PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PLAN - Washburn University · 2020-03-23 · PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PLAN ~ 2013-14 through 2018-19 This document only needs to be updated when changes are made. Assessment

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PLAN ~ 2013-14 through 2018-19 This document only needs to be updated when changes are made.

Assessment Plan APPROVED 11-20-13 Page 1 Education/MED/Special Education Modified 1-14-14

DEPARTMENT or UNIT EDUCATION

Degree/Program Master of Education/Special Education (K-6 & 6-12)

Date Prepared April 17, 2014

PROGRAM MISSION Cell will expand to accommodate text.

The Department of Education is committed to preparing educators to work in rural, suburban, and

urban settings, and to educating leaders and professional specialty practitioners for leadership

roles in schools and other community settings.

Conceptual Framework:

The Department of Education has six separate, yet strongly interdependent, Dimensions of

Reflection that influence the education and development of educators at all levels of

professional practice. This conceptual framework is embedded into all levels of the program and

affects all candidates completing our program. Please note that these 6 Dimensions of Reflection

are very consistent with the SLO’s identified below.

Reflection on Self as an Emerging, Developing, and Maturing Professional

Reflection on the Context of Teaching and Learning

Reflection on Student Diversity

Reflection on Content

Reflection on Methods and Materials

Reflection on Assessment as a Process for Change

PROGRAM STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES (PSLO) If the program has more than 6 PSLO, hit “Tab” in the last cell to add another row. Cells will expand to

accommodate text.

Upon completion of the program students will be able to:

Note to Readers: The SLO’s associated with the Adaptive Special Education program are directly aligned to

the Kansas State Department of Education’s requirements for teacher licensure in Special Education. The

wording of the SLO’s has been taken directly from the state. Each of the eight broad standards has specific

knowledge and performance indicators that candidates must demonstrate (140 total). These standards are

expected of all special education teachers in the state. Our licensure program, which is approved by the

state, focuses on these eight standards.

PSLO 1

The teacher of students with adaptive learning needs demonstrates an

understanding of philosophical, historical, and legal foundations of education and

special education.

PSLO 2

The teacher of students with adaptive learning needs demonstrates an

understanding of learners' diversity and provides support for students' cognitive,

physical, social, emotional and career development.

PSLO 3 The teacher of students with adaptive special education needs demonstrates

assessment, diagnosis, and evaluation knowledge and skills.

PSLO 4

The teacher of students with adaptive learning needs demonstrates knowledge and

skill in planning and implementing effective instruction based upon knowledge of

the subject matter, student, community, and curriculum goals.

PSLO 5

The teacher of students with adaptive learning needs promotes learning by

providing planned, orderly, supportive environments that encourage participation

of individuals with adaptive learning needs.



PSLO 6

The teacher of students with adaptive learning needs demonstrates knowledge and

skill in managing behavior, facilitating problem-solving, developing social skills and

promoting self-advocacy of students with adaptive learning needs.

PSLO 7

The teacher of students with adaptive learning needs demonstrates effective

communication and collaboration skills and knowledge related to individuals with

adaptive learning needs

PSLO 8 The teacher of students with adaptive learning needs demonstrates professionalism

and ethical knowledge and skills related to students with adaptive learning needs.

ASSESSMENT PLANNING CALENDAR Indicate (mark with an X) the years in which each PSLO was/will be analyzed and reported.

Cycle will repeat after Year 6.

If the program has more than 6 PSLO, “Copy and Paste” rows from this table below the existing table,

beginning with the row numbering the PSLO.

PSLO 1 PSLO 2 PSLO 3 PSLO 4 PSLO 5 PSLO 6

Year 1/2013-14 X X X X X X

Year 2/2014-15

Year 3/2015-16

Year 4/2016-17

Year 5/2017-18

Year 6/2018-19

ASSESSMENT MEASURES (Method) Indicate (mark with an X) the type of assessment used to evaluate each PSLO. Check as many

boxes as apply.



PSLO 1 PSLO 2 PSLO 3 PSLO 4 PSLO 5 PSLO 6

DIRECT

Portfolio

Performance Assessment (Art, Music,

Theatre, etc.)

Performance Assessment (Off

campus experience – Clinical,

Internship, Practicum, etc.)

Practicum I and II

X X X X X X

Professional Credentialing Exam

Major Field Test or National Exam Required Content Test:

Content test required for licensure X X X X X X

Course Embedded Assignments Program Model (SE 520/522)

SE 530/532 Case Study

SE 540 Management project

X X X

Project Evaluation (e.g. research)

Course Grades X X X X X X



Grades are reviewed at least annually for

SE 510, SE 530, SE 520, SE 535, SE 540 and SE

560

Other

INDIRECT

Surveys

Exit Interviews/Focus Groups

Other

PSLO 7 PSLO 8

DIRECT

Portfolio X X

Performance Assessment (Art, Music,

Theatre, etc.)

Performance Assessment (Off

campus experience – Clinical,

Internship, Practicum, etc.)

Practicum I and II

X X

Professional Credentialing Exam

Major Field Test or National Exam Required Content Test

X X

Course Embedded Assignments:

Program Model (SE 520/522)

Behavior Management project SE 540

Case Study SE 530

Project Evaluation (e.g. research)

Course Grades – Grades are

reviewed at least annually for SE 510,

SE 530, SE 520, SE 535, SE 540 and SE

560

X X

Other

INDIRECT

Exit Interviews/Focus Groups

Other

Surveys



CURRICULUM MAP (Alignment) List all courses required for program majors and indicate, where applicable, (using the following

key) the PSLO with which they are associated.

T = Taught Only

X = Taught and Assessed

A = Assessed Only



Required

Courses PSLO 1 PSLO 2 PSLO 3 PSLO 4 PSLO 5 PSLO 6

SE 510 X X T

SE 520/522 X T T X X

SE 530/532 X

SE 540 X X X T X

SE 560 X X

SE 580

SE 557/559 X X X X X X

Required

Courses PSLO 7 PSLO 8

SE 580

SE 535

SE 540

X T

T

DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS CALENDAR Indicate how often assessment data are collected and analyzed for each PSLO.

Y=every year, S=every semester, 2=every other year, 3=every 3 years, (etc.), O-Other (please

explain) If the program has more than 6 PSLO, hit “Tab” in the last cell to add another row.

Program Student

Learning

Outcomes

Frequency of

Data Collection

Frequency of Data

Analysis

Threshold of Measure (ex: 75% of

students will receive B or better) – see

Assessment Plan Guide for additional

instructions

PSLO 1 S Y At least Target level on dept. rubric








Candidates complete two practicum experiences. Practicum I is completed at the beginning of

the program and Practicum II is completed at the end of the program. At each level evaluations

are completed by a university supervisor and a field-based evaluator (a cooperating teacher or

principal) to help ensure that observations are reliable. The evaluation forms are aligned with the



8 special education licensure standards (validity). The Lesson Presentation Feedback form, used

for practicum evaluations, is aligned with the 8 special education standards and reliability

between university supervisors and field-based evaluators has been above 80%.

ASSESSMENT PLAN DESCRIPTION Describe how faculty are involved in the development, implementation and periodic review and

improvement per the assessment plan review cycle.

Cell will expand to accommodate text.

The Department has an assessment director who monitors the overall assessment system. The

department holds two assessment retreats each year (August & January) to review data on our

entire assessment system. Minutes of these meetings are available. We monitor candidate

progress through the program, program assessments and unit assessments. The program is

nationally accredited through CAEP and one of the standards is in regards to assessment. We are

required to maintain an assessment system that is complete, reliable, and is monitored and

reviewed frequently. We maintain and assessment calendar which identifies when each of the

assessments is conducted and reviewed. Data on candidate progress is also monitored by the

Department’s Graduate Program committee which meets regularly during the year.

Candidates in all graduate programs in the Department of Education go through a three-phase

assessment system. Phases I and II are formative stages. Data on each phase is reviewed at least

annually by the department graduate program committee and faculty responsible for this

program (Dye & Rettig). Data is collected regularly and stored in the shared ‘S’ drive. The

department has also developed a KSDE Data Analysis Template which provides a framework for

assessing each of the standards and assessments each year (see below).

KSDE allows units to have 6-8 assessments associated with the licensure standards. We regularly

collect data on content test scores, course grades in six specific special education courses,

practicum evaluations, and projects in SE 520/522, SE 530/532, and SE 540. Data on these six

assessments is reviewed by department special education faculty each year.

Assessment Phases for Candidates in Advanced Programs

Program

Phase I

Admissions

Phase II

Professional

Development

(formative)

Phase III

Program Completion

and Follow-up

Reading Specialist Last 60 hrs GPA

ED Dept. Written

Admissions Test – 17

(or MAT/GRE scores)

Monitor course grades

and dispositions

Program GPA 3.0

Capstone

Performance

3.0 overall

Practicum Evaluation

– Target overall

Content Test

Program Completer

Follow-up Survey

Internship Evaluation

Adaptive Special

Education

K-6

6-12

Last 60 hrs GPA

ED Dept. Written


(or MAT/GRE scores).


and dispositions

Program GPA 3.0

Capstone

Performance

Practicum II



Evaluation

Grad Dispositions

Content Test

Program Completer

Follow-up Survey

Building Level

District Level

Last 60 hrs GPA

ED Dept. Written


(or MAT/GRE scores)

Completion of

Building level program


and dispositions


and dispositions

Program GPA 3.0

Capstone

Performance 3.0

overall

Content Test

Program Completer

Follow-up Survey

Program GPA 3.0

Curriculum &

Instruction

Technology

Literacy

Last 60 hrs GPA

ED Dept. Written


(or MAT/GRE scores)


and dispositions

Phases I and II are considered formative assessment phases. Phase II focuses on course work,

grades and projects.

KSDE Data Analysis Template

Program: Adaptive Special Education. K-6 & 6-12 Date: January 16, 2014 Assessment

Data Review for 2013

Completed by: G Dye & M Rettig

Please complete the following information for the appropriate number of assessments for which

data is being collected, analyzed, and used for program improvements.

Assessment 1a: Praxis II: Content Test Scores 2013 for Adaptive Special Education

Criterion for successful completion of assessment #1 is 80%.

Data Overview Program Implications Continuous Assessment and

Program Improvements

100% Pass Rate for the

4 Students in the K-6, 6-12

Programs who completed the

Kansas Content test in

Adaptive Special Education in

2012-2013

These scores indicate that

these candidates have a

sound base of knowledge and

experience.

Continue to monitor test

scores to assure successful

pass rates.

Assessment 2: Program Models from SE 520 & 522 Educational Plan Course for 2012

Criterion for successful completion of assessment #2 is Target.





K-6 Program

Two candidates completed,

one Target and one

developing, one A and one B.

6-12 Program

Four candidates completed.

One advanced, one Target

and two Developing. – Two

A’s and two B’s.

These scores indicate that the

students in the adaptive

special ed program are

meeting the standards for

assessment 2 which have

been set forth for them by the

state, the program and the

professors.

Continue to monitor test

scores to assure successful

pass rates.

Assessment 3: Practicum (SE 556 & SE 558 Practicum I, and SE 557 & SE 559 Practicum II: )




SE 556- Practicum I Summer

1 of the 2 students completing

practicum I earned a high

developing in all 5 areas

except assessment, where a

target was earned.


practicum I earned a high

developing in 5 of the 5 areas

(5 areas include plan/prepare

for instruction; presentation of

instruction; communication

skills; management of

behavior & class; assessment

& evaluation)

Dispositions

2 of 2 students earned an

overall target on each of the

disposition elements.

SE 558 Practicum I Summer &

Fall


practicum I earned a target in

each of the 5 areas required.

1 of the 5 students earned a

target in all areas except

planning where he earned a

high developing.


target in 3 of the 5 areas and

a high developing in the other

2 areas (presentation &

communication)

Generally, students are

achieving at the target levels

in the practicum experiences.

The students who were at the

developing areas will have

opportunities to work on these

areas during their practicum II

experiences. The areas where

the students earned high

developing scores, we will be

sure to examine their abilities

as they complete their

practicum II experience.

Practicum is a practical

application of their

knowledge and work with

students with disabilities. This

demonstrates that students in

the adaptive special

education program have an

understanding of the

knowledge and how to apply

the knowledge to their

teaching.

We will continue to examine

data and monitor student

performance to assure a

target level is achieved or a

plan is developed for those

who do not meet this level.




target in 2 of the 5 areas and

a high developing in the other

3 areas (presentation,

communication,

management)

Dispositions

5 of the 5 students earned an

overall target on each of the

disposition elements. Notations

on one student indicate

concerns with maturity,

communication, and

interpersonal skills.

Opportunities for improvement

will be noted during SE 535

(spring 2014 & also will occur

for this student during

practicum II.

SE 557 Practicum II

Five candidates enrolled in

2013. Three have completed

at the Target level (26, 26 &

24)

Dispositions

Information obtained on only

one candidate thus far –

scored at the advanced level.

SE 559 Practicum II

The one student who

completed practicum II during

2013 earned a developing in 4

of the 8 areas. I will review her

abilities during her Capstone

to determine if target has

been met in those 5 areas.

Dispositions G Check on this

The one student who

completed practicum II during

2013 earned an overall target

level on the dispositions. A

concern still remains in her

ability to effectively

communicate.



OVERALL Practicum

Criterion met or nearly met

(with high developing) for

most practicum students in

2013. For those w/ high

developing or developing

scores in practicum I, an

opportunity to improve will

occur during their second

practicum.

All other students met

assessment standard #3 at the

target level.

Assessment 4: Student Learning Profile (SE 430/530/532 & SE 540)




Students overall performing at

the target levels in the Student

Learning Profiles for SE

430/530/532 and SE 540.

SE 430 Case Study

8 students earned a target

5 students earned a

developing

SE 530 Case Study

3 students earned a target.

1 student earned a

developing.

SE 532 Case Study

1 student earned a target.

1 student did not complete

the course.

SE 540

2 students in fall of 2013 – one

A and one C (advanced and

developing)

Students overall have

acquired scores in the target

level for the assessment 4

learning profile.

Continue to monitor student

performance in this learning

profile which consists of

understanding class and

student behavior

management, and

instructional methods and

overall student learning.

Assessment 5: Course Grades-Based Assessments

Criterion for successful completion of assessment #5 is Target (Grade of ‘B’ or Above)



SE 510 Problems of Youth – two

candidates in spring 2013.

Students in the Adaptive

Special Education program

have acquired target level


performance in the student’s



One advanced and one

target.

Three candidates in summer

2013, one A and two B’s.

knowledge and performance

in understanding

exceptionalities (e.g.,

characteristics, definitions,

and

understanding of

exceptionalities.

SE 502/522

K-6 Program

Two candidates completed,

one Target and one

developing, one A and one B.

6-12 Program

Four candidates completed.

One advanced, one Target

and two Developing. – Two

A’s and two B’s.





in educational planning.


performance in educational

planning.

SE 420, 530 & SE 532 Methods

19 students in this course

achieved target or above

levels in this course.

9 A’s for SE 430

4 B’s for SE 430

5 A’s for SE 530

1 B for SE 532

1 Incomplete for SE 532

All students earned scores at

the target level or above.

Students are achieving scores

at the target level or above

for elements required in the

Methods course. Students in

the Adaptive Special

Education program have

acquired target level


in methods.


performance in methods.

SE 535 Collaboration

11 students in this course

achieved target or above

levels in this course.

10A’s for students in the

Elementary Adaptive Special

Ed Program and 1 B for the

student in the Secondary

Adaptive Special Education

Program.



Course offered in even

numbered years (2012 data)

Students are achieving scores

at the advanced and target

levels for elements required in

the Collaboration course.





in collaboration, conferencing

and consultation, according

to these scores.


performance in collaboration.



SE 540 Behavior Management

2 students – one A and one C

Need to monitor performance

of one candidate


performance in classroom

and behavior management.

SE 560 & SE 562 Assessment

18 students achieved target or

above levels in this course.

SE 560

14 A’s

1 B

SE 562

2 A’s

1 B



Course offered in odd

numbered years (2013 data).

Overall students are primarily

achieving scores at the

advanced level for elements

required in the Assessment

course. Students in the

Adaptive Special Education

program have acquired

target or above level


in special education

assessment according to

these scores.


performance in assessment.

Assessment 6 Capstone Portfolio




Elementary

Three K-6 candidates

completed with scores of 24,

26 and 26.

Secondary

One student is currently

finishing the capstone

consequently, the scores have

not yet been completed.

A 24 or above is the criteria for

the target level.

These scores are completed

at the end of the program

indicating that these

candidates exit the adaptive

special education program

with a sound base of

knowledge and target level

expertise in their practical

experiences.

Continue to monitor this

assessment to assure the

adaptive special education

students are exiting their

program with a target level

performance.

This is the updated assessment

rubric which was adjusted to

address the AFI for the

program. The rubric for this

assessment identifies each of

the standards and provides a

specific score for each of the

8 areas which correlate to

each of the adaptive special

education standards.

If “areas for improvement” were indicated, please provide the following analyzes:

AFI 1-AFI 6 Capstone Portfolio

Brief Description Actions Taken Results



An AFI was noted by KSDE for

Standards 1-6.

The Special Education

Program’s Capstone Portfolio

was used by WU to explain

specific elements for each of

the KSDE assessments.

Therefore instead of 1 AFI, 6

AFI’s were noted.

Data was provided to KSDE

with overall documentation of

the capstone. Specific

Standards were embedded

within this data.

KSDE requested more clear

documentation of data per

each standard instead of an

overall score for the portfolio.

This data had been collected

but not in the manner

requested by KSDE.

A new data chart was

developed and a score for

each standard (KSDE Special

Education Standards 1-8) was

provided. See Standard 6

which details the data from

the new chart.

Brief Summary:

All K-6 and 6-12 students (N=2)

successfully completed the

capstone portfolio with a

score of Target or above.

Meeting the criterion set by

assessment 6.

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PLAN REVIEW CYCLE Indicate (mark with an X in column 2) the year(s) in which this Program Assessment Plan will be

reviewed and indicate in column 3 (when applicable) when changes are made and addressed

in the appropriate year’s annual report.

Cycle repeats after Year 6.

Program Assessment Plan Review

Were changes made and addressed in

the Annual Report? Yes or No (update

when applicable)

Year 1/2013-14 X Y

Year 2/2014-15

Year 3/2015-16

Year 4/2016-17

Year 5/2017-18

Year 6/2018-19

Documents

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PLAN - Washburn University · 2020-03-23 · PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PLAN ~ 2013-14 through 2018-19 This document only needs to be updated when changes are made. Assessment