NEW EPP LOGO GOES HERE
EDRD 7718
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
Bagwell College of Education
M.Ed in Reading
Semester 20XX
I. COURSE NUMBER/SECTION: EDRD 7718
COURSE TITLE: Content Area Reading
II. INSTRUCTOR:
Office:
E-mail:
Office Hours:
III. CLASS MEETING:
IV. REQUIRED TEXT(S):
American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association. (6th ed.) Washingto, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Chalk and Wire
Vacca, J.L., Vacca, R.T., Gove, M.K., Burkey, L.C., Lenhart, L.A., & McKeon, C.A. (2012).
Reading and learning to read. (8th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.
Suggested Texts:
Olson, C.B. (2007). The reading and writing connection: Strategies for teaching and learning in the secondary classroom (2nd
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Tompkins, G. E. (2013). 50 literacy strategies step by step (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Fisher, D., Brozo, W.G., Frey, N., & Ivey, G. (2007). 50 content area strategies for adolescent literacy. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson
Additional Readings and Related Material: Throughout the course you will read additional articles from such sources as
Journal of Literacy Research, Literacy Research and Instruction, The Reading Teacher, Content Area Reading, Reading
Online, and Reading Research Quarterly.
V. CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
Pre-requisite is EDRD 7717 and evidence of having passed a criminal background check.
An advanced study of reading instruction in content area classrooms that prepares teachers as reading interventionists. This
course explores technical reading and writing, reading strategies, use of supplemental texts, and flexible grouping. Candidates
create an individualized intervention plan based upon the results of diagnostice testing. A 30 (clock) hour supervised clinical
experience is required that will be conducted on campus in the Center for Literacy and Learning. This clinical constitutes part of
the residency requirement.
VI. PURPOSE/RATIONALE:
An advanced study of reading instruction in content area classrooms that prepares teachers as reading interventionists. This
course explores technical reading and writing, reading strategies, use of supplemental texts, and flexible grouping. Candidates
create an individualized intervention plan based upon the results of diagnostice testing. A 30 (clock) hour supervised clinical
experience is required that will be conducted on campus in the Center for Literacy and Learning. This clinical
constitutes part of the residency requirement.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Our vision as a nationally recognized Educator Preparation Program (EPP) is to remain at the forefront of educator
preparation. Informed by responsive engagement in collaborative partnerships, we advance educational excellence through
innovative teaching in an ever-changing global and digital learning environment. Our mission is to prepare educators to
improve student learning within a collaborative teaching and learning community through innovative teaching, purposeful
research, and engaged service. The essence of our vision and mission is captured in the theme Collaborative Development of
Expertise in Teaching, Learning and Leadership which was adopted in 2002 to express concisely the fundamental approach to
educator preparation at KSU.
The Educator Preparation Program (EPP) at Kennesaw State University is committed to developing expertise among
candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers, teacher leaders and school leaders who possess the capability,
intent and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all of their students through effective, research-based practices in
classroom instruction, and to enhance the structures that support all learning. To that end, the EPP fosters the development of
candidates as they progress through stages of growth from novice to proficient to expert and leader. Within the EPP
conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers
and educational leaders must embrace the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the
implementation of validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high levels of learning. In that way,
candidates are facilitators of the teaching and learning process. Finally, the EPP recognizes, values and demonstrates
collaborative practices across the college and university and extends collaboration to the community-at-large. Through this
collaboration with professionals in the university, local communities, public and private schools and school districts, parents
and other professional partners, the EPP meets the ultimate goal of bringing all of Georgia’s students to high levels of learning.
EPP DIVERSITY STATEMENT
The KSU Educator Preparation Program (EPP) believes all learners are entitled to equitable educational opportunities. To that
end, programs within the EPP consist of curricula, field experiences, and clinical practice that promote candidates’
development of knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions related to diversity identified in the unit’s conceptual
framework, including the local community, Georgia, the nation, and the world. Curricula and applied experiences are based on
well-developed knowledge foundations for, and conceptualizations of, diversity and inclusion so that candidates can apply
them effectively in schools. Candidates learn to contextualize teaching and draw effectively on representations from the
students’ own experiences and cultures. They learn to collaborate and engage with families in ways that value the resources,
understandings, and knowledge that students bring from their home lives, communities and cultures as assets to enrich
learning opportunities. Candidates maintain high expectations for all students (including English learners, students with
exceptionalities and other historically marginalized and underrepresented students), and support student success through
research-based culturally, linguistically, and socially relevant pedagogies and curricula.
USE OF TECHNOLOGY
Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission. Telecommunication and
information technologies will be integrated throughout the Reading Endorsement preparation program, and all candidates must
be able to use technology to improve student learning and meet IRA Reading Standards. Candidates in this course will explore
and use instructional media to assist teaching. They will master productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and
Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials, and use diagnostic software.
EDRD 7718. Fall 2013
2
COURSE GOALS/OBJECTIVES
The Educator Preparation Program (EPP) prepares learning facilitators who understand their disciplines and principles of
pedagogy, who reflect on their practice, and who apply these understandings to making instructional decisions that foster the
success of all learners.
Course Objectives:
1-Treats students equitably and provides equitable access to the full curriculum by respecting individual differences
and adjusting (or assisting teachers in adjusting) practices accordingly.
2-Creates a safe, well-managed, challenging and inclusive learning environment that supports student interests,
reading abilities, and backgrounds.
3-Uses multiple methods, technologies, both print and non print resources, and organizational arrangements
(including various grouping options) to meet goals articulated for individual students and the class as a whole.
4-Displays positive dispositions toward reading and teaching of reading by modeling reading/writing as valued lifelong
activities.
5-Continues to pursue development of professional knowledge and dispositions.
6- Possesses broad, current and specialized knowledge of reading (e.g., foundations of the reading/writing process,
major components of reading, reading research and histories of reading and demonstrates this knowledge to
colleagues, parents and students.
7- Possesses strong pedagogical content knowledge and uses that knowledge to create approaches to instructional
challenges.
8-Monitors student progress with a variety of formal and informal evaluation methods and uses results to improve
student learning.
9-Interprets student performance data, designs instruction accordingly, and communicates results.
10-Collaborates with colleagues to observe, evaluate and provide feedback to one another on daily practice.
11-Reflects upon daily practice, and draws upon experience and the professional literature to research issues related
to improving student learning.
The following grid aligns course objectives with NCATE/CAEP, CPI, and IRA Professional Reading Standards:
Graduate CPI Outcomes &
Proficiences
Course
Objectives
1.1 Possesses broad, current
and specialized knowledge of
subject matter and demonstrates
this knowledge to colleagues,
parents and students.
6
EDRD 7718. Fall 2013
IRA 2010 Reading
Specialist/PSC 2013
Rule 505-3-47
NCATE/CAEP 2008 Standards
Standard 2: Candidates use
instructional approaches,
materials, and an integrated,
comprehensive, balanced
curriculum to support student
learning in reading and writing.
i. Candidates use foundational
Standard 1: Candidates preparing to
work in schools as teachers or other
school professionals know and
demonstrate the content knowledge,
pedagogical content knowledge and
skills, pedagogical and professional
knowledge and skills, and
Assessments
Unit Plan
Individualized
Student Literacy
Plans
Impact on Student
3
1.3 Possesses strong
pedagogical content knowledge
and uses that knowledge to
create approaches to
instructional challenges.
1.5 Actualizes the integration of
content, pedagogy and
interdisciplinary understanding
through instruction that is
integrated, elaborate and deep.
EDRD 7718. Fall 2013
7
3
knowledge to design or
implement an integrated,
comprehensive and balanced
curriculum.
ii. Candidates use appropriate
and varied instructional
approaches, including those
that develop word recognition,
language comprehension,
strategic knowledge, and
reading-writing connections.
iii. Candidates use a wide
range of texts (e.g., narrative,
expository and poetry) from
traditional print, digital, and
online resources.
professional dispositions necessary to
help all students learn. Assessments
indicate that candidates meet
professional, state, and institutional
standards.
Learning Analysis
Standard 2: Candidates use
instructional approaches,
materials, and an integrated,
comprehensive, balanced
curriculum to support student
learning in reading and writing.
i. Candidates use foundational
knowledge to design or
implement an integrated,
comprehensive and balanced
curriculum.
ii. Candidates use appropriate
and varied instructional
approaches, including those
that develop word recognition,
language comprehension,
strategic knowledge, and
reading-writing connections.
iii. Candidates use a wide
range of texts (e.g., narrative,
expository and poetry) from
traditional print, digital, and
online resources.
Standard 1: Candidates preparing to
work in schools as teachers or other
school professionals know and
demonstrate the content knowledge,
pedagogical content knowledge and
skills, pedagogical and professional
knowledge and skills, and
professional dispositions necessary to
help all students learn. Assessments
indicate that candidates meet
professional, state, and institutional
standards.
Unit Plan
Standard 2: Candidates use
instructional approaches,
materials, and an integrated,
comprehensive, balanced
curriculum to support student
learning in reading and writing.
i. Candidates use foundational
knowledge to design or
implement an integrated,
comprehensive and balanced
curriculum.
ii. Candidates use appropriate
and varied instructional
approaches, including those
that develop word recognition,
language comprehension,
strategic knowledge, and
reading-writing connections.
iii. Candidates use a wide
range of texts (e.g., narrative,
expository and poetry) from
Standard 1: Candidates preparing to
work in schools as teachers or other
school professionals know and
demonstrate the content knowledge,
pedagogical content knowledge and
skills, pedagogical and professional
knowledge and skills, and
professional dispositions necessary to
help all students learn. Assessments
indicate that candidates meet
professional, state, and institutional
standards.
Unit Plan
Ongoing Formal and
Informal
Assessments
Individualized
Student Literacy
Plans
Impact on Student
Learning Analysis
Ongoing Formal and
Informal
Assessments
Individualized
Student Literacy
Plans
4
traditional print, digital, and
online resources.
1.6 Possesses an
interdisciplinary understanding of
the curriculum and its
applications to real life and
accurately represents
understanding through use of
multiple explanations, methods,
technologies, and/or strategies.
3&7
2.1 Treats students equitably and
provides equitable access to the
full curriculum by respecting
individual differences and
adjusting (or assisting teachers
in adjusting) practices
accordingly.
1, 3 & 7
2.2 Uses understanding of
human development and
learning and uses this
understanding to create
enriching educational
experiences and/or environments
for all students.
1&2
EDRD 7718. Fall 2013
Standard 2: Candidates use
instructional approaches,
materials, and an integrated,
comprehensive, balanced
curriculum to support student
learning in reading and writing.
i. Candidates use foundational
knowledge to design or
implement an integrated,
comprehensive and balanced
curriculum.
ii. Candidates use appropriate
and varied instructional
approaches, including those
that develop word recognition,
language comprehension,
strategic knowledge, and
reading-writing connections.
iii. Candidates use a wide
range of texts (e.g., narrative,
expository and poetry) from
traditional print, digital, and
online resources.
Standard 1: Candidates preparing to
work in schools as teachers or other
school professionals know and
demonstrate the content knowledge,
pedagogical content knowledge and
skills, pedagogical and professional
knowledge and skills, and
professional dispositions necessary to
help all students learn. Assessments
indicate that candidates meet
professional, state, and institutional
standards.
Unit Plan
Standard 2: Candidates use
instructional approaches,
materials, and an integrated,
comprehensive, balanced
curriculum to support student
learning in reading and writing.
i. Candidates use foundational
knowledge to design or
implement an integrated,
comprehensive and balanced
curriculum.
ii. Candidates use appropriate
and varied instructional
approaches, including those
that develop word recognition,
language comprehension,
strategic knowledge, and
reading-writing connections.
iii. Candidates use a wide
range of texts (e.g., narrative,
expository and poetry) from
traditional print, digital, and
online resources.
Standard 1: Candidates preparing to
work in schools as teachers or other
school professionals know and
demonstrate the content knowledge,
pedagogical content knowledge and
skills, pedagogical and professional
knowledge and skills, and
professional dispositions necessary to
help all students learn. Assessments
indicate that candidates meet
professional, state, and institutional
standards.
Unit Plan
Standard 4: Candidates create
and engage their students in
literacy practices that develop
awareness, understanding,
respect, and a valuing of
differences in our society.
i. Candidates recognize,
understand, and value the
forms of diversity that exist in
society and their importance in
learning to read and write.
ii. Candidates use a literacy
curriculum and engage in
Standard 4: The unit designs,
implements, and evaluates curriculum
and provides experiences for
candidates to acquire and
demonstrate the knowledge, skills,
and professional dispositions
necessary to help all students learn.
Assessments indicate that candidates
can demonstrate and apply
proficiencies related to diversity.
Experiences provided for candidates
include working with diverse
populations, including higher
Thematic Web
Individualized
Student Literacy
Plans
Impact on Student
Learning Analysis
Individualized
Student Literacy
Plans
Impact on Student
Learning Analysis
Unit Plan
Individualized
Student Literacy
Plans
Impact on Student
Learning Analysis
5
2.3 Creates a safe, well
managed, challenging and
inclusive learning environment
that supports student interests,
abilities, and backgrounds.
2
2.4 Uses multiple methods,
technologies, resources, and
organizational arrangements to
meet goals articulated for
individual students, class
instruction and the overall school
improvement plan.
3&7
EDRD 7718. Fall 2013
instructional practices that
positively impact students’
knowledge, beliefs and
engagement with the features
of diversity.
iii. Candidates develop and
implement strategies to
advocate for equity.
education and P–12 school faculty,
candidates, and students in P–12
schools.
Standard 5: Candidates create
a literate environment that
fosters reading and writing by
integrating foundational
knowledge, instructional
practices, approaches and
methods, curriculum materials,
and the appropriate use of
assessments.
i. Candidates design the
physical environment to
optimize students’ use of
traditional print, digital, and
online resources in reading and
writing instruction.
ii. Candidates design a social
environment that is low-risk,
includes choice, motivation,
and scaffolded support to
optimize students’ opportunities
for learning to read and write.
iii. Candidates use routines to
support reading and writing
instruction (e.g., time allocation,
transitions from one activity to
another, discussions and peer
feedback).
iv. Candidates use a variety of
classroom configurations (i.e.,
whole class, small group, and
individual) to differentiate
instruction.
Standard 1: Candidates preparing to
work in schools as teachers or other
school professionals know and
demonstrate the content knowledge,
pedagogical content knowledge and
skills, pedagogical and professional
knowledge and skills, and
professional dispositions necessary to
help all students learn. Assessments
indicate that candidates meet
professional, state, and institutional
standards.
Unit Plan
Standard 5: Candidates create
a literate environment that
fosters reading and writing by
integrating foundational
knowledge, instructional
practices, approaches and
methods, curriculum materials,
and the appropriate use of
assessments.
i. Candidates design the
physical environment to
optimize students’ use of
traditional print, digital, and
online resources in reading and
writing instruction.
ii. Candidates design a social
environment that is low-risk,
includes choice, motivation,
and scaffolded support to
optimize students’ opportunities
for learning to read and write.
Standard 4: The unit designs,
implements, and evaluates curriculum
and provides experiences for
candidates to acquire and
demonstrate the knowledge, skills,
and professional dispositions
necessary to help all students learn.
Assessments indicate that candidates
can demonstrate and apply
proficiencies related to diversity.
Experiences provided for candidates
include working with diverse
populations, including higher
education and P–12 school faculty,
candidates, and students in P–12
schools.
Unit Plan
Individualized
Student Literacy
Plans
Individualized
Student Literacy
Plans
Impact on Student
Learning Analysis
Formal and Informal
Assessments
6
iii. Candidates use routines to
support reading and writing
instruction (e.g., time allocation,
transitions from one activity to
another, discussions and peer
feedback).
iv. Candidates use a variety of
classroom configurations (i.e.,
whole class, small group, and
individual) to differentiate
instruction.
3.2 Reflects, regularly upon daily
practice, and draws upon
experience and the professional
literature to design and conduct
research aimed at improved
student achievement.
3.5 Adheres to professional
ethical standards while reporting,
conducting and publishing
research.
11
5
Standard 2: Candidates use
instructional approaches,
materials, and an integrated,
comprehensive, balanced
curriculum to support student
learning in reading and writing.
i. Candidates use foundational
knowledge to design or
implement an integrated,
comprehensive and balanced
curriculum.
ii. Candidates use appropriate
and varied instructional
approaches, including those
that develop word recognition,
language comprehension,
strategic knowledge, and
reading-writing connections.
iii. Candidates use a wide
range of texts (e.g., narrative,
expository and poetry) from
traditional print, digital, and
online resources.
Standard 2: Candidates use
instructional approaches,
materials, and an integrated,
comprehensive, balanced
curriculum to support student
learning in reading and writing.
i. Candidates use foundational
knowledge to design or
implement an integrated,
comprehensive and balanced
curriculum.
ii. Candidates use appropriate
and varied instructional
approaches, including those
that develop word recognition,
language comprehension,
strategic knowledge, and
reading-writing connections.
iii. Candidates use a wide
range of texts (e.g., narrative,
expository and poetry) from
traditional print, digital, and
online resources.
Standard 1: Candidates preparing to
work in schools as teachers or other
school professionals know and
demonstrate the content knowledge,
pedagogical content knowledge and
skills, pedagogical and professional
knowledge and skills, and
professional dispositions necessary to
help all students learn. Assessments
indicate that candidates meet
professional, state, and institutional
standards.
Standard 1: Candidates preparing to
work in schools as teachers or other
school professionals know and
demonstrate the content knowledge,
pedagogical content knowledge and
skills, pedagogical and professional
knowledge and skills, and
professional dispositions necessary to
help all students learn. Assessments
indicate that candidates meet
professional, state, and institutional
standards.
Unit Plan
Individualized
Student Literacy
Plans
Impact on Student
Learning Analysis
Parent Reports
Unit Plan
Impact on Student
Learning Analysis
VIII. COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:
EDRD 7718 is a collaborative course through which we will become a learning community that continuously engages in cooperative learning
and other forms of active, intellectual work. We will do a number of in-class activities based upon your readings and homework assignments.
You will be expected to participate through collaboration, questioning, listening, evaluating, analyzing, verbalizing, and demonstrating. Many
EDRD 7718. Fall 2013
7
in-class activities will be awarded points based on your participation and the group’s written, oral, or visual response to the activity. If you are
not able to participate in the activity due to not having read an assignment, not having created a lesson/activity or not being in class, etc., you
cannot receive the points.
All assignments should be uploaded to D2L in the Assignments tab by 5:00 p.m. on the due date. No hard copies will be accepted.
Course Assignments
Due Date
Points
Part I: Content Area Unit Plan Narrative
100
Part II: Thematic Web
100
Part III: Strategy Toolkit
100
Part IV: Individualized Student Literacy Plans (10)
100
Part V: Weekly Parent Letters/Updates/Suggestions for Home Study (10)
100
Part VI: Final Parent Report detailing Pre and Post-Assessment Data from GORT 4 and QRI-5
100
Part VII: Impact on Student Learning Analysis
100
Part VIII: Reference List
100
Part IX: Impact on Student Learning Analysis Presentation
100
Part X: Parts I-IX Revised and Uploaded to Chalk and Wire
200
Readings/Reflections/Collaboration/Participation
100
Total Points Possible
1200
Part I: Content Area Unit Plan Narrative
The Content Area Unit Plan is a collaborative project that will be completed as a grade level team. The unit plan focuses on a topic from a
specific content area and integrates the language arts (reading, writing, listening, speaking, and media literacy), as well as the five
dimensions of reading, as appropriate (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension). Study skills and technology will
need to be incorporated as well through activities or strategies.
In the narrative, discuss the following:




Identify the topic and provide a rationale explaining why you chose this topic. Also, discuss the relevance of the topic to the
developmental level of the students for which the unit is geared. Include within the paragraph the Georgia Performance Standards
for the particular content area (Math, Social Studies, or Science) and the Common Core Standards for reading, writing, speaking,
and listening.
Discuss the relevance of the topic with respect to past and future learning of the students. Why is this topic important to your
student’s past, current, and future in this subject area? Why is this topic relevant to the everyday lives, culture, etc. of students
who live and go to school in a diverse area such as the greater Atlanta area?
Start with a transition statement, then list at least ten (10) content-specific, high-level essential questions, based on the Georgia
Performance Standards and Common Core Standards and additional important information you will want students to be able to
answer as a result of your instruction/ implementation.
See Appendix A for a detailed rubric for the Content Area Unit Plan.
EDRD 7718. Fall 2013
8
Part II: Thematic Web
Create a web (using text boxes or Inspiration©) on the computer in which you carefully think about and include teaching/learning activities,
strategies and ideas for lessons that focus around the theme/topic of your unit and that integrate the subject areas indicated below. Keep in
mind to address all of Bloom’s Taxonomy levels for activities/tasks. Don’t just consider Knowledge and Comprehension levels in your
activities. Your web should include activities/tasks that require students to apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate. At the center of your
web, indicate the topic and grade level of the unit. Think deeply about each lesson activity/learning experience you included in your detailed
thematic web. Think of these in two ways. First, it may be an activity that meets a particular intelligence/talent (style) that helps those children
who learn in that way. Second, it may be an activity that provides an opportunity for students to demonstrate what they’ve learned in a
particular manner that is reflected by a specific intelligence. See Appendix B for a template of the Thematic Web.
Part III: Strategy Toolkit
Based on the 25 strategies included on Thematic Web for reading, writing, listening/fine arts, speaking/fine arts, grammar, phonemic
awareness and phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, candidates will create a Word document containing all 25 strategies. For
each strategy, brief description of the procedure for using the strategy and a current URL for accessing more information regarding the
strategy. Strategies should be arranged alphabetically within the following categories:









Reading
Writing
Listening/Fine Arts
Speaking/Fine Arts
Grammar
Phonemic Awareness and Phonics
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Part IV: Individualized Student Literacy Plans (10)
Incorporate the information from Content Area Unit Plan, the Thematic Web, and the Strategy Toolkit into 10 Individualized Student Literacy
Plans lesson plans using the template provided in Appendix C. Any graphic organizer used in the plan should be copied and pasted into the
actual plan. Following the lesson, the candidate will include a reflection on the plan. When posting these plans to Chalk and Wire, the
candidate should include student work samples created in each session.
Part V: Weekly Parent Letters/Updates/Suggestions for Home Study (10)
Following each intervention session with the tutee, candidates should send the parents an email containing the following information: date of
intervention, skill focus of the session, summary the content of the session, and Home/Parent/Family Support suggestions for reinforcing the
skill. Great care should be taken with proofreading, editing, and revisions before sending the email to parents. Each of the 10 emails,
including date and time of each, can be compiled into one Word document to be posted to Chalk and Wire at the end of the semester.
Part VI: Final Parent Report detailing Pre and Post-Assessments of the GORT 4 and QRI-5
This formal, academic report will be a continuation and update of the report prepared for parents in EDRD 7719, but will contain the postassessment data from the spring administration of the GORT 4 and the QRI-5. All informal assessments and results of formal assessments
for fall and spring should be scanned and uploaded to Chalk and Wire, but not provided to parents.
Part VII: Impact on Student Learning Analysis
This five-seven page, formal analysis should adhere to specifications on the ISLA for EDRD 7718 and APA (6th ed.) formatting guidelines.
The ISLA is attached as Appendix D.
EDRD 7718. Fall 2013
9
Part VIII: Reference List
Prepare a reference list of at least 25 references in APA (6th ed.) format for the entire unit, including Final Parent Report and Impact on
Student Learning Analysis. The references should be no older than seven years and come from reputable journals and authors.
Part IX: Impact on Student Learning Analysis Presentation
Candidates will prepare a 10-15 minute power point presentation that detailing the key components of their Impact on Student Learning
Analysis.
Part X: Parts I-IX Revised and Uploaded to Chalk and Wire
Throughout the semester when revisions are complete, candidates should use the following checklist as a guide for uploading important
documents to Chalk and Wire. Candidates will receive a grade of Incomplete until these documents are successfully and completed
uploaded to Chalk and Wire. The documents should be labeled according to the specific name detailed in the syllabus and in the appropriate
and established order below.
1. Content Area Unit Plan Narrative
2. Thematic Web
3. Strategy Toolkit
4. Individualized Student Literacy Plans (10) labeled 1-10 including student work samples
5. Weekly Parent Letters/Updates/Suggestions for Home Study: 10 entries on one Word document
6. Final Parent Report detailing Pre and Post-Assessment Data from GORT 4 and QRI-5
7. Impact on Student Learning Analysis
8. Reference List
9. Impact on Student Learning Analysis Presentation
IX. EVALUATION AND GRADING:
Grading Scale:
90 – 100% A
80 – 89 % B
70 – 79 % C
Below 70% F
Late Work:
Late work will be accepted with a 10-point late penalty per day. After three days, the work will not be accepted. Please email the instructor if
you anticipate an assignment being late.
Quality of Work:
All work should be edited well. Points will be deducted from all work that does not meet professional standards. In some cases, I may return
the work without a grade. When appropriate APA (6th ed.) should be used for formatting.
X. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY:
Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and
Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions
regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University records or
EDRD 7718. Fall 2013
10
academic work,malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or
services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established
procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade
adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension
requirement.
XI. ATTENDANCE POLICY:
The expectations for attending class are in accordance with the Graduate Catalogue. All students are expected to attend classes in
accordance with the scheduled time of the course. Should you be absent, you are responsible for making up the work missed. In-class
activities may not be made up.
XII. COURSE OUTLINE:
What follows is a tentative schedule (subject to change with notice). I have indicated the dates that readings from your text are due. I may
also assign other readings which are are not indicated in the reading schedule. Please note that you will be required to work with the student
that you assessed in EDRD 7717 throughout this course.
Weeks 1-4
Introduction/Syllabus
Common Core Anchor Standards for Reading P-12

Week 1: Key Ideas and Details: Chapters 5, 10, 14

Week 2: Craft and Structure: Chapters 7, 8, 9,10, 14

Week 3: Integration of Knowledge and Ideas: Chapters 2,10,12,13,14

Week 4: Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity: Chapters 10, 12, 13, 14

Other Readings as Assigned
Weeks 5-8
Common Core Anchor Standards for Writing P-12

Week 5: Text Types and Purposes: Chapters 11, 12, 14

Week 6: Production and Distribution of Writing: Chapters 2, 3, 5, 11

Week 7: Research to Build and Present Knowledge: Chapters 2, 11, 12, 14

Week 8: Range of Writing: Chapters 11, 14

Other Readings as Assigned
Weeks 9-10
Common Core Anchor Standards for Speaking and Listening P-12

Week 9: Comprehension and Collaboration: Chapters 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14

Week 10: Presentation of Knowledge and Ideas: Chapters 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14

Other Readings as Assigned
Weeks 11-14
Common Core Anchor Standards for Language

Week 11: Conventions of Standard English: Chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14

Week 12: Knowledge of Language: Chapters: 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14

Week 13: Vocabulary Acquisition and Use: Chapters 5, 7, 8, 9, 14

Week 14: Other Readings as Assigned

Week 15: Other Readings as Assigned
EDRD 7718. Fall 2013
11
XIII. REFERENCES:
Allen, J. (1995). It’s never too late: Leading adolescents to lifelong literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Antinarella, J., & Salbu, K. (2003). Tried and true lessons, strategies, and activities for teaching secondary English. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Alvermann, D. E., & Phelps, S. F. (1998). Content reading and literacy (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Beers, K., & Samuels, B. (Eds.). (1998). Into focus: Understanding and creating middle school readers. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Beers, K. (2003). When kids can’t read: What teachers can do. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Blau, S. (2003). The literature workshop: Teaching texts and their readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bloem, P., & Padak, N. (1996). Picture books, young adult books, and adult literacy learners. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy.
Buehl, D. (2001). Classroom strategies for interactive learning. Newark, DE.: IRA.
Brozo, W., & Simpson, M. (1995). Readers, teachers, learners (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Burke, J. (2002). Reading reminders: Tools, tips, and techniques. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Burkhardt, R. (2003). Writing for real. Westerville, OH: NMSA.
Cole, A. D. (2004). When reading begins: The teacher’s role in decoding, comprehension, and fluency.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Combs, M. (1997). Developing competent readers and writers in the middle grades. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Cullinan B., & Galda, L. (1994). Literature and the child. San Diego. Harcourt Brace.
Cullinan, B. (1992). Read to me: Raising kids who love to read. NY: Scholastic.
De Carlo, J. (Ed.). (1995). Perspectives in whole language. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Dornan, R., Rosen, L., & Wilson, M. (1997). Multiple voices, multiple texts: Reading in the secondary content areas. Portsmouth, NY:
Boynton/Cook.
Dudley-Marling, C., & Paugh, P. (2004). A classroom teacher’s guide to struggling readers. Porstmouth, NH: Heineman.
Duffy, G. G. (Ed.). (1992). Reading in the middle school. Newark, Delaware: IRA.
Ekwall, E. E. (1993). Locating and correcting reading difficulties (6th ed.). Columbus: Merrill.
Ericson, B. (Ed.). (2001). Teaching reading in high school English classes. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Farris, P., Fuhler, C., & Walther, M. (2004). Teaching reading: A balanced approach for today’s classrooms. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Filipovic, Z. (1994). Zlata's diary: A child's life in Sarajevo. NY: Scholastic.
Gillet, J., & Temple, C. (2000). Understanding reading problems. NY: Longman.
Graves, M. (2001). Teaching reading in the 21st century. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gunning, T. G. (1996). Creating reading instruction for all children (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work. York, Maine: Stenhouse.
Heilman, A. (1998). Phonics in proper perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Heilman, A., Blair, T., & Rupley, W. (1998). Principles and practices of teaching reading (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Irvin, J. (1998). Reading and the middle school student. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Jacobson, J. M. (1998). Content area reading: Integration with the language arts. Albany, NY: Delmar.
Johnson, D. (2001). Vocabulary in the elementary and middle school. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Krogness, M. (1995). Just teach me, Mrs. K. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Langer, J. (1992). Literature instruction: A focus on student response. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Learner, J. (1993). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Leggo, C. (1991). The reader as problem-maker: Responding to a poem with questions.
Manzo, A., & Manzo, U. (1997). Content area literacy: Interactive teaching for active learning. NY: Prentice-Hall.
May, F. (2001). Unraveling the seven myths of reading. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Murphy, J. (1996). The great fire. NY: Scholastic.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading
Panel:Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Newkirk, T. (2002). Misreading masculinity: Boys, literacy, and popular culture. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Pirie, B. (2002). Teenage boys and high school English. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Probst. R. E. (1988). Response and analysis: Teaching literature in junior and senior high school. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Putnam, L. (Ed.). (1996). How to become a better reading teacher. NY: Prentice-Hall.
Rasinski, T., & Padak, N. (2000). Effective reading strategies: Teaching children who find reading difficult (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Richardson, J., & Morgan, R. (2000). Reading to learn in the content areas. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Rinaldi, A. (1993). Wolf by the ears. NY: Scholastic.
Robinson, R., & et.al. (2000). Issues and trends in literacy education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Roe, B., & Smith, S. (2005). Teaching reading in today’s middle school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
EDRD 7718. Fall 2013
12
Ruddell, M. R. (1997). Teaching content reading and writing. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Schoenbach, R., & Greenleaf, C. (1999). Reading for understanding. NY: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, M., & Wilhelm, J. (2002). Reading don’t fix no chevys. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Strickland, K. (2005). What’s after assessment? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Tompkins, G. E. (2003). Literature for the 21st century (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Tonjes, M., Wolpow, R., & Zintz, M. (1999). Integrated content literacy. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Tovani, C. (2004). Do I have to teach reading? Portland, MA.
Vacca, R., & Vacca, J. A. (2000). Content area reading. NY: Longman.
Weaver, C. (2002). Reading process and practice (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wilhelm, J. D. (1997). You gotta BE the book: Teaching engaged and reflective reading with adolescents. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Zirinsky, D., & Rau, S. (2001). A classroom of teenaged readers. NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
EDRD 7718. Fall 2013
13