• Analyzing classroom literacy environments.
Though the work of field experiences has remained largely the same throughout the last four years, we
have revised the focus of the Spring fieldwork semester to provide students with more experience and
mentorship in the role of a literacy coach or staff developer. That is, in addition to requiring students to
meet the above responsibilities, they must also meet the following responsibilities:
• Analyzing school literacy environments.
• Learning the array of methods that literacy coaches/staff developers use, addressing particular school
and faculty challenges, and researching literacy teachers and their teaching of reading and writing in
ways that help them grow.
• Interviewing and coaching classroom teachers, literacy specialists, principals, parents, and other school
community members.
• Collaborating with faculty to design professional development plans around specific topics in literacy
instruction.
The descriptions for the courses associated with the field experiences are as follows:
• C&T 4200 Fieldwork in Curriculum & Teaching (LITI) – Fall Semester
These fieldwork sections are geared specifically for students who are at the beginning of their
professional careers as literacy teachers. These sections offer opportunities for students to apprentice
with master literacy educators through weekly work in a school or other setting. Students in these
sections develop their skills by learning the array of methods that literacy teachers use, addressing
particular classroom challenges, and researching classroom students and teaching reading and writing in
ways that help them grow.
Students maintain logs of their fieldwork hours in the classroom and
submit logs online to their fieldwork supervisor each week. Supervisors make comments, ask questions
and return the log to students on a regular basis. At the end of the semester, all logs are submitted to the
course instructor for final assessment.
Students are expected to actively participate in their placement setting, with a minimum of 10 hours per
week for twelve weeks, and attend all class meetings. Literacy specialist students work with cooperating
teachers who support student’s planning and implementation of lessons and assessments.
• C&T 4200 Fieldwork in Curriculum & Teaching (LITI) – Spring Semester
In today’s schools, literacy specialists are expected to perform a variety of roles in order to meet the
instructional needs of students and colleagues. Some of the responsibilities that literacy specialists may
find themselves fulfilling are that of curriculum developers, literacy coaches, mentors, consultants,
researchers and resources to administrators, teachers, special educators, and families. This course is
designed to foster literacy specialist students' abilities so they can eventually assume leadership roles in
schools and the greater field of education. Specifically, this course will enable students to critique
literacy programs, to assess and design curriculum for literacy learners, and to provide support and staff
development for others educators.
Students maintain logs of their fieldwork hours in the classroom and submit logs online to their
fieldwork supervisor each week. Supervisors make comments, ask questions and return the log to
students on a regular basis. At the end of the semester, all logs are submitted to the course instructor for
final assessment.
Students are expected to actively participate in their placement setting, with a minimum of 10 hours per
technology-based practices. They help teachers select appropriate options
and explain the evidence-base for selecting practices to best meet the
needs of all students. They demonstrate the options in their own (and
demonstration) teaching.
2.3 Support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in the use of a wide
range of curriculum materials. They help teachers select appropriate
options and explain the evidence base for selecting practices to best meet
the needs of all students. They demonstrate the options in their own
teaching and in demonstration teaching.
c g
d
e
f
g
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
g
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
3. Standard 3. Assessment, Diagnosis, and Evaluation. Candidates use a variety of assessment
tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective reading instruction. As a result, reading
specialist/literacy coach candidates:
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8
3.1 Compare and contrast, use, interpret, and recommend a wide range of
assessment tools and practices. Assessments may range from standardized
tests to informal assessments and also include technology-based
c g
d
e
f
g
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
b
c
d
e
f
assessments. They demonstrate appropriate use of assessments in their
practice, and they can train classroom teachers to administer and interpret
these assessments.
3.2 Support the classroom teacher in the assessment of individual students.
They extend the assessment to further determine proficiencies and
c g
d
e
f
g
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
difficulties for appropriate services.
3.3 Assist the classroom teacher in using assessment to plan instruction for
all students. They use in-depth assessment information to plan individual
instruction for struggling readers. They collaborate with other education
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b
c
d
e
f
professionals to implement appropriate reading instruction for individual g
students. They collect, analyze, and use school-wide assessment data to
implement and revise school reading programs.
3.4 Communicate assessment information to various audiences for both
accountability and instructional purposes (policymakers, public officials,
c g
d
e
f
g
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
community members, clinical specialists, school psychologists, social
workers, classroom teachers, and parents).
4. Standard 4. 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. As a
result, reading specialist/literacy coach candidates:
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8
4.1 Assist the classroom teacher and paraprofessional in selecting
materials that match the reading levels, interests, and cultural and
c g
d
e
f
g
b g
c
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
linguistic background of students.
4.2 Assist the classroom teacher in selecting books, technology-based
information, and non-print materials representing multiple levels, broad
c g
d
e
f
g
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
4.3 Demonstrate and model reading and writing for real purposes in daily
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
interactions with students and education professionals. Assist teachers and g
paraprofessionals to model reading and writing as valued lifelong
activities.
4.4 Use methods to effectively revise instructional plans to motivate all
students. They assist classroom teachers in designing programs that will
intrinsically and extrinsically motivate students. They demonstrate these
techniques and they can articulate the research base that grounds their
practice.
c g
d
e
f
g
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
5. Standard 5. Professional Development. Candidates view professional development as a careerlong effort and responsibility. As a result, reading specialist/literacy coach candidates:
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8
5.1 Articulate the theories related to the connections between teacher
c g
d
e
f
g
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b
c
d
e
f
dispositions and student achievement.
5.2 Conduct professional study groups for paraprofessionals and teachers.
Assist classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in identifying, planning,
and implementing personal professional development plans. Advocate to g
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b
c
d
e
f
advance the professional research base to expand knowledge-based
practices.
5.3 Positively and constructively provide an evaluation of their own or
others’ teaching practices. Assist classroom teachers and paraprofessionals g
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
b
c
d
e
f
as they strive to improve their practice.
5.4 Exhibit leadership skills in professional development. They plan,
implement, and evaluate professional development efforts at the grade,
school, district, and/or state level. They are cognizant of and can describe g
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
b g
c
d
e
f
c g
d
e
f
b
c
d
e
f
the characteristics of sound professional development programs. They can
articulate the evidence base that grounds their practice.
SECTION IV - EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS
DIRECTIONS: The 6-8 key assessments listed in Section II must be documented and discussed in
Section IV. The assessments must be those that all candidates in the program are required to complete
and should be used by the program to determine candidate proficiencies as expected in the program
standards. Assessments and scoring guides should be aligned with the SPA standards. This means that
the concepts in the SPA standards should be apparent in the assessments and in the scoring guides to
the same depth, breadth, and specificity as in the SPA standards.
In the description of each assessment below, the SPA has identified potential assessments that would
be appropriate. Assessments have been organized into the following three areas that are addressed in
NCATE’s unit standard 1:
 Content knowledge (Assessments 1 and 2)
 Pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions (Assessments 3 and 4)
 Focus on student learning (Assessment 5)
Note that in some disciplines, content knowledge may include or be inextricable from professional
knowledge. If this is the case, assessments that combine content and professional knowledge may be
considered "content knowledge" assessments for the purpose of this report.
For each assessment, the compiler should prepare a document that includes the following items: a two
page narrative that responds to questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 (below) and the three items listed in question 5
First, originally the program faculty felt that because candidates were already certified teachers and had
already participated in two semesters of student teaching, we couldn’t justify asking candidates to invest
four long mornings a week in the fieldwork placements. Therefore we originally specified only a
required number of hours-per-week. However, we soon saw that interim measures of Assessment 4
(Fieldwork) suggested candidates were not learning as much as we had hoped. Upon investigation, we
found that many candidates were loading up their hours in the classroom so they spent only two long
days a week on site. This was not allowing candidates to develop a close understanding of student
growth, nor was it allowing them to play an active role in the classrooms. We increased the number of
hours required for fieldwork experiences, and specified that candidates need to be on-site at least four
mornings a week.
Second, a number of assessments indicated that our candidates were not developing a full sense of what
it means to be a Literacy Coach. Specifically, for example, in 2006 our candidates received only an
average score of 3.5 for the standard, ‘Pursuit of professional knowledge and dispositions.’ We
ascertained that our candidates were learning to teach literacy well, which is important—and indeed,
most of our candidates have yet to teach even a single year—but we had not done a perfect job of
preparing people to take responsibility for designing professional development, for leading a literacy
reform, for instituting whole-school improvements in literacy. We revised the second fieldwork
experience so as to be sure that all candidates participated in some of this sort of high-level professional
development, and added a new assessment (assessment 8,) situating that into the second semester of the
fieldwork course. This course also added professional readings and class work on that topic.
Then, too, two years ago we noticed that when candidates engaged in their Masters Action Research
Project, many of them were not really learning from children as much as from library sources. Although
this assessment was designed in hopes of helping teachers become action-researchers and reflective
practitioners while working in the classroom, many of the candidates still interpreted research as
something one does in the library only. They were conducting these Masters Action Research Projects as
if they were mini-dissertations, with long periods of time invested in developing long reviews of
literature, and then very short amounts of time invested in implementing and documenting whatever the
candidate had devised out of the research. The program leaders decided that it is vitally important to us
that candidates experience what it means to learn from children, regarding them as sources of wisdom
and insight. We therefore redesigned the paperwork accompanying the Masters Action research project,
sought out exemplary work and developed materials to articulate why the work is exemplary, and began
teaching the newest cohort of candidates about the newly refined vision for this all-important portion of
the program.
The data, then, has already sparked important revisions in the Literacy Specialist program. Over the
years ahead, the program faculty looks forwarding to tackling issues that remain.
For starts, the program faculty will be working to design a shared and equitable sense of what it means to
do exemplary work, and what it means to do satisfactory work. For many of the assessments, the average
rating achieved by candidates was almost a straight 4, leading one to wonder whether the scoring really
accounts for differences in ability. It is unlikely that every candidate in the Literacy Specialist program is
truly functioning at an exemplary level across all dimensions. Faculty need to wrestle with the question
of grade-inflation, and need to think, too, what it means when different faculty vary dramatically in their
level of expectations.
Then, too, the faculty have located a few items on which candidates regularly do only satisfactory work.
For example, in both the masters Action Research project, the Child Portrait, and the developing
curriculum, candidates did not find it easy to tap into student interest. In these times, when many
students are apathetic and disengaged with school in general and with literacy in specific, it seems to the
Program of Study
Students may enroll in the 32-credit point Literacy Specialist M.A. program on a
full- or part-time basis, 24 points of which are related to literacy and 6 of which
are a supervised fieldwork practicum according to IRA Standards at the Reading
Specialist/Literacy Coach Level The basic curriculum for M.A. students includes
the following courses:
Core Courses
Required of all students (17-18 points).
Course
#
C&T
4138
C&T
4139
Course Title
Credit(s)
Teaching Literacy in the Early Years
2-3
Constructing Critical Readers
(pre-requisite of C&T 4151, C&T 4858, or C&T 5800)
3
C&T
4151
Teaching of Writing
3
or
or
Writer’s Craft
(pre-requisite of C&T 4151 or C&T 5800)
3
Literature for Younger Children
2-3
or
or
Literature for Older Children
2-3
Literacy, Culture, and the Teaching of Reading
2-3
Theory and Techniques of Reading Assessment and Intervention
3
or
C&T
6501
C&T
4140
or
C&T
4141
C&T
5037
HBSK
4072
Fieldwork Practicum Courses
Required of all students (6 points).
Course #
Course Title
Credit(s)
C&T
4200
(two
semesters
required,
6 credits
Fieldwork in Curriculum and Teaching
(fall semester)
3
and
and
Fieldwork in Curriculum and Teaching
3
in total)
(spring semester)
Master’s Action Research Project
Required of all students (1 point).
Course #
Course Title
Credit(s)
C&T
4502
(yearlong
course)
Master’s Project
1/0
(Register for
1 credit in the
Fall and 0
credits in the
Spring.)
Within Department Selectives
Required of all students (4-6 points).
At least 6 points of all selectives (including both within and out of department selectives)
must be related to literacy to total 30 literacy courses. Students must select at least two
selectives within the C&T department. Some of these courses include the following:
Course # Course Title
Credit(s)
C&T
4858
C&T
5800
C&T
4137
Institute: Teaching of Reading
3
Institute: Teaching of Writing
1, 3, or 6
Literacy and Learning in the Content Areas
3
C&T
4842
C&T
6532
Institute: Content Area Literacies
3
Critical Theories and Reading Practices
2-3
C&T
6501
Interpretation and Inference
2-3
Out of Department Selectives
Required of all students (4-6 points).
Students must select two Teachers College courses outside of the department for a
minimum of 2 points per course. These courses may or may not focus on literacy,
but they do need to be approved by the student’s advisor. Students must consult
an advisor when selecting out of department selectives. At least 6 points of all
selectives (including both within and out of department selectives) must be related
to literacy.
The courses outlined above reflect the program of study for the Literacy Specialist
program as of September 2007. Prior to September 2007, the course credits were
distributed somewhat differently and the practicum courses were co-requisites of
two core courses. We revised the program the practicum courses to be stand-alone
courses and to better align with IRA/NCATE standards. Those revisions are noted
below:
2004-2006 Course
Requirements
C&T 4200 Fieldwork in
Curriculum and Teaching
(LITI) – Fall Semester
Co-requisite: C&T 4138
Literacy in the Early Years
Credits
Offered
1-4
2007 – present Course
Requirements
C&T 4200 Fieldwork in
Curriculum and Teaching
(LITI) – Fall Semester
Credits
Offered
3
C&T 4200 Fieldwork in
Curriculum and Teaching
(LITI) – Spring Semester
Co-requisite: C&T 4139
Constructing Critical
Readers
1-4
C&T 4200 Fieldwork in
Curriculum and Teaching
(LITI) – Spring Semester
3
LITERACY SPECIALIST (BIRTH - GRADE 6)
Program Code: LITI
Department of Curriculum and Teaching
Program Plan Sheet for: _______________________________________
Course
LITERACY
CORE
(17 credits)
Title
C&T
4138
C&T
4139
Teaching Literacy in
the Early Years
Constructing
Critical Readers
C&T
4151
Teaching of Writing
MASTER’S
ACTION
RESEARCH
PROJECT
(1 credit)
WITHIN
DEPARTMENT
SELECTIVES
Special
Permissions
Fall
Spring
Semester
to Take
Semester
Taken
Credits
(must
equal 32
in total)
2-3
Pre-requisite is C&T
4151, C&T 5800, or
C&T 4858
Fall
-orSpring
3
3
-orC&T
6501
C&T
4140
Advanced Teaching
of Writing
Literature for
Younger Children
-or-
LITERACY
FIELDWORK
CORE
(6 credits)
Semester
Offered
Enrollment Semester: ____________
C&T
4141
C&T
5037
Literature for Older
Children
Literacy, Culture,
and the Teaching of
Reading
HBSK
4072
Theory and
Techniques of
Reading Assessment
and Intervention
Fieldwork in
Curriculum and
Teaching
Fieldwork in
Curriculum and
Teaching
Master’s Project in
Literacy
C&T
4200
C&T
4200
C&T
4502
C&T
C&T
Fall
Pre-requisite is C&T
5800 or C&T 4151
3
3
Fall,
Spring,
-orSummer
-or-
3
Fall,
Spring
-orSummer
Fall
-orSummer
2-3
3
Fall
3
Spring
3
Fall
(complete
project in
the
Spring)
1
At least 6 of these
credits must be
related to literacy
1-3
1-3
(4-6 credits)
2-3
OUT OF
DEPARTMENT
SELECTIVES
2-3
(4-6 credits)
DRAFT
LITERACY SPECIALIST (BIRTH - GRADE 6)
Program Code: LITI
Department of Curriculum and Teaching
Notes:
Core Courses
The required coursework in the Literacy Specialist program is comprised of a literacy core, a fieldwork core, and the
Master’s Action Research Project (24 credits in total).
Selectives
At least 6 credits of selectives must be related to literacy to round out the Literacy Specialist focus of the program. In
addition, at least two selectives must be taken within the Curriculum & Teaching department and at least two selectives
must be taken outside of the department.
Within Department Selectives
Required of all students (4-6 credits). Students must select at least two selectives within the department. Current courses
dealing with literacy are listed below. Consult your advisor when selecting within department selectives that do not
specifically focus on literacy..
Course #
C&T 4137
Course Title
Literacy and Learning in the
Content Areas
Credit(s)
Semester Offered
3
Spring
3
3
1, 3, or 6
3
Summer B
Summer B
Summer B
Summer A 2007
3
Spring 2008
-orC&T 4842
C&T 4858
C&T 5800
C&T 6501
C&T 6501
Institute: Content Area Literacies
Institute: Teaching of Reading
Institute: Teaching of Writing
Studies in Curriculum & Teaching:
History of Reading
Inference and Interpretation
Out of Department Selectives
Required of all students. Students must select two courses outside of the department for a minimum of 2 points per course.
Courses dealing with literacy can be found in various departments at Teachers College, and course offerings change each
year. Consult your advisor when selecting out of department selectives.
Advisor: ______________________________________
Date:__________________________________
Advisor: ______________________________________
Date:__________________________________
Advisor: ______________________________________
Date:__________________________________
Advisor: ______________________________________
Date:__________________________________
DRAFT
Assessment 1 Content Specialty Test: Literacy (065)
1
Description of Assessment
All candidates for the initial certificate in Literacy in New York State are required to achieve a
passing score of 220 (out of 300) on the Content Specialty Test. The test includes 4 subtests.
The first subtest measures candidates’ foundational understanding of literacy, theories of
literacy acquisition and development, relationships among reading, writing, listening and
speaking, understanding individual differences in literacy development, formal and informal
assessments for assessing literacy skills, and understanding of how to use and communicate the
results of literacy assessments. The second subtest measures candidates’ understanding of
reading instruction and assessment. Candidates are expected to have a range of knowledge
concerning all aspects of balanced literacy, the assessments needed to measure students’
reading abilities, and how to work with students who are struggling with reading. The third
subtest focuses on the candidates’ understanding of the role of the literacy specialist within
schools and the implications of that role. The fourth subtest asks candidates to construct an
open-ended response regarding the second subtest.
2 Alignment with the IRA Standards:
The four broad Literacy Subtests are comprised of 20 objectives which meet the following IRA
standards:
1. Foundation of Literacy (1.1, 1.3, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)
2. Reading Instruction and Assessment (1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.2, 2.3, 4.1, 4.2)
3. The Role of the Literacy Professional (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3., 5.4)
4. Reading Instruction and Assessment: Constructed-Response Assignment (1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.2,
2.3, 4.1, 4.2)
3
A Brief Analysis of the Data Findings (Please see the data table in 5)
Based on the data collected, 100% of students taking the test in 2005, 2006, and 2007 have
achieved a passing score of 220. The mean scores from all 3 classes on the 4 subtests are in a
range from 247.4 to 273.1. When program faculty noticed that in 2006 candidates’ received
their lowest scores on subtest 2, which assesses candidates’ understanding of the role of the
literacy professional, the second fieldwork was revised to help candidates understand the role
of a literacy coach or a Director of Language Arts. Field-based apprenticeships were designed
that allow candidates to study with literacy coaches. Also, program faculty noticed that in 2007
candidates scored lower on subtest 2, a subtest which measures reading instruction and
assessment. The mean scores could be related to the fact that fewer than 10 candidates took
the test in 2007.
4
Evidence of Meeting Standards
One hundred percent of the Literacy Specialist candidates have achieved scores that are wellwithin expectations for meeting standards. When one cohort group received slightly lower
scores on sub-test two, the program altered its courses so as to angle one of the two fieldwork
experiences so that this course provided candidates with field-based apprenticeships with
Literacy Coaches, and included extensive readings on the role of literacy professionals.
5
Data Summary:
GRADUATES ADMITTED IN
TAKERS
PASSED
PASS RATE
MEAN SCORE
SUBTEST 1
SUBTEST 2
SUBTEST 3
SUBTEST 4
2004
2005
2006
Assessment 2 Portrait of a Child: Content Knowledge in Reading Instruction
1
Description of Assessment
Candidates are required to construct a detailed portrait of one child’s literacy practices across
multiple contexts. Each week, candidates collect samples of the child's reading, writing, talking,
and other forms of literate practice, and interpret these samples in light of course readings. The
project involves: (1) observing, interviewing, conducting assessments, documenting,
interpreting, and reflecting on one child’s literacy learning across a range of contexts; and, (2)
using the candidate’s observations to design and teach instructional experiences that strengthen
and expand the child’s literacies. Candidates are expected to draw upon a variety of assessment
strategies and tools to construct this portrait (e.g., Burke Reading Interview, Clay’s Concepts
About Print, Goodman’s Miscue Analysis, Clay’s Running Records, Sulzby’s Emergent
Reading/Writer Interview, Bear’s Spelling Inventory and the Teachers College Reading and
Writing Project assessments). By constructing a portrait of a child as a literacy learner,
candidates are given an opportunity to see the synchrony of reading and writing skills, and to
understand how literacy professionals use tools in order to construct an informed
understanding of a learner’s strengths and needs. The portrait that candidates assemble
involves a notebook full of records, observations, analysis, records of teaching and the like. This
work helps candidates understand the interrelationship of assessment and teaching.
2
Alignment with IRA standards for Reading Professionals
The Portrait of a Child is organized by IRA standards (see assessment rubric in 5b). This
assessment meets the following standards: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 3.1, 3.3, 4.1, and 5.2.
3
A Brief Analysis of the Data Findings (Please see the data summary table in 5c)
The rubric for assessing the Portrait of a Child allows a candidate to achieve, at most, a total
value of 32. There are 8 subsections, and a candidate may earn between 1-4 points for each
subsection. In order to pass a subsection, a candidate must receive either a 3 (Acceptable) or a 4
(Strong). Sixty-nine candidates completed the project and demonstrated performance with
mean ratings between 3 and 4; thus meeting the relevant IRA standards. A few candidates in
each cohort were rated as weak in certain areas, receiving ratings of 2. These candidates were
required to revise their portraits and to receive additional coaching. Overall, the candidates in
the 2007 cohort showed improved ratings in mean scores achieved for each subsection on the
rubric.
4. Evidence for Meeting Standards
All of the candidates have met standards, receiving at least a rating of 3.00 on their child
portraits (3 is acceptable and 4, strong.) In fact, the average score achieved last in 2007 was
higher than 3.8. This represents a rise from earlier years, and probably reflects a new emphasis
the program has placed on data-driven instruction. Candidates have participated in a citywide
effort to track readers’ and writers’ progress, gathering data on software that synchronizes data
from multiple sources and helps teachers understand the implications of the data , showing
what is at standard, below standards, above standards for any particular time of year.
5 Attachment of assessment documentation:
5a. Instructions for Candidates:
Portrait of a Literacy Learner: Inquiry as the Basis for Teaching and Curriculum Design
This project is designed to expand your understanding of literacy learning, teaching, and
curriculum design by constructing a narrative portrait of one child’s literacy practices
across multiple contexts. Your focal child 1 should be identified as an English language
learner or a speaker of African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). If there are no
students who match these criteria, you may select a child who is considered a “struggling”
reader/writer.
Each week, you will collect samples of the child's reading, writing, talking, and other forms
of literate practice, and interpret them in light of course readings, especially Freebody and
Luke’s “four resources” model. (Anstey & Bull, 2006) This model suggests that people
take up different positions and draw on various resources to participate in literacy events,
including the roles of code breaker, a text participant (i.e., meaning maker), a text user,
and a text analyst (critical literacies). The project will involve: (1) observing, documenting,
interpreting, and reflecting on one child’s literacy learning and use across a range of
contexts; and, (2) using your observations to design and teach instructional experiences
that will strengthen and expand the child’s literacies. We will draw on a variety of
assessment strategies and tools to construct this portrait (e.g., Burke Reading Interview,
Concepts About Print, Miscue Analysis, Running Records, Emergent Reading/Writer
Interview, ECLAS). Constructing a portrait of a child as a literacy learner and user will
allow you to see first-hand how children develop as readers, writers, and talkers, and help
you understand the interrelationship of assessment and teaching.
It is important to note that this portrait is to be constructed as part of ongoing and
ordinary classroom life (this is not a pull-out project), and that the purpose of
documenting children’s literacies is to gain a better understanding of how to teach and
design curriculum that will expand children’s literacies. Although you are keeping your eye
and ear on one child, you will be primarily teaching children in the context of small group
and whole class instruction, with some occasions for individual conferences,
Your weekly observations and interactions with your focal child will be documented in a
variety of ways:
1
To protect the child’s and the teacher’s privacy, please use a pseudonym for the child, the teacher, and the
school.







Weekly fieldnotes in which you describe and analyze your focal child’s
literacy practices across multiple contexts.
Descriptions of the classroom literacy environment: texts, practices, and
constructions of literacy.
Samples of teaching plans and materials used in particular teaching events.
Samples of student literacy engagement and learning.
Audio- and/or video-tapes of particular teaching events.
Literacy assessment data for you focal child, including literacy
interview/conversation with child, Reading Miscue Analysis + retelling,
ECLAS-2 or other required school assessment practices.
Documentation of conversations with the teacher and family members (if
possible) about the child’s knowledge, participation, and growth.
The final product will be a 20 page report of your findings, supported by data and
interpreted in light of course readings.
5b. Scoring Guide/Rubric
Portrait of a Child Rubric
Strong
IRA Standard
1.1 –
Demonstrate knowledge of
psychological, sociological, and
linguistic foundations of reading
and writing processes and
instruction.
IRA Standard
1.2 –
Demonstrate knowledge of
reading research and histories of
reading.
Acceptable
Weak
Unacceptable
Student provides sophisticated
explanations, as well as
alternative explanations, for
enacted literacy events and
practices based on course
readings and discussions.
Student provides some
explanations for enacted literacy
events and practices based on
course readings and discussions.
Student provides few or partial
explanations for enacted literacy
events and practices.
Student does not provide
explanations for enacted literacy
events and practices.
Student demonstrates
sophisticated understandings of
literacy theory and research to
interpret literacy events, discuss
data, and reflect on child’s
progress. Student does this by
drawing on multiple theoretical
perspectives and corresponding
course readings.
Student demonstrates some
understandings of literacy
theory and research to interpret
literacy events, discuss data, and
reflect on child’s progress.
Student may do this by leaning
on one theoretical perspective
from corresponding course
readings.
Student does not demonstrate
understandings of literacy
theory and research to interpret
literacy events, discuss data, and
reflect on child’s progress.
Student may reference course
readings without discussion of
concepts.
Does not make connections
between reflections on teaching
and learning and theoretical
perspectives presented in
course readings to interpret
literacy events, discuss data, and
reflect on child’s progress.
Recognizes dominant and
alternative discourses around
the child’s literacy work.
Recognizes dominant discourses
about the child’s literacy work.
Presents dominant discourses
about the child’s literacy work
without acknowledging them.
Does not discuss issues of
discourse around the child’s
literacy work.
Student fully supports claims
about child’s literacies and
learning with detailed examples
drawn
IRA Standard
1.3 –
Demonstrate knowledge of
language development and
reading acquisition and the
variations related to culture and
linguistic diversity.
Illustrates thorough awareness
of lens child’s sociocultural
intelligence at work in classroom
literacy events.
Provides a detailed description
of the child’s perspectives and
positioning within intersecting
discourses of gender, race, class,
language, religion, ableness, etc.
Demonstrates sophisticated
awareness of how systemic
inequities in school literacy
practices work.
Demonstrates sophisticated
understanding of dominant and
alternative discourses in
interpreting data and discussing
child’s growth.
Illustrates some awareness of
lens child’s sociocultural
intelligence at work in classroom
literacy events.
Does not illustrate awareness of
lens child’s sociocultural
intelligence at work in classroom
literacy events.
Provides a general description of
the child’s perspectives and
positioning within intersecting
discourses of gender, race, class,
language, religion, ableness, etc.
Does not describe child’s
perspectives or positioning
within intersecting discourses of
gender, race, class, language,
religion, ableness, etc.
Demonstrates awareness of
systemic inequities in school
literacy practices is not clearly
examined.
Demonstrates a partial
understanding of systemic
inequities in school literacy
practices.
Demonstrates an understanding
of dominant and alternative
discourses in interpreting data
and discussing child’s growth.
Demonstrates a partial
understanding of dominant and
alternative discourses in
interpreting data and discussing
child’s growth.
Represents lens child in deficit
language.
Student discusses data in ways
that reproduce deficit views of
children’s literacy learning.
Does not discuss issues of
discourse when interpreting
data and discussing child’s
growth.
IRA Standard
2.2 –
Fully grounds recommendations
for teaching/curriculum in the
literacy portrait.
Grounds recommendations for
teaching/curriculum in the
literacy portrait.
Partially grounds
recommendations for
teaching/curriculum in the
literacy portrait.
Does not ground
recommendations for
teaching/curriculum in the
literacy portrait, or makes no
recommendations that would
support child’s literacy
development.
Draws from multiple sources of
data to provide evidence of
learning.
Draws from several sources of
data to provide evidence of
learning.
Draws on a single piece of data
to provide evidence of learning
Does not use data to provide
evidence of learning
Considers complexity of data
(i.e., looks for evidence that
both confirms and disconfirms
interpretations and conclusions).
Only considers confirming data.
Data reflects experiences and
observations of both teaching
and learning, as well as how
each informs the other.
Data reflects experiences and
observations of both teaching
and learning.
Data reflects experiences and
observations of teaching or
learning (not both).
Does not include data.
Use a wide range instructional
practices, approaches, and
methods, including technologybased practices, for learners at
differing stages of development
and from differing cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
IRA Standard
3.1 –
Use a wide range of assessment
tools and practices that range
from individual and group
standardized tests to individual
and group informal classroom
assessment strategies, including
technology-based assessment
tools.
IRA Standard
3.3 –
Use assessment information to
plan, evaluate, and revise
instruction that meets the needs
of all students including those at
Student represents multiple
Student represents child with
deficit language.
Student represents dimensions
of child’s sociocultural
Student represents some
dimensions of child’s
different stages and those from
diverse cultural and linguistic
backgrounds.
dimensions of child’s
sociocultural intelligence; child’s
knowledge and use of language
variation; and child’s use of
funds of knowledge from
home/popular culture.
intelligence; child’s knowledge
and use of language variation;
and child’s use of funds of
knowledge from home/popular
culture.
sociocultural intelligence; child’s
knowledge and use of language
variation; and child’s use of
funds of knowledge from
home/popular culture.
Student situates and interprets
child’s literacies and learning in
relation to the classroom
literacy environment.
Student situates and interprets
child’s literacies and learning as
that of “any child”, or shows
little acknowledgement of
child’s diversities in relation to
the classroom literacy
environment.
Demonstrates an expanded view
of literacy and literacy
development in
recommendations for
teaching/curriculum.
Demonstrates a view of literacy
beyond school literacy in
recommendations for
teaching/curriculum.
Demonstrates some awareness
of literacy beyond school
literacy in recommendations for
teaching/curriculum.
Demonstrates a narrow view of
literacy and literacy
development in
recommendations for
teaching/curriculum, if they are
made at all.
Student describes specifically
what s/he learned about
teaching literacy in the early
years.
Student describes what s/he
learned about teaching literacy
in the early years.
Student describes vaguely or
partially what s/he learned
about teaching literacy in the
early years.
Student does not describe what
s/he learned about teaching in
the early years.
Student fully situates and
interprets child’s literacies and
learning in relation to the
classroom literacy environment.
IRA Standard
4.1 –
Use students’ interests, reading
abilities, and backgrounds as
foundations for the reading and
writing program.
IRA Standard
5.2 –
Continue to pursue the
development of professional
knowledge and dispositions.
Does not consider the
Draws clear implications from
Draws a few implications for
inquiry to future practice.
Raises questions for future
inquiry, demonstrating an
openness to new ways of
approaching teaching literacy in
the early years.
Draws implications from inquiry.
Raises questions for future
inquiry, indicating an openness
to new ways of approaching
teaching literacy in the early
years.
future teaching.
Raises some questions for future
inquiry, or questions indicate
little openness to new ways of
approaching teaching literacy in
the early years.
implications for future teaching.
Does not raise questions for
future inquiry, or does not
indicate an openness to new
ways of approaching teaching
literacy in the early years.
5c. Data Summary:
2005
N
IRA 1.1 Foundational knowledge
4
3
2
1
IRA 1.2 Knowledge of reading
research and history
4
3
2
1
IRA 1.3 Language development &
Reading acquisition knowledge
4
3
2
1
IRA 2.2 Instructional approaches
4
3
2
1
IRA 3.1 Use of assessment
4
3
2
1
IRA 3.3 Use of assessment for
differentiated instruction
4
3
2
1
IRA 4.1 Use of student interest
4
3
2
1
IRA 5.2 Pursuit of professional
knowledge & dispositions
4
3
2
1
2006
2007
3.33
3.65
3.88
3.33
3.58
3.9
3.33
3.69
3.9
3.67
3.46
3.88
3.33
3.38
3.88
3.33
3.5
3.9
3.67
3.58
3.9
3.33
3.5
3.93
Assessment 3 Curriculum Unit of Study: Planning instruction in Reading
1
Description of Assessment
Candidates design a month-long unit for an upper elementary school class of readers. The
candidate must provide a rational for why he or she decided to teach this unit to these readers,
and that rational will include a discussion of prior-assessments, overall curricular plans,
standards, and the candidate’s philosophy. The candidate must provide an overarching plan for
what readers will do (read, talk-about, write) and for what the candidate will teach. Specifically,
the candidate must include plans for read-aloud and accountable talk, small group work, one-toone conferences, and mini-lessons. Candidates show how this unit of study builds upon prior
work and fits, tongue and groove, into work that follows. They are expected to select several
skills to address, and to assess those skills prior to, during and after the unit of study. Candidates
write a draft, receive extensive feedback, and then continue in a cycle of writing and revising so
that in the end, typically a candidate will write well over 75 pages in order to produce the final
paper, which is typically 20 pages long.
Alignment with IRA standards for Reading Professionals
The Curriculum Unit of Study Project is organized by IRA standards (see the assessment rubric in
5b). This assessment meets the following standards: 1.4, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.4, 5.2, and 5.3.
2
A Brief Analysis of the Data Findings (Please see the data summary table in 5c)
In 2007-2008 the Curriculum Unit of Study Project rubric was revised to better align with IRA
standards. (This rubric was not used in 2005). The new rubric has a total point value of 32
points. There are 8 subsections each with a value of 1-4 points. Candidates are assessed based
on their composite scores. If their scores average is approximately a 3, that candidate’s work is
regarded as acceptable. If the average score for the work approaches a 4, that candidate’s work
is judged to be exceptional. Thirty nine candidates completed this project, and all of them
received a score that was, on average, between 2.90 and 4.75. That is, these candidates all
passed, with work very close to or exceeding standards.
On the sub-sections, some candidates demonstrated areas in which their work was in the ‘needs
improvement’ category. The 39 candidates who completed this work were judged to needimprovement in one area, one sub-category, 58 times. On the other hand, these candidates
were judged to be exceptional 119 times. Across time, there was no dramatic trend toward
improved ratings.
The discussion, above, focused on the new rubric, the one which was designed to align with the
IRA standards. We also include data that was collected using the old rubric. The old rubric had a
total point value of 40 points. There were 10 subsections, each with a value of 1-4 points. For
each subsection a candidates passed with either a 3 (Acceptable) or 4 (Strong).
.
4. Evidence for Meeting Standards
One hundred percent of the candidates completed this project, earning scores at or above
standards level. These candidates demonstrated their capacity to develop assessment-based
curriculum. In fact, each year a dozen candidates from the program have developed curriculum
that is now included in the curricular materials that hundreds of schools across NYC lean upon.
These candidates’ work is published in a web site and is widely accessed by teachers.
Although 100% of the candidates met the standards, the ratings received for this project are not
consistent with those received for other work. How could it be, one might ask, that candidates
are so skilled at the skills assessed by other subtests, and less skilled at curriculum
development? The faculty of the Literacy Specialist program reviewed candidates work across
the various assessments and came to the conclusion that in fact, the quality of work done for
this particular assessment is especially high. Presumably because the faculty member leading
this work is known for rigor (and tough grades), candidates work especially hard on this project.
The scores received by one candidate and another conducting this project are mostly in sync
with each other, but faculty have come to realize that it is necessary to work in the years ahead
towards greater consistency across raters and across different assessments.
Furthermore, faculty recognized that the subsection in which candidates had the most trouble—
use of assessment in planning curriculum—was an especially important one and have made
major advances to include more assessment work within the curriculum. Candidates will, in the
year ahead, not only help teachers assess individual students but will also help literacy coaches
and data specialists look across data sources to study ways in which coherent portraits of
individual readers and of whole classes emerge when streams of data are aligned with one
another.
5. Attachment of assessment documentation:
5a. Instructions for Candidates
(A) Design a unit-of-study for a class of upper grade readers (if you are in the Fieldwork course,
you may decide to design this unit with your case-study subjects in mind). You may design this
work on your own but I recommend you work in collaboration with at least one other classmate.
If you do the work collaboratively, the two or three of you will need to write more (but not
double or triple the number) mini-lessons, conferences, small group plans etc. Ideally, you will
teach this unit of study and your written work will reflect your teaching. In any case, your unit
of study should contain:
o A rationale for teaching this unit of study to these particular readers.
What standards, curricular plans, and assessment data has influenced
the plan for this unit and how have they done so? What prior teaching
will you build upon in this unit?
A month long plan for the teaching you’ll do with your whole class, and
for the work your students will be doing.
o A plan for the read-aloud and accountable talk which will support the
unit of study and also a plan for other components of your literacy
curriculum which might reflect or support this unit. That is, will this unit
affect word study? Social Studies?
o Goals for the unit, including interim goals.
o A record keeping system and a rubric or other means for assessing your
readers with those goals in mind. Evidence that your ongoing
assessments will affect your teaching.
o Evidence of data you glean from piloting the curriculum, experimenting
with the teaching, and studying readers (if you are able to actually teach
this unit).
o Five mini-lessons, written in detail (more if the unit is collaboratively
devised). These mini-lessons should be the turning points across the
unit. Also an overview of the other mini-lessons you imagine you might
lead, or for alternate ways in which you plan to teach.
o Plans for several small group strategy lessons (or other forms of small
group work) you anticipate providing.
o Transcripts of the one on one conferring you imagine doing, with
accompanying student data if possible.
o A bibliography of professional books which informed this and of related
children’s literature.
Your work on this unit of study will thread throughout most of the semester, with due- dates
for rough drafts of various components announced in class. That is, one week I will say, “Next
week, please bring a draft of such and such to class.” I will respond to some of the drafts, and
colleagues will respond to other drafts. Expect to write half a dozen drafts of many aspects of
the unit!
o
5b. Curriculum Unit of Study Rubric
IRA standard
1.4 –
Demonstrate knowledge
of the major
components of reading
(phonemic awareness,
word identification and
phonics, vocabulary and
background knowledge,
fluency, comprehension
strategies, and
motivation) and how
they are integrated in
fluent reading.
TC standard
K3.1 –
Subject-matter or
disciplinary knowledge.
Strong
Acceptable
Needs Revision
Unacceptable
Curriculum demonstrates
sophisticated knowledge
about teaching
comprehension,
vocabulary, fluency,
phonics, and phonemic
awareness in the
curriculum (in so far as it is
appropriate for the grade
level).
Curriculum demonstrates
knowledge about teaching
comprehension,
vocabulary, fluency,
phonics, and phonemic
awareness in the
curriculum (in so far as it is
appropriate for the grade
level).
Curriculum demonstrates
partial knowledge about
teaching comprehension,
vocabulary, fluency,
phonics, and phonemic
awareness in the
curriculum (in so far as it is
appropriate for the grade
level).
Curriculum does not
demonstrate knowledge
about teaching
comprehension,
vocabulary, fluency,
phonics, and phonemic
awareness in the
curriculum (in so far as it is
appropriate for the grade
level).
IRA standard
2.2 –
Use a wide range of
instructional practices,
approaches, and
methods, including
technology-based
practices, for learners at
differing stages of
development and from
differing cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
Curriculum shows a solid
grasp of methods for
teaching reading and
writing (i.e., conferring,
guided reading, minilessons, interactive writing,
shared reading, etc.) The
teacher may alter methods
he or she has learned
about from professional
study, but does so
purposefully and
systematically articulates
his or her reasons for doing
so.
Teacher systematically
aligns and scaffolds
curriculum unit with
children’s needs and
abilities, so that the work is
within their reach and also
stretches them.
Teacher makes major
efforts to align curriculum
unit with children’s needs
and abilities, recognizing
that the work is often
beyond the reach of many
children or, alternatively,
the work regularly presents
little challenge to many
children.
Curriculum provides
Curriculum provides
TC standard
K3.2 –
Knowledge about
learners and learning.
K3.3 –
Knowledge about
curriculum and teaching.
S3.1 –
Curriculum shows an
understanding of methods
for teaching reading and
writing (i.e., conferring,
guided reading, minilessons, interactive writing,
shared reading, etc.) The
teacher may alter methods
he or she has learned
about from professional
study and articulates his or
her reasons for doing so.
Curriculum shows a partial
grasp of methods for
teaching reading and
writing (i.e., conferring,
guided reading, minilessons, interactive writing,
shared reading, etc.) The
teacher may claim to have
incorporated methods
learned from professional
study, but his or her
reasons for doing so are
not fully or convincingly
articulated.
Teacher makes efforts to
align curriculum unit with
children’s needs and
abilities, but the work is
beyond many children’s
reach or, alternatively, is
not challenging for many
children. Most children
either find it hard to work
with success or they are
unable to proceed with any
Curriculum shows very
little grasp of methods for
teaching reading and
writing (i.e., conferring,
guided reading, minilessons, interactive writing,
shared reading, etc.) The
teacher may claim to have
incorporated methods
learned from professional
study, but does not
articulate his or her
reasons for doing so.
Teacher makes little or no
effort to align curriculum
unit with children’s needs
and abilities (i.e. the
teacher expects the
children and not his or her
instruction to change.), so
that the work is either
beyond most children’s
reach, or alternatively, is
not challenging for most
Planning of curriculum
and/or services.
D3.1 –
Commitment to the
fullest possible growth
and development of all
students.
IRA standard
2.3 –
Use a wide range of
curriculum materials in
effective reading
instruction for learners
sophisticated scaffolding
tailored to the strengths
and needs of diverse
learners. If the class
contains English Language
Learners, deliberate
attention is paid to provide
ELLs at different levels of
proficiency with
appropriate support.
scaffolding tailored to the
strengths and needs of
diverse learners. If the
class contains English
Language Learners, the
teacher tries to provide
ELLs at different levels of
proficiency with
appropriate support.
independence because
they need so much
support.
Student appears to have
drawn from multiple
resources (e.g.,
professional literature,
children’s literature,
mentorships, and other
educators’ effective
literacy practices) to
inform their teaching and
Student appears to have
drawn from resources
(e.g., professional
development, children’s
literature, mentorships,
etc.) to “come up with”
something to teach, but it
Student appears to have
drawn from only a limited
number of sources in order
to inform their teaching.
Curriculum provides little
scaffolding tailored to the
strengths and needs of
diverse learners. If the
class contains English
Language Learners, the
teacher is aware that he or
she needs to provide ELLs
at different levels of
proficiency with
appropriate support but
does not have effective
systems in place for doing
so.
children.
Curriculum is not tailored
to the strengths and needs
of diverse learners. If the
class contains English
Language Learners, the
teacher does not show any
sign of trying to provide
ELLs at different levels of
proficiency with
appropriate support.
Student does not appear to
have drawn from any
sources in order to inform
their teaching.
at different stages of
reading and writing
development and from
different cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
curriculum design. He/she
appears to have drawn
from a large reservoir of
knowledge and to have
mused over, made,
revised, and settled upon
informed decisions.
isn’t clear that he/she has
drawn from a large enough
reservoir of ideas to be
particularly selective.
Curriculum provides strong
evidence that the teacher
has pre-planned detailed
and do-able methods for
assessing learners’
progress towards the main
goals of the unit.
Curriculum provides
evidence that the teacher
has pre-planned methods
for assessing learners’
progress towards the main
goals of the unit.
TC standard
K3.3 –
Knowledge about
curriculum and teaching
IRA standard
3.1 –
Use a wide range of
assessment tools and
practices that range
from individual and
group standardized tests
to individual and group
informal classroom
assessment strategies,
including technologybased assessment tools.
Curriculum provides
detailed assessments for
before, during and after
the unit so the teacher can
learn what learners can
Curriculum provides
assessments for before,
during, and after the unit
so the teacher can learn
what learners can already
do with independence,
Curriculum provides some
evidence that the teacher
has pre-planned methods
for assessing learners’
progress towards the main
goals of the unit, though
these plans are not very
detailed or do-able.
Curriculum provides some
assessments throughout
the unit, but may not
happen before, during and
Curriculum does not
provide evidence that the
teacher has pre-planned
methods for assessing
learners’ progress towards
the main goals of the unit.
Curriculum does not
provide assessments so the
teacher can learn what
learners can already do
with independence, what
they can almost do, what
TC standard
S3.4 –
Assessment and
evaluation.
IRA standard
3.3 –
Use assessment
information to plan,
evaluate, and revise
effective instruction that
meets the needs of all
students including those
at different
developmental stages
and those from diverse
cultural and linguistic
backgrounds.
TC standards
already do with
independence, what they
can almost do, what they
are learning to do, and
what problems they are
encountering.
what they can almost do,
what they are learning to
do, and what problems
they are encountering.
after the unit and it is not
directly aligned to the
goals of the unit.
they are learning to do,
and what problems they
are encountering.
Teacher significantly
observes and talks with
children as they read.
His/her teaching
systematically uses this
information to
demonstrate an
understanding of what
children can do with ease
and of the difficulties
children encounter.
Teacher observes and talks
with children as they read.
His/her teaching
demonstrates an
understanding of what
children can do with ease
and of the difficulties
children encounter, but
this work does not
dramatically affect the
teacher’s instructional
plans.
Teacher observes and talks
with children as they read,
or his/her teaching
partially uses this
information to
demonstrate an
understanding of what
children can do with ease
and of the difficulties
children encounter.
Teacher does not observe
children as they read, or
his/her teaching does not
use this information to
demonstrate an
understanding of what
children can do with ease
and of the difficulties
children encounter.
K1.2 –
Relationship between
research and practice.
IRA standard
4.4 –
Motivate learners to be
life-long readers.
TC standard
D2.1 –
Commitment to the
profession, ethics, and
lifelong learning.
Over the course of the
unit, most children
independently use most of
the skills and strategies
taught.
Over the course of the
unit, most children
independently use at least
half of the skills and
strategies taught.
Teacher significantly
reflects on his/her own
literacy and has found
ways to teach kids skills
and strategies that are
important to him/her. As a
result, the work that
children are asked to do
appears authentic and
engaging enough that
adult observers find
themselves hankering to
participating in the literacy
activities.
Teacher reflects on his/her
own literacy and has found
some ways to teach kids
skills and strategies that
are important to him/her.
As a result, the work those
children are asked to do
appears authentic.
Over the course of the
unit, many children
attempt to independently
use some of the skills
taught. Others still require
more access or scaffolding.
Teacher partially reflects
on his/her own literacy and
has tried to find ways to
use his or her own literacy
to teach kids things that
are important to him/her,
but has not been able to
make this happen.
Over the course of the
unit, many children are not
able to independently use
the skills and strategies
taught or, alternatively,
they do not make progress
in the areas the unit was
meant to address.
Teacher does not reflect on
his/her own literacy or
does not connect his/her
own literacy to teaching.
As a result, children’s work
feels like a series of
exercises and activities
that one would only do if
required.
IRA standard
5.2 –
Continue to pursue the
development of
professional knowledge
and dispositions.
TC standard
S1.3 –
Use of research and
inquiry methods in
practice.
D1.1 –
Open-mindedness and
commitment to inquiry
and reflection.
IRA standard
5.3 –
Work with colleagues to
Curriculum is
systematically designed,
implemented, and revised
through a process of
inquiry and responsiveness
to what occurs within the
lived-life of the unit
The teacher reconsiders
prior ideas, entertains a
variety of options, wrestles
with difficulties, devised
tentative plans and alters
those plans based on new
insights. That is, the
challenge to devise and
teach the unit supports not
only children but also the
teacher’s learning.
Curriculum unit is
designed collaboratively
among at least a few
educators. A structure is
Curriculum is designed,
implemented, and revised
through a process of
inquiry.
Curriculum is partially
designed with inquiry in
mind, but seems mostly
pre-planned.
The teacher shows
awareness of the
importance of altering
plans based on new
insights based on changes
that occur as the unit is
being taught.
The teacher tries to make
changes to curriculum
based on new insights, but
is not successful. As a
result, the unit continues
as planned, despite
new/changing student
needs.
Curriculum unit is
designed collaboratively or
with input from several
Curriculum is designed by
an educator who does not
have an opportunity to
plan and assess instruction
Curriculum is not designed
with inquiry in mind,
resulting in a pre-planned
agenda that does not quite
meet student needs.
The teacher makes no
effort to reflect on how
the unit is affecting
children and vice versa. As
a result, he or she is set
out to implement the
curriculum as is.
Curriculum unit shows no
evidence of having been
designed with input from
observe, evaluate, and
provide feedback on
each other’s practice.
established so that
teachers can plan,
implement, and learn from
implementation together.
TC standard
K4.1 –
Processes and strategies
of effective cooperation
and collaboration.
S4.1 –
Interaction and
collaboration
Curriculum unit is shared
with other educators who
report that they find it very
valuable.
educators.
with other educators.
anyone but the teacher.
Curriculum unit is shared
with other educators.
Curriculum unit is not
shared with other
educators.
Curriculum unit is not
ready to be shared with
other educators.
5c. Data Summary:
Current Rubric
Candidates admitted in:
N
IRA 1.4 Knowledge of Reading
Components
4
3
2
1
IRA 2.2 Instructional
approaches
4
3
2
1
IRA 2.3 Range of curriculum
materials
4
3
2
1
IRA 3.1 Use of assessment
4
3
2
1
IRA 3.3 Use of assessment
for differentiated instruction
4
3
2
1
IRA 4.4 Motivate lifelong
learners
4
3
2
1
IRA 5.2 Pursuit of professional
knowledge & dispositions
4
3
2
2006
2007
IRA 5.3 Work with colleagues
1
4
3
2
1
Old Rubric:
Candidates admitted in:
N
Commitment to Leadership
Subject-matter Knowledge
Knowledge about Learners
and Learning
Knowledge about Curriculum
Assessment and Evaluation
Planning of Curriculum
2005
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
Implementation of Instruction
and
4
3
2006
2007
Commitment to Growth
Strategies to Address
Inequalities
Social Behavior Management
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
Assessment 4 Fieldwork Practicum: Assessment of Internship, Practicum, or Other Clinical
Experience
1. Description of Assessment
Four mornings a week, for 150+ hours a semester, candidates apprentice themselves to master
teachers and to literacy coaches, working within and between classrooms. In these fieldwork
experiences, candidates develop their skills by researching students in order to understand their
needs and strengths as readers, writers, spellers and talkers, and they design assessment based
instruction to help those students outgrow themselves. Candidates observe master teachers
doing this work, and join them in the effort. They witness master teachers using methods that
are important to all teachers of reading of writing. That is, they observe shared reading, guided
reading, interactive writing, word study, read aloud, vocabulary support, test prep, accountable
talk, inquiry groups, reading clubs, writing workshops, writing conferences and the like. More
than this, they watch the interaction between teaching and student growth, noticing what does
and does not promote growth. These interns participate as full members of the learning
community—designing instruction, leading units of study, working with small groups and the
like, and teaching reading and writing in ways that help them grow. Candidates are observed
closely and evaluated during the fieldwork experience by fieldwork supervisors. Supervisors
visit, observe, and evaluate candidates at least 4 times each semester. Candidates also work
closely with literacy coaches and staff developers to learn leadership skills for literacy educators,
focusing on taking an inquiry stance within their own classrooms and schools as teacherresearchers.
2. Alignment with IRA standards for Reading Professionals
The fieldwork practicum assessment is organized by IRA standards (see the assessment rubric in
5b). This assessment meets the following standards: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4,
4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 5.2.
3. A Brief Analysis of the Data Findings (Please see the data summary table in 5c)
The practicum rubric is a total of 56 points. There are 14 subsections each with a value of 1-4
points. For each subsection a candidate will pass with either a 3 (Acceptable) or 4 (Strong).
Twenty-five candidates completed the practicum between the years 2006-2007 with mean
ratings between 3 and 4. The data shows that only one candidate in each of the 2006 and 2007
cohorts received a score point 2 (needs revision) for the IRA standard 2.1, use of instructional
options. Overall, mean scores have either maintained or improved from the 2006 cohort to the
2007 cohort of candidates.
4. Evidence for Meeting Standards
Over the years, only one candidate did not earn a satisfactory score for field work. That one
candidate found it challenging to work in the diverse classrooms of New York City schools, and
was prone to making snap judgments about children, and especially prone to underestimate
what kids can do. The candidate received additional supervisory visits (usually candidates
receive five such visits) and yet even with this help, the candidate was asked to repeat the
fieldwork.
Other than this, candidates demonstrated that they can meet the IRA standards 1.1, 1.3, 1.4,
2.1, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.3., 4.4, and 5.2. Faculty have taken note that candidates are
especially strong at reading knowledge and less strong at developing a variety of instructional
approaches. The program faculty have designed additional experiences and instruction to
strengthen candidates’ knowledge of diverse instructional approaches. The faculty have been
pleased to also note that candidates earned an average score of 3.83 for the IRA standard,
Pursuit of Professional Knowledge and Dispositions.
5. Attachment of assessment documentation:
5a. LITI Field Experiences
Those of us who lead the Literacy Specialist Program recognize that some of the most powerful
learning you will do in this program will come not from your coursework at the College but from
your field experiences. We are lucky to be situated in New York City, where most of our
classrooms brim with diverse learners, where hundreds of schools are engaged in state-of-theart reading and writing instruction and where there is already a thriving community of
professional study. Then, too, the Program exists alongside the Teachers College Reading and
Writing Project, with all the learning opportunities that organization provides. There are, then,
lots of opportunities to learn available to you and the Program’s goal is to match you to the
opportunities which will best support your continued education.
The New York State regulations provide some direction. In order to receive certification from
the State, it is necessary for you to spend some time learning from both primary and upperelementary classrooms.
First, if you are a fulltime classroom teacher while also attending this program, you will want to
use your own classroom as a research site and to study your own readers and writers. You’ll
profit most from this fieldwork if you enroll in it after taking a couple of courses, so you may
postpone the Field Work until the second year of your studies (assuming that if you are teaching
full time, you will be studying only half time). In any case, you and other fulltime teachers will
work together within a course designed especially for you (4200 Section 3), and will conduct
research in your own classroom. Because of state requirements and because we believe you’ll
profit from knowing a wide range of learners, you will also be asked to tutor or lead a small
group of learners from a grade level which is very different than your own as well as to conduct
research in your classroom. We expect that you will write an article for publication about your
discoveries.
If you have not yet had the opportunity to teach your own class for at least a year, then we
suggest that your first semester field work be rather like an Advanced Student Teaching
experience. That is, we will place you in the classroom of a superb teacher, someone with
special strengths in literacy, and expect you to work in that classroom four mornings a week for
a semester. At the start of the semester, most of your time will be engaged in studying
particular learners and in supporting individuals and small groups, but as the semester unfolds,
you should expect to lead whole-class instruction as well as small group work. You will be
observed as you teach four times across the semester, and you will participate in a once-a-week
class (4200 Section 1) containing others who are in a similarly designed fieldwork experience.
If your teaching suggests to your supervisor that a second semester engaged in a similarly
intensive apprenticeship would be the best way for you to further your knowledge and abilities,
then during second semester you’ll be placed in a second classroom. The two placements would
differ in grade-level and also the schools themselves would be different. Our goal is to be sure
that during at least one of your semesters, you have the opportunity to teach and learn within a
high poverty school. If, on the other hand, it seems that you would profit more from the field
experiences described below, you’d be invited to participate in them (see write up below).
If you enter this program with at least a year and preferably two or more years of teaching
experience, then we offer alternate internships. You can decide to join a group of 8-12 teacherresearchers from schools across the City, and to function as an intern and a researcher for this
inquiry group. For example, a group of teachers will gather one evening a week at Teachers
College to invent new ideas for supporting small group instruction in their classrooms. These
teachers will attend conference days together, will pool their own best ideas, will learn from an
expert on their chosen topic, and will try to implement ideas they develop together within their
classrooms. If you intern with this group, you’d attend all their study-group meetings as if you
were a participant in them, and you’d also work alongside a few of the group members in their
classrooms, furthering this research and learning, in general, from their work. To register for this
option, sign up for 4200 Section 2.
There will be study groups on almost every imaginable topic including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Supporting Fluency for Struggling Readers in Middle School Classrooms (Kylene
Beers)
Developing State-of-the-Art Curriculum for Upper Grade Reading Classrooms
(Kathleen Tolan with Lucy Calkins)
Shared Reading and Interactive Writing in Primary Classrooms
Differentiating the Writing Workshop: How Can We Teach Struggling and Strong
Writers at One and the Same Time? (Colleen Cruz)
Developing Expertise in Using Data to Plan for Instruction (Janet Steinberg)
Assessing Talk in Read Aloud to Support Reading Comprehension in
Independent Reading and Partner Talk (Mary Ann Colbert)
Using Drama, Art and Writing to Support Reading Comprehension (Amanda
Hartman)
Teach Children to Synthesize and Grow Ideas by Reading, Writing, and Talking
Across Literature and Primary Source Documents: A Focus on New York City and
Communities Across the World (Beth Moore)
How Can the Study of Rich Literature, Poems and Songs Support Language
Development in Our Ell Students? (Emily DeLiddo)
• Readers and Writers Learn Habits of Mind That Can Enrich the Science
Curriculum: Noticing Details, Seeing Patterns, Asking Questions, Pursuing
Theories Across Our Day (Kathy Doyle)
Finally, if you enter the Literacy Specialist Program with four or more years of teaching
experience and you would like to learn to be a Literacy Coach/Staff Developer, your field work
can involve either apprenticing with a staff developer with the Teachers College Reading and
Writing Project or participating in a once-a-week day-long course of study involving 18 New York
City Literacy Coaches, then working with one or two of those coaches to their schools to support
and learn from their work as coaches. This, too, is 4200 Section 2.)
•
5b. Fieldwork Evaluation Assessment Rubric
IRA standard
1.1 –
Demonstrate knowledge of
psychological, sociological,
and linguistic foundations
of reading and writing
processes and instruction.
TC standard
K3.1 –
Subject-matter or
Disciplinary Knowledge
IRA standard 1.3 –
Demonstrate knowledge of
language development
and reading acquisition
Strong
Acceptable
Needs Revision
Unacceptable
Candidate shows a
sophisticated
understanding of major
theories in the
foundational areas as they
relate to reading and
writing.
Candidate shows an
understanding of major
theories in the
foundational areas as they
relate to reading and
writing.
Candidate shows partial
understanding of major
theories in the
foundational areas as they
relate to reading and
writing.
Candidate shows little to
no understanding of major
theories in the
foundational areas as they
relate to reading and
writing.
Candidate can explain,
compare, contrast, and
critique the theories.
Candidate can partially
explain, compare,
contrast, and critique the
theories.
Candidate cannot explain,
compare, contrast, and
critique the theories.
Candidate illustrates
awareness of students’
individual strengths and
needs as they relate to
Candidate illustrates little
awareness of students’
individual strengths and
needs as they relate to
Candidate does not
illustrate awareness of
students’ individual
strengths and needs as
Candidate can explain,
compare, contrast, and
critique the theories in
relation to what they
observe occurring in the
field.
Candidate illustrates
thorough awareness of
students’ individual
strengths and needs as
and the variations related
to culture and linguistic
diversity.
they relate to literacy
development and cultural
and linguistic diversity.
literacy development and
cultural and linguistic
diversity.
literacy development and
cultural and linguistic
diversity.
they relate to literacy
development and cultural
and linguistic diversity.
Candidate’s literacy
instruction demonstrates
sophisticated knowledge
about teaching
comprehension,
vocabulary, fluency,
phonics, and phonemic
awareness.
Candidate’s literacy
instruction demonstrates
knowledge about teaching
comprehension,
vocabulary, fluency,
phonics, and phonemic
awareness.
Candidate’s literacy
instruction demonstrates
partial knowledge about
teaching comprehension,
vocabulary, fluency,
phonics, and phonemic
awareness.
Candidate’s literacy
instruction does not
demonstrate knowledge
about teaching
comprehension,
vocabulary, fluency,
phonics, and phonemic
awareness.
TC standard
K3.2 –
Knowledge about Learners
and Learning
IRA standard 1.4 –
Demonstrate knowledge of
the major components of
reading (phonemic
awareness, word
identification and phonics,
vocabulary and
background knowledge,
fluency, comprehension
strategies, and motivation)
and how they are
integrated in fluent
reading.
TC standard S1.2 –
Application of Research to
Practice
IRA standard 2.1 –
Use instructional grouping
options (individual, small
group, whole class, and
computer-based) as
appropriate for
accomplishing given
purposes.
TC standard
K4.1 –
Processes and Strategies of
Effective Cooperation and
Collaboration
S4.1 –
Interaction and
Collaboration
Candidate collaborates
with the classroom host
teachers and
paraprofessional in their
planning for instructional
grouping options of
students.
Candidate collaborates
with the teacher to select
the appropriate grouping
options for students and
explains the evidencebased rationale for
changing configurations to
meet the needs of all
students.
Candidate supports
classroom host teachers
and paraprofessionals in
their planning for
instructional grouping
options of students.
Candidate helps teacher
select grouping options for
students and offers a
rationale for changing
configurations to meet the
needs of all students.
Candidate observes the
classroom host teachers
and paraprofessionals in
their planning for
instructional grouping
options of students.
Candidate observes the
teacher process for
selecting and
implementing grouping
options for students and
offers a rationale for
changing configurations to
meet the needs of all
students.
Candidate does not
participate in the planning
for instructional grouping
of options of students.
Candidate does not
participate in selecting
grouping options for
students.
D4.1 –
Willingness to Cooperate
IRA standard 2.2 –
Use a wide range of
instructional practices,
approaches, and methods,
including technologybased practices, for
learners at differing stages
of development and from
differing cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
TC standard
K3.2 –
Knowledge about Learners
and Learning
S3.2 –
Implementation of
Instruction and/or Services
Candidate’s practice
includes a variety of
sophisticated
instructional format(s)
and sophisticated
strategies to meet the
diverse needs of students.
Candidate’s practice
includes instructional
format(s) and strategies
to meet the diverse needs
of students.
Candidate’s practice
includes some
instructional formats and
strategies to meet the
needs of learners.
Candidate’s practice does
not vary instructional
formats and strategies to
meet the needs of
learners.
S5.1 –
Use of Strategies to
Address Inequalities in the
Classroom, School, and
Society
D3.1 –
Commitment to the Fullest
Possible Growth and
Development of All
Students
IRA standard 2.3 –
Use a wide range of
curriculum materials in
effective reading
instruction for learners and
different stages of reading
and writing development
and from different cultural
and linguistic backgrounds.
TC standard
K3.3 –
Candidate has a
sophisticated
understanding of
multilevel reading
materials and utilizes such
materials daily, in a variety
of contexts, to support all
learners’ literacy
development.
Candidate has an
understanding of
multilevel reading
materials and utilizes such
materials daily, in a variety
of contexts, to support all
learners’ literacy
development.
Candidate has a partial
understanding of
multilevel reading
materials and utilizes such
materials daily, in a variety
of contexts, to support all
learners’ literacy
development.
Candidate does not
demonstrate an
understanding of ways to
select and utilize multilevel
reading materials.
Knowledge about
Curriculum and Teaching
S3.1 –
Planning of Curriculum
and/or Services
IRA standard 3.1 –
Use a wide range of
assessment tools and
practices that range from
individual and group
standardized tests to
individual and group
informal classroom
assessment strategies,
including technologybased assessment tools.
IRA standard 3.2 –
Place students along a
developmental continuum
and identify students’
proficiencies and
difficulties.
Candidate demonstrates a
sophisticated knowledge
of formal and informal
assessment tools and
regularly uses them to
collect data for the
purpose of making
instructional decisions.
Candidate demonstrates
knowledge of formal and
informal assessment tools
and regularly uses them to
collect data for the
purpose of making
instructional decisions.
Candidate demonstrates
partial knowledge of
formal and informal
assessment tools and
regularly uses them to
collect data for the
purpose of making
instructional decisions.
Candidate does not
demonstrate knowledge of
formal and informal
assessment tools.
Candidate has a
sophisticated
understanding of students’
strengths and areas of
need due to regular
assessment practices.
Candidate has an
understanding of students’
strengths and areas of
need due to regular
assessment practices.
Candidate has a partial
understanding of students’
strengths and areas of
need due to regular
assessment practices.
Candidate does not have
an understanding of
students’ strengths and
areas of need due to
regular assessment
practices.
Candidate has an
Candidate has a partial
TC standards
K3.2 –
Knowledge about Learners
and Learning.
Candidate has a
sophisticated
understanding of ways to
flexibly group students
according to their
strengths and needs.
understanding of ways to
flexibly group students
according to their
strengths and needs.
understanding of ways to
flexibly group students
according to their
strengths and needs.
Candidate does not have
an understanding of ways
to flexibly group students
according to their
strengths and needs.
Candidate uses
assessment information
to design sophisticated
differentiated
instructional practices.
Candidate uses
assessment information
to design differentiated
instructional practices.
Candidate uses
assessment information
to design instruction.
Candidate does not use
assessment information
to design instruction.
Candidate engages in a
process of teaching and
data collection.
Candidate does not
engage in a process of
teaching, data collection,
and revision of practice to
K3.3 –
Knowledge about
Curriculum and Teaching.
S3.4 –
Assessment and
Evaluation.
IRA standard 3.3 –
Use assessment
information to plan,
evaluate, and revise
effective instruction that
meets the needs of all
students including those at
different developmental
stages and those from
Candidate engages in a
sophisticated process of
Candidate engages in a
process of teaching, data
collection, and revision of
diverse cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
teaching, data collection,
and revision of practice to
meet the needs of all
students.
practice to meet the
needs of all students.
meet the needs of all
students.
TC standard
K1.2 –
Relationship between
Research and Practice.
S1.2 –
Application of Research to
Practice
S1.3 –
Use of Research and
Inquiry Methods in
Practice
D3.1 –
Commitment to the Fullest
Possible Growth and
Development of All
Students.
IRA standard
Candidate has a
Candidate has an
Candidate has a partial
Candidate does not have
3.4 –
Communicate results of
assessments to specific
individuals (students,
parents, caregivers,
colleagues, administrators,
policymakers, policy
officials, community, etc.).
sophisticated
understanding of formal
and informal assessments
and articulates results to
stakeholders in a clear and
appropriate way based
upon their audience.
understanding of formal
and informal assessments
and articulates results to
stakeholders in a clear
manner.
understanding of formal
and informal assessments
and articulates results to
stakeholders.
an understanding of
formal and informal
assessments and does not
articulate results to
stakeholders.
Daily the candidate utilizes
a plethora of multilevel
instructional materials and
texts to support students’
learning.
Daily candidate utilizes a
variety of multilevel
instructional materials and
texts to support students’
learning.
Candidate utilizes some
multilevel instructional
materials and texts to
support students’ learning.
Candidate does not utilize
multilevel instructional
materials and texts to
support students’ learning.
TC standards
S4.1–
Interaction and
Collaboration.
D2.2–
Commitment to
Leadership.
IRA standard 4.2 –
Use a large supply of
books, technology-based
information, and nonprint
materials representing
multiple levels, broad
interests, cultures, and
linguistic backgrounds.
TC standard s
K3.1 –
Subject-matter or
Disciplinary Knowledge.
K5.1 –
Democracy, Equity, and
Schooling.
IRA standard 4.3 –
Model reading and writing
enthusiastically as valued
life-long activities.
TC standards
K2.1 –
Continuum of lifelong
learning.
Candidate models
authentic literacy practices
with fervor for students.
Candidate models
authentic literacy practices
for students.
Candidate models literacy
practices for students.
Candidate does not model
authentic literacy practices
for students.
K3.3 –
Knowledge about
curriculum and teaching.
D2.1 –
Commitment to the
profession, ethics, and
lifelong learning.
IRA standard
4.4 –
Motivate learners to be
lifelong readers.
Candidate enthusiastically
encourages students to
fold reading into their
everyday lives and view
reading as an authentic
practice.
Candidate encourages
students make reading a
part of their everyday
lives.
Candidate encourages
students to read everyday.
Candidate does not
encourage students to fold
reading into their everyday
lives and view reading as
an authentic practice.
Candidate demonstrates a
deep commitment to
lifelong learning and
Candidate demonstrates a
commitment to lifelong
learning and continued
Candidate demonstrates a
partial commitment to
lifelong learning and
Candidate does not
demonstrate a
commitment to lifelong
TC standard
D2.1 –
Commitment to the
profession, ethics, and
lifelong learning.
IRA standard
5.2 –
Continue to pursue the
development of
professional knowledge
and dispositions.
TC standard
S4.1 –
Interaction and
Collaboration
D1.1 –
Open-mindedness and
Commitment to Inquiry
and Reflection
continued professional
development.
professional development.
continued professional
development.
learning and continued
professional development.
5c. Data Summary:
Candidates admitted in
N
IRA 1.1 Foundational
knowledge
IRA 1.3 Language
development & Reading
acquisition knowledge
2006
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
IRA 1.4 Knowledge of Reading
Components
4
3
2
1
IRA 2.1 Use of instructional
grouping
4
3
2
1
IRA 2.2 Instructional
approaches
4
3
2
1
IRA 2.3 Range of curriculum
materials
4
3
2
1
IRA 3.1 Use of assessment
2007
4
3
2
1
IRA 3.2 Identify students'
proficiencies and difficulties
4
3
2
1
IRA 3.3 Use of assessment
for differentiated instruction
4
3
2
1
IRA 3.4 Communicate results
of assessment
4
3
2
1
IRA 4.2 Range of instructional
materials
4
3
2
1
IRA 4.3 Model lifelong reading
& writing
4
3
2
1
IRA 4.4 Motivate lifelong
learners
4
3
2
1
IRA 5.2 Pursuit of professional
knowledge & dispositions
4
3
2
1
Assessment 5 Masters Action Research Project: Candidate’s Effect on Student Learning
1. Description of Assessment
This assessment tracks the cyclical process of research-reflection-instruction that grounds the
meaningful, responsive nature of literacy education. Candidates will use what they learn from
closely assessing children’s literacy and then draw upon course material and program readings,
mentorships and experiences in the classroom, and independent research in order to develop
expertise in an area relevant to students’ strengths and needs, and then candidates design
interventions and instruction in that area. The candidate then teaches students and collects
evidence of student growth, and then uses that evidence to inform revised teaching plans. The
candidate participates in this cycle of research, planning, teaching, analysis, and further planning
repeatedly, across at least four cycles. Each cycle of teaching and research builds upon the
previous cycle and hones in on a particular aspect of the overall topic.
2. Alignment with IRA standards for Reading Professionals
The Master’s Action Research Project is organized by IRA standards (see the assessment rubric5b). This assessment meets the following standards: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1, and
5.3.
3. A Brief Analysis of the Data Findings (Please see the data summary table—5c)
In 2007-2008 the Master’s action research project rubric was revised to better align with IRA
standards. The new rubric has a total point value of 44 points. There are 11 subsections each
with a value of 1-4 points. For each subsection a candidate will pass with either a 3 (acceptable)
or 4 (strong). Thirty-three candidates completed the project with mean ratings between 3 and
4. As can be seen by the total mean scores on the data table, 100% of the candidates passed
the assignment and received a score point of either a 3 or 4.
4. Evidence for Meeting Standards
The evidence shows that 100% of candidates demonstrated that they have met standards,
receiving either a 3 or a 4 for their fieldwork experiences. In fact, not one candidate received
any score lower than a 3 or a 4. Upon reflection, faculty in the program have come to believe
that it will be important for faculty to work in synchronization with each other to specify more
concretely exactly what it is a candidate can do to demonstrate excellence in the various subcategories of field work, because it is actually unlikely that all but one or two candidates are
exceptional in every way! If faculty are more clear what it is that a candidate might do that is not
exemplary and clear, too, over the educational ways to respond when work is not ideal, then the
faculty will probably feel more comfortable distributing rankings more, in ways that reflect the
fact that all candidates are equally proficient at all aspects of their field work.
5. Attachment of assessment documentation:
5a. Master’s Action Research Project
This assessment tracks the cyclical process of research-reflection-instruction that grounds the
meaningful, responsive nature of literacy education. Using what you observe and learn about
children’s literacy practices in your fieldwork and experiences in the classroom, focus on a topic
of interest that you will continue to research throughout the academic year. Your topic should
be broad enough to allow you to engage in three to four cycles of research-reflection-instruction
throughout the year, each time building upon the previous cycle and honing in on a particular
aspect of that topic that inspires you keep investigating students in action and your work as a
literacy teacher.
The understanding that truly meaningful, responsive teaching draws from continual shifting
among the stages of research-reflection-instruction is at the core of this project. Therefore, we
expect your final project to be organized, but messy in the sense that such teaching can never
be linear or sequential.
Literacy teachers research what children are doing in their literacy work, think about what that
research reveals about those children and one’s own teaching, and then try something new to
help instruct students. Sometimes, that requires you to gather lots of data from lots of places
during a research stage, holding several conferences with a particular child, photocopying
notebook entries and Post-it notes, conducting interviews, or even sitting back and observing
the child in different parts of the school setting.
At first, the data may seem cumbersome and directionless. The next stage of the cycle—
reflection—affords you the opportunity to soak in the data and plan instruction or decide which
aspects to research further. This part of the project may include your own journal entries and
comments about your research. Include discussions about you make sense of the data you
collected and how your analysis helps you get closer to understanding your topic.
The third stage—instruction—is the point at which you experiment and try out your plans for
addressing the child’s needs. Discuss the results of these attempts. Naturally, this process leads
back to the research stage, allowing you to refine your focus within your topic of interest, begin
the cycle anew with sharper lenses for research, and become skilled at the topic you are
studying.
Throughout the project, it is helpful to reference any literature or coursework that you have
read around this topic and that influences your analyses and decisions.
5b. Master’s Action Research Project Rubric
Strong
Acceptable
Needs Revision
Unacceptable
Student analyzes and
interprets data from
1.1 –
multiple perspectives,
Demonstrate knowledge of supported by the relevant
psychological, sociological, literature.
and linguistic foundations
of reading and writing
processes and instruction. Student significantly
supported children’s work
with assessment and
instruction grounded in
TC standard S1.2 –
knowledge from relevant
Application of Research to literature.
Practice
Student analyzes and
interprets data with some
references to literature.
Student analyzes and
interprets data with few
references to literature.
Student does not analyze
and interprets data with
references to literature.
Student supported
children’s work with
assessment and
instruction grounded in
knowledge from relevant
literature.
Student partially
supported children’s work
with assessment and
instruction grounded in
knowledge from relevant
literature.
Student did not support
children’s work with
assessment and
instruction grounded in
knowledge from relevant
literature.
IRA standard
Student demonstrates a
sophisticated
1.2 –
understanding of how
Demonstrate knowledge of action research informs
practice and how practice
reading research and
provides research
histories of reading.
opportunities.
Student demonstrates an
understanding of how
action research informs
practice and how practice
provides research
opportunities.
Student demonstrates a
partial understanding of
how action research
informs practice and how
practice provides research
opportunities.
Student does not
demonstrate
understanding of how
action research informs
practice and how practice
provides research
opportunities.
TC standard K1.2 -
Student supported
Student partially
IRA standard
Relationship between
Research
and Practice
Student significantly
supported children’s work
through the process of
research-reflection-action.
Student demonstrates
sophisticated
Demonstrate knowledge of understandings about
language development
literacy learning and
and reading acquisition
individual readers and
and the variations related writers in the action
to culture and linguistic
research design,
diversity.
implementation, and
action taken.
IRA standard 1.3 –
children’s work through
the process of researchreflection-action.
supported children’s work
through the process of
research-reflection-action.
Student did not support
children’s work through
the process of researchreflection-action.
Student demonstrates
understandings about
literacy learning and
individual readers and
writers in the action
research design,
implementation, and
action taken.
Student demonstrates
partial understandings
about literacy learning and
individual readers and
writers in the action
research design,
implementation, and
action taken.
Student does not
demonstrate
understandings about
literacy learning and
individual readers and
writers in the action
research design,
implementation, and
action taken.
Student demonstrates
knowledge about literacy
curriculum and teaching in
the action research design,
implementation, and
action taken.
Student demonstrates
partial knowledge about
literacy curriculum and
teaching in the action
research design,
implementation, and
action taken.
Student does not
demonstrate knowledge
about literacy curriculum
and teaching in the action
research design,
implementation, and
action taken.
TC standard K3.2 –
Knowledge about Learners
and Learning
IRA standard 2.2 –
Use a wide range of
instructional practices,
approaches, and methods,
including technologybased practices, for
learners at different stages
of development and from
Student demonstrates
sophisticated knowledge
about literacy curriculum
and teaching in the action
research design,
implementation, and
action taken.
differing cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
TC standard K3.3 –
Student takes various
actions and identifies their
effects student learning.
Student takes some action
and identifies their effects
student learning.
Student takes few actions
or partially identifies the
effects of few actions on
student learning.
Student does not take
action or does not identify
the effect of action on
student learning.
Student collects some
appropriate data to clarify
identified problems and
potential action.
Student does not collect
appropriate data to clarify
identified problems and
potential action.
Knowledge about
Curriculum and Teaching
IRA standard 3.1 –
Use a wide range of
assessment tools and
practices that range from
individual and group
standardized tests to
individual and group
informal classroom
assessment strategies,
including technologybased assessment tools.
TC standard S1.3 –
Use of Research and
Inquiry Methods in
Practice
Student collects
appropriate data from
multiple sources to clarify
identified problems in
imaginative and/or highly
effective ways.
Student collects
appropriate data to clarify
identified problems and
potential action.
IRA standard 3.2 –
Place students along a
developmental continuum
and identify students’
proficiencies and
difficulties.
Student describes, with
vivid examples, problem
based on situational
analysis and sophisticated
reflection of literacy issues
and student learning.
Student describes, with
examples, problem based
on situational analysis and
reflection of literacy issues
and student learning.
Student describes problem
based on some situational
analysis and some
reflection of literacy issues
and student learning.
Student does not describe
problem based on
situational analysis and
does not reflect on literacy
issues and student
learning.
Student plans and takes
significant action based on
sophisticated reflection of
findings.
Student plans and takes
action based on findings.
Student plans, but takes
little or no action based on
findings.
Student does not plan
action based on findings.
TC standard S1.3 –
Use of Research and
Inquiry Methods in
Practice
IRA standard
3.3 –
Use assessment
information to plan,
evaluate, and revise
effective instruction that
meets the needs of all
students including those at
different developmental
stages and those from
diverse cultural and
Student systematically
assesses intended and
unintended results of
action taken for student
learning, from multiple
perspectives, supported by
relevant literature, and
Student assesses results of
action for student
learning, with references
to literature, and plans
further research and
action.
Student partially assesses
results of action for
student learning and
makes some plans for
further research and
action.
Student does not
demonstrate assessment
of the results of action for
student learning nor plans
further research and
action.
linguistic backgrounds.
plans appropriate further
research and action.
TC standard S1.2 –
Application of research to
practice
IRA standard 4.1 –
Use students’ interests,
reading abilities, and
backgrounds as
foundations for the
reading and writing
program.
TC standard K5.1 –
Democracy, Equity, and
Schooling
D5.1 –
Respect for Diversity and
Commitment to Social
Justice
Student systematically
designs action research as
a means for learning about
issues of inclusion.
Student designs action
research as a means for
learning about issues of
inclusion.
Student partially designs
action research as a means
for learning about issues
of inclusion.
Student does not design
action research as a means
for learning about issues
of inclusion.
Student shows a
significant concern about
how action research can
enhance the literacy
teaching and learning of
all students.
Student shows a concern
about how action research
can enhance the literacy
teaching and learning of
all students.
Student shows some
concern about how action
research can enhance the
literacy teaching and
learning of all students.
Student does not show a
concern about how action
research can enhance the
literacy teaching and
learning of all students.
Student’s research and
action reflects work that
moves children’s work
forward, based on
consideration of children’s
interests, abilities, and
Student’s research and
action reflects some work
that attempts to move
children’s work forward,
based on consideration of
children’s interests,
Student’s research and
action does not reflect
work that moves
children’s work forward,
based on consideration of
children’s interests,
Student’s research and
action reflects significant
work that moves
children’s work forward,
based on sophisticated
consideration of children’s
interests, abilities, and
backgrounds.
backgrounds.
abilities, and backgrounds.
abilities, and backgrounds.
IRA standard
Student demonstrates that
he/she has some exposure
5.1 –
to the literature and is
Display dispositions related critically open to
to reading and the teaching identifying a question that
is inherent in practice.
of reading.
Student demonstrates that
he/she has some exposure
to the literature and is
open to identifying a
question that is inherent in
practice.
Student demonstrates that
he/she has some exposure
to the literature, but has
difficulty identifying a
question that is inherent in
practice.
Student does not
demonstrate that he/she
has exposure to the
literature or is not open to
identifying a question that
is inherent in practice.
Student adheres strictly to
the research by making
S1.1 adjustments to the design
and reflects on the
Self-Critique and Reflection
process.
Student adheres to the
research by making
adjustments to the design
and reflects on the
process.
Student adheres loosely to
the research by making
some adjustments to the
design and reflects on the
process.
Student does not adhere
to the research by making
adjustments to the design
and reflects on the
process.
Student reflects on the
quality of research
question and on the
overall project upon its
completion.
Student partially reflects
on the quality of research
question and on the
overall project upon its
completion.
Student does not reflect
on the quality of research
question and on the
overall project upon its
completion.
Student reflects on his or
Student partially reflects
Student does not reflect
TC standard
D1.1 Open-mindedness and
Student reflects
Commitment to Inquiry and
significantly on the quality
Reflection
of research question and
on the overall project
D2.1 - Commitment to
throughout the process
Profession, Ethics and
and upon its completion.
Lifelong
Learning
Student significantly
reflects on his or her
continued professional
growth and position as a
learner as a result of
conducting action
research.
Student significantly
reflects on ethics in
conducting own action
research.
IRA standard 5.2 –
Continue to pursue the
development of
professional knowledge
and dispositions.
TC standard K1.1 Research and Inquiry
Methods
K2.1 -
Student wrote a
sophisticated research
plan demonstrating a
sophisticated
understanding of research
methods.
Student sees the action
research project as one of
the milestones in his /her
learning and professional
her continued professional
growth and position as a
learner as a result of
conducting action
research.
on his or her continued
professional growth and
position as a learner as a
result of conducting action
research.
on his or her continued
professional growth and
position as a learner as a
result of conducting action
research.
Student reflects on ethics
in conducting own action
research.
Student partially reflects
on ethics in conducting
own action research.
Student does not reflect
on ethics in conducting
own action research.
Student wrote a research
plan demonstrating an
understanding of research
methods.
Student wrote a research
plan demonstrating partial
understanding of research
methods.
Student did not write a
research plan
demonstrating
understanding of research
methods.
Student sees the action
research project as a step
in his/her learning and
professional development.
Student sees the action
research project as part of
a graduate school
requirement.
Student designs and
Student designs and
Student does not see the
action research project as
important to his/her
learning experience.
Continuum of Lifelong
Learning
S2.1 Planning, Implementation
and Evaluation of
Professional Growth
IRA standard 5.3 –
Work with colleagues to
observe, evaluate, and
provide feedback on each
other’s practice.
TC standard K4.1 –
Processes and Strategies
of Effective Cooperation
development.
Student designs and
implements significant
action based on research
that is designed,
conducted, and
interpreted in a
sophisticated manner.
Student systematically
evaluates the action in
terms of its effectiveness
and his/her professional
growth.
Student actively
participated in the action
research seminar where
inquiry methods were
discussed.
Student regularly shared
data, assessments,
reflections, and
instructional plans with
implements action based
on research that is
designed, conducted, and
interpreted. Student then
evaluates the action in
terms of its effectiveness
and his/her professional
growth.
implements action based
on research that is not
well designed, conducted,
and interpreted. Student
partially evaluates the
action and its
effectiveness, but with
little evidence of
evaluation of his/her
professional growth.
Student designs and
implements action based
on research that is not
properly designed,
conducted, and
interpreted. Student does
not evaluate the action in
terms of its effectiveness
and his/her professional
growth.
Student participated in the
action research seminar
where inquiry methods
were discussed.
Student minimally
participated in the action
research seminar where
inquiry methods were
discussed.
Student missed sessions
and rarely participated in
the action research
seminar where inquiry
methods were discussed.
Student minimally shared
data, assessments,
reflections, and
instructional plans with
Student did not share
data, assessments,
reflections, and
instructional plans with
Student shared data,
assessments, reflections,
and instructional plans
with colleagues for
feedback about ways to
and Collaboration
S4.1 –
colleagues for feedback
about ways to improve
research and practice.
Interaction and
Collaboration
D4.1 –
Willingness to Cooperate
Student regularly provided
feedback for colleagues
about their own research
and practice.
improve research and
practice.
colleagues for feedback
about ways to improve
research and practice.
Student provided feedback
for colleagues about their Student minimally
own research and
provided feedback for
colleagues about their
practice.
own research and
practice.
colleagues for feedback
about ways to improve
research and practice.
Student did not provide
feedback for colleagues
about their own research
and practice.
5c. Data Summary:
Current Rubric:
Candidates admitted in
N
IRA 1.1 Foundational knowledge
4
3
2
1
IRA 1.2 Knowledge of reading research
and history
4
3
2
1
IRA 1.3 Language development &
Reading acquisition knowledge
4
3
2
1
IRA 2.2 Instructional approaches
4
3
2
1
IRA 3.1 Use of assessment
4
3
2
1
IRA 3.2 Identify students' proficiencies
and difficulties
4
3
2
1
IRA 3.3 Use of assessment for
differentiated instruction
4
3
2
1
IRA 4.1 Use of student interest
2005
2006
2007
IRA 5.1 Reading and teaching reading
dispositions
IRA 5.2 Pursuit of professional
knowledge & dispositions
IRA 5.3 Work with colleagues
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
Old Rubric:
Candidates admitted in:
N
Research and Inquiry Methods
4
3
2
1
Relationship between Research and
Practice
4
3
2
1
Self-critique and Reflection
4
3
2
1
Application of Research to Practice
4
3
2005
2006
Use of Research Methods in Practice
Open-mindedness and Commitment to
Inquiry
Continuum of Lifelong Learning
Professional Growth
Commitment to Profession
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
Knowledge about Learners and Learning
4
3
2
1
Knowledge about Curriculum and
Teaching
4
3
2
1
Democracy, Equity, and Schooling
4
3
2
1
Assessment 6 Reading Portfolio
1. Description of Assessment
The Reading Portfolio gives candidates an opportunity to demonstrate their ability to analyze
their own reading processes, thinking meta-cognitively about the skills and strategies.
Candidates not only demonstrate that they can construct a meta-cognitive awareness of their
own reading processes, they also show that they can analyze their own cultural location,
Furthermore, candidates must show that they can do all this in ways that contribute to the
candidates’ abilities to teach others. Exploring multiple and critical perspectives of texts in
schools is essential as it foregrounds culture and power and forces the practitioner to consider
their students as situated readers.
Candidates include three sections in the portfolio: reading the world, reading the word, and
implications for teaching reading. Each of the three sections incorporate the themes from
readings, discussions, and assignments throughout the fall semester and demonstrate critical
readings, reflections on reading, implications for classroom teaching, plans for implementation,
and reflections on the teaching of reading through a cultural and critical lens.
2. Alignment with IRA standards for Reading Professionals
The reading portfolio assessment is organized by IRA standards (see the assessment rubric—5b).
This assessment meets the following standards: 1.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4.
3. A Brief Analysis of the Data Findings (Please see the data summary table in 5c)
In 2007-2008 the Reading Portfolio Project rubric was revised to better align with IRA standards.
The old rubric was administered from 2004-2006 and consisted of 7 subsections with a total
point value of 28 points. Each subsection had score points from 1-4. For each subsection a
candidate passed with either a 3 (acceptable) or 4 (strong).
The new rubric was used during the 2007-2008 school year. It consists of 8 subsections with a
total point value of 32 points. Each subsection has score points from 1-4. For each subsection a
candidate passed with either a 3 (acceptable) or 4 (strong). Fifty-five candidates completed the
project with mean ratings between 3.95 and 4.00.
4. Evidence for Meeting Standards
Overall, when the new rubric designed to better match IRA standards was used, the mean
scores achieved by candidates were unusually strong for this particular project, with 55
candidates achieving ratings between 3.95 and 4.00 This demonstrates candidates’ abilities to
meet the IRA standards, and accurately reflects the program’s special strength in teaching
critical reading, metacognitive, and in drawing on candidates’ own reading as a resource for
teaching. Although the program does this aspect of teacher-education especially well, it is
nevertheless a concern to program faculty that candidates’ scores were uniformly almost
perfect. In future years, faculty will work to more carefully differentiate the various levels of
strength demonstrated by the Literacy Specialist’s arguably strong candidates.
5. Attachment of assessment documentation:
5a. Instructions for Candidates (excerpt from the course syllabus):
Reading Portfolio: We will be examining the rubric and discussing elements in class. The
reader’s portfolio is designed to develop candidates as analysts of their thinking processes while
engaging in reading print and non-print texts. Constructing metacognitive awareness of reading
processes and conscious awareness of one’s cultural location are key components of this
project, aligning with the program’s belief that studying one’s own practices will contribute to
insights and revelations in the practice of reading. Exploring multiple and critical perspectives of
texts in schools is essential as it foregrounds culture and power and forces the practitioner to
consider her or his students as situated readers. The reading portfolio is one of the major
assessments in the Literacy Specialist Program at Teachers College. This portfolio will be
developed across the semester beginning on the first day of class, and will serve as a tool for
students to assess their own habits, processes, and growth as readers and as teachers of
reading. The three sections of this portfolio will be:
 Reading the world
 Reading the word
 Implications for teaching
Each section will incorporate themes from the readings, conversations, and assignments across
the semester. Students are encouraged to see this portfolio as an opportunity to immerse
themselves in the close and critical study of reading. Suggestions for pieces to include in the
portfolio are listed below, but all students are encouraged to move beyond this list to make it as
personal and meaningful as possible:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assignments from class and critical reflections on those assignments
A reader’s notebook that includes entries about reading the world and the word
A log of important articles/books/chapters for readers and teachers of reading
A written reflection on how (or whether) you have changed as a reader during the
semester
A plan of action, including possible readings and lessons for using in the classroom
A blog, website, or other online space that includes your thoughts, questions, and
investigations about the act of reading and/or the teaching of reading; posts at our class
blog: http://languageswespeak.wordpress.com/
Lists of books read and your reviews of them
Lists of books you want to read and a plan of action
Critical readings (including assignments) of social, visual, and print texts
Video about personal journey as a reader
Arts-based interpretations of the personal journey of becoming a reader
•
•
Written reflections on your processes during the reading of one of the “choice” books
Reflections on the act of reading/discussing one text with a group of people
5b. Reading Portfolio Rubric
Strong
IRA standard
1.1 –
Demonstrate
knowledge of
psychological,
sociological, and
linguistic
foundations of
reading and writing
processes and
instruction.
Acceptable
Needs Revision
Reader demonstrates a
sophisticated understanding
of critical reading as a tool
for thinking.
Reader demonstrates an
understanding of critical
reading as a tool for
thinking.
Reader demonstrates a
partial understanding of
critical reading as a tool for
thinking.
Reader demonstrates a
sophisticated understanding
that critical literacy aims to
understand multiple
perspectives, power, and
positioning, and to gain new
insights as a result.
Reader demonstrates an
understanding that critical
literacy aims to understand
multiple perspectives,
power, and positioning, and
to gain new insights as a
result.
Reader demonstrates a
partial understanding that
critical literacy aims to
understand multiple
perspectives, power, and
positioning, and to gain new
insights as a result.
Reader’s reflections
demonstrate a sophisticated
understanding that the
processes of critical literacy
are dynamic, fluid, and ever
changing.
Reader’s reflections
demonstrate an
understanding that the
processes of critical literacy
are dynamic, fluid, and ever
changing.
Reader’s reflections
demonstrate a partial
understanding that of the
processes of critical literacy.
Reader deliberately uses the
techniques articulated in
Reader attempts to use the
techniques articulated in
Reader discusses the
techniques articulated in
TC standard
K3.1 –
Subject-matter or
disciplinary
knowledge.
IRA standard
Weak
Reader does not
demonstrate an
understanding of critical
reading as a tool for
thinking.
Reader does not
demonstrate an
understanding that critical
literacy aims to understand
multiple perspectives,
power, and positioning, and
to gain new insights as a
result.
Reader’s reflections do not
demonstrate an
understanding of the
processes of critical literacy,
viewing them as fixed and
unchanging.
Reader makes no use of the
techniques articulated in
2.2 –
Use a wide range of
instructional
practices,
approaches, and
methods, including
technology-based
practices, for
learners at differing
stages of
development and
from differing
cultural and
linguistic
backgrounds.
TC standards
K3.2 –
Knowledge about
learners and
learning.
K3.3 –
Knowledge about
curriculum and
teaching.
texts that explore multiple
and/or marginalized
perspectives authors in his
or her own work.
texts that explore multiple
and/or marginalized
perspectives authors in his
or her own work.
texts that explore multiple
and/or marginalized
perspectives authors in his
or her own work.
texts that explore multiple
and/or marginalized
perspectives authors in his
or her own work.
Reader discusses particular
ways through which to
empower all students to use
reading as a tool for
deconstruction,
reconstruction, and social
action.
Reader discusses particular
ways to teach reading so
that students develop as
critical readers.
Reader partially discusses
particular ways to teach
reading so that students
develop as critical readers.
Reader does not discuss
ways to teach reading so
that students develop as
critical readers.
S1.2 –
Application of
research to practice.
D3.1 –
Commitment to the
fullest possible
growth and
development of all
students.
IRA standard
4.1 –
Use students’
interests, reading
abilities, and
backgrounds as
foundations for the
reading and writing
program.
S3.1 –
Planning of
curriculum and/or
services.
Reader constructs a
concrete plan to teach
reading to empower all
students to use reading as a
tool for deconstruction,
reconstruction, and social
action.
Reader constructs a plan to
help students develop as
critical readers.
Reader constructs a limited
plan to help students
develop as critical readers.
Reader does not construct a
plan to help students
develop as critical readers.
IRA standard
4.2 –
Use a large supply of
books, technologybased information,
and non-print
materials
representing
multiple levels,
broad interests,
cultures, and
linguistic
backgrounds.
Reader reads exemplar texts
that explore multiple and
marginalized perspectives in
order to analyze techniques
used in critical readings.
Reader reads exemplar texts
that explore multiple or
marginalized (not both)
perspectives in order to
analyze techniques used in
critical readings.
Reader reads texts that
explore multiple and/or
marginalized perspectives in
order to analyze techniques
used in critical readings.
Reader does not read texts
that explore multiple or
marginalized perspectives in
order to analyze techniques
used in critical readings.
Reader explores concrete
ways in which s/he will
Reader explores ways in
which s/he will teach
Reader explores
implications for teaching
Reader does not explore
teaching students to use
TC standards
K3.1 –
Subject-matter or
disciplinary
knowledge.
K5.1 –
Democracy, equity,
and schooling
IRA standard
4.3 –
Model reading and
writing
enthusiastically as
valued life-long
activities.
TC standards
K3.3 –
teach students to use
strategies from coursework
and readings as effectively
as possible.
students to use strategies
from coursework and
readings as effectively as
possible.
students to use strategies
from coursework and
readings as effectively as
possible.
Reader’s own reading
demonstrates a
sophisticated understanding
of the importance of
cultural awareness.
Reader’s own reading
demonstrates an
understanding of the
importance of cultural
awareness.
Reader’s own reading
demonstrates a partial
understanding of the
importance of cultural
awareness.
Reader reflects on the
importance of teaching
Reader reflects on the
importance of teaching
Reader partially reflects on
the importance of teaching
strategies from coursework
and readings as effectively
as possible.
Reader’s own reading does
not demonstrate an
understanding of the
importance of cultural
awareness.
Knowledge about
curriculum and
teaching.
S3.1 –
Planning of
curriculum and/or
services.
S5.1 –
Use of strategies to
address inequalities
in the classroom,
school, and society.
IRA standard
Reader does not reflect on
the teaching of reading so
reading in a way that
empowers all students to
Motivate learners to use reading as a tool for
be life-long readers. deconstruction,
reconstruction, and social
action.
TC standards
4.4 –
reading so that students
develop as critical readers.
reading so that students
develop as critical readers.
that students develop as
critical readers.
Reader reflects on his or her
use of strategies from
coursework and readings.
Reader describes, but rarely
reflects on, his or her use of
strategies from coursework
and readings.
Reader does not reflect on
his or her use of strategies
from coursework and
readings.
K2.2 –
Issues of
professional concern
D3.1 –
Commitment to the
fullest possible
growth and
development of all
students.
D5.1 –
Respect for diversity
and commitment to
social justice.
IRA standard
5.1 –
Display dispositions
related to reading
Reader critically reflects on
his or her use of the
strategies from coursework
and readings.
and the teaching of
reading.
TC standards
K2.1 –
Reader’s own teaching
demonstrates a
sophisticated understanding
of the importance of
cultural awareness.
Reader’s own teaching
demonstrates an
understanding of the
importance of cultural
awareness.
Reader’s own teaching
demonstrates a partial
understanding of the
importance of cultural
awareness.
Reader’s own teaching does
not demonstrate
understanding of the
importance of cultural
awareness.
Reader does not
demonstrate use of
strategies from coursework
and readings in his or her
own reading.
Continuum of
lifelong learning.
D1.1 –
Open-mindedness
and commitment to
inquiry and
reflection.
IRA standard
5.2 –
Continue to pursue
the development of
professional
knowledge and
dispositions.
TC standards
Reader demonstrates an
ongoing use of strategies
from coursework and
readings in his or her own
reading, gaining an insider’s
perspective on these
strategies and building
metacognitive awareness of
them.
Reader demonstrates a use
of strategies from
coursework and readings in
his or her own reading,
sometimes gaining an
insider’s perspective on
these strategies and
building metacognitive
awareness of them.
Reader demonstrates little
use of strategies from
coursework and readings in
his or her own reading,
rarely gaining an insider’s
perspective on these
strategies and building
metacognitive awareness of
them.
Reader regularly opens
himself or herself to
Reader opens himself or
Reader shares work with
guardedness toward
Reader is unwilling to opens
himself or herself to
critique.
K2.1 –
critique.
herself to critique.
critique.
Reader appropriates
multiple perspectives from
class in his or her critical
reading work.
Reader reflects on the
multiple perspectives
represented in class in his or
her critical reading work.
Reader describes the
multiple perspectives
represented in class in his or
her critical reading work.
Reader does not refer to the
multiple perspectives in
class in his or her critical
reading work.
Reader regularly shares
thoughtful suggestions for
colleagues’ development as
critical readers in a helpful
and respectful manner.
Reader shares thoughtful
suggestions for colleagues’
development as critical
readers in a helpful and
respectful manner.
Reader shares thoughtful
suggestions for colleagues’
development as critical
readers.
Readers does not share
suggestions for colleagues’
development as critical
readers.
Reader regularly shares
suggestions for the teaching
of reading to young
students.
Reader does not share
suggestions for the teaching
of reading to young
students.
Continuum of
lifelong learning
D2.1 –
Commitment to the
profession, ethics,
and lifelong learning
IRA standard
5.3 –
Work with
colleagues to
observe, evaluate,
and provide
feedback on each
other’s practice.
TC standards
K4.1 –
Processes and
strategies of
effective
cooperation and
Reader regularly shares
thoughtful suggestions for
the teaching of reading to
young students.
Reader shares thoughtful
suggestions for the teaching
of reading to young
students.
collaboration.
S4.1 –
Interaction and
collaboration
D4.1 –
Willingness to
cooperate
IRA standard
5.4 –
Participate in,
initiate, implement,
and evaluate
professional
development
programs.
TC standards
Reader shows a respect for
the multiple perspectives
represented in class
meetings and builds upon
that respect in his or her
teaching.
Reader shows a respect for
the multiple perspectives
represented in class
meetings and draws upon
that respect in his or her
teaching.
Reader regularly
demonstrates a willingness
to share his or her own
work with peers.
S2.1 –
Planning,
implementation, and
evaluation of
professional growth.
Reader revises his or her
own work based on
thoughtful consideration of
peer suggestions.
Reader occasionally
disregards the multiple
perspectives represented in
class meetings, and
sometimes draws upon
those perspectives in his or
her teaching.
Reader consistently
disregards the multiple
perspectives represented in
class meetings and does not
draw upon those
perspectives in his or her
teaching.
Reader demonstrates a
willingness to share his or
her own work with peers.
Reader shares his or her
own work with peers.
Reader is unwilling to share
his or her own work with
peers.
Reader partly revises his or
her own work based on
peer suggestions.
Reader revises his or her
won work, but does not
consider peer suggestions.
Reader does not revise his
or her work, despite peer
suggestions.
5c. Data Summary:
Current Rubric:
2005
N
IRA 1.1 Foundational
knowledge
4
3
2
1
IRA 2.2 Instructional
approaches
4
3
2
1
IRA 4.1 Use of student interest
4
3
2
1
IRA 4.2 Range of instructional
materials
4
3
2
1
IRA 4.3 Model lifelong reading
& writing
4
3
2
1
IRA 4.4 Motivate lifelong
learners
4
3
2006
2007
2008
2
1
IRA 5.1 Display reading
dispositions
4
3
2
1
IRA 5.4 Professional
development participation
4
3
2
1
Old Rubric
Candidates admitted in
N
Self-critique and Reflection
4
3
2
1
Commitment to Inquiry and
Reflection
4
3
2
1
Continuum of Lifelong
Learning
4
3
2
1
Effective Cooperation and
Collaboration
2004
2005
2006
4
3
2
1
Interaction and Collaboration
4
3
2
1
Willingness to Cooperate
4
3
2
1
Respect for Diversity
4
3
2
1
Assessment 7 Writing Portfolio
1. Description of Assessment
Candidates write and publish two 2-3 page pieces of writing in order to experience and reflect
on the writing process. Candidates then reflect on their own insider view of the writing process,
achieved by this work on their own writing. In this way, candidates gain an insider's perspective
of writing, and develop insights into the teaching of writing. The candidate(s) must keep a
writer's notebook, writing in that notebook for at least two pages a day, every day, and then the
candidate must decide upon a serious, significant writing project and take that work through all
the stages of the writing process until the student has produced a publishable text (and lots of
insights about teaching writing.). The candidate must save and analyze all revisions and drafts to
show evidence of the writing process, including, in particular, the writing, revision, and editing
strategies the candidate employed. Candidates must also show evidence that they have adopted
a mentor author, one whose craftsmanship and techniques has influenced their own work.
2. Alignment with IRA standards for Reading Professionals
The writing portfolio assessment is organized by IRA standards (see the assessment rubric—5b).
This assessment meets the following standards: 1.1, 3.3, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.
3. A Brief Analysis of the Data Findings (Please see the data summary table in 5c)
The writing portfolio rubric is a total of 32 points. There are 8 subsections each with a value of
1-4 points. For each subsection a candidate will pass with either a 3 (Acceptable) or 4 (Strong).
Thirty-two candidates completed this assessment between the years 2006-2007 with mean
ratings between 3.45 and 4. The data shows that all candidates passed this project with either a
3 or 4. Overall, mean scores dropped very slightly from the year 2006 to 2007. This may have to
do with the small data set, with only 3 candidates completing this project in the 2006 cohort
compared to the much larger data set from the 2007 cohort. Therefore, it is difficult to make
generalizations for such a small population. The drop in scores probably also reflects the fact
that a different person rated candidates one year and another.
4. Evidence for Meeting Standards
The thirty-two candidates who completed this assessment achieved a score between 3 and 4,
scores that reflect that the candidates’ work was at or above standards. Candidates
demonstrated particular strength in using assessment to guide instruction, in working
collaboratively with colleagues and in demonstrating la lifelong commitment to writing. A fair
number of candidates were acceptable but not strong in their foundational knowledge of
writing instruction, suggesting that in the year ahead, candidates will be asked to demonstrate
their close reading of professional texts through mid-semester tests on the reading material.
Once again, a review of the data suggests that when two different faculty members taught
different sections of the course, these different raters may not have worked together to align
their standards for grading. Although the Literacy Specialist Program definitely keeps exemplar
texts to illustrate superb work, the gradations between ‘not acceptable’ and ‘exemplary’ are not
necessarily agreed upon among different faculty, different raters. In order to achieve more
inter-rater reliability, the faculty plan to engage in some discussions and workshops in order to
develop a more shared sense of standards.
5. Attachment of assessment documentation:
5a. Instructions for candidates (excerpt from the course syllabus):
You will be expected to write and publish two 2-3 page pieces of writing over the course of our
semester and to do so in a way which demonstrates your understanding of:
− Keeping a writer’s notebook
− The writing process
− Conferring
− Using particular writing and revision strategies
− Adopting a mentor author (second piece of writing only)
− Qualities of good writing
− Editing
− Yourself as a writer
− An ability to grow insights about teaching writing from your own experiences as a
writer.
You will be assessed based partly upon your apparent effort in the writing itself. One of these
pieces will be a personal narrative. One will be an essay, a memoir or a piece of short fiction.
You can decide.
Because our goal is for this experience to provide a way for you to learn about the teaching of
writing, I’ll evaluate the degree to which your process is congruent with the course content that
you are learning from the course and your reading. You will be expected to bring your writing to
class each week, to save revisions and drafts, and to be thoughtful and aware of your experience
as a writer. In a process log you will collect evidence of, annotate, report on and reflect on your
writing process so that your writing becomes a resource when you teach.
5b. Writing Portfolio Rubric
IRA standard
1.1 –
Demonstrate knowledge
of psychological,
sociological, and linguistic
foundations of reading
and writing processes and
instruction.
Strong
Acceptable
Needs Revision
Unacceptable
Writer demonstrates a
sophisticated
understanding of the
writing process and the
teaching of writing
through his/her own
writing and reflections on
teaching.
Writer demonstrates an
understanding of the
writing process and the
teaching of writing
through his/her own
writing and reflections on
teaching. Writer could
make more attempts to
apply this understanding
to his or her own work.
Writer demonstrates a
partial understanding of
the writing process and
the teaching of writing
through his/her own
writing and reflections on
teaching. Writer may not
reflect on the writing
process or the teaching of
writing, though s/he may
understand them.
Writer does not
demonstrate an
understanding of the
writing process or the
teaching of writing.
Writer critically reflects on
his or her use of the
Writer reflects on his or
her use of the strategies
Writer describes, but
rarely reflects on, his or
Writer does not show
evidence of using
TC standard
K2.1 –
Continuum of lifelong
learning.
K3.1 –
Subject-matter or
disciplinary knowledge.
IRA standard
3.3 –
Use assessment
information to plan,
evaluate, and revise
effective instruction that
meets the needs of all
students, including those
at different developmental
stages and those from
different cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
TC standard
S1.1 –
Self-critique and reflection
strategies from
coursework and readings
toward the goals of using
them with more finesse,
developing added insights
about literature, and
learning to help students
use these strategies as
effectively as possible.
Writer reflects on,
discusses, and plans ways
to teach writing so that it
empowers all students to
use writing as a tool for
inquiry and selfexpression.
from coursework and
readings while learning to
help students use these
strategies as effectively as
possible.
her use of the strategies
from coursework and
readings while helping
students use these
strategies.
strategies from
coursework and readings
in his/her own writing.
Writer reflects on,
discusses, and plans ways
to teach writing so that it
empowers all students to
develop as writers.
Writer discusses ways, but
does little planning, to
teach writing so that it
empowers students to
develop as writers.
Writer shows little
consideration for teaching
writing in ways that
empower students to use
writing as a tool for
inquiry and selfexpression.
Writer draws on some
mentor texts and
appropriate resources to
improve his/her own
writing and teaching of
writing strategies to
Writer draws on few
mentor texts and
appropriate resources to
improve his/her own
writing and teaching of
writing strategies to
Writer does not draw on
mentor texts or
appropriate resources to
improve his/her own
writing and teaching of
writing strategies to
D5.1 –
Respect for diversity and
commitment to social
justice.
IRA standard
4.2 –
Use a large supply of
books, technology-based
Writer draws on multiple
kinds of mentor texts and
appropriate resources to
improve his/her own
writing and teaching of
writing strategies to
information, and nonprint
materials representing
multiple levels, broad
interests, and cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
students.
students.
students.
students.
Writer demonstrates an
ongoing use of strategies
from coursework and
readings in his or her own
writing, gaining an
insider’s perspectives on
Writer demonstrates a use
of strategies from
coursework and readings
in his or her own writing.
Writer demonstrates little
use the strategies form
coursework and readings
in his or her own writing.
Writer does not show any
use of strategies from
coursework and readings
in his or her own writing.
TC standard
S2.1 –
Planning, implementation,
and evaluation of
professional growth.
K3.3 –
Knowledge about
curriculum and teaching
S3.1 –
Planning of curriculum
and/or services
IRA standard
4.3 –
Model reading and writing
enthusiastically as valued
life-long activities.
these.
TC standard
K2.1 –
Continuum of lifelong
learning.
D1.1 –
Open-mindedness and
commitment to inquiry
and reflection.
IRA standard
4.4 –
Motivate learners to be
lifelong readers.
TC standard
Writer demonstrates a
sophisticated
understanding of writing
as a tool for thinking and
specifically understands
that one purpose of
revision is to inquire into a
subject and to gain new
insights as a result.
Writer demonstrates an
understanding that writing
can be a tool for thinking
and attempts to inquire
into a subject through
writing.
Writer demonstrates a
partial understanding that
writing can be a tool for
thinking and inquiry, but
does not use his or her
own writing for such
purposes.
Writer does not
demonstrate an
understanding that writing
can be a tool for thinking
or inquiry.
Writer demonstrates a
willingness to share his or
her own work with peers,
Writer demonstrates a
willingness to share his or
her own work with peers
Writer shares his or her
own work with peers, but
with guardedness toward
Writer is unwilling to
share his or her own work
with peers.
K2.1 –
Continuum of lifelong
learning.
IRA standard
5.1 –
Display dispositions
related to reading and the
teaching of reading.
TC standard
to open himself or herself
to critique, and to revise
his or her own work based
on thoughtful
consideration of peer
suggestions.
and to open himself or
herself to critique.
critique.
Writer reads exemplar
texts in order to observe
evidence of other authors’
craftsmanship,
deliberately uses the
techniques these authors
use in the writer’s own
work, and reflects on the
consequent development
of his or her own work.
Writer reads exemplar
texts in order to observe
evidence of other authors’
craftsmanship, and tests
the techniques these
authors use in the writer’s
own work.
Writer reads exemplar
texts in order to observe
evidence of other authors’
craftsmanship, and
generally discusses the
effectiveness of the
authors’ techniques.
Writer shows no evidence
of reading exemplar texts
or observing evidence of
other authors’
craftsmanship.
Writer shows a respect for
Writer shows a respect for
Writer occasionally
Writer consistently
D4.1 –
Willingness to cooperate.
IRA standard
5.2 –
Continue to pursue the
development of
professional knowledge
and dispositions.
TC standard
K4.1 –
Processes and strategies
of effective cooperation
and collaboration.
IRA standard
5.3 –
Work with colleagues to
observe, evaluate, and
provide feedback on each
other’s practice.
TC standard S4.1 –
Interaction and
collaboration.
the conventions of written
language, and uses these
skillfully and artfully in
order to communicate
with readers.
Writer regularly shares
thoughtful suggestions for
planning and revising
work, and does both in a
generous and informed
manner.
the conventions of written
language, and uses these
to communicate with
readers.
Writer shares suggestions
with peers for revising
their work in a helpful and
respectful manner.
disregards the
conventions of written
language when
communicating with
readers.
disregards the
conventions of written
language, especially when
communicating with
readers.
Writer shares helpful
suggestions with peers for
revising their work, but
should work more on
offering those suggestions
in a way that persuades
peers to consider them.
Writer does not offer any
suggestions to peers to
help them revise their
work or develop as a
writer.
5c. Data Summary:
Candidates admitted in:
N
IRA 1.1 Foundational
knowledge
4
3
2
1
IRA 3.3 Use of assessment
for differentiated instruction
4
3
2
1
IRA 4.2 Range of instructional
materials
4
3
2
1
IRA 4.3 Model lifelong
reading & writing
4
3
2
1
IRA 4.4 Motivate lifelong
learners
4
3
2
1
IRA 5.1 Display reading
dispositions
4
3
2
1
IRA 5.2 Pursuit of
professional knowledge &
dispositions
4
3
2
2006
2007
1
IRA 5.3 Work with colleagues
4
3
2
1
Assessment 8: Professional Development Plan
1. Description of Assessment
The Professional Development Plan assignment is designed to assess candidates’ understanding of child
literacy, teaching, and literacy education policy, and of professional development. Reading professionals
need to be prepared to assume the role of a literacy coach or a school-based, district-based leader. To
accomplish this goal, candidates will create a grade-level professional development plan that focuses on
literacy instruction practices across that grade level.
For the plan, candidates may choose to implement a coaching cycle, set up a professional learning
community, or support other teachers by engaging in some professional development. Candidates need
to provide a rationale for their choice. The specifics of the project will be negotiated by the group and
the instructor; however, the following criteria are non-negotiable: Evidence of teacher input, Evidence
of administrator input, Documented school visits by members of the team, Evidence of knowledge of
theoretical and research based literacy practices to develop professional staff development, Evidence of
course readings to inform the plan. The final product will be a 15-page documented plan, supported by
data and interpreted in light of course readings.
2. Alignment with IRA standards for Reading Professionals
The Professional Development Plan is organized by IRA standards (see the assessment rubric—5b). This
assessment meets the following standards: 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4.
3. A Brief Analysis of the Data Findings (Please see the data summary table—5c)
The Professional Development Plan rubric is a total of 32 points. There are 8 subsections each with a
value of 1-4 points. For each subsection a candidate will pass with either a 3 (Acceptable) or 4 (Strong).
Twenty-six candidates completed the practicum between the years 2006-2007 with mean ratings
between 3 and 4. The data shows that all candidates passed this project with either a 3 or 4. Overall,
mean scores have either dropped a bit or remained the same from year 2006 to year 2007. This may
have to do with the small data set, 1 candidate that completed this project of the 2006 cohort compared
to the much larger data set from the 2007 cohort.
4. Evidence for Meeting Standards
The Literacy Specialist candidates at Teachers College all demonstrated that they have met standards,
achieving at least a 3 on their Professional Development Plan. This entire project was only added to the
Literacy Specialist program recently, after faculty became aware that although we were preparing
candidates to assume roles as classroom teachers, we were not doing enough to prepare them for roles
as Literacy Coaches. This strand of the program has been extremely well-received. Thankfully,
candidates are able to not only read about professional development for literacy coaches, but also to
participate in this work. New York City’s schools each have a literacy coach, and those coaches study
together in small, intensive, site-based study groups. This offers the Literacy Specialist candidates at
Teachers College an unparalleled opportunity to learn alongside mentors who are already functioning as
literacy coaches.
5. Attachment of assessment documentation:
5a. Instruction for candidates:
In small groups, you will create a grade-level professional development plan that focuses on literacy
practice. This will be a written document and will be a maximum of 15 pages long. You may choose to
implement a coaching cycle, set up a professional learning community, or rely on traditional professional
development methods. You need to provide a rationale for your choice. The specifics of the project will
be negotiated by the group and your instructor; however, the following criteria are non-negotiable:
•
•
•
•
•
Evidence of teacher input
Evidence of administrator input
Documented school visits by members of the team
Evidence of knowledge of theoretical and research based literacy practices to develop
professional staff development
Evidence of course readings to inform plan
5b. Professional Development Plan
Strong
IRA Standard
1.1 –
Demonstrate knowledge of
psychological, sociological, and
linguistic foundations of reading
and writing processes and
instruction.
TC Standards
K3.1 –
Subject matter or disciplinary
knowledge
Provides in-depth
explanations for literacy
instruction and practices
based on course
readings and
discussions.
Provides alternative
explanations for literacy
practices, based on a
sophisticated
understanding of
dominant and
alternative discourses in
literacy.
Acceptable
Provides explanations
for literacy instruction
and practices based on
course readings and
discussions.
Considers alternative
explanations for literacy
practices, based on an
understanding of
dominant and
alternative discourses in
literacy.
K3.2 –
Knowledge about learners and
learning
Needs Revision
Unacceptable
Provides some or
weakly supported
explanations for literacy
instruction and practices
based on course
readings and
discussions.
Does not provide
explanations for literacy
instruction and practices
based on course
readings and
discussions.
Considers alternative
explanations for literacy
practices, based on a
partial understanding of
dominant and
alternative discourses in
literacy or on deficit
views of children’s
literacy learning.
Does not consider
alternative explanations
for literacy practices.
K5.1 –
Democracy, equity, and schooling
IRA Standard
Demonstrates a
sophisticated
Demonstrates an
understanding of
Demonstrates a partial
understanding of
Does not demonstrate
an understanding of
1.2 –
Demonstrate knowledge of reading
research and histories of reading.
understanding of
multiple theoretical
perspectives to
interpret literacy
learning.
multiple theoretical
perspectives to
interpret literacy
learning.
multiple theoretical
perspectives to
interpret literacy
learning.
multiple theoretical
perspectives to
interpret literacy
learning.
Draws from multiple
sources of data to
provide evidence of
teachers’ impact on
student learning.
Draws primarily from a
single source of data to
provide evidence of
teachers’ impact on
student learning.
Draws on a single piece
of data to provide
evidence of teachers’
impact on student
learning.
Does not use data to
provide evidence of
teachers’ impact on
student learning.
TC Standards
K3.1 –
Subject matter or disciplinary
knowledge
IRA Standard
3.1 –
Use a wide range of assessment
tools and practices that range from
individual and group standardized
tests to individual and group
informal classroom assessment
strategies, including technologybased tools.
TC Standard
S3.3 –
Assessment and evaluation
IRA Standard
3.3 –
Use assessment information to
plan, evaluate, and revise effective
instruction that meets the needs of
all students including those at
different developmental stages and
those from diverse cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
TC Standards
K3.2 –
Knowledge about learners and
learning
D3.1 –
Commitment to the fullest possible
growth and development of all
students
S5.1 –
Use to strategies to address
inequalities in the classroom,
school, and society.
Fully situates
Professional
Development Plan in an
authentic school
context, and designs the
Plan to address the real,
diverse needs of that
school.
Situates Professional
Development Plan in an
authentic school
context, and designs the
Plan to address the
needs of that school.
Partially situates
Professional
Development Plan in an
authentic context of a
particular school, and
designs the Plan to
address some of the
needs of that school.
Does not situate
Professional
Development Plan in an
authentic context of a
particular school, or
design the Plan to
address the real, diverse
needs of that school.
IRA Standard
5.1 –
Display dispositions related to
reading and the teaching of
reading.
Demonstrates a
sophisticated
understanding of major
theories of instruction
and student
achievement in
designing Professional
Development Plan.
TC Standards
K3.2 –
Knowledge about learners and
learning
K3.3 –
Knowledge about curriculum and
teaching
Demonstrates a
sophisticated
understanding of adult
learning and faculty
dynamics in designing
Professional
Development Plan.
Demonstrates an
understanding of major
theories of instruction
and student
achievement in
designing Professional
Development Plan.
Demonstrates a partial
understanding of major
theories of instruction
and student
achievement in
designing Professional
Development Plan.
Does not demonstrate
an understanding of
major theories of
instruction and student
achievement in
designing Professional
Development Plan.
Demonstrates an
understanding of adult
learning and faculty
dynamics in designing
Professional
Development Plan.
Demonstrates a partial
understanding of adult
learning and faculty
dynamics in designing
Professional
Development Plan.
Does not demonstrate
an understanding of
adult learning and
faculty dynamics in
designing Professional
Development Plan.
Draws implications from
Professional
Development Plan
inquiry for future
practice.
Draws few implications
from Professional
Development Plan
inquiry for future
practice.
Does not draw
implications from
Professional
Development Plan
inquiry for future
practice.
S3.3 –
Social behavior management
IRA Standard
5.2 –
Continue to pursue the
development of professional
knowledge and dispositions.
Draws clear implications
from Professional
Development Plan
inquiry for future
practice.
TC Standards
Raises pertinent
questions for future
inquiry.
Raises questions for
future inquiry.
Raises few questions for
future inquiry.
Provides a detailed
discussion of progress
toward Professional
Development Plan goals.
Provides a discussion of
progress toward
Professional
Development Plan goals.
Provides an unclear
discussion of progress
toward Professional
Development Plan goals.
K1.2 –
Does not raise pertinent
questions for future
inquiry.
Relationship between research and
practice
D1.1 –
Open-mindedness and commitment
to inquiry and reflection
K2.1 –
Continuum of lifelong learning
D2.1 –
Commitment to the profession,
ethics, and lifelong learning
IRA Standard
5.3 –
Work with colleagues to observe,
evaluate, and provide feedback on
each other’s practice.
TC Standards
Does not provide a
discussion of progress
toward Professional
Development Plan goals.
K4.1 –
Process and strategies for effective
cooperation and collaboration
S4.1 –
Interaction and collaboration
D4.1 –
Willingness to cooperate
IRA Standard
5.4 –
Participate in, initiate, implement,
and evaluate professional
development programs.
TC Standards
K2.2 –
Issues of professional concern
S2.1 –
Planning, implementation, and
evaluation of professional growth
Provides solid evidence
of teacher input
throughout the design
of the Professional
Development Plan.
Provides evidence of
teacher input
throughout the design
of the Professional
Development Plan.
Provides little evidence
of teacher input
throughout the design
of the Professional
Development Plan.
Provides no evidence of
teacher input
throughout the design
of the Professional
Development Plan.
Provides solid evidence
of administrator input
throughout the design
of the Professional
Development Plan.
Provides evidence of
administrator input
throughout the design
of the Professional
Development Plan.
Provides little evidence
of administrator input
throughout the design
of the Professional
Development Plan.
Provides no evidence of
administrator input
throughout the design
of the Professional
Development Plan.
S4.1 –
Interaction and collaboration
D4.1 –
Willingness to cooperate
5c. Data Summary:
Candidates admitted in:
N
IRA 1.1 Foundational knowledge
4
3
2
1
IRA 1.2 Knowledge of reading research and history
4
3
2
1
IRA 3.1 Use of assessment
4
3
2
1
IRA 3.3 Use of assessment for differentiated
instruction
4
3
2
1
IRA 5.1 Reading and teaching reading dispositions
4
3
2
1
IRA 5.2 Pursuit of professional knowledge &
dispositions
4
3
2
1
IRA 5.3 Work with colleagues
4
3
2
1
IRA 5.4 Participation in professional development
programs
4
3
2
2006
2007