Foundations in Reading Course
Spartanburg District 6
A professional development course designed to fulfill the
requirements of
South Carolina’s Read
to Succeed (R2S) Teacher Endorsement
Course
Instructors: Dr. Susan Cox, Director of Elementary ELA,
Spartanburg School District Six scox@spart6.org,
Ms. Dawn J. Mitchell, Instructional Services, Spartanburg School
District Six, mitchelld@spart6.org,
Qualifications of Instructors: See
resumes of each instructor and literacy coach in appendix.
University Contact: Graduate
Programs Office, School of Education
Dates: August, 2015– May, 2016 (for a complete list of meeting
dates for each school, see individual
school partnership schedules)
Format: Hybrid –10
afterschool whole group instructional meetings (1 per month @ 2 hours each)
10 online blog hours responding to course texts prior to PLC (Professional
Learning Community) Meeting (1 per
month, 1 hour each)
10 PLC meetings discussing course research-based texts in
collaborative groups (1 per month, 1
hour each)
10 collaborative planning
meetings to incorporate research-based information into classroom
practice (grade
level/content area) (1 per month, 1 hour each)
10
literacy coaching sessions individual/grade level (1 per month, 1 hour each)
Total contact: 60 contact
hours
Cost to Participants: This is a district sponsored course. Participants can attain graduate credit through the district contract course approved by
USC Upstate.
Description/Course Overview: This course is designed to assist SC certified
teachers in primary and elementary grades as they understand and implement the
core competencies outlined by the South Carolina Read to Succeed Act in order
to provide an effective reading foundation
for students. Participants will apply research-based best
practices for balanced literacy. Participants will also utilize authentic
assessment data to guide their instruction.
Goals:
1.
Teacher as reader/writer and as
professional educator:
o
Participate
as an active contributor in periodic meetings to share information
and to shape and enact a school-wide literacy vision.
o
Participate
as a reader and writer in the process of inquiry, simulating student reading
and writing experiences grounded in research based texts.
o
Identify
appropriate quality literary and informational mentor texts for independent
reading and writing and for the
purpose of creating integrated units of study.
2.
Teacher as instructor/curriculum creator:
o
Consider
characteristics of effective, research-based literacy instruction and implement
them into classroom practice.
o
Create
a classroom environment conducive to student learning to facilitate
independence with student literate practices.
o
Explore,
apply, and evaluate authentic methods of assessment such as conferencing and
using formative assessment data to guide instruction.
o
Design and
implement a research based model for differentiated reading/writing instruction
to include both individual and small group conferencing.
o
Design
and implement a working schedule as well as instructional plans for balanced
literacy. These instructional plans include current core competencies and standards,
integrating reading and writing in both process and product across the
curriculum.
o
Provide
opportunities for students to engage in reading, writing, researching to create
authentic real-world products by providing key elements of time, ownership, and
response.
3.
Teacher
as technology integrator:
o
Utilize
technology to search and create valuable, teacher-created professional
resources such as open-ended literacy activities and skill work as intervention
for struggling learners who would benefit from research-based literacy instruction.
o
Share
teacher created literacy instruction resources through district technology
platforms for collaboration and access.
o
Utilize
instructional technology to enhance student learning, to develop digital literacy skills, and to allow student communication with a wider audience.
Intended
Audience:
Certified classroom teachers in grades Pre-K-5, in all content areas, who are enrolled for
endorsement for the foundations of reading course approved by R2S and/or
through USC Upstate as non-degree seeking students.
Background Research/Core Texts:
Miller, D. (2013). No more
independent reading without support. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Routman, R. (2003). Reading
essentials. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
See Attached List for all course readings
in the appendix of the syllabus
Course Assessments/Requirements: The following assignments will be used to evaluate the level of achievement in this course. Criterion sheets (rubrics) for each
assignment are provided following the course schedule. The instructor reserves
the right to change and/or delete assignments.
All assignments are due on the
date specified in the course schedule.
- Active Participation in PLC and
Afterschool Meetings: 30%
- Blog Posts for Required Reading: 20%
- Kidwatching: 20%
|
Grading Scale:
90-100 =
A
87-89
= B+
80-86
= B
77-79
= C+
70-76
= C
67-69
= D+
60-66
= D
0-59 =
F
|
|
|
|
20%
|
|
|
|
20%
|
|
|
|
30%
|
|
|
|
30%
|
1.
Active Participation
in PLC (Professional Learning Community) and Afterschool Meetings (30%): Participants
will actively participate in afterschool sessions. In addition, participants
will contribute to small group PLC communities and monthly collaborative planning
sessions with the literacy coach. Prior
to each month’s PLC meeting, participants will be
expected to read assigned course texts in preparation for the discussion and
reflect via blog posts as detailed below.
See Attendance Policy and Course
Participation Rubric.
- Blog Posts for Required Reading (20%): Each participant will participate in the course blog to act
as a record of and repository for and class assignments. Participants will respond to issues
raised in course readings and face-to-face meetings digitally via the course blog. In addition, participants are expected
to comment on blog posts made by other course members, share annotations
from course readings, and make relevant contributions to the course both
digitally and in person. See Reflective Blog Entries Rubric.
Ø Reading Response Posts (by month): Response to course readings with
classroom application.
Ø
SLO Post: Student learning objective (SLO) process and product
reflective post
Ø
Standards/Content: Reflection of how course content connects to SC
College and Career Ready ELA Standards
Ø
Conference: Reflection on student conferences and
subsequent data-driven instruction during conference
Ø
Collaboration:
Reflection on collaboration with literacy coach and how this has influenced
classroom practice.
- Individual Student/ Small Group
Kidwatching Study (20%): Participants will work individually and in groups
to create an individual child/small group kidwatching study to implement
effective components of Read to Succeed core competencies and High
Progress Literacy Classrooms data analysis, goal creation, subsequent
data-driven instruction, best practice research-based instructional
strategies, effective classroom application, student engagement
inventories (SEI), conferencing, and evidence of student growth. This process and culminating products
will contribute to the teacher’s SLO portfolio. Groups will share
resources, outlines, assessments, and artifacts in person and via district
digital platform.
See SLO Portfolio Rubric.
- Strategies in Practice and Reflection (30%):
Each participant will identify a professional growth goal related to course
topics each month, will experiment with implementation with the support of
the literacy coach, and will reflect on both professional and student
growth designed to meet identified goal.
To facilitate this process, participants will receive specific
support and feedback from their literacy coach through observations,
demonstrations, co-teaching, etc. A
digital repository of resources will be utilized to support strategies in
practice. See Strategies in Practice Rubric.
Course Policies:
Attendance at ALL
course meetings is expected.
Face-to-face meetings will be held at each elementary school in the
district (see individual school partnership schedules). In the event of an absence from any of the
required course meetings (see description of all course requirements), it will
be the participant’s responsibility to make up the required absence. Course instructors and/or literacy coaches
are expected to be notified in advance of an expected absence.
Students with Disabilities: “If you are a student with a disability and would like to request disability-related accommodations, you are encouraged to contact me and the Office of Disability Services as early in the semester as possible. The Office of Disability Services is located in Suite 107 of the Campus Life Center. Their phone number is 503-5123.”
Changes to this Syllabus: This syllabus is
tentative. The instructor reserves the right to make adjustments as
necessary. Participants will be notified of changes.
Outline of Course Elements and Core Competencies:
|
August
|
Topics
(Competencies)
|
Readings
|
Assignments (due
before next meeting)
|
|
·
Whole
group: Beliefs & Kidwatching,
Explain Assignments
·
Classroom
coaching and planning: Kidwatching data collection (supporting
assignments)
(Competencies:
1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.13, 2.19, 2.20, 3.3, 3.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
|
·
Mills & Clyde (1991)
·
Choice reading: Kidwatching
PLC: Discussion of reading(s) under discretion
of coach
|
Blog post: Miller/Routman Chapter (choose from
menu), respond to two peers
Kidwatching study:
Watch one child and collect
observational data.
SLO:
Objective and rationale, choose
pre/post assessment
Strategies in
Practice: Schedule date with coach
and complete reflection.
|
|
|
September
|
·
Whole
group: Environment and Just Right Books, Explain
Assignments
·
Classroom
coaching and planning: Support environment & just right books
(supporting assignments)
(Competencies:
1.3, 2.1,2.2, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.13, 2.19,
2.20, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
|
·
Johnson (2006)
·
Choice reading: Environment/just right books
PLC: Discussion of reading(s) under discretion
of coach, including sources of texts (digital, print, etc.)
|
Blog post: Miller/Routman Chapter (choose from
menu), respond to two peers
Kidwatching study: Collect baseline data for whole class. Choose focus group for kidwatching study.
SLO: Baseline and trend data,
choose student population focus
Strategies in
Practice: Schedule date with coach
and complete reflection.
|
|
October
|
·
Whole
group: Miscue Analysis, Explain
Assignments
·
Classroom
coaching and planning: Explain and access digital repository (supporting assignments)
(Competencies:
1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5,2.6, 2.13, 2.17, 2.19, 2.20, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3,3.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
|
·
Goodman (1995)
·
Choice reading: Miscue analysis
PLC: Discussion of reading(s) under discretion
of coach
|
Blog post: Miller/Routman Chapter (choose from
menu), respond to two peers
Kidwatching study: Choose a resource from the digital
repository to try out with your student(s).
SLO: Progress monitoring
Strategies in
Practice: Schedule date with coach
and complete reflection.
|
|
November
|
·
Whole
group: Conferencing, Data-Driven
Instruction/Mini-Lessons, Explain Assignments
·
Classroom
coaching and planning: Choosing professional growth goal
(supporting assignments)
(Competencies:
1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.13, 2.19, 2.20,3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
|
·
Miller (2013), Section 3 (p. 42-70)
·
Choice reading: Data-driven instruction
PLC: Discussion of reading(s) under discretion
of coach
|
Blog post: Conference Post
Kidwatching study: Formative
data collection
SLO: Growth targets and choose professional learning goal
Strategies in
Practice: Schedule date with coach
and complete reflection.
|
|
December
|
·
Whole
group: Big Theories, Explain
Assignments
·
Classroom
coaching and planning: (supporting assignments)
(Competencies:
1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.13, 2.17, 2.19, 2.20, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
|
·
Cambourne (1995)
·
Choice reading: Theory
PLC: Discussion of reading(s) under discretion
of coach
|
Blog post: Standards/Content Post
Kidwatching study: Instructional
Plan
SLO: Standards/Content
Strategies in
Practice: Schedule date with coach
and complete reflection.
|
|
January
|
·
Whole
group: Sociocultural Learning
& Student Talk, Explain Assignments
·
Classroom
coaching and planning: (supporting assignments)
(Competencies:
1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.12, 2.13, 2.16, 2.19, 2.20, 4.2, 6.1,
6.2, 6.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3)
|
·
Allington (2002)
·
Choice reading: Socioculturalism/ student talk
PLC: Discussion of reading(s) under discretion
of coach
|
Blog post: Collaboration Post
Kidwatching study:
Collaborative strategy implementation
SLO: Strategies
Strategies in
Practice: Schedule date with coach
and complete reflection.
|
|
February
|
·
Whole
group: Schema & Diversity,
Explain Assignments
·
Classroom
coaching & planning:
(supporting assignments)
(Competencies:
1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.13, 2.15, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 5.1,
5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2,
6.3, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7)
|
·
Routman (2003), Ch. 2
·
Choice reading: Critical literacy/social justice
PLC: Discussion of reading(s) under discretion
of coach
|
Blog post: Miller/Routman Chapter (choose from
menu), respond to 2 peers
Kidwatching study:
Funds of Knowledge Student Cold Write and Reflection
SLO: Student population
Strategies in
Practice: Schedule date with coach
and complete reflection.
|
|
March
|
·
Whole
group: Literacy Development,
Explain Assignments
·
Classroom
coaching and planning: (supporting assignments)
(Competencies:
1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.7, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 2.19, 2.20, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
|
·
Smith (2006), Ch. 2
·
Choice reading: Language development
PLC: Discussion of reading(s) under discretion
of coach
|
Blog post: Miller/Routman Chapter (choose from
menu), respond to two peers
Kidwatching study:
Literacy Development Reflective Analysis
(I Once Thought, But Now I Know)
SLO: Write up Assessment (pre & post)
Strategies in
Practice: Schedule date with coach
and complete reflection.
|
|
April
|
·
Whole
group: Progression of Literacy
Trends, Explain Assignments
·
Classroom
coaching & planning:
(supporting assignments)
(Competencies:
1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.13, 2.19, 2.20, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
|
·
Pearson & Stephens (1998)
·
NO CHOICE READING: Instead, provide a brief summary for each
“trend/era” in the article.
PLC: Discussion of reading(s) under discretion
of coach
|
Blog post: SLO Post
Kidwatching study: Analyze
Post Test Data
SLO: Write up Teacher professional learning
Strategies in
Practice: Schedule date with coach
and complete reflection.
|
|
May
|
·
Whole
group: Revisiting Beliefs and Practices, Explain
Assignments
·
Classroom
coaching & planning:
(supporting assignments)
(Competencies:
1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.13, 2.19, 2.20, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
|
·
Routman (2003), Ch. 11
·
Choice reading: Reflective practice
PLC: Discussion of reading(s) under discretion
of coach
|
Blog post: Miller/Routman Chapter (choose from
menu), respond to two peers
Kidwatching study: Professional
Growth Reflection
SLO: Final
Conference/Reflection
Strategies in
Practice: Schedule date with coach
and complete reflection.
|
Rubrics for Course
Assignments
Active Participation Rubric
|
Active Participation Rubric
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Teacher:
|
|
|
School Term/Year:
|
|
Grade/Age Level:
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Literacy Coach:
|
|
|
Site
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
*If
the participant receives a score of (1) on any of the dispositions, it will
be expected that the participant will schedule a conference with their
literacy coach to promote growth.
|
||||||||||||||
|
Disposition
|
Does Not Meet Expectations
(1)
|
Meets Expectations
(2)
|
Exceeds
Expectations (3)
|
Rating
|
||||||||||
|
Timeliness
|
Frequently late and/or leaves early
|
Arrives on time and remains as
expected
|
Arrives prior to designated time and
remains as needed until task is complete
|
|
||||||||||
|
Attendance
|
Does not attend as scheduled; may or
may not notify teacher; and/or not dependable
|
Attends regularly as scheduled; makes
up time missed; is dependable
|
Attends regularly as scheduled;
dependable; volunteers to attend beyond required time
|
|
||||||||||
|
Poise/
Attitude /Self-efficacy
|
Shows little self-confidence; or
displays a critical or negative attitude; and/or demonstrates inappropriate
behaviors
|
Generally
self-confident; displays attitude that is positive and agreeable; rarely
demonstrates inappropriate behaviors
|
Consistently
self-confident; always displays
appropriate behavior; positive
attitude in all times
|
|
||||||||||
|
Initiative
|
Exhibits little energy or enthusiasm;
and/or seldom volunteers for tasks
|
Generally
demonstrates enthusiasm for students, curriculum, and teaching; usually volunteers for tasks, asks
questions
|
Always
eager to participate; makes suggestions and is inquisitive; takes on added
responsibilities
|
|
||||||||||
|
Sensitivity
to Cultural Diversity
|
Appears unaware of or unwilling to
accept student differences
|
Usually
displays sensitivity and acceptance of diverse backgrounds; is at ease communicating with individuals of different
backgrounds; acts to reduce one’s own biases.
|
Always
displays a sensitivity and appreciation for diversity; is aware of and consistently acts to reduce one’s own
biases; is warm and caring for all students, regardless of their background
|
|
||||||||||
|
Sensitivity
to Individual Differences
|
Holds lower expectations for minority
students, or/and English Language learners, or/and students with special needs
|
Usually
sets high performance standards for all students and holds them accountable; usually offers enriched curriculum
that challenges every learner to develop; generally
uses varied instructional strategies to accommodate different learning needs
and styles.
|
Always
sets high performance standards for all students and holds them accountable; consistently offers enriched
curriculum that challenges every learner to develop; always uses varied instructional strategies to accommodate
different learning needs and styles; read, research and seeks resources to
help students with learning difficulties.
|
|
||||||||||
|
Cooperation
|
Demonstrates unwillingness to
cooperate or collaborate with peers, faculty, and/or staff
|
Generally
demonstrates an ability and willingness to work cooperatively with peers,
faculty, and/or staff
|
Consistently
works cooperatively with faculty, peers, and/or staff; offers suggestions and
strategies to enhance cooperation among students, faculty, and/or staff
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Fairness
|
Shows favoritism (e.g., interacts with
certain students or groups of students more frequently); or treats students
with different ability levels with more/less dignity; and/or classroom
policies/ procedures and grading reflect bias
|
Treats all students equally; is consistent; does not favor certain students
over others; treats students of different ability
levels with dignity and impartiality; practices equitable classroom practices
and procedures; grading practices reflect student performance and
developmental level
|
Treats all students equally; is consistent; does not favor certain students
over others; treats students of different ability
levels with dignity and impartiality; practices equitable classroom practices
and procedures; grading practices reflect student performance and
developmental level; reflects upon own fairness and genuinely
interested in further improving own interactions with students, classroom
policies/ procedures and grading
|
|
||||||||||
|
Rapport
|
Exhibits little respect when
communicating or interacting with peers, faculty, students, and/or staff;
and/or relates to others in a negative, demeaning, or sarcastic manner
|
Generally
demonstrates an ability to communicate and interact effectively and
professionally with peers, students, faculty, and/or staff; generally builds and maintains
positive relationship with others
|
Always
communicates and interacts effectively and professionally with peers,
students, faculty, and/or staff; always
builds and maintains positive relationships with others; seeks ways to
include others who are unable/unwilling to interact positively with students,
faculty, and/or staff
|
|
||||||||||
|
Caring
|
Unwilling or unable to identify with
or take into consideration others’ needs, or to understand others’
perspectives or needs; or places one’s needs before those of students, peers,
faculty, and/or staff
|
Generally
demonstrates the following:
Empathy
(e.g., able to identify with, see things from the perspective of others); Understanding (e.g., able to
comprehend another person’s ideas, feelings, and needs); Responsiveness (e.g., attentive to others’ needs; places the
needs of the learner and the learning task above one’s own).
|
Always
demonstrates the following:
Empathy
(e.g., able to identify with, see things from the perspective of others);
Understanding
(e.g., able to comprehend another person’s ideas, feelings, and needs);
Responsiveness
(e.g., attentive to others’ needs; places the needs of the learner and the
learning task above one’s own).
|
|
||||||||||
|
Flexibility
|
Fails to recognize the need for
change; or fails to adjust and address time factors, unexpected events, or
the demands of the situation
|
Generally
recognizes the need for change when appropriate; adjusts and addresses time
factors, unexpected events, or the demands of the situation; is comfortable
with change
|
Always
recognizes the need for change when appropriate; consistently adjusts and
addresses time factors, unexpected events, or the demands of the situation;
highly adaptable
|
|
||||||||||
|
Open-mindedness
|
Does not admit or
acknowledge different perspectives or solutions to a problem or issue; and/or
does not recognize the possibility of an error in one’s own beliefs or
practice
|
Usually admits or
acknowledges different perspectives or solutions to a problem or issue; generally recognizes the possibility
of an error in one’s own beliefs or practice
|
Consistently admits or
acknowledges different perspectives or solutions to a problem or issue; always recognizes the possibility of
an error in one’s own beliefs or practice
|
|
||||||||||
|
Responsiveness
to Feedback
|
Rejects or ignores constructive
feedback
|
Accepts constructive feedback and
responds appropriately; is open to constructive criticism
|
Accepts constructive feedback and
responds appropriately; is open to constructive criticism; actively solicits
feedback about performance and has a genuine interest in refining practice
|
|
||||||||||
|
Reflectiveness
|
Little or no concern about evaluating
a situation or one’s own performance, attitudes, or behavior critically
|
Usually
shows concern about evaluating a situation or one’s own performance,
attitudes, or behavior critically
|
Consistently
shows concern about evaluating a situation or one’s own performance,
attitudes, or behavior critically
|
|
||||||||||
|
Reflective Blog Entries
|
||||||
|
CATEGORY
|
Expert-4 points
|
Master-3 points
|
Apprentice-2 points
|
Novice-1 point
|
||
|
Critical
|
Blog entry shows evidence of
thorough preparation through critical reading and reflection thereby
demonstrating an integration of relevant concepts, ideas, and principles.
Author speaks as one who has a breadth and depth of knowledge.
|
Blog entry shows evidence of
preparation through reading and reflection with some integration of ideas.
Author speaks as one who has knowledge to share but at minimal depth or
breadth
|
Blog entry shows little
evidence of preparation through reading and reflection. Author speaks as one
who has knowledge to share but without depth or breadth
|
Blog entry shows no evidence
of preparation through reading or reflection. Author speaks as one that has
nothing to offer.
|
||
|
Critical Thinking
|
Blog entry demonstrates use
of upper level thinking (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) and illustrates
a thoughtful approach to the content. Author demonstrates growth in his/her thinking.
|
Blog entry demonstrates
moments of upper level thinking (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) and
illustrates a thoughtful approach to the content. Author demonstrates growth
in his/her thinking.
|
Blog entry demonstrates
little upper level thinking (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) focusing
primarily on knowledge recall and illustrates a forced approach to content. Author
shows signs of growth in his/her
thinking.
|
Blog entry demonstrates no
upper level thinking (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) and illustrates a
careless approach to content. Author shows no sign of growth in his/her thinking.
|
||
|
Creative Thinking
|
Blog entry conveys evidence
of creative thinking through original ideas and the integration of various
forms of media to supplement the writing throughout the entire entry. Author
demonstrates a new way of looking at an idea.
|
Blog entry conveys evidence
of creative thinking through some original ideas and the integration of some
forms of media to supplement the writing. Author demonstrates an intriguing
but not necessarily new way of looking at an idea.
|
Blog entry conveys an
attempt at creative thinking but the ideas are lacking and additional forms
of media add little to the entry. Author demonstrates an effort to be original but needs to
further develop his/her ideas.
|
Blog entry conveys no
creative thinking. Author demonstrates a lack of interest or ability to
present a new way of looking at an idea.
|
||
|
Quality of Entries
|
Blog entry is clear,
concise, coherent and easy to understand demonstrating elements of a strong
writing style. Blog entry demonstrates a polished, professional quality with
few, if any, errors.
|
Blog entry is mostly clear,
concise, and coherent with a nice writing style. Blog entry is polished but
has some errors in standard written English that rarely interfere with
understanding.
|
Blog entry is not always
clear and coherent making it difficult to understand at times. Blog entry
lacks publication quality as it contains several errors in standard written English that
interfere with understanding.
|
Blog entry is not clear,
concise, or coherent and pays no attention to style. Blog entry should not be
published as it has frequent and severe errors in standard written English
that interfere with understanding.
|
||
|
Community of Practice
|
Blog entry and blogger
demonstrates active participation in the blogging community by connecting,
commenting, and hyperlinking. Author demonstrates a scholarly approach by
connecting major ideas back to original authors via hyperlinks and citing
resources as well. Replies show careful thought to the comments of others and
he/she replies in a manner that promotes conversation.
Replies show careful thought, challenge peers to think critically, and spark
scholarly dialogue and community building.
|
Blog entry and blogger
demonstrates an attempt at participation in the blogging community by
connecting, commenting, and hyperlinking. Author demonstrates a scholarly
approach by connecting major ideas back to original authors via hyperlinks
and citing resources as well. Replies show some thought to the comments of
others and promotes conversation.
|
Blog entry and blogger
demonstrates little participation in the blogging community and lack signs of
connecting, commenting, and hyperlinking. Author demonstrates a lack of a
scholarly approach by not connecting major ideas back nor citing resources.
Replies are surface level and do not promote conversation.
|
Blog entry and blogger
demonstrates no participation in the blogging community. Author does not demonstrate a
scholarly approach. Replies are not provided.
|
||
Rubric for Strategies in Practice
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
|
Activities
|
|
|
|
|
Activities clearly relate to
competencies taught and teacher’s identified professional development goal(s). Activities clearly develop students’ skills
and understanding toward meeting expressed standards.
|
Activities reflect some
connections to competencies and teacher’s identified professional development
goal(s). Activities somewhat develop
students’ skills and
understanding toward meeting expressed standards.
|
Only a minimal connection to
competencies and teacher’s identified professional development goal(s). Activities fail to develop either the
skills or understanding needed to meet the expressed standards.
|
No connection to standards
and teacher’s identified professional development goal(s). Activities fail to develop students’ skills
and understanding toward meeting expressed standards.
|
|
Evidence
|
|||
|
Clear plan of assessing
student mastery of standards and teacher’s identified professional
development goal(s) is provided.
Evidence for assessment is clearly written and fully addresses the
skills and knowledge required by the literacy standards.
|
Fairly clear plan of
assessing student mastery of standards and teacher’s identified professional
development goal(s) is provided.
Evidence for assessment is clearly written and fully addresses the
skills and knowledge required by the literacy standards.
|
Unclear plan of assessing
student mastery of standards and teacher’s identified professional development
goal(s) is provided. Evidence for
assessment is not clearly written and fails to address the skills and knowledge
required by the literacy standards.
|
Assessment is designed but
connection to instruction is not obvious.
Evidence for assessment not provided.
|
|
Teacher Reflection of Teaching
and Assessing Standards
|
|||
|
Teacher is fully using
information gained from course activities to plan future instruction and
assessment. Teacher clearly uses the
feedback of coaching to plan for replication or modification of instruction
and/or assessment.
|
Teacher is partially using
information gained from activities to plan future instruction. Teacher partially uses the feedback of
peers to plan for replication or modification of instruction and/or
assessment.
|
Teacher is not using
information gained from activities to plan future instruction. Teacher does not use the feedback of peers
to plan for replication or modification of instruction and/or assessment.
|
Teacher is documenting the
teaching/learning sequence but does not reach accurate conclusions to
replication or modification that needs to be made.
|
|
Total _________/12
|
|||
SLO Portfolio Rubric
|
ELEMENT
|
Exemplary
4 |
Proficient
3 |
Below
Average
2 |
Unsatisfactory
1 |
POINTS
|
|
Kidwatching
Support Document
|
All completed
monthly Kidwatching components are included in the template provided. Each
component is completed based on the specifics provided in the task
instructions. This is uploaded to appropriate space on the digital platform.
|
All completed
monthly Kidwatching components are included in the template provided. Most
components are completed based on the specifics provided in the task
instructions. This is uploaded to
appropriate space on the digital platform.
|
7 to 8 monthly
Kidwatching components are included in the template provided. Most components are completed based on the
specifics provided in the task instructions.
This is uploaded to appropriate space on the digital platform.
|
6 to 7 monthly
Kidwatching components are included in the template provided. Most components are completed based on the
specifics provided in the task instructions.
This is uploaded to appropriate space on the digital platform.
|
____/4
|
|
SLO
Creation and Revision Process
|
All SLO drafts are submitted each month by the required due date. There is extensive evidence of revision to
the SLO document based on the feedback given.
|
All SLO drafts
are submitted each month by the required due date. There is ample evidence of revision to the
SLO document based on the feedback given.
|
7/8 out of the
total SLO drafts are submitted each month by the required due date. There is little evidence of revision to the
SLO document based on the feedback given.
|
5/6 out of the
total SLO drafts are submitted each month by the required due date. There is no evidence of the SLO document
based on the feedback given.
|
____/4
|
|
SLO Final
Document
|
All completed
SLO components are included in the template provided. Each component is completed based on the
specifics provided in the training.
This is uploaded to appropriate space on the digital platform.
|
All completed
SLO components are included in the template provided. Most components are completed based on the
specifics provided in the training.
This is uploaded to the appropriate space on the digital platform.
|
7 to 8 SLO
components are included in the
template provided. Most
components are completed based on the specifics provided in the task
instructions. This is uploaded to
appropriate space on the digital platform.
|
6 to 7 SLO
components are included in the template provided. Most components are completed based on the
specifics provided in the task instructions.
This is uploaded to appropriate space on the digital platform.
|
____/4
|
|
SLO Process and Product Reflection
|
Demonstrates
substantial growth in understanding by providing relevant examples. New
learning is research-based. Examines
fully the key experiences that most impacted learning.
|
Demonstrates
minimal growth in understanding.
Provides few relevant examples. Some of the new learning is
research-based. Examines minimally the
key experiences that most impacted learning.
|
Demonstrates
very little growth in understanding. Provides no relevant examples. New
learning is not research-based.
Superficially examines the key experiences that impacted learning.
|
Demonstrates no
growth in understanding. Provides no relevant examples. New learning is not
research-based. No evidence that
experiences impacted learning is recorded.
|
____/4
|
|
Writing
Mechanics
and Conventions |
Edits the text with no errors in grammar,
capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.
|
Edits the text with minor additional
editing required for grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.
|
Edits the text but errors in grammar,
capitalization, punctuation, and spelling distract or impair readability.
|
Edits the text but numerous errors in
grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling repeatedly distract the
reader and major revision is required.
|
____/4
|
|
Total Points
|
___/20
|
|
|
|
|
Required Books
Miller, D. (2013). No more
independent reading without support. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Routman, R. (2003). Reading
essentials. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Required Articles/Excerpts
Mills, H., &
Clyde, J. A. (1991). Children’s success
as readers and writers: It’s the
teacher’s beliefs that make the difference.
Young Children, 46 (2), 54-59.
Johnson, P.
(2006). Laying the foundations. In P. Johnson, One child at a time: Making the
most of your time with struggling readers (pp. 13-25). Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Goodman, Y. M.
(1995). Miscue analysis for classroom
teachers: Some history and some
procedures. Primary voices K-6, 3 (4), 2-9.
Cambourne, B.
(1995). Toward an educationally relevant
theory of literacy learning: Twenty
years of inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 49 (3), 182-191.
Allington, R. L.
(2002). What I’ve learned about
effective reading instruction from a decade of studying exemplary elementary
classroom teachers. The Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (10), 740-747.
Pearson, P. D.,
& Stephens, D. (1998). Learning
about literacy: A 30-year journey. In C. Weaver (Ed.), Reconsidering a balanced approach to reading (pp. 77-100). Urbana, IL:
NCTE.
Smith, F.
(2006). Learning to be a reader. In Reading without nonsense (pp. 11-22). New York: Teachers College Press.
Choice Articles
Kidwatching
·
Owocki, G., & Goodman, Y. (2002). What is kidwatching? In Kidwatching: Documenting children’s literacy development (pp.
1-14). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
o
This chapter defines kidwatcching and gives ways
to track data.
·
O’Keefe, T. (1997). The habit of kidwatching. In NCTE’s School
Talk, p. 4-6.
o
This teacher-author explains why and how he uses
kidwatching to inform his teaching.
·
Watson, D. (1985). Watching and listening to children read. In A. Jaggar & M. T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Observing the language learner (pp.
115-128). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
o
This article helps teachers use observations
instead of formal testing to find out how students handle texts in a variety of
forms and situations. It includes
specific questions addressing what to look for in observations.
Environment/Just
Right Books
·
Atwell, N. (2007). The pleasure principle. Instructor,
116 (5), 44-46, 60.
o
This article explores the factors behind the success of a
reading workshop at the Center for Teaching and Learning in Edgecomb, Maine. In
the workshop, teachers start by being honest with students about what they do
as readers. They acknowledge the guilt many of them grew up with--the feeling
that there's a proper, rigorous way to read and that somehow they're not doing
it right--so they can help their students navigate books with pleasure and
confidence. Teachers in a reading workshop help children choose books, develop
and refine their literary criteria, and carve out identities for themselves as
readers.
·
Szymusiak, K., & Sibberson, F. (2001). When levels and learning clash: Moving from levels to supports in designing
instruction. Beyond leveled books (pp. 15-27).
Portland, ME: Stenhouse
Publishers.
o
This chapter explains how to support
transitional readers using supportive features of text, including text setup,
hooks, illustrations, dialogue, chapter lengths, and tables of content.
Miscue Analysis
·
Hood, W. J. (1995). I do teach and the kids do learn. Primary
voices K-6, 3 (4), 16-22.
o
Discusses a primary classroom in which the teacher uses miscue
analysis, print awareness tasks, and book handling analysis to get to know her
kids as readers and to build her instructional program. Describes using reading
strategy groups made by grouping together students with similar strengths.
Appends a description of how to administer the Book Handling Knowledge Task.
·
Owocki, G., & Goodman, Y. (2002). Oral reading and miscues. In Kidwatching: Documenting children’s literacy development (pp.
61-76). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
o
This chapter examines miscue analysis with
various groupings of students and various types of readers.
Data-Driven
Instruction
·
Souto-Manning, M., Mills, H., & O'Keefe, T.
(2010). Teacher as researcher:
Collaborative inquiry: From kidwatching to responsive teaching. Childhood
Education, 86 (3), 169-171. DOI:
10.1080/00094056.2010.10523141
a.
This article explains how to take data from kidwatching
and turn it into responsive teaching using collaborative inquiry.
·
Crowell, C. G. (1995). Documenting the strengths of bilingual
readers. Primary Voices K-6, 3 (4), 32-38.
a.
Discusses
how the author, a second-/third-grade bilingual teacher, uses miscue analysis
to plan reading strategy instruction that meets each individual child's needs
by building on each one's strengths as a reader, in both their first and second
languages. Appends a description of buddy reading.
·
Garcia, T. (2007). Facilitating the reading process. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 39 (3), 12-17.
a.
The
writer describes a combined approach to monitoring and improving the reading
progress of students with special needs. This approach involves a combination
of curriculum-based measurement and miscue analysis to graph students' weekly
progress, analyze miscues, and plan appropriate individualized instruction for
each student.
Theory
·
Cambourne,
B. (2001). Conditions for literacy
learning: Why do some students fail to
learn to read? Ockham’s razor and the conditions
of learning. The
Reading Teacher, 54 (8), 784-786.
o
This article presents five reasons why seemingly
normal students might fail to learn to read.
·
Pinnell, G. S. (1985). Ways to look at the functions of children’s
language. In A. Jaggar & M. T. Smith-Burke
(Eds.), Observing the language learner (pp.
57-72). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
o
This reading explains Halliday’s research on the
functions of language, and then applies this research to student conversations.
Socioculturalism/Student
Talk
·
Owocki, G., & Goodman, Y. (2002). Sociocultural knowledge and experience. In Kidwatching: Documenting children’s literacy development (pp.
15-26). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
o
This chapter looks at language as a practice
informed by culture and social interactions.
It addresses ways to gather information about the child, the home, and
the community to see how these sociocultural influences shape a child’s
literacy development.
·
Owocki, G., & Goodman, Y. (2002). Talk.
In Kidwatching: Documenting children’s literacy development (pp.
48-60). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
o
This chapter explains the importance of student
talk in learning environments and shares ways to document this talk.
·
Miller, D.
(2013). What practices are
critical for effective independent reading?
In No
More Independent Reading Without Support (pp. 16-35). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
o
This chapter looks at practices for independent
reading, such as time, choice, explicit instruction, access to text,
assessments, and reading-centered talk.
·
Chorzempa, B. F., & Lapidus, L. (2009). “To find yourself, think for yourself”: Using Socratic discussions in inclusive
classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41 (3), 54-59.
o
Socratic seminars, defined as "exploratory intellectual
conversations centered on a text," are a group-discussion model and are
designed in such a way to resemble Socrates's instruction-through-questioning
method. They are held in a student-centered environment to foster authentic
engagement and to prompt ideas to occur. Simply stated, this method involves
students' reading a selection and then generating questions and exploring their
ideas and questions in an open discussion. The open-discussion method not only
allows students to support their own opinions with details but also strengthens
their ability to exhibit a personal voice in their writing and improves the
depth of their papers. The procedures and justifications for the use of
Socratic seminars as a means of developing critical thinking skills are well
documented in middle and high school classrooms. However, its use is rarely
documented in elementary inclusive classrooms. This article provides a model
and guidelines for using the Socratic method to develop students' critical
thinking and writing skills within elementary inclusive classrooms.
Critical
Literacy/Social Justice
·
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34 (3), 159-165.
o
This article briefly explains culturally
relevant pedagogy and its support of academic success, cultural competence, and
critical consciousness.
·
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., &
Gonzales, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge
for teaching: Using a qualitative
approach to connect homes and classrooms.
Theory into Practice, 31, (2),
132-141.
o
The authors share how they developed innovations in
teaching that draw on the knowledge and skills found in local households. They
claim that by capitalizing on household and other community resources, we can
organize classroom instruction that far exceeds in quality the rote-like
instruction children commonly encounter in schools.
·
Smith, F. (2006).
Constructing a theory of the world.
In Reading without nonsense (pp. 87-96). New York: Teachers College Press.
o
Sense should never be taken for granted. We all have to make sense of every connection
we make with the world, including every aspect of reading.
Language Development
·
Doake, D. B. (1985). Reading-like behavior: Its role in learning to read. In A. Jaggar & M. T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Observing the language learner (pp.
82-98). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
o
This reading analyzes characteristics of
reading-like behavior and explains why and how it develops.
·
Weaver, C. (1994). Development of language and literacy. In Reading
process and practice (pp. 59-67).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
o
This reading looks at how language develops in
young children and the role of adults in this process. It also addresses Holdaway’s natural learning
model.
·
Smith, F. (2006).
The limitations of phonics. In Reading without nonsense (pp. 23-42. New York: Teachers College Press.
o
To many people, phonics is synonymous with
reading. But phonics is one approach to
instruction out of many, and is far removed from reading itself.
·
Smith, F. (2006).
Language and meaning. In Reading without nonsense (pp. 79-86). New York: Teachers College Press.
o
Neither reading nor teaching reading can be
regarded as mechanical or rote activities.
Sense is always significant and must be predominant.
·
Smith, F. (2006).
Letters, words, and meaning. In Reading without nonsense (pp. 97-112). New York: Teachers College Press.
o
Like everything else, reading is a matter of
choices. This chapter examines the
consequences of choosing letters, words, or sense as a focus of teaching
reading.
Reflective Practice
·
Bintz, W. P., & Dillard, J. (2007). Teachers as reflective practitioners: Examining teacher stories of a curricular
change in a 4th grade classroom.
Reading Horizons Journal, 47 (3),
203-227.
o
This article describes findings from a classroom-based action
research project conducted by two in-school teachers, a literacy coach and a
4th grade teacher, implementing a new integrated literacy and social studies
curriculum and the changes they made in curricular practices and beliefs over a
three-year period of time.
·
Duffy, G. G. (2005). Metacognition and the
development of reading teachers. In C. Block, S. Israel, K. Kinnucan-Welsch,
& K. Bauserman (Eds.), Metacognition
and literacy learning (pp. 299–314). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
o
This reading looks at how reflective practice
develops alongside metacognition.
Chapter Menu—Choice Blogs
Choose 6 of these readings from Miller and Routman for the choice blogs
on the reading schedule/syllabus.
1.
Miller (2013), Section 1: Not This:
Is There Enough Time? And Is Time
Enough to Support Independent Reading?
2.
Miller (2013), Section 2: Why Not?
What Works? Why Independent
Reading Matters and the Best Practices to Support It
3.
Routman (2003), Ch. 3:
Share Your Reading Life
4.
Routman (2003), Ch. 4:
Teach with a Sense of Urgency
5.
Routman (2003), Ch. 5:
Organize an Outstanding Classroom Library
6.
Routman (2003), Ch. 6 & 7: Plan for and Monitor Independent Reading/Make
Assessment Instruction’s Working Partner
7.
Routman (2003), Ch. 8:
Teach Comprehension
8.
Routman (2003), Ch. 9:
Emphasize Shared Reading
9.
Routman (2003), Ch. 10:
Examine Guided Reading
10. Routman
(2003), Ch. 12: You Only Have So Much
Time
Supplemental Texts--Books
Atwell, N.
(1987). In the middle: Writing, reading
and learning with adolescents. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Boushey, G.,
& Moser, J. (2009). The café book. Portland, ME:
Stenhouse.
Boushey, G.,
& Moser, J. (2014). The daily 5 (2nd ed.). Portland, ME:
Stenhouse.
Collins, K.
(2004). Growing readers. Portland,
ME: Stenhouse.
Cummingham,
P. M., & Allington, R. L. (1999). Classrooms that work: They can all read and write. New York:
Harper Collings Publisher.
Cunningham, P. M.
(1991). Phonics they use. New York: Harper Collins Publisher.
Fletcher, R.,
& Portalupi, J. (1998). Craft lessons: Teaching writing K-8. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Fountas, I.,
& Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Harvey, S.
(2000). Strategies that work: Teaching
comprehension to enhance understanding. York,
MA: Stenhouse.
Hindley, J.
(1996). In the company of children. York,
MA: Stenhouse.
Johnson, P.,
& Keier, K. (2010). Catching readers before they fall. Portland, ME:
Stenhouse.
Keene, E. O.,
& Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in
a reader’s workshop. Portmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Miller, D.
(2014). Reading in the wild: The book whisperer’s keys to cultivating lifelong
reading habits. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Owocki, G., &
Goodman, Y. (2002). Kidwatching: Documenting
children’s literacy development.
[Melissa has Ch. 1, 2 scanned]
Peterson, R.
& Eeds, M. (1990). Grand conversations: Literature groups in action. Ontario, CA: Scholastic.
Peterson, R.
(1992). Life in a crowded place. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Routman, R. (1994). Invitations. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Serafini, F.
(2015). Reading workshop 2.0: Supporting
readers in the digital age. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Seravallo, J.,
& Goldberg, G. (2007). Conferring with readers: Supporting each student’s growth &
independence.
Serravallo, J.
(2014). The literacy teacher’s playbook:
Grades K-2. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Serravallo, J.
(2014). The literacy teacher’s playbook:
Grades 3-6. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Smith, F.
(2006). Reading without nonsense. New York: Teachers College Press.
Taberski, S.
(2002). On Solid Ground. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
No comments:
Post a Comment