Eastern Connecticut State University
RLA 520
Seminar In Literacy Coaching
Catalogue Description:
This course offers students an opportunity to develop strategies for providing ongoing sustained support for
the implementation of effective literacy practices in K-12 schools.
Maureen McSparran Ruby, Ph.D.
860-465-0659
Webb Hall 148
[email protected]
Summer Office Hours: By Appointment
3.000 Credit Hours
Course Goal: The focus of this course is on (a) understanding the role of the Literacy Coach and (b)
developing skills and strategies necessary for the support and coordination of all aspects of the K-12
literacy curriculum. The emphasis is on developing knowledge, understanding, and performance skill to
design, organize, and supervise effective schoolwide literacy programs, including evaluation of programs,
based on current research evidence and the International Reading Association Standards for Exemplary
Reading Programs; developing literacy curriculum, including intervention; supporting teachers,
paraprofessionals and parents through a variety of research-based coaching strategies; planning and
implementing professional development; supervising paraprofessionals; and developing
school/home/community relations.
“The literacy coach can help to mediate between a school’s vision for what literacy instruction
ought to be like for students and what is being accomplished in classrooms. Literacy coaches can
help teachers reflect upon their assessment data and instruction, model new teaching ideas for
them, and gradually help teachers become independent in using new methods themselves.” N.
Shanklin; Literacy coaching: Still on the front burner. (February 2007). Reading Today, 24(4), 12.
Class Format
Class will be a combination of lecture, large and small group discussion, small group work, instructional
observations, coaching conference experiences, individual research and projects, and presentations.
REQUIRED TEXTS & PUBLICATIONS
Gibson, V. & Hasbrouck, J. (2008). Differentiated instruction: Grouping for success.
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
International Reading Association Guidelines for Exemplary Reading Program award and
description of criteria indicators. (to be provided)
Jay, A. & Strong, M. (2008). A guide to literacy coaching: Helping teachers increase
increase student achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Professional Standards and Ethics Committee of the International Reading Association
(2003). Standards for reading professionals: Revised. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association (to be provided)
Puig, E. & Froelich, K. (2007). The literacy coach: Guiding in the right direction. Boston,
MA: Pearson: Allyn and Bacon.
Shaw, M.L. (2007). Preparing reading specialists to be literacy coaches: principles,
practices, possibilities. Journal of Language and Literacy [On-line], 3(1). 6-17. Available:
http://www.coe.uga.edu/jolle/2007_1/preparing.pdf
1
Shen, M., Rao, S., Dobles, R. (2005). Coaches in the high school classroom: Studies in
implementing high school reform. Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Brown
University. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Goals and Objectives [Standards: IRA Standards for Reading Professionals (2003) and the Connecticut
Common Core of Teaching (CCCT 1999)]
Candidates will:
1. Demonstrate the ability to facilitate and evaluate effective, systematic, research-based change in
school and district level literacy programs through an understanding of the culture of schools,
adult learning theory and models, and the complex role of the literacy consultant/coach (IRA 5.3)
2. Demonstrate ability to work with teachers to plan, implement, and evaluate effective researchbased literacy instruction, based on assessment data, using a wide range of instructional practices;
effective instructional grouping options; and a wide range of instructional materials (IRA 2.1, 2.2,
2.3, 3.1, 3.2 )
3. Demonstrate ability to work with content area teachers to plan, implement, and evaluate strategies
to help learners comprehend text (IRA 5.1, 5, 1.6, 2, 5.3)
4. Demonstrate ability to model instruction and reflect on one’s own practice with teachers(IRA 2.2,
2.3, 4.4, 5.3)
5. Demonstrate ability to support teachers in creating a literate environment ( IRA 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)
6. Demonstrate ability to identify school/district wide needs related to reading/language arts
instruction within and across grade levels ( IRA 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)
7. Demonstrate ability to support professional learning communities by facilitating professional
study groups, follow-up reflection, and application for teachers and staff (IRA 5.2; 3.4, 3.5)
8. Demonstrate ability to develop, implement, and evaluate small and large group professional
development sessions for teachers, literacy support staff, parents, and the community ( IRA 5.1,
5.2, 5.3, 5.4)
Standards Matrix
IRA Standards
ECSU Education
Unit Conceptual
Framework
1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
1.4, 3.1
Content Knowledge
2.1, 2.2, 2.3,
3.1, 3.2, 3.3,
4.1, 4.3, 4.4
Pedagogical
Knowledge
1.3, 1.4, 2.1,
2.2, 2.3, 3.1,
3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3
2.2, 3.1, 4.2
Integration of
Knowledge
Connecticut Common Core
of Teaching
NCATE
Standards
INTASC
Principles
Content 3, 4
1a, 1b, 1e
Principle 1,
7
Students 1, 2; Pedagogy 5, 6;
Planning 1, 2;
Instructing 3, 4, 5, 6;
Assessing and Adjusting 7
Content 3,4; Planning 1, 2
1b, 1c, 1d, 1e,
1f, 1g, 3a, 3b,
3c
Principle 110
1a, 1b, 3a
Principle 1,
4, 7,
Instructing 5
1a, 1b, 1e, 3c
Principle 6
Students 2; Pedagogy 6;
Professional and Ethical
Practice 1, 2
Professional and Ethical
Practice 1, 2; Reflection and
Continuous Learning 3, 4;
Leadership and Collaboration
5, 6
1g, 3c, 4a, 4b,
4c, 4d
Principle 3,
5, 7, 8
1g, 3c, 4d
Principle 7,
9, 10
Technology as
Teaching Tool
1.3, 2.3, 3.3,
4.1, 4.2
Diversity
3.3, 3.4, 5.1,
5.2, 5.3, 5.4
Professionalism
2
COURSE REQUIREMENTS
1. Punctual Attendance, Readings, and Class Participation
2. Completion of Assignments (see below)
3. Active participation in all large & small group activities; individual activities & presentations
4. All papers are to be completed on a word processor. For this course, journal writing and certain
assignments will be exempted from this requirement.
5. All formal papers must follow American Psychological Association (APA) guidelines for format and
references.
ASSIGNMENTS
 All assignments should be saved. Please hand me a hard copy as well as emailing me an electronic
copy of your work.
 All papers are to be completed on a word processor.
 Papers should follow the latest addition of the American Psychological Association (APA)
guidelines.
 In addition to preparing for, attending and participating in all class sessions, candidates will
complete the following assignments.
1.
Analysis of School Wide Literacy Program and Action Plan for Educational Reform
(60 points)
Based on International Reading Association Standards for Exemplary Reading Programs,
research on evidenced-based best practices, and standards developed in class, candidates will:
 Utilize and evaluate an inventory tool for gathering information/data on school needs for
professional development, assessment, instruction, intervention relative to literacy.
 Analyze data from focus groups (teachers, specialists, support staff, administration) and align
with data from inventory tool
 Analyze data set from school/district including CMTs, district, school, and program level data
 Develop Action Plans for School Literacy Reform based upon above findings
(To be included in your portfolio) See end of course outline for details.
2.
Literacy Coaching: (60 points)
Using the “Coaching Cycle” candidates will:
 Collaboratively plan literacy strategy instruction with a teacher or paraprofessional, including
the creation of lesson plans.
 Invite a teacher or paraprofessional to observe your lesson. Use a Reading Lesson Evaluation
form to collaboratively review your lesson and develop steps for improvement.
 Follow the same process to observe teacher or paraprofessional’s implementation of a literacy
strategy instruction lesson.
 Use a Reading Lesson Evaluation form to collaboratively review the paraprofessional or
classroom teacher’s lesson and develop steps for improvement
 Write a critical reflection on the impact of your coaching experience on your professional
development as a literacy specialist.
(Your lesson plan, evaluation report, and reflection will be included in your portfolio.)
3.
Leading a Study Group: (35 Points)
Candidates will:
 Organize and facilitate a mini-study group of teachers (professional learning community)
based on an appropriate professional article linked to the needs of your school.
 Write a study group plan that includes rationale, goals, focus questions, feedback/evaluation,
and follow-up plans.
 Participant in/lead a study group
 Write a critical reflection of your experience.
4.
Conducting a Professional Workshop: (35 points)
3
Candidates will:
 Work individually or with a colleague to teach (30-40 minutes) about a researchbased current topic of interest in literacy education as a rehearsal for presentation at school
and a professional conference.
 Candidates make arrangements to present their workshop to colleagues on-site in their school.
Documentation will consist of written proposal submitted to administrator.
 Candidates will participate in a Professional Development Day Roundtable to present their
plans.
5.
Writing a Grant: (30 points)
Candidates will:
 Research grant opportunities and application guidelines in their school and district
 Create an abstract to apply for a grant based on guidelines.
 Write a critical reflection of your experience – relating your experience to the IRA 2003
Standards for Reading Professionals.
Documentation will include:
 Identification of grant and guidelines
 Abstract
 Reflection
 Participate in Grant Proposal Colloqium
6.
Assignment 6: Self-Monitoring Your Reading of Professional
Texts and Literature, and Implications for Teaching Strategies:
Candidates will:
 Monitor the most important strategies used when reading
professional and journal articles. Each day, you will make one journal entry
regarding what you do to monitor your reading and reflect on how the
information you read fits with your current schema on literacy coaching. You
will share your journal entry with a colleague and each record a brief written
response. These must be in a notebook and must be legible if handwritten.
(30 points)
7.
Quizzes will be worth 10 points each. There are 5 quizzes.
(50 points)
ASSESSMENT OF CANDIDATE OUTCOMES/OBJECTIVES:
1. Outcomes 1through 8 will be directly assessed through class discussion and regular assessment through
quizzes.
2. Outcome 1 will be assessed by Assignments 1 and 2.
3. Outcome 2 and 3 will be assessed by Assignment 2
4. Outcomes 4 and 6 will be assessed through in class projects and Assignment 2 and 4, and 6
5. Outcomes 5, 7 and 8 will be assessed through Assignments 3 and 4.
6. Outcome 6 will be assessed through presentations, Assignments 5
GRADING CRITERIA
Your final grade for the course will represent a comprehensive, integrative evaluation of punctual
attendance, class participation, and completion of all class assignments. This grade will reflect your
commitment to learning in our class and the level of knowledge, understanding, and performance skill you
demonstrate. All major assignments will be graded using rubrics that you will have in advance of the
assignments to guide your completion. As part of our reflective process, you will self-grade yourself. We
will confer if we do not agree on a grade. YOU MUST HAND IN A COMPLETED RUBRIC THAT
ACCOMPANIES EACH ASSIGNMENT.
Candidates who do not achieve Target standard will receive feedback and are required to revise.
SPECIAL NEEDS:
Accommodations will be provided for students who have special needs. Please inform the instructor.
4
Students who have disabilities which they believe entitle them to accommodations under the Americans
with Disabilities Act should register with the AccessAbility Services office. To request accommodations,
students must schedule an appointment with a coordinator.
PROFESIONAL MEMBERSHIP
All candidates are encouraged to join the International Reading Association and/or other professional
organizations (including the Connecticut Reading Association) and/or the National Council of Teachers of
English), and are encouraged to attend professional conferences, such as the Connecticut Reading
Association Conference, or other professional conferences or professional development workshops.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Academic integrity, a commitment to honesty, fairness, respect, and responsibility, is the
foundation for the learning process. All members of the ECSU community are held to the highest standards
of academic honesty. While recognizing the participatory nature of education, academic integrity is taken
very seriously.
Candidates must demonstrate personal commitment to academic integrity by submitting work that
originates in one’s own thinking and imagination, by analyzing and evaluating information, and by always
submitting your best efforts. Work should be supplemented and supported a variety of research-based
sources; however, it is the candidate’s responsibility to properly cite sources at all times.
TENTATIVE FOCUS FOR CLASS MEETINGS AND SCHEDULE OF ASSIGNMENTS
Session
Class Focus
Assignments
9:00-4:15
1
2
Introduction and Overview
Introduction to IRA Standards for Professionals.
Introduction to IRA Exemplary Reading Program
guidelines.
History of Professional Development
Understanding the Role of the Literacy Coach (B)
Coaching Models
Continuum of Coaching (H)
Coaching for Theoretical, Aesethstic, and
Procedural Understanding (L)
Adult Learning Model
Introduction to Schoolwide Analysis assignment
Elements of Successful Coaching – 5 Year Plan
(M)
Practical aspects of coaching
Assessment and Identifying program strengths and
needs:
Planning for leadership initiatives.
Inventory, Focus Groups/Interviews/Data Analysis
Action Planning
5
IRA Standards for Reading professionals:
Revised (2003)
IRA Guidelines for Exemplary Reading
Program award
Teaching & Professional Attitude Survey
(Puig)
Puig & Froelich Ch 1,2
Jay & Strong: Ch 1,2
Shaw Article
Shen, Rao, & Dobles Article
Begin Journal
School Data
Jay and Strong Ch 9, 10
Puig & Froelich Ch 3, 4, 5
Continue Journal
Begin Assignment 1
Quiz
3
4
The Coaching Cycle:
Observation of Cycle: Planning and Reflective
Conferences
Co-Learner w/ teachers, librarians, specialists
paraprofessionals, community
School/Home Connections, Initiatives to involve
parents. Cultural influences on literacy and
learning. Examining parent involvement and
diversity
Culturally Proficient Coaching: Mental Model of
Culturally Proficient Coaching
Behaviors in Professional Communities; Norms of
Collaborative Work
Alignment of Culturally Proficient & Cognitive
Coaching
Coaching Administrators
Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials
Responding to individual differences/differentiated
instruction.
Classroom assessment and Data Management
Learning Centers & Linking literacy with
technology.
Introduction to Conducting a Study Group
Puig and Froelich Ch 6, 7
Jay & Strong Ch 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 –assigned
Culturally Proficient Coach Self Assessment
Continue Journal
Continue Assignment 1
Assignment 2
Quiz
Puig and Froelich Ch 8, 9
Gibson & Hasbrouck Ch 1, 2, 3, 6
Continue Journal
Continue Assignment 2
Assignment 3, Planning Assignment 4
5
6
Schoolwide Reform: Initiatives and obstacles.
Role of the literacy specialist as a staff developer.
Governmental programs that support literacy.
Grant writing. Planning professional presentations.
Writing for professional journals. Lifelong
professional development.
Study Groups Meet
Role of literacy specialist as a supervisor of
paraprofessionals or instructional aides.
Professional Development Roundtable
Literacy Grant Colloquium
Quiz
Continue Journal
Continue Assignment 4
Assignment 6
Quiz
Quiz
Assignments Due
Assignment 1; Analysis of School Wide Literacy Program and Action Plan for Improvement
Exemplary Reading Program Award
 Based on the 10 Standards established by the International Reading Association for IRA
Exemplary Reading Programs (see below) and the specific criteria we develop in class to evaluate
strengths and weaknesses for each Standard, conduct an in-depth analysis of your school’s literacy
program. Candidates will identify K-3, Upper Elementary, Middle Grades, or High School as a
focus. Make detailed notes regarding each standard and specific criteria based on observations and
experiences.
 Using an inventory tool, identify “School-wide Reading and Literacy Supports” focused on
instruction, assessment, intervention, perceived professional development needs, and classroom
reading practices/strategies.
 Interview the following persons to gain multiple perspectives regarding the strengths and
weaknesses of your school’s literacy program based on the IRA Standards for Exemplary
Reading Programs:
►Principal
►Reading Specialist(s)
►Staff Developer and/or Mentor Teacher (if positions exist)
6
►Experienced Classroom Teacher – or teachers
►Active Parent – or parents (e.g., PTA President)
Discuss potential next steps for an action plan for improvement with each person you interview.
Make notes regarding their perspectives.
Analyze your findings based on ecological observations, teacher/staff inventory, and interviews and create
a summary of findings. Consider:
 Creating a print-rich, high standards literacy program that demonstrates:
 Creation of a high-standards literacy environment that engages all students and immerses them in
authentic literacy experiences (physical, social, and intellectual)
 Respect and valuing diversity by creating culturally sensitive programs that respond to the needs
of all students
 Aligning schoolwide goals with schoolwide assessment analysis that identifies instruction
priorities and develops literacy curriculum.
 Substantial number of texts in a wide variety of genres, along with support materials, that are
educationally and developmentally appropriate to meet the needs of all students, including an
emphasis on multicultural literature.
 Implementation of a comprehensive, balanced literacy program to meet the needs of all students,
including providing large blocks of time devoted to literacy learning, providing multiple
opportunities for students to read authentic literature and creatively respond in a variety of
multimodal and multisensory ways, and providing effective literacy instruction from
knowledgeable and skilled teachers.
 Involving parents as partners in the literacy development of their children.
 Effective uses of technology to support literacy development.
 Integration of curriculum across the content areas.
 Commitment to professional development.

Present your findings:
For each Standard:
►Create a chart/table of your analysis that identifies school’s literacy program strengths
and weaknesses based on IRA Standards and the criteria we established for each
Standard.
►Write a narrative that synthesizes the findings presented in the table/chart, including
multiple perspectives.

Create an Action Plan for Improvement by identifying one initiative that you believe will
increase the effectiveness of the school’s literacy program. Provide specific details regarding your
process for implementing your plan with a timeline for following through on your initiative.

Present your action plan.
Rubric for evaluating analysis and action plan will be provided.
International Reading Association Standards for Exemplary Reading Programs
1.
Student Learning is Enhanced by the Reading Program
2.
Students Like to Read
3.
Students are Achieving Success in Reading
4.
Administrators (Building and/or District) are Involved in the Reading Program
5.
Teachers, Parents, and the Community are Involved in the Reading Program
7
6.
The School and/or District Offers Support Services to the Program
7.
Listening, Speaking, and Writing are Integrated Into the Reading Program
8.
Reading Activities Occur Outside of School
9.
Comprehension Strategies are Taught in the Reading Program and Applied in Other
Content Areas
10. The Reading Program is Consistent With Sound Theory and Appropriate Research
Assignment 2; Literacy Coaching
6.


Meet with classroom teacher or paraprofessional to identify focuses for literacy instruction.
Collaboratively plan literacy instruction with the classroom teacher or paraprofessional,
including the creation of a lesson plan. Introduce Reading Lesson Evaluation form as a
protocol for observing.

Conduct lesson. Complete post-lesson conference with classroom teacher or paraprofessional
to evaluate effectiveness and provide feedback based on Reading Lesson Evaluation form.

Repeat experience by collaboratively planning literacy instruction for the classroom teacher or
paraprofessional to implement, including the creation of a lesson plan and review of the
Reading Lesson Evaluation form as a protocol for observing.

Observe classroom teacher or paraprofessional’s implementation of lesson.

Collaboratively use Reading Lesson Evaluation form to evaluate effectiveness and provide
feedback to classroom teacher or paraprofessional by discussing observations and providing
an informal evaluation review.
Write a critical reflection on what you learned as a literacy specialist regarding the impact of being
a literacy coach.
Your lesson plans and critical reflection will be included in your portfolio.
Rubric for evaluating literacy coaching be provided.
Assignment 3: Leading a Study Group
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Organize and facilitate a mini-study group of teachers based on an appropriate professional article
that meets the needs of teachers and is aligned with IRA Standard Two: Instructional Strategies
and Curriculum Materials
Write a study group plan that includes rationale, goals, focus questions, and follow-up plans.
Conduct your study group.
Elicit response from group members using the evaluation included, or a similar form.
Write a critical reflection of your experience.
Rubric for evaluating leading a study group will be provided.
8
Study Group Evaluation Form
Name of Group Facilitator:
Focus for Study Group:
SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
N = Neutral
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
Circle your response.
1. This study group was helpful.
SA
A
N
D
SD
2. The facilitator effectively
organized this study group.
SA
A
N
D
SD
3. I got good ideas.
SA
A
N
D
SD
Comments and/or Suggestions:
Assignment 4: Conducting a Professional Workshop
Candidates will:
 Work individually or with a colleague to teach (30-40 minutes) about a researchbased current topic of interest in literacy education as a rehearsal for presentation at school
9


and a professional conference.
Candidates make arrangements to present their workshop to colleagues on-site in their school.
Documentation will consist of written proposal submitted to administrator.
Candidates will participate in a mock Professional Development Day planning meeting to
present their plans
Rubric for evaluating professional workshop planning will be provided.
Assignment 5: Writing a Grant Proposal
1.
2.
3.
4.
Research procedures in your District for teachers and reading specialists/literacy coaches to write
a grant to fund projects that enrich your school’s literacy program. Communicate with principal
and appropriate District personnel.
Based on analysis of school needs (Assignment 1), write an abstract of a grant you will develop to
enrich your school’s literacy program. Submit your grant proposal abstract to your principal for
feedback.
Include your abstract in your portfolio with the understanding that you will follow through with a
grant proposal to enrich your school’s literacy program.
Grant proposals will be presented in class in a poster session.
Rubric for evaluating grant proposal activity will be provided.
10
Supplemental Texts & Readings:
Allen, J. (2006). Becoming a literacy leader: Supporting learning and change. Portland,
ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Allington, R.L. & Cunningham, P.M. (2001). Schools that work: Where all children read
and write. (2nd Ed.) New York: Longman.
Allington, R. L. (2006). Reading specialists, reading teachers, reading coaches: A
Question of credentials. Reading Today, 23(4), 16-17.
Ashbaler, B., &Morgan, J. (2006). Paraprofessionals in the classroom. Boston, MA:
Pearson: Allyn & Bacon.
Bean, R. (2004). The reading specialist. New York: Guilford Press.
Bean, R. (2005, May). How is coaching defined? Paper presented at IRA; San Antonio.
Bean, R., Swan, A., & Knaub, R. (2003). Reading specialists in schools with
exemplary reading programs: Functional, versatile, and prepared. The Reading Teacher, 56(5). 446-455.
Bean, R.M., Cassidy, J., Grumet, J.E., Shelton, D.S. & Wallis, S.R. (2002). What do
reading specialists do? Results from a national survey. The Reading Teacher, 55 (8), 736-744.
Block, C.C., Oakar, M. & Hurt, N. (2002). The expertise of literacy teachers: A
continuum from preschool to grade 5. Reading Research Quarterly, 37 (2), 178-207.
Bloom, G., Castagna, C., Moir, E., & Warren, B. (2005). Blended coaching; Skills and
Strategies to support principal development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Feger, S., Woleck, K., & Hickman, P. (2004). How to develop a coaching eye. Journal
of Staff Development, 25(2), 14-18.
Feola, D.A. & Connolly, R.A. (Eds.) (2002). Changing teachers or teachers changing:
Multiple lenses on professional development. Dubuque: IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Hasbrouck, J., & Denton, C. (2005). The reading coach: A how-to manual for success.
Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
IRA/NCTE Literacy Coaches Clearinghouse. (2005). Reading Today, 23, (3),3.
Kise, J. (2006). Differentiated coaching: A framework for helping teachers change.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lindsey, D., Martinez, R., & Lindsey, R. (2007). Culturally proficient coaching:
Supporting educators to create equitable schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Lyons, C.A. & Pinnell, G.S. (2001). Systems for change in literacy education: A guide to
professional development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J. & Pollack, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Associations for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
McKenna, M.,& Wapole, S. (2008). The literacy coaching challenge: Models and
Methods for grades K-8. New York: Guilford Press.
11
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the
national reading panel: Teaching children to read (executive summary). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. (Available at: www.nationalreadingpanel.org).
Quatroche, D.J., Bean, R. M. and Hamilton, R.L. (2001). The role of the reading
specialist: A review of research. The Reading Teacher 55 (3), 282-294.
Ruddell, R.B. (1995). Those influential literacy teachers: Meaning negotiators and
motivation builders. The Reading Teacher 48 (6), 454-463.
Shaw, M., Smith, W., Chesler, B., & Romeo, L. (2005). Moving forward: The reading
Specialist as literacy coach. Reading Today, 22(6), 6.
Speck, M., & Knipe, C. (2001). Why can’t we get it right? Professional development
in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Tate, M. (2004). “Sit and get” won’t grow dendrites: 20 professional learning strategies
that engage the adult brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Toll, C. (2006). The literacy coach’s desk referenece: processes and perspectives for
effective coaching.Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Villa, R., Thousand, J., & Nevin, A. (2008). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for
facilitating students learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Vogt, M., & Shearer, B. (2007). Reading specialists and literacy coaches in the real
world. Boston, MA: Pearson: Allyn & Bacon.
`
Wepner, S.B., Strickland, D.S. & Feeley, J.T. (Eds.) (2002). The administration and
supervision of reading programs. (3rd Ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
12
RLA 520 Seminar Literacy Coaching (Analysis of Schoolwide Literacy program and Action Plan for Improvement, Literacy
Coaching, Conducting a Study Group, Presenting a Professional Development Workshop)
IRA 2003 Standards Addressed: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4)
Rating Indicator
Standard Two: Candidates
use a wide range of
instructional practices,
approaches, methods, and
curriculum materials to
support reading and
writing instruction
(2.1, 2.2, 2.3)
Standard Three:
Candidates use a variety of
assessment tools and
practices to plan and
evaluate effective reading
instruction.
(3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)
1
Indicator Not Met
● Minimal analysis of school wide
practices to determine if varied
groupings are used to meet the full
range of individual needs.
●Minimal analysis of school wide
implementation of a literacy
program to determine if it provides
a wide range of research-based
instructional practices, approaches,
and methods to meet the full range
of student needs.
●Minimal analysis of school wide
uses of texts and curriculum
materials, including technology, to
determine if it meets the full range
of student needs.
2
Indicator Met
●General analysis of school wide
practices to determine if varied
groupings are used to meet the full
range of individual needs.
●General analysis of school wide
implementation of a literacy
program to determine if it provides
a wide range of research-bassed
instructional practices, approaches,
and methods to meet the full range
of student needs.
●Generalanalysis of school wide
uses of texts and curriculum
materials, including technology, to
determine if it meets the full range
of student needs.
●Minimal analysis of school wide
assessment program to determine if
it appropriately uses a wide range
of assessments, including
technology, to plan and evaluate
effective reading instruction that
meets the needs of all students.
●Minimal analysis of school wide
use of assessment data to place
students along a developmental
continuum, identify students’
proficiencies and difficulties, and
design instruction.
●Minimal analysis of
communication of assessment data
●General analysis of school wide
assessment program to determine if
it appropriately uses a wide range
of assessments, including
technology, to plan and evaluate
effective reading instruction that
meets the needs of all students.
●General analysis of school wide
use of assessment data to place
students along a developmental
continuum, identify students’
proficiencies and difficulties, and
design instruction.
●General analysis of
13
3
Indicator Exceeds Met
●Detailed, comprehensive analysis
of school wide practices to
determine if varied groupings are
used to meet the fill range of
individual needs.
●Detailed, comprehensive analysis
of school wide implementation of a
literacy program to determine if it
provides a wide range of researchbased instructional practices,
approaches, and methods to meet
the full range of student needs.
●Detailed, comprehensive analysis
of school wide uses of texts and
curriculum materials, including
technology, to determine if it meets
the full range of student needs.
●Detailed, comprehensive analysis
of school wide assessment program
to determine if it appropriately
uses a wide range of assessments,
including technology, to plan and
evaluate effective reading
instruction that meets the needs of
all students.
●Detailed, comprehensive analysis
of school wide use of assessment
data to place students along a
developmental continuum, identify
students’ proficiencies and
difficulties, and design instruction.
●Detailed, comprehensive analysis
Score
to all persons who are interested in
each child’s learning.
communication of assessment data
to all persons who are interested in
each child’s learning.
of communication of assessment
data to all persons who are
interested in each child’s learning.
Standard Four:
Candidates will create a
literate environment that
fosters reading and writing
by integrating foundational
knowledge, use of
instructional practices,
approaches and methods,
curriculum materials, and
the appropriate use of
assessments.
(4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)
●Minimal analysis of school wide
focus on student interests,
achievement, and background to
guide the literacy program.
●Minimal analysis of school wide
use of a large supply of print and
nonprint materials, including
technology, to guide literacy the
literacy program.
●Minimal analysis of school wide
role of teachers who
enthusiastically model reading and
writing.
●Minimal analysis of school wide
initiatives to motivate learners to
read and write
●Generalanalysis of school wide
focus on student interests,
achievement, and background to
guide the literacy program.
●General analysis of school wide
use of a large supply of print and
nonprint materials, including
technology, to guide literacy the
literacy program.
●General analysis of school wide
role of teachers who
enthusiastically model reading and
writing.
●General analysis of school wide
initiatives to motivate learners to
read and write
Standard Five:
Candidates view
professional development as
a career-long effort and
responsibility.
(5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4)
●Minimal analysis of school wide
commitment to involve families,
colleagues, and communities to
support student learning.
●Minimal analysis of school wide
commitment to support
professional development of
knowledge, skills, and
dispositions.
●Minimal analysis of school wide
commitment to create
communication and collaboration
through observations and dialogue.
●Minimal plan to take a leadership
role in improving school wide
literacy instruction based on school
wide analysis.
●Little or no evidence that analysis
and action plan are communicated
●General analysis of school wide
commitment of school wide
commitment to involve families,
colleagues, and communities to
support student learning.
●General analysis of school wide
commitment to support
professional development of
knowledge, skills, and
dispositions.
●General analysis of school wide
commitment to create
communication and collaboration
through observations and dialogue.
.
●General plan to take a leadership
role in improving school wide
literacy instruction based on school
wide analysis.
●Detailed, comprehensive analysis
of school wide focus on student
interests, achievement, and
background to guide the literacy
program.
●Detailed, comprehensive analysis
of school wide use of large supply
of print and nonprint materials,
including technology, to guide
literacy the literacy program.
●Detailed, comprehensive analysis
of school wide role of teachers
who enthusiastically model reading
and writing.
●Detailed, comprehensive analysis
of school wide initiatives to
motivate learners to read and write.
●Detailed, comprehensive analysis
of school wide commitment to
involve families, colleagues, and
communities to support student
learning.
●Detailed, comprehensive analysis
of school wide commitment to
support professional development
of knowledge, skills, and
dispositions.
●Detailed, comprehensive analysis
of school wide commitment to
create communication and
collaboration through observations
and dialogue.
●Detailed, comprehensive plan to
take a leadership role in improving
school wide literacy instruction
based on school wide analysis.
14
to all school constituencies
Written Communication
Organization and presentation of
ideas is limited.
Significant spelling, grammar,
and/or mechanical errors.
Does not follow APA format.
●Some evidence that analysis and
action plan are communicated to
all school constituencies.
Organization and presentation of
ideas is effective; professional
presentation.
Few spelling, grammar, and/or
mechanical errors.
Mostly follows APA format.
●Strong evidence that analysis and
action plan are communicated to
all school constituencies.
Organization and presentation of
ideas is exemplary with great
clarity and cohesiveness;
professional presentation.
No spelling, grammar, and/or
mechanical errors.
Follows APA format.
Above Standard: 17-18 points.
At Standard: 15-16 points.
Approaching Standard: 14 points.
Unacceptable: <14 points.
Candidates who do not achieve target level of At Standard must meet with the professor to develop a plan for improving performance.
15
GRANT WRITING RUBRIC
1
Indicator Not Met
2
Indicator Met
STANDARD 1
FOUNDATIONAL
KNOWLEDGE
(Candidates have
knowledge of the
foundations of
reading and writing
processes and
instruction.) (1.1, 1.2,
1.3,)
Inaccurate or
incomplete
understanding of
major theories related
to language
development and
learning to read.
Inaccurate or
incomplete
understanding of
summaries of seminal
reading research
studies with their
impact on reading
instruction.
●Inaccurate or
incomplete
understanding of the
nature of reading and
writing as involving
multiple processes.
General
understanding of
major theories related
to language
development and
learning to read.
General
understanding of
summaries of seminal
reading research
studies with their
impact on reading
instruction.
●General
understanding of the
nature of reading and
writing as involving
multiple processes.
STANDARD 3
ASSESSMENT,
DIAGNOSIS, AND
EVALUATION
(Candidates use a
variety of assessment
tools and practices to
plan and evaluate
effective reading [and
writing] instruction.
(3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)
●Inaccurate or
incomplete evidence
of using a wide variety
assessment tools and
practices that are fair,
nonbiased, authentic,
and ongoing.
●Inaccurate or
incomplete evidence
of using a wide variety
of assessment tools
and practices that
identify student
strengths and
weaknesses along a
developmental
continuum.
●Inaccurate or
incomplete evidence
of using a wide range
of assessment tools
and practices to inform
instruction for all
students, monitor
progress, and
communicate
●General evidence of
using a wide variety
assessment tools and
practices that are fair,
nonbiased, authentic,
and ongoing.
●General evidence of
using a wide variety
of assessment tools
and practices that
identify student
strengths and
weaknesses along a
developmental
continuum.
●General evidence of
using a wide range of
assessment tools and
practices to inform
instruction for all
students, monitor
progress, and
communicate
information
Rating Indicator
16
3
Indicator Exceeds
Met
Comprehensive,
detailed
understanding of
major theories related
to language
development and
learning to read.
Comprehensive,
detailed summaries
of seminal reading
research studies with
their impact on
reading instruction.
●Comprehensive,
detailed
understanding of the
nature of reading and
writing as involving
multiple processes.
●Comprehensive,
detailed evidence of
using a wide variety
assessment tools and
practices that are fair,
nonbiased, authentic,
and ongoing.
●Comprehensive,
detailed evidence of
using a wide variety
of assessment tools
and practices that
identify student
strengths and
weaknesses along a
developmental
continuum.
●Comprehensive,
detailed evidence of
using a wide range of
assessment tools and
practices to inform
instruction for all
students, monitor
progress, and
communicate
Score
STANDARD 5
PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
(Candidates view
professional
development as a
career-long effort and
responsibility.) (5.1,
5.2, 5.3, 5.4)
WRITTEN
COMMUNICATION
information
Little evidence of
pursuing professional
development,
including professional
membership, reading
professional literature,
and participating in
conferences.
●Little evidence of
taking a leadership
role in improving
education, including
being a literacy coach.
Little evidence of
modeling ethical
professional behavior.
●Little evidence of
displaying a positive
disposition by
reflecting on practice
to improve instruction.
Organization and
presentation of ideas is
limited.
Significant spelling,
grammar, and/or
mechanical errors.
Does not follow APA
format.
Some evidence of
pursuing professional
development,
including
professional
membership, reading
professional
literature, and
participating in
conferences.
●Some evidence of
taking a leadership
role in improving
education, including
being a literacy
coach.
Some evidence of
modeling ethical
professional
behavior.
●Some evidence of
displaying a positive
disposition by
reflecting on practice
to improve
instruction.
Organization and
presentation of ideas
is effective;
professional
presentation.
Few spelling,
grammar, and/or
mechanical errors.
Mostly follows APA
format.
Above Standard: 11-12
At Standard: 9-10 points
Approaching Standard: 8 points…candidates required to revise
Below Standard: <8 points…candidates required to meet with professor
17
information.
Strong evidence of
pursuing professional
development,
including,
professional
membership, reading
professional
literature, and
participating in
conferences.
. ●Strong evidence of
taking a leadership
role in improving
education, including
being a literacy
coach.
Strong evidence of
modeling ethical
professional
behavior.
Strong evidence of
displaying a positive
disposition by
reflecting on practice
to improve
instruction.
Organization and
presentation of ideas
is exemplary with
great clarity and
cohesiveness;
professional
presentation.
No spelling,
grammar, and/or
mechanical errors.
Follows APA
format.