Student Outcomes Assessment, Undergraduate · 2017-11-17 · Student Outcomes Assessment,...
Transcript of Student Outcomes Assessment, Undergraduate · 2017-11-17 · Student Outcomes Assessment,...
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Student Outcomes Assessment, Undergraduate UNI School of Music ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT for 2012 (compiled Fall, 2013)
Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: BA Music
Department/Unit Mission: The School of Music has as its primary mission to educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: 1. To foster a supportive and collegial learning/teaching environment that prioritizes the artistic, intellectual, and personal growth of its students… 2. To provide appropriate performance and research opportunities to support the creative work of students… 3. To offer a rigorous and comprehensive music curriculum with theoretical, historical, critical, pedagogical, performance, and applied studies
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Alan Schmitz [email protected]
Date submitted: December 10, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
(Outcome) I. Students shall be able to perform at an acceptable level in at least one major area (instrument/voice).
As in the previous five years, jury reports (samples) of a number of students, showing major area instrumental/vocal performance progress, are being used. These reports are completed every semester by the relevant faculty.
Horn Player (Junior-BA Music): Fall, 2012: Jury Report comments include: “A nice confident beginning.” “Good, spirited playing throughout.” “You are moving the body a lot…changes the direction of your bell…sound became less stable.” This student passed on to upper level applied instruction. Semester Grade: A.
Student Outcomes Assessment results are included in the Annual Report of the School of Music. Copies of the report are also submitted to the CHFA Dean’s Office and to Donna Vinton of Academic Assessment. Dr. Vinton’s office places copies of the SOA plans and reports on a web site. Outcome successes of many of the UNI School of Music students are documented in Rhythms, the annual
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Spring, 2013: Jury Report comments include: “Sustain your musical interest throughout – it varies.” “Intonation is off when your air support is off.” “Don’t be afraid to hold out the last note of a phrase more.” Semester Grade: A. In summary: this student is progressing very well. Oboe Player (Sophomore-BA Music): Fall, 2012: Jury report comments include: “Good but blow through when you are articulating.” “Keep working on bigger sound.” “Good scale passages.” Semester grade: A-. Spring, 2013: Jury report comments include: “Nice! Maybe work on a bigger, richer sound.” “Good double tonguing for the ending.” “Play out in the fortes.” Semester grade: A- In summary: this student is progressing very well.
publication (every fall) about School of Music activities that is sent to alumni, faculty, and supporters. Copies of this publication are also available for free in School of Music offices.
(Outcome) II. Students shall have a functional knowledge of the language and grammar of music, including new technological applications.
A review of the results of the Music Theory portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. Also, relevant comments from the Web-Questionnaire were used.
The findings for this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three students who took the exam in fall, 2012: One of the students did very well with a recommendation that altered dominant chords be reviewed. The other two students were required to complete remedial assignments in a few areas of weakness.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
These findings are encouraging as they demonstrate our students are succeeding in Music Theory. The Questionnaire was completed by 2 of the 32 graduates. Both of them commented that Theory was among the most beneficial classes.
(Outcome) III. Students shall have a thorough knowledge of music literature and repertory.
A review of the results of the music history portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees in music from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. This exam was given by the Associate Director of Graduate Music Programs and graduate faculty colleagues from the School of Music.
The findings from this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three UNI students who took the exam in fall, 2012: Two of the students passed all or most portions of the Music History Diagnostic. One of the students failed all of the Music History Diagnostic and will be taking classes to remedy this weakness. Pass rate: 55.5%, which is an improvement over last year.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes Effective Fall, 2010, the BA in Music was expanded to include five tracks, thus permitting more flexibility in the program. The tracks are:
1. General Studies in Music (same as prev. BA) 2. Jazz Studies BA
3. String Pedagogy BA 4. Performing Arts Management BA
5. Music Technology BA
During the coming years, as students enroll in these various tracks, information for student outcomes assessment will be gathered and
evaluated. In an effort to strengthen the Music History
offerings in the School of Music and to relieve the overload situation encountered by having only one musicologist on faculty, the School of Music hired
an additional full-time tenure track colleague in music history who started fall, 2012. This has
enabled the School of Music to improve results mentioned in Outcome III (Students shall have a
thorough knowledge of music history and repertory).
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes Results of student performance on upper-level hearings (for advancement to junior-level applied
lessons) now serve as a source for student outcomes assessment in the BA, BM in
Including information from these forms should prove useful for student outcomes assessment.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Performance, BM in Music Ed. and BM in Composition/Theory Programs.
SOA Plan Revisions None anticipated for this report.
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) The Web-Questionnaire offers additional useful information for Student Outcomes Assessment. This questionnaire was made available to all music majors who graduated with bachelor’s degrees during 2011-12. The response rate for this questionnaire was exceptionally low this year at 6% (2/32 students). Among the findings relevant to this report are the following items: Advising Quality of the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with advising at 6 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest possible score). This is an improvement compared to last year’s SOA report, which was 5.6. Quality of Instruction in the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with instruction at 8.5 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest
possible score). Compared with last year’s SOA report, this is higher (last year’s score was 6.4). Most Beneficial/Least Beneficial Classes: The most beneficial classes listed by respondents included Music Theory, Conducting II (Instr.), and
Introduction to Music Ed. (note that the other respondent found this to be the least beneficial).
The least beneficial classes listed included Introduction to Music Ed. and Music History II. Career Progress Anticipated by Respondents: For 2011-12, one respondent indicated “Very Successful,” and one indicated “Successful.” Suggestions from Respondents: Numerous suggestions were submitted. One of these was that students preparing to be choir teachers
need some training in how to teach/run show choirs, jazz choirs, and musicals. The School of Music Undergraduate Student Outcomes Assessment Committee continues to grapple with ways to improve the response rate of the questionnaire.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
UNI School of Music ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT for 2012 (compiled Fall, 2013)
Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: BM Music Performance
Department/Unit Mission: The School of Music has as its primary mission to educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: 1. To foster a supportive and collegial learning/teaching environment that prioritizes the artistic, intellectual, and personal growth of its students… 2. To provide appropriate performance and research opportunities to support the creative work of students… 3. To offer a rigorous and comprehensive music curriculum with theoretical, historical, critical, pedagogical, performance, and applied studies
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Alan Schmitz [email protected]
Date submitted: December 10, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
(Outcome) I. Students shall be able to perform at an acceptable level in at least one major area (instrument/voice).
As in the previous five years, jury reports (samples) of a number of students, showing major area instrumental/vocal performance progress, are being used. These reports are completed every semester by the relevant faculty.
Clarinetist (Junior-Instr. Performance): Fall, 2012: Jury report comments include: “Many good things here [technique] keep it steady-sometimes it gets almost too fast.” “Sounds punchy rather than lyrical [interpretation].” “Nice dynamics.” Semester grade: B. Spring, 2013: Jury report comments include:
Student Outcomes Assessment results are included in the Annual Report of the School of Music. Copies of the report are also submitted to the CHFA Dean’s Office and to Donna Vinton of Academic Assessment. Dr. Vinton’s office places copies of the SOA plans and reports on a web site. Outcome successes of many of the UNI School of Music students are documented in Rhythms, the annual publication (every fall) about School
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
“Keep working on breath support.” “Good shaping – perhaps a few more dynamic contrasts but overall very nice.” “Nice Mozart, just think more about the style.” The student passed the junior recital. Semester grade: B+. In summary: this student is progressing/improving. Vocalist (Junior-Vocal Performance): Fall, 2012: Jury report comments include: “Voice growing developing nicely.” “Can you make your inhalation silent?” “Wonderful voice-rich, full, free, well balanced resonance.” Semester grade: A. Spring, 2013: Jury report comments include: “Very well prepared-good work.” “Good progress-we need to really work on the languages and phrasing.” “Great music.” Semester grade: A. In summary: this student is progressing very well and also won the 2013 Russell Music Scholarship Competition Award.
of Music activities that is sent to alumni, faculty, and supporters. Copies of this publication are also available for free in School of Music offices.
(Outcome) II. Students shall have a functional knowledge of the language and grammar of music, including new technological applications.
A review of the results of the Music Theory portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. Also, relevant
The findings for this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three students who took the exam in fall, 2012: One of the students did very well with a recommendation that altered dominant chords be reviewed. The
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
comments from the Web-Questionnaire were used.
other two students were required to complete remedial assignments in a few areas of weakness. These findings are encouraging as they demonstrate our students are succeeding in Music Theory. The Questionnaire was completed by 2 of the 32 graduates. Both of them commented that Theory was among the most beneficial classes.
(Outcome) III. Students shall have a thorough knowledge of music literature and repertory.
A review of the results of the music history portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees in music from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. This exam was given by the Associate Director of Graduate Music Programs and graduate faculty colleagues from the School of Music.
The findings from this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three UNI students who took the exam in fall, 2012: Two of the students passed all or most portions of the Music History Diagnostic. One of the students failed all of the Music History Diagnostic and will be taking classes to remedy this weakness. Pass rate: 55.5%, which is an improvement over last year.
(Outcome) IV. Students shall possess skills in Music Techniques that support their chosen major area.
This outcome is demonstrated in the results of the student juries and recitals.
Students in this program, as evidence from the report above indicates, have to demonstrate exceptional musical skills in order to be permitted into the BM Performance track.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes None taken since the previous report.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes Results of student performance on upper-level hearings (for advancement to junior-level applied
lessons) now serve as a source for student outcomes assessment in the BA, BM in
Performance, BM in Music Ed. and BM in Composition/Theory Programs.
More student records will be examined for future Student Outcomes Assessment reports.
In an effort to strengthen the Music History
offerings in the School of Music and to relieve the
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Starting with the 2011-12 SOA report (compiled in 2013) outcome results for items IV, V, and VI of the BM in Music Ed. Choral Program are being
added.
overload situation encountered by having only one musicologist on faculty, the School of Music hired
an additional full-time tenure track colleague in music history who started fall, 2012. This has
enabled the School of Music to improve results mentioned in Outcome III (Students shall have a
thorough knowledge of music history and repertory).
SOA Plan Revisions None anticipated for this report.
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) The Web-Questionnaire offers additional useful information for Student Outcomes Assessment. This questionnaire was made available to all music majors who graduated with bachelor’s degrees during 2011-12. The response rate for this questionnaire was exceptionally low this year at 6% (2/32 students). Among the findings relevant to this report are the following items: Advising Quality of the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with advising at 6 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest possible score). This is an improvement compared to last year’s SOA report, which was 5.6. Quality of Instruction in the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with instruction at 8.5 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest
possible score). Compared with last year’s SOA report, this is higher (last year’s score was 6.4). Most Beneficial/Least Beneficial Classes: The most beneficial classes listed by respondents included Music Theory, Conducting II (Instr.), and
Introduction to Music Ed. (note that the other respondent found this to be the least beneficial).
The least beneficial classes listed included Introduction to Music Ed. and Music History II. Career Progress Anticipated by Respondents: For 2011-12, one respondent indicated “Very Successful,” and one indicated “Successful.” Suggestions from Respondents: Numerous suggestions were submitted. One of these was that students preparing to be choir teachers
need some training in how to teach/run show choirs, jazz choirs, and musicals. The School of Music Undergraduate Student Outcomes Assessment Committee continues to grapple with ways to improve the response rate of the questionnaire.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
UNI School of Music ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT for 2012 (compiled Fall, 2013)
Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: BM Music Education
Department/Unit Mission: The School of Music has as its primary mission to educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: 1. To foster a supportive and collegial learning/teaching environment that prioritizes the artistic, intellectual, and personal growth of its students… 2. To provide appropriate performance and research opportunities to support the creative work of students… 3. To offer a rigorous and comprehensive music curriculum with theoretical, historical, critical, pedagogical, performance, and applied studies
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Alan Schmitz [email protected]
Date submitted: December 10, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
(Outcome) I. Students shall be able to perform at an acceptable level in at least one major area (instrument/voice).
As in the previous five years, jury reports (samples) of a number of students, showing major area instrumental/vocal performance progress, are being used. These reports are completed every semester by the relevant faculty.
Percussionist (Junior-Mus. Ed.): Fall, 2012: Jury report comments include: “Very nice phrasing.” “Keep tempo moving forward.” “Good job of pacing throughout this piece [marimba].” Student was approved for upper level lessons. Semester grade: A-. Spring, 2013: Jury report comments include:
Student Outcomes Assessment results are included in the Annual Report of the School of Music. Copies of the report are also submitted to the CHFA Dean’s Office and to Donna Vinton of Academic Assessment. Dr. Vinton’s office places copies of the SOA plans and reports on a web site. Outcome successes of many of the UNI School of Music students are documented in Rhythms, the annual publication (every fall) about School
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
“Be sure to keep melody and accompaniment clearly separated.” “Would love to hear you play with less mallet height when beginning your crescendo type rolls!” Semester grade: B+ This student is progressing, though the later grade was slightly lower. Vocalist (Sophomore-Mus. Ed.): Fall, 2012: Jury report comments include: “Good, consistent growth and development technically and musically.” “I don’t hear all of the consonants.” “Excellent progress, I have enjoyed your opera participation and positive presence in the School.” Semester grade: A. Spring, 2013: Jury comments include: “…you are learning and applying very independently.” “Beautiful singing, impressive growth.” “Excellent talent, magnificent progress.” Semester grade: A. This student passed the upper level hearing & is progressing very well.
of Music activities that is sent to alumni, faculty, and supporters. Copies of this publication are also available for free in School of Music offices.
(Outcome) II. Students shall have a functional knowledge of the language and grammar of music, including new technological applications.
A review of the results of the Music Theory portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. Also, relevant comments from the Web-Questionnaire were used.
The findings for this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three students who took the exam in fall, 2012: One of the students did very well with a recommendation that altered dominant chords be reviewed. The other two students were required to complete remedial assignments in a
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
few areas of weakness. These findings are encouraging as they demonstrate our students are succeeding in Music Theory. The Questionnaire was completed by 2 of the 32 graduates. Both of them commented that Theory was among the most beneficial classes.
(Outcome) III. Students shall have a thorough knowledge of music literature and repertory.
A review of the results of the music history portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees in music from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. This exam was given by the Associate Director of Graduate Music Programs and graduate faculty colleagues from the School of Music.
The findings from this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three UNI students who took the exam in fall, 2012: Two of the students passed all or most portions of the Music History Diagnostic. One of the students failed all of the Music History Diagnostic and will be taking classes to remedy this weakness. Pass rate: 55.5%, which is an improvement over last year.
(Outcome) IV. Students shall have the knowledge to teach most instrumental/vocal techniques of the band/choir/orchestra, and be able to rehearse and guide an ensemble to a public performance.
Starting with the 2011-12 SOA report, Outcomes IV, V, and VI will be addressed by including the results of Student Teaching Observations from a sample of students in the BM Music Ed. Choral Program. Observations are completed for all Music Ed. majors by School of Music Faculty.
Findings from student teaching observations of three Choral Music Ed. majors, who were observed during the Fall, 2012 and Spring, 2013 semesters, were summarized with numerical scores (1=poor to 10=excellent) in three teaching categories: Pacing, Management, and Planning. The three Choral Music Ed. majors scored as follows in these categories. Pacing 7.33 (above adequate) Management 7.66 (above adequate) Planning 9.66 (excellent) These results are being included in this report for the first time. Future reports will indicate trends in the teaching outcomes of Music Ed. majors.
(Outcome) V. Students shall have the knowledge needed to build a successful music program using the latest methods and technology.
Starting with the 2011-12 SOA report, Outcomes IV, V, and VI will be addressed by including the results of Student Teaching Observations from a sample of
See above comments shown in Outcome IV.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
students in the BM Music Ed. Choral Program. Observations are completed for all Music Ed. majors by School of Music Faculty.
(Outcome) VI. Students shall exhibit the potential to inspire others and to excite the imagination of students, engendering a respect and desire for music and musical experiences.
Starting with the 2011-12 SOA report, Outcomes IV, V, and VI will be addressed by including the results of Student Teaching Observations from a sample of students in the BM Music Ed. Choral Program. Observations are completed for all Music Ed. majors by School of Music Faculty.
See above comments shown in Outcome IV.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes None at this time for this program.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes Results of student performance on upper-level hearings (for advancement to junior-level applied
lessons) now serve as a source for student outcomes assessment in the BA, BM in
Performance, BM in Music Ed. and BM in Composition/Theory Programs.
Starting with the 2011-12 SOA report (compiled in 2013) outcome results for items IV, V, and VI of the BM in Music Ed. Choral Program are being
added.
It is expected that over the next several years, student outcomes assessment evaluations
relevant to Outcomes IV, V, and VI (above), which are being added in 2011-12 for the BM Music Ed.
Choral Program will be expanded to include evaluations of students in the BM Music Ed.
Instrumental Program.
In an effort to strengthen the Music History offerings in the School of Music and to relieve the overload situation encountered by having only one musicologist on faculty, the School of Music hired
an additional full-time tenure track colleague in music history who started fall, 2012. This has
enabled the School of Music to improve results mentioned in Outcome III (Students shall have a
thorough knowledge of music history and repertory).
SOA Plan Revisions None anticipated for this report.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) The Web-Questionnaire offers additional useful information for Student Outcomes Assessment. This questionnaire was made available to all music majors who graduated with bachelor’s degrees during 2011-12. The response rate for this questionnaire was exceptionally low this year at 6% (2/32 students). Among the findings relevant to this report are the following items: Advising Quality of the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with advising at 6 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest possible score). This is an improvement compared to last year’s SOA report, which was 5.6. Quality of Instruction in the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with instruction at 8.5 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest
possible score). Compared with last year’s SOA report, this is higher (last year’s score was 6.4). Most Beneficial/Least Beneficial Classes: The most beneficial classes listed by respondents included Music Theory, Conducting II (Instr.), and
Introduction to Music Ed. (note that the other respondent found this to be the least beneficial).
The least beneficial classes listed included Introduction to Music Ed. and Music History II. Career Progress Anticipated by Respondents: For 2011-12, one respondent indicated “Very Successful,” and one indicated “Successful.” Suggestions from Respondents: Numerous suggestions were submitted. One of these was that students preparing to be choir teachers
need some training in how to teach/run show choirs, jazz choirs, and musicals. The School of Music Undergraduate Student Outcomes Assessment Committee continues to grapple with ways to improve the response rate of the questionnaire.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
UNI School of Music ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT for 2012 (compiled Fall, 2013)
Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: BM Music Composition/Theory
Department/Unit Mission: The School of Music has as its primary mission to educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: 1. To foster a supportive and collegial learning/teaching environment that prioritizes the artistic, intellectual, and personal growth of its students… 2. To provide appropriate performance and research opportunities to support the creative work of students… 3. To offer a rigorous and comprehensive music curriculum with theoretical, historical, critical, pedagogical, performance, and applied studies
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Alan Schmitz [email protected]
Date submitted: December 10, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
(Outcome) I. Students shall be able to compose for diverse media in a creative and original manner.
Composition Portfolios have been examined. End of semester juries for composition students taking applied lessons were started in 2010.
Composer 1 (Senior-BM Comp/Theory but switched to BA Perf. Management): Fall, 2012: Jury report comments include: “Level of composition productivity is ok.” “Student has been meeting timelines and obligations.” Semester grade: A. Spring, 2013: Jury report comments include: “Level of productivity very good.”
Student Outcomes Assessment results are included in the Annual Report of the School of Music. Copies of the report are also submitted to the CHFA Dean’s Office and to Donna Vinton of Academic Assessment. Dr. Vinton’s office places copies of the SOA plans and reports on a web site. Outcome successes of many of the UNI School of Music students are documented in Rhythms, the annual publication (every fall) about School
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
“Originality good.” Semester grade: A. Summary: The student switched from BM Composition to BA Performance Management with composition as the applied area starting in the fall of 2012. She continued to compose and had a very successful senior recital (on composition) and graduated in May, 2013. Composer 2 (Junior-BM Comp/Theory): Fall, 2012: Jury report comments include: “Meeting timelines and obligations very, very good.” “No concerns; portfolio and level of productivity good.” Semester grade: A. Spring, 2013: Jury report comments include: “Student tends to take on multiple projects…there will be a point at which she will need to put more time on fewer projects.” “Originality and productivity very good.” Semester grade: A-. This is a very talented honor student who plans to pursue graduate studies in film music writing.
of Music activities that is sent to alumni, faculty, and supporters. Copies of this publication are also available for free in School of Music offices.
(Outcome) II. Students shall have a functional knowledge of the language and grammar of music.
A review of the results of the Music Theory portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. Also, relevant comments from the Web-
The findings for this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three students who took the exam in fall, 2012: One of the students did very well with a recommendation that altered dominant chords be reviewed. The other two students were required to
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Questionnaire were used. complete remedial assignments in a few areas of weakness. These findings are encouraging as they demonstrate our students are succeeding in Music Theory. The Questionnaire was completed by 2 of the 32 graduates. Both of them commented that Theory was among the most beneficial classes.
(Outcome) III. Students shall have a thorough knowledge of music literature and repertory.
A review of the results of the music history portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees in music from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. This exam was given by the Associate Director of Graduate Music Programs and graduate faculty colleagues from the School of Music.
The findings from this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three UNI students who took the exam in fall, 2012: Two of the students passed all or most portions of the Music History Diagnostic. One of the students failed all of the Music History Diagnostic and will be taking classes to remedy this weakness. Pass rate: 55.5%, which is an improvement over last year.
(Outcome) IV. Students shall possess skills in other musical and practical areas that support Composition.
Applied composition students are evaluated on their participation in and performer recruitment abilities for the end of semester Student Composers Concerts. Composition majors are required to undertake additional piano and improvisation courses, both of which support their compositional endeavors.
Over the past several years, applied composition students (especially the composition majors) have demonstrated a significant level of student composer composition concert activity in both quality of work and quantity of pieces presented.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes End of semester juries for applied composition students began at the end of the fall, 2010
semester.
Other than incorporating recommended changes already being implemented, no further actions are
anticipated. Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes Results of student performance on upper-level
hearings (for advancement to junior-level applied lessons) now serve as a source for student
In an effort to strengthen the Music History offerings in the School of Music and to relieve the overload situation encountered by having only one
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
outcomes assessment in the BA, BM in Performance, BM in Music Ed. and BM in Composition/Theory Programs. Starting with the 2011-12 SOA report (compiled in 2013) outcome results for items IV, V, and VI of the BM in Music Ed. Choral Program are being added.
musicologist on faculty, the School of Music hired an additional full-time tenure track colleague in music history who started fall, 2012. This has enables the School of Music to improve results mentioned in Outcome III (Students shall have a thorough knowledge of music history and repertory).
SOA Plan Revisions None anticipated for this report.
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) The Web-Questionnaire offers additional useful information for Student Outcomes Assessment. This questionnaire was made available to all music majors who graduated with bachelor’s degrees during 2011-12. The response rate for this questionnaire was exceptionally low this year at 6% (2/32 students). Among the findings relevant to this report are the following items: Advising Quality of the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with advising at 6 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest possible score). This is an improvement compared to last year’s SOA report, which was 5.6. Quality of Instruction in the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with instruction at 8.5 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest
possible score). Compared with last year’s SOA report, this is higher (last year’s score was 6.4). Most Beneficial/Least Beneficial Classes: The most beneficial classes listed by respondents included Music Theory, Conducting II (Instr.), and
Introduction to Music Ed. (note that the other respondent found this to be the least beneficial).
The least beneficial classes listed included Introduction to Music Ed. and Music History II. Career Progress Anticipated by Respondents: For 2011-12, one respondent indicated “Very Successful,” and one indicated “Successful.” Suggestions from Respondents: Numerous suggestions were submitted. One of these was that students preparing to be choir teachers
need some training in how to teach/run show choirs, jazz choirs, and musicals. The School of Music Undergraduate Student Outcomes Assessment Committee continues to grapple with ways to improve the response rate of the questionnaire.
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT – FALL 2011 2010-11 CALENDAR YEAR REPORT
Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: Theatre
Program: B.A. in Theatre Arts with following emphasis: Performance, Design & Production, Theatre for Youth, or B. A. Theatre Arts
Department/Unit Mission: The mission of the Department of Theatre is to create theatre which excites, and which illuminates the human condition in ways that are relevant to students, audiences, community members, teachers and guest artists. To this end, the department offers coursework and productions that are diverse, creative and participatory, serving students who want to prepare for a life in the theatre and also students who want to prepare a place for theatre in their lives. We create theatre and, in this process, educate.
Program Learning Goals: Students pursuing study with our department will be provided with a theatre curriculum and a production environment which encompasses the following goals. These goals, established by the faculty and achieved only through student commitment to the learning process, are meant to provide students preparing for a life in theatre with a solid foundation on which to build. Continual examination of these goals allow for changes to keep our program on the leading edge of theatre education.
Goals and Alignments for Performance Emphasis: Goal One: Students will recognize the creative imagination and impulse and identify its relationship to artistic collaboration, standards, judgments, ethics and discipline from the actor’s point of view.
• Students will recognize and apply techniques to free voice, body, mind and emotions; they will apply voice, body, mind and emotions to inhabit a role.
• Students will apply historical and literary research to acting. • Students will explore the business of acting as a profession.
Goal Two: Students will explore how the creative impulse can be shaped into a performance piece.
• Students will recognize and apply techniques to free voice, body, mind and emotions; they will apply voice, body, mind and emotions to inhabit a role.
• Students will know and demonstrate acting techniques and theories.
Goal Three: Students will know and communicate how to analyze and interpret plays and other theatrical events from acting and performance perspectives.
• Students will develop an ongoing working knowledge of and ability to incorporate acting techniques and theories. Included in this would be methodologies drawn from the Stanislavski approach (Meisner, Strasberg, Adler), Suzuki techniques and training in both Shakespearean and Commedia styles.
• Students will apply historical and literary research to acting. • Students will recognize and apply techniques to free voice, body, mind and emotions; they
will apply voice, body, mind and emotions to inhabit a role.
Goals and Alignments for Design and Production Emphasis: Goal One: Students will recognize the creative imagination and impulse and identify its relationship to artistic collaboration, standards, judgments, ethics and discipline from the design and production point of view.
• Students will explore professions in design and production for the theatre. • Students possess a vocabulary of the concepts and terms related to theatrical design. • Students are able to participate in critique of their own work and the work of others using a
prescribed language of critique vocabulary. • Students can demonstrate the ability to use elements and principles of design for self
expression. Goal Two: Students will recognize and apply practical and theoretical knowledge of the processes by which creative impulses are channeled into design and production projects for the theatre.
• Students can create the practical application tools necessary to execute a theatrical design. • Students can develop and carry out a list of necessary tasks and calendar of deadlines to
successfully complete a production assignment. • Students will know and demonstrate practical and theoretical design and production processes
and techniques.
• Students will apply evocative and factual research to design and production activities. Goal Three: Students will know and communicate how to analyze and interpret plays and other theatrical events from design and production perspectives.
• Students can create an original theatrical design for a play based on script analysis and historical research.
• Students can prepare and deliver a public presentation of a design for a play. Goals and Alignments for B.A. in Theatre: Goal One: Students will recognize the creative imagination and impulse and identify its relationship to artistic collaboration, standards, judgments, ethics, and discipline.
• Students will know and apply basic elements and practices of theatrical design, technology, production and management.
• Students will know and apply basic acting skills. • Students will know and apply the basic skills and techniques needed in theatrical research.
Goal Two: Students will explore how the creative impulse can be shaped into a performance piece.
• Students will know and apply basic elements and practices of theatrical design, technology, production and management.
• Students will know and apply basic acting skills. • Students will know and apply directing skills.
Goal Three: Students will know and communicate how to analyze and interpret plays and other theatrical events from multiple perspectives, i.e. acting and performance, directing and designing.
• Students will know the literature and history of Western theatre. • Students will know and apply basic directing skills. • Students will know and apply basic elements and practices of theatrical design, technology,
production and management. • Students will know and apply basic acting skills. • Students will know and apply the basic skills and techniques needed in theatrical research.
Goals and Alignments for Drama and Theatre for Youth Emphasis: Learning Goals
Students pursuing study with our department will be provided with a theatre curriculum and a production environment which encompasses the following goals. These goals, established by the faculty and achieved only through student commitment to the learning process, are meant to provide students preparing for a life in theatre with a solid foundation on which to build. Continual examination of these goals allow for changes to keep our program on the leading edge of theatre education. Specific Goals for the Drama/Youth Theatre Emphasis Include
Goal One: Students will recognize the creative imagination and impulse and identify its relationship to artistic collaboration, standards, judgments, ethics and discipline from the youth theatre/drama education point of view. Students will devise, implement and evaluate a creative drama/youth theatre program(s). - Students will know and apply the basic elements, models and content of sequential standards for youth theatre and drama programs. - Students will critique and analyze TFY/high school scripts based on elements of dramatic literature. - Students will know a variety of creative drama and theatre for youth resources. - Students will select and use research in devised work and scripted production. - Students will perform, direct and teach activities, productions and roles intended for youth theatre audiences or participants.
Goal Two: Students will recognize and apply practical and theoretical knowledge of the
processes by which creative impulses are channeled into youth theatre/drama education projects for the theatre. - Students will devise, implement and evaluate a creative drama/youth theatre program(s). - Students will know a variety of creative drama and theatre for youth resources. - Students will select and use research in devised work and scripted production. - Students will perform, direct and teach activities, productions and roles intended for youth theatre audiences or participants.
Goal Three: Students will know and communicate how to analyze and interpret plays and other
theatrical events from youth theatre/drama education perspectives. - Students will devise, implement and evaluate a creative drama/youth theatre program(s). - Students will know and apply the basic elements, models and content of sequential standards for youth theatre and drama programs.
Goal One: Students will recognize the creative imagination and impulse and identify its relationshitistic
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail):
Date submitted:
ASSESSMENT MEASUREMENTS CONDUCTED DURING THE 2010-11 CALENDAR YEAR THEATRE – PERFORMANCE – FALL 2011 REPORT
Student Learning Outcomes Assessed
Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed reports are kept at the department
level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
Goal Three: Students will know and communicate how to analyze and interpret plays and other theatrical events from acting and performance perspectives.
Performance Lab/Juries: The Performance Lab initiative was deemed unsuccessful (low level of student interest, difficulty scheduling in classes, difficulties in scheduling labs) and return to a jury system mandated by the faculty. Juries were administered in spring semester to all 2nd year students who had completed introductory coursework in acting.
Regional Screening Auditions:
Six students were assessed in the fall of 2010 in preparation for the American College Theatre Festival Summer Auditions and the Mid-West Theatre Auditions. Program continued into its second year with a 100% increase in students (6 vs. 3) taking advantage of the screening and mentoring opportunities.
We developed an audition protocol (attached) and a rubric (attached) for collecting faculty responses to the audition. The rubric was somewhat over-detailed for this kind of exercise since we weren’t sure which behaviors/values would be observable/valued until the actual auditions.
9 students participated in the juries in two sessions and the data is being evaluated. A second set of juries have been scheduled for April, 2012 for a new cohort of 2nd year students. The students who participated in last year’s juries should be used as scene partners for the April juries and then they will have another jury in their 4th year.
The staff is also looking for a method to use auditions for the main stage season (required of all performance emphasis students) as another potential source for
Current distribution of results is constrained to the performance faculty and department head until sufficient iterations allow us to generalize data. Students receive an individual report of the results: data, comments from the faculty jurors, and a rough comparison with the work of the their cohorts.
Regional Screening Auditions:
Methods Used: same as last year.
assessment data. We are also interested in some kind of follow-up to main stage productions that might use the jury results as a jumping off point for the production directors as they assign Practicum credit in acting.
Regional Screening Auditions:
A more successful result from the audition processes (more call backs, more job offers than the previous year). Since the sample size still remains small it is still too early to generalize results but we will continue the program this year.
(Outcome)
(Outcome)
(Outcome)
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes Continue jury structure to include auditions for main stage productions.
Pending
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes None as yet Pending results of this year’s juries
SOA Plan Revisions None as yet None as yet
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
Previous choices to communicate the desirability of SOA to students have been ineffective. There is a clear indication of the need for required participation and adequate preparation for these events.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail):
Jay Edelnant
Date submitted: October 12, 2011
ASSESSMENT MEASUREMENTS CONDUCTED DURING THE 2010-11 CALENDAR YEAR B.A. IN THEATRE ARTS – FALL 2011 REPORT
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed
Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings
(Tables, graphs, and more detailed reports are kept at the department
level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
Goal 3: Students will know and communicate how to analyze and interpret plays and other theatrical events from multiple perspectives, i.e. acting and performance, directing and designing. (Outcome)Students will know the literature and history of Western theatre.
Twenty-four students in Theatre History I - 490:135(since renumbered to Theatre 3060) completed a knowledge-based (entrance) assessment at the beginning of the fall semester within a classroom environment with 100% of the students scoring below 50%.
End of semester results indicate that most students increase their base knowledge of theatre history from the Ancient Greeks through the English Renaissance and up to 1642.
The final (exit) assessment revealed the following:
A = 9, B = 5, C = 6, D =1, F =3
The above statistics are somewhat consistent with final grade statistics.
Results have traditionally not been shared departmentally, but are used at the beginning of each semester as a baseline measurement of a student’s knowledge and awareness of Theatre History I subject matter, allowing the professor to tailor material as needed based on the results. Most students enter the class having a limited knowledge of the subject area. Upon completion of the class, most students are more prepared to engage in production processes (acting, design, or student-directed projects) related to the time periods studied.
Next Steps: Continue with the entrance/exit assessment process in Theatre History I Core course. This SOA reporting form serves as a documentation and reporting process regarding this specific SOA process.
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes
In 2010-11, the department conducted a faculty survey in regards to B.A. in Theatre program goals as they align with the department core classes. A disconnect was discovered regarding program goals and the Creativity and Performance (C & P) class – a mandatory first class for all incoming freshman and transfer students.
Faculty addressed C&P course goals and specific objectives that may be ideal for the course in a spring 2011 faculty retreat. Faculty (in respective committees) continue to discuss in the fall of 2011 how the course may be adjusted or deconstructed to better serve the needs of the student and address the intentions of the course.
Changes are expected to be suggested in the spring of 2012 and recommendations made and adopted possibly beginning in the 2012-13 academic year.
1) The department may wish to explore other specific assessment options in regards to the B.A. in Theatre (i.e. formal reports related to freshman scholarship auditions, departmental auditions, department main stage productions) as students pursuing this degree program do not currently have a specific assessment process in regards to performance or design.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes N/A
SOA Plan Revisions Noted above.
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Steve Taft
Date submitted: October 28, 2011
ASSESSMENT MEASUREMENTS CONDUCTED DURING THE 2010-11 CALENDAR YEAR DRAMA AND THEATRE FOR YOUTH - FALL 2011 REPORT
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed
Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings
(Tables, graphs, and more detailed reports are kept at the department
level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
(Outcome) - Students will critique and analyze TFY/high school scripts based on elements of dramatic literature, as well as season selection, casting and community considerations. -
Performance based rubric Drama and Theatre for Youth:
Students compiled a representative portfolio which is assessed using a rubric that was piloted and tested for the past three years (see previous reports for data which determined it was aligned and reliable. 2008 SOA results reflect continued evidence that students meet or exceed all outcomes EXCEPT for Goal One, Outcomes 3-4. An expanded unit on adolescent dramatic literature was added to the course, taught earlier in the semester and EXPANDED. Outcomes results stayed about the same; students are adequate.
(Outcome) Students will know a variety of creative drama and theatre for youth resources.
SOA process is being repeated in AY 2011 to see if results have improved. Instructor CHANGED the timing of this work to earlier in the semester to see if this positively impacts SOA results.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes NA
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes NA
SOA Plan Revisions NA
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail):
Gretta Berghammer
Date submitted: October 28, 2011
ASSESSMENT MEASUREMENTS CONDUCTED DURING THE 2010-11 CALENDAR YEAR DESIGN AND PRODUCTION- FALL 2011 REPORT
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed
Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings
(Tables, graphs, and more detailed reports are kept at the department
level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
Goal II Assessed: Students will recognize and apply practical and theoretical knowledge of the process by which creative impulses are channeled into design and production projects for the theatre.
Objective 1: Students can create the practical application tools necessary to create a theatrical design.
Portfolio Reviews were held only one time this year, in Spring Semester, 2011.
The Design and Production Portfolio Review Committee decided to make assessments of the chosen objective without drawing students’ attention to the SOA process. This allowed the mentoring aspect of the portfolio review process to be more apparent to the students than the assessment process.
Fall 2011 Portfolio Review process will incorporate outside reviewers from our pool of alumni working
7 students participated in Portfolio Reviews: 2 Seniors, 4 Juniors, 1 Sophomore.
Portfolios together with student presentations of their portfolios were rated on a scale of 5 (most favorable) to 1 (least favorable)
2 Seniors – Average Rating is 4 (3.5; 4.5)
4 Juniors – Average rating is 3.375 (2; 3.5; 4; 4)
1 Sophomore – Individual rating is 4
A small sample makes any statistical analysis unreliable,
professionals in the fields of theatre design. The guest mentorship during portfolio reviews will be enhanced, and will add to the advice students receive from multiple reviewers from diverse backgrounds. Spring 2012 Portfolio Reviews will build upon this.
however trends can be observed in the categories of Junior and Senior Design and Production student assessments. There is a trend observed that students are showing improvement in their portfolio presentations as they move from their Junior year to their Senior year. A greater familiarity with expectations of educational and professional standards for portfolios may be a factor, as well as more attention in their program in providing guidance that transfers from course work to portfolio creation.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes NA
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes NA
SOA Plan Revisions NA
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail):
Carol Colburn
Date submitted: November 02, 2011
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
Name of College: College of Humanities and Fine Arts
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: MM COMPOSITION
Department/Unit Mission: To educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: MM Composition Degree: Students shall be able to produce original compositions to be presented in a public performance.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Julia Bullard, Associate Director for Graduate Studies, School of Music [email protected]
Date submitted: Nov. 1, 2012
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
Outcome: MM Composition Degree Students shall be able to produce original compositions to be presented in a public performance. Competency 1.1: Mastery of an array of traditional and technological innovations that influence the contemporary music compositions. Competency 1.2: Development of discriminatory preferences for the development of one’s own musical language
Performance recital of student generated compositions juried and assessed by a graduate faculty committee. Recital Abstract approved by a graduate faculty committee and the Graduate College.
Students in the MM Composition Degree program have successfully completed their recital performances and abstracts. Students are also evaluated in their applied composition lessons every semester. One student completed the MM Composition Program in Spring 2012. He successfully completed his recital and abstract. There are currently two students enrolled, not scheduled to complete programs within the timeline for this report.
A copy of this report will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes: • None at this time
• None at this time • A copy of this report and recommendations will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes • None at this time
SOA Plan Revisions • None at this time
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
Consider a written form for reporting details of student recital performance by faculty committee.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
Name of College: College of Humanities and Fine Arts
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: MM CONDUCTING
Department/Unit Mission: To educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: MM Conducting Degree: Students shall be prepared for ensemble leadership at the secondary, community, college and professional level
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Julia Bullard, Associate Director for Graduate Studies, School of Music [email protected]
Date submitted: Nov. 1, 2012
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
Outcome: MM Composition Degree Students shall be prepared for ensemble leadership at the secondary, community, college and professional level. Competency 1.1: Students shall demonstrate ability to analyze and discuss in written form music presented as a conductor to an ensemble of musicians Competency 1.2: Mastery of technical skill of conducting
Performance recital of student-rehearsed ensembles juried and assessed by a graduate faculty committee
N/A There are currently two students enrolled in this program, not scheduled to complete their degree programs within the timeline for this report.
A copy of this report will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
Next Steps:
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes: • None at this time
• None at this time • A copy of this report and recommendations will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes • None at this time
SOA Plan Revisions • None at this time
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) Consider a written form for reporting details of student recital performance by faculty committee
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Department of Languages and Literatures (DLL) 2011-12 Student Outcomes Assessment Plan
MA-English and MA-Teaching English in Secondary Schools (TESS) Programs Submitted by Dr. Adrienne Lamberti, Interim Graduate Programs Coordinator (MA-English; MA-TESS)
• Assessment philosophy and program goals The following Department of Languages and Literatures’ mission acts as a methodology informing the creation, administration, and data interpretation of MA-English and MA-TESS assessment methods: The DLL
immerse[s] all members of the departmental community in transactions with language and culture. The focus of [department] courses and programs of study cultivates a deeper understanding of ourselves and others; fosters a critical and creative engagement with languages, literatures, and cultures; and promotes the intellectual and practical linguistic skills our students need to understand, address, and contend with the cultural complexities of our pluralistic world.
MA-English and MA-TESS program goals consist of the following: 1) Critical Interpretation
a) To discuss, in both oral and written forms, literature and/or literary theory in ways that demonstrate originality of thought b) To discuss, in both oral and written forms, literature and/or literary theory in ways that demonstrate understanding of the critical tradition c) To integrate existing interpretations from multiple perspectives in original work d) To sustain and conclude arguments and/or interpretations throughout seminar-length papers (20-30 pages) or thesis-length projects
2) Literary Research
a) To define graduate-level topics for research b) To locate, evaluate, and draw from a variety of sources, including, when appropriate, manuscript sources, print sources, and electronic
sources c) To contextualize research findings in terms of interpretive and/or theoretical traditions d) To synthesize existing research and to develop original arguments based on that research e) To develop original arguments appropriate to foundational and recent studies in the discipline
3) Academic Writing
a) To demonstrate a command of traditional English b) To write in various professional modes, including the scholarly manuscript (the critical essay) and the conference presentation
c) To demonstrate facility with the MLA documentation style • Student outcomes
• Comprehensive Examination, including a Written Examination and a Specialty (oral) Examination • Brief Essays and Seminar Papers • Theses • Research Papers and Writing Portfolios
• Assessment methods
Method Assessment instrument
Frequency of assessment Administration Assessment results collection method
Institutionally-developed post-test
A rubric was developed in Fall 2010 for students in the Literature emphasis for the MA-English oral specialty exam.
This rubric was used in the Spring 2012 cycle and five assessments were collected.
Members of each student’s oral specialty exam committee (a 3-member committee structure) received from the DLL Graduate Programs Office a rubric score sheet to complete after the exam occurred.
Committee members returned rubric score sheets to DLL Graduate Programs Office within one month of rubric distribution to committees.
Institutionally-developed post-test
Rubric developed in Fall 2010 for students in the Literature emphasis for the MA-English oral specialty exam.
This rubric was used in the Spring and Fall 2011 cycles.
Members of each student’s oral specialty exam committee (a 3-member committee structure) received from the DLL Graduate Programs Office a rubric score sheet to complete after the exam occurred.
Committee members returned rubric score sheets to DLL Graduate Programs Office within one month of rubric distribution to committees.
Alumni survey
SurveyMonkey online survey instrument consisting of mixed-methods approach (ten open- and closed-ended questions and Likert scale)
In Fall 2012 a survey was administered to 36 MA- English/TESS alumni.
The SurveyMonkey instrument was managed by the Alumni Office.
The SurveyMonkey instrument allows the administrator to “Collect Responses” and “Analyze Results” whereby the instrument can both literally
sum and visually depict (e.g., via pie chart, etc.) quantitative results.
Student program evaluation/ student satisfaction survey
SurveyMonkey online survey instrument consisting of mixed-methods approach (ten open- and closed-ended questions and Likert scale)
In Spring 2012 a survey was administered to enrolled MA- English/TESS students.
The SurveyMonkey instrument was managed by the Graduate Programs Coordinator (MA-English; MA-TESS).
The SurveyMonkey instrument allows the administrator to “Collect Responses” and “Analyze Results” whereby the instrument can both literally sum and visually depict (e.g., via pie chart, etc.) quantitative results.
Student program evaluation/ student satisfaction survey
Paper survey consisting of 8 open-ended questions.
For purposes of feedback/ formative assessment, in May and June 2011 a survey was administered to TESS graduate students.
The survey was managed by Professor Jim Davis.
Professor Jim Davis collected the survey results.
Student program evaluation/ student satisfaction survey
Paper survey consisting of 8 open-ended questions.
For purposes of feedback/ formative assessment, in October 2012 a survey was administered to TESS graduate students.
The survey was managed by Professor Jim Davis.
Professor Jim Davis collected the survey results.
• Methods of evaluating and interpreting results
Method Assessment instrument Areas of Student Achievement Measured
Evaluation criteria Interpretation of criteria
Data
Institutionally-developed post-test
Oral exam rubric (Spring 2012 cycle)
Discipline-related content knowledge Higher-order skills (critical thinking, problem-solving)
Development of extended description of theory, correct use of terminology and concepts, development of comparisons to other theories and their
The oral exam score sheet was structured via a point system, whereby each committee
Exams scored well in drawing upon a variety of critical and/or literary sources
Writing proficiency
implications; agility in moving between theory and application in specific works, creation of illuminating insights into texts and/or extensions of theory
member assigned 0-3 points for an exam’s “Exemplary,” “Competent,” “Marginal,” or Unsatisfactory/missing” demonstration of program goals 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b (see “Program goals” section above).
at the student’s own initiative.
Institutionally-developed post-test
Oral exam rubric (Spring and Fall 2011 cycles)
Higher-order skills (critical thinking, problem-solving)
Student draws on a variety of sources to discuss the significance and meaning of an individual work.
Members of each student’s oral specialty exam committee (a 3-member committee structure) completed a rubric score sheet after the exam occurred. The score sheet was structured via a point system, whereby each committee member assigned 0-3 points for
Exams exhibited correct usage of terminology and concepts but without a wider sense of their theoretical origins or contexts. Exams exhibited readings of texts as informed by critical theory, but such pairings of theory and text resulted in orthodox
“Exemplary,” “Competent,” “Marginal,” or Unsatisfactory/missing” demonstration of program goals 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b (see “Program goals” section above).
readings. Exams exhibited connections between works on student’s reading list in response to committee members’ specific questions but did not initiate such comparisons.
Alumni survey Survey administered to MA- English/TESS alumni
100% of respondents believed the thesis and written exam were important and 71.4% viewed the oral exam as important.
Graduate school acceptance of program graduates
Survey administered to MA- English/TESS alumni
Respondent comment re the importance of publishing an element of the thesis to his/her acceptance to a doctoral program
Student program evaluation/ student satisfaction survey
Survey to enrolled MA- English/TESS students
91% of respondents
viewed the oral exam as “very important” “somewhat important” and/or “important.” Qualitative responses approved of the Student Learning Outcome re drawing upon a variety of critical and/or literary sources at the student’s own initiative; e.g., “[The oral exam] required the most interaction with the material [i.e., critical and/or literary sources] with a defined method for assessing that information.”
Student program evaluation/ student satisfaction survey
Survey administered to TESS graduate students
Personal and affective development (values, attitudes, social development, etc.)
100% of responses to the survey query soliciting feedback on the Introduction to Graduate
Studies in English Education course (i.e. those sections offered before Summer 2011) recommended strengthening this course’s curriculum (e.g. provide complete, accurate and clear information about the total program; orient students to and prepare them for program end markers, especially the research paper.)
• Procedures for making use of information obtained from assessment procedures in order to implement program and/or curricular improvements
Areas measured
Conclusions drawn from data Next steps to implement program and/or curricular improvements
Planned execution of next steps
Discipline-related content knowledge Higher-order skills (critical thinking, problem-solving)
Spring 2012 oral exam cycle results exhibited an impressive drawing upon a variety of critical and/or literary sources at the student’s own initiative.
English and TESS graduate faculty will continue the plan to collect results from the oral specialty examination (Literature emphasis) to gauge the success of program efforts to define students’ successful
English and TESS graduate faculty will explore definitions of Student Learning Outcomes regarding “originality of thought” and “understanding of the critical tradition,” insofar as the oral specialty
Writing proficiency
expression of “originality of thought” and “understanding of the critical tradition.”
exams exhibit students’ ability • to integrate existing
interpretations from multiple perspectives in original work
• to synthesize existing research and to develop original arguments based on that research
• to develop original arguments appropriate to foundational and recent studies in the discipline
Personal and affective development (values, attitudes, social development, etc.)
Results from a 2012 formative assessment (survey administered to TESS graduate students) will be compared to the 2011 results.
Comparison of 2011 and 2012 survey results will inform adjustments to the emphasis for the 2011 cohort and plans for implementation of the MA-TESS stand-alone program for a cohort starting summer semester 2013.
Personal and affective development (values, attitudes, social development, etc.)
During 2013-14 academic year, offer a collaboratively planned course in Introduction to Graduate Studies in English to 2013 TESS cohort
Student graduation rates
During 2012-13 academic year, facilitate 100% completion of MA-TESS program by all members of the 2009 cohort During 2013-14 academic year, facilitate at least 80% completion of MA-TESS program by members of the 2011 cohort
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
Name of College: College of Humanities and Fine Arts
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: MM JAZZ PEDAGOGY
Department/Unit Mission: To educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: MM Jazz Pedagogy: The student shall be prepared to teach all aspects of jazz performance at the elementary-secondar and/or undergraduate levels of instruction
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Julia Bullard, Associate Director for Graduate Studies, School of Music [email protected]
Date submitted: Nov. 1, 2012
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
Outcome: MM Jazz Pedagogy Degree The student shall be prepared to teach all aspects of jazz performance at the elementary-secondar and/or undergraduate levels of instruction Competency 1.1: Mastery of the ability to teach authentic jazz performance skills and concepts aurally by modeling Competency 1.2: Mastery of jazz ensemble (big band and combo) rehearsal skills Competency 1.8: Evidence of the ability to teach listening and appreciation skills as they relate
Observation and assessment of student teaching practicum of combo and big band ensembles by members of the Jazz Faculty during each semester of student’s residency.
There are have been three students enrolled in this program in 2011-12. Each student has been observed and assessed by the jazz faculty in each semester and found to be making acceptable progress in these competency areas. Two of the three students were graduate assistants.
A copy of this report will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
to recorded jazz performance
Outcome: MM Jazz Pedagogy Degree The student shall be prepared to teach all aspects of jazz performance at the elementary-secondar and/or undergraduate levels of instruction Competency 1.6 Evidence of familiarity with jazz pedagogy methodologies and resources. Competency 1.7 Evidence of familiarity with jazz ensemble literature and resources.
Jazz specialty final comprehensive oral examination administered and juried by members of jazz faculty.
One student completed his program in Spring 2012. The student successfully completed his oral comprehensive examination.
A copy of this report will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council
Competency 1.3 Evidence of functional jazz performance ability on drum set, electric bass, piano and/or guitar Competency 1.4 Evidence of the ability to improvise credibly in the jazz idiom on the student’s primary instrument Competency 1.5 Evidence of composition and arranging skills in the jazz idiom
Performance Recital juried by a committee of the graduate music faculty. Final semester of residency.
One student completed his program in Spring 2012. The student successfully completed his recital and recital abstract.
A copy of this report will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes: • None at this time
• None at this time • A copy of this report and recommendations will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes • None at this time
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
SOA Plan Revisions • None at this time
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
Consider a written form for reporting details of student recital performance, oral comprehensive examinations, and observation of student teaching practicum by faculty committee
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
Name of College: College of Humanities and Fine Arts
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: MM PIANO PERFORMANCE AND PEDAGOGY
Department/Unit Mission: To educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: MM PIANO PERFORMANCE AND PEDAGOGY: Student shall be prepared for a teaching career in piano and keyboards at the elementary, intermediate, and advanced level, in group or individual situations.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Julia Bullard, Associate Director for Graduate Studies, School of Music [email protected]
Date submitted: Nov. 1, 2012
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
MM PIANO PERFORMANCE AND PEDAGOGY: Student shall be prepared for a teaching career in piano and keyboards at the elementary, intermediate, and advanced level, in group or individual situations. Competency 1.1: Mastery of skills necessary for group teaching
Observation of student teaching practicum by graduate piano faculty each semester of residence
In the 2010-11 academic year, there were two students enrolled in this program. In the 2011-12 academic year, that number increased to 4. All students were observed by graduate piano pedagogy and performance faculty in student teaching practicum situations, including teaching group piano classes at UNI and lessons through the Community Music Program. All were deemed to have been making acceptable progress.
A copy of this report will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
Competency 1.2: Mastery of knowledge of teaching materials at the elementary, intermediate, and advanced levels.
Specialty area comprehensive oral examination juried by a committee of graduate faculty administered in the final semester of study.
One student has successfully completed oral examinations in this area. (This student has not yet taken all of the comprehensive
A copy of this report will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Competency 1.3: Mastery of knowledge of teaching materials for group situations and for adults. Competency 1.4: Knowledge of current technologies related to piano and keyboard teaching. Competency 1.5: Awareness of standard repertoire for piano.
examinations and is scheduled to graduate in December 2012.) The remaining students are still completing their programs and have not yet completed the oral comprehensive examination at the time of this report.
Competency 1.6: Development of performance skills.
Student semester performance examinations and/or final recital juried by members of the piano faculty
All four students in the program from 2010-2012 have successfully completed semester performance examinations each semester of study (juries). One student has successfully completed the final recital. (This student has not yet taken all of the comprehensive examinations and is scheduled to graduate in December 2012.) The remaining students are still completing their programs and have not yet completed the final recital at the time of this report.
A copy of this report will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes: • None at this time
• None at this time • A copy of this report and recommendations will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes • None at this time
SOA Plan Revisions • None at this time
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
Consider a written form for reporting details of student recital performance, oral comprehensive examinations, and observation of student teaching practicum
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT TEMPLATE/Fall 2012
Name of College: Humanities Arts and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: Theatre
Program: Drama Education/Theatre for Youth
Department/Unit Mission: Mission Statement ●The mission of the Department of Theatre is to create theatre which excites, and which illuminates the human condition in ways that are relevant to students, audiences, community members, teachers and guest artists. To this end, the department offers coursework and productions that are diverse, creative and participatory, serving students who want to prepare for a life in the theatre and also students who want to prepare a place for theatre in their lives. We create theatre and, in this process, educate.
Program Learning Goals: Learning Goals Students pursuing study with our department will be provided with a theatre curriculum and a production environment which encompasses the following goals. These goals, established by the faculty and achieved only through student commitment to the learning process, are meant to provide students preparing for a life in theatre with a solid foundation on which to build. Continual examination of these goals allow for changes to keep our program on the leading edge of theatre education. Specific Goals for the Drama/Youth Theatre Emphasis Include
Goal One: Students will recognize the creative imagination and impulse and identify its relationship to artistic collaboration, standards, judgments, ethics and discipline from the youth theatre/drama education point of view. - Students will devise, implement and evaluate a creative drama/youth theatre program(s). - Students will know and apply the basic elements, models and content of sequential standards for youth theatre and drama programs. - Students will critique and analyze TFY/high school scripts based on elements of dramatic literature. - Students will know a variety of creative drama and theatre for youth resources. - Students will select and use research in devised work and scripted production. - Students will perform, direct and teach activities, productions and roles intended for youth theatre audiences or participants.
Goal Two: Students will recognize and apply practical and theoretical knowledge of the
processes by which creative impulses are channeled into youth theatre/drama education projects for the theatre. - Students will devise, implement and evaluate a creative drama/youth theatre program(s). - Students will know a variety of creative drama and theatre for youth resources. - Students will select and use research in devised work and scripted production.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
- Students will perform, direct and teach activities, productions and roles intended for youth theatre audiences or participants.
Goal Three: Students will know and communicate how to analyze and interpret plays and other
theatrical events from youth theatre/drama education perspectives. - Students will devise, implement and evaluate a creative drama/youth theatre program(s). - Students will know and apply the basic elements, models and content of sequential standards for youth theatre and drama programs.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail):
Gretta Berghammer [email protected]
Date submitted: March, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
a)Cumulative Portfolio b)Methods of Teaching Drama and Theatre, the “capstone” course for the emphasis area c) 12 d) Gretta Berghammer
Students compiled a portfolio which was assessed using a rubric that was piloted and tested for the past four years (see previous reports for data which determined it was aligned and reliable). 2011-12 SOA results indicate that ALL 12 students met this outcome. All were able to identify FIVE resources representing best practices and in drama/theatre education, outline key learner and teaching strategies supported by the resource, identify specific strategies, exercises and activities described in the resource, and apply that information to lesson outlines of their own design.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT – FALL 2012 2011-12 CALENDAR YEAR REPORT
ASSESSMENT MEASUREMENTS CONDUCTED DURING THE 2011-12 CALENDAR YEAR DESIGN AND PRODUCTION- FALL 2012 REPORT
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures
(Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed, person responsible,
etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more
detailed reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
Goal II Assessed: Students will recognize and apply practical and theoretical knowledge of the process by which creative impulses are channeled into design and production projects for the theatre. Objective 4: Students will apply evocative and factual research to design and production activities.
Portfolio Reviews were held on Saturday, April 14, 2012. The Design and Production Committee decided to make assessments of the chosen objective without drawing student attention to the SOA process. This allowed the mentoring aspect of student portfolio reviews to be more apparent to the students than the assessment process. Thus, one member of the committee was appointed to assess achievement of the selected learning goal using a committee-prepared worksheet. The committee then met after the event, and reviewed, revised, and approved the assessment worksheet. The Spring 2012 Portfolio Reviews were held on the same day as a Department of Theatre
13 students participated as portfolio presenters: 6 Seniors, 6 Juniors, and 1 Sophomore. 5 students participated as observers. 7 Design and Production faculty served as responders 3 Performance faculty served as responders. 11 alumni theater practitioners served as responders. Portfolios together with student presentations of their portfolios were rated on a worksheet scale of 5 (most favorable evidence of learning objective fulfillment) to 0 (no evidence of learning objective fulfillment). Thus, the worksheet generated the following results: 6 Seniors – Average Rating is 4.5 (4; 4; 3; 5; 3; 5) 6 Juniors – Average rating is 3.8
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
alumni reunion performance of Bat Boy: The Musical. Several visiting alumni who are practicing theater professionals were guests at the event and had opportunities to meet student portfolio presenters and engage in one-on-one conversations concerning the form and content of student portfolios. The Design and Production Committee strives to have guest respondents, who themselves are professional theatre practitioners, respond to student portfolios during spring portfolio reviews. This insures that students are exposed to positive and negative criticism from currently practicing professionals as well as resident faculty.
(5; 3; 4; 3; 4; 4) 1 Sophomore – Individual rating is 4 Such a small sample makes any statistical analysis unreliable. However, trends can be observed in the categories of Junior and Senior Design and Production student assessments. There is a trend observed that students are showing improvement in the fulfillment of the assessed learning goals, as evidenced by their portfolios, with regard to outcome 2.4. There is also a trend observed that there is improvement in student portfolio presentations as they move from their Junior year to their Senior year.
Next Steps: Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes NA
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes
NA
SOA Plan Revisions NA Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to
explore, etc.)
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail):
Leonard Curtis [email protected]
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Date submitted: March 01, 2013
THEATRE HISTORY On the first day of Theatre History I (One), students take a 20 question “curiosity” quiz as I like to assess what they may know or not know about theatre history entering the class. As the students typically haven’t had a theatre history course prior to Theatre History I, the expectations are not high. However, the process does provide a baseline regarding their content knowledge of the subject. The quiz is a simple “association” quiz. The exact same quiz is part of their final exam (which is not comprehensive in nature). Fall 2011 before and after comprehensive results Day 1 quiz:
• 2 students scored above 50% • 21 students scored below 50%
End of semester retake of the Day 1 quiz. There is a 2 pt. spread between grades: A – 4 B – 2 C – 1 D – 4 F – 12 Final grade breakdown: A – 3 B – 6 C – 3 D – 8 F – 1 Fall 2012 Day 1 quiz:
• 1 student scored above 50% • 22 students scored below 50%
End of semester retake of the Day 1 quiz. There is a 2 pt. spread between grades:
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
A – 3 B – 5 C – 1 D – 5 F - 7 N/A – 1 student chose not to complete the comprehensive section Final grade breakdown: A – 2 B – 12 C – 5 D – 3 F – 1 – one student that stopped coming to class early in the semester did not withdraw from the class. Future course of action anticipated for Fall 2013.
• Rewrite the day 1 quiz questions to be more comprehensive in nature rather than simple “association”. • As we progress throughout the semester, I will specifically point out when a question on the day 1 quiz has been addressed in class
and also on quizzes and exams throughout the semester. • The final exam (typically covering the final chapter) will include the original 20 question day 1 quiz, but also a more extensive
comprehensive section. A larger comprehensive section may provide the incentive for students to keep abreast of the material they are learning throughout the entire semester rather than for the moment. Several years ago the final was 200pts. 100pts. over the final chapter and a 100 comprehensive section. However, perhaps a final with more comprehensive weight will serve as an incentive to retain material and more importantly, embrace the practical application of such material as future theatre artists.
As nearly all of our students are not necessarily Theatre Historians, it is a practice in the class to consistently relate what we are studying to their interests as actors, director, and designers.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Performance Emphasis SOA 2011-2012 The performance faculty envisions a sequence of SOA that spans a student’s 4-year course of instruction. At the present time, we are trying to develop the jury instrument portion of the assessment process and can implement the juries and interim auditions assessments once it is stabilized and found to be responsive to our needs.
4 Year Sequence of Assessment First Year: Class work (C &P, movement)
Auditions for major productions Second Year: Class work (Acting, voice)
Auditions for major productions Audition preparation for major Regional Auditions/KCACTF Baseline Jury Third Year Class work (Studio, Adv. Voice & Mvmt. Auditions for major productions Audition preparation for major Regional Auditions/KCACTF Partnering Juries Fourth Year Class work (Studio) Auditions for major productions Audition preparation for major Regional Auditions + URTA/KCACTF Exit Juries, interviews
We find that the best method of assessment we have discovered for acting and creative process is to use auditions and audition-like situations in combination with regular class work and main stage production work to assess whether the program is generating the learning outcomes it has adopted (see our web page http://www.uni.edu/theatre/PerformanceEmphasisOutcomes.html for the specifics).
This assessment is being made for the purpose of evaluating our curriculum and processes as well as student progress in the program. It is not intended to exclude anyone from the program, as do annual assessments in other programs. It is intended to give students honest feedback on a series of criteria that are used to evaluate student actors and, in turn, tell us how we are doing in our teaching.
We have put in place a jury system to assist our process. Each year we will conduct a baseline jury of second year students (measured by years in the program in combination with how far they have come in the advanced performance courses). This second year jury will establish the criteria and benchmarks by which the faculty will assess the student actor’s progress at subsequent auditions
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
(semi-annual departmental main stage auditions, and competitive regional auditions such as Midwest, SETC, and KCACTF), advanced class work, productions, and a subsequent jury during the 4th year.
The actor should prepare a scene and a monologue:
A 5-minute scene with a partner (another performance emphasis student, preferably a 3rd year student) from a realistic play by Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, Lillian Hellman, William Inge, Henrik Ibsen. We are restricting the scenes to these authors on purpose. Scenes and monologues should not be from previous class work.
A 2-minute monologue from a realistic play (a different play from the scene, any author) with a character appropriate to the actor’s age and type: you would be likely to be cast as this character. Monologues should not be from class work.
We estimate a 20-30 minute jury process for each person, including the scene, monologue, and an interview with the performance faculty.
Preliminary discussion criteria include:
Understanding of material (read the whole play). Playing an objective Talking and Listening Establishing given circumstances Freeing yourself from manipulation Free voice and body
And include the development of performance values, including, as specifically as possible and appropriate to the play and character:
Commitment
Concentration
Focus
Involvement
Risk-taking
Behavioral Adjustment
Expressiveness
Vulnerability
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Results of pilot juries: 2011-2012 Juries Ballot Summary SP 2011 N= 4
Juries: Audition Preparation 2.6
1. Grooming/clothing choice 2.6
2. Presentation followed guidelines 2.8
3. Resumé 2.4 Juries: Free Voice & Body guidelines 1.8
1. Free voice: 1.8
2. Free body: 1.7 Juries: Understanding of Text 2.1
1. Performer presents text clearly: Juries: Basic Acting Guidelines 1.8 1. Playing an objective: 1.9 2. Actor is listening to other: 1.6 3. Actor takes a moment-to-moment experiential journey through the scene: 1.7
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
2nd Year Juries, April 21, 2012
Average
Preparation 2.02
Appearance 1.89
Introduction 2.11
Professionalism 2.14
Material 2.39
Preparation 2.39
Resume 1.07
Body 1.48
Body 1 1.00
Body 2 1.00
Voice 1.67
Voice 1 1.00
Voice 2 1.14
Articulation 1 1.43
Articulation 2 1.00
Text 2.10
Clarity 2.07
Grammar & Usage 2.14
Logic/Argument 2.00
Given Circumstances 2.14
Interpretation 2.14
Acting 1.81
Objective 1 2.00
Objective 2 1.00
Listening 1 2.00
Listening 2 1.00
Experiential Journey 1 1.14
Experiential Journey 2 1.00
Experiential Journey 3 1.50
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
2012-2013
Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts & Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: Communication Sciences & Disorders
Program: Graduate Speech-Language Pathology
Department/Unit MISSION: The Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders provides undergraduate and graduate students excellent academic and clinical teaching, research, and public service within the context of a strong liberal arts education. The main focus is personalized professional preparation of students in communication sciences and disorders to serve the public.
Program Learning GOALS: 1. Students will demonstrate appropriate application of clinical procedures and processes, and problem-solving, in the treatment of speech and language disorders.
Outcomes
a. Students will identify, cite, and apply appropriate professional sources in support of the clinical procedures they use.
b. Students will achieve an average or better rating by their supervisor(s) in each area of the clinical performance evaluation that is assessed.
c. Students will be identified if they are not achieving at a satisfactory level during mid-term and final student reviews through a “Notice of Concern.”
2. Students will demonstrate effective oral and written communication
skills consistent with the requirements of the discipline. Outcomes
a. Students will achieve a score of “average/meets expectations” or higher on each component of a writing rubric applied to a course paper.
b. Students will achieve a score of “average/meets expectations” or higher on each component of a writing rubric applied to an examination report and progress report.
c. Students will achieve an average or higher rating for communicating effectively recognizing the needs, values, cultural-linguistic background with clients, families, care-givers, and other relevant professionals (e.g., teachers, medical personnel).
d. Students will achieve satisfactory scores when providing an oral report in assessment or other graduate class.
3. Students with learn, integrate, and apply discipline specific knowledge. Outcomes
a. Students will independently read, accurately recall, and apply published research in the field of speech-language pathology in a course presentation or paper.
b. Students will rate themselves as adequate or better on all areas assessed by the exit interview and fifth year graduate feedback questionnaire.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail):
Jennifer Garrett [email protected]
Date submitted: 11/1/13
Assessment Period: Fall 2012-Spring 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning Outcomes Assessed
Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when
and where implemented, number assessed, person
responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more
detailed reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
1a. Students will identify, cite, and apply appropriate professional sources in support of the clinical procedures they use.
Evidenced-based practice (EBP) reports are submitted in CSD 6500/51S: 255. Each supervisor uses a rubric to apply a rating of superior, good or requires assistance/revision. Ratings are compiled and forwarded to Theresa Kouri, Clinic Director. During 2012-2013, 55 reports submitted and analyzed.
Number of EBP reports rated good/superior in 4 out of 4 categories: 51/55 Number of EBP reports requiring some form of revisions: 4/55 Results from 2008-2013 have remained fairly consistent with students achieving ratings of good or superior in most categories of their evidenced-based practice papers.
Discussed in faculty meeting.
1c. Students will be identified if they are not achieving at a satisfactory level during mid-term and final student reviews through a “Notice of Concern.”
Students progress is discussed at mid-term and finals with all faculty and clinical supervisors. Those students not meeting expectations are notified in
Fewer than 5 students were notified during each semester. Remediation plans were made with students.
Discussed in faculty meeting. Faculty are interested in a more formal way to track areas of concern across semesters. The new CALIPSO system may
person and/or writing by the clinical director or department head.
be able to include this information.
2a. Students will achieve a score of “average/meets expectations” or higher on each component of a writing rubric applied to a course paper.
Graduate students submitted papers during Spring 2013 in Dysphagia and Aphasia (CSD 6650 & CSD 6600). Dr. Burda and Dr. Hageman graded first drafts for a total of 44 students.
38 out of 44 students earned a score of at least 75 (75 = minimum acceptable score for graduate student) on first draft of a paper.
Discussed in faculty meeting. It was noted, during 2012-2013, the minimal acceptable score was revised from 70 to 75.
2d. Students will achieve satisfactory scores when providing an oral report in assessment or other graduate class.
Graduate students presented oral reports during Spring 2013 in Dysphagia and Aphasia (CSD 6650 & CSD 6600). Dr. Burda and Dr. Hageman graded a total of 44 students.
44 students achieved an oral presentation score of 90 on oral presentations.
Discussed in faculty meeting. Students have consistently met this goal over the past 3 SOA reporting periods.
3a. Students will independently read, accurately recall, and apply published research in the field of speech-language pathology in a course presentation or paper.
Graduate students presented oral reports during Spring 2013 in Dysphagia and Aphasia (CSD 6650 & CSD 6600). Dr. Burda and Dr. Hageman graded a total of 44 students.
All students were able to independently read and apply research to an oral presentation.
Discussed in faculty meeting. Students have consistently met this goal over the past 3 SOA reporting periods.
3b. Students will rate themselves as adequate or better on all areas assessed by the exit interview and fifth year graduate feedback questionnaire.
Exit interviews were conducted by Carlin Hageman, Communication Sciences & Disorders Dept Head.
All graduate students interviewed reported that they felt adequately prepared.
Discussed in faculty meeting. A 5-year feedback questionnaire was developed during 2012-2013 academic year and the SOA committee is working with the Alumni office and University relations to have it sent to students graduating between 2006-2008.
Next Steps
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes
Program changes were approved by the University are currently being implemented. A committee has been convienced to look at future program changes.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes
A new tracking system (CALIPSO) that aligns student clinical work with national standards (KASA) was implemented in Fall 2012 and has been utilized for one full year. Goals aligned with outcomes from the new tracking system were developed but gathering the information is currently be attempted.
Faculty and clinical supervisors are now using the new system. How to use the results for both summative and formative assessment are being discussed.
SOA Plan Revisions Revised SOA plan will be submitted Dec 2012.
Additional Comments:
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
2012-2013
Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts & Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: Communication Sciences & Disorders
Program: UG Communicative Disorders
Department/Unit MISSION: The Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders provides undergraduate and graduate students excellent academic and clinical teaching, research, and public service within the context of a strong liberal arts education. The main focus is personalized professional preparation of students in communication sciences and disorders to serve the public.
Program Learning GOALS: 1. Students will demonstrate appropriate application of clinical procedures
and processes, and problem-solving, in the treatment of speech and language disorders.
Outcomes
a. Students will read an assigned article and accurately summarize, interpret, and apply the content to a clinical case. (Same as 3c.)
b. Students will apply knowledge from coursework in a clinical setting by achieving a minimal of 20 clinical hours as assigned in Clinical Practice (CSD 4500).
2. Students will demonstrate written communication skills consistent with
the requirements of the discipline. Outcomes
a. Students will achieve an average score higher on each component of a writing rubric applied to a course paper.
b. Students will apply rules for grammar and mechanics by achieving an average score or higher on each component of a writing rubric in a course paper or clinical report.
c. Students will achieve an average score or higher on each component of a writing rubric applied to a summary of a journal article.
3. Students with learn, integrate, and apply discipline specific knowledge. Outcomes
a. Students will recall foundational information across courses by achieving a passing score on an initial assessment of previously learned information.
b. Students will identify, read, accurately summarize, and synthesize professional literature into a course paper.
c. Students will read an assigned article and accurately summarize, interpret, and apply the content to a clinical case. (Same as 1a.)
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail):
Jennifer Garrett [email protected]
Date submitted: 11/1/13
Assessment Period: Fall 2012-Spring 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures
(Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed, person
responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more
detailed reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
1a. Students will read an assigned article, and accurately summarize, interpret, and apply the content to a clinical case. (Same as 3c.)
Evidenced-based practice (EBP) reports are submitted in CSD 4500/51C:155. Each supervisor uses a rubric to apply a rating of superior, good or requires assistance/revision. Rating are compiled and forwarded to Theresa Kouri, Clinic Director. During 2012-2013, 90 reports by undergraduate students were analyzed.
Number of EBP reports rated good/superior in all categories: 83/90 Number of EBP reports rated as adequate: 2/90 Number of EBP reports requiring some form of revision: 5/90 Results have remained fairly consistent over the past 5 years.
Results discussed in faculty meeting.
1b. Students will apply knowledge from coursework in a clinical setting by achieving a minimal of 20 clinical hours as assigned in Clinical Practice (CSD 4500).
Undergraduate students enrolled in CSD 4500 had the number of clinical hours tracked.
The majority of students received at least 20 clinical hours. Those not receiving clinical hours did get experiences (ex. Senior Minds) that were indicated as meeting KASA in the area of prevention.
Results discussed in faculty meeting. Discussion about alternate (but equivalent) course for those not taking a clinical path for future program change.
2b. Students will apply rules for grammar and mechanics by achieving an average score or higher on each component of a writing rubric in a course
Undergraduate students submitted papers in CSD 3220. The papers were evaluated based on contextual spelling, grammar, and punctuation. All
The students achieved a mean score of 86.25 Minimum score: 60% Maximum score: 98% Standard deviation: 8.11
Results discussed in faculty meeting. Might be an option for more faculty to use the program in their classes.
paper or clinical report.
students submitted a paper that was evaluated by Dr. Lauren Nelson with the aid of the "Grammarly" online tool.
The score above reflect Dr. Nelson correcting for miscalculation of errors by the program (ex. professional usage of 4;6 as an age)
3a. Students will recall foundational information across courses by achieving a passing score on an initial assessment of previously learned information.
Data was collected in CSD 3200 (from knowledge gained in CSD CSD 3120) and CSD 3200 (from knowledge gained in CSD 3100). A total of 71 evaluations were completed.
Over the past 2 years, results have remained consistent with the majority of students in the department passing with a score of 80% or higher.
Results were discussed in faculty meeting. In the future, data may be used to strengthen teaching at the Pre-req course OR consider having a minimal criteria that students must pass or remediation will be recommended.
3c. Students will read an assigned article and accurately summarize, interpret, and apply the content to a clinical case. (Same as 1a.)
Evidenced-based practice (EBP) reports are submitted in CSD 4500/51C:155. Each supervisor uses a rubric to apply a rating of superior, good or requires assistance/revision. Rating are compiled and forwarded to Theresa Kouri, Clinic Director. During 2012-2013, 90 reports by undergraduate students were analyzed.
Number of EBP reports rated good/superior in all categories: 83/90 Number of EBP reports rated as adequate: 2/90 Number of EBP reports requiring some form of revision: 5/90
Results discussed in faculty meeting. Theresa Kouri is working with supervisors to collect more EBP papers for analyzing.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes During 2012-2013 a department committee convened to propose future program changes. Changes include offering 3-credit hour course (has ranged from 2-4 credit hours) and changing clinic to a 2-hour course to reflect amount of supervision/support needed.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes
A new tracking system (CALIPSO) that aligns student clinical work with national standards (KASA) was implemented at the graduate level. Undergraduate students are tracked using paper forms. A writing goal with an associated rubric continues to be a part of the SOA plan. With program changes during the past 2 years (writing intensive courses were moved to the graduate level), faculty plan to discuss the best courses to implement writing assignments and how to utilize a common writing too.
Discussion as part of department committee related to program change and follow-up as an entire faculty at a future faculty meeting.
SOA Plan Revisions Revised SOA plan will be submitted Dec 2013.
Additional Comments:
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
2012-2013
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNICATION STUDIES
PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN REPORT: 1. COMMUNICATION 2. PUBLIC RELATIONS 3. ELECTRONIC MEDIA 4. GRADUATE PROGRAM
SUBMITTED BY: APRIL CHATHAM-CARPENTER, DEPARTMENTAL SOA CHAIR
DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2013
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
2012-2013
Name of College: CHAS
Name of Department/Unit: Communication Studies
Program: Communication
Department/Unit MISSION:
• To assist students in becoming informed, responsible, creative, and critical communicators;
• To enhance student knowledge of, and skill in, the construction, interpretation, and distribution of communication in diverse cultural and global communities;
• To promote theoretical understanding and professional/personal practice of effective and ethical human communication between and within a broad range of contexts and communities.
Program Learning GOALS: To educate our students in the areas of history/theory, research methods, skills, culture, and ethics as they pertain to the study of human communication.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Sergey Golitsynskiy ([email protected])
Date submitted: 10/22/13
Assessment Period: AY 2012-2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning Outcomes Assessed
Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
n/a n/a n/a n/a We have no data from Academic Year 2012/13, as well as no knowledge of whether such data has been collected and, if so, whether it has been analyzed, or where it may be found. Therefore, there is no assessment information available for Academic Year 2012/13. In conjunction with the calendar guidelines specified by the College Student Outcome Assessment Committee, the Division decided to assess the outcomes on the following timeline: Goal 1 would be assessed during the fall, 2006 semester; goals 2 and 3 would be assessed during 2007; goals 4 and 5 would be assessed during 2008. The Division planned to use portfolio artifacts as a direct measure of the respective learning outcomes and an indirect self-assessment measure with graduating seniors, collected within the Senior Seminar class.
With the revision to the Communication major curriculum in 2008, however, the Senior Seminar class was discontinued, shifting to an Introduction to Communication course, when a student declared their major, and a Communication, Community and Change (COMM 4444/5444) course, a course for seniors that was recommended be taken in the student's final semester. Each student in the major began to develop an electronic portfolio in the Introduction to Communication course. The initial electronic portfolio contained samples of students’ work to illustrate their learning related to departmental and university goals, as well as their own personal goals and skills they wanted to highlight for future employment purposes. However, there was no mechanism for collecting the portfolio data at the end of a student’s career at the university, since portfolio collection and analysis was not included as part of the goals for the Communication, Community and Change class. Since the portfolio was not continued or assessed in that class, the timeline for assessment set up in 2006 was not continued.
The faculty members in the Communication major have yet to come up with a mechanism for replacing the loss of portfolio assessment they originally did. However, there do continue to be portfolios collected through the departmental internship program and the Introduction to Communication course, as part of embedded assessment done in that program. Faculty are working on coming up with a plan for assessing randomly selected student work from required classes in the major or from the portfolios students start at the beginning of the major. From the 2013 academic program review survey of the Communication faculty, it was evident that faculty members realize the need for such a plan, as well as regular conversations about teaching and learning, in order to make meaningful changes to facilitate teaching and learning in the major. In particular, faculty in the Communication major hope to set up a workable implementation plan this coming year for collecting, analyzing, and communicating about outcomes data. In particular, they are coming up with questions which need answered by data, determining a timeline for when these questions will be answered, determining what type of data they will be collecting, and then will start collecting and analyzing the data. Then they will need to schedule regular meetings during the Spring semester to discuss the findings and make plans to improve teaching and learning. Faculty members in the Communication major can also work with the departmental SOA committee to implement a department-wide survey of graduating students, such as what was done previously for the major, as well as provide sample student work from the departmental core classes for departmental assessment purposes.
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes 1. Continue to collect and analyze data in
the internship course to assess the skills area.
2. The SOA committee will work with the Internship Director to create a repository of reports that will be useful for tracking trends over time.
3. Work will continue this year within the departmental SOA committee to see whether and how a department-wide assessment might benefit our program.
4. The departmental SOA committee will look into the instrument used by the Cornerstone class to see if it might serve as a potential model for assessing the departmental core.
1. Data from the internship course has
been collected throughout the year by the Internship Director and is available for analysis.
2. No central repository has been created so far. All survey data for 2013 is located on the Internship Director's personal surveymonkey account. We are planning to make this a department account so we can have access to this data for SOA.
3. Student-created artifacts are available in student online portfolios; however, the department has no control over the data and it may be deleted at any time by the student, once the internship has been completed.
4. See description of work on new plan below.
1. Continue collecting data from the
internship course (see SOA Plan Revisions below).
2. Use central department-wide data repository for all SOA data, including internship-related data.
3. See description of work on new plan below.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes None
SOA Plan Revisions See description of work on new plan below
Additional Comments: (lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) - see next page -
Assessment Planning An agreement was reached among communication faculty in 2011/12 to assess one of the five department-wide SOA goals per academic year. The skills goal was assessed in 2011/12. The remaining four goals will be assessed according to the following timeline:
1. Research methods: 2013/14 2. History/theory: 2014/15 3. Culture: 2015/16 4. Ethics: 2016/17
Following is a tentative plan for collecting and analyzing data, and communicating the results for academic year 2013/14: 1) Link the following courses to the research methods SOA goal:
1. Quantitative Research Methods 2. Qualitative Research Methods 3. Rhetorical Communication Research Methods
For future assessment, there is an option of adding Performance Composition to this list; however, since the course is currently under revision, it will not be included in the research methods assessment for this year. 2) By October 31, 2013, a combined list of current learning objectives will be compiled based on syllabi from the three methods courses. The combined list will be discussed with faculty teaching these courses, and necessary changes will be made. 3) Once the combined learning objectives for research methods are agreed upon, the committee will contact the faculty teaching the three courses and solicit two-three multiple-choice questions and one existing assignment for assessing each learning objective which is addressed in each of the three courses. The assignment could address multiple learning objectives. The committee expects to have all questions by November 30. 4) The committee will then design a specific plan for data collection, which may include: - embedding a set of questions into the final examination for each of the three method courses; - designing a separate tool to be used for pre-test/post=test evaluation, or use it in conjunction with embedding a set of questions into an existing exam or assignment. 5) Data will be collected throughout the Spring 2014 semester. It will be analyzed over the summer and communicated to faculty in Fall 2014. Additional Points 1) All data will be permanently stored in the department-wide repository on the J drive. 2) Data for all goals will be collected continuously, regardless of what goal is being assessed during a given academic year. 3) Existing data from the skills assessment from 2011/12 will be added to the department-wide repository on the J drive.
4) Work with department for SOA plan for the three COMM COR courses for the coming year.
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
2012-2013
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNICATION STUDIES
PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN REPORT: 1. COMMUNICATION 2. PUBLIC RELATIONS 3. ELECTRONIC MEDIA 4. GRADUATE PROGRAM
SUBMITTED BY: APRIL CHATHAM-CARPENTER, DEPARTMENTAL SOA CHAIR
DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2013
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
2012-2013
Name of College: CHAS
Name of Department/Unit: Communication Studies
Program: Communication
Department/Unit MISSION:
• To assist students in becoming informed, responsible, creative, and critical communicators;
• To enhance student knowledge of, and skill in, the construction, interpretation, and distribution of communication in diverse cultural and global communities;
• To promote theoretical understanding and professional/personal practice of effective and ethical human communication between and within a broad range of contexts and communities.
Program Learning GOALS: To educate our students in the areas of history/theory, research methods, skills, culture, and ethics as they pertain to the study of human communication.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Sergey Golitsynskiy ([email protected])
Date submitted: 10/22/13
Assessment Period: AY 2012-2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning Outcomes Assessed
Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
n/a n/a n/a n/a We have no data from Academic Year 2012/13, as well as no knowledge of whether such data has been collected and, if so, whether it has been analyzed, or where it may be found. Therefore, there is no assessment information available for Academic Year 2012/13. In conjunction with the calendar guidelines specified by the College Student Outcome Assessment Committee, the Division decided to assess the outcomes on the following timeline: Goal 1 would be assessed during the fall, 2006 semester; goals 2 and 3 would be assessed during 2007; goals 4 and 5 would be assessed during 2008. The Division planned to use portfolio artifacts as a direct measure of the respective learning outcomes and an indirect self-assessment measure with graduating seniors, collected within the Senior Seminar class.
With the revision to the Communication major curriculum in 2008, however, the Senior Seminar class was discontinued, shifting to an Introduction to Communication course, when a student declared their major, and a Communication, Community and Change (COMM 4444/5444) course, a course for seniors that was recommended be taken in the student's final semester. Each student in the major began to develop an electronic portfolio in the Introduction to Communication course. The initial electronic portfolio contained samples of students’ work to illustrate their learning related to departmental and university goals, as well as their own personal goals and skills they wanted to highlight for future employment purposes. However, there was no mechanism for collecting the portfolio data at the end of a student’s career at the university, since portfolio collection and analysis was not included as part of the goals for the Communication, Community and Change class. Since the portfolio was not continued or assessed in that class, the timeline for assessment set up in 2006 was not continued.
The faculty members in the Communication major have yet to come up with a mechanism for replacing the loss of portfolio assessment they originally did. However, there do continue to be portfolios collected through the departmental internship program and the Introduction to Communication course, as part of embedded assessment done in that program. Faculty are working on coming up with a plan for assessing randomly selected student work from required classes in the major or from the portfolios students start at the beginning of the major. From the 2013 academic program review survey of the Communication faculty, it was evident that faculty members realize the need for such a plan, as well as regular conversations about teaching and learning, in order to make meaningful changes to facilitate teaching and learning in the major. In particular, faculty in the Communication major hope to set up a workable implementation plan this coming year for collecting, analyzing, and communicating about outcomes data. In particular, they are coming up with questions which need answered by data, determining a timeline for when these questions will be answered, determining what type of data they will be collecting, and then will start collecting and analyzing the data. Then they will need to schedule regular meetings during the Spring semester to discuss the findings and make plans to improve teaching and learning. Faculty members in the Communication major can also work with the departmental SOA committee to implement a department-wide survey of graduating students, such as what was done previously for the major, as well as provide sample student work from the departmental core classes for departmental assessment purposes.
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes 1. Continue to collect and analyze data in
the internship course to assess the skills area.
2. The SOA committee will work with the Internship Director to create a repository of reports that will be useful for tracking trends over time.
3. Work will continue this year within the departmental SOA committee to see whether and how a department-wide assessment might benefit our program.
4. The departmental SOA committee will look into the instrument used by the Cornerstone class to see if it might serve as a potential model for assessing the departmental core.
1. Data from the internship course has been
collected throughout the year by the Internship Director and is available for analysis.
2. No central repository has been created so far. All survey data for 2013 is located on the Internship Director's personal surveymonkey account. We are planning to make this a department account so we can have access to this data for SOA.
3. Student-created artifacts are available in student online portfolios; however, the department has no control over the data and it may be deleted at any time by the student, once the internship has been completed.
4. See description of work on new plan below.
1. Continue collecting data from the
internship course (see SOA Plan Revisions below).
2. Use central department-wide data repository for all SOA data, including internship-related data.
3. See description of work on new plan below.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes None
SOA Plan Revisions See description of work on new plan below
Additional Comments: (lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) - see next page -
Assessment Planning An agreement was reached among communication faculty in 2011/12 to assess one of the five department-wide SOA goals per academic year. The skills goal was assessed in 2011/12. The remaining four goals will be assessed according to the following timeline:
1. Research methods: 2013/14 2. History/theory: 2014/15 3. Culture: 2015/16 4. Ethics: 2016/17
Following is a tentative plan for collecting and analyzing data, and communicating the results for academic year 2013/14: 1) Link the following courses to the research methods SOA goal:
1. Quantitative Research Methods 2. Qualitative Research Methods 3. Rhetorical Communication Research Methods
For future assessment, there is an option of adding Performance Composition to this list; however, since the course is currently under revision, it will not be included in the research methods assessment for this year. 2) By October 31, 2013, a combined list of current learning objectives will be compiled based on syllabi from the three methods courses. The combined list will be discussed with faculty teaching these courses, and necessary changes will be made. 3) Once the combined learning objectives for research methods are agreed upon, the committee will contact the faculty teaching the three courses and solicit two-three multiple-choice questions and one existing assignment for assessing each learning objective which is addressed in each of the three courses. The assignment could address multiple learning objectives. The committee expects to have all questions by November 30. 4) The committee will then design a specific plan for data collection, which may include: - embedding a set of questions into the final examination for each of the three method courses; - designing a separate tool to be used for pre-test/post=test evaluation, or use it in conjunction with embedding a set of questions into an existing exam or assignment. 5) Data will be collected throughout the Spring 2014 semester. It will be analyzed over the summer and communicated to faculty in Fall 2014. Additional Points 1) All data will be permanently stored in the department-wide repository on the J drive. 2) Data for all goals will be collected continuously, regardless of what goal is being assessed during a given academic year. 3) Existing data from the skills assessment from 2011/12 will be added to the department-wide repository on the J drive.
4) Work with department for SOA plan for the three COMM COR courses for the coming year.
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT 2012-2013
Name of College: CHAS
Name of Department/Unit: Department of Communication Studies
Program: Electronic Media
Department/Unit MISSION:
• To assist students in becoming informed, responsible, creative, and critical communicators • To enhance student knowledge of, and skill in, the construction, interpretation, and distribution of communication in diverse cultural and global communities • To promote theoretical understanding and professional/personal practice of effective and ethical human communication between and within a broad range of contexts and communities.
Program Learning GOALS: The electronic media major provides a solid educational foundation for a variety of careers in the ever-changing communication industry, including radio, television, audio/video, multimedia, and integrated digital media production, Web page design, and media management leadership. Through their course of study, students are guided to become both critical consumers of mass media, and competent, ethical electronic media professionals in multicultural and global environments.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Zhuojun Joyce Chen; [email protected]
Date submitted: 10/12/13
Assessment Period: AY 2012-2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include methods used,
when and where implemented, number assessed, person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more
detailed reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
History/Theory Research Methods Culture Ethics Skills
We have conducted student Exit Survey each semester in the class “Senior Seminar.” In the year 2012-2013, thirty nine students participated in the survey. Dr. Ronnie Bankston managed the survey. The outcome assessment results are shown below. The relevant questions are listed under each goal.
There were 25 questions that addressed whether or not the program had successfully met the learning goals. In the 2012-2013 academic year, out of 975 responses from 39 students, 89.4% of the responses identified that program outcomes had been met. 33 out of 39 students (group average- 93.2% of responses) identified program outcomes had been met. In fact, 6 out of 39 students accounted for over 45% of the negative responses. Among the 39 students, 17 students (43%) reported “yes” to all the questions (100%); 3 students (7.7%) had lower than 70% positive responses. According to student comments on the open-ended questions, the majority of students would like to pursue jobs in electronic media industries, such as video/television/film
The SOA data have been shared with the Electronic Media faculty and discussed at the committee meeting. At the department level, the data were reported to the department through the annual report of the major. Students did not have access to the data.
productions, radio/audio productions, and multimedia production and social media positions; the strengths of the major perceived by students are the faculty’s commitment to teaching and student projects, and the variety of courses and positive learning environment; the weaknesses reported are the higher ratio of theoretical courses to hands-on production courses/professional training, and the lack of up-to-date facilities and technologies. Some of the students have concerns about paying tuition for unpaid summer internships.
History/Theory: Understanding the historical development of theory and scholarship within the discipline/profession.
11. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the relationship between media production and audience perceptions of media content. 12. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the historical development of electronic media and media related industries. 20. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of theories that can be applied to electronic media content.
About 91.6% of student responses to the learning goal “History and Theory” were positive. However, it is 3.4 % lower than the 95% reported by the SOA 2011-2012. The lower number resulted from Q 22 that is about students’ knowledge and understanding of the structure of electronic
22. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the structure of electronic media industries.
media industries. Only 32 out of 39 students responded with a positive answer. Without Q22, students’ responses to the goal “History/Theory” would be 94.9%. The lower positive score students responded in 2012-2013 survey than that in 2011-2012 may be related to the rapid development of the Electronic Media industry. For example, printed media became part of electronic media; because electronic media were integrated with computer technologies, social media have emerged into electronic media.
Research Methods: Understanding appropriate methodologies to develop knowledge & to examine questions within the discipline/profession.
19. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of how to critically analyze electronic media content. 21. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of research methods that can be used to analyze electronic media content.
About 91% of student responses to the learning goal “Research Methods” were positive. It is 6% higher than the “85%” reported by the SOA 2011-2012. The reason for the increase may be because the new curriculum requires Electronic Media major students to take the department core courses, including “Introduction to Research Methods.”
Ethics: Understanding the ethical/legal issues within the discipline/industry and adhering to its ethical
10. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of how the electronic media may influence individuals and/or society.
About 98.2% of student responses to the learning goal “Ethics” were positive. It is 4.2% higher than the
standards. Understanding and exemplifying the values that individuals within the discipline/profession share.
24. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of ethical frameworks that can be used when facing ethical dilemmas. 25. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of codes of conduct that govern the operation of electronic media industries.
“94%” reported by the SOA 2011-2012. The result shows the enhancement of the teaching in the “Ethics” area.
Culture: Understanding the interconnections among communication, community, and culture.
5. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the social roles played by electronic media in society. 6. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the economic functions of electronic media in society. 7. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the cultural functions of electronic media in society. 8. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the political functions of electronic media in society. 9. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the ideological functions of electronic media in society. 23. The major provided me with an awareness and understanding of how I might influence electronic media programming decisions as a consumer and as a citizen.
About 93.6% of student responses to the learning goal “Culture” were positive. It is 2.4% lower than the “95%” reported by the SOA 2011-2012. The lower scores were reported by students to Q6 (economic functions, 85%), Q8 (political functions, 92%), and Q9 (ideological functions 90%). We may need to enhance the courses covering critical thinking skills and media industrial functions
Skills: Understanding and applying professional and personal skills in relevant contexts.
13. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of audio and video production systems. 14. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of how production resources
About 83.1% of student responses to the learning goal “Skills” were positive. It is 5.9% lower than the “89%” reported by students in the SOA 2011-2012.
can be utilized as part of a functioning production system or facility. 15. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of how to produce a variety of audio and video programs. 16. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the language and syntax of audio and video production. 17. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the meaning conveyed to audiences by specific production elements. 18. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of how to plan and organize production elements to achieve the intended goal of an audio or video program. 26. The major provided me with an understanding of how I can locate information about electronic media organizations and industries. 27. The major provided me with an understanding of how I can locate information about rules and regulations that govern the operation of electronic media industries. 28. The major provided me with an awareness of organizations and publications that can provide me with information about electronic media industries. 29. The major provided me with an awareness of specific individuals within the industry that can serve as contacts for information about
There were a few factors that might have impact on students’ learning processes and perceptions of their career expectations: a) in the year 2012-2013 one faculty member was on Professional Development leave and another was on the phased retirement program. This could have impacted student perceptions; b) the rapid development of media technology has required that the Electronic Media industry adapt to the multimedia production environment and the social media connections with target audiences, listeners, and users. However, with the limited number of faculty in the EM major it is impossible to cover the courses that would help students be prepared to meet the challenges from the industry and society; c) the facilities have not been fully upgraded to reflect developments in the industry. Therefore, the SOA results reveal the gap between student expectations and the learning environment we
specific electronic media-related matters. provide to the major. Next Steps: Encourage individual faculty members to conduct SOA or embed the SOA in the assignments or tests as time permits at the end of each semester. Work with department for SOA plan for the three COMM COR courses for the coming year.
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up (2012) Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps The focus of the SOA in 2012 was on the change in the electronic media industry and the data of student outcome assessments. 1. The Electronic Media students are
required to take the department core courses “Introduction to Research Methods” and “Communication Theories.”
2. Social media became an important skill
of EM students.
3. The New EM emphasis “Electronic Media Industry Leadership” has started to offer classes since the fall of 2012. A new instructor was hired to develop this program, and the first round of Iowa Broadcast Association scholarship was offered to students who were enrolled in the leadership emphasis program.
1. Because EM major students in the new curriculum cycle are required to take “Research Methods” class, the exit survey shows a higher percentage in the goal “Research Methods”, 91% in 2012-2013 by comparison with 85% in 2011-2012. In addition, there were three students’ papers being accepted by the National Conference on Undergraduate Research in 2013.
2. Social media as an important element has been embedded in EM course content, such as “Electronic Media Processes and Effects,” “Electronic Media and Culture,” etc.
3. A new tenure-track faculty member was
hired for the Electronic Media Industry Leadership emphasis starting in the fall of 2013. The curriculum development and SOA measurement are being reviewed.
1. The Exit survey of students learning will keep the questions that assess the outcome of learning research methods and communication theories. The Exit Survey Data would be useful for verifying the embedded SOA tests conducted in the courses of methods and theories. The relevant EM courses will provide opportunities for students to apply research methods to media studies.
2. Although the EM faculty has emphasized
the role of social media in the operation of Electronic Media industry, how to integrate social media in the courses is still an issue that needs to be further discussed.
3. This is making progress but still in its
experimental stage.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes (2013)
1. The lower percentages of positive learning responses to the Goal s “History/Theory,” “Culture,” and “Skills” may be related to the rapid development of electronic media technologies/industries, and the need for the replacement/new hire of EM faculty and the updated facilities.
2. In the new curriculum we added a new
course “First Year Electronic Media Seminar” to help students set up their study plans and connect to media professionals.
3. EM faculty members have embedded
multimedia production skills in their teaching in order to prepare EM students for current developments in the EM industry using multiple media platforms to reach viewers, listeners, and users.
4. In order to enhance students’ experiential learning in Electronic Media industries, we have organized the Annual Fast Forward workshop for EM students to learn about electronic media industries and contact professionals. In addition, the internship is an important experiential learning opportunity to help students learn industry structures and functions, and network with media professionals. The industry functions and structures were
1. In the situation of the rapid development of electronic media technologies and industries, the faculty and facility issues need to be solved as soon as possible to enhance the quality of the major.
2. Those students benefiting from this course may have not taken this exit survey yet.
3. A new curriculum will start in the fall of
2014. Multimedia production skills and social media implementations will be the focus for the discussion of the next curriculum change. We may add multimedia production and social media skills in the survey.
4. While continuously offering the Fast Forward Workshop, we need to enhance the internship program. We may waive the tuition charge on student summer internship to encourage students to take more internship opportunities locally, nationally, and/or internationally, because most of the internships were unpaid positions. The internship experience will help students not only gain skills but also learn knowledge about industry structures and functions, which would contribute to their learning about “Culture” and industry
listed in the Exit Survey for SOA for assess the goal “Culture.” However, they got lower positive scores.
5. Regarding the goal “Skill,” we have added an intermediate production course to the major which will enhance students’ skills.
“History.” 5. The production/performance students
are required to take the intermediate production course. The industry leadership students may take it as an elective course that would be useful for them to get an entry-level position in production and to be promoted to a management position later.
SOA Plan Revisions (2013) 1. Listed as an item on agenda to discuss
the details. 2. The Leadership emphasis is a new
curriculum of the EM major. The SOA Plan will be discussed at the EM committee meeting.
3. Conduct individual faculty’s SOA as the time permits by the end of each semester.
We’ll further discuss the SOA in 2013-14 and set up guidelines or criteria for the participation of all the EM faculty members. A direct measurement of SOA needs to be developed and a procedure set up to implement next year.
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
2012-2013
Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts, and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: Department of Communication Studies
Program: Public Relations Major and Public Relations Minor
Department/Unit MISSION:
• to assist students in becoming informed, responsible, creative, and critical communicators
• to enhance student knowledge of, and skill in, the construction, interpretation, and distribution of communication in diverse cultural and global communities
• to promote theoretical understanding and professional/personal practice of effective and ethical human communication between and within a broad range of contexts and communities.
Program Learning GOALS: To effectively teach students the theoretical, strategic, and practical aspects of practicing in the field of public relations.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Dr. Gayle Pohl, APR
Date submitted: 10/ 10/13
Assessment Period:
11/12-10/13
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning Outcomes Assessed
Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
(Outcome) History and Theory
Principles of Public Relations COMMPR 1811-- quizzes Public Relations Cases and Studies – quizzes and essays
-Average GPA for all quizzes in Fall 2012 was 3.12 and in Spring 2012 was 3.35 -Historical topics presenting a comparative analysis between yesterday and today’s public relations practices. -Average GPA for all quizzes in Fall 2012 was 3.4 and in Spring was 3.12
-Detailed grade distribution was verbally shared in class. Corrected quiz answers and comments were marked on individual quiz papers. -Essay content discussed in class
(Outcome) Research
Public Relations Campaign Methods COMMPR 4855—written campaign goals and objectives Public Relations Cases and Studies COMMPR4811 – quizzes, essays and campaign development
Written campaign goals and objectives were evaluated and critiqued. Goals and objectives were written in S.M.A.R.T. format. Strategies were specific and audience-oriented. -Average GPA for all quizzes per Fall 2012 was 3.34 and Spring 2012 was 3.12 Essay topics were on research methods and their use. -Various research methods were used in the public relations campaigns developed.
Detailed comments by faculty were given. Peer evaluations were conducted. Client comments were presented in an oral format about goals and objectives and helped to clarify achieve-able outcomes. -Essay content was discussed in class - Campaigns were designed and implemented.
(Outcome) Culture
Global Public Relations COMMPR4822- Case studies were analyzed for global implications, tests were administered, and culture training module designed
Campaigns were evaluated on the basis of international impact, measure-ability, economic impact, and ethics. -Average GPA of all tests for the Fall 2011 semester was 3.33 -Faculty and peer evaluations were given were given for the Culture training module
Detailed comments were given by faculty about the specificity of the analysis of campaign on “transcultureness” of the campaign, the economic impact assessment, the ethical impact, and the SWOT analysis. -Students orally presented the training module
(Outcome) Ethics
Public Relations Writing COMMPR 3855—case studies presented and class discussion
Case studies on written materials were shared where students interacted about the ethics of various organizational situations.
Class discussions were held about the differences between law and ethics in writing.
Theory Public Relations Cases and Studies COMMPR 4811 – Analysis of public relations case study, tests and essays are required.
Students find it difficult to analyze a campaign based on research because they do not like to do research. They do come to a point where they strategically begin to question the process of the development of the campaign, though. This assignment teaches the students to think strategically rather than tactically. To earn a management seat a public relations practitioner is NOT a tactician today he or she is a strategist, so this skill is essential. -The average test GPA for Fall 2012 was 3.32 and for Spring 2013 was 3.1. --The theories were analyzed and a paper was submitted
Students receive a detailed written evaluation from faculty. The training module was presented to the class and a discussion ensured. Individual grades were distributed to the class members.
Skills Public Relations Writing COMMPR 3855 --writing projects -Public Relations Campaign Methods –COMMPR 4855 – Various campaign strategies/methods are learned in campaign implementation -Integrated Communication- COMMPR3844 – review of an integrated public relations campaign case Exams were given
Proposals, white papers, social media banner ads, pitch letters, backgrounders, feature stories, and TV/Radio releases are written for a specified client (chosen by the class). Students are learning proper public relations writing techniques and differentiating it from journalistic writing. Average GPA in class is a 3.5 -Students plan and implement a sponsorship plan, media plan, media framework analysis, and pitch campaign. Media planning in a campaign proposal Average GPA for exams for Spring 2011 was 3.5
Faculty wrote evaluations for each student. -Client presentation was made. -Individual grades are distributed -Contest for winner per client -Faculty evaluations -Class discussions of proposal
Next Steps: Work with department for SOA plan for the three COMM COR courses for the coming year.
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes
Program now requires students to take
Business and Professional Oral Communication (BPOC)
Public relations practitioners often make presentations on a daily basis. The required inclusion of BPOC gives students the skills
to deliver professional presentations effectively.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes The emphases of crisis and integrated
perspective in the public relations classes were strengthened with the addition of Dr.
Jeffrey Brand.
More faculty are still needed in the major to fill all the course requirements and to expand the major and add specialty courses/ emphases that students are desiring such as entertainment and sports public relations and event planning.
SOA Plan Revisions The major needs to include specialties
such as sports and event planning in public relations.
Pubic Relations students are looking to specialize in public relations so the major will be refocusing in order to offer a general program as well as specialized tracks.
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) The lack of hiring needed faculty is stifling the growth of the program, so we are looking for new and innovative ways to grow the major with limited resources. Obviously this is a challenge, but the public relations faculty are trying to be creative and plant the necessary seeds for new growth.
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT 2013
Name of College: CHAS
Name of Department/Unit: Communication Studies
Program: Graduate Program
Department/Unit Mission: The Graduate Program in the Department of Communication Studies provides students with Master’s level training in communication studies and helps them further prepare for specific career choices, including study at the Ph.D. level, teaching, and non-academic professional applications. The program offers six areas of specialization: Communication Education, General Communication, Mass Communication, Organizational Communication, Performance Studies, and Public Relations. In each of these areas, our mission is to cultivate practicing scholars who can critically apply theories and research methods in the public and professional arenas they serve. We seek to provide our students with opportunities to enhance practice with theory, and theory with practice, recognizing that a balanced relationship between the two is necessary to create thoughtful, effective scholarly, professional, and creative work.
Program Learning Goals: Goal 1 Communication History/Theory: Students will understand the historical development of theory and scholarship within communication studies.
1a. Students will list and discuss the historical precedents and contemporary applications of a variety of theories. 1b. Students will comprehend, apply, and evaluate several theories appropriate to the study and production of communication. 1c. Students will analyze and describe the role of communication in the construction, maintenance, and alteration of culture and meaning. 1d. Students will be able to identify and articulate their own theoretical perspective. 1e. Students will be able to identify the way evolving communication theories and technologies impact communication ethics.
Goal 2 Communication Research Methods: Students will understand appropriate methodologies to ethically examine questions within the
communication studies discipline/profession. 2a. Students will understand multiple research methods and their role and application in knowledge construction. 2b. Students will demonstrate graduate-level proficiency in selecting and using research methods appropriate for production of a thesis/research paper/creative project. 2c. Students will use ethical procedures in conducting their research. 2d. Students will adhere to IRB standards for all research conducted.
Goal 3 Communication Skills: Students will understand and apply oral and written communication skills in relevant contexts.
3a. Students will compose written essays throughout the course of graduate study that conform to nationally recognized standards for professional or scholarly production and publication. 3b. Students will author a thesis/research paper/creative project that conforms to nationally recognized standards for scholarly/creative production and publication at the graduate level. 3c. Students will make oral presentations at regular points throughout the course of graduate study (in the graduate seminar, prospectus presentation, thesis/research paper/creative project presentation) that demonstrate increasingly sophisticated skills in oral communication. 3d. Students will be able to identify the ethical issues implicated in their communication choices. 3e. Students will understand the norms of professional communication.
Goal 4 Communication Praxisi and Community Engagement: Students will integrate communication theories with practices/actions that enhance engagement with civic and/or professional communities.
4a. Students will formulate a thesis/research paper/creative project topic that identifies locations in which theory and practice intersect. 4b. Students will develop a method for disseminating the results of the thesis/research paper/creative project to relevant civic and/or professional communities. 4c. Students will identify the ways in which theories should inform practice.
i Praxis defined: 1. Practical application or exercise of a branch of learning. 2.
Habitual or established practice; custom. 3. Creativity is a mode; praxis is a method. 4. Exercise or discipline for a specific purpose or object. 5. Praxis is the integration of theory and practice, the integration of research and action.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): April Chatham-Carpenter ([email protected])
Date submitted: October 15, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning Outcomes Assessed
Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
(Outcome) Goal 1: History/theory Ongoing, embedded assessment rubric with 1) comprehensive exam and (approximately 15 per year) and 2) thesis/research paper (approximately 15 per year). Rubric completed by comp. exam graders and thesis/research paper committee.
A focus on the historical precedents & contemporary applications (goal 1a) portion of the intro to research class papers, comps, research papers, and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 = exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For intro to research class papers, the average score was a 2.22. For comprehensive exams, the average was 1.83. For research papers, the average was 1.83, and for theses, it was 1.35. A focus on the comprehend (goal 1bi) portion of the intro to research class papers, comps, research papers, and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 = exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For intro to research class papers, the average score was a 2.09. For comprehensive exams, the average was 1.74. For research papers, the average was 1.43, and for theses, it was 1.30. A focus on the apply & evaluate (goal 1bii) portion of the intro to research class papers, comps, research papers, and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 = exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For
We will discuss these findings and processes in graduate program meetings.
intro to research class papers, the average score was a 2.13. For comprehensive exams, the average was 1.92. For research papers, the average was 1.46, and for theses, it was 1.46. A focus on the role of communication in culture & meaning (goal 1c) portion of the intro to research class papers, comps, research papers, and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 = exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For intro to research class papers, the average score was a 2.10. For comprehensive exams, the average was 2.00. For research papers, the average was 1.60, and for theses, it was 1.32. A focus on the identify & articulate their own theoretical perspective (goal 1d) portion of the intro to research class papers, comps, research papers, and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 = exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For intro to research class papers, the average score was a 2.24. For comprehensive exams, the average was 2.07. For research papers, the average was 1.71, and for theses, it was 1.44. A focus on evolving communication theories & technology impact on communication ethics (goal 1e) portion of the intro to research class papers, comps, research papers,
and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 = exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For intro to research class papers, the average score was a 2.41. For comprehensive exams, the average was 2.40. For research papers, the average was 1.50, and for theses, it was 1.91.
(Outcome) Goal 2: Methods Ongoing, embedded assessment rubric with 1) comprehensive exam and (approximately 15 per year) and 2) thesis/research paper (approximately 15 per year). Rubric completed by comp. exam graders and thesis/research paper committee.
We have started compiling the data from these sources into a spreadsheet as the data is generated.
We will discuss these findings and processes in graduate program meetings.
(Outcome) Goal 3: Communication Skills
Ongoing embedded assessment of presentation at end of Intro to Grad studies class by instructor (approximately 20 per year) and thesis defense (approximately 6 per year)
A focus on the writing (goal 3a) portion of the intro to research class papers, comps, research papers, and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 = exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For intro to research class papers, the average score was a 1.73. For comprehensive exams, the average was 1.73. For research papers, the average was 1.22, and for theses, it was 1.23. A focus on the oral communication (goal 3c) portion of the intro to research class papers, research papers, and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 =
Sharing of these results will happen at a future graduate program meeting.
exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For the intro to research class presentations, the average was 1.65, and for theses and research papers, it was 1.40. A focus on the ethics (goal 3d) portion, across all of the data sets, was 1.32.
(Outcome) Goal 4 praxis On-line survey administered by April Chatham-Carpenter, with 34 responses since Spring 2010.
Students report they are able to integrate communication theories with practice that enhance engagement with: civic communities (average 4.26, on a scale of 1-5, 5 being strongly agree) and professional communities (4.24). On developing knowledge on how to integrate theory and practice AND on presently integrating theory into practice, the average was 4.15 and 4.38 respectively. When asked if the graduate program provided them with the needed resources to integrate theory into practice, the average was 4.12. Classroom research, creative experiences (both scholarly & applied), and coursework were the resources students rated the highest in terms of helping them develop the ability to integrate communication theories with practices/actions in their life. However, the majority noted they had not taken advantage of graduate internships to help them. Open-ended comments indicated the following experiences being most helpful for this goal: Teaching practicums, organizational assessments, creative work,
We will discuss these findings and processes in graduate program meetings.
presenting at conferences, and practical PR work. However, several students mentioned the need for more work-based internships required for the program, rather than making the program being more research-based for Ph.D.-bound students.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes: 1. Completely new comp exam process
instituted. Assessment of it has begun with exams taken AY2011-12. Methods and theory, in relation to the comp exams, had been our focus with the establishment of these exams. We have begun discussion on whether the comp exams are adequately working for measuring theory and methods.
2. Solicit papers from first year students at
end of first year from a graduate level course. This has not been consistently done, because of turnover in instructors.
3. Develop procedure to collect resume (or list
of presentations/publications) at end of masters.
4. Communication Skills: We need to talk
about the data collected on both writing and speaking. Consider institutionalizing an oral presentation of research papers into that process and add an oral presentation component (in addition to the oral defense)
1. We have applied rubrics to our new comp
exams these past 2 years. Starting Fall, 2012, a spreadsheet with data was created with data being entered as it is generated. This is allowing us to see if the data we’re gathering is adequate for measuring our outcomes.
2. We need to make sure the rubrics for
these papers are gotten from instructors who teach these classes.
3. Not done yet, needs to be developed 4. Data collected on spreadsheet & analyzed (see results above).
1. We will discuss the data on Theory at future
graduate meetings. 2. The focus will be on the methods goal in
the AY 2013-14 upcoming year, for our comps data, to reevaluate both our process and our students’ progress.
to the thesis process. 5. Praxis: Along with communication skills,
attention to praxis will continue.
5. Data continues to be collected each year.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes none
None. We continue to implement the assessment plan, focusing on one goal at a time. With the new comp exams in place, our attention focused this year on theory. We need to discuss the findings in an upcoming graduate faculty meeting.
1. Existing data on communication skills and praxis has been compiled and examined.
2. Existing longitudinal data on theory and method needs to be assessed to see if value is added from intro class, to comp exam, to final project.
SOA Plan Revisions Faculty do not always remember to fill out embedded assessments on theses/research papers. Our process has been to charge the committee chair with distributing documents, and this has not always worked.
We need to alter the system so that faculty remember to do embedded assessments of theses/research papers and with the final paper in the intro class.
Institute a notification system in the main office whenever signature pages are submitted.
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) We believe we have closed the first loop on methods and theory, with our overhaul of the comprehensive exam process. The Grad program SOA co-chairs produced a 4 page report, with recommendations, based on the SOA data. Very productive debate occurred in the graduate program about the form and function of comprehensive exams. Subcommittees were constituted for methods and history/theory to propose exam questions and study guides. Each subcommittee produced sample exam questions, as well as a study guide and bibliography to go along with each area (the theory document is 8 pages long, and the methods document is 17 pages long). Graduate student feedback was solicited on these documents, and they were distributed to incoming graduate students during Fall 2010 and 2011 orientation meetings. The new exams started during AY2011-12. Faculty who teach courses that feed into the exams have begun to adjust their syllabi to speak to the goals of the department more clearly, goals the comp exams enact. We believe this is a real success story for the SOA process. The data gathered enabled us to see that our comp exam process was not working harmoniously with our program goals.
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
2012-2013
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNICATION STUDIES
PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN REPORT: 1. COMMUNICATION 2. PUBLIC RELATIONS 3. ELECTRONIC MEDIA 4. GRADUATE PROGRAM
SUBMITTED BY: APRIL CHATHAM-CARPENTER, DEPARTMENTAL SOA CHAIR
DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2013
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT 2012-2013
Name of College: CHAS
Name of Department/Unit: Department of Communication Studies
Program: Electronic Media
Department/Unit MISSION:
• To assist students in becoming informed, responsible, creative, and critical communicators • To enhance student knowledge of, and skill in, the construction, interpretation, and distribution of communication in diverse cultural and global communities • To promote theoretical understanding and professional/personal practice of effective and ethical human communication between and within a broad range of contexts and communities.
Program Learning GOALS: The electronic media major provides a solid educational foundation for a variety of careers in the ever-changing communication industry, including radio, television, audio/video, multimedia, and integrated digital media production, Web page design, and media management leadership. Through their course of study, students are guided to become both critical consumers of mass media, and competent, ethical electronic media professionals in multicultural and global environments.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Zhuojun Joyce Chen; [email protected]
Date submitted: 10/12/13
Assessment Period: AY 2012-2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include methods used,
when and where implemented, number assessed, person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more
detailed reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
History/Theory Research Methods Culture Ethics Skills
We have conducted student Exit Survey each semester in the class “Senior Seminar.” In the year 2012-2013, thirty nine students participated in the survey. Dr. Ronnie Bankston managed the survey. The outcome assessment results are shown below. The relevant questions are listed under each goal.
There were 25 questions that addressed whether or not the program had successfully met the learning goals. In the 2012-2013 academic year, out of 975 responses from 39 students, 89.4% of the responses identified that program outcomes had been met. 33 out of 39 students (group average- 93.2% of responses) identified program outcomes had been met. In fact, 6 out of 39 students accounted for over 45% of the negative responses. Among the 39 students, 17 students (43%) reported “yes” to all the questions (100%); 3 students (7.7%) had lower than 70% positive responses. According to student comments on the open-ended questions, the majority of students would like to pursue jobs in electronic media industries, such as video/television/film
The SOA data have been shared with the Electronic Media faculty and discussed at the committee meeting. At the department level, the data were reported to the department through the annual report of the major. Students did not have access to the data.
productions, radio/audio productions, and multimedia production and social media positions; the strengths of the major perceived by students are the faculty’s commitment to teaching and student projects, and the variety of courses and positive learning environment; the weaknesses reported are the higher ratio of theoretical courses to hands-on production courses/professional training, and the lack of up-to-date facilities and technologies. Some of the students have concerns about paying tuition for unpaid summer internships.
History/Theory: Understanding the historical development of theory and scholarship within the discipline/profession.
11. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the relationship between media production and audience perceptions of media content. 12. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the historical development of electronic media and media related industries. 20. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of theories that can be applied to electronic media content.
About 91.6% of student responses to the learning goal “History and Theory” were positive. However, it is 3.4 % lower than the 95% reported by the SOA 2011-2012. The lower number resulted from Q 22 that is about students’ knowledge and understanding of the structure of electronic
22. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the structure of electronic media industries.
media industries. Only 32 out of 39 students responded with a positive answer. Without Q22, students’ responses to the goal “History/Theory” would be 94.9%. The lower positive score students responded in 2012-2013 survey than that in 2011-2012 may be related to the rapid development of the Electronic Media industry. For example, printed media became part of electronic media; because electronic media were integrated with computer technologies, social media have emerged into electronic media.
Research Methods: Understanding appropriate methodologies to develop knowledge & to examine questions within the discipline/profession.
19. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of how to critically analyze electronic media content. 21. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of research methods that can be used to analyze electronic media content.
About 91% of student responses to the learning goal “Research Methods” were positive. It is 6% higher than the “85%” reported by the SOA 2011-2012. The reason for the increase may be because the new curriculum requires Electronic Media major students to take the department core courses, including “Introduction to Research Methods.”
Ethics: Understanding the ethical/legal issues within the discipline/industry and
10. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of how the electronic media may influence individuals and/or society.
About 98.2% of student responses to the learning goal “Ethics” were positive. It is 4.2% higher than the
adhering to its ethical standards. Understanding and exemplifying the values that individuals within the discipline/profession share.
24. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of ethical frameworks that can be used when facing ethical dilemmas. 25. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of codes of conduct that govern the operation of electronic media industries.
“94%” reported by the SOA 2011-2012. The result shows the enhancement of the teaching in the “Ethics” area.
Culture: Understanding the interconnections among communication, community, and culture.
5. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the social roles played by electronic media in society. 6. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the economic functions of electronic media in society. 7. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the cultural functions of electronic media in society. 8. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the political functions of electronic media in society. 9. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the ideological functions of electronic media in society. 23. The major provided me with an awareness and understanding of how I might influence electronic media programming decisions as a consumer and as a citizen.
About 93.6% of student responses to the learning goal “Culture” were positive. It is 2.4% lower than the “95%” reported by the SOA 2011-2012. The lower scores were reported by students to Q6 (economic functions, 85%), Q8 (political functions, 92%), and Q9 (ideological functions 90%). We may need to enhance the courses covering critical thinking skills and media industrial functions
Skills: Understanding and applying professional and personal skills in relevant contexts.
13. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of audio and video production systems. 14. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of how production resources
About 83.1% of student responses to the learning goal “Skills” were positive. It is 5.9% lower than the “89%” reported by students in the SOA 2011-2012.
can be utilized as part of a functioning production system or facility. 15. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of how to produce a variety of audio and video programs. 16. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the language and syntax of audio and video production. 17. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of the meaning conveyed to audiences by specific production elements. 18. The major increased my knowledge and understanding of how to plan and organize production elements to achieve the intended goal of an audio or video program. 26. The major provided me with an understanding of how I can locate information about electronic media organizations and industries. 27. The major provided me with an understanding of how I can locate information about rules and regulations that govern the operation of electronic media industries. 28. The major provided me with an awareness of organizations and publications that can provide me with information about electronic media industries. 29. The major provided me with an awareness of specific individuals within the industry that
There were a few factors that might have impact on students’ learning processes and perceptions of their career expectations: a) in the year 2012-2013 one faculty member was on Professional Development leave and another was on the phased retirement program. This could have impacted student perceptions; b) the rapid development of media technology has required that the Electronic Media industry adapt to the multimedia production environment and the social media connections with target audiences, listeners, and users. However, with the limited number of faculty in the EM major it is impossible to cover the courses that would help students be prepared to meet the challenges from the industry and society; c) the facilities have not been fully upgraded to reflect developments in the industry. Therefore, the SOA results reveal the gap between student expectations and the
can serve as contacts for information about specific electronic media-related matters.
learning environment we provide to the major.
Next Steps: Encourage individual faculty members to conduct SOA or embed the SOA in the assignments or tests as time permits at the end of each semester. Work with department for SOA plan for the three COMM COR courses for the coming year.
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up (2012) Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps The focus of the SOA in 2012 was on the change in the electronic media industry and the data of student outcome assessments. 1. The Electronic Media students are
required to take the department core courses “Introduction to Research Methods” and “Communication Theories.”
2. Social media became an important skill
of EM students.
3. The New EM emphasis “Electronic Media Industry Leadership” has started to offer classes since the fall of 2012. A new instructor was hired to develop this program, and the first round of Iowa Broadcast Association scholarship was offered to students who were enrolled in the leadership emphasis program.
1. Because EM major students in the new curriculum cycle are required to take “Research Methods” class, the exit survey shows a higher percentage in the goal “Research Methods”, 91% in 2012-2013 by comparison with 85% in 2011-2012. In addition, there were three students’ papers being accepted by the National Conference on Undergraduate Research in 2013.
2. Social media as an important element has been embedded in EM course content, such as “Electronic Media Processes and Effects,” “Electronic Media and Culture,” etc.
3. A new tenure-track faculty member was
hired for the Electronic Media Industry Leadership emphasis starting in the fall of 2013. The curriculum development and SOA measurement are being reviewed.
1. The Exit survey of students learning will keep the questions that assess the outcome of learning research methods and communication theories. The Exit Survey Data would be useful for verifying the embedded SOA tests conducted in the courses of methods and theories. The relevant EM courses will provide opportunities for students to apply research methods to media studies.
2. Although the EM faculty has emphasized
the role of social media in the operation of Electronic Media industry, how to integrate social media in the courses is still an issue that needs to be further discussed.
3. This is making progress but still in its
experimental stage.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes (2013)
1. The lower percentages of positive learning responses to the Goal s “History/Theory,” “Culture,” and “Skills” may be related to the rapid development of electronic media technologies/industries, and the need for the replacement/new hire of EM faculty and the updated facilities.
2. In the new curriculum we added a new
course “First Year Electronic Media Seminar” to help students set up their study plans and connect to media professionals.
3. EM faculty members have embedded
multimedia production skills in their teaching in order to prepare EM students for current developments in the EM industry using multiple media platforms to reach viewers, listeners, and users.
4. In order to enhance students’ experiential learning in Electronic Media industries, we have organized the Annual Fast Forward workshop for EM students to learn about electronic media industries and contact professionals. In addition, the internship is an important experiential learning opportunity to help students learn industry structures and functions, and network with media professionals. The
1. In the situation of the rapid development of electronic media technologies and industries, the faculty and facility issues need to be solved as soon as possible to enhance the quality of the major.
2. Those students benefiting from this course may have not taken this exit survey yet.
3. A new curriculum will start in the fall of
2014. Multimedia production skills and social media implementations will be the focus for the discussion of the next curriculum change. We may add multimedia production and social media skills in the survey.
4. While continuously offering the Fast Forward Workshop, we need to enhance the internship program. We may waive the tuition charge on student summer internship to encourage students to take more internship opportunities locally, nationally, and/or internationally, because most of the internships were unpaid positions. The internship experience will help students not only gain skills but also learn knowledge about industry structures and functions,
industry functions and structures were listed in the Exit Survey for SOA for assess the goal “Culture.” However, they got lower positive scores.
5. Regarding the goal “Skill,” we have added an intermediate production course to the major which will enhance students’ skills.
which would contribute to their learning about “Culture” and industry “History.”
5. The production/performance students
are required to take the intermediate production course. The industry leadership students may take it as an elective course that would be useful for them to get an entry-level position in production and to be promoted to a management position later.
SOA Plan Revisions (2013) 1. Listed as an item on agenda to discuss
the details. 2. The Leadership emphasis is a new
curriculum of the EM major. The SOA Plan will be discussed at the EM committee meeting.
3. Conduct individual faculty’s SOA as the time permits by the end of each semester.
We’ll further discuss the SOA in 2013-14 and set up guidelines or criteria for the participation of all the EM faculty members. A direct measurement of SOA needs to be developed and a procedure set up to implement next year.
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
2012-2013
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNICATION STUDIES
PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN REPORT: 1. COMMUNICATION 2. PUBLIC RELATIONS 3. ELECTRONIC MEDIA 4. GRADUATE PROGRAM
SUBMITTED BY: APRIL CHATHAM-CARPENTER, DEPARTMENTAL SOA CHAIR
DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2013
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT 2013
Name of College: CHAS
Name of Department/Unit: Communication Studies
Program: Graduate Program
Department/Unit Mission: The Graduate Program in the Department of Communication Studies provides students with Master’s level training in communication studies and helps them further prepare for specific career choices, including study at the Ph.D. level, teaching, and non-academic professional applications. The program offers six areas of specialization: Communication Education, General Communication, Mass Communication, Organizational Communication, Performance Studies, and Public Relations. In each of these areas, our mission is to cultivate practicing scholars who can critically apply theories and research methods in the public and professional arenas they serve. We seek to provide our students with opportunities to enhance practice with theory, and theory with practice, recognizing that a balanced relationship between the two is necessary to create thoughtful, effective scholarly, professional, and creative work.
Program Learning Goals: Goal 1 Communication History/Theory: Students will understand the historical development of theory and scholarship within communication studies.
1a. Students will list and discuss the historical precedents and contemporary applications of a variety of theories. 1b. Students will comprehend, apply, and evaluate several theories appropriate to the study and production of communication. 1c. Students will analyze and describe the role of communication in the construction, maintenance, and alteration of culture and meaning. 1d. Students will be able to identify and articulate their own theoretical perspective. 1e. Students will be able to identify the way evolving communication theories and technologies impact communication ethics.
Goal 2 Communication Research Methods: Students will understand appropriate methodologies to ethically examine questions within the
communication studies discipline/profession. 2a. Students will understand multiple research methods and their role and application in knowledge construction. 2b. Students will demonstrate graduate-level proficiency in selecting and using research methods appropriate for production of a thesis/research paper/creative project. 2c. Students will use ethical procedures in conducting their research. 2d. Students will adhere to IRB standards for all research conducted.
Goal 3 Communication Skills: Students will understand and apply oral and written communication skills in relevant contexts.
3a. Students will compose written essays throughout the course of graduate study that conform to nationally recognized standards for professional or scholarly production and publication. 3b. Students will author a thesis/research paper/creative project that conforms to nationally recognized standards for scholarly/creative production and publication at the graduate level. 3c. Students will make oral presentations at regular points throughout the course of graduate study (in the graduate seminar, prospectus presentation, thesis/research paper/creative project presentation) that demonstrate increasingly sophisticated skills in oral communication. 3d. Students will be able to identify the ethical issues implicated in their communication choices. 3e. Students will understand the norms of professional communication.
Goal 4 Communication Praxisi and Community Engagement: Students will integrate communication theories with practices/actions that enhance engagement with civic and/or professional communities.
4a. Students will formulate a thesis/research paper/creative project topic that identifies locations in which theory and practice intersect. 4b. Students will develop a method for disseminating the results of the thesis/research paper/creative project to relevant civic and/or professional communities. 4c. Students will identify the ways in which theories should inform practice.
i Praxis defined: 1. Practical application or exercise of a branch of learning. 2.
Habitual or established practice; custom. 3. Creativity is a mode; praxis is a method. 4. Exercise or discipline for a specific purpose or object. 5. Praxis is the integration of theory and practice, the integration of research and action.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): April Chatham-Carpenter ([email protected])
Date submitted: October 15, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning Outcomes Assessed
Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
(Outcome) Goal 1: History/theory Ongoing, embedded assessment rubric with 1) comprehensive exam and (approximately 15 per year) and 2) thesis/research paper (approximately 15 per year). Rubric completed by comp. exam graders and thesis/research paper committee.
A focus on the historical precedents & contemporary applications (goal 1a) portion of the intro to research class papers, comps, research papers, and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 = exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For intro to research class papers, the average score was a 2.22. For comprehensive exams, the average was 1.83. For research papers, the average was 1.83, and for theses, it was 1.35. A focus on the comprehend (goal 1bi) portion of the intro to research class papers, comps, research papers, and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 = exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For intro to research class papers, the average score was a 2.09. For comprehensive exams, the average was 1.74. For research papers, the average was 1.43, and for theses, it was 1.30. A focus on the apply & evaluate (goal 1bii) portion of the intro to research class papers, comps, research papers, and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 = exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For
We will discuss these findings and processes in graduate program meetings.
intro to research class papers, the average score was a 2.13. For comprehensive exams, the average was 1.92. For research papers, the average was 1.46, and for theses, it was 1.46. A focus on the role of communication in culture & meaning (goal 1c) portion of the intro to research class papers, comps, research papers, and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 = exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For intro to research class papers, the average score was a 2.10. For comprehensive exams, the average was 2.00. For research papers, the average was 1.60, and for theses, it was 1.32. A focus on the identify & articulate their own theoretical perspective (goal 1d) portion of the intro to research class papers, comps, research papers, and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 = exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For intro to research class papers, the average score was a 2.24. For comprehensive exams, the average was 2.07. For research papers, the average was 1.71, and for theses, it was 1.44. A focus on evolving communication theories & technology impact on communication ethics (goal 1e) portion of the intro to research class papers, comps, research papers,
and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 = exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For intro to research class papers, the average score was a 2.41. For comprehensive exams, the average was 2.40. For research papers, the average was 1.50, and for theses, it was 1.91.
(Outcome) Goal 2: Methods Ongoing, embedded assessment rubric with 1) comprehensive exam and (approximately 15 per year) and 2) thesis/research paper (approximately 15 per year). Rubric completed by comp. exam graders and thesis/research paper committee.
We have started compiling the data from these sources into a spreadsheet as the data is generated.
We will discuss these findings and processes in graduate program meetings.
(Outcome) Goal 3: Communication Skills
Ongoing embedded assessment of presentation at end of Intro to Grad studies class by instructor (approximately 20 per year) and thesis defense (approximately 6 per year)
A focus on the writing (goal 3a) portion of the intro to research class papers, comps, research papers, and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 = exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For intro to research class papers, the average score was a 1.73. For comprehensive exams, the average was 1.73. For research papers, the average was 1.22, and for theses, it was 1.23. A focus on the oral communication (goal 3c) portion of the intro to research class papers, research papers, and theses indicate the following results on a 3-point scale (with 1 =
Sharing of these results will happen at a future graduate program meeting.
exemplary, 2 = competent, & 3 = marginal). For the intro to research class presentations, the average was 1.65, and for theses and research papers, it was 1.40. A focus on the ethics (goal 3d) portion, across all of the data sets, was 1.32.
(Outcome) Goal 4 praxis On-line survey administered by April Chatham-Carpenter, with 34 responses since Spring 2010.
Students report they are able to integrate communication theories with practice that enhance engagement with: civic communities (average 4.26, on a scale of 1-5, 5 being strongly agree) and professional communities (4.24). On developing knowledge on how to integrate theory and practice AND on presently integrating theory into practice, the average was 4.15 and 4.38 respectively. When asked if the graduate program provided them with the needed resources to integrate theory into practice, the average was 4.12. Classroom research, creative experiences (both scholarly & applied), and coursework were the resources students rated the highest in terms of helping them develop the ability to integrate communication theories with practices/actions in their life. However, the majority noted they had not taken advantage of graduate internships to help them. Open-ended comments indicated the following experiences being most helpful for this goal: Teaching practicums, organizational assessments, creative work,
We will discuss these findings and processes in graduate program meetings.
presenting at conferences, and practical PR work. However, several students mentioned the need for more work-based internships required for the program, rather than making the program being more research-based for Ph.D.-bound students.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes: 1. Completely new comp exam process
instituted. Assessment of it has begun with exams taken AY2011-12. Methods and theory, in relation to the comp exams, had been our focus with the establishment of these exams. We have begun discussion on whether the comp exams are adequately working for measuring theory and methods.
2. Solicit papers from first year students at
end of first year from a graduate level course. This has not been consistently done, because of turnover in instructors.
3. Develop procedure to collect resume (or list
of presentations/publications) at end of masters.
4. Communication Skills: We need to talk
about the data collected on both writing and speaking. Consider institutionalizing an oral presentation of research papers into that process and add an oral presentation
1. We have applied rubrics to our new comp
exams these past 2 years. Starting Fall, 2012, a spreadsheet with data was created with data being entered as it is generated. This is allowing us to see if the data we’re gathering is adequate for measuring our outcomes.
2. We need to make sure the rubrics for
these papers are gotten from instructors who teach these classes.
3. Not done yet, needs to be developed 4. Data collected on spreadsheet & analyzed (see results above).
1. We will discuss the data on Theory at
future graduate meetings. 2. The focus will be on the methods goal in
the AY 2013-14 upcoming year, for our comps data, to reevaluate both our process and our students’ progress.
component (in addition to the oral defense) to the thesis process.
5. Praxis: Along with communication skills,
attention to praxis will continue.
5. Data continues to be collected each year.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes none
None. We continue to implement the assessment plan, focusing on one goal at a time. With the new comp exams in place, our attention focused this year on theory. We need to discuss the findings in an upcoming graduate faculty meeting.
1. Existing data on communication skills and praxis has been compiled and examined.
2. Existing longitudinal data on theory and method needs to be assessed to see if value is added from intro class, to comp exam, to final project.
SOA Plan Revisions Faculty do not always remember to fill out embedded assessments on theses/research papers. Our process has been to charge the committee chair with distributing documents, and this has not always worked.
We need to alter the system so that faculty remember to do embedded assessments of theses/research papers and with the final paper in the intro class.
Institute a notification system in the main office whenever signature pages are submitted.
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) We believe we have closed the first loop on methods and theory, with our overhaul of the comprehensive exam process. The Grad program SOA co-chairs produced a 4 page report, with recommendations, based on the SOA data. Very productive debate occurred in the graduate program about the form and function of comprehensive exams. Subcommittees were constituted for methods and history/theory to propose exam questions and study guides. Each subcommittee produced sample exam questions, as well as a study guide and bibliography to go along with each area (the theory document is 8 pages long, and the methods document is 17 pages long). Graduate student feedback was solicited on these documents, and they were distributed to incoming graduate students during Fall 2010 and 2011 orientation meetings. The new exams started during AY2011-12. Faculty who teach courses that feed into the exams have begun to adjust their syllabi to speak to the goals of the department more clearly, goals the comp exams enact. We believe this is a real success story for the SOA process. The data gathered enabled us to see that our comp exam process was not working harmoniously with our program goals.
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
2012-2013
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNICATION STUDIES
PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN REPORT: 1. COMMUNICATION 2. PUBLIC RELATIONS 3. ELECTRONIC MEDIA 4. GRADUATE PROGRAM
SUBMITTED BY: APRIL CHATHAM-CARPENTER, DEPARTMENTAL SOA CHAIR
DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2013
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
2012-2013
Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts, and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: Department of Communication Studies
Program: Public Relations Major and Public Relations Minor
Department/Unit MISSION:
• to assist students in becoming informed, responsible, creative, and critical communicators
• to enhance student knowledge of, and skill in, the construction, interpretation, and distribution of communication in diverse cultural and global communities
• to promote theoretical understanding and professional/personal practice of effective and ethical human communication between and within a broad range of contexts and communities.
Program Learning GOALS: To effectively teach students the theoretical, strategic, and practical aspects of practicing in the field of public relations.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail):
Dr. Gayle Pohl, APR
Date submitted: 10/ 10/13
Assessment Period:
11/12-10/13
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning Outcomes Assessed
Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
(Outcome) History and Theory
Principles of Public Relations COMMPR 1811-- quizzes Public Relations Cases and Studies – quizzes and essays
-Average GPA for all quizzes in Fall 2012 was 3.12 and in Spring 2012 was 3.35 -Historical topics presenting a comparative analysis between yesterday and today’s public relations practices. -Average GPA for all quizzes in Fall 2012 was 3.4 and in Spring was 3.12
-Detailed grade distribution was verbally shared in class. Corrected quiz answers and comments were marked on individual quiz papers. -Essay content discussed in class
(Outcome) Research
Public Relations Campaign Methods COMMPR 4855—written campaign goals and objectives Public Relations Cases and Studies COMMPR4811 – quizzes, essays and campaign development
Written campaign goals and objectives were evaluated and critiqued. Goals and objectives were written in S.M.A.R.T. format. Strategies were specific and audience-oriented. -Average GPA for all quizzes per Fall 2012 was 3.34 and Spring 2012 was 3.12 Essay topics were on research methods and their use. -Various research methods were used in the public relations campaigns developed.
Detailed comments by faculty were given. Peer evaluations were conducted. Client comments were presented in an oral format about goals and objectives and helped to clarify achieve-able outcomes. -Essay content was discussed in class - Campaigns were designed and implemented.
(Outcome) Culture
Global Public Relations COMMPR4822- Case studies were analyzed for global implications, tests were administered, and culture training module designed
Campaigns were evaluated on the basis of international impact, measure-ability, economic impact, and ethics. -Average GPA of all tests for the Fall 2011 semester was 3.33 -Faculty and peer evaluations were given were given for the Culture training module
Detailed comments were given by faculty about the specificity of the analysis of campaign on “transcultureness” of the campaign, the economic impact assessment, the ethical impact, and the SWOT analysis. -Students orally presented the training module
(Outcome) Ethics
Public Relations Writing COMMPR 3855—case studies presented and class discussion
Case studies on written materials were shared where students interacted about the ethics of various organizational situations.
Class discussions were held about the differences between law and ethics in writing.
Theory Public Relations Cases and Studies COMMPR 4811 – Analysis of public relations case study, tests and essays are required.
Students find it difficult to analyze a campaign based on research because they do not like to do research. They do come to a point where they strategically begin to question the process of the development of the campaign, though. This assignment teaches the students to think strategically rather than tactically. To earn a management seat a public relations practitioner is NOT a tactician today he or she is a strategist, so this skill is essential. -The average test GPA for Fall 2012 was 3.32 and for Spring 2013 was 3.1. --The theories were analyzed and a paper was submitted
Students receive a detailed written evaluation from faculty. The training module was presented to the class and a discussion ensured. Individual grades were distributed to the class members.
Skills Public Relations Writing COMMPR 3855 --writing projects -Public Relations Campaign Methods –COMMPR 4855 – Various campaign strategies/methods are learned in campaign implementation -Integrated Communication- COMMPR3844 – review of an integrated public relations campaign case Exams were given
Proposals, white papers, social media banner ads, pitch letters, backgrounders, feature stories, and TV/Radio releases are written for a specified client (chosen by the class). Students are learning proper public relations writing techniques and differentiating it from journalistic writing. Average GPA in class is a 3.5 -Students plan and implement a sponsorship plan, media plan, media framework analysis, and pitch campaign. Media planning in a campaign proposal Average GPA for exams for Spring 2011 was 3.5
Faculty wrote evaluations for each student. -Client presentation was made. -Individual grades are distributed -Contest for winner per client -Faculty evaluations -Class discussions of proposal
Next Steps: Work with department for SOA plan for the three COMM COR courses for the coming year.
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes
Program now requires students to take
Business and Professional Oral Communication (BPOC)
Public relations practitioners often make presentations on a daily basis. The
required inclusion of BPOC gives students the skills to deliver professional
presentations effectively. Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes
The emphases of crisis and integrated perspective in the public relations classes were strengthened with the addition of Dr.
Jeffrey Brand.
More faculty are still needed in the major to fill all the course requirements and to expand the major and add specialty courses/ emphases that students are desiring such as entertainment and sports public relations and event planning.
SOA Plan Revisions The major needs to include specialties such as sports and event planning in
public relations.
Pubic Relations students are looking to specialize in public relations so the major will be refocusing in order to offer a general program as well as specialized tracks.
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) The lack of hiring needed faculty is stifling the growth of the program, so we are looking for new and innovative ways to grow the major with limited resources. Obviously this is a challenge, but the public relations faculty are trying to be creative and plant the necessary seeds for new growth.
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
Name of College: College of Humanities and Fine Arts
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: MM and MA Core Curriculum: Music Theory: Analytical Techniques I and II (required class for all MM and MA degree programs)
Department/Unit Mission: To educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: Students shall have a functional knowledge of the theoretical basis of Western Music, extending knowledge gained in undergraduate music theory studies and preparing students for entrance into any doctoral program.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Julia Bullard, Associate Director for Graduate Studies, School of Music [email protected]
Date submitted: December 13, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
Competency 2.1 Mastery of deficits in knowledge-base in functional language and grammar of music through analytical techniques of music, Middle Ages through Classical Era, evident through the diagnostic exam.
Diagnostic examination given to all incoming graduate students in music. Covers harmonic and formal analysis of tonal works (Middle Ages through contemporary) with emphasis on tonal harmony and chromaticism. Students failing the examination must do remedial work in music theory as assigned by the music theory professor.
Diagnostic examinations given to entering students in 2012; results were as follows: 17 students took the examinations. 6 passed; 11 received a qualified pass, with required assignments to address deficiencies. The students who took these examinations will be tracked in future years to ensure that their
A copy of this report will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Competency 2.2 Students shall have a mastery of functional language and grammar of music through analytical techniques of music from the Middle Ages and Renaissance through the 20th Century.
Written comprehensive exam, two hours in length which includes short answer, analysis and musical score identification. This exam is offered each semester and is proctored and graded by members of the music theory faculty. The exam is divided into two sections, as is our graduate coursework: Analytical Techniques I and Analytical Techniques II. (Students do not necessarily take these exams in the same semester, which is the reason that the number of students taking the two portions of the exam is different. Some would carry over to the following academic year, and that data is not within the parameters of this report.) CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION: Each examination is graded by members of the music theory faculty. AT I Grading Rubric: Covers material from Middle Ages and Renaissance
• Recognize genre and place into appropriate time frame
• Analysis of cadential types, harmonic structure, text language, probably century
performance in the required graduate coursework reflects an appropriate mastery of these basic skills identified in the diagnostics. In 2012: 21 students took the comprehensive examination in AT I. 20 students passed the examination on the first attempt; 1 student failed the examination on the first attempt and subsequently passed the examination on a second attempt. 15 students took the comprehensive examination in AT II. 11 passed; 4 were given a qualified pass and required to complete a remedial assignment, after which they were considered to have passed the examination.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
of composition and composer
• Definitions of selected terms
AT II Grading Criteria: Covers material from Baroque through contemporary. 4 part examination covering:
• Fugue (Baroque) analysis and composition
• Analysis of tonal chromatic harmony (Classical Romantic)
• Identification of contemporary compositional techniques
• Construction of a matrix and identification of tone row (analysis)
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes: • None at this time
• None at this time • A copy of this report and recommendations will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes • None at this time
SOA Plan Revisions • None at this time
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
Consider a written rubric for assessment of student performance on diagnostic and comprehensive examinations.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
Name of College: College of Humanities and Fine Arts
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: MM and MA Core Curriculum: Research and Writing in Music (required class for all MM and MA degree programs)
Department/Unit Mission: To educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: Research and Writing in Music: Knowledge of bibliographic skills, familiarity with library holdings and their uses.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Julia Bullard, Associate Director for Graduate Studies, School of Music [email protected]
Date submitted: December 13, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
Competency 3.1 Evidence of writing skills sufficient to complete graduate level course work. Competency 3.2 Mastery of analytic skills, critical thinking, secondary literature, research techniques and methods for both primary and secondary sources
A sample of 17 randomly selected, completed research papers, recital abstracts and theses from MA and MM programs was reviewed by members of the Music Graduate SOA committee to evaluate the competencies listed. A copy of the rubric for evaluation is attached. These papers are written under the guidance of the student’s individual graduate committee (2 members for music education, 2-3 members for MA, and 3 members for recital
Of the 17 papers reviewed, all were ranked at least “satisfactory” by the readers.
• For the category “writing: structure, grammar, appropriate academic style,” evaluations were as follows: 5 excellent, 9 good, 2 satisfactory, 1 marginal.
• For the category “formatting – footnotes, bibliography, etc.,” evaluations were as follows: 4 excellent, 9 good, 3 satisfactory, 1 marginal.
• For the category “Content: Analytical skills, critical
A copy of this report will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
abstract). All students have taken the required Research and Writing in Music course during their graduate studies. The SOA committee that read these papers was comprised of a mixture of faculty from the areas of applied music, music history, music theory, and music education.
thinking,” evaluations were as follows: 6 excellent, 6 good, 5 satisfactory
• For the category “Research techniques and methods for primary and secondary sources,” evaluations were as follows: 5 excellent, 8 good, 3 satisfactory, 1 poor.
• For the category “Overall quality of paper,” evaluations were as follows: 3 excellent, 11 good, 3 satisfactory.
• Overall, students appear to be retaining the information learned in their Research and Writing core class and applying it effectively in their final written document for the degree.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes: • None at this time
• None at this time • A copy of this report and recommendations will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes • None at this time
SOA Plan Revisions • None at this time
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
Consider a written form for reporting details of student recital performance by faculty committee.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
2012-2013
Name of College: Humanities, Arts, and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: Languages & Literatures
Program: English and English-Teaching Majors
Department/Unit MISSION: The Department of Languages & Literatures offers learning experiences that immerse all members of the departmental community in transactions with language and culture. The focus of our courses and programs of study cultivates a deeper understanding of ourselves and others; fosters a critical and creative engagement with languages, literatures, and cultures; and promotes the intellectual and practical linguistic skills our students need to understand, address, and contend with the cultural complexities of our pluralistic world.
Program Learning GOALS: Range of literature: Describe the philosophical and aesthetic values in a broad selection of literature from a variety of historical periods, cultures, and genres. Literary devices: Recognize, apply, and explain the use and effects of literary elements, rhetorical devices, and themes in literary texts. Critical approaches: Demonstrate an understanding of different critical approaches and ability to employ them in analyzing and interpreting literary texts. Writing processes: Use effective processes to generate, compose, organize, revise, and present writing for varied purposes and audiences. Research processes: Frame research questions; plan and conduct inquiry using credible sources; integrate and cite researched information and interpretations with textual evidence. Critical Thinking: Use the skills of close-reading, researching, theorizing, and writing, as well as knowledge of human experiences to articulate views on social justice and individual identity, actions, and creations.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Kenneth Baughman e-mail: [email protected]
Date submitted: 20 June 2013
Assessment Period: 2011-2012
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning Outcomes Assessed
Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
general assessment of five designated learning outcomes
survey of student majors: (1) how much attention each outcome receives in major program courses; (2) how much importance students attached to each outcome
for first three learning outcomes, close alignment of (a) perceived attention to each outcome in program courses and (b) degree of importance to students; for learning outcomes # 4 & 5 (Writing Skills and Research Processes), students attach more importance to these outcomes than they perceive is given to them in major courses
Discussion with department head and among Fall 2013 instructors of introductory major course, ENGLISH 2120 Critical Writing about Literature (explorations of learning objectives for this course taking into account its introductory role in English and English-Teaching major programs; also exploration of possibilities for content and pedagogy designed to focus on learning objectives)
Next Steps 1. Survey of faculty: how much attention is given to current learning outcomes in major courses; how important these outcomes are to our major
programs in English; review of results of student and faculty surveys; possible changes in current learning outcomes (deletions, additions, revisions)
2. Continuing discussion among instructors of three sections of ENGLISH 2120 in Fall 2013 regarding program learning outcomes and role of this introductory course in English major programs; continuing exploration of content and pedagogy possibilities
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes Develop courses in areas of literary studies that are becoming increasingly prominent within this field
Curricular proposals for new courses in Environmental Literature, Literary Nonfiction (creative writing), and World Literature (approved at the college level)
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes None (to be discussed after Fall 2013 faculty survey and comparison of student and faculty survey results)
SOA Plan Revisions None at this time; to be discussed in Fall 2013 by faculty teaching English major programs
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
2013-2014
Name of College: Humanities, Arts, and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: Languages & Literatures
Program: English and English-Teaching Majors
Department/Unit MISSION: The Department of Languages & Literatures offers learning experiences that immerse all members of the departmental community in transactions with language and culture. The focus of our courses and programs of study cultivates a deeper understanding of ourselves and others; fosters a critical and creative engagement with languages, literatures, and cultures; and promotes the intellectual and practical linguistic skills our students need to understand, address, and contend with the cultural complexities of our pluralistic world.
Program Learning GOALS: Range of literature: Describe the philosophical and aesthetic values in a broad selection of literature from a variety of historical periods, cultures, and genres. Literary devices: Recognize, apply, and explain the use and effects of literary elements, rhetorical devices, and themes in literary texts. Critical approaches: Demonstrate an understanding of different critical approaches and ability to employ them in analyzing and interpreting literary texts. Writing processes: Use effective processes to generate, compose, organize, revise, and present writing for varied purposes and audiences. Research processes: Frame research questions; plan and conduct inquiry using credible sources; integrate and cite researched information and interpretations with textual evidence. Critical Thinking: Use the skills of close-reading, researching, theorizing, and writing, as well as knowledge of human experiences to articulate views on social justice and individual identity, actions, and creations.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Sheila Benson e-mail: [email protected]
Date submitted: 1 November 2013
Assessment Period: 2012-2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning Outcomes Assessed
Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
Range of literature
1. Administration of practice PRAXIS II content exam to self-selected (6) English education students
2. Report of actual PRAXIS II content exam scores from 2007-2012 (5 years of records, 248 students)
1. Students had a general sense of which texts fit in different time periods, but they struggled to access that knowledge for actual exam questions.
2. Pass scores are generally high, with the lowest percentage of students passing being 88% in 2009-10 and 2011-12 and the highest being 96% in 2007-08.
The English education professor who administered the practice PRAXIS II content exam and study sessions shared areas where students struggled with colleagues who teach the survey of literature courses most relevant to exam material. Larger discussions about implications of these results (both practice and actual tests) began in department meetings.
Next Steps
1. In examining PRAXIS II exam results, we realized that the Praxis II exam itself does not provide as much detail as the department needs to determine student understanding of a range of literature. Instead, the exam demonstrates title recognition and recall of poetic and grammatical terminology. As a result, we are initiating departmental conversations about what we really mean by the term “range of literature,” specifically in the survey of literature courses.
2. We have identified three focal points for the survey courses, at least initially: recognition of poetic forms, identification of historical context for specific writers, and close reading and literary analysis.
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes According to the student perception survey conducted in 2012, students attach more importance to learning outcomes #4 and #5 (writing skills and research processes) than they perceive these are given in their courses. Discussion among Critical Writing about Literature professors are beginning to address this issue, although we will open the discussion to the whole department as well.
Ongoing discussion of how to help
students retain a mental map of major issues and historical contexts in English-language literature as well as of the role of writing and research assignments in our
courses.
We are considering a shift of focus within the survey of literature courses to help students pin individual titles to larger historical areas
within literature. We will also consider students’ expressed desire for more attention
to writing and research across the survey courses.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes None.
SOA Plan Revisions We are beginning a close examination of our survey-level literature classes to better understand students’ range of literature knowledge since the PRAXIS II content exam provides limited data.
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT TEMPLATE For Assessment Conducted During 2012-2013
Name of College:
College of Humanities, Arts and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit:
Department of Biology
Program:
Bachelor of Arts, Evolution and Ecology Emphasis
Department/Unit Mission:
The mission of the Department of Biology of the University of Northern Iowa is to provide quality teaching, research, and community service.
Program Learning Goals: 1. Demonstrate an understanding of genetics from molecules through populations 2. Demonstrate an understanding of the anatomy, development, and physiology of cells and organisms. 3. Demonstrate an understanding of biodiversity and the relationship of living things with their environment and with each other over time. 4. Demonstrate and understanding of evolution, including mechanisms, evolutionary history, and evolutionary theory. 5. Employ logical reasoning and scientific methodology to ask and answer questions about the biological world. 6. Collect, organize, analyze and interpret data. 7. Critically read and evaluate primary and secondary research literature. 8. Evaluate current issues and ethical topics in biology 9. Use biological terms, concepts, and graphical representations properly in written and oral communications 10. Construct written documents in standard scientific style, including proper citation of other’s work. 11. Procure and present biological data and information using a variety of appropriate methods.
Annual Assessment Report, 20xx-20yy, page 1 of 7
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail):
David Saunder, Ph.D., Head, Department of Biology
Date submitted:
2/3/2014
Annual Assessment Report, 20xx-20yy, page 2 of 7
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes None None
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes None None
SOA Plan Revisions None None
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning Outcomes Assessed
Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
1. Demonstrate an understanding of genetics from molecules through populations.
Test Questions, Implemented in BIOL 2052, 3120, 3140, 3147, 4167, 4168
Data is still being tabulated Data will be distributed at a spring faculty meeting.
2. Demonstrate an understanding of the anatomy, development, and physiology of cells and organisms.
Test Questions, Implemented in BIOL 2051, 2052, 3106, 3112, 3120, 3147, 3160, 3170, 4122, 4142, 4146, 4164, 4166, 4168, 4172
Data is still being tabulated Data will be distributed at a spring faculty meeting.
3. Demonstrate an understanding of biodiversity and the relationship of living things with their environment and with each other over time.
Test Questions, Implemented in BIOL 2051, 3100, 3106, 3112, 3120, 3147, 3160, 3170, 4122, 4142, 4164, 4167, 4168
Data is still being tabulated Data will be distributed at a spring faculty meeting.
4. Demonstrate and understanding of evolution, including mechanisms,
Test Questions, Implemented in BIOL 2051, 2052, 3100, 3140, 3106, 3120, 3160, 4142, 4146, 4164, 4166, 4167
Data is still being tabulated Data will be distributed at a spring faculty meeting.
Annual Assessment Report, 20xx-20yy, page 3 of 7
evolutionary history, and evolutionary theory. 5. Employ logical reasoning and scientific methodology to ask and answer questions about the biological world.
Test Questions, Implemented in BIOL 2052, 3100, 3140, 3147, 3152, 3170, 4105, 4122, 4127, 4128, 4129, 4137, 4142, 4146, 4150, 4153, 4154, 4155, 4166, 4167, 4172
Data is still being tabulated Data will be distributed at a spring faculty meeting.
6. Collect, organize, analyze and interpret data.
Test Questions, Implemented in BIOL 2052, 3140, 3112, 3119, 3170, 4122, 4146, 4154, 4155, 4167, 4172
Data is still being tabulated Data will be distributed at a spring faculty meeting.
7. Critically read and evaluate primary and secondary research literature.
Test Questions, Implemented in BIOL 2051, 2052, 3100, 3147, 4142, 4146, 4164, 4167, 4168, 4172
Data is still being tabulated Data will be distributed at a spring faculty meeting.
8. Evaluate current issues and ethical topics in biology
Test Questions, Implemented in BIOL 2052, 3140, 4122, 4146, 4167, 4168
Data is still being tabulated Data will be distributed at a spring faculty meeting.
9. Use biological terms, concepts, and graphical representations properly in written and oral communications
Test Questions, Implemented in BIOL 2051, 2052, 3100, 3140, 3112, 3120, 3147, 4114, 4122, 4137, 4142, 4146, 4154, 4155, 4164, 4167, 4168, 4172
Data is still being tabulated Data will be distributed at a spring faculty meeting.
10. Construct written documents in standard scientific style, including proper citation of other’s work.
Test Questions, Implemented in BIOL 2051, 2052, 3112, 3147, 3170, 4122, 4146, 4154, 4155, 4167, 4172
Data is still being tabulated Data will be distributed at a spring faculty meeting.
11. Procure and present biological data and information using a variety of appropriate methods.
Test Questions, Implemented in BIOL 2052, 3112, 3147, 4122, 4146, 4154, 4155, 4164, 4172
Data is still being tabulated Data will be distributed at a spring faculty meeting.
Next Steps:
Annual Assessment Report, 20xx-20yy, page 4 of 7
Indicate changes to be made, e.g., to program, curriculum, assessment strategies, learning outcomes, etc., along with timelines for action. If no changes are needed, use this space to indicate that. To see a list of potential action steps, see http://www.uni.edu/assessment/documents/closingtheloop.pdf, “On Using Assessment Information and Closing the Loop.” Representative groups (Intro Sequence, Biomedical Emphasis, Teaching, etc) will review data and see if changes to curriculum need to be addressed.
Additional Comments:
E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc. The department has the view that students need to be exposed to the various outcomes of our department twice (once in the introductory sequence of courses and again in upper-level courses). All students, regardless of program, must take the introductory sequence. All students who successfully complete the four courses associated with the Department of Biology core will have been exposed to, and have been asked to show their understanding of, each of the learning goals (1-11) set forward by the Department. Secondly, beyond the core, all students, regardless of the emphasis chosen for their Biology degree, should have at least one more exposure and chance to show an even deeper understanding of the learning goals set forward by the Department. We plan to review these goals in the upcoming year, determining if we need to broaden courses or perhaps reassess goals. ADDITIONAL WAYS THE DEPARTMENT WORKS ON ASSESSING AND REVISING CURRICULUM
1. Rotation of Faculty Into Courses
a. Brings about discussions about course content among the faculty who rotate into and out of the same course.
- Evolution – Berendzen, Spradling, O’Kane
- Organismal Diversity – Demastes, Sherrard, Tamplin
- Cell Structure & Function – Ophus, Berendzen, Kang
- Cell Biology – Dhanwada and Rodriguez
- Field Zoology – Demastes, Tamplin, Berendzen
- Honor’s LAC Biology – O’Kane and Clayton
- Genetics – Spradling, Seager, Abebe, Sliwinski
Annual Assessment Report, 20xx-20yy, page 5 of 7
- Eco/Evo – Berendzen, Demastes, Myers, O’Kane, Tamplin
b. Having more faculty involved in the rotation among core courses, we have a better sense of what has been covered in the core and this can impact upper level course content.
2. Increase in Course Offerings in the Last Five Years to Meet the Needs and Interests of Students
a. Marine Biology
b. Environmental Physiology
c. Biodiversity Conservation Policy and Regulation
d. Bioscientific Terminology
e. Light Microscopy Methods in Biology
f. Freshmen Orientation for Biology Majors (Strategies for Academic Success)
g. Ornithology*
h. Comparative Vertebrate Biology*
i. Biostatistics*
*- courses previously offered by not taught in sometime until the hiring of new faculty & adjuncts 3. Increased Funding for Updating and Improving Laboratory Equipment, Supplies, and Infrastructure a. Nearly one million dollars has been obtained from the Carver Charitable Trust to provide updated equipment, supplies, and remodeling of space for a variety of teaching laboratories within the Department of Biology. 4. Unsolicited Student Feedback
Annual Assessment Report, 20xx-20yy, page 6 of 7
5. Senior Exit Survey
Questions include: (Likert Scale of 5 – Excellent to 1- Poor) How would you rate the content of the biology courses that you took?
How would you rate the teaching abilities of most of the Biology professors with whom you took classes? How would you rate the facilities and equipment used in your Biology classes? How would you rate the overall program in the Biology Department? Additional Short Answer Questions: Were there any classes which you believe were particularly good or pivotal in choosing your career objectives? Are there any courses which stand out a particularly needing improvement? The overwhelming majority of students answer the Likert scale questions as 4 or 5. Many more students mention classes that they believed were good and/or pivotal in choosing their career objectives than those who mention courses that need improvement. In addition, there is no consistency with the small listing of courses that need improvement.
6. Senior Exit Interview
The Department Head provides the opportunity for graduating students to meet with him in small groups to receive student feedback on the Department of Biology. This has been done in the three previous years and no consistent suggestions for change in the program, curriculum, course offerings, course content, or opportunities provided by the Department have been mentioned. In general, students are very appreciative of the education they have received.
Annual Assessment Report, 20xx-20yy, page 7 of 7
Student Outcomes Assessment, Undergraduate UNI School of Music ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT for 2012 (compiled Fall, 2013)
Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: BA Music
Department/Unit Mission: The School of Music has as its primary mission to educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: 1. To foster a supportive and collegial learning/teaching environment that prioritizes the artistic, intellectual, and personal growth of its students… 2. To provide appropriate performance and research opportunities to support the creative work of students… 3. To offer a rigorous and comprehensive music curriculum with theoretical, historical, critical, pedagogical, performance, and applied studies
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Alan Schmitz [email protected]
Date submitted: December 10, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
(Outcome) I. Students shall be able to perform at an acceptable level in at least one major area (instrument/voice).
As in the previous five years, jury reports (samples) of a number of students, showing major area instrumental/vocal performance progress, are being used. These reports are completed every semester by the relevant faculty.
Horn Player (Junior-BA Music): Fall, 2012: Jury Report comments include: “A nice confident beginning.” “Good, spirited playing throughout.” “You are moving the body a lot…changes the direction of your bell…sound became less stable.” This student passed on to upper level applied instruction. Semester Grade: A.
Student Outcomes Assessment results are included in the Annual Report of the School of Music. Copies of the report are also submitted to the CHFA Dean’s Office and to Donna Vinton of Academic Assessment. Dr. Vinton’s office places copies of the SOA plans and reports on a web site. Outcome successes of many of the UNI School of Music students are documented in Rhythms, the annual
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Spring, 2013: Jury Report comments include: “Sustain your musical interest throughout – it varies.” “Intonation is off when your air support is off.” “Don’t be afraid to hold out the last note of a phrase more.” Semester Grade: A. In summary: this student is progressing very well. Oboe Player (Sophomore-BA Music): Fall, 2012: Jury report comments include: “Good but blow through when you are articulating.” “Keep working on bigger sound.” “Good scale passages.” Semester grade: A-. Spring, 2013: Jury report comments include: “Nice! Maybe work on a bigger, richer sound.” “Good double tonguing for the ending.” “Play out in the fortes.” Semester grade: A- In summary: this student is progressing very well.
publication (every fall) about School of Music activities that is sent to alumni, faculty, and supporters. Copies of this publication are also available for free in School of Music offices.
(Outcome) II. Students shall have a functional knowledge of the language and grammar of music, including new technological applications.
A review of the results of the Music Theory portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. Also, relevant comments from the Web-Questionnaire were used.
The findings for this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three students who took the exam in fall, 2012: One of the students did very well with a recommendation that altered dominant chords be reviewed. The other two students were required to complete remedial assignments in a few areas of weakness.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
These findings are encouraging as they demonstrate our students are succeeding in Music Theory. The Questionnaire was completed by 2 of the 32 graduates. Both of them commented that Theory was among the most beneficial classes.
(Outcome) III. Students shall have a thorough knowledge of music literature and repertory.
A review of the results of the music history portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees in music from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. This exam was given by the Associate Director of Graduate Music Programs and graduate faculty colleagues from the School of Music.
The findings from this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three UNI students who took the exam in fall, 2012: Two of the students passed all or most portions of the Music History Diagnostic. One of the students failed all of the Music History Diagnostic and will be taking classes to remedy this weakness. Pass rate: 55.5%, which is an improvement over last year.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes Effective Fall, 2010, the BA in Music was expanded to include five tracks, thus permitting more flexibility in the program. The tracks are:
1. General Studies in Music (same as prev. BA) 2. Jazz Studies BA
3. String Pedagogy BA 4. Performing Arts Management BA
5. Music Technology BA
During the coming years, as students enroll in these various tracks, information for student outcomes assessment will be gathered and
evaluated. In an effort to strengthen the Music History
offerings in the School of Music and to relieve the overload situation encountered by having only one musicologist on faculty, the School of Music hired
an additional full-time tenure track colleague in music history who started fall, 2012. This has
enabled the School of Music to improve results mentioned in Outcome III (Students shall have a
thorough knowledge of music history and repertory).
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes Results of student performance on upper-level hearings (for advancement to junior-level applied
lessons) now serve as a source for student outcomes assessment in the BA, BM in
Including information from these forms should prove useful for student outcomes assessment.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Performance, BM in Music Ed. and BM in Composition/Theory Programs.
SOA Plan Revisions None anticipated for this report.
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) The Web-Questionnaire offers additional useful information for Student Outcomes Assessment. This questionnaire was made available to all music majors who graduated with bachelor’s degrees during 2011-12. The response rate for this questionnaire was exceptionally low this year at 6% (2/32 students). Among the findings relevant to this report are the following items: Advising Quality of the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with advising at 6 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest possible score). This is an improvement compared to last year’s SOA report, which was 5.6. Quality of Instruction in the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with instruction at 8.5 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest
possible score). Compared with last year’s SOA report, this is higher (last year’s score was 6.4). Most Beneficial/Least Beneficial Classes: The most beneficial classes listed by respondents included Music Theory, Conducting II (Instr.), and
Introduction to Music Ed. (note that the other respondent found this to be the least beneficial).
The least beneficial classes listed included Introduction to Music Ed. and Music History II. Career Progress Anticipated by Respondents: For 2011-12, one respondent indicated “Very Successful,” and one indicated “Successful.” Suggestions from Respondents: Numerous suggestions were submitted. One of these was that students preparing to be choir teachers
need some training in how to teach/run show choirs, jazz choirs, and musicals. The School of Music Undergraduate Student Outcomes Assessment Committee continues to grapple with ways to improve the response rate of the questionnaire.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
UNI School of Music ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT for 2012 (compiled Fall, 2013)
Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: BM Music Performance
Department/Unit Mission: The School of Music has as its primary mission to educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: 1. To foster a supportive and collegial learning/teaching environment that prioritizes the artistic, intellectual, and personal growth of its students… 2. To provide appropriate performance and research opportunities to support the creative work of students… 3. To offer a rigorous and comprehensive music curriculum with theoretical, historical, critical, pedagogical, performance, and applied studies
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Alan Schmitz [email protected]
Date submitted: December 10, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
(Outcome) I. Students shall be able to perform at an acceptable level in at least one major area (instrument/voice).
As in the previous five years, jury reports (samples) of a number of students, showing major area instrumental/vocal performance progress, are being used. These reports are completed every semester by the relevant faculty.
Clarinetist (Junior-Instr. Performance): Fall, 2012: Jury report comments include: “Many good things here [technique] keep it steady-sometimes it gets almost too fast.” “Sounds punchy rather than lyrical [interpretation].” “Nice dynamics.” Semester grade: B. Spring, 2013: Jury report comments include:
Student Outcomes Assessment results are included in the Annual Report of the School of Music. Copies of the report are also submitted to the CHFA Dean’s Office and to Donna Vinton of Academic Assessment. Dr. Vinton’s office places copies of the SOA plans and reports on a web site. Outcome successes of many of the UNI School of Music students are documented in Rhythms, the annual publication (every fall) about School
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
“Keep working on breath support.” “Good shaping – perhaps a few more dynamic contrasts but overall very nice.” “Nice Mozart, just think more about the style.” The student passed the junior recital. Semester grade: B+. In summary: this student is progressing/improving. Vocalist (Junior-Vocal Performance): Fall, 2012: Jury report comments include: “Voice growing developing nicely.” “Can you make your inhalation silent?” “Wonderful voice-rich, full, free, well balanced resonance.” Semester grade: A. Spring, 2013: Jury report comments include: “Very well prepared-good work.” “Good progress-we need to really work on the languages and phrasing.” “Great music.” Semester grade: A. In summary: this student is progressing very well and also won the 2013 Russell Music Scholarship Competition Award.
of Music activities that is sent to alumni, faculty, and supporters. Copies of this publication are also available for free in School of Music offices.
(Outcome) II. Students shall have a functional knowledge of the language and grammar of music, including new technological applications.
A review of the results of the Music Theory portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. Also, relevant
The findings for this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three students who took the exam in fall, 2012: One of the students did very well with a recommendation that altered dominant chords be reviewed. The
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
comments from the Web-Questionnaire were used.
other two students were required to complete remedial assignments in a few areas of weakness. These findings are encouraging as they demonstrate our students are succeeding in Music Theory. The Questionnaire was completed by 2 of the 32 graduates. Both of them commented that Theory was among the most beneficial classes.
(Outcome) III. Students shall have a thorough knowledge of music literature and repertory.
A review of the results of the music history portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees in music from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. This exam was given by the Associate Director of Graduate Music Programs and graduate faculty colleagues from the School of Music.
The findings from this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three UNI students who took the exam in fall, 2012: Two of the students passed all or most portions of the Music History Diagnostic. One of the students failed all of the Music History Diagnostic and will be taking classes to remedy this weakness. Pass rate: 55.5%, which is an improvement over last year.
(Outcome) IV. Students shall possess skills in Music Techniques that support their chosen major area.
This outcome is demonstrated in the results of the student juries and recitals.
Students in this program, as evidence from the report above indicates, have to demonstrate exceptional musical skills in order to be permitted into the BM Performance track.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes None taken since the previous report.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes Results of student performance on upper-level hearings (for advancement to junior-level applied
lessons) now serve as a source for student outcomes assessment in the BA, BM in
Performance, BM in Music Ed. and BM in Composition/Theory Programs.
More student records will be examined for future Student Outcomes Assessment reports.
In an effort to strengthen the Music History
offerings in the School of Music and to relieve the
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Starting with the 2011-12 SOA report (compiled in 2013) outcome results for items IV, V, and VI of the BM in Music Ed. Choral Program are being
added.
overload situation encountered by having only one musicologist on faculty, the School of Music hired
an additional full-time tenure track colleague in music history who started fall, 2012. This has
enabled the School of Music to improve results mentioned in Outcome III (Students shall have a
thorough knowledge of music history and repertory).
SOA Plan Revisions None anticipated for this report.
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) The Web-Questionnaire offers additional useful information for Student Outcomes Assessment. This questionnaire was made available to all music majors who graduated with bachelor’s degrees during 2011-12. The response rate for this questionnaire was exceptionally low this year at 6% (2/32 students). Among the findings relevant to this report are the following items: Advising Quality of the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with advising at 6 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest possible score). This is an improvement compared to last year’s SOA report, which was 5.6. Quality of Instruction in the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with instruction at 8.5 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest
possible score). Compared with last year’s SOA report, this is higher (last year’s score was 6.4). Most Beneficial/Least Beneficial Classes: The most beneficial classes listed by respondents included Music Theory, Conducting II (Instr.), and
Introduction to Music Ed. (note that the other respondent found this to be the least beneficial).
The least beneficial classes listed included Introduction to Music Ed. and Music History II. Career Progress Anticipated by Respondents: For 2011-12, one respondent indicated “Very Successful,” and one indicated “Successful.” Suggestions from Respondents: Numerous suggestions were submitted. One of these was that students preparing to be choir teachers
need some training in how to teach/run show choirs, jazz choirs, and musicals. The School of Music Undergraduate Student Outcomes Assessment Committee continues to grapple with ways to improve the response rate of the questionnaire.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
UNI School of Music ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT for 2012 (compiled Fall, 2013)
Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: BM Music Education
Department/Unit Mission: The School of Music has as its primary mission to educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: 1. To foster a supportive and collegial learning/teaching environment that prioritizes the artistic, intellectual, and personal growth of its students… 2. To provide appropriate performance and research opportunities to support the creative work of students… 3. To offer a rigorous and comprehensive music curriculum with theoretical, historical, critical, pedagogical, performance, and applied studies
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Alan Schmitz [email protected]
Date submitted: December 10, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
(Outcome) I. Students shall be able to perform at an acceptable level in at least one major area (instrument/voice).
As in the previous five years, jury reports (samples) of a number of students, showing major area instrumental/vocal performance progress, are being used. These reports are completed every semester by the relevant faculty.
Percussionist (Junior-Mus. Ed.): Fall, 2012: Jury report comments include: “Very nice phrasing.” “Keep tempo moving forward.” “Good job of pacing throughout this piece [marimba].” Student was approved for upper level lessons. Semester grade: A-. Spring, 2013: Jury report comments include:
Student Outcomes Assessment results are included in the Annual Report of the School of Music. Copies of the report are also submitted to the CHFA Dean’s Office and to Donna Vinton of Academic Assessment. Dr. Vinton’s office places copies of the SOA plans and reports on a web site. Outcome successes of many of the UNI School of Music students are documented in Rhythms, the annual publication (every fall) about School
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
“Be sure to keep melody and accompaniment clearly separated.” “Would love to hear you play with less mallet height when beginning your crescendo type rolls!” Semester grade: B+ This student is progressing, though the later grade was slightly lower. Vocalist (Sophomore-Mus. Ed.): Fall, 2012: Jury report comments include: “Good, consistent growth and development technically and musically.” “I don’t hear all of the consonants.” “Excellent progress, I have enjoyed your opera participation and positive presence in the School.” Semester grade: A. Spring, 2013: Jury comments include: “…you are learning and applying very independently.” “Beautiful singing, impressive growth.” “Excellent talent, magnificent progress.” Semester grade: A. This student passed the upper level hearing & is progressing very well.
of Music activities that is sent to alumni, faculty, and supporters. Copies of this publication are also available for free in School of Music offices.
(Outcome) II. Students shall have a functional knowledge of the language and grammar of music, including new technological applications.
A review of the results of the Music Theory portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. Also, relevant comments from the Web-Questionnaire were used.
The findings for this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three students who took the exam in fall, 2012: One of the students did very well with a recommendation that altered dominant chords be reviewed. The other two students were required to complete remedial assignments in a
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
few areas of weakness. These findings are encouraging as they demonstrate our students are succeeding in Music Theory. The Questionnaire was completed by 2 of the 32 graduates. Both of them commented that Theory was among the most beneficial classes.
(Outcome) III. Students shall have a thorough knowledge of music literature and repertory.
A review of the results of the music history portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees in music from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. This exam was given by the Associate Director of Graduate Music Programs and graduate faculty colleagues from the School of Music.
The findings from this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three UNI students who took the exam in fall, 2012: Two of the students passed all or most portions of the Music History Diagnostic. One of the students failed all of the Music History Diagnostic and will be taking classes to remedy this weakness. Pass rate: 55.5%, which is an improvement over last year.
(Outcome) IV. Students shall have the knowledge to teach most instrumental/vocal techniques of the band/choir/orchestra, and be able to rehearse and guide an ensemble to a public performance.
Starting with the 2011-12 SOA report, Outcomes IV, V, and VI will be addressed by including the results of Student Teaching Observations from a sample of students in the BM Music Ed. Choral Program. Observations are completed for all Music Ed. majors by School of Music Faculty.
Findings from student teaching observations of three Choral Music Ed. majors, who were observed during the Fall, 2012 and Spring, 2013 semesters, were summarized with numerical scores (1=poor to 10=excellent) in three teaching categories: Pacing, Management, and Planning. The three Choral Music Ed. majors scored as follows in these categories. Pacing 7.33 (above adequate) Management 7.66 (above adequate) Planning 9.66 (excellent) These results are being included in this report for the first time. Future reports will indicate trends in the teaching outcomes of Music Ed. majors.
(Outcome) V. Students shall have the knowledge needed to build a successful music program using the latest methods and technology.
Starting with the 2011-12 SOA report, Outcomes IV, V, and VI will be addressed by including the results of Student Teaching Observations from a sample of
See above comments shown in Outcome IV.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
students in the BM Music Ed. Choral Program. Observations are completed for all Music Ed. majors by School of Music Faculty.
(Outcome) VI. Students shall exhibit the potential to inspire others and to excite the imagination of students, engendering a respect and desire for music and musical experiences.
Starting with the 2011-12 SOA report, Outcomes IV, V, and VI will be addressed by including the results of Student Teaching Observations from a sample of students in the BM Music Ed. Choral Program. Observations are completed for all Music Ed. majors by School of Music Faculty.
See above comments shown in Outcome IV.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes None at this time for this program.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes Results of student performance on upper-level hearings (for advancement to junior-level applied
lessons) now serve as a source for student outcomes assessment in the BA, BM in
Performance, BM in Music Ed. and BM in Composition/Theory Programs.
Starting with the 2011-12 SOA report (compiled in 2013) outcome results for items IV, V, and VI of the BM in Music Ed. Choral Program are being
added.
It is expected that over the next several years, student outcomes assessment evaluations
relevant to Outcomes IV, V, and VI (above), which are being added in 2011-12 for the BM Music Ed.
Choral Program will be expanded to include evaluations of students in the BM Music Ed.
Instrumental Program.
In an effort to strengthen the Music History offerings in the School of Music and to relieve the overload situation encountered by having only one musicologist on faculty, the School of Music hired
an additional full-time tenure track colleague in music history who started fall, 2012. This has
enabled the School of Music to improve results mentioned in Outcome III (Students shall have a
thorough knowledge of music history and repertory).
SOA Plan Revisions None anticipated for this report.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) The Web-Questionnaire offers additional useful information for Student Outcomes Assessment. This questionnaire was made available to all music majors who graduated with bachelor’s degrees during 2011-12. The response rate for this questionnaire was exceptionally low this year at 6% (2/32 students). Among the findings relevant to this report are the following items: Advising Quality of the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with advising at 6 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest possible score). This is an improvement compared to last year’s SOA report, which was 5.6. Quality of Instruction in the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with instruction at 8.5 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest
possible score). Compared with last year’s SOA report, this is higher (last year’s score was 6.4). Most Beneficial/Least Beneficial Classes: The most beneficial classes listed by respondents included Music Theory, Conducting II (Instr.), and
Introduction to Music Ed. (note that the other respondent found this to be the least beneficial).
The least beneficial classes listed included Introduction to Music Ed. and Music History II. Career Progress Anticipated by Respondents: For 2011-12, one respondent indicated “Very Successful,” and one indicated “Successful.” Suggestions from Respondents: Numerous suggestions were submitted. One of these was that students preparing to be choir teachers
need some training in how to teach/run show choirs, jazz choirs, and musicals. The School of Music Undergraduate Student Outcomes Assessment Committee continues to grapple with ways to improve the response rate of the questionnaire.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
UNI School of Music ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT for 2012 (compiled Fall, 2013)
Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: BM Music Composition/Theory
Department/Unit Mission: The School of Music has as its primary mission to educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: 1. To foster a supportive and collegial learning/teaching environment that prioritizes the artistic, intellectual, and personal growth of its students… 2. To provide appropriate performance and research opportunities to support the creative work of students… 3. To offer a rigorous and comprehensive music curriculum with theoretical, historical, critical, pedagogical, performance, and applied studies
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Alan Schmitz [email protected]
Date submitted: December 10, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
(Outcome) I. Students shall be able to compose for diverse media in a creative and original manner.
Composition Portfolios have been examined. End of semester juries for composition students taking applied lessons were started in 2010.
Composer 1 (Senior-BM Comp/Theory but switched to BA Perf. Management): Fall, 2012: Jury report comments include: “Level of composition productivity is ok.” “Student has been meeting timelines and obligations.” Semester grade: A. Spring, 2013: Jury report comments include: “Level of productivity very good.”
Student Outcomes Assessment results are included in the Annual Report of the School of Music. Copies of the report are also submitted to the CHFA Dean’s Office and to Donna Vinton of Academic Assessment. Dr. Vinton’s office places copies of the SOA plans and reports on a web site. Outcome successes of many of the UNI School of Music students are documented in Rhythms, the annual publication (every fall) about School
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
“Originality good.” Semester grade: A. Summary: The student switched from BM Composition to BA Performance Management with composition as the applied area starting in the fall of 2012. She continued to compose and had a very successful senior recital (on composition) and graduated in May, 2013. Composer 2 (Junior-BM Comp/Theory): Fall, 2012: Jury report comments include: “Meeting timelines and obligations very, very good.” “No concerns; portfolio and level of productivity good.” Semester grade: A. Spring, 2013: Jury report comments include: “Student tends to take on multiple projects…there will be a point at which she will need to put more time on fewer projects.” “Originality and productivity very good.” Semester grade: A-. This is a very talented honor student who plans to pursue graduate studies in film music writing.
of Music activities that is sent to alumni, faculty, and supporters. Copies of this publication are also available for free in School of Music offices.
(Outcome) II. Students shall have a functional knowledge of the language and grammar of music.
A review of the results of the Music Theory portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. Also, relevant comments from the Web-
The findings for this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three students who took the exam in fall, 2012: One of the students did very well with a recommendation that altered dominant chords be reviewed. The other two students were required to
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Questionnaire were used. complete remedial assignments in a few areas of weakness. These findings are encouraging as they demonstrate our students are succeeding in Music Theory. The Questionnaire was completed by 2 of the 32 graduates. Both of them commented that Theory was among the most beneficial classes.
(Outcome) III. Students shall have a thorough knowledge of music literature and repertory.
A review of the results of the music history portion of the Graduate Entrance Diagnostic Exam administered to three students who recently received bachelor’s degrees in music from UNI (exam taken Fall, 2012) was completed. This exam was given by the Associate Director of Graduate Music Programs and graduate faculty colleagues from the School of Music.
The findings from this portion of the graduate diagnostic indicate the following for the three UNI students who took the exam in fall, 2012: Two of the students passed all or most portions of the Music History Diagnostic. One of the students failed all of the Music History Diagnostic and will be taking classes to remedy this weakness. Pass rate: 55.5%, which is an improvement over last year.
(Outcome) IV. Students shall possess skills in other musical and practical areas that support Composition.
Applied composition students are evaluated on their participation in and performer recruitment abilities for the end of semester Student Composers Concerts. Composition majors are required to undertake additional piano and improvisation courses, both of which support their compositional endeavors.
Over the past several years, applied composition students (especially the composition majors) have demonstrated a significant level of student composer composition concert activity in both quality of work and quantity of pieces presented.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes End of semester juries for applied composition students began at the end of the fall, 2010
semester.
Other than incorporating recommended changes already being implemented, no further actions are
anticipated. Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes Results of student performance on upper-level
hearings (for advancement to junior-level applied lessons) now serve as a source for student
In an effort to strengthen the Music History offerings in the School of Music and to relieve the overload situation encountered by having only one
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
outcomes assessment in the BA, BM in Performance, BM in Music Ed. and BM in Composition/Theory Programs. Starting with the 2011-12 SOA report (compiled in 2013) outcome results for items IV, V, and VI of the BM in Music Ed. Choral Program are being added.
musicologist on faculty, the School of Music hired an additional full-time tenure track colleague in music history who started fall, 2012. This has enables the School of Music to improve results mentioned in Outcome III (Students shall have a thorough knowledge of music history and repertory).
SOA Plan Revisions None anticipated for this report.
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) The Web-Questionnaire offers additional useful information for Student Outcomes Assessment. This questionnaire was made available to all music majors who graduated with bachelor’s degrees during 2011-12. The response rate for this questionnaire was exceptionally low this year at 6% (2/32 students). Among the findings relevant to this report are the following items: Advising Quality of the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with advising at 6 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest possible score). This is an improvement compared to last year’s SOA report, which was 5.6. Quality of Instruction in the Music Area: The respondents indicate their level of satisfaction with instruction at 8.5 (on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the highest
possible score). Compared with last year’s SOA report, this is higher (last year’s score was 6.4). Most Beneficial/Least Beneficial Classes: The most beneficial classes listed by respondents included Music Theory, Conducting II (Instr.), and
Introduction to Music Ed. (note that the other respondent found this to be the least beneficial).
The least beneficial classes listed included Introduction to Music Ed. and Music History II. Career Progress Anticipated by Respondents: For 2011-12, one respondent indicated “Very Successful,” and one indicated “Successful.” Suggestions from Respondents: Numerous suggestions were submitted. One of these was that students preparing to be choir teachers
need some training in how to teach/run show choirs, jazz choirs, and musicals. The School of Music Undergraduate Student Outcomes Assessment Committee continues to grapple with ways to improve the response rate of the questionnaire.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
Name of College: College of Humanities and Fine Arts
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: MM Music Education
Department/Unit Mission: To educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: MM Music Education: Student shall be able to work effectively with the educational and musical challenges of today’s schools. Students shall understand the various research methodologies used in music education.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Julia Bullard, Associate Director for Graduate Studies, School of Music [email protected]
Date submitted: Dec. 1, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Outcome 1 – Music Education Student shall be able to work effectively with the educational and musical challenges of today’s schools. Competency 1.1 Students will demonstrate comprehensive knowledge base of musicianship and education that will serve as their model for effective teaching in today’s schools. Competency 1.2 Students will demonstrate mastery of the foundations and underlying principles of effective teaching and learning styles. Competency 1.3 Students will demonstrate an understanding of current trends and philosophies in music education and application to everyday teaching environment. Competency 1.4 Students will demonstrate an understanding of the role of technology in the pedagogy of music.
Method of Assessment: Music Education specialty final comprehensive exam administered and graded once per year by members of the music education faculty. The examination is in essay format and 2-3 hours in length. A grading rubric is attached. The examinations are graded by members of the graduate music education faculty.
The summary of assessments is as follows: 2012 1 attempted; 1 PASS 2011 11 attempted; 7 PASS; 4 QUALIFIED PASS All 4 qualified passes were later changed to PASS following completion of additional information.
A copy of this report will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Outcome 2 – Music Education Students shall understand the various research methodologies used in music education. Competency 2.1 Students will understand the role of music education research in everyday teaching and learning. Competency 2.2 Students will demonstrate proficient research writing skills. Competency 2.3 Students will analyze and interpret qualitative, quantitative, and historical music education research reports. Competency 2.4 Students will design and conduct a quantitative, qualitative, or historical research study. Competency 2.5 Students will identify research techniques and demonstrate ability to use research materials specific to quantitative and qualitative research. Competency 2.6 Students will demonstrate and solve elementary statistical problems and interpret the results
Method of Assessment: 1. Music Education specialty final comprehensive exam administered and graded once per year by members of the music education faculty. The examination is in essay format and 2-3 hours in length. A grading rubric is attached. The examinations are graded by members of the graduate music education faculty. 2. A total of 5 MM Music Education Research Papers from AY2011-2012 were randomly selected for review by a committee of graduate faculty members for the purpose of SOA. (This assessment is used for the Research and Writing assessment, as well as for this specific assessment within the music education degree.) Rubric attached.
See above for results of comprehensive examinations. The findings from the faculty committee that reviewed these papers are as follows: Paper 1: Criteria 1: Good; Criteria 2: Good Critera 3: Satisfactory; Criteria 4: Good. Overall rating: Good. Paper 2: Excellent in all criteria Paper 3: Criteria 1: Good. Criteria 2: Good. Criteria 3: Excellent. Criteria 4: Excellent. Overall rating: good Paper 4: Criteria 1: Good. Criteria 2: Excellent. Criteria 3: Satisfactory. Criteria 4: Good. Criteria 4: Good Paper 5: Excellent in all criteria.
A copy of this report will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes: • None at this time; this may change upon
discussion of this SOA report at the Division council level or within the music education division.
• None at this time • A copy of this report and recommendations will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes • None at this time
SOA Plan Revisions • None at this time
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
Consider implementing a written form/rubric for criteria and evaluation of student research papers, similar to the format used for reporting results of music education comprehensive examinations.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT
Name of College: College of Humanities and Fine Arts
Name of Department/Unit: School of Music
Program: MM Performance
Department/Unit Mission: To educate and prepare music students for productive lives as teachers, performers, composers, scholars, and citizens, while also inspiring students of all degree programs to develop an appreciation for the place of music in a culturally diverse world.
Program Learning Goals: MM Performance: Student shall be prepared for a professional career as a performer and/or seek additional study at the doctoral level.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Julia Bullard, Associate Director for Graduate Studies, School of Music [email protected]
Date submitted: December 13, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
Competency 1.3 Integration and assimilation of historical/theoretical knowledge with performance practice traditions. (This is the only competency being reviewed in this assessment report – see Graduate SOA plan, attached.)
Recital Abstract approved by the student’s graduate faculty committee and the Graduate College.
10 recital abstracts (selected randomly from 2011-12, by the Graduate College secretary) were reviewed by members of the Grad SOA committee. The rubric is attached. The results are as follows: Competency 1: 10 Satisfactory Competency 2: 9 Satisfactory, 1 marginal Competency 3: 9 Satisfactory, 1 marginal Conclusion: Students are mostly demonstrating competency in the areas measured. While one paper was noticeably weaker than the others, the general level of the
A copy of this report will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
papers was strong.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes: • None at this time
• None at this time • A copy of this report and recommendations will be emailed to School of Music faculty and discussed at Division Council.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes • None at this time
SOA Plan Revisions • None at this time
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
Consider implementing a written form/rubric for criteria and evaluation of student recital abstracts, similar to the format used for reporting results of music education comprehensive examinations.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT TEMPLATE
Name of College: Humanities, Arts and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: Languages and Literatures
Program: Spanish Undergraduate
Department/Unit Mission: The Department of Languages and Literatures is in the process of developing its Mission Statement
Program Learning Goals: http://www.uni.edu/assessment/plans/documents/DML-SOA-UG-Plan-fa08.pdf
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Gabriela Olivares [email protected]
Date submitted: October 30, 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
1. Communication Outcome A. Presentational: Students will be able to present information, concepts, and ideas, both in speaking and in writing, to an audience of listeners or readers on a variety of topics. Mid level students are expected to write at the ACTFL Intermediate Mid level Exit-level students are expected to write at the ACTFL Advanced Low level
Application of sentence structure and vocabulary rubric to 6 mid-level (5th semester) and application of grammar and vocabulary rubric to 7 exit-level (seniors) undergraduate students' three-page video reports.
The data show that fifth-semester students’ sentence structure ability is at the intermediate low level according to ACTFL guidelines. Therefore, this grammatical aspect is below expectation. The data show that fifth-semester students’ vocabulary mastery is at the intermediate high level according to ACTFL guidelines. Therefore, this aspect meets expectated level. The data shows that fourth year students write above the Advanced Low level for use of verb forms,
• Data on file in Office of Academic Assessment • SOA plans available online
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
complex sentences and paragraphs, and for the use of vocabulary according to ACTFL guidelines.
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes • Continue curricular improvements to address
grammatical deficiencies at the mid-point and exit-point levels
• Continue to emphasize the importance of grammatical accuracy in upper-level course work, including:
o the assignment of grammar manuals as recommended books at all levels
o the development and use of grammar rubrics for all assignments and literary contexts
New grammar textbook has been added to Intermediate Spanish: Manual de gramática by Iguina and Dozier Spanish 2001 and 2002 have a new syllabi, textbook and online platform. (MAS by Pérez-Gironés et al.) Sentence structure and vocabulary components have been added to the course: Introduction to translation SPAN 3007
Continued emphasis on grammatical accuracy, including grammatical rubrics to be added to all
written assignments
The findings reflect a sudden decline in mid-level
student performance in the sentence structure category. It remains to be seen if this decline is
temporary, or will continue in future assessments
The findings also reflect an improvement in performance in functional vocabulary for exit-level students. It remains to be seen if this increase in
performance is temporary, or will continue in future assessments
Future assessments may take into account the role in student performance of recent changes
such as: o the role of study abroad o the decrease in courses taught by
faculty in favor of courses taught by adjunct instructors
Future assessments will be conducted to determine the possible need for curriculum revisions that allow the offering of additional
courses in advanced Spanish grammar
Future assessments will have to include a new oral assessment tool in order to determine
teaching student readiness for the Spanish Praxis II exam
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes None
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
SOA Plan Revisions None
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT TEMPLATE
Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts and Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: Languages and Literatures
Program: Spanish MA
Department/Unit Mission: The Department of Languages and Literatures is in the process of developing its Mission Statement
Program Learning Goals: See Student Outcomes Assessment Plan: Graduate Spanish Program http://www.uni.edu/assessment/plans/documents/2009-2010SOASpanishMA.pdf
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Ivonne Cuadra ([email protected]) Sara Rosell ([email protected])
Date submitted: Nov. 1 2013
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
Outcome 2.2 Students will demonstrate a broad knowledge of and an ability to think critically about literary movements and key texts of the Hispanic literary tradition(s), including an evaluation of the process of canon formation. Knowledge of movements and genre.
Application of rubric to evaluate at random 5 comprehensive exams questions of specific theme through different periods and genre in the area of transatlantic literature. The exams were taken during Spring 2013. The assessment were conducted by Dr. Ivonne Cuadra and Dr. Sara Rosell. Answers were read and scored on a scale of 1-6, 4 being the expectation for a graduating student, then ran averages for each of the areas assessed. (See Appendix A:-Sp-Grad-rubric)
Average 5/6 Students performed at or above the expected level, they recognize canonical texts from different genres and literary movements as required in the M.A. reading list. Evidences indicate a good understanding of the characteristics related to those movements. (See Appendix B:Overall Rating)
Data on file in Office of Academic Assessment • SOA plans available online
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Outcome 2.2 Students will demonstrate a broad knowledge of and an ability to think critically about literary movements and key texts of the Hispanic literary tradition(s), including an evaluation of the process of canon formation. Use of textual examples.
Application of rubric to evaluate at random 5 comprehensive exams questions of specific theme through different periods and genre in the area of transatlantic literature. The exams were taken during Spring 2013. The assessment were conducted by Dr. Ivonne Cuadra and Dr. Sara Rosell. Answers were read and scored on a scale of 1-6, 4 being the expectation for a graduating student, then ran averages for each of the areas assessed. (See Appendix A:-Sp-Grad-rubric)
Average: 5.2/6 Students performed at or above the expected level, most of the examples chosen are appropriate and they are from different periods (both from Spain and Hispanic America) to discuss the theme. (See Appendix B:Overall Rating)
Data on file in Office of Academic Assessment • SOA plans available online
Outcome 2.2 Students will demonstrate a broad knowledge of and an ability to think critically about literary movements and key texts of the Hispanic literary tradition(s), including an evaluation of the process of canon formation. Understanding and interpretation of theme
Application of rubric to evaluate at random 5 comprehensive exams questions of specific theme through different periods and genre in the area of transatlantic literature. The exams were taken during Spring 2013. The assessment were conducted by Dr. Ivonne Cuadra and Dr. Sara Rosell. Answers were read and scored on a scale of 1-6, 4 being the expectation for a graduating student, then ran averages for each of the areas assessed. (See Appendix A:-Sp-Grad-rubric)
Average: 4.6/6 Students performed at or above the expected level. Although most examples used are generally qualified, few of them are not well developed. In general, evidences indicate a need for a deeper analysis establishing a relationship of those texts and a broader sociocultural context. (See Appendix B:Overall Rating)
Data on file in Office of Academic Assessment • SOA plans available online
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes Incorporate more literary and cultural theory in classes and in the reading list
We recommended to keep working as we had to obtain similar or better results. So far, this recommendation has been followed. We also recommended to make changes in the Spanish MA reading list. This is a task that we
Make changes to update the Spanish MA reading list. To maintain and improve the results in this area it would be a good idea to develop a graduate course that would offer a survey of Hispanic
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
have not yet accomplished. literature of canonical texts in accordance with the updated reading list. This would prepare students not only for comprehensive exams but also for other literatures and cultural courses.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes
SOA Plan Revisions
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) Students have scored at the expected level or above in the Outcome Assessment 2.2 (Students will demonstrate a broad knowledge of and an ability to think critically about literary movements and key texts of the Hispanic literary tradition(s), including an evaluation of the process of canon formation). In the future is important to keep records to continue with similar or better results.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT TEMPLATE
Name of College: Humanities Arts & Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: Languages & Literatures
Program: TESOL BA
Department/Unit Mission: The Department of Languages and Literatures offers learning experiences that immerse all members of the departmental community in transactions with language and culture. The focus of our courses and programs of study cultivates a deeper understanding of ourselves and others; fosters a critical and creative engagement with languages, literatures, and cultures; and promotes the intellectual and practical linguistic skills our students need to understand, address, and contend with the cultural complexities of our pluralistic world.
Program Learning Goals: Students will be familiar with basic linguistic concepts (phonology, morphology, semantics, syntax, pragmatics, history of English) and be able to apply this knowledge to teaching English language learners. Students will be able to apply knowledge of bilingual education, social and dialectal variation, first and second language acquisition, and intercultural communication to the teaching of English. Finally, students will be familiar with the theoretical bases of teaching and assessment methods and will be able to design instruction, using various mediums, appropriate to a variety of audiences. Students will be able to articulate both conceptual knowledge and its application in clear spoken and written form.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Cheryl Roberts [email protected]
Date submitted: 11-1-13
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year Student Learning Outcomes Assessed
Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed, person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
(Outcome) See program learning goals
Throughout the student’s program the following assessments will be conducted in their respective classes: written examinations, portfolios, response/reflective essays, research papers, simulations, oral class presentations, journal writing.
Results are evaluated and recorded by the individual instructors.
Due to privacy issues, the grades on specific class assessments are not shared with others, but are synthesized and recorded as end-of-semester class grades.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
(Outcome) See program learning goals
Undergraduate TESOL Practicum is designed to permit a comprehensive review of student attainment of program learning goals.
The Undergraduate Practicum met the goals for which it was created as it afforded students opportunities to apply the knowledge of basic linguistic concepts and to experience bilingual education, second language acquisition and intercultural communications as they designed, executed and assessed instruction in actual English language classrooms. Several integrated assessments were used to measure a full range of student outcomes, the most telling of which were pre and post self-assessment procedures that required our pre-service teacher candidates to examine their own strengths and weaknesses (with a specially created rubric) against the INTASC Standards of content knowledge, learner development, learner diversity, instructional strategies, learning environment, communication, planning, assessment, reflective practice, community and technology. After the pre-self-rating, students created a goal plan using the items on the rubric which outlined how they hoped to be challenged and grow as a teacher during their field placement. Their final INTACS self-assessment report compared their pre- and post- assessments about what they learned about themselves as teachers, their strengths and weaknesses.
Results will be shared with TESOL Section faculty and Department Curriculum Committee.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
A further assessment using students’ goal-setting was used to measure students’ efficacy with their assigned English Language Learner (ELL). Students initiated their classroom experience with an interview of their assigned mainstream classroom teacher, their ESL professional, and their ELL after which they created goals for their fieldwork placement and what they hoped to accomplish with their ELL. After their placements, students did a Post-Immersion Fieldwork Report and Presentation that acted as a culmination of all of their placement activities, conversations and experiences. It included a brief description of their assigned ELL, a plan of what they had hoped to accomplish, a copy of their lesson plans, a brief description of what they did, and a self-reflection of their experience where they discussed their successes and opportunities for improvement. These post-reports also included classroom management strategies and error correction techniques that they saw being used effectively and the ones that they used. Finally, this class provided an opportunity for learners to work and study together to prepare for the PRAXIS II Content Exam for TESOL. This standardized measure was also a normed indicator for our students’
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
knowledge of basic linguistic concepts, bilingual education, social and dialectal variation, first and second language acquisition, intercultural communications, teaching and assessment methods, instructional design and teaching applications of this knowledge.
(Outcome) Practice Praxis exam (and follow up discussion) was given Spring, 2013, for undergraduate TESOL majors.
Weakness in area of assessment; addressed by replacing the College of Ed (general) assessment with specific class “Assessment for Language Learning”.
(Outcome)
Next Steps: Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes Due to the merger of departments (Modern Languages and English Language & Literature) and elimination of two programs, necessary curricular changes are currently under discussion. Examples of curricular proposals: TESOL 4740/5740 “Methods and Approaches” has been changed to “Approaches to Language Teaching,” LANG 4093/5093 “Technology in Foreign Language Education” has been changed to “Technology in Language Education” and serve a broader group of students, “Assessment for Language Learning is a new course LANG 4xxx/5xxx, also serving a broad group of students in the Dept. These changes go into effect fall 2014.
A new course has been proposed and taught, namely, an undergraduate TESOL practicum based on an experimental course piloted Spring Semester 2012. Both outcomes and assessment to be reviewed after the second offering of TESOL practicum in Spring Semester 2013.
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes More specific learning goals are being worked on and will continue to be once curricular changes are approved and implemented.
See Above
SOA Plan Revisions See Above Student materials documenting attainment of learning goals or outcomes will be assessed
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
after the 2nd offering of the undergraduate TESOL practicum Spring Semester 2013.
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) The major current challenge is making curricular changes in light of the merger of departments and elimination of programs. More specific student assessments cannot be specified until the curriculum is established.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT TEMPLATE
Name of College: Humanities Arts & Sciences
Name of Department/Unit: Languages & Literatures
Program: TESOL MA
Department/Unit Mission: The Department of Languages and Literatures offers learning experiences that immerse all members of the departmental community in transactions with language and culture. The focus of our courses and programs of study cultivates a deeper understanding of ourselves and others; fosters a critical and creative engagement with languages, literatures, and cultures; and promotes the intellectual and practical linguistic skills our students need to understand, address, and contend with the cultural complexities of our pluralistic world.
Program Learning Goals: Students should be familiar with major scholarly work in the field, be able to apply knowledge to practical situations, understand the relationship between theory and practice, be able to synthesize and critically analyze a variety of viewpoints. Students should be able to clearly articulate the above in spoken form and written form. The above should apply to at least the following areas: Second Language Acquisition, Phonology, Grammar, Sociolinguistics, Intercultural Communication, Approaches to Teaching, Strategies for Teaching, Use of Technology, and Assessment.
Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Cheryl Roberts ([email protected])
Date submitted: 11-1-13
Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year
Student Learning
Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include
methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,
person responsible, etc.)
Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed
reports are kept at the department level.)
Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information
(Outcome) See program learning goals
MA Comprehensive Exams (6-hr. written exam) – designed and assessed by the TESOL Comprehensive Exam Committee, consisting of all the TESOL faculty; administered during Fall Semester, Spring Semester, and as needed, during Summer Semester.
Results are recorded in the Office of Graduate Studies in the Department. Spring 2012: 8 students took the exam, 6 passed. The 2 who failed are scheduled to retake the exam Nov 2, 2013.
All TESOL faculty are informed of the final assessment. In addition, TESOL faculty met in spring, 2012, to discuss that semester’s exams in terms of student achievement and test validity.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
(Outcome) See program learning goals
MA Research Paper (about 25 pages) – assessed by two TESOL faculty assigned as readers; students typically complete this paper the last semester or second to last semester of their degree program.
See above Six MA research papers have been approved thus far this calendar year.
See above
(Outcome) See program learning goals
Throughout the student’s program the following assessments will be conducted by the instructor in their respective classes: written examinations, annotated bibliographies, portfolios, response/reflective essays, research papers, simulations, oral in-class presentations, journals.
Results are recorded by the individual instructors. Very few students fail classes. Those who do (none this calendar year) retake the class.
Due to privacy issues, the grades on specific class assessments are not shared with others, but are synthesized and recorded as end-of-semester class grades.
(Outcome) See program learning goals
Some students’ work is selected at the University and College levels to be presented in symposia. MA Research Paper of the Year Awards (Graduate College) are received by some students.
College publications, departmental announcements, & awards ceremony for the College award
Next Steps:
Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year
Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps
Recommended Program Changes Due to the merger of departments (Modern Languages and English Language & Literature), TESOL 4740/5740 “Methods and Approaches” is to now “Approaches to Language Teaching.” We are seeking to add 3 hours of research as required on the program of study.
The new Methods class is a collaboration between the previous TESOL Methods and a
Methods class from the former Modern Languages. Both TESOL and Spanish
students will take this course. We are also adding Research hours so that
students can use this time to work on their MA papers/theses, and so that instructors (first
readers) will finally have acknowledgment of this extra work load.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes More specific learning goals and their review are being worked on and will continue to be once curricular changes are approved and implemented.
SOA Plan Revisions See Above
Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) The major current challenge is making curricular changes in light of the merger of departments and elimination of programs. Discussion is underway to review the purpose and outcomes of our comprehensive examinations.
http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml
GRAD SOA Research & Writing Assessment rubric
Outcome 3 – Research and Writing Knowledge of bibliographic skills, familiarity with library holdings and their uses. Competency 3.1 Evidence of writing skills sufficient to complete graduate level course work. Competency 3.2 Mastery of analytic skills, critical thinking, secondary literature, research techniques and methods for both primary and secondary sources.
PAPER TYPE: YEAR: (MA Research Paper, MM Thesis, MM Music Ed Research Paper, or MM Recital Abstract)
Excellent Good Satisfactory Marginal Poor Writing: structure/grammar, appropriate academic style
Formatting – footnotes, bibliography, etc.
Content: Analytical skills, critical thinking
Research techniques and methods for primary and secondary sources
Overall quality of paper
General comments:
MM Recital Abstract SOA Rubric
COMPETENCY Satisfactory Marginal Criteria Not Met
Demonstrates knowledge of historical context of the repertoire presented
Demonstrates analytical knowledge of the repertoire presented Demonstrates knowledge of performance practice traditions
Date:
Music Education comprehensive exam 1
COMPREHENSIVE EXAM: Music Education
Name:
Student number:
Date of exam:
Date of evaluation:
Evaluator:
Evaluation:
Pass Qualified pass Fail
Comments:
Part I:
Part II:
Evaluators Signature(s)
Description of research
method or research
design
Design or structure of the
written article
Credibility of the
methodology
Overall value of statistical
or qualitative data
Value of the findings.
Strengths and threats to
validity
School of Music Student Outcomes Assessment Plan: Graduate Division
Program: Outcomes for Core Curriculum in all MA, MM Degrees in Music
Assessment Methods to generate data
Frequency of data analysis
How Results will used and shared internally
How the results will be used and shared externally
Outcome 1 - Music History Students shall have a functional knowledge of the history of Western Music, extending knowledge gained in undergraduate music history studies, and preparing students for entrance into any doctoral program. Competency 1.1 Mastery of deficits in knowledge-base in major repertories of Western music in their historical context from the 16th-20th century, evident through the diagnostic exam. Competency 1.2 Students shall have a mastery of knowledge of the major repertories of Western music in their historical context from the 16th century – 20th century. Competency 1.3 Understanding of historical research methods utilized in the study of repertoires within limited time periods of music, i.e., Baroque, Romantic, etc.
Written comprehensive exam, two hours in length which includes short answer, essay and listening questions. This exam is offered each semester and is proctored and graded by members of the music history faculty.
Odd-numbered years beginning in 2009.
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
Outcome 2 – Music Theory Students shall have a functional knowledge of the theoretical basis of Western Music, extending knowledge gained in undergraduate music theory studies and preparing students for entrance into any doctoral program. Competency 2.1 Mastery of deficits in knowledge-base in functional language and grammar of music through analytical techniques of music, Middle Ages through Classical Era, evident through the diagnostic exam. Competency 2.2 Students shall have a mastery of functional language and grammar of music through analytical techniques of music from the Middle Ages and Renaissance through the 20th
Century.
Written comprehensive exam, two hours in length which includes short answer, analysis and musical score identification. This exam is offered each semester and is proctored and graded by members of the music theory faculty.
Even-numbered years beginning in 2010.
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
1
School of Music Student Outcomes Assessment Plan: Graduate Division
Outcome 3 – Research and Writing Knowledge of bibliographic skills, familiarity with library holdings and their uses. Competency 3.1 Evidence of writing skills sufficient to complete graduate level course work. Competency 3.2 Mastery of analytic skills, critical thinking, secondary literature, research techniques and methods for both primary and secondary sources.
A sample of completed research papers, recital abstracts and theses will be reviewed by members of the Music Graduate SOA committee for demonstration of appropriate research and writing skills and quality of completed product.
Even-numbered years beginning in 2012.
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
Program: Outcomes for MM Composition Degree
Assessment Methods to generate data
Frequency of data analysis
How Results will used and shared internally
How the results will be used and shared externally
2
School of Music Student Outcomes Assessment Plan: Graduate Division
Outcome – MM Composition Degree Students shall be able to produce original compositions to be presented in a public performance. Competency 1.1 Mastery of an array of traditional and technological innovations that influence the contemporary music compositions. Competency 1.2 Development of discriminatory preferences for the development of one’s own musical language.
Performance recital of student generated compositions juried and assessed by a graduate faculty committee.
Odd-numbered years beginning in 2011.
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
Program: Outcomes for MM Conducting Degree
Assessment Methods to generate data
Frequency of data analysis
How Results will used and shared internally
How the results will be used and shared externally
MM Conducting Degree Students shall be prepared for ensemble leadership at the secondary, community, college and professional level. Competency 1.1 Students shall demonstrate ability to analyze and discuss in written form music presented as a conductor to an ensemble of musicians. Competency 1.2 Mastery of technical skill of conducting.
Performance recital of student-rehearsed ensembles juried and assessed by a graduate faculty committee.
Odd-numbered years beginning in 2011.
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
Program: Outcomes for MM Jazz Pedagogy Degree Assessment Methods to generate data
Frequency of data analysis
How Results will used and shared internally
How the results will be used and shared externally
3
School of Music Student Outcomes Assessment Plan: Graduate Division
Outcome –The student shall be prepared to teach all aspects of jazz performance at the elementary-secondary and/or undergraduate levels of instruction. Competency 1.1 Mastery of the ability to teach authentic jazz performance skills and concepts aurally by modeling. Competency 1.2 Mastery of jazz ensemble (big band and combo) rehearsal skills. Competency 1.8 Evidence of the ability to teach listening and appreciation skills as they relate to recorded jazz performance.
Observation and assessment of student teaching practicum of combo and big band ensembles by members of the Jazz Faculty. Each semester of student's residency.
Odd-numbered years beginning in 2011.
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
Competency 1.6 Evidence of familiarity with jazz pedagogy methodologies and resources. Competency 1.7 Evidence of familiarity with jazz ensemble literature and resources.
Jazz specialty final comprehensive oral exam administered and juried by members of the Jazz Faculty.
Odd-numbered years beginning in 2011.
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
4
School of Music Student Outcomes Assessment Plan: Graduate Division
Competency 1.3 Evidence of functional jazz performance ability on drum set, electric bass, piano and/or guitar Competency 1.4 Evidence of the ability to improvise credibly in the jazz idiom on the student’s primary instrument. Competency 1.5 Evidence of composition and arranging skills in the jazz idiom.
Performance recital juried by a committee of the graduate music faculty. Final semester of residency.
Odd-numbered years beginning in 2011.
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
5
School of Music Student Outcomes Assessment Plan: Graduate Division
Program: Outcomes for MM Music Education Degree
Assessment Methods to generate data
Frequency of data analysis
How Results will used and shared internally
How the results will be used and shared externally
6
School of Music Student Outcomes Assessment Plan: Graduate Division
Outcome 1 – Music Education Student shall be able to work effectively with the educational and musical challenges of today’s schools. Competency 1.1 Students will demonstrate comprehensive knowledge base of musicianship and education that will serve as their model for effective teaching in today’s schools. Competency 1.2 Students will demonstrate mastery of the foundations and underlying principles of effective teaching and learning styles. Competency 1.3 Students will demonstrate an understanding of current trends and philosophies in music education and application to everyday teaching environment. Competency 1.4 Students will demonstrate an understanding of the role of technology in the pedagogy of music.
Music Education specialty final comprehensive exam administered and graded once per year by members of the music education faculty. Normally this exam is in essay format and 2-3 hours in length.
Even-numbered years beginning 2012
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
Outcome 2 – Music Education Students shall understand the various research methodologies used in music education. Competency 2.1 Students will understand the role of music education research in everyday teaching and learning. Competency 2.2 Students will demonstrate proficient research writing skills. Competency 2.3 Students will analyze and interpret qualitative, quantitative, and historical music education research reports. Competency 2.4 Students will design and conduct a quantitative, qualitative, or historical research study. Competency 2.5 Students will identify research techniques and demonstrate ability to use research materials specific to quantitative and qualitative research. Competency 2.6 Students will demonstrate and solve elementary statistical problems and interpret the results.
See Outcome 3 for ALL MA/MM degrees.
Even-numbered years beginning in 2012.
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
7
School of Music Student Outcomes Assessment Plan: Graduate Division
Program: Outcome for MM Music History Degree
Assessment Methods to generate data
Frequency of data analysis
How Results will used and shared internally
How the results will be used and shared externally
Outcome – Music History Student shall produce evidence of scholarship and research ability which will qualify student for entrance into doctoral study. Competency. Comprehensive knowledge of repertories of Western Music, medieval-21st Century.
See Outcome 3 for ALL MA/MM degrees. Also, student must present a Thesis Defense juried by a committee of graduate faculty
Even-numbered years beginning in 2012.
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
Program: Outcomes for MM Music Performance Degree
Assessment Methods to generate data
Frequency of data analysis
How Results will used and shared internally
How the results will be used and shared externally
Performance Student shall be prepared for a professional career as a performer and/or seek additional study at the doctoral level. Competency 1.1 Master the skills necessary to meet the needs of artistic expression from a cross section of all styles in a musical performance. Competency 1.2 Awareness of standard repertoire in performance area.
Performance recital juried by a committee of the graduate music faculty. Final semester of residency.
Odd-numbered years beginning in 2011.
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
Competency 1.3 Integration and assimilation of historical/theoretical knowledge with performance practice traditions.
See Outcome 3 for ALL MA/MM degrees. Also, student must complete a specialty area comprehensive oral exam juried by a committee of graduate faculty.
Even-numbered years beginning in 2012.
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
8
School of Music Student Outcomes Assessment Plan: Graduate Division
Program: Outcomes for MM Piano Performance and Pedagogy
Assessment Methods to generate data
Frequency of data analysis
How Results will used and shared internally
How the results will be used and shared externally
Outcome – Piano Performance and Pedagogy Student shall be prepared for a teaching career in piano and keyboards at the elementary, intermediate, advanced level, in group or individual situations. Competency 1.1 Master the skills necessary for group teaching.
Observation of student teaching practicum by graduate piano faculty each semester of residence.
Odd-numbered years beginning in 2011.
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
Competency 1.2 Mastery of knowledge of teaching materials at the elementary, intermediate, advanced levels. Competency 1.3 Mastery of knowledge of teaching materials for group situations and for adults. Competency 1.4 Knowledge of current technologies related to piano and keyboard teaching. Competency 1.5 Awareness of standard repertoire for piano
Specialty area comprehensive oral exam juried by a committee of graduate faculty administered in the final semester of residency.
Odd-numbered years beginning in 2011.
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
Competency 1.6 Development of performance skills.
Student semester performance exams and/or final recital juried by members of the piano faculty.
Odd-numbered years beginning in 2011.
Results will be shared via email with the graduate music faculty.
The results will be submitted to the University SOA committee and the CHFA Dean.
9
TESOL/NCATE
STANDARDS FOR THE RECOGNITION
OF INITIAL TESOL PROGRAMS IN
P–12 ESL TEACHER EDUCATION
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. A Global Education Association
1925 Ballenger Avenue, Suite 550 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 USA Tel: 703‐836‐0774 Fax: 703‐836‐7864 E‐mail: [email protected] http://www.tesol.org/
1
For More Information:
These standards were prepared and developed by the TESOL/NCATE P‐12 ESL Teacher
Education Program Standards Team and Diane Staehr Fenner, TESOL/NCATE Program
Coordinator.
If you have questions about the TESOL/NCATE program standards, please contact Diane Staehr
Fenner at [email protected].
For information on the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE),
please visit their web site at www.ncate.org.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. A Global Education Association
1925 Ballenger Avenue, Suite 550 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 USA Tel: 703‐836‐0774 Fax: 703‐836‐7864 E‐mail: [email protected] http://www.tesol.org/ Copyright © 2010 by Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any informational storage and retrieval system, without permission from the author. Permission is hereby granted for personal use only.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 5
Preface 6
Introduction 10
Standards 25
Domain 1. Language 27
Standard 1.a. Language as a System 28
Rubric for Standard 1.a. 29
Standard 1.b. Language Acquisition and Development 33
Rubric for Standard 1.b. 35
Domain 2. Culture 39
Standard 2. Culture as it Affects Student Learning 39
Rubric for Standard 2 41
Domain 3. Planning, Implementing, and Managing Instruction 44
Standard 3.a. Planning for Standards‐Based ESL and Content Instruction 44
Rubric for Standard 3.a. 45
Standard 3.b. Implementing and Managing Standards‐Based ESL and Content 48
Rubric for Standard 3.b. 49
Standard 3.c. Using Resources and Technology Effectively in ESL and Content Instruction 54
Rubric for Standard 3.c. 55
Domain 4. Assessment 57
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for English Language Learners 57
3
Rubric for Standard 4.a. 59
Standard 4.b. Language Proficiency Assessment 62
Rubric for Standard 4.b. 63
Standard 4.c. Classroom‐Based Assessment for ESL 65
Rubric for Standard 4.c. 66
Domain 5. Professionalism 69
Standard 5.a. ESL Research and History 69
Rubric for Standard 5.a. 70
Standard 5.b. Professional Development, Partnerships and Advocacy 72
Rubric for Standard 5.b. 73
Appendix A. Development and Review of Standards 77
Appendix B. Selecting and Training Reviewers 87
Appendix C. Preparing and Reviewing Program Reports 89
Appendix D. SPA Responsibilities Under NCATE Partnerships 90
Glossary of Terms 91
Resources 95
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The TESOL/NCATE ESL Teacher Standards Committee would like to thank the following people
for their support and contributions to the revised TESOL P–12 ESL Teacher Standards:
Previous members of the committee including Keith Buchanan, Eric Dwyer, Lydia Stack, and
Beth Witt, who were part of the revision effort. Fred Genesee and Candace Harper, who wrote
the new introduction.
Our colleagues who took the time to review and comment on the standards, including those
who attended the board‐sponsored sessions at the past three TESOL conferences. Those who
responded to the standards, which were posted at both the TESOL and NCATE Web sites, and
those compilers and program reviewers who commented as well.
The TESOL Standards Standing Committee for their support and feedback.
The Standards Committee of the Specialty Areas Studies Board at NCATE and the NCATE staff
who provided feedback to our committee on the revised standards.
The TESOL Board of Directors, Executive Director Charles S. Amorsino, Director of Professional
Development John Donaldson, and especially our Program Coordinator, Diane Staehr Fenner,
who has been instrumental in compiling this document.
5
PREFACE
In 1999, TESOL became a member organization of NCATE and began the process of developing
standards for the recognition of P–12 ESL teacher education programs. The TESOL Executive
Committee and the NCATE Specialty Areas Studies Board approved the current TESOL/NCATE
Standards for P–12 ESL Teacher Education Programs in 2001.
In response to NCATE requirements, TESOL began the process of revising the 2001 standards in
2005. When developing the current and the revised standards, the TESOL/NCATE team
reviewed the standards of other NCATE professional association members. Various aspects of
the organization of the TESOL standards are modeled on other organizations’ standards,
including general formatting and rubrics, and other specialty‐area associations (SPAs) have
modeled aspects of their standards on TESOL’s.
TESOL examined the National Board’s English as a New Language program and found that the
TESOL “exceeds” description is generally linked with the National Board standards. The
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) does not have any type
of ESL or foreign language standards. They have only language arts, which was not appropriate
as a model. Standards for students were also consulted, such as those for World‐Class
Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) and the European Framework.
TESOL is the primary source for the development of ESL standards for teachers of P–12 students
in the United States. Many states have adopted the standards to guide their teacher education
programs. When revising the TESOL standards, the competencies identified in California were
reviewed. California does not have ESL licensure but has “Teacher Expectations.”
The California CLAD (Cross‐cultural Language and Academic Development) credential standards
served as a primary source for the original TESOL Standards. The CLAD Certificate
requirements currently mirror the content of the revised TESOL Standards. New York requires
TESOL/NCATE certification for its teacher preparation programs and used the TESOL standards
to develop their requirements.
Overlap with American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Standards
The ACTFL standards are based on TESOL’s standards; with this in mind, the overlap as well as
differences in the two sets of standards will be outlined. The overarching content knowledge in
the two sets of standards is similar: for example, knowledge of language as a system (for the
target language), second or foreign language acquisition and development, and assessment
procedures. These are the areas in which the content knowledge overlaps.
The major differences between the two sets of standards lie with the target audience. In the
case of TESOL, teachers will be teaching students who are exposed to or use a language other
6
than English and who must acquire English in order to function both in the U.S. classroom and
in society at large. The loss of English language learners’ first or home language often occurs
within 1–3 generations.
Culture is an area in which the two sets of standards differ. For ACTFL, knowledge of culture
primarily refers to the language and culture that are used outside of the United States (e.g.,
French culture in France or Quebec). However, for TESOL, the target culture is the culture of the
United States. Other issues related to culture for English language learners include how the
home culture might affect students’ education in the United States and when those two
cultures may be in conflict, possibly affecting academic achievement. Teachers of English
language learners (ELLs) in the United States need to have knowledge of other cultures and
know how culture may affect the acculturation of immigrants or children of immigrants in the
United States. They also need to know how acculturation may be in conflict with typical U.S.
educational patterns.
Although both sets of standards deal with assessment, the standards differ in the types of
assessments and purposes for them. Teachers of ELLs must be familiar with content‐area tests
that all students in the United States are required to take to meet the requirements of the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) such as content‐area tests in mathematics and science. In addition,
they must also be knowledgeable about NCLB‐mandated language proficiency tests in which
ELLs must participate yearly. They must understand the purposes of English language
proficiency assessment, such as for identification, placement, and reclassification of ELLs from
ESL services. Furthermore, teachers who work with ELLs must also be adept at formative,
classroom‐based assessment in the content areas as well as to measure English language
proficiency.
To summarize, the TESOL standards are similar to those of ACTFL, specifically in the area of
general content knowledge, although only for the English language, not for other languages.
More importantly, the two sets of standards differ because ACTFL standards typically focus on
the content needed to teach a foreign language for enrichment, whereas TESOL teachers need
to be prepared to teach English for differing purposes, such as for academic success in the
United States.
Context and Process of TESOL Standards Revision
Because the current standards were created less than 10 years ago, the revised standards are
an update rather than a major rewrite. They are still designed for teacher education programs
that prepare candidates for an initial certification, endorsement, or license in ESL teaching.
They remain organized around the original five domains (Language, Culture, Instruction,
Assessment, and Professionalism) with each standard accompanied by an explanatory
7
statement and a rubric of illustrative, not prescriptive, performance indicators described at
three levels of proficiency: approaches, meets, and exceeds. The rubrics are designed to help
institutions identify evidence of candidate performance and guide reviewer recognition
recommendations. They are additive. Meets Standard assumes that the candidate has also met
the criteria under Approaches Standard. Exceeds Standard assumes that the candidate has also
met the criteria under Approaches Standard and Meets Standard. Additionally, they are aligned
with the proposed NCATE principles for standards development. The most significant changes
in the draft revised standards are a reduction in the number of standards from 13 to 11,
clarifying some standards and performance indicators, and an updating of the references. The
introduction was also updated to provide the rationale for the standards and reflect the latest
research in the field.
TESOL invited comments from the field throughout the revision process via presentations at the
TESOL annual convention and affiliate conferences, Web‐based surveys, targeted requests to
specific groups of experts in the field, and postings on the TESOL and NCATE Web sites. More
than 150 comments were received throughout the process, with feedback on the standards
ranging in length from several words to several pages. Each comment was recorded, considered
by the TESOL‐NCATE team, and an appropriate response to the comment was undertaken. This
revision of the standards has been overwhelmingly positively received, and the clarifications
made in the latest version of the standards were welcomed by institutional representatives and
other TESOL professionals who have responded to solicitations for feedback on drafts. A
timeline of significant steps in the process of revising the standards and a chart that presents
input from the field and action taken by the team is available in the Appendix A.
TESOL solicits program reviewers from its interest sections, the TESOL/NCATE team, ESL
program compilers, and the general membership. Interested potential reviewers submit a
reviewer application and are selected on the basis of professional experience; ability to
represent the needs of the profession; and potential ability and willingness to provide
comprehensive, valid, timely reviews. TESOL’s pool of reviewers includes trainers,
administrators, professors, teachers, and practitioners who are knowledgeable about the TESOL
P12 ESL Teacher Education Standards and have experience in ESL teacher preparation and/or PK–12 ESL education. All reviewers must participate in a reviewer training session held prior to
the TESOL annual convention. Training covers various aspects of interpreting and applying the
standards and evaluating the program report.
Training for Institution and States
TESOL also holds training sessions for institutions planning to compile reports during TESOL’s
annual convention. These sessions focus on the details of how to prepare and submit a program
report. Institutions that are preparing for recognition are invited to send representatives to
8
these sessions. In addition, TESOL presents on the standards and procedures for submitting a
program report at state meetings and conferences when invited by NCATE state partnership
agencies and occasionally works on a consultant basis one‐on‐one with an institution.
To date, TESOL has never been asked to provide training for any state. However, should we be asked to
do so, we would use the same kind of training we do for institutions, but on a more expanded scale
tailored to the state’s specific needs.
9
INTRODUCTION
Fred Genesee, McGill University
Candace Harper, University of Florida
A growing number of elementary and secondary schools in the United States are charged with
the education of students from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds, many of whom
speak no or limited English; these students are referred to as ESOL students in the remainder of
this section. The number of ESOL students grew by more than 65% between 1993 and 2004, but
the total K–12 population in the U.S. grew by less than 7% (National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition, 2006). ESOL students come from diverse linguistic, cultural, and
geographic regions (Capps, Fix, Murray, Ost, Passel, & Herwantoro, 2005), and ESOL teacher
educators must focus on this diversity to ensure that ESOL teachers are prepared to
individualize instruction to reflect their students’ backgrounds and needs. Although most ESOL
students have typically attended largely urban schools, more and more ESOL students are
attending schools in suburban and rural settings and, thus, are the responsibility of educators in
all regions of the country. The future of these students when they leave school and, arguably,
the very future of the nation depend on how successfully schools meet their linguistic and
cultural needs. The ultimate success of this challenge depends, in turn, on how effectively
teacher education programs prepare new teachers to educate these students. It is this
challenge that underlies the standards outlined in this document.
In the sections that follow, a selective review of research, theory, and applications for practice
that provide the rationale for the TESOL/NCATE teacher education program standards is
presented. Considerations of language, culture, assessment, and professionalism are treated
separately, as they are in the TESOL teacher education standards, although it must be
acknowledged that any separation of these domains is somewhat arbitrary. Instructional
considerations are discussed in connection with language, culture, assessment, and
professionalism and, thus, are not treated separately here.
Considerations of Language and Language Learning
Research over the last two decades has shown that language must be understood in
relationship to the contexts in which it is used. In other words, language takes different forms
when it is used in different contexts, such as in school or at a baseball game. This finding also
means that language proficiency is not monolithic. One can be proficient using language at a
baseball game but not proficient using language in the classroom to talk about mathematics or
science (Bailey, 2007). As well, language is an integral part of young learners’ overall
development, including their social, cultural, and cognitive development. However, all too
often, educational programs for ESOL students focus on teaching language to the exclusion of
10
other aspects of their social and academic development (Genesee, 1993), while also ignoring
the link between language and specific academic domains in the curriculum.
As a result of extensive research on language learning in foreign language immersion programs
for English‐speaking majority group students (Genesee, 2004), it is now generally recognized
that second languages are acquired most effectively when they are learned and taught in
conjunction with meaningful academic content (see Crandall & Kaufman, 2005, for examples of
content‐based instruction in ESL classrooms). Integrating language and academic instruction is
similarly supported by constructivist views of learning and teaching (Kaufman, 2004).
Constructivist pedagogy emphasizes the learners’ active role in constructing knowledge based
on meaningful, authentic, and relevant experiences in school. Academic content provides a
motivation for second language learning that goes beyond language itself. Few school‐age
children are interested in learning language for its own sake. Integrating language learning with
meaningful and interesting academic content also provides a substantive basis for language
learning. In other words, academic content provides “cognitive hangers” on which new
language structures and skills can be hung. Similarly, authentic communication about academic
content provides a real context for learning communicative functions of the new language. In
the absence of such authentic communication, language is often learned as an abstraction
devoid of conceptual and communicative substance. The interdependence between language
and academic development becomes increasingly important in the higher grades as mastery of
advanced‐level academic skills and knowledge becomes increasingly dependent on advanced‐
level academic language skills (Gibbons, 2003; Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007).
Researchers also emphasize that there is considerable variation in the formal and functional
characteristics of language from one academic subject to another. For example, the language
skills that students need to function effectively in mathematics are different from the language
skills they need for science and social studies, although clearly there is some overlap (Bailey,
2007). The differences include not only specialized vocabulary, but also grammatical, discourse,
and pragmatic skills that are essential for mastery and use of the communication skills needed
to talk about and explore academic subjects (Schleppegrell, 2004). The National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (2000), for example, refers to mathematics as a form of
communication. ESOL students who know how to use language in social situations do not
necessarily know how to use it effectively during academic instruction. Moreover, teaching
ESOL students the language they need for social studies will not necessarily equip them for
their science or mathematics classes.
An integrated approach to English teaching means that English should be taught implicitly
during lessons when the explicit focus is on teaching academic objectives. This kind of teaching
is done most effectively by classroom teachers who are responsible for teaching the core
11
academic objectives. At the same time, researchers have discovered that direct and explicit
instruction of particular aspects of language can facilitate acquisition and subsequent use of
those aspects of language (Lyster, 2007; Norris & Ortega, 2000). This is primarily the role of
ESOL teachers—to provide explicit and direct instruction in those aspects of English, either oral
or written, that their students need in mathematics, science, and social studies. ESOL teachers
also have a valuable role to play in helping classroom teachers provide both implicit and explicit
instruction, as needed, in those aspects of English that their students have difficulty mastering
during classroom instruction (see Echavarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008, for a model of sheltered
content instruction for use in mainstream classrooms). In other words, ESOL teachers can help
classroom teachers know how to scaffold academic instruction by adapting their language use
to match their ESOL students’ current language proficiency levels (see Gibbons, 2002, and
Verplaetse, 2008, for practical suggestions on scaffolding and language development in
academic contexts).
Language is complex; it is comprised of different skills and subskills. Language competence in
school requires skills in speaking, listening, reading, and writing. For example, during a science
class, high school students listen to the teacher lecture; they may make notes while the teacher
is lecturing; they may be called on to discuss the material as the teacher talks about it; and they
may then explore the material in greater depth by reading assigned material in their science
textbook. ESOL students need to deploy listening comprehension, note‐taking, speaking, and
reading skills virtually at the same time if they are to be fully engaged in their science lesson.
Therefore, ESOL teacher candidates need to learn how to integrate English skills instruction—
for example, listening and note‐taking, or reading and note‐taking—to ensure that their
students acquire functional competence in academic English. ESOL teacher candidates also
need to understand the components of oral and written language, how they interconnect, and
how they can be taught in parallel, with the focus of attention shifting as students advance in
competence.
Reading is an example of a complex skill that consists of interrelated subcomponents. Learning
to decode written words calls for mastery of these small‐unit skills related to phonological
awareness and knowledge of letter–sound relationships (Genesee & Geva, 2006; Riches &
Genesee, 2006). Decoding skills are important in reading comprehension, but decoding skills
alone are not sufficient. Students also need to learn big‐unit skills related to listening
comprehension, vocabulary, and inferencing in order to read text fluently and with
comprehension (August & Shanahan, 2006; Geva & Genesee, 2006). There is often a temptation
to teach the small‐unit skills of reading (e.g., phonics) separately and in isolation from the big‐
unit skills. However, effective ESL reading instruction entails teaching both types of skills at the
same time, although the focus of attention will differ at different stages of development. Small‐
unit skills should receive relatively more attention in early literacy instruction and big‐unit skills
12
increasingly become the focus at more advanced literacy levels, but both may be included at all
levels, depending on students’ needs. ESOL teacher candidates should be able to individualize
language and literacy instruction according to their students’ diverse needs, and these
instructional accommodations should be evident in their lesson plans.
For a long time now, ESOL researchers have understood that learning a language (first or
second) involves more than learning a linguistic code to label the physical world or to refer to
abstract concepts; it also entails learning how to use the code to communicate in socially
appropriate and effective ways (Hymes, 1971; Labov, 1969). Anyone who has learned a second
or foreign language as an adult and has tried to use it with native speakers will appreciate that
knowing the words and grammar of the language is not enough—you must also know how to
use them in socially acceptable ways. As ESOL students learn English, they should become fully
functioning and valued members of the classroom and school community. If they are to
become fully integrated into the life of the school and broader community (an important goal
of education), ESOL students must learn to function effectively within the sociolinguistic norms
of the school and of the broader community of which the school is a part. ESOL teacher
candidates should understand these issues and know how to respond to them when teaching
ESOL students.
In brief, ESOL and (and ideally all classroom) teachers charged with the education of ESOL
students must understand language as a system of communication. They should understand
the ways in which language varies as a function of social and academic contexts and purposes
and know how to plan instruction that will permit their students to learn critical variations in
language used in and outside school (Fillmore & Snow, 2002). ESOL teacher candidates must
also know how to select and use meaningful content as a basis for planning and providing ESOL
instruction. Planning that incorporates the English language skills that ESOL students need for
learning in specific academic domains is a way of addressing the specificity of functional
language use, as well as of ensuring that the language skills taught to ESOL students are useful.
If language skills are taught in isolation from the rest of the curriculum, they may not transfer or
be useful for coping with academic instruction. Consequently, ESOL students will not benefit
fully from academic instruction in their other classes. ESOL teacher candidates must understand
the links between academic content and language and know how to promote the acquisition of
academic language proficiency so that ESOL students can communicate effectively about the
academic concepts and skills they are learning in school.
Considerations of Culture
Effective instruction is culturally appropriate. It builds on the skills, knowledge, and experiences
that students acquire prior to coming to school and while they are in school, and it extends and
broadens their skills and experiences in developmentally meaningful ways throughout the
13
school years. In other words, the starting point for planning and delivering instruction is the
student. Thus, the pedagogical approach of choice when working with ESOL students should be
first and foremost student centered. From the ESOL teacher’s point of view, planning and
providing instruction on the basis of ESOL students’ existing cultural experiences and
competencies provides a solid foundation for extending their skills and knowledge in new
directions. From the ESOL student’s point of view, learning in the context of familiar cultural
experiences and acquired skills provides a supportive environment in which to acquire new
skills and concepts.
It is widely accepted that there are significant individual differences among students, even
within the same cultural and linguistic groups. Such variation reflects the accumulation of both
constitutional and experiential influences, such as socioeconomic, nutritional, and cultural
factors. To be developmentally meaningful, instruction for ESOL students must be
individualized to account for important personal and cultural differences among ESOL learners
(see Echevarria & Graves, 2007, for suggestions on teaching ESOL students from diverse
backgrounds). The backgrounds of ESOL students from nonnative English speaking cultural
groups are clearly different from those of students from the English‐dominant language and
culture in U.S. schools (Capps et al., 2005). These differences are often viewed as a source of
academic problems for ESOL students because the schools they attend typically reflect the
backgrounds of students from the dominant cultural group. The term cultural difference has
been used euphemistically by some educators and policymakers as a substitute for the earlier,
unfounded cultural deficit theory (Bernstein, 1972). Although those who assume the difference
perspective may not consciously characterize ESOL students as deficient, they often view them
as unprepared for mainstream schooling and call for changes in the students and their families
to redress the mismatch between home and school. As a result, the difference perspective is
considered misguided and pedagogically empty because it fails to provide substantive insights
into the specific characteristics of ESOL students, their families, and their communities. It also
fails to help their teachers view these characteristics as resources that could have a positive
impact on their schooling.
A long history of research in a variety of social and cultural communities has broadened our
understanding of specific patterns of linguistic, social, and cognitive development in families
and communities with diverse sociocultural characteristics (Heath, 1986; Park, 2003; Schieffelin
& Eisenberg, 1984; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). The findings from these studies as well as from
Goldstein (2003) and Valdés (2001) have revealed rich and complex patterns of social
interaction, language use, and cultural learning. More specifically, research evidence indicates
that students from language minority backgrounds have often had linguistic and cultural
experiences in their communities that, as Pease‐Alvarez and Vasquez (1994) point out, have
been enriched by the home culture, the dominant group culture in which they live, and the
14
multiculturalism that inevitably results from contact and interaction between minority and
majority groups in a pluralistic society. In other words, far from being impoverished, deficient,
or merely different, the out‐of‐school experiences of ESOL students are often immensely rich
and complex. As a result, ESOL students acquire rich funds of knowledge that they bring to
school (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005). Thus, earlier views advocating educational programs
that sought to remediate or compensate for developmental or cultural deficiencies in ESOL
students are misinformed and counterproductive because these deficiencies are often
nonexistent.
Educational approaches that aim to minimize differences between the home cultures of ESOL
students and mainstream schools may be considered educationally wasteful because they
ignore the capabilities and knowledge that ESOL students bring with them to school. On the
contrary, research indicates that the developmentally sound approach is to encourage
development of the home language (L1) and culture of ESOL students in school, where possible,
and to use the linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural resources that they bring to school as a
basis for planning their formal education in English (August & Shanahan, 2006; Riches &
Genesee, 2006). In support of this view, research on the academic development of ESOL
students has demonstrated that they use their cultural experiences, as well as their native
language skills, to break into and master English and academic content (Genesee, Lindholm‐
Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006). This process is particularly evident in reading acquisition,
where numerous studies have found that there are significant and positive relationships
between ESOL students’ native language literacy skills and experiences and their acquisition of
reading skills in English (August & Shanahan, 2006; Riches & Genesee, 2006). Thus, ESOL
teacher candidates must become knowledgeable about and comfortable with the cultural
communities in which their ESOL students live, and they must learn how to draw on the cultural
and linguistic resources that ESOL students bring to school to support their language, literacy,
and academic development in English.
Generally speaking, schools in the United States reflect the knowledge and assumptions held by
educational authorities about the experiences and backgrounds of students from the majority
cultural group (McGroarty, 1986). Indeed, most public education is based on systematic
research into the development and experiences of these children (Heath, 1986). Education is
thus developmentally sensitive to and culturally appropriate for students from the majority
culture. For education to be sensitive to and appropriate for ESOL students, it is necessary for
educators to refocus their attention to take into account significant background and learning
factors particular to the development of language minority students. Variation in the
background of ESOL students is likely to be extensive given the considerable diversity among
their first languages, their level of English proficiency, their previous educational experiences,
their medical conditions, the circumstances in which they live or have come to live in an
15
English‐speaking community, and so on. Because ESOL students’ backgrounds are so diverse
and often unfamiliar to educators who are not members of these cultural groups, ESOL teacher
candidates must actively seek to know and understand their students’ backgrounds in order to
plan effective instruction. ESOL teachers can get to know their students through, for example,
dialogue journals with students, parent–teacher interviews, and home visits.
Considerations of Assessment
Effective and appropriate assessment of ESOL students shares important fundamental
characteristics with effective and appropriate assessment of all students (Cloud, Genesee, &
Hamayan, 2000). First, it serves the same basic goals, including the measurement of academic
achievement and the monitoring of student progress, the diagnosis of individual strengths and
needs, and the engagement of learners through self‐assessment. Second, effective assessment
of ESOL students is developmentally appropriate, authentic, ongoing, and closely linked to
instructional goals. ESOL teacher candidates must thoroughly understand the diverse goals and
essential qualities of effective assessment and why these characteristics are important, and
they must be able to operationalize them in assessing ESOL students. Although the assessment
of ESOL students is similar to effective assessment of all students, the assessment of ESOL
students is different from effective assessment of all students in a number of important ways.
Most of these distinctions are associated with the assessment of language proficiency.
First of all, ESOL teachers must be able to distinguish between students’ language proficiency
and their competence in the subject matter being taught. This distinction is especially
important for ESOL students in the early stages of English language acquisition. Native‐English‐
speaking students who are educated through the medium of English already have considerable
proficiency in the language of instruction when they begin school, and they generally have
sufficient proficiency in English to express what they are learning in their school subjects.
However, even these students continue to develop their language skills for academic purposes
in school. ESOL students, on the other hand, must learn through the medium of English as a
new language and may initially lack even rudimentary language skills in English. They often have
difficulty expressing through language what they are learning in their content‐area classes.
ESOL teacher candidates must be able to assess their students’ academic achievement during
the initial stages of language development using methods that require only basic skills in
English.
Second, as ESOL students progress into the higher grades, they must acquire the specialized
language skills that are integral to mastery of and communication about advanced academic
subject matter, such as math and science. ESOL teacher candidates must be able to assess their
ESOL students’ academic language proficiency to determine if they are acquiring the specialized
language skills that are a critical aspect to learning those subjects. ESOL teacher candidates
16
must know, understand, and be able to use a variety of assessment techniques that will serve
ESOL students’ varied educational levels and language needs.
Because the current emphasis on accountability for student learning is measured largely
through standardized achievement tests (usually through reading and usually in English), ESOL
students at all but the highest English proficiency levels may fail to meet grade‐level
expectations in spite of their progress in English language development and academic
achievement. ESOL students’ failure to demonstrate oral reading fluency and reading
comprehension targets set for native‐English‐speaking students at their grade level should not
be interpreted as a deficit to be remediated through instruction designed for struggling readers.
ESOL teacher candidates must be able to accurately assess the language and literacy skills and
document appropriate learning gains for their ESOL students. They must be able to distinguish
their ESOL students’ learning needs from those of other students and be able to address these
needs directly and appropriately through ESOL instruction and through collaborating with other
content‐area teachers and reading specialists to meet them.
Third, in assessing ESOL students’ English language development, ESOL teacher candidates must
learn how to apply their knowledge of bilingual processes and biliteracy development to
identify if and when ESOL students are transferring native language skills, knowledge, and
strategies to English. As noted earlier, ESOL students often draw on the native language and
knowledge from the home culture when engaged in tasks conducted in English (Genesee &
Geva, 2006; Riches & Genesee, 2006). ESOL students draw on their native language knowledge
and skills especially during the early stages of English language development when they have
many gaps in their English competence. It is important that they not be penalized for attempts
to transfer native language knowledge and skills to English language and literacy learning
because these cross‐language influences on English reflect resourceful use of the native
language to bootstrap into English. ESOL teacher candidates must learn how to identify and
interpret instances of transfer and be able to take advantage of and encourage their strategic
use to promote ESOL students’ English language and academic development.
Fourth, whereas native‐English‐speaking students may naturalistically acquire without formal
instruction the social language skills they need to interact effectively with other students and
adults in (and outside) school, ESOL students typically require formal instruction to acquire
these skills. Some ESOL students may lack even basic level social skills in English and thus may
have difficulty interacting socially with mainstream peers. ESOL teacher candidates must be
able to assess their students’ proficiency in the social uses of English in order to identify those
aspects of social discourse where students need focused instruction. Thus, in addition to
monitoring their students’ acquisition of academic language, ESOL teacher candidates must also
know how to monitor their ESOL students’ use of English language skills in social situations.
17
They must be able to evaluate ESOL students’ opportunities to use English in academic and
social settings throughout the school day. They must also be able to use this assessment
information to plan future instruction and to inform changes in the school that would increase
and improve ESOL students’ opportunities and abilities to use English appropriately and for a
variety of purposes.
Another aspect of assessing ESOL students that may differ from assessing mainstream students
is the need for teachers’ sensitivity to cultural differences. Whereas students who are educated
through English as their first language have already learned many of the cultural norms
associated with social interaction and language use, ESOL students must learn these
sociocultural norms. (Even native English speakers from different cultural backgrounds—e.g.,
English‐speaking African American, Asian American, or Latino students—may have to learn
these norms.) ESOL teacher candidates must know how to assess their ESOL students’ cultural
competence with respect to language use and social interaction and be able to identify (and fill)
important gaps in their sociocultural development. In planning and interpreting their
assessment, ESOL teacher candidates must know how to identify and account for cultural
differences among ESOL and native‐English‐speaking students. The following list (from Cloud,
Genesee, & Hamayan, 2000, p. 145) provides these variables.
Wait time: Second language learners and students from some cultural groups
require longer wait times than native‐English speaking students from majority group
backgrounds.
Individual or group response: Students from some cultural backgrounds prefer to
respond to teachers’ questions or calls for displays of knowledge as part of the
entire group; they are reluctant to give individual responses because they think it is
inappropriate. Some students also prefer to work with their fellow students to
formulate a response to a teacher’s questions. This is frowned on by Anglo‐American
culture but is highly valued and preferred by many other cultural groups.
Feedback: Whereas students from the majority English‐speaking group like to
receive individual and public praise from the teacher, students from some groups
are deeply embarrassed by such praise; they do not expect public or explicit praise
from the teacher.
Eye contact: In contrast to students from the dominant Anglo‐American culture who
are taught to look directly at adults when being spoken to, children from many
cultures are taught that direct eye contact with adults is inappropriate and is a sign
of impertinence.
18
Guessing: Some students will not give the answer to a question unless they are
certain that they are accurate; language majority students are generally comfortable
with guessing.
Question and answer format: Be sure your students understand and have had prior
experience with the question and/or answer format you are using. For example, do
they understand what to do with multiple‐choice questions that are presented with
blank bubbles?
Volunteering: Students from many cultural groups are very uncomfortable showing
what they know by volunteering a response or initiating interaction with the
teacher—such behavior is seen to be bragging and showing off. Chorale or group
responding can be used to circumvent this cultural preference.
From CLOUD/HAMAYAN/GENESEE. Dual Language Instruction, 1E. © 2000 Heinle/ELT, a part of Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission. www.cengage.com/permissions
ESOL teacher candidates should be familiar with these and other related variables and know
how to adapt their assessment methods to accommodate such factors with students from
different cultural backgrounds. Clearly, ESOL teacher candidates need to know a variety of
assessment methods and be able to use them creatively to meet their students’ diverse and
changing assessment needs.
Considerations of Professionalism
Professionalism lies at the heart of standards for teachers. The graphic image of five
interlocking rings representing the five conceptual domains of the TESOL‐NCATE standards
(below) illustrates the centrality of ESOL teacher professionalism and the connections between
standards related to professionalism and those related to language, culture, pedagogy, and
assessment.
19
TESOL P‐12 Teacher Education Program Standards
ESOL teachers’ work occurs on multiple levels, in local, personal, and interpersonal contexts as
well as in larger public, political, and sociocultural contexts of English language teaching. In
order to engage fully as professionals, ESOL teacher candidates must be grounded in the
historical and theoretical foundations of the field, committed to continue to learn through
reflective practice and classroom inquiry, and able and willing to contribute to the professional
development of their colleagues and actively serve as advocates for their ESOL students.
In terms of the social and historical foundations of educating K–12 ESOL students in the United
States, ESOL teacher candidates should understand the significance of key legislation such as
the Civil Rights Act (1964) and of landmark court cases such as Lau v. Nichols (1974).
Understanding the basis of our constitutional protection against discrimination, our guarantee
of equal access to an education, and the decision that equal learning conditions do not
necessarily result in equitable learning conditions for all students provides ESOL teacher
20
candidates with a solid basis on which to evaluate whether individual policies and practices are
instructionally sound and socially just for their ESOL students.
Understanding the core principle of providing equal access for all students allows ESOL teachers
to interpret and more sensibly implement program guidelines, curriculum standards, and state
and federal education policies. Moore (2007) notes that educational policies such as No Child
Left Behind (2002) are motivated by an equal outcomes orientation rather than an equal
opportunities approach to schooling. Holding high expectations for the academic achievement
of all students is essential. However, when a focus on outcomes measured through
standardized assessments drives educational policy, and when common learning goals are
targeted through homogeneous instruction prescribed for all students in general education
settings, ESOL students’ bilingual and bicultural characteristics are easily overlooked. ESOL
teacher candidates who acknowledge ESOL students’ unique learning needs and who
understand the importance of ensuring their equal opportunity to learn will assume
responsibility for differentiating curriculum, adapting instruction, and modifying assessment
practices for ESOL students when they begin teaching. Their ability to draw on a rich body of
theory and research to inform their practice and meet their students’ distinct learning needs is
one of the most important indicators of ESOL teachers’ professionalism.
ESOL teachers serve as sources of teaching expertise, resources for professional development,
and as contributors to the specialized knowledge base of the field. ESOL teacher candidates
need to understand the roles that language and culture play in ESOL student learning and be
able to apply this knowledge in effective language and literacy instruction for their students.
ESOL teacher candidates must also be able to assist ESOL students as individual English
language learners in the classroom and affirm their linguistic and cultural identities as they
negotiate membership in the social contexts of school (e.g., Duff, 2002; Goldstein, 2003) and
the larger community (Breen, 2007).
Aída Walqui (2008, personal communication) notes that a key aspect of professionalism
involves “making your work public.” For ESOL teachers, making their work public means being
able to articulate the essential needs of ESOL students and the distinctive nature of their own
professional expertise. ESOL teacher candidates must be able to explain how ESOL instruction is
more than “just good teaching“ (Harper & de Jong, 2004, p. 155) and be prepared to assist their
general education colleagues in recognizing the explicit linguistic demands, implicit cultural
expectations, and assumptions of prior experience that ESOL students face in school. ESOL
teacher candidates should be able to suggest instructional techniques to mediate conceptual
learning challenges for ESOL students and facilitate their English language and literacy
acquisition. However, providing a menu of “ESOL strategy” options for their colleagues is
21
insufficient; all teachers should understand why certain approaches may (or may not) work with
ESOL students and know how to adapt other teaching practices accordingly.
Because collaborative teaching partnerships are most successful when they are not separated
by large differences in status (Arkoudis, 2006; Creese, 2000, 2005, 2006; Davison, 2006), ESOL
teacher candidates should assume the identity and role of a language development specialist
(and not that of an instructional assistant) in collaborating or team teaching with peers. They
should seek to establish professional learning communities in which their expertise plays a
prominent, not a peripheral, role (Breen, 2007; Lacina, Levine, & Sowa, 2008) and where
teacher expertise can be “distributed” (Tsui, 2003, p. 179) across a faculty or team. Teacher
learning communities may be local, based in schools or at the district level; they may also be
much more global, as with national and international professional associations and e‐mail
discussion lists. Through these public networks, ESOL teachers can share their expertise with
peers, exercise their agency, and expand their advocacy efforts for ESOL students.
Early in their careers, ESOL teacher candidates should strive to develop an inquiring stance and
engage in reflective teaching to better understand their students’ learning needs and to inform
and improve their own teaching practices (Richards & Lockhart, 1994). This process of inquiry
and change should continue throughout their professional lives. As ESOL teacher candidates
mature with experience into expert teachers, their understanding of their work inevitably
changes. They take on different roles and mentor junior colleagues into the profession. They
adapt to external change and work to shape it in positive ways. Leung (2009) notes that teacher
professionalism must be “built on a dynamic process of engagement with emerging social,
political, and technological developments” (p. 53). Although we cannot predict the exact nature
of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed by ESOL teacher candidates of the future, the
basic goals of equity, access, and opportunity to learn and succeed in school and beyond should
continue to guide our work.
References
Arkoudis, S. (2006). Collaborating in ESL education in schools. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.),
International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 365–378). New York: Springer.
August, D., & Shanahan. T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners.
Report of the National Literacy Panel on Minority‐Language Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bailey, A. (Ed.). (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22
Bernstein, B. (1972). A sociolinguistic approach to socialization: With some reference to
educability. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of
communication (pp. 465–497). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Breen, M. (2007). Appropriating uncertainty: ELT professional development in the new century.
In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp.
1067–1084). New York: Springer.
Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new demography
of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute.
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook for
enriched education. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Crandall, J., & Kaufman, D. (Eds.) (2005). Content‐based instruction in primary and secondary
school settings. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Creese, A. (2000). The role of the language specialist in disciplinary teaching: In search of a
subject? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21, 451–470.
Creese, A. (2005). Teacher collaboration and talk in multilingual classrooms. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Creese, A. (2006). Supporting talk? Partnership teachers in the classroom. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 434–453.
Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How do we know when
we are doing it right? International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, 9, 1–20.
De Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English language
learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32, 101–124.
Duff, P. (2002). Discursive co‐construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An
ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23, 289–
322.
Echevarria, J., & Graves, A. (2007). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English language
learners with diverse abilities (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English
learners: The SIOP model (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
23
Fillmore, L.W., & Snow, C. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. In C. T. Adger,
C. E. Snow, & D. Christian (Eds.), What teachers need to know about language (pp. 7–53).
McHenry, IL: Delta Systems, and Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Genesee, F. (1993). All teachers are second language teachers. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 50, 47–53.
Genesee, F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students.
In T. K. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism and multiculturalism (pp. 547–576).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Genesee, F., & Geva, E. (2006). Cross‐linguistic relationships in working memory, phonological
processes, and oral language. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second
language learners. Report of the National Literacy Panel on Minority‐Language Children and
Youth (pp. 175–184). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Genesee, F., Lindholm‐Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English
language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Geva, E., & Genesee, F. (2006). First‐language oral proficiency and second‐language literacy. In
D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second language learners. Report of the
National Literacy Panel on Minority‐Language Children and Youth (pp. 185–196). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a
content‐based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 3, 247–273.
Goldstein, T. (2003). Teaching and learning in a multilingual school: Choices, risks, and
dilemmas. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in
households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching ELLs. Journal of Adolescent
and Adult Literacy, 48, 152–162.
Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (2005). Working with ELLs: What’s the difference? In A. H. Macias
(Ed.), Working with English language learners: Perspectives and practice (pp. 107–135).
Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
24
Heath, S. B. (1986). Sociocultural contexts of language development. In California State
Department of Education (Ed.), Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling
language minority students (pp. 143–186). Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination and
Assessment Center.
Hymes, D. H. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram
(Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods (pp. 3–28). New York: Academic Press.
Kaufman, D. (2004). Issues in constructivist pedagogy for L2 learning and teaching. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 303–319.
Lacina, J., Levine, L. N., & Sowa, P. (2007). Helping English language learners succeed in Pre‐K–
elementary schools. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Labov, W. (1969). The logic of non‐standard English. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown
monographs on language and linguistics 22 (pp. 1–22). Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
Leung, C. (2009). Second language teacher professionalism. In A. Burns & J. Richards (Eds.), Cambridge
guide to second language teacher education (pp. 49‐58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced
approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
McGroarty, M. (1986). Educator’s response to socio‐cultural diversity: Implications for practice.
In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Beyond language: Social and cultural factors
in schooling language minority students (pp.299–343). Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation,
Dissemination and Assessment Center.
Moore, H. (2007). Non–language policies and ESL: Some connections. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 573–
583.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2006). The growing numbers of
limited English proficient students: 1993–94–2003/04. Washington, DC: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Retrieved August 10, 2009, from http://standards.nctm.org/.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107‐110. (2002). Available from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.
25
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
Park, E. (2003). Cultural diversity and language socialization in the early years. Center for
Applied Linguistics Research Digest EDO‐FL‐03–13. Retrieved August 10, 2009, from
http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/0313park.html.
Pease‐Alvarez, C., & Vasquez, O. (1994). Language socialization in ethnic minority communities.
In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children (pp. 82–102). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Riches, C., & Genesee, F. (2006). Cross‐linguistic and cross‐modal aspects of literacy
development. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm‐Leary, W. Saunders, & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating
English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence (pp. 64–108). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Schieffelin, B. B., & Eisenberg, A. R. (1984). Cultural variation in children’s conversations. In R.
Schiefelbusch & J. Rickar (Eds.), The acquisition of communicative competence (pp. 379–418).
Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15,
163–246.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistic perspective.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring
language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. A report to the
Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of ESL teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Verplaetse, L. S. (2008). Developing academic language through an abundance of interaction. In
L. S. Verplaetse & N. Migliacci (Eds.), Inclusive pedagogy for English language learners: A
handbook of research‐informed practices (pp. 167–180). New York: Erlbaum.
26
STANDARDS
Domain 1. Language
Candidates know, understand, and use the major theories and research related to the structure
and acquisition of language to help English language learners’ (ELLs’) develop language and
literacy and achieve in the content areas.
Issues of language structure and language acquisition development are interrelated. The
divisions of the standards into 1.a. language as a system, and 1.b. language acquisition and
development do not prescribe an order.
27
Standard 1.a. Language as a System
Candidates demonstrate understanding of language as a system, including phonology,
morphology, syntax, pragmatics and semantics, and support ELLs as they acquire English
language and literacy in order to achieve in the content areas.
Supporting Explanation. Candidates need a conscious knowledge of language as a system to be
effective language teachers. Components of the language system include phonology,
morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse varieties, aspects of social and academic
language, rhetorical registers, and writing conventions. Teachers use knowledge of these
interrelated aspects of language as they support ELLs’ acquisition of English.
Candidates understand the ways in which languages are similar and different. They identify
linguistic structures that distinguish written and spoken language forms as well as those
representing social and academic uses of language. Candidates understand that one’s first
language (L1) may affect learning English.
Programs and states identify languages commonly spoken by students in their communities.
Candidates relate their knowledge of English to these languages, as well as others they may
encounter. Candidates build on similarities between English and students’ L1s and anticipate
difficulties that learners may have with English. They identify errors that are meaningful and
systematic and distinguish between those that may benefit from corrective feedback and those
that will not. They understand the role and significance of errors as a gauge of language
learning and plan appropriate classroom activities to assist ELLs through this process.
Candidates apply knowledge of language variation, including dialects and discourse varieties, to
their instructional practice.
Candidates serve as good models of spoken and written English.
28
Rubric for Standard 1.a. Language as a System
These rubrics are additive. Meets Standard assumes that the candidate has also met the criteria
under Approaches Standard. Exceeds Standards assumes that the candidate has also met the
criteria under Approaches Standard and Meets Standard. Performance indicators provide
examples of candidate performance, and are not intended to be prescriptive.
Performance
Indicator
Approaches
Standard
Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
1.a.1. Demonstrates
knowledge of the
components of
language and
language as an
integrative system.
Candidates are
aware of the
components of
language and
language as an
integrative system.
Candidates can use
the components of
language and
language as an
integrative system
to inform
instruction with
ELLs.
Candidates can use
the components of
language and
language as an
integrative system
to create
instructional plans
for ELLs.
1.a.2. Apply
knowledge of
phonology (the
sound system),
morphology (the
structure of words),
syntax (phrase and
sentence structure),
semantics
(word/sentence
meaning), and
pragmatics (the
effect of context on
language) to help
ELLs develop oral,
reading, and writing
skills (including
mechanics) in
Candidates
understand
elements of
phonology,
morphology, syntax,
semantics, and
pragmatics and
recognize stages of
English language
development in
ELLs.
Candidates
recognize and can
describe similarities
and major
differences
between English
and the native
Candidates apply
knowledge of
developmental
phonology,
morphology, syntax,
semantics, and
pragmatics to
identify aspects of
English that are
difficult for their
students, noting
how ELLs’ L1 and
identity may affect
their English
learning.
Candidates assist
ELLs in recognizing,
using, and acquiring
Candidates design
instructional
strategies that
incorporate their
knowledge of the
English language
system to aid ELLs’
learning.
Candidates
differentiate ELL
learning to
accommodate
challenging aspects
of English language
acquisition.
Candidates help
ELLs develop
strategies to
29
English. languages
commonly spoken
by their students.
the English sound
system and other
communication
skills, thus
enhancing oral
skills.
Candidates teach
syntactic structures
that ELLs need to
communicate
effectively for social
and academic
purposes.
Candidates
incorporate a
variety of
instructional
techniques to assist
ELLs in developing
literacy skills.
Candidates
incorporate a
variety of
instructional
techniques to help
ELLs understand
and use vocabulary
appropriately in
spoken and written
language.
Candidates provide
ELLs with timely
input and sufficient
contextualized
practice with
idioms, cognates,
monitor difficult
aspects of the
English language
system.
30
and collocations.
Candidates design
contextualized
instruction using
formal and informal
language to assist
ELLs in using and
acquiring language
for a variety of
purposes.
1.a.3. Demonstrate
knowledge of
rhetorical and
discourse structures
as applied to ESOL
learning.
Candidates
recognize a variety
of discourse
features and
rhetorical patterns
characteristic of
written and spoken
English.
Candidates
understand that
rhetorical and
discourse structures
and conventions
vary across
languages, and can
identify important
ways in which the
languages
commonly spoken
by their ELLs differ
from English.
Candidates use a
variety of strategies
to help ELLs acquire
discourse features
and rhetorical
patterns
characteristic of
written and spoken
English.
Candidates design
instructional
activities that help
ELLs develop
strategies to
monitor their own
use of English
genres, rhetorical
patterns, discourse
structures, and
writing conventions.
1.a.4. Demonstrate
proficiency in
English and serve as
a good language
Candidates
demonstrate
proficiency in most
aspects of English.
Candidates
demonstrate
proficiency in all
aspects of English.
Candidates serve as
good models for
English for ELLs and
as good models for
31
model for ELLs. the L1 where
possible.
32
Standard 1.b. Language Acquisition and Development
Candidates understand and apply theories and research in language acquisition and
development to support their ELLs’ English language and literacy learning and content‐area
achievement.
Supporting Explanation. Candidates understand that acquiring English for social and academic
purposes takes a long time. ELLs often understand linguistic concepts intellectually while still
needing time to fully comprehend all of the elements. On the other hand, candidates should
expect students to have difficulty with the marked linguistic phenomena of the second
language (L2) because these unusual forms often confound and confuse L2 learners.
Candidates understand the communicative, social, and constructive nature of language and are
able to use linguistic scaffolding to aid ELLs’ comprehension and production of academic and
social English.
Candidates understand the role of personal and affective variables in language learning and
establish secure, motivating classrooms in which ELLs are encouraged to take risks and use
language productively, extending their conceptual knowledge as well as their language and
literacy skills.
Candidates understand how different theories of language acquisition (for L1 and L2) have
shaped views of how language is learned, ranging from nativist to cognitive and social
interactionist perspectives. Candidates are familiar with key research in factors that influence
the acquisition of English, such as the amount and quality of prior formal education in an
English‐dominant country, the age of arrival and length of residence in an English‐dominant
environment, developmental stages and sequences, the effects of instruction and feedback, the
role of L1 transfer, L2 input, and communicative interaction. They are able to take pertinent
issues in second language acquisition (SLA) into account when planning for instruction and
apply these SLA findings in the classroom. Candidates also understand that individual learner
variables such as age and cognitive development, literacy level in the L1, personality,
motivation, and learning style can affect learning in the L1 and L2. Candidates understand the
processes of language and literacy development, use this knowledge to provide optimal
language input, and set appropriate goals and tasks for integrated oral and written language
development. Candidates are familiar with developmental stages of language acquisition
(including interlanguage) and understand that errors are often signs of language learning.
Candidates understand that language acquisition and development are affected by age,
previous education, and personal experience. They are aware that linguistic structures are
often acquired by implicit means rather than explicit direction, particularly with younger
learners.
33
Candidates understand that aspects of ELLs’ L1 may be transferred to English and may affect an
individual student’s learning.
Candidates understand the important foundation set by the L1; the cognitive, linguistic, and
academic benefits of L1 development; and the potential transfer of language skills and
strategies from the L1 to the L2. They understand that without a strong base in L1 literacy, it
may be more difficult for ELLs to acquire L2 literacy. Candidates understand that ELLs come to
class with previously developed language skills, and when appropriate, they extend and use a
student’s L1 as a resource for learning the new language and for learning in other areas.
Candidates understand that proficiency in an L2 (or subsequent language) does not have to
come at the cost of the L1. They are aware of the possible negative effects of losing a home
language and encourage the maintenance and development of students’ L1s, even when formal
bilingual programs are not available.
Candidates understand the sociolinguistic variables affecting the learning of an L2 and the
maintenance of an L1. They understand the systematic nature of code‐switching and know that
code‐switching is a rule‐driven communication strategy used for participating in social
interaction, building community, and expressing identity.
34
Rubric for Standard 1.b. Language Acquisition and Development.
These rubrics are additive. Meets Standard assumes that the candidate has also met the criteria
under Approaches Standard. Exceeds Standards assumes that the candidate has also met the
criteria under Approaches Standard and Meets Standard. Performance indicators provide
examples of candidate performance, and are not intended to be prescriptive.
Performance
Indicator
Approaches
Standard
Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
1.b.1. Demonstrate
understanding of
current and historical
theories and research
in language
acquisition as applied
to ELLs.
Candidates
understand some
aspects of language
acquisition theory
and research.
Candidates apply
their knowledge
of L1 and L2
acquisition to
ESOL learning.
Candidates use
their understanding
of language
acquisition theory
and research to
provide optimal
learning
environments for
their ELLs and to
conduct theory‐
based research in
their own
classrooms.
1.b.2 Candidates
understand theories
and research that
explain how L1
literacy development
differs from L2
literacy
development.
Candidates are
aware of theories
and research that
explain how L1
literacy
development
differs from L2
literacy
development.
Candidates use
theories and
research that
address how L1
literacy
development
differs from L2
literacy
development to
inform their
teaching.
Candidates use
theories and
research that
explain how L1
literacy
development
differs from L2
literacy
development to
design instruction
and to conduct
their own
classroom
35
research.
1.b.3. Recognize the
importance of ELLs’
L1s and language
varieties and build on
these skills as a
foundation for
learning English.
Candidates allow
ELLs to use their L1
to facilitate their
understanding or
participation in
class.
Candidates
understand the
importance of
ELLs’ L1 and
encourage
families to use
that language
with their
children at home.
Whenever
possible,
candidates use
the L1 as a
foundation and
resource for
learning English
in the classroom
through bilingual
aides, families,
and volunteer
support.
Candidates provide
regular
opportunities for
ELLs to read, learn,
and express
themselves in their
L1 in class.
Candidates use the
L1 in the classroom
to support literacy
and content
learning.
36
1.b.4. Understand
and apply knowledge
of sociocultural,
psychological, and
political variables to
facilitate the process
of learning English.
Candidates are
aware of the
sociocultural,
psychological, and
political variables
within a
community of ELLs.
Candidates
understand the
complex social,
psychological,
and political
nature of learning
an L2 in school
and integrate this
knowledge in
their teaching.
Candidates apply
knowledge of
sociocultural,
psychological, and
political variables
to design
instruction and
improve
communication
with ELLs and their
families.
Candidates
investigate
variables that
affect language
learning.
1.b.5. Understand
and apply knowledge
of the role of
individual learner
variables in the
process of learning
English.
Candidates
recognize individual
differences among
their ELLs (e.g., age,
L1 literacy level,
personality,
motivation,
socioeconomic
status).
Candidates know
their ELLs and
understand that
individual
variables can
have important
effects on the
process and level
of L2 learning.
Candidates apply
this knowledge
by setting high
but reasonable
expectations for
individual
students, varying
instructional
objectives and
strategies, and
monitoring
Candidates use
their understanding
of learner variables
to consistently
provide
individualized
language‐ and
content‐learning
goals and
appropriate
instructional
environments for
ELLs.
37
student success.
Candidates vary
their teaching
style to
accommodate
students’
different learning
styles.
38
Domain 2. Culture
Candidates know, understand, and use major concepts, principles, theories, and research
related to the nature and role of culture and cultural groups to construct supportive learning
environments for ELLs.
Standard 2. Culture as It Affects Student Learning
Candidates know, understand, and use major theories and research related to the nature and
role of culture in their instruction. They demonstrate understanding of how cultural groups and
individual cultural identities affect language learning and school achievement.
Supporting Explanation. Candidates recognize that language and culture interact in the
formation of students’ cultural identities. They further recognize that students’ identities are
tied closely to their sense of self‐worth, which is correlated to their academic achievement.
Candidates know that all students can learn more readily when cultural factors are recognized,
respected, and accommodated, and they demonstrate that knowledge in their practice. They
further understand that students’ academic achievement can suffer if classroom instruction
does not respect students’ cultural identities.
Candidates address cross‐cultural conflicts, such as stereotyping and bullying, using a
combination of cultural appreciation techniques and conflict resolution strategies.
Candidates use information about their students’ backgrounds to choose appropriate and
effective teaching techniques. They use their knowledge of cultural diversity to foster critical
thinking and improve student achievement.
The nature and role of culture encompasses such factors as cultural relativism, cultural
universalism, the additive nature of culture, intra‐ and intergroup differences, the
interrelationship between language and culture, and the effect of this relationship on learning.
It also recognizes the various stages of acculturation and assimilation. Taking these and other
factors into account, candidates design lessons that embed instruction in the appropriate
cultural context.
The content of a culture includes values, beliefs, and expectations; roles and status; family
structure, function, and socialization; humanities and the arts; assumptions about literacy and
other content areas; communication and communication systems; and learning styles and
modalities. From this knowledge base, candidates design culturally appropriate learning
environments and instruction.
Candidates understand the importance of the home culture and involve ESOL families and
community members in students’ learning. They understand that multicultural inquiries and
39
interactions among students and colleagues foster critical discourse, systemic discovery, and
multiplicity in approaches to academics.
40
Rubric for Standard 2. Culture as It Affects English Language Learning
These rubrics are additive. Meets Standard assumes that the candidate has also met the criteria
under Approaches Standard. Exceeds Standards assumes that the candidate has also met the
criteria under Approaches Standard and Meets Standard. Performance indicators provide
examples of candidate performance, and are not intended to be prescriptive.
Suggested
Performance
Indicators
Approaches
Standard
Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
2.a. Understand and
apply knowledge
about cultural values
and beliefs in the
context of teaching
and learning.
Candidates are aware
that cultural values
and beliefs have an
effect on ELL
learning.
Candidates teach
using a variety of
concepts about
culture, including
acculturation,
assimilation,
biculturalism, , and
the dynamics of
prejudice, including
stereotyping.
Candidates
consistently design
and deliver
instruction that
incorporates
students’ cultural
values and beliefs.
2.b. Understand and
apply knowledge
about the effects of
racism, stereotyping,
and discrimination to
teaching and
learning.
Candidates are aware
that racism and
discrimination have
effects on teaching
and learning.
Candidates
consistently use an
antibias curriculum
and materials that
promote an inclusive
classroom climate,
enhancing students’
skills and knowledge
to interact with each
other.
Candidates design
and deliver
instruction that
includes antibias
materials and
develop a classroom
climate that
purposefully
addresses bias,
stereotyping, and
oppression.
2.c. Understand and
apply knowledge
about cultural
conflicts and home
events that can have
an impact on ELLs’
Candidates are aware
that cultural conflicts
and home events
affect interpersonal
classroom
relationships and ELL
Candidates teach
cross‐cultural
appreciation by
addressing cross‐
cultural conflicts and
establishing high
Candidates design
and deliver
instruction that
allows students to
participate in cross‐
cultural studies and
41
learning. learning. expectations of ELLs’
interactions across
cultures.
cross‐cultural
extracurricular
opportunities.
Candidates integrate
conflict resolution
techniques into their
instruction.
2.d. Understand and
apply knowledge
about
communication
between home and
school to enhance
ESL teaching and
build partnerships
with ESOL families.
Candidates are aware
of effective
techniques for
communication
between home and
school.
Candidates recognize
the importance of
family participation
and support in their
children’s education.
Candidates
incorporate effective
techniques for
communication
between home and
school, including
using the L1 as much
as possible, in their
instruction.
Candidates are able
to communicate with
and build
partnerships with
students’ families.
If candidates are not
fluent in their
students’ L1, they
make use of bilingual
paraprofessionals
and/or volunteers.
Candidates
communicate in a
culturally respectful
and linguistically
appropriate manner
with students’
families.
Candidates establish
ongoing partnerships
with the
community’s adults
and leaders by
including them in
curriculum and
classroom activities.
Candidates design
and conduct
classroom activities
that encourage
families to
participate in their
children’s education.
2.e. Understand and
apply concepts about
the interrelationship
between language
and culture.
Candidates are aware
of the links between
language and culture.
Candidates’ choice of
techniques and
materials reflect their
knowledge of the
interdependence of
Candidates design
classroom activities
that enhance the
connection between
home and school
42
language and culture.
Candidates act as
facilitators to help
students’ transition
between the home
culture and language
and U.S. and school
culture and language.
culture and language.
Candidates act as
advocates to support
students’ home
culture and heritage
language.
2.f. Use a range of
resources, including
the Internet, to learn
about world cultures
and specifically the
cultures of students
in their classrooms
and apply that
learning to
instruction.
Candidates have a
general
understanding of
major cultural groups
and begin to identify
resources to increase
their knowledge and
understanding.
Candidates use a
range of resources
about major cultural
groups to deliver
instruction.
Candidates integrate
different ways of
learning and
different cultural
perspectives into
their curriculum and
instruction.
Candidates
consistently design
activities that are
based on their
knowledge of cultural
groups and
incorporate them
into their teaching.
2.g. Understand and
apply concepts of
cultural competency,
particularly
knowledge about
how an individual’s
cultural identity
affects their learning
and academic
progress and how
levels of cultural
identity will vary
widely among
students.
Candidates are aware
that ELLs’ cultural
identities will affect
their learning.
Candidates plan and
deliver instruction
that values and
adapts to students’
different cultural
perspectives.
Candidates
consistently design
in‐class activities and
opportunities for
students and families
to share and apply
their cultural
perspectives to
learning objectives.
43
Domain 3. Planning, Implementing, and Managing Instruction
Candidates know, understand, and use evidence‐based practices and strategies related to
planning, implementing, and managing standards‐based ESL and content instruction.
Candidates are knowledgeable about program models and skilled in teaching strategies for
developing and integrating language skills. They integrate technology as well as choose and
adapt classroom resources appropriate for their ELLs.
Standard 3.a. Planning for Standards‐Based ESL and Content Instruction
Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts, research, and best practices to plan
classroom instruction in a supportive learning environment for ELLs. They plan for multilevel
classrooms with learners from diverse backgrounds using standards‐based ESL and content
curriculum.
Supporting Explanation. Candidates assess students’ knowledge using multiple measures (see
Domain 4) and address their students’ diverse backgrounds, developmental needs, and English
proficiency as they plan their instruction. They plan toward specific standards‐based ESL and
content‐based objectives but include multiple ways of presenting material. They collaborate
with general education and content‐area teachers to ensure that ELLs access the whole
curriculum while learning English.
Candidates design their classrooms as supportive, positive climates for learning. They model
positive attitudes and interactions and respect for the perspectives of others. Language‐
building activities are student centered, incorporating cooperative learning and flexible
grouping.
Candidates recognize the needs of students with interrupted formal education (SIFE) in
acclimating to the school environment. They plan for a broad spectrum of instructional
techniques in a variety of settings in which students interact, use their first language whenever
possible, and learn reading strategies that emphasize comprehension and writing strategies
that emphasize communication.
44
Rubric for Standard 3.a. Planning for Standards‐Based ESL and Content Instruction
These rubrics are additive. Meets Standard assumes that the candidate has also met the criteria
under Approaches Standard. Exceeds Standards assumes that the candidate has also met the
criteria under Approaches Standard and Meets Standard. Performance indicators provide
examples of candidate performance, and are not intended to be prescriptive.
Performance Indicator Approaches Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
3.a.1. Plan standards‐
based ESL and content
instruction.
Candidates are aware
of standards‐based ESL
and content
instruction.
Candidates are
knowledgeable about
effective program
models, including
those that are
standards based.
Candidates plan
standards‐based ESL
and content
instruction.
Candidates design
standards‐based
ESL and content
instruction.
Candidates work
with their
colleagues to plan
standards‐based
instruction.
3.a.2. Create
supportive, accepting
classroom
environments.
Candidates recognize
ELLs’ various
approaches to learning.
Candidates
implement
standards‐based
programs and
instructional models
appropriate to
individual student
needs.
Candidates
systematically
design ESL and
content instruction
that is student
centered.
Candidates design
lessons such that
students work
collaboratively to
meet learning
objectives.
3.a.3. Plan
differentiated learning
experiences based on
assessment of
students’ English and
L1 proficiency ,
Candidates are aware
of students’ language
proficiency, learning
styles, and prior
knowledge when
planning ESL and
Candidates plan
activities at the
appropriate language
levels, integrating
students’ cultural
backgrounds and
Candidates design
multilevel
activities and are
flexible in grouping
students to meet
instructional needs
45
learning styles, and
prior formal
educational
experiences and
knowledge.
content‐learning
activities.
learning styles.
Candidates use
students’ prior
knowledge in
planning ESL and
content instruction.
of linguistically and
culturally diverse
student
populations.
3.a.4. Provide for
particular needs of
students with
interrupted formal
education (SIFE).
Candidates are aware
that SIFE have unique
characteristics that
necessitate the use of
specialized teaching
strategies.
Candidates plan
learning tasks specific
to the needs of SIFE.
Candidates plan ESL
and content
instruction to meet
reading and writing
needs of SIFE.
Candidates plan
assessment of SIFE
competence with
text.
Candidates design
ways to motivate
and guide SIFE to
successful
academic
experiences.
Candidates design
visually
supportive, text‐
rich environments
using appropriate
materials that
include students’
personal and
shared
experiences,
language, and
culture.
3.a.5 Plan for
instruction that
embeds assessment,
includes scaffolding,
and provides
reteaching when
necessary for students
to successfully meet
learning objectives.
Candidates are aware
of assessments to
measure students’
degrees of mastery of
learning objectives.
Candidates plan
lessons that scaffold
and link students’
prior knowledge to
newly introduced
learning objectives.
Candidates
continually monitor
students’ progress
toward learning
objectives with
Candidates assist
colleagues by
sharing additional
techniques and
assessments to
meet individual
students’ learning
needs.
Candidates
connect ELLs with
additional
46
formal and informal
assessments.
Following formal and
informal
assessments,
candidates reteach,
using alternate
materials,
techniques, and
assessments for
students who need
additional time and
approaches to
master learning
objectives.
supports for
learning, such as
after‐school
tutoring,
homework clubs,
or homework
buddies.
47
Standard 3.b. Implementing and Managing Standards‐Based ESL and Content Instruction
Candidates know, manage, and implement a variety of standards‐based teaching strategies and
techniques for developing and integrating English listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
Candidates support ELLs’ access to the core curriculum by teaching language through academic
content.
Supporting Explanation. Candidates provide ESL and content instruction and assessment that
are standards based and that integrate listening, speaking, reading, and writing for purposes
that are relevant and meaningful to students. Candidates provide a wide variety of activities for
students to develop and practice their listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills in social
and academic environments. Candidates base activities on student interests, texts, and themes,
a range of genres, and personal experiences to enhance students’ comprehension and
communication.
Candidates view language and content learning as joint means to achieve ELLs’ academic and
language development goals. They understand that language is developed most effectively in
meaningful contexts, and they manage and implement learning around subject matter and
language learning objectives. They also understand that such learning is more effective when it
is standards based. Candidates use meaningful instruction to build relevant academic
vocabulary.
48
Rubric for Standard 3.b. Implementing and Managing Standards‐Based ESL and Content
Instruction
These rubrics are additive. Meets Standard assumes that candidate has also met the criteria
under Approaches Standard; Exceeds Standards assumes that candidate has also met the
criteria under Approaches Standard and Meets Standard. Performance indicators provide
examples of candidate performance, and are not intended to be prescriptive.
Performance
Indicator
Approaches Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
3.b.1. Organize
learning around
standards‐based
subject matter and
language learning
objectives.
Candidates are familiar
with standards relevant
to ESL and content
instruction at the
national, state, and local
levels.
Candidates provide
standards‐based ESL
and content
instruction from
relevant national,
state, and local
frameworks.
Candidates aid their
colleagues in teaching
from a standards‐
based perspective that
meets national, state,
and local objectives.
3.b.2. Incorporate
activities, tasks, and
assignments that
develop authentic
uses of language as
students learn
academic vocabulary
and content‐area
material.
Candidates are aware of
the need for authentic
uses of academic
language in ESL and
content‐area learning
and the need to design
activities and
assessments that
incorporate both.
Candidates plan for
and implement
activities, tasks, and
assignments that
develop authentic
uses of academic
language as students
access content‐area
learning objectives.
Candidates design and
implement activities,
tasks, and assignments
that develop authentic
uses of academic
language as students
access content‐area
learning material.
Candidates collaborate
with non‐ESL
classroom teachers to
develop authentic uses
of academic language
and activities in
content areas.
3.b.3. Provide
activities and
materials that
integrate listening,
Candidates are aware
that integrated learning
activities build meaning
through practice.
Candidates provide
integrated learning
activities using
authentic sources
Candidates design
activities that integrate
skill and content areas
through thematic and
49
speaking, reading,
and writing.
that build meaning
through practice.
Candidates model
activities to
demonstrate ways
students may
integrate skills (e.g.,
language and/or
content).
inquiry‐based units.
3.b.4. Develop
students’ listening
skills for a variety of
academic and social
purposes.
Candidates are aware of
the need to assist
students in making use
of what they know in
order to listen
effectively.
Candidates provide a
variety of activities
and settings to assist
students in making
use of what they
know in order to
listen effectively.
Candidates provide
practice and assist
students in learning to
assess their own
listening skills in a
variety of contexts.
Candidates help
students develop and
use listening strategies.
Candidates collaborate
with non‐ESL
classroom teachers to
select listening goals
for content areas.
3.b.5. Develop
students’ speaking
skills for a variety of
academic and social
purposes.
Candidates provide
opportunities for
students to interact
socially.
Candidates monitor and
correct student speech
as appropriate.
Candidates provide
opportunities for
students to practice a
variety of speech
registers linked to
academic and social
activities.
Candidates adapt
activities to assist ELLs’
social and academic
speaking skills.
Candidates collaborate
with non‐ESL
classroom teachers to
select speaking goals
for content areas.
50
3.b.6. Provide
standards‐based
instruction that
builds on students’
oral English to
support learning to
read and write.
Candidates are familiar
with ways in which oral
language influences
reading and writing
acquisition for ELLs.
Candidates provide
standards‐based
instruction that
builds and integrates
learners’ reading and
writing as their oral
language develops.
Candidates develop a
variety of ways to
integrate learners’
reading and writing as
their oral language
develops.
3.b.7. Provide
standards‐based
reading instruction
adapted to ELLs.
Candidates identify
specific literacy needs of
ELLs.
Candidates choose
literature for instruction
from limited resources.
Candidates are aware of
instructional activities
designed to assist
students with reading in
standards‐based,
content‐area texts.
Candidates plan for
and provide reading
instruction that
includes various
cueing systems
appropriate for ELLs.
Candidates model
standards‐based
reading activities
using different
genres for students
at different
proficiency levels and
developmental
stages, including
students with limited
literacy in their L1s.
Candidates use a
variety of texts,
including literature
and other content
materials, to support
and aid ELLs’ reading
development.
Candidates explain
and model explicit
reading strategies
Candidates engage
ELLs who are having
difficulty developing
their English reading
skills.
Candidates develop
lessons around texts in
a variety of genres
related to students’
studies in content‐area
classes.
Candidates collaborate
with non‐ESL
classroom teachers to
select reading goals for
content areas.
51
that assist students
with standards‐based
texts from content‐
area course work.
3.b.8. Provide
standards‐based
writing instruction
adapted to ELLs.
Develop students’
writing through a
range of activities,
from sentence
formation to
expository writing.
Candidates are aware of
orthographic, linguistic,
and rhetorical influences
of the L1 on ESL writing.
Candidates are aware of
the need for explicit
writing strategies for
ELLs.
Candidates model
standards‐based
writing activities
using different
genres (e.g.,
narrative, expository,
argumentative) for
students at different
proficiency levels and
developmental
stages, including
students with limited
literacy in their L1s.
Candidates, when
appropriate, instruct
students regarding
contrasts between
English and the
writing systems of
their L1.
Candidates provide
opportunities for
written assignments
that are ungraded,
including interactive
journals.
Candidates provide
instruction in a
variety of writing
development
models, including the
writing process,
Candidates design
standards‐based
writing activities using
different genres (e.g.,
narrative, expository,
argumentative) for
students at different
proficiency levels and
developmental stages,
including students with
limited literacy in their
L1s.
Candidates collaborate
with non‐ESL
classroom teachers to
select writing goals and
activities in content
areas.
52
which promote high
expectations and
personal value for
writing.
53
Standard 3.c. Using Resources and Technology Effectively in ESL and Content Instruction
Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standards‐based materials, resources, and
technologies, and choose, adapt, and use them in effective ESL and content teaching.
Supporting Explanation. Candidates select challenging, culturally appropriate, interesting, and
motivating materials to support student learning. They must also know how to select materials
that are linguistically accessible and age appropriate. Candidates match materials to the range
of developing language and content‐area abilities of students at various stages of learning. They
can also determine how and when it is appropriate to use L1 resources to support learning.
Candidates are capable of finding, creating, adapting, and using a wide range of print and
nonprint resources, including ESL curricula, trade books, audiovisual materials, and online
multimedia. They also are knowledgeable regarding the selection and use of technology, such
as computer software and Internet resources, to enhance language and content instruction.
54
Rubric for Standard 3.c. Using Resources Effectively in ESL Instruction
These rubrics are additive. Meets Standard assumes that the candidate has also met the criteria
under Approaches Standard. Exceeds Standards assumes that the candidate has also met the
criteria under Approaches Standard and Meets Standard. Performance indicators provide
examples of candidate performance, and are not intended to be prescriptive.
Performance
Indicator
Approaches
Standard
Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
3.c.1. Select, adapt,
and use culturally
responsive, age‐
appropriate, and
linguistically
accessible
materials.
Candidates are
aware that
materials should be
appropriate for
students’ age and
language
proficiency.
Candidates select
print and visual
materials that are
appropriate for
students’ age,
learning style, and
language
proficiency. They
adapt these
materials if
necessary.
Candidates build on
students’ culture in
selecting, adapting,
and sequencing ESL
and content‐area
materials.
Candidates use
students’
community and
family to locate and
develop culturally
appropriate
materials.
3.c.2. Select
materials and other
resources that are
appropriate to
students’
developing
language and
content‐area
abilities, including
appropriate use of
L1.
Candidates are
aware of
differences
between content‐
area materials for
ELLs and those for
native speakers of
English.
Candidates select
materials
appropriate for ELLs
from existing
Candidates
incorporate a
variety of resources
at multiple
proficiency levels,
including selections
from or adaptations
of materials from
content‐area texts.
Candidates use
materials in
students’ L1 as
Candidates
collaborate with
non‐ESL classroom
teachers to develop
materials and
resources that
integrate ESL and
content areas.
55
content‐area texts. appropriate.
3.c.3. Employ a
variety of materials
for language
learning, including
books, visual aids,
props, and realia.
Candidates are
aware of the
usefulness of a
variety of materials
and resources in
English and the L1.
Candidates provide
instructional
materials in English
and the L1 for
student instruction
and use.
Candidates enable
students to use a
variety of learning
tools, including
hands‐on, visual,
and multimedia
means of
instruction.
Candidates use a
variety of resources
(e.g., community,
family, students) to
obtain and create
materials that
promote language,
literacy, and
content
development in
English and,
whenever possible,
the students’ L1s.
3.c.4. Use
technological
resources (e.g.,
Web, software,
computers, and
related devices) to
enhance language
and content‐area
instruction for ELLs.
Candidates are
aware of ways in
which computers
and other
technological
resources can
improve ELLs’
learning.
Candidates use
technological
resources to
enhance, create,
and/or adapt
instruction to meet
ELLs’ language and
content learning
needs.
Candidates assist
students in learning
how to evaluate
and use
technological
resources for their
own academic
purposes.
56
Domain 4. Assessment
Candidates demonstrate understanding of issues and concepts of assessment and use
standards‐based procedures with ELLs.
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for English Language Learners
Candidates demonstrate understanding of various assessment issues as they affect ELLs, such
as accountability, bias, special education testing, language proficiency, and accommodations in
formal testing situations.
Supporting Explanation. Candidates understand the different purposes of assessment (e.g.,
diagnostic, language proficiency, academic achievement) and the basic concepts of assessment
so that they are prepared to assess ELLs. For example, measures of knowledge or ability
(including language) that are standards based should be equitable (fair), accurate (valid),
consistent (reliable), and practical (easy) to administer. Authentic or performance‐based
assessment measures often best meet these criteria while addressing students as individuals.
These measures should be both formative (ongoing) and summative (proficiency testing) and
include both languages where possible. The more closely assessment tasks resemble
instructional activities, particularly those relevant to English learners’ lives, the more likely the
tasks are to accurately assess what has been taught and learned and to inform further
instruction.
Candidates also demonstrate understanding of issues around accountability such as
implications of norm‐referenced standardized assessment and other high‐stakes testing. They
understand the differences between these kinds of assessment and alternative assessments
and also understand issues of accommodation for ELLs in formal testing situations.
Candidates understand how assessments for native English speakers and English learners differ
and the variety of ways in which assessments of English learners may be biased and therefore
invalid measures of what they know and can do. Such assessments may contain cultural bias
(e.g., images or references that are unfamiliar to ELLs). Assessments may also contain linguistic
bias (e.g., items overtly or implicitly favoring speakers of standard dialects or items that are
more difficult for ELLs because of complex language). ELLs may also be challenged in formal
testing situations if they are unfamiliar with item types (e.g., multiple choice) or response
formats (e.g., bubble sheets), or if they are unfamiliar with timed, competitive, high‐stakes
testing. Candidates should be able to identify such biasing elements in assessment situations
and work to help ELLs become familiar with the content and conditions of tests in school.
Candidates work with other professionals (e.g., speech pathologists, psychologists, special
educators) who assess ELLs in order to distinguish the differences among normal language
57
development, language differences, and learning problems. They understand that learning
problems, as well as factors identifying gifted and talented students, should be verified in the
student’s native language, if possible. Candidates use multiple sources of information (e.g.,
native language assessment, home contacts, other teachers, other learners from the same
cultural group, teaching style, the curriculum) to make appropriate adjustments before
concluding the problem resides within the learner and making a referral for special education.
58
Rubric for 4.a. Issues of Assessment for English Language Learners
These rubrics are additive. Meets Standard assumes that the candidate has also met the criteria
under Approaches Standard. Exceeds Standards assumes that the candidate has also met the
criteria under Approaches Standard and Meets Standard. Performance indicators provide
examples of candidate performance, and are not intended to be prescriptive.
Performance
Indicator
Approaches
Standard
Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
4.a.1. Demonstrate
an understanding of
the purposes of
assessment as they
relate to ELLs and
use results
appropriately.
Candidates are
aware that there are
various purposes of
assessment (e.g.,
diagnostic,
achievement, L1 and
L2 proficiency).
Candidates
understand and can
identify and explain
the different
purposes for
assessment.
Candidates prepare
their students
appropriately for the
type of assessment
being used, including
technology‐based
assessment.
Candidates share their
knowledge and
experience about the
purposes of
assessment with
colleagues and
parents.
4.a.2
Knowledgeable
about and able to
use a variety of
assessment
procedures for ELLs.
Candidates are
aware of a variety of
purposes and
procedures for
assessment of ELLs
(e.g., proficiency,
diagnosis,
placement, and
classroom
instruction and
achievement).
Candidates are
Candidates use
multiple and
appropriate
formative and
summative
assessment
measures for a
variety of purposes,
including classroom
and student self‐
assessment and
technology‐based
assessment (e.g.,
Candidates design and
adapt classroom tests
and alternative
assessment measures
to make them
appropriate for ELLs for
a variety of purposes.
59
aware of the
importance of using
multiple measures to
accurately assess
ELLs.
audio, video,
computer).
Candidates
understand that
procedures intended
for native English
speakers may not
apply to English
learners.
4.a.3. Demonstrate
an understanding of
key indicators of
good assessment
instruments.
Candidates are
aware of technical
aspects of
assessment (e.g.,
validity and
reliability).
Candidates can
explain why tests are
valid and reliable and
use this knowledge in
making assessment‐
related decisions.
Candidates can create
assessment measures
that are standards
based, valid, and
reliable, as
appropriate.
4.a.4. Demonstrate
understanding of
the advantages and
limitations of
assessments,
including
accommodations
for ELLs.
Candidates are
aware of some of
the advantages and
limitations of
assessments for
ELLs.
Candidates
understand obstacles
ELLs commonly face
and have strategies
to help them in such
situations.
Candidates know
state‐allowed test
accommodations for
ELLs and apply them
when appropriate.
Candidates evaluate
formal and informal
assessment measures
for psychological,
cultural, and linguistic
limitations and create
strategies to help ELLs
in such situations.
4.a.5. Distinguish
among ELLs’
language
differences,
giftedness, and
special education
needs.
Candidates
recognize some
similarities between
a language
difference and a
learning disability for
ELLs (e.g., delayed
language
production, limited
Candidates work with
a variety of
resources, including
native‐language
assessment and
knowledgeable
colleagues, to
distinguish among
language differences,
Candidates work
collaboratively with
assessment personnel
to assess ELLs who are
gifted and talented
and/or have special
learning needs.
Candidates share with
60
vocabulary and
reading skills).
Candidates
recognize how
cultural and
linguistic bias may
misinform results of
such assessments.
giftedness, and a
learning disability for
ELLs.
Candidates
understand
appropriate
diagnostic processes
and are able to
document ELL
growth and
performance
required before
considering referral
for gifted and
talented or special
education
assessment.
colleagues their
knowledge and
experience about
gifted and talented and
special learning needs
of ELLs.
61
Standard 4.b. Language Proficiency Assessment
Candidates know and can use a variety of standards‐based language proficiency instruments to
show language growth and to inform their instruction. They demonstrate understanding of
their uses for identification, placement, and reclassification of ELLs.
Supporting Explanation. Candidates are familiar with national and state requirements,
procedures, and instruments for ELL identification, reclassification, and exit from language
support programs. They use available language proficiency test results to identify ELLs’
language skills. They also use criterion and norm‐referenced language proficiency instruments,
both formative and summative, as appropriate. Candidates design assessment tasks that
measure students’ discrete and integrated language skills and their ability to use language
communicatively within a range of contexts. The teaching of test‐taking and learning strategies
has an important place in the ESOL classroom.
Candidates are aware that the term language proficiency assessment may be used
synonymously with language achievement assessment and, hence, is usually summative in
nature. Candidates know that these assessments are designed to show language growth over
time and to identify areas that need more work. Candidates know how to interpret the results
of language proficiency assessments and how to apply the results in classroom instruction.
62
Rubric for Standard 4.b. Language Proficiency Assessment
These rubrics are additive. Meets Standard assumes that the candidate has also met the criteria
under Approaches Standard. Exceeds Standards assumes that the candidate has also met the
criteria under Approaches Standard and Meets Standard. Performance indicators provide
examples of candidate performance, and are not intended to be prescriptive.
Performance
Indicator
Approaches
Standard
Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
4.b.1. Understand
and implement
national and state
requirements for
identification,
reclassification, and
exit of ELLs from
language support
programs.
Candidates
understand national
and state
requirements (e.g.,
L1 surveys or
benchmarks) for
identifying,
reclassifying, and
exiting ELLs from
language support
programs.
Candidates make
informed decisions
regarding placement
and reclassification
of students in ESOL
programs based on
national and state
requirements.
Candidates involve
families in program
decisions for ELLs.
Candidates share
their knowledge and
expertise regarding
identification,
placement,
reclassification, and
exiting of ELLs with
their colleagues.
4.b.2. Understand
the appropriate use
of norm‐referenced
assessments with
ELLs.
Candidates are
familiar with norm‐
referenced
assessments but
have not used them
to make decisions
about ELLs.
Candidates
understand norm‐
referenced
assessments,
including their
strengths and
weaknesses, and use
this information to
make decisions about
ELLs (e.g.,
identification,
placement,
achievement,
reclassification, and
possible giftedness
Candidates share this
knowledge with their
colleagues.
63
and/or learning
disabilities).
4.b.3. Assess ELLs’
language skills and
communicative
competence using
multiple sources of
information.
Candidates use
simple measures and
a limited number of
sources of
information to assess
ELLs’ individual
language skills and
communicative
ability.
Candidates assess
ELLs’ discrete and
integrated ability to
use grammar,
vocabulary, listening,
speaking, reading,
and writing to
communicate
appropriately using
performance‐based
measures.
Candidates create
multiple
performance‐based
measures to assess
students’ language
skills and
communicative
competence across
the curriculum.
Candidates share
these measures with
their colleagues.
64
Standard 4.c. Classroom‐Based Assessment for ESL
Candidates know and can use a variety of performance‐based assessment tools and techniques
to inform instruction for in the classroom.
Supporting Explanation. Candidates understand the interdependent relationship between
teaching and assessment and can develop instructional tasks and assessment tools that
promote and measure student learning. They are familiar with assessment goals, tools, and
tasks appropriate for ELLs that correspond with the program’s philosophy, the unit’s conceptual
framework, as well as state and national standards in ESOL. Candidates can assess learners’
content‐area achievement independently from their language ability and should be able to
adapt classroom tests and tasks for ELLs at varying stages of English language and literacy
development. They also understand the importance of assessing language skills in an
integrative way.
Candidates understand that portfolios are important tools in the assessment of ELL learning. A
portfolio is a collection of student work that reflects progress over time. Portfolio samples are
typically based on work conducted as part of class activities or home assignments. Using
authentic examples is a characteristic of unbiased performance assessment. Performance
assessments help candidates evaluate students’ complex thinking (the ability to write a
summary is demonstrated through a written summary; the ability to orally debate an issue is
demonstrated through an oral debate). Candidates are familiar with and can use a variety of
rubrics to assess portfolios and their individual contents. They also understand that self‐
assessment and peer‐assessment techniques can be used regularly to encourage students to
monitor and take control of their own learning.
Candidates develop classroom assessments using a variety of item types and elicitation and
response formats to assess students’ receptive and productive language skills. Candidates
assess their ELLs’ English literacy skills appropriately. They understand the implication of
assessing language and literacy skills in students’ native languages. They also know how to
interpret test results and plan instruction based on those results.
Candidates understand that some classroom reading assessments designed for native speakers,
such as independent oral reading, may be uninformative or misleading as assessment tools for
ELLs who may be overly concerned with the pronunciation demands of the task and pay less
attention to comprehension.
65
Rubric for Standard 4.c. Classroom‐Based Assessment for ESL
These rubrics are additive. Meets Standard assumes that the candidate has also met the criteria
under Approaches Standard. Exceeds Standards assumes that the candidate has also met the
criteria under Approaches Standard and Meets Standard. Performance indicators provide
examples of candidate performance, and are not intended to be prescriptive.
Performance
Indicator
Approaches
Standard
Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
4.c.1. Use
performance‐based
assessment tools
and tasks that
measure ELLs’
progress.
Candidates use a
limited set of
performance‐based
tasks to assess ELLs’
language and
content‐area
learning.
Candidates use a
variety of
performance‐based
assessment tools
(e.g., portfolios,
classroom
observation
checklists, reading
logs, video,
spreadsheet
software) that
measure ELLs’
progress.
Candidates design
performance‐based
tasks and tools to
measure ELLs’
progress.
4.c.2. Understand
and use criterion‐
referenced
assessments
appropriately with
ELLs.
Candidates are
familiar with
criterion‐referenced
assessments but
have not used them
to make decisions
about ELLs.
Candidates use
authentic and
traditional criterion‐
referenced
procedures to assess
ELLs’ language and
content‐area
learning.
Candidates
appropriately use
these assessments to
help determine
possible special
Candidates construct
and evaluate a range
of criterion‐
referenced measures
and item types to
assess ELLs’ learning.
Candidates share this
knowledge with their
colleagues.
66
needs (e.g.,
giftedness and/or
learning disabilities).
4.c.3. Use various
instruments and
techniques to assess
content‐area
learning (e.g., math,
science, social
studies) for ELLs at
varying levels of
language and
literacy
development.
Candidates are aware
of instruments and
techniques to assess
the content‐area
knowledge of ELLs,
who are at varying
levels of English
language and literacy
abilities.
Candidates use a
variety of
instruments and
techniques, including
technology‐based
assessment, to assess
ELLs’ knowledge in
the content areas at
varying levels of
English language and
literacy ability.
Candidates use test
adaptation
techniques (e.g.,
simplifying the
language of
assessment
measures and
directions).
Candidates develop
and adapt a variety
of techniques and
instruments when
appropriate to assess
ELLs’ content
learning at all levels
of language
proficiency and
literacy.
4.c.4. Prepare ELLs
to use self‐ and
peer‐assessment
techniques when
appropriate.
Candidates
encourage ELLs to
monitor their own
performance and
provide feedback to
other learners.
Candidates model
self‐ and peer‐
assessment
techniques and
provide
opportunities for
students to practice
these in the
classroom.
Candidates embed
self‐ and peer‐
assessment
techniques in their
instruction and
model them across
the curriculum.
Candidates share
self‐ and peer‐
assessment
techniques with their
colleagues.
4.c.5. Use a variety Candidates are Candidates use a Candidates develop
67
of rubrics to assess
ELLs’ language
development in
classroom settings.
familiar with some
basic rubrics that can
be used to assess
ELLs’ language
development.
variety of rubrics to
assess ELLs’ language
development.
and adapt a variety
of rubrics to assess
ELLs’ language
development.
68
Domain 5. Professionalism
Candidates keep current with new instructional techniques, research results, advances in the
ESL field, and education policy issues and demonstrate knowledge of the history of ESL
teaching. They use such information to reflect on and improve their instruction and assessment
practices. Candidates work collaboratively with school staff and the community to improve the
learning environment, provide support, and advocate for ELLs and their families.
Standard 5.a. ESL Research and History
Candidates demonstrate knowledge of history, research, educational public policy, and current
practice in the field of ESL teaching and apply this knowledge to inform teaching and learning.
Supporting Explanation. Candidates are familiar with the history of ESL teaching and stay
current with recent research, methodologies, and strategies in the field. They use this
knowledge to design effective instruction for ELLs.
Candidates understand legal processes, mandates, and policies that have had an impact on the
development of the field of ESL. They are knowledgeable about the history of legal decisions
(e.g., Lau v. Nichols) and national legislation (e.g., No Child Left Behind) and their subsequent
application to the instruction of ELLs. They can explain the impact of state and federal
legislation on their classrooms and the school’s community.
69
Rubric for Standard 5.a. ESL Research and History
These rubrics are additive. Meets Standard assumes that the candidate has also met the criteria
under Approaches Standard. Exceeds Standard assumes that the candidate has also met the
criteria under Approaches Standard and Meets Standard. Performance indicators provide
examples of candidate performance, and are not intended to be prescriptive.
Suggested
Performance
Indicators
Approaches
Standard
Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
5.a.1. Demonstrate
knowledge of
language teaching
methods in their
historical contexts.
Candidates are
familiar with
different well‐
established
teaching
methodologies and
theories in their
historical contexts.
Candidates use their
knowledge of the
evolution and
research in the field
of ESL to provide
effective instruction
and can articulate
their personal
educational
philosophy in this
area.
Candidates use their
knowledge of the
evolution of the
field of ESL to
design instruction
and make
instructional and
assessment
decisions and
conduct their own
classroom‐based
research.
5.a.2. Demonstrate
knowledge of the
evolution of laws
and policy in the ESL
profession.
Candidates are
aware of the laws,
judicial decisions,
policies, and
guidelines that have
shaped the field of
ESL.
Candidates use their
knowledge of the
laws, judicial
decisions, policies,
and guidelines that
have influenced the
ESL profession to
provide appropriate
instruction for
students.
Candidates use their
knowledge of the
laws, judicial
decisions, policies,
and guidelines that
have influenced the
ESL profession to
design appropriate
instruction for
students.
Candidates
participate in
discussions with
70
colleagues and the
public concerning
federal, state, and
local guidelines,
laws, and policies
that affect ELLs.
5.a.3. Demonstrate
ability to read and
conduct classroom
research.
Candidates are
familiar with the
basics of classroom
research.
Candidates are able
to conduct
classroom research.
Candidates design
and implement
classroom research
that will affect their
instruction.
71
Standard 5.b. Professional Development, Partnerships, and Advocacy
Candidates take advantage of professional growth opportunities and demonstrate the ability to
build partnerships with colleagues and students’ families, serve as community resources, and
advocate for ELLs.
Supporting Explanation. Candidates actively participate in professional growth opportunities,
including those offered by appropriate organizations, and they can articulate their own
philosophy of education..
Candidates view ESOL families as vital resources that inform their classrooms and schools. They
promote the important roles that families play in their children’s linguistic, academic, and
personal development. Candidates are aware of resources in the community to assist ELLs and
their families and share this information with students, families, and professional colleagues.
Candidates know and understand public issues that affect the education of ELLs, and they
support ELLs and their families socially and politically.
Candidates promote a school environment that values diverse student populations and
provides equitable access to resources for ELLs. They collaborate with school staff to provide
educational opportunities for ELLs with diverse learning needs at all English proficiency levels.
Candidates advocate for appropriate instruction and assessment by sharing their knowledge of
ELLs with their general‐education and content‐area colleagues and the community. They also
advocate for equal access to educational resources for ELLs, including technology.
72
Rubric for Standard 5.b. Professional Development, Partnerships, and Advocacy
These rubrics are additive. Meets Standard assumes that the candidate has also met the criteria
under Approaches Standard. Exceeds Standard assumes that the candidate has also met the
criteria under Approaches Standard and Meets Standard. Performance indicators provide
examples of candidate performance, and are not intended to be prescriptive.
Suggested
Performance
Indicator
Approaches
Standard
Meets Standard Exceeds Standard
5.b.1. Participate in
professional growth
opportunities.
Candidates are
aware of
professional growth
opportunities,
including local and
national ESOL
organizations.
Candidates
participate in local
professional growth
opportunities.
Candidates
participate in ESOL
organizations.
Candidates assist
others’ professional
growth by sharing
their expertise and
mentoring others.
Candidates take
active roles in their
professional
association(s).
5.b.2 Establish
professional goals.
Candidates
formulate
professional
development plans
based on their
interests.
Candidates
implement a
personal
professional
development plan
based on interests
and reflection,
taking advantage of
opportunities to
support these goals
in professional
associations and
other academic
organizations.
Candidates engage
in a continuous
cycle of ESL
professional
development that is
informed by their
instructional
reflections and
analysis.
5.b.3. Work with
other teachers and
Candidates
understand the
Candidates
collaborate with
Candidates provide
leadership to staff
73
staff to provide
comprehensive,
challenging
educational
opportunities for
ELLs in the school.
importance of
establishing
collaborative
relationships among
ESL staff members
and all departments
and resource
personnel in the
school.
general and
specialist school
staff (e.g.,
multidisciplinary
faculty teams) to
establish an
instructional
program
appropriate for ELLs
at a variety of
English proficiency
levels.
in establishing
appropriate
instructional
opportunities for
ELLs.
5.b.4. Engage in
collaborative
teaching in general
education, content‐
area, special
education, and
gifted classrooms.
Candidates are
aware of a variety
of collaborative
teaching models.
Candidates teach
collaboratively with
other teachers to
assist ELLs in
general education,
content‐area,
special education,
and gifted
classrooms.
Candidates provide
leadership to staff
in developing
collaborative
instructional models
for ELLs.
5.b.5. Advocate for
ELLs’ access to
academic classes,
resources, and
instructional
technology.
Candidates
understand the
importance of
advocating for ELLs,
including full access
to school resources
and technology and
appropriate
instruction for
students with
special needs or
giftedness.
Candidates
advocate for ELLs
and their families
including full access
to school resources
and technology and
appropriate
instruction for
students with
special needs or
giftedness.
Candidates share
with colleagues the
importance of ELLs’
equal access to
Candidates serve as
advocates and ESOL
resources to
support ELLs and
their families as
families make
decisions in the
schools and
community.
Candidates help
colleagues
appropriately
select, adapt, and
customize resources
74
educational
resources, including
technology.
Candidates take
part in instructional
teams advocating
for appropriate
instructional
services for ELLs
who may have
special needs or
giftedness.
for use by ELLs.
Candidates take
leadership roles on
instructional teams
advocating for
appropriate
instructional
services for ELLs
who may have
special needs or
giftedness.
5.b.6 Support ELL
families.
Candidates are
familiar with
community
language education
and other resources
available to ELLs
and their families.
Candidates provide
ELLs and their
families with
information,
support, and
assistance as they
advocate together
for the students and
their families.
Candidates help
families participate
fully in their school
and community.
Candidates engage
with community
members and
policymakers with
respect to issues
affecting ELLs.
Candidates help
create empowering
circumstances and
environments for
ELLs and their
families.
Candidates take
leadership roles
with community
members and
policymakers with
respect to issues
affecting ELLs.
5.b.7. Serve as
professional
Candidates
understand ways to
Candidates model
for their colleagues
Candidates help
other teachers and
75
resource personnel
in their educational
communities.
facilitate
cooperation among
ESOL professionals,
families,
administrators,
community
members,
policymakers and
their ELLs.
a variety of
techniques and
attitudes needed to
work effectively
with ELLs.
Candidates keep
current with media
reports about the
education of ELLs.
school
administrators’
work effectively
with ELLs.
Candidates provide
instruction and
professional growth
activities for
colleagues and
share skills for
working with ELLs.
Candidates help
policymakers
understand the
curricula and
instructional
approaches that
best meet the
needs of ELLs in
their community.
76
APPENDIX A. DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW OF STANDARDS
Time Line
When Task
July 05–Sept 05 Develop plan and RAIs to revise the standards and form the
TESOL/NCATE PK–12 ESL Teacher Education Program Standing
Committee.
July 05–July 06 Write “how‐to” document for institutions.
Oct 06 Submission of “Revision of Standards Plan” to TESOL Standing
Committee On Standards (SCS).
Oct 06 TESOL Board
Meeting
Consideration of RAIs to form PK–12 Teacher Education
Program Standing Committee.
Nov 06 Appoints members of the PK‐12 Teacher Education Program
Standing Committee (Committee).
Dec 06 Develop survey for campus reps, teacher trainers, PK–12,
TESOL interest sections Elementary Education, Secondary
Education, Bilingual Education, and Teacher Education about
changes to current standards and guidance documents; make
available online from December 05 through June 06.
Mar 1, 2007 Interim survey results available to PK–12 Teacher Education
Program Standing Committee.
Mar 07 Begin revision of guidance document.
Mar 07 Begin revision of standards.
Sept 07 Revise target date for submission to NCATE to October 09.
Respond to TESOL survey on revisions.
Oct 07 Complete first draft of revised standards and share with TESOL
Standards Committee and NCATE.
Nov 07 TESOL office posts revised standards on TESOL Web site for
comment.
77
Nov 07–Feb 08 Revise standards based on comments and prepares for
submission to TESOL Standards Standing Committee.
Mar 08 @ TESOL
Conference
TESOL Standards Standing Committee reviews and approves
draft standards.
April 08 Present revised standards at CATESOL conference.
April 09 Present revised standards at CATESOL conference.
May 09 Write and submit RAI for approval of revised standards at June
TESOL Executive Committee meeting.
June 09 TESOL Executive Committee approves revised standards and
submits to TESOL Publication Dept. to edit and prepare for
publication.
October 09 NCATE approves standards.
February 2010 Revised standards are officially in use by Institutes of Higher
Education
TESOL Standards Aligned with Proposed NCATE Principles and Elements
At the time of publication, NCATE is proposing to revise the way SPAs write standards so that
SPAs will produce consistent results. To this end they have created a task force that proposes a
model with four principles. As the TESOL/NCATE P‐12 ESL Teacher Education Program
Standards Team worked through our revisions and examined the proposed principles, we found
that all of the principles and their elements could easily be aligned with the newly revised
TESOL Standards.
The following chart aligns the proposed NCATE Principles (and their defining elements) with the
revised TESOL Standards. The column on the left lists the proposed 11 TESOL standards, and the
four columns on the right list the NCATE proposed principles at the top, and the relevant
elements next to the TESOL Standards.
NCATE Proposed Principles Aligned With the TESOL Standards
TESOL
Standard
Content
Knowledg
Content
Pedagogy
Learning
Environments
Professional
Knowledge & Skills
78
e
1.a. Language
as a system
All Knowledge of
how students
develop and
learn,
Students’
diversity and
differing
approaches to
learning,
Cultural
influences on
learning,
Students’
preconceptions
that must be
engaged for
effective
learning, and
Familiarity with
standards‐
based
instruction,
assessment,
and learning.
Individual and
group
motivation for
a disciplined
learning
environment
and
engagement in
learning,
Assessment
and analysis of
student
learning,
making
appropriate
adjustments in
instruction, and
monitoring
student
progress to
assure
meaningful
learning
experiences for
all students.
1.b. Language
acquisition
and
development
All Knowledge of
how students
develop and
learn,
Students’
diversity and
differing
Individual and
group
motivation for
a disciplined
learning
environment
and
engagement in
Understanding and
ability to
demonstrate a
commitment to
equitable and
ethical treatment
of all students and
colleagues;
79
approaches to
learning,
Cultural
influences on
learning,
Students’
preconceptions
that must be
engaged for
effective
learning, and
Familiarity with
standards‐
based
instruction,
assessment,
and learning.
learning,
Assessment
and analysis of
student
learning,
making
appropriate
adjustments in
instruction, and
monitoring
student
progress to
assure
meaningful
learning
experiences for
all students,
and
Use of a variety
of instructional
strategies,
materials, and
applications of
technology to
encourage
students’
development of
critical thinking,
problem‐
solving, and
performance
skills.
knowledge of the
collaborative roles
of other school
professionals and
readiness to work
with colleagues,
families, and
community
agencies.
2. Culture as it
affects student
learning
All Students’
diversity and
differing
approaches to
Individual and
group
motivation for
a disciplined
80
learning,
Cultural
influences on
learning,
Students’
preconceptions
that must be
engaged for
effective
learning,
learning
environment
and
engagement in
learning,
3.a. Planning
for standards‐
based ESL and
content
instruction
All Familiarity with
standards‐
based
instruction,
assessment,
and learning.
Knowledge of
how students
develop and
learn,
Students’
diversity and
differing
approaches to
learning,
Cultural
influences on
learning,
Assessment
and analysis of
student
learning,
making
appropriate
adjustments in
instruction, and
monitoring
student
progress to
assure
meaningful
learning
experiences for
all students.
Understanding and
ability to
demonstrate a
commitment to
equitable and
ethical treatment
of all students and
colleagues;
knowledge of the
collaborative roles
of other school
professionals and
readiness to work
with colleagues,
families, and
community
agencies.
3.b. Managing
and
implementing
standards‐
All Knowledge of
how students
develop and
learn,
Individual and
group
motivation for
a disciplined
Understanding and
ability to
demonstrate a
commitment to
81
based ESL and
content
instruction
Students’
diversity and
differing
approaches to
learning,
Cultural
influences on
learning,
Students’
preconceptions
that must be
engaged for
effective
learning, and
Familiarity with
standards‐
based
instruction,
assessment,
and learning.
learning
environment
and
engagement in
learning,
Assessment
and analysis of
student
learning,
making
appropriate
adjustments in
instruction, and
monitoring
student
progress to
assure
meaningful
learning
experiences for
all students,
and
Use of a variety
of instructional
strategies,
materials, and
applications of
technology to
encourage
students’
development of
critical thinking,
problem‐
solving, and
performance
skills.
equitable and
ethical treatment
of all students and
colleagues;
knowledge of the
collaborative roles
of other school
professionals and
readiness to work
with colleagues,
families, and
community
agencies.
82
3.c. Using
resources and
technology
effectively in
ESL and
content
instruction
All Use of a variety
of instructional
strategies,
materials, and
applications of
technology to
encourage
students’
development of
critical thinking,
problem‐
solving, and
performance
skills.
Engagement in
professional
experiences and
reflection on them
to enhance their
own professional
growth.
4.a. Issues of
assessment for
English
language
learners
All Familiarity with
standards‐
based
instruction,
assessment,
and learning.
Knowledge of
how students
develop and
learn,
Students’
diversity and
differing
approaches to
learning,
Cultural
influences on
learning,
Assessment
and analysis of
student
learning,
making
appropriate
adjustments in
instruction, and
monitoring
student
Engagement in
professional
experiences and
reflection on them
to enhance their
own professional
growth.
Understanding and
ability to
demonstrate a
commitment to
equitable and
ethical treatment
of all students and
colleagues;
knowledge of the
collaborative roles
of other school
professionals and
readiness to work
with colleagues,
families, and
community
83
progress to
assure
meaningful
learning
experiences for
all students.
agencies.
4.b. Language
proficiency
assessment
All Familiarity with
standards‐
based
instruction,
assessment,
and learning.
Assessment
and analysis of
student
learning,
making
appropriate
adjustments in
instruction, and
monitoring
student
progress to
assure
meaningful
learning
experiences for
all students.
4.c.
Classroom‐
based
assessment for
ESL
All Knowledge of
how students
develop and
learn,
Students’
diversity and
differing
approaches to
learning,
Cultural
influences on
learning,
Students’
Individual and
group
motivation for
a disciplined
learning
environment
and
engagement in
learning,
Assessment
and analysis of
student
learning,
making
84
preconceptions
that must be
engaged for
effective
learning, and
Familiarity with
standards‐
based
instruction,
assessment,
and learning.
appropriate
adjustments in
instruction, and
monitoring
student
progress to
assure
meaningful
learning
experiences for
all students,
and
Use of a variety
of instructional
strategies,
materials, and
applications of
technology to
encourage
students’
development of
critical thinking,
problem‐
solving, and
performance
skills.
5.a. ESL
research and
history
All Engagement in
professional
experiences and
reflection on them
to enhance their
own professional
growth.
5.b. Profes‐
sional
development,
Engagement in
professional
experiences and
85
partnership&
advocacy
reflection on them
to enhance their
own professional
growth;
Understanding and
ability to
demonstrate a
commitment to
equitable and
ethical treatment
of all students and
colleagues;
knowledge of the
collaborative roles
of other school
professionals and
readiness to work
with colleagues,
families, and
community
agencies; and
Ability to identify
opportunities for
collaborative and
leadership roles as
members of
teams.
86
APPENDIX B. SELECTING AND TRAINING REVIEWERS
NCATE requires all specialty‐area organizations (SPAs) to develop procedures for quality
assurance in the selection, training, and evaluation of individuals who will conduct program
reviews as well as procedures to avoid conflicts of interest or bias in assigning review of
programs in each institution. SPAs also are required from time to time to provide materials to
NCATE for use by the Specialty Areas Studies Board (SASB) and its Process and Evaluation
Committee to show how SASB guidelines for review procedures, quality, and feedback to
institutions are being implemented and whether SPA actions are completed in a timely manner.
SPAs may be asked as well to review and comment on analyses prepared by NCATE for use by
the Process and Evaluation Committee.
In keeping with these NCATE requirements, TESOL has developed the following procedures for
selecting and training reviewers.
Procedures for Selecting Reviewers
TESOL’s pool of potential volunteer reviewers includes trainers, administrators, professors,
teachers, and practitioners who have acquired training and experience in the application of the
TESOL/NCATE P12 ESL Teacher Education Standards. TESOL solicits nominations of reviewers
from its interest sections (ISs), the TESOL Standards Committee, or by colleagues or supervisors.
In addition, interested TESOL professionals may self‐nominate. Once nominated, interested
individuals complete and submit a reviewer application.
Applications are screened and rated by at least two TESOL/NCATE team members to ensure
that all reviewer requirements are met. Reviewers are selected on the basis of professional
experience; ability to represent the needs of the profession; and potential ability and
willingness to provide comprehensive, valid, timely reviews. Although no deliberate action has
been taken to recruit diverse reviewers, the vast diversity that exists within the ELL teaching
profession is reflected among the growing pool of TESOL/NCATE reviewers.
The following is a list of recommended qualifications to become an NCATE/TESOL program
reviewer:
Expertise in the field of teaching, administration, teacher education, research, and/or
program evaluation.
Three or more years of teaching or other experience related to P12 ESL education (some of which has been U.S. based).
Expertise in the fields of TESOL, applied linguistics, and/or TESOL teacher education.
87
Current membership in TESOL.
Basic knowledge about interpretation of data, performance‐based assessment, use of
rating scales and rubrics, and analysis of written information.
Ability to write clearly and concisely.
Ability to make reasoned professional judgments about educational programs.
Good interpersonal skills, the ability to interact with team members in a courteous and
collegial manner, and the ability to work toward consensus in team deliberations.
Computer literacy, particularly word‐processing skills.
E‐mail access.
Commitment and availability to perform duties for a 3‐year term.
Procedures for Training Reviewers
All reviewers must participate in the day‐long TESOL reviewer‐training program, held every year
prior to the TESOL annual convention at the convention site. Training covers various aspects of
interpreting and applying the standards and holistically evaluating the program using the TESOL
designated rubrics for preparing the program report. New reviewers do not have to pay the
TESOL convention registration fee. In addition, experienced reviewers are invited to attend the
training session to help refresh their skills.
88
APPENDIX C. PREPARING AND REVIEWING PROGRAM REPORTS
Training for Institutions in Preparing and Submitting a Program Report
TESOL holds training sessions for institutions prior to TESOL’s annual convention on how to
prepare and submit a program report. Institutions that are preparing for national recognition by
NCATE are invited to send at least one representative to these sessions.
For information on scheduling and costs, please contact the TESOL/NCATE Program
Coordinator, Diane Staehr Fenner at [email protected].
Procedures for Reviewing Program Reports
Before evaluating materials, each reviewer is provided a list of the institutions that have
submitted TESOL reports that cycle. Reviewers are asked to consider whether a potential
conflict of interest might exist or be perceived to exist with any institution for any reason,
including factors such as prior involvement with the institution, program, or personnel at that
institution. A program submission is never assigned to reviewers who live in the state in which
the institution is located.
Trained reviewers are assigned to two‐ to three‐member review teams, comprising one lead
reviewer and one to two reviewers. Each member of a review team independently evaluates
the program under review for compliance with each standard by examining the statements
made by the program in submitted material(s), programmatic evidence (e.g., of program policy
and practice), and evidence of candidate performance consistent with the standards.
Each review team member independently conducts an initial review of program materials
uploaded to NCATE’s electronic system; reviewers are encouraged to confer with each other
prior to submitting their independent reports. When at least two reviewers agree, the lead
reviewer compiles the reviews into one report and uploads it to NCATE for auditing by an
experienced reviewer and subsequent return to the submitting institution. Reviewers are given
a specific time frame within which they must complete their reviews and submit them to
NCATE.
89
APPENDIX D. SPA RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER NCATE PARTNERSHIPS
TESOL follows the guidelines set down in NCATE’s Specialty Areas Studies Board (SASB) Policies,
Section 4: SASB and SPA Responsibilities Under State Partnerships, adopted in October 2004.
Under these guidelines, SPAs are expected to review the alignment of state standards with their
program standards as part of the state partnership application, which is completed every seven
years.
TESOL’s P–12 ESL Teacher Education Program Standards Team reviews state partnership
applications by comparing the state’s standards for the licensure, certification, or endorsement
for ESL teachers with TESOL’s NCATE‐approved standards. The team decides if (a) there is
alignment, noting any state standards that exceed the SPA program standards, or (b) there is
not sufficient alignment with the SPA program standards, noting which of the standards are not
sufficiently aligned, and explaining why alignment is not achieved. The term alignment means
comparability or similarity; it does not demand that state standards be identical to those of
TESOL.
TESOL is also available to work proactively with states during development of state standards
both to provide the expertise in the field and to avoid, so far as is possible, major problems of
omission or differences that would prevent successful alignment with the TESOL/NCATE
standards.
90
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
academic language: Language used in the learning of academic subject matter in a formal
school context; aspects of language strongly associated with literacy and academic
achievement, including specific academic terms or technical language, and speech registers
related to each field of study.
accommodation: Accommodations for ELLs involve changes to testing procedures, testing
materials, or the testing situation in order to allow students meaningful participation in an
assessment (e.g., test translations, bilingual dictionaries, extended time).
acculturation: The process of accepting, borrowing, and exchanging ideas and traits among cultures,
resulting in new or blended cultures.
achievement test: Test that reflects a student’s progress and learning of materials specific to
course objectives. Achievement tests can also be comprehensive state or nationwide
standardized tests given once a year to show school‐wide improvement.
acquisition: The process of developing competency in a language.
affective variables: The emotional variables that affect language acquisition (e.g., motivation,
self‐esteem, attitudes, anxiety).
alternative measures of assessment: Criterion‐referenced method of assessment that is
alternative to traditional testing, often using nonquantifiable results. For examples, see
authentic measures.
assimilation: The blending or fusing of minority groups into the dominant society.
authentic measures: Various kinds of assessment reflecting student learning of, progress on,
and attitudes toward relevant coursework (e.g., performance assessment, portfolios, peer
assessment, self‐assessment).
bias: Content material reflects cultural and/or linguistic information unfamiliar to ESOL
learners.
biculturalism: Identifying with the cultures of two different ethnic, national, or language groups.
biliteracy: Ability to read and write fluently in two languages.
benchmark: A sample of performance that is used as a standard to judge other samples.
code‐switching: A change by a speaker or writer from one language or variety of language to
another at the word, phrase, clause, or sentence level.
91
cognate: A word in one language that is similar in form and meaning to a word in another
language.
cognitive variables: Developmental factors (e.g., age, developmental maturity, learner styles,
learner strategies) that enable students to think, solve problems, and acquire information.
communicative competence: The ability to recognize and produce authentic and appropriate
language correctly and fluently in any situation; use of language in realistic, everyday settings;
involves grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and
strategic competence.
comprehensible input: A construct developed to describe understandable and meaningful
language directed at L2 learners under optimal conditions; characterized as the language the
learner already knows plus a range of new language that is made comprehensible by the use of
certain planned strategies.
constructivism: A learning theory that suggests that learners actively construct their own
understandings within a social context rather than being merely receptacles of knowledge.
criterion referenced: In this form of assessment, all students who meet the criteria can be
successful. Frequently used to judge how students are achieving along a continuum, as opposed
to norm‐referenced testing, which uses a bell curve so that not all students can be successful
(see norm referenced).
diagnostic assessment: Assessment measure used to identify ELLs’ strengths and areas needing
improvement, usually for placement purposes.
dialect: A regional or social variety of language distinguished by features of vocabulary,
grammar, pronunciation, and discourse that differ from other varieties.
ELL (English language learner): In this document, the term refers to the student who is learning
English in a language program (see ESOL).
ESL (English as a second language): In this document, the term refers to the profession of
English language teaching (and the professionals who work in it).
ESOL (English to speakers of other languages): In this document, the term refers to the
program designed to teach the English language to students who need to learn it.
high‐stakes testing: Any test that is used to determine a student’s future or that functions as a
gatekeeper (e.g., a test that qualifies a student to graduate from high school). Also used to refer
to the statewide achievement tests given to meet federal requirements of yearly progress in
content areas such as math and English.
92
interlanguage: An intermediate system that learners create as they attempt to achieve native‐
like competence.
language varieties: Variations of a language used by particular groups of people that includes
regional dialects characterized by distinct vocabularies, speech patterns, grammatical features,
and so forth; may also vary by social group (sociolect) or idiosyncratically for a particular
individual (idiolect).
learning styles: Preferences for processing information; these preferences are often culturally
based.
native language assessment: An instrument designed to provide information on the level of
proficiency an individual possesses in his or her native, or first, language; the assessment should
cover proficiency in all four skill areas: listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
nonverbal communication: Paralinguistic and nonlinguistic messages that can be transmitted in
conjunction with language or without the aid of language; paralinguistic mechanisms include
gestures, facial expressions, and body language.
norm referenced: Norm‐referenced tests rank students or groups by measuring their relative
performance against that of the norm group. Most commonly used to meet state and federal
requirements for yearly achievement.
peer assessment: A form of assessment where students provide feedback for each other.
Teachers will usually need to model this practice, particularly for ELLs.
placement: Assessment to determine the language proficiency level of a student to place them
in an appropriate program.
portfolio: Selections of a student’s work that reflect progress over time, typically conducted as
part of class activities or homework; using authentic samples is a characteristic of performance
assessment.
primary language: First or native language spoken by an individual, sometimes referred to as
the individual’s L1 or home language.
proficiency testing: Assessment to determine progress in language development over time.
Usually criterion referenced.
reclassification: Determination that an ELL is ready to be mainstreamed and does not need
further English language support. It is usually determined by a language proficiency test,
teacher input, and a standardized academic achievement test used with the general population.
93
reliability: A technical measure to determine an assessment’s ability to produce consistent,
accurate results.
SIFE: See students with interrupted formal education.
social language: The aspect of language proficiency strongly associated with basic fluency in
face‐to‐face interaction; natural speech in social interactions, including those that occur in a
classroom.
sociocultural competence: ability to function effectively in a particular social or cultural context
according to the rules or expectations of behavior held by members of that social or cultural
group.
sociocultural variables: Factors associated with the social and cultural community (e.g.,
language and ethnic status, value systems, etc.).
sociolinguistic competence: Related to communicative competence; the extent to which
language is appropriately understood and used in a given situation (e.g., the ability to make
apologies, give compliments, and politely refuse requests).
standardized achievement tests: Measures developed commercially or at the district or state
level intended to determine how schools are performing in content areas (see high‐stakes
testing).
standards‐based assessment: The systematic planning, gathering, analyzing, and reporting of
student performance according to established standards, such as the ESL standards.
students with interrupted formal education (SIFE): Typically newcomer students who arrive
with significant gaps in their education from their home country or latest country of residence.
traditional measures of assessment: Forms of assessment, for example, multiple choice,
true/false, fill in the blank, that typically examine discrete forms of knowledge and do not
include actual performance or application of knowledge.
validity: A technical measure of an assessment’s match between the information collected by
the items and its specified purposes.
94
RESOURCES
Domain 1. Language
Bailey, A. (Ed.). (2007). The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Andrews, L. (2001). Linguistics for L2 teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blum, S. D. (Eds.). (2009). Making sense of language: Readings in culture and communication.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Philadelphia:
Multilingual Matters.
Brown, H. D. (2007a). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, NY:
Prentice Hall.
Brown, H. D. (2007b). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy
(3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Clark, V. P., Eschholz, P. A., Rosa, A. F., & Simon, B. L. (Eds.). (2008). Language: Introductory
readings (7th ed.). New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.
Chamot, A. U (2009). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language
learning approach (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley.
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard
Educational Review, 56, 18–36.
Cummins, J., & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.). (2001). An introductory reader to the writings of Jim
Cummins. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Díaz‐Rico, L. T., & Weed, K. Z. (2010). The cross‐cultural, language, and academic development
handbook: A complete K–12 reference guide (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Fasold, R. W., & Connor‐Linton, J. (Eds.). (2006). An introduction to language and linguistics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2000, August 23). What teachers need to know about language.
Retrieved March 4, 2002, from http://faculty.tamu‐
commerce.edu/jthompson/Resources/FillmoreSnow2000.pdf
95
Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y. S. (2001). Between worlds: Access to second language acquisition
(2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Freeman, D. E. & Freeman, Y. S. (2004). Essential linguistics: What you need to know to teach
reading, ESL, spelling, phonics, and grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fromkin, V., & Rodman, R. (1998). An introduction to language (6th ed.). Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York:
Routledge.
Genesee, F. (1994). Educating second language children. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hall, C. J. (2005). An introduction to language & linguistics: Breaking the language spell. New York:
Continuum.
Larsen‐Freeman, D., & Celce‐Murcia, M. A. (2007). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s
course. 2nd ed. Boston: Heinle ELT.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University.
Luria, H., Seymore, D. M., & Smoke, T. (Eds.). (2006). Language and linguistics in context: Readings
and applications for teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oaks, D. D. (2001). Linguistics at work: A reader of applications. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Omaggio‐Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
Parker, F., & Riley, K. (2005). Linguistics for non‐linguists: A primer with exercises (4th ed.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Perez, B., & Torres‐Guzman, M. E. (1996). Learning in two worlds: An integrated Spanish/English
biliteracy approach (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Rickerson, E. M., & Hilton, B. (Eds.). (2006). The 5 minute linguist. London: Equinox.
Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework (Technical Report 2003‐1). Irvine:
University of California.
96
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2007). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Domain 2. Culture as It Affects English Language Learning
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2007). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (6th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: U.S. language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J., Brown, K., Sayers, D. (2007). Literacy, technology, and diversity: Teaching for
success in changing times. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Fishman, J. A. (1999). Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Freedman, J. (2002). The temple of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goldstein, T. (2003). Teaching and learning in a multilingual school: Choices, risks, and
dilemmas. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gollnick, D., & Chinn, P. (2002). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (6th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Hall, J. K. (2002). Teaching and researching language and culture. New York: Pearson.
Kubota, R., & Lin, A. M. Y. (Eds.). (2009). Race, culture, and identities in second language
education: Exploring critically engaged practice. New York: Routledge.
McKay, S. L., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Sociolinguistics and language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Moran, P. (1998). Teaching culture. New York: Heinle & Heinle.
Nieto, S. (2006). Language, literacy and culture: Intersections and implications. In H. Luria, D. M.
Seymour, & T. Smoke (Eds.), Language and linguistics in context (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Purcell‐Gates, V. (Ed.). (2007). Cultural practices of literacy: Case studies of language, literacy,
social practice, and power. New York: Routledge.
Rasool, J., & Curtis, A. C. (2000). Multicultural education in middle and secondary classrooms:
Meeting the challenge of diversity and change. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
97
Saville‐Troike, M. (2005). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (2007). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches
to race, class, and gender (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Trudgill, P., & Cheshire, J. (Eds.). (1998). The sociolinguistic reader: Multilingualism and
variation. London: Arnold.
Trumbull, E., Rothstein‐Fish, C. R., Greenfield, P. M., & Quiron, B. (2001). Bridging cultures
between home and school. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wong, S. (2006). Dialogic approaches to TESOL: Where the ginkgo tree grows. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Domain 3. Using Resources Effectively in ESL Instruction
Ada, A. F., & Campoy, F. I. (2004). Authors in the classroom: A transformative education process.
New York: Pearson.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second‐language learners. Report of
the National Literacy Panel on Language‐Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Becker, H., & Hamayan, E. (2001), Teaching ESL K–12: Views from the classroom. New York:
Heinle & Heinle.
Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (Eds.). (2001). Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading–writing
connections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Butler, Y. G., & Hakuta, K. (2006). Cognitive factors in children’s L1 and L2 reading. Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 10, 23–27.
Cadiero‐Kaplan, K. (2004). The literacy curriculum and bilingual education. New York: Peter
Lang.
Cappellini, M. (2005). Balancing reading and language learning: A resource for teaching English
language learners, K–5. Portland, OR: Stenhouse.
Chamot, A. U. (2009). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language
learning approach (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley.
98
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook for
enriched education. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2009). Literacy Instruction for English language learners.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.).
Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services.
Cummins, J., Brown, K., Sayers, D. (2007). Literacy, technology, and diversity: Teaching for
success in changing times. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Díaz‐Rico, L. (2007). Strategies for teaching English language learners: Methods and strategies
(2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Díaz‐Rico, L. T., & Weed, K. Z. (2006). The crosscultural language and academic development
handbook (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Echevarria, J. M., & Short, D. J. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The
SIOP model (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Echevarria J., & Graves, A. (2007). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English language
learners with diverse abilities (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Fathman, A. K., & Crowther, D. T. (Eds.). (2006). Science for English language learners: K–12
classroom strategies. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y. S. (2000). Teaching reading in multilingual classrooms.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (2004). Essential linguistics. Boston, MA: Heinemann.
Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (2007). English language learners: The essential guide. New
York, NY: Scholastic.
Genesee, F., Lindholm‐Leary, K., Saunders, B., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English
language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Genesee, F, Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2004). Dual language development and disorders: A
handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Gunderson, L. (2009). ESL (ELL) literacy instruction: A guidebook to theory and practice (2nd
ed.). New York: Routledge.
99
Hamayan, E., Marler, B., Sanchez‐Lopez, C., & Damico, J. (2007). Special education
considerations for English language learners: Delivering a continuum of services. Philadelphia,
PA: Caslon.
Herrera, S. G., & Murry, K. G. (2005). Mastering ESL and bilingual methods: Differentiating
instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. Boston: Pearson.
High, J. (1998). Second language learning through cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA:
Kagan.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writer’s text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Horwitz, E. K. (2008). Becoming a language teacher: A practical guide to second language
learning and teaching. Boston: Pearson.
Kaufman, D., & Crandall, J. (Eds). (2005). Content‐based instruction in primary and secondary
school settings. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Kinsella, K. (2005, November). Teaching academic vocabulary. Aiming High RESOURCE:
Aspirando a lo Mejor. Santa Rosa, CA: Sonoma County Office of Education. Retrieved August 13,
2009, from http://www.scoe.org/docs/ah/AH_kinsella2.pdf.
Larsen‐Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Marzano, R. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervisions and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works—Research‐
based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2008). Teaching ESL/EFL listening & speaking. New York:
Routledge.
Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. New York: Routledge.
100
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2000). English as a new language
standards for National Board certification. Available from
http://www.nbpts.org/nbpts/standards/ecmc‐english.html
Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2008). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A Resource book for
K–12 teachers (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., & Show, C. (2005). Native Spanish‐speaking children reading in English:
Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246–256.
Samway, K. D. (2006). When English language learners write. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Samway, K. D., & McKeon, D. (2007). Myths and realities: Best practices for English language
learners (2nd ed.) Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work—Challenges and solutions to acquiring
language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. Washington, DC:
Alliance for Excellence in Education.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (2006). PreK–12 English language
proficiency standards. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for English language learners.
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Zamel, V., & Spack, R. (Eds.). (2002). Enriching ESOL pedagogy: Readings and activities for
engagement, reflection, and inquiry. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Domain 4. Assessment
Anthony, R., Johnson, T., Mickelson, N., & Preece, A. (1991). Evaluating literacy: A perspective
for change. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Arter, J., & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about language assessment. New York: Heinle & Heinle.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. New York:
Longman.
101
Brown, J. D. (1998). New ways in classroom assessment. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Chapelle, C. A.; Stoynoff, S., (Eds.). (2005). ESOL tests and testing. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Chase, C. (1999). Contemporary assessment for educators. New York: Longman.
Coombe, C., Folse, K., & Hubley, N. (2007). A practical guide to assessing English language
learners. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Echevarria, J., & Graves, A. (2006). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English language
learners with diverse abilities (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English
language learners (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2006). Language testing and assessment: An advanced resource
book. New York: Routledge.
Genesee, F., & Upshur, J. A. (1996). Classroom‐based evaluation in second language education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gottleib, M. (2006a). Assessing English language learners: Bridges from language proficiency to
academic achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gottlieb, M. (2006b). ELL assessment kit. Austin, TX: Rigby, Harcourt Achieve
Heaton, J. B. (1990). Classroom testing. New York: Longman.
Hughes, A. (2002). Testing for language teachers, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
McKay, P. (2005). Assessing young language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., & Valdez Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners.
Boston: Addison‐Wesley.
Rhodes, R. L., Ochoa, S. H., & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse
students: A practical guide. New York: Guilford Press.
Rollins Hurley, S. & Villamil Tinajero, J. (Eds.). (2001). Literacy assessment of second language
learners. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. New
York: Longman.
102
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (1998). Managing the assessment
process: A framework for measuring student attainment of the ESL standards. Alexandria, VA:
Author.
Domain 5. History of the Field
Baker, C. (2006.). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C., & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.). (2001). An introductory reader of the writings of Jim
Cummins. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.).
Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services.
Díaz‐Rico, L. (2007). Strategies for teaching English learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Díaz‐Rico, L. T., & Weed, K. Z. (2010). The cross‐cultural, language, and academic development
handbook: A complete K–12 reference guide (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Lessow‐Hurley, J. (2008). The foundations of dual language instruction (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Advocacy
Christison, M., & Murray, D. E. (Eds.). (2008). Leadership in English language education:
Theoretical foundations and practical skills in changing times. New York: Routledge.
Cloud, N., Genessee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Cummins, J. (2001). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Díaz, C. F., Massialas, B. G., & Xanthopoulos, J. S. (1999). Global perspectives for educators.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Krashen, S. D. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language
Education.
Krashen, S. (1999). Condemned without a trial: Bogus arguments against bilingual education.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
103
Shannon, P. (1992). Becoming political: Readings and writing in the politics of literacy
education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sharle, A., & Szabó, A., (2000). Learner autonomy: A guide to developing learner responsibility.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shohamy, E. (2005). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York:
Routledge.
Skutnabb‐Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (2008). A human rights perspective on language ecology.
In A. Creese, P. Martin, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd
ed.): Vol. 9. Ecology of Language (pp. 3–14). New York: Springer.
Skutnabb‐Kangas, T. (2008). Human rights and language policy in education. In J. Cummins & N.
Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed.): Vol. 5. Bilingual Education
(pp. 117–131). New York: Springer.
Tiedt, P. L., & Tiedt. I. M. (1999). Multicultural teaching: A handbook of activities, information,
and resources. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tollefson, J. (1995). Power and inequality in language education. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Reflective Practitioner
Bennet, C. I. (1999). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice (4th ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Byrd, P., & Nelson, G. (Eds.). (2003). Sustaining professionalism. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Cadiero‐Kaplan, K. (2004). The literacy curriculum & bilingual education: A critical examination.
New York: Peter Lang.
Cadiero‐Kaplan, K., Ochoa, A., Kuhlman, N., Olivos, E., & Rodriguez, J. (Eds.). (2006). The living
work of teachers: Ideology & practice. Covina, CA: California Association of Bilingual Education.
Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New
York: Routledge.
Nelson, O. G., & Linek, W. M. (1999). Practical classroom applications of language experience:
Looking back, looking forward. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Nieto, S. (2007). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (5th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
104
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wink, J. (2000). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
Research
Anderson, N., & Han, Z. (Eds.). (2009). Second language reading research and instruction:
Crossing the boundaries. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Burns, A. (2009). Doing action research in second language teaching: A guide for practitioners.
New York: Routledge.
Doughty, C., & Long, M. (Eds.). (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Edge, J. (Ed.). (2001). Action research. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding. New York: Heinle &
Heinle.
Hinkel, E. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. New
York: Taylor & Francis.
Johnson, D. (1992). Approaches to research in 2nd language learning. New York: Longman.
Johnson, K., & Golombek, P. (2002). Teachers narrative inquiry as professional development.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in
English. New York: Routledge.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
McKay, S. L. (2005). Researching second language classrooms. New York: Taylor & Francis.
McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2009). Doing and writing action research. Thousands Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Perry, F. L., Jr. (2005). Research in applied linguistics: Becoming a discerning consumer.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Samway, K. D. (2006). When English language learners write: Connecting research to practice,
K–8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
105
106
Seliger, H. W., & Shohamy, E. G. (1990). Second language research methods. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
Stringer, E. T., Christensen, L. M., & Baldin, S. C. (2009). Integrating teaching, learning, and
action research: Enhancing instruction in the K–12 classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.