KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
BAGWELL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
B.S. in Middle Grades Education
Semester
COURSE NUMBER (SECTION): EDRD 3350
COURSE TITLE: Integrated Reading/Writing Instruction in the Middle Grades
INSTRUCTOR
Name:
Office Phone:
Office Hours:
Office:
E-mail:
CLASS MEETING
TEXT & ELECTRONIC MATERIALS
Angelillo, J. (2003). Writing about reading:From book talk to literary essays, grades 3-8. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Robb, L. (2003). Teaching reading in social studies, science, and math. New York: Scholastic.
CATALOG DESCRIPTION
This course is designed to develop appropriate research-based teaching strategies that will enable
candidates teaching or mentoring in a middle grades classroom to effectively integrate reading and writing
instruction. Candidates will apply learning theories, teaching techniques, instructional materials, and
assessment procedures for middle grades learners that apply to both reading and writing instruction.
Students will develop and implement plans for teaching writing through content area reading texts that
promote critical thinking and cross-curricular engagement.
PURPOSE & RATIONALE
Mastery of literacy skills is essential to successful learning in every school subject at every grade level. The
reading concentration of the middle grades program will facilitate teacher acquisition of skills and
competencies needed to help students read, write, and understand a wide variety of materials. It will also
aid teachers in identifying reading problems, providing required interventions, and assisting all students in
improving skills in reading and writing. The reading concentration will prepare teachers to work with other
content area teachers to support the literacy needs of students within content area classrooms.
The purpose of this course is to prepare prospective middle grades teachers to become effective facilitators
of reading/writing integration. Research into reading and writing connections has shown that when they are
taught together, students engage in a greater variety of cognitive strategies, achieve better in both areas, and
become more critical thinkers. This relationship is multidirectional. Reading helps to improve writing by
providing students with models to emulate. Reading also enables students to build background and make
connections. Conversely, writing in response to a text they have read helps students better understand what
they read, which then allows them to make choices, take positions, or view topics from a different
perspective. This course provides instruction in the development and implementation of an integrated
reading/writing curriculum for the non language arts middle grades classroom.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
The Kennesaw State University teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers who
demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU teacher education
community strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring guidance from professionals
EDRD 3350 Syllabus
1
inside and outside the university. In tandem with this belief is the understanding that teacher expertise
develops along a continuum which includes the stages of preservice, induction, in-service, and renewal;
further, as candidates develop a strong research-based knowledge of content and pedagogy, they develop
their professional expertise in recognizing, facilitating, assessing, and evaluating student learning.
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 undergraduate candidates who are completing a program of study leading to an
B.S. in Middle Grades 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 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, especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of
productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design
multimedia instructional materials, create WWW resources, and use presentation software.
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 the course work involves raising candidate awareness of critical
multicultural issues. A second element will challenge 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.
EDRD 3350 Syllabus
2
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.
EDRD 3350 Syllabus
3
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 International Reading Association Professional Reading Standards, NCATE standards,
and the Candidate Performance Instrument:
Course Objectives/IRA
Professional Candidate
Standards
NCATE
CPI
IRA Reading
Standards/
PSC
Standards
2.1
Evidence
• Multi-Genre
• Lit Artifacts
• Anticip Guides
• Prompts/Rubrics
• Text Review
• Multi-Genre
• Lit Artifacts
• Anticip Guides
• Prompts/Rubrics
• Text Review
Use foundational knowledge
to design and/or implement an
integrated, comprehensive,
and balanced curriculum.
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Proficiency
1.3, 1.4, 2.1
Use appropriate and varied
instructional approaches,
including those that develop
word level strategies, textlevel comprehension strategies
and reading/writing
connection strategies.
Use a wide range of online
and offline materials,
including narrative, poetry,
informational texts, in reading,
writing, and
multimodal communication.
Use assessment information to
plan and to evaluate
instruction.
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Proficiency
2.2, 2.3, 2.7,
2.8
IRA 2.2
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Proficiency
2.2, 2.3, 2.8
IRA 2.3
• Multi-Genre
• Lit Artifacts
• Anticip Guides
• Prompts/Rubrics
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Proficiency
2.9, 2.10
IRA 3.3
Use a literacy curriculum and
engage in instructional
practices that positively
impact students’ knowledge,
beliefs and engagement with
the features of diversity.
Model reading and writing
enthusiastically as valued
lifelong activities.
Display positive dispositions
related to reading and the
teaching of reading.
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Proficiency
2.3, 2.8, 2.9
.
IRA 4.2
• Multi-Genre
• Anticip Guides
• Prompts/Rubrics
• Text Review
• Multi-Genre
• Lit Artifacts
• Anticip Guides
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Proficiency
1.3, 1.4
IRA 4.3
• Multi-Genre
• Self-Eval
Proficiency
2.2
IRA 5.1
• Multi-Genre
• Self-Eval
Pursue the development of
individual professional
knowledge and behaviors
through goal setting and
reflective practice.
Communicate assessment
results and implications to a
variety of audiences.
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Proficiency
3.2
IRA 6.3
• Self-Eval
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Proficiency
2.10, 3.,2
IRA 3.4
• Text Review
• Self-Eval
EDRD 3350 Syllabus
Standard 4: Diversity
Standard 4: Diversity
4
Demonstrate foundational
knowledge of adult learning
theories and related research
about organizational change,
effective professional
development, and importance
of conditions in school culture
conducive to professional
learning.
Understand the ways in which
local, state, and national
policy decisions influence
their instruction and how they
can impact policy and
advocate on behalf of students
and the community.
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Proficiency
1.1, 3.2
IRA 6.1
• Response to
Research
• Self-Eval
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Proficiency
3.2
IRA 6.5
• Response to
Research
• Self-Eval
COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:
1. Multi-Genre Reading/Writing Project as Research and Assessment (150 pts.)
Candidates will choose a meaningful topic related to their content area (Science, Math, Social Studies, etc.)
Meaningful suggests that the candidate will make a family, culture, career, or professional connection to
the topic. The candidate will then:
• Create a timeline and plan for research
• Use technological sources, reference works, oral histories, personal interviews, formal and informal
letters, etc. in order to gather information on their topic.
• Utilize a positive environment for the purpose of ongoing informal and formal assessment of work, e.g.,
discussion groups, peer and teacher feedback, and writing/reading groups.
• Compile and present the information utilizing a variety of methods and genres
• Compile and present information using appropriate styles of documentation
• Create an oral and visual presentation of the final project
2. Literary Artifacts (50 pts.)
Candidates will create a well constructed written response to a self-selected content area expository text
using models from alternate writing genres such as poetry, prose, drama, song, etc. The response must
demonstrate comprehension as well as an application, analysis, or evaluation of the text.
3. Anticipation Guides (50 pts.)
Candidates will create three (3) anticipation guides based on separate readings from content area texts.
These will be used to assess students' prexisting knowledge of the text content as well as help make
connections with their personal experiences.
4. Writing Prompts and Rubrics (30 pts.)
Candidates will construct three (3) effective, open-ended writing prompts based on a selected content area
text, chapter, unit, etc. and at least one assessment rubric that is appropriate for the prompt.
5. Basal Reading/Writing Text Review (75 pts.)
Candidates will research two (2) basal texts in their content area. Texts should be appropriate for meeting
the needs of a diverse class of learners and be conducive to writing/reading connections. Reviews must
include the following:
• Identification of grade level, subject area, and approximate reading level
• Identification and critical discussion (strengths, weaknesses, etc.) of specific writing and reading
strategies and skills emphasized in the text
• Identification and critical discussion of specific reading/writing connection strategies or activities
• Identification and critical discussion of reading and writing assessment techniques used in the
texts
• An evaluative statement as to which text you would choose for your classroom.
EDRD 3350 Syllabus
5
6. Self-Evaluation of Meeting IRA Standards (25 points)
Candidates will conduct a self-evaluation on their progress in meeting the IRA standards designated for this
course. Self-evaluation must represent thoughtful reflection upon the standards in connection with the
professional literature.
Evaluation and Grading Scale:
90 – 100%. =A
80 – 89% =B
70 – 79% =C
60 – 69% =D
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as
published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct
addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and
cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University records
or academic work, malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional
misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of
alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University
Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade
adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum
one semester suspension requirement.
ATTENDANCE POLICY
The expectations for attending class are in accordance with the Undergraduate Catalogue. All students are
expected to attend classes in accordance with the scheduled time of the course. Should you be absent, you
are responsible for making up the work missed. In-class activities may not be made up.
COURSE OUTLINE
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Week 12
Week 13
Week 14
Week 15
The Integration of Reading and Writing- Research, Best Practice
An Analysis of Past and Current Trends: What Works and What Doesn't
Common Characteristics of Reading and Writing Strategies
Teaching Reading Strategies through Writing
Reading Strategies and Skills
Writing Genres- fiction and nonfiction
Writing Activities that Support Reading
Reading Assessment Tools and Strategies
Teaching Writing Strategies through Reading
Writing Strategies and Skills
Reading Genres-Fiction and Nonfiction
Reading Activities That Support Writing
Writing Assessment Tools and Strategies
Authentic Writing (audience, purpose, examples)
Reading and Writing Workshops in the Content Areas
Reading/Writing Integration as a Means to Promote Diversity
Writing and Reading across the Curriculum
REFERENCES, BIBLIOGRAPHY & RECOMMENDED READINGS
Beach, R. (1998). Writing about literature: A dialogic approach. In N. Nelson & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), The
reading- writing connection: Ninety-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part II (pp. 229–248). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Block, C.C., & Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New
York: Guilford.
Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities.
London: Macmillan.
EDRD 3350 Syllabus
6
Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in the student-centered classroom. York, ME:
Stenhouse.
Duke, N., & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A.
Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–
242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Fearn, L., & Farnan, N. (2001). Interactions: Teaching writing and the language arts. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Garrigues, L. (2004). Reading the writer’s craft: The Hemingway short stories. English Journal, 94(1), 59–
65.
Giddings, L.R. (1999). Literature-based reading instructions: An analysis. Reading Research and
Instruction, 31, 18–30.
Graves, D. (1984). A researcher learns to write: Selected articles and monographs. Exeter, NH:
Heinemann.
Hansen, J. (2001). When writers read (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Heller, M.F. (1999). Reading-writing connections: From theory to practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Hiebert, E.H. (1994). Becoming literate through authentic tasks: Evidence and adaptations. In R.B.
Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed.,
pp. 391–413). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Kaufer, D., & Waller, G. (1985). “To write is to read is to write, right?” In G.D. Atkins & M.L. Johnson
(Eds.), Writing and reading differently: Deconstruction and the teaching of composition and literature
(pp. 66–92). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Knoeller, C. (2003). Imaginative response: Teaching literature through creative writing. English Journal,
92(5), 42–48.
Langer, J.A. (1986). Childhood reading and writing: Structures and strategies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Langer, J.A. (1992). Rethinking literature instruction. In J.A. Langer (Ed.), Literature instruction: A focus
on student response (pp. 35–53). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Marshall, J.D. (1987). The effects of writing on students’ understanding of literary texts. Research in the
Teaching of English, 21, 30–63.
Mayo, L. (2000). Making the connection: Reading and writing together. English Journal, 89(4), 74–77.
McGann, J.J. (2001). Reading fiction/teaching fiction: A pedagogical experiment. Pedagogy, 1(1), 143–
165.
Murray, D. (1999). Write to learn (6th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Noyce, R.M., & Christie, J.F. (1989). Integrating reading and writing instruction in grades K–8. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N.K., & Martineau, J.A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific text:
Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1).
Romano, T. (1987). Clearing the way: working with teenage writers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Tierney, R.J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions,
transactions and outcomes. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 246–280). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Tierney, R.J., Soter, A., O’Flahavan, J.O., & McGinley, W. (1984). The effects of reading and writing upon
thinking critically. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 134–173.
EDRD 3350 Syllabus
7
Tompkins, G.E. (2009). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill.
EDRD 3350 Syllabus
8