Cover Sheet
Georgia Professional Standards Commission (PSC) Report
Program Name: Reading Endorsement Program
Submitted by:
Kennesaw State University
Address:
1000 Chastain Road
Kennesaw, GA 30144-5591
Chief Compiler: Dr. Linda Akanbi
Phone: (770) 423-6481
Fax (770) 420-4346
Email [email protected]
Level offered for review:
Baccalaureate
Masters
Post-Bac (Alternative Certification)
X
Endorsement/Add-on
Checklist of Materials to be enclosed in this review document:
X
Table of Contents
X
Overview of the Program
__
Goals and Objectives of the Program
College or Department Responsible for Preparing Candidates
Description of Course(s) of Study
Descriptions of Field Experiences, Student Teaching and Internships
Explanation of How and Why The Program May Vary From the Published Georgia Standards
List of Faculty Responsible for the Program
Number of Candidates in the Program
Post Baccalaureate Programs
X
Evidence for Meeting the Georgia 2000 Standards
Standard 1 – Candidate Skills, Knowledge, and Dispositions
Standard 2 – Program Assessment and Unit Capacity
Standard 3 – Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
Standard 7 – Georgia-Specific Requirements for Units and Programs
Standard 8 – Content Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs
X
Required Appendices
A. Assessment instruments referenced in response to Standard 2.
B. Course syllabi for all courses referenced in responses to Standards 7 and 8.
1
PSC Report
Reading Endorsement Program
Table of Contents
Overview of the Program
Evidence for Meeting the Georgia 2000 Standards
Program Content Standards: Reading Endorsement (Standard 8 – Matrix)
Required Appendices
1. Appendix A
Assessment instruments referenced in response to Standard 2

2.
Portfolio Evaluation Form and Rubric
Literacy Action Plan Guidelines
Power Point Presentation Evaluation Rubric
Teacher Observation Sheet
Student Evaluation Instruments
Final Examination
Reading Standards for P-12 Classroom Teachers Post Survey
Teachers’ Knowledge of Literacy Development and Instruction Assessment
Appendix B
Course syllabi for all courses

EDUC 7715/EDUC 7717 (Summer Reading Institute)
EDUC 7718
2
PSC Report
Reading Endorsement Program
Overview of the Program
The Reading Endorsement Program provides extensive professional development in
literacy teaching and learning for Georgia’s practicing P-12 educators. The program
consists of three strands that encompass the International Reading Association’s standards
for classroom teachers (P-12) of reading and address the scientifically based reading
research principles identified by the National Reading Panel as well. A course is built
around each strand. The three strands include:
•
Understanding Readers and the Reading Process: Emphases include major theories
underlying reading and the teaching of reading, current topics and issues in the literacy
field and related teaching approaches, and an introduction to the field of reading.
•
Linking Literacy Assessment and Instruction: Emphases include understanding and
applying diverse assessment techniques and organizing instruction in light of the analysis
of assessment information.
•
Instructional Strategies in the Content Areas across P-12: Depending on the
teachers’ content areas and/or grade levels, emphases include early reading instruction and
phonics/phonemic awareness instruction, reading in the intermediate grades, reading in
middle/secondary schools, and reading in the content areas.
Kennesaw State University utilizes a combined delivery model for its Reading
Endorsement program. It offers two of the Reading Endorsement courses in a three-week
intensive Summer Reading Institute and the third course as a regular semester course. The
third course is a reading content strategies course built around strand three of the Reading
Endorsement program. WebCT is used to deliver this course online in a modified format
with some “face time” built in, and to establish an online community. The WebCT tools
are used to encourage class interaction and reflection, as well as to add content modules,
including Power Point presentations, and to post online resources, Web pages and teaching
tips provided by members of the learning community. The class meets online in one of the
Chat Rooms to discuss topics previously assigned as readings. Answers to discussion
questions posed by the instructor to guide the reading of the assignment will have been
posted prior to the online dialogue. Then, implications for practice become the main focus
of the dialogue. The candidates generate the topics for study at the beginning of the
content strategies course, based on their own needs for specific strategies. The readings
and content modules are geared to these topics as well as to the IRA and State reading
standards that under gird the program.
3
Candidates enrolled in the program are required to reflect on their implementation of
strategies for teaching literacy every two weeks, and to post them on their Teaching
Reflections page of the WebCT. The teaching reflections are made public, by agreement,
so that class members can respond to one another’s reflections, in the spirit of a true online
learning community, in addition to having the instructor respond.
What guides the teaching reflections, the topics for discussion, and the live chats, is the
Literacy Action Plan (LAP) developed by each candidate to improve literacy instruction
and learning in his/her particular teaching context, and to guide his own professional
growth. The LAP, submitted at the conclusion of the Summer Reading Institute as part of
the course requirements (See syllabus for EDUC7715/EDUC 7717 in Appendix 2) and
implemented over the course of the follow-up academic year, is the blueprint for this. It
provides an overview of the candidate’s instructional setting including demographic
information about the student population and the school. It also states the candidate’s
literacy instructional goals and the rationale (often, these are tied to the school’s
improvement plan), personal goals for professional development, a plan for
parent/community involvement, a plan for working with the other teachers in the school
such as cross teaming and vertical teaming, and methods for student assessment and
linking the assessment to instruction. The candidates highlight the results of their LAPs in
a Power Point presentation presented to their peers in the spring. In addition, the
candidates prepare a portfolio.
It is recognized that reading is not just taught in first through third grade; literacy is a
continual process, during which students learn how to make meaning of and evaluate text.
According to the National Reading Panel, P-12 teachers must be provided with more
effective tools to increase reading skills among students at all levels. Through a review of
current scientifically based reading research (SBRR), the National Reading Panel (NRP)
has identified the following principles as key components of effective reading instruction:
phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension and vocabulary instruction.
These principles are incorporated into the instructional strategies strand of the program.
Connection to the Conceptual Framework
The three strands of the Reading Endorsement program also reflect the Conceptual
Framework (CF) for all teacher preparation programs at Kennesaw State University. That
framework is called the “Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and
Learning.” The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw State
University is committed to developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced
programs as teachers and leaders who possess the capability, intent and expertise to
facilitate high levels of learning in all of their students through effective, research-based
practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance the structures that support all learning.
Under this conceptual framework, the aim of the teacher preparation programs at
Kennesaw State University is to produce teachers and leaders who are
4
•
Subject Matter Experts who assist students in subject matter mastery, who
accurately represent content, and who use effective instructional
strategies/techniques, including the use of technology.
•
Facilitators of Learning who understand how individuals construct knowledge,
who help learners develop complex cognitive structures, who adapt instruction to
accommodate learners’ levels of understanding, and who use a wide array of
teaching strategies and methodologies.
•
Collaborative Professionals who work together to improve teaching and learning,
who are committed to life-long learning, who promote a climate of collaboration
and trust, and who have high ethical and professional values.
Indeed, the Reading Endorsement Program prepares candidates with a thorough knowledge
of the reading process as a subject. It focuses on theoretical knowledge about the reading
process and how readers acquire the ability to read. Since reading involves language as
well as cognitive activity and learner dispositions, the program also addresses theories of
language acquisition, learning and retention, sociolinguistic theories, and motivation. In
addition, the program prepares candidates with a thorough knowledge of the content of
reading instruction including, but not limited to, phonics and phonemic awareness,
vocabulary acquisition and development, comprehension skills, reading assessment for the
classroom, multiple literacies (including non-print media visual literacy and technology
literacy), word recognition skills, and fluency (See course syllabi for EDUC 7715/EDUC
7717 and EDUC 7718 in Appendix B). This information is presented through class
lectures, reading assignments including research articles, Power Point presentations,
videotapes, CD-ROMs incorporating video stream, and online discussions. Strand One of
the Reading Endorsement Program focuses on developing subject matter experts.
Candidates use the knowledge acquired in the Summer Reading Institute (EDUC
7715/EDUC 7717) and in EDUC 7718 to assist students in subject matter mastery as
evidenced in the design of their lesson plans as well as in their teaching reflections.
According to the PTEU Conceptual Framework, a facilitator of learning must understand
how individuals construct knowledge, be able to help learners develop complex cognitive
structures, adapt instruction to accommodate learners’ levels of understanding, and use a
wide variety of teaching strategies and methodologies. All the courses in the Reading
Endorsement Program are designed with the goal of facilitating the students’ mastery of
reading skills. By understanding how individuals learn to read, what cognitive processes
are involved in the act of reading (as emphasized in the Strand One course, EDUC 7715 –
Reading Theory and Application), learning how to assess reading performance, interpret
the findings accurately, make recommendations for intervention taking into consideration
the student’s functional reading levels as well as his identified needs, implement the
recommendations, monitor the student’s progress and make instructional adjustments
accordingly (as emphasized in the Strand Two course, EDUC 7717 – Reading &
Assessment), and applying a wide array of scientific research- based reading instructional
strategies learned in the Strand Three course (EDUC 7718 – Reading Strategies for the
5
Content Fields), candidates are prepared to facilitate learning in the area of literacy and
help students become proficient readers.
The Reading Endorsement Program develops collaborative professionals who work
together to improve the teaching and learning of literacy, who are committed to life-long
learning, who promote a climate of collaboration and trust, and who have high ethical and
professional values. The Reading Endorsement class is considered to be a community of
learners where members learn from one another and support one another’s professional
development as literacy educators. This is greatly facilitated by the online course (EDUC
7718 – Reading Strategies for the Content Fields) where candidates’ post their teaching
reflections online as well as respond to one another’ reflections, and participate in Chat
Room discussions which are semi-structured by the instructor. The candidates are also
able to raise topics and issues for discussion.
Another context for professional collaboration is in the schools and in the community. As
part of their Literacy Action Plan, candidates must indicate how they plan to work with the
teachers in their respective schools to promote literacy and how they plan to involve
parents and the community in this effort. They must also include a plan for their own
continued professional development as literacy educators and leaders. Standards seven,
eight, and nine of Georgia’s Reading Endorsement Program address professional
collaboration and life-long learning directly (see goals and objectives below), and
candidates must show evidence in their portfolios that they have met each standard.
Connection to Other Professional Standards
Finally, the three strands of the Reading Endorsement Program are nested in the
knowledge, skills and dispositions expected of candidates as described in NCATE:
Standard One. The three strands are further broken down into the goals and objectives
(IRA Reading Standards for the Georgia Reading Endorsement) below which represent the
ongoing collaborative development of teaching and learning in the area of literacy as
candidates strive to meet the standards for the Georgia Reading Endorsement. In addition,
these objectives address the outcomes and proficiencies of the PTEU Conceptual
Framework, NCATE standards, and NBPTS Core Principles The information contained in
the parentheses for each objective indicate how the objective is linked to the conceptual
framework, to NCATE: Standard 1, and to the National Board Professional Teaching
Standards (NBPTS) Core Principles.
Goals and Objectives of the Program
1.
Teachers will demonstrate competence in knowledge and beliefs about reading
including theoretical foundations of language development and current practices
in areas of reading instruction that complement and supplement reading
instruction for the classroom teacher.(CF 1.1: Candidate possesses broad,
current and specialized knowledge of subject matter and communicates this
understanding to colleagues, parents and students; NCATE Standard 1:
Content; NBPTS Core Principle 2)
6
2.
Teachers will demonstrate competence in knowledge about reading that includes
relevant literacy research on the interrelationship of language and literacy
acquisition; various systems of language and their relationship to the reading
process; research in special education; psychology and other fields that deal with
the treatment of students with learning disabilities. (CF 1.1; CF 1.2: Candidate
possesses a global understanding of connections within and across disciplines
and applications to real life and accurately represents understanding through
use of multiple explanations, technologies and strategies; CF 2.4 Candidate
creates safe, well-managed, supportive inclusive and challenging learning
environments; CF 3.2: Candidate reflects regularly upon daily practice, and
draws upon experience and the professional literature to design and conduct
research aimed at improved student achievement; NCATE Standard 1:
Pedagogical
Content; NBPTS Core Principle 2; NCATE Standard 1:
Professional & Pedagogical; NBPTS Core Principle 3); NCATE Standard 1:
Professional & Pedagogical, Disposition, Student Learning; NBPTS Core
Principle 4)
3.
Teachers will demonstrate knowledge about the principles of human growth and
development, language development, the impact of diversity on language
development and reading acquisition. (CF 2.2: Candidate understands human
development and learning and uses this understanding to create enriching
educational experiences and/or environments for all students; NCATE Standard
1: Professional & Pedagogical, Disposition; NBPTS Core Principle 1)
4.
Teachers will demonstrate competence in the use of informal and formal
instructional methods for the diagnosis of students’ reading strengths and
weaknesses. (CF 2.2: Candidate monitors student progress with a variety of
formal and informal evaluation methods and uses results to improve student
learning; NCATE Standard 1: Professional & Pedagogical, Student Learning;
NBPTS Core Principle 1)
5.
Teachers will demonstrate competence in the use of informal and formal
instructional methods for addressing reading strengths and weaknesses. (CF 2.5:
Candidate uses multiple methods, technologies, resources, and organizational
arrangements to meet goals articulated for individual students, class instruction
and the overall improvement plan; NCATE Standard 1: Professional &
Pedagogical, Student Learning; NBPTS Core Principle 3)
6.
Teachers will demonstrate competence in the design, development,
implementation and evaluation of developmental, remedial, and enrichment
programs and their interrelationships with the language arts program. (CF 2.1:
Candidate believes that all students can learn and helps students develop a
positive disposition for learning; CF 2.2: Candidate treats students equitably
and provides equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual
differences and adjusting practices accordingly; NCATE Standard 1:
7
Disposition; NCATE Standard 1:
Learning; NBPTS Core Principle 1)
Professional & Pedagogical, Student
7.
Teachers will demonstrate competence in working collaboratively with content
area teachers at all grade levels to strengthen students’ reading abilities through
content area instruction. (CF 3.1: Candidate collaborates with colleagues,
parents and other professionals to strengthen school effectiveness, to advance
knowledge, and to influence policy and practice; NCATE Standard
1:Professional & Pedagogical, Disposition; NBPTS Core Principle 5)
8.
Teachers will demonstrate competence in coordinating school level instructional
activities between and among teachers at various grade levels and serving as a
resource to ensure that a comprehensive reading program is provided for all
students. (CF 3.1; NCATE Standard 1:
Professional & Pedagogical,
Disposition; NBPTS Core Principle 5)
9.
Teachers will demonstrate competence in planning and implementing activities
designed to build community support for school reading programs and to
increase awareness of the relationship between home and school in developing
successful, lifelong reading habits in children. (CF 3.3: Candidate proactively
involves parents and other members of the community in support of instruction
and education; NCATE Standard 1: Disposition; NBPTS Core Principle 5)
College or Department Responsible for Preparing Candidates
The Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education and the Department of Secondary and
Middle Grades Education jointly offer the courses in the Reading Endorsement Program. Two of the
three courses (EDUC 7715 and EDUC 7717) are offered through the Department of Elementary and
Early Childhood Education in the format of a Summer Reading Institute, and one course (EDUC
7718) is offered online through the Department of Secondary and Middle Grades Education. The
program coordinator, who teaches all three courses, is a faculty member in the Department of
Elementary and Early Childhood Education. Both the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood
Education, and the Department of Secondary and Middle Grades Education are housed in the Bagwell
College of Education.
8
Organizational Structure of the Professional Teacher Education Unit
Kennesaw State University
Dean
Teacher Education Council
Elementary &
Early Childhood
Education (P-5)
Middle Grades
Education (4-8)
Secondary
Education (7-12)
Initial
Initial
English Educ.
Initial
(B.S.)
(B.S.)
(College of
Humanities and
Social Sci.)
Math Educ.
Adv.
Adv.
(M.Ed.)
(M.Ed. in
Adol.
Educ.)
Endorsement
Reading
(College of Sci.
& Math.)
Science
Education
(College of Sci.
& Math.)
Social
Science Educ.
(College of
Humanities &
Soc. Sci.)
P-12
Special
Education
Educational
Leadership
Academic Support
Initial
Art Educ.
(School of
the Arts)
Adv.
(M.Ed.)
Adv.
(M.Ed.)
Cobb Education
Consortium (CEC)
Health &
Phys. Educ.
Educational Technology
Center (EdTech)
(College of
Health &
Human
Services)
Center for Field
Experiences and
Partnerships (CFEP)
Foreign
Lang.
Teacher Education
Advisement Center
(TEAC)
(College of
Humanities
& Soc. Sci.)
Music
Education
Endorsements:
ESOL
Pre-School
Endorsement
Teacher Resource and
Activity Center (TRAC)
Leadership
(School of
the Arts)
Professional Teacher Education Faculty
9
Courses
Three courses comprise the Reading Endorsement Program. They are described below as they
appear in the Kennesaw State University Catalog. The Reading Theory and Application (EDUC
7715) course addresses Strand One of the Reading Endorsement Program, Understanding
Readers and the Reading Process. The course, Reading Assessment and Instruction (EDUC
7717) addresses Strand Two, Linking Literacy Assessment and Instruction; and the Reading
Strategies for the Content Fields course (EDUC 7718) addresses Strand Three, Instructional
Strategies across the Content Areas, P-12. EDUC 7715 and EDUC 7717 are delivered together
in the format of a three-week intensive Summer Reading Institute. Selected topics from the
Summer Reading Institute are revisited in-depth (based on the candidates’ choices) along with
new material presented to address specific strategies in the third and final course in the program,
EDUC 7718 – Reading Strategies for the Content Fields (P-12). There is also a portfolio
requirement for the program wherein candidates have to provide evidence of having met all nine
reading standards for the Georgia Reading Endorsement. (See Appendix A.) The course
descriptions are as follows:
EDUC 7715- Reading Theory & Application: A study of the research and theories underlying language
acquisition and the reading process and how this applies to developmental reading practices in the
schools. Home/school influences and how to meet the literacy needs of diverse learners in the classroom
will also be emphasized. This course satisfies the standards and competencies for Strand One of the
program.
EDUC 7717- Reading Assessment & Instruction: An overview of the causes of reading difficulty; study
of formal and informal assessment procedures with an emphasis on classroom-based assessment
techniques and the use of assessment in making instructional decisions. This course addresses Strand
Two of the program.
EDUC 7718- Reading Strategies for the Content Fields (P-12):
A study of the concepts and specific
processing strategies involved in reading and writing in the content areas. Emphasizes development and
teaching strategies appropriate for the specific content area and grade level. This is the primary
course for Strand Three of the Program.
The Reading Strategies course (EDUC 7718) is offered online in the fall through WebCT (although
there are a few “face” meetings on campus) with follow-up classroom application. The courses
delivered in the Summer Reading Institute meet on campus daily; however, they are web-assisted
through WebCT. Students have a daily technology lab session where they complete assignments on
WebCT and/or do Internet searches on various topics related to what they are studying.
Descriptions of Field Experiences, Student Teaching and Internships
The candidates are classroom teachers and are considered to be in field in their own classrooms
where they implement a special field-based project called a Literacy Action Plan (See outline for
Literacy Action Plan in Appendix) as well as specific reading and assessment strategies they learned
in the program to enhance their effectiveness in teaching reading. The candidates begin their
implementation process in the fall following their enrollment in the Summer Reading Institute. The
candidates are monitored in the fall through their online reflections of their teaching. In addition,
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
the candidates are visited by their reading professor for a classroom observation in the fall, while
they are enrolled in the Strand Three course. Too, the candidates videotape one of their literacy
lessons and do a self-refection on it as well as receive feedback from the reading professor on that
lesson.
Explanation of How and Why the Program May Vary From the Published Georgia Standards
None
List of Faculty Responsible for the Program
Dr. Linda B. Akanbi. Dr. Linda Akanbi, Professor of Reading Education in the Department of
Elementary and Early Childhood Education, has an Ed.D. Degree in Reading Education from the
State University of New York at Buffalo, and 38 years of experience teaching reading at all levels,
34 of which have been in higher education (See chart below). She developed the current Reading
Endorsement Program in 1999 while serving as Director of the PTEU P-12 Reading Institute which
has since been discontinued. She still coordinates the program and teaches all three courses in the
program. Dr. Akanbi is also a Board member of the University System of Georgia Reading
Consortium which oversees the continuous development, quality improvement, and dissemination
of knowledge about literacy and the Reading Endorsement Programs that are part of the consortium.
Dr. Akanbi has been part of several of the consortium’s presentations at state, regional, and national
professional meetings.
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
Reading Endorsement Program
Spring 2004
FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS
Highest Rank* Statu
Yrs
Yrs
Program
Degree
s** Experienc Experien
Responsibilities
e in
ce in PHigher Ed 12 Ed
Name
Akanbi, Linda B...
EdD
P
T
*Key 1:
L - Lecturer
I = Instructor
AP = Assistant Professor
**Key 2:
PT = Part-time
FT = Full-time, temp
34
4
Areas of
Specialization
Responsible for
Reading education
instruction in all the
- K-12 (M.Ed.,
courses in the Reading Ed.D)), Elementary
Endorsement Program, Education (B.S.
Coordinate the
Ed.) with additional
program, Serve as KSU teaching fields in
representative to the
English and Speech
University System of for Middle School
Georgia Reading
Consortium
Other Qualifications
Administrative
Experience (former
Director of the PTEU
P-12 Reading
Institute, former
Chair of the
Department of
Elementary & Early
Childhood Education
– KSU)
ASP = Associate Professor
P = Professor
SMT = Supervising Master Teacher
TT = Tenure Track
T = Tenured
Number of Candidates in the Program
Currently, there are 8 candidates in the program as of summer 2003. Students begin the program in
the Summer Reading Institute. They continue in the fall of the following year (in this instance, Fall
2003), taking the third course which extends over the spring semester (Spring 2004),requiring the
students to receive a grade of Incomplete for the Fall while the students complete their Reading
Endorsement portfolios under the professor’s guidance. However, the students do not register for
the spring semester. Therefore, they do not show up on class rosters for Spring Semester, 2004.
Admission Criteria
To be considered for the Reading Endorsement Program, candidates must apply as a non-degree
graduate student, hold a valid teaching certificate, and be employed as a practicing professional in a
P-12 school.
Evidence for Meeting the Georgia 2000 Standards
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
Element 1.1 Content Knowledge
The content knowledge for the Reading Endorsement program was determined by the University
System of Georgia Reading Consortium, of which Kennesaw State University is a member. The
consortium is comprised of representatives from system colleges and universities that offer teacher
education programs as well as representatives from the Georgia Professional Standards
Commission, the Georgia Department of Education, and the Board of Regents of the University
System of Georgia. The content knowledge is based on standards of the International Reading
Association for classroom teachers of reading, as well as on the five scientifically based reading
research principles derived from the findings of the National Reading Panel. The content knowledge
includes knowledge about readers (developmental characteristics, socio-cultural characteristics,
motivation, behavioral and individual characteristics, etc.); knowledge about the reading process
(including theories and research relating to schema and metacognition, vocabulary, comprehension,
fluency, phonemic and phonological awareness, phonics, and other word identification skills); and
knowledge of reading assessment. (See Program Content Standards Matrix under Standard 8
below.) The following assignment posted online on the topic of language acquisition is an example
of the content knowledge candidates acquire in the program:
Answer the discussion questions below on the topic of language acquisition and literacy
processes, based on your reading (EDUC 7715 – Reading Theory & Assessment). Also be
familiar with the terms below which have been added to your glossary: morphology,
syntax, phonology, lexicon, invented spelling, logographic stage, transitional stage,
alphabetic stage, orthographic stage, phonological recoding. 1. Compare the
developmental patterns of oral and written language. 2. How does oral language
development help lay the foundation for reading comprehension? 3. How can sentence
structure in a text affect the comprehension of a third or fourth grader? 4. What can
adults do to facilitate the language development of young children? 5. What can be done
to improve the oral and written language skills of elementary, middle, or secondary
students (choose one)? Refer to Cambourne’s article on Breaking the lore: An
alternative of learning, from an earlier reading assignment. Specifically, refer to his
schematic representation of Understanding Language Learning.
The Reading Endorsement candidates demonstrate their content knowledge by their performance on
class assignments, on written examinations, and on the Teacher’s Knowledge of Literacy
Development and Instruction Assessment, a post-assessment instrument developed by the University
System of Georgia Reading Consortium. The class assignments include replies to focus questions
based on the reading research of articles. The focus questions require candidates to interpret as well
as critically analyze the research and major theories of reading and literacy development, language
acquisition, and motivation, as well as research on diverse learners, and implications of the related
research. The candidates are also required to reflect on how the information gleaned can be applied
to their teaching situation. To illustrate how candidates demonstrate their content knowledge, the
following focus questions and responses are given below:
Instructor’s Question (EDUC 7718): How does organization of text contribute to comprehension problems?
[From the article, Dickson, Simmons and Kameenui (1998). Text organization and its relation to reading
comprehension: A synthesis of the research.]
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
Candidate’s Response: “Majority of students demonstrates difficulties with skills such as identifying the
main idea, distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant information, and these are just a few of the skills
that are critical to reading comprehension. These difficulties increase when textbooks often do not clarify
main idea or clarify the relationship between the different ideas and concepts exhibited in the text” (W.B.)
Instructor’s Question (EDUC 7718): What are the major research findings concerning the relationship
between organization of text and reading comprehension?
Candidate’s Response: “The major research findings concerning the relationship between text organizations
and reading comprehension provide evidence that text organization, students’ awareness of text
organization, and students’ strategic use of text organization all affect the students’ ability to successfully
comprehend text. Well-presented text facilitates reading comprehension. Text structure and student
awareness of text structure is highly related to reading comprehension. Explicit instruction in identifying
and understanding text structure facilitates reading comprehension” (J.A., middle school teacher).
Instructor’s Question (EDUC 7718): According to the research reported in this article, what are some of the
comprehension difficulties of diverse learners that have been attributed to their deficits in text structure
awareness?
Candidate’s Response: LD students recall less narrative text because they have an incomplete “schema” or
awareness of narrative prose. In a study by Montague (1990) it was concluded that LD students’ shorter
recall of stories may be due to a lack of expertise in interpreting the affective information about the
characters in a story. LD students may also be deficient in their discrimination of various levels of meaning
in a story. Lastly, these students have difficulty recalling fine details, using connective words and identifying
text-based references in stories” (D.W., middle school teacher).
Candidate Reflections and Application of Information Gleaned from Readings on Motivation EDUC 7718):
“Based on the articles I read on motivation, one of the strategies to get students in the middle grades
motivated to learn was to allow them to feel like they had some choice in their learning. I remember feeling
like I was always told what to do when I was in school and was never allowed to offer my own ideas. So, I
decided to offer several choices/formats for a book report. The students were excited about their opportunity
to choose what they wanted to do as opposed to being assigned the same option. They actually showed some
enthusiasm in this book report as the options were all hands on type projects: i.e. a cd case, a newspaper, an
advertisement, or a Bloom’s Taxonomy report. I am anxious to see the products” (C.R., middle school
teacher.).
“Motivation for struggling students at middle school level is probably one of the most difficult problems
teachers encounter. One of the most motivating things I have found is making all students feel special in the
class. Additionally, I have found that if the environment is a safe one where students feel they can speak and
make mistakes without being embarrassed, they are more likely to become involved. Still, some students are
very difficult to motivate. If we can ever get to a point where we can make the school program meaningful
for students, I think we can have greater success at motivating students” (J.A, middle school teacher.)
“I have a first grade student who is struggling to learn to read and due to this is not very motivated. At times
Annie (Student) is angry and hostile towards me and she completely shuts down. The article I read entitled,
“More than just reading: The human factor in reaching readers,” outlined the success of reaching resistant
readers through taking a personal interest in the student and finding the right materials. I feel I am
beginning to have some success with Annie because of this human factor. I have the opportunity to work with
Annie 30 minutes daily one-in-one. I have adapted parts of my lesson to ensure that Annie is successful at
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
her attempts. For example instead of asking Annie to spell cvc words, I type up her lessons and she picks
letters to spell cvc words. To make her feel successful I pick reading material that only the sounds we have
covered are used in the books. Annie also loves to play games, so we have been playing beginning consonant
and short vowel games to reinforce sounds covered in lessons. Overall, I feel this “human factor” referred
to in this article as a strong motivation strategy is the reason I am beginning to see some success in working
with Annie” (B.N, third grade teacher.).
Candidate Response to Discussions Question about Vocabulary Development
Instructor’s Question: How is vocabulary development related to schema? (EDUC 7715)
Candidate’s Response: “Vocabulary development is most certainly related to “schema”. Activation of
background / prior knowledge is very essential to understanding any kind of new information including
vocabulary growth. As per the article, Vocabulary acquisition: Curricular and instructional implications
for diverse learners, the deeper the understanding desired about a certain word, the more prior knowledge a
student requires. In many of our classrooms, it is possible that student(s) may not have sufficient background
knowledge to learn new information. The teacher will have to help such students build the required
background knowledge through scaffolding or indirectly through reading / independent activities. In case of
subjects like science (with restricted subject-specific vocabulary / content) it may be helpful to create
instructional and learning opportunities that may help them build a schema and thus attain a deeper
understanding of the vocabulary / content” (G.K., middle school ESOL teacher).
Candidate Reflections and Application of Knowledge Gleaned from Research Articles on English Language
Learners (EDUC 7718)
Instructor’s Question: What insights did you gain about English Language Learners from the research
articles you read?
Candidate’s Response: “The research article that I read examined English language anxiety in Mexican
middle school girls. As per the research, there was no gender difference in the ELL classes but the girls were
more anxious about using English in their mainstream classes. The study indicated that mainstream classes,
without any supplementary support, were very difficult – especially for girls. These students may have been
socially proficient (BICS) but majority of them have not reached the cognitive level (CALP). On top of the
aforementioned problem were the added issues associated with the interaction with the native speakers of
English. Boys were better equipped to deal with this problem.
“This topic is very close to my heart. Most of my students are Mexicans. I was surprised to find that a study
had been done on this very topic. I worry about my Mexican girls. Majority of my girls are very
hardworking and much more mature than the boys. They do perform well in my classes and (as the article
suggested) they probably take advantage of the close / small setting. They are not concerned about the peerrelated stress in the ELL setting. On the other hand, a mainstream class can be very daunting to these young
girls. They are afraid of being laughed at, thus use “avoidance” as a coping skill. They want to participate
but are intimidated. These girls have potential but get lost in the system and “drop out” once they get to
high school” (G. K, middle school ESOL teacher.).
Candidate’s Response: “The research articles I read mainly supported most of our discussions from last
week. Generally, the results of the studies indicated that children who are enrolled in bilingual classrooms
fared much better than students in immersion programs. In the bilingual classrooms, the children are
allowed to have instruction in content areas in their native language in conjunction with classes where they
learn to communicate in English. In a study conducted by the Center for Research on Education, Diversity,
& Excellence (CREDE) the findings showed that ELL placed in English mainstream classes showed large
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
decreases in reading and math achievement by the fifth grade. In addition, the research showed that students
should be enrolled in Bilingual Programs for a minimum of four years in order to help them achieve grade
level performance” (A. W., pre-kindergarten teacher)).
Instructor’s Question: What resources or other support would you need in order to implement any of the
strategies posted that appear promising, in your teaching context? Or, if you are currently using any of these
strategies, please comment on how they are working.
Candidate’s Response: “I use a lot of multisensory strategies with my students. I do read alouds, think
alouds, teach them how to use graphic organizers. We use many other strategies with my population of
students. They are not English language learners, but they are learning disabled students who benefit from
many of the same strategies that ELL students do” (W.B, middle school special education teacher.).
The written examinations cover course content (See copies of final examination in Appendix 1).
The post-assessment instrument is a multiple-choice test that requires candidates to demonstrate
their content knowledge as well as pedagogical knowledge by responding correctly to the 50 items
(See Appendix 1). In addition to class assignments and tests, candidates demonstrate their content
knowledge in their Reading Endorsement portfolio where they must show evidence of having met
each of the nine Reading Endorsement standards. The portfolio includes evidence of improved
student performance in reading, which is the ultimate goal of the Reading Endorsement program.
Element 1.2 Content Knowledge for Other Professional School Personnel (N/A)
Element 1.3 Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates
The major emphasis of the Reading Endorsement program is on developing pedagogical content
knowledge in reading in order that candidates may enhance their effectiveness in teaching literacy in
the classroom, which is the goal of the Reading Endorsement Program. The IRA reading standards
and competencies upon which the program is based require different levels of and pedagogical
knowledge and educational preparation for literacy educators, depending on their roles. The three
levels (A) Awareness-knowledge of the existence of such information, (B) Basic- understanding of
specific instructional tasks and fundamental proficiency in their performance, and (C)
Comprehensive-in depth understanding and application of one’s work (See Program Content
Standards under Element 8 below). The Reading Endorsement Program which is designed for
classroom teachers, and not reading specialists, requires that candidates be able to demonstrate in
depth pedagogical content knowledge (Level C) of the following competencies (see program content
standards):
• Integrating reading, writing, listening, speaking and viewing
• Knowing individualized and group instructional interventions for students
• Administering and using information from formal and informal test measures as well as
other indicators of student progress to inform instruction and learning
• Conducting assessments that involve multiple indicators of learner progress
• Teaching word identification, vocabulary and comprehension (construction of meaning)
Candidates integrate reading, writing, listening, speaking and viewing in their literacy lesson plans.
In fact, it would be difficult to teach a literacy lesson without incorporating these elements.
Working with the America Reads students in the summer, candidates have to become
knowledgeable of and administer various reading diagnostic and assessment tools. They also have
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
to implement individual and small group interventions for students. The interventions include
teaching word identification, vocabulary and comprehension. The candidates also administer and
use information from formal and informal test measures as well as other indicators of student
progress to inform instruction and learning in their classrooms.
Evidence of candidates having met the program content standards listed above is found in their
reflections, their lesson plans, and in their portfolio products Sample reflections and responses to
questions on the application of assessment strategies are given below (EDUC 7717 – Reading and
Assessment):
“The America Reads program will prove to be invaluable as w e test our comfort levels with testing children.
Once I started, I felt completely comfortable with the testing process. I found the scoring a bit challenging,
but once we determined the instructional and frustration levels, it was smooth sailing. I enjoyed analyzing
the results and writing my recommendations” (C.R., middle school teacher).
“My America Reads child needs some work with decoding, sight words, fluency, motivation, and selfconfidence. I plan to play sight word games, give her practice reading her independent level books selfconfidence and fluency. I plan to get some high interest books (she loves non-fiction books about dogs – I
hope I can find some in the DiFazio Collection Children’s library at school) to help with her motivation. I’d
also like to introduce some fiction books on dogs to build her reading experience. I would like to show her
some of my favorite children’s books and expose her to some different genres in hopes of motivating her with
a wide variety of books. Samantha and I will also work on decoding skills using all of the above (including
compare/contrast). I’ll do some direct instruction with a few phonics lessons as well as the languageexperience. I hope it will be successful” (L.G, first grade teacher.).
Instructor’s Question posted online (EDUC 7718): How do you use assessment in your class (es) to set
literacy instructional goals? (If you are not currently teaching, discuss how assessment can aid in setting
literacy instructional goals.)
Candidate’s Response: “I generally set my reading instruction goals using naturalistic assessment. My
tenth grade classes are so large (2 have 30 students each, the others have 20 and 26) that I cannot do
individual formal assessment. I help students connect with text by having then survey, predict, and question
before we begin reading. By high school, according to the theorists we studied this summer, students have
found their own coping strategies, and drill and skill activities are seldom successful. I try to do as many
pre-reading strategies as I can” (P.H, high school English teacher.).
Candidate’s Response: “Mainly for my reading group, I use running records and observations to set literacy
instructional goals. While doing running records, if I see that students do not have strategies for determining
unknown words, I teach them some strategies they can use. I also observe students while they are reading
and ask for retellings to see if they are reading for comprehension. This is what I am focusing on now in my
reading group” (J.W, first grade teacher.).
Candidate’s Response: “I use assessments to see what my students can already do and what they are
developmentally ready to do next. I do a series of assessments at the beginning of the year. Of course, I do
the BLT to determine what sounds and literacy skills my students have. This will also check their sight word
vocabulary and their basic reading level. If I determine the student is reading, then I use the STAR to see
more specifically what they are doing. I use a set of benchmark books and take running records to determine
their instructional reading level for guided reading. I take a spelling inventory to see what skills the student
is applying and how large their working sight word vocabulary is. I take a spelling test (from “Words their
Way”) to determine what developmental spelling stage they are in. I do a self portrait to get an insight on
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
the student’s developmental stage. I use anecdotal records of students’ behavior with the books as I am
taking running records or working out groups to determine what other behaviors they need to work on.
“Then, I set up my guided reading groups based on students’ levels. I also can see immediately what skills
they need to work on. For example, this year my students showed very little strategies for figuring out words
they did not know. So, I knew they needed lots of shared reading to get them going. During this reading, you
can insert strategies and show students how to figure things out without asking me for help” (S.L., first grade
teacher).
Sample response giving evidence of pedagogical knowledge for integrating reading, writing, and
viewing in response to instructor’s question on what candidates gained from a chapter addressing
multiple literacies in their content literacy book, Literacy & Learning in the Content Areas (Kane,
2003).
“As I read the “Picture Books for Content Area Learning” section, I was reminded of how powerful picture
books can be in Middle School. That is one area I intend to make better use of throughout the year. I think
the use of cartoons and comics is something that I can effectively use, especially with “reluctant” readers,
but also with readers at all skill levels. Many of our students who are not particularly motivated are quite
talented artists. The cartoons and comics would certainly be more appealing to those students than other
types of responses to literature. Many students enjoy charts and graphs, and are more willing to look at
information presented through that mode. In teaching informational reading, charts and graphs have more
appeal for some students, and I will definitely use them in my classroom.
“I have used, and will continue to use film along with traditional text in my classroom. I already use viewing
guides and critical response questions in viewing films. I would like to do more with clips from television.
The familiarity of students with television promotes a high degree of interest and involvement, and can be
used very effectively with middle school students.
“Digital literacy through research using the internet is an area that I want to continue to develop in my
classroom. I want my students to be able to access information and critically evaluate web sites and
sources. I will use guided research projects on the web, giving students instruction, while modeling
procedures for using internet sources. Additionally, I think e-mail could be used effectively in my classroom.
I have not used that strategy, but I can see how it could be effective in having students respond to their
readings” (J.A., middle school teacher).
Element 1.4 Professional Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates
In the Reading Endorsement program candidates demonstrate their professional and pedagogical
knowledge and skills by reflecting regularly upon daily practice; by collaborating with other
colleagues and professionals to strengthen school effectiveness, to advance knowledge, and to
influence policy and practice; and by drawing upon their experience and the professional literature
in designing a Literacy Action Plan to carry out the objectives of the program. The Literacy Action
Plan (See format and rubric in the Appendix), centered on a school improvement goal and specific
literacy goals to be implemented in the candidate’s classroom or school, addresses the three program
strands as well as the nine reading standards for the Georgia Reading Endorsement. For example,
one Reading Endorsement candidate, who was the instructional coordinator at her middle school,
selected the following goal: “Each certified staff member who teaches reading or language arts
classes will improve his instructional practice in the area of vocabulary development.” She
designed instructional modules to be used for this staff development project.
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
This was one of her reflections while implementing her plan:
“My project is going well, but it is taking so much of my time at work. I believe it to be very worthwhile and
timely. The 18 students in the course are making great progress, trying new techniques, and growing as
professionals. This week (10-29 through 11-2) we will be planning a sharing session/presentation to the
whole academic teaching staff, which is going to be a big step for the class. They will be sharing their
strategies learned and real-life examples that they made to use in their classrooms. The purpose of the
session with the staff members not in the class will be to give them these strategies for teaching their content
area vocabularies and using strategic vocabulary for review throughout the year. The strategies presented
will also give them new ways to accelerate and remediate their students, during the remediation and
enrichment block each day. I asked them this week to talk to their peers and decide if everyone wants to do
this session during team planning or after school” (G.H middle school instructional coordinator.).
Professional development also involves support from peers. Learning in an online community
facilitates this. As Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) state, “Invariably in community of practice
settings, teachers construct their own knowledge of practice through deliberate inquiry, which may
well involve ideas and experiences that emerge from their own practice as well as those codified
within the profession” (p.13). The following is an excerpt from a discussion thread from candidate’s
teaching reflections:
“Hi, T... I am working on the same things in my classroom. I am trying to teach my first graders to use
strategies that good readers use. I have been modeling some of the thought processes that good readers use
while reading by using think-alouds and read alouds. Sometimes I feel like I’m beating a dead horse, though
because we stay on the same book for so long” (D).
“D.: I also felt as if I was spending a lot of time on some of the books that I read, but most of my children
seem to enjoy listening to the book more than one time. I think the key is to find books that are more
interesting to them. They have gotten to the point where they like to go back and listen for things they may
have missed” (J.).
These examples illustrate how candidates are using reflection to improve practice.
Standard nine of the Reading Endorsement program, which requires candidates to demonstrate
competence in planning and implementing activities designed to build community support for
school reading programs and to increase awareness of the relationship between home and school in
developing successful, lifelong reading habits in children (see Program Content Standards Matrix
under Element 8 below), also provides a means by which candidates can demonstrate their
professional pedagogical knowledge and skills. The following excerpts from selected candidates’
Literacy Action Plans illustrate how candidates are meeting this part of the standard:
“Parents will receive written information at the beginning of the school year explaining reading strategies to
be taught. Models of various strategies will be given to parents as they are taught with suggestions as to how
parents can help their child use the strategies successfully. Information will be shared at Open House in the
fall and during the fall parent conferences” (S.L.).
The candidates’ written Literacy Action Plans and the results, their online reflections, and portfolio
products will provide the evidence that candidates have attained this standard.
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
Element 1.5 Professional Knowledge and Skills for Other School Personnel (N/A)
Element 1.6 Dispositions for All Candidates
The Reading Endorsement candidates believe that all students can learn and help students develop a
positive disposition for learning. They aspire to treat students equitably and provide equitable
access to the full curriculum by respecting individual differences and adjusting practices
accordingly. They are committed to bringing all students to high levels of learning, with an
emphasis on seeking better ways to facilitate the learning of linguistically diverse students, as well
as ways to involve the parents in support of the school program. This is evidenced in the design,
development, implementation, and evaluation of developmental, remedial, and enrichment programs
in reading (see Program Content Matrix under Element 8) as appear in the candidates’ lesson plans,
literacy action plans, online discussion logs, research assignments, and portfolio products.
Element 1.7 Student Learning for Teacher Candidates
Strand Two of the Reading Endorsement program (Linking Literacy Assessment and Instruction)
emphasizes understanding and applying diverse assessments techniques and organizing instruction
in light of the analysis of assessment information. Evidence that the Reading Endorsement
candidates accurately assess and analyze student learning, make appropriate adjustments to
instruction, monitor student learning, and have a positive effect on learning for all students consists
of the candidates’ reading diagnosis and assessment project with the America Reads students
referenced earlier, Literacy Action Plans and results, lesson plans and reflections, and portfolio
products. Excerpts from the results of some of the Literacy Action Plans are provided below as
evidence of the candidates having a positive effect on learning for all students:
“Assessment in the winter revealed an improvement in reading levels. Their chapter tests revealed improved
improvements as well. Comprehension improved by 17% and word recognition by 20%. The comprehension
skills covered included cause and effect and sequencing.
“There were several things we did during the year to improve the students’ reading. Part of the time, I
worked with the whole fourth grade, and some time I worked with the group of five. The students made a lot
of progress in reading this year.” (S.K.,school administrator.).
“In the beginning of the year, since I was new to first grade, I felt as if I was bombarded with things to do.
We had the ITBS right off at the beginning off the year. At some point, I began assessing my students. I used
the BLT and running records, to determine reading levels. Once I had collected my assessment, I began to
plan my instruction. My students were split into guided reading groups using the BLT. Since our whole
school does guided reading, we split our students into groups within one grade level. Every teacher and
support staff taught one group. Throughout the year, I used running records to make sure that I was using
the right level of books with my guided reading group. I also determined if they needed to move out of my
group. I also used running records to set up book baskets in the classroom” (J.W., first grade teacher).
Element 1.8 Student Learning for Other Professional School Personnel (N/A)
Standard 2 – Program Assessment and Unit Capacity
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
Element 2.1 Assessment System
The assessment system for the Reading Endorsement program consists of both quantitative and
qualitative measures, and both types are connected to the PTEU Conceptual Framework in terms of
measuring knowledge, skills and dispositions. The quantitative measures of knowledge about
readers and the reading process (subject matter knowledge) consists of final examinations and
quizzes, a pre-post survey of Reading the Reading Standards for P-12 Classroom Teachers PrePost Survey, and the Teachers’ Knowledge of Literacy Development and Instruction Assessment
given at the end of the program. The Reading Standards for P-12 Classroom Teachers Survey is a
45-item instrument whereby candidates indicate their current level of knowledge and expertise
(from lack of awareness to comprehensive in-depth understanding) concerning the nine reading
standards and competencies upon which the Reading Endorsement program is based. (See Appendix
A.) The Teachers’ Knowledge of Literacy Development and Instruction Assessment is a 50-item
multiple choice assessment also based on the Georgia Standards for the Reading Endorsement for
Classroom Educators. (See Appendix A.) These two instruments are administered across the system
for member institutions of the University System of Georgia Reading Consortium, and are part of
the summary evaluative data for all the Reading Endorsement programs combined. Unfortunately,
data from these assessments are not available. All other assessments for the Reading Endorsement
program are qualitative in nature, and they will be described below.
Continuing with the assessment of subject matter knowledge, the Reading Endorsement programs
uses responses to discussion questions based on reading assignments, reflections on teaching and
learning, synchronous discussions (Chat Room), and projects such as candidates’ diagnostic reports
from working with the America Reads students in the Summer Reading Institute.
Skills (pedagogical content knowledge) are assessed through teaching reflections posted online,
through examination of lesson plans, through classroom visits and observation of videotaped
lessons, through evaluation of the portfolio, and through the implementation and outcome of the
Literacy Action Plan as shown in a Power Point presentation. (See rubrics in Appendix A.) In
addition to evaluating the Power Point presentation, implementation of the Literacy Action Plan is
monitored through online discussions and reflections. Below is a sample reflection from one
candidate’s Literacy Action Plan:
“I have been working on the 8th grade teachers, trying to persuade them to integrate the study of grammar
into an ongoing reader’s workshop and writer’s workshop format, so that the subjunctive participle will have
more relevance to the students. One of the teachers was sharing with me last Friday (10/27) that she had
tried some of my ideas, by having students take all their vocabulary words and write a story with them. She
said the class was SO excited! She has been very frustrated with behavior problems from a few key boys in
the class. She was very thrilled to see that their behavior was better during this more authentic activity. I
love stories like that!” (G.H., middle school instructional coordinator).
The Reading Endorsement Portfolio is the exit requirement and is used as an assessment and
evaluation measure to provide documented evidence that candidates have met all the standards for
the Georgia Reading Endorsement It consists of artifacts reflective of the candidate’s competencies
with regard to each of the standards. The artifacts may include, but are not limited to, selected
lesson plans and reflections, student work, student test scores (pre-post, as well as formative and
summative assessments, with the links to instruction shown), the Literacy Action Plan and report of
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
the results, work completed as part of the Summer Reading Institute, projects, and assignments
completed throughout the program. In addition to the artifacts, the portfolio consists of narrative
explanations which explain specifically how elements of specific artifacts demonstrate proficiency
for a given standard. It is required that a narrative be construed to discuss each of the nine
standards. The portfolio is organized by standards with an appendix which consists of all the
artifacts.
Dispositions (attitudes, values and professionalism) are assessed informally through class
interactions both online and on ground (“face” meetings) as candidates reflect on teaching and
learning. For example, one candidate reveals her disposition toward the affective responsibilities of
teaching in the following reflection:
“ In one of the articles I read, it stated that learning is a social and cultural process and we as teachers need
to be aware of who we are culturally and socially and how that is different from our students. This adds a
whole other dimension to our multisensory approach to teaching. We all bring our prior knowledge and
experience to the classroom, teachers and students. It is important that we know what we are bringing and
as much as possible, what our students are bringing. We need to use that knowledge to plan lessons that are
going to be more effective and less frustrating for everyone involved” (W.B., middle school special education
teacher).
In addition to the assessment measures used above, the instructor holds midterm individual
conferences with the candidates (in lieu of giving a midterm examination) to determine their
comfort level in the program, to determine if their instructional support needs are being met, and to
check on the progress of their portfolios.
Another form of program assessment is student evaluations. At the end of each segment of the
Reading Endorsement program (Summer Reading Institute, and Reading Strategies course), students
complete a written evaluation of the course and of the professor. Additionally, in the Summer
Reading Institute, students post a daily reflection which also provides evaluative information about
the courses.
Impact on Student Learning
The impact that the Reading Endorsement program has on student learning is assessed through the
candidates’ reports of their students’ progress in reading. Results of the candidate’s LAP which
shows pre-post reading scores, as well as lesson plan evaluations and reflections by the candidates
provide evidence of the impact of the program on student learning. In addition, impact on student
learning is evident in many of the online discussions.
Element 2.2 Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation
Data from the Reading Standards for P-12 Classroom Teachers Survey and from the Teachers’
Knowledge of Literacy Development and Instruction Assessment are collected and analyzed by the
University System of Georgia Reading Consortium. The findings are used to aid faculty across the
state in evaluating the effectiveness of the Reading Endorsement programs in meeting the needs of
participants. At the institution level, each major project and assignment, including the portfolio, is
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
scored according to a rubric which is provided to the candidate in advance of the due date of the
assignment. The grading requirements are determined by the instructors. Course evaluations are
open-ended and they are done at the end of the courses and program by the candidates. (See
Appendix A.) Data from the course evaluations are used to assess satisfaction with the courses and
with the instructors, and to make modifications in the courses and strengthen the program as needed.
Assessment data collected from final examinations (See Appendix A), projects and reflections
indicate that candidates have a good grasp of subject matter knowledge as well as pedagogical
content knowledge. This was determined by the quality of their responses to discussion questions
and examination questions, the quality and content of their online reflections, and the quality of their
portfolios.
Data collected from the Literacy Action Plans revealed that candidates had made an impact on
students’ literacy learning.
Unfortunately, assessment data from the two system-wide assessments, the Reading Standards for
P-12 Classroom Teacher’s Survey and the Teachers’ Knowledge of Literacy Development and
Instruction Assessment, were unavailable for this report due to technical difficulties in accessing the
scores (See e-mail from Joyce Many in the appendix).
Data collected from the student evaluations from the past two cohorts reveal a high degree of
satisfaction with the program and with the instructor. In summarizing these data, the following were
indicated as strengths of the program: hands-on diagnostic experiences with the America Reads
students, comprehensiveness and usefulness of the information presented, the depth of knowledge of
the professor, the informal environment, class discussions – especially the online chats, doing and
implementing the Literacy Action Plan, collaborating and networking with peers, computer lab time,
the research articles, and the quality of the guest presentations. Aspects of the program indicated in
need of change or improvement were the following: number of topics covered in the Summer
Reading Institute (too much breadth crowded into three weeks – not enough time to absorb the
material), and an appeal to do one capstone project instead of two (currently, the candidates are
required to complete a portfolio and a Literacy Action Plan, and both relate to the nine reading
standards for the Reading Endorsement program). Last, summer the Summer Reading Institute was
team-taught with an adjunct reading professor. Although the two instructors planned collaboratively
and attempted to coordinate their instruction (which they thought they were doing well), the
candidates viewed it as being somewhat disjointed.
Element 2.3 Use of Data for Program Improvement
The following changes have been made to improve Kennesaw State University’s Reading
Endorsement program based on feedback received. The length of the Summer Reading Institute has
been lengthened to four weeks instead of three, beginning with the 2004 Summer Session, to allow
more time for learning to occur. The students have proposed doing a collaborative portfolio
consisting of in- depth narratives from each candidate, in addition to the Literacy Action Plan. The
proposal is being considered.
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
Other changes that have been made over the course of the program, based on the program
coordinator/instructor’s observations of improvements needed are the following:
Modules have been developed for the Summer Reading Institute to provide greater efficiency in
addressing the program standards; candidates have been allowed more input into the planning
process for the Reading Strategies course (Strand Three), in order to ensure that their classroom
teaching needs are being met; WebCT has been added to the summer portion of the program in
order to help with the transition to the online course in the Fall; mid-term individual conferences
have replaced mid-term exams; and working with the America Reads program has been added to
provide a clinical experience activity in diagnosing and remediating reading problems. The
coordinator of the program has also made changes in the content of the program, as needed, to stay
current with scientific reading research findings, such as those of the National Reading Panel, the
IRA policy statement of adolescent literacy and the most recent standards of the International
Reading Association. In the future, plans will also be made to address the needs of each level
(elementary and middle school teachers) separately more specifically. Also, the program
coordinator will meet with the University System of Georgia Reading Consortium in the near future
to participate in the collaborative re-designing all the Reading Endorsement programs to incorporate
the new IRA standards.
Standard 3 – Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
The Reading Endorsement candidates are certified classroom teachers and are considered to be in
field in their own classrooms. Candidates who are school administrators implement a field based
project in their schools.
Element 3.1 Collaboration Between Unit and School Partners
There are no written agreements between the unit and school partners for the Reading Endorsement
program. Recruitment flyers are sent to elementary, middle and high schools every year announcing
the program, and to the school district offices in the surrounding counties in Kennesaw State
University’s service area. Public school personnel, such as reading specialists, have served as guest
presenters in the Summer Reading Institute.
Candidates’ work with the America Reads Program is arranged by the Reading Endorsement
program coordinator and the Administrative Coordinator for Volunteer KSU, the office that
oversees the American Reads Program.
PTEU language arts and special education faculty, as well as KSU librarians, have made guest
presentations in the Summer Reading Institute.
As Kennesaw State University’s representative to the University System of Georgia Reading
Consortium, and as a Board member of that consortium, the program coordinator collaborates with
other Board members on the design and improvement of the university system’s Reading
Endorsement programs.
Element 3.2 Design, Implementation and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical
Practice
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
Reading Endorsement candidates design a Literacy Action Plan to implement in their classrooms or
school as a special field-based project during the course of the academic year. The plan focuses on
each strand of the program and requires the candidate to demonstrate knowledge about readers and
the reading process, to link literacy assessment to instruction, and to implement reading strategies
that are scientifically research-based. The results of the implementation of the plan are highlighted
in a Power Point presentation and are evaluated based on evidence documenting answers to the
following questions: What did you learn about readers and the reading process? How did you link
instruction to assessment? What strategies seemed particularly effective in producing increased
student learning? In addition to this capstone project, the instructor monitors candidates’
understanding and application of literacy teaching strategies in their classrooms through their online
teaching reflections, through Chat Room discussions, and through on-site and videotaped classroom
observations. For classroom observations and the viewing of videotaped lessons, the instructor
records field notes and makes evaluative comments which she shares with the candidate.
In the Reading Endorsement Summer Reading Institute, candidates administer diagnostic reading
tests to the students participating in KSU’s America Reads Program. They also interpret the test
results, make specific recommendations for remedial reading instruction, implement the
recommendations on a try-out basis, refine their recommendations and prepare a final report for the
child’s school. This serves as a clinical experience activity for the Reading and Assessment course
(EDUC 7717). (See course syllabus in the Appendix B.) The final report is evaluated by the
instructor.
Element 3.3 Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of KDS to Help All Students Learn
The candidates’ are dedicated to helping all students learn as indicated in their Literacy Action Plans
and in their reflections. They demonstrate their professionalism in collaborating with professionals
and others in the community, including parents, to promote literacy and to bring all students to a
high level of learning. Evidence is provided below in excerpts from LAPs and from reflections:
“As part of our Reading Staff Development this year, several teachers chose to read the book, Mosaic of
Thought. We met monthly to discuss chapters and strategies that we were using in the classroom. Because I
was already familiar with the book from our summer classes and was already using many of the strategies
mentioned in the book, I had the chance to share my thoughts on various strategies with my colleagues” (J.
W., first grade teacher).
“Finding something students are interested in and giving them some choices in how they learn skills is one
way that can motivate middle grade students. The key thing is not to give up. Students’ motivation triggers
are as varied as the students, and you have to just keep trying new approaches to reach all students.
However, we have to keep trying” (J.A., middle school teacher).
Standard 7 – Georgia Specific Requirements for Units and Programs
Element 1 Meets Minimum Admission Requirements
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
Candidates admitted into the Reading Endorsement program must have a baccalaureate degree from
an acceptably recognized accredited college or university, have a minimum undergraduate
cumulative grade-point average of 2.5 (on a 4.0 scale), and have a valid Georgia Teaching
Certificate. It is also preferred that they are currently teaching. They are admitted as non-degree
graduate students. M.Ed. graduate students may also enroll in the program.
Element 2 Knowledge of Reading Methods
EDUC 7718- Reading Strategies for the Content Fields, which is built around Strand Three of the
Reading Endorsement Program (Instructional Strategies in the Content Areas across P-12
specifically prepares candidates in knowledge of reading methods (see course syllabus).
Element 3 Knowledge of the Identification and Education of Children with Special Needs
Reading Endorsement candidates, as holders of a Georgia Teaching Certificate, have completed five
or more quarter hours or three or more semester hours, or the equivalent, in the identification and
education of children who have special educational needs. The Reading Endorsement Program
Standards only require that candidates have knowledge of this element at the awareness level as
opposed to in depth knowledge. Therefore, it is not an area of special emphasis in the program at
this time.
Element 4 Proficiency in the Use, Application, and Integration of Instructional Technology
Reading Endorsement candidates, as holders of a Georgia Teaching Certificate, have demonstrated
proficiency in the use, application, and integration of instructional technology, either by attaining an
acceptable score on a PSC-approved test of computer skill competency or by completing a PSCapproved training course or equivalent. Candidates gain additional proficiency with the use,
application, and integration of instructional technology through WebCT and through preparation of
Power Point presentations.
Element 5 Knowledge of the Relevant Sections of the Georgia Quality Core Curriculum
Candidates incorporate the Georgia Quality Core Curriculum language arts standards appropriate for
their grade level in their literacy lesson plans.
Element 6 Knowledge of Professional Ethical Standards and Requirements for Certification
and Employment (N/A)
Element 7 Field Experiences Appropriate to the Grade Level and Certification Sought (N/A)
Standard 8 – Content Requirements for Educator Preparation Programs
(See completed Program Content Matrix attached)
PRAXIS Content (N/A)
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
Required Appendices
A. Assessment instruments referenced in response to Standard 2 (attached)
B. Course syllabi for all courses (attached)
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc
C:\Documents and Settings\jfew\My Documents\Institutional Effectiveness\accreditations and Recognitions\TED\psc\_Reports Only\Reading Endorsement PSC Report.doc