Modern Languages 2008-09 Page 1 of 6
Modern Languages – Initial Preparation
Annual Program Report
Academic Year 2008-09
December 14, 2009
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
N
Mean
PPST
Math
N Mean
PPST
Reading
N
Mean
PPST
Writing
N
Mean
SAT
N
French
Spanish
1
Mean
1190
GRE
Composite
N
Mean
1 1430
1 1040
Admission
GPA
N
Mean
1
3.75
2
3.25
b. Course Based Assessment Data
Table 2 provides the percentage of Modern Languages Education candidates (N = 15) 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
EXED-330
PSY-310
SEC-351
SEC-453
MLNG-410
SPAN-374
Grand Total
1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2
11%
0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
0%
0%
6%
3
61%
0%
67%
8%
80%
50%
0%
50%
45%
4
28%
100%
33%
92%
20%
33%
100%
50%
49%
Table 3 indicates the level of Modern Languages Education candidate (N = 12) proficiency
across critical performances related to the Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS). Candidates
Modern Languages 2008-09 Page 2 of 6
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 about average.
Table 3. Percent of Modern Languages Education Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS
Program
1
88%
94%
Modern Languages Ed
Unit-Wide
2
100%
95%
3
100%
95%
Kentucky Teacher Standards
4
5
6
7
100% 100%
80%
88%
94%
95%
93%
96%
8
100%
96%
9
88%
95%
10
100%
97%
*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 = 3) 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
Student ID
Score
1
Student Count
2
800304489
1
1
800348203
1
1
800398757
1
1
Grand Total
3
3
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 = 5) and during their student teaching
experience (N = 1). 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 2008-09 Page 3 of 6
Over this academic year, Modern Languages Education candidates (N = 3) reported
demographic information on 3 field placements with an average of 23% diversity (based on
National Center for Education Statistics). This 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
Physical
Disability
0%
Learning
Disability
0%
African American
100%
Working With Students With Special Needs
Mod/Sev
Visual
EBD
Gifted
ELL
Disability
Impair
0%
0%
67%
0%
0%
Hearing
Impair
0%
Working with Diverse Students
Native American
Latino/Hispanic
0%
67%
Develop
Delay
0%
Autism
0%
Asian American
100%
Overall, in 67% of their field experiences Modern Languages Education candidates reported
working with at least one student with special needs and in 100% 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 Modern Languages Education candidates (N =
1).
Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates
Program
Modern Languages Ed
Unit-Wide
% Proficient
100%
89%
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
Modern Languages 2008-09 Page 4 of 6
(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
Modern Languages Ed
Unit-Wide
CF
100%
86%
LG
100%
98%
Teacher Work Sample Components
AP
DFI
IDM
ASL
100%
100%
100%
100%
78%
95%
82%
78%
RSE
100%
75%
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
Modern Languages Ed
Unit-Wide
1
100%
94%
Kentucky Teacher Standards (Measured by TWS)
2
4
5
6
7
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
93%
85%
77%
87%
76%
9
100%
76%
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 = 1) 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. Modern Languages Education Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards
Program
Modern Languages Ed
Unit-Wide
1
100%
96%
2
100%
93%
3
100%
95%
Kentucky Teacher Standards
4
5
6
7
100% 100% 100% 100%
88%
88%
85%
88%
8
100%
92%
9
100%
93%
10
100%
87%
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 2007-08 academic year (the
most recent year with complete data). The last column allows for pass rate comparison of our
candidates to our 2006-07 results.
Table 11. Pass Rates on Content Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation
Modern Languages 2008-09 Page 5 of 6
Candidate N
(2007-08)
1
2
Program/Type of Assessment
FRENCH CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
SPANISH CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
*Pass rate based on N<10
WKU Pass Rate
(2007-08)
100%
100%
WKU Pass Rate
(2006-07)
-100%*
Annually, the WKU Teacher Survey is sent to student teachers and alumni who potentially have
been teaching one or more years. For the 2008-09 academic year, out of a possible 410 student
teachers 354 (86%) completed the survey; out of a possible 480 alumni, 106 (22%) completed
the survey. Below are the results for Modern Languages Education student teachers and
alumni, 3 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
Modern Languages Ed
Unit-Wide
1
2.8
3.3
2
2.7
3.3
3
3.0
3.5
Kentucky Teacher Standards
4
5
6
7
3.0
3.0
2.3
3.0
3.2
3.1
3.3
3.2
8
3.0
3.0
9
3.0
3.3
10
2.7
3.0
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
tch exp
1
Comments
Integrate 1st year teachers into the educational program as part of the "real world" training scenarios. (i.e discuss their
view/experience of what they really encounter as a first year teacher!!)
2. Summary of Results by Kentucky Teacher Standards and Other Key Conceptual Framework
Values
a. Admission Data: The ML means for SAT and GRE were well above average. The GPA mean
was well above the standard required. This information suggests students are well prepared
to enter the program.
b. Course Based Assessment Data: ML candidates are performing as well as or better on
average than the candidates from all disciplines. Among ML candidates, the percentage of
ratings of 4 (“above standard”) was higher than average.
c. Percent of ML Education Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS (Table 3) indicates
that ML candidates score on average higher than the average unit-wide. On Kentucky
Teacher Standard 6, however, relating to the use of technology, the ML average was
noticeably lower (80% compared to 93%) than the unit-wide average. This exception to the
generally high performance by ML candidates is of concern and warrants follow up.
Modern Languages 2008-09 Page 6 of 6
d. Clinical Experiences Data: Results are very strong both for the init-wide dispositions and
on the diversity experiences of ML candidates.
e. Teacher Work Sample: Data collected from on ML candidates that performance is at a
strong 100% overall and in the indicators for each TWS Factor. All these lie above the unitwide average.
f. Exit and Follow Up Data: Praxis II pass rates continue to remain at 100%. Surveys of
student teacher and alumni perceptions of their preparation on each of the Kentucky
Teacher Standards (KTS) indicate that respondents in Modern Languages Education rated
their experience as at least “Good” (3 on a scale of 1-4) for 6 out of 10 standards. Overall,
ratings by ML respondents were lower than the unit-wide average for all standards except
one, that being KTS 8, “Collaboration.” The ML ratings by student teachers and alumni were
the lower than 3 for KTS 6 “Technology” at 2.3, and also low for KTS 2 “Designs/Plans” at 2.7,
KTS 10 “Leadership” at 2.7 and KTS 1 “Content Knowledge.”
3. Efforts to Report and Disseminate Results
This report is being shared and discussed with the entire department. Information from the
report has helped inform staffing requests and professional development initiatives in the
department.
4. Key Discussions and/or Decisions Made Based on Assessment Results
a. Assessment or Data Collection Changes Based on Assessment Results
In general, the current assessment and types of data collected give helpful feedback
about teacher preparation. The Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for
Modern Languages Education (Table 12) indicates lower scores by the three ML
respondents than the average for more than one KTS. Because the data was gathered
from student teachers and alumni as one data group, it would be interesting to separate
these out in order to be able to examine ways to prepare teacher candidates better.
b. Program Curriculum or Experiences Changes Based on Assessment Results
c. Table 3 (Percent of ML Education Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS) and Table
12 (Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for Modern Languages Education
indicate that preparation of teacher candidates for Kentucky Teacher Standard 6
(Technology) is not as strong as preparation for other Kentucky Teacher Standards. This
is an area of concern and will be addressed by ML faculty in consultation with College of
Education faculty. Similarly, discussions will occur about why respondents from the ML
group rated preparation for Kentucky Standards 2, 10 and 1 lower than average.
d. Decisions about Group/Individual Student Progress Based on Assessment Results
Decisions about group / individual student progress have not been made based on this
year’s assessment results.