Murray State University s12

Murray State University COURSE SYLLABUS Revised Spring 2011

DEPARTMENT: ACS COURSE NUMBER: SED 407 CREDIT HOURS: 3

I. TITLE: Transdisciplinary Assessment of Individuals with Moderate/Severe Disabilities

II. COURSE DESCRIPTION: This course involves procedures for assessment of the behavioral and educational performance of individuals with moderate to severe disabilities including task analysis, sequencing, behavioral skills and designing individual instructional programs. Students will be provided with experience in conducting assessments, developing individual education plans and use of program evaluation techniques related to individuals with moderate to severe disabilities.

III. PURPOSE: This course is designed to develop competencies in assessment and educational programming including collecting, classifying, analyzing, interpreting, and reporting assessment data for individuals with moderate to severe disabilities and the development of appropriate IEPs.

IV. COURSE OBJECTIVES: Class activities will be centered on the attainment of the course objectives listed below. These objectives are understood to be reflective of, but not limited to those behaviors advocated by the Kentucky Education Reform Act guidelines and initiatives. Following each objective, and enclosed in parentheses, are numbers which reference the Kentucky Teachers Standards (KTS) addressed by that objective. Upon successful completion of this class, the student will be able to: A. Discuss federal and state requirements governing the assessment of individual’s with moderate to severe disabilities including due process procedures and requirements. (KTS #1, 5) B. Analyze the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System and alternative portfolio assessment for individuals with moderate to severe disabilities. (KTS #1, 5) C. Compare assessment strategies including direct observation, interviews, norm-referenced, criterion referenced, and curriculum-referenced testing in relation to developing performance based, functional, and activity based programming. (KTS #1, 5) D. Summarize assessment data for the purpose of developing an individualized education program for students with moderate to severe disabilities which facilitate performance-based, functional and activity based programming (KTS #1, 5) E. Differentiate assessment for the following: screening, diagnosis and placement, instructional planning, measuring student progress, and program evaluation. (KTS #1, 5) F. Administer, score, and interpret results of assessment instruments appropriate for use with individuals with moderate to severe disabilities. (KTS #1, 5) G. Demonstrate knowledge of reliability, validity, norms, scales of measurement, and quantification of test performance including statistical concepts related to assessment. (KTS #1, 5) H. Discuss the use of task analysis for assessment purpose. (KTS #1, 5) I. Discuss factors related to cultural background which can affect assessment of individuals and their families. (KTS #1, 5, 8) J. Demonstrate the use of microcomputers and related technology in assessment. (KTS #6) K. Conduct assessments of the environment, including the use of ecological inventories and curriculum catalogs to develop critical activities in various domains, e.g., domestic, community, recreation/leisure, and vocational. (KTS #1, 5) L. Develop and adapt alternative, performance based assessments, including portfolio assessment. (KTS #1, 5) M. Compare various team models for assessment and instruction. (KTS #1, 5)

The COE Theme of Educator as Reflective Decision Maker is addressed in this course by requiring students to reflect through the course activities of reaction papers, assessment reports, and programming for student IEPs.

The EPSB Themes of Assessment and Closing the Achievement Gap are explored in the course through various chapters within the text such as ecological assessment, person- centered planning, adapting standards-based curriculum, and alternate assessment.

V. CONTENT OUTLINE: A. Purpose of Assessment B. Interpretation of standardized measures C. Cautions in test interpretation D. Observations and behavioral recordings E. Performance assessment F. Task analysis G. Criterion-referenced assessment H. Curriculum-based assessment I. Classroom based assessment J. Ecological assessment K. Alternate assessment L. Communicating assessment results M. Collaborating with families

VI. INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES A. Lectures and discussion B. Small group discussion C. Cooperative group activities D. Reading material E. Quizzes F. Written assignments G. Individual and group presentations H. Research assignments I. Exams

VII. FIELD, CLINICAL, AND/OR LABORATORY EXPERIENCES: None

VIII. RESOURCES: A. Waterfield Library B. Blackboard C. Self-selected books and articles D. RACERTrack, ERIC, and the Internet E. Professional publications

IX. GRADING PROCEDURES: A. Course Requirements Terminology Project 50 pts Standardized Test Description 50 pts 2 Journal article summaries 50 pts = 2 @ 25 pts Program Planning Assessment 100 pts Quizzes 50 pts = 5 @ 10 pts Assessment Development Project 100 pts B. Grading Scale A = 100-90% B = 89-80% C = 79-70% D = 69-60% E = Below 60% * Any student with special learning needs should contact the instructor. Any student not progressing well in the course should contact the professor for an appointment to discuss how to improve understanding.

X. ATTENDANCE POLICY: This course adheres to the academic policy in the current MSU Undergraduate Bulletin.

XI. ACADEMIC HONESTY POLICY: This course adheres to the academic honesty policy stated in the current MSU Undergraduate Bulletin.

XII. TEXT AND REFERENCES: Browder, D.M. (2001). Curriculum and assessment for students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Other readings as assigned by instructor.

XIII. PREREQUISITE: None. XIV. NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY STATEMENT: Murray State University endorses the intent of all federal and state laws created to prohibit discrimination. Murray State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, veteran status, or disability in employment, admissions, or other provision of services and provides, upon request, reasonable accommodation including auxiliary aids and services necessary to afford individuals with disabilities equal access to participate in all programs and activities. For more information, contact Director of Equal Opportunity, Murray State University, 103 Wells Hall, Murray, KY 42071-3318. Telephone: 270-809-3155 (voice), 270-809-3361 (TDD).

XV. FLAG SYSTEM/CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT: Student progress is continuously assessed throughout the teacher preparation program. Appropriate professional characteristics and dispositions, in addition to academic achievement, are assessed. Positive and negative flags are submitted by faculty to Teacher Education Services and then presented to admissions committees. Negative flags are carefully reviewed to make a determination as to whether a student should be denied admission OR if a professional development plan will be designed for the student’s progress towards program completion. NEGATIVE FLAGS MAY BE GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF ADMISSION TO TEACHER EDUCATION AND/OR STUDENT TEACHING. SED 407 Tentative Course Schedule

DA TOPIC READING ASSIGNMENT TE 1/12 Course Overview and Introduction 1/19 Defining assessment Wolf-Schein (1998) DUE: Bring in listing of Assessment and evaluation all the standardized practices required by IDEA assessments used with moderate to severe students in your district 1/26 Interpretation of standardized Quiz 1 measures 2/2 Curriculum & Meaningful Browder Chapter 1 & 2 Article 1 Assessment Brown, Snell, & Lehr Chapter Choose a standardized Ezell, Klein, Ezell- test to review Powell (1999) 2/9 Alternate Assessment & Browder Chapter 3 & 4 DUE: Terminology Types of Assessment Pike & Salend (1995) Project Pemberton (2003) Gelfer & Perkins (1998) Siegel-Causey & Allinder (1998) 2/16 Person-Centered & Family- Browder Chapter 5 Centered Planning 2/23 Planning and Instruction Browder Chapter 6 DUE: Standardized Test Description & Presentations 3/02 Assessing academic skills Browder Chapter 7 & Quiz 2 8 ; Jones (2001) Jones (2001) Salend (1998) 3/09 Assessing Communication & Browder Chapter 11 Article 2 Social Skills McConnell (1999) Condon & Tobin (2001) 3/16 Assessing Home & Browder Chapter 10 Quiz 3 Personnel Skills 3/23 SPRING BREAK 3/30 Assessing Home & Browder Chapter 10 Quiz 3 Personnel Skills 4/6 Assessing Vocational Skills Browder Chapter 13 Quiz 4 Assessing Community Skills Browder Chapter 9 4/13 Planning for Inclusion Browder Chapter 12 DUE: Program Planning Whittaker, Salend, & Assessment Duhaney (2001) Hall & Salmon (2003) Jackson & Larkin (2002); Salend & Duhaney (2002) 4/20 Planning for Transition Demchak & Greenfield Quiz 5 (2000) 4/27 Presentations DUE: Assessment Development & Presentations

Additional Readings:

Brown, F., Snell, M. E., & Lehr, D. Meaningful assessment. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of Students with Severe Disabilities (pp. 67-110).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Condon, K. A., & Tobin, T. J. (2001). Using electronic and other new ways to help students improve their behavior: Functional behavioral assessment at work. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 44-51. Ezell, D., Klien, C. E., & Ezell-Powell, S. (1999). Empowering students with mental retardation through portfolio assessment: A tool for fostering self-determination skills, Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, 453-463. Demchak, M. & Greenfield, R. G. (2000). A transition portfolio for Jeff, a student with multiple disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32, 44-49. Gelfer, J. I., & Perkins, P. G. (1998). Portfolios: Focus on young children. Teaching Exceptional Children, Nov/Dec, 44-47. Hall, E. W., & Salmon, S. J. (2003). Chocolate chip cookies and rubrics. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35, 8-11. Jackson, C. W., & Larkin, M. J. (2002). Rubric: Teaching students to use grading rubrics. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35, 40-45. Jones, C. J. (2001). Teacher-friendly curriculum-based assessment in spelling. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 32-38. Jones, C. J. (2001). CBAs that work: Assessing students’ math content-reading levels. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 24-28. Kleinert, H., Green, P, Hurte, M., Clayton, J., & Oetinger, C. (2002). Creating and using meaningful alternate assessment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 40-47. McConnell, M. E. (1999). Self-monitoring, cueing, recording, and managing: Teaching Students to manage their own behavior. Teaching Exceptional Children, Nov/Dec, 14-21. Pemberton, J. B. (2003). Communicating academic progress as an integral part of assessment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35, 16-20. Pike, K., & Salend, S. (1995). Authentic assessment strategies: Alternatives to norm- referenced testing. Teaching Exceptional Children, Fall, 15-20. Salend, S. J., & Duhaney, L. M. G. (2002). Grading students in inclusive settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 8-15. Salend, S. J. (1998). Using portfolios to assess student performance. Teaching Exceptional Children, Nov/Dec, 36-43. Siegel-Causey, E., & Allinder, R. M. (1998). Using alternative assessment for students with severe disabilities: Alignment with best practices. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 168-178. Whittaker, C. R., Salend, S. J., & Duhaney, D. (2001). Creating instructional rubrics for inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 8-13. Wolf-Schien, E. G. (1998). Considerations in assessment of children with severe disabilities including deaf-blindness and autism. International Journal of Disability, Development, 45, 35-55.

Assignment Descriptions SED 407

1. Journal article summaries - (25 pts. each for total of 50 pts) Critique two (2) peer reviewed research articles. All articles must be research based and relate to the field of assessment of students with multiple/severe disabilities. Articles must not be older than five years. A separate handout with more information will be distributed during class. As Scheduled – February 2 and March 9, 2010 2. Terminology project – (50 pts) Students will be given a list of terms used to describe how students perform on standardized tests. You must define these terms in your own words in parent-friendly language. You will include a list of the resources you consulted to develop an understanding of these terms formatted in APA style. Guidelines and the list of terms will be distributed in class. DUE: February 9, 2010 3. Quizzes - Quizzes (As scheduled) – (50 pts) A total of 5 quizzes will be administered. The quizzes will occur at the beginning of the class period and will be based on class readings, lectures, and discussions. They will consist of multiple- choice, true-false, and short essay questions. No make-ups will be allowed. Each quiz will be worth 10 points. As Scheduled 4. Standardized test description – (50 pts) You will provide at least 5 standardized diagnostic assessment instruments which have been used with students with multiple/severe disabilities in your district. You will choose one instrument to review. You will need to do outside research on our instrument using credible sources. Guidelines will be distributed concerning format of this assignment in class. You will present the information to the class. DUE: February 23, 2010. 5. Program Planning Assessment – (100 pts) You will conduct a multi-step comprehensive assessment and produce a professional assessment report based on your results. This project will require considerable time for a number of days. All relevant curricular areas should be addressed. This includes (a) motor, (b) self-care, (c) communication, (d) academics, (e) independent living skills, (f) community, (g) recreation/leisure, and (h) vocational/prevocational skills. Guidelines for this assignment will be distributed in class. DUE: April 13, 2010. 6. Assessment development project – (100 pts) You will develop a criterion-referenced assessment that would be suitable for the age, grade, subject area, and ability levels of your ideal student. You will need to turn in this assessment instrument in “camera ready’ form. You will decide on a scoring system – checklist, rating scale, rubric – appropriate for your instrument and incorporate it. You will showcase your assessment instrument along with the results for your student in a presentation to the class. Guidelines will be distributed in class. DUE: April 27, 2010.