Syllabus
Literacy
Processes and Practices: Youth in Context
Wednesday, 4-6:20
203 Henzlik Hall
Professor Loukia K. Sarroub Office Hours:
216C Henzlik Hall M, 3:30-4:30p
and W, 1-2p & by appt.
472-5166 LSARROUB@UNL.EDU
This course provides an overview of Literacy
processes and practices from interdisciplinary perspectives. In order to tackle the challenges of
linking theory, practice, and research, the course is designed to complement
your understanding of language, the teaching of reading, student and teachers
experiences with multiple and new literacies, and current literacy instruction
and debates. Specifically, this
course will encourage you to develop your own theory about Òbest practicesÓ in
literacy education by critically examining competing theories and by reflecting
on and engaging in research focused on literacy instruction and teaching and
learning.
We will consider a variety of contexts in which reading
takes place and examine how literacy might be defined by children and youth,
families, teachers, policy makers, and researchers in those instances (across
home, school, and community, and work settings). We will explore literacy from various perspectives:
psycholinguistic, socio-cultural, cognitive, and developmental. The course will
focus on connecting these views of reading to real youth and their
learning. As such, we will be
concerned with addressing reading needs of all children. Course goals include the following:
¤
understand
the components of reading and learning processes and incorporate those
components in your teaching and learning;
¤
develop
the ability to analyze structural and conceptual characteristics of decoding
print, reading comprehension, and writing and use these analyses to select
appropriate instructional strategies in classroom instruction;
¤
assess
the background knowledge, reading abilities, attitudes and interests of
students and design content instruction for varying ability levels;
¤
gain
knowledge of a variety of instructional techniques and strategies for teaching
students how to acquire information from text;
¤
understand
the interactive nature of language and build on that interactiveness when
constructing lessons;
¤
develop
and understanding of the cultural, political, linguistic, and social dimensions
of literacy education;
¤
explore
new and multiple literacies.
Because we will be pursuing the goals above through
conversation and in-class activities, it is imperative that you attend each
class. The readings alone will not
offer the substance of this course. Attendance is mandatory and your ACTIVE
class participation is required. You will be required to participate in Book
Club, communicate via Blackboard with a UNL student teacher in Houston, present
key ideas from the readings to the whole class, conduct and report a
child/youth study, and complete an analytical project.
Attendance/ACTIVE Participation (5%). Please arrive to class prepared to
discuss the readings. At times you
will be expected to have a written response prepared, so itÕs a good idea to
keep a weekly journal of your responses to the readings. You are also expected
to attend a public talk (David Labaree, Stanford University on Friday, February
22 at 10a.)
Book Club (5%). Each time we meet, we will set aside some time for a Book
Club session. Book Club will be a time for you to exchange book ideas with us,
your colleagues. During each book
club session, you will each bring a book for children or adolescents and
briefly discuss why the book is interesting or a worthwhile Òread.Ó Please feel free to bring in a book you
have read or that you have used in your own teaching. You are expected to type on one sheet of paper, the book
title and author, date of publication, a brief summary of the book, and a brief
explanation describing why you chose to present this book, and you will make
copies for everyone in class. You will each participate in two book club sessions during
the term, so be prepared to bring in two books. By the end of the course, you will all have an assortment of
interesting books to consult for your own personal use and/or in your teaching
practice in the future.
Blackboard Discussion with UNL student teacher,
Drew Johnson in Houston, TX (5%). The class will engage in a weekly
discussion of DrewÕs teaching experience. Everyone will be expected to
participate in the discussion, but only 2-3 individuals per week will ask
questions of Drew, to which he will respond. This is an open discussion, and
you are encouraged to ask about anything that pertains to his being a student
teacher in Houston.
Readings Presentations (15%). The purpose of
the presentations is for small groups to better inform all of us as your
colleagues that given day. Presenters should come to class prepared to present
an analysis of what they have learned and to model activities if warranted.
Presentations will be based on the readings assigned. All students are expected
to have read the readings prior to each presentation and class session.
Presenters are encouraged to meet together several times and to meet with me if
necessary.
Presentations should be interactive among the
presenters and the class. The presentations should be approximately 20-25
minutes and should utilize the reading(s) assigned for presentation
purposes. You are expected to
describe the reading and synthesize it for the class. You may use a TV and VCR
and/or the overhead projector and/or other technology such as a computer. All
of these may be checked out from the Design Center in Henzlik Hall.
Possible
formats for the presentation:
A.
Introduction,
presenting of main ideas with examples, and conclusion
B.
Poster
session which can model activities
C.
A
skit
D.
An
Oprah Winfrey show with presenters as experts and the class as audience
E.
Any
other creative format
Each
presenter will have equal time to present. Each group of presenters will hand
in a description of the presentation and clearly note each presenterÕs
contribution (research, preparation, number of times you met, presentation
time, etc.) at the beginning of class on presentation day.
Child/Youth Study (35%), Due March 5. The
study will entail one interview with open-ended questions with the young
person, an informal reading assessment, an analysis of your data (interview and
assessment), and a report in which you describe what you learned about the
young person and how the literature in the course informs your findings. You
will hand in the following:
-The transcribed interview and tape (30-45 minutes)
-The assessment data
-The analysis
-The final report (5-6 double spaced pages) will
include
a. a description of what you learned about the
young personÕs literacy(ies) based on your analysis
b. a clear argument for how the readings inform
your findings. For example, how might you address his/her literacy learning in
and out of the classroom? What are the important considerations? How does the
research weÕve read help us understand this young person and how we, as
teachers can teach him/her?
Analytical project (35%) Due April 30.
Throughout the semester, we will discuss issues and critical perspectives that
arise out of literacy. Your
individual research study will be one of two options:
a.
(Undergraduate
students only) a project in the form of a paper (8-10 pages maximum), a map, a
collage, a model, a poem, etc., which represents, explores, and addresses some
aspect or critical issue in literacy
b.
an
in-depth, theoretical paper in which you explore and address a critical issue
in literacy research (3000 words or 12 pages).
A
one-to-two paragraph proposal of will be due March 12. It should outline the type of research you are planning to
do. All research topics should
address some aspect of literacy instruction or debate in the field. If you choose option a, your proposal should
demonstrate that you have made enough preparation to ensure the project is well
planned and organized and that it can be completed. If you decide to develop something other than a paper, you
will have to hand in an analytical explanation of the project. It should describe, synthesize, and
analyze the issue represented by your project. If you choose option b, you should have done the preliminary
research work to be sure you have enough literature to do a complete and
comprehensive review of the literature and that your topic is well defined and
focused to fit the scope of your paper.
You may use chapters we have not read from our texts
You may use your child study as the basis of your
inquiry. All writing should be typed and double-spaced with one-inch
margins. Complete references and
bibliographies are expected. Late projects will not be accepted.
Readings. Readings are available at the
University Bookstore and the books are on reserve at the Love Library. Separate
articles are noted in the schedule, and those will be available at the Love
Library Electronic Reserves at http://0-www.unl.edu.library.unl.edu/libr/ereservs.
You are expected to come to each class having read for that day and prepared
for our discussion. Preparation for discussion
may include written responses to the readings.
Texts for the course include:
Required:
Alvermann,
Donna, Kathleen Hinchman, David Moore, Stephen Phelps, Diane Waff. (2006). Reconceptualizing
the literacies in adolescents' lives, 2nd edition. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Purcell-Gates
(1995). Other People's Words: The cycle of low literacy. Harvard University Press.
Rush,
Leslie, S., Eakle, A. Jonathan, Berger, Allen (Eds). (2007).Secondary School
Literacy: What Research Reveals for Classroom Practice. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Smith,
W. and Jeffrey Wilhelm.(2002). ÒReading don't fix no ChevysÓ: Literacy in
the lives of young men. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Brandt, Deborah. (2001).
Literacy in American Lives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6)Finders,
Margaret. 1997. Just girls: hidden literacies and life in junior high. NY: Teachers College
Press.
Recommended/Required:
Cunningham,
P. & Allington, R. (2007). Classrooms that work: They can all read and
write.
Boston: Pearson and Allyn ad Bacon.
Electronic
Reader:
Haas
Dyson, Anne. (2003). ÒÕWelcome to the jamÕ: Popular culture, school literacy,
and the making of childhoods. Harvard Educational Review 73 (3): 328-61.
Pearson,
P. D. (2007). An endangered species act for literacy education. Journal of literacy
research, 39 (2): 145-162.
Sarroub,
L. K. and Pearson, P. D.
(Nov./Dec.1998). Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back: The Stormy History
of Reading Comprehension Assessment. The Clearinghouse, 72 (2), 97-105.
Pearson,
P. David. 1996. Reclaiming the center. In The First R: Every ChildÕs Right to
Read (Pp. 259-274), edited by M. Graves, P. van den Broek, & B. M. Taylor.
NY: Teachers College Press.
Moje,
E. & Lewis, C. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role
of critical sociocultural literacy research, in Lewis, C., Enciso, P., &
Moje, E. B. (Eds.) Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity,
agency, and power,
pp. 15-48. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Auerbach,
E. R. (1989).Toward a social-contextual approach to family literacy. Harvard
Educational Review 59
(2): 165-181.
Reyes,
M. (1992). Challenging venerable assumptions: literacy instruction for
linguistically different students. Harvard educational review 62 (4): 427-446.
Hull,
G. (1993). Hearing other voices: A critical assessment of popular views on
literacy and work. Harvard educational review 63 (1): 20-49.
Rogers,
R. & Fuller, C. (2007). ÒAs if you heard it from your momma:Ó Redesigning
histories of participation with literacy education in an adult education class.
In Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E. B. (Eds.) Reframing sociocultural
research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power, pp. 75-113. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Graff, Harvey, J. Literacy, myths, and legacies: Lessons from the history of literacy, in Literacy and historical development: A reader, edited by H. J. Graff, pp. 12-37. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Grading
Scale
A = 95-100%
A- = 90-94%
B+ = 87-89%
B = 83-86%
B- = 80-82%
C = 77-79%
C- = 73-76%
D+ = 69-72%
D = 65Ñ68%
Course Schedule
|
Week
1 |
Jan.
16 |
Introduction:
What is literacy? Form
presentation groups Schedule
Book Club and schedule Blackboard questions to Drew Johnson in Houston, TX |
|
Week
2 |
Jan.
23 |
Introduction,
pp. xi-xviii (Rush, Eakle, & Berger in SSL) The
Nature of Literacies (Alvermann & McLean, 1-20, in SSL) Haas
Dyson, Anne. (2003). ÒÕWelcome to the jamÕ: Popular culture, school literacy,
and the making of childhoods. Harvard Educational Review 73 (3): 328-61. Introduction (Alvermann, Jonas, Steele, &
Washington, xxi-xxxii in RLAL *Classrooms
that work,
Chapts. 1-3 Book
Club: Blackboard
Questions: |
|
Week
3 |
Jan.
30 Generate
interview questions |
Playing
for real: Texts & the Performance of identity (Neilson, 5-28 in RLAL) Re/constructing
identities: A tale of two adolescents (Marsh & Stolle, 29-46 in RLAL) Literacy,
identity, and the changing social spaces of teaching and learning (Leander
& Zacher, 138-164 in SSL) *Classrooms
that work,
Chapts. 4-5 Presentation
Group: Book
Club: Blackboard
Questions: |
|
Week
4 |
Feb.
6 Informal
reading inventories, running records, retellings Guests: Nola
and Beatrice Scott |
Purcell-Gates, Other PeopleÕs Words: The Cycle of low
literacy Pearson, P. D. (2007). An endangered species act
for literacy education. Journal of literacy research, 39 (2):
145-162. Assessment of adolescent reading proficiencies (Underwood,
Yoo, & Pearson, 90-116 in SSL) Classrooms
that work,
Chapts. 9, 10 Presentation
Group: Book
Club: Blackboard
Questions: |
|
Week
5 |
Feb.
13 Informal
reading inventories, running records, retellings |
Sarroub,
L. K. and Pearson, P. D.
(Nov./Dec.1998). Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back: The Stormy
History of Reading Comprehension Assessment. The Clearinghouse, 72 (2), 97-105. Pearson,
P. David. 1996. Reclaiming the center. In The First R: Every ChildÕs Right to
Read (Pp. 259-274), edited by M. Graves, P. van den Broek, & B. M.
Taylor. NY: Teachers College Press. Classrooms that work, Chapt. 6 Presentation
Group: Book
Club: Blackboard
Questions: |
|
Week
6 |
Feb.
20 Analysis
of data |
What
is new about the New Literacies of online reading comprehension (Leu,
Zawilinski, Castek, Banerjee, Housand, Liu, and OÕNeel (37-68 in SSL) StrugglingÓ
adolescentsÕ engagement in multimediating: Countering the institutional
construction of incompetence (OÕBrien, 29-46 in RLAL) Presentation
Group: Book
Club: Blackboard Questions: |
|
|
Friday,
Feb. 10a City
Campus Union |
David Labaree, Stanford
University, ÒAn Uneasy Relationship: Teacher Education in the
University,
Attendance
is required. Write a 1-page reaction describing what you learned. |
|
Week
7 |
Feb.
27 Analysis
of data |
I
want to learn to read before I graduate: How sociocultural research on
adolescentsÕ literacy struggles can shape classroom practice (Hinchman,
117-137 in SSL) Moje,
E. & Lewis, C. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The
role of critical sociocultural literacy research, in Lewis, C., Enciso, P.,
& Moje, E. B. (Eds.) Reframing sociocultural research on literacy:
Identity, agency, and power, pp. 15-48. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Self-fashioning
and shape-shifting: language, identity, and social class (Gee, 165-186 in
RLAL). Presentation
Group: Book
Club: Blackboard
Questions: |
|
Week
8 |
March
5 Child/Youth
Study Due! |
Legitimacy,
recognition, & access to language and literacy: English language learners
at the secondary school level (JimŽnez & Teague, 165-183 in SSL) Auerbach,
E. R. (1989).Toward a social-contextual approach to family literacy.
Harvard Educational Review 59 (2): 165-181. Reyes,
M. (1992). Challenging venerable assumptions: literacy instruction for
linguistically different students. Harvard educational review 62 (4): 427-446. *Classrooms
that work,
Chapt. 8 Presentation
Group: Book
Club: Blackboard
Questions: |
|
Week
9 |
March
12 Analytical
Project Proposal
Due! |
Smith
& Wilhelm, ÒReading donÕt fix no chevys,Ó Introduction and chapters
1-3 Literacy development in African American males
(Tatum, 184-202 in SSL Classrooms
that work,
Chapt. 8 Presentation
Group: Book
Club: Blackboard
Questions: |
|
Week
10 |
March
19 |
Spring Break |
|
Week
11 |
March
26 AERA
Week Bring
a draft of your final project to share in a small group. |
Read ahead and work on projects (Possible
Workshop Day) |
|
Week
12 |
April
2 |
Smith
and Wilhelm, ÒReading donÕt fix no chevys,Ó Introduction and
chapters 3-6 Utilizing
studentÕs cultural capital in the teaching and learning process: ÒAs ifÓ
learning communities and African American studentsÕ literate currency (Obidah
& Marsh, 107-129 in RLAL) Adopting
reader and writer stances in understanding and producing texts (Beach and
OÕBrien, 217-242 in SSL) Classrooms
that work,
Chapt. 14 Presentation
Group: Book
Club: Blackboard Questions: |
|
Week
13 |
April
9 |
Finders,
Just Girls Adolescent
identities as demanded by science classroom discourse communities (Moje and
Dillon, 85-106 in RLAL) Presentation
Group: Book
Club: Blackboard
Questions: |
|
Week
14 |
April
16 |
Brandt,
Literacy in American lives Hull,
G. (1993). Hearing other voices: A critical assessment of popular views on
literacy and work. Harvard educational review 63 (1): 20-49. Rogers,
R. & Fuller, C. (2007). ÒAs if you heard it from your momma:Ó Redesigning
histories of participation with literacy education in an adult education
class. In Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E. B. (Eds.) Reframing
sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power, pp. 75-113. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum. Presentation
Group: Book
Club: Blackboard
Questions: |
|
Week
15 |
April
23 |
Literacy and
Youth in Context Graff,
Harvey, J. Literacy, myths, and legacies: Lessons from the history of
literacy, in Literacy and historical development: A reader, edited by H. J.
Graff, pp. 12-37. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Adolescent
agency and literacy, (Moore and Cunningham, 129-146 in RLAL) Fallen
angels: Finding adolescents and adolescent literacy in a renewed project of
democratic citizenship (Harper & Bean, 147-160 in RLAL) From
contexts to contextualizing and recontextualizing: The work of teaching
(Damico, Campano, & Harste, 203-216 in SSL) Presentation
Group: Book
Club: Blackboard
Questions: Book
Club: |
|
Week
16 |
April
30 |
Analytical
Project presentations Conclusions |