program report for the preparation of english language...

Program Report for the Preparation of English Language Arts Teachers

National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)Option A

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION

COVER SHEET

1. Institution NameRadford University

2. StateVirginia

3. Date submitted

MM DD YYYY

09 / 10 / 2010

4. Report Preparer's Information:

Name of Preparer:

Carolyn L. Mathews

Phone: Ext.

( ) -540 831 6895

E-mail:

[email protected]

5. NCATE Coordinator's Information:

Name:

Patricia Shomaker

Phone: Ext.

( ) -540 831 5439

E-mail:

[email protected]

6. Name of institution's programEnglish Education Program

The English Major

Designed to afford students an integrated, comprehensive learning program, the English major teaches students the fundamental ways of organizing knowledge in the discipline of English Studies. The major also provides students with a core of knowledge and skills essential to career choices in teaching, writing, publishing, editing, or work in business and industry that requires creative thinking and excellent communication skills.

The English major incorporates a writing-intensive requirement that integrates instruction in writing and the use of writing as a powerful learning tool into the whole curriculum, following a sequenced and coordinated plan. Students take four writing-intensive courses throughout the major: ENGL 300 (Introduction to English Studies), ENGL 470 (The Author in Context), ENGL 496 (Senior Seminar), and one additional writing-intensive course of their choice that will also serve as either one of the electives or one of the requirements for the major.

Requirements

ENGL 300: Introduction to English Studies

ENGL 340: American Literary History (Colonial Period to the Present)

ENGL 330: British Literary History I (700-1700) OR

ENGL 331: British Literary History II (1700 to the Present)

One 400-level British literary period course (in the opposite period from the Literary History course chosen); course choices include ENGL 431 Medieval Literature, ENGL 434 Seventeenth Century Literature, ENGL 435 Restoration and Eighteenth Century, ENGL 437 British Romanticism, ENGL 438 Victorian Literature, ENGL 439 Modern British Literature, and ENGL 451 Contemporary Literature.

One 400-level American literary period course; course choices include ENGL 442 Early American Literature, ENGL 443 The American Renaissance, ENGL 444 American Realism and Naturalism, ENGL 445 Modern American Literature, and ENGL 451 Contemporary Literature.

ENGL 420: Introduction to Literary Criticism

ENGL 470: The Author in Context (offered each semester with different authors)

ENGL 472: Readings in Shakespeare

One course in Multicultural, Gender-Specific, or Regional Literature; course choices include ENGL 446 Appalachian Folklore, ENGL 447 Appalachian Literature, ENGL 449 African-American Literature, ENGL 450 Native American Literature, ENGL 453 The Female Tradition in Literature

One course in Linguistics or Language

.

ENGL 496: Senior Seminar

Course work in the English Education Concentration

English Education Concentration Courses

One of the following Communications Courses: COMS 114 Public Speaking; COMS 230 Communication Theory; COMS 240 Team-work and Communication

ENGL 402: Teaching Writing

ENGL 463: Grammar and Language for Teachers

ENGL 425: Adolescent Literature

ENGL 426: Teaching English in the High School

ENGL 428: Planning and Teaching Seminar

HUMD 300: Child and Adolescent Development, Birth through Adolescence

EDEF 320: Introduction to Professional Education

EDUC 440: Teaching Grades 6-12

EDUC 441: Field Experience, Grades 6-12

EDET 445: Integration of Educational Technology

EDSP 404: Introduction to Special Education for Secondary Educators

EDUC 452: Student Teaching, Grades 7-12

Program of Study

Assessment 1: Praxis II test (English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge Test0041)

Licensure Assessment

Narrative

(a) Description and Program Use of the Assessment: NCATE requires the inclusion on state licensure assessment, or other content-based assessment, as Assessment 1. The State of Virginia requires that candidates pass the Praxis II English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge Test 0041 for licensure in English, grades 6-12. Further, all teacher-preparation programs within our unit, Radford University College of Education and Human Development, use Praxis II as Assessment 1. In keeping with this practice, we include PRAXIS II as Assessment 1. This assessment is used within our program, and within all teacher-preparation programs at Radford University, as a requirement for student teaching. To qualify for student teaching in Secondary English, teacher candidates must score at least 172, the Virginia cut score for the English Content Knowledge Test 0041. The average cut score from a sample of 29 states that require this test is 155.72 (http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=89848&cat=1) , with Virginias score exceeding this average by 16.28 points. This high cut score means that our teacher candidates have mastered content knowledge as addressed within the test.

(b) Alignment of Assessment with NCTE Standards: Our English Education faculty recognize that in 2001 the Praxis II test aligned only partially with NCTE standards 3.1-3.7. NCTEs Research Project on the Assessment of Preparation of Teachers of English Language Arts (January 2001) recognizes these partial alignments of items within given categories with NCTE standards: items in the category Literature and Understanding text align partially with NCTE standards 3.5.1-3.5.4; items within the test category Language and Linguistics align partially with NCTE standards 3.1.1-3.1.7; and items within the test category Composition and Rhetoric align partially with NCTE standards 3.2.1-3.2.5 and 3.4.1-3.4.2. The aforementioned NCTE report notes limitations in the areas of technology, research theory, and literature by YA authors, authors of color and womens authors, as well as in oral and visual literacy. The policy statement Program Assessment in English Education: Belief Statements and Recommendations, issued in 2008 by NCTEs Council on English Education, calls for cooperative actions between NCTE and ETS to revise the content knowledge tests, a position that underscores questions about the use of PRAXIS II as a valid measure of candidates knowledge, dispositions, and abilities. We agree with NCTEs position and acknowledge that the limitations of PRAXIS II prevent its being used as the sole measure of candidates content knowledge. Therefore, we have carefully designed other assessments that measure NCTE standards. In particular, standards related to knowledge of technology, research theory in English language arts, a range of literary works, and oral and visual literacy are assessed in teacher candidates student teaching evaluations (Assessment 4) and in their Teaching English Portfolio (Assessment 6).

(c) Interpretation of Data as Evidence for Meeting Standards: Program completers in the English Education Program meet NCTE standards 3.1-3.7, as they are reflected in the Praxis II content knowledge test 0041. Our English Education Program achieves a 100% pass rate on PRAXIS II, with teacher candidates achieving Virginia cut score before student teaching. Examination of data on Praxis II scores for English Education teacher candidates reveals:

86.66%-87.5% of all program examinees across two administrations of the assessment met the Virginia cut score of 172.

100% of program completers during these years met the Virginia cut score of 172.

In 2009-2010 93.33% of all English Education teacher candidates scored within or above the national average performance range in the category Literature and Understanding Texts. In 2008-2009 100% of all teacher candidates in our program scored within this range. These two administrations of the assessment indicate strong content knowledge as specified by NCTE Standards 3.3 and 3.5.

In 2009-2010 93.33% of all of our teacher candidates scored within or above the national average range in the category Language and Linguistics; in 2009-2009 100% scored within the national average performance range. Scores indicate strong content knowledge in areas covered by NCTE standard 3.1.

In 2009-2010 93.33% of all of our teacher candidates scored within or above national average range in the category of Composition and Rhetoric; in 2008-2009 85.7% scored within or above this range for this third category. Scores indicate strong content knowledge in areas covered by NCTE standards 3.2, 3.4, and 3.6.

Approximately 1/3 of our candidates are scoring within the highest quartile on at least one of the content areas. For example, in 2009-2010 46.66% of our teacher candidates scored at the highest quartile in Literature and Understanding Text; 40% scored at the highest quartile in Language and Linguistics; and 26.22% scored in the highest quartile in Composition and Rhetoric.

Mean and median scores, which were available on rGrade for all program examinees across 2 years, indicate that our program examinees are scoring at the upper end of the national average performance range, another indicator that our candidates have strong content knowledge as measured by the Praxis II English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge Test 0041.

Assessment Documentation

(d) Description of the Assessment Tool: The ETS website describes the English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge test as an assessment designed to determine whether an examinee has the broad base of knowledge and competencies necessary to be licensed as a beginning teacher of English in a secondary school, noting that the 120 multiple-choice questions are based on the material typically covered in a bachelors degree program in English and English education. (http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/PRAXIS/pdf/0041.pdf

The list of topics covered by the test, also included at the above URL, is extensive. ETS mentions within this list and under the category Literature and Understanding Text the following items: Identifying major works and authors of American, British, World (including non-Western), and young adult literature from various cultures, genres, and periods; situating authors and texts within historical, cultural, and critical contexts to aid interpretation; and recognizing and applying various strategic approaches to teaching reading, e.g. applying cueing systems, constructing meaning through context. Under the Composition and Rhetoric category, among others, these items appear: using electronic and print media and strategies for organization, development, and presentation of print, electronic, and visual media.

(e) Scoring Guide for the Assessment: The ETS website provides the following scoring information for test 0041:

Name of test

Possible Score Range

Score Interval

Number of Examinees

Median

Average Performance Range

Standard Error of Measurement

Standard Error of Scoring

English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge (0041)

100-200

1

35590

177

166-187

4.7

0

(f) Candidate data derived from the assessment:

Table 1.1:Pass Rates of Teacher Candidates in English Education Program

Number of Passing Scores/Total Number of Program Test-Takers

Pass-rate among all English Education Program test-takers

Number of Passing Scores/Number of Program Completers

Pass-rate among Program completers

2009-2010

administration of Test 0041: English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge

13/15

86.6%

13/13

100%

2008-2009 administration of Test 0041: English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge

7/8

87.5%

7/7

100%

Table 1.2Raw Scores by Test Category of All Program Examinees

Test Category

Range of Scores Among All Program Examinees

Range of Scores Among Program Completers

National Average Performance

Total number scoring within national average performance range/ Total number of Program Examinees

Percentage of all examinees scoring within national average performance range

Total number scoring below national average performance range/ Total number of Program Examinees

Percentage of all examinees scoring below national average performance range

Total number scoring above national average performance range/ Total number of Program Examinees

Percentage of all examinees scoring above national average performance range

2009-2010

Administration

Literature and Understanding Text

39-61

52-61

43-54

7/15

46.66%

1/15

6.66%

7/15

46.66%

Language and Linguistics

6-15

10-15

10-14

8/15

53.33%

1/15

6.66%

6/15

40%

Composition and Rhetoric

18-33

27-33

23-31

10/15

66.66%

1/15

6.66%

4/15

26.22%

2008-2009

Administration*


46-54

46-54

44-58

7/7

100%

0/7

0%

0/7

0%


11-17

11-17

11-17

7/7

100%

0/7

0%

0/7

0%


24-30

3/7

42.85%

1/7

14.28%

3/7

42.85%

Please note that scores by category were not available for one examinee in 2008-2009.

Table 1.2Mean/Median Raw Scores by Test Category for All Program Examinees 2008-2010

Test Category

Mean Score of all program examinees

Median Score of all program examinees

National Average performance range across 2 years


53.045

53

43-54 and 44-59


13.318

14

10-14 and 11-17


29.09

30

23-31 and 24-30

Assessment 1

Assessment 2: Departmental Review of Program Applicants

Narrative

(a) Description and Program Use of the Assessment: The English Education Program at Radford University has designed as Assessment 2, required by NCTE as an [a]ssessment of content knowledge in English Language Arts, a departmental review of applicants to the English Education Program.

(b) Alignment of Assessment with NCTE Standards: Our programs Departmental Review Assessment aligns with NCTE standards under the categories Attitudes for English Language Arts (NCTE 2.0), Knowledge of English language arts (NCTE 3.0), and Pedagogy for English Language Arts (NCTE 4.0). As a part of the review process candidates complete an impromptu writing sample, which is scored holistically by English Education faculty using a 6-point scale; this part of the assessment aligns with NCTE standards encompassed by 3.2, as they relate to written literacy. Applicants to the program also submit a sample of their polished writing completed during their coursework in the English Department, accompanied by a reflection explaining why they chose the piece as representation of their best content work. Scored holistically, this part of the review process aligns with NCTE standards 3.2 (in terms of written literacy), 3.4 (application of writing process), and 3.5 (knowledge of literature and literary theory).

Applicants seek recommendations from non-English Education English faculty, who score them on the following qualities, using a five-point scale: (1) ability to speak clearly and coherently (standards encompassed in NCTE 3.2, as they relate to oral literacy), (2) ability to write clearly and coherently (standard 3.2 in terms of written literacy), (3) ability to analyze information, experiences, and ideas (NCTE 2.4), ability to carry tasks through to completion, and ability and willingness to implement suggestions for improvement. English faculty also answer questions related to the applicants understanding of course content (NCTE 3.1-3.7), his/her enthusiasm for course content, and perceived qualities that would enable the applicant to become an effective English language arts teacher (NCTE 2.1-2.6).

Teacher candidates are then interviewed individually by a group of English Education faculty, who ask questions intended to reveal each candidates perceptions of high school students and his/her ability to relate to those students (NCTE 2.0), the candidates commitment to teaching English, and the candidates attitudes and beliefs about how students acquire skills in reading, writing, and language (NCTE 2.0 and 4.0) Using the following questions, faculty assess candidates knowledge and attitudes:

1. What would you do to promote students interest in the topic or concept youre teaching? (NCTE 4.1-4.9)

2. What do you see as the purpose of literature study in the high school? (NCTE 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 4.8)

3. What do you see as the purpose of grammar and language study in the high school? (NCTE 3.1, 3.2, 3.4)

4. How demanding do you think teaching is, compared to other types of jobson a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not demanding and 10 being very demanding)

5. How can teachers best teach students to become effective writers? (NCTE 3.4)

6. What work of literature would you most like to teach? Why? How would you help students become interested in this text? (NCTE 3.5, 4.8)

7. Tell us about a situation in which you took initiative beyond what was expected.

8. What makes you think you will like a career in teaching English?

9. What are the most important or worthwhile qualities of a good teacher? (NCTE 2.1-2.6)

10. Can teachers reach really difficult students, or are there students that we just have to give up on? What would you do with the student who has no interest in English and seemingly no desire to do anything in class? (NCTE 2.1)

11. Why do you want to teach English? (NCTE 2.1-2.6)

12. Do you think of yourself as wanting to be (a) a teacher of literature, (b) a teacher of language, (c) a teacher of writing, (d) a teacher of literacy, (e) a teacher of English language arts? Explain. (NCTE 3.1.2 3.7)

13. How do you keep up with national, state, and local news? What economic, political, or social happenings see really important to you and why? (NCTE 3.1.3, 3.6.1, 3.6.2)

Each member of the English Education Committee scores applicants using the rubric entitled Applicant Selection Process in the Assessment Documentation section for Assessment 2.

Finally, faculty complete a transcript review of each applicant to the program, assessing each applicants completion of the coursework required to address the content he or she will teach, as reflected in the Virginia Standards of Learning and in NCTE standards (NCTE 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7). Using the rubric entitled Departmental Review in the Assessment Documentation section for Assessment 2, faculty assess each applicants knowledge of content in the areas of a literature (NCTE 3.5), language and writing (NCTE 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4), and content pedagogy (NCTE 4.1-4.9).

(c) Interpretation of Data as Evidence for Meeting Standards: Analysis of data from the applicant review process reveals the following information:

On the Impromptu Writing Sample, the majority of applicants (59.6 % in 2009 and 66.66% in 2008) scored at the proficient level, with all scoring satisfactory or above; these measures indicate strong writing skills among program applicants (NCTE 3.2 and 3.4)

On the Polished Writing Sample from applicants course work, the majority (58.8 in 2009 and 77.77% in 2008) scored at the proficient level, with all scoring satisfactory or above; these measures indicate strong knowledge of writing process (NCTE 3.4), strong interpretive skills (3.3), understanding of literary theory and criticism (NCTE 3.5.4), and knowledge of literature (NCTE 3.5)

The majority of applicant interviewees (59.6% in 2009 and 55.55% in 2008) demonstrate clear competence in overall knowledge of content (NCTE 3.1-3.7).

The majority of applicant interviewees (58.8% in 2009 and 88.88% in 2008) demonstrated clear competence in overall knowledge of content pedagogy (NCTE 4.1-4.9).

We noted that we added indicators to the interview rubric between the two administrations of the applicant interviews. A moderate drop in scores in knowledge of content pedagogy suggests that revisions to the rubric could have forged a more rigorous assessment of this area.

The majority of applicant interviewees scored clearly competent or highly competent in the following areas that align with NCTE standards: (1) Predisposed to be student centered and/or committed to actively engaging students (70.5% in 2009; 77.77% in 2008); (2) Predisposed to accept and value all students (76.4% in 2009; 88.88% in 2009); communicates clearly (100% in 2009; 77.77% in 2008); models professionalism (88.22 in 2009; 88.88 in 2008).

The majority of applicant interviewees demonstrated either clear competence or a high degree of competence in their knowledge of language (NCTE 3.1), knowledge of US British, world, multicultural, and YA literature (NCTE 3.5), and knowledge of the composing processes (NCTE 3.2.3).

Data for three administrations of from the Departmental Review Assessment demonstrate above-average or excellent performance of program applicants on overall academic preparation (88%); on subject matter knowledge as shown in transcripts (77%); on knowledge of literature, as shown in transcripts (83%); on knowledge of writing, grammar, and language, as shown in transcripts (79%); and on knowledge of content pedagogy, as shown in transcripts (88%)

Assessment Documentation

(d) Description of the Assessment Tool: English majors interested in teaching are identified when they are freshmen and are assigned to English Education faculty for their advising, teacher candidates formally apply to the English Education Program in January of their junior year. Following the application process, English Education faculty assess each applicant in these areas: (1) overall academic preparation based on examination of transcripts, verification of overall GPA and GPA in the English major, (2) subject matter assessment, (3) content knowledge assessment (literature, writing, grammar, and language, (4) knowledge of content pedagogy, (5) basic proficiency skills, as measured by Praxis I, SAT, or ACT, and the Virginia Communication and Literacy Assessment.

The Departmental Review has been adopted by most Radford University Teacher Preparation Programs. The English Education Program Screening included the following:

Part I: an impromptu essay

Part II: submission of polished writing and reflection

Part III: 2 recommendations from English faculty

Part IV: an interview with English Education Committee (scheduled today)

Instructions Provided to Teacher candidates for the Screening Process for Departmental Review

Part I: Impromptu Essay on a Subject in English Education

As a teacher you will face many situations that require you to write on the spot, developing your ideas without time for extensive revision. Because you will need to be proficient at writing in impromptu situations, the English Education Committee would like for you to compose an essay that demonstrates your abilities as an impromptu writer. We will give you a list of topics from which to choose. You will have one hour immediately following the orientation meeting to compose and edit your essay.

As an impromptu writer, you will face certain restrictions: your time will be limited and you will not have the benefit of readers comments on your drafts. Working within these constraints, you should compose an essay that is as clear and well formed as possible. Remember that your audience will be the English Education Committee, a group of English teachers who are interested in what you have to say about teaching and learning.

The committee will assess your essay using a six-point scale and the following criteria:

The committee recognizes that in an impromptu situation you will not have the time to edit and revise as carefully as you would at home. Given your own habits as a writer, allow yourself adequate time to draft and edit your writing. Please put your name on the first page of your essay, and number your pages.

Part II: Submission of Polished Writing and Reflection

Select a piece of writing that you turned in for an English class and that represents your best writing. Attach to this sample of your best work a thoughtful and concise reflection explaining why you chose this particular piece as representative of your knowledge about English language, literature, and or literary theory. The writing sample will be assessed using the following criteria:

demonstrates highly effective writing skills

organizes and develops ideas logically, making insightful connections between them

demonstrates ability to interpret literature and effectively use examples from the text to support ideas

supports a thesis and clearly explains key ideas, supporting them with well-chosen reasons, examples, or details

displays effective sentence variety

clearly displays facility in the use of language

is generally free from errors in grammar, usage, an mechanics

tone appropriate to your topic and audience;

The reflection will be assessed to determine your ability to use writing as a form of reflection, as well as the your ability to assess your own academic performance;

Part III:Recommendations from English Faculty

RU English majors: You will choose two professors from the English Department who know your work and are willing to recommend you for the English Education Program. Choose professors other than Dr. Williams, Dr. Kelly, Dr. Hamm, or Dr. Mathews, since they will be participating in the screening. Before passing the recommendation forms to your professors, fill out the top half of each, signing the waiver statement and filling in your name under the section To: RU English Faculty Member. (Candidates who waive their right to access are indicating no need to review what the recommendation reports.)

Others: Choose two recommenderssuch as former teachers, professors, or employerswho would be able to comment on your suitability for teaching. Before passing the recommendation forms to your recommenders, fill out the top half of each, signing the waiver statement and filling in your name under the section To: Recommender (Candidates who waive their right to access are indicating no need to review what the recommendation reports.)

Part IV: Interview

You must make an appointment to meet with members of the English Education Committee for an interview. During the interview the committee will ask you to address general questions about teaching and learning in the English classroom. They may also ask questions about the ideas you expressed in either or both your impromptu essay and your submitted writing sample. This interview will last 15-20 minutes and will allow the committee to further understand your interests in teaching. Interviewees will be evaluated using a five-point scale and the following criteria:

knowledge of English language arts (reading/literature, writing, language, speaking)

attitudes about learners and learning

commitment to teaching and learning

effective communication (i.e., interviewee speaks in a coherent, fluent, and engaging manner, explaining ideas, and supporting ideas.)

ability to assume professional behavior and accept responsibility

(e) Scoring Guide for the Assessment: Scoring guides for the various parts of the review process follow.

The impromptu essay is scored using this holistic scoring rubric:

Impromptu Essay Scoring Guide (NCTE 3.2)

6 Distinguished (paper shows effective writing skills, is well organized and well developed; uses details clearly and properly to support a thesis or illustrate ideas; displays consistent ability in the use of language; demonstrates variety in sentence structure and proper word choice)

5 Proficient (paper may address some parts of the task more effectively than others; is generally well organized and developed; uses details to support a thesis or illustrate an idea; displays ability in the use of the language; shows some variety in sentence structure and range of vocabulary)

4 Satisfactory (paper addresses the writing topic adequately but does not meet all of the goals of the task; is adequately organized and developed; uses some details to support a thesis or illustrate an idea; shows adequate but possibly inconsistent ability with sentence structure; may contain some usage errors that make the meaning unclear)

3 Needs Improvement (paper shows inadequate organization or development; poor choice of details or does not provide enough details to support or illustrate generalizations; a noticeably improper choice of words or word forms; numerous errors in sentence structure and/or usage)

2 Seriously Flawed (paper shows serious disorganization or underdevelopment; little or no detail, or irrelevant specifics; serious and frequent errors in sentence structure or usage; serious problems with focus

1 Unsatisfactory (paper may be incoherent; may be undeveloped; may contain severe and persistent writing errors)

The polished writing is scored using this holistic rubric:

Polished Writing Sample Scoring Guide (NCTE 3.2, 3.4, 3.5)

6 Distinguished (paper shows effective writing skills, is well organized and well developed; paper shows strong interpretation of literature and effectively uses examples from the text to support ideas; supports a thesis or illustrates ideas; displays consistent ability in the use of language; makes use of literary theory and sources; demonstrates variety in sentence structure and proper word choice)

5 Proficient (paper is generally well organized and developed; shows ability to interpret and explain literature; uses examples from text and details to support a thesis or illustrate an idea; displays ability in the use of the language; shows some variety in sentence structure and range of vocabulary)

4 Satisfactory (paper is adequately organized and developed; shows some ability to interpret and explain literature; uses some details to support a thesis or illustrate an idea; shows adequate but possibly inconsistent ability with sentence structure; may contain some usage errors that make the meaning unclear)

3 Needs Improvement (paper shows inadequate organization or development; shows limited ability to interpret and explain literature; shows poor choice of details or does not provide enough details to support or illustrate generalizations; includes a noticeably improper choice of words or word forms; includes numerous errors in sentence structure and/or usage)

2 Seriously flawed (paper shows serious disorganization or underdevelopment; shows little ability to interpret and explain literature; includes few examples from text and little or no detail, or irrelevant specifics; includes serious and frequent errors in sentence structure or usage; shows serious problems with focus

1 Unsatisfactory (paper may be incoherent; may be undeveloped; may contain severe and persistent writing errors)

English faculty use the following form to recommend applicants for the English Education Program:

English Education: Recommendation of Applicant

To be completed by the candidate:

Under the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974:

_____I have retained my right of access to this form. OR

_____I have waived my right of access to this form.

Failure to indicate one of the above determines this form to be non-confidential.

Signature of candidate: _______________________________ Year of graduation: _______

To: Recommender

_______________________ is a candidate for Radford University English Departments English Education Program. To help us select students with the potential for success both in our program and in their field placements, the English Education Committee requests your feedback on the following questions.

Please check the level at which the applicant consistently performs in the following areas:

Superior

Above Average

Meets expectations

Below expectations

cannot comment

ability to speak clearly and coherently

ability to write clearly and coherently

ability to analyze information, experiences, and ideas

ability to carry tasks through to completion

ability and willingness to implement suggestions for improvement

What classes has this student taken from you?

How would you characterize this persons attitude toward the content of your class?

Please comment on this students enthusiasm for literature, language, and/or writing.

In your opinion, what qualities does this person possess that would enable him/her to become a good secondary English teacher? (You might consider qualities such as respect for others, an ability to work without close supervision, level of energy and enthusiasm, good judgment, others.)

Please add any additional comments not covered by the above questions.

Signature: _____________________________________________ Date:__________

Name of Recommender (printed) ___________________________________

We are currently in the process of screening applicants for the English Education Program and would appreciate receiving your comments as soon as possible. Please return to Carolyn Mathews, Russell 027.

English Education Faculty use the following rubric to evaluate applicants during the application interview:

Radford University

English Education Program

Applicant Selection Process: Assessment of Interview

Applicants Name : ____________________________________ Year of Application: ________

Evaluators name: ___________________________________

Criteria

1 --Poor/not eligible

2 --below average

3 --average

4 --above average

5 --excellent

Overall Knowledge of content (NCTE 3.1-3.7)

Score:

Applicant fails to demonstrate knowledge of literature and language and shows no evidence of understanding fundamentals of teaching writing

Applicant demonstrates limited knowledge of literature and languageshowing only limited knowledge of American/British literature, uses the word grammar only to refer to conventions and usage; shows little evidence of understanding fundamentals of the teaching of writing.

Applicant demonstrates knowledge of literature and languagementions a range of literature, but may not mention literary chronology or genre; mentions at least one key concept about language study; has good instincts about ways to teach writing.

Applicant well demonstrates knowledge of literature and language; distinguishes American/British literature, mentions literary chronology or schools of critical thought; mentions more than one key concept related to languagee.g., linguistic inquiry, dialects, that grammar should be taught through writing, etc.; can discuss composition theory (workshop model/process writing)

Applicant well demonstrates knowledge of literature and language; clearly distinguishes American/British literature, understands literary chronology and schools of critical thought; understands key concepts related to languagee.g., linguistic inquiry, dialects, that grammar should be taught through writing; discusses composition theory using names of researchers/writers in the field

Overall Knowledge of content pedagogy (NCTE 4.1- 4.10)

Score:

Applicant fails to demonstrate knowledge of teaching strategies for literature, language, and writing. Applicant fails to mention group work or other techniques for group interaction and provides no specific ways to engage students.

Applicant demonstrates only limited knowledge of teaching strategies for literature, language, and writing. Applicant fails to mention group work or other techniques for group interaction and provides no specific ways to engage students.

Applicant demonstrates some knowledge of teaching strategies for literature, language, and writing. Applicant mentions varied structures and techniques for group interaction OR gives at least one specific way to engage students.

Applicant demonstrates knowledge of teaching strategies for literature, language, and writing. Applicant mentions varied structures and techniques for group interaction, and gives at least one specific way to engage students.

Applicant well demonstrates knowledge of teaching strategies for literature, language, and writing. Applicant is versed in varied structures and techniques for group interaction and gives at least 2 specific ways to engage students.

Predisposed to be student centered and/or committed to actively engaging students.

Score:

Applicant shows no understanding of student-centeredness or of actively engaging students.

Applicant understands only in a limited way the importance of student-centeredness or of actively engaging students.

Applicant describes a student-centered classroom where instruction actively engages learners;

Applicant shows understanding of learning theory as a basis for setting up a student-centered classroom where instruction actively engages learners;

Applicant shows understanding of learning theory as a basis for setting up a student-centered classroom where instruction actively engages learners;

Predisposed to accept and value all students (NCTE 2.1, 2.2)

Score:

Applicant fails to demonstrate the belief that all students can learn; applicant shows no understanding of a teachers responsibility to help all students succeed,

Applicant demonstrates only a limited belief that all students can learn; applicant shows little understanding of a teachers responsibility to help all students succeed.

Applicant somewhat demonstrates a belief that all students can learn; applicant somewhat demonstrates an understanding of a teachers responsibility to help all students succeed.

Applicant demonstrates belief that all students can learn and mentions the need to help all students succeed. Applicant alludes to the importance of a supportive, inclusive, and equitable learning environment.

Applicant demonstrates a strong belief that all students can learn and a commitment to helping all students succeed. Applicant describes a supportive, inclusive, and equitable learning environment.

Commitment to lifelong learning

Score:

Applicant demonstrates no commitment to language, writing, and/ or literature; applicant seems unenthusiastic about reading and names no specific works; applicant shows no awareness of cultural, economic, political, and social environments.

Applicant demonstrates little commitment to language, writing, and/ or literature; applicant seems unenthusiastic about reading and names no specific works; applicant shows limited awareness of cultural, economic, political, and social environments.

Applicant likes language, writing, and/ or literature; applicant likes to read but names no specific works; applicant is somewhat aware of cultural, economic, political, and social environments.

Applicant shows a love of language, writing, and/ or literature; applicant expresses a fondness for reading and particular books; applicant is aware of cultural, economic, political and social environments.

Applicant makes very clear a love of language, writing, and /or literature; applicant is an avid reader who names specific works enjoyed; applicant is very aware of cultural, economic, political and social environments.

Communicates clearly

Score:

Applicant speaks very unclearly, fails to use conventional forms of Edited American English or to speak in relatively complete sentences; speech may be annoyingly peppered with verbal fillers.

Applicant speaks unclearly, fails to use conventional forms of Edited American English or to speak in relatively complete sentences; speech may be annoyingly peppered with verbal fillers.

Applicant speaks fairly clearly, uses mostly conventional forms of Edited American English, speaks in relatively complete sentences; speech may be a bit peppered with verbal fillers.

Applicant speaks clearly, with appropriate volume, and uses conventional forms of Edited American English; speaks in relatively complete sentences; avoids annoying verbal fillers

Applicant speaks very clearly, with appropriate volume, and uses conventional forms of Edited American English; speaks in complete sentences; avoids annoying verbal fillers

Models professionalism (NCTE 2.3)

Score:

Applicant has not dressed professionally, does not model professional behavior or the dispositions needed for teaching (ability to make connections, care for students, a plan for professional development.)

Applicant has not dressed professionally, models in a very limited manner professional behavior or the dispositions needed for teaching (ability to make connections, care for students, a plan for professional development.)

Applicant has dressed somewhat professionally, mostly models professional behavior and exhibits some of the dispositions needed for teaching (ability to make connections, care for students, a plan for professional development.)

Applicant has dressed professionally, models professional behavior and exhibits some of the dispositions needed for teaching (ability to make connections, care for students, a plan for professional development.)

Applicant has dressed professionally, superbly models professional behavior and exhibits many of the dispositions needed for teaching (e.g., ability to make connections, care for students, a plan for professional development.)

Total Score: __________

To aid in Departmental Review of Applicants, please make notes and rank the student on competence in specific content knowledge

Criteria

1 --seriously flawed

2 --needs improvement

3 --competent

4 --proficient

5 --distinguished

Knowledge of language (high competence would demonstrate knowledge of language acquisition, dialects, of history of language, of English grammars) (NCTE 3.1)

Knowledge of extensive range of literature (high competence would demonstrate knowledge of US, British, world, multicultural, and young adult literature) (NCTE 3.5)

Knowledge of composing processes (NCTE 3.2.3)

The applicant review process culminates with English Education faculty assessment of candidates, using the following scoring guide:

Departmental Review

Rubric Content | Rubric Points | Print | eReport

URL: http://rgrade.radford.edu/PRINT_RUBRIC.asp?RUBRIC_ID=185

Description: Departmental Review

Updated: 2/19/2009 4:08:49 PM

Author: Radford University Unit Assessment

Top of Form

N/A

Poor/ Not eligible

Below Average

Average

Above average

Excellent

Overall Academic Preparation Overall academic preparation (based on RU GPA and overall GPA)

N/A

Not eligible =

7. NCATE CategoryEnglish Language Arts Education

8. Grade levels(1) for which candidates are being prepared

(1) e.g. 7-12, 9-12, K-12

6-12

9. Program Type

nmlkji First teaching license

10. Degree or award level

nmlkj Baccalaureate

nmlkj Post Baccalaureate

nmlkji Master's

11. Is this program offered at more than one site?

nmlkj Yes

nmlkji No

12. If your answer is "yes" to above question, list the sites at which the program is offered

13. Title of the state license for which candidates are preparedCollegiate Professional License

14. Program report status:

nmlkji Initial Review

nmlkj Response to One of the Following Decisions: Further Development Required or Recognition with Probation

nmlkj Response to National Recognition With Conditions

15. State Licensure requirement for national recognition:NCATE requires 80% of the program completers who have taken the test to pass the applicable state licensure test for the content field, if the state has a testing requirement. Test information and data must be reported in Section IV. Does your state require such a test?

nmlkji Yes

nmlkj No

SECTION I - CONTEXT

1. Description of any state or institutional policies that may influence the application of NCTE standards. (Response limited to 4,000 characters)

No state or institutional policies would adversely affect the application of NCTE standards. However, NCTE has issued a report indicating inadequacies of PRAXIS II to address all NCTE standards. Further NCTE s Council on English Education has issued position statements that clearly express hesitation about the alignment of Praxis II tests with NCTE standards and about the use of quantitative data to show teacher candidates effect on student learning. These concerns will be addressed later in the report.

2. Description of the field and clinical experiences required for the program, including the number of hours for early field experiences and the number of hours/weeks for student teaching or internships. (Response limited to 8,000 characters)

Field Work Components of Pre-Student Teaching Course Work

All English majors with an English Education Concentration take a teaching writing course (ENGL 402/502), usually during their junior year, which includes a field experience component that requires them to teach writing, using a workshop approach, in area public schools. Groups of teacher candidates work together to design units and accompanying lesson plans aimed at taking high school students through the stages of the writing process. At the end of the project high school students put together an anthology of their writing. The teacher candidates plan and provide instruction for seven class meetings, and they are supervised by classroom teachers and the instructor of the teaching writing course. The Adolescent Literature course (ENGL 425) includes a Pen Pal Project, which pairs teacher candidates with middle school students for an on-line literature discussion. The project aims to give teacher candidates first-hand experience with a middle school reader.

Early Field Experience

Teacher candidates final year in the English Education Program at Radford University is designed as a core internship experience, integrated with courses and professional seminars. During the first semester, the Early Field Experience, teacher candidates accumulate a total of at least 150 clock hours in their two placements, which run for approximately 7 weeks each: a middle school (grades 6-8) setting and a high school (grades 9-12) setting. Most teacher candidates in the English Education Program opt to work in the schools for two full days weekly. Concurrently with this internship, candidates complete a block of courses, including a field experience weekly seminar, which augment the clinical experience and focus on the following areas: developing and implementing instruction, integrating technology, assessing student learning, addressing individual differences, applying skills in reading in the content areas to promote student learning, establishing a climate for learning, promoting productive home-school relationships, and engaging in on-going professional development.

Our English Education faculty teach the field experience seminar class (EDUC 441) and a methods course specific to the teaching of the English language arts ENGL 426), both of which are components of the block of course work. Experienced classroom teachers act as mentors to the candidates, who work within the schools observing the teacher, classroom, and students; tutoring individuals and small groups; teaching mini-lessons, planning a unit and lesson plans, and finally teaching lessons from that unit. English Education faculty supervise the candidates, meeting with them weekly to discuss reflection logs and provide regular feedback about their progress; as interns begin teaching mini-lessons, supervisors observe their teaching and provide feedback on instruction and planning. At midterm and at the end of the semester the supervisor, co-operating teacher, and candidate meet for an evaluation conference, each identifying areas of strength and weakness. Midterm evaluations are formative, with participants setting goals for the candidates second half of the semester. The final evaluations are summative, with participants determining the candidates readiness for student teaching.

Student Teaching

Teacher candidates final semester is a full-time student teaching internship in a high school, coordinated with seminars that provide support for instructional planning and professional development. Candidates must accumulate at least 150 teaching hours; most candidates exceed this number of hours, and all clock approximately 50 additional on-site hours in observation, planning, parent-teacher conferences, faculty meetings and other non-teaching duties.The student teaching experience is designed to provide teacher candidates with intensive experience applying their knowledge of content, learners, and pedagogy as they implement an integrated English language arts curriculum within a high school classroom. Working with an experienced English teacher, the teacher candidates plan, write, and implement teaching units and daily plans, meeting regularly with their co-operating teachers to discuss teaching strategies and to reflect on the outcome of their lessons. As a part of the requirements for the course(s), candidates keep a reflection log of their student teaching experience, wherein they record observations of classroom interactions, reflecting on student engagement, classroom management, teaching strategies and methods, and student performance. They routinely write about the purpose and rationale for their lessons, the activities they used and their effectiveness, and how they might change the lesson to make it more effective. Candidates also submit these logs to their University supervisor, who assesses candidates on their ability to reflect on their teaching behaviors, to evaluate their own performance, and to suggest alternative strategies and behaviors. Concurrent with student teaching (EDUC 452), candidates student teachers take a Teaching and Planning Seminar (ENGL 428), which allows them to return to campus, following 1 weeks observing in their schools, to work collaboratively with other teacher candidates to plan instructional units. Student teachers have weekly contact with their university supervisor, and supervisors routinely meet with them and their co-operating teachers to discuss the student teachers progress and provide specific feedback that will help them develop competencies needed for successful teaching. The course load of supervisors, with three student teachers equaling three semester hours of teaching, enables them to observe the teacher candidates regularly and meet with them weekly to provide formative feedback. As in the early field experience, teacher candidates are assessed at midterm and at the end of the semester by the supervisor, the co-operating teacher, and candidate him/herself. The team meets for an evaluation conference, each identifying areas of strength and weakness. Midterm evaluations are formative, with participants setting goals for the candidates second half of the semester. The final evaluations are summative, with participants determining the candidates readiness for entering a teaching position.

3. Description of the criteria for admission to the program, including required overall GPAs and minimum grade requirements for English content courses accepted by the program. Also describe any other requirements such as standardized testing results, recommendations, and/or entrance portfolios. (Response limited to 4,000 characters)

English majors seeking licensure to teach English in secondary schools apply to the Professional Education Program through the Field Experience Office during their junior year. Students must have a minimum grade point average of 2.5 in all course work at RU and in their English major, and they must have passed PRAXIS I and the Virginia Communication and Literacy Assessment, and they must have taken PRAXIS II.

These candidates are screened by the English Departments English Education Committee, and the thoroughness of the process guarantees the quality of our teacher candidates. Steps in the application and review process include the following:Step 1: verification of overall GPA of 2.5 and a GPA in English of 2.5 Step 2: Candidates meet for orientation and complete an impromptu essay--Candidates demonstrate their ability of write proficiently in impromptu situations, using a writing prompt that invites disclosure of

their attitudes toward teaching and learning. The essay is assessed using the following criteria: a tone appropriate to topic and audience; a clear and relevant focus; details that support and develop the focus; logical and coherent explanations of ideas; commitment to subject and engagement with audience; adherence to conventions of grammar and correctness in standard edited English; reflections reveal attitudes essential to the effective teaching of English language arts.Step 3: Submission of a writing sample representative of the students work in English and accompanied by a thoughtful and concise reflection explaining its selection--The writing sample demonstrates the quality of the students academic work and their ability to self-assess and reflect on their own writing. The writing sample is assessed with the following criteria: clarity of purpose; effective use of language and organizing elements to achieve that purpose; appropriateness of tone; voice; adherence to conventions of grammar and correctness in standard edited English; the reflection is assessed to determine students ability to use writing as a form of reflection and to assess their own academic performance;Step 4: recommendations from English faculty--Content-area faculty members in the English Department rank the candidates ability to speak clearly and coherently; ability to write clearly and coherently; ability to analyze information, experiences, and ideas; ability to carry tasks through to completion; ability and willingness to implement suggestions for improvement. They also comment on the candidates enthusiasm for literature, language, and writing and upon the qualities that would enable the candidate to become a good secondary English teacher.Step 5: an interview with English Education Committee--Candidates meet for a half-hour interview with the Committee, who ask them to address general questions about teaching and learning in the English classroom and about the ideas they expressed in their impromptu essays and/or the submitted writing sample. Candidates are assessed on their ability to speak clearly; their ability to answer questions effectively; appropriate use of language; the presence of appropriate attitudes toward learning, studentsneeds, and a teachers role; the presence of enthusiasm for learning and teaching. Step 7: identification of candidates who have met standards for entry into the program--Students whose writing abilities or oral abilities are judged unsatisfactory are advised on specific measures to take to strengthen their skills; they may re-apply the following year. Step 8: English Education faculty assess applicants to the program, using the Departmental Sceening (NCATE Assessment 2) and forwarding the results to The College of Education and Human Development--Successful candidates are formally admitted to the Secondary Teacher Education Program and the English Education Program.

4. This system will not permit you to include tables or graphics in text fields. Therefore any tables or charts must be attached as files here. The title of the file should clearly indicate the content of the file. Word documents, pdf files, and other commonly used file formats are acceptable.

5. Please attach files to describe a program of study that outlines the courses and experiences required for candidates to complete the program. The program of study must include course titles. (This information may be provided as an attachment from the college catalog or as a student advisement sheet.)

Program of Study

See Attachments panel below.

6. Candidate InformationDirections: Provide three years of data on candidates enrolled in the program and completing the program, beginning with the most recent academic year for which numbers have been tabulated. Report the data separately for the levels/tracks (e.g., baccalaureate, post-baccalaureate, alternate

routes, master's) being addressed in this report. Data must also be reported separately for programs offered at multiple sites. Update academic years (column 1) as appropriate for your data span. Create additional tables as necessary.

(2) NCATE uses the Title II definition for program completers. Program completers are persons who have met all the requirements of a state-approved teacher preparation program. Program completers include all those who are documented as having met such requirements. Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional certificate, program credential, transcript, or other written proof of having met the program's requirements.

Program:Undergraduate Program

Academic Year# of CandidatesEnrolled in the

Program

# of ProgramCompleters(2)

2009-2010 11 7

2008-2009 7 6

2007-2008 11 6

Program:Graduate Program

Academic Year# of CandidatesEnrolled in the

Program

# of ProgramCompleters(2)

2009-2010 4 4

2008-2009 1 1

2007-2008 0 0

7. Faculty InformationDirections: Complete the following information for each faculty member responsible for key content and professional coursework, clinical supervision, or administration in this program.

Faculty Member Name Kathyrn Kelly

Highest Degree, Field, & University(3)

(3) Ph. D. Curriculum and Instruction, English Education, from The Florida State University

Assignment: Indicate the role of the faculty member(4)

(4) faculty and clinical supervisor

Faculty Rank(5) (5) professor

Tenure Track YESgfedcb

Scholarship(6), Leadership in Professional Associations, and Service(7):List up to 3 major contributions in the past 3 years(8)

(6) 6 presentations at NCTE, at VATE (Virginia Association of Teachers of English) and at ALAN (Assembly on Literature for Adolescents of NCTE) within the past 3 years (7) Departmental and University Service: advisor to 9 senior seminar theses, presentations on English Education topics to College of Education seminars and to English senior seminar, English Education Committee, English Department Personnel Committee, chair of 3 graduate student comprehensive exam committees, member of 6 other graduate examination committees, advisor to one graduate thesis, (8)PresidentAssembly on Adolescent Literature of NCTE (ALAN) 2007; Chair, Virginia Conference on English Education 2010, Vice Chair 2009

Teaching or other professional experience in P-12 schools(9)

(9) recent supervision of teacher candidates in early field experience and student teaching; 18 years experience teaching secondary English

Faculty Member Name Jean Hamm


(2) EdD., Curriculum and Instruction (3) Virginia Tech


(4) faculty and clinical supervisor

Faculty Rank(5) full-time instructor

Tenure Track YESgfedc


(6)Book Publication: Hamm, Jean Shepherd. The Term Paper Resource Guide to the Middle Ages. Greenwood, 2010. Grant: Virginia Tobacco Commission, $180,170 awarded for work at Konnarock Retreat House Presentation Hamm, Jean S. Student-Produced Videos as a Literacy Tool. Virginia Council of Teachers of English. October 2008.


31 years in high school English classroom; taught English 8-12, journalism, drama, AP, dual credit, advanced composition and film studies at various times. 4 years in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at East Tennessee State University; taught education classes and was a field supervisor Currently supervises early field experience and student teaching

Faculty Member Name Carolyn L. Mathews


(2) PhD in American Literature and Composition/Rhetoric (3) University of North Carolina at Greensboro


(4) teaching faculty and English Education supervision of early field experience and student teaching

Faculty Rank(5) (5) professor



(6) NCTE presentation: "Writing as Mirror, Window, and Sliding Glass Door: Showing the Lives of Others," Philadelphia, PA, November 21, 2009 (session entitled "Diversity Amid Diversity") Life as a Braided Cord: A Review of Dawn Latta Kirby and Dan Kirbys New Directions in Teaching Memoir: A Studio Workshop Approach. Virginia English Bulletin 58:1 (Summer 2008): 83-88. The Fishwife in Jamess Historical Stream: Henrietta Stackpole Gets the Last Word.Rpt. in Nineteenth-Century Criticism, Vol. 156. Edited by Jessica Bomario and Russel Whitaker. Detroit: Gale, 2007. (7) secretary of NCTE's Assembly on the Literature and Culture of Appalachia (ALCA) Publication Chair, Virginia Association of Teachers of English University Service: Professional Education Committee, Chair of English Education Committee, Coordinator of English Education Program (8)member of Integrate Teacher Education Team, a grant project to facilitate collaboration between special education and general education


(9) Taught middle school Language Arts for 16 years; currently supervises early field experience and student teaching

Faculty Member Name Robert Williams


Ph.D. in Curriculum & Instruction at Virginia Tech


Faculty; clinical supervision

Faculty Rank(5) Associate Professor

(3) e.g., PhD in Curriculum & Instruction, University of Nebraska. (4) e.g., faculty, clinical supervisor, department chair, administrator (5) e.g., professor, associate professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, instructor (6) Scholarship is defined by NCATE as systematic inquiry into the areas related to teaching, learning, and the education of teachers and other school personnel. Scholarship includes traditional research and publication as well as the rigorous and systematic study of pedagogy, and the application of current research findings in new settings. Scholarship further presupposes submission of one's work for professional review and evaluation. (7) Service includes faculty contributions to college or university activities, schools, communities, and professional associations in ways that are consistent with the institution and unit's mission. (8) e.g., officer of a state or national association, article published in a specific journal, and an evaluation of a local school program. (9) Briefly describe the nature of recent experience in P-12 schools (e.g. clinical supervision, inservice training, teaching in a PDS) indicating the discipline and grade level of the assignment(s). List current P-12 licensure or certification(s) held, if any.



Research and Teaching Presentations 2007, 2008, 2009, NCTE Annual Convention; Editor, Virginia English Bulletin for Virginia Association of Teachers of English; Chair, Wythe County Public Schools Foundation for Excellence (501c3 corporation with annual budget in excess of $500,000 for fiscal 2009-2010


supervision, grades 6-12

SECTION II - LIST OF ASSESSMENTS

In this section, list the 6-8 assessments that are being submitted as evidence for meeting the NCTE standards. All programs must provide a minimum of six assessments. If your state does not require a state licensure test in the content area, you must substitute an assessment that documents candidate attainment of content knowledge in #1 below. For each assessment, indicate the type or form of the assessment and when it is administered in the program.

1. Please provide following assessment information (Response limited to 250 characters each field)

Type and Number of Assessment

Name of Assessment (10)

Type or Form of Assessment (11)

When the Assessment Is Administered (12)

Assessment #1: Licensure assessment, or other content-based assessment (required)

PRAXIS I state licensure testadmission to

student teaching

Assessment #2: Content knowledge in English(required)

Departmental Screening

interview; impromptu writing

sample review; transcript

examination

admission to Secondary Teacher

Preparation Program

Assessment #3: Candidate ability to plan instruction (required)

Unit Plan unit planduring student

teaching

(10) Identify assessment by title used in the program; refer to Section IV for further information on appropriate assessment to include. (11) Identify the type of assessment (e.g., essay, case study, project, comprehensive exam, reflection, state licensure test, portfolio). (12) Indicate the point in the program when the assessment is administered (e.g., admission to the program, admission to student teaching/internship, required courses [specify course title and numbers], or completion of the program).

Assessment #4: Student teaching or internship (required)

Teacher Candidate Evaluation

final evaluation completed by both

university supervisor and

cooperating teacher

end of student teaching

Assessment #5: Candidate effect on student leaning (required)

Pre- and Post-Test Analysis of Student

Learning

Candidates' analysis of results

of tests adminstered during student teaching

during student teaching

Assessment #6: Additional assessment that addresses NCTE standards (required)

Teaching English Portfolio

portfolio

during the early field experience and as an exit requirement

Assessment #7: Additional assessment that addresses NCTE standards (optional)Assessment #8: Additional assessment that addresses NCTE standards (optional)

SECTION III - RELATIONSHIP OF ASSESSMENT TO STANDARDS

1. For each NCTE standard on the chart below, identify the assessment(s) in Section II that address the standard. One assessment may apply to multiple NCTE standards.

Category 1.0 Structure of the Basic Program. Candidates follow a specific curriculum and are expected to meet appropriate performance assessments for preservice English language arts teachers. (Found in Section I, Context)

2. Category 2.0 Attitudes for English Language Arts. Through modeling, advisement, instruction, field experiences, assessment of performance, and involvement in professional organizations, candidates adopt and strengthen professional attitudes needed by English language arts teachers..

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #82.1 Candidates create an inclusive and supportive learning environment in which all students can engage in learning. gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

2.2 Candidates use ELA to help their students become familiar with their gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

own and others' cultures. 2.3 Candidates demonstrate reflective practice, involvement in professional organizations, and collaboration with both faculty and other candidates.

gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc

2.4 Candidates use practices designed to assist students in developing habits of critical thinking and judgment. gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

2.5 Candidates make meaningful connections between the ELA curriculum and developments in culture, society, and education. gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

2.6 Candidates engage their students in activities that demonstrate the role of arts and humanities in learning. gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

3. Category 3.0 Knowledge of English Language Arts. Candidates are knowledgeable about language; literature; oral, visual, and written literacy; print and nonprint media; technology; and research theory and findings.

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #83.1 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of, and skills in the use of, the English language. gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

3.2 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of the practices of oral, visual, and written literacy. gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

3.3 Candidates demonstrate their knowledge of reading processes. gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

3.4 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of different composing processes. gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc3.5 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of, and use for, an extensive range of literature. gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

3.6 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of the range and influence of print and nonprint media and technology in contemporary culture. gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

3.7 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of research theory and findings in English language arts. gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

4. Category 4.0 Pedagogy for English Language Arts. Candidates acquire and demonstrate the dispositions and skills needed to integrate knowledge of English language arts, students, and teaching.

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #84.1 Candidates examine and select resources for instruction such as textbooks, other print materials, videos, films, records, and software, appropriate for supporting the teaching of English language arts.

gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

4.2 Candidates align curriculum goals and teaching strategies with organization of classroom environments and learning experiences to promote whole-class, small-group, and individual work.


4.3 Candidates integrate interdisciplinary teaching strategies and materials into the teaching and learning process for students. gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

4.4 Candidates create and sustain learning environments that promote respect for, and support of, individual differences of ethnicity, race, language, culture, gender, and ability.


4.5 Candidates engage students often in meaningful discussions for the purposes of interpreting and evaluating ideas presented through oral, written, and/or visual forms.


4.6 Candidates engage students in critical analysis of different media and communications technologies. gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

4.7 Candidates engage students in learning experiences that consistently emphasize varied uses and purposes for language in communication. gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

4.8 Candidates engage students in making meaning from texts through personal response. gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

4.9 Candidates demonstrate that their students can select appropriate reading strategies that permit access to, and understanding of, a wide range of print and nonprint texts.


4.10 Candidates integrate assessment consistently into instruction by using a variety of formal and informal assessment activities and instruments to evaluate processes and products, and creating regular opportunities to use a variety of ways to interpret and report assessment methods and results to students, parents, administrators, and other audiences.

gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc

SECTION IV - EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS

DIRECTIONS: The 6-8 key assessments listed in Section II must be documented and discussed in Section IV. Taken as a whole, the assessments must demonstrate candidate mastery of the SPA standards. The key assessments should be required of all candidates. Assessments and scoring guides and data charts should be aligned with the SPA standards. This means that the concepts in the SPA standards should be apparent in the assessments and in the scoring guides to the same depth, breadth, and specificity as in the SPA standards. Data tables should also be aligned with the SPA standards. The data should be presented, in general, at the same level it is collected. For example, if a rubric collects data on 10 elements [each relating to specific SPA standard(s)], then the data chart should report the data on each of the elements rather that reporting a cumulative score.

In the description of each assessment below, the SPA has identified potential assessments that would be appropriate. Assessments have been organized into the following three areas to be aligned with the elements in NCATEs unit standard 1: Content knowledge (Assessments 1 and 2) Pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions (Assessments 3 and 4) Focus on student learning (Assessment 5)

Note that in some disciplines, content knowledge may include or be inextricable from professional knowledge. If this is the case, assessments that combine content and professional knowledge may be considered "content knowledge" assessments for the purpose of this report.

For each assessment, the compiler should prepare one document that includes the following items:

(1) A two-page narrative that includes the following:a. A brief description of the assessment and its use in the program (one sentence may be sufficient);b. A description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it is cited for in Section III. Cite SPA standards by number, title, and/or standard wording.c. A brief analysis of the data findings;d. An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards, indicating the

specific SPA standards by number, title, and/or standard wording; and

(2) Assessment Documentatione. The assessment tool itself or a rich description of the assessment (often the directions given to candidates);f. The scoring guide for the assessment; andg. Charts that provide candidate data derived from the assessment.

The responses for e, f, and g (above) should be limited to the equivalent of five text pages each , however in some cases assessment instruments or scoring guides may go beyond five pages.

Note: As much as possible, combine all of the files for one assessment into a single file. That is, create one file for Assessment 4 that includes the two-page narrative (items a d above), the assessment itself (item e above), the scoring guide (item f above), and the data chart (item g above). Each attachment should be no larger than 2 mb. Do not include candidate work or syllabi. There is a limit of 20 attachments for the entire report so it is crucial that you combine files as much as possible.

Please name files as directed in the Guidelines for Preparing an NCATE Program Report found on the NCATE web site at the following URL: http://www.ncate.org/institutions/resourcesNewPgm.asp?ch=90

1. Data licensure tests for content knowledge in English language arts. NCTE standards addressed in this entry could include but are not limited to Standards 3.1-3.7. If your state does not require licensure tests in the content area, data from another assessment must be presented to document candidate attainment of content knowledge. (Assessment Required)

Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV

Assessment 1


2. Assessment of content knowledge in English language arts. NCTE standards addressed in this entry could include but are not limited to Standards 3.1-3.7. Examples of assessments include comprehensive examinations, GPAs or grades, and portfolio tasks.(13) (Assessment Required)


(13) For program review purposes, there are two ways to list a portfolio as an assessment. In some programs a portfolio is considered a single assessment and scoring criteria (usually rubrics) have been developed for the contents of the portfolio as a whole. In this instance, the portfolio would be considered a single assessment. However, in many programs a

Assessment 2 description and instrument Assessment 2 data


portfolio is a collection of candidate workand the artifacts included

3. Assessment that demonstrates candidates can effectively plan classroom-based instruction. NCTE standards that could be addressed in this assessment include but are not limited to Standard Categories 2 and 4. Examples of assessments include the evaluation of candidates' abilities to develop lesson or unit plans, individualized educational plans, needs assessments, or intervention plans. (Assessment Required)


Assessment 3


4. Assessment that demonstrates candidates' knowledge, skills, and dispositions are applied effectively in practice. NCTE standards that could be addressed in this assessment include but are not limited to Standard Categories 2, 3 and 4. An assessment instrument used in student teaching should be submitted. (Assessment Required)


Assessment 4 description Assessment 4 data


5. Assessment that demonstrates candidate effects on student learning. NCTE standards that could be addressed in this assessment include but are not limited to Standard Category 4. Examples of assessments include those based on samples of student work, portfolio tasks, case studies, and follow-up studies. (Assessment Required)


Assessment 5


6. Additional assessment that addresses NCTE Standard Category 2.0. If that Category has been addressed sufficiently in other assessments, any assessment that addresses NCTE standards can be submitted. (Assessment Required)


Assessment 6 description and instrument Assessment 6 data


7. Additional assessment that addresses NCTE standards. Examples of assessments include

evaluations of field experiences, case studies, portfolio projects, licensure tests not reported in #1 and follow-up studies. (Optional)


8. Additional assessment that addresses NCTE standards. Examples of assessments include evaluations of field experiences, case studies, portfolio projects, licensure tests not reported in #1 and follow-up studies. (Optional)


SECTION V - USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE PROGRAM

1. Evidence must be presented in this section that assessment results have been analyzed and have been or will be used to improve candidate performance and strengthen the program. This description should not link improvements to individual assessments but, rather, it should summarize principal findings from the evidence, the faculty's interpretation of those findings, and changes made in (or planned for) the program as a result. Describe the steps program faculty has taken to use information from assessments for improvement of both candidate performance and the program. This information should be organized around (1) content knowledge, (2) professional and pedagogical knowledge, skill, and dispositions, and (3) student learning.

(Response limited to 12,000 characters)

Through our collaborative analysis of teacher candidate data, the English Education faculty is currently proposing changes within both the coursework for the English major and within content pedagogy courses that will improve candidate performance and the English Education Program as a whole. These changes will impact candidates and the program in the following areas: (1) content knowledge, (2) professional and pedagogical knowledge, skill, and dispositions, and (3) student learning.

While our candidates demonstrate strong command of content knowledge, the English Education faculty intend to work with other faculty within the English Department to link our assessment of content knowledge to the assessment of senior seminar projects completed in the capstone course. Currently, the various professors teaching the course handle assessment of these capstone projects in a variety of ways. We would like to see all professors using a scoring guide that can be aligned with NCTE standards for English Education Program assessment. Currently, we are meeting with faculty who teach the English capstone course to discuss performance outcomes for the class and ways that these outcomes might be assessed. Plans are underway to require English majors to submit an electronic portfolio that demonstrates their ability (1) to do research in the discipline by evaluating, selecting, and using a variety of print and non-print sources, (2) to analyze literary texts, (3) to develop and support a thesis, (4) to use at least one mode of literary criticism, (5) to effectively organize a paper, and (5) to effectively use edited American English. We believe that by working with English Department faculty to discuss performance within the capstone course, our teacher candidates will benefit. The same learning outcomes will occur across sections, and candidates will be assessed in ways that model effective and consistent integration of assessment into instruction. Our program will benefit by an assessment of content knowledge that is embedded into the curriculum.

Analysis of candidate data shows three areas of professional and pedagogical knowledge, skill, and dispositions that need attention: demonstrating knowledge of reading processes, demonstrating knowledge of writing processes, and assessment. Both in the Student Teaching Evaluation and the Teaching English Portfolio, candidates score lower on applying their knowledge of the reading process and the writing process than on other items related to content pedagogy. Because candidates score lower on teaching of reading and writing during student teaching than during the early field experience and because cooperating professionals tend to score candidates higher on these items than do university supervisors, we surmised that the expectations of cooperating professionals perhaps interfere with what candidates have been taught about best practices. Unfortunately, few of our student teachers see their cooperating professionals teaching reading strategies advocated by experts in the field. While teacher candidates read Kylene Beers When Kids Cant Read during their early field experience, modeling the teaching of reading strategies for their cohort group and teaching minilessons on reading strategies within their classrooms, when left to their own devises, they revert to round robin reading and emulating the practices of their cooperating teachers. Similarly, many of their cooperating teachers do not use writing workshops, and few require the amount of writing that our English Education faculty believe to be essential for best practice. We have decided to be more directive in our expectations during student teaching, requiring teacher candidates to choose and include specific reading strategies and writing process activities (prewriting, drafting, revision and publication) as a part of their units. We plan likewise to formalize our expectations by setting up observations of candidates for the purpose of assessing their teaching of reading processes, and of their teaching of writing processes.

The area of assessment is the area of candidate professional and pedagogical knowledge, skill and dispositions most in need of an improvement plan. Interpretation of candidate data indicates that our teacher candidates have some ability to plan assessment for their students but they are less skilled at implementation and analysis. To address this weakness, we have changed the textbook for our EDUC 440 Methods in Grades 6-12. Starting Fall 2010 teacher candidates will use UNDERSTANDING BY DESIGN by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, and asked to plan backwards, beginning, as the authors note, with the results of instructioni.e, What should [students] walk out the door able to understand, regardless of what activities or texts we use? and What is evidence of such ability? Teacher candidates will use the UBD backward design template when writing their unit, one of the main requirements of the methods course. They will use the UBD design again when they begin student teaching as they plan their units of study that they will teach. We hope that by using this instructional design template, teacher candidates will come to a more complex understanding of assessment.

Through changes in the way we educate teacher candidates on assessment, we believe that our program will make strong inroads into the question of documenting student learning and helping teacher candidates develop more meaningful ways of showing that they have made contributions to studentslearning. While we will continue to use the pre- and post-test assessment as an exercise in understanding how to present results of quantitative measures of student learning, we hope that using UBD will help our teacher candidates to develop assessments that grow out of their critical grasp of what they want their students to know and understand, and out of an equally critical grasp of what sorts of evidence can stand as proof that learning has occurred. We have planned meetings of English Education faculty to discuss teacher candidates work with the UBD template and to decide if we are seeing among candidates more understanding of assessment and use of a wider variety of appropriate assessments. We have discussed adding assignments to courses that would facilitate teacher candidates adopting UBD as a planning model.

SECTION VI - FOR REVISED REPORTS OR RESPONSE TO CONDITIONS REPORTS ONLY

1. For Revised Reports: Describe what changes or additions have been made to address the standards that were not met in the original submission. Provide new responses to questions and/or

new documents to verify the changes described in this section. Specific instructions for preparing a Revised Report are available on the NCATE web site at http://www.ncate.org/institutions/resourcesNewPgm.asp?ch=90

For Response to Conditions Reports: Describe what changes or additions have be

program report for the preparation of english language...

Documents