EDUC 7752/01
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY AND MIDDLE GRADES
EDUCATION
Fall Term 2007
I.
COURSE NUMBER:
EDUC 7752
II.
COURSE TITLE:
Multiple Literacies in Schools and Communities
INSTRUCTOR:
Dr. Ugena Whitlock
Kennesaw Hall 3115
678-797-2249
rwhitlo3@kennesaw.edu
MT 3:30-4:45
http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~rwhitlo3/
Monday & Wednesday, 5:00-8:45 pm; KH 2001
August 21-December 4, 2007
III.
Office:
Office Phone:
Preferred Contact: Email:
Office Hours:
Web Site:
IV.
V.
CLASS MEETING:
TEXTS:
Taylor, D. (1988). Growing up literate. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Jimenez, F. (1997). The circuit. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Shannon, P. (Ed.). (2001). Becoming political, too: New readings and writings on the politics of
literacy education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
VI.
CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
Candidates will develop a foundational understanding of the multiple, often competing, conceptions of literacy
that can foster or impede learning in adolescent classrooms at the middle grades and secondary levels. Literacy
practices in homes, schools and the larger communities will be observed and interpreted with an emphasis on
their implications for effective teaching. The ways that an individual student’s literacy practices may be shaped
by gender, social class and ethnicity will be considered, including, in particular, issues associated with ESL
learners.
VII.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE:
The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards identifies five core propositions about effective
teaching—these are things accomplished teachers should know and be able to do: 1)Teachers are committed to
students and their learning; 2) Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to
students; 3) Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning; 4) Teachers think
systematically about their practice and learn from experience; 5) Teachers are members of learning
communities.
The purpose of this course is to advance an experienced teacher’s knowledge base about multiple literacies,
and ultimately, to improve student learning. A wide range of cultural groups and the myriad ways in which they
are literate will be studied. Program candidates will become acquainted with multiple literacies in the home,
school, and larger communities so that they can understand how these diverse, often conflicting literacies,
contribute to or hinder learning. They will examine and work with theories, approaches, and methods for
developing multiple literacies, as well as read, discuss, research and conduct case studies of students in homes,
schools and larger communities.
EDUC 7752/Whitlock/Summer 2007
Conceptional Framework
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw State University is committed to developing
expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders who possess the
capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all of their students through effective,
research-based practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance the structures that support all learning. To
that end, the PTEU fosters the development of candidates as they progress through stages of growth from
novice to proficient to expert and leader. Within the PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a
process of continued development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational leaders must
embrace the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the implementation of
validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high levels of learning. In that way, candidates
are facilitators of the teaching and learning process. Finally, the PTEU recognizes, values and demonstrates
collaborative practices across the college and university and extends collaboration to the community-at-large.
Through this collaboration with professionals in the university, the public and private schools, parents and other
professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of assisting Georgia schools in bringing all students to
high levels of learning.
The graduates of advanced programs at Kennesaw State University, in addition to being effective classroom
teachers, also develop expertise as effective teacher leaders who are self-directed, value a spirit of inquiry, and
facilitate learning in all students; they
1. Are committed to students and their learning.
2. Know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to
students.
3. Are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.
4. Think systematically about their practice and learn from experience.
5. Are members of learning communities.
Professional Portfolio Narrative:
A required element in each portfolio for the graduate program is the portfolio narrative. The purpose of the
portfolio narrative is to ensure that every candidate reflects on each of the proficiencies on the CPI with regard to
what evidence the candidate has selected for his/her portfolio. In your portfolio, you need to include a narrative,
which includes descriptive, analytic and reflective writing in which you reflect on each proficiency and how you
make the case that the evidence you have selected in your portfolio supports a particular proficiency, using the
Portfolio Narrative Rubric as a guide. The narrative should be comprehensive, documenting research-based
best practices.
Field Experiences:
While completing your graduate program at Kennesaw State University, you are required to be involved in a
variety of leadership and school-based activities directed at the improvement of teaching and learning.
Appropriate activities may include, but are not limited to, attending and presenting at professional conferences,
actively serving on or chairing school-based committees, attending PTA/school board meetings, leading or
presenting professional development activities at the school or district level, and participating in educationrelated community events. As you continue your educational experiences, you are encouraged to explore every
opportunity to learn by doing.
Knowledge Base:
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: preservice, induction,
in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of
expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that
the concept of expertise is central to preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers
describe how during the continuum phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in
classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998),
believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.
EDUC 7752/Whitlock/Summer 2006
2
This course is designed for graduate candidates who are completing a program of study leading to a master’s
degree in adolescent education. The knowledge base for this course is reflected in the textual readings,
references, objectives, assignments and in-class activities. Program candidates will have an opportunity to
demonstrate pedagogical knowledge and skills related to student needs and motivation, various family and
community literacies and the process of active learning.
The professional learning facilitator:

Demonstrates the knowledge of content required to facilitate learning.

Demonstrates the knowledge of students needed to facilitate learning.

Demonstrates the knowledge of standards and best pedagogical practices to facilitate learning.

Demonstrates skill in creating a facilitative learning environment.

Demonstrates skill in creating facilitative learning experiences.

Demonstrates professionalism.

Has students who are successful learners.
Use of Technology:
Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission.
Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the master teacher preparation
program, and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia
Technology Standards for educators. Candidates in this course will explore and use instructional media to assist
teaching. They will master productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel
confident to design multimedia instructional materials and create WWW resources.
Diversity Statement:
A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the different learning
styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an understanding of differentiated
strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and assessment within multicultural classrooms. One
element of course work is raising candidate awareness of critical multicultural issues. A second element is to
cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of multicultural populations influence decisions in employing
specific methods and materials for every student. Among these attributes are ethnicity, race, socioeconomic
status, gender, giftedness, disability, language, religion, family structure, sexual orientation, and geographic
region. An emphasis on cognitive style differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural
context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as disabled
under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of
services are available to support students with disabilities within their academic program. In order to make
arrangements for special services, students must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (770-4236443) and develop an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.
Please be aware there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State University that
address each of the multicultural variables outlined above.
VIII.
COURSE GOALS/OBJECTIVES:
The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of teacher preparation as a
developmental and collaborative process. Research for the past 25 years has described this process in
increasingly complex terms. Universities and schools must work together to prepare teachers who are capable of
developing successful learners in today’s schools and who choose to continue professional development.
Objective 1: Candidate demonstrates an understanding of the factors that contribute to success
in becoming literate.
EDUC 7752/Whitlock/Summer 2006
3
Objective 2: Candidate demonstrates an understanding of new, multiple definitions of literacy.
Objective 3: Candidate develops plans for appropriate and effective literacy instruction based on
knowledge of appropriate child development at each grade level.
Objective 4: Candidate examines and implements a variety of instructional strategies that
promote literacy.
Objective 5: Candidate understands how literacy practices may be shaped by gender, social
class, environment and ethnicity.
Objective 6: Candidate uses technology to research in the area of literacy.
Objective 7: Candidate demonstrates knowledge of and the ability to translate research theory
and findings into classroom application and evaluation of children.
Objective 8: Candidate reflects on issues, questions, feelings, and ideas related to multiple
literacies.
Objective 9: Candidate participates through collaboration, questioning, listening, evaluating,
analyzing, verbalizing, and demonstrating during class discussions and activities.
Objective 10: Candidate develops an appreciation of cultural and linguistical differences.
Objective 11: Candidate understands, appreciates and applies multiple literacies in
experimental teaching and in philosphical reflections.
Objective 12: Candidate analyzes and evaluates the research base underlying multiple
literacies.
Objective 13: Candidate understands and identifies social, cultural, and political issues
surrounding definitions of literacy, including issues of social justice.
Objective 14: Candidates understand how conceptions of literacy can either impede or foster
learning in homes, schools and larger communities.
Objective 15: Candidate reflects on his/her on cultural/linguistic biases.
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) prepares learning facilitators who understand their disciplines
and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on their practice, and who apply these understandings to making
instructional decisions that foster the success of all learners. The following alignment of course objectives,
NCATE standards and KSU Candidate Performance Outcomes will aid program candidates in understanding the
purpose and direction of this class.
EDUC 7752/Whitlock/Summer 2006
4
Course Objectives
Objective 2
Objective 2, 6
Outcomes and Proficiencies
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT: Candidate
knows the subjects they teach and how to
teach those subjects to students.
1.1 Candidate possesses broad, current and
specialized knowledge of subject matter and
demonstrates this understanding to colleagues,
parents and students.
1.2 Candidate possesses an interdisciplinary
understanding of curriculum and its applications
to real life and accurately represents
understanding through use of multiple
explanations, technologies and/or strategies.
1.3 Candidate possesses strong pedagogical
content knowledge and uses that knowledge to
create approaches to instructional challenges.
1.4 Candidate actualizes the integration of
content, pedagogy and interdisciplinary
understanding through instruction that is
integrated, flexible, elaborate and deep.
Objective 2, 5, 10
Objective 1, 3, 7
Objective 5
Objective 3, 4
Objective 4, 7
FACILITATORS OF LEARNING: Candidate
is committed to students and is responsible
for managing and monitoring student
learning.
Candidate believes all students can learn; as
a result, each
2.1 Candidate treats students equitably and
provides equitable access to the full curriculum
by respecting individual differences and
adjusting (or assisting teachers in adjusting)
practices accordingly.
2.2 Candidate understands human development
and learning and uses this understanding to
create enriching educational experiences and/or
environments for all students.
2.3 Candidate creates safe, well-managed,
supportive, inclusive and challenging learning
environments.
2.4 Candidate uses multiple methods,
technologies, resources, and organizational
arrangements to meet goals articulated for
individual students, class instruction and the
overall school improvement plan.
2.5 Candidate monitors student progress with a
variety of formal and informal evaluation
methods and uses results to improve student
learning.
2.6 Candidate is accountable to multiple
audiences, accurately interprets student
performance data and communicates results to
multiple audiences in multiple formats.
KSD
NCATE
Standard
K/S
Content
knowledge &
Pedagogical
content
knowledge
Content
knowledge &
Pedagogical
content
knowledge
Content
knowledge &
Pedagogical
content
knowledge
Content
knowledge &
Pedagogical
content
knowledge
Disposition
K/S
K/S
K/S?D
NBPTS
Core
Principles
2
2
2
2
2
1,3
D
S
K/S/D
EDUC 7752/Whitlock/Summer 2006
Disposition
Professional
&
Pedagogical
1
1
Professional &
Pedagogical
Disposition
1
S
Professional &
Pedagogical
3
S
Professional &
Pedagogical
3
Professional&
Pedagogical
3
Professional &
Pedagogical
3
S
S
5
Objective 9
Objective 8, 11, 12,
15
Objective 13, 14
IX.
COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL:
Candidate thinks systematically about their
practice, learns from experience, and is a
member of learning communities.
3.1 Candidate collaborates with colleagues,
parents and other professionals to strengthen
school effectiveness, to advance knowledge,
and to influence policy and practice.
3.2 Candidate reflects regularly upon daily
practice, and draws upon experience and the
professional literature to design and conduct
research aimed at improved student
achievement.
3.3 Candidate proactively involves parents and
other members of the community in support of
instruction and education.
3.4 Candidate engages in on-going professional
development by joining professional
organizations, participating in conferences,
mentoring new staff, etc.
3.5 Candidate adheres to professional ethical
standards while reporting, conducting and
publishing research
4,5
Disposition
D
5
D
Disposition
4
D
Disposition
5
D
Disposition
4,5
K/S/D
Professional
COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:
1. Projects (40%): Candidates will conduct two projects regarding different aspects of literacy. Each project will
be accompanied by detailed instructions from the instructor and will require interaction with young adults and/or
adults in the form of interviews or dialogue about literacy experiences. Projects may also require outside
readings or research—sometimes using the Internet. Each project will be presented in class through poster
sessions or other displays. These experiences are intended to mimic professional conference presentations.
2. Weekly Concept Papers (15%): Candidates will draw on required readings from the previous week and
formulate a brief (500-750 words) concept paper that examines, analyzes, and synthesizes the selections as
they relate to one another. These are neither summaries nor reflections; rather, they are intended as vehicles of
critical discussion of scholarly work on literacy and related topics. Papers are due on Mondays, and due to the
intensive summer schedule, will not be accepted late.
3. Final Group Presentation (25%): Synoptic examination of literacy.
I.
Find 5 articles that pertain to literacies 1) in the social, cultural, political (etc.) sense, 2) in relation to
pedagogy/the classroom, 3) as addressed in schools/educational policy, 4) in relation to
families/communities.
II.
Synthesize a review of these articles (much as you have done in your concept papers) in a 6-8 page
paper, APA style, with references from articles. One section of your paper must be devoted to
implications for your classroom/instruction/student learning. Again, this is not merely a summary of
articles; the nature of the article should emerge through your review of it.
III.
Prepare a group PowerPoint Presentation in which you demonstrate connections you have made
among Personal, Professional, and Political Concepts of Multiple Literacies. Rather than summarize
each group members’ articles (an unweldy proposition!) the emphasis of the presentation should be
on synthesis and conceptual frameworks for understanding literacies (personal, professional, for
teaching & learning, socio-cultural-political, and such concepts). Presentations should consist of a
maximum of 8 slides, including the following: introduction, 3-4 concepts, implications for
teaching and learning, conclusion, bibliography. Please do not crowd words onto the slide
and then read slides to the class. Grades will be lowered for this unacceptable infraction.
4. Course Activities (10%): During the study of major course topics, you will be asked participate in classroom
activities. These experiences provide us with the opportunity to share thoughts and ideas with each other, to
learn from and about other’s perspectives, and to allow time for personal reflection. The focuses of these
experiences are designed to ensure that your attention is drawn to key elements in the readings and to
encourage reflection on aspects, which I consider important to your understanding of the content. Full credit is
given to responses that incorporate reflection, address all components of the activities, and are completed by the
EDUC 7752/Whitlock/Summer 2006
6
assigned date. You must be present to earn these points if it is an in-class activity. Should you arrive late,
leave early, or be absent, please remember an activity may occur that can NOT be made up.
5. E-Portfolios (10%): By the end of the term, students must show they have loaded data from EDUC 7752 into
their e-folios and have written brief reflections for each entry.
X.
EVALUATION AND GRADING:
Projects: 40%
Weekly Concept Papers: 15%
Final Group Presentation: 25%
Course Activities: 10%
E-Portfolio: 10%
Standards:
When submitting work, please remember the following:
• secure single sheets of paper—DO NOT dogear or turn in loose sheets!!!
• type/word process all assignments
• No report covers or plastic sleeves
• along with your name, please include the date and course # on work
ALL WORK SHOULD BE EDITED WELL. ANY WORK WHICH DOES NOT MEET PROFESSIONAL
STANDARDS MAY HAVE POINTS DEDUCTED.
Grading Scale:
93% - 100% = A
85 % - 92 % = B
77 % - 84% = C
69 % - 76 % = D
Below 69 % = F
XI.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY:
KSU expects that graduate students will pursue their academic programs in an ethical, professional manner.
Any work that students present in fulfillment of program or course requirements should represent their own
efforts, achieved without giving or receiving any unauthorized assistance. Any student who is found to have
violated these expectations will be subject to disciplinary action.
Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in
the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the
University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized
access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic work,malicious
removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or
services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled
through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal"
resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may
subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.
XII.
ATTENDANCE POLICY:
Students should make every effort to attend every class. Excessive absences (more than 2) will result in a
mandatory conference with me and possibly a lower grade. We will be learning how to evaluate our own
learning and will be providing feedback to each other. Class discussions, group work, peer evaluation activities
require that everyone be present. You must be present on dates when presentations are due!
XIII.
COURSE OUTLINE:
What follows is a tentative schedule (subject to change with notice). I have indicated dates that readings are
due. I may assign other readings.
EDUC 7752/Whitlock/Summer 2006
7
Tentative Calendar of Events
NOTE: Adjustments to this syllabus may be necessary. Students will be notified of changes in advance.
Date
Week 1:
Topic
What is
literacy?
August 21
Week 2:
What are
Multiple
Literacies?
The Politics of
Literacy
Classroom Activity
• Welcome/Introduction/
Syllabus;
• Defining Literacy; web quest
Reading Selections
Concept paper
on Gee,
Shannon, Kellner
Political, Too: Gee, p. 1;
Shannon, p. 10; Kellner,
p. 31
• Place Project Intro
Discuss readings;
Re-thinking assumptions about
literacy: What is Literacy by
James Paul Gee;
August 28
Assignment Due
Web quest: Find information on
literacy and your content area.
Week 3:
Critical
Literacy
Discuss readings;
Howard article,
Peterson selection;
Delpit selection;
Critical literacy and pedagogy;
Discuss critical literacy with
race and class implications;
Web quest: Paulo Freire/critical
pedagogy, pedagogy of poverty,
Ruby Payne/critiques: Are there
indicators of a “discourse of
poverty” in relation to social
class, higher ed, the
classroom?”
September
11
Place Project Workshop
Week 4:
Place Project
Presentations
September
18
Week 5:
September
25
Concept paper
on Howard,
Peterson, Delpit
Literacy &
Culture: Race,
Class, &
Gender
Group activity: Race, Class,
Gender—each group prepares
“images of the discourse” that
disrupts/analyzes rather than
solidifies stereotypes and
assumptions;
Political, Too:
Mahiri, p. 67;
Mitchell & Reid-Walsh,
p. 88; hooks selection
The circuit;
Discuss The circuit (course
activity); literacy issues with
English as Second Language
learners;
EDUC 7752/Whitlock/Summer 2006
8
Week 6:
October 2
Literacy in/and
Popular
Culture
Pop culture workshop; guest
speaker: Dr. Faith Wallace;
Popular Culture
readings:
Wallace selection;
Mendez article text analysis
activity;
Mendez chapter
Popular Culture Project Intro
Week 7:
October 9
Week 8:
Literacy in/and
Popular
Culture
Discuss readings;
Popular
Culture
Thought question for next
week: What is social justice in
schools and society? How are
literacy issues related to social
justice?
Literacy as
Social Justice
Discuss social justice; small
group responses.
October 16
Week 9:
Pop culture project lab
Concept paper
on Political Too
selections:
Mahiri,
Mitchiel/ReidWalsh, Shannon,
Simon
Pop Culture
Project
Presentation
Political, Too:
Shannon, p. 112;
Simon, p. 142
Political, Too selections:
How Is Literacy
Taught? tba
October 23
Final project introduction:
Synoptic examination of
literacy; group planning.
Film: Bowling for Columbine
Week 10:
Reading Lab at
Home
Growing up Literate:
Intro: “When people
study people” and
Chapter 1: “The
families”
Chapter 2: “Literacy and
the children at home”
Work on final project
October 30
Week 11:
November
6
Week 12:
November
13
Families,
Schools, and
Literacy
Families,
Schools, and
Literacy
Discuss Growing up Literate;
activity; Group topics: 1. Family
literacy, 2, Families & literacy,
3. “Growing up literate,” 4.
Schools & literacy, 5. Disrupting
assumptions, 6. Findings: The
researchers voices:
Contextualized by the
Taylor/Dorsey-Gaines book
Lab: Prepare group
presentations
Growing up Literate:
Chapters 3: “Literacy
and the children at
school” and Chapter 4:
“Literacy in a
comparative frame”
Chapter 5 Families,
literacy, and educational
policy
Concept paper
on Growing Up
LIterate
Political, Too selections:
What Is Possible in
Literacy Education?
November 20: No Class
EDUC 7752/Whitlock/Summer 2006
9
Week 13:
Wrap up: Multiple literacies in
schools and communities
November
27
Presentation of
Synoptic
Projects:
Turn in
PowerPoints
Week 14:
Final Exam: Uploads to Chalk & Wire Due
Chalk & Wire Reflective Prompts Due
December 4
IX. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Adler, M.J. (1982). The Paideia proposal. NY: Collier.
Allen, Janet. (2002). There’s room for me here: Literacy workshop in the middle school. Portland, ME:
Stenhouse.
Alvine, L. & Cullum, L. (1999). Breaking the cycle: Gender, literacy & learning. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.
Asgedom, Mawi. (2001). Of beetles and angels. Chicago: Megadee.
Bomer, R. (1999). Writing to think critically: The seeds of social action. Voices from the Middle, 6, 2-8.
Boyer. E.L. (1983). High school. NY: Harper & Row.
Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Coe, M. Comparative cognitive research: Learning from a disabled child.
Finders, M. Just girls: Hidden literacies and life in junior high. NY: Teachers College Press.
Fishman, A. (1988). Amish literacy. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Gunderson, Lee. (2000). Beginning to create the new literacy classroom: What does the new literacy look
like?.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43, 710-718.
Hirsch, E.D. (1988). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. NY: Vintage.
Horsch, P., Chen, J., & Nelson, D. (1999). Rules and rituals: Tools for creating a respectful, caring learning
community. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 223-227.
Howard, A. (2005). Lessons of poverty: towards a literacy of survival. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, Winter
2005, 73-82.
Hubbard, R.S. & Power, B.M. (1991). Literacy in process. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Jimenez, F. (1997). The circuit. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Jimenez, R.T. (April/May/June 1999). Conversations: Latina and Lationo researchers intreact on issues related
to
literacy learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 217-230.
Kist, William. (May 2000). Experimenting with texts: New science teachers’ experience and practice as readers
and teachers of reading. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 728-739.
Kohn, A. (1999). The schools our children deserve: Moving beyond traditional classrooms and “tougher
standards.”
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. NY: Crown.
Kutz, E. (1997). Language and literacy. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.
Leu, Donald. (Feb. 2000). Exploring literacy on the internet.The Reading Teacher, 53, 424-429.
Lundsford, A. Moglen, H., & Sleen, J. (1990). The right to literacy. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Lyons, C. & Pinnell, G.S. (2001). Systematic change in literacy education. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Matthews, M.W. & Kesner, J.E. (Feb. 2000). The silencing of Sammy: One struggling reader learning with his
peers. The Reading Teacher, 53, 382-390.
Newkirk, T. (2002). Misreading masculinity: Boys, Literacy, and Popular Culture. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
McNergney, R.F., Ducharme, E.R. & Ducharme, M.K. (1999). Educating for democracy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Pailliotet, A.W., Semali, L., Rodenberg, R.K., & Macaul, S.L. (2000). Intermediality: Bridge to critical media
literacy. Reading Teacher. 54, 208-220.
Paratore, Jeanne R. (2001). Opening doors, opening opportunities: Family literacy in an urban community.
Needham Hts., MA: Allyn & Bacon.
EDUC 7752/Whitlock/Summer 2006
10
Moore, M. (1999). Commission on Literature Report. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Parry, K. & Xiaojun, S. Culture, literacy, English: Voices from the Chinese classroom. Portsmouth:
Boynton/Cook.
Pennac, Daniel. (1999). Better than life. Markham, Ontario: Pembroke.
Robinson, Richard. (2000). Issues and trends in literacy education. Needham Hts., MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Rodby, J. (1992). Appropriating literacy: Writing and reading English as a second language. Portsmouth:
Heinemann.
Routman, R. (1996). Literacy at the crossroads. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Santiago, Esmeralda. (1993). When I Was Puerto Rican. NY: Vintage.
Shannon, P. (Ed.). (2001). Becoming political, too: New readings and writings on the politics of
literacy education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Smagorinsky, Peter & O’Donnell-Allen, C. (April/May/June 1998). Reading as medaited and mediating action:
Composing meaning for literature through multimedia interpretive texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 3,
118-226.
Shockly, B., Michalove, B., & Allen, J. (1995). Engaging families: Connecting home, school, and literacy
communities. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Smith, J.L. (2001). Dramatic literacy. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Simmons, R. (2002). Odd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls. NY: Harcourt.
Stuckey, J.E. (1990). The violence of literacy. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.
Taylor, Denny. (1997). Multiple families, multiple literacies. Portsmouth, Heinemann.
Taylor, Denny. (1998). Family literacy. Portsmouth, Heinemann.
Taylor, Denny & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from inner-city families. Portsmouth:
Heinemann.
Their, M. & Daviss, B. (2002). The new science literacy. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Tonjes, Marian. (1999). Integrated content literacy. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Voss, M. Hidden Literacies: Children learning at home and at school. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Whitin, Phyllis & Whitin David. (2000). Math Is language too. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
EDUC 7752/Whitlock/Summer 2006
11