AAQEP Accreditation 2022
Standard 1 Aspect D
Standard 1d: Evidence shows that, by the time of program completion, candidates exhibit knowledge, skills, and abilities of professional educators appropriate to their target credential or degree, including: Assessment of and for student learning, assessment and data literacy, and use of data to inform practice
Case for Standard 1d:
For this aspect, we used three data sources: the Functional Behavioral Assessment
and Behavior Intervention Plan assignment, CSU Educator Quality Center Completer Survey,
and SPED 130, Assessment in Special Education, final course grades.
Data Sources & Analysis
Data Source 1
Functional Behavioral Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plan
Description of Data Source:
In SPED 125: Positive Behavioral and Social Supports, students are guided through training units, IRIS Center Modules (online instruction developed by Vanderbilt to increase evidence-based practices
in teaching students with disabilities), lectures, and activities to complete an Functional
Behavioral Assessment (FBA) and Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) for one student
identified as having challenging behaviors. This assignment has three parts:
- Part I: Conduct Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)
- Part II: Write Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP)
- Part III: Implementation of Intervention; Results and Reflection
Within each section is a further breakdown of expectations, resulting in 14 areas to be evaluated.
Perspective Captured from Data Source: Program Faculty
Rationale for Using Data Source:
The FBA and BIP assignment requires that students demonstrate competency in assessing
student learning, using data to understand and plan for intervention. For this data
source, we have only one semester of collected data, but multiple course sections.
We also only have the final scores available, rather than for the discrete sections
of the assignment. Since we plan to begin collecting this data, we decided to include
it here to examine where our program is right now and suggest directions for the future.
Specific Elements of Data Source:
Candidates’ overall score, using the SPED 125 FBA/BIP Rubric (110 points possible)
Definition of Success for Each Element:
For each of the 14 outcomes, students can be evaluated as Achieved, Developing, Limited,
or Not Met. Successful criteria is based on 90% of total score (99 points)
Displays of Analyzed Data:
| Table 1: Functional Behavioral Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plan (Individual) (110 points) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Term | n | Average score |
| Fall 2020: Section 1 | 15 | 94% With 4 students scoring below 90% |
| Fall 2020: Section 2 | 17 | 104.5. With 1 student scoring below 90% |
| Fall 2020: Section 3 | 24 | 100. With 3 students scoring below 90% |
| Fall 2020: Section 4 | 19 | 101.9. With 1 student scoring below 90% |
Link to Full Dataset: Fall 2020 FBA/BIP Dataset
Interpretation of Data:
With many students receiving full grades for this assignment, we feel that our instruction
related to FBA and BIP is strong. However, we also realized that 9 students scored
below the range of 90%, indicating that there is still work we need to do to improve
instruction. This is a difficult assignment, however it is one that is crucial that
students master as they will need to assess their students’ learning, and utilize
data literacy when they are a full time special education teacher. Moving forward,
our program will continue to collect data (breaking it down into specific parts of
the assignment), discuss as program faculty, and identify where we can improve instruction.
Data Source 2
CSU Education Quality Center Program Completer Survey
Description of Data Source:
Each year, the CSU Educator Quality Center administers a survey to program completers
to learn their perceptions of how well the program prepared them in a number of areas
aligned with the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing’s Teaching Performance
Expectations (TPE). Program completers from all CSU campuses are invited to respond
to each item on a 1-5 scale, where 1 indicates they believed that they were “not at
all” prepared and 5 indicates they believe they were “very well” prepared.” Fresno
State has a high rate of completion due to the efforts of our credential analyst who
requires completion as part of the credential application process.
Perspective Captured from Data Source: Program Completers
Rationale for using Data Source:
CSU Educator Quality Center Completer Survey captures program completers’ anonymous
perspectives of how well the program prepared them at the conclusion of their teaching
credential coursework and field experiences, providing valuable insights into their
perceptions of the program.
Specific Elements of Data Source:
The items we selected to analyze included completers’ responses for the following:
How well did your program prepare you:
- To collect and utilize data to ensure educational benefit when aligning assessment data with goals and services within the least restrictive environment.
- To plan for instruction by incorporating all relevant IFSP/IEP information behavior and academic information.
- To understand and use assessment data from a variety of sources to establish learning goals and to plan, differentiate, and modify instruction.
- To use data from student assessments to inform instruction.
Definition of Success:
Our definition of success:
- 0% reporting in the “Not at all Prepared” category
- 10% or less in the “Poorly Prepared” category
- Overall positive ratings 90% or higher
We chose to analyze aggregate data from the last three years that data was available in addition to disaggregated data from each cohort in order to determine if there were any trends in responses.
Displays of Analyzed Data:
Table 2: CSU Completer Survey, Element 1, 2018-21
| Element 1: To collect and utilize data to ensure educational benefit when aligning assessment data with goals and services within the least restrictive environment. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 2018-2019 N=61 |
2019-2020 N=52 |
2020-2021 N=48 |
| Not at all | 1.6% | 0% | 0% |
| Poorly Prepared | 1.6% | 3.8% | 0% |
| Adequately Prepared | 31.1% | 25% | 22.9% |
| Well Prepared | 27.9% | 44.2% | 41.7% |
| Very Well Prepared | 37.7% | 26.9% | 35.4% |
| Overall Negative | 3% | 4% | 0% |
| Overall Positive | 97% | 96% | 100% |
Table 3: CSU Completer Survey, Element 2, 2018-21
| Element 2: To plan for instruction by incorporating all relevant IFSP/IEP information behavior and academic information. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 2018-2019 N=79 |
2019-2020 N=62 |
2020-2021 N=48 |
| Not at all | 0% | 0% | 3.3% |
| Poorly Prepared | 6.3% | 1.6% | 3.3% |
| Adequately Prepared | 29.1% | 25.8% | 23.3% |
| Well Prepared | 31.6% | 38.7% | 36.7% |
| Very Well Prepared | 32.9% | 33.9% | 33.3% |
| Overall Negative | 8% | 2% | 6% |
| Overall Positive | 92% | 98% | 94% |
Table 4: CSU Completer Survey, Element 3, 2018-21
| Element 3: To understand and use assessment data from a variety of sources to establish learning goals and to plan, differentiate, and modify instruction. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 2018-2019 N=61 |
2019-2020 N=52 |
2020-2021 N=48 |
| Not at all | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Poorly Prepared | 4.90% | 5.80% | 0% |
| Adequately Prepared | 27.90% | 25% | 20.8% |
| Well Prepared | 34.4% | 36.5% | 35.4% |
| Very Well Prepared | 32.8% | 32.7% | 43.8% |
| Overall Negative | 3% | 6% | 0% |
| Overall Positive | 97% | 94% | 100% |
Table 5: CSU Completer Survey, Element 4, 2018-21
| Element 4: To use data from student assessments to inform instruction. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 2018-2019 N=61 |
2019-2020 N=52 |
2020-2021 N=48 |
| Not at all | 0% | 0% | 2.1% |
| Poorly Prepared | 6.6% | 5.8% | 0% |
| Adequately Prepared | 24.6% | 25% | 23.4% |
| Well Prepared | 34.4% | 42.3% | 31.9% |
| Very Well Prepared | 34.4% | 26.9% | 42.6% |
| Overall Negative | 7% | 6% | 2% |
| Overall Positive | 93% | 94% | 98% |
Link to Full Dataset: The link to the full dataset is unavailable. However, if reviewers would like to view the CSU Educator Quality Center Data Dashboards, we are happy to set up a time to provide them access by sharing screens in a Zoom session.
Interpretation of Data:
We met two of our goals with 90% of our completers feeling adequately prepared in
relation to all four of these measures. However, we are concerned about two things:
1) that in the last year, we had a number of students feel not at all prepared in
two areas of planning instruction (using relevant information and data) 2) that the
number of negative respondents was higher than it was in relation to many of the other
questions on this survey. This demonstrates to us that there is still work to be done
in this area.
Data Source 3
SPED 130 Final Course Grade
Description of Data Source:
In SPED 130: Assessing Students with Special Needs, candidates focus entirely on assessments, both informal curriculum-based measures
and formal standardized assessments. Assessments are key identifiers in evaluating
the academic strengths and challenges of students with disabilities in grades TK-age
22. Through lectures, videos and hand-on activities, candidates practice and master
assessment evidence-based practices, correct administration techniques and valid interpretations
of data results.
Perspective Captured from Data Source: Program Faculty
Rationale for using Data Source:
Since SPED 130 is a course devoted entirely to developing, administering and interpreting assessments,
and Education Specialists in the field rely on data collected from both informal and
formal assessments, we chose to evaluate final course grades by semester over a three
year period, rather than rely on discrete assignments within the course.
Specific Items Used for Analysis:
Candidates’ final course grades for SPED 130
Definition of Success:
Our definition of success is having 95% of candidates earn a final grade of A or B
each semester.
Displays of Analyzed Data:
We chose to analyze aggregate data from fall 2018-spring 2021 in order to determine
if there were any trends in responses.
Table 6, SPED 130 Final Course Grade Distributions by Percentage 2018-2021
| SPED 130 Final Course Grade Distributions by Percentage 2018-2021 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semester | Fall 2018 N=25 |
Fall 2019 N=27 |
Fall 2020 N=72 |
Spring 2019 N=29 |
Spring 2020 N=28 |
Spring 2021 N=27 |
| % of A grades assigned | 60% | 96.2% | 95.8% | 100% | 100% | 92.50% |
| % of B grades assigned | 32% | 3.8% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3.70% |
| % of C grades assigned | 8% | 0% | 1.30% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| % of ‘Incomplete’grades assigned | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3.70% |
| % of candidates withdrawing from course | 0% | 0% | 2.70% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Success Rate: Total % of A and B grades | 92% | 100% | 95.8% | 100% | 100% | 96.2% |
Link to Full Dataset: SPED 130 Final Course Grades Dataset
Interpretation of Data:
We met our success goal of having 95% of our candidates earn A or B grades in all
but one semester, fall 2018. Overall, our program is successful in teaching candidates
how to administer formal and informal assessments correctly, interpret the results
of these assessments with precision, and to use the data collected to drive their
instruction and to write academic goals for their students with disabilities.
Next Steps Narrative:
In examining these three data sources, we first realized that we need to collect multiple
years of data broken down by parts of the FBA/BIP assignment in order to deepen our
understanding of student learning. This will be a goal of our program as we move forward.
In addition, we realized that our current instruction could be improved in the area
of helping students understand how to assess student learning and use that data to
design instruction. This was a sobering realization, but timely given that we are
currently engaged in a program redesign. As we work on the overall redesign of the
program and the specific competencies we address in each course, we will specifically
address this aspect.