ccsu dept. of reading and language arts 2009-10 annual ......candidates can refer to major theories...

DEPARTMENT OF READING AND LANGUAGE ARTS

School of Education and Professional Studies Central Connecticut State University

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 1, 2009-JUNE 30, 2010

Prepared by:

Helen R. Abadiano, Chair Elene Demos

Julia Kara-Soteriou Catherine Kurkjian

Cara Mulcahy Jesse Turner Lynda Valerie Kenneth Weiss

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The full time and part time faculty in the Department of Reading and Language Arts provided their unwavering cooperation and support throughout our effort in gathering relevant data and information, and offered useful suggestions in completing and refining this annual report. Our graduate students also contributed to the information contained in this annual report. We also extend our thanks to Stephanie Waldman, department secretary, whose impeccable organizational skills made it possible for us to locate documents to complete this report.

Section 1 MISSION AND PROGRAMS

The Department of Reading and Language Arts offers a Master of Science degree program and a Sixth Year degree in reading and language arts. The Master of Science degree offers strands in Classroom Instruction in Reading and Language Arts (non-certification), Corrective and Remedial Reading and Language Arts (certification), and Reading-Mathematics (non-certification). The Sixth Year program may include courses leading to a reading and language arts consultant certification by the State of Connecticut. An Advanced Certificate Program is also available for students who have completed a Master of Science degree in reading and language arts. The department has eight full time faculty members—one Assistant Professor (non-tenured), three Associate Professors (all tenured), 4 full professors (all tenured), two professor emeriti, approximately 6-10 adjunct faculty per semester, a department secretary, and a part time graduate assistant. Mission Statement The Department of Reading and Language Arts is committed to promoting and enhancing quality instruction in reading and language arts. PREPARING LITERACY LEADERS FOR SERVICE IN OUR COMMUNITIES is the overarching mission of the Department of Reading and Language Arts and is consistent with and closely aligned to the theme of PREPARING LEADERS FOR SERVICE IN OUR COMMUNITIES embraced by the School of Education and Professional Studies. The underlying principles of our mission are derived from our professional standards as defined by the International Reading Association and NCTE, and by state mandates such as the Blueprint for Reading Achievement and the Language Arts Framework. Our MISSION is to provide leadership within the Region by: ✜ preparing knowledgeable and competent reading specialists/literacy

coaches who meet the CT state standards for advanced certifications in reading and language arts and the IRA standards for reading professionals;

✜ preparing literacy professionals who can provide leadership through

2

modeling and mentoring to ensure that classroom teachers and other staff support acquire a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, methods, and curriculum materials to facilitate their reading and writing instruction;

✜ preparing literacy professionals who are knowledgeable with various assessments appropriate for a wide range of diversity in classroom, including technologically-based assessments and to be able to mentor and support classroom teachers and other professionals in the selection, administration, and interpretation of assessments to enhance student learning, and to communicate results to education stakeholders;

✜ preparing literacy professionals who can support and mentor classroom teachers and other professionals in creating a literate environment to facilitate successful reading and writing for all children;

✜ preparing literacy professionals who continue to be lifelong learners and scholars through readings, research and professional development, and leaders in planning and implementing professional development programs for teachers and other professionals, as well as in advocating to advance professional research base to expand knowledge-based practices;

✜ preparing classroom teachers to have a strong expertise in literacy and apply this effectively in classroom; as well as share collegially with their peers in a professional development capacity; and

✜ serving members of the educational community and related professions within the School of Education and Professional Studies, at the university level, across the state of Connecticut, within the region, and at the national level.

The underlying principles guiding our mission are: ✜ Primacy of literacy and preparing teachers to teach for our

literacy futures. We need to prepare teachers who can prepare their students to meet literacy challenges in an information age.

✜ Developing knowledgeable literacy teachers. Investment in time and energy to develop knowledgeable literacy teachers takes precedence over the use of scripted programs, particular approaches and materials.

✜ Valuing diversity and diverse learners with literacy as a tool for

3

empowerment. We need literacy teachers who value diversity and make decisions taking into account diverse learning styles, and the cultural, linguistic, and social and developmental needs and strengths of the diverse range of students served in our classrooms.

✜ Research based literacy instruction. Teaching should be derived from research based practice. We need to develop teachers who take a reflective stance in their work and use student learning outcomes to inform and refine their teaching to better serve their students.

✜ Ethical stance. Assessment should be purposeful to inform teaching and learning, not as a punitive practice.

✜ Professionalism/Collegiality/Leadership. Reading and language arts professionals need to work with and support one another as a community of learners and practitioners.

4

Section 2 SUMMARY FOR EACH DEGREE PROGRAM

MASTER OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN READING AND LANGUAGE ARTS Program Rationale The Master of Science degree in Reading and Language Arts is designed to prepare literacy professionals who are knowledgeable and competent in providing quality support, to enhance students’ literacy learning, and who meet the standards for reading professionals as defined by the International Reading Association and by state mandates. Learning Outcomes [NOTE: Each course included in a candidate’s planned program of study addresses specific elements of standards; candidates must have met ALL elements of standards at the completion of their program of study.] Standard 1. Foundational Knowledge Candidates have knowledge of the foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction. Demonstrate knowledge of psychological, sociological, and linguistic

foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction. (1.1) Demonstrate knowledge of reading research and histories of reading.

(1.2) Demonstrate knowledge of language development and reading

acquisition and the variations related to cultural and linguistic diversity. (1.3)

Demonstrate knowledge of the major components of reading and how they are integrated in fluent reading. (1.4)

Standard 2.Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials Candidates will use a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, methods, and curriculum materials to support reading and writing instruction. Use instructional grouping options as appropriate for accomplishing

given purposes. (2.1) Use a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, and methods,

including technology-based practices, for learners at differing stages

5

of development and from differing cultural and linguistic backgrounds. (2.2)

Use a wide range of curriculum materials in effective reading instruction for learners at different stages of reading and writing development and from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. (2.3)

Standard 3.Assessment, Diagnosis and Evaluation Candidates use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective reading instruction. 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. (3.1)

Place students along a continuum and identify students’ proficiencies and difficulties. (3.2)

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. (3.3)

Communicate results of assessments to specific individuals (students, parents, colleagues, administrators, etc.). (3.4)

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. Use students’ interests, reading abilities, and backgrounds as

foundations for the reading and writing program. (4.1) Use a large supply of books, technology-based information, and non-

print materials representing multiple levels, broad interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds. (4.2)

Model reading and writing enthusiastically as valued lifelong activities.

Motivate learners as lifelong readers. (4.3)

6

Standard 5.Professional Development Candidates view professional development as a career-long effort and responsibility. Display positive dispositions related to reading and the teaching of

reading. (5.1) Continue to pursue the development of professional knowledge and

dispositions. (5.2) Work with colleagues to observe, evaluate, and provide feedback on

each other’s practice. (5.3) Participate in, initiate, and evaluate professional development

programs. (5.4) Significant Changes to the Curriculum Revised courses with specific content, assignments and rubrics that

address “failed” standard elements for appropriate revision. At the program portfolio orientation more emphasis was placed on

how to be a reflective professional, and writing a reflection using the reflection guide.

Candidates who “failed” a standard element were required to revise and resubmit their assignment and reflection as part of their program portfolio to be evaluated by their program advisor.

Summary of Candidates’ Strengths and Weaknesses from 2008-2009 Assessment Report Candidates’ Strengths Candidates can refer to major theories in the foundational area as

they relate to reading. They can explain, compare, contrast, and critique theories, particularly in the areas of language development, reading acquisition and the variations related to cultural and linguistic diversity.

Candidates are able to determine if students are appropriately integrating the components of reading (phonemic awareness, word identification and phonics, vocabulary and background knowledge, fluency, comprehension strategies, and motivation) in fluent reading.

Candidates can use in-depth assessment information to plan, evaluate, and revise effective instruction that meets the needs of all students, particularly those at different developmental stages, and those from

7

different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, including planning individual instruction for struggling readers.

Candidates’ Weaknesses Candidates are lacking in the ability to recount historical

developments in the history of reading, summarize seminal reading studies, and articulate how these studies impacted reading instruction.

Candidates lack mastery of the use of a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, and methods, including grouping options and technology-based practices, for learners at differing stages of development and from differing cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

Candidates are lacking in the ability to participate in, initiate, implement, and evaluate professional development programs as well as exhibit leadership skills in professional development.

Adjustments Made in 2009-2010 Course assignments and rubrics in areas identified as candidates’ weaknesses were thoroughly reviewed and revised to ensure that candidates have a clear understanding of the standard elements to be met. At different points of a candidate’s program portfolio evaluation the program advisor makes sure that the candidate is given specific feedback and recommendations to improve areas of weakness, which is followed up in the next scheduled program portfolio evaluation. SIXTH YEAR DEGREE AND ADVANCED OFFICIAL CERTIFICATE PROGRAM IN READING AND LANGUAGE ARTS Program Rationale The Sixth-Year Certificate and Advanced Official Certificate Programs in Reading and Language Arts lead to the award of the professional certificate in Reading and Language Arts Consultant in the State of Connecticut. The certification-track program is designed to provide opportunities for the candidate to examine reading and language arts from a perspective beyond classroom teaching, giving emphasis on leadership roles and responsibilities in the discipline.

8

Learning Outcomes [NOTE: Each course included in a candidate’s planned program of study addresses specific elements of standards; candidates must have met ALL elements of standards at the completion of their program of study.] Standard 1. Foundational Knowledge Candidates have knowledge of the foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction. Refer to major theories in the foundational area as they relate to

reading. They can explain, compare, contrast, and critique the theories. (1.1)

Summarize seminal reading studies and articulate how these studies impacted reading instruction. They can recount historical developments in the history of reading. (1.2)

Identify, explain, compare, and contrast the theories and research in the areas of language development and learning to read. (1.3)

Are able to determine if students are appropriately integrating the components reading (phonemic awareness, word identification and phonics, vocabulary and background knowledge, fluency, comprehension strategies, and motivation) in fluent reading. (1.4)

Standard 2.Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials Candidates will use a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, methods, and curriculum materials to support reading and writing instruction. Support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in their use of

instructional grouping options. They help teachers select appropriate options. They demonstrate the options and explain the evidence-based rationale for changing configurations to best meet the needs of all students. (2.1)

Support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in the use of a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, and methods, including 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 teaching and in demonstration teaching. (2.2)

Support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in the use of a wide range of curriculum materials. They help teachers select

9

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 demonstrating teaching. (2.3)

Standard 3.Assessment, Diagnosis and Evaluation Candidates use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective reading instruction. Compare and contrast, use, interpret, and recommend a wide range of

assessment tools and practices. Assessments may range from standardize tests to informal assessments and also include technology-based assessments, they demonstrate appropriate use of assessments in their practice, and they can train classroom teachers to administer and interpret these assessments. (3.1)

Support the classroom teacher in assessment of individual students. They extend the assessment to further determine proficiencies and difficulties for appropriate services. (3.2)

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 professionals to implement appropriate reading instruction for individual students. They collect, analyze, and use school-wide assessment data to implement and revise school reading programs. (3.3)

Communicate assessment information to various audiences for both accountability and instructional purposes (policymakers, public officials, community members, clinical specialists, school psychologists, social workers, classroom teachers, and parents). (3.4)

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. Assist the classroom teacher and paraprofessional in selecting

materials that match the reading levels, interests, and cultural background of students. (4.1)

Assist the classroom teacher in selecting books, technology-based information, and non-print materials representing multiple levels,

10

broad interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds. (4.2) Demonstrate and model reading and writing for real purposes in daily

interactions with students and education professionals. Assist teachers and paraprofessionals to model reading and writing as valued lifelong activities. (4.3)

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. (4.4)

Standard 5.Professional Development Candidates view professional development as a career-long effort and responsibility. Articulate the theories related to the connections between teacher

dispositions and student achievement. (5.1) Conduct professional study groups for paraprofessionals and

teachers. Assist classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in identifying, planning, and implementing personal professional development plans. Advocate to advance the professional research base to expand knowledge-based practices. (5.2)

Positively and constructively provide an evaluation own or others’ teaching policies. Assist classroom teachers and paraprofessionals as they strive to improve their practice. (5.3)

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 identify and describe the characteristics of sound professional development programs. They can articulate the evidence base that grounds their practice. (5.4)

Significant Changes to the Curriculum Revised courses with specific content, assignments and rubrics that

address candidates’ weaknesses as they relate to the standards. The faculty developed additional opportunities for candidates to

engage in demonstration and coaching tasks involving classroom teachers and paraprofessionals.

Candidates who “failed” a standard element were required to revise

11

and resubmit their assignment and reflection as part of their program portfolio to be evaluated by their program advisor.

Summary of Candidates’ Strengths and Weaknesses from 2008-2009 Assessment Report Candidates’ Strengths Candidates have excellent grasp of the psychological, sociological, and

linguistic foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction. They can explain, compare, contrast, and critique theories, particularly in the areas of language development, reading acquisition and the variations related to cultural and linguistic diversity.


Candidates have achieved mastery in demonstrating and coaching classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in the use of a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, and methods, including technology-based practices to best meet the needs of all students.

Candidates have achieved mastery in demonstrating and coaching classroom teachers in selecting materials that match their students’ reading levels, interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds, including technology-based information, and non-print materials.

Candidates recognize the importance of pursuing the development of professional knowledge and dispositions, and can successfully conduct professional study groups for classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in identifying, planning, and implementing personal professional development plans.

Candidates’ Weaknesses A few candidates lack understanding of major theories in the

foundational area as they relate to reading as well as the historical developments in the history of reading,

A few candidates lack mastery of the major components of reading and how they are integrated in fluent reading. They are unable to determine if students are appropriately integrating the components

12

of reading in fluent reading. A few candidates are lacking in the ability to assist classroom

teachers and paraprofessionals in selecting books and materials, including technology-based materials, that match students’ reading levels, interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

A few candidates lack the ability to successfully conduct professional study groups for classroom teachers and paraprofessionals.

Adjustments Made in 2009-2010 Additional opportunities for candidates to be immersed in literacy coaching experiences particularly in areas identified as weaknesses were created and implemented as part of 6-credit practicum course for literacy coaches.

13

Section 3 SUMMARY OF FACULTY ACCOMPLISHMENTS

2009-2010

Faculty Member Name & Rank

Research Publications Presentations Awards Grants Honors

Leadership in Professional Community

Service to Department

SEPS University

Abadiano, Helen Professor

2

3

4

1

9

24

Demos, Elene Professor

3

2

1

1

2

18

Kara-Soteriou, Julia Associate Professor

2

3

6

5

6

14

Kurkjian, Cathy Professor

1

2

4

4

3

14

Mulcahy, Cara Associate Professor

4

3

2

2

2

14

Turner, Jesse Associate Professor

3

2

4

1

3

14

Valerie, Lynda Assistant Professor

4

3

7

5

11

12

Weiss, Kenneth Professor

1

0

6

3

11

12

*See Appendix 1 for individual faculty accomplishments.

14

Section 4 CONTRIBUTIONS TO CCSU AREAS

OF DISTINCTIVENESS International education ✜ The department offers a Master of Science Degree Program in

Reading and Language Arts to teachers in Jamaica. Our program in Jamaica supports our department mission and Strategic Plan Goal 1, Task 1.4: Strengthen commitment in developing global and international initiatives, specifically, Task 1.4b: Continue to strengthen the master’s program in Jamaica and explore potential for expanding in the Caribbean islands.

✜ Faculty engagement in international activities include: - Editorship of an international journal, Book Bird: Journal of

International Literature of the International Book Bureau for Youth (IBBY). (C. Kurkjian)

- Invited member to serve on the Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award Committee for USBBY (United States Bureau of Books for Youth). (June 2010-2012) (C. Kurkjian) This committee honors the memory of author Astrid Lindgren and promotes children’s and youth literature around the world, the Swedish government founded an international prize in her name. The award, of five million Swedish crowns, is the world’s largest for children’s and youth literature, and the second-largest literature prize in the world. Storytellers, authors, illustrators and other individuals or organizations that make valuable contributions to the promotion of reading are eligible. USBBY member, Katherine Paterson has been a recipient. This position involves nominating candidates in writing/illustrating/storytelling/promotion of reading from the U.S. region as well as from a different country/region and then working with publishers to compile supporting materials for submission to the ALMA office.

- Presentation at international conferences Mulcahy, C. (2009, September). Schooled literacies. Reading

Association of Ireland Annual Conference, Dublin, Ireland

15

Valerie, L., Abadiano, H.R., & Kurkjian, C. (July 2009). Impact of online writing groups in a National Writing Project Invitational Summer Institute, 16th European Conference on Reading, Braga, Portugal. (Presented by Lynda Valerie).

- Papers accepted for presentation at international conferences

Abadiano, H.R., Demos, E., Turner, J., & Valerie, L. (July 12-15, 2010). Learning beyond individual boundary: A dialogic approach to literacy coaching . International Reading Association 23rd World Congress on Reading, Auckland, New Zealand.

Kurkjian, C., & Billings, M. (July 12-15, 2010). A Stranger in a Strange Land: SA Cyberlesson Study of Shaun Tan’s Graphic Novel The Arrival. International Reading Association 23rd World Congress on Reading, Auckland, New Zealand.

Valerie, L. (July 12-15, 2010). Teachers as writers: The impact of the Central Connecticut Writing Project Invitational Summer Institute. International Reading Association 23rd World Congress on Reading, Auckland, New Zealand.

Valerie, L. (July 12-15, 2010). Dispositional impact of the Central Connecticut Writing Project Invitational Summer Institute on Teachers as writers and teachers of writing. International Reading Association 23rd World Congress on Reading, Auckland, New Zealand.

- Publication

Valerie, L. (2009). Impact of online writing groups in a National Writing Project Invitational Summer Institute, 16th European Conference on Reading, Braga, Portugal.

✜ Students’ engagement in international activities include:

- Online conversations among teachers in Jamaica and Connecticut taking RDG 598/698 research course in Spring semester 2010. (29 teachers in Connecticut and 17 teachers in Jamaica) (H.R. Abadiano)

Workforce and state economic development NONE

16

Community engagement/leadership ✜ President (R. Newton) and Treasurer (J. Turner), Phi Delta Kappa

(PDK), CCSU Chapter. The association is a dedicated advocate for the public schools. PDK also co-sponsors the Annual Literacy Essentials Conference.

✜ Executive Board Members, Alliance of Youth in New Britain—a community-minded organization focusing on creating educational and mentoring opportunities for New Britain youth. The Alliance is made up of community leaders in partnership with the New Britain Consolidated School System. (E. Demos & J. Turner)

✜ Executive Board Member (as past President) (C. Kurkjian), New England Reading Association (NERA)—a non-profit organization with membership from the six New England states, whose purpose is to engage in promoting and supporting the improvement of reading on local, state, and regional levels; supporting quality and effective reading/language arts instruction; disseminating information of ideas, pertinent research, practices, and strategies; and fostering the opportunity for networking.

✜ 4th Literacy Essentials Conference (March 21, 2009), an annual conference hosted by the Department of Reading and Language Arts to inform a wide range of practitioners and scholars in Connecticut and other surrounding states, about the most up-to-date research and best practices in education, particularly in reading and language arts through hands-on workshops, paper presentations, panel discussions, research poster sessions, and activity demonstrations. (J. Kara-Soteriou & C. Kurkjian, Conference Chairs)

✜ Literacy Center offers free remedial reading and language arts services to students, grades 1-12 on a one to one basis, in communities surrounding CCSU—New Britain, Plainville, Waterbury, Winsted and Hartford. (Clinical Faculty: J. Turner, Director; E. Demos, & L. Valerie) - Off-site clinic at Chamberlain Elementary School, New Britain,

CT. Served 18 students with one-on-one tutoring for two hours for each semester, Fall 2009 and Spring 2010. (L. Valerie)

✜ Central Connecticut Writing Project (CCWP), a site of the National Writing Project, offers professional development programs to teachers in all subject areas and all grade levels in order for them to learn new strategies to help their students become accomplished

17

writers and learners. Summer 2010; 15 participants. (L. Valerie, Director) - Central Connecticut STUDENT Writing Project. A 2-week writing

program for young writers, grades 6-10, and taught by CCWP Fellows. The project was in collaboration with 26 teachers in New Britain and East Hartford Public Schools. The project received $2,300 from the two districts. (L. Valerie)

- Fall Open Institute: Poetry Across the Curriculum participated in by 50 teachers in Connecticut (2009, October).

- National Writing Day Celebration with 80 participating teachers involved in professional development (2009, October).

✜ Family Literacy Night at Chamberlain Elementary School in New Britain, CT (2010, March; 90 parents and children), and O’Brien Elementary School in East Hartford, CT (2010, January; 100 parents and children), under the coordination and supervision of Dr. Lynda Valerie. (The East Hartford Family Literacy Night was featured in the Journal Inquirer.)

✜ Collaboration between New Britain school and CCSU focusing on the impact of the use of technology on student motivation to write. (2010, February-May). (L. Valerie, F. Abed, & B. Murratti)

Interdisciplinary studies and cross-cultural initiatives ✜ Honors Class (C. Mulcahy) ✜ MAT 531-Addressing Literacy and Language Issues in the Classroom

(3 credits) Study of research on developing literacy in content area classroom; differentiation to support struggling readers; and strategies to support English language learners. Offered to the MAT in Teacher Education, Secondary Level. (C. Mulcahy)

✜ RDG 140-Reading Efficiency (3 credits) Student's reading is analyzed and training is provided to improve vocabulary, comprehension, and rate. Study skills needed in college work are given attention. (Skill Area IV). Additional sections were opened to accommodate the EOP students. Approved as FYE course. Full time and part time faculty have been trained as FYE instructors. (E. Demos, Coordinator)

✜ Specialty Study in Curriculum and Literacy in collaboration with the Ed.D. in Educational Leadership

18

✜ RDG 586-Literacy Instruction for Diverse Populations I (3 credits). An elective course offered to Jamaican teachers in the master’s degree in Educational Leadership. (H.R. Abadiano)

✜ RDG 400-Writing Instruction for Teachers (2 credits). Course explores writing as it relates to the teacher as writer and the impact of his/her writings on writing instruction in elementary classroom. Focuses on developing the teacher as writer. In response to request from the Department of Teacher Education to help pre-professional candidates who need explicit instruction in writing. (L. Valerie)

✜ Reading and Language Arts Course Offerings Toward Initial Educator Preparation: - RDG 315 Comprehensive Reading Instruction I (3 credits). Prereq.:

Admission to the Professional Program in Teacher Education. Taken concurrently with EDTE 315 (Elementary Education majors). Development of a knowledge and belief system in reading and familiarity with instructional models and assessments. Field experience required. (J. Kara-Soteriou, Coordinator/Adjunct Faculty Mentor)

- RDG 316 Comprehensive Reading Instruction II (3 credits). Prereq.: RDG 315. Taken concurrently with EDTE 320 (Elementary Education majors) or EDTE 420 (Early Childhood majors). Expansion of a knowledge and belief system in reading, and familiarity and practice with instructional models and assessments. Development of awareness to the organization and enhancement of reading programs. Field experience required. (J. Kara-Soteriou, Coordinator/Adjunct Faculty Mentor)

- RDG 412 Literacy in the Elementary School (3 credits). Prereq.: RDG 316. Taken concurrently with EDTE 420 (Elementary Education majors). Integrated approach to teaching the language arts, including reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and visually representing in the elementary school curriculum. Field experience required. (C. Mulcahy, Coordinator/Adjunct Faculty Mentor)

- RDG 440 Literacy in the Secondary School (3 credits). Prereq.: Admission to the Professional Program in Teacher Education or permission of Reading Department chair. Fundamentals of reading and language arts to support instructional design and student development across disciplines and grade levels. Designed for pre-service content area teachers. Field experience required. (C.

19

Mulcahy, Coordinator/Adjunct Faculty Mentor) - RDG 506 Developmental Reading in the Secondary Schools (3

credits). Formerly RDG 505 and RDG 593. Prereq.: Open to students in pre-certification or certification status in secondary or PK-12 post baccalaureate certification programs, or permission of department chair. The Basic Skills Development program in elementary school reviewed. Study of the need for continuing systematic instruction in reading for pupils throughout grades 7-12. Organization of such a program, materials, and methods currently in use, and means of evaluation are considered. 30 hours of field work is required. (K.J. Weiss, Coordinator/Adjunct Faculty Mentor)

✜ Review classes offered to pre-service teachers in elementary education in preparation for the Foundations of Reading Test (CFRT). (J. Kara-Soteriou)

✜ Thesis Advising/Dissertation Committee (H.R. Abadiano, Ed.D.; C. Mulcahy, Honors Class; J. Kara-Soteriou, Ed.D.)

✜ Co-Advisor, CCSU Epsilon Mu Chapter of Kappa Delta Pi, an international honor society in education. The Society’s main goals are: Recognizing and confirming the status of scholars and educators to achieve and sustain preeminence in teaching, scholarship, and service; focusing on effectively addressing the needs of members throughout all phases of their careers as scholars and educators; and providing an energetic, diverse learning community that supports professional growth through high-quality programs, services, and products. (C. Mulcahy with M.P. Bigley)

✜ Alpha Upsilon Alpha (AUA), the honor society of the International Reading Association, recognizes and encourages scholarship, the development of personal and professional leadership, and service to the field of reading at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Membership in Alpha Upsilon Alpha brings a sense of scholarly accomplishment in the field of reading and language arts. (J. Kara-Soteriou & R. Newton, Faculty Advisors) (<http://www.reading.ccsu.edu/AUA/By-Laws08.htm>)

20

Section 5 SUMMARY OF OTHER NOTEWORTHY

ACCOMPLISHMENTS ✜ The Department of Reading and Language Arts developed a Plan of

Action to ensure that our pre-service teachers in elementary education pass the Connecticut Foundations of Reading Test (CFRT), which was submitted to the Chancellor’s Office in Fall 2009 and implemented in Spring 2010. (Coordinator: Julia Kara-Soteriou; Members: All full time faculty)

✜ Revised RDG 315-Comprehensive Literacy Instruction I (3 credits) and RDG 316- Comprehensive Literacy Instruction II (3 credits) AND review classes offered to pre-service teachers in elementary education in preparation for the Connecticut Foundations of Reading Test (CFRT) resulted in dramatic increase in pass rate of candidates who took the test in May 2010.

✜ A common Final Examination in RDG 315-Comprehensive Literacy Instruction I (3 credits) and RDG 316- Comprehensive Literacy Instruction II (3 credits) was developed in Fall 2010 and implemented in Spring 2010. Results were analyzed and discussed with course instructors. Follow up session in preparation for Fall 2010 has been scheduled for August 2010. (J. Kara-Soteriou, Coordinator; Other course instructors: H. Byus, M. Cavender, R. Lentini, R. O’Brian, R. Newton, & A. Snow)

✜ Development and implementation of Alumni and Employer Satisfaction Survey for the master’s programs in reading and language arts and educational leadership in Jamaica. Surveys are posted online. (Coordinators: C. Kurkjian, Professor of Reading and Language Arts & S. Sogunro, Professor of Educational Leadership)

✜ Creation of new cohorts in New Britain and Hebron, CT. (Facilitated by H.R. Abadiano, L. Valerie & K. Weiss)

21

Section 6

GOALS AND FUTURE PLANS

Goal 1: Promote student learning Goal 2: Increase persistence, satisfaction and success rates for

students ✜ Development and implementation of Alumni and Employer Satisfaction

Survey for the master’s programs in reading and language arts and educational leadership in Jamaica. (Coordinators: C. Kurkjian, Professor of Reading and Language Arts & S. Sogunro, Professor of Educational Leadership)

✜ Development of a Plan of Action to ensure that our pre-service teachers in elementary education pass the Connecticut Foundations of Reading Test (CFRT), which was submitted to the Chancellor’s Office and implemented in Spring 2010. (Coordinator: J. Kara-Soteriou)

✜ Review classes held (and will continue to be offered) for our pre-service teachers in elementary education in preparation for the Connecticut Foundations of Reading Test (CFRT). (J. Kara-Soteriou)

✜ Creation of the Graduate Student Handbook in Reading and Language Arts (C. Kurkjian & L. Valerie)

✜ Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 Electronic Program Portfolio Orientation (C. Kurkjian, C. Mulcahy, L. Valerie, & K. Weiss)

✜ Adjunct Faculty Mentoring by Full Time Faculty ✜ Implementation of common Final Examination in RDG 316-

Comprehensive Reading Instruction II in Spring 2010; test results were analyzed and discussed with course instructors. A follow up meeting has been scheduled in August 2010 in preparation for Fall 2010. (J. Kara-Soteriou, Coordinator; Other course instructors: H. Byus, M. Cavender, R. Lentini, R. O’Brian, R. Newton, & A. Snow)

✜ Mid-Program, Pre-Comprehensive, and Exit Program Assessment of Candidates by Program Advisor

✜ Ongoing Program Assessments, Review of Programs and Courses at Department Meetings (met every other week) and Faculty Retreat (Fall 2009 & Spring 2010)

✜ Faculty Participation in Department, School and University-Wide Committees that Address Goals 1 & 2

22

- SEPS Self-Study and Review of Current Status and Equity Efforts (H.R. Abadiano, Co-Coordinator)

- SEPS Diversity Committee (H.R. Abadiano) - Internalization Laboratory (H.R. Abadiano & C. Kurkjian) - Member, University Curriculum Committee (L. Valerie) - Member, Departmental Assessment Committee (All full-time and

part time faculty) - Chair, University Graduate Studies Committee (K.J. Weiss)

Goal 3: Prepare students for productive lives as professionals and

citizens and support economic development ✜ Implemented the revised clinical and practicum requirements (i.e.,

providing professional development to teachers, paraprofessionals, parents, and staff) for master’s, sixth-year, and OCP candidates to include strong components of professional leadership that meet all the required leadership components addressed by the International Reading Association Standards for Reading Specialist/Literacy Coach (Clinical Faculty: E. Demos, J. Turner, & L. Valerie)

✜ Required all candidates in the program to become a member of a state/regional, national and/or international professional organization in Reading and Language Arts, as well as attend and/or present at state/regional and/or national/international conferences for each year in the program. Evidence reviewed during program portfolio evaluation at different gates. (Program Advisor)

✜ 4th Literacy Essentials Conference, hosted by the Department of Reading and Language Arts, offered opportunity for candidates to attend and/or present at the conference. (<http://www.reading.ccsu.edu/LiteracyEssentialsConference/default.htm>)

✜ Online conversations among teachers in Jamaica and Connecticut taking RDG 598/698 research course in Spring semester 2010. (29 teachers in Connecticut and 17 teachers in Jamaica) (H.R. Abadiano)

✜ Research Forum, Fall 2009 and Spring 2010—candidates in RDG 598-Seminar in Reading Research (15 students in Fall 2009, 18 students in Spring 2010) and RDG 698-Research Seminar (5 students in Fall 2009, 11 students in Spring 2010) presented their research studies to graduate and undergraduate audience. Students also presented their research study to colleagues in their respective schools.

23

- In Jamaica, students presented their research study to colleagues in their respective schools. (H.R. Abadiano)

✜ Students and Alumni representation on the CCWP Advisory Board (L. Angliss, K. Buccilli-Kiely, J. Langley, C. Turner, O. White, & M. Zaba)

✜ Faculty-Students (Alumni) Collaboration Kurkjian, C., & Billings, M. (July 2010). A stranger in a strange land:

SA cyberlesson study of Shaun Tan’s graphic novel The Arrival. 23rd IRA World Congress on Reading in Auckland, New Zealand (paper accepted)

Clark, B., French, J., Love, K., Turner, J., Valerie, L., & Zaba, M. (October 15-17, 2009). Don’t let the lights go out! PDK International Summit on Quality Educator Recruitment and Retention, Indianapolis, IN.

Valerie, L., Bouchard, J., & Earley, H. (2009, August). Participated in the Teacher Inquiry Institute by the National Writing Project.

Valerie, L., & Murratti, B. (2010, February-May). A collaborative project between school and CCSU focusing on impact of the use of technology on student motivation to write. (A manuscript is being drafted for journal publication.)

Goal 4: Enhance and sustain faculty and staff satisfaction and

success ✜ Peer mentoring between full time faculty, and full time-part time

faculty ✜ Peer research collaboration

- Case study approach to diagnosis and remediation of reading and language arts difficulties. Examines the strengths and weaknesses of case studies in evaluating teachers’ understanding and application of diagnostic and remedial principles and techniques in a clinical setting. (E. Demos, J. Turner & L. Valerie)

- Collaboration between New Britain school and CCSU focusing on the impact of the use of technology on student motivation to write. (February-May, 2010). (L. Valerie, F. Abed, & B. Murratti)

- Learning beyond individual boundary: A dialogic approach to literacy coaching. Analysis of the extent to which the quality of teacher talk, use of different kinds of talk strategically, and the levels of intellectual and affective interactions throughout the dialogic process help literacy coaches reach their full potential and co-

24

evolve more complex learnings and experiences related to their expected competencies, roles and responsibilities. (H.R. Abadiano, E. Demos, J. Turner, & L. Valerie)

- Impact of clinical sequence courses on reading specialists’ implementation of the diagnostic problem-solving process, planning and implementation of remedial intervention programs, and K-12 literacy learning (E. Demos, J. Turner, & L. Valerie)

✜ Peer collaboration in publications Abadiano, H.R. (Ed.), Turner, J., & Valerie, L. (Assoc. Eds.). (Spring

2010). Theme: Transforming Disengaged Readers into Engaged Readers in the Classroom. New England Reading Association Journal (NERAJ), 45(2).

Abadiano, H.R. (Ed.), Turner, J., & Valerie, L. (Assoc. Eds.). (Fall 2009). Theme: Teachers as Literacy Leaders: Bringing About Change in Communities. New England Reading Association Journal (NERAJ), 45(1).

Demos, E., & Foshay, J. (Spring 2010). Engaging the disengaged reader. New England Reading Association Journal (NERAJ), 45(2), 57-62.

Mulcahy, C., & Kara-Soteriou, J. (2009). Navigating challenges of critical literacy and new literacies: A literature-based approach. MRA Primer, (38), 24-30.

✜ Peer collaboration in professional presentations

Abadiano, H.R., Demos, E.,Turner, J., & Valerie, L. (2010, July). Learning beyond individual boundary: A dialogic approach to literacy coaching. 23rd IRA World Congress on Reading in Auckland, New Zealand (paper accepted)

Abadiano, H.R., Turner, J., & Valerie, L. (September 23-25, 2009). Hooking up with authors and reviewers. Reading Renaissance, 61st Annual Reading Conference of the New England Reading Association, Warwick, RI


25

Ostrowski, S., & Valerie, L. (November 19, 2009). Leadership development in the early years. Invited presenter at the National Writing Project Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.

Turner, J., Clark, B., French, J., and Werblow, J. (2010). We are walking: Panel session using video interviews to give voice to teachers who have been under the continuing pressures of the No Child Left Behind mandates.

Turner, J., Clark, B., French, J., Love, K., & Valerie, L. (2009, October-November). Light one candle: A continuation of NCLB resistance stories. A group of K-12 teacher educators, pre- and inservice teachers linked by the principles of whole language, critical literacy, critical theory, and New Literacies formed a breakfast club to find ways to improve teaching and teacher retention.

Valerie, L., Abadiano, H.R., & Kurkjian, C. (2009, July). Impact of online writing groups in a National Writing Project Invitational Summer Institute 16th European Conference on Reading, Braga, Portugal.

✜ Peer collaboration in professional activities

H.R. Abadiano, & J. Kara-Soteriou, 2010 CCSU/AAUP Summer Curriculum Development Grant: Examining how to better prepare teacher candidates for the Connecticut Foundations of Reading Test: Addressing course content, instructor collaboration, and student academic skills.

H.R. Abadiano, G. Cueto & J. Kara-Soteriou, Co-Writers, Proposal for a reading and language arts & bilingual certification program (in progress)

H.R. Abadiano, & K. Weiss, Participants, Summer Curriculum Workshop focusing on new regulations impacting teacher education program (elementary education). (Coordinator, G. Cueto, Professor of Teacher Education)

H.R. Abadiano, & C. Kurkjian, Co-Administrators, Department Website at <http://www.reading.ccsu.edu/>

H.R. Abadiano, J. French, & K. Love, Grant Writung Team, Magnet School Assistance Program (MSAP), Mary M. Hooker Environmental Studies Magnet School, Spring 2010

26

H.R. Abadiano, & B. Davies, Team Instruction, RDG 696-Practicum for Reading & Language Arts Consultants I (3 credits) and RDG 697-Practicum for Reading & Language Arts Consultants II (3 credits), Fall 2009 and Spring 2010

J. Kara-Soteriou, & R. Newton, Co-Advisors, Alpha Upsilon Alpha (AUA) CCSU Chapter, the honor society of the International Reading Association

J. Kara-Soteriou (Coordinator), H. Byus, M. Cavender, R. Lentini, R. O’Brian, R. Newton, & A. Snow. Implementation of common Final Examination in RDG 316-Comprehensive Reading Instruction II in Spring 2010; test results were analyzed and discussed with course instructors. A follow up meeting has been scheduled in August 2010 in preparation for Fall 2010.

J. Kara-Soteriou, & R. Newton, Faculty Advisors, Alpha Upsilon Alpha (AUA), the honor society of the International Reading Association, recognizes and encourages scholarship, the development of personal and professional leadership, and service to the field of reading at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Membership in Alpha Upsilon Alpha brings a sense of scholarly accomplishment in the field of reading and language arts. (<http://www.reading.ccsu.edu/AUA/By-Laws08.htm>)

C. Kurkjian, & L. Valerie. CCSU/AAUP Faculty Development Grant: Cross Cultural Perspectives on Teaching and Learning, and Internationalizing the Curriculum. A paper to be presented at the 23rd World Congress on Reading of the International Reading Association, Auckland, New Zealand, July 2010.

C. Kurkjian, C. Mulcahy, L. Valerie, & K. Weiss, Facilitators, Electronic Program Portfolio Orientation, Fall & Spring Semesters (<http://www.reading.ccsu.edu/ProgramCoursePortfolio/PortfolioSked2009-1010.htm>)

C. Kurkjian & S. Sogunro, Developers & Coordinators, Development and implementation of Alumni and Employer Satisfaction Survey for the master’s programs in reading and language arts and educational leadership in Jamaica.

J. Kara-Soteriou, & C. Kurkjian, Co-Chairs, 4th Literacy Essentials Conference

C. Mulcahy, & Valerie, L., Team Instruction, RDG 675-Reading and Writing as Integrative Process, Summer 2010

27

R. Newton, & J. Turner, President/Treasurer, Phi Delta Kappa CCSU Chapter

✜ Peer collaboration in department business

- Development of a Plan of Action to ensure that our pre-service teachers in elementary education pass the Connecticut Foundations of Reading Test (CFRT), which was submitted to the Chancellor’s Office and implemented in Spring 2010. (Coordinator: J. Kara-Soteriou; all department full time faculty)

- All full time and part time faculty participate in the ongoing course and program evaluation process (data collection)

- All full time faculty serve on the Department of Reading and Language Arts Advisory Board (<http://www.reading.ccsu.edu/Advisory_Boards/Advisory_Boards.htm>)

- A common Final Examination in RDG 315-Comprehensive Literacy Instruction I (3 credits) and RDG 316- Comprehensive Literacy Instruction II (3 credits) was developed in Fall 2010 and implemented in Spring 2010. Results were analyzed and discussed with course instructors. Follow up session in preparation for Fall 2010 has been scheduled for August 2010. (J. Kara-Soteriou, Coordinator; Other course instructors: H. Byus, M. Cavender, R. Lentini, R. O’Brian, R. Newton, & A. Snow)

- All full time faculty attend department meetings scheduled every other week, and faculty retreat once a semester in Fall and Spring semesters

- All full time faculty mentor adjunct faculty - All full time faculty are members of various departmental

committees. - All full time faculty were members of the 4th Literacy Essentials

Conference Committee (J. Kara-Soteriou & C. Kurkjian, Chairs) - All full time faculty serve as program advisor to our master’s, sixth-

year, and/or OCP candidates, including evaluating candidates at mid-program, pre-comprehensive/practicum, and exit program assessment

- Full time and part time faculty take turns in the Saturday Orientation and Interview of applicants to the program in Fall and Spring semesters

28

(<http://www.reading.ccsu.edu/Applications/Group_Interview_Dates.htm>)

- Full time and part time faculty take turns in proctoring master’s comprehensive examination (scheduled on a Saturday), and all full time faculty evaluate comprehensive exams in Fall and Spring semesters (<http://www.reading.ccsu.edu/ComprehensiveExam/ComprehensiveExam.htm>)

- Clinical Faculty (E. Demos, J. Turner & L. Valerie) assess clinical and practicum courses and experiences of candidates

- Creation of new cohorts in New Britain and Hebron, CT. (Facilitated by H.R. Abadiano, L. Valerie & K. Weiss)

Goal 5: Promote global awareness and respect for diversity ✜ The department offers a Master of Science Degree Program in

Reading and Language Arts to teachers in Jamaica. Our program in Jamaica supports our department mission and Strategic Plan Goal 1, Task 1.4: Strengthen commitment in developing global and international initiatives, specifically, Task 1.4b: Continue to strengthen the master’s program in Jamaica and explore potential for expanding in the Caribbean islands. The program was granted accreditation by the University Council of Jamaica (UCJ) in September 2008.

✜ In RDG 598-Seminar in Reading Research and RDG 698-Research Seminar students on campus and in Jamaica participate in online conversations through Blackboard Vista, throughout the semester in Spring 2010. (H.R. Abadiano)

FUTURE PLANS

✜ In Fall 2010 the department will begin to discuss revisions of the master’s, 6th year degree, and OCP programs to address state’s new regulations for reading specialist/literacy coach in anticipation of its implementation in 2014.

✜ In Fall 2010 the department will review and write its 2010-2014 Strategic Plan.

29

APPENDIX 1 2009-2010 Full Time Faculty

Faculty Member Name

HELEN R ABADIANO

Highest Degree, Field, & University

Ph.D. in Language, Literacy & Culture Educational Theory & Practice: Early & Middle Childhood Education The Ohio State University

Faculty Rank Professor

Research

❖ A self-study and review of the current status of diversity and equity efforts in the School of Education and Professional Studies (2009-ongoing)

Aspects of the self-study and review include the unit climate—institutional leadership and commitment (decisions, policies), representational diversity (faculty, staff and students), culture, curricular transformation (content and pedagogy, practices and behaviors (affective, professional disposition) that, taken together, constitute the working and learning environment. (Coordinator of Self-Study, a collaborative project of faculty in the School of Education and Professional Studies)

❖ Learning beyond individual boundary: A dialogic approach to literacy coaching (2009-ongoing)

Analysis of the extent to which the quality of teacher talk, use of different kinds of talk strategically, and the levels of intellectual and affective interactions throughout the dialogic process help literacy coaches reach their full potential and co-evolve more complex learnings and experiences related to their expected competencies, roles and responsibilities. Research Team: Elene S. Demos, Professor of Reading and Language Arts , Jesse P. Turner, Associate Professor of Reading and Language Arts, Lynda M. Valerie, Assistant Professor of Reading and Language Arts

Publications Abadiano, H.R. (Ed.), Turner, J., & Valerie, L. (Assoc.

Eds.). (Spring 2010). Theme: Transforming

30

Disengaged Readers into Engaged Readers in the Classroom. New England Reading Association Journal (NERAJ), 45(2).


Abadiano, H.R. (Fall 2009). Document: National Council Accreditation of Teacher Education, Standard 4: Diversity.

Presentations Abadiano, H.R., Demos, E.,Turner, J., & Valerie, L. (2010,

July). Learning beyond individual boundary: A dialogic approach to literacy coaching. 23rd IRA World Congress on Reading in Auckland, New Zealand (paper accepted)

Abadiano, H.R. (November 10, 2009). Keynote Address: Women and Literacy. “Women’s Literacy Tea” by Literacy Volunteers of Central Connecticut, New Britain, CT

Abadiano, H.R., Turner, J., & Valerie, L.M. (September 23-25, 2009). Hooking up with authors and reviewers. Reading Renaissance, 61st Annual Reading Conference of the New England Reading Association, Warwick, RI

Valerie, L., Abadiano, H.R., & Kurkjian, C. (2009, July). Impact of online writing groups in a National Writing Project Invitational Summer Institute 16th European Conference on Reading, Braga, Portugal.

Awards/Grants/ Honors

❖ 2010 CCSU/AAUP Summer Curriculum Development Grant: Examining how to better prepare teacher candidates for the Connecticut Foundations of Reading Test: Addressing course content, instructor collaboration, and student academic skills. Co-applicant: Julia Kara-Soteriou, Associate Professor of Reading and Language Arts, ($2,000)


❖ Program Reviewer for the International Reading Association (IRA) in conjunction with the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 (Wagner College Teacher Preparation Unit - Literacy Education (B-6),

31

NY; The College of Saint Rose the Lally School of Education Graduate Literacy (5-12), NY; The College of Saint Rose the Lally School of Education Graduate Literacy (B-6), NY; Pace University School of Education, NY; Northern Illinois University Professional Education Literacy Education (Reading Specialist/Literacy Coach), IL

❖ Program Review Visiting Team, Eastern Connecticut State University, State of Connecticut Department of Education, November 2009

❖ Site Visiting Team Chair, University of Connecticut (UCONN) NCATE/State Accreditation Visit, State of Connecticut Department of Education, April 2010

❖ Site Visiting Team Member, Providence College Program Approval Visit, State of Rhode Island Department of Education, April 11-14, 2010

❖ National Reading Conference (NRC) Connecticut Field Council Representative, 2009-2010

❖ Editor, New England Reading Association Journal (NERAJ), ME: Old Port Press, 2009-2010

❖ Grant Writer, A Plus Learning Headquarters After-School Programs in Reading, Math, and Science, Spring 2010

❖ Co-Grant Writer, Magnet School Assistance Program (MSAP), Mary M. Hooker Environmental Studies Magnet School, Spring 2010

❖ Proposal Reviewer, 15th Annual New England Conference on Multicultural Education (NECME), 2010

Service to Department, SEPS, University

❖ Chair, Department of Reading and Language Arts ❖ Coordinator/Faculty, M.S. in Reading and Language

Arts program in Jamaica ❖ Member, Department Evaluation Committee (DEC) ❖ Writer, NCATE Institutional Report: Standard 4-

Diversity. Part of the Institutional Report of the School of Education and Professional Studies Submitted for NCATE Accreditation, Fall 2009

❖ NCATE Steering Committee, 2009-2010 ❖ Coordinator, Graduate Cohorts in New Britain and

Hebron, 2010 ❖ Coordinator, Self-Study and Review of Current

32

Status of Diversity and Equity Efforts in the School of Education and Professional Studies.

❖ Advisory Board Member, Reading and Language Arts ❖ Co-Author, Plan of Action in response to the

Foundations of Reading Test (CFRT) submitted to the Chancellor’s Office

❖ Administrator, Literacy Essentials Conference Website at <www.reading.ccsu.edu/LiteracyEssentialsConference/default.htm >

❖ Dissertation Committee Member: How DO Collaborative Grade Level Teams Impact Student Performance? Ed. D. in Educational Leadership, School of Education and Professional Studies, CCSU, 2009-2010. (Carol Wright)

❖ Council of Chairs Representative to Faculty Senate ❖ SEPS Dean’s Diversity Committee ❖ Co-Administrator, Department Website at

<http://www.reading.ccsu.edu/> ❖ Member, Advisory Committee for CSU Professorship ❖ Program/Portfolio Advisor, Graduate candidates in

reading and language arts ❖ Member, Department Program Assessment

Committee ❖ Faculty Peer Mentor, Department of Reading and

Language Arts, School of Education and Professional Studies, CCSU

❖ University Diversity Committee Task Force on Improving Student Support Mechanism,

❖ Committee Member, Internationalization Laboratory ❖ Member, 4th Annual Literacy Essentials Conference

Committee, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT

❖ Member, CCSU/AAUP School of Education and Professional Studies Research Reassigned Time

❖ Member, Department of Reading and Language Arts Orientation and Interview Committee for applicants to the program (scheduled on 2-3 Saturdays each in Fall and Spring semesters)

❖ Member, Department of Reading and Language Arts Comprehensive Examinations Committee (scheduled on a Saturday in Fall and Spring semesters)- includes

33

review and revision of questions, proctoring and grading exams.

34

Faculty Member Name

ELENE S. DEMOS


Ph.D. in Reading Education University of Wisconsin-Madison

Faculty Rank

Professor

Research

❖ Learning beyond individual boundary: A dialogic approach to literacy coaching (2009-ongoing)

Analysis of the extent to which the quality of teacher talk, use of different kinds of talk strategically, and the levels of intellectual and affective interactions throughout the dialogic process help literacy coaches reach their full potential and co-evolve more complex learnings and experiences related to their expected competencies, roles and responsibilities. Research Team: Helen R. Abadiano, Professor of Reading and Language Arts , Jesse P. Turner, Associate Professor of Reading and Language Arts, Lynda M. Valerie, Assistant Professor of Reading and Language Arts

❖ A longitudinal study examining the effects of college reading instruction on students' academic performance and retention

❖ Impact of clinical sequence courses on reading specialists’ implementation of the diagnostic problem-solving process, planning and implementation of remedial intervention programs, and k-12 literacy learning (with J. Turner and L. Valerie)

Publications Demos, E., & Foshay, J. (Spring 2010). Engaging the

disengaged reader. New England Reading Association Journal (NERAJ), 45(2), 57-62.

Demos, E. (Fall 2009). An interview with David Berliner: On leadership and high-stakes testing. New England Reading Association Journal (NERAJ), 45(1). 1-6

Presentations Demos, E., Abadiano, H.R., Turner, J., & Valerie, L. (2010,

July). Learning beyond individual boundary: A dialogic approach to literacy coaching. 23rd IRA World

35

Congress on Reading in Auckland, New Zealand (paper accepted)


❖ Awarded tenure


❖ NCATE Coordinator, School of Education and Professional Studies, CCSU, 2009-2010

❖ Executive Board Member, New Britain Alliance for Youth, New Britain, CT, 2009-2010


❖ Member, University Academic Assessment Committee ❖ Member, Assessment Committee, School of Education

and Professional Studies ❖ Coordinator, RDG 140-Reading Efficiency ❖ Faculty Peer Mentor, Department of Reading and

Language Arts, School of Education and Professional Studies

❖ Co-Author, Plan of Action in response to the Foundations of Reading Test (CFRT) submitted to the Chancellor’s Office

❖ Faculty, M.S. in Reading and Language Arts program in Jamaica

❖ Advisory Board Member, Reading and Language Arts ❖ Member, 4th Annual Literacy Essentials Conference

Committee, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT

❖ Program/Portfolio Advisor, Graduate candidates in reading and language arts

❖ Member, Clinical/Practicum Experience Committee ❖ Chair, Department By-laws Committee ❖ Alternate, CCSU Graduate Studies Committee ❖ Member, Termination Hearing Committee ❖ Member, CCSU Foundation Grant Advisory Committee ❖ Member, CCSU Human Studies Committee ❖ Chair, Department Program Assessment Committee ❖ Member, Department of Reading and Language Arts

Orientation and Interview Committee for applicants to the program (scheduled on 2-3 Saturdays each in Fall and Spring semesters)

❖ Member, Department of Reading and Language Arts Comprehensive Examinations Committee (scheduled on a Saturday in Fall and Spring semesters)- includes

36

review and revision of questions, proctoring and grading exams.

Faculty Member Name

JULIA KARA-SOTERIOU


Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction University of Connecticut

Faculty Rank

Associate Professor

Research

❖ Teachers’ proficiencies, supports, and challenges in teaching New Literacies.

❖ New Literacies in the elementary classrooms in Connecticut/Phase II.

Publications Kara-Soteriou, J. (Spring 2010). Video games for the

disengaged (and not only) students. New England Reading Association Journal, 45(2), 94-101.

Mulcahy, C. & Kara-Soteriou, J. (2009). Navigating challenges of critical literacy and new literacies: A literature-based approach. MRA Primer, (38), 24-30.

Kara-Soteriou, J., (Fall 2009). Promoting technology integration through the leadership of school administrators. New England Reading Association Journal, 45(1), 91-96.

Presentations Kara-Soteriou, J., & Miller, S. (2009). Literacy research

and practices in international contexts. Symposium presentation at the National Reading Conference/Literacy Research Association 59th Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, NM.

Kara-Soteriou, J. (2010, April). Literacy and technology integration. Poster presentation at the 13th Annual CSUS Faculty Research Conference, New Britain, CT.

Kara-Soteriou, J. (Spring 2010). Preparing teacher candidates to teach reading in K-6 classrooms: The CCSU approach. Invited presentation in the Reading Summit of the Connecticut State University System, New Britain, CT.

37

Kara-Soteriou, J. (Spring 2010). Deciding on a research project: From the “big question” to the study’s recommendations. Invited presentation in RDG 598/698 – Research Seminar at CCSU, New Britain, CT

Kara-Soteriou, J. (2009). Teachers’ proficiencies and needs in teaching the New Literacies. Invited presentation in the Department of Education at the University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus.

Kara-Soteriou, J. (Fall 2009). Research process: From the question to the recommendations. Invited presentation in RDG 598/698 – Research Seminar at CCSU, New Britain, CT


❖ Promotion to Associate Professor ❖ 2009-2010 CCSU/AAUP Faculty Development Grant:

Presentation and Committee Service at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference. ($1000)

❖ 2009-2010 CCSU/AAUP School of Education and Professional Studies Research Reassigned Time: Teachers’ proficiencies, supports, and challenges in teaching New Literacies. (3 credits)

❖ 2009-2010 Connecticut State University Research Grant: New Literacies in the Elementary Classrooms in Connecticut/Phase II. ($5,000)

❖ 2010 CCSU/AAUP Summer Curriculum Development Grant: Examining how to better prepare teacher candidates for the Connecticut Foundations of Reading Test: Addressing course content, instructor collaboration, and student academic skills. Co-applicant: Helen R. Abadiano, Professor of Reading and Language Arts, ($2,000)


❖ Field Council Regional Representative for Region I, National Reading Conference (NRC)

❖ Faculty Advisor, Alpha Upsilon Alpha Beta Kappa Honor Society of the International Reading Association, CCSU Chapter

❖ Conference Chair, 4th Annual Literacy Essentials Conference, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT

38

❖ Session Chair, 13th Annual CSUS Faculty Research Conference 2010: Poster Session on Faculty Research in Different Fields

❖ Session Chair, National Reading Conference/Literacy Research Association 2009: Symposium Presentation on Literacy Research in International Contexts

❖ Proposal Reviewer for 2010 Annual Meeting of the Literacy Research Association.


❖ Developer/Instructor of review classes for pre-service elementary education teachers in preparation for the Reading Foundations Test, 2009-2010

❖ Coordinator, Plan of Action in response to the Foundations of Reading Test (CFRT) submitted to the Chancellor’s Office

❖ Doctoral Dissertation Committee, Educational Leadership, 2009-2010

❖ CCSU Information Technology Committee, SEPS Representative

❖ Member, Department Evaluation Committee (DEC) ❖ Conference Chair, 4th Annual Literacy Essentials

Conference Committee, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT

❖ Alternate, Department Representative to University Curriculum Committee

❖ Member, Department Program Assessment Committee

❖ Faculty Peer Mentor, Department of Reading and Language Arts, School of Education and Professional Studies, CCSU


❖ Advisory Board Member, Reading and Language Arts ❖ Coordinator, Undergraduate RDG 315/RDG 316 ❖ Member, Department of Reading and Language Arts


❖ Member, Department of Reading and Language Arts Comprehensive Examinations Committee (scheduled on a Saturday in Fall and Spring semesters)- includes review and revision of questions, proctoring and

39

grading exams.

40

Faculty Member Name

CATHERINE KURKJIAN


Ed.D. in Reading and Language Arts: Emergent Literacy University of Northern Colorado

Faculty Rank

Professor

Research ❖ Program assessment: Jamaican teachers’ and employers’ satisfaction of quality of the master’s program in reading and language arts and its relevance to Jamaican school contexts (coordinator).

Publications Kurkjian, C., & Vardell, S. (Eds.). (April 2010). Special

Issue: Hans Christian Andersen Award Nominees. Book Bird: Journal of International Literature of the International Book Bureau for Youth (IBBY), 48(2)

Kurkjian, C., & Vardell, S. (Eds.). (January 2010). Book Bird: Journal of International Literature of the International Book Bureau for Youth (IBBY), 48(1)

Presentations Kurkjian, C., & Billings, M. (July 2010). A stranger in a

strange land: SA cyberlesson study of Shaun Tan’s graphic novel The Arrival. 23rd IRA World Congress on Reading in Auckland, New Zealand (paper accepted)

Kurkjian, C. (April 2010). Blackboard group discussions: Group roles to promote higher level thinking. 13th Annual CSUS Faculty Research Conference, New Britain, CT.

Kurkjian, C., & Vardell, S. (October 2009). A conversation on Bookbird: Past, present and future. Chicago, IL.

Kurkjian, C. (April 16, 2010). Scaffolding comprehension across grade levels: The Arrival Literature Cyberlesson. CREC Language Arts Council, CT


❖ Editorship of an international journal, Book Bird: Journal of International Literature of the International Book Bureau for Youth (IBBY).

41

❖ Invited member to serve on the Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award Committee for USBBY (United States Bureau of Books for Youth). (June 2010-2012)

This committee honors the memory of author Astrid Lindgren and promotes children’s and youth literature around the world, the Swedish government founded an international prize in her name. The award, of five million Swedish crowns, is the world’s largest for children’s and youth literature, and the second-largest literature prize in the world. Storytellers, authors, illustrators and other individuals or organizations that make valuable contributions to the promotion of reading are eligible. USBBY member, Katherine Paterson has been a recipient. This position involve nominating candidates in writing/illustrating/storytelling/promotion of reading from the U.S. region as well as from a different country/region and then working with publishers to compile supporting materials for submission to the ALMA office.

❖ CCSU/AAUP Faculty-Student Research Grant: 23rd World Congress on Reading of the International Reading Association (with Maureen Billings, 6th year student), Auckland, New Zealand, July 2010

❖ CCSU/AAUP Faculty Development Grant: Cross Cultural Perspectives on Teaching and Learning, and Internationalizing the Curriculum. A paper to be presented at the 23rd World Congress on Reading of the International Reading Association, Auckland, New Zealand, July 2010 (with L. Valerie)


❖ Publicity Committee Chair, New England Reading Association Executive Committee

❖ Editor, Book Bird: Journal of International Literature of the International Book Bureau for Youth (IBBY).

❖ Conference Co-Chair, 4th Annual Literacy Essentials Conference, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT


❖ Program Evaluation Chair, MS in Reading and Language Arts, Jamaican Cohort

❖ Committee Member, Internationalization Laboratory

42



❖ Member, Department Evaluation Committee (DEC) ❖ Faculty Peer Mentor, Department of Reading and




❖ Conference Co-Chair, 4th Annual Literacy Essentials Conference, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT

❖ Co-Administrator, Department Website ❖ Advisory Board Member, Reading and Language Arts ❖ Member, Department of Reading and Language Arts


❖ Member, Department of Reading and Language Arts Comprehensive Examinations Committee (scheduled on a Saturday in Fall and Spring semesters)- includes review and revision of questions, proctoring and grading exams.

❖ Presenter, Department of Reading and Language Arts Electronic Program Portfolio Orientation (once in Fall and Spring semesters)

43

Faculty Member Name

CARA M. MULCAHY



Faculty Rank Associate Professor

Research ❖ Literacy possibilities in the Reader's/Writer's Workshop

❖ Issues of containment: Limitations to teaching critical literacy

❖ The use of Literature Cyberlessons for integration of New Literacies and Critical Literacy.

❖ An investigation of graduate students’ (inservice) learning process in critical literacy

Publications Mulcahy, C. (2009). The tangled web we weave: Critical

literacy and critical thinking. In L. Wallowitz (Ed.), New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing

Mulcahy, C. & Kara-Soteriou, J. (2009). Navigating challenges of critical literacy and new literacies: A literature-based approach. MRA Primer, (38), 24-30.

Mulcahy, C. (in press). Marginalized literacies: Critical literacy in the language arts classroom. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing

Presentations

Mulcahy, C. (October 2009). Chair: New England Philosophy of Education Annual Conference, New Britain, CT

Mulcahy, C. (September 2009). Schooled literacies. Reading Association of Ireland Annual Conference, Dublin, Ireland


❖ Promotion to Associate Professor ❖ 2009-2010 Connecticut State University Research

Grant

Leadership in ❖ Advisory Board Member, Central Connecticut Writing

44

Professional Community

Project ❖ Co-Advisor, Kappa Delta Pi-an Honors Society in

Teacher Education



❖ Member, Department Evaluation Committee (DEC) ❖ Faculty Peer Mentor, Department of Reading and



❖ Member, 4th Annual Literacy Essentials Conference Committee, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT

❖ Advisory Board Member, Reading and Language Arts ❖ Faculty, M.S. in Reading and Language Arts program

in Jamaica ❖ Coordinator, Undergraduate RDG 412/RDG 440 ❖ Program/Portfolio Advisor, Graduate candidates in

reading and language arts ❖ Department Representative, Faculty Senate ❖ Faculty Advisor, Graduate Society of Reading (GSR) –

official organization of graduate students in reading and language arts




45

Faculty Member Name

JESSE TURNER


Ph.D. in Language and Culture University of Arizona

Faculty Rank

Associate Professor

Research ❖ A Study of Critical Elements in Exemplary Graduate Programs for Reading Specialist/Literacy Coach Leading to the Redesign of Advanced Certification Programs in the Department of Reading and Language Arts and the Creation of a Literacy Coaching Academy (CCSU/AAUP Sabbatical Leave, Fall 2009)

❖ Learning beyond individual boundary: A dialogic approach to literacy coaching

Analysis of the extent to which the quality of teacher talk, use of different kinds of talk strategically, and the levels of intellectual and affective interactions throughout the dialogic process help literacy coaches reach their full potential and co-evolve more complex learnings and experiences related to their expected competencies, roles and responsibilities. Research Team: Helen R. Abadiano, Professor of Reading and Language Arts , Elene Demos, Professor of Reading and Language Arts, Lynda M. Valerie, Assistant Professor of Reading and Language Arts

❖ Impact of clinical sequence courses on reading specialists’ implementation of the diagnostic problem-solving process, planning and implementation of remedial intervention programs, and k-12 literacy learning (with E. Demos and L. Valerie)

Publications Abadiano, H.R. (Ed.), Turner, J., & Valerie, L. (Assoc.

Eds.). (Spring 2010). Theme: Transforming Disengaged Readers into Engaged Readers in the Classroom. New England Reading Association Journal (NERAJ), 45(2).

Abadiano, H.R. (Ed.), Turner, J., & Valerie, L. (Assoc. Eds.). (Fall 2009). Theme: Teachers as Literacy

46

Leaders: Bringing About Change in Communities. New England Reading Association Journal (NERAJ), 45(1).

Presentations Turner, J., Clark, B., French, J., and Werblow, J. (2010).

We are walking: Panel session using video interviews to give voice to teachers who have been under the continuing pressures of the No Child Left Behind mandates

Turner, J., Clark, B., French, J., Love, K., & Valerie, L. (2009, October-November). Light one candle: A continuation of NCLB resistance stories. A group of K-12 teacher educators, pre- and inservice teachers linked by the principles of whole language, critical literacy, critical theory, and New Literacies formed a breakfast club to find ways to improve teaching and teacher retention.




❖ CCSU/AAUP Sabbatical Leave: A Study of Critical Elements in Exemplary Graduate Programs for Reading Specialist/Literacy Coach Leading to the Redesign of Advanced Certification Programs in the Department of Reading and Language Arts and the Creation of a Literacy Coaching Academy (Fall 2009)


❖ Associate Editor, New England Reading Association Journal (NERAJ), ME: Old Port Press, 2009-2010

❖ Treasurer, Phi Delta Kappa, CCSU Chapter ❖ Executive Board Member, New Britain Youth Alliance,

New Britain, CT



❖ Faculty Peer Mentor, Department of Reading and

47



❖ Member, 4th Annual Literacy Essentials Conference Committee, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT



❖ Chair, Clinical/Practicum Experience Committee ❖ Director, Literacy Center, CCSU ❖ Member, Department Evaluation Committee (DEC) ❖ Co-Host and Co-Producer for the public television

show the Central Educator ❖ Co-Chair, Reading and Language Arts Advisory Board ❖ Faculty Mentor, Department of Reading and Language

Arts, School of Education and Professional Studies, CCSU



48

Faculty Member Name

LYNDA M. VALERIE



Faculty Rank

Assistant Professor

Research ❖ Impact of clinical sequence courses on reading specialists’ implementation of the diagnostic problem-solving process, planning and implementation of remedial intervention programs, and k-12 literacy learning (with E. Demos & J. Turner)

❖ An investigation of impact of the Central Connecticut Writing Project in developing teachers as professional teachers of writing on their students’ writing achievement.

❖ Impact of teachers as writers on students’ writing. Analysis and comparison of students’ writing in year prior to, and following year of teacher participation in the Central Connecticut Writing Project (CCWP), in collaboration with teachers in the CCWP program.

❖ Impact of the use of technology on student motivation to write (with F. Abed & B. Murratti)

Publications Valerie, L. (2009). Impact of online writing groups in a

National Writing Project Invitational Summer Institute, 16th European Conference on Reading, Braga, Portugal.

Abadiano, H.R. (Ed.), Turner, J., & Valerie, L. (Assoc. Eds.). (Spring 2010). Theme: Transforming Disengaged Readers into Engaged Readers in the Classroom. New England Reading Association Journal (NERAJ), 45(2).


Presentations Ostrowski, S., & Valerie, L. (November 19, 2009).

Leadership development in the early years. Invited

49

presenter at the National Writing Project Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.

Clark, B., French, J., Love, K., Turner, J., Valerie, L., & Zaba, M. (October 15-17, 2009). Don’t let the lights go out! PDK International Summit on Quality Educator Recruitment and Retention, Indianapolis, IN. (Presented by team members).


Valerie, L.(July 2009). Valerie, L., Abadiano, H.R., & Kurkjian, C. (2009, July). Impact of online writing groups in a National Writing Project Invitational Summer Institute 16th European Conference on Reading, Braga, Portugal.

Valerie, L., Earley, H., & Bouchard, J. (July 2009). National Writing Project (NWP) teacher inquiry institute, Wellesley, MA (with 2 graduate students in Reading and Language Arts)

Valerie, L. (July 12-15, 2010). Teachers as writers: The impact of the Central Connecticut Writing Project Invitational Summer Institute. International Reading Association 23rd World Congress on Reading, Auckland, New Zealand. (Paper accepted for presentation).

Valerie, L. (July 12-15, 2010). Dispositional impact of the Central Connecticut Writing Project Invitational Summer Institute on Teachers as writers and teachers of writing. International Reading Association 23rd World Congress on Reading, Auckland, New Zealand. (Paper accepted for presentation).


❖ Certificate of special recognition: Friend of Chamberlain Primary School, New Britain, CT

❖ Renewal of funding grant for Central Connecticut Writing Project grant under the National Writing Project ($46,000)

❖ National Writing Project (NWP) Teacher Inquiry Mini-Grant ($5,000)

50

❖ Central Connecticut STUDENT Writing Project in collaboration with the New Britain and East Hartford Public Schools. ($2,300)

❖ CCSU/AAUP Faculty Development Grant: Cross Cultural Perspectives on Teaching and Learning, and Internationalizing the Curriculum. A paper to be presented at the 23rd World Congress on Reading of the International Reading Association, Auckland, New Zealand, July 2010 (with C. Kurkjian)


❖ Director, Central Connecticut Writing Project, site of the National Writing Project (NWP). Summer 2009, 17 participants; Summer 2010, 15 participants.

❖ Coordinator, Central Connecticut STUDENT Writing Project. A 2-week writing program for young writers, grades 6-10, and taught by 26 CCWP Fellows,

❖ Associate Editor, New England Reading Association Journal (NERAJ), ME: Old Port Press, 2009-2010

❖ Coordinator, Family Literacy Night-Chamberlain Elementary School in New Britain, CT (March 2010), and O’Brien Elementary School in East Hartford, CT (January 2010).

❖ Coordinator, Professional Writing Retreat for CCWP teacher fellows, CCSU (February 2010)

❖ Coordinator, Fall Open Institute: Poetry Across the Curriculum, 50 Connecticut teachers. (October 2009)

❖ Coordinator, National Writing Day Celebration-professional development offered to 80 teacher participants.

❖ Vice-President In Charge of Programs, Phi Delta Kappa, an Honors Society for Educators

❖ Team Member, Connecticut Writing Project Network including the three sites of the National Writing Project—University of Connecticut, Fairfield University, and Central Connecticut State University

❖ Judge, NCTE Promising Young Writers Program ❖ Editor, CARReader, Connecticut Association of

Reading Research Service to Department, SEPS, University

❖ Department Representative, University Curriculum Committee

❖ Member, Committee on Community Partnerships, School of Education and Professional Studies

51






❖ Member, Clinical/Practicum Experience Committee ❖ Member, Reading and Language Arts Advisory Board ❖ Member, Department of Reading and Language Arts




52

Faculty Member Name

KENNETH J. WEISS


Ed.D. in Reading Education Rutgers University

Faculty Rank

Professor

Research ❖ Investigation of pre-service and post-baccalaureate content area reading teachers’ information and training in teaching higher levels of language and literacy: A longitudinal approach – Phase III. Awarded an AAUP/CSU Research Grant.

Presentations Weiss, K.J. (2010, May). By your pupils you’ll be taught.

Live chatting and blogging: Lessons learned in a hybrid course. CCSU Student Learning Colloquium, New Britain, CT.

Weiss, K.J. (2009, November). Looking forward while looking back: The literacy crisis in secondary content area classrooms and the targeted professional development that can help teachers cope. Association for Literacy Educators and Researchers (formerly the College Reading Association), Charlotte, NC.

Weiss, K.J. (2009, November). Focused vocabulary instruction for struggling readers. 58th Annual Connecticut Reading Conference, CT. (Accepted but did not present).

Weiss, K.J. (2009). The literacy crisis in secondary content classrooms: Targeted professional development that can help new teachers cope. 40th Annual Conference of the Northeastern Education Research Association, Rocky Hill, CT.

Weiss, K.J. (2009, July). Text messaging: The impact and implications on written communication skills in the college classroom and beyond. 11th International Pragmatics Conference, Melbourne, Australia. (Accepted but did not present due to lack of funding support).

Weiss, K J. (July 19-23, 2009). Looking forward while looking back: The literacy crisis in secondary content

53

area classrooms with a professional development model to the rescue! 16th European Conference on Reading, Braga, Portugal. (Accepted but did not present due to lack of funding support).


❖ Promotion to Full Professor ❖ 2009/2010 Teacher Quality Improvement Grant

Program “Interdisciplinary Science, Inquiry and Literacy Training (ISILT)” funded by the Connecticut Department of Higher Education. (Instructional team member for delivery of professional development on literacy in science content area.

❖ 2009-2010 Connecticut State University Research Grant: Investigation of pre-service and post-baccalaureate content area reading teachers’ information and training in teaching higher levels of language and literacy: A longitudinal approach (Phase III) ($4,350)


❖ Member, NCATE (National Council Accreditation of Teacher Education) Board of Examiners (BOE)

❖ Chair, Northeastern Education Research Association (NERA) District/State Ad Hoc Committee.

❖ NCATE/CT State Teacher Approval Site Visiting Team

❖ International Reading Association’s (IRA) Children’s Book Award Committee

❖ Editorial Review Board, Journal of Literacy Research ❖ Proposal Reviewer, National Reading Conference

(NRC) ❖ Proposal Reviewer, AERA Conference ❖ Editorial Review Board, Journal of Balanced Literacy ❖ Editorial Review Board, New England Reading

Association Journal (NERAJ) ❖ Editorial Review Board, READ, Alabama Reading

Association Journal ❖ Board Member and Literacy Director, Not-for-Profit

Riverwalk Journal Organization (Pittsburgh)


❖ Chair, Department Evaluation Committee (DEC) ❖ Chair, University Graduate Studies Committee ❖ Member, Department Program Assessment

54

Committee ❖ Co-Author, Plan of Action in response to the

Foundations of Reading Test (CFRT) submitted to the Chancellor’s Office

❖ Secretary, School of Education and Professional Studies Governance Council


❖ Advisory Board Member, Reading and Language Arts ❖ Faculty, M.S. in Reading and Language Arts program,

New Britain and Hebron Cohorts ❖ Program/Portfolio Advisor, Graduate candidates in

reading and language arts ❖ Member, Department of Reading and Language Arts




ReadingCompletions

Degree Level Program Name Degr. Gender

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

N N N N N

2-Certificate: Post-Baccalaureate

Reading OCP WomenTotal

3-Master's Reading and Language Arts

MS MenWomen

Total4-Certificate: Post-Master's

Reading and Language Arts

SYC MenWomen

TotalTotal

1 2 21 2 2

13 1 4 367 107 39 56 3180 108 43 56 34

1 112 17 13 13 1312 18 14 13 1393 126 59 71 47

1

80

12

108

18

2

43

142

56

13

34

13

2008-092007-082006-072005-062004-05

125

100

75

50

25

0

2-Certificate: Post-Baccalaureate3-Master's4-Certificate: Post-Master's

Completions by Award Level

Fall Headcount Enrollment by Program

Reading

Level Program Name Credential Major/pre-

Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009

N N N N N

Graduate Reading OCP Major

Total


MS Major

SYC Major

Total

Total

5 5 4 3 4

5 5 4 3 4

143 109 97 104 94

43 46 59 53 42

186 155 156 157 136

191 160 160 160 140

191

160 160 160140

Fall 2009Fall 2008Fall 2007Fall 2006Fall 2005

200

150

100

50

0

Graduate

Fall Headcount Enrollment by Level

Historical Student Credit Hours and Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment

This report summarizes the total student credit hours and total FTE enrollment. Student credit hours are measured on the official census date at the third week of the semester and are attributed by the home department of the faculty member teaching the course. Data source: IR Data Warehouse Coursefile. Query location: I:\O P I R\Programs\BRIO QUERYS\Within\Student Credit Hours and FTE Enrollment.Produced by the CCSU Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

Reading & Language Arts

Undergraduate Student Credit

Hours

Graduate Student Credit

HoursTotal Student Credit Hours

Undergraduate FTE Enrollment

Graduate FTE

EnrollmentTotal FTE Enrollment

Fall 2004

Fall 2005

Fall 2006

Fall 2007

Fall 2008

Fall 2009

702 1,008 1,710 46.8 84.0 130.8

693 1,122 1,815 46.2 93.5 139.7

711 906 1,617 47.4 75.5 122.9

705 879 1,584 47.0 73.3 120.3

774 837 1,611 51.6 69.8 121.4

732 747 1,479 48.8 62.3 111.1

84.0

46.8

93.5

46.2

75.5

47.4

73.3

47.0

69.8

51.662.3

48.8

Fall 2009Fall 2008Fall 2007Fall 2006Fall 2005Fall 2004

100

75

50

25

0

GRTot_FTEUGTot_FTE

Graduate and Undergraduate FTE Enrollment

Faculty Metrics

Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Spring 2006 Spring 2007 Spring 2008 Spring 2009 Spring 2010

Number of FT Teaching Faculty Headcount 7 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 8Number of FT Faculty with 12 or more instru. Load credits 5 4 2 2 3 7 2 3 3 2Number of FT Faculty on Sabbatical 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Number of Student Credit Hrs (FT) 1299 1167 1002 933 987 1314 1006 1023 891 931Ratio of Number of Credit Hrs Taught Per Faculty (FT) 186 146 125 117 123 164 144 128 111 116Number of Student Contact Hrs (FT) 1299 1167 1002 933 987 1327 1006 1023 891 931Ratio of Number of Contact Hrs Taught Per Faculty (FT) 186 146 125 117 123 166 144 128 111 116Number of Instructional Load Credits (FT) 75 85 73 66 66 106 64 79 70 67Number of Non-Instructional Load Credits (FT) 9 15 21 30 36 6 18 21 27 30Number of Load Credits for Research (FT) 0 3 6 9 0 0 6 3 6 9Number of Load Credits for Chair (FT) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6Number of All Other Non-Instructional Load Credits (FT) 3 6 9 15 30 0 6 12 15 15Number of Forward Over/Under Load Credits (FT) 2.2 3.9 0.3 4.7 12.1 15.5 1.5 4.7 6.1 13.3Ratio of Instructional Load Credits Per Faculty (FT) 10.7 10.7 9.1 8.3 8.3 13.3 9.2 9.9 8.8 8.4Ratio of Total Load Credits Per Faculty (FT) 12.0 12.5 11.8 12.0 12.8 14.0 11.8 12.5 12.2 12.1Ratio of Total Forward Over/Under Load Credits Per Faculty (FT) 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.6 1.5 1.9 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.7Ratio of Student Credit Hours Per FTE FT Instructional Faculty Load 208 164 164 170 179 148 188 155 152 166Ratio of Student Contact Hours Per FTE FT Instructional Faculty Load 208 164 164 170 179 150 188 155 152 166Number of PT Teaching Faculty Headcount 5 6 9 10 9 3 9 8 11 11Number of Student Credit Hrs (PT) 516 450 582 678 492 210 546 585 582 576Ratio of Number of Credit Hrs Taught Per Faculty (PT) 103 75 65 68 55 70 61 73 53 52Number of Student Contact Hrs (PT) 516 450 582 645 492 210 546 585 582 576Ratio of Number of Contact Hrs Taught Per Faculty (PT) 103 75 65 65 55 70 61 73 53 52Number of PT Load Credits 24 28 39 42 36 10 42 36 42 48Ratio of Load Credits Per Faculty (PT) 4.8 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.0 3.2 4.7 4.5 3.8 4.4Ratio of Student Credit Hours Per FTE PT Faculty Load 258 196 179 194 164 265 156 195 165 144Ratio of Student Contact Hours Per FTE PT Faculty Load 258 196 179 184 164 265 156 195 165 144Percent of Student Credit Hrs Taught by FT 71.6% 72.2% 63.3% 57.9% 66.7% 86.2% 64.8% 63.6% 60.5% 61.8%Percent of Student Contact Hrs Taught by FT 71.6% 72.2% 63.3% 59.1% 66.7% 86.3% 64.8% 63.6% 60.5% 61.8%Percent of Instructional Load Credits Taught by FT 75.8% 75.6% 65.2% 61.1% 64.7% 91.8% 60.5% 68.8% 62.5% 58.3%

Reading & Language Arts

Number of Full-Time Teaching Faculty includes instructors, asst. professors, assoc. professors and professors, and excludes all coaches, librarians and counselors.Full-Time Faculty Instructional Load Credits includes load credit given to full-time faculty for instructional activity, including thesis, indept study, instructional load, lab, practicum, other (see Articles 10.6.1, 10.6.4, 10.6.5, 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, and 10.12.1 of the CSU-AAUP Contract).Full-Time Faculty Non-Instructional Load Credits includes load credit for full-time instructional faculty attributable to sabbatic leave, sick leave, and other leaves; and all reassigned time awarded, including that for administrative duties, curriculum development, faculty development, instructional enhancement, research, retraining; and other non-instructional duties (see Articles 10.6.1, 10.6.4, 10.6.5, 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, and 10.12.1 of the CSU-AAUP Contract).Forward Over/Under Load Credits represents the surplus or deficit of load credits for overloads or under-loads carried forward into the next semester (see Article 10.5 of the CSU-AAUP Contract).Part-Time Faculty Load Credits includes load credit given to Lecturers for instructional activity (as defined above), and excludes all part-time coaches, librarians, counselors and non-teaching lecturers (include any load credits given to non-teaching lecturers attributable to instructional activities pursuant to 10.2.1, 10.4.1 & 10.4.2 of the CSU-AAUP Contract).

Department of Reading & Language Arts

National Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity (Delaware Study)

Instructional unit costs, research & public service expenditures, FY 2005-06 – FY 2008-09 CIP 13.13 Reading & Language Arts

(A) (B)

Deg Awd

%UG Deg (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

CCSU FY06 N M 0% 9.00 64% 8.25 191 4,229 99 0 0 0 Research

20

212 5,646 92 11,109 12,835 33,612

Doctoral

5

174 4,405 93 316 3,154 3,470 Comprehensive

22

156 4,495 97 368 85 1,479

Baccalaureate

CCSU FY07 N M 0% 10.65 76% 9.40 257 5,834 99 0 0 0

Research

20

210 5,689 93 7,506 3,814 17,870 Doctoral

Comprehensive

19

150 4,626 96 1,650 48 2,105 Baccalaureate

CCSU FY08 N M 0% 11.09 65% 9.34 313 6,837 99 0 0 0 Research

24

235 6,128 92 11,615 11,261 26,993

Doctoral

Comprehensive

20

241 6,972 94 1,468 36 1,506

Baccalaureate

CCSU FY09 N M 0% 11.49 61% 8.99 375 8,409 99 0 0 0

Research

Doctoral

Comprehensive

Baccalaureate

A: Fiscal Year 4: Direct instructional expenditures/SCH ($) B: Number of institutions in classification 5: Direct instructional cost/FTE student ($) 1: Total FTE faculty 6: Personnel cost as % of direct instructional l expenditure 2: Tenured/tenure-track faculty as % of total 7: Research exp /FTE tenured & tenure-track faculty ($) 3: Total FTE instructional faculty 8: Public service exp /FTE tenured & tenure-track faculty ($) 4: Direct instructional exp/SCH ($) 9: Research & public service exp /FTE tenured & tenure-track faculty ($)

This report provides information for Central Connecticut State University (CCSU) submitted to the Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity. Importantly, this study most centrally measures how much departmental activities cost in relation to the revenue (student credit hours) they generate. Costs are measured in terms of direct instructional expenditures per credit hour. It is important to recognize that credit hours represent in many ways a measure of revenue from instructional activity more than the work required to deliver that instruction. In this respect, the cost metric is already inflected to some extent by the tuition revenue generated, but this inflection is necessary to control for variation in program size within the institution and among institutions. Indirect expenditures are not considered. The metric for productivity in this study is revenue from grants and public service and is measured in dollars per full-time equivalent tenured and tenure-track faculty member. In order to standardize comparisons across institutions, the Delaware Study uses a specialized definition of faculty FTE, and so figures for faculty FTE as reported here may not agree with other tables in this report. Data source: Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity (http://www.ccsu.edu/page.cfm?p=4552) .

$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000

$10,000

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Direct Instructional Cost / FTE Student

Research

Doctoral

Comprehensive

Baccalaureate

CCSU$0

$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Research and Public Service Expenditures / FTE Faculty

Doctoral

Comprehensive

Baccalaureate

CCSU

http://www.ccsu.edu/page.cfm?p=4552�

Reading and Language ArtsCT Dept. of Higher Ed. Program Number

Completions 2003-04 to 2008-09 by Gender and Race/Ethnicity

MS00066

Program Name Degr. Dhecde Gender Race

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

N N N N N


MS 00066 Men Non-Resident Alien

Black, Non-HispanicHispanicWhite, Non-HispanicRace/Ethnicity UnknownTotal

Women Non-Resident Alien

Black, Non-HispanicAsian or Pacific IslanderHispanicWhite, Non-HispanicRace/Ethnicity UnknownTotal

Total

1 1

21 17 2 23 1

13 1 4 31 38 2 7

12 11 3 12 11

1 1 141 50 31 31 2713 7 2 5 267 107 39 56 3180 108 43 56 34

2 (6%)2 (6%)

1 (3%)

29 (85%)

Black, Non-HispanicHispanicRace/Ethnicity UnknownWhite, Non-Hispanic

Completions 2008-09 by Race/Ethnicity

Reading and Language ArtsMS

Fall Headcount Enrollment by Gender and Race/Ethnicity

Credential Major/pre- Gender Race/Ethnicity


N N N N N

MS Major Men HispanicWhite, Non-HispanicUnknown/No ReportTotal

Women Non-Resident AlienBlack, Non-HispanicAsian/Pacific IslanderHispanicWhite, Non-HispanicUnknown/No ReportTotal

TotalTotal

1 1 1 14 4 4 4 51 16 6 5 5 52 19 1 3 3 41 11 2 1 2

108 87 75 79 6916 14 12 16 13

137 103 92 99 89143 109 97 104 94143 109 97 104 94

Reading and Language ArtsMS

Fall Headcount Enrollment by Enrollment Status and Student Type

Credential Major/pre- Enrollment Group of Stu Type


N N N N N

MS Major Full-Time Continuing

New First-Time

Total

Part-Time Continuing

New First-Time

Other (Readmit & Non-Matric to Matric)

Total

Total

Total

2 2 2

2 1 1

4 1 3 2

113 85 76 90 81

24 20 18 10 10

2 4 2 1 1

139 109 96 101 92

143 109 97 104 94

143 109 97 104 94

4

139109

1

96

3

101

2

92


150

100

50

0

Full-TimePart-Time

Fall Headcount Enrollment by Enrollment Status

Reading and Language ArtsCT Dept. of Higher Ed. Program Number

Completions 2003-04 to 2008-09 by Gender and Race/Ethnicity

SYC00067

Program Name Degr. Dhecde Gender Race

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

N N N N N


SYC 00067 Men White, Non-HispanicTotal

Women Black, Non-HispanicHispanicWhite, Non-HispanicRace/Ethnicity UnknownTotal

Total

1 11 1

1 12 1

10 14 12 12 121 1 1

12 17 13 13 1312 18 14 13 13

1 (8%)

12 (92%) Race/Ethnicity UnknownWhite, Non-Hispanic

Completions 2008-09 by Race/Ethnicity

Reading and Language ArtsSYC

Fall Headcount Enrollment by Gender and Race/Ethnicity

Credential Major/pre- Gender Race/Ethnicity


N N N N N

SYC Major Men Black, Non-HispanicWhite, Non-HispanicUnknown/No ReportTotal

Women Black, Non-HispanicHispanicWhite, Non-HispanicUnknown/No ReportTotal

TotalTotal

1 1 15 2 1 1 1

15 2 3 2 21 2 11 1

36 40 48 42 323 6 8 8

38 44 56 51 4043 46 59 53 4243 46 59 53 42

Reading and Language ArtsSYC

Fall Headcount Enrollment by Enrollment Status and Student Type

Credential Major/pre- Enrollment Group of Stu Type


N N N N N

SYC Major Full-Time Continuing

Total

Part-Time Continuing

New First-Time

Other (Readmit & Non-Matric to Matric)

Total

Total

Total

2 1 3 5

2 1 3 5

30 35 43 40 34

11 9 12 8 8

1 1

41 45 56 48 42

43 46 59 53 42

43 46 59 53 42

2

41

1

45

3

56

5

4842


50

25

0

Full-TimePart-Time

Fall Headcount Enrollment by Enrollment Status

65

APPENDIX 2 Degree Program Assessment Report(s) in Fall 2009/Spring 2010

1

Department of Reading and Language Arts School of Education and Professional Studies

Central Connecticut State University

ASSESSMENT REPORT Fall 2008-Spring 2009

MASTER OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN READING AND LANGUAGE ARTS Program Rationale The Master of Science degree in Reading and Language Arts is designed to prepare literacy professionals who are knowledgeable and competent in providing quality support, to enhance students’ literacy learning, and who meet the standards for reading professionals as defined by the International Reading Association and by state mandates. Section 1. Learning Outcomes [NOTE: Each course that is included in a candidate’s planned program of study addresses specific elements of standards; thus ALL candidates must have met ALL elements of standards at the completion of their program of study.]

Standard 1. Foundational Knowledge Candidates have knowledge of the foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction. Demonstrate knowledge of psychological, sociological, and linguistic foundations

of reading and writing processes and instruction. (1.1) Demonstrate knowledge of reading research and histories of reading. (1.2) Demonstrate knowledge of language development and reading acquisition and the

variations related to cultural and linguistic diversity. (1.3) Demonstrate knowledge of the major components of reading and how they are

integrated in fluent reading. (1.4)

Standard 2.Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials Candidates will use a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, methods, and curriculum materials to support reading and writing instruction. Use instructional grouping options as appropriate for accomplishing given

purposes. (2.1)

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. (2.2)

Use a wide range of curriculum materials in effective reading instruction for learners at different stages of reading and writing development and from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. (2.3)

Standard 3.Assessment, Diagnosis and Evaluation Candidates use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective reading instruction. 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. (3.1)

Place students along a continuum and identify students’ proficiencies and difficulties. (3.2)

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. (3.3)

Communicate results of assessments to specific individuals (students, parents, colleagues, administrators, etc.). (3.4)

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. Use students’ interests, reading abilities, and backgrounds as foundations for

the reading and writing program. (4.1) Use a large supply of books, technology-based information, and non-print

materials representing multiple levels, broad interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds. (4.2)

Model reading and writing enthusiastically as valued lifelong activities. Motivate learners as lifelong readers. (4.3) Standard 5.Professional Development Candidates view professional development as a career-long effort and responsibility. Display positive dispositions related to reading and the teaching of reading. (5.1) Continue to pursue the development of professional knowledge and dispositions.

(5.2) Work with colleagues to observe, evaluate, and provide feedback on each other’s

practice. (5.3) Participate in, initiate, and evaluate professional development programs. (5.4)

3

Section 2. Findings

MASTER OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN READING AND LANGUAGE ARTS

SUMMARY DATA ACROSS COURSE ASSESSMENTS Fall 2008-Spring 2009

Standard 1: Foundational Knowledge

T = TARGET A = ACCEPTABLE U = UNACCEPTABLE MS = MEAN SCORE N = PARTICIPANTS

IRA STANDARD T A *U MS N 1.1 Demonstrate knowledge of psychological,

sociological, and linguistic foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction. Refer to major theories in the foundational area as they relate to reading. They can explain, compare, contrast, and critique the theories.

87%

10%

3%

2.8

40

1.2 Demonstrate knowledge of reading research and histories of reading.

Summarize seminal reading studies and articulate how these studies impacted reading instruction. They can recount historical developments in the history of reading.

64%

25%

11%

2.4

36

1.3 Demonstrate knowledge of language development and reading acquisition and the variations related to cultural and linguistic diversity.

Identify, explain, compare, and contrast the theories and research in the areas of language development and learning to read.

93%

7%

0%

2.9

30

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.

Are able to determine if students are appropriately integrating the components of reading (phonemic awareness, word identification and phonics, vocabulary and background knowledge, fluency, comprehension strategies, and motivation) in fluent reading.

76%

24%

0%

2.8

41

*Project must be revised and resubmitted.

4

MASTER OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN READING AND LANGUAGE ARTS SUMMARY DATA ACROSS COURSE ASSESSMENTS

Fall 2008-Spring 2009 Standard 2: Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials


IRA STANDARD T

A

*U MS N

2.1 Use instructional grouping options (individual, small- group, whole-class, and computer-based) as appropriate for accomplishing given purpose. Support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in their use of instructional grouping options. They help teachers select appropriate options. They demonstrate the options and explain the evidence- based rationale for changing configurations to best meet the needs of all students.

24%

59%

17%

1.9

17

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. Support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in the use of a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, and methods, including 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 teaching and in demonstration teaching.

44%

35%

21%

2.0 43

2.3 Use a wide range of curriculum materials in effective reading instruction for learners at different stages of reading and writing development and from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. 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 demonstrating teaching.

44%

56%

0%

2.4 16


5


Fall 2008-Spring 2009 Standard 3: Assessment, Diagnosis, and Evaluation


T A *U MS N

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 technologically-based assessment tools. Compare and contrast, use, interpret, and recommend a wide range of assessment tools and practices. Assessments may range from standardize tests to informal assessments and also include technology-based assessments, they demonstrate appropriate use of assessments in their practice, and they can train classroom teachers to administer and interpret these assessments.

36%

64%

0%

2.4 22

3.2 Place students along a developmental continuum and identify students’ proficiencies and difficulties. Support the classroom teacher in assessment of individual students. They extend the assessment to further determine proficiencies and difficulties for appropriate services.

35%

65%

0%

2.4 40

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. 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 professionals to implement appropriate reading instruction for individual students. They collect, analyze, and use school-wide assessment data to implement and revise school reading programs.

69%

31%

0%

2.7

48

3.4 Communicate results of assessments to specific individuals (students, parents, caregivers, colleagues, administrators, policymakers, policy officials, community, etc.). Communicate assessment information to various audiences for both accountability and instructional purposes (policymakers, public officials, community members, clinical specialists, school psychologists, social workers, classroom teachers, and parents).

47% 53%

0%

2.5 43

6



Fall 2008-Spring 2009 Standard 4: Creating a Literate Environment



IRA STANDARD T A *U MS N 4.1 Use students’ interests, reading abilities, and

backgrounds as foundations for the reading and writing program. Assist the classroom teacher and paraprofessional in selecting materials that match the reading levels, interests, and cultural background of students.

50%

33%

17%

2.2

6

4.2 Use a large supply of books, technology-based information, and non-print materials representing multiple levels, broad interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Assist the classroom teacher in selecting books, technology-based information, and non-print materials representing multiple levels, broad interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

33%

33%

33%

1.7

6

4.3 Model reading and writing enthusiastically as valued lifelong activities. Demonstrate and model reading and writing for real purposes in daily interactions with students and education professionals. Assist teachers and paraprofessionals to model reading and writing as valued lifelong activities.programs.

36%

50%

14%

2.1 14

4.4 Motivate learners to be lifelong readers. 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.

0% 50%

50%

1.0 2

7


Fall 2008-Spring 2009 Standard 5: Professional Development



Section 3. Analysis A high percentage of candidates meet standards 1-5 at “target” and “acceptable” levels, particularly in the area of foundational knowledge with 80% “target” and 16% “acceptable”. A high percentage of candidates (65% and above) meet “target” in standards 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 3.3. However, a number of candidates failed (“unacceptable”) standard 1.2 (11%), 2.1 (17%), 2.2 (21%), and 5.4 (22%).

IRA STANDARD T A *U MS N 5.1 Display positive dispositions related to reading

and the teaching of reading. Articulate the theories related to the connections between teacher dispositions and student achievement.

50% 44%

6%

2.4 18

5.2 Continue to pursue the development of professional knowledge and dispositions. Conduct professional study groups for paraprofessionals and teachers. Assist classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in identifying, planning, and implementing personal professional development plans. Advocate to advance the professional research base to expand knowledge-based practices.

58%

32%

10%

2.4 19

5.3 Work with colleagues to observe, evaluate, and provide feedback on each other’s practice. Positively and constructively provide an evaluation own or others’ teaching policies. Assist classroom teachers and paraprofessionals as they strive to improve their practice.

50% 50%

0%

2.5 2

5.4 Participate in, initiate, implement, and evaluate professional development programs. 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 identify and describe the characteristics of sound professional development programs. They can articulate the evidence base that grounds their practice.

30% 48%

22%

1.9 27

8

Candidates’ Strengths Candidates can refer to major theories in the foundational area as they relate to

reading. They can explain, compare, contrast, and critique theories, particularly in the areas of language development, reading acquisition and the variations related to cultural and linguistic diversity.


Candidates can use in-depth assessment information to plan, evaluate, and revise effective instruction that meets the needs of all students, particularly those at different developmental stages, and those from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, including planning individual instruction for struggling readers.

Candidates’ Weaknesses Candidates are lacking in the ability to recount historical developments in the

history of reading, summarize seminal reading studies, and articulate how these studies impacted reading instruction.

Candidates lack mastery of the use of a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, and methods, including grouping options and technology-based practices, for learners at differing stages of development and from differing cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

Candidates are lacking in the ability to participate in, initiate, implement, and evaluate professional development programs as well as exhibit leadership skills in professional development.

Section 4. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Program Revisited courses with specific content, assignments and rubrics that address

“failed” standard elements for appropriate revision. At the program portfolio orientation more emphasis was placed on how to be a

reflective professional, and writing a reflection using the reflection guide. Candidates who “failed” a standard element were required to revise and resubmit

their assignment and reflection as part of their program portfolio to be evaluated by their program advisor.

9

SIXTH YEAR DEGREE AND ADVANCED OFFICIAL CERTIFICATE PROGRAM IN READING AND LANGUAGE ARTS Program Rationale The Sixth-Year Certificate and Advanced Official Certificate Programs in Reading and Language Arts lead to the award of the professional certificate in Reading and Language Arts Consultant in the State of Connecticut. The certification-track program is designed to provide opportunities for the candidate to examine reading and language arts from a perspective beyond classroom teaching, giving emphasis on leadership roles and responsibilities in the discipline. Section 1. Learning Outcomes [NOTE: Each course that is included in a candidate’s planned program of study addresses specific elements of standards; thus ALL candidates must have met ALL elements of standards at the completion of their program of study.] Standard 1. Foundational Knowledge Candidates have knowledge of the foundations of reading and writing processes

and instruction. Refer to major theories in the foundational area as they relate to reading. They can explain, compare, contrast, and critique the theories. (1.1)

Summarize seminal reading studies and articulate how these studies impacted reading instruction. They can recount historical developments in the history of reading. (1.2)

Identify, explain, compare, and contrast the theories and research in the areas of language development and learning to read. (1.3)

Are able to determine if students are appropriately integrating the components reading (phonemic awareness, word identification and phonics, vocabulary and background knowledge, fluency, comprehension strategies, and motivation) in fluent reading. (1.4)

Standard 2.Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials Candidates will use a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, methods, and curriculum materials to support reading and writing instruction. Support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in their use of instructional

grouping options. They help teachers select appropriate options. They demonstrate the options and explain the evidence-based rationale for changing configurations to best meet the needs of all students. (2.1)

Support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in the use of a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, and methods, including 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.

10

They demonstrate the options in their own teaching and in demonstration teaching. (2.2)

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 demonstrating teaching. (2.3)

Standard 3.Assessment, Diagnosis and Evaluation Candidates use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective reading instruction. Compare and contrast, use, interpret, and recommend a wide range of

assessment tools and practices. Assessments may range from standardize tests to informal assessments and also include technology-based assessments, they demonstrate appropriate use of assessments in their practice, and they can train classroom teachers to administer and interpret these assessments. (3.1)

Support the classroom teacher in assessment of individual students. They extend the assessment to further determine proficiencies and difficulties for appropriate services. (3.2)

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 professionals to implement appropriate reading instruction for individual students. They collect, analyze, and use school-wide assessment data to implement and revise school reading programs. (3.3)

Communicate assessment information to various audiences for both accountability and instructional purposes (policymakers, public officials, community members, clinical specialists, school psychologists, social workers, classroom teachers, and parents). (3.4)

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. Assist the classroom teacher and paraprofessional in selecting materials that

match the reading levels, interests, and cultural background of students. (4.1) Assist the classroom teacher in selecting books, technology-based information,

and non-print materials representing multiple levels, broad interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds. (4.2)

Demonstrate and model reading and writing for real purposes in daily interactions with students and education professionals. Assist teachers and paraprofessionals to model reading and writing as valued lifelong activities. (4.3)

11

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. (4.4)

Standard 5.Professional Development Candidates view professional development as a career-long effort and responsibility. Articulate the theories related to the connections between teacher dispositions

and student achievement. (5.1) Conduct professional study groups for paraprofessionals and teachers. Assist

classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in identifying, planning, and implementing personal professional development plans. Advocate to advance the professional research base to expand knowledge-based practices. (5.2)

Positively and constructively provide an evaluation own or others’ teaching policies. Assist classroom teachers and paraprofessionals as they strive to improve their practice. (5.3)

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 identify and describe the characteristics of sound professional development programs. They can articulate the evidence base that grounds their practice. (5.4)

12

Section 2. Findings

SIXTH YEAR DEGREE IN READING AND LANGUAGE ARTS SUMMARY DATA ACROSS COURSE ASSESSMENTS

Fall 2008-Spring 2009 Standard 1: Foundational Knowledge


IRA STANDARD T A *U MS N 1.1 Demonstrate knowledge of psychological,

sociological, and linguistic foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction.

Refer to major theories in the foundational area as they relate to reading. They can explain, compare, contrast, and critique the theories.

93%

0%

7%

2.8

15

1.2 Demonstrate knowledge of reading research and histories of reading. Summarize seminal reading studies and articulate how these studies impacted reading instruction. They can recount historical developments in the history of reading.

78%

17%

5%

2.7 18

1.3 Demonstrate knowledge of language development and reading acquisition and the variations related to cultural and linguistic diversity.Identify, explain, compare, and contrast the theories and research in the areas of language development and learning to read.

95%

0%

5%

2.8 19

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. Are able to determine if students are appropriately integrating the components of reading (phonemic awareness, word identification and phonics, vocabulary and background knowledge, fluency, comprehension strategies, and motivation) in fluent reading.

94%

3%

3%

2.9 34


13

SIXTH YEAR DEGREE IN READING AND LANGUAGE ARTS

SUMMARY DATA ACROSS COURSE ASSESSMENTS Fall 2008-Spring 2009

Standard 2: Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials


IRA STANDARD T A *U MS N 2.1 Use instructional grouping options (individual,

small- group, whole-class, and computer-based) as appropriate for accomplishing given purpose. Support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in their use of instructional grouping options. They help teachers select appropriate options. They demonstrate the options and explain the evidence- based rationale for changing configurations to best meet the needs of all students.

50% 50%

0%

2.5 6

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. Support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in the use of a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, and methods, including 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 teaching and in demonstration teaching.

80%

16%

0%

2.7

25

2.3 Use a wide range of curriculum materials in effective reading instruction for learners at different stages of reading and writing development and from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. 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 demonstrating teaching.

78% 22%

0%

2.8 23


14


Fall 2008-Spring 2009 Standard 3: Assessment, Diagnosis, and Evaluation



T A *U MS N 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 technologically-based assessment tools. Compare and contrast, use, interpret, and recommend a wide range of assessment tools and practices. Assessments may range from standardize tests to informal assessments and also include technology-based assessments, they demonstrate appropriate use of assessments in their practice, and they can train classroom teachers to administer and interpret these assessments.

40% 60%

0%

2.4 10

3.2 Place students along a developmental continuum and identify students’ proficiencies and difficulties. Support the classroom teacher in assessment of individual students. They extend the assessment to further determine proficiencies and difficulties for appropriate services.

60% 40%

0%

2.6 20

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. 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 professionals to implement appropriate reading instruction for individual students. They collect, analyze, and use school-wide assessment data to implement and revise school reading programs.

68% 32%

0%

2.7 22

3.4 Communicate results of assessments to specific individuals (students, parents, caregivers, colleagues, administrators, policymakers, policy officials, community, etc.). Communicate assessment information to various audiences for both accountability and instructional purposes (policymakers, public officials, community members, clinical specialists, school psychologists, social workers, classroom teachers, and parents).

35% 65%

0%

2.4 17

15


Fall 2005-Spring 2008 Standard 4: Creating a Literate Environment



IRA STANDARD T A *U MS N 4.1 Use students’ interests, reading abilities, and

backgrounds as foundations for the reading and writing program. Assist the classroom teacher and paraprofessional in selecting materials that match the reading levels, interests, and cultural background of students.

89%

0%

11%

2.7 9

4.2 Use a large supply of books, technology-based information, and non-print materials representing multiple levels, broad interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Assist the classroom teacher in selecting books, technology-based information, and non-print materials representing multiple levels, broad interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

90%

10%

0%

2.9

10

4.3 Model reading and writing enthusiastically as valued lifelong activities. Demonstrate and model reading and writing for real purposes in daily interactions with students and education professionals. Assist teachers and paraprofessionals to model reading and writing as valued lifelong activities.

71% 29%

0%

2.7 14

4.4 Motivate learners to be lifelong readers. 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.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A N/A

16


Fall 2008-Spring 2009 Standard 5: Professional Development



IRA STANDARD T A *U MS N 5.1 Display positive dispositions related to reading

and the teaching of reading. Articulate the theories related to the connections between teacher dispositions and student achievement.

50% 50%

0%

2.5 10

5.2 Continue to pursue the development of professional knowledge and dispositions. Conduct professional study groups for paraprofessionals and teachers. Assist classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in identifying, planning, and implementing personal professional development plans. Advocate to advance the professional research base to expand knowledge-based practices.

81%

13%

6%

2.7 16

5.3 Work with colleagues to observe, evaluate, and provide feedback on each other’s practice. Positively and constructively provide an evaluation own or others’ teaching policies. Assist classroom teachers and paraprofessionals as they strive to improve their practice.

43%

43%

14%

2.6 7

5.4 Participate in, initiate, implement, and evaluate professional development programs.

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 identify and describe the characteristics of sound professional development programs. They can articulate the evidence base that grounds their practice.

78%

22%

0%

2.8 9

17

Section 3. Analysis A high percentage of candidates meet standards 1-5 at “target” and “acceptable” levels, particularly in the area of foundational knowledge with 90% “target”. A high percentage of candidates (80% and above) meet “target” in standards 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, and 5.2. However, a few candidates failed (“unacceptable”) standard 1.1 (7%), 1.2 (5%), 1.3 (5%), 1.4 (3%), 4.1 (11%), and 5.2 (6%). Candidates’ Strengths Candidates have excellent grasp of the psychological, sociological, and linguistic

foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction. They can explain, compare, contrast, and critique theories, particularly in the areas of language development, reading acquisition and the variations related to cultural and linguistic diversity.


Candidates have achieved mastery in demonstrating and coaching classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in the use of a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, and methods, including technology-based practices to best meet the needs of all students.

Candidates have achieved mastery in demonstrating and coaching classroom teachers in selecting materials that match their students’ reading levels, interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds, including technology-based information, and non-print materials.

Candidates recognize the importance of pursuing the development of professional knowledge and dispositions, and can successfully conduct professional study groups for classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in identifying, planning, and implementing personal professional development plans.

Candidates’ Weaknesses A few candidates lack understanding of major theories in the foundational area

as they relate to reading as well as the historical developments in the history of reading,

A few candidates lack mastery of the major components of reading and how they are integrated in fluent reading. They are unable to determine if students are appropriately integrating the components of reading in fluent reading.

A few candidates are lacking in the ability to assist classroom teachers and paraprofessionals in selecting books and materials, including technology-based materials, that match students’ reading levels, interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

18

A few candidates lack the ability to successfully conduct professional study groups for classroom teachers and paraprofessionals.

Section 4. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Program Revised courses with specific content, assignments and rubrics that address

candidates’ weaknesses as they relate to the standards. The faculty developed additional opportunities for candidates to engage in

demonstration and coaching tasks involving classroom teachers and paraprofessionals.

Candidates who “failed” a standard element were required to revise and resubmit their assignment and reflection as part of their program portfolio to be evaluated by their program advisor.

D R . M A R Y A N N E N U N N , C H A I R P E R S O N 20 09 -10 , T E L . ( 860 ) 8 32 - 277 8 , E M A I L : N U N N M @ C C S U . E D U

H T T P : / / W W W . C C S U . E D U / P A G E . C F M ? P =345 5

March 9, 2010 Dr. Helen Abadiano, Chair Department of Reading and Language Arts Henry Barnard 245 Central Connecticut State University 1615 Stanley Street New Britain, CT 06050 Dear Dr. Abadiano: On behalf of the Academic Assessment Committee (AAC) I would like to offer our genuine thanks for the assessment reports for the MS and the Sixth Year Certificate in Reading and Language Arts you submitted in the Fall of 2009. As I am sure you are aware, we are facing the need to provide an interim NEASC report to address the specific weakness the visiting team identified in our assessment of student outcomes in both majors and general education. Your departmental assessment activities are the bedrock of our institutional efforts to map and improve the effectiveness of our teaching. Yours was one of the reports the AAC reviewed in the Fall. The AAC, a committee of 16 elected and appointed members from the teaching faculty, has representatives from all four Schools. We hope that the perspective offered by our reading can be of help to you as you continue to cycle through the assessment “loop” of defining outcomes, devising assessment instruments, gathering data, analyzing that data, and making adjustments to your courses, requirements, programs, or instructional approaches in light of that analysis. The committee found a number of things to praise in your reports:

1. The committee was most grateful for the expanded statement of your discipline

outcomes. We certainly understand that you are bound by the outcomes defined by your Special Professional Association, but having the full statement of these multiple outcomes gives us an opportunity to be more helpful in our responses to your assessment activities.

2. The committee was also very appreciative of the much greater clarity in the findings you presented. It was much easier in this year’s report to see the results your students achieved and appreciate their strengths, as well as identify areas where their performances could be stronger.

3. It is most encouraging to hear that you have ‘closed the assessment loop’ by making changes to program and courses as a direct result of assessment findings. This is exactly what NEASC is demanding of us, so your experience is a model for us to celebrate.

AAC recommendations:

1. It is very welcome news to learn that you have made adjustments to your programs and courses as a result of your assessment activities, but the reports would be substantially more effective if they provided the specifics regarding these changes or the logic of the analysis that produced them. It is this sort of particular detail that allows those outside of the program to get a picture of how specific changes result from your effective evaluation of student learning; it would also allow the committee to offer feedback that we hope would be helpful. If future reports could describe this part of the assessment process in greater detail, it would be another welcome change.

2. In a similar request, in future reports we would be very grateful to have a more complete

description of how learning was evaluated (the particulars of representative assignments, or exams, or specific instruments could be included as appendices) as well as the rubrics you use to evaluate them (or at least perhaps an example or two of the many you employ). Again, with this specific picture of your activities, we have a much better chance of being helpful in our feedback.

3. Reviewers observed that in the presentation of data in Section 2 of each report that the learning outcomes for both the MS and the SY credentials were presented in the leftmost column of both reports. This is likely a minor document preparation issue, but resolving it by presenting only the MS outcomes in the MS report and only the SY outcomes in the SY report will assist readers in better understanding the department’s valuable work in evaluating student learning.

Again let me express our thanks for both your assessment activities and your reporting of them. The AAC is constituted primarily to be a resource to departments in their assessment activities. We would welcome an opportunity to meet with you and/or a group of faculty from your department involved in assessment to discuss your on-going departmental initiatives and the recommendations included here. I or Dr. Braden Hosch would also be very glad to meet with you or to visit a faculty committee or department meeting. Although the initial efforts to design and build an assessment program are time consuming, we are confident that the resulting detailed picture of your students’ progress will be of real value both to you and to them. Sincerely, Mary Anne Nunn, Chair Associate Professor of English Chair, Academic Assessment Committee Cc: Dr. Elene Demos, AAC Member Dr. Ellen Retelle, AAC Member

ccsu dept. of reading and language arts 2009-10 annual ......candidates can refer to major theories...

Documents