SYLLABUS - EDUC 661
Diagnostic and Prescriptive Reading:
Literacy Assessment & Instruction
Credit: 3 Hours
Prerequisites: EDUC 657, EDUC 658, EDUC 677, EDUC 678, OR SPED 663.
Course Description: The course will cover a variety of formal and informal reading
assessments. Students will learn to administer them, to interpret them, and to use their results to
plan and implement appropriate instructional sessions geared to children’s diverse needs.
Reflective and professional writing are key components of this course. Field work is required.
Statement of Conceptual Framework:
The College of Education's Conceptual Framework provides direction for the development of
effective professionals. It is a living document that continuously evolves as opportunities and
challenges emerge. The four components of the CF are the institutional standards used for
candidate assessment in undergraduate and graduate programs. They are Knowledge of the
Learner (KL), Strategies and Methods (SM), Content Knowledge (CK), and Professional
Standards (PS). Diversity (D), Technology (T), and Dispositions are included in the assessment
process as themes that are integrated throughout all programs in the educational unit.
http://www.southeastern.edu/acad_research/colleges/edu_hd/about/conceptual_framework/index.html
Course Objectives: Upon completion of the course, the student should be able to:
1. define his/her role and make instructional decisions based on an evolving view and
understanding of the reading process (PS, KL, SM, CK, Diversity, Technology),
2. interact and collaborate with students, colleagues, parents, community to enhance literacy
development and facilitate change and improvement ((PS, KL, SM, CK, Diversity,
Technology),
3. model lifelong learning and professional development (PS),
4. serve as a leader/change facilitator in developing and transmitting new theoretical and
instructional ideas (PS, KL, SM, CK),
5. analyze the reading process and its development in students (KL, CK, PS, Diversity),
6. compare and contrast effective and ineffective readers (KL, CK, SM, PS, Diversity),
7. examine current issues, trends and research in assessing and facilitating the learning of
problem readers within an increasingly diverse student population (CK, KL, SM, PS,
Diversity, Technology),
8. analyze psychological as well as contextual factors which influence the learning of students
(PS, KL, CK, Diversity),
9. select, administer, analyze, develop, and use informal and formal techniques for assessing
student/group strengths and weaknesses in the areas of reading and writing (KL, CK, SM, PS,
Diversity, Technology),
10. plan teaching and learning activities (based on assessment) that accommodate and challenge
students of varying ages, developmental levels, interests/attitudes, cultural/linguistic
backgrounds and exceptionalities in individual, small group, and whole class settings (KL,
CK, SM, PS, Diversity, Technology),
11. make instructional decisions/interventions during reading to foster the student’s selfextending system for using a network of strategies that skilled readers use (KL, CK, SM, PS,
Diversity, Technology),
12. analyze strengths and weaknesses of district/school’s instructional program as well as
existing and innovative programs targeted for the low-progress reader (CK, KL, SM), and
13. use technology for personal research, development of information literacy and
communication (PS, SM, Technology).
Required Texts:
RETAIL: Leslie, L. & Caldwell, J. (2011). Qualitative reading inventory – 5. Boston, MA: AllynBacon
RENTAL: Jennings, J. H., Caldwell, J. S., & Lerner, J.W. (2014). Reading Problems Assessment
and Teaching Strategies (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn-Bacon.
RECOMMENDED: Rhodes, L.K. (1992). Literacy Assessment: A handbook of instruments.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Additional Reading:
Common Core ELA Standards http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy
Louisiana Comprehensive Literacy Plan (2011)
Put Reading First (n.d.)
Reading Next (2004)
National Reading Panel (NRP) Summary Report (2000)
Instruments or Processes Used to Assess Performance: The instruments and/or processes that
will be used to assess performance in this course are primarily rubrics created by the course
instructor. They will be used to assess the product/assignments required for the course. A
midterm and final examinations will also be used to assess content knowledge of material
covered in the course.
Semester grades are based on the total points using the following:
A
Excellent 93-100%
B
Above Average 85-92%
C
Average 77-84%
D
Passing 69-76%
F
Failed to meet standard 0-68%
Passport Requirements:
Field Experiences: As you complete field experiences, you are required to enter them into
Passport on a weekly basis. Do not wait until the end of the semester. It is your responsibility to
collect student data as appropriate during field experiences.
Professional Development Activities: As you complete any professional development activity,
you are required to enter it into Passport.
Artifacts: Teacher candidates are required to upload portfolio specified artifacts and/or any other
artifact required by the instructor.
EMPIRICAL BASIS
Allington, R. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based
Programs (2nd ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation
as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102(4), 773–785. doi:10.1037/a0020084
Brenner, D., Hiebert, E.H., & Tompkins, R. (2009). How much and what are third graders
reading? Reading in core programs. In E.H. Hiebert (Ed.), Read more, read better
(pp. 118–140). New York: Guilford
Cary, S (2007). Working with second language learners: Answers to teachers' top ten
questions (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Cunningham, P. M., & Cunningham, J. W. (2010). What really matters in writing: Researchbased practices across the elementary curriculum. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ehri, L. C., Dreyer, L. G., Flugman, B., & Gross, A. (2007). Reading Rescue: An effective
tutoring intervention model for language minority students who are struggling readers in
first grade. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 414–448.
Gambrell, L.B. (2009). Creating opportunities to read more so that students read better. In
E.H. Hiebert (Ed.), Read more, read better (pp. 251–266). New York: Guilford.
Gambrell, L.B. (2011). Motivation in the school reading curriculum. In T.V. Rasinski (Ed.),
Developing reading instruction that works (pp. 41–65). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree
Gunning T. G. (2013). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties, a student
centered classroom (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Krafnick, A. J., Flowers, D. L., Napoliello, E. M., & Eden, G. F. (2011). Gray matter volume
changes following reading intervention in dyslexic children. Neuroimage, 57(3), 733–
741.
Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P., Morris, R. D., Morrow, L. M., Woo, D., Meisinger, B., et al.
(2006). Teaching children to become fluent and automatic readers. Journal of Literacy
Research, 38(4), 357–388.
Lipson, M. Y. & Wixson, K. K. (2012). Assessment & instruction of reading and writing
difficulty: An interactive approach (5th.ed). Boston, MA; Pearson
Man Chu Lau, S. (2012). Critical literacy teaching in ESL classrooms. The Reading Teacher,
65(5), 325-329 DOI:10.1002/TRTR01050
Patall, E.A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S.R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance
of choice in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 896–915.
doi:10.1037/a0019545
Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Coyne, M. Schreiber, F. J., Eckert, R. D., & Gubbins, E. J. (2007).
Using planned enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading fluency,
comprehension, and attitude toward reading: An evidence-based study. Elementary
School Journal, 108(1), 3–24.
Reutzel, D. R. and Cooter, R. B. (2010). Strategies for reading assessment and instruction:
Helping every child succeed (4th ed,) Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.
Rubin, D. (2010). Diagnosis and correction in reading instruction (6th ed.). Boston: MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Samway, K. D. & McKeon, D. (2007). Myths and realities: Best practices for English language
learners (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Walker, B. J. (2012). Diagnostic teaching of reading: Techniques for instruction and assessment,
(7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Wang, M., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment,
engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational
Research Journal, 47(4), 633–662. doi:10.3102/0002831209361209