Embedding Literacy in All Classes, Grades 7-12

Maine Literacy Partnership Literacy coaches thinking together…

Explicit Instruction & Minilessons in the Middle School

September20

What makes a minilesson mini?

Well the length of time it takes of course! This seems to be something that we all know but the 38 minute minilesson lives on. With homework to follow!

This is a minilesson about minilessons. The 10 minute kind. 

So to focus the minilesson we are asking a few quick questions. Imagine something you might teach such as a strategy, a convention, or a routine of your classroom as you ask yourself these questions. What is it that we want to be learned? Why is it important? When do we use it? Share that info with the students.

Then we model for the learners how it is done. Involve them as you practice it with them. Then support them as they do it on their own within your workshop.

In your workshop look for evidence of students using the minilesson focus and point it out. Bring it back to the how, when and why questions that began your minilesson.

When presenting this topic I have had teachers draft a minilesson around something that they are going to teach later in the week. We’ve used a framework of To, With & By while creating an anchor chart for future reference.

  1. TO: This is the part where the teacher delivers the information to the student about the learning including the purpose of the minilesson’s topic, the when, the why, and the how.
  2. WITH: This is the part where the teacher and the student collaborate to ctreate a further understanding of the project. How is this going to happen?
  3. BY: The student gets a chance to test this out on their own in context of the assignment of the day while the teacher is still available to support the learner
  4. optional depending on the case -

You could easily develop this into a full length PD session about what you do with the rest of the classtime after the 10-15 minutes of minilesson is over. I’ll share my experience in a separate post.

by posted under Workshop Ideas | No Comments »    

CCSS History Powerpoint

April4

This short presentation was completed in keynote, but I’ve learned today that Edublogs allows uploading of powerpoint and not keynote. I’ve converted the file so it should run fine, but you might want to take a run through yourself before sharing with colleagues.

The history of the CCSS — please adapt and use in any way that works for you.

by posted under PD Quickies, Standards | No Comments »    

The Sciences: ABC and CBV

February28

Anita Bernhardt, our MDOE science specialist has been teaching me my ABCs.

Activity Before Content.

In science classes, the recommended guideline for help in thinking about lesson planning is to have our students engage in Activity BEFORE engaging with the concept. This allows for genuine inquiry, which of course means real questions and conversations just like scientists in the real world might have. Instead of a lab being a confirmation of what the text book says, it becomes an opportunity to collect data, organize and analyze it, and ask questions and suggest possible explanations. Talk about giving students a purpose for reading!

Concept Before Vocabulary

I’m still pondering this one. I guess I’ve seen so many vocabulary strategies that advise working on unfamiliar words as a pre-reading strategy, that I’m still trying to rap my head around teaching concept before vocab. I wonder if teaching the concept makes apparent the need for vocabulary? I am always acutely aware of my lack of vocabulary when I try to talk with my car mechanic about a funny noise my car makes. The rest of my life, I don’t think much about automobile vocab. So being in the shop with a car problem gives me context and a hazy concept that need vocab.

by posted under Vocabulary | No Comments »    

Barbara’s Check-in

February4

This past month has been very busy.  The snow days messed up my NWEA testing, and some kids never got tested before the new semester started.  I think I told you all about my student who took 3 1/2 hours to take the reading MAP in the fall, and missed it by 1 point.  Well, this time, he took 5 hours to take it (with frequent breaks) and hit it on the nose.  Of course, the length of time it took him shows that he isn’t proficient, but it was enough for him to meet the graduation requirement, thank goodness.  Ironically, he has since decided to drop out of school because otherwise he will be 20 when he graduates.  (And how old will you be in two years if you don‘t graduate?)

The head of the social studies department has asked me to start coming to their department meetings.  I have gone twice already.  We have talked about readability, grouping for in-class reading, “entry-level” text vs. “worthy” text, text structures, setting a purpose for reading, making intentional teaching decisions, and a few other small things.  Right now we are working on how to get kids into more complex text.  One of the freshmen teachers was sharing how frustrating it is to get the kids to read Gilgamesh, then showed me the 70 vocabulary words he had selected for pre-assessment for the piece.  (We will be talking about vocabulary soon.)

In English, we have just given our second writing prompt.  The teachers were amazed at how automatic the kids have gotten at stating their thesis and providing evidence/examples.  (That was the workshop I was going to do in Orono today – maybe next time.)  They decided to add “warrants” to our expectations for kids, because of the work Brewster started doing in his class after I shared that book that I brought to our last class – the one about writing in response to literature.  It is great to see the department realize that their kids ARE capable of performing at a higher level, and believing it enough to make the writing rubric a little tougher!

I’m also working with Brewster on making sure that kids are processing AS they are reading.  His class is reading The Beans of Egypt, Maine.  After reading with two of his girls, I asked them who Merry Merry was and they didn’t have a clue.  He’s been so good at making sure that the kids were reading, and he always involves them in important activities, like discerning characters’ values, but it dawned on him that he wasn’t checking to see if they were processing the story while they were reading, in addition to searching for evidence for his task.  That’s another reason that I wish we would structure some books to be read twice – once for the story and once for the analysis.

The strategy I am going to use with the girls is having them refer to a coded copy of the text while they are reading their own books.  If they come to a little pick sticky, they should be wondering something.  If they come to an green sticky,  they should be feeling some kind of reaction to what the author is saying.  After I placed all my stickies, Brewster and I talked, comparing my stickies with his study guide.  Almost all of the stickies that I had placed in the book corresponded with something in his study guide.  We talked about the importance of the girls responding to the text, and not just hunting for answers in the book from a separate piece of paper.  It will be interesting to see if this works with them.

I read an article in an education paper today about the importance of “learning by heart,” otherwise known as rote memorization.  The article included this video.  Note the expression.  Unbelievable!  www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVu4Me_n91Y If I still have the article, I will email it.

My 3 year old grandson does not do anything quite that impressive (although he is bilingual).  He is funny, though, and I spend so much time laughing when we have him and his sisters.  Last weekend, Shougo was sitting up in Dick’s lap while Dick was online.  Shougo was complaining of a hangnail, and how much it hurt him, but Dick wasn’t really paying attention so his verbal responses didn’t fit what Shougo was looking for.  Shougo said, “I’ll show you,” picked up Dick’s pant leg, and jabbed the hangnail into Dick’s calf.  Dick yelped pretty loudly, but hopefully he learned to pay better attention.  Then, on the way home, we stopped at our usual diner.  The waitress loves Shougo. He got her going by ordering scrambled eggs, pickles, and toast for breakfast.  She lets him have whatever he wants, and he did eat all the pickles.

by posted under Uncategorized | 1 Comment »    

Focus

February4

Well, Dick and I just arrived back in Frankfort, quite a few hundreds dollars lighter.  It is 1:50, so I am not going to drive to Orono, but I will share how I spent my morning.

Lucky for me, Dick picked up the mail yesterday before picking me up at school.  In the mail was my latest book from ASCD – Focus: Elevating the Essentials to Radically Improve Student Learning, by Mike Schmoker.  I don’t remember if I sent you all the article that he had written about how he thought differentiation was a “fad” that was not supported by research.  I can remember how shocked I was when I read the article, and I am having the same kind of feeling right now.  In case you can’t tell, I spent all of our time waiting in the parking lot of the Family Country Market for a tow truck, and all of our time waiting for the tire place in Belfast to have a slot to squeeze us in, reading this new book by Schmoker.

In this book, Schmoker says we need to go back to what we were doing 30 years ago – having all kids read the same text (after we have taught all kids to decode in 1st grade), having kids annotate while they read, discuss during and after reading, and then writing about their reading.  (Forgive my lack of parallelism on that last sentence.)  He says this is basically the instruction that we need from grades 2 through 12!

Schmoker talks a lot about the importance of whole class instruction (including modeling), guided practice, and independent practice.  But he is totally opposed to guided reading groups.  He references quite a few people: Jago, Marzano, Wiggins, Fisher & Frey, Allington, the DuFours, Gardner, Gallagher, and more.  Schmoker also talks about teachers who teach from behind their desks (they’re not really teaching and there’s no way they can be assessing formatively).  He also talks about the importance of breaking learning down into intentional chunks and having kids process frequently.

A lot of what he says is what I’ve been teaching in my content class, but there are so many shockers, too.  For instance, he says we need to get kids back into the textbook in the content areas!!! He says our focus on active, project-based learning and technology has created kids who no longer spend the time they need reading, writing, and talking.

What is really odd is how this one book has made me so strongly both agree and disagree with what Schmoker is saying.  If you would like one wild book study – this would be the book for you.  There is plenty of controversy for everyone!

I am only half-way through the book, so I haven’t read the chapter on how to make science, social studies, and math literacy-driven.  I have to say, though, that this is a book that I definitely will not put down until I’m finished.

by posted under Uncategorized | 1 Comment »    
« Older Entries

 

January 2012
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Archives

Maine Literacy Partnership
7 – 12 Literacy Coach Training & Internship
Pilot 2009-2010

Faculty Information
Maureen Montgomery, University Coach/Trainer
Maine Literacy Partnership
University of Maine
324 Shibles Hall
Orono, Maine 04469
Work phone: 581.2746
Cell phone: 902.0232
Home phone: 223.4976
maureen.montgomery@umit.maine.edu

Office hours
Office hours are by appointment

Administrative Assistant
Amy Cates
102 Shibles Hall
University of Maine
581-2438
amy.cates@umit.maine.edu

Course Location
204 Shibles Hall

Course Description
The training and internship is designed to prepare literacy coaches, grades 7 – 12, as staff developers, coaches, and interventionists who support classroom teachers to improve their literacy instructional practices.  Designed as a 2 year, 9 graduate credit program, participants are required to attend 2 semesters on campus and a 3rd semester of virtual meetings. Prerequisite: Master’s Degree and acceptance into the training and internship program.

Year One—Training Year
2 semesters, 3 graduate credits/semester

In this pilot course, we’ll work to customize our reading and thinking to fit your individual school situations. Some pilot participants are working as full-time literacy coaches while others are working as part-time coaches and part-time teachers, and yet others are working as part-time coaches and part-time interventionists. We’ll consider:
1.Working to transform faculty or department meetings from business meetings to professional development workshops
2.Creating a literacy team in a middle or high school setting
3.How to generate invitations into colleagues’ classrooms and how to respond after a visit
4.The politics of literacy in content knowledge-driven classrooms
5.How to make a literacy coach’s work public and relevant
6.How to implement different models of intervention (RtI)
7.Assessment: data to information and then to informing classroom instruction

Year Two—Field Year
3 graduate credits

This second year of our pilot program seeks to support you as you make more observations, gain entrée into more colleagues’ classrooms, and consider the possibilities for fostering and supporting change in your school. Areas of study might include:
1.Implementing Professional Learning Communities in your school
2.Using data to inform instruction
3.Creating a plan to offer on-going professional development in your school.
Class Format
This course is comprised of eighteen (18) training days throughout the first academic year. During each training day, participants will be actively engaged in constructing new, and enhancing, their current understandings about effective literacy teaching and learning.  Participants will have multiple opportunities to discuss common readings, observe and analyze teaching and coaching, participate in shared inquiry around a variety of topics, receive direct instruction about the Maine Literacy Partnership framework for Grades 7 – 12 and reflect upon their own practices.

Course Schedule
Participants will meet eighteen (18) days throughout the calendar year. Workshops with  leaders in literacy education in this schedule are bolded, and while not mandatory, all cohort colleagues are strongly encouraged to attend. The schedule is as follows:

August 4, 5 & 6, 2009        Maine Literacy Partnership Orientation

August 10, 11 & 12        Response To Intervention Institute at UMaine with Dr. Linda Dorn

September 11            Laura Robb Workshop at UMaine

September 24, 25

October 15, 16

October 23 Lester Laminack

November 12, 13

December 10, 11

January 7, 8 2010

February 11, 12

March18, 19

April 15, 16

April 30 3rd Annual Nonfiction Institute at UMaine

May 13, 14

Course Objectives
Consistent with the conceptual framework of the College of Education and Human Development, course assignments and assessments have been structured to encourage reflective practice, enable synthesis of research and practice, and address diversity in the classroom.  There are seven discipline strands from which learning objectives are drawn for this course: (1) theory of literacy and learning; (2) the instructional framework; (3) text ; (4) instructional leadership; (5) the change process within a school reform model;  (6) data collection, analysis, and reporting; and (7) collegial coaching.

The course objectives within the seven discipline strands are aligned with the International Reading Association (IRA) Standards for Reading Professionals. Upon completion of this course, participants will serve as their school’s literacy coach for the Maine Literacy Partnership model.  The objectives are listed below the discipline strands with the specific IRA standard listed in the parentheses.

Theory of literacy and learning:
1.Construct a solid understanding of learning theory based on current research in the field of literacy learning (reading specialist standards 1.1, 1.2).

2.Demonstrate a theoretical understanding of the reading and writing processes through classroom practice (reading specialist standard 1.3).

3.Demonstrate an understanding of how individual children develop as literate individuals while considering their differing strengths and needs (reading specialist standards 1.4, 1.5).

The instructional framework:
1.   Use the individual instructional methods that comprise the framework (classroom teacher standards 2.1, 2.2, 2.4).
2.   Implement, in its entirety, the framework for one full academic year in various  classrooms (classroom teacher standards 2.1, 2.2, 2.4).

Text:
1.Understand the text demands of different genres and the instructional approaches best suited to support student success within each genre (reading specialist standards 2.3, 4.1).
2.Begin a collection of texts in content areas to support differentiated instruction.

Instructional leadership:
1.Prepare to implement an on-going professional development series for teachers in a team, department, or school (reading specialist standards 5.1, 5.2, 5.3).
2.Understand the elements of constructivist leadership within a school setting (reading specialist standard 5.3).
3.Demonstrate an ability to reflect on own teaching, coaching, and leadership skills (reading specialist standard 5.2).
4.Develop an environment where a community of adult learners is encouraged and supported to take risks in their thinking and learning as they further their understanding of literacy development, rethink their current classroom practices and procedures, and evaluate their decision-making processes (reading specialist standard 5.2).

The change process within a school reform model:
1.Participate in team meetings with the school team to prepare for systemic change in the school (reading specialist standard 5.3).
2.Demonstrate an understanding of the change process by creating a plan for the implementation of the Maine Literacy Partnership model in the school (reading specialist standard 5.3).

Data collection, analysis, and reporting:
1.Train classroom teachers to administer the annual assessment protocols (reading specialist standard 3.1).
2.Collect student achievement data from classroom teachers, collate it, and write a site report for local and state stakeholders (reading specialist standard 3.1).
3.Use daily classroom information, observations, and assessments to inform teaching (reading specialist standard 3.3).

Coaching:
1.Prepare to provide regularly scheduled coaching sessions to classroom teachers as they begin to implement the model (teacher educator standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4).

Required & Optional Texts:
Readings will be assigned from the following texts and from additional materials distributed in class.  The large number of texts required for this course is to support the coach in providing professional development to teachers in the school and to build the professional library in the school. Bolded texts are required of all cohort members; remaining text will be selected by reading workshop members in the cohort.

Semester 1
Glickman, C. (2002). Leadership for learning:  How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lent, R. C. (2007). Literacy learning communities: A guide for creating sustainable change in secondary schools. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.

Lyons, C.A., & Pinnell, G.S. (2001). Systems for change in literacy education: A guide to professional development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Maxwell, John, C. (2003). Relationships 101: What every leader needs to know. Nashville, TN:  Thomas Nelson.

Toll, C.A., (2005). The literacy coach’s survival guide: Essential questions and practical answers. International Reading Association.

Wink, J. (2004). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world. 3rd ed. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Semester 2
Allington, R. (2009). What really matters in response to intervention: Researched-    based     designs. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Buckner, A. (2005). Notebook know how:  Strategies for the writer’s notebook. Portland,
ME: Stenhouse.

Dorn, L.J., French, C., & Jones, T. (1998). Apprenticeship in literacy: Transitions     across     reading and writing. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Fletcher, R., & Portalupi, J. (2001). Writing workshop: The essential guide. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kristo, J.V., & Bamford, R.A. (2004). Nonfiction in focus:  A comprehensive framework  for helping students become independent readers and writers of nonfiction, K-6.   New York:  Scholastic Professional Books.

Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. (2007).  The continuum of literacy learning:  Behaviors and understandings to notice, teach, and support. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Robb, L., (2005). Teaching reading in social studies, science, and math: Practical ways to weave comprehension strategies into your content area teaching. New York:   Scholastic Professional Books.

Course Requirements
1.Attendance, punctuality, and participation are required for all class meetings, guided meetings, coaching sessions, site visits, and observations at training sites. Make up work is required if extenuating circumstances cause a participant to be absent.
2.Class participants will bring textbooks, class data, samples of student work, videos, and/or other examples as requested for each training session.
3.Class participants will engage in conscientious critical reading of texts and supplementary literature essential for the understanding of and participation in classroom discussion and activities.
4.Class participants will display a willingness to challenge their assumptions about teaching and learning.
5.Class participants will administer, collect, and submit local assessment data when requested.
6.Each class participant will participate in at least two site visits at his/her school with a Maine Literacy Partnership faculty member.
10.  Class participants will display a willingness to re-do assignments as needed.
11.  All work must be appropriately cited and referenced.

Assignments
Completion of all requirements at a graduate-level caliber is expected.  All written assignments, unless otherwise noted, are to be word-processed using Times 12-point font, double-spaced with 1-inch margins.  It is expected that submitted work has been revised and edited following the APA format.  Work will be graded accordingly for convention errors as well as quality of content.  All assignments are to be submitted on time.
The following assignments have been designed to support meaningful learning throughout the year.  The rationale for each assignment will be discussed thoroughly during class time so that participants can understand the value of each. Participants will respond critically to reading focusing on the theoretical foundation upon which the Maine Literacy Partnership is based.  This response will be in the form of a written commentary directly related to the assigned readings.

Semester 1
1.Written reflections after each site visit: After each site visit from Maine Literacy Partnership faculty, participants will reflect in written form on changes in their thinking, current questions based on new thinking, confusions that need clarification, and new directions of interest. The audience for the written reflections will be a Maine Literacy Partnership faculty member. Sample reflections will be provided for further clarification.
2.Book Assessment. Participants will conduct a study of the books used in their school. In high school this may be a collection of textbooks and assigned readings for a particular grade, or for a particular content area. At the middle school level it might be a collection of books used by a team of teachers, a particular content area, or across content areas in a single grade.
3.Text set collaboration & share:  Participants will collaborate, prepare, and share selections of text covering the same content knowledge in different formats and reading levels. The books may be a part of a text set for a particular content area or theme; or they may be an examination of different versions of one book.
4.Critical Pedagogy: Participants will select one example of a school to parent/guardian communication and examine and revise it with issues of critical pedagogy in mind. Examples might include: report card, warning notice, disciplinary referral or letter of expulsion, program of studies book, school conduct code or any other document that is intended to convey information beyond the walls of the school.
5.Book Chats (2). Be prepared to lead us in an activity or discussion that will deepen our understanding of a shared reading.
6.Attendance, participation, and assignments with the school leadership team: Class participants will work closely with their leadership team to create a collaborative community of adult learners. Alternatively, a plan to create a literacy team may be designed and implemented.
7.Log book or journal. In a format that makes sense to you, keep a record of the time you spend working as a literacy coach a/o interventionist. Documenting hours both in and out of school, and work in progress or completed will allow you to see the larger picture of how your time is spent.

Evaluation
All work is graded and must be at the B level or better to successfully complete Maine Literacy Partnership Internship. A general statement of performance at each level is presented below:

A =     Excellent achievement.  All assignments turned in on time with no additional revision needed. Teaching of the instructional framework is exemplary.
B =     Satisfactory achievement.  All assignments turned in on time with some revisions in content or presentation needed. Teaching the instructional framework is acceptable.
C =     Below-level achievement.  Assignments not turned in on time and some revisions in content or presentation needed.  Teaching of the instructional framework is minimally adequate.
D =     Unsatisfactory achievement.  Assignments are not turned in on time, are incomplete and have not met criteria outlined on assignment guide sheet.  Teaching of the instructional framework is unsatisfactory.

Final grades will be submitted at the completion of the course in December and May.

Academic Dishonesty
Academic dishonesty included cheating, plagiarism and all forms of misrepresentation in academic work, is unacceptable at the University of Maine. As stated in the University of Maine’s online “Student Handbook,” plagiarism (the submission of another’s work without appropriate attribution) and cheating are violations of the University of Maine Student Conduct Code. An instructor who has probable cause or reason to believe a student has cheated or plagiarized may act upon such evidence and report the case to an Associate Dean.

Students with Disabilities
If you have a disability for which you may be requesting an accommodation, please contact Ann Smith, Director of Disabilities Services, 121 East Annex, 581-2319 as early as possible in the term.

Extraordinary Health Circumstances

In the event of disruption of normal classroom activities due to an H1N1 swine flu outbreak, the
format for this course may be modified to enable completion of the course. In that event, you will
be provided an addendum to this syllabus that will supersede this version. Please stay home if you do not feel well, contact the instructor, and be willing to negotiate how we’ll navigate these unusual circumstances.

Categories