WINONA STATE UNIVERSITY
PROPOSAL FOR A NEW COURSE
This form is to be used to submit a proposal for a new undergraduate or graduate course. Every item on this form must be completed prior to submission to A2C2. The department proposing a new course must include a Financial and Staffing Data Sheet and a New and Revised Course and Program Approval Form with the department chairperson’s and Dean’s signatures. Refer to Regulation 3-4, Policy for Changing the Curriculum, for complete information on submitting proposals for curricular changes.
Department: EDUCATION Date FEB 12, 2013
EDRD 470 / 570 Data-based Improvement of Reading Programs 3
Course No. Course Title Credits*
This proposal is for a(n): ___X___ Undergraduate Course ___X___ Graduate Course
Is this course for USP? ____Yes** __X__ No Is this course for GEP? ____Yes** __X__ No
List all Major Codes to which this proposal applies as a required course: none
List all Major Codes to which this proposal applies as an elective course: none
List all Minor Codes to which this proposal applies as a required course: (proposed EDRD Reading Minor)
List all Minor Codes to which this proposal applies as an elective course: none
Prerequisites EDRD 450/550 Differentiated Reading Instruction
Grading method ___X___ Grade only ______P/NC only ______Grade and P/NC Option
Frequency of offering __ONCE EACH YEAR______
What semester do you anticipate that will this course be offered for the first time? FALL 2014
Note: The approval process for a new course typically takes at least four to six weeks
* If this course will change the number of credits for any major or minor, the form Proposal for a Revised Program must also be submitted and approved according to the instructions on that form.
**For General Education Program (GEP) or University Studies (USP) course approval, the form Proposal for General Education Courses or Proposal for University Studies Courses must also be completed and submitted according to the instructions on that form.
Please provide all of the following information:
(Note: a syllabus or other documentation may not substitute for this)
A. Course Description
1. Description of the course as it will appear in the WSU catalog, including the credit hours, any prerequisites, and the grading method.
If the course can be repeated, indicate the maximum number of credit hours for which this can be done.
This course focuses on understanding collection, analysis, and interpretation of data as the driving force behind continuous improvement of reading instruction in the classroom and school. Particular attention is paid to continuous progress monitoring, responsive intervention, and collaboration among important stakeholders in the classroom, building, district, and community. Graduate project required. (3 cr.) Prerequisites: EDRD 450/550. Offered as needed.2. Course outline of the major topics, themes, subtopics, etc., to be covered in the course. This outline should be, at a minimum, a two-level outline, i.e., consisting of topics and subtopics. This information will be submitted to MnSCU by the WSU Registrar’s office.
Note: Right column numbering represents alignment with standards for MN Teacher Licensing.
1. Developing school-wide structures for balanced literacy (D3)a. Explicit instruction
b. Teacher modeling
c. Guided practice
d. Partnered practice
e. Independent practice and application
f. Independent engaged reading
g. Interactive response to reading / learning
h. Interactive talk about self-regulation and strategy use
i. Reading and writing strategically across disciplines
2. Data-based Improvement
a. Examination of existing outcome measures
i. For what purposes?
ii. How widely accessible?
iii. Who reviews?
1. Classroom level
2. Building level
3. District level
4. Community & Caretakers
5. Professional learning community models
b. Analysis of existing outcome measures
i. What is being measured
ii. Relationship to expectations & standards
iii. Reliability of assessment measures
iv. Validity of assessment measures
c. Data-based question posing
i. What is not being measured
ii. Gaps in existing data
iii. Concern for areas not measured
iv. Need for new data
2. Response to Instruction Initiative
a. Three Tier Models
b. Intensity and frequency of instruction
c. Continuous Progress Monitoring
3. Types and Purposes of Assessment (C2)
a. Screening
b. Diagnosis
c. Progress Monitoring
4. Administration and Interpretation of Common Assessment Tools (C2)
a. DIBELS
b. AIMSweb
c. Curriculum based Measurement in Reading
d. NWEA MAP testing
e. Comprehensive Reading Inventory (Cooter & Flynt)
f. Bader Reading & Language Inventory
g. State-wide standards tests
5. Continuous progress monitoring measures in Grades K-2 (C3)
a. Oral language development
b. Phonemic awareness
c. Fluent word recognition
d. Pseudo-word reading
e. Oral reading fluency (connected text)
6. Continuous progress monitoring measures in Grades 3-6 (C3)
a. Oral language development
b. Word Identification
c. MAZE reading fluency
d. Passage reading fluenc
e. Reading Comprehension
7. Investigating Data-based Initiatives/Interventions
a. Identifying areas for improvement
i. external benchmarks
ii. within district benchmarks
b. Identifying appropriate Tier of instruction for interventions
c. Tapping professional knowledge
i. external expertise
a. research results from existing interventions
b. recommendations from external experts / authors
ii. within district expertise
8. Developing Needed Data-based Initiatives/Interventions (C5)
a. Solicitation of involvement from major stakeholders
b. Replication of research-based programs
c. Selection of research-based programs aligned with site-based contexts
d. Setting a clear timeline for implementation
e. Creating well-organized plans for data collection & assessment
9. Staff Development for Improved Program Results
a. Identification of leader
b. Identification of budget, critical materials and human resources (C6)
c. Identification of timeline for implementation
d. Launching with involved faculty
i. Clear inclusion in identifying a need for improvement
ii. Challenge to greater assessment of what is working
iii. Proposed initiative based on identified need.
iv. Discussion of competing intervention options
v. Rationale for selection of chosen intervention
vi. Intents, procedures, and supports for intervention
vii. Fidelity and boundaries of leeway during initial implementation
viii.Establishing central role of data-collection
ix. Assessment collection and analysis plan with timelines
e. Regular support and monitoring of faculty implementation
i. Explanation
ii. Modeling
ii. Peer-to-peer observation
iii. Implementation and continuous progress support meetings
iv. Readjustment and recalibration of support as needed
f. Communicating outcomes across levels / major stakeholders (C7)
i. Classroom: students
ii. Building: faculty, staff, volunteers
iii. District: administration, central office staff, colleagues
iv. Community: parents, caregivers, PTO, news outlets
g. Beginning a new cycle of data-based improvement
3.a Instructional delivery methods utilized: (Please check all that apply).
Auditorium/Classroom: / ITV / Online / Web Enhanced / Web SupplementedLaboratory: / Service Learning / Travel Study / Internship/Practicum
Other: (Please indicate)
3.b. MnSCU Course media codes: (Please check all that apply).
None: / 3. Internet / 6. Independent Study / 9. Web Enhanced1. Satellite / 4. ITV Sending / 7. Taped / 10. Web Supplemented
2. CD Rom / 5. Broadcast TV / 8. ITV Receiving
4. Course requirements (papers, lab work, projects, etc.) and means of evaluation.
Evaluation is based on performance projects, student presentations, written assignments, quizzes, tests, and portfolio artifacts.5. Course materials (textbook(s), articles, etc.).
Armstrong, T. (May 2009). Literacy, multiple intelligences and the brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.August, D. & Shannahan, T. (Eds.) (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
August, D. & Shannahan, T. (Eds.) (2008). Developing reading and writing in second-langauge learners: Lessons from the report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. NY: Routledge.
Bender, W. (2002) Differentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities: Best teaching practices for general and special Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bray Donnelly, W., Roe, C. J. (2010). Using sentence frames to develop academic vocabulary for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 64(2), 131-136.
Brown, M. R. (2007). Educating All Students: Creating culturally responsive teachers, classrooms, and schools. Intervention in School & Clinic, 43(1), 57-61.
Catts, H. W. & Kamhi, A. G. (Eds.). (2005). The connections between language and reading disabilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chapman, C. & Gregory, G. (2002). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn't fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Ciechanowski, K. M. (2009). “A squirrel came and pushed Earth”: Popular culture and scientific ways of thinking for ELLs. The Reading Teacher, 62(7), 558-568.
De Courcy, M. (2007). Disrupting preconceptions: Challenges to preservice teachers’ beliefs about ESL children. Journal of Multilingual and multicultural Development, 28(3), 188-205.
Diller, D. (2005). Practice with Purpose: Literacy Work Stations for Grades 3-6. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Echevarria, J., Vogtn, M., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model. Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Flynt, E.S. & Brozo, W.G. (2008). Developing academic language: Got words? The Reading Teacher, 61(6), 500-502.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gipe, J.P. (2010). Multiple Paths to Literacy: Assessment and differentiated instruction for diverse learners, K-12. Boston: Pearson Publishing.
Gregory, G. H. (2004). Differentiated literacy strategies for students in grades K-6. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Publishing.
Linan-Thompson, S., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based methods of reading Instruction for English language learners, grades K-4. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Manyak, P. C. (2007). A framework for robust literacy instruction for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 197-199.
Mohr, K.A.J., & Mohr, E.S. (2007). Extending English-language learners’ classroom interactions using the Response Protocol. The Reading Teacher, 60, 440-450.
Montelongo, J. A., Hernandez, A. C., Herter, R. J., Cuello, J. (2011). Using cognates to scaffold context clue strategies for Latino ELs. The Reading Teacher, 64(6), 429-434.
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 instruction. Reports of the subgroup. (NIH Publicaiton No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Padak, N., Rasinski, T. V. (2010). Welcoming schools: Small changes that can make a big difference. The Reading Teacher, 64(4), 294-297.
Paterson, K. (2005) Differentiated learning: Language and literacy projects that address diverse backgrounds and cultures. Markham, ON: Pembroke Publishers.
Palmer, B. C., El-Ashry, F., Leclere, J. T., Chang, S. (2007). Learning from Abdallah: A case study of an Arabic-speaking child in a U.S. school. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 8-17.
Schafer Willner, L., Rivera, C., Asosta, B. D. (2009). Ensuring accommodations used in content assessments are responsive to English-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 62(8), 669-698.
Tomlinson, C. & Et. Al. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tyner, B. (2004) Small-group reading Instruction: A differentiated teaching model for beginning and struggling readers. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Electronic Resources
Center for Applied Linguistics website http://www.cal.org/
Starlight Consortium for EL Achievement http://en.elresearch.org/
Differentiated Classrooms can Raise the Bar http://www.weac.org/kids/1998-99/march99/differ.htm
Differentiated Instruction http://www.cast.org/ncac/DifferentiatedInstruction2876.cfm
Preparing for Differentiated Instruction http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.8835d3e3fbb1b0cddeb3fdb62108a0c/
Beyond Differentiation http://www.ascd.org/professional-development/webinars/robyn-jackson-webinar.aspx
Strength-Based Strategies for Students with Special Needs
http://www.ascd.org/professional-development/webinars/thomas-armstrong-webinar.aspx
6. List the student learning outcomes for this course and how each outcome will be assessed.
/Assessed through:
B2) understand and apply teaching methods related to the developmental stages of language;
/Portfolio artifacts
D5) development of a literacy framework to coherently organize reading programs and effectively implement lessons, including a variety of grouping strategies, guided practice, and independent work; and
/ Portfolio artifactsD6) the ability to design purposeful lessons and tasks based on the qualities, structures, and difficulty of texts and the reading needs of individuals, including the selection and use of supplementary materials to support the reading development of struggling and gifted readers.
/ Differentiated unitE2) formal and informal tools to
(E2a) plan, evaluate, and differentiate instruction to meet the needs of students from various cognitive, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds; and / Differentiated unit
E2b) design and implement appropriate classroom interventions for struggling readers and enrichment programs for gifted readers; /
Collaborative Intervention plan
E3) the ability to work with reading specialists, gifted and talented specialists, and other staff on advanced intervention and enrichment programs;
/ Differentiated unitE5) the ability to administer selected assessments and analyze and use data to plan instruction through a structured clinical experience linked to university reading course work; and
/ Tutoring projectE6) the ability to understand the appropriate uses of each kind of assessment and the concepts of validity and reliability.
/ TestF2) the ability to support students and colleagues in the selection or design of materials that match reading levels, interests, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds;
/Collaborative Intervention plan
F7) the use of a variety of strategies to motivate students to read at home; encourage and provide support for parents or guardians to read to their children, in English or in the primary languages of English language learners; and to use additional strategies to promote literacy in the home.
/ Portfolio artifactsG4) understand how to provide instructions for paraprofessionals and volunteers working in the classroom to ensure that these individuals provide effective supplementary reading instruction;
/ Differentiated unitG6) collaborate with other professionals on literacy learning initiatives.
/Collaborative Intervention plan
B. Rationale
Provide a rationale for the new course. The rationale should include the following items.
1. A statement of the major focus of the course.
2. A statement of how this course will contribute to the departmental curriculum.
3. A statement of why this course is to be offered at this level (i.e. 100-, 200-, 300-, 400-, or 500-level)
4. Identification of any courses which may be dropped, if any, if this course is implemented.
B1) The major focus of the course is upon differentiation of instruction within classrooms and collaboration with other professionals for the design of data-based interventions for struggling readers, advanced readers and English language learners.B2) The course has been designed to provide increased depth of preparation required to address several recent changes in reading-related standards for the preparation of K-6 Elementary Teachers.
B3) The course is being offered at a 400 / 500 level because it addresses licensing standards from the MN K-6 Elementary Teaching License (undergraduate level) and also lays the foundation for several licensing standards for the MN Teacher of Reading license (graduate level).
B4) No courses will be dropped due to the implementation of this course.
C. Impact of This Course on Other Departments, Programs, Majors, and Minors