Standard One Compendium 2 - Applications of Data Literacy

Grambling State University Standard One Compendium 2 Applications of Data Literacy Standards Alignment: CAEP RA.1: The provider ensures that candidates for professional specialties develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their field of preparation and, by completion, area able to use professional specialty practices flexibly to advance the learning of P-12 students toward attainment of college- and career- readiness standards.

CAEP RA.1.1: Applications of data literacy, use of research, and professional standards appropriate to the field of specialization CAEP RA.1.2: Providers ensure that advanced program completers have opportunities to learn and apply specialized content and discipline knowledge contained in approved state and/or national discipline specific standards How is alignment assured: The CAEP Coordinator, in consultation with Program Chairs, align the evaluation measures and assessment tasks with CAEP, SPA, InTASC, and appropriate Technology Standards. All Standards are maintained within a suite of digital assessment tools on Watermark Taskstream. A standards database is maintained by the College of Education Administrative Coordinator so that alignments can accommodate updates to standards, program competencies, courses, or assessments. The CEC Standards and International Literacy Association Standards articulate the critical concepts and principles of the field of preparation.

Evidence Overview Purpose of Assessments: These assessments are used to verify that Grambling State University candidates develop a deep understanding of research and the use of data critical to their field of specialization. These multilayered assessments provide evidence of candidate mastery on the use of research, applications of data literacy, and utilizing evidence to develop supportive school environments. The Table of Evidence below provides the information on data literacy and the use of research Specialty Program Assessment Reading Standards Alignment in relationship to CAEP A1.1: Applications of data literacy, use of research, and professional standards.

Master of Education ReadingAction Research International Literacy Association (ILA) ILA 1.1:

ILA 1.2: ILA 1.3:

Candidates understand major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development, processes, and components, including word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading-writing connections.

Candidates demonstrate knowledge of the major theoretical, conceptual, historical, and evidence-based aspects of writing development, writing processes Candidates demonstrate knowledge of theoretical, conceptual, historical, and evidencebased components of language

Grambling State University Standard One Compendium 2 Applications of Data Literacy ILA 2.1.

ILA 3.2 ILA 3.3: ILA 3.4: ILA 6.2:

Candidates use foundational knowledge to design literacy curricula to meet needs of learners, especially those who have trouble with literacy; design, implement, and evaluate small-group and individual evidence-based literacy instruction for learners; collaborate with teachers to implement effective literacy practices.

Candidates select, develop, administer, and interpret assessments, both traditional print and electronic, for specific purposes.

Candidates use assessment information to plan and evaluate instruction.

Candidates, using both written and oral communication, explain assessment results and advocate for appropriate literacy and language practices to a variety of stakeholders.

Candidates demonstrate the ability to reflect on their professional practices, disposition, belong to professional organizations, and are critical consumers of research, policy, and practice.

Reading Specialist candidates – In ED 505, Analysis of Reading Difficulties candidates explore the Teacher as Researcher. Candidates build research-based content knowledge, develop, and execute a research project for their classrooms. They determine students’ reading level through informal or formal measurements of assessment, surveys, observations, and informal and formal assessments to determine each student’s reading development. They identify both formal and informal assessments to administer to the students. Analyze results of testing and plan teaching strategies in areas of need. Candidates develop an Instructional Design. (ILA and explain the specific research-based instruction they use in the components of reading writing, and spelling). The plan's implementation represents an advanced level of performance at the Reading Specialist Level. At the end of their study, candidates present their research, implementation, findings, and recommendations to a professional group during the Spring Reading Conference. This presentation allows candidates to support their professional practice and influence others’ instruction and provides another opportunity to impact others at the level of Literacy Coach. One aspect requires a personal reflection not only on the process but also on the role teacher disposition plays in students’ achievement.

How is the evaluation used to measure candidate progress? Candidates who do not successfully demonstrate competency on the assessment by meeting the target with a score of 3.0 Effective: Proficient conference with the Course Instructor to develop strategies for improvement. Should the candidate continue to perform below the 3.0 Basic threshold, they must repeat the course. Candidates repeating the course are provided personalized support based on the identified need of the candidate to master the competencies.

The Evidence and Analysis Evidence CAEP Standard and Component: In relation to CAEP RA.1: The provider ensures that candidates for professional specialties develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their field of preparation and, by completion, area able to use professional specialty practices flexibly to advance the learning of P-12 students toward attainment of college- and career-readiness standards.

1. CAEP RA1.1: Applications of data literacy, use of research, and professional standards appropriate to the field of specialization,

Grambling State University Standard One Compendium 2 Applications of Data Literacy Master of Education: Reading ED 505 Analysis of Reading Difficulties This assignment is designed to provide classroom teachers and reading specialists with an understanding of the general and specific concepts related to spelling assessment, as well as an understanding of how to conduct in-depth diagnoses, develop strengths, and address developmental weaknesses. Spelling inventories consist of lists of words specially chosen to represent a variety of spelling features or patterns at increasing levels of difficulty. The words in spelling inventories are designed to assess students’ knowledge of key spelling features that relate to the different spelling stages.

1. You will learn firsthand to administer a spelling inventory and curriculum embedded assessment measures. (ILA, 3.1, 3.2).

2. You will conduct an in-depth spelling diagnosis of students in your class who are experiencing spelling difficulty and consider the implications of the results to recommend classroom instruction and interventions. Your final reports will be presented to colleagues, classroom teachers, and parents (ILA.3.4) 3. Where applicable, you are responsible for getting permission from teacher, school or parents required by the school to work with and assess the selected student. At no time should information gathered for this course be shared or made part of the student’s school or other records. Confidentiality and respect for the student, family, and staff colleagues is to be maintained throughout your word study project.

4. Your instructor will meet with you at least four or five times in your classroom: at the beginning to observe and provide feedback. There will be ongoing feedback during subsequent visits; during the remediation, phase and posttest with students and feedback will be provided (ILA 7.4).

PART 1: Word Study Assessment: Background Data & Spelling Interest Inventory (ILA 4.1) Knowing a student’s background information enables teachers to deal sensitively with students who may be in a fragile state and to adjust instruction to special needs. You would obtain background information about demographics, community population, and school, socioeconomic, race information, and ethnicity of students. You may also want to get a sense of the diverse abilities of the students, by looking at past work samples, interviewing a teacher who has worked closely with the student and reviewing any school records available, on learning styles, special needs or other environmental factors. Using the information gathered, you would be able to write a one-page introduction of the students.

1. You will select or choose the Elementary Spelling Inventory or the Upper-Level Spelling Inventory, (USI) depending on the level you teach. The 31 words to administered are ordered by difficulty to sample features of the within word pattern to derivational relations spelling stages. Unlike traditional spelling tests, students should not study the words before the assessment.

Part 11: Administer the spelling inventory You will administer the Elementary or Upper-level Spelling Inventory to your whole class. Tell them, “I am going to ask you to spell some words. You may have not studied the words. Some of the words may be easy and some may be difficult. Do the best you can while you use your strategies. I will not give you

Grambling State University Standard One Compendium 2 Applications of Data Literacy

grades on these papers. Your work will help me understand how you are learning to read and write. This will let me know how I can help you”.

• • • •

To begin a spelling inventory, ask students to number their papers Read the words aloud naturally, without emphasis on phonemes or syllables.

Use the word in a sentence to make sure the students know the exact word. Then read the word and ask students to spell the word the best they can.

Once you are done with administering the inventory you will need to set aside time to complete the feature guide for each student. These guides are found in Appendix A of your supplementary text: Words Their Way: Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction text by Flanigan, Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, (2011).

Part 111: Score and analyze the samples • • • •

Knowledge of each student’s stage will help with instructional planning and proper student placement. You will analyze and classify student errors, confirm the developmental stages of spelling, and pinpoint specific areas for instruction.

These guides are found in Appendix A of Words Their Way: Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction text by Flanigan, Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, (2011).

The feature guide helps analyze and classify student errors, confirm the developmental stages, and pinpoint specific areas for instruction.

Copy a Feature or Error Guide for each student. Do not count reversed letters as errors. Staple each student’s paper to the Feature or Error Guide

Directions for Using the Feature Guide. The feature guide analysis provides qualitative information regarding what students know about specific spelling features and what they are ready to study next.

• • • • • •

For each word, check the features noted in the columns at the top of the feature guide on page 269.

Add an additional point in the “correct” column if the word is spelled correctly.

Note that not all orthographic features are scored for all words, and the number of feature points varies.

Total the number of points under each feature and across each word, allowing you to double check your numbers.

The total score can be compared over time, but the most useful information will be the feature analysis.

Look down at each feature column to determine the needs of individual students.

Arrange students’ papers in order from highest total points to lowest total points before transferring the numbers across the bottom row of each student’s feature guide to the Class Composite chart.

Directions for using the Error Guide. Use the Error Guide on page, 284, circle each error or write in the student’s spelling by the error that is most similar. When a word is spelled correctly, circle the spelling at the end of the string of errors.

• •

After all words have been scored, you will determine where most circled words lie and look at the top row of the table for the developmental spelling level for the students.

Total the words spelled correctly and note where the student is within the stage:

•

Grambling State University Standard One Compendium 2 Applications of Data Literacy

For a sense of your groups’ needs and to form groups for instruction, highlight students who make two or more errors on a particular feature.

Organize Groups: (ILA 7.1) • • •

Use Classroom Organization Chart on page 266 to organize word study groups and to identify stages of spelling developmental levels, and the types of features. These will help you plan instruction for developmental groups.

Students should be grouped for instruction according to the spelling developmental stages.

Monitor overall progress by using the same inventory.

Part 1V Determine Instructional goals / Intervention (ILA 5.3) You will use the class composite form to create groups with similar needs and work with individuals or groups of students to remediate on specific stages of spelling development. Using both informational and narrative texts, you will select, and adapt best practices to teach the students in the groups you have created to meet the needs of students at different developmental spelling stages.

Analyze focusing on the spelling stage the student is, the orthographic features the child knows, and what they are confusing. Focus on word study instruction possible for each student. Make sure you use the classroom composite to help in grouping and instruction.

You will demonstrate understanding of the process of assessment and skill in using assessment data by designing specific objectives, lesson plans and teach in the groups you have formed from the feature guide form. Create lesson plans that include performance objectives, authentic assessment, and instructional activity integrating effectively use a range of digital technologies to aid literacy and learning development to address given weaknesses. Each lesson should include a goal, teaching technique/strategy, and activity, how you used scaffolding, the texts used, and technology integration. Select and use relevant online tools on word games and word building practices.

• • • •

You will plan and implement two strategies for each area of need and explain the clear connection between your analysis of assessment results and your instructional recommendations.

Pay attention to strategies that are corrective or remedial in nature, depending upon the assessment of the students.

Focus on differentiating Instruction and small groups instruction and monitor progress.

Give a Posttest after instruction and compare results. Analyze students’ spellings and writing samples and their ability to decode and construct meaning in the process. What stage of spelling development was the student at during each phase? Was growth evident over the sessions?

Compare results of assessments and impact on students’ learning.

Sharing Your Findings (ILA 3.4). You will share your findings and experiences in class, with other classroom teachers and other professionals during the Spring Annual conference and the North Louisiana Reading Council (NLRC) meetings. You will devise or choose a slideshow or PowerPoint /Prezi to share your findings. You should include all artifacts used during the process.

Recommendation to parent

Grambling State University Standard One Compendium 2 Applications of Data Literacy

You will write a one-page letter to parents based on findings and recommendation (ILA 3.4).

Prepare a letter written in simple friendly terms that will help parents know what types of things they can do with their children related to developing spelling skills through writing and reading. Feasible cultural and diverse suggestions based on community and everyday life experiences. Provide recommendation on research-based, literacy strategies and activities using a variety of digital and media formats that parents can readily use at home. What strategies does the student currently use effectively? Your recommendations should include spelling materials, resources or strategies for meeting individual needs; other suggestions that address the learner's overall needs.

Part V: Candidate Self-Evaluation (ILA 6.1) Finally, you would turn in a self-evaluation and reflection, which must represent solicitous reflection upon the standards in connection with the word study assessment required by the course. Your reflection should discuss what you learned during the process, what you would like to have done differently, and how you might apply what you learned in the future as a reading teacher. Make sure to have detail descriptions of texts used, instructional approaches used, and elements of culturally relevant and social interactive language activities used during intervention. Discuss the student learning achievement based on pre and post test administered.

Write a detail analysis of the process of administering the IRI: • • • • • • • • •

What positive or negative experiences did you encounter? How were they resolved?

How comfortable or uncomfortable are you in administering same assessment?

What were the students’, reactions, and responses? What did you learn from the students?

What do you think went well or wrong with administration of the spelling inventory?

What miscues were prominent and why? What strategies does the student currently use effectively? Was growth evident over the sessions?

Does it help to score words as right and wrong or holistically?

Which instructional materials and books do you recommend be used with this student?

Connect your recommendations to what you found in the research and your study of this student.

Talk about what you will do differently in designing future instruction.

Your final word study assessment may be about 5 to 7 pages in order to address each component of the narrative portion of the project. Make sure your citations are all in APA style. In addition, all appendixes used, relevant assessment or instructional materials or documentations should be attached. Upload to task stream for grading. See due date and rubrics for assignments on canvas.

Grambling State University Standard One Compendium 2 Applications of Data Literacy

Master of Education: Reading: ED 505 Analysis of Reading Difficulties ED 505: SCORING RUBRIC FOR WORD STUDY KEY ASSEMENT Level /Criteria

NOVICE

EFFECTIVE EMERGING

EFFECTIVE PROFICIENT

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE

STANDARD 3: Assessment and Evaluation ILA 3.1 Candidates understand the purposes, attributes, formats, strengths/limitations (including validity, reliability, inherent language, dialect, cultural bias), and influences of various types of tools in a comprehensive literacy and language assessment system and apply that knowledge to using assessment tools.

ILA 3.2 Candidates collaborate with colleagues to administer, interpret, and use data for decision making about student assessment, instruction, intervention, and evaluation for individual and groups of students STANDARD 4: DIVERSITY AND EQUITY ILA 4.1 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of foundational theories about diverse learners, equity, and culturally responsive instruction

Candidate poorly or cannot identify the purposes, attributes, formats, strengths/limitations of assessment measures.

-Does not administer formal or informal measures coherently.

-Does not interpret results of formal and informal measures

Candidate partially identifies purposes and attributes of assessment measures.

Administers partially the spelling assessment test.

- Partially Interprets results of formal and informal measures

Candidate effectively identifies purposes and attributes of assessment measures.

Efficiently administers spelling inventory for the grade level.

Interprets results of informal measures

Candidate Outstandingly identifies the purposes, attributes, formats, strengths/limitations of assessment measures.

Administers the appropriate spelling inventory for the grade level.

- Excellently interprets and synthesizes results across various formal and informal measures.

Candidate cannot identify the purposes, attributes, formats, strengths and limitations of assessment measures.

Candidate cannot administer, synthesizes the results and use data for planning and remediation.

Candidate does not demonstrate any knowledge of foundational theories about diverse learners, equity, and culturally responsive instruction.

-One or no information about background of students shown.

Candidate demonstrates some awareness to identify the purposes, attributes, formats, strengths and limitations of assessment measures.

Candidate partially administers and uses data for planning and remediation.

Candidate demonstrates some awareness of knowledge of foundational theories about diverse learners, equity, and culturally responsive instruction.

-Partially, collects information about demographics of students for instructional purposes.

Candidate identifies adeptly the purposes and attributes of assessment measures. Skillfully administers and uses data for planning and remediation.

Candidate extensively identifies the purposes, attributes, formats, strengths/limitations of word study assessment.

-Administers, synthesizes the results and uses data for planning and remediation.

Candidate demonstrates adept knowledge of foundational theories about diverse learners, equity, and culturally responsive instruction.

- Proficiently collects information about demographics of students for instructional purposes.

STANDARD 5: Learners and The Literacy Environment.

ILA 5.1 Candidates, in consultation with families and

Candidate poorly or does not consult with families and colleagues.

Candidate partially consults with families and colleagues.

Meets somehow the developmental needs of all

Candidate adequately Consults with families and colleagues.

Meets the developmental needs of all learners by taking into

Candidate demonstrates solid knowledge of foundational theories about diverse learners, equity, and culturally responsive instruction, and how the various aspects of diversity interrelate.

-Comprehensively collect information about demographics of students for instructional purposes.

Candidate: exquisitely consults with families and colleagues and uses that knowledge in

Grambling State University Standard One Compendium 2 Applications of Data Literacy Level /Criteria

NOVICE

EFFECTIVE EMERGING

EFFECTIVE PROFICIENT

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE

colleagues, meet the developmental needs of all learners (e.g., English learners, those with difficulties learning to read, the gifted), taking into consideration physical, social, emotional, cultural, and intellectual factors.

Does not meet the developmental needs of all learners. Does not take into consideration the various factors that influence learning

learners by taking into consideration physical, social, emotional, cultural, and intellectual factors

consideration physical, social, emotional, cultural, and intellectual factors

ILA 5.3 Candidates integrate digital technologies into their literacy instruction in appropriate, safe, and effective ways and assist colleagues in these efforts

Candidate poorly or does not integrate digital technologies into his or her literacy instruction.

-Does not use digital technologies in appropriate, safe, and effective ways.

Candidate integrates partially the basic digital technologies into his or her literacy instruction.

-Candidate uses rudimentary digital technologies in appropriate, safe, and effective ways.

Candidate integrates digital technologies into his or her literacy instruction for remediation.

-Uses expertly tablets, or iPad, and interactive smartboards for interactive word games in appropriate, safe, and effective ways.

STANDARD 7: PRACTICUM/CLINICAL EXPERIENCES ILA 7.1 Candidates work with individual and small groups of students at various grade levels to assess students’ literacy strengths and needs, develop literacy intervention plans, implement instructional plans, create supportive literacy learning environments, and assess impact on student learning. Settings may include a candidate’s own classroom, literacy clinic, other school, or community settings.

Candidate cannot work with individual and small groups of students at various grade levels to assess students’ literacy strengths and needs and develop literacy intervention plans.

-Candidate groups students inappropriately to provides remediation -Candidate cannot implement instructional plans, nor create supportive literacy learning environments, and assess impact on student learning.

Candidate improperly works with individual and small groups of students at various grade levels to assess students’ literacy strengths and needs and develop literacy intervention plans.

-Candidate inadequately implements instructional plans, create supportive literacy learning environments, and assess impact on student learning.

- Candidate partially provides evidence-based intervention and reassessments to meet the literacy needs of each student or group of students

Candidate skillfully works with individual and small groups of students at various grade levels to assess students’ literacy strengths and needs and develop literacy intervention plans.

-Skillfully implements instructional plans, creates supportive literacy learning environments, and assesses impact on student learning.

- Candidate provides some evidence-based intervention and reassessments to meet the literacy needs of each student or group of students

developing instructional activities and programs.

Provides effective support to students in designing instruction that meets the developmental needs of all learners by taking into consideration physical, social, emotional, cultural, and intellectual factors Candidate extensively integrates digital technologies into his or her literacy remediation lesson. -Uses and guides students’ use of digital technologies in appropriate, safe, and effective ways.

-Effectively uses tablets, or iPad, and interactive smartboards for interactive word games.

Candidate extensively works with individual and small groups of students at various grade levels to assist students’ literacy strengths and develop literacy intervention plans and analyzes intervention plans with peers.

Candidate groups students in appropriate instructional needs and provides remediation.

-Extensively implements instructional plans, creates supportive literacy learning environments, and assesses impact on student learning.

Candidate provides a cycle of evidence-based intervention and reassessments to meet the

Grambling State University Standard One Compendium 2 Applications of Data Literacy Level /Criteria

ILA 7.4 Candidates receive supervision, including observation (in-person, computer assisted, or video analysis) and ongoing feedback during their practicum/clinical experiences by supervisors who understand literacy processes, have literacy content knowledge, understand literacy assessment and evidence-based instructional strategies and, preferably, have experience as reading/literacy specialists

ILA 3.4 Candidates, using both written and oral communication, explain assessment results and advocate for appropriate literacy and language practices to a variety of stakeholders, including students, administrators, teachers, other educators, and parents/guardians

NOVICE

Candidate poorly or does not receive supervision, including observation and ongoing feedback during his or her practicum/clinical experiences.

-Candidate poorly or does not receive feedback from supervisors who understand literacy instruction and assessment -Does not share self-selected clips of lessons with supervisor for the purpose of reflection, improvement of practice, and evaluation

EFFECTIVE EMERGING

Candidate moderately receives supervision, including observation and ongoing feedback during his or her practicum/clinical experiences but rarely implemented feedback.

-Candidate does partially receive feedback from supervisors who understand literacy instruction and assessment.

-Shares partially self-selected clips of lessons with supervisor for the purpose of reflection, improvement of practice, and evaluation.

EFFECTIVE PROFICIENT

Candidate effectively receives supervision, including observation and ongoing feedback during his or her practicum/clinical experiences.

-Candidate receives adequate feedback from supervisors who understand literacy instruction and assessment.

- Shares competently selfselected clips of lessons with supervisor for the purpose of reflection, improvement of practice, and evaluation

ORAL PRESENTATION OF WORD STUDY Candidate cannot use written Candidate averagely uses Candidate effectively uses and oral communication to written and oral communication written and oral communication explain assessment results. to explain assessment results to to explain assessment results to Cannot advocate for students, teachers, and students, teachers, and appropriate literacy and parents/guardians. Partially parents/guardians.

- Advocates for appropriate language practices to a variety advocates for appropriate literacy and language practices of stakeholders. literacy and language practices - Poorly organizes assessment to students, teachers, and to, teachers, and Peers. results across measures and not - Partially organizes assessment parents/guardians. results across measures to show -Effectively organizes able to show relationships and relationships and interactions. interactions. (e.g., assessment results across (e.g., demographics and test demographics and test results) measures to show relationships results) - Poorly organized PowerPoint and interactions. (e.g., - Well organized PowerPoint presentation of process and demographics and test results) presentation of process and results. results.

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE literacy needs of each student or group of students.

Candidate receives supervision, including observation that provides for self-analysis as well as supervisor feedback during his or her practicum/clinical experiences.

-Candidate skillfully participates in self-analysis and reflection during practicum experiences -Receives feedback from supervisors who have experience as reading/literacy specialists.

- Shares coherently self-selected clips of lessons with supervisor for the purpose of reflection, improvement of practice, and evaluation.

Candidate outstandingly uses written and oral communication to explain assessment results to a variety of stakeholders, including students, administrators, teachers, and other educators.

-Skillfully organizes assessment results across measures to show relationships and interactions. (e.g., demographics and test results) - Well organized PowerPoint presentation of process and results.

Grambling State University Standard One Compendium 2 Applications of Data Literacy Level /Criteria

NOVICE

EFFECTIVE EMERGING

EFFECTIVE PROFICIENT - Well organized PowerPoint presentation of process and results.

Candidate exhibits a general understanding of the assignment. In-class presentation and demonstration of assessment tool used. Provides some evidence of ability to communicate assessment information to colleagues and other educators

Content of presentation

Candidate lacks basic understanding of the assignment.

Evidence of candidate’s ability to communicate assessment information to, classroom teachers, peers and other educators

Candidate exhibits a general poor understanding of the assignment. In-class presentation and demonstration of assessment tool Provides very limited evidence of ability to communicate assessment information to colleagues and other educators.

Interpretation of Classroom Composite and feature guide

Candidate Interpretation of data and discussion of how to use data is incomplete or missing

Candidate interprets some data and provides a limited discussion on how to use data to plan effective instruction

Summaries of Assessment results

Word study is incoherently written -Few components of Word study project are addressed.

Word study is partially written in a professional manner.

-Some components of Word study project are addressed - Summaries are sketchy

- Summaries are incomplete or missing Use of visual aids, media, handouts, audience engagement, etc. in presentation Citation and Conclusion

Recommendations Relevant strategies and possible

Candidate e effectively interprets data and discusses how to use data to plan and group students for effective word study Word study is coherently written in a professional manner -All components of Word study project are addressed adequately.

-Effectively summarizes complete assessment data

Little to no evidence of the use of visual aids, media, and handouts

Limited use of visual aids, media, and handouts illustrate lack of audience engagement

Effective use of visual aids, media, and handouts illustrate effective engagement of audience Accurately cited, but not in the desired APA format

No citation as per directions

Incorrectly cited

Few instructional recommendations or accommodations are made.

RECOMMENDATION TO PARENTS Vague irrelevant instructional Some valid instructional Recommendation and recommendation and accommodations are suggested. accommodations are made.

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE

Candidate exhibits a defined and clear understanding of the assignment. In-class presentation and demonstration of assessment tool used.

Provides impressive and detailed evidence of ability to effectively communicate assessment information to colleagues and other educators Candidate critically interprets data and compellingly discusses how to use data to plan and group students for effective word study Word study is coherently written in a professional manner.

-All components of Word study project are addressed comprehensively.

-Richly and succinctly summarizes complete assessment data Clear and creative use of visual aids, media, and handouts illustrate optimal engagement of audience Accurately cited in the desired APA format Many valid instructional recommendation and accommodations are provided

Grambling State University Standard One Compendium 2 Applications of Data Literacy Level /Criteria

NOVICE

EFFECTIVE EMERGING

EFFECTIVE PROFICIENT

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE

accommodations are included (ILA 3.4)

-Does not list any culturally relevant materials to use with student at home.

-Lists literacies strategies and activities -Suggests no digital and media formats affordable for parents

- lists one culturally relevant material to use with student at home.

-Lists few literacies strategies and activities -Suggests one digital and media formats affordable for parents

-Adequately lists culturally relevant materials to use with student at home.

-Lists literacies strategies and activities -Suggests a couple of digital and media formats affordable for parents

-Effectively lists culturally relevant materials to use with student at home.

-Lists literacies strategies and activities -Suggests several digital and media formats affordable for parents to enhance learning at home.

ILA 6.1 Candidates demonstrate the ability to reflect on their professional practices, belong to professional organizations, and are critical consumers of research, policy, and practice

Candidate does not demonstrate a satisfactory level of understanding of administering the spelling inventory assessment.

- Candidate poorly or does not demonstrate the ability to reflect on his or her professional practices.

-Does not reflect on what could have been done differently -Does not reflect on the importance of spelling in literacy development -Does not plan to belong to professional organizations.

-Candidate not a critical consumer of research, policy, and practice.

-Connects research and practice of the word study project.

- Candidate provides no detailed descriptions of texts used, instructional approaches used, and elements of culturally relevant and social interactive language activities used during intervention

Candidate reflection demonstrates a satisfactory level of understanding of administering the spelling inventory assessment.

-Candidate moderately demonstrates the ability to reflect on his or her professional practices.

-Partially reflects on what could have been done differently -Has a positive disposition on the importance of spelling in literacy development -Plans to belong to professional organizations.

-A fair critical consumer of research, policy, and practice.

- Somehow connects research and practice of the word study project - Candidate provides some detailed descriptions of texts used, instructional approaches used, and elements of culturally relevant and social interactive language activities used during intervention

Candidate reflection demonstrates a proficient level of understanding of administering the spelling inventory assessment.

- Candidate proficiently demonstrates the ability to reflect on his or her as a future reading teaching.

-Reflects on what could have been done differently.

-Has a positive disposition on the importance of spelling in literacy development -Plans to belong to professional organizations.

-Is a mediocre critical consumer of research, policy, and practice.

- Adequately connects research and practice of the word.

- Candidate provides proficiently detailed descriptions of texts used, instructional approaches used, and elements of culturally relevant and social interactive language activities used during intervention

Candidate reflection demonstrates an exemplary understanding of administering the spelling inventory assessment.

-Practices to plan and evaluate effective reading and writing instruction using knowledge acquired.

Candidate coherently demonstrates the ability to selfassess and reflect on his or her role as a future reading teaching.

-Reflects on what she could have done differently.

-Has a positive disposition on the importance of spelling in literacy development -Plans to belong to and is active in professional organizations.

-Is an avid critical consumer of research, policy, and practice and able to share that knowledge with colleagues.

-Extensively connects research and practice of the word study project.

CANDIDATE SELF- ASSESSMENT

Grambling State University Standard One Compendium 2 Applications of Data Literacy Level /Criteria

NOVICE

EFFECTIVE EMERGING

EFFECTIVE PROFICIENT

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE -Candidate provides comprehensive descriptions of texts used, instructional approaches used, and elements of culturally relevant and social interactive language activities used during intervention

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research Presentation of Data: Table 1 Spring 2020

Summer 2020

Spring 2022

ED 505 Analysis of Reading Difficulties.

N=4.00

N=3.00

N=2.00

Table 1 Master of Education Reading CAEP

ILA

Rubric Benchmark

A.1.1, A.1.2

ILA 1.2

Word study

ED 505 Teacher as Researcher: ED 505 Content Knowledge

4.00

3.00

4.00

A.1.1, A.1.2

ILA 1.1

Content Knowledge

ED 505 Teacher as Researcher: ED 505 Content Knowledge

4.00

3.00

4.00

A.1.1, A.1.2

ILA 3.1

Methodology/Assessment Feature Guide

ED 505 Teacher as Researcher:

3.50

3.50

4.00

A.1.1, A.1.2

ILA 3.2

Data/Findings/ Classroom Composite

3.50

3.00

4.00

A.1.1, A.1.2

ILA 3.4

Recommendation

4.00

2.50

4.00

A.1.1, A.1.2

ILA 4.1

Diversity

3.00

3.00

3.50

A.1.1, A.1.2

ILA 5.1

Instructional Design

4.00

3.00

4.00

A.1.1, A.1.2

ILA 5.3

Digital Application

4.00

2.50

4.00

4.00

3.00

4.00

3.50

3.50

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

4.00

3.50

3.07

4.00

A.1.1, A.1.2

ILA 6.1

Self -Reflections

A.1.1, A.1.2

ILA 7.1

Intervention/ Implementation

A.1.1, A.1.2

ILA 7.4

Collaboration/Disposition

A.1.1, A.1.2

ILA 1.1,

Writing quality Average of All Criteria

ED 505 Teacher as Researcher:

ED 505 Teacher as Researcher:

ED 505Teacher as Researcher: ED 505 Content Knowledge ED 505 Teacher as Researcher:

ED 505 Teacher as Researcher:

ED 505 Teacher as Researcher:

ED 505 Teacher as Researcher:

ED 505 Teacher as Researcher:

ED 505Teacher as Researcher: Content Knowledge

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research Analysis and Interpretation The data gathered from case study provides evidence of overall candidate mastery of content knowledge in administering the word study assessment.

Standard ILA 3.1: In Spring of 2020, four candidates were enrolled in the course. In Summer 2020, they were three candidates enrolled in course and spring 2022, there were two enrolled in course. All candidates (100%) met expectations on this standard and demonstrated their understand of the central concepts, to work with an individual K-12 student to expand their literacy skills to select, assess, analyze, design and use assessment tools based on established purposes.

Standard 3.2: In Spring of 2020, four candidates were enrolled in the course. In Summer 2020, they were three candidates enrolled in course and spring 2022, there were two enrolled in course. All candidates (100%) met expectations on this standard and demonstrated their ability to use general and specialized content knowledge for teaching. They demonstrated ability to administer and interpret appropriate assessments for students, especially those who struggle with reading and spelling.

Standard 3.4: In Spring of 2020, four candidates were enrolled in the course. In Summer 2020, they were three candidates enrolled in course and spring 2022, there were two enrolled in course. All candidates (100%) met expectations on this standard and demonstrated the ability to communicate the assessment result to intended audience.

Standard 4.1. In Spring of 2020, four candidates were enrolled in the course. In Summer 2020, they were three candidates enrolled in course and spring 2022, there were two enrolled in course. Although all candidates (100%) met expectations on this standard, it was met at the within the average Performance range to that deepened their understanding of issues of diversity and equity in the literacy classroom.

Standard 5.1: In Spring of 2020, four candidates were enrolled in the course. In Summer 2020, they were three candidates enrolled in course and spring 2022, there were two enrolled in course. 100% of the candidates from both spring 2020, summer 2020, and spring 2022, met expectations on this standard and demonstrated their ability to consider an individual’s abilities, interests, learning environments, and cultural and linguistic factors in the selection, development, and adaptation of learning experiences.

Standard 5.3: In Spring of 2020, four candidates were enrolled in the course. In Summer 2020, they were three candidates enrolled in course and spring 2022, there were two enrolled in course. 100% of the candidates from both spring 2020, summer 2020, and spring 2022, met expectations on this standard and demonstrated their ability to integrate digital technologies into their literacy instruction in appropriate, safe, and effective ways.

Standard 6.1: In Spring of 2020, four candidates were enrolled in the course. In Summer 2020, they were three candidates enrolled in course and Spring 2022, there were two enrolled in course. 100% of the Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research

candidates from Spring 2020, Summer 2020, and Spring 2022, met expectations on this standard and demonstrated the ability to reflect on their professional practices to apply the use of literature and research findings, and school culture in working with teachers and families and communities to promote a positive and ethical learning environment to meet students’ needs.

Standard 7.1: In Spring of 2020, four candidates were enrolled in the course. In Summer 2020, they were three candidates enrolled in course and spring 2022, there were two enrolled in course. 100% of the candidates from both spring 2020, summer 2020, and spring 2022, met expectations on this standard and demonstrated their ability to work with individual and small groups of students at various to assist students’ literacy strengths and develop literacy intervention plans and analyzes intervention plans with other peers.

How is Reliability and Validity Assured? (CAEP 5.2) To determine the reliability of EPP-created assessments, program leads and faculty (SMEs) participate in training and calibration exercises to make sure that evaluators are using and interpreting rubrics in a consistent manner, which is necessary to ensure inter-rater reliability regarding the consistency of evaluating candidate performance on assessments. Faculty members are also occasionally chosen to take part in a formal inter-rater reliability study. The same pre-selected work sample from a course is scored individually for this study by other members of the faculty. Percent Agreement is calculated using the scores of the faculty members to evaluate the amount of inter-rater reliability. GSU seeks 80% or higher agreement.

To determine the content validity of EPP-created assessments, GSU uses a panel of subject matter experts (SMEs) to determine how well the elements included within the assessment align with the intended outcomes. Using the Lawshe Method (recommended by CAEP), SMEs are provided with a copy of the assessment’s directions and rubric. They are then asked to determine if each element is essential, useful but not essential, or not necessary.

Program: Master of Education -Reading Data from Table 1 indicate that across all three data collection cycles, the overall candidate mean for this assessment was 3.2, placing their performance within the proficient range.

CAEP Standard A.1.1: Candidates for advanced preparation demonstrate their proficiencies to understand and apply knowledge and skills appropriate to their professional field of specialization so that learning and development opportunities for all P-12 are enhanced through: • Applications of data literacy.

Data from Table 1 show that within this assessment seven elements align to this skill.

• Spring 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 3.5 on these elements, placing their performance within the effective proficient range.

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Summer 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 3.07 on these elements, placing their performance within the effective proficient range.

Spring 2022 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the highly effective range.

Use of research and understanding of qualitative, quantitative and/or mixed methods research methodologies.

Data from Table 1 show that within this assessment nine elements align to this skill.

Spring 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 3.5 on these elements, placing their performance within the effective proficient range.

Summer 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 3.0 on these elements, placing their performance within this effective proficient range.

Spring 2022candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the highly effective range.

Employment of data analysis and evidence to develop supportive school environments.

Data from Table 1 show that within this assessment one element aligns to this skill.

Spring 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 3.5 on this element, placing their performance within the effective Proficient range.

Summer 2020 candidates earned a mean sore of 3.5 on this element, placing their performance within the effective proficient range.

Spring 2022 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing their performance within the highly effective range.

Application of professional dispositions, laws and policies, codes of ethics and professional standards appropriate to their field of specialization.

Data from Table 1 show that within this assessment four elements align to this skill.

Spring 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the highly effective range.

Summer 2020 candidates earned a 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the highly effective range.

Spring 2022 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the highly effective range.

CAEP Standard A.1.2: Providers ensure that advanced program completers have opportunities to learn and apply specialized content and discipline knowledge contained in approved state and/or national discipline specific standards.

ILA Standard 1.1: • Data in Table 1 show that within this assessment, two elements align to ILA Standard 1.1.

• Spring 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the highly effective range.

• Summer 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 3.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the proficient range.

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

•

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research

Spring 2022 candidates earned a mean score of 3.5 on these elements, placing their performance within the proficient range.

ILA Standard 7.1: • Data in Table 1 show that within this assessment, three elements align to ILA Standard 1.2.

• Spring 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 3.5 on these elements, placing their performance within the proficient range.

• Summer 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 3.5 on these elements, placing their performance within the proficient range.

• Spring 2022 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the highly effective range ILA Standard 5.3: • Data in Table 1 show that within this assessment, one element aligns to ILA Standard 1.3.

• Spring 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the proficient range.

• Summer 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 2.5 on these elements, placing their performance below the proficient range.

• Spring 2022 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the highly effective range.

ILA Standard 5.1: • Data in Table 1 show that within this assessment, one element aligns to ILA Standard 2.1.

• Spring 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the effective proficient range.

• Summer 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 3.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the proficient range.

• Spring 2022 candidates earned a mean score of 3.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the proficient range.

ILA Standard 3.1: • Data in Table 1 show that within this assessment, one element aligns to ILA Std. 3.1.

• Spring 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 3.5 on these elements, placing their performance within the proficient range.

• Summer 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 3.5 on these elements, placing their performance within the proficient range.

• Spring 2022 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the highly effective range.

ILA Standard 3.2: • Spring 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the proficient range.

• Summer 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 3.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the proficient range.

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

•

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research

Spring 2022 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the highly effective range ILA Standard 4.1: • Data in Table 1 show that within this assessment, one element aligns to ILA Standard 3.3.

• Spring 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 3.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the proficient range.

• Summer 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 3.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the proficient range.

• Spring 2022 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the highly effective range.

ILA Standard 3.4: • Data in Table 1 show that within this assessment, one element aligns to ILA Standard 3.4.

• Spring 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the highly effective range.

• Summer 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 2.5 on these elements, placing their performance below the proficient range.

• Spring 2022 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the highly effective range.

ILA Standard 6.1: • Data in Table 1 show that within this assessment, two elements align to ILA Std 6.2.

• Spring 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the proficient range.

• Summer 2020 candidates earned a mean score of 3.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the proficient range.

• Spring 2022 candidates earned a mean score of 4.0 on these elements, placing their performance within the highly effective range.

Data show that while candidate mean scores were continually within the proficient range, they demonstrated mastering skills of CAEP Standard A.1.1.in use of data and professional standards in their area of specialization. This is evident with the mean scores for each skill and ILA Standard which were almost constant across all two data collection cycles, although, a slight decrease noted in Summer 2020.

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research Continuous Improvement Focus Area(s): The program strives for continuous improvement in areas where there is lack or limited emphasis is one of the major goals for this program. Although the students met 100% expectation, the area of change is meeting standard 4.1 at the highly effective level. Candidates will need to articulate and demonstrate more insight on diversity and equity in the classroom. EPP plans to make some adjustments to strengthen the program as well as candidates' content knowledge and pedagogical skill on the elements of standard.

It plans to implement a research approach that focuses on action research in various aspects of culturally responsive teaching, reflections of personal biases and microaggressions, collaborations with other school colleagues to embark on inquiry research on issues of inequity in both classroom and school will be infused across specific courses.

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research Master of Education: Special Education Program ED 545-Evaluation/Assessment in P-12 Educational Settings Key Assessment Action Research Implementation ILA 1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2, 4.3, 7.1 and 7.3 / CEC 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 Description of the Assessment: This key assessment involves candidates implementing the proposal created in ED 549 as an action research project to address learning needs (including literacy for ILA) in their classrooms. The candidates will update the methodology, collect pre-intervention data, implement the intervention, collect postintervention data, then write up the results, discuss what they have found, and outline limitations and next steps in a Discussion section. While the format reflects a quantitative approach, it is expected that candidates will include qualitative data to document the culture of the learning environment, resulting in a mixed methods approach. It is hoped that the results will indicate a learning environment that better meets the needs and strengths of the candidates’ P-12 students.

Directions to Candidates: Your Action Research Implementation will involve putting all of the pieces that you have been working on throughout the semester together, to implement this intervention in your classroom. Your final writeup will include everything from ED 549 proposal (rationale, literature review, methodology now in past tense and bibliography), and will add the results of your implementation and a discussion of what you found.

All of it is to be in APA format using APA manual 7th edition (or no earlier than the 6th ed). It must be submitted in Taskstream no later than the second to last week of classes at 11:50 pm CST. The rubric and components are attached to this document. Please clearly label your sections and use the APA format for labeling. Remember that this is an action proposal, and you may find that if you adjusted your methodology, added other references to your literature review, or even changed your focus based on the literacy needs of your students of interest that should be reflected in your final writeup. The implementation of your action research will demonstrate that you are not only: 1. knowledgeable about the major theories, and evidence-based strategies of the reading concept that you have focused on (ILA 1.1; CEC 6); 2. (ILA) able to use foundational knowledge and research to design or augment literacy curriculums to meet the diverse needs of learners who may be struggling with literacy and present a plan to implement those evidence-based strategies in small groups or with individual students (ILA 2.2, 2.3, 4.3); 3. (CEC 5, 6) able to use foundational knowledge and research to design or augment curriculums or environments to meet the diverse needs of diverse learners with exceptional learning needs who may be struggling with academic or behavior and present a plan to implement those evidence-based strategies in small groups or with individual students (CEC 2, 5, 6); 4. able to collect and use formal and/or informal preliminary and summative assessment data working with colleagues (ILA 3.2; CEC 4); 4. implement an action research plan in your classroom then collect and discuss findings (ILA 7.1, 7.3; CEC 1).

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research

Candidates are expected to average “effective proficient” across the rubric with no areas of “Ineffective”.

Candidates who do not meet this overall rating will be given one (1) opportunity to redo the proposal and correct the deficiencies before moving forward.

How it relates to the ILA standards: The action research implementation will demonstrate that candidates are knowledgeable about the major theories, and evidence-based strategies of the reading concept that they have focused on (ILA 1.1), and they are able to design and implement a culturally responsive and affirmative literacy curriculum to meet the diverse needs of learners who may be struggling (ILA 2.1, 4.3). It will also demonstrate that they can address literacy needs with evidence-based strategies in small groups or with individual students in their classrooms (ILA 2.2, 2.3, 7.1 and 7.3). It also demonstrates that candidates can administer and analyze both preliminary and summative assessments to gauge the effectiveness of the implemented intervention (ILA 3.2), then present their results and discuss their findings.

How it relates to the CEC standards: The action research implementation will demonstrate that candidates are knowledgeable about the major theories, and evidence-based strategies of the special education concepts that they have focused on (CEC 1), and they are able to design and implement a culturally responsive and affirmative academic and behavioral interventions to meet the diverse needs of learners who may be struggling (CEC 3, 5, 6). It will also demonstrate that they can address students’ needs with evidence-based strategies in small groups or with individual students in their classrooms (CEC 2, 5, 6). It also demonstrates that candidates can administer and analyze both preliminary and summative assessments to gauge the effectiveness of the implemented intervention (CEC 4), then present their results and discuss their findings.

What the data collected for analysis will show: Data analysis will document whether candidates are implementing evidence-based, culturally responsive and affirmative interventions strategies to address literacy, general academic and/or behavioral needs of students in their classroom, and document any changes based on those interventions.

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research Evaluation Instrument ED 545- -Evaluation/Assessment in P-12 Educational Settings Action Research Implementation (CEC 1, 2, 4, 5, 6) Novice Academic Honesty-- may include use of electronic detection Plagiarized (resulting programs (e.g., Turnitin, etc.) automatic “F”) CEC 1.1 (2020) APA format used for reporting action research

Effective Emerging

in

Effective Proficient

an

Candidate provides sections were not delineated; format did not follow APA; paper had too many errors to be ready to submit to journal or call for proposals without massive and/or intensive revisions

Highly Effective

No Plagiarism

Candidate provides sections are somewhat delineated; format attempts to follow APA; paper could be submitted to journal or call for proposals when numerous problems are corrected

Candidate provides sections are clearly delineated; format mostly follows APA; paper will be ready to be submitted to journal or call for proposals when minor problems are corrected

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Candidate provides sections that are clearly delineated; format clearly follows APA; approp. subheadings are used when applicable; paper is ready to be submitted to journal or call for proposals

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research

Methods to remain current regarding research-validated practice Bibliographic citations (APA style) and use of current research CF 2.7, 2.8;

Novice

Effective Emerging

Effective Proficient

Highly Effective

Candidate includes citations and bibliography are not in APA style and/or are missing and/or not demonstrating cultural responsiveness, or connected to literacy goals OR meeting the needs of students with specialized learning needs.

Candidate includes citations and bibliography are complete.

Candidate selection and evaluation of research for literature review demonstrates culturally responsiveness, knowledge of literacy goals of the district, addresses the candidate's topic with respect to reading, listening, speaking or writing OR meeting the needs of students with specialized learning needs

Candidate includes citations and bibliography are complete and in APA style. All research is current.

Candidate selection and evaluation of research for literature review demonstrates culturally responsiveness, knowledge of literacy goals of the district, addresses the candidate's topic with respect to reading, listening, speaking or writing, OR meeting the needs of students with specialized learning needs, AND demonstrates how candidate will use literature to prepare students for next level/grades

Candidate includes citations and bibliography are complete and in APA style. All research is current.

Candidate selection and evaluation of research for literature review demonstrates culturally responsiveness, and sensitivity to diverse learners, knowledge of literacy goals of the district, addresses the candidate's topic with respect to reading, listening, speaking or writing, OR meeting the needs of students with specialized learning needs, AND demonstrates how candidate will use literature and evidencedbased research to prepare students for next level/grades

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research Novice Make responsive adjustments to Research interest/focus and instruction in a more formal way treatment is inappropriate for Appropriateness of interest and age/grade treatment, designing literacy curricula to meet the needs of diverse learners, especially those who are struggling CF 2.7, 2.14 CEC 1.3, CEC 2, 5, 6 Methods identified and The candidate's development of implemented applying research- plan does not reflect current validated practice Reflection of research in PK-12 education current research in PK-12 education CF 2.7, 2.9, 2.14 CEC 5, 6

Effective Emerging

Effective Proficient

Highly Effective

Candidate presents a research interest/focus and treatment that is tangentially appropriate for age/grade. Rationale for action research project provides a literacy intervention, or meeting special education needs but it is not completely clear how it meets the needs of diverse and/or struggling learners

Candidate presents a research interest/focus and treatment that is appropriate for age/grade.

Rationale for action research project is designed to use evidence-based literacy intervention or meeting special education needs to meet the needs of struggling learners

Candidate presents a research interest/focus and treatment that is appropriate for age/grade.

Rationale for action research project is designed to use evidence-based literacy intervention, or meeting special education needs to meet the needs of diverse learners, especially those who are struggling

The candidate develops aspects of plan reflecting current research in PK-12 education.

Methodology incorporates evidence-based research to meet the needs of learners with respect to design

The candidate develops all aspects of the plan reflecting current research in PK-12 education.

Methodology incorporates evidence-based research to meet the needs of learners with respect to design, implementation, and grouping practices

The candidate develops all aspects of the plan reflecting current research in PK-12 education.

Methodology incorporates evidence-based research to meet the needs of learners with respect to CRT, design, implementation, and grouping practices

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research

Appropriateness of research problem, literature, hypothesis, proposed to PK-12 literacy education CF 2.14, 2.15

Novice

Effective Emerging

Effective Proficient

Highly Effective

The candidate did not provide a rationale, lit. review, methodology that fit current research cited, and/or research interest, and/or are not applicable to PK-12 education

The candidate provided a rationale, lit. review, methodology that utilized current research, are feasible, within most PK-12 classes.

The candidate provided a rationale, lit. review, methodology that utilized interventions are applicable, and fit current research cited. The research interests, are feasible, inclusive and affirming within diverse PK-12 classes.

The candidate provided a rationale, lit. review, methodology that utilized interventions that are completely applicable, and fit current research cited, research interest, are feasible, inclusive and affirming within diverse PK12 classes. Candidate explains how the intervention uses the evidence-based research

CEC 2, 5, 6

Act ethically... and uphold high standard of competence and integrity-human subjects research training through citiprogram.org completed CF 2.14

The candidate did not provide the required certificates for ethical human subjects’ research missing

Candidate provides the required certificates for ethical human subjects’ research and are attached

The candidate did not submit the informed consents or the informed consents are missing required components or are not understandable at the subjects' level.

The candidate submits informed consents that meet the standards of ethical research including all required components, and readability/comprehension are at the subjects' level.

CEC 1.1, 1.3 Act ethically... and uphold high standard of competence and integrity Informed Consents* CF 2.14 CEC 1.1

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research Novice Select and use technically sound ... Candidate did not include pretest assessments to gather relevant data or it is unconnected with background information through action research question informal or formal assessments prior to research intervention/treatment phase

Effective Emerging

Effective Proficient

Highly Effective

Candidate includes pretest data demonstrates limited time period and/or only marginally reflects the problem proposed for study and improvement.

Pretest data is provided.

Candidate includes pretest data gathered over a period of time using relevant and sound formal and/or informal procedures.

Data is provided and reflects the problem proposed for study and improvement. Pretest data is researched as valid and reliable, and candidate interprets the results.

Candidate includes pretest data gathered over a period of time using relevant and sound formal and/or informal assessment procedures. Data is provided and effectively reflects the problem proposed for study and improvement. Pretest data is presented valid and reliable, considers the diversity of students and candidate interprets the results.

Candidate includes posttest data that reflects the problem that was addressed for improvement, but does not interpret the results.

Candidate includes posttest data gathered using relevant and/or sound formal and/or informal procedures is provided and reflects the problem that was addressed for improvement.

Data is provided and reflects the problem proposed for study and improvement. Posttest data is researched as valid and reliable, and candidate interprets the results.

Candidate includes posttest data gathered over a period of time using relevant and sound formal and/or informal assessment procedures. Data is provided and effectively reflects the problem proposed for study and improvement. Posttest data is presented valid and reliable, considers the diversity of students and candidate interprets the results.

Candidate provides an interpretation and discussion, but contain elements not completely supported by data

Candidate provides an interpretation that is thought out, discussion is thorough, and includes limitations of the action research study

Candidate provides an interpretation that is thought out, the discussion is thorough, and includes factors of diversity and limitations of the action research study

Pretest information collected and included CEC 4 Select and use technically sound ... Candidate did not include postassessments test data or it is unconnected Post test data collected and with action research question. included CEC 4

Interpret information from formal and informal assessments Interpretation and discussion of data CF 2.14, 2.15; CEC 4

Candidate did not provide an interpretation of the data, or the discussion is missing, or unconnected to findings

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research How is Reliability and Validity assured? (CAEP 5.2): The EPP is a small group and most courses are taught by the same faculty members, however, we still work to ensure inter-rater reliability by ensuring that faculty who are invited to rate have similar background expertise. To ensure inter-rater reliability regarding the consistency of evaluating candidate performance on assessments, the assessment coordinator selects faculty members to participate in developing inter rater reliability. The faculty members are given students’ work to rate and send feedback to the assessment coordinator. She calls a meeting and informs faculty members where they agreed or had a lot of discrepancies.

Presentation of Data: Table 2: Master of Education Special Education ED 545-Evaluation/Assessment in P-12 Educational Settings ED 545 Action Research CAEP CEC Rubric Benchmark Implementation A.1.1, A.1.2 CEC 1.3 Bibliographic research ED 545 Teacher as choices demonstrate Researcher: knowledge of components ED 545 Content Knowledge A.1.1, A.1.2 CEC 2.2 Candidate research ED 545 Teacher as question, rationale Researcher:

2017 - 2018

2018-2019

Spring 2022-2023

N=1.00

N=1.00

N=1.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

ED 545 Teacher as Researcher

3.00

3.00

4.00

ED 545 Teacher as Researcher

3.00

3.00

4.00

ED 545 Teacher as Researcher

3.00

4.00

4.00

ED 545 Teacher as Researcher

3.00

4.00

4.00

ED 545 Teacher as researcher

4.00

4.00

4.00

Format using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods

ED 545 Teacher as Researcher

3.00

2.00

4.00

Pre and post assessments selected, used and interpreted

ED 545 Teacher as researcher

3.00

4.00

4.00

ED 545 Content Knowledge

CEC 5.6

Implementation Plan Methodology

A.1.1, A.1.2

CEC 5.1 CEC 5.6

Instructional Research Design

A.1.1, A.1.2

CEC 5.6

A.1.1, A.1.2

CEC 1.3 CEC 2.1 CEC 2.2 CEC 5.6 CEC 5.6

Use of evidence-based research found in the literature Plan meets the needs of classroom, small group or individual learners,

A.1.1, A.1.2

A.1.1, A.1.2

A.1.1, A.1.2

CEC 1.3

A.1.1, A.1.2

CEC 4.1 CEC 4.3

A.1.1, A.1.2

CEC 4.3

Make responsive adjustments to instruction

Discussion and next steps outlined

ED 545 Teacher as researcher

4.00

4.00

4.00

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research

Table 2: Master of Education Special Education ED 545-Evaluation/Assessment in P-12 Educational Settings ED 545 Action Research CAEP CEC Rubric Benchmark Implementation A.1.1, Writing quality ED 545 Teacher as A.1.2 Researcher A.1.1, A.1.2

CEC 1.1

Citi program Human Subject Training

ED 545 Teacher as Researcher

2017 - 2018

2018-2019

Spring 2022-2023

N=1.00

N=1.00

N=1.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.33

3.58

4.00

Analysis and Interpretation Program: Master of Special Education Data from Table 2 indicate that across all three data collection cycles, the overall candidate mean for this assessment was 3.63, placing candidate performance between the between the effective: proficient and the highly effective range. The third cycle of data for the candidate was completed and analyzed in Spring 2023 and is included here.

CAEP Standard A.1.1: Candidates for advanced preparation demonstrate their proficiencies to understand and apply knowledge and skills appropriate to their professional field of specialization so that learning and development opportunities for all P-12 are enhanced through: Applications of data literacy.

• Data from Table 2 show that within this assessment three elements align to this skill.

• The 2017-2018 candidate earned a mean score of 3.33 on this element, placing her performance between the effective: proficient and the highly effective range.

• The 2018-2019 candidate earned a mean score of 3.67 on this element, placing her performance between the effective: proficient and the highly effective range.

• The 2022-2023 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance in the highly effective range.

• Use of research and understanding of qualitative, quantitative and/or mixed methods research methodologies.

• Data from Table 2 shows that within this assessment four elements align to this skill.

• The 2017-2018 candidate earned a mean score of 3.33 on this element, placing her performance between the effective: proficient and the highly effective range.

• The 2018-2019 candidate earned a mean score of 3.67 on this element, placing her performance between the effective: proficient and the highly effective range.

• The 2022-2023 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

• Employment of data analysis and evidence to develop supportive, diverse, equitable and inclusive school environments.

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research Data from Table 2 shows that within this assessment five elements align to this skill.

• The 2017-2018 candidate earned a mean score of 3.20 on this element, placing her performance between the effective: proficient and the highly effective range.

• The 2018-2019 candidate earned a mean score of 3.60 on this element, placing her performance between the effective: proficient and the highly effective range.

• The 2022-2023 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element in the planning portion in ED 549; and the candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element in ED 545, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

• Application of professional dispositions, laws and policies, codes of ethics and professional standards appropriate to their field of specialization.

• Data from Table 2 shows that within this assessment one element aligns to this skill.

• The 2017-2018 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

• The 2018-2019 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

• The 2022-2023 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element placing her performance within the highly effective range.

CAEP Standard A.1.2: Providers ensure that advanced program completers have opportunities to learn and apply specialized content and discipline knowledge contained in approved state and/or national discipline specific standards. · CEC Standard 1.1: • Data in Table 2 show that within this assessment, one element aligns to CEC Standard 1.1.

• The Fall 2017 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

• The Fall 2018 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

• The Fall 2022 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

CEC Standard 1.3: • Data in Table 2 show that within this assessment, three elements align to CEC 1.3.

• The Fall 2017 candidate earned a mean score of 3.0 on this element, placing her performance within the effective: proficient range.

• The Fall 2018 candidate also earned a mean score of 3.0 on this element, placing her performance within the effective: proficient range.

• The Fall 2022 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research

CEC Standard 2.1: • Data in Table 2 show that within this assessment, one element aligns to CEC 2.1.

The Fall 2017 candidate earned a mean score of 3.0 on this element, placing her performance within the effective: proficient range.

• The Fall 2018 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

• The Fall 2022 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

CEC Standard 2.2: • Data in Table 2 show that within this assessment, two elements align to CEC 2.2.

• The Fall 2017 candidate earned a mean score of 3.5 on this element, placing her performance between the effective: proficient and the highly effective range.

• The Fall 2018 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

• The Fall 2022 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

CEC Standard 4.1: • Data in Table 2 show that within this assessment, one element aligns to CEC 4.1.

• The Fall 2017 candidate earned a mean score of 3.0 on this element, placing her performance within the effective: proficient range.

• The Fall 2018 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

• The Fall 2022 candidate is currently enrolled in ED 545 where this element would be assessed.

CEC Standard 4.3: • Data in Table 2 show that within this assessment, two elements align to CEC 4.3.

• The Fall 2017 candidate earned a mean score of 3.5 on this element, placing her performance between the effective: proficient and the highly effective range.

• The Fall 2018 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

• The Fall 2022 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range CEC Standard 5.1: • Data in Table 2 show that within this assessment, one element aligns to CEC 5.1.

• The Fall 2017 candidate earned a mean score of 3.0 on this element, placing her performance within the effective: proficient range.

• The Fall 2018 candidate also earned a mean score of 3.0 on this element, placing her performance within the effective: proficient range.

• The Fall 2022 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

CEC Standard 5.6: • Data in Table 2 show that within this assessment, three elements align to CEC 5.6.

•

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.

Advanced Programs Standard One Compendium 2 Data Literacy/Use of Research

• • •

The Fall 2017 candidate earned a mean score of 3.0 on this element, placing her performance within the effective: proficient range.

The Fall 2018 candidate also earned a mean score of 3.3 on this element, placing her performance between the effective: proficient and the highly effective range.

The Fall 2022 candidate earned a mean score of 4.0 on this element, placing her performance within the highly effective range.

Analysis and Interpretation

The analysis shows that candidates engaging in action research for the first time in their graduate studies can identify a problem, secure literature, examine it, and engage in action research. They are able to compare and contrast preliminary and summative assessment data and formulate next steps. There is a need as seen with ED 549 for more practice with the APA formatting and use within the body of the research. There is also a need for more instruction on differentiating reading levels for informed consent letters between parents and students of differing ages. Candidates in the two cycles used templates found on websites or through our IRB information; however, some of the examples are written at levels beyond the comprehension of some caregivers and above the reading level of most P-12 students. The candidate in the Spring 2023 cycle teaches in a secondary school, and that candidate’s informed consents were written at the appropriate reading level.

Continuous Improvement (Future directions based on data and analysis CAEP 5.3): M.Ed.in Special Education Focus Area 1: The third cycle of data occurred during the Spring 2023 academic year. There is a need for more candidates in the program.

Focus Area 2: Within the Master of Education Special Education program, candidate mean scores were continually within the effective: proficient to highly effective range on the four CAEP Standard A.1.1 skills and CAEP Standard A.1.2. The mean scores did increase slightly over the three data collection cycles. The program chair will monitor candidate performance on this assessment for additional data cycles to determine if adjustments should be made to the course content or instruction in order to further enhance research skills.

Focus Area 3: Writing the Informed Consents by not only including all required information (PL 93-380), but also making the level match the comprehension level of the subject(s). Although the Spring 2023 candidate mastered the APA format not only for bibliographic information but also for citing within the text, faculty believe that additional practice is still needed for all candidates in using APA format for citing research and formatting the research project.

Template for the Presentation of Evidence by Dr. Michele Brewer and Dr. Amber Vraim is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International "College of Education Office of Technology, Assessment, and Compliance: Template for the Presentation of Evidence." Copyright 2020 by Wilmington University.