2015 Major Field Test Comparative Data Guide Major Field Test for Literature in English

Transcription

1 2015 Major Field Test Comparative Data Guide Major Field Test for Literature in English The annual Comparative Data Guide (CDG) contains tables of scaled scores and percentiles for individual student scores and institutional means drawn directly from senior test takers across the nation. The report provides descriptive statistics based on the number of students that have completed the Major Field Test (MFT) for Literature in English since it was released in September 2011 through June Information about an institution gathered through MFT administrations cannot be released in any form attributable to or identifiable with an individual institution. The anonymity of each institution s performance is maintained by reporting only the aggregate performance of the selected reference group. are descriptions of the various tables provided in this guide: Individual Students Total Score/Subscore Distributions The distributions in these tables may be used to interpret individual student results by determining what percent of those taking the test at the selected institutions attained scores below that of a particular student. Each table shows scaled score intervals for Total Score and Subscores separately. By looking up the Total Score or Subscore and reading across the row to the corresponding number in the column headed, the percent of individuals scoring below any interval can be determined. Institutional Means Total Score/Subscore Distributions The distributions in these tables present the number of institutions at each mean score level. These tables provide a way to compare the Total Score and Subscore means for your institution with those of other participating institutions you selected. These tables show the mean of means (or the average of the mean scores for those institutions/programs selected) as well as the standard deviations of those means. Institutional Assessment Indicator Mean Score Distributions The assessment indicator summary information in these tables includes the frequency distribution of departmental/program means for each assessment indicator. These tables show the distribution of institutional rounded means as well as the average and standard deviations of those means. Note that not all MFT titles in all subject areas generate subscores or assessment indicators. Please refer to the test content description for your subject area of interest at to determine which score types you should expect to generate for your MFT test subject. The following considerations should be kept in mind when interpreting comparative data: This data should be considered comparative rather than normative because the institutions included in the data do not represent proportionally the various types of higher education institutions and programs. The data are drawn entirely from institutions that choose to use MFT. Such a self-selected sample may not be representative of all institutions or programs. The number of students tested and sampling procedures vary from one institution to another. Therefore, it is impossible to verify that the students tested at each institution are representative of all the institution s students in that program. It is important that these comparisons involve students at approximately the same point in their educational careers. The tables report data for seniors only. Students who are not seniors are excluded from these calculations. The tables report data for institutions/programs that have tested five (5) or more seniors. Institutions/programs with fewer than five (5) test takers are excluded from these calculations. No single institution accounts for more than 4% percent of all the students included. For more information about this report or other ways the Major Field Tests can help your program, contact an ETS Advisor at highered@ets.org or call The following tables include tests taken as of June 30, Copyright 2015 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo and LISTENING. LEARNING. LEADING. are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS).

2 2015 Comparative Data Guide - MFT for Literature in English Institution List Data includes seniors from domestic institutions who tested between September 2011 and June Alabama A&M University, AL Albany State University, GA Allen University, SC American Public University System, WV Anderson University (SC), SC Andrews University, MI Armstrong State University, GA Asbury University, KY Austin Peay State University, TN Ave Maria University, FL Baker University - CAS, KS Benedict College, SC Benedictine College, KS Bennett College for Women, NC Berry College, GA Bethany College (WV), WV Bethel University (MN), MN Bethel University (TN), TN Bluffton University, OH Brigham Young University (HI), HI Bryan College, TN California Baptist University, CA Campbell University - Buies Creek, NC Campbellsville University, KY Capital University, OH Centenary College of Louisiana, LA Central Methodist University, MO Chadron State College, NE Charleston Southern University, SC Chatham University, PA Christian Brothers University, TN Citadel, The, SC Claflin University, SC Clayton State University, GA Colorado Christian University, CO Colorado Mesa University, CO Columbia College (MO), MO Covenant College, GA Culver-Stockton College, MO Delaware State University, DE Dickinson State University, ND East Tennessee State University, TN Eastern Mennonite University, VA Elon University, NC Emory & Henry College, VA Erskine College, SC Faulkner University, AL Felician College - Lodi, NJ Fisk University, TN Flagler College - St. Augustine, FL Fort Valley State University, GA Franklin College, IN Franklin Pierce University, NH Freed-Hardeman University, TN Georgetown College, KY Georgia Regents University, GA Georgia Southwestern State University, GA Gordon State College, GA Goshen College, IN Grove City College, PA Hastings College, NE High Point University, NC Huntingdon College, AL Indiana University - Kokomo, IN Jacksonville State University, AL Jamestown College, ND John Brown University, AR John Carroll University, OH Lander University, SC Lee University, TN Liberty University, VA Lincoln Memorial University, TN Lincoln University (MO), MO Lipscomb University, TN Longwood University, VA Louisiana State University - Alexandria, LA Louisiana State University in Shreveport, LA Louisiana Tech University, LA Malone University, OH Martin Methodist College, TN Mary Baldwin College, VA Meredith College, NC Middle Tennessee State University, TN Milligan College, TN Missouri Baptist University, MO Missouri Southern State University, MO Missouri State University, MO Missouri University of Science and Technology, MO Missouri Valley College, MO Missouri Western State University, MO Montreat College, NC Morehead State University, KY Morehouse College, GA Morris College, SC Mount Vernon Nazarene University, OH Newberry College, SC Northern State University, SD Norwich University, VT Notre Dame of Maryland University, MD Nyack College, NY Oglethorpe University, GA Olivet Nazarene University, IL Ouachita Baptist University, AR Pacific Union College, CA Patrick Henry College, VA Point Loma Nazarene University, CA Savannah State University, GA Schreiner University, TX Shepherd University, WV Sierra Nevada College, NV Southern Adventist University, TN Southern Nazarene University, OK Southern Utah University, UT Southern Virginia University, VA Southwestern Adventist University, TX St. Edward's University, TX Sterling College, KS Tennessee State University, TN Tennessee Tech University, TN Tennessee Wesleyan College, TN MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 2

3 Texas A&M International University, TX Texas A&M University - Texarkana, TX Thomas More College, KY Trevecca Nazarene University, TN Trinity Christian College, IL Troy University - Troy, AL University of Arkansas - Fayetteville, AR University of Central Arkansas, AR University of Central Missouri, MO University of Louisiana at Monroe, LA University of Memphis, TN University of Mississippi, MS University of Missouri - St. Louis, MO University of Mobile, AL University of Montevallo, AL University of Mount Olive, NC University of North Alabama, AL University of Northwestern St. Paul, MN University of Pikeville, KY University of Southern Indiana, IN University of St. Thomas (TX), TX University of Tennessee - Knoxville, TN University of Tennessee at Martin, TN University of the Cumberlands, KY University of West Alabama, AL Victory University, TN Virginia Union University, VA Walla Walla University, WA Warner Pacific College, OR Wesleyan College, GA Williams Baptist College, AR Wilmington College, OH Wingate University, NC Winthrop University, SC Copyright 2015 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo and LISTENING. LEARNING. LEADING. are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS). MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 3

4 2015 Comparative Data Guide - MFT for Literature in English Individual Students Total Score Distribution Data includes seniors from domestic institutions who tested between September 2011 and June Number of Examinees Mean Median Standard Deviation 4, Individual Students Total Score Distribution Total Score Range ( ) MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 4

5 Total Score Range ( ) Total Scores are reported as scaled scores. based on percent below the lower limit of the score interval. Copyright 2015 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo and LISTENING. LEARNING. LEADING. are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS). MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 5

6 2015 Comparative Data Guide - MFT for Literature in English 1 Individual Students Subscore Distribution Data includes seniors from domestic institutions who tested between September 2011 and June Subscore Number of Examinees Mean Median Standard Deviation 1: Literature 1900 and Earlier 2: Literature 1901 and Later 3: Literary Analysis 4: Literary History and Identification 4, , , , Individual Students Subscore Distribution Subscores Range (20 100) S1 2 S2 2 S3 2 S MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 6

7 Subscores Range (20 100) S1 2 S2 2 S3 2 S Subscores for this test cannot be compared to testing years prior to 2011 due to changes in the Literature in English Test that were introduced in MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 7

8 2 Subscore 1: Literature 1900 and Earlier Subscore 2: Literature 1901 and Later Subscore 3: Literary Analysis Subscore 4: Literary History and Identification Copyright 2015 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo and LISTENING. LEARNING. LEADING. are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS). MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 8

9 2015 Comparative Data Guide - MFT for Literature in English Institutional Means Total Score Distribution Data includes seniors from domestic institutions who tested between September 2011 and June Number of Institutions Mean Median Standard Deviation Institutional Means Total Score Distribution Mean Total Score Range ( ) MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 9

10 Mean Total Score Range ( ) Total Scores are reported as scaled scores. based on percent below the lower limit of the score interval. Copyright 2015 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo and LISTENING. LEARNING. LEADING. are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS). MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 10

11 2015 Comparative Data Guide - MFT for Literature in English 1 Institutional Means Subscore Distribution Data includes seniors from domestic institutions who tested between September 2011 and June Subscore 1: Literature 1900 and Earlier 2: Literature 1901 and Later 3: Literary Analysis 4: Literary History and Identification Number of Examinees Mean Median Standard Deviation Institutional Means Subscore Distribution Subscores Range (20 100) S1 2 S2 2 S3 2 S MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 11

12 Subscores Range (20 100) S1 2 S2 2 S3 2 S Subscores for this test cannot be compared to testing years prior to 2011 due to changes in the Literature in English Test that were introduced in Subscore 1: Literature 1900 and Earlier Subscore 2: Literature 1901 and Later Subscore 3: Literary Analysis Subscore 4: Literary History and Identification MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 12

13 Copyright 2015 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo and LISTENING. LEARNING. LEADING. are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS) Comparative Data Guide - MFT for Literature in English 1 Institutional Assessment Indicator Mean Score Distributions Data includes seniors from domestic institutions who tested between September 2011 and June Assessment Indicator 1: British Literature Pre : British Literature : American Literature to : British and American Literature : Literature in English Since : Literary History Number of Institutions Mean Median Standard Deviation : Identification : Literary Theory Mean Correct Institutional Assessment Indicator Mean Score Distributions A1 2 A2 2 A3 2 A4 2 A5 2 A6 2 A7 2 A MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 13

14 Mean Correct A1 2 A2 2 A3 2 A4 2 A5 2 A6 2 A7 2 A ¹ Assessment Indicators for this test cannot be compared to testing years prior to 2011 due to changes in the Literature in English test that were introduced in Assessment Indicator 1: British Literature Pre-1660 Assessment Indicator 2: British Literature Assessment Indicator 3: American Literature to 1900 MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 14

15 Assessment Indicator 4: British and American Literature Assessment Indicator 5: Literature in English Since 1945 Assessment Indicator 6: Literary History Assessment Indicator 7: Identification Assessment Indicator 8: Literary Theory Assessment Indicators are reported as percent correct. based on percent below the lower limit of the score interval. Copyright 2015 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo and LISTENING. LEARNING. LEADING. are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS). MFT 2015 Comparative Data Guide Page 15