PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

MEETING OUR COMMUNITIES' LIFELONG EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

Department:	Curriculum and Instruction
Course Number:	CI 509 3 credits
Course Title	Practicum: Reading Endorsement
Meeting times:	Orientation meeting: February Class: Spring term

Course Description

This course is a practicum to be carried out in schools or in an approved tutoring situation that requires reading endorsement candidates to work directly with students. Candidates will demonstrate the various roles of a reading specialist/literacy coach, including: assessing and instructing a struggling reader, developing curriculum for various groups of readers, assessing and making recommendations for individual teachers or for a school’s reading program, developing literacy-focused professional development sessions for instructional assistants, and communicating with parents and community members.

Participants will work with an endorsed reading specialist as a cooperating teacher who serves as a mentor/guide for consultation and problem-solving, and a university instructor who will provide ongoing support for the practicum work. Participants will check in with both of these people at each step of the process. Practicum assignments will be worked out individually and designed to meet the participants’ needs for authorization level.

Participants will be asked to find their own placements if possible. Participants who are currently teaching may complete practicum activities in their own classrooms if requirements for a reading endorsed supervisor in their district can be met. The placement office at PSU will assist with placements for participants who cannot find their own placement sites.

Prerequisites

The practicum may not be taken until a reading endorsement candidate has completed a minimum of 15 credit hours of coursework in literacy and has the approval of the instructor.

Our program will prepare leaders in:

Students needing an accommodation should immediately inform the course instructor. Students are referred to Disability Resource Center (503)725-4150 to document their disability and to obtain support services when appropriate.

The Graduate School of Education’s Guiding Principles call upon faculty to:

• create and sustain educational environments that serve all students and address diverse needs
• encourage and model exemplary programs and practices across the life span
• build our programs on the human and cultural richness of the University’s urban setting
• develop collaborative efforts that support our mission
• challenge assumptions about our practice and accept the risks inherent in following our convictions

· develop programs to promote social justice, especially for groups that have been historically disenfranchised

· strive to understand the relationships among culture, curriculum, practice and the long-term implications for ecological sustainability

• model thoughtful inquiry as a basis for sound decision-making

Standards — International Reading Association (2010 draft standards)

(See grading checklist)

Course Outcomes

Candidates will …

· Demonstrate expertise in assessing and instructing struggling a readers,

· Develop professional development for fellow teachers, instructional assistants, administrators, and/or parents,

· Fulfill a variety of roles typically assigned to reading specialists, such as designing, assessing, and implementing literacy programs, working with parent and community members, evaluating literacy materials, and mentoring teachers.

Recommended Text:

Johns, J. L., & Lenski, S. D. (2010). Improving reading: Interventions, strategies and

resources (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

COURSE EXPECTATIONS AND EVALUATION

1. Proposal of Activities

Develop a proposal of activities that will provide you with experiences at your authorization level that demonstrate the standards listed in the practicum. Be as specific as possible. Email the proposal to the instructor before the first class meeting.

2. Log of Activities

Please keep a log of your activities accounting for 90 hours. At least 45 of the hours must be direct contact with a struggling reader at your authorization level. Other acceptable activities could include PSU class meetings, meetings with course instructor, observing literacy instruction, administering literacy assessments, collaborations with classroom teachers, designing and implementing literacy interventions, communicating with parents, and analyzing school assessment data.

3. Final Report

Develop a report with accompanying artifacts demonstrating the activities that were completed for the practicum. The report should include the following:

1. Name, contact information, and qualifications of your supervisor.
2. Description of the reading difficulties of the student with whom you worked.
3. A literacy instructional plan to meet the needs determined by this description.
4. Specific literacy work with a struggling reader. This needs to include initial assessments (including a miscue analysis), progress monitoring, types of materials used, strategies taught that connect to the student’s needs, summative assessment with data analysis section.
5. Professional development plan to work with classroom assistants or colleagues.
6. A plan to communicate to concerned community such as parents, caregivers, colleagues, administrators about literacy instruction in the school

Policies for Late Assignments and Missing Class

It is your responsibility to arrange for any missing work as a result of absences. Personal contact must be made to arrange for make-up work, make-up exams, or possible assignment adjustments. In emergencies, family members may contact the CI Department or the instructor. The plan for make-up work is totally the responsibility of the student.

Grading

Grading is Pass/No Pass and is based on an assessment of the candidate’s performance outcomes as indicated by the Log of Activities and the Final Report. The extent to which the International Reading Association standards have been met will also be part of the grade. The course instructor will determine the grade along with the input from the candidate and the candidate’s supervisor. Candidates must meet at least 80% of the standards listed on the grading checklist.

	IRA 2010 (draft) Standards	Not Observed	Does not Meet	Meets
1.1.1	Interpret major theories of reading and writing processes and development to understand the needs of all readers in diverse contexts.
1.1.4	Inform other educators about major theories of reading and writing processes, component and development with supporting research evidence, including information about the relationship between the culture and native language of English learners as a support system in their learning to read and write in L2.
1.2.2	Inform educators and others about the historically shared knowledge base in reading and writing and its role in reading.
1.3.1	Model fair-mindedness, empathy and ethical behavior in teaching students and in working with other professionals.
1.3.2	Communicate the importance of fair-mindedness, empathy and ethical behavior in literacy instruction and professional behavior.
2.1.2	Develop and implement the curriculum to meet the specific needs of struggling readers.
2.1.3	Support teachers and other personnel in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the reading and writing curriculum for all students.
2.1.4	Lead teachers and other personnel in developing a literacy curriculum that has vertical and horizontal alignment.
2.2.2	Provide appropriate in-depth instruction for struggling readers and writers.
2.2.3	Support classroom teachers and/or education support personnel to implement instructional approaches for all students.
2.3.2	Support classroom teachers in building and using a quality, accessible, classroom library and materials collection that meets the specific needs and abilities of all learners. ** Reading specialists may provide support through modeling, co-teaching, observing, planning, and/or providing resources.

3.1.3	Recommend appropriate tools, including online tools, for measuring student performance including screening, diagnosis, progress monitoring, and measuring outcomes.
3.2.1	Administer, and interpret diagnostic assessments for struggling readers and English learners.
3.3.1	Analyze and use multiple data sources to analyze individual readers’ performance and to plan instruction and/or intervention.
3.3.2	Analyze and use assessment data to examine the effectiveness of specific intervention practices and students’ responses to instruction.
3.4.1	Analyze and report assessment results to a variety of appropriate audiences for relevant implications, instructional purposes, and/or accountability.
4.2.1	Use curriculum materials and instructional practices that are sensitive to the needs of all students and that represent an array of diversity.
5.2.1	Create a supportive social environment for struggling readers and support teachers and/or other professionals in doing the same for all readers.
6.4.3	Promote effective communication and collaboration among all stakeholders, including parents, teachers, administrators, policy makers, and community members.

Tentative Course Outline

February Orientation meeting to review the syllabus and discuss practicum placements

March Meeting to discuss the practicum proposal

April Status meeting

June Candidates Present highlights of final report

References

Alvermann, D.E., & Rush, L.S. (2004). Literacy intervention programs at the middle and

high school levels. In T.L. Jetton & J.A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 210-227). New York: Guilford.

Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, F., & Johnston, F. (2007) Words their way: Word

study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (4^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Beers, K., Probst, R.E., & Rief, L. (2007). Adolescent literacy: Turning promise into

practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in

middle and high school literacy. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Braunger, J. & Lewis, J. P. (2009). What we know about the learning and development of

reading K-12: Thirteen core understandings about reading and learning to read. In S.Kucer (Ed.) What research really says about teaching and learning to read (pp. 62-83).Urbana, II: National Council of Teachers of English.

Brozo, W.G. (2002). To be a boy, to be a reader. Newark, DE: International Reading

Association.

Buehl, D. (2001). Classroom strategies for interactive learning (2nd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Caldwell, J. & Leslie, L. (2008). Intervention strategies to follow informal reading

inventory assessment: So what do I do now? (2^nd ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Cooper, J.D., & Kiger, N.D. (2010). Literacy assessment: Helping teachers plan

instruction (4^th ed.). Florence, KY: Wadsworth Publishing.

Fisher, D., & Ivey, G. (2006). Evaluating the interventions for struggling adolescent

readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50, 180-189.

Franzak, J.K. (2006). Zoom: A review of the literature on marginalized adolescent

readers, literacy theory, and policy implications. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 209-248.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Vaughn, S. (Eds.). (2008). Response to intervention: A

framework for reading educators. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Gunning, T.G. (2010). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties (4^th ed.).

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Herrera, S.G., Perez, D.R., & Escamilla, K. (2009). Teaching reading to English language learners: Differentiated literacies. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

International Reading Association. (2010). Standards for the assessment of reading and

writing. Newark, DE: Author.

Ivey, G., & Fisher, D. (2006). Creating literacy-rich schools for adolescents. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Keene, E.O., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth: NH: Heinemann.

Lenski, S. D., Ehlers-Zavala, F., Daniel, M. C., & Sun-Irminger, X. (2006). Assessing English-language learners in mainstream classrooms. Reading Teacher, 60(1), 24-34.

Lenters, K. (2006). Resistance, struggle, and the adolescent readers. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50, 138-146.

Leslie, L. & Caldwell, J. (2005). Qualitative reading inventory-4 (4^th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

McKenna, M.C., & Stal, K.A. (2009). Assessment for reading instruction (2^nd ed.). New

York: Guilford.

Moore, D.W., Bean, T.W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J.A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A

position statement. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(1), 97-112.

Pressley, M. (2006) Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3^rd edition). New York: Guilford Press.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Striving Readers Program. Retrieved January 7,

2007, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/strivingreaders/index.html