KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2002)
Course Number/Program Name
EDRD 8290
Department Secondary and Middle Grades Education
Degree Title (if applicable) EdS/EdD
Proposed Effective Date Fall 2006
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
x
New Course Proposal
Course Title Change
Course Number Change
Course Credit Change
Course Prerequisite Change
Course Description Change
Sections to be Completed
II, III, IV, V, VII
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
Notes:
If proposed changes to an existing course are substantial (credit hours, title, and description), a new course with a
new number should be proposed.
A new Course Proposal (Sections II, III, IV, V, VII) is required for each new course proposed as part of a new
program. Current catalog information (Section I) is required for each existing course incorporated into the
program.
Minor changes to a course can use the simplified E-Z Course Change Form.
Submitted by:
Faculty Member
Approved
_____
Date
Not Approved
Department Curriculum Committee Date
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Department Chair
Date
School Curriculum Committee
Date
School Dean
Date
GPCC Chair
Date
Dean, Graduate Studies
Date
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Vice President for Academic Affairs Date
Approved
Not Approved
President
Date
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE/CONCENTRATION/PROGRAM CHANGE
I.
Current Information (Fill in for changes)
Page Number in Current Catalog
Course Prefix and Number
Course Title
Credit Hours
Prerequisites
Description (or Current Degree Requirements)
II.
Proposed Information (Fill in for changes and new courses)
Course Prefix and Number EDRD 8290_
Course Title __Critique of Reading Research_
Credit Hours 3-0-3
Prerequisites Admission to EdS/EdD program
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
This seminar is for advanced doctoral students with a concentration in reading education where
candidates critically examine theoretical and empirical work in language and literacy. Candidates explore
a wide range of research methodologies, research findings, and research reports in language and
literacy.
III.
Justification
The purpose of this course is to advance an experienced teacher’s knowledge base about the reading
process relative to adolescents, content area reading demands, as well as national research, reform, and
policy. Program candidates will become knowledgable with regard to reading development,
understanding the reading needs of their diverse students, and meeting the demands of national reform
and policy. To that end, candidates will examine and work with reading theories, research, approaches,
and methods for meeting the needs of their diverse students as well as research the reading development
of their students and plan for meeting their diverse needs within content areas utilizing existing and
supplementary materials.
IV.
Additional Information (for New Courses only)
Instructor: Various
Text:
Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of Reading
Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Prerequisites: Admission to EdS/EdD program
Objectives:
Course Objectives
1. Candidate demonstrates an
understanding of different theories of
reading process and development and
can summize empirical evidence
related to this understanding.
IRA Rdg. Standards
1
NCATE
Standard 1
Element
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
NBPTS
Core
Principles
2
Evidence
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Literature Review
2. Candidate synthesizes theoretical
positions and can link theory and
practice.
3. Candidate can choose, implement,
and support reading instruction and
school literacy programs with a wide
range of instructional techniques,
including technological formats to meet
the diverse reading needs of all
students.
4. Candidate can assist classroom
teachers and paraprofessionals with
choosing research-based primary and
supplementary materials appropriate
for classroom of diverse readers.
5. Candidate can compare, contrast,
interpret, and recommend a variety of
research-based assessments to inform
instructional decision-making.
6. Candidate can articulate assessment
and evaluation findings to a wide range
of audiences for both accountability
and instructional purposes.
7. Candidate demonstrates knowledge
of and the ability to translate research,
theory, and findings into classroom
application and evaluation of students.
8. Candidate uses technology to
research in the area of reading.
9. Candidate seeks out and critiques
scholarly research and uses such
research in professional discourse.
10. Candidate participates through
collaboration, questioning, listening,
evaluating, analyzing, verbalizing, and
demonstrating during class discussions
and activities and with parents and
colleagues.
11. Candidate develops an
appreciation of diverse reading needs
based on factors such as culture,
economic background, family structure,
and disabilities.
12. Candidate appreciates, applies,
and reflects upon reading instruction in
experimental teaching and in
philosphical reflections.
1
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
2
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Literature Review; Article PeerReview
1, 2, 4
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
2
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Literature Review; Article PeerReview
2
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Methodology Evaluation; Literature
Review; Article Peer-Review
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Methodology Evaluation; Literature
Review; Article Peer-Review
1, 2, 4
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
3
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
1
3
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
1
1, 3
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
3
5
Professional &
Pedagogical
Disposition
3
Methodology Evaluation; Literature
Review; Article Peer-Review
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Methodology Evaluation; Literature
Review; Article Peer-Review
Literature Review
5
Professional &
Pedagogical
Disposition
3
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Methodology Evaluation; Literature
Review; Article Peer-Review
5
Professional &
Pedagogical
Disposition
3
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Methodology Evaluation; Literature
Review; Article Peer-Review
4, 5
5
Professional &
Pedagogical
Disposition
Professional &
Pedagogical
Disposition
3
Literature Review; Article PeerReview
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Methodology Evaluation; Literature
Review; Article Peer-Review
Instructional Method:
Seminars, whole group and small group discussion, workshop
Method of Evaluation:
- Theoretical Framework Evaluation (50 pts.): The theoretical framework for a research study should
guide the researcher in terms of methodology and analysis. Candidates will select three empirical studies
within an area of interest in reading education (e.g. fluency, comprehension). Read each study and
compare, contrast, and evaluate the theoretical framework (e.g. social constructivism, critical theory) of
each study. Guiding questions: How does the theoretical framework guide the design of the research;
how does the theoretical framework impact the discussion of the findings; how is the theoretical
framework described. Turn in a two-five paper paper following APA 5th edition as a guide.
Methodology Evaluation (50 pts.): A rigorous methodology establishes trustworthiness in research.
Candidates will select three empirical studies within an area of interest in reading education (e.g.
vocabulary, word analysis). Read each study and compare, contrast, and evaluate the methodology of
each study. Guiding questions: How does the methodology establish trustworthiness; how does the
methodology match the theoretical framework; how is the methodology described. Turn in a two-five
paper paper following APA 5th edition as a guide.
Literature Review (150 points): Candidates will conduct a review of related literature within an area of
interest in reading education (e.g. strategic reading, using reading workshop, the role of sustained silent
reading). The review should contain at least 10 empirical studies as well as 5 theoretical (or theorized
praction) papers (all from scholarly journals). This review should culminate with a narrative that integrates,
synthesizes, and critiques the important thinking and research on this topic. However, this narrative
should not be a summary of each study or paper.
The narrative is worth 100 points of the total point value. A short 10 minute presentation should
accompany this narrative to share the highlights of your findings with the class. The presentation is worth
50 points of the total point value.
Article Peer-Review (50 pts.): Scholars in every field are often asked to review the work of their peers
for conference proprosals or articles for publication. Candidates will be given a previously submitted and
reviewed (anonymous) research manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal to review using the journal’s
guidelines. Candidates will follow the journal guidelines and write a formal recommendation.
V.
Resources and Funding Required (New Courses only)
Funding is addressed in the comprehensive proposal for the umbrella EdD degree
Resource
Amount
Faculty
Other Personnel
Equipment
Supplies
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
TOTAL
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth
VI. COURSE MASTER FORM
This form will be completed by the requesting department and will be sent to the Office of the
Registrar once the course has been approved by the Office of the President.
The form is required for all new courses.
DISCIPLINE
COURSE NUMBER
COURSE TITLE FOR LABEL
(Note: Limit 16 spaces)
CLASS-LAB-CREDIT HOURS
Approval, Effective Term
Grades Allowed (Regular or S/U)
If course used to satisfy CPC, what areas?
Learning Support Programs courses which are
required as prerequisites
Adolescent Education
EDRD 8290
Rdg Res Critique
3-0-3
Fall 2006
Regular
APPROVED:
________________________________________________
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee __
VII Attach Syllabus
EDRD 8290
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY AND MIDDLE GRADES EDUCATION
Fall Term 2006
I.
COURSE NUMBER/SECTION: EDRD 8290
II.
COURSE TITLE: Critique of Reading Research
III.
IV.
INSTRUCTOR:
Dr. Faith H. Wallace
Office:
Office Phone:
Email:
Office Hours:
Kennesaw Hall 1008
678-797-2125
fwallac1@kennesaw.edu
Tuesday/Thursday 12:30 – 4:00 PM
(And by appointment)
CLASS MEETING:
Mondays 5:00PM-7:45PM, KH 2001
V.
TEXTS:
Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of Reading
Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
VI.
CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
This seminar is for advanced doctoral students with a concentration in reading education where
candidates critically examine theoretical and empirical work in language and literacy. Candidates explore
a wide range of research methodologies, research findings, and research reports in language and
literacy.
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 the reading
process relative to adolescents, content area reading demands, as well as national research, reform, and
policy. Program candidates will become knowledgable with regard to reading development,
understanding the reading needs of their diverse students, and meeting the demands of national reform
and policy. To that end, candidates will examine and work with reading theories, research, approaches,
and methods for meeting the needs of their diverse students as well as research the reading development
of their students and plan for meeting their diverse needs within content areas utilizing existing and
supplementary materials.
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 education-related 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.
This course is designed for graduate candidates who are completing a program of study leading to a
specialist’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 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 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.
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.
Course Objectives
1. Candidate demonstrates an
understanding of different theories of
reading process and development and
can summize empirical evidence
related to this understanding.
2. Candidate synthesizes theoretical
positions and can link theory and
practice.
3. Candidate can choose, implement,
and support reading instruction and
school literacy programs with a wide
range of instructional techniques,
including technological formats to meet
the diverse reading needs of all
students.
4. Candidate can assist classroom
teachers and paraprofessionals with
choosing research-based primary and
supplementary materials appropriate
for classroom of diverse readers.
5. Candidate can compare, contrast,
interpret, and recommend a variety of
research-based assessments to inform
instructional decision-making.
6. Candidate can articulate assessment
and evaluation findings to a wide range
of audiences for both accountability
and instructional purposes.
7. Candidate demonstrates knowledge
of and the ability to translate research,
theory, and findings into classroom
application and evaluation of students.
IRA Rdg. Standards
NCATE
Standard 1
Element
NBPTS
Core
Principles
Evidence
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Literature Review
1
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
2
1
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
2
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Literature Review; Article PeerReview
1, 2, 4
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
2
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Literature Review; Article PeerReview
2
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Methodology Evaluation; Literature
Review; Article Peer-Review
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Methodology Evaluation; Literature
Review; Article Peer-Review
1, 2, 4
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
3
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
1
3
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
1
1, 3
Subject Matter
Pedagogical
Content
3
Methodology Evaluation; Literature
Review; Article Peer-Review
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Methodology Evaluation; Literature
Review; Article Peer-Review
8. Candidate uses technology to
research in the area of reading.
9. Candidate seeks out and critiques
scholarly research and uses such
research in professional discourse.
10. Candidate participates through
collaboration, questioning, listening,
evaluating, analyzing, verbalizing, and
demonstrating during class discussions
and activities and with parents and
colleagues.
11. Candidate develops an
appreciation of diverse reading needs
based on factors such as culture,
economic background, family structure,
and disabilities.
12. Candidate appreciates, applies,
and reflects upon reading instruction in
experimental teaching and in
philosphical reflections.
IX.
5
Professional &
Pedagogical
Disposition
Literature Review
3
5
Professional &
Pedagogical
Disposition
3
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Methodology Evaluation; Literature
Review; Article Peer-Review
5
Professional &
Pedagogical
Disposition
3
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Methodology Evaluation; Literature
Review; Article Peer-Review
4, 5
5
Professional &
Pedagogical
Disposition
Professional &
Pedagogical
Disposition
3
Literature Review; Article PeerReview
Theoretical Framework Evaluation;
Methodology Evaluation; Literature
Review; Article Peer-Review
COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:
Theoretical Framework Evaluation (50 pts.): The theoretical framework for a research study should
guide the researcher in terms of methodology and analysis. Candidates will select three empirical studies
within an area of interest in reading education (e.g. fluency, comprehension). Read each study and
compare, contrast, and evaluate the theoretical framework (e.g. social constructivism, critical theory) of
each study. Guiding questions: How does the theoretical framework guide the design of the research;
how does the theoretical framework impact the discussion of the findings; how is the theoretical
framework described. Turn in a two-five paper paper following APA 5th edition as a guide.
Methodology Evaluation (50 pts.): A rigorous methodology establishes trustworthiness in research.
Candidates will select three empirical studies within an area of interest in reading education (e.g.
vocabulary, word analysis). Read each study and compare, contrast, and evaluate the methodology of
each study. Guiding questions: How does the methodology establish trustworthiness; how does the
methodology match the theoretical framework; how is the methodology described. Turn in a two-five
paper paper following APA 5th edition as a guide.
Literature Review (150 points): Candidates will conduct a review of related literature within an area of
interest in reading education (e.g. strategic reading, using reading workshop, the role of sustained silent
reading). The review should contain at least 10 empirical studies as well as 5 theoretical (or theorized
praction) papers (all from scholarly journals). This review should culminate with a narrative that integrates,
synthesizes, and critiques the important thinking and research on this topic. However, this narrative
should not be a summary of each study or paper.
The narrative is worth 100 points of the total point value. A short 10 minute presentation should
accompany this narrative to share the highlights of your findings with the class. The presentation is worth
50 points of the total point value.
Article Peer-Review (50 pts.): Scholars in every field are often asked to review the work of their peers
for conference proprosals or articles for publication. Candidates will be given a previously submitted and
reviewed (anonymous) research manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal to review using the journal’s
guidelines. Candidates will follow the journal guidelines and write a formal recommendation.
X.
EVALUATION AND GRADING:
Assignments:
Theoretical Framework Evaluation (50 points)
Methodology Evaluation (50 points)
Literature Review (150 points)
Article Peer-Review (50 points)
Grading Scale:
275 pts. - 300 pts. =A
245 pts. - 274 pts. =B
215 pts. - 244 pts. =C
185 pts. - 214 pts. =D
Below 185 pts.
=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:
The expectations for attending class are in accordance with the Graduate Catalog. All program
candidates 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. Excessive absences (more than 2)
may result in a lower grade (one letter grade drop per class missed over 2). 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.
XIII.
COURSE OUTLINE:
What follows is a tentative schedule (subject to change with notice).
Week 1
Introduction
Syllabus—Goals and objectives
Reading Research — Where to find it? How to evaluate it?
Week 2
Reading Research — National and International Perspectives
Reading: Chapter 5 & choose one from Chapters 1 - 4
Week 3
What is Theory? How do you develop a Theoretical Framework?
Reading: Handout
Week 4
Theory — Constructivism, Feminism, Critical, Cultural, etc.
Reading: Chapter 10 & 14
Week 5
Methodologies in Literacy Research
Reading: Chapter 6 & 8
Due: Theoretical Framework Evaluation
Week 6
Methodologies in Literacy Research
Reading: Chapter 9 & 11
Week 7
Methodologies in Literacy Research
Reading: Choose two: Chapter 12 & 13
Week 8
What is a Literature Review?
Reading: Chapters 18 & 19
Due: Methodology Evaluation
Week 9
What is a Literature Review?
Reading: Choose one from Chapters 16 – 24
Week 10
Evaluating Literature Reviews: SBRR
Reading: Choose two from Chapters 25, 26, 27, 28, 30
Due: Article Peer Review
Week 11
Evaluating Literature Reviews: Literacy Instruction
Reading: Choose two from Chapters 31, 32, 33, 34
Week 12
Evaluating Literature Reviews: Literacy & Technology
Reading: Chapters 39 & 40
Week 13
Evaluating Literature Reviews: Cultural Studies
Reading: Choose two from Chapters 41, 42, & 43
Week 14
Literature Review & Presentation Due
Week 15
Literature Review & Presentation Due
IX. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Alvermann, D. E. (2001a). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Paper presented at the National
Reading Conference, Chicago.
Alvermann, D. E. (2001b). Reading adolescents reading identities: Looking back to see ahead. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 676 - 690.
Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), The handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 951 - 983).
New York: Longman.
Anders, P. L., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading: Paradigm shifts,
persistent problems, and challenges. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume iii (pp. 719-742). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Anders, P. L., & Richardson, V. (1994). Launching a new form of staff development. In V. Richardson
(Ed.), Teacher change and the staff development process: A case in reading instruction (pp. 122). New York: Teachers College Press.
Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their
time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 285 - 303.
Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning. Portsmouth:
Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.
Barrentine, S. J. (Ed.). (1999). Reading assessment: Principles and practices for elementary teachers.
Newark: International Reading Association.
Bean, T. (2000). Reading in the content areas: Social constructivist dimensions. In P. L. Anders, J. V.
Hoffman & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 629-644). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Begoray, D. L., & Morin, F. (2002). Multiple literacies in language arts: Sustainable teacher change
through a summer institute. Reading Online, 6(4).
Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on america's
public schools. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Braunger, J., & Lewis, J. (1998). Building a knowledge base in reading (2nd ed.). Newark, NJ:
International Reading Association.
Broaddus, K., & Bloodgood, J. W. (1999). 'we're supposed to already know how to teach reading':
Teacher change to support struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 426-451.
Campbell, J. R. (2001). A focus on naep data: What it means, what it does not mean, and the findings
from the expert study. In R. F. Flippo (Ed.), Reading researchers in search of common ground
(pp. 147-158). Newark: International Reading Association.
Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide.
New York: Routledge.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19, 3-13.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (second ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Dillon, D. R. (1989). Showing them that i want them to learn and that i care about who they are: A
microethnography of the social organization of a secondary low-track english-reading classroom.
American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 227 - 259.
Dully, M. (1989). The relation between sustained silent reading to reading achievement and attitude of the
at risk student. Kean College, New Jersey.
Fielding, L. G., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Reading comprehension: What works. Educational Leadership,
51(5), 62-68.
Flippo, R. F. (1998). Points of agreement: A display of professional unity in our field. The Reading
Teacher, 52, 30-40.
Flippo, R. F. (2001a). The "real" common ground: Pulling the threads together. In R. F. Flippo (Ed.),
Reading researchers in search of common ground (pp. 178-184). Newark: International Reading
Association.
Flippo, R. F. (Ed.). (2001b). Reading researchers in search of common ground. Newark: International
Reading Association.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Gee, J. P. (2001). What is literacy? In P. Shannon (Ed.), Becoming political, too: New readings and
writings on the politics of literacy education (pp. 1-9). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Critical theory and the politics of culture and voice: Rethinking the discourse of
educational research. In R. R. Sherman & R. B. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in education:
Focus and methods (pp. 190-210). New York: The Flamer Press.
Goodman, K. (1996). On reading: A common-sense look at the nature of language and the science of
reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Graves, M. F., Juel, C., & Graves, B. B. (1998). Teaching reading in the 21st century. Needham Heights:
Allyn and Bacon.
Green, P. (2001). Critical literacy revisited. In H. Fehring & P. Green (Eds.), Critical literacy: A collection
of articles from the australian literacy educators' association: International Reading Association.
Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing.
Neward: International Reading Association.
Harvey, S. (1998). Nonfiction matters: Reading, writing, and research in grades 3-8. Portland: Stenhouse
Publishers.
Jetton, T. L., & Alexander, P. A. (1997). Instructional importance: What teachers value and what students
learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 290 - 308.
Kibby, M. W. (1995). Practical steps for informing literacy instruction: A diagnostic decision-making model.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2000). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 279-314). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications, Inc.
LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Designing & conducting ethnographic research (Vol. 1).
Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information
age. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
resesarch (Vol. III, pp. 743-788). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1997). The social practices of reading. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody
(Eds.), Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practice (pp. 185-226).
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
Many, J. E. (1996). Traversing the topical landscape: Exploring students' self-directed reading-writing
research processes. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 12 - 35.
Many, J. E. (2000). How will literacy be defined in the new millennium? Reading Research Quarterly,
35(1), 65-67.
Many, J. E. (2002). An exhibition and analysis of verbal tapestries: Understanding how scaffolding is
woven into the fabric of instructional conversations. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 376 - 407.
Moje, E. B. (2000). What will classrooms and schools look like in the new millennium? Reading Research
Quarterly, 35, 128 - 129.
Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position statement
for the commission on adolescent literacy of the international reading association.
Placier, P., & Hamilton, M. L. (1994). Schools as contexts: A complex relationship. In V. Richardson (Ed.),
Teachers change and the staff development process: A case in reading instruction (pp. 135-158).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Richardson, V. (Ed.). (1994). Teacher change and the staff development process: A case in reading
instruction. New York: Teachers College Press.
Roskos, K., Vukelich, C., & Risko, V. (2001). Reflection and learning to teach reading: A critical review of
literacy and general teacher education. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 595-635.
Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (Eds.). (2004). Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 769-802). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Schroeder, J. S. (1997). How teachers inquire in their own classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Arizona.
Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism,
hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189-214). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and social
sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Shannon, P. (1985). Reading instruction and social class. In P. Shannon (Ed.), Becoming political:
Readings and writing in the politics of literacy education (pp. 128-138). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Shannon, P. (Ed.). (2001). Becoming political, too: New readings and writings on the politics of literacy
education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Smith, F. (1994). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (5th
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Smith, F. (Ed.). (1973). Psycholinguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
Standerford, N. S. (1997). Reforming reading instruction on multiple levels: Interrelations and summer,
1992 disconnections across the state, district, and classroom levels. Educational Policy, 11, 5892.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual difference in the
acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-407.
Turbill, J. (2002). The four ages of reading philosophy and pedagogy: A framework for examining theory
and practice. Reading Online, 5(6).
Wade, S. E., & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in classroom learning, volume iii. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 609 627). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Wallace, F. H. (2005). Understanding scientifically-based reading research. Georgia Journal of Reading,
28(1), 15-19.