cwu home     site map         
        
    

CTL PROGRAM REPORT
Reading 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:

The Reading Program (EDRD) at CWU uses a course-based assessment format utilizing artifacts (LiveText). Washington State standards are listed by course and by artifact. Currently, the data collected are based on the 2002 State, CTL and NCATE standards.

Faculty who regularly taught specific courses developed the artifacts/rubrics; the completed artifacts/rubrics were then reviewed and approved by Reading faculty. All of the artifacts are considered authentic assessments relative to the anticipated professional practice of the teacher candidates.

The assessment of standards relate to the program’s conceptual framework in that, as a facilitator of learning, the candidate is an expert learner, knowledge specialist, master of the Art and Science of teaching and a teacher/specialist scholar.

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 standards identified are currently assessed by a variety of artifacts for each course. However, the standards do not seem to be dispersed appropriately, nor are all the standards represented as we wish them to be. Many of the artifact rubrics do not have consistent criteria as well.

The Reading Program recommends that the Reading Minor change to an end of program assessment (portfolio) process. This end of program assessment will incorporate and address 2008 State, NCATE, CTL and Professional standards with an added reflection piece, which is similar to CWU’s Special Education Program’s assessment process. We will begin to discuss the restructuring of the assessment process beginning Spring quarter 2008.

We also recommend that the four (4) Reading courses (EDRD 308, EDRD 309, EDRD 420. EDRD 421) that are part of the Elementary Education Major, be changed from a course by course artifact/assessment process to a one (1) end of four reading course reflective assessment/artifact that better reflects and incorporates 2008 State, NCATE, CTL and Professional standards. We would like to begin the discussion process regarding the restructuring of the assessment process for the four Reading courses Spring 2008. However, to our dismay, the Reading Program was told that we do not have the authority to change the current assessment system for the (4) reading courses in the Elementary Education program. We were surprised at this news, as Reading faculty staff the courses, teach the courses, have the Reading content knowledge base and assessment knowledge.

We recommend keeping the one course artifact/rubric ‘as is’ for EDCS 424 (Professional Sequence Course).

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:

LiveText Data: All courses/artifacts have been submitted for Fall, 2007. Reading faculty looked at the courses/data and reflected on these questions: What are the data telling/showing us? How can we improve our courses/program based on the data?

EDRD 308
We did notice that language ‘mechanics’ seemed to be a problem for our students, but faculty stated that the Livetext reports did not really show us anything. The artifact reports did not show us meaningful data. An artifact that better reflects standards and students’ abilities needs to be developed.

EDRD 309
The faculty seems to be satisfied with the lesson plan as an artifact. For the most part students (from the data) seem to be on track. They are making decisions, implementing and reflecting. Students are able to use GLEs when planning and are able to reflect on the lesson plan as a whole. What we did notice was an inability to follow written directions, a learned work habit.

EDRD 420
Students have ideas, and can organize them, however, language conventions/writing skills are weak. Professor Donahoe recommended a program change: students must pass a writing test, or take a grammar course (English 320?) as a prerequisite to EDRD 420. We should also use OSPI rubrics with grade level conventions.

EDRD 421
It was noted that the artifacts for many courses (EDRD 420, 421 in the EL. Ed. sequence) are instructor specific. These artifacts need to be generalized as they are difficult for instructors across the seven (7) sites to utilize.

EDCS 424
It seems that the artifact chosen (anticipation guide) is working fairly well. Following directions (work habit problem), and language mechanics seems to be a problem for students. A text for this course is now required for all instructors of 424 and is listed on the syllabus. (On line)

EDRD 410
Again it was noted that the artifact for this course is instructor specific and needs to be generalized.
From the data of one class it was noted that students had difficulty with the rational/research/background information.
Students had difficulty connecting readings/philosophies to the project, or making the connections specific. The rubric will be given to students at the beginning of the course to assist them.

EDRD 411 – Ellensburg – seems to have a weakness in Lesson Plan and Student Directions.

EDRD 413
The data indicated that the students seemed to do well on the artifact (research brochure). Writing mechanics was once again a problem for students.

EDRD 493
The data indicate that students are able to organize and reflect. However, once again, writing mechanics are weak.

SUMMARY:

1. It was noted that many of the chosen artifacts are instructor specific, confusing and need to be changed/modified to reflect standards more accurately.
2. The data indicate that students have a wide spread problem with grammar, writing conventions and over-all language mechanics. It was suggested that writing tests, or grammar courses need to be implemented as a prerequisite for Reading courses.
3. The data indicate that students have study skills/work habit weaknesses, i.e., following directions.
4. The data also indicate that many artifacts (lesson plans, brochures) indicate that students can make decisions, organize, plan, implement, reflect and incorporate GLEs into their thinking and planning.

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:

The first chart – Table One - “Level of Success Attained on Standards by Course does not include data which the Reading program faculty can interpret. Data are not reflected in this chart.
1) The courses/data that are grouped together are not related and are inappropriate.
2) The course EDRD 493 should not be aggregated with EDRD 523. One is an undergraduate practicum course; the other is a graduate seminar course.
3) There are missing data from EDRD 411.
4) The aggregated data preclude any valid conclusions.
5) Because these data are not valid, we cannot compare them to the data from the West B and West E.

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:

The WEST B data are not disaggregated by program, i.e., Reading minors, so the data are difficult to interpret and predict success for our Reading students. However, the data seem to indicate the need for:
1) Stronger writing preparation before students are admitted to the Teacher Education Program.
2) Students need to be responsible for the quality of written work.
And
3) The Reading faculty is discussing the need for consistent program-wide expectations for writing standards.

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:

The Reading Program has implemented/suggested the following:

1) West E Preparation Workshops – Reading faculty conduct two (2) workshops designed to prep/inform Reading minor students about the West E each quarter.

2) The pass rate is significantly higher (above 90%) for students who take the two (2) West E preparation workshops.

3) The Reading Program is requiring attendance at both preparation workshops for EDRD 493 beginning Spring 2008.

4) The Reading Program is in discussion regarding adding a one (1) credit required course centered on the WEST E exam.

5) The Reading Program has implemented West E style scenarios, content vocabulary in minor courses (EDRD 413, Methods & Materials).

6) The Reading Program has restructured the Minor courses to make EDBL 440 – Reading ESL, and EDRD 418 – Reading and Linguistics, required courses to address deficits in these content areas.

7) The Reading Program has made preparations to require EDRD 308 and EDRD 309 as prerequisites for all EDRD minor courses to provide a solid knowledge base.

8) The Reading program has made preparations to require additional EDRD courses before taking the EDRD 493 practicum to help ensure a firmer reading knowledge base.

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:

1) We cannot draw conclusions from these data due to the fact that we do not know the definitions of terms, i.e., reading skills.

2) We do not know what the questions are, so we cannot interpret the data.

3) We do not know if there is a statistically significant difference.

4) We also have not had these data long enough to consider them thoroughly and make appropriate decisions.

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:

1. The response rate seems low.

2. The Reading Program cannot interpret the data due to the fact that the data are not disaggregated by program.

3. We do not know what the questions are, so we cannot interpret the data.

4. The lowest satisfaction ratings in the areas of classroom management and parental involvement mirror a widely known nation-wide trend.

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:

The Reading Program incorporates the following to engage candidates in developing professional teacher dispositions:

1) Provides a combination of in-class, out of class experiences, coupled with subject matter.

2) Has high expectations of professionalism in in-class and practicum experiences.

3) Links professionalism with assessment, reflection and evaluation.

4) Field experiences and classroom activities require students to begin to act and behave professionally.

 

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:

The Reading Program suggests the following ways to address the deficits occurring in candidate knowledge:

1) Provide some kind of ‘gateway’ to screen students to make sure candidates are prepared and have the basic knowledge base before they are able to enroll in methods courses.

2) Courses need to be sequenced (in difficulty) and adhered to (no random enrollment in courses).

3) More opportunities need to be provided for students to reflect on their learning.

4) A classroom management course needs to be required for all candidates.

5) The Reading program can integrate simulations throughout courses with parent/community communications.

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:

The Reading program has had no discussions regarding this report.

   

 

 

 

 

 
© Central Washington University   |   All Rights Reserved