reading and learning in content and technical texts · reading and writing standards for one grade...

Reading and Learning in Content and Technical Texts

Fall 2016

Thursday 6:30 – 9:00 p.m. Wham 312

Professor: Heidi R. Bacon, PhD F2F office hours: T-Th 3:00 – 6:00 p.m.

Email: [email protected] Asynchronous availability: on-line daily @ various times

Office: 322K Other hours and synchronous chats are by appointment

Cellular: 520.237.2938

Skype: heidirbacon

COURSE DESCRIPTION

This course is for secondary teachers and others who desire strategies to help students learn from texts.

Special emphasis is on how to help students improve their ability to comprehend, study, and use texts and

other print materials encountered in secondary school and the workplace. This course focuses on theory,

research, and methods to enable student engagement with texts, particularly content texts. Emphasis is on

strategies for teaching vocabulary, comprehension, reasoning, and organization in specialty subject areas

at the high school level, and fundamentally promotes differentiated instruction for diverse populations and

the incorporation of technology.

EXPANDED COURSE DESCRIPTION

This course explores literacy and culture in the secondary content area classroom. We examine how the

tools of reading and writing are used to support students’ engagement of ideas in the content areas.

Special attention is paid to the diversity of students in the secondary school; that is, students bring diverse

linguistic and cultural backgrounds to the content area classroom, which affects teaching and learning

success. Teachers in all content area classes play an important role in the literacy development of

students. This course provides theoretical principles of reading and writing development, the nature of

“text,” and processes and practices related to teaching students in multiple modalities that support their

comprehension and composition processes.

Secondary and adult education provide rich settings in which to highlight and examine the cultural and

social identities of diverse students and their approach to literacy in the content areas. We will be

involved actively in planning ways to use reading, writing, and technology to construct content area

knowledge.

“To meet 21st Century literacy demands, students need to be proficient readers and writers of a variety of

types of texts. All students deserve frequent opportunities to read and write and quality instruction as part

of their learning of content. Teachers who provide explicit instruction and opportunities to practice

content-specific reading and writing tasks help students become independent learners.” (Irvin, J.L.,

Meltzer, J. & Dukes, M. Taking action on adolescent literacy (p. 51). Alexandria, VA: ASCD)

SYLLABUS CI: 561

Course Conceptual Objectives and Professional Teaching Standards

The course conceptual objectives are aligned to the International Literacy Association’s Standards for

Reading Professionals and InTASC Standards. This course utilizes these standards in identifying course

goals/objectives, course activities, assigning course requirements, and creating course assessments.

The following objectives are conceptual: that is, they are the major ideas around which this course is

organized.

Course Objectives Standards Related Assignments

1. Literacy is the use of language tools (speaking,

reading, writing) in different contexts to construct

meaning, to communicate, and to evaluate

experience.

a. Literacy is relative and situated; it is dependent

on content, context, and culture.

b. The content area educator provides a context

for students to learn to become literate in the

culture and discourse of that content area.

c. A teacher’s literacy-related experiences and

values regarding schooling and literacy affect

his/her stance toward promoting literacy.

ILA Content Teacher

1.1, 1.3, 4.1, 6.2

ILA Reading Specialist/Literacy Coach

1.1, 1.3, 4.1, 6.2

ILA Teacher Educator

1.1, 1.3, 6.2

InTASC Standards

1b, 1d, 1e, 1g, 1h, 1j; 2j, 2l; 3b, 3i, 3p, 3r;

4f, 4h, 4j, 4l, 4m, 4n, 4o, 4q, 4r; 5i, 5l,

5m, 5o, 5s; 6b, 6j, 6r, 6t; 7a, 7g, 7i, 7k,

7n; 8j, 8k, 8m, 8n; 9i, 9l, 9m; 10o

IPTS

1A, 1B, 1C, 1E, 1F, 1L; 2B, 2C, 2D; 3H;

6A, 6B, 6D, 6F; 9H, 9I

Critical Disciplinary

Literacy & Learning

Narrative and

Accompanying Artifact;

Content Area Learning

Activities, Strategies &

Routines; Field

Assignment and Action

Research Journal;

Planning Portfolio

2. The ways that literacy is used varies across

cultures and content areas; understanding literacy

practices as they vary across and within cultures

and content areas increases our sensitivity to

diverse students.

ILA Content Teacher

1.1, 1.3, 4.1, 6.2


1.1, 1.3, 4.1, 6.2


1.1, 1.3, 4.1, 6.2

InTASC

1b,1d, 1e, 1g, 1h; 2i, 2j, 2i, 2l; 3b, 3i, 3p,

3r; 4f, 4h, 4j, 4l, 4m, 4n, 4o, 4r; 5i, 5l,

5m, 5s; 6b, 6j, 6r, 6t; 7a, 7g, 7i, 7k, 7n; 8j,

8k, 8m, 8n; 9e, 9i, 9l, 9m; 10o

IPTS

1A, 1B, 1C, 1E, 1K, 1L; 2B, 2E; 3C, 3H;

4D; 6B, 6F; 9H, 9I


Literacy & Learning

Narrative and


Field Assignment and

Action Research

Journal; Planning

Portfolio

3. The process of becoming a reader and writer is

a transactional socio-psycholinguistic process: the

acquisition of literacy tools to understand the

world and to adequately communicate is on-

going; one achieves literacy as one participates in

constructing meaning in various contexts and

cultures.

a. Efficient and effective reading, writing, and

studying can be taught; learning and literacy

development will occur within meaningful and

purposeful contexts.

b. The linguistic and experiential diversity in our

classrooms is a strength. It enriches and enhances

the quality and quantity of learning that occurs.

ILA Content Teacher

1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 4.1, 6.2


1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 4.1, 6.2


1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 4.1, 6.2

InTASC

1b, 1d, 1e, 1g, 1h, 1j; 2j, 2l; 3b, 3i, 3p, 3r;

4f, 4h, 4j, 4l, 4m, 4n, 4o, 4r; 5i, 5l, 5m,

5s; 6b, 6j, 6r, 6t; 7a, 7g, 7i, 7k, 7n; 8j, 8k,

8m, 8n; 9l; 10o

IPTS

1A, 1B, 1C, 1E, 1K, 1L; 2B, 2C, 2E, 2G;

3C, 3H; 4D; 5A, 5B, 5S; 6A, 6B, 6D, 6F,

6G, 6L, 6Q; 9H


Literacy & Learning

Narrative and



Activities, Strategies, &

Instructional Routines;

Unit Plan or

Instructional Module;


Action Research

Journal; Planning

Portfolio

4. Teachers balance several variables when

teaching effectively: their own knowledge, the

curriculum and related materials, the background

knowledge and purposes of their students, and the

internal and external socio-cultural context of the

classroom.

ILA Content Teacher

1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 4.1, 6.2


1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 4.1, 6.2


1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 4.1, 6.2

InTASC

1b, 1d, 1e, 1g, 1h, 1j; 2j, 2l; 3b, 3i, 3p, 3r;

4f, 4h, 4j, 4l, 4m, 4n, 4o, 4r; 5i, 5l, 5m,

5s; 6b, 6j, 6r, 6t; 7a, 7i, 7k, 7n; 8j, 8k, 8m,

8n; 9l; 10o

IPTS

1A, 1B, 1C, 1E, 1F; 2B, 2C, 2E, 2G, 2I,

2J, 2K; 3C, 3H, 3N; 4D; 5A, 5B, 5I, 5S;

6A, 6B, 6D, 6F, 6G, 6I; 6L, 6Q; 9G, 9H,

9I


Activities, Strategies, &

Instructional Routines;


Action Research

Journal; Unit Plan or

Instructional Module;

Planning Portfolio

5. Student evaluation is a necessary part of good

teaching and learning that is embedded in a

teacher’s conceptualization of teaching and

learning and is also related to social and political

issues.

ILA Content Teacher

1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 6.2


1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 6.2


1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 6.2

InTASC

1b, 1d, 1e, 1h, 1j; 2j, 2l; 3b, 3i; 3p, 3r; 4j,

4h, 4j, 4l, 4m, 4n, 4o, 4r; 5i, 5l, 5m, 5s;

6b, 6j, 6r, 6t; 7a, 7i, 7k, 7n; 8j, 8k, 8m,

8n; 10o

IPTS

1A, 1B, 1C, 1E, 1F; 2B, 2C, 2E, 2G; 3H;

4D; 5A, 5B; 6A, 6B, 6D, 6F, 6H; 7B, 7H;

8A; 9G, 9H

Unit Plan or

Instructional Module,

Planning Portfolio

COURSE TEXTS

Buehl, D. (2013). Classroom strategies for interactive learning (4th ed.). International Reading

Association.

ISBN-10: 0872070026

ISBN-13: 978-0872070028

Available on Kindle & nook

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2016). Improving adolescent literacy: Content area strategies at work (4th ed.).

Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.

ISBN-13: 978-0133878806

ISBN-10: 0133878805

Available on Kindle & nook

You are required to have a LiveText account.

I provide additional texts and resources. These will be posted on D2L.

You select potential resources that you might ask students to read when teaching. These resources may be

found at the University and public libraries, the popular press, the Internet, your own library, or obtained

from teachers and professors you know.

Reading and writing standards for one grade level you will be teaching (at least one grade level is

required). For teacher educator candidates, select a content area that you will be teaching at the tertiary

level and include applicable professional standards (i.e., either national content standards or professional

teaching standards). You will use these standards when working on your unit plan or instructional module

and planning portfolio.

Links for Common Core Standards:

http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf for English Language Arts &

History/Social Studies, Science, & Technical Subjects

Next Generation Science Standards:

http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards for Next Generation Science Standards

Standards from your professional organization.

COURSE FORMAT AND COURSE EXPERIENCES (ACTIVITIES AND ASSIGNMENTS)

CI 561 is being offered as an 8-week hybrid course. Course delivery entails 51% F2F and 49% on-line.

F2F meetings will be discussed and negotiated on the first night of class. The course is organized by

module. Each module is designed to provide opportunities to apply and construct course understandings.

A major goal is to develop a learning community to help teachers and teacher educators construct

knowledge of language, literacy, and practices that support students’ use of literacy as a tool to learn in

the content areas. These are formative experiences that contribute to the construction of the summative

assignments for the course. It is expected that these formative and summative experiences connect with

knowledge from other courses in your program of study, with your personal experiences, and with your

professional and personal goals.

Full participation in class is expected. Refer to Appendix A for Course Policies.

Formative Experiences

Formative experiences are those engagements, activities, and experiences that contribute to forming

understandings and potential teaching practices. As such, most students re-do until full points are received

for 30% of your final grade.

1. Content Area Learning Activities, Strategies, and Instructional Routines. Students will

complete a total of 9 learning activities to include developing instructional strategies and

routines to be used in your unit plan or teaching module and Planning Portfolio. There will be

a sign-up sheet on D2L for you to choose a learning partner to provide professional feedback

and guidance for these activities. Learning activities will be explained in class and in the

weekly learning modules. Each activity is worth 10 points toward your final formative grade

for a total of 90 points. ILA 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 6.2; InTASC Standards: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 8.

Doctoral student theoretical ponderings: make connections, ask questions, reflect, and respond

(10 points each). ILA 4.3 in addition to the above standards.

2. Toward a Planning Portfolio. The planning portfolio (see summative requirements) is created

throughout the course. Towards the Planning Portfolio is comprised of 7 parts or phases. Each

phase is worth 10 points for a total of 70 points toward your final formative grade. Once I have

approved each part of the portfolio, you can include it in your electronic planning portfolio,

which comprises the key assessment for this course. Specific components are outlined in this

syllabus and discussed in the corresponding learning modules. Students will collaborate and

http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards

conference with others in class and on-line. ILA 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 6.2;

InTASC Standards: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8.

Doctoral students: ILA 4.3 in addition to the above standards.

3. Critical Disciplinary Literacy & Learning Narrative with Accompanying Creative Artifact.

Write a 3-5 page (minimum 5 pages for doctoral students) critical disciplinary literacy and

learning narrative describing the role of content or disciplinary literacy in your life and in your

teaching. As appropriate, use class discussions, readings, and engagements to interpret the

significance of the remembered experiences. Address, at a minimum, the following questions:

describe the events; why these were significant; did anyone have an influence on you; could

these experiences have been better and in what ways. Make connections between what is being

learned in this class and your experiences. The narrative should have a title and be typed

double spaced with 1” margins. Narratives are submitted to the D2L Assignment folder.

Creative artifacts are posted to the D2L Discussion Forum. Please respond to a minimum of 2

colleague’s artifacts. The narrative is worth 30 points toward your final formative grade, and

the creative artifact is also worth 30 points toward your final formative grade. ILA 1.1, 1.3,

4.1, 6.2; InTASC Standards: 1, 2, 4, & 9

4. A unit plan or instructional module. Using the materials gathered and analyzed for the learning

activities and planning portfolio, create a unit plan or teaching module that integrates reading

and writing instruction, employs the effective use of technology, and includes descriptions of

formative and summative assessments and the actual summative assessment or rubric. The unit

plan is worth 50 points toward your final formative grade. It must follow a standard lesson

plan format. The unit plan is shared with critical colleagues and included in the planning

portfolio summative assessment. ILA 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 6.2; InTASC

Standards: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8.

Doctoral students: ILA 4.3 in addition to the above standards.

Summative Experiences

Summative experiences are meant to provide an opportunity to integrate and synthesize course learning.

Summative Experiences comprise 65% of the final course grade.

1. Field Assignment and Action Research Reflective Journal. You will be asked to complete a

field placement in a secondary school or community-based secondary/adult setting (Migrant

Council, Rebound, CESL, etc.). You are required to spend a minimum of two hours per week

for six weeks working with adolescent and/or adult learners at your site. Please note that the

actual hours spent at the site will be determined jointly by you and the site coordinator. You are expected to have these arrangements made by the 2nd week of the course. You will

keep an Action Research Reflective Journal with a minimum of six (6) entries @ 10 points

each. The 7th entry @ 20 points is a course testimonial where you reflect on your experiential

and course learning and understandings. Do not summarize, but reflect on your takeaways.

Completed journals should be between 10-14 pages. Submit electronic copies to the

Assignments folder and include signed documentation of your experiential hours (25% of

your summative grade). ILA 1.1, 1.3, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 6.2; InTASC Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9,

10

2. Planning Portfolio. This is a benchmark assignment for the course. You must pass the

assignment to pass CI 561. A passing grade is defined as an average score of “2” or above

(across all categories) for master’s students and “3” or above for PhD students on the

grading rubric. This Planning Portfolio is worth 100 points and weighted at 40% of your

final summative grade. Submit the Planning Portfolio to the D2L forum for my evaluation.

ILA 1.1, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 6.2; InTASC Standards 1b, 1d, 1e, 1h, 1j, 2j, 2l, 3b, 3i, 3p,

3r, 4f, 4h, 4j, 4l, 4m, 4n, 4o 4r, 5i, 5l, 5m, 5o, 5s, 6b, 6j, 6r, 6t, 7a, 7i, 7g, 7k, 7n, 8j, 8k, 8m,

8n, 10o; CI Graduate Program Standards 1a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 3c, 5a, 5b, 5c, 6b

Grades

Grading Scale: 92% = A, 85 % = B, 70% = C, 60% = D, Below 60% = Failing

NB: Completing the above course requirements does not automatically result in an “A” grade. An “A”

grade is earned only by satisfying the highest standards set for each assignment, regular attendance, and

thoughtful, active participation in the course.

Course Policies

See Appendices for the course policies for which you are responsible. Ask questions about these policies

if any are unclear.

CI 561: Reading and Learning in Content and Technical Texts

Course Calendar

The information contained in this course calendar may be subject to change with reasonable notice, as

deemed appropriate by the instructor. All changes and adjustments will be discussed in class when

possible, and posted on the course D2L site. It is the responsibility of the students to check the D2L site

for notice of changes.

Week I – Module I

Introduction, Overview, Syllabus

Ensuring Students Read, Write, and Think

Readings

Syllabus Assignments

Syllabus 3-2-1

Video Introduction

Due

10/23

Time to Act (pp. 1-63);

International Literacy Association

Position Statement on Adolescent

Literacy;

Fisher & Frey Chapter 1;

Buehl Chapter 1;

Anders & Guzzetti Chapter 3 (Literacy

Autobiographies only)

Doctoral Students (in addition to the

above) Conley (2012)

Anticipation Guide;

Cleary Interview;

Set-up field placement;

Doctoral student theoretical

ponderings: Connections, questions,

reflect, and respond

10/27

Week II – Module II

Literacy Across and Between Cultures

Readings

Freire (1983);

Gee (2006);

Noddings (2012)

Assignments

Dialectic Journal;

Field placement (2 hours); Action

Research Reflective Journal #1;

Critical Literacy and Learning

Due

11/03


above)

Duff (2010);

Krashen (2011)

Narrative and Accompanying Creative

Artifact




Week III – Module III

Constructing Meaning in the Content Areas: Instructional Strategies and Routines

Readings

Fisher & Frey Chapters 2, 3, 4;

Buehl Chapter 2;


above)

Schleppergrell & O’Halloran (2011);

Nagy & Tonsend (2012)

Assignments

Field placement (minimum 2 hours);

Action Research Reflective Journal #2

Create a questioning activity, a read

aloud/think aloud activity, and a

vocabulary activity;




Due

11/10

Week IV – Module IV

Constructing Meaning in the Content Areas: Instructional Strategies and Routines (cont’d)

Readings

Fisher & Frey Chapters 5, 6, & 7;


above)

Gebhard et al. (2013);

Pang (2016); Review Journal of

Second Language Writing, Volume 21,

Issue 4, December 2012 (available on-

line through Morris Library)

Assignments

Field placement (minimum 2 hours);

Action Research Reflective Journal #3;

Create a graphic organizer activity, a

note taking activity, and a RAFT

writing activity;




Due

11/17

Weeks V and VI

Modules V - VI

Content Area Literacy Planning: Instructional Design

Readings

Backward Design;

Anders & Guzzetti Chapters 3 & 4;

Buehl 3 & 4;

Review Fisher & Frey Chapter #1;

Doctoral students

Grossman & Stodolsky (2013)

Hinchmann & Moore (2013)

Assignments

Field placement (2) (minimum 2 hours

per visit); Action Research Reflective

Journal #4 & #5; Toward the Planning

Portfolio Phases, 1-7




Due

12/1

Week VII - Module VII

The Landscape of Disciplinary Literacy: The Course in Review

Readings

Doctoral students

Collin (2014);

Moje (2015)

Assignments

Field Placement (minimum 2 hours);

Action Research Reflective Journal #6;

Phases and unit or instructional module

for instructor feedback;




Due

12/8

Week VIII – Module VIII

Final Exam

Readings

N/A Assignments

Planning Portfolio/Course Testimonial Due

12/15

Appendix A

Course Policies

Attendance. Attendance at F2F meetings is mandatory. An absence will be considered justification for

lowering a grade by one letter grade. Extenuating circumstances will be dealt with on an individual

basis. Email or text at your earliest convenience to notify me of any tardiness or absence. Failure to do

so will result in an unexcused absence.

Participation and active engagement. Come to F2F sessions prepared and ready to actively engage in

learning activities. Read all assignments before class and participate in both on-line and in-class

discussions and activities. Your participation and contributions are essential to building a professional

learning community.

Assignment due dates. Collaboration is a critical component of this course. Everyone should be prepared

to discuss the readings, share written work, and work actively with others both F2F and on-line. Please

observe due dates. Points will be deducted for late work; any assignment handed in more than one class

meeting late will receive no more than half the points available for that particular assignment. All work

must be typed. Papers and citations must follow the APA Style Guide with no exceptions.

Exhibit professional behavior and civility. Students are expected to assist in maintaining a learning

community that is conducive to learning. Embracing diversity (cultural, religious, and otherwise) and

others’ ways of knowing enriches our professional learning community. Technology and devices that

enhance, but do not distract or disrupt the learning environment are welcomed.

Appendix B

Expectations for the Planning Portfolio (Benchmark Assessment)

The planning portfolio is a project to help you prepare for teaching. It does not represent all the planning

that is necessary for actual teaching. It does, however, provide an opportunity to consider the planning

necessary for the incorporation of language and literacy instruction in your content area so that students

have access to the discourse of your content.

PHASE ONE: The Title & Conceptual Objectives. The first item in your Planning Portfolio is a Title

and the Conceptual Objectives. Conceptual objectives are the Superordinate Concept, the Coordinate

Concepts, and the Subordinate Concepts. State the superordinate concept, each coordinate concept and

related subordinate concepts. The superordinate concept should be a complete sentence; the coordinate

and subordinate concepts can be a word or a phrase. You may ask an essential question instead of a

superordinate concept and may also include state standards, performance objectives or behavioral

objectives, but these types of objectives must be related to concepts. You have a good model for

integrating these different sorts of objectives in the syllabus for this course. Also, refer to Chapter 3 in

Anders and Guzzetti.

PHASE TWO: Getting to Know Your Students. Now that you have figured out what you are teaching and

why, think of ways to find out about your students’ background knowledge, experience, and interests in

the concepts and behaviors you want to teach. You might do a brainstorming activity, a survey, a focus

group, interviews, questionnaire—anything that suits your content area and concepts that will let you

know about your students. Write your ideas and provide an example or description of what you will do.

PHASE THREE: Analysis of Resource. Choose a print-based resource (textbook, Internet source,

magazine article, trade book) that is related to one or more of your concepts. (It is to be a potential

reading assignment that you might give to your students to engage them in any of the concept(s) you have

developed. Analyze this resource for its appropriateness. Do this by making sure there is a relationship

between the concepts you want to teach and what the author has written. Next, analyze (using the

techniques discussed in Chapter 4 of A & G) the ‘friendliness’ of the text. As a result of your analysis

provide a write up including the following information: a) name of the text, author, pages analyzed; b)

the technique(s) used to analyze the text; c) the results of your analysis (show your work, provide

concrete results); d) as a result of your analysis, write a paragraph describing the text in terms of structure

and coherence (global and local); and e) what do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of the text as

a potential assignment? Brainstorm and collect potential resources (all kinds: guest speakers, web sites,

blogs, texts, tradebooks, videos, podcasts, and other media, etc.) that will fit your concepts. Create a

“Resource Chart,” which is the next phase.

PHASE FOUR: Organize Resources and Concepts: Create a matrix of possible resources and coordinate

concepts. Concepts would be your column headings; resources would be your rows. Include

multicultural resources, print-based materials, and multimedia materials. Provide a “Resources

Bibliography” so that the materials may be located in the future.

PHASE FIVE: “Before,” “During,” & “After” reading activities. For the analyzed text, create before,

during and after activities to provide support for students’ reading of the assignment (you can draw from

and use what you have already created). Note: the activities you choose should accommodate for the

shortcomings/weaknesses of the text, which you discovered when you analyzed a potential reading

assignment for Phase Three. Put these activities in the matrix (PHASE SIX) that represents your

conceptual goals for the reading assignment.

PHASE SIX: Organize activities. Create a matrix of possible activities and instructional strategies you

will use to engage students in the Coordinate & Subordinate concepts. Concepts would be your column

headings; possible activities would be your rows. You only have to create one example of “before,”

“during,” and “after” activities; this matrix is to record your thinking—the ideas you have for such

instructional activities at this point.

PHASE SEVEN: Describe formative and summative assessments. Describe the sort of formative and

summative assessments you will use to evaluate students’ engagement of these concepts. How will you

check for understanding throughout the unit and how will you assess what students have learned at the

end of the unit? Include a brief description of each assessment and why you chose to use it. Be sure to

draw from the course resources.

Organize all the component parts described in each phase of the planning portfolio and compile an

electronic portfolio. The planning portfolio should include: Table of Contents, strategies and instructional

routines developed in Module III, Towards the Planning Portfolio Phases 1-7, and the unit plan or

instructional module. Your planning portfolio should be formatted according to the requirements of the

course with page numbers. Sources must be cited in APA. This benchmark assignment will be scored

using a rubric, which will be posted on D2L under Content. Submit the Planning Portfolio to D2L. The

planning portfolio is worth 100 points and 40% of your final summative grade.

Appendix C

Teacher Education Program

The Teacher Education Program (TEP) at Southern Illinois University Carbondale is fully

accredited by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education/ Council for the

Accreditation of Educator Preparation (NCATE/CAEP) and by the Illinois State Board of

Education. Spanning the entire university, the Teacher Education Program is administered

through the College of Education and Human Services and includes majors from the College of

Education and Human Services, the College of Science, the College of Liberal Arts, and the

College of Agricultural Sciences. Teacher education programs approved by the State Educator

Preparation and Licensure Board (SEPLB) are offered at the undergraduate level in early

childhood education, elementary education, special education, secondary education, and in

majors and minors that lead to the special certificate to teach K-12 art, music, physical education,

and foreign languages.

Teacher Education Conceptual Framework: Preparing Reflective Educational Leaders

The conceptual framework identified by Southern Illinois University Carbondale’s College of

Education and Human Services reflects the professional community’s commitment to preparing

reflective educational leaders at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Reflective

educational leaders are able to review, reconstruct, reenact, and critically analyze their own and

their students’ performances as a means to formulate explanations with evidence. A reflective

educational leader fosters his/her professionalism in practice when he/she values students’

myriad identities, equips students with the literacies required to participate in a democratic

society, and engages stakeholders to make this learning accessible, rigorous, and relevant.

Our conceptual framework views the professional development of teachers and other educational

personnel to be an evolutionary and maturational process. Our goal is to prepare a competent,

reflective educational leader, ready to assume the responsibilities of educating individuals but

with full awareness that his or her induction into the profession continues throughout the

duration of his or her professional career. We believe that our teacher candidates not only

practice reflective thinking but also become practitioners of reflective action. We believe that

effective teaching is characterized by interactions with students to present subject matter,

followed by informed reflection on these interactions and presentations. Teachers should make

decisions among methods and content based on their competence in both subject matter and

pedagogy, rather than acting as technicians following a predetermined curriculum. All unit

programs are aligned to the Illinois Professional Teaching Standards as well as standards from

their respective content areas.

The model below represents the three major tenets of SIU’s Teacher Education Program:

Literacies, Identities, and Engagement:

Literacies:

Reflective educational leaders understand the vast array of literacies students need to function in

today’s modern society. This includes knowledge of reading, writing, and aural communication

within the content area as well as media, scientific and quantitative literacy (Chessin & Moore,

2004; Crowe, Connor, & Petscher, 2009; Cunningham & Stanovich, 2001; Delpit, 1995; Kear,

Coffman, McKenna, & Ambrosio, 2000; Leinhardt & Young, 1996; McKenna & Kear, 1990;

Moje, 2008; Perry, & Delpit, 1998; Shulman, 1987; Schwartz, 2005; Wilson, 2006; Wineburg,

2001).

Identities:

Reflective educational leaders understand the diverse characteristics and abilities of all students

and how these students develop and learn within the context of their social, economic, cultural,

linguistic, and academic experiences. Using these experiences they create instructional

opportunities to maximize student learning (Brown, 2005; Cramer, 2006; Epstein, 2009; Irvine,

1997; Olsen, 2010; Rose & Meyer, 2002; Vygotsky, 1962/1996; Washburn, Joshi, & Binks-

Cantrell, 2011).

Engagement:

Reflective educational leaders are ethical and reflective practitioners who exhibit professional

engagement by providing leadership in the learning community and by serving as advocates for

students, parents or guardians, and the profession (Amatea, Daniels, Bringman, & Vandiver,

2004; Bemak, & Chung, 2008; Hiebert, Morris, Berk, & Jansen, 2007; Keys, Bemak, Carpenter,

& King-Sears, 1998; Lach & Goodwin, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995; McCann & Johannessen,

2008; Ratts, DeKruyf, & Chen-Hayes, 2007).

Dispositions

The professional attitudes, values, and beliefs demonstrated though verbal and nonverbal

behaviors (dispositions) as educators interact with students, families, colleagues, and

communities should support student learning and development. These dispositions are:

The candidate demonstrates professionalism:

dependability and reliability

honesty, trustworthiness, ethics

enthusiasm, love of learning and commitment to the profession

The candidate values human diversity:

shows respect and sensitivity to the learning needs and abilities of all individuals

shows respect and sensitivity to the diverse cultures, languages, races, and family

compositions of all individuals

strives for best practices to address diverse learning needs and abilities of all individuals

strives for best practices to address diverse cultures, languages, races, and family

compositions of all individuals

collaborates with diverse peers, professional colleagues, staff and families

The candidate develops professionally:

engages in ongoing acquisition of knowledge

engages in development of research-based practices

assesses own performance and reflects on needed improvements

References Amatea, E. S., Daniels, H., Bringman, N., & Vandiver, F. M. (2004). Strengthening counselor-teacher-family connections: The

family-school collaborative consultation project. Professional School Counseling, 8(1), 47-55.

Bemak, F., & Chi-Ying Chung, R. (2008). New professional roles and advocacy strategies for school counselors: A

multicultural/social justice perspective to move beyond the nice counselor syndrome. Journal of Counseling & Development,

86(3), 372-382.

Brown, B. (2005). The politics of public discourse, identity, and African-Americans in science education. The Negro Educational

Review, 56(2&3), 205-220.

Chessin, D. B., & Moore, V. J. (2004). The 6-E learning model. Science & Children, 47-49.

Cramer, K. (2006). Change the Way You See Everything through Asset-Based Thinking. Running Press.

Crowe, E. C., Connor, C. M., & Petscher, Y. (2009). Examining the core: Relations among reading curricula, poverty, and first

through third grade reading achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 187-214.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2001). What reading does for the mind. Journal of Direct Instruction, 1(2), 137-149.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children. Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.

Epstein, T. (2009). Interpreting national history: Race, identity, and pedagogy in classrooms and communities. New York:

Routledge.

Hiebert, J., Morris, A., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,

58(1), 47-61.

Irvine, J. (1997). Critical knowledge for diverse teachers and learners. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for

Teacher Education.

Kear, D. J., Coffman, G. A., McKenna, M.C., & Ambrosio, A. L. (2000). Measuring attitude toward writing: A new tool for

teachers. The Reading Teacher, 54(1), 10-23.

Keys, S. G., Bemak, F., Carpenter, S. L., & King-Sears, M. (1998). Collaborative consultant: A new role for counselors serving

at-risk youths. Journal of Counseling & Development, 76(2), 123-133.

Lach, M. & Goodwin, D. (2002). Everyone needs a mentor. The Science Teacher, 50-52.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3),

465-491.

McCann, T., & Johannessen, L. (2008). Mentoring matters. The English Journal, 98(2), 86-88.

McKenna, M.C., & Kear, D.J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 626-

639.

Olsen, B. (2010). Teaching for Success: Developing Your Teacher Identity in Today's Classroom. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

Perry, T., & Delpit, L. (eds.) (1998). The real Ebonics debate. Power, language, and the education of African-American children.

Boston: Beacon Press.

Ratts, M. J., DeKruyf, L., & Chen-Hayes, S. (2007). The ACA advocacy competencies: A social justice advocacy framework for

professional school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 11(2), 90-97.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Leinhardt, G. & Young, K. (1996). Two texts, three readers: Distance and expertise in reading history. Cognition and

Instruction, 14(4), 441-486.

Moje, Elizabeth. 2008. “Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change.” Journal of

Adolescent and Adult Literacy 52, 96-107.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-32.

Schwartz, G. (2005). Overview: What is media literacy, who cares and why? In G. Schwartz & P. Brown (Eds.), Media literacy:

Transforming curriculum and teaching, pp. 5-17. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Vygotsky, Lev (1962/1996). Thought and language, Rev. Ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Binks-Cantrell, E. S. (2011). Teacher knowledge of basic language concepts and dyslexia.

Dyslexia, 17, 165-183.

Wilson, M. (2006). My trouble with rubrics. In Rethinking rubrics in writing assessment, pp. 1-10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wineburg, Sam. 2001. Historical Thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia, PA:

Temple University Press.

reading and learning in content and technical texts · reading and writing standards for one grade...

Documents