DOCSLIB.ORG

Reading and Literacy for Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Research-Based Practices for Creating Access to the General Curriculum in Reading and Literacy for Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities Submitted by the Center for Literacy & Disability Studies University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Karen Erickson, Ph.D., Gretchen Hanser, Ph.D., Penelope Hatch, Ph.D., Eric Sanders, M.S./CCC-SLP June 17, 2009 Literacy and Significant Intellectual Disabilities This publication was developed by the Center for Literacy and Disability Studies in the Department of Allied Health Sciences, School of Medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill under a contract funded by the Council for Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Assessing Special Education Students (ASES) State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS). Members of the ASES workgroup reviewed this document. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the policies of the CCSSO. The Center for Literacy and Disability Studies (CLDS) is a center within the Department of Allied Health Sciences at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Center’s mission is to promote literacy and communication for individuals of all ages with disabilities. It is the belief of the CLDS that disabilities are only one of many factors that influence an individual’s ability to learn to read and write and to use print throughout their life and across their living environments. All individuals, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, have the right to an opportunity to learn to read and write in order to increase and enhance their educational opportunities, vocational success, communicative competence, self-empowerment capabilities, and independence. Center for Literacy and Disability Studies 321 S. Columbia St. Ste 1100 Bondurant Hall CB # 7335, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7335 Phone: (919) 966-8566 Fax: (919) 843-3250 http://www.med.unc.edu/ahs/clds Disclosure: Faculty at the Center for Literacy and Disability Studies participated in the development of MEville to WEville: An Early Literacy and Communication Program (AbleNet, 2004). No individual at the Center or author of this monograph receives any royalties related to the sales of that or any other product included in this report. Literacy and Significant Intellectual Disabilities Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction________________________________________________________ 1 Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities _______________________________________ 2 References: ______________________________________________________________________ 3 Chapter 2: Issues in Literacy and Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities _______ 5 What Is Functional Literacy? _______________________________________________________ 7 What Is the Difference Between Accessing the General Curriculum and Learning to Read and Write? __________________________________________________________________________ 9 What Is the Role of Assistive Technology in Literacy Learning? _________________________ 11 References: _____________________________________________________________________ 15 Chapter 3: National Reading Panel Report _______________________________________ 18 What Is the Importance of the National Reading Panel Report? _________________________ 18 How Does the Report of the National Reading Panel Relate to This Monograph? ___________ 19 What Was the Process the National Reading Panel Used to Review the Research? __________ 20 How Does the Report of the National Reading Panel Relate to Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities?___________________________________________________________ 21 Why Should We Use the Complete Report of the National Reading Panel Subgroups? _______ 22 References: _____________________________________________________________________ 23 Chapter 4: National Early Literacy Panel Report __________________________________ 25 What Is the Importance of the National Early Literacy Panel Report? ____________________ 25 How Does the National Early Literacy Panel Report Relate to Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities?___________________________________________________________ 26 How Does the National Early Literacy Panel Report Inform This Monograph?_____________ 27 References: _____________________________________________________________________ 28 Chapter 5: Review Methods____________________________________________________ 29 Research Study Inclusion Criteria __________________________________________________ 29 Search Methods__________________________________________________________________ 29 Results of the Search _____________________________________________________________ 31 References: _____________________________________________________________________ 33 Chapter 6: Emergent Literacy __________________________________________________ 34 What is the Importance of Emergent Literacy for Students With Significant Intellectual Disabilities? _____________________________________________________________________ 36 How Does the Report of the National Early Literacy Panel Inform Our Emergent Literacy Intervention for Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities?_______________________ 39 Literacy and Significant Intellectual Disabilities What Does the Literature (2003-Present) Tell Us About Emergent Literacy Instruction for Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities? _____________________________________ 42 What Does the Literature (2003-Present) Tell Us About Emergent Literacy Instruction for Students with Unspecified or Less Severe Levels of Intellectual Disabilities? _______________ 43 Summary _______________________________________________________________________ 45 References: _____________________________________________________________________ 47 Chapter 7: Phonemic Awareness _______________________________________________ 50 How Does the Report of the National Early Literacy Panel Inform Our Phonemic Awareness Intervention for Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities?_______________________ 53 How Does the Report of the National Reading Panel Inform Our Phonemic Awareness Intervention for Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities?_______________________ 54 What Does the Literature (2003–Present) Tell Us About Phonemic Awareness Intervention for Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities? _____________________________________ 56 What Does the Literature (2003–Present) Tell Us About Phonemic Awareness Intervention for Students with Unspecified or Less Severe Levels of Intellectual Disabilities? _______________ 59 References: _____________________________________________________________________ 62 Chapter 8: Phonics___________________________________________________________ 65 How Does the National Reading Panel Report Inform Our Phonics Instruction for Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities? _________________________________________________ 68 What Does the Literature (2003–Present) Tell Us About Phonics Instruction for Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities? _________________________________________________ 73 What Does the Literature (2003–Present) Tell Us About Phonics Instruction for Students with Unspecified or Less Severe Levels of Intellectual Disabilities? ___________________________ 74 Summary _______________________________________________________________________ 81 References: _____________________________________________________________________ 82 Chapter 9: Vocabulary & Word Identification _____________________________________ 85 What Is Vocabulary? _____________________________________________________________ 85 What Is Word Identification? ______________________________________________________ 86 What Is the Significance of the Distinction Between Vocabulary and Word Identification for Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities? _____________________________________ 87 What Does the Literature (2003–Present) Tell Us About Word Identification Instruction for Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities? _____________________________________ 88 What Does the Literature (2003–Present) Tell Us About Word Identification Instruction for Students with Unspecified or Less Severe Levels of Intellectual Disabilities? _______________ 89 Summary _______________________________________________________________________ 92 References: _____________________________________________________________________ 93 Chapter 10: Comprehension ___________________________________________________ 97 Reading Comprehension Instruction ________________________________________________ 98 Literacy and Significant Intellectual Disabilities How Does the Report of the National Reading Panel Inform Our Comprehension Instruction for Students with Significant Intellectual Disability? ______________________________________ 99 What Does the Literature (2003-Present) Tell Us About Our Comprehension Instruction for Students with Unspecified or Less Severe Levels of Intellectual Disabilities? ______________ 103 Summary ______________________________________________________________________ 106 References: ____________________________________________________________________ 108 Chapter 11: Fluency ________________________________________________________ 111 How Does the Report of the National Reading Panel Inform our Phonemic Awareness Intervention for Students with Significant Intellectual Disabilities?______________________ 111 What Does the Literature (2003–Present) Tell Us About Fluency for
Recommended publications
  • Can Learning Disabilities Explain Low Literacy Performance?

    Can Learning Disabilities Explain Low Literacy Performance?

    Now and Tomorrow Excellence in Everything We Do Can Learning Disabilities Explain Low Literacy Performance? By Gregory S. McKenna September, 2010 Learning Policy Directorate Strategic Policy and Research Human Resources and Skills Development Canada SP-959-07-10E Can Learning Disabilities Explain Low Literacy Performance? By Gregory S. McKenna July, 2010 Learning Policy Directorate Strategic Policy and Research Human Resources and Skills Development Canada The views expressed in papers published by the Learning Policy Directorate are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada or of the federal government. Note: the departmental catalogue number is placed on the front cover, bottom left hand side. You can order this publication by contacting: Publications Services Human Resources and Skills Development Canada 140, promenade du Portage Phase IV, 12th Floor Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0J9 Fax: 819-953-7260 Online: http://www12.hrsdc.gc.ca This document is available on demand in alternate formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Cassette, Audio CD, e-Text Diskette, e-Text CD, or DAISY), by contacting 1 800 O-Canada (1-800-622-6232). If you have a hearing or speech impairment and use a teletypewriter (TTY), call 1-800-926-9105. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2010 Paper Cat. No.: HS38-22/2010E ISBN: 978-1-100-16366-6 PDF Cat. No.: HS38-22/2010E-PDF ISBN: 978-1-100-16367-3 Acknowledgements The author is grateful to Mr. Mathieu Audet, Dr. Bagala Biswal, Dr. Urvashi Dhawan-Biswal and Dr. Satya Brink for their assistance and support in developing this line of research.
  • Reading Corps Research Base – K-3 Model

    Reading Corps Research Base – K-3 Model

    Reading Corps Research Base – K-3 Model This document provides the evidence-base for the Reading Corps K-3 model. Specifically, research supporting the assessment tools and strategies, reading interventions, and the importance of coaching, are presented within a Response to Intervention (RtI) framework. Response to Intervention: Response to Intervention (RtI) is an instructional framework that systematically utilizes assessment data to make instructional decisions, as well as decisions regarding resource allocation (Burns & Gibbons, 2008; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012). As such, RtI is placed within the general education context because it requires quality core instruction for all students (Tier 1), and calls for universal screening for all students. The assessment data collected in Tier 1 allows educators to determine whether students require additional support to reach proficiency in a particular academic skill area (i.e., reading and math). The Reading Corps model aligns well with the RtI framework because students who are served by Reading Corps members are essentially receiving Tier 2 support; students are eligible for the program based on screening data. Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach at reducing special education referral rates (Marston, et al., 2003; Bollman, Silberglitt, & Gibbons, 2007; Burns & Gibbons, 2008; VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007), and improving reading outcomes (Callender, 2007; Gettinger & Stoiber, 2007; O’Connor, Harty, & Fulmer, 2005; Vellutino, et al.,
  • Research and the Reading Wars James S

    Research and the Reading Wars James S

    CHAPTER 4 Research and the Reading Wars James S. Kim Controversy over the role of phonics in reading instruction has persisted for over 100 years, making the reading wars seem like an inevitable fact of American history. In the mid-nineteenth century, Horace Mann, the secre- tary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, railed against the teaching of the alphabetic code—the idea that letters represented sounds—as an imped- iment to reading for meaning. Mann excoriated the letters of the alphabet as “bloodless, ghostly apparitions,” and argued that children should first learn to read whole words) The 1886 publication of James Cattell’s pioneer- ing eye movement study showed that adults perceived words more rapidly 2 than letters, providing an ostensibly scientific basis for Mann’s assertions. In the twentieth century, state education officials like Mann have contin- ued to voice strong opinions about reading policy and practice, aiding the rapid implementation of whole language—inspired curriculum frameworks and texts during the late 1980s. And scientists like Cattell have shed light on theprocesses underlying skillful reading, contributing to a growing scientific 3 consensus that culminated in the 2000 National Reading Panel report. This chapter traces the history of the reading wars in both the political arena and the scientific community. The narrative is organized into three sections. The first offers the history of reading research in the 1950s, when the “conventional wisdom” in reading was established by acclaimed lead- ers in the field like William Gray, who encouraged teachers to instruct chil- dren how to read whole words while avoiding isolated phonics drills.
  • Impact of Literacy Intervention on Achievement Outcomes of Children with Developmental Language Disorders: a Systematic Review

    Impact of Literacy Intervention on Achievement Outcomes of Children with Developmental Language Disorders: a Systematic Review

    Impact of Literacy Intervention on Achievement Outcomes of Children With Developmental Language Disorders: A Systematic Review Jaumeiko J. Coleman and Rebecca A. Venediktov National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Rockville, MD Gary A. Troia Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Beverly P. Wang National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Rockville, MD ASHA’s National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders • July 2013 ABSTRACT The American Speech-Language-Hearing Purpose: In this systematic review, the Association’s National Center for Evidence- authors examined the impact of literacy Based Practice (N-CEP) was charged with intervention on achievement outcomes of developing an evidence-based systematic school-age children with developmental review (EBSR) of studies reporting on the language disorders. impact of written language (i.e., reading and writing) interventions on achievement Method: Databases containing peer- outcomes of school-aged children with reviewed academic studies were searched developmental language disorder (DLD). for randomized and nonrandomized The relatively recent adoption of the controlled trials that reported efficacy and Common Core State Standards by the bulk comparative efficacy findings in English. of the United States and its territories Methodological quality and strength of underscores the importance of this topic evidence were also evaluated. (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012). The standards were created to Results: Nine reading intervention studies promote quality and consistency in were accepted; no writing intervention education for all students so as to adequately studies were identified that met the inclusion prepare them for college and the workforce.
  • Concerning the Folly of Teaching the Dolch Basic Sight Vocabulary

    Concerning the Folly of Teaching the Dolch Basic Sight Vocabulary

    A Study Concerning the Folly of Teaching the Dolch Basic Sight Vocabulary In which we will prove that it is unnecessary and undesirable to teach any sight-words with whole-word memorization techniques to beginning reading students Using Samuel L. Blumenfeld’s Alpha-Phonics (2005) Program as Our Intensive Phonics Standard of Comparison Copyright © 2010 by Donald L. Potter www.donpotter.net Recommendations Concerning Teaching Sight-Words I suggest that all teachers in America immediately quit teaching the Dolch Basic Sight Vocabulary with whole word memorization for the following reasons: 1. It creates a blockage against seeing words phonetically. Once the sight-word habit is established, it becomes difficult to develop a good phonics reflex for accurate and fluent reading and spelling. 2. It is totally unnecessary since the vast majority of the words will be learned naturally in their spelling-family as the students learn to read and spell with Blumenfeld’s Alpha-Phonics. This is the focus of this study. 3. Student who read by sight-words and context guessing are severely limited when it comes to building vocabulary independently from general reading because they cannot get to the sounds of the words without the teacher telling them the pronunciation of the words. 4. There is no need to waste valuable instructional time to teach 220 Dolch Basic Sight Vocabulary when we could be teaching 3,033 separate words in Blumenfeld’s Alpha-Phonics words in even less time. 5. The reading ability of students taught to read with Blumenfeld’s Alpha-Phonics is significantly higher than students trained in Dolch sight-vocabulary memorization.
  • Dyslexia Or Ld in Reading: What Is the Difference?

    Dyslexia Or Ld in Reading: What Is the Difference?

    DYSLEXIA OR LD IN READING: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? Anise Flowers & Donna Black, Pearson Dyslexia or LD in Reading? TCASE 2017 Image by Photographer’s Name (Credit in black type) or Image by Photographer’s Name (Credit in white type) International Dyslexia Association Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurological in origin. It is characterized by Dyslexia or LD in Reading: What difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word is the Difference? recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of Presented by effective classroom instruction. Secondary Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Donna Black, LSSP consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience TCASE that can impede growth of vocabulary and January 2017 background knowledge. Presentation Title Arial Bold 7 pt 1 2 Dyslexia Identification and Services in Texas Dyslexia Definition (in Texas) Texas Education Code (TEC)§38.003 defines Texas Education Code (TEC)§38.003 definition: dyslexia and mandates testing and the provision of 1. “Dyslexia” means a disorder of constitutional instruction origin manifested by a difficulty in learning to State Board of Education (SBOE) adopts rules and read, write, or spell, despite conventional standards for administering testing and instruction instruction, adequate intelligence, and TEC §7.028(b) relegates responsibility for school sociocultural opportunity. compliance to the local school board 2. “Related disorders” include disorders similar to or 19 (TAC)§74.28 outlines responsibilities of districts related to dyslexia such as developmental auditory and charter schools in the delivery of services to imperceptions, dysphasia, specific developmental students with dyslexia dyslexia, developmental dysgraphia, and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, §504, establishes developmental spelling disability.
  • Reading Fluency

    Reading Fluency

    ß What is reading fluency? ß Why is fluency important? Reading ß What instruction helps students Fluency develop fluency? ß How can we adapt instruction for students with special needs? ß How can we monitor students’ progress in fluency? ©2002 UT System/TEA Effective Fluency Instruction and Progress Monitoring 1 Fluency: reading quickly, accurately, and with expression ß Combines rate and accuracy ß Requires automaticity Fluency ß Includes reading with prosody Rate + Accuracy Fluency Comprehension ©2002 UT System/TEA Effective Fluency Instruction and Progress Monitoring 2 Automaticity: ß Is quick, accurate recognition of letters and words Automaticity ß Frees cognitive resources to process meaning ß Is achieved through corrected practice ©2002 UT System/TEA Effective Fluency Instruction and Progress Monitoring 3 What does fluent reading sound like? Fluent Reading . Fluent reading flows. It sounds smooth, with natural pauses. ©2002 UT System/TEA Effective Fluency Instruction and Progress Monitoring 4 ß “Fluency provides a bridge between word recognition and comprehension.” —National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), Why Is 2001, p. 22 Reading ß Fluent readers are able to focus Fluency their attention on understanding Important? text. ß Because non-fluent readers focus much of their attention on figuring out words, they have less attention to devote to comprehension. ©2002 UT System/TEA Effective Fluency Instruction and Progress Monitoring 5 What ß How to decode words (in isolation and in Students connected text) Need to ß How to automatically
  • A Dissertation Entitled the Effects of an Orton-Gillingham-Based

    A Dissertation Entitled the Effects of an Orton-Gillingham-Based

    A Dissertation entitled The Effects of an Orton-Gillingham-based Reading Intervention on Students with Emotional/Behavior Disorders by James Breckinridge Davis, M.Ed. Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Special Education. Richard Welsch, Ph.D., Committee Chair Laurie Dinnebeil, Ph.D., Committee Member Edward Cancio, Ph.D., Committee Member Lynne Hamer, Ph.D., Committee Member Dr. Patricia R. Komuniecki, Ph.D., Dean College of Graduate Studies The University of Toledo December 2011 Copyright. 2011, James Breckinridge Davis This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. An Abstract of The Effects of an Orton-Gillingham-based Reading Intervention on Students with Emotional/Behavior Disorders by James Breckinridge Davis, M.Ed. Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Special Education. The University of Toledo December 2011 This study was performed with 4 male students enrolled in a specialized public school for students with emotional/behavior disorders (E/BD). All of the students participated in a 16-week, one-to-one, multisensory reading intervention. The study was a single subject, multiple baseline design. The independent variable was an Orton- Gillingham-based reading intervention for 45 minute sessions. The dependent variable was the students‘ performance on daily probes of words read correctly and the use of pre- and post-test measures on the Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). The intervention consisted of 6 different parts: (a) visual, (b) auditory, (c) blending, (d) introduction of a new skill, (e) oral reading, and (f) 10-point probe.
  • Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel I

    Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel I

    Developing Early Literacy REPORT OF THE NATIONAL EARLY LITERACY PANEL A Scientific Synthesis of Early Literacy Development and Implications for Intervention Developing Early Literacy REPORT OF THE NATIONAL EARLY LITERACY PANEL A Scientific Synthesis of Early Literacy Development and Implications for Intervention 2008 This publication was developed by the National Center for Family Literacy under a grant funded by Inter-agency agreement IAD-01-1701 and IAD-02-1790 between the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institute for Literacy. It was peer reviewed and copy edited under a contract with RAND Corporation and designed under a contract with Graves Fowler Creative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the policies of the National Institute for Literacy. No official endorsement by the National Institute for Literacy of any product, commodity, or enterprise in this publication is intended or should be inferred. The National Institute for Literacy, an agency in the Federal government, is authorized to help strengthen literacy across the lifespan. The Institute provides national leadership on literacy issues, including the improvement of reading instruction for children, youth, and adults by dissemination of information on scientifically based research and the application of those findings to instructional practice. Sandra Baxter, Director Lynn Reddy, Deputy Director The Partnership for Reading, a project administered by the National Institute for Literacy, is a collaborative effort of the National Institute for Literacy, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to make scientifically based reading research available to educators, parents, policy makers, and others with an interest in helping all people learn to read well.
  • Effective Literacy Instruction for Students with Disabilities

    Effective Literacy Instruction for Students with Disabilities

    Effective Literacy Instruction for Students with Disabilities Nari Carter, PhD Instructional Designer Effective Literacy Instruction for Students with Disabilities | 1 Background Before the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) was enacted in 1975, millions of children and adolescents with disabilities were receiving inappropriate education or were completely excluded from public schools. Legislators passed EAHCA to end discriminatory practices and to ensure students with disabilities were afforded public education. Central to the EACHA was the principle of free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities. This act was later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004. Appropriate education has been defined in case law as instruction that enables students to benefit academically. Specifically, courts have ruled that appropriate instruction for students with disabilities is individualized instruction that permits students to achieve educational goals. To meet the instructional needs of students with disabilities, individualized education programs (IEPs) are crafted for each qualifying student. Although all students with disabilities are unique and students’ IEPs address their specific instructional needs, most students with mild to moderate disabilities experience significant difficulty learning to read. In fact, more than 60 percent of students with specific learning disabilities struggle learning to read (Strickland, Boon, & Spencer, 2013). Consequently, reading achievement
  • Learning Disabilities-United States

    Learning Disabilities-United States

    LEARNING The Learning Disabilit Controversy and Composition Studies LEARNING RE-AILED LEARNING RE-AILED The Learning Disability Controversy and Composition Studies Patricia A. Dunn Utica College of Syracuse University Boynton/Cook Publishers HEINEMANN Portsmouth, NH Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc. A subsidiary of Reed Elsevier Inc. 361 Hanover Street Portsmouth, NH 03801-3912 Offices and agents throughout the world © 1995 by Patricia A. Dunn. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer, who may quote brief passages in a review. Every effort has been made to contact the copyright holders and students for permission to reprint borrowed material. We regret any oversights that may have occurred and would be happy to rectify them in future printings of this work. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dunn, Patricia A. Learning re-abled : the learning disability controversy and composition studies / Patricia A. Dunn. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-86709-360-9 (alk. paper) 1. Learning disabled-Education (Higher)-United States. 2. Learning disabilities-United States. 3. Dyslexics-Education teaching-United States. I. Title. LC4818.5.D85 1995 371.91-dc20 95-19316 CIP Editor: Peter R. Stillman Production Editor: Renee M. Nicholls Cover Designer: T. Watson Bogaard Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper. 99
  • Utah State Office of Education Reading Endorsement Course Framework

    Utah State Office of Education Reading Endorsement Course Framework

    Utah State Office of Education Reading Endorsement Course Framework Requirement: Foundations of Literacy Instruction: Theories and Models (1) Revision Date: 2016 The intent of this framework is (1) to ensure a level of consistency statewide among all institutions providing courses for the Reading Endorsement, and (2) to provide criteria for reviewing and approving coursework from out-of-state submitted to meet this requirement. This framework should be used as the basis for curricular and instructional planning for the required area named above. Course Description This purpose of this graduate-level course is to help practicing teachers acquire foundational understandings about literacy. This involves an examination of the historical and theoretical perspectives and underlying premises of literacy (e.g., oral language, phonemic awareness, and organizational structures). A knowledge of historical and contemporary theories and models provides a framework for analyzing research and practice to make well-informed curricular and instructional decisions. Prerequisite: Level 1, 2, or 3 Teacher Certification ILA Standards for Reading Professionals (2010) to be addressed in this course STANDARD 1: FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE Candidates understand the theoretical and evidence-based foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction. Element 1.1 Candidates understand major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development, processes, and components, including word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading–writing connections. Element 1.2 Candidates understand the historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in the perceptions of reading and writing development, processes, and components. Element 1.3 Candidates understand the role of professional judgment and practical knowledge for improving all students’ reading development and achievement.