Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report
Addendum
Academic Year 2013-2014
Preliminary Education Specialist Credential Programs
in
Mild/Moderate Disabilities
Moderate/Severe Disabilities
Deaf/Hard of Hearing
Early Childhood Special Education
Michael D. Eisner College of Education
Department of Special Education
August 2014
COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING BIENNIAL REPORT
PRELIMINARY EDUCATION SPECIALIST CREDENTIAL PROGRAM
ADDENDUM
Academic Year 2013-2014
Table of Contents
SECTION A-­‐CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION: PART 1- Contextual Information .......................................................................................... 1
Changes Since Last Accreditation Activity .......................................................................... 1
Demographic Data on Candidates Admitted-Preliminary Credential Programs ....................
PART 2- Candidate Assessment/Performance & Program Effectiveness Information ... 3
The Assessment System ........................................................................................................ 3
Transition Point 2: Entry to Student Teaching ...................................................................... 3
Mild/Moderate Disabilities ................................................................................................ 3
Moderate/Severe Disabilities ............................................................................................. 5
Deaf/Hard of Hearing ......................................................................................................... 6
Early Childhood Special Education ................................................................................... 6
Transition Point 3: Exit From Student Teaching .................................................................. 7
Mild/Moderate Disabilities ................................................................................................ 7
Moderate/Severe Disabilities ........................................................................................... 11
Deaf/Hard of Hearing ....................................................................................................... 13
Early Childhood Special Education ................................................................................. 14
Added Authorizations .......................................................................................................... 16
PART 3- Analysis and Discussion of Candidate and Program Data
PART 4- Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate & Program
Performance..........................................................................................................................17
Candidate Competence…………………………………………………………………….17
Program Effectiveness …………………………………………………………………….18
TABLES
Table 1: Significant Changes Since Commission Approval ..................................................... 1
Table 2: Number of Candidates Admitted by Specialization .................................................... 2
Table 3: Number of Candidates Admitted by Specialization .................................................... 2
Table 4: Candidate Demographics at Admission ...................................................................... 2
Table 5: Transition Point 2 Assessment Measures.................................................................... 3
Table 6: Mild/Moderate: Early Fieldwork Evaluation-Traditional/ITEP ................................ 4
Table 7: Mild/Moderate: ACT/ACT-R ..................................................................................... 4
Table 8: Mild/Moderate: Intern ................................................................................................. 5
Table 9: Moderate/Severe: Early Fieldwork Evaluation ........................................................... 5
Table 10: Deaf and Hard of Hearing: Early Fieldwork Evaluation .......................................... 6
Table 11:Early Childhood Special Education: Early Intervention Evaluation ......................... 7
Table 12: Transition Point 3 Assessment Measures.................................................................. 7
Table 13: Mild/Moderate: Student Teaching Evaluation-Traditional/ITEP ............................. 8
Table 14: Mild/Moderate: Student Teaching Evaluation-ACT/ACT-R ................................... 8
Table 15: Mild/Moderate: Student Teaching Evaluation-Interns ............................................. 9
Table 16: Teaching Event in MM Disabilities: Traditional/ITEP (2013) ................................ 9
Table 17: Teaching Event in MM Disabilities: Traditional/ITEP (2014) .............................. 10
Table 18: Teaching Event in MM Disabilities: ACT .............................................................. 10
Table 19: Teaching Event in MM Disabilities: ACT-R .......................................................... 11
Table 20: Moderate to Severe: Student Teaching Evaluation-Traditional/ACT-R................. 12
Table 21: Teaching Event in MS Disabilities: Traditional/ACT-R ........................................ 12
Table 22: Deaf and Hard of Hearing: Student Teaching Evaluation ...................................... 13
Table 23: Teaching Event in DHH .......................................................................................... 14
Table 24: ECSE Student Teaching .......................................................................................... 15
Table 25: Teaching Event in ECSE......................................................................................... 15
Table 26 Autism Spectrum Disorders Added Authorization .................................................. 16
Appendix A – Survey Instruments for Added Authorizations
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
ii
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Part I – Contextual Information
A comprehensive discussion of contextual information appears in the Biennial Report for
Academic Years 2011-2013.
Changes Since Last Accreditation Activity
Table 1 repeats the significant changes, reported in the Biennial Report for Academic Years
2011-2013. These changes followed university procedures and were approved at department,
college and university levels and
Table 1
Significant Changes Since Last Biennial Report in August 2012
Date of Approval
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Fall 2013
Fall 2013
Fall 2013
Fall 2013
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Spring 2012
Fall 2011
Program/Course Modifications
Implemented Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate
Disabilities
Piloted Special Education Teaching Event in Moderate/Severe Disabilities,
Deaf and Hard of Hearing and Early Childhood Special Education
Implemented newly developed Teaching Evaluation in Mild/Moderate
Disabilities
Submitted Program Assessment Document for Preliminary Education
Specialist Credential and Added Authorizations – May 1, 2014
Developed evaluation measures for Added Authorizations
Modified all intern programs to address CTC Intern Preservice, Support and
Supervision Requirements: Preparation to Teach English Learners
Modified all preliminary credential programs to address the CTC Revised
Standards Relating to Teaching English Learners
Revised and implemented Special Education Teaching Event in
Mild/Moderate Disabilities based on calibration pilot
Piloted newly developed Teaching Evaluation in Mild/Moderate Disabilities
Piloted Special Education Teaching Event with accompanying rubric in
Mild/Moderate Disabilities (calibration purposes)
Developed Teaching Evaluation based on Teaching and Learning
Framework
Modified SPED 655: Promising Practices and Interventions for Students
with Autism (one of two courses in the Autism Authorization)
Implemented Special Education Teaching Event in ACT/ACT-R in MildModerate Disabilities
Developed guidelines and rubric for ACT/ACT-R video capstone assignment
in Mild/Moderate Disabilities (a modified teaching event)
Revised and implemented video capstone assignment
This biennial report addendum includes demographic, performance and survey data for
candidates who participated in Education Specialist preliminary credential programs during the
period from Fall 2013 – Spring 2014.
Demographic Data on Candidates Admitted – Preliminary Credential Programs
Table 2
Number of Candidates Admitted by Specialization and Pathway
Fall 2013
Pathway
ACT
Traditional/ITEP
MM
22
20
MS
1
6
DHH
3
12
ECSE
6
24
Total
32
62
Table 3
Number of Candidates Admitted by Specialization and Pathway
Spring 2014
Pathway
ACT
Traditional/ITEP
MM
MS
16
3
DHH
ECSE
Does not admit spring semester
6
5
Total
30
Demographic data are available for a subset of those admitted fall 2013. These data appear in
Table 4 below.
Table 4
Candidate Demographics at Admission- Preliminary Education Specialist
Demographics
Fall 2013
Gender
Female
Male
68
13
Race/Ethnicity
African American
Asian American
Hispanic
White
Native American
Two or more ethnicities
Declined to state
2
5
19
43
2
6
4
Age
Under 25
26-29
30-39
40 and over
19
22
23
17
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
2
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Part II – Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
The Assessment System
The assessment system, including its relationship to professional standards, transition points for
data collection, and evaluation measures, is described in the Biennial Report for Academic Years
2011-2013. What follows are data collected at entry and exit from student teaching—Transition
Points 2 and 3, fall 2013 and spring 2014. Also included are pilot data for the Autism Spectrum
Disorders Added Authorization, its graduate survey and measures for two other Added
Authorizations, Resource Specialist and Emotional Disturbance. The Addendum disaggregates data
for ACT and ACT-R (a residency program).
Portfolio data reported in previous Biennial Reports are replaced in this 2013-2014 Addendum
with Special Education Teaching Event scores. The Special Education Teaching Event is
modeled after the Performance Assessment of California Teachers (PACT), required of all
multiple and single subject credential candidates. The Special Education Teaching Event is an
opportunity for teacher candidates to document knowledge and skills in four major areas:
planning, instructing, assessing and reflecting. While customized for each specialization, all
Special Education Teaching Events include commentaries, teacher and student products, and a
video clip embedded within the following tasks: context for learning, planning for instruction, an
instructional episode, assessment, the learning environment, and reflections.
Pilot data from spring 2013 are reported for Mild/Moderate Disabilities in the 2011-2013 Biennial
Report. Data for Mild/Moderate Disabilities, Moderate/Severe Disabilities, Deaf and Hard of
Hearing, and Early Childhood Special Education are reported in this addendum.
Transition Point 2: Entry to Student Teaching
As shown in Table 5 multiple assessments are used for Transition Point 2, entry to student
teaching, including standardized examinations, course grades, and early field experience
evaluations. All candidates, as assessed by the credential office, must have a GPA of 3.0 or
higher to be eligible for student teaching. Assessment findings for performance on the early
fieldwork evaluation by specialization and pathway appear in the tables below by CSTP
domains.
Table 5
Transition Point 2 Entry to Student Teaching - Assessment Measures
Transition
Point
Knowledge
Skills
•
Verification
of
Subject
Matter
•
Satisfactory
Early
Fieldwork
(2) EntryEvaluation
Student • Completion of all identified courses with
a grade of C or better
• Writing Proficiency
Teaching
Dispositions
• Satisfactory ratings on disposition
items of Early Fieldwork Evaluation
• Minimum overall 3.0 GPA in professional • Passage of the ASLPI (DHH)
courses
• Verification of Basic Skills (CBEST)
Mild/Moderate Disabilities. The university supervisor and cooperating teacher complete early
fieldwork evaluations for candidates in the traditional, ACT, ACT-R and ITEP pathways. Data
are aggregated for traditional and ITEP pathways. Early fieldwork only occurs in the fall
semester in ACT and ACT-R. The university supervisor completes an evaluation for interns each
semester of the two-year program, with the first two semesters considered early fieldwork and
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
3
the last two semesters student teaching. Means ratings for all interns fall 2013 are reported in this
section.
Table 6
Mild/Moderate: Early Fieldwork Evaluation – Traditional and ITEP
Fall 2013 and Spring 2014
Domain
Fall 2013
University
Cooperating
Supervisor
Teacher
Spring 2014
University
Cooperating
Supervisor
Teacher
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting
All Students in Learning
3.08
12
3.32
11
3.16
10
3.40
8
Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining
An Effective Environment for
Students
2.99
12
3.38
11
3.34
10
3.40
8
Domain 3: Understanding and
Organizing Subject Matter Knowledge
for Student Learning
3.19
12
3.14
11
3.17
10
3.29
8
Domain 4: Planning Instruction and
Designing Learning Experiences for
Students
3.15
12
3.19
11
3.20
10
3.40
8
Domain 5: Assessing Student
Learning
2.83
12
3.18
11
3.0
10
3.5
8
Domain 6: Developing as a
Professional Educator
3.13
12
3.56
11
3.29
10
3.68
8
Notes: 1=Inconsistent practice, 2=Developing practice, 3=Maturing practice, 4=Exemplary practice
Table 7
Mild/Moderate: Early Fieldwork Evaluation – ACT/ACT-R
Fall 2013
Domain
Fall 2013 ACT
University
Cooperating
Supervisor
Teacher
Fall 2013 ACT-R
University
Cooperating
Supervisor
Teacher
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
2.85
8
2.74
8
2.77
11
3.23
11
3.02
8
3.16
8
3.22
11
3.28
11
2.75
8
2.86
8
3.00
11
3.17
11
2.86
8
3.02
8
2.79
11
3.23
11
Domain 5: Assessing Student
Learning
2.40
8
2.23
8
2.93
11
3.19
11
Domain 6: Developing as a
Professional Educator
2.94
8
2.79
8
3.14
11
Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting
All Students in Learning
Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining
An Effective Environment for
Students
Domain 3: Understanding and
Organizing Subject Matter Knowledge
for Student Learning
Domain 4: Planning Instruction and
Designing Learning Experiences for
Students
3.31
11
Notes: 1=Inconsistent practice, 2=Developing practice, 3=Maturing practice, 4=Exemplary practice
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
4
Table 8
Mild/Moderate: Interns (Semesters One, Two, Three, and Four)
Fall 2013
Fall 2013
Domain
First and Second
Semester
Third and Fourth
Semester
Mean
N
Mean
N
2.5
14
3.5
4
Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An Effective
Environment for Students
2.61
14
3.66
4
Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter
Knowledge for Student Learning
2.65
14
3.5
4
Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing Learning
Experiences for Students
2.56
14
3.39
4
Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning
2.44
14
3.56
4
Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator
2.51
14
3.53
4
Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in
Learning
Notes: 1=Inconsistent practice, 2=Developing practice, 3=Maturing practice, 4=Exemplary practice
Moderate/Severe Disabilities. The university supervisor and the on-site supervisor complete
early fieldwork evaluations for Moderate/Severe Disabilities. Given the low number of
candidates, assessment data are aggregated across all pathways. MS candidates in early
fieldwork are evaluated on a sub-portion of the competencies student teachers are evaluated on.
No candidates were enrolled in early fieldwork fall, 2013.
Table 9
Moderate/Severe: Early Fieldwork Evaluation – Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Domain
University Supervisor
On-site
Supervisor
Mean
N
Mean
N
2.00
5
2.83
2
Engaging and Supporting Students in Learning
2.48
5
3.00
2
Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences
2.42
5
3.00
2
Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments
2.60
5
3.00
2
Developing as a Professional Educator
2.64
5
3.00
2
Making Subject Matter Comprehensible
Assessing Student Learning
Notes: 1=Inconsistent practice, 2=Developing practice, 3=Performs as expected, 4=Exceptional performance
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
5
Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Early fieldwork evaluations are completed during the spring
semester for candidates in all DHH credential pathways. Only the university supervisor
completes the evaluation. Students are not placed in a fieldwork assignment until they have
successfully passed the American Sign Language Proficiency Interview (ASLPI) to ensure that
they are able to adequately communicate with the students in the DHH classroom. Ratings,
collected from the university supervisor and aggregated across pathways, appear below.
Table 10
Deaf/Hard of Hearing: Early Fieldwork Evaluation
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Domain
University Supervisor
On-site
Supervisor
Mean
N
NA
Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning
2.50
5
NA
Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An Effective Environment for
Students
2.67
5
NA
Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter Knowledge
for Student Learning
1.80
5
NA
Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences
for Students
1.80
5
NA
Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning
1.80
5
NA
Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator
2.50
5
NA
Notes: 1=Inconsistent practice, 2=Developing practice, 3=Performs as expected, 4=Exceptional practice
Early Childhood Special Education. The Infant/Toddler student teaching is used as the early
fieldwork experience because candidates have little experience with this age group (birth to 3
years). Early intervention (fieldwork) evaluations are completed for candidates in their
Infant/Toddler fieldwork in all three pathways (ACT-R, traditional, intern) by the university
supervisor and on-site supervisor. Interns complete a traditional student teaching in an early
intervention program under the supervision of an on-site supervisor.
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
6
Table 11
Early Childhood Special Education: Early Intervention Evaluation
Fall 2013
Domain
Fall 2013
University
On-site
Supervisor
Supervisor
Spring 2014
University
On-site
Supervisor
Supervisor
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting
All Students in Learning
3.14
5
3.33
5
3.36
2
3
1
Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining
An Effective Environment for
Students
3.08
5
3.25
5
3.04
2
3
1
Domain 3: Understanding and
Organizing Subject Matter Knowledge
for Student Learning
2.80
5
3.07
5
3.00
2
3
1
Domain 4: Planning Instruction and
Designing Learning Experiences for
Students
3.12
5
3.26
5
3.05
2
3
1
Domain 5: Assessing Student
Learning
2.97
5
3.09
5
3.00
2
3
1
Domain 6: Developing as a
Professional Educator
3.35
5
3.53
5
3.21
2
3
1
Notes: 1=Inconsistent practice, 2=Developing practice, 3=Performs as expected, 4=Exceptional practice
Transition Point 3: Exit from Student Teaching
As shown below multiple assessments are used for Transition Point 3, exit from student teaching.
Assessment findings are summarized by specializations for CSTP domains.
Table 12
Transition Point 3 Exit Student Teaching Assessment Measures
Transition
Knowledge
Skills
Point
• Completion of all identified coursework •Average of “3” with no rating of “1”
(3) Exitwith a grade of C or better
on Education Specialist Evaluation
Student
• Minimum overall 3.0 GPA in professional (MM, DHH, ECSE): Average
Teaching
Dispositions
• Satisfactory ratings (no “1”s) on
disposition items of Education
Specialist Teaching Evaluation
courses
between “2” and “3” (MS)
• Completion of advanced fieldwork /final
practica (interns) with a grade of B or
• Special Education Teaching Event
better
Mild/Moderate Disabilities. The university supervisor and the cooperating teacher complete
student teaching evaluations for candidates in ACT/ACT-R, the traditional program and ITEP.
Converting to a completely on-line submission process contributed to missing spring 2014
cooperating teacher data. The university supervisor completes an evaluation each semester for
interns. ACT/ACT-R offer student teaching spring semester only. This spring the ACT-R
university supervisor and cooperating teacher collaborated on the spring 2014 evaluations. For
this reason only one score is reported.
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
7
Table 13
Mild/Moderate: Student Teaching – Traditional and ITEP
Fall 2013
Fall 2013
University
Cooperating
Supervisor
Teacher
Domain
Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting
All Students in Learning
Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining
An Effective Environment for
Students
Domain 3: Understanding and
Organizing Subject Matter Knowledge
for Student Learning
Domain 4: Planning Instruction and
Designing Learning Experiences for
Students
Domain 5: Assessing Student
Learning
Domain 6: Developing as a
Professional Educator
Spring 2014
University
Cooperating
Supervisor
Teacher
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
3.50
14
3.40
11
3.63
10
4.00
1
3.70
14
3.37
11
3.63
10
4.00
1
3.32
14
3.21
11
3.44
10
3.75
1
3.61
14
3.13
11
3.57
10
4.00
1
3.45
14
3.38
11
3.45
10
4.00
1
3.93
14
3.48
11
3.83
10
3.78
1
Notes: 1=Inconsistent practice, 2=Developing practice, 3=Maturing practice, 4=Exemplary practice
Table 14
Mild/Moderate: Student Teaching – ACT/ACT-R
Spring 2014
Domain
Spring 2014 ACT
University
Supervisor
Master Teacher
Spring 2014 ACT-R
University Supervisor/
Cooperating Teacher
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All
Students in Learning
3.66
8
3.59
8
3.23
12
Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An
Effective Environment for Students
3.69
8
3.56
8
3.51
12
Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing
Subject Matter Knowledge for Student Learning
3.59
8
3.47
8
3.39
12
Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing
Learning Experiences for Students
3.61
8
3.61
8
3.44
12
Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning
3.58
8
3.48
8
3.01
12
Domain 6: Developing as a Professional
Educator
3.44
8
3.49
8
3.55
12
Notes: 1=Inconsistent practice, 2=Developing practice, 3=Maturing practice, 4=Exemplary practice
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
8
Table 15
Mild/Moderate: Interns (Semesters One, Two, Three, Four)
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
University Supervisor
Domain
Mean
N
Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning
3.22
17
Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An Effective Environment for Students
3.32
17
Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter Knowledge for Student
Learning
3.22
17
Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for Students
3.15
17
Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning
3.09
17
Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator
3.40
17
The Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities assesses candidates’
performance in planning, implementing and assessing instruction. Teaching Events are rated
using a 4-point scale: Level 1 (Does Not Meet Expectations) Level 2 (Approximates
Expectations) Level 3 (Meets Expectations) and Level 4 (Exceeds Expectations). Data are
reported by CSTP Domain for traditional and ITEP, ACT and ACT-R candidates.
Table 16
Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities – Traditional and ITEP
Fall 2013
Domain
Mean
N
(Task1) Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject
Matter Knowledge for Student Learning
3.56
16
(Task 2) Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing
Learning Experiences for Students
3.5
16
4
16
3.88
16
4
16
4
16
(Task 3) Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in
Learning
(Task 4) Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning
(Task 5) Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An Effective
Environment for Students
(Task 6) Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
9
Table 17
Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities – Traditional and ITEP
Spring 2014
Domain
Mean
N
(Task1) Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject
Matter Knowledge for Student Learning
3.86
14
(Task 2) Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing
Learning Experiences for Students
3.21
14
(Task 3) Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in
Learning
3.5
14
(Task 4) Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning
3.36
14
(Task 5) Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An Effective
Environment for Students
3.57
14
3.57
14
(Task 6) Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator
Table 18
Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities - ACT
Spring 2014
Domain
Mean
N
(Task1) Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject
Matter Knowledge for Student Learning
3.75
8
(Task 2) Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing
Learning Experiences for Students
3.63
8
(Task 3) Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in
Learning
3.63
8
(Task 4) Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning
3.63
8
(Task 5) Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An Effective
Environment for Students
3.88
8
3.62
8
(Task 6) Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
10
Table 19
Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities – ACT-R
Spring 2014
Domain
Mean
N
(Task1) Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject
Matter Knowledge for Student Learning
3.32
11
(Task 2) Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing
Learning Experiences for Students
3.28
11
(Task 3) Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in
Learning
3.20
11
3.12
11
(Task 5) Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An Effective
Environment for Students
3.44
11
(Task 6) Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator
3.32
11
(Task 4) Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning
Moderate/Severe Disabilities. Student teaching evaluations for traditional, ACT and ITEP
candidates are completed by the university supervisor and the on-site supervisor. Only the
university supervisor completes evaluations for interns. Overall, the scores fall between
“developing practice” and “performs as expected” with the majority between “2” and a little over
“3”. These are expected scores in the area of MS disabilities, where very few ratings of “4” are
given. Data re reported for traditional and ACT-R candidates fall 2013 and spring 2014.
The Special Education Teaching Event in Moderate/Severe Disabilities is an opportunity for
candidates to demonstrate competencies in understanding and organizing subject matter
knowledge, (Task 1) planning and designing instruction (Tasks 2 and 3), engaging students in
learning (Task 4), assessing student learning (Task 5) and reflecting upon their practices (Task
6). Teaching Events are rated using a 4-point scale: Level 1 (Does Not Meet Expectations) Level
2 (Approximates Expectations) Level 3 (Meets Expectations) and Level 4 (Exceeds
Expectations). Data are reported by CSTP Domain for traditional and and ACT-R candidates.
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
11
Table 20
Moderate/Severe: Student Teaching Evaluation – Traditional and ACT-R
Fall 2013 and Spring 2014
Fall 2013
University
On-site
Supervisor
Supervisor
Domain
Spring 2014
University
On-site
Supervisor
Supervisor
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
2.60
3
2.93
3
2.16
3
2.89
2
Assessing Student Learning
2.75
3
3.00
3
2.48
3
2.94
2
Engaging and Support Students
2.71
3
2.9
3
2.46
3
3.00
2
Planning Instruction and Designing
Learning Experiences
2.75
3
2.9
3
2.59
3
2.93
2
Creating and Maintaining Effective
Environments
2.76
3
3.0
3
2.56
3
2.85
2
2.9
3
3
2.80
3
3.00
2
Making Subject Matter
Comprehensible
Developing as a Professional
Educator
Notes: 1=Inconsistent practice, 2=Developing practice, 3=Performs as expected, 4=Exceptional performance
Table 21
Special Education Teaching Event in Moderate/Severe Disabilities
Traditional and ACT-R
Spring 2014
Mean
N
(Task1) Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject
Matter Knowledge for Student Learning
3.33
6
(Task 2) Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing
Learning Experiences for Students
3.5
6
(Task 3) Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing
Learning Experiences for Students
3.5
6
(Task 4) Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in
Learning
3.1
6
3.2
6
3.67
6
Domain
(Task 5) Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning
(Task 6) Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
12
Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Student teaching evaluations are completed for candidates in all
three pathways (traditional, ACT, Intern) by the university supervisor and the on-site supervisor.
Only the university supervisor completes an evaluation for interns.
The Special Education Teaching Event in Deaf and Hard of Hearing assesses candidates’
performance in planning, implementing and assessing instruction. Teaching Events are rated
using a 4-point scale: Level 1 (Does Not Meet Expectations) Level 2 (Approximates
Expectations) Level 3 (Meets Expectations) and Level 4 (Exceeds Expectations). Data are
reported by CSTP Domain for traditional and ACT-R candidates.
Table 22
Deaf and Hard of Hearing: Student Teaching Evaluation – Traditional, ACT-R, Intern
Fall 2013 and Spring 2014
Domain
Fall 2013
University
On-site
Supervisor
Supervisor
Spring 2014
University
On-site
Supervisor
Supervisor
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
2.7
1
2.8
1
3.35
6
3.62
5
3.0
1
3.4
1
3.37
6
3.52
5
Engaging and Support Students
3.07
1
3.07
1
3.45
6
3.47
5
Planning Instruction and Designing
Learning Experiences
3.17
1
3.33
1
3.46
6
3.56
5
Creating and Maintaining Effective
Environments
3.2
1
3.5
1
3.52
6
3.47
5
3.08
1
3.77
1
3.69
6
3.66
5
Making Subject Matter
Comprehensible
Assessing Student Learning
Developing as a Professional
Educator
Notes: 1=Inconsistent practice, 2=Developing practice, 3=Performs as expected, 4=Exceptional performance
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
13
Table 23
Special Education Teaching Event in Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Spring 2014
Domain
Mean
N
(Task1) Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject
Matter Knowledge for Student Learning
3.1
5
(Task 2) Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing
Learning Experiences for Students
3.1
5
(Task 3) Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in
Learning
3.12
5
3
5
3.3
5
3.8
5
(Task 4) Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning
(Task 5) Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An Effective
Environment for Students
(Task 6) Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator
Early Childhood Special Education. Student teaching evaluations are completed for
candidates by the university supervisor in all three pathways (traditional, intern and ACT-R) and
in two pathways (traditional and ACT-R) by the on-site supervisor. Only the university
supervisor evaluates interns.
The Special Education Teaching Event in Early Childhood Special Education assesses
candidates’ performance in planning, implementing and assessing instruction. Teaching Events
are rated using a 4-point scale: Level 1 (Does Not Meet Expectations) Level 2 (Approximates
Expectations) Level 3 (Meets Expectations) and Level 4 (Exceeds Expectations). Data are
reported by CSTP Domain for traditional and ITEP, ACT and ACT-R candidates
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
14
Table 24
ECSE: Preschool/Pre-Kindergarten Traditional, ACT-R, Intern
Fall 2013 and Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Domain
University Supervisor
On-site supervisor
Mean
N
Mean
N
3.4
8
3.6
7
Domain 2: Creating and
Maintaining An Effective
Environment for Students
3.29
8
3.5
7
Domain 3: Understanding and
Organizing Subject Matter
Knowledge for Student Learning
3.29
8
3.57
7
Domain 4: Planning Instruction and
Designing Learning Experiences for
Students
3.29
8
3.48
7
Domain 5: Assessing Student
Learning
3.1
8
3.3
7
Domain 6: Developing as a
Professional Educator
3.3
8
3.6
7
Domain 1: Engaging and
Supporting All Students in Learning
Table 25
Special Education Teaching Event in Early Childhood Special Education
Spring 2014
Domain
Mean
N
(Task1) Domain 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject
Matter Knowledge for Student Learning
3.41
9
(Task 2) Domain 4: Planning Instruction and Designing
Learning Experiences for Students
3.31
9
(Task 3) Domain 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in
Learning
3.14
9
3.2
9
(Task 5) Domain 2: Creating and Maintaining An Effective
Environment for Students
3.67
9
(Task 6) Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator
3.56
9
(Task 4) Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
15
Added Authorizations. The Department of Special Education at CSUN offers three added
authorization: Autism Spectrum Disorders, Emotional Disturbance, and Resource Specialist.
Pilot data from a group of students completing the Autism Spectrum Disorder Added
Authorization (ASDAA) are in the following table. Candidates rates their knowledge of
evidence-based practices on a four-point scale: Not Knowledgeable (1); Somewhat
Knowledgeable (2); Adequately Knowledge (3); and Very Knowledgeable (4). Candidates also
rate the extent to which they are prepared to apply evidence based practices on a four point scale:
Not Prepared (1); Somewhat Prepared (2); Adequately Prepared (3); and Very Prepared (4).
Surveys developed for candidates completing the Added Authorizations, appearing in Appendix
A.
Table 26
Autism Spectrum Disorders Added Authorization
Summer 2014
To what extent are you knowledgeable about evidence-based practices in
teaching students with autism spectrum disorders:
Mean
Number
Evidence-based practices
Antecedent-based interventions
Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS)
Visual supports
Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA)
Social skills instruction
Transition support
Discrete trial training (DTT)
Peer-mediated instruction
Social Narratives
Computer aided instruction
Pivotal Response Training
Structured Teaching (TEACCH)
3.0
3.2
3.2
3
3.2
2.8
3.2
3
3.2
3
3.2
3.2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
3.2
3.2
3.0
3.2
6
6
6
6
3.4
6
To what extent are you prepared to:
Application of evidence based practices
Identify the characteristics of learners with ASD
Deliver social skills lesson to students with ASD
Develop a transition plan for students with ASD
Implement a variety of evidence-based instructional
practices for a learners with ASD
Collaborate with other service providers and families
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
16
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Part III: Analyses and Discussion of Candidate and Program Data
Part IV: Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
Candidate and program assessment continue to be an integral part of faculty work, facilitating
the analysis of program effectiveness and informing program practices. As discussed more
thoroughly in the 2011-2013 Biennial Report assessment activities are systematically embedded
in department activities and are routinely examined at the specialization and department levels.
Assessment results are shared with part-time faculty and at Community Advisory Committee
meetings. The following findings are noted for the 2013-2014 academic year.
Candidate Competence
Recruitment of highly qualified candidates:
Admission data indicate that a majority of candidates have strong undergraduate GPAs (over 3.0)
and meet subject matter and basic skills requirements unless accepted under exceptional
admission, allowed for 15% of applicants. Admission numbers and the percentage of candidates
from diverse backgrounds have remained consistent since 2012-2013 with an increase since the
last reporting period--40% (2009-2011), 46% (2011-2013), 47% (2013-2014).
Grant supported recruitment efforts discussed in the 2011-2013 report continued throughout the
2013-2014 academic year. In addition a special education undergraduate course, SPED 200SL
Introduction to Disability Studies was approved at the Department, College and University level
to satisfy GE requirements. It is anticipated that this course will serve to recruit teacher
candidates into the profession.
Candidate performance:
Data on the performance of candidates is strong at Transition Point 2 (entry to student teaching).
Overall university supervisors’ ratings represent developing to maturing practice, very
appropriate for candidates in early fieldwork. Ratings for Transition Point 3 are higher than
Transition Point 2 primarily indicating “maturing practice” for traditional, ITEP, and ACT-ACTR candidates, and third and fourth semester interns. Although ratings from cooperating/on-site
supervisors remain consistently higher than ratings from the university supervisor, there is
reasonable consistency between the two. The Department continues its major effort to
to strengthen work with cooperating teachers, including a more standardized selection process
and on-going professional development.
As noted previously data from our portfolio assessments had limited variability and lacked
authenticity. To address this concern faculty developed a Special Education Teaching Event,
adopted from the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). As reported the
Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate Disabilities was piloted in the traditional
and ACT programs in spring 2013, with the process including multiple meetings for the purpose
of calibrating raters. This year data were collected from the Special Education Teaching Event in
Mild/Moderate Disabilities, Moderate/Severe Disabilities, Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and Early
Childhood Special Education. The range of scores reported suggests that the Special Education
Teaching Event has the potential to discriminate performance among candidates and to inform
program practices across all specializations.
As noted previously the integrity of the student teaching evaluation instrument was questionable,
in Mild/Moderate Disabilities, where traditionally there are multiple part-time supervisors. In
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
17
particular ratings tended to exceed those in the other specializations. As shown in this report,
using the revised evaluation measure and rubric, ratings are more consistent with the other
specializations and align with the Special Education Teaching Event in Mild/Moderate
Disabilities.
Program Effectiveness
Efforts to document program efficacy focus on evaluation of Added Authorizations. Surveys for
each Added Authorization were developed and piloted with candidates completing the Autism
Spectrum Disorder program. Data, from this limited sample suggest, that completers felt
adequately to very knowledgeable in all areas, except transition support (2.8) and least prepared
to develop a transition plan (3.0). This provides a clear focus for program development.
Procedures to promote full participation in surveys will be initiated with surveys administered to
all completers in the Emotional Disturbance, Resource Specialist and Autism Spectrum Disorder
Added Authorization programs.
When available CSU exit and follow-up surveys will be examined. These provide valuable
information on candidates’ and employers’ perceptions of the preparation program.
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
18
APPENDIX A
SURVEYS FOR ADDED AUTHORIZATIONS
Autism Spectrum Disorders
Emotional Disturbance
Resource Specialist
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
19
AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS ADDED AUTHORIZATION SURVEY
Name:
Date:
Preliminary Education Specialist Credential Program:
1. To what extent are you knowledgeable about evidence-based practices in teaching
students with autism spectrum disorders:
Not
Somewhat
Adequately
Very
Evidence-based practices
Antecedent-based interventions
Picture Exchange Communication
System (PECS)
Visual supports
Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA)
Social skills instruction
Transition support
Discrete trial training (DTT)
Peer-mediated instruction
Social Narratives
Computer aided instruction
Pivotal Response Training
Structured Teaching (TEACCH)
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2. To what extent are you prepared to:
Application of evidence based
practices
Identify the characteristics of learners with ASD
Deliver social skills lesson to students with ASD
Develop a transition plan for students with ASD
Implement a variety of evidence-based
instructional practices for a learners with ASD
Collaborate with other service providers and
families
Not
Prepared
Somewhat
Prepared
Adequately
Prepared
Very
Prepared
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
3. List three evidence-based practices you learned in the Added Autism program that you
will apply in your teaching.
4. What suggestions do you have to improve the Added Autism Authorization program?
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
20
EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE ADDED AUTHORIZATION SURVEY
Date:
Preliminary Education Specialist Credential Program:
1. To what extent are you knowledgeable about:
Not
Knowledgeable
Somewhat
Knowledgeable
Adequately
Knowledgeable
Very
Knowledgeable
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Definitions and characteristics of
Emotional Disturbance
Causes of Emotional Disturbance
Models of Emotional Disturbance
Evidence-based instructional
application of models of ED
Multi-tiered models of behavior
support
Social-communication skills in
students with ED
Community resources and other
service providers for students
with ED
2. To what extent are you prepared to:
Identify the characteristics of students with ED
Use assessment data to design curriculum for
students with ED
Deliver evidence-based and effective instruction
to students with ED
Design a behavior support plan and/or promote
positive/pro-social behavior
Collaborate with other service providers and
families
Not
Prepared
Somewhat
Prepared
Adequately
Prepared
Very
Prepared
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
Use of Assessment Data to Design Curriculum for Students with Emotional Disturbance
Use assessment data to design a behavior support plan
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
21
RESOURCE SPECIALIST ADDED AUTHORIZATION SURVEY
Date:
Preliminary Education Specialist Credential Program:
1. To what extent are you knowledgeable about:
Characteristics of students served
by RSP
Assessment and evaluation of
students served by RSP
Planning and implementing core
curriculum and instruction to
students served by RSP
Specific instructional strategies
appropriate for students served by
RSP
Positive behavior support for
students served by RSP
Transition and transition planning
for students served by RSP
Strategies for collaborating with
other service providers and
families
Not
Knowledgeable
Somewhat
Knowledgeable
Adequately
Knowledgeable
Very
Knowledgeable
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2. To what extent are you prepared to:
Assess students served by RSP
Plan and implement core curriculum and
instruction to students served by RSP
Plan and implement specific instructional
strategies appropriate for students served by RSP
Provide positive behavior support for students
served by RSP
Engage in transition and transition planning for
students served by RSP
Collaborate with other service providers and
families
Not
Prepared
Somewhat
Prepared
Adequately
Prepared
Very
Prepared
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
3. What suggestions do you have to improve the Resource Specialist Added Authorization
program?
SPED CSUN Biennial Report Addendum – August 2014
22