Student Outcomes Assessment, Undergraduate · 2017-11-17 · Student Outcomes Assessment, Undergraduate UNI School of Music ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT for 2012 (compiled

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

mailto:[email protected]


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.


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.


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.


UNI School of Music ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT for 2012 (compiled Fall, 2013)



Program: BM Music Performance






Student Learning









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



“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.


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


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) 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:



Recommended Program Changes None taken since the previous report.




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


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














Program: BM Music Education






Student Learning









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:




“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.




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. 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) 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.


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.



Next Steps:



Recommended Program Changes None at this time for this program.





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















Program: BM Music Composition/Theory






Student Learning







(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.”




“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.


(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


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) 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:



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


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).







ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT – FALL 2011 2010-11 CALENDAR YEAR REPORT


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,


Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed reports are kept at the department

level.)


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.


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.


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)



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.


Jay Edelnant

[email protected]

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



Summary of Findings

(Tables, graphs, and more detailed reports are kept at the department

level.)


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.



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.


Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Steve Taft

[email protected]


ASSESSMENT MEASUREMENTS CONDUCTED DURING THE 2010-11 CALENDAR YEAR DRAMA AND THEATRE FOR YOUTH - FALL 2011 REPORT

Student Learning

Outcomes Assessed



Summary of Findings


level.)


(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:



Recommended Program Changes NA

Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes NA

SOA Plan Revisions NA



Gretta Berghammer

[email protected]


ASSESSMENT MEASUREMENTS CONDUCTED DURING THE 2010-11 CALENDAR YEAR DESIGN AND PRODUCTION- FALL 2011 REPORT

Student Learning

Outcomes Assessed



Summary of Findings


level.)


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:




Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes NA

SOA Plan Revisions NA



Carol Colburn

[email protected]

Date submitted: November 02, 2011

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT

Name of College: College of Humanities and Fine Arts


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


Student Learning







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.


Next 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


Consider a written form for reporting details of student recital performance by faculty committee.





Program: MM CONDUCTING


Program Learning Goals: MM Conducting Degree: Students shall be prepared for ensemble leadership at the secondary, community, college and professional level




Student Learning







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.


Next Steps:








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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.”


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


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.


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




Program: MM JAZZ PEDAGOGY


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




Student Learning







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.



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.


Next Steps:









Consider a written form for reporting details of student recital performance, oral comprehensive examinations, and observation of student teaching practicum by faculty committee





Program: MM PIANO PERFORMANCE AND PEDAGOGY


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.




Student Learning







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.


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



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.


Next Steps:









Consider a written form for reporting details of student recital performance, oral comprehensive examinations, and observation of student teaching practicum


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.


- 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.


Gretta Berghammer [email protected]

Date submitted: March, 2013


Assessment Procedures (Include



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.


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.)


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


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



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.)


Leonard Curtis [email protected]


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:


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.


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/theatre/PerformanceEmphasisOutcomes.html

(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


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


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







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.


Jennifer Garrett [email protected]

Date submitted: 11/1/13

Assessment Period: Fall 2012-Spring 2013



Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when

and where implemented, number assessed, person

responsible, etc.)




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




Program changes were approved by the University are currently being implemented. A committee has been convienced to look at future program changes.


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:


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.)


Jennifer Garrett [email protected]


Assessment Period: Fall 2012-Spring 2013


Student Learning

Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures

(Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed, person

responsible, etc.)




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:



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.


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.



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


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])


Assessment Period: AY 2012-2013








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.



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.


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.


2012-2013






2012-2013



Program: Communication


• 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])










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.



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.


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.



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 Department/Unit: Department of Communication Studies

Program: Electronic Media


• 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]




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.)




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.


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.



2012-2013

Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts, and Sciences


Program: Public Relations Major and Public Relations Minor


• 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








(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.




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



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])










(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.


(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,


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:



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.


2012-2013





ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT 2012-2013



Program: Electronic Media


• 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]




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.)




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.


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.



2012-2013





ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT 2013



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])










(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


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.


(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,


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:



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.


2012-2013






2012-2013

Name of College: College of Humanities, Arts, and Sciences


Program: Public Relations Major and Public Relations Minor


• 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.


Dr. Gayle Pohl, APR

Date submitted: 10/ 10/13

Assessment Period:

11/12-10/13








(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.




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.




Program: MM and MA Core Curriculum: Music Theory: Analytical Techniques I and II (required class for all MM and MA degree programs)


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.




Student Learning

Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,





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



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.


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:








Consider a written rubric for assessment of student performance on diagnostic and comprehensive examinations.





Program: MM and MA Core Curriculum: Research and Writing in Music (required class for all MM and MA degree programs)


Program Learning Goals: Research and Writing in Music: Knowledge of bibliographic skills, familiarity with library holdings and their uses.




Student Learning







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



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:








Consider a written form for reporting details of student recital performance by faculty committee.



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








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




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



2013-2014

Name of College: Humanities, Arts, and Sciences


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








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.



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.


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


David Saunder, Ph.D., Head, Department of Biology

Date submitted:

2/3/2014




Recommended Program Changes None None

Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes None None

SOA Plan Revisions None None








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


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


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



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


6. Collect, organize, analyze and interpret data.

Test Questions, Implemented in BIOL 2052, 3140, 3112, 3119, 3170, 4122, 4146, 4154, 4155, 4167, 4172


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


8. Evaluate current issues and ethical topics in biology

Test Questions, Implemented in BIOL 2052, 3140, 4122, 4146, 4167, 4168


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


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


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


Next Steps:


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.


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


http://www.uni.edu/assessment/documents/closingtheloop.pdf

- 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


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.


Student Outcomes Assessment, Undergraduate UNI School of Music ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT for 2012 (compiled Fall, 2013)



Program: BA Music






Student Learning









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



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.



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.


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.




Next 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






Including information from these forms should prove useful for student outcomes assessment.













Program: BM Music Performance






Student Learning









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:




“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.



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


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) 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:



Recommended Program Changes None taken since the previous report.




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



added.

overload situation encountered by having only one musicologist on faculty, the School of Music hired














Program: BM Music Education






Student Learning









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:




“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.




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. 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) 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.


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



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.



Next Steps:



Recommended Program Changes None at this time for this program.





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















Program: BM Music Composition/Theory






Student Learning







(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.”




“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.


(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


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) 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:



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


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).











Program: MM Music Education


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.


Date submitted: Dec. 1, 2013


Student Learning








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.



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.



Next 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.





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.





Program: MM Performance


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.




Student Learning







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



papers was strong.

Next Steps:








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.


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]



Student Learning







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/plans/documents/DML-SOA-UG-Plan-fa08.pdf

complex sentences and paragraphs, and for the use of vocabulary according to ACTFL guidelines.

Next 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



SOA Plan Revisions None





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


Student Learning







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




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.


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)


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


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)


Next 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


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.


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.



Name of College: Humanities Arts & Sciences


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.)


(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.



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.


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’


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


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.



Name of College: Humanities Arts & Sciences


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


Student Learning








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.



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


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.


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:



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.


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.


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.



1


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.




Program: Outcomes for MM Composition Degree





2


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.




Program: Outcomes for MM Conducting Degree





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.




Program: Outcomes for MM Jazz Pedagogy Degree Assessment Methods to generate data




3


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.




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.




4


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.




5


Program: Outcomes for MM Music Education Degree





6


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



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.




7


Program: Outcome for MM Music History Degree





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




Program: Outcomes for MM Music Performance Degree





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.




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.




8


Program: Outcomes for MM Piano Performance and Pedagogy





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.




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.




Competency 1.6 Development of performance skills.

Student semester performance exams and/or final recital juried by members of the piano faculty.




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


http://www.ncate.org/

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


Standard 3.b. Implementing and Managing Standards‐Based ESL and Content 48


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


Standard 4.b. Language Proficiency Assessment 62


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


Standard 5.b. Professional Development, Partnerships and Advocacy 72


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

http://standards.nctm.org/

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

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

http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/0313park.html

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.





Performance

Indicator

Approaches

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





Suggested

Performance

Indicators

Approaches

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.


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’


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.


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.


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.


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





Performance Indicator Approaches Standard Meets Standard Exceeds Standard

3.a.1. Plan standards‐

based ESL and content

instruction.


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 ,


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).


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



of assessments to

measure students’

degrees of mastery of


Candidates plan

lessons that scaffold

and link students’

prior knowledge to

newly introduced


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



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


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,


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.


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.


with non‐ESL


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.


with non‐ESL


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.


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.


with non‐ESL


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.


orthographic, linguistic,

and rhetorical influences

of the L1 on ESL writing.


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


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


developmental stages,

including students with

limited literacy in their

L1s.


with non‐ESL


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





Performance

Indicator

Approaches

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





Performance

Indicator

Approaches

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


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





Performance

Indicator

Approaches

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,


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,


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





Performance

Indicator

Approaches

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.


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


under Approaches Standard. Exceeds Standard assumes that the candidate has also met the



Suggested

Performance

Indicators

Approaches

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.


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.


knowledge of the

laws, judicial

decisions, policies,

and guidelines that

have influenced the

ESL profession to

provide appropriate

instruction for

students.


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


under Approaches Standard. Exceeds Standard assumes that the candidate has also met the



Suggested

Performance

Indicator

Approaches

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


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


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


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:


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.


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

http://faculty.tamu-commerce.edu/jthompson/Resources/FillmoreSnow2000.pdf

http://faculty.tamu-commerce.edu/jthompson/Resources/FillmoreSnow2000.pdf

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.


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.


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

http://www.scoe.org/docs/ah/AH_kinsella2.pdf

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

http://www.nbpts.org/nbpts/standards/ecmc-english.html

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.


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:


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Documents

Student Outcomes Assessment, Undergraduate · 2017-11-17 · Student Outcomes Assessment, Undergraduate UNI School of Music ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT for 2012 (compiled