LEE 166: DISCIPLINARY LITERACIES & INTEGRATED CURRICULUM
| Spring 2020 | LEBSE Department California State University, Fresno |
||
| Course Name: | LEE 166 Disciplinary Literacy & Integrated Curriculum | Instructor: | Dr. Steven Hart |
|---|---|---|---|
| Units: | 3 | Office Location: | ED 247 |
| Time: | Wednesday 7-950pm | E-Mail: | smhart@csufresno.edu |
| Location: | ED 177 | Telephone: | 559-278-0319 |
| Website: | https://fresnostate.instructure.com | Office Hours: | TBD |
CATALOG DESCRIPTION
Teacher candidates will examine how reading, writing, talking, listening and viewing are tools for learning content across the disciplines. A disciplinary literacy framework will guide an inquiry-based approach to curriculum planning, curriculum implementation, and assessment principles.
COURSE DESCRIPTION
Literacy plays an important role in subject matter instruction and cannot be separated from the learning of academic content. Through literacy practices, students read, investigate, speak, debate and write about the content they study. Recognizing the important role literacy plays in students’ abilities to understand and apply disciplinary knowledge, the California English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework requires teachers to develop students’ literacy abilities across all content areas. Through an inquiry-based approach to learning, candidates will develop a deep understanding of the literacy practices of various discipline areas (i.e., math, science, social studies, visual/performing arts) and how to support children’s understanding of and competence with these disciplinary practices. Applying the 4Es Model of disciplinary literacy instruction (Engage, Engineer, Examine, Evaluate; Moje, 2015), candidates will collaborate to develop and implement a cross-disciplinary inquiry project that blends literacy, technology, visual/performing arts and multiple content areas.
DISCOVERe Course
This is a DISCOVERe course that incorporates the use of mobile technology to promote active learning in and outside of the classroom. You are expected to use your device for course related activities, including reading, note-taking, group discussions, presentations, recording teaching experiences, and reflecting on instructional lessons. You can receive a loaner tablet for one or two semesters through the DISCOVERe Hub.
1
For this course we will be utilizing the following tools and apps. Make sure you can access them from your device and are familiar with them. You can visit the DISCOVERe Hub (first level of Henry Madden Library) for tech support on any of these tools.
- Canvas Student App
- Google Drive
- Google Docs
- Google Slides
- YouTube Video Channel
- Video Ant- annotation software
It is your responsibility to maintain your device throughout the course to fulfill the course requirements. Please take care of and keep your device safe.
It is your responsibility to charge your device and make sure it is operational prior to each class. It is best to come to class with a fully charged device to ensure that you are able to complete all in-class activities. Most classes do not have sufficient outlets to charge your device during class time.
Your instructor is not responsible for providing technical assistance with your device or apps. If you have questions about the performance of your device you should make use of the DISCOVERe Hub located on the first floor of the Henry Madden Library during library hours.
Email: discoverehub@csufresno.eduPhone: 559.278.1812
REQUIRED COURSE MATERIALS
- Altieri, J. L. (2011). Content counts!: Developing disciplinary literacy skills, K–6. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Available for FREE Download through Fresno State E-brary at the following link: Content Counts
- Brock, C. H., Goatley, V. J., Raphael, T. E., Trost-Shahata, E., & Weber, C. M. (2014). Engaging students in disciplinary literacy, K-6: Reading, writing, and teaching tools for the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Available for FREE Download through Fresno State E-brary at the following link: Disciplinary Literacy K-6
- Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., & Murphy, L. (2012). Reading for understanding: How Reading Apprenticeship improves disciplinary learning in secondary and college classrooms (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Available for FREE Download through Fresno State E-brary at the following link: Reading for Understanding
- Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2011). Understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Available for FREE Download through Fresno State E-brary at the following link: Understanding by Design
2
COURSE GOALS
Develop candidates’ capacity to:
- Adapt subject matter curriculum, organization, and planning to support the acquisition and use of academic language within learning activities to promote the subject matter knowledge of all students, including the full range of English learners, Standard English learners, students with disabilities, and students with other learning needs TPE 1.1 (P); 1.4 (P); 1.6 (P); 2.2 (P); 3.2 (P); 3.5 (P); 3.6 (P); 4.1 (P); 4.2 (P) 4.3 (P); 4.4 (P); 4.7 (P); 5.7 (P); 5.8 (P); 6.1 (P)
- Promote students' critical and creative thinking and analysis through activities that provide opportunities for inquiry, problem solving, responding to and framing meaningful questions, and reflection TPE 1.3 (P); 1.5 (P); 4.7 (P)
- Demonstrate knowledge of subject matter, including the adopted California State Standards and curriculum frameworks TPE 3.1(P)
- Plan, design and implement disciplinary and cross-disciplinary learning sequences, including integrating the visual and performing arts and digital tools TPE 1.7 (P); 3.3 (P) 3.7 (P); 4.3 (P); 4.8 (P); 6.1 (P)
- Design and implement assessment practices that reflect the interconnectedness of academic content areas and related student skills development in literacy, mathematics, science, and other disciplines across the curriculum, including multiple means for students to demonstrate their knowledge, and student self-assessment TPE 1.4 (P); 3.4 (P); 4.3 (P); 4.7 (P); 5.1 (P); 5.3 (P); 6.1 (P)
- Access resources for planning and instruction, including the expertise of community and school colleagues through in-person or virtual collaboration, co-teaching, coaching, and/or networking TPE 4.6 (I,P)
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
- Compare how reading, writing, talking, listening and viewing are used within different disciplines. TPE 3.1 (P); 4.3 (P); 4.6 (P)
- Analyze the student knowledge required for a variety of disciplinary texts and tasks TPE 1.1 (P); 1.4 (P); 3.2 (P); 3.3 (P); 3.5 (P); 3.6 (P); 4.1 (P); 4.2 (P); 4.3 (P); 4.4 (P); 5.7 (P); 5.8 (P)
- Adapt generic literacy instructional strategies to meet the reading and writing demands of different discipline areas TPE 1.1 (P); 3. 2 (P); 3.3 (P); 3.5 (P); 3.6 (P); 4.3 (P); 4.4 (P); 5.7 (P); 5.8 (P)
- Design and implement an inquiry project using disciplinary literacy instructional practices that integrates technology, visual/performing arts, and multiple content areas TPE 1.5 (P); 1.7 (P); 3.3 (P); 4.3 (P); 4.8 (P)
- Design and implement instruction that guides students through the phases of inquiry, including generating questions, gathering and analyzing sources, synthesizing claims and evidence, critically evaluating and revising arguments, and communicating findings TPE 1.5 (P); 3.1 (P); 3.3 (P); 4.7 (P)
- Design and implement assessment practices that analyze students’ inquiry skills and content knowledge TPE 1.5 (P); 4.1 (P)
- Use assessment information to design and implement instruction that supports identified student needs TPE 1.8 (P); 2.5 (P); 3.2 (P); 4.1 (P); 4.2 (P); 5.2 (P); 5.3 (P)
3
ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING
| Assignment | Points | Student Outcomes | TPEs Assessed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary Literacy Project Report | 100 | 1, 4 | 3.1; 4.3; 4.6 |
| Disciplinary Literacy Project Presentation | 50 | 1, 4 | 3.1; 4.3; 4.6 |
| IA 1: Initiating Inquiry | 50 | 2, 5 | 1.4; 1.5; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.5; 3.6; 4.3; 4.4 |
| IA 2: Text/Task Analysis | 50 | 1, 2, 3, 4 | 1.5; 1.7; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.5; 3.6; 4.3; 4.4; 4.6; 4.8 |
| IA 3: Formative Writing Assessment/Instruction | 50 | 4, 6, 7 | 1.5; 1.7; 3.2; 3.3; 4.3; 4.8; 5.2; 5.3 |
| Interdisciplinary Inquiry Unit | 100 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | 1.4; 1.5; 1.6; 1.7; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.4 3.5; 3.6; 4.3; 4.4 4.6; 4.8; 5.1; 5.2; 5.3; 6.1 |
| Total | 400 |
Grades will be posted on Blackboard so you can monitor your progress. Final grades will be determined according to the following scale: 90% (360 points) or better = A, 80-89% (320-359 points) = B, 70-79% (319-280 points) = C, 60-69% (279-240 points) = D, 59% (239 points) or below = F. (See the rubrics in the syllabus for further clarification on grading)
Disciplinary Literacy Project Report & Presentation TPE 3.1; 4.3; 4.6 (A)
Students will collaborate in subject area groups to construct a report and presentation regarding the ways that literacy is used within a particular discipline or content area. The project will focus on broad concepts of literacy to include: reading, writing, and communicating. The report and presentation will be based on information collected through interviews, article reviews, and student reflections.
Instructional Activities
Candidates will complete three assignments using the instructional activity learning cycle. This cycle will involve 4 phases: 1. Learning about the core instructional practice through instructor modeling or examining videos and cases; 2. Preparing for and rehearsing the core instructional practice through collaborative planning and microteaching; 3. Enacting the core instructional practice with students in a classroom through co-teaching; and 4. Analyzing the enactment through video analysis and reflective writing and discussion. The Instructional Activities will assessed based on the candidate’s competence in identifying instructional actions (moves), interpreting the impact of these moves, and reflecting on alternative moves to achieve the learning goals.
The 3 core instructional practice assignments are:
- Initiating Inquiry IA1 (TPE 1.5; 1.7; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.5; 3.6; 4.3; 4.4; 4.6; 4.8)
(A)
This assignment will be the first lesson in the Inquiry Unit assignment (described below). Candidates will develop a lesson to stimulate student curiosity around an issue of relevance. Through strategic questioning and discussion, candidates will guide students to develop and refine meaningful questions to investigate further through the service-learning inquiry process.
4
- Text/Task Analysis IA2 (TPE 1.5; 1.7; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.5; 3.6; 4.3; 4.4; 4.6; 4.8)
(A)
This assignment will be completed as part of the Inquiry Unit assignment (described below). Candidates will analyze the texts/tasks for one lesson. Through this analysis, candidates will identify the content, textual, language, and disciplinary literacy knowledge demands of the texts/tasks; determine the areas where students will need support; and adapt instruction to support students’ successful learning. - Formative Writing Assessment & Instruction IA3 (TPE 1.5; 1.7; 3.2; 3.3; 4.3; 4.8;
5.2; 5.3) (A)
This assignment will be completed as part of the Inquiry Unit assignment (described below). Candidates will use a rubric to analyze student writing produced during the unit and identify areas of needed support. Candidates will use the state literacy standards and assessment results to guide the development of instruction to support students’ successful learning, implement the instruction, and reflect on the outcomes of their instructional moves.
Interdisciplinary Inquiry Unit (TPE 1.4; 1.5; 1.6; 1.7; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.4 3.5; 3.6; 4.3; 4.4 4.6; 4.8; 5.1; 5.2; 5.3; 6.1) (A)
Candidates will design a 2-3 week (~ 10 lesson) project focused on student inquiry questions. Applying the 4Es Model of disciplinary literacy instruction (Engage, Engineer, Examine, Evaluate; Moje, 2015), candidates will collaborate to develop and implement a cross-disciplinary structured inquiry project. The project will blend literacy, technology, visual/performing arts and multiple content areas to engage students in authentic disciplinary practices to address meaningful civic/social issues.
COURSE EXPECTATIONS AND POLICIES
Work Submission Policy
All documents submitted via Blackboard must be saved as .doc, .docx, .pdf, .txt, or .rtf files for the work to be accepted. It is the student’s responsibility to verify the submission of any document via Blackboard by clicking on the “!” symbol or “View/Complete Assignment” link in the grade book to ensure that the correct document was submitted. Late assignments may not be accepted. I encourage students to contact me if you have concerns about the course or particular assignments. Please do not hesitate to inform me of extreme emergencies.
Study Expectations
It is usually expected that students will spend approximately two hours of study time outside of class for every hour in class. Since this is a three-unit class, you should expect to study an average of six hours outside of class each week. Some students may need more outside study time and some less. For free tutoring on campus, contact the Learning Center in the Peters Building Annex (phone 278-3052).
Classroom Etiquette
(From the Academic Policy Manual): "The classroom is a special environment in which students and faculty come together to promote learning and growth. It is essential to this learning environment that respect for the rights of others seeking to learn, respect for the professionalism of the instructor, and the general goals of academic freedom are maintained. ... Differences of viewpoint or concerns should be expressed in terms that are supportive of the learning process,
5
creating an environment in which students and faculty may learn to reason with clarity and compassion, to share of themselves without losing their identities, and to develop an understanding of the community in which they live. ... Student conduct which disrupts the learning process shall not be tolerated and may lead to disciplinary action and/or removal from class."
UNIVERSITY POLICIES
For information on the University's policy regarding cheating and plagiarism, refer
to the Class Schedule (Legal Notices on Cheating and Plagiarism) or the University
Catalog (Policies and Regulations) at the following link:
http://www.csufresno.edu/academics/policies_forms/instruction/syllabus.shtml
Students with Disabilities
Upon identifying themselves to the instructor and the university, students with disabilities will receive reasonable accommodation for learning and evaluation. For more information, contact Services to Students with Disabilities in the Henry Madden Library, Room 1202 (278-2811).
Computers
"At California State University, Fresno, computers and communications links to remote resources are recognized as being integral to the education and research experience. Every student is required to have his/her own computer or have other personal access to a workstation (including a modem and a printer) with all the recommended software. The minimum and recommended standards for the workstations and software, which may vary by academic major, are updated periodically and are available from Information Technology Services (http://www.csufresno.edu/ITS/) or the University Bookstore. In the curriculum and class assignments, students are presumed to have 24-hour access to a computer workstation and the necessary communication links to the University's information resources."
Copyright policy
Copyright laws and fair use policies protect the rights of those who have produced the material. The copy in this course has been provided for private study, scholarship, or research. Other uses may require permission from the copyright holder. The user of this work is responsible for adhering to copyright law of the U.S. (Title 17, U.S. Code). Familiarize yourself with copyright and fair use policies by visiting the University copyright web page.
Technology Innovations for Learning & Teaching (TILT) course web sites contain material protected by copyrights held by the instructor, other individuals or institutions. Such material is used for educational purposes in accord with copyright law and/or with permission given by the owners of the original material. You may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for non-commercial, personal, or educational purposes only, provided that you (1) do not modify it, (2) use it only for the duration of this course, and (3) include both this notice and any copyright notice originally included with the material. Beyond this use, no material from the course web site may be copied, reproduced, re-published, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the permission of the original copyright holder. The instructor assumes no responsibility for individuals who improperly use copyrighted material placed on the
6
web site.
TENTATIVE COURSE SCHEDULE
| Date | Topic | Assignments |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 22 | Inquiry as Instruction; Service-Learning as Pedagogy of Inquiry | Review Syllabus; preview Module 1; CSP Observations Chart |
| Jan. 29 | Service-Learning as Pedagogy of Inquiry; Civic Education/Social Studies Overview | Module 1: Project-Based Learning articles; Wade (2001); SL Ideas |
| Feb. 5 | Social Studies & Civic Education | Module 2: Kahne (2008); SL Project Ideas; Social Studies Theme |
| Feb. 12 | Designing Integrated Inquiry Units; Introduce/Rehearse IA1 | Module 3: Parsons or Santau article; Draft Integrated Unit Web; Wiggins & McTighe Ch. D |
| Feb. 19 | Comprehension Across Disciplines; Selecting texts; Text & Task Analysis; Introduce/Rehearse IA2 | Bring Texts; Module 4: Read Schoenbach et al. (2012) pp. 33-41 Complete Text/Task Analysis Chart (IA2) for one text |
| Feb. 26 | NO CLASS- Conference | Work on Unit & Role Play Activity |
| Mar. 4 | Vocabulary Across Disciplines | Module 5: Chai (2019); Unit Plans |
| Mar. 11 | Social Studies & Civic Education; Analyze IA1 |
Module 2: River/Trial Role Play; IA1 Due |
| Mar. 18 | Developing Writing Across Disciplines; Introduce/Rehearse IA3 |
Module 6: Teaching Writing cases; McQuitty (2016) |
| Mar. 25 | Social Studies & Civic Education | Module 2: Structured Discussions |
| Apr. 1 | Unit Workshop; Analyze IA2; Overview of Disciplinary Literacy Project (DLP) | IA2 Due; Module 7: Disciplinary Literacy survey/reflection |
| Apr. 8 | SPRING BREAK- NO CLASS | |
| Apr. 15 | Disciplinary Literacy Inquiry; Disciplinary Literacy Instruction Analyze IA3 |
Module 7: Read disciplinary article; IA3 Due; Unit Due; Bring student writing sample |
| Apr. 22 | Disciplinary Literacy Instruction | Module 7: Moje (2015) |
| Apr. 29 | Disciplinary Literacy & Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy | Cullen (2016) DLP report/presentations due |
| May 6 | Civic Education Showcase | |
| Final Exam | Based on Semester Schedule | Final DUE; 4E’s Unit; Final DLP reflection |
SUBJECT TO CHANGE STATEMENT
The schedule and procedures for this course are subject to change. Changes will be announced in class, on the course Website, and/or by email from the instructor. It is your responsibility for finding out about schedule updates.
7
| Excellent- 20 points | Fair- 11-19 points | Poor- 2-10 points | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Literature Review | 1-2-page summary and analysis for 4 articles related to the literacy practices of the selected disciplinary area. Synthesis accurately links common findings, differences, critiques, and implications for classroom instruction across all 4 articles | 1-2-page summary and analysis for 4 articles related to the literacy practices of the selected disciplinary area. Synthesis does not clearly link all areas (common findings, differences, critiques, and implications for classroom instruction) across all 4 articles | 1-2-page summary and analysis is not completed for 4 articles related to the literacy practices of the selected disciplinary area. Synthesis does not clearly link all areas (common findings, differences, critiques, and implications for classroom instruction) across all 4 articles |
| Expert Interviews | 2 Expert interview transcripts are included. Synthesis accurately identifies similarities/differences and unique discoveries across both interviews, using quotes as evidence. Synthesis accurately identifies implications for classroom instruction | 2 Expert interview transcripts are included. Some similarities/differences and unique discoveries are not clearly linked across interviews and/or lack quotes as evidence. Implications for classroom instruction are not clearly linked to interview data | 2 Expert interview transcripts not included. Report lacks identification of similarities and differences and unique discoveries across interviews and/or lacks quotes as evidence. Implications for classroom instruction are not clearly linked to interview data and/or are inaccurate |
| Summary of Disciplinary Literacy Practices | Summary demonstrates thorough understanding of the literacy practices of the discipline, including all areas of reading, writing, communicating, and habits of thinking. Summary findings clearly supported by data sources | Summary demonstrates moderate understanding of the literacy practices of the discipline and includes most areas of reading, writing, communicating, and habits of thinking. Summary findings not clearly supported by data sources | Summary demonstrates minimal understanding of the literacy practices of the discipline and/or includes few areas of reading, writing, communicating, and habits of thinking. Summary findings not clearly supported by data sources |
| Instructional Implications | 2-3 critical insights about specific implications for classroom practice are supported by report evidence | Vague implications for classroom practice are presented or are not supported by report evidence | Classroom implications are lacking. |
| Writing Mechanics | Organization is logical. Report is carefully written and edited, free of serious convention errors. All citations provided in body of text and reference section accurately adhere to APA style | Organization is adequate but at times difficult to follow. Minor convention errors do not interfere with comprehensibility. Minor errors in APA style | Report is disorganized and difficult to follow. Serious convention errors. APA style is not followed |
8
| Excellent- 13 points | Fair- 7-12 points | Poor- 1-6 points | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project Elements | All elements of report clearly presented, including literature review, expert interviews, and classroom applications | Most elements of report clearly presented | Few elements of report are clearly presented |
| Literacy Practices Analysis | Presentation demonstrates clear understanding of the literacy practices of the discipline, including reading, writing, communicating, and habits of thinking. Analysis is supported by specific reference to data sources | Presentation demonstrates a moderate understanding of the literacy practices of the discipline and includes most areas of reading, writing, communicating, and habits of thinking. Analysis is supported by specific reference to data sources | Presentation demonstrates a minimal understanding of the literacy practices of the discipline and includes few areas of reading, writing, communicating, and habits of thinking. Analysis is not clearly supported by specific reference to data sources |
| Literacy Practice Examples | Presentation includes 2-3 examples/models to illustrate the literacy practices of the discipline. Examples effectively engage the audience and enhance audience understanding of the literacy practices | Presentation includes 1 example/model to illustrate the literacy practices of the discipline. Example does effectively engage the audience and enhance audience understanding of the literacy practice | Presentation includes 1 example/model to illustrate the literacy practices of the discipline. Example does not effectively engage the audience nor enhance audience understanding of the literacy practices |
| Mechanics | keeps eye contact with audience most of the time; speaks clearly; All team members participate equally | makes infrequent eye contact; speaks clearly most of the time; Most team members participate equally | does not look at audience; mumbles or speaks too quickly or slowly; Few team members participate |
9
| Proficient- 10 points | Emerging- 5-9 points | Beginning- -1-4 points | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Questioning Techniques | Candidate is able to identify various forms of questioning (open/closed; high/low cognitive) and clearly articulate intention for using different forms to support initiating inquiry, including assessing prior knowledge; prompting elaboration and justification; and redirecting | Candidate is able to identify various forms of questioning (open/closed; high/low cognitive) but struggles to clearly articulate intention for using different forms to support initiating inquiry | Candidate struggles to identify various forms of questioning (open/closed; high/low cognitive) and to clearly articulate intention for using different forms to support initiating inquiry |
| Discussion Techniques | Candidate is able to identify various facilitation and grouping procedures and clearly articulate intention for using these procedures to foster inquiry discussion, including student involvement, student encouragement, and student interaction | Candidate is able to identify various facilitation and grouping procedures but struggles to clearly articulate intention for using these procedures to foster inquiry discussion | Candidate struggles to identify various facilitation and grouping procedures and to clearly articulate intention for using these procedures to foster inquiry discussion |
| Developing Inquiry Questions | Candidate is able to identify the instructional moves that guided the refinement of the driving question, making clear connections between the entry event and the learning goals | Candidate is able to identify some stages of formulating the driving question but struggles to make clear connections between the entry event and the learning goals | Candidate struggles to identify the stages of formulating the driving question and to make clear connections between the entry event and the learning goals |
| Impact of Instructional Moves | Candidate is able to accurately interpret the impact specific instructional moves had on all areas of student interest, engagement, and learning | Candidate is able to accurately interpret the impact specific instructional moves had on some areas of student interest, engagement, and learning | Candidate struggles to accurately interpret the impact specific instructional moves had on any of the areas of student interest, engagement, and learning |
| Reflective Action | Candidate is able to determine specific instructional adjustments for subsequent inquiry initiating lessons and articulates strong rationale for the adjustments to enhance student interest, engagement and learning | Candidate is able to determine specific instructional adjustments for subsequent inquiry initiating lessons, but does not articulate strong rationale for the adjustments to support student interest, engagement and learning | Candidate struggles to determine specific instructional adjustments for subsequent inquiry initiating lessons and to articulate strong rationale for adjustments to support student interest, engagement and learning |
10
| Proficient- 13 points | Emerging- 7-12 points | Beginning- 1-6 points | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyzing Text/Task Demands | Candidate is able to identify the 4 key knowledge demands (content, textual, language, and disciplinary literacy) for a particular lesson | Candidate is able to identify some of the 4 key knowledge demands (content, textual, language, and disciplinary literacy) for a particular lesson | Candidate struggles to identify most of the 4 key knowledge demands (content, textual, language, and disciplinary literacy) for a particular lesson |
| Instructional Strategies | Candidate is able to design lessons using instructional strategies and grouping structures to provide students support with all 4 key knowledge demands (content, textual, language, and disciplinary literacy) and to clearly articulate intention for using these practices | Candidate is able to design lessons using instructional strategies and grouping structures to provide students support with most of the 4 key knowledge demands (content, textual, language, and disciplinary literacy) but struggles to clearly articulate intention for using these practices | Candidate struggles to design lessons using instructional strategies and grouping structures to provide students support with most of the 4 key knowledge demands (content, textual, language, and disciplinary literacy) and struggles to clearly articulate intention for using these strategies |
| Impact of Instructional Moves | Candidate is able to accurately interpret how both specific instructional strategies and grouping structures influenced both student engagement and learning | Candidate struggles to accurately interpret how both specific instructional strategies and grouping structures influenced both student engagement and learning | Candidate struggles to accurately interpret how any specific instructional strategies or grouping structures influenced either student engagement or learning goals |
| Reflective Action | Candidate is able to determine specific instructional adjustments for subsequent lessons and articulates strong rationale for how adjustments will support all areas of content, textual, language, and disciplinary literacy knowledge demands of texts/tasks | Candidate is able to determine specific instructional adjustments for subsequent lessons, but does not articulate strong rationale and/or address all areas of content, textual, language, and disciplinary literacy knowledge demands of texts/tasks | Candidate struggles to determine specific instructional adjustments for subsequent lessons regarding most areas (content, textual, language, and disciplinary literacy knowledge demands of texts/tasks) and struggles to articulate a strong rationale for the adjustments provided |
11
| Proficient- 13 points | Emerging- 7-12 points | Beginning- 1-6 points | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyzing Writing | Candidate selects appropriate rubric for genre of writing (narrative, explanatory, argumentative) and is able to identify strengths and weaknesses across all 3 domains (Purpose/Organization; Evidence/Elaboration; Conventions) | Candidate selects appropriate rubric for genre of writing (narrative, explanatory, argumentative) and is able to identify strengths and weaknesses for most domains (Purpose/Organization; Evidence/Elaboration; Conventions) | Candidate selects inappropriate rubric for genre of writing (narrative, explanatory, argumentative) and/or struggles to identify strengths and weaknesses for most domains (Purpose/Organization; Evidence/Elaboration; Conventions) |
| Instructional Strategies | Candidate is able to design lessons using instructional strategies and grouping structures that address specific state standards and support identified needs. Candidate is able to clearly articulate intention for using these practices | Candidate is able to design lessons using instructional strategies and grouping structures that address specific state standards and support identified needs. Candidate struggles to clearly articulate intention for using these practices | Candidate struggles to design lessons using instructional strategies and grouping structures to support identified needs and/or that are connected to specific state standards. Candidate struggles to clearly articulate intention for using these practices |
| Impact of Instructional Moves | Candidate is able to accurately interpret the impact specific instructional strategies and grouping structures had on student learning | Candidate is able to accurately interpret the impact instruction had on student learning, but struggles to connect the outcome with specific instructional strategies and/or grouping structures | Candidate struggles to accurately interpret the impact instruction had on student learning and to connect the outcome with specific instructional strategies and/or grouping structures |
| Reflective Action | Candidate is able to determine specific instructional adjustments for subsequent lessons and articulates strong rationale for the adjustments to support student learning | Candidate is able to determine specific instructional adjustments for subsequent lessons, but does not articulate strong rationale for the adjustments to support student learning | Candidate struggles to determine specific instructional adjustments and to articulate rationale for adjustments to support student learning |
12
| Excellent- 17 points | Adequate 10-16 points | Poor 2-9 points | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authenticity | The scope of the unit emanates from a question, problem, issue or exploration that builds connections beyond the school, is meaningful and relevant to students, and provides students opportunities to share their findings with an authentic disciplinary and/or community audience | The scope of the unit is determined primarily by the mandated curriculum. Though students’ interests are considered, there is a lack of authentic connections to disciplinary practices and/or the community | The scope of the unit is determined solely by the mandated curriculum and lacks relevance to students' interests, disciplinary practices and the community |
| Academic Integration | The unit clearly integrates multiple, specific disciplinary, literacy, and visual/performing arts standards in a cohesive manner, where all identified standards are integral to the inquiry process and culminating product | The unit includes multiple, specific disciplinary, literacy, and visual/performing arts standards, but the identified standards are not cohesively linked to support the inquiry process or product | The unit is designed around a single set of disciplinary standards |
| Assessment | Assessment is dynamic and embedded in the design of the unit from the onset, using a range of strategies, including peer and self-evaluation, to guide students’ learning and teachers’ instruction. Assessment reflects the interconnectedness of academic content areas and related student skills development in literacy, mathematics, science, and other disciplines across the curriculum, and provides students multiple means to demonstrate their knowledge | Assessment is embedded in the design of the unit from the onset and is used to guide students’ learning and teachers’ instruction. Assessment may be limited in reflecting the interconnectedness of content and skills development across discipline areas, providing students multiple means to demonstrate knowledge, and/or providing opportunities for peer and self-evaluation | Assessment is embedded in the design of the unit, but focuses on content knowledge acquisition, does not clearly guide instruction, and solely uses closed tasks to evaluate student learning |
| Digital Tools | Digital tools are used in ways that are appropriate to their use in the discipline(s); students use digital tools to gather and communicate information. | Digital tools are used in effective ways by the teacher to present content and support student engagement; students use digital tools primarily to access information | Digital tools are used solely by the teacher and solely to present content and promote student engagement |
| Connecting with Community Expertise | The teacher coordinates and designs opportunities for students to engage with and observer experts beyond the classroom to deepen their content knowledge, improve their inquiry skills, and refine their culminating product | The teacher coordinates and designs opportunities for experts to visit the class as guest speakers to deepen student content knowledge | Teacher does not draw upon disciplinary/community experts to enhance the inquiry unit |
13
| Disciplinary Literacy Instruction (Moje 4Es) (Engage, Elicit/Engineer, Examine, Evaluate) | Instruction throughout the unit applies all 4 components to support student learning of both disciplinary concepts and disciplinary literacy practices. Assignments, activities, and tasks Engage students to develop knowledge through techniques central to the discipline (i.e. field work, labs, interviews, studio work, construction, etc.). Teachers Engineer or design lessons that provide students support with all 4 key knowledge demands (content, textual, language, and disciplinary literacy). Assignments, activities, and tasks within the unit require students to Examine and Evaluate disciplinary language that encourage them to ask questions of: evidence (how do we know what we know?); viewpoint (who is speaking?); pattern and connection (what causes what?); supposition (how might things have been different?); why it matters (who cares?); and when, why, and how disciplinary language is and is not useful | Instruction throughout the unit applies most of the 4 components to support student learning of both disciplinary concepts and disciplinary literacy practices, but some components are not evident | Instruction throughout the unit applies few of the 4 components to support student learning of both disciplinary concepts and disciplinary literacy practices |
|---|
14
This PDF is provided as a print-only reference document and may not be fully accessible to users of assistive technology. For more information, please visit Title II Rule on Digital Accessibility page.