Add a field-based component and compare embedded versus semester-long literacy course delivery¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 causal), q1 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

The authors recommend future extensions to the literacy unit. "A Þeld-based component could potentially be implemented with the literacy unit" using the concurrent advanced practicum course to measure participants' ability to apply knowledge and skills gained. They also propose that "Future research could also focus on time frames for delivery of the literacy curriculum," comparing the 6-week embedded unit with a semester-long course with more opportunity for application, since adding coursework or credit hours is usually not viable.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Concurrent enrollment in an advanced practicum course, which both methods courses require, to provide the field-based application opportunity.

Constraints¶

• Time is the ongoing challenge: the unit occupies the second half of the semester, leaving little time for participants to plan and implement literacy assessment and intervention activities.

Target Learners¶

• Preservice special education teacher candidates in teacher preparation programs

Target Learning Goals¶

• Translating literacy instruction knowledge into classroom practice and assessing effects on student literacy outcomes

Claims¶

• The study could not determine whether knowledge gains transferred to participants' classroom teaching [+W]

Related Strategies¶

• Co-teach the literacy unit by combining mild and intense interventions methods courses for six weeks

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Pufpaff, L. A., & Yssel, N. (2010). Effects of a 6-Week, Co-Taught Literacy Unit on Preservice Special Educators' Literacy-Education Knowledge. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20485