/756 Student Teaching Teacher
Candidate Evaluation
-Employer and Alumni Survey
-EDSP 755/756 Student Teaching Teacher
Candidate Evaluation
-Employer and Alumni Survey
- EDSP 432 Early Field Experience
Teacher Candidate Evaluation-if required
-EDSP 755/756 Student Teaching Teacher
Candidate Evaluation
-Employer and Alumni Survey
- EDSP 432 Early Field Experience
Teacher Candidate Evaluation-if required
-EDSP 527 IEP Performance Assessment
Task
-EDSP 670 FBA/BIP
-EDSP 669 Diagnostic Report
-EDSP 755/756 Student Teaching Teacher
Candidate Evaluation
-Employer and Alumni Survey
Impact on Student Learning
(1d)

Sign Communication Proficiency
Interview (SCPI) Scores
-EDSP 628 Lesson Plan Candidate
Performance Assessment
Dispositions (1g)
-EDSP 651 Professional Characteristics
and Dispositions Rating
Technology Knowledge, skills
(1c and state requirement)
-EDSP 526 Family Information
Website/Booklet Performance
Assessment
Knowledge, Skills, and
Dispositions to Help All
Students Learn (3c)
1.
-EDSP 628 /Lesson Plan Candidate
Performance Assessment and Written
Language Sample Diagnostic Analysis
Performance Assessment Task
Evidence collected during Teaching
Internship
Evidence collected during the
first 3 years of practice
*The decision points will vary according to the type of program. For example, Pre-K 12 programs in art, music, dance, and health and physical education admit students
after early field experiences and courses are completed and just prior to student teaching. Five year programs admit students after completion of one year of preprofessional courses and experiences (their fourth year) and they complete early field experiences and student teaching in the fall and spring of their fifth year.
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
17
SECTION III—RELATIONSHIP OF ASSESSMENT TO STANDARDS
Enter the national or state standard on the chart below, identify the assessment(s) in Section II that address the standard.
One assessment may apply to multiple standards.
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Knowledge and Skill Base for All
Beginning Special Education Teachers
APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTS
FROM SECTION II
X#1
□#5
□#1
□#5
X#1
X#5
X#2
□#6
X#2
□#6
□#2
□#6
□#3
□#7
□#3
□#7
□#3
□#7
□#4
□#8
X#4
□#8
X#4
□#8
X#1
□#5
X#1
□#5
□ #2
□#6
□#2
X#6
X#3
X#7
□#3
□#7
X#4
□#8
X#4
X#8
X#1
X#5
X#1
X#5
□#2
□#6
□#2
□#6
□#3
□#7
X#3
X#7
X#4
□#8
X#4
□#8
Standard 8: Assessment
X#1
X#5
□#2
X#6
X#3
X#7
X#4
□#8
Standard 9: Professional and Ethical Practice
X#1
□#5
X#1
□#5
□#2
□#6
□#2
X#6
□#3
□#7
□#3
□#7
X#4
X#8
X#4
□#8
Standard 1: Foundations
Standard 2: Development and Characteristics of Learners
Standard 3: Individual Learning Differences
Standard 4: Instructional Strategies
Standard 5: Learning Environments and Social Interactions
Standard 6: Language
Standard 7: Instructional Planning
Standard 10: Collaboration
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
18
SECTION IV—EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS
DIRECTIONS: The 6-8 key assessments listed in Section II must be documented and discussed in
Section IV. The assessments must be those that all candidates in the program are required to
complete and should be used by the program to determine candidate proficiencies as expected in
the program standards. In the description of each assessment below, the SPA has identified
potential assessments that would be appropriate. Assessments have been organized into the
following three areas that are addressed in NCATE’s unit standard 1:



Content knowledge6
Pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions
Focus on student learning
For each assessment, the evidence for meeting standards should include the following information:
1. A brief description of the assessment and its use in the program (one sentence may be
sufficient);
2. A description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it is cited for in
Section III.
3. A brief analysis of the data findings;
4. An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards; and
5. Attachment of assessment documentation, including7:
(a) the assessment tool or description of the assignment;
(b) the scoring guide for the assessment; and
(c) candidate data derived from the assessment.
The narrative section for each assessment (1-4 above) is limited to two text pages. It is preferred
that each attachment for a specific assessment (5a-c above) be limited to the equivalent of five
text pages, however in some cases assessment instruments or scoring guides may go beyond 5
pages.
6
In some disciplines, content knowledge may include or be inextricable from professional knowledge. If this is the
case, assessments that combine content and professional knowledge may be considered “content knowledge”
assessments for the purpose of this report.
7 All three components of the assessment – as identified in 5a-c – must be attached, with the following exceptions: (a)
the assessment tool and scoring guide are not required for reporting state licensure data, and (b) for some
assessments, data may not yet be available.
#1 (Required)–CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Data from licensure tests or professional
examinations of content knowledge.
Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV
SECTION IV: DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENTS
Assessment #1
Assessment Name: Student Teaching Final Teacher Candidate Evaluation (All questions in
Category I and IV – Final evaluation only)
Program Context: Candidates participate in two student teaching experiences, EDSP 755: Teaching
Internship in Deaf and Hard of Hearing – Preschool/Elementary and EDSP 756: Teaching Internship in
Deaf and Hard of Hearing - Secondary.
The intern is evaluated using the Student Teaching Teacher Candidate Evaluation form.
Program Standards:
NCATE – Content Knowledge
CEC Standards – #1 Foundations, #3 Individual Learning Differences, #4 Instructional Strategies,
#5 Learning Environments and Social Interactions, #6 Language, #7 Instructional Planning, #8
Assessment, and #9 Professional and Ethical Practice.
Description of task: Candidates are placed in two settings during the final semester of their senior
year, one in a preschool/ elementary placement and the other in a middle or high school placement.
They are paired with a cooperating professional who has a Master’s degree (preferably), licensure
in Hearing Impairment PreK-12, and at least 3 years teaching experience. Each experience
represents a minimum of 37 clock hours per week over the 14/15 week semester. Interns teach a
variety of content areas, including reading, English, spelling, math, and other core content areas
including social sciences and sciences, depending upon the specific roles engaged in by the
particular cooperating teacher with whom they are paired. Interns are evaluated with the rubric at
mid-term and again at the end of the semester. The tool is used to provide formative as well as
summative data.
Assessment Rubric/Scoring Guide: The intern evaluation form is 6 pages in length. Category 1
addresses content knowledge and content pedagogy. Category IV addresses planning and
implementing instruction. The evaluation form uses the following scale:
U=Unsatisfactory
I=Needs Improvement
S=Progressing Satisfactorily
P=Proficient
D=Distinguished
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
20
EDSP 755 (Student Teaching Category I University Supervisor) —1 student reported/reflected
Unsatisfactory
Mean StdDev N/A
N (%)
Needs
Improvement
N (%)
Satisfactory
performance
N (%)
Proficient Distinguished
N (%)
N (%)
Rubric Row
n
Demonstrates strong knowledge of
the content being taught (overall
rating).
1
4
0
0
0
0
1( 100)
0
Engages students with the content
in meaningful ways (overall
rating).
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
0
Applies an understanding of how
students learn the content,
including typical challenges
students may encounter.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Uses a variety of teaching
strategies appropriate for the
content being taught.
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
0
5. Relates the content to students’
lives and interests.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
all percentages
all percentages (%) rounded to nearest integer
EDSP 755 (Student Teaching Category IV University Supervisor) —1 student reported/reflected
Rubric Row
n
Needs
Unsatisfactory Improvement
Mean StdDev N/A
N (%)
N (%)
Satisfactory
performance
N (%)
Proficient Distinguished
N (%)
N (%)
1. Develops clearly structured
instructional plans with objectives,
activities, and assessments
appropriately aligned.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
2. Aligns instruction with state SOL’s
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
21
and national curriculum goals.
3. States instructional objectives in
clear, measurable terms.
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
0
4. Plans and implements a variety of
effective instructional strategies
based on an understanding of
subject matter, the students,
community, curriculum goals, and
best practice.
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
0
5. Selects and uses a variety of
effective instructional materials.
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
0
6. Engages and maintains students’
attention, and is able to refocus their
attention if necessary.
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
0
7. Uses clear directions,
explanations, demonstrations,
questions, etc.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
1
8. Uses a variety of strategies that
encourages the development of
critical thinking, problem-solving, and
performance skills.
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
9. Selects or develops and
implements student learning
activities that integrate technology.
1
10. Provides feedback to students in
a timely and helpful manner.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Plans and uses assessment criteria
and strategies appropriate to
instructional goals and to
characteristics of students.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Summarizes and analyzes evidence
of student learning for individuals
and groups.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
22
13. Uses assessment information to
improve teaching and/or student
achievement.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
14. Persists in assisting students
having difficulty learning.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
15. Maintains accurate records of
student progress.
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
16. Identifies and uses community
resources in enhancing learning.
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
17. Plans and implements instruction 1
based on knowledge of learning
theory.
4
all percentages (%) rounded to nearest integer
Narrative and Analysis:





The candidate was not rated as unsatisfactory or needing improvement in either category, yet was not rated as distinguished
in either as well.
In the category of Content Knowledge and Pedagogy, 40% of the candidate’s ratings were satisfactory and 60% were
proficient.
In the category of Planning and Implementing Instruction, approximately 22% of the candidate’s ratings were
satisfactory, 60% were proficient and 18% of the competencies were not applicable due to the constraints of the placement
or not observed.
Scores reflect that the candidate not only demonstrates content knowledge, she also demonstrates good proficient
pedagogical knowledge by actively engaging the students through authentic teaching that relates to their lives and interests,
through use of varying instructional strategies, by aligning assessments with the content in meaningful and diagnostic ways,
and by effectively relaying the content through proficient use of American Sign Language (ASL).
While the ratings do not indicate this, upper level content knowledge proves to be quite challenging for interns. This
candidate is to be commended for her effort in studying and relearning content prior to planning her lessons. This intern was
diligent about analyzing the content, doing a task analysis, and fully preparing for the instructional process which was difficult
for her since learning new content has always been so easy for her. Initially, she struggled to bring the content level down
to a level at which the students could understand and then increase the difficulty level. Her cooperating teachers were
diligent with helping her until she was able to do this task analysis on her own. This candidate is a native ASL user so she
was quite proficient at effectively teaching the content through ASL which led to effective learning and academic success for
her students.
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
23
#2 (Required)–CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Assessment of content knowledge
Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV
Assessment #2
Assessment Name: Family Information Website/Brochure Performance Assessment Task
Program Context: Candidates complete this assessment during the course, EDSP 526/Introduction to
Deaf and Hard of Hearing, which is the first course that is specific to deaf education. This course is a
prerequisite course for all other deaf education specific coursework.
Program Standards:
NCATE – Content Knowledge
CEC Standards – #1 Foundations, #2 Development and Characteristics of Learners, and #6
Language.
Description of task: The Family Information Website/Brochure Performance Assessment Task is
an assignment that is completed during EDSP 526, Introduction to Deaf and Hard of Hearing. It
allows the students to assimilate the foundational information in the field of education of the
deaf/hard of hearing. Students create a webpage or booklet containing information (for example,
about anatomy of the hearing organ, causes of hearing loss, measurement and types of hearing
loss, communication options, instructional approaches, language development issues, educational
placements, listing of local, state, and national resources, etc.) / information that should be
presented to parents in order for them to make informed choices concerning the communication,
education, and emotional needs of their deaf/hard of hearing child.
Assessment Rubric/Scoring Guide: This assessment task measures the following CEC and state
standards:
Council for Exceptional Children/Council on Education of the Deaf Standards:
Initial Standards for Special Education Teachers of Individuals with Exceptional Learning Needs:
Deaf or Hard of Hearing
Etiologies of hearing loss that can result in additional learning challenges
D&HH1K3
Develop and enrich cultural competence relative to the deaf community
D&HH1S1
Characteristics and effects of the cultural and environmental milieu of the
ICC2K3
individual with exceptional learning needs and the family
Family systems and the role of families in supporting development
ICC2K4
Cognitive and language development of individuals who are deaf and hard of
D&HH2K1
hearing
Effects of the interrelationship among onset of hearing loss, age of identification,
D&HH2K2
and provision of services on the development of the individuals who are deaf or
hard of hearing
Cultural perspectives influencing the relationships among families, schools, and
ICC3K4
communities as related to instruction
Influence of experience and educational placement on all developmental domains
D&HH3K1
Influence of cultural identity and language on all developmental domains
D&HH3K2
Identify supports needed for integration into various program placements
ICC5S3
Effects of cultural and linguistic differences on growth and development
Effects of sensory input on the development of language and learning
Spoken and visual communication modes
Current theories of the development of spoken language and signed languages
Apply strategies to facilitate cognitive and communicative development
Implement strategies for developing spoken language in orally communicating
individuals with exceptional learning needs and sign language proficiency in
signing individuals with exceptional learning needs
Professional resources relevant to the field of education of individuals who are
D&HH9K2
deaf or hard of hearing
Knowledge of professional organizations in the field of deaf education
D&HH9K3
Concerns of families of individuals with exceptional learning needs and strategies
ICC10K3
to help address these concerns
D&HH10K1 Services, organizations, and networks that support individuals who are deaf or
hard of hearing
D&HH10S1 Provide families with support to make informed choices regarding communication
modes, philosophies, and educational options
Virginia Department of Education Program Status Matrix
2007 Special Education Hearing Impairments PreK-12
8 VAC 20-542-460
Understanding of speech, language, and hearing development, including:
VHI6-c
a) Speech and language development and the effects of disabling conditions and
ICC6K1
D&HH6K3
D&HH6K4
D&HH6K5
D&HH6S1
D&HH6S5
cultural diversity on typical language development;
b) The effects of hearing impairments and cultural diversity on language
development;
c) Anatomy of speech structures, auditory and visual mechanisms, production,
transmission and psychophysical characteristics of sound; and
VHI8
Understanding of communication modalities to include various modalities of
communication, including cued speech, speech reading, verbal communication,
and demonstrated proficiency in sign language communication.
The evaluation form uses the following ratings:
4 = Target: Equivalent to an A, or outstanding. All required elements are provided and meet the
requirements that are indicated on the evaluation rubric and modeled in class. In addition, the
elements are presented coherently, thoughtfully, and professionally. A clear grasp of the
purpose of the task is demonstrated.
3 = Acceptable: Equivalent to a B, or meets expectations. Satisfactory work; all required elements
are included, but there may be a few errors in form, and one or two elements that are somewhat
weak. A clear grasp of the purpose of the task is demonstrated, but somewhat less coherently,
thoughtfully, and/or creatively than Target performance. If a task is missing any element, it
should not receive an Acceptable rating.
2 = Minimal: Equivalent to a C. Nominally meets the task requirements. A minor element may be
completely missing, two or more elements are weak, and there are several errors in form.
1 = Unacceptable: Equivalent to a D or an F. Performance is below expectations for the student’s
level of study. One or more required elements are missing, and/or significantly weak, and
there are a number of errors in form.
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
25
Grading Rubric for the Family Information Website/Brochure Performance Assessment
Task:
Grading Rubric for Website/Booklet
EDSP 426/526: Introduction to Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Student: _ ___________________________
Date: ______________________________
Instructor: __ ________________________
Ratings:
4 = Target: Equivalent to an A, or outstanding. All required elements are provided and meet the requirements that are
indicated on the evaluation rubric and modeled in class. In addition, the elements are presented coherently,
thoughtfully, and professionally. A clear grasp of the purpose of the task is demonstrated.
3 = Acceptable: Equivalent to a B, or meets expectations. Satisfactory work; all required elements are included, but
there may be a few errors in form, and one or two elements that are somewhat weak. A clear grasp of the purpose
of the task is demonstrated, but somewhat less coherently, thoughtfully, and/or creatively than Target
performance. If a task is missing any element, it should not receive an Acceptable rating.
2 = Minimal: Equivalent to a C. Nominally meets the task requirements. A minor element may be completely missing,
two or more elements are weak, and there are several errors in form.
1 = Unacceptable: Equivalent to a D or an F. Performance is below expectations for the student’s level of study. One
or more
required elements are missing, and/or significantly weak, and there are a number of errors in form
Target
1.
Element & Number of points
Includes information that explains the
anatomy of the auditory mechanism,
production, and transmission of sound.
(VHI6c)
2.
Includes information that explains the
chart on which hearing assessment is
presented (audiogram), and the types of
hearing loss. (D&HH1K3, D&HH6K3).
3.
Includes information that explains the
etiologies of hearing loss, including
those that can cause additional sensory,
motor and/or learning difficulties for
deaf/hard of hearing students
(D&HH1K3).
4.
Includes unbiased information about
communication modes / instructional
approaches used with deaf/hard of
hearing students:


Acceptable
Minimal
Unacceptable
Comments
Includes all 5 communication
modes/approaches used with
deaf/hard of hearing students
Provides differentiating descriptions
of the approaches. (ICC2K3,
ICC2K4, D&HH10S1, ICC5S3,
D&HH3K2, ICC6K1, NCATE
Standard 1).
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
26
5.
Includes unbiased information about the
educational placements/program
options for d/hh students.
 Describes the cultural, linguistic,
academic and social-emotional
impact of each option on deaf/hard
of hearing students.( D&HH1S1,
D&HH3K1, ICC3K4, D&HH1S1,
ICC6K1, NCATE Standard 1)
6. Includes information about language
development in deaf/hard of hearing
students. (D&HH2K1, D&HH2K1,
D&HH2K2, D&HH3K2, D&HH6K5,
NCATE Standard 1).
 Include ideas for creating a
language rich home environment
(D&HH6K4, D&HH6S1,
D&HH6S5, VHI8, NCATE
Standard 1).
7. Includes a listing of local, regional, and
national services for deaf/hard of hearing
students (D&HH9K2, D&HH9K3,
D&HH10K1, NCATE Standard 1).
8. Includes name and contact information
of a parent mentor willing to offer
support (can be fictitious) (ICC10K3,
D&HH10K1, NCATE Standard 1)
9. Creativity:
 Visually pleasing;
 Creative, carefully planned
(Technology)
10. Form & mechanics:
 References in APA form;
 Neat;
 Correct spelling, grammar,
composition (Technology).
Spring 2010 Candidate Data reported below:
Only one administration of this data is reported because a former faculty member taught the class in
fall of 2008. He is no longer with the university and his data from fall 2008 could not be secured
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
27
EDSP 526 Family Information Website/Brochure Performance Assessment Task —4 students reported, 4
reflected
Rubric Row
n Mean StdDev N/A
Unacceptable Minimal Acceptable Target
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
Includes information that explains the anatomy of the auditory
mechanism, production, and transmission of sound.
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
4
(100)
Includes information that explains the chart on which hearing
assessment is presented (audiogram), and the types of hearing
loss.
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
4
(100)
Includes information that explains the etiologies of hearing loss,
including those that can cause additional sensory, motor and/or
learning difficulties for deaf/hard of hearing students
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
4
(100)
Includes unbiased information about communication modes /
instructional approaches used with deaf/hard of hearing
students: •Includes all 5 communication modes/approaches
used with deaf/hard of hearing students •Provides
differentiating descriptions of
4
3.75
2.5
0
0
0
1 (25)
3 (75)
Includes unbiased information about the educational
placements/program options for d/hh students. •Describes the
cultural, linguistic, academic and social-emotional impact of
each option on deaf/hard of hearing students
4
3
10.924
0
1 (25)
0
1 (25)
2 (50)
Includes information about language development in deaf/hard
of hearing students. •Include ideas for creating a language rich
home environment
4
2.25
8.846
0
1 (25)
1 (25)
2 (50)
0
Includes a listing of local, regional, and national services for
deaf/hard of hearing students
4
3.75
2.5
0
0
0
1 (25)
3 (75)
Includes name and contact information of a parent mentor
willing to offer support (can be fictitious)
4
2.667
12.097
1
1 (33)
0
1 (33)
1 (33)
Creativity: •Visually pleasing; •Creative, carefully planned
(Technology)
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
4
(100)
Form & mechanics: •References in APA form; •Neat; •Correct
spelling, grammar, composition (Technology).
4
3.5
2.887
0
0
0
2 (50)
2 (50)
all percentages (%) rounded to nearest integer
Narrative and Analysis:
 A majority of the candidates were rated as acceptable or target in all areas except one.
 Scoring indicates that 100% of the students clearly understand at the target level and can
effectively explain to parents the process of hearing, the parts of and information depicted on
an audiogram, and types of hearing loss and their etiologies.
 The candidates’ websites were carefully planned, creatively constructed, and visually pleasing.
 One of the areas where a student received an unacceptable rating was in the area of
presenting information about the available educational placements in an unbiased way while
describing the cultural, linguistic, academic and social-emotional impact of the placements.
While it is good that only 1 student of the 4 had an unacceptable rating in this area, it is
believed that more would have had a lower rating had they not requested help from the
instructor. Since this is a beginning level class, some of the students have no practical
experience in educational placements themselves, therefore; their information must come
strictly from research or one brief observation in a school setting. While this assignement is
quite valuable, it is challenging for those who do not have the background knowledge
themselves.
 The other area where two of the 4 students only scored in the minimal or unacceptable range
and the other two scored in the target area was in sharing information about language
development and how to create a language rich environment. Some students supplied a link
on their website to an excellent website entitled, “Brown’s Stages,” which was acceptable, but
then failed to include ways in which parents could create a language rich environment. This
candidate performance assessment is part of the introductory class, EDSP 526 / Introduction
to Deaf and Hard of Hearing. The inability for the students to reach a target level on this
competency may be due to the fact that at this point in their program of studies, they have
not taken any of the language development courses and therefore are not confident with the
information themselves.
#3 (Required)–PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND
DISPOSITIONS: Assessment that demonstrates candidates can effectively plan
classroom-based instruction.
Assessment #3
Assessment Name: Lesson Plan Performance Assessment Task
Program Context: Candidates complete this assessment during the methods course, EDSP 628/Language
Development and Literacy for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students.
Program Standards:
NCATE – #1c Professional & Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills and #1d Student Learning
CEC Standard #4 Instructional Strategies, #7 Instructional Planning, and #8 Assessment
Description of task: The Lesson Plan Performance Assessment Task requires the students to
create four lesson plans which include the critical elements of an effective lesson outlined on the
assessment rubric and discussed in detail in class. Two of the lessons must be in written expression
and two in reading. Two of these must be at the secondary level and two at the elementary level.
One lesson plan is developed together as a class, another in small groups, and the final two are
individual projects. A rubric (below) detailing the required components of the lesson plan is used
to evaluate the plans. The students teach one of the lessons to the class and receive written
feedback from class peers and instructor. They may present the lessons to the class or may record
themselves teaching the lesson to children in school and present the DVD to the class.
Assessment Rubric/Scoring Guide:
This performance assessment task addresses the following Council of Exceptional Children and
Council on Education of the Deaf Initial Standards for Education of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing:
Standard 4 Instructional strategies
Visual tools and organizers that support content mastery and retention by individuals who
D&HH4K1 are deaf or hard of hearing
Teach individuals to use self-assessment, problem-solving, and other cognitive strategies to
meet their needs
ICC4S2
Select, adapt, and use instructional strategies and materials according to characteristics of the
individual with exceptional learning needs
ICC4S3
Use procedures to increase the individual’s self-awareness, self-management, self-control,
self-reliance, and self-esteem
ICC4S5
Use strategies that promote successful transitions for individuals with exceptional learning
needs
ICC4S6
Develop proficiency in the languages used to teach individuals who are deaf or hard of
D&HH4S1 hearing
Provide activities to promote print literacy and content area reading and writing through
D&HH4S2 instruction via spoken language and/or the signed language indigenous to the deaf
community
D&HH4S3 Apply first and second language teaching strategies to the instruction of the individual.
D&HH4S4 Provide balance among explicit instruction, guided instruction, peer learning, and reflection.
Standard 7 Instructional planning
Theories and research that form the basis of curriculum development and instructional
ICC7K1
practice
Scope and sequences of general and special curricula
ICC7K2
National, state or provincial, and local curricula standards
ICC7K3
Technology for planning and managing the teaching and learning environment
ICC7K4
Roles and responsibilities of the para-educator related to instruction, intervention, and direct
service
ICC7K5
D&HH7K1 Model programs for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Incorporate and implement instructional and assistive technology into the educational
program
ICC7S9
Prepare lesson plans
ICC7S10
Prepare and organize materials to implement daily lesson plans
ICC7S11
Use instructional time effectively
ICC7S12
Make responsive adjustments to instruction based on continual observations
ICC7S13
D&HH7S1 Use specialized technologies, resources, and instructional strategies unique to students who
are deaf or hard of hearing.
D&HH7S3 Integrate language instruction into academic areas.
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
30
The Grading Rubric for the Lesson Plan Performance Assessment Task: next page
Special Education Teacher Preparation Program
(Undergraduate and Graduate I-DHH)
Lesson Plan Performance Assessment Task
Student Name _________________________________________ Semester___________
Course ____________________________________________________________________
Instructor/Professor _________________________________________________________
Evaluation Rubric for Lesson Plan
P = Professor’s evaluation
Outstanding
Meets
Expectations
Needs Improvement/Minimal
Evidence
O = peer evaluation
Not Evidenced
Key to ratings: S = self-evaluation
Comments
A. Context and Organization: 16 pts
1. Basic Information includes: 4 pts
 Teacher, date, timeframe, grade
level, unit name/theme, lesson
topic
 Grouping, staff
roles/responsibilities (ICC7K5)
2.
Lesson Objectives: 6 pts
 Behaviorally-stated (measurable)
 SOL and IEP goals listed
(ICC7K2, ICC7K3)
3. Materials: 6 pts
 Copies/representations of
teaching/student materials
provided (including visual
representation of concept)
 Materials - attractive, creative,
meet the learning needs of
students, utilize technology when
appropriate. (ICC4S3, ICC7K4,
1
2
3
4
1
2
4
6
1
2
4
6
ICC7S9, ICC7S11)
B. Instructional Procedures: 52 pts
(D&HH4S4, ICC7K1, D&HH7S1)
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
31
1. Anticipatory Set: 8 pts
 Discuss behavioral
expectations/readiness,
SOL/objective/rationale (ICC4S5,
1
2
4
8
1
12
15
18
1
6
8
10
1
4
6
8
1
2
3
4
ICC7K2, ICC7K3)
 Build interest and motivation
 Review/connections to prior
knowledge and experience
(ICC4S6)
2. Instruction: 18 pts
 Maximize instructional time with
clear, explicit communication of
information through effective
demonstration/ modeling of
concept using a step by step
process for objective mastery, a
visual representation of the
concept, and appropriate
examples and non-examples
(D&HH4K1, D&HH7K1,
ICC7S12)
3. Integrated Language Instruction and
Progress Monitoring : 10pts
 Vocabulary development,
language instruction integrated
(D&HH7S3, D&HH4S2,
D&HH4S3)
 Effective check for understanding
 Active responding/verbal
rehearsal of the concept /
engagement from all students
(ICC7S13)
4. Guided Practice: 8 pts
 Clear description of task/activity
 Clearly tied to lesson objectives
 Explanation of how students
move into groups and/or obtain
materials and assistance
 Methods for teacher monitoring
and feedback provided
(ICC4S2, ICC7S13)
5.
Summary: 4 pts
 Gives students an opportunity to
review lesson objective(s) and
state what they have learned.
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
32
6. Individualized Adaptations: 4 pts
 Are appropriate to students’ skill
levels and ages
 Will facilitate full social and
instructional participation
C. Assessment: 8 pts
1. Independent practice / Student
Assessment: 4 pts
 Evaluation procedures will show
whether lesson objectives were
met.
 Clear description of activities
provided
2. Teachers’ Self-Assessment: 4 pts
 Reflection identifies strengths and
aspects of lesson that need
improvement
D. Form and Mechanics of Written
Plan: 8 pts
 Well-organized and professional
in appearance (ICC7S10)
 Correct spelling, grammar and
mechanics
E. Presentation: 16 pts
1. Presentation:
 Presenter: enthusiastic, prepared
(ICC7S10, ICC7S11)
 Instruction fast paced, engaging
and interactive (ICC7S12)
2. Communication Efficiency:

Attention given to all
students
 Questioning strategies provide
opportunities for verbal
rehearsal of the concept by
students
 Signing skills and/or spoken
language effectively and
appropriately relay content in
the communication approach
used by the student.
(D&HH4S1)
OVERALL EVALUATION
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
4
6
8
1
4
6
8
1
4
6
8
Total Points: ______
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
33
EDSP 628 (Lesson Plan Performance Assessment) — 9 students reported, all reflected
Rubric Row
n Mean StdDev N/A
Not
Evidenced
N (%)
Needs
Improvement/Minimal
Evidence
N (%)
Meets
Expectations Outstanding
N (%)
N (%)
•Teacher, date, timeframe, grade level,
unit name/theme, lesson topic •Grouping,
staff roles/responsibilities (ICC7K5)
9
3.111
1.167
0
1 (11)
2 (22)
1 (11)
5 (55)
•Behaviorally-stated (measurable) •SOL
and IEP goals listed (ICC7K2, ICC7K3)
9
5.333
0.726
0
0
1 (11)
2 (22)
6 (66)
•Copies/representations of
teaching/student materials provided
(including visual representation of
concept) •Materials - attractive, creative,
meet the learning needs of students,
utilize technology when appropriate.
(ICC4S3, ICC7K4, ICC7S9, ICC7S11)
9
5.667
0.667
0
0
1 (11)
0
8 (88)
•Discuss behavioral
expectations/readiness,
SOL/objective/rationale (ICC4S5, ICC7K2,
ICC7K3) •Build interest and motivation
•Review/connections to prior knowledge
and experience (ICC4S6)
9
8
0
0
0
0
0
9 (100)
•Maximize instructional time with clear,
explicit communication of information
through effective demonstration/ modeling
of concept using step by step process for
objective mastery, visual representation of
concept, and appropriate examples/nonexamples
9
15
0.866
0
0
2 (22)
2 (22)
5 (55)
•Vocabulary development, language
instruction integrated (D&HH7S3,
D&HH4S2, D&HH4S3) •Effective check for
understanding •Active responding/verbal
rehearsal of the concept / engagement
9
8.889
0.726
0
0
1 (11)
2 (22)
6 (66)
from all students (ICC7S13)
•Clear description of task/activity •Clearly
tied to lesson objectives •Explanation of
how students move into groups and/or
obtain materials and assistance •Methods
for teacher monitoring and feedback
provided (ICC4S2, ICC7S13)
9
7.111
0.726
0
0
1 (11)
2 (22)
6 (66)
•Gives students an opportunity to review
lesson objective(s) and state what they
have learned.
9
3.667
1
0
1 (11)
0
0
8 (88)
•Are appropriate to students’ skill levels
and ages •Will facilitate full social and
instructional participation
9
2.667
1.581
0
4 (44)
0
0
5 (55)
•Evaluation procedures will show whether
lesson objectives were met. •Clear
description of activities provided
9
3.111
1.054
0
1 (11)
1 (11)
3 (33)
4 (44)
•Reflection identifies strengths and
aspects of lesson that need improvement
9
3.889
0.333
0
0
0
1 (11)
8 (88)
•Well-organized and professional in
appearance •Correct spelling, grammar,
and mechanics
9
7.333
0.707
0
0
1 (11)
1 (11)
7 (77)
•Presenter: enthusiastic, prepared
(ICC7S10, ICC7S11) •Instruction fast
paced, engaging and interactive
(ICC7S12)
9
7.778
0.333
0
0
0
1 (11)
8 (88)
•Attention given to all students
•Questioning strategies provide
opportunities for verbal rehearsal of the
concept by students •Signing skills and/or
spoken language effectively and
appropriately relay content in
communication approach used by student
9
7.778
0.333
0
0
0
1 (11)
8 (88)
all percentages (%) rounded to nearest integer
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
35
Narrative and Analysis:





77 – 100% of the candidates demonstrated skills that met expectations or were outstanding in the areas of:
o writing standards based lessons designed around a measurable, behaviorally stated objective
o creating attractive, creative materials that serve as a visual representation of the concept being taught and meet the
needs of the students
o stating behavioral expectations, activating schema so that new knowledge can attach to prior knowledge and to also
build motivation for learning
o creating lessons that were engaging, taught through effective modeling of the concept using a step by step procedure
taught through an effective visual representation of the concept with sufficient examples and non-examples.
o integrating vocabulary development within their lessons, providing sufficient opportunities for verbal rehearsal of the
concept and summarizing the concept at the close of the lesson.
o indicating how students were grouped to ensure academic success
o making sure that their guided practice activities and assessments were clearly tied to the objective as it was presented
during modeling.
As indicated by the ratings above, students need more opportunities to reflect on their own practice. Most candidates can
identify areas that need improvement, but fail to recognize and verbalize their areas of strength.
Candidates were not participating in a field experience during this semester; therefore, the lessons were presented in class in
front of their peers. This is always quite challenging for pre-service teachers who would feel much more comfortable in front of
children. Due to this, evaluators were unable to assess if the lessons were appropriate to the “students’” skill levels or if they
facilitated full social and instructional participation unless it was specifically noted on the lesson plan, some of which were and
some of which were not.
The course in which this assessment is administered is where candidates are first introduced to lesson planning. They construct
4 lesson plans in this class at differing academic levels in both expressive writing and reading in order to gain experience in
writing lesson plans at both the elementary and secondary levels. In EDSP 527, they construct a thematic unit where they
develop three more lesson plans in the areas of social science, science, and math (wrapped around a common theme) at either
the elementary or secondary level.
Candidates construct a draft of their lesson plans and then receive one-on-one feedback from their university instructor before
they present one of them in class.
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
36
#4 (Required) – ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT TEACHING
Assessment Name: Student Teaching Final Teacher Candidate Evaluation (All categories – Final evaluation only)
Program Context: Candidates participate in two student teaching experiences, EDSP 755: Teaching Internship in Deaf and Hard of Hearing
– Preschool/Elementary and EDSP 756: Teaching Internship in Deaf and Hard of Hearing - Secondary.
The intern is evaluated using the Student Teaching Teacher Candidate Evaluation form.
Program Standards:
NCATE – Content Knowledge
CEC Standards – #1 Foundations, #3 Individual Learning Differences, #4 Instructional Strategies, #5 Learning Environments and
Social Interactions, #6 Language, #7 Instructional Planning, #8 Assessment, and #9 Professional and Ethical Practice.
Description of task: Candidates are placed in two settings during the final semester of their program, one in a preschool/ elementary
placement and the other in a middle or high school placement. They are paired with a cooperating professional who has a Master’s
degree (preferably), licensure in Hearing Impairment PreK-12, and at least 3 years teaching experience. Each experience represents a
minimum of 37 clock hours per week over the 14/15 week semester. Interns teach a variety of content areas, including reading,
English, spelling, math, and other core content areas including social sciences and sciences, depending upon the specific roles engaged
in by the particular cooperating teacher with whom they are paired. Interns are evaluated with the rubric at mid-term and again at the
end of the semester. The tool is used to provide formative as well as summative data.
Assessment Rubric/Scoring Guide: The intern evaluation form is 6 pages in length. Category 1 addresses content knowledge and
content pedagogy. Category IV addresses planning and implementing instruction. The evaluation form uses the following scale:
U=Unsatisfactory
I=Needs Improvement
S=Progressing Satisfactorily
P=Proficient
D=Distinguished
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
37
Category I – Content and Content Pedagogy - see assessment one for report and analysis
Category II – Applying an Understanding of Learner Development and Individual Differences
Rubric Row
n Mean StdDev N/A
Unsatisfactory
N (%)
Needs
Improvement
N (%)
Satisfactory
performance
N (%)
Proficient Distinguished
N (%)
N (%)
Applies knowledge of student
development (cognitive,
physical, social/emotional).
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
2. Uses teaching practices
based on an understanding of
student development.
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
0
1
3. Applies knowledge of
common student exceptionalities
and differences.
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
4. Modifies/creates instruction
adapted to diverse learners.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
5. Applies an understanding of
the interests and cultural
heritage of students in his/her
teaching.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
all percentages (%) rounded to nearest integer
Category III – Establishing a Culture for Learning
Rubric Row
1. Maintains existing
instructional and administrative
routines.
n Mean StdDev N/A
1
4
0
Unsatisfactory
N (%)
Needs
Improvement
N (%)
Satisfactory
performance
N (%)
0
0
0
Proficient Distinguished
N (%)
N (%)
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
1 (100)
38
0
2. Establishes or reinforces clear 1
standards for behavior.
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
3. Regularly monitors behavior
and responds to inappropriate
behavior effectively.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
4. Develops and employs fair,
effective, and developmentallyresponsive management
techniques.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
1
5. Develops safe, equitable,
caring, respectful and productive
learning environments.
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
6. Fosters group motivation and
individual self-motivation.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
7. Fosters active inquiry,
collaboration, and supportive
interaction.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
all percentages (%) rounded to nearest integer
Category IV – Planning and Implementing Instruction
Rubric Row
n Mean StdDev N/A
Needs
Unsatisfactory Improvement
N (%)
N (%)
Satisfactory
performance
N (%)
Proficient Distinguished
N (%)
N (%)
Develops clearly structured
instructional plans with objectives,
activities, and assessments
appropriately aligned.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
2. Aligns instruction with state
SOL’s and national curriculum
goals.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
3. States instructional objectives in 1
clear, measurable terms.
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
0
4. Plans and implements a variety
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
39
of effective instructional strategies
based on an understanding of
subject matter, the students,
community, curriculum goals, and
best practice.
5. Selects and uses a variety of
effective instructional materials.
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
0
6. Engages and maintains
students’ attention, and is able to
refocus their attention if
necessary.
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
0
7. Uses clear directions,
explanations, demonstrations,
questions, etc.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
8. Uses a variety of strategies that
encourages the development of
critical thinking, problem-solving,
and performance skills.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
9. Selects or develops and
implements student learning
activities that integrate
technology.
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
10. Provides feedback to students
in a timely and helpful manner.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Plans and uses assessment
criteria and strategies appropriate
to instructional goals and to
characteristics of students.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Summarizes and analyzes
evidence of student learning for
individuals and groups.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
13. Uses assessment information
to improve teaching and/or
student achievement.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
40
14. Persists in assisting students
having difficulty learning.
1
15. Maintains accurate records of
student progress.
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
16. Identifies and uses community 1
resources in enhancing learning.
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
17. Plans and implements
instruction based on knowledge of
learning theory.
1
4
4
all percentages (%) rounded to nearest integer
Category V – Modeling Professionalism
Rubric Row
n Mean StdDev N/A
Unsatisfactory
N (%)
Needs
Improvement
N (%)
Satisfactory
performance
N (%)
Proficient Distinguished
N (%)
N (%)
1. Reflects upon his or her own
professional development,
including setting personal goals
and implementing changes.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
2. Makes continuous efforts to
improve professional practice;
has a plan for continued
professional growth.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
3. Expresses concern for and
desire to communicate with
families about the curriculum or
other activities for which he or
she is responsible.
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
4. Behaves ethically and in the
best interest of the community.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
5. Is supportive of, and advocates 1
for, students, schools, and
education.
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
41
6. Uses technologies to
communicate, network, locate
resources, and enhance
professional development.
1
7. Is aware of professional
organizations or activities within
the professional education
community.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
all percentages (%) rounded to nearest integer
Category VI – Special Education Content Knowledge
Rubric Row
n Mean StdDev N/A
Needs
Unsatisfactory Improvement
N (%)
N (%)
Satisfactory
performance
N (%)
Proficient Distinguished
N (%)
N (%)
Assists in developing and
implementing comprehensive,
longitudinal individualized
programs in collaboration with
educational team members.
Uses age-appropriate, leastintrusive strategies to facilitate
social and instructional integration
into various settings.
Assists in designing learning
environments that encourage
active participation in individual
and group activities.
Establishes and maintains rapport
with individuals with and without
exceptional learning needs.
Selects, adapts and administers
assessment tools and methods
(including assessment of adaptive
behavior and problem behavior) to
accommodate the abilities and
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
42
needs of the target population of
students with disabilities.
Selects, adapts, and uses
instructional strategies suited to
the individual characteristics and
learning needs of students with the
targeted disabilities.
Uses research-supported methods
for academic and nonacademic
instruction of individuals with
targeted disabilities.
Uses a variety of positive
classroom management and
individual behavioral support
strategies, including environmental
management and other prevention
techniques.
Practices within the CEC Code of
Ethics and other standards of the
profession.
Demonstrates commitment to
developing the highest education
and quality-of-life potential of
individuals with exceptional
learning needs.
Maintains confidential
communication about individuals
with exceptional learning needs
all percentages (%) rounded to nearest integer
Category VII – Professional Characteristics and Dispositions
Rubric Row
n Mean StdDev N/A
Unsatisfactory
N (%)
Needs
Improvement
N (%)
Progressing
Satisfactorily
N (%)
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
43
Proficient
N (%)
verbal expression, number of errors, use of
voice
1
grammatical/mechanical errors, legibility
1
attendance and punctuality
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
quality of work ethic, work performance
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
quality of work, meets deadlines for due
assignments
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
dresses professionally or unprofessionally
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
contribution to class activities, student
engagement
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
interprets classroom criteria, questions,
analyzes data
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
collaborative skills, contribution to
group/team efforts
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
overall behavior, courtesy, reinforcement
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
creativity, resourcefulness, independence
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
interest in students and student activities,
contribution to student development
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
responds to constructive criticism
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
productivity, time management, workload
management
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
understanding of diversity, commitment
1
4
0
0
0
0
1 (100)
all percentages (%) rounded to nearest integer
Narrative and Analysis:
 See assessment one on page 24 for analysis of category I / “Content and Content Pedagogy”
 The student assessed was deaf herself, but an exceptionally bright student who grew up being exposed to the English language
thereby making it somewhat challenging for her to rate at a distinguished level in the area of ”Applying an Understanding of
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
44
Learner Development and Individual Differences.” because learning came so easy for her. She rated proficient in all areas





except one in which she only earned a satisfactory rating, “Using teaching practices based on an understanding of student
development.” I believe this is an area that she will improve on as she encounters more students who wrestle with the English
language.
Due to a strong emphasis on proactive classroom management and use of positive behavior supports in both the Behavior
Management course (EDSP 462) and in Curriculum and Methods for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students (EDSP 427), this intern
demonstrated knowledge and skills in category III / “Establishing a Culture for Learning “ at the proficient level
See assessment one on page 24 for analysis of category IV / “Planning and Implementing Instruction’”
In category V / “Modeling Professionalism”, this intern rated at the proficient level in every category except in professional
organization membership and in communicating with families. Professional organization membership is not a program
requirement and most interns state that they have not joined due to financial constraints. This student teaching placement is a
residential placement where most of the DHH students live in the dorms; therefore, contact with parents is limited. Some interns
will send home newsletters and work folders on the weekend, but do not have the same contact with parents as they would in a
general education placement. The rating does not reflect that the intern did not communicate with parents; it reflects the fact
that there was no documentation of contacts, therefore, not enough evidence to give an accurate rating. This is an area that
needs to be improved. In the future, as part of the student teaching requirements, interns will be asked to send home bi-weekly
newsletters and to make 1 positive phone call to parents per placement. This intern sent home a letter to parents introducing
herself, but she needed to follow-up with parents on a regular basis to receive a higher rating.
Category VI did not show up originally in rGrade and therefore data was not submitted in this area. This intern, however,
modeled her cooperating teachers methods instead of using the methods and strategies that she learned throughout her
program. She seemed somewhat hesitate to deviate from the norm. Greater gains could have been made using assessment
based instruction which incorporated evidence based strategies. While the university supervisor has a meeting with the
cooperating teachers at the beginning of the semester at which time expectations for both the interns and cooperating teachers
are discussed and documented, some are more willing than others to let the interns stray from their approaches.
In category VII / “Professional Characteristics and Dispositions” this intern rated at the proficient level in all areas. RGrade was
missing a critical area in this category which is on the student teacher evaluation form, but does not appear in rGrade. The
additional area is as follows: “16. Sign Communication Skills: Expresses self with fluidity; has excellent ASL receptive skills;
is adept in using ASL effectively.” This area is critical for our interns and is the area in which they are normally rated as needs
improvement or satisfactory. While most interns sign at a level in which they can effectively teach, their ASL skills can always be
improved. Very few students receive a proficient rating in this area unless they are native signers. This intern, however,
graduated with an undergraduate degree from Gallaudet University and is a native signer so she received a proficient rating in
this area.
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
45
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
46
#5 (Required) – EFFECTS ON STUDENT LEARNING: Assessment that demonstrates
candidate effects on student learning.
Assessment Name: Written Language Sample Diagnostic Analysis Performance Assessment
Task
Program Context: Candidates complete this assessment during the course, EDSP 428/Language
Development and Literacy for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students.
Program Standards:
NCATE – Content Knowledge
CEC Standards – #1 Foundations, #2 Development and Characteristics of Learners, and #6
Language.
Description of task: The Written Language Sample Diagnostic Analysis Performance Assessment
Task requires the students to obtain a written language sample from a deaf or hard of hearing child
by introducing an appropriate writing prompt. Using the Written Language Analysis Rubric, the
students will analyze the sample in the following areas:
a. Meaning and paragraph development
b. Conventions of Writing
i. Spelling
ii. Punctuation
iii. Capitalization
c. Linguistic Features
i. Sentence Usage
ii. Conjunctions
iii. Sentence Types
iv. Sentence Formation
v. Verb and Tense Agreement
vi. Semantic Usage
vii. Pronouns
viii. Articles
ix. Prepositions and Prepositional Phrases
Based on this analysis and the information learned from the textbook and class lectures and
discussions on the following topics, the students will identify written language goals and
objectives that could be included on the child’s IEP:
a. Effects of cultural and linguistic differences on growth and development
b. Characteristics of one’s own culture and use of language and the ways in which these can differ from
other cultures and uses of languages
c. Ways of behaving and communicating among cultures that can lead to misinterpretation and
misunderstanding
d. Augmentative and assistive communication strategies
e. Components of linguistic and nonlinguistic communication
f. Importance of early intervention to language development
g. Effects of sensory input on the development of language and learning
h. Spoken and visual communication modes
i. Current theories of the development of spoken language and signed languages
This performance assessment task addresses the following Council of Exceptional Children and
Council on Education of the Deaf standards:
CEC/CED : Initial Standards – Deaf and Hard of Hearing addressed in this assessment:
ICC6K1
ICC6K2
ICC6K3
ICC6K4
D&HH6K1
D&HH6K2
D&HH6K3
D&HH6K4
D&HH6K5
ICC6S1
ICC6S2
D&HH6S1
D&HH6S3
D&HH6S4
D&HH6S5
Standard 6 Language
Effects of cultural and linguistic differences on growth and development
Characteristics of one’s own culture and use of language and the ways in which these can
differ from other cultures and uses of languages
Ways of behaving and communicating among cultures that can lead to misinterpretation and
misunderstanding
Augmentative and assistive communication strategies
Components of linguistic and nonlinguistic communication
Importance of early intervention to language development
Effects of sensory input on the development of language and learning
Spoken and visual communication modes
Current theories of the development of spoken language and signed languages
Use strategies to support and enhance communication skills of individuals with exceptional
learning needs
Use communication strategies and resources to facilitate understanding of subject matter for
individuals with exceptional learning needs whose primary language is not the dominant
language
Apply strategies to facilitate cognitive and communicative development
Facilitate independent communication in all contexts
Communicate proficiently in spoken language or the sign language indigenous to the deaf
community
Implement strategies for developing spoken language in orally communicating individuals
with exceptional learning needs and sign language proficiency in signing individuals with
exceptional learning needs
The Grading Rubric for the Lesson Plan Performance Assessment Task:
EDSP 428 and EDSP 628: Language Development and Literacy for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students
Written Language Sample Analysis
Candidate: ______________________________
Date:______________________________
Directions: Evaluate the Written Language Diagnostic Analysis Report as “target,” “acceptable,”,
“minimal” or “unacceptable” on each of the following standards.
Target
Unacceptable
Information included
Information not included
Student information
noted:
 Name
 Birthday
 Grade Level
 Type and Degree
of Hearing Loss
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
48


Age of Onset of
Hearing Loss
Communication
Approach
Written Language
Sample Obtained
Assessment of
Conventions of
Writing: Spelling
Written Sample
scored for:
 Invented Spellings
 Omitted Letters
 Added Letters
 Transposed
Letters
Assessment of
Conventions of
Writing: Punctuation
Target
Writing Sample is
long enough to allow
a quality analysis and
serve as a diagnostic
instrument for goal
development.
Writing Sample is
reflective of student’s
writing ability.
Target
All spelling errors
noted accurately
Acceptable
Writing Sample is
long enough to
allow a quality
analysis, but is only
somewhat
reflective of
student’s writing
ability.
Minimal
Minimal Writing Sample
collected that only
allows minimal analysis,
may not be reflective of
the student’s writing
ability and thereby only
serves as a minimal
diagnostic instrument.
Unacceptable
Writing Sample
is not reflective
of the student’s
writing ability
and cannot
serve as a
diagnostic
instrument.
Acceptable
3 or fewer mistakes
in recording errors
Minimal
4-5 mistakes in
recording errors
Unacceptable
More than 5
mistakes in
recording errors
Target
All errors noted
accurately
Acceptable
3 or fewer mistakes
in recording errors
Minimal
4-5 mistakes in
recording errors
Unacceptable
More than 5
mistakes in
recording errors
Written Sample
scored for: Periods
 End of declarative
or imperative
sentence
 In abbreviations
Written Sample
scored for: Commas
 In a series
 Joining
independent
clauses
 Separating
dependent
clauses
 In dates
Written Sample
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
49
scored for:
Apostrophes
 Possession
 Contractions
Written Sample
scored for: Question
Marks
 End of
interrogative
sentence
Written Sample
scored for:
Exclamation Marks
 End of
exclamatory or
imperative
sentence
Written Sample
scored for: Quotation
Marks
Assessment of
Conventions of
Writing:
Capitalization
Written Sample
scored for:
Capitalization
 Beginning of
sentences
 Proper nouns
 Titles
Assessment of
Linguistic Features:
Sentence Usage




Target
All errors noted
accurately
Acceptable
3 or fewer mistakes
in recording errors
Minimal
4-5 mistakes in
recording errors
Unacceptable
More than 5
mistakes in
recording errors
Target
Linguistic features
assessed accurately
Acceptable
3 or fewer mistakes
in assessing
linguistic features
Minimal
4-5 mistakes in
assessing linguistic
features
Unacceptable
More than 5
mistakes
assessing
linguistic
features
Sentence
Fragments and
Morphological
Units
Simple Sentences
Compound
Sentences
Complex
Sentences
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
50
Assessment of
Linguistic Features:
Conjunctions
Target
Linguistic features
assessed accurately
Acceptable
3 or fewer mistakes
in assessing
linguistic features
Minimal
4-5 mistakes in
assessing linguistic
features
Unacceptable
More than 5
mistakes
assessing
linguistic
features
Target
Linguistic features
assessed accurately
Acceptable
3 or fewer mistakes
in assessing
linguistic features
Minimal
4-5 mistakes in
assessing linguistic
features
Unacceptable
More than 5
mistakes
assessing
linguistic
features
Target
Linguistic features
assessed accurately
Acceptable
3 or fewer mistakes
in assessing
linguistic features
Minimal
4-5 mistakes in
assessing linguistic
features
Unacceptable
More than 5
mistakes
assessing
linguistic
features

Coordinating:
Between 2
independent clauses
 Subordinating
Between 1
independent and 1
dependent clause
Assessment of
Linguistic Features:
Sentence Types




Declarative
Imperative
Interrogative
Exclamatory
Assessment of
Linguistic Features:
Sentence Formation


Subject -Verb
Subject-VerbObject
 Subject- Linking
Verb -Adjective
 Subject-Linking
VerbComplement
 Subject-Be VerbAdverb
 Clauses
- Conjoining
independent clauses
-Conjoining
independent with
dependent clauses
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
51
Assessment of
Linguistic Features:
Verb and Tense
Agreement
Target
Linguistic features
assessed accurately
Acceptable
3 or fewer mistakes
in assessing
linguistic features
Minimal
4-5 mistakes in
assessing linguistic
features
Unacceptable
More than 5
mistakes
assessing
linguistic
features
Target
Linguistic features
assessed accurately
Acceptable
3 or fewer mistakes
in assessing
linguistic features
Minimal
4-5 mistakes in
assessing linguistic
features
Unacceptable
More than 5
mistakes
assessing
linguistic
features
Target
Linguistic features
assessed accurately
Acceptable
3 or fewer mistakes
in assessing
linguistic features
Minimal
4-5 mistakes in
assessing linguistic
features
Unacceptable
More than 5
mistakes
assessing
linguistic
features
Target
Linguistic features
assessed accurately
Acceptable
3 or fewer mistakes
in assessing
Minimal
4-5 mistakes in
assessing linguistic
Unacceptable
More than 5
mistakes




Simple
Progressive
Perfect
Perfect
Progressive
 Modals
 Subject-Verb
Agreement
 Advanced Tenses
-Passive
-Conditional
Assessment of
Linguistic Features:
Semantic Usage


Verbs used
- be
-action
-linking
Adjectives used

Adverbs used
Assessment of
Linguistic Features:
Pronouns






Personal
Interrogative
Demonstrative
Indefinite
Relative
Reflexive
Assessment of
Linguistic Features:
Articles
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
52
linguistic features
features
assessing
linguistic
features
Acceptable
3 or fewer mistakes
in assessing
linguistic features
Minimal
4-5 mistakes in
assessing linguistic
features
Unacceptable
More than 5
mistakes
assessing
linguistic
features


A, An
The
Assessment of
Linguistic Features:
Prepositions and
Prepositional Phrases




Target
Linguistic features
assessed accurately
Time
Place
Movement
Manner
Development of
Language Goals
based on Language
Analysis
Target
Acceptable
Minimal
Unacceptable
Shows excellent
evidence of in-depth,
integrated knowledge,
skills, and dispositions
in analyzing written
language, applying
knowledge of
developmental
language acquisition
and knowledge of the
effects of sensory input
on the development of
language to form
appropriate
developmental written
language goals
Shows good, solid
evidence of
integrated
knowledge, skills,
and dispositions in in
analyzing written
language, applying
knowledge of
developmental
language acquisition
and knowledge of
the effects of sensory
input on the
development of
language to form
appropriate
developmental
written language
goals
Shows some evidence of
integrated knowledge,
skills, and dispositions in
analyzing written
language, applying
knowledge of
developmental language
acquisition and knowledge
of the effects of sensory
input on the development
of language , but language
goals are not
developmentally
appropriate
Shows no
evidence of
integrated
knowledge, skills,
and dispositions
in analyzing
written language,
applying
knowledge of
developmental
language
acquisition or
knowledge of the
effects of sensory
input on the
development of
language.
Language goals
are not
developmentally
appropriate for
the child.
Overall Evaluation
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
53
EDSP 528 (Written Language Sample Diagnostic Analysis) — spring 2010
Rubric Row
n Mean StdDev N/A
Unacceptable Minimal Acceptable Target
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
Written sample scored for invented spelling
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Written sample scored for omitted letters
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Written sample scored for added letters
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Written sample scored for transposed letters
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Written sample scored for: Periods -End of declarative or
imperative sentence -In abbreviations
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Written sample scored for: Commas -In a series -Joining
independent clauses -Separating dependent clauses -In dates
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Written sample scored for: Apostrophies -Possession Contractions
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Written sample scored for: Question marks -End of interrogative
sentence
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Written sample scored for: Exclamation marks -End of
exclamatory or imperative sentence
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Written sample scored for: Quotation marks
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Written sample scored for beginning of sentences
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Written sample scored for proper nouns
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Written sample scored for titles
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Sentence fragments and morphological units
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Simple sentences
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Compound sentences
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Complex sentences
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Coordinating between 2 independent clauses
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Subordinating between 1 independent and 1 dependent clause
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Declarative
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Imperative
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Interrogative
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Exclamatory
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Subject-Verb
1
2
0
0
1 (100)
0
0
Subject-Verb-Object
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Subject-Linking Verb-Adjective
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Subject-Linking Verb- Complement
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Subject- Be Verb- Adverb
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Clauses -Conjoining independent clauses -Conjoining
1
2
0
0
1 (100)
0
0
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
55
independent with dependent clauses
Simple
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Progressive
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Perfect
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Perfect Progressive
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Modals
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Subject- Verb Agreement
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Advanced Tenses -Passive -Conditional
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Verbs used -be -action -linking
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Adjectives used
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Adverbs used
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Personal
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Interrogative
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Demonstrative
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Indefinite
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Relative
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Reflexive
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
56
(100)
A, An
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
The
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Time
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Place
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
Movement
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Manner
1
3
0
0
0
1 (100)
0
Development of Language Goals based on Language Analysis
1
2
0
0
1 (100)
0
0
all percentages (%) rounded to nearest integer
Narrative and Analysis:




This particular candidate has very strong language analysis skills and did not need as much scaffolding with this process as
have other students who have completed this task.
This written language analysis often reveals areas of weakness in the candidates’ own expressive writing because they have
difficulty analyzing the language of the students using the rubric because they simply do not have a clear understanding
themselves of language labels used to identify grammatical principles. Because of this candidates turn in a rough draft,
additional instruction is given to solidify the content for the candidates and then they submit a final draft. While often the
scores would not be as positive as the ratings above indicate if candidates were assessed on their initial analysis, the student
whose data is presented came to the task with a very strong grammatical framework.
This class, EDSP 628, formerly had an assignment in which interns had to complete an oral language sample. Undergraduate
students have to do this in another class within the program of studies; therefore, this assignment was recently changed to a
written language analysis. It was felt that this type of language assessment gives students better information on which they
could build their language arts expressive writing program. This analysis is a totally different process from that of analyzing
oral (sign) language, so it serves the students well giving them knowledge and skills beyond that previously gleaned from the
oral language assessment. Since this assignment was just initiated in spring of 2010, there has only been one administration of
this assessment with graduate students.
Since expressive writing is a major area of weakness for most students who are deaf, this assignment will prove quite beneficial.
Without instructional follow-up, however, it is clear that this assessment alone does not reflect the candidate’s impact on
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
57


student learning. Therefore, beginning spring 2011, candidates in the full-time MS program are required to complete the
written language analysis on a student, identify areas of weakness and goals for instruction, develop 6-8 lesson plans targeting
the area(s) of weakness, and provide 6-8 tutoring sessions with the student at the end of which a posttest is administered to
determine growth and the candidate’s impact on student learning.
Candidates also complete this analysis on their students during blocking (if required) and student teaching unless they are
teaching in an academic content area that is not English.
This assignment will be informative in identifying those candidates who do not have appropriate labels for different
grammatical principles, who often cannot describe the rules of language themselves, and who need additional
tutoring/instruction in this area before attempting to teach these concepts to students.
#6 Additional assessments that address CEC standards. (Required)
Diagnostic Reports
Program Context: Candidates complete this task during EDSP 669: Diagnostic Educational Procedures, which is completed during
the fall semester of the students’ senior year while they are completing their early field (blocking) experience.
Program Standards:
NCATE – Pedagogical Knowledge
CEC Standard #4 - Assessment
Description of the Task: The Diagnostic Report provides candidates with the opportunity to administer norm-referenced and
criterion referenced tests to a student. It allows participants the experience of collecting formal and informal assessment
information in the preparation of a written report that specifies strategies and recommendations for teachers and parents.
Rubric begins on next page:
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
58
EDSP 669: Performance Assessment: Diagnostic Reports
Name:
Report #:
Date:
Target
Points
5
Acceptable
Points
4
Minimal
Points
2
Unacceptable
Identifying Information
4
3
2
0
Reason for Referral and
Background Information
4
3
2
0
Behavioral observations
5
4
2
0
Test results
 Name and acronym
 Table with all scores
4
3
2
0
Narrative about the tests/subtests
4
3
2
0
Narrative of Results:
 Clear explanations of what’s in
the table
 Results explained based on the
normal curve
 Subtests referenced related to
the student
Conclusion:
 Restate introductory
information
 Discuss strengths
 Discuss needs
 Discuss behavior
Recommendations for teachers and
parents under each area of need
Use of technical writing
components
 Person-first language
 3rd person professional
 Past tense,
 Sections headings
 Correct grammar and spelling
6
4
2
0
8
6
4
0
5
4
3
0
5
4
2
0
Provides accurate information
on:
Correctly scored and complete
protocols
Points
0
Diagnostic reports particularly assess RU students’ progress toward the following course
objectives:
 Administer nonbiased formal and informal assessments and use exceptionality-specific
assessment instruments with individuals with disabilities. (CC8S2, GC8S2 & VGCA2a3)

Demonstrate appropriate application and interpretation of scores from informal and formal
assessments, using disability specific assessment instruments, including grade score verses
standard score, percentile ranks, age/grade equivalents, and stanines (CC8S5, DH8S2, &
VGCA2a3)

Administer assessment tools using the natural/native/preferred language of the individual who
is deaf or hard of hearing (DH8S1)

Demonstrate the ability to work professionally with school personnel, parents, and students
with disabilities, including assessing student achievement, planning instruction, and
implementing programs to address the strengths and needs of individual learners, and
understand family systems and the role of families in the educational process, and collaborate
with families and others in assessment of individuals with disabilities (CC1K7, CC10S2, &
VGCA2a3)

Understand the types and importance of information concerning individuals with disabilities
available from families and public agencies and how to gather relevant background
information (GC8K3 & CC8S1)

Demonstrate the ability to enter a testing situation, establish rapport with the student being
evaluated and determine if the testing situation had any effect on the student’s performance.
(VGCA2a3)

Implement procedures for assessing and reporting both appropriate and problematic social
behaviors of individuals with disabilities (GC8S1 & VGCA2a3)

Demonstrate the ability to integrate informal and formal evaluations in a written report with
educationally relevant recommendations addressing the strengths and needs of students, and/or
suggest appropriate modifications in learning environments. (VGCA2a3)
The codes included above refer to the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Knowledge and Skill Standards
and the Virginia Department of Education teacher licensure competencies. Code for CEC Standards: CC =
Common Core; GC = General Curriculum, DH = Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Code for VADOE Standards:
VGC = Virginia’s General Curriculum.
Fall 2008 – 1 student took this class, but no data was entered
Fall 2009 – 1 student reported. Her assessment data follows:
Previous
data/assessments
scores
Target
2/
2
Background
information of subject
Target
5/
5
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
60
Achievement tests
Target
5/
5
Correctly scored and
complete protocols
Target
5/
5
Test results
Target
3/
3
Results
Target
5/
5
Data/test results
explained based on the
normal curve
Target
5/
5
Testing
conditions/observations Target
during testing
5/
5
Recommendations for
teachers and parents
Target
under each area of need
5/
5
Summarizing
information
Target
5/
5
Use of technical writing
components
Target
5/
5
Summary:
Target
50 /
50
0.00 /
0
Assignment:
100.00%
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
61
Narrative and Analysis:






One student took this class in fall 2008 and one student took it in fall 2009, but no data was
reported on the 2008 student. This course is not taught by faculty in the deaf education
program and the faculty member who was in charge of NCATE, is no longer with the
university. There was some confusion as to who was to submit data in 2008, the faculty
member teaching the class or the advisor of the students in the major. This has been
clarified and now the professor of record records the data.
The student who took the class in 2009 wrestled with this course because she is deaf herself
and initially felt that the assessments she was being asked to administer to students who
were deaf were completely invalid for students with this disability because of the language
issues of the deaf. Once she completed the testing, scoring and report writing, however, she
voiced how very valuable the course was and how much she had grown from the experience.
She did quite well in the course as the data indicates. Her comments, however, were more
reflective of the lessons learned. She stated that she became familiar with assessments that
are often administered to students with hearing loss which are inappropriate, but because she
had the experience, she felt very knowledgeable about being able to share with parents the
reasons why the scores are often low with this population of students. She saw the effect of
sign language on the results of some of the assessments and felt better able to explain this as
well. She learned that while the tests did not always assess what they were designed to
assess in students with hearing loss, valuable diagnostic information could still be gleaned
from the assessments. She also felt much more able to accurately interpret test scores for
this population of students because of her experience in this class.
Students receive extensive feedback on the four reports that are submitted for this
assessment task. It is imperative that they make steady progress in administering, analyzing
and summarizing individual assessment data and can also successfully report it.
Candidates must have a clear understanding as to why some assessments commonly
administered to students with hearing loss are not valid due to the impact sign language has
on the results. They must be able to interpret the scoring of assessments for parents and
teachers alike, explaining the diagnostic information that can be gleaned from these tests
despite the lack of validity due to non-standard administration.
Cognitive and academic assessments specific to deaf and hard of hearing students is
addressed in both EDSP 527 and 628.
Administering assessments to students who are deaf or hard of hearing proves to be
challenging, but serves as educational experience for a variety of reasons:
o Students must determine how to incorporate the use of American Sign Language in
test administration in such a way that the signs do not give away the answers.
o Students must become aware that when signs sometimes give away the answers,
resorting to fingerspelling often causes what should be a vocabulary assessment to
become a spelling test.
o Students must learn to explain the lack of validity of an assessment due to the impact
of sign language on test results, but also be able to relay concepts and skills that the
assessment does measure that may not always be what the test was designed to do,
but can serve as diagnostic information.
Additional Assessment that Addresses Standards
Functional Behavior Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plan
Course or Field Experience: EDSP 670. Proactive Classroom Management and Positive
Behavior Supports.
Program Context: Candidates take this course normally while they are completing their early
field (blocking) experience if they are required to do that. If not, they normally take it just before
they begin their teaching internship.
Program Standards:
NCATE – Pedagogical & Professional Knowledge; Application in Clinical Experience
CEC Standard #10 – Collaboration; #5 learning Environments and Social Interaction
Description of Task: Candidates complete an in-depth version of a Functional Behavior
Assessment and a Behavior Intervention Plan that is based on the assessment results of a child or
youth. Based on the rubrics below, this is a revision-based assignment where the students can
review and revise their understanding of an FBA based on extensive instructor feedback and
guidance.
Grading Rubric:
Target/
Exemplary
(19-20)
Acceptable/Meets
Expectations
(17-18)
Minimal/Needs
Improvement
(15-16)
Unacceptable
(14 and under)
Elements
Not submitted or
completed (0)
Expanded Evaluation Rubric for draft FBA for EDSP 462/670
Points
(of 20)
Revised
Points
Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) Criteria
Observable,
measurable
target behavior
+Provided descriptive, factual paragraphs about the individual, including a strong
description of capacity, and their situation (age, school, family, etc.)
+Included a very clear definition of the target behavior under study.
+Described why the behavior is a problem for the individual.
+Included facts about the history of the behavior and what methods were used to
address it in the past.
Other comments:
Description of
data collection
system with raw
data
+Included at least one paragraph for each of the four methods of data collection used.
+Described method and data collection form
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
63
+ Included where, when and with whom the method was used, dates of administration,
and name (pseudonym) and relationship of person to target individual.
+Explained why that method was used and how it was used.
Other comments:
Other setting
events and
contributing
factors to the
behavior
+Described what you learned about the school or home settings or disabilities, and
other physical, psychological, social or physiological factors that informants have
identified as being related to the behavior
+Described setting events with respect and dignity; readable by all involved.
+Maintained confidentiality
Other comments:
Analysis &
Summary of
FBA
+You collected direct data across minimum of ten days
+You collected background data through interviews and record reviews
+You attached interval or frequency recording/scatter plots completed by yourself and
knowledgeable others
+You attached A-B-C recordings of data, at least 4, min. of one hour of direct
observation
+You attached one other set of data using a form of your choice
+You submitted data in its raw form as collected by you and others (handwritten, for
example)
+You presented your results for each method of data collection in a systematic and
analytical way. Frequency or interval data is reported in both numbers and percentages.
+You provided a concise summary of what you learned from each method of data
collection.
+ You analyzed what you learned about the behavior across the period of data
collection.
+ You presented the answers to the key questions about the target behavior
+You included what you learned about what appears to be triggering the behavior and
what is maintaining it.
Other Comments:
Hypothesis
paragraph
+ A concise paragraph presenting your hypothesis about what function or functions the
behavior is serving for the person.
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
64
+The evidence for your hypothesis is clear from your analysis of data.
Other comments:
Format &
Mechanics
Typed, Double
spaced with reg.
margins
Headings for
each section
Professional
tone & lang.
Writing is clear
& free of
mechanical
errors
PFL and
respectful
descriptions
Points
Target/
Exemplary
(19-20)
Acceptable/Meets
Expectations
(17-18)
Minimal/Needs
Improvement
(15-16)
Unacceptable
(14 and under)
Elements
Not submitted or
completed (0)
Evaluation Rubric for FBA/BIP plan for EDSP 462
Revised
Points
Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA)
Observable
and
measurable
target
behavior
Data
collection
system (4
sources) with
completed
data
Other setting
events and
contributing
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
65
factors to the
behavior
Analysis &
Summary of
FBA
Hypothesis
paragraph
Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP)
Prevention
Strategies
(10)
Reactive
Strategies (6)
Teaching
Strategies (6)
Evaluation
System for
BIP
Format and
Mechanics
***Each section is worth 20 points.
Goals, objectives, and assignments in this class address NCATE Standard 1c Professional and
Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Knowledge and
Skill Standards, the Virginia Department of Education teacher licensure competencies, and
Virginia’s Early Childhood Special Education Competency 5. The FBA/BIP project particularly
assesses RU students’ progress toward the following course objectives:
Use procedures to increase the individual’s self-awareness, self-management, self-control, selfreliance, and self-esteem, and teach individuals with disabilities to give and receive meaningful
feedback from peers and adults (CC4S5 & GC5S4).
Use a variety of non-aversive techniques to control targeted behavior and maintain attention of
individuals with disabilities (GC4S9, VGC2c & VPS3).
The demands of learning environments, teacher attitudes and behaviors that influence behavior,
basic classroom management theories, and strategies for individuals with exceptional learning
needs; and plan for and use effective management of teaching and learning (CC5K1, CC5K2,
CC5K3, CC5K4, CC5S10, VGC2c & VPS3)
Social skills needed for educational and other environments and identify realistic expectations
for personal and social behavior in various settings (CC5K5 &CC5S2).
Strategies for crisis prevention and intervention (CC5K6 & VGC2c).
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
66
Establish and maintain rapport with individuals with and without exceptional learning needs and
use skills in problem-solving and conflict resolution (CC5S7& GC5S5).
Use the least intensive behavior management strategy consistent with the needs of the individual
with exceptional learning needs including planning and implementing individualized
reinforcement systems and environmental modifications at levels equal to the intensity of the
behavior (CC5S11, GC7S1, & VGC2c).
Integrate academic instruction and behavior management for individuals and groups with
disabilities (GC7K1).
Codes for the CEC Standards above: CC = Common Core; GC = General Curriculum,. Code for
VADOE Standards: VGC = Virginia’s General Curriculum; and VPS = Virginia’s Professional Studies.
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
67
Functional Behavior Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plan
Narrative and Analysis:
 With the inclusion of disciplinary language in IDEIA 2004 (and previously in 1997), many
special educators in the field are still either untrained or are designing behavioral
strategies for students with disabilities without solid functional behavioral assessment.
This somewhat detailed and lengthy process can be a difficult task for veteran teachers in
the field. Our candidates complete the functional behavior assessments using children and
youth who experience misbehaviors that require analysis and intervention.
 We chose to use this assessment as a measure of the CEC Standard of Collaboration due
to the collaborative nature of the process with families, children and youth and general
educators and educational specialists.
 One student took this class in fall 2008 and one student took it in summer 2010, but no
data was reported on either student. This course is not taught by faculty in the deaf
education program and the faculty member who was in charge of NCATE, is no longer
with the university. There was some confusion as to who was to submit data, the faculty
member teaching the class or the advisor of the students in the major. This has been
clarified and now the professor of record records the data.
#7 Additional assessment that addresses CEC standards (optional)
Assessment Name: INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (IEP)
Program Context: Candidates complete this task during EDSP 427: Curriculum and Methods for
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students, which is normally taken the semester before they student
teach.
Program Standards:
NCATE – – #1c Professional & Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills and #1d Student Learning
Pedagogical and Professional Knowledge – Planning Instruction
CEC #3 Individual Learning Differences and #7 Instructional Planning
Description of task: Students use assessment data as the foundation for designing a complete IEP
for one student. They develop a Present Level of Performance, Annual Goals and
Objectives/Benchmarks. They determine needed accommodations and adaptations, as well as
special education services needed. Students use the sample IEP form developed by the VDOE.
Students use the IEP rubric as an informal self-evaluation and professors use the IEP rubric as a
summative evaluation.
Assessment Rubric/Scoring Guide: see next page
Radford University
Special Education Department
Name of Candidate: _________________________________
Date:__________________
Faculty Evaluator(s): ___________________________________________________________
Course in which the IEP was developed:________________
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) Rubric
Directions: Evaluate the IEP as "Target,” "Acceptable," “Minimal” or "Unacceptable" on each of the 3
standards. Then give an Overall Evaluation. See the attached table for requirements and criteria for each
standard. Grade equivalents for ratings: Target = A, Acceptable = B, Minimal = C, Unacceptable = D or F.
UnaccepAcceptable
Target
Minimal
Standard
table
1. The IEP is complete (it contains all
elements required by law), accurate,
and administratively sound (dates,
timelines, signatures, team
composition are correct). (40%)
(NCATE Standard 1.3)
2. The IEP is technically sound and
educationally valid; that is, the
content meets the requirements of
the law and the criteria for best.
(50%)
(NCATE Standards 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, &
Diversity)
3. The IEP is professional in form and
appearance (includes grammar,
spelling and writing mechanics;
organization; and overall
appearance). (10%) (Note: Count a
type of error once. E.g., spelling the
same word wrong repeatedly counts as
one error.)
(NCATE Standards 1.3 & Technology)
4+ errors
3 errors
1-2- errors
0 errors
4+ errors
3 errors
2 errors
0-1 error
6+ errors
4-5 errors
2-3 errors
0-1
errors
OVERALL EVALUATION
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
70
IEP REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA
Comments
Standard 1. IEP is Complete, Accurate, and
_________________________
Administratively/Legally Sound
Required Elements:
___ (1) Cover Page: student info., dates, IEP team names, etc.
___ (2) Factors for Team Consideration, including the students’
special needs related to communication, behavior,
language, sensory impairments, and assistive technology
___(3) Present Levels of Educational Performance
___(4) Diploma Status
___(5) Annual goals and short-term objectives/benchmarks
___(6) How progress will be measured on each annual goal and
how parents will be informed of their child's progress
___(7) Accommodations/Modifications, and their frequency
location, and duration
___(8) Statement of whether student will take district, state
achievement tests with or without accommodations; why
student will not participate; alternate assessments to be
used
___(9) FAPE: Special education, related services, and
supplementary aids and services, and their frequency,
location, and duration are complete and accurate.
___(10)LRE and Placement: Decision, justification if student is
removed from general education, and explanation of
extent to which child will not participate with
nondisabled students
___ (11) Prior Notice of IEP and Placement Decision
___ (12) Transfer of Rights Notice
___ (13) Transition: For students 14+, goals and objectives that
focus on educationally relevant transition needs. For
students 16+, description of coordinated activities to
promote movement to post-school activities. Interagency
Responsibilities and needed linkages specified.
___ (14) The need for extended school year services.
___ (15) VA State Assessment Program, SOL Assessments,
&/or Alternate Assessment Program
___ (16) Virginia Communication Guide
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
71
Dates and timelines:
 Re-evaluation conducted if due.
 IEP meeting was held no later than expiration
date on previous IEP.
 Parents and student were given timely prior
notification of IEP meeting
Signatures and team composition:
 All necessary team members participated.
 The student participated, if appropriate.
Comments
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
IEP Assessment Performance Report - EDSP 527- fall 2008
Rubric Row
n Mean StdDev N/A
Unacceptable Minimal Acceptable Target
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
1) The IEP contains all
elements required by law,
is accurate and
administratively sound.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
2)The IEP is technically
sound and educationally
valid, meeting
requirements of the law
and best practice.
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
3)The IEP is professional
in form and appearance
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
4)The one-page Program- 1
at-a-Glance summarizes
the most important parts of
the IEP
4
0
0
0
0
1
(100)
all percentages (%) rounded to nearest integer
IEP Assessment Performance Report - EDSP 527- summer 2009
Rubric Row
n Mean StdDev N/A
Unacceptable Minimal Acceptable Target
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
1) The IEP contains all
elements required by
law, is accurate and
administratively sound.
10
3.7
0.483
0
0
0
3 (30)
7 (70)
2)The IEP is technically
sound and educationally
valid, meeting
requirements of the law
and best practice.
10
4
0
0
0
0
0
10
(100)
3)The IEP is professional 10
in form and appearance
4
0
0
0
0
0
10
(100)
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
72
4)The one-page
Program-at-a-Glance
summarizes the most
important parts of the
IEP
10
4
0
0
0
0
0
10
(100)
all percentages (%) rounded to nearest integer
Narrative and Analysis:





This course is the candidates’ initial introduction into writing Individualized Education
Programs (IEP’s). The process is taught in a very systematic manner, allowing them to
work on each section and revise as they receive feedback, yet it is challenging for
candidates to reach mastery in the development of IEPs through one course.
Some candidates are involved in an early field experience (blocking) when they take this
class. It is a challenging semester in that they are in the schools all morning and attending
classes in the evenings. Their primary concern is adequately planning good lessons,
teaching, and meeting the needs of their students. Their cooperating teachers share the
IEPs of their students which can sometimes confuse instead of enlighten because they may
be written differently than that which is being instructed. The IEPs the candidates have
access to in the schools can serve as examples or non-examples depending on the quality of
the IEP.
Other candidates who have previous teaching experience do not participate in an early field
experience. They usually come with previous experience writing IEPs. This can be
advantageous if they have experience writing structurally and technically sound IEPs that
are accurate and educationally valid. If they do not have experience writing
administratively sound IEPs, their previous experience can be a deterrent because they are
not always willing to make the necessary changes to correct inaccurate practices.
Since many of the schools use computerized IEPs, Radford is looking into gaining access
to a computerized IEP program that can be taught in classes to ensure that the candidates
are being taught to use programs that will be used more frequently in the schools. This will
help with the problems encountered with more experienced candidates seeking an MS
degree.
The data does not adequately reflect the difficulty candidates have learning to develop and
write IEPs since the learning process for this task is scaffolded. Additional teaching and
practice is needed to fully develop this skill. Candidates need to be exposed to this skill
across several courses to ensure competence.
#8 Additional assessment that addresses CEC standards. (Optional)
EMPLOYER AND ALUMNI SURVEYS – see unit report
SECTION V—USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE
CANDIDATE AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
Evidence must be presented in this section that assessment results have been analyzed and have
been or will be used to improve candidate performance and strengthen the program. This
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
73
description should not link improvements to individual assessments but, rather, it should
summarize principal findings from the evidence, the faculty’s interpretation of those findings, and
changes made in (or planned for) the program as a result. Describe the steps program faculty
has taken to use information from assessments for improvement of both candidate performance
and the program. This information should be organized around (1) content knowledge,
(2) professional and pedagogical knowledge, skill, and dispositions, and (3) student
learning.
(response limited to 3 pages)
Content Knowledge
Data collected several years ago from interns at the end of their student teaching experience at the Virginia
School for the Deaf and Blind indicated that they felt challenged by the upper level content in their
secondary placements. They did not feel that they had received adequate practice writing lesson plans for
secondary courses or had adequate resources for good examples of lessons at the secondary level. The
program was changed in response to this feedback to require lesson plans at both the elementary and
secondary level in EDSP 628 / Language Development and Literacy for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students .
The thematic unit plan in EDSP 527 / Curriculum and Methods for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students is
designed to match the level in which the students are placed for blocking when appropriate; thereby, those
involved in a secondary blocking placement construct their plans at the secondary level. Subsequent
evaluations from students have no longer indicated this to be an area of weakness in the program.
Students continue, however, to voice concern over the work required to master the content that they must
teach in their secondary placements during student teaching. While the program director at VSDB and the
RU university supervisor try to match students with cooperating teachers in their content area of strength,
there are times that this cannot happen due to limited placements in the field of deaf education. While the
process of relearning content prior to teaching is challenging, it is a great skill to practice as interns
because this often happens in the workforce.
This concern over content mastery was voiced differently this year by the principal at the Virginia School for
the Deaf and Blind. He justifiably feels that when the students do not graduate highly qualified in a content
area, it limits their marketability. He voiced that, while the RU interns demonstrate strong teacher
characteristics and dispositions and employ successful teaching strategies which yield good academic
results which would lead him to employ them, he is unable to offer them a job at the secondary level
because they are not highly qualified in a content area. Since the Masters program is already a 42 hour
program with specific courses required for licensure, it has been decided that, while not required, it can be
recommended that students with a propensity for a certain content area should be encouraged to take
Praxis II in that content area to become highly qualified and therefore graduation.
Professional and Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Students develop professional and pedagogical content knowledge, skills, and dispositions
through a series of classes, assignments, and experiences. Students are required to observe in
programs for students who are deaf/hard of hearing when they take their introductory deaf
education course, EDSP 526 / Introduction to Deaf and Hard of Hearing. The Deaf Education
Program at Radford University is a comprehensive program in that it does not support one
communication approach over another. The philosophy of the Radford program is that teachers
should be versed in all the communication approaches so that when children are placed on their
caseload, the RU teachers can support the communication approach deemed most appropriate for
the student based on family preference, cognitive ability, and audiologic ability. RU teachers are
educated to be able to explain all communication approaches in an unbiased manner recognizing
that approaches that work for one child may not work for all. In the initial coursework in the field
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
74
of deaf education, students are required to do extensive research on the different communication
approaches and discuss them in class with confidence and clarity. Students are required to
construct a website for parents in which they offer, in an unbiased manner, critical information
about communication approaches, educational placements, audiology, language development,
available resources and services for the deaf, etc. Information learned in this course is revisited
and further developed in subsequent coursework in the program of studies.
While EDSP 526 is a very strong foundational course, students are only required to complete the
one observation in a self-contained classroom for children with hearing loss. To support the
comprehensive nature of the program, however, consideration is being given to expanding the
observation requirement to include visits to both oral and signing programs. Optimally it would
be best if students could visit programs representative of all the communication approaches, but
that would require extensive travel for some, particularly to visit a program that uses Cued
Speech since only a limited number of programs use this approach.
In EDSP 628, students learn the parts of an effective lesson, write four in-depth lesson plans (two
at the elementary level and two at the secondary level, two of those in reading and the other two
in expressive writing), present 1-2 lessons in class, and receive feedback from their peers and
university instructor. In EDSP 527, they develop a thematic unit in which they construct three indepth plans in math, science, and social science to support the unit plan. One of these lessons
must be presented in class and students receive feedback once again from their peers and
university instructor. It is strongly encouraged in this class for the students to construct a unit
that can be used with the students in their blocking placement. After it became apparent that
students viewed visual representations of concepts as simply pictures, students were given
additional instruction on visual concept development strategies. These strategies are critical for
teaching students with hearing loss. Much improvement has been noted, but full comprehension
of the intricacies of the visual representations does not take place until the pre-service teachers
are in the schools actually working with children with hearing loss.
Students learn about approaches and resources designed specifically for the deaf such as See the
Sound Visual Phonics, Fairview Learning Program, Reading Milestones Reading Curriculum, etc.,
but they also learn about other evidenced approaches that can be successfully adapted for
children who are deaf/hard of hearing.
Several years ago, an alumni who graduated from our program and was hired as an itinerant
teacher provided very beneficial feedback. She stated that while she felt extremely prepared to
be a self-contained teacher for the deaf, she was not equipped to become an itinerant teacher.
Following that feedback, a very qualified effective itinerant teacher was asked to present a
session on itinerant teaching. Students are now required to shadow an itinerant teacher for 8
hours during their junior year. Students then are placed in a public school in a variety of settings
during their blocking semester of their senior year. They then teach at a residential school for
the deaf for student teaching. Exposure to all educational placement options enables students to
discover the environment in which they feel most comfortable. This helps them to know which
placements to pursue for employment after graduation.
A major area of weakness in the deaf education program is in finding placements for application
of knowledge and skills in oral education for students with hearing loss. We employ a
professional outside the university who is one of the leaders in the field of auditory verbal
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
75
learning. She very effectively teaches our students how to develop auditory potential, how to
work through the auditory learning guide, and strategies for developing listening skills and
spoken language in children with hearing loss. We have an audiologist teach our course in
audiologic assessment and intervention. There are, however, limited placements in which this
approach is effectively used in our area. We have one teacher who is skilled in this area who
willingly works with our students, but cannot serve them all. There is another speech language
pathologist with this area of expertise who will allow our students to observe her, but these
placements are so limited that all RU students do not have access to this practical application of
the knowledge and skills.
Impact on Student Learning
Shortly after the inception of the program, students were required, during blocking and student
teaching, to administer pre-assessments prior to teaching concepts to their students. This
practice is still in place. Based on the data gathered from these pre-assessments, the interns
develop a series of in-depth lesson plans to teach the concepts, and then administer post
assessments following the instructional processes. Interns keep records of their students’
progress as well as copies of the students’ work. They compile all of this information in a
notebook and orally reflect on their impact on student learning with university supervisors by
describing the data found on comparisons of pre and post assessments. Their instruction
throughout blocking and student teaching is standards based and assessment driven.
In addition to the two formal evaluations that cooperating teachers complete on their interns,
cooperating teachers also submit weekly written feedback that reflects on the strengths of their
interns and establishes focus areas for improvement. This weekly feedback is always tied to the
intern’s impact on student learning.
This year in EDSP 628, a new assignment was established for teacher candidates that incorporate
one-on-one tutoring with a student who is deaf or hard of hearing who has significant problems
in expressive writing. The teacher candidates give their student a writing prompt, collect an
adequate written language sample, analyze the sample with an in-depth rubric, and identify goals
for expressive writing based on the language sample assessment. The teacher candidates then
develop 6-10 lessons that focus on the targeted areas and work one-on-one with the students
using these lessons. During the tutoring sessions, the teacher candidates use consistent
assessment, questioning techniques, and monitoring techniques to evaluate student growth. At
the end of the sessions, a post assessment is collected using a different writing prompt. The
written language sample is analyzed again using the same rubric to measure growth and the
student’s impact on student learning.
Actions to improve the program’s assessment of candidates’ pedagogical content
knowledge, skills and dispositions.
SECTION VI—For Revised Reports Only
Describe what changes or additions have been made in the report to address the standards that
were not met in the original submission. List the sections of the report you are resubmitting and
the changes that have been made. Specific instructions for preparing a revised report are
available on the NCATE web site at http://www.ncate.org/institutions/process.asp?ch=4
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
76
ATTACHMENT A
Candidate Information
Directions: Provide three years of data on candidates enrolled in the program and completing
the program, beginning with the most recent academic year for which numbers have been
tabulated. Report the data separately for the levels/tracks (e.g., baccalaureate, postbaccalaureate, alternate routes, master’s, doctorate) being addressed in this report. Data must
also be reported separately for programs offered at multiple sites. Update academic years
(column 1) as appropriate for your data span. Create additional tables as necessary.
Compilation of the last 3 years:
Program: MS-HI: Special Education: Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program
Academic Year # of Candidates Enrolled in the
# of Program
Program
Completers8
2007-2010
11 MS-HI Degree Candidates
2
2007-2010
17 Licensure Only Students
9 of these now licensed
2007-2010
167 Summer Professional Development
Last 3 years documented by semesters:
Program: MS-HI: Special Education: Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program
Academic
# of Candidates Enrolled in the
# of Program
Year
Program
Completers9
Spring 2010
9 MS-HI majors
1
Fall 2009
9 MS-HI majors
1
Summer 2009 9 MS-HI
0
Program: MS-HI: Special Education: Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program
Academic
# of Candidates Enrolled in the
# of Program
Year
Program
Completers
Spring 2009
6 MS-HI majors
0
Fall 2008
6 MS-HI majors
0
Summer 2008 5 MS-HI majors
0
Program: MS-HI: Special Education: Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program
Academic
# of Candidates Enrolled in the
# of Program
Year
Program
Completers
Spring 2008
Fall 2007
Summer 2007
0 MS-HI majors
0 MS-HI majors
0 MS-HI majors
NCATE uses the Title II definition for program completers. Program completers are persons who have met all the
requirements of a state-approved teacher preparation program. Program completers include all those who are
documented as having met such requirements. Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional certificate,
program credential, transcript, or other written proof of having met the program’s requirements.
9 NCATE uses the Title II definition for program completers. Program completers are persons who have met all the
requirements of a state-approved teacher preparation program. Program completers include all those who are
documented as having met such requirements. Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional certificate,
program credential, transcript, or other written proof of having met the program’s requirements.
8
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
77
Since the inception of the program in 2002, we have taught approximately 164 graduate
students 799 courses, both 3 semester hour courses and 1 semester hour courses. Many
of these graduate students have come to Radford to seek licensure in Hearing
Impairment Prek-12. Many have attended our professional development seminars in the
summers and a few have received a Master’s degree from Radford. The number of
program completers does not reflect the number of students who enroll in our classes.
Data is available on the next page which indicates enrollment numbers by course since
2002. The graduate courses have been highlighted in yellow. Data is also available that
lists students’ names and the courses they took at RU. That is not included in this report
due to confidentiality.
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
78
EDSP 426
EDSP 526
5
9
8
8
11
8
12
5 12
9
7
6
4
8
2
11
EDSP 427
1
1
EDSP 527
7
8
11
2
2
EDSP 528
4
18
EDSP 432
1
EDSP 755:756
1
COSD 422
COSD 221.02
6 21 22
6
2
3
4
9
6
6
1
6
4
7
COSD 223 (3)
5
5
3
1
7
1
8
4
1
6
1
2
1
1
4
1
4
2
2
3
4
2
8
4
2
6
3
4
8
7
6
8
6
27 25
23
29 17
20 20
5
3
9
11
15
14
8
3
12
7
5
Visual Phonics
Total
13
6
4
6
7
58
78
25
17
43
18
35
Total
Summer 2011
2011 Spring
2010 Fall
2010 Spring
2010 Summer
4
1
5
2
14
10
125
93
44
9 59
51
44
31
25
7
29
50
259
83
107
44
7
3 277
16
16
Literacy and the
DHH Student
Cued Language
Neuro
Assessment
Opening Doors
/Unlocking
Potential
5
2
1
20
COSD 224
AVT
Math and
Science (1)
Listening for
Literacy
7
4
43 40
6
3
9
5
8
1
5
1
3 26
8
3
15
1
1
7
5
COSD 221.3
COSD 222 (3)
11
12
9
1
EDSP 455:456
3
4
5
2 16
EDSP 428
COSD 512
1
6 11
2009 Summer
2009 Fall
2004 Summer
2004 Fall
2005 Spring
2005 Summer
2005 Fall
2006 Spring
2006 Summer
2006 Fall
2007 Spring
2007 Summer
2007 Fall
2008 Spring
2008 Summer
2008 Fall
2009 Spring
2003 Summer
2003 Fall
2004 Spring
2002 Spring
2002 Summer
2002 Fall
2003 Spring
Enrollment Numbers in all Deaf Education Coursework / Spring 2002-Summer 2011
14
25
25
32
46
34
34
25
25
5
5
118
22 28 32 52 113 63 15 104 18 31 58 70 46 72 58 33 90 54 54 91 86 85 113 45 40 68 23 23 17 1604
44
27
13
34
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
79
ATTACHMENT B
Faculty Information
Directions: Complete the following information for each faculty member responsible for professional coursework, clinical
supervision, or administration in this program.
Faculty Member
Name
Highest
Degree,
Field, &
University10
Assignment:
Indicate the
role of the
faculty
member11
Faculty
Rank12
Tenure
Track
(Yes/
No)
Ellen Austin
Masters in
Special
Education,
Radford
University
Faculty
Grant Co-Director,
Grant Coordinator,
Clinical Supervisor,
Program Area
Leader for Deaf
Education
Professional
Faculty
No
Kenna M. Colley
Ed.D. in
Faculty, clinical
Associate
Yes
10
Scholarship,13 Leadership
in Professional
Associations, and Service:
14
List up to 3 major
contributions in the past 3
years 15
 Member of Virginia
Network of Consultants for
LEAs Working with
Deaf/Hard of Hearing
Students – presentations
at various state workshops
 Serve as consultant for
students with hearing loss
for Salem Public Schools
 Grant Co-Director /
Coordinator for VDOE
Teacher Preparation and
Professional Development
Project: Hearing
Impairment Prek-12

Principal Investigator and
Teaching or
other professional
experience in
P-12 schools16
1 year teaching preschool
deaf/hard of hearing students
1 year teaching high school
students with learning
disabilities (started that
program at Wm. Fleming High
School in Roanoke, VA.)
20 years teaching deaf/hard of
hearing students at K-5 level
2 of these years also teaching
children with learning
disabilities
15 of the 20 years served as
coordinator for the Roanoke
Valley Regional Program for the
Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
Special education teacher
e.g., PhD in Curriculum & Instruction, University of Nebraska
e.g., faculty, clinical supervisor, department chair, administrator
12 e.g., professor, associate professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, instructor, administrator
13 Scholarship is defined by NCATE as systematic inquiry into the areas related to teaching, learning, and the education of teachers and other school personnel.
Scholarship includes traditional research and publication as well as the rigorous and systematic study of pedagogy, and the application of current research findings
in new settings. Scholarship further presupposes submission of one’s work for professional review and evaluation.
14Service includes faculty contributions to college or university activities, schools, communities, and professional associations in ways that are consistent with the
institution and unit’s mission.
15 e.g., officer of a state or national association, article published in a specific journal, and an evaluation of a local school program
16 Briefly describe the nature of recent experience in P-12 schools (e.g. clinical supervision, inservice training, teaching in a PDS) indicating the discipline and
grade level of the assignment(s). List current P-12 licensure or certification(s) held, if any.
11
Leslie Daniel
Vanessa Haskins
Curriculum
and
Instruction/E
ducational
Leadership;
Virginia
Polytechnic
Institute and
State
University
Ph.D.
Curriculum
and
Instruction,
Virginia
Polytechnic
Institute and
State
University
Masters in
Special
Education;
Radford
University
supervisor, grant
coordinator,
Program Area
Leader for Special
Education
Programs
Professor


Grant director: TTAC,
MERGE
Former Grant PI: Self
Determination and Virginia
Transition Outcomes
Project
Presentations at TASH,
OSEP, and many state and
regional conferences
(middle school) 3 years,
inclusion specialist K-12; 5
years;
Training and Technical
Assistance Coordinator/director
10 years.
Faculty, clinical
supervisor,
federal grant codirector, lead of
Autism Certificate
Program
Assistant
Professor
Yes


President, VA TASH
Presented at TASH in DC,
OSEP conference in DC
twice
Presented at regional
conferences related to
autism spectrum
disorders.
Taught special ed preschool for
3 years, self-contained middle
school for 3 years, and
inclusive elementary school for
3 years, T/TAC Project
Coordinator for 10 years in
public schools and agencies.
Faculty and grant
coordinator
Special
Purpose
Faculty
No

Grant supervisor for OSEP
Personnel Preparation
Grant
Presentations to OSEP
conference
state and local
conferences on
multicultural issues,
transition, and
collaboration
Special Education Teacher,
Roanoke City Schools, VA,
grades K-5.


Scholarship is defined by NCATE as systematic inquiry into the areas related to teaching, learning, and the education of teachers and other school personnel.
Scholarship includes traditional research and publication as well as the rigorous and systematic study of pedagogy, and the application of current research findings
in new settings. Scholarship further presupposes submission of one’s work for professional review and evaluation.
Service includes faculty contributions to college or university activities, schools, communities, and professional associations in ways that are consistent with the
institution and unit’s mission.
e.g., officer of a state or national association, article published in a specific journal, and an evaluation of a local school program
Briefly describe the nature of recent experience in P-12 schools (e.g. clinical supervision, inservice training, teaching in a PDS) indicating the discipline and grade
level of the assignment(s). List current P-12 licensure or certification(s) held, if any
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program Report, 2010
81
Special Education Interdisciplinary Studies – Deaf and Hard of Hearing Undergraduate Program
Report, 2010
82