Empowering Leaders in a Master's in Literacy Program: Teacher Candidates' Self-Efficacy and Self-Perception as Literacy Leaders

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 26 November 2014, At: 00:40Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Empowering Leaders in a Master's inLiteracy Program: Teacher Candidates'Self-Efficacy and Self-Perception asLiteracy LeadersGeraldine Mongillo a , Salika A. Lawrence a & Carrie E. Hong aa William Paterson University of New JerseyPublished online: 11 Dec 2012.

To cite this article: Geraldine Mongillo , Salika A. Lawrence & Carrie E. Hong (2012) EmpoweringLeaders in a Master's in Literacy Program: Teacher Candidates' Self-Efficacy and Self-Perception asLiteracy Leaders, Action in Teacher Education, 34:5-6, 551-565, DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2012.730344

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.730344

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01626620.2012.730344

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.730344

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Action in Teacher Education, 34:551–565, 2012Copyright © Association of Teacher EducatorsISSN: 0162-6620 print/2158-6098 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01626620.2012.730344

Empowering Leaders in a Master’s in LiteracyProgram: Teacher Candidates’ Self-Efficacy

and Self-Perception as Literacy Leaders

Geraldine MongilloSalika A. Lawrence

Carrie E. HongWilliam Paterson University of New Jersey

The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine how the experiences in a master’s in lit-eracy program are preparing teacher candidates to be school leaders and to examine candidates’self-perception as literacy leaders before, during, and after the program. Data sources include sur-veys, field notes, course syllabi, assignments, and rubrics. Findings suggest that the use of strategiesintroduced through coursework had an impact on preparing candidates to take on leadership roles.The study also documents how some teacher-candidates develop increased awareness of the role ofthe reading specialist as leader over time. Some candidates reported that they felt empowered by theirnew knowledge and skills. Further research is recommended to determine and monitor the program’sinfluence on the candidates’ self-efficacy as school leaders intermittently throughout the program.

INTRODUCTION

Teacher educators, teachers, candidates, and administrators are affected by government policyand legislative reforms generating an ongoing debate particularly concerning implementationand accountability of these school initiatives (e.g., No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2002; Race tothe Top, 2011). Increased literacy achievement has been the focus of many policy changes, and ifreforms are to be successfully implemented within schools, skilled leadership is critical; “withoutquality internal leadership, you end up not with limited innovation, but rather its opposite-toomany fragmented, uncoordinated, flavor-of-the-month changes” (Fullan, 2007, p. 76).

In this climate, today’s schools need qualified candidates prepared to assume leadership rolesmore than ever. Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, and Hopkins (2006) maintained that, “Schoolleadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on pupil learning” (p. 10). Skilledleaders are required at various administrative levels including school-based positions such as thereading specialist/literacy coach. Additionally, leaders must be cultivated and knowledgeablebecause “growth in the abilities of a leader is the catalyst for growth of the stakeholders . . . forleaders, it becomes impossible to separate leadership and learning” (McAndrews, 2005, p. 25).

Correspondence should be addressed to Geraldine Mongillo, Educational Leadership and Professional Studies,William Paterson University, 1600 Valley Road, Room 4087, Wayne, NJ 07470. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

40 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

552 GERALDINE MONGILLO ET AL.

One issue of concern to teacher-candidates, specifically those seeking reading certification,and teacher educators is how to adequately prepare candidates (inservice teachers) to reviewand develop curriculum, assessment, and learning experiences for students, while fostering thequalities, skills, and dispositions of effective school leaders. Schmoker (1999) asserted thatteachers are essential to school improvement because they work on the “front line” (p. 10),directly with students. Yet though some teachers do not see themselves as school leaders, someof our graduates enter the school leadership program and pursue leadership opportunities intheir school. We were curious about how we empower our master’s in literacy candidates toincorporate their classroom knowledge and skills into a school leadership role and what factorsappear to lead some candidates into leadership positions whereas others do not pursue thoseoptions.

The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which experiences in a master’s inliteracy program are preparing candidates to be school leaders and to examine if upon completionof the program candidates perceived themselves as leaders. The following questions exploredteacher leadership, specifically candidates’ roles as literacy leaders:

1. What kinds of leadership preparation experiences are provided to candidates in a graduateliteracy program?

2. To what extent do candidates’ self-perception as leaders change over time?3. What types of leadership opportunities do the graduates of the master’s in literacy program

pursue after graduation?

PREPARING LITERACY LEADERS FOR SCHOOLS

The role of the reading specialist/literacy coach has undergone major change spurred byincreased attention to literacy achievement (e.g., NCLB, 2002; Reading First, Report of NationalReading Panel, 2000). In response to these changes the International Reading Association (IRA;2003) revised the Standards for Reading Professionals to specifically address the need for lead-ership, recognizing that reading specialists’ activities have shifted away from direct teaching andmoved toward leadership and professional development roles (IRA, 2004). The 2010 Standardsfor Reading Professionals strengthens this stance by emphasizing that the role of the readingspecialist/literacy coach include, a “dual responsibility: that of working with struggling studentsand supporting the efforts of classroom teachers” (IRA, 2010b, para. 5).

This change requires greater leadership skills for reading specialists and calls for an exam-ination of the candidates’ preparation provided in graduate reading programs. A recent study(Quatroche & Wepner, 2008) that examined the perception of university faculty concerning theimportance of leadership development of reading specialist found that only one half of the respon-dents (n = 233) said their programs required a leadership course, but 70% thought it should beincluded. Overall, the findings suggest that reading faculty recognize the importance of cultivat-ing reading specialists as leaders, yet “changes in the curriculum for reading specialists have notyet caught up with the most recent standards” (Quatroche & Wepner, 2008, p. 113). Quatrocheand Wepner (2008) recommended literacy programs include a leadership course that addressesthe IRA Standards for Reading Professionals (2004) that is supported by the findings of the IRA

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

40 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

EMPOWERING LEADERS IN A MASTER’S IN LITERACY PROGRAM 553

Professional Standards and Ethics Committee “that reports the new role of the literacy coachneeds to be more fully integrated into graduate reading and literacy programs” (Shaw, Smith,Chesler, & Romeo, 2005, p. 6).

The IRA (2000) defined literacy leadership in three areas: resources, staff development, andliteracy program development and coordination (see Appendix A). Therefore, reading specialistshave the opportunity to act as change agents through different capacities: professional develop-ment provider, advocate for students and families, evaluator of school-wide literacy programs,and curriculum developer. Resources refer to the reading specialist’s ability to disseminate lit-eracy research to support best practices for educators, parents, and the community. Readingspecialists also provide teachers with materials and instructional plans to enhance learning.Individual and staff professional development are also essential tasks as well as the responsi-bility to inform administrators about current practices in teaching reading. Another responsibilityis to oversee the coordination and development of literacy programs. In this capacity, readingspecialists can work with teachers toward whole-school reform (Vogt & Shearer, 2007).

Research has shown that collaboration such as those fostered through reflective inquiry onteaching and learning and ongoing professional development (Pinnell & Rodgers, 2003) canlead to improved teacher quality and student success (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2008; Schmoker,1999). In many schools, reading coaches and specialists are mentors to their peers, conduct obser-vations, and provide in-class coaching to colleagues (Vogt & Shearer, 2007). Research on schoolleadership (Somech, 2005; Wu & Short, 1996) has suggested that a participative leadershipapproach positively affects school effectiveness. Somech (2005) found teacher empowermentled to school effectiveness in schools where collaboration was promoted and individuals wereallowed to voice opinions and share in decision making.

THE CONTEXT

Participants (whom we call candidates) were inservice teachers seeking to become reading pro-fessionals. They were enrolled in our master’s degree program that prepares them to work withPreschool-adult students and either pursues the 30-credit reading specialist endorsement programor in the 33 credit master’s in literacy program. Both lead to state certification as a reading spe-cialist and include 27 credits of required coursework. Our program conforms to the IRA (2010a)standards that suggest the candidate holds a valid teaching certificate, has 2 years previous teach-ing experience, and that they complete 21 to 27 graduate semester hours that include 6 semesterhours of supervised practicum experience. The program includes a clinical experience workingwith diverse student populations and also incorporates collaborative and coaching experienceswith teachers and parents.

There are a total of nine required courses in the program (Table 1). Two year-long courses,620/621 and 623/627 are listed as one course in Table 1. Upon completion of the coursework,candidates can return to the university and complete a 12-credit supervisory endorsement pro-gram. The endorsement consists of four courses, two of which are embedded in the readingprogram so graduates would only need to complete two additional courses to earn the endorse-ment that qualifies them to apply for a variety of what are often viewed as more traditionalleadership roles in their schools (i.e., Language Arts Director/Supervisor).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

40 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

TAB

LE1

Lead

ersh

ipE

xper

ienc

esA

ligne

dto

IRA

Sta

ndar

dsfo

rR

eadi

ngS

peci

alis

tsD

emon

stra

ted

inA

ssig

nmen

ts

Cou

rses

Res

ourc

esSt

affD

evel

opm

ent

Lit

erac

yP

rogr

amD

evel

opm

enta

ndC

oord

inat

ion

601

The

oret

ical

Foun

datio

nsof

Lite

racy

Bec

ome

am

embe

rof

apr

ofes

sion

alas

soci

atio

nC

andi

date

sde

velo

pan

dpr

esen

talit

erac

yw

orks

hop

N/A

617

Chi

ldre

n’s

Lite

racy

for

the

21st

CT

heor

yan

dre

sear

char

eus

edto

prep

are

criti

cali

ssue

sas

sign

men

twhi

chde

als

with

dive

rse

lear

ning

styl

esan

din

stru

ctio

naln

eeds

Cre

ate

aPo

wer

Poin

tand

lead

adi

scus

sion

with

peer

sba

sed

onin

form

atio

nco

llect

edfo

rth

ecr

itica

lis

sues

proj

ect

N/A

620

&62

1D

iagn

osis

and

Rem

edia

tion

ofR

eadi

ngD

iffic

ultie

sT

heor

yan

dre

sear

char

eus

edto

unde

rsta

ndan

dev

alua

teva

riou

sas

sess

men

ttoo

lsan

dpr

otoc

ols

Shar

efin

ding

sw

ithpe

ers

and

pare

nts

byw

ritin

ga

lette

rsu

mm

ariz

ing

resu

ltsan

dre

com

men

datio

nsfr

omth

eye

arlo

ngca

sest

udy

N/A

624

Supe

rvis

ion

and

Adm

inis

trat

ion

ofR

eadi

ngPr

ogra

ms

Loc

ate

appr

opri

ate

reso

urce

sto

crea

tea

wor

ksho

p;ev

alua

tecu

rren

trea

ding

s;de

velo

pda

taco

llect

ion

inst

rum

ents

Dev

elop

and

pres

enta

Prof

essi

onal

deve

lopm

entw

orks

hop

for

teac

hers

;us

eva

riou

sda

taco

llect

ion

inst

rum

ents

toas

cert

ain

teac

hers

’ne

eds

and

anal

yze

resu

ltsto

exam

ine

the

effe

ctiv

enes

sof

the

scho

ol’s

liter

acy

prog

ram

Eva

luat

ea

scho

ol-w

ide

liter

acy

prog

ram

and

mak

ere

com

men

datio

nsfo

rim

prov

emen

t;ev

alua

tea

read

ing

prog

ram

and

mak

ea

case

for

usin

git,

orno

tusi

ngit

insc

hool

s

625

Ado

lesc

ent/

Adu

ltL

itera

cyin

the

21st

CSu

rvey

mat

eria

lsap

prop

riat

efo

rte

achi

ngad

oles

cent

and

adul

tlea

rner

sC

olla

bora

tew

ithpe

ers

and

part

icip

ate

ina

prof

essi

onal

book

club

;dev

elop

info

rmat

iona

lmat

eria

labo

utw

orki

ngw

ithad

oles

cent

s

Rev

iew

and

exam

ine

seco

ndar

ylit

erac

ypr

ogra

man

dcu

rric

ula

633

Soci

o-Ps

ycho

lingu

istic

sL

ingu

istic

san

dR

eadi

ngL

ocat

ean

dev

alua

tere

sour

ces

tosu

ppor

tim

plem

enta

tion

ofa

liter

acy

inte

rven

tion;

use

aw

ide

rang

eof

reso

urce

sdu

ring

impl

emen

tatio

nof

the

inte

rven

tion;

loca

teap

prop

riat

ere

sour

ces

pare

nts

can

use

tosu

ppor

tst

uden

ts’

deve

lopm

ent

Shar

ein

form

atio

nab

outi

nter

vent

ion

with

aw

ider

audi

ence

peer

s,pa

rent

s,co

lleag

ues,

and

adm

inis

trat

ors

Cur

ricu

lum

plan

ning

whe

nde

velo

ping

the

inte

rven

tion;

deve

lopi

nga

spec

ific

proc

ess

and

sequ

enci

ngfo

rlit

erac

yin

stru

ctio

nth

atw

illbe

used

duri

ngim

plem

enta

tion

623

&62

7T

hesi

sL

ocat

ean

dev

alua

tere

sear

chon

liter

acy

Shar

efin

ding

sfr

omth

esis

rese

arch

with

aw

ider

audi

ence

thro

ugh

oral

pres

enta

tion;

enga

gein

self

-stu

dyto

exam

ine

prac

tice

Use

thes

isfin

ding

sto

mak

ere

com

men

datio

nsab

outl

itera

cyin

stru

ctio

nan

dcu

rric

ulum

deve

lopm

ent.

554

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

40 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


METHOD

To answer the research questions fully, we used a qualitative approach to provide a rich descrip-tion of the program components and in-depth examination of coursework (Creswell, 2008). Thedata were collected and examined by the coauthors, three teacher educators in the master’s inliteracy program at a northwestern university in New Jersey. Data were analyzed through narra-tive, descriptive approaches to develop a better understanding of practices from the participants’perspective (Mills, 2003). A survey (Appendix B) was designed by the researchers to better under-stand the participants’ stance on leadership preparedness used open-ended and targeted questions.In qualitative models, surveys such as this are used to provide baseline data that shed light onlarger themes (Chiseri-Strater & Sunstein, 2006).

We collected, examined, and compared various data because we believe much of the dataanalysis process is about making connections (Hubbard & Power, 1999). Data sources includesurveys, field notes (i.e., teacher-candidate feedback via informal reports and discussions), coursesyllabi, assignments, and rubrics used to evaluate teacher-candidates’ work. In Fall 2010, wealso distributed a survey via Surveymonkey.com and regular mail to 70 program graduates from2007 to 2010. The response rate was 34% (N = 24). The survey questions focused on candi-dates’ perspective of how well they felt they were prepared by the master’s in literacy programto (1) advocate for diverse learners, (2) teach struggling readers, (3) take on leadership roles intheir schools and communities, (4) conduct professional development workshops, and (5) pursuesupervisory certification. In this article we focus specifically on candidates responses to categories(c, d, & e) as they are related to leadership issues (see Appendix B). In the survey, candidates werealso asked to identify specific courses and assignments that fostered growth in each of these areas.

During analysis, course syllabi and rubrics were coded and compared to the patterns suggestedby the candidates in their surveys and informal discussions recorded in researcher field notes.Data analysis procedures included the constant comparative method (Mertler & Charles, 2008)where the data were reviewed by making comparisons between and among the data. Documentanalysis was employed to review the course objectives and student learning outcomes noted onthe syllabi, as well as student work and other candidate artifacts to identify and code requiredleadership capacities as suggested by the IRA (2010a). The purpose was to examine the kindsof leadership preparation experiences that were provided to the candidates and how they demon-strated their leadership through these experiences. This part of the data analysis process usedthe three capacities identified by the IRA (2000) for effective leadership—resources, staff devel-opment, and literacy program development and coordination—as a lens to view the data anddetermine if there is evidence that the program experiences address these areas (See Table 1).As themes emerged, they were triangulated across data sources (Chiseri-Strater & Sunstein, 2006;Hubbard & Power, 1999) to ensure the findings were valid. Themes emerged pertaining to lead-ership in three categories: leadership experiences, self-perception as leaders, and the pursuit ofleadership opportunities.

Leadership Experiences

Candidates’ learning experiences encompassed all three areas outlined by the IRA standards in sixof nine (67%) required courses (refer to Table 1). All required courses provided opportunities to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

40 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


locate and disseminate various resources and provided authentic opportunities and/or simulationswhere candidates worked in collaboration with parents, teachers, and administrators. Evidencefrom course syllabi, rubrics, assignments, and survey responses show candidates created andimplemented staff development activities such as workshops for parents and teachers, dissemi-nation of information and resources, and participating in a professional book club. Data suggestsliteracy program development and coordination as the IRA standard met less often in requiredcourses. This capacity was targeted in only five of nine (56%) course experiences: review readingprograms, examine one’s curriculum and implement interventions through action research, andevaluate the literacy program in the candidate’s school.

Resources

The opportunities to locate and disseminate various resources were scaffolded throughout theprogram. Beginning with the foundation course (601) where candidates were required to join aprofessional organization (i.e., IRA, National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE], local orregional reading associations) followed by courses that required candidates to study theory andexamine research and apply this content knowledge to various assignments including investigat-ing critical issues in the field (617). The reading clinic courses (620 & 621) required candidatesto evaluate specific assessment protocols use with clients in the reading clinic (practicum); thesupervision and administration (624) course provided candidates with the opportunity to sharetheir knowledge by creating and presenting a workshop for pre service and in-service teach-ers (see Table 2). During the psycholinguistics course (633) candidates located and evaluatedresources to support implementation of a literacy intervention and used a wide range of resourcesduring implementation of the intervention. They were also assigned a project where they locatedappropriate resources to create a parent newsletter that was focused on ways to support students’literacy development. In the final thesis courses (623 & 627) candidates located and evaluatedappropriate research to examine and support their thesis inquiry topic.

Staff Development

All candidates in the program developed and facilitated professional development workshops.Some of these workshops were replicated in schools, whereas others were replicated at the

Table 2Workshops Developed and Presented by Reading Candidates

Parent Workshop Topics (completed in 633) Teacher Workshop Topics (completed in 624)

Reading with your childComprehension strategiesUsing questioning to increase oral language

developmentGames for active readingIncreasing vocabulary skills

Introduction to the Readers WorkshopDifferentiating Instruction: Managing and Using Centers in

the ClassroomTeacher’s ToolboxConnecting Reading & Writing Instruction: Teaching Writing

Strategies through the Gradual Release MethodLiteracy Centers to Support Students’ Multiple LiteraciesPicture Books

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

40 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


university for a wider audience of preservice and in-service teachers. For example one middleschool teacher shared in a written reflection:

My principal has asked if I will work with him to come up with ideas and lessons teachers can useand teach the staff how to model reading strategies as a future staff meeting. I am looking forwardto seeing what happens when all of our teachers begin to use and model reading strategies in theirclasses and how this will affect not only our students’ day-to-day progress but also scores on NJASK.

In one of the foundation courses (633), candidates developed and completed a workshop forparents and in another course (624) they implemented a workshop for teachers.

Literacy Program Development and Coordination

Literacy program development and coordination was the IRA standard met less often in requiredcourses. The definition of this capacity includes activities that review reading programs, examinesone’s curriculum and implement interventions through action research, and evaluates the liter-acy program in the candidates’ school. Survey respondents said that they felt they needed moreexposure to various school curriculums. For example, one candidate’s suggestion to include inthe program was, “more opportunities to evaluate programs. I would be extremely interested invisiting a school (other than my own) to analyze their reading plans.”

Useful suggestions for program improvement in areas they felt underprepared was also pro-vided where 40% commented that they would have liked more work with specific readingprograms (i.e., Wilson, Orton-Gillingham; Response to Intervention); and 5% suggested theprogram include more background work related to state and federal policy regarding literacyeducation and information regarding services for struggling readers.

Candidates’ Self-Perception as Leaders Over Time

Some candidates suggested that they did gain a broader view of their role over time. For example,when we asked the candidates if they currently consider themselves a literacy leader in theirschool, 37.5% strongly agreed and 25% agreed (see Figure 1), suggesting that over time themajority candidates in the program viewed themselves as prepared to take on new leadershipopportunities. At the same time, more than 30% were neutral or did not perceive themselves as

FIGURE 1 Survey response to Question 3.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

40 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


leaders in their school that suggests that more work needs to be done to empower candidatesas leaders. This was demonstrated by a “neutral” responder’s tentative response regarding herperception of herself as a leader,

I feel that at times I am a reading/literacy leader in my school when teachers on my team come tome for questions on certain books to use with struggling reader, what strategies to use with theirstruggling readers and I can come in and observe the struggling readers-even though we do havereading specialist in the building full time.

Candidates’ perceptions of themselves as leaders over time can be summarized by oneparticipant’s remark,

Prior to entering the program, I wanted to improve my classroom instruction and thus, I chose theReading Program. Now that I’ve completed the program, I have a strong desire to be more of a leaderin education. I would like to work outside of the classroom to assist teachers and students.

Another stated, “My district does not have a literacy coach/ reading specialist; however, I havealready expressed an interest in becoming one if they are to decide to hire one in my district.”Another candidate responded, “Due to my knowledge because of the program, the district has putme in positions of leadership to create curriculum and reading programs for struggling readers.”

An examination of the types of leadership positions they were involved in before or during theprogram and those they have pursued after graduation also demonstrated the kinds of roles forwhich they felt prepared. We compared their survey responses related to the types of leadershiproles they reported they were involved in before the program to the kinds of leadership experi-ences they assumed after graduation. Only 41% responded that they had any experience prior toentering the program. The kinds of leadership roles they discussed included

• presented workshops (6)• member of district education committee (1)• professional development committee (1)• curriculum committee (6)• presentations to parents (1).

Many reported they had not taken any leadership role prior to entering the program and leftthe question blank or added remarks such as, “Before the program, I had no experience. I wasnot prepared for the challenges and tasks I do now.” We also asked what experiences shouldhave been included to help prepare them to become a literacy leader, and 34% said the programadequately prepared them adding comments such as, “I do not feel that anything needs to be addedto the program,” “I feel very confident,” “I feel the reading program adequately prepared me asa literacy leader,” and, “I have grown professionally throughout the course of this program.” Weasked the candidates what type of leadership roles have you assumed since graduation and belowis a list of their responses:

• Unit team leader that consists of supervisors and directors• Reading Specialist• Train and support teachers with new technology in our district• Team leader• High school prep teacher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

40 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


• Run grade-level meetings• Present to teachers, administrators, and parents• Presented at the state level• State standardized test coordinator• Coordinator of Read Across America Week• Involved in grants, unified plans, extended school programs• Adjunct at a community college (teaching English Basic Skills)• Lead profession learning communities in my school• I have been recognized as a literacy leader in my school and have been asked to mentor

other teachers, assess students, and recommend strategies.

Pursuit of Leadership Opportunities

Over the past 3 years, 21% of the graduates responding to the survey stated that they have reg-istered for at least one course in the university’s 12-credit supervisory endorsement programdemonstrating their interest in becoming a school leader. Another 25% said that they wereplanning to take the courses in the future. When asked if completing the supervisory endorse-ment would help in their leadership roles, 43% strongly agreed, 30% agreed, and 26% wereneutral. Since graduation four participants reported that they have taken positions as ReadingSpecialists/Coaches in their schools, one has become an instructional coach, and one has becomea special education reading teacher. One participant completed the supervisory endorsement andhas matriculated into the school administrator program. We also asked if the master’s in literacyprogram encouraged them to pursue new literacy roles, and most agreed (42% of the respondentsstrongly agreed and 29% agreed) that suggests we are making headway in providing opportunitiesthat will affect teaching and learning in the schools where these graduates work.

DISCUSSION

The examination of our program experiences showed that we met the criteria suggested by theIRA (2010a) Standards for Reading Professionals in two of the three areas. Candidates wereprovided adequate instruction concerning the understanding and application of current literacytheory and resources. Ample opportunities to create and implement professional developmentwere also embedded in courses. The analysis also yielded insight to where additional leadershipexperiences need to be incorporated in to the program. We identified literacy program devel-opment and coordination as an area of need in our program that was also substantiated by thecandidates in their survey responses. The candidates perceived themselves as underprepared inthe area of program evaluation and experience with various literacy curricula. They reported thatthey needed more experiences involving the evaluation of other curricula, a greater focus on spe-cific intervention programs, and state and local policy. The fact that they reported the need formore instruction in this area demonstrated an understanding of the depth and complexity of thereading specialist’s role.

The data suggests that some candidates were empowered and examined their perception ofthemselves as leaders during and after the program. They expanded the roles they undertook andengaged in a wide variety of leadership opportunities after they completed the program. Before

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

40 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


the program, those who participated in leader roles mainly worked with curriculum committeesand provided workshops. After the program, roles extended to outside their schools to leadershipin district and state activities. Other participants demonstrated leadership by providing workshopsfor their colleagues, mentoring, presenting at school board meetings, and presenting at local andnational conferences.

Candidates reported that over time they gained a deeper understanding of the role and respon-sibilities of the reading specialist as school leader. Some reported that they understood the needfor leaders to affect change, “It showed me how necessary reading specialists are to have in schooldistricts.” Another indication that some graduates were ready to accept an even greater leader-ship role was their decision to enroll in a supervisory endorsement program that enables themto apply for supervisor or director positions in their schools or districts. This decision suggeststhat candidates may be ready to participate in the larger role that involves the implementation ofschool-wide literacy initiatives and reform efforts.

CONCLUSION

The role of the reading specialist/coach is now focused on leadership capacities, and “they mustnow use their knowledge and performance skills to make a school-wide impact by demonstrat-ing lessons and communicating and collaborating with classroom teachers and paraprofessionals.This is a major paradigm shift for graduate reading and literacy programs” (Shaw et al., 2005,p. 6). In this context, this research has significant implications for the preparation of teacherleaders. Findings suggest that graduate programs should provide candidates with ample oppor-tunities to demonstrate what they know and are learning through courses by participating in avariety of authentic experiences where they apply their knowledge of resources, implement staffdevelopment, and actively participate in literacy evaluation and program development. Further,candidates in this study worked with students to practice using strategies introduced throughcoursework and developed workshops to share knowledge with colleagues in authentic schoolsettings, preparing them to take on leadership roles in their schools demonstrating their impacton teaching and learning through leadership activities. As the research suggests (e.g., Somech,2005; Vogt & Shearer, 2007) fostering such collaborations is a step toward building a network ofreflective, empowered, career-long literacy leaders.

This study also suggests that teacher preparation programs need to align student learningoutcomes with critical leadership components to nurture and foster competent leaders. We con-cur with previous findings that suggest that if we are to comply with the IRA’s ProfessionalStandards and Ethics Committee report (Shaw et al., 2005) highlighting the importance of lead-ership then “[I]t behooves us as literacy educators to revise our master’s degree/certificationprograms so that it includes a leadership course or component” (Quatroche & Wepner, 2008,p. 113). We believe our master’s in literacy program has taken broad steps in this direction.If skilled leadership is paramount (Leithwood et al., 2006) for improved student learning, thenit is critical that reading specialist programs incorporate meaningful and collaborative experi-ences that help candidates envision themselves as leaders. Reading specialists need to articulatetheir vision for improving teaching and learning and share it with others so that it becomes “abridge from the present to the future” (McAndrews, 2005, p. 46). With continued self-evaluation,candidate feedback, and inclusion of leadership components in our courses, we will continue to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

40 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


build strong, forward thinking literacy leadership qualities in our graduates to empower them tobecome leaders.

Future Research

Future research should also collect data on candidates’ efficacy and perceptions of themselves asleaders intermittently throughout the program. Then further statistical analysis can determine ifthere is a particular point in the program, at which candidates change their perceptions of them-selves as leaders. Perhaps future research should take survey data intermittently and interviewcandidates to gain insight into their decision making. This will help to identify variables that canbe tested to identify correlations.

It is hypothesized that with more data those candidates who enter the program with strongefficacy as leaders are more likely to take the supervisory courses and pursue leadership roles.Those candidates with moderate or low efficacy as leaders are empowered by the program totake the leadership courses although they do not perceive themselves as leaders when they beginthe program. A case study method can be appropriate to provide an in-depth analysis of howperceptions of candidates with moderate or low efficacy as leaders change over time and whatspecific leadership experiences empower them to take on leadership roles.

REFERENCES

Chiseri-Strater, E., & Sunstein, B. (2006). What works? A practical guide for teacher research. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Dana, N. F., & Yendel-Hoppey, D. (2008). The reflective educator’s guide to professional development: Coaching inquiry-oriented learning communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Hubbard, R. S., & Power, B. M. (1999). Living the questions: A guide for teacher-researchers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse

Publishers.International Reading Association. (2000). Teaching all children to read: The roles of the reading specialist. A position

statement from the International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/General/AboutIRA/PositionStatements/ReadingSpecialistPosition.aspx

International Reading Association. (2004). Standards for reading professionals. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/downloads/resources/545standards2003/index.html

International Reading Association. (2010a). Standards for reading professionals-revised. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/General/CurrentResearch/Standards/ProfessionalStandards2010.aspx

International Reading Association. (2010b). Standards 2010: Issues in reading education that affected standards devel-opment. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/General/CurrentResearch/Standards/ProfessionalStandards2010/ProfessionalStandards2010_Issues.aspx

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Seven strong claims about successful schoolleadership. Nottingham, UK: NCSL.

McAndrews, D. A. (2005). Literacy leadership: Six strategies for peoplework. Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Mertler, C. A., & Charles, C. M. (2008). Introduction to educational research (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Mills, G. E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, §115, Stat. 1425 (2002).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

40 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Pinnell, G. S., & Rodgers, E.M. (2003). Reflective inquiry as a tool for professional development. The LLS Review, 2(4),18–19. Retrieved from http://www.temple.edu/lss/lssreview.htm

Quatroche, D. J., & Wepner, S. B. (2008). Developing reading specialists as leaders: New directions for programdevelopment. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(2), 99–115.

Race to the Top. (2011). In GovTrack.us (database legislation). Retrived from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s844

Reading First Report. (2000). Put reading first, national institute for literacy. Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/upload/smallbook_pdf.pdf

Rogers, E. M., & Pinnell, G. S. (2002). Profesional development scenarios: What is and might be. In E. M. Rogers & G. S.Pinnell (Eds.) Learning from teaching in literacy education: New perspectives on professional development (pp. 1–8).Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association ofCurriculum and Development.

Shaw, M. L., Smith, W. E., Chesler, B. J., Romeo, L. (2005, June/July). Moving forward: The reading specialist asliteracy coach. Reading Today, 22(6), 6.

Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary approaches to managing schooleffectiveness. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 41(5), 770–800.

Vogt, M. E., & Shearer, B. A. (2007). Reading specialists and literacy coaches in the real world (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:Pearson.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (2002). The condition of education. No child left behind,Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid-2002025

Wu, V., & Short, P. M. (1996). The relationship or empowerment to teacher job commitment and job satisfaction. Journalof Instructional Psychology, 25(8), 85–89.

Geraldine Mongillo is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of EducationalLeadership and Professional Studies at William Paterson University. Her research interestsinclude teacher preparation, adolescent literacy, and the development of reading professionals.

Salika A. Lawrence is an Associate Professor of literacy at William Paterson University. Dr.Lawrence is currently director of the Master of Education in Literacy program. She is a formermiddle and high school teacher with the New York City Department of Education. Her researchinterests include literacy instruction, adolescent literacy, and teacher education and professionaldevelopment.

Carrie E. Hong is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership andProfessional Studies at William Paterson University. Her research interests include reading andliteracy, literacy instruction for English learners, and teacher preparation.D

ownl

oade

d by

[N

orth

east

ern

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:40

26

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Appendix A

The roles of the Reading Specialist as defined by the International Reading Association (2000)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

40 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Appendix B

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

40 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

40 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Empowering Leaders in a Master's in Literacy Program: Teacher Candidates' Self-Efficacy and Self-Perception as Literacy Leaders