cwu home     site map         

English / Language Arts Program

1.   Please describe your program's assessment process and what standards you are measuring in relation to the NCATE and State standards of knowledge (content, pedagogy and professional), skills (professional and pedagogical) and dispositions. Is the system course based, end of program based, or other? Be sure to reference how the faculty in your program was involved in developing the assessment process. In addition, describe how the assessment of standards relates to the unit's and program's conceptual framework.

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

Much of our English Language Arts assessment happens at the course level. However, program data is regularly analyzed for potential changes and improvements. On the basis of data and other evidence, the coordinator of English Education in collaboration with the committee makes recommendations for curriculum changes to the Department of English, the Center for Teaching and Learning, and the Faculty Senate.

The English Education Program Assessment Plan has several components:

1. Course-embedded assessment: ENG 422, 488, 492 and ENG 430.
2. Practicum: Assessing pre- and post-writing samples from diverse students at alternative high school, ENG 492.
3. Capstone course and portfolio: Comprehensive Unit Plan, ENG 488.
4. Live Text Artifacts: ENG 422 Young Adult Novel Teaching Plan, ENG 430 Comprehensive Genre Study Unit: address state competencies for instructional planning and assessing student learning
5. Chair end of program exit interview in capstone course, ENG 488, in which students reflect on all program components prior to student teaching
6. Demonstration of best practices: students present theory into practice application to a panel of professional secondary teachers who evaluate the quality of the performance, ENG 488.

Constructivism, the conceptual framework for the English Language Arts Program, is emphasized in every assignment in all four English Language Arts courses. The capstone seminar provides the most comprehensive opportunity for students to demonstrate their understanding of the constructivist model.

2. Below is an analysis of the frequency with which your program cites CTL, WA State Standards/Competencies, and/or national standards within your LiveText artifacts, rubrics, and reports. Please examine the charts and write your program's interpretations and conclusions based on the information provided. (e.g., Are the standards dispersed appropriately in your program? Are all the standards represented as you wish them to be? After reviewing this analysis are there changes your program would recommend making to the way you cite standards or assess your candidates using LiveText?)

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

The state and national standards are appropriately distributed among our courses. However, as is evident in our answer to #1, we assess the competencies and expectations using multiple measures, not all of which are amenable to quantitative analysis and/or recording on LiveText.

While the standards are in evidence in our courses, based on student feedback, performance data and our professional observations, we would like to see more integration of content and pedagogy, particularly in the areas of language, multicultural literature, and visual literacy. We have designed and are piloting specific courses for English Education students in two of these areas (ENG 247T Multicultural Literature for Teachers, and ENG 424 Reading and Viewing Print and Non-Print Texts). Based on the data we are collecting in those courses, we will determine whether or not to propose permanent curriculum changes to the English department, CTL and Faculty Senate.

3. Below you will find one sample of your Live Text Report that identifies an aggregation of candidate learning outcome data. Please examine all of your reports in the LiveText exhibit area and discuss the accuracy, consistency, and fairness of the data, as well as what improvements could be made in the program assessment rubrics, courses, artifacts, or reporting. Include your interpretations relative how well your candidates are meeting standards. After examining all of your report data, list any changes your program is considering.


Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

While we are comfortable drawing only tentative conclusions from this data, which is incomplete due to technical difficulties we have experienced with LiveText, we have arrived at some proposed course and program changes based on information from our multiple sources and our best professional judgment.

Based on the past data, the ENG 430 rubric for the Genre Study assignment and the course curriculum were changed because assumptions we were making related to prerequisite foundational knowledge were inaccurate. The rubric was adjusted to reflect more accurate assumptions about student prior knowledge and skills, particularly working with diverse students, planning and organizing for instruction, and formative and summative assessment. (Note: because of these data-supported changes, it is not possible at this time to aggregate our data in meaningful ways in the LiveText environment. We are, though, able to read the early and more recent data separately, and the changes made to the rubric and curriculum have had positive results.)

We are also collaborating with the CTL to clarify the outcomes and sequence of courses in the professional sequence in order to better predict prior foundational knowledge of students entering our 400-level English Education classes. For example, the committee is considering whether or not to add further prerequisites to ENG 422, specifically EDCS 311.

4. Below you will find a chart of the CTL Standards aggregated by course. Please examine the data results and discuss any improvements if any you might consider for your program. Using these data, please reflect upon your candidates' success in meeting standards. Compare these data to the data provided in the WEST B and E charts that follow. Is there consistency in the rates of success? What do these data tell you?

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

Unfortunately, the summary we've received of the English/Language Arts data we entered into LiveText is proving problematic for The English Education Committee in terms of program decision-making. First, it's incomplete; it doesn't include much of the information we've submitted for students in Eng 422 and Eng 430. Second, the way in which it is currently being presented it is confusing. It appears that data has been aggregated across unmatched sets, across different measures, and with inconsistent values.

Clearly, one of our immediate program goals will be to meet with Ed Tech faculty responsible for aggregating and reporting LiveText data to find out more about what we can do from our end and what they can do on their end to improve this process so that we can receive summary reports that will be more useful to us in determining what's working in our current program, and what areas are in need of improvement.

Any conclusions we draw at this time from this incomplete data at this level of generality must be quite tentative. That said, the data on t his small number of students does align with our other observations. The 20% and 22% of students in ENG 422 and 430 respectively who do not reach exemplary levels of proficiency in all standards (as reflected in this aggregated form) are, we assume, the same students who suffer from a measurable lack of prerequisite knowledge and skills. One of our tasks in the upcoming year will be to work with the CTL and the faculty teaching the professional core courses to clarify what we can assume that students will have accomplished in prerequisite courses and to adjust our expectations accordingly.


Please find below the West B data for the teacher residency program. Please use these data, the LiveText data, and the West E data found below to predict candidate success in your program. Given theses summaries, are there changes to your program or to the unit your program recommends the CTL consider?

  • Between 2005-2007, 49% of the candidates passed all three sections of the exam their first attempt, 84% passed the reading portion in their first attempt, 82% math their first attempt, and 65% passed writing their first attempt.
  • The mean number of candidates not passing reading portion is 11%, math 12%, and writing 25%.

CTL WEST B Data Summary 2002 to Present


Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

Because our students are required to enter the certification program at the same time as they enter our major, we do not know how many students who attempt to enter the English Language Arts major are inhibited by an inability to pass the West B. While we have anecdotal evidence that an occasional student fails to pass the mathematics portion of the West B exam, students entering our major generally score well beyond acceptable levels in reading and writing.

6. The WEST E is administered by ETS as a state requirement for program Exit, measuring content knowledge by endorsement area. ETS has not sent the final corrected data summary at the time of this report, however, the data we keep on a continuously updated basis is described below in the following graph. The graph compares 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 data by endorsement area. We suspect the 2006-2007 data will change after all scores are received from ETS. According to this set of data, 2005-06 pass rates were 90%. Remember all candidates must pass the test to be certified, so they take it multiple times. We are working on authenticating a different process that will show how many times candidate take the test and when. The 2006-07 data indicates pass rates of 87%. If your program is one of those with a pass rate below 80%; what program recommendations are you considering that will positively affect the rate of passing the WEST-E for 2007-2009?

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

Our program pass rates are above 85% and increasing. Our plans to increase the pass rate to even more impressive levels involve encouraging the formation of study sessions with test-preparation materials available for the West-E.


Please find below the EBI teacher and principal data for all program completers. Discuss and report in the space provided what your program recommends the unit should accomplish to improve overall satisfaction, or what your program is doing to improve the trend.

  • This survey is administered through OSPI and is contracted through Educational Benchmarking Inc. These data are collected for all new teachers in public schools by surveying new teachers and their principals.
  • Response rate average over the seven years n=105
  • The graph represents a seven year average satisfaction trend by category
  • Highest satisfaction ratings are in the areas of:
    • Student learning
    • Instructional strategies
    • Management, control and environment
  • Lowest satisfaction ratings are in the areas of:
    • Reading skills
  • 5 year Principal responses followed similar patterns as teachers n=41


Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

It is gratifying to find that our students overall are meeting the expectations of teachers and principals in student learning, instructional strategies and class management. Again, it is difficult to target areas for improvement when program data is not broken out for review. Regarding reading scores, all of our English Language Arts pedagogy courses include assignments that require critical reading with guided strategies and clear assessments. The data suggest, however, that might we review where and how those skills are assessed to ensure that all graduates demonstrate levels of reading competence that will permit professional participation and informed decision-making.


Please find below first year and third year teacher survey results summarized by graphing mean responses for each question.

  • This survey is administered by CTL and data trend summary represents 2004-07
  • The average response rate for 2004-2007 is 15%
  • First year teacher N= 375, Third year teacher n =200
  • The graph and subsequent ANOVA demonstrates a significantly higher average satisfaction rating from first year teachers when compared to third year teachers (p<.05)
  • Highest satisfaction ratings are in the areas of:
    • Subject matter knowledge
    • Application of EALR's
  • Lowest satisfaction ratings are in the areas of:
    • Classroom management
    • Involving and collaborating with parents

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

Because of our high pass rates on the West-E and our multiple program assessments, we are not surprised by data that suggests a high satisfaction rate with subject area knowledge. We are also not surprised that students are satisfied with their knowledge of the EALRs, because in our particular program we use them in all of our courses to frame instructional planning assignments.

The two lowest areas of satisfaction, classroom management and parent involvement, are already being examined by a task force that is currently reviewing the goals, outcomes, and division of responsibility among courses for the Professional Sequence. The group is composed primarily of Education department members with a representative of secondary programs from the College of the Sciences and one from the College of the Humanities who is a member of the English Language Arts committee. Our presence on that task force should assist us with ensuring that all Professional Sequence courses differentiate the needs of secondary students and provide training and guidance in knowledge and skills specific to the needs of the middle and high school classroom situations.

The need to clarify what constitutes foundational knowledge related to classroom management and parent involvement has already been identified by the task force; when that clarification occurs, it will be easier for our courses to augment that foundational knowledge with opportunities for students to apply their skills and knowledge in multiple situations with diverse groups.


Please find below a comparative analysis of candidate dispositions from beginning candidates to finishing candidates. Please comment on the changes you observe in your candidates over time and describe how and why you think this occurs. What does your program specifically do to engage candidates in developing professional teacher dispositions?

  • This inventory is administered by the CTL at admissions (N=645), and again at the end of student teaching (N= 195). Some of the 645 candidates have not yet student taught, which is why the n's are different.
  • There is a significant difference in 12 of 34 items (p<.05) between beginning candidates and candidates completing student teaching
  • Change is in the preferred direction from agree to strongly agree
  • This means somewhere between entry and before exit, the teacher program candidates are developing stronger professional beliefs and attitudes that reflect the underlying values and commitments of the unit's conceptual framework. Future work will include data that tells us where this change is occurring and if there are difference caused by demographic variables. If you want to read more about this disposition instrument, the validation study is published on the OREA web site under research.

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

The research presented is of interest, and we are looking forward to a discussion within the CTL of its implications for whole-program strategic planning. As participants in a secondary program, we have not been a part of the dialogue related to specific expectations related to dispositions. We have, however, developed our own instrument that we use within the context of student advising toward inculcating professional behaviors in classroom and field experiences.



Final Student Teaching Evaluation Report on LiveText

  • The data report is too large to be placed in this document. Please access the data by going to this link on our assessment system web site
  • The report reveals the final assessment of elements found in state standards IV and V
  • Candidates are generally performing at a high level, although there are some candidates as depicted by the colors green and red who are not performing to standard.
  • Examination of those elements indicates some agreement with results provided in the 1st and 3rd year teacher survey.

Please look at these data carefully and discuss with your program faculty some ways the teacher residency program can begin to address the few but common deficits occurring in candidate knowledge and skills relative to the State standard elements. If you need to refer to state standards please refer to this link in the assessment system website:


Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

In reviewing this data, we are assuming that secondary programs contribute in conscious and strategic ways to the development of the core professional skills which are being observed. However, that has not been the case until recently. We now have procedures in place that will help secondary pedagogy specialists build on the pedagogical practices presented in the professional core and will soon be better able to discern where we might best have an impact on teacher candidate performance.


Please examine these data and report any discussions your program has regarding the reported results.

  • This survey is conducted by Career Services and reported to OSPI. The report, however, has been reanalyzed and the summary reflects the new analysis, which covers 2002-2006.
  • Average response rate = 57%
  • Of that 57%, the average percent of graduates who get jobs in state is 94%
  • The average percent of graduate still seeking a position is 27%
  • Two percent of the 57% have decided not to teach
  • For 2005-2006; 35 % of the program graduates responded to questions regarding ethnicity and gender. Out of the 35% who responded, 90% were Caucasian, 5% were Hispanic, 3% were African-American, and 1.8% were Asian.

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

Our placement data seems very strong. However, the extent to which the numbers represent a scarcity in particular areas rather than the quality of our students is not clear. We need to develop data that can differentiate among the levels of employment for secondary levels, and for subject areas within secondary situations in order to fully appreciate and apply the placement data.






© Central Washington University   |   All Rights Reserved