1. law, govt and politics
2. politics
3. elections

PROGRAM REPORT COVER SHEET
Initial Foreign Language Teacher Preparation
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
Date:
August 8, 2003
Submitted by:
Name of Institution:
Address:
Chief compiler:
Address:
Phone:
E-mail:
Anja Bernardy, Department of Foreign Languages
1000 Chastain Rd., #1804, Kennesaw, GA
(770) 423-6609
Fax: (770) 499-3386
[email protected]
Program Name:
Foreign Language Education (French or Spanish)
Degree Level:
√ Undergraduate Initial
Post-Baccalaureate Initial
Masters Degree Initial
Kennesaw State University
1000 Chastain Rd., Kennesaw, GA
Checklist of materials to be enclosed with this program report:
Context Statement:
√ Basic factual information on the program;
√ Relevant policies and practices;
√ The program’s self-evaluation;
√ Any special state requirements;
√ The program’s case:
a. Demonstrating teacher candidates’ opportunities to learn and practice the standards;
b. Verifying the eight required components and characteristics of the program;
c. Describing the program features and faculty qualifications that provide the basis for
faculty judgments about candidates’ readiness for teaching.
Performance Evidence:
√ Organized by standard within a matrix;
√ Samples of teacher candidate performance evidence;
√ Rubrics of criteria for assessing candidate performance;
√ Aggregation and interpretation of data in tables;
√ Multiple data sources;
√ Program’s Assessment System (brief narrative).
I verify that the information provided in this program report document is accurate and true:
___________________
Signature
Printed Name Anja Bernardy
Position: Assistant Professor of Spanish and Foreign Language Education
Phone: (770) 423-6609
Address: Department of Foreign Languages, Kennesaw State University
1000 Chastain Rd., #1804, Kennesaw, GA 30144
E-mail address: [email protected]
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Context Statement
Background Information ………………………………………………………………..…p. 3
Summary Evaluation ...…………………………………………………………………… p. 5
KSU’s Teacher Induction Program ………………………………………………………. p. 6
Required Program Components ………………………………………………………..… p. 7
Evidence of Candidate Knowledge and Performance
Standard 1 Matrix …………………………………………………….………………….p. 14
Standard 2 Matrix ……………………………………………………………………..... p. 20
Standard 3 Matrix …………………………………………………………….……….... p. 23
Standard 4 Matrix ……………………………………………………….…………….... p. 27
Standard 5 Matrix …………………………………………………………….……….... p. 30
Standard 6 Matrix ……………………………………………………………….…….... p. 33
The Program’s Assessment System .……………………………………..………….…….... p. 36
Appendices
Appendix A: Spanish Mini-Portfolio: Marshall
Appendix B: French Mini-Portfolio: Queen
Appendix C: Spanish Mini-Portfolio: DeFoor
Appendix D: Spanish Mini-Portfolio: Brasuk
Appendix E: Advising Sheets, French and Spanish
CONTEXT STATEMENT
Background Information
Teacher education at KSU is a highly collaborative and all-campus responsibility. The
Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) is the umbrella organization under which nearly
100 teaching faculty and academic administrators representing over twelve different instructions
departments and five colleges come together to collaborate on the design, delivery, approval and
accreditation of all teacher preparation programs. The Dean of the Leland & Clarice C. Bagwell
College of Education leads the PTEU and provides university-wide coordination for teacher
education, working in partnership with the other deans of the university.
The following functions are centralized in the Bagwell College of Education in support of all
teacher education programs at KSU;
• Formal Admission to Teacher Education
• General Program Advising
• Admission to Student Teaching
• Recommendations for Teacher Certification
• Final Appeals of Teacher Education Admission & Retention Decisions
• Teaching Resources (Teacher Resource & Activity Center--TRAC)
• Educational Technology Resources (Learning Technology Center in TRAC & The
Educational Technology Training Center)
• Coordination for Program Accreditation
• Coordination of the PTEU and Program Coordinators
• Oversight of the Teacher Education Council, The College level policy and curriculum
committee for all teacher education programs
Within the PTEU, most of the responsibilities for designing, implementing, and administering
individual degree programs in teacher education are decentralized and assigned to different
colleges and instructional departments. Each program has a KSU faculty member who serves as
the program coordinator in the department responsible for that program. There are three full-time
faculty in the Department of Foreign Languages who hold teaching positions in both a foreign
language and foreign language education (FLED). These faculty constitute the FLED program
area team and they make decisions regarding the French and Spanish education programs under
the leadership of the FLED program area coordinator. This coordinator is the principal liaison
between the department and the PTEU and also serves as a voting member on the Teacher
Education Council.
Kennesaw State University’s conceptual framework for teacher education is the collaborative
Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning. The preparation of teachers at KSU
involves extensive collaboration among numerous departments and colleges across the university
and with many partner schools and practicing professionals in the field.
4
All education programs at KSU foster development of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions
required of the Professional Learning Facilitator. The PTEU’s aim is to produce teachers and
school leaders who are:
•
•
•
Subject Matter Experts who assist students in subject matter mastery, who accurately
represent content and who use effective instructional strategies/techniques, including the use
of technology.
Facilitators of Learning who understand how individuals construct knowledge, help learners
develop complex cognitive structures, adapt instruction to accommodate learner’s levels of
understanding, and use a wide array of teaching strategies and methodologies.
Collaborative Professionals who work together to improve teaching and learning, who are
committed to life-long learning, who promote a climate of collaboration and trust, and who
have high ethical and professional values.
The PTEU faculty are committed to quality undergraduate teacher preparation grounded in the
liberal arts tradition and integrate strong academic preparation, pedagogical study, and schoolbased experiences. There are three fundamental components to all initial teacher education
programs at KSU:
1) Specialty Studies, 2) Professional Studies, and 3) Clinical & Field-based Experiences.
Specialty studies consist of the teaching field or content area. The Bachelor of Science in
Foreign Language Education requires the equivalent of a major in the content studies of the
teaching field: French or Spanish. The language curriculum provides the knowledge and
expertise needed for candidates to meet all content requirements embedded in the six ACTFL
program standards. The program also meets all ACTFL program requirements, except for
requirement #8 (Opportunities to participate in a study abroad and/or immersion experience).
However, the curriculum has been revised to include this requirement for candidates and will go
into effect in the spring of 2004. Currently, candidates are encouraged, but not required to study
abroad.
Professional studies consists of a professional education sequence that is the equivalent of a
second major in pedagogical studies with an emphasis on teaching that includes several courses
specific to foreign languages. These courses are taught by the FLED program area faculty, who
teach both language and education courses. Other courses in this sequence (EXC 3304:
Education of Exceptional Students; EDUC 3308: Learning, Motivation and Classroom
Management) are delivered to all program areas in collaboration with several instructional
departments.
School-based experiences are interwoven throughout the curriculum, culminating in one
semester of full-time student teaching. Candidates observe foreign language classes (K-12) in
EDUC 2201 (Teaching and Schools in a Changing Society), required prior to program
admission, and in all three FLED courses taken prior to student teaching: FLED 3303 (Second
5
Language Acquisition), FLED 4410 (Methods, Materials, and Curriculum in FLED, P-8), and
FLED 4412 (Methods, Materials, and Curriculum in FLED, 9-12). Candidates also spend one
semester prior to student teaching observing and teaching at two different grade levels
(Elementary, Middle, or High School).
6
Table 1: Foreign Language Education Curriculum
FLED Courses
(FLED/FL faculty)
Education courses
(PTEU faculty)
EDUC 2201: Teaching &
Schools in a Changing
Society
EDUC 2204: Human
Growth, Development &
Learning
Content courses
(FL & FLED/FL faculty)
FREN/SPAN 2001:
Intermediate French or Spanish
Language &
Culture I
FREN/SPAN 2002:
Intermediate French or Spanish
Language &
Culture II
Praxis I & 2.75 GPA
ADMISSION TO PROGRAM
EXC 3304: Education of
Exceptional Students
EDUC 3308: Learning
Motivation, & Classroom
Management
FLED 3303: Second Language
Acquisition
FLED 4410: Methods, Materials,
& Curriculum, P-8
FREN/SPAN 3303: Grammar
& Composition
FREN/SPAN 3302: Practical
Conversation
FLED 4412: Methods, Materials,
& Curriculum, 9-12
FREN/SPAN 3310 & 3311:
Survey of Culture & Institutions
I & II
FREN/SPAN 3300 & 3301:
Survey of Literature I & II
FREN/SPAN 4410: French or
Spanish Linguistics
FREN/SPAN 4455: Advanced
Grammar & Translation
FREN/SPAN 4430 or 4432:
Topics in Literature
FREN/SPAN 4499: Senior
Seminar (capstone)
ADMISSION TO “TOSS’ (Teaching of Specific Subjects)
FLED 4413:
Field Experiences, P-12
ADMISSION TO STUDENT TEACHING
FLED 4480:
Student Teaching, P-12
Praxis II
GRADUATION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR TEACHER CERTIFICATION
(FRENCH OR SPANISH, P-12)
7
Summary Evaluation
The FLED program provides the necessary preparation for candidates to acquire the knowledge,
skills, and dispositions as outlined in the Program Standards. Prior to the approval of the
Program Standards, two different sets of data were collected: proficiency data from selected
courses and performance data from FLED 4413, Field Experiences in FLED, P-12 and FLED
4480, Student Teaching in Foreign Languages, P-12. Criteria for evaluation of this data were
based on the National Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (ACTFL)
and on the Candidate Performance Instrument, designed by the PTEU and based on NCATE
standards. Over the academic year 2002/2003 only two candidates completed the FLED
program. Since both students enrolled in student teaching prior to the approval of the Program
Standards, data collection and analysis was not based on the Standards. The development of a
new assessment plan based on the Program Standards has started and will be implemented in
fall 2003.
Table 2: Number of FLED graduates (2001-2003)
SPANISH
2
2002/2003
2
2001/2002
1
2000/2001
5
Total
FRENCH
2002/2003
2001/2002
2000/2001
Total
1
1
2
Since fall, 2000, eight students enrolled in student teaching (FLED 4480). Six of those
completed the course successfully, passed the Praxis II or the previously required Teacher
Certification Test and were recommended for certification. One candidate graduated, but did not
pass the Praxis II. Another did not finish student teaching. The two most recent FLED graduates
achieved a GPA of 3.87 were evaluated by their collaborating teacher and university supervisor
to be outstanding and received high scores on every category of the PTEU Candidate
Performance Instrument. One was selected Outstanding Senior by the department. FLED
graduates are well prepared and have a high retention rate as teachers. All graduates that
received certification in the past three years are currently employed as foreign language teachers
in the state of Georgia, reflecting the quality of the curriculum and the PTEU collaborative
teacher preparation model. With the implementation of an assessment system based on the
Program Standards, KSU candidates will have the necessary performance evidence to meet or
exceed each standard.
In addition, all Bagwell College of Education programs meet the state’s certification
requirements and are approved by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission. The
curricula in French and Spanish exceed the content area certification requirements for the state.
8
KSU’s Teacher Induction Program
The Center for Field Experiences and Partnerships (CFEP) follows KSU education graduates for
the first two years of their teaching career and provides remediation and mentoring. The center
has an individualized approach to induction, working with each system collaboratively to custom
design induction delivery models to help reach more teachers.
The Center is implementing two induction approaches to help support and retain new teachers:
Individualized Delivery Model: The Center works collaboratively with the school systems within
the KSU service area to custom design induction programs based on the expressed needs of the
new teachers. The goal is to create innovative induction programs through a variety of delivery
models to enhance teacher performance and impact student learning. Examples of customized
induction delivery models this year include the following: "Lunch and Learns" delivered at the
school site; after-school delivery at a central location selected by the school system; on-campus
delivery in which the school system brought teachers to KSU; and, full day delivery at the school
site. Sessions are led both by experts from the system being served and from KSU faculty.
Inter-system Partnership Model: In addition, the Center offers two on-campus training
conferences in which all systems are invited to participate. Each of the nine systems served by
the Center are represented by session leaders, including master teachers, "Teachers of the Year,"
NBPTS teachers, system-level administrators, principals, Instructional Lead Teachers, and
superintendents, along with KSU faculty.
Additional Induction Tools include a newsletter, THE IMPACT (Improving Practice and
Classroom Teaching), that is delivered four times a year to a total of 1,750 new teachers in the
nine systems served by KSU. Each issue centers on one theme and includes articles written by
KSU faculty, master teachers, administrators, "Teachers of Year," and NBPTS teachers. The
Center’s website serves as another important induction tool. Accessible from the website is the
Center’s Teacher Resource/Discussion Board, which was created for all teachers to use as a
resource and support system by posting questions/suggestions to one another
(http://www.kennesaw.edu/education/CFEP).
9
Required Program Components
1) How do program courses and experiences provide opportunities for candidates to learn
and practice the knowledge, skills and dispositions in the standards?
The FLED curriculum enables the candidate to acquire the knowledge, skills and dispositions as
outlined in the Program Standards:
STANDARD 1: Language, Linguistics, Comparisons
Standard 1.a. Demonstrating Language Proficiency. Candidates demonstrate a high level of
proficiency in the target language, and they seek opportunities to strengthen their proficiency.
The FLED curriculum is proficiency-based, with each course outlining expected language
proficiency outcomes. Candidates for the degree must complete 30 semester hours of content
courses (SEE Table 1 on p.5: Foreign Language Education Curriculum, Content Courses.)
Courses are taught in the language to maximize students’ opportunities to develop their
proficiency. Students are also encouraged to seek opportunities outside of class to improve their
language proficiency and learn about the target culture. In addition to the practice in class, the
university offers many resources to facilitate achievement of language proficiency outcomes.
Some options include: Participation in Foreign Language Clubs and Honor Societies, accessing
on-line reading materials in addition to books in print, choosing the Learn & Serve component in
a variety of courses, and socializing with international students. The surrounding community
provides additional opportunities. For example, students can attend foreign language film
festivals, visit art expositions, and volunteer in a variety of organizations where foreign language
skills are needed. Study abroad opportunities are also available but not required at this time.
10
Standard 1.b. Understanding Linguistics. Candidates know the linguistic elements of the
target language system, recognize the changing nature of language, and accommodate for gaps in
their own knowledge of the target language system by learning on their own.
The curriculum includes three courses that address linguistic elements. Grammar & Composition
focuses on analysis of grammar and its application to different types of writing. French or
Spanish Linguistics provides an overview of phonetics, phonology, morphology, and syntax.
Students are also exposed to dialectical variations and learn about some of the changes that have
occurred in the history of the language. Second Language Acquisition provides opportunities to
examine the characteristics of different proficiency levels, both in the students’ own developing
language system and in the speech and writing of other learners.
Standard 1.c. Identifying Language Comparisons. Candidates know the similarities and
differences between the target language and other languages, identify the key differences in
varieties of the target language, and seek opportunities to learn about varieties of the target
language on their own.
Language comparisons are addressed specifically in FREN/SPAN 4455 (Advanced Grammar
and Translation), which focuses on analysis of grammar and morphosyntatical differences
between English and the target language. In French or Spanish Linguistics, candidates examine
key dialectical variations in phonetics, phonology, morphology, and syntax. This course also
includes a research project involving the speech of native speakers. In addition, many
departments at KSU, including the Foreign Language Department, have students and student
assistants who are native speakers of languages other than English.
KSU also continues to attract a relatively large number of international students. According to
the KSU Factbook (2002-2003) the number of international students continues to increase
substantially each year. In fall, 2002, 1295 international students representing 123 different
countries attended KSU [http://web1.kennesaw.edu:8080/fb2003/stu.fb?secid=stu&pageid=22].
The Cobb County School District Annual Report: 2001-2202 indicates the following
demographics for the student population in the schools where KSU students will student teach:
Hispanic
8.17%
Asian
3.67%
Multi-Racial 2.61%
[http://www.cobbk12.org/annualreport/students.htm]
Thus, KSU students have many opportunities to be exposed to different language on and off
campus. Numerous ethnicities and nationalities are represented in the surrounding community.
Students are regularly encouraged to seek out volunteer opportunities and to participate in
cultural events.
STANDARD 2: Cultures, Literatures, Cross-Disciplinary Concepts
Standard 2.a. Demonstrating Cultural Understanding. Candidates demonstrate that they
understand the connections among the perspectives of a culture and its practices and products,
11
and they integrate the cultural framework for foreign language standards into their instructional
practices.
Every course in the language curriculum includes projects that help students make these
connections. Two survey courses specifically focus on culture: FREN 3310, 3311 (Survey of
French and Francophone Culture and Institutions I & II); SPAN 3310, 3311 (Survey of Hispanic
Culture and Institutions I & II). In addition, the two methods courses in the Foreign Language
Education curriculum require candidates to develop lesson plans that integrate the Standards for
Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century.
Standard 2.b. Demonstrating Understanding of Literary and Cultural Texts and
Traditions. Candidates recognize the value and role of literary and cultural texts and use them to
interpret and reflect upon the perspectives of the target cultures over time.
Literary, popular and cultural texts (literature, newspaper, television, etc.) are incorporated into
the language courses throughout the program. The upper division courses FREN/SPAN 3300 and
3301 (Introduction to Literature, I & II) specifically address Standard 2.b. FRENSPAN 3310
and 3311 (Survey of French and Francophone/Hispanic Culture and Institutions I & II) include
the analysis of cultural texts and traditions. An additional course in literature, FREN/SPAN 4430
or 4432 (Topics in Literature I & II), deepens the student's understanding of literature and
requires reflection and discussion of the issues addressed in Standard 2.b.
Standard 2.c. Integrating Other Disciplines in Instruction. Candidates integrate knowledge
of other disciplines into foreign language instruction and identify distinctive viewpoints
accessible only through the target language.
Candidates are expected to teach in the target language. When teaching French or Spanish, they
draw on concepts from other disciplines such as Mathematics, Art, History, Physical Education,
and Geography. In the Methods courses, students learn to design effective lessons that integrate
the 5 C’s contained in the Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century:
Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, Community. The Field Experience course
and Student Teaching provide opportunities to implement lessons that identify viewpoints from
the target language cultures.
STANDARD 3: Language Acquisition Theories and Instructional Practices
Standard 3.a. Understanding Language Acquisition and Creating a Supportive Classroom.
Candidates demonstrate an understanding of language acquisition at various developmental
levels and use this knowledge to create a supportive classroom learning environment that
includes target language input and opportunities for negotiation of meaning and meaningful
interaction.
The program includes a set of three interrelated courses: FLED 3303 (Second Language
Acquisition), FLED 4410 (Methods, Materials and Curriculum, K-8), and FLED 4412 (Methods,
Materials and Curriculum, 9-12), all of which address age-appropriate instruction and include
12
classroom observations. The competencies acquired in these courses are implemented in the
classroom setting during FLED 4413 (Field Experience in FLED, P-12) and FLED 4480
(Student Teaching in Foreign Languages, P-12). Candidates are placed at three different grade
levels to provide field experiences in Elementary, Middle, and High School.
Standard 3.b. Developing Instructional Practices That Reflect Language Outcomes and
Learner Diversity. Candidates develop a variety of instructional practices that reflect language
outcomes and articulated program models and address the needs of diverse language learners.
The education curriculum includes a course in the Education of Exceptional Students and
Learning, Motivation, and Classroom Management. In the FLED methods courses students learn
to design lesson plans that include a variety of techniques and activities to address different
learning styles as well as accommodations for a variety of exceptional students. Lesson plans
that respond to the needs of diverse language learners are implemented during field experience
and student teaching. These lesson plans must also address the Georgia’s Quality Core
Curriculum (QCC) for the target language, as mandated by the State of Georgia.
STANDARD 4: Integration of Standards into Curriculum and Instruction
Standard 4.a. Understanding and Integrating Standards In Planning. Candidates
demonstrate an understanding of the goal areas and standards of the Standards for Foreign
Language Learning and their state standards, and they integrate these frameworks into curricular
planning.
Candidates are expected to create lesson plans to reflect these standards. Two methods courses
and teaching placements at three different levels help the candidates learn to choose materials
and plan appropriate lessons that reflect the ACTFL standards as well as the State of Georgia
QCC.
Standard 4.b. Integrating Standards in Instruction. Candidates integrate the Standards for
Foreign Language Learning and their state standards into language instruction.
All lessons and units in the Methods courses (FLED 4410 and FLED 4412) must include a
section linking the lesson/unit to the appropriate standards. The KSU supervisors and the
collaborating teachers advise students as they plan and implement instructional units during the
Field Experiences course and Student Teaching. These instructional units must reflect the
Standards for Foreign Language Learning.
Standard 4.c. Selecting and Designing Instructional Materials. Candidates use standards and
curricular goals to evaluate, select, design, and adapt instructional resources.
Assessment of student performance in this area is based on the instructional goals, which in turn
are based on the Standards for Foreign Language Learning. Candidates learn to analyze the
assessment results and make appropriate adaptations, when necessary. During the Field
Experience course and Student Teaching, candidates receive feedback about their selection of
13
instructional resources from the supervising teacher as well as the university supervisor so that
they can make changes, if necessary.
STANDARD 5: Assessment of Languages and Cultures
Standard 5.a. Knowing Assessment Models and Using them Appropriately.
Candidates believe that assessment is ongoing, and they demonstrate knowledge of multiple
ways of assessment that are age- and level appropriate by implementing purposeful measures.
Both Methods courses include formative and summative assessment. Candidates are required to
include examples of a variety of assessments in their portfolio, which they present at the end of
the Student Teaching semester.
Standard 5.b. Reflecting on Assessment. Candidates reflect on the results of student
assessments, adjust instruction accordingly, analyze the results of assessments, and use success
and failure to determine the direction of instruction.
Candidates keep a reflective journal throughout their field experiences, which gives them the
opportunity to reflect on assessment tools, their results, and appropriate ways to deal with poor
student performance. Lesson and unit plans in the Methods courses (FLED 4410 and FLED
4412) require a discussion of how candidates will use assessment results.
Standard 5.c. Reporting Assessment Results. Candidates interpret and report the results of
student performances to all stakeholders and provide opportunity for discussion.
During Field Experience and Student Teaching, candidates learn appropriate mechanisms to
record and report their students’ performance results. They become familiar with deadlines for
formal submission of assessment results and procedures to communicate with parents about their
children’s performance throughout the school year.
STANDARD 6: Professionalism
Standard 6.a. Engaging in Professional Development. Candidates engage in professional
development opportunities that strengthen their own linguistic and cultural competence and
promote reflection on practice.
As candidates progress in the FLED program, they are expected to join professional
organizations and attend conventions and workshops related to their field. Honor societies and
language clubs provide limited funds to help defray registration and travel cost. The university
also provides several workshop and conference opportunities that are free of charge for KSU
teacher candidates.
14
Standard 6.b. Knowing the Value of Foreign Language Learning. Candidates know the value
of foreign language learning to the overall success of all students and understand that they will
need to become advocates with students, colleagues, and members of the community to promote
the field.
Candidates collect information throughout the education program that will help them articulate a
rationale for foreign language study. Opportunities to develop this rationale are included in
reflective journals that are required in several courses in the curriculum as well as an advocacy
project, required in FLED 4412 (Methods, Materials, and Curriculum, 9-12).
2) Requirements for Programs of Foreign Language Teacher Preparation
a. We develop candidates’ foreign language proficiency in
√ YES
NO
all areas of communication, with special emphasis on oral proficiency
If yes, briefly explain how: All courses in the French and Spanish curriculum have clearly
outlined language proficiency outcomes for speaking, listening, reading and writing. Faculty
members teaching these courses provide a list of the types of activities in which the student will
engage to achieve each outcome. The department’s assessment committee provides guidance in
assessing students’ proficiency, collects data, and makes recommendations to the department
chair.
b. Our upper-level courses are taught in the foreign language.
√ YES
NO
c. We currently test our candidates’ oral proficiency with the
OPI or TOPT on an ongoing basis and provide diagnostic
feedback to candidates.
√ YES
NO
If yes, which test do you require? An oral proficiency internview is required for admission to the
FLED program, with a rating of “Intermediate Low” or higher. The interview is conducted in
Spanish by a trained ACTFL Limited Oral Proficiency Tester. The French interviewer is familiar
with ACTFL proficiency guidelines, but has not obtained certification. Additional feedback
about oral proficiency is provided by one of the candidate’s language professors for the FLED
program faculty to evaluate readiness to start taking the professional education courses. The
FLED coordinator, with help from the FLED advisor, monitors each candidate's performance in
all courses by seeking input from both language and education instructors about the candidate.
After admission to the College of Education, two additional gateways serve to provide formal
feedback to the candidate: Admission to Field Experience and admission to Student Teaching. In
both cases, the FLED program area team decides if the candidate’s proficiency is adequate for
the teaching assignment. Due to the small number of students enrolled in those two courses (less
than 4 per semester for both French and Spanish), an additional formal interview was deemed
not necessary at this time. However, we expect that as these numbers increase, a formal
assessment of oral language skills will be implemented. In addition, we expect that one of the
French professors will participate in the tester-training workshop and become certified. To be
recommended for certification, candidates must pass the Praxis II: Content Knowledge and
Productive Language Skills. The latter test requires performance of tasks that require advanced
level proficiency: narrating in the past, giving a speech, hypothesizing and defending an opinion.
15
Starting in fall 2003, candidates will also be required to schedule an official OPI through the
Educational Testing Office of ACTFL.
d. Our program has language, linguistics, culture, and
literature components.
√ YES
NO
e. Our candidates are required to take a methods course that
√ YES
NO
deals specifically with the teaching of foreign languages.
If yes, check one:
√ Candidates take this course as an offering in our program.*
Candidates take this course at another institution.
Candidates take the ACTFL online methods course.
Other. _____________________________________
In no, explain ____________________________
* Since graduates will be certified to teach K-12, the program requires two foreign language
methods courses: one for grades K-8, the other for grades 9-12. These courses are taught by a
qualified faculty member with expertise in foreign language education and who is
knowledgeable about current instructional approaches and pedagogical issues.
f. Our candidates complete field experiences prior to student
teaching that include experiences in foreign language classrooms.
√ YES
NO
g. Our field experiences, including student teaching, are supervised
by a qualified foreign language educator who is knowledgeable
about current instructional approaches and issues in the field of
foreign language education.
√ YES
NO
YES
√ NO
h. We provide opportunities for our candidates to participate in
a structured study abroad program and/or intensive immersion
experience in a target language community.
If no, please explain: The current curriculum does not require an immersion experience.
However, all candidates have the option of studying abroad with one of the many programs
offered through the Georgia University System and receive credit for at least one language
course. Programs vary in length, cost and purpose, and are coordinated by the International
Center at KSU. Two of the summer programs, one in Mexico and one in France, are housed in
the Department of Foreign Languages. Moreover, the new French and Spanish curricula to be
implemented in spring 2004 include a study abroad or internship requirement for all students.
i. We provide opportunities for our candidates to experience
technology-enhanced instruction and to use technology in their
own teaching.
√ YES
3) Describe program features and faculty qualifications that provide the basis for
confidence in faculty judgments about candidates
16
NO
Student Teaching, the capstone clinical experience for teacher candidates, consists of one
semester of full-time teaching. The candidate is placed with an experienced teacher who guides
the student teacher in planning, implementing and evaluating units of instruction in addition to
providing information and materials related to all aspects of the job. Collaborating teachers are
fully certified in the foreign language; have a minimum of three years successful teaching
experience; have been recommended by the principal; have a desire to work with a student
teacher; supervise student teachers no more than one semester per school year and have a wellrounded instructional load; and are recommended by the FLED field placement coordinator.
Procedures and responsibilities of all parties involved, as well as information about the education
program at KSU, are explained in the Field Experience Handbook. Foreign language teacher
candidates who will receive K-12 certification are placed at the grade level at which they wish to
teach after graduation: Elementary, Middle, or High School. Extensive field experiences at the
other two levels occur the semester prior to student teaching.
Full-time FLED program faculty hold tenure-track positions in French or Spanish and Foreign
Language Education and have advanced degrees in their area of expertise. Currently, one has a
Ph.D. in Comparative and International Education, another has a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics
and Teaching Methods, and one has an M.Ed. in Secondary Education and Spanish. All three
teach French and/or Spanish courses and are fluent in the language(s) they teach. In addition, one
faculty member has been certified as a Limited Oral Proficiency Tester.
Table 3: Full-time FLED faculty
FACULTY
NAME
Anja Bernardy
David Coberly
Janet Holbrook
Elaine McAllister
HIGHEST
DEGREE
CONTENT
AREA
Ph.D. (Applied Linguistics and
Methods of Teaching)
Ph.D. (Foreign Language
Education)
M.Ed. (Secondary Education and
Spanish)
Ph.D. (Comparative and
International Education
YRS OF K-12
TEACHING
EXPERIENCE
Spanish
0
Spanish
0
Spanish
25
French and
Spanish
5
All part-time FLED faculty have a Master's degree in the language they teach and have extensive
experience teaching a foreign language in the public school system. Some also have a Ph.D. in
an educational field. In addition, all part-time and full-time FLED faculty hired in the past five
years are certified to teach in the state and are expected to participate in professional
development courses to keep their certification current.
Table 4: Part-time FLED faculty
17
FACULTY
NAME
Sheree Altman
Greg Barfield
Greg Ewing
HIGHEST
DEGREE
CONTENT
AREA
M.Ed
Ph.D.
Ph.D
Spanish
French
Latin
18
YRS OF K-12
TEACHING
EXPERIENCE
28
16
20
MATRIX FOR EVIDENCE OF CANDIDATE KNOWLEDGE AND PERFORMANCE
Matrix for Standard 1
Standard # 1: Language, Linguistics, Comparisons
Supporting Standard # 1.a.: Demonstrating Language Proficiency.--Candidates demonstrate a high level of proficiency in the
target language, and they seek opportunities to strengthen their proficiency.
Supporting Standard # 1.b.: Understanding Linguistics.--Candidates know the linguistic elements of the target language system,
recognize the changing nature of language, and accommodate for gaps in their own knowledge of the target language system by
learning on their own.
Supporting Standard # 1.c. Identifying Language Comparisons.--Candidates know the similarities and differences between the
target language and other languages, identify the key differences in varieties of the target language, and seek opportunities to learn
about varieties of the target language on their own.
How do our candidates
How do we evaluate
What are our findings?
What did we learn about our
demonstrate the Standard?
candidate performance?
candidates? About our
program?
Standard 1.a.
Standard 1.a.
Standard 1.a.
Standard 1.a.
Praxis II pass rate for program
To be recommended for
Though not interactive, the
Candidates demonstrate an
graduates:
Praxis II includes tasks that
Advanced proficiency level for certification, candidates are
only candidates with an
interpersonal communication
required to pass the Praxis II
(Productive Language Skills) in • 2003: 100%
Advanced proficiency level are
(speaking) tasks.
able to perform successfully. In
the target language, which
• 2002: 100%
addition, to avoid complete
requires Advanced oral and
• 2001: 50%
written proficiency.
language breakdown for the
Six out of the seven candidates superior level tasks (such as
giving an impromptu formal
who completed student
teaching during the years listed speech) a minimum of
Advanced is required to score
passed the Praxis II and were
recommended for certification. high enough to pass.
Nevertheless, in order to
comply with the new Program
Standards, starting in fall 2004,
candidates will be required to
take an official OPI.
Interpretative: Listening and
reading
Presentational communication
(Speaking): Candidates have
various opportunities in the
upper-level courses to deliver
oral presentations.
The department has established
proficiency outcomes for the
4000-level classes that reflect
Advanced Listening and
Reading skills, which are
evaluated through exams and
research papers.
No data on listening and
reading have been collected,
thus no clear picture emerges
on candidates’ proficiency.
Informal feedback from
professors suggest that there is
a gap between the proficiency
expectations in the last
intermediate level course and
the 3000-level courses.
Presentations in various upperSince assessment instruments
level classes are evaluated
according to criteria established vary from class to class, results
have not been aggregated.
by the instructor.
The new curriculum, to be
implemented in spring 2004,
will include a 3000-level
course in Critical Reading &
Practical Writing, designed to
help candidates make progress
towards achieving an Advanced
proficiency level in reading.
The department plans to
develop assessment instruments
to evaluate listening
proficiency and to use the
computer lab to implement
those assessments.
Department assessment rubrics
for speaking have been
developed and will be piloted
in fall 2003 in the Senior
Seminar.
Also, courses need to provide
more opportunities for students
to deliver oral presentations
extemporaneously.
Interpersonal and
Presentational Communication
(Writing):
Students write research papers
and compositions that reflect an
Advanced proficiency level.
Candidates are evaluated on
both take-home and in-class
compositions with departmentdeveloped rubrics at the 3000and 4000-levels.
The senior capstone seminar
requires a major research paper
Analysis of the senior seminar
in the past three years reveal:
Strengths:
• all FLED candidates
received an "A” in the
course.
20
The program is successful in
helping candidates to develop
advanced-level writing skills.
However, reporting of
assessment results for writing is
not consistent and data sources
are limited. This will be
Weaknesses:
that is presented to all
department faculty at the end of • Rubrics are not currently
the semester during senior
being used to evaluate the
seminar conference day. The
senior seminar research
grade in the course is based on
papers.
the quality of the written paper.
Candidates are required to pass
the Praxis II (Productive
Language Skills) in the target
language, which requires
Advanced written proficiency.
The writing portion of the exam
counts for 40% of the score and
includes writing a narrative in
the past and a formal letter.
Praxis II scores of candidates
are reported to the university
and a passing score is required
for certification.
Candidates demonstrate
dispositions for acquiring
proficiency by being active in
foreign language clubs and
interacting with speakers of the
target language.
Due to the location of the
university in a large
multicultural metropolitan area
and the number of native
speakers enrolled in foreign
language and other university
programs, opportunities for
interaction in the target
language outside of class are
numerous. Candidates are
expected to participate and are
encouraged to take leadership
roles in organizing cultural
events; however, this
corrected during 2003/2004.
Also, development of rubrics to
reflect Standard 1.a. for
evaluation of the senior
seminar papers will be
addressed by the department
assessment committee during
2003/2004.
Six out of seven candidates
who have completed the FLED
program between 2001 and
2003 have passed the Praxis II
and were recommended for
certification.
Informal assessment by faculty
language club sponsors
indicates that the department’s
foreign language students
develop a strong sense of
community, participate in many
events together and encourage
each other to use the target
language and learn about the
target culture. Due to these
group dynamics, social
activities predominate over
academic ones and promote
21
Assessment plans to be
implemented during 2003/2004
include candidates’ journal
reflections about their
involvement in extra-curricular
language and culture activities
as well as internship/study
abroad experiences.
Curricular changes to be
implemented in Spring 2004
will require candidates to
complete a one-semester
internship in the community or
participation is not evaluated.
Standard 1.b.
Candidates identify and explain
relevant aspects of phonology,
morphology, syntax, semantics,
socio-linguistics, pragmatics
and language change.
Standard 1.b.
Candidates take a course in
linguistics that requires a
midterm and a final exam
covering key concepts in
phonology, morphology,
syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, pragmatics and
language change.
Candidates explain rules for
word and sentence formation.
Before candidates take
Linguistics, where they learn
about morphology and syntax
from a linguistic perspective,
they take Grammar and
Composition, to gain
foundation knowledge
regarding syntactic patterns,
cohesive devices, and word and
sentence formation rules from a
pedagogical perspective.
interaction with native speakers
in informal settings.
Standard 1.b.
Results indicate that only four
out of seven graduates took this
course: three received an “A”
and one received a “C.”
All FLED graduates over the
past three years completed
Grammar and Composition
with a grade of “A” or “B”.
This disposition is not currently
Dispositions for
evaluated.
accommodating for gaps in
knowledge of target language
system: Candidates talk to the
language lab assistants, who are
native speakers of French or
Spanish, to find answers to
22
participate in a study abroad
program.
Standard 1.b.
Linguistics was not offered
frequently enough so that many
candidates substituted it with
other courses in order to
graduate on time. With the
curricular changes that will be
implemented in Spring, 2003,
Advanced Grammar &
Linguistics will be offered once
a year.
questions about the language.
Standard 1.c.
Comparisons between target
and other languages:
Candidates use their knowledge
to point out differences
between their students’ native
language and the target
language.
Standard 1.c.
Faculty and collaborating
teachers review lesson plans
and give candidates feedback
and suggestions on the
inclusion of language
comparisons.
Standard 1.c.
Candidates’ knowledge, skills
and dispositions as teachers are
evaluated using the Candidate
Performance Instrument (CPI),
an assessment tool based on
NCATE standards and
developed by the Professional
Teacher Education Unit of the
Bagwell College of Education.
The instrument has been used
for the past two years and all
FLED candidates have received
successful performance
evaluations by the university
supervisor and the
collaborating teachers.
Sociolinguistic variation:
Candidates use their knowledge
about phonology, morphology,
syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics to
identify differences among
target language varieties.
The final exam in the
linguistics course requires
candidates to identify some key
differences in one or more of
these areas.
Results indicate that only four
out of seven graduates took this
course: three received an “A”
and one received a “C.”
During instruction, candidates
point out differences in lexical
items among various target
language countries. Lesson
plans include examples of
The university supervisor and
the collaborating teachers
review lesson plans and give
candidates feedback and
suggestions on the inclusion of
Standard 1.c.
The program is successful in
preparing effective and
knowledgeable teachers.
However, the evidence
presented by candidates for
their performance evaluations
has not been collected,
aggregated and analyzed,
mainly due to the small number
of graduates each year. Starting
in fall 2004, candidates will
base their portfolio evidence on
the ACTFL program standards
and the department will keep
selected candidate work
samples.
Curricular changes to be
implemented in Spring 2004
will require candidates to
complete a one-semester
internship in the community or
23
lexical variation, when
appropriate.
language comparisons.
Dispositions for learning about
target language varieties:
Candidates interact with native
speakers outside of class and
access the internet for materials
from target language countries.
No formal evaluation is
available.
participate in a study abroad
program. This change is
expected to further candidates’
awareness of language varieties
and help them identify
differences to share with their
students.
Changes in the assessment plan
will include journal entries with
a focus on dispositions.
Matrix for Standard 2
Standard # 2: Cultures, Literatures, Cross-Disciplinary Concepts
Supporting Standard # 2.a.: Demonstrating Understanding of Literary and Cultural Texts and Traditions.--Candidates
recognize the value and role of literary and cultural texts and use them to interpret and reflect upon the perspectives of the target
cultures over time.
Supporting Standard # 2.b.: Demonstrating Cultural Understandings.--Candidates demonstrate that they understand the
connections among the perspectives of a culture and its practices and products, and they integrate the cultural framework for foreign
language standards into their instructional practices.
Supporting Standard # 2.c. Integrating Other Disciplines In Instruction.--Candidates integrate knowledge of other disciplines
into foreign language instruction and identify distinctive viewpoints accessible only through the target language.
How do our candidates
How do we evaluate
What are our findings?
What did we learn about our
demonstrate the Standard?
candidate performance?
candidates? About our
program?
Standard 2.a.
Standard 2.a.
Standard 2.a.
Standard 2.a.
Cultural knowledge:
Target language faculty
Before candidates are admitted Even though candidates have
Candidates show understanding evaluate essay exams according to the two field experience
performance evidence to show
24
of the target language cultural
perspectives, products and
practices on several exams.
to criteria listed in each course
syllabus.
courses, they must have
positive recommendations from
the target language faculty who
evaluate their language
proficiency and cultural
understanding. Even though the
data from exam results have not
been collected, any concerns
regarding a candidate’s
performance are discussed with
the field placement coordinator.
Integrating culture into
instruction: Candidates
incorporate culture into their
lesson planning and
implementation. (See Appendix
A, sample 1; Appendix B,
sample 3)
FLED faculty and collaborating
teachers evaluate candidates’
lesson plans and provide
feedback on all aspects,
including the integration of
culture.
Materials currently used in the
public schools are based on the
5 Cs and candidates are
successful in integrating culture
into their teaching.
Process of analyzing cultures:
Candidates analyze and
hypothesize about products and
events from the target language
culture(s).
Target language faculty
evaluate essays and exams
according to criteria listed in
each course syllabus.
Besides course grades, no data
have been collected and
analyzed.
Dispositions for cultural
learning: Candidates seek
opportunities to learn about the
Faculty encourage participation
in cultural events and suggest
appropriate sources for contact
No data is available.
they meet Standard 2.a., the
program has not collected data
other than course grades. As
part of the changes in the
assessment plan for 2003/2004,
all students admitted to the
FLED program will be
responsible for keeping work
samples to present in the
standards portfolio. The
department assessment
committee will identify which
evidence from which courses is
appropriate to include in the
portfolio and will also collect
data other than course grades,
such as evaluations of essays,
exams, and research papers.
Lesson plan assessment
instruments need to clearly
identify all elements in the
standards to properly document
that candidates are meeting the
standards.
Candidates will document and
reflect upon their experiences
25
target language through a
variety of means: interaction
with native speakers, watching
target language television,
listening to music, and reading
newspapers and magazines
from target language cultures.
Standard 2.b.
Candidates demonstrate
knowledge of literary and
cultural texts on several exams.
Integrating texts from literature
and other media in instruction:
Candidates select age and
proficiency appropriate original
or adapted literary works and
texts to incorporate into their
lessons.
Dispositions toward exploring
literatures and other texts and
media: Candidates read outside
of class and identify texts to
incorporate into their teaching.
Standard 2.c.
with the target language
culture. However, no formal
evaluation is done of candidate
involvement with the target
language culture.
with the target language culture
in journal entries, reports,
and/or presentations in selected
courses.
Standard 2.b.
Target language faculty
evaluate essay exams and
research papers according to
criteria listed in each course
syllabus.
Standard 2.b.
No data other than course
grades are currently available.
Six out of seven program
graduates in the last 3 years
have made A’s or B’s in all
literature courses.
FLED faculty evaluate
candidates’ lesson plans and
provide feedback on the
inclusion of literary works and
other texts.
Program graduates were
evaluated positively on all
aspects of content and
pedagogical knowledge, as
documented on the Candidate
Performance Instrument.
No data available.
Not evaluated.
Standard 2.c.
Standard 2.c.
26
Standard 2.b.
Candidates have a good
foundation in literature
representative of many target
language countries.
Candidates need to include in
their portfolio a lesson plan that
addresses this element
specifically.
The program has not required
candidates to document this
disposition. Some instructors
require students to read texts of
the student’s choice outside of
class and to share that
experience informally in class.
The department assessment
committee plans to identify
ways to encourage such
assignments in selected
courses.
Standard 2.c.
Integration of other subject
areas into language instruction:
In lesson planning and
implementation, candidates
integrate content from other
subject areas. (See Appendix
A; sample 1)
Faculty and collaborating
teachers provide feedback on
the effectiveness of candidates
in teaching content in the target
language and making relevant
connections to other subject
areas.
Program graduates from the
last two years were evaluated
positively on all aspects of
content and pedagogical
knowledge, as documented on
the Candidate Performance
Instrument.
27
Though graduates have been
assessed as effective teachers,
not all elements in the
standards are captured by the
current assessment instruments.
The lesson plan evaluation
rubric will be revised for
2003/2004 to address this.
Standard 3 Matrix
Standard # 3: Language Acquisition Theories and Instructional Practices
Supporting Standard # 3.a.: Understanding Language Acquisition and Creating a Supportive Classroom. --Candidates
demonstrate an understanding of language acquisition at various developmental levels and use this knowledge to create a supportive
classroom learning environment that includes target language input and opportunities for negotiation of meaning and meaningful
interaction.
Supporting Standard # 3.b.: Developing Instructional Practices That Reflect Language Outcomes and Learner Diversity. -Candidates develop a variety of instructional practices that reflect language outcomes and articulated program models and address the
needs of diverse language learners.
How do our candidates
How do we evaluate candidate What are our findings?
What did we learn about our
demonstrate the Standard?
performance?
candidates? About our
program?
Standard 3.a.
Standard 3.a.
Standard 3.a.
Standard 3.a.
The integration of field
All graduates from the past
Faculty teaching Second
Students demonstrate
three years have completed this experiences into Second
Language Acquisition and
understanding of second
course with an “A.” Analysis of Language Acquisition and the
FLED Methods use prelanguage acquisition theories
two FLED Methods courses
current candidates enrolled in
established criteria to evaluate
on exams, presentations, and
SLA during fall, 2002, reveals: furthers the understanding of
candidates’ knowledge and
projects in the FLED courses
how, when, and why language
Strengths:
(Second Language Acquisition; application of second language
Methods, Materials and
learning occurs. More
acquisition theories, as
• Candidates are able to
Curriculum, K-8; Methods,
opportunities for classroom
demonstrated with answers to
articulate the major
Materials and Curriculum, Pobservations should be
essay questions on exams,
components of sound SLA
12).
provided when students are
writing assignments, and
theories, identify learner
introduced to acquisition
presentations.
variables that influence the
theories.
SLA process and begin to
understand the relationship
between communicative
teaching and the acquisition
process.
Weaknesses:
• Without methods
28
Candidates use the target
language for instruction and
their lessons focus on
communication tasks that
promote meaningful interaction
between the students and the
students and the teacher. They
use instructional techniques to
facilitate the negotiation of
meaning among students and
between students and
themselves. (See Appendix A,
sample 4; Appendix C, sample
3)
Supervising university faculty
and collaborating teachers
observe the candidate and
evaluate the candidate’s ability
to teach in the target language.
Candidates also evaluate
themselves in video-taped
lessons. (See Appendix C,
sample 3)
Dispositions for a creating a
supportive classroom
environment: Based on their
experience in the classroom,
candidates reflect on the role of
the teacher as facilitator and the
role of errors and feedback in
second language acquisition in
their journals.
Candidates keep a weekly
journal as part of their prestudent teaching field
experience and student teaching
semester. Journal entries receive
grades only for completion.
Standard 3.b.
Theories of learner
development and instruction:
Candidates know the particular
characteristics of the age group
Standard 3.b.
Faculty evaluate exams and
writing assignments that address
the characteristics of learners.
instruction or teaching
experience, candidates find it
difficult to discuss practice in
relation to theory.
All program graduates have
received positive evaluations at
the end of their student
teaching experience, as
documented with the Candidate
Performance Instrument. One
of the two graduates in fall,
2002, was nominated for
“Outstanding Student Teacher
of the Year” by her
collaborating teacher.
Analysis of journal entries
show that most graduates are
thoughtful, reflective beginning
practitioners, who not only
have high expectations for
themselves, but are also willing
to create a learning
environment in which their
students will thrive.
Standard 3.b.
Data from exams and writing
assignments have not been
collected.
29
The collaborating teachers are
excellent role models for our
candidates. Besides meeting all
Bagwell College of Education
requirements for selection,
collaborating teachers are
recommended by the field
placement coordinator of the
department FLED team, who
has extensive public school
experience.
Standard 3.b.
The program is successful in
laying the foundation for
graduates to become
increasingly effective
they will be certified to teach
and design age-appropriate
lessons. (See Appendix A,
sample 3 & 4; Appendix D,
sample 3)
Collaborating teachers review
the candidate’s lesson plans to
ensure that activities are
appropriate and evaluate the
candidate’s ability to implement
the lesson.
Evaluations, as documented on
the CPI, indicate that student
teachers are successful
beginning teachers.
facilitators of learning. To
better document the candidates’
expertise, a portfolio based on
the ACTFL program standards
will be required beginning in
fall, 2003.
Candidates are observed by the
supervising university faculty,
who are experts in their field.
Understanding of relationship
of articulated program models
to language outcomes:
Candidates are aware of the
foreign language program
models that exist in their state
and are able to articulate its
purpose and outcomes.
The two methods courses
include information about the
state’s program models and
curriculum designs, which
candidates summarize in a
written assignment.
Data have not been collected to
document candidates’
knowledge of program models.
The program’s assessment
plan, to be implemented in
2003/2004, will include this
element.
Adapting instruction to address
students’ language levels,
language backgrounds, learning
styles, multiple ways of
learning, and to meet students’
special needs: Candidates
design activities to reach all
students, and include
accommodations for students
with special needs.
Faculty review lesson plans and
provide feedback. Candidates
also reflect in their journals
about learning styles and
students with special needs in
their classrooms (or their
absence).
In addition to candidates’
journal reflections, the CPI has
served as the main formative
and summative evaluation tool
that provides data for analysis.
All graduates have received
positive evaluations in all
areas, indicating clear and
consistent evidence that the
outcomes have been met.
A lesson plan assessment check
list will be designed for
2003/2004 to include all of the
Standards’ elements related to
instruction.
Assessments of lesson plans
have not been collected.
However, graduates from the
A comprehensive program data
collection plan will be
implemented in 2003/2004 to
Candidates’ lesson plans are
Critical thinking, problem
evaluated by program faculty
solving, grouping, questions,
and tasks: Candidates vary their teaching the methods courses
30
classroom activities to include
pair and group work, use a
variety of elicitation
techniques, and design
appropriate tasks and followups. (See Appendix D, sample
3)
and by the collaborating
teachers who supervise the field
experiences. Both teachers
evaluate the candidates
implementation, with the
expectation that activities are
appropriate, interactive, varied,
well-organized, and focus on
communication.
past 3 years have made an “A”
in the methods courses and
have completed student
teaching successfully, with a
rating of Level 3 evidence or
higher (3=Coherent, Complete,
Consistent, & Accurate;
4=Consistent & Convincing )
provide the necessary evidence
that candidates have met all
standards.
Dispositions about student
diversity: Students are sensitive
to the needs and background of
their students, and adapt
instruction to maximize
learning.
The CPI provides formative and
summative assessment data on
candidate performance during
student teaching and addresses
the candidate's dispositions to
adapt instruction to reach all
students.
Results of evaluations by the
university supervisor and the
collaborating teacher indicate
that candidates are successful
in engaging all students in
learning.
No changes are needed in the
instruction and supervision that
candidates receive in the
program.
Standard 4 Matrix
Standard # 4: Integration of Standards into Curriculum and Instruction
Supporting Standard # 4.a.: Understanding and Integrating Standards In Planning. –Candidates demonstrate an understanding
of the goal areas and standards of the Standards for Foreign Language Learning and their state standards, and they integrate these
frameworks into curricular planning.
Supporting Standard # 4.b.: Integrating Standards in Instruction. --Candidates integrate the Standards for Foreign Language
Learning and their state standards into language instruction.
Supporting Standard # 4.c. Selecting and Designing Instructional Materials. --Candidates use standards and curricular goals to
evaluate, select, design, and adapt instructional resources.
How do our candidates
How do we evaluate
What are our findings?
What did we learn about our
demonstrate the Standard?
candidate performance?
candidates? About our
program?
31
Standard 4.a.
Understanding of goal areas and
standards; Integration of standards
into planning; Dispositions for
integrating standards into planning:
Candidates prepare lesson and unit
plans that outline objectives based
on the standards and the state
Quality Core Curriculum (QCC)
Standard 4.b.
Overall integration of standards into
instruction: Candidates use
materials that address the
Standards.
Integration of three modes of
communication: Candidates design
and implement lessons that include
opportunities for students to engage
in interpersonal, interpretive, and
presentational modes of
communication.
Standard 4.a.
Methods instructors require
lesson plans to address the
standards & QCC and
provide feedback to the
candidates. Both university
faculty and collaborating
teachers review lesson and
unit plans.
Standard 4.b.
Faculty review candidate
performance in demo
lessons in the methods
courses, videotaped lessons,
and classroom teaching.
Standard 4.a.
Lesson plans from the
methods courses have not been
collected. Lesson plans that
are created during Student
Teaching do not necessarily
identify which standards are
addressed because the
collaborating teachers make
their own decisions about
lesson plan format. However,
the foreign language
curriculum in the schools is
based on the standards and the
materials used must address
them.
Standard 4.b.
The CPI does not address
standards explicitly. However,
candidates have received
positive comments about their
teaching in all domains from
both the university supervisor
and the collaborating teacher.
Integration of cultural products,
practices, perspectives: Candidates
32
Standard 4.a.
Candidates show basic
knowledge of national and state
standards.
Integration improves as
candidates implement the
lesson plans in their teaching.
They start with demos in
methods classes, followed by
implementation in the field
experience course prior to
student teaching.
Lesson plans developed during
Student Teaching should
identify the standards.
Standard 4.b.
Need to develop a standard
rubric to evaluate candidate
performance in all teaching
opportunities, regardless of the
class for which the teaching is
required.
use materials that promote the
understanding of the target
language culture. (See Appendix B,
sample 1)
Connections to other subject areas:
The content that students learn
reinforces the other subject areas
they are taking. (See Appendix A,
sample 1)
Connections to target-language
communities: Lesson plans include
activities to learn about the target
language culture and draw on
community and internet resources
to establish connections.
Dispositions for integrating
standards into instruction:
Candidates supplement the textbook
publisher’s materials with their
own. (See Appendix B, sample 3.)
Standard 4.c.
Evaluation, selection, creation of
standards-based materials:
Candidates select existing materials
and develop additional ones based
on their knowledge of the
standards.
Use of authentic materials:
Candidates introduce authentic
materials and design appropriate
activities to adapt and make them
Standard 4.c.
Faculty evaluate materials
and discuss with the
candidate the
appropriateness of the
materials for the intended
student population.
Standard 4.c.
Evaluation of materials
indicates that:
Strengths:
• Candidates use appropriate
materials and integrate
them effectively to
enhance the curricular
objectives.
Weaknesses:
• Some candidates tend to
rely on supplemental
33
Standard 4.c.
The assessment plan for
2003/2004 will address the
need to develop standardsbased guidelines for candidates
to use in the selection of
materials and development of
corresponding activities.
appropriate for the age level. (See
Appendix B, sample 1)
materials from the
collaborating teacher.
Dispositions for locating resources
and creating materials: Candidates
use a variety of resources to
enhance their teaching and
stimulate student interest, including
material from the internet, popular
songs, etc. (See Appendix D,
sample 2)
34
Standard 5 Matrix
Standard # 5: Assessment of Languages and Cultures
Supporting Standard # 5.a.: Knowing assessment models and using them appropriately. --Candidates believe that assessment is
ongoing, and they demonstrate knowledge of multiple ways of assessment that are age- and level-appropriate by implementing
purposeful measures.
Supporting Standard # 5.b.: Reflecting on assessment. Candidates reflect on the results of student assessments, adjust instruction
accordingly, analyze the results of assessments, and use success and failure to determine the direction of instruction.
Supporting Standard # 5.c. Reporting assessment results. Candidates interpret and report the results of student performances to all
stakeholders and provide opportunity for discussion.
How do our candidates
How do we evaluate
What are our findings?
What did we learn about our
demonstrate the Standard?
candidate performance?
candidates? About our
program?
Standard 5.a.
Standard 5.a.
Standard 5.a.
Standard 5.a.
According to evaluations
Candidate performance in
Candidates design lesson and
Methods instructors evaluate
documented on the CPI,
unit plans, which include
lesson and unit plans that
regards to assessment is
candidate performance is
formative and summative
include assessment and provide documented on the Candidate
Performance Instrument (CPI). satisfactory. However, starting
assessments to measure
feedback to the candidate.
in 2003/2004 candidates will be
All program graduates since
achievement of unit objectives.
required to collect work
fall 2001, when the CPI was
samples of assessment
implemented, have received a
instruments for their portfolio
score of 3 out of 4, or higher.
Since the lesson and unit plans The collaborating teacher who
and write a narrative addressing
supervises the candidate during
have performance objectives,
the elements in Standard 5.
the plans must include
student teaching guides the
assessment of Interpersonal,
candidate in creating and
selecting appropriate
Interpretive and Presentation
assessments and also provides
communication modes, as
feedback on the candidates' and
appropriate for the age and
their students’ performance.
proficiency level of the
students. (See Appendix B,
sample 2; Appendix C, sample
2)
Instructional units implemented
35
by candidates during student
teaching are theme-based and
include global performance
assessments.
Standard 5.b.
During the year of field
experiences, candidates
evaluate student performance
and discuss results with the
collaborating teacher and make
adjustments in both instruction
and assessment, if needed.
Standard 5.b.
Collaborating teachers review
assessment results with
candidates and discuss areas for
improvement.
Candidates reflect on the
importance of assessment, and
on designing varied and
appropriate assessments. (See
Appendix A, sample 1;
Appendix D, sample 1)
Standard 5.c.
Interpretation and reporting
progress to students:
Candidates provide feedback to
students about their
performance that lets them
know how successful they are
in achieving the proficiency
outcomes.
Faculty provide feedback to
candidates on their reflections
about assessment.
Communication with
stakeholders: Candidates
Standard 5.c.
Collaborating teachers help the
candidate develop an
appropriate communication
system with students and
parents to report and discuss
assessment results.
Standard 5.b.
Candidate performance in
regards to assessment is
documented on the CPI
(Candidate Performance
Instrument). All program
graduates since fall 2001 (when
the CPI was implemented) have
received a score of 3 out of 4,
or higher.
Standard 5.b.
According to evaluations as
documented on the CPI,
candidate performance is
satisfactory. However, starting
in 2003/2004 candidates will be
required to collect work
samples of assessment
reflections for their portfolio
and write a narrative addressing
the elements in Standard 5.
Standard 5.c.
Candidate performance in
regards to assessment is
documented on the CPI. All
program graduates since fall
2001, when the CPI was
implemented, have received a
score of 3 out of 4, or higher.
Standard 5.c.
According to evaluations as
documented on the CPI,
candidate performance is
satisfactory. However, starting
in 2003/2004 candidates will be
required to collect work
samples of assessment reports
for their portfolio and write a
narrative addressing the
elements in Standard 5.
The supervising and
collaborating teachers instruct
36
provide feedback to the parents
and discuss both with the
students and their parents any
plans for improved
performance.
Dispositions for reporting
assessment results: Candidates
follow school guidelines for
reporting required assessment
results in a timely fashion and
in the appropriate format.
candidates on the school’s
assessment reporting system
and monitors candidate
compliance.
To complete student teaching
satisfactorily and receive a
positive evaluation, candidates
must report assessment results
as required by the school.
Standard 6 Matrix
37
Standard # 6: Professionalism
Supporting Standard # 6.a.: Engaging in Professional Development. Candidates engage in professional development opportunities
that strengthen their own linguistic and cultural competence and promote reflection on practice.
Supporting Standard # 6.b. Knowing the Value of Foreign Language Learning. Candidates know the value of foreign language
learning to the overall success of all students and understand that they will need to become advocates with students, colleagues, and
members of the community to promote the field.
How do our candidates
How do we evaluate
What are our findings?
What did we learn about our
demonstrate the Standard?
candidate performance?
candidates? About our
program?
Standard 6.a.
Standard 6.a.
Standard 6.a.
Standard 6.a.
Providing professional
Results from the ‘Practicing
Awareness of professional
Candidates document their
community: Candidates are
participation and memberships Professional’ section of the CPI development opportunities and
indicate that candidates are able encouraging candidates to join
encouraged to join local and
in their portfolio. (See
FL organizations are
to establish collaborative
national professional
Appendix A, sample 2;
appropriate ways to integrate
relationships with their
organizations.
Appendix C, sample 4,
professionalism into the
colleagues and participate in
Appendix D, sample 4)
curriculum. However, data
professional development
Life-long commitment to
have not been collected and
opportunities.
professional growth:
analyzed systematically. This
Candidates assess their
will be addressed in 2003/2004.
Analysis of sample candidate
language development in
FLED faculty respond to
work reveals that candidates
candidate journal entries and
journal entries and class
are aware of their shortcomings
self-evaluations.
participation self-evaluations
and know how to address them.
and reflect upon opportunities
for improvement.
Reflection as a critical tool for
growth: Candidates participate
in at least one professional
development opportunity and
reflect on that experience in
their field experience journal.
Dispositions for seeking
38
professional growth:
Candidates participate in
professional development
opportunities organized by the
university for education degree
candidates and are encouraged
to participate in foreign
language/education
conferences. (See Appendix 4,
sample 4)
Standard 6.b.
Development of a rationale for
foreign language learning:
Candidates develop rationale
for foreign language learning
and address sources and
strategies for advocacy.
Standard 6.b.
Faculty provide feedback on
rationale and advocacy project.
Accessing and employing data
to support foreign language
learning: In FLED 4412
(Methods, 9-12) candidates
design an advocacy project.
Standard 6.b.
The advocacy project
requirement was implemented
in spring, 2003. Candidates as a
whole display an emerging
ability to deal with a variety of
issues as the result of having
written short position papers
and worked in a group to
develop an “advocacy tool kit”
for K-12 teachers.
The importance of building
alliances for advocacy: In their
advocacy project, candidates
identify sources of support for
promoting K-12 foreign
language learning.
Journals are graded for
Dispositions regarding the
completeness and
value of K-12 language study:
This element is addressed in the thoroughness.
The inclusion of this element in
the journals was to be
implemented in spring 2003,
39
Standard 6.b.
The advocacy project seems to
be an appropriate way to
address Standard 6.b. and thus
will be required for all
candidates when they take
FLED 4412 (Methods 9-12).
candidate's teaching
philosophy, required as part of
student teaching. Candidates
are also encouraged to
participate in FL events
organized by the FL
community for K-12 students.
(See Appendix C, sample 4)
but no FLED candidates
enrolled in Student Teaching
that semester.
NOTE:
Candidate work samples referred to in this matrix are included in the mini-portfolios in Appendices A-D. They were selected from
candidate portfolios completed as part of student teaching during spring and fall 2002. Since the use of portfolios was implemented in
spring, 2002, only four students have enrolled in student teaching. Thus, only four portfolios were available for inclusion in this report. In
addition, since the Program Standards were not approved until October 2002, those portfolios were evaluated using the Candidate
Performance Instrument (see Appendix D, sample 3, for an example of the CPI). To successfully complete student teaching, a minimum of
Level 3 evidence in each outcome on the CPI is required. To receive a Level 3 evaluation, candidates must provide evidence that their
performance is “coherent, complete, consistent and accurate.” Since the portfolio was implemented, all candidates have completed student
teaching successfully, thereby “meeting the standard.” Therefore, portfolios that did not meet the standard are not available at this time.
Implementation of the assessment plan for 2003/2004 includes the use of formative portfolio evaluations at various points in the program.
Consequently, we expect to include mini-portfolios that “approach the standard” in future reports. In addition, by basing the portfolio on
the Program Standards instead of the Outcomes and Proficiencies on the CPI, program faculty will be able to use the Program Standards
rubrics to clearly dis inguish whether portfolios “Approach,” “Meet,” or “Exceed” the standards.
40
THE PROGRAM’S ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
“…program evaluation at KSU has as its goal to determine whether candidates are acquiring the
unit’s outcomes and as a result whether the unit is achieving its aim to develop expertise among
candidates in their initial and advanced program as teachers and leader who possess the
capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all students through
effective classroom instruction, and who enhance structures that support learning.” The unit has
developed a two-tiered evaluation system, the first of which provides comprehensive assessment
of candidate readiness and/or proficiencies at various points in the program. The primary
instrument used to assess candidates is the Candidate Performance Instrument (CPI). The CPI is
classified into three outcomes that reflect the aim of all education programs at KSU: 1) Subject
Matter Experts, 2) Facilitators of Learning, and 3)Collaborative Professionals. To successfully
complete student teaching candidates must provide clear, consistent, and convincing evidence
that the proficiencies for each outcome have been met. During 2002/2003 a portfolio based on
the CPI was implemented at the program level for final evaluation of candidates at the end of
student teaching.
The PTEU
Candidate Performance Instrument 1
(CPI)
Undergraduate Outcomes and Proficiencies
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
1. 1 Candidate possesses knowledge of discipline content,
methods of inquiry, connections to other disciplines and
applications to real life.
1.2 Candidate knows and represents content accurately to
students through the use of multiple explanations, technology
and various instructional strategies.
1.3 Candidate uses content and pedagogical knowledge to
assist students in the mastery of content in the field of study.
FACILITATORS OF LEARNING
2.1 Candidate demonstrates knowledge of how learners
develop, learn and think about subject content, as well as
successful strategies to motivate students to learn.
2.2 Candidate uses knowledge of the influences of society,
culture, community, and family on schools and learning to
create and implement instructional strategies that embody
multiple cultures and a rich, diverse curriculum.
1
KSD
NCATE Standard
K
Content
S
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
S
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
K
Pedagogical &
Professional
K
Pedagogical &
Professional
Prior to spring 2003, the FLED program used an older version of the CPI that included four domains: Learners,
Content, Pedagogy, and Professionalism. It is this version that is included as evidence in the mini-portfolios.
38
2.3 Candidate creates effective, well-managed and active
learning environments that reflect high expectations.
2.4 Candidate designs and implements instruction that employs
a variety of methods, materials, and technologies effectively to
positively impact learning of all students.
2.5 Candidate utilizes a variety of assessments to evaluate
student learning and uses the results to improve the quality of
instruction that is differentiated to accommodate students’
diversities.
COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONALS
3.1 Candidate reflects upon and improves professional
performance based on professional standards, feedback, best
practices and effective communication.
3.2 Candidate builds collaborative and respectful relationships
with colleagues, supervisors, students, parents and community
members.
3.3 Candidate displays professional and ethical behavior
consistent with recognized educational standards and codes of
ethics.
D/S
S
Pedagogical &
Professional
Pedagogical &
Professional
S
Pedagogical &
Professional
D
Disposition
D
Disposition
D
Disposition
The CPI will continue to be used during the academic year 2003/2004 for candidate evaluation.
However, the portfolio will be based on the ACTFL Program Standards and candidates will be
required to provide evidence that the elements in each standard have been met. The standards
will be integrated into the current assessment system for the FLED program, which includes the
following checkpoints:
Admission to teacher education:
To be eligible for admission to the College of Education (COE), candidates must meet both
college and FLED program requirements. Applications are reviewed and signed by the FLED
program coordinator, and forwarded to the college, where the application is processed. COE
requirements include a minimum 2.75 GPA, a passing score on the Praxis I, and the successful
completion of two introductory education courses, which include observations of foreign
language classrooms (stage 1 field experience) and leads to positive recommendations from the
instructors. Additional program-specific requirements are intermediate Spanish or French II, an
oral proficiency interview with an evaluation of Intermediate Low or higher, recommendations
from two foreign language professors who evaluate class performance and assess proficiency in
speaking, listening, reading, writing, and culture. The following changes will be implemented
during 2003/2004:
• Candidates will be introduced to the FLED portfolio immediately after admission to the
program.
• The portfolio will be based on the six ACTFL Program Standards and will be reviewed by
the FLED program faculty at various points in the program.
39
Continuous assessment of teaching field content knowledge and language proficiency:
Once candidates are admitted to the program, they are monitored by both FLED and non-FLED
faculty. Every class at the 3000 and 4000 level has content and language proficiency objectives
that are assessed at various points during the semester. The department assessment committee
has developed rubrics to evaluate proficiencies and collects data from selected courses. The
FLED program area meets at the end of each semester to analyze the data and to recommend
changes, if necessary. In addition, any concerns program faculty might have about the
performance of a particular candidate in any class are communicated to the FLED program
coordinator and discussed with the student. If appropriate, a PTEU form is filed in the
candidate’s record, along with a remediation plan. Changes to be implemented during 2003/2004
include the following:
• The department’s assessment committee will identify sources for data collection for every
upper-level course in the new French and Spanish curriculum that is expected to be
implemented in spring 2004.
• This will include both data gathered by each instructor and appropriate work samples that
candidates will collect to support the elements in the Program Standards.
• Candidates will also be responsible for collecting additional supporting evidence to include
in their FLED portfolio, to be presented prior to receiving permission to enroll in the
capstone course: SPAN or FREN 4499 (Senior Seminar).
Continuous assessment of knowledge, skills and dispositions required to become a
Learning Facilitator:
Continued participation in the teacher education program in foreign languages is contingent upon
the following factors: maintaining a 2.75 grade point average, exhibiting professional behavior in
all program courses and activities, field experiences, and interaction with PTEU staff and
faculty, and making appropriate progress towards meeting the standards, as reflected in the
performance evidence gathered in the FLED portfolio and data from program courses. The
following changes will be implemented during 2003/2004:
• In the fall, the department’s assessment committee will examine the assignments in each
FLED course and identify sources for data collection that conform to the elements in the
standards.
• This will include both data gathered by each instructor and appropriate work samples that
candidates will collect for their portfolio.
• Candidates will also be responsible for collecting additional supporting evidence to include
in their FLED portfolio, to be presented for both admission and successful completion of
FLED 4413 (Field Experiences) and FLED 4480 (Student Teaching).
Admission to first intensive field experience (stage 2 field experience):
40
Admission to the pre-student teaching field experience course (“TOSS”) is handled at the
program level. Candidates must fill out an application form, provide a copy of a good lesson plan
from one of the methods courses, and have two recommendations: one from a FLED course and
one from a recent upper-level language course. Both faculty assess the candidates readiness to
teach, including his or her language proficiency. Since this field experience is divided into two
grade levels, at the completion of each, the PTEU Candidate Performance Instrument is used to
assess candidates’ progress, the goal being level 3 evidence (meeting expectations) in all three
outcomes: Subject Matter Experts, Facilitators of Teaching, and Collaborating Professionals.
The following changes will be implemented for admission to TOSS during 2003/2004:
• A formative portfolio assessment.
• Candidates must provide evidence that their performance “Approaches the standard” for all
elements included in each Program Standard.
Admission to Student Teaching (stage 3 field experience):
The Center for Field Experiences and Partnership handles admission to student teaching once a
recommendation is made at the program level. To be admitted, the candidate must have
completed all course work, submit a lesson plan and receive a recommendations from the
appropriate methods instructor (K-8 or 9-12, depending on the grade level of the placement) and
the FLED program area faculty must determine that the candidate has the appropriate language
proficiency for the teaching assignment. To complete student teaching successfully, candidate
must achieve the program goal: level 3 or 4 evidence in most proficiencies listed in the CPI, as
determined in collaboration between candidate, collaborating teacher, and university supervisor.
The following changes will be implemented for admission to Student Teaching during
2003/2004:
• A formative portfolio assessment.
• To be admitted to student teaching, candidates must provide evidence that “meets the
standard” for Standards elements related to language and culture proficiency and
“approaches the standard” for elements related to pedagogical knowledge, skills and
dispositions, except for those related to implementation.
• To complete Student Teaching successfully, candidates must present a portfolio with clear
and consistent evidence that all six Standards have been met.
Final assessment point:
To graduate, candidates must have completed all courses in the FLED curriculum. To be
recommended for certification, the following additional requirement must be met:
• Praxis II (Content Knowledge and Productive Language Skills) in French or Spanish, with
passing scores as determined by the Professional Standards Commission.
Starting in fall 2003, all candidates must also take the official OPI and obtain a minimum rating
of Intermediate High.
41
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON THE TEACHING OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
REPORT ON PROGRAM REVIEW DECISION
X Initial Review
Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA
Program(s) Covered by this
Review
Date of Review: January 29, 2004
Program Type
Foreign Language Education Undergraduate Initial
(French or Spanish)
Award or Degree
Level(s)
Baccalaureate
Postbaccalaureate
Master’s
SECTION I.
SPA Decision on Program(s): Not nationally recognized; see comments section
(Specifics of decisions on each standard are noted in the second section of this report.)
Standards Met: 3a, 6a, 6b
Standards Not Met: 1a, 2a, 2b
Program meets or exceeds 80% pass rate on state licensure exams: Yes
Summary of Strengths:
¾ The quality of the faculty: in a small program there is a good balance of faculty
with specialties in language/literature and in FL education.
¾ Strong sequence of field experiences that include foreign language experience in
early experiences.
¾ Firm plans to train and update faculty to administer the OPI so that it may be used
diagnostically or in official testing.
¾ Strong set of methods related courses with one course that focuses on SLA theory,
one that focuses on K-8, and one on high school learners.
¾ For a first time effort under the new standards, a conscientious gathering of data
where available and recognition of where data needs to be collected in the future.
It is obvious that the institution, as one of the earliest submissions under the new
standards, understands what needs to be done but did not have time to do the
necessary data collection.
¾ The alternative certification program is good with entering proficiency set at
Advanced Low and with a strong sequence of pedagogical courses required. The
program reflects a stronf standards-based curriculum and assessment process. It
still rquires the collection of aggregated data.
¾ Evidence for Standard 6 is well documented; reliance on the institutional measure
(CPI) indicates that on Standards 3-5 work is being done but was not collected or
analyzed in terms of the foreign language standards.
Summary of Areas for Improvement:
¾ Oral proficiency testing and standard must be set at Advanced Low. An
“advanced” on the Praxis II does not equate with Advanced Low on the OPI since
the Praxis test does not permit sufficient time to demonstrate that level. Those
scoring advanced on Praxis II may or may not be Advanced Low speakers.
¾ Proficiency in other modalities is undergoing revision and efforts are being made
to measure student knowledge and skill. It will be important to follow through in
those areas before the next review so that evidence can be presented in ways that
demonstrate program outcomes.
¾ Faculty discussion must ensue to provide ways of measuring student outcomes for
Standards 1, 2 in ways other than grades. That evidence should be included in
portfolios.
¾ A systematic assessment program that tracks student work throughout the
program needs to be established so that the pedagogical and language
development evidence are both present.
Number of rejoinder copies to submit: 3
ACTFL Report on Program Review Decision
2
SECTION II.
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR EACH STANDARD
Standards
A.
Met
Fully
B.
Met With
Weakness
1.a. Demonstrating Language
Proficiency
C.
Not
Met
X
If B. or C., is
there a plan for
implementation?
Comments
Yes
Legitimate attempt to measure
language proficiency through the Praxis
but this test does not verify an
Advanced Low on the proficiency scale
for speaking. Plan is set for using the
OPI; however, goal for oral proficiency
is mentioned as Intermediate High and
that must be set at Advanced Low.
Work is ongoing to improve
assessments and rubrics for modalities
other than speaking so that evidence is
direct and not just grades in courses as
presently reported.
Yearly offerings of Advanced
Grammar and Linguistics should help.
It would also be wise to make this a
requirement or a strongly
recommended elective since only about
half of the students currently take the
course.
Program acknowledges that portfolio
structure in future years should
accommodate more specifically this
kind of evidence.
Recognition that while culture is taught
no data other than grades was collected.
Appropriate recognition also that this is
a joint responsibility of the
language/literature department for the
knowledge base and the education
faculty for assuring that evidence of
application to teaching is included.
Same as above, i.e., evidence beyond
course enrollments and grades is
needed. Plans for assessment.
1.b. Understanding Linguistics
X
Yes
1.c. Identifying Language
Comparisons
X
.Awareness
2.a. Demonstrating Cultural
Understandings
X
Awareness
2.b. Demonstrating
Understanding of
Literary/Cultural Texts and
Traditions
2.c. Integrating Other
Disciplines In Instruction
X
Awareness
3.a. Understanding Language
Acquisition & Creating a
Supportive Classroom
3.b. Developing Instructional
Practices That Reflect
Language Outcomes &
Learner Diversity
X
Yes
X
Lesson plan evaluation form will
include this during next year.
Very strong sequence of courses with
SLA treated in a full course and not
embedded with methods.
X
ACTFL Report on Program Review Decision
Yes
Portfolios based upon ACTFL/NCATE
guidelines so that documentation of
standards is included, and will be
implemented.
3
4.a. Understanding &
Integrating Standards In
Planning
X
Yes
4.b. Integrating Standards In
Instruction
X
Yes
4.c. Selecting & Designing
Instructional Materials
X
Yes
Plan to identify standards clearly in
lesson plans is a quick fix. The
university should work with its
collaborating teachers so that they add
standards aligned indicators to
whatever lesson plan format they have.
Rubrics will be developed so that the
integration of standards in the lesson
plan evidence is overt. The Candidate
Performance Instrument (CPI) used
throughout the education program
appears to be a good instrument but one
that needs some adjustment to meet the
criteria of addressing FL standards. The
program states its intent to do so.
Same as above.
5.a. Knowing Assessment
Models & Using Them
Appropriately
X
Yes
Same as above.
5.b. Reflecting on Assessment
X
Yes
Same as above.
5.c. Reporting Assessment
Results
X
Yes
Same as above.
6.a. Engaging in Professional
Development
X
Need to analyze data as stated.
However, the evidence and activities
here are strong.
6.b. Knowing the Value of
Foreign Language Learning
X
Commendation on the Advocacy
Project and development of the tool kit.
ACTFL Report on Program Review Decision
4
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION
OF TEACHER EDUCATION
REJOINDER COVER SHEET
SUBMITTED TO:
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
(Name of Professional Association)
SUBMITTED BY:
Kennesaw State University
(Name of Institution)
(Address)
1000 Chastain Rd.
(Address incl. city, state, zip)
Kennesaw, GA
INSTITUTION VISIT DATE (Semester/Year): Fall, 2004
DATE OF REJOINDER SUBMISSION: April 12, 2004
CHIEF COMPILER:
Dr. Anja Bernardy
(Please include title.)
Assistant Professor of Spanish & Foreign Language Education
PHONE & FAX NUMBER: Phone (770) 423-6603
E-MAIL ADDRESS:
Fax (770) 499-3386
[email protected]
Which programs are addressed in this rejoinder?
Program: Foreign Language Education
Degree Level: Undergraduate
Checklist of materials to be enclosed with this rejoinder:
√ Copy of most recent SPA report for each program being rejoined. (This must be included.)
√ Response to each standard or part of standard not met as stated in the SPA report,
including any documentation requested by the SPA report.
√ Response to each cited program weakness (as applicable).
√ Appendices that support any requests for reconsideration of the SPA’s judgments.
(The appendices should be cross-referenced to the main text of the rejoinder.)
Rev. 6/01
1
Response to each cited program weakness (as applicable)
Summary of Areas for Improvement:
1) Oral proficiency testing and standard must be set at Advanced Low. An “advanced” on
the Praxis II does not equate with Advanced Low on the OPI since the Praxis test does
not permit sufficient time to demonstrate that level. Those scoring advanced on Praxis II
may or may not be Advanced Low speakers.
Response:
An official OPI is now required for all FLED candidates. They must receive an
evaluation of “Advanced Low” or higher in order to complete student teaching (for the
undergraduate program) or the internship (for the alternative teacher preparation
program) successfully. This requirement was implemented in spring, 2004, and data will
be available at the end of the semester. (See p.6, Appendix A: FLED 4480 & 4498
syllabi)
2) Proficiency in other modalities is undergoing revision and efforts are being made to
measure student knowledge and skill. It will be important to follow through in those areas
before the next review so that evidence can be presented in ways that demonstrate
program outcomes.
Response:
Rubrics have been developed for writing and speaking; they are currently being piloted in
spring 2004 in two 4000-level courses: Senior Seminar and Contemporary Cultures. (See
p.23, Appendix B: Writing & Speaking Rubrics)
3) Faculty discussion must ensue to provide ways of measuring student outcomes for
Standards 1, 2 in ways other than grades. That evidence should be included in portfolios.
Response:
In fall, 2003, the department assessment committee began working an a comprehensive
assessment plan for the new BA in Modern Language and Culture, which we anticipate
will be approved by the Board of Regents for implementation in fall 2004. Under this
new major, students choose a primary language (Spanish or French), and select one of
four concentrations, one of which is Foreign Language Education (See p.26, Appendix C:
BA Summary). All student learning outcomes for the primary language and the education
concentration are based on elements of the supporting standards in the ACTFL/NCATE
Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers. The committee
completed the first two parts of the plan in fall, 2003: articulating the outcomes and
connecting them to the required program courses (See p.26, Appendix D: AOL Report,
Sections I & II). In spring, 2004, all faculty in the department agreed to become members
of the assessment committee and take responsibility for certain parts of the program. The
focus in spring was to establish the courses in which learning outcomes would be
assessed (See p.96, Appendix E: Assessment Matrix). For courses that focus on culture
and literature, department faculty discussed what activities and assignments would be
2
required in each course. It was also decided how the outcomes addressed in each course
would be assessed. (See p.98, Appendix F: Learning Outcomes for FREN & SPAN 3304,
3305, 4402, 4434 and 4499).
In addition, portfolios based on the ACTFL/NCATE Program Standards were
implemented in fall, 2003. For each supporting standard, candidates must provide clear
evidence that they have met the performance expectations described in the rubrics for that
standard. These portfolios are presented to the FLED committee at the end of student
teaching or the second semester of the internship. Each portfolio receives two formal
evaluations; if there is disagreement on the summative evaluation for any standard, a
third faculty member completes an evaluation (See p.116, Appendix G: Portfolio
Information & Rubrics).
4) A systematic assessment program that tracks student work throughout the program needs
to be established so that the pedagogical and language development evidence are both
present.
Response:
As explained previously, the department has begun implementing a comprehensive
assessment plan based on the ACTFL/NCATE Program Standards. Assessment for
courses addressing standard 1 and 2 is currently being implemented and the first set of
data to support the elements (or learning outcomes) of each standard will be available at
the end of the spring semester (See p.144, Appendix H: Assessment Plan, Phase 2003 &
2004).
3
Response to each standard or part of standard not met as stated in the SPA report
including any documentation requested by the SPA report
Standard 1.a. Demonstrating Language Proficiency
Finding: Not met
Comments:
Legitimate attempt to measure language proficiency through the Praxis but this test does not
verify an Advanced Low on the proficiency scale for speaking. Plan is set for using the OPI;
however, goal for oral proficiency is mentioned as Intermediate High and that must be set at
Advanced Low. Work is ongoing to improve assessments and rubrics for modalities other
than speaking so that evidence is direct and not just grades in courses as presently reported.
Response:
An official OPI is now required for all FLED candidates. They must receive an evaluation of
“Advanced Low” or higher in order to complete student teaching (for the undergraduate
program) or the internship (for the alternative program) successfully. This requirement was
implemented in spring, 2004, and data will be available at the end of the semester. (See p.6,
Appendix A: FLED 4480 & 4498 syllabi)
Standard 2.a. Demonstrating Cultural Understandings
Finding: Not met
Comments:
Recognition that while culture is taught no data other than grades was collected. Appropriate
recognition also that this is a joint responsibility of the language/literature department for the
knowledge base and the education faculty for assuring that evidence of application to
teaching is included.
Response:
The undergraduate degree leading to teacher certification in French or Spanish and the
alternative certification-only teacher preparation program in foreign languages are housed
within the Department of Foreign Languages. When the BA in Modern Language and
Culture was developed during 2002/2003, the department agreed to use the ACTFL/NCATE
Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers as a basis for
assessing both FLED and non-FLED students’ performance in language, literature and
culture. Once the BA proposal was approved by the appropriate curriculum committees at the
university and submitted to the Board of Regents, the department assessment committee
began working on a comprehensive assessment plan for the new major. In fall 2003, the
committee completed the first two parts of the plan: articulating the outcomes and connecting
them to the required program courses (See p.31, Appendix D: AOL Report, Sections I & II).
To conform to KSU requirements, each supporting standard was listed as a General Student
Learning Outcome (GSLO), the elements of each supporting standard were named Specific
Student Learning Outcomes (SSLOs), and the rubric category for “Meets Standard” was used
to describe the performance expectations. Since FLED students take the same language
courses as non-FLED students, standards’ elements dealing with implementation in the
4
classroom are included under courses in the FLED concentration, not the French or Spanish
courses.
In spring, 2004, the department focused on standards 1 and 2, establishing what activities and
assignments would be required in each course on culture and literature, what learning
outcomes would be assessed and how they should be assessed (See p.98, Appendix F:
Learning Outcomes for FREN & SPAN 3304, 3305, 4402, 4434 and 4499). In the fall, the
department will do the same for all other French and Spanish courses. Elements from
standards 1 and 2 not included in the Major Field assessment plan will be integrated into the
FLED concentration courses (See p.146, Appendix I: FLED Assessment Matrix). The FLED
faculty in the department are currently modifying the Unit Lesson Plan Rubric used in the
two methods courses and the Observation Instrument used during Field Experiences, Student
Teaching, and the Internship.
Standard 2.b. Demonstrating Understanding of Literary/Cultural Texts and Traditions
Finding: Not met.
Comments:
Same as above, i.e., evidence beyond course enrollments and grades is needed. Plans for
assessment.
Response:
Same as above.
5
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON THE TEACHING OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
REPORT ON PROGRAM REVIEW DECISION
X First Rejoinder
Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA
Program(s) Covered by this
Review
Program Type
Foreign Language Education Undergraduate
Date of Review: August 26, 2004
Award or Degree
Level(s)
Baccalaureate
Postbaccalaureate
Master’s
SECTION I.
SPA Decision on Program(s):
(Specifics of decisions on each standard are noted in the second section of this report.)
Nationally recognized, with conditions
Program meets or exceeds 80% pass rate on state licensure exams: yes.
Standards Met: 1a, 2 (with conditions)
Summary of Strengths:
• Faculty has made an extensive effort to respond to the previous evaluation by
participating in collaborative work on an assessment plan that reaches to the
content and pedagogical preparation of teacher education candidates.
• Positive response to setting the speaking proficiency level at Advanced Low on a
double-rated test (OPI).
• Specific student learning outcomes for courses are well aligned with the ACTFL
teacher education program standards and they are generally in performance terms.
• Significant curricular and course revision have been occurring to prepare teachers
better.
Summary of Areas for Improvement:
•
There is an issue of timeline. Much new planning has been done and
implementation is beginning. But data are still lacking and will need to be the
focus on collection and analysis.
•
The valuable exercise of scanning courses for activities that lead to assessments
should generate further discussion and investigation on the theoretical
underpinnings and effective strategies in the communicative modes. Some of the
activities mentioned need to be explored and expanded if they are to lead to
measurable performances. Continued dialogue and professional development will
advance this challenge.
Dates and terms of conditional recognition: The program is conditionally recognized
through Fall 2005. To retain recognition, the program must submit the following
documentation by Spring 2005
-
Aggregated data for Standards 1a and 2
The institution may rejoin a conditional recognition decision.
[SPA] Report on Program Review Decision
2
SECTION II.
REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR EACH STANDARD
Standards
1.a. Demonstrating Language
Proficiency
A.
Met
Fully
B.
Met With
Weakness
√
C.
Not
Met
If B. or C., is
there a plan for
implementation?
Comments
Commend instituting OPI at the
Advanced Low level for speaking
proficiency. Commend also the design
of rubrics for speaking and writing as
well as the emphasis on proficiency
assessment in all modes throught. As
these efforts are implemented and data
are collected, this could become an
exemplary area in the next review
cycle.
1.b. Understanding Linguistics
√
1.c. Identifying Language
Comparisons
√
2.a. Demonstrating Cultural
Understandings
√
2.b. Demonstrating
Understanding of
Literary/Cultural Texts and
Traditions
2.c. Integrating Other
Disciplines In Instruction
√
Movement made by identifying
measurable student outcomes with
these standards. This was done with
collaboration among pedagogical and
disciplinary faculty. Recommend
continued refinement of outcomes and
ways of assessing.
Same as above.
√
Same as above.
.
3.a. Understanding Language
Acquisition & Creating a
Supportive Classroom
3.b. Developing Instructional
Practices That Reflect
Language Outcomes &
Learner Diversity
4.a. Understanding &
Integrating Standards In
Planning
4.b. Integrating Standards In
Instruction
[SPA] Report on Program Review Decision
3
4.c. Selecting & Designing
Instructional Materials
5.a. Knowing Assessment
Models & Using Them
Appropriately
5.b. Reflecting on Assessment
5.c. Reporting Assessment
Results
6.a. Engaging in Professional
Development
6.b. Knowing the Value of
Foreign Language Learning
[SPA] Report on Program Review Decision
4