IRA State Conference Proposal

Assessment 6

UCM EdCI 6240: Supervision of the Literacy Program

IRAState Conference Proposal

Overview of Assessment

Description

The IRA State Conference Proposal focuses on professional development leadership opportunities for graduate students who are pursuing an MSE in Literacy Education, especially for those who want to be literacy coaches and administrators of literacy programs. Using literacy journals from International Reading Association, and other resources, graduate students will develop a proposal for the upcoming International Reading Association’s Missouri state conference. Graduate students will investigate topics, decide upon a proposal based on conference criteria, work together to share information and write the proposal. They will also prepare a power-point presentation and “hand-out” for colleagues about the conference proposal, and consider the feedback their colleagues give them before they submit the proposal to the instructor or to the state conference proposal committee.

Alignment

The IRA State Conference Proposal addresses the following standards and accompanying elements:

Standard 1: Foundational Knowledge

Candidates will…

• refer to major theories, and current trends and issues,orally, and in writing. as they develop their conference proposal. (1.1)

• explain, compare, contrast and critique the theoretical underpinnings as they provide discussion group feedback on each proposal. (1.1)

Standard 2 Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials

Candidates will…

• help teachers who are targeted for their conference session select appropriate

instructional materials by offering them opportunities to explore strategies, methods and materials to which they may not have had exposure. (2.2)

• will demonstrate how the options work in their own teaching experience, and provide for interactive work when possible, as well as time for questions and answers in the session they plan. (2.2)

Standard 5 Professional Development

Candidate will…

• articulate the theories related to the connections between teacher dispositions and student achievement when he/she leads the discussion group and presents the proposal to colleagues.. The graduate student acknowledges that unless the teacher connects with children through positive attitudes, values and beliefs, children will not learn as well. (5.1)

• Prepare the proposal for the conference with a major objective of advancing and expanding the knowledge base of other professionals in the field of literacy. (5.2)

• Positively and constructively provide an evaluation of their own and other’s teaching practices through a thorough examination of the proposals that have been developed. Feedback should be constructive in nature, and help the graduate student improve on the session planned. (5.3)

UCM

Assessment 6

Conference Proposal

P.1

University of CentralMissouri

Data Analysis for Assessment 6: IRA Proposal

Standard 1
Foundational Knowledge:
Candidates have knowledge of the foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction / Summer 08 / Summer 07
1.1Candidates refer to major theories in the foundational areas as they relate to reading. They can explain, compare, contrast, and critique the theories.
Number of Students / 15 / 13
Exceptional Level% / 13 / 46
Proficient Level % / 13 / 38
Satisfactory Level % / 64 / 16
Unsatisfactory Level %
% MEETING THE STANDARD / 100 / 100
Standard 2
Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials:
Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials:
Candidates use a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, methods, and curriculum materials to support reading and writing instruction. / Summer 08 / Summer 07
2.2Candidates 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.
Number of Students / 15 / 13
Exceptional Level% / 60 / 54
Proficient Level % / 27 / 38
Satisfactory Level % / 13 / 8
Unsatisfactory Level %
% MEETING THE STANDARD / 100 / 100
Standard 5
Professional Development:
Candidates view professional development as a career-long effort and responsibility. / Summer 08 / Summer 07
5.1Candidates articulate the theories related to the connections between teacher dispositions and student achievement.
Number of Students / 15 / 13
Exceptional Level% / 60 / 54
Proficient Level % / 40 / 46
Satisfactory Level %
Unsatisfactory Level %
% MEETING THE STANDARD / 100 / 100

University of CentralMissouri

Data Analysis for Assessment 6: IRA Proposal

Standard 5
Professional Development:
Candidates view professional development as a career-long effort and responsibility. / Summer 08 / Summer 07
5.2Conduct professional study groups for paraprofessionals and teachers. Assist classroom teachers and paraprofessional in identifying, planning, and implementing personal professional development plans. They advocate to advance the professional research base to expand knowledge-based practices.
Number of Students / 15 / 13
Exceptional Level% / 60 / 54
Proficient Level % / 40 / 38
Satisfactory Level % / 8
Unsatisfactory Level %
% MEETING THE STANDARD / 100 / 100
5.3Candidates positively and constructively provide an evaluation of their own or others’ teaching practices. They assist classroom teachers and paraprofessionals as they strive to improve their practice.
Number of Students / 15 / 13
Exceptional Level% / 40 / 54
Proficient Level % / 40 / 38
Satisfactory Level % / 20 / 8
Unsatisfactory Level %
% MEETING THE STANDARD / 100 / 100

Interpretation of Data

The data displayed in theabove table suggests several things. First, the vast majority of graduate students completing this project in EdCI 6240 met the Standards assessed by this assignment. None of the candidates scored at the Unsatisfactory Level. They all worked hard on the proposal project and followed the criteria carefully. In fact, six of the candidates in the class had their proposals accepted and they presented at the Missouri State Council of the IRA, 41st Annual Conference the following fall. Three of the candidates were accepted to present at the Missouri State Council of the IRA, 42nd Annual Conference in November 08.

It should be noted that there was a tendency for candidates to score slightly lower on Standard 1.1. Although they were highly comfortable with colleagues, and did a good job of coaching and providing feedback, they were better at practical application of knowledge than they were in depth of knowledge relative to theory. Because they worked so hard at learning theory this semester, their scores may reflect effort as much as knowledge. In the future, the instructor plans to include more reading, critical thinking, and investigation into the literature early in this, and other classes.

Student Directions

UCM EdCI 6240: Supervision of the Literacy Program

IRA Conference Proposal

IRA Standards: 1.1, 2.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3

This project focuses on professional development leadership opportunities for graduate studentswho are pursuing an MSE in Literacy Education. It is especially helpful for educators who are interested in becoming reading specialists or literacy coaches. Using recent research articles and topic-relevant articles in professional practioner journals, along with the guidance of the instructor, graduate students will develop a proposal for the Missouri State Conference of The International Reading Association, annually held in November. Each graduate student will be responsible for working responsibly with colleagues to develop a viable proposal, and for conducting a power-point presentation of the proposal for the entire class. Proposals may be developed individually, or with one or two other colleague who have similar interests and who agree to present together at the conference if the proposal is accepted. Submission of the proposal is not mandatory, but it is strongly encouraged. The project has proven to be an exciting and fulfilling entreeinto one of the leadership positions expected of literacy coaches as the graduate student finishes his or her master’s degree in Literacy Education.

Proposal (IRA 1.1, 2.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3)

Using recent issues of several journals published by International Reading Association, along with other resources, the graduate students will read and share studies of interest to reading professionals in the field of Literacy Education. They will determine areas of particular interest for further investigation, and they will utilize their personal knowledge of strategies and activities that they believe will help other teachers meet their goals in teaching children to read and write successfully. The graduate students are encouraged to focus on strategies and activities that will help not only seasoned teachers, but new teachers who may not be familiar with the effective strategies to be presented. With the help of the instructor, students will review proposal forms for the upcoming conference, and they will examine proposals the instructor and others have had accepted, as well as those which have not been accepted. Conference themes, usefulness of the session proposed, and generation of interest will all be considered as the students develop their own proposals.

Resources used may include:

• ISSUES OF: The Reading Teacher, Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,

andThe Reading Research Quarterly

• Selected SIG journals, such as The Journal of Content Area Reading and The Dragon Lode
• Conference Proposal Booklets from past IRA conferences
• Books or other sources, such as:

Allen, J. (2006). Becoming a literacy leader: Supporting learning and change.

Portland: Stenhouse.

Farstrup, A. Samuels, J. (Eds.) (2002). What research has to say about reading

Instruction. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.

Robinson, R.D., McKenna, M.C., Wedman, J. (2000). Issues and trends in

literacy education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Discussion Group Leaders(IRA 5.1, 5.2, 5.3)

Graduate students will be responsible for developing a power-point presentation for the class, and a “hand-out” (APA, 5th edition format) which explains:

• the theoretical underpinnings of the proposal
• procedures, materials needed, and which person(s) will present the various segments of the presentation.

Students will ask for feedback from colleagues relative to the content and wording of the proposal, and then consider the feedback to determine whether they want to make changes. When the proposal is considered acceptable, it will be submitted to the instructor, and the students will be counseled by the instructor relative to whether the proposal is ready to submit to the IRA state conference proposal committee.

UCM

Assessment 6

Conference Proposal

P.1

EdCI 6240 Supervision of the Literacy Program

IRAState Conference Proposal

Project Rubric

100 points / Exceptional / Proficient / Satisfactory / Unsatisfactory
Overall Format:
The student followed an appropriate format for the conference proposal, as required on the proposal form. / Student demonstrates an exceptional understanding for planning and writing a conference proposal.
13.5-15 points / Student demonstrates a proficient understanding for planning and writing a conference proposal.
12-13 points / Student demonstrates a basic understanding for planning and writing a conference proposal.
10.5-11.5 points / Student demonstrates a lack of understanding for planning and writing a conference proposal.
10 or fewer points
Theoretical underpinnings are addressed in the proposal
(1.1) / Student demonstrates an exceptional understanding of theory that grounds topic of presentation.
13.5-15 points / Student demonstrates
a proficient understanding of theory that grounds topic presented.
12-13 points / Student demonstrates a basic understanding of theory that grounds topic presented.
10.5-11.5 points / Student demonstrates a lack of understanding of theory that grounds topic presented.
10 or fewer points
Presentation offers teachers new or very effective strategies/material that the presenter(s) has used (2.2) / Student demonstrates an exceptional understanding of new or very effective
Strategies and/or materials that will benefit teachers in session.
13.5-15 points / Student demonstrates a proficient understanding of new or very effective strategies/materials that will benefit teachers in session.
12-13 points / Student demonstrates a basic understanding of new or very effective strategies and/or materials that will benefit teachers in session.
10.5-11.5 points / Student demonstrates a lack of understanding of new or very effective strategies and/or materials that will benefit teachers in session.
10 or fewer points
Session will expand teachers’ knowledge base
(5.2) / Student demonstrates an exceptional understanding of what will expand teachers’ knowledge base.
9-10 points / Student demonstrates a proficient understanding of what will expand teachers’ knowledge base.
8-8.5 points / Student demonstrates a basic understanding of what will expand teachers’ knowledge base.
7-7.5 points / Student demonstrates a lack of understanding of what will expand teacher’s knowledge base.
6.5 or fewer points
In discussion group presentation, student reveals theories that tie teacher dispositions to topic presented in session (5.1) / Student demonstrates an exceptional understanding of theories that tie teacher dispositions to topic presented in session.
4-5 points / Student demonstrates an proficient understanding of theories that tie teacher dispositions to topic presented in session.
3- 3.5 points / Student demonstrates a basic understanding of theories that tie teacher dispositions to topic presented in session.
2.5-3 points / Student demonstrates a lack of understanding of theories that tie teacher dispositions to topic presented in session.
2 or fewer points

EdCI 6240 Supervision of the Literacy Program

IRAState Conference Proposal

Project Rubric

Student provides a thorough, thoughtful evaluation with constructive feedback for other students who are presenting their proposals in the discussion group (5.3) / Student provides an excellent evaluation with constructive feedback for other students who are presenting their proposals in the discussion group.
9-10 points / Student provides a proficient evaluation with constructive feedback for other students who are presenting their proposals in the discussion group.
8-8.5 points / Student provides an adequate evaluation with constructive feedback for other students who are presenting their proposals in the discussion group.
7-7.5 / Student does not provide an adequate evaluation with constructive feedback for other students who are presenting their proposals in the discussion group.
6.5 or fewer points
Presentation content: The content of the power point clearly and accurately presented:
the proposal topic, methods and materials, procedures, theoretical references, and a proposal that was well-written. (5.2) / Presentation was extremely well organized, with the content of the proposal clearly and accurately presented. All parts required were presented.
13.5-15 points / Presentation was
Very well organized, with the content of the proposal clearly and accurately presented. All parts required were presented.
12-13 points / Presentation was adequately organized, with the content of the proposal adequately and accurately presented. All required parts were presented.
10.5-11.5 points / Presentation was not adequately organized, and the content of the proposal was not adequately and accurately presented. All required parts may have been presented, but not well.
10 or fewer points
Presentation delivery: The power-point slides were well organized and easy to read; presentation was within 25 minute time limit; handouts were appropriate and informative; presentation was a team effort and it was smoothly conducted (5.2) / Power-point slides were extremely well organized; presentation was within 25 minute limit; handouts were appropriate. A team effort and smooth presentation was evident.
13.5-15 points / Power-point slides were quite well organized; presentation was within 25 minute limit; handouts were appropriate. A team effort and smooth presentation was evident.
12-13 points / Power-point slides were adequately organized; presentation was basically within 25 minute time limit; handouts were acceptable. A team effort and smooth presentation were somewhat noted.
10.5-11.5 points
See comments / Power-point slides were not adequately organized; presentation was/ was not within 25 minute time limit/
Handouts were/ were not acceptable. A team effort and smooth presentation were/ were not noted.
10 points or fewer
See comments.

UCM

Assessment 6

Conference Proposal

P.1