Syllabus Entrance
Printer Friendly
Email Syllabus
Education Major Version

ED 586 Emergent Literacy Diverse Soc II
Choi, Dong Hwa


Mission Statement: The mission of the School of Graduate and Professional Studies at Park University is to provide leadership and directions to Park University's graduate and professional programs to assure that they are specialized, scholarly, innovative, and designed to educate students to be creative, independent, and lifelong learners within the context of a global community.

School For Education Mission Statement
The School for Education at Park University, an institution committed to diversity and best practice, prepares educators to be effective school professionals, reflective change agents, and advocates for equity and excellence for all learners.



Vision Statement: Park University's School of Graduate and Professional Studies will be an international leader in providing innovative graduate and professional educational opportunities to learners within a global society.

School For Education Vision Statement
The School for Education at Park University is to be known as a leader in the preparation of educators who will address the needs, challenges, and possibilities of the 21st century.

Park University School for Education  Conceptual Framework


Course

ED 586 Emergent Literacy Diverse Soc II

Semester

F2P 2009 EDD

Faculty

Choi, Dong Hwa

Title

Associate professor

Degrees/Certificates

Ph. D

Office Location

911 Main, Suite 819 Kansas City, MO 64105

Office Hours

W 3-5 pm Th 11-5 pm

Daytime Phone

(o) 816-559-5604

Other Phone

(c) 816-820-7950

E-Mail

dong.choi@park.edu

Class Days

----R--

Class Time

5:00 - 9:30 PM

Credit Hours

3


Textbook:
  Clay, M. M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York: ME. Stenhouse.  

Geekie, P., Cambourne, B., & Fitzsimmons, P. (1999). Understanding literacy development. Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham.

Johnston, P. H. (2004) Choice words: How our language affects children’s learning. York, ME: Stenhouse.

Additional Resources:
 

Anderson, J., Anderson, A., Lynch, J., & Shapiro, J. (2003). Storybook reading in a multicultural society: Critical perspectives. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.) On reading books to children: Parents and teachers.  pp. 203-230. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berry, J. H., & Allen, E. H. (2002).   Faces to the window: ‘The Construction Project’. Early Childhood Research & Practice. Spring Volume 4, no1. 1-14. www.ecrp.uicu.edu/v4n1/berry.html

Dickenson, D. K. (2001). Book reading in preschool classrooms: Is recommended practice common? In D. K. Dickenson, & P. O. Tabors, (Eds.). Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school. pp. 175-203. Brookes Publishing.

Dickenson, D. K. (2001). Large-group and free-play times: Conversational settings supporting language and literacy development. In D. K. Dickenson, & P. O. Tabors, (Eds.). Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school. pp. 223-255. Brookes Publishing.

Dombey, H. (2003). Interactions between teachers, children and texts in three primary classrooms in England. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3, 37-58.

Gregory, E., Williams, A., Baker, D., & Street, B. (2004). Introducing literacy to four year olds: Creating classroom cultures in three schools. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 4, 85-107.

 

Hughes, M., & Westgate, D. (1998). Teachers and other adults as talk partners in nursery and reception classes.    In M. Woodhead, D. Faulker, & K. Littleton (Eds.) Cultural worlds of early childhood. pp. 214-222. NY; Routledge.

Invernizzi, M. (2003). Concepts, sounds, and the ABCs: A diet for a very young reader. In D. M. Barone & L. M. Morrow (Eds.) Literacy and young children: Research-based practices. Pp. 140-156. NY: Guilford.

McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I.L. (2003). Taking advantage of read-alouds to help children make sense of decontextualized language. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.) On reading books to children: Parents and teachers.  pp. 159-176. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Neuman S. B., Celan, D., & Fisher, R. (1996). The children’s hour: A social-constructivist approach to family literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 499-523. http://www.nrconline.org/jlr/archive/v28/article_28_4_2.pdf

Richgels, d. J. (2003). Invented spelling, phonemic awareness, and reading and writing instruction. In. S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.) Handbook of early literacy research. Pp. 142-155. NY: Guilford.

Riley, J., & Reedy, D.  (2005). Developing young children’s thinking through learning to write argument. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5, 29-51.

Schickedanz, J. A. (2003). Engaging preschoolers in code learning. In D. M. Barone & L. M. Morrow (Eds.) Literacy and young children: Research-based practices. Pp. 121-139. NY: Guilford.

Stahl, S. (2003). What do we expect storybook reading to do? How storybook reading impacts word recognition. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.) On reading books to children: Parents and teachers.  pp. 363-383. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Turbill, J. (2001). A researcher goes to school: Using technology in the Kindergarten literacy curriculum. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1, 255-279.

McAfee Memorial Library - Online information, links, electronic databases and the Online catalog. Contact the library for further assistance via email or at 800-270-4347.
Career Counseling - The Career Development Center (CDC) provides services for all stages of career development.  The mission of the CDC is to provide the career planning tools to ensure a lifetime of career success.
Park Helpdesk - If you have forgotten your OPEN ID or Password, or need assistance with your PirateMail account, please email helpdesk@park.edu or call 800-927-3024
Resources for Current Students - A great place to look for all kinds of information http://www.park.edu/Current/.


Course Description:
ED586 Emergent Literacy in a Diverse Society II: The second course in a two-course sequencethat reviews current literacy research; explores the implications of research for teaching practices; and examines approaches to planning, implementing, and evaluating engaging literacy experiences that build on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that children bring to the classroom.

Educational Philosophy:
 

Developing as a teacher is a complex process that occurs most effectively in learning communities that provide rich opportunities for inquiry and reflection, and that cultivate a sense of curiosity, integrity, social justice, and professionalism. 

Learning Outcomes:
  Core Learning Outcomes

  1. Read and apply research on children's literacy development to teaching practices.
  2. Create engaging learning environments and develop meaningful literacy opportunities for each child in their classroom.
  3. Examine and evaluate strategies for supporting children's efforts to become active participants in literacy communities.


Core Assessment:

Literacy Practices Inquiry. Identify an area of the literacy curriculum (reading, writing, listening, speaking) to explore in-depth during a five-week period in your classroom (or in the classroom of another teacher). 1) Provide a descriptive introduction explaining the rationale for the focus of your inquiry, and ground your thinking in the research and theory examined in ED585 and ED586. 2) Gather a well-developed collection of anecdotal records, annotated audio and/or videotapes, children’s work samples, and reflections that allow you to study the negotiation of meaning, and the scaffolding strategies that support the child/children’s literacy development. 3) Plans, initial results, and emerging questions will be presented to the class each week (this collaborative inquiry process with your research group should be well-documented) and in a final report documenting your learnings and those of the children, and reflecting on the implications of your learnings and the process of collaborative inquiry on your teaching practices.


Link to Class Rubric

Class Assessment:
  A. Core Assessment: Inquiry Project

 Literacy Practices Inquiry. (Due: 10/29, 11/5, 11/12, 11/19, 12/3)  (20 pts for each assignment—100 pts)

 Identify an area of the literacy curriculum (reading, writing, listening, speaking) to explore in-depth during a five-week period in your classroom (or in the classroom of another teacher). 

1) Provide a descriptive introduction explaining the rationale for the focus of your inquiry, and ground your thinking in the research and theory examined in ED585 and ED586. 

2) Gather a well-developed collection of anecdotal records, annotated audio and/or videotapes, and children’s work samples accompanied by interpretive reflections that allow you to study the negotiation of meaning, and the scaffolding strategies that support the child/children’s literacy development. Each artifact should be accompanied by a reflective commentary that explains (a) the context and interprets the child’s language or literacy intentions, questions, or theories and (b) teacher’s role as an advocate to promote the child’s literacy abilities. (c) Use at least 2-3 references to support your writing. --APA style (12 font size, double space, 1-2 pages per artifact)

3) Present your findings to the class each week (this collaborative inquiry process with your research group should be well-documented). 

 B. Weekly Journal (Due: 10/29, 11/5, 11/12, 11/19, 12/3) (65 pts)

The purpose of the weekly journal is to encourage a synthesis of the thinking of various authors and to promote a reflective stance on the part of the reader. Readings should be specifically referenced with a well-developed discussion of the provocations the authors are providing to your own thinking. Journals should be submitted weekly for a total of three entries for the session. (NAEYC Standards 1, 3, 4, 5; Professional Tools 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

Grading:
 

100-90% = A 

89-80 % = B

79-70 % = C

69-60% = D

Below 59% = F

Late Submission of Course Materials:
 

·   All assignments should be typed. No handwritten assignment will be accepted.

·   All assignments must be turned in on the dates indicated, unless date is changed by instructor.

·   Late assignments will result in 20% reduction of the student’s point total for that assignment.

·   When student submits assignments after due date, you will have one more opportunity to submit the assignments. You can submit the assignment one week after the due date. That means when we meet in class in the following week of the due date, you can submit the assignment. After the second opportunity is passed, I will NOT accept any late submission.

·   Any absence does not excuse students’ responsibility to get assignments turned in on or before due day.

·   Extreme emergency absences and/or due date situation will be handled case by case at the instructor’s discretion. Instructor’s decision is final. Keep instructor informed of any potential personal situations that might necessitate an absence. 

·   The above procedures and calendar (given in class) for this course are tentative and subject to change in the event of extenuating circumstances. I reserve the right and responsibility to evaluate the quality of your work. Completion of an assignment does not guarantee the awarding of all possible points.

·   If a student is absent for any reason, the student is still responsible for the information discussed in class that day.

·   For your own protection, always save a copy of any assignment you complete.

 

Classroom Rules of Conduct:
 

Please reserve Thursday evening for this class meeting, and arrange your day so that you are able to arrive at 5:00 and remain until 9:30. We will begin class promptly at 5:00, take breaks to keep our minds fresh, and plan for a variety of learning opportunities, including small group research work and large group conversations about class readings. You will be responsible for leading discussion on the readings, so be prepared to guide your colleagues through an in-depth examination of the content of each week’s readings, as well as make connections to readings from earlier class session.   This will mean that everyone needs to be well-prepared by carefully reading the selections for the week.

Please turn off all cell phones and reserve phone calls for breaks.

Course Topic/Dates/Assignments:
 

COURSE TOPICS/DATES/ASSIGNMENTS

Week

Date

Topics/Assignments

1

 

 

10/22

Children and teachers in conversation: Setting the stage

Reading: 

Geekie, P., Cambourne, B., & Fitzsimmons, P. (1999). Understanding literacy development. Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham. Chapter 1

Johnston, P. H. (2004) Choice words: How our language affects children’s learning. York, ME: Stenhouse. Chapter 1-3

2

10/29

Children and teachers in conversation: Looking at research

Reading: 

Dickenson, D. K. (2001). Large-group and free-play times: Conversational settings supporting language and literacy development. In D. K. Dickenson, & P. O. Tabors, (Eds.). pp. 223-255. Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school. Brookes Publishing.

Dombey, H. (2003). Interactions between teachers, children and texts in three primary classrooms in England. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3, 37-58.

Gregory, E., Williams, A., Baker, D., & Street, B. (2004). Introducing literacy to four year olds: Creating classroom cultures in three schools. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 4, 85-107.

Hughes, M., & Westgate, D. (1998). Teachers and other adults as talk partners in nursery and reception classes.   pp. 214-222. In M. Woodhead, D. Faulker, & K. Littleton (Eds.) Cultural worlds of early childhood. NY; Routledge. 

3

11/5

Children and teachers as writers.

Reading: 

Clay, M. M. (1998). The power of writing in early literacy. By different paths to common outcomes. York: ME. Stenhouse. Chapter 10

Geekie, P., Cambourne, B., & Fitzsimmons, P. (1999). Understanding literacy development. Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham. Chapters 2-4

Richgels, d. J. (2003). Invented spelling, phonemic awareness, and reading and writing instruction. In. S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.) Handbook of early literacy research. Pp. 142-155. NY: Guilford.

Schickedanz, J. A. (2003). Engaging preschoolers in code learning. In D. M. Barone & L. M. Morrow (Eds.) Literacy and young children: Research-based practices. Pp. 121-139. NY: Guilford.

4

11/12

Children and teachers as writers: Exploring engaging questions

Reading: 

Geekie, P., Cambourne, B., & Fitzsimmons, P. (1999). Understanding literacy development. Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham. Chapters 5-6

Johnston, P. H. (2004) Choice words: How our language affects children’s learning. York, ME: Stenhouse. Chapters 4-6

Berry, J. H., & Allen, E. H. (2002).   Faces to the window: ‘The Construction Project’Early Childhood Research & Practice. Spring Volume 4, no1. 1-14. www.ecrp.uicu.edu/v4n1/berry.html

Casbergue, R. M., & Plauche, M. B. (2003). Immersing children in nonfiction: Fostering emergent research and writing. In D. M. Barone & L. M. Morrow (Eds.) Literacy and young children: Research-based practices. pp. 243-260. NY: Guilford.

Riley, J., & Reedy, D. (2005). Developing young children’s thinking through learning to write argument. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5, 29-51.

5

11/19

Children and teachers as readers: The literary context of the classroom

Reading: 

Clay, M. M. (1998). Introducing storybooks to young readers. By different paths to common outcomes. York: ME. Stenhouse. Chapter 12

Paley, V. G. (1997). The girl with the brown crayon: How children use stories to shape their lives.   Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dickenson, D. K. (2001). Book reading in preschool classrooms: Is recommended practice common? In D. K. Dickenson, & P. O. Tabors, (Eds.). Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school. pp. 175-203. Brookes Publishing.

McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I.L. (2003). Taking advantage of read-alouds to help children make sense of decontextualized language. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.) On reading books to children: Parents and teachers.  pp. 159-176. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

6

11/26

Thanksgiving Recess

7

12/3

Children and teachers as readers: Developing concepts about print and sound.

Reading: 

Clay, M. M. (1998). The challenge of literacy improvement. By different paths to common outcomes. York: ME. Stenhouse. Chapter 14

Invernizzi, M. (2003). Concepts, sounds, and the ABCs: A diet for a very young reader. In D. M. Barone & L. M. Morrow (Eds.) Literacy and young children: Research-based practices. Pp. 140-156. NY: Guilford.

Nodelman, P. (2001).  A is for…what? The function of alphabet books. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3, 235-253.

Stahl, S. (2003). What do we expect storybook reading to do? How storybook reading impacts word recognition. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.) On reading books to children: Parents and teachers.  pp. 363-383. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

8

12/10

Involving families: Issues and Approaches

Reading:

Anderson, J., Anderson, A., Lynch, J., & Shapiro, J. (20030. Storybook reading in a multicultural society: Critical perspectives. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.) On reading books to children: Parents and teachers.  pp. 203-230. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Neuman S. B., Celan, D., & Fisher, R. (1996). The children’s hour: A social-constructivist approach to family literacy. Journal of literacy research, 28, 499-523. http://www.nrconline.org/jlr/archive/v28/article_28_4_2.pdf

 

Evaluating technology in support of literacy

Reading:

Turbill, J. (2001). A researcher goes to school: Using technology in the Kindergarten literacy curriculum. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1, 255-279.

Academic Honesty:
As a learning community, the University upholds the highest standards of academic integrity in all its academic activities, by faculty, staff, administrators and students. Academic integrity involves much more than respecting intellectual property rights. It lies at the heart of learning, creativity, and the core values of the University. Those who learn, teach, write, publish, present, or exhibit creative works are advised to familiarize themselves with the requirements of academic integrity and make every effort to avoid possible offenses against it, knowingly or unknowingly. Park University 2009-2010 Graduate Catalog Page 31

Plagiarism:

Plagiarism involves the appropriation of another person's ideas, interpretation, words (even a few), data, statements, illustration or creative work and their presentation as one's own. An offense against plagiarism constitutes a serious academic misconduct.  Although offenses against academic integrity can manifest themselves in various ways, the most common forms of offenses are plagiarism and cheating. Plagiarism goes beyond the copying of an entire article. It may include, but is not limited to: copying a section of an article or a chapter from a book, reproduction of an art work, illustration, cartoon, photograph and the like and passing them off as one's own. Copying from the Internet is no less serious an offense than copying from a book or printed article, even when the material is not copyrighted.

Plagiarism also includes borrowing ideas and phrases from, or paraphrasing, someone else's work, published or unpublished, without acknowledging and documenting the source. Acknowledging and documenting the source of an idea or phrase, at the point where it is utilized, is necessary even when the idea or phrase is taken from a speech or conversation with another person.

Park University 2009-2010 Graduate Catalog Page 31-32


Attendance Policy:

Professors are required to maintain attendance records and report absences. Excused absences can be granted by the instructor, for medical reasons, school sponsored activities, and employment-related demands, including temporary duty. Students are responsible for any missed work. Absences for two successive weeks, without approved excuse, will be reported to the Director of the individual graduate program, or to the Executive Director for the Graduate School, for appropriate action. Students with such a record of absences, without an approved excuse, may be administratively withdrawn from the class and notified that an "F" will be recorded, unless the student initiates official withdrawal from the class(es).Park University 2009-2010 Graduate Catalog Page 35

Disability Guidelines:
Park University is committed to meeting the needs of all students that meet the criteria for special assistance. These guidelines are designed to supply directions to students concerning the information necessary to accomplish this goal. It is Park University's policy to comply fully with federal and state law, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, regarding students with disabilities. In the case of any inconsistency between these guidelines and federal and/or state law, the provisions of the law will apply. Additional information concerning Park University's policies and procedures related to disability can be found on the Park University web page: http://www.park.edu/disability .



Rubric

CompetencyExceeds Expectation (3)Meets Expectation (2)Does Not Meet Expectation (1)No Evidence (0)
Analysis                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
Outcomes
Outcome 1-NAEYC Standards 1, 2,3, 4, 5  Professional Tools 4 - Artifact demonstrates candidate's ability to read research and apply learnings to teaching practices.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
Relevant theory and research is explained and integrated into the introductory rationale for the 5-week plan. Theory and research is mentioned in the rationale for the 5-week plan. Little if any mention is made of relevant theory or research as a grounding for the 5-week plan.  
Synthesis                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
Outcomes
Outcome 2-NAEYC Standards 4, 5 Professional Tools 6,7 - Artifact demonstrates candidate's ability to create engaging learning environments and opportunities to support the children in her/his classroom or program                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
Candidate designs a 5-week inquiry plan for implementing and evaluating new learning opportunities children, with particular attention to studying scaffolding strategies (scaffolding may include the strategies of families in family dialogue journals; peers or teacher/teaching partner in literacy centers; or teachers and/or teaching partners in reading/writing/drawing/listening/or speaking experiences).  



Candidate gathers detailed, relevant evidence (anecdotal records, work samples, audio and videotapes) to analyze the effects of new learning opportunities on children's learning.

(If the focus of the inquiry is on the effects of strategies with a single child, for example conferencing during writer's workshop, the evidence represents an in-depth inquiry into the child as a learner.  If the focus is on strategies used with a small group or the class as a whole, several children with different experiences or ways of engaging as a learner are identified and studied.)



Efforts are made to consider the child's negotiation of meaning.

 
Candidate designs a 5-week inquiry plan for implementing and evaluating new learning opportunities children.  Some scaffolding strategies are mentioned.  -Candidate gathers evidence (anecdotal records, work samples, audio and videotapes) of children's learning.Some attention is given to the child's negotiation of meaning.

 
Little if any mention is made of scaffolding strategies or child learnings.  
Evaluation                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
Outcomes
Outcome 3-NAEYC Standards 4, 5 Professional Tools 6, 7 - Artifact demonstrates the candidate's ability to examine and evaluate the effects of the new learning environments and opportunities on children's learning.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Candidate's analysis of teacher strategies and child outcomes prompts reflection on further strategies for improving teaching practices. -Analysis is grounded in the research and theory that launched the inquiry. -Teaching strategies are analyzed

using course texts (Geekie, Cambourne,& Fitzsimmons and Johnston). -The child's negotiation of meaning is analyzed using course texts (Geekie, Cambourne, & Fitzsimmons and Paley) -Candidate's rationale for improving teaching practices is based upon research and theory.

 
Candidate analyses teacher strategies and child outcomes.  -Analysis mentions the research and theory that launched the inquiry. Little if any analysis of teaching strategies and child outcomes in provided.  
NAEYC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
Outcomes
Professional Tools 7 - Ability to collaborate with colleagues to study and improve teaching practices                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Collaboration with in-class research group is well-documented with descriptions of the questions explored and reflections on the implications for the next week of the candidate's inquiry.  -“Intentional probings”provided by colleagues are described and evaluated. -Candidate describes and reflects on the implications of collaboration in the inquiry process. Collaboration with in-class research group is described.  -Candidate describes effects of collaboration in the inquiry process. Little if any description is provided of the collaborative process.  

Copyright:

This material is protected by copyright
                               and can not be reused without author permission.

Last Updated:10/14/2009 1:34:21 PM