.Assessment for Diverse Exceptional Learners
    Home
    Courses
    Handouts
    Vision
    Vita
    e-mail me
    click here to go to the course home page

    Syllabus

    Fall, 2003, Wednesdays, 4:20-6:50 p.m. (3 credit hours), Ortega 219
         
        Instructor: Julia Scherba de Valenzuela, Ph.D.
        Office: Hokona Hall, room 254
        E-mail: devalenz@unm.edu
        Phone: 277-1406
        Web site: http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/
        Office Hours: Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, 7:15-8:30 by appointment only.
        Thursdays, 5-7:15, on a drop-in, first-come first-serve basis -- no appointment needed.
        NOTE:  No office hours on September 25, October 16, or November 27. Last office hours for the semester on Thursday, Dec. 11, 2003.
    .
    The following information is included in this syllabus:
  • Course Overview
  • Readings
  • Course Design
  • Policies
  • Class Schedule
  • Mission Statements:
    • Instructor vision and mission
    • College of Education mission
    • COE conceptual framework
  • Grading Assignments:
    • classroom-based assessment development
    • portfolio assignment
    • standardized test description
    • treasure hunt
  • Grading Criteria:
    • classroom-based assessment development
    • portfolio assignment
    • standardized test description:
      • draft
      • final
    • treasure hunt
    return to top
    OVERVIEW

    Course Description:
    The purpose of this course is to expose students to a variety of assessment methods appropriate for individuals with mental retardation and severe disabilities, including those who are culturally and linguistically diverse. This course will explore a range of assessment techniques, based on an ecological model of assessment which recognizes the impact of the assessment context on student performance. Emphasis will be on those instruments and assessment methods which provide direction for instruction as well as diagnosis, including, but not restricted to: traditional psychometric instruments, curriculum-based assessment, clinical observation, interviews, criterion-referenced assessment, and other alternative assessment techniques, with a consistent emphasis on the assessment of students with mental retardation and severe disabilities and those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.


    Rationale:
    The mission of the College of Education is to advance the quality of the educational experience for all learners and to educate professionals who can facilitate human growth in schools, homes, communities, and workplaces. In carrying out this mission, the College explicitly values diversity in people and perspectives. The rationale for the Mental Retardation and Severe Disabilities Program is supported by a shift in the major paradigm in mental retardation, severe disabilities, and bilingual special education from a solely trait-based conceptualization toward thinking about disabilities as an interaction between individuals with severe limitations in intellectual functioning or those from cultural and/or linguistic diverse backgrounds, their environments, and needed supports. This new way of thinking forces reanalysis of structures designed to assist individual in creating for themselves satisfying lives and challenges traditional notions of disabilities and handicaps.

    This course supports the College of Education and Mental Retardation and Severe Disabilities Emphasis frameworks by addressing student abilities within the context of a diverse society, recognizing the need to support all individuals in life-long learning, and validating all individuals, including those with disabilities, as valuable members of their communities, including their communities of learners.

    Course Objectives:
    1.) To be able to develop a coherent framework/process/system for classroom-based assessment for your students with disabilities.
    2.) To be able to construct criterion-referenced assessment instruments for use in your own classroom.
    3.) To become familiar with the concepts and terminology involved in the interpretation of standardized test scores.
    4.) To understand the strengths and limitations of standardized tests commonly used with students with disabilities.
    5.) To understand how you can contribute to the ongoing evaluation and re-evaluation of your students.


    Related Objectives:
    The faculty from the University of New Mexico’s Special Education Emphasis in Mental Retardation and Severe Disabilities: Studies in Educational Equity for Diverse Exceptional Learners, in collaboration with professionals from the Albuquerque Public Schools, have developed a set of 10 professional standards to guide instructional practices. These practices underlie the graduate courses offered in the Emphasis in Mental Retardation and Severe Disabilities and will be used to evaluate performance during various aspects of the graduate program, such as in relevant coursework and field experiences.

    This course is designed to assist class participants in developing those skills necessary to develop these professional competencies. In particular, SPC ED 527 will provide information about and opportunities to practice the performance indicators related to the following standard:
     

      7.   Classroom-based Assessment
      What:  Teachers incorporate a variety of classroom-based evaluation measures and techniques into a system of ongoing assessment for each student. Measures and techniques useful for program planning and evaluation of instruction are included.
      Performance Indicators:
      • All lesson plans include a description of the assessment measures or techniques to be used.
      • A variety of assessment types, such as check lists, rating scales, documented direct observations, rubrics, curriculum-based assessment, or portfolios, are used.
      • The criteria used in classroom-based assessments are objective (descriptive, observable, and measurable).
      • Assessments are used to measure student progress and to provide information on the effectiveness of instruction.
      • Data collected includes the amount and type of prompts used, as well as documenting progress made toward fading prompts.

     
    return to top
    .READINGS
       
    1.) Required Text (at UNM Bookstore):

    Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2002). Assessment in special education: A practical approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    2.) Additional Readings (On e-reserve at Zimmerman library. Start at http://ereserves.unm.edu/.
     

      Additional readings are on electronic reserve at Zimmerman library: http://ereserves.unm.edu/courseindex.asp
      Please contact the course instructor (devalenz@unm.edu) for the password.
    .
    American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
    .
    Azar, B. (1999). Are standards meant to be enforced? APA Monitor Online, 30(11), 1-2. Retrieved April 27, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec99/sc2.html
    .
    Azar, B. (1999). Changes will improve the quality of tests. APA Monitor Online, 30(11), 1-4. Retrieved April 27, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec99/sc1.html
    .
    Beverly, C. L., & Thomas, S. B. (1999). Family assessment and collaboration building: Conjoined processes. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46(2), 180-197.
    .
    Bondurant-Utz, J. A. (2002). A practical guide to assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
    .
    Brown, F., & Snell, M. E. (2000). In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (pp. 67-114) (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
    .
    Cohen, L. G., & Spenciner, L. J. (1998). Assessment of children and youth. New York: Longman.
    .
    Ezell, D., Klein, C. E., & Ezell-Powell, S. (1999). Empowering students with mental retardation through portfolio assessment: A tool for fostering self-determination skills. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34(4), 453-463.
    .
    Gelfer, J. I., & Perkins, P. G. (1998). Portfolios: Focus on young children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(2), 44-47.
    .
    Hall, E. W., & Salmon, S. J. (2003). Chocolate chip cookies and rubrics: Helping students understand rubrics in inclusive settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(4), 8-11.
    .
    Harcourt, Inc. (2000). Glossary of measurement terms. Retrieved April 25, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.hbem.com/library/glossary.htm
    .
    Helms, J. E. (1997). The triple quandary of race, culture, and social class in standardized cognitive ability testing. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.) Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 517-532). NY: Guilford.
    .
    Horner, R. H., & Carr, E. G. (1997). Behavioral support for students with severe disabilities: Functional assessment and comprehensive intervention. The Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 84-104.
    .
    Hull, T., & Mason, H. (1993). Issues in standardizing psychometric tests for children who are blind. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 87(5), 149-150.
    .
    Jackson, C. W., & Larkin, M. J. (2002). Teaching students to use rubrics. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(1), 40-44.
    .
    Jitendra, A. K., & Kameenui, E. J. (1993). Dynamic assessment as a compensatory assessment approach: A description and analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 14(5), 6-18.
    .
    Jitendra, A. K., & Rohena-Diaz, E. (1996). Language assessment of students who are linguistically diverse: Why a discrete approach is not the answer. School Psychology Review, 25(1), 40-56.
    .
    Jones, C. J. (2001a). CBAs that work: Assessing students' math content-reading levels. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(1), 24-28.
    .
    Jones, C. J. (2001b). Teacher friendly curriculum-based assessment in spelling. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(2), 32-38.
    .
    Kleinert, H., Green, P., Hurte, M., Clayton, J., & Oetinger, C. (2002). Creating and using meaningful alternate assessments. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(4), 40-47.
    .
    Kublin, K. S., Wetherby, A. M., Crais, E. E., & Prizant, B. M. (1998). Prelinguistic dynamic assessment: A transactional approach. In A. M. Wetherby, S. F. Warren, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Transitions in prelinguistic communication (pp. 285-312). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
    .
    Leary, J. B., & Boscardin, M. L. (1992). Ethics and efficacy of verbal testing of nonverbal children: A case study. Remedial and Special Education, 13(4), 52-61.
    .
    Leung, B. P. (1996). Quality assessment practices in a diverse society. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(3), 42-45.
    .
    Lopez, E. C. (1997). The cognitive assessment of limited English proficient and bilingual children. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.) Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 503-516). NY: Guilford.
    .
    McConnell, M. E. (1999). Self-monitoring, cueing, recording, and managing: Teaching students to manage their own behavior. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(2), 14-21.
    .
    Merritt, D. D., & Culatta, B. (1998). Dynamic assessment, language processes, and curricular content. In D. D. Merritt & B. Culatta (Eds.), Language intervention in the classroom (pp. 99-142). San Diego, CA: Singular..
    .
    New Mexico State Department of Education (2002). Administration manual for the New Mexico Alternate Assessment. Santa Fe: NM: Author.
    .
    Pemberton, J. B. (2003). Communicating academic progress as an integral part of assessment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(4), 16-20.
    .
    Pike, K., & Salend, S. (1995). Authentic assessment strategies: Alternatives to norm-referenced testing. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(1), 15-20.
    .
    Salend, S. J. (1998). Using portfolios to assess student performance. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(2), 36-43.
    .
    Sen, M. (1998). Alternate assessments in a high school geometry class: Portfolios. Thresholds in Education, 24(3), 30-35.
    .
    Siegel-Causey, E., & Allinder, R. M. (1998). Using alternative assessment for students with severe disabilities: Alignment with best practices. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33(2), 168-178.
    .
    Tierney, R. J., Carter, M. A., & Desai, L. E. (1991). Portfolio assessment in the reading-writing classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
    .
    Tucker, D. L., & Bakken, J. P. (2000). How do your kids do at reading? And how do you assess them? Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(6), 14-19.
    .
    Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    .
    Wesson, C. L., & King, R. P. (1996). Portfolio assessment and special education students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(2), 44-48.
    .
    Whittaker, C. R., Salend, S. J., & Duhaney, D. (2001). Creating instructional rubrics for inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(2), 8-13.
    .
    Wolf-Schein, E. G. (1998). Considerations in the assessment of children with severe disabilities including deaf-blindness and autism. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 45(1), 35-55.
     
    return to top
    COURSE DESIGN
       

    Course Structure:
    This course is designed so that students will interact actively with the course material -- whole and small group discussion, rather than instructor lecture, will make up the bulk of in-class sessions. Therefore, it is imperative that students arrive at each class having thoroughly read all of the assigned readings. Graded assignments are designed to be instructional as well as providing a means of arriving at a final grade for each student. Therefore, emphasis will be placed on graded out-of-class assignments that rely on analysis, synthesis and evaluation of course materials and development of critical thinking.

    Students who require special accommodations or instructional modifications need to notify the instructor by the beginning of the semester, or as soon as difficulties become apparent, with appropriate documentation from the Student Support Services Center (277-3506), Mesa Vista Hall, Room 2021.


    Specific Course Requirements:
    Descriptions of and criteria for grading each assignment are included with this syllabus. Extra copies can be obtained at the instructor's web site -- http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/

    Assignments: Points Possible:
    1)   two classroom-based assessments (15 points each)     30 points total
    2)   standardized test description:                                            30 points total

    • rough draft (10 points)
    • final draft (20 points)
    3)   assessment terminology treasure hunt                              15 max
    4)   student portfolio                                                                    24 points

    The total points possible for all of the above assignments add up to 99 points. The final point will be added to the student's grade at the instructor's discretion for any assignment that goes significantly above and beyond the work of other students. This allows the instructor to assign a grade of 'A+' only in the case of the student fulfilling the stated requirements for all assignments, attending all class sessions (or making up those missed) AND performing clearly superior work on at least one assignment.


    Evaluation Procedures & Grading System:
    Final grades will be determined by a point system (X out of 100 total possible points). Fractionated grading will be used, with the following breakdown:
      A+ = 100                B+ = 88-89              C+ = 78-79
      A = 94-99              B = 84-87                 C = 74-77
      A- = 90-93             B- = 80-83                F = below 74*
      * Please note that, according to UNM regulations, graduate students may not be assigned a grade of C-, D+, D, or D-. Therefore, graduate students who do not accumulate a minimum of 74 points by the end of the semester will be assigned an F.


    Incompletes are strongly discouraged and are only given when the conditions of the university are met and after a conference with the instructor at the initiation of the student. Incompletes and withdraws from the course will be allowed only in accordance with UNM policies. Please see the UNM catalog for a description of these policies.

    Written directions for all assignments are provided in this syllabus, along with the criteria for determining point values. Extra copies of the syllabus, assignments, and grading criteria are available at the instructor’s web site at: http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/. All written assignments will be expected to be typed and follow the American Psychological Association Manual (5th ed.) format, unless otherwise specified. A brief guide to APA is also available on the instructor's web site, under the "handouts" link.

    In particular, all assignments should:
     

    • Be typed and double-spaced.
    • Use 12-pt font, and a serif typestyle (such as Times New Roman).
    • Have 1 inch margins on all sides.
    • Be copied onto plain white paper, stapled at the top left hand corner. Please do not put your assignment in a folder or plastic cover, unless otherwise specified.
    • Have the text lined up/aligned on the left margin only (“left justified”). Leave the right margin “ragged.”
    • Be written in complete sentences, using grammar, style, and vocabulary appropriate for an academic audience.
    • Use person-first language.
    • Include a title page with your name, the name of assignment, the date the assignment was turned in, the instructor’s name (please try to spell this correctly...) and the course name and number (i.e. SPC ED 527: Assessment for Diverse Exceptional Learners).
    • Include a brief header and page number in the upper right-hand corner of each page.
    • Use section headings appropriately and in correct APA format.
    • Include a separate reference page at the end of your assignment, which includes all of the sources cited in the paper and is formatted according to APA guidelines.
    • All works/sources used in the assignment must be appropriately attributed (see ‘academic dishonesty policy’ below).

     
    return to top
    POLICIES


    1.) Academic Dishonesty: It is the responsibility of students to avoid practices that may be considered acts of academic dishonesty. UNM’s policy, as found in the UNM Catalog  (2003-1005), p. 43, is as follows:
     
      Any student who has been judged to have engaged in academic dishonesty in course work may receive a reduced or failing grade for the work in question and/or the course.

      Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, dishonesty in quizzes, tests, or assignments; claiming credit for work not done or done by others . . .


    What does this mean for this course?
     

      a.)  In terms of written work, this means that you have the responsibility to make it very clear in all written work what portion of the work you wrote and what was written by other people, such as book or article authors, web site authors, or your colleagues. This includes both direct quotes and paraphrases.
      b.)  Additionally, you must make it clear what you read to complete the assignment (a ‘primary source’), versus what the authors of the sources read in preparation for their work (a ‘secondary source’).
      c.)  Finally, the work that you turn in for this class must be specifically written for the assignments in this course, this semester -- you may not turn in work (either in whole or part) that you have used for a grade in another course.


    So, if you didn’t actually write it or you didn’t actually read it, you must make that explicit. Additionally, if you didn’t originally write it for this class, you may not use it. Failure to comply with these guidelines falls under the category of academic dishonesty and will result in the following:
     

    • The first time a problem of this sort appears in an assignment, I will assume that it is unintentional and will ask you to re-write the assignment. Points may be deducted from your assignment at my discretion. You will be required to meet with me to learn how to avoid this problem in future assignments.
    • The second time this problem is noted in an assignment, you will be assigned 0 points for that assignment.
    • If the problem appears for the third time, you will be assigned a failing grade in the course.
    • If this problem appears for the first time in your final assignment for this course, you will be assigned 0 points for the assignment, unless there is time for you to re-write it before I turn in the final grades at the end of the current semester.


    To assist you in understanding what plagiarism is and isn’t, you will be provided with a handout during the first day of class on what plagiarism is and how to avoid it. Further information on avoiding plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty can be found in the APA Manual and at the Dartmouth College Website: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sources/contents.html. Rutgers University also has many resources on this topic, including an interactive presentation on plagiarism: http://sal.rutgers.edu/plagiarism.html.

    If you have any concerns or questions about how to appropriately indicate what is your own work and what is derived from the work of others, or whether small portions of an assignment developed for another course might be appropriate to include in an assignment for this course, please see me during office hours, or if that time is not convenient, call or email to set an appointment time.


    2.) Late Paper Policy: All assignments are due by the beginning of class on the date assigned. Papers turned in after class (such as brought to my office later that evening) will be considered late. Late assignments will receive a one (1) point deduction for every day late, with a limit of seven days allowed. If assignments are not turned in within 1 week of the assigned date, they will not be accepted, except in the case of significant illness (doctor's note required) or major family emergency. You need to notify me as soon as possible about this emergency, so that we can arrange a mutually agreed upon time for completion of the assignment.

    If you will not be able to be in class the date an assignment is due, please arrange for a friend to turn in your assignment during class, have the assignment faxed to the special education office by the time/date due, or have it handed in in person to either Terri Montoya or Jo Sanchez in the Special Education office (Hokona Hall 273) prior to 5 p.m. on the date due. If your assignment will be turned in at the Special Education office, please make sure that the time and date it is received are documented by the staff. Do NOT put late assignments under my office door, unless you want them accepted as turned in on the day I find them, which may or may not be the same day as you turned them in. Since I am not at the university every day, this could cost you points.

    If you would like to send me your assignment as an attachment to an e-mail, I may allow that, at my discretion, with prior approval. However, I will only allow this when absolutely necessary -- if you e-mail me your assignment the evening after a paper is due, I will not accept it, unless you have arranged this ahead of time. If I agree to allow you to send me your assignment and you do so, I will e-mail you back with confirmation that your assignment was received and that the attachment could be opened. It is your responsibility to make sure that you receive confirmation of the receipt of your e-mail attached assignment. Please print and keep a copy of this return e-mail. I am not responsible to e-mail that do not arrive or attachments which cannot be opened.


    3.) Re-Writes: In order to be fair to all students, re-writes will not be allowed, except under extraordinary circumstances beyond the student's control. However, students are STRONGLY encouraged to talk with, e-mail questions to, and/or submit drafts to the instructor at least 2 weeks ahead of time, so that revisions can be made, if necessary, by the assigned due date. You are also encouraged to bring drafts of your work to drop-in or scheduled office hours, in advance of the date the assignment is due, so that I can provide you with feedback on the spot.


    4.) Class Attendance: Class attendance is mandatory - Students who miss three class sessions will be dropped from the course, regardless of the reason.  Missed class sessions (up to three) can be made up with the following, turned in no later than three weeks after the missed class:
     
    • a photocopy of a colleague's notes from the missed class,
    • a typed response to the reading questions (available on the course website), and
    • a typed summary of all assigned readings for the class missed.


    Five points will be deducted for every absence that is not made up. No excuse or documentation is necessary for missed classes.

    Late arrivals to class interrupt the learning of all students. Therefore, a point will be deducted for arriving more than 30 minutes late to class. Arriving more than an hour late will be considered a class absence and will need to be made up, as indicated above.


    5.) Class Participation: Class participation that is conducive to the learning of all course participants is expected. Behaviors that are considered to be conducive to learning (of the student him/herself and others) include:
     
    • arriving to class on time and well-prepared,
    • paying attention to instructor and/or other students when they are speaking,
    • turning off the ringer of your cellular phone and not taking calls within the classroom (please step out in the hall to speak if you must answer an emergency call),
    • use of appropriate and non-offensive language during class and in written class assignments,
    • demonstrating cooperation with and respect for the instructor and peers during class discussions,
    • actively participating, on-topic, during small group activities, and
    • showing consideration for other students' need for alternative teaching strategies.


    I expect students to demonstrate consistently positive class participation. Frequent and/or significant failure to fulfill these expectations will result in the student being dropped from the course. The following four areas are defined below:
     

    • Respect for self and others
    • Positive contribution to the group
    • Listening
    • Openness


    Respect for self, colleagues and instructor is shown by: 1) following group norms during discussions, 2) consistent use of oral and body language that is professional, and 3) frequent reference to classmate's opinions and perspectives in class discussion in a positive and supportive manner.

    Positive contribution to the group is demonstrated when: 1) the quantity of contributions is neither significantly more or less than that of other students, 2) the student is not usually the first one to talk after a prolonged silence, 3) contributions are almost always on topic, and 4) comments frequently engage other participants or support the engagement of other students in a consistently positive manner.

    Listening is demonstrated by: 1) providing previously provided information to colleagues when asked, 2) not redundantly repeating what was already stated, 3) consistently following directions, and 4) incorporating others' responses and comments in contributions to class discussions.

    Openness is shown by: 1) consistent recognition and consideration of alternative perspectives, 2) consistent reaction to alternative ideas in a thoughtful manner, and 3) a positive response to criticism.
    return to top
    COURSE SCHEDULE

    August 27, 2003 (#1)
    Topic:  introduction
    Read:  no reading assigned

    September 3, 2003 (#2)
    Topic:  Exploring the purposes of assessment
    Read:
    1. Brown & Snell

    September 10, 2003 (#3)
    Topic:  Thinking about different assessment processes
    Read:
    1. text, chapter 1, and
    2. text, chapter 6

    September 17, 2003 (#4)
    Topic:  portfolios
    Read:
    1. Salend (1998),
    2. Wesson & King, and
    3. One of the following to share in small group (your choice)

    • Ezell, Klein, & Ezell-Powell,
    • Gelfer & Perkins,
    • Sen, and
    • Tierney, Carter, & Desai


    September 24, 2003 (#5)
    Topic:  criterion-referenced & curriculum-based assessment: rubrics, rating scales, and checklists
    Read:
    1. One of the following:

    • Hall & Salmon,
    • Jackson & Larkin, or
    • Whittaker, Salend & Duhaney
    2. One of the following, AND:
    • Jones (CBAs that work),
    • Jones (Teacher-friendly CBAs in spelling), or
    • Pemberton
    3. One of the following:
    • McConnell,
    • Pike & Salend, or
    • Tucker & Bakken


    October 1, 2003 (#6)
    Topic:  observations
    Read:
    1. Cohen & Spenciner, pp. 91-123

    October 8, 2003 (#7)
    Topic:  functional assessment
    Due: classroom assessment #1
    Read:
    1. text, chapter 10, especially pp. 201-207, and
    2. Horner & Carr

    October 15, 2003 (#8)
    Topic:  dynamic assessment
    Read:
    1. Kublin, Wetherby, Crais, & Prizant, and
    2. Merritt & Culatta

    October 22, 2003 (#9)
    Topic:  interviews & assessment as a collaborative process
    Read:
    1. text, chapter 7, and
    2. Cohen & Spenciner (pp. 124-126)

    October 29, 2003 (#10)
    Topic: Communicating assessment results and collaborating with families
    Due:  classroom assessment #2
    Read:
    1. Beverly & Thomas, and
    2. Bondurant-Utz

    November 5, 2003 (#11)
    Topic:  interpretation of standardized measures: reliability & validity
    Read:
    1. text, chapter 1, pp.10-13
    2. AERA, APA & NMCE Standards, and
    3. Azar (two brief articles from APA Monitor Online)

    November 12, 2003 (#12)
    Topic:  interpretation of standardized measures: reliability & validity, cont.
    Due:  first draft of test description
    Read:
    1. text, chapters 3 & 5, and
    2. Harcourt's "glossary of measurement terms"

    November 19, 2003 (#13)
    Topic:  Some cautions in test interpretation with diverse exceptional learners -- focus on bilingual students
    Due:  terminology treasure hunt assignment
    Read:
    1. Leung, AND
    2. One of the following (divide up among your small group members):

    • Helms,
    • Lopez,
    • Jitendra & Rohena-Diaz, or
    • Valdés & Figueroa


    November 26, 2003 (#14)
    Topic:  More considerations in assessing diverse exceptional learners -- focus on significant disabilities
    Read:
    1. Hull & Mason,
    3. Leary & Boscardian,
    2. Siegel & Allinder, and
    3. Wolf-Schein
     

    December 3, 2003 (#15)
    Topic:  New Mexico Alternate Assessment
    Due:  final draft of test description
    Read:
    1. Kleinert, Green, Hurte, Clayton, & Oetinger, and
    2. New Mexico Alternate Assessment Administration Manual

    December 10, 2001 (#16)
    Topic:  portfolio presentations
    Due:  student portfolios

    Home
    Courses
    Handouts
    Vision
    Vita
    e-mail me
    Julia Scherba de Valenzuela, Ph.D
    Return to top
    Last updated: September 1, 2003