Literacy Now

The following research awards and grants were presented on the evening of Monday, April 30, 2012 at the IRA 57th Annual Convention in Chicago.

2012 IRA Dina Feitelson Research Award

Sheila W. Valencia, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Antony T. Smith, University of Washington, Bothell, Washington

Anne M. Reece, Highline School District, Seattle, Washington

Min Li, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Karen K. Wixson, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, North Carolina

Heather Newman, Tukwila School District, Tukwila, Washington

“Oral Reading Fluency Assessment: Issues of Construct, Criterion, and Consequential Validity,” published in Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 270-291, 2010

This award is sponsored by Jehuda Feitelson to honor the memory of Dina Feitelson. 

2012 IRA Jeanne S. Chall Research Fellowship

Krystal Werfel, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee,

“Contribution of Linguistic Knowledge to Spelling Ability in Elementary Children with and without Language Impairment”

2012 IRA Steven A. Stahl Research Grant

“The Classroom Impact of Reading Recovery Training: Re-Situating and Examining Reading Recovery-Based Teacher Learning,” 

This grant is sponsored by Katherine A. Stahl to honor the memory and work of Steven A. Stahl.

2012 IRA Helen M. Robinson Research Grant

“Efficacy of A2C Strategy for Improving Sentence Comprehension in English Language Learners”

2012 IRA Elva Knight Research Grants

Makeba Wilbourn, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and Vrinda Kalia, Worcester State University, Massachusetts

“Language and Literacy Development in Dual-language Learners: Examining Relations Between Oral Language, Executive Function, and Literacy Development”

Rachel Gabriel, University of Connecticut, Storrs, and Jessica Lester, Washington State University, Pullman

“The Role of Teacher Language in Mediating Student Understanding During Reading Comprehension Instruction”

2012 IRA Teacher as Researcher Grants

Claudia Fimpel and Shaun Eyre, Chula Vista Elementary School, California

“The Journey of a Paradigm Shift from Monolingual to Bilingual: Transferability of Literacy in Dual Language Programs” 

Colleen Nelsen, Chicago Public Schools, Illinois, “Increasing English Language Learner Dialogue: Using Literature Circles to Build Comprehension and Higher Order Thinking”

Amy Moore, Jennifer Academy of the Arts, Chicago Public Schools, Illinois

“Leveling the Playing Field: Effects of Building Background Knowledge on Comprehension of Informational Texts for Students with Limited Prior Knowledge”

Elizabeth Edmondson, Gilmour Academy, Gates Mills, Ohio

“Digital Natives, Libraries: Using eReaders & eBooks to Create Relevance for 21st Century Learners”

Lisa Carter, Alfred Nobel Elementary School, Chicago Public Schools, Illinois,

“Implementing Common Core Thematic Units to Increase Instructional Rigor in the Kindergarten Classroom”

2012 IRA Albert J. Harris Award

Pictured above: IRA President Carrice Cummins; 

IRA Research Director Virginia Goatley; 

Lunetta Williams, Department of Childhood Education, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida; 

Jennifer Graff, College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia; 

Jacqueline Zeig, PCG Education of Portsmouth, New Hampshire; 

Anne McGill-Franzen and Richard L. Allington, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee; 

Courtney Zmach, Collier County Public Schools, Naples, Florida; 

not pictured: Gregory Camilli, School of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado; 

Rhonda Nowak, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii

“Addressing Summer Reading Setback Among Economically Disadvantaged Elementary Students,” published in Reading Psychology, 31,411–427, 2010

2012 IRA Outstanding Dissertation of the Year

Tanya S. Wright, Michigan State University, East Lansing

“What Classroom Observations Reveal about Oral Vocabulary Instruction in Kindergarten,” received from the University of Michigan

Dissertation Chair: Dr. Susan B. Neuman

The IRA Outstanding Dissertation Award is sponsored by School Rise, LLC.

2012 IRA Outstanding Dissertation of the Year Finalists

Pictured above with IRA President Carrice Cummins: 

Cheryl Wozniak, dissertation from the University of San Francisco, chaired by Patricia Busk, dissertation title: “Reading and the Boy Crisis”; 

Kathryn Louise Solic, dissertation from the University of Tennessee, chaired by Anne McGill-Franzen, dissertation title: “Teachers’ Experiences with Comprehension Instruction in Upper Elementary Classrooms”; 

Jen Scott Curwood, dissertation from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, chaired by Dawnene Hassett, dissertation title: “The Nexus of Continuity and Change: Digital Tools, Social Identities, and Cultural Models in Teacher Professional Development”; 

Deborah Beth Scott, dissertation from the University of Maryland, chaired by Mariam Jean Dreher, dissertation title: “Explicit Instruction on Rhetorical Patterns and Student-Constructed Graphic Organizers: The Impact on Sixth-Grade Students’ Comprehension of Social Studies Text”; 

Sherry Sanden, dissertation from the Washington State University, chaired by Joy Egbert, dissertation title: “Independent Reading: Perspectives and Practices of Highly Effective Teachers”; 

Nicole M. Martin, dissertation from the Michigan State University, chaired by Nell K. Duke, dissertation title: “Exploring Informational Text Comprehension: Reading Biography, Persuasive Text, and Procedural Text in the Elementary Grades”; 

Sue Larson, dissertation from the Aurora University, chaired by Jay Thomas, dissertation title: “The Effects of Academic Literacy Instruction on Engagement and Conceptual Understanding of Biology of Ninth-Grade Students”; 

Michelle R. Ciminelli, dissertation from the University at Buffalo, chaired by Mary McVee, dissertation title: “Teacher Decision Making in Reading Instruction with Choices and Mandates”; 

Megan Mahowald, dissertation from the University of Minnesota; chaired by Lori Helman, dissertation title: “Fourth Grade Among Students’ Reading Proficiency”

Photos of Harris Award winners, Werfel, Stouffer, Benitez-Rivera, Nelsen, Moore, Wright, and dissertation finalists by Chuck Fazio Photography.

This article is reprinted from the June/July 2012 issue of Reading Today. IRA members can read theinteractive digital version of the magazine here. Nonmembers: join today! 

by Tammy Ryan

When you hear “adolescent online literacies, popular culture, digital media and learning, and professional development in the content areas”, you think Donna Alvermann, the Distinguished Research Professor of Language and Literacy Education at the University of Georgia. Donna recently received the International Reading Association Technology in Literacy Education Special Interest Group (TILE-SIG) 2012 Reading Research Award at the TILE-SIG session held during the IRA 57th Annual Convention in Chicago. 

TILE-SIG recognized Donna for her contributions to critical literacies and influential work on multiple literacies adolescents use in and outside the classroom environment. Articles exemplifying Donna’s visions for change include Why Bother Theorizing Adolescents' Online Literacies for Classroom Practice and Research? (2008) and Media, Information Communication Technologies (ICT), and Youth Literacies: A Cultural Studies Perspective (2004). With over 100 articles and chapters, 15 books, and 330 plus presentations and invited papers, Donna contributes her expertise to 45 editorial boards and research panels such as RAND/U.S. Department of Reading Research Panel (2000) and NAEP-Reading Assessment Panel (2009).

Donna represents the voice of adolescent readers internationally and nationally. She continually inspires pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, graduate students, and researchers alike to rethink critical literacy, social practices, and ways to incorporate new technologies into curricular practice to engage all students, particularly the adolescent struggling reader.

Donna is a former classroom teacher. She has an interest in writing non-academic microfiction for online publications and an interest in training a Golden Retriever to compete in AKC obedience. She received her Bachelor of Science in Education from the University of Texas at Austin in 1965, her Master of Arts in Education from the University of Texas at Austin in 1968, and her M.L.S. in Information Studies and PhD in Reading and Language Arts Education from Syracuse University in 1980. 

Donna will present the keynote address, “How the Research on Students’ Computer Usage Could Change Reading Pedagogies – If We’re Attentive” at next year’s 2013 TILE-SIG session held at the IRA 58th Annual Convention in San Antonio, Texas. Learn more about Donna and read selected articles, view her vita, or contact her at dalverma@uga.edu. 

Tammy Ryan is from Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, Florida. 

This article is part of a series from the Technology in Literacy Education Special Interest Group (TILE-SIG).

<a href="http://engage./TeachertoTeacher/Directory/CommunityDetails11/CommunityDet ails111/">

by Michelle Cardaronella, IRA Teacher Advisory Panel

My journey to IRA leadership seems unusual. I first became aware of the International Reading Association through its publications. I was familiar with The Reading Teacher journal as a result of my desire to pursue a post-graduate degree. I completed many course assignments using this resource.

After a few years of teaching and well on my way to earning a Master’s degree in Curriculum and Instruction, I noticed a flyer advertising a meeting of a local council affiliate. I had not been aware of IRA’s organizational structure prior to this time. The flyer announced a meeting and a contest. By attending all of the meetings of the local council, members would be entered in a drawing for a paid registration to the IRA annual conference. That was very motivating for a young teacher with limited finances. I did attend all of the meetings, however I didn't win the “advertised prize”.

My “prize” became assuming a leadership position within the local council.

It went something like this, "the bylaws prohibit me (current president) from returning and we need a new leader—can you do it?" With very little information, I hesitantly agreed. Within a week, I was attending the state leadership conference. After contacting our state coordinator and being under the misconception that I was the new President-Elect, which was quickly corrected to President. I began learning what my new responsibilities were. I returned home and began contacting all of my friends and colleagues and urging them to become members.

After three years of serving as a local council president, I moved on to hold a state committee chair position. My network of contacts continued to grow. I was sent to workshops in Washington D.C. as part of my committee responsibilities. Soon after that, I was nominated to serve on an IRA committee.

I began a three-year term on the Governmental Relations Committee. I had colleagues from across the country now! Initially, this was very overwhelming for a young teacher (who had no desire to leave the classroom). I began to find my voice.

I continued to serve as a committee chair, but was approached to serve on the Executive Leadership Team for our state association. I declined, stating that my responsibilities as a classroom teacher would not allow me sufficient time to dedicate to that position. Of course that was not the last time I was asked! Due to a family crisis, the Vice-President would have to resign, and I was asked to fulfill her term. Without any other members willing to serve in this position, I again hesitantly accepted.

I attended IRA’s Leadership Training in Toronto, Canada. My network again expanded. I was meeting with the top leaders and researchers in the organization. I returned to my state and began planning our annual state conference. I have such a deep appreciation for all of the hard work that goes into a conference now! My presidency was marked by a devastating hurricane.

I don’t think any amount of training could have prepared me for the year I served as president. Many members relocated, our conference (which was responsible for most of our revenue) was cancelled, and we began rebuilding our infrastructure.

I have stepped back from state leadership for a while, choosing to spend more time with my family. But recently the “call” to serve reached my ears again. I applied and was selected to represent IRA on the Teacher Advisory Panel. In this capacity, I can provide input to the board while continuing to devote time to my classroom responsibilities. Already, I have worked with an international panel (colleagues in Ireland, Kenya, and Canada) to represent classroom teachers within the organization. 

I would not have had the experiences, opportunities, or lasting friendships I've made without the International Reading Association. I may not have won “the prize”, but I certainly have gained more than I ever imagined. I hope I can inspire other classroom teachers to look to IRA leadership as a rewarding opportunity. 

Michelle Cardaronella and Margaret Muthiga await their TAP colleagues

TAP members at the 2012 meeting in Chicago

New TAP members Thomas Leis, Michelle Cardaronella, Maura Rose McMahon, Mary Lou Benesch, Margaret Muthiga, and Michael Henry meet at the IRA Annual Convention in Chicago. Photo by Chuck Fazio Photography. 

Michelle Cardaronella teaches first grade at Hammond Eastside Elementary Magnet school, located in Hammond, Louisiana, and is a new member of the Teacher Advisory Panel.

As 2011-2012 Kentucky Reading Association (KRA) President Cindy Parker began her transition into summer, she took a few moments to share an update with us about their activities and acolades. 

1. Are you especially proud of any of your council’s projects?

This past year, all of the local councils received Honor Council status from the International Reading Association (IRA). Our local councils have worked hard to increase both membership and involvement of their members. Several councils made significant increases. Sessions to engage "new" teachers and future teachers through local workshops, focusing on professional development topics such as the Common Core State Standards, Response to Intervention, and effective writing strategies for teachers, led by department of education consultants and education cooperative staff, who are also KRA members, have been well attended and well received. 

Additionally, we are proud of our partnership with the First Lady, Jane Beshear, and partner agencies to support the Kentucky Literacy Celebration week as well as a statewide summer reading initiative. KRA also supports the Kentucky Bluegrass Award, where students get to vote for their favorite books in K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12. A luncheon is held at the annual conference to recognize the winners, and libraries can apply for awards of sets of the books. 

2. What are the benefits of joining your council?

Our mission is "To be a Voice for Literacy" and we have a large and organized council that supports teachers, faculty, families, and communities. Our organization supports and promotes literacy with multiple organizations; our local council events encourage collaboration and networks; our annual state conference also provides professional development and keynotes from national experts and researchers to keep our membership up-to-date and informed. KRA also sponsors several mini-grants to support classroom teachers and libraries.

3. Are there any future projects in store for your council?

This year we went online with our Kentucky Reading Journal and plan to continue this as a resource for membership. We are also looking at setting up online book studies and virtual sessions leading up to our state conference to build enthusiasm and interest in the practices featured by our keynote speakers. 

4. How does one join your council?

Membership information is available at www.ky/. 

5. Is there a website, newsletter, or another way to find out more information about your council? Is there a person that prospective members can contact? 

Our website has online archives of our newsletter. 

Kentucky Reading Association board members

by Allison Dagen and Aimee Moorewood

In February 2012, a message quickly circulated among our faculty in the reading program at West Virginia University. Congratulations, we did it! Without reading any further into the body of the email–all five of us understood the message. The program report we submitted a semester earlier to the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) had been approved. Nationally recognized. No conditions.

Allison Dagen

Aimee Morewood

Currently, over 150 graduate reading programs across the county have successfully attained accreditation through partnership between the Specialized Professional Association (SPA), the International Reading Association (IRA), and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). To achieve national accreditation, a program must submit a program recognition report before their institution's NCATE site visit. In this report, data of a program’s six to eight key assessments are presented as well as a clearly defined explanation of how these assessments align with the IRA standards. See International Reading Association’s website for a detailed description of the IRA/NCATE accreditation process.

Our goal in this short article is to share our experience of how we (unknowingly) transformed our accreditation process work and surprisingly developed something greater than a successful program report–that is, a Professional Learning Community (PLC). It is our hope that others who are working through this process or are about to can learn from our collective seven year journey. 

Background

At West Virginia University, we offer a 36-credit Masters of Reading program. WVU is one of five institutions in the state that offer Reading Specialist certification. During any given semester we have 100-150 active graduate students. Our program reaches students across the state through regional cohort groups and online course offerings. Our program faculty consists of five full time professors and half dozen adjunct instructors.

Our work on this accreditation period began shortly after the International Reading Association’s Standards for Reading Professionals, Revised (2003) was released, one year after our last successful program recognition decision. Although we were seven years away from our next report submission, we knew that our program and our candidates would benefit greatly if we immediately integrated the new Standards, particularly the literacy coaching elements into our program. Over the next several years, we began developing a literacy coaching philosophy/strand, developing our program’s key assessments and scoring rubrics, and collecting /analyzing candidate data. During this time, we also began to schedule regular program meetings, usually at least once a month (coinciding with our regular faculty meetings) and sometimes met more regularly, especially as some of our self-imposed deadlines approached. We all attended these meetings, contributed equally and took the program development work seriously. Further, at least one faculty member regularly attended IRA/NCATE training sessions at the annual conference and would return to share the most recent updates from IRA.

It was not until near the end of the process, only a few months before submitting our final program recognition report that we came to understand how certain dimensions of this process mirror traits of a PLC. As we (the authors) worked through some final report edits, we were discussing how PLCs were being implemented in the schools within which we worked. In these local schools, teachers discussed how they used their PLC time to plan and meet together to, explore current research, analyze student work, discuss best practice and pedagogy and make changes in curriculum and instruction to best meet their students’ needs. Much of what the teachers were discussing regarding their PLC efforts were the activities we were engaged in for the past seven years.

Professional Learning Communities

Professional learning communities (PLCs) are not new phenomena in education. DeFour, DeFour and Eaker (2008) discuss three key characteristics defining a PLCs: (1) ensuring that students learn (2) developing a culture of collaboration and (3) focusing on results. Dana and Yendol-Hoppey (2008) present key elements of healthy inquiry-oriented PLCs. Below we highlight a number of these elements and share how we applied these principles in our accreditation work.

• Establish a vision that creates momentum for the work. This was simple – our vision was to successfully prepare our program candidates to serve as Reading Specialists and Literacy Coaches.  The 2003 IRA Standards document guided this vision; we knew we had to develop and emphasize leadership capacity as part of our candidates’ experience. We used many high quality resources (e.g. Bean, 2010; Walpole & McKenna, 2004, International Reading Association website) to guide our work while reshaping program design and content. Additionally, since we began this work so soon after our last accreditation recognition, we had ample time to reflect on major changes which allowed us to maintain momentum and enthusiasm.
• Understand and embrace collaboration. Over the seven years the demographics of our Reading faculty changed (several faculty left, others were hired), but regardless of who was in the group, Reading faculty participation was always at 100%.  Although scheduling and maintaining this large block of time (usually 2-4 hours) was a challenge for five overcommitted faculty members, we were successful and began to look forward to the meetings. We all contributed in this group effort to reshape our candidates’ experience. We were co-learners, co-decision makers, and co-coaches in this process. For example, we spent multiple meetings analyzing the Coaching Activities: Levels of Intensity figure included in the IRA position statement on coaching. We were able to collaborate to determine in which of our twelve courses we would introduce this figure and in which courses we would evaluate candidates’ fieldwork experience using the figure as a framework. This process was informative and meaningful; we were able to analyze the Standards, discuss course content, and make connections between the two as a collaborative group.
• Build trust among group members and establish critical friendships. We approached this work seriously and wanted to understand how and where to improve our program. To accomplish this goal, we needed to deepen our personal and professional relationships. While the relationship and trust building was certainly centered on our program work, it also came in the form of learning more about each other personally as well as professionally. For example, during our meetings, one of our colleagues liked to demonstrate evidence of how our candidates were using technology in the clinic (e.g. WAV files for fluency, Flip videos for coaching feedback). This would usually lead the rest of us to share our own research, new project ideas, and teaching stories (i.e. building trust). Further, we also spent time socializing and engaging in personal conversations (e.g. one colleague makes the best homemade salad dressing.) All of these interactions fostered trust, which allowed us to become critical friends. As our critical friendships developed, we began to use this time to seek out opinions and provide and accept feedback to and from each other.
• Hold the group accountable and document learning. During these meetings, we gave ourselves time to discuss current research on literacy coaching, reflect, collaborate and engage in rich, uninterrupted conversations with each other. We also came to these sessions with our task completed – in other words much work was accomplished by individuals between these meetings.  For example, at one meeting, we were all required to bring multiple copies of our most recent assessment rubrics and we spent the time reviewing drafts and conferencing with each other about the content. This meeting was quite productive and would not have been so if the group members had not come prepared. In addition to walking away from the meetings with individual to-do lists and due dates,  one faculty member would summarize all key points of the meeting,  the individual work products due, and the next meeting dates/time for this work, and then distribute this information via email soon after the work session. Looking back at these artifacts reminds us of how much work we did accomplish during this process.
• Encourage, recognize and appreciate diversity within the group, understand change and acknowledge the discomfort it may bring to some PLC members. The hours we spent meeting in our reading clinic collaborating about  accreditation was professional development for us  but we are not sure we thought of it that way at the time, especially early on. In hindsight, we transitioned from “to meet this one objective” to the  growth of a professional collaborative culture. We learned a lot about each other’s background experiences, differing views on pedagogy and general work styles. Sometimes this collaboration was challenging, and differences did emerge For example, we designated one of our key assessments as an action research project and some in the group felt the assignment did not contain all elements of teacher research; therefore it should be renamed or revised. Coming to a collective agreement about what this key assessment should look like, its title, and how it needed to be implemented within our program was important because changing this assignment to reflect substantive teacher research impacted the program. There was much discussion about these changes, some of which caused member discomfort; however, these conversations were very productive. Questioning each other’s assumptions and prompting thinking and discussion was a healthy component of our work.
• Comprehensive view of data. Once our assessments and rubrics were in place, we immediately started collecting data. We put protocols in place to inform and prepare adjuncts for a number of these key assessments; we had three to four years of data, collected while we continued to fine tune and tweak these assessments. The rubrics that we created would allow us to collect ample data on each of the IRA standard elements. At the beginning, we collected these data in “old school” fashion with paper/pencil checklists and huge boxes of raw data/candidate work. Over the course of the process, we went from coding in basic excel spreadsheets to implementing LiveText when our college purchased a license (a life saver!). We were able to use the data collected and look at candidate performance across multiple years and across sections taught (e.g. online vs. face to face) and even over time as the assessments and rubrics were refined.  For example, over time, we were able to see positive trends across the candidates in our state’s licensure exam, particularly in the Reading Leadership section of the assessment.
• Work with building administrators. We were well supported by our department chair, dean and college’s NCATE coordinator who saw the value in the way in which we approached this task. Efforts were made for course reassignments, supplemental funds/summer pay and funds to attend conference sessions offered by IRA and NCATE. We’ve felt completely supported by the International Reading Association. For example, at the beginning of our work, we used the key assessment and rubric examples posted on the IRA website to guide the development of our first few key assessments.  From the resources (web-based, conference trainings) to IRA personnel (thank you Gail Keating) to the dozen or so of our colleagues who have taken on the enormous service task of becoming the experts in the field of IRA accreditation (thank you Diane Kern, Debra Miller, Michael Shaw, and Bill Smith!), we always felt supported.  In fact, at times we felt others, within our college must have had SPA – envy.

The outcomes of our accreditation work were (1) We have strengthened our high quality program for preparing our reading specialist candidates and (2) we also created a Professional Learning Community (PLC) among our faculty. While what we described here was the positive highlights of our group growing as a PLC in higher education, we recognize that we did stumble and hit some obstacles both individually and collectively during this process. However even with obstacles, the PLC provided support for our professional learning at the higher education level.

Resources

Bean, R.M. (2010). The Reading Specialist: Leadership in the classroom, school, and community. (2nd edition). New York: Guilford Publication.

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

DuFour, R., DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IL: Solution Tree.

International Reading Association. (2010). Standards for reading professionals – Revised 2010. Newark, DE: Author

International Reading Association. (2004). The role and qualifications of the Reading Coach in the United States. Newark, DE: Author

International Reading Association. (2003). Standards for reading professionals – Revised 2003. Newark, DE: Author

Walpole, S., & McKenna, M.  (2004). The Literacy Coach’s handbook.  New York: Guilford Publications. 

Allison Swan Dagen is an associate professor at West Virginia University, Allison.swan@mail.wvu.edu.

Aimee Morewood is an assistant professor at West Virginia University, aimee.morewood@mail.wvu.edu.