|
|
EDRD 6953
Topics In Reading Syllabus for Spring 2001 Mission
Statement “The
Mission of the Seattle Pacific University School of Education is to prepare
educators for service and leadership in schools and communities by developing
their professional competence and character within a framework of Christian
faith and values.”
|
|
GRADUATE PROGRAM OUTCOME DOMAINS I. FOUNDATIONAL
II. LEADERSHIP III. COMMUNICATION IV. ANALYSIS & V. PROFESSIONALISM VI. IMPACT ON
|
Dr. William
Nagy Office
hours by appointment – Peterson 409 Office
phone: (206) 281-2253 E-mail:
wnagy@spu.edu
Meeting time/place: Wednesdays, 4:30 - 7:05 pm, Peterson 303
Course
objectives: The purpose
of this course is to expand, deepen, and consolidate students’ knowledge
of the fundamental processes involved in proficient reading, and the
classroom practices that promote such proficiency, with a focus on reading
comprehension. The goals of the Graduate Programs of the SPU School of Education include Foundational Knowledge and Skills, Analysis and Problem Solving, Communication, Leadership, Professionalism, and Impact on Student Learning. This course contributes to all of these goals. It focuses most directly on the first, but aims for a level of knowledge of reading processes and instruction that will enable those taking this course not only to improve the learning of students in their own classes, but to exercise leadership in their schools as knowledgeable and articulate advocates for effective instructional practices.
|
|
Required
texts:
Taylor, B., Graves, M., & van den Broek, P. (Eds.) (2000).
Reading for Meaning: Fostering Comprehension in the Middle Grades.
Newark, DE: International
Reading Association, & New York: Teachers
College Press.
Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (1997).
Mosaic of Thought: Teaching
Comprehension in a Reader's Workshop. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
A coursepack of additional readings will also be available at the
bookstore. Course
Requirements:
Attendance and participation.
Success in this class depends on your active participation in class
discussion, informed by having studied the assigned readings for each class
meeting.
Written responses to readings. Each week you are to submit by email a brief (1-2 paragraphs)
written response to the assigned readings for that week, which will be shared
electronically with the other students in the class. To receive full credit for a week’s response, it must be
submitted no later than 4:30 pm the day before the class meets that week.
Your response should reflect your attempt to understand the reading and
apply it to your own teaching; it could take the form of a question, an insight,
a disagreement with the author, some change you might make in your own
classroom, or observations on the processes and strategies you observed yourself
using while reading the assignment. Paper. The main written
assignment for this class is a paper in which you explore in greater depth a
topic related to the some aspect of the assigned readings.
In this paper you must refer to, and demonstrate knowledge of,
published research beyond the assigned readings.
This paper will be evaluated on clarity and effectiveness of presentation
as well as content. It should
be typed, and follow APA guidelines for citations and references. Grading. Grades will be based on attendance and participation (15%), weekly written responses to readings (25%), and the paper (60%).
|
|
Proposed Cours |
||
| Week | Date | Topic and Assignment |
| Week 1 | 3/28/01 | Introduction;
reading comprehension instruction
|
| Week 2 | 4/4/01 | A brief history of comprehension instruction Pressley, M. (2000)
Comprehension instruction in elementary school: A quarter-century of research progress. Chapter 2 in Taylor, B., Graves, M., & van den Broek, P.
(Eds.), Reading for Meaning: Fostering
Comprehension in the Middle Grades. Dole, J. (2000).
Explicit and implicit instruction in comprehension.
Chapter 3 in Taylor, B., Graves, M., & van den Broek, P. (Eds.), Reading
for Meaning: Fostering
Comprehension in the Middle Grades.
|
| Week 3 | 4/11/01 | No class I will be giving a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, which is being held in Seattle this year.
|
| Week 4 | 4/18/01 |
Research
in reading comprehension: Where
are we now? National Reading Panel (2000). Reports of the Subgroups (in the coursepack). Rand Reading Study Group Report
Draft (2000) (in the coursepack).
|
| Week 5 | 4/25/01 |
Classroom interaction around text Raphael, T. (2000). Balancing
literature and instruction: Lessons
from the Book Club project. Chapter
4 in Taylor, B., Graves, M., & van den Broek, P. (Eds.), Reading for
Meaning: Fostering Comprehension in
the Middle Grades. Alvermann, D. (2000). Classroom
talk about texts: Is it dear,
cheap, or a bargain at any price? Chapter
7 in Taylor, B., Graves, M., & van den Broek, P. (Eds.), Reading for
Meaning: Fostering Comprehension in
the Middle Grades.
|
| Week 6 | 5/2/01 | Classroom discussion and comprehension:
Recent Research
Fall, R., Webb, N., & Chudowsky, N. (2000). Group discussion and large-scale language arts assessment: Effects on students’ comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 37(4), 911-941. Van den Branden, K. (2000). Does negotiation of meaning promote reading comprehension? A study of multilingual primary school classes. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3), 426-443.
|
| Week 7 | 5/9/01 | Helping students become aware of their
thinking Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (1997).
Mosaic of Thought: Teaching
Comprehension in a Reader’s Workshop.
Chapters 1-3
|
| Week 8 | 5/16/01 | Background knowledge and importance of
information in text Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of Thought: Teaching
Comprehension in a Reader’s Workshop.
Chapters 4-6.
|
| Week 9 | 5/23/01 | Imagery and inferencing Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (1997).
Mosaic of Thought: Teaching
Comprehension in a Reader’s Workshop.
Chapters 7-10.
|
| Week 10 | 5/30/01 | Topic to be
selected / discussion of student papers
|
| Week 11 | 6/6/00 | Topic to be selected / discussion of student papers |
|
|
 |
|
