Title of Course:        Teaching ELLs: A Literacy Instruction Toolkit

Number of Sessions:           6     Total Hours:              12              Total Number of Credits: 1

Course Start Date:         April 25, 2017                         Course End Date:       May 30, 2017

Registration Deadline: __________________________________________________

Course Location:  New Visions for Public Schools, 205 East 42nd Street, 4th floor New York, NY  

Instructors’ Names: Joanna Yip  Instructors’ Telephone #: 212 645 5110 (New Visions)

Instructor’s Email: joanna.e.yip@gmail.com 

Education Partner: New Visions for Public Schools

Education Partner Fee:     $25.00                Materials Fee (if applicable): 

Instructions for completing registration through education partner (if applicable):

Your enrollment will be complete when you register with New Visions for Public Schools at http://www.newvisions.org/microcert 

1a □

2a □

3a □

4a □

1b □

2b □

3b □

4b □

1c □

2c □

3c x

4c □

1d □

2d □

3d □

4d □

1e x

2e □

3e □

4e □

1f □

4f □

Session #1

Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017                          Time: 5:30-7:30pm               Number of hours for this session: 2  

Assignments due today: N/A

Objectives:

Participants will be able to

• Identify the major factors that shape the social, linguistic, and educational landscape of English Language Learners.
• Explain how anticipation guides support student learning generally and how they can be used to support ELLs specifically (CC Grades 9–10 Standard, SL.9–10.1; Danielson, 3c).
• Sort examples of literacy strategies into categories using Olson’s Toolbox
• Select a English learner target population and learning targets for inquiry.

Topics and Agenda:

1. Introductions (10 min)
2. Who are Emergent Bilinguals?

1. Using an anticipatory reading activity, instructor shows video about English Language Learners Immersion video  (15 minutes)
2. Debrief as learners activity: What did you learn about Emergent Bilinguals through this activity? What challenges did this student face?  What cognitive strategies did the student use to engage with others in a language he was not confident in? What assets and needs do English learners bring to the secondary classroom? (45 minutes)
3. Debrief as teachers activity: What did you learn about this particular anticipatory activity through this experience?  How could this activity be modified for use in your classroom? (5 minutes)

1. Introduction to the Olson’s Toolbox (10 min)

1. What do we mean by Cognitive Approach to Literacy Strategies? (Strategies Category Sort & Analysis)

2. Cycle of Inquiry - Overview & Task 1

1. Cycle of Inquiry Overview (5 min)
2. Identify English learner target population, learning targets, and evidence/rationale for learning targets. (15 minutes)

3. Session Reflection and Wrap Up (10 min.):

Homework:

• Complete Cycle of Inquiry Task 1 - Upload
• Read a) Vandeweghe “Reading and Writing and Cognitive Strategies,” and b) Olson & Land (2007)

Application to Classroom Practice: 

The anticipation guide is a strategy that is intended to be used with students.  Teachers will leave this session with copies of the guide that they can modify and use with their students. Students will use their understanding of the assets and needs of emergent bilinguals to identify a target population among their current students for their cycle of inquiry.

Assessment and Feedback: 

Participants’ learning will be assessed in a variety of ways including informal observations (the instructor will record observational data in a daily log) and a learning evaluation that participants will complete at the end of the session. Formative feedback will be provided in a timely manner.

Session #2

Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2017                          Time: 5:30-7:30pm                  Number of hours for this session: 2  

Assignments due today:

• Complete Cycle of Inquiry Task 1
• Read Vandeweghe “Reading and Writing and Cognitive Strategies” and Olson & Land (2007)

Objectives:

Participants will able to

• Identify the importance of using pre-reading strategies to support ELLs - Common Core Anchor Standard (RL.4)
• Explain three Cognitive Strategies students use before reading: Planning, Goal Setting, and Tapping Prior Knowledge (Danielson, 1e)
• Determine language and literacy development demands to create entry points to text for English learners

Topics and Agenda:

1. Language and Literacy Development Theory for Emergent Bilinguals: Part 1 (15 min)
2. Pre-Reading: What to do before reading a text as a group; instructor leads group in planning, goal setting and tapping prior knowledge protocol (15 min)

1. Developing Language during pre-reading: target vocabulary,  word study, glossaries, building central concepts

3. Group reads and discusses “Surrendering” by Ocean Vuong (30 min.)
4. Debrief as Learners (5 min.)

1. How were you able to connect what you knew about Vietnam (content) and personal narratives (genre) to this reading?
2. What goals did you set for yourself? How did planning shape your reading of this text?

5. Debrief as Teachers in small groups (15 min.)

1. Return to planning, goal setting, and prior knowledge protocol to design instruction for English learners reading this text. How would you modify this for your students?

6. Review Cycle of Inquiry Task 1 (15 minutes)
7. Cycle of Inquiry Task 2: (20 min)

1. Review protocol for Task 2: Identify cognitive strategy and related literacy scaffolds vis-a-vis learning target - rationale, learning target for students, and theory of action only

8. Session Reflection and Wrap Up (5 min.):

Homework:

• Read “Reading is Strategic”and Fisher and Frey’s “Think Aloud”.

• Cycle of Inquiry Task 2: Identify cognitive strategy and related literacy scaffolds vis-a-vis learning target

Application to Classroom Practice: 

Tasks, protocols and content used in this session will have direct relevance to classroom practice.  Students will discuss which learning targets will support students in making progress and can be addressed through cognitive strategies taught in the course. In addition, participants are required to enact a pre-reading strategy with their students.  Teachers will walk away from this session with a deeper understanding of the importance of cognitive strategies in reading, and prepared to support ELLs in their classroom in using these strategies through a specific pre-reading activity.

Assessment and Feedback: 

Participants’ learning will be assessed in a variety of ways including informal observations and a learning evaluation that participants will complete at the end of the session.  By sitting in with participants during small group discussion, the instructor will be able to provide participants formative feedback.  Peers will also offer one another feedback in their small group activities.

Session #3

Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2017                          Time: 5:30-7:30pm                Number of hours for this session: 2  

Assignments due today:

• Read “Reading is Strategic”and Fisher and Frey’s “Think Aloud”.
• Cycle of Inquiry Task 2: Identify cognitive strategy and related literacy scaffolds vis-a-vis learning target

Objectives: 

Participants will be able to:

• Identify and engage in a color-coding strategy that is to be done “during reading.” This strategy supports 3 key reading skills: monitoring comprehension, constructing the gist, and organizing information (Common Core Anchor Standard, RL.2 & 4)
• Design literacy intervention for target population that supports students’ comprehension and interpretation of text (Danielson, 1e)

Topics and Agenda:  

1. Language and Literacy Development Theory for Emergent Bilinguals: Part 2 (15 min)
2. During Reading Comprehension Strategies: How Writing Supports Reading Comprehension and Interpretation

1. Returning to “Surrendering” by Ocean Vuong, the instructor models an annotating strategy that involves color coding text (10 minutes)
2. Participants engage in annotating strategy (20 minutes)
3. Debrief as learners: How did engaging in this activity help you to better comprehend the text? (15  minutes)
4. Debrief as teachers: How might this experience be modified for success with your students? (15 minutes)
5. Annotation and During Reading for English Learners (10 min)

1. Close Reading and Questioning
2. Read-Retell-Respond Protocol

3. Cycle of Inquiry Task 3: (30 min)

1. Using Cycle of Inquiry Task 2, design and implement instruction (protocol for designing intervention)
2. Video lesson

4. Session Reflection and Wrap Up (5 min.)

Homework:

• Bring in a short “text” (this can be an essay, story excerpt, graph, chart or table)  that you are currently using with your students or will be soon.
• Cycle of Inquiry Task 3: Design, Implement, and Video Instruction

Application to Classroom Practice: 

Participants will learn a color-coding strategy that ELLs can use to break-down complex texts.  By debriefing as learners, teachers will have the opportunity to experience what a strategy feels like from the perspective of a student, better preparing them to teach this strategy.  By debriefing as teachers, participants have the opportunity to examine how they might modify this experience for their individual classrooms. Participants will also utilize a protocol for designing a literacy intervention for English learners.

Assessment and Feedback: 

Participants’ learning will be assessed in a variety of ways including informal observations (instructor will record observational data in a daily log) and a learning evaluation that participants will complete at the end of the session.

Session #4

Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017                          Time: 5:30-7:30pm            Number of hours for this session: 2                

Assignments due today:

• Bring in a short “text” (this can be an essay, story excerpt, graph, chart or table)  that you are currently using with your students or will be soon.
• Cycle of Inquiry Task 3: Design, Implement, and Video Instruction

Objectives: 

Participants will be able to:

• Explain the importance of after-reading comprehension strategies
• Define “text reformulation” as defined by Beers (2003)  - [Common Core Anchor Standard (RL.4)]
• Engage in a “text reformulation” learning task and explain how “text reformulation”supports student learning
• Explain the concepts that undergird writing to learn and how writing to learn can be used to support student engagement (Danielson, 3c)

Topics and Agenda:  

1. Language and Literacy Development Theory for Emergent Bilinguals: Part 3 (15 min)
2. After Reading: Using text reformulation to support textual comprehension and analysis.  

1. Instructor models text reformulation using an example from this US history text (15 minutes)
2. Debrief: What did you learn about this particular strategy through this experience? (20 minutes)

3. Strategy Practice

1. In pairs, teachers select a different example from the US history text or a text they themselves brought in and participate in a text reformulation (25 min)
2. Pairs join together to form foursomes and share how the experience went using a protocol provided by the teacher (15 min)

4. Review of Cycle of Inquiry Task 3 (15min)

1. Protocol for sharing Cycle of Inquiry Tasks 2 and 3
2. What to present to colleagues during Session 5

5. Cycle of Inquiry Task 4: Collect Data and Analyze Student Work (10 min)

1. Protocol for Collecting and Analyzing Student Work - How to do it - review the task

6. Session Reflection and Wrap Up (5 min.)

Homework:

• Cycle of Inquiry Task 4: Collect Data and Analyze Student Work

Application to Classroom Practice:  

English Language learners, like many students, struggle with academic vocabulary and textual comprehension (Fisher and Frey, 2012).  In this session, participants learn how to explicitly teach students to reformulate text from one genre to another (or from English to their native language) thereby supporting textual comprehension and analysis. This session, like earlier ones, are designed to prepare participants for their midterm, the creation of a lesson plan that will be enacted in class and with their students.    

Assessment and Feedback:  

During the strategy practice, teams of four will debrief the previous text reformulation activity using a protocol provided by the instructor. This debrief will provide formative, peer-based feedback. During the workshop preparation, the instructor will provide feedback to the entire class, and address any misconceptions.

Session #5

Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2017                          Time: 5:30-7:30pm             Number of hours for this session: 2  

Assignments due today: 

• Cycle of Inquiry Task 3: Design, Implement, and Video Instruction and Midterm Project

• Cycle of Inquiry Task 4: Collect Data and Analyze Student Work

Objectives: 

Participants will be able to:

• Enact a mini-lesson that supports students’ comprehension and interpretation of text (Common Core Anchor Standard, RL.2 & 4; and Danielson, 1e)
• Provide actionable feedback that will support the pedagogy of peers (Danielson, Component 4d: Participating in the Professional Community)

Topics and Agenda:  

1. Language and Literacy Development Theory for Emergent Bilinguals: Part 4 (20 min)
2. Workshop: Cycle of Inquiry Task 3 (45 minutes)

1. Video Presentations -- In groups of 2-3, teachers will show 10-minute segment of the lesson they taught.  This video will be followed by feedback provided by peers using a Video Viewing and Lesson Observation Protocol. Each group member will have the opportunity to provide peer feedback.

3. Cycle of Inquiry Task 4: Analyze Student Work Protocol (45 min)

1. Analysis of Student Work using protocol in pairs
2. Ideas for new intervention

4. Cycle of Inquiry Task 5: Instructions (5 min)
5. Session Reflection and Wrap Up (5 min.)

Homework:

• Cycle of Inquiry Task 5: Reflection and design of new intervention
• Final Project: Cycle of Inquiry Presentations

Application to Classroom Practice:  

During this session, participants will have the opportunity to workshop a lesson by analyzing instruction with peers.

Assessment and Feedback:  

Feedback is a core element of today.  Half the group will have the opportunity to present a lesson.  They will receive written and oral peer feedback as well as written and oral feedback from the instructor.

Session #6

Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017                          Time: 5:30-7:30pm              Number of hours for this session: 2  

Assignments due today:

• Final Project: Cycle of Inquiry Presentations

Objectives: 

Participants will be able to:

• Enact a mini-lesson that supports students’ comprehension and interpretation of text (Common Core Anchor Standard, RL.2 & 4; and Danielson, 1e)
• Provide actionable feedback that will support the pedagogy of peers (Danielson, Component 4d: Participating in the Professional Community)

Topics and Agenda:  

1. Language and Literacy Development for Emergent Bilinguals: Part 5 (40 min)
2. Cycle of Inquiry Presentations (60 minutes)

1. In groups of 2-3, teachers will present entire Cycle of Inquiry, followed by feedback provided by peers using a Consultancy Protocol. Each group member will have the opportunity to provide peer feedback.  

3. Session Reflection and Wrap Up (5 min.)

1. What went well today? How might this session be improved upon? What are you taking away from today’s session for your classroom?

4. Course Evaluations (15 min)

1. Closing activity
2. Participants complete course evaluation

Homework:

• Final Project: Cycle of Inquiry Presentations and Project, with peer feedback and ideas incorporated into write up.

Application to Classroom Practice:  

During this session, participants will have the opportunity to workshop a lesson that they will enact subsequently with students.  Doing so will provide them the opportunity to fine tune the lesson.

Assessment and Feedback:  

Feedback is a core element of today.  Half the group will have the opportunity to present a lesson.  They will receive written and oral peer feedback as well as written and oral feedback from the instructor.

Does Not Meet Expectations

Acceptable

Exemplary

Literacy Strategy

The literacy strategy of the lesson, and the rationale for using it, is unclear or is not evident.

The literacy strategy is implemented, but learning targets or rationale vis-a-vis students lack clarity or coherence.

The literacy strategy of the lesson is implemented in service of clear and specific learning targets, is responsive to learning needs of target students, and takes into account variance in student understanding.

Designing Coherent  Instruction (Danielson 1e)

Activities are not aligned to instructional outcomes or target literacy skills, and are at a low level of complexity.

Activities are appropriate in complexity to students, but  may need clearer alignment to instructional outcomes and clearer targeting of literacy skills.

Activities engage students in intellectually complex material and provide students with the opportunity to develop a specific literacy skill. Low-inference observations and evidence from student learning are included.

Engaging Students in Learning (Danielson 3c)

Activities do not actively engage students in thinking or learning, and lack opportunities for students to explain or articulate thinking about texts or about literacy practice.

Activities ask students to engage actively with content, text, or a literacy practice, but task design requires further opportunities for students to  discuss text-based ideas, or to develop a specific literacy skill.

Activities provide multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate and explain high-level thinking and explore a specific literacy skill. There are explicit opportunities for students to utilize and generate language in English, or to articulate meta-cognitive thinking when applying literacy strategies.

Writing to Learn

The lesson plan does not offer opportunities for students to write in a meaningful way connected to content of the lesson.  

Writing tasks are included in lesson and are related to content, but tasks may minimally require students to synthesize ideas. Tasks may support reading or analysis in a general way.

The instructional plan includes strategic opportunities for students to synthesize ideas through writing. The writing task drives development of important concepts and close analysis of text, and there is a plan for prompt teacher feedback and revision.

Does Not Meet Expectations

Acceptable

Exemplary

Selection of Target Population, Learning Targets, and Instructional Intervention

Selection of target population, learning targets, and instructional intervention is unclear.

Target population, learning targets, and instruction intervention are selected based on a general rationale, rather than on evidence-based reasoning and understanding of instructional theory.

Rationale for target population, learning targets, and instructional intervention is based on understanding of students’ assets and learning needs. Selection of instructional intervention is evidence-based and derived from understanding of language and literacy development of emergent bilinguals.

Declarative Knowledge of Literacy Strategy & Design of Instructional Intervention

Literacy strategy is not defined or is defined incorrectly. Design of instructional intervention does not address learning needs of students.

Literacy strategy is identified with specific explanations for how it is used with students, but may require change in design features to target needs of students. Design of instructional intervention may require further explicit opportunities for emergent bilinguals to authentically use language or to utilize English. Participant uses two readings to contextualize the strategy in the academic literature and explains how the strategy supports student literacy.

Literacy strategy is explained in detail and clearly targets learning needs of target population. Attention is paid to the theoretical underpinning of the strategy. Design of instructional intervention reflects understanding of language and literacy development for emergent bilinguals. The reflection draws on experiences from the course and uses two readings to contextualize the strategy in the academic literature and explains how the strategy supports student literacy.

Analysis of Evidence of Student Learning and Data Collection

There is no evidence of student learning presented. Or, evidence is presented but not interpreted. Learning targets and needs of target population are not addressed.

Project provides explanation of student learning with details from a limited number of sources, and may provide general connections to the implementation of instruction. Analysis of student work is supported by some evidence but relies on inference. Learning targets and needs of target population are generally addressed.

Project provides specific details and examples of student engagement and response to the instructional intervention, both during class and in written work. Interpretation of student learning is connected to reflection on implementation of instruction.

Analysis of student work is aligned with learning targets and is focused on language and literacy development.

Lesson Analysis

There is no evidence of lesson analysis or the analysis does not align appropriately with the lesson itself. Teacher does not identify next steps or new ideas to inform future instruction.

The author applies a critical eye to his/her instructional practice and identifies both areas of strength and areas for improvement in general terms, but does not provide specific measurable steps that s/he intends to take in the future.

The author applies a critical eye to his/her instructional practice and, by drawing on articles we have reading during the course, is able to articulate how the lesson could support student learning.  Teacher identifies next steps and rationale for future instruction based on analysis of evidence of student learning and data.