Program Report for the Preparation of English Language Arts
Teachers
National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)Option A
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION
COVER SHEET
1. Institution NameRadford University
2. StateVirginia
3. Date submitted
MM DD YYYY
09 / 10 / 2010
4. Report Preparer's Information:
Name of Preparer:
Carolyn L. Mathews
Phone: Ext.
( ) -540 831 6895
E-mail:
[email protected]
5. NCATE Coordinator's Information:
Name:
Patricia Shomaker
Phone: Ext.
( ) -540 831 5439
E-mail:
[email protected]
6. Name of institution's programEnglish Education Program
The English Major
Designed to afford students an integrated, comprehensive
learning program, the English major teaches students the
fundamental ways of organizing knowledge in the discipline of
English Studies. The major also provides students with a core of
knowledge and skills essential to career choices in teaching,
writing, publishing, editing, or work in business and industry that
requires creative thinking and excellent communication skills.
The English major incorporates a writing-intensive requirement
that integrates instruction in writing and the use of writing as a
powerful learning tool into the whole curriculum, following a
sequenced and coordinated plan. Students take four
writing-intensive courses throughout the major: ENGL 300
(Introduction to English Studies), ENGL 470 (The Author in
Context), ENGL 496 (Senior Seminar), and one additional
writing-intensive course of their choice that will also serve as
either one of the electives or one of the requirements for the
major.
Requirements
ENGL 300: Introduction to English Studies
ENGL 340: American Literary History (Colonial Period to the
Present)
ENGL 330: British Literary History I (700-1700) OR
ENGL 331: British Literary History II (1700 to the Present)
One 400-level British literary period course (in the opposite
period from the Literary History course chosen); course choices
include ENGL 431 Medieval Literature, ENGL 434 Seventeenth Century
Literature, ENGL 435 Restoration and Eighteenth Century, ENGL 437
British Romanticism, ENGL 438 Victorian Literature, ENGL 439 Modern
British Literature, and ENGL 451 Contemporary Literature.
One 400-level American literary period course; course choices
include ENGL 442 Early American Literature, ENGL 443 The American
Renaissance, ENGL 444 American Realism and Naturalism, ENGL 445
Modern American Literature, and ENGL 451 Contemporary
Literature.
ENGL 420: Introduction to Literary Criticism
ENGL 470: The Author in Context (offered each semester with
different authors)
ENGL 472: Readings in Shakespeare
One course in Multicultural, Gender-Specific, or Regional
Literature; course choices include ENGL 446 Appalachian Folklore,
ENGL 447 Appalachian Literature, ENGL 449 African-American
Literature, ENGL 450 Native American Literature, ENGL 453 The
Female Tradition in Literature
One course in Linguistics or Language
.
ENGL 496: Senior Seminar
Course work in the English Education Concentration
English Education Concentration Courses
One of the following Communications Courses: COMS 114 Public
Speaking; COMS 230 Communication Theory; COMS 240 Team-work and
Communication
ENGL 402: Teaching Writing
ENGL 463: Grammar and Language for Teachers
ENGL 425: Adolescent Literature
ENGL 426: Teaching English in the High School
ENGL 428: Planning and Teaching Seminar
HUMD 300: Child and Adolescent Development, Birth through
Adolescence
EDEF 320: Introduction to Professional Education
EDUC 440: Teaching Grades 6-12
EDUC 441: Field Experience, Grades 6-12
EDET 445: Integration of Educational Technology
EDSP 404: Introduction to Special Education for Secondary
Educators
EDUC 452: Student Teaching, Grades 7-12
Program of Study
Assessment 1: Praxis II test (English Language, Literature, and
Composition: Content Knowledge Test0041)
Licensure Assessment
Narrative
(a) Description and Program Use of the Assessment: NCATE
requires the inclusion on state licensure assessment, or other
content-based assessment, as Assessment 1. The State of Virginia
requires that candidates pass the Praxis II English Language,
Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge Test 0041 for
licensure in English, grades 6-12. Further, all teacher-preparation
programs within our unit, Radford University College of Education
and Human Development, use Praxis II as Assessment 1. In keeping
with this practice, we include PRAXIS II as Assessment 1. This
assessment is used within our program, and within all
teacher-preparation programs at Radford University, as a
requirement for student teaching. To qualify for student teaching
in Secondary English, teacher candidates must score at least 172,
the Virginia cut score for the English Content Knowledge Test 0041.
The average cut score from a sample of 29 states that require this
test is 155.72
(http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=89848&cat=1)
, with Virginias score exceeding this average by 16.28 points. This
high cut score means that our teacher candidates have mastered
content knowledge as addressed within the test.
(b) Alignment of Assessment with NCTE Standards: Our English
Education faculty recognize that in 2001 the Praxis II test aligned
only partially with NCTE standards 3.1-3.7. NCTEs Research Project
on the Assessment of Preparation of Teachers of English Language
Arts (January 2001) recognizes these partial alignments of items
within given categories with NCTE standards: items in the category
Literature and Understanding text align partially with NCTE
standards 3.5.1-3.5.4; items within the test category Language and
Linguistics align partially with NCTE standards 3.1.1-3.1.7; and
items within the test category Composition and Rhetoric align
partially with NCTE standards 3.2.1-3.2.5 and 3.4.1-3.4.2. The
aforementioned NCTE report notes limitations in the areas of
technology, research theory, and literature by YA authors, authors
of color and womens authors, as well as in oral and visual
literacy. The policy statement Program Assessment in English
Education: Belief Statements and Recommendations, issued in 2008 by
NCTEs Council on English Education, calls for cooperative actions
between NCTE and ETS to revise the content knowledge tests, a
position that underscores questions about the use of PRAXIS II as a
valid measure of candidates knowledge, dispositions, and abilities.
We agree with NCTEs position and acknowledge that the limitations
of PRAXIS II prevent its being used as the sole measure of
candidates content knowledge. Therefore, we have carefully designed
other assessments that measure NCTE standards. In particular,
standards related to knowledge of technology, research theory in
English language arts, a range of literary works, and oral and
visual literacy are assessed in teacher candidates student teaching
evaluations (Assessment 4) and in their Teaching English Portfolio
(Assessment 6).
(c) Interpretation of Data as Evidence for Meeting Standards:
Program completers in the English Education Program meet NCTE
standards 3.1-3.7, as they are reflected in the Praxis II content
knowledge test 0041. Our English Education Program achieves a 100%
pass rate on PRAXIS II, with teacher candidates achieving Virginia
cut score before student teaching. Examination of data on Praxis II
scores for English Education teacher candidates reveals:
86.66%-87.5% of all program examinees across two administrations
of the assessment met the Virginia cut score of 172.
100% of program completers during these years met the Virginia
cut score of 172.
In 2009-2010 93.33% of all English Education teacher candidates
scored within or above the national average performance range in
the category Literature and Understanding Texts. In 2008-2009 100%
of all teacher candidates in our program scored within this range.
These two administrations of the assessment indicate strong content
knowledge as specified by NCTE Standards 3.3 and 3.5.
In 2009-2010 93.33% of all of our teacher candidates scored
within or above the national average range in the category Language
and Linguistics; in 2009-2009 100% scored within the national
average performance range. Scores indicate strong content knowledge
in areas covered by NCTE standard 3.1.
In 2009-2010 93.33% of all of our teacher candidates scored
within or above national average range in the category of
Composition and Rhetoric; in 2008-2009 85.7% scored within or above
this range for this third category. Scores indicate strong content
knowledge in areas covered by NCTE standards 3.2, 3.4, and 3.6.
Approximately 1/3 of our candidates are scoring within the
highest quartile on at least one of the content areas. For example,
in 2009-2010 46.66% of our teacher candidates scored at the highest
quartile in Literature and Understanding Text; 40% scored at the
highest quartile in Language and Linguistics; and 26.22% scored in
the highest quartile in Composition and Rhetoric.
Mean and median scores, which were available on rGrade for all
program examinees across 2 years, indicate that our program
examinees are scoring at the upper end of the national average
performance range, another indicator that our candidates have
strong content knowledge as measured by the Praxis II English
Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge Test
0041.
Assessment Documentation
(d) Description of the Assessment Tool: The ETS website
describes the English Language, Literature, and Composition:
Content Knowledge test as an assessment designed to determine
whether an examinee has the broad base of knowledge and
competencies necessary to be licensed as a beginning teacher of
English in a secondary school, noting that the 120 multiple-choice
questions are based on the material typically covered in a
bachelors degree program in English and English education.
(http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/PRAXIS/pdf/0041.pdf
The list of topics covered by the test, also included at the
above URL, is extensive. ETS mentions within this list and under
the category Literature and Understanding Text the following items:
Identifying major works and authors of American, British, World
(including non-Western), and young adult literature from various
cultures, genres, and periods; situating authors and texts within
historical, cultural, and critical contexts to aid interpretation;
and recognizing and applying various strategic approaches to
teaching reading, e.g. applying cueing systems, constructing
meaning through context. Under the Composition and Rhetoric
category, among others, these items appear: using electronic and
print media and strategies for organization, development, and
presentation of print, electronic, and visual media.
(e) Scoring Guide for the Assessment: The ETS website provides
the following scoring information for test 0041:
Name of test
Possible Score Range
Score Interval
Number of Examinees
Median
Average Performance Range
Standard Error of Measurement
Standard Error of Scoring
English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge
(0041)
100-200
1
35590
177
166-187
4.7
0
(f) Candidate data derived from the assessment:
Table 1.1:Pass Rates of Teacher Candidates in English Education
Program
Number of Passing Scores/Total Number of Program Test-Takers
Pass-rate among all English Education Program test-takers
Number of Passing Scores/Number of Program Completers
Pass-rate among Program completers
2009-2010
administration of Test 0041: English Language, Literature, and
Composition: Content Knowledge
13/15
86.6%
13/13
100%
2008-2009 administration of Test 0041: English Language,
Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge
7/8
87.5%
7/7
100%
Table 1.2Raw Scores by Test Category of All Program
Examinees
Test Category
Range of Scores Among All Program Examinees
Range of Scores Among Program Completers
National Average Performance
Total number scoring within national average performance range/
Total number of Program Examinees
Percentage of all examinees scoring within national average
performance range
Total number scoring below national average performance range/
Total number of Program Examinees
Percentage of all examinees scoring below national average
performance range
Total number scoring above national average performance range/
Total number of Program Examinees
Percentage of all examinees scoring above national average
performance range
2009-2010
Administration
Literature and Understanding Text
39-61
52-61
43-54
7/15
46.66%
1/15
6.66%
7/15
46.66%
Language and Linguistics
6-15
10-15
10-14
8/15
53.33%
1/15
6.66%
6/15
40%
Composition and Rhetoric
18-33
27-33
23-31
10/15
66.66%
1/15
6.66%
4/15
26.22%
2008-2009
Administration*
Literature and Understanding Text
46-54
46-54
44-58
7/7
100%
0/7
0%
0/7
0%
Language and Linguistics
11-17
11-17
11-17
7/7
100%
0/7
0%
0/7
0%
Composition and Rhetoric
24-30
3/7
42.85%
1/7
14.28%
3/7
42.85%
Please note that scores by category were not available for one
examinee in 2008-2009.
Table 1.2Mean/Median Raw Scores by Test Category for All Program
Examinees 2008-2010
Test Category
Mean Score of all program examinees
Median Score of all program examinees
National Average performance range across 2 years
Literature and Understanding Text
53.045
53
43-54 and 44-59
Language and Linguistics
13.318
14
10-14 and 11-17
Composition and Rhetoric
29.09
30
23-31 and 24-30
Assessment 1
Assessment 2: Departmental Review of Program Applicants
Narrative
(a) Description and Program Use of the Assessment: The English
Education Program at Radford University has designed as Assessment
2, required by NCTE as an [a]ssessment of content knowledge in
English Language Arts, a departmental review of applicants to the
English Education Program.
(b) Alignment of Assessment with NCTE Standards: Our programs
Departmental Review Assessment aligns with NCTE standards under the
categories Attitudes for English Language Arts (NCTE 2.0),
Knowledge of English language arts (NCTE 3.0), and Pedagogy for
English Language Arts (NCTE 4.0). As a part of the review process
candidates complete an impromptu writing sample, which is scored
holistically by English Education faculty using a 6-point scale;
this part of the assessment aligns with NCTE standards encompassed
by 3.2, as they relate to written literacy. Applicants to the
program also submit a sample of their polished writing completed
during their coursework in the English Department, accompanied by a
reflection explaining why they chose the piece as representation of
their best content work. Scored holistically, this part of the
review process aligns with NCTE standards 3.2 (in terms of written
literacy), 3.4 (application of writing process), and 3.5 (knowledge
of literature and literary theory).
Applicants seek recommendations from non-English Education
English faculty, who score them on the following qualities, using a
five-point scale: (1) ability to speak clearly and coherently
(standards encompassed in NCTE 3.2, as they relate to oral
literacy), (2) ability to write clearly and coherently (standard
3.2 in terms of written literacy), (3) ability to analyze
information, experiences, and ideas (NCTE 2.4), ability to carry
tasks through to completion, and ability and willingness to
implement suggestions for improvement. English faculty also answer
questions related to the applicants understanding of course content
(NCTE 3.1-3.7), his/her enthusiasm for course content, and
perceived qualities that would enable the applicant to become an
effective English language arts teacher (NCTE 2.1-2.6).
Teacher candidates are then interviewed individually by a group
of English Education faculty, who ask questions intended to reveal
each candidates perceptions of high school students and his/her
ability to relate to those students (NCTE 2.0), the candidates
commitment to teaching English, and the candidates attitudes and
beliefs about how students acquire skills in reading, writing, and
language (NCTE 2.0 and 4.0) Using the following questions, faculty
assess candidates knowledge and attitudes:
1. What would you do to promote students interest in the topic
or concept youre teaching? (NCTE 4.1-4.9)
2. What do you see as the purpose of literature study in the
high school? (NCTE 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 4.8)
3. What do you see as the purpose of grammar and language study
in the high school? (NCTE 3.1, 3.2, 3.4)
4. How demanding do you think teaching is, compared to other
types of jobson a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not demanding and
10 being very demanding)
5. How can teachers best teach students to become effective
writers? (NCTE 3.4)
6. What work of literature would you most like to teach? Why?
How would you help students become interested in this text? (NCTE
3.5, 4.8)
7. Tell us about a situation in which you took initiative beyond
what was expected.
8. What makes you think you will like a career in teaching
English?
9. What are the most important or worthwhile qualities of a good
teacher? (NCTE 2.1-2.6)
10. Can teachers reach really difficult students, or are there
students that we just have to give up on? What would you do with
the student who has no interest in English and seemingly no desire
to do anything in class? (NCTE 2.1)
11. Why do you want to teach English? (NCTE 2.1-2.6)
12. Do you think of yourself as wanting to be (a) a teacher of
literature, (b) a teacher of language, (c) a teacher of writing,
(d) a teacher of literacy, (e) a teacher of English language arts?
Explain. (NCTE 3.1.2 3.7)
13. How do you keep up with national, state, and local news?
What economic, political, or social happenings see really important
to you and why? (NCTE 3.1.3, 3.6.1, 3.6.2)
Each member of the English Education Committee scores applicants
using the rubric entitled Applicant Selection Process in the
Assessment Documentation section for Assessment 2.
Finally, faculty complete a transcript review of each applicant
to the program, assessing each applicants completion of the
coursework required to address the content he or she will teach, as
reflected in the Virginia Standards of Learning and in NCTE
standards (NCTE 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7). Using the rubric
entitled Departmental Review in the Assessment Documentation
section for Assessment 2, faculty assess each applicants knowledge
of content in the areas of a literature (NCTE 3.5), language and
writing (NCTE 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4), and content pedagogy (NCTE
4.1-4.9).
(c) Interpretation of Data as Evidence for Meeting Standards:
Analysis of data from the applicant review process reveals the
following information:
On the Impromptu Writing Sample, the majority of applicants
(59.6 % in 2009 and 66.66% in 2008) scored at the proficient level,
with all scoring satisfactory or above; these measures indicate
strong writing skills among program applicants (NCTE 3.2 and
3.4)
On the Polished Writing Sample from applicants course work, the
majority (58.8 in 2009 and 77.77% in 2008) scored at the proficient
level, with all scoring satisfactory or above; these measures
indicate strong knowledge of writing process (NCTE 3.4), strong
interpretive skills (3.3), understanding of literary theory and
criticism (NCTE 3.5.4), and knowledge of literature (NCTE 3.5)
The majority of applicant interviewees (59.6% in 2009 and 55.55%
in 2008) demonstrate clear competence in overall knowledge of
content (NCTE 3.1-3.7).
The majority of applicant interviewees (58.8% in 2009 and 88.88%
in 2008) demonstrated clear competence in overall knowledge of
content pedagogy (NCTE 4.1-4.9).
We noted that we added indicators to the interview rubric
between the two administrations of the applicant interviews. A
moderate drop in scores in knowledge of content pedagogy suggests
that revisions to the rubric could have forged a more rigorous
assessment of this area.
The majority of applicant interviewees scored clearly competent
or highly competent in the following areas that align with NCTE
standards: (1) Predisposed to be student centered and/or committed
to actively engaging students (70.5% in 2009; 77.77% in 2008); (2)
Predisposed to accept and value all students (76.4% in 2009; 88.88%
in 2009); communicates clearly (100% in 2009; 77.77% in 2008);
models professionalism (88.22 in 2009; 88.88 in 2008).
The majority of applicant interviewees demonstrated either clear
competence or a high degree of competence in their knowledge of
language (NCTE 3.1), knowledge of US British, world, multicultural,
and YA literature (NCTE 3.5), and knowledge of the composing
processes (NCTE 3.2.3).
Data for three administrations of from the Departmental Review
Assessment demonstrate above-average or excellent performance of
program applicants on overall academic preparation (88%); on
subject matter knowledge as shown in transcripts (77%); on
knowledge of literature, as shown in transcripts (83%); on
knowledge of writing, grammar, and language, as shown in
transcripts (79%); and on knowledge of content pedagogy, as shown
in transcripts (88%)
Assessment Documentation
(d) Description of the Assessment Tool: English majors
interested in teaching are identified when they are freshmen and
are assigned to English Education faculty for their advising,
teacher candidates formally apply to the English Education Program
in January of their junior year. Following the application process,
English Education faculty assess each applicant in these areas: (1)
overall academic preparation based on examination of transcripts,
verification of overall GPA and GPA in the English major, (2)
subject matter assessment, (3) content knowledge assessment
(literature, writing, grammar, and language, (4) knowledge of
content pedagogy, (5) basic proficiency skills, as measured by
Praxis I, SAT, or ACT, and the Virginia Communication and Literacy
Assessment.
The Departmental Review has been adopted by most Radford
University Teacher Preparation Programs. The English Education
Program Screening included the following:
Part I: an impromptu essay
Part II: submission of polished writing and reflection
Part III: 2 recommendations from English faculty
Part IV: an interview with English Education Committee
(scheduled today)
Instructions Provided to Teacher candidates for the Screening
Process for Departmental Review
Part I: Impromptu Essay on a Subject in English Education
As a teacher you will face many situations that require you to
write on the spot, developing your ideas without time for extensive
revision. Because you will need to be proficient at writing in
impromptu situations, the English Education Committee would like
for you to compose an essay that demonstrates your abilities as an
impromptu writer. We will give you a list of topics from which to
choose. You will have one hour immediately following the
orientation meeting to compose and edit your essay.
As an impromptu writer, you will face certain restrictions: your
time will be limited and you will not have the benefit of readers
comments on your drafts. Working within these constraints, you
should compose an essay that is as clear and well formed as
possible. Remember that your audience will be the English Education
Committee, a group of English teachers who are interested in what
you have to say about teaching and learning.
The committee will assess your essay using a six-point scale and
the following criteria:
The committee recognizes that in an impromptu situation you will
not have the time to edit and revise as carefully as you would at
home. Given your own habits as a writer, allow yourself adequate
time to draft and edit your writing. Please put your name on the
first page of your essay, and number your pages.
Part II: Submission of Polished Writing and Reflection
Select a piece of writing that you turned in for an English
class and that represents your best writing. Attach to this sample
of your best work a thoughtful and concise reflection explaining
why you chose this particular piece as representative of your
knowledge about English language, literature, and or literary
theory. The writing sample will be assessed using the following
criteria:
demonstrates highly effective writing skills
organizes and develops ideas logically, making insightful
connections between them
demonstrates ability to interpret literature and effectively use
examples from the text to support ideas
supports a thesis and clearly explains key ideas, supporting
them with well-chosen reasons, examples, or details
displays effective sentence variety
clearly displays facility in the use of language
is generally free from errors in grammar, usage, an
mechanics
tone appropriate to your topic and audience;
The reflection will be assessed to determine your ability to use
writing as a form of reflection, as well as the your ability to
assess your own academic performance;
Part III:Recommendations from English Faculty
RU English majors: You will choose two professors from the
English Department who know your work and are willing to recommend
you for the English Education Program. Choose professors other than
Dr. Williams, Dr. Kelly, Dr. Hamm, or Dr. Mathews, since they will
be participating in the screening. Before passing the
recommendation forms to your professors, fill out the top half of
each, signing the waiver statement and filling in your name under
the section To: RU English Faculty Member. (Candidates who waive
their right to access are indicating no need to review what the
recommendation reports.)
Others: Choose two recommenderssuch as former teachers,
professors, or employerswho would be able to comment on your
suitability for teaching. Before passing the recommendation forms
to your recommenders, fill out the top half of each, signing the
waiver statement and filling in your name under the section To:
Recommender (Candidates who waive their right to access are
indicating no need to review what the recommendation reports.)
Part IV: Interview
You must make an appointment to meet with members of the English
Education Committee for an interview. During the interview the
committee will ask you to address general questions about teaching
and learning in the English classroom. They may also ask questions
about the ideas you expressed in either or both your impromptu
essay and your submitted writing sample. This interview will last
15-20 minutes and will allow the committee to further understand
your interests in teaching. Interviewees will be evaluated using a
five-point scale and the following criteria:
knowledge of English language arts (reading/literature, writing,
language, speaking)
attitudes about learners and learning
commitment to teaching and learning
effective communication (i.e., interviewee speaks in a coherent,
fluent, and engaging manner, explaining ideas, and supporting
ideas.)
ability to assume professional behavior and accept
responsibility
(e) Scoring Guide for the Assessment: Scoring guides for the
various parts of the review process follow.
The impromptu essay is scored using this holistic scoring
rubric:
Impromptu Essay Scoring Guide (NCTE 3.2)
6 Distinguished (paper shows effective writing skills, is well
organized and well developed; uses details clearly and properly to
support a thesis or illustrate ideas; displays consistent ability
in the use of language; demonstrates variety in sentence structure
and proper word choice)
5 Proficient (paper may address some parts of the task more
effectively than others; is generally well organized and developed;
uses details to support a thesis or illustrate an idea; displays
ability in the use of the language; shows some variety in sentence
structure and range of vocabulary)
4 Satisfactory (paper addresses the writing topic adequately but
does not meet all of the goals of the task; is adequately organized
and developed; uses some details to support a thesis or illustrate
an idea; shows adequate but possibly inconsistent ability with
sentence structure; may contain some usage errors that make the
meaning unclear)
3 Needs Improvement (paper shows inadequate organization or
development; poor choice of details or does not provide enough
details to support or illustrate generalizations; a noticeably
improper choice of words or word forms; numerous errors in sentence
structure and/or usage)
2 Seriously Flawed (paper shows serious disorganization or
underdevelopment; little or no detail, or irrelevant specifics;
serious and frequent errors in sentence structure or usage; serious
problems with focus
1 Unsatisfactory (paper may be incoherent; may be undeveloped;
may contain severe and persistent writing errors)
The polished writing is scored using this holistic rubric:
Polished Writing Sample Scoring Guide (NCTE 3.2, 3.4, 3.5)
6 Distinguished (paper shows effective writing skills, is well
organized and well developed; paper shows strong interpretation of
literature and effectively uses examples from the text to support
ideas; supports a thesis or illustrates ideas; displays consistent
ability in the use of language; makes use of literary theory and
sources; demonstrates variety in sentence structure and proper word
choice)
5 Proficient (paper is generally well organized and developed;
shows ability to interpret and explain literature; uses examples
from text and details to support a thesis or illustrate an idea;
displays ability in the use of the language; shows some variety in
sentence structure and range of vocabulary)
4 Satisfactory (paper is adequately organized and developed;
shows some ability to interpret and explain literature; uses some
details to support a thesis or illustrate an idea; shows adequate
but possibly inconsistent ability with sentence structure; may
contain some usage errors that make the meaning unclear)
3 Needs Improvement (paper shows inadequate organization or
development; shows limited ability to interpret and explain
literature; shows poor choice of details or does not provide enough
details to support or illustrate generalizations; includes a
noticeably improper choice of words or word forms; includes
numerous errors in sentence structure and/or usage)
2 Seriously flawed (paper shows serious disorganization or
underdevelopment; shows little ability to interpret and explain
literature; includes few examples from text and little or no
detail, or irrelevant specifics; includes serious and frequent
errors in sentence structure or usage; shows serious problems with
focus
1 Unsatisfactory (paper may be incoherent; may be undeveloped;
may contain severe and persistent writing errors)
English faculty use the following form to recommend applicants
for the English Education Program:
English Education: Recommendation of Applicant
To be completed by the candidate:
Under the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act of 1974:
_____I have retained my right of access to this form. OR
_____I have waived my right of access to this form.
Failure to indicate one of the above determines this form to be
non-confidential.
Signature of candidate: _______________________________ Year of
graduation: _______
To: Recommender
_______________________ is a candidate for Radford University
English Departments English Education Program. To help us select
students with the potential for success both in our program and in
their field placements, the English Education Committee requests
your feedback on the following questions.
Please check the level at which the applicant consistently
performs in the following areas:
Superior
Above Average
Meets expectations
Below expectations
cannot comment
ability to speak clearly and coherently
ability to write clearly and coherently
ability to analyze information, experiences, and ideas
ability to carry tasks through to completion
ability and willingness to implement suggestions for
improvement
What classes has this student taken from you?
How would you characterize this persons attitude toward the
content of your class?
Please comment on this students enthusiasm for literature,
language, and/or writing.
In your opinion, what qualities does this person possess that
would enable him/her to become a good secondary English teacher?
(You might consider qualities such as respect for others, an
ability to work without close supervision, level of energy and
enthusiasm, good judgment, others.)
Please add any additional comments not covered by the above
questions.
Signature: _____________________________________________
Date:__________
Name of Recommender (printed)
___________________________________
We are currently in the process of screening applicants for the
English Education Program and would appreciate receiving your
comments as soon as possible. Please return to Carolyn Mathews,
Russell 027.
English Education Faculty use the following rubric to evaluate
applicants during the application interview:
Radford University
English Education Program
Applicant Selection Process: Assessment of Interview
Applicants Name : ____________________________________ Year of
Application: ________
Evaluators name: ___________________________________
Criteria
1 --Poor/not eligible
2 --below average
3 --average
4 --above average
5 --excellent
Overall Knowledge of content (NCTE 3.1-3.7)
Score:
Applicant fails to demonstrate knowledge of literature and
language and shows no evidence of understanding fundamentals of
teaching writing
Applicant demonstrates limited knowledge of literature and
languageshowing only limited knowledge of American/British
literature, uses the word grammar only to refer to conventions and
usage; shows little evidence of understanding fundamentals of the
teaching of writing.
Applicant demonstrates knowledge of literature and
languagementions a range of literature, but may not mention
literary chronology or genre; mentions at least one key concept
about language study; has good instincts about ways to teach
writing.
Applicant well demonstrates knowledge of literature and
language; distinguishes American/British literature, mentions
literary chronology or schools of critical thought; mentions more
than one key concept related to languagee.g., linguistic inquiry,
dialects, that grammar should be taught through writing, etc.; can
discuss composition theory (workshop model/process writing)
Applicant well demonstrates knowledge of literature and
language; clearly distinguishes American/British literature,
understands literary chronology and schools of critical thought;
understands key concepts related to languagee.g., linguistic
inquiry, dialects, that grammar should be taught through writing;
discusses composition theory using names of researchers/writers in
the field
Overall Knowledge of content pedagogy (NCTE 4.1- 4.10)
Score:
Applicant fails to demonstrate knowledge of teaching strategies
for literature, language, and writing. Applicant fails to mention
group work or other techniques for group interaction and provides
no specific ways to engage students.
Applicant demonstrates only limited knowledge of teaching
strategies for literature, language, and writing. Applicant fails
to mention group work or other techniques for group interaction and
provides no specific ways to engage students.
Applicant demonstrates some knowledge of teaching strategies for
literature, language, and writing. Applicant mentions varied
structures and techniques for group interaction OR gives at least
one specific way to engage students.
Applicant demonstrates knowledge of teaching strategies for
literature, language, and writing. Applicant mentions varied
structures and techniques for group interaction, and gives at least
one specific way to engage students.
Applicant well demonstrates knowledge of teaching strategies for
literature, language, and writing. Applicant is versed in varied
structures and techniques for group interaction and gives at least
2 specific ways to engage students.
Predisposed to be student centered and/or committed to actively
engaging students.
Score:
Applicant shows no understanding of student-centeredness or of
actively engaging students.
Applicant understands only in a limited way the importance of
student-centeredness or of actively engaging students.
Applicant describes a student-centered classroom where
instruction actively engages learners;
Applicant shows understanding of learning theory as a basis for
setting up a student-centered classroom where instruction actively
engages learners;
Applicant shows understanding of learning theory as a basis for
setting up a student-centered classroom where instruction actively
engages learners;
Predisposed to accept and value all students (NCTE 2.1, 2.2)
Score:
Applicant fails to demonstrate the belief that all students can
learn; applicant shows no understanding of a teachers
responsibility to help all students succeed,
Applicant demonstrates only a limited belief that all students
can learn; applicant shows little understanding of a teachers
responsibility to help all students succeed.
Applicant somewhat demonstrates a belief that all students can
learn; applicant somewhat demonstrates an understanding of a
teachers responsibility to help all students succeed.
Applicant demonstrates belief that all students can learn and
mentions the need to help all students succeed. Applicant alludes
to the importance of a supportive, inclusive, and equitable
learning environment.
Applicant demonstrates a strong belief that all students can
learn and a commitment to helping all students succeed. Applicant
describes a supportive, inclusive, and equitable learning
environment.
Commitment to lifelong learning
Score:
Applicant demonstrates no commitment to language, writing, and/
or literature; applicant seems unenthusiastic about reading and
names no specific works; applicant shows no awareness of cultural,
economic, political, and social environments.
Applicant demonstrates little commitment to language, writing,
and/ or literature; applicant seems unenthusiastic about reading
and names no specific works; applicant shows limited awareness of
cultural, economic, political, and social environments.
Applicant likes language, writing, and/ or literature; applicant
likes to read but names no specific works; applicant is somewhat
aware of cultural, economic, political, and social
environments.
Applicant shows a love of language, writing, and/ or literature;
applicant expresses a fondness for reading and particular books;
applicant is aware of cultural, economic, political and social
environments.
Applicant makes very clear a love of language, writing, and /or
literature; applicant is an avid reader who names specific works
enjoyed; applicant is very aware of cultural, economic, political
and social environments.
Communicates clearly
Score:
Applicant speaks very unclearly, fails to use conventional forms
of Edited American English or to speak in relatively complete
sentences; speech may be annoyingly peppered with verbal
fillers.
Applicant speaks unclearly, fails to use conventional forms of
Edited American English or to speak in relatively complete
sentences; speech may be annoyingly peppered with verbal
fillers.
Applicant speaks fairly clearly, uses mostly conventional forms
of Edited American English, speaks in relatively complete
sentences; speech may be a bit peppered with verbal fillers.
Applicant speaks clearly, with appropriate volume, and uses
conventional forms of Edited American English; speaks in relatively
complete sentences; avoids annoying verbal fillers
Applicant speaks very clearly, with appropriate volume, and uses
conventional forms of Edited American English; speaks in complete
sentences; avoids annoying verbal fillers
Models professionalism (NCTE 2.3)
Score:
Applicant has not dressed professionally, does not model
professional behavior or the dispositions needed for teaching
(ability to make connections, care for students, a plan for
professional development.)
Applicant has not dressed professionally, models in a very
limited manner professional behavior or the dispositions needed for
teaching (ability to make connections, care for students, a plan
for professional development.)
Applicant has dressed somewhat professionally, mostly models
professional behavior and exhibits some of the dispositions needed
for teaching (ability to make connections, care for students, a
plan for professional development.)
Applicant has dressed professionally, models professional
behavior and exhibits some of the dispositions needed for teaching
(ability to make connections, care for students, a plan for
professional development.)
Applicant has dressed professionally, superbly models
professional behavior and exhibits many of the dispositions needed
for teaching (e.g., ability to make connections, care for students,
a plan for professional development.)
Total Score: __________
To aid in Departmental Review of Applicants, please make notes
and rank the student on competence in specific content
knowledge
Criteria
1 --seriously flawed
2 --needs improvement
3 --competent
4 --proficient
5 --distinguished
Knowledge of language (high competence would demonstrate
knowledge of language acquisition, dialects, of history of
language, of English grammars) (NCTE 3.1)
Knowledge of extensive range of literature (high competence
would demonstrate knowledge of US, British, world, multicultural,
and young adult literature) (NCTE 3.5)
Knowledge of composing processes (NCTE 3.2.3)
The applicant review process culminates with English Education
faculty assessment of candidates, using the following scoring
guide:
Departmental Review
Rubric Content | Rubric Points | Print | eReport
URL:
http://rgrade.radford.edu/PRINT_RUBRIC.asp?RUBRIC_ID=185
Description: Departmental Review
Updated: 2/19/2009 4:08:49 PM
Author: Radford University Unit Assessment
Top of Form
N/A
Poor/ Not eligible
Below Average
Average
Above average
Excellent
Overall Academic Preparation Overall academic preparation (based
on RU GPA and overall GPA)
N/A
Not eligible =