Building Reading Proficiency at the Secondary Level

INTRODUCTION A Guide to A Guide Resources . D Ph.

Southwest Texas State University State Texas Southwest Susen Cusenbary, M.Ed. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East 7th Street Austin, TX 78701 Sharon O’Neal, Sheila A. Nicholson, M.S.Ed. David C.David Caverly, Ph.D. Cynthia L. Peterson, Ph.D. LEVEL SECONDARY SECONDARY

AT THE THE AT PROFICIENCY PROFICIENCY

READING READING BUILDING BUILDING ©Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 2000. This guide is produced in whole or in part with funds from the Ofﬁce of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract #RJ96006801. The content herein does not necessarily reﬂect the views of the Department of Education, any other agency of the U.S. Govern- ment or any other source.

You are welcome to reproduce Building Reading Proﬁciency at the Secondary Level and may distribute copies at no cost to recipients; please credit the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory as publisher. SEDL is an Equal Opportunity/ Afﬁrmative Action Employer and is committed to affording equal employment opportunities to all individuals in all employment matters. Available in alternative formats. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv

INTRODUCTION 1 • How to Use the Guide 2 • How Resources Were Selected 3

PART I: PERSPECTIVES 6 • Struggling Secondary Readers: A Closer Look 6 • Informal Assessment 7 • Building Reading Proﬁciency at the Secondary Level 9 • Principles of Effective Reading Instruction 17 • Principles of Effective Professional Development 19

PART II: RESOURCES 22 • Five Questions Organize the Programs and Strategies 22 • Programs 23 • Strategies 23 • Deﬁnitions of Terms 70

PART III: PROCEDURES FOR COMPILING THE GUIDE 133

BIBLIOGRAPHY 136 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

his project was sponsored by South- • Dr. Shernaz García, The University of west Educational Development Lab- Texas at Austin oratory and prepared by a team of • Dr. Wes Hoover, Southwest Educational Tinvestigators in the College of Edu- Development Laboratory cation at Southwest Texas State University, • Dr. Marty Hougen, Austin Independent San Marcos, Texas. School District, Austin, Texas The following individuals provided assis- • Tom Leyden, Texas Association of tance in the development of this resource. Secondary School Principals INTRODUCTION • Dr. Ellen Bell, Texas Association of • Brenda Jean Tyler, The University of Supervision and Administration Texas at Austin. • Dian Cooper, Texas Association of • Dr. Judy Walis, Spring Branch Supervision and Administration Independent School District, Spring • Enrique Garcia, Seguin High School, Branch, Texas Seguin, Texas INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

e set out to document the ing Association (Moore, Bean, Birdyshaw, & resources available to educa- Rycik, 1999). Our project, initiated by the tors who work with struggling Southwest Educational Development Labora- Wsecondary readers. These tory (SEDL), was prompted by requests from readers struggle in general education and secondary educators for tools to support their reading classes, grades six through twelve. students who struggle with print in the class- Some are students with mild disabilities, clas- room. Its purpose is to establish what we sified as learning disabled, for whom regular know and to describe what is currently classroom teachers have instructional respon- available. sibility. Some are students whose culture or With the goal of building a guide to language differ from the culture of the class- resources, we reviewed the scholarly litera- room. Many are students who have become ture to determine: (a) current theoretical per- skilled evaders of reading, who know the spectives and research findings on building stress of not being able to read successfully. reading proficiency at the secondary level and By the secondary grades, students are (b) their implications for classroom instruc- presumed to have acquired basic reading skill. tion. Rather than reporting all the factors that Over the last decade, researchers and policy- can impact secondary-level reading profi- makers have all but abandoned attention to ciency, we present those for which a research secondary-level remediation to focus on pre- base establishes essential importance and for venting the need for it. Unfortunately, the which there are pedagogical implications. We need remains. The need for a new look at identified and described programs and strate- adolescent literacy was the focus of a recent gies that aligned with those findings. position statement of the International Read- HOW TO USE • Campus programs require an administra- THE GUIDE tive commitment at the district, campus, or department level for implementation Part I across classrooms. • Classroom programs are designed to be Part I provides background information selected and implemented by individual on building reading proficiency at the sec- classroom teachers. ondary level. Struggling Secondary Readers: A Closer Look Strategies are consistent plans, consciously describes the scope of the problem and the adapted and monitored by readers for consequences of being a struggling secondary improving performance in reading. Two types reader. of strategies were defined: Informal Assessment provides an overview • Teacher strategies are implemented by of common reading behaviors of struggling teachers to develop student reading abil- secondary readers, with specific suggestions ity. They are instructional interventions for informal assessment that teachers can use. for the whole class, small groups, or the Building Reading Proficiency at the individual student. Secondary Level is a synthesis of the theory and • Student strategies are internal procedures research on secondary reading around four used by students in the process of read- major factors for building reading proficiency. ing. Students assume responsibility for Principles of Effective Reading Instruction using strategies as they become indepen- characterizes effective instructional practices dent readers. for developing the reading of struggling secondary readers. Organization of Entries Principles of Effective Professional Develop- Each entry begins with a table that allows ment outlines four tenets of effective profes- a quick review of essential information about sional development for teachers who are the resource. The body of the entry is orga- implementing new strategies. nized to address the following five questions. The factors and principles we found in our research overview are listed in brackets. Part II 1. What is it? How does it work? Part II provides detailed descriptions of some of the resources available for teachers to 2. What professional development is use with struggling secondary readers. The required? What is provided? instructional resources for struggling sec- [Four principles of effective professional ondary readers were broadly categorized as development: continuous and sustained, programs and strategies. locally based initiatives, adaptation rather Programs are instructional packages of than adoption, teacher as researcher]. multiple components prepared by an entity, See pages 19–20 for the discussion of often commercial. They provide materials, principles. instructional routines, and support for the professional development of teachers. Two 3. How does it develop reading proficiency? types of programs were defined: [Four major factors: motivation, decoding skill (including fluency), language com- Bibliography prehension (including linguistic knowl- The bibliography includes the sources edge, background knowledge, making consulted for the preparation of the guide. It inferences, self-regulated comprehend- also includes recent publications of practical ing), and transaction with text]. See pages value to educators, marked with an asterisk(*). 9–17 for the discussion of factors. Sources consulted to document each of the programs and strategies are listed separately, 4. How does it support effective reading in reference lists at the end of each resource instruction? description. [Eight principles of effective reading instruction: recognition and honor of cul- Project Web Page tural and linguistic diversity; assessment In addition to this printed Guide, the during teaching; scaffolds (strategies such project is supported by a Web page at as questioning, discussion, and writing) http://www.sedl.org/. before, during, and after reading; reper- The Web page features a database by toires of strategies; explicit instruction of which users can search and sort for specific strategies; reading practice; student choice information and compare resources. For and authentic tasks; scaffolding across the example, to see what is available to build classroom curriculum]. See pages 17–19 background knowledge, the user can sort on for the discussion of principles. that field.

5. How effective is it? [Type of documentation, recency of documentation, effectiveness with the target HOW RESOURCES population, extent of implementation]. WERE SELECTED See pages 4–5 for the discussion of criteria. Criteria for Inclusion of Programs and Strategies Definitions of Terms. A definition for each term used in the Programs and strategies were included resource descriptions begins on pages 133. in the Guide if aligned with the following This section is organized by the five ques- criteria: tions used to organize the resource entries. 1. Developmentally, contextually, and socially appropriate for improving the Part III reading of struggling secondary readers, grades 6–12. Part III of the Guide explains the procedures used for reviewing the research on sec- 2. Grounded in reading theory and consis- ondary reading, for developing the selection tent with principles of effective reading criteria, and for locating and describing instruction. Programs also had to be con- resources. sistent with principles of effective professional development of teachers. 3. Documented to be effective based on decoding skill and fluency); quantitative or qualitative data reported • Language Comprehension (which includes in scholarly, refereed publications. Pro- linguistic knowledge, background knowl- grams could instead be documented by a edge, making inferences, and self-regu- formal program evaluation. lated comprehending); and • Transacting with Text (engaging in a dialog Explanation of the Selection with the text, especially in making per- Criteria sonal connections) We addressed each need from the per- 1. Developmentally, contextually, and socially spective of culturally and linguistically diverse appropriate for improving the reading of strug- learners. gling secondary readers, grades 6–12. From the research literature on effective Here secondary is defined as grades six reading instruction, we found evidence for through twelve, the most common grade span the following principles: for middle/junior high and senior high • Recognition and Honor of Cultural and schools. Adolescents in these years have Linguistic Diversity unique cognitive, social, and personal needs. • Assessment During Teaching Interventions designed for elementary readers • Scaffolds Before, During and After Reading may not provide sufficient challenge to pre- • Repertoires of Strategies pare secondary students to be successful in • Explicit Instruction of Strategies their classrooms. Interventions designed for • Reading Practice postsecondary students or for the workplace • Student Choice and Authentic Tasks may not be appropriate for the personal or • Scaffolding Across the Classroom Curriculum social needs of secondary readers. Therefore From the literature on principles of effec- we selected resources that could support the tive professional development of teachers, we secondary content classroom and respect the found evidence for the following factors: adolescent’s need for social interaction and • Continuous and Sustained Learning personal identity. We selected programs that • Locally Based Initiatives had been developed for secondary popula- • Adaptation Rather than Adoption of tions and did not simply repackage materials Programs written for younger or older readers. • Teacher as Researcher A detailed explanation of these factors 2. Grounded in reading theory and consistent begins on page 9. with principles of effective reading instruction. Programs also had to be consistent with principles 3. Documented to be effective based on quan- of effective professional development of teachers. titative or qualitative data reported in scholarly, We reviewed the research literature on refereed publications. Programs could instead be secondary reading proficiency from multiple documented by a formal program evaluation. perspectives, including the cognitive and Some programs or strategies may have sociocultural, and organized the findings been overlooked or, if new, not included due around four needs: to the lack of documentation of effectiveness. • Motivation to Read (specifically, intrinsic They can be added as the Guide is updated. motivation to persist in a reading task); For detailed information on how the criteria • Decoding Skill (which includes basic were developed and applied, see page 133. Rating of Resources for Building Secondary Reading Proficiency Based on Level of Support and Implementation

Level of Support and Implementation Insufﬁcient Criterion Well established Established Promising Evidence

Type of Documentation Documentation Documentation Quantitative or documentation with both quantita- with quantitative or with quantitative or qualitative data has tive and qualitative qualitative data qualitative data been collected and data from three or from two or more from at least one made available by more sources, sources, including: source, including: the developer but including: no program evalua- Peer-reviewed pub- Peer-reviewed tion has been con- Peer-reviewed publication; publication ducted. lication, not written Developer- or by the developer; sponsored program Developer-spon- Non-peer-reviewed Developer- evaluation; sored program publication. sponsored program and/or evaluation. evaluation; Independent and program evaluation. Independent program evaluation.

Recency of Documentation has Documentation Documentation No documentation documentation been established over the last 10 only in the last 3 in the last 10 years. over an extended years, but not in the years. period of time, last 5 years. including the last 5 years.

Effectiveness with Documented effec- Documented effec- Documented effec- Anecdotal effective- target population tiveness with varied tiveness with 1-2 tiveness with other ness with strug- populations of populations of populations of read- gling secondary struggling sec- struggling sec- ers but only anec- readers or other ondary readers. ondary readers. dotal evidence with readers. struggling secondary readers.

Extent of Implemented in at Implemented in 3–4 Implemented in 1–2 Implemented in a implementation least 5 sites beyond sites beyond a pilot. sites beyond a pilot. pilot. a pilot. PART I: PERSPECTIVES

STRUGGLING across grade levels. Still, more than 26% of SECONDARY READERS: students at grade 8 and 23% of those who A CLOSER LOOK had not left school at grade 12 failed to reach “Basic Proficiency” in reading, meaning they lacked even the “partial knowledge and skills” or secondary-level students in grades that are fundamental for their grade level. As seven through twelve, the social and with prior test administrations, a dispropor- economic consequences of not read- tional number of students in culturally and INTRODUCTION Fing well can be cumulative and pro- linguistically diverse (CLD), English as a Sec- found: the failure to attain a high school ond Language (ESL) and low-income popu- diploma, a barrier to higher education, lations fell below Basic Level proficiency at underemployment or unemployment, and both grades 8 and 12 (Donahue, Voelkl, difficulty in managing personal and family Campbell, & Mazzeo, 1999). life. Years of failing at what is deemed a hall- National longitudinal studies show that mark of intelligence and worth can also leave approximately 75% of those with reading struggling readers with emotional conse- problems in third grade still experience read- quences, such as anxiety and low self-esteem, ing difficulties in the ninth grade (Francis, that affect personality and interpersonal rela- Shaywitz, Stuebing, Shaywitz, & Fletcher tionships. These effects within and beyond 1996; Shaywitz, Holahan, & Shaywitz, 1992). the classroom walls show that by the sec- Students who experience reading difficulties ondary grades educators can no longer defer in the early grades often suffer what has been solutions to future development or called the “Matthew Effect” (Stanovich, instruction. 1986), a gap between good and poor readers that widens through the grades. Mikulecky The Scope of the Problem (1990), for example, found that a group of secondary students two or more years behind While many readers make gains through their peers in reading ability were differen- grade 8, many then fall behind from grades 8 tially affected by their tendency to avoid to 12. The National Assessment of Educa- reading. These students read very little dur- tional Progress (NAEP), which provides lon- ing or outside of school. Over the two-year gitudinal achievement data for students period of the study, their reading comprehen- through grade 12, showed slight increases sion performance actually declined. from 1994 to 1998 in reading performance ATI PERSPECTIVES PART I: Consequences of Being nal study of New Zealand children with read- a Struggling Reader ing disabilities through age 13, McGee, et al. (1988) found behavior problems to be a result By the secondary grades, struggling read- of reading difficulties rather than a cause. ers have little confidence in their ability to Others (Fergusson & Lynskey, 1997) have succeed in reading and little sense of them- found no relationship, and specifically no selves as readers (Collins, 1996). Guthrie, relationship with hyperactivity (Chadwick, Alao, and Rinehart (1997) noted an “eroding Taylor, E. Taylor, A. Heptinstall, & sense of confidence” in these students. They Danckaerts, 1999). are acutely aware of their reading problems In summary, struggling secondary readers (Wigfield & Eccles, 1994) and likely to suffer are characterized by the consequences of serious psychological consequences, including years of reading failure. Gaskins (1997) notes anxiety, low motivation for learning, and lack that these consequences may be suffered even of self-efficacy. by those students who are reading at grade level after successful remediation. Emotional and Psychological Consequences Many struggling secondary readers experience social anxiety from reading aloud in INFORMAL the classroom (Kos, 1991) and from repeated ASSESSMENT assignment to remedial reading programs (Collins, 1996). Their personal anxiety is Teachers usually can distinguish students associated with fears of lacking functional who struggle with reading from those who skills and of attaining future employment or are proficient by observing and noting read- success (Amman & Mittelsteadt, 1987; Kos, ing behaviors. These behaviors may be evi- 1991). dent through the course of the reading and To save face, they may attribute their will be determined by the nature of the stu- reading failure to such external factors as task dent’s reading difficulty as well as the content difficulty, noise, interference, and unfair and context of the reading task. teachers. Yet what may be regarded as inap- Formal group assessments (such as stan- propriate attributions may be appropriate for dardized achievement tests and state compe- instruction that is not meaningful, relevant, tency tests) can flag problems; individual or at the readers’ instructional level. For assessments (such as the diagnostic tests used struggling readers who attribute failure to for determining qualification for special edu- their own lack of ability, further effort is seen cation services) can provide valuable informa- as futile, which damages the trust between tion. Yet this formal assessment provides an student and teacher (Wallace, 1995). incomplete view of student literacy abilities and should be accompanied by informal Behavioral Consequences assessment, by which teachers observe stu- Although a relationship between reading dent reading on a range of reading tasks and difficulties and problem behavior has been in multiple contexts. For example, a student’s well documented (Kos, 1991; McGee, Share, oral responses to peers about a reading can Moffitt, Williams, & Silva, 1988), the nature indicate level of engagement as well as partial of that relationship is unclear. In a longitudi- understandings. Common Reading Behaviors adjusting their comprehending to different texts and purposes (Paris et al., 1991). For Teachers should informally assess stu- them, reading is what occurs when the eyes dents who demonstrate poor pre-, peri-, and meet print (Pressley & Wharton-McDonald, post-reading behaviors, even without a flag 1997). Poor decoders typically have little cog- from formal assessment. Such assessment can nitive energy left for strategic comprehen- be as simple as the teacher having the student sion. Those with limited background knowl- read aloud in a private meeting or on tape. edge will be unable to make and update Students who decode the first few letters and predictions and connect ideas. Struggling then guess the rest of the word may have an readers stall at this “during reading” stage, implicit theory that reading is a search for while engaged readers continue processing sight words with gaps filled in by background after reading by reskimming to cull important knowledge (Johnston, 1985). Those who ideas and reflecting on the meaning. Engaged overrely on context may do so because of readers also demonstrate passion for certain poor decoding skills. Some may read aloud ideas in the text. Struggling readers who quite slowly and disjointedly, or rapidly but spend much effort for little return are less inaccurately. Others may read methodically, likely to find value or to assume what Rosen- but accurately, without attempting to com- blatt (1978) has called an aesthetic stance. prehend. To determine the reasons for these Especially at the high school level, struggling reading behaviors, teachers can ask students readers may find little in remedial reading to “think aloud” and explain how they materials to engage their passions. decoded a word or how they comprehended.

PART I:PART Comprehension PERSPECTIVES can be checked by asking Assessment of Second students to retell what they have read. Stu- Language Learners dents who see reading as an oral performance may be unconcerned about the lack of corre- Bilingual programs are rare for secondary spondence between what they say and what is students who are acquiring proficiency in on the page. English, despite the fact that many new When presented with a reading task, arrivals are adolescents (Valdes, 1998). They struggling readers, having experienced may attend a class for English language repeated difficulties in reading, may be more instruction, but are expected to function most concerned with avoiding embarrassment or of the day in classrooms that expose them to “saving face.” As a result, they may seek ways native levels of English, with little, if any, to avoid the assignment, including distracting modification for their level of English profi- attention away from reading. They may dis- ciency. Important differences among these engage from the reading task by feigning students can explain their difficulty in reading interest, bringing home the wrong book, English. Some may have a low level of oral reading the wrong pages, and procrastinating comprehension of English, but comprehend (Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991). Disengaged, in reading in their native language. Some may they may rush to complete the assignment have difficulty decoding an alphabetic lan- rather than taking even more time to connect guage. Those who are able to decode in their with the text. native language (L1) will be better able to Struggling readers typically fail to evalu- decode English than those who have no ate their understanding or apply strategies for decoding skill in any language. For example, ATI PERSPECTIVES PART I: the student who can decode fluently in an • Spelling Inventories, in D. R. Bear, M. Inv- alphabetic language such as Spanish should ernizzi, S. Templeton, and F. Johnston, not be given the same instruction as the stu- Words Their Way, (2000), Merrill. dent who does not understand the alphabetic These upper-level and content-specific principle. spelling inventories provide diagnostic infor- For such students, three common prac- mation on the type orthographic knowledge tices limit their development of English read- that a reader is using to process a word. ing proficiency: (a) a separate track for Eng- lish language learners, which offers few • Content Area Reading Inventory (CARI), in opportunities for them to interact with native R. Vacca & J. Vacca, Content Area Read- English speakers; (b) the classroom that only ing, (1999), Harper-Collins. allows English, excluding and stigmatizing The CARI is a way for teachers to con- the participation of those who are not fluent struct a quick comprehension assessment on a (Valdes, 1998); and (c) the inappropriate selection of the course textbook in order to labeling of second language learners as learn- determine who among their students will be ing disabled or referrals to special education struggling with the assigned reading. (Garcia & Ortiz, 1988) where they receive simplified content-area instruction. • MPRI: The Major Point Interview for Read- Several informal reading inventories and ers. In E. Keene and S. Zimmermann, interview protocols are available for class- (1997). Mosaic of Thought: Teaching Com- room teachers to help teachers informally prehension in a Reader’s Workshop. Heine- assess the reading of their students. mann, pp. 228–235.

Informal Reading Inventories and Interviews Appropriate for BUILDING READING Older Students PROFICIENCY Inventories are administered one-on-one. Note that assessments of oral reading proba- Research Perspectives bly will not be valid for students who are still learning the pronunciation of English. Their Secondary-level reading remediation tra- mispronunciations should not be interpreted ditionally has not focused on decoding, but as evidence of decoding problems. on comprehension. Readers complete instruction and practice on those skills for • Flynt-Cooter Reading Inventory for the which they scored pretest deficiencies. Usu- Classroom, (1995), 2d ed., by E. S. Flynt ally, they improve on a closely aligned and R. B. Cooter, Gorsuch Scarisbrick. posttest. Despite short-term gains, the effects This inventory can be used with students of even the strongest of these approaches, through grade 12. It includes an interest/atti- mastery learning, are effectively zero on such tude interview. transfer measures as standardized tests (Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1990; Slavin, • Bader Reading and Language Inventory, 1990). Mastery learning through computer- (1994), by L. A. Bader, Longman. assisted-instruction also has shown minimal effects for reading (Christmann, Baggett, & bring to school. Typically these funds of stu- Lucking, 1997; Fletcher-Flinn & Gravvat, dent knowledge, stemming from family and 1995) or for transfer to contexts beyond the home (Delgado-Gaitan, 1990) as well as computer program (Read, 1992). Some church and workplace, have been unrecog- researchers (such as Gaskins, 1998) have nized assets of those marginalized from the observed that struggling readers need support culture of school. In Moll’s approach, teach- in strategic reading, in orchestrating compre- ers become ethnographers to learn about hension, and in applying reading across con- those funds, which are then integrated with texts—forms of support remedial programs classroom reading. Another example of cul- usually lack. turally relevant pedagogy is in the work of Another traditional approach has been Ladson-Billings (1994, 1995), who reported the modification of instruction based on how this approach has helped African-Ameri- assessment of learning style. Here, too, meta- can students to see the power of literacy in analyses (of aptitude-treatment-interaction their lives. studies) have failed to establish an effect An “engagement perspective” guides our (Kavale & Forness, 1987). Recently, Stahl and review of building reading proficiency at the Kuhn (1995) found no support for learning secondary level. The National Reading styles applied to reading instruction and Hor- Research Center (Baumann & Duffy, 1997; ton and Oakland (1997), in an empirical study Cramer & Castle, 1994; O’Brien, Dillon, of 417 seventh graders, found no support for Wellinski, Springs, & Stith, 1997) articulated the practice of adapting instruction to learn- this perspective, noting that engaged readers ing styles. “coordinate their strategies and knowledge

PART I:PART PERSPECTIVES A consensus seems to be building among (cognition) within a community of literacy researchers that traditional reading remedia- (social) in order to fulfill their personal goals, tion is insufficient. In their comprehensive desires, and intentions (motivation)” (Guthrie review of the literature, Johnston and Alling- & Wigfield, 2000, p. 404). ton (1991) concluded that remediation for In the following sections we summarize reading comprehension beyond the primary the research on what struggling secondary grades generally has not been very effective in readers need in order to build reading profi- improving student reading performance. In ciency. The discussion is organized around their review, Klenk and Kibby (2000) con- four factors: (a) the motivation to read, (b) curred, calling for an end to the “remedy” the ability to decode print, (c) the ability to metaphor. Instead, they proposed “media- comprehend language, and (c) the ability to tional process” for both teachers and students transact with text (to actively seek informa- (p. 681). Such an approach supports the tion and make personal responses). For each Vygotskian notion of recursive zones of prox- factor, we address appropriate learning con- imal development and the added considera- texts and the implications for culturally and tion of reading contexts outside of school— linguistically diverse learners. such as home, church, and workplace—that are important for older readers. For example, Motivation to Read Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez (1992) documented the patterns of literacy learning and Reading proficiency requires the reader expertise, called “funds of knowledge,” that to independently begin and persist in reading working class, Mexican-American students tasks, actions that hinge on motivation (Snow, ATI PERSPECTIVES PART I: Burns, & Griffin, 1998). As students move pleasure or satisfaction that is gained from through the grades, especially at the middle their value or interest in the task (Baumann & school level, their motivation to choose to Duffy, 1997). In avoiding reading, the strug- read tends to decline (Donahue et al., 1999; gling reader has little opportunity for poten- Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). tially motivating connections of emotions, Feelings of competence and self-determi- feelings, and sentiments of transacting with nation engendered by a reading task likely text. Even secondary students who are com- affects the reader’s intrinsic motivation for it petent readers may avoid reading unless it is (Deci & Ryan, 1985). In a study of four strug- required when they fail to see it as useful or gling middle school readers, Kos (1991) interesting to them (O’Brien et al., 1997). found that despite expressing strong desires to read successfully, these students had nega- Contexts for Building Motivation tive views of reading in school settings, which A classroom climate of respect for peers they associated with feelings of failure. By the and for cultural and linguistic differences pro- secondary grades, they readily recognized the vides a motivating social context for learning simplified text that has been written for their through reading. Cummins (1986) noted that remediation and associated such materials students suffered in reading performance with failure and social stigma. Authentic texts when their language or dialect was stigma- (such as newspapers and trade books) and tized in the classroom, but not when it was choice in selecting reading materials are espe- honored. The teacher who is aware of literacy cially important for fostering reading persis- contexts outside the classroom can connect tence in struggling secondary readers (Cope, those contexts to reading tasks and the selec- 1993; Worthy, 1996). Instructional scaffold- tion of materials. In structuring reading tasks ing for choosing authentic materials has also and selecting materials, teachers should allow improved reading interest and skill among student choice, while providing support in these students (Ammann & Mittelsteadt, making those choices. 1987; Collins, 1996; Ryan & Brewer, 1990). The next two factors are the major cogni- One approach to motivating struggling tive components necessary for proficient read- readers, about which educators disagree, has ing: decoding and language comprehension. been to develop reading behavior through positive reinforcement. Rewards for reading, Decoding Skill such as prizes and points, were found to lead to reading avoidance and the use of weak Decoding skill involves basic decoding as strategies (Guthrie et al., 1997; McQuillan, well as fluency. Most educators assume that 1997; Taylor, 1999). Generally intrinsic moti- by the secondary grades, all but those stu- vation is enhanced through verbal praise and dents classified as learning disabled (or positive feedback and is undermined when dyslexic) are skilled decoders. Consequently, rewards are tied to task completion rather relatively little research has looked at decod- than levels of performance (Cameron & ing skill with other populations of secondary Pierce, 1994). readers.

Affect Basic Decoding Intrinsically motivated readers persist in Basic decoding skill requires readers to reading because of affective engagement, the know the systematic sound-symbol relationships of English, as well as words that don’t were in their listening vocabularies. entirely follow those rules (“mischief”)and This ability to look within the printed words that are linguistically unique word, gained through experience with both (“colonel”). By the secondary grades, even written and spoken language, helps the reader struggling readers have acquired (through to decode unfamiliar and irregularly spelled print exposure) a store of words they recog- words. The English spelling system, contrary nize by sight. Yet most of their reading words to popular belief, is not unsystematic; its con- will be “exception words” unless they are sistencies are recognized by proficient read- skilled in manipulating the sound-symbol sys- ers. Spelling ability contributes to word tem to see relationships among words in print recognition and, indirectly, to comprehension and with spoken words they already know (Stanovich & Cunningham, 1993). It pro- (Johnston, 1985). For second language learn- ceeds developmentally from alphabetic ers the “exception words” can be particularly spelling to within-word patterns, to (at the difficult, as applying first language cognates secondary level) spelling based on meaning. or English rule regularity doesn’t help much. All readers, including those with learning dis- Basic decoding skill depends upon abili- abilities, seem to follow a similar pattern of ties native speakers of English are presumed development, with struggling readers stalling to have acquired by the secondary grades. at the within-word pattern stage (Templeton The first is the ability to recognize and & Morris, 2000). manipulate letters of the alphabet. The second, phonemic awareness, refers to con- Fluency sciously recognizing the separability of Fluency represents a level of speed and

PART I:PART phonemes PERSPECTIVES (abstract units that underlie the accuracy of word recognition and it improves sounds of spoken language) and, just as from reading practice (Dowhower, 1987; important, the ability to manipulate them. Samuels, 1979). It depends upon a reader’s Although the importance of phonemic aware- basic decoding skills, including phonological ness has been established with younger read- awareness, and knowledge of syntax (Cooper ers, it has proven difficult to measure in & Stewart, 1987). More fluent readers were expert older readers (Scarborough, 1998). found to read with greater comprehension However, readers who are dyslexic show a (White, 1995). Excessively slow, halting read- clear deficit in decoding at the level of ing limits comprehension and the amount of phonemes that persists into adulthood (Faw- print that can be read, creating a burden that cett & Nicolson, 1995; Shaywitz, 1996). can extinguish the desire to read (LaBerge & Defining the problem for struggling sec- Samuels, 1974; Nathan & Stanovich, 1991; ondary readers requires more careful investi- Samuels, 1994). The use of context to help gation. In a study of struggling high school identify specific words does not sufficiently readers, Shankweiler, Lundquist, Dreyer, & compensate for laborious basic decoding skill Dickinson (1996) found that differences in (Shaywitz, 1996). Lack of fluency affects phonological processing efficiency accounted many struggling secondary readers (Mathes, for individual differences in text comprehen- Simmons, & Davis, 1992). They read less text sion. These readers could map phonemes in the same amount of time as do more fluent with graphemes. Their difficulty was in readers and have less text to remember, com- segmenting the morphological (meaning) prehend, and appreciate. derivations of words, even when the words ATI PERSPECTIVES PART I: Building Decoding Skill lish. Teachers of second language learners Two factors, explicit instruction and struggling with decoding should identify and teacher responsiveness, seem to characterize take advantage of L1 decoding skills that may most successful instructional programs for transfer across languages, such as phoneme building decoding skill. McCormick and segmentation and word identification strate- Becker (1996) found that students with learn- gies (National Research Council, 1997). A ing disabilities also benefited from indirect rich environment of literacy resources is word study. Decoding skill also has implica- especially important for these readers. tions for second language learners. Explicit instruction for word recogni- Language Comprehension tion. This approach has been effective with struggling secondary readers (Gaskins, Cun- The comprehension of language includes celli, & Satlow, 1992; Lenz, & Hughes, 1990; linguistic knowledge, background knowledge, Lewkowicz, 1985; Meyer; 1982). Henry making inferences, and the self-regulation of (1993) argued that these readers need comprehension (or metacognition). extended decoding and spelling instruction to help them decode multisyllabic words. Suc- Linguistic Knowledge cessful programs, such as one developed by Comprehension builds on linguistic McNinch (1981) emphasize explicit instruc- knowledge, or knowledge of the language sys- tion by a responsive teacher and include an tem: its phonology, semantics (including mor- explanation of what skill is being taught, reg- phology and word meaning), and syntax, or ular modeling of how to perform the skill, grammatical structure. constant discussion of why the skill is impor- Phonology refers to knowledge of how tant, and demonstrations of when it is best to the sounds of language are used to convey apply the skill. Struggling readers benefit differences in meaning. Despite dialect differ- from expert modeling of fluent reading and ences, most secondary students have a com- repeated readings (Chall, 1996), reading prac- mon knowledge of the phonology and syntax tice with different kinds of texts (Snow et al., of their native language. The importance of 1998), authentic reading tasks and a rich liter- semantic knowledge shows up in the strong acy environment (Apel & Swank, 1999; Gask- correlations between comprehension and the ins, 1997; Taylor, Harris, Pearson, & Garcia, size and degree of both general and passage- 1995). specific word knowledge, or vocabulary (Beck Implications for second language & McKeown, 1991). Proficient readers learners. Decoding skill or word recognition acquire new words by wide reading and presumes oral proficiency in English, which repeated exposures to words in varying con- has implications for second language learners. texts (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2000). A striking In recommending practice for younger read- gap in word knowledge differentiates ers Snow and colleagues (1998) advised that proficient from struggling readers (Baker, students reading in their native language be Simmons, & Kameenui, 1995) who have taught to extend their skills to reading in read less. English as they acquired proficiency in spo- Building linguistic knowledge. To build ken English. For younger students who did linguistic knowledge, struggling readers need not read in L1, the recommendation was to more than opportunities for incidental learn- first develop basic proficiency in spoken Eng- ing. A meta-analysis by Stahl and Fairbanks (1986) shows traditional instruction in word amassed background knowledge of the world definitions has little effect. Word study and and its social and cultural contexts, much of explicit instruction that includes orthography, which is external to the reading tasks of morphology, and spelling can strengthen the school. These tasks are likely to be more effects of vocabulary learning (Templeton & familiar to those students who have acquired Morris, 2000). Students should have opportu- knowledge from thousands of hours of being nities for active learning of words, for making read to. Studies of background knowledge personal connections, and for exposure to have been primarily of the strong effects of words in multiple sources (Blachowicz & declarative and procedural domain knowledge Fisher, 2000). All students benefit from learn- (as of baseball, or of school subjects such as ing about how language works: the cultural math or history) on comprehension (Gault- connotations of words, changes in spelling ney, 1995; Gough, Hoover, & Peterson, over time, and dialect rules and consistencies. 1996). The domain of schooling includes Implications for second language knowledge of social and cultural expectations learners. Opportunities for social interaction and discourse, the ignorance of which may can help struggling second language learners differentially affect the language comprehen- acquire linguistic knowledge of English. sion of struggling CLD readers. Additionally, a sight word vocabulary of high- Contexts for building background frequency words (estimates range from 2,000 knowledge. Wide reading, typically avoided to 10,000 words) prepares them to learn Eng- by the struggling secondary reader, builds lish from context (Grabe, 1991). Syntactic background knowledge and can be encour- knowledge also bears on the teaching of sec- aged by allowing self-selection of personally

PART I:PART ond PERSPECTIVES language learners. For example, Nagy, interesting and relevant texts. The building of McLure, and Montserrat (1997) found that background knowledge should not be limited bilingual middle school students made trans- to print, but expanded to include other confer errors of applying Spanish syntax not texts. Struggling readers also benefit from found in English, impairing their comprehen- explicit instruction in strategies for activating sion. Finally, struggling second language and connecting what they know in the con- learners likely will need instructional assis- text of reading. Fragmented knowledge can tance in applying their knowledge of cognates be connected and shallow understanding to English vocabulary (Garcia & Nagy, 1993). deepened by readers reflecting upon and communicating their learning to others in a Background Knowledge social setting. The background knowledge of how envi- Before concluding a student lacks back- ronments operate (as explained by schema ground knowledge, teachers should look for theory) makes a contribution to comprehen- what may already have been learned in a first sion that can be separated from word-level language that is inert, unconnected knowl- knowledge, though both affect how well and edge, and for culturally-related knowledge how much is comprehended (Stahl, Hare, (“funds of knowledge”) that can be activated Sinatra, & Gregory, 1991). Background and connected to a reading task. knowledge can be categorized as world knowledge and domain-specific knowledge Making Inferences that is both declarative and procedural. Comprehension beyond the word level By the secondary grades, students have requires the comprehender not only to acti- ATI PERSPECTIVES PART I: vate background knowledge but also to use it Implications for second language in integrating meaning across sentences. As learners. Struggling second language learn- the message becomes less familiar, inferenc- ers may fail to apply strategies for making ing demands increase. Many poor compre- inferences in their first language to reading in henders have difficulty making inferences, English (National Research Council, 1997). even when they decode fluently. The lan- Teachers should look for opportunities to guage comprehension ability to draw infer- demonstrate how inferences based on cultural ences develops as children move beyond the differences in background knowledge can primary grades (Beal, 1990; Chikalanga, lead to differences in comprehension. 1993) and is aided by long-term memory for sentences as well as background knowledge Self-Regulated Comprehension (Wilson & Hammill, 1982). In order to read Proficient reading requires the metacog- to learn from text (and thus acquire new nitive processes of evaluating comprehension background knowledge) readers need to and regulating difficulties (Snow et al., 1998). actively construct a mental model of the text This self-regulated comprehending (Hacker, that draws upon the text and their own back- 1998), often called executive control or ground knowledge (Graesser, Millis, & Zwan, metacognition, involves activating knowl- 1997). This active construction of meaning edge, making predictions about meaning, from text is consistent with popular construc- reflecting on what has been comprehended, tivist views of learning. Secondary students and revising understanding. In maturing for whom reading comprehension has been a readers, self-regulated comprehending “search and find” response to literal level emerges with reading practice and the acqui- questions may not believe they are permitted sition of knowledge about reading (Cooper, to construct meaning from text. 1998), a development that further widens the Building inferencing skill. Struggling gap between proficient readers and those who secondary readers are often remediated with are struggling. Proficient readers expect to well-structured or “considerate” text that comprehend. They have strategies for decod- reduces the requirement for making infer- ing and comprehending. A weak knowledge ences. Although this practice can build flu- base can limit the use of effective comprehen- ency, it does not help struggling readers move sion strategies, as Carr and Thompson (1996) beyond literal levels of understanding. Read- found with struggling middle school readers. ers with sufficient prior knowledge, who are Readers need sufficient background knowl- forced to infer unstated relationships, engage edge to be able to monitor whether meaning in deeper processing and comprehension is a guess or a certainty (Oakhill & Yuill, (McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, & Kintsch, 1996; Ruffman, 1996). 1996; McNamara & Kintsch, 1996). In addi- Building self-regulated comprehen- tion to opportunities to read more complex sion. Teachers can help students develop text, struggling secondary readers need sup- these skills by explicitly modeling expert port in how to use background knowledge reading through think-alouds (Davey, 1983; and text structure to determine relationships Wade, 1990), by guiding strategy practice, among ideas and to draw conclusions. and by ensuring that students independently Instructional support can come from teacher apply strategies to authentic reading tasks. modeling, such as “think alouds” (Davey, When taught such strategies as self-question- 1983), and mapping. ing, secondary students improved in comprehension (Gaultney, 1995; Haller, Child, & an appreciation of beauty) are called to mind Walberg, 1988). Strategy instruction was as the reader engages in transaction. more effective for students in higher grades Although usually associated with and mod- and also when done in small groups (Chiu, eled instructionally through the reading of 1998). narrative text, the aesthetic stance can also be Implications for second language taken with informational text. For example, learners. Successful bilingual readers have while reading factual information about Paris, been found to view reading as unitary across the reader might imagine a personal visit languages. They transfer to L2 the metacog- (Alexander, 1997). Transaction enables read- nitive strategies of questioning, rereading, ers to negotiate the meanings of the texts and evaluating as well as use such bilingual- they read, toward the acquisition of “critical specific strategies as code mixing, searching literacy” (Shannon, 1995). Moreover, when for cognates, and translating. Metacognitive students are aware of the social processes of benefits seem to accrue for second language production and interpretation of text, they learners when the second language is additive can gain in comprehension (Hinchman & (the first language remains strong) rather Moje, 1998). than when it is subtractive (at the expense of the first language) (Garcia, Jimenez, & Pear- Contexts for Building Transaction with son, 1998; National Research Council, 1997). Text The implications of this work are potentially Transaction with text supports engaged powerful for struggling bilingual readers, who and motivated reading. Through modeling by can be led to use these strategies for con- a teacher or peer, as with the think-aloud

PART I:PART structing PERSPECTIVES meaning and to view their bilingual- strategy, struggling secondary readers can see ism as an asset. how they might contribute their own response to reading. Related work by O’Brien Transaction with Text (1998) describes a transactive approach in which teachers help adolescent readers con- Proficient readers engage in dialog with nect their language environments outside of text (Alexander, 1997; Henk, Stahl, & Mel- school to reading. The practice of developing nick, 1993; Molinelli, 1995). In Rosenblatt’s literacy histories can also help students con- (1978) theory of reader response, the inter- nect the personal and the academic. change of ideas between the reader and the Struggling secondary readers can become text, or the speaker and the listener, is called engaged and proficient readers when motiva- transaction. The transaction occurs from two tion, decoding, language comprehension, and stances, which Rosenblatt describes as the transaction with text build in ways that are reader’s focus of attention during reading. In appropriate for the reading context and are classrooms beyond the elementary grades, responsive to their cultural and linguistic students typically assume the information- diversity. One example of how the factors are gathering “efferent” stance. This stance char- interrelated is when transaction with text acterizes reading strategies that utilize back- motivates reading practice, which further ground knowledge in neutral and objective develops comprehension and decoding, which ways. In contrast, the “aesthetic” stance enables deeper transaction. allows for a personal response, in which emo- The next two sections summarize tions, experiences, and appreciations (such as research on (a) reading instruction for the ATI PERSPECTIVES PART I: secondary classroom and (b) the professional To provide appropriate support, teachers development of teachers. should know the history of a student’s reading difficulties, the interventions made, and the instruction missed. For example, the teacher can look for evidence of the development of PRINCIPLES OF reading proficiency such as phonemic knowl- EFFECTIVE READING edge at the primary grades, background INSTRUCTION knowledge at grades three and four, and strategy knowledge at the upper grades (Willson The principles described here represent a & Rupley, 1997). The teacher uses the synthesis of recent research and can serve to reader’s strengths to approach and build the guide educators in selecting and implement- areas of difficulty. Assessment follows the ing resources for struggling secondary instruction and is both summative (Did the readers. instruction work?) and formative (Where do we go from here?), beginning the instruc- Recognition and Honor of tional cycle anew. Teachers assess and scaffold Cultural and Linguistic students at three junctures: before, during, Diversity and after reading.

Culture, dialect, and language contribute Scaffolds Before, During, and “funds of knowledge” (Moll et al., 1992) that After Reading are assets in the building of reading proficiency for all readers and particularly those Since the 1970s, a number of specific who are CLD. Through assignments, activi- teacher strategies for building reader compre- ties, classroom discussion, and reading mate- hension were identified and validated. These rials, teachers can provide ways for students strategies center on the notion of providing to connect what they know with the academic struggling readers with support as they learn literacy of school (Williams & Snipper, 1990). how to read. Strategies such as questioning, Teachers can help students make these con- discussion, and writing serve as supports or nections by modeling emotional response to a scaffolds for struggling readers. Teachers reading (e.g., the aesthetic stance articulated should model and students should practice: by Rosenblatt, 1978) as well as the analytical relating prior knowledge to the text and mak- or efferent stance. Acknowledging literacy ing predictions about the content before histories in the classroom helps to create a reading, interpreting the meaning by con- climate of respect, which invites the partici- structing mental images and summaries dur- pation of all students. ing reading, and asking questions and seeking clarification after reading (Pressley, 1999). Assessment During Teaching The term scaffold is a Vygotskian metaphor for teacher support of a learner Following the diagnostic instruction through dialog, questioning, conversation, principle (Gillet & Temple, 1990), the effec- and nonverbal modeling, in which the learner tive teacher begins instruction by assessing attempts literacy tasks that could not be done the reader to determine strengths and weak- without that assistance. Roehler and Cantlon nesses, without the labels of disability deficits. (1997) identified five types of scaffolding: (a) offering explanations, (b) inviting student Wade, 1990), sharing their self-talk about participation, (c) verifying and clarifying stu- how they strategically approach reading, dent understandings, (d) modeling of desired making their expert thinking visible to strug- behaviors, and (e) inviting students to con- gling readers. Guided practice in the strategy tribute clues for reasoning through an issue follows the modeling as students attempt the or problem. Additional effective scaffolds, reading strategy within a context of support especially for struggling secondary readers, from peers with the teacher evaluating its are to address the emotional aspects of learn- effectiveness, adapting it as needed, and gen- ing and make learning benefits explicit (Bro- erating a consensus as to its effectiveness. phy, 1999; Sanacore, 1997). Most important is sufficient independent practice of the strategy in different texts and Repertoires of Strategies contexts as students take ownership of these strategies, adapting them to these different Reading strategies are effective tools for reading situations. The shifting of responsi- comprehending (Pressley, 1999); they repre- bility for learning from the teacher to the sent procedural rather than declarative learner allows the struggling reader to adapt knowledge, stressing “how” as much or more and internalize strategic reading. than “what.” Strategies help readers to engage with the text, to monitor their com- Reading Practice prehension, and to fix it when it has failed. Rather than a single strategy applied in a As struggling readers are learning strate- reading class, secondary students need to gic reading, they need frequent, sustained

PART I:PART PERSPECTIVES have a repertoire of strategies that they learn periods of reading connected prose (Hansen, and apply in many reading contexts and not 1987), such as opportunities to read uninter- just in a reading class. As Pressley and Whar- ruptedly from a book, newspaper, magazine, ton-McDonald (1997) note, more social con- or other whole piece of text for at least 15 to structivist and transactional approaches have 20 minutes. But independent silent reading, led to strategies that are less formulaic and conducted without guidance or feedback, is more successfully internalized by students. not sufficient to build reading improvement Many studies have demonstrated the success (National Reading Panel, 2000). This sug- of these approaches for struggling secondary gests that students also need the opportunity readers (see Carr & Thompson, 1996). to talk about ideas in texts, in order to move comprehension beyond the word level (Press- Explicit Instruction of ley & Wharton-McDonald, 1997), that is, Strategies guided practice in building consensus. To build fluency, reading practice with To learn a strategic approach to reading, active support and feedback, such as guided struggling readers typically must be taught oral reading and repeated reading, was found how, why, and when to use it. An effective to be effective across multiple grade levels way to teach a reading strategy is to follow (National Reading Panel, 2000). Not recom- the Pearson and Gallagher “Gradual Release mended for reading practice is the popular of Responsibility” model (1983). Teachers “round robin” reading, in which students model through a think-aloud (Davey, 1983; read aloud in turn to the whole class from a ATI PERSPECTIVES PART I: common textbook. Not only do students find gies must be reinforced across the curricu- its purpose unclear, it can be an embarrassing lum, over a period of years (Gaskins, 1998). experience for adolescent readers who lack They need explicit instruction for the transfer fluency. It promotes a perception that reading of strategic reading to a variety of contexts is word pronunciation more than comprehen- and texts. sion (Wood & Nichols, 2000).

Student Choice and PRINCIPLES OF Authentic Tasks EFFECTIVE Students who choose reading for a per- PROFESSIONAL sonally relevant purpose likely will be more motivated to accomplish that task. For ado- DEVELOPMENT lescents, that purpose likely addresses their fundamental questions, “Who am I?” “Where To determine how teachers of literacy, and how do I ﬁt?” and “What can or should I both in general education as well as reading do with my life?” Practically, students should classrooms, might best develop their ability to be helped to articulate their personal learning implement sound practices, we looked to the and reading goals at the outset of any instruc- research on effective professional develop- tional session (Block, 1999). This goal- ment. We summarized what we found into directed reading provides purpose and direc- four tenets. tion, which is inherently motivational and engaging. Continuous and Sustained Reading success may not be enough to Learning build self-efﬁcacy, but it can be helped by these approaches: (a) allowing a choice of Practitioners and staff developers alike tasks and materials that are personally mean- have recognized the limitations of one-time ingful (Alexander, 1997; Cope, 1993; Taylor, workshops for learning. The National Staff 1999; Worthy, 1996) and (b) changing stu- Development Council (2000) has issued stan- dent expectations or schema about what it dards that advocate more comprehensive means to engage in academic activities and models, such as peer mentoring and coach- use strategies to accomplish goals (Brophy, ing, which are a commitment to learning over 1999). an extended period of time.

Scaffolding Across the Locally Based Initiatives Classroom Curriculum Faculty study teams can investigate rele- Reading strategies that are not supported vant topics and implement programs that beyond the reading classroom by content- meet the needs of their students. Through area teachers have little chance of being the World Wide Web, educators have ready transferred by struggling secondary readers. access to research and educational resources. For struggling secondary readers to improve, The International Reading Association has their reading must be scaffolded and strate- begun a professional development project called Schools as Learning Communities. Teacher as Researcher Professional development activities should be directed toward the development of such The National Reading Research Center locally based learning communities. articulated a model of professional development in which teachers conduct classroom Adaptation Rather Than research and examine their own literacy prac- Adoption of Programs tices (Allen, Shockley, & Baumann, 1995). In the work of Moll and colleagues (1992), Giroux (1990) proposed the work of the teachers became ethnographers, visiting teacher as “intellectual,” rather than one of homes and communities to design more implementing the prescriptions of instruc- meaningful reading instruction. Effective tional programs. Experienced teachers object professional development can also provide to instructional initiatives that script their teachers with opportunities to select reading actions, denying them the opportunity to be strategies appropriate for their struggling sec- an instructional decision maker. Professional ondary readers, a sustained period of time to development activities should lead teachers to apply this instruction, and a planned effort at adapt sound instruction to their unique con- evaluating its effectiveness. The notion of texts. teacher as researcher allows the teacher to formatively evaluate struggling readers’ progress and their instruction at improving it. PART I:PART PERSPECTIVES KEY POINTS ABOUT STRUGGLING PERSPECTIVES PART I: SECONDARY READERS

These students . . . comprise about one fourth of all secondary students struggle with the reading required for academic survival at their grade level come from varied populations, including • some second language learners who may read in their native language may need social interaction to develop oral proficiency in English • students with learning disabilities • students marginalized from the culture of school • students who have received inappropriate reading instruction likely suffer psychological, emotional, and cognitive consequences of years of lack of reading success need support in orchestrating strategies and in transferring reading skills beyond the remedial reading context, such as into content classrooms and nonschool settings may lack motivation • need meaningful materials and tasks may struggle with decoding • challenged by multisyllabic words • need to acquire and apply morphological knowledge • need reading practice to develop fluency may have limited language comprehension • limited linguistic knowledge • need for language differences to be recognized and honored in the classroom • need multiple opportunities and sources for active learning of words • limited background knowledge • need to connect experiences beyond the classroom with school reading • difficulty making inferences • need scaffolded reading of complex texts • difficulty in self-regulated comprehending • need explicit strategy instruction • need to use metacognitive assets from second language learning may not transact with text • need models for making personal responses to text need support following principles of effectiveness that have emerged from years of research in • reading instruction and • teacher professional development PART II: RESOURCES

amount of time necessary to learn the strat- FIVE QUESTIONS egy. In reading this section, keep in mind the ORGANIZE THE principles of effective professional develop- PROGRAMS AND ment for teachers explained on pages 19–20 (continuous and sustained, locally based ini- STRATEGIES tiatives, adaptation rather than adoption, teacher as researcher). he resources are listed in alphabeti- cal order by title within the cate- 3. How does it develop reading proficiency? INTRODUCTION gories of programs and strategies. This section describes how the program TThe descriptions are organized or strategy builds reading proficiency along around five questions. each of four major factors explained on pages 9–17 [motivation, decoding skill (including 1. What is it? How does it work? fluency), language comprehension (including This section begins with an overview and linguistic knowledge, background knowledge, brief history of the resource. For programs, it making inferences, and self-regulated com- describes major components and materials prehending), and transaction with text]. and lists developer or publisher contact information. For strategies, detailed instructional • Primary Outcome: A factor of reading procedures may be sufficient for teachers to proficiency for which a program or strat- implement them in the classroom. Teachers egy, as designed, is likely to help build. can also refer to specific readings provided in • Secondary Outcome: A factor of reading the resource description. Additional readings proficiency for which a program or strat- that may be helpful to teachers are indicated egy, as designed, is likely to help build, by an asterisk in the bibliography section, but it is not the most important reason to beginning on page 136. select it. • Possible Outcome: A factor of reading 2. What professional development is proficiency for which a program or strat- required? What is provided? egy, as designed, may help build, depend- For programs, this section includes infor- ing upon additional support from the mation about the model of professional teacher or the instructional context. development, the level of prerequisite teacher preparation, materials, training, and costs. How does it support effective reading For strategies, this section includes the level instruction? of prerequisite teacher expertise and the For programs and strategies, the princi- ATI:RESOURCES PART II: ples of effective reading instruction are pre- Terminology sented as materials, reading task, instructional To determine how terms are used, refer approach, and student scaffolds, as well as the to the definitions beginning on page 129. congruence of the intervention with the regular (nonremedial) classroom curriculum. In reading this section, keep in mind the principles of effective reading instruction explained PROGRAMS on pages 17–19 (eight principles of effective reading instruction: recognition and honor of Eleven programs for supporting the cultural and linguistic diversity; assessment instruction of struggling secondary readers during teaching; scaffolds before, during, and are described in this section: after reading; repertoires of strategies; explicit instruction of strategies; reading practice; stu- • Accelerated Reader (AR)/Reading dent choice and authentic tasks; scaffolding Renaissance across the classroom curriculum). • Benchmark Word Detectives Program for Fifth Grade and Above How effective is it? • First Steps® A rubric was used to rate a resource over- • Multicultural Reading and Thinking all as well established, established, or promis- (McRAT) ing. The resource was assigned the overall • Project CRISS (Creating Independence rating for which it met at least two of the cor- Through Student-Owned Strategies) responding component ratings within the • READ 180® Program four criteria (documentation, recency, effec- • Read RIGHT tiveness, and extent of implementation). • Reading Power in the Content Areas Resources for which there was insufficient (RP) evidence in more than one category of the • Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) rubric were not included in the Guide. See the • Student Team Literature (STL) rubric “Rating of Resources for Building Sec- • Wilson Reading System (WRS) ondary Reading Profiency Based on Level of Support and Implementation” on page 5. Accelerated Reader (AR)/Reading Renaissance Program

Publishers Advantage Learning Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 8036 Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54495-8036

Web site http://www.advlearn.com Email [email protected] Background AR is a computer software program that tracks student reading of leveled trade books. Developers Terrence D. and Judith Paul made it available in the early 1990s and formed the Institute for Academic Excellence for continuing program development. A new companion program, Renaissance Learning, supports teacher professional development. Primary Outcomes Fluency Students All readers, grades K–12 Setting Campus program Reading and Language Arts classes Support for Culturally Culturally relevant texts may be selected for reading. and Linguistically Diverse Some books tested by AR software are available in Spanish and in audio Readers book formats. Instructional Approach Computer-managed reading practice system Materials Diagnostic and management computer software and electronic quizzes for PART II:PART RESOURCES some 25,000 trade book for children and young adults Cost $400–$3,000 for 1,000 quizzes Effectiveness Promising

What is it? How does it work? First, the AR computer assessment system (called STAR Reading ) determines a stu- Accelerated Reader (AR) is a computer- dent’s level of reading comprehension, yield- based assessment system of student compre- ing a norm-referenced score. Based on this hension of some 25,000 books ranging in score, a student is assigned to a level for inde- reading levels from grades one to twelve. pendent reading. The developers have bor- Developers Terrence D. and Judith Paul rowed a term from constructivist learning, made the program available through Advan- the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD), tage Learning Systems, Inc., in the early to refer to this reading level. 1990s. They formed the Institute for Acade- Students self-select from books that have mic Excellence for continuing program been coded by reading level. Readability is development. Recently a supporting profes- calculated through traditional formulas that sional development program called Reading count words and syllables. Once students have Renaissance has been made available. AR has completed reading a book they take a short been implemented widely in the United (10–20 items) literal-level comprehension test. States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The management system provides the per- ATI:RESOURCES PART II: centage scores to students, as well as to teach- Contact Advantage Learning for prices ers and librarians, who may then advise stu- on Reading Renaissance training. dents on further choices for reading. Students are rewarded for reading and How does it develop reading performing well on tests by gaining points proficiency? (determined by the readability level and length of a book). Students gaining many Primary Outcomes: Fluency points may be rewarded with prizes. Studies done by the developers have Motivation shown growth in mean scores on standard- Secondary outcome: Intrinsic motivation ized reading tests for AR students, increased is fostered through the self-selection of library use, and increased time-on-task books, although students are advised not to reading. read books outside their range. The motivation to begin reading and persist is extrinsi- What professional cally reinforced by the points earned for development is required? What attaining a level of performance on the com- is provided? prehension posttest. These points may be traded for prizes. Whether and how these Teachers in all disciplines are trained on rewards are used can greatly affect student the use of the software that administers the motivation for reading. tests on AR books and that compiles reports. Additional training is available through Read- Decoding ing Renaissance one- or two-day seminars • Basic Decoding where teachers are trained to help readers set Not addressed. goals, diagnose and solve reading problems, create minilessons, and use peer tutoring. • Fluent Decoding Each program includes 12 months of toll-free Primary outcome: Students read books call-up support. they are predicted to be able to decode, but • Starter Program ($399)—Includes soft- for which content or vocabulary may be mod- ware to provide 30 reports, a network erately challenging. Students can build flu- license for 200 students, and 200 AR ency through reading practice. quizzes (for 200 books). • Economy Program ($1,499)—Includes Language Comprehension software to provide 30 reports, a network Comprehension processes addressed: license for 200 students, and 1,000 AR Making associations quizzes (for 1,000 books). Predicting • Super Program ($2,999)—Includes STAR Generating questions Reading software which provides norm- Generating mental imagery referenced reading scores, placement at X Clarifying reading levels, and measurement of Elaborating growth, in addition to 30 reports, a X Summarizing network license for 200 students, and X Rehearsing 1,000 AR quizzes (for 1,000 books). Evaluating PART II: RESOURCES • • • • the bookhasbeenread. testing literal-levelcomprehensiontoensure mending bookswithinthatrange,andthen dent’s independentreadinglevel,recom- program fordeterminingtherangeofastu- instructional materials.Itisamanagement comprehension throughinstructionor based uponinterest. beyond theself-selectionofreadingmaterials not providefordevelopingaestheticstance from anefferentstance.Theprogramdoes posttests requireliteral-levelstudentresponse Transaction withText taking multiplechoicetests. hension. Theprogramdevelopsskillin metacognitive awarenessoftheircompre- test performance,studentscanbuild checking thecomputerfeedbackontheir selecting morechallengingbooks.In tests. Thepointsystemrewardsthemfor ability asmeasuredbycomprehension can developasenseoftheirownreading level ofindependentreading,students process ofselectingbookscodedtotheir Secondary outcomes:Throughthe Self-Regulated Comprehending Not addressed. Making Inferences Not addressed. Background Knowledge Not addressed. Linguistic Knowledge Accelerated Reader(AR)doesnotaddress Not addressed.Thecomprehension those points. implementing ARdeterminetherewardsfor tests inordertoearnpoints.Educators and expositorytexts. ity formulae.Titles includebothnarrative ability isdeterminedbyquantitativereadabil- of independentlevelreadinglevel.Theread- vided tradebookscodedtobeintheirrange is allocatedforsustainedsilent reading. English, andReadingclassroomswheretime Reader mayfitwellwithinLanguageArts, add newtitlestotheARlist.Accelerated ing, integratecomprehensionstrategies,and teachers canadaptthetimededicatedtoread- some adaptationispossible.Specifically, encourage substantiveprogramadaptation, challenge inselectinganewbook. mance, whichguidesstudentstoalevelof comprehension andfeedbackonperfor- level. Thepostreadingscaffoldisatestof with booksthatarecodedtotheirreading tice system. Reading Task Materials reading instruction? How doesitsupporteffective Classroom Curriculum withthe Adaptability/Congruence Student Scaffolds Approach Instructional Students readandtakemultiple-choice Students self-selectfromalistofAR-pro- Although AdvantageLearningdoesnot Before reading,studentsareprovided AR isacomputer-managed readingprac- ATI:RESOURCES PART II: How effective is it? Topping, K. J., & Paul, T. D. (1999). Com- puter-assisted assessment of practice at Studies done by the developer and pub- reading: A large-scale survey using Accel- lisher have shown growth in mean scores on erated Reader data. Reading and Writing standardized tests for AR students (including Quarterly, 15(3), 213–231. secondary readers), increased library use, and Reading practice was operationally increased time-on-task reading. defined as AR points reported by schools using AR in a mail survey from 1992 and Rating: Promising 1993 (response rate: 17%) conducted by the Studies of AR report mixed but generally developer. Average AR points per student positive effects. Studies by the developer from were found to be higher in states with higher the Institute for Academic Excellence report NAEP reading scores and lower in states growth in mean scores on standardized tests where the scores were lowest. Also, 64% for AR students, increased library use, and more time was devoted to AR in schools that increased time-on-task reading. However, for had implemented AR for four years compared these studies the schools were invited to sub- with schools that had implemented it for one mit their data for analysis. Improvements year. Finally, private school students logged appeared to be greater for readers who were more AR points than did public school younger and struggling than for those who students. were older and more proficient. Available studies concerning AR include Vollands, S. R., Topping, K. J., & Evans, H. these: M. (1999). Computerized self-assessments of reading comprehension with the Labbo, L. (1999). Critical issues: Questions Accelerated Reader: Impact on reading worth asking about AR. Reading Online. achievement and attitude. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15(3), 197–211. Peak, J., & Dewalt, M. (1994). Reading Two action research studies of AR were achievement: Effects of computerized conducted with mixed ability, low-income, reading management and enrichment. and ESL fifth and sixth grade children in ERS Spectrum, 12,(1) 31–34. Scotland. In both studies, AR students After using AR over a 5 year period, showed significantly higher gains on a norm- college-bound ninth graders from two junior referenced test of reading comprehension high schools scored higher than a control than a comparison group given time for read- group on the district standardized reading ing practice from limited selections. Improve- test. ment in reading attitude was significant for girls but not boys. When a cross-age, assisted Poock, M. (1998). The Accelerated Reader: reading strategy was implemented with AR, An analysis of the software’s strengths and students also gained in reading accuracy over weaknesses and how it can be used to its the comparison group. These students were best potential. School Library Media Activi- not interested in the AR rewards, suggesting ties Monthly, 14(9), 32–35. that the reward system may not be important This discussion of AR is from the per- to the use of the program. spective of two elementary schools. Where has it been • Pittsburg Middle School, Pittsburg, TX: implemented successfully? Implemented AR since 1992.

Advantage Learning, Inc. lists the • Craven County School District, New following sites: Bern, NC: Districtwide implementation of AR since 1993. • Bryan Independent School District, Bryan TX: Implemented AR in three • Monroe County School District, Key middle schools since 1996. West, FL: Implemented AR (plus other programs) in 1998. PART II:PART RESOURCES ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Benchmark Word Detectives Program for Fifth Grade and Above

Developers Irene Gaskins, in collaboration with Colleen O’Hara, with input on lessons from Susie Delemitas and Susan North. Consultant for the Program: Linnea C. Ehri. Publishers Benchmark Press 2107 North Providence Road Upper Providence Township Media, PA 19063 Web site http://www.benchmarkschool.org Telephone 610.565.3854 Fax: 610.565.3872 Background Benchmark School enrolls struggling readers grades 1–8 who have decoding problems. It is known for teaching “decoding by analogy” strategies in the context of a full literacy program. A vocabulary component was added in the 1990s. The new Word Detectives program for older readers was been piloted and published in 1999. Primary Outcomes Basic Decoding, Fluency, Linguistic Knowledge, Self-Regulated Comprehending Students Struggling secondary readers with decoding problems who are reading at second grade level and above Setting Classroom program General education classes; Reading classes Support for Culturally and Teachers should use Benchmark in the context of a full literacy Linguistically Diverse Readers program that addresses the needs of CLD readers. Culturally relevant texts may be selected for reading. Approach Modeling, guided practice, independent practice; assessment during teaching; inductive learning; cooperative learning Materials Some teacher and student materials provided Cost $200–$400 per classroom Effectiveness Promising

What is it? How does it work? tion program implements a successful approach to teaching students to decode The Benchmark program originates at called “decoding by analogy.” Students use the Benchmark School in Media, Pennsylva- known words to decode unknown words, use nia. The school enrolls struggling readers context as a check for making sense, chunk grades 1ñ8 whose reading difficulties are due words into meaningful units, and learn to be to decoding problems. Since the 1980s, flexible in applying known word parts. A teachers and researchers at Benchmark have vocabulary component was added to the pro- shared their programs and strategies for these gram in the 1990s. students. The Benchmark Word Identifica- Longitudinal data following Benchmark What professional students through middle school showed that development is required? What some still lacked fluency and had spelling dif- is provided? ficulties. The Word Detectives series adds a segmenting and sound-letter matching com- Experienced teachers with some back- ponent, which has increased the rate of suc- ground in reading should be able to imple- cess of these students at Benchmark. Strug- ment the program. Although no formal train- gling secondary readers are presumed to have ing time is required or provided, teachers will acquired phonemic awareness and concepts need three to six days of independent prepa- about print and to be reading at second grade ration time to study the materials provided level and above. The program teaches stu- and make adaptations for their own students’ dents to needs. Teachers may attend workshops and 1. learn “key words” and “special feature conferences offered at the Benchmark School words” with the most common English in Upper Providence Township, Media, patterns and discover their consistencies, Pennsylvania. 2. use those words and discoveries about The program materials include a teacher’s language to decode and spell high fre- guide, worksheets, 30 nonfiction story sheets quency words, and and 150 daily lessons that each takes approxi- 3. develop an awareness of spelling and a mately 30 minutes of class time. The cost per control of spelling strategies for high fre- classroom is $300 plus $15 shipping and han- quency words. dling. Supplemental materials include the PART II:PART RESOURCES book, Improving Cognitive Strategy Training The first phase of the program introduces Across the School: The Benchmark Manual for students to the concepts of decoding and Teachers, by Irene Gaskins and Thorne Elliot spelling by analogy. A second phase consists (1991) at a cost of $24.95. of 10-day lesson cycles that support students in applying the concepts to decoding and How does it develop reading spelling multisyllable words. Students derive proficiency? spelling generalizations inductively rather than through direct instruction of rules. The Primary Outcomes: Basic Decoding, developers say the program should be taught Fluency, Linguistic Knowledge, Self- a minimum of 30 minutes a day, five days a Regulated Comprehending week to be successful. The Benchmark approach is intended to Motivation be one part of a full literacy program in which Secondary outcome: Students graph their students read widely, write, and talk about own progress without comparing their what is read. The success of Benchmark stu- progress to peers’ progress. Students are dents has come about with constant applica- motivated by their own success. tion and a large amount of practice. Decoding • Basic Decoding Primary outcome: Students (who are presumed to have acquired phonemic awareness ATI:RESOURCES PART II: and concepts about print) build proficiency in about language, in which they make infer- decoding and spelling “multichunk” words. ences and develop metacognitive awareness of Rather than learning rules of syllabication, their understandings of language. students apply a “chunk” strategy that offers many possible ways to divide a word for pro- • Background Knowledge nunciation. Students also apply the “decoding Secondary outcome: The reading of by analogy,” or “compare/contrast” approach informational texts supports the acquisition of successful with elementary readers. Students background knowledge. use common words with high-frequency spelling patterns to decode unknown words. • Making Inferences Secondary outcome: Students develop • Fluent Decoding inferencing skills through hypothesis testing, Primary outcome: The “whole-part- and by reflecting upon and discussing what whole” decoding strategy asks students to they have read. immediately practice a new word in the context of connected text, thus developing fluent • Self-Regulated Comprehending decoding skills. Through partner reading, Primary outcome: In applying decoding students further develop fluency. strategies independently and returning decoded words to the whole text, students Language Comprehension check to see if the text makes sense. They Although differentiated by its focus on develop metacognitive awareness of their word recognition and spelling, Benchmark understanding of language. recommends the implementation of a full literacy program toward the ultimate goal of Transaction with Text building comprehension. Secondary outcome: As readers discuss their understandings of texts with their peers, Comprehension processes addressed: students come to understand that different X Making associations readers bring different perspectives to the X Predicting text. X Generating questions X Generating mental imagery How does it support effective X Clarifying reading instruction? X Elaborating X Summarizing Materials X Rehearsing Students read primarily self-selected X Evaluating informational texts.

• Linguistic Knowledge Reading Task Primary outcome: In the Word Detec- With repeated application of strategies to tives program, students learn the structure of new texts, and the support of a full literacy language, such as word parts and partial program, word identiﬁcation strategies can meanings. They form and test hypotheses transfer to new contexts. Instructional Approach works is the discussion of professional devel- The instructional approach is varied. Stu- opment for teachers in the integration read- dents are taught strategies through explicit ing strategies across the curriculum. teaching. Teacher strategies such as EPR (Every Pupil Response) are designed for diag- Gaskins, I., Cuncelli, E., & Satlow, E. (1992). nostic instruction. The program requires stu- Implementing an across-the-curriculum dents to form and test hypotheses about lan- strategies program: Reaction to change. guage. Students derive spelling In M. Pressley, K. Harris, & J. Guthrie generalizations inductively. (Eds.) Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 411–426). Boston: Student Scaffolds Academic Press. Before reading, students engage in prediction strategies. During reading, they apply Gaskins, I. W., & Elliot, T. T. (1991). Imple- decoding by analogy strategies to unknown menting cognitive strategy instruction across words. After reading, the decoding strategies the school: The Benchmark Manual for are discussed and followed by application in a teachers. Cambridge, MA: Brookline reading or writing activity. Books.

Adaptability/Congruence with the Since the 1980s, program developers Classroom Curriculum consistently have submitted their work at Although Benchmark lessons are struc- Benchmark to scholarly peer review. The fol- PART II:PART RESOURCES tured, they contribute to a full literacy pro- lowing publications are examples of such gram that teachers determine and that is sup- review: ported across the curriculum. General education teachers can support struggling Gaskins, I. W. (1988-89). Teachers as think- readers by integrating Benchmark strategies. ing coaches: Creating strategic learners and problem solvers. Journal of Reading, How effective is it? Writing, and Learning Disabilities Interna- tional, 4(1), 35–48 The Benchmark Program, grades 1–8, has been extensively researched and evaluated Gaskins, I. W. (1994). Classroom applications over the 30 years at the Benchmark School. of cognitive science: Teaching poor read- While the new program described here for ers how to learn, think, and problem adolescent struggling readers has not been solve. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classrooms formally evaluated with students beyond the lessons (pp. 129–154). Cambridge, MA: middle grades, it builds on the body of work MIT Press. that has been established at Benchmark. Gaskins, I. W. (1998). There’s more to teach- Rating: Promising ing at-risk and delayed readers than good The following two publications set out reading instruction (Distinguished Edu- the program’s theoretical underpinnings and cator Series). Reading Teacher, 51(7), approach to instruction. A strength of these 534–547. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Gaskins, I. W., & Baron, J. (1985). Teaching Gaskins,I. W., Satlow, E., Hyson, D., poor readers to cope with maladaptive Ostertag, J., & Six, L. (1994). Classroom cognitive styles: A training program. talk about text: Learning in science class. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18(7), Journal of Reading, 37(7), 558–565. 390–394. Where has it been Gaskins, I. W., Downer, M. A., Anderson, R. implemented successfully? C., Cunningham, P. M., Gaskins, R. W., Schommer, M., & the teachers of Bench- Cypress Fairbanks Independent School mark School. (1988). A metacognitive District approach to phonics: Using what you P.O. Box 692003 know to decode what you don’t know. Houston, TX 77269-2003 Remedial and Special Education, 9(1), Contact: Dr. Sylvia Rendon 36–41, 66. 281.897.2878

Gaskins, R. W., Gaskins, J. C., Gaskins, I. W. Grapevine Colleyville Independent School (1991). A decoding program for poor District readers—and the rest of the class, too! 3051 Ira E. Woods Drive Language Arts, 68(3), 213–225. Grapevine, TX 76051-3897 Contact: Dr. Anne Simpson Gaskins, R. W., Gaskins, J. C., Gaskins, I. W. 817.488.9588 (1992). Using what you know to ﬁgure [email protected] out what you don’t know: An analogy approach to decoding. Reading and Writ- ing Quarterly, 8(2), 197–221. First Steps® Program

Publishers Program Representatives: Patricia Cails (ext. 1118 Kevlynn Annandale (ext. 1135) Heinemann USA Publishers 361 Hanover Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Web site http://www.heinemann.com/ﬁrststeps/ Telephone 800.541.2086 Fax: 800.354.2004 Background A diagnostic framework guides teachers in linking reading, writing, spelling, and oral language strategies to instruction across the curriculum. It was developed in the Education Department of Western Australia under the direction of Alison Dewsbury and is made available in the United States through Heinemann Publishers. Primary Outcomes Motivation, Basic Decoding, Fluent Decoding, Linguistic Knowledge, Background Knowledge, Making Inferences, Self- Regulated Comprehending Students All readers through grade 10 Setting Campus program General education classes; Reading classes

PART II:PART RESOURCES Support for Culturally and Success was reported with diverse struggling readers, including Linguistically Diverse Readers rural Aboriginal students. The diagnostic framework can help teachers see student capabilities that might not otherwise have been recognized. Instructional Approach Modeling, guided practice, independent practice; diagnostic instruction; cooperative learning Materials Existing classroom materials Cost Contact Heinemann Publishers Effectiveness Established

What is it? How does it work? the direction of Alison Dewsbury. The development resulted from collaboration between First Steps® is a schoolwide professional classroom teachers and local universities to development program in reading, writing, translate research in literacy development spelling, and oral language for teachers of into practice. First Steps® is now also being students grades K through 10. It is not a cur- implemented in the United Kingdom, riculum but instead provides teachers with Canada, and the United States, where it has the knowledge and support they need to been available since 1995 from Heinemann implement effective reading strategies in their USA Publishers. It is currently in 250 school classrooms. U.S. districts, about half of which have mid- First Steps® was developed in the Educa- dle school implementations. tion Department of Western Australia under A major emphasis of the program is link- ATI:RESOURCES PART II: ing assessment to instruction using a diagnos- Costs for School Development range tic framework called the Developmental from $200 to $260 per person. The Tutor Continua. This framework maps out the Training Course fee is $3,000 per participant. stages of language and literacy development throughout the life span. From the frame- How does it develop reading work teachers select teaching strategies and proﬁciency? activities that are developmentally appropriate for their students. Rather than evaluative Primary Outcomes: Basic Decoding, instruments, the continua are a means of Fluent Decoding, Linguistic informing and guiding instruction. Knowledge, Background Knowledge, “Across the curriculum” literacy strate- Making Inferences, Self-Regulated gies drive the instruction. The strategies rep- Comprehending resent what the program developers have found to be the most effective in developing Motivation abilities in reading, writing, spelling, and oral Possible outcome: Shared reading activi- language. Teachers are taught to adapt ties and successful comprehension can result instruction to students with special needs who in students developing intrinsic motivation are included in regular education classes. for reading.

What professional Decoding development is required? • Basic Decoding What is provided? Primary outcome: In the Reading Com- ponent, teachers are taught strategies for A Professional Development component building student phonemic awareness, provides ongoing support that stresses the graphophonic skills, and sight words in the link between theory and sound practice. It context of whole text. includes newsletters and videoconferences. The Web site features a discussion group for • Fluent Decoding teachers who have participated in First Primary outcome: Teachers learn strate- Steps®. Workshops for principals are offered. gies for supporting reading practice. Curriculum materials include the diagnostic assessment (The Developmental Con- Language Comprehension tinua) and resource books with supporting Comprehension processes addressed: classroom activities. No student materials are X Making associations provided. X Predicting The required School Development com- X Generating questions ponent consists of training all teachers in the X Generating mental imagery school or district. Two days of training are X Clarifying required for each reading, writing, spelling, X Elaborating and oral language component. X Summarizing Selected teachers are trained as tutors (in X Rehearsing a 5-day initial session and 3 1/2 day follow-up X Evaluating session). They coach teachers as they are implementing the program. Teachers learn comprehension strategies through the Spelling, Reading, Writing, and implemented across the curriculum, students Oral Language Components. transfer strategies to multiple contexts.

• Linguistic Knowledge Instructional Approach Primary outcome: In addition to multiple Students are taught strategies through word study strategies, teachers learn to explicit instruction. In the Developmental develop students’ spelling awareness and Continua, teachers have a tool for diagnostic spelling strategies. instruction. Students work alternately in small groups, whole class, and independently. • Background Knowledge In their selection of materials, teachers have Primary outcome: Teachers learn to the opportunity for culturally responsive strategies for activating and building back- teaching. ground knowledge through the Reading, Writing, and Oral Language, Components. Student Scaffolds The strategies and activities include pre- • Making Inferences reading, during reading and postreading. Primary outcome: Through shared reading and shared writing in multiple texts, Adaptability/Congruence with the teachers support students in making infer- Classroom Curriculum ences. Teachers apply and orchestrate strategies within the framework of the Developmental PART II:PART RESOURCES • Self-Regulated Comprehending Continua. Most strategies can be imple- Primary outcome: Teachers support stu- mented in the general education classroom, dents in developing awareness of strategies, strategy selection and evaluation. How effective is it?

Transaction with Text First Steps® for grades K–7 was indepen- Possible outcome: Though not specifi- dently researched and evaluated by the Aus- cally addressed, the dialog and discussion in tralian Council of Educational Research. The the shared reading and writing activities fos- Bank Street College of Education, New York, ter transaction. with support from the U.S. Department of Education, recently completed a three-year How does it support effective evaluation of the U.S. implementation of reading instruction? First Steps®. Progress reports have been made available but not the final report. Materials First Steps® strategies and activities are Rating: Established applied to existing classroom materials. Deschamp, P. (1996). The effects of First Steps® on learning. Education Depart- Reading Task ment of Western Australia. The range of strategies and activities http://www.first-steps.com/research.html include those with authentic purposes and This evaluation included reports of the student choice. Because First Steps® is program’s success with struggling readers from rural areas and of diverse culture and RESOURCES PART II: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory language, such as Aborigine populations. (1998). Catalog of school reform models. Deschamp concluded that First Steps® has http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/natspec/ had more success than any other professional catalog/index.html development program in changing teacher knowledge and practice in ways to support to First Steps® was selected by the North- promoting student learning, especially for west Regional Educational Laboratory for its struggling students. effectiveness as a research-based school reform model.

Freidus, H., McNamara, M., & Groseis, C. (1998). First steps study: The year two Where has it been progress report. Bank Street College of implemented successfully? Education. This report, though not speciﬁcally on Contact Heinemann Publishers for the middle school implementations, docu- demonstration sites. ments that teachers trained in First Steps® are able to implement the strategies. http://www.ﬁrst-steps.com/bankst.html Multicultural Reading and Thinking (McRAT) Program

Publishers Krista Underwood, Reading Program Manager Jane Dearworth, Literacy Specialist Arkansas Department of Education Room 401B, No. 4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Web site Not available Telephone 501.682.4232 Fax: 501.682.4441 Background McRAT supports teachers in developing student critical thinking through multicultural reading. Developed in the mid-1980s by reading and language arts teachers in the Arkansas Department of Education, McRAT has been implemented widely throughout the state and in several sites around the country. Primary Outcomes Transaction with Text, Motivation, Background Knowledge, Making Inferences, Self-Regulated Comprehending Students All readers, grades 3–8 Setting Campus program General education classes; Reading classes Support for Culturally and Teachers integrate culturally diverse themes into existing Linguistically Diverse Readers curricula and select appropriate materials for students to read. They help students connect reading with their lives outside of

PART II:PART RESOURCES school. Instructional Approach Modeling, guided practice, independent practice; tutorial; culturally responsive teaching Materials Existing classroom materials Cost Approximately $100 per teacher. Trainers receive $500 per day. Effectiveness Promising

What is it? How does it work? teachers to engage students through culturally responsive teaching. The Multicultural Reading and Thinking Multicultural units or themes frame the (McRAT) Program was developed in the mid- instruction. A teacher delivers at least one 1980s by reading and language arts teachers weekly lesson that focuses on leading students in the Arkansas Department of Education. to read beyond the literal levels of compre- The program has been implemented exten- hension. Students learn to apply strategies for sively in Arkansas schools and in several addi- critical reasoning—such as analysis, compari- tional sites around the country. McRAT fos- son, inference/interpretation, and evaluation ters critical thinking skills in students, grades in multiple sources of information. 3-8, in the context of reading and writing A notable feature of the McRAT program instruction. In particular, McRAT helps is the extensive McRAT professional develop- ATI:RESOURCES PART II: ment that takes place over a period of two through the use of relevant themes and inter- years. esting multicultural materials. McRAT implementations have been successful with diverse student populations and Decoding in inclusion settings. • Basic Decoding Not addressed. What professional development is required? What is provided? • Fluent Decoding Not addressed. Before implementing the program, teachers complete a course of study. For the first Language Comprehension year of implementation teachers focus on Comprehension processes addressed: teaching reasoning skills and evaluating stu- X Making associations dent writing. In the second year, teachers X Predicting work on collaboration with colleagues, cur- X Generating questions riculum development, and assessment. X Generating mental imagery McRAT is designed for certified teachers X Clarifying across the curriculum. A teacher becomes X Elaborating trained over a two-year period, which X Summarizing includes release time for professional devel- X Rehearsing opment. The first year of training is for nine X Evaluating days plus follow-up sessions. The cost is about $100 per teacher, plus the release time • Linguistic Knowledge for the training. Principals and other admin- Not addressed. istrators are encouraged to attend at least three days of the training. McRAT trainers • Background Knowledge receive $500 per day for three to four trips. Secondary outcome: Multicultural The number of new participants is limited to themes help students build knowledge. Spe- 150 each year. For six additional hours, a cific strategies help students activate and con- teacher may become a trainer. nect what they know.

How does it develop reading • Making Inferences proficiency? Primary outcome: Students learn specific strategies for making inferences and interpre- Primary Outcomes: Transaction tations. with Text, Motivation, Background Knowledge; Making Inferences; Self- • Self-Regulated Comprehending Regulated Comprehending Primary outcome: Students gain metacognitive control of their reading as they Motivation successfully apply strategies for critical rea- Primary outcome: Teachers help students soning and evaluation in multiple sources of to engage their interest and understanding information Transaction with Text Teachers select the reading materials that Primary outcome: Response strategies will be appropriate for their students. They such as discussion and story retelling help must adapt and orchestrate the strategies in students to transact with the text. their classrooms. McRAT is designed to be applied across the curriculum. How does it support effective reading instruction? How effective is it? The McRAT Program has been studied Materials by researchers who have been involved with Although existing classroom materials the program. can be used, a wide range of authentic narrative and expository text will be needed to sup- Rating: Promising. port the instruction. Texts should reflect Hoskyn, J. (1992). Multicultural Reading and diverse historical time periods, perspectives, Thinking: A three year report—1989–92. and cultures. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 380 416) Reading Task The teacher controls the relevance of the Hoskyn, J. (1993, April) Multicultural Reading reading task. Multicultural themes help read- and Thinking Program (McRAT). Paper ers apply the strategies across classes and presented at the Annual Meeting of the beyond the classroom. American Educational Research Associa- PART II:PART RESOURCES tion, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Instructional Approach Reproduction Service No. ED 358 432). Students learn strategies from modeling by the teacher followed by guided and inde- Quellmalz, E. S., & Hoskyn, J. (1988). Mak- pendent practice. Students respond to cultur- ing a difference in Arkansas: The Multi- ally responsive themes and materials, often cultural Reading and Thinking Project. through cooperative learning groups. They Educational Leadership, 45(7), 52. use inquiry to develop their thinking through In 1999, McRAT was selected by the writing. Portfolios document their under- American Federation of Teachers to be standing. included in Seven Promising Programs for Reading and English Language Arts. This docu- Student Scaffolds ment is available at http://www.aft.org/ Students engage prior knowledge before edissues/whatworks/seven/index.htm. reading with themes. They are guided in transacting with text during reading. Postreading, they apply critical reasoning and Where has it been thinking strategies. implemented successfully?

Adaptability/Congruence with the Contact the Arkansas Department of Classroom Curriculum Education for speciﬁc sites. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Project CRISS Program

Developers Dr. Carol Santa and teachers in the Kalispell School District in Kalispell, MT, in 1979. Publisher Lynne Havens, Director Project CRISS 200 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Web site http://www.projectcriss.org Telephone 408.758.6440 Email: [email protected] Background Project CRISS (Creating Independence through Student-owned Strategies) helps secondary teachers engage students in effective behaviors for reading text across the content areas. A local facilitator provides ongoing support. It was developed in 1979 by Dr. Carol Santa and teachers in the Kalispell School District, Kalispell, MT. Primary Outcomes Linguistic Knowledge, Background Knowledge, Making Infer- ences, Self-Regulated Comprehending Students All secondary readers Setting Campus program General education classes; Reading classes Support for Culturally and Adaptations have been made for ESL Students. A Spanish Linguistically Diverse Readers ﬂip-book for parents has been developed. Instructional Approach Diagnostic instruction; modeling, guided practice, and independent practice; cooperative learning Materials Project CRISS uses the narrative and expository text used for regular classroom instruction. Cost Approximately $50 per teacher Effectiveness Promising

What is it? How does it work? Background Knowledge Students learn to engage prior knowl- Project CRISS (Creating Independence edge. Teachers learn to design instruction to through Student-owned Strategies) supports help students use their knowledge to guide secondary teachers in teaching students a their own comprehension. variety of strategies for reading text across the content areas. It was developed in 1979 by Elicit Active Reading, Listening, and Dr. Carol Santa and teachers in the Kalispell Learning School District, Kalispell, MT. These strate- Teachers are helped to engage students gies engage students in the following effective through reading and responding instead of reading behaviors: lecturing and questioning. They learn to use strategies to elicit active reading. Promote Discussion and Instructional follow-up in-service day, trainers evaluate the Conversations implementation. Teachers bring examples to Through student-centered discussion, share and administrators are encouraged to strategies, and meanings generated from participate. After reviewing strategies, new reading are discussed and evaluated. ones are introduced. One teacher serves as the Local Facilitator who meets with teachers Encourage Metacognition biweekly. Teachers learn to do action research Students learn to fit their learning with on program effectiveness. Additional training background knowledge, to set learning goals, support is available. to choose and monitor strategies to fit those Costs involve release time for training goals, and apply fix-up strategies. and sharing: $50 per teacher trained; a fee for training, manuals, evaluation, and follow-up Integrate Writing training; and an honorarium and expenses for Through strategies such as response trainers. entries, journals and logs, students consistently write to extend their understanding. How does it develop reading proficiency? Understand Text Structure Students learn to recognize and use text Primary Outcomes: Linguistic structure supports and to outline or map the Knowledge, Background Knowledge, text through selective underlining, power Making Inferences, Self-Regulated PART II:PART RESOURCES notes, and mapping. Comprehending

Organize Information Transaction Students learn to organize both narrative Secondary outcome: Through various and expository text using guides, frames, and response strategies such as dialogue journals, patterns. students are led to reﬂect on experiences with Students build understanding of vocabu- the text. lary through mapping and writing strategies. Project CRISS has been adapted for ESL, Motivation gifted, and college-bound students, as well as Secondary outcome: Motivation develops for inclusion settings. intrinsically as students have the freedom to select a strategy for a particular situation, What professional development monitor its effectiveness, and then adjust to is required? What is provided? another strategy as they work toward successful reading. In a two-day workshop, teachers are taught background theory of the project as Decoding well as teacher and student strategies. Teach- • Basic Decoding ers also learn to assess instructional objectives Not addressed. and student strategy use, to use rubrics and conduct effective parent communication, and • Fluent Decoding to address district curriculum goals. During a Not addressed. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Language Comprehension through student ownership of strategy selec- Comprehension processes addressed: tion, implementation, and evaluation. Stu- X Making associations dents self-assess through setting goals for X Predicting learning and creating portfolios to document X Generating questions their success. X Generating mental imagery X Clarifying How does it support effective X Elaborating reading instruction? X Summarizing X Rehearsing Materials X Evaluating Students use the materials from their content classes. Materials are therefore • Linguistic Knowledge authentic and likely to include both narrative Primary Outcome: Students develop lin- and expository text. guistic knowledge directly through Word Maps, Semantic Feature Analysis, and Sen- Reading Task tence Synthesis and indirectly through Students determine the reading task. Vocabulary Self-Selection. This authentic purpose strengthens the likeli- hood of strategy transfer across contexts. • Background Knowledge Primary Outcome: Students learn to for- Instructional Approach mulate questions for recalling what is known, After diagnostic instruction, the teacher using what has been recalled, determining introduces strategies using modeling, guided what is needed, and deciding the focus for practice, and independent practice. Students reading. The process is supported by families practice strategies in cooperative groups with of strategies for mapping and summarizing. supported discussion.

• Making Inferences Student Scaffolds Primary Outcome: Students learn to rec- Students are taught to select and imple- ognize where they must infer and to deter- ment strategies before, during, and after mine the source of their inference. Support- reading, to evaluate the effectiveness of their ing mapping strategies help them infer text choice, and to reselect if not appropriate. structure, to add or change background knowledge, and to critique what has been Adaptability/Congruence with the read. Classroom Curriculum Teachers across the curriculum apply • Self-Regulated Comprehending Project CRISS in the context of regular class- Primary Outcome: Teachers guide stu- room instruction. Project CRISS also sup- dents in a variety of metacognitive student- ports literature-based reading programs. oriented strategies. The guidance continues Teachers can adapt how they use the strate- through reflection with journaling, discussion gies in their classrooms. and comparison of strategy effectiveness, and How effective is it? attributed in part to Project CRISS implementation. ASCD Curriculum Update is not Project CRISS utilizes a sizable number peer reviewed. of active reading strategies which have theoretical and research support. It has been Pearson, J., & Santa, C. (1995). Students as implemented nationwide. Developer Carol researchers of their own learning. Journal Santa has reported on strategies used by Pro- of Reading, 38(6), 462–469. ject CRISS in peer-reviewed scholarly publications. Santa, C.M., Dailey, S. C., & Nelson, M. Three in-house evaluation studies from (1985). Free-response and opinion-proof: 1993 through 1995 reported the performance A reading and writing strategy for middle of middle and high school students on a grade and secondary teachers. Journal of developer-designed posttest of delayed recall Reading, 28(4), 346–352. of reading comprehension. Project CRISS students performed significantly better than Santa, C. M., & Havens, L. T. (1991). Learn- students in a matched control group or made ing through writing. In C. M. Santa & D. significant gains over an unmatched control E. Alvermann (Eds.), Science learning: group. The project was validated for inclu- Processes and applications. Newark, DE: sion in the National Diffusion Network. International Reading Association. There has not been an independent evalua- (ERIC Document Reproduction Service tion of the program. No. ED 331 022). PART II:PART RESOURCES

Rating: Promising Santa, C. M., & Santa, J. L. (1995). Teacher Published studies about the Project as researcher. Journal of Reading Behavior, CRISS Program include these: 27(3), 439–451.

Allen, R. (2000, Summer). Before it’s too late: Where has it been Giving reading a last chance. ASCD implemented successfully? Curriculum Update,1–3,6–8. Allen includes a report of the success of The Project CRISS Web site provides diverse secondary students in Miami–Dade names and contact information for facilitators County Public Schools in Florida that is across the country. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: READ 180® Program

Publishers Scholastic Books, Inc. 555 Broadway New York, NY 10012-3999 Web site http://teacher.scholastic.com/read180/index.htm Telephone 800.221.5312 Background Read 180® provides a curriculum for the secondary reading classroom. Educators at Vanderbilt University in collaboration with Orange County, Florida, public schools, developed a successful prototype. The Scholastic Program was implemented in 1999. Primary Outcomes Motivation, Basic Decoding, Fluent Decoding, Background Knowledge, Self-Regulated Comprehending Students Struggling secondary readers Setting Classroom program Reading and Language Arts classes Support for Culturally and The program is available for Spanish language readers. Linguistically Diverse Readers Instructional Approach Modeling, guided practice, independent practice; whole group and small group learning Materials Student resources, including CD-ROM lessons, video clips, audiobooks, paperback novels, and teacher resources Cost Contact Scholastic Books for information Effectiveness Promising

What is it? How does it work? view a video clip on CD-ROM, available in English or Spanish. Students are Read 180® is a computer-supported pro- directed to skill lessons on word recogni- gram focused on building the reading fluency tion, fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, and comprehension of struggling secondary and spelling. During reading, students readers. The prototype was developed by Dr. can double click on any word to access a Ted Hasselbring and the Peabody Learning Spanish translation. Lab at Vanderbilt University with Orange 2. Modeled reading: Audiobooks allow stu- Country, Florida, middle school readers. dents to follow text as a peer coach mod- Scholastic Books adapted the program and els fluent reading and self-regulated com- made it available in 1999. There are five prehending. major components: 3. Independent reading: Students read independently from paperback novels appro- 1. Instructional reading: Students read lev- priate to their reading level. There is lim- eled, content-area passages. To build rele- ited opportunity for students to engage in vant background knowledge, they first group discussions of the literature. 4. Teacher-directed instruction: Students and links to materials. After two days of training teachers interact daily through whole in the use of the Read 180® computer pro- group and individualized instruction. grams, a campus has one year of telephone Lessons provided to teachers include technical support. reading comprehension, word study, Program costs cover setting up the entire vocabulary, and writing. program for up to 60 students, including staff 5. Assessment: Read 180® utilizes the Lexile training, computers, software, audiobooks, Reading Framework. Rather than yield- and paperbacks. ing grade-level or norm-referenced scores, this tool describes the difficulty of How does it develop reading reading material in terms of “lexiles.” It proficiency? assesses the level of text difficulty that a student is likely to comprehend. A com- Primary Outcomes: Motivation, puter management system tracks student Basic Decoding, Fluency, Background performance on lesson quizzes. Knowledge, Self-Regulated Comprehending A template shows teachers how to implement Read 180® in a 90-minute classroom Motivation block period. After whole group literacy Primary outcome: The program aims to instruction, students rotate in small groups motivate students through multimedia mate- through each of the major activities: instruc- rials on topics of interest to adolescents. It PART II:PART RESOURCES tional reading, modeled reading on audio- fosters student persistence through frequent, books, independent reading of paperback positive responses to student work. On CD- novels, and teacher-led instruction. ROM, attractive peer mentors model the value of reading. What professional development is required? What is provided? Decoding • Basic Decoding Read 180® requires a certified teacher Primary outcome: Before reading an who has some knowledge of reading instruc- instructional text passage, students preview tion to lead whole class and small group activ- the text on CD-ROM that highlights difficult ities. Teachers determine how they will con- words. Students hear words pronounced, view duct whole group instruction at the a model of structural analysis, and take a quiz beginning and ending of the class, and how on their recognition of the words. they will support students during the small group rotations. • Fluent Decoding The package for teachers includes an Primary outcome: Students follow in the introductory video, resource guides, lesson text as a coach models fluent reading on an plans, and a plan for organizing instruction audiobook. Students practice repeated around a 90-minute block class period. The readings and make recordings of their oral Scholastic Books Web site provides additional reading. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Language Comprehension How does it support effective Comprehension processes addressed: reading instruction? X Making associations X Predicting Materials Generating questions Students read materials at their instruc- X Generating mental imagery tional reading level, as determined by a place- Clarifying ment test. The texts written for the instruc- Elaborating tional program are (a) high interest, X Summarizing content-related passages, (b) audiobooks (13 Rehearsing titles for grades 6 and above), and (c) paper- X Evaluating back novels (10 titles written for each of four reading levels of reading difficulty). • Linguistic Knowledge Secondary outcome: Word study, includ- Reading Tasks ing vocabulary definitions and spelling, are The reading tasks are the successful com- provided prior to reading instructional pletion of computer instructional modules, passages. followed by modeled reading of audiobooks and independent reading of paperback novels. • Background Knowledge Students self-select from titles at their read- Primary outcome: On CD-ROM, a peer ing level. An authentic context is provided by coach introduces a video clip, such as a news small group rotations. To promote transfer of report, that is relevant to the instructional reading to new contexts, students must par- text. Students answer questions about what ticipate in all of the small group rotations. they have seen. Instructional Approach • Making Inferences The center of the program is the explicit Possible outcome: Students answer infer- tutorial instruction on CD-ROM. Diagnostic ential level questions on comprehension instruction is provided by the tutorial, with quizzes for the instructional text. skill mastery information provided to the teacher. Before using the placement tests, • Self-Regulated Comprehending users should check to ensure that the norms Primary outcome: A peer coach on are appropriate. audiobook models expert comprehension monitoring. Student Scaffolds Students are helped in activating and Transaction with Text building background knowledge and in pre- Secondary outcome: Students may viewing to promote fluency. During reading, engage emotions and experiences during an audiobook reading coach models compre- independent reading of young adult litera- hension and self-monitoring strategies used ture. Peer coaches on audiobooks also model by good readers. Teachers provide postread- transaction. ing scaffolds during teacher-led whole and small group instruction. Adaptability/Congruence with the reports that it has been successfully imple- Classroom Curriculum mented in several locations beyond the pilot. Teachers determine how they will con- The prototype program was implemented duct whole group instruction at the begin- with struggling middle school readers in ning and end of the class, and how they will Orange County Public Schools, Florida, support students during small group rota- beginning with the 1994–95 school year. It tions. The program provides an instructional was implemented in the context of a major plan organized for a 90-minute block class literacy project. Students with reading and period. Read 180® is designed to be the cur- writing difficulties were allocated two-hour riculum within a reading or language arts time blocks for daily literacy instruction. classroom. Classes were limited to 20 students with five computers per class. Teachers trained in liter- How effective is it? acy instruction used a workshop approach to the development of reading, writing, speak- The first year of implementation for ing, and listening, in addition to the com- Read 180® was 1999–2000. Evaluation data puter support. Students made significant for the Scholastic Read 180® program is improvement on the Stanford Diagnostic being collected in schools in the United Reading Test, the Culture-Free Self-Esteem States and in Department of Defense schools Inventory, and the Test of Written Spelling. in Germany. There has been no independent Qualitative data included interviews with stu- evaluation of the program. dents about the program, who responded PART II:PART RESOURCES positively. These components, in addition to Rating: Promising the program software, contributed to the pro- Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L. I., Taylor, R., ject success. Bottge, B., & Daley, P. (1997). The computer doesn’t embarrass me. Educational Where has it been Leadership, 55(3), 30–33. implemented successfully? The prototype program developers Representatives from the pilot project are report quantitative and qualitative data docu- featured on the Scholastic Read 180® Web menting its effectiveness. Scholastic Books, site. Contact Scholastic Books for additional which adapted and published the program, sites. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: READ RIGHT Program

Publishers READ RIGHT Systems 310 West Birch, Suite 2 Shelton, WA. 98584 Web site http://www.readright.com Telephone 360.427.9440 Fax: 360.427.0177 email: [email protected] Background READ RIGHT focuses on developing reading fluency. Devel- oped by Dr. Dee Tadlock, it was first successful in workplace settings and has been implemented in secondary schools since 1993. Primary Outcomes Fluent Decoding, Background Knowledge Students Struggling secondary readers Setting Campus program Reading and Language Arts classes Support for Culturally and Implemented successfully with bilingual and ESL populations Linguistically Diverse Readers Instructional Approach Diagnostic instruction; modeling, guided practice independent practice; tutorial Materials All student materials, including a library of recorded books, and teacher resources Cost $73,000 for materials and training for the first year Effectiveness Promising

What is it? How does it work? tional level. After silent rereadings, a student signals readiness to read aloud to the READ RIGHT is a program for develop- tutor. If needed, the tutor prompts the ing fluency in elementary through adult read- student to predict a problem word and ers. Groups of three students work daily with then teaches it as a vocabulary word if the a trained READ RIGHT tutor for 45 minutes. student still cannot decode it. The program goal is to produce “excellent 2. In Coached Reading, students read aloud a readers” who read aloud smoothly and with passage of unfamiliar text. A tutor pro- intonation, much like oral speech. Although vides specific, individualized feedback. the developers present the program in terms 3. For Pleasure Reading, students practice of current brain research, its three strategies reading in books at their independent are supported by research in reading. level of readability. They choose from titles that have been selected from pub- 1. In Excellent Reading, students read along lishers to be included in the READ while listening to an audiotape, modeling RIGHT library. fluent reading text that is at their instruc- The program has been implemented with Decoding students classified as having dyslexia, develop- • Basic Decoding mental disabilities, and attention deficit Secondary outcome: When reading hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It has also aloud, students who encounter a word they been implemented with bilingual and ESL cannot decode are asked to predict from con- programs. text. If they cannot, the word is presumed not to be in their oral vocabulary and its defini- What professional development tion is taught immediately. is required? What is provided? • Fluent Decoding The center of the program is the READ Primary outcome: To build fluency, stu- RIGHT tutor. One tutor can serve approxi- dents are taught a repeated reading strategy. mately 28–35 students each school year. They listen to a model of fluent reading of To become a tutor requires certification, text that is at their instructional level as they but a teaching credential is not a prerequisite. follow along with the printed text. They Certification results from training in the the- reread silently until they feel ready to read oretical constructs of the program and com- aloud. Students then read aloud a passage of petence in working with a wide range of stu- unfamiliar text. At both steps, the tutor pro- dents, performing assessments and interim vides specific, individualized feedback. Stu- analyses, and correctly determining time for dents are taught to read aloud as if they are student advancement and graduation. Certifi- speaking the words in conversation. In this PART II:PART RESOURCES cation as a trainer reflects the ability to train way, decoding is connected to meaning. tutors and to use the theory to solve problems that arise in tutoring. Language Comprehension The costs include start-up, training visits, Comprehension processes addressed: off-site support, travel expenses, the READ Making associations RIGHT library of recorded books, and sup- X Predicting port materials. All materials required for pro- Generating questions gram implementation are provided. Contact Generating mental imagery the READ RIGHT office for prices. X Clarifying Elaborating How does it develop reading X Summarizing proficiency? X Rehearsing Evaluating Primary Outcomes: Fluency, Background Knowledge • Linguistic Knowledge Secondary outcome: Students are taught Motivation word meanings if they are unable to predict a Secondary outcome: Users report that word from context when reading aloud. students become more self-confident and interested in school as they experience suc- • Background Knowledge cess in reading aloud more challenging text. Possible outcome: Students can be ATI:RESOURCES PART II: expected to build some background knowl- Student Scaffolds edge as a result of reading authentic texts. The program supports students in building fluency during reading. It does not • Making Inferences address prereading or postreading compre- Possible outcome: Trained tutors ask stu- hension. dents to summarize their understanding by retelling what has been read. Tutors may Adaptability/Congruence with the teach critical thinking skills in small groups Classroom Curriculum READ RIGHT is designed to be imple- • Self-Regulated Comprehending mented within the reading class or as a pull- Possible outcome: During the third stage out program. The sequence of strategies must of a session, students select and read books be followed, although tutors are expected to from the READ RIGHT library that are at be instructional decision makers when work- their independent reading level. ing with students.

Transaction with Text How effective is it? Secondary outcome: Students may engage emotions and experiences during READ RIGHT reports implementation independent reading of young adult with 2,358 students since 1996, after a pilot in literature. 1993. The developers monitor project implementations by monthly collection and analy- How does it support effective sis of student activity data sheets. When reading instruction? requested by the school, READ RIGHT consultants administer the Degrees of Reading Materials Power Test (DRP) to establish individual stu- Books are selected from publishers for dent baselines, to measure growth, and for quality and appropriateness of content and project evaluation. Using the DRP (or other then recorded. Grade level is calculated using standardized measure of reading), developers standard quantitative (but not qualitative) report one grade-level advancement for every readability formulae. Students use the 13 hours of tutoring for high school students recorded texts for repeated readings. and for every 18 hours of tutoring for middle school students. The developer supplies data Reading Task and reports of program effectiveness. There Students read aloud in progressively has been no formal independent evaluation of more complex text. They read independently the program. from leveled books chosen from the READ RIGHT library. The use of authentic text Rating: Promising promotes transfer of ﬂuency to other settings. An evaluation of the program was conducted at Hillside Junior High School, Boise, Instructional Approach Idaho, where READ RIGHT was imple- Students receive diagnostic instruction mented with 200 struggling readers from through small group tutorial sessions led by a 1998 through 2000. Their average gain on trained tutor. comprehension as measured by the Wood- cock Johnson Reading Test was 20 percentiles Where has it been after two semesters in the READ RIGHT implemented successfully? program. The READ RIGHT Web site provides a list of secondary schools where READ RIGHT has been implemented. PART II:PART RESOURCES ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Reading Power in the Content Areas (RP)

Developers Roy J. Butz in 1972, for grades 9–12. Publisher Carol Burgess, Program Representative CB Consulting Services 16705 12th Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55447 Web site Not available Telephone 763.404.1010 Email: [email protected] Background RP is designed to help teachers of general as well as vocational education classes engage students in effective behaviors for reading text across the content areas. Teachers develop a Teaching Outline to help them integrate the reading strategies with their instruction. Primary Outcomes Linguistic Knowledge, Background Knowledge, Making Infer- ences, Self-Regulated Comprehending Students All secondary readers Setting Campus program General education classes; Reading classes Support for Culturally and RP has been successfully implemented in diverse school settings Linguistically Diverse Readers with CLD student populations. Instructional Approach Diagnostic instruction; modeling, guided practice, and independent practice; cooperative learning Materials The narrative and expository text used for regular classroom instruction. Cost Minimum cost ranges from $200–$400 Effectiveness Promising

What is it? How does it work? required for accessing instructional materials and (2) the need to increase general reading Reading Power in the Content Areas comprehension skills, including vocabulary (RP) is designed help general education and acquisition and study skills. Teacher needs vocational education teachers improve the addressed include the need to enrich knowl- content reading of secondary-level students edge, attitudes, and skills relating to the through sound assessment and instructional use of textbooks and reading-related strategies. It was developed by Roy Butz in activities used for instruction. RP has four 1972 for grades 9–12. components: RP aims to address the needs of both student and teacher. Student needs addressed 1. In-service training includes assessment of include: (1) the need to narrow the gap teacher attitudes toward reading and of between reading ability and the reading the extent to which they use scaffolding to support reading assignments. Teachers teachers to implement the strategies. Addi- learn assessment techniques, the limits of tional in-service training helps to scaffold readability levels, and the usability of teachers as they integrate the reading strate- textbooks. gies with their instruction. 2. In the student assessment component RP provides all instructional materials teachers learn to assess student reading and student assessments. Ongoing in-service ability through multiple measures. In supports the implementation of the teaching addition to learning how to interpret outline designed during the training. standardized reading tests, teachers learn Initial costs for training at a school site a variety of informal tests, such as sight are less than $400. Contact the RP office for and content-specific vocabulary assess- specific information. ments, “cloze” tests (the reader relies on context to supply words deleted from How does it develop reading a passage), and informal reading proficiency? inventories. 3. In the vocabulary development compo- Primary Outcomes: Linguistic nent teachers learn the importance of Knowledge, Background Knowledge, background experience and motivation to Making Inferences, Self-Regulated vocabulary learning. They acquire tech- Comprehending niques for increasing student vocabulary skills in specific content areas, such as Transaction PART II:PART RESOURCES how to select vocabulary words that will Possible outcome: With strategic enhance the reading of the text. approaches to gain access to text, and with 4. The comprehension/thinking skills compo- teacher support, students can begin to nent teaches how to scaffold reading respond with their own emotions and throughout the reading process, so that experiences. students can become active and independent readers. Motivation Secondary outcome: As students gain RP also helps teachers to structure a proficiency in strategic reading their success Teaching Outline for classroom implementa- and satisfaction can lead to persistence and a tion of the strategies. valuing of reading. RP helps teachers to capi- talize on student curiosity and reasons for What professional development reading. is required? What is provided? Decoding RP training is recommended as a cam- • Basic Decoding puswide program for both general teachers as Not addressed. well as vocational teachers that is overseen by a reading specialist. Teaching Outlines • Fluent Decoding designed during in-service training require Not addressed. considerable time and thought, but they help ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Language Comprehension How does it support effective Comprehension processes addressed: reading instruction? X Making associations X Predicting Materials X Generating questions The teacher selects content-appropriate X Generating mental imagery expository or narrative text, including text- X Clarifying books and trade books. As teachers learn to X Elaborating assess reading levels of texts and to scaffold X Summarizing assignments for increasing readability, they X Rehearsing become better prepared to select materials X Evaluating that align with student skills and interests.

• Linguistic Knowledge Reading Task Primary outcome: Teachers acquire infor- Teachers use the content-area reading mation regarding language development and strategies across the curriculum; this practice learn to teach content-speciﬁc terms. Struc- supports the authenticity of the instruction tured Overviews help students relate new and its transfer to multiple settings. vocabulary to content. Structure Diagrams foster understanding of text structure. Instructional Approach Teachers learn to assess reading and study • Background Knowledge skills and to gain diagnostic information Primary outcome: Teachers apply strate- through student responses during teaching. gies for activating and building background They learn explicit instruction techniques of knowledge, including PreP (a background modeling, guided practice, and independent knowledge strategy described in this Guide) practice for teaching students reading strate- and Graphic Organizer/Concept Mapping. gies. Teachers also learn approaches to cooperative learning. • Making Inferences Primary outcome: By guiding students in Student Scaffolds critical reading, teachers help students make Teachers learn strategies for scaffolding associations and clarify understanding using students prereading, during reading, and mapping and outlining strategies. postreading.

• Self-Regulated Comprehending Adaptability/Congruence with the Primary outcome: Teachers guide stu- Classroom Curriculum dents in a variety of metacognitive student- RP provides assessment tools and strate- oriented strategies. Students generate ques- gies for teachers to implement in various con- tions, summarize, and evaluate in Active tent areas. Teachers are encouraged to adapt Reading and Study Skills Instruction. the program for their own classrooms and students. How effective is it? Where has it been implemented successfully? RP utilizes a sizable number of active reading strategies which have theoretical and RP provides these two sites: research support. Evaluation studies conducted by RP found that secondary students Manhattan High School from diverse populations in an RP implemen- Contact: Mickey Bogart tation made signiﬁcant gains on standardized Kansas State University tests of reading comprehension when com- College of Education pared with a control group. RP was validated Bluemont Hall 246 for inclusion in the National Diffusion Net- Manhattan, KS 66506 work. No independent program evaluation Telephone: 785.532.5904 has been done. [email protected]

Rating: Promising Will C. Wood Middle School RP was selected for inclusion in this Contact: Frank Lewallen, Reading Guide based on its reports of effectiveness Specialist with middle school students and its sound 6201 Lemon Hill Avenue professional development component. Sacramento, CA Below is one available assessment of RP: Telephone: 916.382.5900 PART II:PART RESOURCES Killion, J. (1997). What Works in the Middle. National Staff Development Council. http://www.nsdc.org/ ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) Program

Sponsors Coordinator of Professional Development, Center for Research on Learning (CRL) University of Kansas 521 Joseph R. Pearson Hall 1122 West Campus Road Lawrence, KS 66045 Web site http://www.ku-crl.org/htmlﬁles/sim.html Telephone 785.864.0622 Background A system of learning strategies for students with learning disabilities and teacher instructional strategies. It has been developed over a period of twenty years by researchers at the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. Primary Outcomes Basic Decoding, Linguistic Knowledge, Background Knowledge, Making Inferences, Self-Regulated Comprehending Students Struggling secondary readers

Setting Campus program General education classes; Reading classes Support for Culturally and The inclusion of authentic, multicultural materials can help CLD Linguistically Diverse Readers readers respond to reading through SIM. Instructional Approach Modeling, guided practice, independent practice; cooperative learning Materials Expository content-area text used for regular classroom instruction. Cost Contact the sponsors for information Effectiveness Well established

What is it? How does it work? Acquisition Strand consists of four reading strategies, which can be implemented The Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) is separately. a system of student learning strategies (called the Learning Strategies Curriculum) and 1. The Word Identification Strategy was teacher instructional routines (called Content developed by B. Keith Lenz to help stu- Enhancement). SIM was developed over a dents decode unknown words while read- period of twenty years at the University of ing of content-area texts. The strategy Kansas to support students with learning dis- teaches students to predict meaning from abilities. Increasingly it is being adopted by context and to use word analysis. general education teachers to help them work 2. The Paraphrasing Strategy teaches stu- with their struggling readers. Two of the dents to read a limited section of mater- seven strands of the Learning Strategies Cur- ial, to determine main idea and details, riculum, the Acquisition Strand and the Stor- and to express the meaning in their own age Strand, apply specifically to reading. The words. 3. The Self-Questioning Strategy teaches stu- Teachers may become certified as a SIM dents to construct questions about key trainer, a process that takes about three years pieces of information in a passage and and includes an apprenticeship with a sea- then to read for answers. soned SIM trainer. 4. The Visual Imagery Strategy teaches students to visualize the scene that is How does it develop reading described, incorporating actors, action, proficiency? and details. They learn and practice in short passages. The strategy is designed Primary Outcomes: Basic Decoding, to improve their learning and recall of Linguistic Knowledge, Background prose material. Knowledge, Making Inferences, Self-Regulated Comprehending, The Storage Strand includes strategies Transaction with Text for learning during reading. The Vocabulary Strategy teaches students to apply key-word Motivation mnemonics to create associations among the Secondary outcome: Because the strate- critical elements of a concept, visual imagery, gies enable independent reading, students and their prior knowledge. Students create a who successfully apply them likely will be study card to help them extend comprehen- motivated by their success to persist in the sion and recall. reading task. SIM further supports teachers through 11 PART II:PART RESOURCES Content Enhancement Routines. The routines Decoding are instructional strategies for opening, plan- • Basic Decoding ning, and managing a class, as well as reading Primary outcome: In the Word Identifi- tasks, and to teach concepts. The routines aid cation Strategy students predict meaning general education teachers with mixed ability from context and to use word analysis skills classrooms. with unknown words during reading.

What professional development • Fluent Decoding is required? What is provided? Secondary outcome: Fluent decoding is fostered by supported reading practice Initial training of teachers in the SIM must be conducted by a certified SIM trainer Language Comprehension who has completed the program at the Cen- Comprehension processes addressed: ter in Lawrence, Kansas. Schools can access X Making associations an extensive nationwide network of SIM X Predicting trainers. The trainer meets with as many as X Generating questions 25 teachers for 3–6 hours per strategy. Each X Generating mental imagery teacher who is implementing the strategies X Clarifying uses an instructor’s manual. Teachers practice X Elaborating the strategy in their classrooms followed by X Summarizing debriefing and problem-solving sessions. The X Rehearsing Lawrence, Kansas, Center offers a summer X Evaluating schedule of workshops for teachers. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: • Linguistic Knowledge tory text (such as textbooks) written at the Primary outcome: The Word Identifica- students’ instructional level. tion Strategy builds student knowledge of word affixes and roots. The Vocabulary Strat- Reading Task egy develops word knowledge through multi- With the support of trained teachers, stu- ple associations. dents can transfer the strategies from the reading class to the general education class- • Background Knowledge room. Primary outcome: The Content Enhancement Routines support teachers in Instructional Approach developing student concept knowledge. The Students are taught the strategies Word Identification Strategy and Vocabulary through modeling, guided practice, and inde- Strategy guide students in activating and con- pendent practice. They learn the strategies in necting their background knowledge. a small group setting. In the context of a general education class, a small group of students • Making Inferences can be pulled aside for strategy instruction. Primary outcome: The Paraphrasing Strategy teaches students to translate the Student Scaffolds meaning of a passage into their own words. The four strategies—Word Identifica- The Visual Imagery Strategy involves stu- tion, Paraphrasing, Self-Questioning, and dents in making inferences through visualiz- Visual Imagery—are implemented during ing the events of a text. reading. The Vocabulary Strategy may be implemented prereading or postreading. • Self-Regulated Comprehending Teachers will need to provide additional scaf- Primary outcome: The Self-Questioning folds for students before and after reading. Strategy requires students to predict relevant Some of those scaffolds may be provided by questions about what is important and to read the teacher’s use of Content Enhancement for the purpose of answering questions they Routines. have generated. Adaptability/Congruence with the Transaction with Text Classroom Curriculum Secondary outcome: Implementing the The content enhancement routines are strategies with the peer support of small designed to be used by regular classroom groups can contribute to affective engage- teachers for general instruction. The strate- ment in the reading task. gies can be taught through flexible grouping. Although steps for the strategies and routines How does it support good are clearly defined, teachers select the materi- reading instruction? als and contexts to which they are applied.

Materials How effective is it? The strategies are implemented in materials selected and provided by the teacher. The Strategic Instruction Model has Most often these assignments will be exposi- been extensively researched. Rating: Well established Through a sample content lesson, the The following references were provided authors present an integrated strategy by the Center for Research on Learning as approach based upon the SIM. It employs a representative support for using SIM with concept diagram and comparison table strate- struggling secondary readers. Additional doc- gies. Students learn to independently enhance umentation can be found at the Center’s Web their content learning by applying a strategy site: http://www.ku-crl.org/htmlﬁles/ called ORDER. articles/article-1.html#ls. Learning Strategies References Content Enhancement References Clark, F. L., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, Alley, G. R., & Warner, M. M. (1984). J. B. (1997). Use of a recall enhancement Visual imagery and self-questioning: routine and strategies in inclusive sec- Strategies to improve comprehension of ondary classes. Learning Disabilities written material. Journal of Learning Dis- Research & Practice, 12(4), 198–208. abilities, 17(3), 145–149.

Trained teachers and their students were Two learning strategies, Visual Imagery better able to use the mnemonic device than a and Self-Questioning, designed to increase control group. reading comprehension were taught to six learning disabled students using a multiple baseline across strategies design on several Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler,

PART II:PART RESOURCES outcome measures. D. D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level Deshler, D. D., & Lenz, B. K. (1989). The mainstream classes. Learning Disability strategies instructional approach. Interna- Quarterly, 11(1), 3–17. tional Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 36(3), 203–224. Concept Diagrams and Concept Teach- ing Routines were used in nine secondary This article describes how researchers classrooms with 36 students with learning have developed the Strategic Intervention disabilities. Teachers identiﬁed target con- Model to promote, model, guide, and prompt cepts and implemented the teaching routine, efﬁcient, effective learning and performance while students gained in concept acquisition, across all settings for all students, not just note-taking skills, and regular test perfor- those with learning disabilities. mance.

Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1988). Bulgren, J. & Scanlon, D. (1997/98). Instruc- An instructional model for teaching stu- tional routines and learning strategies dents how to learn. In J. L. Graden, J. E. that promote understanding of content Zins, and M. J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative area concepts. Journal of Adolescent & educational delivery systems: Enhancing Adult Literacy, 41(4), 292-302. instructional options for all students. Wash- ington, DC: National Association of Sec- ondary School Principals, 391–411. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: The Strategies Intervention Model is In this study of 207 middle school stu- described from several dimensions: evolution dents of mixed abilities,an experimental and overview, key components, teachers’ group was taught an adaptation of the SIM roles, students’ roles, and the external support paraphrasing strategy called RAP. The stu- sources. dents attended a school that was 89% Mexi- can American in population and located in a Lenz, B. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1990). A word lower socioeconomic area. A significant effect identification strategy for adolescents was found for the RAP intervention. The stu- with learning disabilities. Journal of dents using RAP gained 17% from pre- to Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 149–158, 163. posttest compared to students using the traditional instruction, who gained 3.5%. Twelve adolescents with learning disabilities who were taught the Word Identification Strategy (DISSECT) made significant gains Where has it been in word identification but inconsistent gains implemented successfully? in comprehension. SIM has been implemented in thousands of schools across the country. Contact the Katims, D. S. & Harris, S. (1997). Improving Center for Research on Learning at the Uni- the reading comprehension of middle versity of Kansas for specific sites. school students in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(2), 116-123. Student Team Literature (STL) Program

Sponsors Contact: Douglas Mac Iver, Principal Research Scientist, [email protected] Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR) Johns Hopkins University 3003 N. Charles Street, Suite 200 Baltimore, MD. 21218-3888 Background STL is designed to develop the reading abilities of struggling students through good literature. Student Team Literature is an adaptation of Student Team Reading, developed by Robert Stevens in 1989. Web site http://www.csos.jhu.edu/Talent/InstructionalPrograms.htm #reading Telephone 410.516.8829 Primary Outcomes Motivation, Fluency, Linguistic Knowledge, Making Inferences, Background Knowledge, Self-Regulated Comprehending Students Struggling middle school readers

Setting Campus program Language Arts and Reading classes Support for CLD Readers The original program was developed in urban classrooms and has PART II:PART RESOURCES been implemented since then with Spanish language, ESL, and culturally diverse populations Instructional Approach Modeling, guided practice, independent practice;cooperative learning; inductive learning; and culturally responsive teaching Materials Authentic novels Cost Contact CRESPAR for information Effectiveness Promising

What is it? How does it work? ing. It is part of a comprehensive school reform model, Talent Development Middle Student Team Literature (STL) was School (TDMS) being developed at John designed to enhance middle school students’ Hopkins University. TDMS has been imple- motivation to learn while improving their mented in 21 schools. However, a school may reading comprehension and understanding of elect to implement STL without TDMS. good literature. Student Team Literature is STL teachers introduce novels with dis- an adaptation of Student Team Reading, cussions of relevant background knowledge, developed by Robert Stevens in 1989. STL genre, and vocabulary. Students work in uses award-winning novels, higher-order cooperative learning teams as they read. thinking activities, and cooperative learning Activities include: to create a motivating environment for read- ATI:RESOURCES PART II: 1. Partner Reading. Students read silently How does it develop reading first, then take turns reading orally with a proficiency? partner. 2. Treasure Hunts. Students are given Primary Outcomes: Motivation, higher-order questions to guide their Fluency, Linguistic Knowledge, reading and must search and think in Making Inferences, Background order to generate text-supported answers. Knowledge, Self-Regulated 3. Word Mastery. Students practice saying Comprehending new vocabulary words with their partners and write context clue sentences using Motivation new vocabulary. Primary outcome: STL is designed to 4. Story retelling. Students summarize stories build motivation to learn by incorporating in their own words. research-based cooperative teaming activities, 5. Story-related writing. Students write in by using authentic literature, and through response to prompts about their reading. the challenge and support of higher-order 6. Extension activities. Students complete thinking. cross-curricular research, fine arts, dra- matics, and media activities as they Decoding explore themes in the books. • Basic Decoding. 7. Tests. Students take tests on comprehen- Possible outcome: Students work on oral sion, word meaning, and oral reading. reading and receive coaching from their 8. Explicit instruction of comprehension strate- teachers and peers on learning to say and use gies. Teachers models and guide students new words. in comprehension and metacognitive checking strategies. • Fluent Decoding. Primary outcome: Students engage in Students work in pairs and in heteroge- partner reading and in oral practice of new neously mixed groups of four to five. They words. receive rewards for working well both as an individual and as a group member. Language Comprehension Comprehension processes addressed: What professional development X Making associations is required? What is provided? X Predicting X Generating questions Student Team Literature requires exten- X Generating mental imagery sive teacher training and development. Read- X Clarifying ing/Language Arts teachers attend two days X Elaborating of training in the summer and meet monthly X Summarizing during the school year to refine their instruc- X Rehearsing tion and troubleshoot problems. They are X Evaluating observed by trainers and receive feedback on improving their teaching. • Linguistic Knowledge Information on costs and materials is not Primary outcome: The Word Mastery available at this time. component helps students develop skill in learning new words through context as well Instructional Approach as through structural analysis. Teachers provide explicit strategy instruction through modeling, guided practice, and • Background Knowledge independent practice. Students also engage in Primary outcome: Teachers help students inductive learning as they construct meaning activate and build background knowledge from the books they read and conduct inquiry prior to reading. Increased reading and projects during extension activities. They response to reading also supports the building work in cooperative pairs and small teams. of background knowledge. Student Scaffolds • Making Inferences Each stage of reading is supported by the Primary outcome: Explicit strategy teacher, by peers in cooperative learning instruction and questions during reading help groups, and by the activities that guide read- students build skill in making inferences. ers to develop comprehension.

• Self-Regulated Comprehending Adaptability/Congruence with the Primary outcome: Students receive Classroom Curriculum instruction and practice in using metacogni- STL is designed to be the curriculum for tive checking. Reading and Language Arts classes. Teachers follow a structured approach, with limited Transaction with Text opportunity for adaptation. Connections are PART II:PART RESOURCES Possible outcome: Students are reading made to other classes through research pro- literature and discussing it with peers, which jects that are interdisciplinary in scope. Skills provides a rich opportunity for transaction. developed in reading can transfer to learning Student aesthetic response will hinge on the tasks in those other classes, especially if those content of the writing prompts, the quality of teachers support STL strategies in imple- the teacher interaction during story retelling, menting the interdisciplinary projects. and the structure of the extension activities. How effective is it? How does it support effective reading instruction? The Center for Research on the Educa- tion of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR), Materials which adapted and now sponsors the pro- Students read quality literature (novels) gram, has successfully implemented it in sev- which may prove to meet their interests as eral locations beyond the pilot. Evaluation well as purposes for reading. Reading levels data shows signiﬁcant improvement in stu- vary among the novels. dents’ reading scores and in their motivation to learn. There has been no independent Reading Task evaluation of the program. In reading and responding to quality literature, students are provided with an Rating: Promising authentic and potentially meaningful reading Mac Iver, D. J., & Plank, S. B. (1996). The task. Task relevance is strengthened by exten- Talent Development Middle School. Creating sion activities that make connections to other a motivational climate conducive to talent disciplines. development in middle schools: Implementa- ATI:RESOURCES PART II: tion and effects of Student Team Reading. Writing in middle schools: Two evaluations. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 402 388) 350 594)

The program was found to be effective Program developers report the success of with ESL students. pilot of Student Team Reading and Student Team Writing with inner-city middle schools in 1989–91. Both quantitative and qualitative Mac Iver, D., Plank, S., & Balfanz, R. (1997, data were reported. August). Working together to become proﬁ- cient readers: Early impact of the Talent Development Middle School’s Student Team Where has it been Literature, Report No. 15. Baltimore, MD: implemented successfully? Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins Successful Student Team Literature sites University and Howard University. include: Roberto Clemente Middle School, Jay Cooke Middle School, and Central East Stevens, R. J., & Durkin, S. (1992). Using Middle School, all in Philadelphia, PA. Student Team Reading and Student Team Wilson Reading System (WRS)

Developers Barbara A. Wilson Publishers Wilson Language Training Corporation 175 West Main Street Millbury, MA 01527-1441 Web site http://www.WilsonLanguage.com Telephone 508.865.5699 Fax: 610.565.3872 Background Originally designed as a dyslexic training program for adults by Barbara Wilson, an Orton-Gillingham teacher, WRS follows the Orton multisensory approach. Primary Outcomes Basic Decoding, Fluency, Linguistic Knowledge Students Struggling secondary readers with decoding problems who are reading at second grade level and above Setting Classroom program Reading classes Support for Culturally and Teachers should use WRS in the context of a full literacy Linguistically Diverse Readers program that addresses the needs of CLD readers. Instructional Approach Modeling, guided practice, independent practice; diagnostic instruction; inductive learning; cooperative learning Materials Some teacher and student materials provided PART II:PART RESOURCES Cost $300 per classroom Effectiveness Promising

What is it? How does it work? begin with sound segmentation, syllabication, and suffixes and proceed through more com- WRS targets secondary students with plex language concepts and spelling rules. severe decoding and spelling difficulties. The multisensory instruction involves stu- Originally designed as a dyslexic training pro- dents in finger tapping to segment sounds gram for adults by Barbara Wilson, an Orton- and manipulating cards to internalize sounds, Gillingham teacher, WRS follows the Orton syllables, and suffixes. multisensory approach. The program focuses A 10-part lesson plan drives the instruc- on teaching the concepts of the structure of tion. Parts 1–5 focus on decoding, parts 6–8 words. Instruction takes place at least twice a on encoding (spelling). In part 9, students week, usually one-to-one or in small groups. silently read short passages with controlled The individually administered Wilson vocabularies, visualize the passage, retell, then Assessment of Decoding and Encoding read orally. In part 10, students listen as the (WADE) places students in the program teacher models by reading aloud a more diffi- along a scale of 12 sequential steps. These cult noncontrolled passage, after which stu- steps, based on six common syllable types, dents visualize and then retell. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: In program steps 1–6, students read Motivation highly controlled text passages. At about step Secondary outcome: Students placed 7 most are expected to successfully read non- appropriately in the program are expected to controlled text from outside readings. The be engaged by the interactive and quickly one-to-one approach can be expanded to paced instruction and varied activities. The small groups of students with similar levels of experience of successful decoding, recorded decoding ability. on daily charts, is motivating to these stu- The WRS is not a complete literacy pro- dents who have been unsuccessful decoders. gram. The teacher is expected to provide support for comprehension and writing. Decoding • Basic Decoding What professional development Primary outcome: Students can develop is required? What is provided? phonemic awareness and basic letter-sound correspondences, although most secondary Trainers from Wilson Language Training readers will start later in the sequence of Corporation will visit a school to conduct a steps. Concepts of phoneme segmentation, two-day overview training workshop. With- syllables, and suffixes are taught and then out this training, teachers can implement the applied to the reading and writing of single program by reading the instructor manual, words. Students then apply the decoding skill watching the six videotapes (approximately 70 to sentences and passages controlled for the minutes each), preparing lesson plans, and if elements taught. Students review irregular possible, observing Wilson teachers. sight words on flash cards. Teachers may pursue three levels of advanced training, leading to certification as a • Fluent Decoding Wilson trainer. Primary outcome: Students read passages Teacher materials include: instructor with a controlled vocabulary, first silently, manual, syllable cards, sound (phoneme) then orally. WRS provides phonetically con- cards, word cards, video supplements to train- trolled readers for additional fluency practice. ing, dictation books, rules notebooks, group sound cards, and an assessment tool. Student Language Comprehension materials include student readers, student Although differentiated by its focus on workbooks, stories for students, and a chapter word recognition and spelling, WRS should book. be part of a full literacy program to build The program cost for all 12 steps is $300 comprehension. per classroom. • Linguistic Knowledge How does it develop reading Primary outcome: Students are taught proficiency? language concepts, word parts, word meanings at two levels of difficulty, and spelling Primary Outcomes: Basic Decoding, rules. Fluency, Linguistic Knowledge • Background Knowledge Not addressed. • Making Inferences Instructional Approach Possible outcome: Students are taught to The lesson cycle includes explicit instruc- visualize the meaning of a story before tion through modeling, guided practice, and retelling it. independent practice, as well as inductive learning in which students derive meanings • Self-Regulated Comprehending from reading practice. Student responses Possible outcome: When students make from oral reading and retelling allow the oral reading errors, the teacher asks questions teacher to assess student performance and to prompt self-correction. However, students adjust instruction. do not learn a self-questioning strategy. Stu- dents learn a model for documenting their Student Scaffolds classroom experience by maintaining a note- Students begin the lesson sequence with book of linguistic rules. silent reading. They are supported by decoding strategies during reading. Visualizing and Transaction with Text. Not addressed. retelling supports students after reading. Comprehension processes addressed: Making associations Adaptability/Congruence with the Predicting Classroom Curriculum Generating questions WRS Instruction follows a prescribed X Generating mental imagery sequence of lesson plans. The teacher decides Clarifying how to pace a student through the steps of PART II:PART RESOURCES Elaborating the program. X Summarizing X Rehearsing How effective is it? X Evaluating The effectiveness of the Wilson Reading How does it support effective System has been documented with students reading instruction? who are dyslexic or who have other reading disabilities. There has not been an indepen- Materials dent evaluation of the program with sec- WRS provides instructional reading ondary readers. materials written to control for decoding complexity and vocabulary difficulty. Outside Rating: Promsing materials are used to move students from Dickson, S. & Bursuck, W. (1999). Imple- controlled to uncontrolled text. menting a model for preventing reading failure: A report from the field. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(4), Reading Task 191–202. Students move from reading highly con- This report documents the first of a trolled text to passages that are not con- three-year professional development program trolled. This process supports transfer of at two rural elementary schools that included decoding strategies. WRS. Upper-grade students with learning disabilities made improvements in reading ATI:RESOURCES PART II: skill when teachers received sufficient in-ser- Moats, L.C. (1998) Reading, spelling, and vice training. writing disabilities in the middle grades. In B. Wong (Ed.). Learning about learning WRS was selected for inclusion in and disabilities. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. favorable discussion by the following scholarly monographs: Where has it been implemented successfully? Clark, D., & Uhry, J. (1995). The Wilson Reading System. In Dyslexia: Theory and Contact the Wilson Reading System for practice of remedial instruction (2nd ed.) demonstration sites. Baltimore, MD: York Press. STRATEGIES • Independent Reading Strategies • K-W-L-Plus Strategy Fifteen strategies for supporting the • Literature-Based Reading Instruction instruction of struggling secondary readers • Reader Response Strategies are described in this section: • Reading Guide Strategy • Reading Workshop Approach • Background Knowledge Strategies • Reciprocal Reading Strategy • Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) • Text Mapping Strategies • Dictated Stories /Language Experience • Vocabulary and Concept Mapping Approach (LEA) Strategies • Fluency Strategies • Word Analysis Strategies • Generative Vocabulary Strategies PART II:PART RESOURCES ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Background Knowledge Strategies

Developers Various researcher have described these strategies, including Advanced Organizers: David Ausubel, 1968; PreP: Judith Langer, 1981; Text Previews: Donald Graves, 1983; and Anticipation Guides: Readence et al., 1998. Strategy Type Instructional strategy that becomes a learning strategy Background Strategies to help students activate what they know in order to connect it with the content of a comprehension task Primary Outcomes Background Knowledge; Making Inferences Students All secondary readers Setting General education class; Reading classes Support for Culturally and Students can be led to contribute their experiences and Linguistically Diverse Readers understandings to the classroom. Teachers have an opportunity to acknowledge and honor what students know. Instructional Approach Diagnostic instruction; cooperative learning Materials Teacher provided Cost None Effectiveness Established

What is it? How does it work? their knowledge to that of other students, self-assess their level of their prior knowl- Activating and building background edge, and predict areas of new information. knowledge is a strategic process incorporated From student responses, the teacher can into effective prereading. Several strategies assess the level of well-formed, partially have been developed that guide students to formed, or ill-formed knowledge structures of activate their prior knowledge through the students. teacher intervention, such as PReP (PRe Advanced Organizers and Text Previews are Reading Plan; Langer, 1981), Advanced Orga- paragraphs written by the teacher with a for- nizers (Ausubel, 1968), Anticipation Guides mal structure engaging the students’ back- (Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 1998), Text Pre- ground knowledge and fostering interest. A views (Graves, Cook, & LaBerge, 1983). first section of these previews builds interest PReP is a teaching strategy for activating and makes connections to familiar topics. students’ knowledge before a reading task. The next section previews or summarizes the The teacher guides the class in a discussion text to be read in a short synopsis. A final sec- that begins with students making word asso- tion provides guiding questions focusing the ciations to key concepts the teacher has iden- students’ reading. The teacher creates the tified. Students then reflect on these con- preview, discusses how the preview relates to cepts, reformulating what they brainstormed. students’ prior knowledge in a large group, The process continues as students compare and then directs students to read the text. Anticipation Guides also follow a pre- Language Comprehension scribed format. After identifying the major Comprehension processes addressed: concepts in a text, the teacher creates a lim- X Making associations ited number (usually 3–5) of debatable, expe- X Predicting rienced-based statements that express these X Generating questions concepts. Before reading, students read the X Generating mental imagery statements and check off those with which X Clarifying they agree. Students then discuss each state- X Elaborating ment and debate their opinions. Next stu- X Summarizing dents read the passage and end with a follow- Rehearsing up discussion of the statements based on their X Evaluating reading. • Linguistic Knowledge What professional development Possible outcome: Reviewing key vocabu- is required? lary definitions before reading can build student word knowledge. Teachers can read descriptions of the strategies in the original sources (Ausubel, • Background Knowledge 1968; Langer; 1981; Graves et. al, 1983; Primary outcome: Students are encour- Readence et al., 1998) as well as current con- aged to generate associations to the major tent-area reading textbooks. concepts of the text and to clarify why they PART II:PART RESOURCES had these ideas and not others. They evaluate How do background knowledge their brainstormed contributions to deter- strategies build reading mine how they were generated. proficiency? • Making Inferences Strengths: Background Knowledge; Primary outcome: Students learn to gen- Making Inferences erate mental imagery on the ideas they brainstormed. They predict what the author will Motivation state about these concepts, to elaborate on Possible outcome: The strategies have and summarize what they know, and evaluate specific components for engaging reader whether what they know is still relevant. interest. These connections may be motivating for continued reading. • Self-Regulated Comprehending Secondary outcome: Students may gain a Decoding metacognitive awareness of what they know. • Basic Decoding Not addressed. Transaction with Text Secondary outcome: Engaging back- • Fluent Decoding ground sets the stage for transaction with Not addressed. text. The teacher will need to guide readers to make connections during reading. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: How does it support effective implement these strategies as needed for reading instruction? assessment and for building prior knowledge.

Materials How effective is it? Reading texts may be authentic, narrative, or expository and should be at the student’s The studies on PreP, Advanced Organizers, instructional level. and Text Previews were done more than a decade ago, but they documented the effec- Reading Task tiveness of these strategies with struggling The teacher plans the reading task, which secondary readers. No research was found on may be authentic and can allow student Anticipation Guides. These three strategiesit choice. To enable students to transfer these are easily incorporated into strategy reper- strategies to other contexts, teachers should toires. provide them with additional modeling and practice. Rating: Established Langer and Nicholich (1981) found PReP Instructional Approach to be a better predictor of reading compre- To learn these strategies, students work in hension than IQ or standardized reading large or small cooperative groups. Student assessments. For high school students of responses provide the teacher with diagnostic mixed ethnicity (including Hispanic) in 11 assessment for the review or preteaching of social studies classrooms, Molner (1989) concepts. Teachers have the opportunity for found that although PReP did not improve culturally responsive teaching, through selec- immediate recall, it did improve delayed tion of reading materials and task, heteroge- recall. The effect was independent of reading neous grouping, and guiding the contribution ability or level of background knowledge. of culturally based student knowledge. Students with higher levels of background knowledge appeared to benefit most from Student Scaffolds PreP, although students with low knowledge These strategies model effective activa- also improved their comprehension. No dif- tion and assessment of knowledge before ferences between ethnic groups emerged, reading, with little connection to comprehen- implying that the PReP benefited both sion during or after reading. Therefore they groups equally. Graves and Prenn (1984) and should be combined with other strategies for Graves and colleagues (1983) found Text Pre- monitoring and extending student under- views improved comprehension and attitudes standing of the text. among at-risk eighth grade social studies students. Stone (1983) in a meta-analysis of Adaptability/Congruence with the Advanced Organizer research found consistent Classroom Curriculum increased learning and comprehension The process by which teachers engage retention. prior knowledge should be consistent, but the activities students perform can vary. Langer Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A (1981) offers strategy steps as guidelines, then cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart presents ways in which teachers can make and Winston. adaptations. General education teachers can Graves, M. F., Cooke, C. L., & LaBerge, M. Langer, J. A., & Nicholich, M. (1981). Prior J. (1983). Effects of previewing difficult knowledge and its effects on comprehen- short stories on low ability junior high sion. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13(4), school students’ comprehension, recall, 375–378. and attitudes. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 262–276. Langer, J. L. (1981). From theory to practice: A prereading plan. Journal of Reading, Graves, M. F., & Prenn, M. C. (1984). Effects 25(2), 152–156. of previewing expository passages on junior high school students’ comprehen- Molner, L. A. (1989, Dec.). Developing back- sion and attitudes In J. A. Niles & L. A. ground for expository text: PReP revisited. Harris (Eds.), Changing perspectives on Paper presented at the annual meeting of research in reading/language processing and the National Reading Conference, instruction: Thirty-third Yearbook of the Austin, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduc- National Reading Conference (pp. tion No. ED 316 843). 173–177). Rochester, NY: National Read- ing Conference. Readence, J. E., Bean, T. W., & Baldwin, R. S. (1998). Content area reading: An inte- Langer, J. A. (1984). Examining background grated approach (6th ed.) Dubuque, IA: knowledge and text comprehension. Kendall Hunt. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(4), PART II:PART RESOURCES 468–481. Stone, C. L. (1983). A meta-analysis of advanced organizers studies. Journal of Experimental Education, 51(4), 194–199. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR)

Developers Researchers Janette K. Klingner, Sharon Vaughn, and Jeanne Schumm Strategy Type Instructional strategy that becomes a learning strategy Background A set of four strategies to aid decoding and comprehending content-area text. It was developed for students with learning disabilities who are in general education classrooms. CSR integrates word identiﬁcation, reciprocal reading, and cooperative learning. Primary Outcomes Basic Decoding, Fluent Decoding, Linguistic Knowledge, Background Knowledge, Making Inferences, Self-Regulated Comprehending Students Struggling secondary readers Setting General education class; Reading classes Support for Culturally and Success has been reported with second language learners Linguistically Diverse Readers (Klingner & Vaughn, 1999). Heterogeneous grouping allows scaffolding by students who are bilingual or who have greater proﬁciency in reading skills. Instructional Approach Modeling, guided practice, independent practice; cooperative learning Materials Content-area text from regular classroom instruction. Cost None Effectiveness Established

What is it? How does it work? reading strategies as they read orally or silently from a shared selection of text. The Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) is four strategies are as follows: a set of four strategies struggling readers can use to decode and comprehend as they read 1. Preview. Before reading, students brain- content-area text. Researchers Janette K. storm prior knowledge and predict what Klingner, Sharon Vaughn, and Jeanne will be learned. Schumm developed CSR for struggling upper 2. Click and Clunk. Students identify words elementary and middle school readers with or word parts that were hard to under- learning disabilities by adapting reciprocal stand (called “clunks”). A sequence of reading and cooperative learning strategies. “fix-up strategies” is used to decode the CSR can be used by content-area teachers clunk. These strategies are (a) rereading in inclusion settings as well as by reading the sentence for key ideas, (b) looking for teachers. context clues in the sentences before and To implement CSR, students of mixed after the sentence being considered, (c) reading and achievement levels work in small, looking for prefixes or suffixes, and (d) cooperative groups of 4–5 students. They breaking the word apart to find smaller support each other in applying a sequence of words. 3. Get the gist. What is the most important Motivation person, place, or thing? What is the most Secondary outcome: The peer interaction important idea about the person, place, or that occurs as students work in heterogeneous thing? groups can promote interest and persistence 4. Wrap up. After reading, students con- in the reading task. struct their own questions to check for understanding of the passage, answer the Decoding questions, and summarize what has been • Basic Decoding learned. Primary outcome: Students are taught to apply a decoding strategy when they To learn to work in the cooperative encounter an undecodable word (called a group, students are taught the following five “clunk”) during reading. roles that correspond to the strategies: • Fluent Decoding 1. Leader, who says what to read next and Primary outcome: Students practice flu- what strategy to apply next. ent oral reading in the context of their coop- 2. Clunk expert, who uses cards to remind erative groups. the group of the steps. 3. Gist expert, who guides the group to artic- Language Comprehension ulate the gist and then evaluates it. Comprehension processes addressed: 4. Announcer, who calls upon group mem- X Making associations PART II:PART RESOURCES bers to read or share ideas. X Predicting 5. Encourager who gives praise and encour- X Generating questions ages and evaluates discussion. X Generating mental imagery X Clarifying What professional development X Elaborating is required? X Summarizing Rehearsing Beyond the description of CSR provided X Evaluating in this Guide, teachers can refer to Vaughn and Klingner (1999) and Klingner and • Linguistic Knowledge Vaughn (1999). Primary outcome: Students are taught to apply knowledge of roots, prefixes, and How does Collaborative suffixes. Strategic Reading build reading proficiency? • Background Knowledge Primary outcome: Before reading, stu- Primary Outcomes: Basic Decoding, dents brainstorm prior knowledge and predict Fluent Decoding, Linguistic what will be learned. Knowledge, Background Knowledge, Making Inferences, Self-Regulated • Making Inferences Comprehending Primary outcome: After reading a selection of text, students integrate meaning across sentences in order to “get the gist” of what ATI:RESOURCES PART II: was read. The gist expert must articulate that students may perform more than one role at a understanding to the group. time. The mixed ability grouping allows fluent language speakers to scaffold language • Self-Regulated Comprehending learners. Primary outcome: Students are taught to construct their own questions to check for Student Scaffolds understanding. Each cooperative group role Before reading, students preview to pre- requires a student to check the processes used dict what they know about the topic and what by group members. they will learn. During oral reading in small groups, they apply strategies of “declunking” Transaction with Text to decode unknown words and to state suc- Secondary outcome: Students can trans- cinctly the most important ideas. After read- act with the text as they negotiate the meaning, they write out the most important ideas ing with peers during questioning and sum- learned in their learning logs. marizing. Adaptability/Congruence with the How does it support effective Classroom Curriculum reading instruction? CSR is applied in the context of regular classroom instruction. Teachers instruct stu- Materials dents in the steps of the strategy, but the CSR is designed to be used in content- reading materials and structure of the cooper- area textbooks. Students have also applied it ative groups are adapted to the teaching to other expository text such as newspapers context. and magazines. To teach the strategy, the developers recommend using text that inter- How effective is it? ests students and provides sufficient context for vocabulary terms and comprehension. CSR has been well documented in peer- reviewed scholarly publications, primarily in Reading Task Special Education journals. Textbook reading is the reading task students need to be able to do in most content- Rating: Established area classrooms. For transfer to occur, the The following articles describe the proce- strategy should be practiced in the content- dures for implementing CSR: area classroom with regularly assigned classroom text. Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J. K. (1999). Com- prehension through Collaborative Instructional Approach Strategic Reading. Intervention in School The teacher models each of the strategies and Clinic, 34(5), 284–92. through a think-aloud and provides guided and independent practice. Students apply Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Com- four reading strategies while working in prehension, content learning, and mixed ability groups. Group interaction English acquisition through Collabora- strategies must be taught to insure respect for tive Strategic Reading. The Reading and inclusion of all students. Students are Teacher, 52(7), 738–47. taught specific roles. The roles rotate and Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using This study was of 26 seventh and eighth Collaborative Strategic Reading. Teaching grade students whose native language was Exceptional Children, 30(6), 32–37. Spanish and whose English reading comprehension was at least two years below grade These studies report the effectiveness of level. After 27 days of a modified reciprocal CSR implementation: strategy instruction (including either cooperative grouping or cross-age tutoring) students Bryant, D. P., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, made significant gains on a measure of read- S., Ugel, N. & Hougen, M. (in press). ing comprehension. Reading outcomes for students with and without reading disabilities in general Where has it been education middle school content-area implemented? classes. Learning Disabilities Quarterly. CSR was implemented in 2000 as one Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Recip- part of a summer reading program for strug- rocal teaching of reading comprehension gling secondary readers in Austin, Texas. for students with reading disabilities who use English as a second language. The Austin Independent School District Elementary School Journal, 96(3) 275–293). 1111 West Sixth Street Austin, TX 78703-5399 Contact Dr. Marty Hougen PART II:PART RESOURCES ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Dictated Stories /Language Experience Approach (LEA)

Developers R. G. Stauffer (1970) set out the most commonly recognized steps; many variations have been reported. Type of Strategy Teaching strategy Background Students dictate stories, responses, or experiences to a teacher or peer, who writes or word processes the account using the student’s words verbatim. Students then practice reading aloud the transcription, possibly to a partner. Primary Outcomes Transaction, Motivation, Decoding, Fluency Students Struggling elementary, secondary, and second language readers Setting General education classes; Reading classes Support for Culturally and Students have the opportunity to bring to the classroom their Linguistically Diverse Readers interests and experiences from outside of school. Instructional Approach Culturally responsive teaching; inquiry; diagnostic teaching Materials None Cost None Effectiveness Well established

What is it? How does it work? 1. Discussion activities. The teacher initiates a discussion around the major ideas of a Dictated stories, also called the Language text (usually expository) to be read. The Experience Approach, has been effective in teacher guides the class and the strug- developing the skills of new readers ranging gling readers in particular to share their from young children to adults. Students dic- experiences and knowledge. The teacher tate stories, responses, or experiences to a (or a peer) reads a text segment aloud, teacher or peer, who writes or word processes then stops to ask questions for further the account using the student’s words verba- discussion. tim. Students then practice reading aloud the 2. Recording. Student discussion is recorded transcription, possibly to a partner. In reading by the teacher or by a designated student. their own words, students maintain a personal With a tape recorder, it is possible for the connection to reading while building sight discussion of the whole class to be docu- word knowledge and fluency. The dictated mented without disruption. Later the stories can be collected into a personal class discussion, including the words of anthology, to be shared with other students struggling readers, can be transcribed. or family. 3. Follow-up activities. Students review or Perez (2000) presented an adaptation of reflect on the text that was read. Second the approach for supporting reading of sec- language learners may draw a sketch of ond language learners in the content-area their understanding, which they explain classroom. The three steps are as follows: to a group. They may practice reading aloud portions of the transcription of the Language Comprehension discussion. Comprehension processes addressed: X Making associations Other variations of the strategy are possi- Predicting ble. It is one of the few that helps students Generating questions make the connection between spoken print Generating mental imagery and decoding the written word. X Clarifying X Elaborating What professional development Summarizing is required? Rehearsing X Evaluating Teachers will need to review the strategy and plan for instruction with their students. • Linguistic Knowledge Possible outcome: Although students may How do dictated stories build learn components of multisyllabic words that reading proficiency? are in their oral vocabularies, their actual vocabulary knowledge will not be expanded Primary Outcomes: Motivation, Basic by this strategy. Decoding, Fluency, Transaction with Text • Background Knowledge Secondary outcome: With appropriate PART II:PART RESOURCES Motivation questioning by the teacher, students link new Primary outcome: Use of this strategy concepts and understandings with what is allows for student’s “funds of knowledge” (see known, despite lack of full English profi- Moll et al., 1992) to enter the classroom. The ciency. reading task can be perceived as interesting and valuable. • Making Inferences Secondary outcome: By reading their Decoding own words, students can connect making • Basic Decoding inferences in using oral language with making Primary outcome: Student will learn inferences in reading print. Teachers likely sight words and, with teacher or peer guid- will need to help struggling readers see that ance, can be led to see decoding and spelling connection. generalizations when analyzing their own words in print. • Self-Regulated Comprehending Secondary outcome: Students activate • Fluent Decoding their own knowledge prior to reading. Primary outcome: By rereading text that they have constructed, students will experi- Transaction with Text ence successful fluent reading fairly quickly. Primary outcome: Reading a personally dictated story provides a model of transacting with text. Through discussion that elicits stu- ATI:RESOURCES PART II: dent experiences and knowledge, students Student Scaffolds make a personal response to the reading task. Scaffolds include prereading discussion, Readers will need additional support to apply during reading dictation and repeated read- transaction with other text. ing, and postreading reflection.

How does it support effective Adaptability/Congruence with the reading instruction? Classroom Curriculum Dictated stories/LEA is a versatile strat- Materials egy, appropriate for use in most content-area Reading material includes transcription classrooms. of the students own words. When applied in a content-area classroom, the strategy includes How effective is it? the reading of expository text at the student’s instructional level, prompting the discussion Although ﬁrst established with young from which the dictated accounts are taken. children and adult nonreaders, a few reports have documented the effectiveness of this Reading Task strategy with struggling secondary readers. Students choose the personal experiences and knowledge they share. The task of read- Rating: Well established ing one’s own words is inherently authentic. Ashton-Warner, S. (1969). Teacher. New York: Dictated stories can be made into books that Simon & Schuster. In this classic account, share, for example, life histories, friendships, Sylvia Ashton-Warner describes her work and viewpoints. It is an opportunity for the with Maori children whom she was able language and experiences of diverse students to teach by respecting their interests and to be honored in the classroom. culture, Dictated stories was one of her approaches. Instructional Approach The instructional approach will depend Perez, S. A. (2000). Teaching second language on how the strategy is used. Students may learners in the regular classroom. Reading work one-on-one with a teacher, in pairs, or Improvement, 37 (1), 45–8. Perez docu- in a cooperative group. From the student’s ments the effectiveness of several adapta- oral reading and responses to questions, the tions of LEA. teacher can assess for future instruction. The prompt for the dictated stories can be an Stauffer, R. G. (1970). The language experience opportunity for the language and experiences approach to the teaching of reading. New of diverse students to be honored in the class- York: Harper & Row. Stauffer set out room. basic steps for using the approach with new readers. Fluency Strategies

Developers Repeated oral readings for fluency has been advocated by S. J. Samuels (1979). Strategy Type Instructional strategies that become student strategies Background Repeated oral readings of easy text, often modeled by more fluent readers, assists nonfluent readers. Primary outcome Fluency Students Stuggling secondary readers Setting Reading or language arts classroom Support for Culturally and Partner readings have been used successfully in cross-age Linguistically Diverse Readers tutoring with native Spanish speakers. Instructional Approach Diagnostic instruction with modeling and guided practice. May also use cooperative learning. Materials Short, easy to read (independent) reading materials Cost None Effectiveness Well established PART II:PART RESOURCES What is it? How does it work? has been met for words read per minute (speed) or until a certain number of readings Strategies used to enhance reading flu- has been accomplished (accuracy). The crite- ency share common qualities. These are as rion for exceptionally nonfluent readers is 85 follows: words per minute and a half-dozen repeated readings are often required to meet it. As stu- 1. the use of independent level text (text dents develop fluency, a higher criterion of that has few new words for students) or words per minute is established and fewer predictable and patterned text (text that readings are required. has repetitions or patterns as in poetry or song lyrics), Paired Reading 2. modeling by more fluent readers, and In this strategy based on the neurological 3. repeated readings of the text until greater impress method (Heckelman, 1969), a good accuracy and speed are achieved. reader (often a parent) and a less fluent reader read a book aloud together. The good reader The following fluency strategies have slightly leads or follows, depending on the been effective with struggling secondary less fluent reader’s needs and desires. A log is readers: kept.

Repeated Readings Echo Reading and Choral Reading In this strategy advocated by Samuels The teacher reads the text aloud while (1979), readers practice repeated oral read- students listen and read along silently. Dis- ings on the same selection until a criterion cussion may follow. The teacher and students ATI:RESOURCES PART II: read the text together. Then choral or Practice in these types of oral reading, espe- antiphonal choral reading is performed. cially following a more fluent reader, has been Another strategy that has proven success- shown to improve to improve fluency. ful is for the teacher to mark phrase boundaries with highlighters or slashes, thus delin- Language Comprehension eating meaningful chunks or phrases Comprehension processes addressed: (Schreiber, 1980, 1991; Rasinski, 1990). The X Making associations readers then practice with the marked text Predicting and then reread the same text in its unmarked Generating questions version. Students can also be taught to mark Generating mental imagery phrases after initial instruction with teacher- X Clarifying marked text. X Elaborating Benefits from each of these strategies Summarizing include increased fluency, higher accuracy in Rehearsing word recognition, and better comprehension. X Evaluating

What professional development • Linguistic Knowledge is required? Secondary outcome: Students may gain in skill related to morphology and syntax as a Teachers can learn more about how to result of developing more fluent reading. implement fluency strategies from profes- Attending to phrase markings and meaningful sional journals and books. phrasing helps students develop a better sense of syntax. How do fluency strategies build reading proficiency? • Background Knowledge Not addressed. Primary outcome: Fluency • Making Inferences Motivation Not addressed. Possible outcome: Students can be motivated by their success in appropriate materials • Self-Regulated Comprehending and a task at which they are likely to improve. Possible outcome: Students who develop more fluent reading may be able to give more Decoding attention to creating meaning. • Basic Decoding Secondary outcome: Basic decoding has Transaction with Text been shown to improve through the use of Not addressed. fluency strategies, although the primary purpose of these strategies is to develop fluency. How does it support effective reading instruction? • Fluent Decoding Primary outcome: The purpose of Materials repeated reading, paired reading, and echo Materials for building fluency generally and choral reading is to develop fluency. are short passages, narrative or expository, written at a student’s independent reading Rating: Well established level. Heath, S. B., & Mangiola, L. (1991). Children Reading Task of promise: Literate activity in linguistically Passages can be chosen by teacher or stu- and culturally diverse classrooms. Washing- dent. ton, DC: National Education Associa- tion, Center for the Study of Writing and Instructional Approach American Educational Research Associa- Teachers model for students ways of tion. approaching these strategies, as well as how to monitor and chart progress. Once students Heckelman, R. G. (1969). A neurological can do these tasks, they work individually and impress method of remedial-reading in pairs. instruction. Academic Therapy, 4(4), 277–282. Student Scaffolds Fluency strategies provide support during Rasinski, T. V. (1990). The effects of cued phrase reading. boundaries in texts. Bloomington, IN (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Adaptability/Congruence with the No. ED 313 689). Classroom Curriculum Fluency strategies are highly adaptable. Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of Teachers can decide strategy procedures, repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, PART II:PART RESOURCES materials, and grouping appropriate for their 32(4), 403–408. students and classrooms. Schreiber, P. (1980). On the acquisition of How effective is it? reading fluency. Journal of Reading Behav- ior, 12(3), 177–186. The effectiveness of various fluency strategies is well established through research Schreiber, P. (1991). Understanding prosody’s and practice. They have been elaborated and role in reading acquisition. Theory into modified to meet the needs of a variety of stu- Practice, 30(3), 158–164. dents at all ages. Recent research suggests that they can be effective with learning disabled students and ESL students. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Generative Vocabulary Strategies

Developers Possible sentences was described by Moore and Moore (1986). Key- word Strategy was reported by Levin, Levin, Glasman, and Nord- wall (1992). VSS was developed by Martha Rapp Haggard (1982). Strategy Type Student learning strategies Background Students learn to locate, select, and learn words to add to their vocabulary knowledge. Strengths Motivation; Background Knowledge; Self-Regulated Compre- hending Students All secondary readers

Setting General education classes; Reading classes Instructional Approach Modeling, guided practice, independent practice Support for Culturally and Students are encouraged to bring to the classroom words from Linguistically Diverse Readers other cultural contexts. VSS has been effective with second language learners. Materials Access to a variety of print resources Cost None Effectiveness Well established

What is it? How does it work? concepts to be learned and that are ade- quately defined by the context within the These strategies build word awareness upcoming text. They also present several and vocabulary knowledge by requiring stu- related terms from the text that students dents to make a personal construction of should already know. meaning. Teachers may select the words for 2. Students, individually or in groups, are instructional purposes or students may select asked to use at least two of the words to their own words. Three commonly used gen- make possible sentences, ones they think erative vocabulary strategies are Possible Sen- may be in the text. It does not matter at tences, described by Moore and Moore this point if their possible sentences are (1986), Keyword Strategy, reported by Levin, factually or grammatically incorrect. Levin, Glasman, and Nordwall (1992), and 3. Students read and find the targeted Vocabulary Self-Collection Strategy (VSS), vocabulary to verify or correct their pre- developed and researched by Martha Rapp dictions. Haggard (1982). The procedures are 4. Students evaluate their possible sentences described here: for accuracy and amend them to reflect the meaning gained from the text. Possible sentences 5. Students generate new sentences using 1. Teachers list and pronounce 6–8 new the targeted vocabulary and use the text vocabulary words central to the major to defend their choices. Keyword Strategy How does it develop reading This strategy builds on mnemonic proficiency? devices and visual images to define new words. Primary outcomes: Motivation, Linguistic Knowledge, Background 1. Teachers review students on the mean- Knowledge, Self-Regulated ings of new vocabulary words and ask Comprehending them to create personal visual images to help them remember the meaning. Motivation 2. Students create memorable images and Primary outcome: Because each of these discuss them with one another and with strategies involves students in choosing words teachers. and creating ways to learn new words, stu- 3. Words and their images are recorded in a dents invest personal meaning in the process. vocabulary notebook. Decoding Vocabulary Self-Collection Strategy • Basic Decoding (VSS) Possible outcome: Students will be able 1. Students reading a common text each to decode the words they have learned. Pro- select a word they consider important to nouncing and segmenting the words can share with the class. strengthen basic decoding skill. 2. Teacher and students present the words, PART II:PART RESOURCES defining them from context. They may • Fluent Decoding clarify and expand on definitions and a Possible outcome: Increasing the reper- dictionary or thesaurus may be consulted toire of decodable words will benefit fluency. for final clarification. Students also present reasons to support why they believe Language Comprehension their word is important for understanding Comprehension processes addressed: the text. X Making associations 3. Once all words are explored, a final list is X Predicting made of those the group considers to be X Generating questions the most important for understanding. X Generating mental imagery Students record these words in vocabu- X Clarifying lary journals. X Elaborating 4. Follow-up activities ensure that words are X Summarizing learned. Rehearsing X Evaluating What professional development is required? Concept mapping can build comprehension in many ways, depending upon how it is From the information provided here, cer- used. tified teachers can implement these strategies with their students. Others should refer to • Linguistic Knowledge resources provided in the Bibliography of this Primary outcome: Students develop an Guide. awareness of words. In studying words and ATI:RESOURCES PART II: their contexts, students develop semantic as Instructional Approach well as syntactic knowledge. To enable students to use these strategies independently, teachers model and provide • Background Knowledge guided practice in their use. Instruction can Primary outcome: For each generative proceed with the whole class or cooperative strategy students engage their background groups. Students think inductively as they knowledge to determine word meaning from predict, confirm, and elaborate their growing context. They use that knowledge to create vocabulary knowledge. Culturally responsive images and possible sentences as they build teaching can result from student choice and definitions. from the integration of student background knowledge and experiences. • Making Inferences Secondary outcome: Students infer word Student Scaffolds meanings and receive feedback on those Possible sentences and Keyword Strategy inferences. are prereading, during reading, and postreading strategies. VSS is a during and postread- • Self-Regulated Comprehending ing strategy. Primary outcome: These strategies teach students to make predictions about word Adaptability/Congruence with the meanings and to check their understanding. Classroom Curriculum Teachers and students may adapt the Transaction with Text sequence of steps for each strategy to support Possible outcome: Students may be varied purposes. For example, words can be engaged aesthetically while selecting and identified for study or for discussions. Ele- learning new words. ments of each strategy can be integrated into in the other strategies—for example, by creat- How does it support good ing visual images with the VSS journal list. reading instruction? These strategies can support the ESL curriculum. Materials Generative strategies require reading How effective is it? materials from which students are likely to encounter interesting and important words Published reports support the use of each not in their oral vocabulary. of these generative strategies with struggling secondary readersin a variety of contexts, Reading Task including content-area classrooms,ESL class- By choosing words for study and generat- rooms, and inclusion settings. The element of ing their own meanings through reading and choice and the effect of developing associa- talking, students consider their own purposes tional meanings through discussion, predic- for reading. The strategies support transfer tion, context, and further discussion have by developing students’ skill in using context been identified as the strengths of these and by using multiple contexts for word strategies. Blachowicz, Fisher, Costa and learning. Pozzi (1993) and Dole, Sloan, and Trathen (1995) found vocabulary self-selection to be effective in helping students learn and retain Haggard, M. R. (1982). The vocabulary self- new words. Students’ ability to make connec- selection strategy: An active approach to tions between the known and the new as well word learning. Journal of Reading, 26(3), as to elaborate on meaning were enhanced by 634–642. Possible sentences (Stahl & Kapinus, 1991) and the Keyword strategy (Levin, Levin, Glasman, Levin, J. R., Levin, M. E., Glasman, L. D., & & Nordwall, 1992). Nordwall, M. B. (1992). Mnemonic vocabulary instruction: Additional effec- Rating: Well established tiveness evidence. Contemporary Educa- Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Fisher, P. J. L., Costa, tional Psychology, 17(2), 156–174. M., & Pozzi, M. (1993). Researching vocabulary learning in middle school coopera- Moore, D. W., & Moore, S. A. (1986). Possi- tive reading groups: A teacher-researcher col- ble sentences. In E. K. Dishner, T. W. laboration. Paper presented at the Tenth Bean, J. E. Readance, and D. W. Moore Great Lakes Regional Reading Confer- (Eds.). Reading in the content areas: Improv- ence, Chicago. ing classroom instruction (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 174–179. Dole, J. A., Sloan, C., & Trathen, W. (1995). Teaching vocabulary within the Stahl, S. A., & Kapinus, B. A. (1991). Possible context of literature. Journal of Reading, sentences: Predicting word meanings to 38(6), 452–460. teach content area vocabulary. Reading PART II:PART RESOURCES Teacher, 45(1)36–43. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Independent Reading Strategies

Developers L.C. Hunt first described the procedures and purposes for Sustained Silent Reading in 1970. Type of Strategy Student strategy Background Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) and its variations—Uninter- rupted Sustained Silent Reading (USSR) and Drop Everything and Read (DEAR)—provide students with a block of time during the school day, devoted to reading. During SSR time, everyone reads (including the teachers and staff). There are no interruptions, and usually no required assignments or activities related to the reading. Primary outcomes Motivation, Transaction with Text Students All secondary readers Setting General education classes; Reading classes Support for Culturally and If appropriate reading materials are provided, the interests of a Linguistically Diverse Readers diverse group of readers can be satisfied. Instructional Approach A specified period of time is set aside each day for the express purpose of reading. Students and teachers read self-selected books. Materials Selected literature and texts Cost Varies with availability and cost of literature and texts Effectiveness Established

What is it? How does it work? related to the reading are required. The goal of all independent reading Moving students toward independent strategies is to increase students’ abilities to self-sustained reading is the goal of all read- sustain reading for longer periods of time by ing programs. Several strategies have been providing students with time to practice silent developed to assist teachers in meeting this reading. In addition, because teachers and goal with their students. Sustained Silent other adults participate in the required read- Reading (SSR) and its variations, Uninter- ing time, models of good silent reading rupted Sustained Silent Reading (USSR) and behavior are provided. Proponents believe Drop Everything and Read (DEAR) are some that SSR will help student’s value reading of the strategies designed to help students more, become more fluent, and improve their become independent readers. Each of these vocabularies and comprehension. strategies provides students with a block of Little is needed to implement a program silent reading time during the school day. of SSR other than access to a variety of During SSR time, everyone reads (including appealing books and the commitment to allo- the teachers and staff), there are to be no cate time for reading. interruptions, and no follow-up activities What professional development • Fluent Decoding is required? Secondary outcome: Reading regularly and for sustained periods of time can Little professional development is strengthen automaticity of decoding. required. Independent reading time requires access to a variety of appealing books and Language Comprehension teachers who will engage in reading while Comprehension processes addressed: their student read. A knowledge of high- Making associations quality literature for middle and high school X Predicting students would be an advantage for any Generating questions teacher. Generating mental imagery Clarifying How do independent reading Elaborating strategies build reading Summarizing proficiency? Rehearsing X Evaluating Primary outcomes: Motivation, Transaction with Text • Linguistic Knowledge Possible outcome: While linguistic The goals of SSR are to provide students knowledge is not directly addressed, knowl- with time to practice silent reading, to provide edge of the forms and functions of texts can PART II:PART RESOURCES models of good silent reading behavior, and to increase with the reader’s exposure to print. increase students’ abilities to sustain reading for longer periods of time. Proponents believe • Background Knowledge that SSR will help students value reading Not addressed. more, become more fluent, and improve their vocabularies and comprehension. • Making Inferences Not addressed. Motivation Primary outcome: Because students self- • Self-Regulated Comprehending select their reading materials, motivation is Possible outcome: Because texts are self- high. Texts match students’ interest and abil- selected, students are not required to com- ity levels and other than the amount of time plete a reading. As a result, students select devoted to reading, accountability and out- another text when comprehension breaks come measures are minimal. down or ceases to engage. Rather than signal- ing the failure of independent reading, this Decoding occurrence can be an opportunity for the • Basic Decoding reader to be led to see the metacognitive Not addressed. However, because reading processes of the decision. material is self-selected, students tend to select material they are able to decode. As a Transaction with Text result, continued practice at independent and Primary outcome: Independent reading is instructional reading levels can lead to more intended to promote reading for pleasure. accurate decoding. Since this is the intended outcome, students ATI:RESOURCES PART II: would be expected to respond aesthetically to Adaptability/Congruence with the their reading, or they would choose another Classroom Curriculum text when they are no longer satisfied with Independent reading strategies require the reading experience. setting purposes, uninterrupted time to read self-selected books, and follow-up time to How does it support effective sustain reading. Many variations are possible, reading instruction? including shared reading, journaling, and other activities. Independent reading can Materials implemented across the curriculum. As originally designed there are no restrictions placed on the texts students How effective is it? select. Students select their own materials. In some contexts, schools or teachers ask stu- Research on the effectiveness of SSR is dents to select within a preselected range of extensive but the results are mixed. In some texts. studies, teachers and schools changed basic procedures. Results from studies on special Reading Task populations (struggling readers and ESL stu- Students choose materials according to dents) indicate some modifications in SSR their interest, abilities, and purposes for read- may prove helpful. These include carefully ing. Transfer of interest, value of reading, and matching students with materials and imple- skills developed through extensive reading are menting shared readings and discussions intended to have transfer to all reading tasks. (Allington, 1975; Pilgreen & Krashen, 1993).

Instructional Approach Rating: Established Beyond setting the purpose for reading, Allington, R. (1975). Sustained approaches to maintaining focus and modeling sustained reading and writing. Language Arts, 53(6), silent reading, teachers do not provide direct 813-815. instruction in the reading skills and strategies. The goals of SSR are to provide students with Holt, S. B., & O’Tuel, F. S. (1989). The effect time to practice silent reading, to provide of Sustained Silent Reading and Writing models of good silent reading behavior, and on achievement and attitudes of seventh to increase students’ abilities to sustain read- and eighth grade students reading two ing for longer periods of time. years below grade level. Reading Improve- ment, 26(4), 290–297. Student Scaffolds This study reports significant improve- Because students self-select material, the ments in reading achievement and attitude level of difficulty of the text should be such among seventh and eighth grade students that little, if any, scaffolding is necessary. The reading two years below grade level after a more engaged students are in reading materi- 10-week program of SSR. als at independent and instructional levels, the more likely they are to support them- Hunt, L. C.(1971). Six steps to the individu- selves as they read. alized reading program (IRP). Elementary English, 48(1), 27–32. Hunt first set out the rationale and steps its implications for reading instruction. for SSR. http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/ nrp/smallbook.htm Nagy, N M., Campenni, C. E., & Shaw, J. N. The National Reading Panel reported a (2000). A survey of Sustained Silent lack of positive relationship between SSR- Reading practices in seventh-grade class- type programs and improvements in reading rooms. http://readingonline.org achievement in the studies it reviewed. In this survey of 96 seventh grade Penn- sylvania teachers, 67% reported that SSR was Pilgreen, J., & Krashen, S. (1993). Sustained in use at their schools. Frequent departures Silent Reading with English as a Second from the original SSR design included: lack Language high school students: Impact of teacher modeling, exclusion of low-level on reading comprehension, reading fre- readers, and lack of student choice in reading quency, and reading enjoyment. School material. Library Media Quarterly, Fall, 21–23.

In this study, high school ESL students National Institute of Child Health and indicated positive gains on comprehension Human Development (2000). Report of the tests as well as frequency and enjoyment of National Reading Panel. Teaching Children reading after a 16-week period of SSR. to Read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientiﬁc research literature on reading and PART II:PART RESOURCES ATI:RESOURCES PART II: K-W-L-Plus Strategy

Developers Eileen Carr and Donna Ogle (1987) Strategy Type Instructional strategy that becomes a learning strategy Background Extends Ogle’s (1986) K-W-L strategy to secondary readers. The questions What do I know? (K), What do I want to know? (W), and What did I learn? (L) are supported with summarizing and mapping. Primary outcomes Making Inferences; Self-Regulated Comprehending Students All secondary readers Setting General education classes; Reading classes Support for Culturally and The strategy helps teachers to elicit knowledge and Linguistically Diverse Readers understandings from culturally and linguistically diverse students. It is recommended for second language learners. Instructional Approach Teacher-led, inductive instruction with cooperative grouping Materials Teacher-selected expository texts Cost None Effectiveness Established

What is it? How does it work? content and how it is structured. It also helps the teacher assess students’ level of prior In K-W-L-Plus, students access prior knowledge. knowledge and interest before reading, monitor understanding during reading, and reﬂect Step W—What do I want to learn? after reading through listing, mapping, and The teacher elicits student questions summarizing what was learned. stemming from their interests and curiosities or from unanswered questions about the con- Step K—What do I know? cept. These are listed on the strategy sheet Before students read, the teacher writes a under a column labeled “W—What do I want concept (from what will be read) on the board to learn?” Students read sections of the pas- or transparency and poses the “Know” ques- sage individually (broken into manageable tion. As the class brainstorms, the responses segments—one or two paragraphs for weak are listed on a strategy sheet beginning with a readers) and check for answers to the ques- column labeled “K—What we know.“ After- tions. As they are reading, additional ques- ward students and teacher categorize this tions might be added to this column and brainstormed list into information they pre- answered as a group. dict will be in the text. The teacher can model the categorization activities or prime Step L1—What did I learn? students with suggested categories. This Both during and after reading, students process helps students become aware of the write what they learned in a third column “L—What I learned” and check the questions How does KWL-Plus develop that were unanswered. build proﬁciency?

Step L2—Mapping. Primary outcomes: Background Students refer to the K step to categorize knowledge, Making Inferences, what they learned. Students select and relate Self-Regulated Comprehending important information by using the title of the passage as the center of the map and the Motivation categories as the major branches with the Secondary outcome: Carr and Ogle explanatory concepts detailed under these (1987) claim students will choose to use this major branches. Students refer to the map to technique because they convince themselves create exam or study questions. that they comprehend better. Although no evidence has been published, Ogle (1986) Step L3—Summarizing. argues that students remember what they Students number the concepts on the have looked for and become more actively map based on the order of points they choose involved after using K-W-L. to make in their summary. They write summaries using the numbers, adding enough Decoding details to explain each concept. The sum- • Basic Decoding maries become a useful summative evaluation Not addressed. for the teacher and student as they evaluate PART II:PART RESOURCES their comprehending. After several K-W-L- • Fluent Decoding Plus activities, students are encouraged to use Not addressed. it as an independent learning strategy. Language Comprehension Variations on the theme of K-W-L- Comprehension processes addressed: Plus X Making associations Huffman (1998) combined KWL with X Predicting the ﬁve “W” questions (Who? What? X Generating questions Where? When? and Why?). Mandeville X Generating mental imagery (1994) advocated adding an additional col- X Clarifying umn allowing students to assign relevance X Elaborating and personal value to what is being learned. X Summarizing Rehearsing What professional development X Evaluating is required? • Linguistic Knowledge Certiﬁed teachers can implement the Possible outcome: While linguistic strategy from the descriptive overview pro- knowledge is not the primary aim of K-W-L- vided here. Others should refer to resources Plus, concept development is a possible result provided current content reading textbooks. of this strategy. Students become aware of the Although strategy is learned in less than half a content and how it is structured. day, expertise is attained through practice and, ideally, the feedback of colleagues. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: • Background Knowledge columns representing the prereading(K), Primary outcome: The activation and perireading (W), and postreading (L) steps. building of background knowledge is a pri- Students read teacher-selected instructional mary aim of this teaching strategy. Done as a or independent expository text. large group activity, students with weaker knowledge can build their understanding Reading Task before reading through the K step. Students As the reading task is decided by the learn the value of predicting and generating teacher, K-W-L-Plus can accommodate questions before reading. The L steps are authentic purposes and student choice. Trans- directly focused at documenting for students fer is supported when several teachers in a how much they have learned and added to school use the strategy and provide opportu- their background knowledge. nities for students to apply it independently.

• Making Inferences Instructional Approach Primary outcome: Incorporating map- The teacher leads the students through ping and summarizing in this adaptation of inductive thinking processes. During the K K-W-L-Plus can improve students ability to step, students categorize the brainstormed make associations, clarify understanding, concepts to help them infer connections. elaborate on what was learned, and evaluate During the L step, students create a map of for both the teacher and the student their the concepts and then summarize what they level of comprehension. learned, a process that fosters retention. The instruction can be supported by cooperative • Self-Regulated Comprehending groups. Primary outcome: The strategy provides a model for activating background knowledge Student Scaffolds and self-questioning at each stage of the read- Students access prior knowledge and ing process. Students check their understand- interest before reading, monitor understanding with the text and with understanding of ing during reading, and reflect after reading others. through listing, mapping, and summarizing what was learned. Support scaffolds include Transaction with Text the teacher and peers. Secondary outcome: Mandeville (1994) argues that with an additional column labeled Adaptability/Congruence with the “A,” students can generate an affective Classroom Curriculum response concerning the relevance and The steps are designed to be followed personal value to them of the text they are sequentially, but teachers can make adapta- reading. tions appropriate for their students. How students use the strategy for study reading will How does it support effective also vary. K-W-L-Plus can be applied across reading instruction? the curriculum with a variety of reading tasks and materials. Materials Carr and Ogle (1987) encourage the use of a “strategy sheet” consisting of three How effective is it? Mandeville, T. F. (1994). KWLA: Linking the affective and cognitive domains. Reading Ogle’s original K-W-L strategy is popular Teacher, 47(8), 679–680. and widely accepted, although the research to support its effectiveness has been limited. Manzone, C. A. (1989). Six strategies for teach- McLain (1993) found no differences in reading reading comprehension to learning dis- ing achievement for KWL with third and abled students. (ERIC Document Repro- fifth graders. Stone and Miller (1991) docu- duction No. ED 311 667). mented growth among struggling college readers when K-W-L served as the basis for a McLain, K. V. M. (1993). Effects of two compre- college reading course. Students saw the hension monitoring strategies on the metacog- strategy modeled, practiced the strategy in nitive awareness and reading achievement of groups, and applied it independently in a third and fifth grade students. (ERIC Docu- corequisite course. Significant differences ment Reproduction No. ED 364 840). were found on pre- and post-comprehension tests, grades in the corequisite courses, short- Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching term retention rates, and interviews of confi- model that develops active reading of dence in the use of active reading strategies. expository text. Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570. Rating: Established Carr, E., & Ogle, D. (1987). K-W-L-Plus: A Shelley, A. C., & Others, A. (1997). Revisit- PART II:PART RESOURCES strategy for comprehension and summa- ing the K-W-L: What we knew; what we rization. Journal of Reading, 30(7), wanted to know; what we learned. Read- 626–631. ing Horizons, 37(3), 233–242.

Bryan, J. (1998). K-W-W-L: Questioning the Stone, N., & Miller, K. (1991). Developmen- known. Reading Teacher, 51(7), 618–620. tal college reading: Secrets of our success. Research and Teaching in Developmental Cantrell, R. J. (1997). K-W-L learning jour- Education, 7(2), 27–42. nals: A way to encourage reﬂection. Jour- nal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40(5), Tannenbaum, J. E. (1996). Practical ideas on 392–393. alternative assessment for ESL students: ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Repro- Huffman, L. E. (1998). Spotlighting speciﬁcs duction No. ED 395 500). by combining focus questions with K-W- L. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Weissman, K. E. (1996). Using paragraph 41(6), 470–472. frames to complete a K-W-L. Reading Teacher, 50(3), 271–272. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Literature-Based Reading Instruction

Developers Various researchers and educators have promoted this approach. Strategy Type Classroom instruction model Background Literacy instruction based on trade books appropriate for the students’ age and interests. Primary outcomes Motivation, Background Knowledge, Transaction with Text Students All secondary readers Setting General education classes; Reading classes Support for Culturally and Teachers or students can select literature reﬂective of students’ Linguistically Diverse Readers culture and language, allowing for diverse backgrounds to be engaged, voiced, and respected. Instructional Approach Cooperative learning; Inquiry Materials Selected high-quality children’s, young adult, or adult literature Cost Varies with availability and costs of literature Effectiveness Promising

What is it? How does it work? conversations about texts and a reference point for comparing and contrasting books In the last few decades, many secondary and stories. Trade book selection should con- reading programs have been developed sider student interest, but without some stu- around the use of authentic published litera- dent choice in the process, this advantage can ture, a practice traditionally limited to the be lost. To scaffold struggling readers, teach- English classroom. Although the application ers using a core book strategy present the of literature-based reading instruction varies books in a variety of ways (for example, read- by teacher, the common element is children’s, alouds, audiotaped versions, and partner young adult, or adult literature as the basis reading). for literacy instruction. These trade book (as opposed to textbook) programs may be orga- Text Sets nized in a variety of ways to scaffold strug- Text sets are simply trade books that are gling readers. Three popular models are core all related in some way. For example, the literature, text sets, and thematic units (Gun- teacher or students may choose to read sev- ning, 1999). eral books by the same author, several books about one point in history, or one genre, such Core Literature Programs as diaries or memoirs. As with a set of core A core literature program includes a vari- books, if students are reading book within the ety of trade books selected by the district or same set, even if they are not all reading the teacher to be used for intensive reading. The exact same book, they have a common books, read by the whole class or by groups, ground for discussion. Text sets allow for the give students a common ground for building teacher to differentiate the instruction, so that struggling readers have books at their monitor progress by asking students to read independent reading levels. aloud. Decoding may improve as a result of sustained reading practice in appropriately Thematic Units selected materials. A unit that organizes instruction around a central theme can help struggling readers to • Fluent Decoding build background knowledge and to connect Secondary outcome: Fluency may their understanding to such other contexts as improve as a result of sustained reading classes, work, and home. Thematic units may practice. draw from a text set or a core set of trade books and be orchestrated with other class- Language Comprehension room teachers. Comprehension processes addressed: X Making associations What professional development X Predicting is required? X Generating questions X Generating mental imagery Teachers should begin by learning the X Clarifying range of literature and genres that apply to X Elaborating their content area. General professional X Summarizing development in literature-based reading Rehearsing instruction is offered at most universities and X Evaluating PART II:PART RESOURCES through private consultants. Important readings include Atwell (1998) and Keene and • Linguistic Knowledge Zimmermann (1997). Not addressed.

How does literature-based • Background Knowledge reading build reading Primary outcome: Thematic organiza- proﬁciency? tions of texts help students to form hierarchi- cal conceptual understandings. The discus- Primary outcomes: Motivation, sions and compositions in response to Background Knowledge, Transaction literature can strengthen their ability to build with Text knowledge through reading.

Motivation • Making Inferences Primary outcome: Materials in the litera- Secondary outcome: As students discuss ture-based classroom are selected for student and write about text, they can integrate back- interest. Support for making personal con- ground knowledge with information in the nections with high-interest materials can text to make inferences and form questions to strengthen student motivation to persist in clarify and summarize ideas drawn from text. reading. • Self-Regulated Comprehension Decoding Secondary outcome: Students make pre- • Basic Decoding dictions and then monitor their reading to Not addressed. Teachers may wish to validate or discard those predictions. Students ATI:RESOURCES PART II: continually check what they understand with Adaptability/Congruence with the the understandings of others. Classroom Curriculum There are many published reports of Transaction with Text adaptations of this approach. The literature- Primary outcome: Readers are led to take based classroom organization can be adapted an aesthetic stance toward the text. across the curriculum, orchestrated with other instructional models. How does it support effective reading instruction? How effective is it?

Materials Numerous published reports share the Teachers or students select from a set of successes of literature-based instruction in texts that teachers or administrators have secondary classrooms, some with struggling determined to be quality literature, appropri- secondary readers. There has been limited ate for student interest and ability. The mate- research. rials (usually trade books) can be either narrative or expository. Rating: Promising Applebee, A. N. (1993). Literature in the sec- Reading Task ondary school: Studies of curriculum and Often the goal of the reading task is to instruction in the United States. Urbana, have conversations about literature and to IL: National Council of Teachers of validate each reader’s unique responses to it. English. Students may self-select the literature or the This book reports on four related studies teacher may make assignments. Thematic of literature instruction in middle and high units and authentic materials help students to schools. The studies included case studies of transfer their reading skills to other settings. schools as well as analyses of the literature used in classrooms. Findings suggest that lit- Instructional Approach erature-based programs can be successful The literature-based classroom utilizes with a wide range of students, although many such cooperative learning strategies as litera- factors, including class size and outdated skills ture circles. Students respond inductively to of teachers, characterize less successful pro- the readings. The selection of materials and grams. Applebee calls for a more detailed strategies appropriate to students enables cul- framework for teachers in the area of litera- turally responsive teaching. ture-based instruction. Student Scaffolds Teachers provide the purpose for reading Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New under- prior to reading the text. During reading, stu- standings about writing, reading, and learn- dents monitor their success in achieving the ing. 2nd ed. Portsmouth, NH: stated purpose. After reading, through discus- Boyton/Cook Heinemann. sion and composition, students clarify their shared and unique understandings of texts. Bertrand, J. E., & Stice, C. F. (1995) (Eds.). Langer, J. A. (1994). A Response-Based Empowering Children at Risk of School Fail- Approach to Reading Literature. Report ure: A Better Way. Norwood, MA: Series 6.7. (ERIC Document Reproduc- Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc. tion Service ED366 946).

Teachers share how they have used litera- In a six-year study, Langer found that ture-based reading programs in diverse ele- “even the most at-risk” secondary readers mentary and secondary settings, including were able to engage in thoughtful discussion inner city and rural, and with diverse popula- about literature and develop deep under- tions, including second language learners and standings. students with learning disabilities.

McGowan, M. J., & Powell, J. H. (1996). An Gunning, T.G. (1999). Creating literacy annotated bibliography of resources for instruction for all children (3rd ed.). Allyn literature-based instruction. Social Educa- & Bacon. tion, 60(4) 231–32

Keene, E.O. & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a Reader’s Workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. PART II:PART RESOURCES ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Reader Response Strategies

Developers The work of Louise Rosenblatt (1938/1983, 1978) helped to establish this approach. James Squire (1963) set out a framework for content analysis of reader responses. Strategy Type Instructional strategy that becomes a student strategy Background These unique strategies focus on developing transaction with text. Students are guided in connecting their own emotions and experiences during reading. Primary outcomes Motivation, Background Knowledge, Transaction with Text Students All secondary readers Setting General education classes; Reading classes Support for Culturally and These strategies can be uniquely powerful in eliciting student Linguistically Diverse Readers response from multicultural perspectives. Instructional Approach Cooperative learning; inquiry; culturally responsive teaching Materials Selected high-quality children’s, young adult, or adult literature Cost Varies with availability and costs of literature Effectiveness Established

What is it? How does it work? ers and elaborate on them, comparing their response with responses of others. Unique responses to literature have been 3. Students revise their original responses, examined and considered since the 1920s, adding a rationale or an explanation. culminating in the work of Louise Rosen- blatt. In 1938 and again in 1978, Rosenblatt The Response Heuristic (Bleich, 1978) asks drew attention to the unique and legitimate students to provide three written responses to contributions of the reader to text under- a text. standing. These contributions can be elicited through instructional strategies in the context 1. In “text perception,” the reader composes of a literature-based classroom. Four strate- a brief summary statement about the con- gies that have been successful with struggling tent. secondary readers are described here. 2. The reader reacts to the text. The Point, Counterpoint response strategy 3. The reader provides “associations with (Rogers, 1987, 1990, 1991) encourages multi- the text,” which are personal connections ple interpretations of complex stories. It con- that are elaborated upon with their own sists of three stages. prior knowledge and beliefs.

1. Students read the story, jotting down The Sketch to Stretch activity (Harste, responses that come to mind. Short, & Burke, 1988) asks students to gener- 2. In small groups or with the whole class, ate sketches reﬂective of their interpretations students discuss their responses with oth- of a text. Students share these sketches in small groups while peers offer interpretations. • Fluent Decoding Once group members have suggested an Not addressed. interpretation, the artist presents his or her interpretation. This activity continues until Language Comprehension everyone has presented his or her work. Comprehension processes addressed: Readers’ theater focuses on oral reading X Making associations and interpretation as well as composition and X Predicting comprehension (Post, 1974; Young & Vardell, X Generating questions 1993). Readers select favorite literature from X Generating mental imagery which they develop and perform scripts. To X Clarifying prepare, students may practice reading lines X Elaborating as a group. Teachers can allow the use of sim- X Summarizing ple props and encourage a theatrical perfor- Rehearsing mance. Or students can be asked to let the X Evaluating words alone convey the meaning. Following the performance, students and audience dis- • Linguistic Knowledge cuss the performance. Revision may follow. Not addressed.

What professional development • Background Knowledge is required? Secondary outcome: Readers are led to connect what they know to the understanding PART II:PART RESOURCES Teachers should pursue a study of this of the text. approach to text and look for additional strategies to support their instruction. • Making Inferences Primary outcome: The strategies both How do reader response model and elicit the construction of meaning strategies build reading across the elements of text. proﬁciency? • Self-Regulated Comprehension. Primary outcomes: Motivation, Primary outcome: As readers compare Making Inferences, Transaction their responses to others, they evaluate their with Text understanding. They may reconsider and revise their responses. Motivation Primary outcome: Reader response Transaction with Text strategies focus on the engagement of per- Primary outcome: In discussing texts, stu- sonal knowledge, emotion, and experience. dents come to understand that one text can Reading that is meaningful and relevant can hold multiple meanings, depending upon motivate students to persist in reading tasks background knowledge and experience, and to gain a sense of themselves as readers. Response strategies provide models for affective engagement. Decoding • Basic Decoding Not addressed. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: How does it support effective Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the reading instruction? poem. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Materials In this work, Rosenblatt set out her trans- Almost any text can be used, depending actional theory of reader response to literary on the reading task. works. She explicated two stances that the Reading Task reader can adopt: the aesthetic and the efferent. The reading task can be structured by the teacher or by the students. Student selection of authentic materials and the connections Squire, J. (1963). The response of adolescents to made to student lives will foster strategy four short stories. Urbana, IL: National transfer. Council of Teachers of English.

Instructional Approach Squire, J. (1994). Research in reader Teachers may move beyond the examples response, naturally interdisciplinary. In R. provided here. These strategies emphasize Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), each student’s unique response to literature. Theoretical models and processes of reading Appropriate materials and strategies enable (pp. 637–652). Newark, DE: Interna- culturally responsive teaching. tional Reading Association.

Student Scaffolds The following published reports explicate Student response is solicited before, dur- selected reader response strategies. ing, and after reading. Bleich, D. (1978). Subjective criticism. Balti- Adaptability/Congruence with the more: Johns Hopkins University Press. Classroom Curriculum Bleich explicates the Response Heuristic Reader response can be applied to stu- strategy. dent reading tasks in almost any classroom context. Teachers should adapt the strategies Harste, J., Short, C., & Burke, C. (1988). Cre- for their own instructional goals and students. ating classrooms for authors. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. How effective is it? Rogers, T. (1990-91). A point counterpoint Rosenblatt‘s work on reader response response strategy for complex short sto- theory and Squire’s work on applying it are ries. The Journal of Reading, 34(4) , reported below. 278–282. Rogers explicates the point counterpoint response strategy. Rating: Established Rosenblatt, L. (1938/1983). Literature as The research on reader response has exploration (4th ed.). NY: Modern been primarily qualitative. The following Language Association. reports represent the work with secondary readers: Ollmann, H. E. (1996). Creating higher level Rogers, T. (1991). Students as literary critics: thinking with reading response. Journal of The interpretive experiences, beliefs, and Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39(7), 576–81. processes of ninth-grade students. Journal Ollmann documented how seventh of Reading Behavior, 23(4), 391–423. graders using reading response strategies improved the quality of thinking in Rogers, T., Green, J., & Nussbaum, N. responding to young adult novels. (1990). Asking questions about questions. In S. Hynds and D. Rubin (Eds.), Perspec- Post, R. M. (1974). Readers theater as a tives on talk and learning. Urbana, IL: method of teaching literature. English National Council of Teachers of English. Journal, 64(6), 69–72. Young, T. A., & Vardell, S. (1993). Weaving Rogers, T. (1987). Exploring a socio-cogni- readers theater and nonﬁction into the tive perspective the interpretive processes curriculum. Reading Teacher, 46(5), of junior high school students. English 396–406. Quarterly 20(3), 218–230. Young and Vardell described how readers’ In this study, Rogers found that certain theater could assist students in exploring a characteristics of a question-and-answer dis- variety of subject areas. cussion format may inhibit students’ interpretive responses. A response-centered discus-

PART II:PART RESOURCES sion format may be more effective with struggling readers. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Reading Guide Strategy

Developers R. Earle described guides for reading in mathematics in 1969. In 1970, H. Herber described three-level guides for general content reading. Strategy Type Teaching strategy Overview Students respond to a written guide of teacher-created prompts as they read assigned text. The prompts elicit literal, interpretive, and applied levels of comprehension. Primary outcomes Background Knowledge, Making Inferences, Self-Regulated Comprehending Students All secondary readers Setting General education and Reading classes Support for Culturally and Teachers construct guides appropriate for the reading task and Linguistically Diverse Readers their students’ background knowledge. As a result, effective guides will meet the needs of a diverse group of readers. Instructional Approach Explicit strategy instruction through modeling, guided practice, and support from peers. Responsibility for learning is gradually shifted from teacher to student. Materials Teacher-selected, content-appropriate expository or narrative text, including textbooks and trade books. Cost Price and availability of reading materials will vary. Effectiveness Established

What is it? How does it work? Teachers develop guides based on the instructional purposes for reading as well as the Reading guides are adjunct aids that guide needs and knowledge their students bring to readers through texts. These guides are the text. A guide helps students to focus on designed to promote such comprehension critical information both within and beyond abilities as recognizing ideas literally stated in the text. Regardless of the type of guide, all texts, synthesizing ideas that must be inferred will include statements and questions that from text, applying ideas from texts in other help students establish a purpose for reading contexts, recognizing major and supporting and then assist students as they monitor their ideas in texts and determining its structure. reading toward the achievement of that Although there are many ways to guide read- purpose. ers through texts, the most often described in Reading guides initially require the the professional literature are three-level teacher to model and guide students through guides, question-answer-response guides texts. Teachers continue guidance on subse- (QARs), pattern guides, concept guides, and quent reading guides by overseeing small selective reading guides or reading road maps. groups or pairs of students. Finally students Reading guides are teacher-created. complete guides independently. What professional development Language Comprehension is required? Comprehension processes addressed:

Teachers who have had some college X Making associations preparation in the area of literacy develop- Predicting ment can implement this strategy after Generating questions studying related sources shown by asterisks in X Generating mental imagery the Bibliography section beginning on page X Clarifying 136. X Elaborating X Summarizing How do reading guides build Rehearsing reading proﬁciency? X Evaluating

Primary outcomes: Background • Linguistic knowledge Knowledge, Making Inferences, Possible outcome: Students can acquire Self-Regulated Comprehending. linguistic knowledge if the reading guide focuses attention to it. For example, questions Reading guides assist students in estab- may direct students to word meaning or text lishing a clear purpose for reading and using structure. their background knowledge prior to reading. As a result, they are able to construct mean- • Background knowledge PART II:PART RESOURCES ing from text and make applications beyond Primary outcome: The primary purpose the text. of guides is to activate and build readers’ background knowledge such that they are Motivation more successful at constructing meaning Possible outcome: The support provided from a variety of texts. to students during reading, through questions and guided peer interaction, enables them to • Making Inferences persist in the reading task. Primary outcome: Guides can be designed to focus on ideas contained within a Decoding text that must be inferred. Because the stu- • Basic Decoding dent initially works with the whole class and Not addressed. then in small groups, a variety of inferences are drawn based on what experiences the • Fluent Decoding readers bring to the text. Possible outcome: Although not addressed directly, ﬂuency may improve as • Self-Regulated Comprehending a result of sustained, purposeful reading Primary outcome: Guides are designed to practice. assist students in monitoring their comprehension of texts. Students use these guides as a way to establish a purpose for reading and then evaluate information in the text to determine if it meets their purpose for reading. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Through this primary focus on purpose, stu- such as reading to determine major and sup- dents vary their reading strategies (for exam- porting ideas, or to determine text structure. ple, rereading for clariﬁcation, skimming Students work in small groups or pairs and texts, mentally summarizing ideas found in eventually independently. As they gain com- texts) thus regulating their comprehension. In petence in constructing meaning from a vari- addition, teachers model expertise in compre- ety of texts, the teacher reduces feedback and hending texts at multiple levels. instruction. Students move toward internalizing thinking with, through, and beyond texts Transaction with Text until the reading guides are no longer Secondary outcome: The Reading Guide needed. questions can help students to engage personal experiences and reactions as they con- Student Scaffolds struct meaning during reading. The degree of While reading guides may contain pre- transaction will depend upon the quality of reading and postreading questions, they are the questions asked. intended to be during-reading guides. The questions or statements guide and support How does it support effective students as they read. The teacher scaffolds reading instruction? students by modeling and guiding them through their use of the guides and monitors Materials their successes and corrects content as well as The teacher selects content-appropriate process misconceptions. As students gain expository or narrative text, including text- expertise, they provide support for one books and trade books. another.

Reading Task Adaptability/Congruence with the Due to the many variations of reading Classroom Curriculum guides and subsequent tasks linked to the Although Reading Guides are based on guides, teachers can offer authentic, purpose- asking questions to elicit literal, interpretive, ful reading experiences to their students. and applied levels of comprehension, teachers Teachers may choose to create questions or can be liberal in making adaptations. Guides statements that guide students to think can be applied across the curriculum to a through and beyond text to real-life applica- variety of reading tasks and materials. tion. Transfer is also fostered through a variety of questions and tasks and through a How effective is it? gradual release of control of the task of comprehending from the teacher to the students. Research into the success of reading guides has been conducted in mathematics, Instructional Approach social studies, and science classrooms where Reading guides provide for a gradual teachers used reading guides as an adjunct to release of responsibility from teacher to stu- their content-area instruction. Results indi- dent. They are introduced to students though cate significant improvements in developing teacher modeling. Students use the guides to general reading comprehension and in gain- practice reading for a variety of purposes, ing specific content knowledge (Berget, 1977; Riley, 1979; Maxon, 1979; Estes, 1973). Hor- ron (Eds.), Research in reading in the con- ton & Lovitt (1989) studied the effectiveness tent areas: Second year report. Syracuse, of reading guides with regular, remedial, and NY: Reading and Language Arts Center, learning disabled students in science and Syracuse University. social studies classes at the middle and high school levels. In all cases (types of students, Herber, H. L. (1970). Teaching reading in con- subject areas, and levels) these researchers tent areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren- documented significant gains among students tice-Hall. who used teacher-created reading guides over self-study. Despite little recent research on Horton, S. V., & Lovitt, T. C. (1989). Using reading guides, applications are widely study guides with three classifications of described in the professional literature, espe- secondary students. The Journal of Special cially when orchestrated with other strategies. Education, 22(4), 447–462.

Rating: Established Maxon, G. A. (1979). An investigation of the Berget, E. (1977). The use of organizational relative effect between questions and pattern guides, structured overviews, and declarative statements as guides to read- visual summaries in guiding social studies ing comprehension for seventh grade stu- reading. In H. L. Herber & R. T. Vacca dents. In H. L. Herber and J. D. Riley (Eds.), Research in reading in the content (Eds.), Research in reading in the content areas. The third report. Syracuse, NY: areas: Fourth report. Syracuse, NY: Read- PART II:PART RESOURCES Syracuse University, Reading and Lan- ing and Language Arts Center, Syracuse guage Arts Center. University.

Earle, R.A. (1969). Developing and using Riley, J. D. (1979). The effect of reading study guides. In H. L. Herber and P. L. guides upon students’ literal, interpretive, Sanders (Eds.), Research in reading in the and applied level comprehension of word content areas: First year report. Syracuse, problems. In H. L. Herber and J. D. NY: Reading and Language Arts Center, Riley (Eds.), Research in Reading in the Syracuse University. Content Areas: Fourth Report. Syracuse, NY: Reading and Language Arts Center, Estes, T. H. (1973). Guiding reading in social Syracuse University. studies. In H. L. Herber and R .F. Bar- ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Reading Workshop Approach

Developers Nancie Atwell (1987, 1998); S. McMahom & Taffy Raphael (1997) Strategy Type Teaching strategies Background Reading Workshop was introduced by Nancie Atwell as she described the reading and writing that occurred in her middle school classroom (Atwell, 1987). Her stories told how language abilities of all students grew when they were provided opportunities to think about, talk about, and write about self-selected texts. Primary outcomes Transaction with Text; Motivation; Making Inferences; Self-Reg- ulated Comprehending Students All secondary readers Setting General education classes; Reading classes Support for Culturally and The teacher can provide culturally relevant reading materials and Linguistically Diverse Readers guide discussions through appropriate questioning. Instructional Approach Deﬁnitions vary, but all programs include some student choice of reading material and time for students to read and respond to what they have read, usually through small group discussion. Materials Selected literature Cost Varies with availability and cost of literature Effectiveness Established

What is it? How does it work? ing Atwell’s and others’ reading workshops, “book talk” was constant and occurred in Using a constructivist approach to learn- multiple ways. ing, Atwell created a classroom where talk In this Reading Workshop approach, the about books resembled the talk that occurred teacher served as an expert guide to reading at her own dining room table. In this middle and writing. Teachers read and wrote along- school English language arts classroom, all side their students, thus modeling literary dis- students were invited to read and discuss their cussions and responses to reading. responses to texts (Atwell, 1998). In recent years, the number of profes- At the heart of Atwell’s reading workshop sional books devoted to students’ talk about were three tenets. First, students were pro- books has grown (Roser, Strecker & Mar- vided time to read. Second, students gained tinez, 2000). Response to books has also ownership over texts by selecting what they grown and changed. Students talk in litera- read. Finally, students responded to the texts ture circles, book clubs, and literature discus- they read in a variety of ways. Students were sion groups. When students participate in lit- required to engage in reading primarily nar- erature circles, students read independently rative texts and were not allowed to disturb and “think collaboratively” (Smith, 1990).. others. Atwell insisted that her students make The primary goal of these circles is to up the required reading time if absent. Dur- encourage students to become critical thinkers. Book clubs differ slightly in that a Decoding small group of three to five students meet to • Basic Decoding discuss one particular book. During their Not addressed. conversations they actively clarify confusing parts of the text, make connections to other • Fluent Decoding texts or personal experiences, and discuss the Secondary outcome: Fluency may author’s craft and intent (McMahom & improve as the result of substantial time spent Raphael, 1997). Literature discussion groups reading. rely on open-ended discussions in small self- selected groups. Teachers assist in guiding Language Comprehension students toward insights or interpretations Comprehension processes addressed: particularly suited to the text (Eeds and X Making associations Peterson, 1991). The approach helps students X Predicting develop their identities as readers and writers. X Generating questions X Generating mental imagery What professional development X Clarifying is required? X Elaborating X Summarizing Certified, experienced teachers who are X Rehearsing comfortable with a variety of student-cen- X Evaluating tered instructional strategies can implement PART II:PART RESOURCES Reading Workshop. Teachers will need about • Linguistic Knowledge 3–6 days of independent preparation time Possible outcome: Knowledge of the prior to implementation. forms and functions of language increase as students encounter substantial amounts of How does Reading Workshop text. build reading proficiency? • Background Knowledge Primary outcome: Transaction with Secondary outcome: The reading work- Text, Motivation, Background shop approach supports students’ use of back- knowledge, Making Inferences, ground knowledge. As students discuss texts, Self-Regulated Comprehending logical connections are made to their own life experiences. Motivation Primary outcome: Students have a voice • Making Inferences in selecting the texts for reading. Texts match Primary outcome: As students discuss students’ interest and ability levels whenever their responses to texts, they use inferencing possible. Students read and write about topics skills to clarify and summarize ideas drawn of their own choice and are encouraged to from text. pursue their own interests. Peer collaboration and sharing establishes a motivating social • Self-Regulated Comprehending environment. Primary outcome: While explicit instruction in self-monitoring is not directly linked ATI:RESOURCES PART II: to this approach, students must be prepared discuss and reflect on what has been read. to discuss texts with their peers and teacher. As a result, questions from these discussions Adaptability/Congruence with the will shape each student’s ability to more Classroom Curriculum closely monitor his or her comprehension. Although Reading Workshop follows certain principles, the specific strategies are Transaction with Text selected and orchestrated by the teacher. Primary outcome: Through discussion This approach aligns with curriculum that with peers and teachers about common read- supports student response to reading and ings, students come to understand how differ- writing. ent readers bring their own perspectives to text. How effective is it?

How does it support effective Reading Workshop has been used effec- reading instruction? tively with many populations of struggling secondary readers. However, Wollman- Materials Bonilla (1994) found that struggling readers Through the use of materials and the focused predominantly on text comprehen- forums for response, teachers have the oppor- sion and therefore were reluctant to partici- tunity for culturally responsive teaching. pate in book conversations. In contrast, Goatly, Brock, and Raphael (1995) found that Reading Task special education students successfully Student self-select from whole works of engaged in such conversations in reading literature. Authentic reading tasks and the workshop settings. For second language orchestration of multiple strategies foster learners, book conversations fostered growth transfer. in language and in text comprehension (Samway & Whang, 1995; Smith, 1990). Instructional Approach However, successful book conversations in The instructional approach varies any of the aforementioned settings required depending upon the stage of the workshop. quality books, agreed-upon goals, opportu- Conferences allow for formative diagnostic nity for each participant to contribute and a assessment and instructional decision making. conversational setting (Roser, Strecker, & Minilessons provide modeling, guided prac- Martinez, 2000). The following scholarly tice, and independent practice of reading publications document Reading Workshop strategies. The approach to cooperative effectiveness primarily through qualitative learning is unique in that the teacher con- reports and research. tributes as a participant, by sharing reading and writing with students. Rating: Established Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, read- Student Scaffolds ing, and learning with adolescents. Students select readings and predict con- Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook tent. During reading, they are led to transact Heinemann. with the text and during postreading, they In this ﬁrst book, Atwell describes her Wood and T. S. Dickinson (Eds.). (2000). middle school language arts classroom where Promoting Literacy in Grades 4–9 (pp. all students are invited to talk about books. 294–305). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New under- Samway, K. D., & Whang, G. (Eds.), (1995). standings about writing, reading, and learn- Literature study circles in a multicultural ing (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Boy- classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse. ton/Cook Heinemann. Smith, K. (1990). Entertaining a text: A reci- Eeds, M., & and Peterson, R. (1991). Teacher procal process. In K. G. Short and K. M. as curator: Learning to talk about books. Pierce (Eds.), Talking about books: Creating The Reading Teacher, 45(2), 118–126. literate communities (pp. 17–31). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Goatly, V. J., Brock, C., & Raphael, T. E. (1995). Diverse learners participating in Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (1994). Why don’t regular education book clubs. Reading they “just speak”? Attempting literature Research Quarterly, 30 (3), 352–380. discussion with more and less able readers. Research in the Teaching of English, McMahom, S., & Raphael, T. (Eds.). (1997). 28(3), 231–258. The book club connection. New York: Teach- A group of more able sixth grade readers ers College Press.

PART II:PART RESOURCES constructed collaborative and open literature discussion, whereas a group of less able read- Roser, N., Strecker, S., & Martinez, M. ers did not. (2000). Literature circles, book clubs, and literature discussion groups. In K. D. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Reciprocal Reading Strategy

Developers Developed in the mid-1980s by researchers Ann-Marie Palincsar and Ann Brown (1984). ReQuest was reported by A. Manzo in 1969. Type of Strategy Instructional strategies that become learning strategies Overview Students use a set of four comprehension strategies on a common text, in pairs or small groups. In a related approach, ReQuest, the teacher leads the whole class in reciprocal questioning. Primary outcomes Making Inferences; Self-Regulated Comprehending Students All secondary readers, including those who are second language learners. Setting General education classes; Reading classes Support for Culturally and Provides linguistically diverse students with peer social support in Linguistically Diverse Readers the use of oral language Instructional Approach Modeling, guided practice, independent practice; Cooperative learning Materials Teacher-selected expository text Cost None Effectiveness Well established

What is it? How does it work? then makes a prediction about future content. Next a second student takes on the role of Reciprocal Reading, also called reciprocal teacher for a subsequent segment of text. teaching, is a set of four strategies taught to Reciprocal Reading was developed in the struggling readers, primarily to develop their mid-1980s by researchers Ann-Marie Palinc- comprehension monitoring abilities. Through sar and Ann Brown. A related whole class a knowledgeable teacher’s explicit instruction, strategy is ReQuest (Manzo, 1969) or recip- students are taught four strategies: (a) ques- rocal questioning, in which the teacher leads tioning, (b) summarizing, (c) clarifying, and the whole class in silently reading together a (d) predicting. In pairs or small groups, par- segment of text. Students then question the ticipants sharing a common text take turns teacher about the content. After a subsequent assuming the roles of teacher and student. A segment of text is read, the teacher questions student in the role of “teacher” reads aloud a the students. As the questioning process con- segment of a passage as group members fol- tinues, students learn to imitate the teacher’s low along silently. The group members then questioning behavior. pose questions that focus on main ideas. The Studies demonstrating the success of reci- “teacher” answers and summarizes the con- procal reading with secondary students have tent. The group discusses and clarifies used about 20 days for the intervention. remaining difficulties in understanding and Assessments in the form of observations, quizzes, and standardized tests were used to Language Comprehension document student learning. Comprehension processes addressed: X Making associations What professional development X Predicting is required? X Generating questions Generating mental imagery Certified teachers who have taken a X Clarifying course in reading can implement the strategy X Elaborating from the descriptive overview provided here. X Summarizing Others should refer to resources provided in Rehearsing the Appendix of this Guide. Although teachers X Evaluating may make adaptations, research studies demonstrating the success of Reciprocal • Linguistic Knowledge Reading have implemented direct instruction Possible outcome: Specific linguistic and practice of the four-strategy sequence. knowledge may be learned during questioning and clarifying. How does Reciprocal Reading build reading proficiency? • Background Knowledge Possible outcome: In making predictions Primary outcomes: Making Inferences; about the content of the text, students acti- Self-Regulated Comprehending vate their background knowledge. That PART II:PART RESOURCES knowledge is supported and strengthened Motivation during the strategy practice as a result of clar- Secondary outcome: Students practice ifying and elaborating. reciprocal reading in a motivating social setting of peers. The reciprocal reading struc- • Making Inferences ture supports student persistence in the read- In summarizing, students must para- ing task. It is designed to be used with phrase and interpret the meaning of the text. materials selected by the teacher, rather than They are required to generate or be called by the students. upon to answer, inferential level questions.

Decodin • Self-Regulated Comprehending • Basic Decoding Primary outcome: During direct instruc- Possible outcome: Closely monitored tion of strategies, the teacher models exper- reading provides the opportunity for self- tise in self-regulated comprehension. In correction and quick feedback on misunder- summarizing and clarifying, students check standings that may be due to miscues. their understanding with their peers. They may predict task demands (such as test • Fluent Decoding questions). Possible outcome: Fluency may improve as a result of sustained reading practice. Transaction with Text Secondary outcome: Students can transact with the text as they negotiate the mean- ATI:RESOURCES PART II: ing with peers during questioning and sum- Adaptability/Congruence with the marizing. Classroom Curriculum The steps are designed to be followed How does it support good sequentially, but teachers can make adapta- reading instruction? tions appropriate for their students. It can be applied across the curriculum with a variety Materials of reading tasks and materials. The teacher selects expository text that is appropriate for the students’ instructional How effective is it? level of reading. Reciprocal Reading has been extensively Reading Task documented by both quantitative and qualita- Authenticity and transfer are not specifi- tive studies, in peer-reviewed scholarly publi- cally addressed. The reading task is related to cations, from the mid-1980s through today. school and is authentic in the sense that the Both independent and developer evaluation reading is shared among students. Students has been successful with middle school and are told to identify the demands of a reading high school struggling readers, including sec- task (for example, to take a test or to prepare ond language learners, at multiple sites. a report) and to practice the strategies with the task in mind. Rating: Well established Reciprocal reading was developed and Instructional Approach validated in the mid-1980s by Palincsar and Through a gradual release of the respon- Brown (1984) with seventh graders who were sibility model of direct instruction, students poor comprehenders despite basic decoding are taught a cycle of strategies: predicting, skills. The students’ improvements in sum- questioning, summarizing, and clarifying. As marizing, questioning, and comprehension students become increasingly independent in transferred to the regular classroom. Rosen- their use of the strategies, the teacher reduces shine and Meister (1994) documented the the feedback and instruction. Students work positive gains (median effect size = .88) for in small groups, alternately assuming struc- reciprocal reading on experimenter-designed tured roles. The teacher moves from group to tests of expository reading, but limited gains group as a participant. Students move toward were documented on standardized tests internalizing the questioning strategies. (median effect size = .32). Alfassi (1998) presented a possible reason for limited gains on Student Scaffolds standardized tests: expository text places dif- The teacher scaffolds students in learning ferent demands on readers than the mostly the cycle of strategies by modeling, cueing, narrative passages on standardized reading prompting, questioning, and remodeling. tests. Alfassi (1998) also reported the effec- Once learned, the cycle of strategies scaffolds tiveness of reciprocal reading with suburban students at each juncture of the reading high school students who were at least two process. By working with peers, the task of years below grade level in comprehension. determining meaning from text is made more After 22 days of reciprocal reading, students manageable and students are more likely to scored significantly higher than did students experience success. in traditional reading skills instruction, whose scores remained virtually unchanged. Manzo Manzo, A. & Manzo, U. (1997). Content area and Manzo (1997) provide an explanation of reading: Interactive teaching for active learn- the strategy and examples of its use in class- ing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. rooms. Manzo, A.(1969). The ReQuest procedure. Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: the Journal of Reading, 13(2), 123-26, 163. efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal students in remedial reading classes. teaching of comprehension fostering and American Educational Research Journal, comprehension-monitoring activities. 35(2), 309–332. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

Klingner, J. J., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Recipro- Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Recip- cal teaching of reading comprehension rocal teaching: A review of the research. strategies for students with learning dis- Review of Educational Research, 64(4), abilities who use English as a Second 479–530. Language. The Elementary Journal, 96(3), 275–293. PART II:PART RESOURCES ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Text Mapping Strategies

Developers Reading researchers who reported the value of text mapping are Thomas Anderson, Bonnie Armbruster, Richard Barron, Isabel Beck, and Richard Hanf Strategy Type Instructional strategy that becomes a learning strategy Background Strategies for helping students identify important concepts and conceptual relationships in text. Primary outcomes Linguistic Knowledge, Making Inferences, Self-Regulated Comprehending Students All secondary readers Setting General education class; Reading classes Instructional Approach Modeling, guided practice, independent practice Support for Culturally and Teachers should use mapping in the context of a full literacy Linguistically Diverse Readers program that addresses the needs of CLD readers. Materials Teacher-selected expository text Cost None Effectiveness Well established

What is it? How does it work? I. Preparation: This first stage is considered the most important by the developers. Text maps depict important concepts Step 1. Select the words for the important across a selection of text and show how they concepts from a text. connect structurally. Text mapping can be Step 2. Arrange the words into a map that used to develop comprehension before, dur- shows how the words are connected. ing, and after reading. As a teaching strategy, Step 3. Add to the map words students have students use a map developed by the teacher. previously learned. As a learning strategy, students develop their Step 4. Evaluate the map by sharing it with a own maps. In text mapping, the major con- novice teacher to see if the relation- cepts of a passage attach to major branches in ships make sense. a diagram to which minor branches are added II. Presentation: The teacher uses the for details. Branches can be labeled to repre- map for 5–10 minutes as a preteaching tool to sent the rhetorical structure. It also has been introduce the concepts and their interrela- called Graphic Organizers/Structured tionships. Students are encouraged to add Overview (Barron, 1980), Idea Mapping concepts and question the relationships. (Armbruster & Anderson, 1982) for exposi- Intermittently, the teacher poses questions to tory text, and Story Maps (Beck & McKeown, check for understanding. 1981) for narrative text. III. Follow-up: As students read, they are As a teaching strategy, text mapping has encouraged to see how new information fits three stages: into the map. As a student strategy, text mapping has • Fluent Decoding two stages: Not addressed. I. Before reading: For the strategy to be effective, students must be taught to generate Language Comprehension their own map of concepts from a text. Comprehension processes addressed: II. During and After Reading: Students X Making associations confirm and add to the map, creating a spatial X Predicting representation of the concepts in the text. X Generating questions They label the branches to show the relation- X Generating mental imagery ships between concepts (concept and exam- X Clarifying ple, concept and definition, concept and Elaborating properties, temporal, cause and effect, condi- X Summarizing tional, and comparison). Students can be X Rehearsing taught to review the map prior to a test. X Evaluating

Computer outlining and mapping pro- Concept mapping can build comprehen- grams can help students learn and use the sion in many ways, depending upon how it is strategy. used.

What professional development • Linguistic Knowledge Primary outcome: It can be developed by

PART II:PART RESOURCES is required? depicting word meanings and relationships Certified teachers can implement the among words. strategy from the information provided here. Others should refer to resources listed in the • Background Knowledge Appendix of this Guide. Possible outcome: It is activated during mapping when students make associations How does text mapping build and predictions about the text and apply them reading proficiency? to confirm their map during reading.

Primary outcomes: Linguistic • Making Inferences knowledge, Making Inferences, Primary outcome: Students learn to infer Self-Regulated Comprehending text structure when it is not explicit.

Motivation • Self-Regulated Comprehending Possible outcome: Some students will be Primary outcome: Mapping requires stu- motivated by being able to create their own dents to make predictions, self-question, and tool for comprehending. Some will also be clarify understanding before, during, and motivated by the visual presentation. after reading. The map can help them to generate mental imagery. Bean and colleagues Decoding (1986) found that mapping combined with • Basic Decoding summarizing strengthened student recall. Not addressed. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Transaction with Text Bean et al. (1986) found that students Not addressed. improved recall.

How does it support good Adaptability/Congruence with the reading instruction? Classroom Curriculum Teachers can adapt text mapping to their Materials instructional objectives and to the needs and Mapping can be used with expository or interests of their students. Text mapping can narrative text that is at the students’ instruc- be applied across the curriculum with a vari- tional level, though qualitative research (Bel- ety of reading tasks and materials. It can be lows, 1994) suggests it is not effective with implemented in various formats, such as with material that is too easy or too hard. computer mapping programs.

Reading Task How effective is it? The teacher determines the reading task when mapping is used as an instructional The effectiveness of text mapping has strategy. The student determines the task been documented extensively in the research when using mapping as a tool for learning. literature, beginning in the 1980s. Text map- The strategy can be applied to any piece of ping works well with other strategies. text. For students to transfer the use of the strategy to other contexts, they must be Rating: Well established taught to construct their own map. The following research summaries describe its the value for improving compre- Instructional Approach hension among older readers. Mapping is taught through modeling, guided practice, and independent practice Al-Kuniﬁed, A., & Wandersee, J. H. (1990). and through sharing maps in cooperative One hundred references related to con- groups. Maps can serve as a diagnostic tool cept mapping. Journal of Research in Sci- for student comprehension. ence Teaching, 27(10), 1069–1075.Ander- son, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Student Scaffolds Studying. In P. D. Pearson (Eds.) Hand- Mapping can be used by the teacher to book of Reading Research (pp. 657–680). engage background knowledge before read- New York, NY: Longman. ing, to monitor comprehension during reading, and to elaborate and evaluate new knowl- Barron, R.F. (1980). A systematic research proce- edge after reading. Mapping has been found dure, organizers, and overviews: a historical to be even more effective when students are perspective. Paper presented at the Annual taught to generate their own maps before Meeting of the National Reading Con- reading, to add to or change their maps as ference. (ERIC Document Reproduction they read, and to restructure their maps and No. ED 198 508). rehearse them in preparation for a test partic- Students learned more from constructing ularly when they transfer the strategy to the their own graphic postorganizer than they did reading of their classroom materials. When when it was provided to them. mapping was combined with summarizing, The value of text mapping with narrative own maps for documenting their understand- text was established by: ing of text structure:

Beck, I., & McKeown, M. G. (1981). Devel- Anderson-Inman, L., Redekopp, R., & oping questions that promote compre- Adams, V. (1992). Electronic studying: hension: The story map. Language Arts, Using computer-based outlining pro- 58(8), 913–918. grams as study tools. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difﬁcul- These reports established the value of ties, 8(4), 337–358. text mapping with expository text: Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1980). Baker, S. K., et al. 1995). Vocabulary acquisi- The effect of mapping on the free recall of tion: Synthesis of the research. Technical expository text. Technical Report No. 160. Report No. 13. (ERIC Document Repro- (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED duction No. ED 386 860) 182 735).

Darch, C. B., Carnine, D. W., & Kameenui, Bean, T. W., Singer, H., Sorter, J., & Frazee, E. J. (1986). The role of graphic organiz- C. (1986). The effect of metacognitive ers and social structure in content area instruction in outlining and graphic orga- instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, nizer construction on students’ compre- 18(4), 275–295. hension in a tenth-grade world History PART II:PART RESOURCES class. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18(2), Slater, W. H., Graves, M. E., & Piche, G. L. 153–169. (1985). Effect of structural organizers on ninth grade students comprehension and Draheim, M. E. (1986). Directed reading- recall of four patterns of expository text. thinking activity, conceptual mapping, and Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), underlining: Their effects on expository text 189–202. recall in a writing task. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 285 137) An outline grid helped ninth graders improve recall of expository text; a structural Herl, H. E., O’Neil, H.F.,Jr., Chung, organizer helped them improve comprehen- G.K.W.K.,& Schacter,J.(1999). Reliabil- sion. ity and validity of a computer-based knowledge mapping system to measure Idol, L. (1987a). A critical thinking map to content understanding.Computers in improve content area comprehension of poor Human Behavior, 15(3-4), 315-33. readers. Technical Report No. 402. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 282 Tompkins, R. S. (1991). The use of a spatial 192) learning strategy to enhance reading comprehension of secondary subject area text (ERIC The following studies show the added Document Reproduction No. ED 337 positive effects of students generating their 752) ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Vallecorsa, A. L., & deBettencourt, L. U. at the annual meeting of the National (1997). Using a mapping procedure to Reading Conference, San Diego. (ERIC teach reading and writing skills to middle Document Reproduction No. ED380 grade students with learning disabilities. 755) Education and Treatment of Children, 20(2), 173–188. Manzone, C. A. (1989). Six strategies for teaching reading comprehension to learning dis- The following studies have demonstrated abled students. (ERIC Document Repro- the effectiveness for secondary students with duction No. ED 311 667) learning disabilities: Sorrell, A. L. (1990). Three reading compre- Bellows, B. P. (1994). Does knowing about text hension strategies: TELLS, Story Map- structures help disabled, adolescent readers? ping, and QARs. Academic Therapy, 25(3), An exploratory study of adolescents’ awareness 359–368. and use of global coherence. Paper presented Vocabulary and Concept Mapping Strategies

Developers Dale Johnson and P. David Pearson (1978) introduced semantic mapping and semantic feature analysis. Robert M. Schwartz and Taffy E. Raphael (1985) introduced concept of deﬁnition maps. Strategy Type Instructional strategy that becomes a learning strategy Background Students explore new vocabulary and concepts, building upon what they know to see relationships through graphic depictions. Primary outcomes Linguistic Knowledge, Background Knowledge, Making Infer- ences, Self-Regulated Comprehending. Students All secondary readers Setting and Scope General education class; Reading classes Support for Culturally and The strategies build on student contributions of their knowledge Linguistically Diverse Readers and experiences. Baumann & Kameenui (1991) report that these strategies have been effective with ESL students. Instructional Approach Modeling, guided practice, and independent practice; inductive reasoning before, during, and after reading. Materials Strategies work with all materials. Cost None Effectiveness Well established PART II:PART RESOURCES

What is it? How does it work? from students and place them radiating out from the central concept, grouping Several mapping strategies were intro- them into related categories. duced during the 1970s and 1980s to help 3. Introduce new words and related con- secondary students acquire vocabulary and cepts attached to those known by stu- concept knowledge. These strategies were an dents. alternative to the ineffective practice of testing students on word definitions. Through a Semantic feature analysis graphic depiction of ideas, these strategies 1. Select a category of related terms. build on what students know to help them see 2. List terms in a column. relationships with newly introduced vocabu- 3. List features (characteristics) to be lary. Students develop related rather than iso- explored in rows above the terms. lated word knowledge and develop skill in 4. Indicate feature possession with + or -, or differentiating concepts as well as defining scale 1–3, words. Each can be used before, during, and 5. New terms and features may be added after reading. during and after reading. 6. Terms and features are explored through Semantic mapping discussion. 1. Place the target concept at the center of a diagram. Concept of definition (word) mapping 2. Elicit related key words and concepts 1. Identify a target concept. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: 2. Guide students to identify relevant • Fluent Decoding (essential) characteristics and contrast Not addressed. these with irrelevant (non-essential) characteristics. Language Comprehension 3. Generate examples to illustrate concept. Comprehension processes addressed: 4. Attach concept to a larger category. X Making associations 5. Consider related but different concepts X Predicting within this category. Generating questions X Generating mental imagery These strategies have been reported to X Clarifying improve word and concept knowledge as well X Elaborating as comprehension across grade levels, in a Summarizing variety of content areas and with a variety of Rehearsing learners, including struggling ESL, bilingual, Evaluating and learning disabled readers.

• Linguistic knowledge What professional development Primary outcome: Teachers guide stu- is required? dents in identifying and mapping semantic and syntactic elements of words. General education teachers can implement most of these strategies from reading • Background knowledge about them in professional resources, such as Primary outcome: Students contribute this Guide. their background knowledge in generating examples of words and concepts. How does vocabulary and concept mapping build • Making Inferences reading proficiency? Primary outcome: Teachers guide students in inferring the meanings of words and Primary outcomes: Linguistic relationships among concepts and in docu- Knowledge, Background Knowledge, menting them graphically. Making Inferences, Self-Regulated Comprehending • Self-Regulated Comprehending Primary outcome: Students acquire Motivation processes for making associations, predicting Secondary outcome: In contributing their meaning, and clarifying and elaborating their own background knowledge and experiences understanding. to the mapping, students can develop interest in learning words and in the reading task. Transaction with Text Secondary outcome: Students interact Decoding with one another and teachers as they bring • Basic Decoding relevant background knowledge and experi- Not addressed. ences to bear on the meanings of words and concepts in upcoming reading task. How does it support effective Adaptability/Congruence with the reading instruction? Classroom Curriculum Teachers easily adapt vocabulary map- Materials ping, although adaptation can affect the suc- Almost any reading material may be used cess found in research studies. The strategies with mapping strategies for vocabulary and fit well across the content-area curriculum concept development. The only requirement and encourage student involvement in the is that teachers find conceptually related construction of meaning. words within the texts for instruction and learning. How effective is it?

Reading Task Semantic mapping, concept of definition The teacher usually determines which (word) mapping, and semantic feature analy- words are studied. Teaching relationships sis have been analyzed in a variety of contexts among words and concepts, as well as making over time. connections with student knowledge, promotes transfer of learning to other contexts. Rating: Well established The strategies were first described in the Instructional Approach following sources: Instruction with each of these strategies proceeds from teacher modeling and control Johnson, D. D., & Pearson, P. D. (1978). PART II:PART RESOURCES to eliciting students’ input of relevant back- Teaching reading vocabulary. New York: ground knowledge, to students’ application of Holt, Rinehart & Winston. the strategies. Students often must predict word meanings and characteristics of con- Schwartz, R. M., & Raphael, T. E. (1985). cepts during the mapping process. By relying Concept of definition: A key to improv- on relevant background knowledge, each stu- ing students’ vocabulary. The Reading dent’s fund of knowledge can be acknowl- Teacher, 39(2), 198–205. edged and added to the group understanding of words and concepts. While initial findings about some of these strategies were inconclusive, research in the Student Scaffolds last two decades has demonstrated their effec- Mapping strategies are often prereading, tiveness in improving word and concept during reading, and postreading although the knowledge as well as comprehension with a emphasis may shift depending on the particu- variety of grade levels (from elementary lar strategy. While semantic mapping empha- through college and adult levels), in a variety sizes prereading engagement, the concept of of content areas, and with a variety of learners definition/word mapping may proceed (including ESL, bilingual, slow, and learning through prereading, during reading, and disabled readers). For a general review of the postreading, and semantic feature analysis is research, refer to the following publications: often done during and postreading. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: Baumann, J., & Kameenui, E. (1991). Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Effects of Research on vocabulary instruction: Ode interactive vocabulary instruction on the to Voltaire. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. vocabulary learning and reading compre- Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of hension of junior-high learning disabled research on teaching the English language students. Learning Disability Quarterly, arts (pp. 604–632). New York: Macmillan. 13(1), 31–42.

In a study of 61 learning disabled junior Pittelman, S. D., Heimlich, J. E., Berglund, high school students, semantic mapping and R. L., & French, M. P. (1991). Semantic semantic feature analysis was found to have feature analysis: Classroom applications. greater short-term and long-term effective- Newark, DE: International Reading ness for reading comprehension and vocabu- Association. lary learning than instruction in deﬁnitions. This book sets out the theoretical base for the strategy, reviews the research, and Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1992). Using describes applications in elementary and sec- interactive teaching and learning strate- ondary classrooms. gies to promote text comprehension and content learning for students with learn- The work of Bos and Anders documented ing disabilities. International Journal of the effectiveness of these strategies with Disability, Development and Education, learning disabled adolescents: 39(3), 225–238. Word Analysis Strategies

Developers Various developers have described these strategies. Strategy Type Student learning strategies Background This family of strategies gives struggling secondary readers ways to decode unknown multisyllabic words by developing an awareness of word parts. Primary outcomes Basic Decoding, Linguistic Knowledge Students Struggling secondary readers; struggling second language readers Setting General education classes; Reading classes Support for Culturally and When word analysis includes comparisons with other languages Linguistically Diverse Readers (for example, cognates) some linguistically diverse readers will be able to make connections and build on what they know. Instructional Approach Modeling, guided practice, independent practice Materials Texts at students’ instructional and independent levels of reading comprehension. Cost None Effectiveness Established PART II:PART RESOURCES

What is it? How does it work? the context clues also contain unknown words, students will have difficulty using Some struggling secondary readers have them. difficulty in decoding multisyllabic words. The Word Identification Strategy. In this This difficulty can seriously impair compre- orchestration of word analysis strategies hension, especially in expository text that sec- (Lenz & Hughes, 1990) students learn a ondary students are expected to read. When mnemonic, DISSECT, to help them decode explicitly taught word analysis strategies, they unknown words during the reading of con- can be successful. These strategies are tent-area texts. Its full implementation is described in a number of sources. One is by taught by the Strategic Instruction Model Thomas Gunning (1998). (SIM), listed in this Guide under Programs. Syllable Patterns. Student learns to iden- The steps follow: tify and decode the pronounceable word parts •Discover the context (by examining within words. syntactic and semantic cues). Morphemic Analysis. Students learn to •Isolate the prefix (by dividing it from the identify the meaningful parts of a word, such root). as prefixes, suffixes, roots, and compound •Separate the suffix (by dividing it from words. the root). Contextual Analysis. Students learn to use •Say the stem (by reading what is left of verbal clues from the sentence or passage. If the word). ATI:RESOURCES PART II: •Examine the stem (by dividing the letters Decoding and applying knowledge of phonics • Basic Decoding rules). Primary outcome: Through word analy- •Check with someone. sis, students learn to apply specific strategies •Try the dictionary. when encountering unknown words in print.

If decoding the stem at the Examine stage • Fluent Decoding fails, students are taught to apply three rules Secondary outcome: Fluency is proof phonics. The rules are moted by more accurate decoding.

Rule 1. If the stem or part of the stem begins Language Comprehension with a vowel, divide off the first two Comprehension processes addressed: letters; if it begins with a consonant, X Making associations divide off the first three letters; X Predicting Rule 2. If you can’t make sense of the stem Generating questions after using Rule 1, take off the first Generating mental imagery letter of the stem and use the rule X Clarifying again; and Elaborating Rule 3. Check the hints for pronunciation Summarizing when two different vowels are X Rehearsing together (these are provided to stu- X Evaluating dents). The strategy was found to work best when the word being read • Linguistic Knowledge was in the student’s listening vocabu- Primary outcome: Through word study, lary (Bryant, Vaughn, Linan-Thomp- students learn spelling patterns for prefixes, son, Ugel, Hamff, & Hougen, in suffixes, and roots. press). • Background Knowledge What professional development Not addressed. is required? • Making Inferences Most of the word analysis strategies can Not addressed. be implemented by certified teachers who study them or who have the support of a fac- • Self-Regulated Comprehending ulty study group. Secondary outcome: Students gain metacognitive awareness of what they are How do word analysis strate- unable to decode and learn to apply correc- gies build reading proficiency? tive strategies.

Primary outcomes: Basic Decoding, Transaction with Text Linguistic Knowledge Not addressed.

Motivation Not addressed. How does it support effective How effective is it? reading instruction? Most of the research on the use of decod- Materials ing strategies with secondary students has Word analysis strategies should be intro- been with students classiﬁed as learning dis- duced to students using text at their indepen- abled. dent level of comprehension. They should practice the strategy in text that is at their Rating: Established instructional level. Bryant, D. P., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Ugel, N., & Hougen, M. (in press). Reading Task Reading outcomes for students with and To foster transfer, students should prac- without reading disabilities in general tice word analysis strategies in varied reading education middle school content-area contexts and with authentic materials. classes. Learning Disabilities Quarterly.

Instructional Approach Gunning, Thomas G. (1998). Assessing and Many of the syllable patterns and context correcting reading and writing difﬁculties. clues can be taught through modeling, guided Boston: Allyn and Bacon. practice, and independent practice. Mor- Gunning provides a description of effec- phemic analysis is taught inductively, building tive assessments and strategies for all levels of on what students know.

PART II:PART RESOURCES struggling readers. Student Scaffolds These strategies support students during Lenz, B. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1990). A word reading, rather than before or after. identification strategy for adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Adaptability/Congruence with the Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 149–163. Classroom Curriculum The strategies can be adapted to suit the Henry, M. (1993). Morphological structure: needs of students and the instructional con- Latin and Greek roots and affixes as text. Word analysis strategies traditionally upper grade code strategies. Reading and have been taught by reading teachers. How- Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal; 5(2), ever, general education teachers can use them 227–41 to support their struggling readers in the context of regular instruction. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: DEFINITIONS OF TERMS better understand their strengths and weaknesses. The following definitions are arranged by formative: informal assessment of students the five questions used to organize the pro- during learning so that instruction can be grams and strtegies in this guide. adapted appropriately. summative: formal or informal assessment to What is it? How does it work? determine whether students met the objectives of a unit of instruction. struggling readers: students experiencing diffi- diagnostic: formal or informal assessment of culties reading materials required for aca- the areas of an individual student’s read- demic success. ing strengths and weaknesses. elementary readers: students through grade 5. secondary readers: students from grades 6 What professional development through 12. is required? culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) readers: students whose culture, dialect, or prerequisite expertise: what someone needs to native language is not that of the larger know and be able to do in order to imple- society. ment the program or strategy with strug- programs: packages of multiple components— gling secondary readers. such as materials, strategies, and certified teacher: a teacher who has completed protocols—prepared by an entity, professional development courses in edu- often commercial, for improving reading cation and holds a state-issued teaching proficiency. certificate. campus programs: programs that require an reading teacher: a certified teacher who teaches administrative commitment at the dis- reading as a separate subject and who has trict, campus, or department level for at least one undergraduate course in read- implementation across classrooms (note: ing. comprehensive school reform programs reading specialist: a certified teacher whose has are beyond the scope of the Guide). completed a prescribed sequence of grad- classroom programs: programs designed to be uate course work in reading. implemented by teachers at the classroom formal training time: professional development level. sponsored by the developer or publisher strategies: consistent plans, consciously of the program or strategy. adapted and monitored for improving informal or independent training time: the per- performance in learning. sonal preparation time needed in order teacher strategies: strategies designed to be to learn how to the program or implemented by teachers for developing strategy. student reading ability. They may be support materials: materials for both teachers delivered to the whole class, to small and students, including teacher manuals, groups, or to the individual student. research articles, student readings, assess- student strategies: internal procedures used by ments, and activities in varied formats, students in the process of reading. including print and electronic. assessment: the act or process of gathering additional learning opportunities: workshops, information about students in order to mentoring, and materials support teachers as they implement the program or fluent decoding: a level of speed and accuracy strategy, after initial training. of word recognition required in order to local adaptation: the degree to which a pro- comprehend connected text at one’s gram or strategy can be modified by the instructional level. classroom teacher. language comprehension: the ability to construct additional learning opportunities: additional meaning from spoken language. materials, expertise, and workshops. linguistic knowledge: knowledge of the lan- teacher training model: a major approach to guage system: its semantics, including training teachers to implement a program phonology (sound structure), morphol- or strategy, such as expert-led workshop ogy and vocabulary (word-level meaning), or constructivist coaching. its syntax (grammar structure), and the discourse of connected sentences. How does it develop reading background knowledge: knowledge of how envi- proficiency? ronments operate that affects what is comprehended as well as how much is affective: the reader’s emotions, feelings, and comprehended. It is general world sentiments that are centered around the knowledge as well as domain-specific reading task, oneself as a reader, and the knowledge (for example, “baseball”) that meaning gained from reading. is both declarative (“knowing that”) and transaction: connecting the author’s message procedural (“knowing how”). to one’s own emotions, feelings, and inferencing: comprehension beyond the word PART II:PART RESOURCES experiences (that is, the stance one takes level, requiring the comprehender to toward the text). Two stances are “effer- activate what is known and to use it in ent” (information seeking) and “aes- integrating meaning across sentences, thetic” (making personal responses). drawing conclusions about causes, rela- motivation: the intention of the reader to tionships, and social meaning. begin to read and to persist in the reading self-regulated comprehending: metacognitive task. The reading behavior may be per- control over language that allows the ceived as under one’s control (intrinsic comprehender to know if comprehension motivation) or as controlled by external has failed and also what to do about it, factors (extrinsic motivation). given the purpose for comprehending. cognitive: the mental processes through which the reader obtains knowledge or concep- How does it support effective tual understanding—for example, per- reading instruction? ceiving, judging, abstracting, reasoning, imagining, remembering, and anticipat- authentic materials: generally any text not ing. written for the purpose of teaching stu- basic decoding: the ability to recognize spoken dents how to read or to practice reading. words based on their printed representa- instructional materials: text that can be tions. In English this requires recogniz- decoded with relatively few word identifi- ing both the regular (“kernel”) and irreg- cation problems and is challenging but ular (“colonel”) relationships between not frustrating to comprehend when pro- written and spoken words. vided classroom instruction and support. ATI:RESOURCES PART II: independent text: text that is easy for a student reading, activating background knowl- to read with few word identification edge, and making predictions about the problems and high comprehension. text. high interest: text that appeals to most readers. during-reading scaffolds: strategies that prompt Some materials are written specifically to active comprehension during reading. a low level of textual difficulty. postreading scaffolds: strategies that stimulate narrative: a story or event, actual or fictional, questioning and reflecting after reading expressed orally or in writing. to extend understanding and improve expository: text that presents information fol- learning. lowing a pattern of organization—such as time order, cause and effect, problem and How effective is it? solution, comparison, and simple listing. authentic purpose: the purpose for reading the type of documentation: the forms of public text is not only for school but for sharing description and evaluation of a program reading with classmates or beyond the or strategy. The highest quality of docu- classroom. mentation is of data that areboth qualita- student choice: student self-selection of topics tive and quantitative, in peer-reviewed or readings. publications and conferences at local, transfer activities: provisions made for trans- state, and national levels. Independent ferring the reading to other reading con- evaluation is critical, especially for a pro- texts. gram that is sold or promoted for school direct instruction: teacher-led instruction adoption. Evaluation only by developers through explanation or modeling, fol- or anecdotal evidence can suggest a lowed by guided practice and indepen- promising program—or, signal that the dent practice. program or strategy has not been so suc- diagnostic instruction: adapting instruction cessful when held to a scholarly standard. based on formative assessment of a stu- recency of documentation: whether the effective- dent’s strengths and weaknesses during ness of a program or strategy has been learning. documented recently, with the struggling constructivist learning: inductive, student-cen- readers of today. The strongest evidence tered instruction in which students con- is for success over an extended period of struct their own understanding of strate- time and recently. gies and text through questioning and effectiveness with target population: whether sharing with others. programs or strategies have been success- cooperative learning: instructional model in ful with struggling secondary readers. For which students work in a structured example, effectiveness with elementary group with differentiated tasks to reach a readers should not be generalized to pre- common goal. sume effectiveness with older readers. tutorial: one-on-one instruction between tutor extent of implementation: the success of pro- and tutee, either of whom may be teacher, grams and strategies beyond a pilot other adult, peer, or younger student. implementation. The strongest evidence prereading scaffolds: strategies provided to sup- for effectiveness comes from implementa- port the reader in setting a purpose for tions at multiple sites. Sources Consulted for Definitions Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2000). The Reading Coherence Harris, T. L. & Hodges, R. E. (Eds.). (1995). Initiative. http://www.sedl.org/. The Literacy Dictionary. Newark, DE: International Reading Association ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment & Evaluation. (2000). ERIC Thesaurus. http://ericae.net/scripts/ewiz/. PART II:PART RESOURCES PART III: PROCEDURES INTRODUCTION FOR COMPILING THE GUIDE

REVIEW OF ing on secondary reading, newly released THE SCHOLARLY reports and publications were searched, LITERATURE including: • publication announcements from publishers and professional organizations e began the project by review- • Web sites that serve secondary teachers of ing current theory and practice reading for building reading profi- • comments made by secondary teachers in Wciency at the secondary level. online discussion groups This review included recognized such scholarly secondary sources as: • National reports DEVELOPMENT OF • ERIC Digests CRITERIA FOR SELECTION • Handbooks (including the Handbooks of OF PROGRAMS AND Reading Research) • publications of professional organiza- STRATEGIES tions, including the American Educa- tional Research Association (AERA), The subcontract team reached a consen- Association of Supervision and Curricu- sus on the criteria for the inclusion of pro- lum Development (ASCD), the Interna- grams and strategies. The criteria for select- tional Reading Association (IRA), and Phi ing resources were based on the findings of Delta Kappa (PDK) the research overview. • Current content-area reading textbooks Primary research studies, both quantita- Criteria for Selection tive and qualitative, and meta-analyses in scholarly, peer-reviewed publications and These are the criteria for selection: conference presentations were reviewed. These studies were found by searching: 1. Developmentally, contextually, and • ERIC and Psychological Abstracts data- socially appropriate for improving the bases reading of struggling secondary readers, • Recent national conference presentations grades 6-12. at National Reading Conference (NRC), IRA, and AERA 2. Grounded in reading theory and consis- To monitor current developments bear- tent with principles of effective reading instruction. Programs also had to be con- unpublished, scholarly as well as nonschol- sistent with principles of effective profes- arly, were identified from the ERIC and Psy- sional development of teachers. chology Abstracts databases. Articles were selected and acquired. Copies of programs 3. Documented to be effective based on and supporting materials were solicited from quantitative or qualitative data reported the developers or publishers of resources in scholarly refereed publications. Pro- under consideration. For most programs, the grams could instead be documented by a developers were interviewed by telephone. formal program evaluation. For some programs, a site visitation or prod- uct demonstration was conducted. Validity of the Selection After examining the research overview Criteria and inspecting other resource guides, the team decided to include a searchable database The validity of the selection criteria was to allow users to compare resources across established through external review. Two categories. The team generated a list of researchers with expertise in culturally and potential fields for classifying and describing linguistically diverse readers and one experi- the resources and voted on the fields to reach enced high school ESL teacher reviewed the a consensus. The fields were classified under research overview and the Guide for accuracy five broad categories: description, profes- of representation of current research. Differ- sional development, research base, instruc- ent aspects of the overview were submitted to tion, and effectiveness. Each field was peer review as proposals to national research defined. conferences. The draft of the Guide was The subcontract team established inter- PART III:PART PROCEDURES reviewed by SEDL. The Guide was revised rater reliability for describing resources along according to the feedback provided and the revised categories. Each member placed into final format. described a second resource according to the selection criteria and the revised fields. The number of agreements was divided by the RESOURCE number of total observations. Initial inter- IDENTIFICATION AND rater reliability was 92%. Differences in rat- DESCRIPTION ings were resolved through discussion. Using the selection criteria, two members An extensive search yielded a list of of the team evaluated each resource. The resources that potentially aligned with the programs and strategies were divided among criteria. The search was conducted by mem- team members. First, a resource was docu- bers of the subcontract team. The initial mented as a database record. Next, the sec- search included programs and strategies that ond team member reevaluated the resource have been used at secondary level, grades six and transformed the database record into a through twelve. narrative entry for the printed Guide. A third From the extensive list of programs and team member reconciled the two formats for strategies, those that potentially aligned with consistency and accuracy. All team members the criteria were investigated in greater then read each of the database entries and depth. Pertinent reports, published and printed guide entries. ATII PROCEDURESPART III: Validity of Descriptive Texas Association of School Administra- Categories and Format tors (TASA). They provided feedback on the content, format, and distribution of Several groups of practitioners evaluated the Guide. the resource descriptions and provided feedback on the clarity of the categories and the 3. The Guide and research overview were utility of the draft of the Guide. presented to a second focus group of nearly 100 secondary reading and general 1. A focus group of seven middle and high content-area teachers enrolled in gradu- school teachers of struggling secondary ate courses at Southwest Texas State Uni- readers was convened to provide feedback versity and the faculty of the SWTSU on the usefulness of the selection criteria, College of Education. Feedback was descriptive categories, and proposed for- obtained on the content format and mats of the Guide. The teachers were distribution of the Guide. asked to share the problems they encounter in working with struggling Guide Availability secondary readers. Their discussion, conducted prior to study of the selection cri- This Guide is available from: teria and Guide formats, was videotaped. Southwest Educational Development The videotape was analyzed to determine Laboratory (SEDL) whether their reports confirm the find- 211 East Seventh Street ings of the Research Overview. Ongoing Austin, Texas 78701-3281 review and feedback was solicited from the focus group participants through dis- An online, searchable database of cussion over an online web board. resources may be accessed through the Web site at http://www.sedl.org/. 2. A focus group of four secondary-level school administrators was convened at BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, P. A. (1997). Knowledge-seeking Apel, K., & Swank, L. K. (1999). Second and self-schema: A case for the motiva- chances: Improving decoding skills in tional dimensions of exposition. Educa- the older student. Language, Speech, and tional Psychologist, 32(2), 83–94. Hearing Services in Schools, 30(3), *Allen, J. (1999). Words, words, words: Teach- 231–242. ing vocabulary in grades 4-12. Portland, Baker, S. K., Simmons, D. C., & MA: Stenhouse Publishers. Kameenui, E. J. (1995). Vocabulary Allen, J., Shockley, B.B., & Baumann, J.F. acquisition: Synthesis of the research (Tech. INTRODUCTION (1995). Gathering ‘round the kitchen Rep. No. 13). National Center to table: Teacher inquiry in the NRRC Improve the Tools of Educators, Uni- school research consortium. Reading versity of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Teacher, 48(6), 526–529. Barry, A. L. (1997). High school reading *Allen J. & Romanolt, T. (1995). Never too programs revisited. Journal of Adolescent late: Leading adolescents to lifelong literacy. and Adult Literacy, 40(7), 524–531. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Baumann, J. F., & Duffy, A. M. (1997). *Alvermann, D. E., Hinchman, K. A., Engaged reading for pleasure and learning: Moore, D. W., Phelps, S. F., & Waff, A report from the National Reading D. R. (Eds.). (1998). Reconceptualizing Research Center. Athens, GA: NRRC. the literacies in adolescents’ lives. Mahwah, Beal, C. R. (1990). Development of knowl- NJ: Erlbaum. edge about the role of inference in text Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). comprehension. Child Development, Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, 61(4), 1011–1023. M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. *Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading & Johnston, F. (2000). Words their way: research, Vol. II (pp. 951–983). New Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and York: Longman. spelling instruction. Upper Saddle River, Ammann, R., & Mittelsteadt, S. (1987). NJ: Merrill. Turning on turned off students: Using Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1991). Condi- newspapers with senior high remedial tions of vocabulary acquisition. In R. readers. Journal of Reading, 30(8), Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. 708–715. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading

*notes a recent publication of practical value to teachers BIBLIOGRAPHY research, Vol. II (pp. 789–814). New effects of prior knowledge and schema York: Longman. activation strategies on the inferential Bellows, B. P. (1994). Does knowing about text reading comprehension of children structures help disabled, adolescent readers? with and without learning disabilities. An exploratory study of adolescents’ aware- Learning Disability Quarterly, 19(1), ness and use of global coherence. Paper pre- 48–61. sented at the annual meeting of the Chadwick, O., Taylor, E., Taylor, A., Hep- National Reading Conference, San tinstall, E., & Danckaerts, M. (1999). Diego, CA.(ERIC Document Repro- Hyperactivity and reading disability: A duction Service No. ED 380 755). longitudinal study of the nature of the Blachowicz, C. L. Z., & Fisher, P. (2000). association. Journal of Child Psychology, Vocabulary instruction. In M. L. Kamil, 40(7), 1039–1050. P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading develop- Barr (Eds.). Handbook of reading research, ment. New York: McGraw–Hill. Vol. III (pp. 503–523). Mahwah, NJ: Chikalanga, I. W. (1993). Exploring infer- Erlbaum. encing ability of ESL readers. Reading Block, C. C. (1999). Comprehension: in a Foreign Language, 10(1), 931–952. Crafting comprehension. In L. B. Chiu, C. W. T. (1998, April). Synthesizing Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, S. B. Neu- metacognitive interventions: What train- man, & M. Pressley (Eds.). Best practices ing characteristics can improve reading per- in literacy instruction (pp. 98–118). New formance? Paper presented at the York: Guilford Press. Annual Meeting of the American Edu- Bountress, N. G. (1994). The classroom cational Research Association, San teacher and the language-different stu- Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Repro- dent: Why, when, and how of interven- duction Service No. ED 420 844). tion. Preventing School Failure, 38(4), Christmann, E. P., Badgett, J. L., & Luck- 10–15. ing, R. A. (1997). Microcomputer-based Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the computer-assisted instruction within value aspects of motivation in educa- differing subject areas: A statistical tion: Developing appreciation for par- deduction. Journal of Educational Com- ticular learning domains and activities. puting Research, 16(3), 281–296. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75–85. *Collins, N. D. (1996). Motivating low per- *Brozo, W.G., & Simpson, M .L. (1999). forming adolescent readers. ERIC Readers, teachers, learners: Expanding lit- Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction eracy across the content areas. Upper Sad- Service No. ED 396 265). dle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cooper, B. A., & Stewart, K. J. (1987). The Bruer. J. T. (1997). Education and the influence of variations in syntax on oral brain: A bridge too far. Educational reading fluency. Journal of Reading Researcher, 26(8), 4–16. Behavior, 19(2), 159–175. Cameron, J., & Pierce, J. D., (1994). Rein- Cooper, D. (1998). Reading, writing, and forcement, reward, and intrinsic moti- reflections. New Directions for Teaching vation: A meta-analysis. Review of Edu- and Learning, 73, 47–56. cational Research, 64(3), 363–423. Cope, J. (1993). Exploring the reading devel- Carr, S. C., & Thompson, B. (1996). The opment of 12th-grade Georgia high school students through reader autobiographies. Ferdman, B. M. (1990). Literacy and cul- (ERIC Document Reproduction No. tural identity. Harvard Educational ED 354 506). Review, 60(2), 181–204. *Cramer, E. H., & Castle, M. (Eds.). Fergusson, D. M., & Lynskey, M. T. (1994). Fostering the love of reading: The (1997). Early reading difficulties and affective domain in reading education. later conduct problems. Journal of Child Newark, DE: International Reading Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disci- Association. plines, 38(8), 899–907. Cromer, W. (1970). The difference model: Fletcher-Flinn, C. M., & Gravatt, B. A new explanation for some reading (1995). The efficacy of computer- difficulties. Journal of Educational Psy- assisted instruction (CAI): A meta- chology, 61(6), 471–483. analysis. Journal of Educational Comput- Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority ing Research, 12(3), 219–241. students: A framework for intervention. Foertsch, M. A. (1992). Reading in and out of Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), school: Factors influencing the literacy 18–36. achievement of American students in grades BIBLIOGRAPHY Davey, B. (1983). Think aloud—modeling 4, 8, and 12, in 1988 and 1990. (ERIC the cognitive processes of reading com- Document Reproduction Service No. prehension. Journal of Reading, 27(1), ED 341 976). 44–47. Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic K., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. motivation and self-determination in (1996). Developmental lag versus human behavior. New York: Plenum. deficit models of reading disability: a *Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for longitudinal, individual growth curves empowerment: The role of parents in chil- analysis. Journal of Educational Psychol- dren’s education. New York: Falmer ogy, 88(1), 3–17. Press. García, G. E., Jimenez, R. T., & Pearson, P. Donahue, P. L., Voelkl, K. E., Campbell, J. D. (1998). Metacognition, childhood R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). The NAEP bilingualism, and reading. In D. J. 1998 reading report card for the nation Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser and the states. Washington, DC: U.S. (Eds.), Metacognition in Theory and Prac- Department of Education, Office of tice (pp. 193–219). Mahwah, NJ: Erl- Educational Research and Improve- baum. ment. García, G. E., & Nagy, W. E. (1993). Dowhower, S. L. (1987). Effects of Latino students’ concepts of cognates. repeated reading on second-grade tran- In D. J. Leu & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), sitional readers’ fluency and compre- Examining Central Issues in Literacy hension. Reading Research Quarterly, Research, Theory, and Practice (pp. 22(4), 389–406.Fawcett, A. J., & Nicol- 367–374). Chicago: National Reading son, R. I. (1995). Persistence of phono- Conference. logical awareness deficits in older chil- García, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (1988). Pre- dren with dyslexia. Reading and Writing: venting inappropriate referrals of language An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7(4), minority students to Special Education. 361–376. (New Focus Series, No. 5). Wheaton, BIBLIOGRAPHY MD: National Clearinghouse for Bilin- second language reading research. gual Education. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375–406. Gaskins, I.W. (1997). Teaching the delayed Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwan, R. reader: The Benchmark School model. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp Annual Review of Psychology, 48, (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching 163–189. literacy through the communicative and Guthrie, J. T., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. M. visual arts (pp. 631–636). New York: (1997). Engagement in reading for Simon & Schuster Macmillan. young adolescents. Journal of Adolescent ———. (1998). There’s more to teaching & Adult Literacy, 40(6), 438–446. at-risk and delayed readers than good Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). reading instruction. The Reading Engagement and motivation in reading. Teacher, 51(7), 534–547. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Gaskins, I., Cuncelli, E., & Satlow, E. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of (1992). Implementing an across-the- reading research, Vol. III (pp. 403–422). curriculum strategies program: Reac- Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. tion to change. In J. Pressley, K. Harris, Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated com- & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting Academic prehension during normal reading. In Competence and Literacy in School (pp. D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. 411–426). Boston: Academic Press. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educa- * Gaskins, I. & Elliott, T. (1999). Imple- tional theory and practice (pp. 165–191). menting cognitive strategy instruction Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. across the school. Cambridge, MA: Brook- Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberg, H. line Books. J. (1988). Can comprehension be Gaultney, J. F. (1995). The effect of prior taught? A quantitative synthesis of knowledge and metacognition on the “metacognitive” studies. Educational acquisition of a reading comprehension Researcher, 17(9), 5–8. strategy. Journal of Experimental Child Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social Psychology, 59(1), 142–163. semiotic: The social interpretation of lan- Gillet, J. W., & Temple, C. (1990). Under- guage and meaning. Baltimore: Univer- standing reading problems: Assessment and sity Park Press. instruction (3d ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Hansen, J. (1987). When writers read. Foresman/Little Brown. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Giroux, H. (1990). Curriculum theory, tex- Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Lan- tual authority, and the role of teachers guage, life, and work in communities and as public intellectuals. Journal of Cur- classrooms. New York: Cambridge Uni- riculum and Supervision, 5(4), 361–383. versity Press. Gough, P. B., Hoover, W. A., & Peterson, Hiebert, E.H. (1991). Literacy contexts and C. L. (1996). In C. Cornoldi & J. literacy processes (Research directions). Oakhill (Eds.), Some observations on a Language Arts, 68(2), 134–139. simple view of reading, Reading compre- Henk, W. A., Stahl, N. A., & Melnick, S. A. hension difficulties (pp. 1–13). Mahwah, (1993). The influence of readers’ prior NJ: Erlbaum. knowledge and level of involvement on Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in ambiguous text interpretation: An extension study. Reading Research and memory, and learning. American Psy- Instruction, 32(3), 1–12. chologist, 49(4), 294–303. Henry, M. K. (1993). Morphological struc- Klenk, L., & Kibby, M. W. (2000). Re- ture: Latin and Greek roots and affixes mediating reading difficulties: Apprais- as upper grade code strategies. Reading ing the past, reconciling the present, and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, constructing the future. In M. L. 5(2), 227–241. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, Hinchman, K. A., & Moje, E. B. (1998). and R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading Conversations: Locating the social and research, Vol. III (pp. 667–690). Mah- political in secondary school literacy. wah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(1), Kos, R. (1991). Persistence of reading dis- 117–128. abilities: The voices of four middle Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The school students. American Educational simple view of reading. Reading and Research Journal, 28(4), 875–895. Writing, 2(2), 127–160. *Krogness, M. M. (1995). Just teach me, Horton, C. B., & Oakland, T. (1997,). Mrs. K.: Talking, reading, and writing BIBLIOGRAPHY Temperament-based learning styles as with resistant adolescent learners. moderators of academic achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Adolescence, 32(125), 131–141. Kulik, C. L., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effec- Johnston, P. (1985). Understanding reading tiveness of computer-based learning: disability: A case study approach. Har- An updated analysis. Computers in vard Educational Review, 55(2), 153–176. Human Behavior, 7(1), 75–94. Johnston, P., & Allington, R. (1991). Reme- Kulik, C. L., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert- diation. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), mastery-learning programs: A meta- Handbook of reading research, Vol. II (pp. analysis. Review of Educational Research, 984–1012). New York: Longman. 60(2), 265–299. Kaufmann, P., Kwon, J. Y., Klein, S., & LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Chapman, C. D. (1999, November). Toward a theory of automatic informa- Dropout rates in the United States: tion processing in reading. Cognitive 1998. Statistical Analysis Report. Psychology, 6, 293–323. Kavale, K.A. & Forness, S.R. (1987). Sub- *Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeep- stance over style: Assessing the efficacy ers: Successful teachers of African American of modality testing and teaching. Excep- children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. tional Children, 54(3), 228–239. ———. (1995). Toward a theory of cultur- *Keene, E. O. & Zimmermann, S. (1997) ally relevant pedagogy. American Educa- Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension tional Research Journal, 32(3), 465–91. in a Reader’s Workshop. Portsmouth, Lenz, B. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1990). A NH: Heinemann. word identification strategy for adoles- Kibby, M. W. (1993). What reading teach- cents with learning disabilities. Journal ers should know about reading profi- of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 149–158, ciency in the U.S. Journal of Reading, 163. 37(1), 28–40. Lewkowicz, N. K. (1985). Attacking longer Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, words: Don’t begin at the beginning. BIBLIOGRAPHY Journal of Reading, 29(3), 226–237. tives on reading. Reading Research and *Manzo, A.V., & Manzo, U. (2000). Content Instruction, 36(2), 111–125. area literacy: Interactive teaching for active Meyer, L. A. (1982). The relative effects of learning (3rd ed.). New York: John word-analysis and word-study correc- Wiley & Sons. tion procedures with poor readers dur- Mathes, P. G., Simmons, D. C., & Davis, B. ing word attack training. Reading I. (1992). Assisted reading techniques Research Quarterly, 17(4), 544–555. for developing reading fluency. Reading Mikulecky, L. J. (1990). Stopping summer Research and Instruction, 31(4), 70–77. learning loss among at-risk youth. Jour- McCormick, S., & Becker, E. Z. (1996). nal of Reading, 33(7), 516–521. Word recognition and word identifica- Molinelli, P. M. (1995). The significance of tion: A review of research on effective stance: An invitation to aesthetic response. instructional practices with learning Paper presented at the annual meeting disabled students. Reading Research and of the National Reading Conference, Instruction, 36(1), 5–17. New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document McGee, R., Share, D., Moffitt, T. E., Reproduction Service ED 404 615). Williams, S., & Silva, P. A. (1988). Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gon- Reading disability, behavior problems zalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge and juvenile delinquency. In D. H. for teaching: Using a qualitative Saklofske & S. B. G. Eysenck (Eds.), approach to connect homes and class- Individual differences in children and ado- rooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), lescents (pp. 158–172). New Brunswick, 132–141. NJ: Transaction Publishers. *Moore, D. W. & Alvermann, D. E. (Eds.). McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. Struggling adolescent readers: A collection M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The of teaching strategies. Newark, DE: contribution of prior knowledge and International Reading Association. coherent text to comprehension. Read- *Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, ing Research Quarterly, 27(1), 78–93. D., & Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent Lit- McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. eracy: A position statement for the Com- B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good mission on Adolescent Literacy of the Inter- texts always better? Interactions of text national Reading Association. Newark, coherence, background knowledge, and DE: International Reading Association. levels of understanding in learning Nagy, W. E., McLure, E. F., & Montserrat, from text. Cognition and Instruction, M. (1997). Linguistic transfer and the 14(1), 1–43. use of context by Spanish-English bilin- McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). guals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(4), Learning from texts: Effects of prior 431–452. knowledge and text coherence. Dis- Nathan, R. G., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). course Processes, 22(3), 247–288. The causes and consequences of differ- McNinch, G. H. (1981). A method for ences in reading fluency. Theory into teaching sight words to disabled read- Practice, 30(3), 176–184. ers. The Reading Teacher, 35(3), National Reading Panel (2000). Report of 269–272. the National Reading Panel: Teaching chil- McQuillan, J. (1997). The effects of incen- dren to read. Retrieved June 20, 2000, from the World Wide Web at http:// (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/ II (pp. 815–860). New York: Longman. nrppubskey.cfm. Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. (1983). National Research Council (U.S.) Commit- The instruction of reading comprehen- tee on Developing a Research Agenda sion. Contemporary Educational Psychol- on the Education of Limited English- ogy, 8(3), 317–344. Proficient and Bilingual Students Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in (1997). Improving schooling for language- the child. New York: Basic Books. minority children: A research agenda. D. Pressley, M. (1999). Self-regulated compre- August & K. Hakuta (Eds.). Washing- hension processing and its development ton, DC: National Academy Press. through instruction. In L. B. Gambrell, *National Staff Development Association. L. M. Morrow, S. B. Neuman, & M. (2000). National Staff Development Asso- Pressley, Best practices in literacy instruc- ciation standards for staff development tion (pp. 90–97). New York: Guilford Retrieved June 20, 2000, from the Press. World Wide Web at http:// Pressley, M., & Wharton-McDonald, R. BIBLIOGRAPHY www.nsdc.org/standards.htm. (1997). Skilled comprehension and its Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N. (1996). Higher development through instruction. The order factors in comprehension disabil- School Psychology Review, 27(3), 448–466. ity: Processes and remediation. In C. Ridgway, T. (1997). Thresholds of the Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading background knowledge effect in foreign comprehension difficulties (pp. 69–92). language reading. Reading in a Foreign Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Language, 11(1), 151–175. O’Brien, D. G. (1998). Multiple literacies Roehler, L. R., & Cantlon, D. J. (1997). in a high school program for “at-risk” Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social adolescents. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A. constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & M. Pressley (Eds.). Scaffolding student & D. R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing learning: Instructional approaches and the literacies in adolescents’ lives (pp. issues (pp. 6–42). Cambridge, MA: 27–49). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Brookline Books. O’Brien, D. G., Dillon, D. R., Wellinski, S. Roller, C. M. (1990). The interaction of A., Springs, R., & Stith, D. (1997). knowledge and structure variables in Engaging “at-risk” high school students. the processing of expository prose Athens, GA: National Reading (commentary). Reading Research Quar- Research Center. terly, 25(2), 79–89. Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the (1991). The development of strategic text, the poem: The transactional theory of readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.) Southern Illinois University Press. Handbook of reading research, Vol. II (pp. *Ruddell, M. R. (2001). Teaching Content 609–640). New York: Longman. Reading and Writing (3rd ed.). New Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, Ruffman, T. (1996). Higher order factors in J. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson comprehension disability: Processes BIBLIOGRAPHY and remediation. In C. Cornoldi & J. Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., Holahan, J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading Comprehension M., & Shaywitz, S. E. (1992). Discrep- Difficulties (pp. 33–67). Mahwah, NJ: ancy compared to low achievement def- Erlbaum. initions of reading disability: Result Ryan, S. M., & Brewer, B. (1990). Chang- from the Connecticut longitudinal ing the English curriculum for at-risk study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, high school learners. Journal of Reading, 25(10), 639–648. 33(4), 270–273. Shaywitz, S. E. (1996). Dyslexia. Scientific Samuels, S. J. (1994). Toward a theory of American. Retrieved June 20, 2000, automatic information processing in from the World Wide Web at http:// reading, revisited. In R. B. Ruddell, M. www.scian.com/1196issue/ R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.). Theo- 1196shaywitz.html. retical models and processes of reading (4th Slavin, R. E. (1990). Mastery learning re- ed., pp. 816–837). Newark: Interna- reconsidered. Review of Educational tional Reading Association. Research, 60(2), 301–302. ———. (1997). The method of repeated Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. readings. The Reading Teacher, 50(5), (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in 376–381. young children. Washington, DC: Sanacore, J. (1997). Promoting lifetime lit- National Academy Press. eracy through authentic self-expression *Southwest Educational Development Lab- and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Ado- oratory. (2000). Reading coherence initia- lescent and Adult Literacy, 40(7), tive. Retrieved February 28, 2000 from 568–571. the World Wide Web at Santa, C. M. (1999). Adolescents: The for- http://www.sedl.org. gotten faction. Reading Today, 16(5). Stahl, S., Hare, V., Sinatra, R., & Gregory, Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Predicting the J. F. (1991). Defining the role of prior future achievement of second graders knowledge and vocabulary in reading with reading disabilities: Contributions comprehension: The retiring of num- of phonemic awareness, verbal memory, ber 41. Journal of Reading Behavior, rapid naming, and IQ. Annals of 23(4), 487–508. Dyslexia, 68, 115–136 Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). Schmidt-Rinehart, B. C. (1994). The effects The effects of vocabulary instruction: A of topic familiarity on second language model-based meta-analysis. Review of listening comprehension. Modern Lan- Educational Research, 56(1), 72–110. guage Journal, 78(2), 179–189. Stahl, S. A., & Kuhn, M. R. (1995). Does Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Dreyer, L. whole language or instruction matched G., & Dickinson, C. C. (1996). Reading to learning styles help children learn to and spelling difficulties in high school read? School Psychology Review, 24(3), students: Causes and consequences. 393–404. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Effects in reading: Journal, 8(3), 267–294. Some consequences of individual differ- Shannon, P. (1995). Text, lies, and videotape: ences in the acquisition of literacy. Stories about life, literacy, and learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 360–407. Stanovich K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. inside schools: Language and immi- (1993). Where does knowledge come grant children. Educational Researcher, from? Specific associations between 27(6), 4–18. print exposure and information acquisi- Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1998, tion. Journal of Educational Psychology, April). Research in the study of reading 85(2), 211–229. disability: What have we learned in the *Taylor, B., Harris, L., Pearson, P. D., & past four decades? Paper presented at the Garcia, G. (1995). Reading difficulties: Annual Conference of the American Instruction and assessment. New York: Educational Research Association, San McGraw-Hill. Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Repro- Taylor, L. (1999). Personalizing classroom duction Service No. ED 419 347). instruction to account for motivational Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. and developmental differences. Reading Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. & Writing Quarterly, 15(2), 255–276. Wade, S. E. (1990). Using think alouds to Templeton, S. & Morris, D. (2000). assess comprehension. The Reading Spelling. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosen- Teacher, 43(7), 42–51. BIBLIOGRAPHY thal, P. D. Pearson, and R. Barr (Eds.). Wagoner, S. A. (1983). Comprehension Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. monitoring: What it is and what we 525–543). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. know about it. Reading Research Quar- *Tierney, R.J., & Readence, J.E. (2000). terly, 18(3), 328–46. Reading Strategies and Practices: A Com- Wallace, J. (1995). Improving the reading pendium (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn skills of poor achieving students. Read- and Bacon. ing Improvement, 32(2), 102–104. Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. A. (1993). White, S. (1995). NAEP Facts. Washington, Components of variance models of lan- DC: National Center for Education guage-related factors of reading disabil- Statistics. ity: A conceptual overview. In R. J. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1994). Chil- Joshi and C. K. Leong (Eds.), Reading dren’s competence beliefs, achievement diagnosis and component processes (pp. values, and general self-esteem: Change 135–173). Dordrecht, The Nether- across elementary and middle school. lands: Kluwer. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14(2), U. S. Department of Education, Office of 107–138. Educational Research and Improve- *Wilhelm, J. D., & Smith, M. W. (1996). ment (OERI). (2000). National Institute ‘You gotta be the book’: Teaching engaged on the Education of At-Risk Students. and reflective reading with adolescents. Retrieved June, 20, 2000, from the New York: Teachers College Press. World Wide Web at Williams, J. D., & Snipper, G. C. (1990). http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ Literacy and bilingualism. New York: At-Risk/. Longman. *Vacca, R.T., & Vacca, J.L. (1999). Content Willson, V. L., & Rupley, W. H. (1997). A area reading: Literacy and learning across structural equation model for reading the curriculum (6th ed.). New York: comprehension based on background, Longman. phonemic, and strategy knowledge. Sci- Valdes, G. (1998). The world outside and entific Studies of Reading, 1(1), 45–63. BIBLIOGRAPHY Wilson, C. R., & Hammill, C. (1982). Wood, K. D., & Nichols, W. D. (2000). Inferencing and comprehension in Helping struggling learners read and ninth graders reading geography text- write. In K. D. Wood & T. S. Dickin- books. Journal of Reading, 25(5), son (Eds.), Promoting literacy in grades 424–428. 4–9 (pp. 233–249). Boston: Allyn and Wixson, K. K., & Lipson, M. Y. (1991). Bacon. Perspectives on reading disability Worthy, J. (1996). A matter of interest: Lit- research. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. erature that hooks reluctant readers and Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.). keeps them reading. The Reading Handbook of reading research, Vol. II (pp. Teacher, 50(2), 2–10. 539–570). New York: Longman.