Modern Languages 2009-10 Page 1 of 7
Modern Languages – Initial Preparation
Annual Program Report
Academic Year 2009-10
January 28, 2011
1. Continuous Assessment Results
a. Admission Data
Table 1 provides the average admission test scores and admission grade point average (GPA) of
Modern Languages Education 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
ACT
Program
Spanish
N
1
Mean
30
PPST
Math
N Mean
PPST
Reading
N
Mean
PPST
Writing
N
Mean
SAT
N
Mean
GRE
Composite
N
Mean
Admission
GPA
N
Mean
2
3.87
b. Course Based Assessment Data
Table 2 provides the percentage of Modern Languages Education candidates (N = 19) 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
EDU-250
EDU-489
FREN-323
LME-318
LME-407
LME-445
PSY-310
SEC-351
SEC-453
Grand Total
1
2
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
0%
2%
3
59%
67%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
25%
17%
38%
4
41%
33%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
67%
83%
61%
Modern Languages 2009-10 Page 2 of 7
Table 3 indicates the level of Modern Languages Education candidate (N = 19) 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, Modern Languages
Education candidates are typically performing above average.
Table 3. Percent of Modern Languages Education Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS
Program
MLE
Unit-Wide
1
100%
98%
2
100%
98%
3
100%
97%
Kentucky Teacher Standards
4
5
6
7
100% 100% 100%
94%
96%
98%
98%
98%
8
100%
98%
9
95%
97%
10
100%
98%
*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 Modern Languages Education candidates (N = 1) who have
scored 2 or lower (below proficiency) on critical performances during this academic year.
Table 4. Modern Languages Education Candidates Scoring Below Proficient on CPs
Score
Student ID
800433772
Grand Total
1
2
1
1
Student Count
1
1
c. Clinical Experiences Data
The Modern Languages Education 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 490, and SEC 351. SEC 351 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 Modern Languages Education candidates performed on dispositions as
they entered and progressed through their program (N = 11) and during their student teaching
experience (N = 3). Students are considered “proficient” who average at 3 or higher on each
disposition category.
Table 5. Modern Languages Education Proficiency Rates on Unit-Wide Dispositions
Period
Prior to Student Teaching
During Student Teaching
Values
Learning
100%
100%
WKU Professional Education Dispositions
Values Personal
Values
Values
Values
Integrity
Diversity Collaboration
Professionalism
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Modern Languages 2009-10 Page 3 of 7
Over this academic year, Modern Languages Education candidates (N = 6) reported
demographic information on 6 field placements with an average of 17% ethnically diverse
students, 40% students on free/reduced lunch, and 8% 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 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
% Candidates working with Students with Special Needs (Aggregate)
% Candidates working with Diverse Students (Aggregate)
17%
83%
33%
33%
67%
33%
17%
17%
33%
17%
17%
0%
83%
33%
67%
67%
100%
83%
Overall, as can be seen in Table 6, in 100% of their field experiences Modern Languages Education
candidates reported working with at least one student with special needs and in 83% 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
Modern Languages 2009-10 Page 4 of 7
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 Modern Languages Education candidates (N =
3).
Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates
Program
Modern Languages Education
Unit-Wide
% Proficient
100
99
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 Modern Languages Education candidates who averaged at least 2.5
on the indicators for each TWS Factor: CF – Contextual Factors, LG – Learning Goals, AP –
Assessment Plan, DFI – Design for Instruction, IDM – Instructional Decision Making, ASL –
Analysis of Student Learning, and RSE – Reflection and Self-Evaluation.
Table 8. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates of Modern Languages Education Candidates
Program
MLE
Unit-Wide
CF
100%
96%
LG
100%
98%
Teacher Work Sample Components
AP
DFI
IDM
ASL
100%
100%
100%
67%
91%
98%
94%
87%
RSE
100%
93%
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 Modern Languages Education Candidates who “Passed” each Teacher
Standard
Program
MLE
Unit-Wide
1
100%
97%
Kentucky Teacher Standards (Measured by TWS)
2
4
5
6
7
100%
100%
67%
100%
100%
98%
95%
90%
96%
95%
9
67%
91%
Additionally, all candidates are assessed during their student teaching experience using the
Student Teaching Evaluation form. Table 10 reports the percentages of Modern Languages
Education student teachers (N = 3) successful on each standard. For program evaluation
Modern Languages 2009-10 Page 5 of 7
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. Modern Languages Education Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards
Program
MLE
Unit-Wide
1
100%
95%
2
67%
90%
3
100%
93%
Kentucky Teacher Standards
4
5
6
7
100% 100% 100% 100%
88%
84%
94%
86%
8
33%
93%
9
67%
96%
10
67%
89%
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 2008-09 academic year (the
most recent year with complete data). The last column allows for pass rate comparison of our
candidates to our 2007-08 results.
Table 11. Pass Rates on Content Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation
Candidate N
(2008-09)
-1
Program/Type of Assessment
French Content Knowledge
Spanish Content Knowledge
WKU Pass Rate
(2008-09)
-100%
WKU Pass Rate
(2007-08)
100%
100%
Annually, the WKU Teacher Survey is sent to student teachers and alumni who potentially have
been teaching one or more years. For the 2009-10 academic year, out of a possible 419 student
teachers, 410 (98%) completed the survey; out of a possible 1521 alumni, 217 (14%) completed
the survey. Below are the results for Modern Languages Education student teachers and
alumni, 4 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 Modern Languages
Education student teacher results.
Table 12. Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for Modern Languages Education
Respondents
Program
MLE
Unit-Wide
1
2
3
3.31
3.34
3.05
3.33
3.30
3.54
Kentucky Teacher Standards
4
5
6
7
3.15
3.28
3.10
3.20
3.31
3.30
2.75
3.29
8
9
10
2.50
3.10
2.81
3.32
2.69
3.10
Respondents were also able to provide comments if they answered “poor” for any item. Table
13 presents Modern Languages Education respondent comments by years of experience (0 =
Student Teaching).
Table 13. Modern Languages Education Respondent Comments
Modern Languages 2009-10 Page 6 of 7
tch exp
0
Comments
Anything would be helpful. These areas were only addressed once, if that in all of my EDU classes. We were told to "do ___"
but never told how or why.
2. Summary of Results by Kentucky Teacher Standards and Other Key Conceptual Framework
Values
a. Admission Data: Table 1 shows that the admission test scores (ACT) and admission grade
point average (GPA) for the one Modern Languages Education candidate tracked for the time
period were well above unit-wide averages. N = 1 was a Spanish candidate with an ACT of 30
and a GPA of 3.87, as compared to unit-wide averages of 23 for the ACT and a 3.28 GPA.
b. Course Based Assessment Data: ! I don’t find the comparison data for this and why does
N=19?
c. Percent of MLE candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS (Table 3) indicates that Modern
Languages Education candidates are typically performing above average. As compared to the
previous year’s report (2008-09), average scores were substantially higher for the CP on KTS 6
(Technology). Average scores in this year’s report are very slightly lower than unit-wide
averages for the CPs on two KTS, namely 7 (Reflection) and 9 (Professional Development). Table
4 indicates that one individual received one score below proficiency. The item scored at a 1 on
a scale of 1 to 4 was a “peer teaching reflection.”
d. Clinical Experiences Data: Unit-wide disposition scores are high. The percentage of diversity
experiences by MLE candidates is higher than unit-wide averages.
e. Teacher Work Sample: Table 8 shows TWS averages for MLE and unit-wide. MLE candidates
scored higher than unit-wide for all TWS items except ASL (Analysis of Student Learning).
f. Exit and Follow Up Data: Praxis II pass rates remain at 100% for MLE candidates. WKU
Teacher Survey Results from MLE respondents are slightly lower on average than unit-wide
results, with the exception of KTS 6 (Technology). The slightly lower than average survey results
for most KTS items is consistent with data from the previous year. In 2008-09, MLE results were
lower on 9 of 10 KTS. For 2009-10, they are also lower for 9 of 10 KTS.
3. Efforts to Report and Disseminate Results
This report is being shared among the ML faculty, and discussed at a faculty meeting. Data in
the report can and will be used to inform (a) the types of in-house professional development
offered to faculty, (b), the advising of teacher candidates in the department, and (c) the types
of outreach and professional development experiences offered as part of courses or
extracurricular activities.
Modern Languages 2009-10 Page 7 of 7
4. Key Discussions and/or Decisions Made Based on Assessment Results
a. Assessment or Data Collection Changes Based on Assessment Results
The report does not indicate a need to make substantive changes in assessment or data
collection at this time. A larger data set (higher N) would of course provide a more
reliable basis for change.
b. Program Curriculum or Experiences Changes Based on Assessment Results
The admissions data shows that candidates in MLE are highly qualified. The total
number of candidates pursuing certification in MLE at any given time is rather small,
however. The department will investigate ways to inform our 130 language majors
about teaching as potential career. Some options are: providing more exposure to
teaching as a potential career early in the curriculum, providing better, more consistent
information about routes to certification, and bringing students of language into
meaningful contact with certified language teachers who are satisfied with their career
choice.
The Modern Languages faculty read last year’s report and discussed possible
weaknesses in the curriculum, such as KTS 6 (See both Table 3 and Table 12). In this
year’s report Tables 3 and 12, KTS 6 results are substantially higher.
While the continuous assessment of KTS as seen in Table 3 indicates generally above
average scores for MLE candidates, alumni who are working in the field perceive deficits,
as indicated in Table 12. Here again, the numbers are small (4 respondents in Table 12),
but it is worth discussing what the Modern Languages faculty can do to in the content
courses they teach, in pre-professional development, or in advising, to bring these scores
up. It is further worth discussing whether changes need to be made in the EDU or SEC
courses where the bulk of these KTS items are assessed. The results indicate that
increased communication between ML and EDU faculty is advisable. This is already being
pursued by ML faculty. The Department of Modern Languages is still without a faculty
position in the area of Second Language Acquisition / Foreign Language Methodologies.
It would no doubt improve MLE outcomes to make a hire in this area.
c. Decisions about Group/Individual Student Progress Based on Assessment Results
None appear indicated at this time.