School of Education
Program Review Rejoinder
for
Graduate Reading
March 2009
The reviewers of our Graduate Reading Program Review documents cited four conditions, which we have responded to below.
3. To what degree are the state content standards adequately assessed within this program?
____
Great degree
XX
Moderate degree
____
X
Minimal degree
Not evident
All standards are assessed multiple times in
multiple courses.
All standards are assessed, but may not be
covered in more than one course.
Some standards are assessed within courses.
No standards are assessed within courses.
There was no qualitative feedback provided to explain these ratings. Thus, we read over the entire report in an attempt to better
understand the “Not evident” rating. Reviewers indicated, in another section of the review, that they wanted information regarding the
alignment between EDUC E590 and E595 and content standards, so we include that information here. We believe that taking this
information together with the matrix provided in Document 2 (previous submission) provides clear evidence that content standards are
addressed and assessed throughout our program.
IPFW School of Education
Reading Content Standards Alignment Matrix
Assessment Outcomes: (1) Paper, (2) Exam/Quiz; Multiple Choice, T/F, (3) Exam/Quiz: Short Answer, Essay, (4) Project, (5) Lab/Report, (6) Journal
Reflection, (7) Lesson Plan, (8) Teaching, (9) Other (specify), 9a (class readings and discussion); 9b (guest speaker/presentation, 9c (examination of the IDOE
Website), 9d (multicultural book study), 9e (examination of INTASC standards through a critical lens), 9f (student presentation), 9g (search data bases and
retrieve peer-reviewed articles on literacy development in content area), 9h (essay grounded in research), 9i (review of literature), 9j (seminar paper), 9k (seminar
dialogue), 9L (review of methods in peer-reviewed literature), 9m (peer feedback to seminar paper), 9n (diversity field experience artifact and reflection), 9o
(reflection on scholar-practitioner vision statement), 9p (curriculum assessment), 9q (interview), 9r (metaphor), 9s (metaphor revisited), 9t (classroom
observation), 9u (poems), 9v (literature circles), 9w (research design), 9x (IRB approval for research project), 9y (data collection), 9z (research report), 10 (action
research project), 11 (diversity field experience)
Reading
Standard # 1: The reading teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and dynamics of the reading process and creates learning
experiences that make reading meaningful for the individual student.
Knowledge
E590/S590 M501 E595/ S595
1. Understands reading as the process of constructing
9i
meaning through the interaction of the reader’s prior
knowledge, the information suggested by the written
language, and the purpose for reading.
2. understands cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity.
11
3. understands the major theories of language
development.
4. understands the impact of a student’s affective domain
in the reading process.
5. understands the cueing systems (phonological,
syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic) of language.
6. understands the interrelationship of reading, writing,
listening, speaking, viewing, representing thinking.
7. understands the concept of emergent literacy.
8. possesses an awareness of reading research that
informs instruction.
9. knows classic and cotemporary literature for children
9i
9i
9i
9i
and young adults.
10. understands that goals, instruction, and assessment
must be aligned.
Standard # 2: The teacher understands how students learn and develop reading strategies, and can provide learning opportunities that support their
reading development.
Knowledge
1. understands how students construct knowledge of
reading, acquires specific reading skills, develop habits
of mind, and knows how to use instructional strategies
that promote student learning in reading.
2. understands how the student’s physical, social,
emotional, moral and cognitive development relate to
reading development.
3. understands expected developmental progressions and
individual variations within each domain (physical,
social, emotional, moral, and cognitive), and how these
variations affect reading acquisition.
4. understands the particular problems that surround
9i
9f,w,
learning to read and the importance of matching
x,y,z,
appropriate research-based strategies with the individual
10
learner.
5. understands cultural differences in relationship to
11
learning styles, verbal and nonverbal communication
styles, and language differences.
Standard # 3: The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches of learning to read and creates instructional opportunities that are
adapted to diverse learners.
Knowledge
1. understands approaches to learning to read, including
9i
different learning styles, multiple intelligences, and
performance models.
2. knows about areas of exceptionality in learning; such
as learning disabilities, visual and perceptual difficulties,
special physical or mental challenges and gifted and
talented.
3. knows about the process of second language
9i
11
acquisition and strategies which support students whose
first language is not English.
4. understands how learning to read is influenced by
individual experiences, talents, and prior learning, as
well as language, culture, family and community values.
5. understands cultural and community diversity and its
11
role in the teaching of reading.
Standard #4: The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage student development of critical thinking, problem
solving and performance skills.
Knowledge
1. understands research-based instructional strategies of
reading, writing, listening, and speaking.
9f,w,
x,y,z,
10
2. understands the role of child development as it
influences reading acquisition.
3. understands exceptionality and learning styles and
how to design flexible curriculum to meet individual
needs based on student strengths.
4. understands strategies that meet the needs of students;
such as introducing and implanting grouping practices,
sequencing and pacing, a variety of instructional
materials, and appropriate technology.
5. understands language acquisition and its relationship
11
to reading development.
6. understands the reciprocal relationship between
reading and writing.
7. knows how to locate and use educational research
9i
9f,w,
using professional journals, libraries, media centers, and
x,y,z,
information technology to promote student learning.
10
8. knows how to support students as they develop
reading independence.
Standard #5: The reading teacher uses an understanding of individual and group motivations and behaviors to create a learning environment that
fosters and interest and growth in all aspects of literacy.
Knowledge
1. knows about human motivation, behavior, and literacy
development and uses this knowledge to develop
strategies for organizing and supporting individual and
group work in the classroom.
2. understands the importance of grouping students in a
variety of ways and the influence of grouping on
individual behavior and perceptions.
3. understands the principles of effective classroom
management and their influence on student reading
acquisition.
4. understands the appropriate expectations for students
at each developmental level.
Standard #6: The reading teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active engagement,
collaboration and support interaction in the classroom.
Knowledge
1. understands the teacher’s role as a communicator.
2. understands how cultural, linguistic, and ethnic
11
diversity foster effective communication in the
classroom
3. knows effective verbal and nonverbal communication
strategies.
4. understands the use of a variety of media
communication tools.
Standard #7: The reading teacher plans and manages instruction based upon knowledge of literacy, individual students, community, and curriculum
goals.
Knowledge
1. understands that environment fosters interest and
growth in all aspects of literacy.
2. understands how to use texts and books to stimulate
interest, promote reading growth, and foster appreciation
for the written word.
3. understands how to increase the motivation of learners
to read widely and independently for information,
pleasure, and personal growth.
4. understands instructional and information technologies
that support literacy learning.
5. Understands the importance of real world applications
and has knowledge in generating questions that help
students think and read critically.
6. Knows effective strategies that encourage the homeschool connection in the literacy development of
children.
7. knows when and how to adjust instructional plans
based on student knowledge and response.
8. knows the Indiana academic standards for English/
11
Language Arts, specifically those which apply to reading
9. has an understanding of how the academic standards
of other curriculum areas affect reading instruction.
Standard #8: The teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessments to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social, and physical
development of the learner.
Knowledge
1. knows how to select and construct appropriate
assessment tools.
9f,w,
xy,z,
10
2. has knowledge of measurement theory and other
9f,w,
related issues such as validity, reliability, bias, and
xy,z,
scoring concerns.
10
3. understands how to use multiple sources of assessment
9f,w,
data to help students progress as readers, writers,
xy,z,
listeners, speakers and viewers.
10
4. understands the advantages and limitations of different
9f,w,
types of assessments.
xy,z,
10
Standard #9: The reading teacher is a reflective practitioner who is committed to and actively seeks professional growth.
Knowledge
1. understands the history and philosophy of reading
instruction.
2. understands the process of learning and reflection and
its connection to further learning.
3. understands that teacher reflection affects students’
learning.
4. understands the process of self-assessment.
5. is aware of professional resources.
6. is aware of the importance of action research.
9i
9f,w,
xy,z,
10
7. has knowledge of reading research that informs
9i
9f,w,
instruction.
x,y,z
Standard # 10: The reading teacher communicates and interacts with families, professional colleagues, and the community to support students’ learning
and will being.
Knowledge
1. has knowledge of community demographics.
11
2. is aware of community agencies, organizations, and
11
businesses that support the health, well being, and
education of children.
3. knows the importance of using the resources of the
school to help individual students.
4. knows that factors in a student’s environment
influence learning.
11
6. To what degree does the program prepare candidates in professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills?
____
XX
X
____
Great degree
Moderate degree
Minimal degree
Not evident
Course work prepares candidates very well in these areas.
Course work prepares candidates moderately well in these areas.
Course work insufficiently prepares candidates in these areas.
Course work does not prepare candidates in these areas.
No qualitative feedback was provided to explain the “minimal degree” rating. As with #3 above, we read over the entire document as
we were deciding how to respond to this rating. We decided that providing additional data from a revised course being taught this
semester (Spring 2009) would be most beneficial to reviewers.
As mentioned before in this rejoinder and in the original Document #2, we are in the process of revising our Graduate Reading
Program. The reviewers’ feedback has provided us with several suggestions of how to do this more effectively. We revisited the
program in terms of professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills and considered how the newly re-designed courses will match.
We provide two examples for your review; one that is in the design phase and another that has been implemented (see below for data).
Element Assessed
Describe the Assessment Activity
When is it
assessed?
Title of the
Instrument or
Rubric
Aggregated
Summary
Data for
last 3 years
Curriculum/Program/
Unit operations
modifications made
based on this data
Content Standards
addressed by this
Assessment
Activity
(Be consistent with
#B Standards
Matrix)
Professional and
Pedagogical knowledge and
skills for teacher
candidates
Identify a context for completing 10 hours of service
connected to reading instruction and a professional
learning goal connected to teaching students from
diverse cultures/languages.
EDUA
F500
Service Learning
for
Diversity Field
Experience
1, 2, 3, 10
Create lesson plans to demonstrate understanding of
standards 2.1, 2.5, 3.4, 4.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 7. 7., 7.8, 8.1,
8.3 as well as appropriate Indiana Academic Stnds
X545/X516
Lesson Plan
2, ,3, 4, 7, 8
Complete a Running Record, analyze the results, and
create mini-lesson to respond to results
X504
Running Record
3, 4, 7, 8
The following section provides more specific data on the Running Record assessment completed by candidates enrolled in EDUC
X504 during the Spring 2009 semester.
Description of the Assignment
One of the course assignments is to administer Running Record, write a short paper describing observation and reflection on giving
Running Record, and design a mini-lesson plan based on the results of Running Record. This assignment is worth 6 percent of the
total course grade.
This assignment is associated with several IPSB standards. By successfully completing this assignment, students can demonstrate their
competence in
1. conducting a variety of informal assessments to evaluate children’s development of reading skills (IPSB #8) and reflecting on their
assessment (IPSB #3 and #10)
2. maintaining useful records of student performance and communicating student progress knowledgeably to students, parents, and
school administrators ( IPSB #9)
3. determining appropriate intervention strategies based on diagnostic information (IPSB #4) and designing a reading lesson plan
(IPSB #7)
Scoring of the Assignment
For this assignment, all the students were required to record a child’s oral reading of a text, using either cassette tape recorder or video
camcorder. After recording, all students turned in an audio cassette tape or a video clip to me, and so I could check their coding of
Running Record, while listening to a tape or watching a video clip which they have recorded.
For the task of Running Record, students would get 4 points if their Running Record has no errors or few errors. They get 3 points for
making a few errors, and will get 2 point for making several errors, and will get 0 point for committing many errors (more than 5
errors).
For the task of writing observation and reflection, students get 1 point if their observation and reflection is considered “good”, in other
words, they contain sufficient details about the child who the Running Record was administered to, and demonstrate a deep reflection
about how they administered the Running Record assessment. Otherwise, students get 0 point.
For the task of designing a mini-lesson plan, students get 1 point if their lesson plan is considered “Very Effective”, get 0.5 point if it
is considered “Somewhat Effective”, and get no point if it is considered “Not effective”.
The highest score for this assignment is 6 points. A subtotal score of 5.6-6.0 is A, a score of 5.0-5.5 is A-, a score of 3.6-4.0 is B+, a
score of 3.0-3.5 is B, a score of 2 is C. a score of 1 is D, a score 0 is F.
Results of the Assignment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Data
Gathering
Instrument
video
digital audio
audio tape
video
video
video
audio tape
video
video
audio tape
video
audio tape
video
Running
Record (40 pts)
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
Observation &
Reflection (1-0
pts)
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
Mini-lesson
plan (1-0 pts)
.5
.5
1
1
.5
1
.5
.5
1
1
1
.5
1
Summary
data
4 = 10
3= 3
1 = 11
0= 2
1=7
.5 = 6
Final
Grade
Assigned
AAA
A
AA
B
AA
AA
B
A
A =6
A- = 5
B =2
The results of the assignment demonstrate that our candidates are strong on completing accurate Running Records. As this is a vital
skill for reading teachers to possess, we were pleased with these results. In regard to observation and reflection, all but one student
exhibited a good quality, in other words, they provided detailed background information and demonstrated a deep reflection about
their given assessment. In regard to a mini-lesson plan, 7 students showed a very effective use of intervention strategies, while 6
students employed strategies and procedures considered “somewhat effective”. Overall, six students earned an A, five students earned
an A-, and two students earned a B. About 85% of students in this course performed well in regard to this assignment and
demonstrated their competence in several IPSB standards.
7.How effectively does the coursework provide a candidate the content needed to
impact P-12 student learning as it relates to the Indiana Academic Standards?
____
Highly effective
XX
Moderately effective
X
Somewhat effective
____
Not effective
Course work prepares candidates very well
to impact P-12 student learning as related to
the Indiana Academic Standards.
Course work prepares candidates moderately
well to impact P-12 student learning as
related to the Indiana Academic Standards.
Course work prepares candidates
insufficiently to impact P-12 student learning as
related to the Indiana Academic Standards.
Course work does not prepare candidates to
impact P-12 student learning as
related to the Indiana Academic Standards.
Rationale:
(Somewhat effective): The only reference to state curriculum standards was in the third bullet on page 9 of Document #2.
(Moderately effective): Field experiences and the capstone action research project really aid in achieving this. Specifically
2 courses with one assignment each do fairly well at providing the content needed to impact P-12 student learning.
(Moderately effective): For criteria 5-7, the program provides adequate coverage of reading in literacy, but does not
address the interrelationship and influence of the other language arts skills impact on reading ability. The program
description acknowledges writing, but no courses are offered on writing or the reading-writing relationship.
The assessment data provided above from EDUC X504 provides evidence of how our candidates’ knowledge of the Indiana Academic
Standards (IAS) is vital for impacting student learning. If candidates do now know or understand the standards, they are not able to
create effective mini-lessons that assist children in acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills outlined in the IAS. The data provide
evidence that 7 of the 13 candidates were “very effective” and the other 6 were “somewhat effective.” No candidates were rated as
“not effective” on this category. While no data are available yet, the Lesson Plans from EDUC X516/X545 are being revised to more
clearly link with the Reading Content Standards and the IAS.
The Vision of the Master’s in Education program is: Scholar-Practitioner learning communities for engaging in a democratic and
diverse society. We believe that a scholar-practitioner: 1) engages in ongoing reading and analysis of research to inform teaching
practice; 2) engages in ongoing evaluation of the impact of their practice on students’ learning and to make further curriculum and
instruction decisions; 3) contributes to the knowledge base through research writing, grant-writing, and professional presentations to
strengthen the field of education on multiple levels; and 4) weaves between research and practice, and theory and experience,
constantly working within learning communities to foster a democratic society. We were pleased that one reviewer noted the capstone
action research project as a strength of our Masters’ program. These projects provide evidence of candidates’ ability to measure,
qualitatively and/or quantitatively, their impact on student learning. However, we want to be clear that these courses are not currently
required as part of the Graduate Reading Program. This is a certificate program which does not necessarily take place within the
Master’s in Education program. Many candidates realize that completing the 24-credit certificate program means that they only have
12 remaining credits to earn a Masters degree. Based on this feedback, our faculty have currently reopend our debate on whether or
not we should offer stand-alone certificates. Such programs always leave us wanting the candidates to complete additional courses
like the important research courses the reviewers highlighted.
To further strengthen our program, the evaluation tools for the practicum course (EDUC X525) are currently being revised so that we
can more effectively measure the impact of our candidates on student learning. Per reviewer comments, emphasis will be placed on
measuring multiple aspects of reading, writing, and the relationship between the two.
10. Are program faculty adequately trained in the content field?
XX
Rationale:
YES
X
NO
(YES): All faculty (except one who is ABD) have Phd or EdD degrees in the areas of reading, curriculum, and early
childhood.
(NO): One reading faculty member has no classroom teaching experience with only an ABD, and two faculty members
only have 3 years each of classroom experience. Content knowledge itself, however, may be adequate for these faculty
members.
We believe that all of our faculty are highly-qualified to teach the courses/content which they are assigned. At this time, everyone
teaching in the Graduate Reading Program has an earned doctorate in her/his field (see revised table below). Together, we have 58
years of teaching experience in p-12 programs. In addition, our area of specializations results in supervising practicum students and
conducting research in school settings. Dr. Kim, for example, has conducted hours of research in school settings working directly
with and assessing elementary children’s language/literacy development as he completed his undergraduate program (which required a
thesis), his two master’s degrees (in English Language and Linguistics as well as Teaching English as a Second Language – TESL),
and his dissertation. Thus, while our experiences are varied, we are proud of the diversity that each faculty members brings to IPFW,
her/his courses, and her/his students. More importantly, the community surrounding IPFW is rapidly growing with immigrants. Drs.
Lee, Kim, and Hickey bring particular strengths in understanding diversity. Such knowledge will only serve to strengthen and
diversify our reading program as we continue to rebuild it.
Faculty Qualifications: Reading – Graduate Program
Faculty Name
Gail Hickey
Highest
Degree
Attained
Ph.D.
Cheu-jey Lee
Ph.D.
David
Lindquist
Ph.D.
Il-Hee Kim
Glenda Moss
Ph.D.
Ed.D.
Area(s) of
Specialization
Curriculum
Reading/L.
Arts
Research
methods,
Secondary
Curriculum
Reading
Critical
Courses
Taught in
Program
E535, E590,
E595, S590,
S595
X504, X530
Additional
Years of P-12
Responsibility
Experience
in Program
Advising
6
3
P503, S503
30
X525, X545
X516, F500,
0
16
Terri Swim
Ph.D.
Reading in
the Content
Areas
Early
Childhood
P503, E590,
E595, S590,
S595
E525, E590,
E595
3