KUTZTOWN UNIVERSITY
KUTZTOWN, PA
DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION: Pre-K - grade 4 Program
EEU 301: Teaching Literacy in Grades 2-4
I.
Course Description:
A.
This course examines literacy development in grades 2-4 with particular attention
to how students create meaning as they read. Teacher candidates learn strategies
to develop word study, fluency, meaning vocabulary, and comprehension. The
course also prepares candidates to use and evaluate various reading programs,
instructional approaches, and materials. This course situates the teaching of
reading within theories of learning as they relate to the reading process. This
course is part of the professional semester block. 3 S.H. ; 3 C.H.
Prerequisite: EEU 300
II.
Course Rationale:
A primary goal of reading instruction in grades 2-4 is to teach students how to flexibly
use their increasing repertoire of skills in phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension to read different genres for varied purposes. Children’s growth in
reading comprehension is fundamental in grades 2-4. Therefore, it is important for
teacher candidates to enhance their understanding of the reading process and how
theories and instructional strategies related to teaching reading comprehension can be
successfully used with students in the classroom.
III.
Objectives/ Student Learning Outcomes
A. Relationship to Standards: Candidates will be able to:
Course Objectives/ Student Learning Outcomes
A. Describe literacy development and acquisition in
terms of learning theory and reading research.
NCATE /
NAYCE
PDE
(Early
Childhood)
INTASC
#1, 2
ISTE
(2008)
3.D
1a.
B. Explain how components of reading (phonological
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary,
comprehension, and language skills) contribute to and
pose challenges to students’ reading growth in grades
2-4.
C. Identify and utilize word-level instructional
strategies related to grades 2-4.
2c.
#1, 3
2c.
4.c
#1, 4
D. Explain why fluency is important for
comprehension and demonstrate strategies for fluency
building.
2c.
4.c
#1, 4
2.A
E. Identify the ways in which vocabulary (word
meanings) impacts comprehension and how vocabulary
is developed in oral and written language in grades 2-4.
2c.
4.c
#1, 4
F. Demonstrate knowledge of explicit instruction of
comprehension strategies.
G. Demonstrate instructional strategies that facilitate
comprehension of written materials.
2c
4.c
#1, 4, 7
2d.
4.c
#1, 4, 7
H. Implement strategies for infusing literacy across
content areas in a balanced literacy framework.
I. Demonstrate an ability to use, review and evaluate
literacy programs for purpose, quality, effectiveness
and research base and show knowledge of commonly
available programs.
J. Demonstrate effective use of independent reading
and ways to build a community of readers.
2c.
#1, 4
2c.
#1, 7, 9
3.D
#3, 5, 10
4.B
4.a/4.c
B.
Relationship to Conceptual Framework: This course is congruent with the
Conceptual Framework of the College of Education Teacher as Lifelong Learner, and
relates specifically to:
Knowledge:
Communication
Professional
Methodology
Skills:
Critical Thinking
Integration of
Discipline
Dispositions:
Cultural Awareness
Integration of
technology
Reflection
Conceptual Framework elements
Communication is evidenced through written assignments and through teacher candidates’
oral presentations and discussions.
Professional Methodology is modeled through demonstrations, DVDs, websites, and with
the use of guided exploration of instructional materials.
Critical thinking is applied in the written assignments, including the process of planning
reading lessons, and in class discussions.
Integration of Discipline is included through the inclusion of infusing literacy across
content areas.
Cultural awareness is included as part of the course because strategies are embedded in
class discussions that provided for assisting students who are English learners. Also the
use of children’s literature depicting various cultures is utilized.
Integration of Technology is included throughout the course through suggested websites.
Also smart classrooms and white boards are used as instructional tools.
Reflection is used throughout the course by guiding the candidates as they reflect on the
effectiveness of their lesson planning after its implementation.
IV.
A.
Assessment
Core Assessment :
Faculty will add when course is taught
B.
Other Assessments based on a subset of the following:
1.
Objective and essay tests and quizzes
2.
Demonstration lessons
3.
Class participation
4.
Class presentations of reading comprehension activities
2
5.
6.
7.
8.
VI.
Creation of reading text sets
Review of journal articles
Modeling of a think-aloud for a comprehension strategy
Reading comprehension lesson taught in the field
Course Outline:
A.
Content outline
1.
Theories related to literacy development
a.
Review of theories underlying reading process
i.
Behaviorism
ii.
Constructivism
iii.
Sociolinguistics
iv.
Psycholinguistics
v.
Critical literacy
vi.
Reader Response
b.
Belief systems about the teaching of reading
i.
Top down
ii.
Bottom up
iii.
Interactive
2.
Research based literacy instruction
a.
National Reading Panel (NRP) report
i.
Phonological awareness
ii.
Phonics
iii.
Fluency
iv.
Vocabulary
v.
Comprehension
b. Other research validated studies
i.
Qualitative studies
ii.
Survey research
3.
Phonics instruction (grades 2-4)
a.
Multi-syllabic word patterns
b.
Structural analysis
4.
Fluency development
a.
Role of fluency in reading comprehension
b.
Strategies for developing fluency
i.
Choral reading
ii.
Partner reading
iii.
Readers Theater
5.
Vocabulary development and instruction
a.
Importance for reading comprehension
b.
Incidental word learning
c.
Context clues
3
d.
6.
7.
Explicit instruction
i.
Characteristics of effective instruction
ii.
Choosing words to study
iii.
Word learning strategies
Comprehension instruction
a.
Defining comprehension
i.
Reader Factors
ii.
Text Factors
iii.
Context (Situational) Factors
b.
Explicit instruction of comprehension strategies (grades 2-4)
i.
Making connections
ii.
Predicting
iii.
Questioning
iv.
Determining importance/Summarizing
v.
Inferring
c.
Teaching comprehension skills (grades 2-4)
i.
Determining author’s purpose
ii.
Distinguishing fact from opinion
iii.
Identifying theme
iv.
Identifying literary devices in stories (rhyme, rhythm, and
personification)
d.
Instructional procedures to facilitate comprehension across content
areas
i.
Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA)
ii.
Question Answer Relationships (QAR)
iii.
Reciprocal teaching
e.
Instructional materials to facilitate comprehension across content
areas
i.
Story maps
ii.
Anticipation guides
iii.
Expository text organizers
iv.
Technology--Webquests, websites,
Using, reviewing and evaluating literacy programs
a.
Basal readers
i.
Reviewing history and purpose
ii.
Understanding components
iii.
Making effective, efficient use of multiple resources
iv.
Evaluating research base
b.
Guided reading, leveled readers and literacy centers
4
i.
Recognizing differences between guided reading for
emergent readers and developing/fluent readers
ii.
Interpreting student reading behaviors, using knowledge of
the cueing systems
iii.
Differentiating instruction based on students’ performance
iv.
Identifying characteristics of effective learning centers
v.
Evaluating research base
8.
c.
Reading workshop and book collections
i.
Explaining purpose and procedures
ii.
Conducting successful conferences
iii.
Developing wide, diverse selection of books
iv.
Evaluating research base
d.
Supplemental and/or literature-based programs
i.
Determining purpose and audience
ii.
Understanding components
iii.
Evaluating effectiveness and research base
Building a community of readers
a. Guidelines
i.
Read aloud, on daily basis, developmentally appropriate
books
ii.
Provide interesting materials and opportunities for sharing.
iii.
Provide differentiated, scaffolded instruction.
iv.
Support families of diverse cultural, linguistic and
socioeconomic backgrounds
b. Materials
i.
Wide selection at independent reading levels
ii.
Varied technological materials (computer assisted,
websites, etc.)
VI.
Instructional Resources
Armbruster, B & Osborn, J. (2003). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching
children to read, 2nd ed. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy at ED Pubs.
(government publication distributed in course)
Afflerbach, P.; Pearson, P.D.; Paris, Scott, G. Clarifying differences between reading skills and
reading strategies. Reading Teacher, 61, (5), 364-373.
Brown, K. J. (2003). What do I say when they get stuck on a word? Aligning teachers’ prompts
with students’ development. Reading Teacher, 56 (8), 720-734.
Bear, D.R., Invernizi, M. Templeton, S. & Johnston. (2008). Words their way, 4th ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Beck, I. L. & McKeown, M.G., Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
5
Blair, T.R.; Rupley, W.H. & Dee, W. (2007). The effective teacher of reading: Considering
the “what” and “how” of instruction. Reading Teacher, 60, (5), 432-438.
Carnine, D., Silbert, J., Karmeenui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2004). Direct instruction reading,
4th ed..Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Coiro, J. Exploring literacy on the Internet: Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding
our comprehension of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading
Teacher, 56, 458-464.
Cunningham, P.M. (2009). Phonics they use: Words for reading and writing. Boston: Pearson.
Cunningham, P.M. & Allington, R.L. (2007). Classrooms that work: They can all read and
write (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
DeFord, D.E. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation to reading instruction.
Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 366-367.
Farstrup, A. E. & Samuels, S. J. (2009). What research has to say about reading instruction,
3rd ed. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Flood, J. & Anders, P.,eds. (2005). Literacy development of students in urban schools:
Research and policy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Fountas, I. C. & Pinnell, G.S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fountas, I.C. & Pinnell, G.S. (2006). Teaching for comprehending and fluency. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, K.S. (2006). The truth about DIBELS: What it is, what it does. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Keene, E. O. & Zimmerman, S. (2007). Mosaic of thought: The power of comprehension
strategy instruction, 2nd ed.
Kragler, S; Walker, C.A. & Martin, L.E. (2005). Strategy instruction in primary content
textbooks. Reading Teacher, 59, (3), 254-261.
Klinger, J. K. & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using collaborative strategic reading. Teaching
Exceptional Children. 30 (6), 32-37.
Massey, D. D. (2007). “The Discovery Channel said so” and other barriers to comprehension.
Reading Teacher, 60, (7), 656-666.
McDaniel, C. (2004). Critical literacy: A questioning stance and the possibility for change.
Reading Teacher, 57, (5), 472-481.
McIntyre, E. (2007). Story discussion in the primary grades: Balancing authenticity and
explicit teaching. Reading Teacher, 60 (7), 610-620.
McLaughlin, M. (2003). Guided comprehension in the primary grades. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Morrow, L.M. (2002). The literacy center: Contexts for reading and writing, 2 nd ed. Portland,
ME: Stenhouse.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of
the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. (government publication)
Oczkus, L. (2003). Reciprocal teaching at work. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Oczkus, L. (2004). Super 6 comprehension strategies: 35 lessons and more for reading
success. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
6
Palmer, R. G. & Stewart, R. A. (2005). Models for using nonfiction in the primary grades.
Reading Teacher, 58, (5), 426-434.
Pinnell, G.S. (2006). Every child a reader: What one teacher can do. Reading Teacher, 60, (1),
78-83.
Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching, 2nd ed.
New York: Guilford Press.
Rosenblatt, L. (2004). The literary transaction: Evocation and response. Theory into Practice,
21, 268-277.
Routman, R. (2003). Reading essentials. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Schwartz, Robert M. (2005). Decisions, decisions: Responding to primary students during
guided reading. Reading Teacher, 58, (5), 436-443.
Shanahan, T. (2003). Research-based reading instruction: Myths about the national reading
panel report. Reading Teacher, 56, (7). 646-656.
Sipe, L. R. (2002). Talking back and taking over: Young children’s expressive engagement
during storybook read-alouds. Reading Teacher, 55 (5), 476-493.
Teacher as Lifelong Learner. (2004). Conceptual framework for all professional education
programs at Kutztown University.
Teale, W.H. & Gambrell, L.B. (2007). Raising urban students’ literacy achievement by
engaging in authentic, challenging work. Reading Teacher, 60, (8), 728-739.
Tompkins, G.E. (2006). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach, 4th ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall
Wilhelm, J.D. (2001). Improving comprehension with think-aloud strategies. New York:
Scholastic.
KUTZTOWN UNIVERSITY
KUTZTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA
CORE ASSIGNMENT
7
DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
EEU 301: Teaching Literacy Foundations in Grades 2-4
NAEYC Standards
*Substandard 4c: Understanding Content Knowledge in Early Childhood Education Candidates understand the
importance of language and literacy in young children’s learning. They know the essential concepts, inquiry tools,
and structure of literacy and can identify resources to deepen their understanding…Candidates can help children to
use a range of strategies to derive meaning from stories.
ELU 301 Objective
• Demonstrate instructional strategies that facilitate comprehension of written materials.
Core Assignment: Teacher candidates (on campus) will plan one Directed Reading Thinking Activity reading
comprehension lesson.
Target
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Evidence shows that:
Evidence shows that:
Evidence shows that:
Before Reading: Candidate
Before Reading: Candidate
Before Reading: Candidate
A. Skillfully activates and develops
A. Appropriately activates and develops A. Minimally activates and develops
schema
schema
schema
B. Chooses vocabulary, if needed, that
B. Chooses vocabulary, if needed,
B. Chooses appropriate vocabulary, if
may or may not be appropriate
that is not be appropriate; omits this
needed
component in project
C. States an overall, broad purpose
C. States a purpose question related to
C. Omits stating a purpose question;
question related to the problem
the problem
or purpose is narrow and/or not
related to the problem
During Reading: Candidate:
During Reading: Candidate:
During Reading: Candidate:
A. Stop A. Stops at appropriate points
A. Stops at some appropriate points
A. Stops at inappropriate points; or
and sticky notes at appropriate
points do not match story map
B. Consistently checks student
pages
B. Inconsistently checks student
predictions by referring to previous
B. Checks student predictions that
predictions that do not refer to
predictions
may or may not refer to previous
previous predictions
predictions
C. Minimally guides comprehension
C. Skillfully guides comprehension of
C. Guides comprehension of story,
of story; story “flow” is weak and
story, linking questions to key events
linking some questions to key
does not reflect the key events
leading to good story “flow”
events leading to satisfactory story
D. Inconsistently elicits new
“flow”
predictions
D. Consistently elicits new predictions
D. Elicits new predictions
E. Inconsistently asks students to
E. Asks students to support their
support their predictions with
E. Consistently asks students to support
predictions with sufficient
sufficient evidence; e.g., forgets to
their predictions with sufficient evidence,
evidence; e.g., asks, “Why?” some
ask, “Why?”
e.g., asks, “Why?” most/all of the time
of the time
After Reading: Candidate:
A. Sufficiently guides student
discussion of the purposes set for reading
B. Asks key question related to basic
comprehension, consistently asking for
clarification.
C. Asks one engaging aesthetic
question
D. Asks appropriate efferent questions,
which elicit higher level thinking
After Reading: Candidate:
A. Guides student discussion of the
purposes set for reading
B. Asks question related to basic
comprehension, but inconsistently asks
for clarification.
C. Asks one aesthetic question
D. Asks two efferent questions, but
one or both do not elicit higher level
thinking
After Reading: Candidate does not:
A. Guide student discussion of the
purposes set for reading
B. Ask key question related to basic
comprehension.
C. Asks one aesthetic question
D. Ask two efferent questions
8