Assignment 2 – Reading Specialists: Three Levels of Coaching

Directions:

Part 1:

Access the International Reading Association’s website (www.reading.org). Type in “reading specialist position paper.” Select #1: “IRA’s definition of and position on appropriate roles for the reading specialist.(IRA 1.1).”

Review the IRA’s position, and provide a summary of its position on the three levels of coaching the reading specialist must practice: instruction, assessment, and leadership. (IRA 1.3)

Part 2:

Choose TWO of the three bullets below to develop two 30-minute mini-lessons for a professional development workshop for teachers and administrators. As a reading specialist, you will recommend best practices for two of the following:

Three strategies to improve reading instruction such as close reading (IRA 2.1) Informal methods of assessment to monitor student performance (IRA 3.1) Examples of ways to communicate assessment results with family and/or community

about students such as  developing a recommended reading list to send home to parents, a list of ideas for reinforcing sight words, and suggestions for support at home for ESOL students. (IRA 3.4)

Part 3

Share ONE of these mini lessons with reading educators at your school or with your colleagues in this course. Ask for their feedback and input. Discuss their comments after they have seen your presentation, and decide whether you would change any aspect of your presentation based on this feedback. Put this in writing as this part of the assignment. (IRA 6.3)

Note: If presenting this mini-lesson to your colleagues in this course, you must present via the discussion board by week 5 in order to submit the assignment week 6.

Scoring Rubric

Part 1 Points Earned Total Possible Points Part 1Instructional Level 5Assessment Level 5Leadership Level 5

Part 2Quality of Mini-Lesson 1 20Quality of Mini-Lesson 2 20

Part 3Summary of feedback and

self=reflection5

Total Possible Points Parts 1, 2, and 3

60

Total Possible Points for Assignment 2: 60

Due: Week 6

NCATE Scoring Guide for Assessment

Standard Not Met Met ExceededPart 1 a The candidate demonstrated understanding of major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development, processes, and components, including word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge and reading-writing connections (IRA

The candidate did not adequately demonstrate understanding of major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development, processes, and components, including word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge and reading-writing connections The

The candidate demonstrated understanding of major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development, processes, and components, including word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge and reading-IRA’s position paper (IRA Standard 1.1)

The candidate demonstrated understanding of major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development, processes, and components, including word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge and reading (IRA Standard 1.1)

Standard 1.1) candidate did not access the IRA’s position paper.IRA Standard 1.1)

Part 1bThe candidate understands the role of professional judgment and practical knowledge for improving all students’ reading development and achievement. (IRA 1.3)

The candidate did not demonstrate understanding of the IRA’s position paper or did not provide an adequate summary of the IRA’s position (IRA 1.3)

The candidate demonstrated understanding of the role of reading specialists as defined by the IRA’s position paper (IRA 1.3)

The candidate demonstrated exceptional understanding of the role of s position paper (IRA 1.3)

Part 2aUse foundational knowledge to design or implement an integrated, comprehensive, and balanced curriculum (IRA 2.1)

The candidate did not appropriately use foundational knowledge to design or implement a workshop to develop strategies to improve reading instruction (IRA 2.1)

The candidate used foundational knowledge to design or implement an integrated, comprehensive, and balanced curriculum by developing a mini-lesson workshop to improve reading instruction (IRA 2.1)

The candidate used foundational knowledge to design or implement an integrated, comprehensive, and balanced curriculum by developing a detailed mini-lesson workshop and detailed self reflection on the experience (IRA 2.1)

Part 2b Understand types of assessments and their purposes, strengths, and limitations (IRA 3.1)

The candidate did not adequately demonstrate understanding of types of assessments and their purposes, strengths, and limitations in his/her mini lesson for informal methods of assessment or did not choose this mini-lesson (IRA 3.1)

The candidate demonstrated understanding of types of assessments and their purposes, strengths, and limitations by developing a mini lesson for informal methods of assessment (IRA 3.1)

The candidate demonstrated understanding of types of assessments and their purposes, strengths, and limitations by developing a superior mini lesson for informal methods of assessment (IRA 3.1)

Part 2cThe candidate communicated assessment results and implications to a variety of audiences.(IRA 3.4)

The candidate did not effectively communicate assessment results and implications to a variety of audiences or did not choose this mini-lesson to teach(IRA 3.4)

The candidate adequately developed ways of communicating assessment results and implications to other educators(IRA 3.4)

The candidate exceptionally developed ways of communicating assessment results and implications to other educators(IRA 3.4)

Part 3The candidate participated in,

The candidate did not adequately communicate the

The candidate adequately communicated the

The candidate delivered a superior mini-lesson to others and acted

designed, facilitated, lead, and evaluated effective and differentiated professional development programs (IRA 6.3)

mini=lesson to others or did not self reflect (IRA 6.3)

mini-lesson to others and acted upon their input (IRA 6.3)

upon their input (IRA 6.3)