Standard 1 Aspect C

Standard 1c: Evidence shows that, by the time of program completion, candidates exhibit knowledge, skills, and abilities of professional educators appropriate to their target credential or degree, including: Culturally responsive practice, including intersectionality of race, ethnicity, class, gender identity and expression, sexual identity, and the impact of language acquisition and literacy development on learning

---

Data Sources & Analysis:

Data Source 1

LEE 213 Theory to Practice Inquiry

Perspective Captured from Data Source:
Instructor

Rationale for using Data Source:
LEE 213, Teaching the Language Arts K-12, is a course our candidates take during their first semester in the Reading/Literacy program. The course focuses on developing candidates’ knowledge about integrating the language arts, reading-writing connections, and using language arts in literature-based reading programs.

A key assignment in the course--and of the program as a whole--is a Theory to Practice Inquiry the candidates conduct. Students select a topic of inquiry driven by their professional experiences teaching language arts. 

The overall assignment is scored using a rubric. For the purposes of determining whether or not our candidates have the necessary knowledge regarding culturally responsive practices, we chose to focus on the rubric dimension “Context.” This component assesses candidates’ ability to examine the sociocultural context of the inquiry site and to effectively use this knowledge of students and community to integrate different modes of communication and expression through language arts to support meaning-making for diverse learners.

Specific Elements of Data Source Using:
LEE 213 Theory to Practice Inquiry Project Rubric Item: Context

Definition of Success for Each Element:
As a program, our goal is for candidates to score at least at the Developing level, which equates to a score of 2. This demonstrates that candidates exhibit an ability to at least identify general sociocultural factors of the inquiry site and an ability to apply some of this knowledge to implement instruction that supports diverse learners’ meaning-making. Our goal is for at least 75% of candidates to meet this learning outcome.

Displays of Analyzed Data:

Link to Full Dataset:

• 2018-19 SOAP Data
• 2019-20 SOAP Data
• 2020-2021 SOAP Data

Interpretation of Data:
Data from 2018-2020 indicate that program candidates demonstrated a strong ability to identify and analyze how various sociocultural factors influence language and literacy development. Over the three years of data analyzed, mean scores for the ‘Context’ rubric component consistently exceeded the program goal of 2.0.

Data Source 2

Reading, Language, Literacy Specialist Credential Comprehensive Exam Item: LEE 215

Perspective Captured from Data Source:
Program Faculty

Rationale for using Data Source:
The comprehensive exam (CE) is a culminating experience option for students. There are potential questions students prepare to answer. During the exam, students are given five of these questions and must select and respond to three. We currently only have data from Summer and Fall 2020 comprehensive exams. 

Specific Elements of Data Source:
Comprehensive exam scores for the following questions: 

215A: How can educators optimize culture and language as a bridge to literacy learning and the acquisition of reading? Include the cultural and socio-cultural factors involved in language acquisition that could influence the development of literacy skills. Be sure to reference authors and research to support your answers.

215B: What are the similarities, differences, and relationships between LI and L2 literacy development and interactions they cause in learning to read and comprehend in a second language? How does that help you think about the education of English learners? Reference research and authors to support your answer. 

Exam responses are scored using the Reading/Language Arts Comprehensive Exam Rubric 

Scores are calculated as an average of the total rubric score. 

Definition of Success for Each Element:
An average score of 2 is considered passing, while a mean score of ≥3 is considered to have met the learning outcome. 75% of students are expected to meet the learning outcome.

Displays of Analyzed Data:

Tables of Overall Scores

 

Tables of Individual Student Scores

 

Link to Full Dataset:

• 2019-20 SOAP Data

Interpretation of Data:
Overall, data demonstrate that candidates are successfully able to discuss and apply concepts related to language and literacy development. As the tables above show, all candidates passed these items on the exam. However, only 20% of the candidates demonstrated meeting the learning outcome for item A, and only 80% demonstrated meeting the learning outcome for item B. This is an area of concern that we will need to address in the future.

It is additionally problematic that we only have data from two iterations of the exam, and so we will need to continue to analyze the data moving forward.

Data Source 3

Reading, Language, Literacy Specialist Credential Completer Survey

Perspective Captured from Data Source:
Completer

Rationale for using Data Source:
Beginning in Fall 2020, the RLLSC Program began administering a survey to candidates upon their completion of the program as a way to learn more about their perceptions of how well the program prepared them.

Using the RLLSC Completer Survey allows us to capture candidates’ perceptions of how well the program prepared them to understand and apply culturally responsive instructional practices.

Specific Elements of Data Source Using:

Definition of Success for Each Element:
Programmatically, our goal is for candidates to rate the program at a 4 or a 5 within each area.

Displays of Analyzed Data:

Link to Full Dataset:
RLLSC Program Completion Survey Data (Names Redacted)

Interpretation of Data:
Because the program only began administering the completion survey in Fall 2020, we only have one cycle of data to analyze. Of the 12 completers surveyed, all provided responses for a response rate of 100%.

Overwhelmingly, the completers who responded indicated they strongly agreed that the program prepared them with the knowledge and skills to implement culturally responsive instructional practices, particularly with emergent bilingual students.

Next Steps:
Overall findings from all data sources indicated that program completers are prepared to use culturally responsive practices and the impact of language acquisition and literacy development on learning. However, through this process we realized that the rubric assessment measure may need to be more nuanced to capture how candidates’ use culturally responsive practices. Additionally, the comprehensive exam findings indicate a need to more clearly address these components in the LEE 215 coursework. 

Our program will examine the existing LEE 213 Theory to Practice Inquiry rubric and LEE 215 coursework by adding a new required text, Rooted in Strength: Using Translanguaging to Grow Multilingual Readers and Writers and develop revisions that better capture the culturally and linguistically responsive practices we aim to develop in our candidates. Our goal will be to pilot the revised rubric and coursework in the 2021-2022 academic year. 

Aspect D →