TERI Content Reading Grp
These task group reports are not policy, but a set of working ideas brought forward by these groups for discussion. The broader scope of the teacher education curriculum will be much more comprehensive than any one set of ideas and is still under development. Please see the TERI fact sheet for more up-to-date and accurate information about this initiative.
Teacher Education Redesign Initiative (TERI)
Content Area Reading Task Group
Members: Deborah Dillon & David O’Brien (Co- Chairs), Jane Gilles, Kathy Cramer,
Scott Lipscomb and Kate Kelly
Final Report---9-3-09--
Report Organized using the TERI “Task Group Charge and Deliverables” Requirements
1. Examine documents provided by Task Force and the Task Group Chair prior to work group meeting. Bring additional research-based ideas related to this work to the attention of the Chair.
The Content Reading Area Task Group examined several sets of materials including those provided in Appendix A. The documents we reviewed became central to our efforts. These were two key sources: (a) the ongoing work and reports generated from the Minnesota Board of Teaching (BOT) Reading Task Force—the group directed to review the literature and create teaching standards for pre through inservice teacher preparation at the early childhood through high school levels; and (b) the legislation that occurred surrounding reading instruction during the 2008 and 2009 legislative sessions. This legislation was the impetus of the creating of a state-wide group of reading and content area reading professors called “The MN Literacy Teacher Educators.” Leaders of this group founded a symposia series where faculty from over 28 institutions began a collaborative effort to reform literacy instruction at their respective institutions using the new BOT reading standards and the eventual legislation that was passed in the spring of 2009. Professors Dillon and O’Brien were intimately involved in the BOT work and very familiar with the legislation. The efforts previously detailed are critical to the work of the TERI Task Group on Content Area Reading because our U of MN coursework and experiences, in complying with state law, must be transparent in all documentation, including during syllabi review processes synchronized with the revised BOT standards; moreover, the work must be coordinated with the collaborative efforts of literacy professors from over 28 institutions of higher education across the state of Minnesota. Coordination with the Minnesota Literacy Educators is critical because the University of Minnesota literacy faculty members are leading the overall Literacy Teacher Educator’s Symposia Series. The U of MN—as a research I institution—is viewed as the leader in the way the content area reading coursework and experiences should be designed.
Second, the current state of reading instruction, standards revisions, and legislative action in Minnesota, coupled with the need to reform the 1 credit online content area reading course currently offered at the University of Minnesota, prompted Professor O’Brien (a respected scholar in the area of discipline-area literacy) to write the research-based report titled: A Proposal for Developing a New Teacher Education Curricula to Address Reading in the Content Areas and Disciplinary Literacy, January 2009. This report became the foundation for discussions within the College of Education + Human Development’s Steering Committee of the Licensed School Professionals (LSP) Steering Council and, as a result, was a starting point for the TERI Content Reading Area subcommittee’s work.
2. Identify what a successful teacher education candidate needs to know and be able to do related to the Task Group theme in order to be an effective and successful first year teacher with all students. Consider the differing needs for elementary and secondary candidates.
The Content Area Reading Task Group focused on preservice teachers (PTs) at the secondary level, (although new content reading standards were also developed for elementary teachers with the new BOT of Teaching reading standards—these are being addressed already in ECE and El Ed course revisions). Our Task Force discussed the need for secondary PTs in all content areas to understand foundational reading content and processes including how students learn to read and write, developmental patterns of literacy that we should expect of secondary students, basic reading assessments and how to use assessment results, and instructional approaches focused on comprehension of texts and concepts appropriate for each discipline area. It is critical to note that the knowledge about literacy needed by secondary PTs is not based on the idea that we are preparing content area teachers to “become teachers of reading.” We do not intend to prepare content teachers to remediate students with reading difficulties in their content area classrooms. Rather, research indicates that content area teachers benefit from understanding basic reading processes and key strategies that they can integrate into their content instruction and use to support students in becoming successful learners of their respective disciplines, particularly with respect to literacy processes necessary in understanding texts.
An idea key to our discussions was a broader definition for reading in the content areas—the idea of multiliteracies. In extending traditional language-based notions of literacy and literacy pedagogy, multiliteracies pluralizes literacy to account for cultural and linguistic diversity and increasingly globalized societies. With the increasing diversity and globalization comes the plurality of texts and discourses that define them and are defined by them. This focus on multiliteracies is important for preparing new teachers to work with the breadth of students in our society. It also requires that PTs adjust their pedagogical practices to account for the movement from print-only texts used to teach students important content knowledge, to increasing use of multimodal texts and digital media to understand ideas in a world in which geographical distance is increasingly shrinking. Knowledge about multiliteracies and the foundational knowledge about reading processes, assessments, and instructional strategies is a “common core knowledge base” that cuts across all PTs in all discipline areas. The core course content of a secondary PT course in reading will also address the broad areas used by the BOT reading task force:
1. Foundational Knowledge of reading processes
2. Instructional Strategies and Materials
3. Approaches to Assessment, Diagnosis, Evaluation and Intervention (including language via a specific clinical experience linked to coursework)
4. Creating a Literate and Motivating Environment
5. Professionalism
6. Current research on adolescent literacy
The core knowledge and research-based reading strategies are fleshed out in the chart provided later in this document (see #5 below).
3. Identify ways that the programs can know (assess) that the candidates can perform the identified outcomes.
Content area teachers can demonstrate their knowledge of basic reading processes and the appropriate strategies to help their students read print as well as other forms of texts in a variety of ways and venues. First, there is a basic corpus of knowledge that can be learned and assessed in specific ways: lessons taught by knowledgeable literacy researchers/instructors and assessed in traditional ways such as tests, quizzes, and application projects. Second, PTs can be asked to analyze case studies of teachers and students in secondary classrooms to identify and critique the multiliteracies evident in interactions. They can critique the students’ development of these literacies (or lack thereof), decide on the support needed by teachers to help students understand specific discipline materials, and explore ways teachers can observe their students to ascertain whether they understand a variety of texts and decide what to do if comprehension is compromised. Last, PTs can complete assignments (e.g., assessments of their knowledge and ability to put knowledge into practice) in clinical settings. The assessments, outlined in the chart (see #5 below), will be employed to see if PTs understand core knowledge about literacy development, know how to assess students literacy development in specific discipline areas, and can employ strategies to help students comprehend and learn.
4. Identify key knowledge and experiences during teacher preparation that can lead a candidate to the identified outcomes….do not limit your thinking to the current program and course structure. University-based course work will certainly be part of the candidate experience, but we are also interested in ideas that broaden the way we think about the kinds and nature of teacher candidate experiences….Experiences that are based in clinical settings (classroom placements, after school tutoring programs, community centers, professional practice schools, etc.) are highly desirable in this design process….consider the role that practicing teachers or community members might have in designing, teaching, or supporting these experiences (in other words, do not limit your thinking to who is qualified to guide these experience in the current program personnel). Please also think about where these experiences might take place (e.g., “courses” might be taught in school-based settings or be split between the university and a practicum site).
Experiences that allow PTs in the content areas to show their knowledge of basic reading processes and appropriate strategies to help students read a variety of print and non-print texts include two components: (1) a 2-credit university-based class in the area of literacy taught by literacy experts coupled with (2) a 1-credit course/set of practica experiences co-designed by faculty with expertise in literacy and faculty in the various discipline areas; these application experiences (practica and/or student teaching) are not only co-designed by university literacy and discipline area experts but will involve school-based classroom teachers in respective discipline areas as well as literacy leaders and/or coaches in secondary school and district-level positions. The experiences that allow PTs in the content areas to show their knowledge to help students comprehend and learn are elaborated in the chart provided later in this document (see #5 below).
5. Deliverable: List of specific possible assessment strategies, assignments, performances that align with the identified outcomes. The assessment of the outcome should be as tightly linked to the practice of teaching as possible. [e.g., case study of student learning; supervisors’ assessment of a specific dimension of performance during student teaching]. Deliverable: List of teacher performance outcomes [e.g., the teacher candidate can diagnose the language needs of a student and design appropriate instruction to meet those needs; the teacher candidate uses students’ cultural identities to design curricular and instructional experiences]. Deliverable: List of experiences for pre-service teachers that are aligned with the performance outcomes. There may be overlap between the “experience” and the “assessment” because sometimes an assessment requires a particular experience in order to perform the assessment.
Content Area Reading “Deliverables” Chart
|Outcome |Assessment |Teacher prep experience |
|What does a successful teacher education candidate need to know |How can we know (assess) that the candidate|What knowledge and experiences in the|
|and be able to do in order to be an effective and successful |can perform the identified outcomes? |teacher preparation experience can |
|first year teacher with all students? | |help lead a candidate to the |
| | |identified outcomes? |
|**What follows is basic information, not all concepts that | | |
|secondary PTs need to know about literacy.** | | |
|Foundational Literacy Knowledge ( BOT Standards) --across all | | |
|discipline areas: | | |
| | | |
|A. Secondary PTs must understand the content and methods for | | |
|teaching reading including: | | |
| | | |
|(1) knowledge of reading processes and instruction including: |PTs will successfully pass exams/quizzes of| |
|(a) orthographic knowledge and morphological relationships within|targeting literacy processes and strategies| |
|words |appropriate for developing students’ word | |
|(b) the relation between word recognition and vocabulary |knowledge, vocabulary, comprehension, and | |
|knowledge, fluency and comprehension in understanding text and |assessment of reading processes in | |
|content materials |discipline areas. | |
|(c ) the importance of direct and indirect vocabulary instruction| | |
|that leads to enhanced general and domain specific word | | |
|knowledge; | | |
|(d) the relationships between and among comprehension processes | | |
|related to print processing abilities, motivation, reader’s | | |
|interest, background knowledge, cognitive abilities, knowledge of| | |
|academic discourse and print and digital text | | |
|(e) the development of academic language and its impact on | | |
|learning and school success; | | |
| | | |
|(2) ability to use a wide range of instructional practices, | | |
|approaches, methods and curriculum materials to support reading | | |
|instruction including: | | |
|(a) the appropriate applications of a variety of instructional |Video cases: PTs will critique video cases | |
|frameworks that are effective in meeting the needs of readers of |of discipline area teachers and students | |
|varying proficiency levels and linguistic backgrounds in |and discern which practices are effective, | |
|secondary settings; |based on understanding the research-based | |
|(b) the ability to scaffold instruction for students who |uses of content area reading strategies; |Practica—Instructional Planning: PTs|
|experience comprehension difficulties; |PTs will assess the ways a variety of print|will create lesson plans/frameworks |
|(c) selection and implementation of a wide variety of before, |and non-print texts are used to help |in discipline specific coursework |
|during, and after reading comprehension strategies that develop |engage/motivate students and promote |that incorporate effective literacy |
|reading and metacognitive abilities; |comprehension and critical-level reading |instructional frameworks and concepts|
|(d) the ability to develop and implement effective vocabulary |and thinking |learned in the 2-credit literacy |
|strategies that help students understand words including | |class (e.g., literacy strategies for |
|domain-specific content words; |Online discipline-specific discussion |teaching vocabulary; approaches to |
|(e)the ability to develop critical literacy skills by encouraging|forums (Moodle) targeting the following: |addressing prior knowledge and |
|students to question texts and analyze texts from multiple |(a) planning resources used and sharing |promoting comprehension; approaches |
|viewpoints or perspectives; |these with peers; reflection and |to assessing students’ pre- during-, |
|(f) the ability to identify instructional practices, approaches |post-teaching self-critiques shared with |and post- reading abilities in |
|and methods and match materials, print and digital, to the |peers. Online discussions are monitored by|relation to reading texts in specific|
|cognitive levels of all readers, guided by an evidence- based |instructors (literacy and disciplines) who |discipline area classrooms) |
|rationale, which support the developmental, cultural, and |join in various discussion threads and | |
|linguistic differences of readers; (g) the complexities involved|provide feedback |Practica--Reflection on how well the |
|in the development of academic language and the impact of that | |PTs attended to literacy and |
|development in school success; (h) the ability to understand a | |discipline specific goals, and |
|variety of purposes for reading texts: process, information and | |students’ needs, when planning |
|aesthetic. | |lessons |
| | | |
|(3) use of a variety of assessment practices to place and | | |
|evaluate effective reading: (a) understand the measurement | | |
|systems and proper interpretation of assessment tools that | | |
|determine individual student’s reading level, fluency, | | |
|comprehension abilities, and reading interests; (b) use of data |Analysis of case studies of adolescents |Practica/clinical experiences— PTs |
|to set goals and objectives, make effective instructional |that include reading assessment materials |work directly with students to |
|decisions and demonstrate responsiveness to students needs; and |in various discipline area classrooms; |collect reading assessment data |
|(c) the ability to communicate results of assessments to specific|practice using data to make instructional |specific to their discipline areas |
|individuals in |decisions; practice determining how to |and purpose for lessons (e.g., |
|accurate and coherent ways that indicate how the results might |communicate assessment data and findings to|Content Reading Inventories [CRIs] |
|impact students’ achievement. |parents and other educators; practice using|reading motivation and engagement |
| |particular assessments using video and |inventories); use of this information|
| |other data pre-collected by instructors for|in lesson planning; evidence of |
| |practice sessions |adjusting instruction during lessons |
| | |to meet students’ reading needs; post|
| | |lesson reflection on the variety of |
| | |readers in sections of |
| | |discipline-specific classrooms; how |
| | |the PT sought to meet a variety of |
| | |readers’ need during classroom |
| | |lessons |
|Examples of Discipline Area Specific Reading Standards (in | | |
|addition to the above foundational standards for these discipline| | |
|areas): | | |
| | | |
|SOCIAL STUDIES: (1) the ability to plan instruction and select | | |
|strategies that help students read and understand social studies |In special sections of the 2 credit |The lessons PTs create will be |
|texts and spur student interest in more complex reading |literacy coursework, PTs will glean |tailored to the foundational |
|materials, including the ability to help students: (a) recognize |discipline- specific information in |knowledge about literacy gleaned in |
|fact and opinion and the words that signal opinions and |readings, discussions, and web resources |the 2 credit class as well as the |
|judgments; (b) distinguish between primary and secondary sources |along with the overall foundational |standards listed for the specific |
|(e.g., historical record versus textbook); (c) thinking |knowledge. Class assignments and |discipline area. |
|critically (e.g., drawing inferences or conclusions from facts, |activities will center on the PTs’ | |
|analyzing author’s purpose and point of view, discerning cause |discipline area materials. | |
|and effect relationships, detecting bias, evaluating evidence); | | |
|(d) using and interpreting maps, globes, and other nonlinguistic| | |
|or graphic tools such as timelines, photographs, charts, | | |
|statistical tables, digital tools, and political cartoons; and | | |
|(e) using other texts features such a glossaries, indexes, | | |
|detailed databases about countries, and appendixes of documents | | |
|or maps. | | |
| | | |
|MATH: (1) the ability to plan instruction and select strategies | | |
|that help students read and understand math texts and spur | | |
|student interest in more complex reading materials, including: | | |
|(a) the density of ideas; (b) concepts that build within a | | |
|chapter or across chapters; (c) use of equations to model life | | |
|situations; asking students to create or restate in words or |In special sections of the 2 credit |The lessons PTs create will be |
|sentences the relations between symbols and the situation being |literacy coursework, PTs will glean |tailored to the foundational |
|modeled; (d) text with diagrams and graphs; and (e) use of |discipline specific information in |knowledge about literacy gleaned in |
|different representations to aid students in understanding the |readings, discussions, and web resources |the 2 credit class as well as the |
|underlying mathematical concept, matching each representation to |along with the overall foundational |standards listed for the specific |
|the learning styles of different individuals. (2) model |knowledge. Class assignments and |discipline area. |
|strategies for representing mathematical ideas in a variety of |activities will center on the PTs’ | |
|modes (literal, symbolic, graphic, digital), which includes |discipline area materials. | |
|asking students to restate symbolic representations (numerals, | | |
|equations, graphs) in words or sentences. | | |
| | | |
|SCIENCE: ( 1) the ability to plan instruction and select | | |
|strategies that help students read and understand science texts, | | |
|including the ability to: (a) distinguish between facts based on | | |
|empirical/scientific findings from opinion; (b) relate what is | | |
|read to relevant prior knowledge; (c) use scientific knowledge to| | |
|draw inferences or conclusions from facts, discern cause and | | |
|effect relationships, detect fallacies in author’s evidence and | | |
|support own claims with evidence; (d) follow instructions to | | |
|perform laboratory activities step by step in a disciplined | | |
|fashion; (e) explain diagrams and graphs in terms of scientific |In special sections of the 2 credit |The lessons PTs create will be |
|content/meaning; and (f) explain meaning of abbreviations and |literacy coursework, PTs will glean |tailored to the foundational |
|symbols. |discipline specific information in |knowledge about literacy gleaned in |
| |readings, discussions, and web resources |the 2 credit class as well as the |
| |along with the overall foundational |standards listed for the specific |
| |knowledge. Class assignments and |discipline area. |
| |activities will center on the PTs’ | |
| |discipline area materials. | |
| | | |
6. Identify questions, barriers, and possible ways to overcome those barriers related to being able to move the Task Group’s ideas forward within the college and university structure. Deliverable: List of questions, barriers, and possible ways to overcome those barriers to moving your work groups’ ideas forward.
Barrier #1: Prep work for the content in the literacy class and practica experience: A challenge will be to develop ongoing, long-term PD sessions with university discipline area and literacy faculty so they can work collaboratively to (a) familiarize themselves with the core knowledge PTs need to learn in the literacy coursework and ways that PTs will evidence application of that understanding in practica experiences, (b) problem solve ways that faculty can work together to help secondary PTs value and employ multiliteracies concepts and strategies as they teach in their respective discipline areas, (c) co-design university assignments and scoring rubrics to assess PTs’ ability to employ disciplinary knowledge and literacy knowledge when designing and enacting lessons, and (d) model for PTs ways that university literacy experts and content area experts work together as colleagues to best meet the needs of adolescent learners.
Possible Solutions to #1: The most immediate issue is to schedule sessions so reading faculty and content area colleagues can collaborate to construct the 2-credit course and, particularly the 1-credit practica component can be constructed and submitted to the BOT. which begins accepting program revisions in January 2010. Regularly scheduled PD sessions each fall and spring to foster and ensure that literacy faculty and discipline area faculty are collaborating and supporting one another’s efforts as well as meeting state and university standards governing how teachers are prepared. Leadership for this work needs to be built into particular faculty members’ “loads” to allow the time needed to oversee and lead such efforts and to ensure consistency and sustainability.
Barrier #2: Oversight of the practica experience: We have not determined who will teach the 1-credit experience that accompanies the 2 credit content reading course—it could be a literacy instructor, a team teaching situation between a literacy instructor and content area instructor, or just a content area instructor. If literacy instructors do not teach or team teach the practica, how will we ensure that the knowledge gleaned by PTs in literacy coursework is employed by PTs in ways that extend the foundational literacy work? How will we ensure that PTs address specific literacy related BOT standards within the 1 credit practica? Who will monitor the PTs creation and teaching of lesson plans in the respective discipline areas that also infuse literacy standards?
Possible Solutions to #2: We need to develop a system to ensure that the knowledge that PTs glean in the 2-credit literacy class is enacted in the 1-credit practica experience in ways that embrace the highest quality of what is taught in both the literacy and the discipline- specific course components. It seems important that both literacy and content area instructors are involved in the practica in important and substantive ways. Leadership for this work needs to be built into identified faculty members’ “loads” to allow the time needed to oversee, lead, and enact such efforts, and to ensure consistency and sustainability across the multiple content areas at the U of MN.
Another Possible Solution to #2: PTs need to take the 2 credit literacy class concurrent with their methods class in the discipline area and concurrent with the program area practica. Pragmatically, this means that discipline classes/practica would need to be carefully arranged so that half of the discipline areas teach their methods classes/practica in the fall and the other half in the spring.
Barrier #3: Who will be responsible for documenting that the literacy standards are being addressed in the monitoring process used by the BOT?
Possible Solution to #3: The syllabus and other materials used to document instructional learning and assessments used in the 2-credit course and 1-credit practica can be used to document the literacy requirements for all program areas. Specifically, the 2-credit literacy course can be documented by mapping syllabi objectives, readings and assignments, and the 1-credit practica can be documented by mapping performances and assessments to BOT standards. To assess the PTs’ abilities to put the literacy ideas into practice and reflect on their teaching and students’ learning, samples of PTs’ lesson plans and samples of secondary students’ learning resulting from these plans, and implemented in the 1-credit practica experience, could be uploaded into e-portfolios and then mapped onto the BOT standards.
7. Throughout your deliberation keep notes on the topic of “what is foundational for all of our teaching candidates?” Deliverable: A summary of your Task Group’s deliberations that relate to this question.
Foundational knowledge and experiences for secondary PTs is outlined in the area of reading by the new 2009 reading standards for various content areas. How we embellish these standards with richer content and experiences and through collaboratively designed coursework and experiences via the efforts of literacy and discipline area faculty, is what will make our program exceptional.
8. Throughout your deliberation keep notes on the topic of “what makes the University of Minnesota’s programs distinctive from other programs in the state?” Deliverable: A summary of your Task Group’s deliberations that relate to this question.
(See answer to # 7 above). Our faculty members include leading experts in the country in secondary reading and disciplinary literacy and outstanding researchers in each of the discipline areas. The ways we design our approach to preparing secondary PTs in the area of reading will serve as a research-based model for our university colleagues both statewide and nationally.
Appendix A: Materials Reviewed by Task Group
Charge to the Chair of the TERI Committee:
Chair responsibilities: Summer 2009
- Identify key materials that your Task Group needs prior to their summer meeting (e.g., national or state standards, exemplary models from other programs, research syntheses). Lisa Dembouski will assist with the preparation of materials for the task group meetings.
- Prepare for and lead the Task Groups during two summer work days June 15 1:00- 4:00 and June 16 1:00 – 4:00 in Peik and Burton Halls.
- Use the TERI Task Force Vision and Design Principles as a starting place for your Task Group discussions.
- Participate in a meeting with the other Task Group chairs on a date to be determined by availability.
- Prepare a summary report of your Task Group work by September 1 and present the results at a retreat at the beginning of fall term.
Key Materials Provided to Content Reading Group
June 10, 2009
Dear Content Reading Task Force Members—
I am looking forward to meeting with you on June 15 and 16th as part of the TERI work. Our Task Force charge is as follows:
1. (Prior to the June 15th meeting): Examine the documents provided by the Task Force and the Task Group Chair (Dillon & O’Brien) prior to the work group meetings. (Please bring additional research-based ideas related to this work to the attention of the Chair prior to our June 15th meeting.)
2. (At the June 15-16 meetings): Identify what a successful teacher education candidate needs to know and be able to do related to Reading in the Content Areas in order to be an effective and successful first year teacher with all students. (Please see the new Board of teaching Standards for teachers of Reading—links to documents are provided in the attached materials)
3. (At the June 15-16 meetings): Consider the differing needs for elementary and secondary candidates. (I will talk about the early childhood and elementary reading requirements briefly as a way to frame the content reading requirements for the discipline areas.
4. (At the June 15-16 meetings): Identify ways that the programs can know (assess) that the candidates can perform the identified outcomes.
5. (At the June 15-16 meetings): Identify key knowledge and experiences during teacher preparation that can lead a candidate to the identified outcomes.
I am sending you several documents that will form the basis of our discussions and help us complete our tasks. I will ask that paper copies of these documents be made available for our meeting on the 15th:
Documents to Guide the Content Reading discussion:
1. A Draft Plan for Preservice Content Reading Preparation at the U of Minnesota –09 (based on the new standards and new research from Carnegie Foundation) –this document includes the links to the New BOT Standards for Reading Teachers 6/09—these are important to read and will be integral to our work;
2. Excerpt from D. O’Brien: 2010 Handbook of Reading Research chapter on “Key Research on Secondary Reading Teacher Education” --draft 6/09
3. Memo to MN Literacy Teacher Education from June 06 that outlines current reading legislation and its impact on teacher preparation programs statewide re: MN State Statute 122A.06 subdivision 4; amended in May 2009. RE: Comprehensive Scientifically based reading instruction
4. An additional reading that comes from a special issue of the Harvard Education Review that discusses the idea of disciplinary literacy. This is background info only.
David O’Brien will also provide links for us to the current one credit course CI 5452. We will want to examine current Syllabi and materials for CI 5452. This information is forthcoming.
Thank you for agreeing to work with me this summer on the TERI Content Reading Task Force.
Sincerely,
Deborah Dillon
Appendix A—cont.
A Proposal for Developing a New Teacher Education Curricula to Address Reading in the Content Areas and Disciplinary Literacy
Prepared by David O’Brien, January 2009
National Context for Content Literacy Knowledge for Preservice Teachers
Nationally, a renewed interest in reading instruction has been spurred by Reading First, a 1 billion dollar appropriation to support early literacy mandated by Congress in 2002, and Reading Next (2004, 2006) a policy document calling for increased literacy support of adolescents, including literacy support across the content areas in middle school and high school. A renewed interest in adolescent literacy is warranted for these reasons:
• The early reading gains, which seem to hold for 4th graders on the National Assessments of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading, decline by the time students reach high school. Reading performance on the NAEP at the secondary level has been flat for 30 years.
• Using the NAEP criteria for proficiency, only 60% of 8th and 12th graders read at the proficient level, a level that requires students to draw more than simple inferences, to critically evaluate texts and to synthesize and draw conclusions across sources.
• Only 3 % of 8th graders and 5% of 12 graders reached the advanced level, the highest level of reading proficiency, on the most recent NAEP reading assessment.
• Large numbers of students struggle with reading, with about 50% of high school freshman students in high poverty urban areas reading at the 6th, 7th grade level or below.
• Nationally, 8 million students in grades 4-12 read far below grade level (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007). A recent study by ACT (2006) found that only half of the students who take the ACT reading tests as a prerequisite to applying for college reached the ACT benchmark for proficiency.
• The above statistics indicate that many secondary students are inadequately equipped to succeed in college or the workplace—a workplace with jobs demanding higher and higher levels of literacy.
Content area teachers in most states are required to take a course on content area reading for licensure and certification (Vacca, 2002; Heller & Greenleaf, 2007). Such courses are not universally embraced by content teachers because of school cultural and organizational forces (O’Brien, Moje, & Stewart, 2001): (a) middle and secondary content teachers’ primary identification is with their respective content, not literacy; (b) teachers in various disciplines believe that reading instruction is an added role for which they are not prepared; (c) most teachers, including teachers in the sciences, social sciences, and English/language arts, believe that students learn how to read by the end of primary grades and simply adapt their reading to various texts as they go through the grades and need little or not support to do this; and (d) content teachers hold a belief that if students are having trouble reading, they should be remediated by reading specialists and then placed back in regular classrooms—the long-standing pull-out program approach. These factors work against the typical “infusion” approach to content literacy in which preservice teachers take a content literacy course consisting of general reading practices and strategies in hopes that when they are practicing teachers they will apply the reading knowledge and practices (O’Brien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995; O’Brien et al., 2001; Heller and Greenleaf, 2007).
The national evidence points in the direction of providing more instructional scaffolding, and practice in the use of reading skills and strategies in areas such as fluency development, vocabulary acquisition and comprehension throughout the middle and secondary curriculum, across content areas in the sophisticated ways that disciplines demand (Heller and Greeleaf, 2007). And, although research suggest that many so-called “generic” reading strategies (vocabulary/word recognition strategies, comprehension monitoring, comprehension strategies) do have merit in supporting content learning, many of these must also be adapted to students needs as they are engaged in reading challenging texts in a discipline. This newer movement toward disciplinary literacy (Moje, 2007; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008 ) places more emphasis on the use of literacy strategies appropriate for specific disciplines and developed in collaboration between content experts and literacy experts. The most recent work, funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York’s (e.g., Moje and Colleagues at U of Michigan) has articulated how both the foundational knowledge necessary for preservice teachers and the disciplinary literacy components can be collaboratively developed by both literacy specialists and content specialists.
A Brief History of Minnesota State Contexts for Content Literacy
Current Statutes: In the initial wave of state response to Reading First, and extending the focus on reading to middle and secondary grades, is embodied in the current statute, which the Minnesota Board of Teaching (BOT) monitors and institutions who prepare teachers use in planning programs and developing syllabi. The University of Minnesota’s online course, CI 5452, Reading in the Content Areas for Initial Licensure Candidates addresses the definition of reading in the statute.
The Definition of Reading in Minnesota: 122A.06 Definitions.
Subd. 4. Comprehensive, scientifically based reading instruction. "Comprehensive, scientifically based reading instruction" includes a program or collection of instructional practices that is based on reliable, valid evidence showing that when these programs or practices are used, students can be expected to achieve, at a minimum, satisfactory reading progress. The program or collection of practices must include, at a minimum, instruction in five areas of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension. Comprehensive, scientifically based reading instruction also includes and integrates instructional strategies for continuously assessing, evaluating, and communicating the student's reading progress and needs in order to design and implement ongoing interventions so that students of all ages and proficiency levels can read and comprehend text and apply higher level thinking skills.
The language regarding scientifically based reading instruction, first introduced in Spring, 2001, was included in a 2004 statute amended in 2005 in Section 122A.18, the statute stating how colleges and universities should prepare new licensees in the area of reading based on the state definition in 122A.06. The 2005 amendment removed language referring to teaching specific strategies like phonics and removed language referring to classroom teachers as knowing “how to teach reading” but retained a focus on knowledge of research-based best practices and knowledge of “how to teach reading in the candidates content area.” The statute also specifies a focus on foundational knowledge of reading for elementary licensure but notes that students “will achieve continuous progress in reading,” meaning that they receive support in reading through the grades and specifying that elementary candidates know about specialized “strategies, remediations, and interventions” for students at all age levels and proficiency levels. Hence, the current statute focuses on teaching children foundational knowledge of reading in the elementary grades and supporting their reading in the content areas at all ages and proficiency levels.
[ **Information provided about legislation (below) was added to this section in summer 2009**]
The Complete Language for the Legislation in Reading for 2008-09
H.F. No. 2, Conference Committee Report - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010)
Posted 05/13/09 04:52 AM [ccrhf0002]
(Note. New language is underlined in the text; deleted language is stricken)
1.1CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON H. F. No. 2
41.15 Sec. 14. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 122A.06, subdivision 4, is amended to read:
41.16 Subd. 4. Comprehensive, scientifically based scientifically based reading
41.17instruction. (a) "Comprehensive, scientifically based reading instruction" includes a
41.18program or collection of instructional practices that is based on reliable, valid, replicable
41.19 evidence showing that when these programs or practices are used, students can be
41.20expected to achieve, at a minimum, satisfactory reading progress. The program or
41.21collection of practices must include, at a minimum, effective, balanced instruction in all
41.22five areas of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary development,
41.23and text reading comprehension.
41.24Comprehensive, scientifically based reading instruction also includes and integrates
41.25instructional strategies for continuously assessing, evaluating, and communicating
41.26the student's reading progress and needs in order to design and implement ongoing
41.27interventions so that students of all ages and proficiency levels can read and comprehend
41.28text and apply higher level thinking skills.
41.29 (b) "Fluency" is the ability of students to read text with speed, accuracy, and proper
41.30expression.
41.31 (c) "Phonemic awareness" is the ability of students to notice, think about, and
41.32manipulate individual sounds in spoken syllables and words.
41.33 (d) "Phonics" is the understanding that there are systematic and predictable
41.34relationships between written letters and spoken words. Phonics instruction is a way
42.1of teaching reading that stresses learning how letters correspond to sounds and how to
42.2apply this knowledge in reading and spelling.
42.3 (e) "Reading comprehension" is an active process that requires intentional thinking
42.4during which meaning is constructed through interactions between text and reader.
42.5Comprehension skills are taught explicitly by demonstrating, explaining, modeling, and
42.6implementing specific cognitive strategies to help beginning readers derive meaning
42.7through intentional, problem-solving thinking processes.
42.8 (f) "Vocabulary development" is the process of teaching vocabulary both directly
42.9and indirectly, with repetition and multiple exposures to vocabulary items. Learning in
42.10rich contexts, incidental learning, and use of computer technology enhance the acquiring
42.11of vocabulary.
42.12(g) Nothing in this subdivision limits the authority of a school district to select a
42.13school's reading program or curriculum……
45.10 Sec. 19. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 122A.18, subdivision 2a, is amended to read:
45.11 Subd. 2a. Reading strategies. (a) All colleges and universities approved by the
45.12Board of Teaching to prepare persons for classroom teacher licensure must include in their
45.13teacher preparation programs research-based best practices in reading, consistent with
45.14section 122A.06, subdivision 4, that enable the licensure candidate to know how to teach
45.15reading in the candidate's content areas……
45.20education must require instruction in the application of comprehensive, scientifically
45.21based, and balanced reading instruction programs that:
45.22(1) teach students to read using foundational knowledge, practices, and strategies
45.23consistent with section 122A.06, subdivision 4, so that all students will achieve continuous
45.24progress in reading; and
45.25(2) teach specialized instruction in reading strategies, interventions, and remediations
45.26that enable students of all ages and proficiency levels to become proficient readers.
Minnesota Proposed Reading Standards. A Board of Teaching Reading Task Force was established in January of 2007 with the goal of systematically reviewing existing BOT standards with the goal of developing more specific recommendations addressing the initial preparation and continued development of teachers in Minnesota. In addition to addressing reading teachers and reading leaders, one of the foci of the task force was the professional development needs of all K-12 educators who support students’ reading development. Hence, the task force addressed how students could be supported in reading beyond primary grades and across the curriculum. And, in addition to addressing licenses for Early Childhood (Birth – Age 8) and Elementary Education, they also addressed licensure of middle school teachers and selected secondary licenses focusing on the following broad areas:
1. Foundational Knowledge
2. Instructional Strategies and Materials
3. Assessment, Diagnosis, Evaluation and Intervention (includes language re: a specific clinical experience linked to coursework)
4. Creating a Literate and Motivating Environment
5. Professionalism
In a review of existing 5-12 and 9-12 licensure areas the task force addressed the following:
• Current research on adolescent literacy and high school reform.
• Language that was in keeping with the current definition of reading that addressed the 5 components of reading, as well as other definitions of reading in current syntheses of reading like the RAND Reading Study Group Report (.
The task force looked at each licensure area to determine the relevance of the proposed language, examined the content of the current language to eliminate redundancy, and subjected the proposed language to review for feedback from the BOT- identified stakeholder groups before revising the final language. Then revised language addressing proposed changes addressed competences in three areas:
1. Competencies related to understanding the aspects of the reading process that impact readers at the secondary level.
2. Competencies related to instructional strategies that support reading across different content areas.
3. Competencies specific to a given discipline that will impact learning in that discipline.
The input from this committee was used to revise standards culminating in a document of standards revisions presented to the BOT in July of 2008 and passed at the BOT July 2008 meeting. In October of 2008, the revised standards released for stakeholder input, were drafted into rule, and are currently under review. The rule making process was initiated in September 2008 and can take from 12-18 months before rule adoption. If rule adoption occurs (and seems likely to occur), license granting units would likely need to respond with licensure preparation changes in place by Fall of 2010. (See memo to MN Literacy teacher Educators re: ‘09 legislation on reading, standards, and need for syllabi/coursework revision).
Overview of proposed reading language. This is the language to be embedded in middle and secondary teacher standards:
Knowledge of reading processes and instruction including:
• orthographic knowledge and morphological relationships within words
• the relation between word recognition and vocabulary knowledge, fluency and comprehension in understanding text and content materials
• the importance of direct and indirect vocabulary instruction that leads to enhanced general and domain specific word knowledge;
• the relationships between and among comprehension processes related to print processing abilities, motivation, reader’s interest, background knowledge,
• cognitive abilities, knowledge of academic discourse and print and digital text
• the development of academic language and its impact on learning and school
• success.
In some content areas, depending on the text genres and purposes for reading the following proposed standards are included.
• the appropriate applications of a variety of instructional frameworks that are effective in meeting the needs of readers of varying proficiency levels and linguistic backgrounds in secondary settings
• the ability to scaffold instruction for students who experience comprehension difficulties;
• selection and implementation of a wide variety of before, during, and after reading comprehension strategies that develop reading and metacognitive abilities;
• The ability to develop critical literacy skills by encouraging students to question texts and analyze texts from multiple viewpoints or perspectives.
Some of the proposed standards refer to the application of specific reading skills and strategies for specific reading tasks typical of the discipline’s texts and tasks related to reading. Drafts of proposed standards for various licenses (“proposed rules”) can be found at (also see Appendix A that accompanies this document)
A Proposal for Addressing the National Context and Minnesota Proposed Standards
We propose that preservice teachers enroll in the 3-credit course CI 5451, Reading in the Middle and Secondary Grades, which will be configured in collaboration with program areas that prepare middle and secondary teachers. The course will be a hybrid course with the foundational reading content, assessment and instructional approaches in a face-to-face class. In addition, what is currently CI 5452, the online content literacy course, will be redesigned to be a program-specific supplement to the CI 5451 Course. The rationale for the proposal, which has been outlined, is fourfold:
• The current online course, which was developed as a rapid response to the Minnesota statute mandating attention to scientifically based strategies, is inadequate in scope and depth of content both in foundational knowledge of reading and in disciplinary literacy components most relevant to preservice teachers. This has been noted by several program areas;
• based on the national context, it is apparent adolescents who fail to achieve proficiency can achieve at a much higher level that will ensure better success in college and the workplace if they are taught by teachers who can support their reading across content areas. We need to better prepare those teachers;
• the misplaced assumption that the foundational reading skills students acquire by the end of grade 3 are sufficient for reading texts and completed related tasks in various disciplines, has been invalidated and research evidence points to the efficacy of all content teachers supporting the kinds of reading unique to each content area;
• the proposed teacher standards, which are likely to become rule, require more specific attention to a range of reading skills and strategies, including more specific foundational knowledge of reading (e.g., how orthographic knowledge develops, how it works in conjunction with decoding approaches in word recognition; how word recognition informs vocabulary knowledge and how various types of vocabulary knowledge are related to fluency and comprehension) as well as an expanded understanding of why adolescent students often struggle with reading, how to assess their reading of various texts, and how to implement instructional frameworks and strategies to support their understanding.
The existing course, CI 5451, Reading in Middle and Secondary Grades, which is already in the CEHD list of approved courses and is currently used to meet the reading requirement in Communication Arts and Literature, is constructed to address middle and secondary reading assessment, skills, and strategies, as well as reading in the content areas. The proposal is to offer multiple discipline-specific sections of CI 5451, each of which is co constructed by literacy faculty and faculty from various program areas. Specifically, the core course content of CI 5451 will address the broad areas used by the BOT reading task force
7. Foundational Knowledge of reading processes
8. Instructional Strategies and Materials
9. Approaches to Assessment, Diagnosis, Evaluation and Intervention (includes language re: a specific clinical experience linked to coursework)
10. Creating a Literate and Motivating Environment
11. Professionalism
12. Current research on adolescent literacy
Program-specific content, assignments, and practica will be designed into items 2, 3, 4. For example, after understanding the process of reading and learning about so-called “generic” approaches to comprehension, faculty in various program areas will work with literacy faculty to address such issues as types of reading, types of texts, stances toward texts, and literate traditions within a field—e.g., the role of texts, discourse around texts. The latter component is more in line with disciplinary literacy, which will build upon the foundational knowledge of reading. In addition to CI 5451 with the online program-specific component, each program area faculty and literacy faculty will work to provide opportunities in “methods” courses or other courses and field experiences to incorporate reading and disciplinary literacy components.
|Courses |Options |Advantages |
|CI 5451 Reading in the Middle and |Taken as prerequisite before admission into |Does not count against program area hours |
|Secondary Grades |teacher education | |
| | |More clearly, immediately aligned with program |
| | |curriculum |
| |Taken as part of program area curriculum | |
|Area methods courses and field |Assessment and Instructional Components |Eliminates the assumption that reading is |
|experiences |aligned with CI 5451 |separate from learning a discipline, reinforces|
| | |the reading knowledge from CI 5451 |
Proposed Timeline and Work Plan:
Summer 2009: Form literacy/discipline workgroup: Each program area selects a point person to work with literacy faculty to jointly develop (1) the discipline-specific components of the CI 5451 course; (b) aspects of methods and other program courses and field experiences.
Summer 2009: Attend workgroup sessions to plan the disciplinary literacy curriculum for the CI 5451 class as well as changes in program areas.
Fall 2009, Spring, 2010: Workgroups continue to finalize curriculum to implement in Fall 2010.
References:
ACT (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C., E. (2004, 2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. Washington: DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing Socially Just Subject-Matter Instruction: A Review of the Literature on Disciplinary Literacy Teaching. In G. J. Kelly, A. Luke & J. Green (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 31, pp. 1-44). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
O'Brien, D. G., Moje, E. B., & Stewart, R. A. (2001). Exploring the contexts of secondary literacy. In E. B. Moje & D. G. O'Brien (Eds.), Constructions of literacy: Studies of teaching and learning in and out of secondary schools (pp. 27-48). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
O’Brien , D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442-463.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.
Vacca, R. T. (2002). Making a difference in adolescents' school lives: Visible and invisible aspects of content area reading. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (pp. 184-204). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
APPENDIX: Board of Teaching Standards--Content Area Reading (6/09):
| |
|8710.4000: Teachers of Adult Basic Education [pic] 83Kb (9/19/2008) [pic] 48Kb (9/19/2008) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|8710.4050: Teachers of Agricultural Education [pic] 80Kb (9/19/2008) [pic] 48Kb (9/19/2008) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|8710.4200: Teachers of Business [pic] 107Kb (9/19/2008) [pic] 58Kb (9/19/2008) |
| |
| |
| |
|8710.4250: Teachers of Communication Arts and Literature [pic] 97Kb (9/19/2008) [pic] 62Kb (9/19/2008) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|8710.4450: Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences [pic] 89Kb (9/19/2008) [pic] 50Kb (9/19/2008) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|8710.4500: Teachers of Health [pic] 81Kb (9/19/2008) [pic] 47Kb (9/19/2008) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|8710.4525: Teachers of Computer, Keyboarding, and Related Technology [pic] 63Kb (9/19/2008) [pic] 33Kb (9/19/2008) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|8710.4550: Library Media Specialists [pic] 75Kb (9/19/2008) [pic] 47Kb (9/19/2008) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|8710.4600: Teachers of Mathematics [pic] 118Kb (9/19/2008) [pic] 62Kb (9/19/2008) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|8710.4650: Teachers of Vocal Music and of Instrumental Music [pic] 82Kb (9/19/2008) [pic] 45Kb (9/19/2008) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|8710.4700: Teachers of Physical Education [pic] 74Kb (9/19/2008) [pic] 41Kb (9/19/2008) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|8710.4900: Teachers of Visual Arts [pic] 84Kb (9/19/2008) [pic] 44Kb (9/19/2008) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|8710.4750: Teachers of Science [pic] 328Kb (9/19/2008) [pic] 154Kb (9/19/2008) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|8710.4800: Teachers of Social Studies [pic] 131Kb (9/19/2008) [pic] 73Kb (9/19/2008) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|8710.4850: Teachers of Technology [pic] 86Kb (9/19/2008) [pic] 50Kb (9/19/2008) |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Appendix A—cont.
MEMO TO MN LITERACY TEACHER EDUCATORS
June 3, 2009
Dear MN Reading Teacher Educators:
My purpose in writing is to share two pieces of information with you; please feel free to share this memo with your other literacy teacher education colleagues. The information centers on where the state is with the (A) proposed MN Board of Teaching (BOT) Standards for Teachers of Reading, and (B) proposed 2008-09 legislation focused on reading. I hope this update is helpful to you.
Sincerely, Deborah Dillon
A. MN Board of Teaching Standards for Teachers of Reading
The BOT will not act formally on the rulemaking for the new Reading Teacher Standards until July 2009, but it is clear that MN literacy teacher educators should be working on changes to their syllabi and aim to have the changes ready in early fall 2009. This summer, literacy instructors can build on the processes we started in our symposia series—examining our current programs and coursework as compared to the proposed new standards and, when we see gaps, seeking to address these in existing courses and experiences or proposing new structures or courses or experiences at our individual institutions.
Our hope is that early this fall we can share ideas with each other about how we will help PTs (a) learn the knowledge they need to glean at the early childhood and elementary levels and in the discipline areas, (b) try out and reflect on targeted practices, and (c) develop dispositions. It is clear that we need to get revised or new syllabi and experiences drafted and in place very soon.
Our understanding is that the forms (Form 1-D) that will need to be submitted to the state to show that we are in compliance with the new Reading Teacher standards are not yet ready so we can’t tell you exactly what the state will be looking for in the syllabi/coursework. However, we can be sure it will include clear evidence that the standards for particular areas are addressed. The standards (official draft) are online at: .
Another bit of news for you to reflect and act on: MACTE executive committees recently held a retreat. They were informed that parents have been asking BOT staff for copies of university reading methods syllabi. We also heard from PTs currently engaged in student teaching and job hunting that schools and future employers, as well as parents, are asking to see copies of their university reading syllabi in an effort to see how they were prepared and to secure these syllabi. It would be wise to follow the suggestion offered by a colleague at one of our symposia meetings: Create your new syllabi with the thought that the documents are “public.” This means that syllabi should be detailed, very clear, and ready to (a) submit to the BOT for review, (b) give to PTs to download/receive via email and print off, and (c) post on your university websites. I suggest that they are ready to email and post online because they may be long and costly to print out on paper for students. I know that we discussed shortened versions of the syllabus for PTs with longer “public” versions, but I don’t think this is a wise move at this point. As we develop draft syllabi, I hope we can find ways to share syllabi across institutions to support each other.
B. Changes in Legislation Affecting Reading Instruction
Below we provide information regarding the legislation that was passed in the 2008-09 session. We also provide the complete language of the legislation at the end of this document. The language that passed is considerably less detailed than what a parent group and a couple of legislators originally proposed. However, Karen Balmer shared the following with the MACTE Standards and Rules Committee at a recent meeting. Karen said that some legislators noted that they are "not done with this issue." This means that we will need to be vigilant in watching for new efforts but more importantly provide leadership for proposing our own solutions and letting legislators know what we are doing to address previous concerns (such as forming the MN Literacy Teacher Educators Series and working on syllabi and enriching practica and student teaching experiences in the area of reading).
A Summary of Final Legislation Deliberations/Decisions
• The Legislature reaffirmed language requiring educators to continue to provide effective balanced reading instruction for all E-12 students. Legislation continues to focus on 5 components of scientifically-based instruction, defining the components using definitions from the National Reading Panel Report. This additional language was provided to clarify and build additional understanding of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension instruction for E-12 students.
• It is important to note that this legislation advocates for students and educators by inserting language that gives authority to school districts for the selection of reading curriculum and programs that best support the needs of their students.
Changes in legislation affecting teacher preparation programs
• New legislation highlights teacher education, emphasizing the preparation of prekindergarten and elementary teachers in scientifically based reading instruction. This recommendation was crafted with input from The Board of Teaching linking legislative work with the new Minnesota reading teacher standards and the subsequent redesign of assessment/s driven by these standards and required for licensure.
• The assessment, noted in the legislation, is not a stand-alone test of reading knowledge. Rather, it is: …part of the examination of Licensure-specific teaching skills, test items assessing the candidates' knowledge, skill, and ability in comprehensive, scientifically based reading instruction under section 122A.06, subdivision 4, and their knowledge and understanding of the foundations of reading development, the development of reading comprehension, and reading assessment and instruction, and their ability to integrate that knowledge and understanding.
• What teacher educators need to attend to immediately is the section of the legislation that indicates when we will be responsible for having revised coursework/experiences related to preparing preservice preK-12 teachers of reading in place. This section is at the very end of the legislation and reads as follows:
…Sec. 66. ASSESSMENT OF READING INSTRUCTION.
105.5 (a) By February 1, 2012, the Board of Teaching shall administer the assessment of
105.6reading instruction portion of the examination of licensure-specific teaching skills for all
105.7candidates for initial licenses to teach prekindergarten or elementary students,…This section is effective the day following final enactment and applies to teacher candidates beginning February 1, 2012.
The Complete Language for the Legislation in Reading for 2008-09
H.F. No. 2, Conference Committee Report - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010)
Posted 05/13/09 04:52 AM [ccrhf0002]
(Note. New language is underlined in the text; deleted language is stricken; the yellow highlighted language was a portion of text recently added to the legislation to address concerns by educators)
1.1CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON H. F. No. 2
41.15 Sec. 14. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 122A.06, subdivision 4, is amended to read:
41.16 Subd. 4. Comprehensive, scientifically based scientifically based reading
41.17instruction. (a) "Comprehensive, scientifically based reading instruction" includes a
41.18program or collection of instructional practices that is based on reliable, valid, replicable
41.19 evidence showing that when these programs or practices are used, students can be
41.20expected to achieve, at a minimum, satisfactory reading progress. The program or
41.21collection of practices must include, at a minimum, effective, balanced instruction in all
41.22five areas of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary development,
41.23and text reading comprehension.
41.24Comprehensive, scientifically based reading instruction also includes and integrates
41.25instructional strategies for continuously assessing, evaluating, and communicating
41.26the student's reading progress and needs in order to design and implement ongoing
41.27interventions so that students of all ages and proficiency levels can read and comprehend
41.28text and apply higher level thinking skills.
41.29 (b) "Fluency" is the ability of students to read text with speed, accuracy, and proper
41.30expression.
41.31 (c) "Phonemic awareness" is the ability of students to notice, think about, and
41.32manipulate individual sounds in spoken syllables and words.
41.33 (d) "Phonics" is the understanding that there are systematic and predictable
41.34relationships between written letters and spoken words. Phonics instruction is a way
42.1of teaching reading that stresses learning how letters correspond to sounds and how to
42.2apply this knowledge in reading and spelling.
42.3 (e) "Reading comprehension" is an active process that requires intentional thinking
42.4during which meaning is constructed through interactions between text and reader.
42.5Comprehension skills are taught explicitly by demonstrating, explaining, modeling, and
42.6implementing specific cognitive strategies to help beginning readers derive meaning
42.7through intentional, problem-solving thinking processes.
42.8 (f) "Vocabulary development" is the process of teaching vocabulary both directly
42.9and indirectly, with repetition and multiple exposures to vocabulary items. Learning in
42.10rich contexts, incidental learning, and use of computer technology enhance the acquiring
42.11of vocabulary.
42.12(g) Nothing in this subdivision limits the authority of a school district to select a
42.13school's reading program or curriculum.
42.14EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment…..
43.3 Sec. 17. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 122A.09, subdivision 4, is amended to read:
43.4 Subd. 4. License and rules. (a) The board must adopt rules to license public school
43.5teachers and interns subject to chapter 14.
43.6(b) The board must adopt rules requiring a person to successfully complete a skills
43.7examination in reading, writing, and mathematics as a requirement for initial teacher
43.8licensure. Such rules must require college and universities offering a board-approved
43.9teacher preparation program to provide remedial assistance to persons who did not
43.10achieve a qualifying score on the skills examination, including those for whom English is
43.11a second language.
43.12(c) The board must adopt rules to approve teacher preparation programs. The board,
43.13upon the request of a postsecondary student preparing for teacher licensure or a licensed
43.14graduate of a teacher preparation program, shall assist in resolving a dispute between the
43.15person and a postsecondary institution providing a teacher preparation program when the
43.16dispute involves an institution's recommendation for licensure affecting the person or the
43.17person's credentials. At the board's discretion, assistance may include the application
43.18of chapter 14.
43.19(d) The board must provide the leadership and shall adopt rules for the redesign of
43.20teacher education programs to implement a research based, results-oriented curriculum
43.21that focuses on the skills teachers need in order to be effective. The board shall implement
43.22new systems of teacher preparation program evaluation to assure program effectiveness
43.23based on proficiency of graduates in demonstrating attainment of program outcomes.
43.24(e) The board must adopt rules requiring successful completion of candidates for
43.25initial licenses to successfully complete an examination of general pedagogical knowledge
43.26and examinations of licensure-specific teaching skills. The rules shall be effective on the
43.27dates determined by the board but not later than by September 1, 2001. The rules under
43.28this paragraph also must require candidates for initial licenses to teach prekindergarten
43.29or elementary students to successfully complete, as part of the examination of
43.30licensure-specific teaching skills, test items assessing the candidates' knowledge, skill, and
43.31ability in comprehensive, scientifically based reading instruction under section 122A.06,
43.32subdivision 4, and their knowledge and understanding of the foundations of reading
43.33development, the development of reading comprehension, and reading assessment and
43.34instruction, and their ability to integrate that knowledge and understanding.
45.10 Sec. 19. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 122A.18, subdivision 2a, is amended to read:
45.11 Subd. 2a. Reading strategies. (a) All colleges and universities approved by the
45.12Board of Teaching to prepare persons for classroom teacher licensure must include in their
45.13teacher preparation programs research-based best practices in reading, consistent with
45.14section 122A.06, subdivision 4, that enable the licensure candidate to know how to teach
45.15reading in the candidate's content areas. These colleges and universities also must prepare
45.16candidates for initial licenses to teach prekindergarten or elementary students for the
45.17assessment of reading instruction portion of the examination of licensure-specific teaching
45.18skills under section 122A.09, subdivision 4, paragraph (e).
45.19(b) Board-approved teacher preparation programs for teachers of elementary
45.20education must require instruction in the application of comprehensive, scientifically
45.21based, and balanced reading instruction programs that:
45.22(1) teach students to read using foundational knowledge, practices, and strategies
45.23consistent with section 122A.06, subdivision 4, so that all students will achieve continuous
45.24progress in reading; and
45.25(2) teach specialized instruction in reading strategies, interventions, and remediations
45.26that enable students of all ages and proficiency levels to become proficient readers.
45.27(c) Nothing in this section limits the authority of a school district to select a school's
45.28reading program or curriculum.
45.29EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment…..
105.4 Sec. 66. ASSESSMENT OF READING INSTRUCTION.
105.5 (a) By February 1, 2012, the Board of Teaching shall administer the assessment of
105.6reading instruction portion of the examination of licensure-specific teaching skills for all
105.7candidates for initial licenses to teach prekindergarten or elementary students, consistent
105.8with Minnesota Statutes, section 122A.09, subdivision 4, paragraph (e).
105.9 (b) The Board of Teaching shall report to the legislative committees with jurisdiction
105.10over prekindergarten through grade 12 education policy by March 15, 2011, on the
105.11assessment of reading instruction portion of the examination of licensure-specific teaching
105.12skills under paragraph (a).
105.13EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment
105.14and applies to teacher candidates beginning February 1, 2012…[end of document]
Appendix B
Reading standards in the content areas
Notes from TERI Meeting – 05.19.09
Participants: Deborah Dillon and David O’Brien, co-chairs;
James Bequette, Scott Lipscomb, Jane Gilles
Breakout group charge: May 19
- Facilitate discussion among ~10 participants about their ideas, concerns, and questions related to the TERI redesign.
- Suggested facilitation:
1. Ask everyone to introduce themselves
2. Start with the broad question of “What is foundational for all of our teaching candidates related to this task group focus topic?” if necessary, elaborate with, “What would you like to see in our teacher preparation programs? If we take this opportunity to build something new and different, what do you think it should look like with regard to this task group focus topic?”
3. Provide 5 minutes of silent time for each participant to gather their thoughts in writing. Use the provided handout as a place for participants to take notes (to be collected).
4. For the group discussion, set an expectation that barriers (financial, # of credits, cross-department collaborations, teaching loads) are set aside for this discussion.
5. Ask participants to share their ideas
6. Ask for clarification regarding the how their ideas could be enacted, how they would envision assessing teacher candidate performance, if they know if operating models in the country or abroad that are using processes related to their ideas.
7. Refer to the “TERI Design Principles” as a starting point for questions that the participants have. Add to the design principles if the group raises a key issue and give any additions to Misty.
Deliverables: Notes from individuals and a 2 minute report out to the whole group
NOTES AND REPORT FROM MEETING
Deborah – background on new standards and assessments
Team of reading faculty from 28 institutions – working on points of agreement on content, assignments, assessments that may be included in revised programs. Also, what might be markers in our syllabi?
Summary of BOT and legislative processes
David – background on reading in the content areas (broadly in the field and practice within CEHD licensure programs.) Research at U Mich funded by the Carnegie Foundation
Now – the focus is on disciplinary literacy. Exploration of how texts are used within a particular discipline. Generating from within disciplines what teachers need to know to support students in that content. Methods courses and field experiences are co-constructed with literacy specialists and specialists from the discipline.
In MN, they’ve gone beyond disciplinary literacy to look at things like fluency, comprehension, ornithology – every teacher needs to support kids’ critical reading skills. (“Every teacher is a teacher of reading.”)
Q: How will the state check on whether we are attending to the new standards? (Discussion)
Scott – music: School music requires literacy – encoding and decoding a symbol set. Strong music reading skills correlate with literacy skills. To what extent is this recognized, in teacher ed, in schools?
Deborah – this is foundational knowledge to all of our programs, and it has become an essential skill set for teachers as they work together in school to increase literacy skills from a classroom, building, and district level.
Scott – true musical expression is not learned through words. A literary approach is not the best across all disciplines.
Jim –art ed is headed toward artful writing, making meaning from visual images. That often includes writing and verbal responses. My concern is about a packed program and where this will fit in. I think the EDHD’s have to give somewhat so that we don’t lose time in the discipline.
Digital literacy – a point that cannot be lost. How do we recognize the creativity and intellect required to use digital media as learners.
Q for the group: How might we envision helping our candidates learn this knowledge and be able to show it – assessing their performance.
Jim – Ask candidates to model the behaviors in their work and represent it in their lesson designs, etc. Making it a more conscious, thoughtful approach. Demonstrate that they know how to weave it into the lessons they’re developing.
Scott – to what extent can it be interwoven in a meaningful way? Real dialogue, real conversation within and outside of class.
Scott – I echo Jim’s concern about embedding this without adding credits.
Deborah – we would value the partnership with the disciplines. We’re advocating a hybrid – it would provide sustainability and consistency.
Jim – can we take things out of the program that are less essential and possibly dated. We need to rethink the whole requirement battery in our licensure programs. [end of report]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.