1
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
ADVANCED INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
COURSE 881.622
SECTION 61
Course Instructor:
Maurice B. Howard, Ph.D.
Phone: 410-838-8428
FAX: 410-838-6967
E-Mail: MBH1242@aol.com.
Address: 7 Trenton Lane, Bel Air, MD 21014-5517
Course Dates, Times, Site, and Credits:
Fall Semester, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007, through December 17, 2007
4:30 – 6:30 P.M., Columbia Campus
Index of Syllabus Contents
TOPIC
PAGE
Overview……………………………………………………………………..…………...….1
ISLLC Standards Covered………………………………………………………...……….2
Objectives and Competencies……………………………………………………………..2
Texts and Materials for Course……………………………………………………………3
Students with Disabilities….……………………………………………………………….3
Course Outline and Schedule….………………………………………………………….3
Description of Course Assignments………………………………………………………6
Course Evaluation Components………………………………………………………..…7
Scoring Rubrics for Assignments………………………………………………………....8
Annotated Bibliography……………………………………………………………………12
Internet Resources………………………………………………………………………...15
Sample Bibliographical Entries………………………..……………………..…………..15
Knowing Howard’s Writing Preferences………………………………………..……….17
How to Write “Good”…………………...………………………………………………....18
Overview of Course Activities
In Advanced Instructional Strategies, participants will review current, research-driven
effective instructional strategies, techniques, and practices. After exploring
constructivist theory, participants will concentrate on how multi-modal and multidimensional (authentic) instructional techniques may be integrated and applied in
educational settings. Each participant will practice identifying and using the
components of multi-modal and multi-dimensional teaching in instructional planning.
Each participant will develop an (or adapt an existing) observation form for critiquing the
effectiveness of classroom instruction and use that form to prepare a critique of a
2
personally-delivered demonstration lesson that has been videotaped as it was taught to
the class. Each participant will select (an) instructional strategy (ies) and prepare a
paper with specifics about the selected strategy(ies).
Primary ISLLC Standard for School Leaders Addressed in the Course
Standard 2: A school leader is an educational leader who promotes the success of all
students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional
program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth. (Knowledge:
Applied learning theories; applied motivational theories; curriculum design, implementation, evaluation,
and refinement; principles of effective instruction; diversity and its meaning for educational programs.)
Course Objectives and Competencies
Through course activities and individual preparation, participants will:
1. Research, iterate, and discuss the historical background of and current
thought about instruction, concentrating on multi-modal teaching and
multi-dimensional (authentic) learning as extensions of constructivist learning theory.
2. Interview educators to identify current instructional techniques in use and
considered best practice for use with today’s students.
3. Select one or more instructional strategies (depending upon complexity of
each strategy) related to constructivist, multi-modal and/or multi-dimensional
(authentic) teaching, then research, discuss and describe each in writing,
and practice.
4. Analyze instruction for use of constructivist theory as well as components of
multi-modal and multi-dimensional instructional strategies.
5. Develop an observation/evaluation form and use that form to critique
instructional strategies.
6. Demonstrate a selected instructional strategy for the class.
7. Critique a videotape of the strategy demonstrated for the class.
In addition to the increased knowledge of instructional strategies, course participants
will become more competent in their ability to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Paraphrase and apply current thought on instruction.
Identify current instructional strategies for potential use.
Differentiate the component parts of selected instructional strategies.
Envision the classroom setting, teacher functions, student experiences,
and logistical specifics necessary for the strategy to be implemented.
5. Envision student behaviors associated with successful implementation of
selected instructional strategies.
6. Evaluate the utility of instructional strategies, applying a set of standards in
observational experiences.
7. Demonstrate individual transfer of new knowledge of instructional methods.
Students with Disabilities: If you are a student with a documented disability who
requires an academic adjustment, auxiliary aid, or similar accommodation, please contact
Jennifer Smith in the Disability Services office at 410-516-9728 or via E-mail at
onestop.disability@jhu.edu.
3
Texts and Materials for the Course
Required Reading:
Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist
classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Silberman, M. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Required Materials: 1 Blank 60-minute 1” videotape for use in videotaping demonstration.
Course Outline and Schedule (The course schedule and topics will be adjusted as
necessary to accommodate the size, prior knowledge, and needs of the class.)
Note: In the event of bad weather, please listen to your local radio station for college class
cancellations. Calls for information may be made to 1-800-548-9004.
September 10, 2007
Introduction:
Overview of Course, Syllabus, Assignments, Due Dates, Rubrics, Etc.
Discussion Topic: Personal Teaching and Learning Preferences
*Assignment for September 17: Read Brooks and Brooks, pp. 1127; Reread Brooks and Brooks, pp. 101-118.
September 17, 2007
Discussion Topic: Understanding Constructivism
*Assignment for September 24: Read Armstrong, pp. 1-38 and 5166.
Go to: http://glossary.plasma link.com/glossary.html#R and peruse the
instructional strategies on this important site.
Prepare Article/Chapter/Tape Summary #1.
September 24, 2007--Article/Chapter/Tape Summary Due
Discussion Topics: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences; Identifying
Intelligences; Integrating Multi-modal and Multi-dimensional Concepts
*Assignment for October 1: Conduct and prepare a written summary
of interviews with 3 educators on current instructional strategies they
use. (In addition to the specific instructions for the interview, Brown,
pp.18-21 and Armstrong, pp. 51-66 may provide useful content to aid in
the interview.)
4
October 1, 2007—Educator Interview Summaries Due
Discussion Topic: A Summary of Interview Findings: Educator Views on
Currently Used Instructional Strategies
*Assignment for October 8: Read Armstrong, pp. 38-50 and 67-87.
Go to: Run out and read http://www.mcrel.org/dimensions/whathow.asp.
October 8, 2007
Discussion Topic: Exploring and Incorporating Multi-modal Instructional
Strategies with Instructional Snippets
*Assignment for October 15: Read Armstrong, pp. 88-120.
Finalize observation form.
October 15, 2007—Observation Form Due
Discussion Topic: Observing the Integration of Multi-modal and
Multi-dimensional Teaching Strategies
*Assignment for October 22: Review notes and readings in preparation for the
Mid-Term Examination.
October 22, 2007—Mid-Term Examination
*Assignments for October 29: Read Armstrong, pp.121-140; Note
Appendix C for lesson Prepare for Instructional Strategy
Demonstration (first fifth of class will present); Prepare a written
critique of instructional strategy demonstration to be submitted the class
session after your demonstration with the completed observation form.
October 29, 2007
Discussion Topic: Instructional Strategy Demonstrations (first sixth of class
will present)
*Assignments for November 5: Work on your Web Lesson Analysis; Prepare for
Strategy Demonstration (second sixth of class will present; Prepare a
written critique of strategy demonstration to be submitted the class
session after your demonstration with the completed observation form.
November 5, 2007
Discussion Topic: Instructional Strategy Demonstrations (second sixth of class
will present)
*Assignments for November 12: Complete your Web Lesson Analysis; Prepare
for Strategy Demonstration (third sixth of class will present); Prepare a
written critique of strategy demonstration to be submitted the class
5
session after your demonstration with the completed observation form.
November 12, 2007—Web Analysis Lesson Due
Discussion Topic: Instructional Strategy Demonstrations (third sixth of class
will present)
*Assignments for November 19: Prepare for Strategy Demonstration(fourth sixth
of class will present); Prepare a written critique of strategy demonstration
to be submitted the class session after your demonstration with the
completed observation form.
November 19, 2007
Discussion Topic: Instructional Strategy Demonstrations (fourth sixth of class
will present)
*Assignments for November 26: Prepare for Strategy Demonstration (fifth sixth
of class will present); Prepare a written critique of strategy demonstration
to be submitted the class session after your demonstration with the
completed observation form.
November 26, 2007
Discussion Topic: Multi-modal and Multi-dimensional Teaching with
Special Populations; Instructional Strategy Demonstrations (fifth sixfth of
class will present)
*Assignments for December 3: Prepare for Strategy Demonstration (final
sixth of class will present); Prepare a written critique of strategy
demonstration to be submitted the class session after your demonstration
with the completed observation form.
December 3, 2007
Discussion Topic: Multi-modal and Multi-dimensional Teaching with
Special Populations; Instructional Strategy Demonstrations (final sixth of
class will present)
*Assignments for December 10: Finalize paper and be ready to present its
major points orally to the class. See presentation rubrics for assistance.
Prepare for Instructional Strategy Demonstration (final fifth of class will
present); Prepare a written critique of instructional strategy demonstration
to be submitted the class session after your demonstration; Work on
paper. See paper assessment rubrics for assistance.
December 10, 2007--Paper Due
Discussion Topic: Cough It Up: Oral Presentations of Papers on Strategies;
Make-up Date for Demonstrations
*Assignments for December 17: Review course notes and materials;
Prepare to discuss what has been learned; Prepare to prognosticate.
6
December 17, 2007
Discussion Topic: Make-up Date; Celebration; Applying MultiIntelligence Theory; Return of Papers; Evaluation of Course.
DESCRIPTIONS OF COURSE ASSIGNMENTS
1. SUMMARY OF ONE ARTICLE/CHAPTER/TAPE: Select an article from educational
periodicals, chapters of educational books, or educational audio/video tapes that highlight instructional
strategies with which you are NOT familiar OR that you have NOT used in your classroom. Summarize it
in writing, giving the bibliographical information (use APA style), indicating the specifics of the strategy,
and concluding the potential of the strategy for use in your personal menu of instructional strategies.
Each summary should be no more than 1-2 double-spaced pages. The bibliography attached to the
course syllabus may help in selecting materials to read.
2. INTERVIEW: Choose 3 educators, one with over 20 years of experience, one with over 10 years of
experience, and one with less than 10 years of experience. Interview these three educators, using as a
minimum the following questions, and summarizing their responses in writing to EACH question (PLEASE
do not identify the teacher by name in your written summary; introduce the teacher by grade level[s],
subject[s], and type of school):
a. How would you characterize the students you teach (such as gifted,
special population, college bound, etc.)?
b. What instructional methods or strategies do you predominantly use in
your instruction with these students?
c. What instructional methods or strategies result in the greatest student
excitement, cooperation, or prolonged interest?
d. What instructional methods or strategies do you think best prepare
students for success on state assessments (for Maryland public school
teachers) and/or for the standardized assessments used in your school (for all
teachers)?
e. What instructional methods or strategies do you use to make students
think about and apply their learning?
f. What percent of your students are computer literate? What percentage of your students have
access to a computer at home?
g. How frequently must you shift lesson activities to keep students involved in your lesson
(specify in minutes; e.g, I must shift activities every 10 minutes)?
h. How have your teaching methods changed over the span of your career?
3. PAPER: Select an instructional strategy related to multi-modal and/or multi-dimensional (authentic)
teaching that you have NOT used but that seems promising for use in your educational setting. After
summarizing the strategy, its relationship to constructivist learning theory, and its components,
summarize its historical background and proponents, its research base, its use by practitioners, etc. Your
paper should be no more than 3-5 double-spaced pages. The strategy you chose for the paper should
NOT be the same as the strategy you demonstrate for the class but may be a strategy you discovered
when reading articles, chapters, or perusing tapes for the class.
4. OBSERVATION FORM: Design a classroom observation form (or adapt the form used in your
school system) in which you integrate specific components of multi-modal and multi-dimensional
(authentic) teaching within the reporting rubrics of the form. You should include a listing of the principles
of Constructivism, a listing of the five Dimensions of Learning, and a listing of the Multiple Intelligences
with space for notating “enabled” versus. “prompted.” You will be using this observation form when
viewing a videotaped lesson and when preparing the critique of your instructional strategy demonstration
7
video. (Forms, lists, and charts from Armstrong and Brown (pp. 122-124) will provide useful information
as you design or adapt your observation form.)
5. WEB LESSON ANALYSIS: Log on to one of the following sites (or choose another site that
features lesson plans). Find a potential lesson for your subject area and learning level and make a copy
of it. Analyze the lesson for elements of constructivism, use of multiple intelligences, and the
dimension(s) of learning in evidence in lesson activities. If none are readily available, determine ways
that lesson activities might be modified to include constructivism, multiple intelligences, and the
dimensions of learning.
Summarize your findings in a 1-2 page, double-spaced paper, and attach a copy of the lesson with your
findings. Possible sites include:
www.scholastic.com
www.4teachers.org
www.Discoveryschool.com
www.Education-world.com
www.educast.com/html
www.lightspan.com
http://teachervision.com
www.teachers-connect.net
www.col-ed.org/cur/
www.theteacherscorner.net
www.education-world.com
http://ericir.syr.edu
www.alfy.com/teachers/teach/lesson_builder
www.lessonplanspage.com
www.teachers.net
www.askeric.org/cgi-bin/printlessons.cgi
6. DEMONSTRATION: Select an instructional strategy that incorporates constructivist learning
theory and that is or may be related to multi-modal and/or multi-dimensional (authentic) teaching and
learning. Prepare a demonstration of the strategy in a teaching simulation. The demonstration will be
made to the class, which will serve as your students for the demonstration. The demonstration will be
videotaped. Prepare a one-page how-to description of your strategy, which you should distribute after the
demonstration.
7. CRITIQUE OF LESSON/STRATEGY: Using the observation form you developed and your
videotaped demonstration of an instructional strategy, prepare a written critique in which you assess the
extent to which multi-modal and multi-dimensional teaching were in place. Your critique will consist of 1)
the completed observation form, 2) a short written summary of your findings, and 3) a list of follow-up
suggestions for follow-up actions or next steps in refining your use of the instructional strategy (Review
the illustrations/appendices from Brown.)
Course Evaluation Components
The grade for the course will be determined by quality of the participant’s:
--written summary of article or chapter or video/audio tape from
professional education periodicals or sources (15 points),
--written summary of interviews with three educators (25 points),
--observation form applying constructivist theory, multi-modal, and multidimensional criteria (15 points),
--mid-term examination (25 points)
--web lesson analysis (15 points)
--paper about a selected instructional strategy (25 points)
8
--demonstration of an effective instructional technique or strategy (25
points),
--critique of personal videotaped instructional strategy using observation
form (20 points),
--attendance and contributions to class activities (10 points; five points
deducted per absence; three points deducted for any late paper or
product).
Points indicated for each evaluation component will reflect the evaluation of the extent
to which the assignment was completed and the quality of the product. Points will be
deducted for components that are late. Rubrics are provided for scoring of all
evaluation components. The following grading scale will be used to determine a final
grade for the course:
A (175-166 points)
A- (165-158 points)
B+ (157-150 points)
B (149-145 points)
B- (144-140 points)
C+ (139-137 points)
C (136-131 points)
C- (130-122 points)
F (Below 122).
Scoring Rubrics for Assignments
1. Rubrics for Scoring the Article/Chapter/Tape Summary
15-13
All of the following were noted:
The instructional strategy addressed related to constructivist learning
theory, multi-modal teaching, or multi-dimensional teaching.
Bibliographical information followed the APA format.
A succinct summary provided sufficient information to understand the
intent of the article/chapter/tape.
Use of the language was accurate.
The article was submitted on time.
12+-10 One or more of the following was (were) noted:
The instructional strategy addressed did not relate to constructivist
learning theory, multi-modal teaching, or multi-dimensional teaching.
Bibliographical information was inadequate or not in the APA format.
The summary was vague and provided insufficient information to
understand the intent of the article/chapter/tape.
Use of the language was inaccurate.
The article was submitted late.
2. Rubrics for Scoring the Interview
25-23 All of the following were noted:
Three educators were interviewed with the specified years of experience.
All specified questions were asked of each teacher interviewed.
9
A summary of responses for each question was given.
Observations about the responses of teachers were provided.
Use of the language was accurate.
The interview summaries were submitted on time and the interviewer
contributed to the class discussion of the interview results.
22+-20 One or more of the following was (were) noted:
Not all of the specified educators with years of experience were
interviewed.
Not all of the questions were addressed.
The summarized responses were not complete or did not communicate
fully.
Observations about the responses of teachers were inadequate or not
provided.
Use of language was good but not consistently accurate.
The interview summary was submitted late and/or the interviewer
did not contribute to the class discussion of the interview results.
19+-16 Two or more of the following were noted:
Not all of the specified educators were interviewed as assigned.
The years of experience for the educators did not match instructions.
Not all of the assigned questions were not used.
The responses were inadequate and vague.
Use of the language was not accurate.
The interview summary was submitted late and the interviewer did not
contribute to class discussion of the interview results.
3. Rubrics for the Demonstration Lesson
25-22 All of the following were evident:
The instructional strategy clearly related to constructivist learning theory
and integrated aspects of multi-modal and/or multi-dimensional teaching and learning.
Sufficient introductions and concluding comments were given to assure
participant understanding of the learning level, classroom needs, and
subject specifications necessary for comprehension of the
demonstration/presentation.
The instructional strategy was clearly and creatively demonstrated either
on tape or as part of the actual demonstration/presentation.
A succinct handout describing the strategy was provided for class
participants.
Participants were actively involved in the demonstration/presentation.
The presenter used appropriate teaching voice tone, maintained
appropriate eye contact, and/or modeled correct language usage.
The demonstration was provided on the assigned date.
21+-18 Two or more of the following were in evidence:
The instructional strategy related somewhat to constructivist learning
theory and incorporated some multi-modal and/or multi-dimensional teaching and
learning.
Some introduction and concluding comments were given to assure
participant understanding of the learning level, classroom needs,
and subject specifications necessary for comprehension of the
demonstration/presentation.
The instructional strategy was partially demonstrated either on tape or
as part of the actual presentation.
A succinct handout describing the strategy was not provided for class
participants.
10
Participants were somewhat involved in the demonstration/presentation.
The presenter used inappropriate teaching voice tone, does not maintain
appropriate eye contact, and/or incorrect language usage.
The demonstration was not provided on the assigned date.
17+-13 Two or more of the following were in evidence:
The instructional strategy did not relate to constructivist learning theory or
did not adequately incorporate multi-modal and/or multidimensional teaching and learning.
No or insufficient introduction and concluding comments were given to
assure participant understanding of the learning level, classroom
needs, and subject specifications necessary for comprehension of the
demonstration/presentation
The instructional strategy was not clearly demonstrated either on tape or
as part of the actual presentation.
A succinct summary of the strategy was not provided to class participants.
Participants were not involved in the demonstration/presentation.
The presenter used inappropriate teaching voice tone, does not maintain
appropriate eye contact, and/or incorrect language usage.
The demonstration was not provided on the assigned date.
4. Rubrics for the Observation/Evaluation Form
15-13
All of the following were in evidence:
The form as presented was clear and usable.
The form included a list of the principles or the twelve characteristics of
Constructivism and provided a means to recording which were observed.
The form rubrics deliberately and clearly listed the Multiple Intelligences and provided a
means of indicating if each was enabled or prompted.
The form rubrics clearly included references to instruction aimed at each of the
Dimensions of Learning.
Correct conventions of language were consistently applied on the form.
The observation form was submitted on time.
12+-10 Two or more of the following were in evidence:
The form as presented was unclear and not clearly usable.
The form did not include a list of the principles or the twelve characteristics of
Constructivism and provided a means to recording which were observed.
The form rubrics did not deliberately and clearly list the Multiple Intelligences and
provided a means of indicating if each was enabled or prompted.
The form rubrics did not clearly include references to instruction aimed at each of the
Dimensions of Learning.
Correct conventions of language were not consistently applied on the form.
The observation form was submitted late.
5. Rubrics for the Self-Critique of the Demonstration Using the
Observation or Evaluation Form
20-18
All of the following were in evidence:
The completed observation/evaluation form for the instructional strategy
demonstration was included.
A short summary of the findings of the self-evaluation was provided and
clearly relates to the appropriate section(s) of the
observation/evaluation form.
Clear follow-up suggestions or actions for refining the personal use of the
instructional strategy were provided.
The self-critique is realistic and demonstrates genuine effort at self-
11
evaluation of teaching.
Appropriate conventions of language are consistently applied.
The self-critique was submitted on time.
17+-15 Two or more of the following were in evidence:
The completed observation/evaluation form for the instructional strategy
demonstration was included.
A short summary of the findings of the self-evaluation either was not
provided and/or is not based on appropriate sections of the
observation/evaluation form.
Follow-up suggestions or actions for refining the personal use of the
instructional strategy were insufficient to communicate next steps in
use of the strategy.
The self-critique was not realistic or does not demonstrate genuine effort at
self-evaluation of teaching.
Appropriate conventions of language were not consistently applied.
The self-critique was submitted late.
14+-12 Two or more of the following were in evidence:
The completed observation/evaluation form for the instructional strategy
demonstration was not included.
A short summary of the findings of the self-evaluation was not provided
and/or was not based on appropriate sections of the
observation/evaluation form.
Follow-up suggestions or actions for refining the personal use of the
instructional strategy were not provided.
The self-critique was not realistic and/or did not demonstrate genuine
effort at self-evaluation of teaching.
Appropriate conventions of language were not consistently used.
The self-critique was submitted late.
6. Rubrics for Scoring the Analysis of an Internet Lesson Plan
15-13
All of the following were noted:
The lesson analysis clearly addressed constructivist learning
theory, multi-modal teaching, or multi-dimensional teaching.
The analysis clearly demonstrates a working knowledge of constructivism, multi-modal
teaching, and multi-dimensional teaching.
The analysis demonstrates creative lesson planning and adaptation.
Use of the language was accurate.
The analysis was submitted on time.
12+-10 One or more of the following was (were) noted:
The lesson analysis does not relate to constructivist learning theory, multi-modal teaching,
and/or multi-dimensional teaching.
The analysis does not demonstrate a working knowledge of constructivism, multi-modal
teaching, and multi-dimensional teaching.
The lesson analysis does not clearly demonstrate creative lesson planning and adaptation.
Use of the language is inaccurate.
The analysis was submitted late.
7. Rubrics for the Paper
25-22 All of the following were in evidence:
The instructional strategy discussed in the paper clearly related to
constructivist learning theory as well as multi-modal and/or multi-
12
dimensional teaching and learning.
A sufficient summary of the instructional strategy and its components was
provided to aid reader comprehension.
The historical background and any appropriate proponents of instructional
strategy were succinctly presented.
The research base of the instructional strategy was succinctly presented.
Use of the instructional strategy by practitioners was succinctly but clearly
explained.
Correct conventions of written language were consistently used in the paper. Bibliographical
information followed the APA format.
The paper was submitted on time.
21+-18 Two or more of the following were in evidence:
The instructional strategy discussed in the paper did not clearly relate to
constructivist learning theory as well as to multi-modal and/or multidimensional teaching and learning.
A summary of the instructional strategy and its components was not
provided OR does not assure reader comprehension.
The historical background and any appropriate proponents of instructional
strategy was not presented.
The research base of the instructional strategy was not presented.
Use of the instructional strategy by practitioners was insufficiently
explained.
Correct conventions of written language were not consistently used in the paper.
Bibliographical information did not follow the APA format.
The paper was submitted late.
17+-13 Two or more of the following were in evidence:
The instructional strategy did not reflect constructivist learning theory.
The instructional strategy discussed in the paper did not clearly relate to
multi-modal and/or multi-dimensional teaching and learning.
A summary of the instructional strategy and its components was not
provided.
The historical background and any appropriate proponents of instructional
strategy was not presented.
The research base of the instructional strategy was not presented.
Use of the instructional strategy by practitioners was not provided.
Correct conventions of written language were not consistently used in the paper.
Bibliographical information did not follow the APA format.
The paper was submitted late.
SUPPLEMENTAL READING: A BIBLIOGRAPHY WITH ANNOTATIONS
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Armstrong, T. (1998). Awakening genius in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development. (Note: This book describes twelve qualities of genius and
generalizes on ways to address the genius in each student.)
Alexander, W. M. (1995). Student-oriented curriculum: Asking the right questions. Columbus, OH:
National Middle School Association.
Berliner, D. C. and Casanova, U. (1993). Putting research to work in your school. New York: NY:
Scholastic, Inc. (This practical book summarizes research on teaching and learning with
examples of programmatic implementation of each finding.)
Blythe, T. & Gardner, H. (1990). A school for all intelligences. Educational Leadership. 47(7),
33-36. (Note: Gardner and Blythe begin to apply the Gardner multiple intelligences
ideas to envision a school structured to facilitate instruction focused on different
13
intelligences and ways of learning.)
Boyer, E. (1995). The basic school: A community for learning. Ewing, NJ: California Princeton
Fulfillment Services. (Note: Sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, this book discusses characteristics of the basic school as
envisioned by Boyer. These include shared vision, coherent curriculum, learning climate,
commitment to character. Boyer’s description of the “new school” is worth the reading.)
Brandt, R. (1998). Powerful learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development. (Note: Brandt applies the ten characteristics of learning to propose teacher actions
to make learning powerful.)
Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist
classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brown, J. L. (1995). Observing dimensions of learning in classrooms and schools. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cawalti, G. (Ed.). (1995). Handbook of research on improving student achievement. Arlington,
VA: Educational Research Service. (Note: Sponsored by the Alliance for Curriculum
Reform, this book is extremely useful in identifying instructional methods and strategies
that are research proven.)
Caine, R. N. & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain.
Alexandria, VA; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Caine, R. N. & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (Note: Caine and Caine
discuss what they learned as they tried to implement two teaching strategies related to
current brain research.)
Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (1996). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. (Note; This book suggests instructional strategies for
seven of the eight intelligences.)
Chuska, K. R. (1995). Improving classroom questions: A teacher’s guide to increasing student
motivation, participation, and higher-level thinking. Bloomington, IL: Phi Delta Kappa.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (Note: For those who
desire to see how instructional foci fit into the whole of teaching, this book will be of use.)
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
(Note: This book provides the latest Gardner thought on his theory of intelligences since
his original Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. This book is a series
of papers written by Gardner and associates about implementation of the multiple
intelligences theory. This latest book also includes a good bibliography and list of
consultants.)
Glatthorn, A. A. (1994). Developing a quality curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development. (This book is a general introduction to
traditional curriculum development with references to approaches for school and classroom
extensions of system curriculum.)
Harmin, M. (1994). Inspiring active learning: A handbook for teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development. (Note: This is a must book for the teacher wanting
additional instructional strategies, some of which will be demonstrated in this course.)
Harris, D. E. and Carr, J.F. (1996). How to use standards in the classroom. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (Note: Though short, this book
provides the latest and best thinking on standards-based approaches to education.)
Hibbard, M. et al. (1996). A teacher’s guide to performance-based learning and assessment.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (Note:
Educator’s in Connecticut’s Pomperang Regional School District 15 describe their
approach to teaching and learning that balances basic instruction with
performance-based learning and assessment.)
Jacobs, H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (This book provides, in addition to
definitions and several helpful essays, two examples of interdisciplinary curriculum: a high school
year-long humanities course and a K-6 two-week unit with several topics described (Dinosaurs,
space, Thanksgiving, etc.)
Jacobs, H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and assessment, k-12.
14
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). Cooperative learning in the classroom.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Joyce, B. R. and Calhoun, E.F. (1996). Creating learning experiences: The role of instructional theory
and research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (Note:
The serious student of instructional theory and research will
appreciate this practical book on
teaching and learning that organizes families of teaching models and discusses each with
examples.)
Kendall, J. S. and Marzano, R. J. 1996). Content knowledge: A compendium of standards and
benchmarks for k-12 education. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Regional Education Laboratory, Inc.
Lewin, L. and Shoemaker, B.J. (1998). Great performances: Creating classroom-based assessment
tasks. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (Note: This
book provides many useful suggestions for creating assessment tasks that effectively measure
learning. Many of the suggested assessments can actually become instructional tools.)
Marzano, R. et al. (1992) Dimensions of learning: A teacher’s manual. Aurora, CO: McREL
Institute. (Note: This manual is a must for teachers who are serious about applying the
Dimensions of Learning into actual classroom use.)
Marzano, R. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. & Pickering, D. (1995). Designing performance-based curriculum, instruction, and
assessment: Lessons from the field. Front Royal, VA: National Cassette Services, Inc.
(Audio Tape 2-95033W97).
Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. Stanford,
CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching. (Note: This
helpful monograph briefly discusses the strategic opportunities for meeting the national
goals and the contexts in which those goals might be addressed most successfully.)
Ornstein, A., & Behar, L. (1995). Contemporary issues in curriculum. Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon. (Note: Section 2 deals with the current dilemma about curriculum and
teaching; chapters 9 and 10 summarize research on improving teaching and discuss
teaching as art and craft. Section 3 has chapters on motivation, critical thinking,
cooperative learning, and the use of evaluative standards. Section 4 has a very helpful
chapter on the use of technology in teaching and instruction.)
Posner, G. J., and Rudnitsky, A. N. (1994). Course design: A guide to curriculum development for
teachers. Fourth Edition. New York, NY: Longman Publishing Group. (This book is a basic text
in traditional approaches to curriculum development based on intended learning outcomes.)
Reardon, M. (1994). Quantum Learning: Strategies for Student Success. Front Royal, VA:
National Cassette Services, Inc. (Audio Tape 94-4209).
Schubert, W. H. (1998). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York, NY:
Macmillan Publishing Company. (Note: This standard text on curriculum design discusses
curriculum components form four philosophical points of view. The book is a must for any
serious student of curriculum development.)
Short, E. C. (Ed). (1991). Forms of curriculum inquiry. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
(Note: This book of essays thoroughly discusses latest alternative approaches to
traditional curriculum development.)
Silver, H. F., Strong, R.W., & Perini, M. J. (2000). So each may learn: Integrating learning styles and
multiple intelligences. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Society for Developmental Education. (1995). Teaching for success: Strengthening
child-centered classrooms. Peterborough, New Hampshire: Society for Developmental
Education, 8th Edition Resource Book.
Sprenger, M. (1999). Learning and memory: The brain in action. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development. (Note: Chapters 6 and 7 contain many useful
instructional strategies related to types of memory.)
Sylwester, R. (1995). A celebration of neurons: An educator’s guide to the human brain.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sylwester, R. (1994). The educational applications of male/female brain differences. Front
Royal, VA: National Cassette Services, Inc. (Tape 94-4216A).
15
Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.. (Note: Many useful
instructional strategies will be found in chapters 7 and 8.)
Uchida, D., Cetron, M., & McKenzie, F. (1996). Preparing students for the 21st century.
Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. (Note: While this book
focuses on what is needed to prepare students for the next century, the thoughtful reader
will find numerous suggestions about effective schools, curriculum, and instruction.)
Wiggins, G. (1995). Problem-based learning. Front Royal, VA: National Cassette Services, Inc.
(Audio Tape 2-95031W97).
Woods, M. A. (1994). The new vision of the urban learner: From theory to practice. Front Royal,
VA: National Cassette Services, Inc. (Audio Tape 94-4204).
Wright, R. (1997). Blight: An event-based science module. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley
Longman publishing Company, Supplementary Division, Dale Seymour Publications.
(Note: This unit and others on asteroids, earthquakes, floods, the gold rush, hurricanes,
oil spills, torandos, toxic leaks and volcanos exemplify good curriculum documents that
suggest useful applications of multi-modal and multi-dimensional teaching.)
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1993). Best practice: New standards for teaching and
learning in America’s schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. (Note: These best
practices are provided by classroom teachers as ways to renew schools. The ideas are
subject-matter based; each chapter ends with a summary chart of the best practices in
the subject area.)
INTERNET RESOURCES
(Note: These are examples, not endorsements):
GENERAL SITES FOR LESSON PLANS, SITE MAPS, AND IDEAS:
www.scholastic.com
www.4teachers.org
www.Discoveryschool.com
www.Education-world.com
www.educast.com/html
www.lightspan.com
http://teachervision.com
www.col-ed.org/cur/
www.theteacherscorner.net
www.education-world.com
http://ericir.syr.edu
SPECIFIC SUBJECT SITES:
BUSINESS AND CAREERS:
1. Vineyard Challenge (online, interactive game that incorporates concepts found in farming,
business, and marketing. Given some money, the user must purchase a vineyard and grow
crops. The outcome is based on user choices.)
Address: http://www.mccarty.com/vineyard/
2. Young Investor Web Site (money matters and finance for kids)
Address: http://www.younginvestor.com/
ENGLISH/LANGUAGE ARTS:
3. Biography Maker (online, step-by-step process for writing great biographies)
Address: http://www.bham.wednet.edu/bio/biomaker.htm
16
4. Grammar Lady (questions and answers about grammar)
Address: http://www.grammarlady.com/
5. Learn Vocabulary Syndicate (makes learning vocabulary fun; has puzzles, games, and
contests)
Address: http://syndicate.com
6. Name That Book (a student lists favorite books by numerous categories)
Address: http://www.az.com/~dday/books.html
7. Tales of Wonder (folk tales and fairy tales from around the world)
Address: http://itpubs.ucdavis.edu/richard/tales/
8. Virtual Presentation Assistant (online tutorial for improving public speaking skills)
Address: http://www.ukans.edu/cwis/units/coms2/vpa/vpa.htm
9. Writer’s Workshop (assistance with writing grammar and usage, bibliographical style)
Address: http://www.english.uiuc.edu/cws/wworkshop/index.htm
FIELD TRIPS:
10. Global Learn (web site for a nonprofit company sponsoring live expeditions around the
world; students interact with expedition teams)
Address: http://www.globalearn.org/
11. Virtual Field Trips and Tours (online tours of museums, geographic locations, art galleries, and
libraries)
Address: http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/cti/virt.html
FRENCH:
12. French Grammar (by music)
Address: http://www.in.on.ca/~dwhite/etienne/index.html
GAMES AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION:
13. Games Kids Play (rules for children’s games)
Address: http://www.corpcomm.net/~gnieboer/gamehome.htm
GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING:
14. Straight Talk about Schools (helps students discuss school issues, define goals for life, etc.)
Address: http://www.balancenet.org/
HEALTH AND SAFETY:
15. Follow the Rules, Get Safely to School (lessons on school bus safety)
Address: http://www.education-world.com/a_lesson/lesson022.shtml
16. Kid’s Health (resources to address health issues for children, parents, teachers, etc.)
Address: http://KidsHealth.org/index2.html
HOME AND FAMILY:
17. Aunt Edna’s Kitchen (nutrition, recipes, weights, measures, and conversion tables)
Address: http://www.cei.net/~terry/auntedna/
LEARNING STYLES:
18. Learning Styles (take the Keirsey Temperament Sorter for personal use)
Address: http://sunsite.unc.edu/jembin/mb.pl
19. Learning Styles Article (links to WEB sites)
Address: http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Academia/KierseyLearningStyles.htm
20. Learning Style Inventory
Address: http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/hccinfo/facdev/lsi.html
21. Learning Styles Sources
Address: http://www.d.umn.edu/student/loon/acad/strat/lrnsty.html
LOGIC:
22. Think (logic test questions, links to editorial and opinion pages as well as letters to the editors
17
from English newspapers around the world; resources for discussion groups and pages)
Address: http://www.trigger/net/~think/
MATHEMATICS:
23. Mathematics Exercises (algebra, geometry, and trigonometry)
Address: http://www.rbbs.chchost.com/
MENUS AND OTHER LINKAGES:
24. For Menus and Linkages to Numerous Other Teacher Resources (ERIC, numerous
professional organizations, colleges and universities, and major publishers have resources
available through the internet. You may access many through this source.)
Address: http://www.education-world.com/
MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION:
25. Multicultural Pavillion (resources for multicultural lessons)
Address: http://curry.edschool, Virginia.EDU/go/multicultural/
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES:
26. Abstracts on Multiple Intelligences
Address: http://www.indiana.edu/~eric_rec/ieo/bibs/miltiple.html
27. Creativity Page (mindgames and creative activities from Tony Buzan)
Address: http://www.waterw.com/~lucia/awlinks.html
28. Laurel and Hardy and the Marx Brothers: Multiple Intelligences
(how to lighten up classroom MI approaches)
Address: http://www.newhorizons.org/rech_mi.html
29. Multiple Intelligences (link with Howard Gardner and MI projects)
Address: http://pzweb.harvard.edu/HPZpages/Whatsnew.html
30. Multiple Intelligence Explorer (a cartoon Einstein introduces the intelligences)
Address: http://education.canberra.edu.au/postgrad/ss/students/
frances/FRANCES/HTM
31. Multiple Intelligences Lesson on Humor, Satire, and Political Cartoons
Address: http://www.teachnet.org/curriculum/A16579.shtml
ORGANIZATIONS:
32. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
Address: http://www.ascd.org/
While at this address, you may wish to find out about the Maryland
affiliate of ASCD. If so, select Constituent Relations, then
selected Affiliates Online, then select Maryland.
SCIENCE:
33. Energy Conservation Enhancement Project (lesson plans on energy conservation for many
subject areas)
Address: http://ecep.usl.edu/ecep/ecep.htm
34. History of Medicine (history of medicine from prehistoric to modern times)
Address:http://indy.radiology.uiowa.edu/Providers/Textbooks/SynderMed
Nx/Syllabus TitlePage.html
35. Monarch Butterflies: Join the Migration! (trace the migration of these butterflies)
Address: http://www. education-world.com/a_lesson/lesson023.shtml
36. Mrs. Frizzle Helps Kids “See the Light”! (science activities for students)
Address: http://www.education-world.com/a_books/books010.shtml
37. Stanford Solar Center (information, resources, and educational activities about the sun)
Address: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/
38. You Can With Beakman and Jax (interactive demos, questions, images, and other science
information for kids)
Address: http://www.youcan.com/
39. Virtual Zoo (information and photos of over twenty animals; also information on endangered
species)
18
Address: http://www,vulcan-net.com/zoo/main.html
SOCIAL SCIENCES:
40. Discoverer’s Web (a ton of links to information on discoverers and explorers from prehistoric to
modern times--is missing space exploration)
Address: http://www.win.tue.nl/cs/fm/engels/discovery/
SPECIAL EDUCATION:
41. Improving Practice in Special Education (promotes use of technology for improved
education for students with physical, mental, and social disabilities)
Address: http://www.edc.org/FSC/NCIP/ncipnet_top.html
SUBJECT AREA EXPERTS:
42. Internet Access to Experts by Subject Area:
Electronic Emissary Project, University of Austin
Address: http://www.tapr.org/emissary/
2TECHNOLOGY:
43. Learning@WebSites (ideas for high school teachers wishing to link to internet and technology in the
classroom)
Address: http://www.ecnet.net/users/gdlevin/home.html
44. Technology Connections (information about online resources for educators)
Address: http://www.mcrel.org/connect/tech/index/html
VISUAL ARTS:
45. The Refrigerator (weekly art contest that displays student work and allows students to choose
winners)
Address: http://www.seeusa.com/refrigerator.html
46. The Star (Arts education: links to art images and suppliers)
Address: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2454/.
Sample Bibliographical Entries Using the APA Style (5th Edition)
SINGLE-AUTHOR BOOK ENTRY
Alexander, W. M. (1995). Student-oriented curriculum: Asking the right
questions. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
(Note: The title of the book may be underlined or in italics. Capitalize only the first word
of the title, the first word of any subtitle, and any proper names.)
MULTIPLE AUTHOR BOOK ENTRY
Berliner, D. C. & Casanova, U. (1993). Putting research to work in your school.
New York: Scholastic, Inc.
(Note: Cite all authors up to six. If more than six authors, cite the first author followed by
“et al.”)
CORPORATE OWNERSHIP BOOK ENTRY
Society for Developmental Education. (1995). Teaching for success:
Strengthening child-centered classrooms (8th ed.). Peterborough, NH:
19
Society for Developmental Education Press.
EDITED COLLECTIONS BOOK ENTRY
Dede, C. (Ed.). (1998). ASCD 1989 yearbook: Learning with technology.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
CHAPTER FROM AN ANTHOLOGY ENTRY
Behrmann, M. (1998). Assistive technology for young children in special
education. In C. Dede (ed.), ASCD 1989 yearbook: Learning with
technology (pp. 73-93). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
ARTICLE FROM A PERIODICAL ENTRY
Blythe, T. & Gardner, H. (1990). A school for all intelligences. Educational
Leadership. 47(7), 33-36.
(NOTE: The issue number is placed in parenthesis after the volume number and follows the italicized or
underlined name of the periodical. When citing a periodical with continuous pagination, no issue number
is needed. When citing a monthly publication, the month is inserted after the year as in “1990, July”.)
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ENTRY
Bowie, L. (1999, January 6). City elementary schools show modest gains on
national test. The Baltimore Sun, p. 3B.
INTERVIEW ENTRY
Archer, N. (1993). [Interview with Helen Burns, author of Sense and Perception].
Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, 211-216.
DOCUMENT RETRIEVED FROM THE INTERNET ENTRY
Jacobson, J.W., Mulick, J. A., & Schwartz, A. A. (1995). A history of facilitated
communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience: Science
working group on facilitated communication. American Psychologist, 50, 750765. Retrieved January 25, 1996, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.apa.org/journals/jacobson.html
NOTE: MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION MAY ALSO BE OBTAINED BY
CONSULTING THE Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association, 5th Edition.
KNOWING HOWARD’S WRITING PREFERENCES
20
1. “which” versus “that” and “who”: As a general rule, please use the relative
pronoun “which” to introduce non-restrictive clauses and “that” or “who” to introduce
restrictive clauses.
Examples:
Non-restrictive Clause: This sharpness of gaze gave her an air of vanity,
which I dare say was justified.
(Note that “which” is preceded by a comma, which is the mark of a non-restrictive
clause. This use of the comma is a good test for which relative pronoun to use to
introduce a clause.)
Restrictive Clause with Inanimate Antecedent: One exciting invention
is an electric blanket that knows how to warm certain parts of the
body.
Restrictive Clause with a Human Antecedent: It was I who got away
from stupid rules of English usage.
2. “there is (and other forms of ‘to be’)”: We still suffer from many English teachers
of the1960s and 1970s who taught students to write formal English with the same
constructions as their speech. This “write it as you would speak it” approach often
impairs written communication, in my view. A good example is the over-use of
“there is” and “there are” in formal writing. The problem is that “there” is placed in
the position of the subject of the sentence. The mind is forced to find the subject,
which may or may not be close to the “there is (are).”
It is preferable to avoid “there is,” or any other construction with “there” followed
by a form of “to be.” Often the sentence can be rewritten with the subject in its normal
place, and often the sentence will be shorter and much stronger.
Example:
There is a need for graduate students to master computer skills.
Rewritten, Shorter, Stronger: Graduate students need to master computer
skills.
3. Additional Suggestions Based on Reading Many Graduate Student Papers:
a.
Avoid prepositions at the end of sentences.
Room 300 in Krieger Hall is where our class is at.
Re-written: Our class is in Room 300, Krieger Hall.
b.
Do not split infinitives in formal writing.
He tried to carefully write his papers.
21
Rewritten: He tried to write his papers carefully.
c.
Separate all items in a series with commas.
Tonight we ate hamburgers, French fries, and apple sauce.
d. Use commas to separate dates after the second element.
On July 15, 1999, the class had a field trip.
In July 1999, the class had four field trips.
e. Formal papers are written in the third person. Avoid writing in the first person
(I, we) unless writing an assigned personal reaction to the
topic.
f. Periods and commas are placed inside quotation marks.
4. Use the following humorous approaches to writing rules to refresh your
personal writing or as teaching strategies in helping students improve:
45 WAYS TO WRITE GOOD
1. Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is inadvisable to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid clichés like the plague (They’re old hat.)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren’t necessary and shouldn’t be used in formal writing.
12. Foreign words and phrases aren’t usually apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it’s highly superfluous.
14. One should NEVER generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as clichés.
16. Don’t use no double negatives.
17. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
18. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
19. Analogies in formal writing are like feathers on a snake.
20. The passive voice is to be avoided.
21. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.
22. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
23. DO NOT use exclamation points and all caps to emphasize!!!
24. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
25. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth-shaking ideas.
26. Use the apostrophe in it’s proper place and omit it when its not needed.
27. Avoid quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “I hate quotations. Tell me what
22
you know.”
28. If you’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one
writer in a million can use it effectively.
29. Avoid puns in formal writing. Puns are for children (and certain college profs), not
groan adults.
30. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
31. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
32. Who needs rhetorical questions?
33. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
34. Do not put statements in the negative form.
35. A writer must not shift your point of view.
36. Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences of ten or more
words, to their antecedents.
37. Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.
38. If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
39. Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors.
40. Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
41. Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their
writing.
42. Always pick on the correct idiom.
43. The adverb usually follows the verb.
44. Be careful to use the rite homonym.
FINALLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY…
45. Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
Statement of Diversity and Inclusion
Johns Hopkins University is a community committed to sharing values of diversity and inclusion in order to achieve
and sustain excellence. We believe excellence is best promoted by being a diverse group of students, faculty and
staff who are committed to creating a climate of mutual respect that is supportive of one another’s success. Through
its curricula and clinical experiences, we purposefully support the University’s goal of diversity, and in particular,
work toward an ultimate outcome of best serving the needs of students in diverse K-12 schools. Faculty and
candidates are expected to demonstrate an understanding of diversity as it relates to planning, instruction,
management, and assessment.