ERDG 623 Practicum: Differentiated Instruction and Coaching, 5-12
Program Requirements and Prerequisites: (1) If you are in the 5-12 program, all courses are prerequisites, except ERDG 677, which may be taken before or after ERDG 623. (2) If you are in the B-12 program and taking ERDG 623 for 6 credits, the same applies; however, ERDG 620 for 3 credits must be taken after taking ERDG 623. (3) If you are in the B-12 program and are taking ERDG 623 for 3 credits, all courses in your program are required before taking ERDG 623. This is a 6 credit course for students enrolled in 5-12. For students enrolled in B-12 program, credits are 3-6 hours.Prerequisite: Rdg 600 or 601.
Practicum: 25 Hours
Course Description: Involves an intense small group inquiry with youth. Graduate students teach a small group, document and assess students’ literacy learning, and analyze instructional interactions drawing on theories of literacy development. Emphasis includes creating contexts for inquiry, text selection, responsive reading and writing instruction, and engaging with families. Graduate students develop communities of professional practice as they engage as responsive literacy coaches, analyzing teaching interactions, and offering reflections and possibilities for future instruction.
Attributes- Literacy as Social Practice**
- Equity
- Generate Productive Learning Communities**
- Engagement**
- Reciprocal Relationships Across Modes of Communication**
- Strategic Teaching to Promote Self-Extending Learning**
- Assessment of Literacies and Their Development**
- Research Based Professional Learning**
- Respectful Representation of Students, Families and Communities**
- Critical Literacies*
- Disciplinary Literacy/Knowledge Building**
- Data Based Decision Making**
- Technologies and Digital Media*
- Materials and Resources**
- Prevention and Intervention**
- Standards**
Core Content / Possible Assignments / Possible Readings
Literacy Practices and Academic Identities
Q: How do teachers engage youth in differentiated literacy practices that positively influence individuals’ academic identities?
Q: How does differentiated organization of literacy events influence academic literacy development?
Reading/Writing to Learn
Key Ideas and Details: Citing evidence and details and central ideas and summarizing (CCSS IR 1 and 2)
Q: How do teachers help readers determine and summarize the key ideas and meanings in an author’s argument?
Q: How do instructional routines support learners, including ELL learners?
Q: How do teachers assess student understanding of the relationship between evidence, details, and central ideas?
Distributed Cognition/Knowledge Building
Q: How do learning communities build knowledge using text, talk, and carefully planned tasks?
Q: How does distributed cognition aid in building learning/discourse communities?
Q: How can student understanding of the relationship between evidence, details, and central ideas be assessed across texts, talk, and writing?
Distributed Cognition/Knowledge Building in Literacy Coaching
Q: How do Professional Learning Communities build knowledge about effective literacy practices in the community?
Q: How is community knowledge informed by research?
Q: How does distributed cognition aid in buildinglearning/discourse communities about teaching?
Q: How is student understanding of academic reading and writing enhanced by the work of literacy coaching PLCs?
Q: How do families inform the work of teachers and PLCs?
Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity (CCSS IR 10)
Q: What is a complex text?
Q: How do we teach reading with possibly frustrating complex texts?
Q: How do instructional routines support learners, including ELL learners?
Q: How do teachers assess student understanding of the relationship between evidence, details, and central ideas across texts, talk, and writing when texts may be too difficult to read, with ease, independently?
Teaching Argumentative/Explanatory Essays
Craft and Structure: word choice, text organization, and point of view and style (CCSS IR 4, 5, 6)
Q: How do teachers help students develop understanding of themselves as authors whose specific word choices, structure, point of view, & style enhance arguments?
Q: How can teachers use rhetorical knowledge to teach students to build an argument?
Q: How do instructional routines support learners, including ELL learners?
Q: How do teachers assess student understanding of rhetorical strategies they use as authors to structure arguments and explanatory writing?
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas: modal analysis, analysis of argument, and analysis of authentic documents (CCSS IR 7, 8, 9)
Q: How do teachers help students decipher what makes a strong argument and decipher, also, how arguments made in different modalities may have a different impact on an audience.
Q: How to teachers teach strong arguments?
Q: How can teachers assess students’ progression toward making a strong argument in order to help students move writing forward?
Text Types and Purposes: Writing argument and Writing explanatory texts (CCSS IW 1 and 2)
Q: How do teachers teach writers to use evidence to support claims, including explanation of counterclaims, in their written arguments?
Q: How can teachers help students maintain a focus on claims, counterclaims, and evidence in a writing workshop?
Q: How can teachers assess student’s progression in writing an argument or explanatory essay to help students move writing forward?
Q: How can teachers assess final products with feedback focusing on what works as well as helpful suggestions to motivate future writing? / Differentiated Areas of Focus
1. Ongoing Planning, Teaching, and Assessing Inquiry Units
a. Lesson Plans
b. Text Selection
c. Teaching/interacting with students
d. Revision and ongoing planning
with PLC
e. Reflection/Assessment
2. Longitudinal audio and video assignments(If taking for 3 credits, two audio only)
a. What is the evidence of student
learning in two audio and 1video analysis from the beginning, middle andend of the semester?
b. What is the nature of instructional interactions over time? How did they influence students’ engagement with texts?
3. Final Culminating Report on Student Growth and Teacher Involvement in Growth
a. What is the evidence of student learning at the beginning, middle and end of the semester?
b. Do pre-post tests demonstrate similar results? Explain.
c. How did interaction with students influence that which was learned? What is the evidence of this influence? What does it mean, in terms of students’ extended learning and your continued teaching?
d. How did family interaction influence teaching and learning over time?
4. Individual Report to Families regardingbeginning, mid-semester, and end-of-semester student learning
Family Engagement Assignments
1.Introductory Letter to Families
2.Weekly engagements with family (phone, email, conference, note home, etc.) documented in a Family Log.
3.Final Reflection of Family Engagements: What have you learned over time? How has this knowledge informed your teaching?
Coaching
- Coaching log
- Small group instruction section: interactions and possibilities
- Notes from teaching sessions
- How your feedback was used
- Resources shared among small group
- Video tape lesson notes
- Resources shared by class
- Final Reflection on Coaching (6-credit only)
Student Self Assessment of Program Attributes
Drawing on all classes taken in your Masters program, discuss your growth regarding all attributes in the Master’s program. Make a separate heading for each attribute and discuss where you are now, in relation to those attributes, how courses and particular assignments and activities helped you to get to this point, and how you envision these attributes serving you in your current and future teaching.5 / Academic Identity
White, J. W. & Lowenthal, P. R. (2011). Minority college students and tacit “codes of power”: Developing academic discourses and identities. The Review of Higher Education, 34 (2), 283-318.
Reading/Writing to Learn
Graham, S. & Herbert, M. (2011). Writing to read: a meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81 (4), 710-755.
Wineburg, S. & Martin, D. (2004). Reading and rewriting history. Educational Leadership, September, 42-45.
Learned, J. E. Stockdill, D. & Moje, E. B. (2011). Integrating reading strategies and knowledge building in adolescent literacy instruction. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction, pp. 159-185. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Learning Theory Informing Knowledge Building
Wells, G. (2002). The role of dialogue in Activity Theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9 (1), 43-66.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Chapter 3: The zone of proximal development as the basic category of expansive research: two classic examples of developmental psychology. Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research Retrieved from
Gallimore, R. & Tharp, R. (). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse.
Teaching Argumentative and Explanatory Writing
Raphael, T. E. & Englert, C. S. (1990). Writing and reading: Partners in constructing meaning. The Reading Teacher, February, 388-400.
Dlugokienski, A. & Sampson, V. (2008). Learning to write and writing to learn in science: Refutational texts and analytical rubrics. Science Scope, 14-19.
Anderson, C. (2000). How’s it going?: A practical guide to conferring with student writers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Kelly, G. J. & C. Bazerman (2007). How students argue scientific claims: Rhetorical-semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24 (1), 28-55.
PLC
Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (2012, 3rd Edition). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia experience in transformation (Part II: Teaching and learning through relationships and Part III: Documentation as an integrated process of observing, reflecting, and communicating).
ABC-CLIO: Santa Barbara, CA.
Text Selection
Wineburg, S. & Martin, D. (2009). Tampering with history: Adapting primary sources for struggling readers. Social Education, 73 (5), 212-216.
A Beginner’s Guide to Text Complexity.