EEU 301: Teaching Literacy in Grades 2-4

KUTZTOWN UNIVERSITY

KUTZTOWN, PA

DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION: Pre-K - grade 4 Program

EEU 301: Teaching Literacy in Grades 2-4

I. Course Description:

A.This course examines literacy development in grades 2-4 with particular attention to how students create meaning as they read. Teacher candidates learn strategies to develop word study, fluency, meaning vocabulary, and comprehension. The course also prepares candidates to use and evaluate various reading programs, instructional approaches, and materials. This course situates the teaching of reading within theories of learning as they relate to the reading process. This course is part of the professional semester block. 3 S.H. ; 3 C.H.

Prerequisite: EEU 300

II. Course Rationale:

A primary goal of reading instruction in grades 2-4 is to teach students how to flexibly use their increasing repertoire of skills in phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension to read different genres for varied purposes. Children’s growth in reading comprehension is fundamental in grades 2-4. Therefore, it is important for teacher candidates to enhance their understanding of the reading process and how theories and instructional strategies related to teaching reading comprehension can be successfully used with students in the classroom.

III. Objectives/ Student Learning Outcomes

A. Relationship to Standards: Candidates will be able to:

Course Objectives/ Student Learning Outcomes /

PDE

(Early Childhood)

/ NCATE / NAYCE /

INTASC

ISTE

(2008)
A. Describe literacy development and acquisition in terms of learning theory and reading research. / 1a. / #1, 2 / 3.D
B. Explain how components of reading (phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and language skills) contribute to and pose challenges to students’ reading growth in grades 2-4. / 2c. / #1, 3
C. Identify and utilize word-level instructional strategies related to grades 2-4. / 2c. / 4.c / #1, 4
D. Explain why fluency is important for comprehension and demonstrate strategies for fluency building. / 2c. / 4.c / #1, 4 / 2.A
E. Identify the ways in which vocabulary (word meanings) impacts comprehension and how vocabulary is developed in oral and written language in grades 2-4. / 2c. / 4.c / #1, 4
F. Demonstrate knowledge of explicit instruction of comprehension strategies. / 2c / 4.c / #1, 4, 7
G. Demonstrate instructional strategies that facilitate comprehensionof written materials. / 2d. / 4.c / #1, 4, 7
H. Implement strategies for infusing literacy across content areas in a balanced literacy framework. / 2c. / #1, 4
I. Demonstrate an ability to use, review and evaluate literacy programs for purpose, quality, effectiveness and research base and show knowledge of commonly available programs. / 2c. / #1, 7, 9 / 3.D
J. Demonstrate effective use of independent reading and ways to build a community of readers. / 4.a/4.c / #3, 5, 10 / 4.B

B. Relationship to Conceptual Framework: This course is congruent with the Conceptual Framework of the College of Education Teacher as Lifelong Learner, and relates specifically to:

Knowledge: / Conceptual Framework elements
Communication / Communication is evidenced through written assignments and through teacher candidates’ oral presentations and discussions.
Professional Methodology / Professional Methodology is modeled through demonstrations, DVDs, websites, and with the use of guided exploration of instructional materials.
Skills:
Critical Thinking / Criticalthinking is applied in the written assignments, including the process of planning reading lessons, and in class discussions.
Integration of Discipline / Integration ofDiscipline is included through the inclusion of infusing literacy across content areas.
Dispositions:
Cultural Awareness / Cultural awareness is included as part of the course becausestrategiesare embedded in class discussions that provided for assisting students who are English learners. Also the use of children’s literature depicting various cultures is utilized.
Integration of technology / Integration of Technology is included throughout the course through suggested websites. Also smart classrooms and white boards are used as instructional tools.
Reflection / Reflection is used throughout the course by guiding the candidates as they reflect on the effectiveness of their lesson planning after its implementation.

IV. Assessment

A. Core Assessment :

Faculty will add when course is taught

B. Other Assessments based on a subset of the following:

1.Objective and essay tests and quizzes

2.Demonstration lessons

3.Class participation

4.Class presentations of reading comprehension activities

5.Creation of reading text sets

6.Review of journal articles

7.Modeling of a think-aloud for a comprehension strategy

8.Reading comprehension lesson taught in the field

VI. Course Outline:

A. Content outline

1. Theories related to literacy development

a. Review of theories underlying reading process

i. Behaviorism

ii. Constructivism

iii. Sociolinguistics

iv. Psycholinguistics

v. Critical literacy

vi. Reader Response

b. Belief systems about the teaching of reading

i. Top down

ii. Bottom up

iii. Interactive

2. Research based literacy instruction

a. National Reading Panel (NRP) report

i. Phonological awareness

ii. Phonics

iii. Fluency

iv. Vocabulary

v. Comprehension

b. Other research validated studies

i. Qualitative studies

ii. Survey research

3. Phonics instruction (grades 2-4)

a. Multi-syllabic word patterns

b. Structural analysis

4. Fluency development

a. Role of fluency in reading comprehension

b. Strategies for developing fluency

i. Choral reading

ii. Partner reading

iii. Readers Theater

5. Vocabulary development and instruction

a. Importance for reading comprehension

b. Incidental word learning

c. Context clues

d. Explicit instruction

i.Characteristics of effective instruction

ii. Choosing words to study

iii. Word learning strategies

6. Comprehension instruction

a. Defining comprehension

i. Reader Factors

ii. Text Factors

iii. Context (Situational) Factors

b. Explicit instruction of comprehension strategies (grades 2-4)

i. Making connections

ii. Predicting

iii. Questioning

iv. Determining importance/Summarizing

v. Inferring

c. Teaching comprehension skills (grades 2-4)

i. Determining author’s purpose

ii. Distinguishing fact from opinion

iii. Identifying theme

iv. Identifying literary devices in stories (rhyme, rhythm, and personification)

d. Instructional procedures to facilitate comprehension across content areas

i. Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA)

ii. Question Answer Relationships (QAR)

iii. Reciprocal teaching

e. Instructional materials to facilitate comprehension across content areas

i. Story maps

ii. Anticipation guides

iii. Expository text organizers

iv. Technology--Webquests, websites,

7. Using, reviewing and evaluating literacy programs

a. Basal readers

i. Reviewing history and purpose

ii. Understanding components

iii. Making effective, efficient use of multiple resources

iv. Evaluating research base

b. Guided reading, leveled readers and literacy centers

i. Recognizing differences between guided reading for emergent readers and developing/fluent readers

ii. Interpreting student reading behaviors, using knowledge of the cueing systems

iii. Differentiating instruction based on students’ performance

iv. Identifying characteristics of effective learning centers

v. Evaluating research base

c. Reading workshop and book collections

i. Explaining purpose and procedures

ii. Conducting successful conferences

iii. Developing wide, diverse selection of books

iv. Evaluating research base

d. Supplemental and/or literature-based programs

i. Determining purpose and audience

ii. Understanding components

iii. Evaluating effectiveness and research base

8. Building a community of readers

a. Guidelines

i. Read aloud, on daily basis, developmentally appropriate books

ii. Provide interesting materials and opportunities for sharing.

iii. Provide differentiated, scaffolded instruction.

iv. Support families of diverse cultural, linguistic and socioeconomic backgrounds

b. Materials

i. Wide selection at independent reading levels

ii. Varied technological materials (computer assisted, websites, etc.)

VI. Instructional Resources

Armbruster, B & Osborn, J. (2003). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read, 2nd ed. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy at ED Pubs.

(government publication distributed in course)

Afflerbach, P.; Pearson, P.D.; Paris, Scott, G. Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. Reading Teacher, 61, (5), 364-373.

Brown, K. J. (2003). What do I say when they get stuck on a word? Aligning teachers’ prompts with students’ development. Reading Teacher, 56 (8), 720-734.

Bear, D.R., Invernizi, M. Templeton, S. & Johnston. (2008). Words their way, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Beck, I. L. & McKeown, M.G., Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press.

Blair, T.R.; Rupley, W.H. & Dee, W. (2007). The effective teacher of reading: Considering the “what” and “how” of instruction. Reading Teacher, 60, (5), 432-438.

Carnine, D., Silbert, J., Karmeenui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2004). Direct instruction reading, 4th ed..Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Coiro, J. Exploring literacy on the Internet: Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our comprehension of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56, 458-464.

Cunningham, P.M. (2009). Phonics they use: Words for reading and writing. Boston: Pearson.

Cunningham, P.M. & Allington, R.L. (2007). Classrooms that work: They can all read and write (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

DeFord, D.E. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation to reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 366-367.

Farstrup, A. E. & Samuels, S. J. (2009). What research has to say about reading instruction, 3rd ed. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Flood, J. & Anders, P.,eds. (2005). Literacy development of students in urban schools: Research and policy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Fountas, I. C. & Pinnell, G.S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fountas, I.C. & Pinnell, G.S. (2006). Teaching for comprehending and fluency. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Goodman, K.S. (2006). The truth about DIBELS: What it is, what it does. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Keene, E. O. & Zimmerman, S. (2007). Mosaic of thought: The power of comprehension strategy instruction, 2nd ed.

Kragler, S; Walker, C.A. & Martin, L.E. (2005). Strategy instruction in primary content textbooks. Reading Teacher, 59, (3), 254-261.

Klinger, J. K. & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using collaborative strategic reading. Teaching Exceptional Children. 30 (6), 32-37.

Massey, D. D. (2007). “The Discovery Channel said so” and other barriers to comprehension. Reading Teacher, 60, (7), 656-666.

McDaniel, C. (2004). Critical literacy: A questioning stance and the possibility for change. Reading Teacher, 57, (5), 472-481.

McIntyre, E. (2007). Story discussion in the primary grades: Balancing authenticity and explicit teaching. Reading Teacher, 60 (7), 610-620.

McLaughlin, M. (2003). Guided comprehension in the primary grades. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Morrow, L.M. (2002). The literacy center: Contexts for reading and writing, 2nd ed. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. (government publication)

Oczkus, L. (2003). Reciprocal teaching at work. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Oczkus, L. (2004). Super 6 comprehension strategies: 35 lessons and more for reading success. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Palmer, R. G. & Stewart, R. A. (2005). Models for using nonfiction in the primary grades. Reading Teacher, 58, (5), 426-434.

Pinnell, G.S. (2006). Every child a reader: What one teacher can do. Reading Teacher, 60, (1), 78-83.

Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching, 2nd ed.

New York: Guilford Press.

Rosenblatt, L. (2004). The literary transaction: Evocation and response. Theory into Practice, 21, 268-277.

Routman, R. (2003). Reading essentials. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Schwartz, Robert M. (2005). Decisions, decisions: Responding to primary students during guided reading. Reading Teacher, 58, (5), 436-443.

Shanahan, T. (2003). Research-based reading instruction: Myths about the national reading panel report. Reading Teacher, 56, (7). 646-656.

Sipe, L. R. (2002). Talking back and taking over: Young children’s expressive engagement during storybook read-alouds. Reading Teacher, 55 (5), 476-493.

Teacher as Lifelong Learner. (2004). Conceptual framework for all professional education programs at Kutztown University.

Teale, W.H. & Gambrell, L.B. (2007). Raising urban students’ literacy achievement by engaging in authentic, challenging work. Reading Teacher, 60, (8), 728-739.

Tompkins, G.E. (2006). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall

Wilhelm, J.D. (2001). Improving comprehension with think-aloud strategies. New York: Scholastic.

KUTZTOWN UNIVERSITY

KUTZTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

CORE ASSIGNMENT

DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

EEU 301: Teaching Literacy Foundations in Grades 2-4

NAEYC Standards

*Substandard 4c: Understanding Content Knowledge in Early Childhood Education Candidates understand the importance of language and literacy in young children’s learning. They know the essential concepts, inquiry tools, and structure of literacy and can identify resources to deepen their understanding…Candidates can help children to use a range of strategies to derive meaning from stories.

ELU 301 Objective

• Demonstrate instructional strategies that facilitate comprehensionof written materials.

Core Assignment: Teacher candidates (on campus) will plan one Directed Reading Thinking Activity reading comprehension lesson.

Target / Acceptable / Unacceptable
Evidence shows that:
Before Reading: Candidate
A. Skillfully activates and develops schema
B. Chooses appropriate vocabulary, if needed
C. States an overall, broad purpose question related to the problem
During Reading: Candidate:
A. Stop A. Stops at appropriate points
B. Consistently checks student predictions by referring to previous predictions
C. Skillfully guides comprehension of story, linking questions to key events leading to good story “flow”
D. Consistently elicits new predictions
E. Consistently asks students to support their predictions with sufficient evidence, e.g., asks, “Why?” most/all of the time
After Reading: Candidate:

Sufficiently guides student discussion of the purposes set for reading
Asks key question related to basic comprehension, consistently asking for clarification.
Asks one engaging aesthetic question
Asks appropriate efferent questions, which elicit higher level thinking

/ Evidence shows that:
Before Reading: Candidate
A. Appropriately activates and develops schema
B. Chooses vocabulary, if needed, that may or may not be appropriate
C. States a purpose question related to the problem
During Reading: Candidate:

Stops at some appropriate points and sticky notes at appropriate pages
Checks student predictions that may or may not refer to previous predictions
Guides comprehension of story, linking some questions to key events leading to satisfactory story “flow”
Elicits new predictions
Asks students to support their predictions with sufficient evidence; e.g., asks, “Why?” some of the time

After Reading: Candidate:
A. Guides student discussion of the purposes set for reading
B. Asks question related to basic comprehension, but inconsistently asks for clarification.
C. Asks one aesthetic question
D. Asks two efferent questions, but one or both do not elicit higher level thinking / Evidence shows that:
Before Reading: Candidate
A. Minimally activates and develops schema
B. Chooses vocabulary, if needed, that is not be appropriate; omits this component in project
C. Omits stating a purpose question; or purpose is narrow and/or not related to the problem
During Reading: Candidate:
A. Stops at inappropriate points; or points do not match story map
B. Inconsistently checks student predictions that do not refer to previous predictions
C. Minimally guides comprehension of story; story “flow” is weak and does not reflect the key events
D. Inconsistently elicits new predictions
E. Inconsistently asks students to support their predictions with sufficient evidence; e.g., forgets to ask, “Why?”
After Reading: Candidate does not:
A. Guide student discussion of the purposes set for reading
B. Ask key question related to basic comprehension.
C. Asks one aesthetic question
D. Ask two efferent questions