PROGRAM REVIEWSELF-STUDY

Title of Degree Program: 13.1315 M.S. Reading Education

Majors listed under the degree:Reading Education

Specialization areas include: None

Minors listed under the degree: None

Program Leader: Joyce C. Fine, Ed. D., Associate Professor

Program Faculty:

-Joyce C. Fine, Ed.D., Associate Professor;

-Lynne D. Miller, Ph.D., Associate Professor;

-Gwyn Senokossoff, Ph.D., Assistant Professor;

-Helen J. Robbins, Ed.D., Instructor;

-Patsy Self Trand, Ph.D., Instructor;

-Maria A. Tsalikis, Ed.D., Visiting Professor;

-Lynn Ybarren, Ed.D., Instructor.

Part I:Overview

  1. What goals did you develop as a result of your last program review?
  2. To develop a course focused on adolescent literacy.
  3. To develop a course that would develop school-level leadership skills for students who will be prepared to work as literacy coaches.
  4. To develop the student’s knowledge onthe interpretation of data and createinstruction on the specific skills needed for students based on standardized test results and the communication of information to stakeholders about standardized testing data.
  1. What are your major accomplishments tied to these goals? Are there other significant accomplishments that you reached as a result of continuous quality improvement and your ability to capture emerging trends, needs, and opportunities?
  2. Three new classes were incorporated into the program. The first course was RED 6805: Practicum in Reading, focusing on adolescent literacy. Adolescent literacy became an emerging need with the crisis in high school dropouts and the Reading Next report. Per the state's recommendation of an addition of a course in the Organization and Supervision of Reading Programs, RED 6247 was also developed. This course includes leadership aspects to support candidates as they become Reading Coaches. Lastly, RED 6540: Assessment in Reading was developed to focus on the development of knowledge and skills related to accountability and communication as mandated in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Part II: Program Analysis

  1. What is the vision of your program(s)? Your mission?
  2. The vision of the M.S. in Reading Education Program is to prepare professionals who have the knowledge, abilities, and habits of mind to facilitate and enhance learning and development within diverse settings; promote and facilitate the discovery, development, documentation, assessment, and dissemination of knowledge related to teaching and learning; and develop professional partnerships in the larger community.
  3. The mission of the M.S. in Reading Education Program is linked to the COE mission and is as follows:
  4. Facilitate the preparation of reading professionals who have the knowledge, abilities, and dispositions to enhance learning and development within diverse settings.
  5. Facilitate an environment that promotes the discovery, development, documentation, assessment, and dissemination of knowledge related to teaching and learning in the field of reading.
  6. Facilitate professional partnerships in the community that foster change.
  1. Programmatic Information:
  1. Location(s) where degree is offered:The degree is offered at both the Modesto Maidique and Pines Center campuses. Classes are also held on-site at school locations for supervised clinical practicums, one at the elementary level and one at the secondary level.
  2. Delivery format(s): face-to-face delivery of courses.
  3. Enrollment data: See chart below.

Headcount / Fall 2004 / Fall 2005 / Fall 2006 / Fall 2007 / Fall 2008 / Fall 2009 / Fall 2010
M.S. Reading Education / 76 / 139 / 111 / 130 / 145 / 137 / 105
  1. Retention and graduation rates: See chart below.

Degrees Awarded / 2004-05 / 2005-06 / 2006-07 / 2007-08 / 2008-09 / 2009-10 / 2010-11
M.S. Reading Education / 56 / 40 / 88 / 41 / 51 / 58 / 39
  1. Placement of graduates:Most are working with Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Broward County Public Schools, and Keys Public Schools. Some are working in other states and a few in other countries. Some also teach developmental reading courses at state colleges and universities.
  2. Percentage of graduates proceeding to graduate or professional schools:Three to five percent of graduates complete a doctoral program. Some of these are at FIU; some are at other universities across the country.
  3. Diversity profile of students: See chart below.

Diversity / 2004-05 / 2005-06 / 2006-07 / 2007-08 / 2008-09 / 2009-10 / 2010-11
Total # of Students / 76 / 139 / 111 / 130 / 145 / 137 / 105
American Indian / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Asian / 1 / 1 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 0
Black / 6 / 23 / 14 / 21 / 25 / 25 / 16
Hispanic / 51 / 88 / 67 / 72 / 86 / 78 / 64
White / 17 / 27 / 27 / 32 / 28 / 29 / 25
Multi-racial / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Not Specified / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 3 / 3 / 0

University Core Curriculum delivered (if applicable). – N/A

  1. Student learning outcomes matrix (i.e., student learning outcomes stated in measurable terms; assessment methods [criteria and procedures for evaluation]; results of data summary and analysis; and, use of results for improving student learning) for the last two years (2008-09 and 2009-10). Use of results could include, for example, curriculum reform.
  2. See attached 2008-09 and 2009-10 Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reports for assessment methods, criteria, and procedures for evaluation.
  1. Program performance outcomes matrix (i.e., program outcomes stated in measurable terms; assessment criteria and procedures for evaluation; results of data summary and analysis; and, use of results for improving the program.)
  2. See attached 2008-09 and 2009-10 Program Outcomes Assessment Reports for assessment methods, criteria, and procedures for evaluation.

Provide focused synthesis and analysis of the above segments.

-Several changes were made within the program. One was to include a composite book for RED 6247, which included chapters from different books that provided information on specific strategies for teaching word recognition and vocabulary. This book proved to be a good resource and was used to create professional development workshops in class and at schools by the candidates.

-To improve knowledge of genre (which had been in the 60 percent range in 2008-09), we decided to include more discussion in class and more specific information about the literary elements on the midterm and final. Candidates scored 73.81 percent correct in this area the following year, indicating that this helped to improve student learning outcomes.

-The faculty continued to meet as a strand on a monthly basis to discuss the opportunities for their professional growth contributing to the accreditation process.

-The decision to help improve the process for the selection of a site for the RED 6546 and RED 6515 practicum at an elementary school wassuccessfulThe North Twin Lakes Elementary and Community School, the practicum site, and the College of Education (COE)decided to form a partnership. The paperwork is in progress to support this partnership. By becoming a partner, the school commits to housing the practicum earlier in the spring. The partnership facilitates planning for the elementary school and the college.

-The faculty will continue building upon the RED 6805 practicum,the Reading Scene, which is a free tutoring program at the secondary level at North Miami Senior High School. The school also became our official partner through the Adopt-A-School program with Miami-Dade County Public Schools. The school moved to its new building, a beautiful facility, which made tutoring in the large media center much more conducive for learning. The students are provided pizza and drinks by FIU via a grant from Wachovia. The high school students who participated in the Reading Scene were treated to a day at FIU as part of a “College Tour” to motivate them to attend college. To impact the school, Dr. Fine began professional development on content area or discipline-specific literacy with the Social Studies teachers.

Contextual Program Information:

  1. List recommendations from the last program review and actions taken in response to recommendations.
  2. This year, faculty began writing grants to increase the levels of research funding and productivity. Thus far, two have not been funded. Another is in review and one is being developed.
  3. The Reading faculty worked to achieve a national reputation by applying for the Certificate of Distinction from the International Reading Association (IRA) for the reading courses in the Elementary Education program. This was a two-stage, rigorous process with an on-site visit by a team of reading experts. The experts verifiedthe documentation from the first phase by observing in classes, and meeting with FIU administrators, faculty, students, and Miami-Dade County school administrators. The Reading Program was awarded the Certificate of Distinction and presented with a plaque in recognition of the high quality program at the IRA conference. The elementary education candidates received certificates stating that they were graduates of a program that attained such a distinction. Program faculty members were invited to speak about our program at a national conference, the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers (ALER) conference.
  4. Faculty have been attending workshops given by the Associate Dean of Graduate Studies, Dr. Patricia Barbetta, on the procedures for working with doctoral students. They have also attended presentations by guest speakers at the university. For instance, Dr. Camille Catlett, an Early Childhood Specialist,provided a bibliography of excellent resources, many of which are related to early literacy development.
  5. To continue building connections with other university research programs, the reading program's leader is working with FIU’s College of Medicine/COE collaboration via participation in the education committee of the Green Family Community HELP initiative. This initiative providesresources to 43 minority families and creates a pipeline to health careers by identifying means of supporting the developing literacy skills needed to succeed in school.
  1. Summarize results/recommendations of any specialized accreditation, including date of review.
  2. The program has not undergone any specialized accreditation reviews. The program has been conditionally approved by the Florida Department of Education and is in the process of revising its critical tasks and rubrics to include the new revised Florida Educator Accomplished Practices [FEAPS]. The Florida reading standards are in the process of revision and as soon as the state department of education completes this process, the reading course curriculum and syllabi will need to be revised to meet the new standards.
  1. Describe major changes in the Program as a result of changes in discipline, student demand, faculty feedback and labor dynamics.
  2. There have been multiple changes to the program since the last program review in 2003-04. These were due to the evolution of the COE’s Conceptual Framework, an increased national emphasis on accountability, changes in standards from the International Reading Association (in Standards for Reading Professionals, Revised 2003), and the revision by the Florida Department of Education of its Competencies and Skills for Teacher Certification. As a result of the Report of the National Reading Panel, there was a major revamping of the curriculum to include explicit instruction in the five major areas for reading instruction, based on scientifically-based reading research (SBRR). After the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, reading faculty participated in the Reading First Teacher Education Network (RFTEN), sharing many strategies to help diverse populations. The Florida State Department of Education mandated that a course in Organization and Supervision of Reading Programs be added in 2002. Over time, the areas involved in preparing reading professionals to teach the literacy process have expanded to include the recognition of other factors, such as motivation. Noteworthy is the fact that the definition of research has broadened to include qualitative research, in addition to quantitative research. As the changes were made to the courses’ assignments, rubrics were created to align to the standards and goals of the courses. This movement led to another mandate to teach a course on reading assessment (RED 6540). This course prepared candidates to interpret data used for progress monitoring. Added to the curriculum was information about Response to Intervention (RtI), which was mandated in 2004 with the U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education IDEA legislation. With the growing awareness of the importance of supporting adolescents, the Reading Practicum (RED 6805) underwent curricular change to focus on adolescent literacy. The practicum was implemented in high schools with diverse populations. The responsibility of the general education teacher for RtI was included in the organization and supervision course. Topics such as differentiated instruction have also been added. Most recently, the IRA has required master’s level programs to include experiences in coaching teachers on site at their schools to prepare the master’s candidates to mentor other teachers. This development raised the bar on the types of assignments that would meet the IRA standards. Developmental Reading RED 5147, an online course building upon the Florida Online Professional Development (FOR-PD) course, has also been added. The FOR-PD course is no longer available due to state budget cuts.
  3. Changes in candidates’ performance, faculty, resources, and governance:
  4. Candidates are now expected to perform on a much higher level and be highly qualified upon graduationTeachers are now not only expected to be able to teach all students to read, but also to be able to mentor other teachers on how to more effectively teach reading. The mentoring of teachers at the school site prepares the students to be literacy coaches, as the role of the literacy professional has evolved.
  5. There have been changes in the faculty which include the retirement of Drs. Sharon Kossack and Nancy Marshall and the relocation of Dr. Lisbeth Krauss. There has been the addition of Dr. Maria Tsalikis as a visiting instructor and the addition of Dr. Helen Robbins as an instructor. In the 2010-11 academic year, three new faculty were hired: Dr. Gwyn Senokossoff as an associate professor, Dr. Patsy Self Trand (who had been working at the University Reading Center and as an adjunct with the department for many years) as an instructor, and Dr. Lynn Yribarren as an instructor.
  6. With budget cuts, supplies are no longer purchased in support of the clinical practicum courses.
  7. The COE has had multiple deans and changes in the chair of the Department of Teaching and Learning (formerly the Department of Curriculum and Instruction). During this time, he reading program has continued with one program leader, Dr. Fine.
  1. Demonstrate need for the Program and benefit to the University, region, State, and global community, as applicable.
  1. The M.S. in Reading Education benefits the university, region, state, and national community. The program encompasses the following FIU values: excellence in teaching and in the pursuit, generation, dissemination, and application of knowledge; respect for the dignity of the individual; diversity; and service excellence. Graduates of the program are mostly bilingual minority teachers (Hispanic). These teachers have gained knowledge of the field of reading in order to work with students and teachers to improve literacy. They act responsibly and ethically, respecting the many cultural, linguistic, and ability differences in classrooms in the region, state, and communities around the world. The graduates are qualified to teach reading in K-12 settings and are also certified as reading specialists/coaches. They are employed at the college and university level as developmental reading teachers. As the bar rises in terms of the level of literacy needed to succeed in society with the ubiquitous use of computers and the Internet, there is greater need for literacy teachers. In preparing reading teachers and literacy coaches, we prepare highly qualified teachers to instruct present and future generations in literacy and conduct research on the nature of literacy.
  2. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics at as of 2008, there were 3.5 million teachers in the U.S. working at the Pre-K level through the secondary level. Employment is expected to grow for teachers about as quickly as the average for all occupations. Job prospects are best in high-demand fields and in urban school districts. At the federal level, there is a large increase in funding, especially for the hiring of qualified teachers in low-income areas. The number of teaching jobs is expected to increase as the population grows and baby boomer teachers retire. Additionally, the state class size amendment, which limits the size of classes, will require more teachers to be hired. For adult literacy and remedial education, employment is expected to grow faster than average. Job opportunities are expected to be favorable.
  3. As the population of minorities increases in the U.S., there is a greater need for bilingual teachers. Many of the candidates are Hispanic and bilingual. This profile makes them marketable as new hires for second language learners. The greater number of teachers we prepare who are ESOL endorsed and bilingual, the greater the impact of the M.S. in Reading Education on meeting the demand for bilingual teachers.

Fiscal Analysis:

  1. The Fiscal Analysis will be enacted through a process between the Office of Academic Budget and Personnelin the Division of Academic Affairs and the dean of the College of Education.

Research Productivity (as applicable):

12a. Grant Support: Please analyze tenured and tenured-earning faculty productivity in the last three years in terms of grant support, including the following: number ofproposals funded; number of submitters; total funds requested; average per proposal; number of proposals funded; and, total amount funded. (Please provide the information by fiscal year.) You can also provide the analysis on non-tenured and non-tenured earning faculty. Analysis on clinical grants, as applicable, can be included.

Faculty / # of Grants / Faculty Grants Funded / Total Amount Funded
Fine / 10 / 5 / $1,832,632
Krauss / 6 / 5
Senokossoff / 1

-Fine, J. (2010). Pixel pals: Connecting pre-service literacy teachers to diverse fourth graders, $2500applied to Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers (ALER). Not funded.

-Fine, J. (2010). Visual thinking, reading & writing. Applied to the FIU Tech/Fee Grant at FIU. Not funded.

-Senokossoff, G., & Fine, J. (2011). An Investigation of first grade reading instruction. Spenser Grant for $40,000. To be submitted.

-Salmon, A., Fine, J., & Lucas, T. (2010 in review). Cognition in language and literacy development in young diverse learners applied to IES, for $162,162.

-Fine. J. (2009-20011). Wachovia grant to support the supervised clinical practicum at North Miami Senior High School, for $29,477.

-Fine, J. (2007). Reciprocal mapping: The effectiveness of a strategy to enhance ninth-graders’ comprehension and writing in social studies. (Just Read Florida! Office withdrew the RFP due to lack of funds before reviews were complete.) Not funded.