Handbook
Table of Contents
Section A: An Overview of the Graduate Reading Program
- UW-La Crosse Teacher Education Conceptual Framework
- The Mission of the Graduate Reading Program: Service and Leadership
- Standards for Reading Professionals
- Services Provided by the Program
- The Master’s Program in Reading Education
- Licensing Under PI 34
- Content Guidelines for Reading Teachers and Reading Specialists
- Administrator Standards for Reading Specialists
- Conceptual Underpinnings of Course Content
- Field Experiences
Section B: Capstone Experiences
Section C: The Professional Reading Portfolio
- What is the Professional Reading Program Portfolio?
- How will my Development as a Reading Teacher or Specialist be Evaluated?
- Before You Begin
- Portfolio Contents
- Format
- Submitting Your Work
Appendices
- Content Guidelines for Reading Teachers
- Content Guidelines for Reading Specialist
- Model Caption Sheet
- Evaluation Form for the Professional Portfolio
- Rubric for the Comprehensive Examination
Section A: An Overview of the Graduate Reading Program
UW-La Crosse Teacher Education Conceptual Framework and Standards
At the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse we believe that teachers are active and healthy learners, leaders, and community members. This conceptual framework, along with the ten Teacher Education Standards and professional standards, represent the foundation and mission of UW-L teacher education programs.
The Mission of the Graduate Reading Program: Service and Leadership
The UW-La Crosse Graduate Program in Reading Education is dedicated first and foremost to preparing graduate students who serve communities, families, students, schools and fellow educators as leaders in literacy education. Through preparation and experiences in developmental and exceptional literacy instruction and assessment, educators who are students in the UW-La Crosse Graduate Reading Program develop their knowledge, skills, and dispositions as classroom teachers of reading, as Title I or other Reading teachers, or as Reading Specialists or Consultants for schools and/or districts. Graduates of the Reading Program at UW-La Crosse are prepared to model current and authentic best practice in literacy education; to seek and identify research-based strategies and resources; to provide services and support in literacy assessment, diagnosis, and evaluation; to remain accountable to constituent groups; and to advocate for students, families, and colleagues.
Standards for Reading Professionals
UW-L’s Graduate Reading Program philosophy reflects the Standards for Reading Professionals of the International Reading Association and the Teacher Standards of the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, and is based on current research and best practice in the fields of reading and language arts.
The specialized knowledge, skills, and dispositions emphasized in the Graduate Reading Program reflect the Standards for Reading Professionals (revised 2003) of the International Reading Association (IRA). The categories of specialized knowledge, skills, and dispositions addressed in the IRA standards are as follows:
1. Foundational Knowledge
2. Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials
3. Assessment, Diagnosis, and Evaluation
4. Creating a Literate Environment
5. Professional Development
Services Provided by the Program
Graduate students may pursue a Master of Science in education – reading degree; certification as a reading teacher or reading specialist; and/or professional development in the field of reading education. The Reading program also provides foundational work in reading for graduate students in Special Education, School Psychology, and the Master of Education – Professional Development program.
Through the UW-L Rhea Pederson Reading Center, faculty and graduate students in the program are able to offer diagnostic services and tutoring in literacy for area school children and adolescents.
The program serves area teachers through its resource collection in the Rhea Pederson Reading Center and its co-sponsorship of the Midwest Wisconsin Reading Council, an affiliate of the Wisconsin State Reading Association and the International Reading Association, which publishes a newsletter and holds an annual fall conference on the UW-L campus.
The Master’s Program in Reading Education
Students seeking a master of science in education - reading degree may select one of the following tracks: (1) classroom teacher; (2) reading teacher; or (3) reading specialist. Completion of coursework in the reading teacher and reading specialist tracks qualifies the candidate for either 316 reading teacher or 17 (formerly 317) reading specialist certification.
All students take a common core of courses as well as courses in the program option they have selected. Course offerings and course sequences will be explained more fully in other sections of this report.
Licensing Under PI 34
License stages under PI 34 include the Initial Educator, Professional Educator, and the optional Master Educator. See the Wisconsin DPI website for more information about license levels. Preparation programs for students endorsed by institutions of higher education for educational licenses after August 31, 2004, were required to meet PI 34 requirements. All persons completing initial programs in Wisconsin or out-of-state after August 31, 2004 are issued either the Initial Educator License or an Initial Educator License With Stipulations. This provision includes those who are acquiring a new Reading 316 or 17 license.
Content Guidelines for Reading Teachers and Reading Specialists
As part of PI 34, the rules for teacher licensing which became effective in 2004, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) has developed content guidelines for content areas and specialized areas, including Reading Teacher and Reading Specialist. The UW-La Crosse Graduate Reading Program meets all of these guidelines.
Administrator Standards for Reading Specialists
Wisconsin law PI 34 defines the Reading Specialist as an administrator. Therefore, candidates for the Reading 17 license must meet the DPI Administrator Standards for Reading Specialists.
Conceptual Underpinnings of Course Content
Program offerings reflect cognitively-oriented and socially-oriented constructivist views of reading. The cognitively-oriented view which draws upon schema theory focuses on the individual reader’s negotiation of meaning with an unseen author. In the socially-oriented view which is based on the work of Vygotsky and Bakhtin, reading is seen as a social event wherein the reader negotiates meaning with an unseen author and with a visibly present group. Common to both views is the recognition that reading is an active, meaning-building process.
Research on the cognitive processing that occurs during reading has elucidated the importance of prior knowledge, metacognition, and strategic behavior to meaning construction. Related applied research on the teaching of reading by such researchers as Paris, Palincsar, and Clay has demonstrated the effectiveness of modeling, scaffolding, and explicit instruction of word identification and comprehension strategies in developing independent, self-sustaining readers.
Similarly, research on the cognitive processing that occurs during writing (Graves, Tierney, Dyson and others) has led to an awareness that reading and writing are mutually-reinforcing processes which should be taught in relationship to one another following parallel instructional paradigms.
Applied research reflecting the social constructivist view of reading and writing has focused on building meaning by sharing ideas through discussion and writing. This work has led to the development of reader’s and writer’s workshops, various kinds of discussion groups (reader response groups, literature circles, Book Clubs) and sharing of journals (i.e., learning journals, dialogue journals). Research on creating literate environments has also focused on using authentic texts (trade books, newspapers, online resources, student work) in reading and writing instruction.
The constructivist orientation of the program is evidenced by the following:
• the conceptual framework and research base of each course
• required and recommended reading
• instructional practices
• course assignments
• assessment procedures
Field Experiences
Field experiences are an integral part of the graduate reading program. Courses with fieldwork requirements include the following:
RDG 730 Assessment and Instruction of Students with Reading Difficulties
In addition to weekly class meetings, students tutor children and adolescents who are struggling readers and writers. The tutoring is supervised by the course instructor.
RDG 747 Reading Practicum
Graduate students conduct small group instruction for struggling readers in a summer clinic under close supervision of the instructor. The summer clinic may be a part of a summer school program in an area school district.
RDG 739 Guiding and Developing School Reading Programs
Two fieldwork experiences are required in this course. The first consists of a field project related to reading program development. The second experience focuses on staff development and involves planning, carrying out, and evaluating an in-service presentation.
RDG 765 Early Reading Empowerment I and II (electives)
In this yearlong postgraduate staff development course students engage in daily 30 minute tutoring of an at-risk first grader. Sessions are videotaped, and the videotapes are used for teaching and peer coaching in the weekly three-hour class that supports the tutoring. The instructor also critiques tapes from each student and does on-site visits to provide further coaching.
Students enroll in teams consisting of kindergarten and first grade teachers, reading teachers, and LD teachers from the same school. The team approach is necessary in order to build a peer coaching network within the building and to develop a cadre of teachers with a common knowledge base.
RDG 780 Field Experience in K-12 Reading Programs
This elective course provides a professional experience in a school setting under the supervision of an experienced reading specialist, with the aim of developing the graduate student’s understanding of, and skills in, the oversight, planning, development and evaluation of a school or district’s reading program.
Section B: Capstone Experiences
Assessment of student learning is ongoing throughout the program and culminates with one of two capstone assessments at the end of the program—either the comprehensive examination or a scholarly paper (master’s thesis or seminar paper). In addition, all graduate students must complete, submit, and receive approval of their Professional Reading Portfolio at designated benchmark points.
The Comprehensive Examination
Comprehensive examinations for the graduate reading program are administered three times a year—in November, April, and July. Students are advised to begin preparing for the exam several months in advance.
Questions for the comprehensive examination are prepared by a committee of three faculty members with whom the student has taken classes. It is the responsibility of the graduate student to contact faculty members and request that they serve on his or her exam committee, and to inform the program director of the names of the three individuals who have consented to do so. Names should be forwarded to the program director no later than one month in advance of the examination date.
The examination takes three hours. Each of the three members of the committee will create two questions for the student, for a total of six. The student will choose one question from the pair written by each committee member, and write on three in all. Students need to plan their time wisely so that they allot an hour for each one of the questions.
Students should talk to their committee members about the course(s) that they took with the instructors, and ask the instructors how best to prepare for the examination. Students may choose to write their answers in long hand, in blue books, or they may write their responses to the exam questions on computers. Students who choose to use a computer must inform the program director of this request at least one week in advance of the examination, and stipulate if they prefer a Mac or a PC.
Comprehensive examinations are graded by the full committee. Each committee member reads and grades each of the three essays according to the Rubric for the Comprehensive Examination in Appendix E. Then the scores are averaged. The program director contacts each graduate student personally to convey the results of the examination.
Remember that your completed portfolio is a graduation requirement. You must schedule a meeting with the program director to review your portfolio (schedule an hour).
If you plan to graduate in a particular term, be sure to file an intent-to-graduate card with Sandra Keller, certification officer and assistant to the dean. You can do this over the phone--call her at (608) 785-8123. Sandra will do a final credit check to be sure that all your course work and graduation requirements are complete. She can also assist you with any matters related to certification.
Master’s Thesis or Seminar Paper
Students complete a seminar paper or master’s thesis under the direction of a faculty advisor. Papers must be completed in accordance with guidelines established by the UW-La Crosse Office of Graduate Studies. See the Research/Thesis Information page. Students present their work in a public forum open to students and faculty and submit a copy of their work to Murphy Library. Consult the program director for additional information.
Section C: The Professional Reading Portfolio
This section provides you with an overview of the portfolio you will develop as part of the requirements leading to university recommendation for Wisconsin 316 (Reading Teacher) or Wisconsin 17 (Reading Specialist) licensure. Detailed directions about how to prepare your portfolio appear in this section as well.
What is the Professional Reading Program Portfolio?
A teacher portfolio is a thoughtful, selective collection of artifacts that tells the story of your teaching and learning as it develops over a period of time. The artifacts document that you meet or exceed the IRA Standards for Reading Professionals and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction requirements for reading licensure. The IRA standards describe what you are to understand and be able to do in teaching and learning about Reading/Language Arts. Faculty members in the Graduate Reading Program will make a judgment about your knowledge, performances, and dispositions relative to literacy instruction. The portfolio is a way for you to document not only what you know, but also how you think and make decisions as a teacher of Reading.
The form and structure of any portfolio varies according to its purposes and audiences, but because the portfolio you are developing is going to be used for purposes of evaluation, the guidelines for its preparation are very detailed. You need to read and follow these guidelines carefully. See Portfolio Contents in this Handbook.
How will my Development as a Reading Teacher or Specialist be Evaluated?
Your development across your graduate program is certainly evaluated in each and every course you take. In addition, your Professional Reading Portfolio is a significant compilation of evidence of your developing knowledge, skills, and dispositions as a Reading educator.
Portfolios are evaluated, but they are not graded. Instead, they serve as a means to evaluate the degree to which you have attained the standards. If your work does not demonstrate that you have met the standards at either the 316 or 17 benchmark points, you will not be allowed to continue. If your portfolio does not meet the standards when you complete your coursework and fieldwork, you will not be recommended for certification. Anyone whose work is not deemed acceptable at any benchmark point may revise and resubmit his/her portfolio one more time at that benchmark.
Your development will be evaluated in light of the vision of Reading instruction and learning that is described in Standards for Reading Professionals (IRA, revised, 2003). Read the standards carefully and refer to them as you prepare your portfolio. See the Professional Reading Portfolio Evaluation Form that will be used by the faculty reviewer(s) of your portfolio.
The International Reading Association’s publication, Standards for Reading Professionals (revised 2003), contains IRA’s suggested levels of proficiency for specialized reading professionals, as follows:
A – Awareness
Has awareness of the different aspects of literacy development and related teaching procedures.
B – Basic Understanding
Has knowledge about specific instructional tasks and has fundamental proficiency in the performance of those tasks for the aspect of literacy development.
C – Comprehensive Understanding
Is able to apply proficiently broad, in-depth knowledge of the different aspects of literacy development in instructional settings.
Before You Begin
- Consult with the Director of the Graduate Reading Program. Advising is important. Where you are in your program will determine at what point you must submit your portfolio for review.
- Gather, organize and review documents you have created for your graduate Reading courses thus far.
- Acquaint yourself with this Handbook, and the portfolio process as outlined within.
- Become familiar with the Standards that govern the creation of your portfolio (e.g., IRA Standards for Reading Professionals, Wisconsin DPI Content Guidelines for Reading Teachers and Specialists, and Wisconsin DPI Administrative Guidelines for Reading Specialists).
Portfolio Contents
As you select materials to serve as artifacts in your portfolio, remember that the purpose of the standards-based professional portfolio is to showcase what you know and can do as a Reading professional. The contents of your portfolio may change as you grow and develop throughout your program. Remember that it is the responsibility of the student to present his/her knowledge, skills, and dispositions in a clear manner that can be easily understood by portfolio reviewers.
The Professional Reading Portfolio should be presented in a professional format. It may be presented in a three-ring binder, or electronically. Electronic portfolios may be created in Front Page according to one of the templates provided for this purpose. See the School of Education website page for the Graduate Reading Portfolio for the templates and information about the Technology Leadership Cadre (TLC) that provides support for you in the development of your electronic portfolio.
Your portfolio should have an Introduction or Welcome Page (electronic version) that presents you as a Reading professional. It should have a Table of Contents or links (electronic version).
The portfolio should have a Philosophy of Literacy Learning, which is a two-page essay that articulates and communicates your personal and professional beliefs about literacy.
Graduate students are required to address each of the five major IRA categories of Standards. Documentation for the nineteen standards under the five categories, from 1.1 to 5.4, is required. Each artifact that you select to document your attainment of a particular standard must be accompanied by a Caption Sheet that states the standard, explains how and why the artifact was developed, why you chose it, and how it documents that you have met the standard. It is possible to use the same artifact to document different standards.
The Professional Reading Portfolio is a two-tiered portfolio. That is, some pieces are required by the program and others are selected by the graduate student.
There are two required pieces in the 316 portfolio: every graduate student must submit a) a videotape of his/her work teaching reading and/or writing in a developmental classroom setting, and b) a videotape of his/her work teaching reading and/or writing to an individual or small group of students who have difficulty reading or writing. The tapes must consist of segments that present actual instruction by the graduate student.
Required Elements:
| Performances | Evidence |
|---|---|
Demonstrated ability to teach in the area of literacy in a regular classroom setting (developmental reading for pupils in the early childhood through adolescent levels) |
Detailed plan and description of an effective literacy lesson, tied to the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards (WMAS) for the English/Language Arts, accompanied by a videotape of a 10-15 minute segment of the lesson in which your teaching is featured. In addition to the plan and the videotape, submit a written evaluation of your planning and teaching that addresses your knowledge, skills, and dispositions relative to the IRA Standards. |
| Demonstrated ability to teach in the area of literacy in an intervention/remedial setting (small group or individual) | Detailed plan and description of an effective intervention lesson, tied to the WisconsinModel Academic Standards (WMAS) for English/Language Arts, accompanied by a videotape of a 10-15 minute segment of the lesson in which your teaching is featured. In addition to the plan and the videotape, submit a written evaluation of your planning and teaching that addresses your knowledge, skills, and dispositions relative to the IRA Standards. |
Other artifacts, or documents, you use as evidence in your professional portfolio may include but are not limited to such things as:
|
|
What Not to Include:
Because your portfolio documents your own knowledge, skills, and dispositions, it is not appropriate to include journal articles or any handouts or materials created by others. The portfolio is built around your original works, those you have created for course requirements as well as those you have created for your work in the schools and other educational settings.
Format
Some artifacts may be large or bulky, and will not fit easily within a three-ring binder or may be difficult to insert into an electronic portfolio (e.g., videotapes). You may submit them separately in a manila envelope or plastic bag, labeled with your name, the name of the artifact, and the corresponding standard.
For electronic portfolios, follow the templates provided on the School of Education website for the Graduate Reading Portfolio.
For three-ring binders, arrange your materials in this order:
- Introduction
- Table of Contents
- Philosophy of Literacy Learning
- Standards
- Caption Sheet 1.1
- Artifact for Standard 1.1
- Caption Sheet 1.2
- Artifact for Standard 1.2
- (…continue in this manner…)
- Caption Sheet 5.4
- Artifact for Standard 5.4
- Appendix (if any)
- Videotapes
Submitting Your Work
Submit your portfolio to the Director of the Graduate Reading Program. You will submit your portfolio at benchmark points for the 316 license, and for the 17 license. Portfolios must be submitted and approved prior to recommendation for certification and/or graduation from the program. Be sure to allow sufficient time for your portfolio to be reviewed by program faculty and approved. A minimum of two weeks is required for review.
Appendices
- Content Guidelines for Reading Teachers
- Content Guidelines for Reading Specialists
- Model Caption Sheet
- Professional Reading Portfolio Evaluation Form
- Rubric for the Comprehensive Examination
Appendix A: Content Guidelines for Reading Teachers
(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Supplementary Program)
Reading Teachers will demonstrate knowledge of and skill in:
1. Language Arts Standards including:
· Wisconsin Model Academic Standards for English Language Arts.
· National Standards for the English Language Arts
2. Language Arts Processes including:
· Language arts processes (reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing,
and representing) interrelationships among them.
· Interdisciplinary and integrative aspects of language arts processes.
· Perception of reading as a process of constructing meaning through the
interaction of the reader, text, and context of the reading situation.
3. Language Arts Models including:
· Strengths and weaknesses of various literacy models.
4. Research including:
· Contributions of literacy scholars to the literacy knowledge base.
· Research in reading and the language arts, special education,
psychology, and other fields that address pupils with reading and
learning disabilities.
5. Language including:
· The nature and structure of language.
· Language variation.
· Relationship of language systems (phonemic, morphemic, semantic,
syntactic, and pragmatic) to the language arts.
6. Literacy, Language Acquisition, Language Development, Cognition and Learning including:
· Major theories of literacy, language acquisition, language development,
cognition, metacognition, and learning.
· Developmental process of the language arts (reading, writing, speaking,
listening, viewing, and representing) from infancy through middle
childhood.
· Nature and multiple causes of reading disabilities.
· Major definitions of family literacy and the impact of family structures,
functions, relationships, and dynamics on literacy development and
educational progress.
7. Literature including:
· Classic and contemporary literature, fiction and non-fiction, including oral,
written and visual forms, at appropriate levels.
8. Sociocultural and Political Aspects of Literacy including:
· Literacy as a means for shaping and transmitting culture.
· Relationship between political processes and reading policy.
Appendix B: Content Guidelines for Reading Specialist
(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Administration Guidelines)
The Reading Specialist will demonstrate knowledge of and skill in:
1. Language Arts Standards including:
· Wisconsin Model Academic Standards for English Language Arts.
· National Standards for the English Language Arts
2. Language Arts Processes including:
· Language arts processes (reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing,
and representing) interrelationships among them.
· Interdisciplinary and integrative aspects of language arts processes.
· Perception of reading as a process of constructing meaning through the
interaction of the reader, text, and context of the reading situation.
3. Language Arts Models including:
· Strengths and weaknesses of various literacy models.
4. Research including:
· Contributions of literacy scholars to the literacy knowledge base.
· Research in reading and the language arts, special education,
psychology, and other fields that address pupils with reading and
learning disabilities.
· Historical and current perspectives, terminology, diagnostic procedures,
and instructional approaches in reading and the language arts,
psychology, and special education.
· Research methodologies, e.g., ethnographic, descriptive, experimental,
and historical.
5. Language including:
· The nature and structure of language.
· Language variation.
· Relationship of language systems (phonemic, morphemic, semantic,
syntactic, and pragmatic) to the language arts.
6. Literacy, Language Acquisition, Language Development, Cognition and Learning including:
· Major theories of literacy, language acquisition, language development,
cognition, metacognition, and learning.
· Developmental process of the language arts (reading, writing, speaking,
listening, viewing, and representing) from infancy through middle
childhood.
· Nature and multiple causes of reading disabilities.
· Major definitions of family literacy and the impact of family structures,
functions, relationships, and dynamics on literacy development and
educational progress.
· Cultural, linguistic, cognitive, and social aspects of literacy development
and the interrelationships among these aspects and the language arts.
· Influence of physical, psychological, social, cultural, environmental, and
cognitive factors on learning, language development, and reading.
· Influence of environmental context on use of language.
7. Literature including:
· Classic and contemporary literature, fiction and non-fiction, including oral,
written and visual forms, at appropriate levels.
· Function and variety of literary forms.
8. Sociocultural and Political Aspects of Literacy including:
· Literacy as a means for shaping and transmitting culture.
· Relationship between political processes and reading policy.
Return to Top
Appendix C: Model Caption Sheet
Also see the PDF Version.
CAPTION SHEET
STANDARD ___
Candidate’s Name:
Benchmark Point: Date:
Artifact: (name it)
Standard: (copy the exact wording here)
How and why was the artifact developed?
Why did you choose the artifact?
How does this artifact meet the standard?
Appendix D
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Professional Reading Portfolio Evaluation Forms
See the PDF Version of the Reading Specialist Portfolio Evaluation Form.
See the PDF Version of the Reading Teacher/Classroom Teacher Portfolio Evaluation Form.
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
Professional Reading Portfolio Evaluation Form
For Reading Specialist
Student: ______________________________________ Review Dates: ______ ______
Faculty Reviewer(s): ______________________________________________________
Benchmark – 316 Reading Teacher |
Benchmark – 17 Reading Specialist |
||||||
IRA Standards |
Level of Awareness |
Basic |
Compre- |
Level of Awareness |
Basic |
Compre- |
Administrator |
Standard 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard 1 |
Standard 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard 2
|
Standard 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard 3 |
Standard 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard 4 |
Standard 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard 6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard 7
|
Required Videotape/Plan/Evaluation of Developmental Instruction: ___________ (date)
Required Videotape/Plan/Evaluation of Intervention Instruction: ___________ (date)
Comments (first review):
Comments (second review):
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
Professional Reading Portfolio Evaluation Form
for Reading Teacher and Classroom Teacher of Reading
Student: ______________________________________ Review Dates: ______ ______
Faculty Reviewer(s): ______________________________________________________
Benchmark – Reading Teacher |
Benchmark – Master's |
|||||||
IRA Standards |
Level of Awareness |
Basic |
Compre- |
|
Level of Awareness |
Basic |
Compre- |
|
Standard 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Required Videotape/Plan/Evaluation of Developmental Instruction: ___________ (date)
Required Videotape/Plan/Evaluation of Intervention Instruction: ___________ (date)
Comments (first review):
Comments (second review):
Appendix E
Also see the PDF Version.
University of Wisconsin – La Crosse School of Education
Master of Science in Education - Reading
Comprehensive Examination Rubric *
Student: ____________________________ Date: ______________________ Evaluator: __________________________________
|
Evaluator's rating numbers |
||||
Category |
0 - Unsatisfactory |
1 - Marginal |
2 - Satisfactory |
3 - Accomplished |
|
Completeness of Answer |
Response demonstrates little or no understanding of the question. Information is missing and substantial parts of the question are not answered fully. |
Response demonstrates some basic under-standing of the question, but is incomplete. Some information missing and/or a few parts of the question are not answered fully. |
Response demonstrates adequate understanding of the question. Factual information is provided and all parts of the question are answered. |
Response goes beyond factual information demonstrating nuanced understanding of the question. All parts of the question are thoroughly answered. |
Question 1: ___ |
Content Knowledge in Reading/ English Language Arts |
The majority of the facts, conclusions, and statements related to Reading/Language Arts standards and content knowledge are incorrect and/or invalid. |
Some of the facts, conclusions, and statements about Reading/Language Arts standards and content knowledge are incorrect and/or invalid. |
All the facts, conclusions, and statements about Reading/Language Arts standards and content knowledge are accurate and valid. |
All facts, conclusions, and statements about Reading/Language Arts standards and content knowledge are accurate and valid, and logically support the topic. |
Question 1: ___ |
Evidence of the Integration of Literacy Theory and Best Practice in Literacy Instruction |
No or very little integration of literacy theory and best practice is present. No or very little evidence of higher-order thinking skills such as applying, analyzing, evaluating, or creating. |
Integration of literacy theory and best practice is present, yet sometimes weak. There is some evidence of higher-order thinking skills such as applying, analyzing, evaluating, or creating. |
Integration of literacy theory and best practice is present. At least two different higher-order thinking skills such as applying, analyzing, evaluating, or creating are evident. |
Integration of literacy theory and best practice is strong. Use of higher-order thinking skills such as applying, analyzing, evaluating, or creating demonstrates depth and breadth of knowledge. |
Question 1: ___ |
Citations of Relevant Research |
Citations of relevant research or references to authorities in the field are either missing or not relevant. |
Citations or references to authorities are vague or not clearly relevant to the topic. Several key issues or portions of the response are unsupported and/or incorrectly cited. |
Citations or references to authorities are evident and accurate for key issues or for portions of the response, but information is not always complete or consistently provided. |
Consistently cites references or authorities in the field that support all key issues, resulting in a knowledgeable, scholarly, and thoughtful voice throughout the response. |
Question 1: ___ |
Quality of Writing |
Response contains an abundance of errors in mechanics, usage, grammar and spelling so that meaning is obscured. There is no or little organization in the response. |
Response contains noticeable errors in mechanics, usage, grammar and spelling so that the reader is distracted from the content. There is limited organization in the response. |
Response is free of most errors in mechanics, usage, grammar and spelling so that the reader is minimally distracted from the content. Clear organization is apparent. |
Response is free of errors in mechanics, usage, grammar and spelling that would distract the reader from the content. The response is very well organized and flows logically and smoothly. |
Question 1: ___ |
Evaluator Comments: |
|
||||
Students who earn a failing grade on any question of their comprehensive exams will need to complete remedial actions as specified by their examination committees. Such actions may include any of the following: further study; re-writing portions of the exam; or re-taking the entire exam in another semester or summer session. |
|||||
Total Question 1: _____ Total Question 2: _____ Total Question 3: _____ Exam Total: _____
* Adapted from the rubric for the comprehensive examination at Martin Luther College 11/07