WINONA STATE UNIVERSITY
PROPOSAL FOR A NEW COURSE
This form is to be used to submit a proposal for a new undergraduate or graduate course. Every item on this form must be completed prior to
submission to A2C2. The department proposing a new course must include a Financial and Staffing Data Sheet and a New and Revised
Course and Program Approval Form with the department chairperson’s and Dean’s signatures. Refer to Regulation 3-4, Policy for
Changing the Curriculum, for complete information on submitting proposals for curricular changes.
Department:
EDUCATION
EDRD 470 / 570
Course No.
Date FEB 12, 2013
Data-based Improvement of Reading Programs
Course Title
This proposal is for a(n): ___X___ Undergraduate Course
___X___ Graduate Course
Is this course for USP? ____Yes** __X__ No
Is this course for GEP? ____Yes** __X__ No
3
Credits*
List all Major Codes to which this proposal applies as a required course: none
List all Major Codes to which this proposal applies as an elective course:
none
List all Minor Codes to which this proposal applies as a required course: (proposed EDRD Reading Minor)
List all Minor Codes to which this proposal applies as an elective course:
Prerequisites
none
EDRD 450/550 Differentiated Reading Instruction
Grading method ___X___ Grade only
______ P/NC only
______ Grade and P/NC Option
Frequency of offering __ONCE EACH YEAR______________________________________________________________
What semester do you anticipate that will this course be offered for the first time? FALL 2014
Note: The approval process for a new course typically takes at least four to six weeks
* If this course will change the number of credits for any major or minor, the form Proposal for a Revised Program must also be submitted
and approved according to the instructions on that form.
**For General Education Program (GEP) or University Studies (USP) course approval, the form Proposal for General Education Courses or
Proposal for University Studies Courses must also be completed and submitted according to the instructions on that form.
Please provide all of the following information:
(Note: a syllabus or other documentation may not substitute for this)
A. Course Description
1. Description of the course as it will appear in the WSU catalog, including the credit hours, any prerequisites, and the grading method.
If the course can be repeated, indicate the maximum number of credit hours for which this can be done.
This course focuses on understanding collection, analysis, and interpretation of data as the driving force behind
continuous improvement of reading instruction in the classroom and school. Particular attention is paid to
continuous progress monitoring, responsive intervention, and collaboration among important stakeholders in the
classroom, building, district, and community. Graduate project required. (3 cr.) Prerequisites: EDRD 450/550.
Offered as needed.
2. Course outline of the major topics, themes, subtopics, etc., to be covered in the course. This outline should be, at a minimum, a twolevel outline, i.e., consisting of topics and subtopics. This information will be submitted to MnSCU by the WSU Registrar’s office.
Note: Right column numbering represents alignment with standards for MN Teacher Licensing.
1. Developing school-wide structures for balanced literacy
a. Explicit instruction
b. Teacher modeling
c. Guided practice
d. Partnered practice
e. Independent practice and application
f. Independent engaged reading
g. Interactive response to reading / learning
h. Interactive talk about self-regulation and strategy use
i. Reading and writing strategically across disciplines
2. Data-based Improvement
a. Examination of existing outcome measures
i. For what purposes?
ii. How widely accessible?
iii. Who reviews?
1. Classroom level
2. Building level
3. District level
4. Community & Caretakers
5. Professional learning community models
b. Analysis of existing outcome measures
i. What is being measured
ii. Relationship to expectations & standards
iii. Reliability of assessment measures
iv. Validity of assessment measures
c. Data-based question posing
i. What is not being measured
ii. Gaps in existing data
iii. Concern for areas not measured
iv. Need for new data
2. Response to Instruction Initiative
a. Three Tier Models
b. Intensity and frequency of instruction
c. Continuous Progress Monitoring
3. Types and Purposes of Assessment
a. Screening
b. Diagnosis
c. Progress Monitoring
4. Administration and Interpretation of Common Assessment Tools
a. DIBELS
b. AIMSweb
c. Curriculum based Measurement in Reading
d. NWEA MAP testing
e. Comprehensive Reading Inventory (Cooter & Flynt)
f. Bader Reading & Language Inventory
g. State-wide standards tests
5. Continuous progress monitoring measures in Grades K-2
a. Oral language development
b. Phonemic awareness
c. Fluent word recognition
d. Pseudo-word reading
e. Oral reading fluency (connected text)
6. Continuous progress monitoring measures in Grades 3-6
a. Oral language development
b. Word Identification
c. MAZE reading fluency
d. Passage reading fluenc
e. Reading Comprehension
(D3)
(C2)
(C2)
(C3)
(C3)
7. Investigating Data-based Initiatives/Interventions
a. Identifying areas for improvement
i. external benchmarks
ii. within district benchmarks
b. Identifying appropriate Tier of instruction for interventions
c. Tapping professional knowledge
i. external expertise
a. research results from existing interventions
b. recommendations from external experts / authors
ii. within district expertise
8. Developing Needed Data-based Initiatives/Interventions
a. Solicitation of involvement from major stakeholders
b. Replication of research-based programs
c. Selection of research-based programs aligned with site-based contexts
d. Setting a clear timeline for implementation
e. Creating well-organized plans for data collection & assessment
9. Staff Development for Improved Program Results
a. Identification of leader
b. Identification of budget, critical materials and human resources
c. Identification of timeline for implementation
d. Launching with involved faculty
i. Clear inclusion in identifying a need for improvement
ii. Challenge to greater assessment of what is working
iii. Proposed initiative based on identified need.
iv. Discussion of competing intervention options
v. Rationale for selection of chosen intervention
vi. Intents, procedures, and supports for intervention
vii. Fidelity and boundaries of leeway during initial implementation
viii.Establishing central role of data-collection
ix. Assessment collection and analysis plan with timelines
e. Regular support and monitoring of faculty implementation
i. Explanation
ii. Modeling
ii. Peer-to-peer observation
iii. Implementation and continuous progress support meetings
iv. Readjustment and recalibration of support as needed
f. Communicating outcomes across levels / major stakeholders
i. Classroom: students
ii. Building: faculty, staff, volunteers
iii. District: administration, central office staff, colleagues
iv. Community: parents, caregivers, PTO, news outlets
g. Beginning a new cycle of data-based improvement
3.a Instructional delivery methods utilized: (Please check all that apply).
Auditorium/Classroom
ITV
Online
:
Laboratory:
Service Learning
Travel Study
Other: (Please indicate)
3.b. MnSCU Course media codes: (Please check all that apply).
None:
3. Internet
1. Satellite
4. ITV Sending
2. CD Rom
5. Broadcast TV
(C5)
(C6)
(C7)
Web Enhanced
Web Supplemented
Internship/Practicum
6. Independent Study
7. Taped
8. ITV Receiving
9. Web Enhanced
10. Web Supplemented
4. Course requirements (papers, lab work, projects, etc.) and means of evaluation.
Evaluation is based on performance projects, student presentations, written assignments, quizzes, tests, and
portfolio artifacts.
5. Course materials (textbook(s), articles, etc.).
Armstrong, T. (May 2009). Literacy, multiple intelligences and the brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
August, D. & Shannahan, T. (Eds.) (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the
national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
August, D. & Shannahan, T. (Eds.) (2008). Developing reading and writing in second-langauge learners: Lessons
from the report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. NY: Routledge.
Bender, W. (2002) Differentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities: Best teaching practices for
general and special Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bray Donnelly, W., Roe, C. J. (2010). Using sentence frames to develop academic vocabulary for English learners.
The Reading Teacher, 64(2), 131-136.
Brown, M. R. (2007). Educating All Students: Creating culturally responsive teachers, classrooms, and schools.
Intervention in School & Clinic, 43(1), 57-61.
Catts, H. W. & Kamhi, A. G. (Eds.). (2005). The connections between language and reading disabilities. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chapman, C. & Gregory, G. (2002). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn't fit all. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Ciechanowski, K. M. (2009). “A squirrel came and pushed Earth”: Popular culture and scientific ways of thinking for
ELLs. The Reading Teacher, 62(7), 558-568.
De Courcy, M. (2007). Disrupting preconceptions: Challenges to preservice teachers’ beliefs about ESL children.
Journal of Multilingual and multicultural Development, 28(3), 188-205.
Diller, D. (2005). Practice with Purpose: Literacy Work Stations for Grades 3-6. Portland, ME: Stenhouse
Publishers.
Echevarria, J., Vogtn, M., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP
model. Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Flynt, E.S. & Brozo, W.G. (2008). Developing academic language: Got words? The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 500502.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gipe, J.P. (2010). Multiple Paths to Literacy: Assessment and differentiated instruction for diverse learners, K-12.
Boston: Pearson Publishing.
Gregory, G. H. (2004). Differentiated literacy strategies for students in grades K-6. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Publishing.
Linan-Thompson, S., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based methods of reading Instruction for English language
learners, grades K-4. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Manyak, P. C. (2007). A framework for robust literacy instruction for English learners. The Reading Teacher,
61(2), 197-199.
Mohr, K.A.J., & Mohr, E.S. (2007). Extending English-language learners’ classroom interactions using the
Response Protocol. The Reading Teacher, 60, 440-450.
Montelongo, J. A., Hernandez, A. C., Herter, R. J., Cuello, J. (2011). Using cognates to scaffold context clue
strategies for Latino ELs. The Reading Teacher, 64(6), 429-434.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the national reading panel. Teaching
children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for instruction. Reports of the subgroup. (NIH Publicaiton No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Padak, N., Rasinski, T. V. (2010). Welcoming schools: Small changes that can make a big difference. The Reading
Teacher, 64(4), 294-297.
Paterson, K. (2005) Differentiated learning: Language and literacy projects that address diverse backgrounds and
cultures. Markham, ON: Pembroke Publishers.
Palmer, B. C., El-Ashry, F., Leclere, J. T., Chang, S. (2007). Learning from Abdallah: A case study of an Arabicspeaking child in a U.S. school. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 8-17.
Schafer Willner, L., Rivera, C., Asosta, B. D. (2009). Ensuring accommodations used in content assessments are
responsive to English-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 62(8), 669-698.
Tomlinson, C. & Et. Al. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating
curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tyner, B. (2004) Small-group reading Instruction: A differentiated teaching model for beginning and struggling
readers. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Electronic Resources
Center for Applied Linguistics website http://www.cal.org/
Starlight Consortium for EL Achievement http://en.elresearch.org/
Differentiated Classrooms can Raise the Bar http://www.weac.org/kids/1998-99/march99/differ.htm
Differentiated Instruction http://www.cast.org/ncac/DifferentiatedInstruction2876.cfm
Preparing for Differentiated Instruction http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.8835d3e3fbb1b0cddeb3fdb62108a0c/
Beyond Differentiation http://www.ascd.org/professional-development/webinars/robyn-jackson-webinar.aspx
Strength-Based Strategies for Students with Special Needs
http://www.ascd.org/professional-development/webinars/thomas-armstrong-webinar.aspx
6. List the student learning outcomes for this course and how each outcome will be assessed.
Assessed through:
B2) understand and apply teaching methods related to the developmental stages of language;
Portfolio artifacts
D5) development of a literacy framework to coherently organize reading programs and effectively implement lessons,
including a variety of grouping strategies, guided practice, and independent work; and
Portfolio artifacts
D6) the ability to design purposeful lessons and tasks based on the qualities, structures, and difficulty of texts and the
reading needs of individuals, including the selection and use of supplementary materials to support the reading
development of struggling and gifted readers.
E2) formal and informal tools to
Differentiated unit
(E2a) plan, evaluate, and differentiate instruction to meet the needs of students from various cognitive, linguistic, and
cultural backgrounds; and
E2b) design and implement appropriate classroom interventions for struggling readers and enrichment programs for
gifted readers;
Differentiated unit
Collaborative
Intervention plan
E3) the ability to work with reading specialists, gifted and talented specialists, and other staff on advanced intervention
and enrichment programs;
Differentiated unit
E5) the ability to administer selected assessments and analyze and use data to plan instruction through a structured
clinical experience linked to university reading course work; and
Tutoring project
E6) the ability to understand the appropriate uses of each kind of assessment and the concepts of validity and
reliability.
Test
F2) the ability to support students and colleagues in the selection or design of materials that match reading levels,
interests, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds;
Collaborative
Intervention plan
F7) the use of a variety of strategies to motivate students to read at home; encourage and provide support for parents
or guardians to read to their children, in English or in the primary languages of English language learners; and to
use additional strategies to promote literacy in the home.
Portfolio artifacts
G4) understand how to provide instructions for paraprofessionals and volunteers working in the classroom to ensure
that these individuals provide effective supplementary reading instruction;
Differentiated unit
G6) collaborate with other professionals on literacy learning initiatives.
Collaborative
Intervention plan
B. Rationale
Provide a rationale for the new course. The rationale should include the following items.
1. A statement of the major focus of the course.
2. A statement of how this course will contribute to the departmental curriculum.
3. A statement of why this course is to be offered at this level (i.e. 100-, 200-, 300-, 400-, or 500-level)
4. Identification of any courses which may be dropped, if any, if this course is implemented.
B1) The major focus of the course is upon differentiation of instruction within classrooms and collaboration with other professionals for the
design of data-based interventions for struggling readers, advanced readers and English language learners.
B2) The course has been designed to provide increased depth of preparation required to address several recent changes in reading-related
standards for the preparation of K-6 Elementary Teachers.
B3) The course is being offered at a 400 / 500 level because it addresses licensing standards from the MN K-6 Elementary Teaching License
(undergraduate level) and also lays the foundation for several licensing standards for the MN Teacher of Reading license (graduate level).
B4) No courses will be dropped due to the implementation of this course.
C. Impact of This Course on Other Departments, Programs, Majors, and Minors
Provide a statement of the impact of this course on other departments, programs, majors, and minors.
1. Clearly state the impact of this course on courses taught in other departments. Does this course duplicate the content of any other
course? Is there any effect on prerequisites for this or any other courses?
2. Would approval of this course change the total number of credits required by any major or minor of any department? If so, explain the
effects which this course would have.
3. If this course has an impact on the major or minor of any other department or program, it is the responsibility of the department
submitting the course proposal to send written notification to the department(s) or program(s) affected. State clearly which other
programs are affected by this proposal and whether the other departments have been notified and/or consulted. Attach letter(s) of
understanding from impacted department(s).
C1) The course does not duplicate content of other courses. The course is being created to address reading-related assessment and curriculum
issues. There will be no effect on other courses.
C2) This course is part of a newly proposed reading minor offered through the Education Department. It would not change the total number of
credits required by other majors or minors.
C3) NA
D. Attach to This Proposal a Completed
1. Financial and Staffing Data Sheet
2. New and Revised Course and Program Approval Form
E. Department Contact Person for this Proposal:
______________________________________________
Name (please print)
________________
Phone
_______________________________
e-mail address
F. Review by Department A2C2 Representative
I have reviewed this proposal and certify that it is complete _______________________________________________________
Signature of A2C2 representative
Definitions for codes in 3a and 3b:
01-Satellite:
02- CD ROM:
03- Internet: Predominately = where all, or nearly all, course activity occurs in an online environment. One to two activities may occur
face-to-face in a classroom, with the maximum being two activities.
04 – ITV Sending: a course in which students are in the classroom with the instructor, other students join via interactive television
technology from other geographically separate locations
05 – Broadcast TV:
06 – Independent Study: a course in which the teacher develops specialized curriculum for the student(s) based on department guidelines in
the University course catalog
07 – Taped: a course in which the teacher records the lessons for playback at a later date
08 – ITV Receiving: a course in which students are not in the classroom with the teacher, other students join via interactive television
technology from other geographically separate locations
09 – Web Enhanced- Limited Seat Time: For a course in which students are geographically separate from the teacher and other students
for a majority of required activities. However, some on-site attendance is required. The course includes synchronous and/or
asynchronous instruction.
10 – Web Supplemented- No Reduced Seat Time: For a course utilizing the web for instructional activities. Use of this code may assist your
college/university in tracking courses for “smart classrooms” and/or facility usage.
WINONA STATE UNIVERSITY
FINANCIAL AND STAFFING DATA SHEET
Course or Program_EDRD 470/570 Differentiated Reading Instruction
Include a Financial and Staffing Data Sheet with any proposal for a new course, new program, or revised program.
Please answer the following questions completely. Provide supporting data.
1.
Would this course or program be taught with existing staff or with new or additional staff? If this course would be taught by adjunct
faculty, include a rationale.
This course would be taught with existing staff. There have been four sections of that course offered each semester, two of them taught by
tenure track faculty. Thus, existing staff is available to be reassigned for teaching of this course in place of the discontinued course.
2.
What impact would approval of this course/program have on current course offerings? Please discuss number of sections of current
offerings, dropping of courses, etc.
This course would have no impact on current course offerings for education majors. EDUC 120, a university studies course, has recently
been discontinued from university studies. There have been four sections of that course offered each semester, two of them taught by tenure
track faculty. With its reduction, existing staff lines can be reassigned to address this course.
3.
What effect would approval of this course/program have on the department supplies? Include data to support expenditures for staffing,
equipment, supplies, instructional resources, etc.
This course would have minimal financial impact on department supplies, with the exception of possible one time expenditures for the
purpose of acquiring current reading assessment instruments. The course does not involve any unusual support staffing or new purchasing of
equipment. Minimal costs for printing and clerical support would be likely offset by the discontinued university studies course (EDUC 120).
WINONA STATE UNIVERSITY
NEW AND REVISED COURSE AND PROGRAM APPROVAL FORM
Routing form for new and revised courses and programs.
Course or Program EDRD 470/570
Department Recommendation
_________________________________
Department Chair
________________
Date
Dean’s Recommendation _____ Yes
_____ No*
____________________________________________
e-mail address
_________________________________
________________
Dean of College
Date
*The dean shall forward their recommendation to the chair of the department, the chair of A2C2, and the Vice President for
Academic Affairs.
A2C2 Recommendation
_____ Approved
_____ Disapproved
_________________________________
________________
Chair of A2C2
Date
Graduate Council Recommendation _____ Approved
(if applicable)
_____ Disapproved
_________________________________
________________
Chair of Graduate Council
Date
_________________________________
________________
Director of Graduate Studies
Date
Faculty Senate Recommendation
_____ Approved
_________________________________
President of Faculty Senate
_____ Disapproved
________________
Date
Academic Vice President Recommendation
_____ Approved
________________________________
Academic Vice President
________________
Date
Decision of President _____ Approved
_____ Disapproved
_____ Disapproved
_________________________________
________________
President
Date
Please forward to Registrar.
Registrar _________________ Please notify department chair via e-mail that curricular change has been recorded.
Date entered
[Revised 9-1-10]
WINONA STATE UNIVERSITY
REQUIRED CHECKLIST FOR ALL CURRICULAR PROPOSALS
Course or Program EDRD 450/550
This checklist enables A2C2 representatives to endorse that their departments have accurately followed the Process for Accomplishing
Curricular Change. For each course or program proposal submitted to A2C2, this checklist must be completed, signed by the submitting
department's A2C2 representative, and included with the proposal when forwarded for approval. Peer review of proposals is also strongly
advised, e.g., departments should discuss and vote on the proposals as submitted to A2C2, rather than on just the ideas proposed or drafts of
proposals.
If a proposal fails to follow or complete any aspect of the process, the Course and Program Proposal Subcommittee will postpone
consideration of the proposal and return it to the department's A2C2 representative for completion and resubmission. Resubmitted proposals
have the same status as newly submitted proposals.
Note: This form need not be completed for notifications.
1.
The appropriate forms and the “Approval Form" have been completed in full for this proposal. All necessary or relevant
descriptions, rationales, and notifications have been provided.
________ Completed
2a. The “Financial and Staffing Data Sheet" has been completed and is enclosed in this proposal, if applicable.
________ Completed
________ NA
2b. For departments that have claimed that “existing staff" would be teaching the course proposed, an explanation has been enclosed
in this proposal as to how existing staff will do this, e.g., what enrollment limits can be accommodated by existing staff. If no
such explanation is enclosed, the department's representative is prepared to address A2C2's questions on this matter.
________ Completed
________ NA
3.
Arrangements have been made so that a department representative knowledgeable of this proposal will be attending both the
Course and Program Proposal Subcommittee meeting and the full A2C2 meeting at which this proposal is considered.
________ Completed
Name and office phone number of proposal's representative: _____________________________________
4.
Reasonable attempts have been made to notify and reach agreements with all university units affected by this proposal. Units still
opposing a proposal must submit their objections in writing before or during the Course and Program Proposal Subcommittee
meeting at which this proposal is considered.
________ Completed
________ NA
5.
The course name and number is listed for each prerequisite involved in this proposal.
________ Completed
________NA
6.
In this proposal for a new or revised program (major, minor, concentration, etc.), the list of prerequisites provided includes all the
prerequisites of any proposed prerequisites. All such prerequisites of prerequisites are included in the total credit hour
calculations. ________ Completed
________ NA
7.
In this proposal for a new or revised program, the following information for each required or elective course is provided:
a.
The course name and number.
b.
A brief course description.
c.
A brief statement explaining why the program should include the course.
________ Completed
________ NA
8.
This course or program revision proposal:
a.
Clearly identifies each proposed change.
b.
Displays the current requirements next to the proposed new requirements, for clear, easy comparison.
________ Completed
________ NA
9.
This course proposal provides publication dates for all works listed as course textbooks or references using a standard form of
citation. Accessibility of the cited publications for use in this proposed course has been confirmed.
________ Completed
________ NA
__________________________________________________
Department's A2C2 Representative or Alternate
______________________
Date
[ Revised 9-05]