KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
BAGWELL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
M.Ed. in Adolescent Education/Literacy
Semester
I.
COURSE NUMBER (SECTION) EDRD 7720(01)
II.
COURSE TITLE: Introduction to Literacy Coaching in Middle and Secondary Schools
III.
INSTRUCTOR
Name:
Office Phone:
Office Hours:
Office:
E-mail:
IV.
CLASS MEETING
V.
TEXT & ELECTRONIC MATERIALS
Walpole, S., & McKenna, M.C. (2004). The literacy coach’s handbook: A guide to research-based practice.
New York: Guilford.
VI.
CATALOG DESCRIPTION
This course provides candidates with an introduction to Literacy Coaching in middle and secondary schools. Candidates engage in the study of
pedagogy and leadership in the areas of collaboration, job-embedded professional development, program assessment and evaluation of
school-, classroom-, and individual literacy need as well as instructional strategy. Candidates will study pedagogical content and apply new
skills in Georgia schools. Therefore, a field component is required. (EDRD 7718 and EDRD 7719 are pre-requisites for this course.)
VII.
PURPOSE & RATIONALE
Mastery of reading skills is basic to successful learning in every school subject. Content teachers can further their education by pursuing an
advanced degree in Literacy. The M.Ed. in Adolescent Education/Concentration in Literacy will facilitate teacher acquisition of skills and
competencies needed to help students read, write and understand content material; it will also aid teachers in identifying reading problems,
providing required interventions, and assisting all students in improving reading skills. A M.Ed. in Adolescent Education/Literacy will provide the
incentive, as well as the opportunity, for teachers to become effective teacher leaders who assist their colleagues in improving literacy among
adolescent students in Georgia.
The purpose of EDRD 7720: Introduction to Literacy Coaching in Middle and Secondary Schools is to provide candidates with the entry-level
knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to perform intensive, job-embedded professional development for content teachers. Literacy
Coaching is a school-based leadership role that typically includes: (a) Reflective practices; (b) Peer collaboration among teachers; (c)
Sustained practices; and (d) Classroom-based performance. Candidates who successfully complete this course will master the standards
articulated by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission and International Reading Association that are noted on pages 3-4 on this
syllabus.
Strieker, T.
Page 1
7/27/2016
Conceptual 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.
1
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.
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.
This course is designed for graduate candidates who are completing a program of study leading to a reading endorsement. 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 Reading Endorsement preparation program, and all candidates must be able to use technology
to improve student learning and meet IRA Reading Standards. Candidates in this course will explore and use instructional media to assist
teaching. They will: (a) Use diagnostic software to calculate scores on commercially prepared assessments; (b) Conduct reading intervention
and progress monitoring using computer-based programs, such as Read 180 and Aimsweb, respectively; and (d) Use local-net and Internet to
design high quality instructional programs.
Field Component
To demonstrate master of leadership skills, successful candidates in EDRD 7720 will demonstrate that they are skillful collaborators who are
capable of conducting targeted, job-embedded professional development with content teachers in Georgia schools. To be successful,
candidates must evaluate the literacy needs of the students in the school and design the professional development based upon the needs of
2
the students as well as those of the teachers. Candidates must provide evidence of their performance by means of: (a) Assessment of student
and teacher need; (b) Curriculum design; and (c) video-taping of professional development activity. This field component is required.
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 age, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic
region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. 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 (ext. 6443) 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 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 grid aligns course objectives with the Reading Performance Instrument, NCATE, and IRA Professional Reading Standards:
Literacy Coach Standards
1.1 Working with the school’s
literacy team, literacy coaches
determine the school’s strengths
(and need for improvement) in
the area of literacy in order to
improve students’ reading,
writing, and communication skills
and content area achievement.
NCATE
(KSD)
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge,
Content
Knowledge,
Disposition
(KD)
1.2 Literacy coaches promote
productive relationships with
and among school staff.
Disposition
1.3 Literacy coaches strengthen
their professional teaching,
knowledge, skills & strategies.
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge,
Content
Knowledge,
Disposition
(D)
CPI
3.1 Collaborates with
colleagues, parents
and/or other
professionals and leads
appropriately to
strengthen school
effectiveness, to
advance knowledge,
and to influence policy
and practice.
3.2 Displays positive
dispositions toward
reading and teaching of
reading by modeling
reading/writing as
valued lifelong
activities.
Evidence
School-Wide Survey of Professional
Development Needs: Candidate works with
building leadership team to conduct a school
wide assessment of literacy needs of students.
2.6 Is accountable to
multiple audiences,
accurately interprets student
performance data to multiple
audiences in multiple
formats.
(KD)
3
2.1 Literacy coaches work with
teachers individually, in
collaborative teams, and/or with
departments, providing practical
support on a full range of
reading, writing, and
communication strategies.
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge,
Content
Knowledge,
Disposition
(KSD)
2.2 Literacy coaches observe and
provide feedback to teachers
on instruction related to literacy
development and content area
knowledge.
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge,
Content
Knowledge,
Disposition
(KSD)
3.1 Literacy coaches lead faculty in
the selection and use of a range
of assessment tools as a means
to make sound decisions about
student literacy needs as related
to the curriculum and to
instruction.
3.2 As dynamic supports for
reflection and action, literacy
coaches conduct regular
meetings with content area
teachers to examine student
work and monitor progress.
Pedagogical
Content,
Dispositions,
Student learning
(KD)
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge,
Content
Knowledge,
Disposition
(KSD)
3.3 Collaborates with
colleagues, parents
and/or other
professionals and leads
appropriately to
strengthen school
effectiveness, to
advance knowledge,
and to influence policy
and practice.
Professional Development Presentation or
One-on-One Activity: Candidate will conduct a
job-embedded professional development activity
for the teachers in the same building. This
activity will be based upon the needs
assessment described above.
3.2 Reflects regularly upon
daily practice, and draws
upon experience and the
professional literature to
design and conduct
research aimed at
improved student
achievement.
2.2 Monitors student
progress with a variety
of formal and informal
evaluation methods
and uses results to
improve student
learning.
Analysis of Student Data: Candidate will meet
with content teachers to examine data from a
range of assessment data and make sound
decisions on literacy needs of students.
3.2 Reflects regularly upon
daily practice, and draws
upon experience and the
professional literature to
design and conduct research
aimed at improved student
achievement.
VIII. COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:
1.
Analysis of Student Data. Candidate will meet with content teachers to examine data from a range of assessment data and make
sound decisions on literacy needs of students. These data may be derived from a number of sources, including (but not restricted to)
statewide assessments, locally-normed assessments, curriculum based assessment and analysis of student work. Candidate will
organized data and report it to the building administrator as well as EDRD 7720. (75 pts.)
2..
School-wide Survey of Professional Development Needs. Based upon the results of the initial analysis of student data and in
collaboration with the school leadership team, candidates will design and implement a survey of the professional development needs of
teachers in the building. Candidate will organized data and report it to the building administrator as well as EDRD 7720. (75 pts.)
3.
Professional Development Presentation or One-on-One Activity. Based upon an analysis of the combined data results, candidate
will design and conduct a job-embedded professional development activity at the school. This activity must be video-taped and evaluated
by the participant teachers. Candidates will organize a parallel presentation for EDRD 7720 that includes clips from the school-based
activity. (150 pts.)
4.
Candidate Self-Evaluation of Meeting IRA Standards (50 points) Teacher conducts self-evaluation on his/her progress in meeting the
IRA standards designated for this course. Self-evaluation must represent thoughtful reflection upon the standards in concert with the field
experience required by the course as well as the professional literature.
4
5..
WebCT Discussions & Class Applications. (50 points) Candidates have many experiences and skills, which they can share to
facilitate everyone's learning. Candidates are expected to come prepared to all class sessions and be active participants in the learning
process. Class activities will include think sheets, homework submission, discussion, role-playing and collaborative activities. Candidates
are expected to review and download all information posted on WebCT prior to coming to class. In addition, candidates are expected to
participate in threaded discussions on topics related to class discussions at all times.
IX. Evaluation and Grading Scale:
90 – 100%. =A
80 – 89% =B
70 – 79% =C
60 – 69% =D
X. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
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.
XI. ATTENDANCE POLICY
The expectations for attending class are in accordance with the Undergraduate Catalogue. All students are expected to attend classes in
accordance with the scheduled time of the course. Should you be absent, you are responsible for making up the work missed. In-class activities
may not be made up.
XII. COURSE OUTLINE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
XIII.
Overview of Literacy Coaching
School Wide Assessment of Literacy: Reading, Writing & Communication
Collaboration with Leadership Team
Creating Needs Assessments
Review of Achievement Data: English Language Learners and Other Sub-Populations
Reporting to Multiple Audiences/Multiple Formats
Developing Collaboration Skills
Peer Mentoring and Coaching
Collaborative Analysis of Student Work
Diverse Content in Adolescent Literature
Increasing Meta-cognition, Word Understanding and Comprehension of Content Texts
Adult Learning and Motivational Models
Designing Quality Professional Development
Program Evaluation
REFERENCES, BIBLIOGRAPHY & RECOMMENDED WEBSITES
Allington, R. (1994). The schools we have. The schools we need. The Reading Teacher, 48(1), 14–29.
American Association for Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy (Project 2061).
New York: Oxford University Press.
American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts. Washington,
DC: Achieve, Inc. Available: http://www.achieve.org/achieve.nsf/AmericanDiplomaProject
Annenberg Institute for School Reform. (2005). Coaches in the high school classroom: Studies in implementing
high school reform (Prepared for Carnegie Corporation of New York). Providence, RI: Author.
5
Artley, S. (1944). A study of certain relationships existing between general reading comprehension
and reading comprehension in a specific subject matter area. Journal of Educational Research, 37(6),
464–473.
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school
literacy. Washington, DC: Alliance for Education.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an
era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604.
Donovan, M.S., Wigdor, A.K., & Snow, C.E. (Eds.). (2003). Strategic education research partnership.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional development
effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research
Journal, 38(4), 915–945. Available: http://aztla.asu.edu/ProfDev1.pdf
Graduation for All Act, H.R. 547, 109th Cong., 1st Sess. (2005).
Greenleaf, C., Katz, M., & Schoenbach, R. (2001, April). Close readings: The impact of case inquiry on secondary
teachers’ literacy knowledge and practice and student achievement. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2000). What makes teacher community different from a
gathering of teachers (No. O-00-1). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, Center
on English Learning & Achievement.
Guskey, T.R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
International Reading Association (IRA). (2004a). The role and qualifications of the reading coach in the
United States (Position statement). Newark, DE: Author. Available: http://www.reading.org/down
loads/positions/ps1065_reading_coach.pdf
International Reading Association (IRA). (2004b). Standards for reading professionals—Revised 2003.
Newark, DE: Author. Available: http://www.reading.org/resources/issues/reports/professional_
standards.html
International Reading Association (IRA) & National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (1996).
Standards for the English language arts. Newark, DE; Urbana, IL: Authors.
Irakson, R.L., & Miller, J.W. (1978). Sensitivity to syntactic and semantic cues in good and poor comprehenders.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 787–792.
Joftus, S. (2002). Every child a graduate: A framework for an excellent education for all middle and high
school students. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1996). Staff development as a comprehensive service organization. Journal of
Staff Development, 17(1), 2–6.
Kamil, M.L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for
Excellent Education. Available: http://www.all4ed.org/publications/AdolescentsAndLiteracy.pdf
Manzo, K.K. (2005, February 16). Dynamic duo. Education Week, 24(23), pp. 37–39.
McGrath, A. (2005, February 28). A new read on teen literacy. U.S. News and World Report, 138(7), pp.
68–70.
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). (2005). Creating a culture of literacy: A
guide for middle and high school principals. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (1992). A vision of powerful teaching and learning in the social
6
studies: Building social understanding and civic efficacy. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for
social studies. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
Reston, VA: Author. Available: http://standards.nctm.org/document/chapter1/index.htm;
Introduction
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (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 reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/small
book.htm
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity—Promises and
practicalities (Prepared for The Aspen Institute Program on Education and The Annenberg Institute
for School Reform). Cambridge, MA: Education Matters.
Russo, A. (2004, July/August). School-based coaching: A revolution in professional development—or just
the latest fad? Harvard Education Letter [Online]. Available: http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/
2004-ja/coaching.shtml
Smith, H.K. (1967). The responses of good and poor readers when asked to read for different purposes.
Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 53–84.
Stauffer, R.B. (1969). Teaching reading as a thinking process. New York: Harper.
Sturtevant, E.G. (2003). The literacy coach: A key to improving teaching and learning in secondary schools.
Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Symonds, K.W. (2003). Literacy coaching: How school districts can support a long-term strategy in a shortterm
world. Oakland, CA: Bay Area School Reform Collaborative.
Their, M., & Daviss, B. (2002). The new science literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Toll, C.A. (2005). The literacy coach’s survival guide: Essential questions and practical answers. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
7