cwu home     site map         
        
    

CTL PROGRAM REPORT
Library Media 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:

Our Library Media Endorsement program is a 27 credit teacher endorsement program offered at our Ellensburg campus in-person primarily over two consecutive summers with one class offered during the academic year. The program is aligned to the Washington State's Library Media Competencies, which are based on the national American Library Association Standards. Our assessment system is course based; each of our 9 courses in our program has a number of assignments aligned to one or more of the Library Media Competencies. In turn, each assignment has a standards-based rubric. Throughout the course of the program, students are required to complete a variety of assignments, which have been designed to address the Library Media Competencies of knowledge, skills and dispositions. A selection of these artifacts are placed in the students' portfolios. All students in the program are required to maintain an electronic portfolio, which captures artifacts from all of their courses aligned to all of the Library Media Competencies in the program.

Faculty members in our program maintains a personal journal during their teaching. At the end of the summer program, faculty members have a an opportunity to meet and debrief---during this time, they have an opportunity to discuss, collaborate and communicate some of the successes, challenges, concerns and needed course and programmatic changes. Since most of our faculty members are practicing teacher-librarians in K-12 Schools, a web-based course management system is used to further engage faculty about our program, generate new ideas, share changes in the field, collaborate on projects, etc.

In the following spring, we then conduct several face-to-face meetings where we have the opportunity to analyze the previous summer's data, and discuss their implications. These data include our student data from our assessment system, West-E scores, our program survey data (given to all students in the program), and our student end-of-course evaluations. In addition, faculty members share their own personal data in the form of reflections and comments documented in their personal journals and within the course-management system. Also during this time, we develop the upcoming student portfolio for the new students and returning students in our program. Each assignment in the portfolio is examined in detail and discussed at length. We also re-examine the alignment of assignments to standards, and discuss any needed course or programmatic changes. Once consensus is reached, we finalize and document changes made.

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:

LM Standards 8, 9, and LIB Standards 1, 2 and 3 are erroneously listed on this table; they refer to standards that will be addressed beginning in the summer of 2008. That being said, all of our LM standards are addressed in our program. However, we currently use a one-to-one correspondence with core competencies and artifacts, which is not very realistic. In reality, one artifact may be addressing multiple competencies. We have discussed this and plan to modify this relationship to develop one that is more realistic. Specifically, this spring we plan to change the assignments to address multiple competencies. In addition, our practicum course, EDCS 599, only addressed one competency. This course is designed to provide students with situated learning opportunities to practice the theory, knowledge, skills and dispositions the coursework has attempted to impart. Accordingly, we need to modify the assignments in this program, so that the resulting artifacts address a broad spectrum of library media competencies, not just one. Specifically, and in keeping with our conceptual framework of Constructivism, we plan to allow students to select a range of assignments in this course, which collectively meet all of the Library Media competencies. With the current standards-aligned assignments in our core courses combined with standards-aligned assignments in our practicum course, EDCS 599, we are confident that students will have ample opportunities to demonstrate competence in our Library Media competencies.

Through the data above, we have noticed that only 1 of the 4 CTL Standards have been addressed and/or cited. We added CTL Standards "late in the game", so we believe this might be a lag effect. Nevertheless, we are re-examining our course syllabi, content and assignment to ensure that we are giving enough exposure and emphasis to these CTL Standards. With our diligence, we hope to see improvements in this category next year.

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:

Assignment rubrics during our first year utilizing LiveText varied, some courses used a rubric with four categories, while some courses used only three categories. Artifacts for LiveText were standardized in 2006, so that across all courses rubrics had three categories. This simplifies comparing scores throughout our program. Students score consistently well across LiveText assignments in our program. Generally the mode is “3” within rubric choices of 3-2-1. There is enough variation among student grades however, to indicate thoughtful grading processes from our instructors. This indicates that grade inflation is minimal, and assessments of candidates are meaningful. Averaging the inter-rater summaries for each instructor provides a look at instructor grading patterns. On a three point scale, Alldredge is 2.89, Engvall, 2.94, Gustafson, 2.77 and Lindvig, 2.89. This indicates fairly consistent grading patterns among our faculty.

Our assessment data in Livetext is fairly homogenous, suggesting that changing to a standard with four or five categories in each rubric would make our assessment more sensitive, and perhaps more meaningful. We plan to incorporate new rubrics this year to reflect this realization.

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:

It appears that our students have done relatively well on attaining our CTL standards as demonstrated by the data above, except for a few areas where they are listed as incomplete. We need to investigate this further, since our CTL standards were integrated within our alignment to our LME core competencies. As noted in question 2, we have added CTL Standards recently, so we hope with better articulation of these CTL standards to students both in writing, verbally, and through practice (via their course assignments), we will be able to improve upon these values and address those standards which have been listed as incomplete above.

5.

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:

These data are telling, and are faculty members in the program, as practicing teacher-librarians are acutely aware of the implications in the K-12 classroom. Our students in our endorsement program are also teachers, and are in the program to become teacher-librarians. As teacher-librarians, they play a crucial role as partners with teachers in designing and shaping the learning environment in the K-12 classroom. Accordingly, it is important for us to present these data to them, and discuss implications. We will also ensure that our program appropriately targets these skills.

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 currently has a 100% pass rate on the West-E test over two test periods. Our Summary Report for the Library Media program for the first test period indicated our students' average scores exceeded the state-wide and national averages in all five test categories. For the second test period, scores exceeded or met national averages, but are below state averages in several areas. Although we are proud of our success rate, we want to ensure our success is sustainable in future years. Since the State is introducing a new West-E in the next year based on the new Library Media competencies, as a team we are currently in the process of re-aligning our courses, assignments and rubrics to these new competencies. We will be closely watching our new test scores in the hopes that our students will continue to perform well. If not, these data will provide rich feedback, which upon analysis will assist us in improving the program.

7.

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:

Our program faculty have not had the opportunity to review these data yet.

8.

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:

Our program faculty have not had the opportunity to review these data yet.

9.

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:

Our program faculty have not had the opportunity to review these data yet.

 

10. 

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 http://www.cwu.edu/~ectl/ncate2.0/wastate/fsted-ltr.html
  • 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: http://www.cwu.edu/~ectl/ncate2.0/wastate/istandards.html

 

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

Our program faculty have not had the opportunity to review these data yet.

11.

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 program faculty have not had the opportunity to review these data yet.

   

 

 

 

 

 
© Central Washington University   |   All Rights Reserved