English   for   Secondary   Teachers   2010 ‐ 11
Page   1   of   10
English   Education   –   Initial   Preparation
Annual   Program   Report
Academic   Year   2010 ‐ 11
David   LeNoir
November   21,   2011
1.
Continuous   Assessment   Results   a.
Admission   Data
Table   1   provides   the   average   admission   test   scores   and   admission   grade   point   average   (GPA)   of
English   for   Secondary   Teachers   (EST)   candidates   approved   by   the   Professional   Education
Council   (PEC)   for   admission   into   initial   teacher   preparation   programs   during   this   academic   year.
Before   the   Office   of   Teacher   Services   submits   their   names   for   review   and   approval   by   the   PEC,   candidates   must   meet   minimum   requirements   established   by   the   state   and/or   the   WKU
Professional   Education   Unit.
Table   1.
Approved   Candidate   Test   Score   Averages
Program
230101
ACT
PPST
Math
PPST
Reading
PPST
Writing
SAT
GRE
Composite
Admission
GPA
N       Mean   N       Mean   N     Mean N     Mean N     Mean N       Mean   N     Mean
22   24   1   173   1 177 1 175 1   1060   23 3.34
b.
Course   Based   Assessment   Data
Table   2   provides   the   percentage   of   EST   candidates   (N   =   102)   scoring   at   each   level   of   proficiency   on   critical   performances   within   education   courses   for   this   academic   year.
Proficiency   levels   are   based   on   a   scale   of   1   –   Standard   Not   Met,   2   –   Standard   Partially   Met,   3   –   At   Standard,   and   4   –
Above   Standard.
Table   2.
CP   Proficiency   Level   Percentages
Course   1    2    3    4
EDU   250
EDU   489
ELED   355
ELED   365
ELED   405
ELED   406
ELED   407
ELED   465
EXED   330
EXED   331
EXED   332
EXED   333
EXED   422
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
12%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
69%
76%
0%
100%
0%
67%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30%
12%
100%
0%
100%
33%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%

English   for   Secondary   Teachers   2010 ‐ 11
Page   2   of   10
Course
EXED   430
EXED   432
LME   318
LME   407
LME   411
LTCY   320
LTCY   421
LTCY   444
MGE   275
MGE   385
MGE   477
PSY   310
SEC   351
SEC   352
2
25%
63%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3
50%
38%
0%
50%
100%
12%
63%
79%
0%
0%
40%
50%
100%
0%
4
25%
0%
100%
50%
0%
86%
38%
21%
100%
100%
60%
50%
0%
100%
SEC   453
SEC   475
0%
0%
14%
0%
38%
68%
47%
32%
Grand   Total   0%   7%   56%   38%
Table   3   indicates   the   level   of   EST   candidates   (N   =   103)   proficiency   across   critical   performances   related   to   the   Kentucky   Teacher   Standards   (KTS).
Candidates   receiving   an   overall   rating   of   3   or
4   on   a   CP   are   considered   to   have   demonstrated   proficiency   on   the   standards   associated   with   the   CP.
Compared   to   the   unit ‐ wide   results,   EST   candidates   are   typically   performing   slightly   below   average.
Table   3.
Percent   of   EST   Candidates   Scoring   Proficient   on   CPs   by   KTS
Program
1   2   3
Kentucky   Teacher   Standards
4   5   6   7   8   9   10
EST   91%   90%   91%   80%   98%   96%   98%   95%   95%   96%
Unit ‐ Wide   96%   95%   96%   96%   96%   96%   96%   96%   94%   99%
*KTS   Key:   1   –   Content   Knowledge,   2   –   Designs/Plans   Instruction,   3   –   Maintains   Learning   Climate,   4   –   Implements/
Manages   Instruction,   5   –   Assessment/Evaluation,   6   –   Technology,   7   –   Reflection,   8   –   Collaboration,   9   –   Professional
Development,   10   –   Leadership
Table   4   indicates   the   number   of   EST   candidates   (N   =   16)   who   have   scored   2   or   lower   (below   proficiency)   on   critical   performances   during   this   academic   year.
Table   4.
EST   Candidates   Scoring   Below   Proficient   on   CPs
Score
Student   ID   Student   Count
1    2
1   1
1
1
1
1

English   for   Secondary   Teachers   2010 ‐ 11
Page   3   of   10
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
5   5
Grand   Total   35   35
c.
Clinical   Experiences   Data
The   EST   program   uses   the   following   courses   and   experiences   to   evaluate   candidate   dispositions:    EDU   250   and   EDU   490.
The   program   has   identified   the   following   courses   and   experiences   where   candidates   report   the   diversity   of   their   field   experiences:    EDU   250,   EDU
480,   and   SEC   352.
SEC   352   has   been   designated   as   the   experience   where   candidates   must   work   in   settings   at   or   above   the   average   11%   diversity   of   the   schools   in   the   30+   counties   that   represent   our   service   area.
Table   5   reports   how   EST   candidates   performed   on   dispositions   as   they   entered   and   progressed   through   their   program   (N   =   1)   and   during   their   student   teaching   experience   (N   =   28).
Students   are   considered   “proficient”   who   average   a   3   or   higher   on   each   disposition   category.
Table   5.
EST   Proficiency   Rates   on   Unit ‐ Wide   Dispositions
Period   Values
Learning
WKU   Professional   Education   Dispositions
Values   Personal
Integrity
Values
Diversity
Values
Collaboration
Values
Professionalism   a.
Prior   to   Student
Teaching   b.
During   Student
Teaching
75%
100%
81%
100%
81%
100%
81%
100%
76%
100%
Over   this   academic   year,   EST   candidates   (N   =   45)   reported   demographic   information   on   52   field   placements   with   an   average   of   17%   ethnically   diverse   students,   49 %   students   on   free/reduced   lunch,   and   11 %   student   with   disabilities   (based   on   National   Center   for   Education   Statistics   and   Kentucky
Department   of   Education) .
This   ethnic   diversity   percentage   continues   to   be   well   above   the   average   11%   diversity   of   the   schools   in   the   30+   counties   that   represent   our   service   area.
Table

English   for   Secondary   Teachers   2010 ‐ 11
Page   4   of   10
6   reveals   the   percentages   of   field   experiences   with   various   characteristics.
Note   that   candidates   could   choose   all   the   characteristics   that   applied   for   any   given   experience.
Table   6.
Percentages   of   Field   Experience   by   Category   Types
Working   with   Student   With   Special   Needs
%   Candidates   working   with   Students   with   Physical   Impairments
%   Candidates   working   with   Students   with   Learning   Disabilities
%   Candidates   working   with   Students   with   Moderate/Severe   Disabilities
%   Candidates   working   with   Students   with   Emotional/Behavioral   Disorders
%   Candidates   working   with   Gifted   Students
%   Candidates   working   with   English   Language   Learners
%   Candidates   working   with   Students   with    Visual   Impairments
%   Candidates   working   with   Students   with   Hearing   Impairments
%   Candidates   working   with   Students   with   Speech/Language   Delays
%   Candidates   working   with   Students   with   Development   Delays
%   Candidates   working   with   Students   with   Autism   Spectrum   Disorder
%   Candidates   working   with   Students   with   Other   Impairments
Working   with   Diverse   Students
%   Candidates   working   with   African   American   Students
%   Candidates   working   with   Native   American/American   Indian   Students
%   Candidates   working   with   Latino/Hispanic   Students
%   Candidates   working   with   Asian   Students
12%
10%
4%
10%
19%
8%
13%
60%
12%
33%
46%
40%
90%
10%
81%
63%
%   Candidates   working   with   Students   with   Special   Needs   (Aggregate)   85%
%   Candidates   working   with   Diverse   Students   (Aggregate)   94%
Overall,   as   can   be   seen   in   Table   6,   in   85%   of   their   field   experiences   EST   candidates   reported   working   with   at   least   one   student   with   special   needs   and   in   94%   of   their   field   experiences   candidates   reported   working   with   at   least   one   student   from   a   diverse   ethnic   group.
d.
Culminating   Assessment   Data
As   Component   4   of   the   WKU   Professional   Education   Unit   Continuous   Assessment   Plan   (CAP)   strategy,   all   initial   preparation   candidates   complete   a   culminating   assessment   of   professional   and   pedagogical   knowledge   and   skills,   the   Teacher   Work   Sample   (TWS).
This   assessment   is   also   used   to   demonstrate   candidates’   ability   to   impact   P ‐ 12   student   learning.
In   particular,   candidate   performances   on   Assessment   Planning   and   Analysis   of   Student   Learning   have   been   identified   as   key   indicators   of   candidates’   ability   related   to   student   learning.
Although   in   spring   2008   the   Professional   Education   Council   agreed   that   candidates   who   score   a   holistic   score   of   at   least   “2   –   Developing”   are   able   to   exit   the   program,   for   program   evaluation   purposes   our   goal   is   that   at   least   80%   of   program   candidates   will   achieve   “3   –   Proficient”   or   higher.
Table   7   presents   the   proficiency   rate   for   EST   candidates   (N   =   15).

English   for   Secondary   Teachers   2010 ‐ 11
Page   5   of   10
Table   7.
Initial   Preparation   TWS   Proficiency   Rates
Program   %   Proficient
EST
Unit ‐ Wide
91%
94%
Because   the   faculty   also   scores   TWS   at   the   indicator   level,   we   are   able   to   use   these   scores   to   ascertain   candidate   success   in   meeting   each   component   of   the   TWS.
For   program   evaluation   purposes,   candidates   are   considered   successful   who   average   at   least   2.5
on   a   three   point   scale
(1   –   Not   Met,   2   –   Partially   Met,   and   3   –   Met)   on   indicators   aligned   to   a   standard.
Table   8   depicts   the   percentage   of   EST   candidates   who   averaged   at   least   2.5
on   the   indicators   for   each
TWS   Factor:    CF   –   Contextual   Factors,   LG   –   Learning   Goals,   DFI   –   Design   for   Instruction,   ASL   –
Analysis   of   Student   Learning,   and   ROT   –   Reflection   on   Teaching.
Table   8.
Initial   Preparation   TWS   Proficiency   Rates   of   EST   Candidates
Program
EST
CF
100%
LG
100%
DFI
100%
ASL
93%
ROT
100%
Unit ‐ Wide   96%   94%   90%   91%   96%
Because   the   TWS   indicators   have   been   aligned   to   Kentucky   Teacher   Standards,   we   can   use   these   scores   to   ascertain   candidate   success   in   meeting   each   standard   related   to   the   TWS.
Table
9   reports   these   scores   as   they   relate   to   Kentucky   Teacher   Standards.
Table   9.
Percentage   of   EST   Candidates   who   “Passed”   each   Teacher   Standard
Kentucky   Teacher   Standards   (Measured   by   TWS)
Program
1   2   3   5   6   7   8   9
EST
Unit ‐ Wide
73%
80%
93%
93%
87%
97%
93%
87%
60%
73%
93%
85%
100%
97%
100%
95%
Additionally,   all   candidates   are   assessed   during   their   student   teaching   experience   using   the
Student   Teaching   Evaluation   form.
Table   10   reports   the   percentages   of   EST   student   teachers   (N
=   28)   successful   on   each   standard.
For   program   evaluation   purposes,   candidates   are
considered   successful   who   average   at   least   2.5
on   a   three   point   scale   (1   –   Not   Met,   2   –   Partially
Met,   and   3   –   Met)   on   indicators   aligned   to   a   standard.
Table   10.
EST   Proficiency   Rates   by   Kentucky   Teacher   Standards
Program
1   2   3
Kentucky   Teacher   Standards
4   5   6   7   8   9   10
EST
Unit ‐ Wide
100%   89%   96%   89%   96%   93%   86%   96%   96%   96%
97%   91%   96%   91%   89%   91%      86%   94%   90%   93%

English   for   Secondary   Teachers   2010 ‐ 11
Page   6   of   10
e.
Exit   and   Follow   Up   Data
Table   11   delineates   the   Educational   Testing   Services   reports   of   the   pass   rates   on   the   Praxis   II   content   exams   of   candidates   who   completed   the   program   in   the   2009 ‐ 10   academic   year   (the   most   recent   year   with   complete   data).
The   last   column   allows   for   pass   rate   comparison   of   our
candidates   to   our   2008 ‐ 09   results.
Table   11.
Pass   Rates   on   Content   Tests   for   Initial   Teacher   Preparation
Program/Type   of    Assessment
ENG   LANG   LIT   CONTENT   KNOW
ENG   LANG   LIT   COMP   ESSAYS
Candidate   N
(2009 ‐ 10)
19
20
WKU    Pass   Rate
(2009 ‐ 10)
89%
83%
WKU   Pass   Rate
(2008 ‐ 09)
100%
95%
Annually,   the   WKU   Teacher   Survey   is   sent   to   student   teachers   and   alumni   who   potentially   have   been   teaching   one   or   more   years.
Below   are   the   results   for   EST   student   teachers,   22   of   whom   responded.
Survey   items   requested   the   respondent’s   perception   of   WKU   preparation   on   each
of   the   Kentucky   Teacher   Standards   using   a   scale   of   1   “Poor,”   2   “Fair,”   3   “Good,”   and   4
“Excellent.”    Standards   with   average   scores   of   3   or   better   across   items   were   considered   to
demonstrate   acceptable   program   quality.
Table   12   reports   EST   student   teacher   survey   results.
Table   12.
Average   Scores   on   Teacher   Standards   Questions   for   EST   Respondents
Program
1   2   3
Kentucky   Teacher   Standards
4   5   6   7   8   9   10
EST   3.10
2.92
3.31
2.90
2.69
3.02
2.92
2.76
3.32
3.00
Unit ‐ Wide   3.43
3.41
3.52
3.33
3.23
3.29
3.35
3.14
3.36
3.12
Respondents   were   also   able   to   provide   comments   if   they   answered   “poor”   for   any   item.
Table
13   presents   EST   respondent   comments.
Table   13.
EST   Respondent   Comments
2b.)   I   often   had   to   identify   contextual   data   of   a   school   where   I   was   doing   field   hours,   but   I   do   not   believe   I   ever   actually   designed   a   plan   based   on   that   information   until   my
TWS.
I   really   struggled   with   finding   ways   to   motivate   and   get   student   buy ‐ in   (which   were   necessary   based   on   contextual   data)
WKU   teaches   you   how   to   create   a   KTIP   plan   very   well,   but   when   it   comes   to   teaching   to   real   students   and   what   to   expect   from   kids   and   what   exactly   students   needs   WKU   doesn't   do   a   very   good   job   preparing   you.
Th   TWS   should   be   taken   out   of   the   required   material.
If   you   really   want   to   see   samples   of   our   work   then   ask   to   see   the   2   week   unit   that   we   did   that   is   by   far   a   better   demonstration   of   the   my   teaching   abilities.
Overall,   my   time   as   a   WKU   student   (and   student   teacher)   were   very   helpful.
Looking   back,   I   do   think   I   would   have   benefited   from   more   instruction   about   how   to   design

English   for   Secondary   Teachers   2010 ‐ 11
Page   7   of   10   and   analyze   assessments   and   how   to   perform   and   complete   a   teacher   work   sample.
After   my   training   at   WKU,   I   feel   confident   in   my   ability   to   be   a   great   teacher,   but   I   definitely   had   to   seek   my   own   training/information/ideas   and   tutorials   from   other   teachers   about   the   above   topics.
My   student   teaching   experience   turned   out   to   be   an   incredible   one,   though,   as   I'm   sure   my   years   as   a   "real"   teacher   will!
Thanks   for   the   help   along   the   way.
n/a
It   would   be   nice   if   there   was   a   required   specific   course   that   focused   on   creating   assessments   before   the   student   teaching   experience.
This   was   a   particular   area   that   I   often   felt   uncomfortable   in   throughout   the   semester,   especially   whenever   I   was   required   to   adapt   or   modify   an   assessment   for   diverse   learners.
The   basics   of   assessments   are   quickly   covered   in   early   education   courses,   but   it   would   be   wonderful   to   have   an   in   depth   course   (even   online   perhaps)   that   helped   future   teachers   create   better   assessments,   as   well   as   help   them   learn   how   to   analyze   results   and   data.
I   feel   that   I   would   have   benefitted   from   having   instructors   who   were   more   familiar   with   my   content   area.
I   had   one   instructor   who   had   taught   English.
This   caused   problems   because   instructors   were   often   unable   to   answer   content   based   questions   about   TWS   and   other   departmental   assignments.
Further,   after   being   taught   that   the   goals   and   expectations   that   I   design   should   reflect   achievable   and   realistic   learning   goals,   I   was   told   that   receiving   a   holistic   score   of   4   on   the   TWS   was   never   going   to   happen   because   the   rubric   was   written   in   a   way   that   did   not   allow   it.
This   is   only   one   example   of   'do   as   I   say   not   as   I   do.'   I   have   set   through   lectures   about   not   lecturing   and
PowerPoints   about   not   using   PowerPoint,   but   that   was   less   frustrating   than   trying   to   perform   to   standard   when   that   standard   is   flawed.
At   the   beginning   of   student   teaching   I   was   told   that   this   TWS   had   changed   from   the   last   one   I   had   done,   but   I   had   never   completed   any   portion   of   the   TWS   before.
So   that   the   change   was   not   a   specific   disadvantage   for   me.
However,   never   having   done   a   TWS   before   was   a   distinct   disadvantage.
This   created   undue   stress.
I   would   never   place   my   students   in   a   position   where   they   had   to   meet   the   goals   of   an   unrealistic   rubric   on   something   they   had   never   done   with   the   grade   being   placed   on   the   first   attempt   that   was   completed   without   help.
That   is   bad   instructional   practice.
I   answered   "Poor"   for   a   lot   of   items   because   they   were   only   covered   very   very   briefly   in   one   or   two   of   my   classes.
Classes   like   my   methods   class   and   my   sec   352   class   covered   what   needs   to   be   taught   or   what   kinds   of   students   are   out   there,   but   not   how   to   teach   it/them.
Also,   I   answer   "poor"   for   the   standard   on   collaboration   because   I   was   given   one   assignment   on   this   with   very   little   instruction   and   no   examples   from   real   life.
I   don't   feel   like   I   know   when   it   is   appropriate   to   contact   other   for   assistance   or   even   what   to   contact   them   for   (except   for   obvious   problems)
1.
There   was   lots   of   talk   about   differentiation   but   no   concrete   examples   of   how   this   would   actually   work   in   a   real   classroom.
Real ‐ world   teachers   I've   asked   about   this   say   it's   an   impossible   dream.
2.
Overemphasis   on   assessment,   especially   formative   assessments.
3.
Very   poor   instruction   on   how   to   use   technology   in   the   classroom.

English   for   Secondary   Teachers   2010 ‐ 11
Page   8   of   10
The   English   Department's   Quality   Enhancement   Plan   (QEP)   includes   six   "Intended   Educational
(Student)   Outcomes"   which   are   examined   as   students   near   the   completion   of   their   initial   preparation   program.
Below   are   the   outcomes,   means   of   assessment   and   criteria,   and   most   recent   results.
(Praxis   results   are   reported   a   year   behind.)
Outcome   1:    Students   will   demonstrate   strong   ability   in   reading   and   understanding   texts.
Criteria:    a)   At   least   70%   of   students   will   score   in   the   3 rd   quartile   or   above   on   the   "Literature   and
Understanding   Texts"   section   of   the   Praxis   exam.
b)   At   least   70%   of   the   EST   majors   will   score   a   4   or   higher   (out   of   5)   on   the   "demonstrate   ability   to   critically   analyze   a   literary   text"   section   of   the   portfolio   for   the   capstone   course,   ENG   492.
Results:    a)   76%   of   our   students   scored   in   the   3 rd   quartile   or   higher.
b)   Only   65%   scored   4   or   above,   and   one   scored   lower   than   3.
Outcome   2:    Students   will   exhibit   increased   proficiency   in   the   area   of   language   and   linguistics.
Criteria:    At   least   60%   of   students   will   score   in   the   3 rd
quartile   or   above   (top   half)   on   the
"Language   and   Linguistics"   section   of   the   Praxis.
Results:    74%   of   our   students   scored   in   the   3 rd
quartile   or   above.
Outcome   3:    Students   will   show   a   strong   grasp   of   issues   in   the   study   of   literature.
Criteria:    At   least   50%   of   the   students   will   score   in   the   3 rd
quartile   or   above   (top   half)   on   the
"Understanding   Literary   Issues"   (essay)   portion   of   the   Praxis   exam.
Results:    Scores   made   an   impressive   jump   from   34%   to   57%.
Outcome   4:    Students   will   have   studied   and   reflected   on   literature   by   minority   and   non ‐
Western   authors   during   their   program   of   study.
Criteria:    The   exit   survey   in   ENG   492   (capstone)   will   show   that   100%   of   our   EST   majors   will   have   formally   studied   minority   and   non ‐ Western   literatures.
Results:    68%   of   all   English   majors   strongly   agreed   or   agreed   that   they   formally   studied   minority   and   non ‐ Western   literature   in   their   program   of   study.
(Results   in   this   category   reflect   all   English   majors,   not   just   EST   majors.)
Outcome   5:    Students   will   show   ability   to   use   secondary   sources   to   support   an   argument   about   a   literary   text.
Criteria:    At   least   75%   of   EST   majors   will   score   at   least   4   out   of   5   on   this   portion   of   their   capstone   portfolio   as   scored   by   the   Program   Assessment   Committee   in   the   spring   semester.
No   student   will   score   lower   than   3.
Results:    65%   of   the   EST   majors   scored   a   4   or   above   on   this   portion   of   the   portfolio ‐‐ an   impressive   jump   from   last   year’s   25%.
One   student   scored   lower   than   3.
Outcome   6:    Students   (self ‐ selected)   will   understand   the   process   and   protocol   of   applying   for   a   job   in   their   field   of   study.
Criteria:    As   judged   by   the   program   assessment   committee   at   the   end   of   spring   semester,   at   least   75%   of   EST   majors   who   choose   to   write   a   job   application   letter,   graduate   school

English   for   Secondary   Teachers   2010 ‐ 11
Page   9   of   10
application   letter,   or   statement   of   educational   philosophy   will   score   at   least   a   4   (out   of
5)   on   that   portion   of   the   capstone   portfolio.
None   will   score   lower   than   3.
Results:    67%   of   EST   majors   scored   a   4   or   above   on   this   section   of   the   portfolio.
None   scored   lower   than   3.
2.
Summary   of   Results   by   Kentucky   Teacher   Standards   and   Other   Key   Conceptual   Framework
Values      a.
Admission   Data:    The   EST   ACT   mean   (24)   was   the   same   as   the   mean   of   all   candidates   in   all   categories.
The   EST   GPA   mean   (3.34)   was   slightly   higher   than   the   unit ‐ wide   mean
(3.31).
The   candidates   seem   well   prepared   to   enter   the   initial   program.
b.
Course   Based   Assessment   Data:    CP   proficiency   level   percentages   dipped   somewhat   this   year,   with   six   categories   below   unit   averages,   though   all   but   one   (4)   remain   in   the   90’s.
c.
Clinical   Experiences   Data:    The   EST   proficiency   rates   on   the   Unit ‐ Wide   Dispositions   show   a   dramatic   split.
While   those   for   “Prior   to   Student   Teaching”   range   from   75%   to   81%,   those   for   “During   Student   Teaching”   are   consistent   at   100%.
The   Field   Experience   percentages   are   within   guidelines,   but   the   significance   of   these   issues   should   suggest   that   we   need   to   be   watchful   for   additional   opportunities.
d.
Culminating   Assessment   Data:    Figures   for   the   Teacher   Work   Sample   show   improvement   over   last   year's,   which   was   also   a   year   of   improvement.
The   EST   percentages   are   higher   than   unit ‐ wide   percentages   in   all   five   indicators,   with   100%   in   four.
The   EST   proficiency   rates   for   all   Kentucky   Teacher   Standards   compare   favorably   with   unit ‐ wide   percentages.
Six   are   higher;   two   are   equal;   two   are   2   percentage   points   lower.
All   but   three   improved   over   last   year’s   figures.
e.
Exit   and   Follow ‐ up   Data:    EST   students   continue   to   do   very   well   on   the   Praxis   II   exams.
On   the   "Content   Knowledge"   test,   2009 ‐ 10   students   passed   at   a   rate   of   89%.
On   the
"Essays"   test,   the   pass   rate   was   83%.
The   results   of   the   WKU   Teacher   Survey   are   more   sobering.
All   of   the   means   of   the   Teacher   Standards   Questions   were   lower   than   the   unit ‐ wide   scores.
Worth   note,   however,   is   that   all   but   two   of   the   unit ‐ wide   averages   increased   since   last   year—as   did   all   but   one   of   the   EST   averages.
The   one   which   did   not   increase   (Standard   8)   dropped   only   .01
(from   2.77
to   2.76).
Most   of   the   suggestions   offered   in   the   comments   (Table   13)   lie   in   the   hands   of   the   secondary   program   overall.
Assessment   via   the   English   department's   capstone   course   also   includes   ample   room   for   improvement,   as   none   of   the   Outcomes   goals   were   met.
Our   new   curriculum   was   specifically   redesigned   to   address   some   potential   sources   of   problems   within   the
Outcomes,   and   the   statistics   are   demonstrating   improvement ‐‐ but   no   results   in   the   exit   assessment   can   be   considered   conclusive   until   students   following   the   new   curriculum   become   the   focus   of   the   exit   data.
(First   graduates   began   contributing   to   the   exit   population   in   May   2011.)

English   for   Secondary   Teachers   2010 ‐ 11
Page   10   of   10
3.
This   report   was   forwarded   to   the   English   Department's   English   for   Secondary   Teachers
Committee   for   reading   and   discussion.
At   the   beginning   of   the   semester,   Praxis   and   English
capstone   course   results   were   distributed   to   and   discussed   by   the   department   as   a   whole.
4.
a.
Data   collection   changes   will   include   continued   efforts   to   delineate   more   clearly   the   data   of   our   EST   students   from   that   of   our   other   majors.
A   specific   target   should   be   to   delineate   data   on   the   capstone   exit   survey.
b.
Three   years   ago,   in   response   to   feedback   from   a   department   survey   of   its   teaching   graduates   and   their   supervisors,   the   (then)   EALA   Committee   undertook   a   major   revision   of   its   initial   certification   program.
The   new   program   offers   a   rearranged   core   and   more   options   which   allow   individual   students   to   select   areas   of   concentration   in   the   English   content   and   in   the   allied   language   arts.
Responses   have   been   favorable,   and   the   first   of   our   new   majors   graduated   in   May   2011.
We   will   continue   to   graduate   "old   program"   students   for   at   least   another   year,   which   means   feedback   regarding   the   success   of   the   new   program   will   be   developing.
Regardless,   systematic   improvement   in   the   QEP
Outcomes   is   in   evidence.
The   numbers   are   improving,   though   they   remain   below   goals.
As   a   result   of   the   department   discussion   of   Praxis   results,   additional   information   was   distributed   to   the   faculty:    descriptions   of   the   tests,   sample   questions,   and   scoring   guides   from   the   ETS   web   pages.
c.
Decisions   about   group/individual   student   progress   have   not   been   made   based   on   the   current   year's   data.
Until   our   most   recent   attempts   to   improve   the   curriculum   are   fully   established   in   presenting   our   assessment   data,   such   changes   would   be   premature.
We   remain   vigilant,   however,   for   clear   indications   of   need.