Assessment 1: Praxis II test (English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge Test—0041)
Licensure Assessment
Narrative
(a) Description and Program Use of the Assessment: NCATE requires the inclusion on state licensure assessment, or other contentbased assessment, as Assessment 1. The State of Virginia requires that candidates pass the Praxis II English Language, Literature, and
Composition: Content Knowledge Test 0041 for licensure in English, grades 6-12. Further, all teacher-preparation programs within our unit,
Radford University College of Education and Human Development, use Praxis II as Assessment 1. In keeping with this practice, we include
PRAXIS II as Assessment 1. This assessment is used within our program, and within all teacher-preparation programs at Radford University, as a
requirement for student teaching. To qualify for student teaching in Secondary English, teacher candidates must score at least 172, the Virginia
cut score for the English Content Knowledge Test 0041. The average cut score from a sample of 29 states that require this test is 155.72
(http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=89848&cat=1) , with Virginia’s score exceeding this average by 16.28 points. This high
cut score means that our teacher candidates have mastered content knowledge as addressed within the test.
(b) Alignment of Assessment with NCTE Standards: Our English Education faculty recognize that in 2001 the Praxis II test aligned only
partially with NCTE standards 3.1-3.7. NCTE’s Research Project on the Assessment of Preparation of Teachers of English Language Arts (January
2001) recognizes these partial alignments of items within given categories with NCTE standards: items in the category Literature and
Understanding text align partially with NCTE standards 3.5.1-3.5.4; items within the test category Language and Linguistics align partially with
NCTE standards 3.1.1-3.1.7; and items within the test category Composition and Rhetoric align partially with NCTE standards 3.2.1-3.2.5 and
3.4.1-3.4.2. The aforementioned NCTE report notes limitations in the areas of technology, research theory, and literature by YA authors, authors
of color and women’s authors, as well as in oral and visual literacy. The policy statement “Program Assessment in English Education: Belief
Statements and Recommendations,” issued in 2008 by NCTE’s Council on English Education, calls for cooperative actions between NCTE and ETS
to revise the content knowledge tests, a position that underscores questions about the use of PRAXIS II as a valid measure of candidates’
knowledge, dispositions, and abilities. We agree with NCTE’s position and acknowledge that the limitations of PRAXIS II prevent its being used as
the sole measure of candidates’ content knowledge. Therefore, we have carefully designed other assessments that measure NCTE standards. In
particular, standards related to knowledge of technology, research theory in English language arts, a range of literary works, and oral and visual
literacy are assessed in teacher candidates’ student teaching evaluations (Assessment 4) and in their Teaching English Portfolio (Assessment 6).
(c) Interpretation of Data as Evidence for Meeting Standards: Program completers in the English Education Program meet NCTE
standards 3.1-3.7, as they are reflected in the Praxis II content knowledge test 0041. Our English Education Program achieves a 100% pass rate
on PRAXIS II, with teacher candidates achieving Virginia cut score before student teaching. Examination of data on Praxis II scores for English
Education teacher candidates reveals:
 86.66%-87.5% of all program examinees across two administrations of the assessment met the Virginia cut score of 172.






100% of program completers during these years met the Virginia cut score of 172.
In 2009-2010 93.33% of all English Education teacher candidates scored within or above the national average performance range in the
category Literature and Understanding Texts. In 2008-2009 100% of all teacher candidates in our program scored within this range.
These two administrations of the assessment indicate strong content knowledge as specified by NCTE Standards 3.3 and 3.5.
In 2009-2010 93.33% of all of our teacher candidates scored within or above the national average range in the category Language and
Linguistics; in 2009-2009 100% scored within the national average performance range. Scores indicate strong content knowledge in
areas covered by NCTE standard 3.1.
In 2009-2010 93.33% of all of our teacher candidates scored within or above national average range in the category of Composition and
Rhetoric; in 2008-2009 85.7% scored within or above this range for this third category. Scores indicate strong content knowledge in
areas covered by NCTE standards 3.2, 3.4, and 3.6.
Approximately 1/3 of our candidates are scoring within the highest quartile on at least one of the content areas. For example, in 20092010 46.66% of our teacher candidates scored at the highest quartile in Literature and Understanding Text; 40% scored at the highest
quartile in Language and Linguistics; and 26.22% scored in the highest quartile in Composition and Rhetoric.
Mean and median scores, which were available on rGrade for all program examinees across 2 years, indicate that our program
examinees are scoring at the upper end of the national average performance range, another indicator that our candidates have strong
content knowledge as measured by the Praxis II English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge Test 0041.
Assessment Documentation
(d) Description of the Assessment Tool: The ETS website describes the English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content
Knowledge test as an assessment designed to determine “whether an examinee has the broad base of knowledge and competencies necessary
to be licensed as a beginning teacher of English in a secondary school,” noting that the “120 multiple-choice questions are based on the material
typically covered in a bachelor’s degree program in English and English education.” (http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/PRAXIS/pdf/0041.pdf
The list of topics covered by the test, also included at the above URL, is extensive. ETS mentions within this list and under the category
Literature and Understanding Text the following items: “Identifying major works and authors of American, British, World (including nonWestern), and young adult literature from various cultures, genres, and periods”; “situating authors and texts within historical, cultural, and
critical contexts to aid interpretation”; and “recognizing and applying various strategic approaches to teaching reading, e.g. applying cueing
systems, … constructing meaning through context….” Under the Composition and Rhetoric category, among others, these items appear: “using
electronic and print media” and “strategies for organization, development, and presentation of print, electronic, and visual media.”
(e) Scoring Guide for the Assessment: The ETS website provides the following scoring information for test 0041:
Name of test
Possible Score
Range
Score Interval
Number of
Examinees
Median
English
Language,
Literature, and
Composition:
Content
Knowledge
(0041)
100-200
1
35590
177
Average
Performance
Range
166-187
Standard Error of
Measurement
4.7
Standard
Error of
Scoring
0
(f) Candidate data derived from the assessment:
Table 1.1:
Pass Rates of Teacher Candidates in English Education Program
Number of Passing
Pass-rate among all
Scores/Total Number of
English Education
Program Test-Takers
Program test-takers
2009-2010
13/15
86.6%
administration of Test
0041: English Language,
Literature, and
Composition: Content
Knowledge
2008-2009
7/8
87.5%
administration of Test
0041: English Language,
Literature, and
Composition: Content
Knowledge
Table 1.2
Raw Scores by Test Category of All Program Examinees
Number of Passing
Scores/Number of
Program Completers
Pass-rate among
Program completers
13/13
100%
7/7
100%
Test Category
Range of
Scores
Among All
Program
Examinees
Range of
Scores
Among
Program
Completers
National
Average
Performance
Total number
scoring
within
national
average
performance
range/ Total
number of
Program
Examinees
Percentage of
all examinees
scoring within
national
average
performance
range
2009-2010
Administration
Literature and
39-61
52-61
43-54
7/15
46.66%
Understanding
Text
Language and
6-15
10-15
10-14
8/15
53.33%
Linguistics
Composition and
18-33
27-33
23-31
10/15
66.66%
Rhetoric
2008-2009
Administration*
Literature and
46-54
46-54
44-58
7/7
100%
Understanding
Text
Language and
11-17
11-17
11-17
7/7
100%
Linguistics
Composition and
24-30
3/7
42.85%
Rhetoric
Please note that scores by category were not available for one examinee in 2008-2009.
Total number
scoring
below
national
average
performance
range/ Total
number of
Program
Examinees
Percentage
of all
examinees
scoring
below
national
average
performance
range
Total
number
scoring
above
national
average
performanc
e range/
Total
number of
Program
Examinees
Percentage of
all examinees
scoring above
national
average
performance
range
1/15
6.66%
7/15
46.66%
1/15
6.66%
6/15
40%
1/15
6.66%
4/15
26.22%
0/7
0%
0/7
0%
0/7
0%
0/7
0%
1/7
14.28%
3/7
42.85%
Table 1.2
Mean/Median Raw Scores by Test Category for All Program Examinees 2008-2010
Test Category
Mean Score of all
program examinees
Median Score of all
program examinees
National Average
performance range
across 2 years
Literature and Understanding Text
Language and Linguistics
Composition and Rhetoric
53.045
13.318
29.09
53
14
30
43-54 and 44-59
10-14 and 11-17
23-31 and 24-30