EDUC 434 – 00A Content Literacy Across the Curriculum Syllabus – Fall 2016

Instructor: Dr. Judith J. Ruskamp Office: T.J. Majors, 327 Office Hours: M/W – 1:00 – 1:45; 3:30 – 4:00 T – 11:00 – 12:00, 3:30 – 4:00 TH – 10:00 – 11:00 F – Appointments Welcomed

Phone: 402.872.2301 E-mail: JRuskamp@peru.edu Web Page: http://www.peru.edu/education/directory/ruskamp/index.htm Class Web Page: http://tinyurl.com/hbal6ll Blackboard Platform – Accessed via Peru State College Home Page Standards Codes: (Peru State College Conceptual Framework); [INTASC]; {Nebraska Standards}; ((ISTE)) Peru State College Mission Statement - In educating the individual to the benefit of society, Peru State College cultivates the capacity and propensity for life-long learning by fostering independent inquiry and promoting the value of knowledge and discovery. Through innovative undergraduate and graduate programs, Nebraska's first college continues its commitment to making a vital contribution to the future of the region and the state.

Reflective Decision-Makers Foundational Knowledge Professional Dispositions &

Integrity Professional Development

p. 2 Mission Statement The Teacher Education Unit is committed to preparing exemplary professionals in the field of education. The faculty and staff of our teacher education unit understand the complexity, interrelatedness and recursive nature of the teaching/learning process. We are committed to preparing our teacher education candidates to be reflective professionals, knowledgeable in general studies, specific content areas, and pedagogy. In addition, we want their educational experiences to equip them to be effective communicators and wise decision-makers in a democratic and increasingly technological society. We also want our graduates to appreciate diverse cultures and viewpoints. Therefore, we create and update courses based upon our study and reflection of current research and professional writing. We encourage diverse field experiences, co-curricular activities and professional opportunities. We believe that learning is a lifelong process that involves continual growth in three broad conceptual areas: foundational knowledge, professional dispositions and integrity, and professional competencies. Peru State College’s commitment to individual attention and needs is evident in our teacher education program. We also encourage our students to hone their passion for teaching and their unique talents through integrated community service opportunities related directly to their professional courses and activities. Our faculty and staff are committed to modeling that learning is an ongoing, challenging enterprise engaged in by committed persons – teachers, teacher candidates, and community members together, all part of an exciting and rapidly changing world. Required Text Vacca, Richard T., & Vacca, Jo Anne L. (2014) 11th ed. Content Area Reading Literacy and Learning Across the Curriculum, Seventh Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Course Description and Objectives Content Literacy Across the Curriculum (3 hours) Prerequisite: Admission to Teacher Education; Educ 317 (may be taken concurrently). This course is designed to complement the quest for learning at the level presented at Peru State College by preparing teacher candidates to be exemplary professional leaders in the field of education relative to effectively teaching content literacy related to reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing and technology in their respective content areas. Collaborative, as well as personal reflection for the purpose of independent critical thought, will be implemented and utilized on multiple theories and best practices in the teaching of content literacy in all content areas to a diverse student population. An emphasis on instructional strategies related to trait-based reading, informational text, process and technical writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and technology as they apply to standards and assessments for improving students’ content literacy, will be collaboratively and personally explored, analyzed, and evaluated for the purposes of effective implementation in lesson design. The focus will also include both assessment of learning and assessment for learning, in terms of each of these areas of content literacy. Changes in the course will be at the instructor’s discretion.

p. 3 Upon completion of this course, the teacher candidate should be able to:

School of Education Conceptual Framework – Foundational Knowledge,

Professional Development Teacher candidates will demonstrate understanding of the concept that all content area teachers are teachers of reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and technology literacy via development of high achievement lesson designs for the content area classroom which include instructional goals and objectives, speech language acquisition, standards and assessment, speaking and listening, and technology as an instructional tool relative the reading and writing process. (1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.3.6, 1.3.7, 3.1.2, 3.1.3); [1-10]; {All approved Grade 8 and 11 Nebraska standards}; ((1.3, 3.1, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2))

School of Education Conceptual Framework – Foundational Knowledge, Professional Development Teacher candidates will develop instructional strategies, which also include the utilization of technology, that demonstrate an understanding of the important correlation that exists between content and reading, writing, speaking, listening, and viewing literacy in the content area classroom. (1.2.2, 1.3.2, 1.3.5, 1.3.6, 1.3.7, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3); [2-7, 9-10]; ((1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.0, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2))

School of Education Conceptual Framework – Foundational Knowledge, Professional Development Teacher candidates will identify social, linguistic, cognitive, and cultural differences in remedial/developmental reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and technology literacy and develop instructional strategies to address the needs of ALL LEARNERS. (1.2.1, 1.3.1, 1.3.6, 1.3.7, 3.1.2, 3.1.3); [1-4, 7-10]

School of Education Conceptual Framework – Professional Dispositions and Integrity and Professional Development Teacher candidates will complete ELL Interaction Experiences (tutoring and Community Resource Fair) for the purposes of exploration of best practices related to addressing social, linguistic, cognitive, and cultural differences in remedial/developmental reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and technology literacy and develop instructional strategies to address the needs of ELL LEARNERS (2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3); [1, 5-6, 9-10]; ((3.0))

School of Education Conceptual Framework – Foundational Knowledge, Professional Development Teacher candidates will complete a Writing Partnership Experience teaching the six-traits of writing and text dependent analysis to a student for the purposes of exploration of best practices related to addressing social, linguistic, cognitive, and cultural differences in remedial/developmental reading, writing speaking, listening, viewing, and technology literacy and develop instructional strategies to address the needs of all learners. (2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3); [1, 5-6, 9-10}; ((3.0))

School of Education Conceptual Framework – Foundational Knowledge, Professional Development Teacher candidates will identify traits associated with content literacies and the processes associated with them so as to analyze and develop instructional strategies to teach and assess them, with a special emphasis on speech

p. 4 language acquisition for students with limited English proficiency and speaking and listening skills that impact content literacy and learning. (1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.3.6, 1.3.7, 3.1.2, 3.1.3); [1-10]; {All approved Grade 8 and 11 Nebraska standards}

School of Education Conceptual Framework – Foundational Knowledge, Professional Development Teacher candidates will determine the reading level of reading materials via formal and informal resources and strategies. (1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.3.5); [1-9]

School of Education Conceptual Framework – Foundational Knowledge, Professional Development Teacher candidates will develop strategies for implementation of content area portfolios. (1.2.3, 1.3.2, 1.3.5, 3.1.2); [1-2. 4-10]; ((1.2.1, 1.2.2, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3))

School of Education Conceptual Framework – Foundational Knowledge, Professional Dispositions and Integrity, and Professional Development Teacher candidates will compile a comprehensive personal professional reading, writing, speaking, listening, and viewing instructional strategies portfolio for a content area classroom. (1.2.3, 1.3.1, 1.2.2, 1.3.2, 1.3.4-7, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 3.1.1., 3.1.2, 3.1.3); [1-10]; ((2.2))

School of Education Conceptual Framework – Foundational Knowledge, Professional Dispositions and Integrity, and Professional Development Teacher candidates will identify, refine, model and reflect dispositions appropriate for the teaching profession via classroom demeanor and participation; instructional strategies development and implementation; portfolio development; and high achievement lesson plan design. (3.1.2,3.1.3, 2.1.1, 2.1.2); [6. 9-10]

School of Education Conceptual Framework – Foundational Knowledge Teacher candidates will demonstrate competency in oral and written communication skills as appropriate for the teaching profession. (1.1.2); [4-6]: ((1.1.2, 1.2.4, 1.2.8, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 5.1))

School of Education Conceptual Framework – Professional Development Teacher candidates will practice collaborative reflection and make wise, rational, and well-informed decisions to continue self-actualization as a professional educator and develop a personal professional preparation plan for making a good impression and becoming a more effective teacher and leader in the field of education. (3.1.2, 3.1.3); [1, 9-10]

At the beginning of the course, we will discuss how these objectives fit into the College’s and School’s mission and goals. The instructor reserves the right to modify any aspect of the course syllabus or content. Any modifications will be communicated to students in advance.

Expectations and Instructional Approach Instruction Method/Mode of Delivery: The instructional method for Content Literacy Across the Curriculum

will appropriately model current best practices in teaching such as use of differentiated learning strategies, technology, and a successful framework for teaching on a consistent basis. Acquisition/Integration of knowledge will take place

via lecture, a significant amount of facilitation of both large and small group collaborative reflection and lab work, media presentations, and a class web page. Lesson design, reading response writing, an instructional strategies portfolio, and various other instructional activities will provide for direct application, extension, and reflection.

Teacher Candidate Requirements: PSC School of Education Required Live Text Projects: HARP – High Achievement Reading Plan (which includes speaking, listening, viewing and technology literacies), Standards and Reflection HAWP-TDA – High Achievement Writing Plan using Text Dependent Analysis (which includes speaking, listening, viewing and technology literacies), Standards and Reflection (You must successfully complete and submit these projects to pass the course.) In addition to the teacher candidate requirement policies of Peru State College, teacher candidates will be expected to do the following: Consider that attendance and participation are vital to the learning experience;

therefore, advanced preparation and completion of all assignments for EACH class are required.

Arrive for class punctually. Ask questions. Make excellent oral and written presentation of assignments and activities a priority. *Adhere to the attendance policy.

Teacher candidates are expected to attend each class regularly, to arrive punctually, and to complete all assigned work. Attendance is a privilege and a responsibility represented by not only the teacher candidate's investment, but also by a significant investment by the State of Nebraska. It is also the responsibility of the teacher candidate to be present in each class , just as it is the responsibility of the employee to be present for work. Attendance will be taken on a daily basis. Five points will be deducted from a teacher candidate’s grade each time a teacher candidate has an unexcused absence from class. In the event that a class will be missed due to EXTREME illness or other circumstances beyond the teacher candidate’s control, the instructor must be notified PRIOR to the absence, if at all possible. When excessive absences begin to occur throughout the semester due to minor illnesses, a doctor’s note will be required. Three tardies will equal one absence. There will be no exceptions made for alternate dates for completion of quizzes and mid-term and final exams. Certainly, circumstances beyond a teacher candidate’s control may merit consideration. In such a case, absences will be addressed at the discretion of the instructor.

Assignments will not be accepted after the due date. Even if a teacher candidate is not in attendance for class, all assignments are due on the designated due date.

All e-mail communications should be professional and free of errors. No hats in the classroom. Cell Phone use will be limited to instructional purposes only. Dispositions Statement: Keep in mind that your performance and conduct in this classroom relative to attendance, meeting course expectations, and classroom decorum speak directly to the state of your dispositions as it relates to your personal dispositions and professional integrity (Standards 2.1.1 and 2.1.2). School of Education Conceptual Framework – Professional Dispositions and Integrity

p. 6

Recommended Study Materials: One and ½ inch, three ring binder and three section dividers for this class.

Sections are as follows: Reading Analysis & Evaluation, Lab Work, Six-Trait Writing, and Instructional Materials.

One binder folder for the HARP and the HAWP each (REQUIRED). COPY OF COURSE SYLLABUS , Current SAA Update , and NE Reading,

Writing, Speaking, Listening Standards, Peru State College School of Education Conceptual Framework, Live Text Submission of Artifacts Directions Update, and “The Art of Reflection” – Blackboard Documents

Access to Blackboard

Assessment Method: The assessment method implemented and utilized for Secondary Reading and Writing Across the Curriculum will be based on a point system as reflected by a rubric and/or a direct assessment point system, which will be made available prior to each scored assignment or activity. Consider that written presentation of assignments and activities should be a priority, as it will be evaluated as well.

Reading Response Analysis – 10 – 30 pts.@ Classroom “Minds On Work” Lab Activities – 10 - 25 pts. @ HARP – 130 pts. 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.6, 1.3.7, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 HAWP/TDA – 100 pts.. 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.6, 1.3.7, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 Webquest – 37 pts. Six-Trait Writing/TDA Workshop – Local School District – 150 pts. ELL Interaction Experiences – 50 pts. Final Exam – 110 pts. Grading Policy: A 90-100 B+ 85-89 B 80-84 C+ 75-79 C 70-74 D+ 65-69 D 60-64 F Below 60 College’s Incomplete Coursework Policy To designate a student’s work in a course as incomplete at the end of a term, the instructor records the incomplete grade (I). Students may receive this grade only when serious illness, hardship, death in the immediate family, or military service during the semester in which they are registered prevents them from completing course requirements. In addition, to receive an incomplete, a student must have completed substantially all of the course’s major requirements. Unless extenuating circumstances dictate otherwise, students must initiate requests for an incomplete by filling out an Incomplete Grade Completion Contract, which requires

p. 7 the signature of the student, instructor, and Dean. The Incomplete Grade Completion contract cites the reason(s) for the incomplete and details the specific obligations the student must meet to change the incomplete to a letter grade. The date by which the student agrees to complete required work must appear in the contract. The Dean, the instructor, and the student receive signed copies of the Incomplete Grade Completion Contract. Even if the student does not attend Peru State College, all incomplete course work must be finished by the end of the subsequent semester. Unless the appropriate Dean approves an extension and if the student does not fulfill contract obligations in the allotted time, the incomplete grade automatically becomes an F. College’s Academic Integrity Policy

The College expects all students to conduct themselves in a manner that supports an honest assessment of student learning outcomes and the assignment of grades that appropriately reflect student performance. It is ultimately the student’s responsibility to understand and comply with instructions regarding the completion of assignments, exams, and other academic activities. At a minimum, students should assume that at each assessment opportunity they are expected to do their own original academic work and/or clearly acknowledge in an appropriate fashion the intellectual work of others, when such contributions are allowed. Students helping others to circumvent honest assessments of learning outcomes, or who fail to report instances of academic dishonesty, are also subject to the sanctions defined in this policy.

Instances of academic dishonesty may be discovered in a variety of ways. Faculty members who assign written work ordinarily check citations for accuracy, run data base and online checks, and/or may simply recognize familiar passages that are not cited. They may observe students in the act of cheating or may become aware of instances of cheating from the statements of others. All persons who observe or otherwise know about instances of cheating are expected to report such instances to the proper instructor or Dean.

In order to promote academic integrity, the College subscribes to an electronic service to review papers for the appropriate citations and originality. Key elements of submitted papers are stored electronically in a limited access database and thus become a permanent part of the material to which future submissions are compared. Submission of an application and continued enrollment signifies your permission for this use of your written work.

Should an occurrence of academic misconduct occur, the faculty member may assign a failing grade for the assignment or a failing grade for the course. Each incident of academic misconduct should be reported to the Dean and the Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA). The VPAA may suspend for two semesters students found to be responsible for multiple instances of academic dishonesty. The reason for the suspension will be noted on the student’s

p. 8

transcript.

A faculty member need present only basic evidence of academic dishonesty. There is no requirement for proof of intent. Students are responsible for understanding these tenets of academic honesty and integrity. Students may appeal penalties for academic dishonesty using the process established for grades appeals.

Title IX Compliance Notice Peru State is an equal opportunity institution. Peru State College does not discriminate against any student, employee or applicant on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion, or age in employment and education opportunities, including but not limited to admission decisions. The College has designated an individual to coordinate the College’s nondiscrimination efforts to comply with regulations implementing Title VI, VII, IX, and Section 504. Inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies and practices may be directed to Eulanda Cade, Director of Human Resources, Title VI, VII, IX Compliance Coordinator, Peru State, PO Box 10, Peru, NE 68421-0010, (402) 872-2230.

Students requesting reasonable accommodation and tutoring services should contact the Center for Achievement and Transition Services (CATS).

TENTATIVE Course Calendar 1. Teaching and Learning With Texts and the English Language Learner

1.1 August 22/24 Orientation – Syllabi, Text Assignment Prereading Activities/Terms

Chapter One – Reading Response “Minds-On Work” Lab Chapter Two and Reading Response 1.2 August 29/31 Collaborative Reflection NE Reading, Speaking, Listening Standards

Prereading Activities/Glossary/Scaffolding Video/Bloom’s & Webb’s

Evaluating Online Resources Form “Minds-On Work”Lab - Webquest

1.3 Sept. 7 Collaborative Reflection Prereading Activity/Key Terms

Chapter Three - Marzano – 9 Instructional Reading Strategies “Big Nine,” or “Essential Learnings”

“Minds-On Work” Lab; ELL Interaction Experience Work 1.4 Sept. 12/14 Collaborative Reflection

Prereading Activity/Key Terms ELL Lab Work – Marzano –Speech Language Acquisition/Content Literacy/Supplementary Reading

p. 9

2.3. Instructional Strategies for Reading,Writing, Speaking, Listening, Viewing in Content Areas

2.1 Sept. 19/21 Collaborative Reflection Pre-reading Activity/Key Terms

Chapter Four, PT. 1 – Reading Response; 10 Ideas about ELL’s Review – Evaluating Online Resources/FK “Minds-On Work” Lab – PSC Curriculum Area ELL Interaction Experience 1 - Tutoring 2.2 Sept. 26/28 ELL Lesson Plan Work Session Assignment: Chapter Five (127-143) – Reading Response

2.3 Oct. 3/5 Collaborative Reflection on Five Assignment: Chapter Six – Reading Response “Minds-On Work” Lab/SQ3R ELL Interaction Experience 2 – Lesson Plan for ELL Assign HARP 2.4 Oct. 10/12 Collaborative Reflection Assignment: Part B, Chapter 5 and Chapter Seven 2.5 Oct. 19 Collaborative Reflection

Vocabulary Concepts and Instruction Assignment: Chapter Eight – Reading Response/Supplementary

Reading 2.6 Oct. 24/26 Collaborative Reflection/ HARP DUE (Submitted on Live Text)

Analytical/Holistic Scoring Session/Partnership Work Begins “Six Trait Writing and the Statewide Writing Assessment”

TDA – Text Dependent Analysis Workshop Assign HAWP/TDA - Student Writing Workshop on Six Traits/TDA

Assignment: Chapter 9 2.7 Oct. 31/N2 Collaborative Reflection/RAFT

“Teaching the Six Traits of Writing” HAWP/TDA Lesson Design Workshop 2.8 Nov. 7/9 TDA School Partnership Work 2.9 Nov. 14/16 TDA School Partnership Lessons 1 and 2 Assignment: Technical Writing/Chapter 10 3.0 Nov. 21 HAWP/TDA DUE (Submitted on Live Text) Collaborative Reflection “Minds-on Work” Lab Assignment: Chapter 11 4. Professional Development

4.1 Nov. 28/30 Chapter 10/11 Discuss Informational Text 4.2 Dec. 5/7 Review for Final Exam; Informational Text 4.3 TBA Final Exam

p. 10 Bibliography Course Content References: Allington, R.L., &Strange, M. (1980). Learning through reading in the content areas. Lexington, MA: Heath. Alvarez, M.C. (1996). Explorers of the universe: Students using the World Wide Web to improve their reading and writing. In B. Neate (Ed.), Literacy saves lives (pp. 140-145). Herts, England: United Kingdom Reading Association. Alvermann, Donna E., & Phelps, Stephen F. (2002). Content reading and literacy: Succeeding in today’s diverse classrooms. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Alvermann, D.E. (1991). The discussion web: A graphic aid for learning across the Curriculum. Reading Teacher, 45(2), 92-99. Alvermann, D.E. (1991). Secondary School Reading. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (2nd ed. pp. 951-983). New York: Longman. Apthrop, H., Bodrova, E., & Dean, C.B. (2001). Noteworthy perspectives: Teaching to the core-Reading, writing, mathematics. Aurora, CO: McREL. Armbruster . B.B., &Anderson, T.H. (1981) Content area textbooks. Reading Education Report No. 23, Urbana: Univeristy of Illinois Center for the Study of Reading. Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Barron, R.F., &Earle, R. (1973). An approach for vocabulary development. In H.L. Herber&R.F. Barron (Eds.), Research in reading in the content areas: Second report (pp. 51-63). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse “University Reading and Language Arts Center. Billmeyer, Rachel. (August 2001). Capturing all of the reader through the reading assessment System. Omaha, NE: Dayspring Press. Billmeyer, Rachel. (1996). Teaching reading in the content areas: If not me, then who?. Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory. Brozo, W.G. (1990). Learning how at-risk readers learn best: A case for interactive assessment. Journal of Reading, 33, 522-527. Brozo, W.G. & Simpson, Michele L. (1999). Readers, teachers, learners: Expanding literacy across the content areas. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Caulkins, L.M. (1994). The art of teaching writing (rev. ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cottrol, R.J. (1990, Winter). America the multicultural. American Educator, 38, 18-21.

p. 11 Crafton, L. (1983). Learning from reading: What happens when students generate their own background knowledge. Journal of Reading, 26, 586-593. Farr, R. & Tone, B. (1998). Assessment portfolio and performance (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL:Harcourt Brace. Haggard, M.R. (1986). The vocabulary self-collection strategy: Using student interest and world knowledge to enhance vocabulary growth. Journal of Reading, 29, 634-642. Lane, Barry. (1993). After the end: Teaching and learning creative revision. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Lane, Barry. (1994). The Portfolio Source Book. Shoreham, VT: Vermont Portfolio Institute. Lane, Barry. (1999). Reviser’s toolbox. Shoreham, VT: Discover WritingPress. Marzano, Robert J. (2001) Classroom Instruction that Works. ASCD. Marzano, Robert J. (2006) Classroom Instruction the Works for English Language Learners. ASCD. Meltzer, M. (1994). Nonfiction for the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Murray, D.M. (1980). Writing as a process: How writing finds its own meaning. In T.R. Donovan &B.W. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching composition (pp. 80-97). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Parry K. (1993). Too many words: Learning the vocabulary of an academic subject. In T Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.) Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 109-129). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Popham, W. James. (1999). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Raphael, T.E. (1986). Teaching question-answer relationships. Reading Teacher, 39. 516-520. Reinking, D. (1997). Me and my hypertext: A multiple digression analysis of technology and literacy. Reading Teacher, 50, 626-643. Smith, N.B. (1964). Patterns of writing in different subject areas. Journal of Reading, 7, 31-37. Spandel, Vicki. (1998). The Write Traits. Sisters, Oregon: Great Source Education Group.

p. 12 Tchudi, Stephen. (1989). Explorations in the teaching of English. New York: Harper & Row. Thompson, Lesley, & Dwyer, Kevin. (1999). Creating readers through assessment and instruction. Portland, Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Tierney, R. J. Carter, M.A. & Desai, L.E. (1991). Portfolio assessment in the reading-writing classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Vacca, J.L. & Vacca, R.T., & Grove, M.K. (2000). Reading and learning to read (4th ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.