Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education
March 5, 2004
Programs in
Educational Psychology (revised 7/04)
Master of Science
Doctoral of
Philosophy
Program in Special Education
Mission Statements for: Behavior & Learning Disorders, Communication Disorders, Educational Psychology Masters, Multiple & Severe Disabilities, Ph.D. in Educational Psychology, Ph.D. in Special Education.
List of Learning Outcomes for Graduate Programs
Description of Assessment Methods
Description of Data Collection & Analysis Procedures
The Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education (EPSE) is comprised of two divisions: Educational Psychology and Special Education. Within the Special Education division, three (3) distinct degree programs exist: Behavior and Learning Disorders (BLD), Communication Disorders (CD), and Multiple and Severe Disabilities (MSD). Further, within the MSD area, five (5) distinct concentrations leading to initial certification are available: Autism, Deaf/Hard of Hearing, Early Childhood Special Education, Moderate/Severe/Profound Mental Retardation, and Physical/Health Impairments. This creates a uniquely constituted department whose focus is on the individual needs of a diverse body of students.
Within each of the areas above, clear missions are evident. These
missions support the missions of both the University and the College. The
overarching goal of
A.
Behavior and Learning
Disorders
Through a focus on teacher
education as an area of excellence and research, the BLD Program in the
Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education is committed to
preparing special educators who can make decisions that enable them to provide
high quality instruction and support services consistent with the diverse needs
and abilities of individuals with disabilities and their families. Because there is a critical shortage of
teachers for students with mild disabilities in
C.
Educational
Psychology Masters
The mission of the Educational Psychology Program is to offer students a unique opportunity to apply the principles of experimental psychology to the systematic study of education. Majoring in educational psychology allows the student to emphasize content areas such as learning, instruction, cognition, motivation, life-span development, and applied behavior analysis. The educational psychology program at the Masters level prepares students to pursue a variety of career paths, including research, evaluation, and the applied practice of a number of disciplines, including K-12 instruction and entry into a Ph.D. program.
D. Multiple and Severe Disabilities (5
programs)
The mission of the 5concentrations in
Multiple and Severe Disabilities (Autism, Deaf/Hard of Hearing, Early Childhood
Special Education, Moderate/Severe Profound Retardation, and Physical/Orthopedic
Impairments) is to prepare master’s degree level teachers who are grounded in
research-based curriculum development, instructional technology, and data
collection and interpretation. The program prepare these individuals to be
responsive to teachers, parents, school districts, the State Department of
Education, and the legislature in the provision of information, resources, and
technical assistance; to conduct research in teacher preparation; and to improve
educational programming for students with multiple and severe
disabilities.
E. Ph.D. in Educational Psychology
The mission of the Educational Psychology Program is to offer students a unique opportunity to apply the principles of experimental psychology to the systematic study of education. Majoring in educational psychology allows the student to emphasize content areas such as learning, instruction, cognition, motivation, life-span development, and applied behavior analysis. The educational psychology program at the Doctoral level prepares students for careers as instructors, researchers and consultants in school, university, government, and industrial settings.
The mission of the Department of Special Education at Georgia State University to prepare special educators as program leaders in higher education who can make decisions that provide high quality instruction and support services consistent with the diverse needs and abilities of individuals with disabilities and their families. The faculty recognizes that the personnel it prepares must have the flexibility to adapt to the changing role of the special educator, changing patterns regarding how special education services are delivered, and changing social and economic contexts in which individuals with disabilities live. Graduates of this program are prepared to take on the role of faculty members in special education at institutions of higher education. These individuals will be able to train teachers whose research-based education has prepared them to implement best practices in special education, to communicate effectively and to work collaboratively with other special educators, general educators, parents and support personnel.
II.
List of Learning
Outcomes for Graduate Programs
The diverse nature of the EPSE Department, with its many distinct degree and certification offerings necessitates a look at the learning outcomes of each area as separate entities rather than an aggregated whole. Below are the program matrices for the divisions and areas that constitute the department.
A.
Initial Preparation
Programs
The initial certification programs in the EPSE department respond to the Conceptual Framework as determined by the Professional Education Faculty (PEF). These outcomes in addition are aligned with the INTASC/NCATE standards. In the Special Education area, INTASC/NCATE standards are further aligned with the standards for the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). In the Communication Disorders area, these standards are superceded by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), which has been designated by NCATE as the Specialized Professional Association (SPA) for the field of Communication Disorders.
1. Outcomes for
Communication Disorders- Initial Preparation
The student demonstrates knowledge of normal
communication and swallowing processes and behaviors including their biological,
neurological, acoustic, psychological, developmental, and linguistic and
cultural bases. (ASHA Standard III-B)
3.
Knowledge of Communication and Swallowing Disorders
The student demonstrates knowledge of the
etiologies and characteristics of speech, language, hearing, and communication
disorders and differences and swallowing disorders including their etiologies,
characteristics, anatomical/physiological, acoustic, psychological,
developmental, and linguistic and cultural correlates. (ASHA Standard
III-C)
4.
Knowledge of Principles of Assessment and Intervention
The student demonstrates knowledge of the
principles and methods of prevention, assessment, and intervention for people
with communication and swallowing disorders including consideration of
anatomical/physiological, acoustic, psychological, developmental, and linguistic
and cultural correlates. (ASHA Standard III-D)
5.
Knowledge of Ethical Conduct
The student demonstrates knowledge of
standards of ethical conduct. (ASHA Standard III-E)
The student demonstrates the ability to
critically evaluate published theory and research and to determine its relevance
and application to clinical practice in communication disorders. (ASHA Standard
III-F)
7.
Contemporary Professional Issues
The student demonstrates knowledge of
contemporary professional issues related to clinical standards and practice
guidelines, federal and state regulations, site-specific rules, service delivery
models, and practice management. (ASHA Standard III-G)
8.
Professional Credentials
The student demonstrates an understanding of
the requirements for state and national certification, specialty recognition,
and licensure. (ASHA Standard III-H)
9.
Communication Skills
The student demonstrates appropriate oral and
written communication skills in professional practice. (ASHA Standard
IV-B)
The student accurately assesses clients with
communication disorders and differences and swallowing disorders using formal
and informal assessment procedures (including screening, prevention, and
evaluation). (ASHA Standard IV-G)
The student adapts assessment and prevention
plans and procedures to meet the individual needs as well as the linguistic and
cultural differences of each client. (ASHA Standard IV-G)
The student develops and implements
intervention programs that are functional, logical in sequence, and effective in
changing client behavior. (ASHA Standard IV-G)
The student adapts treatment, assessment, and
prevention plans and procedures to meet the individual needs as well as the
linguistic and cultural differences of each client. (ASHA Standard
IV-G)
12. Interaction
and Personal Qualities
The student demonstrates appropriate
collaborative and interpersonal skills with clients, family members, and other
professionals. (ASHA Standard IV-G)
The student understands professional ethics
and demonstrates appropriate professional and ethical behavior. (ASHA Standard
III-G)
The student demonstrates the ability to self-evaluate clinical performance.
13.
Technology Application
The student demonstrates knowledge of the
fundamental concepts of information technology and uses appropriate technology
for assessment, intervention, and professional
productivity.
2. Outcomes for Behavior/Learning
Disorders and Multiple/Severe Disabilities- Initial Preparation
The area of Special Education provides for preparation of teachers who will serve the fields of Autism, Behavior/Learning Disorders, Deaf/Hard of Hearing, Early Childhood Special Education, Moderate/Severe/Profound Retardation, and Physical/Health Impairments. Faculty members in the area of special education prepare individuals who, by integrating their knowledge, skills, and attitudes, make and implement effective educational decisions based on current data in each of the areas below:
|
INTASC and CEC standards |
Outcomes of the PEF Conceptual Framework |
Assessment Tools |
|
1 The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students. |
content |
Evidence from adequacy of Planned Program, course grades, projects, lesson plans, STARS reports, and student teaching, practicum, or internship placements. |
|
2
The
teacher understands how children learn and develop, and can provide
learning opportunities that support their intellectual, social and
personal development. |
human development |
Evidence from adequacy of Planned Programs, course grades, projects, STARS reports, and internships. |
|
3 The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners. |
diversity among learners |
Evidence from course grades, projects, STARS reports, and reflection logs (where appropriate). |
|
4 The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students' development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills. |
varied instructional strategies and tools, including technology |
Evidence from adequacy of Planned Program, course grades, projects, lesson plans, STARS reports, and student teaching, practicum, or internship placements. |
|
5 The teacher uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation. |
the learning environment |
Same |
|
6 The teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom. |
communication skills |
Same |
|
7 The teacher plans instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals. |
instructional planning |
Same |
|
8 The teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social and physical development of the learner. |
assessment |
Same |
|
9 The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally. |
professional commitment |
Same |
|
10 The teacher fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community to support students' learning and well-being. |
partnerships to support learners |
Same |
3. Outcomes for Educational Psychology- Initial Preparation
The matrix and assessment plan details the expected
outcomes and assessment of those outcomes for students in the MS. in Educational
psychology. The assessment plan will be completed by the student’s advisor each
spring semester that they are enrolled in school.
Student Outcomes:
Assessment of Outcomes:
|
1. Commitment to learning and timely
progress. |
Evidence from adequacy of Planned Program, course
grades, timely progress, and oral exams. |
|
2. Knows major area subject
matter. |
Evidence from adequacy of Planned Program, course
grades, and comprehensive exam. |
|
3. Engages in scholarship and creates new
knowledge. |
Evidence from Thesis or Project and Oral
exams. |
B.
Advanced Preparation
Programs
Several programs in the EPSE department are found at the Advanced level. The Candidate Outcomes for the COE’s Conceptual Framework form the basis for advanced preparation and are identified below.
1.
Outcomes for Educational Psychology- Advanced Preparation
Student Outcomes:
Assessment of Outcomes:
|
1. Commitment to learning and timely
progress. |
Evidence from adequacy of Planned Program, course
grades, timely progress, and oral exams. |
|
2. Knows major area subject
matter. |
Evidence from adequacy of Planned Program, course
grades, and comprehensive exam. |
|
3. Engages in scholarship and creates new
knowledge. |
Evidence from Thesis or Project and Oral
exams. |
2. Outcomes for Behavior/Learning
Disorders and Multiple Severe Disabilities (Autism, Deaf/Hard of Hearing, Early
Childhood Special Education, Moderate/Severe/Profound Retardation, and
Physical/Orthopedic Impairments)- Advanced
Preparation
The matrix below is based on the Candidate Outcomes for the COE’s Conceptual Framework for Advanced Educator Preparation. In addition, these outcomes are related to the standards set forth by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). Three data collection points have been identified by each program, and data to be gathered are identified in a series of comprehensive and complex program matrices.
|
NBPTS Standard |
Student Outcome Related to the Conceptual Framework |
Assessments |
|
1 |
Committed to pupils and their learning |
Evidence from adequacy of Planned Programs, course grades, projects, and internships. |
|
2 |
Knows the subjects they teach and how to teach them, using varied instructional strategies and tools, including technology |
Evidence from adequacy of Planned Program, course grades, projects, lesson plans, and student teaching, practicum, or internship placements. |
|
3 |
Responsible for managing and monitoring pupil learning |
Evidence from adequacy of Planned Program, course grades, projects, lesson plans, and student teaching, practicum, or internship placements. |
|
4 |
Engage in scholarship and create new knowledge about teaching and learning |
Evidence from course grades, projects, internships, papers, portfolios, and comprehensive final examinations. |
|
5 |
Are members of learning communities |
Evidence from course grades, projects, and internships or practicums. |
3. Outcomes for Ph.D. in Special Education- Advanced Preparation
The
matrix below is based on the Candidate Outcomes for the COE’s Conceptual Framework for Advanced Educator
Preparation. It has also been formatted as a form that will be completed at each
annual evaluation and placed in a student’s departmental file.
Student
Outcomes:
Standards: Assessment of
Outcomes:
|
1.
Commitment to their students and their students’
learning. |
1 |
Evidence
from Residency activity I-2, GTA experience and/or teaching internship
(EXC 9660). |
|
2.
Knows major area subject matter. |
2a |
Evidence
from adequacy of Planned Program, course grades, Residency activity I-2,
GTA experience, teaching internship evaluation (EXC 9660) and/or
comprehensive exam. |
|
3.
Knows and uses varied instructional strategies, including
technology. |
2b |
Evidence
from EPY 9000, Residency activity I-2, GTA evaluations, teaching
internship evaluation (EXC 9660). |
|
4.
Can manage student learning responsibly. |
3 |
Evidence
from Residency activity I-2, II-7, II-8 GTA evaluations, teaching
internship evaluation (EXC 9660). |
|
5.
Engages in scholarship and creates new knowledge. |
4 |
Evidence
from Residency activity I-1, II-1, II-4, II-6 and
Dissertation. |
|
6.
Participates in Learning Communities. |
5 |
Evidence
from Professional Development Seminar (EXC 8961), Residency activity II-2,
II-3, II-9, II-10, II-11, II-12. |
III.
Description of Assessment Methods
A.
Behavior/Learning Disorders and Multiple/Severe
Disabilities
B. Communication Disorders
In addition to exams, papers and assignments in individual courses, the CD program uses a variety of formative and summative assessment tools to determine if the program’s learning goals are being met. These tools include: a comprehensive portfolio, summary of clinical performance evaluations, the STARS (INTASC) surveys, annual survey of current students, exit interviews of graduating students, surveys of alumni and employers, the PRAXIS II exam, and input from the CD Advisory Committee.
C. Educational Psychology
D.
Ph.D. in Special Education
The
assessment sequence assumes a full-time doctoral student who takes three years
to complete the program. The initial assessment will be at the end of a
student’s first year. The second assessment will be at the end of year two. The
final assessment will be at the end of year three. Each student is assessed
annually in the Spring Semester by the Special Education Post Master’s Advisory
Committee. Therefore, part-time students who take longer than three years to
complete the program may have multiple intermediate assessments.
IV.
Description of Data Collection
and Analysis Procedures
A. Behavior/Learning Disorders and Multiple/Severe Disabilities (5 areas)
The BLD and MSD areas and the different programs that comprise these areas will gather information at three separate points as each student matriculates. These data are synopsized in the matrices identified in the previous paragraphs, and each of the programs has developed a comprehensive matrix containing multiple sources of data. These data will be gathered, summarized and shared with the consumer groups served by the students we prepare such as the Metro Audiologists, the Metro Consultants for the Hearing Impaired, and the Metro Consultants for Early Childhood Special Education.
B. Communication Disorders
The assessment tools described above have been in place for a number of years for the CD Program as part of the national accreditation requirements of the Council on Academic Accreditation (CAA) for Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology. The data are collected annually from all students and summarized for review by the program faculty, our Advisory Committee, and our accrediting agency (the CAA).
C. Educational Psychology
The
Educational Psychology Faculty meets annually and reviews MS Degree students’
annual evaluations to identify any areas where students in the program are not
meeting the goals of the program. We then develop a plan to remediate those
deficiencies. In the PhD program, each student is assessed annually in the
Spring Semester by the Educational Psychology Program Faculty. Full-time
students who typically take 4 years to complete the program will have four
assessments. Part-time students who take longer than three years to complete the
program may have multiple intermediate assessments.
D. Ph.D. in Special
Education
The Special Education program’s Post-Masters Committee (PMAC) uses the Ph.D. Residency Form and the Annual Evaluation Form, which is linked to standards, as a means of documenting skills and progress. The PMAC meets annually and reviews current doctoral students’ to evaluate the progress of each student in his or her program. Each student receives a letter from the Chair of the PMAC reporting the results of the evaluation. When deficiencies or other concerns are identified, the student is informed of the problem area and is given recommendations for corrective action.
V. Description of How Results of
Analysis Will Be Used to Improve Programs
A. Behavior/Learning Disorders and Multiple/Severe Disabilities
Feedback from these groups will be summarized, and the both sets of information will be discussed annually at a meeting of the different areas. The purpose of this meeting will be to provide additional peer review of program results, to assure interconnectedness among all department components, and to assist faculty in determining the need for program modifications.
B. Communication Disorders
The results have been used in the past to make changes in our curriculum, our advisement procedures, our admissions process, and the clinical experiences we provide to our students. We plan to continue to use the data to improve the program in whatever ways the data suggest are needed and are appropriate.
C. Educational Psychology
The
Educational Psychology Faculty meets annually and reviews students’ annual
evaluations to identify any areas where students in the program are not meeting
the goals of the program. We then develop a plan to remediate those deficiencies
both from the perspective of the student and from the perspective of the
program. Patterns of weaknesses are identified and discussed, and where
appropriate, revisions to the program are implemented.
D.
Ph.D. in Special Education
The
annual evaluation form completed on each student is aggregated by the PMAC to
provide a global look at the overall performance on each evaluation
criterion. On the basis of these
reviews, adjustments in the program are recommended and decided on by the PMAC.
The PMAC is responsible for planning and running a one semester hour doctoral
seminar in which all active doctoral students must be enrolled each semester
until they have an approved prospectus. The topics and activities in this
seminar are often influenced by the annual evaluation materials and discussion
of students’ performance, so there is direct feedback into planning and program
revision based on all data gathered.