Neuromyth 5

Neuromyth 5

Myths about multilingualism

by Susanne Mueller, philosophy student, King's College, London.

Myth 1: Two languages compete for resources.
Myth 2: Knowledge, acquired in one language, is not accessible in the other language.
Myth 3: The first language must be spoken well, before the second language is learnt.

The 'Busy' Trap - NYTimes.com

The 'Busy' Trap - NYTimes.com

Letters of Note: We have listened long enough to the pessimists

Letters of Note: We have listened long enough to the pessimists

CALL: SCIRA's Reading Matters

Call for Manuscripts

SCIRA’s Reading Matters

Classroom teachers, teacher educators, administrators, and researchers are invited to submit manuscripts to SCIRA’s professional journal, Reading Matters. Authors are requested to submit unpublished work not under consideration by any other publication.

Types of Submissions:

            Reading Matters welcomes practical, theoretical, and research articles, generally no more than 15 pages, related to all areas of literacy.  Articles should be clearly written, purposeful, and discuss the topic in some depth where treatment of the topic is interesting, insightful, and based on the writers’ experience.  Brief commentary pieces on teaching literacy are welcomed, as well as short teaching tips, teacher or student poetry, vignettes of classroom experiences, and student artwork (with parental permission).

Manuscript Form:

            Manuscripts should follow APA 6 style guidelines.  Please be sure to include an abstract. As manuscripts are subject to blind review, content should not reveal author identities or affiliations.  Full references for all citations should be included, following APA guidelines.

Submitting a Manuscript:

            Manuscripts should be typed in Microsoft Word and sent as an email attachment to sarah.hunt-barron@converse.edu and jmalloy@andersonuniversity.edu.  When naming your file, please use simple, clear file names.  Include a cover page giving the author(s)’ names, affiliation, complete mailing address, email address, and home and work telephone numbers.  Manuscripts will be peer reviewed and edited for style, content, and space limitations by the editor.

The Review Process:

            Manuscripts undergo a blind-review process, with at least two reviewers from the Editorial Review Board.  Acceptance decisions are based on interest and relevance to SCIRA membership, usefulness, clarity, timeliness, and cohesiveness.  The overall balance of the journal’s content also influences editors’ selections.

Manuscript Deadline: August 31, 2012

Who Stole Helen Keller? | Common Dreams

Who Stole Helen Keller? | Common Dreams

Daily Kos: Poverty and Privilege: The Consequences of Arrogance over Humility

Daily Kos: Poverty and Privilege: The Consequences of Arrogance over Humility

‘Ignorance’ Book Review - Scientists Don’t Care for Facts - NYTimes.com

‘Ignorance’ Book Review - Scientists Don’t Care for Facts - NYTimes.com

Test-Based Teacher Evaluation Earns F, Again | Education | AlterNet

Test-Based Teacher Evaluation Earns F, Again | Education | AlterNet

Daily Kos: Test-based Teacher Evaluation Earns an F, Again*

Daily Kos: Test-based Teacher Evaluation Earns an F, Again*

DRAFT (2) Op-Ed

A growing national and state concern for education reform is teacher quality, and teacher evaluation and pay scales. That trend can be traced to and remains reflected in the Los Angeles Times repeated publication of value-added methods (VAM) of ranking teacher quality.

Catherine S. Durso’s National Education Policy Center review of VAM results calculated and reported by the Los Angeles Times finds that once again linking teacher quality to student test scores fails to achieve what proponents suggest. The body of evidence shows that test-based teacher evaluation is both unstable and counter-productive to needed education reform, including how we evaluate, pay, and retain teachers, explains Durso:

“Many researchers have raised concerns regarding the use of value-added models (VAM) for teacher evaluation. Briefly, VAM do not provide guidance for improvement, are comparative rather than absolute measures, assess a small part of teacher’s responsibilities, force different kinds of teaching into one scale, do not produce consistent results for given teachers over time, and may not identify effects actually caused by the teachers.”

These conclusions about VAM in California and throughout the country are powerful but ignored evidence in South Carolina, now poised to link 40% of teacher evaluations to student test scores, policy as misguided as our state’s commitments to experimenting with students through expanding charter schools and hiring Teach for America (TFA) recruits.

And just as no solid evidence supports increasing faith in charter schools and TFA, test-based teacher evaluation should have no place in education and teacher quality reform in SC. Let’s consider the many reasons that addressing teacher quality through test scores is a waste of precious time and resources for our state at the expense of our students and teachers:

• As noted above, the relatively new but growing body of evidence on the validity and reliability of test-based teacher evaluations shows that data are unstable; in other words, as the population of students change or the school setting changes, the rankings of the teachers change. Test-based teacher evaluation can be of value only if it can offer a stable message that a teacher is strong or weak. If that label isn’t predictive, it has no positive contribution to policy and personnel decisions.

• In order to implement test-based teacher evaluation that shows student growth, SC will have to create and implement two tests per course for every teacher in the state and in every content area taught. Since there is no compelling evidence test-based teacher evaluation data are stable or valid, this investment in time and money is a catastrophic failure by our state leaders. How will we identify growth in music, P.E., and art, and how can we justify the costs associated with generating all of these tests?

• Test-based teacher evaluations create a competitive environment in which teachers must choose between the welfare of their students and their own professional security as that becomes threatened by the outcomes of other teachers and their students. In effect, each teacher must seek to use her/his students against the outcomes of other teachers’ students for their own personal gain. Education is best served by a collaborative, not competitive, environment.

• Test-based evaluations of teachers place far too much weight on flawed assumptions. First, high-stakes testing distorts how well any tests reflect student learning. Next, high-stakes testing decreases the quality of both teaching and learning since it encourages teaching to the test. Further, linking teacher evaluations to student outcomes confuses “high-quality teaching” with student test scores, although we have no way to insure that teacher quality is always positively correlated with those scores. And finally, test-based evaluations of teachers imply that student outcomes are or can be linked only to the teacher’s room that any student sits in when the test is administered. Here is the great failure of test-based evaluations of teachers: Data linked to a student are correlated with dozens of conditions (that cannot be controlled for) in order to identify any one teacher’s quality.

Claiming that teacher quality is central to education reform is a powerful and compelling message—although teacher quality is overshadowed by out-of-school factors. As I have noted about committing to charter schools, SC must stop pursuing solutions without identifying the primary problem, which include the inequity that creates poverty and the inequitable distribution of high-quality teachers.

Test-based reforms to teacher evaluation, pay, and retention have not place at the education reform table in SC since there is no evidence it is needed or that it works. To pursue test-based teacher evaluation while the state continues to struggle economically and educationally is an inexcusable failure of state leadership.

L.A. Times 2011 Teacher Effectiveness Rankings Remain Unreliable | National Education Policy Center

L.A. Times 2011 Teacher Effectiveness Rankings Remain Unreliable | National Education Policy Center

Navigating Research

NEPC Reviews

School Finance 101, Bruce Baker

Dumbest "real" reformy graphs!

Jersey Jazzman

Shanker Blog

'Teach for America' overstates its classroom success

Research and the Media:

Molnar, A. (2001, April 11). The media and educational research: What we know vs. what the public hears. Milwaukee, WI: Center for Education Research, Analysis, and Innovation. Retrieved from http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/documents/cerai-01-14.htm

Yettick, H. (2009). The research that reaches the public: Who produces the educational research mentioned in the news media? Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/research-that-reaches

School Context and the Gender Gap in Educational Achievement

School Context and the Gender Gap in Educational Achievement

EDU 750: Logical Fallacies

Logical Fallacies

EDU 640: Midterm

June 21


Bring one hard copy of your commentary draft to class to workshop the piece. If you can, have your laptop in class and email your draft to your peer-group so each of you can directly respond to the electronic draft.


Email before class as attachment a full draft of your commentary; name file with your first initial, lastname, "commentary" and then .docx—for example: PThomas.commentary.docx


Midterm – 15% : Candidates will identify a current issue in literacy education that is misunderstood by the public and then draft a public commentary (750-1250 words) with hyperlinks to research/evidence to clarify the topic. See as examples:http://wrestlingwithwriting.blogspot.com/p/books-by-p-l-thomas.html;http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/;http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/;http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teacher_in_a_strange_land/; http://shankerblog.org/;http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/;http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet 

Daily Kos: Systemic Poverty, the Psychology of Poverty, and Misleading Binaries

Daily Kos: Systemic Poverty, the Psychology of Poverty, and Misleading Binaries

Gender Pay Gaps and Educational Achievement Gaps | National Education Policy Center

Gender Pay Gaps and Educational Achievement Gaps | National Education Policy Center

EDRD 640: Topic 2: Politics: Reading First and NCLB

Political v. Partisan


Thomas, P. L. (2012, February 22). Education as "politically contested spaces."Daily Kos. Reposted at truthout.


-----. (2012, April 26). Politics and education don't mix. The Atlantic.

The Accountability Era

• A Nation at Risk (1983), Ronald Reagan


Bracey, G. (2003). April foolishness: The 20th anniversary of A Nation at Risk. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(8), 616-621.


Holton, G. (2003, April 25). An insider’s view of “A Nation at Risk” and why it still matters. The Chronicle Review, 49(33), B13.

• State Standards and High-Stakes Assessments (for example, high school exit exams)

• Goals 2000, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton

• "Texas Miracle," George W. Bush, Rod Paige


What Do Test Scores in Texas Tell Us? (RAND, 2000)

• National Reading Panel

Yatvin, J. (2002). Babes in the woods: The wanderings of the National Reading Panel.  Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 364-369.

• No Child Left Behind (2001), George W. Bush, Rod Paige, Ted Kennedy

Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education (Hout & Elliott, 2011)


Stedman, L. C. (2010). How well does the standards movement measure up? An
analysis of achievement trends and student learning, changes in curriculum and school culture,
and the impact of No Child Left Behind. Critical Education, 1(10). Retrieved 2 October 2011 from http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/182312/182361 


Stedman, L. C. (2011). Why the standards movement failed. An educational and
political diagnosis of its failure and the implications for school reform. Critical Education, 2(1). Retrieved 2 October 2011 from http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/182313/182362

• Reading First, George W. Bush, Margaret Spellings

Audit (2006)

• Race to the Top, Barack Obama, Arne Duncan

• Current reform initiatives:

Charter schools (vouchers, choice)

Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP)


-----. (2011, October 23). Testing support for TFA and KIPP: Whose children matter? Daily Kos. Reposted at Schools Matter.

Thomas, P. L. (2012, March 16). Charter schools not the answer, especially if we fail to identify the question. Daily Kos.

Value-added methods of teacher evaluation and merit pay

Common Core State Standards

Common Core State [sic] Standards, Susan Ohanian


Thomas, P. L. (2012, February 13). Rotten to the (common) core. Daily Kos.


National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ)


Thomas, P. L. (2012, June 1). NCTQ unmasked. Daily Kos.

-----. (2012, April 5). The bully politics of education reform. Daily Kos.

Teach for America (TFA)

Thomas, P. L. (2012, January 13). 'Teach for America' overstates its classroom success. Charleston Post and Courier. Expanded and reposted at Schools Matter.

• Key figures in reform agenda:

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan

Bill Gates

Michelle Rhee

Geoffrey Canada (Harlem Children's Zone)

Legend of the Fall (series)

Diane Ravitch

• Current tension: "No Excuses" Reformers v. Social Context Reformers


Thomas, P. L. (2011, December 22). Poverty matters!: Part 1 and Part 2. The Daily Censored. Reposted at truthout.

The Gender Politics of Education Reform | K-12 News Network

The Gender Politics of Education Reform | K-12 News Network

Schools Matter: Research-free language education policy in England

Schools Matter: Research-free language education policy in England

Add to EDRD 640

Go to this link and download the sample from:

Best Practice, Fourth Edition
Bringing Standards to Life in America's Classrooms

Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, Arthur Hyde

ISBN 978-0-325-04354-8 / 0-325-04354-X / 2012 / 304pp / Paperback
Imprint: Heinemann
Availability: In Stock
Grade Level: K - 12th

Preview samples from Best Practice, Fourth Edition

Do You Read Me? | National Education Policy Center

Do You Read Me? | National Education Policy Center

Daily Kos: Failing Data in Education Reform

Daily Kos: Failing Data in Education Reform

What data can and cannot do | News | guardian.co.uk

What data can and cannot do | News | guardian.co.uk

EDRD 750: Required Texts

EDRD 750 Textbooks

Required:

Nash, R. J. (2004). Liberating scholarly writing: The power of personal narrative. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bracey, G. (2006). Reading educational research: How to avoid getting statistically snookered. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Recommended:

Williams, J. M. (1990). Style: Toward clarity and grace. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.*


* See PDFs on course CD

Smallwood, C, ed. (2006). Educators as writers: Publishing for personal and professional development. New York: Peter Lang.

Topic 1: Historical Perspective

Topic 1: Historical Perspective

Lou LaBrant: An Annotated Bibliography

Free Reading Redux

Revisiting "Cliches and Abstractions" in the Context of Race, 2014

"Hunting Scapegoats": WWII Literacy Crisis and Current Education Reform

Teaching Reading and Children: Reading Programs as "Costume Parties"

LaBrant, L. (1937, February 17). The content of a free reading program. Education Research Bulletin, 16(2), 29-34.

LaBrant, L. (1946, March). Teaching high-school students to write. English Journal, 35(3), 123-128.

Rosenblatt, L. (1956). The acid test for literature teaching. English Journal, 45(2), 66–74. [In Rosenblatt, L. (2005). Making meaning with texts: Selected essays. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.]

Topic 2: Politics: Reading First and NCLB

Topic 2: Politics: Reading First and NCLB; Common Core, Close Reading; State reading policies, 3rd-grade retention

Retain to Impede: When Reading Legislation Fails (Again)

New Criticism, Close Reading, and Failing Critical Literacy Again

First, Do No Harm: That Includes the Media

Assorted posts on Common Core

Web page analysis

NCLB

NRP http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/

IRA’s Summary of the NRP Report http://www.reading.org/resources/issues/reports/nrp.html

NRP Five Components of Reading Instruction

http://www.scsk12.org/scs/subject-areas/kweb/images/nationalreadingpanel_faq.pdf

Yatvin, J. (2002). Babes in the woods: The wanderings of the National Reading Panel. (Located athttp://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0201yat.htm)

Reading First http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html

Reading First audit

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/aireports/i13f0017.pdf

USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-22-reading-audit_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-04-15-textbooks-congress_N.htm

Krashen website http://www.sdkrashen.com/

Krashen, S. (2006). Did Reading First work? 

Edmondson, J. (2004). Reading policies: Ideologies and strategies for political

engagement. The Reading Teacher, 57(5), 418-428.

Fuller, B., Wright, J., Gesicki, K. & Kang, E. (2007). Gauging growth: How to judge No

Child Left Behind? Educational Researcher, 36(5), 268-278.

Topic 3: Balanced Literacy

Topic 3: Balanced Literacy

Attack on "Balanced Literacy" Is Attack on Professional Teachers, Research

NCTE Features of Literacy Programs

1. On Reading, Learning to Read and Effective Reading Instruction: An Overview of What We Know and How We Know It (http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/onreading)

2. A Call to Action: What We Know About Adolescent Literacy and Ways to Support Teachers in Meeting Students’ Needs (http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/adolescentliteracy)

3. A Decision-Making Matrix (See link below)

Teaching Reading and Children: Reading Programs as "Costume Parties"

Barr, R. & Dreeden, R. (1991). Grouping students for reading instruction. In Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, vol II. (pp. 885-910). New York: Longman.

Cambourne, B. (2002). Holistic, integrated approaches to reading and language arts instruction: the constructivist framework of an instructional theory. In Farstrup, A. E. & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction. (pp. 25-47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Freppon, P. A. & Dahl, K. L. (1998). Balanced instruction: Insights and considerations. Reading Research Quarterly 33(2), 240-249.

Heydon, R., Hibbert, K., Iannacci, L. (2005). Strategies to support balanced literacy approaches in pre- and inservice teacher education. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(4), 312-319.

Kasten, W. C. & Wilfong, L. G. (2007). Encouraging independent reading towards lifelong readers and learners.International Journal of Learning, 13. Located at http://www.Learning-Journal.com.

Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(3), 272-280.

Pearson, P. D. & Hiebert, E.H. (2007).Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to learn.Reading Research Quarterly, 42 (2), 282-296.

Spiegel, D. L. (1998). Silver bullets, babies, and bath water: Literature response groups in a balanced literacy program. The Reading Teacher, 52(2), 114-124.

Wharton-McDonald, R., Rankin, J., Mistretta, J., & Ettenberger, S. (1997). Effective primary-grades literacy instruction = Balanced literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 50(6), 518-521.

Topic 4: Early Literacy

Topic 4: Early Literacy

Kiel, J. (1998). How language is learned: From birth through the elementary years and beyond. In Weaver, C. (Ed.), Lessons to share on teaching grammar in context. (pp. 1-17). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Whitmore, K. F., Martens, P., Goodman, Y. M. & Owocki, G. (2004). Critical lessons

from the transactional perspective on early literacy research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 4(3), 291-325.

Pressley, M. (2001). Effective beginning reading instruction. Executive Summary and

Paper Commissioned by the National Reading Conference. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Purcell-Gates, V. & Duke, N. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific text:

Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8-45.

Topic 5: Response to Literature

Topic 5: Response to Literature

*New Criticism and Common Core's "close reading"

Thomas, P. L. (2012, January). "A richer, not a narrower, aesthetic"—The rise of New Criticism in English Journal. English Journal, 101(3), 52-57.

Beach, R. & Hynds, S. (1991). Research on response to literature. In Barr, R.,

Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.). Handbook of Reading Research, vol II. (pp. 453-489). New York: Longman.

Harris, V. J. & Willis, A. I. (2003). Multiculturalism, literature, and curriculum issues. In

Flood, J., Lapp, D., Squire, J.R., & Jensen, J. M. (Eds.) Handbook of research on

teaching the English language arts, (2^nd ed.).(pp. 825-834). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Ehrlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Marshall, J. (2000). Research on Response to Literature. In Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., Barr, R. (Eds.) Handbook of reading research, volume III. (pp. 381-402). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Ehrlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Rosenblatt, L. (2003). Literary theory. In Flood, J., Lapp, D., Squire, J. R., & Jensen, J.

M. (Eds.) Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2^nd ed.). (pp. 67-73). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Ehrlbaum and Associates, Publishers.

Topic 6: Writing Instruction, Spelling, Grammar

Topic 6: Writing Instruction, Spelling, Grammar

Now That the SAT's Writing Section is Gone, It's Time to Rethink How We Teach Composition

From Failing to Killing Writing: Computer-Based Grading

Lou LaBrant on writing

Why Are We (Still) Failing Writing Instruction?

High and Reasonable Expectations for Student Writing

More on Failing Writing, and Students

Not If, But When: The Role of Direct Instruction in Teaching Writing

Hillocks, Jr., G. & Smith, M. W. (2003). Grammars and literacy learning. In Flood, J., Lapp, D., Squire, J. R., Jensen, J. M. (Eds.) Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts, 2nd ed. (pp.721-737). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Landrum, J. E. (2007). Students: Do experts follow the rules you’re taught? Journal of

Teaching Writing, 23(1), 1-16.

Templeton, S. & Morris, D. (2000). Spelling. In Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B.,
Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (Eds.) Handbook of reading research, volume
III. (pp. 525-543). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Ehrlbaum Associates,
Publishers.

Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in the context of writing. The English Journal,

85(7), 15-24.

Topic 7: Assessment

Topic 7: Assessment

From De-Testing and De-Grading Schools

Chapter 16: De-grading Writing Instruction in a Time of High-Stakes Testing:

The Power of Feedback in Workshop, P. L. Thomas

Frey, N. & Hiebert, E. H. (2005). Teacher-based assessment of literacy learning. In Flood, J., Lapp, D., Squire, J. R., & Jensen, J. M. (Eds.) Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2^nd ed.). (pp. 608-618). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Ehrlbaum and Associates, Publishers.

Goodman, Y. (2005). Informal methods of evaluation. In Flood, J., Lapp, D., Squire, J. R., & Jensen, J. M. (Eds.)Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2^nd ed.). (pp. 600-607). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Ehrlbaum and Associates, Publishers.

Johnston, P. & Costello, P. (2005). Principles for literacy assessment, Reading Research

Quarterly, 40(2), 256–267.

Ketter, J. & Pool, J. (2001). Exploring the impact of a high-stakes direct writing

assessment in two high school classrooms. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(3), 344-393.

Topic 8: Adolescent Literacy

Topic 8: Adolescent Literacy

Reading Out of Context: "But there was something missing," Walter Dean Myers

Alvermann, D. E. (2001). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Executive

Summary and Paper Commissioned by the National Reading Conference. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next – A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie corporation of New York (2^nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools – A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education

Lewis, C. (1999). Teaching literature to adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(1),

114-127.

Topic 9: Content Area Literacy

Topic 9: Content Area Literacy

Fordham, N. W. (2006). Crafting questions that address comprehension strategies in

content reading. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49(5), 390-396.

Neufeld, P. (2005/2006). Comprehension instruction in content area classes. The Reading

Teacher 59(4), 302-312.

Raphael, T. E. & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking

across grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 206-221.

Topic 10: Bilingual education and English as a Second Language

Topic 10: Bilingual education and English as a Second Language

Considering Linguistic Privilege and Bias in Deeper Learning

Ernst-Slavit, G., Moore, M. & Maloney, C. (2002). Changing lives: Teaching English and

literature to ESL students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(2), 116-128.

Gerseten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee.

Reyes, I. (2006). Exploring connections between emergent biliteracy and bilingualism.

Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6(3), 267-292.

Topic 11: Multiliteracies

Topic 11: Multiliteracies

New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.

Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

Chandler-Olcott, K. & Mahar, D. (2003). Adolescents’ anime-inspired “fanfictions”: An

exploration of Multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(7), 556-566.

Chandler-Olcott, K. & Mahar, D. (2003). "Tech-Savviness" meets Multiliteracies:

Exploring adolescent girls' technology-mediated literacy practices. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 356-385.

Kist, W. (2000). Beginning to create the new literacy classroom: What does the new

literacy look like? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(8), 710-718.

Lewis, C. & Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading

Research Quarterly, 40 (4), 470–501.

Ranker, J. (2007). Designing meaning with multiple media sources: A case
study of an eight year old student's writing processes. Research in the
Teaching of English, 41(4), 402-435.

Ranker, J. (2007). A new perspective on inquiry: A case study of digital video production. English Journal, 97(1), 77-82.

EDRD 640: Literature Review

Assessment 2 – Literature Review Paper – Current Research in Literacy

(Content Knowledge in Literacy Education)

2.1  Brief Description of the Assessment and Its Use in the Program (EDRD 640)

The purpose of this assessment is to demonstrate knowledge of literacy research in a particular area.  The Literature Review Paper allows students to hone in on current research about particular literacy topics of interest and relevance and share that information with their peers.  Students will access library resources related to literacy; cite the contributions of individuals to the field of literacy; and demonstrate understanding of key findings in literacy research.  Students will read scholarly articles; analyze and synthesize their findings; and write a literature review paper using APA style.  Finally, in an oral presentation to peers, the results will be shared for discussion and interaction among colleagues. To become involved and communicate with other professionals in the field, students enrolled in EDRD 640 will be encouraged to submit their papers for review by Reading Matters, the journal of the South Carolina Chapter of ILA.  They will also be encouraged to join local, state, and national literacy organizations and participate in professional conferences.

Assignment Context:

According to the International Literacy Association (2010), reading specialists/literacy coaches act as a resource in reading and writing for support personnel, administrators, teachers and the community. In order to lead school literacy programs and to foster understanding and pedagogy that improves students’ literacy achievement, it is essential that literacy coaches demonstrate knowledge of literacy research in a range of areas. By conducting a literature review, candidates will enhance their understanding of current trends, issues and research in the field of literacy. Candidates participate in level 1 of the coaching continuum when they share and discuss current trends, issues and research in literacy found through their literature review. 

Level 1 (informal; helps to develop relationships)	Level 2 (more formal, somewhat more intense; begins to look at areas of need and focus)	Level 3 (formal, more intense; may create some anxiety on part of teacher or coach)
• Conversations with colleagues (identifying issues or needs, setting goals, problem solving) • Developing and providing materials for/with colleagues • Developing curriculum with colleagues • Participating in professional development activities with colleagues (conferences, workshops) • Leading or participating in Study Groups • Assisting with assessing students • Instructing students to learn about their strengths and needs	• Co-planning lessons • Holding team meetings (grade level, reading teachers) • Analyzing student work • Interpreting assessment data (helping teachers use results for instructional decision making) • Individual discussions with colleagues about teaching and learning • Making professional development presentations for teachers	• Modeling and discussing lessons • Co-teaching lessons • Visiting classrooms and providing feedback to teachers • Analyzing videotape lessons of teachers • Doing lesson study with teachers

ILA Standards for Reading Professional (International Literacy Association, 2010):

Standard 1: Foundational Knowledge.

1.1: Understand major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development, processes, and components, including word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading-writing connections.

1.2: Understand the historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in the perceptions of reading and writing development, processes and components.

1.3: Understand the role of professional judgment and practical knowledge for improving all students’ reading development and achievement.

Standard 2: Curriculum and Instruction.

2.1: Use foundational knowledge to design or implement an integrated, comprehensive, and balanced curriculum.

2.2: Use appropriate and varied instructional approaches, including those that develop word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading-writing connections.

2.3: Use a wide range of texts (e.g., narrative, expository, and poetry) from traditional print, digital, and online resources.

Standard 3: Assessment and Evaluation.

3.1: Understand types of assessments and their purposes, strengths, and limitations.

3.2: Select, develop, administer, and interpret assessments, both traditional print and electronic, for specific purposes.

3.3: Use assessment information to plan and evaluate instruction.

3.4: Communicate assessment results and implications to a variety of audiences.

Standard 4: Diversity. 

4.1: Recognize, understand, and value the forms of diversity that exist in society and their importance in learning to read and write.

4.2: Use a literacy curriculum and engage in instructional practices that positively impact students’ knowledge, beliefs, and engagement with the features of diversity.

4.3: Develop and implement strategies to advocate for equity.

Standard 5: Literate Environment.

5.1: Design the physical environment to optimize students’ use of traditional print, digital, and online resources in reading and writing instruction.

5.2: Design a social environment that is low-risk, includes choice, motivation, and scaffolded support to optimize students’ opportunities for learning to read and write.

5.3: Use routines to support reading and writing instruction (e.g., time allocation, transitions from one activity to another; discussions, and peer feedback).

5.4: Use a variety of classroom configurations (i.e., whole class, small group, and individual) to differentiate instruction.

Standard 6: Professional Learning and Leadership.

6.1: Demonstrate foundational knowledge of adult learning theories and related research about organizational change, professional development, and school culture.

6.2: Display positive dispositions related to their own reading and writing and the teaching of the reading and writing and pursue the development of individual professional knowledge.

6.3: Participate in, design, facilitate, lead, and evaluate effective and differentiated professional development programs.

6.4: Understand and influence local, state, or national policy decisions.

The following table describes how this assessment aligns with the ILA Standards for Reading Professionals.

2.2  Description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the ILA Standards.

Alignment of Assessment #2 to ILA Standards
ILA Standards	Literature Review Paper
1.1       Understand major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development, processes, and components , including word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading-writing connections	Literature Review
1.2       Understand the historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in the perceptions of reading and writing development, processes, and components.	Conceptual Framework, SC ELA Standards, and Standards for Reading Professionals Implications for Education
1.3       Understand the role of professional judgment and practical knowledge for improving all students’ reading development and achievement.	Introduction Summary and Conclusion
4.1       Candidates recognize, understand, and value the forms of diversity that exist in society and their importance in learning to read and write.	Introduction Literature Review Conceptual Framework Summary and Conclusion
4.3      Develop and implement strategies to advocate for equity.	Presentation
6.1       Demonstrate foundational knowledge of adult learning theories and related research about organizational change, professional development, and school culture.	Presentation
6.4      Understand and influence local, state, or national policy decisions.	Implications for Education

2.3 A Brief Analysis of the Data Findings (See data summary table in 2.5 c)

The rubric for assessing the Current Trends Literature Review allows a candidate to receive a total of 33 points. There are thirteen sections outlined in the rubric and a candidate may earn between 0-3 points for each section. During the summer 2014 administration of the assessment, 14 candidates completed the project. All candidates met the standards, receiving at least a rating of 2, meaning that they either exceeded or met expectations as specified for the literature review paper.

2.4 Evidence for Meeting Standards

For their literature review papers, candidates formulated research questions based on literacy topics addressed in the current professional literature and identified the relevance of the research questions to the field of literacy.  Aware of their audience, candidates wrote papers that had a clear sense of purpose and tone, and drew information from relevant primary and secondary sources.  Aware of their role as literacy coaches – informing other educators and community members – candidates identified ways to inform others and support teachers in their efforts to improve student learning. They specifically identified the ties to the ILA Standards for Reading Professionals, SC ELA Standards, and Furman’s Conceptual Framework.  Implications for instruction were given amid clear connections between research and practice. References were current and listed in APA format.  Formal presentations to peers demonstrated communication and leadership skills; advocacy for evidence-based reading and writing practices; the need to value diversity; and understanding of local, state, and federal regulations.  Furthermore, the presentations were free of errors and organized for clear understanding. 

2.5 Attachment of assessment

2.5 a Instructions for Candidates

You will locate, analyze, and synthesize findings from 6-10 articles on a specified literacy topic.  The paper you write in APA format will include:

·              An introductory section that describes the focus and scope of the paper. (ILA 1.3, 4.1)

·              A literature review section in which the articles are disseminated and discussed.  Do not include bibliographic information at the beginning of each article.  Merely cite the article, using APA form, and put the bibliographic information in the reference list. (ILA 1.1, 4.1)

·              A summary and conclusions section in which you show what this group of articles is saying as a whole about the topic (how it addressed the question raised in the introduction). Assuming the role of facilitator of professional learning (literacy coach), identify ways in which this information could be used to inform parents and other educators. (ILA 1.3, 4.1)

·              Implications for education that explains how historically shared knowledge of the profession changes over time and demonstrates understanding of local, state, and national policies that affect reading and writing instruction (ILA 1.2, 6.4).

·              You will present an overview of your paper to the class for discussion/interaction. (ILA 4.3, 6.1, 6.4)

2.5 b Scoring Guide/Rubrics

Scoring Guide/Rubrics
Standards	Criteria	Does Not Meet Expectations 1	Meets Expectations 2	Exceeds Expectations 3
ILA: 1.3 Candidates understand the role of professional judgment and practical knowledge for improving all students’ reading development and achievement.	Introduction	Guiding research questions and topic/focus of literature review not stated or unclear.	Guiding research questions and topic/focus of literature review stated clearly and demonstrates candidates professional judgment for improving all students’ reading development and achievement.	Guiding research questions and topic/focus of literature review stated clearly and demonstrates candidates’ professional judgment for improving all students’ reading development and achievement. Research questions and topic/focus of literature review contextualized in specific classroom and/or learning objectives.
ILA: 4.1 Candidates recognize, understand, and value the forms of diversity that exist in society and their importance in learning to read and write.	Introduction	Guiding research questions and topic/focus of literature review do not mention diversity in connection with learning to read and write.	Guiding research questions and topic/focus of literature review mentions diversity in connection with literacy development	Guiding research questions and topic/focus of literature review discuss the ways in which diversity influences the reading and writing development of candidate’s students by identifying how diverse population warrants literacy practices addressed.
ILA: 1.1 Candidates understand major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development, processes, and components, including word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading–writing connections.	Literature Review	Articles are not fully summarized, analyzed and discussed	Six-10 articles about the topic are summarized, analyzed, and discussed in relation to major theories, empirical research, and foundational knowledge.	Article information is disseminated and discussed analytically and synthetically in light of major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development, processes, and components, including word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading–writing connections.
ILA: 4.1 Candidates recognize, understand, and value the forms of diversity that exist in society and their importance in learning to read and write.	Literature Review	The paper offers minimal or no information on diversity in society/schools.	The literature review includes information that shows emerging awareness of diversity in connection with learning to read and write.	Patterns identified in the literature review demonstrate understanding, recognition, and valuing of the forms of diversity that exist in society and their importance in learning to read and write.
ILA: 1.2 Candidates understand the historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in the perceptions of reading and writing development, processes, and components. CF: 1a., 1b., 1c, SC ELA Standards: K.1-K.6, 1.1-1.6, 2.1-2.6, 3.1-3.6, 4.1-4.6, 5.1-5.6, 6.1-6.6	Conceptual Framework, SC ELA Standards, and Standards for Reading Professionals	Does not include connections to the Conceptual Framework, SC Standards or Standards for Reading Professionals in portfolio or presentation	Mentioned and cited Conceptual Framework, SC ELA Standards, and Standards for Reading Professionals (specifically demonstrates knowledge of reading research and major components of reading and how they are integrated)	Strong ties among literature review, Conceptual Framework, SC ELA Standards, and Standards for Reading Professionals (specifically demonstrates understanding of the historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in the perceptions of reading and writing development, processes, and components).
ILA : 4.1 Candidates recognize, understand, and value the forms of diversity that exist in society and their importance in learning to read and write. CF : 3a	Conceptual Framework	Paper does not include ties to the Conceptual Framework and diversity.	Paper mentioned and cited Conceptual Framework standard 3a and IRA 4.1.	Paper explains the connection between IRA 4.1 and CF 3a specifically highlighting why teachers need to be aware of, and sensitive to, community and cultural diversity that exist in society and their importance in learning to read and write.
ILA: 1.3 Candidates understand the role of professional judgment and practical knowledge for improving all students’ reading development and achievement.	Summary and Conclusions	Article information is not analyzed conclusively. Rationale for selection is not included.	The information in the articles reviewed are summarized as a whole and analyzed conclusively.  Theories and research are cited throughout.	Patterns identified among articles are woven together meaningfully demonstrating understanding of the role of professional judgment and practical knowledge for improving all students’ reading development and achievement.
ILA: 4.1 Candidates recognize, understand, and value the forms of diversity that exist in society and their importance in learning to read and write.	Summary and Conclusions	Article information is not analyzed in light of diversity issues.	Summaries and analyses among articles show an emerging awareness of forms of diversity and their importance in learning to read and write.	Summaries and sophisticated analyses among articles recognize, understand, and value forms of diversity and their importance in learning to read and write.
ILA: 1.2 Candidates understand the historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in the perceptions of reading and writing development, processes, and components.	Implications for Education	Minimal discussion of how theory and research influences classroom practice.	Ways the theory and research in the articles can influence classroom practices are discussed.	Theory and research are synthesized seamlessly with candidate’s classroom practice and students, demonstrating an understanding of the historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in the perceptions of reading and writing development, processes, and components.
ILA: 6.4 Candidates understand and influence local, state, or national policy decisions.	Implications for Education	Minimal discussion of ways local, state, and national policies affect reading and writing instruction.	Some discussion of ways local, state, and national policies affect reading and writing instruction.	Implications clearly demonstrate an understanding of local, state, and national policies that affect reading and writing instruction.
	Reference List/Citations	Reference list is not complete or properly formatted.	A complete reference list in APA format is included.	N/A
ILA: 4.3 Develop and implement strategies to advocate for equity.	Presentation	Little to no discussion about how issues of inequity and opportunities for social justice activism and resiliency can be incorporated into the literacy curriculum.	Candidate generally demonstrate how issues of inequity and opportunities for social justice activism and resiliency can be incorporated into the literacy curriculum.	Candidate clearly demonstrate how issues of inequity and opportunities for social justice activism and resiliency can be incorporated into the literacy curriculum.
ILA: 6.1 Candidates demonstrate foundational knowledge of adult learning theories and related research about organizational change, professional development, and school culture.	Presentation	The oral presentation based on the content of the literature review is not clear and/or contains conventional errors.	Based on the contents of the literature review, candidates plan and deliver an organized oral presentation to the class. The presentation is visual, free of conventional error, and organized for clear understanding.	Based on the contents of the literature review, candidates plan and deliver an organized and detailed oral presentation to the class. The presentation is visual, free of conventional error, and organized for clear understanding, and demonstrates foundational knowledge of adult learning theories and related research about organizational change, professional development, and school culture.
ILA: 6.4 Candidates understand and influence local, state, or national policy decisions.	Presentation	The candidate’s oral presentation offers minimal advocacy for organizational and instructional changes to promote effective literacy instruction.	The candidate’s oral presentation suggests the need for organizational and instructional changes to promote effective literacy instruction.	The candidate’s oral presentation clearly advocates for needed organizational and instructional changes to promote effective literacy instruction.