every tuesday, september 6-december 13 4:15—6:15 pm ......complete field-based practica...

ED 674 Syllabus, Fall 2010 of 20

Course: EDRE 674 Developing Literacy ECE-12, Fall 2011 Instructor: Mary-Claire Tarlow, Ph.D

Mode of Instruction: Distance: Every Tuesday, September 6-December 13

4:15—6:15 pm followed by online response/discussion

Office Hours: By phone or in person, Tues 10:00-1:00. On Elluminate by appt Tuesdays/Wednesdays, 1:30 – 3:00.

Office: UAS School of Education, 11120 Glacier Highway, Juneau, AK 99801 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 907-796-6435 (work); 907-780-4075 (home); 907-796-6059 (fax) Michelle Moffit, Program Assistant: 907-796-6050(phone); 907-796-6550(fax) COURSE DESCRIPTION The reading process, emergent literacy and models for teaching reading are central themes in this course. Content includes theories of reading and language development, research on language, cognition and language systems, as they relate to reading. 3 credits Course Context: This course is designed for certified teachers (K-12) working toward a masters in education in reading/ reading endorsement in elementary or secondary education. Participants must hold a current elementary or secondary teaching certificate. PREREQUISITE: Admission to M.Ed. Reading program and EDRE671, or permission. REQUIRED COURSE TEXTS Cobb, Jeanne B & Kallus, Mary K. (2011) Historical, Theoretical and Sociological Foundations of Reading in the United States, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Rudell, R.B. and Unrau, N.J. (Eds) (2004). Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th Ed.) Newark, DE: International Reading Association

Weaver, C. (2002). Reading process and practice (3rd Ed.) Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Other readings provided on UASOnline, in Classroom Resources Texts from EDRE 671 that we will use

American Psychological Association, 6th Edition. (2009). Concise rules of APA style. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.


Frank, C. (1999). Ethnographic eyes: A teacher’s guide to classroom observation. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. TECHNOLOGY NEEDED EDRE 674 is a web-based course in that candidates visit the course website for all announcements, class sessions, and resources (e.g., Elluminate Live, streamed video sessions, Breeze presentations) and interact with the instructor and other participants through the discussion forum. The instructor hosts a weekly Elluminate class session for topic discussion. Candidates participate in peer learning, reflective field reports, in-depth case studies and presentations. ALIGNMENT MATRIX This course reflects the outcomes of the SOE. It promotes the development of informed, reflective and responsive teachers within diverse classroom, school and community contexts. We align the IRA (2010) and ISTE standards and the UAS institutional competencies for Northwest accreditation with these outcomes.

Course Objective

The candidate will demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to:

SOE Standard

Grad Com

petencies

IRA Standard

Assessment Ensuring that the

Objective has been met

I. Knowledge and Beliefs about Reading Refer to major theories in the foundational areas as they relate to reading. They can explain, compare, contrast, and critique the theories

1 1.1,1.3 3.1,3.23.3,3.5

1.1 Performance Assessment #1: Foundations Essay

Summarize seminal reading studies and articulate how these studies impacted reading instruction. Candidates can recount historical developments in the history of reading.

1, 4

1.3,1.43.2,3.33.5

1.2 Performance Assessment #2: History Graphic

II. Language Development: Literacy Development Identify, explain, compare and contrast the theories and research in the areas of language development and learning to read.

2, 4

1.1,1.3 3.1,3.23.3,3.5

1.3 Performance Assessment #1: Foundations Essay Performance Assessment #3: In-‐depth biography

III. Instruction and Assessment Be aware of a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, and methods, including technology-‐based practices.

5, 9

1.1,1.21.3,1.42.2,3.33.5

2.2 Participation/Forum Discussion

Articulate the theories related to the connections between teacher dispositions and student achievement

1 1.1,1.3 3.1,3.23.3,3.5

5.1 Performance Assessment #1: Foundations Essay

RELATIONSHIP OF THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TO STANDARDS An increasing emphasis on professional standards for educators reinforces the relevance of the School of Education’s vision of an informed, reflective and responsive professional educator as the grounding tenants of our Conceptual Framework. As the lists of expected achievement indicators, competencies, and dispositions issued by government and professional groups become more extensive, only an informed professional who actively reflects on his/her teaching and is responsive to student, family and community needs will be capable of meeting the intent of those standards. The general theme of


our vision is that each of these areas strives to nurture and prepare professional educators so that they can meet the needs of diverse learners. Efforts include continuous endeavors to creatively incorporate technology throughout individual subject area fields, promoting understanding and appreciation for diversity, and support of the development of literacy skills needed in an increasingly complex society. BASIS FOR STUDENT EVALUATION Candidates will demonstrate growth in becoming more informed, responsive and reflective practitioners through successful completion of the following performance assessments:

Assignment Points Due Date Performance Assessment #1: Compare, contrast and critique seminal and current research (psychological, sociological and linguistic) that forms the foundation for oral and written language processes. Trace your current practices to their foundational research.

25

Performance Assessment #2: Create a graphic of historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in perceptions of reading and writing development, processes and components. Use at least three resources and draw from all of them.

15

Performance Assessment #3: Prepare an in-depth biography of a student that addresses his/her unique oral and written language and literacy acquisition or development processes in and out of school, referencing theories that are demonstrated; Refer to a model of the reading development (in resources or elsewhere).

25

Complete field-based practica assignments on early writing and play and reflections and post results on UASOnline.

7.5 each

Attend/actively participate in all course activities. Read and respond to course readings. Reflect on how the research supports or changes your philosophy of teaching reading and how you can apply the research to your practice for optimal student learning. Reflect upon your increased technology knowledge and skills developed as a distance learner

20

HELPFUL RESOURCES Put reading first (2001). National Institute for Literacy National Institute of Child Health and Human Development U.S. Department of Education. May be downloaded free at www.nifl.gov (http://www.nifl.gov/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/search_site?query=Put+Reading+First&x=0&y=0) or order from [email protected] or by mail from P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398

National Reading Panel (1999). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for instruction which is available free from www.nifl.gov.


Please refer to the college catalog for information on university grading policies and procedures. All assignments will be assessed in relation to their depth and thoughtfulness, and to the quality and clarity of your writing. The eleven competencies for the course will serve as grading criteria for the course. Written Style Requirements: American Psychological Association TECHNOLOGY COMPONTENTS/COMPETENCIES EXPECTED

This course addresses the following standard in the ISTE National Educational Technology Standard (NETS): I. DIVERSITY COMPONENTS

The instruction and assessments in this course are consistent with guidelines for culturally responsive teachers for Alaska schools. REFERENCES

Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Allington, R.L. (2001). What really matters with struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. New York: Longman.

Biggs, J.B. & Collins, K.F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York: Academic Press.

Bond, G.L. and Dykstra, R. (1997). The cooperative research program in first-grade instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 348-427. (Original work published 1967).

Brown, K. (2000). What kind of text—for whom and when? Textual scaffolding for beginning readers. The Reading Teacher, 53 (4) 292-307.

Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw Hill.

Dahl, K. Scharer, P., Lawson, L. & Grogan, P. (1999). Phonics instruction and student achievement in whole language first-grade classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 34 (3), 312-341.

Fields, M.V. and Spangler, K.L. (2000). Let’s begin reading right (4th Ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill

Fitzgerald, J. (1999). What is this thing called “balance?” The Reading Teacher, 53 (2), 100-107.

Flood, J., Lapp, D., Squire, J.R. and Jensen, J.M. (Eds). (2002). Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd Ed). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Freeman, D. and Freeman, Y. (1999). The California Reading Initiative: A formula for failure for bilingual students? Language Arts, 76(3), 241-248.

Gallas, K. (1997). Story time as a magical act open only to the initiated: What some children don’t know about power and may not find out. Language Arts, 74, 248-254.

Goodman, K. (1997). Putting theory and research in the context of history. Language Arts, 74 (8), 595-599.


Goodman Y.M. and Anders, P. L. (1999). Listening to Erica read: Perceptions and analyses from six perspectives. In T. Shanahan & F. Rodriquez-Brown (Eds.) National Reading Conference Yearbook 48, 178-200. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Graves, M. F. and Dykstra, R. (1997). Contextualizing the first-grade studies: What is the best way to teach children to read? Reading Research Quarterly, 32 (4), 342-344.

Hoffman, J. and Pearson, P.D. (2000). Reading teacher education in the next millennium: What your grandmother’s teacher didn’t know that your granddaughter’s teacher should. Reading Research Quarterly, 35 (1), 28-44.

Ivey, G. (1999). A multicase study in the middle school: Complexities among young adolescent readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34 (2), 172-192.

Kamii, C., Manning, M. and Manning, G. (Eds.) (1991). Early literacy: A constructivist foundation for whole language. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Kamil, M.L. Mosenthal, P.B., Barr, R. and Pearson P.D. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Koolstra, C. Vand Der Voort, T. and Van Der Kamp, L. (1997). Television’s impact on children’s reading comprehension and decoding skills: A 3-year panel study. Reading Research Quarterly, 32 (2), 128-152.

Martens, P. (1997). What miscue analysis reveals about word recognition and repeated reading: A view through the “miscue window.” Language Arts, 74 (8), 600-609.

Moustafa, M. and Maldonado-Colon, E. (1999). Whole-to-parts phonics instruction: Building on what children know to help them know more. The Reading Teacher, 52 (5), 448-458.

Moustafa, M. (1997). Beyond traditional phonics: Research discoveries and reading instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Neuman, S.B., and Dickinson, D.K. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of early literacy research. New York: Guilford.

Nation, K. and Hulme, C. (1997). Phonemic segmentation, not onset-rime segmentation, predicts early reading and spelling skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 32 (2), 154-167.

National Reading Panel (1999). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for instruction.

Pappas, C. Kiefer, B.Z. and Levstick, L.S. (1990). An integrated language perspective in the elementary school: Theory into action. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Pearson, P.D., Hiebert, E.H., & Kamil, M.L. (2007). Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to know. Reading Research Quarterly 42(2), 282-296

Pence, K.L.& Justice, L.M. (2008). Language development from theory to practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Price, D. (1998). Explicit instruction at the point of use. Language Arts, 76 (1), 19-35.

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th Ed.) 1057- 1093. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.


Rosenhouse, J. Feitelson, D., Kita, B., and Goldstein, Z. (1997). Interactive reading aloud to Israeli first graders: Its contribution to literacy development. Reading Research Quarterly, 32 (2), 168-183.

Ruddell, R.B. and Ruddell, M.R. (1994). Language acquisition and literacy processes. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th Ed.) 83-103. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Samuels, J. (2007). DIBELS tests: Is speed of barking at print what we mean by reading fluency? Reading Research Quarterly (42(4), 563-566.

Seafoss, L. (1997). Connecting the past with the present: The legacy and spirit of the First-Grade Studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 32 (4), 433-438.

Shanahan, T. and Neuman, S. (1997). Literacy research that makes a difference. Reading Research Quarterly, 32 (2), 202-210.

Stahl, S. Duffy-Hester, Al, and Stahl, K. (1998). Everything you wanted to know about phonics (but were afraid to ask). Reading Research Quarterly, 33 (3), 338-355.

Taylor, B.M., Pressley, M.P. and Pearson, P.D. (2002). Research-supported characteristics of teachers and schools that promote reading achievement. In B.M. Taylor and P.D. Pearson (Eds.) Teaching Reading: Effective Schools, Accomplished Teachers. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum, 361-373.

Willis, A. and Harris, V. (1997). Expanding the boundaries: A reaction to the first grade studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 32 (4), 439-445.

Wolf, S. (1998). The flight of reading: Shifts in instruction, orchestration, and attitudes through classroom theatre. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(4), 382-415.

ADDITIONAL READINGS

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd Ed). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Beach, R., Green, J., Kamil, M., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.) (1992). Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research. Urbana, Il: National Council of Teachers of English.

Boyarin, J. (Ed.) (1993). The ethnography of reading. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bruner, J.S. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educational relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty years of inquiry. Reading Teacher, 49 (3), 182-190.

Chomsky, D. (1972). Stages of development and reading exposure. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 1-33.

Clay, M.M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse.

Grenfell, M. and James, D. (1998). Bourdieu and education: Acts of practical theory. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

Goodman, K. (1989). Whole language research: Foundation and development. Elementary School Journal, 90 (20) 207-221.

Goodman, K. (1996). On reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.


Heath. S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hiebert, E.H. (Ed.) (1991). Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices and policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hodges, R.E., (Ed.) (1999). What is literacy? Selected definitions and essays from the literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DL: The International Reading Association.

Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Sydney, AUS: Ashton Scholastic.

Juel, C. (1991). Beginning reading. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal and P.D. Pearson (Eds.) Handbook of reading research: Volume II. New York: Longman.

Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. (1969). The language and thought of the child. New York: Basic Books.

Pierce, K.M. and Gilles, C. (1993). Cycles of meaning: Exploring the potential of talk in learning communities. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Powell, R. (1999). Literacy as a moral imperative: Facing the challenges of a pluralistic society. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Power, B.M. and Hubbard, R.S. (1996). Language development: A reader for teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Taylor, D. (1998). Beginning to read and the spin doctors of science. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Teale, W. and Sulzby, E. (Eds.) (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Wasik, B. and Slavin, R. (1993). Preventing early reading failure within one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28 (2), 178-200.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1987). Language and thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.


EDRE674 Performance Assessment #1- Essay Develop an essay that compares and contrasts your chosen seminal researchers to other seminal research in the field of reading process and writing process. Analyze the elements that make your preferences important and of value to you and to the field of literacy instruction. Describe how these researchers vary from other influential research. What implications will your chosen research have for your practice? Procedure • Choose three seminal researchers in the field of reading process and/or reading instruction. Try to make sure these three researchers align in their approach to reading process and literacy development. • Analyze how the research of these three people is related. • Analyze how this research is consistent with or contradicts other seminal research. • Reference at least 6 research-based articles, chapters, or books. You may use your course texts as well, in addition to the six above. • Write an essay that describes your analysis above. One-page progress report

->Identify three seminal theorists that appeal to you, based on your knowledge and beliefs about reading. Briefly describe why you have chosen these three, and what you know about them as you begin. Submit a short commentary on the research you have located so far in delving into this research, or how it relates to other researchers. Include a list of the references you have consulted so far. This report will not be graded but will be counted as class participation. The report will also help frame the final project and must be completed in a timely way for course credit. Two-page progress report ->Analyze the general premises, arguments and conclusions of the work of the three researchers you have chosen. Identify at least six other reading/literacy theorists and analyze the major tenets of their theories. Submit a two-page commentary describing the gist of your understanding so far of: 1)the work of the three researchers you chose and 2)how their work contrasts or relates to other theorists. Include a list of the references you have consulted so far. This report will not be graded but will be counted as class participation. The report will also help you frame the final project and must be completed in a timely way for course credit. Post the final essay to “Essay” in UASOnline. Suggested Format for Essay: •Introduce the research of the three researchers you have chosen and explain why it is of interest to you and why you think their research is important to teaching reading/writing. Explain how the research you have chosen is important to you and the location you are in. •Discuss the research of the three researchers you have chosen. You can describe these as three separate bodies of research, or explain their relationship and describe the research as a whole. •Contrast each (or as a whole) body of research with other literacy or learning research. Are there some major trends of differences? Develop your description in a coherent and logical manner supporting it with the findings of the studies you read. Do not just list quotes from the studies but synthesize the findings. If


you use a quote tell why you are using it before you insert it and provide a transition from the quote back into your essay. Limit your use of quotes. Provide a clear, logical progression of your argument. •What implications do these differences have to a teacher’s approach to learning/teaching? to students? This is your conclusion, and should be answering the question, “so what?” In other words, what were the insights you gained that you can share with others and apply to your teaching? •Provide a reference list at the end in American Psychological Association (APA) format. •Your paper should be a minimum of 6-10 pages in length with no less than 6-8 relevant sources.


University of Alaska Southeast Reading Specialist Program

EDRE 674 Foundations Essay: Performance Assignment #1

RUBRIC

Not Acceptable Acceptable Target Score Depth of Knowledge

Discussion of researchers and theorists lacks depth or reveals lack of understanding.

Discussion of research reflects knowledge of important seminal theory and research.

Discussion of research reflects depth of knowledge of all important seminal theory and research.

Range of knowledge

Amount of theorists/researchers included and/or discussion of them is limited.

Adequate amount of theorists/researchers included and discussed with some understanding.

Wide range of theorists and researchers discussed with understanding.

Preferences established

Preferences established with little relationship to each other or adequate reasoning as to why preferred.

Preferences established with connections and adequate reasoning.

Preferences established with legitimate connections and elegant reasoning

Use of logical reasoning

Not clear why researchers are found to have similarities or differences.

Relationships (compare & contrast) made between researchers are adequate and somewhat substantiated

Connections made between researchers are substantiated and logical

Reading and Writing combined

Field of writing is not substantially included in essay.

Fields of reading and writing are both included in essay and their interconnectedness is recognized.

Both fields of reading and writing combined and connections made effectively.

Implications for practice

Implications are not drawn or are not logical or are not extensive.

Implications for practice drawn from previous discussion.

Implications for practice drawn from previous discussion logically and extensively.

Clarity and Conventions

Organization or conventions issues in writing distract the reader from the content.

All writing is organized, cohesive and almost free of spelling or punctuation errors.

Writing is effective in its organization, sentence fluency, conventions to communicate effectively.


EDRE674 Performance Assessment #2: Graphic Performance Assessment #2: Create a graphic reflecting historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in perceptions of reading and writing development, processes and components. Demonstrate use at least three resources. Preferred theories, approaches and instructional strategies have varied in the history of reading instruction. Gaining a knowledge of historical context allows a reading specialist to consider and evaluate current and upcoming trends effectively. Increasing foundational knowledge and interpretation to practice, and outside educational and non-educational events have influenced popular implementation of reading and writing practices over time. Synthesize information of historical context and create a graphic that displays this information and presents some view of the relationships within development, processes and components of the field. A synthesis is a construct of your own understanding of the information. It is different from an outline of a work, from which you are outlining the author’s perspective. This is not an outline, nor is it a timeline. The purpose of this assignment is for you to act on the information in order to understand it and organize it yourself and recreate the information from your own understanding. There is no “correct answer” to this assignment, rather there is careful consideration of your reading and a presentation of your imprint of understanding. This performance assessment addresses IRA standard 1.2: Understand the historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in the perceptions of reading and writing development, processes, and components.



EDRE 674 Historical Graphic Performance Assessment #2

RUBRIC

Not Acceptable Acceptable Target Score Captures perceptions of reading and writing over time

Content is weak and/or limited.

Content is substantial, capturing the essence of the information

Content is substantial, clear and accurate, capturing the essence of the information

Includes various theories/perceptions of development, processes and components

Information is limited to one or two areas.

Information is inclusive of all three areas of information.

Information clearly includes development, processes and components.

Graphic portrays relationships

Relationships of information in one part of graphic to another are not apparent through the graphic itself.

Graphic portrays relationships or communicates some organization of the information in relation to other.

Graphic is an excellent portrayal of the relationships of various sets of information.

Downloaded effectively on UASOnline as attachment on Essay.

Sent in email or format is compromised when downloaded onto UASOnline EDRE674 website.

Downloaded onto Essay on UASOnline website effectively as an attachment.

Downloaded onto UASOnline website effectively.

Spelling, grammar, proofreading

There are spelling and other errors in the text

Spelling and typo errors are essentially not present, making the text easy to read.

Spelling and typo errors are not present, making the text easy to read.


EDRE 674 Performance Assessment #3- In-depth Biography Create an in-depth biography of a more typical student. Address the student’s unique oral and written language and literacy acquisition processes in and out of school noting theories that are demonstrated. To organize your data collection and writing, the following may be helpful. Opening Vignette

Begin with a vignette that helps the reader get to know the student. Interpret the vignette, pointing out what you understood from this vignette and what was puzzling to you. The vignette serves as an introduction to your paper and a way for you to introduce the student. Note: You may write the paper from your point of view in the first person, but please use pseudonyms for the student and others to protect their anonymity. Rationale

Tell why you have chosen this student. What do you want to know about this student and your relationship with him/her? What question guided your thinking? Examples of focus questions:

• How can I support this child’s learning?

• What recommendations can I make to the school community to support this child’s learning?

• How can this child become more independent?

• How can this child get more involved in school literacies?

• How can the child bridge any gaps between school requirements and personal interests?

• How can this child become more visible in the classroom?

• How can I ensure that the student is not disadvantaged by school literacy practices? Description

Include relevant information from your own perspective, as well as that of the student and his/her family. (Ethnographic interviewing and observation will be useful. You will also want to collect illustrative examples of the student’s work). Use the following as possible subheadings for the paper. Provide only information relevant to your focus question. Background

How old is the student? What grade is he/she in? How do the student and/or family members describe themselves in terms of ethnicity and cultural identity? Who lives with the child? How does the student characterize his/her classroom/home/neighborhood/community? How does the family describe these? What are the families’ hopes for the child’s schooling, future?

Language and Literacies

Language Acquisition and Development


What language(s) does the student speak? What languages are spoken in the home? What languages have been spoken in the student’s classrooms? How would you characterize the student’s content, form and language use (e.g., dialect, register, command of conversational and or academic use)? How would you characterize his ability to get ideas across through speaking?

Written Language Development How would you characterize the child’s written language? Is written language used in the student’s home? What print materials are present in the home? How do family members see their role in fostering their child’s literacies? What does the student do after school, during breaks? What literacies are present in these events? How does the child characterize him/herself as a reader/writer? How would you characterize his ability to get ideas across through writing?

Reading Development Characterize the reader’s development using one of the following frameworks: Ehri’s phases (in Rudell & Unrau pp. 365-389), Challs stages (in resources) or Goodman’s concepts of effective, efficient, and proficient readers (in Weaver p. 62). How does word identification affect his reading rate and understanding of a text? How well does the child integrate the components of reading (phonemic awareness, word identification and phonics, vocabulary and background knowledge, fluency, comprehension strategies and motivation) in fluent reading? How would you characterize retellings or response to what he reads?

Verbal and Nonverbal Language

What are the student’s characteristic nonverbal language, specifically gestures and expressions? How do these vary and in response to what circumstances? How would you describe the student’s rhythm and pace? How does it vary? How would you describe the student’s voice (pace, rhythm, expressiveness, and inflection)?

Relationships with Children and Adults Does the student have friends? How would you characterize these attachments (e.g., consistent, changeable)? Is the student recognized within the group? How do others express that? Is the student comfortable with the group? How would you describe day-to-day contacts with others? How would you characterize the student’s collaboration around literacy events? How willing is the child to be coached?

Activities and Interests

What are the student’s preferred literacy activities? Do these reflect underlying interests? For example, does drawing, reading, or writing center on recurrent and related motifs or genres? How could you describe the student’s range of interests? Which interests are intense, passionate? How would you describe the student’s engagement with projects? Is the product important? What is the response to mishaps, frustrations?

Formal Learning

What is the characteristic approach to a new subject, process or direction? How would you characterize the student’s learning process? Does the student rely on observation, memory, trial and error and or the use of narrative when learning something new? How does the student’s learning approach vary from subject to subject? What are the student’s attitudes toward learning, toward reading? How would you characterize the student as a thinker? What ideas and content have appeal? Is there a speculative streak, a problem-solving streak, and a gift for analogy and metaphor or for image, reason and/or logic? Does the student use the imaginative leap or employ fantasy? What are the student’s preferred subjects? What conventions come easily? Which are hard?


Reflection

What themes or patterns seem to stand out? How do these themes relate back to your original question? What insights do you have that will help you to better support this child as a reader? Adapted from Kanevsky (1993) Helpful Resources

Frank, C. (1999). Ethnographic case studies in Ethnographic eyes: A teacher’s guide to classroom observation. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann pp. 55-65.

Ehri, L. & McCormick, S. (2004). Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (5th ed. pp. 365-389). Newark: DE: International Reading Association.



EDRE 674

In-‐depth Biography Performance Assessment #3 Rubric

Element Not Acceptable Acceptable Target Score

Background Provides some demographic information, or information is vague

Provides most relevant demographic information: age, grade, ethnicity, cultural identity, community, family members, family expectations

Provides extensive demographic information to clearly identify student’s “identity”

Physical presence

Information about physical presence is not relative to portrait of language and literacy, or is insufficient.

Describes student’s physical characteristics that might impact social interaction, communication.

Reflects insight into student’s physical characteristics that possibly affect self-‐image, interaction, and communication

Social Interactions, Relationships

Information supplied does not reflect knowledge of nonverbal and social communication.

Social interactions, relationships, and nonverbal communication style are described.

Social interactions, relationships, and nonverbal communi-‐cation are clearly portrayed and connected to student’s language and literacy as a whole.

Activities and Interests

Little information revealed about student’s literacy interests and preferences of literacy activities

Favored literacy activities and interests are described.

Detailed descriptions given of student’s favored literacy activities and interests.

Oral language Description of oral language is weak.

Verbal language and listening are characterized.

Detailed description given of student’s verbal language and listening use and capability.

Written Language; Writing

Little or no description of student’s written behaviors and influences.

Outside impacts and level of written ability described

Detailed description of student’s written communication, influences on it, and interest in it.

Reading Information is vague or insufficient.

Student’s level of ability and characteristics of reading development are given. Miscue information is given, if available.

Description of student’s reading development is extensive and elaborated, supported by miscue information, if available.

Connection to seminal theories

Few or no references made to theories upon which conclusions are based.

Connections made to seminal theories; development substantiated by theoretical framework

Knowledge of theoretical foundation substantiated through references.

Approach to learning

Information is vague or not substantiated with any evidence.

Student’s learning process and attitudes described and analyzed.

Description of student’s learning process, attitudes, gifts, etc. clear and thorough.

Implications to Practice

Little drawn about student to apply to teaching or facilitating student’s progress.

Implications drawn are logical, although limited.

Implications drawn are logical and reflect sound thinking and knowledge of the field of literacy.

Clarity & Conventions

Organization or conventions issues in writing distract the reader from the content.

All writing is organized, cohesive and almost free of spelling or punctuation errors.

Writing is effective in its organization, sentence fluency, conventions to communicate effectively.


Developing Literacy Early Childhood practicum assignments

Encouraging literacy through play

• Review Roscos et al. Linking Literacy and Play articles to guide your work. View “Literacy and

Play” in the class resources. • Encourage, extend and record literate behaviors during pretend play in ECE-1st grade context.

• Make sure children have time, space and props for authentic pretend play in which they are

pretending to be adults in some literacy-rich situation they have observed such as an office, a store, the airport or post office.

• Be sure that appropriate reading and writing materials are included as props for the play

theme.

• Ask questions and make suggestions that help children realize reasons and opportunities for reading and writing as part of their play.

• Record your observations and submit with copies of writing done for play.

Encouraging literacy through play RUBRIC

Does not meet

Meets/ Exceeds

Work reflects resources suggested.

Work reflects articles and media resources

Encourage, extend and record literate behaviors during pretend play in ECE-1st grade context.

Evidence clearly reports how candidate encouraged, extended and recorded literature behaviors

Authentic pretend play in which they are pretending to be adults in some literacy situation

Description provides evidence to indicate children had time, space and props for authentic pretend play.

Appropriate materials are included as props.

Appropriate reading and writing materials are included as props for the play theme.

Adult guidance & involvement.

Asks questions and makes suggestions that help children realize reasons and opportunities for reading and writing as part of their play.

Timely, and finished. Observations recorded and submitted on time. Virtually no spelling or proofreading errors.


Diagnostic analysis of prephonemic and early phonemic writing

. • Read Ferreiro in Kamii pp. 31-56; Kamii pp. 69-82 (in resources).

• Arrange to observe kindergarten children writing independently and analyze the theories

about print they demonstrate.

• It is important that you be there as the writing is done so that children can read their writing to you before they forget what they intended to write.

• Take notes on what they read and say and about their writing, but do not write on their

papers. Ask the child if you may have a copy of their writing to keep? It is best to go right to the scanner, copier, or photograph the work and then give the original back to the child.

• To analyze the sample(s) draw upon a continuum, such as that suggested by Ferreiro in Kamii

& Manning (1991). She found that children continually hypothesize and test their conceptualizations of written language. Kamii replicated Ferreiro’s original experiment and had similar findings. In a sense, I am asking you to replicate their original work.

• Collect copies of the children’s writing to submit with your notes and your analysis. (Note:

These samples can be scanned into report. If you do not have access to a scanner, you can capture their print with a digital camera, but scanning provides a clearer image. If the writing is very light or hard to see, cover it with a transparency and use a black marker to trace the child’s writing.

• Kamii, C., Manning, M. and Manning, G. (Eds.) (1991). Early literacy: A constructivist

foundation for whole language. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Diagnostic analysis of prephonemic and early phonemic writing RUBRIC

Does

not meet

Meets/ Exceeds

Read Ferreiro in Kamii pp. 31-56; Kamii pp. 69-82 (in resources).

Work reflects resources

Links to theories

Observations clearly linked to the theories about print demonstrated by kindergarten children writing independently

Intended message captured.

Writing was done so that children read their writing to you before they forgot what they intended to write.

Copies provided and interpreted.

Copies of children’s work is provided with notes indicating what children said.


EDRE 674 Reading/Language Development

Forum/Discussion

Rubric Not Acceptable Acceptable Target Timely discussion contributions

Less than 2 postings somewhat distributed or not distributed throughout the week.

2-‐3 postings distributed throughout the week.

3-‐4 postings well distributed throughout the week.

Student’s original messages

The participant consistently had to be prompted or coaxed to participate. The participant usually, but not always, expressed herself or himself clearly. Demonstrates a degree of reflective thought pertaining to personal perspectives.

The participant consistently posted insightful comments and questions that prompted on-‐topic discussion. The participant provides references to relevant literature to support statements. Participant shares resources of interest to others.

The participant demonstrates an observable understanding of the issues being discussed. Comments demonstrate understanding of ideas and issues gained from the reading assignment. The understanding will be at the critical thinking and synthesis level. The quality of writing reflects that of a professional educator.

Student’s responses to others

The participant was non-‐responsive, rude or abusive to other course participants.

Participant responds to other group members in such a way to continue the discussion of the topic. Response continues the topic by going into more depth.

The participant consistently helped clarify or synthesize other group members’ ideas. Response goes into explanation to substantiate or elaborate on the message to which it is responding. Contribution to discussion helps others to understand the topic more through varied perspectives or associations.

Student’s contribution to the flow of the discussion

The participant frequently attempted (success is irrelevant) to draw the discussion off-‐topic, even if the participant’s participation otherwise conforms to a higher level on the rubric.

Participant responds to other group members in such a way to continue the discussion of the topic.

Participant connected ideas expressed among other group members and helped keep the discussion on track.

every tuesday, september 6-december 13 4:15—6:15 pm ......complete field-based practica...

Documents