RESPONSE TO CITED PROGRAM WEAKNESSES
There were several program weaknesses cited.
First, course syllabi were criticized for being too broad with objectives that did not necessarily relate to the course content. Efforts were made to make the syllabi more detailed and specific. Care was taken to relate the objectives to the course content. See the revised course outlines for evidence.
Second, the content and the lack of assessments linked to the objectives were noted. As stated in the introduction to this document, the reading faculty has developed specific assessments as these new courses were taught this past academic year. Again, see the revised course outlines.
Third, Reading 655 was considered to be used excessively. The reading faculty would actually like to challenge this. The original RDNG 655 was used to meet 13 of the approximately 93 standards. Given that the 93 standards were being distributed among 7 courses we did not feel this to be excessive. To be quite candid, this course is now cited for 21 of the standards. However, given that the course is title “ The Integrated Literacy Curriculum”, it struck us as quite natural that it would be cited frequently to meet standards. It appears by itself for only 5 standards.
Fourth, the content and communication standards were considered to be weak areas. RDNG 657: Comprehension and the Content Areas was completely rewritten to better meet these standards and specific performance assessments were developed to meet these standards. The communication standards are now met through the series of diagnostic and progress reports and conferences that are part of the diagnostic/clinical sequence as well as the three-part capstone experience which includes a written report of a school’s literacy strengths and weaknesses.