SACSCOC Fifth Year Interim Report
English BA
| GOAL: Secondary English Education Certification |
| Objective |
|
||||
| Students seeking teacher certification will demonstrate knowledge and skills to teach English to secondary students. Our objective is, first, to produce highly competent secondary English language arts and reading teachers to be certified by the Texas Education Agency to teach in Texas high schools. Our curriculum and oversight of ELAR certification is designed with that objective, as opposed to a focus on test scores alone. We believe that if our courses and other preparations are solidly grounded in excellent practices (that have been appropriately aligned with state standards, the test results will take care of themselves. However, we do provide careful oversight and counseling of our certification students, as well as thorough (and thoroughly aligned) preparation workshops. Our objective, then, is well-prepared students who also perform at high passing rates on the state certification exam. |
| Indicator |
|
|||
|
Secondary English Education students will be prepared to pass the TExES English content area exam in their final semester or shortly after graduating. The State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) developed standards for Texas educators that delineate what the beginning educator should know and be able to do. These standards, which are based on the state-required curriculum for students, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), form the basis for the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES). The TExES test is a criterion-referenced examination designed to measure the knowledge and skills required in English language and literature teaching. A score of 240 is the minimum level of competency required over all of the domains. A student may fail a domain but pass the test. The following are the areas tested: Domain I: Integrated Language Arts, Diverse Learners, and the Study of English; Domain II: Literature, Reading Processes, and Skills for Reading Literary and Nonliterary Texts; Domain III: Written Communication; Domain IV: Oral Communication and Media Literacy. The measurement of our preparation (at least on the test-taking side) is performance on the Texas Examination for Certification Standards (TExES). (The particular examination for secondary English is Field 131—8-12 English Language Arts and Reading.) Last year, we indicated a desired passing rate of 75%, which we far exceeded. The fact is, we are confident that our passing rates should and will be significantly higher. The standard we are seeking to reach now is 90% passing rates for the secondary English certification students who take the exam. |
| Criterion |
|
|||
| At least 75 percent of students taking the TExES English content area exam will obtain passing scores in each domain. Although last year, 100 percent of students who took the test passed, two areas emerged as weaknesses, II. Literature, Reading Processes, and Skills for Reading Literary and Nonliterary Texts; and III. Written Communication. We are anxious to determine if our interventions have been successful in raising these particular scores. |
| Finding |
|
|||
|
Goal: Producing High Rates of Certification Exam Passing Results During 2012-13, twenty-one secondary English certification majors took the 8-12 ELAR TExES during the 2012-13 assessment period. (Actually 25 certification testers took the exam, but four of them—including one of the failures—were students from the graduate Curriculum and Instruction program in the College of Education (and thus are not “our” students.) There were actually twenty-two test attempts, but since one of our students failed the test and then retook it, and passed, there twenty-one students tested. Twenty of the twenty-one instances resulted in passing scores, for an overall passing rate of 95.45%, exceeding the objective of 90%. All twenty-one of our test takers individual students passed the exam during the assessment period, for an effective passing rate of 100%. For 2011-12, our identified strengths were in Domain II (Literature, Reading Processes, and Skills for Reading Literary and Nonliterary Texts) and Domain III (Written Communication). While our students’ overall results in these domains brought us into successful territory, their scores fell off alarmingly in Domain I (Integrated Language Arts, Diverse Learners, and the Study of English). During the year, we concentrated on enhanced instruction in this area, and for 2012-13, the Domain I results rose to be in accord with the high performance in the other domains. |
| Action |
|
|||
|
Action: With the substantial improvements in our only identified area of weakness (Domain I: Integrated Language Arts, Diverse Learners, and the Study of English), we have no real identified weakness as indicated by our students’ performance on the state certification examination. Our action is to continue our curricular and preparation initiatives to ensure a continuation of this excellent performance. |
| GOAL: Literature And Literary Theory (4000-level) |
| Objective |
|
||||
| Students will be able to use various approaches and methodologies presented in analyzing literary texts and demonstrate the ability to interpret texts by communicating their understanding of those texts in analytic essays. |
| Indicator |
|
|||
|
Reading and writing are part and parcel of each other. Essays written to analyze and/or apply literary texts suggest the depth and quality of the students' reading, as well as their understanding of the assignment. Thus, during spring semester, we will collect writing samples of English majors from 4000-level (senior-level) classes and examine them to ascertain the effectiveness of reading that they evince. Our goal is to read 25 percent of the essays, chosen at random, written by English majors in 4000-level literature courses. We anticipate an enrollment of some 105 students in any given long semester and so should expect to read 26 to 30 essays. Two experienced English professors agree that 70 percent of the students write at college level. College-level writing is defined as fluent, coherent, nearly error-free writing. For the purpose of evaluation, clear criteria were developed (see attachment). |
| Criterion |
|
|||
|
The chosen essays will be assessed by a primary trait scoring done by Department of English faculty. The traits to be assessed will include plot summary vs. analysis and effective use of secondary sources. A score equal to or greater than 5 will be deemed acceptable. One weakness evident last year was that we did not receive enough essays for the results to be meaningful and reliable. (We received only fifteen essays.) We will rectify that weakness this year. Seventy percent of the sample of collected 4000-level essays satisfies the requirements of mature academic BA-level writing as assessed holistically by two scoring professors. Students write fluent, coherent, and nearly error-free analytical essays which show sophistication in literary analysis that goes beyond mere superficial plot summaries, and their essays have a point (see attached evaluation criteria). We were concerned last year with whether our process was reliable. We are taking steps to ensure reliability of the process. |
| Finding |
|
|||
| Intentionally, there is no finding of 4000-level writing this year. This year, our decided goal was to focus on analyzing 2000-level, as 4000-level writing had been quite adequate the previous year. |
| Action |
|
|||
| Next year, we will resume to collect essays from our 4000-level writers to evaluate whether their writing has started to reflect more the changes we have made into the English sophomore curriculum. In a couple of years, these effects should start to show in the seniors' writing skills. |
| GOAL: Gaining Knowledge In World And Multicultural Literature (2000-level) |
| Objective |
|
||||
|
Students will demonstrate understanding of basic literary terms and a basic knowledge of important writers. |
| Indicator |
|
|||
|
During Fall 2011, an objective test for the core English sophomore course was developed by professors who teach World Literature II (ENGL 2342). Seventy percent of sophomores are expected to pass the posttest with 70 percent correct answers. Comparing the pretest, given in the beginning of the semester, to the posttest in May will indicate whether any learning took place or not. |
| Criterion |
|
|||
|
Seventy percent of the sample of 2000-level posttest results will show that students have necessary rudimentary knowledge (score of 70 percent or higher) of literature after having taken a sophomore World Literature course. This basic knowledge is necessary before continuing to junior- and senior-level English classes. |
| Finding |
|
|||
|
50% of the tested sophomores failed the Sophomore Assessment Instrument for ENGL 2342. |
| Action |
|
|||
|
Action: Faculty will brainstorm how to improve the results. |
| GOAL: Gaining Knowledge In World And Multicultural Literature (2000-level) |
| Objective |
|
||||
| 2000-level students are able to write about literature. |
| Indicator |
|
|||
|
Two English professors assess 70 percent of ENGL 2331 essays as acceptable. This assessment is done through blind review. Acceptable is defined as a score 5 on an scale 2-8. See the attached grading criteria. |
| Criterion |
|
|||
| Only 30 percent or fewer of the essays are classified as not fulfilling requirements for acceptable academic writing. |
| Finding |
|
|||
|
Only 61 percent of our sophomores are assessed to write acceptably for their level. |
| Action |
|
|||
|
In the fall 2013 faculty meeting, these results will be discussed to raise consciousness of the fact that there still is work to do even though some improvement has taken place. This discussion must take place before any more concrete action can take place, i.e., this consciousness raising is the first action step. Faculty teaching sophomore English will implement a rigorous regimen of (1) teaching literary terms and (2) teaching explicitly how to write an effective essay about literature. |
| Previous Cycle's "Plan for Continuous Improvement" |
|
During AY 2011-12, the department restructured its freshman and sophomore courses. Composition I was defined clearly as an introductory writing course; Composition II was restructured to include elements from ENG 266, i.e., elements of writing about literature were added to persuasive and argumentative writing. Sophomore courses were redefined chronologically (2331 as World Literature before 17th century; 2342 as World Literature after 17th century) in order to avoid overlaps. Evaluation of these courses has been based on a combination of objective tests and assessing essays. Objective evaluation and essay assessment both reveal that much work remains to be done to raise the standards. A realistic approach includes admitting that our students need the three core writing courses in order to internalize the basics of academic writing.
Last year, the plan was to reevaluate all junior survey courses. The faculty met and came to the conclusion that everyone is satisfied with how the junior-level surveys are structured. American Studies program was launched, and English taught the first "Introduction to American Studies" course. American Studies minor was thus added to the other English minors (secondary education, creative writing, and technical and professional writing). Chances are that departmental objective testing in Composition I and World Literature II will help to raise the consciousness of shared standards across heterogeneous classes. It will be interesting to see whether this consciousness leads to higher achievements or not. What is encouraging is the finding revealed in the comparison of the 2000- and 4000-level essay assessments. Above tables are combined here for comparison: 2000-level 4000-level results results 2 19% 8% 3 14% 13% 4 17% 13% 5 21% 18% 6 17% 29% 7 7% 11% 8 5% 8% Tot.100% 100% Even though only 50 percent of the 2000-level essays were deemed as acceptable (score 5 or better), during the same rating session, the same professors rated 66 percent of the 4000-level essays as fulfilling academic standards of that level of writing. This is most encouraging, but it would be desirable to boost up the numbers of academically acceptable essays at both levels. Learning happens from the sophomore level to senior level, and faculty and students becoming more conscious about standards should help in our quest for excellence. Regarding the certification standards and exam, we will call this deficiency to the attention of those specific instructors and will formulate specific strategies for increasing our scores in Domain I for the coming year, while continuing our successful efforts in the other domains (and in overall passing rates). |
| Update on Previous Cycle's "Plan for Continuous Improvement" |
|
Last year (2011-12), a comparison between English sophomore and senior writing was carried out, with the purpose of evaluating whether senior-level writing is better than sophomore-level writing, i.e., whether students have learned to write better while in the English program. We found that, indeed, 66 percent of English seniors write at passing level (as determined via our department-internal criteria), while only 50 percent of sophomores do.
Table 1. Comparison between score results in 2012 and 2013. We found that only within one year, a jump from 50-percent acceptance rate to a 62-percent acceptance rate had taken place. We attribute this to consciousness-raising of what sophomore writing should consist of. Also, the new sophomore curriculum can be credited for higher writing ability. Inter-reader reliability was very high; only three essays required a third reader (tie-breaker). There was, however, a discrepancy between scores between the two sophomore courses, ENGL 2331 (World Literature I: Before the Seventeenth Century) and ENGL 2342 (World Literature II: Seventeenth Century and After) (see Table 2):
Last year (2011-12), a comparison between English sophomore and senior writing was carried out, with the purpose of evaluating whether senior-level writing is better than sophomore-level writing, i.e., whether students have learned to write better while in the English program. We found that, indeed, 66 percent of English seniors write at passing level (as determined via our department-internal criteria), while only 50 percent of sophomores do.
Table 1. Comparison between score results in 2012 and 2013. We found that only within one year, a jump from 50-percent acceptance rate to a 62-percent acceptance rate had taken place. We attribute this to consciousness-raising of what sophomore writing should consist of. Also, the new sophomore curriculum can be credited for higher writing ability. Inter-reader reliability was very high; only three essays required a third reader (tie-breaker). There was, however, a discrepancy between scores between the two sophomore courses, ENGL 2331 (World Literature I: Before the Seventeenth Century) and ENGL 2342 (World Literature II: Seventeenth Century and After) (see Table 2):
|
| Plan for Continuous Improvement |
|
Next year or the following year we will compare the results of ENGL 2331 and ENGL 2342 again, to see if we are looking at a trend or whether this year's discrepancy in results was a coincidence. All professors will be made aware of the results, and they will emphasize overall excellence to all students. It may be that students self-select to these two core courses, more diligent ones choosing ENGL 2331 (World Literature I: Before Seventeenth Century). This means that ENGL 2342 must be made aware that the expectation are the same for these two courses, despite the difference in the chronology of reading materials.
|