cwu home     site map         

World Languages 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 assessment process consists of a set of lesson plans and teaching demonstrations that incorporate the endorsement competencies for designated world languages. Students complete lesson plans and perform demonstrations based on WL standards #2 Language and Culture, #3 Language Acquisition/Teaching, #4 Learning Environment and #6 Language Competency/Proficiencies. These lessons are required elements of our FNLA 481 Teaching Methods course which serves as a type of capstone course for the Foreign Languages programs. The assessment process was developed jointly by the two faculty members in our department who are involved in teacher preparation courses: Dr. Natalie Lefkowitz and myself, Dr. Rodney Bransdorfer. Each of the standards being assessed directly tie in to our programs’ framework. WL standard #2 is related to the content of all our language courses from 151 to 400-level literature courses. Also, standard #2 is addressed specifically in our required culture course, 310. Students demonstrate competence of language and culture via culture-based lesson demonstations in the target language. WL standard #3 relates to the content of the FNLA 481 course in which students study language acquisition theory and current language teaching methodologies. Students demonstrate competence of language acquisition theory and teaching methods via teaching demonstrations that exemplify a particular acquisition theory and/or a particular teaching method (e.g. Total Physical Response, Natural Approach, etc.). WL standard #4 also relates to the content of the FNLA 481 course. Students learn about the multiple variables affecting the learning environment and the various learning styles and strategies involved in language acquisition. Students demonstrate competence in the area of Learning Environment via language teaching demonstrations that incorporate a variety of materials and methods designed to complement student learning from multiple perspectives. WL standard #6 represents a culmination of all language courses. This standard is again addressed via teaching demonstrations in the target language. Linguistic competence is assessed on the lesson plan and during the demonstrations. When necessary, other FL faculty are consulted to aid in assessment of languages outside my area of expertise.

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:

As a first attempt to correlate standards directly to course content, the standards are dispersed appropriately in our program and are represented as desired. However, it would be desirable to incorporate the remaining WL standards, i.e. Standard #1 Child and Adolescent Development, Individuality and Diversity, Standard #5 Assessment, and Standard #7 Professional Development. These standards are partially addressed in other standards and are part of the content in FNLA 481. They were not included in our original rubric due to the inability to thoroughly assess seven standards in one course. As we move forward, we will explore ways to ensure that all seven standards are being met without overly burdening the students or faculty in FNLA 481.

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:

The data representing our program is accurate, relatively consistent, and fair. As mentioned above, we are looking for ways to incorporate more standards into our rubric. I believe that one area of improvement would be in the consistency of the artifacts. We have not adopted a single, standardized template for student artifacts, specifically their lesson plans. A standardized template would aid in the consistency of assessment and would better illustrate the standards and how the lessons are addressing them. After considering the data gathered thus far, the faculty are considering a variety of possible improvements to the programs involved. We are currently considering a change from our existing sequence of teacher preparation courses (FNLA 481 and FNLA 482 or FNLA 483). One possible change would be to teach a two-part sequence rather than two completely separate courses. In other words, we would offer a first course in language acquisition theory followed by a more typical methods course focusing on developing appropriate materials and lessons. Another possibility would be to create a new capstone course for teaching majors in which a portfolio would be assembled to address the necessary standards.

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:

Based on these data, our students are performing extremely well. However, due to the very small number of students assessed so far, it is far from clear that our assessment is effective and no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from such a statistically insignificant number of data points.


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:

Based on the West B data, the LiveText data, and the West E data, no changes are being recommended at this time. West E data is not provided for World Languages.

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:

No data available.


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:

Given that our content courses are all taught in foreign languages which involve developing many skills (but not those included in this survey) simultaneously, we have no recommendations for improving student satisfaction in the areas surveyed. To illustrate, our students report very high satisfaction with writing skills in the foreign language but less satisfaction with their ability to speak the foreign language. These data do not necessarily correlate with the type of data represented in the EBI survey.


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:

Given that no university teacher preparation course can adequately prepare future teachers for the myriad classroom management scenarios that they will encounter, nor for involving and collaborating with parents, our program has no specific recommendations to address this survey data.


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:

We have no opportunity to observe the dispositions of the vast majority of our teacher candidates prior to their enrollment in our FNLA sequence, by which time they are generally only one or two quarters from graduation. I attribute their developing professional disposition to the excellent training that they are receiving in the professional education sequence.



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:

I understand the need to address any perceived deficiencies in teacher candidates but it seems overly optimistic to assume that program changes are going to guarantee adequate performance from 100% of the candidates.


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:

No report.






© Central Washington University   |   All Rights Reserved