KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION, Cover Sheet (10/02/2002) Course Number/Program Name EDRD 8380 Department Secondary and Middle Grades 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 8380 Course Title _Supervision of School Literacy Programs__ Credit Hours 3-0-3 Prerequisites Admission to EdS/EdD program Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements) This course introduces candidates to the organization, administration, and supervision of school literacy programs including instructional, remedial, supplemental, and technology-based programs. Candidates analyze existing programs for elementary middle, and high schools in terms of best practices in reading instruction including scientifically-based reading research (SBRR). In addition, students examine roles of literacy personnel and address methods of program evaluation. 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 Texts: Marrow, L. M, Gambrell, L. B., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2003). Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (second edition). NY: The Guildford Press. Wepner, S. B., Feeley J. T., & Strickland, D. S. (Eds.). (2002). The Administration and Supervision of Reading Programs (third edition). Newark: Teachers College Press. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Prerequisites: Admission to EdS/EdD program Objectives: Course Objectives IRA Rdg. Standards 1. Candidate demonstrates an understanding of different theories of reading process and reading development by comparing, contrasting, and evaluting school literacy programs. 2. Candidate demonstrates an understanding of the five dimensions of reading and can compare, contrast, and evaluate programs for adherance to these dimensions. 3. Candidate can choose and support school literacy programs with a wide range of instructional techniques, including technological formats. 4. Candidate can assist classroom reading teachers with choosing primary and supplementary materials appropriate for classroom of diverse readers. 5. Candidate can compare, contrast, interpret, and recommend a variety of assessments to inform instruction decision-making 6. Candidate develops and implements plans for appropriate and effective reading instruction based on knowledge of diverse readers, reading theory, and research-based practices. 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 participates through collaboration, questioning, listening, evaluating,analyzing, verbalizing, and demonstrating during class discussions and activities and with parents and colleagues. 10. Candidate develops an appreciation of diverse reading needs based factors such as culture, economic background, family structure, and disabilities. 11. Candidate appreciates, applies, and reflects upon reading instruction in experimental teaching and in philosphical reflections. - NCATE Standard 1 Element NBPTS Core Principles Evidence 1 Subject Matter Pedagogical Content 2 Program Research Write-Ups; Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal 1 Subject Matter Pedagogical Content 2 Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation 1, 2 Subject Matter Pedagogical Content 2 Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal 1, 2, 4 Subject Matter Pedagogical Content 2 Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal 3, 5 Subject Matter Pedagogical Content 1 1, 2 Subject Matter Pedagogical Content 1 5 Professional & Pedagogical Disposition 3 4 2, 4 Professional & Pedagogical Disposition Subject Matter Pedagogical Content; Professional & Pedagogical Disposition 3 3 4, 5 Professional & Pedagogical Disposition 3 5 Professional & Pedagogical Disposition 3 Program Research Write-Ups; Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal Program Research Write-Ups; Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal Program Research Write-Ups; Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal Program Research Write-Ups; Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal Instructional Method: Seminar, small and whole group discussion, workshop, lecture Method of Evaluation: 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 8380 Literacy Supervi 3-0-3 Fall 2006 APPROVED: ________________________________________________ Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee __ VII Attach Syllabus EDRD 8380 KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY AND MIDDLE GRADES EDUCATION Fall Term 2006 I. COURSE NUMBER/SECTION: EDRD 8380 II. COURSE TITLE: Supervision of School Literacy Programs 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: Marrow, L. M, Gambrell, L. B., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2003). Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (second edition). NY: The Guildford Press. Wepner, S. B., Feeley J. T., & Strickland, D. S. (Eds.). (2002). The Administration and Supervision of Reading Programs (third edition). Newark: Teachers College Press. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. VI. CATALOG DESCRIPTION: This course introduces candidates to the organization, administration, and supervision of school literacy programs including instructional, remedial, supplemental, and technology-based programs. Candidates analyze existing programs for elementary middle, and high schools in terms of best practices in reading instruction including scientifically-based reading research (SBRR). In addition, students examine roles of literacy personnel and address methods of program evaluation. 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. Objective 1: Candidate demonstrates an understanding of different theories of reading process and reading development by comparing, contrasting, and evaluting school literacy programs. Objective 2: Candidate demonstrates an understanding of the five dimensions of reading and can compare, contrast, and evaluate programs for adherance to these dimensions. Objective 3: Candidate can choose, implement, and support school literacy programs with a wide range of instructional techniques, including technological formats. Objective 4: Candidate can assist classroom teachers with choosing primary and supplementary materials appropriate for classrooms with diverse readers. Objective 5: Candidate can compare, contrast, interpret, and recommend a variety of assessments to inform instructional decision-making Objective 6: Candidate develops and implements plans for appropriate and effective reading instruction based on knowledge of diverse readers, reading theory, and research-based practices. Objective 7: Candidate demonstrates knowledge of and the ability to translate research, theory, and findings into classroom application and evaluation of students. Objective 8: Candidate uses technology to research in the area of reading. Objective 9: Candidate participates through collaboration, questioning, listening, evaluating, analyzing, verbalizing, and demonstrating during class discussions and activities and with parents and colleagues. Objective 10: Candidate develops an appreciation of diverse reading needs based factors such as culture, economic background, family structure, and disabilities. Objective 11: Candidate appreciates, applies, and reflects upon reading instruction in experimental teaching and in philosphical reflections. 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 reading development by comparing, contrasting, and evaluting school IRA Rdg. Standards 1 NCATE Standard 1 Element Subject Matter Pedagogical Content NBPTS Core Principles 2 Evidence Program Research Write-Ups; Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal literacy programs. 2. Candidate demonstrates an understanding of the five dimensions of reading and can compare, contrast, and evaluate programs for adherance to these dimensions. 3. Candidate can choose and support school literacy programs with a wide range of instructional techniques, including technological formats. 4. Candidate can assist classroom reading teachers with choosing primary and supplementary materials appropriate for classroom of diverse readers. 5. Candidate can compare, contrast, interpret, and recommend a variety of assessments to inform instruction decision-making 6. Candidate develops and implements plans for appropriate and effective reading instruction based on knowledge of diverse readers, reading theory, and research-based practices. 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 participates through collaboration, questioning, listening, evaluating,analyzing, verbalizing, and demonstrating during class discussions and activities and with parents and colleagues. 10. Candidate develops an appreciation of diverse reading needs based factors such as culture, economic background, family structure, and disabilities. 11. Candidate appreciates, applies, and reflects upon reading instruction in experimental teaching and in philosphical reflections. IX. 1 Subject Matter Pedagogical Content 2 Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation 1, 2 Subject Matter Pedagogical Content 2 Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal 1, 2, 4 Subject Matter Pedagogical Content 2 Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal 3, 5 Subject Matter Pedagogical Content 1 1, 2 Subject Matter Pedagogical Content 1 5 Professional & Pedagogical Disposition 3 4 2, 4 Professional & Pedagogical Disposition Subject Matter Pedagogical Content; Professional & Pedagogical Disposition 3 3 4, 5 Professional & Pedagogical Disposition 3 5 Professional & Pedagogical Disposition 3 Program Research Write-Ups; Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal Program Research Write-Ups; Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal Program Research Write-Ups; Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal Program Research Write-Ups; Group Program Evaluation; School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation; Conference Proposal COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS: Program Research Write-Ups (75 pts.): Each week, candidates will be discussing a wide range of school literacy programs (e.g. Four Blocks, Accelerated Reader, Literacy Collaborative). To prepare for these discussions, each candidate will find, read, and reflect on research related to the program at hand (peer-reviewed journals only). Turn in a one-page summary, evaluation, and reflection on this research on the day of the discussion. In total, five write-ups will be turned in, each worth 15 points. Group Program Evaluation (25 pts.): As a class, we will do a thorough analysis of a particular school literacy program (e.g. Success For All, Saxon Phonics). Candidates will choose to evaluate one of many aspects of the program (e.g. assessment, balanced instruction, best practices, supplemental materials, cultural responsiveness, literacy personnel, professional development, etc.). Research your chosen program aspect using at least three references from scholarly journals or edited books. Prepare a written summary and evaluation of your chosen program aspect using related research, class readings and discussion. You will share your findings in a short 5 minute presentation to the class. As a class, we will then discuss the total findings in order to evaluate the program. School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation (150 points): After participating in the Group Program Evaluation, candidates will be able to complete their own school literacy program evaluation for a chosen program. After selecting the program, conduct research using the program manuals and materials as well as scholarly work. You will then create a notebook to discuss and document your findings and evaluations. Sections in the notebook should include: 1) overview of the program, 2) professional development, 3) theoretical perspective, 4) research findings, 5) student assessment, 6) best practices, 7) cultural responsiveness, 8) supplemental materials, and 9) literacy personnel. The notebook is worth 100 points of the total point value. A short 10 minute presentation should accompany this notebook to share the highlights of your findings with the class. The presentation is worth 50 points of the total point value. Conference Proposal (50 pts.): In self-selected groups of no more than four, candidates will reflect on their learning in terms of implementing, managing, assessing, and evaluating school literacy programs. Groups will craft a proposal to a local level professional conference (e.g. Georgia Middle School Association annual conference, Georgia Reading Association annual conference, etc.) to share findings and instructional strategies with colleagues. Groups will complete the conference proposal and prepare an outline of their presentation using technology such as PowerPoint. Successful completion of this project is NOT dependent upon acceptance at the professional conference. X. EVALUATION AND GRADING: Assignments: Program Research Write-Ups (75 points) Group Program Evaluation (25 points) School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation (150 points) Conference Proposal (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 School-Wide Reading Programs Introduction Week 2 Effective Reading Programs Reading: Chapters 1 & 2 Administration & Supervision Week 3 Best Practices & Balanced Instruction Reading: Chapters 1, 2, & 3 Best Practices Week 4 Program Development Reading: Chapters 4 & 5 Administration & Supervision Due: Program Research Write-Up (1) Week 5 Elements of Programs Reading: Chapters 6, 7, & 8 Best Practices Due: Program Research Write-Up (2) Week 6 Elements of Programs Reading: 9, 10, & 11 Best Practices Due: Program Research Write-Up (3) Week 7 Implementation & Analysis Reading: Chapters 7 & 8 Administration & Supervision Due: Program Research Write-Up (4) Week 8 Implementation & Analysis Reading: Chapters 9 & 10 Administration & Supervision Due: Program Research Write-Up (5) Week 9 Special Issues Reading: Chapters 14 & 15 Best Practices Due: Group Program Evaluation Week 10 Special Issues Reading: Chapters 16 & 17 Best Practices Week 11 Special Issues Reading: Chapter 18 Best Practices & Chapter 12 Administration & Supervision Due: Conference Proposal Week 12 Special Issues Reading: Chapters 13 & 14 Administration & Supervision Week 13 School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation Due Week 14 School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation Due Week 15 School Literacy Program Analysis Notebook & Presentation Due XIV. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Schroeder, J. S. (1997). How teachers inquire in their own classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona. 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.