Department Assessment Report
Department: Professional Studies / READING
Academic Year:
April 2013
School: Education
I.
Department Mission Statement
The Department of Professional Studies is committed to excellence in the educational preparation of highly qualified
professionals who meet the needs of a dynamic pluralistic society. The department provides intellectually challenging,
accredited programs including academic and clinical experiences predicated on ethical scholarship, research, and
service. Dedicated faculty strive to facilitate the development of leader-practitioners with the knowledge, skills and
dispositions necessary to excel in professional careers related to Counseling, Educational Leadership, Reading, and
School Psychology.
A.
List all Reading degree programs offered in your department.
Masters in Reading
Reading Specialist Certification
B.
On the following pages, please list the learning objectives that have been developed/revised for each degree
program. Then identify the courses by number and title that are required to meet the learning objectives. If
your department has more than one degree program, please keep the learning objectives for each program on a
separate sheet.
C.
Following the list of learning objectives, please identify the instruments that were used to assess the learning
objectives for the program identified in B. Also, include a summary of the data and the recommendations for
curriculum changes.
A.
Learning Objectives for:
B.
Objective 1:
Masters in Reading
IRA Standard I: Foundational Knowledge.
Candidates have knowledge of the foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction.
Courses:
C.
READ 706 Foundations of Literacy: Theory and Instruction
Objective 2:
IRA Standard II: Curriculum and Instruction.
Candidates use a wide range of instructional, approaches, methods, and curriculum materials to support reading and writing instruction.
Courses:
D.
READ 707 Literacy Instruction for the Content Area Professional
Objective 3:
IRA Standard III: Assessment, Diagnosis, and Evaluation.
Candidates use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective reading instruction.
Courses:
E.
READ 709 Literacy Difficulties: Assessment and Intervention
Objective 4:
IRA Standard IV: Creating a Literate Environment.
Candidates create a literate environment that fosters reading and writing by integrating foundational knowledge, use of instructional practices,
approaches and methods, curriculum materials, and the appropriate use of assessments.
Courses:
F.
READ 712 Reading Clinic
READ 708
Objective 5:
IRA Standard V: Professional Development
Candidates recognize the importance of, demonstrate, and facilitate professional learning and leadership as a career-long effort and responsibility.
Courses:
READ 710 Organization, Administration, and Supervision of Reading Programs
G.
Summary of Assessments for:
Objective
Number
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Graduate Programs in Reading
Assessment Method (ie; Portfolios,
Pre/Post Test, Focus Groups, Surveys,
etc.)
Where Assessed? (ie;
Course, Sequence of
Courses, other)
Annotated Bibliography and
Review of the Literature
Assignment
Inclusive Classroom Project
READ706 grade
PRAXIS
Supplemental
Literacy
Strategies for
Content Area
Lessons (SLP)
ELL Lesson Plan
Case Study
Clinic Performance Portfolio
Professional Development
Presentation Project
Criteria used to measure level
of performance. (ie; scoring
scales, rubrics)
Grade of B or better
PRAXIS 164
Sampling strategy, if
appropriate
When is data collected?
Full population
Each semester; beginning of
program
READ702 grade
PRAXIS
Grade of B or better
PRAXIS 164
Full Population
Each semester; beginning of
program
READ 707 grade
PRAXIS
Grade of B or better
PRAXIS 164
Full Population
End of program
READ 708 grade
PRAXIS
READ709 grade
PRAXIS
READ712 grade
PRAXIS
READ710 grade
PRAXIS
Grade of B or better
PRAXIS 164
Full Population
Middle to end of program; each
semester
Grade of B or better
PRAXIS 164
Full Population
Middle to end of program;
spring semester and summer
Grade of B or better
PRAXIS 164
Full Population
End of program; summer
Grade of B or better
PRAXIS 164
Full Population
End of program; each semester
The Summary of Data that appears below relates to the above Assessments that are matched to Objectives and Standards
from the International Reading Association. These assessments address multiple standards and have been highlighted here in
this report because they are the most comprehensive in addressing the content knowledge, pedagogy, student learning, and
dispositions necessary for program completion.
Objective Number
Summary of Data
Strengths/Concerns evident in Data
Recommendations/program changes based on
Data
1.
Annotated
Bibliography and
Review of the
Literature Project
The standards identified in the
Annotated Bibliography and Review
of the Literature Project include the
following: IRA Standards 1.1, 1.2,
1.3, 6.2. The data were collected
from 40 candidates in Spring 2012
and 40 candidates in Fall 2012.
Based on the evidence, the following
information can be surmised: 98% of
the candidates met the standards for
the Annotated Bibliography and
Review of the Literature Project
within the acceptable or target range.
Data related to IRA Standard 1.1
indicates that 92% (Spring 2012) and
92% (Fall 2012) were performing at
the target level with 8% and 8%
respectively at acceptable range.
None were at the unacceptable
range.
Data related to the IRA Standard
1.2 indicates that 77% (Spring 2012)
and 77% (Fall 2012) were
performing at the target level with
11% and 11% respectively at the
acceptable range. The developing
range indicated 11% and 11%
respectively. None were at the
unacceptable range.
Data related to IRA Standard 1.3
indicates that 71% (Spring 2012) and
71% (Fall 2012) were performing at
the target level with 17% and 17% at
the acceptable range. The
Developing range indicated 11% and
The data derived from the Annotated
Bibliography and Review of the
Literature Project demonstrates a strong
understanding of the content knowledge,
pedagogy and student learning required
for a meaningful learning experience.
Course content has been adjusted and
enhanced to address the statistics
generated among the elements including:
research methods and symbiotic
relationship of literacy elements. Based
on the evidence presented, candidates
meet the standards.
The project was revised to include a more
structured approach to the initial research
experience and the incorporation of
theory. These adjustments have been
made based upon data and ongoing
feedback. In addition, the title of the
project was changed in order to better
reflect the learning experience.
2.
Inclusive Classroom
Project
11% respectively. None were at the
unacceptable range.
Data related to IRA Standard 6.2
indicates that 88% (Spring 2012) and
88% (Fall 2012) were performing at
the target level with 10% and 10% at
the acceptable range. The
unacceptable range indicated 2% and
2% respectively.
The standards identified in the
Inclusive Classroom Project include
the following: IRA Standards 1.1,
2.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.2, 6.2. The data
were collected from 46 candidates in
Spring 2012 and 20 candidates in
Summer 2012. Based on the
evidence, the following information
can be surmised: depending on the
standard, between 52 and 100% of
the candidates met the standards for
the Inclusive Classroom Project
within the acceptable or target range.
Data related to IRA Standard 1.1
indicates that 65% (Spring 2012) and
70% (Summer 2012) were
performing at the target level with
10% and 5% respectively at
developing range. 23% and 25%
respectively were at the unacceptable
range.
Data related to the IRA Standard
2.1 and 5.2 indicate that 65% (Spring
2012) and 70% (Summer 2012) were
performing at the target level with
10% and 8% respectively at the
acceptable range. The developing
The data derived from the Inclusive
Classroom Project reflects a need for
strong guidance in developing the
underlying content knowledge, pedagogy
and student learning required for a
meaningful learning experience in the
diverse classroom. Course content has
been adjusted and enhanced to address the
needed learning experiences which
address a variety of diverse situations
with students in the classroom. Based on
the evidence presented, candidates meet
the standards.
The project was revised to include
assistive technologies and in-depth study
of a variety of diverse needs in the
classroom. These adjustments have been
made based upon data and ongoing
feedback. In addition, guidelines for the
project were revised and more specific
guidelines for the discussion boards on
specific needs better reflect the expected
learning experience. In addition,
guidelines for the project and the
discussion boards on specific needs were
revised to better reflect the expected
learning experience.
range indicated 8% and 10%
respectively. 14% and 15%
respectively were at the unacceptable
range.
Data related to IRA Standard 4.1
indicates that 65% (Spring 2012) and
80% (Summer 2012) were
performing at the target level with
20% and 10% at the acceptable
range. The developing range
indicated 13% and 10% respectively.
None were at the unacceptable
range.
Data related to IRA Standard 4.2
indicates that 65% (Spring 2012) and
100% (Summer 2012) were
performing at the target level with
17% and 0% at the acceptable range.
The developing range indicated 15%
and 0% respectively and the
unacceptable range indicated 2% and
0% respectively.
Data related to IRA Standard 4.3
indicates that 57% (Spring 2012) and
52% (Summer 2012) were
performing at the target level with
26% and 0% at the acceptable range.
The developing range indicated 10%
and 10% respectively and the
unacceptable range indicated 10%
and 10% respectively.
Data related to IRA Standard 6.2
indicates that 73% (Spring 2012) and
95% (Summer 2012) were
performing at the target level with
19% and 5% at the acceptable range.
3.
Supplemental
Literacy Strategies
for Content Area
Lesson Assignment
The developing range indicated 6%
and 0% respectively and none were
in the unacceptable range.
The standards identified in the
Supplemental Literacy Strategies for
Content Area Lessons (SLP) include
the following: IRA Standards 1.1,
1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 4.3, 5.2, 6.2, 6.3. The
data were collected from 25
candidates during the Spring 2012
and 15 during Fall 2012 sessions.
Data related to IRA Standards 1.1
indicates 100% (Spring 2012) 100%
(Summer 2012) of the reading
candidates are performing at target
level.
Data related to IRA Standards 1.3
indicates 100% (Spring 2012) 100%
(Summer 2012) of the reading
candidates are performing at target
level.
Data related to IRA Standard 2.2
indicates 100% (Spring 2012) 100 %
(Summer 2012) at target level.
Data related to IRA Standard 2.3
indicates 100 % (Spring 2012) 100%
(Summer 2012) of the reading
candidates met target level.
Data related to IRA Standard 4.3
indicates 100% (Spring 2012) 100%
(Summer 2012) of the reading
candidates met target level.
Data related to IRA Standard 5.2
indicates 100% (Spring 2012) 100%
(Summer 2012) of the reading
candidates met target level.
The components of literacy for the
Supplemental Literacy Strategies for
Content Area Lessons (SLP) are
demonstrated and modeled through lesson
development which includes integrating
these into the content area. Candidates
share best practices and work with
partners to follow course topics and
develop lessons on the components of
reading, which expand the student’s
learning of the content material. The data
reflects a clear and consistent
understanding of the knowledge, skills,
and dispositions necessary to successfully
complete the Supplemental Literacy
Strategies for Content Area Lessons. In so
doing, the candidate demonstrates
capability of meeting the IRA Standards
delineated.
While in general, the majority of
candidates were successful in meeting
these standards it was noted that 4% (one
student in Spring 2012) exhibited an
unacceptable response for Standard 6.2.
Each candidate can refer to the knowledge
of psychological, sociological, and
linguistic foundation of reading and
writing processes of instruction. This
indicates that while gains have been made
the 4% of the Spring 2012 candidates
required guidance in this area.
In the Spring and summer of 2012,
candidates achieved at 100% on
The project is successfully completed by
the majority of the candidates. In
previous assessments, adjustments have
been made based upon data and ongoing
feedback in order to better reflect the
learning experience.
Data related to IRA Standard 6.3
indicates 100% (Spring 2012) 100%
(Summer 2012) of the reading
candidates met target level.
Data related to IRA Standard 6.2
indicates 96% (Spring 2012) 100%
(Summer 2012) of the reading
candidates met target level and 4%
and 0% respectively were at the
unacceptable range.
Standards 1.1, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 4.3, 5.2, 6.3.
This gain indicates that the guidance
provided, after the last cycle of data,
benefited the candidates’ performance.
While 4% of the Spring and Fall 2012
candidates (1) required additional
guidance and instruction in relation to
Standard 6.2 Professional Dispositions.
We continue to assist students in this area
which also includes adherence to the APA
Style format.
4.
ELL Lesson Plan
No data available.
The inclusion of this course meets
State and IRA guidelines for Reading
Professionals. It has been included in
the assessment data for the program
and data will be collected from this
point forward.
This project was added as a major
assessment in the program since the last
data analysis. This adjustment has been
made based upon a new standard being
incorporated into the newly revised IRA
standards for Reading Professionals. This
Standard is as follows: The Diversity
Standard focuses on the need to prepare
teachers to build and engage their students
in a curriculum that places value on the
diversity that exists in our society, as
featured in elements such as race,
ethnicity, class, gender, religion, and
language. This standard is grounded in a
set of principles and understandings that
reflect a vision for a democratic and just
society and inform the effective
preparation of reading professionals.
5.
Case Study
The standards identified in this
project include the following: IRA
Standards 1.3, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4,
4.1, 5.4, and 6.2
The data derived from the Case Study
indicates that a high percentage of
candidates possess a clear understanding
of the content knowledge, pedagogy, and
The project is successfully completed by
the majority of the candidates. In
previous assessments, adjustments have
been made based upon data and ongoing
The data were collected from 124
candidates in Spring 2012 and from
11candidates in Summer 2012.
Based on the evidence, the following
information can be surmised: 97% of
the candidates for Spring 2012 met
the standards for the Case Study
within the acceptable or target range
and 91% of the candidates for
Summer 2012 met the standards for
the Case Study within the acceptable
or target range.
Data related to IRA Standard 3.1
indicates that 70% (Spring 2012) and
81% (Summer 2012) of the reading
specialist candidates are performing
at the target level with 21% and 0%
respectively achieving an acceptable
level for the development and
utilization of assessment tools. The
candidates performed at 6% and 9%
respectively in the developing range
and 2% and 1% respectively in the
unacceptable range.
Data related to IRA Standard 2.2
and 5.4 indicates that 67% (Spring
2012) and 45% (Summer 2012) of
the reading specialist candidates are
performing at the target level with
22% and 18% respectively achieving
an acceptable level for the analysis
of the assessment given during the
Case Study. The candidates also
performed at 7% and 18%
student learning required for a meaningful
learning experience. Candidates
completing the Case Study gain
understanding of the processes of
choosing, administering, and interpreting
formal and informal assessment measures
to determine proficiencies and difficulties
of the client and make plans for
instruction which builds upon their
knowledge of the foundations of reading
and writing processes. Candidates can
clearly communicate assessment results
and recommendations for instruction to
teachers, parents, and other audiences. In
some instances, candidates require
additional guidance with analysis of
assessment data and making clear a clear
diagnosis from assessment data. It is
apparent that some candidates require
additional guidance with the reflection
and bibliography sections of the report to
reflect a greater emphasis on making
connections between theory and research
and actual assessment and instructional
practices.
feedback in order to better reflect the
learning experience. The students gain a
great deal of knowledge and experience in
assessment selection, administration, and
interpretation. The program was changed
from a Cohort Model to an Open
Enrollment Model two years ago and we
are adjusting the scheduling of the course
to meet student needs. The course was
only offered in the Spring semester
because it was paired with the Summer
offering of the clinical. We then added a
section in the first summer session and
have been collecting data on that offering.
We are discussing the placement of this
course in the Fall semester and will make
that decision in the next scheduling cycle.
respectively in the developing range
with 2% and 18% respectively in the
unacceptable range.
Data related to IRA Standard 3.2
was very consistent and indicates
that 66% (Spring 2012) and 72%
(Summer 2012) of the reading
specialist candidates are performing
at the target level with 26% and 27%
respectively achieving an acceptable
level and 7% and 0% respectively at
the developing level and 1% and 0%
respectively at the unacceptable level
when they made diagnoses using
assessment results.
Data related to IRA Standards 3.3
indicates that between 67%(Spring
2012) and 67% (Summer 2012) of
the reading specialist candidates are
performing at the target level with
approximately 17% and 36%
achieving an acceptable level, 9%
and 0% respectively at the
developing level and 9% and 0%
respectively at the unacceptable level
in their analysis of assessment.
Data related to IRA Standards 3.4
indicates that between 70% (Spring
2012) and 90% (Summer 2012) of
the reading specialist candidates are
performing at the target level with
approximately 15% and 9%
achieving an acceptable level, 9%
and 0% respectively at the
developing level and 3% and 0%
respectively at the unacceptable level
in their analysis of assessment.
Data related to IRA Standards 4.1
indicates that between 89% (Spring
2012) and 81% (Summer 2012) of
the reading specialist candidates are
performing at the target level with
approximately 8% and 9% achieving
an acceptable level, 1% and 9%
respectively at the developing level
with none at the unacceptable level
in their Parent Interview information.
6.
Clinic Performance
Portfolio
Data related to IRA Standards 6.2
indicates that between 64% (Spring
2012) and 81% (Summer 2012) of
the reading specialist candidates are
performing at the target level with
approximately 22% and 9%
achieving an acceptable level, 10%
and 0% respectively at the
developing level and 9% and 2%
respectively at the unacceptable level
in their analysis of assessment.
The standards identified in this
project include the following: IRA
Standards 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1,
3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1,
5.2, and 5.3. The data were collected
from 159 candidates in Summer
2011. Based on the evidence, the
following information can be
surmised: 88% of the candidates for
The data derived from the Clinic
Portfolio indicates that a high percentage
of candidates possess a clear
understanding of the content knowledge,
pedagogy, and student learning required
for completion of the Clinic Portfolio.
This experience provided a venue to
demonstrate and evaluate
their effect on student learning and
Data from Summer 2011 was used due to
a problem with retrieving data from Live
Text for the Summer 2012 sessions. The
project is successfully completed by the
majority of the candidates. In previous
assessments, adjustments have been made
based upon data and ongoing feedback in
order to better reflect the learning
experience. The students gain a great deal
Summer 2011 met the standards for
the Clinic Portfolio within the
acceptable or target range.
Data related to IRA Standards 1.2
indicates that 98% (Summer 2011)
of the reading specialist candidates
are performing at the target level
with 1% achieving an acceptable
level for the creation of lesson plans
within the portfolio. None of the
candidates received a score of
unacceptable in this portion of the
assessment.
Data related to IRA standard 1.4
and 3.3 indicates that 88% (Summer
2011) of the reading specialist
candidates are performing at the
target level with 10% achieving an
acceptable level and 1% achieving at
the developmental level for the
development and utilization of
assessment tools. None of the
candidates received a score of
unacceptable in this portion of the
assessment.
Data related to IRA Standard 2.1
was very consistent and indicates
that 100% (Summer 2011) of the
reading specialist candidates are
performing at the target level.
Data related to IRA Standards 5.1
96% of the reading specialist
provide supportive learning environments
for student learning. Candidates
completing the Portfolio were successful
in their demonstration of the processes of
choosing, administering, and interpreting
formal and informal assessment measures
to determine proficiencies and difficulties
of clients. They were well prepared to
provide plans for instruction which builds
upon their knowledge of the foundations
of reading and writing processes.
The data supports that the candidates
demonstrate positive dispositions in the
process of clinical service in the
community and produce effective
reflections on their teaching practices. In
review of the data related to the final
report, in some instances, candidates may
require additional guidance and practice
in the analysis of assessment data and
determining a clear diagnosis from such
data.
Observations of the candidates confirms
that candidates in this program are well
prepared to serve in the capacity of
reading specialists as they would make
curriculum and instructional decisions
related to individual and group reading
performances.
of knowledge and experience in
assessment selection, administration, and
interpretation. The program was changed
from a Cohort Model to an Open
Enrollment Model two years ago and we
are adjusting the scheduling of the course
to meet student needs. This course
requires all candidates to do an oncampus clinical experience and is only
offered in the Summer. It is paired with
the assessment course. We are constantly
reevaluating our clinical sites and
working closely with these community
partners to provide the most optimal
experience for our candidates and the
clients.
candidates in Summer 2011 are
performing at the target level with
about 3% receiving scores of
acceptable. None of the candidates
received a score of unacceptable in
this portion of the assessment.
Data related to IRA Standard 2.3
and 4.2 indicates that 95% (Summer
2011) of the reading specialist
candidates are performing at the
target level 3% achieving an
acceptable level for the utilization of
a variety of curriculum materials
while in the clinical experience.
None of the candidates received a
score of unacceptable in this portion
of the assessment.
Data related to IRA Standard 3.1
indicates that 87% (summer 2011)
of the reading specialist candidates
are performing at the target level
with 11% achieving an acceptable
and 1% achieved in the developing
level for their reflections on their
clinical experiences. None of the
candidates received an unacceptable
level in this portion of the
assessment.
Data related to IRA Standard 3.2
was very consistent and indicates
that 82% (Summer 2011) of the
reading specialist candidates are
performing at the target level with
15% achieving an acceptable level
and 1% at the developing level as
they were observed during their
clinical experiences. None
of the candidates received a score of
unacceptable in this portion of the
assessment.
Data related to IRA Standards 3.4
and 4.1 indicates that 81% (Summer
2011) of the reading specialist
candidates are performing at the
target level with 16% achieving an
acceptable level and 1% at the
developing level in shared
communications with parents and
teachers.
Data related to IRA Standards 4.3
and 4.4 indicates that 95% (Summer
2011) of the reading specialist
candidates are performing at the
target level with 3% achieving an
acceptable level in their one on one
teaching performance.
Data related to IRA Standards 5.1
and 5.3 indicates that 99% (Summer
2011) of the reading specialist
candidates are performing at the
target level in their dispositions.
7.
Professional
Development
Presentation
The standards identified in this
project include the following: IRA
Standards 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.3, 4.2,
6.1, 6.2 and 6.3. The data were
The Professional Development
Presentation Project
helps teachers select appropriate options
and explain the evidence-base for
Based on the data, the Reading Program
faculty have revised the Professional
Development Project in several ways. We are
developing a set of guidelines for assisting
candidates in finding and relating the
collected from 43 candidates in
Spring 2012 and from 47 candidates
in Fall 2012. Based on the evidence,
the following information can be
surmised: 83% of the candidates for
Spring 2012 and Fall 2012 met the
standards for the Professional
Development Presentation Project
within the acceptable or target range.
Data related to IRA Standards 1.1
indicates that 75% (Spring 2012) and
68% (Fall 2012) of the reading
specialist candidates are performing
at the target level with 13% and 16%
respectively achieving an acceptable
level and 4% and 6% respectively at
the developing level. 6% and 8% of
the candidates received a score of
unacceptable in this portion of the
assessment.
Data related to IRA Standards 1.2
indicates that 75% (Spring 2012) and
56% (Fall 2012) of the reading
specialist candidates are performing
at the target level with 15% and 29%
respectively achieving an acceptable
level and 6% and 12% respectively
achieved at the developing level with
2% and 2% respectively of the
candidates received a score of
unacceptable in this portion of the
assessment.
Data related to IRA Standards 2.1
selecting practices to best meet the needs
of all students; demonstrate the options
and explain the evidence-based rationale
for changing configurations to best meet
the needs of all students; employ
characteristics of sound professional
development programs as they conduct
professional study groups for
paraprofessionals and teachers; positively
and constructively provide an evaluation
of their own or others’ teaching practices;
exhibit leadership skills in professional
development as they plan, implement, and
evaluate professional development efforts
at the grade, school, district, and/or state
level.
While in general, the vast majority of
candidates were successful in meeting
standards, it was previously noted that
candidates fell below the “acceptable”
range with respect to candidate being able
to refer to major theories in
psychological, sociological, and linguistic
foundations as they relate to reading and
to the connection between teacher
dispositions and student achievement, and
in their ability to assist teachers and
paraprofessionals in articulating theories
that relate connections of teacher
dispositions and student achievement. It
was noted that candidates required
additional support and guidance in these
areas through a variety of teaching and
learning strategies including
demonstration, ongoing feedback, small
and whole group discussions,
theoretical base to the teaching
strategy/situation which they are incorporating
as the topic of their project. It is also apparent
that we need to guide our candidates in
differentiating between theory and research.
We are working to incorporate this knowledge
base into a more complete set of guidelines.
We also expanded the use of a visual in the
project and we refer to it as a supplemental
mode of delivery. This allows for videos,
website, podcasts, and YouTube as examples.
Incorporating these changes has enhanced
student learning and achievement in this
course project.
indicates that 56% (Spring 2012) and
66% (Fall 2012) of the reading
specialist candidates are performing
at the target level with 36% and 29%
respectively achieving an acceptable
level with 6% and 4% respectively at
the developing level. None of the
candidates received a score of
unacceptable in this portion of the
assessment.
Data related to IRA Standards 2.2,
indicates that 79% (Spring 2012) and
85% (Fall 2012) of the reading
specialist candidates are performing
at the target level with 9% and 10%
respectively achieving at the
acceptable level with 9% and 4%
respectively performing at the
developmental level. 2% and 0%
respectively performed at the
unacceptable level for this portion of
the assessment.
Data related to IRA Standard 4.2
related to resources/technology
indicates that 69% and 75%
respectively were performing at the
target level and 30% and 25% at the
acceptable level. None of the
candidates received a score of
unacceptable in this portion of the
assessment.
Data related to IRA Standards 3.3
indicates 79% (Spring 2012) and
observations, and cooperative group
activities. In the Spring and Fall of 2012,
only 6% of candidates fell below the
“acceptable” range with respect to the
theoretical base. While gains have been
made, it is apparent that candidates
require additional guidance in these areas
in particular.
70% (Fall 2012) were at target level.
15% and 23% were at the acceptable
level and 2% and 6% respectively
were at the developing level. 2% of
the candidates received a score of
unacceptable in Spring 2012 in this
portion of the assessment.
Data related to IRA Standard 4.2
indicates target performances of 77%
(Spring 2012) and 79% (Fall 2012)
with 18% and 16% respectively at
the acceptable range. Candidates also
scored at the developing level of 2%
and 8% respectively. 2% of the
Spring 2012 candidates received a
score of unacceptable in this portion
of the assessment.
Data related to the IRA Standards
6.1 indicates target performances of
65% (Spring 2012) and 83% (Fall
2012) with 29% and 12%
respectively at the acceptable range.
2% of the Fall 2012 candidates
received a score of developing in this
portion. 2% of the Spring 2012
candidates received a score of
unacceptable in this portion of the
assessment.
Data related to IRA Standards 6.2
indicates target performances of 88%
(Spring 2012) and 70% (Fall 2012)
with 11% and 29% respectively at
the acceptable range. None of the
candidates received a score of
unacceptable in this portion of the
assessment.
Data related to IRA Standards 6.3
indicates target performances of 70%
(Spring 2012) and 75% (Fall 2012)
with 27% and 14% respectively at
the acceptable range. 10% of Fall
2012 candidates scored in the
developing range. 2% of the Spring
2012 candidates received a score of
unacceptable in this portion of the
assessment.
Based on the above data, what changes do you propose?
USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE PROGRAM
The Master of Education: Reading assessment results have been reviewed by all members of the Graduate Reading Program at Edinboro
University of Pennsylvania. The use of LiveText has afforded the program faculty to aggregate and analyze the data most effectively and make
sound recommendations for improvement and relevant change. In reviewing the five assessments, it was decided to streamline the assessment
chart to better reflect the key aspects of each assessment. While other IRA Standards are addressed and aligned within each of the assessment
rubrics, those most specific to that assessment were designated as focus standards to address in this report. Although fewer assessments were
included for each area in the assessment, all IRA Standards have been fully addressed and aligned with the five assessments. The five assessments
and IRA standards that are addressed in this report also align with NCATE’s Content Knowledge, Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge,
Skills, and Dispositions as approved by the School of Education Unit.
Content Knowledge
Evidence from the data supports that the candidates in this Master of Education: Reading Program are well prepared for successful passage of
the PRAXIS II exam for licensure as a Reading Specialist. Informal and formal meetings with candidates affirm that current course offerings and
content materials provide sound support in their preparation for this exam. Plans are to continue to interview completers to seek their input on
preparation and strategies for continued success in this area.
The READ706 Annotated Bibliography and Review of the Literature Project provides strong evidence of content knowledge at work. This
project continues to support candidates with the background knowledge of the five components of reading and the current reading theory and
knowledge bases. Faculty members have determined the continued need to expand topics of study to include recent trends in reading and
intervention. These topics provide the standard for future research in courses that follow.
Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Candidates are working up to standards as evidenced by the 95% pass rate on our exit exam: PRAXIS.
The READ710 Professional Development Project, READ707 Supplemental Literacy Strategies for Content Area Lessons, and READ 709 Case
Study and 712 Portfolio respond to the effective demonstration of professional and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
Results of these revisions reflect in the course titles and numbers being updated and subsequently changed. Additional examination of course
projects not identified above has led to course and project revisions. The most significant is the change in READ 786 Curriculum to READ 704
Comprehensive Literacy Curriculum: Design and Implementation. The course has been altered to reflect reading and writing content rather than
general education curriculum. In keeping with the newly proposed 2010 IRA Standards, all courses are being once again revisited and rubrics for
all assessments are being aligned to those standards. Expectations that updated rubrics would be used for READ 708 English Language Learners,
diversity, READ 704 and READ 712 include Standards Aligned System and Common Core Standards.
Student Learning
The review of the Case Study and Clinic Portfolio by the faculty reflects that once again some relevant changes and updates need to occur.
Noting the upcoming IRA Standard 4: Diversity and 5: Literate Environment, the faculty has revisited the assessments to be more research
oriented and effectively presented. In addition revisions reflect recent trends in the definitions of “all readers” and “struggling readers,” and the
roles of the literacy coach in their Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtII).
Faculty in the Graduate Reading Program are becoming highly cognizant of the RtII process, have engaged in research on the topic, observed it
in practice, and are providing venue for sharing strategies used in the process on our campus. This is shared through our coursework and ultimately
impacts how students are served and learn. The faculty also concurs with language that appears in the new IRA Standards relative to the role of the
literacy coach: “The major role of these educators is to provide support to teachers in their instructional efforts and specifically to help reading
professionals provide the differentiated instruction necessary to meet the needs of all students in the classroom.” Recognizing the role of the
literacy coach, the faculty is continuing to make sure that the clinical experiences engage the candidates in diverse settings. Of significant
importance is providing experiences that address the specific needs of English Language Learners. A program serving migrant students in
neighboring Erie, Pennsylvania, has been continued as a site used in the clinical experiences.
Finally, the Graduate Reading Program faculty has successfully completed the process of research, development, and construction of a new
course and assessment that addresses the specific needs of diverse learners. The course addresses new IRA Standards and responds to providing
enriched experiences where candidates can impact diverse student learning and success. The Graduate Reading Program faculty followed
departmental and university policy to revisit its program and update it to address new standards of the International Reading Association and the
Pennsylvania Department of Education 49-2 regulations. Course revisions were also submitted in the areas of research in literacy, English
language learning, diversity and striving readers, Common Core State Standards, and the Standards Aligned System. A revised and updated Plan
of Study has accompanied the course revisions and has been approved by the University Wide Curriculum Committee. All courses are presently
updated and aligned with the current 2010 IRA Standards.
Based on the above data, what changes do you propose?
II.
During this academic year, have students in your department engaged in undergraduate research? Please specify the
projects. Also, specify any other student accomplishments.
N/A
III.
Please specify any special projects that your department is currently working on (ie sponsoring special events,
partnerships with outside organizations, seminars, etc.)
•
IV.
Every summer Edinboro University of Pennsylvania offers an opportunity for students to participate in a Summer Reading
Clinic at locations throughout Erie and Crawford Counties. This clinical experience is part of the Masters in Reading
/Reading Specialist Certification Program at Edinboro University. Master’s candidates arrive at the locations, and
neighboring students are offered the opportunity to participate in this Reading Clinic. The goal of the Reading Clinic is to aid
in identifying student reading difficulties and to assist in remediation and improved learning opportunities. The following sites
have hosted the Summer Reading Clinic experiences; Villa Elementary School, Erie; Cambridge Springs Elementary & High
School, Cambridge Springs; Bayfront Center for Maritime Studies (migrant students), Erie; Saegertown Elementary,
Saegertown; Butterfield Hall, Edinboro University; Waterford Elementary School, Ft. LeBoeuf School District. Faculty
members who teach the READ712 Reading Clinic and partner with these schools and districts are: Dr. Heather Kenny, Dr.
Kathleen Dailey, and Dr. Marian Beckman.
Please identify any community service and/or scholarly activities in which faculty members in your department have
engaged.
Faculty Member
Beckman, Marian
(Ed.D.)
Publications
Morrison, G. (2015) Early
Childhood Education Today,
13th Edition. Beckman, M.
contributor to Chapter 5
Theories Applied to Teaching
and Learning in Early
Childhood Education. Pearson
Education, Inc.
Beckman, M.S. (2012).
Preparing the Reading
Specialist: Interaction in the
virtual environment. PRTE
Journal. (submitted)
Presentations
Beckman, M.S. (2013)
Becoming a Literacy Leader.
International Reading
Association Convention, San
Antonio, TX.
Beckman, M.S. (2011). Theory
Into Practice: Style
Characteristics and the Multiple
Intelligences Enrich the Local
Church.Northwest PA Edinboro
Beckman, M., Best, L., Gaines,
D., Kenny, H., Rahal, B.,
(2010). Envisioning and
empowering yourself as a
literacy leader. Presented at the
43rd Annual Keystone State
Reading Association
Conference, Hershey, PA.
Beckman, M., and Dailey, K.
(2010). Putting RtI in the
vocabulary of coaching.
Presented at the International
Literacy Coaching Summit,
Corpus Christi, TX.
Beckman, M. S. (2009).
Reading programs are going
green: How to develop and
deliver an online or hybrid
program. Presented to the
Association of Literacy
Educators and Researchers,
Charlotte, NC.
Beckman, M.S. (2008).
Coaching the Content Teacher:
Supplemental Literacy
Strategies Project. Keystone
Grants
Research with Students
Community Service
Chairperson, Department of
Professional Studies, graduate
department, Edinboro
University of PA (2009 – 2013)
Graduate Reading Program
Head, Edinboro University of
PA (2001– 2009, 2011-2013)
Literacy in a Multimodal World
Conference, Co-Director,
Edinboro University of PA
(2009 – 2011).
President, Keystone State
Reading Association Special
Interest Group: Pennsylvania
Reading Teacher Educators
(2011-2013)
Vice President, Keystone State
Reading Association Special
Interest Group: Pennsylvania
Reading Teacher Educators
(2008-2011)
ALER Reviewer, Literacy
Research and Instruction,
(2005-present)
Vice President of Water
Authority. Washington
Township. 1995-present.
Best, Linda
(Ed.D.)
Best, L.M. (2010). Lexicon of
Online and Distance Learning,
IGI Global, Maryland.
Best, L. M. (2008, December).
Lexicons for Education and
Technology (LEC).
State Reading Association.
Philadelphia, PA
2013Attended the Oxford
Research Symposium, March
17-19, 2013. St Edmund Hall,
Oxford University, UK
Presentations: Online
Learning Edinboro
University of PA: University
Of Calabria, Calabria,
University of Calabria,
Arcavacata di Rende, Italy,
March 16-25, 2011
Beckman, M., Best, L., Gaines,
D., Kenny, H., Rahal, B.,
(2010). Envisioning and
empowering yourself as a
literacy leader. Presented at the
43rd Annual Keystone State
Reading Association
Conference, Hershey, PA.
Best, L. M., & Rahal, B. (2010).
Reimagining Instruction and
Empowering Students: Infusing
Reading and Writing into a
Fantastic Science Unit.
Presented at the 43rd Annual
Keystone State Reading
Association Conference,
Hershey, PA.
Dailey, Kathleen
(Ed. D.)
Co-Presenter- Annual
Conference of the Keystone
State Reading Association,
2012 “ Responding to
Adolescents with Interventions:
An Investigation of RtII for
Adolescent Learners”
Champion, PA
Quality Matters National
Reviewer Certification –
Received on September 20,
2012.
Recipient of the Technology
Pioneer Award for 2011
State of Pennsylvania –
Presented on February 15,
2011, PACTE-PETEC
Conference Hershey, PA
Teaching/Visiting Scholar at
UNICAL: Sabbatical –ELearning Opportunities at the
University of Calabria, Calabria
Arcavacata di Rende, Italy,
March 16-25, 2011
Member, ELL Task Force for
the Education Law Center of
Pennsylvania (2010)
Member, Conference Team,
Reading, Writing, and Literacy
in a Multi-Modal World
Conference (2010)
Board member, Erie Reading
Council (2009-present)
Member, Selection Committee
for Mini Grant and Spirit of
Teaching Awards (Erie Reading
Council) (2009-present)
Co-Presenter- Annual
Conference of the Keystone
State Reading Association,
“Everything You Wanted to
Know About RTI that You Wish
Someone Had Told You”
Lancaster, PA, 2011
Dailey, K., & Tong, L. (2010,
October) Examining small
group practices within an RTI
framework. Presented at the 43rd
Annual Conference of the
Keystone State Reading
Association. Hershey, PA.
Beckman, M., and Dailey, K.
(2010, October). Putting RtI in
the vocabulary of coaching.
Presented at the International
Literacy Coaching Summit,
Corpus Christi, TX.
Tong, L, & Dailey, K. (2010,
February). Keeping the reader
in mind: Assessment and
instruction to and with readers.
Presented at the International
Reading Association West
Region Conference. Portland,
OR.
Beckman, M., & Dailey, K.
(2009). Putting RTI into the
vocabulary of coaching.
Presented at the 42nd Annual
Conference of the Keystone
State Reading Association,
Hershey, PA.
Dailey, K. (2010). Response To
Intervention. Presented at
Edinboro University of
Literacy/kindergarten
consultant, General McLane
School District (2007-2008)
Chairperson, Delta Kappa
Gamma Society International,
Professional Affairs (2000present)
Member, Language Arts
Subcommittee of the Millcreek
Advisory Committee (20002008)
Pennsylvania’s Department of
Professional Studies’ Annual
Retreat, Edinboro, PA.
Kenny, Heather
(Ph.D.)
Kenny, H. (2013, June). Best
practices in online learning
environments. American
Association of University
Professors’ 2013 Annual
Conference on the State of
Higher Education, Washington,
DC.
Kenny, H., & Tingley, L. (2012,
November 12). Examining
benefits, challenges and best
practices in online learning.
Presented at the PROS Research
Forum, Edinboro University,
Edinboro, PA.
Kenny, H., & Curtin, S. (2012,
October 24). Exploring the
promises and pitfalls of online
learning environments.
Presented at the Pennsylvania
Association of Colleges and
Teacher Educators’s 41st
Annual Teacher Education
Assembly, Harrisburg, PA.
Kenny, H. (2012, June 15).
Examining benefits, challenges
and best practices in online
learning. Presented at the
American Association of
University Professors’ 2012
Annual Conference on the State
of Higher Education,
Dailey, K. (2010). Response To
Intervention. Presented at the
Edinboro University of
Pennsylvania/General McLane
School District Literacy
Conference, Edinboro, PA.
Beckman, M., Best, L., Gaines,
D., Kenny, H., Rahal, B.,
(2010). Envisioning and
empowering yourself as a
literacy leader. Presented at the
43rd Annual Keystone State
Reading Association
Conference, Hershey, PA.
Kenny, H. (2010, October).
WWF: Word work fun!
Presented at the 2nd Annual
Reading, Writing, and Literacy
in a Multi-Modal World
Conference, Edinboro, PA.
Kenny, H., & Robbins, L.
(2010, October). WWF: Word
work fun! Presented at the
Keystone State Reading
Association’s 43rd Annual
Conference, Hershey, PA.
Kenny, H. (2010, August).
Instructional interventions for
striving readers. Presented at
Edinboro University’s Summer
Reading Clinic, Edinboro, PA.
Kenny, H. (2010, June).
Instructional interventions for
striving readers. Presented at
Edinboro University’s Summer
Reading Clinic, Edinboro, PA.
Edinboro University
Senate Research Grant,
Sounds All Around, $717
(2011).
Principal Investigator,
Examining Student and
Instructor Perceptions
about Benefits,
Challenges and Best
Practices in Online
Learning Environments
(2012 – present)
Principal Investigator,
The Effects of an
Immediate Tier 2
Intervention on the
Phonemic Awareness
Skills of Kindergarteners
at a Public Cyber
Charter School (2010 –
2011)
Presider:
Pennsylvania Association of
Colleges and Teacher
Educators’ 41st Annual Teacher
Education Assembly (2012,
October)
Member of the following
professional organization
committees:
International Reading
Association's 2013-2014 IRA
Outstanding Dissertation Award
Committee (2013 – 2014)
International Reading
Association's 2012-2013 IRA
Outstanding Dissertation Award
Committee (2012 – 2013)
Volunteer, Tracy Elementary
School (2010-present).
Graduate Program Head,
Reading, Department of
Professional Studies, Edinboro
University of Pennsylvania,
2011-2012
Curriculum Reviewer, New
York State Regents National
Program on Noncollegiate
Sponsored Instruction (2010,
November).
Member, ELL Task Force for
Washington, DC.
Kenny, H. (2011, August). Time
to re-group! Using effective
grouping strategies to
maximize instructional time and
improve student achievement.
Presented at Tracy
Elementary School, Erie, PA.
the Education Law Center of
Pennsylvania (2010).
Member, 2010 Conference
Team, Reading, Writing, and
Literacy in a Multi-Modal
World Conference.
Expert Peer Reviewer, 2010
Annual Grant Program of the
Faculty Professional
Development Council for the
Pennsylvania State System of
Higher Education.