.. ..Julia Scherba de Valenzuela, Ph.D.
Home
Activities
Courses
Handouts
Vision
Vita
 
SPCED 563: Assessment for Special Education Teachers
Syllabus
Fall 2000, Wednesdays 4-6:30, Dane Smith Hall 234
.
Instructor: Julia Scherba de Valenzuela, Ph.D. ............................
Office: Education Office Building, rm. 203
E-mail: devalenz@unm.edu Phone: 7-1406
Web site: http://www.unm.edu/~devalenz/ Fax: 7-8679
Office Hours: Mondays and Tuesdays 4-6 on a drop-in basis   
.
The following information is included in this syllabus:
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, including those who are culturally and linguistically diverse.

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 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 Program 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:
To prepare and develop teachers and other leaders who:

Required Text (at UNM Bookstore)

Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2000). Measurement and assessment in teaching (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, MJ: Merrill.
.
Required Readings (Packet available at COE Publications Center)

American Association On Mental Retardation. (1992). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and system of supports. (9th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

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.

American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. (2nd. ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological 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., & Luciano, L. B. (1994). A practical guide to infant and preschool assessment in special education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Cohen, L. G., & Spenciner, L. J. (1998). Assessment of children and youth. New York: Longman.

ERIC/U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (1998). Statewide assessment programs. Research Connections, 2, 1-8.

Fowler, H. R. (1980). The Little, Brown handbook. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.

Harcourt, Inc. (2000). Glossary of measurement terms. Retrieved April 25, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.hbem.com/library/glossary.htm

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.

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.

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.

Shorrocks-Taylor, D., & Hargreaves, M. (1999). Making it clear: A review of language issues in testing with special reference to the National Curriculum mathematics tests at key stage 2. Educational Research, 41(2), 123-136.

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.

Snell, M. E., & Brown, F. (2000). Instruction of students with severe disabilities. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Tierney, R. J., Carter, M. A., & Desai, L. E. (1991). Portfolio assessment in the reading-writing classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

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.

Course Design:
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 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 assignments that rely on interpretation 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 Learning Support Services Center (277-6670).

Specific Course Requirements
 
Assignments: Points Possible:
1)   diagnostician interview 10
2)  standardized test descriptions (10 points each) 20
3)  classroom-based assessments (10 points each) 20
4)  observation  24
5)  final portfolio  25

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 and Policies
.
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: .
Written directions for all assignments will be provided, along with the criteria for determining point values. Extra copies of assignments will be 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 (4th ed.) format, unless otherwise specified. A brief guide to APA is also available on the instructor's web site, under the "handouts" link.

Late Paper Policy:.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 family emergency. If you will be not be able to be in class, 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.

Class Attendance & Participation Policies: .Class attendance is mandatory - 5 points will be deducted for every absence that is not made up. No more than 4 class sessions in a semester can be made up. Students who miss more than 4 class sessions will be dropped from the course. Missed class sessions can be made up with the following, turned in no later than 2 weeks after the missed class:

Late arrivals to class interrupt the learning of all students. Therefore, a point will be deducted for arriving more than 15 minutes late to class. Arriving more than 45 minutes late will be considered a class absence and will need to be made up, as indicated above.

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:

A rubric indicating the instructor's expectations for appropriate classroom participation will be distributed at the beginning of the course. Students who repeatedly violate these expectations will be dropped from the course.


Class Schedule:

August 23, 2000 (#1)
Topic: introduction
Read: no reading assigned

August 30, 2000 (#2)
Topic: exploring the purposes of assessment
Read: text, chapters 1 and 2

September 6, 2000 (#3)
Topic: validity
Read: 1) text, chapter 4 and 2) Harcourt's "glossary of measurement terms"
due: diagnostician interview

September 13, 2000 (#4)
Topic: reliabity and other desired characteristics
Read: 1) text, chapter 5,  2) Azar (two brief articles from APA Monitor Online), and 3) AERA, APA & NMCE Standards

September 20, 2000 (#5)
Topic: test interpretation and some cautions
Read: 1) text, chapter 19 and 2) Leary & Boscardian
Due: test description #1

September 27, 2000 (#6)
***class meets outside of instructor's office - EOB 203
Topic: more cautions in interpreting standardized tests
Read: 1) Hull & Mason and 2) Valdés & Figueroa

October 4, 2000 (#7)
Topic: considerations in assessing diverse exceptional learners
Read: 1) Wolf-Schein and 2) Siegel & Allinder
Due: test description #2

October 11, 2000 (#8)
Guest Speakers: Profs. Stephen and Regina Enwafa
Topic: TBA
Read: Bondurant-Utz

October 18, 2000 (#9)
Topic: exploring "authentic assessment"
Read: 1) text, chapter 11 and 2) Beverly & Thomas

October 25, 2000 (#10)
Topic: observations
Read: text, chapter 13
Due: classroom assessment #1

November 1, 2000 (#11)
Topic: interviews
Read: Cohen & Spenciner

November 8, 2000 (#12)
Guest Presenter: Greg Blalock
Topic: AAMR definition
Read: 1) AAMR, chapter 1 & 3 and 2) Brown & Snell
Due: class assessment #2

November 15, 2000 (#13)
Topic: portfolios
Read: 1) text, chapter 12 and 2) Tierney, Carter, & Desai

November 22, 2000 (#14)
Topic: dynamic assessment
Read: 1) Kublin, Wetherby, Crais, & Prizant and 2) Merritt & Culatta

November 29, 2000 (#15)
Guest Presenter: Greg Blalock
Topic: functional assessment
Read: Horner & Carr

December 6, 2000 (#16)
Topic: alternate assessments
Read: 1) Shorrocks-Taylor & Hargreaves and 2) ERIC/OCEP "Research Connections"
due: final portfolios

The vision of the College of Education:
.
Excellence and diversity through people, ideas, and innovation.

Our mission is the study and practice of education through teaching, research, and service. We

.
In carrying out our mission we value


Instructor's vision and mission statement

VISION: A classroom climate that fosters thoughtful and respectful consideration of alternative viewpoints and ideas, personal ownership of learning, and individual construction of personally meaningful knowledge.

MISSION: To facilitate the collaborative construction of the above learning environment via attention to the following:

positive whole and small group dynamics;
increasing student literacy in academic discourse (comprehension and production, oral and written); and
providing opportunities for active engagement with course content and materials.
College of Education's Conceptual Framework:
Professional Understandings, Practices, and Identities

The College of Education at the University of New Mexico believes that professional education should seek to help individuals develop professional understandings, practices, and identities. These understandings, practices and identities frame the life-long learning of professional educators and reflect the values articulated in our Mission Statement and in state and national standards and competencies.

Understandings frame the identity and practice of educational professional. We seek to help you better understand:

These understandings enable you, as a professional, to value and engage in practices that embody the following qualities: Developing a professional identity is central to lifelong growth as a professional educator. The University of New Mexico College of Education will help you to develop the following attributes of a professional:
 
TOP

Last updated: August 24, 1999