KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2002)
Course Number/Program Name ECE 8460 Practicum for Strategic Reading in the Content Area
Department Elementary and Early Childhood Education
Degree Title (if applicable) Ed.D. Program
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
Page 1 of 18
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 ECE 8460____________________
Course Title __Practicum for Strategic Reading in the Content Area
Credit Hours 3
Prerequisites Acceptance to the Ed.D. program
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
This course synthesizes various reading theories and translates theory into practice. Through mentoring
relationships candidates will use research-based strategies to meet the specific needs of students with
diverse backgrounds and foster reading expertise. During tutorial sessions they will explore major
components of reading in light of students’ interests and current research. As reflective practitioners,
candidates will analyze the connections between tutorial strategies and classroom teaching.
III.
Justification
This course provides students with opportunities to explore and personalize effective methods for tutoring.
This will help them to effectively meet the needs of students and apply literacy strategies in their own
classrooms. The tutorial experience will also equip them with tools for effective collaboration with parents to
support literacy experiences in the home.
IV.
Additional Information (for New Courses only)
Instructor: To be assigned
Walker, B. J. (2004). Diagnostic teaching of reading: Techniques for instruction and
assessment (5th ed.). NY: Pearson – Merrill, Prentice Hall.
Brozo, W. G., & Simpson, M. L. (2002). Readers, teachers, and learners: Exploring literacy across the content areas.
(4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Page 2 of 18
Objectives:
Course Objectives
Doctoral
KSDs
Distributed School
Leadership Roles
NCATE
IRA Reading
Standards
Demonstrate knowledge of
psychological, sociological,
and linguistic foundations of
reading and writing processes
and instruction.
1.a, 1.b,
4.b
Curriculum, Instruction &
Assessment Leader, Learning
& Development Leader
Change Leader
Data Analysis Leader
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
Standard 1.1
Demonstrate knowledge of
reading research and develop
a working knowledge of
effective assessment methods
and reading strategies.
1.a, 1.b,
4.b
Curriculum, Instruction &
Assessment Leader, Learning
& Development Leader
Change Leader
Data Analysis Leader
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
Standard 1.2
Demonstrate knowledge of
language development,
reading acquisition, and the
variations related to cultural
and linguistic diversity in
relation to assessment and
tutoring.
1.a, 1.b,
2.c
Curriculum, Instruction &
Assessment Leader, Learning
& Development Leader
Change Leader
Relationship Development
Leader
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
Standard 4:
Diversity
Standard 1.3
Demonstrate and apply
knowledge of the major
components of reading,
discuss methods of reading
assessment, and application of
tutorial strategies in the
classroom.
1.a, 1.b,
2.c
Curriculum, Instruction &
Assessment Leader
Learning & Development
Leader
Change Leader
Relationship Development
Leader
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
Standard 1.4
Demonstrate ongoing
collaboration with parents and
1.b, 1.c,
2.c
Learning & Development
Leader
Standard 1:
Candidate
Standard 2.1
NCTE
Professional
Standards for
the ELA
Standard 3.7
Standard 3.3.2
Evidence
Online Reflective Journal
Portfolio
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Instructional Summary
Analysis of Reading
Strategies
Parent Conference
Online Reflective Journal
Portfolio
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Instructional Summary
Analysis of Reading
Strategies
Strategic Tutorial Plan
Online Reflective Journal
Portfolio
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Instructional Summary
Analysis of Reading
Strategies
Strategic Tutorial Plan
Parent Conference
Online Reflective Journal
Portfolio
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Instructional Summary
Analysis of Reading
Strategies
Strategic Tutorial Plan
Parent Conference
Online Reflective Journal
Portfolio
Page 3 of 18
support of parents as they
provide literacy experiences in
the home.
Change Leader
Relationship Development
Leader
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
Use assessments, including
technology-based practices,
for learners at different stages
of development and from
differing cultural and linguistic
backgrounds.
1.a, 3.b,
4.e, 6.a
Curriculum, Instruction &
Assessment Leader
Learning & Development
Leader
Operations Leader
Relationship Development
Leader
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
Standard 2.2
Standard 3.3.2
Use a variety of reading
strategies for learners at
different stages of reading and
writing development from
differing cultural and linguistic
backgrounds.
1.a, 1.b,
6.a
Curriculum, Instruction &
Assessment Leader
Learning & Development
Leader
Relationship Development
Leader
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
Standard 2.3
Standard 3.3.2
3.6.3
Display positive dispositions
related to reading and the
tutorial process.
4.a, 4.d,
5.b,
5.c
Change Leader
Performance Leader
Learning and Development
Leader
Relationship Development
Leader
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
Standard 5.1
Standard 4.0
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Instructional Summary
Analysis of Reading
Strategies
Strategic Tutorial Plan
Parent Conference
Strategic Tutorial Planning
Online Reflective Journal
Portfolio
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Instructional Summary
Analysis of Reading
Strategies
Strategic Tutorial Plan
Online Reflective Journal
Portfolio
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Instructional Summary
Analysis of Reading
Strategies
Strategic Tutorial Plan
Parent Conference
Implementing a Tutorial
Plan
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Parent Conference
Online Reflective Journal
Page 4 of 18
Instructional Method
Lecture, discussion, internet, journaling, research, case studies, conferences, portfolios
EVALUATION AND GRADING (for each course):
Due Dates
Evaluation and Grading: 900 – 1000 A
Strategic Tutorial Plan
Online Reflective/Dialoguing Journal
Case Study/Literacy Profile Based on Tutoring
Instructional Summary
Parent Conference and Portfolio Presentation
Analysis of Reading Strategies
Portfolio
(100 points)
(100 points)
(200 points)
(200 points)
(150 points)
(200 points)
( 50 points)
Due Dates
Week 3
Ongoing
Week 14
Week 14
Week 15
Week 13
Week 15
Late Work: I will accept late work. However, one letter grade will be deducted for late assignments.
Professional Standards for Written Work: When submitting work, please remember the following:
secure single sheets of paper—DO NOT dog ear or turn in loose sheets
type/word process all assignments (crisp, clear printout)
no report covers or plastic sleeves
along with your name, please include the date and course # on work
All work should be edited well. Points will be deducted from all work that does not meet professional standards. In
some cases, I may return the work without a grade.
Grading Scale: 900 – 1000 A
800 – 899 B
700 – 799 C
V.
Resources and Funding Required (New Courses only)
*Course funding is addressed in a comprehensive manner in the comprehensive proposal for the umbrella
Ed.D degree for the Bagwell College of Education.
Resource
Amount
Faculty
Other Personnel
Equipment
Supplies
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
TOTAL
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth
Page 5 of 18
Page 6 of 18
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
Ed.D.
ECE 8460
Practicum Rdg
3
Fall 2006
Regular
APPROVED:
________________________________________________
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee __
VII Attach Syllabus
Page 7 of 18
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
Fall 2006
Course Number/Section: 8460
Course Title: Practicum for Strategic Reading in the Content Areas
Instructors: TBA
e-mail:
Office:
Office Phone:
Class Meeting: TBA
Texts:
Walker, B. J. (2004). Diagnostic teaching of reading: Techniques for instruction and
assessment (5th ed.). NY: Pearson – Merrill, Prentice Hall.
Brozo, W. G., & Simpson, M. L. (2002). Readers, teachers, and learners: Exploring literacy across the content areas.
(4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Catalog Description:
This course synthesizes various reading theories and translates theory into practice.
Through mentoring relationships candidates will use research-based strategies to meet
the specific needs of students with diverse backgrounds and foster reading expertise.
During tutorial sessions they will explore major components of reading in light of
students’
interests and current research. As reflective practitioners, candidates will
analyze the connections between tutorial strategies and classroom teaching.
Rationale/Purpose:
This course provides students with opportunities to explore and personalize effective methods for tutoring. This will
help them to effectively meet the needs of students and apply literacy strategies in their own classrooms. The tutorial
experience will also equip them with tools for effective collaboration with parents to support literacy experiences in
the home.
Page 8 of 18
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY’S 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. 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 endstate. 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 at the doctoral level develop into leaders for learning and
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.
Knowledge Base
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: preservice, induction, inservice, 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 believe 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.
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. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore
and use instructional media. They will master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and
Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials, and create WWW resources.
VII. 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 PTEU
Proficiency (documented in the Candidate Performance Instrument--CPI), NCATE, IRA Professional Reading
Standards and NCTE Professional Standards for the English Language Arts:
Page 9 of 18
Course Objectives
Doctoral
KSDs
Distributed School
Leadership Roles
NCATE
IRA Reading
Standards
Demonstrate knowledge of
psychological, sociological,
and linguistic foundations of
reading and writing processes
and instruction.
1.a, 1.b,
4.b
Curriculum, Instruction &
Assessment Leader, Learning
& Development Leader
Change Leader
Data Analysis Leader
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
Standard 1.1
Demonstrate knowledge of
reading research and develop
a working knowledge of
effective assessment methods
and reading strategies.
1.a, 1.b,
4.b
Curriculum, Instruction &
Assessment Leader, Learning
& Development Leader
Change Leader
Data Analysis Leader
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
Standard 1.2
Demonstrate knowledge of
language development,
reading acquisition, and the
variations related to cultural
and linguistic diversity in
relation to assessment and
tutoring.
1.a, 1.b,
2.c
Curriculum, Instruction &
Assessment Leader, Learning
& Development Leader
Change Leader
Relationship Development
Leader
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
Standard 4:
Diversity
Standard 1.3
Demonstrate and apply
knowledge of the major
components of reading,
discuss methods of reading
assessment, and application of
tutorial strategies in the
classroom.
1.a, 1.b,
2.c
Curriculum, Instruction &
Assessment Leader
Learning & Development
Leader
Change Leader
Relationship Development
Leader
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
Standard 1.4
Demonstrate ongoing
collaboration with parents and
support of parents as they
1.b, 1.c,
2.c
Learning & Development
Leader
Change Leader
Relationship Development
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
Standard 2.1
NCTE
Professional
Standards for
the ELA
Standard 3.7
Standard 3.3.2
Evidence
Online Reflective Journal
Portfolio
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Instructional Summary
Analysis of Reading
Strategies
Parent Conference
Online Reflective Journal
Portfolio
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Instructional Summary
Analysis of Reading
Strategies
Strategic Tutorial Plan
Online Reflective Journal
Portfolio
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Instructional Summary
Analysis of Reading
Strategies
Strategic Tutorial Plan
Parent Conference
Online Reflective Journal
Portfolio
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Instructional Summary
Analysis of Reading
Strategies
Strategic Tutorial Plan
Parent Conference
Online Reflective Journal
Portfolio
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Page 10 of 18
provide literacy experiences in
the home.
Leader
& Dispositions
Use assessments, including
technology-based practices,
for learners at different stages
of development and from
differing cultural and linguistic
backgrounds.
1.a, 3.b,
4.e, 6.a
Curriculum, Instruction &
Assessment Leader
Learning & Development
Leader
Operations Leader
Relationship Development
Leader
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
Standard 2.2
Standard 3.3.2
Use a variety of reading
strategies for learners at
different stages of reading and
writing development from
differing cultural and linguistic
backgrounds.
1.a, 1.b,
6.a
Curriculum, Instruction &
Assessment Leader
Learning & Development
Leader
Relationship Development
Leader
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
Standard 2.3
Standard 3.3.2
3.6.3
Display positive dispositions
related to reading and the
tutorial process.
4.a, 4.d,
5.b,
5.c
Change Leader
Performance Leader
Learning and Development
Leader
Relationship Development
Leader
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
Standard 5.1
Standard 4.0
Instructional Summary
Analysis of Reading
Strategies
Strategic Tutorial Plan
Parent Conference
Strategic Tutorial Planning
Online Reflective Journal
Portfolio
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Instructional Summary
Analysis of Reading
Strategies
Strategic Tutorial Plan
Online Reflective Journal
Portfolio
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Instructional Summary
Analysis of Reading
Strategies
Strategic Tutorial Plan
Parent Conference
Implementing a Tutorial
Plan
Case Study/Literacy Profile
Parent Conference
Online Reflective Journal
Page 11 of 18
Assignments:
1. Constructing and Implementing a Strategic Tutorial Plan – Consider all data available in relation to a
tutee’s achievement, and conduct assessment in relation to the five main areas of reading. Consider specific
strategies for scaffolding to match the specific needs and interests of the tutee. As you work with your child
in the practicum, create high-interest materials and use strategies for the major components of reading. (100
points)
2. Online Reflective/Dialoguing Journal – Write a brief reflective biographical sketch explaining your
background in learning to read and your experiences as a reader. Then reflect on how early literacy
experiences have influenced your teaching of reading. You will tie this reflection with your case study and
tutoring. To promote collaborative reflection, you will dialogue with peers and instructors to analyze your
tutorial strategies and their effectiveness with your tutee throughout the semester. (100 points)
3. Case Study/Literacy Profile Based on Tutoring – This will be an ethnographic case study of a tutee that
includes an interest inventory, background information, data collected from assessments, and ongoing
analysis of the tutee’s progress over the semester. Candidates will include a detailed impact on student
learning analysis in relation to their literacy instruction with a tutee and a complete bibliography of books and
materials used during tutoring. (200 points)
4. Instructional Summary – Analyze and describe the scaffolding and specific strategies that you used with a
tutee throughout the practicum. Explain the specific teaching methods you used and the ways the tutee
responded to those strategies. Present your findings to the class. This can be a group project or an
individual project. (200 points)
5. Parent Conference and Portfolio Presentation – Use the instructional summary as a basis to provide
parents with specific examples of your tutee’s strengths and areas needing additional concentration. Provide
the parent’s with specific recommendations in relation to comprehension, vocabulary, phonemic awareness,
phonics, and fluency. Share specific strategies that relate to the specific needs of the student you tutored,
and help the parents to see ways they can promote the tutee’s continued reading progress. Collaborate with
the tutee to share the portfolio and favorite stories/experiences from the semester. (150 points)
6. Analysis of Reading Strategies Used in Tutoring and Classroom Teaching- – Write a paper that
outlines your own views on literacy assessment. Through the process of writing this paper, you will explore
your perspective of literacy assessment, aspects that influence your thinking, and your goals for continuing
to develop and refine your repertoire of reading strategies. (200 points) Candidates will develop an online
portfolio to demonstrate their accomplishments in the program. (50 points)
Evaluation and Grading: 900 – 1000 A
Strategic Tutorial Plan
Online Reflective/Dialoguing Journal
Case Study/Literacy Profile Based on Tutoring
Instructional Summary
Parent Conference and Portfolio Presentation
Analysis of Reading Strategies
Portfolio
(100 points)
(100 points)
(200 points)
(200 points)
(150 points)
(200 points)
( 50 points)
Due Dates
Week 3
Ongoing
Week 14
Week 14
Week 15
Week 13
Week 15
Late Work: I will accept late work. However, one letter grade will be deducted for late assignments.
Professional Standards for Written Work: When submitting work, please remember the following:
secure single sheets of paper—DO NOT dog ear or turn in loose sheets
Page 12 of 18
type/word process all assignments (crisp, clear printout)
no report covers or plastic sleeves
along with your name, please include the date and course # on work
All work should be edited well. Points will be deducted from all work that does not meet professional standards. In
some cases, I may return the work without a grade.
Grading Scale: 900 – 1000 A
800 – 899 B
700 – 799 C
IX. Policies
Diversity: 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.
Professionalism- Academic Honesty: KSU expects that graduate students will pursue their academic programs in
an ethical, professional manner. Faculty of the EdS and EdD programs abide by the policies and guidelines
established by the university in their expectations for candidates’ work. Candidates are responsible for knowing and
adhering to the guidelines of academic honesty as stated in the graduate catalog. Any candidate who is found to
have violated these guidelines will be subject to disciplinary action consistent with university policy. For example,
plagiarism or other violations of the University’s Academic Honesty policies could result in a grade of “F” in the
course and a formal hearing before the Judiciary Committee.
Professionalism- Participation and Attendance: Part of your success in this class is related to your ability to
provide peer reviews and feedback to your editing groups regarding their research and their writing. Furthermore,
responding effectively and appropriately to feedback from your peers and the professor is another measure of one’s
professionalism. In addition, since each class meeting represents a week of instruction/learning, failure to attend
class will likely impact your performance on assignments and final exams. Please be prepared with all readings
completed prior to class. We depend on one another to ask pertinent and insightful questions.
Page 13 of 18
Course Outline:
This is a tentative schedule. I have indicated the dates that readings from your text are due. I may also assign other
readings which are not indicated on the reading schedule. As I see your needs and interests, I will announce them as
the need arises. We will focus on the text by Walker (2004) for 10 weeks with ongoing references to the text by Brozo
and Simpson (2002). Then we will focus on the text by Brozo and Simpson during the last five weeks with ongoing
references to reading strategies from the text by Walker (2004).
Week 1 –What is Diagnostic Teaching? – Chapter 1 (Walker, 2004)
Active Reading
The Assessment Process
The Diagnostic Teaching Process
Week 2 – The Reading Event – Chapter 2 (Walker, 2004)
Task
Text
Reader
Technique
Context
Week 3 – Roles of Diagnostic Teachers – Chapter 3 (Walker, 2004)
Reflecting
Strategic Planning
Week 4 – The Diagnostic Teaching Session: An Overview –Chapter 4 (Walker, 2004)
Continuous Diagnostic Assessment
Guided Contextual Reading
Strategy and Skill Instruction
Week 5 – Gathering Diagnostic Data – Chapter 5 (Walker, 2004)
Establishing the Level of Student Performance
Further Assessments
Stages of Reading Development
Week 6 – Formulating Diagnostic Hypotheses – Chapter 6 (Walker, 2004)
Reflecting on Print and Meaning Processing
Analyzing Oral Reading
Reflecting on the Reading Event
Week 7 – Assessment Using Diagnostic Lessons – Chapter 7 (Walker, 2004)
Establishing a Mediated Reading Level
Procedures for Diagnostic Sessions
Special Considerations
Week 8 – Assessment Using Portfolios – Chapter 8 (Walker, 2004)
Procedures for Portfolios
Using Portfolios
Week 9 – Selecting Materials – Chapter 9 (Walker, 2004)
Page 14 of 18
Basic Types of Materials
Selecting Material for a Particular Reader
More Considerations for Selecting Materials
Week 10 Selecting Techniques – Chapter 10 (Walker, 2004)
Classifying Techniques for Guided Contextual Reading
Classifying Techniques for Strategy and Skill Instruction
Classifying Techniques for Increased Specificity
Week 11 Comprehension Strategies – Chapter 3 (Brozo & Simpson)
Activating Prior Knowledge
Organizing Text Structures for Meaning Making
Critical Thinking and Elaborations
Week 12 Expanding Vocabulary and Developing – Chapter 6 (Brozo & Simpson)
Concepts
Guidelines for Effective Vocabulary Instruction
Selecting Key Terms and Concepts
Building Vocabulary Knowledge
Promoting Independent Word Learning
Week 13 Writing as a Tool for Active Learning – Chapter 7 (Brozo & Simpson)
Reading and Writing as Constructive and Parallel Processes
Guidelines for the Use of Writing Across the Content Areas
Writing Activities that Prepare Students for Learning
Writing Activities That Encourage Students to Construct Meaning and Monitor
Their Own Comprehension
Writing Activities that Encourage Students to Think Critically
Critical Issues Concerning the Use of Writing as a Means of Learning
Week 14 Literature Across the Curriculum and Throughout Life –
Chapters 8 & 9 – (Brozo & Simpson)
Guidelines for Integrating Literature into Content Classrooms
Teaching with Trade Books and Textbooks: Symbiosis
Promoting Lifelong Reading Habits
Week 15 Becoming an Effective Literacy Professional – Chapter 12 (Brozo & Simpson)
Literacy Innovations in the Content Classroom
Supporting Meaningful Change in Teacher Practice
Characteristics of Effective Teachers
References
Afflerbach, P. (1993). STAIR: A system for recording and using what we observe and know about our students. The
Reading Teacher, 47, 260-263.
Allington, R. L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. NY:
Longman.
Page 15 of 18
Allington, R. L., & Walmsley, S. A. (1995). No quick fix. Newark, DE: International Reading Association & NY:
Teachers College Press.
Applegate, M. D., Quinn, K. B., & Applegate, A. J. (2002). Levels of thinking required by comprehension questions in
informal reading inventories. The Reading Teacher, 56, 174-180.
Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of
Literacy Research, 30, 297-319.
Braunger, J., & Lewis, J. (1996). Building a knowledge base in reading (2nd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Calfee, R. & Hiebert, E. (1991). Classroom assessment of reading. In R. Barr, A. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P. D.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume II (pp. 281-309). NY: Longman.
Ciardiello, A. V. (1998). Did you ask a good question today? Alternative cognitive and metacognitive strategies.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42, 210-219.
Clark, C. H. (1996). Keys to successful cognitive and affective intervention with challenging students. Reading &
Writing Quarterly, 12, 265-290.
Cunningham, J. W. (2001). The National Reading Panel report. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 326-335.
Cunningham, P. M., Hall, D. P., & Defee, M. (1998). Nonability-grouped, multilevel instruction: Eight years later. The
Reading Teacher, 51, 652-664.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: the self-determination
perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325- 346.
Dudley-Marling, C., & Murphy, S. (1997). A political critique of remedial reading programs: The example of Reading
Recovery. The Reading Teacher, 50, 460-468.
Duffy-Hester, A. M. (1998). Teaching struggling readers in elementary school classrooms: A review of classroom
reading programs and principles for instruction. The Reading Teacher, 52, 480-495.
Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language reading instruction in the United States: Research review.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 115-152.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, Paras, (1998). The role of instruction in
learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.
Freppon, P. A., & Dahl, D. A. (1998). Balanced instruction: Insights and considerations. Reading Research Quarterly,
33, 240-251.
Gambrell, L. B., Morrow, L. M., Neuman, S. B., & Pressley, M. (1999). Best practices in literacy instruction. NY:
Guilford Press.
Garcia, G. E. (2000). Bilingual children’s reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research: Volume III (pp. 813-834). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Page 16 of 18
Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Assessment and diversity. In L. Darling- Hammond (Ed.), Review of
research in education: Volume 20 (pp. 337-391). Washington, DC: AERA.
Gaskins, I. W. (1998). There’s more to teaching at-risk and delayed readers than good reading instruction. The
Reading Teacher, 51, 534-547.
Guillaume, A. M. (1998). Learning with text in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 51, 476-486.
Graves, M. F., Van den Broek, P., & Taylor, B. M. (1996). The first R: Every child’s right to read. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association & NY: Teachers College Press.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (Eds.) (1997). Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60,
549-571. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnston, P. H. (1984). Assessment in reading. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, and P. Mosenthal
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume I (pp. 147-182). NY: Longman.
Johnston, P., & Allington, R. (1991). Remediation. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research: Volume II (pp. 984 - 1012). NY:Longman.
Johnston, P., & Winograd, P. (1985). Passive failure in reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 279-301.
Lapp, D., Fisher, D., Flood, J., & Cabello, A. (2001). In Hurley, S. R., & Tinajero, J. V. (Eds.), Literacy assessment of
second language learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1997). The foundations of literacy. In M. Y. Lipson & K. K. Wixson, Assessment and
instruction of reading and writing disability: An interactive approach (2nd ed.) (pp. 223-267). NY: Longman.
Morrow, L. M. (1988). Retelling stories as a diagnostic tool. In S. M. Glazer, L. W. Searfoss, & L. M. Gentile (Eds.),
Reexamining reading diagnosis: New trends and procedures (pp. 128-149). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and
instruction. In Beck, I., and McKeown, M., Vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19 -35).
Ovando, C. J., & Collier, V. P. (1985). ESL and bilingual classrooms (pp. 101-152). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pearson, P. D., & Valencia, S. (1987). Assessment, accountability, and professional prerogative. In J. Readence & S.
Baldwin (Eds.), Research in literacy: Merging perspectives (pp. 3-16). Rochester, NH: National Reading
Conference.
Powell, R., Cantrell, S.C., & Adams, S. (2001). Saving Black Mountain: The promise of critical literacy in a
multicultural democracy. The Reading Teacher, 54, 772-781.
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 299- 323.
Serafini, F. (2002-2001). Three paradigms of assessment: Measurement, procedure, and inquiry. The Reading
Teacher, 54, 384-393.
Page 17 of 18
Schwartz, R. M. (1997). Self-monitoring in beginning reading. The Reading Teacher, 51, 40-48.
Stahl, S. A., Duffy-Hester, A. M., & Stahl, K. A. (1998). Everything you wanted to know about phonics (but were afraid
to ask). Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 338-355.
Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Glynn, S. M., & Carr, M. (1996). Beyond reading to learn: Developing content and
disciplinary knowledge through texts. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged readers
in school and home communities (pp.139-163), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Strecker, S. K., Roser, N. L., & Martinez, M. G. (1998). Toward understanding oral Reading fluency. National
Reading Conference Yearbook, 47, 295-310.
Taylor, C. (1994). Assessment for measurement or standards: The peril and promise of large-scale assessment
reform. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 231-262.
Taylor, B. M., Hanson, B. E., Justice-Swanson, K., & Watts, S. M. (1997). Helping struggling readers: Linking smallgroup intervention with cross-age tutoring. The Reading Teacher, 51, 196-209.
Templeton, S., & Morris, D. (1999). Theory and research into practice: Questions teachers ask about spelling.
Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 102-112. Research, 64, 37-54.
Worthy, Jo, Broaddus, K., & Ivey, G. (2001). Pathways to independence. NY: Guilford Press.
Page 18 of 18